Saturday, September 16, 2006

[Last_Days_Audio] Digest Number 143

There are 4 messages in this issue.

Topics in this digest:

1a. 'Bioethicist': OK to kill babies after they're born
From: Liza
1b. Re: 'Bioethicist': OK to kill babies after they're born
From: Liza
1c. Re: 'Bioethicist': OK to kill babies after they're born
From: iron cross
1d. American WorldView Alert: Parthonogenesis & Microwave Energy Weapons
From: Frederick Meekins

Messages
________________________________________________________________________

1a. 'Bioethicist': OK to kill babies after they're born
Posted by: "Liza" Cassiopeia@aaahawk.com phaedra2020
Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 2:36 pm (PDT)

WorldNetDaily: 'Bioethicist': OK to kill babies after they're bornExcerpt:
He added that one point on which he agrees with the pro-life movement is that, "from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby."
The statement furthers the arguments that Singer's position is just an extension of the culture of death that has developed in the world, with euthanasia legal in some locations, abortion legal in many and even charges that in some repressive societies there's an active business in harvesting healthy organs from victims in order to provide transplants for the wealthy.

Liz
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51963
Thursday, September 14, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
'Bioethicist': OK to kill babies after they're born
'Animal-rights' promoter asserts actual birth makes no difference

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Princeton's Peter Singer (Photo: The Age)

An internationally known Princeton "bioethicist" and animal-rights activist says he'd kill disabled babies if it were in the "best interests" of the family, because he sees no distinction in the child's life whether it is born or not, and the world already allows abortion.

The comments come from Peter Singer, a controversial bioethics professor, who responded to a series of questions in the UK Independent this week.

Earlier, WND reported Singer believes the next few decades will see a massive upheaval in the concept of life and rights, with only "a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists" still protecting life as sacrosanct.

To the rest, it will be a commodity to be re-evaluated regularly for its worth.

His newest sermon on his beliefs came in a question-and-answer interview the Independent set up with readers.

Singer's response came to Dublin reader Karen Meade's question: "Would you kill a disabled baby?"

"Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman's right to have an abortion," he said.

He added that one point on which he agrees with the pro-life movement is that, "from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby."

The statement furthers the arguments that Singer's position is just an extension of the culture of death that has developed in the world, with euthanasia legal in some locations, abortion legal in many and even charges that in some repressive societies there's an active business in harvesting healthy organs from victims in order to provide transplants for the wealthy.

"At least he's consistent," Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, told LifeSiteNews.com.

Singer holds that man is no different from other forms a life, and therefore man's life is not worth more than, for example, a cow.

He told readers he'd kill 10 cows before killing one human, but that's not because they are of less value, only that humans would mourn.

"I've written that it is much worse to kill a being who is aware of having a past and a future, and who plans for the future. Normal humans have such plans, but I don't think cows do," he said.

However, he did qualify his description with the word, "normal."

"Once again Singer is making distinctions between human beings he would consider normal and those he would consider not normal, thus he is deciding who is a person and who is not," Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.

"Non-persons are allowed to be killed," under Singer's theology, he said.

Singer also said the focus on infanticide was not his, but those who oppose him and the media.

"It's always been a minor aspect of my work," he said.

Singer declined to answer whether he believes Steve Irwin, TV's "Crocodile Hunter," got "what he had coming," saying he never watched the television show.

Irwin died recently while filming an undersea special when he approached a stingray and was fatally stung.

But he advocated for the closure of health research centers where animals are used and said it's not at all unreasonable to ascribe human characteristics to animals.

"Anyone who ascribes rights to babies or humans with intellectual disabilities must be willing to attribute rights to beings who can't understand the concept," Singer said. "It's the moral agents, the ones who are acting, who need to understand the concept. Those to whom we attribute rights, do not need to understand these concepts."

The only moral absolute, he noted, "is that we should do what will have the best consequences for all those affected by our actions." [And just who decides what is best?]

In WND's earlier report, Singer said that the court-ordered circumstances that killed Terri Schiavo, a disabled Florida woman, in 2005 may be the turning point at which holding the position of the sanctity of life became "untenable."

