And still I am obsessed with seeking the truth.
Check out this video and let me know what you think.
Just the planes? or additional explosive devices?
1. Why the damage in the lobby and below?
2. Why all the explosions heard inside and outside the buildings?
3. Why the collapse? Of 3 buildings?
Why, why, why?
Another COTO gem! Corbett’s satire on 9/11 (video) by Corbett Report.
TRANSCRIPT: On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.
These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst officewhere DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.
Luckily, the news anchors knew who did it within minutes, the pundits knew within hours, the Administration knew within the day, and the evidenceliterally fell into the FBI’s lap. But for some reason a bunch of crazy conspiracy theorists demanded an investigation into the greatest attack on American soil in history.
The investigation was delayed, underfunded, set up to fail, a conflict of interest and a cover up from start to finish. It was based on testimonyextracted through torture, the records of which were destroyed. It failed to mention the existence of WTC7, Able Danger, Ptech, Sibel Edmonds, OBL and the CIA, and the drills of hijacked aircraft being flown into buildings that were being simulated at the precise same time that those events were actually happening. It was lied to by the Pentagon, the CIA, the Bush Administration and as for Bush and Cheney…well, no one knows what they told it because they testified in secret, off the record, not under oath and behind closed doors. It didn’t bother to look at who funded the attacks because that question is of “little practical significance“. Still, the 9/11 Commission did brilliantly, answering all of the questions the public had (except most of the victims’ family members’ questions) and pinned blame on all the people responsible (although no one so much as lost their job), determining the attacks were “a failure of imagination” because “I don’t think anyone could envision flying airplanes into buildings ” except the Pentagon and FEMA and NORAD and the NRO.
The DIA destroyed 2.5 TB of data on Able Danger, but that’s OK because it probably wasn’t important.
The SEC destroyed their records on the investigation into the insider trading before the attacks, but that’s OK because destroying the records of the largest investigation in SEC history is just part of routine record keeping.
NIST has classified the data that they used for their model of WTC7′s collapse, but that’s OK because knowing how they made their model of that collapse would “jeopardize public safety“.
The FBI has argued that all material related to their investigation of 9/11 should be kept secret from the public, but that’s OK because the FBI probably has nothing to hide.
This man never existed, nor is anything he had to say worthy of your attention, and if you say otherwise you are a paranoid conspiracy theorist and deserve to be shunned by all of humanity. Likewise him, him, him, and her. (and her and her and him).
Osama Bin Laden lived in a cave fortress in the hills of Afghanistan, but somehow got away. Then he was hiding out in Tora Bora but somehow got away. Then he lived in Abottabad for years, taunting the most comprehensive intelligence dragnet employing the most sophisticated technology in the history of the world for 10 years, releasing video after video with complete impunity (and getting younger and younger as he did so), before finally being found in a daring SEAL team raid which wasn’t recorded on video, in which he didn’t resist or use his wife as a human shield, and in which these crack special forces operatives panicked and killed this unarmed man, supposedly the best source of intelligence about those dastardly terrorists on the planet. Then they dumped his body in the ocean before telling anyone about it. Then a couple dozen of that team’s members died in a helicopter crash in Afghanistan.
This is the story of 9/11, brought to you by the media which told you the hard truths about JFK and incubator babies and mobile production facilitiesand the rescue of Jessica Lynch.
If you have any questions about this story…you are a batshit, paranoid, tinfoil, dog-abusing baby-hater and will be reviled by everyone. If you love your country and/or freedom, happiness, rainbows, rock and roll, puppy dogs, apple pie and your grandma, you will never ever express doubts about any part of this story to anyone. Ever.
This has been a public service announcement by: the Friends of the FBI, CIA, NSA, DIA, SEC, MSM, White House, NIST, and the 9/11 Commission. Because Ignorance is Strength.
SOURCE: http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/corbetts-satire-on-911-video/
Image by mirjoran via Flickr
Factors regarding heat balance of planet earth:
1. Solar UV radiance, sunspots, magnetic flux. Orientation Sun to Earth surface, involving distance and obliqueness of rays to earth.
2. Shielding of incoming energy by ozone, and water vapour clouds.
3. Properties (reflective and heat retention) of earth surface. Water, ice, snow, buildings, tarmac, sand, agricultural areas, forested areas.
4. Heat trapping and reflecting compounds in the atmosphere, (“greenhouse effects“). Ozone, H2O gas, clouds, a few other GHG‘s including CO2.
5. Ocean currents, precipitation (rain and snow) and wind.
Of these, the only factors directly discernible to our senses are sunshine, general hot and cold, shade including clouds (very influential perhaps), substance underfoot, precipitation, wind.
This a broad, off the cuff effort, easily missing something. Some peer reviewing might be justified.
Then there are many factors not discernible to our senses but of course are measurable to the scientifically equipped. Actual temperatures, varying around our planet from say minus 40 degC to plus 50 degC, those variations day/night, summer/winter, equatorial/polar, cloud/no cloud, but somehow calculable by scientists accurately enough to discern short-term global averages of less than 1 degC, in fact to a decimal place!Hmmm!
Then there are variations in all these factors of varying degrees of influence, one of which has been isolated as the main cause of suspected increases in average global temperature. I am of course, referring to CO2, a trace amount gas which occupies approximately 0.04% of the atmosphere and has a less than 10% capability of absorbing Infrared energy, the energy involved in green house heating.
After years of disputation and dissertation about the global warming issue, going absolutely nowhere from a science point of view, but creating havoc and financial and social upheaval from a worldly point of view, a new theory has surfaced.
It involves cosmic rays which are affected by the sun’s magnetic influences and which are claimed to directly affect cloud generation. They claim a direct causation between solar influences and cloud formation, hence planet temperature. Surely this needs to be looked at?
We are well aware that the AGW ‘scientists’ do not care much about clouds, because they can’t quantify them. Nor can they blame humans for them. Even though greenhouse effects of H2O are quantifiable, they are extremely variable in nature and also not due to mankind activities, so are largely discounted in assessing global warming causes.
Now, there is just as much reason why the cosmic ray influence is potentially as scientifically valid as other actual influences but attempts so far to have them considered have met with opposition. Reference:
So strange that the scientists promoting AGW are so negative, close-minded and anti-science. The detractors so far have not said anything except the correlation is weak, they have yet to prove Svensen wrong.
It just seems to me that the issue of global warming and any relativity to carbon trading is becoming so unscientific that it is more logical to believe that there is an over-riding political agenda. (Surely not! 🙂 ) Well, it has been so for some time, but the evidence is piling up and up that political it is, science it is not!
Can thousands of politicians be wrong? Led up the garden path by a few scientists banging on their drum and shutting the door on real science? My money is on the science, real science. It has never been sensible to believe a politician. I see no reason for why we should start now.
Image by ruSSeLL hiGGs via Flickr
Again I borrow from COTO, a compilation of convincing references and details to assist in the understanding of the obvious – 9/11 tragedy a Western false-flag event! You can read it on the COTO site here, but I need to reproduce it to impact on this site as well.
This is so important an issue. The whole world has been changed and is continuing in a disastrous manner because of this event and its on-going war-mongering and control extensions. Even if it is too late to undo the damage, if the world openly realizes the truth, the future could be a far better place.
It is quite an eye-opener that these are articles published in the Mainstream media, for the world to see. People/sheeple seem to have mind-sets with an impenetrable casing.
9/11 10th Anniversary: Astonishing Excerpts From 20 Major Media Articles Are a Must Read By Fred Burks WantToKnow.info
On this 10th anniversary of 9/11, our hearts go out to those killed in this tragic event and their families. In their honor, let us open to learning more about what happened on that fateful day. Below are key excerpts from 20 of the most revealing and astonishing major media articles on 9/11 ever published. Links to the full articles on their media websites are provided for easy verification. This vital information is presented as an opportunity for you to educate yourself, and to inspire us to work together to strengthen democracy and build a brighter future for us all. For how you can make a difference with the knowledge you’ve gained, see the “What you can do” box at the bottom.
