BREAKING: Discover How A Slacker Makes $100,000 A Year!

WEBMASTERS! Get Your Website To The Top Of Google

Plan Iraq - Permanent Occupation

Monday, July 16th, 2007

By Stephen Lendman
RINF Alternative News

Congress is back from its July 4 break and with it more bluster and political posturing on changing course to keep things the same, including everything not working in place. It’s the same old scheme, back again, to fool enough of the people all the time and most all of them long enough to move on to the next change of course mission shift starting the whole cycle over again. Even the blind can see the hopelessness of staying the course in Iraq. Aside from its lawlessness and immorality, pushing on with a failed effort qualifies as a classic definition of insanity - continuing the same failed policies, expecting different results.

The only sensible, honorable option is a full, speedy withdrawal along with providing multi-billions for Iraqis to rebuild what we destroyed and have no intention restoring now or ever beyond what’s needed for permanent occupation. The only other honorable option is owning up to what no one in Washington or the major media will do - that the Iraq and Afghan conflicts are illegal wars of aggression making those responsible for them in the administration and Congress war criminals warranting prosecution for their crimes.

That won’t happen nor will the administration and Congress do anything more substantive than say one thing and do another. It’s been an unbroken pattern since 9/11, and especially on Afghanistan and throughout the run-up to the Iraq invasion. Both wars were sold through lies and deceit. They’re based on a fictitious “outside enemy” threat without which no “war on terrorism” could exist, and no imperial foreign wars could be waged.

They’re possible only by scaring the public enough to believe the threat is still real, and “Enemy Number One” Osama bin Laden (recruited through Pakistan’s ISI as a CIA asset in the 1980s) and Al-Queda represent it. So with Saddam gone and no WMDs found, staying the course is vital to the nation’s security even when, in fact, the truth is the opposite, crying wolf’s wearing thin, and selling snake oil solutions get harder to do. But schemers keep trying with complicit Democrats as much part of the scam as Republicans and Bush loyalists, dwindling down to a precious hard line few but still around in key positions making noise.

With “the walls of Jericho” crumbling around him as the world’s most hated man and the ship of state listing badly, a pathetic caricature of a president keeps pleading for more time. He claims it’s needed to head off the threat of “mass killing on a horrific scale” in Iraq and plenty at home as well. He then continues using the same timeworn line that the war can be won, the “surge” is working, give it a chance, and withdrawing will be disastrous. Be more patient, and we’ll know more in September we’re told.

The Iraqi puppet government gets blamed for what’s gone wrong with no one in Washington pointing the finger where it belongs. George Bush can do no better than keep asking Congress and the public “to give (generalissimo) David Petraeus a chance to come back (September 15) and tell us whether his (unworkable) strategy is working, and then we can work together on a way forward (further over the cliff).”

At his July 12 news conference, he never mentioned and attending shameless journalists never pressed him on CIA Director Michael Hayden’s earlier bleak assessment of things on the ground. He called the Iraqi puppet government “unable to govern” and its inability to do it “irreversible.” Also not discussed was the July UN refugee agency’s plea for doubling its Iraq funding to $123 million for the growing humanitarian needs of an estimated 2000 people fleeing uncontrollable violence in the country daily (60,000 a month) and an estimated four million or more displaced refugees within and outside the country.

No comment or questions were raised either on what journalists Chris Hedges and Laila Al-Arian (daughter of US political prisoner Sami Al-Arian) reported in the July 30 issue of The Nation. Based on interviews with 50 returning Iraq combat veterans (ranking from privates to captains), they wrote about “disturbing patterns of behavior by American troops” and an indiscriminate use of force (with pictures to prove it) amounting to a “depraved enterprise.” Mentioned were accounts of American troops gratuitously killing Iraqi civilians, including children, that these actions are common, go unreported, are rarely investigated, and almost always go unpunished.

George Bush’s comments (and most others) ignore as well that over 7 in 10 Americans favor a force withdrawal, over 60% say the war was a mistake, only one in five believe the “surge” improved things, and new polls keep showing the numbers getting worse the longer the conflict continues. It’s got the president’s approval rating barely above the lowest ever registered since polling began with Richard Nixon, Harry Truman, during the unpopular Korean war, Jimmy Carter, briefly in 1980, and his own father sharing bottom honors.

Maybe George Bush is kept above rock bottom through some creative manipulation of the data or the result of what questions were asked, to whom, the phrasing used, and the order in which they were presented. It seems likely for the most despised, distrusted and disgraced US president ever. Even clever pollsters, however, can’t salvage Dick Cheney’s rating. At a bottom-scraping 12% reported, it’s the lowest number scored for a president or vice-president ever, by far and then some.

The reason is simple. A decisive majority in the country think the war’s unwinnable, was a mistake, want it ended, and know it was based on lies. People resent being had. Even through heavily filtered mainstream news reports, they know the situation on the ground is out of control and an appalling US-inflicted crime against humanity atrocity of enormous proportions.

No one in Iraq is safe anywhere, even in the heavily secured, fortress-like Green Zone becoming more like a embattled one daily with regular attacks on it causing damage, injuries and deaths. Few are reported, but one on July 10 was with two to three dozen katyusha rockets and mortar rounds striking inside the world’s “ultimate gated community” killing at least three persons and wounding 25 or more. Throughout the country, violence long ago spiraled out of control, and since the “surge” began in February, even the Pentagon admits things are worse, not better, in its quarterly April - June report to Congress.

It contradicts generalissimo Petraeus’ claim of “astonishing signs of normalcy” in Baghdad overall and “breathtaking” progress even though he (and others high up) earlier said repeatedly there’s no military solution to the conflict. The only thing “breathtaking” about Petraeus is his inconsistency and that he’s either more incompetent than Custer at the “Little Bighorn” or a man who’ll say anything to please George Bush. On the ground, in fact, civilian deaths are higher than ever. They number well over 5000 a month known about and countless others never reported, the claimed June numbers notwithstanding that are too low to be believed and should be discounted and ignored as meaningless. In addition, US forces are sustaining more attacks and suffered the highest level of listed fatalities and injuries in the latest three month April - June period since the war began.

Nearly everyone outside the administration and Congress knows the war is lost, but no one’s brave enough to admit it or do anything about it. So shifting mission means “damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead” with the dominant media always in tow to shape the facts on the ground to fit the policy. Admiral Farragut would be proud.

