Peter McKenna

Thanks, Peter. If it's all the same to you, I don't think I can stomach re-reading Monbiot's evasive drivel about 9-11 once again - not until he deigns to answer my questions posted on this forum, at any rate. You can rest assured I am familiar with it. I notice your critical faculties are in full gear on the Alexander Litvinenko thread, where you opine Putin is to blame and Russia is slipping back into a police state. Yet in the case of the 9-11 vids, any apology for the official line seems good enough. No wonder you stick up for Mr Porter of BBC News. You share his world view! I hadn't realised your comment about the lunar eclipse was "harmless tongue in cheek criticism". Nor can I understand it, even now you have pointed the apparent joke. Just as we appear to have different world views, we also find quite different things amusing. Apparently, Maybe my sense of humor is a little warped. I'll go along with that. Anyway, I believe that the BBC's jouornalistic integrity was exposed to be weak when they were caught taping a newsclip of the WTC 7 collapse before the fact. I don't believe the collapse was in doubt at that point but the typical reporter's gambit is to "scoop" his rivals and any tactic short of actually producing the event is used. I think they knew #7 was going to be "Pulled" and scooped everybody as is their wont. So what? If someone knew the building was going to be "helped" to collapse to ensure the safety of surroundng bldgs. etc. what does that signify? A tempest in a teapot. Anyway, Sid, My writing style is kind of how I talk. As if we were having a beer in a pub so to speak. I tend to joke around now and then. Sorry if that offends you.

Thanks, Peter. If it's all the same to you, I don't think I can stomach re-reading Monbiot's evasive drivel about 9-11 once again - not until he deigns to answer my questions posted on this forum, at any rate. You can rest assured I am familiar with it. I notice your critical faculties are in full gear on the Alexander Litvinenko thread, where you opine Putin is to blame and Russia is slipping back into a police state. Yet in the case of the 9-11 vids, any apology for the official line seems good enough. No wonder you stick up for Mr Porter of BBC News. You share his world view! I hadn't realised your comment about the lunar eclipse was "harmless tongue in cheek criticism". Nor can I understand it, even now you have pointed the apparent joke. Just as we appear to have different world views, we also find quite different things amusing. Apparently, Maybe my sense of humor is a little warped. I'll go along with that. Anyway, I believe that the BBC's jouornalistic integrity was exposed to be weak when they were caught taping a newsclip of the WTC 7 collapse before the fact. I don't believe the collapse was in doubt at that point but the typical reporter's gambit is to "scoop" his rivals and any tactic short of actually producing the event is used. I think they knew #7 was going to be "Pulled" and scooped everybody as is their wont. So what? If someone knew the building was going to be "helped" to collapse to ensure the safety of surroundng bldgs. etc. what does that signify? A tempest in a teapot.

I just read up on the US Constitution; To fund groups which have, on their agenda, the US targeted as an enemy, is a clear violation of the 14th amendment to the constitution. To give aid to the enemy consitutes treason in the war on terror, don't ya know! (I accidently tagged the wrong quote in they prior post) But who takes any notice of the Constitution anymore, Peter? It's just there for old times sake! After all, on the basis you have cited, all US aid to Israel has been illicit since the early 1950s (Lavon affair) - and unquestionably illicit since the deliberate Israeli bombing attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. Sid, I don't know anything about this attack on the USS Liberty but Israel has been either our ally or neutral since they were a nation. If we gave funding to Al-queda wouldn't you consider that giving aid to our (mutual) enemy? Well, in any case, I do. As Bin Laden had specifically taken credit for the 9/11 attacks on Al Jazeera and alot of positive press has been alloted the hijackers from al Queda, if, as has been suggested, we would actually support them, then that should be brought to the US court system. You would agree with that?

I just read up on the US Constitution; To fund groups which have, on their agenda, the US targeted as an enemy, is a clear violation of the 14th amendment to the constitution. To give aid to the enemy consitutes treason in the war on terror, don't ya know! (I accidently tagged the wrong quote in they prior post) But who takes any notice of the Constitution anymore, Peter? It's just there for old times sake! After all, on the basis you have cited, all US aid to Israel has been illicit since the early 1950s (Lavon affair) - and unquestionably illicit since the deliberate Israeli bombing attack on the USS Liberty in 1967. Sid, I don't know anything about this attack on the USS Liberty but Israel has been either our ally or neutral since they were a nation. If we gave funding to Al-queda wouldn't you consider that giving aid to our (mutual) enemy?

Well, Peter, you do take all this in a good-humoured way, don't you? It is a joking matter, isn't it? Some 3,000 people were murdered on the day; the ensuing wars have costs hundreds of thousand of lives; our civil libeties are in shreds; now the neocons openly plan nuclear war. Amusing? One is reminded of the dancing Israelis who also had a sense of humour not shared by most of us. However, the good humour of long-suffering BBC viewers is wearing thin. Here is a third and final batch of comments to the BBC article Part of the conspiracy? (2) _____________________ Well Sid, First of all your discussing Bldg. 7 and the ridiculous time stamp - reporting of the bldg. collapse as though this is indicative of a high level conspiracy by the US Governemnt to assasinate thousands of Americans. I don't buy it! Please re-read George Monbiot's post, that will pretty well sum up the way I feel about the so called "Truthers" screaming conspriacy over 9/11. Also you need to lighten up a little, if you can't take a little harmless tongue in cheek criticism, becauase that is what it was. There are conditions afoot which do merit quite a bit of concern for me though, but trying to bolster the 9/11 "Loose Change" theories and the conspiracy angle isn't one of them, that's just my opinion.

Is the apocaplypse here? Note, on the above post, The time on the quote and the time on the post. WTF? OOPS, When I saw it before logging in the time on the post was 1:52 AM and the time on the quote was 2:52 AM Then after logging in the times coincided. Sorry Did the times just reset for dalight savings time?

Is the apocaplypse here? Note, on the above post, The time on the quote and the time on the post. WTF? OOPS, When I saw it before logging in the time on the post was 1:52 AM and the time on the quote was 2:52 AM Then after logging in the times coincided. Sorry

Is the apocaplypse here? Note, on the above post, The time on the quote and the time on the post. WTF?

Is the apocaplypse here?

I just read in the news that were going to have a "Blood Red Moon" this coming Saturday during the lunar eclipse. How's that for prescient reporting!

Nothing to see here! Move along folks! Thanks heavens the BBC can sort out the wheat from the chaff! Otherwise, life might get confusing! The comments to Porter's latest, however, suggest the BBC is not able to convince its general audience quite so easily. Some of these comments are rather well-informed. A common theme is that people demand to know the original source of this WTC-7 collapse story. It's a detail to this 'non-story' that Porter seems very disinclined to reveal. What a shame. If only it was a real story, we might have real journalists at the BBC follow it up. As it is, the mass media makes the 'news' and the public must rely on its own journalism to make sense out of it. Perhaps we should receive a licence fee and the BBC staff should pay it? I just read in the news that were going to have a "Blood Red Moon" this coming Saturday during the lunar eclipse. How's that for prescient reporting!

I just read up on the US Constitution; To fund groups which have, on their agenda, the US targeted as an enemy, is a clear violation of the 14th amendment to the constitution. To give aid to the enemy consitutes treason in the war on terror, don't ya know! (I accidently tagged the wrong quote in they prior post)

