Tuesday, September 25, 2007

The Attack on MoveOn.org and Other Dangerous Fingerprints

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Patriots Speak Out ®©™
Date: Sep 25, 2007 9:59 AM

The Attack ..On.org and Other Dangerous 'Fingerprints'

Posted September 24, 2007

12:36 PM (EST)

Yeah, I didn't like the wording of the ad either. But the attack ..On.org by the Senate last week is not an aberration but is part of a dangerous -- and accelerating -- trend of echoes from the past.Students of history know that the National Socialists in Germany, before they came to power, made multiple assaults on democracy by pushing for laws and that expanded penalties for opponents' speaking out against certain subjects. What they -- and then Stalin, who studied Hitler -- perfected was the identification of a ..third rail' of untouchable subjects that one could never approach critically without facing escalating penalties -- job loss, personal attacks, or, just a little later, criminal charges. These subjects were the war, the party itself, and the military. Making these subjects sacred and untouchable allowed National Socialists to commit any number of crimes by explaining that the abusive actions were taken in the name of the off-limits-to-criticism ideals.

Then once they came to power, they developed an ever-expanding network of laws criminalizing ever expanding minor actions critical of the state or of the military or the paramilitary forces; they developed broad definitions of ..treason' and of what it meant to ..impugn the honor of the nation' -- so that soon it became a crime against the state, defined as an assault on patriotism and a form of treason, to listen to the BBC or to speak up for an imprisoned Jew or communist.

The precedent set last week, of the U.S. Senate saying that we in America face possible state censure for what can be ANY criticism of the military -- on the basis that such criticism can ..impugn the honor' of the military -- is dangerous in the extreme if you know your history.

First of all, and I say this with tremendous admiration for the men and women of the U.S. military, this is a 'duh' moment if you have read anything about closing societies of the past: in a closing society the leaders will ALWAYS send trusted, admired military personnel to make its case to the population and to apparently legitimize the power grab: Pinochet secured his coup by terrifying citizens about a plan to assassinate military leaders and then sent military leaders to speak to citizens, asking them not to defend Allende. The list of would-be dictators who utilize trusted military men and women for these advance PR purposes is quite long.

The fact is that military leaders in our own and other countries can and do sometimes lie to the people to advance the interests of what are sometimes corrupt leaders. This is not a personal attack but an acknowledgment of history -- witness the Vietnam war. Had Colin Powell been called to account for lying to us and the UN about the WMD, nearly four thousand Americans might be alive today; but had this benchmark of state censure for American speech preceded his testimony, even more voices would have been stilled. The Founders placed in Congress the ability to oversee the military precisely because they knew that when pressed by a corrupt executive, any standing army, even an American one, even a standing army made up of nothing but decent men, can be directed to any purpose -- purposes not necessarily in the people's interest.

* * * * *

In my book, End of America: A Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot, I have written about the blueprint for fascism, and about the fact that there are 10 classic steps to closing down a democracy. When I was researching the book, the general principles that leapt off the pages of history, about how leaders crush an open civil society, were alarming enough. Knowing 'the blueprint' was even more shocking as I looked around at what was unfolding in America, because it was so predictive. From reading German history, which shows how a 'fascist shift' is engineered by expanding the definition of 'terrorist' increasingly to include citizens that look more like you and me (a tactic imitated by Stalin, the East German Stasi, the Chinese Politburo and now the Egyptians, who are referencing the Patriot Act as they round up opposition leaders and put them in jail) one could tell in fall of 2006, when laws were passed to make Animal Liberation-type action against property a form of 'terrorism,' that environmentalists would start to be targeted and tried as terrorists -- which actually happened by March of the next year.

From reading history, one could predict with absolute certainty that within two years of citizens accepting laws that permit the suspension of habeas corpus and the abuse of prisoners by the State, that the State would start to hurt people at home. (I challenge readers to name a single society that has created a network of secret prisons where torture takes place -- that then did NOT eventually use force against dissidents, opposition leaders and other members of civil society at home).

So those predictive elements of 'the blueprint' are bad enough. But these are still generalizations -- you can intellectualize them away. What really set me aback profoundly, though -- actually setting my hair on end at times -- was what I have come to call 'historical fingerprints.' These are the moments when the small details of events in fascist crackdowns of the past are so directly echoed by small details -- signature details -- of events in the present that it is very hard to avoid the hypothesis that someone influential in this administration has rather brilliantly studied history -- not just the politics and tactics of fascism but its culture and imagery and language -- and is reusing what has been shown to work.

The National Socialists introduced the term 'Heimat' -- Homeland. The Bush administration introduced the term 'Homeland,' as in 'Homeland Security,' to take the place of the more neutral 'Domestic' or 'Internal.'

Stalin coined the hyped notion of what he called 'sleepers' or 'sleeper cells' -- these were purported to be secret terrorist agents of global capitalism who would pretend to be good Soviet citizens, perhaps for years, but who would rise up at a signal to wreak mass havoc on Soviet society. By 2002 the White House introduced the term 'sleeper cells,' which was not in common usage in America.

Joseph Goebbels pioneered the 'embedding' of reporters with military troops as a way to support favorable coverage; William Shirer was embedded with German troops in the invasion of France and Nazi filmmaker Leni von Riefenstahl was embedded with German troops in Poland.

Early on, Hitler sought legislation that retroactively protected the SS from war crimes. This was a major step to opening the door to the violence against German citizens that followed. The Bush administration has sought to shield its violent interrogators retrospectively from being charged with war crimes.

Lenin set up military tribunals that bypassed the judiciary. Mussolini imitated this and did the same. Stalin imitated Mussolini and set up secretive military tribunals that bypassed the established judiciary. The National Socialists created the 'People's Courts' that bypassed the legitimate judiciary. These courts stripped prisoners of habeas corpus and were characterized by prisoners having no right of appeal.

Stalin pioneered the use of sleep deprivation, extremes of hot and cold, standing (or 'stress') positions, psychological humiliation, the use of dogs, and a separate facility to punish uncooperative prisoners in the Gulag with prolonged isolation. Guantanamo and U.S.-held Iraqi prisons reproduce the same tactics. (By the way, after a few days in a 'standing position,' which you recall Donald Rumsfeld supported, innocent prisoners in the Gulag would 'sign anything.')

Nazi propaganda claimed that Jews hid from arrest in 'mouseholes.' When the scene of Saddam Hussein's capture was presented to the world, talking points, widely picked up by the media, introduced, again, a term that was generally unfamiliar in the U.S.: Hussein had been hiding in what they called a 'spider-hole.'

German troops tormented the imprisoned leader of Austria, Kurt von Schuschnigg, by blasting popular music into his cell day and night; U.S. interrogators do the same with rock and roll in U.S.-held Iraqi prisons.

National Socialists shaved the beards of Jews in streets and in the early days of the secret SA prisons, as a form of psychological humiliation. Incredibly, unbelievably, a U.S. spokesman gave an interview recently in The Washington Post about a detention center he oversees in Iraq -- where, he seemed to be saying, prisoners could be kept indefinitely at his discretion, a set of guidelines I am struggling to distinguish from those that formally define a gulag or a concentration camp. He proudly told the reporter that moderate Muslim prisoners had forcibly attacked and shaved the beards of more radical Muslims. Here is how he described the incident:

We had a compound of moderates for the first time overtake . . . extremists. It's never happened before. Found them, identified them, threw them up against the fence and shaved their frickin' beards off of them. . . . I mean, that is historic.

This would be an act of mass prisoner violence that, if this story is indeed true, would surely have been prevented by U.S. troops unless it was seen as acceptable. Human Rights groups have also reported that prisoners in U.S. custody have had their beards forcibly shaved as part of their humiliation in U.S. held prisons.

The Chinese Politburo calls the secret surveillance file that keeps track of the work and private life of every Chinese citizen an 'iron triangle.' Bush referred to his former key group of advisers as the 'iron triangle.'

When the WMD argument ran dry, the White House argued that we had to invade Iraq, a country that was not at war against us, because, the administration claimed, Iraq was a staging-ground for Muslim terrorists to attack us, and because Saddam had massacred ethnic minorities like the Kurds. National Socialists told the German people that the country had to invade Czechoslovakia, a country which was not at war with Germany, because, they argued, it was a staging-ground for Bolshevik terrorists to attack Germany, and the Czechs were butchering ethnic minorities, the Slovaks, Germans, Magyars and Poles.

A U.S. government spokesman, in the wake of the foiled sneaker-bomb plot from London, gave a sound bite that was widely picked up -- and one that was unusual, for a government bureaucrat, it its use of dark poetry: if this had gone forward, he said, the world would have stood still. Hitler said of his military plans in 1940-41, that 'When "Barbarossa" begins, the world will hold its breath.'

Take a look at Leni Riefenstahl's Triumph of the Will, especially the plane descent. Then take a look at the 'Mission Accomplished' photo-op.

Finally, we are seeing fingerprints in the way that our government is conducting surveillance on its own citizens. Consider, for example, the following passage in a recent Washington Post article:

Zakariya Reed, a Toledo firefighter, said in an interview that he has been detained at least seven times at the Michigan border since fall 2006. Twice, he said, he was questioned by border officials about 'politically charged' opinion pieces he had published in his local newspaper. The essays were critical of U.S. policy in the Middle East, he said. Once, during a secondary interview, he said, 'they had them printed out on the table in front of me.'

Readers of U.S. war correspondent William Shirer's Berlin Diary know that this was a tactic perfected by National Socialists to intimidate critics and newspaper reporters: Nazi press officials would interrogate Shirer -- while displaying copies of personal telegrams that he had sent to his newspaper editor on the desk between the two men and they spoke.

These echoes of the past are truly disturbing and, as mentioned, are part of a larger fascist shift in this country. The good news is that a revolution is brewing fast. A coalition of organizations including Amnesty International USA, the Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Human Rights Watch -- representing nearly five million Americans -- has formed to fight back against government assaults on our Constitution and our liberties. It is called the American Freedom Campaign and I urge you all visit the AFC site to learn more and to join the movement to save our democracy.

A significant portion of this post appeared originally on Powell's Book Blog.


Saturday, September 22, 2007

Ringling Bros. Abuse Documented in Federal Court Papers

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Fighting for Animal Liberation
Date: Sep 22, 2007 3:37 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Laura
Date: Sep 22, 2007 11:33 AM

Lauren (vegemini)

Thanks animal activists - Please NEVER take your children to one of these torture sessions - they are vile

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Activist Legal Fund
Date: Sep 22, 2007 2:19 PM

New evidence of tuberculosis and animal abuse cover-ups plague
critic's claims as circus arrives in

Photo Sharing and Video Hosting at Photobucket

SACRAMENTO, CA - As Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey circus prepares for its September 20-23 run in Sacramento, new evidence of animal abuse and dangerous tuberculosis in Ringling elephants has surfaced. The federal court discovery documents citing these issues are the result of an endangered species lawsuit brought by national animal advocacy groups including Sacramento-based plaintiff, the Animal Protection Institute (API). Additionally, a September 12 report published by award-winning Bay area journalist Leslie Griffith, documents Ringling's knowledge of active cases of tuberculosis in its touring elephants and its continued cover-up of the dangers this disease poses to humans and elephants. The report references disturbing comments from USDA inspectors, Ringling veterinarians and infectious disease specialists. API, along with the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Animal Welfare Institute, and Fund for Animals, claims that Ringling abuses endangered elephants by constant chaining, use of the dangerous bullhook, and tearing newborn babies from their mothers. Documents from Ringling employees confirm these claims: "After the act I ... observed blood in small pools and dripped along the length of the rubber and all the way to the barn ... We had an elephant dripping blood all over the arena floor during the show from being hooked." - 2005 email from Ringling animal behaviorist to Ringling general manager "After this morning's baths, at least 4 of the elephants came in with multiple abrasions and lacerations from the hooks ...The lacs were very visible, and I had questions at the open house from 2 members of the public about where they were from." - 2004 report from Ringling veterinary technician "The circus travels from city to city, hiring huge PR firms to blanket the local media with a false image of what life is like for these animals," says Nicole G. Paquette, Esq., Director of Legal & Government Affairs for API. "A prime example is Ringling's boast of conserving elephants by breeding them, citing 20 births in the last 27 years. What Ringling conveniently fails to mention is that six of these elephants died at very young ages, and the others do nothing but perform in the circus. That's exploitation, not conservation." "The fact is that major zoos across the U.S. are closing down their elephant exhibits, admitting they don't have the space to properly care for elephants. If zoos can't do it, Ringling, with its cramped train cars and stadium parking lots, definitely can't." Copies of the above referenced documents and corresponding images areavailable to members of the media. Leslie Griffith's tuberculosis expose can be seen at www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091207J.shtml/Contact: Zibby Wilder, Animal Protection Institute, 916.267.7266 (cell)

