911blogger.com seeks to cover a broad spectrum of news. Blog posts are the responsibility of the poster. Readers are encouraged to check the facts, debate, and form their own conclusions.
Licensed to Surf
Posted by David Kramer on February 1, 2010 08:48 AM
...One of the “weapons” suggested to combat ... imaginary “cyberwarfare” is a license to use the internet. ... Today, it’s an internet user’s license in order not to initiate a cyberattack. Tomorrow, it will be an internet user’s license to censor enemies of the state like myself from disseminating the truth about our Masters’ political and economic machinations.
Terrorist attacks. Financial meltdowns. Global warming. Viruses pandemics. And now “Cyberwarfare.” Our malevolent Masters really are desperate, aren’t they?
Some of the columnists at LewRockwell.com (LRC) are starting to get a little bolder (I strongly suspect that several of them are 9/11 Truthers of long standing, but are seemingly discouraged by "the management" -- or by their own fears -- from being too open on the topic; yet they occasionally drop strong hints). Thanks to the Ron Paul presidential campaign of 2007-2008, LRC has become one of the ten most popular popular political sites on the internet, much to the consternation of the power elite (for example, the site is blocked to all or most overseas servicemen by the military). William Norman Grigg is one of the site's most popular and prolific writers. I believe he is very well respected by the site's readership, so his comments (as follows) may encourage at least a few close-minded LRC readers to study 9/11 Truth in a little greater detail:
The Old 'False-Flag Trick'
by William Norman Grigg
[December 31, 2009]
Anyone care to bet that the following wouldn't be used to target 9/11Blogger, among others?
Swine Flu to Bring Down Internet if Government Doesn’t Act ...
"Posted by Karen De Coster on October 31, 2009 04:32 PM
... 'Concerns exist that a more severe pandemic outbreak than 2009’s could cause large numbers of people staying home to increase their internet use and overwhelm internet providers’ network capacities,' according to the report, which was prepared by the US Government Accountability Office.
... In order to mitigate this 'threat,' the DHS should consider rationing bandwidth or blocking websites [emphasis mine - MJW], according to the GAO report. ... Just so you know that I am not mixing up satire with reality ... for your reading pleasure, here is the GAO report. It is 77 pages long, so no, these guys aren't kidding.
Jacob Hornberger is the founder and president of The Future of Freedom Foundation. In a new editorial at LewRockwell.com (Operation Northwoods and the 9/11 Truthers), he admits that he believes Operation Northwoods is a valid historical fact; and he challenges neocon Charles Krauthammer as follows:
"How about it, Krauthammer? How about explaining your shock and outrage about the 9/11 Truthers to the Washington Post's readers in the context of a discussion about Operation Northwoods? I’m sure lots of people (including me) – would love to read your explanation."
Yes, that is an encouraging challenge; however, regrettably, Hornberger pulls his own version of a Krauthammer in the same editorial. It reads as follows:
"One possible reason for Krauthammer’s reaction [to 9/11 Truthers' claims] is that he simply isn’t convinced by the evidence that the Truthers have produced to make their case. Personally, this is the category I fall into. ... The 9/11 attacks were "blowback" from U.S. foreign policy. The 9/11 Truthers have not convinced me otherwise."
Justin Raimondo of AntiWar.com has written an editorial about the evidence (all old news to 911Blogger readers) regarding Israel's possible role in the attacks. He begins by condemning the government and the media for smearing and/or destroying the careers of anyone who questions the official 9/11 conspiracy theory. Then, without even taking a breath, he turns right around and smears everyone who -- after studying the vast amount of scientific and common-sense evidence -- believes the buildings were destroyed by controlled demolition (as part of an inside job) and that no plane hit the Pentagon.
The majority of the reader comments at the end of the editorial (some excellently written) take strong issue with Raimondo's blanket insult of the the 9/11 Truth Movement.
9/11: Our Truth, and Theirs: The "official" 9/11 narrative doesn't make sense
by Justin Raimondo, September 11, 2009
The readership at the libertarian web site LewRockwell.com has grown exponentially in the past year or so. The site's daily traffic count now competes respectably with some MSM sites. Most of the site's regular columnists have either remained silent about 9/11 Truth or else they say they don't believe it was an inside job. Things finally appear to be changing -- at least a little (is it because the presidential election is now another fait accompli for our hidden government?). Recently, Lew Rockwell himself very vaguely equated 9/11 with the general concept of an "inside job," and today columnist Michael S. Rozeff comments on the official lie regarding Building 7. He does not mince words. As you read it, keep in mind that a large number of dedicated LewRockwell.com readers might never have been exposed to this information if not for Mr. Rozeff's comment:
Building 7 imploded, video shows
Posted by Michael S. Rozeff at August 22, 2008 09:24 AM
In a very brief statement (that contains a link to a Silicon Valley Watcher article), Lew Rockwell, proprietor of the famous libertarian web site LewRockwell.com, strongly implies that he could envision the government initiating some sort of "i911" in order to pass an "iPatriot Act," with the goal of killing internet freedom.
