I must admit that I have been deeply shocked by a
story that
appeared today on my website, to the effect that the BBC
reported the collapse of WTC Building 7 23 minutes before it
actually took place. Previously, the BBC claimed that it had
lost all of its 9/11
coverage, but this video has now surfaced. I watched it
myself, and sat there with my blood literally running cold as I
saw their reporter saying that Building 7 had collapsed
while it
was still visible behind her, perfectly intact.
Now, why wasn't this just a simple mistake? CNN was
reporting rumors that Building 7 might be about to collapse
an hour before it happened.
But the BBC reporter is clearly seen reading from a
teleprompter. Obviously, she was reading something written
on it, and not making up what would have then seemed to be
a wild tale. In other words, she was
reading a script, and that script had been put up on her
teleprompter early. Not only that, she was sitting in front
of a live image of the still-intact Building 7.
Somebody wrote that script and did so while Building 7 was
still standing. How could they know that it would collapse,
even if it was unstable, even if there was a fire in the
cellars?
No, the author of the script did not think the building had
collapsed. He knew that it would, and the statement was read
early as a miscue.
If the BBC had not lost the video of that entire day, it
would be easier to believe that this was some sort of a
mistake. But the idea that an organization like the BBC,
which prides itself on the record it keeps, would lose an
entire day of some of the most historic footage it has ever
shot is just very difficult to believe. It seems more likely
that there was something on that footage that they wanted to
bury.
As, indeed, there was.
I have long since abandoned the US media as a lost cause.
Thank God we have the internet, because the American press
are just a bunch of whores, frankly. I spent 45 minutes
yesterday with CNN Headline News today, looking for news of
Iran. 31 of those minutes were spent on Anna Nicole Smith,
and the rest was fluff.
Pravda did better during the height of the Soviet Union. At
least it didn?t insult the intelligence of its readers, but
only bored them with its obvious lies. The American media
goes it one better, by ignoring the real news and running
the silly stuff. And the papers that should be doing better,
such as the New York Times, have been singing the "no
conspiracy here" song since the days of the Kennedy
assassination. Because of what appears to be an almost
surrealistic belief that people cannot
do bad
things in concert, they missed Watergate. And they are
missing 9/11 as well. They all are, and, in the end, they will
be abandoned by the public because their silence and refusal
to investigate are, in effect, lies spoken without words on
behalf of what is coming to seem a devastating and
widespread conspiracy against the lives of thousands of
people, against western civilization and against human
freedom at the deepest level.
At present, virtually every street in Britain is watched by
video, and there is a bill on its way into parliament that
will ban public photography. Can you imagine, not being able
to take a picture outdoors? What madness is this, what evil
insanity? But it's real, and it doesn't end in Britain. Last
October, without debate and in the dead of the night, the
president was given the power by language buried in the
budget bill to use the military as a police force within the
United States, and to nationalize the National Guard without
consulting governors. In other words, the Posse Cometatus
Act of 1878 and the Insurrection Act of 1807 were usurped
without a single word of debate and without the least
whisper from the American press.
To its credit, the New York Times did pick up on this story
recently, reporting the event on February 19, many months
after it happened. But why wait? These two acts are
cornerstones of American freedom, but they have gone the
way of habeas corpus, sacrificed to what now appears to be a
self-generated war on terror, the purpose of which could not
be more clear: it is not to protect us, it is to take away
our freedom and turn this country into a dictatorship, and
its little sisters the United Kingdom and Australia into the
bargain.
And the scale of the thing is terrifying. If the BBC was
reading a script, as it must have been, then they were all
reading scripts, and not one reporter has come forward, not
one editor, and there is not a breath of suggestion in the
9/11 Commission report that any such thing might have been
happening.
And yet, one cannot forget that there was substantial
trading in puts on the stock of insurance companies and
airlines prior to 9/11, and that some of this trading was
traced to individuals who had been associated with the CIA,
as Jim Marrs reports in
the Terror
Conspiracy.
One also cannot forget that Condoleezza Rice testified before
the 9/11 Commission that the National Security Council was
blindsided by the attack, even as the 11 memos warning of it
that the FAA sent to her while she was its chairman were
classified until after the last presidential election.
How long can this go on? How much more can we stand? I find
it utterly fantastic that conservatives are not outraged
about the usurpation of Posse Cometatus and the Insurrection
Act, and the attack on habeas corpus, not to mention the
wholesale use of torture and atrocity as a matter of
national policy.
The Bush presidency is a burnt-out rump, it would seem,
reduced to this odd recent practice of sending its officials
into harm?s way in the apparent hope that any misfortune
befalling them will gain it some sympathy, even as the
president prepares for the future by buying
a large
estate in Paraguay. (However, he might have done a little
more research about that country before he bought, given
that the Colorado Party, which has been in power since it
was set up by Nazi sympathizers and German immigrants in
1947, is now facing a serious threat from Msgr. Fernando
Lugo Méndez, a populist bishop who is likely to win the next
general election.)
And then there is the terrifying prospect that another 9/11
will take place, but this time one so terrible that we will
all desperately cleave to authority in the hope of
preserving our lives, no matter who we think might be
responsible. Anything less than a nuclear attack on one or
more American cities would drive Bush from office, because
it would reveal his entire anti-terrorism apparatus for the
gimcrack sham that it is.
And when I say sham, I mean sham. Right now, they are just
getting around to installing equipment that would detect
nuclear weapons being brought, for example, into the Port of
Los Angeles?equipment that should and could have been in
place every American port six months after 9/11.
So it's perfectly possible that nuclear weapons are already
in our cities, and have been there for years. As the Bush
presidency winds down, the only real question is, will they
be used to bring the American people to heel, or will he
choose the Paraguay option?
I used to believe that the Administration let 9/11 happen so
that it could have an excuse to attack Iraq and destroy our
freedoms. Condoleeza Rice ignored the FAA warnings because
she knew that an attack would transform an unpopular
president into a beloved leader?which it did...for a time.
Given this latest piece of news, I think that anybody who
seriously thinks that the whole event wasn't carefully
planned and fed to us as a scripted "news event" needs to
have their head examined. It was planned, period. Otherwise
this reporter wouldn?t have been announcing one of the
disasters before it happened. It's inescapable.
This gets me to a subject I have been visiting for years,
the Valerie Plame affair. As I write this, a Washington jury
is deciding the fate of Administration scapegoat Lewis
Libby. If he is convicted, it will be for lying to a grand
jury and to the FBI, not for the real crime, which was
revealing the agent in the first place. And, presumably,
that will be an end to the matter.
But, hold on, it might be something similar to Condi Rice?s
ignoring those FAA memos. How, you may ask? This is how:
Valerie
Plame was a non-official cover, which is a CIA
officer working abroad outside of the diplomatic context.
She was an "energy consultant" for a front company called
Brewster Jennings & Associates, which was allegedly involved
in, among other places, Iran. Shortly after she was 'outed,'
there were brief stories here and there in the media to the
effect that US intelligence in Iran had been compromised. Of
course, the moment the Iranians discovered that the Brewster
Jennings employees in that country were actually US agents,
they would all have been rounded up.
Given the extraordinary fact that 9/11 now appears almost
certainly to have been pre-scripted and therefore planned,
dare we ask the question: was Valerie Plame's name revealed
IN ORDER TO destroy our intelligence apparatus in Iran?
This would put out our intelligence eyes in a very crucial
respect. It would make it impossible for us to find the
vents and air intakes of buried Iranian nuclear facilities,
meaning that we cannot send conventional bunker buster
bombs down those points of access. As Iran has buried and
hardened its crucial facilities against any conventional attack
except one that uses those weak points, we have been left
helpless. There is only one type of weapon available to us
that will certainly disrupt the centrifuges crucial to the
manufacture of U-235. They must be shaken so hard that
they break, and right now the only weapon in any western
arsenal that will guarantee this without causing massive
collateral damage is a
neutron
bomb.
So, if somebody has been spoiling for a nuclear war--dare I
say in hopes of inducing the Rapture--then the destruction
of US intelligence capabilities in Iran would be the best
possible way to gain that result. And the leaking of Valerie
Plame's name might have been what would get that job done.
Too conspiratorial, Mr. Reporter? Time to snort derision at
the internet nut? YOU do your homework--but of course you
won't, because you report to an editor who is telling you to
turn up your nose, and if you fight back, you'll lose your
job. And as for that editor--who calls the shots in his life?
Well, that's easy, because we're now down to about twenty
high-level managers across the whole American press! The
outrageous flaunting of the Sherman Anti-Trust act over the
past few years has enabled this situation to be engineered.
So, do we have a free media? Of course not. And will they
continue to march to the tune of higher powers? Certainly
they will.
And the situation is dangerous right now. It is very
dangerous. A few days ago the president of Iran
announced that his country would not stop its nuclear
weapons program. Middle Eastern elements threatened
devastating retaliation if Iran is attacked.
If it is attacked, and the attack is nuclear, then I fear
that we can expect a nuclear attack in the United States,
from a bomb or bombs that have been put in place, or allowed
to be put in place, by our nation's enemies, who, I believe,
are shockingly close to home.
If you want to know what will happen after that?well, I
suggest you read the script.
Related Entries:
02-Feb-2006: Was 911 a Hoax?
10-Feb-2003: Official Terror Worse than 'Night and Fog'
28-Oct-2001: Bin Laden's Objective
13-Oct-2001: Conspiracy Theories: Should We Listen Now?
27-Sep-2001: The Terrorism Problem--How We Can Solve It
12-Sep-2001: What Next?