Now it’s back to the political drawing board with a repackaged new scheme certain to end up little different from the last one. Ideas floating promise a substantial drawdown of troops leaving behind what’s claimed is needed to maintain security for the Iraqi people that’s killing thousands of them every month. All NATO combined can’t contain the hate and growing opposition in both war zones matched against any size occupying force put in place to contain them. Iraq and Afghanistan have a long history of resisting occupiers and a successful record of ousting them in the end. It will be the same this time as earlier after many more lives are lost in a futile effort to prove otherwise.

In Iraq and Afghanistan, the struggle for liberation is on the ground. At home, shifting mission is being concocted by scared politicians up for reelection in 2008. They’ll face millions of angry voters fed up with wars they want ended and ready to throw out the bums who won’t do it. So it’s back to political posturing (again) with Democrats and Republicans trying to convince voters this time they mean it, and what they say is what they’ll follow through on. It’s the same old repackaged scam in the nation’s capitol where nothing can be taken on its face. It’s high time the public realized the criminal class there is bipartisan, and nothing short of a new breed of uncorrupted officials will change things. And that won’t happen until enough fed up voters elect them.

For now it’s business as usual, and summer battle lines have the “intrepid” Democrat-led Congress and a few nervous Republican defectors facing off with the Bush administration on the FY 2008 DOD budget. It calls for an astonishing $648.8 billion plus an additional $142 billion war supplemental likely to end up topping $800 billion when the dust settles and usual pork is added in. Debate will play out the same as last year with Democrats in the end failing to use the one constitutional power Congress alone has - the appropriation authority to cut off funding and end the Bush administration’s imperial adventurism once and for all. No money, no wars, that simple.

It’s apparently too simple, and all that’s likely ahead is more disingenuous posturing over restricting troop deployments and setting an open-ended timetable for an unspecified partial withdrawal at the discretion of the administration taking full advantage to do as it pleases. And if that doesn’t work, George Bush promises to veto any legislation setting timelines for withdrawal he’ll ignore even if overridden. On July 10, he repeated his earlier statements that Iraq troop levels “will be decided by our commanders on the ground (obeying White House orders), not by political figures in Washington, DC” (except him, Dick Cheney and their hard line cronies.

The president has no more to fear from “opposition” Democrats and “defecting” Republicans than he had before, but he’s quivering anyway. Their posturing (and his) is as phony now as immediately post-9/11 in selling the Afghan war and enacting police state laws. It’s as bad as in pre-March, 2003, last year’s budget debate, and this spring’s agreement to continue funding through September with George Bush certifying (on his word alone) progress is being made and Iraqis are carrying their share of the burden that’s impossible because the world’s only superpower can’t handle its own.

But note Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s compromising language with a September 15 administration/Pentagon accountability report upcoming: “The war is headed in a dangerous direction, and Americans are united in the belief that we cannot wait until the administration’s September report before we change course in Iraq.” His next statement shows he’s not preaching pullout but only says “We cannot ask our military to continue to fight without a strategy for success (never mind there is none short of full, unconditional withdrawal), and we certainly cannot ask them to fight before they are ready to do so.”

He’s referring to deployment lengths (unchanged after July 11 Senate amendments were blocked) and concern for a broken military the Pentagon already admits to. The likely outcome of current debate will be the same quick fix as before, save for a few dubious amendments achieving nothing. In the end, the compromise solution will be to kick the can down the road and throw lots more money at the problem hoping it will go away. It’ll only get worse. No amount can salvage a lost war, lawmakers and the Pentagon know it, but solutions like last year and this spring are coming with bloated budgets getting more bloated.

Ignore meaningless party line votes like the one the House passed July 12 for withdrawing most combat troops by April 1, 2008. Not while this administration’s in power, and so far, the Senate’s going nowhere. It can’t get the 60 votes needed to prevent a Republican promised filibuster, and votes cast in both Houses are to deceive voters, not get action. They’re made knowing they’re safe with George Bush promising to veto any change of course and can make it stick.

The wars will thus continue to progress in an endless cycle of more spending with no results beyond growing deficits, intensifying public anger, greater violence on the ground, and defeats getting worse as the conflicts drag on. George Bush calls it “progress. I know we can succeed in Iraq, and I know we must” he said on July 12. Incredibly, he claimed it on eight trivial military benchmarks under US control, blaming eight more important political failures on the Iraqi puppet government in charge of little more than cleaning daily rubble and dead bodies off streets. He added results to date are a mixed bag and overall it’s too early to pass judgment - after over four disastrous years of failure and a conflict longer in duration than WW II when war raged on three continents against formidable enemies, and it was no simple task beating them.

It again proves this man is unchallenged as a world champion serial liar. By now, he may believe some of his own lies the way writer Alex Cockburn said Ronald Reagan believed his. “Truth (for the great fabricator) was what he happened to be saying at the time. He (and Bush) went one better than George Washington in that he couldn’t tell a lie and he couldn’t tell the truth, since he couldn’t tell the difference between the two.”

There is a difference, however, between the two deceivers. During his first term at least, Reagan (as a former actor, albeit a B-rated one) did a reasonable job impersonating a president. He could find his “mark” and read his lines. George Bush never rose to that level even as Texas governor or any other time in his life, and when it comes to lying, he can’t stop doing it even when he knows the difference. He proved it July 12 in his ludicrous portrayal of the true state of things in Iraq. It’s part of his desperate effort for new congressional funding in even greater amounts. To get it, he ignores growing public disenchantment and deep revulsion about a criminal lost cause enterprise launched and continued on the basis of lies.

That notwithstanding, Reid and other Democrats have their grandiose notions of mission shift. It’s to avoid “a precipitous withdrawal from Iraq” with legislation he’ll propose calling for permanent occupation forces on the ground for the spurious notion of “conduct(ing) counterterrorism operations, protect(ing) our assets (meaning oil) and train(ing) Iraqi forces.” Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, Carl Levin is on board with him. He’ll support a limited troop withdrawal by late year, an end to combat operations on the ground by April 30, 2008 with Iraqi forces taking over, and a large remaining permanent occupation force hunkered down inside fortified super-bases. Never mind what Iraqis want that excludes our presence in their country. And the same is true for the Afghans.

Voices from the administration, Pentagon, Congress and the dominant media assure they’ll be disappointed as the top goal is salvaging America’s imperial adventurism and mission shifting current operations into a workable permanent occupation. Here’s why. The Afghan and Iraq wars are for resources, primarily oil, and in the parts of the world where more than four-fifths of proved reserves are located. Canadian journalist and author Linda McQuaig explains the grandest of grand prizes is “hidden in plain sight” in Iraq. It’s the country’s oil treasure - the planet’s last remaining bonanza of easily harvested “low-hanging fruit” with more potential reserves than Saudi Arabia, the great majority of them untapped.

