#Altnews Search Engine

Sunday, 25 December 2011

A Christmas Message from the Police - Keep Calm and Fuck Off

By Dark Politricks

This is a Christmas card that the London Metropolitan Police have been sending out this year. I was sent this from a source and apparently the police have been sending it out to their friends as a "joke".

I absolutely adore the message of glad tiding they put at the bottom
"Keep calm and Fuck off"
I wonder what message of "peace and goodwill" to all men this could possibly be conveying?

I suppose after the riots in London this year the cops would love to keep the streets of London calm and trouble free but I doubt telling the public to fuck off is going to help. What do you think?



London Police wish everyone a very happy Christmas with a nice Keep calm and fuck off Yuletide greeting

An Atheist Christmas Celebration

By Dark Politricks

This is a special time of year for Atheists where we piggyback off the Christian / Mithrian / Druid celebration of the winter solstice and enjoy eating far too much, getting drunk, giving gifts to family and friends and complain about the dross that TV schedulers have cooked up for us to watch.

For those of you that actually believe that Jesus Christ, the son of God, was actually born on December 25th I would urge you to do some basic historical research about why Christmas is the date it is and I would urge you to try and read some books that are NOT written by Christian apologetics who would most likely suggest that any previous religions that had the same special dates, customs and rituals were all frauds created by God to test your faith.

In ye olden days, the pagans of northern Europe celebrated the winter solstice, known as Yule, which symbolised the birth of the pagan Sun God, Mithras. It was customary to light a candle to encourage Mithras, and the sun, to reappear next year. Huge Yule logs were burned in honour of the sun. Mistletoe was considered a sacred plant, and the custom of kissing under the mistletoe began as a fertility ritual. Holly berries were thought to be a food of the gods.

In ancient Babylon, the feast of the Son of Isis (Goddess of Nature) was celebrated on December 25. Raucous partying, gluttonous eating and drinking, and gift-giving were traditions of this feast. The Romans obviously liked a good party and before Rome converted to Christianity, the Winter Solstice and Saturnalia, which was an orgiastic festival in honor of Saturn, were marked by much merrymaking.

So is just pure co-incidence that Jesus was born on December 25th and that the Christian religion seems to have taken all its symbolism and other festive customs from earlier religions? No its not, it was because in 350AD Pope Julius I declared that Christ's birth would be celebrated on December 25 and the change of birthday from a more likely September time was a direct encouragement to pagans to swap faith. The "day of rest", which is currently Sunday was also changed from the Jewish Sabbath to make it easier for believers in Mithras to swap over to Christianity.

So why do I as an Atheist celebrate Christmas? Well I do it because its an English tradition, a custom that allows me time off work and a chance to enjoy some fun with friends and the family. I get to drink too much and eat special meals without feeling guilty as well as giving and receive gifts and being thankful for making it through another year alive.

I don't have any problem with the fact that I don't believe Jesus was actually born on this date. Even though I am an atheist I do actually believe Jesus as a historical person existed, however I have no reason to believe that he was the son of God or even thought that he was. I have read too many books on the Jerusalem Church and the dynastic form it took which meant that when Jesus died his brother James took over and so on and how the word Messiah as the Christians use it has no relation to the actual Jewish meaning. In fact the Christian religion is founded upon so much mistranslation, hearsay and re-appropriation that I doubt anything fundamentalist Christians believe in is actually true or that it originates with their chosen belief system. More importantly if it wasn't for a vision by Saul / Paul someone who never even met Jesus then this religion wouldn't have existed in the form it does today at all.

I welcome as many fundamentalist religious nutters to come and slate me as possible as I enjoy reading your rants on other sites. It often amuses me how you quote passage after passage from the bible as if that actually proved anything. If the bible was written by man, which is was, then using the bible as proof of a God is just ridiculous. If anyone today wrote such a book and claimed it was the word of God what would happen to them? They would be locked away for their own safety. Therefore if you don't believe those that claim they are in communication with God today then why is it you believe those that claimed so thousands of years ago? What is the logical difference between the regular nutter in the street on a Saturday afternoon with his loudspeaker and John the Baptist?

I give you the following video from the philosopher and writer Bertrand Russell about his thoughts on God and the Christian religion.

Saturday, 24 December 2011

9.11 sceptics versus logic, reason and scientific principles

By Dark Politricks

Despite directly contacting 9.11 sceptics and debunker websites and asking very very nicely I still haven't managed to find anyone willing or knowledgeable enough to debate the evidence regarding 9/11 and the official conspiracy theory. The very few people I do find often don't even know the official story well enough let alone all the various contentious topics surrounding the events of 9.11. Therefore I decided to conduct a little one on one imaginary discussion in the manner I would tackle a debate on the topic if required.

Why would our government do such a thing. Surely you're not expecting me to believe that George Bush master minded an attack on his own people just to start a war. The expense both in monetary terms, lives and the reputation of the USA has been severely damaged by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. What possible reason exists to commit such a crime.

Yes the wars have been expensive and I am not alleging George Bush was involved at any level as he can barely master his own mind let alone a coordinated attack on the level of 9.11. However that is not to say other members in the US government and / or intelligence community did not know the attacks were about to happen and allowed them for various reasons. Without a full independent investigation we will not know the exact reasons and people involved.

Conspiracy theories are the playground of loons and mentalists with too much time on their hands. We know what happened on 9.11 and the only conspiracy was the one that involved 19 Al Qaeda hijackers who brought carnage to the USA.

