Tender Toes at AboveTopSecret?

In the ebb and flow of the battle for control of our minds, the forces who want control do get a little testy when things don't go their way. Check out the latest from ATS regarding Joe Quinn's debunking of "Catherder"s post on the Above Top Secret forum.

Blue Ibis

Laura Knight-Jadczyk commments:

COINTELPRO Updates: Above Top Secret Forum

Things have been pretty interesting around here in the past week. Seems that Joe Quinn's critique of the Above Top Secret forum posting about the 757 that did NOT hit the Pentagon has hit a nerve.

The first indication that we had that something was up was the fact that the Signs of The Times site statistics had a bit of a surge.

Now we keep a pretty good eye on our site statistics because we like to know what subjects really interest our readers. So when there is a surge, we know we are doing our job. This is most particularly true with the publication of the Pentagon Strike video: obviously, so many people "resonated" to the facts presented in this video that the current number of viewers is approacing 600 million.

Yes, that's right: 600 MILLION. It will soon be one of the most widely disseminated items ever to be published on the internet.

For the "Powers That Be," that's a problem.

The result of this statistical analysis is the fact that we KNOW that hundreds of millions of people do NOT believe that a 757 hit the Pentagon. They would not be avidly sharing the Pentagon Strike video with their family, friends, acquaintances, to the extent that they have done so if they were not trying to use it as a way of communicating something that is difficult to put into words, not to mention dangerous considering the Fascist takeover of America by Bush and the Neocons.

Enter: Above Top Secret Forum.

Well, actually, we hadn't really paid too much attention to the ATS forum until it became almost a daily event for someone to send us, or post to our modest discussion forum, the link to this ATS post by "CatHerder." (Gee, even the name of the poster gives a COINTELPRO impression; imagine someone trying to herd cats?! That's probably how the PTB view people - a bunch of disorderly cats that need to be herded in a particular direction.) We didn't know that the ATS forum moderators had made thinly veiled negative references to our own work in their manipulative posts as we show in the Frozen Fish analysis.

We ambled over to ATS to read the article and recognized it immediately for what it was: a slick, manipulative piece of journalism designed to take in individuals who are easily bamboozled. After the first time or two that the link was posted to our forum, then people began to try to post the entire article. We rejected it a dozen times or more simply because it was what it was: disinformation. The fact is, we are in the news publishing business because we intend it as a teaching tool, and we try to check material for validity and to weed out as many lies as possible so our readers don't have to waste a lot of their valuable time reading garbage. Unlike sites such as Rense.com and others, which publish just about anything indiscriminately, we DO try to publish responsibly. If we utilize mainstream articles that we suspect are "agenda slanted," we try to add comments pointing out the obvious, or at least publish such an article juxtaposed against another that makes clear the agenda. We also use flashbacks to remind readers that a current article may be saying something exactly the opposite of what was said a few weeks, months, or even years ago. In short, our idea is to help readers learn to think, to spot the deceptions, and to develop or refine their own internal BS meters.

At the same time, as noted, we DO keep a close eye on our statistics so that we know what items interest the greatest number of people which then prompts us to do more research on those items so as to bring to our readers more material that will satisfy that desire for information.

As I said, we hadn't really paid a lot of attention to the ATS people up to the point in time when a cadre of what we think of as COINTELPRO "floaters" repeatedly tried to force us to publish the ATS CatHerder piece on our own website. Based on our assessment of the piece, it would have been the same thing as publishing - and giving credibility to - disinformation. We simply weren't going to do it - without commentary as we do when we publish any piece that we consider to be "agenda directed." The problem was, it was such a long and slippery piece that it needed quite a bit of writing just to deal with the nonsense presented as "logic." We didn't have the time or the inclination. Yet, over time, the questions from sincere readers kept coming in and made us aware that the ATS article was obviously an item that our readers wanted us to address.

In the end, that was exactly what we did: we published it with commentary.

I rather think that if we had published it as a regular news piece on the Signs of The Times daily pages with NO comment, what happened next would not have happened.

But first, let me mention that we did get a lot of positive feedback on the article from readers, including several entries to our discussion forum, one of which really made us laugh:

I want a bumper sticker and a t-shirt that reads.... "Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 and Neither Did a Boeing 757"

We just may see what we can do about that! I expect that such an item would sell in the millions based on the popularity of the Pentagon Strike video dissemination stats!

Now, off to the side, I was, at that moment in time, coincidentally, involved in a discussion with a couple of well-known Anti-war activists about my previous blog post: How to Spot COINTELPRO Agents . I had written to these people in a private email on Jan 3rd:

I have been thinking about a lot of things over the past few days and decided to make an experimental post to my blog. It was an interesting exercise because re-reading and re-thinking always leads to new understanding.

One of the things that stood out for me in the section about Rick Ross and his "cult awareness network" was this from the Cletus Nelson piece I included (published on The Lew Rockwell site):

"Evidence suggests that these unsubstantiated claims which continue to shade our perception of the events at Mt. Carmel can be attributed to a small cadre of para-political "watchdog" groups.
"... in the lucrative realm of public policy activism lurk a number of pro- government advocacy groups whose very existence rests upon the notion that cult activities, political extremism or some other unnamed evil constitutes a dangerous threat to state power.

"In order to identify the alleged thought criminals in our midst, operatives aligned with these private surveillance networks infiltrate unconventional spiritual or religious movements, maintain files on American citizens, and work closely with both media and law enforcement to target individuals and organizations whose beliefs run counter to establishmentarian beliefs.

In essence, these ersatz defenders of human rights act as de facto spokesmen for our emergent surveillance society. It’s COINTELPRO redux, only this time with help from a network of dubious, yet-well compensated agents."

Even though I already *knew* that it was so at some level, I hadn't really given much conscious thought to the fact that so-called "watchdog groups" that rant "cult, cult, cult" [or a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon] are evidently aligned with the National Security State as this article suggests.

In short, any group or individual who goes around with the kinds of rants that Weidner, Bridges (and his buddy Storm Bear Williams and gang)do, are clearly "operatives" that work closely with media and law enforcement to target individuals and organizations whose beliefs run counter to the state sanctioned Mind Control System.

We have to learn how to sort the true from the false.

Nobody was greener than I was back in summer 2001 when it all began... and if it hadn't been for the C's, I would already be toast. But I learned a lot while skirting the edges of disaster and one of the things that has stood me in good stead is a little hint from Gurdjieff:

"A decent man will behave decently even if he thinks that he has been treated unjustly or wrongly. But many people in such circumstances show a side of their nature which otherwise they would never show. And at times it is a necessary means for exposing a man's nature. So long as you are good to a man he is good to you. But what will he be like if you scratch him a little?"

When dealing with COINTELPRO, you don't even have to treat someone unjustly or wrongly, generally just disagreeing with them will do. Or doing something they don't want you to do. Just small "scratches" usually sort people out.

The very next thing that happened - within hours of writing the above - was that we received an email from Above Top Secret as follows:
Mark - mark@abovetopsecret.com From : USA wrote : I am disgusted by your accusation that AboveTopSecret.com, LLP is a "Government funded damage control outlet" I ask that you retract that lie.

My partners and I have spent the last several years building that site and have NEVER received a nickel from ANY government, never been asked to do ANYTHING for or by ANY government and NEVER WILL.

The fact we attract logical members who present THIER analysis and ask that other members treat them with COURTEOUSNESS and keep the discussion at an ADULT level sans flames and rediculous off topic commentary does NOT make us anything more or less than what we are. The number ONE destination on the internet to FREELY Deny Ignorance.

It is truly SAD that when a site allows ALL sides of an issue to be heard people like YOU who believe hook line and sinker there is a conspiracy where there may or may not be one, feel the need to falsely accuse us of being crooked. It makes me SICK and SAD for you.

You obviously haven't read the THOUSANDS of posts that actually SUPPORT your perspective on our site, no that would be too much work wouldn't it?

Much easier to cast a negative light upon our site in the hopes of getting yourself some attention isn't it?

Thoroughly disappointed in and DISGUSTED with YOU.

Springer...

Partner,

AboveTopSecret.com, LLP

Note: the IP that was logged from this post tracks back to Geary,Oklahoma.

I forwarded the email to the group of Anti-war activists I was discussing COINTELPRO with along with the following comments:

...here is a perfect example of the principle I mentioned last night: how a person behaves when you "scratch" him a little.

"A decent man will behave decently even if he thinks that he has been treated unjustly or wrongly. But many people in such circumstances show a side of their nature which otherwise they would never show. And at times it is a necessary means for exposing a man's nature. So long as you are good to a man he is good to you. But what will he be like if you scratch him a little?"

Yes, we have read the posts that supported the conspiracy view of 9/11 on their site, but we also read their own posts where they worked very hard to make those who supported the insider complicity argument feel stupid.

This email from AboveTopSecret reveals the same kind of outrage that comes from people like Vinnie and Jay and the gang... they are "outraged" and "sick and sad" for us and so on and so forth. Smoke and mirrors.

And of course, we are "invited" to feel guilty by accusing us of us "casting a negative light" in order to "get attention."

What "Mark" is most exercised about seems to be the suggestion that Above Top Secret is a "government funded damage control outlet." Methinks he protests too much.

Now, what would have happened if he had written to me and said: "Hey, I read your piece and even though we disagree on the subject, I would like to object to being labeled a disinfo source. I set up the site for the same reasons you have your site: to find the truth. I just don't see any evidence of what you are saying... " etc etc...

But, since he is not there to argue the evidence, but rather to promote the lies, he can't do that. And people like that only know one way to function: to seek to destroy the other views by ridicule, shaming, playing guilt cards, aggressive insults, etc. Even if they try to mask their behavior by platitudes about being adult and courteous, they belie it by their own words. In other words, they know the words, but not the music. They are blind to their own lack of courtesy to the truth.

Or, they are disinfo...

My money is on the latter.

Ark responded to Mark/Springer of AboveTopSecret as follows:

To: mark@abovetopsecret.com Date sent: Wed, 04 Jan 2006 08:10:18 +0100 Subject: Re: Your false accusation
On 4 Jan 2006 at 0:08, mark@abovetopsecret.com wrote:
>You obviously haven't read the THOUSANDS of posts that actually SUPPORT >your perspective on our site, no that would be too much work wouldn't it? >Much easier to cast a negative light upon our site in the hopes of >getting yourself some attention isn't it? Thoroughly disappointed in and >DISGUSTED with YOU.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, if you are welcoming posts supporting our perspective, than you should be also happy (rather than disapointed and disgusted) that there is another view supporting our perspective - namely OUR view.

Regards,

ark ################################################## Dr Arkadiusz Jadczyk http://quantumfuture.net/quantum_future/homepage.htm
-------------------------------------------------------------------

Somebody must have been reading our minds, or at least, they saw the glitch and hurried to smooth it over. The next day, an email came from another AboveTopSecret "partner" - to Ark's private email address rather than the site address. Obviously, he got this from Mark/Springer, above.

To: Arkadiusz Jadczyk Subject: Your 9/11 article on your website... Send reply to: From: "SkepticOverlord" Date sent: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 07:56:16 -0600
Greetings...

It has come to our attention that your article here: http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm Is in violation of our clearly stated Creative Commons Deed, linked here: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/cc.php?tid=79655&pid=816414You have developed a derivative work (your content, integrated with our content) for commercial purposes (to promote the sale of a book.)

This is in clear violation of our stated license. The concept of "fair use" does not apply in this case since your current utilization of our material is in clear violation of our stated use rights.

However, in the interest of balanced debate on this subject, we do not necessarily desire the material to be removed from your site. We would be happy to see it to remain if you would kindly make the following changes:

1) Comply with the "BY:" attribute of our Creative Commons Deed (proper link and attribution).
2) Alter the HTML file name so that it does not contain our site name.
3) Alter the images directory so that it does not contain our site name. 4) Remove the text link at the bottom that promotes the sale of a book in context with your article (the banner link at the left for the same book can certainly remain since it is not in context with the text of your article).

Thank you in advance for your consideration and cooperation.

Bill, aka "SkepticOverlord" Community and Technology Director Partner in AboveTopSecret.com, LLP

Note: Skeptic Overlord's email came from Tulsa, Oklahoma. Nothing unusual about that.

Since there was already clear identification of the author and source of the article in the first paragraph of our article, including an ACTIVE LINK to same, it seemed to us that the primary issue that AboveTopSecret had with us was the naming of the file and images folder on our website. Anyone familiar with our website knows that there are thousands of files, most of which are named after the subject matter they contain, which is the easiest way for us (or anyone) to keep track of them. If we want to find a file and make a correction, addition, or whatever, that's how we find it in the list.

Now why, we asked ourselves, would AboveTopSecret be concerned about the name of the file and the name of the images folder on our website?

There was only one obvious answer: they were concerned about search engines, that a search engine would display a link to our damning analysis of their Pro-government agenda among the returns given to anyone searching for "Above Top Secret." In short, they wanted to "own" the phrase and to monopolize the views of readers.

Not a very good example of their claimed desire to present "all sides of a question," now is it?

So, Ark replied:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To: skepticoverlord@abovetopsecret.com Subject: Re: Your 9/11 Article Date sent: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 18:14:36 +0100

On 5 Jan 2006 at 14:16, skepticoverlord@abovetopsecret.com wrote: > It has come to our attention that your article here: > http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm > > Is in violation of our clearly stated Creative Commons Deed, linked here: > > http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/cc.php?tid=79655&pid=816414 >

Hi,

Sorry to say, but what you say does not make any sense whatsoever.

Can you explain? Do you mean that it is your policy to be a governement agency? Or what?

Regards,

ark
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Skeptic Overlord was fast on the draw. He responded:

From: "SkepticOverlord" Copies to: simon.gray@abovetopsecret.com Date sent: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 11:54:17 -0600
For now I'll ignore the insult and try to remain cordial.

From our vantage point, the manner in which you presented the content of your article here: http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm

Appears to be designed to capitalize on our content both for commercial purposes (the selling of a book) and user confusion (file and directory names "above_top_secret").

For now, we're hoping to assume that non-compliance with our Creative Commons License (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/cc.php?tid=79655&pid=816414 ) is accidental. And that no malicious intent is behind using our unique site name in the naming conventions of your content.

(More information on creative commons here: http://creativecommons.org/ )

The non-compliance is related to two issues:

1) Your author, Joe Quinn, and has developed a derivative work based on our material. This is not allowed under the terms of the linked CC deed. 2) Our content is used in conjunction with solicitation for the sale of a book titled, "9/11: The Ultimate Truth". This is also a violation of the terms in our linked CC deed.

The CC deed link is provided at the bottom of every piece of content on our site, and clearly provides information on how our material can be reused.

In addition, including our site name as a part of the naming system for the HTML file and subdirectories is indicative of potential malicious intent to confuse web surfers and search engines. We hope this is accidental.

We believe our request for changes to be in the spirit of collaborative debate on these important issues. Rather than insist our content be removed (which is within our rights under the clearly stated usage guidelines), we're asking for the following: 1) Comply with the "BY:" attribute of our Creative Commons Deed (proper link and attribution). 2) Alter the HTML file name so that it does not contain our site name. 3) Alter the images directory so that it does not contain our site name. 4)Remove the text link at the bottom that promotes the sale of a book in context with your article (the banner link at the left for the same book can certainly remain since it is not in context with the text of your article).

Thank you. "SkepticOverlord" Community and Technology Director Partner in AboveTopSecret.com, LLP
-------------------------------------------------------------------

So, we were right: there it was, explicitly stated: "including our site name as a part of the naming system for the HTML file and subdirectories is indicative of potential malicious intent to confuse web surfers and search engines. We hope this is accidental." The rest was just nonsense.

They apparently do NOT wish for any alternative view of what they are promoting to be available. Control of search engine results is solely what they are after. That suggests some serious COINTELPRO thinking has gone into the website AboveTopSecret, especially in terms of vectoring websearches and seekers of information. Ark was curious about these two approaches, the "good cop, bad cop" routine. So, he wrote back to "Skeptic Overlord," (geez, that "handle" is sure suggestive too!)

Notice also that a CC of the above email has been sent to a "Simon Gray." Hmmmm.... Who is Simon Gray? We'll get to that soon enough...
--------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk To: Subject: Re: Your 9/11 Article BCC to: sott@signs-of-the-times.org Date sent: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 19:20:21 +0100

> For now I'll ignore the insult and try to remain cordial.

Hi,

Does that mean that you do not agree with the Mark (mark@abovetopsecret.com ) who wrote to us:

"Much easier to cast a negative light upon our site in the hopes of getting yourself some attention isn't it?
Thoroughly disappointed in and DISGUSTED with YOU."

I undestand from his letter that he (or you?) was not happy with our criticism, but he did not provide any argument why our tentative conclusion was incorrect.

Now you seem to provide arguments that our tentative conclusion was correct, right?

So, if I am correct, in a sense you are arguing with mark@abovetopsecret.com.

Can't you guys solve these problems within your institution?

Regards,

ark
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Skeptic Overlord replied:

From: "SkepticOverlord" Copies to: simon.gray@abovetopsecret.com Date sent: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 12:41:10 -0600
I'm not aware of what Mark had sent you. However, is has no bearing on the reality that your article violates our published usage rights.

In my position as Community Director, I have no desire to debate which point of view is more valid or not, only to resolve the issues I've outlined in both of my emails.

Pleased indicate your intent specific to the concerns I've communicated.

Thank you.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Ark forwarded the comments of Mark/Springer to Skeptic Overlord who then responded:

From: "Arkadiusz Jadczyk" To: "SkepticOverlord" Sent: Thursday, January 05, 2006 06:01 PM Subject: Your 9/11 Article

> I'm not aware of what Mark had sent you.
OK, Here it is: [Mark/Springer's email snipped] And here is what I wrote back to him:

"Well, if you are welcoming posts supporting our perspective, than you should be also happy (rather than disapointed and disgusted) that there is another view supporting our perspective - namely OUR view."
I still keep the same attitude. Only through an open discussion and analyzing all the available data there is any hope of ever getting to the truth.

Kind regards,

ark
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
One thing that was becoming abundantly clear was that AboveTopSecret.com was NOT the least bit interested in really searching for the truth of anything. So far, their only issues were commercial and suppressing competing information. We next received an email from another individual who wrote:

Date sent: 5 Jan 2006 18:23:38 -0000 To: Arkadiusz Jadczyk From: computerbball23@yahoo.com Subject: ATS catherder article rebuttal
Amar - computerbball23@yahoo.com From : USA : California wrote :

I was wondering if you would please comply with ATS's terms of service and creative commons license so that we can discuss your debunking article of Catherder's Pentagon plane crash article. I am not a government agent and neither is Skeptic's Overlord of AboveTopSecret. I am just a normal human being that is wanting a fair argument on what really happened at the pentagon and using your article to discuss the controversy at ATS will help a lot, but we can only use your website if you comply with ATS's rules.

thank you,

Amar

Well, since we had, as far as we knew, from the beginning, complied with the standard legal requirements of Fair Use for criticism and analysis, (including source and link), it seemed that the AboveTopSecret forum Overlords were putting pressure on members of their own forum to put pressure on us so the members could discuss our analysis of CatHerder's disinfo piece in the forum that claimed to be willing to discuss all sides of an issue! Ark decided to see if he find out what was really going on:

To: skepticoverlord Date sent: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 20:26:10 +0100 Subject: Re: Your 9/11 Article
On 5 Jan 2006 at 13:05, SkepticOverlord wrote: > As requested, please focus on the issues I've itemed in my emails. > > Thanks.
Hi,

Just a while ago I got the following:

[Amar's message, quoted above, snipped]

Can you tell me who is "Amar"? Or is it you in disguise? The IP suggest the second conjecture...

ark

At the same time, we decided, in the spirit of cooperation, to see if we could come to an agreement. Ark wrote the following:

From: Arkadiusz Jadczyk To: skepticoverlord@abovetopsecret.com, mark@abovetopsecret.com, computerbball23@yahoo.com Subject: Re: Your 9/11 Article Date sent: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 21:13:44 +0100
Hi,

here is the more technical part:

On 5 Jan 2006, at 11:54, SkepticOverlord wrote: > >
>From our vantage point, the manner in which you presented the content of > >your article here: > http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm
> Appears to be designed to capitalize on our content both for commercial > purposes (the selling of a book) and user confusion (file and directory names > "above_top_secret").

The intent of the article is self-evident: education and, to some extent, parody.

> > For now, we're hoping to assume that non-compliance with our Creative Commons > License ( http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/cc.php?tid=79655&pid=816414 ) > is accidental. And that no malicious intent is behind using our unique site > name in the naming conventions of your content.

"Above Top Secret" is a common phrase, long in use.

> > (More information on creative commons here: http://creativecommons.org/ ) > > The non-compliance is related to two issues: > 1) Your author, Joe Quinn, and has developed a derivative work based on our > material. This is not allowed under the terms of the linked CC deed.

Joe Quinn's work is not "derivative." It is transformative commentary and parody. In a 1994 case, the Supreme Court emphasized Transformative in Character as being a primary indicator of fair use.

* Has the material been transformed by adding new expression or meaning?

* Was value added to the original by creating new information, new aesthetics, new insights and understandings?

In a parody, for example, the parodist transforms the original by holding it up to ridicule. Purposes such as scholarship, research or education may also qualify as transformative.

All of these apply in this instance.

2) Our > content is used in conjunction with solicitation for the sale of a book > titled, "9/11: The Ultimate Truth". This is also a violation of the terms in > our linked CC deed.
It is not a violation of copyright law as defined above.

> > The CC deed link is provided at the bottom of every piece of content on our > site, and clearly provides information on how our material can be reused.

Thanks. We'll stick with standard copyright law.

> > In addition, including our site name as a part of the naming system for the > HTML file and subdirectories is indicative of potential malicious intent to > confuse web surfers and search engines. We hope this is accidental.

From our point of view, it is the simplest way to identify the file in the many thousands of files on our website(s).

> > We believe our request for changes to be in the spirit of collaborative > debate on these important issues. Rather than insist our content be removed > (which is within our rights under the clearly stated usage guidelines), we're > asking for the following: 1) Comply with the "BY:" attribute of our Creative > Commons Deed (proper link and attribution).

As soon as the webmaster returns from Ireland, we'll have him make the requested changes.

2) Alter the HTML file name so > that it does not contain our site name.
Sorry, but that is not possible. As noted above, it is the easiest way to identify the file among the many thousands of files on our website(s).

3) Alter the images directory so that > it does not contain our site name.
Sorry, but that is not possible. As noted above, it is the easiest way to identify the files among the many thousands of files on our website(s).

4) Remove the text link at the bottom that > promotes the sale of a book in context with your article (the banner link at > the left for the same book can certainly remain since it is not in context > with the text of your article).

In the spirit of cooperation, we will agree to this request.

Regards,

ark

The only response was the following:
To: Arkadiusz Jadczyk Subject: Re: Your 9/11 Article From: "SkepticOverlord" Date sent: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 21:40:13 -0600
Please confirm if this is your correct mailing address: Laura Jadczyk Dluga 40 m3 Castenau Barbarens, 32450 FR

(Obtained from the public domain record)

Thank you.

Now, let's come back to the question: Who is Simon Gray??? Frankly, until this little tempest in a teapot, we had never heard of the guy.

As it happens, a little investigation produces the following WhoIs information about AboveTopSecret.com:

Registrant:

Gray, Simon 1 Sackville Close Swindon, Wiltshire SN3 3EJ UK

Domain Name: ABOVETOPSECRET.COM

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact: Gray, Simon simon.gray@abovetopsecret.com 1 Sackville Close Swindon, Wiltshire SN3 3EJ UK +44 1793 486619 fax: 999 999 9999

Record expires on 19-May-2013. Record created on 18-May-1997. Database last updated on 6-Jan-2006 08:22:18 EST.
Domain servers in listed order:

NS4.DNSMADEEASY.COM 216.88.44.132 NS3.DNSMADEEASY.COM 64.246.42.123 NS2.DNSMADEEASY.COM 66.80.146.131 NS1.DNSMADEEASY.COM 69.10.137.166 NS0.DNSMADEEASY.COM 66.80.146.130

What is MOST interesting is that the information on this WhoIs entry was updated on 6 January 2006. Wonder what triggered that? I also wondered what it said before January 6, 2006? At first we thought that the "database" meant just the general website database, and that it was, perhaps, just generally "updated" according to some schedule and this meant nothing. So, we did some experiments with our own WhoIs data to see what the results would be. Sure enough, it is when the "client" themselves go to the database to add, subtract, correct, or change information that it is recorded as an "update."

Next I found an interesting post on a discussion forum named BELOWTopSecret.com (thread name: ABOVETOPSECRET.COM CIA)as follows:

I did a trace route on http://www.abovetopsecret.com/, the Node Name is listed and maintained by the government.
IP Address 213.206.128 213.206.129 213.206.130

Node Name Gov-bb21-lan-14 Gov-bb22-lan-15 Gov-bb23-lan-16

Location Langley, Virginia

MS 60

Network Used whois.nic.mil (for military network information)

It was difficult to get the IP Address, It was spoofed and looped over 9 times. Anyway Langley, Virginia is where the CIA headquarters is. I?m more than concerned.

The discussion on that board is interesting because we notice "Springer" there and a general "ha ha that was a great joke" attitude about the above quoted "find." Looking further, we discover the raw whois output for belowtopsecret.com:

Registrant: Gray, Simon 1 Sackville Close Swindon, Wiltshire SN3 3EJ UK

Domain Name: BELOWTOPSECRET.COM

Administrative Contact: Gray, Simon simon.gray@abovetopsecret.com 1 Sackville Close Swindon, Wiltshire SN3 3EJ UK +44 1793 486619 fax: 999 999 9999

Technical Contact: Network Solutions, LLC. customerservice@networksolutions.com 13200 Woodland Park Drive Herndon, VA 20171-3025

US 1-888-642-9675 fax: 571-434-4620

Record expires on 21-Oct-2013. Record created on 21-Oct-2003. Database last updated on 7-Jan-2006 06:48:53 EST.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS3.DNSMADEEASY.COM 64.246.42.123 NS4.DNSMADEEASY.COM 216.88.44.132 NS2.DNSMADEEASY.COM 66.80.146.131 NS1.DNSMADEEASY.COM 69.10.137.166 NS0.DNSMADEEASY.COM 66.80.146.130

Again we notice that the WhoIs database was updated just today, January 7, 2006. Seems that the issue of whether or not AboveTopSecret may be COINTELPRO has provoked a flurry of "updating" activity.

Again we wonder: Who is Simon Gray?

On the AboveTopSecret website you will find the following:

ATS Weekly: Edition 001 July 19, 2005

A Word From Our Founder This is a fantastic time for AboveTopSecret.com. Over the past few years we have seen tremendous growth in many ways, most notably in terms of the sheer amount of people who visit the ATS websites. These people have formed together into a collective virtual community, and together have expanded the wealth of information on our website to nearly a quarter of a million accessible pages, making us one of the most highly regarded websites of our genre.

Moderator's Musings When thinking about what to write here, the first thing I thought about was how much I personally appreciate ATS. So this little article is a BIG thank you to everyone that makes ATS what it is. Thanks to Simon for creating ATS. Thanks to SkepticOverlord for the continued work to improve and protect the site. Thanks to the Staff who do a wonderful job keeping the quality of input here the best on the Net. [...] From the Front Office Welcome to the first edition of the newly tooled and re-imagined ATS newsletter. Just twelve days ago one of your board adminstrators, William One Sac, thought it might be a good idea to resurrect Simon's old email newsletter. It ended up being such a good (and obvious) idea, several people worked diligently behind the scenes to make sure it happened in a way everyone could be proud of. And for members of the AboveTopSecret.com discussion board community, there's a great deal to be proud of.

Interestingly, a search on google for Simon Gray brings up the following result:
Who besides Simon Gray and the 'Bildebergers' can you source regarding US concentration camps stowing & drugging 2 million americans? & tell us Simon's credentials? TIA
Registrant: Gray, Simon (ABOVETOPSECRET-DOM) 1 Sackville Close Walnut Creek, CA 94596
Domain Name: abovetopsecret.com

Administrative Contact, Technical Contact: Gray, Simon (SG2699) simon@ABOVETOPSECRET.COM 1 Sackville Close Swindon Wilts SN3 3EJ UK (01793) 486619

Record expires on 19-May-2001. Record created on 18-May-1997. Database last updated on 24-Aug-2002 12:09:13 EDT.

Domain servers in listed order:

NS.LIQUIDWEB.COM 64.91.224.2 NS1.LIQUIDWEB.COM 64.91.228.2

Did you notice that Sackville Close is now partly in California and partly in UK? How interesting! Well, we are not going to criticize anyone for fudging on their home address. Considering the kinds of attacks that we have experienced in this "business," we don't hold it against anyone for wanting to protect themselves from lunatics.

Figuring out just who Simon Gray is has actually been turned into a promotional enterprise at AboveTopSecret.com. It looks like they are trying to create a legend. (Which reminds me that their own material is presented in the context of a huge commercial enterprise that is obviously focused on making money!)

WIN 10,000 POINTS! "Who is Simon Gray?"
William posted on 26-8-2003 at 09:50 PM

Now that we have a nice shiny new points system... let's have some fun!

Who is Simon Gray?

What does he do? What does he look like? What are his hobbies? What does he eat? Does he shave? Perhaps he fancies a certain kind of ladies under-arm deodorant?

These are the burning questions that have tormented the denizens of Above Top Secret for years-on-end.

Well, now is your chance to add the fiction that has become legend that will become myth. Help us paint the complex tapestry of the person known as, "Simon Gray" so that the legend may become larger than life... nay, larger than the planet... nay, larger than the solar system!
Post your best prose. Find your best photos. Describe your best "Simon Gray".

The winner, as judged by forum staff, will receive 10,000 bright shiny new points directly from the ATS mint. These points are good for any merchandise in the ATS store and may not be redeemed for ladies under-arm deodorant.

Well, AboveTopSecret.com begins to look like a dramatically STAGED "experiment." And I use the word "staged" deliberately. Have a look here:

Deja vu, all over again
2005 has been a year of the sequel, the remake and the revival - and no bad thing for all that

Mark Lawson Friday December 30, 2005 The Guardian

Was 2005 the year when art ran out of ideas? December always encourages retrospection but looking back at the culture of the last 12 months constantly involves a double jump as every new idea seems to have an old one behind it.

[...]

A similar generosity is possible towards the number of repeats in theatre this year. These were not lazy restagings but exuberant rediscoveries, including an improbable pair of Schiller hits (Don Carlos and Mary Stuart), little-known Ibsens (Pillars of the Community) and John Osbornes (Epitaph for George Dillon), and a neglected Simon Gray (Otherwise Engaged.) All of these productions imbued the word "revival" with an almost medical meaning.

Is the Simon Gray of AboveTopSecret.com the playwright, Simon Gray? Before discarding that as a possibility, I thought I would pull on that thread a bit. Encyclopedia Brittanica tells us:

Simon Gray born Oct. 21, 1936, Hayling Island, Hampshire, Eng.

[...] British dramatist whose plays, often set in academia, are noted for their challenging storylines, witty, literary dialogue, and complex characterizations.

Gray alternately lived in Canada and England, attending Westminster School in London; Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada (B.A., 1957); and Trinity College, Cambridge (B.A., 1961). While working as a university lecturer in both countries, he wrote satiric novels and farcical plays for stage and television. His first stage play was Wise Child (1968), which features a criminal transvestite.

Gray's first international success was Butley (1971; filmed 1974), a play about a petulant university professor whose venomous wit masks an inner emptiness. Similarly, Otherwise Engaged (1975) concerns a sardonic publisher who strives to isolate himself but is prevented from doing so by a series of dramatic interruptions. Quartermaine's Terms (1981) is the sadly comic story of a gentle, ineffectual English teacher. Among Gray's other plays are Spoiled (1971), The Rear Column (1978), The Common Pursuit (1984), Hidden Laughter (1990), Cell Mates (1995), Fat Chance (1995), and Simply Disconnected (1996).

As I pursued the thread, I came to the idea that the playwright, Simon Gray, is NOT the "Simon Gray" of AboveTopSecret - unless he is having a good laugh at everyone's expense. See also:

Disgruntled drollery, Saturday March 5, 2005, The Guardian, a review of The Smoking Diaries, by Simon Gray.

Then there are excerpts from a review of the play mentioned in the above quoted Guardian article.
So much for Simon Gray, the playwright. He lives in London, as one source mentions, not Sackville Close. Problem is, NO Simon Gray lives in Sackville Close that I could discover.

One of our researchers who lives in UK wrote:

There is a thread here that might add to what you have so far: I found it from searching against the postcode, as the address just sounded weird to me. I worked in Swindon for about six years and as far as I remember the area where Sackville Close is, comprises mostly old Victorian terraced houses in a none too inspiring part of the town. If you lived there and had any money you would probably use it to move somewhere else!

The link goes to the Let's Roll 9-11 discussion board where the topic is: Above top secret, is it Dis info?

Apparently, others have been asking similar questions for some time now and the details given at the above link are quite revealing.

We find tracks of AboveTopSecret's Simon Gray rather early on the web:

Topic in alt.magick.sex

Simon Gray Jul 6 1999, 8:00 am Newsgroups: alt.magick.sex From: "Simon Gray" Date: 1999/07/06 Subject: GREAT WEBSITE
www.abovetopsecret.com !!!

Under "free.uk.info" we find another:

Newsgroups: free.uk.ufo From: "Above Top Secret" Date: 2000/03/22 Subject: www. Above Top Secret .com - The UK's ultimate website for US conspiracies
http://www.AboveTopSecret.com

This is the UK's ultimate conspiracy website for those interested in Area 51, secret government projects, aircraft programs including a very detailed Aurora page, agencies, and even hacking information.

Multi-award winning information.

-- Simon Gray - Webmaster/Researcher of www.AboveTopSecret.com E-Mail - s...@abovetopsecret.com

And so on. If you go to the above links, you can click "find messages by this author" and you will get 184 returns, among which are the following:

Movies http://www.hotmoviez.com -- Simon Gray - Webmaster/Founder of http://www.AboveTopSecret. com E-Mail - s...@abovetopsecret.com Get Paid For Nothing! ... alt.2600.hackerz - Jul 13 2000, 8:10 pm by Above Top Secret - 6 messages - 6 authors
Cheat AllAdvantage If you're interested in getting paid for NOTHING, then check out http://paid4surf.abovetopsecret.com alt.2600.hackerz - Jul 13 2000, 10:53 am by Above Top Secret - 3 messages - 3 authors

Make $100s surfing the net!!! How would you like to earn $100sa month by surfing the internet? A brilliantly simple form of income that requires no effort at all. ... alt.best.of.internet - Apr 1 2000, 7:21 am by Above Top Secret - 1 message - 1 author

Earn $100s surfing the web!!! How would you like to earn $100sa month by surfing the internet? A brilliantly simple form of income that requires no effort at all. ... alt.make.money - Apr 1 2000, 6:27 am by Above Top Secret - 2 messages - 2 authors

Make money surfing the net!!! How would you like to earn $100sa month by surfing the internet? A brilliantly simple form of income that requires no effort at all. ... free.uk.ufo - Mar 31 2000, 9:01 pm by Above Top Secret - 1 message - 1 author

www. Above Top Secret .com - The UK's ultimate website for US ... http://www.AboveTopSecret.com This is the UK's ultimate conspiracy website for those interested in Area 51, secret government projects, aircraft programs ... free.uk.ufo - Mar 23 2000, 3:27 am by Above Top Secret - 1 message - 1 author

www. Above Top Secret .com Check out this website for information about Area 51, UFOs, secret facilities, organisations, government projects, the New World Order, and more. ... alt.paranet.ufo - Mar 21 2000, 3:43 pm by Above Top Secret - 1 message - 1 author

MYSTERIOUS CALIFORNIA TEST FACILITIES McDonnell Douglas "Llano" Facility Lockheed "Hellendale" Facility Northrop "Tejon Ranch" Facility www.abovetopsecret.com/southcal.html alt.alien - Jul 26 1999, 5:07 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

MYSTERIOUS TEST LOCATIONS McDonnell Douglas "Llano" Facility Lockheed "Hellendale" Facility Northrop "Tejon Ranch" Facility www.abovetopsecret.com/southcal.html alt.alien.wanderers - Jul 25 1999, 5:07 pm by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

29 PROTOTYPE STEALTH AIRCRAFT BLACK PROJECTS , SECRET UNDERGROUND DULCE FACILITY , 29 PROTOTYPE STEALTH PLANES , ALIEN/GOVERNMENT COLLABORATION http://www.abovetopsecret.com/lecture.html alt.alien.wanderers - Jul 22 1999, 3:56 pm by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

ET Exposure Law (page now updated) www.abovetopsecret.com/etlaw.html !!! alt.alien.visitors - Jul 9 1999, 5:29 am by Simon Gray - 2 messages - 2 authors

AURORA in detail !!!!! The following website has been updated an incredible amount, including an Aurora page with an amazing amount of detail !!! www.abovetopsecret.com !!! alt.conspiracy.area51 - Jul 8 1999, 9:20 pm by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

GREAT WEBSITE www.abovetopsecret.com !!! alt.magick.sex - Jul 7 1999, 3:05 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

COOL WEBSITE www.abovetopsecret.com , now hugely updated !!! -- Simon Gray - Webmaster www.AboveTopSecret.com alt.alien.visitors - Jul 7 1999, 2:07 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

AREA 51 and RELATED PAGES go to www.abovetopsecret.com alt.conspiracy.black.helicopters - Jun 21 1999, 2:18 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

COOL WEBSITE www.abovetopsecret.com has some cool information which may be of interest !!! alt.fans.chat2 - Jun 16 1999, 11:10 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

COOL WEBSITE www.abovetopsecret.com is a very interesting site. Why not check it out! alt.sport.air-guns - Jun 15 1999, 5:56 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

COOL WEBSITE Great website at www.abovetopsecret.com ! ! ! alt.sport.table-tennis - Jun 15 1999, 1:13 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

COOL WEBSITE www.abovetopsecret.com ! ! ! alt.sport.horse-racing - Jun 15 1999, 12:41 am by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author

COOL WEBSITE www.abovetopsecret.com !!! alt.sport.darts - Jun 14 1999, 4:14 pm by Simon Gray - 1 message - 1 author
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I leave it to the reader to draw their own conclusion about whether or not AboveTopSecret was setting itself up as a money making venture, or to be a "vacuum cleaner" operation. Of course, the two objectives are not mutually exclusive! One thing is certain, this "Simon Gray" was way too busy and energetic to be the playwright. Whoever it was, it looks like he's out to make a million bux one way or the other. This frenzied promotional activity for the past 7 years or so will become quite interesting when we consider "Christian Bailey," (coming up) so keep it in mind.

I would also suggest that the reader go to the webarchive and go back over the history of AboveTopSecret.com and notice that it was quite obviously set up to draw in alternative researchers from the very beginning. Why? Obvious answer is to vector ideas. Re-read my post on COINTELPRO.

I'm still amused at the idea that "Simon Gray" of AboveTopSecret.com is obviously a Brit "specializing" in American conspiracies . It seems that this is not exactly an isolated case. In recent times the Pentagon's contract with another Brit, for the purposes of spreading disinformation, came to the attention of the mainstream media. Let's look at the strange case of "Christian Bailey.":

So, just who is Christian Bailey?

A 30-year-old Oxford graduate with no public relations experience was the recipient of a $100m (£56m) contract from Donald Rumsfeld's Department of Defence for buying space in Iraqi newspapers to place deliberately one-sided stories written by US "psy-ops" troops, at a time when the chaos of Iraq makes genuine journalism all but impossible and when journalists risk their lives on a daily basis to report the truth.

[Deliberatly ONE SIDED STORIES? Shades of AboveTopSecret!]

The office building situated at 1420 K Street NW has nothing obvious to commend it other than its prime location. Just a couple of streets from the north-west gates of the White House, it sits in the heart of lobbying land - the K Street corridor that represents one of the most crucial centres of power, influence and money in the United States.

This grey building, neighboured to one side by an off-licence and to the other by a travel agent, is home to the Lincoln Group, a previously little-known "business intelligence" company headed by a heretofore little known young Briton, Christian Bailey, an Oxford graduate and consummate net worker. He is at the centre of a mounting storm of controversy surrounding the Bush administration's covert propaganda war in Iraq.

[It will be very useful to have read the links to the "Let'sRoll9-11 discussion board given above to see the connection between AboveTopSecret.com and the covert propaganda war in Iraq. VERY interesting connections those folks found!]

It was recently revealed that Bailey's company was the recipient of a $100m (£56m) contract from Donald Rumsfeld's Department of Defence for buying space in Iraqi newspapers to place deliberately one-sided stories written by US "psy-ops" troops, at a time when the chaos of Iraq makes genuine journalism all but impossible and when journalists risk their lives on a daily basis to report the truth.

[Deliberatly ONE SIDED STORIES? Shades of AboveTopSecret! And we notice how vigorously they tried to place those stories on our own site! Does this mean that CatHerder is "psy-ops"?]

As part of the project - in which the US military hid its involvement - Lincoln Group staff paid Iraqi journalists to write similarly misleading stories about US forces and the Iraqi government that ignored anything negative about the occupation. One headline read: "Iraqis Insist on Living Despite Terrorism."

The revelations have created a furore. President Bush is said to be "very troubled" by the news, while on Capitol Hill members of both the Senate and House armed services committees demanded inquiries. The Pentagon said it would launch an immediate investigation.

Much is unclear about the Lincoln Group, its youthful executive vice-president and his string of previous companies that have left only the faintest paper trail. Indeed, Christian Bailey may not be his real name: a number of student associates said at some point during his four years that he changed his name from Yusefovich - an unlikely surname for someone called Christian.

[Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com!]

The Independent has been unable to confirm this. Yet the details known about Bailey and the contract his company won provide a remarkable insight into the way influence and power operate in Washington. Just two years after arriving here, Bailey, 30, who has a penchant for socialising, has apparently developed contacts both within the Republican establishment and the world of private intelligence.
[Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com!]

Senator John Warner, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said of the false news operation: "I remain gravely concerned about the situation." Since the controversy broke Bailey has kept a low-profile and has offered just the fewest public words about his organisation and what it does. (He failed to respond to requests for an interview.) It also appears a number of internet references linking him to the Republicans can no longer be found.

[Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com!]

Yet it is clear the Lincoln Group and its contract with the Joint Psychological Operations Support Element, part of the Pentagon's Special Operations Command, is inextricably linked with Bailey. He apparently named the company and its various offshoots after Lincoln College, Oxford, from which he graduated in 1997 with an MA in economics and management. [abovetopsecret.com was registered in 1997]

[Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com! Registered in 1997... ]

Many observers have been surprised Bailey, from Surrey, has been awarded such a sizable contract, give that he appears to have no experience in public relations. Indeed, since he moved to the US in the late 1990s, he has spent much of his time in private finance, working in hedge funds in San Francisco and New York.

[Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com! See webarchive history of the website.]

It appears he has been especially interested in new technology markets. A brief biography presented by the organisers of a conference held earlier this year in Dubai at which Bailey was listed as a speaker, said he had worked in Palo Alto, California, "where he advised portfolio companies and identified, evaluated and developed emerging technology investments".

[Shades of Simon Gray and his sorta UK and sorta California address...]

The Briton has always enjoyed a reputation for business. Several Oxford associates said it was rumoured that the popular student kept two computers in his room to monitor the stock markets. Bailey has said he founded and sold two companies while an undergraduate. "He was quite enterprising, I believe," said Graham De'ath, of Winchester, who was in the same year.

[Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com and his "make $100s surfing the net scams!]

Kate Smurthwaite, who is now a stand-up comic but shared a flat with Bailey in his third year, told The Independent that the young entrepreneur hired a personal assistant to work for him in his student digs as he ran an operation selling self-help advice on cassettes.
[Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com and his "make $100s surfing the net scams!]

He also had a reputation as a hard-working networker. While in New York he became treasurer of the Oxonian Society, a club for graduates of Oxford and other universities, which invites high-profile figures to speak. He was involved in at least one charity fundraising effort with other hedge-funders. Perhaps of more significance, Bailey became the co-chairman of the New York chapter of Lead21, a networking group for young Republicans. At least a dozen of its members have gone on to work for either the Bush administration, Congress or the Governor of California, Arnold Schwarzenegger.

[Shades of Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com!]

During a Lead21 trip to the Republican National Convention in New York last autumn, Bailey said of his colleagues to one reporter: "These are going to be the big supporters, the big donors, to the Republican Party in five years."

According to other members, Bailey was very popular. Auren Hoffman, chair of Lead21 and chairman of the Stonebrick Group, a San Francisco-based consulting firm, said Bailey was a good friend. "Christian is a terrific guy personally. Everyone I know that has ever met him instantly likes him. He is very likeable and charming. Very intelligent. Very interesting."

[Shades of psychopathy!]

When he moved to Washington, his reputation as a networker continued. He often hosted parties at home and mixed with a set of young, up-and-coming journalists and congressional staffers. He enjoyed a reputation as a good cook, a welcoming host and for making cappuccinos with a machine in his kitchen. He also enjoyed flying: Federal Aviation Administration records show that he is qualified to fly aeroplanes and helicopters.

[Sounding more and more like Simon Gray and AboveTopSecret.com]

How and when did Bailey make the switch from hedge funds to private intelligence and PR? One clue is provided by the Alternative Investment News newsletter of 1 March 2003, just weeks before the invasion of Iraq. It reported Bailey's hedge fund, Lincoln Asset Management Group, had launched a buyout fund to start buying companies in the defence and security industries. Bailey said he had obtained commitments of $100m from six institutional investors, whom he declined to name.

Apparently with an eye to the preparations for war being made in the deserts of northern Kuwait, he added: "[The] timing is extremely good to look at defence companies." Shortly afterwards, a subsidiary called Lincoln Alliance Corp was established, offering what it called "tailored intelligence services [for] government clients faced with critical intelligence challenges".

By last autumn Bailey had formed another Lincoln subsidiary, called Iraqex, which seems to have formed a partnership with another American PR firm called Rendon, famous in Washington for having promoted Ahmed Chalabi and his Iraqi National Congress.

[DO take a look at the links to the "Let'sRoll9-11 discussion board given above to see the connection between AboveTopSecret.com and the covert propaganda war in Iraq. VERY interesting connections those folks found!]

At some point Bailey also went into business with Paige Craig, 31, a former US Marine who served in Iraq and elsewhere. [Bailey and Craig are flatmates in a fashionable part of Washington, close to U Street. The flat is just yards away from Café Saint- Ex, popular with young professionals.]

[Hmmm.... wonder if Paige Craig and CatHerder are one and the same???]

In September, Iraqex won a $6m Pentagon contract to design and execute "an aggressive advertising and PR campaign that will accurately inform the Iraqi people of the Coalition's goals and gain their support". It appears one project was an attempt to persuade the Iraqi and US public that Iraqi troops played a vital role in last year's effort to clear Fallujah.

A strategy document obtained by ABC News revealed the Lincoln Group was seeking to promote the "strength, integrity and reliability of Iraqi forces during the fight for Falujah". In reality, most assessments suggest the small number of Iraqi troops present were minimally involved.

But the real breakthrough came this summer when Bailey's company, having again changed its name to the Lincoln Group, secured a $100m contract for information and psychological operations. Part of the contract was for placing "faux" news stories in some of the 200 Iraqi-owned newspapers that now exist.

[Sounding more and more like AboveTopSecret.com all the time!]

Pentagon officials have said that, while not factually incorrect, these stories only presented one side of the story and would not include anything negative about the occupation. It was reported this week that the $10Om was part of a larger $300m "stealth PR effort" in a number of countries around the world.

[Indeed, CatHerder's piece was not "factually incorrect," it certainly only presented one side of the story and did not include anything negative to that version. And now, AboveTopSecret.com seeks to do "damage control" on Signs of the Times "transformative" work by demanding the file names be changed. A consummate networker indeed!]

One PR consultant with experience of the private-intelligence sector, said: "Doctrinally, this is all part of what the military calls information superiority. It is part of the plan for what they call, rather upsettingly, full-spectrum dominance. The truth is that it is just propaganda. And there has always been propaganda in a war. And this is a war, so ... thus runs the thinking."

[Information superiority? Full spectrum dominance? That is the obvious agenda behind AboveTopSecret's demands for file name changes.]

According to reports from former Lincoln employees, their main task was to take news dispatches, called storyboards, which had been written by specially trained psy-ops troops, have them translated into Arabic and then distribute them to the newspapers. They would also deal directly with members of the Iraqi media through something called the Baghdad Press Club, a group of journalists who were paid to write and publish positive stories. Typically, Lincoln paid newspapers between $40 and $2,000 to run the articles as either news or adverts.

To help it carry out its work, Bailey and Craig - the latter is apparently responsible for most of the Iraq-based end of the business - have reached out to some of the foremost specialists in security and intelligence. Among "advisers" listed on their website is Andrew Garfield, a former British military-intelligence officer and specialist in psychological warfare who has advised the Ministry of Defence. In an e-mail to The Guardian Garfield confirmed his collaboration with Lincoln but gave no details.

Another adviser is Colin Rees Mason, who two years ago received an OBE for his service as a lieutenant-colonel in the Territorial Army, and who for almost 20 years has been a consultant to the Centre for Operational Research and Defence Analysis, a subsidiary of BAE Systems. The Lincoln Group also has Republican links. Among lobbyists registered to represent it are Charles Black, an adviser to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush Sr and Marlin "Buzz" Hefti, who served as a director at the Pentagon.

Lincoln Group also lists as a partner the Virginia-based private intelligence group WCV3 Security. Last year that company's executive vice-president took unpaid leave to produce Stolen Honour: Wounds That Never Heal, a film that, at a critical time in the presidential election campaign, condemned the Democrat John Kerry and questioned his version of events in Vietnam.

[Can we say Swift Boat = AboveTopSecret.com?]

Despite the concern on Capitol Hill about the placing of false stories in foreign media outlets - a practice that dates back to the Cold War - it is unknown what will be the outcome of the Pentagon's investigation. It is also unclear how the controversy has affected the ability of the Lincoln Group or Bailey to fulfil its contract. In a statement the company said: "Lincoln Group has consistently worked with the Iraqi media to promote truthful reporting across Iraq. We counter the lies, intimidation, and pure evil of terror with factual stories that highlight the heroism and sacrifice of the Iraqi people and their struggle for freedom and security."

Yeah, right.
The London Times had more revelations about "Christian Bailey" with a slightly different take on the Golden Boy. Now he's an unlikeable geek with delusions of Grandeur. Well, in a world of psychopaths they DO rise to the top!

British geek made millions running the Pentagon's propaganda war in Iraq

IT WAS astounding enough for Washington’s political elite: last month they discovered that the man at the heart of a scandal over the planting of US propaganda in Iraqi newspapers was a dapper but unknown 30-year-old Oxford graduate who had somehow managed to land a $100 million Pentagon contract.

What is even more remarkable however, after an investigation by The Times, is that just ten years ago Christian Bailey, whose US company is under investigation for planting fake news stories in Iraqi newspapers, was a nerdy, socially awkward English school-leaver called Jozefowicz.

The transformation of the geeky but ambitious Christian Jozefowicz, who just a few years ago was growing up in a modest terraced house in Godalming, Surrey, to the charming, baby-faced multimillionaire Christian Bailey now rubbing shoulders with some of the most powerful figures in Washington — and who next year will probably face questions on Capitol Hill about his company — is one of the more extraordinary stories to have emerged from the Iraq war.

This month it was revealed that Mr Bailey’s US company, the Lincoln Group, was the recipient of a Pentagon contract to help to fight the information war in Iraq. It then emerged that the company was paying Iraqi journalists to plant optimistic news “stories” in Iraqi papers that had been written by the US military.

Interference with the press touches a raw nerve in America. The fake stories revelation provoked a furore among Republicans and Democrats. President Bush said he was “very troubled” by it. Donald Rumsfeld, the US Defence Secretary, has promised a Pentagon investigation. Congress plans hearings into the scandal.

The journey from the Royal Grammar School, Guildford, which Mr Bailey left in 1994, to the heart of K Street in Washington, the centre of money and influence in the US capital, has been remarkably rapid. Today he has a reputation in Washington for being a socialite with links to influential Republicans. He is a helicopter and aircraft pilot and his home is in a fashionable area.

Through a Lincoln Group spokesman, Mr Bailey answered questions from The Times to help to explain how, at just 30, he landed the Pentagon as an important client. He was born Christian Martin Jozefowicz on November 28, 1975, in Kingston upon Thames, to Jerzy and Anne Jozefowicz.

His father, a Polish architect, died in April 1998. His mother, who has since reverted to her maiden name of Seifert, was born in West Germany. The family lived in East Molesey, southwest London, before moving to Godalming, Surrey.

["Simon Gray" registered AboveTopSecret in 1997, put an entry page up in 1998, and got down to "business" in 1999]

Mr Bailey’s Royal Grammar School contemporaries recall a business-obsessed, “geeky” individual with few friends. “He was a nerd at school,” one told The Times. Another described him as a “school joke” who told everyone he was going to be a millionaire. He was the first at school to have a mobile phone and was interested in early versions of the personal computer.

He founded a Young Enterprise company, Chameleon, which led to his selection as one of the top six Young Enterprise participants in Britain.

[Ah! A "signature!" Reptilian and covert!]

His school yearbook records Christian Jozefowicz as “Mr Business himself” and that he was elected vice-president of the International Student Forum, a business gathering in the US. In 1994 he won a place at Lincoln College, Oxford, where he read economics and management. He kept computers in his room, thought for monitoring the stock markets.

In his third year at Oxford he hired an assistant to help him to run his first proper company, Linck Ltd, which sold self-help tapes. In 1998, he changed his name to Bailey. “Following his father’s death, Bailey assumed the name for family reasons, something which children commonly do,” a Lincoln Group spokesman said.

[Question is: why "Bailey?" He "assumed" a name that had no relation to his own family as "children commonly do"??!!! Not many children I know about...]

In the late 1990s he moved to San Francisco to try his hand as a dotcom entrepreneur, and then to New York, where he became treasurer of the Oxonion Society, a club for intellectual Anglophiles. He became co-chairman of a networking group for young Republicans. With his Republican contacts growing, Mr Bailey moved to Washington, where he spotted a golden business opportunity: the looming war in Iraq. He formed a partnership with Paige Craig, a former US Marine who served in Iraq.

[In the late 1990s, Simon Gray shows up on the internet promoting all his money making schemes... he has obviously given them up because he found bigger fish to fry.]

In early 2003, just before the invasion, Mr Bailey formed a Lincoln subsidiary, the Lincoln Alliance Corp, offering “tailored intelligence services [for] government clients faced with intelligence challenges”. He also formed another subsidiary, Iraqex, which won a $6 million Pentagon contract to launch “an aggressive advertising and PR campaign that will accurately inform the Iraqi people of the coalition’s goals and gain their support”.

[By this time, he had created his AboveTopSecret disinfo forum which he undoubtedly proudly displayed during his sales presentation!]

The big breakthrough came in June this year when the Pentagon awarded the Lincoln Group a contract worth up to $100 million over five years to support the US military’s “joint psychological operations”, known as “psyops”.

[Sure. He's proved he can attract and disinform lots of people via AboveTopSecret.com, so why wouldn't they want to give some big bux to someone so clever?] Lincoln group defended the planting of stories and the company has emphasised that none of them were factually incorrect. “By not speaking through the local media, the coalition would allow a vacuum for rumours and untruths perpetrated by the insurgents’ thuggery and threats,” a spokesman said.

LIFE AND WORK

November 28, 1975: Born Christian Jozefowicz, Kingston upon Thames

1987-94: Attends the fee-paying Royal Grammar School, Guildford

1993-94: Listed on electoral roll as Christian Jozefowicz-Seifert

1994-97: Obtains a 2:1 in economics and management from Lincoln College, Oxford. While at university, runs Linck Ltd. [Registers the domain: AboveTopSecret.com]

October 1998: Founds Linck Corporate Finance under the name of Christian Bailey. Fails to declare previous surname or other directorship [Blank page on AboveTopSecret.com for all of 1998]

1999: Moves to America [Launches AboveTopSecret.com Begins actively promoting the site, attracting members, creating an effective disinfo vector to use in his future sales presentations.]

2003: Co-founds Lincoln Group, now subject to investigation into planting of US military propaganda in Iraqi newspapers

Though the timeline is highly suggestive, much of the above is unprovable conjecture. I think it is entirely possible and "in character" that someone is using the name of the playwright, Simon Gray, to "dramatize" disinformation via the AboveTopSecret.com website and that someone may be "very close" to "Christian Bailey" if not Christian Bailey AKA Jozefowicz.

To finish of this little survey, let's look at one of "Christian Bailey's" co-horts in crime - mentioned in the above article from the Guardian .

See: The Man Who Sold the War: John Rendon, Bush's general in the propaganda war

"Rendon is a man who fills a need that few people even know exists. Two months before al-Haideri took the lie-detector test, the Pentagon had secretly awarded him a $16 million contract to target Iraq and other adversaries with propaganda. One of the most powerful people in Washington, Rendon is a leader in the strategic field known as "perception management," manipulating information -- and, by extension, the news media -- to achieve the desired result. His firm, the Rendon Group, has made millions off government contracts since 1991, when it was hired by the CIA to help "create the conditions for the removal of Hussein from power." Working under this extraordinary transfer of secret authority, Rendon assembled a group of anti-Saddam militants, personally gave them their name -- the Iraqi National Congress -- and served as their media guru and "senior adviser" as they set out to engineer an uprising against Saddam. It was as if President John F. Kennedy had outsourced the Bay of Pigs operation to the advertising and public-relations firm of J. Walter Thompson."
---------------------------------------------------------------------

One thing that is abundantly clear is that AboveTopSecret.com is COINTELPRO, pure and simple. Perhaps many of the members and even moderators are unaware of this, and are sincere seekers of truth. It is for such individuals, unaware and unused to the wiles of the pathocracy that the previous posts have been written.

In conclusion, even though much of what I have conjectured is unprovable, and we note that the Guardian article comments on the "lack of paper trail" left by Bailey, the few data bits I have found, along with the timeline and "knowing the nature of the beast," I reckon I'll put my money on Christian Bailey and his gang being the "Simon Gray" behind "AboveTopSecret.com".

The Next Great Bumper Sticker

Ever wishing to present high quality information on the State of the World today, here is partial presentation of an article from THE news site Signs of the Times. It is a cogent analysis of the various arguments that A 757 Did Hit The Pentagon, the government is On Top of It, and You Can All Go Back to Sleep. As Mr. Quinn decisively proves:

NOT!

Follow along the paths of logic as Mr. Quinn unravels the mental gymnastics folks will go through to convince the rest of us that all is well. You can't say they don't do their jobs with enthusiasm. Aamazing what a motivator fear can be.

Blue Ibis

To view the many photos and links backing up Mr. Quinn's arguements, just follow the link in the title of the article below. Be ready to catch your jaw when it drops. And then clear a space on your rear bumper:

Evidence That a Frozen Fish Didn't Impact the Pentagon on 9/11 and Neither Did a Boeing 757

by Joe Quinn

After the release of the QFG Pentagon Strike Flash Animation on August 23rd, 2004, a veritable onslaught of new articles were published that sought to dismiss the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory. One such article, that is frequently referenced by certain '9/11 researchers' was authored by a member of the forum at the "Above Top Secret" (ATS) website. Interestingly, the article was written just a few weeks after the release of the Pentagon Strike Flash animation, which by then, was winging its way around the world and into the inboxes of millions of ordinary citizens. Perhaps you were one of them...

The claim that promoters of the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory were doing immense damage to the truth/accountability movement was raised in Mike Ruppert's book Crossing the Rubicon. In a stunning piece of warped logic, Ruppert claimed that, while he is quite convinced that it was not Flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, he chose not to talk about or deal with the subject as part of his overall case for conspiracy because of the "implications". According to Ruppert, the "implications" are that anyone that suggests that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, is then forced to answer the question as to what actually happened to Flight 77. If that's the case, then we better just wrap up the whole 9/11 Truth Movement and go home and have a beer.

Ruppert balks at the idea of offering an answer to this question to his readers because, he claims, most people would be unable to accept it, and, he suggests, 9/11 researchers serve only to alienate the public support that they wish to attract by stretching the boundaries of the collective belief system. What Ruppert doesn't explain is why any member of the public would happily accept that U.S. government officials participated in the slaughter of the passengers on Flights 11 and 175 and the occupants of the WTC towers (as he details in his book) yet would be unable to accept the idea that the same government officials played a part in disposing of the passengers of Flight 77 in a much less imaginative way. Let's be honest here, in the context of 9/11 being the work of a faction of the US government and military, the answer to the question as to what happened to Flight 77 if it didn't hit the Pentagon is quite obvious - Flight 77 and its occupants were flown to a specific destination and “disposed of” by the conspirators. That's pretty simple; cut and dried; no need for much stretching there! But, for some reason, Ruppert (and others affected by this paramoralism) seems to think that killing thousands of citizens by crashing airplanes is easier to accept than cold bloodedly murdering them "in person," as it were.

Since Ruppert's declaration about the "no plane at the Pentagon" theory, many other "9/11 researchers", such as Mark Rabinowitz and Jim Hoffman, have seized upon Ruppert's idea and even expanded upon it by suggesting that the "no planers" are actually government agents trying to discredit the REAL 9/11 researchers with the 'kooky' "no plane" theory.

In order to really understand the insidiousness of this patronising claim that the public could not accept the implications of the idea that a Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, let's look at the "evidence" as presented by the ATS member that it really was Flight 77 that impacted the Pentagon that bright September morn.

First, however, I would like to make a few observations about 9/11 research in general.

Anyone who takes on the formidable task of digging into the events of 9/11 is immediately at a disadvantage because the US government has already declared the case closed. The government knows how it happened and who did it and have informed the entire world. As a result, there is no possibility of access to the raw data, to the crime scene or analyses of same. Here is where we meet the major obstacle: since the US government is the prime suspect, we cannot simply take as truth everything - or anything - that they say in relation to the case.

Investigation of the 9/11 attacks should be approached like any murder investigation. When confronted with a murder case (like 9/11) and a suspect that has a history of deceit and murder (like the US government and its agencies) and who had an opportunity and a motive to commit the murder, do you take as fact any claims by the suspect that he did not commit the murder? Do you seek to fit the facts around his claim that he did not commit the murder? When you confront evidence that suggests that the suspect is lying about his account of where he was and what he was doing, or you find inconsistencies and logistically impossible scenarios in his account, do you ignore these and focus only on the fact that he said he did not commit the murder and try to find and present evidence that backs up his claim to innocence?

The fact is that researchers coming to the 9/11 investigation after the fact, and after the case has been officially closed, are not only confronted with the task of trying to find out what actually happened - they also face the already well established public belief, by which they themselves are also influenced, that the official story is the truth. The best approach for any 9/11 researcher with honest intentions is to, if possible, wipe from their minds the official version of events and take the attitude of someone who has just returned from a 5 year trip to the outer reaches of the solar system, during which time they had no communication with planet earth. Start with a beginner's mind, turn off the sound of all the conflicting voices and their claims, and just LOOK at the evidence without prejudice.

Now, if the person with a truly open mind is given all of the publicly available evidence and has been additionally furnished with knowledge of the effects of airplane crashes and that of missile impacts, what would such a person conclude about the most likely cause of the Pentagon damage? Of course, not all of the evidence was made available to the public, but there is still sufficient visual evidence from "ground zero" (both in terms of place and TIME), to form a pretty good "best guess". For a definitive conclusion to be reached, the "private" evidence, like the video tapes of the event that the FBI confiscated, would have to be released, and we don't expect that to happen any time soon. Of course, the fact that the definitive evidence of the videos has not been released is in itself a key piece of evidence that suggests that the official story of what hit the Pentagon is not the real story.

The purpose of this small introduction is to prepare the reader for the fact that, in his attempted rebuttal of the no 757 at the Pentagon theory, the ATS article author, CatHerder, appears to have succumbed to the influence of the mainstream media shills that have incessantly parroted the official government story about what happened on 9/11 for the three years prior to the writing of the article. As such, he has failed to don the mantle of objective observer of the available evidence that is so crucial to finding the truth, and instead exerts a lot of effort to make the available evidence fit the government claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon on the morning of September 11th 2001. Either that, or he/she is part of the "official government cover-up." After you read everything below, you can make a call on that one yourself.

Here is the ATS article as it appears on the ATS site with my comments interspersed in blue text.

Evidence That A Boeing 757 Really Did Impact the Pentagon on 9/11

by "CatHerder", Member, AboveTopSecret.com/forum
September 11th, 2004

Did a 757 hit the Pentagon on 9-11

First let's start with the factual information available on hand.

The 757-200
As we can see from the freely available information for the Boeing 757 (from the Boeing website). The 757 is a midsized commercial airliner designed for short haul and medium haul routes (Medium Range Transport (MR-TR)), although since its release, and the subsequent discovery of the Wake Vortex it leaves behind the FAA has classified the 757 as a "Heavy" aircraft; the FAA places the 757 in the Geometric Design Classification IV, and an ATC Operation Class C. (source)

The 757-200 dimensions:
Tail Height: 44 ft 6 in (13.6m)
Length: 155 ft 3 in (47.32m)
Wingspan: 124 ft 10 in (38.05m)
Body Exterior Width: 12 ft 4 in (3.7m)
Fuel Capacity: 11,489 us gal (43,490l / 43,490kg)
Maximum Takeoff weight: 255,000lb (115,680kg)
Typical Cruise Speed: 0.80 Mach (573.6mph / 956kmh)
Engines used on a 757: Two 166.4kN (37,400lb) Rolls-Royce RB211-535C turbofans, or 178.8kN (40,200lb) RB211-535E4s, or 193.5kN (43,500lb) RB211-535E4-Bs, or 162.8kN (36,600lb) Pratt & Whitney PW2037s, or two 178.4kN (40,100lb) PW2040s, or 189.5kN (42,600lb) PW2043s. (source1) (source2)
Auxiliary Power Unit: Honeywell GTCP331-200


left portion: source1 right portion: source2 (height and width notation to graphic added by me)

Next, let's look at the Pentagon.

The Pentagon

The Pentagon was designed in the early 40's and was completed in only 16 months on Jan 14, 1943. The shortages of materials required for war production raised many design and construction problems. The use of reinforced concrete in lieu of formed steel for the building made possible a saving of 43,000 tons of steel, more than enough to build a battleship. The use of concrete ramps rather than elevators further reduced steel requirements. Drainage pipes were concrete; ducts were fiber, interior doors were wood. An unusual wall design - concrete spandrels carried to window sill level - eliminated many miles of through-wall copper flashing.(Source1) (Source2)

Recent renovations and upgrades to the building were nearing completion on the side hit on 9-11 and performed reasonably well considering they were not designed to withstand aircraft impact. On September 11, when an American Airlines Boeing 757 crashed into the Pentagon, home of the U.S. Department of Defense (DoD), about 20,000 people were at work in this, the largest office building in the world. Yet according to the DoD casualty update on October 1, only 125 Pentagon employees were killed along with the 64 from the fated airliner. (source - Architecture Week)

The exterior walls had been reinforced with steel beams and columns, bolted where they met at each floor. Some of these reinforced walls very near the point of impact remained in place for a half hour before collapsing, allowing uncounted hundreds to escape. "Had we not undertaken this effort," said Evey at a press briefing on September 15, "this could have been much, much worse."

Now, I'm sure everyone can agree that the above information is a matter of public record, and none of it is incorrect, altered, or misquoted in any way to support either side of the case. It is all merely factual information that we will refer to in the following sections.

[Note: I was unintentionally misleading in a previous post when I said the Pentagon didn't use a steel beam construction - while that is still true for the original design, it was reinforced in various areas during the upgrades to include steel beams and columns in some areas of the renovations.]

Quoted from ArchitectureWeek.com :

In addition to major overhauls of the mechanical and electrical systems, the Wedge One renovation included the fire sprinklers, automatic fire doors, and the steel which saved many lives on the day of the attack.

The blast-resistant windows were nearly two inches (5 centimeters) thick. Some of them remain remarkably intact and in place adjacent the point of impact. Some were popped out of their frames by the force of the exploding jet fuel, but they fell without breaking or splintering.

Also on the exterior walls, between the steel columns, the renovation crew had placed Kevlar cloth, similar to the material used for bullet-proof vests. This had the effect of holding together building materials so they wouldn't become deadly projectiles in an explosion.

Looking At the Big Picture

From facts contained above, we can all agree that:

• The length of the outside wall on any side of the pentagon is 921 feet.

• The wingspan of a 757 is 124 feet 10 inches.

• Now, everyone can agree that 921/125= roughly 7.4 right?


Given the size of the 757, and the size of the Pentagon, the damaged area fits in perfectly with the dimensions of both the aircraft and the building.

The above "opening gambit" is very telling since it delivers hard facts, one after the other, all of which are accurate. It is in this last statement that the twisting begins. The fact that the length of the Pentagon is equivalent to 7.4 757's wing to wing, or that the width of one 757 equals 13.5% of the facade of the Pentagon has no bearing on the actual damage done. Indeed, given the weight and speed of the 757 that is alleged to have impacted the building, the actual damage done to the Pentagon is entirely inconsistent with an aircraft of the size, weight, and speed of a 757. In other words, the argument actually supports the "no-Boeing" theory better than it supports "Flight 77 hit the Pentagon."

Look at the hole in the building


Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole. That is really interesting when you take into account the fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high. (Here is where I was mistaken in the past, like so very many others I was led astray by the HEIGHT of the aircraft, which is actually the measurement from the wheels-down to the tip of the tail. That measurement is for aircraft hangar clearance, not the SIZE of the aircraft.) The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feet across. It then should not be surprising that it would create something around a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building.

Here is the next twist. The Boeing 757 is not simply a 13ft wide cylinder; if it were, then the damage to the Pentagon might be more plausible. The reality, however, is that a Boeing 757 is a 13ft wide, 155 ft long cylinder with a tail fin that extends 45 ft into the air. Add to that the fact that there are two 6 ton steel engines slung under each wing about 6 feet to each side of the cylinder body. The wings extend out on each side for 50ft + making for a total aircraft width of 125 feet, a total length of 155 ft and a maximum height of 45 ft. It comes as no surprise then that this large commercial aircraft weighs in at over 90 tons fully loaded. On take off from Washington Dulles airport, Flight 77 weighed approximately 82 tons.

The above nonsensical argument would have you believe that the only thing to consider is a "13 ft wide cylinder" that just magically lost everything else, or that everything else just "folded up" and flew inside the building plastered to the side of that 13 ft cylinder. Even if the wings could do that, we are still left with the two 6 ton engines that were NOT dropped off on the lawn, and which, together, are as wide as the cylinder body!

Look at the nose-on view of a 757 - you can see the body is slightly less than 1/3 the size of the height of the aircraft. The tail certainly isn't going to punch a hole through a reinforced concrete wall; that is why there is no 40 foot hole in the front of the Pentagon in any photos. A 40 foot object didn't hit it, a 13 foot object did.

Again, this is not JUST a "13ft object" by any stretch of the imagination. By now it should be obvious that the author is attempting to subtly manipulate the reader by reducing a large, 82 ton passenger aircraft to "a 13ft object".

Think about this.

