GazeboflossUK

9/11 Not First Example Of Media Scripting & Foreknowledge? Were Oswald, Pearl Harbor details leaked ahead of time? Paul Joseph Watson Tuesday, March 6, 2007 The BBC and other news outlets reporting the collapse of WTC 7 in advance was not the first time in history that the media had pre-empted major events by reporting them before they happened. Did a newspaper in New Zealand report intricate details about Lee Harvey Oswald's connection to the JFK assassination before such knowledge was publicly available? Our reports on the BBC Building 7 fiasco have gained overwhelming traction on the Internet but the establishment media has all but blacklisted the story. As an addendum to the issue of the scripting and foreknowledge of major world events and how the official story is prepared ahead of the actual incident, we decided to take a brief look at a couple of other potential historical examples. The assassination of John F. Kennedy occurred at 7:30am New Zealand time on November 23rd 1963. In November, New Zealand is 19 hours ahead of Central Standard Time in the U.S. A newspaper in New Zealand, seemingly picking up information from wire reports, reported intricate details about Lee Harvey Oswald, including the description of his arrest, before he had been arrested in Texas. Col Fletcher Prouty writes in his book the Guns of Dallas; "I happened to be far away in New Zealand at the time of JFK's murder. I was on my way to breakfast with a member of Congress from Ohio. As soon as possible, we purchased the first newspaper available -- the Christchurch Star. It is amazing to re-read the front page of that paper today and find all of the detail, the remarkable detail, about Lee Harvey Oswald, about his service in the Marine Corps, about his living in Russia, about his Russian wife, and then the full scenario of the crime." "Then one begins to wonder -- understanding full well the capability of modern-day communications and reporting -- who it was that was able in so short a time to come up with such a life history of so obscure a twenty-four-year-old "loner." Even the Dallas police had not charged him with any crime by the time that paper had hit the streets. In the crime scenario it states that two Dallas cops, J D Tippit and M N McDonald, had chased Oswald into a theater and that Tippit was shot dead "as he ran into the cinema." Who fabricated all of that news? Who was at the right place at that moment to flood the whole world with all of this news about Lee Harvey Oswald, when even the Dallas police weren't too sure of their man, they said, because he carried two identities (Oswald and Alek Hidell) in his pocket." How was a newspaper able to assemble and print precise details about Lee Harvey Oswald before he had even been caught, unless a script had already been prepared for the media as soon as the assassination occurred? Researcher David Perry questioned Prouty's claims, pointing out that the newspaper headline was part of an "Extra" edition that hit the streets before noon New Zealand time, after police had arrested and released details about Oswald. Perry contends that the press knew Oswald was in custody at around 10am New Zealand time, which gave the newspaper around an hour and a half to compile details about him that were freely available from previous reports about the alleged assassin. The credibility of Prouty's claims rest on whether you believe a newspaper can compile a report, perform a print run, and be selling the newspaper all within within 90 minutes - at the pace and technological limitations of the 1960's. The many warnings and foreknowledge concerning the December 7 1941 attack on Pearl Harbor are now widely known. But a lesser noted aspect is a November 30 1941 story that appeared in the Hilo Tribune Herald , one week before the Japanese kamikaze planes arrived. The headline of the story was Japan May Strike Over Weekend, meaning the following weekend. Though the full text of the story from the Hawaii newspaper is seemingly unavailable, many allege that this another example where the media were able to pre-empt news of a major world event before it happened and bizarrely forecast the future. We'll leave it up to the reader to decide whether these two examples merit credibility. Feel free to leave your views on our comment board.

I think he just wanted to lose a few stone. No, I really think it's also the amount of idiots and liars that famous people come into contact with. I mean everyones trying to make a "buck" in the industry and people get used and then thrown away by such people. And if it goes on too long without a sane person around you most of the time then....well, that's when the true weakness within can emerge.

New Police Terror Posters Encourage Stasi UK Got a van? use a phone, computer or a camera? That's suspicious Infowars.net Monday, March 5, 2007 The newest London Metropolitan Police publicity campaign posters have been released today and, as usual, encourage the public to be scared of anyone who uses a phone, carries a bag, drives a van or takes pictures with a camera because they may be terrorists. Click picture for enlargement. The Met website datapage states: "Trust your instincts: it could disrupt terrorist planning and save lives. That's the call to Londoners today as the Met launches its new counter-terrorism ad campaign. Unusual activity or behaviour which seems out of place may be terrorist-related, and everyone who works, lives in or visits the capital is being urged to pass on any information to the confidential Anti-Terrorist Hotline. Terrorists live within our communities, making their plans whilst doing everything they can to blend in, and trying not to raise suspicions about their activities. I would ask people to think about unusual behaviour they have witnessed, or things they have seen which seem to have no logical or obvious explanation." A related radio ad is being broadcast in the UK that encourages the public to report anyone who loiters around or films crowded areas. Listen to the ad here. Transcript: Radio script - Counter Terrorism campaign February 2007 'Sure' ___________________________________________________________________ Female Voice over: How d'you tell the difference between someone just video-ing crowded place and someone who's checking it out for a terrorist attack? How can you tell if someone's buying unusual quantities of stuff for a good reason or if they're planning to make a bomb? What's the difference between someone just hanging around and someone behaving suspiciously? How can you tell if they're a normal everyday person, or a terrorist? Male voice over: The answer is, you don't have to. If you call the confidential Anti-Terrorist Hotline on 0800 789 321, the specialist officers you speak to will analyse the information. They'll decide if and how to follow it up. You don't have to be sure. If you suspect it, report it. Call the Anti-Terrorist Hotline on 0800 789 321 in confidence. ___________________________________________________________________ If there were real terrorists planning to do anything then they'd be very thankful to the government for creating more noise in the system and tipping them off for what not to do ahead of time. While "Muhammed Akbar" now ensures to buy his bomb components in small quantities from different shops to evade suspicion, Grandma Brown's bulk shopping to save money lands her in the slammer. Reports this weekend also highlighted the fact that MI5 is engaged in training supermarket checkout staff in terrorist profiling. This publicity campaign follows in the path of a long line of Stasi UK campaigns that we have covered in the past, that do nothing to prevent terrorism and everything to encourage fear and suspicion amongst the British public. Click here for a past report on such campaigns.

