Revolution? How the "Osama Killed" Scam Illuminates the 9/11 Buildings-Fall-Down-From-Exhaustion Scam (RAPTURED!!! (The "Obama Scam"?))

(It was a "rapturous" good time Saturday night!)

And I don't care how many beers that the Obamas had with friends and relatives in Ireland yesterday, there are still lots of questions left hanging about the government-sponsored "killings" of the days before.

I always wondered how a helicopter could crash, as the White House reported, without at least producing injuries. Yet, in the original White House story, the SEALs not only survived a 40-minute firefight with al Qaeda, "the most highly trained, most dangerous, most vicious killers on the planet," without a scratch, but also survived a helicopter crash without a scratch. . . . If reports are correct, the US government has gone into the business of managing the public's perceptions of news and events. Apparently, the Pentagon has implemented Perception Management Psychological Operations. . . . In addition to managing our perceptions, much is simply never reported. On May 19, 2011, the 14-decade-old British newspaper, The Statesman, reported that the Press Trust of India has reported that the Chinese government has warned Washington "in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China," and advised the US government "to respect Pakistan's sovereignty." As trends forecaster Gerald Celente and I have warned, the warmongers in Washington are driving the world toward World War III. Once a country is captured by its military/security complex, the demand for profit drives the country deeper into war. Perhaps this news report from India is a hoax, or perhaps the never-diligent mainstream media will catch up with the news tomorrow, but so far this extraordinary warning from China has not been reported in the US media.

The end must be getting near (but not "The Rapture," sillies) as Dr. Paul Craig Roberts (once-respected Assistant Treasury Secretary under Ronald Reagan and now much-despised-by-rightwingnutters, truth-out-in-the-open reporter) explains what the cold, hard facts are turning out to be about the Osama scam as well as a few well-chosen words on all the 9/11 lies (and explaining why there is no White House ceremony bestowing medals for bravery on those "heroes" this time).

How Many SEALs Died? By Paul Craig Roberts May 21, 2011 In a sensational and explosive TV report, the Pakistani News Agency has provided a live interview with an eye witness to the US attack on the alleged compound of Osama bin Laden. The eye witness, Mohammad Bashir, describes the event as it unfolded. Of the three helicopters, "there was only one that landed the men and came back to pick them up, but as he [the helicopter] was picking them up, it blew away and caught fire." The witness says that there were no survivors, just dead bodies and pieces of bodies everywhere. "We saw the helicopter burning, we saw the dead bodies, then everything was removed and now there is nothing."

I always wondered how a helicopter could crash, as the White House reported, without at least producing injuries. Yet, in the original White House story, the SEALs not only survived a 40-minute firefight with al Qaeda, "the most highly trained, most dangerous, most vicious killers on the planet," without a scratch, but also survived a helicopter crash without a scratch.

The Pakistani news report is available on You Tube. The Internet site, Veterans Today, posted a translation along with a video of the interview. And, Information Clearing House made it available on May 17.

If the interview is not a hoax and the translation is correct, we now know the answer to the unasked question: Why was there no White House ceremony with President Obama pinning medals all over the heroic SEALs who tracked down and executed Public Enemy Number One?

The notion that Obama had to keep the SEALs' identity secret in order to protect the SEALs from al Qaeda detracts from the heroic tough-guy image of the SEALs, and it strains credulity that Obama's political handlers would not have milked the occasion for all it is worth.

Other than on the Veterans Today and ICH Internet sites, I have not seen any mention of the Pakistani news story. If the White House press corps is aware of the report, no one has asked President Obama or his press spokesperson about it. Helen Thomas was the last American reporter sufficiently brave to ask such a question, and she was exterminated by the Israel Lobby.

In America we have reached the point where anyone who tells the truth is dismissed as a "conspiracy theorist" and marginalized. Recently, a professor of nano-chemistry from the University of Copenhagen made a lecture tour of major Canadian universities explaining the research, conducted by himself and a team of physicists and engineers, that resulted in finding small particles of unreacted nano-thermite in dust samples from the wreckage of the World Trade Center towers in addition to other evidence that the professor and the research team regard as conclusive scientific proof that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

No American university dared to invite him, and as far as I know no mention of the explosive research report has ever appeared in the American press.

I find it astonishing that 1,500 architects and engineers, who actually know something about buildings, their construction, their strength and weaknesses, and who have repeatedly requested a real investigation of the destruction of the three WTC buildings, are regarded as conspiracy kooks by people who know nothing whatsoever about architecture or engineering or buildings. The same goes for the large number of pilots who question the flight maneuvers carried out during the attacks, and the surviving firemen and "first responders" who report both hearing and personally experiencing explosions in the towers, some of which occurred in sub-basements.

A large number of high-ranking political figures abroad don't believe a word of the official 9/11 story. For example, the former president of Italy and dean of the Italian Senate, told Italy's oldest newspaper, Corriere delia Sera, that the intelligence services of Europe "know well that the disastrous [9/11] attack has been planned and realized by the American CIA and the [Israeli] Mossad . . . in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part in [the invasions].

Even people who report that there are dissenting views, as I have done, are branded conspiracy theorists and banned from the media. This extends into the Internet in addition to newspapers and TV. Not long ago a reporter for the Internet site, The Huffington Post, discovered that Pat Buchanan and I are critics of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions. He was fascinated that there were some Reagan administration officials who dissented from the Republican Party's war position and asked to interview me.

After he posted the interview on The Huffington Post, someone told him that I was not sound on 9/11. In a panic the reporter contacted me, demanding to know if I disbelieved the official 9/11 story. I replied that being neither architect, engineer, physicist, chemist, pilot, nor firefighter, I had little to contribute to understanding the event, but that I had reported that various experts had raised questions.

The reporter was terrified that he might somehow have given a 9/11 skeptic credibility and be fired for interviewing me about my war views for The Huffington Post. He quickly added at the beginning and, if memory serves, ending of the posted interview words to the effect that my lack of soundness on 9/11 meant that my views on the wars could be disregarded. If only he had known that I was unsure about the official 9/11 story, there would have been no interview.

One doesn't have to be a scientist, architect, engineer, pilot or firefighter to notice astonishing anomalies in the 9/11 story. Assume that the official story is correct and that a band of terrorists outwitted not only the CIA and FBI, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies and those of our NATO allies and Israel's notorious Mossad, along with the National Security Council, NORAD, air traffic control and airport security four times in one hour on the same morning. Accept that this group of terrorists pulled off a feat worthy of a James Bond movie and delivered a humiliating blow to the world's only superpower.

If something like this really happened, would not the president, the Congress, and the media be demanding to know how such an improbable thing could have happened? Investigation and accountability would be the order of the day. Yet President Bush and Vice President Cheney resisted the pleas and demands for an investigation from the 9/11 families for one year, or was it two, before finally appointing a non-expert committee of politicians to listen to whatever the government chose to tell them. One of the politicians resigned from the commission on the grounds that "the fix is in."

Even the two chairmen and the chief legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission wrote books in which they stated that they believe that members of the military and other parts of the government lied to the commission and that the commission considered referring the matter for investigation and prosecution.

Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 Commission, said: "FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue . . . We, to this day don't know why NORAD told us what they told us . . . It was just so far from the truth."

Vice Chairman Lee Hamilton said: "We had a very short time frame . . . we did not have enough money . . . We had a lot of people strongly opposed to what we did. We had a lot of trouble getting access to documents and to people. . . . So there were all kinds of reasons we thought we were set up to fail."

As far as I know, not a single member of the government or the media made an issue of why the military would lie to the commission. This is another anomaly for which we have no explanation.

The greatest puzzle is the conclusion drawn by a national audience from watching on their TV screens the collapse of the WTC towers. Most seem satisfied that the towers fell down as a result of structural damage inflicted by the airliners and from limited, low-temperature fires. Yet what the images show is not buildings falling down, but buildings blowing up. Buildings that are destroyed by fires and structural damage do not disintegrate in 10 seconds or less into fine dust with massive steel beams sliced at each floor level by high temperatures that building fires cannot attain. It has never happened, and it never will.

Conduct an experiment. Free your mind of the programmed explanation of the towers' destruction and try to discern what your eyes are telling you as you watch the videos of the towers that are available online. Is that the way buildings fall down from damage, or is that the way buildings are brought down by explosives? Little doubt, many Americans prefer the official story to the implications that follow from concluding that the official story is untrue.

If reports are correct, the US government has gone into the business of managing the public's perceptions of news and events. Apparently, the Pentagon has implemented Perception Management Psychological Operations. There are also reports that the State Department and other government agencies use Facebook and Twitter to stir up problems for the Syrian, Iranian, Russian, Chinese, and Venezuela governments in efforts to unseat governments not controlled by Washington. In addition, there are reports that both governments and private organizations employ "trolls" to surf the Internet and to attempt to discredit in blogs and comment sections reports and writers who are out of step with their interests. I believe I have encountered trolls myself.

In addition to managing our perceptions, much is simply never reported. On May 19, 2011, the 14-decade-old British newspaper, The Statesman, reported that the Press Trust of India has reported that the Chinese government has warned Washington "in unequivocal terms that any attack on Pakistan would be construed as an attack on China," and advised the US government "to respect Pakistan's sovereignty."

As trends forecaster Gerald Celente and I have warned, the warmongers in Washington are driving the world toward World War III. Once a country is captured by its military/security complex, the demand for profit drives the country deeper into war. Perhaps this news report from India is a hoax, or perhaps the never-diligent mainstream media will catch up with the news tomorrow, but so far this extraordinary warning from China has not been reported in the US media. [I had it posted on OEN.]

The mainstream media and a significant portion of the Internet are content for our perceptions to be managed by psy-ops and by non-reporting. This is why I wrote not long ago that today Americans are living in George Orwell's 1984.

Addressing Obama's, the "change" Pres', last Press Conference demurrings (and murrings), we find a clear voice of reason in response in Medea Benjamin. Let her have a moment of your time.

iven that President Obama daily authorizes the firing of hellfire missiles and the dropping of cluster bombs in places such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen, it was awful odd seeing him wax eloquent this (past) week about the "moral force of non-violence" in places like Egypt and Tunisia. But there he was, the commander-in-chief of the largest empire in history, praising the power of peaceful protest in countries with repressive leaders backed by his own administration.

Were we unfamiliar with his actual policies - more than doubling the troops in Afghanistan, dramatically escalating a deadly drone war in Pakistan and unilaterally bombing for peace in Libya - it might have been inspiring to hear a major head of state reject violence as a means to political ends. Instead, we almost choked on the hypocrisy.

Cast beforehand as a major address on the Middle East, what President Obama offered with his speech on Thursday was nothing more than a reprisal of his 2009 address in Cairo: a lot of rhetoric about US support for peace and freedom in the region contradicted by the actual - and bipartisan - US policy over the past half-century of supporting ruthless authoritarian regimes. Yet even for all his talk of human rights and how he "will not tolerate aggression across borders" - yes, a US president said this - Obama didn't even feign concern about Saudi Arabia's repressive regime invading neighboring Bahrain to put down a pro-democracy movement there. In fact, the words "Saudi Arabia" were never uttered.

It was that kind of speech: scathing condemnations of human rights abuses by the US's Official Enemies in places like Iran and Syria and muted criticism - if any - of the gross violations of human decency carried out by its dictatorial friends in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Yemen.

Obama predictably glossed over the reality of US policy and, in an audacious attempt to rewrite history, portrayed his administration as being supportive of the fall of tyrannical governments across the Middle East and North Africa, ludicrously suggesting he had supported regime change in Hosni Mubarak's Egypt - a claim betrayed by the $1.3 billion a year in military aid his administration provided to Mubarak's regime right up until the moment he resigned. The president's revisionism might fool a few cable news personalities (what wouldn't?) but it won't fool Egyptians, less than one in five of whom even want the closer relationship with the US that Obama offered in his speech, at least one that involves more military aid and neoliberal reforms imposed by the International Monetary Fund.

And Obama's remarks shouldn't fool their primary audience: American voters.

Contrary to the rhetoric of Obama's speech, if the US has sided with Middle Eastern publics against their brutal dictators it has not been because of their dictators' brutality, which in the case of Mubarak was seen as a plus in the age of the war on terror. Nor has that support for the oppressed come in the form of - hold your laughter - non-violence. Rhetoric of change aside, how best to use the liberating power of bullets and bombs continues to be the guiding principle of US policy in the Middle East.

And Obama certainly isn't apologizing for that. In his speech called the war in Iraq, which conservatively speaking has killed hundreds of thousands of civilians, "costly and difficult" - and, grotesquely, "well intended" - but that was as much an acknowledgement as he was willing to make of the deadly failure of US policy toward the region in recent decades. Indeed, Obama argued it was not a failure of policy but merely a failure of rhetoric, a "failure to speak to the broader aspirations of ordinary people" that had prompted the "suspicion" the US pursues its own interests at the expense of those living in the countries it invades or whose dictators it supports.

But the truth of these suspicions was evident when Obama explained why the US's supposed national interests were at stake in the Middle East, claiming that "our own future is bound to this region by the forces of economics and security." Notice which came first (and just so you know: both have to do with oil).

The president also didn't deviate from his policy of "unshakable" support for Israeli militarism, typified by his administration's efforts to safeguard the Jewish state from accountability for its war crimes in Gaza - crimes that left some 1,400 Palestinians dead - and his determination to hand an already wealthy nation more than $3 billion a year in military aid, even as it flaunts the "peace process" and colonizes ever more Palestinian land.

Though typical of his first two years in office, Obama's duplicity was more evident - and his rhetoric more sloppy - than usual. Mere seconds after proclaiming that "every state has the right to self-defense," Obama called for the creation of a "sovereign, non-militarized state" for Palestinians, meaning one incapable of defending itself. And while he spoke of Israeli parents fearing their children "could get blown up on a bus or by rockets fired at their homes," he did not deign to mention the much more frequent and deadly Israeli violence perpetrated against Palestinians, saying only that the latter suffered "the humiliation of occupation," as if Palestinian parents feel embarrassment, not pain, at the loss of a child killed by an Israeli strike.

Obama's remarks on the killing of Osama bin Laden were likewise delivered with a complete lack of self-awareness. Describing the latter as a "mass murderer," Obama - who since taking office has the blood of hundreds of Afghan and Pakistani civilians on his hands - said bin Laden's philosophy of using bloodshed to achieve desired political changes had been discredited "through the moral force of non-violence" that has swept the region. Peaceful protests, Obama proclaimed, had "achieved more change in six months than terrorists have accomplished in decades" - and more than decades of US wars and occupations, he might have added.

Talking up the virtues of peaceful protest is great and all, but the pretty words lack their power coming from the commander-in-chief of the most lethal and widely deployed military force in world history.

And if you think that Wikileaks only tells us old news or fleshes out events that no one is interested in any longer (and you may be correct, kemosabe) . . . from the Foreign (Smart) Women Politicians Don't Stand A Chance Dept.:

US Ignored Bhutto's Plea for Evaluation of Security: WikiLeaks May 21, 2011 NEW DELHI: Just two months before she was killed in a terror attack, former Pakistan Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto had approached then US Ambassador in Islamabad asking for help to evaluate her personal security but it was ignored, latest WikiLeaks cables have revealed. Bhutto handed over a written request to US Ambassador Anne W Patterson two months before she was killed asking her to carry out an evaluation of the security because she feared for her life, say the WikiLeaks cables, accessed by news channel NDTV. The cables reveal that the US chose to look the other way, suggesting that Benazir should work constructively with General Pervez Musharraf's government - the same organisation that Benazir insisted was out to kill her.

You say you wanna Revolution? No? Check out the action in Spain, me hearties!

Spanish Protesters Cheer for ‘World Revolution’ As Ban On Demonstration Takes Effect May 20, 2011 MADRID — Thousands of protesters in Madrid furious over soaring unemployment staged a silent protest and then erupted in cheers of joy as a 48-hour ban on their demonstration took effect on Saturday.

"Now we are all illegal" and "the people united will never be defeated," were among the chants of the protesters who crammed Madrid's Puerta del Sol square and spilled onto side streets.

The protesters held a minute's silence, their hands in the air and some with tape over their mouths, just before midnight on Friday, when campaigning officially ended for Sunday's regional and municipal elections.

The crowd then cheered as the clock in the square, the main site of New Year festivities in Madrid, chimed midnight and a ban on the protest became effective.

"From Tahrir to Madrid to the world, world revolution," said one of the placards, referring to Tahrir Square in Cairo which was the focal point of the Egyptian revolution earlier this year.

Some 19,000 people took part, according to a calculation by the Lynce organisation which estimates crowd numbers and released by the Spanish national news agency Efe.

Thousands of people have massed in city centres across the country in an swelling movement that began May 15, the biggest spontaneous protests since the property bubble exploded in 2008 and plunged Spain into a recession from which it only emerged this year.

And in Mexico? Do they think those "Drug Wars" are helping? (Guess!)

Mexico’s Silent March for Peace Falls on Deaf Ears Tom Kavanagh - 13 May 2011

Calderón stands firm as thousands take to the streets to demand an end to drug gang violence.

"No more bloodshed" is the message as tens of thousands descend on Mexico City's Zócalo, imploring the government to change tack in the ongoing "war on drug trafficking" (Getty Images)