You are right in that the events of 9.11 involved a conspiracy but there is a large body of evidence that suggests the 19 hijackers were not the only players involved. The official story is also a coincidence theory in that a number of amazing events all occurred on the same day. Events which the probability of them all happening together would have been extraordinarily high but which we are expected to accept as happening by pure chance rather than from a concerted planned effort. For example:
  • 4 planes were successfully hijacked at the same time by a few men on each plane armed only with rudimentary weapons.
  • Not one of these successful hijacked planes was met with a challenge from the US air force which was the standard practise.
  • Not one camera in the most monitored and controlled part of airspace in the US managed to catch the incoming flight 77 as it hit the Pentagon.
  • The biggest coincidence is that 3 tall steel framed skysrapers, all owned by the same person, collapsed into their own footprint after short fires. Never before had a building like this collapse from fire alone and although two buildings were hit by planes the building structures were designed to withstand such impacts and the other building wasn't hit by a plane at all. To have one building collapse looking exactly like a controlled demolition is unlucky, to have two is careless but three is downright freaky. What are the chances that a mile and a half of combined buildings would all collapse at almost freefall speed in the manner expected from controlled collapses but not be caused by explosives at all.
This is not to say that all these coincidences couldn't have occurred just that before 9.11 the most sophisticated coordinated Al Qaeda attack had been the embassy bombings in Tanzania and Kenya which involved a couple of truck bombs. Therefore the jump in the level of complexity between the usual modus operandi and the attacks of 9.11 was immense.

Just because the attacks were sophisticated it doesn't not mean that either Al Qaeda didn't or couldn't carry them out. Suggesting that our government was complicit some-way in these attacks is not only unpatriotic but unproven plus we know Al Qaeda did it as Bin Laden admitted it.

A few points here. Although the CIA and other war mongers have done a good PR job Al Qaeda is not and never has been a Spectre or Smersh like organisation intent on world domination with agents hiding under every bush. Bin Laden was an ex CIA asset who was utilised during the Afghanistan war against the Soviets and according to the most gagged woman in history, Sibel Edmonds, the USA maintained close links with him up until 9.11. As Robin Cook, the ex UK minister wrote in the Guardian, Al Qaeda actually means "the database" and refers to a file of CIA recruited and trained fighters who helped repel the Red army.

As for admitting involvement in the attacks we only have a dodgy video tape and a very unconvincing translation that takes the conversation out of context for these claims. We know that subsequent Bin Laden tapes have been faked and many people believe Bin Laden died in late 2001. Whether you believe he is dead or not we do have one interview that was conducted with him just after the attacks in which he categorically denies any involvement.

As for proving whether the US government, Israel or any other state actors played a part in the attacks we shouldn't rule that out just because a neat trail of evidence was laid to the door of Bin Laden's cave in Tora Bora. We all know that every country engages in black ops and covert operations and a cursory knowledge of history proves that politicians, the military, intelligence agencies and other influential people are perfectly capable and willing to not only exploit events on the magnitude of 9.11 for their own benefit but actually help cause attacks of this nature either directly or indirectly for political gain. For a start we should ask ourselves the following:

1. Did certain people in the US establishment want to increase American influence and control in the Middle East and Central Asia.

Yes. It is well known that a large number of neo-conservatives wanted to assert US dominance over the Middle East and Afghanistan for a number of reasons including:
  • Control of the main source of Oil and other natural resources.
  • A buffer to emerging powers of China and a re-assertive Russia.
  • To aid their ally Israel in helping combat their enemies in that region.
You can read all about their desire for such a scenario in the infamous Project for a New American Century reports. This is the same document that asserted that such a plan would be impossible to implement without a major "New Pearl Harbour" event taking place. It can be argued that 9.11 was exactly this event as these plans were then implemented. The question is was this purely co-incidental or linked somehow.

2. Were those people in government.

Yes the co-authors and supporters of the now controversial report entitled Rebuilding America's Defenses: Strategies, Forces, and Resources For a New Century were none other than Dick Cheney, Richard Perle, Paul Wolfowitz and Donald Rumsfeld.

3. Were there existing plans to invade Afghanistan and Iraq before the attacks of 9.11 took place.

Yes not only were there plans to invade Afghanistan and remove the Taliban that were talked about in July 2001 to be implemented before Christmas of 2001, but no sooner had George Bush taken residency in the White House plans were set in motion to topple Saddam Hussein and manage the rich oil fields that would fall under their control after any successful invasion.

So not only did certain powerful people talk and write about their desire to expand US power into the Middle East and Central Asia they also realised that these plans would be hard to achieve unless a major attack on the country took place. The fact that such an attack did take place and the exact desired plans were enacted is either a brilliant piece of luck on these war mongers behalf or lady luck was given a helping hand to bring that fateful event about.

Okay so some people may have wanted to expand US power abroad but that doesn't mean they staged 9.11. It's one thing to use a horrific event as an excuse to carry out plans that wouldn't otherwise have been enacted but quite another to cause the act to happen in the first place. Conspiracy theorists always think the worst of people, our government would never be involved in carrying out such a crime against the people.

You obviously are not aware of recent history which unfortunately is littered with cases of supposedly democratic nations engaging in crimes against it's own people for political expediency. The USA went to war in Vietnam over an event which has now been admitted never happened, the Gulf of Tonkin incident and de-classified documents show that the US military was not afraid of discussing the use of false flag attacks. It is also widely believed that Winston Churchill allowed the US passenger ship the Lusitania to be attacked and sunk by German U-Boats to bring the USA into World War 1. Also if you want an example of a conspiracy between nations to start a war you need only look at the Suez crisis in which the UK, France and Israel colluded together to wage war against Egypt so that they could wrestle control of the Suez canal back from Nasser.

More recent examples are not hard to find either and history is littered with many examples of nations engaging in under hand state crimes against it's own people including:
  • Operation Gladio in which the Italian governments agents staged bombings, assassinations and assaults on it's citizens to be blamed on the far left.
  • The Russian FSB apartment bombings in which nearly 300 people were killed in attacks blamed on Cheychen seperatists. Russian agents were filmed planting explosives in an apartment block but when questioned on the matter they claimed it was just a test to see how aware the citizens were.
  • The Lavon affair in which Israeli agents staged a number of false flag attacks in Egypt by blowing up US and British targets including a library and a theatre in the hope of the attacks being blamed on the Muslim Brotherhood.
Unfortunately these are just three proven incidents out of many however the one thing they all have in common is the misuse of intelligence agencies. A False Flag attack is undeniably a commonly used tool that is used to blacken ones enemies and invoke sympathy for otherwise unsavoury actions.

One of the main perfecters of the false flag attack which it has used many times to get American armed forces to do it's bidding is the Israeli Mossad. I have already mentioned the Lavon affair in which Americans were targeted by Israeli agents in an attempt to pin the blame on Muslims but other examples include:

Operation Trojan, in which a Mossad team planted a fake relay transmitter in Libyan territory and then broadcast messages containing coded orders to carry out terrorist attacks knowing that they would be picked up by US interceptors. The Americans fell for this plan and believed fake intel that pinned a German nightclub bombing which had killed a US solider on Libya. They re-acted by bombing the country and killed Gaddafi's adopted daughter.

The USS Liberty attack in which dozens of US servicemen were murdered in a daylight attack during the 1967 war. Although Israel and it's supporters claim this was an accident the survivors believe it was a deliberate attempt to bring the US into the war on Israels side by pinning the blame on Egypt. The evidence supports their claims including the testimony of an ex Israeli pilot who refused to attack the ship knowing it was American and workers from intercept stations that twice overheard Israeli pilots reporting that the ship was not Egyptian as was claimed but American.

Okay so intelligence agencies can get out of hand but surely our current crop of government officials are moral upstanding God believing civilised humans who would never consider such tactics.

LOL. You cannot be serious? Politicians are probably the least moral of all human kind and many politicians either enter politics for selfish notions such as power, money, ego or become corrupted along the way. This is not to say all politicians are corruptible just that it seems that way due to the many sex, drink and drugs, expenses and other scandals that plague their profession. However to give you specific examples of government officials discussing the use of false flag attacks:

Tony Blair and George Bush discussed flying a UN marked plane over Iraq in the hope it would get shot down and then be blamed on Saddam giving them an excuse to invade. This story has actually re-surfaced in a recent memoir by General Hugh Shelton in which he states that at a meeting:
"A high-ranking cabinet member suggests intentionally flying an American airplane on a low pass over Baghdad so as to guarantee it will be shot down, thus creating a natural excuse to retaliate and go to war."
Dick Cheney discussed staging a false flag attack in the Straight of Hormuz by painting US boats so they looked like Republican Guard boats and then staging a shoot up with US ships which could be used as a pretext to starting a war.

We should also remember that we are dealing with the sorts of people who ran unofficial assassination squads and who sanctioned the use of torture on detainees at bases from Abu Girab to Gitmo. These are also people that knew that most of the detainees held at Guantanamo Bay were innocent.

Therefore we are dealing with people who have little moral fibre but who seem to believe that strong unethical action is needed to be taken sometimes to protect their country. However misguided these people are it is not inconceivable that someone honestly believed that by allowing the attacks of 9.11 to take place they were helping the USA by giving it a chance to "Sweep it all up. Things related and not" as Donald Rumsfeld famously said in the aftermath of the attacks.

Okay so false flag attacks do happen and western countries are not above carrying out dubious acts in the hope of blaming their enemies. However this does not mean that 9.11 was such an event. For one thing a conspiracy of this size and scale would involve far too many people for it to be kept quiet.

Not necessarily. There are many theories surrounding the events of 9.11 and only with a full independent investigation can we possibly ever know the truth however two of the most likely scenarios in my opinion are that either:
  • The act was a terrorist operation that was allowed to happen due to someone at a high level within the US intelligence community either deliberately "ignoring" the multiple warnings and signs that an attack was going to happen.
  • Or the event started off as a terrorist attack but was discovered by intelligence officers and then co-opted and managed by a team of intelligence officers to ensure that it went off successfully.
Unlike some of the more far fetched theories surrounding 9.11 such as the "no planes" theory which would have involved hundreds of people including many civilians in the media being in on the secreet both of these plans would only require a small number of people to be involved.

If the attack was allowed to happen on purpose at the minimum the conspiracy need only involve a few key decision makers either losing or not actioning reports that were coming in from foreign countries such as Saudi Arabia, France, Morocco and their own agents that the attacks were coming. By deliberately ignoring such intelligence it makes it easier to give the excuse that the attacks occurred due to negligence rather than any deliberate act to allow them to happen.

The co-opted terrorist attack or planned false flag would also only require a small dedicated team of intelligence officers and their handlers to be in the know. We should also note that members of intelligence agencies are sworn to keep official secrets acts and it is very unlikely that any serving member of a group involved in the attacks would blow the whistle especially if they believed they were doing it for the greater good. Like the JFK assassination we may have to wait until one of the conspirators is on their death beds before a confession is forth coming.

Hold up, did you just say someone confessed to the assassination of John F Kennedy on their death bed? Why didn't I hear about this on the news?

Yes a confession by an ex CIA agent E. Howard Hunt, who was involved in the Bay of Pigs and the Watergate scandal gave a confession on his death bed regarding his role in the assassination of JFK. The reason you didn't hear about it on the news is just one example of how the main stream media controls the flow of information regarding certain events. The same can be said for the 9.11 attacks in that:
  • No sooner had the towers collapsed than Bin Laden was blamed for the attacks and the MSM were parroting the same line without any evidence or counter points viewed.
  • The collapse of WTC-7 which was not hit by any plane and fell at near free-fall speed looking exactly like a controlled demolition was under reported and treated like a non event. Even today many people who still believe the official story have no idea that a third skyscraper collapsed in New York that day.
  • Reports on the day that included interviews with first responders and survivors about secondary explosions, talk of such explosions by news reporters themselves along with footage containing the sounds of said explosions were never re-broadcasted once the "official" story was released.
  • Any alternative view point regarding the events on the day are met with derision and cries of conspiracy theory or anti patriotic slurs. Hit pieces full of straw man arguments and selective evidence are constantly aired and the only place that much of the legitimate and very real evidence can be found is in the alternative media.
Okay so the Mainstream media doesn't report on wild conspiracy theories and prefers to only report stories backed up with provable facts. One thing is for sure and that is if members of the government or intelligence community deliberately failed to act on recieved intel that showed an attack was imminent then they would have been found out and punished.

