Tuesday, June 7, 2016

(Hillary Already Crowned?)  OMG - Is It Still Pre-WWII or Has the USA Gone Cray-Cray?  (US Government Intentionally Destroys 9/11 Evidence)

Complete surprise:  "The New York Times" and the "AP" announce that Hillary Clinton has already won the Democratic Primary by securing enough super-delegates to not have to worry about any more irritating primary or caucus voters.

One could point out (if one had a willing media outlet) that super-delegates aren't actually allowed to vote until the day of the primary in July, but hey, why spoil another Clinton-declared "victory?" She seems to be clinging to the last remnants of the myth of Clinton 2 inevitability (and her delighted government/media/marketing backers are not letting hopes dim while they can still command an audience).
_ _ _ _ _ _ _

I grew up reading "Ramparts," and respect Steve Weissman's reporting, which is generally the place to hang your truth-seeking hat. Yet, one may not always share his political perspective.

The following article certainly seems to be a serious, well-argued case (if you can reach its end without retching too violently):

America’s most successful neo-Nazi website, The Daily Stormer proudly takes its name from Julius Streicher’s notorious Nazi hate sheet, Der Stirmer. It openly calls Trump “The Leader” ‒ in German, Der Führer. And though hardly more than a one-man band, The Daily Stormer is arguably the most noxious face of Donald Trump’s nativist, xenophobic, racist, Muslim-bashing, and Jew-baiting base.
Wondering aloud whether Kristol’s intervention was “just a way to confound the goyim,” the Stormer’s founder and editor, Andrew Anglin, made clear where he was coming from. “Is this tweet serious?” he asked. “Is it a joke? Or is it simply intended to cause fear in the hearts of White Americans?
Kristol’s effort has so far proved a damp squib. The most impressive candidate he could find is David French, a highly decorated combat officer, conservative lawyer, and columnist for the right-wing National Review. Widely unknown, French has yet to say yes. Even if he does, Kristol – the neocon nursemaid to Dan Quayle, the Iraq War, and Sarah Palin ‒ will once again look like a loser.

Anglin and his Daily Stormer are playing to win. Donald Trump, his Leader, clearly built on the white supremacist attitudes to which the Republican Party has pandered since Richard Nixon’s “Southern Strategy” and “War on Drugs.” Trump also draws on the liberal racism that Bill and Hillary Clinton embraced with their attacks on black “super-predators” and their mass incarceration crime bill, not to mention the way Slick Willie rushed back to Arkansas during his presidential campaign to preside over the execution of a mentally handicapped black man named Ricky Ray Rector.

But Trump goes beyond coded dog whistles and liberal pretense. A skilled demagogue and relentless bigot, he consciously plays to the longstanding racism that the anti-Muslim “War on Terror” and election of a black president brought to the fore – overt racial hatred that Trump himself helped stir up with his widely publicized claims that Barack Obama had not been born in the United States.

The neo-Nazi Anglin was quick to see the potential Trump represented, endorsing him last June, only days after the showman threw his hat into the ring and at a time when most other observers saw him as little more than entertainment and a profit source for big media.

“The modern Fox News Republican has basically accepted the idea that there is no going back from mass immigration,” Anglin wrote in his Daily Stormer. “Trump is willing to say what most Americans think:  It’s time to deport these people. He is also willing to call them out as criminal rapists, murderers and drug dealers.”

Trump’s overt bigotry has enabled a motley crew of neo-Nazis and white supremacists to crawl out from under the rocks where they have lived for years. But none have used the opportunity more cleverly ‒ or pungently ‒ than the Internet-savvy Anglin and his Daily Stormer.

“Just like Hillary has no strategy to fight The Leader,” he wrote on June 3, “the Jews have no strategy to fight the Alt-Right.”

“The Jews” are, of course, the evil masterminds behind all efforts to suppress the white race, while the “Alt-Right” is the common front of neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and their useful idiots.

In the past, white nationalists had taken great pains to pretend that they were not about hate. But Anglin urges them to new candor.