It makes the country “the most sought after real estate on the face of the earth” according to one Wall Street oil analyst she quoted. Even with dated information on its potential, it’s known Iraq has at least 10% of dwindling world reserves. But it’s potential was “frozen in time” with no new development in over two decades because of intervening wars in the 1980s, economic sanctions following the Gulf war in 1991, and the current war ongoing since March, 2003. If the country’s potential doubles or triples, as Saudi Arabia’s did in the last 20 years, it would, in fact, have the world’s largest (mostly untapped) proved reserves making Iraq too rich a prize for America and its Big Oil allies to pass up. It’s worth trillions of dollars and immense geopolitical power at a time of peak oil in the face of future dwindling supplies, except in this resource-rich country the US won’t ever leave as long as there’s enough of them in the ground and region to justify staying.

It’s why the country is being turned into a giant permanent military base protecting the ocean of oil beneath it Washington intends to control for its Big Oil friends and to have veto power over who gets it, who doesn’t, and at what price. To understand what’s happening, consider Korea. The US arrived in the country in 1950 following Harry Truman’s committing American forces to help the South after Washington’s instigated civil war began there on June 25 that year. Fifty-seven years later, around 37,000 troops still remain with no intention to leave. Washington has the same thing in mind for Iraq. The Pentagon set up shop there and intends to stay.

Below is shown, as best we know, how far advanced we’ve come toward militarizing the country for permanent occupation no matter how debate plays out in Congress. It’s all bluster providing cover for administration policy both parties support.

Plan Iraq - Permanent Occupation

Drawdowns, withdrawal, timelines, mission shifting, building democracy and all the other current and long-standing phony rhetoric aside, America is in Iraq to stay as a conqueror and occupier - that is, until Iraqis finally kick us out as they will in time in a part of the world long a graveyard for foreign invaders. But it won’t happen quickly or before countless more thousands die, are injured, suffer immeasurably, are displaced, and lose everything. This is the ugly dark side of imperialism, nurtured on conquest, unchallengeable control, and keenly focused on destroying and permanently occupying the cradle of civilization now smashed and planned for dismemberment.

In the meantime, a new “peace candidate” will become president in January, 2009 on the strength of distant echos of Richard Nixon’s “peace with honor” 1968 campaign and hopes history would call him a “peacemaker.” Instead, there were five and one-half more years of intense war, thousands more American deaths, and one to two million more Southeast Asian victims in Vietnam and the secret wars in Cambodia and Laos.

Whatever little, if anything, a new president does at home, the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan will remain with plans for Iraqi forces eventually to do most of our killing and dying for us. If or when they’re up to it, the scheme involves US troops staying hunkered down inside their super-bases, used as needed outside them, with massive air power deployed freely to slaughter innocent victims on the ground whenever they resist what no one should ever have to endure. For now, Iraqis have no choice but to bear up and fight back because it’s their misfortune to have an ocean of “our” oil beneath their sand we laid claim to.

Already discussed is Iraq’s importance as the planet’s last remaining “low-hanging fruit” bonanza of mostly untapped oil riches worth trillions of dollars as the key reason America came to stay. The US military arrived in March, 2003 and dug in for the long haul with fixed military installations around the country. Dick Cheney’s former employer, Halliburton, got most of the huge no-bid contracts, worth many billions, to war-profiteer and build them, irrespective of its outlandish record of waste, fraud and abuse.

As of May, 2005, US forces were operating out of 106 bases around the country from an original estimated 120 sites. They range in size from the huge Main Operating Base (MOB) Camp Victory complex near Baghdad airport where thousands of American troops are stationed to smaller ones known as Forward Operation Sites (FOS) that are still major installations. In addition, there are many Cooperative Security Locations (CSL) that are small outposts for as few as 500 personnel, a number of prisons and detention facilities, and an original dozen sites given to Iraqi military or police units that now likely number many more.

Reports vary, and much remains secret, about the administration and Pentagon’s current and future construction plans for Iraq. What is known is $18 billion earlier was allocated for in-country work that includes base installations, the US Embassy and whatever other occupation facilities are intended. The current figure is likely much higher. It’s also known US engineers are focusing on building 14 large “enduring bases” for extended encampments for the tens of thousands of US forces there now and future replacements.

Professor Emeritus Jules Dufour of the University of Quebec, Canada discussed “The Worldwide Network of US Military Bases” in his July 1, 2007 article posted on Global Research.ca. It included detailed information plus maps and much more on what he called “the Worldwide development of US military power (in place) to view the (entire) Earth surface as a vast territory to conquer, occupy and exploit (for giant US corporate behemoths it’s in league with).” He characterizes the scheme as a process of “Humanity….being controlled and enslaved by this Network of US military bases.” He and Chalmers Johnson believe they number 1000 or more that, according to Johnson, were in 153 countries as of September, 2001 and now likely in 160 or more. There are also many other secret, espionage, and other bases jointly used in many countries with their hosts.

Dufour says post-9/11, the US built 14 new bases in the Persian Gulf region. It’s also involved “in construction and/or reinforcement of 20 bases (106 structured units as a whole) in Iraq” plus others in Afghanistan and other Central Asian former Soviet bloc countries and elsewhere to encircle and control both regions’ strategic resources, mainly oil, and the pipeline routes needed to transport it.

Iraq bases are located or are being built around Baghdad, Mosul, Taji, Balad, Kirkuk, Nasiriyah, Tikrit, Fallujah and Irbil. There are also plans to rebuild and improve Baghdad, Mosul and other airfields as well as rebuild roads and other essential infrastructure strategically needed for occupation. There are no plans to help the Iraqi people left on their own. They have the barest of essential services, and infrastructure to provide them, like functioning hospitals, medications, electricity, clean water, safe food to eat, fuel, schools, and most everything else.

Most important for the planned long haul will be four to six or more super-sized bases on the order of small towns with their own neighborhoods and kinds of amenities found in typical US ones. Inside them, it’s hard distinguishing between Iraq and America unless more sophisticated and better aimed rocket and mortar rounds strike nearby that’s becoming more common.

