Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
"Thats just the way it is."
Why not "Because I Say So"??
Gee Wiz - No substance at all.
Shermann
"Most of the buildings in any city are designed to collapse into themselves to minimize damage."
Any links for this one?
Shermann
I hear that Khalid Shaikh Mohammad -
Claims to be responsible for Global Warming also!!!
Shermann
Go Get 'em Pat!!!
Good Man.
Shermann
No need to use curse words!!!
Shermann
"Two men claim they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong!!!" - Dire Straits
Shermann
If the price dropped to .0001 - I would pick up millions of shares - And so would most anyone - Beats the odds in Vegas!!!
That is why it will not happen.
Shermann
Pelosi and Hillary are both deep in my doghouse - Giving the rest of Women a bad name - Both are power hungry, and do not do what is in the best interests of the citizenry.
Shermann
Along with Cheney would be fine.
A little risky though.
Shermann
Alright - Now we are getting somewhere - Lets see if the Senate can get these done!!!
Shermann
Not without getting Cheney First!!!!
Shermann
Hey - Cash Cows -
The republican party actually rented GW cows for his ranch prior to the 2000 election.
Where do you rent the cash cows???
Rent-a-Herd???
Shermann
Dont worry....
I hear GW actually fell off the floor!!!
Shermann
My boat is loaded and waiting for new powder!!!
Shermann
Come on you two good people - Play Nice.
Shermann
It becomes real simple in the end.
How do buildings fall at near free fall speed into their own footprints.
A controlled demolition is really the only answer!!!
Shermann
Some good thoughts:
"The moral and constitutional obligations of our representatives in Washington are to protect our liberty, not coddle the world, precipitating no-win wars, while bringing bankruptcy and economic turmoil to our people." - Ron Paul
"There is no way to peace. Peace is the way." - Mahatma Gandhi
"That we are to stand by the president, right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." - Theodore Roosevelt
"People do not make wars; governments do." - Ronald Reagan
"The release of atomic energy has not created a new problem. It has merely made more urgent the necessity of solving an existing one." - Albert Einstein
"Terrorism is the war of the poor, and war is the terrorism of the rich." - Sir Peter Ustinov
"You can no more win a war than you can win an earthquake." - Jeanette Rankin (First African American Congresswoman)
"Our enemies...never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we." - George W. Bush
"Protecting the rights of even the least individual among us is basically the only excuse the government has for even existing." - Ronald Reagan
"Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism." - George Washington
"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official" - Teddy Roosevelt
"Those who give up essential liberties for temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
"Liberty and democracy become unholy when their hands are dyed red with innocent blood." - Mahatma Gandhi
"In times of universal deceit, telling the truth will be a revolutionary act." - George Orwell
"It is only those who have neither fired a shot nor heard the shrieks and groans of the wounded who cry aloud for blood...War is hell." - General William Tecumseh Sherman
"It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong." - Voltaire
"We will not learn how to live together in peace by killing each other's children." - Jimmy Carter
"I hope our wisdom will grow with our power, and teach us, that the less we use our power the greater it will be." - Thomas Jefferson
"We must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex." - Dwight D. Eisenhower
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." - Albert Einstein
"War is wretched beyond description, and only a fool or a fraud could sentimentalize its cruel reality." - Senator John McCain
"What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy?" - Mahatma Gandhi
Rush - Pretty kewl.
Shermann
"Cheers" for All!!!
Sam: What's new, Normie?
Norm: Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach and they're demanding beer
Diane: Oh no. The thing I feared most has happened.
Carla: What? Your Living Bra died of boredom?
Woody: Jack Frost nipping at your toes, Mr. Peterson?
Norm: Yeah, now let's get Joe Beer nipping at my liver.
[to Diane in court]
Sam: To me, our relationship makes perfect sense. You want me to propose to you, I propose to you. You say no, I say fine, I never wanna see you again. You drive me nuts telling me you want me to propose again, I do, you turn me down. Next thing I know I'm in a court of law where I've got to propose to you or go to jail. It's the classic American love story.
Sam: What'll you have Normie?
Norm: Well, I'm in a gambling mood Sammy. I'll take a glass of whatever comes out of that tap.
Sam: Looks like beer, Norm.
Norm: Call me Mister Lucky
Diane: He's trying to make a mountain out of a molehill.
Carla: He wants you to wear a padded bra?
Diane: Sam, may I have a brief word with you?
Sam: I suppose you could, but I doubt it.
Woody: What's shakin', Mr. Peterson?
Norm: All four cheeks and a couple of chins.
Coach: [answering the phone] Cheers. Ok, wait a minute, I'll check. Is there an "Ernie Pantusso" here?
Sam: That's YOU Coach.
Coach: Speaking.
Carla: If the Brady Bunch crashes in the Andes who would they eat first?
Woody: Well probably the maid, 'cause she's not kin
Cliff: Yeah, but if they were smart they would ask her the best way to prepare herself.
Norm: What's This Old House?
Frasier: It's a show on PBS.
Norm: What's PBS?
Lilith: Tell me you didn't see that coming a mile away.
[the bar is littered with ingredients as Diane is trying to make a Bloody Mary]
Diane: Lot of ingredients in a Bloody Mary, Sam.
Sam: Yeah, I know. That's why we usually mix up 5 gallons and put it in the refrigerator beforehand. How come doing this, Carla? Why'd you let her do it?
Carla: I wanted to see her try and make vodka.
Nice Post - I dont see any indication that the long term confirmed Bull is done yet.
And there is a ton of money coming to the market - Did not realize it is 850 Billion Dollars.
My Big Boards are being held until I see a much more negative picture.
Shermann
Just on my high horse for one post. I have dismounted!!!
Shermann
We need to stay away from the melt steel argument. Steel does not have to melt to lose integrity.
The question is was it hot enough to lose its integrity.
Have you seen the picture of a person looking out of the hole on one of the towers before it collapsed. It could not have been that hot!!!
Also, the released firefighters tapes are neat. The first crew to reach the fires in building 1 said the fires were almost out, and they would only need a couple of hoses.
Shermann
You have my vote for more money in the pennies!!!!
Shermann
Why do you suppose that the Democrat controlled House of Representatives would want to abrogate/forfeit its constitutional duty to declare war again????
We already know why the Republican Controlled House did!!!
This is not an issue of parties.
It is an issue of our public servants doing their jobs.
Shermann
There is a flight to safety going on here. Probably not much to the microcaps.
We are still in a confirmed Long-Term Bull Market.
Of course, it will change sometime.
Shermann
After reading 10's of thousands of pages on 9-11 including the FEMA, NIST, and 9-11 reports ....
At least I know the flavor of the kool-aid!!!!
If the best you can come up with is personal attacks, please feel free to stay off the 9-11 topic with me.
Shermann
I really cant even venture a guess with any thought of accuracy.
Maybe Larry Silverstein or someone close to him????
And that is a WAG.
Shermann
Paranoid Shift
by Michael Hasty
Online Journal Contributing Writer
January 10, 2004 — Just before his death, James Jesus Angleton, the legendary chief of counterintelligence at the Central Intelligence Agency, was a bitter man. He felt betrayed by the people he had worked for all his life. In the end, he had come to realize that they were never really interested in American ideals of "freedom" and "democracy." They really only wanted "absolute power."
Angleton told author Joseph Trento that the reason he had gotten the counterintelligence job in the first place was by agreeing not to submit "sixty of Allen Dulles' closest friends" to a polygraph test concerning their business deals with the Nazis. In his end-of-life despair, Angleton assumed that he would see all his old companions again "in hell."
The transformation of James Jesus Angleton from an enthusiastic, Ivy League cold warrior, to a bitter old man, is an extreme example of a phenomenon I call a "paranoid shift." I recognize the phenomenon, because something similar happened to me.
Although I don't remember ever meeting James Jesus Angleton, I worked at the CIA myself as a low-level clerk as a teenager in the '60s. This was at the same time I was beginning to question the government's actions in Vietnam. In fact, my personal "paranoid shift" probably began with the disillusionment I felt when I realized that the story of American foreign policy was, at the very least, more complicated and darker than I had hitherto been led to believe.
But for most of the next 30 years, even though I was a radical, I nevertheless held faith in the basic integrity of a system where power ultimately resided in the people, and whereby if enough people got together and voted, real and fundamental change could happen.
What constitutes my personal paranoid shift is that I no longer believe this to be necessarily true.
In his book, Rogue State: A Guide to the World's Only Superpower, William Blum warns of how the media will make anything that smacks of "conspiracy theory" an immediate "object of ridicule." This prevents the media from ever having to investigate the many strange interconnections among the ruling class — for example, the relationship between the boards of directors of media giants, and the energy, banking and defense industries. These unmentionable topics are usually treated with what Blum calls "the media's most effective tool — silence." But in case somebody's asking questions, all you have to do is say, "conspiracy theory," and any allegation instantly becomes too frivolous to merit serious attention.
On the other hand, since my paranoid shift, whenever I hear the words "conspiracy theory" (which seems more often, lately) it usually means someone is getting too close to the truth.
Take September 11 — which I identify as the date my paranoia actually shifted, though I didn't know it at the time.
Unless I'm paranoid, it doesn't make any sense at all that George W. Bush, commander-in-chief, sat in a second-grade classroom for 20 minutes after he was informed that a second plane had hit the World Trade Center, listening to children read a story about a goat. Nor does it make sense that the Number 2 man, Dick Cheney — even knowing that "the commander" was on a mission in Florida — nevertheless sat at his desk in the White House, watching TV, until the Secret Service dragged him out by the armpits.
Unless I'm paranoid, it makes no sense that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld sat at his desk until Flight 77 hit the Pentagon — well over an hour after the military had learned about the multiple hijacking in progress. It also makes no sense that the brand-new chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff sat in a Senate office for two hours while the 9/11 attacks took place, after leaving explicit instructions that he not be disturbed — which he wasn't.
In other words, while the 9/11 attacks were occurring, the entire top of the chain of command of the most powerful military in the world sat at various desks, inert. Why weren't they in the "Situation Room?" Don't any of them ever watch "West Wing?"
In a sane world, this would be an object of major scandal. But here on this side of the paranoid shift, it's business as usual.
Years, even decades before 9/11, plans had been drawn up for American forces to take control of the oil interests of the Middle East, for various imperialist reasons. And these plans were only contingent upon "a catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor," to gain the majority support of the American public to set the plans into motion. When the opportunity presented itself, the guards looked the other way . . . and presto, the path to global domination was open.
Simple, as long as the media played along. And there is voluminous evidence that the media play along. Number one on Project Censored's annual list of underreported stories in 2002 was the Project for a New American Century (now the infrastructure of the Bush Regime), whose report, published in 2000, contains the above "Pearl Harbor" quote.
Why is it so hard to believe serious people who have repeatedly warned us that powerful ruling elites are out to dominate "the masses?" Did we think Dwight Eisenhower was exaggerating when he warned of the extreme "danger" to democracy of "the military industrial complex?" Was Barry Goldwater just being a quaint old-fashioned John Bircher when he said that the Trilateral Commission was "David Rockefeller's latest scheme to take over the world, by taking over the government of the United States?" Were Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt or Joseph Kennedy just being class traitors when they talked about a small group of wealthy elites who operate as a hidden government behind the government? Especially after he died so mysteriously, why shouldn't we believe the late CIA Director William Colby, who bragged about how the CIA "owns everyone of any major significance in the major media?"
Why can't we believe James Jesus Angleton — a man staring eternal judgment in the face — when he says that the founders of the Cold War national security state were only interested in "absolute power?" Especially when the descendant of a very good friend of Allen Dulles now holds power in the White House.
Prescott Bush, the late, aristocratic senator from Connecticut, and grandfather of George W Bush, was not only a good friend of Allen Dulles, CIA director, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, and international business lawyer. He was also a client of Dulles' law firm. As such, he was the beneficiary of Dulles' miraculous ability to scrub the story of Bush's treasonous investments in the Third Reich out of the news media, where it might have interfered with Bush's political career . . . not to mention the presidential careers of his son and grandson.
Recently declassified US government documents, unearthed last October by investigative journalist John Buchanan at the New Hampshire Gazette, reveal that Prescott Bush's involvement in financing and arming the Nazis was more extensive than previously known. Not only was Bush managing director of the Union Banking Corporation, the American branch of Hitler's chief financier's banking network; but among the other companies where Bush was a director — and which were seized by the American government in 1942, under the Trading With the Enemy Act — were a shipping line which imported German spies; an energy company that supplied the Luftwaffe with high-ethyl fuel; and a steel company that employed Jewish slave labor from the Auschwitz concentration camp.
Like all the other Bush scandals that have been swept under the rug in the privatized censorship of the corporate media, these revelations have been largely ignored, with the exception of a single article in the Associated Press. And there are those, even on the left, who question the current relevance of this information.
But Prescott Bush's dealings with the Nazis do more than illustrate a family pattern of genteel treason and war profiteering — from George Senior's sale of TOW missiles to Iran at the same time he was selling biological and chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein, to Junior's zany misadventures in crony capitalism in present-day Iraq.
More disturbing by far are the many eerie parallels between Adolph Hitler and George W. Bush:
A conservative, authoritarian style, with public appearances in military uniform (which no previous American president has ever done while in office). Government by secrecy, propaganda and deception. Open assaults on labor unions and workers' rights. Preemptive war and militant nationalism. Contempt for international law and treaties. Suspiciously convenient "terrorist" attacks, to justify a police state and the suspension of liberties. A carefully manufactured image of "The Leader," who's still just a "regular guy" and a "moderate." "Freedom" as the rationale for every action. Fantasy economic growth, based on unprecedented budget deficits and massive military spending.
And a cold, pragmatic ideology of fascism — including the violent suppression of dissent and other human rights; the use of torture, assassination and concentration camps; and most important, Benito Mussolini's preferred definition of "fascism" as "corporatism, because it binds together the interests of corporations and the state."