“Now, when these kikes say that the rising neo-Nazi Alt-Right movement wants to gas the six million, we’re just like “yeah I know right, lol, get in the oven filthy kike ‒ daddy needs a new pair of lampshades.”

Donald Trump has enabled Anglin’s all-out effort to win over America’s white working class to unabashed racist hatred. Neo-Nazis and Christian Nationalists make similar appeals to disaffected whites in Europe, though they generally find it an easier sale to bash Muslims than Jews.

How do decent people beat back the hate? Only by offering the disaffected a clear understanding of how corporate globalism, neo-liberal economics, and Wall Street-inspired trade treaties have killed middle-class jobs and any hope for the future. Bernie Sanders tries to do that. Hillary Clinton does not. Which do you think has a better chance to stop the juggernaut that Trump has set in motion?
(A veteran of the Berkeley Free Speech Movement and the New Left monthly "Ramparts," Steve Weissman lived for many years in London, working as a magazine writer and television producer. He now lives and works in France, where he is researching a new book, Big Money and the Corporate State:  How Global Banks, Corporations, and Speculators Rule and How to Nonviolently Break Their Hold.)

US Government Intentionally Destroys 9/11 Evidence

Presumption of a Cover-Up …
Judges and lawyers know that – if someone intentionally destroys evidence – he’s probably trying to hide his crime.  American law has long recognized that destruction of evidence raises a presumption of guilt for  the person who destroyed the evidence.
So what does it mean when the US government intentionally destroyed massive amounts of evidence related to 9/11?

Judge and Prosecutor Destroy Evidence

For example, it was revealed last week that the judge overseeing the trial of surviving 9/11 suspects conspired with the prosecution to destroy evidence relevant to a key suspect’s defense. And see this.

(The Defense Department has also farmed out most of the work of both prosecuting and defending the surviving 9/11 suspects to the same private company. And the heads of the military tribunal prosecuting the 9/11 suspects said that the trials must be rigged so that there are no acquittals.)

Destruction of Videotapes

The CIA videotaped the interrogation of 9/11 suspects, falsely told the 9/11 Commission that there were no videotapes or other records of the interrogations, and then illegally destroyed all of the tapes and transcripts of the interrogations.
9/11 Commission co-chairs Thomas Keane and Lee Hamilton wrote:

Those who knew about those videotapes — and did not tell us about them — obstructed our investigation.

Daniel Marcus, a law professor at American University who served as general counsel for the Sept. 11 commission and was involved in the discussions about interviews with Al Qaeda leaders, said he had heard nothing about any tapes being destroyed.

If tapes were destroyed, he said, “it’s a big deal, it’s a very big deal,” because it could amount to obstruction of justice to withhold evidence being sought in criminal or fact-finding investigations.
Destruction of Air Traffic Control Tapes
The tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times.

Black Boxes

The FBI long ago found and analyzed the “black box” recorders from the airplanes which hit the Twin Towers, but has consistently denied that they were ever found.

Pentagon Fibs

The 9/11 Commissioners concluded that officials from the Pentagon lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements.

Soviet-Style “Minders”
The chairs of both the 9/11 Commission and the Official Congressional Inquiry into 9/11 said that Soviet-style government “minders” obstructed the investigation into 9/11 by intimidating witnesses (and see this).

In other words, the minders obstructed witnesses from openly and candidly talking about what they knew.

Undermining Investigation

President Bush and Vice-President Cheney took the rare step of personally requesting that congress limit all 9/11 investigation solely to “intelligence failures.”
The administration also opposed the creation of a 9/11 commission. Once it was forced (by pressure from widows of 9-11 victims) to allow a commission to be formed, the administration appointed as executive director an administration insider, whose area of expertise is the creation and maintenance of “public myths” thought to be true, even if not actually true, who was involved in pre-9/11 intelligence briefings, and who was one of the key architects of the “pre-emptive war” doctrine. This executive director, who controlled what the Commission did and did not analyze, then limited the scope of the Commission’s inquiry so that the overwhelming majority of questions about 9/11 remained unasked (see this and this).
The administration then starved the commission of funds.  The government spent $175 million – over $300 million in today’s dollars – investigating the Challenger space shuttle disaster. It spent $152 million on the the Columbia disaster investigation. It spent $30 million investigating the Monica Lewinsky scandal. But the government only authorized $15 million for the 9/11 Commission.
The government also failed to provide crucial documents to the 9/11 investigators. And see this.
The government refused to share much information with the Commission, refused to force high-level officials to testify under oath, and allowed Bush and Cheney to be questioned jointly.