You would think so wouldn't you however one of the strange provable facts regarding 9.11 is that the very people who failed in their responsibility to keep the country safe from terrorist attacks were not punished but rather rewarded through promotions.

In fact not one single person within those agencies that were supposed to be protecting the USA from attack was punished or sacked for failing to do their jobs properly. The following people who should have been reprimanded or sacked for failing to keep the country safe were all promoted:
  • Richard Myers, in charge of the Pentagon on 9/11
  • Ralph Eberhart, in charge of NORAD on 9/11
  • Captain Charles J. Leidig, acting NMCC Director
  • Brigadier General Montague Winfield
  • Ben Sliney, in charge of FAA on 9/11
  • Steven Abbot, coordinator of Dick Cheney’s task force on problems of national preparedness
  • Michael Maltbie, the supervisor handling the case at the FBI's Radical Fundamentalist Unit
  • Pasquale D’Amuro, in charge of counterterrorism in New York
and there are many more. In any world where blame was appropriated accordingly and people held account for failures which resulted in the deaths of 3,500+ people these high rankers would not have been promoted for their mistakes but punished. Logically there can only be a couple of reasons for this.

Either the USA rewards abject failure and incompetence and treats the biggest intelligence failure that ever occurred as a successful event rather than the murderous disaster it actually was or these people were paid off and rewarded for keeping their mouths shut or doing exactly what they were ordered to do on 9.11 e.g nothing.

Your making this out to be some kind of huge conspiracy but we know exactly what happened. An Al Qaeda terrorist cell hijacked multiple planes and flew them into multiple buildings. The 9.11 commission examined all the evidence and proved what happened.

Did it though?

6 out of the 10 commissioners have made comments regarding the failure of the commision to get to the truth of the events of that day due to a concerted cover up action by the White House.

"One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up". - Max Cleland who resigned from the 9.11 commission.

Not only did the White House delay creating the commission and then put limits on the scope of the investigation they also blocked the commission from reviewing documents and interviewing White House staff.

Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, a former Defense Intelligence Agency officer has recently gone on record to discuss how the commission refused to hear his evidence regarding the Able Danger program which was a data mining operation set up to identify links between terrorist suspects. By early 2000 this program had identified a Brooklyn terror cell that included Mohammed Atta as well as three other 9.11 hijackers.

The 9.11 commission was also used as the basis by the US government to build up it's case for war against Iraq. We all know the lies used to get us into that war and during the commission a prominent neo-con scholar called Laurie Mylroie repeated unfounded claims that Saddam Hussein had been behind every major terrorist attack against the United States since the early 90's including the first World Trade Center attack, the Oklahoma City bombing, the African embassy bombings and 9.11.

Also the 9.11 commission wasn't fully independent, had a narrow scope of reference and ignored key evidence that conflicted with the official story. In fact no proper criminal investigation was held into the events of 9.11 and it has been left to independent investigators, insurance companies and activists to truly investigate the events of that day.

So what actual evidence is there that conflicts with the official events of the day. From the documentaries I have seen on TV the collapse of the World Trade Center has been explained and NIST has finally released it's report into the collapse of WTC-7 which it proved was caused by fire.

The official story says that the collapse of all buildings on 9.11 was caused by the hijacked planes and resulting fires alone. If it can be proved that one of the buildings was in fact brought down by controlled demolition then this leaves the official story on rocky ground as it means all of the following:
  • We have been lied to by our government and the owner of the building Larry Silverstein.
  • The NIST report was in fact not an honest investigation but a cover up.
  • Probability would suggest that we have been lied to about the cause of the collapse of the other buildings as well.
  • The hijackers were not acting alone but were instead part of a grander conspiracy which involved agents who were able to access the WTC and plant explosives OR the explosives were planted quickly on 9.11. Either way if the building was brought down in a controlled fashion it has been covered up and investigation into the collapse has been managed to fit the official story.
Surely you can agree with these points and that if it is proven that one of the buildings fell due to a controlled demolition that logically this infers some high level of government collusion as even if a powerful terrorist group or foreign intelligence agency had been able to plant the explosives or bring down the buildings some other way they would find it very hard to control the conclusions of subsequent investigations without government influence at a high level.

Okay I can agree with those conclusions but you still need to actually prove that one of the buildings collapsed in this manner and prove the official story wrong.

Yes I do. Lets start with an overview which has been created by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. These are professionals who have risked their professional reputations by investigating the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 and going on the record to state that they believe the buildings were not brought down by the impact of planes alone.



