Friday, October 06, 2006

Damien weighed in drunk late the other night

Damien weighed in drunk late the other night:
We have a videocommented on by Alex Jones and others. The guy in the video is categorically not Mohammed Atta. Period. This is Mohammed Atta, not this. Come on Scott Horton, come on Joseph Cannon, tell me again how all the 9111 conspiracy theorists are fuckwits. There were three Mohammed Attas: the genial student in Germany, the psychotic cat killer in Florida who allegedly carried out 911, and the johny-come-lately Atta simulator Mohamed Arajaki.

As Jack Riddler says:

Preceding that however we had in the US:
- Atta trying to muscle a loan out of Johnelle Bryant for a cropduster to fill with poison, incidentally promising mayhem in Washington.
- An Atta located as a member of the "Brooklyn Cell" by Able Danger, the personnel of which insist he was the same lead-hijacker Atta of the official story. AD also names the 3 other alleged ringleaders, and what do you know, they're the same ones the Mossad named in Aug. 2001.
- Atta renting rooms, seen by a few people around Florida.
- Someone going out with Amanda Keller.
This Atta was generally obnoxious and conspicuous.

Meanwhile, he was in Germany, too, being a quiet student who'd just finished up his Magister thesis. AND being followed around by the CIA. AND also under surveillance by the German authorities. AND receiving Ramzi Binalshibh, who was also followed.

Enough, already. If these friggin videos are real then we should all be on medication. Who the hell is produsing this shit? (oh, btw, I am drinking...there has to be some sanity in this world.)
And while we're at it jo cannon confirms that the ISI had a close relationship with Saeed Sheikh. Bob Graham made it clear that players other than the 19 terrorists were involved. However strong the fires were at the back of WTC7 they wouldn't bring about a uniform cross sectional collapse of the entire WTC7 bulding. Larry Siverstein wouldn't have brought two lemons filled with asbestos, in need of structural refits, half-tenanted, and then paid through the nose for insurance on the buldings unless he knew the fix was in.

It is the US government's job to explain 911 to the people, not the other way around. Enough already! - people should believe the sun gets up in the west if it validates their miserable identities. Just don't tell me it means anything.
Even more. I worked in a steel mill for three years. Do you know how much heat is needed to work steel? I cook on my barbeque at times. Let me tell you, it doesn't melt. The people who want to support the fiction of collapsing buildings should front up with independant scientific analysis. Last I looked, steel buildings involved in fires did not fall down.

There, I feel better already


damien said...

There are, of course, no excuses for any of this.

damien said...

I might add that the serious questions are breaking through the propaganda. Raimondo concludes about the Tenet-Rice briefing that, given the massive intelligence data coming in, there appeared to be "an element of deliberate obstruction, on some level, of Tenet's lonely crusade to get the administration to do something."

And: "There were forces working against Tenet, Black, and the CIA – but who were they, and what were their motives? What all this suggests is that the U.S. government had been successfully infiltrated on some level."

Raimondo doesn't subscribe to a full 911 conspiracy theory, but he notes that threats had been received about Air Force One and that official code words used in the threats gave them credibility. This is almost certainly a PR spin from the WH, but a telling one. In the midst of all the 911 turmoil why would any administration seek to 'enhance' the attack by making false allegations about attacks on AF1? If it's not a crass exercise in self-promotion in a crisis then what is it? A propaganda resource they decided not to use? And if that's the case then you really do have to start asking questions about the Admin and what they knew about 911 warnings.

Raimondo should add the anthrax attacks to his list here. At a stab, these were never due to al Qaeda, leaving either a rogue individual, a homegrown terrorist group seeking to capitalise on 911, or a US government covert operation. The WH started taking Cipro following 9/11 and before the anthrax attacks. How did they know that anthrax attacks were on bin Laden's agenda? Perhaps, as George Washington points out the nerve gas alert in Feb 2006 was another unexplained terrorist incident (most likely undertaken in order to get at certain Congressman's files or computers).

If "forces working against Tenet, Black, and the CIA" were fully aware of the strength of Tenet's warnings then it's entirely reasonable to ask why those "forces" would even consider overlooking the warnings that the 911 attacks were coming. The conclusion is a very dark one. If the rejection of the 911 intelligence warnings cannot be fully explained by incompetence or negligence, then what?

damien said...

My bad. The guy in the video IS Mohammed Atta. Certain aspects have been drawn to my attention. The video production and distribution is another story however. (link). It's ok. There'll be some credible commentators along any minute now. Hang about :)

lukery said...

There are, of course, no excuses for any of this.
there are, of course, no excuses required.

There'll be some credible commentators along any minute now. Hang about :)

lol. you are among friends. *even* I make a mistake everynow and again!