Peter McKenna

Mike Whitney has a great perspective. The key point among many he makes, is that for Russia, with its recent accession to the top of the global energy supplier rankings, the last thing they would desire would be a military confrontation on their doorstep. Note the role of the Western media--partners in crime with the Bush Government. Mark, I agree that the Western Media can't be trusted. But I don't trust the opposite side either, having seen their propaganda machine (which is coming back to be fairly effective). I also am very wary of Brzizenski and his world view, because his theories IMO are a main reason for our occupation of Iraq. How are you sifting through information to make conclusions? Also I've read where Russia is at odds with the Azerbhaijan-Turkmenistan oil and gas supply lines to Israel and wants to take control of the Caspian Oil supply route, which could place Georgia in center stage. Russia has, in the past, engaged in military aggression where it helped their agenda, also they have been the masters of propaganda and disinformation in the past, and Novosti seems to be very much players. Why do you think this case is different?

Maggie, I disagree with this article almost entirely. South Ossetia and Abkhazia were already recognized internationally as part of Georgia, so keeping them as part of Georgia can't really be a Coup. The reporting of Georgia's attacks on South Ossetia; as far as I can tell, when Russia advanced into the region, Georgia likely was honoring a French sponsored cease fire. The reports of Georgian atrocities in the South Ossetia/Tskhinvali region are likely the product of Russian propaganda. At least the source of this information can be traced back to Russian websites (look at Bolshoyforum.org) and I read at least one analysis that confirms this. Based on the size of the Russian advance, and if you look at the reported timeline for the reported Georgian attack on Tskhinvali, the Russians had to be planning and mobilizing far in advance of any Georgian attacks. An incursion that size cannot be planned and mobilized inside of hours as this article would suggest. I do agree that if Georgia was counting on any US military aid in this fighting then they are stupid. There is no way the U.S. would plant Army boots that close to Russian territory in a military conflict. That would invite disaster. Inviting Georgia into NATO? First I don't see how the United States has postured to protect any vital US interests in the region, and I don't think there are any vital US interests in the region. NATO membership is supposed to protect member nations from the expansion of hegemonic neighbors and invasion, but NATO can (and sometimes does) become subservient to a US agenda. I agree with John that Georgia is probably a little too red-necked (i.e. shotgun diplomats) to become a NATO member. The US has only been promoting Georgian autonomy (AFAI can tell) and independence, much the same as with Kosovo and their Declaration of Independence. This would of course annoy Russia, and in the long run would prevent Russian expansion, which would happen sooner or later, unless Georgia unequivically declares their independence. This is good for the US in the long run since it keeps Russia from ambitious land grabbing in the future. AFAIK, this is the extent of our involvement. There is a lot of Russian propaganda flowing right now on the Georgian situation. There is not much (actually none that I can find) evidence that Georgia attacked South Ossetia to start this crisis. in fact they insist that they were honoring a French brokered cease fire when Russia attacked. Based on the timing and the scope of the Russian advance, this appears to be the truth. Russia has pulled this before (especially when they were the Soviet Union). The current Russian Government is looking more and more totalitarian, and appear to be trying to improve the Russian sphere of influence to Soviet times. The US supported Kosovo when they declared independence so we should support South Ossetia. We are also provding humanitarian aid to Georgia. Outside of that, I agree we should not be involving ourselves (other than to endorse Georgian independence) in the energy politics of the region. There is a problem right now with determining what information concerning the Georgian-Russian crisis is true and what is propaganda.

Dear, dear, touch tetchy tonight, Mikey. No one to censor over at Lancer? Two hacks for a neocon puppet and war criminal met on a forum. One said to the other... Hmm. Are you still in the UK public school system Paul? You're language seems so familiar.