Moreover, as reported by ACLU, FireDogLake, RawStory and many others, declassified documents shows that Senior Bush administration officials sternly cautioned the 9/11 Commission against probing too deeply into the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.

The 9-11 Commission took this warning to heart, and refused to examine virtually any evidence which contradicted the administration’s official version of events. As stated by the State Department’s Coordinator for Counterterrorism – who was the point man for the U.S. government’s international counterterrorism policy in the first term of the Bush administration – “there were things the [9/11] commissions wanted to know about and things they didn’t want to know about.“

Saudi Role

Investigation into Saudi government aid to 9/11 conspirators was also obstructed.
For example, Philip Shenon – the 20-year New York Times reporter who wrote a book on the 9/11 Commission – reports:

The [911] commissioner said the renewed public debate could force a spotlight on a mostly unknown chapter of the history of the 9/11 commission:  behind closed doors, members of the panel’s staff fiercely protested the way the material about the Saudis was presented in the final report, saying it underplayed or ignored evidence that Saudi officials – especially at lower levels of the government – were part of an al-Qaida support network that had been tasked to assist the hijackers after they arrived in the US.
In fact, there were repeated showdowns, especially over the Saudis, between the staff and the commission’s hard-charging executive director, University of Virginia historian Philip Zelikow, who joined the Bush administration as a senior adviser to the secretary of state, Condoleezza Rice, after leaving the commission
. The staff included experienced investigators from the FBI, the Department of Justice and the CIA, as well as the congressional staffer who was the principal author of the 28 pages.

Zelikow fired a staffer, who had repeatedly protested over limitations on the Saudi investigation, after she obtained a copy of the 28 pages outside of official channels. Other staffers described an angry scene late one night, near the end of the investigation, when two investigators who focused on the Saudi allegations were forced to rush back to the commission’s offices after midnight after learning to their astonishment that some of the most compelling evidence about a Saudi tie to 9/11 was being edited out of the report or was being pushed to tiny, barely readable footnotes and endnotes. The staff protests were mostly overruled.

But Kean, Hamilton and Zelikow clearly do not speak for a number of the other commissioners, who have repeatedly suggested they are uncomfortable with the perception that the commission exonerated Saudi Arabia and who have joined in calling for public release of the 28 pages.Indeed, an FBI informant hosted and rented a room to two hijackers in 2000. Specifically, investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House.

As the New York Times notes:

Senator Bob Graham, the Florida Democrat who is a former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, accused the White House on Tuesday of covering up evidence ….The accusation stems from the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s refusal to allow investigators for a Congressional inquiry and the independent Sept. 11 commission to interview an informant, Abdussattar Shaikh, who had been the landlord in San Diego of two Sept. 11 hijackers.
Letting Terrorists Go Free

A former FBI translator who Senators Leahy and Grassley, among others, have claimed is credible, and who the administration has gagged for years without any logical basis — has stated that “this administration knowingly and intentionally let many directly or indirectly involved in that terrorist act [September 11th] go free – untouched and uninvestigated”?

Destruction of Physical Evidence

The former head of fire science and engineering for the agency responsible for finding out why the Twin Towers and World Trade Center 7 collapsed on 9/11 (the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology) – who is one of the world’s leading fire science researchers and safety engineers, with a Ph.D. in mechanical engineering – wrote that evidence necessary to determine the cause of the collapse of the World Trade Centers was being destroyed. And see this.

In addition, the official investigators themselves were largely denied access to the site and the evidence contained there, or even access to such basic information as the blueprints for the World Trade Center.

