2009/01/04

Air Traffic Controllers Concerned Over Chemtrails

Air Traffic Controllers
Concerned Over Chemtrails
http://www.rense.com/general20/cc.htm
By William Thomas
willthomas@telus.net

VANCOUVER, Canada - As continuing chemtrail activity culminated in massive aerial spraying over Vancouver Island and Washington state yesterday- and broadening plumes once again fanned out to haze clear blue skies - Air Traffic Controllers at major airports across the United States expressed concern over the emissions constantly showing up on their radar screens.

'Chemtrails' is the term widely used to describe the brilliant white trails laid down by U.S. Air Force tanker planes photo-identified over North America and a dozen other allied nations in a process the U.S. Air Force calls 'aerial obscuration'.

First confirmed by Airport Authority Terry Stewart at the Victoria International Airport on Dec. 8, 2000 as a 'joint Canada-U.S. military operation' and stridently denied by senior officers at Canadian Forces Base (where Stewart later told the Vancouver Courier he had received his information) - these multi-plane missions were verified in March, 2001 by the Air Traffic Control (ATC) manager for the northeastern seaboard of the United States.

In three taped interviews with this reporter and veteran radio journalist S.T. Brendt, our 'Deep Sky' source said that he had been ordered to divert incoming commercial flights away from USAF tankers spraying s substance that showed up on ATC radars as a 'haze'.

These radar returns are the signature of the fine aluminum particles found in laboratory tests of chemtrail-contaminated rain taken in Espanola, Ontario in the summer of 1999. The lab analysis found reflective quartz particles in the chemtrail fallout - and levels of aluminum FIVE TIMES higher than Ontario's maximum permissible health safety standards.

After NDP Defense critic Gordon Earle presented a petition signed by 550 Espanola residents to Parliament in November, 1999 demanding an end to aerial spraying by commercial or military aircraft, foreign or domestic, which appeared to be making many people sick, DND eventually replied, "It's not us."

The aluminum found in chemtrails over Ontario matches the 10 micron aluminum oxide called for in a 1994 patent issued to Hughes Aircraft Company. 'Welsbach Seeding for Reduction of Global Warming' refers to spreading highly reflective materials in the atmosphere to reflect enough incoming sunlight (1 to 2%) to slow rapidly-accelerating global warming.

Edward Teller, father of the H-bomb, called for this billion dollar a year 'sky shield' program after computer simulations at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory showed it would prevent warming over 85% of the planet's surface despite a predicted doubling of heat-trapping C02 in the atmosphere over the next 40 years.

But Ken Caldeira - the climate expert who ran the computer model - has warned that the stratospheric spraying of sunlight-reflecting chemicals could 'destroy the ozone layer' and pose human health risks.

CONTROLLERS CONCERNED ACROSS U.S.

Starting last December, on heavy 'spray days' Deep Sky began calling companion controllers across the country. Were they seeing the same thing on their scopes? What were they being told?

In a fourth interview with reporter S.T. Brendt last week, Deep Sky stated that Air Traffic Controllers at Chicago's O'Hare airport, all three major airports in New York, Los Angeles LAX, San Francisco, Atlanta, Cleveland, San Diego, Washington DC's Dulles and Jacksonville, Florida were being ordered to route airliners beneath formations of Air Force tanker planes spraying something that regularly clouds their screens.

Several smaller but busy airports at Westchester County in New York state and Manchester in New Hampshire were also contacted by this an increasingly concerned Deep Sky - and confirmed similar experiences.

Every controller, without exception, is being told to divert traffic due to military exercises , and to bring in traffic lower because of experiments that may degrade their radars. The controllers at Cleveland's airport were surprised by the extent of obscuration on their radars.

CHEMTRAILS SCIENTIST BREAKS SILENCE

Ohio is the home of Wright-Patterson - the air force base working with electromagnetic and weather modification technology. A scientist working at Wright-Pat recently told reporter Bob Fitrakis that two different projects are being conducted. One involves cloud creation experiments to lessen the effect of global warming. Other chemtrails are connected with the military's extremely high-power Radio Frequency beam weapon in Alaska called HAARP.

