Tuesday, December 20, 2005

Masters of Fiction or Deception

You be the judge. So, if Rummy admits that he doesn't "know what it means," why does the mainstream press print what he says? Are these guys masters of fiction or deception? My bet is that its the latter - but they are not very good at that either - it's just that the remainder of their apologists are simply that gullible.
"I think it is interesting that we haven't heard from him for close to a year," Rumsfeld told reporters en route to Islamabad.

"I don't know what it means, but I suspect in any event if he is alive and functioning that he is sending a major fraction of his time trying to avoid being caught," Rumsfeld said.

"I have trouble believing he is able to operate sufficiently to be in a position of major command over a worldwide al Qaeda operation, but I could be wrong," he said.

Either way, don't you think we - the American people - deserve something more than speculation from the W, Rove and Co? Yes indeed, he "could be wrong," so why is he "playing politics" when that is a game the W, Rove and Co so despise?

P.S. Thanks for the catch Gaia - I must have been looking at another article when I typed the top paragraph. It's fixed.


Frodo Corleone said...

I feel bad for America... we all are just trying to making it through the holidays. The political spin and lying has to make citizens even less interested in government.

I'm currently going up against you in Battle of the Blogs, but I like you blog. The post of McClellan's transcript was awesome. That guy had to have been a dodgeball champ in grade school

Phil said...

"I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority."
- G.W. Bush, 3/13/02

Of course they have nothing more than speculation on him. They're more concerned with spying on American citizens and trying to indimidate the media than they are with finding the guy responsible for 9/11.

Echoes in a Nomad's Head

Gaia sighs... said...

You say Cheney said this, but the article refers to Rumsfeld.

Am I missing something?

enigma4ever said...

Fiction & Deception = Propaganda & Criminal Fraud

( yeah , it ain't spying it is just a little case of "Eavesdropping", we need to train the Media to say the right word...cause there is a helluva difference)

Neil Shakespeare said...

Had some correspondence with the right winger who patiently explained to me that if we go in and get bin Laden we'll piss of the Pakistanis, who will then start "sabre rattling". This will piss of the Indians, who will start sabre rattling, which in turn will piss of the Chinese, who have even more sabres to rattle. This would give an excuse for Iran to bomb Israel and vice-versa, starting WWIII. So this is obviously too important a man to capture.

destroy fascism said...

Neil, it isn't really that series of possible events you described that's the reason why the Bushitlerites are disinterested in and lackadaisacal about capturing Osama bin Laden. The ones at the top making the decisions know that Osama bin Laden, [former?] C.I.A. asset code named Tim Osman, whose older now-deceased brother Salem bin Laden was business partners with George H.W. Bush, isn't the man responsible for 9/11 anyway. He is a convenient "Emmanuel Goldstein" figure that is used to scare the American people and incite hatred whenever it is expedient for the Bush administration. The real story of 9/11 is pretty far from the "official" fairy tale propagated by the Bushites and their friends in the corporate-owned media. Actually, anyone who looks into the details of 9/11 in even the most cursory of analysis can't help but realize that the "official" myth is not only very far-fetched, but completely impossible. One quickly finds oneself in a position where one has to either conclude that the story we've been fed is total garbage and a pack of lies, or that some "nineteen hijackers with boxcutters" possessed vast magical powers with which they caused several otherwise impossible things to occur on that day, some defying physics altogether.

The easiest and quickest way to see that the "official" story is impossible [and thus, that we have been grossly lied to] is to watch the video footage of the "collapses" of the Twin Towers and WTC # 7. It is readily apparant in watching them that these were controlled demolitions. The explosions a split second before the "collapse" starts are clearly visible, as are the 'squibs' or jets of dust shooting out of windows near the blasts, and watch as each building comes down in nine seconds, telescoping down into its footprint at basically freefall rate [meaning everything that should have been holding the buildings up was converted to a state that offered no more resistance than air]. This is a physical impossibility for them to collapse at that rate WITHOUT explosives being used, i.e. a controlled demolition. Furthermore, the fires were nowhere near hot enough to compromise the integrity of the steel, meaning no "collapse" could have started in the first place. Watching the video footage of the "collapses" is more than enough proof to see they were controlled demolitions. See for yourselves:
...And here's some discussions as to how from a physics and from an engineering point of view the only possible cause of the "collapses" is controlled demolition:

Aside from the obvious controlled demolitions of the WTC, there are several other pieces of glaring evidence that confirm the "official" 9/11 myth is bunk. One being the total impotence on 9/11 of the world's most expensive and high-tech Air Force in the most closely-watched airspace in the world, the Northeastern U.S., allowing the "hijacked airliners" to fly from the time of the first one deviating from its flight plan to the time of the Pentagon crash, a total of an HOUR & TWENTY MINUTES completely unhindered. It is standard operating procedure for fighters to be scrambled when an airliner even looks like it MIGHT be hijacked, and on all the times that this appeared to be a possibility before and after 9/11 that is exactly what happened, and within a few minutes fighters appeared off of the wing of the unresponsive airliner. Why not on 9/11? At every fighter base, of which the Northeast U.S. is littered with them, at least two fighters and 2 pilots are on standby ready to scramble twenty-four hours a day every day. N.O.R.A.D. and the F.A.A. both monitor on radar all the civilian domestic air traffic in the U.S. and have been for many years. So what are the odds of the world's most expensive and proficient Air Force being totally asleep at the switch for one particular day in one particular year, the very day when they were needed the most? Maybe one in a million?? For some articles discussing the Air Force's incriminating impotence on 9/11, see:

Another thing to consider is the "anomalies" of the Pentagon crash. Firstly, the "airliner" that struck it didn't hit the Pentagon on the side from which it was approaching, instead circling around to hit it in the side that was under renovation at the time, with much fewer military personnel present. This was also the side that was the farthest point in the building from where Rumsfeld and the top military brass were located, and ALSO the part hit was the part that had been just before 9/11 been heavily structurally reinforced so that a fire there wouldn't spread elsewhere in the building. The Pentagon, though the seat of the Department of Defense and well-equipped with surface-to-air missile (SAM) systems, fired not even one SAM in its own defense! Also, the "airliner" that crashed there didn't even leave a gouge in the lawn! Also, there were no wings, no tail section, no fuselage etc. on the lawn as there would have been if a real Boeing 757 crashed there. Also, the original hole it made [not the one made a half-hour later with explosives] was only about 16 feet in diameter, way too small. For some pictures of the original hole and the remarkable gougeless lawn with no wings, no tail section etc., see:

Also consider Bush's behavior on the morning of 9/11 in that school. When Andy Card whispered to Bush that a second plane had hit the WTC, then everyone concerned knew it could be no accident, so if the "official" story were true then Bush's Secret Service personnel would have immediately whisked Bush away from that school where everyone knew where he was to a much safer and less-publicized location. But they didn't; instead, Bush was allowed to sit there and be read to by schoolkids for several minutes, then hobnob with teachers and have his picture taken with them, and THEN Bush gave a press conference, not leaving that school for at least 35 minutes after Card whispered in his ear. This can only mean: Bush and his Secret Service chief knew Bush was definitely not even a possible target on 9/11 in order to allow him to stay for 35 minutes in that elementary school; and the only way Bush and his Secret Service chief could have known that is if Bush knew the 9/11 plans beforehand, therefore 9/11 had to have been an inside job.

After considering these four enormously damning points, one might then turn to some smaller pieces of evidence such as the impossibility of the "hijacker's passport" story, remember the one that was supposedly "found" near the WTC rubble a few days after 9/11 and that we are supposed to believe survived the fire and "collapses" of the WTC; the obvious foreknowledge of whoever warned prominent individuals like San Francisco mayor Willie Brown and some top military generals to avoid flying and the WTC on 9/11, causing them to promptly cancel their flights; the obvious foreknowledge of whoever placed record amounts of "put" orders on the stock of United Airlines, American Airlines and Morgan Stanley-Dean Witter in the week just before 9/11 [a "put" order is betting a stock is going to drop in value]; several of the "nineteen 9/11 hijackers" who turned up alive & well days AFTER 9/11; or the multitude of "coincidences" that one must make themself believe were only coincidences if one wants to go on believing the "official" 9/11 myth. For a good list of the "coincidences", see:

A mountain of evidence all points to the same conclusion: 9/11 was certainly NOT pulled off by "nineteen hijackers" taking orders from a guy living in a cave, but was instead an inside job done by our own government to provide an "excuse" to invade Afghanistan to make it safe for the P.N.A.C.'s Caspian pipeline project, and they then tried to falsely tie it in with Saddam Hussein because they wanted to invade Iraq to secure its massive oil resources. Sad but true. I understand it is more psychologically painful to accept that our own government was behind 9/11, but being painful does not make it untrue. Sometimes the truth is a bitter pill, unpalatable and uncomfortable, but in the long run we are much better off embracing the truth about a matter than forcing ourselves to live in a psychologically safer, but fake, fantasy world.