Hey, with all these "candidates" we are literally - and I'll use the technical term here - "screwed" no matter what. Ron Paul is the only decent runner. But he can only highlight real, decent issues with his campaign because he won't have the dirty corporate money behind him to win.

I think I'll be the judge of it's 'genius', Chris. We all will.

Well, I assume this to be the case, yes. But if he has in fact been "selected" to be one of the two front runners then he'll be there. The two candidates are always 'prepped' before they are allowed to even try and win. Which is always depressing.

Well, this thread isn't about Le Pen though. The US Election isn't ages away. Everything to do with how it's going to shape out is happening right now. The presidential party candidate push is well in full swing and this is very important.

Honours gag e-mail was about Levy The e-mail was sent from No 10 aide Ruth Turner to Jonathan Powell The e-mail which triggered the probe into an alleged Downing Street cover-up was sent by Number 10 aide Ruth Turner. It was sent to Tony Blair's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell, and concerned Labour's chief fundraiser Lord Levy. The injunction barring reporting of any details of the e-mail was amended on Monday so the BBC could say who sent the e-mail but not its full contents. In response to the BBC report, Downing Street said: "This story is inaccurate, we dispute this version of events." The Downing Street spokesman would not specify what part or parts of the BBC report is disputed. The cash-for-honours probe began a year ago. All involved deny wrongdoing. The amendment to the injunction on Monday was made after a request from the BBC to the attorney general. Police are investigating allegations that honours were exchanged for loans to the Labour Party. It began about a year ago, and switched its focus recently from the question of cash-for-peerages to allegations of a cover-up. No-one has been charged with any offence in connection with the probe.

Attorney General Blocks Sun, BBC Reports on Cash-for-Honors Probe (Correct) By Kitty Donaldson (Corrects to show Sun told not to publish, not injuncted.) March 5 (Bloomberg) -- Britain's Attorney General Lord Peter Goldsmith blocked the Sun from reporting details of an e-mail between two of Prime Minister Tony Blair's closest aides as police investigate a political funding scandal. Goldsmith, acting on behalf of the Metropolitan Police, obtained a court order last week to prevent the British Broadcasting Corp. from publishing contents of the e-mail, his office said today. Lawyers for the Sun were told by the attorney general's office yesterday not to publish details of the e-mail. Police began an inquiry a year ago into whether Blair's office improperly recommended people to seats in the House of Lords in exchange for donations to the ruling Labour Party. The probe began after Labour disclosed that it had received 14 million pounds ($27 million) in undisclosed loans from 12 supporters, four of whom were later offered seats in the Lords. The Sun today reported that it had the contents of an e-mail sent from an aide, Ruth Turner, to Blair's chief of staff, Jonathan Powell. The BBC reported today that it had successfully appealed part of the injunction and was allowed to say the e-mail concerned Lord Michael Levy, who has acted as a fundraiser for Labour. He and Turner have been arrested and questioned under caution, meaning police are treating them as suspects. Both Turner and Levy deny wrongdoing. Blair already has been questioned twice in connection with the probe. Blair's office today denied that it leaked details of the e-mail to the BBC. ``This assertion was not based on a personal hunch,'' said Tom Kelly, a spokesman for Blair. ``There are inaccuracies in the reports which means it couldn't have come from No 10.'' Britain's political parties had debts of 60.7 million pounds on Dec. 31, according to the Electoral Commission. Labour owed 23.4 million pounds. The main opposition Conservative Party owed the most, 35.3 million pounds. Most of that debt will be cleared by the sale of Smith Square, the party's old headquarters, for 30.5 million pounds, earlier this month. To contact the reporter on this story: Kitty Donaldson in London at [email protected] .

I hope not.

03.04.2007 BRITNEY SPEARS IS THE SON OF PERDITION Britney Spears reportedly tried to hang herself with a bed sheet after scratching "666" in her forehead and screaming "I am the anti-Christ" while in rehab in Malibu. Her dangerously irrational behavior is said to have relatives worried about her safety and the staff at Promises chemical dependency clinic struggling for answers. News.com says: The ordeal began when she terrified staff by writing the number of the beast on her head and running around the clinic screaming, "I am the anti-Christ!" "The clinic people just didn't know what to do," a friend claimed. The pop star then tried to hang herself with a bed sheet was but was found before she could hurt herself. Chalk one up for Jesus if Britney is right and she really is the antichrist. He’s gotta feel good about his chances vs. a short tubby white girl. He was probably freakin out, assuming the Lawless One was gonna be some huge goat-bull-hoofed thingy, but turns out that it's a Mouseketeer whose powers include short shorts and practice at falling down. None of this is to be confused with my reputation as a real devil with the ladies and my classy suits that combine flair with function.

Not long now It's next year - Held on November 4, 2008

***ALERT: No, we have frigging Rudolph get in. He's not the nice guy a lot of people think, trust me. He is NOT a 9/11 Hero!! NO FUCKING WAY!. Sly, misleading criminal - just like Hilary. Do NOT be fooled. Makes me really sick and angry....just like looking and listening to Ann Coulter....she makes me want to puke, seriously. But the World really doesn't need to have McCain in either... Sorry about that - but, well, they really set my "bad person" alarm bells ringing. And they should yours. Aide: Terrorist Act Will Make Giuliani President www.NewsMax.com Rudy Giuliani told Larry King last month that he was running for president before setting off on a series of carefully staged campaign events around the country to prove the point. Just showing that he meant it gave Giuliani a serious bump in the polls and worried his rivals. After a slow start, Giuliani's candidacy has gained ground in recent weeks. In the new Newsweek Poll, Giuliani leads Sen. John McCain by 25 points (59 to 34 percent) as the choice of registered Republicans and voters leaning Republican for the party's nomination, while former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney trails both men by more than 30 points. "I have thought for the longest time that [Giuliani] had zero chance," an aide to another Republican candidate who asked for anonymity talking up the chances of his boss's rival, tells Newsweek. "But he's got real momentum. And if there's a terrorist attack between now and the election, he could be the next president of the United States." In the March 12 Newsweek cover, "The Real Rudy," (on newsstands Monday, March 5), Senior Writer and Political Correspondent Jonathan Darman profiles Giuliani, the man who came to be known as "America's Mayor" following 9/11. Darman reports that the former mayor's life story is that of a man with a righteous sense of right and wrong and who excels when the world presents him with a crisis, and, when left to his own devices, creates crises for himself. Darman examines what America will make of the real Giuliani, who still may need to win over social conservatives as he begins his campaign. "I can guarantee you that the majority of Southern Baptists will not vote for Giuliani," says Richard Land, president of the Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention. "President Truman said he would never hire someone who cheated on his wife, because if a person breaks his marriage oath he could also break his oath of office." "Giuliani is highly respected by lots of Americans because of his leadership after 9/11," says Gary Bauer, president of the conservative nonprofit organization American Values. "In fact, there is evidence that it might be the only thing people could tell you about him." A particular weakness for Giuliani may be gun control, a cause he advocated again and again as part of his crimefighting plan in New York. Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform, asks: "The question is, do you need someone who is 100 percent on these issues, or someone who reaches a threshold? He wouldn't be polling so well if he wasn't coming close to a certain threshold." RELATED NEWS: Giuliani Leads McCain by 25 Points in Poll