Pentagon Whistle-Blower on the Coming War With Iran http://www.truthdig.com/interview/item/200..._war_with_iran/ Posted on Feb 27, 2007 Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski (ret.), a veteran of the Pentagon with firsthand experience of the administration’s cherry-picking of intelligence, reveals why Bush thinks he can win a war with Iran, why few politicians are serious about withdrawal and why “when they call Iraq a success, they mean it.” Listen: Download MP3 audio file (running time: 32:41 / 29.9 MB) Transcript: J AMES HARRIS: This is TruthDig. James Harris sitting down with Josh Scheer, and on the phone we have a special guest. She is a retired Air Force Lieutenant Colonel, formerly working for the Pentagon, The National Security Agency. Needless to say, she knows a lot about intel and a lot about what took place and what went on before we went into Iraq and what went on with that intel. Many questions have been asked in recent weeks, obviously in recent years about what we knew, what was fabricated, what was made up. On the phone we have somebody who has been vociferous in her effort to out the wrongdoings of people like Douglas Feith and people like Donald Rumsfeld. So, Karen Kwiatkowski, welcome to TruthDig. KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Thanks for having me. JAMES HARRIS: It’s our pleasure. I want to start, not talking about Douglas Feith, but I want to get your opinion about Iraq. We know that British troops and Tony Blair have decided that they’re out. We’ve seen the commitment of other nations drop by 17 countries and our biggest partner, England, is now out. Why do you think they’re out and Bush is still in? Well we know why Bush is still in. Why now? KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: It is towards the end of Tony Blair’s long, long term of duty there as the Prime Minister. And the other thing is, the British very much oppose, in spite of the fact that there are some Murdoch newspapers in Great Britain, some conservative papers, pseudo conservative I should say, not truly conservative. Truly conservatives, true conservatives have opposed this venture form the beginning. But in spite of the small, loud pro-war faction in London, most people in Britain recognize this for what it is. They have some experience in this kind of thing with, both in Middle East, particularly in Iraq years ago when they left in dishonor. LAUGHS Another time when they tried to occupy Baghdad, years and years ago, and also their experience with terrorism and movements of independents or what have you with Ireland, much more recent memory for many of the people in Great Britain. I don’t think Britain’s economy can afford it. Certainly they see the writing on the all, why get, why not get out now while George Bush is still there than be stuck with, stuck holding the bag when a Democratic president takes over and pulls the troops out abruptly in 2008, 2009. So I think there’s many reasons why they’re doing it. Some people say it is, it is because of Tony Blair’s concern over his legacy. If he doesn’t bring the troops home, his legacy will be that he left Britain in a quagmire. They are in a quagmire now and maybe he doesn’t want to leave office with that being on his record. Mainly it’s the right thing to do, the people of Britain want those troops home. And I guess their government is listening. Unlike ours. JAMES HARRIS: The highly speculative people have said they’re out because we’re going into Iran. You might’ve read the news… KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Well yeah, I don’t… I had not seen that connection made, but I certainly am alarmed at the daily signs that indeed this country is getting ready to instigate an attack on Iran. All the signs are there, the suggestions that Iranian bombs are killing American soldiers, that’s not true, but it’s certainly been made in, I think every American newspaper, the suggestion that Iran is somehow killing Americans. The suggestion that Iran has nuclear weapons, is imminently close to nuclear weapons. That is not true but that’s been, those claims are made, even by this Administration. The idea that we have two carrier battle groups currently in the region and in fact I just saw today, Admiral Walsh, one of the big guys in the Navy said that we’re very concerned about what Iran is doing even more so than Al Qaeda. So there, all the signs are there that we are being, we’re going to wake up one morning soon, very soon, and we will be at war with Iran. We will have bombed them in some sort of shock and awe campaign destroying many lives and setting back US relations even further than we’ve already done it with Iraq. JOSH: I want to continue on Iran. You spent obviously many years in the military and you talk in those kind of terms that many people maybe not know about. Can we not just politically, and not just in the region, but can we support another war in another country? Right now we’re in Afghanistan, we’re in Iraq. Can we feasibly actually go into Iran, or is this going to be a shock and awe campaign? KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: You know, I think the, one of the big reasons that Bush and Cheney think they can do Iran is that they believe, what they’re hearing from the Air Force and the Navy, two of the three main branches of our military, the two that have been left out of the glory of Iraq, you see. And those guys want a piece of the action, and so they’re advertising to the Administration and publicly, I mean you can read it for yourself, the Air Force and the Navy have targets they believe they can overwhelmingly hit their targets, deep penetration, weapons, possibly nuclear weapons, I mean, nothing is off the table as Dick Cheney is off the table, Dick Cheney says “nothing is off the table.” And the delivery of these weapons, whether they’re conventional or nuclear will be naval and Air Force. They’ll be Navy from the sea and Air Force form long range bombers and some of the bases that we have around the… so I don’t think, certainly, I don’t know, I’m not in the Army, wasn’t in the Army, I was in the Air Force, I don’t think the Army could support any type of invasion of Iran and they wouldn’t’ want to. I’m sure that they’ve, they’ve had enough with Iraq and our reserves are in terrible condition. We’ve got huge problems in the Army and in the Reserve system. So I don’t think there’s any intention to go into Iran, but simply to destroy it and to create havoc and disruption and humanitarian crisis and topple perhaps the government of [Ahmadinejad]. We want to topple that government. Yeah, we’ll do it with bombs from a distance. I don’t know if you call that shock and awe, we’ve been advertising it for a long, long time. It will not be a surprise to the Iranians if we do it. JAMES HARRIS: That was your former boss, the shock and awe campaign. I’m still shocked and I’m awed. KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: [laughs] He shocked and awed all of us. JAMES HARRIS: As a means of understanding the level of deceit that you claim took place and I agree took place before the war. Because it, the things that are going on in and around Iran sound a lot like the things that went on in 2002… KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Sure do. JAMES HARRIS: And I always note Scott Ritter, because I spoke to him, and I couldn’t believe that we didn’t take the advice of people like him that were saying that there’s nothing there, there’s nothing. Can you describe for us a typical day, if we went in around March, we’re approaching that anniversary, we went in around March of ‘03. What was it like in The Pentagon? KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Well, I worked in the Office of the Secretary of Defense and up until mid February I was in Near East South Asia, which is the office that owns the Office of Special Plans, they were our sister office. And so Iraq is one of the areas. And there’s a great degree of excitement, there’s a, we didn’t know when we would invade Iraq, and many people thought it would be in February, late February, early March and it actually was like I think march 23 is when we actually conducted that attack on Baghdad and that kind of thing. Most people in the Pentagon, there’s 23,000 people worked in the Pentagon. Most of those people were as in the dark as any of the Americans. They believed what they read in the papers, and what they read in the papers, particularly The New York Times and The Washington Post had been, for the most part, planted by The Administration. We know this now, the whole Congress knows this now, they’ve had a number of hearings publicly faltered, I think even the DODIG just recently faltered, Doug Feith and his whole organization for planting and mis-, providing misleading stories, many of which were later leaked on purpose to the press. A friendly press, of course, Judith Miller was not, was not hostile to the intentions of this administration. They wanted to go into Iraq, and they intended to go into Iraq. We did go into Iraq, and all that was really needed was to bring onboard the American people, and to bring onboard the Congress. But not necessarily to declare war. Congress has never been asked to declare war on Iraq. And they won’t be asked to declare war on Iran even though we will conduct that war. These guys had an agenda. In fact, one of the things that I did learn as a result of having my eyes opened in that final tour in the Pentagon is that neo-conservatives, their foreign policy is very activist, you could say that’s a nice way to say it, very activist, it’s very oriented towards the Untied States as a benevolent dictator, a benevolent guiding hand for the world, particularly the Middle East. And it’s very much a pro-Israel policy, and it’s a policy that says, we should be able to do whatever we want to do, if we see it in our interest. Now, Americans don’t see any value, most Americans, 75 percent of Americans want the troops home now. They don’t see any value to having our troops in Iraq. They didn’t see any value in that in 2002. But, they had a story sold to them, which was of course that Saddam Hussein somehow was involved with 9/11, had WMDs, and was a serious threat, an imminent threat, a grave threat to the United States. JAMES HARRIS: For those people that think somehow that government officials, even though you work for the government, were complicit in this effort to move into Iraq. I want you to be clear, as a worker there, you were doing what you thought was right at the time. Is that a safe thing to say? KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: We were doing, I’ll tell ya, there’s two parts of how the story is sold, how the propaganda was put forth on the American people, and how it’s been put forth on them today in terms of Iran. You have political appointees in every government agency, and they switch out every time you get a new president, and that’s totally normal. Usually those, the numbers increase after every president, they always get a few more. So Bush was no different. He brought in a number of political appointees: Doug Feith, certainly Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz. But also a number of political appointees at what you would call a lower level, like my level - Lieutenant Colonel and Colonel level. And they’re not military officers, they’re civilians. And they’re brought in, and this is where the propaganda was kind of put together, this is where the so-called alternative intelligence assessments were put together by the civilian appointees of the Bush Administration. Most of which, in fact, probably all of the Pentagon shared a neo-conservative world vision, which has a particular role for us, and that included the topping of Saddam Hussein, and it includes the toppling of the leadership in Tehran. These guys are the ones doing it, they’re doing it. They’re putting all the propaganda, they’re spreading stories, planting stuff in the media. They’re doing that to people in The Pentagon, the civil, the Civil Service core in The Pentagon, which is about half of them, and the other half which are uniformed military officers serving anywhere from three to four, five years, sometimes tours in The Pentagon. We’re looking at regular intel, we’re looking at the stuff the CIA and the DIA, Defense Intelligence Agency produces. And that stuff never said, that stuff never said Saddam Hussein had WMDs, had a delivery system, was a threat to the United States. It never said that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9/11 or that Saddam Hussein worked with Al Qaeda. That intelligence never said that. JAMES HARRIS: Did they tell you to shut up? KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Absolutely! [Laughs] That’s a funny thing, and of course, here’s how it worked. Once the Office of Special Plans was set u formally, now they were informally set up prior to the fall of 2002, but formally they became an office with office space and that whole bit. And the first act to follow that setup of the Office of Special Plans, we had a staff meeting, and our boss, Bill Ludy, who was the boss of Special Plans technically, not in reality but on paper. And he announced to us that from now on, action officers, staff officers such as myself and all my peers, at least in that office, and I presume this went all the way through the rest of policy, but we were told that when we needed to fill in data, putting it in papers that we would send up, doing our job, as we did our daily job, we were no longer to look at CIA and DIA intelligence, we were simply to call the Office of Special Plans and they would send down to us talking points, which we would incorporate verbatim no deletions, no additions, no modifications into every paper that we did. And of course, that was very unusual and all the action officers are looking at each other like, well that’s interesting. We’re not to look at the intelligence any more, we’re simply to go to this group of political appointees and they will provide to us word for word what we should say about Iraq, about WMD and about terrorism. And this is exactly what our orders were. And there were people [Laughs] a couple of people, and I have to say, I was not one of these people who said, “you know, I’m not gonna do that, I’m not gonna do that because there’s something I don’t like about it, it’s incorrect in some way.” And they experimented with sending up papers that did not follow those instructions, and those papers were 100 percent of the time returned back for correction. So we weren’t allowed to put out anything except what Office of Special Plans was producing for us. And that was only partially based on intelligence, and partially based on a political agenda. So this is how they did it. And I’ll tell you what, civil servants and military people, we follow orders, okay. And we buy into it. And we don’t suspect that our leaders are nefarious, we don’t suspect that. They, they quite frankly have to go a long way to prove to us that they are nefarious. That’s how it worked, and I imagine it’s working much the same way there in terms of Iran. JAMES HARRIS: Obviously you’ve been in the military for quite a while. Has this every happened to your knowledge in any other Pentagon, where a political appointees have the power to just control the… KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Sure, well sure, Vietnam is filled with examples. And Daniel Ellsberg’s information and his Pentagon paper that he released factual information that contradicted what political appointees at the top of the Pentagon were saying to Congress and saying to the American people. Yeah, this is typical of how it works. Now, having said that, most people who serve and wear the uniform or give a career of service to the military, whether civilian, civil service or military, we don’t think that our bosses will do that. We don’t think that our military will do that. But in fact history is full of examples of bald-faced lies being told to sell particular agendas. Often times those agendas include war making, certainly in Vietnam they did, under LBJ and a few other presidents. Look at the thing that Reagan did. I mean, I actually don’t dislike Reagan, he deployed very few troops overseas, but when he went in to that little island down there… what is the name of that island that he invaded, Grenada. [Laughs] Remember that? Remember the Invasion of Grenada. JOSHUA SCHEER: All eight hours? JAMES HARRIS: It was a short one. KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: I mean, God, shortly thereafter, come to find out, well actually, some of the stuff they said about the threat and the Cubans and all that wasn’t really true. So politicians and their politically appointed military leaders will lie, historically do lie when it has to do with making