- Signs of the Times for Wed, 17 May 2006 -

• Signs Editorials
• Iran, the Nukes, and the Oil
• Da Vinci and Other Codes
• The Planet Awakens
• Back in the USA
• Bush's Big Eye
• The Color Barrier
• World on Fire
• Nuking Iran
• Water Water Everywhere?
• Dollars and Nonsense
• O Canada
• Fireballs and Meterors

The videos comprise the footage from each of the two security cameras stationed close to each other at one end of the Pentagon. The first video contains nothing new given that it is simply the footage from which 5 stills were taken and released in early 2002 by the Pentagon, the extra footage merely being the scene after the impact. The second video comprises previously unseen footage from the security camera that is slightly closer to the impact point. The Pentagon alleges that in this video the "nose cone" of a plane can be seen in one frame. It should be noted that the security cameras appear to be the standard type installed in train stations and airports around the world. Most people will have seen footage from such cameras showing people walking in "jumps", which is due to the fact that the camera records a still image every 2 seconds or so.

Basically then, while the mainstream press is trumpeting the line that "the Defence Department has released "the video of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon", nothing could be further from the truth because there is still no evidence of a Boeing 757 in the security camera footage. If mainstream press reporters were to be honest (for once in their lives) the most they could state would be that: "the DOD has released a video of the attack on the Pentagon in which something appears in one frame of the footage and the U.S. government claims that this 'something' is the nose cone of Flight 77."

Let's take a look at this "nose cone":

This, ladies and gentlemen, is "Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon". This, is supposed to "finally put to rest" the "conspiracy theory" (backed up by massive evidence) that Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon. This, is apparently the best the DOD can do, or is prepared to do, to convince the world that they are telling the truth about what happened on 9/11. It doesn't say much for their confidence in their own story, does it.

Below is a zoom of the same "nose cone". Is it more clear now? Can you see Flight 77 in all its glory? All we can see is an amorphous white blob that looks more like a car than the nose cone of any aircraft. Obviously the images are too grainy to be of any use to anyone. At this point then, the most we can say is that an amorphous white blob with definite Islamic terrorists leanings hit the Pentagon on 9/11.

The above image comprises one frame and 2 seconds (7 and 8) of the footage, the next and subsequent frames show the explosion, there is nothing in between, at least not on this camera footage. On the footage from the second camera, from which the original five stills were cut, an image of "Flight 77" moving between the right most edge of the camera angle and the Pentagon facade is visible. Perhaps you remember it. For old times' sake, let's have a look:

As you can see, this image, along with the new image of the "nose cone" appears to back up the idea that it was indeed an amorphous white blob that hit the Pentagon. Case closed? Well there is still the problem of where the hell the plane is in the above still. If, as the government claims, this image shows Flight 77 a few dozen feet the Pentagon, we are still left with the question of, "where the hell is the plane!?"

The side of the Pentagon is 971 feet long and the "blob" or smoke trail in the above image is no more than 750 feet (250yards) from the camera. Remember the indelible images of those huge planes flying into the World Trade Center towers? The WTC planes were approximately the same distance from the observers on the ground as the "blob" in the above image was from the camera. So why can't we see a large 757 in the above image?

To sum up: At this stage, absent any new future video from the DOD, the U.S. government's "evidence" that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon consists of:

the "nose cone" frame

the white smoke trail or "blob" frame

the explosion at the Pentagon frames.

Convincing stuff, eh? This evidence is all the more suspect given the fact that the FBI confiscated tapes from at least two other video cameras in the area that would surely provide a more complete picture, but they refuse to release them.

The release of the DOD video footage comes at a very interesting time. Some readers may be aware that the pre-eminent Cannes film festival is just starting. Fewer however will be aware that the "Pentagon Strike" Flash animation is being shown at this year's festival. While we are not paranoid per se, we couldn't help but feel it was a little strange that the DOD would release their videos on the very day that our team set off to Cannes to promote the Pentagon strike flash. If we were "paranoid", we might say that the release of these videos is an attempt at pre-emptive damage control over potential exposure at Cannes. Of course, it will also simply help to raise the profile of all things 'Pentagonian', which can only help our team in Cannes.

