Saturday, March 29, 2008

Mark of Benzene 4

"If I favor a policy that puts a certain class of people out of a job, does that make me against those people? If I could wave a wand and cut crime in half, would that make me anti-police because we wouldn't need as many of them now?"

Of course not Mark and you shouldn't even have to explain that. Cal's question was uncalled for, it was a loaded question and out of line.

"Others have other ways of finding their identity." I think you are being far to charitable towards people who use manipulative rhetoric and unfair tactics which serve to perpetuate outrageous foreign polices. Seems you are going out of your way to be reasonable and your reward is to be disrespected with a loaded question which is NOT reasonable. Others may feel so compelled to "defend their identity" that they resort to intellectual dishonesty.

Mark, we communicated a while ago, about three and a half years ago, about your comments on The Sorrows of Empire : Militarism, Secrecy, and the End of the Republic where you wrote, "the empirical evidence shows that protectionism works, at least in the early stages of a nation's economic development. I'd be very interested to know how free-trade enthusiasts -- real or fake -- answer this argument."

I have to look to see if I can find our communication in old Haloscan comments because I can't find our comments now, I think it has to do with my switch to blogger comments.

Thursday, March 27, 2008

Gravel and Israel

It is a shame that Gravel says he will "join the Libertarian Party, because the Democratic Party no longer represents my vision for our great country."

One of the reasons it's a shame is because, of the major DEMOCRATIC candidates running, Gravel had the best position with regard to Israel. (I'll have to look to see if a lesser known Democrat is a good choice for the PRIMARY (not the general election). Anyway, I was asked this question about Gravel: "Do you know Mr. Gravel's position on Israel or Israel's policies or the degree of support the US should or should not give?"

Mike Gravel has said, "if Israel were to move, and I'm President of the United States, and they talk about invading another country again, I'll put a stop to it. Period." - Mike Gravel Speaks The Truth!

Ron Paul has never said anything like that. The way Ron Paul talks, he act like we are holding Israel back.

I haven't seen others so clear about AIPAC's influence as Mike Gravel:

MIKE GRAVEL: Look what we're trying to do with Iran right now. Last week, the Lieberman resolution -- he's the guy that wrote the resolution with Iraq and killed over 3,000 Americans and a million Iraqis. And now he comes forward with another resolution, and the leadership of the Democratic Party in the Senate doesn't even have the brains or the judgment to recognize what he's doing.
Sanctions on the Republican Guard? They already have sanctions. The U.N. passed them in March, Resolution 1747. What is the game they're playing right now to have sanctions? I mean, this was AIPAC that put Lieberman up to do this. This is disaster. We invade Iran, and they'll use it as an excuse, just the way we did it in Cambodia and Laos, "Oh, we've got to solve that problem right over the border because they're damaging our soldiers."
If we touch Iran and they respond, you're talking about, in the minimum, a world depression, because the oil industry will just get shut down at the Straits of Hormuz. That's the minimum.

RAY SUAREZ: You're saying that the national legislature of this country, rather than doing the will of the citizens of the United States, passed that Iran resolution, sanctioning the Republican Guard, because of the American- Israeli Political Action Committee?

MIKE GRAVEL: Wait a second. They'll be some information coming out about how this thing was drafted. So the answer is yes, the short answer.
Let me tell you how serious this is, Ray, because if we touch Iran and they respond, you're talking about, in the minimum, a world depression, because the oil industry will just get shut down at the Straits of Hormuz. That's the minimum.

and Gravel doesn't have to say this (I have NEVER heard Ron Paul admit the following):

Gravel went beyond what anyone else would. I was really impressed, (it is so good I planned to make a video of it) Check it out:

MODERATOR: We’ll have a response from Senator Clinton and then Mike Gravel.
CLINTON: Well, I understand politics, and I understand making outlandish political charges, but this really goes way too far.
In fact, having designated the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, we’ve actually seen some changes in their behavior.
There is absolutely no basis for a rush to war, which I oppose and have opposed for two years.
But there is also a recognition that the Iranians were supplying weapons that killed Americans, they were supplying technical assistance from the Quds Force, which is their special operations element.
So I think we’ve actually seen the positive effects of having labeled them a terrorist organization because it did change their behavior.
MODERATOR: Mike Gravel, then Joe Biden.
GRAVEL: There is no evidence. There is no evidence.
GRAVEL: And they’ve produced none. Our military has no evidence and they’ve not produced any.
But let’s -- I want to touch something that they’re all giving license to; that there’s something wrong with Iran supporting Hamas and Hezbollah.
These are two elected organizations. And why can’t they give support to those organizations?
Israel doesn’t want it. So why do they buy, hook, line and sinker, that they can’t give aid to Hamas and Hezbollah?
We give unlimited aid to Israel. These people are fighting for their rights.
MODERATOR: You -- you believe...
GRAVEL: Is there something wrong with that?
MODERATOR: We’ll come back to your points in a moment. Senator Biden, you ...

And points out: Gravel Opposes the United States' current relationship with Israel. "Gravel says the U.S., its allies, and regional actors should "sponsor direct negotiations between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, including Hamas" to forge a two-state solution."

As many of you know, I was supporting Gravel in the DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY. IF you are wondering, for now, for the general election in Nov., I support Nader.
Jack, thank you for your support but I should point out that I don't share your opinion that "911 attacks were set up by the u.s. government." I don't think you have viewed my videos about 9/11 or my blog posts about 9/11. I've been working hard to get the truth out that 9/11 WASN'T "set up by the u.s. government."

You are right to be skeptical, misrepresentations, distortions and omissions are common in the Zionist/pro-Israel narrative

You are right to be skeptical, misrepresentations, distortions and omissions are common in the Zionist/pro-Israel narrative

Hello Diane,

I think you are right to be skeptical about some of Jared Israel's claims. Jared Israel misrepresents the history, which is not uncommon among pro-Israel propagandists going back to the beginning of the Zionist agenda. For example, the fraudulent Zionist slogan “land without a people, waiting for a people without a land*” was an over the top lie pushed to justify their racist scheme, it was a lie claiming there were no people in Palestine so therefore "no one" was being pushed off their land. Zionism was born in a time when almost unbelievable racism was routinely excused.

You are correct about the racist problem but that attitude goes back to the beginning and early Zionists apparently justified their plans to ethnically cleanse Palestine of its native population with racist rationalizations.

The Haaretz article you posted a link to "Civil rights group: Israel has reached new heights of racism" does expose facts which don't get heard here in America. (I had to search by the title, your link was broken)

Here is a blog entry I made almost 2 years ago to someone named Joe. I go into detail correcting his misrepresentations, distortions and omissions which are common in the Zionist/pro-Israel narrative. I go into detail about the racist plan to ethnically cleanse Palestine which had been planned from the beginning and was well underway BEFORE May 1948. Please see the links contained within especially the one to my article History of Israel and Palestine: 1947 UN Partition Proposal which I lay out the facts and footnote them. It has given some people food for thought based on facts, this was a response on my blog: "I want to thank you for such a detailed, and well cited post. It has given me much to read and much thinking to do. If the notion that the Arabs fled on the advice of the surrounding Arab Nations is a myth then it sheds a completely different light on the current refugee situation and the right of return for Palestinians."

Also please take a look at this blog entry in response to someone who wants us to ignore the history. I also talk about the current situation and point out the same fact you honestly did about Israel's racism, see the link about the fact that more than half the Jewish population of Israel - 53 percent - is opposed to full equal rights for Israeli Arabs, according to a survey conducted last month by the Israel Democracy Institute. Think about how racist this is. Imagine even trying to do a survey in America with such a question, going door to door asking Americans if they thought black people should have full equal rights. The question itself would be found offensive by the overwhelming majority of Americans! Think about the fact that a question like this can not only be asked in Israel but that a majority would actually say they didn't want the minority of Arabs now left inside Israel to have full equal rights!