The scientist claims that the two most common substances being sprayed into chemtrails are aluminum oxide and barium stearate. When you see planes flying back and forth marking parallel lines, X-patterns and grids in a clear sky, that's aluminum oxide, according to the scientist. The goal is to create an artificial sunscreen to reflect solar radiation back into space to alleviate global warming. In some cases, barium may be sprayed in a similar manner for the purpose of high-tech 3-D radar imaging. (Columbus Alive Dec. 6, 2001)

CONGRESSIONAL BILL CALLS FOR CHEMTRAILS BAN

HR2977 is creating a 'buzz in the Air Traffic Control community. Introduced last October by Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich, this bill called for the peaceful uses of space, and a ban on 'exotic weapons' . Section 7 of the 'Space Preservation Act of 2001' sought specifically to prohibit 'chemtrails' .

Kucinich recently told the Columbus Alive newspaper (Jan. 24, 2002) that despite official denials, as head of the Armed Services oversight committee he is well acquainted with chemtrail projects. "The truth is there's an entire program in the Department of Defense - 'Vision for 2020' - that's developing these weapons, Kucinich told reporter Bob Fitrakis. The U.S. Space Command's 2020 vision calls for 'dominance of space, land, sea and air'.

Though "section vii" naming chemtrails, HAARP and other planet-threatening weapons has since been removed in a substitute bill - under pressure according to Kucinich - the original bill remains intact and on-file in the congressional record.

CONTRAILS VS CHEMTRAILS

The unusual white plumes reported by Air Canada pilots, police officers and former military personnel over Canada and the U.S. during the past three years are often contrasted by brief, pencil-thin contrails left by commercial jets flying above them.

Contrails form when water vapor clumps around dirt particles acting as nuclei. According to NASA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, contrails can only form at temperatures below minus 76 degrees, and humidity levels of 70 percent or more. Even in ideal conditions, contrails rarely last more than 20 minutes.

But atmospheric studies by NASA and NOAA - including TARFOX, ACE-Asia, ACE-I and II, INDOEX and Project SUCCESS - confirm that artificial clouds and contrails can be manufactured under conditions of low humidity by dispensing particles from aircraft. The smaller the size of the nuclei introduced into the atmosphere, the greater the rate of artificial cloud formation.

Controllers across the United States know from their professional training that these chemicals fall to the ground. Without exception they expressed their concern to Deep Sky about possible risks to human health,

"They want to know what the heck is in there," S.T. Brendt reported. "One of them said, 'Aluminum or barium' that's not something you want to be breathing."

Over the last few months, the controller have been told that the troubling aerial operations involve 'climate experiments'. Deep Sky's family continues to experience health problems, including his young son's gushing nose bleeds and episodes of 'Sudden Onset Acute Asthma' in his wife. ___

William Thomas is the author of 'Chemtrails Confirmed' and 'All Fall Down: The Politics of Terror and Mass Persuasion'. His website: www.lifeboatnews.com 

 

Jan 3, 2009: Massive Crimetrail Assault over Florida & Gulf

Jan 3, 2009: Massive Crimetrail Assault over Florida and the Gulf

USA7 Subset - Terra 500m True Color image for 2009/003 (01/03/09)

2009/01/02

message

THE SONY PLC,UK(HEAD,Qtrs)
The Hydra Building
10 Hardwick St, LONDON,
EC1R 4RB

SONY OFFICIAL PROMO SPLASH 2008

Att:Winner

We are pleased to inform you of the result
from our 2008/2009 promo award.Your E-mail
falls among the 10 Lucky winners who won
Ј500,000.00{ five hundred thousand Great
British Pounds} each in the SONY 2008
online Promo. This draw is being organized
to enhance awareness and publicity of our
latest digital and electronic products.

Your E-mail was attached to Ticket number
(TK:029774RVZ) and Ballot number(BT:ZRI2637NT)
The online draws was conducted by a random
selection of E-mail addresses from an exclusive
list of 200,079,031,643 E-mail addresses of
individuals and co-orporate bodies picked by
an advanced automated random computer search
from the internet.E-mail.Addresses were
assigned to different Ticket numbers for
representation and privacy.