As seen in this revealing photo, the Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all of the characteristics of destruction by explosives:
  1. Destruction proceeds through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall acceleration
  2. Improbable symmetry of debris distribution
  3. Extremely rapid onset of destruction
  4. Over 100 first responders reported explosions and flashes
  5. Multi-ton steel sections ejected laterally
  6. Mid-air pulverization of 90,000 tons of concrete & metal decking
  7. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds
  8. 1200-foot-dia. debris field: no "pancaked" floors found
  9. Isolated explosive ejections 20 - 40 stories below demolition front
  10. Total building destruction: dismemberment of steel frame
  11. Several tons of molten metal found under all 3 high-rises
  12. Evidence of thermite incendiaries found by FEMA in steel samples
  13. Evidence of explosives found in dust samples
  14. No precedent for steel-framed high-rise collapse due to fire
And exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
  1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
  2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)
  3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
  4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never "collapsed"
WTC Building 7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:
  1. Rapid onset of "collapse"
  2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a second before the building's destruction
  3. Symmetrical "structural failure" -- through the path of greatest resistance -- at free-fall acceleration
  4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint
  5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
  6. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
  7. Fore-knowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY
In the the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendary devices was discovered:
  1. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
  2. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses
  3. Chemical signature of thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples
WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
  1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
  2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
  3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
  4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never "collapsed".
So both the Twin Towers and WTC-7 displayed all of the characteristics of controlled demolition and none of those associated with a progressive fire induced collapse.

However just to keep things simple lets concede that the Twin Towers did collapse due to the fires caused by the plane crashes. This still leaves the "smoking gun" of 9.11 which is the collapse of WTC-7 which was not hit by a plane and only suffered limited fires before it collapsed at near freefall speed into its own footprint in the afternoon of 9.11. The following points explain just why the collapse of WTC-7 is so problematic for the official story of collapse by fire alone.

Evidence exists that the owner of the building, Larry Silverstein, wanted to bring the building down. Not only did he make the famous "pull it" comment in a documentary about the events of the day but a recent FOX hit piece on Jesse Ventura by ex Washington D.C. prosecutor Jeffrey Scott Shapiro reveals that during the day he was on the phone to his insurance company attempting to convince them that the building should be brought down via controlled demolition.
"I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard....Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building - since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall."
Numerous witnesses have gone on the record to say they were told beforehand that WTC-7 was going to be brought down by a controlled demolition. These witnesses include:

Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue, Kevin McPadden, who said that he heard the last few seconds of the countdown on a nearby police radio.

Emergency Medical Technician Indira Singh who was told by the fire department that Building 7 was going to be brought down deliberately due to collateral damage.

Another EMT named Mike wrote in a letter to the Loose Change film crew that emergency responders were told Building 7 was about to be "pulled" and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.
"There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows...and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled... they told us," he stated.
Former NYPD officer Craig Bartmer who said that he heard demolition charges go off inside the building as it collapsed.

The non peer reviewed NIST report into the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is based on a computer model that they won't release the source code for. This computer model has been thoroughly rubbished by many people for not bearing any resemblance to the actual collapse of the building as it occurred and it relies on some dodgy programming that seems to have loaded the parameters to create the desired outcome.

They did this by excluding important parts of the building that they themselves admitted were present in an interim report as well as assuming no thermal conductivity of steel in their model which meant that only one part of steel re-enforced concrete was heated causing the thermal expansion that supposedly caused the collapse. This video explains why the computer model was flawed.



However the major flaw in the NIST report into the collapse is that they had to admit that their report is not consistent with basic principles of physics due to a 2.25 second period during the collapse in which the building collapses at freefall speed for 100 ft. The only way this would be possible would be if all the floors beneath the top part of the building had been completed removed so that the roof had nothing to fall through apart from air!

WTC FreefallIf WTC 7 is represented by three parts A, B and C, where part A is floors 0-6, part B is floors 6-14 (24 meters tall) and part C is floors 14-47 (see picture left), free fall of part C is only possible if, e.g. part B (or more!) is suddenly and totally removed! Then part C free falls on part A.

Free fall dropping upper part C of WTC 7 (above floor 14) does not apply any loads at all on the structure below floor 14 during this time!

NIST has been asked to explain what David Ray Griffin calls a miracle but cannot do so. Their official position regarding the cause of the collapse is totally inconsistent with physical evidence and the laws of physics which is an obvious problem.
The last point to remember is that a number of scientists have analysed the dust from the collapse of the World Trade Center and found evidence of high explosive materials. The following is taken from a lecture given by Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth recently.
Evidence Refutes the Official 9/11 Investigation: The Scientific Forensic Facts pyroThe energetic material that was found in the WTC dust by an international team of scientists (led by Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen in Denmark) was reported in the peer-reviewed Bentham Open Journal of Chemical Physics. It consists of nano-engineered iron oxide and aluminum particles 1000th the size of a human hair, embedded in another substance consisting of carbon, oxygen, and silicon. The sizes of the iron oxide particles are extremely uniform, and neither they nor the ultra-fine-grain aluminum platelets could possibly have been created by a natural process such as a gravitational collapse or the impact of jetliners. The red/gray chips in which these particles were found exhibit the same characteristics as advanced energetic materials developed in US national laboratories in the years leading up to 9/11.

Many people who follow the official line have tried to combat these studies by saying that the particles found within the dust were only by-products from the various office furnishings and other building materials. They have also claimed in a number of documentaries that the amount of Thermite / Thermate explosive required to bring down a building would be too large and would have required a large scale operation to install however numerous people have carried out their own experiments to show that this is not the case.

The following video is a good example of someone using physical science to back up the theory behind controlled demolition at the WTC.



As you can see not only did the collapse of WTC-7 look like and behave like a controlled demolition there is evidence to support this from witnesses, reporters, physical experiments and scientific analysis as well as the fact that the NIST version of events is total hogwash that cannot even follow the basic laws of physics.

Logic, reason and good science dictate that there is more than enough evidence for a controlled demolition of WTC-7 to warrant a proper investigation.

Remember if this building was brought down deliberately and not caused by secondary fires caused by falling debris from the Twin Towers then it means that we have been lied to on a massive scale. Not only has there been a huge cover up involving sections of the media and major government agencies but it also means that there is a lot more to the events of that day than we have been led to believe.