Here is another link to my blog worth reading: Deceptions Sell Israel to the American Public.


*Changed phrase to how it is written on p139 of The Gun and the Olive Branch
from Israel Zangwill's "The Return to Palestine", New Liberal Review II, Dec. 1901, p.627
"The truth, when they learned it, might at first have disconcerted them. When Max Nordau, one of Herzl's earliest disciples, did so, he came running to his master crying: 'I didn't know that - but then we are committing an injustice.' But it did not seem to disconcert them for long." p139 of The Gun and the Olive Branch

Wednesday, March 26, 2008

Everyone, please subscribe to my channel on YouTube.

Bryan, no, Saddam may have wanted Iran to think he had WMD AT SOME POINT BUT the fact is he tried through declarations to make it clear he did not have them when it was clear the US was going to use it as an excuse to attack him.

I saw the same CBS report claiming that he didn't say he didn't have WMD, the reporter is DISHONEST. the fact is Saddam kept saying he didn't have them.

And the inspectors BEFORE the war were in Iraq saying that the intelligence was garbage and they were finding nothing. Remember, Saddam let the inspectors in before the war.

Saddam had said Bush would be shown to be a liar. Saddam even reportedly offered to leave Iraq if we allowed him to leave with money.

Jonathan, great work, I started reading and was happy to see you said what I was going to point out.

It is amazing what assholes people like McArdle are. I have been through the same kind of thing where you try to reason with these shits and they refuse to engage you honestly or at all.

Also, the war was illegal and was illegal even if Saddam did have WMD. The whole thing is so obviously a pretense, it makes no sense.

Elites are going to get more people killed if we don't stop them. Everyone, please subscribe to my channel on YouTube. We need to scrape and claw our way out of this mess. I talk about these kinds of things and I need greater visibility and power to make a difference.

BTW, before the war, I begged the media to report the fact that Bush's planned war was illegal. THEY REFUSED. For example, I actually corresponded with a reporter from Newsday who at first tried to play it off as if he was making it clear that the war was illegal. I pointed out that he wasn't and that would he please do so. He then sent me an e-mail saying he would. The next day he sent me another e-mail saying his editor wouldn't let him.

Monday, March 17, 2008

Shame On Joe Scarborough, MSM & Obama Part 1

Send this video to others: Shame On Joe Scarborough, MSM & Obama Part 1

Representative Press needs your help.

A subscription is a peaceful and decent way to demand that US and coalition forces get out of their lands.

Someone wrote me this message: "Do you like terrorist who post vids bragging about 9/11 being subbed to you A vid from one of your subs. I notice alot of these youtube jihadist are subbed to you. I wonder how proud this makes you as an American?" This is my response: A subscription is a peaceful and decent way to demand that US and coalition forces get out of their lands. I am proud if I take any or all inclination to acts of violence and turn them it decent and effective acts which move us toward ending all unjust policies. Are you proud as an American that US officials literally shipped Korans and weapons to Jihadists telling them to do Jihad? Look at Afghanistan: "In August 1979, three months before the Soviet intervention, a classified State Department Report stated: 'the United States's larger interests ... would be served by the demise of the Taraki-Amin regime, despite whatever setbacks this might mean for future social and economic reforms in Afghanistan. ... the overthrow of the D.R.A. [Democratic Republic of Afghanistan] would show the rest of the world, particularly the Third World, that the Soviets' view of the socialist course of history as being inevitable is not accurate.'" There was a "large following of people who favored reforms and didn't want to live under a fundamentalist Islamic government" and you think it was OK to support Muslim fundamentalist extremists?! Many improvements were being made in Afghanistan, girls were going to school. The U.S. actions destroyed that by backing extremist fundamentalists, backing them with BILLIONS of dollars. The CIA was literally shipping Korans and weapons. You think it was a good idea to encourage violent Muslim fundamentalism???? So what is wrong with a subscription? Why in God's name did Bush attack Iraq? I would love you to even try to given an answer to that. We have forces in America who betray the American people.

discrimination and suppression

message to johnknoefler:

Israel does not have democracy for non-Jews - they have discrimination, they have a "Jewish democracy", and Ahmadinejad's calls are suppressed in the US. Do you deny that his calls for democracy are suppressed here in the US? Look at his letter to Bush, SUPPRESSED here in the US. Look at what he said in the interview, SUPPRESSED here in the US. Look at the comments of Iranians officials, SUPPRESSED here in the US. See link below.