The government has also refused to release the computer models showing how the trade centers fell, making it impossible for anyone to double-check its assumptions.

Whether you believe the Twin Towers and World Trade Center building 7 were brought down with explosives or by airplanes and fires, destroying evidence prevented engineers and scientists from figuring out what went wrong … to prevent skyscrapers from collapsing in the future.

9/11 Commissioners Disgusted … and Call For a New Investigation

The 9/11 Commissioners publicly expressed anger at cover ups and obstructions of justice by the government into a real 9/11 investigation:

  • The Commission’s co-chairs said that the CIA (and likely the White House) “obstructed our investigation”
  • The Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (John Farmer) – who led the 9/11 staff’s inquiry – said “At some level of the government, at some point in time…there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened“. He also said “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described …. The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years…. This is not spin. This is not true.”
  • The Co-Chair of the congressional investigation into 9/11 – Bob Graham – and 9/11 Commissioner and former Senator Bob Kerrey are calling for either a “PERMANENT 9/11 commission” or a new 9/11 investigation to get to the bottom of it
  • 9/11 Commissioner John Lehman says that a new investigation should be “vigorously pursued

Planting False Evidence

Planting false evidence is another act which creates presumption of guilt.
The type of torture used by the U.S. on alleged surviving 9/11 co-conspirators is of a special type. Senator Levin revealed that the the U.S. used Communist torture techniques specifically aimed at creating FALSE confessions. (and see this, this, this and this).
According to NBC News:

  • Much of the 9/11 Commission Report was based upon the testimony of people who were tortured
  • At least four of the people whose interrogation figured in the 9/11 Commission Report have claimed that they told interrogators information as a way to stop being “tortured”
  • One of the Commission’s main sources of information was tortured until he agreed to sign a confession that he was NOT EVEN ALLOWED TO READ
  • The 9/11 Commission itself doubted the accuracy of the torture confessions, and yet kept their doubts to themselves
Pulitzer-prize winning reporter Seymour Hersh – who broke the Iraq torture and Vietnam massacre stories – writes:

Many of the investigators believe that some of the initial clues that were uncovered about the terrorists’ identities and preparations, such as flight manuals, were meant to be found. A former high-level intelligence official told me, “Whatever trail was left was left deliberately — for the F.B.I. to chase“.

The vast majority of Americans don't care about looking into or thinking about 9/11. They want the official story to be true so they believe it even if they don't "believe it." When I was "into" 9/11 Truth many years ago I presented the obvious evidence to some pretty smart people with graduate degrees that I hung out with and knew well enough to be honest with - and two of these guys said, on separate occasions exactly the same thing: "even if it's true, I refuse to believe it."

What can you say to that? I remember providing the most basic and unambiguous information over the years on the internet and in personal conversations about any number of things and, if it is unambiguous, it either gets ignored or gets an answer like, "it's to complicated, I can't think about it", and I say no it's not it's obvious and hiding in plain sight. I even got kicked off Naked Capitalism (as "Banger") because I insisted that the concept of a "Deep State" was real and provided unambiguous proof. I was told to desist and when I did not Yves Smith threw me off the blog despite the fact I was one of the more respected and popular people posting there.

T. S. Eliot famously wrote "...humankind cannot bear very much reality." This is not unique to Americans but generally true around the world but Americans seem to be particularly fond of fantasy. I think Evangelical Christians are an example of this love of utterly incredible fantasy easily proven "wrong" so why do we believe these things?

Myth, it seems to me, is the most underestimated factor in social life. We cannot live without a mythological framework and it is NEVER based on reality - even the scientific oriented myths are myths. For example, there are phenomena that cannot be investigated scientifically without destroying your career unless you have already achieved such prominence you cannot be excluded from academia (John Mack comes to mind). I note the very same phenomenon with backers of Hilary Clinton who insist she is not a war-hawk simply because they don't want to think about her as such.

Your comment is one of the best I have read on this subject. It is something I have also experienced discussing 9/11 to many people across the political spectrum.

The best understanding of this experience is explained as "crime stop" by George Orwell. Jim Douglas has given a great explanation of "crime stop" when lecturing on his book JFK and the Unspeakable.

Thank you for writing your comment.

No republican ever wondered why W. Bush was against investigating the worst disastrous attack on America? Why did he load all the Saudis on a plane and sent them away before questioning them? Why did the FBI confiscated the security tape from the gas station across from the Pentagone? Why building 7 went down like a pancake on its footprint as typically seen in old Vegas high rise hotels demolition?

Just as odd, leading leftists like Chomsky and Zinn were strangely incurious.

“World renowned peace activist and left-wing anti-war icon Howard Zinn recently told an audience that he didn’t care if 9/11 was an inside job, echoing the disdainful and apathetic rhetoric of fellow liberal gatekeepers Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn in dismissing the efforts of the 9/11 truth movement.

Buddy Moore, Independent Candidate for US Senate in Colorado, asked Zinn if he would join him in voicing doubts about the official 9/11 story and in particular the demolition of the twin towers and Building 7.

Zinn said he was skeptical of the official story but then stated, “I don’t know much about the situation and the truth is, I don’t care that much about it, that’s passed….that’s a diversion from what we really have to do,” adding that debating who was behind 9/11, “gets in the way of dealing with the immediate situation.”

I could describe your entire post in two words. "Cognitive Dissonance".

That is what the people suffer from, and this mental disorder is promoted by the state.

When I speak to people about the subject, most immediately completely shut down. I ask them to stop thinking with their hearts, and take in the information with their brains. People in other nation s can do this and that is why most of the educated world understands the truth. But then again, opening your mind to alternative ideas about what happened this day, also leads to the darker truths of our nation: that we have become the evil empire. It is something people cannot fathom.


>> called a racist because I mentioned that illegal immigration was, well, illegal.
I have observed this. It seems nigh impossible to talk about limiting immigration (be it legal or illegal) without many on the "left" calling it "racism". Let's see... more supply reduces the price at which the labor market clears...leading to lower wages for many Americans (including minorities)...while increasing rents for many Americans (again including minorities) and costs on the social safety net because many of the immigrants are economic refugees (courtesy of NAFTA and other legislation passed by the DNC) and then get preyed upon by DNC-supported predatory financiers (with only a token Warren to play as a "face" in this kayfabe and keep liberal drones in the DNC orbit).
I do suspect big business manipulates people on the left into bullying legitimate discussion and ultimately supporting big business's goals to obtain more cheap labor. But, it seems that's too complicated for many.

One problem most Americans have is that they don't understand "the street" very well. Unless you've been involved in where the rubber meets the road and understand that all those movies stories about hit-men corrupt cops and so on are actually real you can't understand what goes on in the world.

Those that planned and carried out 9/11 are part of a Deep State that has been fully in charge of the country since 1963 and some believe as early as when the National Security Act was passed in 1947. These people operate in secret, have no limits in terms of budget and power - they can and do kill anyone in their way and will torture your daughter if they have to control your activity whether you are a journalist or public official. That's the way "the street" operates or, to be more precise, the way ancient historians and Shakespeare knew things operated. The only log in our eyes is the bizarre and insane ideology of American Exceptionalism which believes that, somehow, Americans are virtuous by definition and immune from historical realities that every other Empire has faced.

In answer to your questions... read the National Security Act (NSA). It SPECIFICALLY inhibits all media outlets from publishing news that might effect national security. The NSA requires all media outlets (big or small) to phone an 800 number to get clearance to publish whenever such content 'might' be of concern to 'national security'. The burden of judgement is on the individual ($250k fine, imprisonment and confiscation of property), on the corporation (in the millions) and on the union that printed or made available that unauthorized information (since at Nixon's time all media outlets where union shops).

The NSA was re-written after the Pentagon Papers by Nixon to assure a full control over controversial news. If you read the NSA, you will realize that it's entirely possible for 2 or more people to truly 'keep a secret... secret'. This explains how hundreds of people involved in something like the 9/11 attack... and cover-up... can't get their message out. 

The evidence that needs to be considered is primary physical evidence. This was immediately removed from the site and destroyed. The NTSB reconstructs debris from an airliner, but no consideration was given to an explanation of what actually happened to the buildings at the WTC and how it happened.

The flimsy coverup provided by the NIST "pancake theory", a group not tasked to do forensic analysis in the first place, is fraudulent. We do not know how the WTC buildings were destroyed and how they came down at free fall speed in defiance of all common sense and structural logic. We do not actually know what happened that day beyond the brute fact that 7 modern buildings were destroyed in a fashion that looks like controlled demolition, but was not.

It follows that we cannot know who done it if we don't know what actually happened. The systematic destruction of physical evidence in the government coverup leaves only the evidence of photos, videos, and eye witness accounts. The only as-thorough-as-possible and competent analysis of this type of evidence I am aware of is to be found in "Where Did the Towers Go?" by Dr. Judy Wood. 90% of the bloviation surrounding 911 is just bloviation.

There is CLEARLY enough evidence to prove that the official story is obviously and blatantly false from start to finish. What actually happened is hard to tell but the outlines should be obvious. If nothing else, all you have to do is look at patterns of how the Deep State actually operates and has operated at least since the end of WWII and the creation of the National Security State.

The evidence is broad and deep and easily found. We just are very, very, very reluctant to believe that we live in a tyranny with a sort-of human face. Some details are fuzzy but the main theme is not. We have a Deep State that is superior to the Constitutional structure we think of as the U.S. government.

We don't like to think about it because then, it follows, we ought to do something about it - but we really don't want to because we are, on the whole, comfortable and the new Netflix shows are great aren't they? This is just the way it is and we need to accept it. Frankly, we can't "do" anything about it I can assure you of that. We can help, we can spread the "bad news" but no on will believe us no matter how obvious and impossible to deny the evidence is. We can vote for Bernie or, if we really want to throw a wrench in the works, Trump, I have no advice on what to do - just hang loose and keep our eyes open. 

. . . I agree it probably would have happened just as it did. Obama's refusal to investigate means it was a bipartisan operation. He was selected precisely to cover up the crimes of Bush, to shield him from prosecution.

bush clinton bush2 obama, all cia presidents

It probably would have happened just as it did. The reaction may have been different that is why the Deep State "deeply" wanted Bush. I happened, somehow, to have been working on a "Top Secret" gov't project at the time of the election. One ex-military guy told me that there would be a military a coup if Bush were not declared President. I didn't believe him at the time but I did after the Supremes handed down their utterly bogus decision giving the Presidency to Bush. Also, Gore, I believe, did not believe he was going to win and did not fight it. I also know, and I'm pretty sure on this one, that Kerry took a dive in 04 and was as shocked as anyone when it turned out he may well have won Ohio - he displayed absolutely no interest in looking into the systemic voter fraud that even out did Florida in 2000.

It probably would have happened just as it did. The reaction may have been different that is why the Deep State "deeply" wanted Bush. I happened, somehow, to have been working on a "Top Secret" gov't project at the time of the election. One ex-military guy told me that there would be a military a coup if Bush were not declared President. I didn't believe him at the time but I did after the Supremes handed down their utterly bogus decision giving the Presidency to Bush. Also, Gore, I believe, did not believe he was going to win and did not fight it. I also know, and I'm pretty sure on this one, that Kerry took a dive in 04 and was as shocked as anyone when it turned out he may well have won Ohio -- he displayed absolutely no interest in looking into the systemic voter fraud that even out did Florida in 2000.

Well, I always suspected that Gore took a dive. He seemed to have been trying hard to lose. Sidelined Clinton. Losing debates to Dubya? That embarrassing kiss. Refusing to challenge the Supremes decision. Picking a zionist for a running mate.

Before I got on the Internet, I thought I was being oversuspicious or something. But now I have learned a thing or two about how the deep state operates. I don't think I am oversuspicious any more.

Interesting reads (limited hang outs?):


No comments: