L
LanceThruster
Guest
I would like to see this discussed/covered on SOTT. This site does an excellent job disseminated factual information.
From: _http://lancethruster.blogsource.com/post.mhtml?post_id=455228
Dirty Bombs, Gut Feelings and False-Flags
Thursday, July 26, 2007 at 11:54 AM PDT
The following was passed over the transom by my retired attorney friend, Winston Smith. Right after I received it, this appeared in the paper: Access denied - http://www.registerguard.com/news/2007/07/23/ed.edit.defazio.phn.0723.p1.php?section=opinion
We both hope that reality does not pan out in this fashion but the signs on the horizon seem to lead to this conclusion.
--------------
Dirty Bombs, Gut Feelings and False-Flags: An Examination of Implications of Recent Remarks by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Economist Mr. Paul Craig Roberts - by Winston Smith
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's comments recently about his 'gut feeling' regarding a terrorist attack against the US being imminent were cause for alarm on a number of levels, but information recently gleaned about the specifics of the comments require further analysis and a robust discourse on a rather painful subject most Americans are ignorant of, and/or would rather avoid or ignore entirely. Apparently, while speaking to The University of Southern California's Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (a think tank dedicated to assessing the likelihood and effects of potential terrorist attacks at various economically strategic sites throughout the nation), Secretary Chertoff gave specifics to the 'gut feeling' he mentioned, stating that he was referring therein to a simultaneous detonation of 'dirty bombs' in Los Angeles and San Francisco, two of America's most important ports and shipping lanes, as well as being home to a huge proportion of liberal democratic voters in the western US.
His remarks might be sloughed off as a warning from a man who's job it is to warn and act as a sort of national Cassandra, were it not for an article found in the official Russian information outlet, RIA Novosti, published on July 20, 2007. This article, entitled, "White House preparing to stage new September 11 - Reagan official", reports that former Reagan White House economic guru and fully credentialed conservative, Mr. Paul Craig Roberts, recently spoke on Thom Hartmann's radio program regarding a little-known executive order issued July 17th of this month, giving the Bush Administration broad powers to seize the assets of anyone "interfering" with the Administration's Iraq war policy, and giving essentially totalitarian control to the executive in the event of a national terrorist emergency. Although such a development is frightening enough, just on civil liberty and free speech grounds, in said radio interview, Mr. Roberts made clear he was very concerned that the Bush White House might be planning a false flag 9/11-style terrorist attack against America to allow for the fullest realization of those emergency powers and to drive the American voting public back into the arms of the neocons and ultra- conservatives, especially given the American public's current weariness with the neocon agenda (i.e., the current US military attack on Iraq, with apparent plans for Iran and Syria.) This talk was not widely reported by American media outlets, despite its literally explosive allegation that this administration would even consider using these tactics (false flag dirty bombs aimed against our own people) to snuff out innocent American lives for gross political gain. Yet these two speeches by Mssrs. Chertoff and Roberts, when taken together, form a very frightening scenario that should be examined herein.
(For those unfamiliar with the term, a "false flag" operation is where one group covertly does or causes to be done an operation or action, and then plants another group's flag on the aftermath, and then screams, "See! THEY did this!", thereby blaming that other group --usually the current 'enemy of the state'-- for the dirty deed, effectively smearing them and directing the ire of the people harmed against the target patsy.)
Assuming for the moment that both are (God forbid!) accurate assessments, one can see a concatenation of factors and events that could lead to an ultra-neocon's most delicious wet-dream: simultaneous false flag dirty bomb attacks that strike at the heart of liberal-minded America, leaving those afflicted utterly re- oriented politically (from bleeding heart liberal to hard core conservative, dead-set on nuking Iran to the stone-age), and America with a heartland and south/south-east even more hardened and intransigent in their belief in the neocon/Bush agenda. And of course, President Bush in absolute, martial law style control of literally everything and everyone.