[9/11] Hijack ‘suspects’ alive and well
2001-09-23, BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stmAnother of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well. The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt. Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September. His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world. He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities. He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring. But, he says, he left the United States in September last year [and] became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines. Abdulaziz Al Omari, another of the Flight 11 hijack suspects … says he is an engineer with Saudi Telecoms, and that he lost his passport while studying inDenver. Meanwhile … a London-based Arabic daily says it has interviewed Saeed Alghamdi. He was listed by the FBI as a hijacker in the United flight that crashed in Pennsylvania. And there are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Al Midhar, may also be alive. FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt.
Note: Yet these four are all later listed in the 9/11 Commission report as the hijackers. Click here and scroll down a little over half way to see their photos in the official report. For more on this, click here. For an abundance of reliable information suggesting a major 9/11 cover-up, click here.
Alleged Hijackers May Have Trained At U.S. Bases
2001-09-14, Newsweek Magazine
http://www.newsweek.com/2001/09/14/alleged-hijackers-may-have-trained-at-u-s-…U.S. military sources have given the FBI information that suggests five of the alleged hijackers of the planes that were used in [9/11] terror attacks received training at secure U.S. military installations in the 1990s. Three of the alleged hijackers listed their address on drivers licenses and car registrations as the Naval Air Station in Pensacola, Fla. — known as the “Cradle of U.S. Navy Aviation,” according to a high-ranking U.S. Navy source. Another of the alleged hijackers may have been trained in strategy and tactics at the Air War College in Montgomery, Ala., said another high-ranking Pentagon official. The fifth man may have received language instruction at Lackland Air Force Base in San Antonio, Tex. Both were former Saudi Air Force pilots who had come to the United States, according to the Pentagon source. The five men were on a list of 19 people identified as hijackers by the FBI on [September 14]. The three foreign nationals training in Pensacola appear to be Saeed Alghamdi and Ahmad Alnami, who were among the four men who allegedly commandeered United Airlines Flight 93. That flight [ended in] rural Pennsylvania. The third man who may have trained in Pensacola, Ahmed Alghamdi, allegedly helped highjack United Airlines Flight 75, which hit the south tower of the World Trade Center. Military records show that the three used as their address 10 Radford Boulevard, a base roadway on which residences for foreign-military flight trainees are located.
Note: For more on this vitally important news, see the Washington Post article available here and the Los Angeles Times article here. Several of the alleged hijackers also contacted US media shortly after 9/11 to report that they were alive and were not on the hijacked planes. See the BBC News and Times of London articles on this. Yet the 9/11 Commission Report lists these men as the official hijackers at this link. So what’s really going on here? For our reliable 9/11 Information Center, click here.
A New Look at the 9-11 Commission
2009-09-11, Time magazine
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1921659,00.htmlFormer New Jersey attorney general John Farmer served as senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission, tasked with investigating the government response to the attacks. His new book, The Ground Truth, picks up where the commission left off — taking a deeper look at the government’s … response to the attacks and exposing officials determined to hide their failings from the inquiry. Farmer uses newly released transcripts and recordings to cast doubt on the official version of events. He spoke with TIME. [Time:] Why do you think officials tried to obscure [the truth about 9/11]? [Farmer:] It’s almost a culture of concealment. You have someone like Sandy Berger … taking rather extreme measures to remove documents from the National Archives and hide them at a construction site where he could retrieve them later and destroy them. There were interviews made at the FAA’s New York center the night of 9/11 and those tapes were destroyed. The CIA tapes of the interrogations were destroyed. The story of 9/11 itself, to put it mildly, was distorted and was completely different from the way things happened. If what the government is telling you isn’t true, then the truth could be anything. I think there is evidence that the truth wasn’t told and that at least some of that was deliberate.
Note: Many respected scholars, officials and professionals have questioned the 9/11 Commission’s report. Click here and here to read some of their statements. For lots more reliable, verifiable information from the major media questioning the 9/11 Commission’s report, click here and here.
9/11 Commission Heads: We Still Don’t Know the Whole Truth of 9/11
2006-08-09, CNN News
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0608/09/ldt.01.htmlA shocking new book by the 9/11 Commission co-chairmen Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton says Americans still don’t know the whole truth about their government’s initial response to those terrorist attacks that day. [The book] outlines repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and Federal Aviation Administration. Fog of war … could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations, and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue. Untrue — the military’s original timeline of United Flight 93. Equally untrue, the government’s timeline for American Flight 77 and details about fighter jets scrambled to intercept it. DOD did not accurately report to the 9/11 Commission on the response to the September 11, 2001 hijackings. So far, government investigators stopped short of calling all of these inaccuracies lies. If all of the after-action reports are untrue, for whatever reason, that’s a lie. Incompetence and ineptitude on the part of this government … in the weeks leading up to 9/11 are established. The fact that the government would permit deception … the fact that they would continue and perpetuate the lie suggests that we need a full investigation of what is going on and what is demonstrably an incompetent and at worst deceitful federal government.
Sept. 11 panel considered Pentagon probe
2006-08-05, MSNBC/Associated Press
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14191255/The Sept. 11 commission was so frustrated with repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and FAA about their response to the 2001 terror attacks that it considered an investigation into possible deception, the panel’s chairmen say in a new book. Republican Thomas Kean and Democrat Lee Hamilton also say in “Without Precedent” that their panel was too soft in questioning former New York Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, and that the 20-month investigation may have suffered for it. The book…recounts obstacles the authors say were thrown up by the Bush administration, internal disputes over President Bush’s use of the attacks as a reason for invading Iraq, and the way the final report avoided questioning whether U.S. policy in theMiddle East may have contributed to the attacks. “Fog of war…could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue,” the book states. The questioning of Giuliani was considered by Kean and Hamilton “a low point” in the commission’s examination of witnesses during public hearings. “We did not ask tough questions, nor did we get all of the information we needed to put on the public record.” In their book, which goes on sale Aug. 15, Kean and Hamilton recap obstacles they say the panel faced in putting out a credible report in a presidential election year, including fights for access to government documents and an effort to reach unanimity.
FAA Received Alert About 9/11 Hijacker
2006-01-07, ABC News/Associated Press
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=91659&page=2Federal aviation authorities were alerted in early 2001 that an Arizona flight school believed one of the eventual Sept. 11 hijackers lacked the English and flying skills necessary for the commercial pilot’s license he already held. A Federal Aviation Administration inspector even sat next to the hijacker, Hani Hanjour, in one of the Arizona classes, checked records to ensure Hanjour’s 1999 pilot’s license was legitimate but concluded no other action was warranted. Hanjour is believed to have piloted the plane that crashed into the Pentagon on Sept. 11. The operations manager for the now-defunct JetTech flight school in Phoenix said she called the FAA inspector that oversaw her school three times in January and February 2001 to express her concerns about Hanjour. “I couldn’t believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had,” said Peggy Chevrette, the JetTech manager. She also has been interviewed by the FBI. Marilyn Ladner, a vice president for the PanAm International Flight Academy that owned JetTech before it closed in the aftermath of Sept. 11, said the flight school expressed its concerns and believes the FAA official observed Hanjour’s weaknesses firsthand. The Arizona school’s alert is the latest revelation about the extent of information the government possessed before Sept. 11
Note: This article fails to mention the key fact the Hanjour is officially listed as the hijacker pilot who executed an extremely sophisticated 330-degree diving turn to crash the plane into the Pentagon (see official report at this link). Yet this article claims his flight instructor said his skills were so poor she couldn’t believe he had any pilot’s license. How can that be? For more information suggesting Hanjour was assisted by U.S. authorities in obtaining his license, click here. And why has the Pentagon only released a few of the many dozens of security camera videos they have of the 9/11 Pentagon crash? And these few show nothing conclusive. For lots more reliable information questioning what really happened on 9/11, click here.
U.S. Military Wanted to Provoke War With Cuba
2001-05-01, ABC News
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662In the early 1960s, America’s top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba. Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities. The plans were developed as ways to trick the American public and the international community into supporting a war to oust Cuba’s … Fidel Castro. America’s top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: “We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba,” and, “casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation.” The plans had the written approval of all of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and were presented to President Kennedy’s defense secretary, Robert McNamara, in March 1962. But they apparently were rejected by the civilian leadership and have gone undisclosed for nearly 40 years. The Joint Chiefs even proposed using the potential death of astronaut John Glenn during the first attempt to put an American into orbit as a false pretext for war with Cuba. Should the rocket explode and kill Glenn, they wrote, “the objective is to provide irrevocable proof … that the fault lies with the Communists.” The scary thing is none of this stuff comes out until 40 years after.
Note: Why was ABC the only major news source to report on this highly revealing story? To read the shocking declassified documents on Operation Northwoods, click here. Many military and political leaders look at the world as a chess board. Sacrificing pawns (innocent civilians) is sometimes necessary to capture the queen. Could it be that 9/11 was either facilitated or allowed to happen to justify two highly profitable wars?
Is Al Qaeda Just a Bush Boogeyman?
2005-01-11, Los Angeles Times
http://articles.latimes.com/2005/jan/11/opinion/oe-scheer11Is it conceivable that Al Qaeda, as defined by President Bush as the center of a vast and well-organized international terrorist conspiracy, does not exist? To even raise the question amid all the officially inspired hysteria is heretical. Yet a brilliant new BBC film produced by one of Britain’s leading documentary filmmakers systematically challenges this. “The Power of Nightmares: The Rise of the Politics of Fear” … argues coherently that much of what we have been told about the threat of international terrorism “is a fantasy that has been exaggerated and distorted by politicians. It is a dark illusion that has spread unquestioned … around the world.” Why have we heard so much frightening talk about “dirty bombs” when experts say it is panic rather than radioactivity that would kill people? Why did Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld claim on “Meet the Press” in 2001 that Al Qaeda controlled massive high-tech cave complexes in Afghanistan, when British and U.S. military forces later found no such thing? The film … directly challenges the conventional wisdom by making a powerful case that the Bush administration, led by a tight-knit cabal of Machiavellian neoconservatives, has seized upon the false image of a unified international terrorist threat to replace the expired Soviet empire in order to push a political agenda. ”The nightmare vision of a uniquely powerful hidden organization waiting to strike our societies is an illusion. Wherever one looks for this Al Qaeda organization, from the mountains of Afghanistan to the ‘sleeper cells’ in America, the British and Americans are chasing a phantom enemy.”
Note: If above link fails, click here. This highly revealing film by one of Britain’s most respected documentary makers is available for free viewing on the Internet. For the link and lots more on this amazingly revealing documentary, click here. For an excellent review of the film in one of the U.K.’s leading newspapers, click here.
The 9/11 Secret in the CIA’s Back Pocket
2004-10-19, Los Angeles Times
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/oct/19/opinion/oe-scheer19It is shocking: The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names. ”It is infuriating that a report which shows that high-level people were not doing their jobs in a satisfactory manner before 9/11 is being suppressed,” an intelligence official who has read the report told me. [The] release of the report, which represents an exhaustive 17-month investigation by an 11-member team within the agency, has been “stalled.” First by acting CIA Director John McLaughlin and now by Porter J. Goss, the former Republican House member (and chairman of the Intelligence Committee) who recently was appointed CIA chief. The official stressed that the report was more blunt and more specific than the earlier bipartisan reports produced by the Bush-appointed Sept. 11 commission and Congress. “The report found very senior-level officials responsible.” By law, the only legitimate reason the CIA director has for holding back such a report is national security. None of this should surprise us given the Bush administration’s great determination since 9/11 to resist any serious investigation. The president fought against the creation of the Sept. 11 commission, for example, agreeing only after enormous political pressure was applied by a grass-roots movement led by the families of those slain. And then Bush refused to testify to the commission under oath. Instead he deigned only to chat with the commission members, with Vice President Dick Cheney present, in a White House meeting in which commission members were not allowed to take notes.
Note: If the above link fails, click here. For other reliable information on the 9/11 cover-up, click here.
Connections And Then Some
2003-03-14, Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A25…The Carlyle Group [is] an investment house famous as one of the most well-connected companies anywhere. Former president George H.W. Bush is a Carlyle adviser. Former British prime minister John Major heads its European arm. Former secretary of state James Baker is senior counselor, former White House budget chief Richard Darman is a partner, former SEC chairman Arthur Levitt is senior adviser — the list goes on. Those associations have brought Carlyle enormous success. The Washington-based merchant bank controls nearly $14 billion in investments, making it the largest private equity manager in the world. It buys and sells whole companies the way some firms trade shares of stock. But the connections also have cost Carlyle. It has developed a reputation as the CIA of the business world — omnipresent, powerful, a little sinister. Media outlets from the Village Voice to BusinessWeek have depicted Carlyle as manipulating the levers of government from shadowy back rooms. Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney (D-Ga.) even suggested that Carlyle’s and Bush’s ties to the Middle East made them somehow complicitous in the Sept. 11 terror attacks. It didn’t help that as the World Trade Center burned on Sept. 11, 2001, the news interrupted a Carlyle business conference at the Ritz-Carlton Hotel here attended by a brother of Osama bin Laden. Former president Bush, a fellow investor, had been with him at the conference the previous day. Bush[‘s] primary function is to give speeches for Carlyle that attract wealthy foreigners in places where the former president is especially revered, such as Asia. The company has rewarded its faithful with a 36 percent average annual rate of return.
Note: If the above link fails, click here. To understand the amazingly powerful role of this low-profile, yet extremely wealthy and influential group, click here to view free a 48-minute documentary shown on Dutch national TV which clearly depicts the depths of corruption and deceit at the highest levels of government. You will be thankful that you watched this highly educational film.
Defence redefined means securing cheap energy
2002-12-26, Sydney Morning Herald (One of Australia’s leading newspapers)
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/25/1040511092926.htmlAs troops and equipment pour into the Gulf for a looming war with Iraq, United States military thinkers admit that “defence” means protecting … cheap oil. As far back as 1975, Henry Kissinger, then secretary of state, said America was prepared to wage war over oil. Separate plans advocating US conquest of Saudi oilfields were published in the ’70s. So it should come as little surprise that … four months before the terrorist attacks on Washington and New York – a battle plan for Afghanistan was already being reviewed by the US Command that would carry it out after September 11. Military strategists were highlighting the energy wealth of the Caspian Sea and Central Asia and its importance to America’s “security”. The Indian media and Jane’s Intelligence Review reported that the US was fighting covert battles against the Taliban, months before the “war on terrorism” was declared. Over several months beginning in April last year a series of military and governmental policy documents was released that sought to legitimise the use of US military force in the pursuit of oil and gas. A spring 2001 article by Jeffrey Record in the War College’s journal, Parameters, argued the legitimacy of “shooting in the Persian Gulf on behalf of lower gas prices”. Mr Record [is] a former staff member of the Senate armed services committee (and an apparent favourite of the Council on Foreign Relations). [He] advocated the acceptability of presidential subterfuge in the promotion of a conflict. Mr Record explicitly urged painting over the US’s actual reasons for warfare with a nobly high-minded veneer, seeing such as a necessity for mobilising public support for a conflict.