A word on the response from alternative new pundits and 9/11 researchers about the new videos: Most appear to agree that there is nothing new in the videos that in any way discredits the sound allegations that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon. A few notable editorialists however are attempting to revive the dead horse that is the claim that the "no Boeing at the pentagon" theory is one big government-sponsored Psyops. The theory goes that government spooks are deliberately fuelling the "no Boeing" theories in an attempt to draw in as many researchers as possible - a honey trap for conspiracy theorists if you will - and then, when enough have been lured in, destroy their reputations by releasing a definitive video that shows clearly that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

While possible, in a remote sort of way, I seriously doubt that if the U.S. government has had access to a tape for four and a half years that could prove categorically that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, that they would have put up with so much rabble rousing from the "fringe" rather than simply quashing their claims from the outset. The simple truth is that the U.S. government has NO recourse to any evidence that can disprove the claims of serious 9/11 researchers because no such evidence exists.

Serious 9/11 researchers claim that a section of the U.S. government and military helped to orchestrate the 9/11 attacks, that the WTC towers were deliberately demolished, and that Flight 77 was very obviously not the plane that hit the Pentagon. The U.S government, and the agencies that are tasked with preserving its hold on power, have been actively running interference over the threat of exposure of the truth about 9/11 by the alternative media for the past four years.

The decades-old tactic of the CIA's Counter Intelligence Programs where their agents infiltrate "movements" in an attempt to sow discord from within is a major part of this "running interference". It is noticeable therefore that the only area of discord among 9/11 "truth seekers" is the Pentagon attack and whether or not Flight 77 was involved. Let me put it bluntly: The success of government Psyops on 9/11 is measured not by how many people can be made to believe the "no Boeing at the Pentagon" claim but rather by how many 9/11 researchers can be convinced that the "no Boeing at the Pentagon" claim is a government Psyop and should be avoided.

The attack on the Pentagon is the real Achilles heel of the official 9/11 story.

Let me explain:

Even in the event that evidence for the obvious controlled demolition of the WTC towers were to be publicly revealed and accepted, the U.S government could plausibly claim that 'al-Qaeda' somehow managed to plant explosives in the buildings, that this evidence had somehow been overlooked due to "incompetence" in the 9/11 investigation. The incompetence angle could be used, as it has been already, as a plausible explanation for many other areas that would ordinarily point to government complicity. The Pentagon attack, however, is a very different matter. If it were ever to be publicly revealed that it was not Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, there is simply no way that the U.S government continue to claim that "al-Qaeda did it" or lie its way out of it, because they would have to explain what happened to Flight 77 and its passengers. It is for this reason that the "no Boeing at the Pentagon" theory has been thoroughly attacked and maligned by government shills and many alleged 9/11 investigators.

The Pentagon attack holds the key to the entire 9/11 mystery, it presents the best opportunity to blow the lid completely off the entire sordid deal and reveal the very, very disturbing reality of the nature of the U.S. government and that other Middle Eastern agency and the roles they both played in wantonly murdering almost 3,000 American citizens on September 11th 2001.
Comment on this Editorial

"History shows that ... (people) can be deflected from their natural tendencies by artful propaganda, bogus crises, or other political trickery."

Robert Higgs

"The enormous gap between what US leaders do...and what Americans think their leaders are doing is one of the great propaganda accomplishments..."

Michael Parenti

The simmering conflict with Iran offers a good example of how a crisis can be fabricated from scratch through the always potent propaganda tool of fear. Because Iran wants what the U. S., Russia, China, France, Great Britain, India, Pakistan, Israel and many other countries have, i.e. the capability of enriching uranium as a means of generating energy, it is being singled out as a deadly menace to humanity, dangerous enough to warrant launching a preventive war of aggression, possibly a nuclear one, against it. Paradoxically, as recently as last April, the United Nations Security Council reaffirmed Iran's right to develop nuclear energy, in conformity with the Non Proliferation Treaty: "The Security Council reaffirms its commitment to the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons and recalls the right of States Party, in conformity with articles I and II of that Treaty, to develop research, production and use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes without discrimination."

Iran has denied that its nuclear program has any military purpose. In any case, why shouldn't Iran have nuclear technology, or even nuclear bombs for that matter, when countries such as Pakistan, India, Israel and even Brazil have them? On top of that, international nuclear experts say that even if Iran wanted to produce nuclear warheads, it would need 5 to 10 years to do it. So, why is the Bush-Cheney administration in a rush and a frenzy to go to war, when obviously Iran is no immediate threat to the United States?

