Wednesday, December 24, 2014

Wednesday, December 10, 2014

On CIA Torture Cover-up & Obama's Failure to Right Wrongs Udall Speech

Convention Against Torture requires

Thursday, December 04, 2014

Grand Jury Evidence in Michael Brown Shooting Case

Are these activists ever going to get around to reading the Documents Released in the Ferguson Case This link is to the New York Times site where it says "Here are documents and evidence presented to the grand jury in Clayton, Mo., that was deciding whether to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the August shooting of Michael Brown. The documents were released by the St. Louis County prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch." LINK NOV. 25, 2014
  •  Grand Jury Transcripts
  •  Interviews of Witnesses by Law Enforcement Officials
  •  Forensic and Other Reports
  •  Photographs
And here is a link to CNN for  Documents from the Ferguson grand jury
Where they explain " A grand jury decided not to indict Ferguson police Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of Michael Brown. Scores of documents, including testimony from the proceedings as well as reports and interview transcripts considered as evidence, were released by St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch. Read the documents below. The documents are also searchable, using the search bar at the top right of each document."

Here is a direct link to Wilson's testimony Contributed by: Chris McDaniel, KWMU

Here is a link to AP's page where they say "The Associated Press has obtained a copy of the testimony and evidence presented to the grand jury that declined to indict Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting of Michael Brown. Clicking a document link will open a new window."

 Here is a link to St. Louis Post‑Dispatch's The testimony the grand jury heard in the Michael Brown case But make sure not to overlook the other evidence included in other links such as the NYT with photos and forensic reports

Friday, November 28, 2014

SEVERAL witnesses admitted they lied about Michael Brown shooting

"... grand jurors and investigators challenged witnesses, asking skeptical questions of those who said the shooting was unjustified. On the stand, several said they’d lied when interviewed by investigators."

"The witness backtracked, saying the comments to the FBI were based on “assumption” and “common sense.” One woman admitted she lied to FBI agents on Sept. 30 when she claimed to have been a witness, saying she repeated what her boyfriend claimed took place. … She said she testified after the Justice Department granted her immunity and promised not to prosecute her for giving false statements."

Wednesday, November 26, 2014

Witness 10 of Michael Brown Shooting

Witness 10: … I seen the two young guys walkin' down the street on the same sidewalk that I was on and …

Detective:  Can I - can I clarify just a couple things? Roughly, what time was this?

Witness 10: Roughly I wanna say 8:40, I mean not 8:40, 11:40-1 :40 is when that - when I first seen these two guys. And, my initial thought was, "wow, that's a big dude." Because Mr. Brown, Mike Brown, my initial thought was he's a big guy. He's tall and like stocky build and that's it. He - he, they both walked passed me.

I took my tools, went into _____ I came back outside _____ to get some more stuff and I looked down the street and I seen the police car at a slant and I seen Mr. Brown in the window of the police car looked ... it appeared as they were wrestling through the window and one gunshot had let off. And, Mr. Brown took off running and my first thought was like "oh my gosh" did I actually just witness a police officer being murdered because it took a while for the police officer to get out of the car and pursue the - the suspect. And, I wanna say maybe six seconds, but it seemed like it was forever after the - the - the first gunshot. 

So, the police officer exited the vehicle with his weapon drawn pursuing Mr. Brown. Mr. Brown was quite a distance and he stopped and when he stopped, he didn't get down on the ground or anything. He turned around and he did some type of movement. I never seen him put his hands up or anything. I can't recall the movement that he did. I'm not sure if he pulled his pants up or - or whatever he did but I seen some type of movement and he started charging towards the police officer. 

The police officer then returned fire, well, not returned fire, open fire on Mr. Brown. Um, if I had to guess the shots and the - the distance between him and, a, Mr. Brown, it would have to be five to ten yards and the shots that were fired was four, five to six shots fired and Mr. Brown was still standing up. Um, and my thoughts was while he's missing this guy this close, is he - is he hitting him or because Mr. Brown there was no reaction from him to show that he was been hit. Um, after that, Mr. Brown then paused. He - he - he stopped running and when he stopped running the police officer stopped firing. And, then Mr. Brown continued, started again to charge towards him and after that the police officer returned fire and um well not returned, I'm using wrong ... a started to fire once more at him. Um, if I had to guess the rounds that were fired then it would be four to five more shots and after that Mr. Brown collapsed and fell to the ground.

Detective: Okay. What happened then?

Witness 10: Um, what happened then after that um I didn't see, it was a-a blue Monte Carlo, a-a newer model Monte Carlo, two-door and um, it was closer to the scene where the shooting was at, that occurred. They then drove off and made a-a left into the apartments and drove around the apartment and then came and stopped and um Mr. Brown's friend that he was walking with earlier, I didn't see him the whole time that um this was all going on with, a, confrontation with the police and the shooting and everything. 

At the end, after Mr. Brown had dropped and um, I seen the, his friend come out of - of nowhere and run across the street and a, said that, "Dog, they just-they just killed him. They just killed him" and he ran um, the back fields of Canfield. . . the back open field. And um, I must say that also after the, um confrontation after the gunshot when Mr. Brown did run, I thought I heard a, something' metal hit the ground and I'm not sure what it was but I thought I heard something' hit the ground.

And um, after that I believe, I'm not sure um, if I went in to go tell the people that I was working with that I just. . .what I witnessed and I came back out and they were taping the scene off and I decided I went down there closer to where the body was and I stayed down there for maybe ten. . . five to ten minutes and I was speakin' _____  down there on the scene. And, I was tellin' _____ what happened and after me tellin' _____ what happened and I'm hearin' eveybody their side of the story, saying, "Oh, the police officer shot that kid for no reason. He had his hands up" and me knowing and seeing what actually took place, that wasn't true and a, there was different sides to the story and every side wasn't true so I felt uncomfortable in that situation so I decided to - to walk back to the um to _____ that I was at, originally at. And, um, while I was walkin'

See  Witness 48 of Michael Brown Shooting

Witness 48 of Michael Brown Shooting

Witness 48 page 1

August 14, 2014
1:38 pm.

St. Louis County Police Department

Detective: This is Detective with the St. Louis County Police
Department, uh, today's date is August 14, it is 1:38 pm. With me is, uh, Sergeant ______ and we are here in the presence of ______
at her residence at ______. I understand you were with your family on Saturday?

Witness 48: Yes.

Detective: Up on, uh, Canfield, can you can you tell me what you saw?

Witness 48: Um, we was pulling up on Canfield Drive, going into the Canfield Green Apartments and I seen a officer in his cruiser which was a SUV

Detective: Ok.

Witness 48: And, uh, I seen a young man standing near the cruiser, you heard two shots fired.

Detective: Uh hmm..

Witness 48: And then you seen him take off down the street.

Detective: Ok.

Witness 48: And then a police officer hopped out of his cruiser and started chasing him, the dude turned back around and started charging towards the police officer, the police officer told him to stop at least three times.

Detective: Uh hmm.

Witness 48: And the boy wouldn't stop, he fired three rounds, the dude kept running, fired four more rounds, and then he finished off the rounds I guess, and he fell on the ground dead.

Detective: Ok, so, um so you-you saw an SUV...

Witness 48: Uh hmm.

Detective: … police car?
page 2
Witness 48: Uh hmm.

Detective: Ok, and then before the policeman got out of the car, how many shots did you hear?

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Michael Brown's DNA found on Officer Wilson's gun!

DNA report found Brown’s genetic material on Officer Wilson’s pistol! Also found on the officer’s uniform pants & shirt.

"A crime scene investigator described swabbing Wilson’s gun with a Q-tip; the subsequent D.N.A. report found Mr. Brown’s genetic material on Officer Wilson’s Sig Sauer pistol. Similarly, D.N.A. from Mr. Brown was also found on the officer’s uniform pants and shirt. In his own testimony, Officer Wilson told jurors that Mr. Brown had grabbed the gun while the two scuffled at the car."  -NYT Nov. 25, 2014

Also see: Michael Brown Shooting physical evidence Grand Jury saw (evidence showing that Mr. Brown was moving toward the officer)

See Witness 10 of Michael Brown Shooting

See  Witness 48 of Michael Brown Shooting

Michael Brown Shooting physical evidence Grand Jury saw

Here is an example of evidence that supports the fact that Michael Brown was moving toward the officer:
GRAND JUROR: "So as far as physical evidence, we have the blood on the ground that was about 21 or 22 feet from where Michael Brown ended up." p 4741 of grand-jury-testimony.pdf source:

"Transcripts of the Grand Jury Proceedings Here is a link to the transcript of the documents and evidence presented to the grand jury in Clayton, Mo., that was deciding whether to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the fatal shooting on August 9 of Michael Brown. The documents were released by the St. Louis County prosecutor, Robert P. McCulloch. — THE NEW YORK TIMES"

 "Farther away from the car, the investigator showed with photographs, were two blood-spatter patterns – evidence showing that Mr. Brown was moving toward the officer, and the car, when he was killed in the second flurry of shots." - NYT: Documents Released in the Ferguson Case
See Witness 10 of Michael Brown Shooting

See  Witness 48 of Michael Brown Shooting

Saturday, November 22, 2014

Shaun King continues to mislead people about Michael Brown Shooting

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Wednesday, November 19, 2014

Troll? & Judge's Gag Order & UPDATE on Mother's Appeal of Circumcision C...

Chase's Guardians Boost Coverage from Representative Press!

Contradictions of eyewitnesses in Michael Brown case

Tuesday, November 18, 2014

Michael Brown Grand Jury Evidence

Media Suppress Israeli Violence Against Palestinians

Monday, November 17, 2014

Forced Circumcision on Four Year Old Boy?! He DOESN'T want the surgery!

Another Example of Lack of Empathy for Children & People in General

See How Key Parts of the Protest were Suppressed: NBC Suppresses Protest Against Drones Killing Children (playlist)

Email I sent

This is the email I sent :

You should quote this sentence at the top of your articles published section: "The risk of side effects following male circumcision increase by up to 20 times if the procedure is carried out after the boy turns one year old, a new study suggests."

I think the strongest argument is that your son isn't an infant any longer and there can be psychological damage to him at this age if it is done now! The strongest argument is that at this point the decision should be put off until Chase turns 18 and allow HIM to decide. His emotional well being MUST be considered as he is just too old at this point to force him to undergo the unnecessary surgery. Please tell your lawyer to add that argument when you make your case.

Saturday, November 08, 2014

Why the Ukraine Crisis Is the West’s Fault

Wednesday, October 22, 2014

eyewitnesses to Michael Brown shooting

"Seven or eight African American eyewitnesses have provided testimony consistent with Wilson’s account, but none of them have spoken publicly out of fear for their safety, The Washington Post’s sources said." see article: Evidence supports officer’s account of shooting in Ferguson

Sunday, October 19, 2014

My tweet to deray mckesson @deray

But I don't see it when I look at his twitter page. Did he hide it? Check it out and tell me what you think. I don't see it.

Wednesday, October 15, 2014

NYT twitter account misleads public about Iraq WMD

The NYT twitter account is tweeting misleading info about Iraq and Weapons of Mass Destruction. Those were not WMD which Saddam was supposedly hiding. Those were either chemical weapons which had already been declared and put under UN seal or discarded weapons not part of any active program. I explain the situation in this video: CLICK HERE FOR VIDEOS

If you listen to what the NYT video says, the two examples of exposure were from an IMPROVISED explosive device (meaning insurgents got hold of something that had been secured by the UN but due to Bush's illegal attack on Iraq they became unsecured and insurgents took them and IMPROVISED a weapon out of it.) Or the other main case the video talks about where the US soldiers find discarded weapons and decide to blow them up and end up exposing themselves due to their own actions of exploding discarded chemical weapons. THAT is why it wasn't made a big public story, because it makes the soldiers look bad for managing to expose themselves through their own actions of digging up discarded chemical and recklessly blowing them up.

The NYT put a misleading tweet together and those promoting it are then twisting it even more when they misrepresent the situation. I now see many people retweeting the NYT's misleading tweets and also crowing about them on their blogs.

In the video info I put the following information (links in video info of video):

Bush memoir makes selective use of Iraq data By Walter Pincus Washington Post Staff Writer "Bush left out that Blix later said, "Iraq has on the whole cooperated rather well so far" with inspectors. "The most important point to make is that access has been provided to all sites we have wanted to inspect and with one exception it has been prompt."

Panel: U.S. Ignored Work of U.N. Arms Inspectors By Dafna Linzer Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, April 3, 2005; Page A06 "By the time President Bush ordered U.S. troops to disarm Saddam Hussein of the deadly weapons he was allegedly trying to build, every piece of fresh evidence had been tested -- and disproved -- by U.N. inspectors, according to a report commissioned by the president"

Inspectors Call U.S. Tips 'Garbage' one source has referred to the US intelligence they've been getting as "garbage after garbage after garbage." CBS News Correspondent Mark Phillips reports
By Brian Dakss CBS News

A Spy Speaks Out By Daniel Schorn
"According to Tyler Drumheller, who was a former top CIA official and 26-year veteran of the agency, CIA Director George Tenet delivered the news about the Iraqi foreign minister at a high-level meeting at the White House, including the president, the vice president and Secretary of State Rice. Drumheller said, 'he told us that they had no active weapons of mass destruction program.' 'So in the fall of 2002, before going to war, we had it on good authority from a source within Saddam's inner circle that he didn't have an active program for weapons of mass destruction?' Bradley asked. 'Yes,' Drumheller replied. He says there was doubt in his mind at all. 'It directly contradicts, though, what the president and his staff were telling us," Bradley remarked."

Friday, October 10, 2014

When Shot by Cop, Myers was Wearing a Court Ordered Ankle Bracelet

Incident: Officer-Involved Shooting
Location: 4100 block of Shaw
Date/Time: 10/8/14 @ 19:28
Victim: 32-year old white male (St. Louis Police Officer with 6 years of service)
Suspect: Vonderrit D. Myers, Jr., 18-year old black male of the 4200 block of Castleman

The officer was working secondary for a private security company patrolling the Shaw neighborhood. As the officer drove past three males, one of the males began to run, but then stopped. The officer then did a u-turn, and observed the males run from the area. The officer followed the males’ path, through several streets, at one point exiting his vehicle, when he followed one of the males through a gangway. The officer observed the male running and holding his waistband, causing the officer to believe the suspect had a gun. The suspect then began to approach the officer in an aggressive manner. The officer gave the suspect verbal commands, instructing him to surrender. The suspect continued to move toward the officer. The suspect and the officer then got into a physical altercation, with hands on each other. During the altercation, the suspect’s hooded sweatshirt came off of him. The suspect then ran from the officer, up a hill in the 4100 block of Shaw. At this time, the officer saw the suspect was armed with what he believed to be a gun. The officer wanted to be certain what the suspect had was a gun, and did not immediately fire at the suspect. The suspect then turned toward the officer, pointed the gun at the officer and fired at least three rounds. Three projectiles were recovered going toward the officer, down the hill, with ballistic evidence, a bullet in a vehicle, located behind the officer. As the suspect fired at the officer, fearing for his safety, the officer returned fire. As the officer moved toward the suspect, the suspect continued to pull the trigger. Upon recovery of the gun, investigation revealed the gun had malfunctioned and had jammed after firing at least three rounds. As the suspect continued to point the gun toward the officer and pull the trigger, the officer continued to fire shots at the suspect, fatally wounding him. The suspect was pronounced deceased on the scene. The suspect’s 9mm handgun was recovered at the scene. The gun was reported stolen on 9/26/14. Per department policy, the officer has been placed on administrative leave. To clarify, secondary employment allows officers to work security in uniform and carry their department-issued weapons. The officer, while not on duty for the Police Department, still has the same responsibilities and power to affect arrest and the officer operates in the capacity as a St. Louis Police Officer. St. Louis Police Officers work secondary for securities companies, business establishments, sporting events, etc. The Force Investigative Unit responded and is investigating. The investigation is ongoing.

Thursday, October 09, 2014

Ryan, I can be reasoned with.

Ryan, I can be reasoned with. A fan of both of our work wanted us to communicate. I have tried to get you to respond to me. You need to understand that the people you relied on for your information have played the same stubborn game of refusing to even respond to specific points. Are you seriously flying all the way to LA yet you can't take a few minutes to do the bare minimum expected of civilized people and engage in civilized discourse through written word? You are helping Zionists get away with misdirecting the public from the main motive for the 9/11 attack.

The celebrating Israelis spotted in N.J. were obnoxious jerks. CELEBRATING and MOCKING the tragedy was disgustingly selfish. The witness who spotted them saw them after she got a call from a friend who called to tell her that a plane had hit the twin towers so she got her binoculars and went to her window to look for herself. It is after that that she spotted them and I guess called police.  The FBI called them the "hi-fivers" from what I have read. 

Unfortunately you relied on piss poor reporting for your info. No Israelis were “”were arrested filming the first plane hit the first tower ” nor were Israelis “also arrested in several vans with explosives” Fox News and Mike Rivero (author of the website “What really happened”) do extremely poor jobs at reporting. Sounds like you have been influenced by Mike Rivero’s “reasoning” because when someone points a camera at something to document it, it does not mean they had prior knowledge. The witness saw them after she got a call from a friend telling her to look at the twin towers because a plane had crashed. NOT before. They said “Document” instead of
“celebrate” because they don’t want to look bad. Check out this site:

Instead of telling cops that they were celebrating the attacks as they took pictures of themselves with the burning towers behind them, they told the cops they were "documenting the event." (I think if they threw it in the cops faces saying, yeah, we were celebrating, they might have gotten a beating so they tried to class it up and act like they were not being disrespectful)

BEFORE the cops even pulled the van over, they were under the impression there might be explosives in the van. Bomb sniffing dog reacted as if there were  BUT when they tested for explosives, they found none. Mike Rivero uses the same article saying no explosives were found, quotes only the part saying dogs reacted as if there were, OMITTING the part saying they searched and found none.

Rivero quotes this part: “Police also told the Bergen Record that bomb sniffing dogs were brought to the van and that they reacted as if they had smelled explosives” YET OMITS the part of the article which says “The Bergen County Police bomb squad X-rayed packages found inside the van but did not find any explosives, authorities said.”

The FBI called them the "hi-fivers" from what I have read. Instead of telling cops that they were celebrating the attacks as they took pictures of themselves with the burning towers behind them, they told the cops they were "documenting the event." You see, the cops were pissed off at reports these guys were mocking our tragedy. they weren't going to say "yes we held up lighters and giving hi-fives as Americans were burning to death" so they told the cops they were "documenting the event."

 I have been trying to point out that the very two assumptions of the truthers are wrong. (make sure you look at Sherman's Neckties, link below)
The first two assumptions of the 9/11 conspiracy are false.
1. Contrary to what they assumed, fires CAN weaken steel. Eric Hufschmid thought he was being clever when he looked up the MELTING point of steel not realizing that the steel didn't have to melt for it to weaken.
2. Contrary to what they assumed, there were signs of bowing and sagging in the towers well before the collapse of the towers.

Fires HAVE caused steel framed buildings to collapse. The Kader toy factory fire is an example. The thing you need to understand is that people like Eric Hufschmid  are just ignorant and that they didn't know what they were talking about when the declared "fires can't do that." And as I showed you, firemen know what fires can do to steel framed buildings as the  Firehouse Magazine from Sept. 1998 explained. Hufschmid was just spreading ignorance as the historic example of Sherman's Neckties shows

Fires pose a collapse threat to steel framed buildings, that means that when there is a fire there is a potential collapse threat, it doesn't mean the building will ALWAYS collapse but that if COULD collapse. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a *possibility* of a pancake structural collapse of the fire damaged floors."
"Floor assemblies deflected as much as three feet in some places" so there was a potential for collapse. Fires pose a risk of collapse, we can see a few floors did collapse inside WTC FIVE for example.

And NIST has a FAQ where they explain "These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system (see the answer to Question 9)."
The thing is the conditions were there in the towers and WTC7 for the weakened structure, due to the fires, to result in collapse. Are you arguing that fires can't cause a steel structure to be weakened? The Kader toy factory fire resulted in a collapse. The fireman who wrote the Sept. 1998 article in Firehouse Magazine understood that fires CAN pose a "serious collapse threat": "Class 1 (fire-resistive) buildings typical of high-rise construction usually are designated as having three- or four-hour fire resistance ratings. In the past, that was taken to mean that they would never be a serious collapse threat. While this is usually the case in the completed structures, it is not a guarantee, particularly in the steel-framed high-rise that relies on some type of spray-on or membrane fireproofing to protect the steel. The 1 Meridian Plaza fire in Philadelphia proved that these can be severe dangers under the wrong set of circumstances."

And as I have shown, the weakening in the towers resulted in inward bowing of exterior load bearing columns. Eric Hufschmid thought he was being clever when he looked up the MELTING point of steel not realizing that the steel didn't have to melt for it to weaken. Hufschmid's ignorance is so wide spread that a site about the melting point of steel had to add this: "Addendum (8/26/2011): I answered this question many years ago and it has been referenced in many different web sites and reports. There has been one misrepresentation that has come from that. Many sites refer to the difference in the melting point of steel and the burning temperature of jet fuel as proof that the World Trade Center could not have fallen from the aircraft fires. What those authors fail to note is that while steel melts at around 1,370°C (2500°F) it begins to lose its strength at a much lower temperature. The steel structure of the World Trade Center would not have to melt in order for the buildings to lose their structural integrity. Steel can be soft at 538°C (1,000°F) well below the burning temperature of jet fuel."

And Contrary to what they assumed, there were signs of bowing and sagging in the towers well before the collapse of the towers. The very thing that Griffin points to as a feature of a fire caused collapse we can see in photos of the World Trade Center. Griffin writes, "in fire-induced collapses---if we had any examples of such---the onset would be gradual. Horizontal beams and trusses would begin to sag; vertical columns, if subjected to strong forces, would begin to bend. But as videos of the towers show, there were no signs of bending or sagging, even on the floors just above the damage caused by the impact of the planes." But contrary to what Griffin claims, there were indeed signs of bending or sagging. Witnesses reported it and photos document it. Griffin is simply wrong.

The very same area that we can see in a photo here
then you can see that the bowing has progressed in a photo here:
Then you can see that very same bowed in area where it reaches the point of total failure in this video here:
We can see the early stages of the bowing in the two pictures linked above and then we can see how _that bowed in area_ reaches the point of total failure in the video linked above. 

*Richard Gage is a con man* :

You are calling the Fire Chief and other firemen liars:
Here are the Fire Chief's words: "The biggest decision we had to make was to clear the area and create a collapse zone around the severely damaged building. A number of fire officers and companies assessed the damage to the building. The appraisals indicated that the building’s integrity was in serious doubt.” AND "The most important operational decision to be made that afternoon was the collapse (Of the WTC towers) had damaged 7 World Trade Center, which is about a 50 story building, at Vesey between West Broadway and Washington Street. It had very heavy fire on many floors and I ordered the evacuation of an area sufficient around to protect our members, so we had to give up some rescue operations that were going on at the time and back the people away far enough so that if 7 World Trade did collapse, we [wouldn't] lose any more people. We continued to operate on what we could from that distance and approximately an hour and a half after that order was [given], at 5:30 in the afternoon, World Trade Center collapsed completely" - Daniel Nigro, Chief of Department" 

“The major concern at that time at that particular location was number Seven, building number seven, which had taken a big hit from the north tower. When it fell, it ripped steel out from between the third and sixth floors across the fa├žade on Vesey Street. We were concerned that the fires on several floors and the missing steel would result in the building collapsing. So for the next five or six hours we kept firefighters from working anywhere near that building, which included the whole north side of the World Trade Center complex. Eventually around 5:00 or a little after, building number seven came down.” - Chief Frank Fellini

“I then walked down a couple of blocks back to the site. We were north of the Winter Garden at that point. It might have been—it was Vesey Street. We walked all the way back down to Vesey Street. There was a big discussion going on at that point about pulling all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center. Chief Nigro didn’t feel it was worth taking the slightest chance of somebody else getting injured. So at that point we made a decision to take all of our units out of 7 World Trade Center because there was a potential for collapse.” 
Q. “It was on fire, correct, Captain?” 
A. “Yes, it was on fire at that time. Then they said it suffered some form of structural damage. These things were going on at the same time. The fact that we thought we found Ganci and Feehan and his place at 7 World Trade Center. Made the decision to back 
everybody away, took all the units and moved them all the way back toward North End Avenue, which is as far I guess west as you could get on Vesey Street, to keep them out of the way.” - Captain Ray Goldbach

“And 7 World Trade was burning up at the time. We could see it. There was concern. I had gone up to take a look at it, because I knew that the telephone company building, which is 140 West Street, was next to 7 World Trade Center, and there was a concern that if 7 World Trade Center came down, what would happen to this building? We went in there, we checked it out. There were some people in there. We made them evacuate and I went in the back to see what was happening. The fire at 7 World Trade was working its way from the front of the building northbound to the back of the building. There was no way there could be water put on it, because there was no water in the area. I went back and I reminded whoever the chief was, I don’tknow if it was Chief McKavanagh or Chief Blaich, that with 7 World Trade Center in danger of collapsing, you had to be careful, because Con Edison had big transformers in the back that supplied the lower half of Manhattan. …when I was coming back somewhere around I think it was 5:00 o’clock, 6:00 o’clock, 7 World Trade Center came down.” Firefighter Eugene Kelty

“But they weren’t letting guys too close. At this point Seven World Trade Center was going heavy, and they weren’t letting anybody get too close. Everybody was expecting that to come down. We hung out for hours…I remember later on in the day it was getting close that they were more concerned about seven coming down. We had no idea what  20was going on on the east side. We were all on our side. On the west side it was pretty clear. The wind was blowing from west to east I believe. I remember later on in the day as we were waiting for seven to come down they kept backing us up Vesey, almost a full block. They were concerned about seven coming down, and they kept changing us, establishing a collapse zone and backing us up. 
… The whole time while we were waiting—there were hours that went by. Seven came down after 5 in the afternoon.”  - Firefighter Vincent Massa 9110222

Sunday, September 21, 2014

Bush was bombing Iraq BEFORE the Iraq War

US and British aircraft attack Iraq   February, 16 2001
 16.21 EST "US and British aircraft have carried out missile attacks on five targets near the Iraqi capital Baghdad tonight, striking command and control targets to the south of the city, the Pentagon has confirmed. Air raid sirens wailed through Baghdad and anti-aircraft weapons fired into the skies at unseen targets while residents braced themselves for missile strikes."

 Published: February 17, 2001
 "Mr. Bush and his aides described the raid as routine, saying the United States and Britain were simply responding to Iraqi provocations, as they have repeatedly in the last two years. Since Mr. Bush took office on Jan. 20, American and British jets have struck targets in the southern zone three other times, most recently on Tuesday. They also attacked one in the smaller zone over northern Iraq."

  Iraq Was Being Bombed During 12 Years of Sanctions

US and Britain step up bombing of Iraq
By Kate Randall and Patrick Martin August 17, 2001
"US and British forces have conducted three air strikes against Iraq over the past week. On Tuesday US warplanes bombed a site near An Nasiriya in southern Iraq, about 170 miles southeast of Baghdad. The target was reportedly a radar site used to guide Iraqi missiles. Four days earlier, on Friday, August 10, US and British warplanes attacked targets in southern Iraq in the biggest assault since last February. About 20 US and British jets and 30 support aircraft carried out the strike. Earlier in the week, on August 7, US planes bombed targets in northern Iraq."

Thursday, July 17, 2014

Trying to post to DISPATCHES

Gator90's comment reminded me of what Tzvia Thier abount Israel being a monster, see her explain how she used to be a Zionist in a recent Philip Weiss video:

(sorry if this is a repost, my first one didn't work apparently)

‪Israel's Ongoing Massacre of Palestinians in Gaza‬ Part 2

Thursday, June 12, 2014

UPDATE on that Situation ...

Because of this Situation

Because of this Situation

This is what is happening. For the answer as to why Ads can get pulled from videos by YouTube, here's what they explained in a help forum: "If your video contains sexual or sensitive content you may not see any ads. We currently do not run ads on web pages that are determined to contain potentially sensitive content by our automatic contextual advertising system. On such pages, no ads may appear. We understand that not all pages automatically categorized as sensitive will contain such content, but currently, we're not able to manually alter the system to allow it to show ads. If you'd like to ensure that your video pages show ads, please keep both the video content - as well as the video title, description, and keywords - family safe"

"We currently do not serve ads on restricted content or videos with misleading or sensitive meta"

This is the Title of the video in question: I Wouldn't Assume Obama was Motivated by Morality

Here are the keywords I used: Noam Chomsky,Taliban,President Obama,Afghanistan,terrorists,Bowe Bergdahl,Benghazi,Prisoner swap,bin Laden,al-qaeda,Constitution,Saudi Arabia,war,Osama Bin Laden (FBI Most Wanted Fugitive),Morality (Idea),Barack Obama (US President),White House,Venezuela,Cuba,terrorist,Gaddafi,Syria,Ari Fleischer,Rolando Bosc,Luis Posada,Taliban in Afghanistan,presidential power,legislation,US Constitution,civilians,rebel fighters,Obama and Afghanistan war

Here is the video info and the transcript: Here are two comments that I posted on my most recent video: Don't post comments while refusing replies. And there are several things wrong with your comment. The Taliban are not the same as al-qaeda. Seems like you are confusing the two. If you are going to call the Taliban "terrorists," then call the United States terrorists because the Taliban were the government of Afghanistan at the time the United States illegally attacked them in a war of aggression. No, just because a government doesn't extradite someone you demand them to, doesn't mean you have the right to attack the country and start a war  to overthrow that government! That's freakin' crazy! By that logic, Cuba or Venezuela, for example have a right to attack and try to overthrow the government of the United States because the U.S. refuses to extradite known terrorist it is harboring. "One of the world's leading terrorists is Luis Posada, who was involved in blowing up a Cubana airliner which killed 73 people and lots of other terrorist acts. He's sitting happily in... Miami, and his colleague Rolando Bosch also a major terrorist... is happily there...  Cuba and Venezuela are trying to extradite them" There is nothing "terrorist" about capturing an enemy soldier that is part of a force that has illegally invaded your country. What do you want the Taliban to do? Who put the notion in your head that prisoner swaps were wrong?
And as Gameplay Bangladesh points out, the Taliban did offer to hand over bin Laden to the U.S. with conditions civilized countries would find reasonable and honorable to meet, provide evidence. But the U.S. is controlled by unreasonable and dishonorable people who violated the rights of people here and abroad. They also make a good point about how the Taliban was offering to hand over bin Laden before 9/11. And again, on reasonable conditions. You can see White House spokesman Ari Fleischer being questioned about that, well before 9/11. Yes. Ari, according to India Globe, the Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States would drop its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States.  Do you have any comments? Let me take that and get back to you on that. And here's my response to someone that was making the argument that Obama was motivated by morality. I wrote that, I wouldn't assume Obama was motivated by "morality" when he took the action he did. I also wouldn't assume that Obama is telling the truth about "saving someone's life" because we don't have proof, all we have is a claim made by Obama. We really don't know if the White House claim about U.S. Army Sergeant Bowe Bergdahl's health is true or if the Taliban was really threatening to kill him. Remember, Obama has lied in the past. Here is an example of Obama's "I got to to do this action before it is too late" excuse: "The White House claimed that Gaddafi had threated to massacre the people of Benghazi with "no mercy," but the New York Times reported that Gaddafi's threat was directed at rebel fighters, not civilians, and that Gaddafi promised amnesty for those "who throw their weapons away." Gaddafi also offered to allow rebel fighters to escape to Egypt if they preferred not to fight to the death. Yet President Obama warned of imminent genocide." I really find it very hard to believe that Obama took the action he did because of morality. If he was moral, he wouldn't have continued and expanded President Bush's immoral foreign policies. So how do you square that with claims of morality? He was extremely eager to bomb Syria when he had no right to as a US President, he didn't need to act like it was his decision to bomb or not because it wasn't, in the United States system a US President doesn't' have a right to start a war. He has shown a pattern of contempt for the US Constitution's restrictions on presidential power, that is what I was trying to communicate with the clip at the end where he arrogantly declared he wasn't going to give a straight answer whether he was going to bomb Syria. And I still haven't heard a direct response to Brianna's question.  If Congress fails to authorize this will you go forward with an attack on Syria? Right, and you're not getting a direct response. Think about retrofitting Voice of America through legislation to
 mandate establishing a public institution for all Americans. And you can share this video with other people using the YouTube tools below.

Saturday, April 26, 2014

I expose Thomas Friedman

I expose Thomas Friedman as a Zionist liar. Friedman has been lying for years in order to cover for Israel. AFTER the 1993 attack and AFTER crystal clear statements from Osama bin Laden, NYT's Thomas Friedman denied that there were specific demands. Terrorists, he wrote in 1998, "have no specific ideological program or demands. Rather, they are driven by a generalized hatred of the US, Israel and other supposed enemies of Islam." (source: Foreign Affairs; Angry, Wired and Deadly by THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN Published: August 22, 1998

 Yet "Yousef said he took no thrill from killing American citizens and felt guilty about the civilian deaths he had caused. But his conscience was overridden by his desire to stop the killing of Arabs by Israeli troops." "Yousef said he "would like it to be different," but only terrible violence could force this kind of abrupt political change. He said that he truly believed his actions had been rational and logical in pursuit of a change in U.S. policy toward Israel. He mentioned no other motivation during the flight and no other issue in American foreign policy that conserned him." (source: Steve Coll, Ghost Wars p273 )

 Ramzi Yousef sent that letter to the NYT making specific demands, Specifically, the letter declared: We are, the fifth battalion in the LIBERATION ARMY, declare our responsibility for the explosion on the mentioned building. This action was done in response for the American political, economical, and military support to Israel the state of terrorism and to the rest of the dictator countries in the region.
 1 - Stop all military, economical, and political aid to Israel.
 2 - All diplomatic relations with Israel must stop.
 3 - Not to interfere with any of the Middle East countries interior affairs. (source: )

 AND this is from the 1997 interview:
 REPORTER: Mr. Bin Ladin, you've declared a jihad against the United States. Can you tell us why? And is the jihad directed against the US government or the United States' troops in Arabia? What about US civilians in Arabia or the people of the United States?
 BIN LADIN: We declared jihad against the US government, because the US government is unjust, criminal and tyrannical. It has committed acts that are extremely unjust, hideous and criminal whether directly or through its support of the Israeli occupation of the Prophet's Night Travel Land (Palestine). And we believe the US is directly responsible for those who were killed in Palestine, Lebanon and Iraq. The mention of the US reminds us before everything else of those innocent children who were dismembered, their heads and arms cut off in the recent explosion that took place in Qana (in Lebanon). This US government abandoned even humanitarian feelings by these hideous crimes. It transgressed all bounds and behaved in a way not witnessed before by any power or any imperialist power in the world.

 But Friedman lied! Keep in mind he was spreading these lies before 9/11, when we could have done something to prevent that attack which was motivated by the same thing. And after the 9/11 attack Friedman had the audacity to continue lying: 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 I also have to wonder how in this invented scenario Friedman "knows" what bin Laden "sensed" about the Arab street.

 This link explains more about how you should focus on the atrocities that America is committing by supporting Israel: (that's the last thing a Zionist would want the American people to do!)

Friday, April 25, 2014

"Russians in Ukraine" Photo Scoop NYT Pushed Turns Out Wrong (+playlist)

Secretary Kerry's Threats and Accusations Against Russia Over Ukraine

Kerry Lies, Repeats Debunked State Department Claim

The Russian President Vladimir Putin once famously called John Kerry a "liar". Kerry now again confirmed Putin's claim." Read: Kerry Lies, Repeats Debunked State Department Claim "... The pictures from the coup government in Ukraine distributed through the U.S. State Department are obviously fakery and purely anti-Russian propaganda. The story of Russian "special operations personnel" in east-Ukraine is a lie. It has been debunked as such in several U.S. publications. Despite that Kerry yesterday repeated it proving himself to be exactly what Putin had claimed, a liar." Read more of this post at Moon of Alabama political blog.

Wednesday, April 23, 2014

New York Times admits the pictures really don’t prove much

"After starting a propaganda stampede – with a lead story about photos of Russian troops purportedly in Ukraine – the New York Times admits the pictures really don’t prove much, and one photo was labeled as snapped in Russia when it was really taken in Ukraine, writes Robert Parry."
See Catherina's (Propaganda Watch) NYT Retracts Russian-Photo Scoop - by Robert Parry SEE NEW VIDEO: "Russians in Ukraine" Photo Scoop NYT Pushed Turns Out Wrong

Are the Photos Evidence of Russian Connection to Militants in Ukraine? (...

New York Times admits the pictures really don’t prove much

Friday, April 11, 2014

Saturday, April 05, 2014

Samantha Bee, Senior Zionist Billionaire Correspondent

Jon Stewart did a pretty good job of mocking those why played along with the idea that it was outrageous to use the term "occupied territories." But watch this too: Jon Stewart does an enormous disservice to his audience

The Daily Show with Jon Stewart on Chris Christie and Sheldon Adelson

Jon Stewart did a pretty good job of mocking those why played along with the idea that it was outrageous to use the term "occupied territories." But watch this too: Jon Stewart does an enormous disservice to his audience