Mr. Roberts' scenario would require that elements within the covert action groups (Black Ops) of the CIA, and possibly with Mossad/MI6 participants (why not use the world's best?), would 'shepherd' Iranian/Al-Qaeda splinter cells to their ultimate 'appointment with destiny', providing logistical and material support and, most importantly, protection during the planning, material acquisition, and execution phases of any such terrorist operation, thus insuring a 'successful' attack that brings America right back to the mindset it had immediately after 9/11, and then some. Secretary Chertoff's remarks may provide an informed prediction of targets that make sense from essentially all political and economic angles. And for those who believe that certain ultraconservative ideological mindsets would take exquisite pleasure in nuking gays and liberals into newly minted neocon robots ready to vote Dick Cheney and his ilk into the presidency (or worse, accepting a Bush dictatorship, backed by a willing military and frightened public ready to embrace ANYTHING that promises to stop the terror), one can see that such a scenario might have an attraction for those inclined to believe in a 'divine will' behind what would be, to any independent, rational unbiased observer, clearly diabolical actions.
For those of us inclined to dismiss these predictions by Mssrs. Chertoff and Roberts as completely speculative and not worth the breath they were uttered with, the author would like to call your attention to a brief conversation that occurred between the author and the noted American investigative journalist, Mr. Seymour Hersh. Approximately three months ago this author was privileged to be in a position to inquire of the man who broke the Pentagon Papers and the abominations perpetrated at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, as to a subject that the author felt was of pressing importance to America's immediate national security and the long-term survival of democracy in this country. The question posed was this: Do you believe there is a likelihood that right wing elements of America's own national security structure might undertake to engage in a false flag nuclear attack on an American city to drive the American voting public firmly and incontrovertibly back into being supporters of the neocon agenda, given the American public's increasing impatience and dissatisfaction with these policies currently?
Mr. Hersh's expression was the greatest indicator of the gravity the question had for him. His face went from happy, open and obviously positive, to an expression of deep concern and anxiety. The change was not just dramatic, it was, simply put, frightening. "Yes. Yes, I'm very concerned about that. Very concerned." The dual repetition of his assent amplified my own feelings gleaned from his dramatic facial mood shift, and the only inference this author could draw was that the great Sy Hersh, a man of towering stature among America's finest journalists, was scared. And fear, as everyone knows, is contagious. Mr Hersh, however, being of obviously exceptional intelligence and sensitivity, immediately felt my reciprocative response and he rushed to reassure me: "Don't worry, though", he smiled, warming his face back into the visage of upbeat optimism that had preceded my inquiry, “They can't possibly get away with it. Everyone knows that any such attack would be instantly questioned from that perspective by countless journalists, bloggers and other commentators." His words were warm and comforting, yet at the same time felt oddly like the old saying, "Whistling past the graveyard". Given the prognostications recently offered by Sec. Chertoff and Mr. Roberts, and discussed herein, the author must wonder aloud if Mr Hersh's initial response was not the most accurate, and the latter merely offered as comfort and solace, much in the same way we comfort those who have lost a loved one with the over-used, "They are in a better place now." Regardless, these various statements from three clearly brilliant and informed individuals all indicating grave concern about the likelihood of impending nuclear attacks would indicate that such a scenario must be given serious attention and consideration.
But how would we know such an attack was a 'false flag' event? A sycophantic media that apparently is imbued with a belief that "The King [George] can do no wrong" (clearly the media mindset leading up to, and in the early days of the Iraq conflict, where the American media abandoned any role of 'scrutinizer' and devolved into obedient, echo-chamber lapdogs of the highest order), would hardly be the place to look for help in making such a determination. We know that on September 10, 2001, the day before the 9/11 attacks, short-selling of United Airlines and American Airlines stocks shot up over two- thousand percent (2000%), a statistically impossible event without at least some of those short-sellers knowing of the attacks in advance. The media was keenly aware of this hugely important fact, yet never pursued it, never dogged anyone, never looked under the carpet to see what was swept there. Instead, the Securities and Exchange Commission, through Commissioner Harvey Pitt, almost immediately informed the American public that there was, "Nothing to see here; move along, move along." Those who tried to pry into the 'privacy rights' of those traders who clearly profited from America's suffering the greatest terrorist attack in our history, were allegedly threatened with prosecution by the feds if they pushed further. And so the investigation of the massive short-selling on September 10th of the two airline stocks involved in the 9/11 calamity was unceremoniously closed. Again, nothing to see here, move along.