WTC-7 is the Ace of Spades sitting at the bottom of a house of cards that the official story is built out of. Once you take the blinkers off and look at the evidence surrounding WTC-7 objectively it becomes quite clear that the evidence points towards a controlled demolition. If we can prove that this one part of the story is based on a massive lie and cover-up then it takes a huge chunk out of the official story and opens up the whole sad event to proper scrutiny.

Surely you must agree?

Wednesday, 21 December 2011

Why can't we in the west see through the charade of democracy in front of us?

By Dark Politricks

It has been almost a year since the people of Egypt started their revolution. And their inspirational stance at Tahrir Square has spawned similar protests all around the world including the Occupy movement which has camps in countries from the USA to UK and beyond.

However even though the Egyptians managed to rid themselves of their leader, a western backed dictator Hosni Mubarak. They are now finding out that the army they lauded months ago, for standing between them and the security forces and the thugs Mubarak had freed from jail, is proving a lot harder to remove from power.

Whatever form of democracy the Egyptians want, whether it includes Islamic parties that are hostile to Western foreign policy. Or types of parties that have never been see before, it is clear that the Egyptians are willing to fight and if necessary die for this belief in freedom and self determination.

The military thought they could fob the people off with phony elections that have been greeted by Western media as signs of success when in reality they are nothing more than a sham.

"What is the point in voting for people who have no power?" say those Egyptians who are still trying to Occupy Tahrir Square and remove the military that have taken power of the country.

Correct.

What is the point in voting for people who cannot chose their own Prime Minister and create laws beneficial for the people as a whole and not just the elite of the country.

Whatever these people want, they are clear on one thing. They know what they don't want. They don't want a false charade of democracy that keeps the status-quo, shuffles the pack of political player cards and declares itself representative when it is nothing of the sort.

Across the border in Libya the same thing is happening. After ridding themselves with NATO's help of one dictator they are now faced with another wolf in sheep's clothing.

Protests have been going on for weeks against the National Transitional Council as many people can see through the charade and can see their true colours. Most of the NTC are ex-Gaddafi regime members who had been involved with the worst Gaddafi era atrocities albeit with a new brand name.

Once again, people who were all too complicit in the old regimes crimes and who are now in power pretending everything is going to be hunky dorey. Too slow to enact real change cry the people.

They want to taste real power for themselves and that means doing what's right for their fellow countrymen rather than everything that's beneficial for big western businesses, oil companies and other meddlers trying to ensure a good outcome for the West and Israel.

All of this makes me wonder.

If the Egyptians and Libyans can see through the charade of fake democracy being dangled as a prize in front of them whilst the same power brokers play a big game of musical chairs. Swapping one set of worn out politicians with another from the same mould, then why can't we in the west?

In America we have two almost identical parties who rotate power every few years between them. They shout and argue in front of the camera whilst play best friends off it.

Both the Democratic and Republican parties are:
  • pro war
  • pro Israel and anti Palestine
  • pro Wall Street
  • anti liberty and civil rights
  • against international law
  • against the constitution
  • anti free speech
  • against Internet freedom
  • pro FED
  • pro big business, especially those that fund their campaigns
  • anti-reform
  • willing to use tax payers money to pay for bail outs for their friends on Wall St
and the list could go on and on.

So if the two only parties capable of actually gaining power are so similar, and things that really matter like whether or not your freedoms are going to disappear or your taxes rise to pay for bail outs don't.

Whilst in Egypt it is clear the people to care about the actions of Israel in the USA it seem's far too few even notice that the wars they are drawn into are on behalf of an ungrateful ally that continuously spies on you and sells your secrets and technology to your enemies.

You could say that the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street groups are a sign that people are finally starting to awake but it is clear that the Tea Party once in power has forgotten it's constitutionalist roots and has just become a more right wing version of the GOP. The Democrats are busy trying to co-opt the Occupy movement in the same way. Some people are not standing for it.

So our protests against the illusion of democracy seem nothing more than fodder for the news channels and they are all owned by the same big businesses that control our politicians anyway. So we cannot, and should not expect any fair and balanced reporting from any programme that ever comes out that big box at the end of your room.

For many people in the Middle East they are experiencing freedom for the first time and it seems they are not going to settle for some fake illusion that we in the west have become so used to over the years. Signing a cross next to a name that means virtually nothing is just not going to cut it anymore and in this age of modern technology it shouldn't have to. Why let spivs and liars decide our lives when modern technology could easily let well informed citizens vote on important matters at the click of a button.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out as the West's fingerprints are all over the uprisings in the Middle East.

If the people of these countries are able to see through our actions and create a new form of really representative democracy it will be an inspiration for us all to follow.

However by going on historical events it will also be a miracle. At this time of year I can only hope that miracles do come true.

When does a whistle blower become a traitor?

By Dark Politricks

This week saw Private Bradley Manning finally getting his first of many days in court. It must be a relief to put some different clothes on after the many months he has spent in solitude, sometimes naked and depressed with only his thoughts to occupy his time. Some people have called his treatment a form of torture.

Whatever the outcome, and I think we all know what that will be - his fate has been decided many moons ago, the question will remain when does whistle blowing constitute traitorous activity?

If you work for a government body of any kind and you find out that someone or some group within that organisation is breaking either national law or international law by their actions should you speak out?

No matter what you think of Bradley Manning's actions it has been clear from many leaked documents and videos that war crimes have been committed by US troops during their many years of imperialistic activity.

We have had the Abu Ghraib incidents in which detainees, many who were innocent of any crime, were forced to perform humiliating and sexually degrading acts for the camera wielding jailers who claimed they were just following orders from above. Scape goats a many.

We have had the claims of torture at Gitmo in which detainees were water boarded, sometimes multiple times a day. An act the current president of the United States, US and International law calls Torture.

We have had "rouge" groups of US troops commit murder for fun. In Afghanistan a "secret kill team" went on a rampage killing several men and collecting their fingers as trophies. I doubt this was the only group doing this but it took a brave whistle blower to tell the tale.

We had the famous WikiLeaks helicopter attack on a group of Iraqi men, two of which were journalists, which shocked the world when it was released. It showed the "Playstation mentality" of the pilots who seemed to treat the massacre as nothing more than a video game where real human beings and ambulances were just targets to be shot at to gain extra points.

And the list could go on across many more years, wars and armies as atrocities are not just committed by the USA but by UK troops, Russian soldiers in Chechnya, Bosnian Serbs, Turkish and Israeli armies. No countries army is immune from the horrors and excesses of war. War crimes are committed on a daily basis and no doubt clever and influential people in the West are plotting and planning as I write trying to create plans to delay the imminent rise to dominance of China.

However we have seen what happens to people who dare to stick their head over the parapet and accuse their own government of wrong doing.

Daniel Ellsberg felt the full force of US law when he brought to the US populations attention the excesses of the Vietnam war in the Pentagon papers and Mordechai Vanunu found out what happens when you mess with the Israeli establishment who were secretly building nuclear weapons at their Dimona nuclear plant.

Ex British Spy David Shayler was jailed for his revelations that the MI6 were funding Al-Qaeda linked terrorists in a plot to kill Col Gaddafi and after 9.11 numerous whistle-blowers including the "most gagged person in history" Sibel Edmonds were prevented from telling the world what they knew about the US governments pre-knowledge of the attacks on the country.

Therefore it seems that it does not pay to be a truth teller when the goverment you serve is more interested in telling lies.

You risk a lot by going public with evidence of wrong doing when the organisation you work for treats whistle blowing as official secrets to be kept, even when they know those secrets are illegal, immoral and wrong.

We can see now how Julian Assange is being treated for daring to open a website up that allowed whistle-blowers to pass information on secretly. If the government in question can't get you then it will use it's corporatist nature and it's overseas allies to hurt you by shutting down your site, blocking funding and bank accounts and possibly even going as far as concocting false accusations of sexual molestation so that you can be character assassinated in the public domain.

To many it is clear that our supposedly free, western liberal democratic governments are nothing of the sort. The continuous swapping of power between similar political parties run or backed by millionaires and big business every few years is nothing more than the illusion of democracy being played out for the watching populous.

We can see it now in Egypt and Libya. Two countries who are supposedly now free of their tyrannical leaders and who are supposed to be embracing democracy with open arms.

In Egypt people are voting in pointless elections for a government with no power whilst the military still controls the country.

In Libya the old dictator has been replaced by a grouping of his old deputies, "ex" terrorists and other regime linked cronies who seem to be loathe to hand power back to the people.

Right now in Benghazi people are protesting about the countries interim government, the National Transitional Council, who they feel are being too slow to affect any meaningful change.

They also believe that the NTC leader Mustafa Abdul-Jalil who was the ex Minister for Justice under Gaddafi is far too willing to forgive ex colleagues and Gaddafi supporters. This is undoubtedly due to the fact that as Minister for Justice he was probably personally responsible for many of the human rights abuses and crimes that went on under the old regime.

Same faces, different name. That is the game we are all playing as the world spins in turmoil and we watch protesters from Wall Street to Europe to the Middle East all try and affect change in their lives whilst our real rulers, the bankers and their cohorts shuffle the deck of politicians and make us all believe the impossible.

As Bradley Manning goes to court today, whether you agree with his actions or not, I wonder how many of us in this current climate of fear would dare to stand up and say "No", if they knew the punishment that faced them for doing so.

Would you?







Did our PM David Cameron do the right thing for the UK?

By Dark Politricks

For those of you that have a worldview that exists outside your national boundaries (I'm talking to you USA), then you may have heard about a little thing called the European Sovereign Debt crisis. This is the huge financial mess that is moving once proud nations from democracies to mere subsidiaries of Frano/German power on an almost weekly basis.

For the UK, this is worrying to many people for many reasons. Not only are we not members of the Euro, and have no wish to be, but the move of power from nation states like Greece and Italy to Germany horrifies the Daily Mail crowd. The thought that Europe is going to end up being controlled by the same nation we fought two world wars against without a shot even being fired horrifies many people of an older generation.

For the younger generation the fact Germany is a powerful country is not so much a problem as the lack of democracy that is inherent in the European institutions that encroach on our daily lives more and more year by year. Whilst it is fair to say UKIP attracts an older fan base than other political parties their underlying message of UK sovereignty versus Brussels Diktats is one that resonates across generations. Anyone who believes in small government, democracy or having a say in how your own life is run has a lot to complain about when it comes to the European Union.

Forgetting that Germany is actually the only real industrial power making quality goods left in Europe, we should be concerned that this financial crisis is being used by Euro fanatics and bureaucrats to bring about their dream of a United States of Europe - something that has been attempted by many from the Roman Empire, Napolean, Hitler and now personality devoid bureaucrats like our "president" Herman Van Rompuy and his fellow pen pushing globalists.

When it comes to conquering the European continent it truly does seem that the pen is mightier than the sword.

So far we have seen two once proud nations, the originators of democracy i.e Greece, and the last successful rulers of the continent, Italy, fall to the plans of European dreamers along with the help of those dastardly Bond vigilantes under the weight of their sovereign debts.

The threat of unsustainable debt levels and high interest rates has seen their governments fall and their democratically elected leaders replaced with more pliable and "acceptable" leaders, much to the disgust of their nations people. Riots and protest marches are becoming daily occurrences all over this continent and will only occur more frequently the worse this mess gets.

So for the millionth time this year, European Prime Ministers, heads of state and top Eurocrats met once again to come up with yet another "final plan" to solve the crisis, calm the markets and keep their dream of a United European Super State on track.

This last sumit of Europeans leaders was meant to be the final drink in the last chance saloon and during the run up leaders of France and Germany, Sarkozy and Merkel (now branded and probably trademarked: Merkozy), were both declaring that there was only a few hours to "save the Euro".

Many people were hoping that they would fail for reasons other than financial instability it may cause in the short term and it seems David Cameron, the UK PM has delivered his backbencher Euro-sceptics desires on a silver platter by vetoing an EU-wide treaty change designed to tackle the euro-zone crisis.

He claimed changes to the much hated Lisbon Treaty that would have given up even more UK sovereignty to the EU was not in the countries best interests due to  due to it's tougher budget rules and a plan to implement a "Tobin tax" that would have affected the City of London unfairly.

David Cameron explained his reasoning:
"We were offered a treaty that didn't have proper safeguards for Britain, and I decided it was not right to sign that treaty," he told the BBC.

"We're still in the single market. That is the best safeguard of keeping markets open," he said.
Its main provisions include:
  • A cap of 0.5% of GDP on countries' annual structural deficits.
  • "automatic consequences" for countries whose public deficit exceeds 3% of GDP.
  • The tighter rules to be enshrined in countries' constitutions.
  • The EU's permanent bailout facility, the European Stability Mechanism (ESM), to be accelerated and brought into force in July 2012.
  • The adequacy of 500bn-euro (£427bn; $666bn) limit for the ESM to be reassessed.
  • Eurozone and other EU countries to provide up to 200bn euros to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to help debt-stricken eurozone members
Being outside the Euro it is understandable that the UK does not want to join a fiscal union with nations using the Euro but a tax on financial transactions could have been a good solution if implemented world wide for many reasons.
  • Merkozy was right when they rebuffed Cameron's veto by claiming that the financial crisis they were trying to sort out was mainly caused by large financial institutions going crazy over leveraging their assets, engaging in automated trading and other forms of risky speculation and dubious financial behaviour. Merkozy's plans which included a form of a Tobin tax would help reduce the exact kind of risky transactions Cameron was trying to obtain an opt-out for the City of London.
  • The Tobin tax would go a long way to help fill the coffers of nations who are now suffering "austerity" measures due to the taxpayer bailing out these same financial institutions therefore it would placate many people who are currently outraged that the banksters have been able to bankrupt whole nations, place the burden of paying back the debts on taxpayers and who continue to pay themselves huge salaries and bonuses without seeming to realise or care that they have done anything wrong.
  • The large majority of financial trading is automated, computers trading with other computers and the practise of high frequency trading and front running legitimate trades has been a major source of concern for those who are aware of the practise.
  • A Tobin tax on these particular types of trades that were only held for a few seconds at most rather than all financial transactions would not hurt legitimate investments, pensions firms and other long term investors but it would help reduce the amount of risk that comes about from computers making trading decisions. As a programmer of automated systems  myself I know that any program can make erroneous mistakes if certain circumstances arise that a human would spot and many economic commentators have spoken about the huge drops in stock markets that occur every now and then that are blamed on trading systems following other computers once a trigger initiates a sell off.
  • The UK economy is too unbalanced and basically relies on financial services for a huge portion of its GDP and tax revenue. The coalition government was supposed to come up with a plan to help reduce this reliance on financial services and create a more balanced economy by increasing high tech industry, exporting more goods and increasing the size of the private sector in relation with to the public sector.
  • A tax on the very businesses that make our country the most money (which logically are also the same companies that can obviously afford to pay it as their recent profits and bonuses reveal) as well as being the same businesses that helped caused the mess we are in would go a long way to helping restore public trust in that part of our economy. It would also satisfy a growing public lust for some form of justice in the face of massive cuts to public services, tax rises, rising inflation and increasing unemployment and the sorry sight of not a single bankster going to jail!
Obviously at the moment our governments plan to re balance the economy has gone nowhere and the UK is still overly reliant on the City for revenue generation and in these regards it was probably wise for Cameron to put our own interests above those of the Euro members.

However much commentators have lamented his actions as destroying Britain's place in Europe at the decision making table  it was always going to happen sooner or later unless we joined the single currency.

No-one can expect a non member of a monetary union between multiple states to have an equal say over how that group of states is run and how close they work together. In the same way that closely integrated group of countries cannot expect to apply the same rules they obey to countries outside their common fiscal and monetary policies.

Cameron obviously believes in these difficult times it would hurt our stagnated economy more than help it by implementing extra taxes on the City of London and it would be politically unwise to agree to treaty changes that would trigger an in-party war over Europe, a possible breakup of the coalition and due to new laws a public referendum.

If the rest of Europe wishes to give up their national sovereignty to save a doomed currency then so be it but I doubt many citizens across Europe will be happy.

Little by little their national governments are becoming little more than talking shops and  real decisions about their economy and other key policy areas are now made by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg with the Germans having the loudest voice.

As the BBC Editor Gavin Hewitt succinctly put it:
"For the European people, they are in a closer Europe than they ever voted for".
From this point of view David Cameron has pleased his Euro-sceptic back benches and many UK citizens who have never even had a chance to vote on their countries participation in a political pipe dream that was concocted during the ashes of the second world war designed to prevent Germany from ever again becoming the dominant power within Europe.

Whether or not Cameron and the UK go their own way, the other 26 members of the EU seem to be willing to sign up for closer economic and political union which will be done by multiple inter-country treaties due to Cameron's veto instead of a single EU treaty.

However countries such as Ireland which have already been enslaved by Euro debt relief have to put any European treaty to a referndum so there may be more countries standing with the UK than there currently are and the talk of the UK being isolated could just be a temporary situation.

More and more people are realising that the Euro is slowing crumbling and whilst a disorganised disintegration may cause immense distress and disruption the UK should be better placed than it's European partners to weather the storm that is undoubtedly brewing across the channel.