Note: This highly revealing report on the military planning of wars for oil is well worth reading in its entirety, at the link above. For lots more on major deception and manipulation around the event of 9/11, click here.
Pipeline politics taint U.S. war
2002-03-18, Chicago Tribune
http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2002-03-18/news/0203180046_1_caspian-talib…Outside this country, there is a widespread belief that U.S. military deployments in Central Asia mostly are about oil. An article in the Guardian of London headlined, “A pro-western regime in Kabul should give the U.S. an Afghan route for Caspian oil,” foreshadowed the kind of skeptical coverage the U.S. war now receives in many countries. Author George Monbiot … wrote that the U.S. oil company Unocal Corp. had been negotiating with the Taliban since 1995 to build “oil and gas pipelines from Turkmenistan, through Afghanistan and into Pakistani ports on the Arabian sea.” Unocal pulled out of the deal after the 1998 terrorist attacks on U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were linked to terrorists based in Afghanistan. The terrorist acts of Sept. 11, though tragic, provided the Bush administration a [pretext] to invade Afghanistan, oust the recalcitrant Taliban and, coincidentally, smooth the way for the pipeline. To make things even smoother, the U.S. engineered the rise to power of two former Unocal employees: Hamid Karzai, the new interim president of Afghanistan, and Zalmay Khalizad, the Bush administration’s Afghanistan envoy. [Uri] Averny, a former member of the Israeli Knesset … argues that the war on terrorism provides a perfect pretext for America’s imperial interests. “If one looks at the map of the big American bases created for the war, one is struck by the fact that they are completely identical to the route of the projected oil pipeline to the Indian Ocean.” No wonder the rest of the world is a bit skeptical about our war on evildoers.
Note: Why do so few people know that these two top officials of Afghanistan were once paid by an American oil company? For important reports from major media sources on the realities of the “war on terror,” click here.
Experts Urging Broader Inquiry In Towers’ Fall
2001-12-25, New York Times
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F40A11FB3E550C768EDDAB0994D94…Saying that the current investigation into how and why the twin towers fell on Sept. 11 is inadequate, some of the nation’s leading structural engineers and fire-safety experts are calling for a new, independent and better-financed inquiry that could produce the kinds of conclusions vital for skyscrapers and future buildings nationwide. Experts critical of the current effort … point out that the current team of 20 or so investigators has no subpoena power and little staff support and has even been unable to obtain basic information like detailed blueprints of the buildings that collapsed. Some structural engineers have said that one serious mistake has already been made … the decision to rapidly recycle the steel columns, beams and trusses that held up the buildings. Interviews with a handful of members of the team, which includes some of the nation’s most respected engineers, also uncovered complaints that they had at various times been shackled with bureaucratic restrictions that prevented them from interviewing witnesses, examining the disaster site and requesting crucial information like recorded distress calls to the police and fire departments. Members have been threatened with dismissal for speaking to the press.
Note: Our website has over 30 full articles posted from the New York Times. This is the only article for which the Times threatened to sue us if we didn’t remove it. We were allowed to replace it with this short summary. For more on this, click here. For more reliable news articles suggesting a major cover-up of 9/11, click here.
Obama Says ‘Justice Has Been Done’: Bin Laden Scholar Says No
2011-05-06, CNBC News (NBC’s Business News Channel)
http://www.cnbc.com/id/42929478/President Obama, speaking of the operation to kill Osama bin Laden, said: “Justice has been done.” It has been widely assumed that, if bin Laden is now dead, the person most responsible for the 9/11 attacks has been brought to justice. But the US government has never provided evidence that the attacks were carried out by bin Laden and his al-Qaeda organization. In September 2001, Secretary of State Colin Powell promised to provide this evidence, but the next day recanted, saying “most of [the evidence] is classified.” In October, Prime Minister Tony Blair provided evidence that bin Laden and al-Qaeda planned and executed the 9/11 attacks. But he added: “This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Osama Bin Laden in a court of law.” The FBI’s acts that made bin Laden a “Most Wanted Terrorist” do not include the 9/11 attacks. The FBI’s chief of investigative publicity explained: “The FBI has seen no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11.” Could al-Qaeda have carried out the attacks? Scientists for 9/11 Truth views the rapid, symmetrical, straight-down collapses of the Towers and nearby WTC 7 as consistent only with controlled demolition. And 1500 members of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth agree: The 9/11 attacks were not the work of al-Qaeda.
Note: CNBC removed this article not long after posting it. To read this critically important press release by WantToKnow.info team member and Nobel Peace Prize nominee David Ray Griffin in its entirety, click here. Dr. Griffin’s 2009 book, Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? presented compelling evidence that bin Laden died in December 2001 — prompting a BBC documentary of the same name. Griffin was named among the New Statesman’s “50 People Who Matter Today“. For an abundance of reliable news articles, videos, and more showing major deception on 9/11, click here.
Architect Richard Gage Explains His 9/11 Theory
2011-04-19, WJBK Fox 2 (Detroit Affiliate of Fox News)
http://www.myfoxdetroit.com/dpp/news/local/architect-richard-gage-explains-hi…It is a day of infamy – 9/11. The official investigation concluded that intense heat from the crash and the jet fuel melted the support beams causing the [WTC] towers to collapse. But architect Richard Gage doesn’t believe that. He is the founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. [Gage:] There is evidence to suggest that explosive demolitions have brought down all three World Trade Center skyscrapers. We have now 1,500 architects and engineers calling for a new investigation based on this evidence, including the third skyscraper that most people know nothing about. This is a 47-story skyscraper that collapses at free fall acceleration, straight down … into its own footprint just like a controlled demolition. This is extraordinary evidence, along with the chemical evidence of high-tech nanothermite composite explosives or incendiaries found in the all the World Trade Center dust. The architects and engineers are highlighting the specific evidence in these three skyscrapers, because its so clear that they’re explosive demolitions. We have [found] in all of this massive quantity of dust … iron microspheres the size of the diameter of a human hair. Billions of them … are found. These contain the evidence of ignited thermite. There is no other explanation for them. What the 1,500 architects and engineers that I represent are calling for is an investigation that is thorough that uses the scientific method [and] analyzes all of the evidence. Once this evidence is all analyzed, we’ll let the chips fall where they may. We don’t have conspiracy theories. What we want is a real investigation.
Note: The text above is taken from the video news report at the Fox News link above. To watch the symmetrical fall of the third World Trade Center building, click here. For lots more reliable, verifiable information questioning the 9/11 official story, see our 9/11 Information Center.
9/11 third tower mystery ‘solved’
2008-07-04, BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7485331.stmThe 47-storey third tower, known as Tower Seven, collapsed seven hours after the twin towers. Investigators are expected to say ordinary fires on several different floors caused the collapse. Conspiracy theorists have argued that the third tower was brought down in a controlled demolition. Unlike the twin towers, Tower Seven was not hit by a plane. The National Institute of Standards and Technology [NIST] … is expected to conclude in its long-awaited report this month that ordinary fires caused the building to collapse. That would make it the first and only steel skyscraper in the world to collapse because of fire. [NIST’s] lead investigator, Dr Shyam Sunder, spoke to BBC Two’s “The Conspiracy Files”: “Our working hypothesis now actually suggests that it was normal building fires that were growing and spreading throughout the multiple floors that may have caused the ultimate collapse of the buildings.” However, a group of architects, engineers and scientists say the official explanation that fires caused the collapse is impossible. Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth argue there must have been a controlled demolition. The founder of the group, Richard Gage, says the collapse of the third tower is an obvious example of a controlled demolition using explosives. “Building Seven is the smoking gun of 9/11. A sixth grader can look at this building falling at virtually freefall speed, symmetrically and smoothly, and see that it is not a natural process. Buildings that fall in natural processes fall to the path of least resistance”, says Gage, “they don’t go straight down through themselves.”