BBC's 9/11 Yellow Journalism Backfires Building 7 becomes the Achilles heel of the governments official conspiracy theory Paul Joseph Watson Monday, March 5, 2007 The BBC's Conspiracy Files documentary hit piece and their flustered attempts to adopt damage control over questions about why their correspondent reported the collapse of Building 7 before it happened, have only provoked a firestorm of new interest in 9/11 truth and exalted questions surrounding WTC 7 to the point where it is now the Achilles' heel of the official conspiracy theory. The BBC was forced to issue a second response on Friday afternoon following a barrage of criticism against their initial effort to dismiss the Building 7 fiasco and their claim that they had mysteriously lost all footage from BBC World's 9/11 coverage. Right from the word go the BBC have attempted to cloud this issue by erecting and attacking another strawman framed debate, the accusation they were somehow part of a grand conspiracy on 9/11, in order to try and detract credibility from the questions being asked of them. In reality, this story boils down to two facets and the BBC has not provided an adequate answer to either of them; a) What was the source of the information that led the BBC to report that Building 7 had collapsed before it did? In his second response, head of BBC World Richard Porter cites CNN, local news media and unnamed firefighters who were interviewed after the fact, but still cannot provide an individual or authority by name. Porter attempts to create a scenario whereby the collapse of Building 7 was easily anticipated, and this is why news organizations jumped the gun to report its demise. In reality, WTC 7 stood over 300 yards away from the twin towers and was partly shielded by WTC 6 which did not collapse yet was completely gutted by raging fires and debris damage, whereas WTC 7 had limited fires. Building 7 was structurally reinforced in 1989 giving it, "Enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity," according to the New York Times. The BBC's 9/11 Conspiracy Files documentary claimed that Building 7 was a "raging inferno," a gross error considering the fact that fires spread sporadically across just eight floors of the skyscraper. PICTURE: This is what the BBC describes as a "raging inferno," another example of how they concocted fallacies to smear 9/11 truth in their atrocious Conspiracy Files hit piece. Nobody could have anticipated the building's collapse unless they knew that explosive devices were in place to take it down. NYPD officers heard bombs as they ran away from its implosion. First responders were told that the building was to be "brought down," not that it was going to collapse on its own. The process of informing the news agencies in advance that it was in danger of collapsing was merely an attempt to precondition the watching audience to what would otherwise have been an extremely suspicious occurrence. We can now be reasonably confident in identifying the Rudy Giuliani's OEM as the source of the "warning" that Building 7 was going to collapse. OEM is New York City's Office of Emergency Management. OEM personnel, by pure coincidence of course, arrived early on the morning of 9/11 to prepare for an exercise that simulated a terrorist attack on New York City. They were located in Building 7. This means that the OEM were not only telling the BBC and other media that Building 7 had collapsed or was in the process of collapsing before it did, a forecast inconceivable in the context that no modern steel building had collapsed from fire damage alone allied to the fact that WTC 7 had been structurally reinforced to prevent such a collapse, but they were also handing out the explanation for its collapse in advance. , the anchor Phil Hayton states, "It seems this wasn't the result of a new attack but because the building had been weakened during this morning's attack." Richard Porter tacitly admits that such detailed foreknowledge of an event that is yet to occur is highly suspicious ("in one sense that's true") but then attempts to dismiss it simply because the reporter used the words "it seems." Building 7 fell in an almost perfect implosion at near free fall speed and its debris barely even blocked the street next to it - the building collapsed in its own footprint. Surely a collapse as a result of fire damage, an event unparalleled with a modern steel building until that day, would have resulted in at least a marginally inconsistent collapse? Anyone with eyes to see can judge that this building was deliberately imploded, as news anchors like Dan Rather . PICTURE: The Windsor Building in Madrid by comparison was a raging inferno and burned for over 24 hours yet did not collapse. The collapse of the Windsor Building in Madrid was, solely as a result of 9/11, anticipated by the media in triplicate but it never happened because modern steel buildings do not symmetrically collapse as a result of fire damage alone. Who would have anticipated the collapse of Building 7 in such circumstances? Certainly not Dutch demolition expert Danny Jowenko, who was shown the footage of Building 7 along with the building's structural diagrams and immediately concluded it was deliberately demolished. Whoever informed the news agencies that the building was about to collapse had precise knowledge of the fact that it was being deliberately "pulled," and only by identifying that individual or authority, be it Giuliani's OEM or anyone else, and putting them before a grand jury, can we move closer to cracking the cover-up. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2179339594842383954&hl=en b) How can we trust the BBC or the establishment media in general to provide accurate information about any major event when all they do is repeat what is told to them and relay it as gospel with no independent verification whatsoever, to the point where we are told a building has collapsed by a reporter while it mockingly stands behind her head? Bob Woodward, the US journalist who helped break the Watergate scandal, last week called on reporters to "take more time on stories" and be more aggressive in verifying information given to them by official authorities. Woodward said the round the clock deadline news cycle is a "crazy environment" that needs to be "slowed down." The BBC Building 7 fiasco is a damning indictment of the slippery slide from real investigative reporting to "rip and read" instant gratification, whereby news organizations become mere public relation conduits for governments and "official" authorities. In that context the BBC are just as complicit as anyone else in manufacturing the official conspiracy theory behind 9/11 and the one that has remained simply because it was reported first. This myth is propagated by the fallacies of building collapses before the fact, magic hijacker passports that survive giant firey airline impacts, and deliberate suppression of dozens and dozens of eyewitness reports of bombs at all levels of the twin towers. The arrogance of Porter and the BBC in general in still refusing to even admit that they made an error in reporting the collapse of a building before it fell clearly illustrates the pomposity of these individuals in thinking themselves somehow above the scrutiny of the very people who fund their existence. This whole episode has led many who were previously highly skeptical of the "9/11 truth movement" to do their on research on this and the many other questions surrounding September 11. Building 7 is the weakest link holding together the official conspiracy theory that was dutifully propped up and retold by the lapdog mainstream media on 9/11. The Conspiracy Files debacle allied to the WTC 7 BBC fiasco that followed it has given 9/11 truth a fresh impetus and we thank the BBC in the context that their fallacious yellow journalism has resulted in a new wave of interest in dismantling the official fraud.