war, particularly making a war that they want. And what has happened in the Bush Administration is the war that they want was Iraq. And the war that they want is Iran, and the war that they want is Syria, okay? That’s the war they want. They don’t want Vietnam. I don’t know why, they don’t want Vietnam, they want these places, this is what the neo-conservatives are particularly interested in. So we have war. And they make up stories and we’re seeing the exact same thing in terms of Iran, which is quite alarming because it seems as if we can’t stop this, we can’t prevent this. JOSH: You were talking about these political appointees and pushing us into war. Why haven’t people like Paul Wolfowitz, I mean these guys seem to feather their own nests. KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: [Laughs] That’s an understatement. JOSH: They lead us into war, Mark Zell, Doug Feith’s partner was in bed with Chalabi. It falls apart and then it seems that these guys disappear into the woodwork. What happens? KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Well, a big part of what happens is these guys have top cover, the names of the top cover are Dick Cheney and George W. Bush. These guys like what Wolfowitz has done. And here’s the other thing. While we as American citizens do not like being lied to, particularly being lied to into a stupid quagmire that makes no sense. We don’t’ like being lied to. Congress doesn’t like being lied to. However, many in Congress, and certainly in this administration agree, and this is Democrats and Republicans, like the idea that we have gone into Iraq, we have built four mega bases, they are complete. Most of the money we gave to Halliburton was for construction and completion of these bases. We have probably, of the 150,000, 160,000 troops we have in Iraq probably 110,000 of those folks are associated with one of those four mega bases. Safely ensconced behind acres and acres of concrete. To operate there indefinitely, no matter what happens in Baghdad, no matter who takes over, no matter if the country splits into three pieces or it stays one. No matter what happens, we have those mega bases, and there’s many in Congress and certainly in this administration, Republican and Democrat alike that really like that. Part of the reason I think that we went into Iraq was to reestablish a stronger foothold than we had in Saudi Arabia, but also a more economical, a more flexible, in terms of who we want to hit. If you want to hit Syria, can you do it from Iraq? Of course you can. And now you can do it from bases that will support any type of airplane you want, any number of troops in barracks. I mean we can do things from Iraq. And this is what they wanted. So, yeah, we don’t like being lied to. But quite frankly, many people in the Congress, and certainly this administration, when they call Iraq a success, they mean it, and this is why. We’re in Iraq to stay. And can we strike Iran from Iraq? Well, I don’t know if we’ll do that next week, but we can. JAMES HARRIS: We’re there to stay in the sense that even, let’s say somebody takes office in await, do you think that we’re gonna be occupying those bases still? KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Absolutely! And we don’t even have status of forcive agreements with any legitimate government in Iraq to support those bases. They are illegal bases, okay. But yes, they’re gonna stay, absolutely, they’re gonna stay. And I’ll tell you, there are guys that have been with this administration for awhile, people, in fact one of the guys was an Air Force General that was involved with the Kurds ten years ago, he’s retired now, but he was actually the guy, his name escapes me for the moment, but he was Jerry Bremer’s predecessor (Jay Garner?) for a short period of time. And he was fired, and Bremer came in and took over in Baghdad as part of the reconstruction phase. This is in the Spring of 2003. And this guy gave an interview in Government Exec Magazine, February 2004, he said “we will be in Iraq, and the American people need to get with this program, we will be in Iraq like we were in the Philippines for anywhere from 20 to 30 more years. That’s the time frame that we’re looking at. And that is the life span of the bases that we’ve constructed there. Yeah, we are not leaving these bases, and a Democratic president, I don’t care who they are, will keep those basses there. They will justify them and they will use them and we love that. We love it. So it’s not about what the American people think is right or wrong, it’s not about if we got lied to, what matters is, they did what they wanted to do, and as bush says, and as Cheney says, “it’s quite the success.” And this is very frightening. Because none of this has ever been admitted to the American people, it’s only been hinted at by people that know. And of course the facts speak for themself. The facts are, we are in Iraq, we have the finest military installations in the world, the newest military installations in the world, and we’re not leaving them. We’re not turning them over to a Shiite government, we’re not turning them over to a Sunni government, we’re not turning them over to a Kurdish government. We’re not doing that. They are American bases. We’ve got our flag there. And this is kind of the way they used to do things, I guess back in the Middle Ages. Maybe the Dark Ages. A king decided he wanted to go do something, he went and did it. And this is George Bush. We call him an elected president. I mean, he’s operating much as kings have operated in the past. JAMES HARRIS: You called him “the war pimp” in your essay. “He’s behaving,” as you put it, “a lot like a pimp would treat a prostitute, ‘you do like I tell you to do.’” KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: that’s right, and over the money. “Get back to work.” We’re using these, we use these bases, we use these people, the country, it matters not one whit to us. JAMES HARRIS: With all we see in the news on a daily basis, is there any reason to hope? Every day I lose more and more sleep, about soldiers who are dying. You’re talking about being there another 30 years. How many more soldiers are going to be injured and killed? How much more money is this war going to cost? KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Well the money, yeah, sure, the money’s a problem. The number of soldiers being killed will probably actually reduce in many ways because we will withdraw to our bases and we will not interface with Iraqis who hate us. This idea of what they’re doing right now, this so called three-block program, let’s meet more Iraqis so they’ll like us, that’s totally for show. The more Iraqis meet us, the more they hate us. So I actually do think though, over time, fewer Americans will die, and look how easily, look how easily this country has accepted the loss of those 3,200 soldiers that have died. I think something like 90 women, maybe more have died, mothers [Laughs] mothers of children. They’ve died, and America has eaten it up, we have not complained one bit. They’re spread out over 50 states, hey, it’s no big deal. So I think we can certainly, as a country, accommodate future deaths and I think the death rate will drop. The problem is, it’s immoral, it’s illegal, it engenders hatred for Americans, contempt for Americans. It makes every American in the world a target for terrorism. It’s just plain wrong, it’s unconstitutional. I mean, there’s a lot of problems with it. Dead Americans, unfortunately doesn’t seem to be the problem for most of us, which is a shame. We don’t like looking at ugly people, I will say that. And we’re seeing a lot of folks come back pretty deformed, mentally and even more obviously physically, deformed from their experiences in Iraq. And I think that could, that might give, I hate to say give hope, but realize the real moral price that we’re paying for this, that that can help. But quite frankly, I have no hope of us leaving Iraq. I think the intention was for us to put bases there, to stay there, operate militarily from there. And I think that’s what we’re going to do, Democrat, Republican, Independent, I can’t imagine anybody but Ron Paul, if you elect Ron Paul as president, those bases will be closed down. Otherwise… JAMES HARRIS: Or Dennis Kucinich. KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Or Kucinich, there you go, Kucinich would do it too. So these are the guys we are able to elect, but chances are, I hate to say, the machine is not behind these men. So yeah, we got a problem. Now is there anything optimistic? Yeah. I’m a God fearing Christian. God has the power. How He might express that, I don’t know. But yeah, can the average American do anything about it? I’m just not, I’m pretty not very, I’m not optimistic, I’m pessimistic that any single American can do much to prevent what seems to be going to happen here, attacking Iran and also this terrible thing we’ve done to Iraq which I think will continue to go on for many years. It will fester, fester for many years. JAMES HARRIS: I’m one that believes the price of terrorism, I’m interested to get your perspective on this as one who watched us engage on this terrorist enemy, an enemy like we’d never seen before, at least from a military standpoint. I look at terrorism, and I see it tearing us apart. And in a lot of ways I look at it and say, we’ve already lost this war because we now have a president who’s bending the Constitution. We’re looking over our shoulders. We question our whereabouts. This whole thing that went on in Boston with the advertisement, “is it a bomb?” There’s always that question. Perhaps the goal of Osama, perhaps the goal of these people was to make us afraid, and they’ve succeeded at that. My question to you is, in your mind, what is the true price of terrorism been for you? KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: The military has been broken in most respects into the extent that it worked, it worked because it’s a mercenary force. We were so contracted out, we hired people that are beyond the law, that are not accountable to rules of war. And that’s how we function. So the whole military system, the idea of a defensive force, forget it, that’s done with. Constitution has been hurt by many presidents, but this president has done huge damage to understanding of the Constitution, its idea that it should restrain presidential power, that we should be conservative, small “c” conservative when we go out and engage in these adventures, the Congress has the right to declare war, we’ve ignored that for many decades. Just continued down that path. Te idea that the Bill of Rights is an option, the Bill of Rights is a set of suggestions has become almost mainstream belief. And this is terrible, this is a terrible thing. But I don’t think Osama Bin Laden did that. Terrorism is, obviously it has a political intent, but terrorism almost always, in fact I think in every case, when the political solutions are offered, when the politics change, when the people themselves change, terrorism stops. Terrorism to the extent that it is a crime, should’ve been treated like a crime, but instead we made it a war. Well there is no war with terror, terrorism is a tactic, you don’t make war against a tactic. So yeah, a lot of things have happened, I don’t think Osama had much to do with it, quite frankly, I think this administration, many of the people in Washington are quite comfortable with reduced freedoms for America and this is a good way to get those reduced freedoms, to basically break down and deconstruct the Bill of Rights and say, “well we didn’t mean that, we didn’t mean this.” It’s a problem. Our country has changed, and I think what people have to do now is kind of stand up and separate themselves from a government to the extent that they don’t agree with it and prepare themselves for real battle. Because we are gonna need to stand up very, I can use the word “vociferously,” I think that’s what we have to do, cause our own country is at risk, but not from terror, not from buildings being knocked down, that’s not what our country is at risk from, it’s at risk from our politics, from our abandonment of the Constitution, our devaluing of the Bill of Rights. We’ve lost our freedom. Osama probably couldn’t have dreamed that George Bush would help him out so much. I don’t think even that was his intention, I don’t think Osama could care less about our freedom, Osama’s issues have to do with Islam and the Holy land, Saudi Arabia, his issues are much more narrow than anything that he’s so called achieved. And I think George Bush has achieved this in a very weak and LAUGHS debased Congress has achieved this for this country. And so, it’s a big problem. I’m quite depressed about it. I don’t really have a solution or a remedy. I think we just need to wake up and see what’s being done, and then we need to decide if we want to be a part of it. It’s like that old thing, I’m not a child of the 60s, but you’re either working to fix the problem or you are the problem. JAMES HARRIS: Why have the neo-cons been allowed, they’re not, to me, they don’t seem like the Republicans that I grew up with. KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: No, no, they’re not. And if you look at the history of neo-conservatism, it really traces its roots, well back to Trotsky, but if you go more recent, back to who was the guy, Senator from Boeing (Henry Jackson) they used to call him… big Democratic, 30 year Senator out of Washington State. And Richard Perle was on his staff, Wolfowitz I think was inspired by him. And he was a Democrat during the Cold War. And he was a pro, or I should say strongly anti-Communist democrat, kind of a strong defense democrat. And these guys migrated, particularly after Jimmy Carter, because Jimmy Carter, remember, what was he doing, he was trying to make peace. Remember that, somebody got a Peace Prize out of it, I don’t know what it was, some kind of approach between Arabs and Israelis, and Carter was part of that. And that alienated a great many of these folks who now we know as neo-conservatives because they have two things that they care about, one is strong defense, for whatever reason they like that, an activist foreign policy, and pro-Israel, no questions asked policy. So many of these conservative, pro-defense democrats, anti-Communist democrats abandoned the democratic party at the time of Jimmy Carter, particularly after the time of Jimmy Carter and his summit working on Middle East peace. And they came over to eth Republican party, and of course they came over with a great deal of money and a great deal of political influence and a great deal of voters. So now they’re in the Republican party, and absolutely, this happened, late 1970s. so it is not, these are not the Republicans that we grew up thinking about, but they are in the Republican party now. Of course the Republican party now isn’t anything like what I thought it was, it’s certainly no Goldwater party, it’s a party of big spending, it’s a party of corruption. What do you want me to say? They love big government, they haven’t seen a big government plan they didn’t write. JAMES HARRIS: Henry “Scoop” Jackson was the guy you were looking for. As we continue to search for the truth, and that’s pretty much the motto of TruthDig, we don’t believe we have the answer, but we believe that we should at least be looking for the answers. So as we approach that truth around the issues that take place in Iraq and perhaps Iran, we think you might be a good friend to have close to the TruthDig family so we’d like to check in from time to time. KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Sure, I’d be delighted, it’s great fun talking. And hopefully maybe in a couple of months some of these negative things I think are going to happen, maybe they won’t happen. JAMES HARRIS: Maybe we’ll all be proven wrong… whatever the case… JOSH: I’m praying for it. JAMES HARRIS: We’re both praying, even though Josh is not a religious man. JOSH: Excuse me, I am a religious man. KAREN KWIATKOWSKI: Maybe we’re in a foxhole together. You know what they say, there are no atheists in a foxhole, and I think in political sense, many true conservatives and classical liberals, people that love freedom, unlike George Bush, people that really love freedom, we are in a foxhole. We are threatened. And so we gotta call on every possible help we can get. JOSH: I believe in God, I don’t believe in big religion, just like I don’t believe in big government. JAMES HARRIS: There you go, we’re in a foxhole, so we’re on the same team. I just read up on the US Constitution; To fund groups which have, on their agenda, the US targeted as an enemy, is a clear violation of the 14th amendment to the constitution. To give aid to the enemy consitutes treason in the war on terror, don't ya know!