Is "a 13ft object" a reasonable description of a Boeing 757? Is it reasonable for the author to reduce a large plane that can carry up to 200 adult human beings to "a 13ft object"? We could take this unreasonable definition one step further and flesh out the image that our author is trying to plant in our heads and say that, according to our author, the Boeing 757 that he/she alleges hit the Pentagon, was comparable to a large SUV, or a similar "13ft object".

While it is reasonable to state that the tail of a 757 may not necessarily have punched a hole through the facade of the Pentagon, can we expect to at least see some evidence of the tail having hit the facade? More than that, we must consider the forward momentum of those two, inescapable, 6 TON steel engines that were neither dropped on the lawn, nor were they smashed like pancakes against the side of the "13 ft cylinder." If I struck the facade of the Pentagon with a sledge hammer, is it reasonable that I would be able to cause some observable damage? The outer 6 inches of the facade of the Pentagon is made of soft limestone, yet our author sees no problem with claiming that such a soft surface, when struck by a piece of aircraft weighing SIX TONS and traveling at hundreds of miles per hour, would in no way leave any significant and observable damage.

While the "cylinder body" that our author keeps referring to is indeed 13ft 6in high, he omits the fact that the engines extend 5 feet below the body and over six feet to either side, meaning that, if the aircraft were actually able to successfully fly at just 1 inch above the ground (highly unlikely), the height of the "cylinder body" above the ground would be at least 18 ft 6 inches! Let us repeat that: if a Boeing 757 were actually able to fly at just 1 inch above the ground, the height of the "13 ft cylinder body" would be at least 18 feet 6 inches! Now, add to that the fact that the plane also includes those two bothersome 6 TON engines, AND a tail fin that protrudes 25 feet above the top of the cylinder body making for a total aircraft height of just less than 40 feet with wheels up. Obviously then, we can reasonably expect that the damage to the facade of the Pentagon would have extended up to this height IF it was a 757 that hit the building.

However, according to the official Pentagon report:

"The height of the damage to the facade of the building was much less than the height of the aircraft’s tail. At approximately 45 ft, the tail height was nearly as tall as the first four floors of the building. Obvious visible damage extended only over the lowest two floors, to approximately 25 ft above grade."

Look at this close up of the above photo:

The top of the hole in the middle of the white box is at the same level as the top of the windows of the second floor, or about 23-25 feet from ground. The three windows above this are the windows of the third floor. The foam covered window to the top right is the fourth floor. As noted by the Pentagon report, this area (above the center hole) is where the tail should have struck, but there is no evidence of any damage that we would expect from such an impact. What's more, the tail fin was definitely not dropped on the lawn along with the two 6 TON engines.

Conclusion? The tail fin of a Boeing 757 did not strike this area.

What does that suggest? That a Boeing 757 was not involved in the attack.

Is that logical enough?

However, from the point of view of the author on the ATS forum and the U.S. government, we are not allowed to use such logic. Instead, we must give in to emotional blackmail and then engage in implausible mental gymnastics to try to explain how a 757 really could have been involved in the Pentagon attack; and all because the US government says so - a government that has made lies the core aspect of its domestic and foreign policy from day one.

In terms of the damage that should have been caused by the other parts of a 757 (you know, the large aircraft that our author has reduced to a mere 12ft 4 in wide cylinder), the official Pentagon Building Performance Report stated that:

"The projected width [of damage to the facade] was approximately 90 ft, which is substantially less than the 125 ft wingspan of the aircraft"

Indeed, but there is no explanation of why there is no damage to the facade where the wings should logically have struck. Could it be that an aircraft with the wingspan of a 757 was not involved?

Conspiracy theory?

No, just the most obvious and logical explanation.

The Pentagon report also made note of the fact that:

"With the possible exception of the immediate vicinity of the fuselage’s entry point at column line 14, essentially all interior impact damage was inflicted in the first story: The aircraft seems for the most part to have slipped between the first-floor slab on grade and the second floor."

That is impossible as the following graphic will show. Note the pink line, where the "13 ft cylinder" is supposed to have slipped "under."


Another 9/11 researcher, who is naturally skeptical about the claim that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, produced the above graphic and posed some obvious and logical questions about the feasibility of the official story quoted above. Given the height of just the fuselage (leaving out the 25 feet of tail fin), how is it possible that the immediate damage and the debris of the plane were "largely confined to the first floor"? And remember, we are talking here about a scenario where the plane is flying at just one inch above the ground!

What is more, evidence from photos of the site show cable spools that were clearly untouched by any incoming aircraft, suggesting that the aircraft would have to have been flying above the maximum height of the spools (some 6 feet) when it hit the Pentagon. In this case, the damage should have been almost entirely to the second floor!

Of course, this is not the case, which leaves us with the logical deduction that it is highly improbable that a 757 was involved in the attack on the Pentagon, and that a much smaller and more nimble aircraft was used.

Among those 9/11 researchers that claim that a 757 hit the Pentagon, much is made of the fact that the Pentagon facade was built with "steel reinforced concrete walls". This fact is used to explain the extremely limited immediate damage to the Pentagon facade. But how much credit are we going to give to brick and concrete that has been reinforced with relatively thin steel bars? Is such a wall indestructible? If the tail fin and wings of a Boeing 757 traveling at 400mph+ hit such a wall, could we at least expect them to leave a dent? A little scrape even?

Not at the Pentagon apparently.

Consider the picture below showing the impact hole at the WTC North Tower:

The facade of the WTC Towers were made of prefabricated steel yet as we can see from the imprint of the plane, these steel lattices were in no way strong enough to stop the massive kinetic energy of the entire aircraft impacting the building, including the wings and tail fin and leaving a roughly 757-shaped hole in the facade.

To provide a scale reference, a survivor of the initial impact has been circled in the above photo (click the picture for a close up).

Given that I am no structural engineer, however, I cannot make any claims as to the comparative strength of the steel reinforced brick and concrete walls of the Pentagon versus the steel facade of the WTC towers and will allow for the idea that the wall of the Pentagon was stronger than that of the WTC. We can even theorize that it is due to this comparative strength difference that there is not a similar 757-shaped gaping hole at the Pentagon. However, as noted, the facade of the Pentagon was made of soft limestone 6 inches thick. Can anyone explain why a similar shape as that in the picture above does not appear in the soft limestone facade of the Pentagon?

In fact, there appear to be no pictures of the Pentagon facade immediately after the attack that show a clear picture of the exact extent of the damage. That's because all press personnel were restricted. We only have photos because a civilian managed to take them in spite of the "cordon sanitaire." What IS clear is that, as the Pentagon report noted, the Pentagon facade bears NO evidence of damage from parts of a 757 at ALL. One notable explanation for this mysterious lack of damage offered by official government story enthusiasts is that by some mysterious force of nature, the wings and tail must have sheared off before impact. Of course, in such a case, we would expect to see at least some recognisable debris of the wings and tail section outside the building. Yet, as anyone who has carefully inspected the evidence at the scene can attest, there is no such debris.

According to official story enthusiasts, the complete lack of any debris from the wings that we are told somehow sheared off, is not a problem: they simply disintegrated on impact and were rendered little more than confetti that blew away in the breeze (I kid you not; this was actually suggested by several "researchers"). But in this unlikely case, how do we explain that the 125 feet long wings of a 757 disintegrated, yet a fairly slender tree standing just a few feet from the front of the Pentagon - and in the direct path of the alleged 757 - was still standing, albeit severely charred? (Charred tree branches visible in center of image) What's more, this explanation completely omits mention of the two six TON engines attached to said wings.

Can we now at least accept as a possibility the idea that a 757 was not involved in the attack on the Pentagon?

Why is it so difficult for our author to accept this? The answer would seem to be that since the official government story does not allow for such a scenario, like all good and obedient citizens, our author feels compelled to believe what the government says, regardless of the massive historical evidence showing that, on several occasions in the past, the U.S. government has allowed, facilitated, or actually carried out, attacks on its own citizens and interests in order to achieve some specific goal, usually associated with waging war on other nations - wars like the 2003 invasion of Iraq that was a direct result of the 9/11 attacks, including the attack on the Pentagon. Either the ATS author is such a "good and obedient" citizen, or we must conclude that said author is an agent of said government.

If we peruse other postings made by the ATS author on the subject of 9/11 in general, it seems that he/she accepts the idea that there was some level of complicity in the 9/11 attacks on the part of the US government. Yet he/she appears to have no problem with using the claims of the same U.S. government to back up his argument that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon.

For the record, I have nothing against the US government per se, and have no desire to accuse the Bush administration or anyone else unjustly. But in the case of the 911 attacks, there is significant and compelling evidence to suggest that something is not right with the official version of events and that members of the US government are lying about the true nature of those events. In this case, there is a case to answer, and my sole aim is to get at the truth, whatever that truth may turn out to be. In pursuing this objective, I will look at the facts and the facts alone and draw conclusions based on what those facts suggest, alone.

At this point, we are approaching the paradox that is at the heart of the argument of the "no 757 " debunkers. They clearly are well aware that there is a serious problem with the lack of damage and debris at the Pentagon, yet that does not deter them from continuing with their increasingly unbelievable theories in an attempt to prove that the official government story is correct. At the same time, after coming up with bizarre explanations for the lack of damage and debris, they are then forced to deal with the fact that, while the damage to the Pentagon facade is not consistent with the impact of a large commercial airliner, the damage to the interior of the Pentagon is even less so.

Now, let's return to the ATS forum post.

***************************

This is only the first third of this article. Read it in full for a point by point debunking of the PTB spin on this assault on American citizens. I leave the last words to Mr. Quinn.

*****************
We notice that never, in any of the two major "debunking" articles that followed fast on the heels of the Pentagon Strike video, was the video ever even mentioned by name, nor was our website mentioned. Other books, other researchers, other web sites were mentioned, but the deliberate avoidance of Signs of The Times - the origin of the Pentagon Strike, was conspicuous. We notice the same trend in the Above Top Secret forum.

Again we point out: debunkers are sent in only when damage control is needed. And damage control is only needed when it is thought that there might be damage. That means that the Pentagon Strike is understood clearly, in the minds of the perpetrators, to be the weak link in their chain of lies.

Debunkers are sent in not to give answers to the outstanding questions, but to push the emotional buttons of the public, to reassure people who really want "a reason to believe" that their government is not lying to them.

It should be clear by now that I am suggesting that there is much more to the 9/11 attacks than most people are aware and what really happened is very, very different from the official story.
Now we get to the interesting part.

If Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon what did, and how?
Two emails received by Signs of the Times about one year ago, (identities concealed to protect the correspondents) are quite informative:

Email #1
Greetings, I have stayed out of this arena for a reason, but can no longer. I am a Maintenence Mechanic here in the assembly plant in [XXX] where we build these great aircraft. 747's-757's and 767's.
Lets do some math for a minute, because those who believe a 757 hit the pentagon, must also believe in the tooth fairy.
The melting temp for brake shoes on a 757 is about 3000 degs., the landing gear struts are solid cast aluminum; the center shafts for the engines are solid titanium. The flame temp for low grade kerosene, (jet fuel) is around 800 degs.

If the 757 was full of fuel, thats 14 pounds of aircraft per one gallon of fuel. Its impossible to "completely incinerate" a 757 at that fuel-to-material ratio. It would be the first time in history it did, and would defy the laws of physics, period.

No 757 hit the pentagon. Where's the engines, landing gears, APU's, stringers, fuel cell walls, wing join assemblies? These are impervious to fire, and, all have survived the worst fires ever seen on aircraft, and I've seen them all.

Oh by the way, if the 757 was "completely incinerated" as the gov't would have the lemming masses believe, how did they come up with DNA from the ashes for every passenger on board. DNA from ASHES!!!?? What a crock of shit. Once you do the math, you'll quickly know that no 757 hit that building, those who say one did, are liars, or have been told to be liars lest they end up like Vince Foster and a few hundred others like him.

Email #2
[...] I am probably one of the most qualified people that you will meet to judge some of the info about the Pentagon attack. I have served in the U.S. Army for a number of years now, I have not only dealt with weapons of every type you can imagine, I have also had a great deal of experience with aircraft, not to mention my brother is an analyst for the military who deals with a great many things.

First of all I can guarantee that no missile did this (damage to the Pentagon), none of the patterns add up for such a thing to work, damage ratio is wrong, flight path is wrong, style of impact is wrong. Also think of the item it was hitting, a hardened building made of concrete and steal, all reinforced. Also I can tell you no large aircraft did this [...]
I'm starting to think that maybe it was a TL AM type 2 block 4, better known as a tomahawk type 2 bunker buster with booster and hardened warhead.

While most would say this is absurd because a weapon like that would have completely leveled the Pentagon and a good deal around it, I am however still inclined to believe that this might possibly be what did it. This is my thinking on the matter: the new TLAMs are programmable to pick entry point and detonation point, the hardened warhead on them allows them to penetrate the hardest of buildings and they hit going much faster than the old type 1s that are commonly seen in war footage and test footage.

I think that somehow one of our new type 2s found itself set on a guided path to the Pentagon with a side impact and center detonation programming, but for some reason the warhead didn't go off. That would give it the energy to do the damage and drive through the walls like it did, but by never exploding, it would still leave most of the building perfectly intact like what was seen at the pentagon. The only problem I can see with this scenario is there would have been no fire had this happened, unless something inside the building started burning.

Now they could have just mounted a much weaker warhead on the thing for the sole purpose of starting the fire. If this is what happened though, then someone wanted it to happen like this, to mount a type 2 with a weak warhead not to mention set it on a path with the parameters that would be needed for this. For no one to use the "safety" and blow it up mid flight, it would have to be pretty damn deliberate.

Also the type 2 matches closer to the size proportions of the object that was captured on video. I'm still only going on speculation here as are most of the people who know that they are being lied to.

To tell you the truth, I don't even think that the fire was at the low burning temp of 800 degrees, a fire that hot would have gone farther to bursting the windows and distorting the structure of the building. The more I look into and use my knowledge of missiles, the more I'm starting to think that maybe it was something we haven't seen before and to not take the risk of disclosing to the public that a test project went wrong or that someone did this with something new of ours. They made up the entire pentagon part of 911, at the very least, and went through a whole lot of trouble doing it.

From the evidence presented, we can propose that, due to its suitability for the task in hand, it was a global hawk-type craft complete with a payload of one missile with a shaped charge hardened war head and secondary war head that struck the Pentagon on September 11th 2001. The first shaped charge war head opened the main hole in the Pentagon facade, the second war head detonated inside doing the rest of the damage and creating the 'T bar' of the final inverted T shape in the facade. The global hawk was swallowed by the hole and the war head explosion. The hardened war head continued on through the other 5 walls coming to rest in Ring C, leaving that neat 8ft wide hole. The war head was then confiscated, much like the various tapes that were witness to the event.

For its part, Flight 77 landed, probably at a military airfield in Ohio around the same time that the Global Hawk and missile struck the Pentagon. All passengers and crew on board Flight 77 were dead by that time, except for one, two or three people. The bodies were "disposed of", and some of the remains were used for identification by the state pathologist.

Shocked? Outraged? You have every right to be, but not at us, or anyone else that points out the logical explanation of the problem. There exists overwhelming evidence to show that, as a general rule, corrupt people in positions of great power do not flinch at murdering their own citizens if it serves their purposes to do so. In some cases, they will murder their citizens - and others - because it gives them pleasure. Such people also, historically, are advocates and practitioners of torture. If you disagree then you disagree with historical fact. Welcome to the real world.

As Laura Knight-Jadczyk notes in her book 9/11:The Ultimate Secret, the attack on the Pentagon is the Achilles Heel of the entire 9/11 coverup, and for one very good reason: while we all saw repeated footage of Flight 11 and Flight 175 crash into the WTC towers, and we all saw the wreckage of Flight 93 and have hundreds of eyewitness testimonies that a commercial airliner did indeed crash in Pennsylvania, there is no reliable evidence that a Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on September 11th 2001. No one has seen any footage that shows Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon, and the tapes that actually exist that could easily and immediately prove what did hit that day, have been confiscated by the FBI and the U.S. government studiously refuses to release them.

The US government claims that a Boeing 757 impacted the Pentagon on 9/11, many people dispute this, yet the same American government refuses to release video tapes that would put the matter to rest and show once and for all what hit the Pentagon. Use your head and ask yourself, "why?"
There is one very obvious answer.

I realise that this theory presents more questions than answers. But since the complete answers to what really happened on 9/11 (and much more) are contained in the book "9/11: The Ultimate Truth", it would be remiss of me to present them here. Suffice to say that Truth is much stranger than fiction.

9-11 Lies, Flight 77, Pentagon Strike, COINTLEPRO, Patriot Act, Pentagon Cover-up,
9-11 Debunking

OK, Enough Whining. Time for Solutions!

Here's a cheering thought for the holidays: Some practical suggestiong for repairing the horrendous messs the US is in and by extension, all the rest of the world (that's you honey!). Read, take heart, but remember:

It can only happen when ACTION is taken. Blog, write, call. Put pressure on the folks who's salaries YOU pay.

That an interesting New Year is upon us if certain. Be part of what may make it happy.

Blue Ibis

Big Lies: Who told the worst political untruth of 2005? It’s a shame the list of contenders is so long.

By Eleanor Clift
Newsweek
Dec. 22, 2005

Every holiday season, we on "The McLaughlin Group" hand out news awards. Some categories, like "Biggest Winner," are easy (My choice was Chief Justice John Roberts, with the oil companies as runner-up). Others are a struggle to fill, like who to insult with the “Overrated” award.

In compiling this year’s list, I had the highest number of entries for the category, “Biggest Lie.” I chose the White House declaration that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby had nothing to do with leaking the identity of a covert CIA agent. They were the principal participants in the effort to discredit former ambassador Joe Wilson because he had raised doubts about one of the pillars of their argument for war, namely that Iraq had tried to buy yellowcake uranium to make a bomb.

Read the whole article here.

Comment: It's a strangely schizophrenic state for the United States to be in: on one side, you have Bush, Cheney and the gang loudly proclaiming "their reality," and on the other, you have more and more mainstream media outlets loudly proclaiming that Bush, Cheney, and the whole White House gang are out and out liars.

Two years ago, almost NONE of the mainstream media sources were calling Bush and Cheney liars; that was the purview of the alternative news sites and bloggers. But the issues have grown so large, so frightening that even the moderates and former Bush supporters are joining the general clamor for something to be done.

There's a problem, however, as Eleanor Clift points out above:
"The polls show that a majority of Americans no longer trust this team, which is why Bush and Cheney are hitting back hard at their critics. ... We have no mechanism to deal with a president who has lost the trust and confidence of the American people and has three years remaining in office. Impeachment is a nonissue; it’s not going to happen with Republicans in control of the House and Senate."

Recent polls (uncooked ones, that is) show that over 80 % of the American People want Bush impeached. But, as we pointed out a day or so ago, that's not the answer. If you impeach Bush, you get Cheney, if you impeach Cheney, you get Hastert, if you impeach Hastert, you get Stevens.

What we need is a way to get rid of an entire government.

The problem seems to be that our Founding Fathers did not include in their deliberations, any situation such as the United States is faced with today: a gang that has fixed elections, assassinated opposition, blackmailed and stacked the Congress to pass laws that essentially create a dictatorship.

Some other democratic governments have made provisions for just such contingencies. Typically, when parliaments vote 'no confidence,' or where it fails to vote confidence, a government must either: 1. resign, or 2. seek a parliamentary dissolution and request a General Election. We think that such provisions still leave something to be desired in that there is no way to factor in the voice of the people

In view of the situation, we here at Signs do have an idea. Since it is now obvious that 80 % or more of the American people want Bush OUT, it is not very likely that any of them will be voting Republican in the next congressional elections. If a Republican majority is returned to Congress, we can then be almost certain of vote rigging. So, the thing to do first is deluge all state governments with demands for voting systems that have a paper trail to ensure that no more elections are stolen.

Then, the people must put their energy into demanding new legislation. This legislation should be a bill introduced in Congress to the effect that a petition of citizens can invoke a national referendum of confidence/no confidence. Such a referendum will be 1 person = 1 vote, no "electoral college," no steps between the will of the people and the representatives of the people. If the will of the people is "no confidence" in the reigning government, they must all resign and a new election will be held. There ought to also be new legislation regarding elections, election financing, Congressional perks and power brokering.

So, here are some general ideas:

Government Should Be In The Hands Of Those Who Wish To Serve And Who Are Qualified By A Thorough Psychological Testing Program As Well As Extensive Background Investigation by something equivalent to a Grand Jury. Governing powers should certainly never be in the hands of those who are evaluated according to "electability" in terms of looks, or budget. Government should be made undesirable to those who seek money and power. Honor and the High Regard of the People should be the main rewards of statesmanship. Therefore, the following should be enacted as Constitutional Amendments:

A. Outlaw Expensive Political Campaigns. The Top Five qualified candidates should be given equal media representation gratis so that each can clearly state their positions and platforms. Money must be divorced from power in a Democracy.

B. Outlaw Lobbying And Special Interest Groups. Each Act Of Legislation should be clearly written so that all people can understand it,and no bills should be "conglomerates" where an unpopoular measure can be piggy-backed on a popular one.

C. All Elected Officials should be elected by Majority Vote of the People only. The Electoral College needs to be dismantled.

D. Salaries Of Elected Officials should reflect an average of the incomes of their constituents. In this way, they will have a better idea of how everybody else lives and will be more motivated to solve the problems of the people they serve.

Legislators and government officials should be provided with simple apartments, paid for by the government, where they can live while performing government functions if they must live away from their normal homes while doing so. Expensive residences, parties, cars, trips, and other so-called perks must be outlawed. Entertainment for visiting heads of state from other countries can be handled via special programs for same.

E. Outlaw Honorariums, Speaking Fees, Consulting Fees, Gifts etc, for elected officials while in office. If they can't live on their salaries, how do the expect anyone else to do so?

Such measures as the above are simple and would quickly result in social adjustments relating to government. With individual riches and power eliminated from the government equation, only those who truly seek to serve will be motivated to run for government office.

Naturally it is to be expected that great resistance to such ideas will issue from those possessing great wealth and power. The wealthy and powerful control not only the government, but also religions, social customs and social institutions. They have access to very clever theoreticians who invent very clever theories to justify everything they do. The result of these machinations can be seen all around us today. Never before has humanity been so precariously balanced on the edge of a chasm of fire, from which no one will emerge if we fall in.

Popular Theory holds that, while concentrated wealth may seem unfair, it is "good for economic prosperity." A couple of con-artists once made an Emperor a New set of clothes, too.

We believe in prosperity and comfort and freedom from want for all. Indeed, those who are more industrious and ambitious will naturally have more than others: that is the nature of a free market. We have no issues with that. However, we believe that those individuals who are less "equal" in terms of intellect or ambition, but who are still the majority of humanity, should be able to establish and maintain a basically comfortable and fulfilling lifestyle. The people who are content flipping burgers and collecting the trash should be able to live without stress, too.

Since our current major problems are actually Economic, we think immediate measures must be taken. These measures are based on the ideas of Dr. Ravi Batra, Professor Of Economics at Southern Methodist University.

A. Enact taxation in proportion to benefits received from the government. Since "Defense Of Our Way Of Life" is the Primary Benefit we receive, and is the major part of the Federal Budget, those who have the most to protect should pay the most taxes for that service.

Those who have accumulated great wealth in the United States have been vigorously protected at great expense of life limb by the common people from the time of The Revolutionary War until the present. That is to say, that the wealthy have been protected at the expense of the poor and middle classes and yet, the poor and middle classes are getting poorer and less able to survive while the rich are getting richer and sending more of the sons of the poor and middle classes off to die to enable the rich to get richer. For this reason, such a Wealth Tax should be retroactive when possible.

This Tax should be imposed on net worth including Stocks, Bonds, Real Estate, Precious Metals, Paintings Etc. An Exemption of an amount to equal twice the average cost of living in a given region should be allowed for everyone for personal and living expenses. The next double amount of the average cost of living would be taxed at 2%, the third at 3%, the fourth at 4%, and so on up to 10% of everything above 10 times double the average cost of living.

As can easily be seen, this would instantly remove the tax burden from the poor and Middle Classes entirely.

This Tax Rate would also generate revenues amounting to well over $300 Billion, based on $15 Trillion in total wealth.

This tax would apply to all foreign investors as well. This money should be used to immediately balance the Federal Budget. At the same time, government spending must be frozen and capital controls against moving money out of the country enacted.

Several things would result from this plan.

1. The tax would only fall on those who could afford to pay.

2. It would stimulate those of wealth to divest themselves of speculative paper and invest in actual industry. REAL jobs would be created and expanded.

B. Financial Institutions Must Be Regulated, and not by themselves as is the current situation with the so-called "Fed."

C. Charge Foreign Countries For Defense. It is cheaper for foreign governments to pay the U.S. than to establish and maintain their own standing armies. That is one of the reasons the U.S. has so many military bases all over the world. Ten years agoa, as much as $290. billion of the U.S. Defense Budget was spent on defense abroad. Today, that figure is so unbelievable that the U.S. is in imminent danger of economic collapse.

Following WW II, America offered a sefense umbrella to impoverished allies. At that time it was the world's largest banker. Those surpluses have declined turning America into the world's largest debtor. We can no longer compete in world trade because of our defense spending. Charging 1 To 2 percent of other nation's GNP for defense would bring in hundreds of millions annually. It can be said that the Iraq War is being fought on behalf of Israel, therefore, Israel should pay for it. Any wealthy individuals in the U.S. holding dual Israeli/American citizenship ought to pay double the Wealth Tax: once for the U.S. and once for Israel.

If other countries imposed a wealth tax as well, they would easily be able to bring their books into balance. But, as we have noted above, it is the wealthy who have risen to power on the blood, sweat and tears of the common man with the predictable result of today's embarrassing situation of the U.S. being stuck for the next three years with a president and administration that over 80% of the people do not want. It is the "love of money" for its own sake that has brought this evil on America.

In closing we would like to say: We believe in government of the people, by the people, and for the people - and we desire to see that it does not perish from the Earth!

Ponerology
Vote Rigging
Diebold
Tax Reform
False Polls
Signs of the Times
Constitution

Halle-freakin'-lujah!

A flicker of hope that sanity may yet prevail in the U.S. educational system. Aren't you tired of being the laughingstock of the world on this?

Blue Ibis

Judge rules against 'intelligent design'

Idea shouldn't be taught in science class in public school, judge rules
The Associated Press
Updated: 10:56 a.m. ET Dec. 20, 2005


HARRISBURG, Pa. - A federal judge ruled Tuesday that the "intelligent design" explanation for the origin of life cannot be taught in biology classes in a Pennsylvania public school district.

The Dover Area School Board violated the Constitution when it ordered that its biology curriculum must include "intelligent design," the notion that life on Earth was produced by an unidentified intelligent cause, U.S. District Judge John E. Jones III ruled.

The school board policy, adopted in October 2004, was believed to have been the first of its kind in the nation. Eight families then sued to have intelligent design removed.

"The citizens of the Dover area were poorly served by the members of the Board who voted for the ID Policy," Jones wrote, "It is ironic that several of these individuals, who so staunchly and proudly touted their religious convictions in public, would time and again lie to cover their tracks and disguise the real purpose behind the ID Policy."

[It's ironic only if you don't realize these folks are taking a page from the Neocons. They set the pattern. Look at the touted reasoning for the Patriot Act, and then look how it's being applied.]

The board's attorneys said members sought to improve science education by exposing students to alternatives to Charles Darwin's theory of natural selection causing gradual changes over time; intelligent-design proponents argue that it cannot fully explain the existence of complex life forms.

The plaintiffs argued that intelligent design amount to a secular repackaging of creationism, which the courts have already ruled cannot be taught in public schools.

The Dover policy had required students to hear a statement about intelligent design before ninth-grade biology lessons on evolution. The statement says Charles Darwin’s theory is "not a fact," has inexplicable "gaps," and refers students to an intelligent-design textbook, "Of Pandas and People," for more information.

Jones said advocates of intelligent design "have bona fide and deeply held beliefs which drive their scholarly endeavors" and that he didn't believe the concept shouldn't be studied and discussed.

[Bona fide and deeply held beliefs -- also known as "wishful thinking" drives a lot of public policy these days, eh? Try Signs of the Times for a daily run-down on this phenomenon.]

"Our conclusion today is that it is unconstitutional to teach ID as an alternative to evolution in a public school science classroom," he wrote.

The dispute is the latest chapter in a long-running debate over the teaching of evolution dating back to the famous 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, in which Tennessee biology teacher John T. Scopes was fined $100 for violating a state law that forbade teaching evolution. The Tennessee Supreme Court reversed his conviction on the narrow ground that only a jury trial could impose a fine exceeding $50 and the law was repealed in 1967.

Jones heard arguments in the fall during a six-week trial in which expert witnesses for each side debated intelligent design’s scientific merits. Other witnesses, including current and former school board members, disagreed over whether creationism was discussed in board meetings months before the curriculum change was adopted.

The controversy also divided the community in southwest Pennsylvania and galvanized voters to oust eight incumbent school board members who supported the policy in the Nov. 8 school board election. They were replaced by a slate of eight opponents who pledged to remove intelligent design from the science curriculum.

© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Intelligent Design
Evolution
Patriot Act
Scopes Monkey Trial
Education
Signs of the Times

Achtung!! An SS of Our Very Own

Do you feel safer now? A toe out of line and you could be the next "terrorist suspect" with your own personal security letter courtesy of the FBI and CIFA

I'm running out of the energy to be outraged . . . . . .

Blue Ibis

Testing the limits of wartime powers
Bush’s disclosure on domestic spying raises legal questions

ANALYSIS

By Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer
The Washington Post
Updated: 12:56 a.m. ET Dec. 18, 2005

In his four-year campaign against al Qaeda, President Bush has turned the U.S. national security apparatus inward to secretly collect information on American citizens on a scale unmatched since the intelligence reforms of the 1970s.

The president's emphatic defense yesterday of warrantless eavesdropping on U.S. citizens and residents marked the third time in as many months that the White House has been obliged to defend a departure from previous restraints on domestic surveillance. In each case, the Bush administration concealed the program's dimensions or existence from the public and from most members of Congress.

Since October, news accounts have disclosed a burgeoning Pentagon campaign for "detecting, identifying and engaging" internal enemies that included a database with information on peace protesters. A debate has roiled over the FBI's use of national security letters to obtain secret access to the personal records of tens of thousands of Americans. And now come revelations of the National Security Agency's interception of telephone calls and e-mails from the United States -- without notice to the federal court that has held jurisdiction over domestic spying since 1978.

Waging an adamant defense

Defiant in the face of criticism, the Bush administration has portrayed each surveillance initiative as a defense of American freedom. Bush said yesterday that his NSA eavesdropping directives were "critical to saving American lives" and "consistent with U.S. law and the Constitution." After years of portraying an offensive waged largely overseas, Bush justified the internal surveillance with new emphasis on "the home front" and the need to hunt down "terrorists here at home."

Bush's constitutional argument, in the eyes of some legal scholars and previous White House advisers, relies on extraordinary claims of presidential war-making power. Bush said yesterday that the lawfulness of his directives was affirmed by the attorney general and White House counsel, a list that omitted the legislative and judicial branches of government. On occasion the Bush administration has explicitly rejected the authority of courts and Congress to impose boundaries on the power of the commander in chief, describing the president's war-making powers in legal briefs as "plenary" -- a term defined as "full," "complete," and "absolute."

["Things would be so much easier if this were a dictatorship. If I get to be the dictator, of course." --GWB]

A high-ranking intelligence official with firsthand knowledge said in an interview yesterday that Vice President Cheney, then-Director of Central Intelligence George J. Tenet and Michael V. Hayden, then a lieutenant general and director of the National Security Agency, briefed four key members of Congress about the NSA's new domestic surveillance on Oct. 25, 2001, and Nov. 14, 2001, shortly after Bush signed a highly classified directive that eliminated some restrictions on eavesdropping against U.S. citizens and permanent residents.

In describing the briefings, administration officials made clear that Cheney was announcing a decision, not asking permission from Congress. How much the legislators learned is in dispute.

Extent of policy shift disputed

Former senator Bob Graham (D-Fla.), who chaired the Senate intelligence committee and is the only participant thus far to describe the meetings extensively and on the record, said in interviews Friday night and yesterday that he remembers "no discussion about expanding [NSA eavesdropping] to include conversations of U.S. citizens or conversations that originated or ended in the United States" -- and no mention of the president's intent to bypass the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.

"I came out of the room with the full sense that we were dealing with a change in technology but not policy," Graham said, with new opportunities to intercept overseas calls that passed through U.S. switches. He believed eavesdropping would continue to be limited to "calls that initiated outside the United States, had a destination outside the United States but that transferred through a U.S.-based communications system."

Graham said the latest disclosures suggest that the president decided to go "beyond foreign communications to using this as a pretext for listening to U.S. citizens' communications. There was no discussion of anything like that in the meeting with Cheney."

The high-ranking intelligence official, who spoke with White House permission but said he was not authorized to be identified by name, said Graham is "misremembering the briefings," which in fact were "very, very comprehensive." The official declined to describe any of the substance of the meetings, but said they were intended "to make sure the Hill knows this program in its entirety, in order to never, ever be faced with the circumstance that someone says, 'I was briefed on this but I had no idea that -- ' and you can fill in the rest."

By Graham's account, the official said, "it appears that we held a briefing to say that nothing is different . . . . Why would we have a meeting in the vice president's office to talk about a change and then tell the members of Congress there is no change?"

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (Calif.), who was also present as then ranking Democrat of the House intelligence panel, said in a statement yesterday evening that the briefing described "President Bush's decision to provide authority to the National Security Agency to conduct unspecified activities." She said she "expressed my strong concerns" but did not elaborate.

Just one in a series of disclosures

The NSA disclosures follow exposure of two other domestic surveillance initiatives that drew shocked reactions from Congress and some members of the public in recent months.

Beginning in October, The Washington Post published articles describing a three-year-old Pentagon agency, the size and budget of which are classified, with wide new authority to undertake domestic investigations and operations against potential threats from U.S. residents and organizations against military personnel and facilities. The Counterintelligence Field Activity, or CIFA, began as a small policy-coordination office but has grown to encompass nine directorates and a staff exceeding 1,000. The agency's Talon database, collecting unconfirmed reports of suspicious activity from military bases and organizations around the country, has included "threat reports" of peaceful civilian protests and demonstrations.

CIFA has also been empowered with what the military calls "tasking authority" -- the ability to give operational orders -- over Army, Navy and Air Force units whose combined roster of investigators, about 4,000, is nearly as large as the number of FBI special agents assigned to counterterrorist squads. Pentagon officials said this month they had ordered a review of the program after disclosures, in The Post, NBC News and the washingtonpost.com Web log of William M. Arkin, that CIFA compiled information about U.S. citizens engaging in constitutionally protected political activity such as protests against military recruiting.

In November, The Post disclosed an exponentially growing practice of domestic surveillance under the USA Patriot Act, using FBI demands for information known as "national security letters." Created in the 1970s for espionage and terrorism investigations, the letters enabled secret FBI review of the private telephone and financial records of suspected foreign agents. The Bush administration's guidelines after the Patriot Act transformed those letters by permitting clandestine scrutiny of U.S. residents and visitors who are not alleged to be terrorists or spies.

The Post reported that the FBI has issued tens of thousands of national security letters, extending the bureau's reach as never before into the telephone calls, correspondence and financial lives of ordinary Americans. Most of the U.S. residents and citizens whose records were screened, the FBI acknowledged, were not suspected of wrongdoing.

Surge in domestic surveillance

The burgeoning use of national security letters coincided with an unannounced decision to deposit all the information they yield into government data banks -- and to share those private records widely, in the federal government and beyond. In late 2003, the Bush administration reversed a long-standing policy requiring agents to destroy their files on innocent American citizens, companies and residents when investigations closed.

Yesterday's acknowledgment of warrantless NSA eavesdropping brought the most forthright statement from the president that his war on terrorism is targeting not only "enemies across the world" but "terrorists here at home." In the "first war of the 21st century," he said, "one of the most critical battlefronts is the home front."

Bush sidestepped some of the implications by citing examples only of foreigners who infiltrated the United States -- Saudi citizens Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almihdhar, two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers. But the most fundamental changes undertaken in the Bush administration's surveillance policy are the ones that have broadened the powers of the NSA, FBI and Pentagon to spy on "U.S. persons" -- American citizens, permanent residents and corporations -- on American soil.

Anxiety about threats, countermeasures

Roger Cressey, who was principal deputy to the White House counterterrorism chief when terrorists destroyed the World Trade Center and a wing of the Pentagon, said "the amount of domestic surveillance is an admission of fundamental gaps in our understanding of what is happening in our country."

Those anxieties about unknown threats have ebbed and flowed since World War I, according to a bipartisan government commission chaired by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan. President Woodrow Wilson warned against "the poison of disloyalty" and another loyalty campaign created black lists of accused Communists in the 1950s. In the 1960s and 1970s, the Army and the NSA collected files and eavesdropped on thousands of anti-Vietnam War and civil rights activists.

Congress asserted itself in the 1970s, imposing oversight requirements and passing the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). Kate Martin, director of the Center for National Security Studies, said FISA "expressly made it a crime for government officials 'acting under color of law' to engage in electronic eavesdropping 'other than pursuant to statute.' " FISA described itself, along with the criminal wiretap statute, as "the exclusive means by which electronic surveillance . . . may be conducted."

No president before Bush mounted a frontal challenge to Congress's authority to limit espionage against Americans. In a Sept. 25, 2002, brief signed by then-Attorney General John D. Ashcroft, the Justice Department asserted "the Constitution vests in the President inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that constitutional authority."

'We only do it on Tuesdays'

The brief made no distinction between suspected agents who are U.S. citizens and those who are not. Other Bush administration legal arguments have said the "war on terror" is global and indefinite in scope, effectively removing traditional limits of wartime authority to the times and places of imminent or actual battle.

"There is a lot of discussion out there that we shouldn't be dividing Americans and foreigners, but terrorists and non-terrorists," said Gordon Oehler, a former chief of the CIA's Counterterrorist Center who served on last year's special commission assessing U.S. intelligence.

By law, according to University of Chicago scholar Geoffrey Stone, the differences are fundamental: Americans have constitutional protections that are enforceable in court whether their conversations are domestic or international.

[Really?? Tell that to Jose Padilla]

Bush's assertion that eavesdropping takes place only on U.S. calls to overseas phones, Stone said, "is no different, as far as the law is concerned, from saying we only do it on Tuesdays."

Michael J. Woods, who was chief of the FBI's national security law unit when Bush signed the NSA directive, described the ongoing program as "very dangerous." In the immediate aftermath of a devastating attack, he said, the decision was a justifiable emergency response. In 2006, "we ought to be past the time of emergency responses. We ought to have more considered views now. . . . We have time to debate a legal regime and what's appropriate."

Staff writers Charles Lane and Walter Pincus and researcher Julie Tate contributed to this report.

© 2005 The Washington Post Company

© 2005 MSNBC.com
Illegal Surveillence
Politics
CIFA
FBI
Patriot Act
Fascism
National security letters

WHAAAAAA!!!! Don't tell me what to do!

Okay. There's just nothing to say after finding something like this, other than maybe "please tell me it's a joke". Get me off this continent. Hell, get me off this planet.

Blue Ibis

Bush - Constitution
'Just A Goddamned
Piece Of Paper'
By Doug Thompson
Capitol Hill Blue
12-9-5

Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.

Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.

GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.

"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."

"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."

"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"

I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."

And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the shit that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee.

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."

Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn't matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn't matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine ­ in the end ­ if something is legal or right.

Every federal official ­ including the President ­ who takes an oath of office swears to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a "living document."

""Oh, how I hate the phrase we have-a 'living document,'" Scalia says. "We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake."

As a judge, Scalia says, "I don't have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else."

President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a "union between a man and woman." Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.

Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.

"We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones," Scalia warns. "Don't think that it's a one-way street."

And don't buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.

But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just "a goddamned piece of paper."

© Copyright 2005 by Capitol Hill Blue


Constitution
Bush Lies
Patriot Act
Human Rights
Fascism
Bush Tantrum

Gobsmacked . . . . .

There are times when you can read/hear things and your brain just can't seem to process what your eyes/ears are presenting to it. As in John McCain, WHO HAS EXPERIENCED BEING TORTURED saying [below]"while he would not compromise on the torture language, said they were in discussions "about other aspects of this to try to get an agreement."

SAY WHAT? WHAT "OTHER ASPECTS"??

It has been well established that any information gained by this disgusting activity is nearly always useless. People will say anything to stop the infliction of pain.

WHAT IS THERE TO DISCUSS???? WE ARE TALKING ABOUT INFLICTING PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSICAL PAIN ON HUMAN BEINGS! And no weaseling that "we didn't actually do it, Syria/Egypt/toady of your choice did". If the US set up the conditions with their rendition process, they are responsible.

And for a man with his history and experiences, what sort of hold do "they" have on him, that he could be making such absurd statements?

Blue Ibis

P.S. For an insight into how the world can be led into such madness, even though populated by mostly reasonable human beings, see Laura Knight-Jadczyks' new article on Ponerology - the study of evil



McCain: No compromise on torture ban
Arizona senator appears on NBC's 'Meet the Press'

The Associated Press
Updated: 2:02 p.m. ET Dec. 4, 2005


WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain, a prisoner of war who was tortured in Vietnam, said Sunday he will refuse to yield on his demands that the White House agree with his proposed ban on the use of torture to extract information from suspected terrorists.

"I won't," he said on NBC's "Meet the Press" when asked whether he would compromise with the Bush administration. He is insisting on his language that no person in U.S. custody should be subject to "cruel, inhumane, or degrading treatment or punishment."

The Arizona Republican said he had met several times with the president's national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, on the issue, and both McCain and Hadley said Sunday they were working toward an agreement.

Hadley, on ABC's "This Week," repeated President Bush's assertion that the United States does not torture and follows international conventions on the treatment of prisoners.

He added, "We're trying to find a way ... where we can strike the balance between being aggressive to protect the country against the terrorists, and, at the same time, comply with the law."

"We're working it. We're not there yet," he said on "Fox News Sunday."

McCain, while saying he would not compromise on the torture language, said they were in discussions "about other aspects of this to try to get an agreement." He did not elaborate.

McCain, a Navy flier who was captured by the North Vietnamese and tortured during the Vietnam War, sponsored an anti-torture measure that has passed the Senate by a 90-9 vote.

But the White House said it could not accept restrictions that might prevent interrogators from gaining information vital to the nation's security and has threatened a presidential veto of any bill that contained the McCain language.

[Guys, if "We don't torture!", then why threaten the veto? Or even, why do we need this bill in the first place???]

McCain noted that intelligence gained through torture can be unreliable and he said the practice hurts the U.S. reputation abroad.

© 2005 MSNBC.com

US Torture
John McCain
CIA Flights
Rendition
WMD Lies
Fascism
War on Terror