To begin the claim processing of your prize,
you are to contact your claims agent and
provide the following informations as stated
below,so we can proceed with the verification
and clearance process of your file.

1. Full Names:................................
2. Postal Address:.......................
3. Phone Number:Mobile & Home:................
4. Fax Number:...............................
5. Occupation:................................
6. Sex:.......................................
7. Age:.......................................
8. Nationality :..............................
9. Ballot No. :...............................
10.Ticket No:.................................
(winners must be 18+)

Rachael.V.Braden.
claims agent
Email:enquiry.dept@live.co.uk
*****reply to this email*****

Yours Faithfully,

Hou.C.Zang
Management


© 2008 SONY company Limited. All rights reserved.

2009/01/01

message

THE SONY PLC,UK(HEAD,Qtrs)
The Hydra Building
10 Hardwick St, LONDON,
EC1R 4RB

SONY OFFICIAL PROMO SPLASH 2008

Att:Winner

We are pleased to inform you of the result
from our 2008/2009 promo award.Your E-mail
falls among the 10 Lucky winners who won
Ј500,000.00{ five hundred thousand Great
British Pounds} each in the SONY 2008
online Promo. This draw is being organized
to enhance awareness and publicity of our
latest digital and electronic products.

Your E-mail was attached to Ticket number
(TK:029774RVZ) and Ballot number(BT:ZRI2637NT)
The online draws was conducted by a random
selection of E-mail addresses from an exclusive
list of 200,079,031,643 E-mail addresses of
individuals and co-orporate bodies picked by
an advanced automated random computer search
from the internet.E-mail.Addresses were
assigned to different Ticket numbers for
representation and privacy.

To begin the claim processing of your prize,
you are to contact your claims agent and
provide the following informations as stated
below,so we can proceed with the verification
and clearance process of your file.

1. Full Names:................................
2. Postal Address:.......................
3. Phone Number:Mobile & Home:................
4. Fax Number:...............................
5. Occupation:................................
6. Sex:.......................................
7. Age:.......................................
8. Nationality :..............................
9. Ballot No. :...............................
10.Ticket No:.................................
(winners must be 18+)

Rachael.V.Braden.
claims agent
Email:enquiry.dept@live.co.uk
*****reply to this email*****

Yours Faithfully,

Hou.C.Zang
Management


© 2008 SONY company Limited. All rights reserved.

Florida/Georgia/Gulf Chemical Crime Trails Activity

Florida/Georgia/Gulf Chemical Crime Trails Activity

To Question 9/11 is to be Anti-Semitic?

To Question 9/11 is to be Anti-Semitic?

No, but that's what the Zionist neo-cons want you to believe.

We've narrowed the suspects down sufficiently to understand who was most likely behind 9/11.  Any group with proof that 9/11 was an inside job is a direct threat to the insiders who helped pull it off including the numerous appointees with dual American/Israeli citizenships in positions of influencing US military operations.

But the Zionists raise the stakes too high when they use Israelis as human shields against their program of genocide against Muslims.

The world is waking up to the Zionist agenda but it's not clear that many observers are willing to distinguish Jews and Israelis from the murderous Zionist agenda whose advocates use the greater population as hostages against criticism.

The memory of the Nazi holocaust is no longer enough to sustain universal sympathy for the hallowed Jewish struggle to reclaim their homeland. And global opinion is shifting to side more with the Palestinians - as the real victims - who have lost 80% of their homeland to militant Zionist expansion since 1948.

Blogs are seeing the rhetoric heat up.  One angry post advocates "another holocaust" as a solution to the Arab problem with Israel.

The article below demonstrates how some will insult their readers with intellectual fraud in the face of hard facts.

HWS




http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21587.htm

Alternative Theory of 9/11?

Joel Brinkley: Does His Article on Richard Falk Demonstrate the Right "Frame of Mind" to Teach Journalism at Stanford?

