GazeboflossUK

^ This was creepy as I had spotted the man and was going to email about it but obviously some others had beaten me to it.

I've been talking about this for a long time now and I do remember you saying it was a good idea at one point. :) ^ I'm really not making a big deal out of you saying that but I think some poeple are confused over the issue, purely because there's alot to take in. The implications are huge; it's a massive operation.

Who's The Man In The WTC Rubble? Previously unnoticed eerie figure provokes questions Paul Joseph Watson | August 25 2006 At first glance he is camouflaged against the gray ash and rubble of the debris from the twin towers, but a closer look shows an eerie figure that has prompted a rash of e mail questions - is he a survivor, a victim or even a statue? In conducting analysis of photos we first published on Wednesday showing surrounding buildings in the WTC complex and other images taken by an anonymous rescue worker, the significance of this shot completely escaped us until we began to receive numerous e mails highlighting its notoriety. Click the photo for an enlargement. The figure appears to be sat upright with a square piece of debris, which could be a briefcase or a laptop, in front of him and his legs appear to be buried underneath rubble. He is covered in gray ash and dust as is every other object in the shot. The figure is obviously human in appearance but is it an unfortunate victim or a statue? A cursory Google search provided the answer. The figure was a bronze statue named Double Check, created by sculptor J. Seward Johnson, that sat on a park bench near the towers. The discovery of the statue shown below two days after the attack was subject of a CNN piece in December 2001. The statue became a shrine to victims of 9/11. Still from a distance, the figure in the rubble must have been an eerie sight even if rescue workers were aware that it was just a sculpture. We are satisfied that we were able to clear this up for many curious readers.

Israel feels US will not attack Iran YAAKOV KATZ, HERB KEINON AND NATHAN GUTTMAN / Jerusalem Post | August 25 2006 There is growing consensus within the defense establishment that the United States will not attack Iran, and that Israel might be forced to act independently to stop the Islamic republic from obtaining nuclear weapons, a high-ranking defense official told The Jerusalem Post on Thursday. According to sources within the defense establishment, the Bush administration does not have political support for launching a strike against Iran's nuclear sites. "America is stuck in Iraq and cannot go after Iran militarily right now," the official said. The defense official blasted the US for "not doing enough" to stop Teheran's race to the bomb. US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, he said, was leading the State Department in the direction of "appeasement." More here This whole attack on Iran is taking many twists....hmmmmm.....I shall be watching closely.

Just so you know.....the borders are being opened on purpose. It's part off the Security and Prosperity Partnership (SPP).

GOP candidate says 9/11 attacks were a hoax ALBERT McKEON/Nashua Telegraph | August 24 2006 A Republican candidate for this area’s congressional seat said Wednesday that the U.S. government was complicit in the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. In an editorial board interview with The Telegraph on Wednesday, the candidate, Mary Maxwell, said the U.S. government had a role in killing nearly 3,000 people at the World Trade Center and Pentagon, so it could make Americans hate Arabs and allow the military to bomb Muslim nations such as Iraq. Maxwell, 59, seeks the 2nd District congressional seat. The Concord resident opposes the incumbent, Charles Bass of Peterborough, and Berlin Mayor Bob Danderson in the Republican primary Sept. 12. Maxwell would not specify if she holds the opinion that the government stood by while terrorists hijacked four domestic airliners and used them as weapons, or if it had a larger role by sanctioning and carrying out the attacks. But she implicated the government by saying the Sept. 11 attacks were meant “to soften us up . . . to make us more willing to have more stringent laws here, which are totally against the Bill of Rights . . . to make us particularly focus on Arabs and Muslims . . . and those strange persons who spend all their time creating little bombs,” giving Americans a reason “to hate them and fear them and, therefore, bomb them in Iraq for other reasons.” She said this strategy “would be normal” for governments, citing her belief that the British government – and not the Germany military – sank the Lusitania ocean liner in 1915. The deaths of Americans on the cruise liner helped galvanize U.S. support to enter World War I, and benefited England, she said. In turn, the Sept. 11 attacks “made the ground fertile” for more stringent laws, such as the Patriot Act, and the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, Maxwell said. Near the end of the interview, Maxwell pounded her fist on the table and asked editors of The Telegraph why they weren’t publishing more stories about the government’s role in the terrorist attacks or proliferation of nuclear weapons. Maxwell has no political experience. She lived abroad for the past quarter-century with her husband, George, a pediatrician, and only recently returned to the U.S., she said. In the hour-long interview, Maxwell spoke at length about Constitutional law, U.S. law, nuclear weapons proliferation, and other domestic and foreign policy issues. Maxwell said the U.S. should withdraw from Iraq. She also questioned whether Congress authorized the war and said its members can’t explain that 2002 vote. (Congress authorized the use of force to defend this country’s security and enforce United Nations resolutions on Iraq.) “Legally, we shouldn’t have gone to Iraq if Congress can’t explain why,” she said. Maxwell described herself as a strict Constitutionalist, a candidate who wants to bring the country “back to basics.” The Constitution grants more power to the legislative branch than the other two branches, but Congress has allowed the executive and judicial branches to diminish its influence, she said. She also said the U.S. shouldn’t immerse itself in the international community by signing trade and security pacts. These agreements have weakened national sovereignty, she said.

