24 Comments Add your own

• 1. alpha6  |  May 27th, 2007 at 3:38 pm

  Hey Oldman,

  You mean to say that you don't like politicians that change their positions so often based on the latest poll or special interest group that a psychiatrist would easily diagnose them with bi-polar? Man, you gotta get with the times...standing up for something is just not cool. Not standing for anything, bowing to far left or right agendas, or now the in thing "being connected with a Commie", now thats where its at!

  Yep, yep...times are a changing...

• 2. B Jon Traylor  |  May 28th, 2007 at 7:17 pm

  In the early days after the shock and horror of 9/11, I also admired the "backbone our President was showing. But, then as I watched and observed, intently, and studied and read and researched from numerous sources, I began to think differently.
  The first call I received asking me to re-up was in May of 2002. They were just fishing, hoping I'd say yes. Whats kinda funny is that when I got the call, I was in fact fishing the Fork. My ten year sol was finished. My point here is that I truly believe the operation in Iraq was planned well before most of us want to believe it was.
  I urge you to read Paul O'Neal's book. Also read George Tenet's book. Do some research on the net -- not from one source, but from rampant sources.
  As for the bad-mouthing our President gets from the media -- honestly.... I don't buy into the liberal media way of thinking. I think professional media people, most of them, ... are objective, honest, probing professionals who get paid to ask questions and then report the answers. The media hates Bush because they don't get the answers.
  What I personally do not like about this administration is it seems to only share the info it chooses to. It only answers the questions and inquiries it wants to. All the while, it consistantly and constantly puts out a propaganistic message -- example... to quote Mr. Bush 's commencement address at West Point... "winning the war in Iraq means winning the war against terror. I think this is why the media "bad mouths" him, as you wrote.
  As for the war we are waging in the middle east, the war we are struck in the crossfires of... well, this war is of our own doing, of our own choosing, of our own policy decisions of the Bush Administration, as well as Wolfowitz, Cheney, Rumsfeld, etc. etc. Bush is just the perfect front man who was groomed and modeled and placed in all the right places after his father was surprisingly defeated by Clinton. I think this all started early in '92.
  This war is indicative of the only time in American history when we waged war and an all out invasion (and shock and awe) on a country when not being asked by that country for help or an involvement with the U.N.., etc, or a true peacekeeping/liberation mission, etc.
  Iraq was truly boxed in with northern and southern no-fly zones, strictly enforced. Iraq was sanctioned and embargo'd very strictly. Hussein was very much disliked by Bin Laden. Osama wanted nothing to do with Saddamm. Even further, his bordering neighbors couldn't stand him. Was he and Iraq and imminent threat to the security and welfare of the United States?
  I never fell off a turnip truck, and I'm not the smartest man out there, but the answers to the above are NO.
  You are right, Bush hasn't backed down from any challenge from abroad. (He's treaded water and deferred on many challenges on our domestic soils, though).
  As for not being attacked since 9/11, true you are, and thank God. I'm about as optimistic and forward thinking as anyone you'd ever meet. But honestly, I do think it is gonna happen again.
  Iraq is not the enemy. It never was. Osama Bin Laden is the enemy. Al Queda is the enemy. Radical fanatic Islamic Jehadists.... they are the enemy. And they are still out there, and they still want hit the very fabric of our symbolic significance, as well as our well being. (And this has a direct tie to the failures of our foriegn policies in that region over the last 20 years.)
  Shoving democracy down the throats of tribal, religiously secular nations never made much sense to me. Diplomacy does, empathy and understanding does.
  I would have re-up'd, proudly, if someone had laid a plan in front of me with the simple and true mission of finding and taking out Bin Laden. - J

• 3. Mitch.Mulhall  |  May 29th, 2007 at 3:26 pm

  Jon,

  Great comment. When Michael Conniff intimates that conservative talk radio is dishing up a “thin gruel,” I agree, but you could also argue that compared to comments like yours and others here, “Con Games” sometimes seems diluted…

  [The first call I received asking me to re-up was in May of 2002. They were just fishing, hoping I'd say yes. Whats kinda funny is that when I got the call, I was in fact fishing the Fork. My ten year sol was finished. My point here is that I truly believe the operation in Iraq was planned well before most of us want to believe it was.]

  First, please define “ten year sol.” From context, I gather this to be some kind of military term, maybe having to do with some obligation to re-up that sunsets—hence “sol”—after a certain time.

  Operation Iraqi Freedom commenced on March 20, 2003. You intimate that when the military called you eight months earlier, that constitutes evidence to you that this operation was being planned long before it began. I do not question this—you know a hell of a lot more about such things than I do. That said, you can argue that a military operation is a bad idea, but in my estimation, extensive planning prior to a military operation is a good thing. If true, it also suggests there was intelligence that broadened the scope of this conflict beyond the “if you cut off a head—capture bin Laden—the hydra will die” logic. I think we’ve all seen evidence that satisfactorily demonstrates why this is true.

  You are right to criticize the Bush Administration for its lack of communication, but this characteristic is not unique to the current Whitehouse. What we get from any administration is at best a faint reflection of the truth, and usually it is a carefully tailored message designed to garner the broadest possible acceptance of the American voter—whether the message conveys the truth is, unfortunately, hardly a necessary consideration.