By Elizabeth Woodworth

December 31, 2008 "Information Clearinghouse" -- -In a companion essay, I discussed the response of some articles in the mainstream press to the claim, made by some defenders of Israel, that Professor Richard Falk should be removed from his current position of UN rapporteur on human rights abuses in the Palestinian Territories -- a claim that was reflected in the refusal of Israel on December 14, 2008, to allow him to enter the country. I included in this essay a discussion of an article by reporter Joel Brinkley because, although it was published before Israel's action against Falk, it could be read as a defense of that action. Brinkley, who had previously worked for the New York Times, argued that Falk did not have the right "frame of mind" for his UN position. In the present essay, I will focus on Brinkley's argument for this charge, suggesting that it shows that he does not have the right frame of mind for his own current position as visiting professor of journalism at Stanford University.

Brinkley's Discussion of 9/11 Brinkley's charge that Falk is unfit for his UN role is quite remarkable, given Falk's stature. He is Professor Emeritus of International Law and Practice at Princeton University and currently Distinguished Visiting Professor at the University of California at Santa Barbara. He has had published (as author or editor) over 60 books by academic and other mainstream presses. He is also widely respected and sought after as a speaker and conference participant.

Brinkley's case against Falk rests on linking him to the millions of Americans who believe the "unusual theory," as Brinkley calls it, that the 9/11 attacks were a "false flag" operation -- "a conspiracy planned and executed by the Bush administration." This is a theory of which Brinkley, he admits, had been unaware "until a row broke out last month between Falk and U.N. monitors who try to defend Israel."

Is it not extraordinary that Brinkley, a former New York Times reporter deemed qualified by Stanford University to teach its journalism students, had not been aware that many Americans believe that 9/11 was a false flag operation, carried out to provide a pretext for attacking Muslim countries? Mainstream newspapers, magazines, and television shows have for years been reporting this belief, especially on the anniversaries of 9/11. TV talk-show hosts have debated members of the "9/11 truth movement" who advocate the false flag theory, including former Minnesota Governor Jesse Ventura.

Nation-wide polls, moreover, have shown this belief to be shared by millions of Americans. In 2006, for example, a Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll found that 36% of Americans considered it likely that "federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them 'because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.'" This poll, which shows that this theory is not as "unusual" as Brinkley claims, was widely reported in the press, including Time magazine.

When I saw that Brinkley had been completely unaware of the 9/11 controversy, I could not help wondering how his reading habits differ from those of Sarah Palin.

Early in his article, Brinkley suggests that Falk is unsuited for his present UN position because he advocates this alternative theory of 9/11. Brinkley wrote: "U.N. monitors who already view Falk with grave distrust are now throwing up his advocacy of the 9/11 conspiracy theory as further evidence that he is not qualified to serve as an important U.N. envoy."

But a few paragraphs later, discussing a Scottish newspaper article by Falk about 9/11 that angered an organization called UN Watch, Brinkley writes: "In it, Falk does not say flatly that the [9/11 conspiracy] theories are correct---just that they warrant further investigation." So, without pointing out that the "U.N. monitors" who said otherwise were wrong, Brinkley concedes that Falk is not a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. This means that the title of Brinkley's article as published in the San Francisco Chronicle --"9/11 Conspiracy Theorist Should Leave U.N. Job" -- is misleading.

We can thus see that Brinkley's call for Falk's resignation or dismissal rests solely upon Falk's belief that the events of September 11 "warrant further investigation." It is, in other words, Falk's open-mindedness about this issue that makes him unqualified to write about human rights abuses in the Palestinian Territories. How can Brinkley justify such a claim?

Brinkley continues his argument by approvingly quoting Hillel Neuer, the director of UN Watch -- one of the "U.N. monitors" to whom Brinkley had referred -- who said: "Falk has a very serious mandate. People who question whether 9/11 happened are not serious people."

At this point, any good journalism professor would raise two issues. First, no one questions "whether 9/11 happened." The only debate is about who made it happen.

Second, the journalism professor would ask whether it is indeed true that no "serious people" have questioned the official theory of 9/11. The professor might, in fact, give his or her students the assignment of finding out. If so, the students could learn from a site called "Patriots Question 9/11" that a large number of serious people have indeed questioned the government's version of 9/11. Among them are:

" Hundreds of architects and engineers, including the following engineers: Jack Keller, an emeritus professor at Utah State University who has been praised by Scientific American as a leading contributor to science and technology; Robert Bowman, who was the head of the "Star Wars" program during the Ford and Carter administrations; and two structural engineers at the prestigious Swiss Federal Institute of Technology;

" Dozens of pilots, including Russ Wittenberg, who flew commercial airliners for 35 years after serving as a fighter pilot in Vietnam, and former Navy "top gun" pilot Ralph Kolstad;

" Dozens of scientists, including physicist David Griscom, a fellow of the American Physical Society who worked for over 30 years at the Naval Research Laboratory, and Lynn Margulis, a National Medal of Science winner;

" Dozens of former military officers, including Colonel Ronald D. Ray, decorated Vietnam veteran who became deputy assistant secretary of defense during the Reagan Administration, and General Leonid Ivashov, who on 9/11 was the chief of staff for the Russian armed forces;

" Several former intelligence officers, including senior CIA analyst Bill Christison and CIA presidential briefer (for Carter and Reagan) Ray McGovern.

An open mind might have led Brinkley to discover that all of these "serious people" reject the government's account of 9/11. But he took, he admitted, only "a cursory look" at some books, articles and Websites about 9/11. On that basis, he charged that Richard Falk -- one of the world's most respected professors of international law -- was unfit for his UN role simply because he said that the false flag theory about 9/11 should be given further study. What kind of model is this for journalism students?

Brinkley, moreover, made an outrageous comparison, writing:

"These 9/11 conspiracy theorists remind me of the people who used to think that Neil Armstrong didn't really land on the moon 40 years ago; the entire exercise was actually carried out in a water tank. It's a free country; you're entitled to think whatever you like. But this is fringe stuff. Would we ever have appointed an advocate of the water-tank theory to a senior position in government?"

If I were a journalism professor, this statement would provide me with two more examples of errors to avoid.

First, after having conceded that Falk is not himself one of the "9/11 conspiracy theorists," Brinkley here treats him as if he were. I would encourage my students not to contradict themselves, especially within the space of a single article.

Second, the fact that the 9/11 theorists remind Brinkley of the water-tank theorists does not mean that the two groups are actually anything alike. The water-tank theory is not supported by hundreds of scientists and professionals in relevant fields. Opinion polls do not show over a third of the US population holding this theory. It is indeed "fringe stuff." But this says nothing about the theory that 9/11 was a false flag operation. I would use Brinkley's error here to illustrate the fact that journalists should not confuse their subjective impressions, especially when based upon almost total ignorance of the issue at hand, with objective reality.

Reporters, of course, sometimes make mistakes. And their readers will sometimes let them know when they have done so. One would hope that our journalism professors would point out that, when the readers are right, reporters should acknowledge this fact and, when possible, issue retractions.

In the case of Brinkley, some readers did try to help him overcome his ignorance about 9/11. One well-informed researcher into the events of September 11, responding to Brinkley's apparent assumption that there are no credible critics of the official account, told him about three former members of the CIA, including Ray McGovern and William Christison, plus a former commanding general of US Army Intelligence. This correspondent also informed Brinkley that the Patriots Question 9/11 website contains "information about these and 1,000 other credible critics of the official account of 9/11."

How did Brinkley respond? Did he, as an inquiring and responsible journalist would, thank the correspondent, promise to check out the proffered information as soon as possible, and then, if he realized he had been mistaken, issue a retraction, including a public apology to Professor Falk? No. He wrote: "Thanks for your note. You and the CIA veterans are certainly entitled to your opinions, as I am to mine. All best, Joel Brinkley."

It would appear that, in writing this dismissive note, Brinkley did not even take the time to comprehend what the correspondent was trying to tell him. Brinkley had implied that no serious people challenge the official account of 9/11. The correspondent told him that there were four former intelligence officers, plus a thousand other credible people, who have criticized that account. But Brinkley's response -- that we are all entitled to our opinions -- assumed that the correspondent was asserting that these critics were correct, rather than simply pointing out that these were credible people.

If I were a journalism professor, this would provide me with another teaching point: "When readers write to you, trying to help you become better informed about a subject on which you have written, pay attention to what they are saying -- you might learn something."

But there is an even more serious problem with Brinkley's reply, in which he said he was as entitled to his opinion as the CIA officials were to theirs. That is true in their roles as US citizens, because the US Constitution enshrines liberty of thought. But surely Brinkley would not think that scientists as scientists are entitled to their opinions regardless of the facts.

Scientists, to be members of the scientific community in good standing, must show respect for the relevant empirical evidence.

Should not the same also apply to journalists? Is that not at least the professional ideal, which should be taught in schools of journalism? Surely no reputable school of journalism would teach its students that they, as journalists, are "entitled to their opinions" in the sense that they can simply write what they wish about various subjects with virtually no effort to discover the relevant facts.

Of course, the same empirical principle -- that opinions, to be responsible opinions, must not be contradicted by the relevant knowable facts -- applies to the intellectual community in general.

With that in mind, let us ask whether Brinkley, as a member of the intellectual community, is as entitled to his opinion as former CIA officials Ray McGovern and William Christison are to theirs. This would be true only if these men had not studied the relevant facts before forming their present opinions any more than Brinkley had.

But that is not the case. I have it on good authority that McGovern, after first being exposed to the idea of official complicity in the attacks, studied writings and talked to people on both sides of the issue for over a year before concluding that the 9/11 truth community was right. And Christison, revealing that coming to his present opinion was no easy matter, wrote in the summer of 2006: "I spent the first four and a half years since September 11 utterly unwilling to consider seriously the conspiracy theories surrounding the attacks of that day. . . . [I]n the last half year and after considerable agony, I've changed my mind."

McGovern and Christison have earned the right to their opinions. It appears that Brinkley has not. He seems, moreover, unconcerned about this fact. This apparent indifference to evidence was further revealed in his response to a second researcher into the events of September 11, who tried to supply him with relevant information.

Pointing out that Brinkley had referred to the alternative theory about 9/11 as "fringe stuff," this correspondent quoted Time magazine's response to the Scripps-Howard poll of 2006, which, as I mentioned earlier, found that 36 percent of the American public thought it likely that US officials were complicit in the attacks. Time wrote: "Thirty-six percent adds up to a lot of people. This is not a fringe phenomenon. It is a mainstream political reality."

This correspondent, realizing that Brinkley's "fringe stuff" comment meant that those who accept the alternative view of 9/11 are people who, no matter how numerous, need not be taken seriously, also informed him of two articles written by physicists and chemists providing evidence that explosives had brought down the World Trade Center buildings -- articles that have been published in respected, peer-reviewed, scientific journals. The same correspondent also informed Brinkley of an edited volume, containing eight essays contradicting the official view, that was published by the prestigious Elsevier Press.

Brinkley again responded dismissively, writing: "Thanks very much for your note. I have read a bit of the literature on this subject, and I understand why many people are concerned. I simply don't share that view. All the best, Joel Brinkley."

What view did Brinkley not share? Was it that Time magazine had said that the rejection of the official story is "not a fringe phenomenon." No. Was it that several world class science publishers had accepted ten papers written by members of the 9/11 truth community, thereby demonstrating that they considered them "serious people"? No. Again ignoring the point of a letter intended to help him overcome his ignorance, he casually replied that he, having read "a bit of the literature," did not share the view of the people who had written those papers---which he almost certainly had not read.

Brinkley again implied, therefore, that his opinion, being based on having read only "a bit of the literature," was as valid as the opinion of scientists and other members of the 9/11 community who had been studying and writing about the relevant evidence for several years.

Who Has the Inappropriate "Frame of Mind"? In concluding his argument that Falk should be dismissed from his UN role, Brinkley -- now remembering that Falk did not endorse the idea that 9/11 was a false flag operation but merely said that this theory warrants further investigation -- wrote that the problem is that Falk "believes that the U.S. government is capable of such unspeakable evil. What does that tell you about his frame of mind for his United Nations job?"

This conclusion raises two problems. How exactly would this belief show Falk to have an inappropriate "frame of mind" for his UN role? Brinkley seems to assume a logical connection between Falk's questioning of the official 9/11 account and his suitability for the UN role, but such a connection is far from self-evident.

The second problem involves something else that Brinkley considers self-evident: that it is absurd to believe that leaders of the Bush administration would have been morally capable of deliberately causing the deaths of thousands of Americans by arranging the 9/11 attacks. But it is not.

It is now widely accepted that the Bush administration lied us into the war in Iraq, and more Americans have died in this war than died on 9/11. Would Brinkley try to claim that, whereas engineering the 9/11 attacks would have been an "unspeakable evil," lying us into the war in Iraq was qualitatively different -- a merely "speakable evil"?

Brinkley's suggestion that the Bush administration was simply too decent to orchestrate 9/11 also runs up against another fact. It is now known that, shortly after 9/11, the White House ordered the EPA to announce, when news reports had already stated otherwise, that the air at the World Trade Center site was safe to breathe, thereby leading the clean-up and rescue crews to fail to take adequate precautions. EPA Inspector General Nikki Tinsley later wrote in an official report:

"The White House Council on Environmental Quality influenced, through the collaboration process, the information that EPA communicated to the public through its early press releases when it convinced EPA to add reassuring statements and delete cautionary ones."

Some experts believe that the resulting respiratory problems from the toxic air, which have been found in over half of the 40,000 Ground Zero workers, may eventually result in more premature deaths than occurred on 9/11 itself.

These documented actions clearly undermine Brinkley's conviction that the Bush administration would have been morally incapable of allowing or arranging the 9/11 attacks. Furthermore, as this conviction is Brinkley's only basis for charging that Falk does not have the right "frame of mind" to carry out the role he has been given, his argument would appear to have no basis at all.

I can only conclude that Brinkley's charge against Falk would be more accurately applied to himself. Given the "frame of mind" he has demonstrated in this episode, I am dismayed that he will be shaping journalists of tomorrow at one of America's premier universities.

Elizabeth Woodworth is a retired Canadian professional librarian, a career public servant, and a freelance writer on social justice issues.


Mourning Joe: Brzenzski tells Scarborough, “you are stunningly superficial”

Zbigniew Brzenzski tells Scarborough, "you are stunningly superficial"

Posted: 31 Dec 2008 09:59 AM CST

Copyright © 2008 D. H. Williams. Visit the original article at http://www.dailynewscaster.com/2008/12/31/zbigniew-brzenzski-tells-scarborough-you-are-stunningly-superficial/.

By: George @ 10:59 AM - EST

Jimmy Carter's former National Security Advisor and CIA spook Zbigniew Brezeznski appears on Morning Joe hosted by Joe Scarborough and Zbigniew's daughter Mika Brezeznski.

Not only is Zbigniew's daughter Mika a co-host with Scarborough, the two are often be seen together around New York after broadcasting hours.

Somewhat surprisingly Zbigniew starts off the interview telling host and the audience that Israel's response to Hamas' rockets, most of which only damaged property and took no lives; was over blown and will only cause more killings on both sides. In my opinion a completely reasonable point of view for a man who writes and talks openly about his desire to take the U.S. into a war against China and Russia.

Things get awkward when Scarborough tells Zbigniew that "you can't blame what is happening right now in Israel on the Bush administration." That's when Scarborough's co-hosts girlfriend's father hits "Morning Joe" with this zinger, "You have such a stunningly superficial knowledge of what went on that it's almost embarrassing to listen to you."

Homeland Security exist to control citizens not stop foreign terrorists

Air Marshals and Homeland Security exist to control citizens not stop illegal aliens or foreign terrorist

Posted: 31 Dec 2008 04:04 PM CST

Copyright © 2008 D. H. Williams. Visit the original article at
 

By: George @ 5:08 PM - EST

Federal Air Marshals have been told to search and check identities of U.S. citizens but to leave illegal aliens alone.

Houston ends 2008 with Toxic Skies

This is the first trail that I saw when I walked out my door this morning around 7:30am. Even the neighbors who were walking their dogs couldn't help but think how unusual this was.
 

FBI Acknowledges Thorough Research and Analysis of AE911Truth and Richard Gage, AIA

FBI Acknowledges Thorough Research and Analysis of AE911Truth 
 
Article:
 
David Chandler, Ph.D,  exposes NIST science fraud.