Wednesday, August 29, 2007

Market Crash Forecast Suggests New 9/11

Mystery trader bets on huge downturn that could only be preceded by catastrophe

Paul Joseph Watson
August 27, 2007

A mystery trader risks losing around $1 billion dollars after placing 245,000 put options on the Dow Jones Eurostoxx 50 index, leading many analysts to speculate that a stock market crash preceded by a new 9/11 style catastrophe could take place within the next month.

The anonymous trader only stands to make money if the market crashes by a third to a half before September 21st, which is when the put options expire. A put option is a financial contract between two parties, the buyer and the writer (seller) of the option, in which the buyer stands to benefit only if the price of the asset falls.

"The sales are being referred to by market traders as "bin Laden trades" because only an event on the scale of 9-11 could make these short-sell options valuable," reports financial blogger Marc Parent. Dow Jones Financial News first reported on the story.

The trader stands to make around $2 billion from their investment should an event trigger a market crash before the third week in September.

Such a cataclysmic jolt could only happen as a result of two factors, China dumping its vast dollar reserves in reaction to the sub-prime mortgage collapse, which it has threatened to do, or a massive terror attack on the same scale or larger than 9/11.

9/11 itself was foreshadowed by unprecedented put options that were placed on United and American Airlines. Though the Securities and Exchange Commission refused to reveal who placed the options, private researchers traced the investments back to the Deutsche Bank owned Banker’s Trust, which was formerly headed by then Executive Director of the CIA, Buzzy Krongard.

Put options on Morgan Stanley and Merrill Lynch, two of the World Trade Center's most prominent occupants, also spiked in the days before 9/11.

News of the suspicious trades is dovetailed by the comments of Former US Treasury secretary Larry Summers yesterday, who told ABC News that the risk of a recession in the U.S. was greater that at any time since 9/11.

Sunday, August 26, 2007

Tim Robbins nails Stephen Hayes’ nuts to the wall on Iraq

Author Stephen Hayes’ gets hammered by Robbins and Bill Maher about Iraq; Maher plugs Ron Paul

by Larry Simons
August 26, 2007

On the debut episode of the new season of "Real Time with Bill Maher", Bush/Cheney supporter Stephen Hayes gets neutered by Bill Maher and Tim Robbins about Iraq. Hayes flat out lies and says the war was supported by 75-80% of Americans. Hayes also lies and says there was a Saddam Hussein/al Qaeda connection...a bold-faced lie which Robbins and Maher extinguishes quickly.

Hayes uses a quote from 9/11 Commission chairman Tom Kean to show there was proof of a Hussein/al Qaeda connection, although just about everyone else with a trace of intelligence, including the Senate Intel Committee, has said there was NO connection.

In fact, here is a list of agencies/organizations that conclude NO Saddam/ al Qaeda connection:

1993 WTC investigations
Neil Herman, who headed the FBI investigation into the attack, noted that despite Yasin's presence in Baghdad, there was no evidence of Iraqi support for the attack.

1998 National Security Council exercise
2001 Presidential Daily Briefing - Ten days after the September 11, 2001 attacks, President Bush receives a classified Presidential Daily Briefing (that had been prepared at his request) indicating that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the September 11th attacks and that there was "scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda."

2002 DIA reports
In April 2002, the DIA assessed that "there was no credible reporting on al-Qa'idatraining at Salman Pak or anywhere else in Iraq

2002 British intelligence report
We have no intelligence of current cooperation between Iraq and al Qaeda and do not believe that al Qaeda plans to conduct terrorist attacks under Iraqi direction

2003 CIA report
Michael Scheuer, the main researcher assigned to review the research into the project, described the review and his conclusions: "For about four weeks in late 2002 and early 2003, I and several others were engaged full time in searching CIA files -- seven days a week, often far more than eight hours a day. At the end of the effort, we had gone back ten years in the files and had reviewed nearly twenty thousand documents that amounted to well over fifty thousand pages of materials.... There was no information that remotely supported the analysis that claimed there was a strong working relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda. I was embarrassed because this reality invalidated the analysis I had presented on the subject in my book

2003 British intelligence report
In January 2003, British intelligence completed a classified report on Iraq that concluded that "there are no current links between the Iraqi regime and the al-Qaeda network."

2003 Israeli intelligence
In February 2003, Israeli intelligence sources told the Associated Press that no link has been conclusively established between Saddam and Al Qaeda

2004 Carnegie study
In January 2004, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace scholars Joseph Cirincione, Jessica Tuchman Mathews, and George Perkovich publish their study WMD in Iraq: Evidence and Implications, which looked into Saddam's relationship with al-Qaeda and concluded that "although there have been periodic meetings between Iraqi and Al Qaeda agents, and visits by Al Qaeda agents to Baghdad, the most intensive searching over the last two years has produced no solid evidence of a cooperative relationship between Saddam's government and Al Qaeda."

2004 9/11 Commission Report
The report addressed specific allegations of contacts between al-Qaeda and members of Saddam Hussein's government and concluded that there was no evidence that such contacts developed into a collaborative operational relationship

2004 Senate Report of Pre-war Intelligence on Iraq
The report focused specifically on the CIA's 2003 study. After examining all the intelligence, the Senate committee concluded that the CIA had accurately assessed that contacts between Saddam Hussein's regime and members of al-Qaeda "did not add up to an established formal relationship."

2004 CIA report
In August, the CIA finished another assessment of the question of Saddam's links to al-Qaeda. The assessment concluded that there was no evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime harbored Jordanian terrorist Abu Musab al-Zarqawi

2005 update of CIA report
In October 2005, the CIA updated the 2004 report to conclude that Saddam's regime "did not have a relationship, harbor, or even turn a blind eye toward Mr. Zarqawi and his associates," according to the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence

2006 Pentagon study
It found evidence that al-Qaeda jihadists had viewed Saddam as an "infidel" and cautioned against working with him

2006 Senate Report of Pre-War Intelligence
The reports concluded that, according to David Stout of the New York Times, "there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had prewar ties to Al Qaeda and one of the terror organization’s most notorious members, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi."

2007 Pentagon Inspector General Report
Senator Carl Levin, Chair of the Senate Armed Services Committee, stated that "The bottom line is that intelligence relating to the Iraq-al-Qaeda relationship was manipulated by high-ranking officials in the Department of Defense to support the administration's decision to invade Iraq. The inspector general's report is a devastating condemnation of inappropriate activities in the DOD policy office that helped take this nation to war."

I was disappointed at Maher for one thing. For not taking the opportunity to blast Hayes for quoting Tom Kean, who is the primary one responsible for stifling the hard questions of 9-11 and totally whitewashing the investigation. Do you really think he was appointed to head the 9-11 Commission by Bush to expose the truth? But, I forgave Maher when he plugged Ron Paul, so it all balanced out.