Aside from the importance of Mr. Rockwell's message about the continuing threat to internet freedom, this is the closest I've ever seen him come to using the phrase "9/11" (or at least a variation of it) and the implication of an "inside job" in the same statement (although I've not read everything he has written). Maybe one day (preferably before the signing of the "iPatriot Act") he will be as blunt in his implications about 9/11/01 as are two of his regular columnists, Butler Shaffer and Paul Craig Roberts (assuming I haven't read too much into Mr. Rockwell's statement).
by Ron Paul
Before the House of Representatives, December 5, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I regret that I was unavoidably out of town on October 23, 2007, when a vote was taken on HR 1955, the Violent Radicalization & Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act. Had I been able to vote, I would have voted against this misguided and dangerous piece of legislation. This legislation focuses the weight of the US government inward toward its own citizens under the guise of protecting us against "violent radicalization."
I would like to note that this legislation was brought to the floor for a vote under suspension of regular order. These so-called "suspension" bills are meant to be non-controversial, thereby negating the need for the more complete and open debate allowed under regular order. It is difficult for me to believe that none of my colleagues in Congress view HR 1955, with its troubling civil liberties implications, as "non-controversial."
Today (4/25/07), during the 4 PM (ET) edition of The Situation Room, Cafferty asked the following question:
"Will 9/11 politics help or hurt Rudy Giuliani in the presidential race?"
Imagine my total shock when Cafferty (or one of his staff people) included the following reply among those to be read on the air (which Cafferty read first):
"The public is no longer fully convinced of the official story of 9/11. If Rudy expects to run on that story, he can expect incredulity. If the politics of fear is all he has, the public will abandon him in favor of politics of values, hope and truth. -- Michael"
There wasn't a peep out of Wolf Blitzer afterward.
Parade Magazine is a (mostly) generic fluff publication that is inserted into many weekend newspapers. Each issue contains a Q&A section that is moderated by Walter Scott (who also provides the answers). Most of the questions revolve around Hollywood celebrities, but there is an occasional question that deals with other issues, including politics. The January 28, 2007, issue contains the following:
Q: With the Taliban making a comeback in Afghanistan, how much help can we expect from President Musharraf, our Pakistani ally? -- T.D. of Boston Mass.
A: Not much. Pakistan's powerful Inter-Services Intelligence has been secretly training and equipping the Taliban. And experts say that agency doesn't make a move without Musharraf's knowledge and approval.
It's possible that I'm a bit behind the times, but I consider that to be quite an exposé for a mainstream-media publication.
Yesterday, I left two comments on LeftWright's blog entry (The Christopher Hayes hit piece posted on AlterNet...). I have decided to repost those comments as an original blog entry in order to draw further attention to Alternet's practice of selective censorship.
Comment No. 1:
As of 12:44 PM (EDT), there are 923 comments on "The Nation/Alternet" 9/11 hit piece. The vast majority of them are pro-911 Truth, and they all trash the author of that piece-of-crap article, as well as Alternet and The Nation for publishing it. The previous highest number of comments I've seen on an Alternet article (also on the topic of 9/11) was somewhere between 400 and 500 (at least the number was in that range the last time I looked).
Alternet must certainly realize they are antagonizing and alienating an extremely large number of their regular readers. -- Submitted by MJW on Thu, 12/14/2006 - 11:47am.
Comment No. 2:
Now The Comments Are All Gone
As of 10:36 PM (EDT), all comments in Alternet's 9/11 article are gone. There is no listing of the number of comments at the top of the article, and there is no indication that there ever were any comments; nor is there even any longer a place to add a comment. Furthermore, no explanation is given as to why they have suddenly disappeared. All other articles at Alternet still have their comments, so the culprit cannot be an overall technical glitch.
Are the top dogs at Alternet starting to realize that the majority of their readers do not share their opinion on 9/11? Therefore, out of a sense of sheer frustration, they made their reader's angry comments disappear (at least from public view)? -- Submitted by MJW on Thu, 12/14/2006 - 9:46pm.
Please be sure to click the link at the top and read LeftWright's entry and the reader comments on that entry (several of those readers, including LeftWright, replied to my two comments).
Once again, no need for any comment from me:
By Matthew Rothschild, The Progressive. Posted September 18, 2006.
We have enough proof that the Bush administration is a bunch of lying evildoers. We don't need to make it up.
The following commentary by Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone (via Alternet) needs no additional commentary from me. The part in bold type says it all.
By Matt Taibbi, RollingStone.com. Posted September 14, 2006.
We made many careers out of assigning blame for the attacks, with the right blaming Bill Clinton, Michael Moore blaming George Bush, and the clinically insane blaming those mysterious demolition experts who allegedly wired the bottoms of the towers with the explosives that "really" caused the tragedy.
I was astounded and amazed to see this Associated Press hit-piece article on David Ray Griffin in my local "see-no-truth, hear-no-truth, report-only-conservative-lies" newspaper this morning (not the one at the link, by the way). This newspaper never publishes any sort of controversial news -- ever -- not even in the form of hit pieces.
Furthermore, not only is it a hit piece, but the author, Richard N. Ostling, just plain lies or blatantly misleads in a couple of places. For instance:
1.) "Griffin is unable to provide hard evidence and connects few dots."
2.) "Such 9/11 conspiracy theories have heretofore been spread abroad by Internet sites and Muslim extremists (some of those theories have blamed Jews, something Griffin goes out of his way to avoid)."
Yeah, Ostling. Leave out the two nationwide polls that show that anywhere from 36 percent to 40-some percent of Americans believe there was a conspiracy too.
In this next sentence, the author does his best to make it appear that there are only two members of the Scholars for 9/11 Truth: