Saturday, September 3, 2011

Pics and toons 9/3/11 (4)

 



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Pics and toons 9/3/11 (3)




 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Pics and toons 9/3/11 (2)

 



--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Pics and toons 9/3/11 (1)




 

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: 10 years, two wars, over a million dead....

At the time of the attack ten years ago on September 11th, 2001, Afghanistan was under the dominion and control of the Taliban, who did in fact support al Queida. 
 
What Executive Order is it that you are referencing, which purportedly protects the poppy fields?
 


 
On Sat, Sep 3, 2011 at 10:33 AM, THE ANNOINTED ONE <markmkahle@gmail.com> wrote:
and the US is still reeling from 9/11.

Neither of the governments of the two countries the US has attacked
has been proven to support the 9/11 attackers.

The countries whose banks and militaries did send training and the
money to AQ and others still remain untouched and actually guarded.

The poppy fields that are the one consistent source of finance for
terrorist organisations remain untouched and protected by US executive
mandate.

The attacks have succeeded ............ the US is broke.... it is the
Soviet years in Afghanistan in reverse with the US wall falling this
time. GET A CLUE !!!!!!!!

When will the US learn to think beyond the length of its ever
shortening penis?

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

10 years, two wars, over a million dead....

and the US is still reeling from 9/11.

Neither of the governments of the two countries the US has attacked
has been proven to support the 9/11 attackers.

The countries whose banks and militaries did send training and the
money to AQ and others still remain untouched and actually guarded.

The poppy fields that are the one consistent source of finance for
terrorist organisations remain untouched and protected by US executive
mandate.

The attacks have succeeded ............ the US is broke.... it is the
Soviet years in Afghanistan in reverse with the US wall falling this
time. GET A CLUE !!!!!!!!

When will the US learn to think beyond the length of its ever
shortening penis?

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: You Only Believe the Official 9/11 Story Because You Don't Know the Official 9/11 Story

The Knights of Columbus Immaculate Conception Council 13966 will be
hosting a "Blue Mass" (Google it), at the Immaculate Conception
Church, 600 Pleasant St., Malden, MA. on Sunday, September 11, 2011 -
11:00 AM, in recognition of the 10th anniversary of the attack, and,
more importantly, appreciation of our police, firefighters, EMTs and
all responders, who put their butts on the line when it counts.

A FREE breakfast will follow the Mass, in the Church Hall, down
stairs. It will be easy 2 find as there will be 2 fire dept (one
Medford, one Malden) ladder trucks, with ladders extended, and a huge
American Flag, draped betwixt.

Pancakes, eggs, bacon, sausage, hash browns, corned beef hash (be
brave, and try the rasberry horse radish) and toast, with assorted
juices and coffee.

All are invited.

Drop my name and I'll toss you an extra sausage (and some funky horse
radish).

God Bless America,

G

On Sep 2, 9:31 pm, Sage2 <wisdom...@gmail.com> wrote:
>            Duhhhh!   So why haven't you or any other goof officially
> filed charges ?  Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
> There's an old saying " put up or shut up " !  Not there is it ?
>
> ***************************************************************************­************************************************
>
> On Sep 2, 6:37 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > You Only Believe the Official 9/11 Story Because You Don't Know the Official 9/11 StoryI don't believe the official story of 9/11 because I know the official story of 9/11!During the past 10 years I have not met a single individual who, after doing research on the subject, switched from questioning the official narrative of the events of 9/11/2001 to believing the official narrative of those events..  It isalwaysthe other way around. Why do you think that is? There are good reasons for this, and I will try to explain this phenomenon right now.
> > The term "conspiracy theorist", perhaps the most misapplied description in our vernacular, is often used to describe 9/11 truthers. Perhaps that term does apply to a segment of the 9/11 truth movement. But in most cases a more accurate description of 9/11 truthers is probably "expert", or "scholar", or "researcher." You see, much of the doubt cast on the official narrative of the events of 9/11 has not come in the form of speculated accusations, or "theories." In fact, it has come in the form of questions that have been raised after a careful study of the official and undisputed events and details.
> > Ten years have passed since the infamous events of September 11th, 2001 took place, and the majority of people still don't know a damn thing about the actual details of that event. They don't know what was going on in the country with regard to our military that day. They don't know the history or the activities of key members of our government, defense establishment or intelligence community, on, or during the weeks, and in some cases the years leading up to that day. They don't know what took place during or immediately following the events of that day. And they don't know what actions were taken by those key people following that event.
> > As is the case with so many issues, people  tend to stand strong and argue a position or voice an opinion about an event like 9/11.  But, when questioned about the many details surrounding that event they have no answers. They are clueless. And they are, in the end, dumbfounded.
> > I can not tell you how many times I have discussed the events of 9/11 with an outraged citizen who can not believe that I would "accuse our own government" of such a terrible thing as conducting a false flag operation, only to hear the phrase "no, I did not know that, is that true?" repeated over and over as I "educate" them about those little things called DETAILS. I can not count the pale-faced stunned looks on people's faces as I exposed them to some of the "official facts" they never suspected, and never knew. I have walked away from many a confrontation with newly educated "patriotic Americans", only to worry about whether or not they would again resume breathing correctly.They would never do such a thingA common start and end to any intelligent discussion about the events of 9/11 is prefaced by the assumption that no American would betray his or her country by allowing or conducting an attack on the American people. Well, the people who take this position know nothing about history, let alone human nature. They also don't know about the public positions, declarations, speeches and published documents written by the people who ran our nation on that day.
> > False flag operations have taken place for generations, in this nation and nations around the world. Many of these operations have been exposed, but  proof of many of these activities is probably hidden away in secret documents that may one day come to light. You can however, start your exploration on the topic by researching one plan for American self-inflicted terrorism that became public,Operation Northwoods.Do I detect my first "I did not know this, is it true?" May I suggest you also peek intothe neoconservative teachings of the principles involved in running our nationat the time of the "new Pearl Harbor" that took place in 2001.But the 9/11 Commission did not find anything wrongI can not believe how many people do not know the genesis or mission of the 9/11 Kean Commission. From the initial appointment of one of America's most nefarious political figures as its original leader, Henry Kissinger, -  to its executive director whose area of expertise and education were in thecreation and maintaining of public myths,Philip D. Zelikow,-  people have no idea as to who comprised or what the mandate was for this commission.
> > To give you some kind of idea as to why the "findings" of this commission can NOT be used to back up any talking points on the topic of 9/11, let me remind you what the official task of this commission was. The Kean Commissions was told to document the official story and make national security recommendations based on that story. The only information that was to be included in the official report had to match the official story. If any one member of the committee objected to any testimony or finding, that piece of information was to be left out of the report For some examples of this you can talk to the thousands of people who became 9/11 truthers as a result of their testimony being omitted from and contradicted by the final report.
> > Start with the WTC worker credited with being the last man out of the WTCWilliam Rodriguez. See if he can tell you why, after being invited to the White House and meeting with George W. Bush, his testimony about witnessing explosions in the sub basement of the WTC moments prior to the first plane hitting the building was omitted from the Kean report. And for more details you can read David Ray Griffin's book calledThe 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions. It pretty much translated the Kean report into a stack of rather harsh and useless toilet paper. Are the "I did not know this, is it true?" responses piling up yet?Are you even qualified to discuss the issue?What people don't understand when discussing issues like 9/11 is that not everyone is qualified to join the discussion, let alone impose an "opinion" on the topic. 9/11 is not really a topic that is open to opinion. The conclusion you draw from the facts are open to opinion, but what many people don't realize about the 9/11 truth movement is that its opinions are based on facts, and grounded in the reality that its members know more of the facts than the average person. If you have a discussion with a doctor about medicine your opinions and views on the subject don't exactly merit the same consideration as do those of a group of physicians..
> > Similarly, someone like me (and many 9/11 truthers), has the equivalent of 3 PhD's on topics such as 9/11. I am a full time journalist. I research this kind of stuff every single day and I have been doing so since 2003. Not everyone is qualified to debate me on an issue like 9/11. We can discuss it. You can ask a great number of questions and perhaps inform me about aspects of the issue of which I am not aware. But you can't impose your "opinions" on me, nor can you do that to a majority of 9/11 truthers. And by the way, when it comes to opinions vs. facts, facts win. FOX News watchers don't seem to be able to grasp this concept.
> > People have to realize that what separates the unsuspecting mainstream masses from the 9/11 truth movement are factual information and details. Forget the claims and accusations. You don't need to go that far to understand that there is something fishy going on here.  Just look at the official body of evidence. It's all there and it will make your head spin. Don't listen to the accusations, just examine the evidence.You'll understand  so much if you really take a good look. In time, if you do your research thoroughly you may just compile a list of suspects, as have many of the 9/11 truthers. I have. But we are not there yet. We really have enough official evidence to lead to quite a few criminal indictments, and I am not kidding about this. But for now let's just talk about the facts and hope that some day we will have the real answers declared by juries in courtrooms. Chances are that many truthers would be proven correct in their accusations -  but again, for now, just look at the facts and understand that there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. And, find out that it's okay to say, "I did not know this, is it true?"So, are you qualified to take part in a discussion with a 9/11 truther?If you don't know about the "coincidental"military drills taking place on September 11, 2001, or about the interesting little political cabal known asPNAC or the Project for a New American Century, or if you don't know whatWTC7 is, or the 1,500 plus architects and engineers who have serious questions about how and why it dropped like a pancake on 9/11,  or if you don't know about the fact that up until his supposed murder, theFBI did not list Osama bin Laden as wanted for the events of 9/11because, in their own words, they had no proof of his involvement, then you are not qualified to enter a discussion about the event. You have a lot of homework to do before you can chime in. So on you go...study...but finish this article first. I'll bet the ranch that you'll be saying, over and over, "I did not know this, is it true?"Why don't we accept the official story?Here is a question that you should really think about. Don't just chime in with your own uninformed opinion because I am going to give you the answer to this question; the real honest answer. Why do you think I, Jesse Richard, founder of TvNewsLIES.org, have drawn the conclusion that the official narrative of the events of 9/11 is a crock? The answer to that is this...I did not always feel that
>
> ...
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Government Motors Not Responsible for General Motors Products


Government Motors Not Responsible for General Motors Products
Posted by Karen De Coster on September 3, 2011 04:35 AM

We knew that post-bailout, GM would face successor liability cases in the very near future, and GM's treatment of its customers does not disappoint.

General Motors Co ( GM.N) is seeking to dismiss a lawsuit over a suspension problem on more than 400,000 Chevrolet Impalas from the 2007 and 2008 model years, saying it should not be responsible for repairs because the flaw predated its bankruptcy.
...The current company, called "New GM," said it did not assume responsibility under the reorganization to fix the Impala problem, but only to make repairs "subject to conditions and limitations" in express written warranties.

Here are the court decisions regarding Chrysler and GM.

The Second Circuit authorized the § 363 sale to New Chrysler of Old Chrysler's assets free and clear of any existing tort liability (including asbestos claims), but declined to delineate the scope of the bankruptcy court's authority to extinguish future claims "until such time as we are presented with an actual claim for injury that is caused by Old Chrysler, that occurs after the Sale, and that is cognizable under state successor liability law." In re Chrysler, LLC, 576 F.3d 108, 126-27 (2d Cir. 2009).
In the case of GM, the S.D.N.Y. Bankruptcy Court was bound by the Second Circuit's decision in the Chrysler appeal, and permitted "GM's assets to pass to the purchaser free and clear of successor liability claims." In reGeneral Motors Corp., 407 B.R. 463, 505 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2009).

For those folks who insisted on the "Buy American" paradigm, I do not feel their pain for buying junk from a financially insolvent bank masquerading as an auto manufacturer. Here are two articles I co-wrote (#1 here and #2 here), with a fellow analyst and friend, about the demise and financial insolvency of Government Motors.

I remember very clearly the "backlash" against the bailouts on the part of those folks here in Detroit who are not pro-union. The union supporters, of course, were supremely happy about the benefit-the-union bailouts while the white collar folks (who are typically Republican leaning and have animosity toward the UAW) showed their indignation by ... buying Ford cars.

Yes, the post-bailout, anti-union attitude in and around Detroit was to go out and buy a Ford. Since everyone in southeast Michigan has family and friends in the auto industry, so many friends and co-workers were telling me they were being pressured by friends and family to "buy American," so they did. It amazes me that folks allow others to pressure their decision for such a high-dollar purchase. The default purchase, then, was Ford. Certainly, no one talks about the subsidies to Ford that helped underwrite its environmentally correct program.

On an anecdotal note, one story involves a co-worker who bought a Ford Escape a bit less than two years ago, because of pressure on him to "support Detroit" (his other family car is a Honda). Last week he told me that he has had the Escape back at the dealer 14 times in less than 2 years, for issues including transmission, steering/front end, air conditioning, sensors, electronics, oil leaks, etc. Time and time again, the dealer could not fix the issues until his 2nd or 3rd trip. He switched dealers and had the same problems. The steering took 4 trips to get it fixed. He was told, the first 3 times, "that's just the way the car is made." And this is a car with less than 30k miles. Why do I hear so many nightmare stories from folks about their new 'American' purchases and the ensuing dealer experience?

My experience with my first Honda, a 2005 I bought in 2010 from a dealer and with a certified warranty, is very different. The battery pooped out and left me stranded in week 2 of my ownership. The service manager at my local dealer said he had never witnessed a battery failure on a Honda Element, and he had been the service manager since they first rolled off the line. In light of that, and in spite of the fact that the certified warranty does not cover the battery, Honda replaced my battery free of charge and handed me a check for the towing bill. In fact, I had bought the vehicle at a Honda dealer 60 miles away, and that dealership worked with a dealer right near my house to get this done, and the two dealerships settled up the issue and I left with no charges and a check for my towing expense. Honda wanted to keep this customer, and it will.

So long ago, the Detroit auto industry embraced union politics and forgot all about service and the customer. My friends razz me for my Honda (yes, that's an attitude here and people don't want to let you forget), but I won't be buying American junk. Follow me on Twitter @karendecoster.

Did Ron Paul Force Obama to Reschedule a Speech?


Did Ron Paul Force Obama to Reschedule a Speech?
Written by Michael Tennant   
Thursday, 01 September 2011 23:00

Who says Ron Paul can't beat Barack Obama? The Texas Congressman's threat to prevent the President's upcoming speech to Congress from occurring the same night as a Republican presidential candidates' debate ­ a debate in which Paul will participate ­ may very well have been the deciding factor in forcing Obama to postpone his appearance.

Obama sent a letter to House Speaker John Boehner Wednesday morning requesting to speak before a joint session of Congress on September 7 at 8 p.m. Eastern. Shortly thereafter the White House announced the President's speech, which is to present his proposed jobs program. There was just one problem: A GOP presidential debate at the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library is already scheduled to take place at that same time.

No one seriously believes the White House's denials that Obama's speech was timed to keep television viewers from seeing the opposition. NBC's Chuck Todd, for instance, remarked that the timing was "hardly a coincidence." The Hill noted that "it's not the first time the president has moved to counter-program the Republican presidential field. After the influential Ames straw poll last month, Obama's bus tour rolled into Iowa the following Monday, leading to complaints from Republicans about the political overtones of the taxpayer-funded trip."

White House Press Secretary Jay Carney's response to questions about the timing of the speech didn't exactly win sympathy for the President's cause, either. Carney suggested that the sponsors of the debate and the candidates "adjust the timing of the debate" to avoid the conflict with Obama's speech. In other words, eight people who have been planning for weeks to attend this debate ought to give way to one man who gave only seven days' notice of his intentions ­ and that to a Congress that was in recess until the very day on which Obama desired to speak to it.

Enter Ron Paul. Recognizing Obama's move for the "raw display of political gamesmanship" (in the words of McClatchy Newspapers' Steven Thomma) that it was, Paul dispatched spokesman Jesse Benton to inform the press that the Congressman was "weighing his options" with regard to blocking Obama's speech. Both houses of Congress have to adopt a concurrent resolution to call a joint session, a procedure normally done by voice vote, called unanimous consent. Any legislator, however, can object to that approach and force a recorded vote; and clearly Paul had that in mind. With Congress only returning to session September 7, the vote would almost certainly have taken place after Obama's requested time, thus preventing him from stealing the Republican candidates' thunder.

Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) also indicated he would block the President's speech, and it's likely that Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who is also scheduled to participate in the debate, would have done likewise.

By 4 p.m. Boehner had rejected Obama's request, citing the fact that even with unanimous consent the concurrent resolution would at best have been adopted a mere 90 minutes prior to Obama's requested time (since the first vote of the session is scheduled for 6:30 p.m.), which would not allow the necessary three hours for the security sweep of the Capitol prior to the President's appearance. The Speaker instead offered Obama a time of his choosing the following day. The White House backed down, opting to postpone Obama's speech by 24 hours, putting the President in the unenviable position of trying to attract an audience opposite the first game of the National Football League season. Football fans needn't worry, though: Obama's communications director, Dan Pfeiffer, assured viewers of MSNBC's Morning Joe on Thursday that the speech will be over before kickoff.

The Obama administration was, naturally, unhappy with the outcome, though there was little it could do about it. "Senior White House officials" told Politico that Boehner "had essentially signed off on the 8 p.m., Sept. 7 slot before they went public." Carney repeated that assertion in a statement Wednesday night: "We consulted with the Speaker about that date before the letter was released, but he determined Thursday would work better."

The Speaker's office, however, denies having agreed to Obama's request in advance. "No one in the Speaker's office ­ not the Speaker, not any staff ­ signed off on the date the White House announced today," Boehner's press secretary, Brandon Buck, said.

Whichever side is telling the truth, it is definitely true that publicly refusing a President's request to speak before Congress is rare, if not unprecedented. Then again, as Thomma observed, so was the President's "publicly inviting himself for a specific date and time." Normally these things are worked out in advance behind the scenes, with a subsequent presidential request to Congress mostly a formality.

Moreover, it cannot be denied that Paul's public musings about standing in the way of Obama's speech played into Boehner's decision. The Paul campaign certainly took credit for it, saying Paul had "initiated talk about objecting to the President's plan calling a joint session at this time" and praising Boehner for "seiz[ing] the initiative." From Boehner's perspective, while it might look bad for the House to reject Obama's request the day he submitted it, it would look far worse to end up having to postpone the speech at the last minute because of an objection from a Congressman. Could the Speaker afford to take that chance?

Paul's former chief of staff, Lew Rockwell, thinks not. "Both parties were scared of Ron Paul," he asserts. "They knew he had never hesitated to be the one vote against evil or nonsense in the past, and he would block unanimous consent. And with Ron as the leader against Obama, what Republican would dare take the establishment side?"

Whether or not Paul's potential objection was the deciding factor, one thing is for sure: If Obama thought he was a shoo-in for reelection, he wouldn't waste his time trying to divert attention from those who seek to challenge him.



http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/8836-did-ron-paul-force-obama-to-reschedule-a-speech

Libya Is Nothing for Obama to Be Proud Of


Libya Is Nothing for Obama to Be Proud Of
by Sheldon Richman, September 2, 2011

Barack Obama will no doubt list the overthrow of Muammar Qaddafi in Libya as one of his foreign-policy triumphs. But anyone paying close attention will realize that Obama should be ashamed of what he did. Indeed, Congress should be inquiring whether he committed an impeachable offense.

What did he do? Like an autocrat, he committed U.S. military forces to a civil war in a foreign country without asking for a congressional declaration, as the U.S. Constitution requires, and even without complying with the less-stringent requirements of the 1973 War Powers Resolution. Under that law, a president may send troops into a war only in "a national emergency created by attack upon the United States, its territories or possessions, or its armed forces." Obviously that was not the case with Libya. There was never a threat to the United States, and Obama did not even pretend there was. He himself said the purpose of the air mission he and his NATO allies staged was merely to protect Libyan civilians.

The Obama administration brushed off this objection by saying that it can use force unilaterally in "the national interest," a hopelessly vague standard found nowhere in any law.

The War Powers Resolution goes on to say that once a president has committed troops on his own say-so, he must obtain congressional authorization within 60 days. That deadline passed long ago. Obama never asked for or received formal authorization. Under those circumstances, he had 30 more days to disengage from the military operation. He has not done that.

How much flouting of a simple law can one man be guilty of?

With typical arrogance, the administration says the War Powers Resolution is irrelevant because the Libyan civil war does not constitute "hostilities."

So on top of this flagrant lawlessness, Obama insults the intelligence of the American people.

Where are those members of Congress who claim to believe in the Constitution and rule of law? If a president can get away with what Obama has pulled, he can get away with anything.

It is astounding that an American president unilaterally can send forces into a foreign country, drop bombs, inflict civilian casualties, help overthrow the government ­ and hardly anyone speaks up for the rule of law. Are the American people so inured to abuse by "their" government?

Obama supporters, who happily tolerate what they hated when George W. Bush did it, praise the president for showing the American people how foreign intervention is properly done. We are to believe that all is okay if ground troops are not deployed, American casualties are avoided, the price tag isn't too great, and NATO seems to be at the forefront. In other words, if only foreigners get killed and maimed because American pilots stay at a safe altitude and pilotless drones shoot their deadly Hellfire missiles, then who cares?

We have many reasons to care. The first is that it is nuts to concentrate so much power in the hands of one person. So far, the Libya operation has not blown up in America's face, but what about the next time? No president can be trusted to decide when an intervention is safe and when it is not. Incidentally, the Libya affair is not over. No one can say with certainty what kind of regime will succeed Qaddafi's with NATO's help. The anti-Qaddafi rebels are a disparate collection of people, some of whom are not likely to be Jeffersonian democrats. No decent person will regret seeing Qaddafi brought to justice, but the end does not justify the means.

Another reason for concern is that we cannot have liberty and fiscal sanity at home if the U.S. government polices the world, even with congressional approval. Those who think government can be limited while a huge "national security" apparatus runs amuck are woefully mistaken. If they haven't learned that over the last ten years, then they must have been sleepwalking.

Looking for monsters abroad inevitably leads to violations of our freedom and privacy here, not to mention deficit spending with all its attendant evils.

The American people have been sold out for the political and economic booty of empire. When will those responsible be brought to justice?

http://www.fff.org/comment/com1109c.asp

Re: You Only Believe the Official 9/11 Story Because You Don't Know the Official 9/11 Story



On Fri, Sep 2, 2011 at 6:37 PM, MJ <michaelj@america.net> wrote:
You Only Believe the Official 9/11 Story Because You Don't Know the Official 9/11 Story
I don't believe the official story of 9/11 because I know the official story of 9/11!

During the past 10 years I have not met a single individual who, after doing research on the subject, switched from questioning the official narrative of the events of 9/11/2001 to believing the official narrative of those events..  It is always the other way around. Why do you think that is? There are good reasons for this, and I will try to explain this phenomenon right now.

The term " conspiracy theorist", perhaps the most misapplied description in our vernacular, is often used to describe 9/11 truthers. Perhaps that term does apply to a segment of the 9/11 truth movement. But in most cases a more accurate description of 9/11 truthers is probably "expert", or "scholar", or "researcher." You see, much of the doubt cast on the official narrative of the events of 9/11 has not come in the form of speculated accusations, or "theories." In fact, it has come in the form of questions that have been raised after a careful study of the official and undisputed events and details.

Ten years have passed since the infamous events of September 11th, 2001 took place, and the majority of people still don't know a damn thing about the actual details of that event. They don't know what was going on in the country with regard to our military that day. They don't know the history or the activities of key members of our government, defense establishment or intelligence community, on, or during the weeks, and in some cases the years leading up to that day. They don't know what took place during or immediately following the events of that day. And they don't know what actions were taken by those key people following that event.

As is the case with so many issues, people  tend to stand strong and argue a position or voice an opinion about an event like 9/11.  But, when questioned about the many details surrounding that event they have no answers. They are clueless. And they are, in the end, dumbfounded.
I can not tell you how many times I have discussed the events of 9/11 with an outraged citizen who can not believe that I would "accuse our own government" of such a terrible thing as conducting a false flag operation, only to hear the phrase "no, I did not know that, is that true?" repeated over and over as I "educate" them about those little things called DETAILS. I can not count the pale-faced stunned looks on people's faces as I exposed them to some of the "official facts" they never suspected, and never knew. I have walked away from many a confrontation with newly educated "patriotic Americans", only to worry about whether or not they would again resume breathing correctly.

They would never do such a thing

A common start and end to any intelligent discussion about the events of 9/11 is prefaced by the assumption that no American would betray his or her country by allowing or conducting an attack on the American people. Well, the people who take this position know nothing about history, let alone human nature. They also don't know about the public positions, declarations, speeches and published documents written by the people who ran our nation on that day.

False flag operations have taken place for generations, in this nation and nations around the world. Many of these operations have been exposed, but  proof of many of these activities is probably hidden away in secret documents that may one day come to light. You can however, start your exploration on the topic by researching one plan for American self-inflicted terrorism that became public, Operation Northwoods. Do I detect my first "I did not know this, is it true?" May I suggest you also peek into the neoconservative teachings of the principles involved in running our nation at the time of the "new Pearl Harbor" that took place in 2001.

But the 9/11 Commission did not find anything wrong

I can not believe how many people do not know the genesis or mission of the 9/11 Kean Commission. From the initial appointment of one of America's most nefarious political figures as its original leader, Henry Kissinger, -  to its executive director whose area of expertise and education were in the creation and maintaining of public myths, Philip D. Zelikow,-  people have no idea as to who comprised or what the mandate was for this commission.

To give you some kind of idea as to why the "findings" of this commission can NOT be used to back up any talking points on the topic of 9/11, let me remind you what the official task of this commission was. The Kean Commissions was told to document the official story and make national security recommendations based on that story. The only information that was to be included in the official report had to match the official story. If any one member of the committee objected to any testimony or finding, that piece of information was to be left out of the report For some examples of this you can talk to the thousands of people who became 9/11 truthers as a result of their testimony being omitted from and contradicted by the final report.

Start with the WTC worker credited with being the last man out of the WTC William Rodriguez. See if he can tell you why, after being invited to the White House and meeting with George W. Bush, his testimony about witnessing explosions in the sub basement of the WTC moments prior to the first plane hitting the building was omitted from the Kean report. And for more details you can read David Ray Griffin's book called The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions. It pretty much translated the Kean report into a stack of rather harsh and useless toilet paper. Are the "I did not know this, is it true?" responses piling up yet?
Are you even qualified to discuss the issue?

What people don't understand when discussing issues like 9/11 is that not everyone is qualified to join the discussion, let alone impose an "opinion" on the topic. 9/11 is not really a topic that is open to opinion. The conclusion you draw from the facts are open to opinion, but what many people don't realize about the 9/11 truth movement is that its opinions are based on facts, and grounded in the reality that its members know more of the facts than the average person. If you have a discussion with a doctor about medicine your opinions and views on the subject don't exactly merit the same consideration as do those of a group of physicians..

Similarly, someone like me (and many 9/11 truthers), has the equivalent of 3 PhD's on topics such as 9/11. I am a full time journalist. I research this kind of stuff every single day and I have been doing so since 2003. Not everyone is qualified to debate me on an issue like 9/11. We can discuss it. You can ask a great number of questions and perhaps inform me about aspects of the issue of which I am not aware. But you can't impose your "opinions" on me, nor can you do that to a majority of 9/11 truthers. And by the way, when it comes to opinions vs. facts, facts win. FOX News watchers don't seem to be able to grasp this concept.

People have to realize that what separates the unsuspecting mainstream masses from the 9/11 truth movement are factual information and details. Forget the claims and accusations. You don't need to go that far to understand that there is something fishy going on here.  Just look at the official body of evidence. It's all there and it will make your head spin. Don't listen to the accusations, just examine the evidence.You'll understand  so much if you really take a good look. In time, if you do your research thoroughly you may just compile a list of suspects, as have many of the 9/11 truthers. I have. But we are not there yet. We really have enough official evidence to lead to quite a few criminal indictments, and I am not kidding about this. But for now let's just talk about the facts and hope that some day we will have the real answers declared by juries in courtrooms. Chances are that many truthers would be proven correct in their accusations -  but again, for now, just look at the facts and understand that there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. And, find out that it's okay to say, "I did not know this, is it true?"

So, are you qualified to take part in a discussion with a 9/11 truther?

If you don't know about the "coincidental" military drills taking place on September 11, 2001, or about the interesting little political cabal known as PNAC or the Project for a New American Century, or if you don't know what WTC7 is, or the 1,500 plus architects and engineers who have serious questions about how and why it dropped like a pancake on 9/11,  or if you don't know about the fact that up until his supposed murder, the FBI did not list Osama bin Laden as wanted for the events of 9/11 because, in their own words, they had no proof of his involvement, then you are not qualified to enter a discussion about the event. You have a lot of homework to do before you can chime in. So on you go...study...but finish this article first. I'll bet the ranch that you'll be saying, over and over, "I did not know this, is it true?"

Why don't we accept the official story?

Here is a question that you should really think about. Don't just chime in with your own uninformed opinion because I am going to give you the answer to this question; the real honest answer. Why do you think I, Jesse Richard, founder of TvNewsLIES.org, have drawn the conclusion that the official narrative of the events of 9/11 is a crock? The answer to that is this...I did not always feel that way. As a matter of fact ,within hours of the event I emailed to all my friends a blistering attack on Islamic fundamentalism. And while some things that happened that day, or did not happen that day, (and week I should say,)  seemed odd, I was not immediately suspicious of the "story" being told on TV about the event.

It took me almost two years before I saw enough "official" information to make me realize that there was something, actually many things, that were very wrong. I came across so many disturbing, yet official and undisputed facts that I started asking others about it. Most people did not know what I was talking about. Nobody knew the details.  So your answer is this...I don't believe the official story because I know the official story! I don't believe the conclusion, and the little tale of 19 buffoons overtaking our national defense all by themselves. The official position on that by the way, is that they, the FBI, have no proof of the identity of the so-called hijackers or that there were any hijackers at all. They are not listed on the passenger lists, but you would not know that.

BUT...the official story and facts are what made me realize something was very wrong with the public perception of what took place that day, and who was responsible for what took place that day.  The official story, when accepted and believed, morphs by any logic into a total and absolute fabrication!

So if you believe the conclusion to the official story, you had better know that story from start to finish. Don't approach this they way the Kean Commission approached it, by starting out accepting the explanation as truth. Study the events, study the officially acknowledged body of evidence and study the people who told you the story in the first place...and I bet it won't be long before you have as many questions as do I about that infamous day and about the people who control our government. And, of course, you'll be saying, "I did not know this, is it true?"

Okay, then, who really was behind the attacks on 9/11?

9/11 truthers make the mistake of starting their discussions with conclusions...I am not doing that. All I am saying is that there are a lot of questions about what happened that day that are not answered by the official conclusion or explanation. I would like some answers that add up. I did the math myself and I have my own "theories", but I am a journalist, and I deal in the facts, not the fables.

The official story, as fed to the American public is filled with unsupported and implausible explanations designed to convince a gullible public that they should ask no questions and trust their leaders to take revenge on those who hated us for our freedom.  Volumes can be, and have been written about so many of them.  For the most part, you have not read any of them.

In this article, I've posed many questions and have provided links to their answers - so that you will more clearly understand that there is SO much we have not been told about the attacks that took place a decade ago.  But, those facts are the tip of a very well hidden iceberg, because there are so many questions that still remain unanswered.

So, I will end this article with a sampling of the questions that must be answered, or in the very least, investigated by impartial truth seekers..  They must NOT be ignored, or accepted simply because they were offered to a frightened nation by an administration defined by its lies.  They are legitimate questions, based on legitimate suspicions.  They are not, for a single moment, conspiracy theories"
  1. Why did the news agencies report that WTC 7 collapsed almost 1/2 hour before it did, even though it was not hit by a plane, only had a few floors on fire, and gave no indication that it was in any serious danger?
  2. Why do we still believe the tale of the 19 hijackers when so many of the accused hijackers showed up ALIVE within days? And why do we sill believe the fable of the 19 hijackers when the FBI admitted that they are not sure about either the identity of the hijackers or if there were any hijackers at all?
  3. Why was WTC 7 rebuilt, reopened and reoccupied with no press attention? Wouldn't this be an important victory in American resolve and perseverance?
  4. Why were the NORAD rules changed for the first time several weeks prior to 9/11, taking responsibility/authority for shooting down hijacked lanes away from NORAD military command for the first time in its history, and given to a civilian, Donald Rumsfeld, and then returned to NORAD the day after 9/11?
  5. Why would hijackers planning on attacking NY and Washington DC drive from Florida, pass both DC and NY,  and drive all the way to Maine and hinge this huge operation on a connecting flight from Maine to Boston, where we are told they hijacked their plane? Why wouldn't they fly out of any of the airports that are visible from their targets, like Newark, La Guardia or JFK...or even some of the smaller local airports that would have given them a clear easy path to their target and reduce the amount of time that our air defense systems would have to stop them?
  6. Who placed all of those put options on the airlines just prior to the event, as if they knew that the stock prices on those specific airlines would lose  a huge amount of value?
  7. Why  did George W. Bush's Secret Service detail not rush the president to safety when it was evident that the nation was under attack? If the nation was under attack, and they did not know the scope of the attack, and the president's location was known, how did they not worry about being attacked in Florida?. Why did they act as if they knew that there was no threat? And why, when our nation was under attack, did the president not rush into action? If you say he was concerned about upsetting the children, you are the ultimate apologist. He could have told them that his mommy was on the phone and he had to see what she wanted. Our county was supposedly being attacked and he/they waited 20 minutes before they moved. This is the smoking gun of smoking guns.
  8. Why did the FBI never list Osama bin Laden as being wanted for 9/11? Actually, we know this one...because they admitted that they had no evidence linking him to the event.
  9. Why was their molten metal flowing under the wreckage of the WTC for months? No jet fuel can melt metal, and nothing explainable could melt that much metal and keep it hot enough to remain molten for a month.
  10. How did a passport of one of the so called hijackers make it through the huge fireball and end up on the street?
  11. Why have photos from the 80+ cameras confiscated at the Pentagon never been released?
  12. Why did the airplane that supposedly crashed at Shanksville vaporize so that nothing remained, not bodies, not luggage, not metal, - nothing - for the first time in aviation history? However, we are told that even though the plane vaporized at Shanksville, a hand-written note from a hijacker was found.

Of course, there are so many more.  We deserve the answers.  We deserve the right to ask these questions in public forums like the corporate media....who will not touch them with the proverbial ten foot pole. We have gate keepers on the Internet who actively ridicule and dismiss anyone who dares to raise these questions.  Will you be one of them?  Or, after really thinking about them, will you hope that one day, when we know what went on before, during and after the attacks on 9/11, - we can all say: "I did not know this, but I'm now  absolutely convinced that it is true."
Think about it...it's really time to think about it.
Jesse Richard - Founder, TvNewsLIES.org

More:

9/11 Facts
The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11

Patriots Question 9/11

Reprint permission granted providing a live link back to this original article is included. We prefer that you include portions of the original and link back, but you may re-post the article in it's entirety as long as you link back. Thank you.


http://bit.ly/nKlANf

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum
 
* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

Re: You Only Believe the Official 9/11 Story Because You Don't Know the Official 9/11 Story

Duhhhh! So why haven't you or any other goof officially
filed charges ? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
There's an old saying " put up or shut up " ! Not there is it ?

***************************************************************************************************************************

On Sep 2, 6:37 pm, MJ <micha...@america.net> wrote:
> You Only Believe the Official 9/11 Story Because You Don't Know the Official 9/11 StoryI don't believe the official story of 9/11 because I know the official story of 9/11!During the past 10 years I have not met a single individual who, after doing research on the subject, switched from questioning the official narrative of the events of 9/11/2001 to believing the official narrative of those events..  It isalwaysthe other way around. Why do you think that is? There are good reasons for this, and I will try to explain this phenomenon right now.
> The term "conspiracy theorist", perhaps the most misapplied description in our vernacular, is often used to describe 9/11 truthers. Perhaps that term does apply to a segment of the 9/11 truth movement. But in most cases a more accurate description of 9/11 truthers is probably "expert", or "scholar", or "researcher." You see, much of the doubt cast on the official narrative of the events of 9/11 has not come in the form of speculated accusations, or "theories." In fact, it has come in the form of questions that have been raised after a careful study of the official and undisputed events and details.
> Ten years have passed since the infamous events of September 11th, 2001 took place, and the majority of people still don't know a damn thing about the actual details of that event. They don't know what was going on in the country with regard to our military that day. They don't know the history or the activities of key members of our government, defense establishment or intelligence community, on, or during the weeks, and in some cases the years leading up to that day. They don't know what took place during or immediately following the events of that day. And they don't know what actions were taken by those key people following that event.
> As is the case with so many issues, people  tend to stand strong and argue a position or voice an opinion about an event like 9/11.  But, when questioned about the many details surrounding that event they have no answers. They are clueless. And they are, in the end, dumbfounded.
> I can not tell you how many times I have discussed the events of 9/11 with an outraged citizen who can not believe that I would "accuse our own government" of such a terrible thing as conducting a false flag operation, only to hear the phrase "no, I did not know that, is that true?" repeated over and over as I "educate" them about those little things called DETAILS. I can not count the pale-faced stunned looks on people's faces as I exposed them to some of the "official facts" they never suspected, and never knew. I have walked away from many a confrontation with newly educated "patriotic Americans", only to worry about whether or not they would again resume breathing correctly.They would never do such a thingA common start and end to any intelligent discussion about the events of 9/11 is prefaced by the assumption that no American would betray his or her country by allowing or conducting an attack on the American people. Well, the people who take this position know nothing about history, let alone human nature. They also don't know about the public positions, declarations, speeches and published documents written by the people who ran our nation on that day.
> False flag operations have taken place for generations, in this nation and nations around the world. Many of these operations have been exposed, but  proof of many of these activities is probably hidden away in secret documents that may one day come to light. You can however, start your exploration on the topic by researching one plan for American self-inflicted terrorism that became public,Operation Northwoods.Do I detect my first "I did not know this, is it true?" May I suggest you also peek intothe neoconservative teachings of the principles involved in running our nationat the time of the "new Pearl Harbor" that took place in 2001.But the 9/11 Commission did not find anything wrongI can not believe how many people do not know the genesis or mission of the 9/11 Kean Commission. From the initial appointment of one of America's most nefarious political figures as its original leader, Henry Kissinger, -  to its executive director whose area of expertise and education were in thecreation and maintaining of public myths,Philip D. Zelikow,-  people have no idea as to who comprised or what the mandate was for this commission.
> To give you some kind of idea as to why the "findings" of this commission can NOT be used to back up any talking points on the topic of 9/11, let me remind you what the official task of this commission was. The Kean Commissions was told to document the official story and make national security recommendations based on that story. The only information that was to be included in the official report had to match the official story. If any one member of the committee objected to any testimony or finding, that piece of information was to be left out of the report For some examples of this you can talk to the thousands of people who became 9/11 truthers as a result of their testimony being omitted from and contradicted by the final report.
> Start with the WTC worker credited with being the last man out of the WTCWilliam Rodriguez. See if he can tell you why, after being invited to the White House and meeting with George W. Bush, his testimony about witnessing explosions in the sub basement of the WTC moments prior to the first plane hitting the building was omitted from the Kean report. And for more details you can read David Ray Griffin's book calledThe 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions. It pretty much translated the Kean report into a stack of rather harsh and useless toilet paper. Are the "I did not know this, is it true?" responses piling up yet?Are you even qualified to discuss the issue?What people don't understand when discussing issues like 9/11 is that not everyone is qualified to join the discussion, let alone impose an "opinion" on the topic. 9/11 is not really a topic that is open to opinion. The conclusion you draw from the facts are open to opinion, but what many people don't realize about the 9/11 truth movement is that its opinions are based on facts, and grounded in the reality that its members know more of the facts than the average person. If you have a discussion with a doctor about medicine your opinions and views on the subject don't exactly merit the same consideration as do those of a group of physicians..
> Similarly, someone like me (and many 9/11 truthers), has the equivalent of 3 PhD's on topics such as 9/11. I am a full time journalist. I research this kind of stuff every single day and I have been doing so since 2003. Not everyone is qualified to debate me on an issue like 9/11. We can discuss it. You can ask a great number of questions and perhaps inform me about aspects of the issue of which I am not aware. But you can't impose your "opinions" on me, nor can you do that to a majority of 9/11 truthers. And by the way, when it comes to opinions vs. facts, facts win. FOX News watchers don't seem to be able to grasp this concept.
> People have to realize that what separates the unsuspecting mainstream masses from the 9/11 truth movement are factual information and details. Forget the claims and accusations. You don't need to go that far to understand that there is something fishy going on here.  Just look at the official body of evidence. It's all there and it will make your head spin. Don't listen to the accusations, just examine the evidence.You'll understand  so much if you really take a good look. In time, if you do your research thoroughly you may just compile a list of suspects, as have many of the 9/11 truthers. I have. But we are not there yet. We really have enough official evidence to lead to quite a few criminal indictments, and I am not kidding about this. But for now let's just talk about the facts and hope that some day we will have the real answers declared by juries in courtrooms. Chances are that many truthers would be proven correct in their accusations -  but again, for now, just look at the facts and understand that there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. And, find out that it's okay to say, "I did not know this, is it true?"So, are you qualified to take part in a discussion with a 9/11 truther?If you don't know about the "coincidental"military drills taking place on September 11, 2001, or about the interesting little political cabal known asPNAC or the Project for a New American Century, or if you don't know whatWTC7 is, or the 1,500 plus architects and engineers who have serious questions about how and why it dropped like a pancake on 9/11,  or if you don't know about the fact that up until his supposed murder, theFBI did not list Osama bin Laden as wanted for the events of 9/11because, in their own words, they had no proof of his involvement, then you are not qualified to enter a discussion about the event. You have a lot of homework to do before you can chime in. So on you go...study...but finish this article first. I'll bet the ranch that you'll be saying, over and over, "I did not know this, is it true?"Why don't we accept the official story?Here is a question that you should really think about. Don't just chime in with your own uninformed opinion because I am going to give you the answer to this question; the real honest answer. Why do you think I, Jesse Richard, founder of TvNewsLIES.org, have drawn the conclusion that the official narrative of the events of 9/11 is a crock? The answer to that is this...I did not always feel that way. As a matter of fact ,within hours of the event I emailed to all my friends a blistering attack on Islamic fundamentalism. And while some things that happened that day, or did not happen that day, (and week I should say,)  seemed odd, I was not immediately suspicious of the "story" being told on TV about the event.
> It took me almost two years before I saw enough "official" information to make me realize that there was something, actually many things, that were very wrong. I came across so many disturbing, yet official and undisputed facts that I started asking others about it. Most people did not know what I was talking about. Nobody knew the details.  So your answer is this...I don't believe the official story because I know the official story! I don't believe the conclusion, and the little tale of 19 buffoons overtaking our national defense all by themselves. The official position on that by the way, is that they, the FBI, have no proof of the identity of the so-called hijackers or that there were any hijackers at all. They are not listed on the passenger lists, but you would not know that.
> BUT...the official story and facts are what made me realize something was very wrong with the public perception of what took place that day, and who was responsible for what took place that day.  The official story, when accepted and believed, morphs by any logic into a total and absolute fabrication!
> So if you believe the conclusion to the official story, you had better know that story from start to finish. Don't approach this they way the Kean Commission approached it, by starting out accepting the explanation as truth. Study the events, study the officially acknowledged body of evidence and study the people who told you the story in the first place...and I bet it won't be long before you have as many questions as do I about that infamous day and about the people who control our government. And, of course, you'll be saying, "I did not know this, is it true?"Okay, then, who really was behind the attacks on 9/11?9/11 truthers make the mistake of starting their discussions with conclusions...I am not doing that. All I am saying is that there are a lot of questions about what happened that day that are not answered by the official conclusion or explanation. I would like some answers that add up. I did the math myself and I have my own "theories", but I am a journalist, and I deal in the facts, not the fables.
> The official story, as fed to the American public is filled with unsupported and implausible explanations designed to convince a gullible public that they should ask no questions and trust their leaders to take revenge on those who hated us for our freedom.  Volumes can be, and have been written about so many of them.  For the most part, you have not read any of them.
> In this article, I've posed many questions and have provided links to their answers - so that you will more clearly understand that there is SO much we have not been told about the attacks that took place a decade ago.  But, those facts are the tip of a very well hidden iceberg, because there are so many questions that still remain unanswered.
> So, I will end this article with a sampling of the questions that must be answered, or in the very least, investigated by impartial truth seekers..  They must NOT be ignored, or accepted simply because they were offered to a frightened nation by an administration defined by its lies.  They are legitimate questions, based on legitimate suspicions.  They are not, for a single moment, conspiracy theories"Why did thenews agencies report that WTC 7 collapsed almost 1/2 hour before it did, even though it was not hit by a plane, only had a few floors on fire, and gave no indication that it was in any serious danger?Why do we still believe the tale of the 19 hijackers whenso many of the accused hijackers showed up ALIVEwithin days? And why do we sill believe the fable of the 19 hijackers when the FBI admitted that they are not sure about either the identity of the hijackers or if there were any hijackers at all?Why wasWTC 7 rebuilt, reopened and reoccupied with no press attention? Wouldn't this be an important victory in American resolve and perseverance?Why were theNORAD rules changed for the first time several weeks prior to 9/11, taking responsibility/authority for shooting down hijacked lanes away from NORAD military command for the first time in its history, and given to a civilian, Donald Rumsfeld, and then returned to NORAD the day after 9/11?Why would hijackers planning on attacking NY and Washington DCdrive from Florida, pass both DC and NY,  and drive all the way to Maine and hinge this huge operation on a connecting flight from Maine to Boston, where we are told they hijacked their plane? Why wouldn't they fly out of any of the airports that are visible from their targets, like Newark, La Guardia or JFK...or even some of the smaller local airports that would have given them a clear easy path to their target and reduce the amount of time that our air defense systems would have to stop them?Who placed all of those put options on the airlines just prior to the event, as if they knew that the stock prices on those specific airlines would lose  a huge amount of value?Why  didGeorge W. Bush's Secret Service detail not rush the president to safety when it was evident that the nation was under attack? If the nation was under attack, and they did not know the scope of the attack, and the president's location was known, how did they not worry about being attacked in Florida?. Why did they act as if they knew that there was no threat? And why, when our nation was under attack, did the president not rush into action? If you say he was concerned about upsetting the children, you are the ultimate apologist. He could have told them that his mommy was on the phone and he had to see what she wanted. Our county was supposedly being attacked and he/they waited 20 minutes before they moved. This is the smoking gun of smoking guns.Why did theFBI never list Osama bin Laden as being wanted for 9/11? Actually, we know this one...because they admitted that they had no evidence linking him to the event.Why was theirmolten metal flowing under the wreckage of the WTCfor months? No jet fuel can melt metal, and nothing explainable could melt that much metal and keep it hot enough to remain molten for a month.How did a passport of one of the so called hijackersmake it through the huge fireballand end up on the street?Why have photos from the 80+ camerasconfiscated at the Pentagonnever been released?Why did the airplane that supposedly crashed atShanksville vaporizeso that nothing remained, not bodies, not luggage, not metal, - nothing - for the first time in aviation history? However, we are told that even though the plane vaporized at Shanksville, a hand-written note from a hijacker was found.
> Of course, there are so many more.  We deserve the answers.  We deserve the right to ask these questions in public forums like the corporate media....who will not touch them with the proverbial ten foot pole. We have gate keepers on the Internet who actively ridicule and dismiss anyone who dares to raise these questions.  Will you be one of them?  Or, after really thinking about them, will you hope that one day, when we know what went on before, during and after the attacks on 9/11, - we can all say: "I did not know this, but I'm now  absolutely convinced that it is true."
> Think about it...it's really time to think about it.
> Jesse Richard - Founder, TvNewsLIES.orgMore:9/11 FactsThe New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11Patriots Question 9/11Reprint permission granted providing a live link back to this original article is included. We prefer that you include portions of the original and link back, but you may re-post the article in it's entirety as long as you link back. Thank you.http://bit.ly/nKlANf

--
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls.
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

**JP** How to kill DENGUE Mosquitoes, the Cheapest and Easiest Way at home or office.

 It may not be very useful for killing mosquitoes in USA but it seems most useful for 3rd World Countries. Plz don't forget to forward this message as much you can, it may save someone LIFE.


 



Have a nice day.






Mosquito Trap - A Cheap Way
Forwarded by a doctor. It  might be useful.
CAUTION:
This information may cause massive loss of jobs in insecticides companies, but it could save thousands of innocent lives from the cruel fate of dengue. 

My apologies to all branded insecticides in the marketplace. 

DIY is so easy and its costs are unbelievably negligible. 
Eradicate Aedes and dengue. 
 
FIGHTING DENGUE MUST START AT EVERY HOME.

Mosquito trap (Dengue prevention)
  http://webmail.cotas.com.bo/attach.msc?sid  
Its just a mix of water, brown sugar and yeast.
 
 
1. Cut a plastic bottle in half, keep both parts. Can be soft drink bottle. 
2.
  Take the lower portion of the bottle. Dissolve the brown sugar in hot water. 
Let it cool down to ~70 deg F. 
3. Add the yeast. Carbon dioxide will form(This will attract the mosquitoes) 
4. Cover the bottle with a dark wrap and  insert in the top portion upside down like a funnel. Place it in a corner in your house. 
5.
  In 2 weeks you will be surprised by the number of mosquitoes killed. 
 
http://webmail.cotas.com.bo/attach.msc?sid http://webmail.cotas.com.bo/attach.msc?sid 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "JoinPakistan" group.
You all are invited to come and share your information with other group members.
To post to this group, send email to joinpakistan@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com.pk/group/joinpakistan?hl=en?hl=en
You can also visit our blog site : www.joinpakistan.blogspot.com &
on facebook http://www.facebook.com/pages/Join-Pakistan/125610937483197

You Only Believe the Official 9/11 Story Because You Don't Know the Official 9/11 Story

You Only Believe the Official 9/11 Story Because You Don't Know the Official 9/11 Story
I don't believe the official story of 9/11 because I know the official story of 9/11!

During the past 10 years I have not met a single individual who, after doing research on the subject, switched from questioning the official narrative of the events of 9/11/2001 to believing the official narrative of those events..  It is always the other way around. Why do you think that is? There are good reasons for this, and I will try to explain this phenomenon right now.

The term " conspiracy theorist", perhaps the most misapplied description in our vernacular, is often used to describe 9/11 truthers. Perhaps that term does apply to a segment of the 9/11 truth movement. But in most cases a more accurate description of 9/11 truthers is probably "expert", or "scholar", or "researcher." You see, much of the doubt cast on the official narrative of the events of 9/11 has not come in the form of speculated accusations, or "theories." In fact, it has come in the form of questions that have been raised after a careful study of the official and undisputed events and details.

Ten years have passed since the infamous events of September 11th, 2001 took place, and the majority of people still don't know a damn thing about the actual details of that event. They don't know what was going on in the country with regard to our military that day. They don't know the history or the activities of key members of our government, defense establishment or intelligence community, on, or during the weeks, and in some cases the years leading up to that day. They don't know what took place during or immediately following the events of that day. And they don't know what actions were taken by those key people following that event.

As is the case with so many issues, people  tend to stand strong and argue a position or voice an opinion about an event like 9/11.  But, when questioned about the many details surrounding that event they have no answers. They are clueless. And they are, in the end, dumbfounded.
I can not tell you how many times I have discussed the events of 9/11 with an outraged citizen who can not believe that I would "accuse our own government" of such a terrible thing as conducting a false flag operation, only to hear the phrase "no, I did not know that, is that true?" repeated over and over as I "educate" them about those little things called DETAILS. I can not count the pale-faced stunned looks on people's faces as I exposed them to some of the "official facts" they never suspected, and never knew. I have walked away from many a confrontation with newly educated "patriotic Americans", only to worry about whether or not they would again resume breathing correctly.

They would never do such a thing

A common start and end to any intelligent discussion about the events of 9/11 is prefaced by the assumption that no American would betray his or her country by allowing or conducting an attack on the American people. Well, the people who take this position know nothing about history, let alone human nature. They also don't know about the public positions, declarations, speeches and published documents written by the people who ran our nation on that day.

False flag operations have taken place for generations, in this nation and nations around the world. Many of these operations have been exposed, but  proof of many of these activities is probably hidden away in secret documents that may one day come to light. You can however, start your exploration on the topic by researching one plan for American self-inflicted terrorism that became public, Operation Northwoods. Do I detect my first "I did not know this, is it true?" May I suggest you also peek into the neoconservative teachings of the principles involved in running our nation at the time of the "new Pearl Harbor" that took place in 2001.

But the 9/11 Commission did not find anything wrong

I can not believe how many people do not know the genesis or mission of the 9/11 Kean Commission. From the initial appointment of one of America's most nefarious political figures as its original leader, Henry Kissinger, -  to its executive director whose area of expertise and education were in the creation and maintaining of public myths, Philip D. Zelikow,-  people have no idea as to who comprised or what the mandate was for this commission.

To give you some kind of idea as to why the "findings" of this commission can NOT be used to back up any talking points on the topic of 9/11, let me remind you what the official task of this commission was. The Kean Commissions was told to document the official story and make national security recommendations based on that story. The only information that was to be included in the official report had to match the official story. If any one member of the committee objected to any testimony or finding, that piece of information was to be left out of the report For some examples of this you can talk to the thousands of people who became 9/11 truthers as a result of their testimony being omitted from and contradicted by the final report.

Start with the WTC worker credited with being the last man out of the WTC William Rodriguez. See if he can tell you why, after being invited to the White House and meeting with George W. Bush, his testimony about witnessing explosions in the sub basement of the WTC moments prior to the first plane hitting the building was omitted from the Kean report. And for more details you can read David Ray Griffin's book called The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions. It pretty much translated the Kean report into a stack of rather harsh and useless toilet paper. Are the "I did not know this, is it true?" responses piling up yet?
Are you even qualified to discuss the issue?

What people don't understand when discussing issues like 9/11 is that not everyone is qualified to join the discussion, let alone impose an "opinion" on the topic. 9/11 is not really a topic that is open to opinion. The conclusion you draw from the facts are open to opinion, but what many people don't realize about the 9/11 truth movement is that its opinions are based on facts, and grounded in the reality that its members know more of the facts than the average person. If you have a discussion with a doctor about medicine your opinions and views on the subject don't exactly merit the same consideration as do those of a group of physicians..

Similarly, someone like me (and many 9/11 truthers), has the equivalent of 3 PhD's on topics such as 9/11. I am a full time journalist. I research this kind of stuff every single day and I have been doing so since 2003. Not everyone is qualified to debate me on an issue like 9/11. We can discuss it. You can ask a great number of questions and perhaps inform me about aspects of the issue of which I am not aware. But you can't impose your "opinions" on me, nor can you do that to a majority of 9/11 truthers. And by the way, when it comes to opinions vs. facts, facts win. FOX News watchers don't seem to be able to grasp this concept.

People have to realize that what separates the unsuspecting mainstream masses from the 9/11 truth movement are factual information and details. Forget the claims and accusations. You don't need to go that far to understand that there is something fishy going on here.  Just look at the official body of evidence. It's all there and it will make your head spin. Don't listen to the accusations, just examine the evidence.You'll understand  so much if you really take a good look. In time, if you do your research thoroughly you may just compile a list of suspects, as have many of the 9/11 truthers. I have. But we are not there yet. We really have enough official evidence to lead to quite a few criminal indictments, and I am not kidding about this. But for now let's just talk about the facts and hope that some day we will have the real answers declared by juries in courtrooms. Chances are that many truthers would be proven correct in their accusations -  but again, for now, just look at the facts and understand that there are a lot of questions that need to be answered. And, find out that it's okay to say, "I did not know this, is it true?"

So, are you qualified to take part in a discussion with a 9/11 truther?

If you don't know about the "coincidental" military drills taking place on September 11, 2001, or about the interesting little political cabal known as PNAC or the Project for a New American Century, or if you don't know what WTC7 is, or the 1,500 plus architects and engineers who have serious questions about how and why it dropped like a pancake on 9/11,  or if you don't know about the fact that up until his supposed murder, the FBI did not list Osama bin Laden as wanted for the events of 9/11 because, in their own words, they had no proof of his involvement, then you are not qualified to enter a discussion about the event. You have a lot of homework to do before you can chime in. So on you go...study...but finish this article first. I'll bet the ranch that you'll be saying, over and over, "I did not know this, is it true?"

Why don't we accept the official story?

Here is a question that you should really think about. Don't just chime in with your own uninformed opinion because I am going to give you the answer to this question; the real honest answer. Why do you think I, Jesse Richard, founder of TvNewsLIES.org, have drawn the conclusion that the official narrative of the events of 9/11 is a crock? The answer to that is this...I did not always feel that way. As a matter of fact ,within hours of the event I emailed to all my friends a blistering attack on Islamic fundamentalism. And while some things that happened that day, or did not happen that day, (and week I should say,)  seemed odd, I was not immediately suspicious of the "story" being told on TV about the event.

It took me almost two years before I saw enough "official" information to make me realize that there was something, actually many things, that were very wrong. I came across so many disturbing, yet official and undisputed facts that I started asking others about it. Most people did not know what I was talking about. Nobody knew the details.  So your answer is this...I don't believe the official story because I know the official story! I don't believe the conclusion, and the little tale of 19 buffoons overtaking our national defense all by themselves. The official position on that by the way, is that they, the FBI, have no proof of the identity of the so-called hijackers or that there were any hijackers at all. They are not listed on the passenger lists, but you would not know that.

BUT...the official story and facts are what made me realize something was very wrong with the public perception of what took place that day, and who was responsible for what took place that day.  The official story, when accepted and believed, morphs by any logic into a total and absolute fabrication!

So if you believe the conclusion to the official story, you had better know that story from start to finish. Don't approach this they way the Kean Commission approached it, by starting out accepting the explanation as truth. Study the events, study the officially acknowledged body of evidence and study the people who told you the story in the first place...and I bet it won't be long before you have as many questions as do I about that infamous day and about the people who control our government. And, of course, you'll be saying, "I did not know this, is it true?"

Okay, then, who really was behind the attacks on 9/11?

9/11 truthers make the mistake of starting their discussions with conclusions...I am not doing that. All I am saying is that there are a lot of questions about what happened that day that are not answered by the official conclusion or explanation. I would like some answers that add up. I did the math myself and I have my own "theories", but I am a journalist, and I deal in the facts, not the fables.

The official story, as fed to the American public is filled with unsupported and implausible explanations designed to convince a gullible public that they should ask no questions and trust their leaders to take revenge on those who hated us for our freedom.  Volumes can be, and have been written about so many of them.  For the most part, you have not read any of them.

In this article, I've posed many questions and have provided links to their answers - so that you will more clearly understand that there is SO much we have not been told about the attacks that took place a decade ago.  But, those facts are the tip of a very well hidden iceberg, because there are so many questions that still remain unanswered.

So, I will end this article with a sampling of the questions that must be answered, or in the very least, investigated by impartial truth seekers..  They must NOT be ignored, or accepted simply because they were offered to a frightened nation by an administration defined by its lies.  They are legitimate questions, based on legitimate suspicions.  They are not, for a single moment, conspiracy theories"
  1. Why did the news agencies report that WTC 7 collapsed almost 1/2 hour before it did, even though it was not hit by a plane, only had a few floors on fire, and gave no indication that it was in any serious danger?
  2. Why do we still believe the tale of the 19 hijackers when so many of the accused hijackers showed up ALIVE within days? And why do we sill believe the fable of the 19 hijackers when the FBI admitted that they are not sure about either the identity of the hijackers or if there were any hijackers at all?
  3. Why was WTC 7 rebuilt, reopened and reoccupied with no press attention? Wouldn't this be an important victory in American resolve and perseverance?
  4. Why were the NORAD rules changed for the first time several weeks prior to 9/11, taking responsibility/authority for shooting down hijacked lanes away from NORAD military command for the first time in its history, and given to a civilian, Donald Rumsfeld, and then returned to NORAD the day after 9/11?
  5. Why would hijackers planning on attacking NY and Washington DC drive from Florida, pass both DC and NY,  and drive all the way to Maine and hinge this huge operation on a connecting flight from Maine to Boston, where we are told they hijacked their plane? Why wouldn't they fly out of any of the airports that are visible from their targets, like Newark, La Guardia or JFK...or even some of the smaller local airports that would have given them a clear easy path to their target and reduce the amount of time that our air defense systems would have to stop them?
  6. Who placed all of those put options on the airlines just prior to the event, as if they knew that the stock prices on those specific airlines would lose  a huge amount of value?
  7. Why  did George W. Bush's Secret Service detail not rush the president to safety when it was evident that the nation was under attack? If the nation was under attack, and they did not know the scope of the attack, and the president's location was known, how did they not worry about being attacked in Florida?. Why did they act as if they knew that there was no threat? And why, when our nation was under attack, did the president not rush into action? If you say he was concerned about upsetting the children, you are the ultimate apologist. He could have told them that his mommy was on the phone and he had to see what she wanted. Our county was supposedly being attacked and he/they waited 20 minutes before they moved. This is the smoking gun of smoking guns.
  8. Why did the FBI never list Osama bin Laden as being wanted for 9/11? Actually, we know this one...because they admitted that they had no evidence linking him to the event.
  9. Why was their molten metal flowing under the wreckage of the WTC for months? No jet fuel can melt metal, and nothing explainable could melt that much metal and keep it hot enough to remain molten for a month.
  10. How did a passport of one of the so called hijackers make it through the huge fireball and end up on the street?
  11. Why have photos from the 80+ cameras confiscated at the Pentagon never been released?
  12. Why did the airplane that supposedly crashed at Shanksville vaporize so that nothing remained, not bodies, not luggage, not metal, - nothing - for the first time in aviation history? However, we are told that even though the plane vaporized at Shanksville, a hand-written note from a hijacker was found.

Of course, there are so many more.  We deserve the answers.  We deserve the right to ask these questions in public forums like the corporate media....who will not touch them with the proverbial ten foot pole. We have gate keepers on the Internet who actively ridicule and dismiss anyone who dares to raise these questions.  Will you be one of them?  Or, after really thinking about them, will you hope that one day, when we know what went on before, during and after the attacks on 9/11, - we can all say: "I did not know this, but I'm now  absolutely convinced that it is true."
Think about it...it's really time to think about it.
Jesse Richard - Founder, TvNewsLIES.org

More:

9/11 Facts
The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11

Patriots Question 9/11

Reprint permission granted providing a live link back to this original article is included. We prefer that you include portions of the original and link back, but you may re-post the article in it's entirety as long as you link back. Thank you.


http://bit.ly/nKlANf