U. S. hypocrisy on this score is worth noting: The Bush-Cheney administration claims that Iran's nuclear program for energy, if it were oriented toward nuclear weapons, could be in violation of international law and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. What is not said is the fact that the American administration itself just entered into a nuclear agreement with India, which is in violation of the same treaty. No country is supposed to share nuclear technology with other nations when such technology can be used for military purposes, even more so if they are not part of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. In the past, the U. S. also turned down a proposition for a nuclear-free Middle East because it wants Israel to retain its nuclear monopoly in the region. In a similar situation concerning North Korea, the Bush administration has relied on diplomacy, not on war. These contradictions do not escape the attention of people in Iran, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, etc., who see, in these positions, an example of America's double standards, if not of double-talking.

The war fever being created in the U. S. is an illustration of how the tool of propaganda of fear works. -First, it consists in demonizing and slandering a potential enemy through an intensive propaganda campaign of exaggerations and misinformation designed to persuade people that a given country is a potential menace to other countries. -Secondly, through repeated assertions of exaggerated danger and the presentation of distorted facts in the media, it is possible to reach the goal of instilling fear in people's minds, while concealing the real reasons why this is done. -Then, when public opinion has been whipped into a frenzy and people are frightened enough to support a war, politicians can pretend that they are 'forced' by necessity to violate international law and embark upon unilateral military acts of aggression to destroy the targeted enemy.

Just as with the on-going disastrous neocon-inspired Iraq War, which was initiated after an organized campaign of manipulation and deception, the current push to war against Iran is spear-headed in the U. S. by the same militant and hawkish Israel Lobby, and by similar neocon organizations, such as the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs [JINSA], and by their spokesmen in the media and within the U. S. government. The same scenario is being repeated a second time: Just as the Sharon government did for the Iraq war, the Israeli government of Prime Minister Ehud Olmert is pushing hard on the Bush-Cheney administration to launch an aerial bombing campaign against Iran.To answer this call, the U. S. govedrnment is currently doing its utmost to obtain a U.N. Chapter 7 resolution that would leave the door open to military action and the implementation of the neocon policy of regime change in Iran.

For his part, President George W. Bush has repeated many times that his top rationale for a possible U.S. military attack on Iran is to "pre-emptively" protect Israel. Last March 20 (2006), for example, he declared in a speech in Cleveland: "I made it clear, and I'll make it clear again, that we will use military might to protect our ally Israel."

A good indication that Israel plays an important role in the aggressive U. S. policy toward Iran is revealed in the Bush-Cheney administration's National Security Strategy document of March 16, 2006. There, in black and white, it is clearly stated that the nuclear issue with Iran is a pretext to pressure Iran on other issues. It says that, while the nuclear issue is important, "...the United States has broader concerns regarding Iran. The Iranian regime sponsors terrorism; threatens Israel; seeks to thwart Middle East peace; disrupts democracy in Iraq; and denies the aspirations of its people for freedom. The nuclear issue and our other concerns can ultimately be resolved only if the Iranian regime makes the strategic decision to change these policies, open up its political system, and afford freedom to its people. This is the ultimate goal of U.S. policy."-Those who play down the importance of the pro-Israel lobby in American foreign policy are simply denying reality.

However, pressures originating from the big-money pro-Israel Lobby are not the only rationale for the rash policies adopted by the bellicose and risk-prone Bush-Cheney administration, within its Grand Plan to control the entire Middle East (Iraq, Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia, etc.) and reconstitute a new, American-led, Ottoman Empire, even if that means creating chaos in the Middle East and in the world at large.

With the presidency occupied by an Oilman-in-chief and the vice-presidency by a former chairman and CEO of the oil-service company Halliburton, it should be no surprise to anyone that oil might have been on their minds when they planned a military conquest of the oil-rich Middle East. President George W. Bush himself has made it crystal clear: "Access to energy is a mainstay of our national security". In this scheme of things, Iran is not only the fourth largest oil producer in the world, it is also spearheading a move to switch the international oil market from the dollar to the euro. This makes it a financial threat, much more than a nuclear threat, which can be more easily contained and deterred.

But stealing somebody else's resources at gunpoint, or forcing a country to use one's currency, is not something one announces out loud. The third reason, i.e. the Pentagon's push to build permanent super large military bases all over the place, cannot be swept under the rug either. Thus, the need to present the entire enterprise in a thick cloud of propaganda. In the case of Iraq, 'We want to force them to adopt our democratic ways of life', is a most dubious official rationale given for killing and maiming the Iraqi population, a rationale advanced only after the lies about dangerous weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and links to al-Qaeda had been ripped open. Relentlessly, American helicopters watch 24/7 over the Iraqi oil fields and gas pipelines, to make sure the take-over mission is not a complete failure. The towns may be in Iraqi hands, but the oil fields in Iraq will be managed by American oil companies, just as Vice President Cheney  had planned.