Note: To watch a one-minute clip of the fall of WTC 7 from a PBS documentary, click here. For a two-page summary of some unanswered questions about what really happened on 9/11, click here. To learn about over 1,000 architects and engineers who claim a major cover-up around 9/11 click here.
Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto: Osama bin Laden is Dead
2007-11-02, BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/player/nol/newsid_7070000/newsid_7075800/7075843.stmDavid Frost: Does anyone know exactly who was responsible for this assassination attempt? There is one report that said that you arranged to send President Musharraf a letter … in the event of your death by assassination, urging him to investigate certain individuals in his government. Is that true? Benazir Bhutto: Yes it is true that I wrote to General Musharraf. I feel these are the forces that really want to stop not just me, but the democratic process and the will of the people [from] triumphing. David Frost: In terms of these three people you mentioned where they members of or associated with the government? Benazir Bhutto: One of them is a very key figure in security. He is a former military officer. He is someone who has had dealings with Jaish-e-Mohammad, one of the band [of] groups of Maulana Masood Azhar, who was in an Indian jail for decapitating three British tourists and three American tourists. And he also had dealings with Omar Shiekh, who murdered Osama bin Laden.
Note: The key statement on bin Laden’s murder happens at minute five in the video at the above link. If the link fails, click here. For a Jan. 9, 2010 BBC article also suggesting bin Laden may already have been dead years earlier and that his death had been covered up, click here. Bhutto was assassinated not long after this interview on Dec. 27, 2007.
The Disbelievers
2006-09-08, Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/07/AR20060907016…A recent Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll of 1,010 Americans found that 36 percent suspect the U.S. government promoted the attacks or intentionally sat on its hands. Sixteen percent believe explosives brought down the towers. A Zogby International poll of New York City residents two years ago found 49.3 percent believed the government “consciously failed to act.” The loose agglomeration known as the “9/11 Truth Movement” has stopped looking for truth from the government. The academic wing is led by [Prof. David Ray] Griffin, who founded the Center for a Postmodern World at Claremont University; James Fetzer, a tenured philosopher at the University of Minnesota; and Daniel Orr, the retired chairman of the economics department at the University of Illinois. The movement’s de facto minister of engineering isSteven Jones, a tenured physics professor at Brigham Young University, who’s … concluded that the collapse of the twin towers is best explained as controlled demolition. Catherine Austin Fitts served as assistant secretary of housing in the first President Bush’s administration. [Robert] Bowman was chief of advanced space programs under presidents Ford and Carter. Fitts and Bowman agree that the “most unbelievable conspiracy” theory is the one retailed by the government. It was a year before David Ray Griffin, an eminent liberal theologian and philosopher, began his stroll down the path of disbelief. He wondered why … military jets failed to intercept even one airliner. He read the 9/11 Commission report with a swell of anger. Contradictions were ignored and no military or civilian official was reprimanded. Griffin’s book, “The New Pearl Harbor” … never reviewed in a major U.S. newspaper, sold more than 100,000 copies and became a movement founding stone.
Note: If the above link fails, click here.
Why I Resigned From the CIA
2004-12-05, Los Angeles Times
http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-oe-scheuer5dec05,1,471321…Michael Scheuer, a 22-year veteran of the CIA, wrote “Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the War on Terror.” Between January 1996 and June 1999 I was in charge of running operations against Al Qaeda from Washington. When it comes to this small slice of the large U.S. national security pie, I speak with firsthand experience (and for several score of CIA officers) when I state categorically that during this time senior White House officials repeatedly refused to act on sound intelligence that provided multiple chances to eliminate Osama bin Laden — either by capture or by U.S. military attack. I witnessed and documented, along with dozens of other CIA officers, instances where life-risking intelligence-gathering work of the agency’s men and women in the field was wasted. I was never charged with deciding whether to act against Bin Laden. That decision properly belongs solely to senior White House officials. However, as a now-private American citizen, it is my right to question their judgment; I am entitled to know why the protection of Americans — most selfishly, my own children and grandchildren — was not the top priority of the senior officials who refused to act on the opportunities to attack Bin Laden provided by the clandestine service. Each of these officials have publicly argued that the intelligence was not “good enough” to act, but they almost always neglect to say that they were repeatedly advised that the intelligence was not going to get better and that Bin Laden was going to kill thousands of Americans if he was not stopped.
Note: If the above link fails, click here. For many other serious questions around the 9/11 attacks, click here.
Write More About Skull And Bones
2004-10-27, San Francisco Chronicle (San Francisco’s leading newspaper)
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2004/10/27/notes102704.DTLI get this a lot: Hey Mark … why don’t you quit toeing the typical blasé journalism line … and instead write about the real truths? Like for example how both Kerry and Bush are members of mega-yuppie Yale secret society/boys’ club Skull & Bones. And why, furthermore, don’t you talk about the real truths of 9/11? Haven’t you seen that amazing [9/11] video on that Web site? And what about Building 7? Why did that 47-story tower adjacent to the WTC collapse when it had no fire and no plane crash? Why isn’t the media reporting any of this? Does this make you laugh? Scoff? It is, after all, incredibly easy to dismiss conspiracy theories. But you know what? It’s not that easy. These people … have a point. They are indeed onto something quite large and ominous and it very much has to do with the media toeing the line of “safe” information. There is indeed ample evidence that the U.S. government, long before 9/11, had already discussed the quite plausible possibilities and strategic benefits of unleashing a “Pearl Harbor”-type event on America. There are plenty of strangely unanswered questions about 9/11, about the stunning inaction of NORAD and Bush’s stupefying nonreaction upon hearing of the attack, not to mention his administration’s incredible attempts to halt any independent 9/11 investigations. Of course, no one in any major media will touch this stuff. It is professional suicide to dare suggest an alternate truth to the one supplied by the Pentagon and regurgitated by the media. And the truth is, we don’t really want such unstable questions answered. We simply cannot tolerate to have our world, our leaders, our foundations so questioned. We prefer stasis to growth, security to true knowledge.
Image via Wikipedia
This topic has huge, I think ramifications is the word.
In bringing more attention to the unknowns and revisiting the claims of foul play, it is certainly unfair on American citizens who have suffered so much, to increase their suffering by again questioning their beliefs that they still hold about their government and its agencies.
On the other hand, there are many who have come to realize the truths, or some of the truths, about the real perpetrators, the real actively-involved, the masters of cover-ups and mis-information and the complicit media. Perhaps it is fair to also include the many persons who are aware of the truth, but choose to remain silent. Maybe because their life would be at risk, or they have vested interests in staying silent.
There must be thousands, if not millions, who cannot believe in the ‘official’ story, but nor can they believe the alternative because it would destroy their faith in their country’s existence as a nice place to be. In its integrity.
There is much to show that, even though most citizens have integrity, a few don’t. That few are powerful enough to ruin things for the whole, the result being that the USA, as a country, effectively has no integrity. In fact , even worse than that!
Many writers and bloggers have spelt out their views on the absence of honesty in the 9/11 story. Some posts here try to contribute something of value. Many posts are referred to here and elsewhere. Currently, there is a comprehensive hearing going on in Toronto which will cover much information, ( 9/11 Toronto Hearings – LIVE webcast).
Sott.net has several relevant posts, one of which I highlight below.