She died after a court ordered, upon her husband's request, that water and food be withheld from her.

Singer's support for legalized euthanasia and his endorsement of killing the disabled for up to 28 days after birth also sparked protests against his hiring in 1999 by Princeton, a university founded by the Presbyterian denomination.

Editor's note: WorldNetDaily has been reporting on the Terri Schiavo story since 2002 � far longer than most other national news organization � and exposing the many troubling, scandalous, and possibly criminal, aspects of the case that to this day rarely surface in news reports. Read WorldNetDaily's unparalleled, in-depth coverage of the life-and-death fight over Terri Schiavo, including over 150 original stories and columns.

Special offers:

Finally, 'Terri's Story' � as told by reporter who broke it to the world

You can stop an abortion today!

Previous stories:

Prof: Right to assisted suicide 'irresistible'

Infanticide promoter: Bush morally stunted

Pro-infanticide prof awarded ethics prize

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________

1b. Re: 'Bioethicist': OK to kill babies after they're born
Posted by: "Liza" Cassiopeia@aaahawk.com phaedra2020
Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 5:54 pm (PDT)

WorldNetDaily: 'Bioethicist': OK to kill babies after they're bornOops, sorry. Wrong group.
Liz
----- Original Message -----
From: Liza
To: EndTimesDiscernment@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Sounding ; Hearthside ; NYCP ; Audio ; Disciples
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:35 PM
Subject: [Last_Days_Audio] 'Bioethicist': OK to kill babies after they're born

Excerpt:
He added that one point on which he agrees with the pro-life movement is that, "from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby."
The statement furthers the arguments that Singer's position is just an extension of the culture of death that has developed in the world, with euthanasia legal in some locations, abortion legal in many and even charges that in some repressive societies there's an active business in harvesting healthy organs from victims in order to provide transplants for the wealthy.

Liz
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51963
Thursday, September 14, 2006

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
'Bioethicist': OK to kill babies after they're born
'Animal-rights' promoter asserts actual birth makes no difference

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Princeton's Peter Singer (Photo: The Age)

An internationally known Princeton "bioethicist" and animal-rights activist says he'd kill disabled babies if it were in the "best interests" of the family, because he sees no distinction in the child's life whether it is born or not, and the world already allows abortion.

The comments come from Peter Singer, a controversial bioethics professor, who responded to a series of questions in the UK Independent this week.

Earlier, WND reported Singer believes the next few decades will see a massive upheaval in the concept of life and rights, with only "a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists" still protecting life as sacrosanct.

To the rest, it will be a commodity to be re-evaluated regularly for its worth.

His newest sermon on his beliefs came in a question-and-answer interview the Independent set up with readers.

Singer's response came to Dublin reader Karen Meade's question: "Would you kill a disabled baby?"

"Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman's right to have an abortion," he said.

He added that one point on which he agrees with the pro-life movement is that, "from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby."

The statement furthers the arguments that Singer's position is just an extension of the culture of death that has developed in the world, with euthanasia legal in some locations, abortion legal in many and even charges that in some repressive societies there's an active business in harvesting healthy organs from victims in order to provide transplants for the wealthy.

"At least he's consistent," Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, told LifeSiteNews.com.

Singer holds that man is no different from other forms a life, and therefore man's life is not worth more than, for example, a cow.

He told readers he'd kill 10 cows before killing one human, but that's not because they are of less value, only that humans would mourn.

"I've written that it is much worse to kill a being who is aware of having a past and a future, and who plans for the future. Normal humans have such plans, but I don't think cows do," he said.

However, he did qualify his description with the word, "normal."

"Once again Singer is making distinctions between human beings he would consider normal and those he would consider not normal, thus he is deciding who is a person and who is not," Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews.

"Non-persons are allowed to be killed," under Singer's theology, he said.

Singer also said the focus on infanticide was not his, but those who oppose him and the media.

"It's always been a minor aspect of my work," he said.

Singer declined to answer whether he believes Steve Irwin, TV's "Crocodile Hunter," got "what he had coming," saying he never watched the television show.

Irwin died recently while filming an undersea special when he approached a stingray and was fatally stung.