  [I urge you to read Paul O'Neal's book. Also read George Tenet's book. Do some research on the net -- not from one source, but from rampant sources.]

  I assume that by “Paul O’Neal,” you mean Paul H. O’Neill, author of “The Price of Loyalty” and former Bush Administration Treasury Secretary who, like you, claims the Iraq War was planned long before it commenced. To this fact O’Neill attaches the claim that the Iraq War was planned shortly after Bush took office, and when 9/11 occurred, the event served as a handy excuse to invade Iraq.

  You hold O’Neill and Tenet up as two authors that, taken together, constitute a “rampant” intellectual diet. If by rampant you mean uncontrolled, you make a good point. It should be obvious that reading the views of Bush Administration ex-patriots may not comprise a balanced digest...

  I do think the MSM is biased towards the political left in this country if for no other reason than the majority of U.S. journalists employed by the major TV networks and newspapers lean left themselves. No one can convince me that David Gregory and Helen Thomas are journalistically objective or politically neutral. The line of journalistic objectivity was crossed in June, 1968 when Walter Cronkite opined that the Vietnam war was un-winnable, and the line of objectivity has been subjectively drawn and re-drawn to suit the whims of journalists ever since.

  This isn’t such a bad thing, though, certainly not as bad as the political right would have us think. On balance, I think MSM journalists ask the right questions, but some open themselves up to criticism when they front load their questions with a bunch of narrative that proffers some political position or talking point. Right leaning mouth pieces jump on such questions like a duck on a June bug and say, “See, I told you the media are a bunch of Marxists.” Of course at that point the dialog degenerates into a sweaty pit of mental mud-wrestling…

  A good journalist’s political leanings never impair your ability to glean the essential, factual information on a world event or local news story. I submit most journalists are good at what they do, which makes digesting the news over the MSM is no more difficult than concluding that the books of O’Neill and Tenet weren’t published to paint a rosy picture of the Bush Administration, but to throw fresh meat into mud before the Kieth Olbermans, Rosie O’Donnells, and Chris Matthews of the media…

  Cheers,

• 4. Michael Conniff  |  May 30th, 2007 at 4:58 am

  Mitch:

  Con Games is diluted?

  Wise me up here, buddy.

  Best, Con Man!

• 5. reckless G  |  May 30th, 2007 at 6:33 am

  I’ve been biting my tongue on this one, but…well lookie who Bush nominated for the World Bank presidency; Robert B. Zoellick, one of the close knit group of NeoCons ruining, I mean running our country.

  Zoellick is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission and was a member of Secretary William Cohen's Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee.

  Regarding the plan to go into Iraq long before 9/11, one only has to look at these Neo’s manipulation of the previous administration…

  Zoellick was one of the signatories of a January 26, 1998 letter to President Bill Clinton drafted by the Project for the New American Century calling for "removing Saddam [Hussein]'s regime from power." Other signatories; Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Elliott Abrams, Zalmay Khalilzad, John R. Bolton.

  The Defense Policy Board Advisory Committee is a federal advisory committee providing the Secretary of Defense, Deputy Secretary and Under Secretary for Policy with independent, informed advice and opinion concerning major matters of defense policy. It will focus upon long-term, enduring issues central to strategic planning for the Department of Defense. Richard Perle was the chairman of the committee during the initial years of the George W. Bush administration.

  Zoellick represents the main problem we have in government today; undue influence by wealthy autocrats bent on ruling the world.

• 6. Mitch.Mulhall  |  May 30th, 2007 at 7:25 am

  [Wise me up here, buddy...]

  Well, yesterday I could hear Mick flipping the pages of his newspaper... That's not dead air, but it's close.

  Cheers,

• 7. Wharf Rat  |  May 30th, 2007 at 12:09 pm

  C'mon, Mitch! The Con Man deserves an honest answer on that one....

• 8. Mitch.Mulhall  |  May 30th, 2007 at 1:20 pm

  OK, WR, In truth, I was trying to pay B. Jon a compliment and wind Michael up at the same time... At least I know that the second part worked.

  Cheers,

• 9. B Jon Traylor  |  May 30th, 2007 at 11:41 pm

  Thank you, Mitch. That was awesome. I'll glady tell you what sol means, in private. In Ranger terms, it actuallly has three different, yet connected meanings. --- kinda humerous, yet real. -- J

• 10. reckless G  |  May 31st, 2007 at 3:39 pm

  “The Los Angeles Times, Washington Post, New York Times and Wall Street Journal praise Robert Zoellick, President Bush's pick to succeed Paul Wolfowitz as president of the World Bank.”

  This makes me want to barf!

  From the LA Times: “His appointment is part of a purging of neocons from top offices; others sent packing include Donald H. Rumsfeld, John R. Bolton, Richard N. Perle and Douglas J. Feith.”

  Say what?! Yeah that’s why he signed on to the ultra-neocon agenda; Project for a New American Century.

  From his Right Web profile: “Zoellick spelled out a new foreign policy that would be based on the preeminence of military power—a concept of a new American century in which unquestioned U.S. military superiority would allow the United States to shape the international order.”

  No mention of that of course from any of the mainstream news.

  In an article by Zoellick: “The United States must remain vigilant and have the strength to defeat its enemies. People driven by enmity or by a need to dominate will not respond to reason or goodwill. They will manipulate civilized rules for uncivilized ends."

  Wait, is he talking about us or the terrorists?

• 11. B Jon Traylor  |  June 1st, 2007 at 11:18 am

  Hey Mitch. You know I sling some snot (snaught) around on this site occassionally and reply to other's comments or blogs. But right now, I think the new Queen Latifa blogger and commenter and snot slinger is Mrs. Gray. She's earned it.
  Yet, your comment to mine here is probably the best I've ever read on this site. Simply outstanding. Nuff said.
  Lets take up a few of those points and take them further over a beer or coffee soon. Be cool. -- J

• 12. Mitch.Mulhall  |  June 1st, 2007 at 11:35 am

  Jon,

  Thanks for the compliment--you're very kind. And I look forward to meeting you.

  You're right about RG... though she blind-sided me her Zeollick nomination take. I'd never even heard of this guy, so I've been tryinig to find out more about him, to see if there's any basis to G's nausea.

  Cheers,

• 13. Star Eagle  |  June 15th, 2007 at 2:45 am

  Mitch, here is a short bio (there is much more) of R.Z. It is the second sentence of the second paragragh that immediatly catches my eye. Why? Because of what I have seen of Goldman Sachs footprints in the dust of 9/11 at Ground Zero. Lots of footprints once you start looking past the hype. Of course another trick is to separate the wheat from the chaff or, in other words, how good of a tracker are you?

  On May 30, 2007, President George W. Bush nominated Robert Zoellick, an experienced trade representative and career diplomat, to head the World Bank. Should Zoellick be selected for the post by the bank's board, he would replace beleaguered outgoing bank president Paul Wolfowitz. In announcing the nomination of Zoellick, who shares with Wolfowitz the dubious distinction of having supported the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) campaign to push the ouster of Saddam Hussein, Bush called Zoellick a "committed internationalist" who is "deeply devoted to the mission" of the bank. For his part, Zoellick, who left the Bush administration in 2006 after being passed over for higher positions, said: "The World Bank has passed through a difficult time for all involved. There are frustrations, anxieties, and tensions about the past that could inhibit the future. This is understandable but not without remedy. We need to put yesterday's discord behind us and to focus on the future together. I believe that the World Bank's best days are still to come" (Washington Post, May 30, 2007).

  Zoellick's last post in the Bush administration was as deputy secretary of state, a post he held until mid-June 2006. He then went on to be vice chairman of international operations at the investment firm Goldman Sachs, where he was also chairman of the bank's international advisers. Having previously served as U.S. trade representative during Bush's first term, Zoellick's 2005 appointment to serve as Condoleezza Rice's chief deputy was viewed by many as a sign that the administration would be taking a softer foreign policy line in Bush's second term. As the right-wing Washington Times reported (June 20, 2006): "Mr. Zoellick's selection by Miss Rice in early 2005 was seen as a victory for foreign-policy 'realists' in the administration against the hardline diplomacy favored by Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who were said to back State Department arms chief John R. Bolton" for the post.

  Affiliations

  U.S. Naval Academy: John M. Olin Professor
  Eurasia Foundation: Trustee (1997-2001)
  German Marshall Fund: Former Board Member
  Aspen Institute Strategy Group: Former Director
  World Wildlife Fund: Former Member, Advisory Council
  Project for the New American Century: Signatory to letters pushing for the removal of Saddam Hussein

  Government Service

  U.S. Department of State: Deputy Secretary of State (February 2005-June 2006); Under Secretary for Economic and Agricultural Affairs; Counselor (1989-1991)
  Office of the President: U.S. Trade Representative (2001-2005)
  U.S. Trade Deficit Review Commission: (1999-2000)
  U.S. Department of the Treasury: Counselor to the Secretary and Executive Secretary; Executive Secretary and Special Adviser to the Secretary; Deputy Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions Policy; Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary; Special Assistant to the Deputy Secretary (1985-1987)
  U.S. Court of Appeals for District of Columbia Circuit: Law Clerk (1982-1983)
  U.S. Department of Justice: Staff Assistant in Criminal Division (1978)
  Council on Wage and Price Stability: Research Assistant (1975-1976)

  Private Sector

  Goldman Sachs:Vice Chairman of International Divisions and Chairman of International Advisers (as of July 2006); formerly Senior International Adviser
  Enron: Former Consultant
  Fannie Mae Foundation: Executive Vice President (1993-2000); Vice President and Assistant to the Chair and Chief Executive Officer (1984-1985)

  Education

  Swarthmore College: B.A.
  Harvard University: M.P.P; J.D.

• 14. Mitch.Mulhall  |  June 19th, 2007 at 1:02 pm

  Star Eagle--the second sentence troubles? I'm not trying to be pedantic--who counts periods?--but I think it's the PNAC reference that catches your eye. Am I right?

  So, it's not really Zoellick's qualifications, but his his association with PNAC that gives you pause?