The short-selling stated above is a matter of historical fact. The non-treatment of the issue by the American media is also a historical fact. And so is the SEC whitewashing of the most important clues we had as to who the 'backers' of these terrorists were: the identities of those who short-sold those airlines on September 10th! Theories abound, but certainly one that captures the imagination is the possibility that Saudi backers of the terrorists made millions with their inside knowledge of the imminent attacks on the World Trade Center Towers and Pentagon, which allowed them to capitalize on the plummeting values of those airlines' stock prices in the fallout immediately post 9/11 through the short-selling of same on 9/10. Obviously, relations with the Saudis are --how shall we say?-- "touchy" on the subject. And with the Saudis being hugely influential in our markets, sustaining our currency value, and in basically all our daily economic dealings, they were certainly one group this administration --or ANY administration, for that matter-- must tread lightly as to. It is this theory, that the SEC and media were effectively muzzled to protect our Saudi (and possibly 'other') friends and what they knew about the impending 9/11 attacks, that renders any reliance on media 'truth-telling' and 'investigatory integrity' a complete joke and non-issue, as far as any serious political analysts are concerned. Thus, we must learn from history if we are to apprehend the clues that will lead us to the true backers of these soon-to-be dirty bombers.
If America is struck with a pair of dirty bomb attacks in Los Angeles and San Francisco, our economy will sustain the greatest economic hit since the great depression. Estimates range from a few years to decades before we again reach the dizzying heights that we currently have with our markets. With a 'dirty' future, America will lose its attractiveness to investors world-wide, and market values, as well as the value of our currency, will plummet. Thus, those who would plan such terror against us and wish to profit from it will have to have a lot of hard cash available to take advantage of the rock-bottom prices these events will cause. They certainly will not want to be invested in any of the American-based markets when those bombs go "BANG!" And thus we have a possible clue: if we see significant market sell-offs just a few days before any such attacks, we have an area of potential investigation. So, too, with any pinpoint short- selling of dramatically effected industries (just like 9/11).
But we must learn from history. We must demand that our elected officials and media echo chambers not put 'off-limits' the very best evidence we have of who was 'in the know', possibly had a hand in these despicable acts, and unquestionably profited thereby. And if the past is any indication, bad people such as these apparently just can't resist making money off the suffering they cause. They must add insult to injury. They must make us into the ultimate 'suckers' (or "freiers" as they are known in Israel.) It is not enough to win by false-flagging the US into another manufactured war against some other Middle Eastern 'enemy'. They must also make millions –or billions-- on us, on our blood and suffering. They must rub our noses in it. They must walk away with ALL the marbles --and leave the US public holding the bag, with our markets in the toilet, our economy in ruins, and every man, woman and child frightened for their futures. This, my friends, is absolute power, the most intoxicating and addictive experience these types can engage in. For they seek not only get away with mass murder, but to also profit openly and handsomely from it. This is, for these evil types who help plan, foment and perpetrate such horrific acts, 'The Ultimate'.
But such evil men inevitably leave clues, a trail of bloody bread crumbs leading back to those behind the 'patsies' or 'stooges' who are used to perpetrate these acts. And we must not allow our politicians and corporate media boardrooms to make the truth 'off- limits' to us again. We must DEMAND they fully and publicly investigate such clearly significant facts for what they truly are: crucial clues in a horrific mystery that we were forced to participate in. And they must be made to account to us with the results of these inquiries. No amount of political expediency or 'friendship', either with individuals (such as Royal Family members, etc.) or with nations themselves (no matter how strategically important) should be allowed to put a damper on our search for truth. Because be you democrat or republican, we are all AMERICANS! And a strike against one of us is a strike against all of us! Maybe at some time in the near future the American public will finally come to know that crucial identification information existed (and still exists!) as to who may have actually backed the 9/11 hijackers in their efforts, and as to who knew in advance but did nothing to stop the slaughter of nearly 3000 innocent Americans on that fateful day. The information, contained in the names and accounts of those who short-sold the airlines stocks on September 10th, 2001, is still out there, waiting to be discovered and brought out into the light of day. And maybe someday America will become so enraged at the politician's and media's seeming complicity with the possible backers of the hijackers on 9/11 that they will demand that information be turned over for scrutiny. No argument for protecting 'privacy rights' can possibly be made in this context, given that we as a nation were and are being asked to give up huge amounts of our own privacy rights to a tiny document known as the "Patriot Act".
But even if we acquiesce in the government hiding from us potentially extremely relevant information as to who, at the very least, knew about the impending attacks of 9/11 beforehand and did nothing to stop them, we cannot let history repeat itself should Secretary Chertoff and Mr. Paul Craig Roberts be correct in their relative assessments of what the imminent future holds for America. We must use every tool and piece of evidence at our disposal to discern if these nascent terrorists were helped by some from within our own establishment, or perhaps the governments of others, and bring these traitors and enemies to justice. The memories of those who perished in 9/11, and any subsequent attack(s) that the United States should suffer, deserve absolutely nothing less.
Post Tags: Chertoff, dirty bomb, false-flag, homeland security, Los Angeles, Paul Craig Roberts, San Francisco, USC
Post Comment (4) Comments
*
"such attack would be instantly questioned from that perspective by countless journalists, bloggers and other commentators." They are already questioning six years of inexplicable events and yet the march continues so... I wonder that that would have any effect on them at all. That was an informed and well written essay. thank you. http://smokingmirrors.blogspot.com/
Posted by Les Visible on Monday, July 30, 2007 2:54 PM PDT
*
The fact that there is a strong population of progressively minded people in SF indicates that it is a likely target, as does the fact that Cindy Sheehan will be running against Nancy Pelosi for a related seat in the House. There are probably still enough Amerizombies in California, however, to make another false flag op like 9/11/2001 succeed in getting another wave of pro-Bush sentiment, if sold in the most lying and deceitful manner. And I think we can count on the lies and deceit being first-rate, so we do have plenty to fear. Mikhail the Devil is an evil bastard. I used to practice law in New Jersey, when he was the US Attorney there. His reputation was pretty low back then. And you know what judge he frequently argued before, and pal'd around with, right? Sammy Alito!
Posted by liquified viscera on Wednesday, August 01, 2007 5:46 PM PDT
*
More on this angle: A Republic, If We Can Keep It Written by Ernest Partridge http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=601&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=2
Posted by LanceThruster on Thursday, August 02, 2007 9:13 PM PDT
*
More memes being put out there. New Al Qaeda threat of radioactive truck attacks naming New York, Los Angeles, Miami _http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4482
Posted by LanceThruster on Monday, August 13, 2007 8:59 AM PDT
From: _http://lancethruster.blogsource.com/post.mhtml?post_id=455228
Dirty Bombs, Gut Feelings and False-Flags
Thursday, July 26, 2007 at 11:54 AM PDT
The following was passed over the transom by my retired attorney friend, Winston Smith. Right after I received it, this appeared in the paper: Access denied - http://www.registerguard.com/news/2007/07/23/ed.edit.defazio.phn.0723.p1.php?section=opinion
We both hope that reality does not pan out in this fashion but the signs on the horizon seem to lead to this conclusion.
--------------
Dirty Bombs, Gut Feelings and False-Flags: An Examination of Implications of Recent Remarks by Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and Economist Mr. Paul Craig Roberts - by Winston Smith
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff's comments recently about his 'gut feeling' regarding a terrorist attack against the US being imminent were cause for alarm on a number of levels, but information recently gleaned about the specifics of the comments require further analysis and a robust discourse on a rather painful subject most Americans are ignorant of, and/or would rather avoid or ignore entirely. Apparently, while speaking to The University of Southern California's Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events (a think tank dedicated to assessing the likelihood and effects of potential terrorist attacks at various economically strategic sites throughout the nation), Secretary Chertoff gave specifics to the 'gut feeling' he mentioned, stating that he was referring therein to a simultaneous detonation of 'dirty bombs' in Los Angeles and San Francisco, two of America's most important ports and shipping lanes, as well as being home to a huge proportion of liberal democratic voters in the western US.
His remarks might be sloughed off as a warning from a man who's job it is to warn and act as a sort of national Cassandra, were it not for an article found in the official Russian information outlet, RIA Novosti, published on July 20, 2007. This article, entitled, "White House preparing to stage new September 11 - Reagan official", reports that former Reagan White House economic guru and fully credentialed conservative, Mr. Paul Craig Roberts, recently spoke on Thom Hartmann's radio program regarding a little-known executive order issued July 17th of this month, giving the Bush Administration broad powers to seize the assets of anyone "interfering" with the Administration's Iraq war policy, and giving essentially totalitarian control to the executive in the event of a national terrorist emergency. Although such a development is frightening enough, just on civil liberty and free speech grounds, in said radio interview, Mr. Roberts made clear he was very concerned that the Bush White House might be planning a false flag 9/11-style terrorist attack against America to allow for the fullest realization of those emergency powers and to drive the American voting public back into the arms of the neocons and ultra- conservatives, especially given the American public's current weariness with the neocon agenda (i.e., the current US military attack on Iraq, with apparent plans for Iran and Syria.) This talk was not widely reported by American media outlets, despite its literally explosive allegation that this administration would even consider using these tactics (false flag dirty bombs aimed against our own people) to snuff out innocent American lives for gross political gain. Yet these two speeches by Mssrs. Chertoff and Roberts, when taken together, form a very frightening scenario that should be examined herein.
(For those unfamiliar with the term, a "false flag" operation is where one group covertly does or causes to be done an operation or action, and then plants another group's flag on the aftermath, and then screams, "See! THEY did this!", thereby blaming that other group --usually the current 'enemy of the state'-- for the dirty deed, effectively smearing them and directing the ire of the people harmed against the target patsy.)
Assuming for the moment that both are (God forbid!) accurate assessments, one can see a concatenation of factors and events that could lead to an ultra-neocon's most delicious wet-dream: simultaneous false flag dirty bomb attacks that strike at the heart of liberal-minded America, leaving those afflicted utterly re- oriented politically (from bleeding heart liberal to hard core conservative, dead-set on nuking Iran to the stone-age), and America with a heartland and south/south-east even more hardened and intransigent in their belief in the neocon/Bush agenda. And of course, President Bush in absolute, martial law style control of literally everything and everyone.
Mr. Roberts' scenario would require that elements within the covert action groups (Black Ops) of the CIA, and possibly with Mossad/MI6 participants (why not use the world's best?), would 'shepherd' Iranian/Al-Qaeda splinter cells to their ultimate 'appointment with destiny', providing logistical and material support and, most importantly, protection during the planning, material acquisition, and execution phases of any such terrorist operation, thus insuring a 'successful' attack that brings America right back to the mindset it had immediately after 9/11, and then some. Secretary Chertoff's remarks may provide an informed prediction of targets that make sense from essentially all political and economic angles. And for those who believe that certain ultraconservative ideological mindsets would take exquisite pleasure in nuking gays and liberals into newly minted neocon robots ready to vote Dick Cheney and his ilk into the presidency (or worse, accepting a Bush dictatorship, backed by a willing military and frightened public ready to embrace ANYTHING that promises to stop the terror), one can see that such a scenario might have an attraction for those inclined to believe in a 'divine will' behind what would be, to any independent, rational unbiased observer, clearly diabolical actions.
For those of us inclined to dismiss these predictions by Mssrs. Chertoff and Roberts as completely speculative and not worth the breath they were uttered with, the author would like to call your attention to a brief conversation that occurred between the author and the noted American investigative journalist, Mr. Seymour Hersh. Approximately three months ago this author was privileged to be in a position to inquire of the man who broke the Pentagon Papers and the abominations perpetrated at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq, as to a subject that the author felt was of pressing importance to America's immediate national security and the long-term survival of democracy in this country. The question posed was this: Do you believe there is a likelihood that right wing elements of America's own national security structure might undertake to engage in a false flag nuclear attack on an American city to drive the American voting public firmly and incontrovertibly back into being supporters of the neocon agenda, given the American public's increasing impatience and dissatisfaction with these policies currently?
Mr. Hersh's expression was the greatest indicator of the gravity the question had for him. His face went from happy, open and obviously positive, to an expression of deep concern and anxiety. The change was not just dramatic, it was, simply put, frightening. "Yes. Yes, I'm very concerned about that. Very concerned." The dual repetition of his assent amplified my own feelings gleaned from his dramatic facial mood shift, and the only inference this author could draw was that the great Sy Hersh, a man of towering stature among America's finest journalists, was scared. And fear, as everyone knows, is contagious. Mr Hersh, however, being of obviously exceptional intelligence and sensitivity, immediately felt my reciprocative response and he rushed to reassure me: "Don't worry, though", he smiled, warming his face back into the visage of upbeat optimism that had preceded my inquiry, “They can't possibly get away with it. Everyone knows that any such attack would be instantly questioned from that perspective by countless journalists, bloggers and other commentators." His words were warm and comforting, yet at the same time felt oddly like the old saying, "Whistling past the graveyard". Given the prognostications recently offered by Sec. Chertoff and Mr. Roberts, and discussed herein, the author must wonder aloud if Mr Hersh's initial response was not the most accurate, and the latter merely offered as comfort and solace, much in the same way we comfort those who have lost a loved one with the over-used, "They are in a better place now." Regardless, these various statements from three clearly brilliant and informed individuals all indicating grave concern about the likelihood of impending nuclear attacks would indicate that such a scenario must be given serious attention and consideration.
But how would we know such an attack was a 'false flag' event? A sycophantic media that apparently is imbued with a belief that "The King [George] can do no wrong" (clearly the media mindset leading up to, and in the early days of the Iraq conflict, where the American media abandoned any role of 'scrutinizer' and devolved into obedient, echo-chamber lapdogs of the highest order), would hardly be the place to look for help in making such a determination. We know that on September 10, 2001, the day before the 9/11 attacks, short-selling of United Airlines and American Airlines stocks shot up over two- thousand percent (2000%), a statistically impossible event without at least some of those short-sellers knowing of the attacks in advance. The media was keenly aware of this hugely important fact, yet never pursued it, never dogged anyone, never looked under the carpet to see what was swept there. Instead, the Securities and Exchange Commission, through Commissioner Harvey Pitt, almost immediately informed the American public that there was, "Nothing to see here; move along, move along." Those who tried to pry into the 'privacy rights' of those traders who clearly profited from America's suffering the greatest terrorist attack in our history, were allegedly threatened with prosecution by the feds if they pushed further. And so the investigation of the massive short-selling on September 10th of the two airline stocks involved in the 9/11 calamity was unceremoniously closed. Again, nothing to see here, move along.
The short-selling stated above is a matter of historical fact. The non-treatment of the issue by the American media is also a historical fact. And so is the SEC whitewashing of the most important clues we had as to who the 'backers' of these terrorists were: the identities of those who short-sold those airlines on September 10th! Theories abound, but certainly one that captures the imagination is the possibility that Saudi backers of the terrorists made millions with their inside knowledge of the imminent attacks on the World Trade Center Towers and Pentagon, which allowed them to capitalize on the plummeting values of those airlines' stock prices in the fallout immediately post 9/11 through the short-selling of same on 9/10. Obviously, relations with the Saudis are --how shall we say?-- "touchy" on the subject. And with the Saudis being hugely influential in our markets, sustaining our currency value, and in basically all our daily economic dealings, they were certainly one group this administration --or ANY administration, for that matter-- must tread lightly as to. It is this theory, that the SEC and media were effectively muzzled to protect our Saudi (and possibly 'other') friends and what they knew about the impending 9/11 attacks, that renders any reliance on media 'truth-telling' and 'investigatory integrity' a complete joke and non-issue, as far as any serious political analysts are concerned. Thus, we must learn from history if we are to apprehend the clues that will lead us to the true backers of these soon-to-be dirty bombers.
If America is struck with a pair of dirty bomb attacks in Los Angeles and San Francisco, our economy will sustain the greatest economic hit since the great depression. Estimates range from a few years to decades before we again reach the dizzying heights that we currently have with our markets. With a 'dirty' future, America will lose its attractiveness to investors world-wide, and market values, as well as the value of our currency, will plummet. Thus, those who would plan such terror against us and wish to profit from it will have to have a lot of hard cash available to take advantage of the rock-bottom prices these events will cause. They certainly will not want to be invested in any of the American-based markets when those bombs go "BANG!" And thus we have a possible clue: if we see significant market sell-offs just a few days before any such attacks, we have an area of potential investigation. So, too, with any pinpoint short- selling of dramatically effected industries (just like 9/11).
But we must learn from history. We must demand that our elected officials and media echo chambers not put 'off-limits' the very best evidence we have of who was 'in the know', possibly had a hand in these despicable acts, and unquestionably profited thereby. And if the past is any indication, bad people such as these apparently just can't resist making money off the suffering they cause. They must add insult to injury. They must make us into the ultimate 'suckers' (or "freiers" as they are known in Israel.) It is not enough to win by false-flagging the US into another manufactured war against some other Middle Eastern 'enemy'. They must also make millions –or billions-- on us, on our blood and suffering. They must rub our noses in it. They must walk away with ALL the marbles --and leave the US public holding the bag, with our markets in the toilet, our economy in ruins, and every man, woman and child frightened for their futures. This, my friends, is absolute power, the most intoxicating and addictive experience these types can engage in. For they seek not only get away with mass murder, but to also profit openly and handsomely from it. This is, for these evil types who help plan, foment and perpetrate such horrific acts, 'The Ultimate'.
But such evil men inevitably leave clues, a trail of bloody bread crumbs leading back to those behind the 'patsies' or 'stooges' who are used to perpetrate these acts. And we must not allow our politicians and corporate media boardrooms to make the truth 'off- limits' to us again. We must DEMAND they fully and publicly investigate such clearly significant facts for what they truly are: crucial clues in a horrific mystery that we were forced to participate in. And they must be made to account to us with the results of these inquiries. No amount of political expediency or 'friendship', either with individuals (such as Royal Family members, etc.) or with nations themselves (no matter how strategically important) should be allowed to put a damper on our search for truth. Because be you democrat or republican, we are all AMERICANS! And a strike against one of us is a strike against all of us! Maybe at some time in the near future the American public will finally come to know that crucial identification information existed (and still exists!) as to who may have actually backed the 9/11 hijackers in their efforts, and as to who knew in advance but did nothing to stop the slaughter of nearly 3000 innocent Americans on that fateful day. The information, contained in the names and accounts of those who short-sold the airlines stocks on September 10th, 2001, is still out there, waiting to be discovered and brought out into the light of day. And maybe someday America will become so enraged at the politician's and media's seeming complicity with the possible backers of the hijackers on 9/11 that they will demand that information be turned over for scrutiny. No argument for protecting 'privacy rights' can possibly be made in this context, given that we as a nation were and are being asked to give up huge amounts of our own privacy rights to a tiny document known as the "Patriot Act".
But even if we acquiesce in the government hiding from us potentially extremely relevant information as to who, at the very least, knew about the impending attacks of 9/11 beforehand and did nothing to stop them, we cannot let history repeat itself should Secretary Chertoff and Mr. Paul Craig Roberts be correct in their relative assessments of what the imminent future holds for America. We must use every tool and piece of evidence at our disposal to discern if these nascent terrorists were helped by some from within our own establishment, or perhaps the governments of others, and bring these traitors and enemies to justice. The memories of those who perished in 9/11, and any subsequent attack(s) that the United States should suffer, deserve absolutely nothing less.
Post Tags: Chertoff, dirty bomb, false-flag, homeland security, Los Angeles, Paul Craig Roberts, San Francisco, USC
Post Comment (4) Comments
*
"such attack would be instantly questioned from that perspective by countless journalists, bloggers and other commentators." They are already questioning six years of inexplicable events and yet the march continues so... I wonder that that would have any effect on them at all. That was an informed and well written essay. thank you. http://smokingmirrors.blogspot.com/
Posted by Les Visible on Monday, July 30, 2007 2:54 PM PDT
*
The fact that there is a strong population of progressively minded people in SF indicates that it is a likely target, as does the fact that Cindy Sheehan will be running against Nancy Pelosi for a related seat in the House. There are probably still enough Amerizombies in California, however, to make another false flag op like 9/11/2001 succeed in getting another wave of pro-Bush sentiment, if sold in the most lying and deceitful manner. And I think we can count on the lies and deceit being first-rate, so we do have plenty to fear. Mikhail the Devil is an evil bastard. I used to practice law in New Jersey, when he was the US Attorney there. His reputation was pretty low back then. And you know what judge he frequently argued before, and pal'd around with, right? Sammy Alito!
Posted by liquified viscera on Wednesday, August 01, 2007 5:46 PM PDT
*
More on this angle: A Republic, If We Can Keep It Written by Ernest Partridge http://www.apj.us/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=601&pop=1&page=0&Itemid=2
Posted by LanceThruster on Thursday, August 02, 2007 9:13 PM PDT
*
More memes being put out there. New Al Qaeda threat of radioactive truck attacks naming New York, Los Angeles, Miami _http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=4482
Posted by LanceThruster on Monday, August 13, 2007 8:59 AM PDT