But he advocated for the closure of health research centers where animals are used and said it's not at all unreasonable to ascribe human characteristics to animals.

"Anyone who ascribes rights to babies or humans with intellectual disabilities must be willing to attribute rights to beings who can't understand the concept," Singer said. "It's the moral agents, the ones who are acting, who need to understand the concept. Those to whom we attribute rights, do not need to understand these concepts."

The only moral absolute, he noted, "is that we should do what will have the best consequences for all those affected by our actions." [And just who decides what is best?]

In WND's earlier report, Singer said that the court-ordered circumstances that killed Terri Schiavo, a disabled Florida woman, in 2005 may be the turning point at which holding the position of the sanctity of life became "untenable."

She died after a court ordered, upon her husband's request, that water and food be withheld from her.

Singer's support for legalized euthanasia and his endorsement of killing the disabled for up to 28 days after birth also sparked protests against his hiring in 1999 by Princeton, a university founded by the Presbyterian denomination.

Editor's note: WorldNetDaily has been reporting on the Terri Schiavo story since 2002 � far longer than most other national news organization � and exposing the many troubling, scandalous, and possibly criminal, aspects of the case that to this day rarely surface in news reports. Read WorldNetDaily's unparalleled, in-depth coverage of the life-and-death fight over Terri Schiavo, including over 150 original stories and columns.

Special offers:

Finally, 'Terri's Story' � as told by reporter who broke it to the world

You can stop an abortion today!

Previous stories:

Prof: Right to assisted suicide 'irresistible'

Infanticide promoter: Bush morally stunted

Pro-infanticide prof awarded ethics prize

--------------------------------------------------------------------------



Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________

1c. Re: 'Bioethicist': OK to kill babies after they're born
Posted by: "iron cross" iron_cross66106@yahoo.com iron_cross66106
Date: Thu Sep 14, 2006 8:02 pm (PDT)

This is a prime example of the kind of world in which we live in today.
I cannot even comprehend how any human can look at a little baby, and say it's ok to kill it.

To me this is a fine example of how we are living in the last day's, Christ will return in my lifetime, and in yours.

Are you ready?

Liza <Cassiopeia@aaahawk.com> wrote:
Oops, sorry. Wrong group.
Liz
----- Original Message ----- From: Liza
To: EndTimesDiscernment@yahoogroups.com
Cc: Sounding ; Hearthside ; NYCP ; Audio ; Disciples
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:35 PM
Subject: [Last_Days_Audio] 'Bioethicist': OK to kill babies after they're born

Excerpt:
He added that one point on which he agrees with the pro-life movement is that, "from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby."
The statement furthers the arguments that Singer's position is just an extension of the culture of death that has developed in the world, with euthanasia legal in some locations, abortion legal in many and even charges that in some repressive societies there's an active business in harvesting healthy organs from victims in order to provide transplants for the wealthy.

Liz
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=51963
Thursday, September 14, 2006


---------------------------------


---------------------------------

MATTERS OF LIFE AND DEATH
'Bioethicist': OK to kill babies after they're born
'Animal-rights' promoter asserts actual birth makes no difference


---------------------------------


Princeton's Peter Singer (Photo: The Age) An internationally known Princeton "bioethicist" and animal-rights activist says he'd kill disabled babies if it were in the "best interests" of the family, because he sees no distinction in the child's life whether it is born or not, and the world already allows abortion. The comments come from Peter Singer, a controversial bioethics professor, who responded to a series of questions in the UK Independent this week. Earlier, WND reported Singer believes the next few decades will see a massive upheaval in the concept of life and rights, with only "a rump of hard-core, know-nothing religious fundamentalists" still protecting life as sacrosanct. To the rest, it will be a commodity to be re-evaluated regularly for its worth. His newest sermon on his beliefs came in a question-and-answer interview the Independent set up with readers. Singer's response came to Dublin reader Karen Meade's question: "Would you kill a disabled
baby?" "Yes, if that was in the best interests of the baby and of the family as a whole. Many people find this shocking, yet they support a woman's right to have an abortion," he said. He added that one point on which he agrees with the pro-life movement is that, "from the point of view of ethics rather than the law, there is no sharp distinction between the foetus and the newborn baby." The statement furthers the arguments that Singer's position is just an extension of the culture of death that has developed in the world, with euthanasia legal in some locations, abortion legal in many and even charges that in some repressive societies there's an active business in harvesting healthy organs from victims in order to provide transplants for the wealthy. "At least he's consistent," Alex Schadenberg, executive director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition, told LifeSiteNews.com. Singer holds that man is no different from other forms a life, and therefore man's life
is not worth more than, for example, a cow. He told readers he'd kill 10 cows before killing one human, but that's not because they are of less value, only that humans would mourn. "I've written that it is much worse to kill a being who is aware of having a past and a future, and who plans for the future. Normal humans have such plans, but I don't think cows do," he said. However, he did qualify his description with the word, "normal." "Once again Singer is making distinctions between human beings he would consider normal and those he would consider not normal, thus he is deciding who is a person and who is not," Schadenberg told LifeSiteNews. "Non-persons are allowed to be killed," under Singer's theology, he said. Singer also said the focus on infanticide was not his, but those who oppose him and the media. "It's always been a minor aspect of my work," he said. Singer declined to answer whether he believes Steve Irwin, TV's "Crocodile Hunter," got "what
he had coming," saying he never watched the television show. Irwin died recently while filming an undersea special when he approached a stingray and was fatally stung. But he advocated for the closure of health research centers where animals are used and said it's not at all unreasonable to ascribe human characteristics to animals. "Anyone who ascribes rights to babies or humans with intellectual disabilities must be willing to attribute rights to beings who can't understand the concept," Singer said. "It's the moral agents, the ones who are acting, who need to understand the concept. Those to whom we attribute rights, do not need to understand these concepts." The only moral absolute, he noted, "is that we should do what will have the best consequences for all those affected by our actions." [And just who decides what is best?] In WND's earlier report, Singer said that the court-ordered circumstances that killed Terri Schiavo, a disabled Florida woman, in 2005
may be the turning point at which holding the position of the sanctity of life became "untenable." She died after a court ordered, upon her husband's request, that water and food be withheld from her. Singer's support for legalized euthanasia and his endorsement of killing the disabled for up to 28 days after birth also sparked protests against his hiring in 1999 by Princeton, a university founded by the Presbyterian denomination. Editor's note: WorldNetDaily has been reporting on the Terri Schiavo story since 2002 � far longer than most other national news organization � and exposing the many troubling, scandalous, and possibly criminal, aspects of the case that to this day rarely surface in news reports. Read WorldNetDaily's unparalleled, in-depth coverage of the life-and-death fight over Terri Schiavo, including over 150 original stories and columns. Special offers: Finally, 'Terri's Story' � as told by reporter who broke it to the world You can stop an
abortion today! Previous stories: Prof: Right to assisted suicide 'irresistible' Infanticide promoter: Bush morally stunted Pro-infanticide prof awarded ethics prize
---------------------------------


---------------------------------
How low will we go? Check out Yahoo! Messenger�s low PC-to-Phone call rates.
Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________

1d. American WorldView Alert: Parthonogenesis & Microwave Energy Weapons
Posted by: "Frederick Meekins" americanworldview@hotmail.com americanworldview20782
Date: Fri Sep 15, 2006 4:26 am (PDT)

http://odeo.com/audio/1905505/view

Messages in this topic (4)
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Last_Days_Audio/

<*> Your email settings:
Digest Email | Traditional

<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Last_Days_Audio/join
(Yahoo! ID required)

<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:Last_Days_Audio-normal@yahoogroups.com
mailto:Last_Days_Audio-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com

<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Last_Days_Audio-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/

------------------------------------------------------------------------


Bloglines - Very Interesting (Did Bush Just Admit Bombs in WTC on 9/11?)

http://blondesense.blogspot.com/2006/09/very-interesting.html

Very Interesting
Did anyone notice this part of bush's press conference on Friday?
"The information that the Central Intelligence Agency has obtained by questioning men like Khalid Sheik Mohammed has provided valuable information and has helped disrupt terrorist plots, including strikes within the United States.For example, Khalid Sheik Mohammed described the design of plane attacks on building inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people.He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping."Explosives in buildings that were to be or were attacked by planes? Does anyone remember the documentary that shows many firemen saying that they heard bombs and explosions in the towers that morning before they collapsed?


