Tuesday, June 29, 2010

Death's borderland

I have just gotten around to posting online a short report of my impressions as the twin tower wreckage smoldered in the background.

In death's borderland

Friday, April 16, 2010

The conspiricist Daily Telegraph

A former bin Laden bodyguard is saying things that would tend to help those interested in covering up the truth about 9/11, as we learn from a recent Daily Telegraph report.

Nasser al Bahri claimed that bin Laden ordered a satellite dish so he could watch the attack on the twin towers, but that the TV signal failed. This of course implies foreknowledge by bin Laden.

The Telegraph made no effort to put the claim in context. Al Bahri was captured in Yemen in 2002 and held under house arrest, giving the CIA details of al Qaeda's inner workings... and apparently becoming a CIA disinformation operative. Much of what he said fits right in with the U.S. government's improbable conspiracy theory.

Wednesday, April 14, 2010

Contra censorship

Check out my new blog Lifting the veil (see link in sidebar), which is devoted to counteracting press censorship. Plenty of useful links.

As with that blog, I plan to run Google ads on this blog (if Google permits), in order to estimate the degree of censorship of this blog. Also, it should be noted, my expenses are non-zero.

From time to time I will publish items on how the experiment is going.

Tuesday, April 6, 2010

Gates aided fight to save Soviet

Interesting that war controller Dr. Robert M. Gates, a career CIA professional, was a top national security aide to George H.W. Bush, himself a former CIA chief, at the time the Bush White House and Jim Baker's State Department were scrambling in a vain effort to forestall the collapse of the Soviet Union. Interesting that Gates wasn't repulsed and didn't feel a need to step down.

In that period, Gates, who had been nominated to head the CIA in May 1991, was confirmed by the Senate in November 1991, about the time that Boris Yeltsin banned the Communist Party in Russia. Bush administration efforts may have helped in the premature restoration of that party, supposedly in the name of democracy.

Gates headed the CIA into the first Clinton administration at a time the CIA was obstructing implementation of a law passed during the late days of the presidential campaign requiring the CIA to release JFK assassination records.

As CIA chief, Gates apparently was unaware of top-level communist penetration of the agency until a mole-hunting task force eventually bagged Aldrich Ames and his wife. However, the warnings of Soviet moles went back to the days of President Reagan's first CIA head, William Casey (who once worked for a Marxist socialist think tank).

Monday, April 5, 2010

Novak's dark observations

The late Robert D. Novak's memoir is filled with fascinating bits of political and journalistic history.

In "The Prince of Darkness," a sobriquet given him decades ago in part because of his saturnine visage, he tells of earning the wrath of neocon Norman Podhoretz for his column of Sept. 11, 2001, in which he quoted an intelligence outfit that said the state of Israel, whether by design or not, had gained the most that day.

Neocon David Frum later wrote an attack on him, Novak relates, for his opposition to the planned invasion of Iraq. Once the neocons consolidated their takeover of Bill Buckley's National Review, Novak's long association with the conservative journal went dead, he says. In fact, the Israelophiles did everything they could to marginalize him, a tactic that has been used -- not only by neocons and Bushites but by the neocons' strange allies on the hard left -- against all U.S. journalists who have not kowtowed to the official line about 9/11.

Novak also says that neocon Richard Perle made it clear shortly after 9/11 that he saw the attacks as an opportunity to push his hawkish Middle East agenda, with Congress hankering for a strike at any terror-tainted target, guilty of 9/11 or not. Interestingly, Novak relates, Bill Clinton got on famously with now jailed neocon media mogul Conrad Black. Clinton of course has been a major force in 9/11 coverup.

Novak is one of the few American journalists to point out that George H.W. Bush and his secretary of state, Jim Baker, frantically maneuvered to save Soviet communism, arguing that a Russia under Yeltsin would be incapable of safeguarding the Red nuclear arsenal.

(All my comments here should be read in light of the fact that I was compelled to use a doctored copy planted by some peculiar group. See post below.)

Wednesday, March 31, 2010

Cyberattacks on journalists

For quite some time now, I have felt like a voice crying in the wilderness with my public complaints about numerous cyberattacks on my Yahoo and Google accounts, along with virus bombs directed to my computers.

But now Andrew Jacobs of the New York Times http://nytimes.com/ reports that hackers have attacked his account and the accounts of other reporters, along with activists, whose writings don't conform to China's Communist Party line. Yahoo, which has servers in China, wouldn't tell the Times what was going on.
Jacobs added that increasingly virus bombs are being used to target specific persons in order to thwart their views or reports from dissemination. (Recently I have thrown out yet another computer hampered by such a malware bomb, despite my efforts to avoid such trickery.)

Jacobs notes that the attacks could stem from somewhere other than China.

The cyberattacks on the Times and others may be more pervasive than Jacobs' story indicates. In a remarkable situation, I have a copy of Arthur Gelbs' memoir "City Room" borrowed from a public library in the New York region. It has been extensively tampered with by someone clearly intent on snubbing the Times and its professionalism.

Gelb, a onetime Times rewriteman who went on to rebuild a crack rewrite bank, has his copy mangled in ways that are simply impossible. For example, the word "transpired" is used at one point to mean "happened," which all New York newspaperpeople know is a journalistic no-no of the first order. And, the book is littered with the word "since" to mean "because" not a few times, but extensively. It is evident that, in many cases, the leading clause is mangled; that is, "Having done so and so..." is changed to read "Since so and so was done..."

Gelb, a former top Times editor, had access to the best copyreaders anywhere. So it is apparent that this book is a counterfeit, intended to make the Times look defenseless. It is easy enough, with modern computer technology, to "instant publish" such a travesty.

I plan to alert Jacobs to this matter, but I don't expect much response.

From the same library I have a copy of Robert Novak's memoir, "The Prince of Darkness." I haven't examined it closely yet, but I intend to do so.

APRIL 1, 2010.

I realize that some may consider the report above to be an April fool hoax, but it is not. I haven't time for such trivia.

I sent out an email to all relevant NY Times addresses and got one robo-response. Otherwise, nothing. Neither has a call been received from anyone at the Times.

BTW, some months back, someone entered one of my (now defunct) Yahoo accounts and deleted my copy of a New York Times list of reporter and editor email addresses. The Times had ceased to publish that list.

APRIL 5, 2010

On page 397 of "City Room" is found: "I agreed it was quite possible, aware that--like most reporters who had covered the police beat--of what often transpired behind the closed doors of a precinct interrogation room." No New York newspaperman would have written that.

As for "The Prince of Darkness," we have:

Page 173: "What transpired in Pittsburgh after the LeMay announcement produced one of the most bizarre moments in my half century of covering politics."

Page 282: "But with Chris half a foot taller than me, my feeble punch landed on his chest and fellow journalists grabbed us before anything more serious transpired."

Page 541: "I said I did not either, and I did not envision CNN as a possible bidder considering what had transpired so far."

Surely Novak in his early years as an AP reporter learned to avoid that word, once a favorite of police officers trying to sound educated. Surely his editor, a longtime editor for Readers Digest, would have stricken it had he seen it.

Novak of course was detested by the super-neocon Israelophiles and the ultra-left, but I am uncertain as to the motive for these childish alterations.

To report cyberattacks of this sort, either post a comment, or phone me on my cell at

!+a8+b6+c5+++d2+e3+f5+++g2+h9+i7+j4+! (Ignore non-numerals.)

Spook wars: Is CIA up or down?

It seems as though some clandestine unit with reach inside media is determined to make the CIA look bad. Otherwise, how to explain the repeated stories claiming "bin Laden said" thus and such.

If bin Laden is really dead, as has been widely reported by counterterrorism experts, then why the need to resurrect him? Well, if you're a top spook, in, say, the Pentagon, who wants more of Panetta's pie, you have a reason to embarrass the CIA and manipulate cooperative reporters and editors. How could the CIA be doing such a bad job with bin Laden when it has been allegedly capturing other terrorist chiefs with abandon?

