| Tuesday
update
"It
looks like Defence Secretary Geoff Hoon knows he's going to be
hung out to dry.
The Independent
reports today:
"Geoff
Hoon, the Defence Secretary, was given a rough ride in the Commons
yesterday over Iraq and the death of David Kelly as he struggled to
regain his authority.
Mr
Hoon came under fire from Labour and Tory MPs and was ticked off by
Michael Martin, the Speaker, for announcing a decision to send another
1,200 British troops to Iraq in a written Commons statement, which
limited MPs' ability to question him on the deployment.
The
Defence Secretary looked uncomfortable and hinted for the first time
that he would resign if he is criticised in Lord Hutton's report next
month. He told Sky News: " If he's critical of me, I will have to
accept that. I'm content to await his results and to read what he has
to say.""
They're
also beginning to
turn up the heat under Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, but my
guess is that he will stay. When they hold inquiries like the one into
the death of Dr Kelly, the last thing they want to do is actually find
the people responsible for mis-deeds. It's an old technique - ignore
the people with the most to say. A prime example of this is the more
than 100 witnesses who saw the missile streak towards TWA Flight 800
over Long Island, NY, in 1996; the FBI just pretended these witnesses
never existed, never cited their testimony and thus put forward the
mechanical failure hypothesis, aided and abetted by the willing
mainstream media.
This is
not conspiracy theory folks, but an analysis of the facts. This is not
being done with the death of Dr Kelly, and has been avoided like the
plague with regard to the September 11th attacks on the USA. What the
911 Commission and the Senate investigation steadfastly refused to
explore was what ACTUALLY happened that day. Apart from the FBI's say
so, there is no proof that there were any hijackers on the planes at
all.
`Well
who flew them into the buildings?' if there were no hijackers, you may
ask. We know that since the Second World War there has been technology
available to remote control airplanes, and the technology was touted
for use in the unbelievable `Operation
Northwoods' which involved the Chairman and Joint Chiefs of Staff
plotting terror attacks on the American people as a pretext to justify
a war against Cuba. Change the name to Afghanistan, swap Bin Laden for
Castro and you have the blueprint for the 9/11 attacks. This was 1962
folks, and they talk about remote controlled planes. They're using
remote controlled drones in Iraq and Afghanistan today, so the
technology is coming off the production line.
I've
received a lot of emails about the new 9/11 pictures and the
anomalies. Now that readers have had a chance to look at them and have
a think, let me say that I do not necessarily believe that there was
actually anything on the bottom of that second plane. I put the
pictures up because that frame looked bizarre, and because I've
wondered to myself if the depiction of the first plane was too small
to be what they said it was.
This
website is called `ThoughtCrimeNews.com' for a reason. I see the pace
the world, media, politics, education and public consciousness moves
and it all works against thinking for oneself. I wanted to prompt
thought and debate about the suggestion that there WAS something
there. When the `blackened area' was pointed out I stated straight
away that I thought it was the building in front of the WTC tower, yet
I have received emails from people who it seems cannot read English,
or who cannot digest full sentences without asking for help.
I am
prepared to agree with those who suggest that the blob/bulge/strange
object `underneath' the second plane is perhaps nothing more than a
digital artefact. The frame is after all taken from a blow-up of
video-camera footage. But there is the possibility it was something
else. The white flash is probably just the sun glaring off a water
tower. I am not qualified in photo analysis, nor am I qualified in
aviation technology. I am, however, superbly qualified in asking
difficult questions and being a pain in the arse, as we say in
England.
So I
wanted to prompt questioning and debate about these pictures. If I
hadn't spotted the blob and put out the pictures, someone else would
have, and perhaps would have spun it as conclusive proof that those
weren't the original planes that hit the WTC towers. I have one reader
suggesting that the man responsible for the new footage, Mr Hlava, may
be an intelligence asset. I'll bring you more about this, whether it
is confirmed or conclusively denied. I will say that the timing of the
release of the new tape is a little suspicious. I mean, he didn't know
what he had? Give me a break!
Hey
guys, don't shoot me down. I personally believe the attacks were an
`inside job' and that elements of the US government, or shadow
government, have a lot of questions to answer about the 9/11 attacks.
Former environment minister Michael Meacher articulated just a few of
these questions very succinctly in his article
in the Guardian on Saturday. As I said would happen, rather than
debate Meacher on the evidence and the questions raised, everyone the
powers that be can dig up has been used to rubbish his argument.
David
Aaronovitch (absolutely no relation whatsoever) has sunk
his teeth into Meacher in the Guardian today, but he has fallen
for the trap that Meacher managed to avoid:
"This is
conspiracy 101. Say something is a fact which isn't. Then ask
questions, rising up through incompetence, gradually to mal-intention,
and then - abruptly - demand who might be behind it all. Cui Bono, my
dear friends?"
Aaronovitch has
unfortunately believed the accounts given of the fighter jet
responses. Rather than look at the accounts of what jets scrambled
from where and at what times and more importantly how these changed
over time, he has instead just swallowed up everything that General
Myers, Robert Mueller et al can feed him on a spoon. Wake up David,
they're lying to you.
Despite
these strenuous smear efforts, Meacher is not alone. There are many
people who agree with his line of questioning and actually go much
further, as does former German minister Andreas
von Buelow who accuses the US of piloting the planes into the
towers by remote control in his book about 9/11.
I have
read a suggestion that by putting out the pictures on Sunday and
presenting them the way I did, I must be some kind of intelligence
asset put out on the web to steer people away from discussing the
justifiably pertinent issues surrounding the 9/11 attacks. Let me
assure you that I am no such thing, for those who would take my word
as sufficient. For those of you who don't, well what can I say? Very
little. Except look at the stuff I've been carrying on this site, and
ask yourself how many intelligence assets would actually give credence
to any of this in the first place? Again, there is a reason for
calling this website `ThoughtCrimeNews.com'.
If I was
MI6, would I phone into the Alex
Jones show and agree with him? Doubtful. For those of you who
listen to Alex Jones, I was calling in using the name `John' until I
decided to go public to contribute to the daily spin cycle of the
news. Read into this what you will, but I did it to protect myself,
until I realised it was safer out in the open.
Enough
of that. I've said my piece.
How
can Israel sort itself out and find a peaceful settlement with the
Palestinian people? Not very easily according to Barry
Chamish who contends that they are setting the stage for foreign
troops to intervene in the Holy Land. Tom Clancy conveniently
conditioned us to accept this notion in his 1992 book `The Sum Of All
Fears". Gee, thanks Tom. It would come as no surprise to some
when they send the troops in, thanks to his novel written with very
close access to Pentagon sources and information. What does Clancy
know that us mere mortals don't?
If
any readers think that I am a self-hating Jew or a something to
that effect, well sorry to disappoint but you'd be wrong. I support
the right of the State of Israel to exist, but I think that they're
doing some pretty dreadful stuff, and I don't think that it is the
policy of all Jews worldwide to support such activities. If we want to
blame someone, I think Chamish is on the money when he pins it on the
machinations of Shimon Peres and the like. To some, the suggestion
that Peres is working for the Vatican is just too
fantastic to be true and they would rather blame either the
Palestinians entirely, or the so-called `Zionazis' (their word, not
mine) who run Israel. Isn't this just a little too simplistic? Ask
yourselves why the London Jewish Chronicle absolutely refuse to cover
any of Chamish's work, not least his analysis of the Yitzhak Rabin
assassination and his conclusion that the man convicted of Rabin's
murder, Yigal Amir, didn't do it.
One
of my biggest gripes is the way consciousness is effectively
controlled by the mainstream media, education, the government and
therefore by peer-pressure, our own family, friends and the general
public. People read Orwell's
`Nineteen Eighty Four' and say "oh well, that's just fiction.
It'll never happen." Oh yeah? Take a look around. The media have
done such a good job on the public about subjects like Israel, 9/11,
conspiracies, politics, high-level satanic ritual abuse, foreign
`enemies' - you name it - that it is difficult if not impossible
to raise challenging issues without being shouted down, smeared,
discredited or called a liar. Again, think about the name of this
website. The operative word is think or thought.
When
looking at today's headlines, or any news story, ask yourself if this
is the way you would have wanted it 10 years ago, or even now. Don't
give yourself the get-out clause of "well we have to
because...". Just ask yourself if you want it that way. Do I want
an ID card? No. Do I want a chip in my arm? No. Will I be forced into
having one by the collective idiocy of the general public who are
persuaded by the agenda of the power-elite? Not if I can help it. As
Dave VonKleist says on The Power
Hour, "where is YOUR line in the sand?""
-
Editor |