U.S. built major Iranian nuclear facility Florida Sun-Sentinel/Sam Roe | August 24 2006 In the heart of Tehran sits one of Iran's most important nuclear facilities, a dome-shaped building where scientists have conducted secret experiments that could help the country build atomic bombs. It was provided to the Iranians by the United States. The Tehran Research Reactor represents a little-known aspect of the international uproar over the country's alleged weapons program. Not only did the U.S. provide the reactor in the 1960s as part of a Cold War strategy, America also supplied the weapons-grade uranium needed to power the facility—fuel that remains in Iran and could be used to help make nuclear arms. As the U.S. and other countries wrestle with Iran's refusal this week to curb its nuclear capabilities, an examination of the Tehran facility sheds light on the degree to which the United States has been complicit in Iran developing those capabilities. Read more here

What awful, long, drawn-out affair that was..... It is interesting though...:)

If Gustav Holst was still alive he would be very happy.

Yeah, that was a horrible elbow to the head wasn't it. Thatcher needs a ban and a fine for that.

jesus....that's good new for me. Unless of course they are telling big fat lies. I don't like the bit about fluoride because it's actually bad for you.

Did Insiders Milk Terror Plot For Criminal Trading? Indian newspaper highlights suspicious patterns, 9/11 and 7/7 were also preceded by insider trading Paul Joseph Watson | August 24 2006 Did criminal insider speculators with informants inside the British intelligence apparatus take advantage of their foreknowledge of the announcement of a foiled terror plot to place put options on airline stocks, reaping the benefits of their subsequent fall? So says the India Daily, claiming strange patterns in airline stocks preceded the announcement - and that carefully placed money was waiting on the sidelines to jump in and buy the stocks as cheaper prices before they rose again in subsequent trading. Airline stocks dropped as much as 28 per cent during morning trading following the announcement of the alleged liquid bomb plot. Though the report can be quantified as nothing more than speculation at this point, it mirrors murmurs we've been receiving from stock brokers who also claim potential foul play. If true it would also dovetail with similar activity prior to the 9/11 attacks and the 7/7 bombings in London. 9/11 was preceded by suspicious put options in large quantities placed on American and United Airlines which betrayed advance knowledge of the attack. The investigation as to who was responsible for authorizing the transactions led directly back to former CIA director Buzzy Krongard. In the case of the London bombings, the pound fell 6 per cent against the dollar for no apparent reason in the 10 days before the attack. "Currencies of established countries simply do not fall that fast based upon any kind of economic or financial analysis," said a 35 year veteran economist. "Somebody – somewhere – knew something. Or maybe I should say 'somebodies.'" Since even the official investigation concluded that the alleged suicide bombers had no outside links and were 'lone wolf' operatives, though this is tempered by the fact that the ringleader Khan was an MI5 informant, then one can only assume that elements within the British government profited from their foreknowledge of the attack. Indications are that the same criminals took advantage of the fact that the decision and timing to announce the alleged foiled plot to blow up transatlantic airliners was carefully chosen at least a week in advance according to published reports. This would have provided the insider traders with ample time to arrange the transactions.

Going on from the last post....John Stewart has a take on the press-conference VIDEO: Jon Stewart dissects Bush's latest 'desperate soundbites'

Bush Now Says What He Wouldn’t Say Before War: Iraq Had ‘Nothing’ To Do With 9/11 Thinkprogress | August 23, 2006 President Bush was in the midst of explaining how the attacks of 9/11 inspired his “freedom agenda” and the attacks on Iraq until a reporter, Ken Herman of Cox News, interrupted to ask what Iraq had to do with 9/11. “Nothing,” Bush defiantly answered. Watch it. VIDEO HERE To justify the war, Bush informed Congress on March 19, 2003 that acting against Iraq was consistent with “continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.” As ThinkProgress has repeatedly documented, Vice President Cheney cited “evidence” cooked up by Douglas Feith and others to claim it was “pretty well confirmed” that Iraq had contacts with 9/11 hijackers. More generally, in the lead-up to the war in Iraq, the administration encouraged the false impression that Saddam had a role in 9/11. Bush never stated then, as he does now, that Iraq had “nothing” to do with 9/11. Only after the Iraq war began did Bush candidly acknowledge that Iraq was not operationally linked to 9/11. Full transcript: BUSH: The terrorists attacked us and killed 3,000 of our citizens before we started the freedom agenda in the Middle East. QUESTION: What did Iraq have to do with it? BUSH: What did Iraq have to do with what? QUESTION: The attack on the World Trade Center. BUSH: Nothing. Except it’s part of — and nobody has suggested in this administration that Saddam Hussein ordered the attack. Iraq was a — Iraq — the lesson of September 11th is take threats before they fully materialize, Ken. Nobody’s ever suggested that the attacks of September the 11th were ordered by Iraq. And...Here's a good comment..... Zogby poll, feb 28, 2006: 90 (that’s ninety) percent of US troops in iraq think they are there in ‘retaliation for saddams role in 9-11′ 1. Hey chimpy (Bush) - didn’t they get the memo? 2. Shall you tell them or shall I? 3. Who do you ask to be last to die for a mistake? Comment by TerrytheTurtle

I think it's going to cause a cival war at some point. Or at least some very bad cival "fighting".

I'd say that there are lots of criminals entering the US through Mexico.... It's because the borders of practically wide open at the moment...you don't even need to go to any great effort be smuggled in... It's causing the US problems now.....but it's going to create alot more problems in the future.

WTC 7 Click photo for larger Hi-Rez version New WTC Complex Photos Highlight Bizarre Building 7 Collapse Buildings 5 and 6, closer to towers burned throughout but did not collapse Paul Joseph Watson | August 23 2006 Previously unseen photos provided to us by a fireman who was at ground zero on 9/11 highlight the implausible implosion of WTC Building 7 in comparison with buildings closer to the towers that sustained significantly more fire and debris damage yet did not collapse. Above is a map showing the relative position of the buildings in the WTC complex. Though Building 7 was hit by flying aircraft parts, it was not significantly effected by the collapse of the towers due to it being shielded by buildings 5 and 6 - which despite being closer to the towers and suffering far more extreme fires - did not collapse. Click photo for larger Hi-Rez version Building 7 to the right of the picture as Building 5 burns in the left background. From this image, which building seems the more likely to collapse? The 47 story behemoth with limited fire in a few floors - or a nine story shell completely engulfed by fire and flames from top to bottom? Yet it was Building 7 and not 5 that collapsed on the afternoon of September 11. Click photo for larger Hi-Rez version The burned out husk of Building 5 two days after 9/11. Building 5 sustained massive damage from flaming aircraft parts which ignited fires that burned for hours. In addition, the collapse of the north tower scraped down the side of 5 but its modest nine floors did not structurally collapse. WTC 5 Here is a separate image revealing the extent of the fires in WTC 5. Despite raging infernos and debris gouging huge holes in the building, and in comparative size significantly more severe fires than the twin towers or Building 7 - the building stood while the other three all collapsed. WTC 6 In addition, Building 6, which was even closer to the north tower (seen here moments before its subsequent planned demolition months later), suffered even more extreme fire and debris damage, but the building did not fall down implosion style like the towers and Building 7. Click photo for larger Hi-Rez version A wider perspective shot of the rubble of Building 7. The Fiterman Hall building and the U.S. Post Office building across the street show little damage. Building 5 in the background is completely charred but still stands. Click photo for larger Hi-Rez version The rubble of WTC Building 7 lies in front of the Fiterman Hall building. The building has fallen in its own footprint - another sign of controlled demolition. Click photo for larger version Here are a couple of shots for the no planers and 'blue screen' advocates - aircraft engine parts and a truck designated to store them. Claiming that no planes hit the WTC towers is damaging to the movement's credibility and it is one of the first things that debunkers like Popular Mechanics seize upon when building straw man hit pieces. Click photo for larger version Please click here to download a zip file of the complete portfolio of these images. RELATED: 9/11: WTC Building 7 RELATED: Silverstein Answers WTC Building 7 Charges RELATED: Silverstein, FDNY Decided to 'Pull WTC 7': An In-Depth Analysis

Prisonplanet doesn't have such forums and if it did it would just have people like yourself there being very ignorant......so I doubt I'd visit. Why don't you want to know about the secret world governement and their plans for world domination? And what do you consider to be a good source?

^^^ yep, it's going to get bad for you guys. The North American union.....I hope you can stop it. And on the 9/11 stuff....come on....stop just using the "dont use any common sense or facts to back up your stories" line......please? I've always supplied evidence whenever I have posted.....and I am a very logical person....it's just that I read the news that most people are hidden from. 9/11 actually WAS an inside job and it's something alot of people are going to have to deal with eventually, you do know that?? why not make it sooner rarther that later......before it's too late.

Oh....you guys are suckers. You know that this stuff about the 22nd Of August 'APOCALYPSE' is all crazy? Ahmadinejad has never said anything about it - yet the news outlets are reporting in some silly 'voodoo' fashion.....just making up the news. They even had to admit that these's no evidence of any such claim by him It's madness.

Errmm...Hmmmm...

Hey, I actually do believe that is WAS a government set-up......so what??? I have lots of reasons to believe so. A Guardian/ICM poll today reveals that just 20% of British voters believe the government is telling the truth about the threat. And see how he (MrCool) uses Aliens and Elvis in an attempt to tie my very serious information in with them.......he does it all the time because he's....well.....not very smart I guess.

Well, yes....his statement (below).???...he's 'making up' what I believe now to make his argument. "you seem to think freedoms mean people can do whatever they please and if the goverment tries top them its fascism" Which is pure lies. An intelligent person would never say that in response to what I've said - he just doesn't get it. And....if he can't see the point we were trying to make then he surely will become a slave.

What? Through her sign and right on the forehead I believe was the bullets path... You're too going to make a great slave.