Jesse Richard, ‘TVNewsLIES.org’ says, “I don’t believe the official story of 9/11 because I know the official story of 9/11! ”
During the past 10 years I have not met a single individual who, after doing research on the subject, switched from questioning the official narrative of the events of 9/11/2001 to believing the official narrative of those events.. It is always the other way around. Why do you think that is? There are good reasons for this, and I will try to explain this phenomenon right now.
The term “conspiracy theorist“, perhaps the most misapplied description in our vernacular, is often used to describe 9/11 truthers. Perhaps that term does apply to a segment of the 9/11 truth movement. But in most cases a more accurate description of 9/11 truthers is probably “expert”, or “scholar”, or “researcher.” You see, much of the doubt cast on the official narrative of the events of 9/11 has not come in the form of speculated accusations, or “theories.” In fact, it has come in the form of questions that have been raised after a careful study of the official and undisputed events and details.
Ten years have passed since the infamous events of September 11th, 2001 took place, and the majority of people still don’t know a damn thing about the actual details of that event. They don’t know what was going on in the country with regard to our military that day. They don’t know the history or the activities of key members of our government, defense establishment or intelligence community, on, or during the weeks, and in some cases the years leading up to that day. They don’t know what took place during or immediately following the events of that day. And they don’t know what actions were taken by those key people following that event.
So, I will end this article with a sampling of the questions that must be answered, or in the very least, investigated by impartial truth seekers.. They must NOT be ignored, or accepted simply because they were offered to a frightened nation by an administration defined by its lies. They are legitimate questions, based on legitimate suspicions. They are not, for a single moment, conspiracy theories”
- Why did the news agencies report that WTC 7 collapsed almost 1/2 hour before it did, even though it was not hit by a plane, only had a few floors on fire, and gave no indication that it was in any serious danger?
- Why do we still believe the tale of the 19 hijackers when so many of the accused hijackers showed up ALIVE within days? And why do we sill believe the fable of the 19 hijackers when the FBI admitted that they are not sure about either the identity of the hijackers or if there were any hijackers at all?
- Why was WTC 7 rebuilt, reopened and reoccupied with no press attention? Wouldn’t this be an important victory in American resolve and perseverance?
- Why were the NORAD rules changed for the first time several weeks prior to 9/11, taking responsibility/authority for shooting down hijacked lanes away from NORAD military command for the first time in its history, and given to a civilian, Donald Rumsfeld, and then returned to NORAD the day after 9/11?
- Why would hijackers planning on attacking NY and Washington DC drive from Florida, pass both DC and NY, and drive all the way to Maine and hinge this huge operation on a connecting flight from Maine to Boston, where we are told they hijacked their plane? Why wouldn’t they fly out of any of the airports that are visible from their targets, like Newark, La Guardia or JFK…or even some of the smaller local airports that would have given them a clear easy path to their target and reduce the amount of time that our air defense systems would have to stop them?
- Who placed all of those put options on the airlines just prior to the event, as if they knew that the stock prices on those specific airlines would lose a huge amount of value?
- Why did George W. Bush’s Secret Service detail not rush the president to safety when it was evident that the nation was under attack? If the nation was under attack, and they did not know the scope of the attack, and the president’s location was known, how did they not worry about being attacked in Florida?. Why did they act as if they knew that there was no threat? And why, when our nation was under attack, did the president not rush into action? If you say he was concerned about upsetting the children, you are the ultimate apologist. He could have told them that his mommy was on the phone and he had to see what she wanted. Our county was supposedly being attacked and he/they waited 20 minutes before they moved. This is the smoking gun of smoking guns.
- Why did the FBI never list Osama bin Laden as being wanted for 9/11? Actually, we know this one…because they admitted that they had no evidence linking him to the event.
- Why was there molten metal flowing under the wreckage of the WTC for months? No jet fuel can melt metal, and nothing explainable could melt that much metal and keep it hot enough to remain molten for a month.
- How did a passport of one of the so called hijackers make it through the huge fireball and end up on the street?
- Why have photos from the 80+ cameras confiscated at the Pentagon never been released?
- Why did the airplane that supposedly crashed at Shanksville vaporize so that nothing remained, not bodies, not luggage, not metal, – nothing – for the first time in aviation history? However, we are told that even though the plane vaporized at Shanksville, a hand-written note from a hijacker was found.
Of course, there are so many more. We deserve the answers. We deserve the right to ask these questions in public forums like the corporate media….who will not touch them with the proverbial ten foot pole. We have gate keepers on the Internet who actively ridicule and dismiss anyone who dares to raise these questions. Will you be one of them? Or, after really thinking about them, will you hope that one day, when we know what went on before, during and after the attacks on 9/11, – we can all say: “I did not know this, but I’m now absolutely convinced that it is true.”
Think about it…it’s really time to think about it.
Read this Sott.net article in its complete form.
Other current Sott.net posts:
After 9/11: ‘You no longer have rights’
Media Manipulation of 9/11 Truth
My concept of the ramifications of the 9/11 disaster includes:
WTC building destructions and other New York casualties; aircraft passengers; Pentagon workers; Ground Zero workers suffering health issues; citizens of the US now being terrorized by TSA and other organizations for ‘security’ reasons; citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan suffering death and more from Western aggression; US military personnel dying, injured and suffering mental issues, suiciding; Australian and other countries military, ditto, as part of the ‘Coalition of the Willing Warring’.
My concept of honouring the victims is to offer sincere condolences and sympathy to all victims, not only the US citizens, but the endless stream of victims suffering in the name of the ‘War on Terror’.
We should not be frightened of the truth, only of the dangers hidden by the lies and of the people who created and perpetuate them.
Numerous posts have been published on “The Golden Rule”. If interested select ‘9/11’ on ‘post archives’ drop-down menu. For me, the significant proofs are the WTC7 collapse and the small hole damage at the Pentagon.
Image via Wikipedia
This headline from ‘Suite101’ by John O’Sullivan introduces a radical departure from the conventional CO2 GHG theory.
AGW proponents and opponents alike have so far accepted CO2 as a GHG but argue about its degree of influence.
Professor Nasif Nahle postulates that CO2 in fact, can demonstrate a temperature reduction characteristic in the atmosphere.
Science professor, a former global warming believer now denier, publishes groundbreaking paper to prove carbon dioxide cools, not warms, our atmosphere.Professor Nasif Nahle found something deeply troubling about the man-made global warming theory (AGW). He explains, “I started out wanting to debunk those deniers of science.”
Nahle had originally believed that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) were warming the atmosphere until he found an incorrect assumption within the greenhouse effect hypothesis.
Invited to attend a televised debate on the Indonesian Tsunami that addressed whether global warming was a factor in that catastrophe, Nahle checked the validity of calculations relating to the combined reactions of certain atmospheric gases to solar radiation in the so-called greenhouse effect. “That was when I saw it was junk science.”
Nahle, from the Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon in Monterrey, N. L., Mexico, has worked professionally as a scientist for over 40 years. His findings are set to add more fuel to the fire in the vigorous debate over the validity of a cornerstone of the science of environmental activism.In his new paper, ‘Determination of the Total Emissivity of a Mixture of Gases Containing 5% of Water Vapor and 0.039% of Carbon Dioxide at Overlapping Absorption Bands’ the Mexican biologist turned climate researcher proves that in nature, CO2 and water vapor mix together to decrease infrared radiation emissions/absorptions in the air. This is the opposite of what conventional climatology has been saying for years. [My bold emphasis].
Global Warming Scare is “Anti-science”
In an astonishing personal U-turn Nahle has taken on the task of demonstrating that the demonization of CO2 was premised on a faulty hypothesis. Nahle completed his controversial study with the assistance of American physicist, Dr. Charles Anderson. Anderson is one of eight coauthors of the controversial book, ‘Slaying the Sky Dragon’ that also falsifies the ‘greenhouse gas’ effect. Nasif says, “Dr. Anderson and I found that the coolant effect of the carbon dioxide is stronger when oxygen is included into the mixture.”
