Wednesday, May 30, 2007
If the south part of the building had “a quarter of the south face” of the building knocked out, then the building would topple over, not collapse straight down into its own base. (The website whatreallyhappened.com first pointed this out)
There is a website that is dedicated to debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories, and it does the same thing. In attempt to disprove those who say not much damage was done to the WTC 7 building, it unwittingly goes on to reveal a flaw in the “official” explanation of why the building collapsed. ( http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_damage.html ) The website repeatedly makes reference to the damage on the south side of the building. There is a quote from Battalion Chief John Norman (Special Operations Command - 22 years), “...at the edge of the south face you could see that it was very heavily damaged.”
Would a building that was heavily damaged on one side collapse straight down into its base or would it topple over?
Here is a compilation of video clips showing WTC 7 collapsing
#1) bombed the country and destroyed its infrastructure
#2) rounds up thousands of Iraqis and jails them without justification
#3) makes decisions when elections are to take place and whether the results are valid
#4) benefit more from reconstruction projects than the Iraqis
#5)can break into jails to release prisoners against the Iraqi's governments wishes. (Remember when two British men where caught disguised as Arabs carrying explosives and weapons in their car? Their fellow British soldiers broke into the jail they were in and helped them to escape) see http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20051015&articleId=1089
The U.S., Britain, Israel and Iran are contributing to the chaos with their agent provocateurs.
Saturday, May 26, 2007
complete editorial at http://www.dailytidings.com/2006/1111/stories/1111_editorial.php
Anniversaries cause us to instinctively pause and reflect, just as our leg jolts forward after a well-positioned tap on the knee. In honor of our veterans — to whom we owe a debt we can never repay — the least we can do on this Veteran's
Day is look back at the decisions made that sent our troops into battle, and the roles we played in those decisions. Perhaps upon reflection, our reaction may
The fifth anniversary of Sept. 11, 2001 served as the reflex hammer touch to the knee of American conscience. As the country attended memorials and revisited painful memories of 9/11, the reflection also opened our collective mind once again to the many unanswered questions, legitimate concerns and
conflicting evidence in the official description of those events.
Forget the conspiracy theories for a minute and set aside the political gamesmanship. We are a country that spent five years and $100 million investigating President Clinton. We probed the depths of the Iran-Contra scandal — a debacle that would have never come fully into the public eye had a special investigator not been appointed.
This administration has spent far more energy and time seeking the leak of Valerie Plame's identity and Barry Bonds' use of steroids than it has in fully explaining how three skyscrapers crumbled in an instant and nearly 3,000 people were killed. While an independent investigation may never fully answer every question, it will help to heal the wounds of this nation and widespread distrust of our leaders this attack has caused.
If, however, the questions that remain serve to shed light on new information, that too serves the public. And it is the responsibility of this trusted media industry to dig, probe, investigate and uncover the truth behind government events and decisions that impact the public. On this Veterans Day, we can do no less on behalf of the brave men and women who have been sent to the Middle East based upon rationale that stems directly from the events of 9/11. While we pay homage to all veterans of the Armed Forces today, we are reminded of our duty to watch closely those leaders in the White House and Congress who make the decisions to send our troops to war.
We invite every single American daily newspaper to join us in our demand for an independent council to completely and thoroughly investigate the deaths of nearly 3,000 American citizens in the attacks of 9/11.
America will be better informed, and this is our job.
Sunday, May 06, 2007
The first image is the cover of a book about Sudan. The second image is of an Afghan girl from the cover of 1985 National Geographic magazine
I couldn't help noticing the similarity in their eyes and the simliarity in their situation. The photo of the Afghan girl was exploited commercially all over the world, but what good did it do to help the people of Afganistan?
She was one of the world's most famous faces, yet no one knew who she was. Her image appeared on the front of magazines and books, posters, lapel pins, and even rugs, but she didn't know it. Now, after searching for 17 years, National
Geographic has once again found the Afghan girl with the haunting green eyes. from http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/03/0311_020312_sharbat.html
Sure there are charities that "help" the Afghan people but nothing to stop the mass bombings and occupation of Afghanistan by the United States. No acknowledgement of the millions who died during the Afghan-Russian war.
The same is being done with Sudan. The picture of the Sudanese child is from the cover of a book called "Not On Our Watch" by Don Cheadle and John Prendergast. John Pendergast is on the Board of Directors of SaveDarfur.org
The two authors were recently interviewed on Democracy Now http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/05/03/1357220 .
Copy and paste the long url below (written in BOLD) in a new window for a scathing commentary by Keith Harmon Snow about the interview. He is angry about the fact that Amy Goodman did not bring up the past and current role of John Prendergast in Africa.
Here are some additional articles by Keith Harmon Snow about the Sudan and other countries in Africa
Here is an article by F. William Engdahl about "China and USA in New Cold War over Africa’s oil riches"