Greenhouse effect is a myth, say scientists JULIE WHELDON UK Daily Mail Monday, March 5, 2007 Research said to prove that greenhouse gases cause climate change has been condemned as a sham by scientists. A United Nations report earlier this year said humans are very likely to be to blame for global warming and there is "virtually no doubt" it is linked to man's use of fossil fuels. But other climate experts say there is little scientific evidence to support the theory. In fact global warming could be caused by increased solar activity such as a massive eruption. Their argument will be outlined on Channel 4 this Thursday in a programme called The Great Global Warming Swindle raising major questions about some of the evidence used for global warming. Ice core samples from Antarctica have been used as proof of how warming over the centuries has been accompanied by raised CO2 levels. But Professor Ian Clark, an expert in palaeoclimatology from the University of Ottawa, claims that warmer periods of the Earth's history came around 800 years before rises in carbon dioxide levels. The programme also highlights how, after the Second World War, there was a huge surge in carbon dioxide emissions, yet global temperatures fell for four decades after 1940. The UN report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was published in February. At the time it was promoted as being backed by more than 2,000 of the world's leading scientists. But Professor Paul Reiter, of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, said it was a "sham" given that this list included the names of scientists who disagreed with its findings. Professor Reiter, an expert in malaria, said his name was removed from an assessment only when he threatened legal action against the panel. "That is how they make it seem that all the top scientists are agreed," he said. "It's not true." Gary Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, claims clouds and solar activity are the real reason behind climate change. "The government's chief scientific adviser Sir David King is supposed to be the representative of all that is good in British science, so it is disturbing he and the government are ignoring a raft of evidence against the greenhouse effect being the main driver against climate change," he said. Philip Stott, emeritus professor of biogeography at the School of Oriental and African Studies in London, said climate change is too complicated to be caused by just one factor, whether CO2 or clouds. He said: "The system is too complex to say exactly what the effect of cutting back on CO2 production would be or indeed of continuing to produce CO2. "It is ridiculous to see politicians arguing over whether they will allow the global temperature to rise by 2c or 3c." The documentary is likely to spark fierce criticism from the 'scientific' establishment. Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says Kate Ravilious for National Geographic News February 28, 2007 Simultaneous warming on Earth and Mars suggests that our planet's recent climate changes have a natural—and not a human- induced—cause, according to one scientist's controversial theory. Earth is currently experiencing rapid warming, which the vast majority of climate scientists says is due to humans pumping huge amounts of greenhouse gases into the atmosphere. Enlarge Photo Mars, too, appears to be enjoying more mild and balmy temperatures. In 2005 data from NASA's Mars Global Surveyor and Odyssey missions revealed that the carbon dioxide "ice caps" near Mars's south pole had been diminishing for three summers in a row. Habibullo Abdussamatov, head of the St. Petersburg's Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory in Russia, says the Mars data is evidence that the current global warming on Earth is being caused by changes in the sun. "The long-term increase in solar irradiance is heating both Earth and Mars," he said. Solar Cycles Abdussamatov believes that changes in the sun's heat output can account for almost all the climate changes we see on both planets. Mars and Earth, for instance, have experienced periodic ice ages throughout their histories. "Man-made greenhouse warming has made a small contribution to the warming seen on Earth in recent years, but it cannot compete with the increase in solar irradiance," Abdussamatov said. By studying fluctuations in the warmth of the sun, Abdussamatov believes he can see a pattern that fits with the ups and downs in climate we see on Earth and Mars. Abdussamatov's work, however, has not been well received by other climate scientists. Story Continued on Next Page >> RELATED Photo Gallery: Global Warming New Mars Pictures Show Signs of Watery "Aquifers" (February 16, 2007) Climate Change Predictions Not Exaggerated, Analysis Says (February 1, 2007)Email to a Friend The Globe Is Warming – and the Sky Is Falling: Inconvenient Truth or Convenient Deception? Jonathan Tarr Lew Rockwell.com Monday, March 5, 2007 As with so many other topics, any viewpoint that does not agree with the "mainstream" views is snuffed by the mainstream media. We can find many credible scientists that are not very concerned about human-induced global warming. They may agree that there is some global warming and that part of it could be from industrial emissions; however, they may not feel it is such an urgent issue. Instead of following the data, which there is certainly not enough of both temporally and geographically to make a firm conclusion, let us generate some alternate understanding of our comprehension and ability to predict the future. Look at the North American jet stream. It currently flows from west to east and dips and twists across the continent. A little more or less fluctuation has a pronounced effect on the climate including variations in temperature in the tens of degrees and not in fractions as postulated by "global warming". Now, consider how long the continent has supported humans – thousands of years at a minimum. How long have humans known of the jet stream and how much comprehensive data do we have on its behavior? Not very much. What causes the flow of the stream? No conclusive data exists. We can conceive that the rotation of the Earth, gravitational pull of the moon and tides and water currents all affect its flow. Certainly a volcanic eruption or other massive natural event will alter its course. Now how do we know the thing will continue to flow from west to east? Maybe the atmosphere will spontaneously and ever-dynamically rearrange so that it flows more from north to south or south to north or even east to west. It is not at all impossible to imagine. Obviously the climate would change drastically, orders of magnitude above what is predicted by the "warmers". Let us not ignore the fact that man, with his ever-amazing wisdom and instinct for self-preservation, has polluted this globe. It is a shame of course, but not a definitive cause of global warming (if it does in fact exist). The planet is highly dynamic and self-regulating. How can the "experts" who can barely tell you the temperature for tomorrow within a few degrees or the amount of precipitation within an inch be able to predict a fraction of a degree in a decade? Averages? What fraction of the Earth’s area is computed in those averages? A very small amount. Maybe if we measured 100 times as many geographic points, the data would show a global cooling. It happens over periods of 10,000s of years anyway. Glaciers were in the Southeastern USA. It is not logical to give merit to the warming predictions. And do not confuse the political scientists by giving them all the facts, they have already made up their minds, and their conclusions will bring them fortune and fame. Just look at Al Gore’s Oscar! Hollywood has become both honest and sincere (NOT). The main point is that it is important to collect as much of the available facts as possible before making any conclusions about a phenomenon. Listening to Al Gore or the mainstream media will certainly lead most to believe we are doomed by our own actions. Considering only the opposition will determine that there is nothing to worry about. However, if both arguments are considered objectively, one might conclude that there is no overwhelming evidence either way about man-made global warming. And that man’s contribution to climate can be snuffed in no time by Mother Nature herself. In fact, the planet has hosted a plethora of species that have come and gone as a result of natural weather deviations. Life goes on and the world adapts as it would with or without any contribution from Homo sapiens. The fallacy widely accepted up until the 1600s was that the Earth is the center of the universe and the latter revolves around the former. This same ignorance leads people today to still believe that the Earth was made for man and he is its master. Anyone who has experienced a tornado or earthquake or hurricane or tsunami might question this. Mark Twain said that if the Earth were the Eiffel Tower, man would be the top coat of paint at the very tip. We need to put things in perspective. It gives a warm feeling to accept Hollywood’s depiction of global warming and its noble efforts to save us all from ourselves – this echoes big brother’s intents exactly. And the Oscars went green! How many of the stars walked or rode the bus or their bicycles instead of taking limos or Hummers? Have a look at their electric bills. It is reminiscent of Bhagwan Shree Rajneesh who collected the fortunes of educated and affluent people on the belief that material possessions were evil, yet he had fleets of private jets and Rolls Royce cars. How many actors or politicians or academics would be willing to give up their comforts and live in rustic cabins to save the human race? Who in Hollywood is ever concerned with the facts, other than in their own financial and career advancements? We will never become enlightened and free to experience life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness until we learn to think for ourselves and reject the sensational generalizations of the ruling class. Thomas Jefferson said, "Educate and inform the whole mass of the people... They are the only sure reliance for the preservation of our liberty." Americans of all sects should learn about the logical thought process and the scientific method. It will help in all aspects of life and lead to a real understanding of the world. And then maybe we can pull together and fix the true problems that we face. It is unlikely that our "leaders" will solve these problems; it is their mindset that created them.

*BUMP*

^ Yeah, I was out in Newcastle (Egypt Cottage) and after I got off the bus waited to see the eclipse. Was really clear. That is all.

Good article below that deals with many details I have posted in the past. The huge amount of lies involved in the whole cover-up have been so widely pointed out that it sometimes seems as if I am living in a constant nightmare; where most of the people are in a mass coma and do not have the ability or energy to even think for themselves. I'm not in a nightmare though - this is what the world is like these days!!! Did Cheney Allow Or Order 9/11 Plane To Strike Pentagon? Sherwood Ross Friday, March 2, 2007 Although the official 9/11 Commission Report(CR) said Vice President Richard Cheney did not arrive at the Presidential Emergency Operations Center(PEOC) under the White House until "shortly before 10 a.m." that tragic day, Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta testified when he arrived in the room at 9:20 a.m. Cheney was already there. (CR published no testimony from Mineta.) The timeline is important because if Cheney arrived at 10 a.m. it would have been about 20 minutes after the Pentagon was allegedly struck by a hijacked airplane at 9:38 a.m., too late for him to authorize the Air Force to shoot it down. Some 125 Pentagon employees perished in the attack. Mineta testified "during the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, 'the plane is 50 miles out, the plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got to 'the plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the Vice President, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the Vice President...said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Since the airplane was not intercepted and destroyed, even though the vice president knew of it, "the orders" may have been to allow the plane to hit the Pentagon. All of this, and more, is contained in the March/April issue of "Tikkun" magazine, "a bimonthly Jewish critique of Politics, Culture & Society." The piece was authored by Dr. David Ray Griffin, a principal debunker of the accepted 9/11 dogma, and published by Rabbi Michael Lerner on grounds, "if his view is true, the position he articulates would provide adequate grounds for impeachment of the president..." In Griffin's view, "the strike on the Pentagon was orchestrated by forces within our own government." If he's right, 9/11 was, indeed, the crime of the century, and what has been called a false flag operation involving the fabrication of evidence to make it appear the Taliban government of Afghanistan was complicit, paving the road for invasion. To begin with, there's even a question of whether American Airlines Flight 77 under control of Al-Qaeda hijacker Hani Hanjour struck the Pentagon. It would require, Griffin charges, not only outfoxing military radar for over an hour but the quite miraculous performance of descending 7,000 feet in two minutes while executing a 270-degree banked turn and bashing into the Pentagon without touching or damaging the lawn, a feat of aeronautical magic. Griffin, a professor of philosophy and theology at Claremont Graduate University, Calif., says the impact of the strike, unlike those of the two planes that struck the Twin Towers, did not create a dectactable seismic signal. "Also, according to photographs and eywitnesses, the kind of damage and debris that would have been produced by the impact of a Boeing 757 was not evident in the aftermath of the strike on the Pentagon." Karen Kwiatkowski, then an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel employed at the Pentagon, writes of "a strange lack of visibile debris on the Pentagon lawn, where I stood only moments after the impact." Another witness was CNN's Jamie McIntyre, who reported live from the Pentagon that day: "The only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand." (How does that square with any photos you've ever seen of crashed airliners?) Griffin also quotes retired pilot Ralph Omholt, discussing the photographic evidence, who said, "There is no hole big enough to swallow a 757... There is no viable evidence of burning jet fuel... The expected 'crash' damage doesn't exist...Even the Pentagon lawn was undamaged!" So it may have been more than just a slip of the tongue when Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld blurted about the "missile" that hit the Pentagon. The CR report alleged there was no warning of an unidentified aircraft heading to Washington until 9:36 a.m., only "one or two minutes" before the Pentagon was struck, yet Mineta said Cheney knew of it at least 10 minutes earlier, time to order an evacuation. "By omitting Mineta's testimony and stating that Cheney did not enter the PEOC until almost 10 a.m., the 9/11 Commission implied that Cheney could not have given a stand-down order to allow an aircraft to strike the Pentagon," Griffin writes. The author goes on to say, CR's conclusion "contradicts Cheney's own account, which can still be read on the White House Website. Speaking on NBC's "Meet the Press" shortly after 9/11 Cheney said: '(A)fter I talked to the president...I went down into...the Presidential Emergency Operations Center...(W)hen I arrived there within a short order, we had word the Pentagon's been hit.' So he got there, as Mineta said, some time before the Pentagon was struck, not 20 minutes afterwards." Griffin asserts the public has been fed three different yarns about why Flight 77 was not intercepted before hitting the Pentagon. Initially, military officials said no fighter jets were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit; next, they said fighters were scrambled but did not arrive in time because of late FAA notification; finally, the CR found the FAA did not notify NORAD until after the planes crashed. Particularly curious is that the FBI "immediately confiscated videos from security cameras on nearby buildings," and destroyed crash evidence, Griffin said. "After the strike, officials picked up debris in front of the impact site and carried it off. Shortly thereafter the entire lawn was covered with dirt and gravel, so that any remaining forensic evidence was literally covered up." Griffin's views are akin to those published on Internet site "Scholars for 9/11 Truth," which has joined with Judicial Watch in calling for release of documents and physical evidence related to 9/11. The group's cofounder, James Fetzer, McKnight Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at the University of Minnesota, calls Mineta's testimony "devastating." "It pulls the plug on the Commission's contention there was no advance warning that the Pentagon was going to be hit," Fetzer said. "In fact, there are multiple witnesses who contradict the Vice President's account, including Richard Clarke, Condoleeza Rice, and several others. It had to have been a 'stand down' order, but the mere fact that he knew the plane was coming in and did not warn the Pentagon is proof this was an inside job," Fetzer said. Philip J. Berg, former Pennsylvania deputy attorney general and member of Scholars, added, "Those who made it happen were obviously in the position to know that it was going to happen and therefore could have sounded a warning alarm. The case against Cheney is more powerful than the case against (Zacarias) Moussaoui(for willfully concealing advanced knowledge of the forthcoming 9/11 attack). No one is more culpable than the perpetrators. If Moussaoui deserves the death penalty, what does our Vice President deserve?" Fetzer said the government's case against the hijackers is counterfeit. "A growing body of evidence supports the inference that these 19 men were patsies for forces within the United States government."

Two Points 1. The condescending tone that is subtle yet quantifiably present in your words is not appreciated. 2. Yes, this post possibly could exist in my 9/11 thread but after some deliberation I thought due to the fact that the article addresses; censorship issues on various sites; links between the CIA and Google; the supposed loss of important BBC 9/11 archives and dissidents in China's re-education labor camps, that it could go on the main news page. This is important. I'm always good at keeping things tidy.

But......See her live and then you'll know what it's like to see a pretty girl drink her way through a large bottle of Jack Daniels Whiskey while attempting to play the piano. It was in Bush Hall in Shepherds Bush, London. That's one and a half hours of my life I won't ever be getting back. Although the ticket was free.

Fair point. I hated when it when I'd get provoked into name calling. It doesn't seem to go on AS much here anymore though. (political arguments have their way dying out on here - mostly when the other person realises that they don't care really and just get on with their life) I mean I post all over the net and you experience some really dumbed-down people. When I get dragged into slightly spiky debates I always try and still make a valid point - no matter how much pointless swearing has occurred in the post. It's only because I care, honestly.

Haha. Look, I'm not trying to be a dick, honestly. :) I don't know anyone from Stunt, no. And.....I really just said "get out to the Head of Steam" to hint at the fact I live around the area. I was in the 'Steamer' on Tuesday night actually. I wasn't acting like a "tough guy" though was I - because how could a sensible and sane person even conjure such socially removed thoughts; acting out some sort of dominating physical force on others within a virtual plain is far from any of my intentions. My vote was for "sometimes" in your poll. I must just be reacting to the plethora of pure digital diarrhoea that has swiftly smeared itself across large sections of this place in the past few weeks. However, I don't feel this thread is part of the extended tripe that has started to be posted here. The thing is that I hate digging through piles of unessasry shit to find the gems. As do most people - I hope.

It's an online forum for gods sake. If you get scared about what people might think on an Internet site then how on earth do you survive your everyday life when I assume you deal with people face to face? Just pretend they aren't there? Come on. (yes, I'm one of those people who has opinions) Get yourself out down the Head Of Steam or something.

Montana Latest State to Introduce Anti-NAU Legislation Montana Latest State to Introduce Anti-NAU Legislation Mary Benoit JBS.org Thursday, March 1, 2007 ARTICLE SYNOPSIS: Several sates have introduced resolutions opposing U.S. participation in the North American Union. Montana is the newest legislature to join in on this growing trend. Follow this link to the source article: "HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 25" COMMENTARY: The Montana state legislature has introduced a resolution (HCR 25) that opposes the United States entering into the North American Union (NAU). As reported in previous newsfeeds, the NAU would merge the political, economic and security systems of the United States Canada and Mexico. At the same time that President Bush, Congress, and the media are denying that any such agenda is currently underway, several state legislatures are introducing resolutions that say otherwise. Montana is the most recent state to introduce an anti-NAU resolution. In part, HCR 25 states: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE SENATE AND THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE STATE OF MONTANA: That the Montana Legislature urge the President and the Congress of the United States to withdraw the United States from any further participation in the Security and Prosperity Partnership, any efforts to implement a trinational political, governmental entity among the United States, Canada, and Mexico, or any other efforts used to accomplish any form of a North American Union. Below is the full list of states who have introduced similar legislation, along with the phone number to the state's legislative office. Concerned readers are encouraged to contact the legislative offices of the states listed below and ask the state Congress to support the North American Union resolution. Furthermore, contact your own state legislature to encourage your state representatives to introduce and support a similar resolution. Model resolutions and cover letters can be found on the John Birch Society's issue page for the North American Union. NAU resolutions currently in Congress and state legislatures: United States Congress - Congressional Switchboard – (202) 224-3121 - House Concurrent Resolution 40 – introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Virgil Goode of Virginia Arizona - Senate Switchboard - (602) 926-3559 - Senate Concurrent Memorial 1002 – introduced by Senator Johnson Missouri - House Switchboard – (573) 751-3659 - Senate Concurrent Resolution 15 – sponsored by Senator Barnitz Montana - House Switchboard – (406) 444-4800 - House Joint Resolution 25 – introduced by Rep. Rice of Montana Oregon - Legislative Switchboard – (503) 986-1000 - Senate Joint Memorial 5 – sponsored by Senators George, Starr, and Whitsett and Representatives Boquist, Krieger, Nelson and Thatcher South Carolina - House Switchboard – (803) 734-2010 - House Concurrent Resolution 3185 – introduced by Rep. Davenport Utah - Legislative Switchboards – (801) 538-1035 (Senate), (801) 538-1029 (House) - House Joint Resolution 7 – introduced by Rep. Sandstrom and Senator Fife Virginia - Senate Switchboard – (804) 698-7410 - Senate Joint Resolution 442 – introduced by Senators Lucas and Hawkins Washington - Legislative Switchboard – (800) 562-6000 - Senate Joint Memorial 8004 – introduced by Senators Stevens, Swecker and Benton - House Joint Memorial 4018 – introduced by Representatives Roach, Dunn, McCune and Hurst ALSO - Have a look back at all the posts where people were in complete denial over the North American Union ever happening. All I'll say is OOPS

