Monday, August 25, 2008

Skepticism over NIST report on WTC-7

The recent NIST reports about WTC-7's collapse on September 11, 2001 is worthy of a discussion.

I will indeed finish reading this NIST draft for public comment of the Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7. I'm already on page 26 (of 115) and just now reached the end of the front-matter to stumble upon meat in the form of a Preface. The Executive Summary starts on page 33 of the PDF. Chapter 1, Page 1 of this document is 39 pages into the file.

Consider these warning flags of potential document padding.


1) Let us assume for this point #1 that the document is the God's honest truth. I would welcome it, support it, and defend it. However, would this debunking of a single 9/11 conspiracy theory bring down the 9/11 Truth Movement? Hardly. There are still too many other questionable aspects of the events of that day and the 400 some day delay with hues of cover-up before any investigation started.


2) Without getting into any substantial meat of that report, the citizens of the United States have valid reasons to be skeptical about its methods and conclusions because of NIST's recent track record of unscientific and biased 9/11 reports and Bush's track record with promoting politics over science.

"A Return to Reason" by Chris Mooney states: "For eight long years, the Bush administration has trashed and politicized the government science agencies. How to kick out the hacks and flat-Earthers and let the geeks reign." It might well have been written about NIST.

"(M)any branches of the US government basically amount to scientific dormitories... In one sense, it's modern technocracy at its most arcane. But given the complexity of decision making today, it's hard to see how you could run the country any other way.

"This also means that by assaulting the science infrastructure, you can hobble government itself, and during the Bush administration, science abuse has been not only epidemic, but endemic. ...

"Consider the National Marine Fisheries Service... UCS took a pool of (some 500 scientists at NMFS) in 2005 and found that more than half knew of instances in which commercial interests had 'inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention.' Further, more than a third of respondents said they had been 'directed, for non-scientific reasons,' to avoid making findings that required protection of species in peril, and nearly a fourth had been 'directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information' from scientific documents. ...

"Nearly 100 EPA scientists surveyed by the UCS pointed the finger directly at the White House. As one scientist put it, 'They truly interfere and want to stamp the White House Agenda over every document that is sent to them for review. They have hired their own scientists and play the >>my scientist is better than yours<< game. The EPA has to accept a lot of shit from them to get any documents out.'"


3) Out of 115 pages, only pages 22-24 (1-1/2 pages) cover explosives as a possible explanation. That is very thin to say the least. They write:

"Considerable effort was expended to compile evidence and to determine whether intentionally set explosives might have caused the collapse of WTC-7... Six combinations of explosive location and column/truss and two implementation scenarios were considered... Attention focused on a single hypothetical blast scenario location... The other scenarios would have required more explosives, or were considered infeasible to carry out without detection."

And therein lies the smoking gun of their report.

"Considerable effort was expended" was boiled down to a mere six explosive combinations, two scenarios, then only one scenario (on 1-1/2 pages), because the other was "considered infeasible to carry out without detection"?

The purpose of the report was to document the "how's" if with fires, bombs, or other things. It is not the document's purpose to make distinctions of infeasibility.

If I thoroughly believed what the US government holds that 19 Arabs pulled off 9/11, then it would be certainly infeasible to me that such foreigners could plant bombs in a building with tenants like the FBI, NSA, CIA, SEC, and a NYC Disaster Command Center. On the other hand, I fail to see what would make it infeasibility if the perpetrators were one or more of those tenants (or the boss of those tenants) doing whatever it likes to the building space it rents.


4) The NIST report dismisses that explosives were used on WTC-7 in part because the blasts would have been heard and would have broken glass at or around the time of the collapse. (FTR, eye-witnesses did report explosions in WTC-7, but they happened much earlier in the day.)

Are we expected to believe that of the three trillion dollars that on September 10, 2001 Donald Rumsfeld admitted that the Pentagon could not account for, none of that money went into exotic news weapons systems, some of which could have been deployed on 9/11 and had different mechanisms and signatures than explosives?

5) Here is my speculation on what the criticisms will be.

Like the earlier NIST reports on the WTC towers, the analysis will be slammed for assuming worst-case scenarios with regards to the extent, heat, and duration of the fires; for over-driving computer simulation variables well-beyond what is realistic and reasonable in order to achieve cascading failure conditions; for mischaracterizing the architectural design flaws; for insufficient review of the literature and historical precedents; for only entertaining one explanation (e.g., fires) rather than other scenarios (e.g., bombs, exotic weapons) that could also sufficiently explain the destruction observed without having to over-drive assumptions and variables; etc.

Given that the report was just released on August 20, it is still early for there to be lots of review by 9/11 Truthers.