An extract from Lawrence Solomon posted on Financial Post.
New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans [See my note below for moderating comment]
The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.
The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.
In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.
It seems reasonable to reach the conclusion that yet another nail is entering the coffin of the AGW theory. Even if the solar activity is reduced for a period, the sun’s magnetic field can be at a high level. Hence more shielding of cosmic rays, less cloud production, more planetary heating. And, of course, vice versa.
The IPCC science makes light of clouds and their significance, thereby leaving the way open to serious criticism of their conclusions.
Note: The above heading is typical media hype/inaccuracy – although the article itself is sensible and scientifically accurate, cosmic rays do not cause global warming, they contribute as one of the factors in the process of modifying the sun’s planetary heating energy. Similarly, the human contribution remains, but it is being proven to be a much lesser factor than the IPCC gravy train theorises.
Image via Wikipedia
The Politics of Cosmic RaysBy ANNE JOLIS THE WALL STREET JOURNAL 9/7/11In April 1990, Al Gore published an open letter in the New York Times “To Skeptics on Global Warming” in which he compared them to medieval flat-Earthers. He soon became vice president and his conviction that climate change was dominated by man-made emissions went mainstream. Western governments embarked on a new era of anti-emission regulation and poured billions into research that might justify it. As far as the average Western politician was concerned, the debate was over.
But a few physicists weren’t worrying about Al Gore in the 1990s. They were theorizing about another possible factor in climate change: charged subatomic particles from outer space, or “cosmic rays,” whose atmospheric levels appear to rise and fall with the weakness or strength of solar winds that deflect them from the earth. These shifts might significantly impact the type and quantity of clouds covering the earth, providing a clue to one of the least-understood but most important questions about climate. Heavenly bodies might be driving long-term weather trends.
The theory has now moved from the corners of climate skepticism to the center of the physical-science universe: CERN, also known as the European Organization for Nuclear Research. At the Franco-Swiss home of the world’s most powerful particle accelerator, scientists have been shooting simulated cosmic rays into a cloud chamber to isolate and measure their contribution to cloud formation. CERN’s researchers reported last month that in the conditions they’ve observed so far, these rays appear to be enhancing the formation rates of pre-cloud seeds by up to a factor of 10. Current climate models do not consider any impact of cosmic rays on clouds.
Scientists have been speculating on the relationship among cosmic rays, solar activity and clouds since at least the 1970s. But the notion didn’t get a workout until 1995, when Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark came across a 1991 paper by Eigil Friis-Christensen and Knud Lassen. Those Danes had charted a close relationship between solar variations and changes in the earth’s surface temperature since 1860.
“I had this idea that the real link could be between cloud cover and cosmic rays, and I wanted to try to figure out if it was a good idea or a bad idea,” Mr. Svensmark told me from Copenhagen, where he leads sun-climate research at the Danish National Space Institute.
He wasn’t the first scientist to have the idea, but he was the first to try and demonstrate it. He got in touch with Mr. Friis-Christensen and they used satellite data to show a close correlation among solar activity, cloud cover and cosmic-ray levels since 1979.
They announced their findings and the possible climatic implications in 1996 at a space conference in Birmingham, England. At which point, Mr. Svensmark recalls, “everything went completely crazy. . . . it turned out it was very, very sensitive to say these things already at that time.” He returned to Copenhagen to find his local daily leading with a quote from the chair of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change at the time: “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naïve and irresponsible.”
Image via Wikipedia
You may well ask why I am hammering this Libyan topic.
Its because this Libyan experience provides a transparent view of the ways of the ungodly. In the other more recent instances of the West violating sovereignty, human rights, human dignity, human life and worse, the processes and operations have been hidden sufficiently to not alarm the general public. I am talking about 9/11, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan and the continuing needling of Iran pretending that they are a threat to the rest of the world.
What is ironic is that the US who have been used to fund these anhilations financially and with precious lives, now find themselves in dire straits. The citizens, mere pawns in a world-wide game masssacre may eventually wake up to reality.
Perhaps the ‘powers-that-be’ don’t really care if the whole world knows the truth. They are so much in control, it is difficult to see what can be done about it. The American Military may just be aware and have the desire to protect their country, but where will their funding come from?
Anyway back to the reality of this post! Tony Cartalucci – BLN Contributing Writer, posts on COTO as follows:
First, a Conflict of Interest
The Atlantic Council claims to be a “preeminent, non partisan institution devoted to promoting transatlantic cooperation and international security.” It is partnered with NATO and sponsored financially by some of Wall Street and London’s largest, most powerful corporate-financier interests. These include many of the big oil interests poised to reap a whirlwind of profits over NATO-backed regime change in Libya, namely BP, Chevron, Exxon, and Shell. It also includes defense contractors already enriched by the protracted bloodshed in Northern Africa including Raytheon, BAE, SAAB Technologies, Lockheed Martin, Boeing, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman. Additionally, the world’s largest banks and equity firms sponsor Atlantic Council, including Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, Deutsche Bank, Barclays Capital, the Blackstone Group, Citigroup, and Credit Suisse Bank. There is also a tremendous amount of foundation support, each with a nefarious back-story worthy of their own thorough examination, including the Carnegie Corporation of New York , the Ford Foundation, and billionaire bankster George Soros’ Open Society Institute.
Photos: (Top) Northrup Grumman’s MQ-8 Fire Scout, which made headlines as it was shot down over Libya. (Below) a Raytheon Tomahawk cruise missile, employed during the opening phases of NATO’s military intervention in Libya beginning in March of 2011. Both Northrup Grumman and Raytheon, amongst many other defense contractors are financial sponsors of the Atlantic Council, an epicenter providing political and rhetorical support for NATO’s ongoing operations in Libya – exposing an astronomical conflict of interest.
….
But perhaps most alarming is the Council’s sponsorship by a large representation from “reputable” news and media agencies, including Thomson Reuters, News Desk Media, Bloomberg (which includes BusinessWeek), and Google.
Such an elaborate, full-spectrum conflict of interest should be alarming to even the most adamant supporters of the current NATO operation in Libya. We see all of the mechanics necessary to generate the justification for regime change through media, public, and political channels, the military might to carry out the war, and the corporate-financier organizations to fully manipulate and exploit the freshly installed regime, all integrated into a single organization. Without a doubt, the Atlantic Council has pledged unwavering support for the NATO operation, with the post, “Well Done, NATO!” perhaps the most obvious indication that not only is the Council amidst an immense conflict of interest but committing a full range of improprieties stemming from it.
Image: A screenshot showing the Atlantic Council’s very premature victory congratulations extended to NATO even as their operations in Tripoli began to peter out and the full extent of the attempted psychological operation was made public.
….
Before moving on, it is important to understand just how illegitimate NATO is by examining the Atlantic Council partnered with it, and how the Council is tying together corporate-financier interests and NATO’s military power to sell, execute, and profit from regime change in Libya. As pointed out by Color Revolutions & Geopolitics in their recent article “The Devil Writes a Handbook: “The Responsibility to Protect” (2002),” the humanitarian aspects of the Libyan operation were merely a marketing ploy for yet another poisoned agenda stemming from Wall Street and London’s financial institutions.
A Global Con?
The above mentioned Atlantic Council recently penned an article titled “Global Con?” within which senior globalist scribe Arnaud de Borchgrave assaults our sensibility by proposing the following question, “Were the United States, France, Britain, Belgium, Denmark, Norway, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates — the NATO-led coalition that set out to overthrow Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s regime — snookered by al-Qaida?” De Borchgrave concludes that it is a preposterous scenario and indeed he is correct, though not for the reasons he proposes.
De Borchgrave begins by mentioning notorious Neo-Conservative James Woolsey, who in the 1990’s was the director of the CIA and was approached by Libya’s Moammar Qaddafi for assistance against terrorists emanating from Libya’s eastern city of Benghazi. Benghazi, of course, is now the current epicenter of the NATO-backed rebellion. Ironically, Woolsey, who de Borchgrave claims is one of the leaders of a campaign “to expose a clandestine Islamist plot to bring Shariah law to America,” is also one of the chief proponents of NATO’s handing of Libya over to these very “Islamist” terrorists today. Woolsey was one of the signatories of an “open letter to House Republicans” imploring Congress to ignore anti-war sentiments amongst their constituents and to do “more to help the Libyan opposition,” which the letter insists “deserves our support.” The letter also advised Congress not to be “held hostage” by the UNSC resolution authorizing the military intervention in the first place, undermining the “international rule of law” the US was supposedly enforcing.
The Atlantic Council piece then goes on to look at recent, damning evidence publicized by Asia Times reporter Pepe Escobar, proving that not only NATO’s earlier claimed “flickers of Al Qaeda” in Libya are indeed raging fires, but that NATO was well aware of the terroristic nature of the rebels long before even the official start of the unrest in February, 2011. The article goes into this evidence in depth and concludes by saying it is “a harum-scarum scenario of NATO snookered by al-Qaida affiliates that can only please China.”
Atlantic Council author de Borchgrave fails entirely to provide any additional insight into Escobar’s report – however as we are about to see, if anything Escobar’s statements are understated and NATO members have been intentionally nurturing Al Qaeda in Libya for nearly 30 years.
A Global Con Indeed
For nearly three decades, US and British intelligence agencies have supported terrorist organizations within Libya to wage war against Qaddafi’s government. In an August 3, 1981 Newsweek article titled, “A Plan to Overthrow Kaddafi,” it was stated that:
“The details of the plan were sketchy, but it seemed to be a classic CIA destabilization campaign. One element was a “disinformation” program designed to embarrass Kaddafi and his government. Another was the creation of a “counter government” to challenge his claim to national leadership. A third — potentially the most risky — was an escalating paramilitary campaign, probably by disaffected Libyan nationals, to blow up bridges, conduct small-scale guerrilla operations and demonstrate that Kaddafi was opposed by an indigenous political force.”
Further evidence from around this period of time comes to us from the US Library of Congress where the plan apparently went operational and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) trained and supported Libyan terrorists just before they attempted to assassinate Qaddafi in 1984. Then called the “Libyan National Salvation Front” (NFSL), a forerunner of the current “National Conference of Libyan Opposition (NCLO), it would grow over the years and make multiple armed attempts to seize Libya from Qaddafi with CIA and MI6 assistance.
Many of these militants would later form the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group (LIFG) in Afghanistan, also with CIA assistance under the auspices of Osama Bin Laden and what would eventually become Al Qaeda. LIFG fighters then returned to Libya and continued fighting against Qaddafi. At the outbreak of war between the US and Afghanistan, and then later with Iraq, many LIFG fighters would once again go abroad, this time to face US, not Soviet troops. Many of these fighters are now back in Libya, after killing US and British troops, under NATO air cover being handed piecemeal an entire nation. West Point’s Combating Terrorism Center has published two reports now detailing just how entirely Libya’s eastern region is saturated with Al Qaeda linked terrorists, concluding that it is one of the most highly concentrated recruiting grounds for the terror organization anywhere in the world, including Saudi Arabia. One of these reports was published in 2007 – long before the current NATO operation, giving policy makers plenty of warning of just who they would be eventually handing the nation over to in 2011.
For anyone, especially NATO or the US military to feign ignorance as to the constitution of Libya’s rebel fighters is especially insulting since their entire existence is owed to 30 years of material support from Western intelligence agencies and now overt military support. Out of absolute folly, Qaddafi had invited the CIA and MI6 into Libya to help sweep up the remnants of LIFG after 2001. This was under the misguided impression that Al Qaeda constituted a common enemy between his regime and Western governments. It appears that instead of helping Qaddafi fight these terrorists, they instead rearmed them, reorganized them, provided them with freshly trained recruits and sent them back into battle against Qaddafi, culminating in what we are now being told is an “indigenous uprising” by the “people” of Libya.
As the depravity and duplicity of both NATO forces, overtly linked to Wall Street and London corporate-financier interests as illustrated via the Atlantic Council, and their terrorist proxies become more apparent throughout Libya, and now creeping over the Algerian border to breath new life into another notorious Al Qaeda-linked organization, Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), NATO and the vast media empire supporting its agenda are seeking any and all diversions from their crumbling narrative. Lately accusations have been leveled against China for allegedly attempting to arm Qaddafi’s forces after NATO operations began in March, 2011. While the West claims this is a “violation” of their self-contrived UN mandate prohibiting the arming of belligerents in the Libyan conflict, NATO members, most notably France and Qatar, have been openly supplying weapons to Libyan rebels in direct violation of this very mandate themselves.
US and UK press agencies are also attempting to muddle the debate by reintroducing the fact that the CIA and MI6 were working with Qaddafi against terrorists, now disingenuously labeled as “dissidents.” We have even been treated to UK Prime Minister David Cameron promising a full inquiry after arch-Al Qaeda LIFG commander Abdulhakim al-Hasadi aka Balhaj demanded an apology from Western security forces for torturing him after being captured while fighting US troops in Central Asia. It should be noted that these “dissidents” are in fact LIFG fighters, listed by both the US State Department and the UK Home Office as a terrorist organization and it is therefore illegal to provide them any material support at all, let alone air cover, weapons, billions of dollars in aid, and diplomatic recognition.
Indeed, the Libyan conflict is a “global con.” Contra to Atlantic Council member Arnaud de Borchgrave’s suggestion that somehow the West was “snookered” by Al Qaeda, it is NATO and its Wall Street/London big oil, military industrial, and banking interests “snookering” the world into believing a noble military intervention is underway in Libya. Indeed, the global con is that under the thin and perpetually peeling veneer of humanitarian concern, lies a vicious looting spree by violent, internationally recognized terroristic mercenaries on the ground supported by the Fortune 500’s military might via NATO.
In addition to the windfall of profits to be made in Libya, it is specifically noted by another global corporate-financier nexus, the Brookings Institution, that the battle for Libya is being waged in order to establish the primacy of “international law” over that of the nation-state. Clearly by “international law,” Brookings means the dictates proposed by think-tanks like itself or the Atlantic Council, rubber stamped by the UN and pursued by an alliance driven by Wall Street and London interests. To portray a bid for global empire as a progressive humanitarian mission to alleviate unrest they themselves created over the course of decades, is indeed a “global con.”
It is titled ‘ Atlantic Council: Is Libya a “Global Con?” ‘. It is lengthy but extremely informative and I like to see it all reproduced here, because I believe in it.
Apologies: The photos mentioned were also not in the post I copied, unfortunately.
The original article can be read here.
Dr Roy Spencer UAH current.
Global UAH trend
I love CO2, it makes me breathe.
All are welcome aboard the crazy train — but be warned, the world as you know it, is about to be turned upside down.
Just another WordPress.com site
"The Relentless Pursuit Of Common Sense"
A blog dedicated to the excellence in teaching
Letsgrow Individually and Collectively
Complex Trauma Lifer & Decoder of Human Oddities.
A multi-niche blog.
Critical evaluation of environmental fearmongering
Be Positive, Patient and Persistent...
Watching our environment ... our health ... and corporations ... exposing lies and corruption
They only do good to harm you.
A journey around the world with a medical theme
Distinguished reader selectively reads
It is time
I See This
The GOLDEN RULE 