Enjoy the clip:

I thought I’d wrap up with a little humor from Bill Maher’s New Rules segment:

Saturday, August 25, 2007

Patriot Hero Aaron Russo Passes Away

Prison Planet
August 24, 2007

We were saddened to hear of the passing of activist, film maker, freedom fighter and all round maverick Aaron Russo today, who died today after a long battle with cancer at the age of 64.

Aaron will be remembered fondly for all his achievements, not least of which the excellent America: From Freedom to Fascism, his final movie which exposed the fraudulent basis of the IRS and the Federal Reserve.

Aaron was a real patriot who loved his country and risked his whole career to stand for the truth. He was an example to us all.

Aaron Russo was the Samuel Adams of our day, a stalwart defender of liberty, his passing is greatly mourned but his fiery spirit lives on in all of his great work and in his wife, his children and his film America From Freedom to Fascism.

Our deep condolences go out to Aaron's family and friends at this difficult time.


Below is a video interview that Alex Jones conducted with Aaron after the two were able to meet for the first time in January of this year.

In tribute, here is Aaron Russo’s masterpiece, “America: Freedom To Fascism” in it’s entirety.

Thursday, August 23, 2007

Pro War Ads Falsely Link 9/11 To Iraq

Neo-con riddled "Nonprofit corporation" Pumps out misleading propaganda

Steve Watson
August 23, 2007

A newly formed non-profit organization made up of former Bush administration officials is to spend $15 million to run pro-war television and radio ads in more than 20 states which falsely link the 9/11 attacks to the war in Iraq in an effort to strong arm Congress into withdrawing support for a de-escalation.

According to its own press release the group, Freedom's Watch, will run the ads as of today and feature an 800-number for the public to call their representatives and urge them "not to surrender to terror".

One of the founding board members for the group is former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer. In addition Freedom's Watch chairman Bradley A. Blakeman was a member of the White House senior staff during President Bush's first term. According to the Politico, the group's board is also riddled with former Bush officials, as is its list of major donors.

According to its website the organization is "dedicated to educating individuals about and advancing public policies that protect America's interests at home and abroad, foster economic prosperity, and strengthen families."

Through outreach and education, communications to key members of Congress, and bold public awareness initiatives, Freedom's Watch is fighting for what's right in America. We welcome all those who share our values to join our efforts." The diatribe continues.

Though it claims to be "fighting for what is right", the group seems to have no problem producing intentionally misleading propaganda.

The first ad to be aired by the group features Sgt. John Kriesel, a veteran who lost both legs in the war, relating to viewers that he "re-enlisted after 9/11" because "They attacked us, and they will again."

As Kriesel describes his story, a picture of the burning World Trade Center with United Airlines Flight 175 approaching its target appears. "They won't stop in Iraq. We are winning on the ground. ... It's no time to quit; it's no time for politics." Kriesel concludes.

Watch the propaganda:

The fact that there has never at any point been any intelligence whatsoever supporting any links between 9/11, Al Qaeda and Iraq seems not to matter to Freedom's Watch.

As reported by the NY Times in 2003, "The chairman of the monitoring group appointed by the United Nations Security Council to track Al Qaeda told reporters that his team had found no evidence linking Al Qaeda to Saddam Hussein" [6/27/03]. Similarly, even the 9/11 commission report undercuts claims before the war that Hussein had links to Al Qaeda.

Fast forward to April 2007 and even the Pentagon dismissed any link between Al Qaeda and Iraq.

Maybe this is just one man's story though and the next ad will steer clear of the tenuous link.

Not on your life.

The second ad features Laura Youngblood, widow to Travis Youngblood, a Navy petty officer, who died in Iraq in 2005 as the result of a roadside bombing. Why was Mrs Youngblood chosen for the ad? See for yourself:

"I lost two family members to al Qaeda," she says, "my uncle, a firefighter, on 9/11, and my husband, Travis, in Iraq."

Again this represents a blatant and untruthful attempt to conflate 9/11 with the war in Iraq.

A third Freedom's Watch ad which also draws on 9/11 and confirms beyond doubt this agenda:

The blatant attempt to use 9/11 as an excuse to prolong the war in Iraq and link the two is shameful and it comes as no surprise to see former Neocon stalwarts pumping money into such propaganda.

Indeed it was during Bush's re-election campaign in 2004 that some families of the victims of the attacks were furious with commercials using images from 9/11 which were used to advertise Bush administration public policy and the war on terror.

The Freedom's Watch advertisements are extremely misleading and constitute a disgraceful insult to the victims of both 9/11 and the war in Iraq and should be withdrawn from the air with immediate effect.

by Larry Simons

Hmmmm. Here’s Bush saying something completely different. Bad memory? Compulsive liar? Both? Bush admits in this clip that 9/11 had nothing to do with Iraq. Maybe the people in the clips above should have a long talk with Bush and Cheney, since they butt heads on this issue.

Hmmmm, here’s Cheney admitting no Iraq/9-11 connection either!:

I find it laugh out loud funny that Cheney attempts to spin this issue with Tim Russert in the above clip. Russert correctly points out that the administration has clearly misled the American people by linking al Qaeda with Iraq, thus tricking Americans into believing that if we attacked Iraq, we’d be going after the very people that attacked us on 9-11.

Cheney spins this by suggesting that there are two different issues here. First issue: Iraq and 9-11 connection, NO evidence, Cheney admits. Second issue: Iraq and al Qaeda connection, Cheney says there was testimony by George Tenet there was a connection. Russert interrupts and correctly states that the Senate Intel Committee said there was NO Iraq/al Qaeda connection. Then the third issue was that Iraq had had a long history of sponsoring terror. Yeah, DICK, along with 20 or 30 OTHER countries that we DIDN’T attack, one in which (that sponsors terror) is Saudi Arabia! You know, the country that actually produced 15 of the 19 hijackers who DID attack us! But, are we in Saudi Arabia? Nahhhhh, why go there?

These ads are a joke and I would love to think Americans are smarter now than they were 4 years ago and they are not buying this bullshit propaganda anymore.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

History Channel Hit Piece: Dirty Tricks, Malicious Lies & Journalistic Fraud

The real story behind Brad Davis, NBC, Popular Mechanics and the History Channel - media whore stooges who engaged in deliberate deception, manipulation and chicanery to please their corporate bosses

Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, August 21, 2007

The History Channel 9/11 special that aired last night was by far the worst hit piece we have ever witnessed, a completely savage, dishonest and deceptive abomination, replete with dirty tricks, malicious lies and a level of journalistic fraud that goes way beyond simple bias.

Bradley Davis, the producer of the show, is a paid liar and a hit piece specialist who deceives people by gaining their confidence and then attacking them behind their back.

He is famous for the smear job documentary on Michael Jackson and makes a career out of conning people and then stabbing them in the back. His tongue is so smooth, that even the Loose Change crew were prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on his impartiality before last night's hit piece was aired, with Davis having tricked them into believing he was a friend.