Thursday, September 20, 2007

You Better Wake Up Now

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Truth NetworkS
Date: Sep 20, 2007 4:05 PM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Ideas Are Bulletproof - (Ron Paul 2008)
Date: Sep 20, 2007 11:52 AM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Iconoclasm (WAKE UP! You've been LIED TO!)
Date: 20 Sep 2007, 01:42 PM

The United Soviet States of America!

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

Free Image Hosting at www.ImageShack.us

You better wake the fuck up, NOW!! This is no Joke!

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Mindcrime
Date: Sep 20, 2007 11:30 AM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: In Flux
Date: Sep 20, 2007 12:42 PM

thanks to Domenick
Date: Sep 20, 2007 9:31 AM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: I Dare You To Move
Date: Sep 20, 2007 9:14 AM

This is getting way out of hand now.

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Martin
Date: 20 Sep 2007, 17:08

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Vadershine
Date: 20 Sep 2007, 09:02

Still sure you want to sit idly by and let your Constitution, which gives you the right to bear arms, be usurped by the NWO?.......



----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: Gonzo Muckraker
Date: Sep 20, 2007 12:00 AM

Watch as an L.A. cop shoots an unarmed Iraq vet four times at point blank range for complying with a direct order.

This video is disturbing. It almost looks like a paid hit; something straight out of Hollywood. The cop's victim is a Senior Airman -- an Air Force cop. He even identified himself as a member of the military to the officer, but still got shot.


Lemme hear it loud ...



As a caveat: The last video presented above appears to be staged. Perhaps to get people used to the idea of using a tazer on an heckler?

Saturday, September 15, 2007

Alex Jones, The Nuclear B-52, & 9/14/07

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: The Ghost of Bill Hicks
Date: Sep 15, 2007 1:37 PM

Speculations have abounded concerning the flight of the nuclear B-52 from Minot to Barksdale on 8/30/07 & the USAF 'stand down' on 9/14. Our friends at prisonplanet.com have, seemingly, gone out of their way to dispel any rumors about the incident. Alex Jones himself said, on air, Friday that "nukes are flown around this country all the time". While this may be a semi-true statement, what he didn't say (possibly because he doesn't know, though that's hard to believe) is that they have not been flown around armed on bombers, as per presidential directive in 1991. They are transported on specially constructed planes to prevent detonation in the event of a plane crash.

While I agree with Alex Jones & company that there was some irresponsible fear-mongering concerning the possibility of a false flag op on 9/14, I think it is equally irresponsible to dismiss all aspects of this incident out of hand, based solely on the testimony of a former Air Force mechanic on his staff. Not to discredit the guy, but how much can one mechanic in the USAF know? There is every possibility that the stand down on the 14th was routine, but coupled with the events of 8/30, any good journalist should be digging further.

My digging led me to the blog posted below, which presents another possible scenario involving the breach of official USAF protocol on 8/30/07. I am not saying that either this information or any other info I've posted is the be-all-and-end-all explanation for these strange events. Nor am I expressing this opinion in an attempt to undermine any of the fine work Alex Jones & crew do on a regular basis. They are, after all, only human. My goal is simply to keep everyone thinking critically & independently of any perceived experts on the subject in the media or anywhere else.

There's just something unsettling about this event. I just can't put my mental finger on it...so I keep digging. Any other thoughts, info, or opinions are welcome.

Friday, September 7, 2007
Was a Covert Attempt to Bomb Iran with Nuclear Weapons Foiled by a Military Leak?


Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_michael__070907_was_a_covert_attempt.htm

September 7, 2007

Was a Covert Attempt to Bomb Iran with Nuclear Weapons foiled by a Military Leak?

By Michael Salla

Introduction: The B-52 Incident

On August 30, a B-52 bomber armed with five nuclear-tipped Advanced Cruise missiles traveled from Minot Air Force base, North Dakota, to Barksdale Air Force base, Louisiana. Each missile had an adjustable yield between five and 150 kilotons of TNT which is at the lower end of the destructive capacities of U.S. nuclear weapons. For example, the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima had a yield of 13 kilotons, while the Bravo Hydrogen bomb test of 1954 had a yield of 15,000 kilotons. The B-52 story was first covered in the Army Times on September 5 after the nuclear armed aircraft was discovered by Airmen (see: http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/marine_nuclear_B52_070904w/ ). What made this a very significant event was that it was a violation of U.S. Air Force regulations concerning the transportation of nuclear weapons by air. Nuclear weapons are normally transported by air in specially constructed planes designed to prevent radioactive pollution in case of a crash. Such transport planes are not equipped to launch the nuclear weapons they routinely carry around the U.S. and the world for servicing or positioning.

The discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 was, according to Hans Kristensen, a nuclear weapons expert at the Federation of American Scientists, the first time in 40 years that a nuclear armed plane had been allowed to fly in the U.S (see: http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2007_9_5.html#149D6ECF ). Since 1968, after a SAC bomber crashed in Greenland, all nuclear armed aircraft have been grounded but were kept on a constant state of alert. After the end of the Cold War, President George H. Bush ordered in 1991 that nuclear weapons were to be removed from all aircraft and stored in nearby facilities.

Recently, the Air Force began decommissioning its stockpile of Advanced Cruise missiles. The five nuclear weapons on the B-52 were to be decommissioned, and were to be taken to another Air Force base. An Air Force press statement issued on September 6 claimed that there “was an error which occurred during a regularly scheduled transfer of weapons between two bases.” Furthermore, the statement declared: “The Air Force maintains the highest standards of safety and precision so any deviation from these well established munitions procedures is considered very serious.” The issue concerning how a nuclear armed B-52 bomber was allowed to take off and fly in U.S. air space after an ‘error’ in a routine transfer process, is now subject to an official Air Force inquiry which is due to be completed by September 14.

Three key questions emerge over the B-52 incident. First, why did Air Force personnel at Minot AFB not spot the ‘error’ earlier given the elaborate security procedures in place to prevent such mistakes from occurring? Many military analysts have commented on the stringent security procedures in place to prevent this sort of mistake from occurring. Multiple officers are routinely involved in the transportation and loading of nuclear weapons to prevent the kind of ‘error’ that allegedly occurred in the B-52 incident. According to the Air Force statement, the commanding officer in charge of military munitions personnel and additional munitions airmen were relieved of duties pending the completion of the investigation. According to Kristensen, the error could not have come from confusing the Advanced Cruise Missile with a conventional weapons since no conventional form exists. So the munitions Airmen should have been easily able to spot the mistake. Other routine procedures were violated which suggests a rather obvious explanation for the error. The military munitions personnel were acting under direct orders, though not through the regular chain of military command. This takes me to the second question

Who was in Charge of the B-52 Incident?

Who ordered the loading of Advanced Cruise missiles on to a B-52 in violation of Air Force regulations? The quick reaction of the Air Force and the issuing of a public statement describing the seriousness of the issue and the launch of an immediate investigation, suggests that whatever occurred, was outside the regular chain of military command. If the regular chain of command was violated, then we have to inquire as to whether the B-52 incident was part of a covert project whose classification level exceeded that held by officers in charge of nuclear weapons at Minot AFB. The most obvious governmental entity that may have ordered the nuclear arming of the B-52 outside the regular chain of military command is the last remaining bastion of neo-conservative activism in the Bush administration.

Vice President Cheney has taken a very prominent role in covert military operations and training exercises designed for the “seamless integration” of different national security and military authorities to possible terrorist attacks. On May 8, 2001, President Bush placed Cheney in charge of "[A]ll federal programs dealing with weapons of mass destruction, consequence management within the Departments of Defense, Health and Human Services, Justice, and Energy, the Environmental Protection Agency, and other federal agencies" (see: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml) . Cheney subsequently played a direct role in supervising training exercises that simultaneously occurred during the 911 attacks.

According to former Los Angeles Police Officer Michael Ruppert, Cheney had a parallel chain of command that he used to override Air Force objections to stand down orders that grounded the USAF during the 911 attacks (see: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml ). Ruppert learned that the Secret Service had the authority to directly communicate presidential and vice presidential orders to fighter pilots in the air thereby circumventing the normal chain of command. (Crossing the Rubicon, pp. 428 – 429). Furthermore: “It is the Secret Service who has the legal mandate to take supreme command in case of a scheduled major event - or an unplanned major emergency - on American soil; these are designated "National Special Security Events".” http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml .

Ruppert and others have subsequently claimed that 911 was an “inside job;” and Cheney through the Secret Service, played a direct leadership role in what occurred over 911. Consequently, it is very possible that Cheney played a similar role in circumventing the regular chain of military command in ordering the B-52 incident. It is likely that the B-52 incident was part of a contrived "National Special Security Event" directly controlled by Cheney by virtue of the authority granted to him by President Bush, and through the Secret Service which has the technological means to by pass the regular chain of military command. I now move to my third key question.

Why was the nuclear armed B-52 sent to Barksdale AFB?

If initial reports that the weapons were being decommissioned, but were mistakenly transported by a B-52 bomber, then the weapons should have been taken to Kirtland Air Force Base. According to Kristensen, this is “where the warheads are separated from the rest of the weapon and shipped to the Energy Department’s Pantex dismantlement facility near Amarillo, Texas” (see: http://www.nti.org/d_newswire/issues/2007_9_5.html#149D6ECF ). However, it has been revealed that Barksdale AFB is used as a staging base for operations in the Middle East (see: http://tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/sep/05/staging_nuke_for_iran ). This is circumstantial evidence that the weapons were being deployed for possible use in the Middle East.

There has been recent speculation concerning a possible attack against Iran given reports that the Pentagon has completed plans for a three day bombing blitz of Iran according to a Sunday Times report (see: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article2369001.ece ). The Report claims that 1200 targets have been selected and this will destroy much of Iran’s military infrastructure. Such an attack will devastate Iran’s economy, create greater political instability in the region, and stop the oil supply. A disruption of the oil supply from the Persian Gulf could trigger a global economic recession and lead to the collapse of financial markets. In a synchronistic development, there have been reports of billion dollar investments in high risk stock options in both Europe and the U.S. that would only be profitable if a dramatic collapse of the stock market were to occur before September 21. Similar stock options were purchased weeks before the 911 attack in 2001, and investigated by the Securities and Exchange Commission for possible insider trading. The combination of the Sunday Times report and the Stock market option purchases is circumstantial evidence that plans for a concerted military attack against Iran have been secretly approved and covert operations have begun (see: http://exopolitics.org/Exo-Comment-57.htm ).

Seymour Hersh in May 2006 reported the opposition of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to the use of nuclear weapons against Iran.

In late April, the military leadership, headed by General Pace, achieved a major victory when the White House dropped its insistence that the plan for a bombing campaign include the possible use of a nuclear device to destroy Iran's uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz, nearly two hundred miles south of Tehran. …. "Bush and Cheney were dead serious about the nuclear planning," the former senior intelligence official told me. "And Pace stood up to them. Then the world came back: 'O.K., the nuclear option is politically unacceptable.' http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2006/07/10/060710fa_fact .

Given earlier opposition by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, it is likely that the present attack plans for Iraq drawn up by the Pentagon don’t involve the use of nuclear weapons. In order to circumvent the regular chain of command, opposed to a nuclear attack, it is very likely that Vice President Cheney contrived a “National Special Security Event” that involved a nuclear armed B-52. This would have given him the legal authority to place orders directly through the Secret Service to the Air Force officers responsible for the B-52 incident.

Conclusion: Exposing those Responsible for the B-52 Incident

Consequently, there is considerable circumstantial evidence to argue that the nuclear armed B-52 was part of a covert operation, outside the regular chain of military command. The most plausible authority responsible for this was Vice President Cheney. He very likely used the Secret Service to take charge of a contrived National Special Security Event involving a nuclear armed B-52 that would be flown from Minot AFB. The B-52 was directed to Barksdale Air Force base where it would have conducted a covert mission to the Middle East involving the detonation of one or more nuclear weapons most likely in or in the vicinity of Iran. This could either have occurred during a conventional military strike against Iran, or a False Flag operation in the Persian Gulf region.

The leaking and discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 at Barksdale was not part of the script. According to a confidential source of Larry Johnson, a former counter-terrorism official from the State Department and CIA, the discovery of the nuclear armed B-52 was leaked. Johnson concludes: “Did someone at Barksdale try to indirectly warn the American people that the Bush Administration is staging nukes for Iran? I don’t know, but it is a question worth asking.” http://tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/sep/05/staging_nuke_for_iran

While the general public is likely to be given a watered down declassified report by the Air Force over the B-52 incident on September 14, the real investigation will reveal that it was part of a covert operation that intended to bypass the regular chain of command in using nuclear weapons in the Middle East. This will likely result in a furious backlash by key figures in the regular military chain of Command such as Secretary of Defense, Robert Gates, and the Commander of Central Command, Admiral William Fallon, who have direct responsibility for the conduct of military operations in the Middle East. The US. Air Force, the Secretary of Defense and Commander of Central Command, is now aware of what was likely going to be the true use of the B-52 and the responsibility of the Office of the Vice President. It is very likely that the exposure of the B-52 incident will lead to an indefinite hold on plans to attack Iran given uncertainty whether other nuclear weapons have been covertly positioned for use in the Middle East. Significantly, public officials briefed about the true circumstances of the B-52 incident will almost certainly place enormous pressure on Vice President Cheney to immediately resign if it is found that he played the role identified above. It is therefore anticipated that in a very short time, the public will learn that Cheney has resigned for health resigns.

The forthcoming September 14 Air Force report will likely describe the B-52 incident as an “error” and an “isolated incident” as foreshadowed in the September 6 Press Statement. This will create some difficulty in exposing the actual role played by Cheney and any other government figures that supported him. There will be a need for continued public awareness of the true events behind the B-52 incident in order to expose the actual role of Cheney. Only in that way can Cheney be held accountable for his actions, and other government figures that supported his neo-conservative agenda be exposed. Regardless of whether Cheney’s role as the prime architect of the B-52 incident is exposed to the public, the official backlash against his covert operation should force his resignation. In either case, a very dangerous public official would be removed from a powerful position of influence. More importantly, the world has been spared a devastating nuclear war by courageous American airmen who revealed the true contents of an otherwise routine B-52 landing at Barksdale, AFB headed for a covert nuclear mission to the Middle East.

Further Reading

Michael Kane, “Simplifying the case against Dick Cheney,” http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/011805_simplify_case.shtml

Larry Johnson, “Staging Nuke for Iran?” http://tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2007/sep/05/staging_nuke_for_iran

Michael Hoffman, “B-52 mistakenly flies with nukes aboard,”


Michael Salla, Ph.D. “Will the U.S. Attack Iran Before September 21? - Are CIA Front Companies Investing $4.5 Billion to Profit from attacking Iran?” http://exopolitics.org/Exo-Comment-57.htm

Edward Thomas, Lt. Col., “U.S. Air Force Statement on B-52 Nuclear Incident at Minot,” http://www.fas.org/blog/ssp/united_states/usaf090607.pdf

Michael Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon (New Society Publishers, 2004).

Greg Webb, “US Bomber Mistakenly Flies with Nuclear Weapons”


C NN turns a 180 on 9/11 info

What is more real? An initial account from on the scene or a "memory?"

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: <>Jerry (Help us Obi - Ron Paul!)
Date: Sep 15, 2007 1:15 PM
From: <) .
Date: Sep 15, 2007 12:12 PM
From: <>**United POT Smokers**
Date: Sep 15, 2007 8:35 AM
From:>Leigh Trimaldi -Vocalist (Mezzo), Actress & Artist
Date: Sep 15, 2007 6:35 AM

This is what reporter James McIntyre initially reported on 9/11/01:

.. …and now for some reason he changes his mind 180 deg, and reports an entirely different thing:


(thanks for this last video, Zetetic)

Friday, September 14, 2007

Who are the Rothschilds? Get it while it lasts.

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: ruth NetworkS
Date: Sep 14, 2007 8:57 AM




Thursday, September 13, 2007

Bld 7 World Trade Cetner Destruction Anomolies: FRAUD

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: <>Pan Man
Date: Sep 13, 2007 1:18 PM

How could the BBC reporter know that Building 7 was going down so long before it "collapsed"? Psychic? Touched by an Angel? Reading a script for a report that aired just a teeny weenie bit early? Hmmmmm?



----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: <

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
From: <>Date: Sep 13, 2007 8:50 AM

----------------- Bulletin Message -----------------
Date: Sep 13, 2007 9:04 AM

9/11 First Responder Heard WTC 7 Demolition Countdown

Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert witnessed officials attempt to conceal planned nature of demolition

Paul Joseph Watson
>Prison Planet
Thursday, September 13, 2007

A 9/11 first responder has gone on the record to describe how he heard a demolition-style countdown precede the collapse of WTC 7, eyewitness testimony that dovetails with other EMT's and rescue personnel who were also told that Building 7 was going to be "brought down".

Former Air Force Special Operations for Search and Rescue expert, Kevin McPadden traveled to ground zero completely of his own accord and spent the next four days searching through the rubble and nearby buildings for survivors.

In a speech given at this week's 9/11 truth events in New York City, McPadden describes the shocking details of what he witnessed shortly before WTC 7 imploded into its own footprint.>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgAJ4sKUp8g


"While we were on the right side, there was firefighters getting ready, they were bussing them back and forth, and a couple of vets that were there - they got the vibe that something was coming down," said McPadden.

"We started asking questions, everybody started asking questions, and the next thing you know there was a Red Cross representative pacing back and forth in front of the crowd holding his hand over the radio - I couldn't hear what it was saying but it was like pulsed - whatever the speech was on there it was pulsed - and that means to me most likely it was a countdown."

"But he took his hand off at the last three seconds and he gave this heartfelt look - like just run for your life - because he didn't want to bring it on his conscience - he didn't want to go to his grave with that - and then we had a couple of seconds to put our heads together," said McPadden.

McPadden then describes the frantic attempts to escape as the building began to collapse.

McPadden's account, when added to the testimony of other first responders, clearly suggests that officials knew the building was about to be brought down in a planned demolition, and that they made a conscious effort or were ordered to hide that fact from the first responders, though at the very end onlookers were given a brief warning which enabled them to escape safely.

The following video from CNN clearly shows firefighters and police telling the public to get back because Building 7 was about to come down and in the words of the cameraman was about to "blow up."

In June it was revealed that an individual who had a high level security clearance and was stationed in the Office of Emergency Management in World Trade Center 7 <>witnessed explosions and damage to the lobby of the building before either twin tower had collapsed.

The testimony of these individuals meshes with others in confirming that Building 7 was deliberately brought down on the day of 9/11, a fact that eviscerates official investigations into Building 7 as nothing more than part of an orchestrated cover-up.

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a payout of nearly $500 million, based on the contention that it was an unforeseen accidental event.

A cursory insight into professional building demolition tells us that experts are required to spend weeks and months planning the demolition of any building, ensuring that the explosives are placed in exactly the right spots, that the collapse will not impact surrounding buildings, and that a myriad of sufficient safety procedures are followed.

To imagine that demolition experts could rig such a huge building amidst the chaos of the day, unsure of whether further attacks were coming, in a matter of hours and bring the building down neatly in its own footprint without afflicting major damage to adjacent buildings is beyond belief.

Even if one entertains the notion that this is within the realm of possibility, the fact is that the federal government, FEMA and NIST and Silverstein Properties are all knowingly lying in claiming that the building collapsed by accident as a result of burning debris from the twin towers.

Now it is established that they lied about Building 7, how can we trust their often changing explanations of the collapse of the twin towers, especially considering the dozens and dozens of eyewitnesses who have gone on the record to report the fact that explosives were seen and heard on all levels of both towers, including underground explosions before the planes even hit?

We are being asked to put our faith in either the federal government, who deliberately lied about 9/11 in the very days after the attack intelling emergency workers and firefighters that the toxic air was safe to breathe, or the emergency workers and other rescue heroes who risked their lives and are still suffering the consequences of their courage.

This testimony demands an immediate grand jury inquiry into both monolithic insurance fraud, potential manslaughter, and a complete re-appraisal and re-investigation into everything else that happened on 9/11 in an effort to discover what else the government lied about concerning the events of that day and its aftermath.