The questionable presumption here is that international laws and national sovereignty principles do not apply when some 'chosen' countries are involved.  It is also based on the practical assumption that a policy of legal deterrence could not work in the case of Iran, because being a theocracy with an elected parliament, its fanatically religious leaders are deemed not to be logical and pragmatic, and therefore are dangerous to world peace. That such a case could be made by the most religious White House ever, is not without irony.

Indeed, one should not forget that "tricky" Bush Jr. is a political manipulator who has a messianic vision of things. And since he has succeeded in enhancing his executive powers to the point that he alone can decide to launch a war or not, irrespective of any law, domestic or international, that makes him most dangerous and quite unpredictable. Keep in mind that he has already tasted and reaped personally the partisan political rewards of fear and war during the 2002 and 2004 elections, before and after his invasion of Iraq. -That Bush Jr. could be tempted to repeat his ploy should not be entirely unexpected. Personally, I would not be surprised to learn that Bush Jr. plays with the idea that one way out of his current deep unpopularity would be to whip the American public into another war fever, with the help of his friends at Fox News and the far right media, just in time for the coming November mid-term elections. 

This only goes to illustrate the danger the world is in when questions of domestic political strategy could get entangled with the possible use of nuclear weapons abroad. Thus, the fundamental questions are: Who can be trusted with nuclear weapons? Is there anyone who can be trusted with such terrible weapons? Shouldn't they be outlawed? Should not the act of threatening another country with nuclear arms be made an automatic crime against humanity?

All the countries among the dozen or so nations having nuclear weapons claim they have them solely for reasons of defensive deterrence and protection. In fact, during the Cold War period (1947 to 1991), nuclear weapons possessed by the main imperial powers did play a central role in reducing the risk that a conflict between them would escalate into a full nuclear exchange, with hundreds of millions killed. This was a consequence of a deterrence policy by each side. Such a policy of deterrence through nuclear armaments presupposes rationality on all sides. But, what would happen if fools or madmen happened to be in charge in a nuclear-armed country which is bent on using its nuclear arms offensively? The world has never tackled this question directly. It may have to do it soon.

In recent months, indeed, a dangerous shift in the rationale for the use of nuclear weapons has taken place: Indeed, the sitting American president refused to rule out the use of nuclear weapons in an offensive war against Iran, while seeking to expand the already huge American. nuclear arsenal by asking Congress to fund research into new types of nuclear weapons. This does not augur well for the future.

We should all support the 1800 American physicists who recently petitioned President George W. Bush in these terms: "...our fellow physicists have joined in a petition opposing new US nuclear weapons policies that open the door to the use of nuclear weapons in situations such as Iran's. These policies represent a "radical departure from the past"... Indeed, since the end of World War II, US policy has considered nuclear weapons "weapons of last resort", to be used only when the very survival of the nation or of an allied nation was at stake, or at most in cases of extreme military necessity.

Instead, the new US nuclear weapons policies have significantly lowered the threshold for the potential use of nuclear weapons, as clearly evidenced by the fact that they are being considered as another tool in the toolbox to destroy underground installations that are "too deep" to be destroyed by conventional weapons. This is a major and dangerous shift in the rationale for nuclear weapons.

... Nuclear weapons are unique among weapons of mass destruction: they unleash the enormous energy stored in the tiny nucleus of an atom, an energy that is a million times larger than that stored in the rest of the atom. The nuclear explosion releases an immense amount of blast energy and thermal and nuclear radiation, with deadly immediate and delayed effects on the human body. Over 100,000 human beings died in the [1945] Hiroshima blast, and nuclear weapons in today's arsenals have a total yield of over 200,000 Hiroshima bombs.

Using or even merely threatening to use a nuclear weapon preemptively against a non-nuclear adversary tells the 182 non-nuclear-weapon countries signatories of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty that their adherence to the treaty offers them no protection against a nuclear attack by a nuclear nation."(Read more)

That a contemporary head of state does not rule out the use of nuclear weapons in a contemplated war of aggression is a major scandal in itself and is the best indication that the international legal system needs a complete overhaul. The question is whether such reforms will come before or after a major catastrophe.

Original

Some readers chided me last week for the whimsical percentages I used to describe a few common verbal cues in political debate that signal entrance into the "spin zone."

Because there's no linguistic statistical abstract that keeps track of that kinda stuff (that I'm aware of), here's another rhetorical red flag -- "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."

Of course, the observation -- first attributed to philosopher George Santayana -- is a truism that bears repeating because Americans -- especially the "yut" -- are historical amnesiacs, for the most part.

But, it's a conversation-stopper when used (in most cases) by the "greatest generation" and their baby-boomer offspring as a sledgehammer to remind and ridicule us Generation Xers (on down to Y and Z) of just how dumb and ungrateful we all are.

As a parent with an insatiable appetite for history and political science, I've come to realize that older folks are rather light in the history department themselves, as evidenced by the glut of ahistorical analyses used in political debate -- whether it's the estate tax, Hurricane Katrina "response," or prayer in public schools.

"When I was a kid they had prayer in school. Kids these days have no morals."

Yeah, and when you were a praying school kid, a black American was being lynched every three days, on average -- oftentimes with thousands of say-cheese-for-the-camera "Christians" gathered around, picnicking and enjoying the family fun.

And, on what miraculous date in history did all of those "good" people have a change of heart to the point where if you bring this recent history up in political debate today you're written off as a sniveling, stuck-in-the-past, reverse racist or guilt-ridden white liberal?

And, how many of those lynch victims were business owners? Could it be that lynching played a critical role in creating a black underclass that the tax-is-theft crowd constantly argues ought to be subject to more "market discipline" so they can "pull themselves up by their own bootstraps," even if those same bootstraps were once used as a noose by home-grown terrorists?

And... oh never mind. These are mere "historical grievances."

"Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." Translation: "If you weren't such an idiot when it comes to history you would see there is no alternative to war, in this case. You can't negotiate with terrorists!"

The irony is striking -- war apologists lecturing peaceniks on history, all the while shutting their ears and hearts to the "historical grievances" that brought about the conflict in the first place because exploring "root causes," as Pope John Paul recommended, is to be a "terrorist sympathizer."

So now the hawks, undeterred by being by wrong or misled on every major issue in the run up to the Iraq war, are in a frenzy over Iran and the "terrorists" there. Again.

In his detailed study of "American Presidents and the Middle East," Professor George Leczcowski traces the history of U.S.-Iranian relations, going back to Premier Mossadegh in the 1950s when he nationalized Iran's oil industry to the chagrin of the western gas-guzzlers who have always felt it an inalienable right to not only have access to, but to profit from, the natural resources in a foreign land. What's all of our oil doing under their sand?

Leczcowski notes that despite Mossadegh's propensity to flip-flop "he was perhaps right on one issue: in an earlier conversation with two U.S. officials... he said: 'You have never understood that this is basically a political issue.'"

He later told President Eisenhower something that any red-blooded freedom-loving American understands: "It is better to be independent and produce only one ton of oil a year than to produce 32 million tons and be a slave to Britain."

Self-determination and humanitarian concern be damned. The CIA was "forced" to orchestrate a coup to remove Mossadegh's democratically-elected regime.

Next came Iran's oppressive Islamic Revolution, which didn't bother U.S. planners too much because the Shah was "anti-Communist." The ensuing economic development "brought to Iran dangerously large numbers of foreign technicians and managers, including some 35,000 Americans whose relatively high standard of living provoked the resentment of the Iranian populace."

Fast-forward to the hostage crisis, which led the Reagan administration to negotiate with Iranian "terrorists" to free the hostages and sell weapons to Latin American terrorists ("freedom fighters") who were slaughtering poor people in the name of "anti-communism" - a bit of history conveniently ignored by those who say "you can't negotiate with terrorists."

Of his study of eight presidencies, from Truman to Reagan, Lenczowski notes "the continuity in their basic approaches," which focused on three main themes: "the Soviet challenge, the Arab-Israeli feud, and the role of oil."

What's uncertain, Lenczowski concluded, are the individual "presidential perceptions of...a variety of liberation movements. As Americans, U.S. presidents were expected to believe in the right of nations to self-determination and to endorse the principle of racial equality. But were they prepared to implement these principles in practice with equal justice to all concerned?"

Despite the "lessons of history" allegedly known so well by my parents' and grandparents' generation, Generation X, Y and Z have been condemned to face that same question again.

But you don't have to be Arnold Toynbee to understand the absurdity of the motto: "if it didn't work last time, or the time before that, by all means, let's do it again!"

Of course, you shouldn't take my word for it. Go check it out for yourself.

Original

"The voice of protest, of warning, of appeal is never more needed than when the clamor of fife and drum, echoed by the press and too often by the pulpit, is bidding all men fall in and keep step and obey in silence the tyrannous word of command. Then, more than ever, it is the duty of the good citizen not to be silent." - Charles Eliot Norton