Bush unravels at press conference



AlterNet
AlterNet.org: Multimedia
Alternative News and Information.

Bush unravels at press conference

By Evan Derkacz

They're coming again!




Matt Taibbi: Americans in Denial about 9/11

Blogger Thoughts:

This kind of discussion of 9/11 is sick, destructive, and an embarrassment.



AlterNet AlterNet.org: Columnists
Alternative News and Information.

Matt Taibbi: Americans in Denial about 9/11

By Matt Taibbi

Five years after 9/11, the country still hasn't asked what motives the terrorists may have had in their attacks.




Eric Boehlert: Why Was Wolfowitz So Clueless On The Morning of 9/11?

The Huffington Post | Raw Feed
The Huffington Post Raw Feed

Eric Boehlert: Why Was Wolfowitz So Clueless On The Morning of 9/11?

By Eric Boehlert on 9/11

Lapdogs---RS-Fix.jpg

Despite the exhaustive work of the 9/11 Commission and its detailed final report, the number of oddities surrounding the events of 9/11, and particularly the government's botched attempt at defend a country under attack, remain numerous. One peculiarity I've always wondered about is why Paul Wolfowitz, then the Deputy Secretary of Defense and the number two person at the Pentagon, was so completely clueless the morning of the deadly attacks. As the events unfolded live on television and senior administration officials scrambled to make sense of the horrific events, Wolfowitz appeared to be in a haze. Or perhaps a cocoon. Now, as 9/11 remembrance week draws to a close, I thought it might worth examining the odd inaction by such a senior member of the administration. The same senior official who later played a central role in planning the disastrous war in Iraq. (And no, by raising questions about Wolfowitz I'm not signing off on any larger, 9/11 conspiracy theory.)

Here's how Wolfowitz, taken from a May 9, 2003 interview transcript, described his morning on that unforgettable day:

Wolfowitz: We were having a meeting in my office. Someone said a plane had hit the World Trade Center. Then we turned on the television and we started seeing the shots of the second plane hitting, and this is the way I remember it. It's a little fuzzy.

Q: Right.

Wolfowitz: There didn't seem to be much to do about it immediately and we went on with whatever the meeting was. Then the whole building shook. I have to confess my first reaction was an earthquake. I didn't put the two things together in my mind. Rumsfeld did instantly. [Emphasis added.]

Unfortunately the interviewer, Sam Tanenhaus, then with Vanity Fair and now the editor of the New York Times Book Review, let the jaw-dropping exchange pass without comment and without any follow-up questions. Keep in mind the first 9/11 plane struck the World Trade Center at 8:46, the second at 9:03 and the third, which bombed the Pentagon, rained down at 9:37. Also keep in mind that after the second plane struck the WTC, even TV anchor people, let alone senior defense officers, who reaching the obvious conclusion; that the plane crashes were deliberate acts of terrorism. Yet incredibly, Wolfowitz, one of the most influential members of the Bush Defense team, decided there wasn't much to do about it immediately and continued on with a meeting.


According to 9/11 researcher Paul Thompson, here are a handful of events that unfolded between 9:03, when Wolfowitz saw the second plane hit the WTC, and 9:37 when his own Pentagon was struck. (Taken from Thompson's invaluable research tool, the Complete 9/11 Timeline):

(After 9:03 a.m.): Rice Learns of Second Attack; Goes to Basement Bunker


(After 9:03 a.m.): Secret Service Wants Fighters Scrambled from Andrews


(9:05 a.m.): Clarke, Cheney, and Rice Talk, Clarke's Recommendation to Evacuate White House Is Ignored


9:09 a.m.: NORAD Said to Order Langley Fighters to Battle Stations Alert


(9:10 a.m.): Rice and Cheney Apparently Go to White House Bunker


(9:18 a.m.): FAA Command Center Warns Flight Controllers Nationwide to Watch for Suspicious Aircraft