Before filming began, Alex Jones asked Davis point blank if the documentary was going to be a hit piece, which Davis denied. After we brought attention to the History Channel's blurb on their website, which clearly characterized the show as a hit piece, Davis panicked and promised to alter the promo, calling it a "misrepresentation," as well as re-edit the entire program to make it more balanced. The promo temporarily disappeared from the website and the broadcast of the show was put back by a week.

During the course of this second exchange, Davis again promised Jones that the show was not going to be a hit piece and was very upset that we had discovered he was behind the NBC hit piece on Jackson - seemingly frightened that his cover might be blown and his next victim would be alerted to his scheming tricks. He was terrified and kept repeating that he didn't want to be quoted on anything he said.

Just like Popular Mechanics swore that their straw man smear job wouldn't be a hit piece, Davis engaged in journalistic fraud and complete dishonesty by lying directly to Alex Jones' face in claiming the documentary was to be neutral just so he could secure the interview.

Listen to Alex Jones discuss it on his radio show today:

Just like William Randolph Hearst, the progenitor of the term "yellow journalism," Davis will go down in history as a liar and a fraud.

The show itself was deliberately crafted, edited, shot and manipulated to portray the 9/11 truth movement in a completely negative light, while exalting the so-called experts to almost God-like status.

- The program makers pulled out all the stops to hire nationally renowned NBC news anchor Lester Holt (pictured) to narrate the show, a trusted voice that was utilized to brutally debunk 9/11 truth representatives.

- The debunkers, people like James Meigs whose scientific expertise stretches as far as being the editor of Video Review and Entertainment Weekly, were labeled as experts while real experts like Physicist Professor Steven Jones were stripped of any such description.

- The debunkers' interviews were pristinely shot and framed, with beautiful backdrops and highly sympathetic camera angles and filters, whereas the truthers were shot from bizarre positions, their images were deliberately distorted and even the color filter of the shot had been manipulated to make their appearance look tainted, blurred and contorted. This was an intentional ploy and a crude act of manipulation to detract credibility from the truthers and violates all known ethical standards of journalism.

- The producers of the show failed to offer the proviso that Hearst Publishing, the owner of Popular Mechanics, also holds a controlling stake in the History Channel (via its stake in the A & E Television Network), therefore concealing from the viewer a blatant conflict of interest that negated the neutrality of the show before it had even begun.

- The debunkers were afforded far more time on camera while the truthers were sidelined.

- The narrator of the show would dismiss the questions and evidence raised by the truthers as unproven or debunked in an ad hominem manner without providing any evidence to justify the assertion.

- The truthers were edited so that only hesitant responses to questions were broadcast, casting doubt on the veracity of their claims in the mind of the unsuspecting viewer.

- The show included a clip of Alex Jones' appearance at the University of Texas, at which around 500 people packed the lecture hall to hear his speech, but deliberately and maliciously edited the footage to include shots taken during recess, so as to make it appear that the lecture hall was mostly empty. In addition, lingering shots of empty chairs were included to further deceive the viewer into thinking few had attended the speech. This is journalistic fraud of the worse kind - a blatant misrepresentation and deliberate skewing of actual events.

- In a similar vein, footage from 9/11 truth protests was broadcast but the angle of the shot was always tight, so as to make out that few people had attended the demonstration, when in fact thousands were present.

- Davin Coburn of Popular Mechanics, mirroring a dirty trick that was also employed in the BBC hit piece, maliciously lied and smeared Alex Jones and others in the program by claiming that most of the 9/11 families hate them and that they are responsible for causing the families more pain. Coburn and the show's producers know this is an outright lie and that the majority of the family members are asking the same questions as Alex Jones and others. Bill Doyle, representative of the largest group of 9/11 family members told the Alex Jones Show directly that over half of the family members have questions about the official story. Alex Jones and the Loose Change crew offered contact details for numerous 9/11 first responders, firefighters and family members that were asking questions of the official version, but absolutely none were interviewed by Brad Davis and the rest of the show's producers.

- The producers of the show tried to make out that Loose Change had recanted their position on the issue of controlled demolition, when in fact Dylan Avery and the other members of the crew were merely using their Final Cut version to focus on other topics, having already covered controlled demolition at length in previous versions. This trick was used to claim that evidence for bombs and controlled demolition, which is attested to by scores of firefighters and first responders, none of which were interviewed by the producers, had been debunked.

- Articles and text from 9/11 truth websites were shown, but the actual URL addresses of the sites were blurred out, with the History Channel obviously frightened that people might actually visit such websites and find out that the program was a pack of lies.

- The debunkers attempted to wriggle out of Secretary Norman Mineta's bombshell testimony about Cheney's actions in the Emergency Operations Center, by claiming that Mineta was talking about Flight 93 and not the plane that hit the Pentagon. In reality, Mineta makes it clear in his testimony that he is talking about Flight 77, "the airplane coming in to the Pentagon," and this is then confirmed by Commissioner Lee Hamilton.

- The debunkers admitted that temperatures inside the twin towers were not hot enough to melt steel, but claimed that they were hot enough to weaken steel and cause the collapse. The debunkers uniformly failed to address the fact that firefighters and first responders described witnessing molten steel beneath the rubble of the towers and they also ignored Professor Steven Jones' scientific analysis of the iron-rich microspheres found in the rubble. In a website posting last night, Professor Jones stated that he emphatically pushed the dust analysis during his interview with the producers, but the topic was completely overlooked. The New York Times reported that the molten steel was "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered" but the History Channel, mirroring NIST, failed to address the issue.

- The debunkers mentioned WTC 7 only in passing and completely failed to address why the building, which wasn't hit by a plane, collapsed in 7 seconds into its own footprint after suffering only limited fire damage from falling debris. They also failed to mention why news outlets were reporting the collapse of Building 7 over an hour before it actually fell.

- The wargames that dovetailed 9/11 and deliberately confused NORAD personnel so as to slow response to the real attack were completely excluded.

- The Able Danger program and how the hijackers were discovered before 9/11 was completely excluded.

- The fact that the money man behind the hijackers, Pakistan’s ISI Chief Mahmoud Ahmad, was meeting with U.S. government and intelligence officials before and on the morning of 9/11, was completely excluded.

- William Rodriguez' first-hand testimony of explosions prior to the impact of the planes was completely excluded, as was the testimony of numerous firefighters who attested to bombs and explosions.

- NBC reporter Pat Dawson claimed that FDNY Chief of Safety Albert Turi had only described explosions, not bombs, going off, contradicting Dawson's own report at the time which stated, "Reports of a secondary device, that is another ‘bomb’ going off."

After watching this two hour charade, Alex Jones was left stunned and irate that the producers had deliberately set out to create something that goes way beyond the scope of bias - an intentional propaganda attack piece strewn with manifestly provable lies, dirty tricks and misrepresentation, and that the show's producers, and in particular Brad Davis, had purposefully lied all along in order to shield the fact that this was a savage hit piece of the highest order.

In comparison, The History Channel makes Fox News look fair and balanced!

Framing Alex Jones as a demon and making out that he is causing pain to 9/11 families, when in fact during our last visit to ground zero most of the firefighters and police personally thanked us, is a very serious allegation and we are waiting to see what kind of damages will accrue as a result while we consider our next step.

As we expected all along, Brad Davis and the rest of the charlatans at NBC, the History Channel and Popular Mechanics, have pleased their corporate masters by unleashing the most twisted, distorted, dishonest and savage hit piece in television history. They have shown their hand by deliberately abandoning any pretense at ethical journalism and delivering exactly what their Hearst "yellow journalism" Publishing and GE bosses demanded - a bias, malicious, deceptive, and manipulative tissue of lies and another reason for Americans to disengage from an establishment media empire that continues to hemorrhage viewers on a daily basis due to its ceaseless lies and propaganda.

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Ground Zero Building Catches Fire, Doesn't Collapse

Supporters of official conspiracy theory now have to rewrite their defense; have argued for 6 years now that only reason Deutsche building didn't collapse on 9/11 was because of no fire
August 18, 2007

The 40 story Deutsche Bank building next to the ground zero site in New York, where the world trade center once stood, caught fire yesterday and burned intensely for seven hours without collapsing.

This represents another modern day miracle in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer limited fire damage implode within two hours. This building had even suffered structural damage on 9/11 and had been partially dismantled.

The raging fire, which killed two firefighters, was finally declared under control late saturday afternoon, a full seven hours after it had begun to burn.

On 9/11 the south tower of the WTC burned for just 56 minutes before collapsing, while the north tower lasted around an hour and 45 minutes. According to the official transcripts of the firefighter tapes, fires in both towers were almost out immediately before the collapses.

The Deutsche Building on 9/11. No fire present but substantial damage. The Deutsche Building was right up next to the South tower but didn’t catch fire, but WTC 7 was farther away from the towers but did catch fire. The fire on Aug 18, 2007 now prompts the question: Why no collapse?

The saving grace that could have prevented Deutsche Bank from imploding may have been the fact that it was not hit by a plane, as the twin towers were on 9/11.

However, the absence of a jet strike wasn't enough to prevent WTC 7 from crumbling into its own footprint within 7 seconds later that fateful afternoon.

Hundreds of buildings worldwide suffered major fires that gutted the entire facade of their structure before 9/11 and did not collapse, but since the twin towers behaved differently, rather than consider an alternative explanation for the collapse of the towers, experts simply decided to reverse the fundamental precepts of all known physics to make it easier for everyone to understand.

Since that time, it has been commonly accepted that limited fires in tall buildings are 99% certain to cause an almost instantaneous collapse.

More pictures and an AP report on the latest blaze follow.

Watch the videos:

Firefighters Die in Blaze by Ground Zero
Verena Dobnik, Associated Press

NEW YORK - A seven-alarm fire ripped through an abandoned skyscraper next to ground zero in Lower Manhattan Saturday, killing two firefighters who were responding to the blaze.

Officers at the scene were preventing nearby residents from returning to their homes, telling them that authorities were concerned the former Deutsche Bank office building, vacant since the 2001 terrorist attacks turned it into a toxic nightmare, could fall. Mayor Michael Bloomberg said that fear turned out to be unfounded.

The plume of gray smoke that trailed above the site of the World Trade Center raised concerns that toxic substances in the building could be spreading.

Bloomberg sought to reassure residents that the chemicals in the building likely did not present a significant health risk, saying air-quality tests so far showed no danger.

"Having said that, we are extremely careful. We don't want to prejudge anything," the mayor added. Tests were to continue overnight, he said.
One of the firefighters killed was identified as Joseph Graffagnino, 34, of Brooklyn. He was a member of Ladder 5, which lost 11 members on Sept. 11, 2001.

"Today's events really are another cruel blow to our city and to our fire department," Bloomberg said. He said the fire had "expanded our loss."

Also killed was Robert Beddia, 53, of Staten Island. Bloomberg said both firefighters had become trapped, inhaled a great deal of smoke and gone into cardiac arrest.

Five or six other firefighters were taken to a hospital but were expected to be released, Bloomberg said. No civilians were hurt.

Construction crews had already dismantled 14 of the building's 40 stories -- reaching the 26th floor on Tuesday. Some firefighters used stairs to reach the burning upper floors of the building, just steps from where 343 firefighters lost their lives in the 2001 terror attacks.

The cause of the fire was not immediately known. Smoke pouring from the burning building was visible from midtown Manhattan and the New Jersey side of the Hudson River. Fire officials declared the blaze under control late Saturday.

The acrid smell of smoke, which hung over the neighborhood for days after Sept. 11, returned to lower Manhattan along with the wail of emergency vehicles. More than five dozen fire vehicles, with more than 270 firefighters, responded to the blaze as pieces of burning debris fell from the building to the streets.

Residents said they weren't allowed home even to rescue their pets.

"We heard this crackling," said Elizabeth Hughes, who saw the fire start from her rooftop deck across from the tower. "And then a huge fire that went up three floors fast. It was massive. ... Oh my God! I can't even go in and get my cats."

By late Saturday evening, nearby residents who had been evacuated were told they could return.

The 1.4-million square foot office tower was contaminated with toxic dust and debris after the World Trade Center's south tower collapsed into it. Bloomberg said the chemicals in the building did not present a significant health risk.

Efforts to dismantle it were halted by a labor dispute last year, along with the ongoing search for the remains of attack victims.

City officials announced in June they had completed recovery efforts at the structure. More than 700 human remains were found at the site.

Errol Cockfield, a spokesman for the Empire State Development Corp., which is overseeing redevelopment at ground zero, said authorities were investigating whether the smoke at the scene could pose any environmental danger.

by Larry Simons

Just to point out a few things as illustrated by the following photos. First of all, let's take a look at the distances between the South tower and the Deutsche Building (Bankers Trust) and the North tower and WTC 7. You will see that there is substantially a greater distance between WTC 7 and the North tower, making it less plausible that enough debris would have hit WTC 7 in order to make it eventually collapse. Whereas, Bankers Trust is practically rubbing against the South tower, yet no collapse resulted with Bankers Trust.

Image 18 is Bankers Trust and image 5 is WTC 7

Here is yet another diagram of the World Trade Center complex. Also, this shows at a better view the incredible gouge taken out of Bankers Trust on 9-11, yet no collapse. Remember, it was the combination of the debris hitting it, the gouge taken from the building and the fires that we are told WTC 7 collapsed.

The following photo has been used by supporters of the official conspiracy theory to show what helped WTC 7 to collapse, namely, the gouge taken from the lower part of WTC 7. Yet, look (above) at the giant gouge taken from Bankers Trust on 9-11. This didn't seem to be enough to make it collapse to the ground.

Here is another famous building with a MAJOR chunk out of it, yet no collapse.

Does anyone remember the federal building in Oklahoma City collapsing?

The following photo has also been used by those who support the official fairy tale to suggest that the amount of smoke pouring from WTC 7 was obviously the result of massive fires in the building. After all, you can't get smoke without fire, right? But yet, in NONE of the photos of WTC 7 showing smoke billowing from it do we see any fire (well, any massive fires, which is what it would require for massive amounts of smoke to gush from it)

The large amounts of smoke pouring from WTC 7 without visible fires could possibly be explained by the fact that the smoke wasn't coming from WTC 7. Could they have been coming from WTC 5? Here is a photo that is rarely if ever shown. Notice the smoke pouring from the roof of WTC 5 and going in the direction of WTC 7, giving the appearance that the smoke's origin is WTC 7.

Notice WTC 7 on the left of the photo (WTC 5 was fully ablaze after the collapses of the twin towers)

Now, yesterday, we had strong fires in Bankers Trust, and yet no collapse, even on top of the fact that the building is currently being deconstructed and they have done no repairs to it since 9-11 because of the deconstruction. Point being, it is more fragile than WTC 7 was at the time it was first hit by debris or caught on fire. It will be very interesting to see how the official conspiracy theorists rewrite this one.

Thursday, August 16, 2007

Jon Stewart unearths an accurate Dick Cheney

Unfortunately, you have to go back to 1994 to find Cheney being right about something

by Larry Simons
August 16, 2007

An old tape recently unearthed from 1994 shows Dick Cheney being……(you may want to sit down before I say this)……..CORRECT about Iraq!!!!!

Jon Stewart talks to Stephen Hayes, the author of a new book about Cheney, and is dead on correct about everything, while Hayes stumbles for words. Also, in the clip, Stewart makes reference to asshole John Gibson's mocking of Stewart a few days ago on Gibson's radio show when Stewart is explaining to Hayes how dissenting and criticizing Bush and Cheney's foreign policies makes others (namely FOX News) portray him as a traitor.

Here’s the clip:
C:\Documents and Settings\Larry\Desktop\TDS-Hayes-Cheney.wmv

Earlier in the show Stewart did a hilarious segment called, “Even Dick don’t know Dick” in which he showed a clip of Dick Cheney from 1994 telling us all that going into Iraq would be a mistake and a “quagmire”. My sides almost burst at the end of the clip when Jon Stewart says, “at least this finally explains what Cheney keeps in that man-sized safe……HIMSELF from 1994!” Classic, classic stuff.

Here’s the clip. Enjoy!:
C:\Documents and Settings\Larry\Desktop\TDS-Cheney-1994.wmv

Supporters of Cheney, including Hayes, argues that the reason why Cheney was right about not going into Iraq in 1994 and he’s right NOW that we are in Iraq is because “things changed after 9/11”, despite Cheney ADMITTING on Meet The Press on Sept. 10, 2006 that “we’ve never been able to confirm any connection between Iraq and 9/11”.

Here’s the clip of Cheney ADMITTING no 9-11/Iraq connection……which in essence is admittance that he is wrong about Iraq NOW.

Sooooooo, how is it that Cheney is right about Iraq now if he admits no 9-11/ Iraq connection if supporters argue that “things changed after 9/11??????”

Anyone have an answer for that???

Wednesday, August 15, 2007

FOX News’s John Gibson agrees with columnist Stu Bykofsky that another 9/11 is needed

Gibson also disgracefully mocks Jon Stewart’s on-air reaction to 9/11

by Larry Simons
August 15, 2007

In an unbelievable on-air segment of John Gibson’s radio show, Gibson blatantly and without question, agreed with columnist Stu Bykofsky’s article stating that another 9-11 is needed in order for Americans to hold hands again in the spirit of patriotism and compassion for each other, as was shown in the days and months following 9-11-01.

A caller calls in to Gibson’s radio show and agrees with Stu Bykofsky’s premise that what is missing in America now is the self-sacrifice for fellow Americans that was initiated in the wake of 9-11. The caller adds that Americans only think of “me, me, me” and that Americans have forgotten that feeling we had the day after 9-11. In essence, without actually coming out and admitting that we need another 9-11, the caller obviously agrees with the same reasoning in which Bykofsky wrote the article and called for a new 9-11.

Neo-con slug Gibson chimes in with this remark after the caller was finished, “…we found the one guy in Madison (Wisconsin) who’s sensible” Then Gibson’s executive producer, “Angry Rich” says, “Do you remember what the media was like after 9-11?” Then Gibson mentions Jon Stewart immediately, “Ahhh, Jon Stewart sobbing?” Then, Gibson proceeds to play the audio of Jon Stewart’s on-air reaction to 9-11 from September 20, 2001, where Stewart broke down and cried on the air. Gibson and his exec. producer then proceeded to mock Stewart’s every remark as the audio clip played.

Listen to the audio:

One has to ask, what Earthly reason would someone do this? What did Jon Stewart have to do with this caller calling in to Gibson’s radio show? Why play a clip and MOCK someone who was actually sad and shaken up over 9-11? There was absolutely NO reason for this other than to be the biggest ASSHOLE on planet Earth. Remember when Imus was burnt at the stake for saying “nappy-headed ho’s”? One of the most frequent remarks I heard people say in condemning Imus was, “There was no reason to attack these girls, they did nothing to Imus to warrant that”. Well, Gibson, you chicken-shit punk….I have the same question for YOU! What did Jon Stewart do to warrant this attack?

Oh, I think the end of the clip gives us the answer. Gibson’s exec. producer says this, “Let me bash Bush for the next 6 years” (implying that’s what Jon Stewart does) Well, he’s right. Jon Stewart DOES bash Bush. So do the MAJORITY of the mainstream media and 73% of this country! Geeeeee, what the hell is wrong with all of us? Could it be that ON 9-11 we had no idea that Bush would use 9-11 as his excuse for unconstitutionally and illegally attacking countries that did NOTHING to us? Could it be that ON 9-11 we had no idea that we’d eventually find mountains of evidence that suggests the Bush administration at the very least ALLOWED 9-11 to happen and at the very most ORCHESTRATED it?

What people like this caller and Gibson fail to mention is that on 9-11 we actually thought bad people attacked us and that we had to stand together as a nation to retaliate against those who did this act of evil to us. Well, here we are, 6 years later, and we have no Bin Laden. We have found out we have been LIED to about why we went to Iraq. First, there were WMD’s, then we had to make Iraq a democracy, then we had to get that bastard Saddam because he was connected to 9-11. Well, now we know all those reasons are total bullshit and we aren’t supposed to bash Bush?

It’s people like Gibson that are in the minority. He’s another Neo-con piece of shit that works for the biggest mouthpiece of the Bush administration...FIXED News. What else is he supposed to say? Bush also had a 90% approval rating following 9-11 because, well, that’s what usually happens after a national tragedy. Regardless of what the truth really is, Americans will tend to support our leaders in the hopes they will do the right, justifiable, moral thing. This has not been what has happened in the past 6 years. We have been lied to, betrayed by our leaders, and have been subjected to leaders and other politicians that ignore our Constitution and work diligently at stripping away our rights.

These so-called “leaders” claim they hate terrorism, yet they leave the borders wide open, attack the wrong people and say (out loud) that they “don’t care about Bin Laden” and then even close the Bin Laden unit at the CIA. And we’re not supposed to bash them???? We have sat back for nearly 5 years now and watched 3,600 Americans die as the result of an illegal, undeclared war. We have learned that over 600,000 innocent Iraqis have died as the result of our occupation of a country that did nothing to us. Our President breaks law after law and continually commits acts of treason, and mixed with that, we have to sit back and listen to these Neo-con, Constitution-haters spew this bullshit that WE hate America?? And then, NOTHING happens to them? Please Gibson, stop saying “we need another 9-11” and start saying “nappy-headed ho’s” so we can get your ass off the air.

Apparently, someone needs to give John Gibson a little history lesson. Someone read this dipshit some quotes from some our greatest Presidents:

“That we are to stand behind the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public” (Theodore Roosevelt)

“Dissent is the highest form of patriotism” (Thomas Jefferson)

Here is Jon Stewart’s 9/11 reaction:

This was enough to win John “Albino” Gibson the coveted Worst Person in the World on Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Watch and enjoy!

Monday, August 13, 2007

And yet...another kick-ass speech from Ron Paul

Ron Paul gives another powerful speech this past weekend at the Iowa Straw Poll and Fundraiser

August 13, 2007

Saturday, August 11, 2007

FOX News DEFENDS Stu Bykofsky’s comments that another 9/11 would be “HELPFUL”!

Brian Kilmeade and Steve Doocy actually support the revolting statements by their lack of outrage

by Larry Simons
August 11, 2007

On Friday’s FOX and Friends, Neo-cons Steve Doocy and Brian Kilmeade discuss Stu Bykofsky’s article yesterday saying that “another 9/11 attack would be helpful to America”. When Alisyn Camerota had to REMIND Kilmeade that the worst part of the article was this part, he said, “I understand what he’s saying”.

He UNDERSTANDS what he’s saying?????

Then Steve Doocy begins speaking and shows absolutely no outrage over this article as if he is talking about just another run-of-the-mill story. Doocy also LIES and says, “People are split on the war”. WRONG! Over 70% of the American people oppose the war and want it over, including many in the Republican Party. Then Doocy continues to validate Bykofsky’s article.

Watch the clip:

What’s amazing to me is that FOX News does NOTHING when someone writes in an article that “America needs attacked again”, but yet they go completely apeshit over Ward Churchill calling the 9/11 victims “little Eichmans”, 9/11 truthers who present evidence that the government at the very least allowed 9/11 to happen, stores not saying Merry Christmas and recently a website posting vile comments and pictures. What the hell is more vile than saying that America needs attacked again??? And WE are the ones who get accused of “hating America???????????”

Maybe if Bykofsky would have said "nappy-headed ho's" someone would have been outraged. "Another 9/11 would be helpful to America?"-----what's the big deal about that? I find it interesting that Bykofsky conveniently omits from his article the fact that maybe America was so united in the aftermath of 9/11 is because it was before we were all LIED to and told we went to war because Saddam Hussein had WMD's, or that he was linked to 9/11 or al Qaeda. It was before we knew that criminal elements within our own government allowed and orchestrated the attacks. It was before the complete dismantling of our Constitution by means of warrantless wiretaps, violating the Geneva Conventions by torturing detainees, the Military Commissions Act, the Patriot Act and the trashing of Habeas Corpus.

Maybe it's because 9/11 was before we slaughtered over 600,000 innocent Iraqi civilians and lost over 3,600 of our own citizens in an illegal, unconstitutional, undeclared war. Maybe because 9/11 was before America was subjected to the most corrupt and incompetent administration this country has ever seen, as demonstrated by the wiping out of a city during Katrina, committing treason by outing one of our own spies and pardoning the man who played the major role in it.

Maybe because 9/11 was before we knew that such a corrupt administration would ALLOW illegal immigrants to just stroll over the border, despite the fact that they could be terrorists. Maybe it's because it was all before gas prices reached record levels and oil companies took in record profits. Maybe it was before we knew that the Bush family, originating with Prescott Bush, are all members of Satanic secret societies like Skull & Bones and the Bohemian Grove, they received their first family fortune through the Hitler regime, and they are long time business partners with the family of the worlds' most sought after terrorist....Bin Laden.

Sorry STU, but this is just too much bullshit for Americans to forget anytime soon...and you have the nerve to think it's JUST about Iraq? This country is divided not just because of a war, but because of a living nightmare we will have to endure until January 20, 2009.

Kilmeade ends with saying, “Who is our enemy? al Qaeda is our enemy..and we’ve lost track of that, is his point”. Yeah, you hate al Qaeda SO MUCH that you agree that we should be ATTACKED AGAIN BY them!!!! It’s UNBELIEVABLE the insurmountable hypocrisy of these Neo-con LOONS that they imply we hate our enemy (al Qaeda) but yet cry “PLEASE attack us again!”

Al Qaeda is our enemy?? And you want THEM to attack us again? Doesn’t that make YOU the enemy TOO Kilmeade???????? Then Camerota says, “It’s an interesting premise”. Doocy ends with, “It’s provocative”.

What about “OUTRAGEOUS?” What about “DESPICABLE?” What about “SICK?”

If you need MORE proof that the people at FOX News are nothing but a bunch of low-life, treasonous, America-hating, Neo-con slugs….then you must be one of them.

Friday, August 10, 2007

Pitching For More Dead Americans: A Neo-Con Fetish

The Ward Churchill of the demented right-wing has a deathwish for terror in order to unite the country

Paul Joseph Watson
August 10, 2007

Another feverish Neo-Con has come out of the closet and admitted to enjoying the fetish that he shares with scores of other Administration apologists - a deathwish for more terror and more dead Americans in order to unite the country behind Bush.

"ONE MONTH from The Anniversary, I'm thinking another 9/11 would help America," laments Stu Bykofsky in his Philadelphia Daily News column.

"Remember the community of outrage and national resolve? America had not been so united since the first Day of Infamy - 12/7/41.

We knew who the enemy was then.

America's fabric is pulling apart like a cheap sweater.

What would sew us back together?

Another 9/11 attack.

It will take another attack on the homeland to quell the chattering of chipmunks and to restore America's righteous rage and singular purpose to prevail."

That's right - we need more terror or the terrorists will win!

Bykofsky is disappointed that 600,000 plus dead civilians along with thousands of slain troops in Iraq isn't enough to convince Americans that the war should be prosecuted with more vigor, so he's yearning for a kick up the backside in the form of thousands of dead Americans at home.

One could be forgiven for being cynical and thinking that Bykofsky, a plodding Neo-Con hack who nobody had heard of before last night, was just pushing the boat out in a desperate ploy to get a link on the Drudge Report, but reading his previous frenzied Bush administration boot-licking columns it becomes clear that Bykofsky actually means it.

Bykofsky screeches about the perils of "global terrorists who use Islam to justify their hideous sins, including blowing up women and children," and then invites them to slaughter more Americans - and even helps pinpoint the targets they should attack!

"The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago's Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system," gushes Bykofsky.

Perhaps he should volunteer to send his own kids into those targets as jumbo jets are slammed into them, since Bykofsky is so eager to witness more American blood spilled in the name of the empire.

Or is there a greater threat? If Bykofsky has the courage of his convictions behind him, would he be willing to strap himself with explosives and run into a crowded shopping mall for the good of the country?

Obviously not, but only in using such extreme examples as a parallel can we begin to fathom the vulgarity of Bykofsky's remarks.

Heroes and villains - The brave firefighters that ran into burning buildings on 9/11 to save those that perished with them, and Stu Bykofsky - a morally repugnant Neo-Con slug who yearns for more scenes like this to rescue the reputation of his master, George W. Bush.

Bykofsky's warped logic is not confined to the domain of attention seeking hacks - the yearning for terror is a shared fetish amongst Neo-Cons, policy wonks and academics alike.

Lt.-Col. Doug Delaney, chair of the war studies program at the Royal Military College in Kingston, Ontario, recently told the Toronto Star that "The key to bolstering Western resolve is another terrorist attack like 9/11 or the London transit bombings of two years ago."

The same sentiment was also explicitly expressed in a 2005 GOP memo, which yearned for new attacks that would "validate" the President's war on terror and "restore his image as a leader of the American people."

Last month, former Republican Senator Rick Santorum suggested that a series of "unfortunate events," namely terrorist attacks, will occur within the next year and change American citizen's perception of the war.

And the month before that, the new chairman of the Arkansas Republican Party Dennis Milligan said that there needed to be more attacks on American soil for President Bush to regain popular approval.

An army of Neo-Cons secretly share the same fetish - they would exploit a hollow opportunity to say "I told you so," even at the expense of thousands of dead dads, moms, sons, daughters and babies.

Bykofsky and his cohorts are so aghast that the majority of Americans now take them for what they are - maniacal devotees to a blood soaked and failed neo-conservative doctrine - that they'd rather see innocent people be blown to bits than admit they're wrong.

In some countries, this kind of demented rhetoric is illegal - it's classified as glorification of terror in Britain, and their rants are no less volatile than some of the propaganda spewed by Muslim clerics who have been arrested and deported for advocating violence.

These rabid blowhards should be thankful that America still clings on to its first amendment - in the face of a terrorist assault that they encourage - otherwise they would soon find out that openly pitching for mass murder doesn't sit too well with the authorities.

Bykofsky has just written himself into history as the Ward Churchill of the delirious right-wing and the two share a lot in common.

Both express the uncanny ability of being able to match the ignorance of their comments with the depth of their depravity.

by Larry Simons

Where's the outrage from O'Reilly and Hannity? The 2 Nazi-Neo-cons from FOX News that love to spew their hatred onto anyone who dares to even hint that 9-11 was "America's fault" or anyone who might suggest that terror is a good thing have come up silent about this one! Here we have several examples of Neo-con, Bush-worshipping, America-haters that are not being secretive in the least that they WANT another terror attack and they want it soon....all for the unbelievable reason that they, in their deranged minds, think it will unite Americans again and support this travesty that is the Iraq war.

Rather than to admit they're dead wrong about Bush's complete failures, about Iraq, about...ANYTHING, they would rather see more innocent Americans DEAD.....WHY? Because they think it will bring us all together again and unite us like what happened immediately following 9-11. They think Americans will support the war. They think Americans will support Bush. Have they COMPLETELY lost their fucking minds?

I seem to recall the Neo-cons bellowing several times in the past couple years that "if you vote for a Democrat, you are voting for more terror". The Neo-cons have taken utter pride in the fact that they have "protected" from another 9/11-style attack these last 6 years, and now, to advance their agenda, are planting the seed that an attack could be "imminent" and more devastating than 9/11.

Prior to 9/11, Americans (including myself) were completely fooled, downright stupid and thought 9/11 was a "surprise" attack and that America was not warned in advance. Well, six years have passed and most of America are not fooled anymore (including myself). There are still alot of ignorant people in this country who care more about a football game that freedom, but many, many Americans have awaken from their slumber, and if and when the next 9/11 occurs...they will know immediately it was the work of the Neo-cons, and not our "Islamic radicals".

No folks, the terrorists are right here in this country among us. The REAL fear mongers are right here...mostly in Washington orchestrating the fear machine NOW, so when the next attack happens, we won't be "surprised". The sheep will be fooled (again) and they will be too stupid to notice the hypocrisy of the Neo-cons, who, like I stated above, have said the "terror will come with Democratic leadership", while at the same bullhorning that we will attack Iran for "(whatever the attack is)" while we are still under a Republican administration.....the SAME party we were under on 9/11/2001.

You won't see Hannity or O'Reilly blasting the above mentioned Neo-cons for their "LET'S HAVE ANOTHER 9/11! YIPPIE!!" statements, because they too want more Americans dead, as long as those Americans aren't their brothers, sisters, wives or children.

You can be rest assured the Neo-cons will make sure the next batch of slaughtered Americans won't be their friends, colleagues or relatives. As long as it brings about unconstitutionally bombing and invading yet ANOTHER will make their day.

Wednesday, August 8, 2007

Biden has “Bush moment” and loses his freaking mind!

Delaware senator totally blows off a question from a miner’s widow about miner safety

by Larry Simons
August 8, 2007

I haven’t had much respect for Joe Biden since he voted to continue funding the war and stabbing the American voters in the back. In yesterday’s AFL-CIO forum in Chicago, a widow of one of the 12 miners who died last year in the Sago mining disaster in Sago, West Virginia, stood up and asked the Democratic candidates the question, “As President, what will you do to improve the health and safety in our coal mines and all of our work places across America?”

Moderator Keith Olbermann called on Joe Biden to answer. He first started off his answer by giving the widow his condolences then proceeded to say this, “Folks, I gotta say something here. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion but they’re not entitled to their own facts. The truth is, none of what you heard earlier is correct. It’s already the policy of the United States, has been for 4 years, that if there’s actionable intelligence, that we would go into Pakistan..that’s the law! Secondly, it’s already the law, that I wrote into the law, saying that if in fact we don’t get cooperation with Musharraf that we cut off his money. It’s time that everybody starts to know the facts.. the facts!”

At the end of the clip, you can hear a person in the crowd yell, “Answer the question!” amidst the sea of booing. I haven’t seen a politician completely ignore a question since….since…..well, everytime Bush speaks!

Here’s the clip:

Monday, August 6, 2007

Another kick-ass victory for Ron Paul

The Iowa debates give Ron Paul the opportunity to shine at his very brighest

by Larry Simons
August 6, 2007

Ron Paul’s weekend actually kicked off in his hometown of Pittsburgh, PA, in which I had the opportunity to attend. As soon as I walked into the lobby of the Four Points Sheraton Hotel, I saw Congressman Paul standing there chatting with a few people. He was very approachable and pleasant. I shook his hand and told him, “It’s a real honor to meet you after following your campaign all this time”. He thanked me. I said, “What’s happening to this country…and to Washington?” Very sternly he said, “It’s a mess”.

I then told him, “It’s sad that we live in a country where there’s only one of you. Everyone in Washington should be like you, but there’s only you” He said, “Well, I may not be the ONLY one. It seems a lot of people in this country are longing for this message and they really want change”. I thanked him for taking the time to chat with me and I asked for his autograph and a photo with me. He graciously signed my printout of the Constitution and posed in a photo with me. He later gave a very powerful speech to thunderous applause.

Then it was off to Iowa for the remainder of the weekend, and on Sunday morning, he participated in his 4th Republican debate moderated by George Stephanopoulos.

Watch the video montage of Paul’s performance:

This was Ron Paul at his very best and it may have just been the most defining moment of his entire campaign so far, and once again, he is the clear winner in all internet polls, including ABC and MSNBC.

“I, of course, opposed the war a long time before it started. The Neo-cons promoted this war many, many years before it was started. It had nothing to do with al-Qaeda. There was no al-Qaeda in Iraq. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and just think of the weapons the Soviets had in the 60’s and the 70’s, and we did not have to go to nuclear war with them. There’s no reason to go to war with these third world nations. At the same time, those individuals who have predicted these disastrous things to happen….if we leave Iraq..are the same ones who said ‘as soon as we go in it will just be duck soup, it will be over in 3 months, it won’t cost us anything because the oil will pay for it’…….”

Then Ron Paul is cut off by Mitt Romney who attempts to smokescreen Paul’s words of total 100% FACT by echoing the Neo-con talking point of linking the war to 9-11 by stating, “Has he forgotten about 9/11? Have you forgotten about 9/11?” Paul continued, “..and at the same time the individuals who predicted the disaster of course, the domino theory in Vietnam…I was called to duty, I accepted that duty in the 60’s..I served 5 years in the military. When we left there, it was tough, yes, but now we trade with Vietnam, we talk to them, the President’s come to this country, we go back and forth, we invest in that country. We can achieve MUCH more in peace than we can ever achieve in these needless, unconstitutional, undeclared wars”.

As mentioned above, Romney is playing the “9/11 was connected to Iraq” card even though Bush has even ADMITTED on several occasions that Iraq has NOTHING to do with al-Qaeda or 9/11. Don’t believe me, sheep? Watch:

Romney must be still living in 2003 when Bush DID link Iraq to 9/11. Of course, we all know that this was a blatant LIE to get Americans to support invading Iraq, but since people like Joe Wilson have come along and have exposed Bush on his lies, the gig is up on the Iraq/9/11 connection and Mitt Romney really needs to jump to the year 2007 and join the rest of humanity.

Here’s a clip of Bush linking Saddam to al Qaeda in 2003….the year Mitt Romney is still living in.

Friday, August 3, 2007

O’ Liar gets bitch-slapped by Chris Dodd

Dodd wipes up the floor with one of Billo's loofahs over his obsession with the DailyKos

by Larry Simons
August 3, 2007

On O’ Liar’s show last night, Democratic Presidential Candidate Chris Dodd was a guest on the No Fact Zone because Dodd has shown support of the website DailyKos, the website that has O’ Liar infuriated and 2 falafels away from a straight jacket.

Dodd immediately rips O’ Liar a new asshole by attempting to show him how ridiculous and absurd it is to be so obsessed with one website because they happen to post a few distasteful pictures and vile comments. Dodd makes the point that out of 500,000 hits this site receives each day, O’ Liar is pointing out only a few posts from the near half million hits the site receives.

Dodd’s point was clearly made, being that whatever the site, whatever the topic, whatever the agenda, that any website in America that has that many hits each day will most likely draw SOME morons that post comments that are revolting. Dodd at NO point in the discussion was condoning any vile comments or pictures posted, but was simply saying that out of those high numbers of hits, you will get some idiots who do distasteful things.

Dodd also pointed out that even on O’ Liar’s site there are vile comments. Of course, King of the Loofah’s denied reality once again by simply saying, “You’re wrong!” You know, the old “lie, lie, lie” tactic BILLO has with anyone who resorts to actually stating FACTS. Billo’s strategy is ‘talk over them, deny everything and call them a liar’….or have their mic cut in cases where Billo’s guest pours on truth so rapidly that Billo panics and goes into “cut their mic” mode. Billo didn’t have to cut Dodd’s mic, but he DID lie and spin. What else did you expect from Billo?

Here’s the clip:

Dodd pointed out that Billo made a comment in 2005 that al Qaeda could come to San Francisco and blow up things. Billo denied saying it at first by making the comment, “when did I say it?” Dodd says, “In 2005, I believe it was on your show”. Billo the ADMITS saying it by stating, “You’re wrong! I didn’t say it HERE….you don’t know what the hell I said!” Billo carefully inserted the word “HERE” to refer to the fact that he DID make the comment, but not “HERE” (meaning, not on his TV show) but he DID say it on his RADIO show on November 8, 2005. No spin zone huh?

The actual context of Billo’s rant in 2005 was when he was angry with San Francisco voters for not allowing military recruiters to come to the schools and colleges. Billo gets angry and said this:
"Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead. And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead."

Chris Dodd was correct on every point. This is not Bill O’Reilly being upset and lude pictures or vile comments. This is about O’ Liar not agreeing with the DailyKos’s ideology. If this was about comments and pictures, where is Bill O’ Reilly’s hell-bent crusade for justice and decency on the RIGHT-wing sites?

O’ Liar is an embarrassment to the profession of journalism and a disgrace to America. His lies and spin are so EASILY provable. That’s why we here at Real Truth Films decided to make another video for your enjoyment. CAUTION: This film shows Billo lying and spinning. If you are one of Billo’s sheep, you might want to take yourself and the children out of the room. If you want and love truth, grab the kiddies and pop some corn and curl up to the latest from Real Truth Films!