6) From the video I saw a couple of days ago, what struck me was they were talking about conditions leading to non-uniform collapses of floors within the outer rigid steel shell and how the floors pulled the inner columns and other floors into cascading failure yet not the outer walls of the shell.

They want us to believe that the outer steel shell was strong enough to resist any visible deformity from the pulling of cascading collapsing floors that undermine the inner supports, yet this strong shell isn't strong enough to remain standing. Rather than folding and buckling in on itself now that successive failures on the inside have removed or scooped out the interior, it falls like a box into a paper shredder at free-fall speed. Unbelievable comes to mind.

The video of the computer simulation shows localized and non-uniform failure cascading from right to left on the inside of the structure while presumably the outer steel shell remains unaffected without any buckling or folding to the inside.


7) Although this report has several pages with the names of contributors, don't expect that any of them will be made available by NIST or the government for a public debate/analysis against other academic scholars from the 9/11 Truth Movement who have reviewed the report and found it lacking.

8) Because the NIST report does not have an extensive literature review or historic overview of how fires have affected steel skyscrapers, the reader will have to do that themselves. There is no historical precedent for fires alone bringing down steel skyscrapers, even when the fires such as one in Spain several years ago burned demonstrably hotter and longer; no steel building has failed to the point of falling, much less uniformly, at free-fall speed, into its own footprint.


The take-away from the above is that all readers should approach the draft of the final NIST report on WTC-7 with a huge grain of salt and tons of skepticism.

It should not have been the job of this report to pass judgment on what is feasible to carry out without detection. They should have remained scientific and covered in detail how different scenarios could have accomplished the same observed destruction. They did not.

Aside from the aforementioned instances of report padding, the document comes across as a magician's trick: keep your eye on my right-hand; pay no attention to the fingers on my left-hand.

Specifically, read all about the work of my right-hand to model scientifically a case where fires could indeed have causes the WTC-7 to suffer a cascading collapse at free-fall speed into its own footprint. But ignore that the fingers on my left-hand deleted details of explosion scenarios and brushed them off as "infeasible" without even providing explanations of the parameters that separate feasible from infeasible.

If you can't win them over with brilliance, then overwhelm them with bullshit data.

This WTC-7 report should bedazzle the general public (and the government trolls), most of whom do not have the educational background and more importantly the patience to dig into this to determine validity; they're easily "Blinded By Science" as the pop song goes.

Friday, August 15, 2008

Discredited Line of Thinking

Craig's line of thinking on all things Bush & now McCain (spanning election fraud, 9/11, WMD, Iraq, Justice Department, Valarie Plame...) has been:
"I won't look at a damn thing, I won't consider the overwhelming evidence, I won't have any doubts about their goodness, I'll keep charging right behind McBush... UNTIL they have been tried and convicted."
The analogy given below was about someone getting away with very serious motor vehicle offenses, public endangerment, and a DUI, because they had a very good lawyer, bribed the judge, and blackmailed the prosecutor.

Aside from calling me "Max", Craig tries to side-step the issue with more ad hominem attacks. He writes across two repetitive postings:
"You are absolutely certifiable... you have tin foil hats at home... You need help man... The guy is certifiable... Bribe the judge blackmail the .... WTF is wrong with you... Another judge bribing conspiracy... Your analogy is ludicrous and your points are left wing , and anti American..."
To assist Craig who has problems making connections, the drunk driver in the analogy refers to the Bush Administration. Is judge appointment for life the same thing as judge bribing?

Bush appointed his own Supreme Court judges with the help of lock-stepping party-line Republican votes, despite large public outcries about conflicts of interests that the judges had. The Justice Department scandal has ramifications about him appointing his own prosecutors. (Is appointment or retention only if you do the administration's bidding the same thing as blackmail?) The justice department appointees in the DC area have been reluctant to arrest Meyers, Rove, etc. for contempt of court for failure to appear to congressional subpoenas in the numerous scandals surrounding the Bush White House, which in turn has almost crippled Congress and forced them to consider re-animating old powers.

In the DUI blackmail analogy, though, the blackmailed prosecutors could also be considered Congress, and even more finely the gang of eight: the House and Senate Majority and Minority Leaders. Keep them in check with a combination of carrots and sticks: political contributions & favorable votes on key issues versus fear (e.g., Anthrax, blackmail because what elected official really has no skeletons in their closet). Control the gang eight and you can put a very tight mussle on WH badness ever getting out of committee and to the floor for debate and votes, as justifiable impeachment resolutions have proven.

Craig wrote:
"Most people who get DUI's just pay their fines do their time and go on with their lives."
"Most people" is not "all people," and it is certainly not special elite people like Bush who have lived their entire lives beyond the law that keeps us regular folks in check. How did average Bush get into those elite schools and into the National Guard? How did he avoid fulfilling his National Guard commitment? Did Bush ever serve time for his DUI and cocaine offenses from the 1970's? What about drunk Cheney blowing his friend's face off with a shotgun?