9:21 a.m.: All New York City Bridges and Tunnels Are Closed


(9:24 a.m.): Langley Fighters Are Ordered to Scramble; but One Pilot Claims the Order Is Only a Battle Stations Alert


(9:26 a.m.): Rookie FAA Manager Bans All Take Offs Nationwide, Including Most Military Flights? Mineta Asserts He Issues Order Minutes Later


(9:27 a.m.): Cheney Given Updates on Unidentified Flight 77 Heading Toward Washington


9:28 a.m.: CNN Reports US Officials Think Attacks Caused by Terrorists


9:29 a.m.: President Bush Makes a Scheduled Speech; Proclaims Terrorist Attack on Our Country


(9:29 a.m.): Pentagon Command Center Begins High Level Conference Call


9:30 a.m.: Langley Fighters Take Off Toward Washington; They Could Reach City in Six Minutes but Take Half an Hour


(9:30 a.m.): Clarke Asks Cheney's Bunker for Air Force One Fighter Escort and Shootdown Authorization; Neither Happen for Some Time


9:32 a.m.: Cheney Is Notified That Flight 77 Is Headed To Washington


(9:35 a.m.): Treasury Department Evacuates; Pentagon and Other Washington Department Do Not


9:37 a.m.: Flight 77 Crashes into Reinforced Section of the Pentagon


The bright side? I suppose we should be grateful ABC's "The Path to 9/11" didn't portray Wolfowitz as a man of action, barking out orders in a valiant effort to save the Pentagon.

Link


The Wing Damage to the WTC Outer Wall

Humint Events Online
The 9/11 hijacking attacks were very likely facilitated by a rogue group within the US government that created an Islamic terrorist "Pearl Harbor" event as a catalyst for the military invasion of Middle Eastern countries. This weblog will explore the incredibly strange events of 9/11/01, and other issues of US government responsibility.

The Wing Damage to the WTC Outer Wall

By Spooked

e.g.


is particularly preplexing since the wings of a 767 are angled back:



This means a wing would have to saw through a column, starting at the column corner edge, before it can damage the next column over. And definitely, some of those columns above look sawn through.

I never knew aluminum could cut through steel.

As if that weren't unlikely enough, the outer sections of wings-- the wingtips (about the last 15-20 feet on the left-hand side above)-- didn't cut through the columns. So they must have broken off since they didn't penetrate the columns. And physics says the wingtip would have broken off and flown backwards. But if the wingtip broke off, how did it leave a mark out to the very end of where it would have contacted? The only way is if the wing suddenly started crumpling up on the column at the tip. But how was it exactly that part of the wing could saw perfectly through the 14 inch wide steel column, yet the outer part of the wing was completely ineffective at this and crumpled up?

Finally, check out the damage carefully to those 7 left most columns in the scar. Does that look like where a wingtip crumpled up against the columns? Or more like where something was knocked against them, such as an explosive force? Would wing crumpling cause the column edge to fray apart like is seen in the photo?

I think not.




Numbskulls

Humint Events Online
The 9/11 hijacking attacks were very likely facilitated by a rogue group within the US government that created an Islamic terrorist "Pearl Harbor" event as a catalyst for the military invasion of Middle Eastern countries. This weblog will explore the incredibly strange events of 9/11/01, and other issues of US government responsibility.


Bloglines - Video: 9/11 ticket agent Michael Tuohey

Hot Air
The world’s first, full-service conservative Internet broadcast network

Video: 9/11 ticket agent Michael Tuohey

By Allahpundit on The Blog

I was tipped to this by William Beutler of Blog PI, who thinks it might help settle a squabble among lefty bloggers. Read his post for the full rundown. Or just watch. It’s riveting, and heartbreaking.

Tuohey does get one thing wrong, though. Abdulaziz Alomari was, in all likelihood, well aware of his fate.

alomari-vid.jpg

More on Tuohey here.