One possible reason for the lack of any firm diagnosis is the fact that traces of some poisons are not apparent 48 hours after their administration. What makes the cases of Litvinenko and Gaidar so extraordinary is the fact that they are both prominent critics of the Putin administration, they were both poisoned within two days of each other and both poisonings occurred outside of Russian territory. The likelihood that two high profile poisonings would happen in such close proximity to other and not be somehow related is slim. One must wonder if the Gardai have acted on the new information that Yegor Gaidar was indeed poisoned and whether they have set about trying to ascertain who prepared his tea that morning. This tale of intrigue has not yet seen its end and it is quite possible that it is in Maynooth that some vital evidence may be found. In fact it wouldn't surprise me if something similar to the "Suite 8F" group (Russian style) John Simkin has alleged, was actually behind these events.

One possible reason for the lack of any firm diagnosis is the fact that traces of some poisons are not apparent 48 hours after their administration. What makes the cases of Litvinenko and Gaidar so extraordinary is the fact that they are both prominent critics of the Putin administration, they were both poisoned within two days of each other and both poisonings occurred outside of Russian territory. The likelihood that two high profile poisonings would happen in such close proximity to other and not be somehow related is slim. One must wonder if the Gardai have acted on the new information that Yegor Gaidar was indeed poisoned and whether they have set about trying to ascertain who prepared his tea that morning. This tale of intrigue has not yet seen its end and it is quite possible that it is in Maynooth that some vital evidence may be found. John, Having had taken a radioisotope (taken orally, I can't remember the exact element though) for a bone scan, I know that in as little as two hours the isotope can be evident (by radiation detection equipment) in the urine (just like any element taken internally). The poisoning of Gaider by use of thallium is indeed interesting. That would establish that the assasinations were planned and carried out as an organized effort. The actual poisons would have had to have been taken from a controlled location (i.e. Pollonium is produced by bombardment in a reactor, Thallium is not produced in a reactor; Pollonium is also very expensive, I read somewehere that the amount probably used to poison Litvinenko was probably worth several million dollars) which would have to have been under some type of security controls, or they were taken from a company which might use the materials in some manufacturing process. But, although I cannot offer a reference, there are no manufacturing processes that use both pollonium and thallium in either processes or product. Polonium is used to reduce or eliminate static charge, where thallium is used for nuclear medicine or eyeglasses manufacture. This is an informed opinion, on my part, but I doubt that anyone could find any company that uses both these isotopes at the same location (I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt it). The similarities in the murders, imply that these isotopes had to be taken either with the knowledge of, or from, a governmental agency or from a governmental controlled facility (as the polonium came from Russia). The Polonium is known to have been from a Russian reactor (based upon the energy signature and half life, it can be traced). It would be interesting to know where the thallium came from, although thallium is produced by harvesting the trace thallium from heavy metals. Thallium used to be known as a "Poisoner's Poison", and was actually used as rat poison long ago. This would seem to add tremendous weight to the suspicion that the murders were sanctioned by the Russian Government, although Putin would hardly benefit and actually this would hurt his carefully constructed and polished public image. I would hazard a guess that the radio-isotope poisoning murders were hatched by the FSB, and possibly either contracted out, or performed by low level illegal agents, as the polonium 210 fiasco had the earmarks of a low grade amateur, based upon the traces found all over London, commercial aircraft, and I'd bet in Russia, as well. To allow assasinations of such high profile and vocal public critics of Putin and his policies, with devices that could only be originating from Russia or associated agnecies would be idiocy for Putin himself (not to say he's a genius, I don't know, actually). But I'd think that someone in the FSB has an agenda, to silence these people and at the same time cast Putin as a man who isn't afraid to spread radioactive contamination around other countries in order to silence his critics. Otherwise, does this make any sense to you?

One possible reason for the lack of any firm diagnosis is the fact that traces of some poisons are not apparent 48 hours after their administration. What makes the cases of Litvinenko and Gaidar so extraordinary is the fact that they are both prominent critics of the Putin administration, they were both poisoned within two days of each other and both poisonings occurred outside of Russian territory. The likelihood that two high profile poisonings would happen in such close proximity to other and not be somehow related is slim. One must wonder if the Gardai have acted on the new information that Yegor Gaidar was indeed poisoned and whether they have set about trying to ascertain who prepared his tea that morning. This tale of intrigue has not yet seen its end and it is quite possible that it is in Maynooth that some vital evidence may be found. John, Having had taken a radioisotope (taken orally, I can't remember the exact element though) for a bone scan, I know that in as little as two hours the isotope can be evident (by radiation detection equipment) in the urine (just like any element taken internally). The poisoning of Gaider by use of thallium is indeed interesting. That would establish that the assasinations were planned and carried out as an organized effort. The actual poisons would have had to have been taken from a controlled location (i.e. Pollonium is produced by bombardment in a reactor, Thallium is not produced in a reactor; Pollonium is also very expensive, I read somewehere that the amount probably used to poison Litvinenko was probably worth several million dollars) which would have to have been under some type of security controls, or they were taken from a company which might use the materials in some manufacturing process. But, although I cannot offer a reference, there are no manufacturing processes that use both pollonium and thallium in either processes or product. Polonium is used to reduce or eliminate static charge, where thallium is used for nuclear medicine or eyeglasses manufacture. This is an informed opinion, on my part, but I doubt that anyone could find any company that uses both these isotopes at the same location (I could be wrong, but I seriously doubt it). The similarities in the murders, imply that these isotopes had to be taken either with the knowledge of, or from, a governmental agency or from a governmental controlled facility (as the polonium came from Russia). The Polonium is known to have been from a Russian reactor (based upon the energy signature and half life, it can be traced). It would be interesting to know where the thallium came from, although thallium is produced by harvesting the trace thallium from heavy metals. Thallium used to be known as a "Poisoner's Poison", and was actually used as rat poison long ago. This would seem to add tremendous weight to the suspicion that the murders were sanctioned by the Russian Government, although Putin would hardly benefit and actually this would hurt his carefully constructed and polished public image. I would hazard a guess that the radio-isotope poisoning murders were hatched by the FSB, and possibly either contracted out, or performed by low level illegal agents, as the polonium 210 fiasco had the earmarks of a low grade amateur, based upon the traces found all over London, commercial aircraft, and I'd bet in Russia, as well. To allow assasinations of such high profile and vocal public critics of Putin and his policies, with devices that could only be originating from Russia or associated agnecies would be idiocy for Putin himself (not to say he's a genius, I don't know, actually). But I'd think that someone in the FSB has an agenda, to silence these people and at the same time cast Putin as a man who isn't afraid to spread radioactive contamination around other countries in order to silence his critics. Otherwise, does this make any sense to you?

Anyway Evan, I agree with you completely. One change from my own post though, when I stated that several civilian scientits wre on Apollo missions I believe I may have been mistaken and was thinking of both Apollo and the Shuttle programs combined. I do remember thats several civilian scientists went on space missions (although one or two were in Apollo missions) if needed I can find references.

I disagree. They are a civilian space agency except where "...activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense..." The determination of which agency has control is determined by the US President. This is hardly news. It has not been concealed. Military payloads or projects have been carried aboard US spacecraft all the way back to Mercury. Does it make it a "...branch of the US Military-Industrial Complex.."? In some ways, I suppose that is correct; the same could be applied to most any branch of the US government, I suppose. Did the Soviets make military use of their space programme? Yes. Have / will the Chinese make military use of their space programme? I think so. The "... military dominance of space at any cost..." is far-fetched since it is not within their purview. They may have to provide facilities for military use - it does not make them "war mongers". Are the current Russian Space Agency people also "war-mongers"? I think you are using a 'guilt by association' reason in your statement. I haven't checked, but this is probably true. Lockheed-Martin are experts in space. They have been involved in both civil and military space programmes for a long time. Why shouldn't they be part of the renewed space programme? That is selecting what he said without giving context. He said: And so, looking into the future of space exploration, I sometimes wonder what languages the explorers and eventual settlers of the Moon and Mars will speak? Will my language be passed down over the generations to future lunar colonies? Or will another, bolder or more persistent culture surpass our efforts and put their own stamp on the predominant lunar society of the far future? You should read his full address (Partnerships in Space Activities), not just selected words. Determine for yourself what he was trying to say. I don't know about this "cold weather criterion" that has been mentioned. By all means, there was pressure to launch - possibly due to the State of the Union address due to be given.It certainly is true that engineers brought their concerns to the fore at the Flight Readiness Review. There had been partial O-ring failures on previous flights, and this was being addressed (albeit not at the priority it should have been given). The engineers at Morton-Thiokol strongly addressed concerns that the launch (WRT the SRB, particularly the field joint) was being launched outside its known data and that the interpolation that formed the basis for a GO decision was invalid. It is also almost certainly true that NASA pressured MT to give a GO for launch, and that MT in turn pressured the engineers in turn. To my knowledge, this was not a military decision. The military involvement in the Shuttle was also known. The OMB cut the budget for Shuttle development, and the only way NASA could produce one was for the US DoD to climb aboard. They were reluctant, and forced NASA to change the design of the Shuttle to incorporate cross-range and payload bay requirements. Perhaps Joe Trento would like to expand on this area. I'll add some more later. Evan, You are correct in that NASA is a civilian operation. Back in the early 1990s the Marshall Space Center was directed to participate in technology transfer, which the Military was specifically exempted from. I know this since I liased with NASA at Marshall and obtained NASA technology which was free (or a nominal fee was charged to cover their costs) to the NGO/private sector. The NASA charter (Actually the NASA act) is as follows: DECLARATION OF POLICY AND PURPOSE Sec. 102. (a) The Congress hereby declares that it is the policy of the United States that activities in space should be devoted to peaceful purposes for the benefit of all mankind. ( The Congress declares that the general welfare and security of the United States require that adequate provision be made for aeronautical and space activities. The Congress further declares that such activities shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, a civilian agency exercising control over aeronautical and space activities sponsored by the United States, except that activities peculiar to or primarily associated with the development of weapons systems, military operations, or the defense of the United States (including the research and development necessary to make effective provision for the defense of the United States) shall be the responsibility of, and shall be directed by, the Department of Defense; and that determination as to which such agency has responsibility for and direction of any such activity shall be made by the President in conformity with section 2471(e). © The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (as established by title II of this Act) seek and encourage, to the maximum extent possible, the fullest commercial use of space. (d) The aeronautical and space activities of the United States shall be conducted so as to contribute materially to one or more of the following objectives: (1) The expansion of human knowledge of the Earth and of phenomena in the atmosphere and space; (2) The improvement of the usefulness, performance, speed, safety, and efficiency of aeronautical and space vehicles; (3) The development and operation of vehicles capable of carrying instruments, equipment, supplies, and living organisms through space; (4) The establishment of long-range studies of the potential benefits to be gained from, the opportunities for, and the problems involved in the utilization of aeronautical and space activities for peaceful and scientific purposes; (5) The preservation of the role of the United States as a leader in aeronautical and space science and technology and in the application thereof to the conduct of peaceful activities within and outside the atmosphere; (6) The making available to agencies directly concerned with national defense of discoveries that have military value or significance, and the furnishing by such agencies, to the civilian agency established to direct and control nonmilitary aeronautical and space activities, of information as to discoveries which have value or significance to that agency; (7) Cooperation by the United States with other nations and groups of nations in work done pursuant to this Act and in the peaceful application of the results thereof; (8) The most effective utilization of the scientific and engineering resources of the United States, with close cooperation among all interested agencies of the United States in order to avoid unnecessary duplication of effort, facilities, and equipment; and (9) The preservation of the United States preeminent position in aeronautics and space through research and technology development related to associated manufacturing processes. (e) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the unique competence in scientific and engineering systems of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration also be directed toward ground propulsion systems research and development. Such development shall be conducted so as to contribute to the objectives of developing energy- and petroleum-conserving ground propulsion systems, and of minimizing the environmental degradation caused by such systems. (f) The Congress declares that the general welfare of the United States requires that the unique competence of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration in science and engineering systems be directed to assisting in bioengineering research, development, and demonstration programs designed to alleviate and minimize the effects of disability. (g) It is the purpose of this Act to carry out and effectuate the policies declared in subsections (a), (, ©, (d), (e), and (f). There were several civilian scientists on NASA missions during Apollo (I don't remember their names, but anyone could easily look them up). One of the points that the people at Marshall made (as I remember them saying), and was later studied as a "lessons learned" was that the Challenger disaster root cause was overconfidence in the shuttle and the pervasive lack of a questioning attitude at the managerial level. They were far too driven by schedule pressure. A very interesting article on the space arms race is linked below: http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/C...eap_Forward.pdf This is from the Hudson Institute a well respected think tank. As you say, there have been military missions in space, classified and otherwise, as was determined to be in the National interest.

You have mixed up the comments that I made about the people on the BBC phone-in and Jim Fetzer. I stand by my comments that they were “crackpots” who severely damage the cause. They were supporters of David Icke and argued that the world is ruled by a secret group called the " Illuminati" (a race of reptilian humanoids known as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent figures are reptilian, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, Kris Kristofferson, and Boxcar Willie). Now I don’t think I am out of order describing such people as “crackpots” or in need of medical treatment. I am not a conspiracy theorist. However, the impact of the events of 9/11 invokes a specific fear in me of conspiracy. The reason has to do with the events having been spun to the benefit of political agendas which are contrary to what I believe are essential to maintain the basic civil liberties which we enjoy (or should be enjoying). Certain facts concerning the collapse of the buildings which have been hotly contested appear to me to be distracting from more important points of 9/11. For example, what exactly would be the point in staging a controlled demolition of the twin towers after we had live TV converage of one plane striking the towers and the aftermath of another. Would it be to drive up the casualty count? From what I have read and researched, a credible alternative to the official POV to explain the tower collapse has not been presented yet. I will not delve into the engineering. I would say that there seems to be an excess of time and effort spent in creating and debunking theories which, to me, only distract from the salient points of a possible conspiracy. But that is only my Point of View. The application of conspiracy theory to 9/11 can be a rationalized due to the fear of losing our constitutional rights subsequent to the dismantling of the United States Constitution in the war on "Terror". The primary dissent to the Patriot Act is its potential role as a prelude to the dissolution of our civil rights and not in the contextual deprivation of those rights. That is what provided the bill its judicial momentum. There are those who liken the current United States to the fall of Rome. Rome lasted another 400 years past the dissolution of the Roman Republic. However, to analogize the end of the Roman Republic to our times, probably the most significant parallel would be Julius Caesar’s crossing of the Rubicon with a legion of the Roman Army (the site of Caesar’s famous quote “The Die is Cast”). This act crossed the barrier, in Roman politics, of using of the Roman army against the citizens of Rome for political gain, an act of gross treason. The Roman Publicans understood well that a sufficiently powerful individual, capable of using the army to enforce his policies, could make himself a king. The current autonomy enjoyed by the Executive in the application of military force is certainly not consistent with “Emergency Powers” and should fall under the legislative body in keeping with the democratic division of governmental power. But this is hardly analogous to the use of the military on its own citizens. It is the logical, subsequent, potential sequence of events that is of concern. Julius Caesar was not the first General to seek a throne in Rome. In fact Julius Caesar was assassinated before claiming the throne himself, but indeed, the die had been cast. The crossing of the Rubicon signified the end of the Roman Republic, as the subsequent civil wars and political chaos ended under the rule of the first Roman Emperor, Octavian Caesar. The Roman Army had then been utilized as a tool in political camaigns in the advancing the ambitions of men. In an interview with Cigar Aficionado, General Tommy Franks stated bluntly, that if an attack occurs upon the United States (subsequent to 9/11), where a large loss of life results, as with WMD, then the US Constitution would likely be discarded for a military government. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2...20/185048.shtml This is an important point and one which causes my fear of conspiracy concerning 9/11. So this fear creates suspicion as to the facts of 9/11. Would the US government (or government official) use such an event to its advantage in obtaining and consolidating political power? With a two term Presidency and the obvious time pressure incumbent upon any individual in seeking to become anything close to a monarch, this does not seem a likely motivation for such a conspiracy. So what would the motive be for using such events for political advantage? In terms of wealth and Capital, the creation of a Military State would only suppress the earning power of the majority of its citizens, and ultimately this would adversely affect the bottom line for businesses and industry where consumerism is the engine for their economic survival. There would have to be a far darker agenda to explain such a conspiracy. Also the events of 9/11 would have to have been formulaic (“The simpler the explanation the more likely that it is true”). The real fear is not in any one individual or group planning a “takeover”, but the systematic loss of Democracy that the framers of the Constitution intended. The motivation for such tactics do not seem consistent with the political ambitions of any individual or group within the US (unless in some larger picture), but in preparing for some cataclysmic event, such as the conjoining of nations under one government, or the preparation for global war (note that these are just examples, actually events seem to have fallen out favorably to cause a power shift within the US government, which could set the stage for some future conflict, that is NOT in the public’s interest). In this context then the events of 9/11 may be part of a larger conspiracy (otherwise I have a great deal of trouble seeing 9/11 for anything more than what it seems). Also, if this is true, it is important to maintain perspective. The facts of the twin tower collapse can be explained rationally and with sound engineering supporting it. There has already been a tremendous amount of work done by the academic world as well as the NIST and others which support that the twin tower collapse was nothing more than what it seemed. If there is a conspiracy and well intentioned research is to be performed to uncovers it, does bickering over points which will remain debatable, don't reveal an outright lie or disinformation and which donsn't affect an overall motive (who benefits and why?), means (how was it accomplished? How would you do it if it was up to you? If you wanted to recruit suicidal extremists to pilot aircraft into the WTC, would that really be that hard to accomplish?), and opportunity (which really has more to do with the opportunity to use the events) help to establish a valid conspiracy theory?. It seems to me that arguing over the collapse of the WTC could go on and nothing salient to a conspiracy will surface. But that is only my opinion. Take it or leave it. When someone like General Tommy Franks warns that the events of 9/11 may be a prelude to the US heading into a military dictatorship, that should sure cause alarm bells to ring.

I remember reading Hesse's books as a teenager. They definitely made an impression as I was a student in Catholic School at the time, and for me, Hesse opened the door to existentialism. In literature, James Joyce extended the envelope for later writers both with Ulysses, and Finnegan's Wake. Prior to Joyce I doubt if any writer had so broadly exhibited such a level of inventiveness and innovation in the use of language as had Joyce. The ripple effect extended down through Beckett, Huxley, et al, and later through the 'renaissance' of the 1950's and 1960's. Of course as I am of Irish descent so I may be biased. When a teenager I could not get enough science fiction. Writers from the early 20th century, whom I have thoroughly enjoyed, include Edgar Rice Burroughs, H. G. Wells, and Fritz Lang. However, George Orwell comes to mind as a writer of great influence, both in fantasy and science fiction, as well as general fiction. Of course Orwell had very pointed political beliefs which he expressed in his work. To me J.R.R. Tolkien is my favorite fantasy and science fiction writer of the 20th century (although he may not be considered 'early' 20th century). He really knew how to tell a story. I read the 'Tolkien trilogy' at least six times. Of course honorable mention would have to go to F. Scott Fitzgerald and the 'Lost Generation' writers, although, with few exceptions (such as Hemingway), I found them fairly boring. Of course I read them as a teenager when I had the attention span of a pigeon. The only writers that come to mind from this era are Upton Sinclair and H. L. Mencken. Good topic. How about writers from the 1950's and 60's? What do you reckon the influence of Jack Kerouac was on 20th century literature and culture? Andy and or John, as I am not an academic, I was just wondering if my posting here may not be entirely suitable. I posted to the subject as I have read many books in my life and I was thoroughly tempted. However, I didn't think about the academic 'Correctness' of my posting here, prior to posting.

I remember reading Hesse's books as a teenager. They definitely made an impression as I was a student in Catholic School at the time, and for me, Hesse opened the door to existentialism. In literature, James Joyce extended the envelope for later writers both with Ulysses, and Finnegan's Wake. Prior to Joyce I doubt if any writer had so broadly exhibited such a level of inventiveness and innovation in the use of language as had Joyce. The ripple effect extended down through Beckett, Huxley, et al, and later through the 'renaissance' of the 1950's and 1960's. Of course as I am of Irish descent so I may be biased. When a teenager I could not get enough science fiction. Writers from the early 20th century, whom I have thoroughly enjoyed, include Edgar Rice Burroughs, H. G. Wells, and Fritz Lang. However, George Orwell comes to mind as a writer of great influence, both in fantasy and science fiction, as well as general fiction. Of course Orwell had very pointed political beliefs which he expressed in his work. To me J.R.R. Tolkien is my favorite fantasy and science fiction writer of the 20th century (although he may not be considered 'early' 20th century). He really knew how to tell a story. I read the 'Tolkien trilogy' at least six times. Of course honorable mention would have to go to F. Scott Fitzgerald and the 'Lost Generation' writers, although, with few exceptions (such as Hemingway), I found them fairly boring. Of course I read them as a teenager when I had the attention span of a pigeon. The only writers that come to mind from this era are Upton Sinclair and H. L. Mencken. Good topic. How about writers from the 1950's and 60's? What do you reckon the influence of Jack Kerouac was on 20th century literature and culture?

I don't know, John. As far as the Government of Russia having experienced no real change since the fall of communism in 1989, it seems that the current government of Russia may be resorting to terror tactics which haven't been prolific since the days of Djerjinsky and Beria. It seems that we are heading into some dark times.

Thanks Peter You ask: If I (and millions of others) are correct, 9-11 was essentially a false-flag operation. It was designed to set up an archetypal villain - Islamic extremism - providing cover for a series of unprovoked assaults on target nations with large Moslem populations and a stringent crack down on civil liberties. In that context, spectacular is good. Shock and awe is better. There may well have been other reasons why the towers had to come down to fulfil this insane plan. Several have been suggested. Not knowing these villains personally, I can only speculate on their motives. The waters have undoubtably been muddied by a substantial amount of deliberately seeded disinformation - using both official and unofficial channels. Some theories about 9-11 are crackpot. Others may be very accurate. Some are confusing mistures of sane analysis and rubbish. But the willful destruction of evidence, the absurb subsequent official investigations, the glaring lack of mass media follow-up on some topics that scream out for it... these all point to a major conspiracy involving several collaborating 'intelligence services' (or senior elements therein), key elements within the western mass media and at least a handful of complicit politicians. That is not, BTW, intended to be an exhaustive list of conspiring forces. There may be others, even better shielded from scrutiny than the above. How, for example, were the insurance / reinsurance companies bought off? Usually those guys don't like losing billions without putting up a fight. There has to be some very big money involved, if this scenario is correct. Sid, Yes, The points you just made are salient to 9/11 as conspiracy. I am especially interested in connections between the flight schools and CIA links. I can't remember where I read this unfortunately (sorry) but, the fact that a group of linked (by prior intelligence) Islamic students taking flying lessons for passenger jets, with linked authorizations and backgrounds (Mossoui was also linked to this group) should have lit up red alarms. If someone wanted to use a foreign agent for such an operation, a religious martyr (i.e. suicide bomber) would be an ideal candidate. The motive would be to create a state of terror and use that to undermine civil rights of the US. Also to use as a pretext to war in Iraq and maintan presence in middle east and Afghanistan. This established means motive and oportunity.

Any takers? If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition. The probability that the official story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero. Any takers?If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition. The probability that the Controlled Demolition story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero. By the way Sid - I'll be easy on you - find me just one. My Point: Sid's question may sound impressive and relevant but it is rhetorical nonsense. I can no more find an example of a building collapsing the same way as the towers, than he can find an example of a building surviving the same amount of damage as the towers and not collapsing. The reason is simple - 9-11 was unprecedented. The scope of the terrorist attack was unprecedented. The method of attack was unprecedented. The construction and scale of the targets was unique. Given all that, is it really all that surprising that the resulting damage was unprecedented? Your point, Len, is obfuscation. A steel framed concrete towerblock is a rather resilient structure. That's why they are common in modern cities. No steel framed concrete towerblock, to my knowledge, has ever been known to collapse - straight down and at near free-fall velocity - because the steel framework effectively melted due to internal fuel fires. There ARE cases of tower block collapse that are similar to what was observed on 9-11. Those are cases of controlled demolition, in which high-temperature explosives were stragically deployed. There are NO cases - I understand - of such collapses that did NOT involve controlled demolition. If there are such cases, please let us all know. If there aren't, this extraordinary co-incidence affecting THREE buildings in Manhatten on that day and only on that day is one heck of a smoking gun... Sid, I don't understand your obsessive suspicion of the twin tower collapse. Please look at the site I hyperlinked in the previous posting, as it clearly shows photos of the buildings' collapse, which occurred after some hours, and provided, what I believe is a sound engineering explanation. The events of 9/11, especially those prior to 9/11, may bear further scrutiny due to certain suspicious facts, such as the connection between the flight school in Florida and the CIA, but the building collapse, in and of itself, doesn;t appear to me to be much more than what it seemed. The attack occurred on a weekday, following a working day. To plan and execute a demolition, as pointed out at sites discussing this question (see the aforementioned hyperlink) would take many days of careful planning and execution, including placement of charges, structural modifications, and then controlled, sequential demolition. This would be impossible, I believe, logistically, to execute within a building occupied by thousands of white collar workers and the security staff. The logistical arrangement of faking the hijacking of the passenger jets, that is setting up these planes being hijacked and striking the targets would take the complicit surreptitious involvement of thousands, not including the assumption that the buildings had demolitions installed and used. Based upon the history of some past conspiracies (JFK’s assassination, for example) it seems that the US Government would have enough trouble coordinating a much smaller conspiracy, and even then, the “company line”, after the work done by several dedicated researchers, is shown up to be completely implausible. Coordinating a Government conspiracy on the order of 9/11 seems to me to be much too great to pull off. But even so, if it was, I don’t believe the Twin Tower hit and collapse would be part of it. It just doesn’t make any sense to me. One facet of the Twin Tower attack, which really hasn’t been exploited by the Media or the Government, is the fact that these building were especially vulnerable to this type of attack. Based upon their design, that they were curtain wall design, and exterior wall supported for all live loading, made these buildings especially vulnerable to strikes from jets with a large amount of fuel stored in their wings. This to me is very scary, that is, the attackers thought out and exploited this vulnerability impressively. I wonder why this fact wasn’t really exploited to a greater degree. Please read the hyperlinked site. I think that to find the string that might lead to (or be) clues to a conspiracy, one should first discount and eliminate, those events that are as they appear (the facts), and what I left over, esp. what suspiciously appears as conspiracy, may indeed be such. But there are people on this forum who are far more qualified than me at separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to conspiracy theory. By the way I enjoyed reading your response on WWI and your explanation of your position on Zionism around the turn of the century (the 20th century) and would like to read more of your ideas on the Jewish “Intellegentsia”, and its impact on early 19th century European politics. I had previously been taken aback with your statements as being anti Semitic. I am not agreeing with all of your views (esp. your Holocaust related views) but some discourse may be beneficial. Peter McKenna Hi Peter If it's obsession to stand my ground and insist on an answer to a relatively simple question then I guess I'm guilty as charged. I take it, by now, the (simple) answer is NO? In other words, there HASN'T been a collapse remotely like the collapse of THREE towers that ocvcured on 9-11, at ANY time in history before or since, EXCEPT when techniques of controlled demolition have been applied? Is that correct? (Last call...) OK... people. Draw your own conclusions from this mind-bending fact. I'll draw mine. You wrote: Why would it have been impossible? Maintenance staff work on large buildings teeming with people. If they are working in shafts and stairwells, many white collar staf won't even know they're in the building.I agree that an operation would be difficult, if not impossible, to rig the building for explosives without the consent or acquiescence of those in control of the buildings. Very useful to have the leaseholders onside. Chums within the leadership of the Port Authority would be handy too... I read your reference to the work of Tim Wilkinson of the Uni of Sydney. Not very impressive, I must say. Here's a sample: In other words, Tim hasn't much idea at all what happened to WTC 7. But we are encouraged to ponder a few questions. Never mind about WTC 7 folks... Nothing to see there! It's just one of nature's little mysteries - and may have to stay that way, as long as there's more pressing tasks at hand such as chasing terrorists, starting wars and stamping out 'hate crimes' against obvious suspects such as Mr Silverstein. Regarding the comments at the end of your post, Peter, thanks for what you said. I certainly believe that discourse is beneficial - and I respect people who play fair in free and open debate, people who aren't just out to 'win', score points or dissemble but who have a genuine interest in approaching that elusive Holy Grail: The Truth. Old Socrates had a good idea or two, IMO. Sid, Wilkinson evaluated the twin towers. Like myself, he didn't have much in details of the design of WTC 7, and the unique design of the twin towers, due to thier hieght, made this a unique design problem for structural engineering and academia. I especially found the photos interesting. The upshot of the site was that the collapse had much to do with the tremendous heat load and combustible laoding/damage between the floors and perimeter support. I answer to your question I know of no similar failure, I really don't think there was one where the buildings were exterior wall supported design. There have been other plane crashed into high rises. The empire state building comes to mind, but there the building didn't collapse, although it experienced significant damage. The difference being the design differences between the WTC and the Empire State Bldg. were radically different. The WTC twin towers had a unique design to be able to attain the height of the bldgs. But the question i have is why would conspirators go to such lengths to plant demolition materials for the WTC towers? The damage itself created the effect of extereme terror, and in my mind the attackers carfeully chose the most vulnerable targets for this type of attack. The question about your focusing on the towers is really about not focusing on other factors which seem to me to be much more worthy of attention. Anyway to answer you question, as far as I know, this is a very unique circumsatance. No other buildings of close to this height have been attacked as such, nor have any such buildings collapsed in this maner that I know of. Peter

Any takers? If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition. The probability that the official story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero. Any takers?If not, I propose rational, open-minded people should accept a simple proposition. The probability that the Controlled Demolition story of 9-11 is even vaguely accurate tends towards zero. By the way Sid - I'll be easy on you - find me just one. My Point: Sid's question may sound impressive and relevant but it is rhetorical nonsense. I can no more find an example of a building collapsing the same way as the towers, than he can find an example of a building surviving the same amount of damage as the towers and not collapsing. The reason is simple - 9-11 was unprecedented. The scope of the terrorist attack was unprecedented. The method of attack was unprecedented. The construction and scale of the targets was unique. Given all that, is it really all that surprising that the resulting damage was unprecedented? Your point, Len, is obfuscation. A steel framed concrete towerblock is a rather resilient structure. That's why they are common in modern cities. No steel framed concrete towerblock, to my knowledge, has ever been known to collapse - straight down and at near free-fall velocity - because the steel framework effectively melted due to internal fuel fires. There ARE cases of tower block collapse that are similar to what was observed on 9-11. Those are cases of controlled demolition, in which high-temperature explosives were stragically deployed. There are NO cases - I understand - of such collapses that did NOT involve controlled demolition. If there are such cases, please let us all know. If there aren't, this extraordinary co-incidence affecting THREE buildings in Manhatten on that day and only on that day is one heck of a smoking gun... Sid, I don't understand your obsessive suspicion of the twin tower collapse. Please look at the site I hyperlinked in the previous posting, as it clearly shows photos of the buildings' collapse, which occurred after some hours, and provided, what I believe is a sound engineering explanation. The events of 9/11, especially those prior to 9/11, may bear further scrutiny due to certain suspicious facts, such as the connection between the flight school in Florida and the CIA, but the building collapse, in and of itself, doesn;t appear to me to be much more than what it seemed. The attack occurred on a weekday, following a working day. To plan and execute a demolition, as pointed out at sites discussing this question (see the aforementioned hyperlink) would take many days of careful planning and execution, including placement of charges, structural modifications, and then controlled, sequential demolition. This would be impossible, I believe, logistically, to execute within a building occupied by thousands of white collar workers and the security staff. The logistical arrangement of faking the hijacking of the passenger jets, that is setting up these planes being hijacked and striking the targets would take the complicit surreptitious involvement of thousands, not including the assumption that the buildings had demolitions installed and used. Based upon the history of some past conspiracies (JFK’s assassination, for example) it seems that the US Government would have enough trouble coordinating a much smaller conspiracy, and even then, the “company line”, after the work done by several dedicated researchers, is shown up to be completely implausible. Coordinating a Government conspiracy on the order of 9/11 seems to me to be much too great to pull off. But even so, if it was, I don’t believe the Twin Tower hit and collapse would be part of it. It just doesn’t make any sense to me. One facet of the Twin Tower attack, which really hasn’t been exploited by the Media or the Government, is the fact that these building were especially vulnerable to this type of attack. Based upon their design, that they were curtain wall design, and exterior wall supported for all live loading, made these buildings especially vulnerable to strikes from jets with a large amount of fuel stored in their wings. This to me is very scary, that is, the attackers thought out and exploited this vulnerability impressively. I wonder why this fact wasn’t really exploited to a greater degree. Please read the hyperlinked site. I think that to find the string that might lead to (or be) clues to a conspiracy, one should first discount and eliminate, those events that are as they appear (the facts), and what I left over, esp. what suspiciously appears as conspiracy, may indeed be such. But there are people on this forum who are far more qualified than me at separating the wheat from the chaff when it comes to conspiracy theory. By the way I enjoyed reading your response on WWI and your explanation of your position on Zionism around the turn of the century (the 20th century) and would like to read more of your ideas on the Jewish “Intellegentsia”, and its impact on early 19th century European politics. I had previously been taken aback with your statements as being anti Semitic. I am not agreeing with all of your views (esp. your Holocaust related views) but some discourse may be beneficial. Peter McKenna