Relevant to the DUI analogy: Did Scooter Libby ever serve time for his obstruction of justice CONVICTION? His sentence was immediately commuted -- no time served --, which unlike a pardon conveniently keeps his self-incrimination 5th Amendment rights in tact. Had he been outright pardoned, self-incrimination would no longer apply and he would have been compelled to spill the beans on his bosses.

Paying fines to the wealthy and influential is as painful to them as the removal of seashells from a beach is to the sea.

So Craig's one phrase that holds true is that THESE special people who get DUI's "go on with their lives" and go on and can repeat the same offenses without fear of retribution, as the analogy relates.

I agree with Craig on one point that what we're seeing is anti-American, but it is neither left wing, nor right wing, nor any wing. It is. And it is not ludicrous; it is serious. Open your eyes.

Bush & Co. should have been tried and convicted before his second term, but they have been exceptionally skilled at gaming the system, stacking the deck, rewriting laws, abandoning treaties, ignoring international law, accumulating favors, and heading off oversight well before their criminal actions would have to call in those favors and utilize well-planned covers for their asses.

Don't believe me? To see it in action, take another look into the torture scandal. Or look into the Iraq War build-up. These establish a pattern... which can be overlaid onto 9/11. (9/11 isn't exclusively Max's domain, Craig.)

Craig wrote:
"You want to try and convict people in your kangaroo court. In America in case you have forgotten we don't pass sentence on people until after they have been convicted in a court of law."
Blah, blah, blah.

This isn't a situation where neighbor Joe Blow gets lynched by the court of public opinion assisted by media hype without benefit of trial and due process. The Bush Administration isn't neighbor Joe Blow.

When it comes to high elected officials, the ultimate jury is the public.

The public can't, like Craig, be anti-American and shirk their duties of becoming a well-informed citizenry, of weighing the evidence, and of escalating their findings with their representatives.

The public can't, like Craig, sit on their sofa waiting for a "trial and conviction" to be convinced of wrong-doing at the highest levels and then at that point become outraged. If the public doesn't consider the evidence now, doesn't come to some conclusion now, and doesn't raise their voices now, there will be no trial to wait for.

When (over-whelming) evidence influences public sentiment, elected officials have no choice but to conduct the trial that can render justice, or they suffer the vote. There is nothing "Kangaroo Court" about it (unlike what Bush has been pulling at Gitmo.)

... But there's that voting thing again, where games were played to rig the election process in Bush's favor. Aside from it following in line with the DUI analogy of judge bribing, it is another scandal Craig refuses to weigh the evidence on.

Of course, the Bush administration even in the realm of public opinion has left nothing to chance. Another of their known offenses is government propaganda imposed on the American public through fake news reports favorable to administration policies. It is no secret about the symbiotic relationship between Bush and big media (like Murdoch's Fox network). Media desired more relaxed laws and oversight to expand market share, while Bush needed a propaganda outlet.

Moreover, the Bush Administration's collusion with media to suppress unfavorable (9/11, Iraq, WMD) discussions demonstrates again that they aren't a Joe Blow neighbor being railroaded. They have been rigging the court of public opinion. (Former FOX news people complained that they were ordered to have "balance" in the form of 2 conservative viewpoints for every liberal one.)

Show me one main stream media news report at prime time that (a) devoted more than 5 minutes to the 9/11 topic, (b) provided knowledgable 9/11 truthers, (c) wasn't stacked 2-to-1 against the truthers, ~and~ (d) didn't have the "moderator" make at least one belittling comment exposing the network's position, like "nutty", "crazy", "far-out", "conspiracy theory." Fair? Balanced?

We've seen plenty of unbalanced news reports and political opinion panels whose members' positions were entirely 9/11 debunking, but none that were entirely 9/11 truthers. Have we ever seen in prime time a panel of exclusively 9/11 truthers? No. Because suddenly "balanced" reporting becomes an issue for the biased media co-conspirators; the panel has to be stacked so the 9/11 truther gets his time gets cut in half or a third and must waste time fending off attacks before making new points.

You dismiss "September Clues" and media's complicity in 9/11 at America's peril. Overwhelming evidence of government involvement, cover-up, and lies (or monumental incompetence) existed before this revelation. This is just another straw.

CRAIG, YOU PROVE YOUR OWN ANTI-AMERICANISM in not being informed, in not weighing the overwhelming evidence, and in not participating in the public jury that is so essentially necessary to move the heavy wheels of justice into handling corruption at the highest levels, which has the motivation and means to apply brakes and insert crowbars to stop those very same wheels.

Thursday, August 14, 2008

What would it take to convince you?

[To Craig Hawley]

If the question were posed to you -- what would it take to convince you? -- your lemming-like answer isn't "over-whelming evidence;" it is "tried and convicted." You won't as much harbor a tiny mustard seed of doubt about the rightousness of the leaders who have given America its present criminal course until some higher authority has passed such a judgment.

Here's analogy for you about why that line of thinking is just plain wrong.

Imagine that you are high as kite (which shouldn't be too hard) or drunk as a skunk. For one reason or another, you find yourself behind the wheel of a car and get pulled over by the police. The police officer notes that your license plates tags have expired, your car has many mechanical defects making it clearly unsafe at any speed, you weren't wearing a seatbeat, and you don't have a driver's license, insurance, or registration. He discovers all of these ticketable offenses before he busts your ass for the DUI, which roadside tests and blood tests at the station confirm beyond a shadow of a doubt. But you get yourself a good lawyer, (you bribe the judge & blackmail the prosecutor,) and you accept a plea deal. Everything gets thrown out except the minor offense of not wearing a seatbelt without you even having to appear in a court of law.

Just because you weren't convicted of the DUI and the other offenses doesn't mean you weren't guilty of them. The officer caught you red-handed.

Now put yourself into the shoes of the police officer or the general public.

When you see the same drunk behind the wheel of the unsafe automobile weaving at high speed down the road right at you and other innocents, do you dismiss the empty liquor bottles thrown at your feet, his known history, his known offenses, and the obvious disrepair of the car -- this body of overwhelming evidence -- just because his connections make it highly unlikely that he'll ever be brought to court and convicted?

By your erroneous line of thinking, you would neither recognize the danger nor do all in your power to prevent death and destruction (of innocents). You would not pull the drunk over, force him to stop or go another course. Geez, you probably wouldn't even be courteous enough to drive in front of the drunk while honking your horn furiously to warn people to get out of his way.

Nope. Because you're waiting for that trial and conviction, you'd be following right behind (just as drunk) making sure to runover and cream those wayward pedestrians, signs, and mailboxes that the drunk missed.

And so you do here in this forum [The CSU Rocky Mountain Collegian].

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Thou Hypocrite

"How canst thou say to thy brother, Brother, let me pull out the mote that is in thine eye, when thou thyself beholdest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, cast out first the beam out of thine own eye, and then shalt thou see clearly to pull out the mote that is in thy brother's eye."

Luke 6:42

President Bush announced shortly after 9/11/2001, “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th.”

This is for certain a hypocritical Bush statement whose dual purpose was to shutdown alternative thinking about the 9/11 events and to kick sand into the eyes of those who would otherwise recognize that the official U.S. Government version of 9/11 is the most outrageous conspiracy of them all.

Twenty-five former U.S. military officers have severely criticized the official account of 9/11 and called for a new investigation.

From Orwellian America: 9/11 and the Road to Iran by Richard M. Dolan:

Look at America’s own history. “Remember the Maine!” was the catchphrase of 1898, caused by the sinking of an American vessel while docked in Havana Harbor. American yellow journalism used the event to propel the nation into war with Spain. Never mind that Spain never attacked The Maine, and there is even reason to believe that the ship’s explosion was internally caused. The important thing was that Cuba and the Phillippines became American colonies.

Regarding the Second World War, there is now growing academic support for the idea that President Roosevelt knew of an impending Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, and allowed it to happen as a way to force America’s entry into a war that Americans did not want. A stronger case for public manipulation concerns the 1964 Gulf of Tonkin incident, which led to the “blank check” to fight an undeclared war in Vietnam. The ramp-up to the 1991 Gulf War included the infamous Kuwaiti baby incubator hoax, as well as non-existent satellite photos of Iraqi troops “massed” at the Saudi border. And maybe one day the full story will emerge about the fateful, alleged “green light” meeting in 1990 between U.S. Ambassador April Glaspie and Saddam Hussein. Or of the fictitious “weapons of mass destruction” said to exist in Iraq that have justified our current fiasco.

The sad fact is that America has a long history of its leaders twisting truth so far that truth becomes a lie – a major Orwellian theme. Ordinary working people are usually in no position to challenge official propaganda. That is supposed to be the job of an independent media, academia, and scientific community. The problem is that these groups are either overmatched or simply co-opted by those who are calling the shots.

From Ex-Press Aide Writes That Bush Misled US on Iraq by Michael D. Shear
[I]n a chapter titled "Selling the War," [Former White House press secretary Scott McClellan] alleges that the administration repeatedly shaded the truth and that Bush "managed the crisis in a way that almost guaranteed that the use of force would become the only feasible option."