Comments


Fwd: [911_truth_DFW] The Fake bin Laden Video Tape



From: Nashid Abdul-Khaaliq
To: aplacefortruth
Sent: Thursday, September 14, 2006 5:33 PM
Subject: [APFT] The Fake bin Laden Video Tape

The Fake bin Laden Video Tape
YOU ARE LOOKING AT A US GOVERNMENT LIE

A videotape purportedly showing Osama bin Laden confessing to the 9/11 attacks was made public on December 13, 2001:

The tape bore a label indicating it was made on November 9. Administration officials wouldn't reveal exactly how or when they got it, except to say it was found in a house in Jalalabad after anti-Taliban forces moved in. [Online NewsHour]

The videotape was supposedly physically located.

The size of a standard VHS videotape is 7.5 inches wide by 4.2 inches deep by 1 inch high - if you look in a video cabinet you'll see they're not very big. The satellite photograph on the right shows Jalalabad - it is very big and it contains a lot of buildings (not all single storey).

Don't you find it somewhat fortuitous that a very small video tape of Osama confessing to the 9/11 attacks was found in this very big city? Were squads of video watchers sent in to view every tape found just in case one showed Osama confessing?
Here's what was said of the "lucky find": Satellite photo of Jalalabad.
Population ~150,000

Click for full sized image

"For those who see this tape, they'll realise that not only is he guilty of incredible murder, he has no conscience and no soul, that he represents the worst of civilisation, " said President George W Bush.
US Senator Ron Wyden, who has also seen the tape, says he hopes it will remove suspicions in countries such as Pakistan that the 11 September attacks were an Israeli plot aimed at drawing the US into a war with Islamic countries. [BBC News]

The video was very effective in diverting media attention away from the deportation of five Israelis who danced as the twin towers burned - "Osama" certainly picks his moments to appear.

Details of the videotape - includes full video and transcript.

A German TV show found that the White House's translation of the video was inaccurate and "manipulative" . Bin Laden even praised two live 'hijackers' - Wail M. Alshehri and Salem Alhazmi. Why didn't he know the names of hijackers he personally chose?

The quality of the video was very poor and the authenticity of the tape was questioned. This annoyed President Bush:

"It is preposterous for anybody to think that this tape is doctored," he said during a brief photo opportunity with the prime minister of Thailand. "That's just a feeble excuse to provide weak support for an incredibly evil man." [CNN]

To be perfectly honest it is preposterous to suggest this videotape could be authentic, but lets have a look at it anyway. Here's 5 Osamas - which is the odd one out?

Even Mr Magoo would have to say that Osama 'E' stands out like a sore thumb, and this is the man confessing on the "lucky find" tape. Between the nose and the cheeks it is clear that this man is NOT Osama.

In the video Osama 'E' appears to write notes with his right hand, yet the FBI's description of Osama indicates he is left-handed. Osama 'E' wears a ring on his right hand which does not appear on other confirmed photos of Osama ( e.g. Osama 'B').
Another man is seen wearing a large gold ring in the video. Since the wearing of gold rings is forbidden by Islam it shows neither he nor Osama 'E' has any devotion to this faith.

On December 27, 2001, a second video containing the pale skinned and very real Osama 'C' was broadcast on al Jazeera.

The "Gaunt Tape," so named because bin Laden is haggard and doesn't move his left arm, is believed to have been recorded around Nov. 19, 2001. In the tape, bin Laden refers to the U.S. bombing of a mosque in Khost "several days" earlier. The U.S. bombed a mosque in Khost on Nov. 16. Bin Laden does not move his left arm and his appearance is both gaunt and pale. [MSNBC]

So, this tape was made around ten days after the "lucky find" tape was reportedly made. Are we to believe that Osama's skin, hair and beard changed color in ten days?
The broadcast of the tape caught the US government completely off-guard:

The recording was dismissed by the Bush administration ... as sick propaganda possibly designed to mask the fact the al-Qa'eda leader was already dead. "He could have made the video and then ordered that it be released in the event of his death," said one White House aide. [Telegraph]

This was a very telling response.

Also, his comments caused quite a stir because because they contradicted the "confession" video:

American officials argued that bin Laden's frequent references to US support for Israel were a bogus justification for his terrorism because in the "dinner party" tape of a private conversation there was no mention of the Middle East. [Telegraph]

This is very odd indeed because in bin Laden's September 28, 2001 denial of involvement in the 9/11 attacks he had plenty to say about the US and Israel:

This system is totally in control of the American-Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. It is clear that the American people are themselves the slaves of the Jews and are forced to live according to the principles and laws laid by them. So, the punishment should reach Israel. In fact, it is Israel, which is giving a blood bath to innocent Muslims and the U.S. is not uttering a single word. [Public Action]
And his views were the same in 1998:
"We say to the Americans as people and to American mothers, if they cherish their lives and if they cherish their sons, they must elect an American patriotic government that caters to their interests, not the interests of the Jews." [American Free Press]

Not only do the real Osama and the "lucky find" Osama look totally different, they also write with different hands and have different faiths and priorities.

It does not get any more obvious than this.

There is clearly good reason to doubt the November 9 tape. There is excessive noise on the audio track, making it impossible to really hear what is being said. Given that the tape was recorded in an area supposedly devoid of audio urban signature, there should have been little ambient noise, yet the speech is masked with a great deal of noise.

But there are very good reasons to suspect that the tape is not what the US Government claims it to be. In the tape, Osama supposedly states that he knew of the attack on the WTC 5 days in advance, yet we know from the preparations inside the United States that the plan had been in existence for much longer than that. The records of those flight schools where the hijackers supposedly trained have been confiscated under the watchful eye of Jeb Bush, Governor of Florida and brother to the President. Will the Bush administration now claim that the hijackers learned to fly a passenger jet in just 5 days?

Likewise, The translation of the Osama tape has him stating that the hijackers did not know they were about to die, yet letters the FBI claim to have found written by the hijackers indicate the exact opposite.

Finally, this was not the first video tape claiming to show Osama confessing, and claims made in the earlier "confession" tape, including a claim that Osama had nukes, were created by the translator, not actually stated by Osama.

This never-to-be- seen video also appeared right on cue:

Emergency powers to imprison suspected international terrorists indefinitely using special closed courts will be announced this week. The measure, which will require exemption from human rights legislation, will be used to round up about 20 suspects hiding in Britain beyond the reach of existing laws. [Telegraph 11/11/2001]

Even hard line secular Pakistanis were unconvinced by the released bin Laden video tape. Iqbal Haider, a former senator from the party of ousted prime minister Benazir Bhutto, said he found it hard to believe that bin Laden would allow himself to be filmed confessing to the crime. "It is hard to believe that a man who masterminds the September attacks with such secrecy and finesse could be that stupid and imprudent," he said. "I hate Osama and the Taliban because they inflicted incalculable damage on Muslims ... but it is hard to digest that he can be such a fool."

When asked why there is no mention of 9/11 on Bin Laden's Most Wanted web page, [Rex Tomb, Chief of Investigative Publicity for the FBI] said, "The reason why 9/11 is not mentioned on Usama Bin Laden's Most Wanted page is because the FBI has no hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11." ... The Muckraker Report attempted to secure a reference to the U.S. government authenticating the Bin Laden "confession video", to no avail. However, it is conclusive that the Bush Administration and U.S. Congress, along with the dead stream media, played the video as if it was authentic. So why doesn't the FBI view the "confession video" as hard evidence? [Muckraker Report]

You are being lied to by the US Government. They are using deception to trick you into surrendering your freedoms, money, and the lives of your children for a phony "War On Terror".

"Strive as in a race to achieve the
goal of excellence in all that you do."

__._,_.___
Recent Activity
Visit Your Group
Yahoo! News

Sexual Health

Get important

sex health news

Yahoo! TV

Staying in tonight?

Check Daily Picks &

see what to watch.

Yahoo! Groups

Start a group

in 3 easy steps.

Connect with others.

.

__,_._,___

Rumsfeld's Fake News Flop in Iraq


The Daou Report
The Daou Report tracks leading blogs, message boards, online magazines, and independent websites from across the political spectrum - providing a snapshot of the latest news, views, and online buzz.

Rumsfeld's Fake News Flop in Iraq

By peter@daoureport.com