The biggest of these bases so far is the huge Balad one. It houses the major Air Force operation in the country, including its new spacious, state of the art, “Kingpin” air traffic control center dividing the country’s airspace into “kill boxes,” called the Common Grid Reference System. The largest Army logistical support center is here as well, and it’s also where thousands of civilian contractors, in neighborhoods known as “KBR-land,” are based with all the comforts of home for them and military personnel when it’s quiet inside. The so-called secret Combined Joint Special Operations Task Force (CJSOTF) is also at Balad. It’s kept behind “especially high walls” for privacy and seclusive separation from other operations based there.

The al-Asad airbase is the largest marine encampment in the country located in western Anbar province where resistance to US occupying forces has been stiffest. It, too, has a hometown feel with similar amenities to the country’s other major bases intended to be permanent. While the Pentagon won’t admit it, four super-bases were operating last year with plans likely for at least two more. In addition, it was planned, but now not certain, that British forces would maintain a permanent military presence in the south around Basra where it’s now based. If Britain pulls out, as its public demands, the Pentagon will move in and likely expand the facilities with at least another super-sized one for that strategically oil-rich part of the country. They’ll need it as the Brits are no more in control there than US forces anywhere else. Their 2006 Operation Sinbad flopped with militias on the ground in full control.

Nonetheless, America came to Iraq to stay as long as the Middle East is resource-rich and the greatest untapped portion by far is in Iraq. But history shows the best-laid plans don’t always work out as intended. Occupiers aren’t welcome anywhere with Iraq and Afghanistan particularly adept at expelling earlier ones that tried and failed, including the British from both countries who should know better. Journalist Felicity Arbuthnot notes on Global Research.ca July 14 that on this day in 1958, “the Iraqi army toppled the British (post WW I-imposed) royal regime, which had opened the door wide for Western monopolies to plunder the country’s oil wealth under unjust concession.” Her message to modern-day plunderers: “Listen to history.”

Permanency may only be in the eyes of the beholder and may end much sooner than planned. Our super-bases, with all their size, security and comforts of home, may become no more permanent than their mega-predecessors in Danang, Cam Rahn Bay and the Saigon embassy (a miniature compared to the Vatican-sized behemoth in Baghdad’s Green Zone) where the last remnants of US presence in Vietnam were helicoptered from its rooftop in defeat and humiliation. It forced us to give up what we intending keeping unchallenged with visions as conquerors no different than today.

In the end, we abandoned them because we were beaten and had no other choice. What a determined third-world Asian country did 30 years ago to the world’s strongest superpower, Middle East and Central Asian ones are doing today to the only remaining one slipping fast and running out of excuses why.

It’s just a matter of time before history repeats with the same result. Iraqis and Afghans believe it and intend to prove it again. Too bad Washington hard-liners know little history and haven’t figured it out. One day they will. They’re just slow to catch on. Ruling empires never see the tide turning and that they’re swimming against it. George Bush’s America is no different. It bit off more than it can swallow and will end the same as others wrecked on the shoals of their own hubris.

The scene is playing out in the graveyard of other imperial powers in the Middle East and Central Asia. It just remains for the final chapter to be written ending rest in peace unless Americans locate their cajones and write their own version first. It has to reject corrupted power politics; remove the criminal class; restore the rule of law; place the rights of humanity and democratic values above wealth and privilege; and end forever the hellish wars fought for them.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to The Steve Lendman News and Information Hour on TheMicroEffect.com Saturdays at noon US central time.

Have Your Say: Plan Iraq - Permanent Occupation
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Marine says officers ordered to ‘crank up’ violence in Iraq

Monday, July 16th, 2007

The Associated Press

A Marine corporal testifying in a court-martial said Marines in his unit began routinely beating Iraqis after officers ordered them to “crank up the violence level.”

Cpl. Saul H. Lopezromo testified Saturday at the murder trial of Cpl. Trent D. Thomas.

“We were told to crank up the violence level,” said Lopezromo, testifying for the defense.

When a juror asked for further explanation, Lopezromo said: “We beat people, sir.”

Within weeks of allegedly being scolded, seven Marines and a Navy corpsman went out late one night to find and kill a suspected insurgent in the village of Hamandiya near the Abu Ghraib prison. The Marines and corpsman were from 2nd Platoon, Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 5th Regiment.

Lopezromo said the suspected insurgent was known to his neighbors as the “prince of jihad,” and had been arrested several times and later released by the Iraqi legal system.

Unable to find him, the Marines and corpsman dragged another man from his house, fatally shot him, and then planted an AK-47 assault rifle near the body to make it appear he had been killed in a shootout, according to court testimony.

Four Marines and the corpsman, initially charged with murder in the April 2006 killing, have pleaded guilty to reduced charges and been given jail sentences ranging from 10 months to eight years. Thomas, 25, from St. Louis, pleaded guilty but withdrew his plea and is the first defendant to go to court-martial.

Lopezromo, who was not part of the squad on its late-night mission, said he saw nothing wrong with what Thomas did.

“I don’t see it as an execution, sir,” he told the judge. “I see it as killing the enemy.”

He said Marines consider all Iraqi men part of the insurgency.

Lopezromo and two other Marines were charged in August with assaulting an Iraqi two weeks before the killing that led to charges against Thomas and the others. Charges against all three were later dropped.

Thomas’ attorneys have said he suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and traumatic brain injury from his combat duty in Fallouja in 2004. They have argued that Thomas believed he was following a lawful order to get tougher with suspected insurgents.

Prosecution witnesses testified that Thomas shot the 52-year-old man at point-blank range after he had already been shot by other Marines and was lying on the ground.

Lopezromo said a procedure called “dead-checking” was routine. If Marines entered a house where a man was wounded, instead of checking to see whether he needed medical aid, they shot him to make sure he was dead, he testified.

“If somebody is worth shooting once, they’re worth shooting twice,” he said.

The jury is composed of three officers and six enlisted personnel, all of whom have served in Iraq. The trial was set to resume Monday.

Have Your Say: Marine says officers ordered to ‘crank up’ violence in Iraq
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Fib factory running full tilt

Monday, July 16th, 2007

White House tells some whoppers in bid to depict wars as battles against al-Qaida

By ERIC MARGOLIS

The latest whoppers from the White House’s fib factory came this week as President George W. Bush (A) claimed U.S. forces in Iraq are fighting “the same people” who staged 9/11, and, (B) withdrawing U.S. forces means “surrendering Iraq to al-Qaida.”

These absurd assertions mark the latest steps in the administration’s evolving efforts to depict the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as battles against al-Qaida.