When the US government drops the liability in Georgia, I suppose. Won't be long, I suspect. What do you reckon, false flag assassination blamed on the Russkies? First of all, RE your response to Mike Wiliams', in the previous response, I was asking for your explanation as to your remark about not apologizing for War Criminals. Mike answered, but I was asking you. Secondly, I suppose you're referencing Litvinenko? Maybe Anna Politkovskaya, or any of the dozen journalists the FSB murdered for practicing dissention? Just how do you reckon the US is liable in Georgia? I admit if any warranty was given or implied to bolster Georgian aggression that would have been an error, but I seriously doubt that to be the case. My thinking is that the US has given Georgia its support in promoting independence from Russia, just as the US did for Kosovo. Our position has typically been to promote independence. I'm also fairly sure that in Russia's sphere of influence this must be pretty annoying. This patronage certainly wouldn't have pacified Russia, but then it also likely provided Russia pause, in lieu of running roughshod over Georgia, as is their wont. Just what false flag are you referring to? I assume Litvinenko, since this is the assasination of greatest controversy, and Russophiles, like yourself, love to place the blame on old oligarchs, like Berezovsky. But the simple truth is that Litvinenko was killed with a radioisotope, Polonium 210, which is only produced in one, Russian, reactor, and can be traced (and proven, if you believe the British investigators) to a Russian enjoying the protection of the Russian Government and who has ties back to Moscow, as well. With very little guile, it seems Litvinenko's murder was a message from the FSB, that once in the FSB, always in the FSB, and regardless of his politcal status, Litvinenko was subject to censure from his old bosses. But maybe you were referring to someone else? Anyway its a shame that propaganda must be waded through, hip deep, only to find no tangible facts at the end of the day anyway. So far it seems the Georgian situation doesn't benefit from unspun information. Flooding the net with information like that twelve year old's obvious BS surely doesn't help. By the way, have you ever had the opportunity to know any Russians who left the Soviet Union seeking political asylum in the UK? Like back in the day under the Helsinki agreement? People like that can provide enormous insight into the mindset of organizations like the KGB, and its officers, like Putin, and the people he surounds himself with (now FSB). The best to you, Pete

OK, now that I've seen it, I think it's safe to say, the accusation of "video trickery" in the video feeds of the WTC 1 and 2 attack and collapse, is one of the more desperate and imaginative claims made. Which is saying something. The Verrazano Bridge is said to be about 2-1/2 miles away from the WTC (in the feed). The bridge is about two miles long (roughly). That means that pretty much any change in perspective in the video streams for 9/11 will provide a different view of the bridge. The youtube presentation tries to imply that the bridge is far enough away that these changes in perspective (along with others images in the screen) prove "image layering", when all that it should mean is a change in the location of the camera. I'm not a photography expert, but I think its safe to say that minor changes in perspective, keeping the WTC in full frame, would result in the observed changes, instead of being, as these people claim, proof of fakery. Besides, what would be the point? That the whole attack was a put up job? That the tens of thousands of people who saw the second plane hit were deluded? That the masses of film on the second strike were all faked? And everyone involved is in on it? Sure, great, In that case, you should know that the Verrazano Bridge does move, and you can purchase it, take it home with you, and enjoy it, for a very reasonable fee. This is definitely one of the more entertaining of the 9/11 claims.

Haven't got to the end yet, but the out of synch visual and sound streams between ABC and CBS may be due to the digital delay in one or more of their satellite feeds or the difference in either digital delay or compression between the two signals being slightly out of adjustment. News steams that are digitally broadcast have built in digital delays to allow for signal multiplexing and compression, and then decoding and synching with other streams, like at an anchor desk in a different location. The digital delay should also require adjustment during a new broadcast, or an out of synch conditon may result (just as observed). The digital delay also allows for signal encryption and communications protection. This is a normal condition in digital communications. http://www.digitalspy.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=113590 I haven't looked at the 17 minutes from the end piece yet.

Simple - I don't do apologias for war criminals. Best to you, too, Mikey! Well that clears that up! Any chance of explaining?

Oh yes, this is obviously the "Truth". The girl actually says, "I was running from Georgian Troops, not Russian Troops. I'd like to thank the Russian Troops...", her first and only point to straighten out any confusion as to who is doing what. No chance she was prepped for that. I doubt if the truth will be understood for at least a couple of weeks. Russia has used the art of crisis creation to justify military action too many times in the past, and they are way too good at it. There is also no possible way that Russia hadn't planned for the mobilization and invasion of Georgia in advance of Georgia's "attack" on South Ossetia. When will the spin doctoring end and information that can actually be objectively viewed begin? Peter, Great observation. I wonder why Rigby did not come to that conclusion? Best to you Peter, Mike Thanks Mike, I hope Mr. Rigby enlightens us accordingly. Pete

You know Craig, I do not particularly care for some insinuations and accusations made about Len either, but you do realize that Len has never needed my help in defending himself? Mark's posts stand on their own, but that is a different thread.

I also have strong opnions about that subject. The war on drugs is a self perpetuating enterprise and there is a hell of a lot of information to support that. The approach of the criminal justice system to illegal narcotics just hasn't worked and costs us a huge amount in taxes. That being said, the accusation of illegal use isn't even relevant, besides being insulting.

Oh yes, this is obviously the "Truth". The girl actually says, "I was running from Georgian Troops, not Russian Troops. I'd like to thank the Russian Troops...", her first and only point to straighten out any confusion as to who is doing what. No chance she was prepped for that. I doubt if the truth will be understood for at least a couple of weeks. Russia has used the art of crisis creation to justify military action too many times in the past, and they are way too good at it. There is also no possible way that Russia hadn't planned for the mobilization and invasion of Georgia in advance of Georgia's "attack" on South Ossetia. When will the spin doctoring end and information that can actually be objectively viewed begin?

After reading many of Len’s posts since I joined the forum, I feel Len’s a real guy, who makes mistakes (typos) pretty much consistently, and has been pretty consistent in his personality. I make mistakes myself typing, since I have poor typing skills, and see some of this quality in Len’s posts. A lot of what Len has posted I have sided with, not all, but a substantial portion. To be honest, I couldn’t take Len’s position in this forum because frankly, I don’t have the energy. Possibly, some may feel Len maintains a provocative stance due to his ability to maintain a fairly high energy level. Maybe some don’t like dealing with Len due to his ability to maintain a pretty high energy level in a debate. This can be draining, which some may feel shunts them from the point or issue they were tangling with in the first place. I know I likely could not outlast Len in an intellectual contest of attrition. If anyone has ever read transcripts of the first Continental Congresses, in the United States, undertaking the debates that they held would challenge the sanity of any man. Debates would change to argument, provocation, fisticuffs, even fights to the death. Great stuff. I hope people do not feel it necessary to depart, but remain to engage in debate, where it erupts, for often the most thoughtful of points are made in the heat of a debate. I understand that some feel the forum is not an appropriate location for debate. I disagree with that. Maybe some posts are not made to be debated. Then, don’t debate them. I would even go so far as to qualify them in that sense, if you like. The smart people here probably know Socrates and Hegel better than I and would agree that truth often requires debate. I felt this forum carried that spirit to a degree and that John felt that way. Some of the debates I have read on this forum were insightful, in ways that evolved out of the dialectic, and not the rhetoric. I also would have great difficulty in having much regard for unchallenged theory or rhetoric. I think most people feel that way. I’m just throwing my two cents in on this issue, FWIW.

The aftermath & consequences of the Georgian war crime: http://bolshoyforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=18120.0 Calling the attack on Gori a “Georgian War Crime” is ridiculous. I didn't. Your point is ridiculous. Malign, quite possibly bonkers, but ridiculous. The South Ossetian capital and surrounding towns/villages weren't attacked by the Georgian war criminals, backed by NATO and the US? Really? Is this truly the best you could come up with? Paul TBILISI, Georgia (AP) – “The foreign minister of Russia said Thursday that Georgia could "forget about" getting back its two breakaway provinces, and the former Soviet republic remained on edge as Russia sent tank columns to search out and destroy Georgian military equipment…… The Georgian ambassador to the United States, H.E. Vasil Sikharulidze, said Russia was employing "scorched-earth" tactics - destroying Georgian commercial and military infrastructure and burning down religious sites beyond the conflict area of South Ossetia. “What defenses does Georgia have? Because of the cease-fire agreement, which Russia has not honored, Georgian troops are being moved to organize a defensive line 10 kilometers (six miles) away from Tbilisi," he said. Georgia also accused Russia of using short-range missiles in Poti and Gori, showing reporters purported images of shrapnel. There was no immediate response from Russia. Russian and Georgian troops briefly patrolled Gori, but relations between the two sides broke down and the Georgians left. At least 20 explosions were heard later near Gori, along with small-arms fire. It was not clear whether it was renewed fighting or the disposal of ordnance from a nearby Georgian military base. Russia said its troops were there to establish contact with the civilian administration and take over abandoned military depots. Gori, battered by Russian bombing over the week, lies on Georgia's main east-west road only 60 miles west of Tbilisi. AP Television News footage showed Russian troops in and near Gori, and Georgia said it was checking the area for mines. An AP Television News crew heard explosions at a military base in the western city of Senaki and were told by officials from both Russia and Georgia that the Russians were destroying ordnance. Dozens of Russian armored vehicles and troops later set up for the night under camouflage on the main road from Senaki north to Zugdidi. The same APTN crew followed Russian troops on the outskirts of Poti as they searched a field and a forest at an old Soviet military base for possible Georgian military equipment. Georgia's coast guard said Russian troops burned four Georgian patrol boats in Poti on Wednesday, then returned Thursday to loot and destroy the coast guard's radar and other equipment. Another APTN camera crew saw Russian soldiers and military vehicles parked inside the Georgian government's elegant gated residence in the western town of Zugdidi. Some of the Russian soldiers wore blue peacekeeping helmets, others wore green camouflage helmets, all were heavily armed. Other Russian troops patrolled the city. Note that at that time Russian troops were occupying Georgian territory, do you dispute this? GORI, Georgia, Aug 9 (Reuters) – “Russian warplanes carried out up to five bombing raids on Saturday around the Georgian town of Gori close to the embattled breakaway region of South Ossetia, a Reuters reporter at the scene said.” In the link you posted “Bolshoyforum” every source link referenced originated in Russia. Your links state that the Georgian “surprise” attack on Tskinvali began at approximately midnight on 8/8/08. The earliest posts in the link are dated August 11, after Russia attacked Gori and other towns in Georgia. You’ll note that at least one of the sites you linked reference atrocities in Gori, identifying they were faked. By the way, South Ossetia was part of Georgia until Russia announced that it wasn’t anymore. If you believe Georgia, Russia failed to honor the cease fire. This puts Russian military on Georgian soil either at approximately the same time or before Georgia attacked Tskhinvali. So the site you labeled as “The aftermath and the consequences of the Georgian War Crime”, as far as I can tell is Russian propaganda, released after Russia invaded Georgia. It is not even well disguised propaganda. You say that towns in South Ossetia were “Attacked by the Georgian war criminals backed by the US and the UN”. What does that mean? The US and the UN paid them or provoked them to attack secessionists in their own country? You must be joking. Explain please exactly how the US and the UN backed Georgia in fighting rebel factions in their own country. I don’t think so. I’m not denying Georgia may have committed atrocities. To be honest I don’t know. But I do know one thing, you don’t know either. Representing the information the way you did is propagandist.

The aftermath & consequences of the Georgian war crime: http://bolshoyforum.org/forum/index.php?topic=18120.0 Calling the attack on Gori a “Georgian War Crime” is ridiculous. Obviously, all of the links identified in your hyperlink, providing references for the identification of atrocities, use the internet address-suffix “RU” which is of Russian origin. This information is blatant propaganda. Every news site I have seen reports that the bombardment and subsequent attacks on Gori are of Russian origin. Those atrocities were the responsibility of Moscow. NPR, as well as other independent news outlets have reported that the incident was set off by South Ossetia's (also Abkhazia) appealing to Russia to help them secede from Georgia, which was likely provoked by Russia, since the US has been patronizing Georgia. Russia had already been making military incursions into Georgia, therefore their influence in South Ossetia is suspect. They have been observed to exert diplomatic extortion of one sort or another to former Soviet Bloc nations such as the Ukraine and Georgia to exert their influence. When Estonia removed a statue of Stalin, Russia launched a cyber-attack that shut them down. It should be obvious who attacked Gori. The power base in Moscow is composed of Ex-KGB or FSB (Putin was a KGB Colonel), and they are now trying to re-assert their regional influence.

Jack I responded to your query (yesterday 5:08 AM forum time) and opined that the circled items were brakes. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...100#entry150508 Pete I believe I responded to your posting. I did not know you consider yourself an UNTRUTHER. I always thought you were just a contrarian. Jack No response was made to my posting so I was feeling a bit left out. (especially considering The Areonautical guy also identified them as brake assemblies. What's the difference betwen contrariain and untruther? I'm not particular. and do not take a contrarian position just to create dichotomy. if not an inconveneince can you explain to me the diffeerence? Thanks

Jack I responded to your query (yesterday 5:08 AM forum time) and opined that the circled items were brakes. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...100#entry150508 Pete Maybe I am not considered to be from of the ranks of "untruthers". I assure you that I do not subscribe to most of the 9/11 "truth" movement theories (although I do have reservations aboout the official positions as well). Does this qualify me as an "untruther"?

Jack I responded to your query (yesterday 5:08 AM forum time) and opined that the circled items were brakes. http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...100#entry150508 Pete

How do you know it is metal? Could it be a flammable liquid? Could it be molten plastic or plexiglass or other office construction materials of a lower melting point than steel? If it is metal could it be a low melting point metal such as aluminum or some alloy used in making office furniture? I did not claim it is molten metal. In fact I do not think it is. Why are you misquoting me? Some people, including NIST, said it was molten metal....not me. Jack I took your statement implicitly. Apologies

How do you know it is metal? Could it be a flammable liquid? Could it be molten plastic or plexiglass or other office construction materials of a lower melting point than steel? If it is metal could it be a low melting point metal such as aluminum or some alloy used in making office furniture?

I am not familiar with the landing gear design (and these appear to be wheels from a landing gear), but the items within the red circles looks to me like brake assemblies (IMO). In one picture it apears that the brake element is withdrawn from the drum and in the other picture the end of the brake assembly (the drum) is visible (IMO). The strange looking metal tangs may be heat exchangers to allow air cooling over the brake drum end when the brakes are applied. It appears like two different wheels, maybe two halves of a wheel set. At least it appears that way, although there may some explanantion for the differences I am not aware of. Again I am no expert on airplane landing gear so this is only an opinion. Someone with more expertise should be able to offer a better explanation.

Peter, Have you read the case submtted by Judy Wood et al? It was an appeal. The case really had no merit. Reading it, it seems to me that the plaintiffs did not even try to create a logical argument. I could reiterate the appeal and its claims and argue the court's decision point by point, but anyone should be able to read it and reach a smimilar conclusion. I am not sure of the reasoning behind the submission of the appeal. Possibly just to go on record as having appealed, but the arguments do not reiterate the sweeping claims of the 9/11 anti-official theory as you have summarized above. The appeal is almost mocking in its language. As to your claims that none of the official story can stand up to any sort of scrutiny doesn't really apply. The appeal doesn't really attempt to counter anything (not n substance anyway, also your indictment, anove, only really stands as a claim in diametric opposition to the official story). In other words, this appeal just seems to square off, saying we're right and you're wrong. Reading the appeal, IMO, there was no merit, no sustance, and the argument was frivolous. I don't know why the appeal was written in this way.

Quote "A piece of historical revisionism worthy of inclusion in a Soviet-era encyclopedia: Hussein was a creature of the CIA, and it was the US which both instigated his invasion of Iran and furnished him with the weaponry. Just another Langley mass murderer, in other words. " That Saddam committed atrocities against the Kurds is hardly historical revisionism Human Rights Watch estimates that Saddam's 1987-1988 campaign of terror against the Kurds killed at least 50,000 and possibly as many as 100,000 Kurds. The Iraqi regime used chemical agents to include mustard gas and nerve agents in attacks against at least 40 Kurdish villages between 1987-1988. The largest was the attack on Halabja which resulted in approximately 5,000 deaths. o 2,000 Kurdish villages were destroyed during the campaign of terror. Documentation of the atrocities Saddam committed are legion, including the UN, human rights watch, and his trial, to name just a few sources. Saddam even published his intent on using plutonium processed from the Osirak reactor to manufacture a nuclear weapon to be used against Israel. Saddam published this after Iran attempted to destroy the reactor to persuade Iran that a nuclear weapon wouldn't be used against them. These tactics were not the product of the CIA. That he had a cozy relationship with the CIA at one time is not being debated. Would you kindly point out where exactly in the post an historical revision(ism) was submitted? I am not debating the motives of those who made the investment, but that an embargo would hurt the Zimbabwean people far more than the government, or Mugabe; in fact, by virtue of a history of the effectiveness of embargoes in general (take Myanmar for a particular example), they are ineffective. The premise behind an embargo is to cause sufficient suffering among the populace that they are forced to take control of their country by force from the targeted government. Ultimately and typically, emgargoes are not effective and cause great suffering to the people of the targeted countries. The damage is typically done not to the despots, but to the innocent people. Regardless of the motives of these investors (and I agree they seem quite a bit less than altruistic), some benefit would be felt by the Zimbabwean people. Where a country's populace is in dire need, any investment, even those made by greedy politicians manipulating the situation for their own benefit, is better than none at all. Are you advocating a boycott of Zimbabwe?

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23936674-401,00.html This basically reveals the impotence of the UN and the UN security council. Zimbabwe is becoming another Mynamar, where a despotic regime can mismanage its country and futrher its own ends at the expense of its populace. Even more alarming is the influence exerted by South Africa, a Russian puppet, in rendering the UN seucirty council impotent. South Africa would seem like the last nation to allow such behavior. It seems guarenteed that the African Union will also refuse to censure Mugabe. South Africa is apparently under Russia's sphere of influence and another in a long line of nations who averts their eyes from political oppression, allowing despots to enjoy immunity in preying upon their own populace and in commiting criminal acts of oppression. This particular act of negligence is largely due to Russia's permenant membership as one of the five permenant members of the UN security council. This seat provides Russia with Veto power over any UN security council act but also allows their tacit endorsement of oppression, the very type of oppression they themselves practice. The UN was supposed to recognize a greater responsibility shared in raising the awareness of political oppression and particularly in improving conditions in Africa, the poorest continent on earth. Such was the philosophy behind the "responsibility to protect" doctrine. Inch by inch they gain foothold. In the end those with little will have nothing and the despots will govern by fear and intimidation. "The world stood up and got the bastard. But the bitch that bore the bastard is in heat again." - Berthold Brecht 1945.

I thought this an important subject. Also, the subject of Myanmar and the criminal behavior of the Myanmar government, and the role of the UN and its "responsibility to protect" doctrine. While the West worries about its fuel supply, two thirds of the world has a problem finding its next meal and worry about whether their children can survive into adulthood. Is there a warped perspective in the world today with respect to its real problems?

"Truthers" --- are most accurately defined, in the context of 9/11, as "People Who, in Informed, Intelligent, Courageous Manners, Take Legitimate Issue with the Official Government Conspiracy Theory of the Attacks on 9/11/01." Charles, While this is likely a description of the majority within this group, I have personally encountered some "truthers" whose tactics were not even good enough to be defined as 'Ill-mannered'. On one occasion, when I attempted to enter into a civil discussion with a few 'leaflet handlers' on a street corner, as soon as they determined that I was not going to fall into compliant agreement with their 'point of view', they immediately resorted to ad homs and one guy even threatened me physically. Not all of these people are 'Courageously mannered'. When Bill Maher refused to enter into an impromptu discussion of '9/11 truth' on his cable show he was subjected to loud and threatening derision (heard on the show being screamed by some rowdy audience members). Maybe the "truthers", like any group, has its share of the ill mannered. On the other side of the coin, I have also seen many "truthers" act with zen like restraint in the face of an assault of derision.