"Over that summer of 2002," he writes, "top Bush aides had outlined a strategy for carefully orchestrating the coming campaign to aggressively sell the war.... In the permanent campaign era, it was all about manipulating sources of public opinion to the president's advantage."

McClellan, once a staunch defender of the war from the podium, comes to a stark conclusion, writing, "What I do know is that war should only be waged when necessary, and the Iraq war was not necessary." has a lecture by Professor of Physics Steven E. Jones, who convincingly argues that the collapse of three steel buildings in the WTC on 9/11 was the result of controlled demolition, the only explanation that can mathematically account for the speed with which they fell.

"Feed my sheep."

Monday, May 19, 2008

Help Thou My Unbelief

I recall reading that 350 (or more) of the rescue workers who responded to 9/11 have died from lung ailments and other cancers of internal organs as a result of ingesting toxic dust from ground zero. Who knows how many have suffered bad health as a result of their assistance on 9/11?

Scientists two miles from ground zero took air samples and determined that even at that distance, it was unsafe without proper equipment. Yet, the Bush Administration pressured the EPA and overrode their scientists (as the Bush Administration often did to science) to get the EPA to determine that ground zero air was safe.

We can speculate at some later date why this anti-science decision was made and what it helped achieve.

What is important to recognize is that this politically motivated EPA decision is a distinct case of our US government leaders deliberately harming our own citizens, Good Samaritans at that.

Aside from the 4000+ who have died in combat in Iraq, we have 31,948 wounded, 10,180 injured, and 28,451 ill, all to the extend that they were evacuated. Eighteen American war veterans kill themselves every day. One thousand former soldiers receiving care from the Department of Veterans Affairs attempt suicide every month. More veterans are committing suicide than are dying in combat overseas. Scandals still exist regarding soldier body armor and vehicle armor.

The Iraqi war and its treatment of veterans are another case of the US government leaders deliberately harming its own citizens, patriotic ones at that.

In fact, if we go back to the final days before the war, our frontline troops were training wearing chemical gear, because they were told and our administration (supposedly) knew that the Iraqi's had chemical WMDs.

Stop here for a moment and ponder that.

If we take the Bush Administration's word at face value, they were willing to march thousands upon thousands of US troops into the face of these chemical weapons, where certainly the casualty count would have been high despite their protective gear, even though other options were available to confront Iraq. War critics argued that Saddam was contained, sanctions were working, and weapons inspections were working, particularly after pressure built up and Saddam let them back in. (The inspections were not finding much because in truth there wasn't much.)

What is important to recognize is the level of sacrifice of our own US citizens that the Bush Administration was willing to make, assuming what they told us was true.

For those who still harbor the belief that US leaders never deliberately do anything to harm US citizens, we have all of the above examples acting as counter-point.

Ergo, 9/11 itself needs to be viewed with the same measuring stick. Our US leaders have demonstrated the (im)moral capacity to harm US citizens. Inflicting a 9/11 on US citizens would not be out of the range of their reasoning, particularly considering that without 9/11, none of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) goals which became Bush Administration objectives could be achieved easily.

The Iraqi war was on the Bush Administration's agenda from before their first day in office as per PNAC. The leaked Downing Street Memos clearly show that the American government was going to fix the intelligence to match their policy. The WMD argument has been exposed as a fraud.

For their justification and handling of the Iraqi war (and many other bait-and-switch foreign and domestic polices), the integrity of the Bush Administration is called into question.

The defining moment of the Bush Administration -- namely 9/11 -- should not be left unexamined for the Bush Administration to continue to put its own spin on. Truly patriotic Americans must unwind the lies and connect the dots.

Only then can we redeem ourselves to ourselves and the world. Only then can we approach the ideals of America and its Constitution to which we pledge allegiance. Only then can we fix what we've broke both here and abroad.

Feed my sheep.

Friday, February 8, 2008

Righteousness Right Now

"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled." Jesus (Matt. 5:6)

"Righteousness" is one of those words we don't use much today. It suggests leading a life that is pleasing to God, doing right, putting right, and being right. Not only does it contain a component for us to reflect on our actions of the moment, but it also urges fixing past mistakes.

President Bush and Vice President Cheney:

- Repeatedly violated the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which requires court approval for presidential wiretaps. FISA was enacted precisely to avoid abuses by presidents. Former President Richard Nixon's illegal wiretapping was one of the offenses that led to his impeachment.

- Were involved in detainee abuse. They defied the War Crimes Act of 1996 and the anti-torture Act, both being federal criminal statutes, as well as the Geneva Conventions.

- Used deception to drive us into the Iraq war. "President George W. Bush and seven of his administration's top officials ... made at least 935 false statements ... about the national security threat posed by Saddam Hussein's Iraq. ... [T]he statements were part of an orchestrated campaign that effectively galvanized public opinion and, in the process, led the nation to war under decidedly false pretenses."

"Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." Jesus (Matt. 5:17)

The Constitution requires the president to "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." Impeachment is warranted when a president puts himself above the law and gravely abuses power. The Constitution of the United States specifies the grounds for impeachment as treason, bribery, or "high crimes and misdemeanors," a term that means "great and dangerous offenses that subvert the Constitution."

Impeachment proceedings are the righteous thing to do. They'll curb the serious abuses of this administration and send a strong message to future administrations that no president or vice president is above the law.

Feed my sheep.

Test of the Gods

A story from the Old Testament (I Kings 18) records Elijah the prophet coming unto the people and discovering them divided in their religious views. His assessment on the situation was very pragmatic: "If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him."

To help the people determine which god to follow, Elijah proposed a test involving an alter for burnt sacrifices. Elijah would call on his God, and the four hundred and fifty prophets would call on Baal. The god that answered with fire would be God.

The four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal called their god all day long without success and in frustration tore down the alter. Elijah patiently rebuilt the alter with stones, put a trench around it, and arranged his wood. But then he told them to fill four barrels with water and to pour it all over his wood and burnt sacrifice: not once, not twice, but three times to the point it filled the trench.

Elijah the prophet then said, "Hear me, O Lord, that this people may know that thou art the Lord God." The Lord's fire came and consumed the burnt sacrifice, the wood, the stones, as well as the dust and licked up the water that was in the trench.


The United States is fighting a war on terror that President Bush says was instigated by Muslim extremists and Islamic fascists. His speechwriters cleverly embed Christian theology into Bush's messages. They have been, however, very careful not to insinuate in their "with us or against us" rhetoric that this is a war between Christianity and Islam.

A very good thing, too. Because if we ponder the galvanizing event of 9/11 and what the Bush Administration told us, we'd be led to believe and conclude that Allah is more powerful than the Lord God and Baal. Some COINCIDENCES AND MIRACLES (scroll down below) that were revealed through 9/11 make the surface of Allah's alter feel pretty hot.

Hermann Goering, the Nazi Reichsmarshall, said:

Why, of course, the "people" don't want war.
Why would some poor slob on a farm want to
risk his life in a war when the best that he
can get out of it is to come back to his farm
in one piece. Naturally, the common people
don't want war; neither in Russia nor in
England nor in America, nor for that matter
in Germany. That is understood. But, after
all, it is the leaders of the country who
determine the policy and it is always a simple
matter to drag the people along, whether it is
a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a
Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. The
people can always be brought to the bidding of
the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do
is tell them they are being attacked and
denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism
and exposing the country to danger. It works
the same way in any country.

Recall the words of Jesus, "Ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)

450 Profit$ of Baal

Roberto Rodriguez wrote in The Silence of the 999 Monkeys:

In order to tell a big lie to the American
people, it is not necessary to fool 300
million Americans. ... All that is required
to run a dishonest government is to fool but
999 people, otherwise known as the nation's
decision-and-opinion-makers. ... The only
opinions that matter are those of 435 members
of Congress and 100 Senators.

Four hundred and thirty-five members of congress. Four hundred and fifty prophets of Baal. Coincidence?

Elijah's test of the gods may not be relevant today. After all, our Constitution protects and defends a person's right to their own religious belief, be it a Christian God, an Islamic Allah, or Baal of old.

Would appealing to Congress's sense of righteousness help? Are they willing to put right that which is wrong, particularly if a big lie fooled them into doing it?

"Fool me once, shame on you.
Fool me twice; a fool can't get
fooled again."
George W. Bush

Roberto Rodriguez goes on to write:

Yet, as this [Bush] administration has shown,
if it keeps everything classified and keeps
the country in a permanent state of war and
in a permanent state of fear, all it needs
to do [to get its way] is manipulate less
than two handfuls of members of Congress –
"the gang of eight" [the Democratic and
Republican leaders of both the Senate and
the House, plus the Democratic and Republican
leaders of the Congressional Intelligence
committees]. In this manner, the well-tested
system of checks and balances comes to a
grinding halt. … all of this, not
surprisingly, under the guise of
"protecting the homeland."

As we have seen in the destruction of the
CIA torture tapes, all the administration
needs to do [to pull off such a job] is
inform, not the gang of eight, but the
"gang of four" [the heads of Congress's
Intelligence committees]. Not lost on
anyone is that one of the four at the time
was none other than Nancy Pelosi.

So to govern by deceit and outlaw government
and to ensure that no one ever has to be held
accountable, one needs to simply get the
acquiescence of the gang of four… and if
one of those members ascends to the position
of Speaker of the House… little wonder that
Impeachment comes "off the table."