When marketers want to change the name of an existing product, they first place a new name in small type below the existing one. They gradually shrink the old name, and enlarge the new one until the original name vanishes.

That’s what’s been happening in Iraq. When the U.S. invaded, Iraqis who resisted were branded “Saddam loyalists, die-hard Ba’athists, or dead-enders.” Next, the Pentagon and U.S. media called them “terrorists.” Then, a tiny, previously unknown Iraqi group appropriated the name, “al-Qaida in Mesopotamia.”

This was such a convenient gift to the Bush administration, cynics suspected a false-flag operation created by CIA and Britain’s wily MI6. Soon after, the White House and Pentagon began calling all Iraq’s 22-plus resistance groups, “al-Qaida.”

The U.S. media eagerly joined this deception, even though 95% of Iraq’s resistance groups had nothing to do with Osama bin Laden’s movement. Watch any U.S. network TV news report on Iraq and you will inevitably hear reporters parroting Pentagon handouts about U.S. forces “launching a new offensive against al-Qaida.”

Al-Qaida in Iraq didn’t even exist before 9/11, but that didn’t stop the president from trying to gull credulous voters. Polls show that in spite of a mountain of evidence to the contrary, White House disinformation strategy has worked. Today, an amazing 60% of Americans still believe Saddam Hussein was behind 9/11.

FAUX WAR

This faux war is now costing a mind-boggling $12 billion US monthly, reports the non-partisan Congressional Research Service. The Bush administration has spent $610 billion since 2001 on its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, making them the second most expensive conflict in U.S. history after the Second World War.

This week, U.S. Homeland Security czar Michael Chertoff allowed he had a “gut feel” that an al-Qaida attack was imminent this summer. The 16 U.S. intelligence agencies spend $40 billion annually, with another $15-20 billion in their hidden “black budgets.” Homeland Security spends $44.6 billion.

After these gargantuan expenditures, the best intelligence czar Chertoff can come up with is “gut feel?”

One suspects Chertoff’s worried innards and leaks that al-Qaida has returned to full strength have far more to do with the growing Republican Party revolt against the president’s Iraq war than nebulous threats from Osama bin Laden’s loud but tiny group.

Polls show the only area where Republicans still command popular support is the “war on terror.”

SCARE TACTIC

So Bush/Cheney & Co are trying to use al-Qaida to scare Americans to vote Republican, just as they did prior to 2004 elections. It worked well last time and got Bush re-elected.

But Americans are increasingly leery of the White House’s crying wolf.

Many are also asking how Bush could claim “steady progress” was being made in his wars while U.S. intelligence was reporting al-Qaida movement is back to pre-2001 strength and Iraq is a bloody mess.

After six years of conflict, 3,600 dead and 25,000 wounded American soldiers, expenditure of $610 billion, tens of thousands of dead Iraqis and Afghans, collapse of Mideast peace efforts, and a Muslim World enraged against the U.S., nothing positive seems to have been accomplished.

As the White House ponders an attack on Iran, recall the famed words of King Pyrrhus of Epirus, “one more such victory and we are ruined.”

Have Your Say: Fib factory running full tilt
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

At least 80 killed in Iraq bomb attacks

Monday, July 16th, 2007

Haroon Siddique and agencies
Monday July 16, 2007
Guardian Unlimited

A man passes the scene of a bomb attack in Kirkuk, Iraq
A man passes the scene of a bomb attack in Kirkuk, Iraq. Photograph: Slahaldeen Rasheed/Reuters

At least 80 people were killed in two coordinated attacks in the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk today, police said.A further 136 were wounded as a car bomb exploded on a busy street at around noon (9am BST) and then 20 minutes later a suicide bomber drove into the crowded Haseer market, about 700 metres away.

Tensions between Kurds and Arabs in Kirkuk have been high, and both blasts occurred near an office of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK), the party of the Iraqi president, Jalal Talabani.

The first explosion collapsed part of the roof of the PUK office and left a 10-metre crater in the pavement.

A Reuters cameraman on the scene said the second explosion scattered bodies across the market, set dozens of cars on fire and trapped passengers on a bus.

The car bomb exploded in a commercial area called Iskan, near shops and a bus garage, police said. They said the death toll was “very, very likely” to rise.

Iraqi officials have said Sunni insurgents are moving further north to carry out attacks, fleeing US offensives in and around Baghdad.

South of the Iraqi capital, helicopter-borne troops this morning swept into an area that the US military said was an al-Qaida safe haven around the Euphrates river valley, 35km from Baghdad.

The terrain, criss-crossed with an extensive canal system, has been the location of fierce fighting between US forces and militants in the past and at least one air strike was called in during the early hours of the operation, a military spokeswoman said.

US and Iraqi forces have launched a series of security clampdowns since the last of 28,000 extra US troops sent to the country by President George Bush arrived a month ago.

They aim to thwart violence between the majority Shi’ites and minority Sunni Arabs that has pushed the country towards full-scale civil war, and win time for the Shi’ite prime minister, Nuri al-Maliki, to deliver key power-sharing laws.

But many Americans are now pressing for their soldiers to come home soon, and senior members of Mr Bush’s own Republican party have broken ranks to call for a change in the war strategy.

However, Mr Bush has refused to alter course ahead of a September review from General David Petraeus and the US ambassador to Baghdad, Ryan Crocker, his top two personnel in Iraq.

Have Your Say: At least 80 killed in Iraq bomb attacks
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Police want terror cases time limit to be scrapped

Monday, July 16th, 2007

By Colin Brown

Police chiefs have called for their right to hold terrorist suspects without charge for 28 days to be lengthened to “as long as it takes”.

Ken Jones, the head of Association of Chief Police Officers, said police were “hitting the buffers” of the 28-day limit when involved in complex investigations and needed more time. Mr Jones said: “We are not arguing for some kind of Guantanamo nonsense for the UK. We do not want internment. That would be crazy.”

He denied he was seeking unlimited detention but his remarks, which come in the wake of the recent failed attacks in London and Glasgow reignited controversy over the issue.

Gordon Brown has made it clear he is seeking a consensus with other party leaders on a longer period of detention without charge as part of a new anti-terror Bill. But his aides say the Prime Minister is resisting a knee-jerk reaction.

David Davis, the shadow Home Secretary, said the Tories would continue to oppose an extension of 28-day detention without more evidence that it was needed. He said so far not a “shred of evidence” had been produced. He prefers the alternative of allowing suspects to be questioned after they are charged.

Tony Blair was defeated in the Commons two years ago over proposals for 90-day detention.

Shami Chakrabarti, director of the human rights group Liberty, said police should stick to their constitutional role of upholding the rule of law.

Mr Jones said he understood people would be nervous of extending the limit but said the system has to be changed to allow enough judicial checks and balances to make it justified.

Have Your Say: Police want terror cases time limit to be scrapped
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Pull troops out now and stand up to Bush, inquiry tells Brown

Monday, July 16th, 2007

By Colin Brown

British troops should be pulled out of Iraq even though the violence is likely to get worse, a cross-party commission has told Gordon Brown.

The commission co-chaired by Lord Ashdown, the former Liberal Democrat leader, called for an end to offensive military operations by British forces and a “clear exit strategy”.

The findings stepped up the pressure on the Prime Minister to seek a change of policy on Iraq at his forthcoming summit with President Bush. The report said the UK should “actively and urgently … pursue changes of policy from our allies”.

Mr Bush rejected a vote by Democrats in the House of Representatives last week for the withdrawal of US troops from Iraq by April next year. But Lord Ashdown, who turned down a post in Mr Brown’s Cabinet, warned that delaying withdrawal until the US “surge” in Iraq has reduced violence would hand the initiative to the insurgents.

“Our withdrawal rate should be determined not by the security situation - which allows the militias, the insurgents, to determine our withdrawal - but by the state of training of the Iraqi forces,” Lord Ashdown said on the BBC TV AM programme.

“If we can no longer suppress the violence, we are in a sense a target for the violence,” he added. “Therefore, we need to hand this process over to the Iraqis.

“Will things get worse for a bit? They may but they are probably going to anyway. The evidence was that if we cannot suppress the violence we cannot prevent it getting worse. What we need to do is train up the Iraqis.”

He said Tony Blair had “failed to use the leverage” he had to influence Mr Bush’s policy in Iraq and urged Mr Brown not to make the same mistake.

“We committed the cardinal sin of these interventions, which is to have ridiculously over-ambitious aims; to recreate Washington in Baghdad, to recreate a fully-functioning Western-style democracy in a Middle Eastern country,” said Lord Ashdown.

The commission’s recommendations called on the Government to refocus the military objectives to give British troops “a clear exit strategy”.

It said: “This means ceasing offensive military operations and focusing on completing the training of Iraqi security forces. When this job is done, we can withdraw the troops. Our forces should only stay as long as they have a job to do - not on the basis of a set date or artificial timetable.”

The commission was set up by the Foreign Policy Centre, an independent London-based think-tank, and interviewed more than 50 witnesses including Lt-Gen Jay Garner, the former US administrator in Iraq, General Sir Mike Jackson, former head of the British Army, Sir Menzies Campbell, leader of the Liberal Democrats, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, Britain’s former UN ambassador, the Baghdad blogger, Salam Pax, Dame Pauline Neville Jones, the former intelligence chief and Denis MacShane, a former Foreign Office minister.

The former Labour cabinet minister Baroness Jay, who co-chaired the commission, said: “Iraq needs an economic road map which ensures that as the security situation improves on the ground the economic benefits of peace take root as soon as is humanly possible.”

Have Your Say: Pull troops out now and stand up to Bush, inquiry tells Brown
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

STJ911 Scientist to Sue BBC for Public Deception

Monday, July 16th, 2007

By Mick Meaney
RINF Alternative News

A British scientist and member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice , John A. Blacker MSc IMI (Physical Systems), is planning to sue the BBC for mass public deception via their “9/11: The Conspiracy Files” programme, RINF Alternative News can reveal.

The programme which aired on 18 February, 2007, promised to offer a thorough examination of the events of 9/11 and answer many of the questions posed by the 9/11 Truth Movement.

However, the hour long programme failed to investigate the tough questions and ignored hard evidence that points towards a deeper conspiracy, while presenting an unfair and unbalanced view of 9/11 research.

Scientist and member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice, John A. Blacker, is taking action against this portrayal on the grounds of ‘Total Public Deception’.

In ongoing correspondence with the BBC, Mr. Blacker is requesting an official apology and a second programme to be produced in order to ‘set the record straight’.

Mr Blacker is preparing to take legal action against the BBC and is currently gathering evidence.

Earlier this month, ex MI5 whistleblower, David Shayler, along with Adrian Connock, producer of Mind the Gap which exposed the false flag terrorism in London on 7/7/05, released an extensive video rebuttal destroying the BBC’s attempt to discredit scientific evidence and eyewitness reports.

Speaking to RINF, Mr. Blacker said: “The BBC is being sued for lying to viewers and a formal apology and a new film correcting the scandalous misinformation is needed.

“How can 80+ strongest, undamaged and heaviest bottom floors offer only 0.78 seconds of resistance between them - yet were designed and built to withstand 3 times working load and have “indestructible cores” when new. This is without considering air resistance and any other slowing effect.

“This simple maths proves 911 was a demolition,” he said.

In Mr. Blacker’s most recent letter to the BBC he provides scientific evidence to support his theory of a controlled demolition.

Here is the letter in full:

Pre action for damages without prejudice

Your ref: CT/0700108a

RE: 911 The Conspiracy files Documentary - BBC - Total Public Deception.

Dear Secretary Bruce Vander,

Thank you for your letter dated 4 June 2007 from Colin Tregear.

I do indeed intend to take this matter to the next level for the following reasons and I want at least an apology if not a second program setting the record straight and exposing the true 911 facts as opposed to the official government lies.

I fully accept the Conspiracy files program was only 59 minutes long, so why if time was so short, was copious time spent exploring the work of a weird science fiction writer who was not even there on 911 - as opposed to evaluating the merits of the recorded Physics Evidence (FACTS) of which are the core concerns of the “Government account” sceptics such as myself?

Below are the science facts, which clearly, conclusively, prove that 911 was a Deliberate Controlled Demolition.

Only a controlled demolition can collapse a 3 times working load, 47 massive steal core column steel framed building at freefall speed.

It is physically impossible for the strongest, heaviest and (3 times working design load) bottom 80 floors to offer near zero resistance to the falling floors except when there is a controlled demolition. Period!

How on earth can you claim the Conspiracy Files Documentary had anything to do with detail or forensic examination of the evidence if you totally avoided all of the Physics à which is in itself helping to fuel the many “conspiracy theories” - YET not once was there even a whiff of even any first hand accounts from key witnesses such as William Rodriguez (The Last Man Out) or any of the other first hand witnesses on 911?