  Cheers,

• 15. B Jon Traylor  |  June 19th, 2007 at 10:31 pm

  I thought the very day that I heard Paul Wolfowitz was being named to head the World Bank ... that something was fishy about this. I knew of Wolfowitz from the Project for a New American Century and it's/his urgings to overthrow the government in Iraq and all the hullabaloo thereunto.
  As a true moderate, I deal in principal. I am concerned first and foremost in doing the right thing, forget the dysfunctional parties.
  I thought Wolfowitz stunk from the beginning. And then, (go figure), he stunk up his post within a year.
  Zoellick's nomination kinda flew under the radars. Whats sad is that most of grassroots America has no freakin' clue who these two men are, where they came from, their affiliation, there upbringing, their agenda, their positions and/or their potential stamps on the world's agenda.
  Zoellick concerns me, too, because he's cut from the same damn'd mold as Wolfowitz. He sets forth the exact same agenda as his brief predecessor.
  He's from the same cronysisym mold as the rest in Washington presently, and that concerns me.
  For Christ's sake... ( sorry Lord).... can't the American people just take an hour, download "The Project for a New American Century" and read it???
  @$%^@$% Whats it gonna take for the people of the country to get a freakin' clue? Just read the periodical, and it all will make sense.
  I want to go to bed now and just sleep. Yet, I'll lay there and think about all this stink.
  Whats it gonna take to get people to see what is happening right before our eyes? Whats it gonna take to get people off their couches and do something about this? What am I supposed to do? Thats what I'll lay and bed and think about tonight. What can I really do?
  I had an old girlfriend, whom is one of my best friends to this day, tell me the night before I married another woman, "Jon, you are gonna be the man who leads a changing revolution in this country because grassroots America will listen to you and trust you!) What? So, okay... but how, when, where? Come on!
  Perhaps we start it here. Perhaps we start it this Saturday on the Crystal River. I'm done. (for now) -- J

• 16. reckless G  |  June 20th, 2007 at 7:33 am

  Mitch, I think the sentence Star Eagle was referring to is; “He then went on to be vice chairman of international operations at the investment firm Goldman Sachs…” Star’s in depth study of 9/11 WTC tragedy gives him a unique perspective on the financial implications that most of us are not privy to. There is a lot of shit that went on behind the scenes before and after 9/11 that is very suspicious.

  Jon, you wrote; “What am I supposed to do?...What can I really do?” Hope you didn’t lose too much sleep over it. Since 9/11 I’ve been pondering the same questions, lying in bed wondering just like you. I tried everything I could think of including trekking to Iraq against the wishes of my husband, friends and family. When I came back I toured CO and Utah giving slide presentations to schools, churches, and the public. I’ve exposed myself to harsh criticism by telling the truth about the PNAC and the Bush administration and Saddam’s Iraq and our Iraq in the letters to the editor. I don’t know if any of it mattered much, but despite being a very private person, not given to getting involved, I was strangely compelled to do SOMETHING!

  If it’s true that you are our new revolution’s leader, I’ll pledge my allegiance to you and your cause, when you figure out “how, when, and where.”

• 17. Mitch.Mulhall  |  June 21st, 2007 at 7:34 am

  [...a lot of shit... went on behind the scenes before and after 9/11 that is very suspicious...]

  I vaguely remember Star Eagle writing about this or similar subjects some time ago. I asked him to send me a link to where I could watch the conspiracy video he touted in the "Conspiracy Nuggets From Star Eagle" thread (Jan. 15, 2007). Lacking this, I spent some time looking on my own...

  My apologies, but I lack a long attention span for 9/11 conspiracy theories, but, strictly out of curiosity, I would like to know more about how SE thinks Goldman Sachs was involved.

  Cheers,

• 18. Edward Troy  |  June 21st, 2007 at 1:08 pm

  Most of the conspiracies are complete nonsense, that doesn't mean ALL of them are. Almost all of the babblespeak from this administration is claptrap as far as 9/11 is concerned. My fellow bloggers cite and cite and recite the same stuff that appears to be nonsense. There are nuggets of truth to what the Bush admin contends as far as what truth means but the big picture is a convoluted lie to the consumptive public. I believe everyone "knows" it but out of some kind of loyalty or cultural convention, keeps reciting the nonsense.

  The best answers come from the most logical set of circumstances and the simplest type of philosophy.

  Bush's ideologue nature, desire to remain in power, and opportunistic political proclivity are the main reason 9/11 was allowed to happen, and we ended up in Iraq. We the people allowed him and his circle to do this. Al Qaida filled in the blanks as unwitting co-conspirators.

  I want to point out here very clearly; I do not believe Bush had specific knowlege of 9/11, only that he knew something was planned, not exactly what or exactly when, only something that could be a political opportunity in say a 2 week time frame.

  Planes could have hit Hoover Dam or Oak Ridge, pathogens released in the NYC, DC, Chicago subways, etc. It would have been just as suitable. He didn't need a Reichstag fire when someone else easily demonized, hateable and foreign was available to play the role of Jewish Commies.

• 19. Mitch.Mulhall  |  June 25th, 2007 at 10:06 am

  Looks like Zeollick's confirmed:

  http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/76221.html

  Cheers,

• 20. Star Eagle  |  June 30th, 2007 at 7:00 pm

  Greetings Mitch,

  Yes the PNAC link is just too obvious, what I was refering too is Zoellick's last job in the private sector (although Enron and Fannie Mae kind of stick out like sore thumbs too), that job being:--[Goldman Sachs:Vice Chairman of International Divisions and Chairman of International Advisers (as of July 2006); formerly Senior International Adviser].

  As far as Goldman Sachs involvement in 9/11. My eyes began to open when they returned to the table (after not getting a sweet enough deal the first time) in their negotiations to build their new World Headquarters building on, or around Ground Zero, and walked away with a deal that gave them just short of 2 billion in gov't subsidies to build a 2.5 billion dollar building.

  The argument given by Gov. Pataki and Mayor Bloomburg was in essence..we need them to anchor G.Z's rebuilding. This being mainly due to the substandard plans for rebuilding G.Z. along with the, again, fear factor involved with anyone returning to a "target zone".

  What really caught my eye however was that a caveat in G.S.'s successful negotiations with the gov't entities was that West St., which at the time was under debate of being buried underground for security purposes as well as it would then open up G.Z. to pedestrian traffic, through Winter Garden and The World Financial Center, down to the Hudson River. Thereby eliminating the need of pedestians having to in some way negotiate a major hi-way throughfare, which West St is.

  But the real curveball came when the NYPD informed the LMDC (Lower Manhatten Development Corp) that the already beleagered "Freedom Tower" would now have to be redesigned once again as it was 1). Too close to West St. and 2). That it was designed with too much glass and not enough support to withstand the effects of a truck bomb, which it was vulnerable to, since West St. was now to remain above ground.

  In a nutshell, the revised (8 months or so later) design called for the "Freedom Tower" to now be titanium encased, reinforced concrete 198' feet up from street level with minimum and minimal doors (no windows at all) on the steet sides of the building. In effect, making the "Freedom Tower" a fortress.

  Looking deeper I found that G.S. recorded a profit of nearly 5 billion in the fiscal year that this deal was made. Deeper still I found that the ex CEO's of G.S. littered the landscape like peanut shells at the circus.

  Rubin: U.S. Treasury Sec. under Clinton
  Whitehead: Head of the LMDC, entity in charge of rebuilding G.Z.
  Corzine: Gov. of New Jersey, one of the principle heads of the N.Y.-- N.J. Port Authority, the actual owner of G.Z.
  Paulson: Present U.S. Treasury Sec. under Bush

  And these are just some of the most obvious connections to our gov't and the rebuilding effort. There are more too but I will let you find them as you go.

  Then, as I am now paying attention to G.S.'s bottom line, it ends up in the following fiscal year (the last one) G.S. broke all records by bring home a whopping 16+ billion, as in net profit.

  Now Chase- Morgan (I believe) Bank just inked a deal here recently (with pretty good subsidies too, although they did some crying that they weren't getting the sweetheart deal G.S. got) to build across the street themselves fron G.Z.

  Then we throw this into the mix, which I pulled off a website you too can find if you google "information concerning Golman Sachs and price fixing gold".

  {Here is evidence supplied by the Head of Security of the WTC on network television indicating that the FBI floors (the 22nd, 23rd and 24th floors) of the North Tower -- 70 floors below the crashbombing impact -- had been devastated and reduced to debris that this same Head of Security himself dug through to get to trapped persons (whom he saved).

  But it was on these floors that the entire accumulation of evidence and investigation briefs on two highly important cases were being stored:

  1) the case against Mobil Oil and James Giffen on illegal oil swaps between Iran and Kazakhstan (at that time before a New York grand jury as described in great detail by Seymore Hersh in the July 9 New Yorker magazine);

  2) and even more important, the evidence in the investigation of GOLD PRICE FIXING stemming from charges brought against Alan Greenspan, Morgan & Comapy, Goldman Sachs.

  (see below for full reconstruction of this crime -- that is now all but confirmed by this revelation of a bomb devestating the FBI floors of the North Tower before the tower collapsed.)

  At noon I received a phone call from New England from Steve. He was reviewing recorded footage of coverage of the destruction of the WTC on NBC's program "48 Hours." Steve has reviewed the footage many times and taken detailed notes.

  I took notes at my computer as he spoke. After the south tower collapsed, men went up to the 22nd floor of the WTC and "dug" someone out of the "rubble" he found there. {It is known that these floors contained the New York FBI offices -- Peter Jennings actually did a two-day network news story on the effects of the destroyed evidence and files on American financial crime investigations around the world.] -----

  The 48 Hours anchor was interviewing the Head of Security of the WTC about the evacuation who had received a call, after the South tower was down, from the Port Authority's Command Center on the 22nd floor asking for rescue. The Head of Security himself travelled to that floor in the company of a NY Fireman where they found the offices devestated to the point where they had to "tunnel through debris" to "dig out" the two or three Port Authority workers who were trapped there. All of this happened 73 floors below crashbombing impact. ---

  The man who called me about this -- Steve from Maine -- said that he had received a copy detailing the evidence for a terror frame-up from one of the hundreds of people pester with my posts each day (whose name I recall from my address book) -- and that he had been reviewing three lists of occupants of the WTC.

  He gave the sites for two different listings of WTC tower occupants, which I copied as follows:

  Tenants by floor and square footage - www.cnn.com/special/2001/trade.center/tenants1.html

  and

  Occupation by tenancy - www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/nation/article/tower1.html

  He noticed from these that listings were given for all floors EXCEPT floors 23 and 24, immediately above the location of the call for "digging out" rescue -- indicating that the debris had fallen down from a destructive event occuring on the floor directly above. Steve left off with this statement (which I am not able now to confirm or disconfirm): "The Murrah Building in Oaklahoma City was where all of the records of the Waco Seige were being kept. I think this is their MO." Meaning their modus operandi -- i.e., their distinctive pattern of crime. ____

  Here is the post that prompted Steve's phone call:

  Below I present what I think are incontrovertable reasons for concluding that the WTC/Pentagon crashbombings were a frame-up designed to benefit members of, at least, these four groups:

  1) people profiting from the opium trade of the Northern Alliance druglords and the money-laundering through global investment channels that the opium trade and the derivative heroin trade supports;

  2) people seeking control of the $6 trillion worth of oil and natural gas in Central Asia;

  3) people seeking to win back support to increasingly unpopular Sharonist policies in Israel; and

  4) people arraigned before a grand jury on charges of fixing gold prices, illegal involvement in oil swaps between Kazakhstan and (sanctioned) Iran, and bribery in cases where all incriminating documentary evidence was stored in FBI files and data banks in one of the twin towers of the WTC.

  All four of these groups have fluid secret channels of communication through networked integration of banking, politics, the CIA and Mossad connections. The fact is if one of these groups was complicit the other three would have to be also.

  Here are three independently developed arguments:

  I. Best guess origins of the WTC/Pentagon crashbombing frame-up.

  Mossad and the CIA were supporting traffick in Afgan-opium-derived heroin -- devoting public resources to protect and assist the suppliers and distributors of the multi-trillion-dollar money-laundered drug revenue deposits backing the global investments of American and Britsih elite finance. The Afgan Northern Alliance druglords grow 70 to 90 percent of the worlds opium, the prime ingredient of heroin The opium which is moved across the small China-Afgan boarder for processing and distribution by the giant People's Liberation Army, that amazing transnational corporation, Triad drug cartel-and military super military establishment all in one. Against the tremendous- stake interests this giant outlaw network, the morally conservative Taliban had been erradicating Afgan opium production, supressing supply to druglords and the drug-revenue flow money- laundering establishment bankers and global investors alike.

  Thus "crisis" became the initial motivation of a renegade group of CIA and/or Mossad in seeking ways to defeat Afganistan's Talibanist government. (Nothing absurd so far, right?)

  Next, the Russian and Kazakh mafias have criminal ties to U.S. executive James Giffen in Kazakhstan -- a man under investigation by a New York grand jury in the months before September 11 for illegal involvement in an oil swaps between Kazakhstan and (sanctioned) Iran (source: the Aug. 9 New Yorker Magazine for a full account of this by Seymour Hirsch -- and all of the evidence for this crime was being kept at the WTC on the 20th through 25th floor of one of the twin towers where the FBI had its New York Offices. And James Giffen is the key man everyone has to go through to get any oil agreement with Kazakhstan -- including any pipelines built that would traverse Afganistan.

  (There is $6 trillion dollars worth of oil and gas in Central Asia.)

  Giffen certainly understood -- if he did not originate the idea -- that if he couldcan get operatives (even "captured" vengeful Islamic activists whose rage could be shaped and directed to use of terror) to destroy the FBI offices in the WTC building and the documentation evidence it contained, then he would be escape grand jury indictment -- and, as an powerful added benefit, the (framed) Taliban would get replaced with a regime in Afganistan that would permit a pipeline to be built -- preferably a Northern Alliance druglord government that would harmonize with Giffen's own unethical (murderous) entrepreneural style. (See the New Yorker artlical for details of Giffen's history.)

  (So far this super-crime scheme involves only a small group of people-- Russian Mafia and perhaps a Giffen - renegade CIA or a Giffen "dark-side" Mossad link. But other, even more powerful players may have had involvement -- certainly they stood to gain tremendously if the crashbomb frame-up were successfully accomplished.

  (Prior to September 11 charges had been brought against Alan Greenspan (forgive me -- in a previous post I said "Milton Friedman" instead of Greenspan -- Friedman is a great and honest and honorable academic scholar and Nobel Prize winner -- who, very superficially, looks like Greenspan) -- at any rate, Alan Greenspan, Goldman Sachs, Morgan & Co. and other powerful American financial figures and instiutions had charges brought against them -- reportedly a very well-documented case -- over the fixing of gold prices -- with evidence for that case too stored by the FBI on the FBI floors of the WTC! These parties would not only profit heavily from the "carrot" of both oil and drug monies circulating through thier great financial instiutions, but they also would gain from avoding the "stick" of one of the most threatening lawsuits ever to confront the U.S. financial establishment (realize what a guilty verdict in this case would mean to these leading financial families and to the Establishment in general!) -- these parties would welcome predictable and certainly substantial benefits from the the destruction of the evidence in the WTC and of some of the witnesses and researchers on the case as well.)

  Notice that so far we have powerful men with powerful incentives who characteristically operate in secret and under the protection of wealth, status and power -- both the carrot ($2 trillion in annual drug revenues funneled through the banking system -- which has funded much of the proceeds to fund the development of the Princeling-Triad dictatorship in China, btw, -- (The communist government has been in the opium business since the 1930's -- Mao pioneered the model later followed by Peru's Shining Path and Colombia's Maoist F.A.R.C. narco-terrorists. And Zhou Enlai devised the plan in the 1950's of weakening American society through a drug invasion.)

  "China white" heroin distributed by the People's Liberation Army, made from Afgan opium links all banker and oilman to the corrupt and renegade the secret state agencies, CIA, FBI, and Mossad -- renegade agents of either agency may have seen this opportunity for mutual gain and found the way -- having profiles of each of the players -- to propose the crashbombing frame-up as the best "solution" to each of players most troublesome problems, while making enormous profits besides.

  Note that the Bush's are tied to both the CIA and oil and, through Mena Arkansas drug smuggling and through the Iran-Contra drugs and arms deals etc. (drugworld investigator Daniel Hopsicker, as well as Noam Chomsky and many others have exposed this thoroughly -- at least in the broad strokes necessary to support this reconstruction of the crime.)

  (The facts of the drug connections are known to everyone from the Russians, to the John Birchers, to Wired Magazine, Harpers, New Yorker, the Village Voice, the Nation, and Rolling Stone Magazine, all having explored the drug - Establishment connections in great detail.)

  Which brings us to Ariel Sharon. His hard-head policy of retaliation regardless of 'collateral damage' and his provocation at the mosque cost him dearly in world opinion. In fact, the Bush administration was very close to initiating a major policy shift -- obviously known to Sharon from the greatest intelligence organization in the world -- Bush was planning the recognition/sponsorhip of a seperate Palestinian state. Also war crime charges had been brought against Sharon in international court, further putting his hard-line policy against the Palestinians in unfavorable light.

  Mindful of Ariel Sharon's self-made hard spot, it is entirely possible that the same CIA or Mossad mastermind that thought of the crashbombing frame-up plan in the first place decided to take the risk of telling Sharon about the plan, offering it as a solution to the trapped old "freedom fighter's" problems as well. If the U.S. could be made to think that the hated Osama bin Laden -- that Islamic fundametnalism itself -- is responsible for destroying twin towers of the WTC and the American government itself, then, Sharon would certainly grasp, American opinion would radically swing to an extremely hard line against all Moslem and Arab entities not securely under their thumb, and most particularly, from Sharon's viewpoint, against Palestinians}.

  Too much info, perhaps, but the plot just keeps thickening as you go.

  Watch a vidio titled "9/11 Demolitions" for more details.

  Decide for yourself what does and does not make sense. But at least look beyond the major media outlets to see a wider veiw of the possibilities.

  I have been tuning in to this 9/11 thing since the Memorial Competition. I saw how that was a scam and I have just kept following the (multiple) scams ever since.

  It took years of digging and following this thing before I became convinced that yes, 9/11 itself was a scam.

  Once you start to see the bigger picture of it all you just can't stick your head back in the sand. I can't anyway.

  Of course there is lots more but I...Gotta go...Star Eagle

• 21. Mitch.Mulhall  |  June 30th, 2007 at 9:44 pm

  Star Eagle,

  Thanks for responding to my rfmi. I have read it twice now, and no doubt I will read it again and again, seeking, of course, some kernel I can grab onto and study.

  To be frank, I think you've spilled on the floor a host of information to sort through with no context. I do not doubt you, but what your write is specious to me, if only because I lack a broader understanding of this subject.

  To be sure, there's probably not a pearl you could throw me that'd properly focus my attention to detail, but if there was, you would not be casting that pearl before swine.

  Cheers,

• 22. alpha6  |  July 2nd, 2007 at 10:54 am

  Star,

  One thing you wrote jumped out at me regarding your whole "conspiracy" to wit "to destroy the FBI offices in the WTC building and the documentation evidence it contained, then he would be escape grand jury indictment."

  Let me just point out a few things...one, if the documentation you are talking about are reports by the FBI, then they are stored on a secure mainframe in an undisclosed location and not at the Divisional Offices. Hard copies of those reports are stored there, at HQ and with anyone that is involved on the case, including the US Attorneys office. If you are talking about evidence, documents taken as evidence, then you should know that all documentation is photo copied, with a copy stored at the office, then other copies are stored at HQ in Washingtion in the HQ file and the actual evidence is stored at an undisclosed off site, not at the WTC. Lastly, if there is evidence which is going to be utilized in a grand jury to indict someone, then copies are also with the US Attorneys office in NY and their headquarters in Washington.

  You would be amazed as to the number of copies and redundancy that takes place with regards to criminal investigations. It would be impossible to target one facility to get rid of anything, at the least you would have to target multiple places in multiple states in multiple locations to even try and get rid of it, but even then there would probably be copies stored somewhere out there.

  Before you guys surface some of these "theories" you should at least know how the system works. Not knowing the basics just makes you look..well, ignorant.

• 23. B Jon Traylor  |  July 2nd, 2007 at 5:31 pm

  Star -- I think alpha has something there, which is pertinent. Yet, I seriously need to reply to, agree with alot, and refute some of your comment #20. I'm in my office now, briefly, but dont' have time too, and monitor at JimBob Jumpback's place is fried. Stay tooned. (that was a joke). Thanks again for being there weekend before this last. Great time! Now... to accounting work! Ugh! -- J

• 24. Star Eagle  |  July 18th, 2007 at 5:46 pm

  First, its good to be back (out of the saddle that is).

  Next, Mitch! Damn dude you don't know how much I regret not making it to the Jim-Bob BBQ in time to meet you face to face and have a real talk with you. We have written before about seeing each others vidios and I would love to make that a reality. I am always looking for knowledge to help me better see and understand and I certainly welcome any you may have. Time,energy and opportunity however must be acknowledged. I have a portion of each right now so as Billy-Bob might say, lets "git er done".

  As for you Alpha, I regret looking..."well, ignorant"... for sure but...let me tune you in to a bit of what I have observed after paying attention to the FBI now on a pretty regular basis for about 40 yrs.
  1.) Eliot Ness--J. Edgar Hoover Hmmnn...is it just me?
  2.) But seriously, I got tuned into the real J. Ed Hoov during the JFK (oh my God, conspiracy) assasination thing and the Vietnam war demonstation thing and the MLK assasination thing and the RFK assasination thing and on and on ending with his death in I believe the spring of "72". Lets just say.. the reality speaks for itself.
  3.) Being a Dakota boy and coming of age during Wounded Knee II and the two FBI agents killings on the Pine Ridge Rez in the summer of "75" I got a first hand and up close veiw of the FBI's work. This is when I began to really take notice. See a documentary movie called "Incident at Oglala" for the veiw you will find most enlightening on how the FBI operates.
  4.) Then for year after year I have followed what I would say is an average of one to two major incidents per year (and I mean EVERY YEAR) at the FBI of it being incompetant on some major level.

  These incompetancies have ranged from exposing spies from within the agency to, its crime lab routinely falsifying evidence to, not having enough translators to even come close to doing a proper job to, having one of their own informers living with two of the 9/11 hi-jackers prior to 9/11 to, not responding to field agents request for follow-up on their observations and beliefs that Terrorist were preparing to fly commercial airliners as bombs against U.S. targets (blamed partly on an inadequate computor system) to, the recent acknowledgement that their computor system is still grossly inadequate.

  Alpha, I have only touched the tip of the proverbial iceburg when it comes to FBI incompetance.

  So although I don't pretend to know all the answers, I do attempt to keep searching for answers to questions as they arise. Not everything I write, do I believe, is set in stone. I write only that I am still searching for answers. For example, you would think the redundancy would be there, but...are you sure the redundancy was there to the extent to allow the court cases to procede? I DON'T KNOW!!! Do you?

  I do know that from what I have seen to this point, I would not discount anything.

  And, I will say this to you Alpha, this is definatly one place where if you truly "follow the money" and see who profited and who continues to profit, you will begin to see 9/11 in a far different way than the popular beliefs.

  One last note to you Alpha on the FBI and, in this case, the Clinton pardons. Were you aware that in the days before Clinton left office the White House was circled by FBI agents in a silent protest march. This march was due to reports that Clinton was going to pardon Leonard Peltier. Of all the people Clinton did pardon, he did not pardon Leonard Peltier.

  Being a man of honor and the sword, I would like to hear your reply (after seeing the movie "Incident at Oglala' of course) to this lack of a pardon for Leonard.

  B. Jon...I'll be calling soon. Star Eagle

Leave a Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed

Bloggers

Most Popular Posts

• CON GAMES: Love The War You’re With
• CON GAMES: God Bless Jerry Falwell
• CON GAMES: Honk If You’re Stupid
• Strength and Conditioning for Snowboarding
• That Bust You Never Heard About At Campo
• Who is Pat Smith? Look to San Luis Obispo...
• KUUR: Is It Really 'Your Radio'?
• Bode Miller Content with Memories of "Kick Ass Olympic Parties"
• Rubbing Elbows With The Stars
• Negligent Scoopers, Beware!

Home And Away

• A$pen: The Series
• Anderson Ranch Arts Center
• Aspen Chamber Resort Association
• Aspen Exposure
• Aspen Filmfest
• Aspen Historical Society
• Aspen Public Radio
• Aspen Spin
• Aspen Writers' Foundation
• Belly Up Aspen
• Colorado Mountain Express
• EatAspen
• Hudson Reed Ensemble
• Jazz Aspen Snowmass
• Kathryn O'Carra Photography
• Michael Faas Photography
• Snowmass Village
• Stay Aspen Snowmass
• The Aspen Club & Spa
• Theatre Aspen
• Wheeler Opera House

Categories

Get A Life

• Daily Pickup Basketball
• American Sign Language 101
• MOVIE NIGHT: Gonzo: The Life and Work of Hunter S. Thompson
• MAFIOSO
• Big Villagers Sports Camp
View this Month's Events »

RSS

• Entries (RSS)
• Comments (RSS)

XML












R|Mail

Learn About Blog Optimization