Jesus said, "Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill." (Matt. 5:17)

If we want our deity to fire up the alter, maybe it is as simple as recognizing the law (the Constitution) and having our "450 prophets" fulfill their Constitutional duties.

Feed my sheep.

Coincidences and Miracles of Allah on 9/11

It doesn't appear to be the US government's intention to be advocating Allah and Islam. But if Allah isn't the explanation for these great and mystical and unprecedented events of 9/11, then what is?

* Three steel skyscrapers (WTC-1, 2, and 7) fell into their own footprints through their paths of most resistance at near free-fall speed, implying that the floors underneath the impact site conveniently stepped aside before the falling mass from above hit them. WTC-7 was not hit by a plane.
* Although the speed of their collapses consumed all of the potential energy of the falling mass from the buildings' heights, significantly more energy was available not just to break concrete but also to crush it into fine powder and to leave extremely hot sub-basement fires that burned for weeks under the rubble. "The Case for Demolitions," the websites and, and the influential article by physicist Steven Jones.
* The towering infernos were said to burn with the heat of nuclear power plants, despite sooty black smoke and few visible flames.
* The building collapses were presented as inevitable, even though such behavior was unheard of in steel structures.
* An aluminum jet was able to fly completely into the Pentagon and leave no wings, no luggage, no bodies, and no debris outside the building as would be evident in any other plane crash.
* The fiberglass nose-cone of that aluminum jet was able to pierce six steel re-enforced concrete with the last hole being over 6' in diameter.
* Nineteen (19) Muslim hijackers went undetected through airport security of three major airports and onto four commercial flights where none of their names appear on the flight roster and few of their faces on security video.
* These Muslims commandeered four flights without the pilots being able to speak or toggle with their fingers on the talk button any type of distress call.
* The same hijackers who pulled off aerobatic maneuvers with large jets were flight school flunkies who had never flown jets.
* The worst Muslim pilot made high speed, technical turns and flew at low altitude to plow a jumbo jet into the most heavily guarded spot on the planet.
* The supposedly fanatically devout Muslim hijackers were fond of strip bars.
* Flight 77 crashed into Wedge 1 of the Pentagon -- the one portion of the building that was sparsely occupied due to undergoing renovations, which included blast-hardening of the exterior walls.
* An extensive paper trail of the hijackers was found within hours of the attack, even though the same people had supposedly eluded authorities for years. The FBI claimed that the passport from one of Flight 11's hijackers was found blocks from the towers (when the only other parts of the jetliner that penetrated the tower were a few pieces of landing gear).
* Several hijackers turned up alive after the attack.
* The hijacked flights all flew long routes taking them far from their targets exposing them to certain interception given standard operating procedures.
* The US air defense system failed to follow standard procedures for responding to diverted passenger flights and other indications for when a flight is unresponsive to control tower commands, for when a flight turns off its transponder, and for when a flight deviates (radically) from its flight plan.
* The Pentagon was hit 1 hour and 20 minutes after the attacks began.
* Interceptor flights were delayed and sent the wrong direction at quarter speed.
* The most sophisticated military radar tracking system of the planet was confused, not once, but four times.
* US military and other authorities planned or actually rehearsed defensive response to all elements of the 9/11 scenario during the year prior to the attack - including multiple hijackings, suicide crash-bombings, and a strike on the Pentagon.
* The US military on 9/11 was participating in more than four military exercises under the command of Vice President Cheney that simulated hijacked flights flown into high-profile targets. The war games included scenarios of a domestic air crisis, a plane crashing into a government building, and a large-scale emergency in New York. The war games created confusion as to whether the unfolding events were "real world or exercise."
* The officials at the top of the chain of command for response to a domestic attack - George W. Bush, Donald Rumsfeld, Richard Myers, Montague Winfield - all found reason to do something else during the actual attacks, other than assuming their duties as decision-makers.
* Multiple allied foreign agencies informed the US government of a coming attack in detail. Various individuals came into possession of specific advance knowledge, and some of them tried to warn the US prior to September 11th.
* Certain prominent persons received warnings not to fly on the week or on the day of September 11th.

* Osama Bin Laden appears on the FBI's most-wanted list for the bombing of the USS Cole but not for 9/11, where the FBI says they have insufficient evidence.
* The video of Osama bin Laden that has him taking credit for the attack doesn't even look like him.

All the Signs of a Systematic 9/11 Cover-up

* The rapid and illegal scrapping of the WTC ruins at Ground Zero disposed of almost all of the structural steel indispensable to any investigation of the collapse mechanics. The official Twin Towers collapse investigation was left with almost no forensic evidence, and thus could only provide dubious computer models of ultimately improvable hypotheses. It failed to even test for the possibility of explosives.
* Airplane black boxes were found at Ground Zero, according to two first responders and an unnamed NTSB official, but they were "disappeared" and their existence is denied in The 9/11 Commission Report.
* US officials consistently suppressed and destroyed evidence (like the tapes recorded by air traffic controllers who handled the New York flights).
* Whistleblowers (like Sibel Edmonds and Anthony Shaffer) were intimidated, gagged and sanctioned, sending a clear signal to others who might be thinking about speaking out.
* The various responsible agencies - NORAD, FAA, Pentagon, USAF, as well as the 9/11 Commission - gave radically different explanations for the failure (in some cases upheld for years), such that several officials must have lied; but none were held accountable.
* The official investigations avoided the issue of the multiple war games held that day.
* Officials who "failed" (like Myers and Eberhard, as well as Frasca, Maltbie and Bowman of the FBI) were given promotions.

* Omissions or fleeting footnotes in The 9/11 Commission Report:
- The collapse of WTC-7. The NIST report on the collapses did not mention it either, except to say they did not know how it fell.
- A group of FBI officials in New York systematically suppressed field investigations of potential terrorists prior to 9/11 that might have uncovered the alleged hijackers.
- High-level corruption and protection of criminal networks are revealed in the stories of Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Coleen Rowley and Harry Samit, the "Phoenix Memo," David Schippers, the 199i orders restricting investigations, the Bush administration's order to back off the Bin Ladin family, the reaction to the "Bojinka" plot, and John O'Neil.

* Philip Zelikow was assigned as the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission. In 1998, he co-authored a Foreign Affairs article, "Catastrophic Terrorism: Tackling the New Danger," which warned of a possible catastrophic attack on the World Trade Center and accurately predicted the governmental aftermath of 9/11. Before he was selected as Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission, he authored the Bush administration's National Security Strategy of the United States of America for 2002. This document for the first time asserted a national policy of pre-emptive war (the "Bush Doctrine"), and paved the way for the war on Iraq.

"Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled." (Matt. 5:6)

Feed my sheep.

Tuesday, January 29, 2008

Jesus Spoke to Me

In a story from the New Testament, Jesus asked Simon Peter, "Do you love me?" Simon answered, "Yes, Lord; you know that I do." Jesus said "Feed my sheep." Jesus asked a second and a third time, and Simon responded to both in like manner. After each, Jesus said, "Feed my sheep." (John 21:14-17)

Let me feed you, little lambkin, so that we might recognize the wolves in sheep's clothing.

Recall the words of Jesus, "You shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." (John 8:32)

The Bush Administration uttered over 900 lies in a concerted effort to lead America into an illegal war with Iraq that has resulted in hundreds of thousands of Iraqi deaths, far more than the dictator we overthrew (and created.) We have adequate documented evidence to stand up in a court of law to both convict and impeach them. Yet our representatives in Congress are not performing their sworn duties of "defending the Constitution from its enemies, both foreign and domestic."

Abraham Lincoln talked about how America could only be overthrown from within. Sinclair Lewis wrote: "When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross." Jesus said, "A man's foes shall be they of his own household." (Matt 10:36)

A member of the Bush Administration once talked of their reality-based policy: specifically, "we create our own reality." Harsh reality is the shock & awe imposed on the nations of Afghanistan and Iraq by us. American reality -- and Christian reality -- has been perverted into the acceptance of torture, rendition, confinement without charges, no appeals, and countless other transgressions against our Constitution. The government's reality about 9/11 contradicts the simple physics of falling objects and conservation of energy among many other unexplained discrepancies. Moreover, this "Pearl Harbor"-type event was foreshadowed in 1999 as being necessary to galvanize support from the American populace by the very persons who later became instrumental in carrying out these radical policy changes.

Jesus said, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits." (Matt 20:15-16)

The Administration of born-again George W. Bush has had over 53 major scandals that individually could have brought down any other regime. They continually distracted us from the seriousness of the last scandal, or the scandal two or more scandals ago, through fear and a compliant corporate media, which overwhelms with frilly choices, info-tainment, and advertisements that shorten attention spans and tune people out.

Jesus said, "Whosoever committeth sin is the servant of sin." (John 8:34)

"To sin" is an archery term meaning "to miss the mark." Given the Bush Administration's track record of untruthfulness known even before assuming the Office of the President, quite possibly the issue isn't that they strayed from the target on all foreign and domestic fronts; the issue is that they lied about the true targets they were aiming at and whom they were really serving.

Connect the dots. Recognize the patterns. Do the math.

Jesus instructed his disciples: "There is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; and hid, that shall not be known. What I tell you in darkness, that speak ye in light: and what ye hear in the ear, that preach ye upon the housetops. He that receiveth you receiveth me, and he that receiveth me receiveth him that sent me."

Sheople, ye have been fed.