William Rodriguez states quite categorically in an interview with the BBC - BOMBS went off even before the first plane hit and continued to be set off - yet you spent ages interviewing 2^nd & 3^rd hand witnesses such as a distressed grieving sister & some weird science fiction writer who were simply not present on 911.

Caption above: William Rodriguez states quite categorically in an interview with the BBC – A large BOMB went off even before the first plane hit and took out the sub basement level 002.

If the BBC had been concentrating properly on detail and forensic examination as you claim to me in your letter then you would not have omitted the following key 13 items: -

1 No mention of US government history of total deceit, using Standown orders and fake events as pretexts for war, in which on one occasion alone over 50,000 US troops and 1,000,000 + Vietcong died during the following Vietnam war.

2 No mention of published US government documents which set out how to invade Cuba using a pretext of fake hijacked planes, terrorist attacks on Americans, deliberate horrific murder of US civilians so as to cause the invasion of Cuba hence start nuclear war WW3. (Operation Northwoods)

3 No interviews with key high witnesses such as police officers, fire fighters or National 911 hero William Rodriguez (Last Man Out) and other key 911 event witnesses. (See your own BBC archive) No mention of key witness testimony, radio traffic, and other key video evidence, which clearly demonstrates many explosions from within the twin towers prior to planes hitting or collapse.

4 No mention that all three buildings fell at freefall speed and that no steel framed building had ever collapsed due to fires prior or since 911. Yet many fires were much hotter and much longer. You made no attempt what so ever to explain why all 3 buildings fell at freefall speed - You simply deliberately avoided the Physics.

5 No mention of the omission of many high witness testimonies from the 911 commission’s final report. No mention of the interpreter who testified she had translated documents which gave key specific 911 details to the authorities. No mention that Mossad, UK, French and other intelligence agencies had warned the US weeks prior of immanent attack by Arab terrorists using Jumbos to launch at buildings – yet airport security was not stepped up. You failed to mention building 007 was completely omitted from the official 911 Commission’s final report.

6 No mention that Bush, Rumsfeld & Condi lied claiming they had no idea or even suspicion terrorist would ever use planes as terrorist weapons. (Yet were doing a terrorist/plane exercise on the morning of 911)

7 No mention that Bush, “the Commander in Chief” when told: -

“America is under Attack”

Kept on reading a stupid goat story à this in itself is a total dereliction of duty hence a treasonable offence. Its worse than if an on duty paramedic answers a distress call that children have just been mowed over by a wagon - then calmly finishes their morning tea & toast. Hello!

8 No mention the Pentagon had missile batteries which should shoot down any aircraft that is unauthorised entering its airspace, and that both the outer and inner systems failed to activate – yet you interviewed the actual transport plane pilot who knew full well the Pentagon was missile armed and mentioned nothing of this when referring to what he claimed he observed.

9 No mention that two planes were reported by two independent sources as landing at Cleveland Hopkins Airport due to two separate bomb threats, not just one, and that flight 93 was one of those reported to have landed by locals.

10 A 757 simply cannot fly at ground level due to what is known as “Ground Effect”. You show a so called independent computer animator who suggests that jet fuel caused most of the damage at the Pentagon, yet failed to mention his animation omitted the two 9 ft, 6 tonne engines from the animation and also the clear fact his animation totally contradicts photographs of the Pentagon prior to collapse. Hello! What sort of BBC Deceit is that? Also, his animation failed to account for the fact 6 reinforced concrete walls were penetrated à they omitted the 6 reinforced walls completely. Indeed, the official image of the hole in the inner wall of the C block shows this animation to be total and utter fiction, yet the BBC gave it raving credibility. Question: Why did you fail to mention these key contradictions? Answer: Because you were trying to make the truth movement & its members including myself look stupid, fruitcake and unworthy of measured consideration and the BBC was deliberately deceiving the British Public. Period.

11 3 floors only were pancaked, yet your film suggested the discredited 60 seconds pancake theory had validity when in fact it has already been discredited as totally implausible. You deceived the public into thinking such implausible official theory stacked up and made any sense – yet the animation failed to account for the actual NIST reported and videoed 10 seconds freefall speeds and also the utter collapse of all building cores to DUST. In other words, this was a deliberate clear case of total deception on your part. Your film was totally deceitfully & factually false.

12 Re flight 93: Your film claimed it was alleged by “Conspiracy Theorists” to be an 8-mile debris field, but when you investigated the claim it turned out to be about 8 miles by road but only 1 mile as the crow flies. This is yet further total, absolute deceit on your part. Flight 93 had, according to local official police and fire/rescue sources who actually did the search à an 8-mile debris field.

13 Your film clearly states: “the evidence points to a conspiracy after 911 - not before. You stated, “The other 911 conspiracy theories are just that, theories, the evidence does not support them”. This is blatantly a false misleading statement. Even your own report stated that Government agents attempted to action protection for the US prior to 911. Indeed, failing to act on intelligence is a treasonable offence.

Obviously you now need a second attempt to put the record straight seeing as you did not have enough time in the first 59 minutes. Why do you not improve your reputation and credibility as a stickler for “detail or forensic examination” of the evidence and actually do a second more in-depth documentary incorporating some or all of the omission of your other “detailed and forensic examination”?

This time perhaps you could cover the real Physics and also interview actual first hand police and fire rescue officers - as not once did your previouse “detailed and forensic analysis” include any actual Physics or any such first hand witness accounts yet your journalist had spoken to said witnesses but deliberately chose to omit these reports from the final documentary.

Can I once again point out that I am not a “Conspiracy theorist” – I am a Physicist proposing credible Physical Hypothesis based solely upon the Indisputable Physics facts, Maths & Physical Evidence.

I would very much like to be in your next film explaining why buildings simply cannot collapse at freefall without the use of explosives to destroy the foundations first. Better still, why not interview my senior Professor Steven Jones and he will no doubt explain it even better than I with my Physics Masters degree & Mechanical Engineering Qualifications. Indeed, pit us against the likes of your Popular Mechanics Crew in a 911 WWF style tag team punk out!

In your last attempt at obtaining the facts without even the whiff of any proof you let Popular Mechanics claim Building 007 was not a demolition, quote: -

“ I understand why people might think that, uh rm, and I see what they are saying, but when you learn the facts about the way the building was built, and about the way that it supported itself and the damage that was done from the collapsing towers that proceeded it – the idea that it was a demolition just holds no water.”

I have a safe seafront villa in Baghdad with a bomb crater in the rear yard I will sell you real cheep if you are willing to buy such utter diatribe!