By their fruits, you shall know them.
What perplexes me most is probably the same question that plagues most paranoiacs: why don't other people see these connections?
Oh, sure, there may be millions of us, lurking at websites like Online Journal, From the Wilderness, Center for Cooperative Research, and the Center for Research on Globalization, checking out right-wing conspiracists and the galaxy of 9/11 sites, and reading columnists like Chris Floyd at the Moscow Times, and Maureen Farrell at Buzzflash. But we know we are only a furtive minority, the human remnant among the pod people in the live-action, 21st-century version of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers."
And being paranoid, we have to figure out, with an answer that fits into our system, why more people don't see the connections we do. Fortunately, there are a number of possible explanations.
First on the list would have to be what Marshal McLuhan called the "cave art of the electronic age:" advertising. Joseph Goebbels, Hitler's Karl Rove, gave credit for most of his ideas on how to manipulate mass opinion to American commercial advertising, and to the then-new science of "public relations." But the public relations universe available to the corporate empire that rules the world today makes the Goebbels operation look primitive. The precision of communications technology and graphics; the century of research on human psychology and emotion; and the uniquely centralized control of triumphant post-Cold War monopoly capitalism, have combined to the point where "the manufacture of consent" can be set on automatic pilot.
A second major reason people won't make the paranoid shift is that they are too fundamentally decent. They can't believe that the elected leaders of our country, the people they've been taught through 12 years of public school to admire and trust, are capable of sending young American soldiers to their deaths and slaughtering tens of thousands of innocent civilians, just to satisfy their greed — especially when they're so rich in the first place. Besides, America is good, and the media are liberal and overly critical.
Third, people don't want to look like fools. Being a "conspiracy theorist" is like being a creationist. The educated opinion of eminent experts on every TV and radio network is that any discussion of "oil" being a motivation for the US invasion of Iraq is just out of bounds, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a "conspiracy theorist." We can trust the integrity of our "no-bid" contracting in Iraq, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a "conspiracy theorist." Of course, people sometimes make mistakes, but our military and intelligence community did the best they could on and before September 11, and anybody who thinks otherwise is a "conspiracy theorist."
Lee Harvey Oswald was the sole assassin of JFK, and anyone who thinks otherwise is a "conspiracy theorist."
Perhaps the biggest hidden reason people don't make the paranoid shift is that knowledge brings responsibility. If we acknowledge that an inner circle of ruling elites controls the world's most powerful military and intelligence system; controls the international banking system; controls the most effective and far-reaching propaganda network in history; controls all three branches of government in the world's only superpower; and controls the technology that counts the people's votes, we might be then forced to conclude that we don't live in a particularly democratic system. And then voting and making contributions and trying to stay informed wouldn't be enough. Because then the duty of citizenship would go beyond serving as a loyal opposition, to serving as a "loyal resistance" — like the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, except that in this case the resistance to fascism would be on the side of the national ideals, rather than the government; and a violent insurgency would not only play into the empire's hands, it would be doomed from the start.
Forming a nonviolent resistance movement, on the other hand, might mean forsaking some middle class comfort, and it would doubtless require a lot of work. It would mean educating ourselves and others about the nature of the truly apocalyptic beast we face. It would mean organizing at the most basic neighborhood level, face to face. (We cannot put our trust in the empire's technology.) It would mean reaching across turf lines and transcending single-issue politics, forming coalitions and sharing data and names and strategies, and applying energy at every level of government, local to global. It would also probably mean civil disobedience, at a time when the Bush regime is starting to classify that action as "terrorism." In the end, it may mean organizing a progressive confederacy to govern ourselves, just as our revolutionary founders formed the Continental Congress. It would mean being wise as serpents, and gentle as doves.
It would be a lot of work. It would also require critical mass. A paradigm shift.
But as a paranoid, I'm ready to join the resistance. And the main reason is I no longer think that the "conspiracy" is much of a "theory."
That the US House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that the murder of John Fitzgerald Kennedy was "probably" the result of "a conspiracy," and that 70 percent of Americans agree with this conclusion, is not a "theory." It's fact.
That the Bay of Pigs fiasco, "Operation Zapata," was organized by members of Skull and Bones, the ghoulish and powerful secret society at Yale University whose membership also included Prescott, George Herbert Walker and George W Bush; that two of the ships that carried the Cuban counterrevolutionaries to their appointment with absurdity were named the "Barbara" and the "Houston" — George HW Bush's city of residence at the time — and that the oil company Bush owned, then operating in the Caribbean area, was named "Zapata," is not "theory." It's fact.
That George Bush was the CIA director who kept the names of what were estimated to be hundreds of American journalists, considered to be CIA "assets," from the Church Committee, the US Senate Intelligence Committe chaired by Senator Frank Church that investigated the CIA in the 1970s; that a 1971 University of Michigan study concluded that, in America, the more TV you watched, the less you knew; and that a recent survey by international scholars found that Americans were the most "ignorant" of world affairs out of all the populations they studied, is not a "theory." It's fact.
That the Council on Foreign Relations has a history of influence on official US government foreign policy; that the protection of US supplies of Middle East oil has been a central element of American foreign policy since the Second World War; and that global oil production has been in decline since its peak year, 2000, is not "theory." It's fact.
That, in the early 1970s, the newly-formed Trilateral Commission published a report which recommended that, in order for "globalization" to succeed, American manufacturing jobs had to be exported, and American wages had to decline, which is exactly what happened over the next three decades; and that, during that same period, the richest one percent of Americans doubled their share of the national wealth, is not "theory." It's fact.
That, beyond their quasi-public role as agents of the US Treasury Department, the Federal Reserve Banks are profit-making corporations, whose beneficiaries include some of America's wealthiest families; and that the United States has a virtual controlling interest in the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund, and the World Trade Organization, the three dominant global financial institutions, is not a "theory." It's fact.
That — whether it's heroin from Southeast Asia in the '60s and '70s, or cocaine from Central America and heroin from Afghanistan in the '80s, or cocaine from Colombia in the '90s, or heroin from Afghanistan today — no major CIA covert operation has ever lacked a drug smuggling component, and that the CIA has hired Nazis, fascists, drug dealers, arms smugglers, mass murderers, perverts, sadists, terrorists and the Mafia, is not "theory." It's fact.
That the international oil industry is the dominant player in the global economy; that the Bush family has a decades-long business relationship with the Saudi royal family, Saudi oil money, and the family of Osama bin Laden; that, as president, both George Bushes have favored the interests of oil companies over the public interest; that both George Bushes have personally profited financially from Middle East oil; and that American oil companies doubled their records for quarterly profits in the months just preceding the invasion of Iraq, is not "theory." It's fact.
That the 2000 presidential election was deliberately stolen; that the pro-Bush/anti-Gore bias in the corporate media had spiked markedly in the last three weeks of the campaign; that corporate media were then virtually silent about the Florida recount; and that the Bush 2000 team had planned to challenge the legitimacy of the election if George W had won the popular, but lost the electoral vote — exactly what happened to Gore — is not "theory." It's fact.
That the intelligence about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was deceptively "cooked" by the Bush administration; that anybody paying attention to people like former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, knew before the invasion that the weapons were a hoax; and that American forces in Iraq today are applying the same brutal counterinsurgency tactics pioneered in Central America in the 1980s, under the direct supervision of then-Vice President George HW Bush, is not a "theory." It's fact.
That "Rebuilding America's Defenses," the Project for a New American Century's 2000 report, and The Grand Chessboard, a book published a few years earlier by Trilateral Commission co-founder Zbigniew Brzezinski, both recommended a more robust and imperial US military presence in the oil basin of the Middle East and the Caspian region; and that both also suggested that American public support for this energy crusade would depend on public response to a new "Pearl Harbor," is not "theory." It's fact.
That, in the 1960s, the Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously approved a plan called "Operation Northwoods," to stage terrorist attacks on American soil that could be used to justify an invasion of Cuba; and that there is currently an office in the Pentagon whose function is to instigate terrorist attacks that could be used to justify future strategically-desired military responses, is not a "theory." It's fact.
That neither the accusation by former British Environmental Minister Michael Meacham, Tony Blair's longest-serving cabinet minister, that George W Bush allowed the 9/11 attacks to happen to justify an oil war in the Middle East; nor the RICO lawsuit filed by 9/11 widow Ellen Mariani against Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and the Council on Foreign Relations (among others), on the grounds that they conspired to let the attacks happen to cash in on the ensuing war profiteering, has captured the slightest attention from American corporate media is not a "theory." It's fact.
That the FBI has completely exonerated — though never identified — the speculators who purchased, a few days before the attacks (through a bank whose previous director is now the CIA executive director), an unusual number of "put" options, and who made millions betting that the stocks in American and United Airlines would crash, is not a "theory." It's fact.
That the US intelligence community received numerous warnings, from multiple sources, throughout the summer of 2001, that a major terrorist attack on American interests was imminent; that, according to the chair of the "independent" 9/11 commission, the attacks "could have and should have been prevented," and according to a Senate Intelligence Committee member, "All the dots were connected;" that the White House has verified George W Bush's personal knowledge, as of August 6, 2001, that these terrorist attacks might be domestic and might involve hijacked airliners; that, in the summer of 2001, at the insistence of the American Secret Service, anti-aircraft ordnance was installed around the city of Genoa, Italy, to defend against a possible terrorist suicide attack, by aircraft, against George W Bush, who was attending the economic summit there; and that George W Bush has nevertheless regaled audiences with his first thought upon seeing the "first" plane hit the World Trade Center, which was: "What a terrible pilot," is not "theory." It's fact.
That, on the morning of September 11, 2001: standard procedures and policies at the nation's air defense and aviation bureaucracies were ignored, and communications were delayed; the black boxes of the planes that hit the WTC were destroyed, but hijacker Mohammed Atta's passport was found in pristine condition; high-ranking Pentagon officers had cancelled their commercial flight plans for that morning; George H.W. Bush was meeting in Washington with representatives of Osama bin Laden's family, and other investors in the world's largest private equity firm, the Carlyle Group; the CIA was conducting a previously-scheduled mock exercise of an airliner hitting the Pentagon; the chairs of both the House and Senate Intelligence Committees were having breakfast with the chief of Pakistan's intelligence agency, who resigned a week later on suspicion of involvement in the 9/11 attacks; and the commander-in-chief of the armed forces of the United States sat in a second grade classroom for 20 minutes after hearing that a second plane had struck the towers, listening to children read a story about a goat, is not "theoretical." These are facts.
That the Bush administration has desperately fought every attempt to independently investigate the events of 9/11, is not a "theory."
Nor, finally, is it in any way a "theory" that the one, single name that can be directly linked to the Third Reich, the US military industrial complex, Skull and Bones, Eastern Establishment good ol' boys, the Illuminati, Big Texas Oil, the Bay of Pigs, the Miami Cubans, the Mafia, the FBI, the JFK assassination, the New World Order, Watergate, the Republican National Committee, Eastern European fascists, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Trilateral Commission, the United Nations, CIA headquarters, the October Surprise, the Iran/Contra scandal, Inslaw, the Christic Institute, Manuel Noriega, drug-running "freedom fighters" and death squads, Iraqgate, Saddam Hussein, weapons of mass destruction, the blood of innocents, the savings and loan crash, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International, the "Octopus," the "Enterprise," the Afghan mujaheddin, the War on Drugs, Mena (Arkansas), Whitewater, Sun Myung Moon, the Carlyle Group, Osama bin Laden and the Saudi royal family, David Rockefeller, Henry Kissinger, and the presidency and vice-presidency of the United States, is: George Herbert Walker Bush.
"Theory?" To the contrary.
It is a well-documented, tragic and — especially if you're paranoid — terrifying fact.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael Hasty is a writer, activist, musician, carpenter and farmer. His award-winning column, "Thinking Locally," appeared for seven years in the Hampshire Review, West Virginia's oldest newspaper. His writing has also appeared in the Highlands Voice, the Washington Peace Letter, the Takoma Park Newsletter, the German magazine Generational Justice, and the Washington Post; and at the websites Common Dreams and Democrats.com. In January 1989, he was the media spokesperson for the counter-inaugural coalition at George Bush's Counter-Inaugural Banquet, which fed hundreds of DC's homeless in front of Union Station, where the official inaugural dinner was being held.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/hasty01.htm
I have no idea how CNN knew prior to the collapse.
That would be the same for the BBC.
Shermann
What is the Goal in the 9/11 Truth Community? Debates, or Justice?
Steven E. Jones
December 22, 2006 (updated Jan. 9, 2007)
Consider this statement made a few weeks ago by Dr. Frank Legge, Kevin Ryan, Victoria Ashley and other (previous) members of Scholars for 9/11 Truth:
"Further, on the Scholars' web site, positions are being promoted which are disputed by the scientists specializing in physical sciences from Scholars For 9/11 Truth. Attempts to correct this situation have failed. As of this date the web site continues to promote assertions which are unsupported by the evidence (ray-beams from space caused the demolitions, mini-nukes were used in the WTC towers, real commercial jets did not hit the WTC towers, etc.). We feel that the promotion of these ideas functions to distract from and discredit much of the other basic strong material challenging the official story of 9/11 which already exists - the stand down, the war games, the insider trading, the many strong points of evidence on the demolitions, etc."
How do we determine if ray-beams from space or mini-nuclear bombs were responsible for bringing down the WTC Towers? How do we know whether jets actually hit the Towers?
While it is admittedly exciting to come up with fascinating new theories about 9/11, if we wish to bring the perpetrators of the horrific 9/11 crimes to justice, we have to exert discretion and discipline by ferreting out those ideas repudiated by the physical evidence. We should consider these ideas, yes, but we do not need to endlessly debate all such issues. We can move on and focus on the solid forensic evidence which lends a hope of attracting the involvement of a criminal prosecutor and of holding up in court or before Congress.
As scientists, we look at the evidence, perform experiments, and apply the Scientific Method. The Greek method was to look at the evidence (superficially) and then try to explain things through logic and debate. The Greeks came up with various ideas in this way -- such as the geocentric theory in which the Earth was at the center of the universe, and all the stars and planets revolved around the earth. There were problems with this geocentric explanation, but Plato insisted that they must "save the hypothesis," and plausible explanations were found to account for anomalies -- i such as the retrograde motion of Mars. The philosophical debates and discussions were seemingly endless; the Dark Ages ensued.
Along came Copernicus, Galileo, Newton and others with their experiments and observations, and the centuries-old Greek philosophy-based notions began to crumble. Galileo observed through a telescope that Jupiter had moons -- which revolved around Jupiter (not the Earth). He was threatened with torture if he did not recant his explanation (that the Earth was not at the center). He suffered house arrest but not torture as he quietly continued his experiments.
In the lifetime of Newton, another experimenter who challenged the Greek approach, the scientific community worked out a system whereby scientific studies would be published after review by peers -- qualified experts who could judge the quality of the research. Peer-reviewed technical journals arose and the peer-review process brought order to the relative chaos of work up to that time. Now experiments could be done and written up, then peer-reviewed and published. Peer-reviewed papers would draw the attention of others. To give an example of using the modern scientific method, a few colleagues and I are doing experiments and making observations in a scientific approach to what really happened at the World Trade Center. It is NOT merely a plausible explanation or debates about "possibilities" that we seek. Rather, having seen strong indications of foul play (see journalof911studies.org/Intersecting_facts_and_Theories_on_911.pdf ) we are looking for hard evidence that would clearly verify an intentional crime beyond that of 19 hijackers. Ours is a forensic investigation, looking for a "smoking gun," which would then lead to a serious criminal investigation.
I do not plan to make a career out of 9/11 research, and I am not making money from my investigations anyway. We need a formal, solid investigation of the 9/11 crimes committed, not a long-term study which endlessly debates all alternatives. I seek such solid evidence of an insider crime (beyond a reasonable doubt) that some of us will successfully demand a criminal investigation to confront key individuals who may have insider information -- within one year, if possible-- not many.
So what evidence is likely to lead to such a criminal investigation?
As identified in my talk at the University of California at Berkeley, there are four areas of 9/11 research that are so compelling that they may quickly lead to the goal of a solid investigation of 9/11 as an un-solved crime scene. These four areas are:
Fall time for WTC 7.
Fall times for the Towers.
Challenging the NIST report and Fact Sheet.
Evidence for use of Thermate reactions: What the WTC dust and solidified metal reveal.
Please note that I do not focus only on the thermate-hypothesis, and I do research in all four areas above. Details are given in my talk, available here: http://www.archive.org/details/liftingthefog_2006_11_11_session2
There are other lines that may compel a criminal investigation even before one of the above "hard science" research lines bears fruit:
Whistleblower statements -- including some individuals yet to emerge.
Who made the stock-market "put-option" trades on American and United Air Lines in the week before 9/11, indicating clear foreknowledge of the attacks coupled with greed?
The fact that the WTC dust was declared quite safe by the EPA/National Security Council when in fact scientists had proven it to be toxic, and the many people now clamoring for justice after being hurt and misled.
Calls for impeachment for war issues, e.g., from a state legislature or Congress, which scrutinizes the "Bush Doctrine," then opens the 9/11 question.
Pressure from 9/11 Family members, firemen and others for answers.
Direct appeals to Senators and Congresspersons -- who are charged with an oversight role. I initiated a Petition to this effect, demanding release of government-held information related to 9/11, which has since been signed by over 10,000 people. And I am in contact now with the Congressman from my state, seeking information and remedy.
We have found evidence for thermates in the molten metal seen pouring from the South Tower minutes before its collapse, in the sulfidation and high-temperature corrosion of WTC steel, and in the residues found in the WTC dust. (Our sample originated from an apartment at 113 Cedar Street across from the WTC; chain of custody direct from the collector J. MacKinlay to Dr. Steven Jones). Many other details are given in the peer-reviewed paper here: journalof911studies.org/volume/200609/ WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf . Other cutter-charges such as HMX and RDX may have also been used; but again, solid evidence for just one type of incendiary or explosive would be sufficient to compel a criminal investigation.
Experiments continue, as shown in the photos below, and the results are consistent with thermate having been used in on 9/11/2001. We have a series of experiments planned, along with analyses. This research takes time.
Above: In a fraction of a second, thermate cuts horizontally through a steel cup. Notice the high-temperature corrosion which occurred.
Right: 1999: "Invention offers a thermite based apparatus and method for cutting target material [eg, steel] of a substantial thickness ... linear.. cutting action ..." A prototype has been used to cut through a steel I-beam.
Below: Proof of Concept. The photograph below shows the one-hole proto-type device I built to produce a thermate-jet. Thermate is the red powder in the steel base. The prototype worked well, and the thermate-jet cut through a piece of structural steel in a fraction of a second.
My colleagues and I are pursuing the thermate data as strong evidence for foul-play, and I encourage researchers to pursue all worthwhile areas of inquiry. One person can hardly pursue every line of inquiry, but I'm confident that one of these lines (above) will bear fruit in getting us to a serious, evidence-based investigation that leaves no stone unturned.
In contrast the theory that no planes hit the towers does not stand up to scrutiny, as published in a peer-reviewed paper by Eric Salter, here: http://www.journalof911studies.org/volume/200610/Salter.pdf . Salter shows that evidence for real planes hitting the Towers is compelling.
Papers regarding the following notions have been or are being prepared for the new Letters section of the Journal of 9/11 Studies: Mini-nukes exploding in the Towers on 9/11; Ray-beams used to bring the Towers down; comments/questions regarding papers by Reynolds and Wood. I anticipate and welcome questions regarding my published papers also. The editors of the Journal of 9/11 Studies invite questions and answers in the Letters section, as a means to bring the debate to a civilized, scientific forum. In Newton's day, there were various verbal attacks and debates among scientists, including attacks against Newton by Gottfried Leibniz and Robert Hooke. Considerable order was brought to the scientific community by requiring that articles and letters be published in peer-reviewed journals, so that the world would have a public record of the debates. This procedure also encouraged careful thought and respectful questioning and responding, and the use of scientific venues continues today. If questions are brought to me in this spirit of collegiality in this publication or another peer-reviewed Journal, I will be most happy to respond. Again, endless debates of a verbal or on-line-equivalent nature are not appropriate scientific venues and I do not intend to participate in those.
The editors of the Journal of 9/11 Studies will allow response Letters to be published in the Journal without formal peer-review, on a trial basis, to encourage public publication of various views. The requirements for publication will be: relevance, respectful civility, posing specific questions, answering all questions existing in the relevant Letter before posing new ones, and avoiding "straw-man" and ad hominem arguments. The scientific method (including publishing in Journals) includes evidence-based challenges to hypotheses, and rejection of hypotheses which fail to conform to the empirical data. Without this, we might still be debating whether the earth was flat, or at the center of the universe!
I have been asked, regarding the thermite-in-WTC hypothesis in my paper, "Exactly where did it need to be placed? ... How thick would it have to be against various steel columns, beams, concrete, etc.? How many hours of labor would it take to cover every surface of the building, carefully avoiding detection by WTC office workers? Exactly who placed all the alleged thermite there? Please give us their names, ages, and social security numbers for validation." (M. Reynolds and J. Wood, "The Scientific Method Applied to the Thermite Hypothesis," Dec. 2006)
Clearly, the answers to most of these questions will require a criminal investigation and cannot be determined from scientific analysis of the physical evidence. We cannot realistically be expected to answer all the "whodunit" and "exactly where" questions before a criminal investigation and trial begin! But that does not mean that scientific analysis is unimportant. For example, although various cutter-charges could have been used, if we can once establish that thermate-class residues are found in the WTC rubble and dust, then a criminal investigation will indeed be necessitated -- to determine who was responsible. Do you see the difference in focus, from unrealistically requiring all the answers up front, to seeking sufficient evidence to motivate a criminal investigation and trial to get at more answers? The NFPA 921Guide for Fire and Explosion Investigations states:
"Unusual residues might remain from the initial fuel. Those residues could arise from thermite, magnesium, or other pyrotechnic materials."
This is standard for fire and explosion investigations -- Why was the standard not applied to the WTC "crime scene"? I'm saying it should be. And as with other crime-scene investigations, once a pyrotechnic material's presence has been established, then the next step is a criminal investigation to determine who planted the pyrotechnic (such as thermate). It is not correct that I as a scientist in the laboratory have to answer the questions of names, ages, social security numbers, etc. anymore than an arson investigator, once he has demonstrated that accelerant residues were present so that a crime has been established, must himself provide the names and addresses of the arsonists who committed the crime. The identities will emerge from the criminal investigation that follows.
I encourage all serious researchers to join now the research effort to pin down hard evidences and work towards a criminal investigation -- perhaps by a Congressional committee, perhaps by a special prosecutor. Whatever body conducts the investigation, they will need hard evidences AND public support.
In conclusion, it is proposed that we:
Get very solid evidence that a crime was committed -- focusing on the best evidence, enough to "prove" the case.
Then, use that evidence to demand and support an investigation;
Get as much public support as possible to help encourage the investigation;
Have a goal of organizing such an investigation in 2007.
Anything that takes resources or distracts from these goals should be ignored.
So, we have some action items:
Continue good scientific research;
Work on getting the right contacts for starting an investigation;
Continue to inform the public. Keep that information campaign to the most convincing ideas and NOT muddy the waters with exotic theories. These can, however, be discussed via published Letters as explained above, so that we can sort out the wheat from the chaff scientifically.
Let's roll up our sleeves and focus, all of us who agree that the goal is to GET A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION rather than engaging in endless debates.
It is time to unite and seek an end to the 9/11 wars by bringing out the truth of what happened on 9/11. We seek truth, justice -- and peace.
http://stj911.org/
Acknowledgments: Thanks for valuable input from Frank Legge, Shaun Taulbee, Victoria Ashley, Carl Weis, and Lon Waters.
I work by process of elimination.
I have eliminated Tancredo, Gingrich, Guiliani, Clinton, and Edwards.
Shermann
P.S. Ron Paul will be getting my only campaign contributions for president.
The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not
Propaganda by the government and the corporate media would have us believe that the 9/11 "inside job" hypothesis is not merely controversial but unsupported by proof. That is wrong. Academics, experts, and scholars who have examined the physical evidence and considered this event within its historical context tend to converge in agreement that the inside-job hypothesis is, in fact, strongly supported by the available evidence, while the version advanced in The 9/11 Commission Report is not only false but provably false and in crucial respects physically impossible. That the official account of 9/11 is a lie and that 9/11 appears to have been an inside job is no longer a matter of serious scientific debate.
Even though the broad outlines of what happened are no longer controversial--for example, we know that The World Trade Center was intentionally demolished by a high-energy causal process physically unrelated to plane crashes and resulting fires--the precise details of how the perpetrators carried out the attack remains the subject of intense controversy. From a political point of view, this controversy may be insignificant. What we know with relative certainty about 9/11 is already the story of the century: it demands re-thinking our history, our politics, perhaps even our way of life. But from a scientific rather than political standpoint, controversial questions about what may have happened on 9/11 are fascinating and challenging--not least of all because they could lead to a better understanding of 9/11 with respect to its social and political significance.
In an attempt to clarify these matters, Scholars for 9/11 Truth will be hosting a conference entitled "The Science of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not", to be held 2-4 August 2007 in Madison, WI. I think we can all agree that the most important dimension of our efforts is explaining why the "official account" that the government has advanced cannot be sustained. Since there can be disagreements even here about what we should or should not emphasize and what has or has not been proven to an extent sufficient to emphasize them as basic "refutations" of the government's account, Kevin Barrett and I will discuss the science and the politics of 9/11 research as the opening session.
The major sessions will be devoted to the issues that have tended to divide us. Judy Wood and others will explore and analyze the serious possibility that non-conventional means, including high-tech, directed energy weapons, may have been used along with conventional methods to destroy the World Trade Center. Jerry Leaphart and Bob Fitrakis will discuss misinformation and disinformation. Morgan Reynolds, Dave von Klist, Rick Rajter and others will discuss what happened to the planes at the Pentagon, Shanksville, and the WTC on 9/11. In addition, Ed Haas of THE MUCKRACKER REPORT will present the keynote address on "The National 9/11 Non-Debate".
Registration, including lunches on both days, will be $125. Attendance at the meeting is limited to 150 participants. This conference will be distinctive by focusing on the issues that have divided us, by longer sessions dealing with them in great depth and, by virtue of its size, affording unusual opportunities for personal interaction between the speakers and the participants. You will get to know Kevin Barrett, Judy Wood, Morgan Reynolds, Ed Haas, Jerry Leaphart, Bob Fitrakis, Dave von Kleist, Rick Rajter, Jim Fetzer, and more.
Anyone who has thoughts about the program that they would like to share is welcome to forward them to me at jfetzer@d.umn.edu at their earliest convenience. This conference should provide an opportunity for experts on complex and technical scientific questions to explain their research and its significance. My hope is that by "agreeing to disagree," and by subjecting each others' research to rigorous but collegial criticism, the attention-getting controversial aspects of 9/11 research may be turned into a benefit, rather than a distraction, in the larger process of seeking and exposing the truth about 9/11.
James H. Fetzer
Founder
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
http://911scholars.org/
VERY STRANGE 9.11 AIRCRAFT REGISTRATIONS
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=90306
I should have included Dennis Kucinich also.
OOPS
Shermann
Madame Senator, You
Are No Jack Kennedy!
By Ted Lang
3-12-7
When as a voting and dues-paying Republican, although voting in the last presidential election as a Libertarian, I have run up a somewhat valid record of participation and financial contributions to Republican Candidates. My active participation in national elections didn't ever run this deep, but I felt and believed in my involvement in terms of participation in my own governance. My forte as an active and participating Republican was limited to New Jersey State andMorris County politics only. And as lesser Republican politicians close their eyes and hold their collective noses affording positive reinforcement to the crimes and corruption of Bush and Cheney, the inspired camaraderie I once longed for in the shadow of GOP achievers and stars is now lost forever.
I still fondly remember that Republican Party rally in Morristown in 1997 when I served on the campaign staff of an assemblyman running for a state senate seat. Before our victory, we gathered and celebrated on "The Green" in the Morristown Square against the backdrop of a very tight rock band laying down some heavy duty heavy metal. And some big name GOP stars were there - Christy Todd Whitman, the then-GOP candidate for governor, and star guest, former Vice President Dan Quayle.
I got to meet and shake hands with both Whitman and Quayle, the latter having served as the 44th Vice President under President George H. W. Bush. Quayle's two most notable 15 minute segments of fame occurred during his political campaign as the first Bush's running mate: first, there was his spelling gaffe in which he insisted that a 12-year-old student's spelling of "potato" was short an "e"; and second, was when he was savaged by Democrat Lloyd Bentsen during a debate broadcast on national TV. Quayle attempted to represent his youth and inexperience in the same light comparing it to that of the young former President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. Bentsen cut Quayle's legs out from under him when he asserted: "Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy!"
I have, and will continue, to view the presidency of George W. Bush and his treasonous GOP as the greatest travesty to irreversibly stain the entire history of these here United States. And with that in mind, I certainly do not wish in any way to provide ammunition and weaponry to these GOP traitors in providing a full frontal attack on Madam Hillary. But this needs to be said in light of the New York Post article of March 11 by Maggie Haberman, the title of which summarizes Senator Hillary Clinton's conviction evidencing a serious case of dementia: "I'm the JFK of 2008!" Madame Hillary is not quoted as actually having said this, but she did offer this analogy comparing herself to JFK: "He was smart, he was dynamic, he was inspiring and he was Catholic." But as far as this writer is concerned, Her Ladyship more closely resembles her last-cited attribute of being a Catholic than any of the other asserted attributes she claims. Yet, her Catholicism, being the most credible of her assertions, strikes me in precisely the same manner as when she offered that she "was always a Yankee fan."
No Madam Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy! And personally, I'm not at all convinced she's a Catholic!
I can no longer tolerate "American" politics. As I have so often stated in this space, the future of America is now in the hands of the "haves" and the "havenots." And what it is that Americans have or do not have is a firm understanding of what this nation's founding is all about, and whether or not they've a clue as to what individual freedoms they were once entitled to and guaranteed under the Constitution's Bill of Rights. Clinton's husband, the Bill of Wrongs, with his cynicism regarding the responsibilities of his office, set the stage for both the lack of morality and honor that that once noble and exalted station has now been reduced to. And that office's demise launched by "Slick Willie" has paved the way allowing for our current clueless warmonger and easily manipulated buffoon to occupy it and to take his place.
And we are now supposed to forget our most honorable Senator Hillary's role and participation in her husband's grand efforts to bring dishonor to the very office she is now seeking? We are supposed to forget "Travelgate," and "Whitewater," and the missing law office files, the slapping of the Marine Corps guard and the running down of a police officer at Westchester County Airport in New York? The latter can be viewed here http://etherzone.com/2001/lang110701.shtml> only if I can be forgiven for my previous dedication to the GOP as concerns Rudy "Kazootie" Giuliani, the WTC steel I-beam recycler. Remember when Madame Hillary was on her listening tour and began conversing with a homeless person [bum] pushing a stolen shopping cart? Remember her asking that fragrant dude if that was "his stuff" in the shopping cart? Why didn't she ask him how and from where he acquired the shopping cart?
Nothing could have been phonier about Lady Nastiness than that session with the street person. Undoubtedly, Her Ladyship thought that he represented the lower classes, you know, the people "in the street" that she hoped to represent; people like you and me. And now, after comparing herself to JFK, can there be any modicum of doubt that her arrogance and her contempt for the common people hasn't changed even slightly?
As a registered Republican for so many years, I have concluded that we've had only two good "activist" presidents. My first choice is, of course, George Washington. But my choice for second best would definitely be President John Fitzgerald Kennedy. And yes, it is indeed unfortunate that Papa Kennedy bent the rules to defeat Nixon, which helped to denigrate American politics to the low levels it exists at today. Things sure would have been better had only Diebold been around back then. We could have avoided both The Mob and the Cook County Daley crime machine!
JFK challenged the Federal Reserve. Hillary won't! JFK fired Zionist banker stooge and Bush CIA connection and head, Allen Dulles. Hillary wouldn't have. And JFK tried to keep nuclear weapons out of the hands of Ben-Gurion and Israel. Need I comment on this point considering Hillary's publicly displayed total subservience to Israel and its lobby AIPAC? But in all fairness, ALL of "America's" presidential candidates running via our two-flavored single party system have demonstrated complete subservience and loyalty to the big campaign money providers from AIPAC. They're all competing for Rothschild-Rockefeller "New York money."
Madam Senator, you are no Jack Kennedy
© THEODORE E. LANG 3/12/07 All rights reserved
Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.
http://www.rense.com/general75/madam.htm
My favorite candidates for Prez right now are:
Ron Paul
Al Gore
Bill Richardson
John McCain
Let's Call the Coal Thing Off
Coal-bashing is hot new trend in Congress, science circles, and business world
By Amanda Griscom Little
09 Mar 2007
Is King Coal about to be deposed?
Climate scientists, key members of Congress, enviros, and the progressive wing of the business world are plotting a coup d'état. Regime change isn't likely to come soon, but this resistance movement could significantly alter the way the pollution-spewing sovereign wields its power.
James Hansen.
Photo: Arnold Adle/NASAThe ringleader of this uprising is James Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies and one of the world's top climate scientists. Last week he threw down the gauntlet: "There should be a moratorium on building any more coal-fired power plants," Hansen told the National Press Club.
Coal currently supplies nearly half the electricity in the U.S., and is responsible for more greenhouse-gas emissions than any other electricity source. The Department of Energy reported last month that 159 new coal-fired power plants are scheduled to be built in the U.S. in the coming decade, intended to generate enough juice for nearly 100 million homes.
"If you build a new coal plant, you're making a 60-year commitment -- that's how long these plants are generally in use," explains David Doniger, policy director for the Natural Resources Defense Council's climate center. "So we really need to avoid building a whole new generation of coal plants that use the old technology."
Industry boosters tout the prospect of so-called "clean coal," but right now there is simply no such thing. Zero-carbon coal plants -- ones that will gasify coal, filter carbon dioxide from the vapor, then stow the CO2 underground -- are a long way off from commercial application. A handful of coal-gasification plants are in development, and could eventually be retrofitted with carbon-capture and -sequestration capabilities, but for now this pollution-storage technology is years away from even a working pilot phase.
"Until we have that clean coal power plant, we should not be building them," Hansen told his D.C. audience. "It is as clear as a bell."
Is coal about to lose its crown?Then the esteemed scientist raised even more eyebrows by declaring that, come mid-century, any old dinosaur coal plants that still aren't sequestering CO2 ought to be "bulldozed."
Industry reps are scoffing. "Some of Hansen's suggestions are absolutely ludicrous," energy lobbyist Frank Maisano told Muckraker. "There are fast-growing, rural areas of the country where coal is the only affordable option. Hansen's recommendations would put these areas at risk -- they're a recipe for disaster." Maisano added that the NASA top dog "may be a great scientist, but when it comes to energy policy, apparently he has a lot to learn."
Now You Policy It
And yet a growing number of policymakers are thinking along the same lines as Hansen.
Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) is drafting a bill that would "prevent any plant from going forward that uses old [coal-fired] technology," said the senator's spokesperson Vincent Morris. Kerry, who chairs the Senate Subcommittee on Science, Technology, and Innovation, expects to introduce the bill in the coming weeks, after ironing out the details on performance standards for advanced-technology coal plants.
"Industry leaders know they are operating in a climate of uncertainty, and that is a very uncomfortable climate for them," Morris told Muckraker. "They need a clear path charted in terms of the expectations for advanced coal technology, and that's what Sen. Kerry is working on."
The most aggressive climate-change bill in the Senate -- the Global Warming Pollution Reduction Act, sponsored by Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) -- also includes a provision that would require all coal power plants built after 2012 to emit no more greenhouse gases than a combined-cycle gas turbine electric plant, a type of highly efficient natural-gas plant, by 2016. (A similar clean-as-a-CCGT-plant standard is already in effect in California.) By 2030, the Sanders-Boxer bill would require all power plants to be this clean no matter when they came online.
Sen. Bernie Sanders.
Photo: senate.gov"What that means, effectively, is that you'd have to start phasing in the carbon-sequestration technology as of 2012," Sanders told Muckraker. "It would offer a big push to get this new technology ready for prime time."
Sanders shares Hansen's emphatic aversion to present-day coal technology: "These plants are destroying the planet! And on top of that they are spewing all kinds of crap that is causing asthma among our children."
It's hard to imagine a moratorium on conventional coal technology being signed into law any time soon, and yet these proposals still send an important signal. "They make investment in the more advanced coal technology look better to companies and investors because there's less of a regulatory risk," says Doniger.
Double, Double, Coal and Trouble
Even without congressional action, coal's been having a rough go of it of late.
For months, concerned citizens and enviros had been protesting plans by giant Texas utility TXU to build 11 old-style coal-fired power plants in the state. Then, in late February, a handful of private investors proposed buying out TXU for a record-breaking $45 billion, and struck a truce that headed off a lawsuit by Environmental Defense and other green groups by agreeing to cut the number of new coal plants down to three. More surprising, these private entities, which include Kohlberg Kravis Roberts & Co. and Texas Pacific Group, vowed to support a mandatory national cap on greenhouse-gas emissions, as well as to have TXU invest $400 million in conservation and energy-efficiency programs over the next five years.
Last week, the North Carolina Public Utilities Commission rejected one of two major coal generators proposed by Duke Energy -- which, strangely enough, has been on the frontlines of the call for federal climate caps. In exchange for permission to build the one plant, the commission said Duke would have to retire four aging coal units and plow 1 percent of its annual retail revenue -- about $50 million -- into energy-efficiency programs. Duke is now reassessing its plans.
Some environmentalists are bristling over both the TXU and Duke deals, saying that even one new coal plant is too many, and, in the case of the TXU arrangement, that Environmental Defense and NRDC, which also took part in the negotiations, gave up too much for too little. Still, these concessions show that the utility industry is significantly rethinking its relationship to an increasingly embattled energy source -- and taking ever more seriously the counsel of environmentalists.
Last week, CNNMoney.com characterized the negotiations between enviros and TXU's prospective buyers as "the latest sign of how the green lobby is increasingly shaping the agenda on Wall Street."
Said Sanders, "For a long time, industry argued that if we take aggressive action on climate change, it could have negative economic impact. But now the reality is that if we do not take aggressive action, the economic impacts of global warming will far surpass those [industry] feared would come as a result of regulations."
Moreover, argues Sanders, innovations like coal gasification and sequestration technology have the potential to "reestablish the United States' leadership position in the global economy." India and China are adding roughly one major coal-fired power plant every week, so, he says, "It would be a huge boon for us, ethically and economically, to be able to meet that kind of demand with coal plants that are clean."
The fight to set tougher fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks has gotten the lion's share of attention in D.C. discussions of climate policy, but the quest to establish ambitious coal-plant performance standards deserves as much visibility and vigor -- for the sake of the U.S. economy as well as the global climate.
Muck it up: We welcome rumors, whistleblowing, classified documents, or other useful tips on environmental policies, Beltway shenanigans, and the people behind them. Please send 'em to muckraker@grist.org.
- - - - - - - - - -
Amanda Griscom Little writes Grist's Muckraker column on environmental politics and policy and interviews green luminaries for the magazine. Her articles on energy and the environment have also appeared in publications ranging from Rolling Stone to The New York Times Magazine.
A child knows better.
This is about money and corrupt politicians!!!
Shermann
Former Pakistan Intel Chief: US puts Pressure on Pakistan to Support a US Led Attack on Iran
Global Research, March 13, 2007
paktribune.com
US pressurizing Pak to get its support for attack on Iran: Gul
ISLAMABAD: Former ISI Chief, Gen (retd) Hameed Gul has said that the Untied States is paving the way to use Pakistan's territory for its expected attack on Iran in order to shift the blame of its failure in Afghanistan to Pakistan.
Talking to a private TV Channel, Gen (retd) Hameed Gul said that NATO forces have intensified their activities on Pak-Afghan border as they are frustrated due to their failure in Afghanistan.
Former ISI Chief has said that US backed Karzai government has been completely failed in Afghanistan and the United States has now realized that they are now facing strong resistance from Taliban.
General (retd) Hamid Gul said that its an American policy to use different tactics to pressurize Pakistan and the main objective of recent visit of US Vice President Dick Cheney to pressurize Pakistan as US would need Pakistan's support and Balochistan land to attack Iran. He said that it may be the possibility that Pakistani government is refusing the United States to given permission to use its land.
Criticizing severely on the government, former ISI Chief said that Pakistan presently facing difficult time of its history due to weak politics of present government. Pakistan is a strong and nuclear capable country and has impregnable defence, he added.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright , paktribune.com, 2007
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=5070
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Soros Buys 2 Million Shares of Halliburton
According to papers filed with the SEC, in the fourth quarter of 2006 George Soros purchased nearly 2 million shares of Halliburton. The Halliburton shares reportedly went for an average purchase price of $31.30 a share. That puts Soros' total investment in Halliburton at around $62.6 million, or about 2 percent of his total portfolio.