As far as democracy, hell the US was called a democracy in 1831. Was it a democracy for all the blacks?

Hamas was elected then Israel and the US lashed out against the Palestinians. The Palestinians are not allowed to vote any way other than how Israel and the US insists they vote. "instantly Israel and the United States instituted harsh punishment of the Palestinians, cutting off funds, stepping up atrocities, and starving them, to Punish the Palestinians. That pretty much tells you what is meant by "democracy promotion." p11, What We Say Goes, Chomsky

what you refer to is NOT the same. The media is manipulating the public into thinking he has said he would militarily attack Iran. He has said no such thing. He as called for the death of s system of perpetual discrimination against non-Jews.

we are talking about a racist extremist country and agenda. The Zionists moved in and were killing OTHER JEWS because they opposed the racist agenda. You are not hearing most of the crimes Israel commits.

Are you one of these "Christian Zionists". (someone taking a false interpretation of the Bible) seriously, what the hell are you calling me a "liar" about? Look beyond the US media, you don't realize how devious it really is?

LOOK how extreme the US media is. they push lies on us about the very reason we were attacked! Thomas Friedman lies about bin Laden's motives. Friedman claims, "the fact is that bin Laden never focused on this issue. He only started talking about "Palestine" after September 11, when he sensed that he might be losing the support of the Arab street. " (p311 of Longitudes & Attitudes ) and " Osama bin Laden never mentioned the Palestinian cause as motivating his actions until he felt he was losing support in the Arab world. " (p361-362 of Longitudes & Attitudes ) What Friedman has written is a flat out lie. To give just one example that disproves what Friedman wrote: "Your position against Muslims in Palestine is despicable and disgraceful. America has no shame. " - Osama bin Laden May 1998

Do you deny these lies? Do you deny this suppression? Do you deny that Ahmadinejad's calls for democracy in Israel have been suppressed? Even for argument's sake, if you want to insist that Ahmadinejad's calls "aren't sincere" you can't deny that the US media SUPPRESSED his calls. If the media were on the level, they would report it and then discuss it!

Sunday, March 16, 2008

Representative Press Needs Your Help.

Representative Press needs your help. We have to take this to a new level of publicity and raise awareness about this campaign, making a lot more videos will help this mission. Funds are needed to get new computer because what I am working with now is too slow and it is taking too long to make new videos. And older computers don't last forever, I don't want to be in a position again of not being able to make new videos. You can help support Representative Press's campaign for truth by getting a button. For each 10 dollar button you buy, 9 dollars will go to Representative Press. Or you can donate any amount using Paypal.

There are four different button styles:

Send this video to others: Shame On Joe Scarborough, MSM & Obama Part 1

See The Public Campaign to Stop the Lies and the Denial of the Main Motive for the 9/11 Attacks: U.S. Support for Israel

I'd rather not get into Israel and Palestine

some posts I made to others:

"I'd rather not get into Israel and Palestine"

It is a shame because outrage at US support for Israel's crimes motivated the 9/11 hijackers to attack the US.

And people know damn well that was the motive. Pointing out a motive for a crime does not mean you endorse the crime. I should not have to point that out but in an environment where people are unwilling to discuss Israel and Palestine, it needs to be pointed out. Israel supporters often resort to social blackmail of accusing those who tell the truth of "justifying" terrorism.

--------another message I posted:

didn't hear Wright say "we deserved to get hit on 9/11."

What I did hear is him correctly point out horrific crimes and point out how people ignore them and act shocked that the US would get attacked.

cortmeister262, do you actually deny the motive for the crime, the motive for the 9/11 attacks? If you really don't know the motive, watch my video "What motivated the 9/11 hijackers"

and yes the main motive is outrage at US gov support of Israeli crimes. Did you really not know that?

Saturday, March 15, 2008

nail down specific facts


Events with regard to Fallon's resignation have preoccupied my time. Fallon's resignation is frightening. President Bush and his administration are totally out of control and it is a bad sign for Fallon to resign given the context.

I do want to respond to your points but first I want to point out that I provided two links with regard to Mike Ruppert’s: Crossing the Rubicon because realitydesign said it "is the backbone of non demolition 911 research" and "the hardcore research set." You wrote that I "called our attention to an attempted debunking of Michael C. Ruppert’s timeline by someone with the moniker “COINTELPRO Tool,” BUT what I did was provide two links to debunk two specific claims which Ruppert makes. The first link you ignored. It showed that Ruppert doesn't know what he is talking about with regard to Cheney supposedly being in charge of NORAD. The first link shows there's "minimal or no supporting evidence" for Ruppert’s claim. That was what I was calling your attention to with that link but you ignored that point. The second link went directly to a section which debunked Ruppert’s claim about Osama bin Laden meeting a top CIA official at the American hospital in Dubai. That point, which the writer addresses "from the top," was what I was calling your attention to with the second link but you didn't address that point but rather went into other things. The writer points out "first of all, Le Figaro never "confirmed" anything with Dubai hospital staff, and Ruppert knows this." What I directly linked to was what I was really trying to point out, I didn't intend on discussing the other points, I have not even read "COINTELPRO Tool” on Afghanistan. I hope the tone of this response doesn't sound too gruff, it is not my intention. I just wanted to nail down specific facts. I think a lot of 9/11 conspiracy stuff endlessly shifts focus when specific points get debunked. I think that is not a good thing obviously.

I understand you wrote that you'll respond regarding other issues later. I look forward to it. I will post a reply to specific points with regard to 9/11 and the motive. Thank you for taking the time with your "Second reply to Tom a.k.a. “Representative Press”" I will respond in detail to that soon.


Thursday, March 13, 2008

"would be foolish and dangerous" (what about would be a CRIME?!)

"A U.S. attack on Iran would be foolish and dangerous." - says

It really annoys me to see people who should know better make no mention of the fact that attacking would be a war crime. It really annoys me to see people who should know better ignore international law. The NYT is notorious for doing so.

the website writes, "Military Threats Don't."

THAT isn't the point, I don't care if a crime "works" or not, IT IS STILLA CRIME! And ignoring that fact HELPS sell future wars. Look at this (and it isn't just NBC of course) see video: NBC Makes Mockery of US Constitution & Rule of Law

NBC Makes Mockery of US Constitution & Rule of Law

NBC Makes Mockery of US Constitution & Rule of Law - see video
Dear Mr. Miklaszewski
NBC Makes Mockery of US Constitution, Rule of Law

Dear Mr. Miklaszewski

Dear Mr. Miklaszewski,

Could you explain why you use euphemisms to cover-up what is in fact a war crime? You write, "As always, the U.S. would never take the "military option" off the table in case conditions should change and Iran posed a threat to the U.S. or its allies in the region."

Threatening to attack Iran is against international law and attacking them is a war crime. Is it NBC's position that violating international law and carrying out war crimes is so trivial and expected that it should not even be reported? War crimes are simply "options" that a country may decide to do? You think a country has the right to decide that another country is "a threat" and then launch an attack on it? Or is this a right you grant to only certain countries? Violating international law is serious, your reporting does not reflect that fact. Your reporting makes a mockery of our Constitution and the rule of law. Your article assumes violating international law is a non-issue.

"The United Nations Charter is a treaty of the United States, and as such forms part of the "supreme law of the land" under the Constitution, Article VI, Clause 2. The UN Charter is the highest treaty in the world, superseding states’ conflicting obligations under any other international agreement. (Art. 103, UN Charter)

Under the UN Charter, there are only two circumstances in which the use of force is permissible: in collective or individual self-defense against an actual or imminent armed attack; and when the Security Council has directed or authorized use of force to maintain or restore international peace and security. Neither of those circumstances now exist. Absent one of them, U.S. use of force against Iran is unlawful." (text used from about a very similar situation with Iraq)

Tom Murphy

Above is a message to Jim Miklaszewski, NBC News Chief Pentagon Correspondent
see video NBC Makes Mockery of US Constitution & Rule of Law

Wednesday, March 12, 2008

Why Fallon's Resignation is Frightening

Why Fallon's Resignation is Frightening
See Video:

Defense Secretary Robert Gates did not have to accept Admiral Fallon's resignation. "The military people think basically that Admiral Fallon was PUSHED OUT" - Mark Thompson Time Magazine National Security Correspondent
Fallon is described as "the one person in the military or Pentagon standing between the White House and war with Iran."
See new video: NBC Makes Mockery of US Constitution & Rule of Law

Tuesday, March 11, 2008

Fallon's resignation is frightening.

Fallon's resignation is frightening. President Bush and his administration are totally out of control and it is a bad sign for Fallon to resign given the context. It is unwise to simply hope that it doesn't "mean anything" with regard to a totally outrageous, illegal and unthinkable act which could be catastrophic for God knows how Why Fallon's Resignation is Frighteningmany people. The act I refer to is being discussed matter-of-factly as "war with Iran." A clear war crime and the mainstream media, as I type this, discuss it as simply an "option." It is NOT an option, it is a crime that can not be allowed to be carried out. We can not allow domestic forces to violate our laws and put our lives at risk. Bush attacks countries without any legal, legitimate or moral reason! God help us all, Bush and IranHe LIES about the reason why he started his war with Iraq! Bush has said at least four times now that Saddam didn't let the inspectors in. This is how out of control Bush is, it must be made clear immediately to Bush that he has no authority at all to attack another country. All those powers must be taken from him in the legal procedure that we the American people have at our disposal to protect ourselves, impeachment. Mainstream media is working against us. For Bush to claim that Saddam didn't let the inspectors in is totally off the wall and it is DANGEROUS for mainstream media to let such a thing slide. We have a man with SERIOUS problems running our country. This threatens our lives. SEE VIDEO

"The current issue of Esquire Magazine portrays Fallon as the one person in the military or Pentagon standing between the White House and war with Iran. The article credits Fallon with "brazenly challenging his commander in chief" over a possible war with Iran, which Fallon called an "ill-advised action," and implies Fallon would resign rather than go to war against Iran." - By Jim Miklaszewski, NBC News Chief Pentagon Correspondent - Posted at NBC News BLOG "Field Notes" on Tuesday, March 11, 2008 11:25 AM

Breaking: CentCom Chief Admiral Fallon Resigns

Subscribe to Representative Press's Channel on YouTube (it's free and it helps)
See new video: NBC Makes Mockery of US Constitution & Rule of Law NBC Makes Mockery of US Constitution, Rule of Law

U.S. Gov. Lies to American People and the Troops

U.S. Gov. Lies to American People and the Troops about Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch (see video)

U.S. Gov. Lies to American People and the Troops

Hearing of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee: House Hearing on Accuracy of Battlefield Information

"Our hearing today has been about two cases, the Tillman case and the Lynch case, and in both cases, it seems like we have - we say deceptive - misleading information - it wasn't misleading information, we have false information that was put out to the American people. Stories that were fabricated and made up." - Rep. Henry Waxman, Oversight and Government Reform Chairman


Monday, March 10, 2008

9/11 discussion of basic facts, The "9/11 Truth Movement" is a cruel joke.

9/11 discussion of basic facts, the "9/11 Truth Movement" is a cruel joke.

Hello Diane,

Thank you for the reply. I hope this forum will be productive and will advance the cause of justice and security for all. I think this can be achieved if we discuss the facts and the issues. A quick point, I do think my gripe was justified, if you look at how the discussion of basic facts is handled, the unwillingness to discuss and the exclusion of the evidence which debunks their claims, this unreasonableness dominates their forums. I think you are trying too hard to find an excuse for the unreasonableness I have encountered several times. Did you see my e-mail exchange with Justin A. Martell, founder of Student Scholars For 9/11 Truth?

But let's get to the facts and issues. Thank you for taking note of some of the things I have written on my blog, I do plan to do justice to your post but I may not get to explore every point within this post, I plan to get to everything you mention, if not this post then a subsequent one.

You wrote, "We all can agree that the “they hate our freedoms” excuse was ridiculous." I agree. And when I say I agree, I mean that the “they hate our freedoms” excuse was ridiculous. And I assume you know that "we all"does not include all people and that not all people want this truth to be stated. And it should be pointed out that mainstream media caters to those who don't want to think the excuse is ridiculous or don't want others to think it is. And I should point out that the “they hate our freedoms” excuse is an excuse used to protect specific foreign policies from scrutiny, the excuse is not being used for no reason, the reason is to hide the real motives. Do you agree? Look at how pundits omit the specific foreign policies which terrorist themselves list as the reasons why they attack.

I would like to point out how sad it is that while "we all can agree that the “they hate our freedoms” excuse was ridiculous," we all can't get behind that as a point of discussion to demand that it be addressed in the public forum. If the "9/11 Truth Movement" is indeed a demand for truth, why isn't the very first rallying cry a demand that Bush stop lying about the motive for the attack? This is why it is so frustrating to see the "Truth Movement" doing what it is doing. I think you are ignoring my point about the damage this "Truth Movement" has done. You see their websites, they're not confronting Bush on his lying about the motive, they totally misdirect people away from the reality of what the attack was about! This is such a serious thing, this really is unfair. The constant refrain about an "official story," as if all politicians and people in government agree on what happened, totally ignores the fact that what Bush says and what the CIA, FBI and others say are not the same thing. The movement's constant refrain of "official story" is like a propaganda technique which suppresses the fact that Bush and the intelligence agencies are saying different things. The "9/11 Truth Movement" is a cruel joke.

And I want to point out that I didn't say that the "truth movement" was a conspiracy. I think most are independent people who mistakenly believe in a convoluted conspiracy theory and in doing so they unintentionally end up doing what the manipulative commissioners of the 9/111 commission did, cover-up the motives for the attacks. The frustrating thing is this is a life and death issue and I don't like what I see from some of the more vocal and persistent advocates, an immature unreasonable behavior (I will talk about the top ones soon, meanwhile see my blog comments on Griffin and Jones

I appreciate that you are trying to take a serious approach to this so we can end the corrupt political policies and that you're at least starting to take a critical look at the convoluted "controlled demolition" theory. You are being misled by people who are charlatans, con-men or fools. Their arguments are not rational nor scientific. For goodness sakes, Jones doesn't even understand the central basic fact about why the buildings failed, even though he has read what NIST has said.

There is no way around it, what he doesn't understand (and there is no good reason for not understanding it) is CENTRAL to why the buildings collapsed and it is backed up by evidence that he is ignoring either deliberately or out of incompetence. The man demonstrates clearly that he should not be writing a paper like this or be involved in any academic endeavors because if he can't understand what NIST is saying in their report, he has no right trying to write scientific papers. I don't know what the defect is with his mind but there is a problem of some sort, given the evidence he indicates he doesn't understand. It really is disgusting that his ignorance or deception has gone this far. Please read what I wrote at the link, I think it is cut and dry: Prof. Steven E. Jones and his 911 paper

Jones doesn't understand that the photographic evidence and eyewitness reports are of the bowing perimeter columns? After quoting this part of the NIST report, "To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports," Jones writes " [e.g., complete collapse occurred]" ( e.g. means "for example".) But Jones is totally wrong! NIST is NOT talking about "complete collapse" but rather is referring to the observable events BEFORE complete collapse! Jones has demonstrated that he is embarrassingly not fit to publish scientific papers.

And this kind of incompetence, misunderstanding or deliberate deception is what makes up the "9/11 Truth Movement." Why the hell can't the movement deal with the things we know? The 9/11 commissioners kept testimony out of the 9/11 Report because they didn't want the American people to reassess the policy of supporting Israel. This fact is admitted to in the Kean and Hamilton book. Why isn't the movement even touching that fact?


Saturday, March 08, 2008

Samantha Power

"Yet these actions did not arouse such anger in Power. Why?"

Power has a sick mind. She even wrote a review of Chomsky's "Hegemony or Survival" and ignored the fact that he demolishes the notions she holds about Kosovo (see pages 54-55 of "Hegemony or Survival")

She serves powerful interests and she is in denial, what is extremely irritating is for her to review his book and ignore the fact that Chomsky demolishes a central tenet of her world view concerning Kosovo.

Dimitri Oram writes in his article Whitewashing Western Intervention, "Ms. Power presents a warped and decontextualized version of events, relying largely on the say-so of of various interventionists and hawkish US officials, omitting key facts and distorting others."

She is a sick woman, Obama is a monster too.

General gripe thread - about the 9/11 Truth movement

General gripe thread - about the 9/11 Truth movement (I posted this at New York City activist )

My gripe is how the facts which disprove their case don't get a fair hearing.
I have been banned from forums just for stating basic facts.

Diane, I think the following info will answer your questions about 9/11:
Please check out my page WTC Pre-Collapse Bowing Debunks 9/11 "Controlled Demolition" Theory and see my videos Sorry Decky11, 9/11 was NOT an "inside job" and Facts the "9/11 Skeptics" don't want you to see among others. (search "9/11" at my YouTube videos page)

Tuesday, March 04, 2008

Justin A. Martell

So Justin has time to debate yet he claims he "really doesn't have time" to answer even one question that I asked him. Here is my e-mail to Justin.

This is his e-mail to me in response to my e-mail:
("RE: I am making a video response to you" e-mail sent on 11/4/07)


First of all, am I really worth devoting your time and energy to make a video response? Second, I didn't really read the message you sent me because a couple sentences in you started going into the Zionist stuff. Sorry, while I think elements of Israeli intelligence were involved, I don't subscribe to much of that.* [*NOTE THAT Justin gets this wrong, I say nothing about "Israeli intelligence" being involved. He apparently makes the assumption that I argue that because of a comment posted by someone else. Justin doesn't pay attention to details and simply goes off on tangents.] Third, I also don't appreciate you posting the email that you sent me on your website. It's disingenuous to post that without telling me, rude, and certainly not an example of good journalism ethics. Lastly, I don't really have time to engage you. For a refutation of ALL of your claims please refer to the chapter on the NIST report and Popular Mechanics in Griffin's Debunking 9/11 Debunking.


Justin A. Martell
Scholars For 9/11 Truth (SM)
Founder - Student Scholars For 9/11 Truth

Monday, March 03, 2008

Representative Press's Channel Guide #1

Representative Press's Channel Guide #1

Current Affairs, Foreign Policy, Domestic Policy

Politics should not be privatized. Political power should be in the hands of the people.

See More Videos Here

What motivated the 9/11 hijackers? See testimony most didn't

Next video we will hear from James, the man who asked Lee Hamilton, "why aren't we addressing the gorilla in the room? The gorilla in the room is US support for Israel." Lee Hamilton insults the American people at a "9/11 Public Discourse Project" Q&A. At the August 2, 2005 "public event," Hamilton quickly tries to silence someone who asks why US support for Israel isn't being addressed since it is what drove the plotter of 9/11 to attack us.

Name: Tom
Don't let the Bush Administration trick us into another war. President Bush must be impeached in order to prevent him from committing another war crime by attacking Iran. We must end the wars of aggression in the Middle East, NOT expand them into a World War! Ending corrupt political policies is the only way to ensure security. Armed with the knowledge, we can end the terrorist threat