Both the above statements could not be further from the truth and you know it, notice how the Popular Mechanics guy never once mentions the piddly little fires in building 007 sexed up to be towering infernos by the media, or the alleged exploding gas tank as claimed by official sources for being the cause of collapse. More importantly - Also notice how Building 007 is not mentioned once in the “911 Commission Final Report” at all!

The omission of any mention of Building 007 is because it could be nothing other than controlled implosive demolition and they know so, so they deliberately ignore it. If you look at the very top of Building 007 as it starts to collapse you notice a crimp to the side of the penthouse, then the penthouse which is housing the air-conditioning units etc, collapses entirely, and only then does the rest of the building collapse at freefall speed onto its own footprint with the outer walls on top. The fires and damage were over 20 floors below the penthouse, how could fire and lower level damage collapse the penthouse on the roof and not the floors in-between? Hello!

The dust cloud from the base of the building is caused because the basement is explosively blown and hence you see a large rising dust cloud of super heated pulverised concrete dust. The building, despite its damage on one side from the fall of other building debris – falls straight down at freefall ending up filling the previously blown basement and with the outer walls pulled on top because the central column which caused the initial crimp folds the building inwards due to the lack of interior and basement structural support as the building accelerates to earth under only GRAVITY.

If Building 007 had fallen slower than freefall and toppled over there may have been the likelihood of fire or structural damage causing the failure. But, as with the twin towers, Building 007 fell at freefall onto its own footprint hence for this to happen the basement and lower floor supports have to be eliminated prior to the top collapsing – hence à timed video evidence alone supplies absolute categorical proof of a controlled and implosive deliberate demolition to building 007 and the twin towers on 911. Of course the seismic data merely reinforces what the videos show.

Your Film did not show any of these points à hence is verging on Treasonous Media Deception which requires investigation; an apology to me as a viewer, and better still a new program encompassing all of the omissions of key evidence not shown in the first program.

I ask that all of my previouse letters be sent to the new investigating department forthwith and for a formal investigation into my allegations of BBC journalist deception are investigated thoroughly and honestly.

Kind regards

Mr J A Blacker MSc IMI (Physical Systems) (Lancaster England)

ENC: Physics paper describing “Demolition 911” and also the political deception.

`Draft 6:` J. A. Blacker MSc IMI (Physical Systems) (Lancaster England) June 07

Physics `Paper: The` Alternative 911 Hypothesis Encompassing Witnessed, &/Or, Indisputable

Recorded Physical Evidence (facts).

Key characteristics of 911 building demolition events: Straight Down Motion - Sudden Structural Failure - Buildings Collapsing At Free-Fall Speed - Total Collapse Of The Entire Load Bearing Cores - Many Examples of Cleanly Sliced Heavy Girder Steel Core Supports - Dust Clouds Containing Heavy Girders In Highly Energetic Horizontal Motion - Horizontal Ejections Of Heavy Girders And Pulverised Concrete Onto The Tops And Embedded Into Surrounding Buildings - Rescuers Reported And Seismic And Other Detectors Recorded Energy Dissipation Produced By Many Explosions (Recorded in real time by several different independent sources) In addition: Pools of molten Steel recorded over 1 week after collapse in the sub-basements (Refer to paper written by Physics Professor Steven Jones) Closer inspection of original video evidence shows heavy steel core columns turning to dust within seconds – question: - was a novel “StarWars type” energy directed beam weapon used in conjunction with explosives to undermine the integrity of the twin tower complex? (Refer to work by Dr Judy Wood and Professor Jim Fetzer) To date the steel dust creating mechanism has not been formally identified & understood – however - Muslim Terrorists do not posses such advanced metal to dust creating technology – only the US military.

Physics Facts & Conclusions

All three buildings at ground zero in New York on 9/11, buildings 001, 002 & building 007 - came down at or about freefall speed onto their own footprint thereabouts, with outside walls on top. (Recorded) Free-fall speed of decent is caused because the supports for the lower floors are destroyed by metal shattering or cutting explosives and/or thermate - so that when the upper floors are brought down onto the lower floors, no resistance is encountered and therefore the entire building & its components accelerate towards the earth under the force of gravity at or about freefall speed. Only Controlled Demolitions can collapse steel framed buildings at free-fall speed and have all the above-recorded indisputable characteristics. As no plane hit building 7, yet that also came to ground in the late afternoon, this is yet further evidence of Controlled Implosive Demolition to building 7 - because had fuel tanks exploded inside building 7 as was the official claim, it would certainly not have collapsed on to its own footprint (more or less) with the outer walls on top. Rather, exploding debris and fireballs would have been recorded on video shooting from the building, indeed only large clouds of dust from the basement area and then straight down motion of the entire structure in less than 7 seconds was in actual fact recorded. Summary - A careful physical analysis clearly demonstrates that, the fall of the buildings cannot be due to the aircraft impact and/or Jet fuel fire damage alone, or any pre-existing weakness in the 3 buildings.

Political Conclusion based upon the Recorded 911 Physical Evidence.

The Physics evidence shows 911 was a clear case of deliberate plane crashes followed by lies, deceit & treason combined with Controlled Implosive Demolition as part of the United States & UK Government’s cover-up and total deceit. Most Media have played their roll in said hideous regime type deception due to vested interests. A Muslim terrorist could not stop or confuse NORAD air defence so as to prevent NORAD fighter jet interception. A Muslim terrorist could not order the non-forensic removal and destruction of the 911 Plane/building wreckage evidence. A Muslim terrorist could not remove and keep from the world public; Pentagon CCTV, Radio communications audio and other key video evidence, and also continue to do so some 5 years hence, including gagging orders of fire fighters, police and local officials - who claim many bombs went off within the 3 buildings (Seismic data does not lie). A Muslim terrorist could not, and did not stop the 911 Commission from investigating & answering 70% à 90% of the questions posed by the victims & their relatives or omitting umpteen high witness testimony from the 911 Commission’s “Final Report”, including omitting ALL references to the free fall speed destruction of Building 007. The real 911 “terrorists” did the steel evidence destruction to cover-up their false flag “ Inside job” treason of which gave a pretext for never ending “profitable war on terror” whilst reducing civil liberties & human rights.

Have Your Say: STJ911 Scientist to Sue BBC for Public Deception
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Related News

This entry was posted on Monday, July 16th, 2007 at 7:57 pm and is filed under Contributions & Guests . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Translate: