This shows where our country is headed. Buckle up for this bumpy ride citizens, its gunna get rough.
-
« Home
Pages
-
Categories
-
Archives
Monthly Archives: October 2007
| Steve Watson Infowars.net Tuesday, Oct 23, 2007 |
|
|
||||||
CNN host Glen Beck viciously attacked the 9/11 truth movement last night on his Headline Prime show, describing the whole movement as “insane” and branding 9/11 activists as “dangerous anarchists”.
Beck singled out 9/11 truthers in a segment in response to the infiltration of Real Time with Bill Maher by We Are Change protesters last week.
In a piece that we would normally associate with the “fair and balanced” Fox News, Beck featured two guests who BOTH argued against 9/11 truth, as well as throwing in his own two cents.
“These truthers are exactly the kind of people who want to rock this nation’s foundation, tear us apart and plant the seeds of dissatisfaction in all of us” Beck huffed and puffed while introducing his yes men.
At one point Beck even suggested that the 9/11 truth movement is “the kind of group a Timothy McVeigh would come from”, insinuating the movement is intent on violence.
In response his guest, Michael Shermer, the founding member of “The Skeptics Society”, a debunking body that is actually skeptical of nothing and just defends the official line on most subjects, ludicrously frothed “Yeah that’s right, that’s what makes it a little bit scary, somebody that would infiltrate a talk show like Bill Maher’s show and then heckle him during the show, that’s getting out there a little bit, that’s not just posting things on the internet for fun to see what happens, but actually going down there to do something.”
Watch it (Note: Try to ignore the remarks at the beginning of the video which was obviously posted by a neocon bootlicker):
In thousands of 9/11 protests over the course of the last six years, not one person has been arrested for violent conduct. To cart blanche suggest that the truth movement is dangerous, “a threat to children” and intent on violence is extremely inflammatory and indicates just how afraid of investigating and debating the facts people like Glen Beck actually are.
The core of the 9/11 truth movement is composed of highly educated and progressive individuals who are strictly opposed to violence and are intent on protecting a free and peaceful society which has been under dire threat ever since the attacks of 9/11 and the ensuing cover up.
Furthermore the movement represents the very antithesis of anarchism in that it is actively seeking to restore and protect our traditional form of government which has been usurped by an unaccountable cabal that continues to operate outside of Constitutional law and with little restraint using 9/11 as justification.
Naturally, Beck wheeled out the ever present James Meigs, whitewasher-in-chief at the military-industrial complex rag Popular Mechanics, which is owned by Hearst Publishing, the progenitor of the term “yellow journalism”.
Meigs is of course exactly the right man to dismiss claims of a controlled demolition on 9/11 given that he has a background in being a movie critic. Meanwhile experts in controlled demolition are visibly shaken when shown videos of building 7 and told that it came down on 9/11.
Meigs’ assertions have been thoroughly debunked, even by the bodies investigating the collapses of all three buildings. Meigs still regularly refers to the pancaking theory when describing the collapse of the twin towers, to explain how they collapsed without resistance, despite the fact that the theory was debunked by NIST itself after their study found that, “This type of assembly (the WTC steel) was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th.”
It also violates the fundamental law of physics and the Law of Conservation of Momentum, as Professor Steven Jones outlines in his research paper.
Meigs also routinely fails to acknowledge the fact that NIST’s own analysis of the WTC steel concluded that temperatures in the impact zone reached no hotter than 600 degrees, no where near hot enough to weaken the structure, according to the Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers.
NIST admitted recently that it is STILL unable to provide an explanation for the total collapse of the twin towers, yet Mr Meigs seems assured, spending much of his time wailing about how truthers “do not fact check”.
Meigs also maintains that building 7 was severely damaged and ultimately felled by fires caused by falling debris from the towers, even though there is no evidence supporting this and NIST has been left with the only option but to probe whether the building was demolished on purpose.
Beck and his guests also maintain that the WTC “buildings”, thus including the one which was not hit by a plane, did not collapse from the bottom down. Anybody who watches the collapse of 7 can see that it falls from the bottom down, yet Beck and co. accuse others of ignoring the facts to fit their own agenda!
The three musketeers also fail to explain why first responders were told to evacuate the area because the building was going to be intentionally brought down, why police officers heard bombs tearing down the building and why a top security official who was stationed in WTC 7 witnessed bombs take out the lobby of the building before either WTC tower had collapsed.
Beck also bizarrely suggests that 12 percent of people polled believe that the government was involved in 9/11 when the actual numbers are much higher, with some polls suggesting around 80 percent.
The only accurate statement Beck makes is in suggesting that the U.S. government, or factions within it, were not competent enough to pull off 9/11 without it being discovered and ending up all over prime time news. In this he is entirely correct, it is all over prime time news, as well as prime time entertainment such as the Bill Maher show.
Finally Beck asked his viewers to back him up on this one by voting in a poll very fairly entitled Conspiracy Craziness: Anyone who believes our government could have successfully planned 9/11 is not only giving them too much credit, but they’re also insane. Do you agree or disagree?
Lets take a look at the latest results:
It seems the majority can quite clearly see where Mr Beck is wrong.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20071022/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_war_spending
WASHINGTON – President Bush asked Congress on Monday for another $46 billion to fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and finance other national security needs. “We must provide our troops with the help and support they need to get the job done,” Bush said.
The figure brings to $196.4 billion the total requested by the administration for operations in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere for the budget year that started Oct. 1. It includes $189.3 billion for the Defense Department, $6.9 billion for the State Department and $200 million for other agencies.
To date, Congress has already provided more than $455 billion for the Iraq war, with stepped-up military operations running about $10 billion a month. The war has claimed the lives of more than 3,830 members of the U.S. military and more than 73,000 Iraqi civilians.
Bush made his request in the Roosevelt Room after meeting in the Oval Office with leaders of veterans service organizations, a fallen Marine’s family and military personnel who served in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The White House originally asked for $141.7 billion for the Pentagon to prosecute the Iraq and Afghanistan missions and asked for $5.3 billion more in July. The latest request includes $42.3 billion more for the Pentagon — already revealed in summary last month — and is accompanied by a modified State Department request bringing that agency’s total for the 2008 budget year to almost $7 billion.
Bush said any member of Congress who wants to see success in Iraq, and see U.S. troops return home, should strongly support the request.
“I know some in Congress are against the war and are seeking ways to demonstrate that opposition,” Bush said. “I recognize their position and they should make their views heard. But they ought to make sure our troops have what it takes to succeed. Our men and women on the front lines should not be caught the middle of partisan disagreements in Washington, D.C.”
Democrats were not swayed.
“We’ve been fighting for America’s priorities while the president continues investing only in his failed war strategy — and wants us to come up with another $200 billion and just sign off on it?” said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. “President Bush should not expect Congress to rubber stamp his latest supplemental request. We’re not going to do that.”
The State Department is requesting $550 million to combat drug trafficking in Mexico and Central America, $375 million for the West Bank and Gaza and $239 million for diplomatic costs in Iraq.
Top House lawmakers have already announced that they do not plan to act on Bush’s request until next year, though they anticipate providing interim funds when completing a separate defense funding bill this fall. Bush asked lawmakers to approve the request before the holidays.
“We must provide our troops with the help and support they need to get the job done,” Bush said. “Parts of this war are complicated, but one part is not, and that is America should do what it takes to support our troops and protect our people.”
Congress already has approved more than $5 billion for new vehicles whose V-shaped undercarriages provide much better protection against mines and roadside bombs. It’s likely that Congress will quickly grant $11 billion more to deliver more than 7,000 of the vehicles.
The delays in submitting the remaining war funding request were in part due to unease among congressional Republicans about receiving it during the veto override battle involving a popular bill reauthorizing a children’s health insurance program.
The request also includes $724 million for U.N. peacekeeping efforts in the war-torn Darfur region in Sudan, $106 million in fuel oil or comparable assistance to North Korea as a reward for the rogue nation’s promises to cease its efforts to develop nuclear weapons. Another $350 million would go to fight famine in Africa.
For the Pentagon, the latest request includes:
_$1 billion for military construction projects, including improvements at airfields and other U.S. bases in Iraq.
_$1 billion to expand the Iraqi security forces.
_$1 billion to train National Guard units.
All told, the $189.3 billion Pentagon request for 2008 includes:
_$77 billion for military operations and maintenance.
_$30.5 billion for to protect U.S. forces from roadside bombs, snipers, and other threats.
_$46.5 billion to repair and replace equipment that has been damaged or destroyed in combat or worn out in harsh conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan.
___
Associated Press writer Deb Riechmann contributed to this report in Washington.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, October 16, 2007
The National Institute for Standards and Technology has been forced to admit that the total free-fall collapse of the twin towers cannot be explained after an exhaustive scientific study, implicitly acknowledging that controlled demolition is the only means by which the buildings could have come down.
In a recent letter (PDF link) to 9/11 victim’s family representatives Bill Doyle and Bob McIlvaine, NIST states, “We are unable to provide a full explanation of the total collapse.”
A 10,000 page scientific study only offers theories as to how the “collapse initiation” proceeded and fails to address how it was possible for part of a WTC structure to fall through the path of most resistance at freefall speed, completely violating the accepted laws of physics.
In addition, NIST’s own studies confirmed that virtually none of the steel in either tower reached temperatures hotter than 500 degrees. The point at which steel weakens is 1000 degrees and melting point is reached at 1,500 degrees, according to NIST itself.
“NIST’S 10,000-page report purports to explain what it calls “collapse initiation” — the loss of several floors’ vertical support,” writes Kevin Barrett of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. “In order to dream up this preposterous scenario, NIST had to ignore its own tests that showed that virtually none of the steel got hotter than 500 degrees f. It had to claim that somehow the planes took out many core columns, despite the fact that only a direct hit by an engine would have been likely to do so, and that the chances of this happening even once are fairly low. It had to preposterously allege that the plane that nicked the corner of the South Tower took out more core columns than the one that hit the North Tower almost dead center. It had to tweak all the parameters till they screamed bloody murder and say that the steel was far weaker than it actually was, the fire was far hotter than it actually was, the sagging was far greater than it actually was, and so on. And so NIST hallucinated a computer-generated fantasy scenario for “collapse initiation”–the failure of a few floors.”
“But how do you get from the failure of a few floors to total collapse at free-fall speed of the entire structure? The short answer: You don’t. Anyone with the slightest grasp of the laws of physics understands that even if all of the vertical supports on a few floors somehow failed catastrophically at exactly the same moment–a virtually impossible event, but one necessary to explain why the Towers would come straight down rather than toppling sideways–the top part of the building could not fall THROUGH the still-intact, highly robust lower part of the building, straight through the path of most resistance, just as fast as it would have fallen through thin air.”
“Thus total free-fall collapse, even given NIST’s ridiculous “initiation” scenario, is utterly impossible. The probability of it happening is exactly equal to the probability of the whole building suddenly falling upward and landing on the moon,” concludes Barrett.
NIST have yet to properly address the sudden freefall collapse of WTC Building 7, which imploded on the late afternoon of 9/11 despite not being hit by a jetliner.
In August 2006, NIST promised to scientifically evaluate whether explosive devices could have contributed to the 47-story building’s collapse but no answers have been forthcoming.
In August of this year, James Quintiere, Ph.D., former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, called for an independent inquiry into NIST’s investigation of the collapse of the twin towers.
Quintiere said NIST’s conclusions were “questionable”, that they failed to follow standard scientific procedures and that their failure to address Building 7 belied the fact that the investigation was incomplete.
This is a video of Alex Jones made during the time Bill Clinton was in office. He went to his local DMV to renew his drivers license with at least a dozen forms of identification and was asked to submit to a universal ID thumbscan. Here’s how it all went down.