The CIA however isn't taking this affront to its dignity lying down. The world has just learned (was Panetta ABC's source?) that a top Iranian nuclear scientist is living in Mecca and working for the CIA.

Keep posted.

Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Mirrors for backup

I've been having troubles with my computing for some time. Some of the problems are my doing, and some aren't.

I'd suggest that others make mirrors of my 9/11 report pages. Backups can't hurt. I've found myself locked out of my accounts more than once. In fact, under Atty Gen Gonzalez one of my Google blogs was frozen because, I suspect, it discussed an encryption technique that I had devised.

Saturday, March 13, 2010

Time for political action on 9/11 coverup

What is to be done about the silence of reporters and the jeering of commentators concerning 9/11 coverup?

Neither major political party is interested in bringing the 9/11 traitors to justice because the issue is seen as a career death warrant. Politicians respond to what the press legitimizes as issues; lawmakers also respond to the big influxes of money from 9/11 coverup interests, such as AIPAC and its allies.

Without profound political changes, in the unlikely event Congress backs a new investigation of 9/11, the result would simply be more coverup.

This blog has already called for a panel of scientists to review the NIST investigations to see whether scientific fraud or deception occurred and for a citizens' commission to review the entire matter.

Beyond that, we need committed and talented people to back candidates willing to stand up and chastise government 9/11 inquiries, candidates who are prepared to take the heat or cope with the lack of coverage from big media.

Use the internet fundraising skills that went into Obama's campaign (and before that, into Ron Paul's campaign) to build a war chest for backing such candidates.

Our strategy is not to win most races, or even any race, but to SPOIL chances of either Democrat or Republican, by insisting on promoting the 9/11 coverup issue via the candidates we back. Congress and the White House will hear us, no matter how the media ducks. We want to begin to force meaningful congressional and-or White House action. We want to nudge scaredy-cat main party candidates to start speaking up.

It's a strategy well worth trying. We won't get anything done if we don't try. Congress only respects political power. This is something we must channel and create.

Don't give in to defeatism. Back in the late nineties, the term limits movement had made enormous gains amidst a virtual national media blackout. It was only when the snowball got too big to ignore that coverage broke into the "establishment media." The same happened with the adoption by many states of "right to pack" laws.  We are not talking about the merits of those issues, of course, but making the point that media blackouts can and do fail.

I'm not in a position to undertake such a campaign. But some of you are. Go for it.

Recently the House implicitly reprimanded the FBI, suggesting it covered up the facts about the anthrax attacks. But the House was too weak to do anything more than ask the intelligence chief to have another look, to see whether there was foreign involvement. This is a far cry from a real congressional investigation and unlikely to lead to much. But it shows that Congress has no faith in the security system, despite its inability to do much about it.

Friday, March 12, 2010

W.H. Israelophile scrambles to keep lid on

White House ramrod Rahm Emanuel is the White House force behind the deal to deny civilian trial to the al Qaeda prisoners accused of 9/11 crimes, reports
Jason Leopold of Consortium News.

It is rather disconcerting that yet another fervent supporter of Israel is involved in maneuvering to keep the lid on the 9/11 facts. It has been clear that a number of prominent Israelophiles have attacked 9/11 skeptics as generally anti-Semitic. This particularly holds for the AIPAC crowd, though that position is publicly muted.

While it is true that a military tribunal would not accept advance guilty pleas, it is clear that such a tribunal would be much easier to control with different standards of evidence and career judge advocates who, despite best efforts, are going to feel Pentagon pressure for pro-forma show trials.

Once it became apparent that it was quite possible that a federal judge, considering the problem of enhanced interrogation, would forbid the planned advance guilty pleas, the pressure began to block such trials. Imagine a tough defense team challenging the government's 9/11 fairy tale at point after point. Even if the AIPAC-fearing press failed to cover the trials objectively, the public record would be available to many in alternative media.

MARCH 15, 2010. White House honcho David Axelrod yesterday said that no decision had been made on the trial venue for the 9/11 accused. Axelrod, who is Jewish, also blasted the Israeli govt. for its housing decision in the midst of Biden's visiit. Axelrod said Obama was right behind him. Clinton had taken the decision's timing as a calaculated insult of the Obama administration, which is trying to broker a peace deal.

OK, we can accept that the White House is not dominated by  AIPAC allies. Nevertheless, Rahm's maneuvering on the trial venue is disturbing.

Sunday, February 14, 2010

Obama reported to OK civilian trial

UPI reports that Obama has decided on civilian trial for the men accused of being part of the 9/11 attacks.
The news agency quoted an official who spoke on condition of anonymity. However Veep Biden told a TV audience today that the White house hadn't ruled out a military tribunal.

Biden was responding to a charge by Cheney that Obama is soft on terrorists, a charge that is being used to smear the right of fair trial by the 9/11 suspects. It's the old "guilty people don't deserve fair trials" ploy.

Responding to political pressure against holding the trial at the federal courthouse next to the demolished trade center site, the White House is considering where the trial might be held, the agency said.

If UPI's report is accurate, there would be at least a fair chance of the defense lawyers ripping apart the government's fairy tales (and Cheney's crazed claims), and we could not in this instance properly accuse Obama of meddling in the truth-finding. Obviously, we don't expect the organs of propaganda to report anything that troubles the government hocus pocus. But we can hope that others will report the trial objectively.

Saturday, February 13, 2010

President O'Coverup

Obama is seriously considering overruling the attorney general and ordering military tribunal trials for the al Qaeda suspects accused of participating in the 9/11 attacks, according to Robert Gibbs, White House spokesman.

This is a predictable outcome. The organs of propaganda have been promoting this idea relentlessly, and various ruthless politicians have made an issue of the "danger" of permitting suspects to have regular trials.

It's quite interesting that when the Pentagon-intelligence system wants or doesn't want something, the White House nearly always caves in. What that clique doesn't want is to permit defense lawyers to tear the government's conspiracy theories to shreds in open court. They want a slam dunk show trial, with all the show on the government's side.

Again, we need to begin to try to persuade people to bypass the organs of propaganda, or to at least learn to take their messages with quite a few grains of salt.

News flashes to cell phones might be arranged that aren't too pricey. That is, we need alternative media to find ways to exploit the new technologies and bypass the organs of propaganda.

Friday, February 12, 2010


The organs of propaganda were used effectively to frighten a Texas political candidate, Debra Medina, into effectively eating crow about 9/11 skepticism. The organs of propaganda demand that all politicians kowtow to the official line or be (allegedly) discredited.

Politicians need media coverage and so they fear being held up to public ridicule. But, we need "new politicians" -- perhaps young people -- who scorn the establishment media and operate through various forms of internet networking, following the example set by Iranian dissidents.

We need a new breed of politician who see ridicule by the organs of propaganda as a badge of honor, who laugh derisively at these phonies.

It may seem impossible to bypass the press bottlenecks. But it isn't. We need people to start thinking in new ways.

For example, it is now possible to receive videos by cell-phone. Advertisers are already eager to exploit this capability and provide "free" videos. New politicians, who scorn the system's media, might make use of this application also.

It's kind of fun to take note of the fact that this Medina hoohah erupted immediately after my post below, which appeared on OpEd News and which also went out to a number of professional journalists. Was the whole thing whipped up to show media mastery over political life and to nip our suggestions in the bud? Wow, if true, that would be cool because it would mean the control freaks are scared stiff.

Fight to win!

Saturday, February 6, 2010

Whither 9/11 truth and justice?

New matter appended Feb 8, 2010 concerning press bottlenecks


Who stands to gain from forcing the administration to try the 9/11 suspects in a military tribunal, where standards of evidence are lower? A vigorous defense in civilian court would put the true conspirators to shame, as the Moussoui trial showed.

Rather than worry about pesky inconsistencies getting before the public, why not hold quick show trials under tight Pentagon control?

Some of the pressure to block the trials is mere opportunistic fear-mongering by amoral politicians, but we can be sure that some of the flack has its source in Control Central, which seeks to keep America blind and dumb.

So what's the next move for those of us who remain outraged at the high-handed misconduct -- treason -- of the covert control freaks.

Two ideas:

* A citizens commission  -- not appointed by a government entity -- to reinvestigate the facts of the 9/11 attacks. The panel should be composed of several people, from the left, right and center, with substantial credentials for such an inquiry. They should review all published evidence, interview witnesses and carry out experiments, as needed. They should publish a final report.

* A board of scientific inquiry -- again, not appointed by a government entity -- to thoroughly review the investigations of the collapses of the twin towers and Building 7 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. The aim would be to determine whether scientific fraud has been committed. If outright fraud is not determined, the experts should still assess whether the conclusions were warranted and honestly presented.

I would suggest that well-known 9/11 activists should not be appointed to such panels, though we should have no hard-and-fast ban and consider appointments on a case by case basis. We may need to exploit emeritus professors who are no longer worried about career obstacles and also because we want our panelists to be volunteers, beholden to no one.

The matter of organizing such inquiries should be handled carefully in order to guard against infiltration and takeover by adversaries, and this brings us to the matter of funding. I favor funding by small individual contributions in order to try to limit the impact of excessively egotistical personalities who might involve themselves in such endeavors.

But, you say, talk is cheap. What about making it happen? Yes, about all I can do is offer ideas. But surely there are others far more gifted than am I who are able to organize such actions effectively. Well, please do.

And don't think that it must be left to Americans. Citizens of every country that has felt the impact of the "war on terror" have an interest in conducting such inquiries. Then, the various indpendent inquiries will help to form a global voice in favor of 9/11 truth and justice, and reprimanding cowardly, controlled media.

That sounds as though I have prejudged the outcomes of the inquiries. True, I am very confident that reasonable investigators will find nothing but garbage in the official claims concerning 9/11.

Feb 8, 2010:
Bypassing the press bottlenecks

I have noticed that a number of 9/11 activists think that they can reach their objectives if only they could convince the mass media to cover the relevant facts in an objective way.

What they don't seem to fully grasp is that the mass media are the "organs of propaganda" of an invisible or semi-visible system composed of the super-powerful, whether they be business titans, national security officers, political action types, mobsters, communists or whomever has heavy duty clout.

The honest people in the media are for the most part intimidated into averting their gaze while the system encourages intellectual perverts and shills of every sort to wage propaganda war against 9/11 truth.

Yes, once the Powers that Be are in disarray, or once there is a major chink in the armor of one or the other of them, the press will go into a feeding frenzy. But, the 9/11 masterminds were relatively sure they could control the media, and, indeed, after a period of tension, they were able to use damage containment techniques to wall off problems.

And they will stop at nothing to keep the mass media muzzled. Their whole theory of power requires control of media, enhanced by all sorts of psy-op funny business to keep the public confused and off their scent.

On the other hand, we must admit that, from time to time, responsible journalists will see to it that 9/11 critics get a fair say. But, once that say appears, it's back to playing dumb.

These occasional efforts of honest journalists mean there is yet hope that the 9/11 masterminds will slip up and be unable to contain the firestorm that erupts.

BUT, in the meantime, we must also work to bypass the politico-media system.

Some ideas:

* Use alternative media, such as Op-Ed News and IndyMedia, that are open to 9/11 criticism.

* Be on the lookout  for interactive new media sites that blend print and video and that are hungry for content.

* If you are able, do your best to cover the 9/11 trials and post your reports on the internet. Perhaps this will help keep "establishment" reporting honest (and maybe not).

* Whenever possible, try to obtain good relationships with professional reporters -- even if they can write relatively little about 9/11 truth -- whether they work for alternative or system media. The upcoming al Qaeda trials provide a good opportunity for this. That is, a reporter might be able to call you for background concerning matters that are raised (probably by the defense) during the trial.

Please copy this post and pass it around