Media Blacklists BBC Fiasco; Google, Digg Censor 9/11 Truth News 24 'timestamp' video disappears from Google Video, despite the fact it's under 30 seconds in length and clearly constitutes fair use, Digg lets small minority of morons decide its content Thursday, March 1, 2007 (DIGG IT) The crowned kings of censorship Google have "pulled" the News 24 "timestamp" video that shows the BBC reporting the collapse of Building 7 26 minutes before it happened. Meanwhile, the establishment media continues to ignore the WTC 7 farce as a whole, including the inconceivable notion that BBC World have mysteriously lost all their 9/11 footage. Despite the fact that the clip is under 30 seconds in length and clearly constitutes fair use, Google yanked the video last night after it was prominently featured in our article yesterday. We have replaced the video with a You Tube composite of both the "Jane Standley" footage and the News 24 clip, but for how long this stays active remains to be seen. Google and the BBC have a cozy relationship and are currently at an advanced stage of talks to content share on Google Video. This could explain why the original "Standley" footage was yanked by Google within hours of it becoming popular on the Internet on Monday afternoon. It seems that the BBC are extremely incompetent when it comes to looking after their own archived tapes, but remarkably proficient about getting any embarrassing material scrubbed off the Internet, with the eager aid of "don't be evil" Google, they compose a formidable tag team of censorship. Recall that Google bizarrely wiped a leading mainstream news website from their search engine altogether last year simply because Space War carried articles mildly critical of Google's beloved Communist Chinese paymasters, for whom Yahoo have also shopped numerous dissidents who have ended up in China's re-education labor camps. It was also Google Video that were caught on numerous occasions re-setting viewing figures for Alex Jones' Terror Storm and other 9/11 truth films, to prevent them entering the higher echelons of the charts and going viral. Should all this really surprise us when it was CIA seed money that got Google off the ground in the first place? Just how many calls did Google's CIA liaison Dr. Rick Steinheiser make from his Office of Research and Development this week? Meanwhile, a programmer claims to have hacked Digg and found evidence of a deliberate campaign to censor controversial news stories and those relating to 9/11 truth. The Information Liberation website concludes that there are "Tons of obvious shills burying our recent explosive WTC 7 articles as well as many other articles of extreme significance. It's shocking to read the list and see how much significant, documented, and extremely popular content is being buried for obvious ideological reasons. This is completely undemocratic abuse of the Digg system and is proof positive the Bury feature is being abused to suppress content by vindictive Anti-Diggers." The buried list contains the original Building 7 story that was posted at Prison Planet.com on Monday afternoon. It's reason for burial is given as "inaccurate," despite the fact that we have proven its factual basis in triplicate and the BBC has also tacitly admitted their "error." Digg's Bury feature is supposed to be used to bury "stories with bad links, off-topic content, or duplicate entries" in order to remove "spam out of the system." Unfortunately, as many have experienced, the Bury feature is frequently used to suppress content based off ideology. Please encourage Digg to either fix it (perhaps make it similar to Reddit's down voting) or remove it all together. Email Digg here and request they please fix the Bury feature.Whether you choose to believe that it's solely the work of moronic debunkers or a deliberate Digg policy to censor 9/11 truth, the fact remains that their supposed "democratic" system is nothing of the sort. Even if an article gets 2000 diggs, just a fraction of that number in burials relegates it to the memory hole. Digg should be more honest about the fact that the content of their website is determined at the behest of a small minority of semi-retarded Playstation addicted teenagers rather than the popular interest of the online community as a whole. We have uncovered further evidence of Digg censorship and it will feature on the website later tonight. 48 hours after the BBC issued its pathetic rebuttal to startling footage that shows their correspondent Jane Standley live on 9/11 reporting the collapse of Building 7 as it mockingly stands behind her, and the inconceivable excuse that the BBC has lost its 9/11 tapes, no establishment media has picked up on the story, not even to dismiss it as a "conspiracy theory." This represents both the stubborn refusal of the dinosaur press to accept the increasing trend that the Internet sets the news agenda, and also an appalling media culture that highlights the most inconsequential claptrap and gives it undeserved prominence. Kudos goes to Wonkette for covering the Building 7 story, but almost every other so-called "progressive" website has been mute. Crooks and Liars, one of the biggest liberal blogs on the web, today spotlights a story about lesbian koala bears. On Tuesday night they led with a gossip puff piece about Mitt Romney's hair. How can these gatekeepers claim to represent "alternative media" when they stuff this kind of crap down our throats on a daily basis, while ignoring massive stories like the WTC 7 fiasco? We invited BBC World head of news Richard Porter to appear on The Alex Jones Show and clarify for us exactly how the BBC managed to lose its footage, which by the BBC's own regulations has to be archived three times over, from the single most important event in history since World War 2. Porter refused to do the interview.