‘The world won’t say a thing’– Netanyahu on ongoing Israeli expansion

Israel/Palestine

The Washington Post, and Glenn Kessler, have picked up the story that Netanyahu said that "America is a thing that can be easily moved," back in 2001. Good to have this knowledge inside the Beltway at last.

Below is a transcript of the Second-Intifadah era conversation, supplied by Dena Shunra, a Hebrew<>English translator living and working in the United States. Note that Netanyahu quotes his extremist father counseling him to give up 2 percent of Hebron (during the Wye negotiations) so as to maintain the Jewish settlements there and get people off Israel’s back. And note that Netanyahu’s defiance about American opinion extends to the whole world. When his interlocutor asks about world opinion re continued conquest/settlement, he says, "The world won’t say a thing. The world will say we’re defending."

Shunra: "I went from 3:15 to about 8:00 – the rest wasn’t very interesting.

"Background: Netanyahu is visiting the home of a woman who just lost her husband, and she is being cheered by five other widows. There’s a young boy present, and Netanyahu asks (at about 3:00) that they turn off the camera so he can speak to them ‘freely’. The camera gets turned on again in mid-conversation."

Transcript follows:








3:15

אתם מתחילים עכשיו להבין את פרוש הסיסמה "יש"ע זה כאן"?

מה ערפאת רוצה?

הוא רוצה התנחלות אחת גדולה. קוראים לה "תל אביב".

Netanyahu: Are you starting to understand what the slogan “Judea and Samaria are right here”?

What does Arafat want? He wants one big settlement. It’s called “Tel Aviv”.

אשה: כן. זה מה שכלתי, שהיא באה מאנגליה, אומרת. "גם תל-אביב היא התנחלות."

Woman: Yes, that’s what my daughter in law, who comes from England, that what she says: “Tel Aviv is a settlement too.”

ביב: מבחינתם, לדעתי, גם המים הטריטוריאליים שלהו הם שלהם.

Netanyahu: As far as they’re concerned, I think, our territorial waters are also their?

-?

[inaudible]

זה שהם רוצים אותנו בים, כן. אבל בים (מצביע הצידה) הערבים ממקדים כרגע מלחמת טרור והם חושבים שזה ישבור אותנו. הדבר העיקרי, קודם כל, הוא לתת להם מכות. לא רק מכה, מכות כל כך מכאיבות שהמחיר יהיה כבד מנשוא. כרגע המחיר לא כבד מנשוא. התקפה רבת היקף על הרשות הפלסטינית. להביא אותם לפחד שהכול מתמוטט.

Netanyahu: The fact is that they want us in the sea, yes, but over there in the sea [points aside]. The Arabs are currently focusing a war of terror and they think it will break us. The main thing, first of all, is to hit them. Not just one hit, so many painful its that the price will be to heavy to be borne. The price is not too heavy to be borne, now. A broad attack on the Palestinian Authority. To bring them to the point of being afraid that everything is collapsing.

אישה: הם לא פוחדים, הם צוחקים עלינו. הם יורים עלינו לתוך היישוב בצחוק…

Woman: They’re not afraid, they’re making fun of us. They shoot into our settlement and make fun of us.

ביבי: פחד שהכול מתמוטט. זה מה שמביא אותם ל… (מסובב אצבעות)

Netanyahu: Fear that everything is collapsing. That’s what leads them to… [makes a hand motion]

אישה: רגע, אבל אז עוד פעם העולם יגיד מה אתם כובשים?

Woman: wait a moment, but then the world will say “how come you’re conquering again?”

ביבי: העולם, העולם לא יגיד כלום. העולם יגיד שאנחנו מגנים.

Netanyahu: the world won’t say a thing. The world will say we’re defending.

אישה: אתה לא מפחד מהעולם, ביבי?

Woman: Aren’t you afraid of the world, Bibi?

ביבי: במיוחד היום, עם אמריקה. אני יודע מה זה אמריקה. אמריקה זה דבר שאפשר להזיז אותו בקלות. להזיז לכיוון הנכון.

Netanyahu: Especially today, with America. I know what America is. America is something that can easily be moved. Moved to the right correction.

ילד: הם אומרים שהם בעדנו, אבל, כאילו…

Child: They say they’re for us, but, it’s like…

ביבי: הם לא יפריעו לנו. לא יפריעו לנו.

Netanyahu: They won’t get in our way. They won’t get in our way.

ילד: מצד שני, אם אנחנו עושים איזה משהו, אז הם…

Child: On the other hand, if we do some something, then they…

ביבי: אז נניח שהם אומרים משהו. אז אומרים… אמרו! 80 אחוז מהאמריקאים תומכים בנו. זה אבסורד. יש לנו שם תמיכה כזו ואנחנו אומרים "מה נעשה עם הזה…" תראי, הממשל ההוא היה פרו-פלסטיני בצורה קיצונית. לא פחדתי לתמרן שם. לא פחדתי להתעמת עם קלינטון. לא פחדתי להתעמת עם האו"ם. בלאו הכי אני משלם את המחיר, אז עדיף לי כבר לקבל את תמורה. תמורה לאגרה.

Netanyahu: So let’s say they say something. So they said it! They said it! 80% of the Americans support us. It’s absurd. We have that kind of support and we say “what will we do with the…” look. That administration was extremely pro-Palestinian. I wasn’t afraid to maneuver there. I was not afraid to clash with Clinton. I was not afraid to clash with the United Nations. I was paying the price anyway, I preferred to receive the value. Value for the price.

ילד: אוסלו… מילא הבאנו להם דברים, ואנחנו לא יכולים לקחת להם אותם בחזרה, כי הם לא ייתנו להם אותם בחזרה.

Child: But never mind that we gave them things, and we can’t take them back. Because they won’t give them back to us.

ביבי: (עוצר אותו):  קודם כל, קודם כל אוסלו זו מערכת – אתה צודק. א’, אני לא יודע מה אפשר לקחת או אי אפשר.

Netanyahu (holds his and to stop him from speaking): first of all, first of all Oslo is a system – you’re right. A, I don’t know what can be taken and can’t be taken.

אשה: יש לו דעות פולייטיות, תאמין לי.

Woman: he has political opinions, believe me.

ביבי: הוא צודק.

Netanyahu: He’s right.

אשה: הוא אמר לאריק שרון דברים שאני אמרתי לו: זה לא – זה לא דעה של ילד. הסכמי אוסלו זה אסון.

Woman: He said such things to Arik Sharonthat I told him: that’s not – that’ not a child’s opinion. The Oslo Accords are a disaster.

ביבי: כן, את זה את יודעת ואני ידעתי.

Netanyahu: Yes. You know that and I knew that.

אשה: יפה, אז חשבתי ש…

Woman: Fine, so I thought that…

ביבי: צריך שהעם יידע.

Netanyahu: The people [nation] has to know.

אשה: נכון. אבל חשבתי שראש הממשלה כן ידע, והוא יעשה הכל כדי, איכשהו, לא לעשות דברים קריטיים, כמו מסירת חברון ש…

Woman: Right. But I thought that the prime minister did know, and that he’d do everything so that, somehow, not to do critical things, like handing over Hebron, that…

ביבי: מה היו הסכמי אוסלו? הסכמי אוסלו שהכנסת חתמה עליהם – שאלות אותי, לךפני הבחירות: אתה תקיים?" אמרתי: "כן, כפוף להדדיות וצמצום הנסיגות." "אבל איך אתה מצמצם את הנסיגות?" אני אתן פירוש להסכם שיאפשר לי להפסיק את הדהירה הזאת לקווי 67′. איך עשינו את זה?

Netanyahu: What were the Oslo Accords? The Oslo Accords, which the Knesset signed, I was asked, before the elections: “Will you act according to them?” and I answered: “yes, subject to mutuality and limiting the retreats.” “But how do you intend to limit the retreats?” “I’ll give such interpretation to the Accords that will make it possible for me to stop this galloping to the ’67 [armistice] lines. How did we do it?

קריין: הסכם אוסלו קבע בשעתו כי ישראל תמסור בהדרגה שטחים לפלסטינים בשלוש פעימות שונות, אלא אם בשטחים האמורים יימצאו התנחלויות, או אתרים צבאיים. כאן מזה ביבי פרצה.

Narrator: The Oslo Accords stated at the time that Israel would gradually hand over territories to the Palestinians in three different pulses, unless the territories in question had settlements or military sites. This is where Netanyahu found a loophole.

אף אחד לא אמר מה זה אתרים צבאיים מוגדרים. אתרים צבאיים מוגדרים, אני אמרתי, אלה אזורי ביטחון. בקעת הירדן, מבחינתי, זה אזור צבאי מוגדר.

Netanyahu: No one said what defined military sites. Defined military sites, I said, were security zones. As far as I’m concerned, the Jordan Valley is a defined military site.

אישה: נכון. (צוחקת) יישובי בית שאן. עמק בית שאן.

Woman: Right [laughs]. The Beit She’an settlements. The Beit She’an Valley.

ביבי: לך תגיד. לך תגיד. אבל אז היתה שאלה, מי יגדיר מה זה "אתרים צבאיים מוגדרים". קיבלתי מכתב מכריסטופר. אלי ואל ערפאת באותה שעה, שאומר שישראל, וישראל בלבד, היא זו שתגדיר מה הם, את מיקום האתרים הצבאיים האלה, ואת גודלם. עכשיו, הם לא רצו לתת את המכתב הזה, אז לא נתתי את הסכם חברון. הפסקתי את ישיבת הממשלה, אמרתי: "אני לא חותם". רק כשהגיע המכתב, תוך כדי הישיבה אלי ואל ערפאת, חתמתי על הסכם חברון, או אשררתי אותו. הוא כבר היה חתום קודם. למה זה חשוב? כי מאותו הרגע עצרתי בעצם את הסכם אוסלו.

Netanyahu: How can you tell. How can you tell? But then the question came up of just who would define what Defined Military Sites were. I received a letter – to my and to Arafat, at the same time – which said that Israel, and only Israel, would be the one to define what those are, the location of those military sites and their size. Now, they did not want to give me that letter, so I did not give the Hebron Agreement. I stopped the government meeting, I said: “I’m not signing.” Only when the letter came, in the course of the meeting, to my and to Arafat, only then did I sign the Hebron Agreement. Or rather, ratify it, it had already been signed. Why does this matter? Because at that moment I actually stopped the Oslo Accord.

אשה: ולמרות זאת, אדם משלנו, סליחה, שידע שזו תרמית, ושאנחנו הולכים להתאבד עם הסכם אוסלו, נותן להם לדוגמה את חברון. את זה אף פעם לא הבנתי.

Woman: And despite that, one of our own peope, excuse me, who knew it was a swindle, and that we were going to commit suicide with the Oslo Accord, gives them – for example – Hebron. I never understood that.

ביבי: באמת חברון זה כואב. זה כואב. זה הדבר שכואב. אחד מהרבנים המפורסמים, שאני מאוד מכבד אותו, רב של ארץ ישראל, אמר לי: מה היה אבא שלך אומר?" הלכתי לאבא שלי. אתם יודעים קצת על העמדות של אבא שלי?

Netanyahu: Indeed, Hebron hurts. It hurts. It’s the thing that hurts. One of the famous rabbis, whom I very much respect, a rabbi of Eretz Yisrael, he said to me: “What would your father say?”  I went to my father. Do you know a little about my father’s positiond?

אישה: כן

Woman: Yes.

אבי הוא…

Netanyahu: My father is…

ילד: לא (צוחק)

Child: No. [laughs]

אישה: הוא יקרא עוד מעט.

Woman: He’ll read in a little while.

ביבי: הוא לא בדיוק יונה צחורה, כמו שאומרים. אז אבי שמע את השאלה ואמר: "תגיד לרב שהסבא שלך, הרב נתן מיליקובסקי, היה יהודי חכם. תגיד לו שעדיף לתת שני אחוז מאשר לתת מאה אחוז." וזו הברירה שעומדת כאן על הפרק. אתה נתת שני אחוז ובזה עצרת את הנסיגה הזאת. במקום מאה אחוזים."  החוכמה היא לא להיות שם ולהישבר. החוכמה היא להיות שם ולשלם מחיר מזערי.

Netanyahu: He’s not exactly a lily-white dove, as they say. So my father heard the question and said: “Tell the rabbi that your grandfather, Rabbi Natan Milikowski, was a smart Jew. Tell him it would be better to give two percent than to give a hundred percent. And that’s the choice here. You gave two percent and in that way you stopped the withdrawal. Instead of a hundred percent.” The trick is not to be there and break down. The trick is to be there and pay a minimal price.

אישה: אמן כראש ממשלה.

Woman: May you say that as prime minister.

ביבי: אני מעריך שכן. אני מעריך שזה יקרה.

Netanyahu: In my estimate that will happen.

 

No Responses Yet

  1. bob
    July 17, 2010, 9:11 am

    Woman: wait a moment, but then the world will say “how come you’re conquering again?”

    Netanyahu: the world won’t say a thing. The world will say we’re defending.

    So does the media. ‘Defense,’ ‘response,’ and the Israeli victim narrative

    • Bandolero
      July 17, 2010, 9:40 am

      “Netanyahu: the world won’t say a thing. The world will say we’re defending.”

      That phrase I find very interesting, too. It sounds like an explication for the crime of the century. As I understood it, Netanyahu made his taped statement a couple of weeks before 9/11. How could he know in advance, that the world opinion will shift in his predicted way after 9/11 occurs?

      I sounds like he knew something other people didn’t know. It corresponds very well with this theory:

      link to sabbah.biz

      And I remember two years ago a headline that read: “Netanyahu says 9/11 terror attacks good for Israel”, where Netanjahu was quoted in this way:

      “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” Ma’ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events “swung American public opinion in our favor.”

      That sounds like 9/11 and the whole so called “war on terror” is just serving Israel to be able to continue with settlements.

      • annie
        July 17, 2010, 12:47 pm

        bandolero, or course the WOT is serving israel’s expansion.

        • annie
          July 17, 2010, 12:51 pm

          just look at iraq. the dna of zionist expansion is for all population centers in the ME to be walled up in easily containable bitesize portions w/you know who controlling the levers and the airspace. not too hard to figure out. these are the birthpangs of the new middle east. follow what they do not what they say. the entire middle east is up for grabs.

        • Psychopathic god
          July 17, 2010, 8:52 pm

          factoid it’s amazing is not better known: Jews lived in Iraq, in large numbers, quite prosperously, from 536 BC until 1950 AD.

          If ANYPLACE would logically be thought a “homeland” for the Jewish people, it would be Babylon/Baghdad/Iraq: Abraham hailed from Iraq; Jews lived in Iraq for 2500 years; Jewish doctrine was run out of Iraq for a huge number of those years.

          You want real CT? Haim Saban’s California house is loaded with ancient artifacts. What are the chances some of them have a little tag on them that says, “Priceless artifact, Iraq Museum; Please do not remove.”

        • lysias
          July 17, 2010, 8:59 pm

          Wikipedia: 1950–1951 Baghdad bombings:

          Palestinian historian Abbas Shiblak believes that the attacks were committed by Zionist activists and that the attacks were the pre-eminent reason for the subsequent exodus of Iraqi Jews to Israel[14]. Shiblak also argues that the attacks were an attempt to sour Iraq-American relations, saying “The March 1951 attack on the US Information Centre was probably an attempt to portray the Iraqis as anti-American and to gain more support for the Zionist cause in the United States[2]“.

          The Iraqi Jewish anti-Zionist author Naeim Giladi claims that the bombings were “perpetrated by Zionist agents in order to cause fear amongst the Jews, and so promote their exodus to Israel”[15] is shared by a number of authors, including Wilbur Crane Eveland (1980)[16], Uri Avnery (1988)[citation needed], Ella Shohat (1986)[citation needed], Marion Wolfsohn (1980)[citation needed], and Rafael Shapiro (1984)[citation needed]. In his article, Giladi notes that this was also the conclusion of Wilbur Crane Eveland, a former senior officer in the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) who outlined that allegation in his book “Ropes of Sand”.

          According to Eveland, whose information was presumably based on the Iraqi official investigation which was shared with the US embassy[1], “In an attempt to portray the Iraqis as anti-American and to terrorize the Jews, the Zionists planted bombs in the U.S. Information Service library and in the synagogues. Soon Leaflets began to appear urging Jews to flee to Israel… most of the world believed reports that Arab terrorism had motivated the flight of the Iraqi Jews whom the Zionists had ‘rescued’ really just in order to increase Israel’s Jewish population.” [16]

          The British Embassy in Baghdad assessed that the bombings were carried out by Zionist activists trying to highlight the danger to Iraqi Jews, in order influence the State of Israel to accelerate the pace of Jewish emigration. Another possible explanation offered by the embassy was that bombs were meant to change the minds of well-off Jews who wished to stay in Iraq.[10]

          Arthur Neslen’s recently published book “Occupied Minds” contains an interview with the convicted bomber Yehuda Tajar in which he recalls a conversation with the widow of Beit-Halahmi, a fellow Mossad agent. She implied that Beit-Halahmi, on his own initiative, and without orders from Israel, organized attacks after his colleagues were arrested in order to cast doubt on their guilt.[10]

        • Bandolero
          July 17, 2010, 10:21 pm

          @lysias
          Yes, the Baghdad bombings 1950. You found just one more operation, which I assume to be a zionist false flag operation. There are many more zionist false flag ops in history, some well known like Ariel Scharons Qibya massacre 1953 – yes that Ariel Scharon being Israeli PM while 9/11 happened – and “Operation Susannah” (Lavon affair) 1954, and some not so well known as false flags like the Maale Akrabim massacre 1954.

          Naeim Giladi, which you cite in your wikipedia excerpt, has several years ago written a book on this topic, which is nowadays freely available online: “Ben-Gurion’s Scandals: How the Haganah and the Mossad Eliminated Jews”

          http://ia341206.us.archive.org/0/items/Ben-gurionScandals–HowTheHagannahAndTheMossadEliminatedJews/giladi.pdf

          I recommend it – it’s eye opening for those who don’t know.

          Of course, when the perpetrators are not caught in the act, it’s always hard to prove a crime to be a false flag op. A good guide when to become very sceptical I find this explanation:

          “Terror is an unbelievably strong means to manipulate and frighten the population,” Ganser underlines. “The real victims of a terrorist attack are not those left dead — the real victims are those people who are affected by becoming afraid. The public [will then] … turn to the state to ask for greater security.” Several Italian sources have confirmed this, among them Vincenzo Vinciguerra, a convicted right-wing terrorist who himself took part in this so-called “tension strategy” in which terror was manipulated to influence the political climate. “This is the political logic that lies behind all the massacres and the bombings which remain unpunished because the state cannot convict itself or declare itself responsible for what happened,” Vinciguerra says. (Cite from Todays Zaman: Gladio, Turkish Counter-Guerilla and Ergenekon, a devilish trio)

          Vincenzo Vinciguerra was convicted for the 1972 Peteano bombing, which was used by Gladio to blame the left.

        • RoHa
          July 17, 2010, 10:31 pm

          “a “homeland” for the Jewish people, it would be Babylon/Baghdad/Iraq”

          That the next step. Will the capital be Ur or Babylon?

          And of course, the period of slavery in Egypt gives Jews rights to Egypt as a homeland as well.

        • annie
          July 18, 2010, 5:28 pm

          somebody brought up rita katz of the SITE institute recently, the one that happens to ‘intercept’ all the terrorists. (author of Terrorist Hunter: The Extraordinary Story of a Woman who Went Undercover to Infiltrate the Radical Islamic Groups Operating in America )..she is an iraqi jew born in iraq. her father was one of the zionist spies (alleged) saddam hung. think she’s got a chip on her shoulder?

          The March 1951 attack on the US Information Centre was probably an attempt to portray the Iraqis as anti-American and to gain more support for the Zionist cause in the United States

          probably just a coincidence this is the same MO used in egypt during the lavon affair. one might imagine it was so successful in baghdad they were attempting a repeat.

          Another possible explanation offered by the embassy was that bombs were meant to change the minds of well-off Jews who wished to stay in Iraq.

          aside from jacking up israel’s population (too much of a vacum after kicking out all those palestinians)/workforce i’m partial to an idea introduced to me in Yehouda Shenhav’s “What do Palestinians and Arab-Jews Have in Common? “. ( i’ve linked to this numerous times since someone here turned me on to this excellent essay) the wanted to offset their debt to palestinians

          One was the demand, put forward by the United Nations and the governments of the United States and Britain, that Israel compensate the 1948 refugees for property that had been impounded by the State’s Custodian of Absentee Property……….The Government of Israel cited the injustice that the Iraqi government had done the Jews of Iraq in order to explain its refusal to compensate the Palestinians

          it was not necessarily a deliberate scheme. However, when implemented as a raison d’état it enabled the Israeli government to “legitimately” absolve itself of responsibility for compensating the Palestinian refugees (4). Moreover, Israel’s nationalization of the identity and property of Iraq’s Jews in its relentless drive to articulate Jewish nationalism served as a bargaining policy with which to deny Palestinian nationality. This article confirms that the Jews of Iraq became an instrument in a decision-making process from which they were excluded and which rested on basic assumptions they did not necessarily share. Furthermore, I draw on another source of archival data in order to document how WOJAC responded to the theory employed by the Israeli State. WOJAC strove to facilitate the linkage between the property of Iraqi Jews and the property of the Palestinian refugees. But, as it turned out, the organization’s non-Israeli members challenged these assumptions and developed a form of resistance against them.

      • kylebisme
        July 17, 2010, 2:40 pm

        While the Israeli establishment obviously had plenty of motive to orchestrate 9/11 while setting Muslims up as patsies, and there’s some evidence to suggest they might have provided at least some of the means of doing so, it’s highly unlikely they could have the opportunity to pull it off without approval from the establishment here in the US. Besides, the WoT is serving the interests of all sorts of war profiteers, not just Israeli ones. With that in mind, I figure the real masterminds were likely some faction of US corporate fatcats with agents in our government, and likely other nations such as Israel, Britain, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan.

        Anyway, for the many who still believe the “19 Arabs with boxcutters” conspiracy theory and shake your heads at those of us who don’t, please watch this presentation.

        • Bandolero
          July 17, 2010, 4:57 pm

          @kylebisme
          Yes, of course, you are right. Seeing the traces and motives of the Israeli hand in 9/11, it says by no means there were no other hands than Israeli hands involved. But what’s astonishing in this Netanyahu talk shown here from summer 2001, is that it shows, Netanyahu was fully aware of the gains for Israeli settlement policy from 9/11.

          Background know-how is, that Netanyahu had very close links to Larry Silverstein, the new owner of WTC, who insured his buildings especially well against terror:

          link to voltairenet.org

          So, if anybody knew in advance, Netanyahu likely was one them. And now I saw the video, and thought myself: He speaks like he knew.

          Kevin Ryan from the video you linked, has, from my point of view, two interesting points:

          1. The structures could not have been collapsed due to jet fuel, simply because jet fuel doesn’t burn hot enough. The steel of a car engine doesn’t melt from fuel, but we shall believe that the certified temperature resistent steel of the towers melted due to fuel. This leads to the question, what could have melted the steel of the WTC, so that it collapsed. Danish chemistry expert Niels Harrit found traces of high-tech “nanothermite” in the dust of the WTC. Such nanothermite would be a plausible technical explanation for melting steel and collapsing buildings. Now if you see the link of my first comment, Ehud Barak had just in 2001 his fingers into a company producing high-tech nanothermite.

          2. The extensive cover up was the job of the US government. This cover up would not have been possible without Bush and Cheney orchestrating it. So an Israeli hand in 9/11 does not mean, there was no other hands in it. I think, an interesting start point to find motives for Bushs and Cheneys hand in 9/11 is the research for Halliburton, WTC and asbestos. But there are many more, like in WTC7 were stored lot’s of SEC files which could have led to many cases like Enron if they would have not been destroyed.

          And of course, for many other neocons, their agenda was to spend more money on defense after a catalyzing event like pearl harbour as lined out in “Rebuilding America’s Defenses”, so for them that ideology might have been motivation enough.

        • syvanen
          July 17, 2010, 5:14 pm

          Would the tin foil hat crowd please take your delusions elsewhere, we really are not interested in what you consider a thought process.

        • Donald
          July 17, 2010, 5:44 pm

          Unfortunately, syvanen, this sort of stuff seems fairly common.
          There’s nothing one can do about it. Once people realize that the government and MSM lie about extremely serious things, some make the opposite mistake and start believing almost any conspiracy theory that comes along. Everything is taken as evidence for the conspiracy–look at bandolero’s interpretation of Netanyahu’s comments, which prove nothing. The second intifada was going on and Israelis always talk as though Palestinian violence comes out of nowhere and so Israelis act in self-defense, yet we’re supposed to believe this shows that Netanyahu was blathering away about 9/11 in front of Israeli settlers before it had happened. Yes, the Bush Administration and the Israelis saw 9/11 as a golden opportunity–just as Osama bin Laden saw the Bush Administration invasion of Iraq as a golden opportunity to spread his message and win support in the Muslim world. I suppose this means that Al Qaeda was really the one that planned the Iraq invasion. Perhaps Al Qaeda also ran Abu Ghraib and Guantanimo Bay–the torture there certainly worked to their benefit.

          For opposing views (including some links to detailed technical criticisms of truther claims), there’s this–

          link to debunking911.com

        • Bandolero
          July 17, 2010, 7:18 pm

          @syvanen
          Almost any war in history was started with deliberate lies. Yet, there is still a MSM influenced tin foil hat crowd which continues to believe the obvious lies of the warmongers. False flag terror as a tool to shift opinions is not uncommon in contemporary Western and Israeli culture and the cover ups usually need decades to be uncovered. Just remember the 1980 Bologna bombing and the USS Liberty or google, if you don’t know about these events. It doesn’t prove, that 9/11 was a false flag attack, but it proves that the assumption is not per se to be excluded.

          Fact is, that the investigation of the crime was done in a way that it was far from convincing and far from any standards. And fact is that the government lied regarding the wars against Afganistan and Iraq. Do you challange these two statements?

          I find much more convincing what the UL-expert Kevin Ryan and many other credible people like Coleen Rowley, Sibel Edmonds, Behrooz Sarshar, John M. Cole, Robert Wright, Dick Stoltz, Bogdan Dzakovic, Niels Harrit, Katharine Gun, Karen Kwiatkowski and Anthony Shaffer say than what the government of exposed deliberate liars and Mr. or Mrs. debunking911.com try to make you believe. Do you challange the public statements of any of these credible people I named here?

          @Donald
          Osama bin Laden was already dead for a long time when the Bush Administration started the invasion of Iraq. All messages publicly assigned to Osama Bin Laden after 2001 were brought to us by former IDF soldier Rita Katz, who took the opportunity to spread Israels message.

          I agree with you that Benjamin Netanyahus statement is no evidence for advance knowledge, but my point is, that it fits the overall picture. How could he know in advance, that world opinion would shift?

          And then “accidently” came 9/11, destroyed the well insured buildings of his friend Larry Silverstein, served Netanyahus public opinion goals and fulfilled his prophecy. Do you see the point?

        • Mooser
          July 17, 2010, 7:22 pm

          Just stay out of high-rises, especially those damned curtain wall skyscrapers with the box-structure core. They could, given the amount of force applied to it on 9-11, fall over on a windy day. Also, they seem to have a basic design flaw; hit ‘em on the top and they collapse from the bottom! So please, syvanen, we don’t want to lose you, stay out of those skyscrapers!
          Amazing, how they tried to fool us! Told us those curtain wall building were like a Christmas tree, no matter what you did to the branches (the cantilevered floors) it wouldn’t collapse unless you cut the trunk (the central box-structure shaft). What liars! All you got to do is give the upper floors a good whack, and the whole thing comes down!
          I’ll never go up in one again, they don’t build ‘em like they used to. A WW2 bomber once flew into the Empire State building (don’t ask) and it didn’t even shudder, just stood there with the bomber sticking out of it. But they built ‘em better in the old days.

          And bandelero, stop worrying about the jet fuel! About 70% of it was consumed in the fireball. What better way to dispose of it then run the plane through a cheese grater of steel columns and live electrical wires?

        • Avi
          July 17, 2010, 7:38 pm

          Mooser,

          That’s what I like about you; you know how to drive a message, any message, home through the use of humor and satire, the way no one else here can. And, as a result, you make a stronger point while pointing out the deficiencies in other people’s arguments. It’s an art form. So, for that alone, I thank you. Seriously.

        • Berthe
          July 17, 2010, 8:14 pm

          Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Myers (Chairman of the Joint Chiefs) — very odd doings on 9/11. Myers actually told the 9/11 Commission that the reason the US military (at $500/billion + per year) sat on its hands for 109 minutes while the US was under attack was that they worried about the Posse Comitatus Act. During the attacks, the commander of NORAD, General Ralph Eberhart, actually got in his car and drove and was incommunicado for an hour because his phone wasn’t working.

          It must have been about 10:30 in the morning that the media started telling us that the government thought the attacks were the work of Osama bin Laden, not a household name in 2001. In December, Rumsfeld was on Meet the Press and Russert showed the famous cartoon drawing of bin Laden’s cave, with “secret exits on the side and on the bottom, cut deep to avoid thermal detection so when our planes fly to try to determine if any human beings are in there, it’s built so deeply down and embedded in the mountain and the rock it’s hard to detect. And over here, valleys guarded, as you can see, by some Taliban soldiers. A ventilation system to allow people to breathe and to carry on. An arms and ammunition depot. And you can see here the exits leading into it and the entrances large enough to drive trucks and cars and even tanks. And it’s own hydroelectric power to help keep lights on, even computer systems and telephone systems. It’s a very sophisticated operation. ” Rumsfeld not only agrees with Russert that the cave has all that but says theres more than one such cave.

          We all found out that there were no such caves. Ergo, the capacity that the US government attributed to bin Laden when he was fingered for 9/11 was completely untrue. But it changed nothing. Down the memory hole with that spectacular drawing of bin Laden’s cave and the Secretary of Defense, 2 months after September 11, saying that cave and others like it existed.

          Rumsfeld on MTP

        • Berthe
          July 17, 2010, 8:19 pm

          The jet fuel angle is just amazing. People believe it has magical properties. It migrates to elevator shafts and becomes an inferno.

          The government itself says that the jet fuel burned of in “at most a few minutes.” A few minutes at most of localized fire weakened 90,000 tons of steel. A hundred years from now, they are not going to understand how we were so gullible.

        • Berthe
          July 17, 2010, 8:26 pm

          Donald,
          Is there anything in that link as wacky as the Secretary of Defense believing that bin Laden had caves with entrances big enough for tanks? Caves with ventilation systems, computer systems, hydroelectric power? And this was 2 months after the attacks that Rumsfeld was telling Tim Russert bin Laden had those caves. (See MTP link down thread)

        • Psychopathic god
          July 17, 2010, 8:46 pm

          Thomas Barnett, Pentagon’s New Map and Cantor Fitzgerald

          I ran a series of workshops with Cantor Fitzgerald, atop the World Trade Center, where we brought together Wall Street heavyweights, National Security Council members and OSD, office of secretary of defense, planners and whatnot, and subject matter experts, and we explored the future of globalization and what could threaten globalization and what would be new definitions of international instability and crisis.

          That gets wiped off the board with 9/11 because Cantor loses so many people. At that point, the person who had been the president of the Naval War College, Vice Admiral Art Zabrowsky (ph), retires as president, goes to work for Don Rumsfeld as his transformation guru. They start this new office within the office of the secretary of defense called the Office of Force Transformation. It`s going to be about really transforming the U.S. military for the tasks that lie ahead. This administration comes in very committed to this concept. We`re going to build the military of tomorrow today.

          So Art Zabrowsky calls me soon after 9/11, knowing that my project`s been shot out from under me, somewhat literally, and says, Come work for me. We need rationales. We need an explanation of the world that says not only that we`re transforming because we`re a rich and technologically capable country and thus can have a, you know, well-endowed and technological enabled military, but that we`re doing this transformation of the U.S. military in response to real changes in the international security environment that we think we now understand, in part, thanks to 9/11, that a certain world has been revealed to us.

        • lysias
          July 17, 2010, 9:04 pm

          Justin Raimondo’s The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection establishes, in my opinion, that there was some Israeli role in 9/11, if only, at a minimum, that Israelis were tracking what the terrorists were doing.

          David Ray Griffin’s numerous books on 9/11 seem to me to establish that there was at least some level of Bush/Cheney complicity in 9/11.

          I am a lawyer. I just believe in following where the evidence takes us.

        • RoHa
          July 17, 2010, 10:37 pm

          They should build skyscrapers out of the material that the Saudis use for passports. A conflagration that was supposed to soften steel barely scorched the hijackers’ passports, which then drifted down to land conveniently on top of the tons of rubble.

        • hayate
          July 18, 2010, 12:11 am

          syvanen July 17, 2010 at 5:14 pm

          “Would the tin foil hat crowd please take your delusions elsewhere, we really are not interested in what you consider a thought process.”

          Donald July 17, 2010 at 5:44 pm

          “Unfortunately, syvanen, this sort of stuff seems fairly common….”

          Only zionist approved conspriracie discussions are allowed, isn’t that right sylvia & donny.

          Jesus, what a freakshow.

        • Hugh
          July 18, 2010, 12:37 am

          I am too. The conspiracy stuff is interesting but none of us can do anything to move it along. Shouldn’t we be thinking about making some hay with the Netanyahu admissions politically?

        • syvanen
          July 18, 2010, 12:51 am

          Lysias, you are exactly right. I too had these questions. What totally infuriated me is that the 911truthers raised so many stupid hypotheses that the few rational possibilities that you mention were drowned out in the ensuing debate. If I was willing to push totally unsupported conspiracy theories, I would posit that Shin Bet is behind the whole 911truther movement in order to discredit the serious questions that could be raised. In any case, for now we will likely never know just how much of the 911 attack that Israeli intelligence was able to figure out before that date.

        • kylebisme
          July 18, 2010, 1:47 am

          syvanen

          Please check out this “hypothesis”, which is the closest thing there is to an official story for the total destruction of the towers. Now, assuming you paid attention in middle school physical science class, please ponder this question. If you’ve never had any interest in matters of physics, please stop slandering those of us who do.

        • kylebisme
          July 18, 2010, 2:26 am

          Also, while Justin Raimondo did some good investigative reporting on possible Israeli involvement in the early days, Paul Craig Roberts said neither Anti-War nor Counterpunch would even let him report facts such as the many architects and engineers calling out the cover-up and the flakes of nano-thermite found in the dust. Also worth seeing Amy Goodman asked about WTC 7. As everyone here knows how our government and media cover-up extremely serious things, I’m disappointed to see some here defend the official 9/11 conspiracy theory as if it were gospel.

        • syvanen
          July 18, 2010, 4:22 am

          Kleb I do understand physics, with a professional training in thermodynamics. I looked at “this hypothesis” and it does not contradict the model that once the columns failed at the point of impact , gravity and kinetic energy fully explain the catastrophic collapse of the the WTCs. You obviously do not even understand the papers you cite, so yes you damn fools fully deserve the ridicule that I and others offer you. Go somewhere else with your nonsense. That by the way is not slander, simply an F for not understanding the physics of this problem.

        • kylebisme
          July 18, 2010, 5:58 am

          Syvanen,

          Bazant’s hypothesis is sheer nonsense, which is why it can only defended with ridicule and vacant appeals to authority, as it’s qualitatively impossible to produce experimental conformation to support the notion of top-down collapse. Not with a physical model of any scale nor a computer based simulation will anyone ever vindicate your beliefs about what happened to the towers, because it isn’t even close to physically possible. I don’t like being the bearer of bad news, but the towers were brought down with explosives, as was WTC 7.

        • Citizen
          July 18, 2010, 7:21 am

          Yeah, but in light of those guys atop the white van filming the planes hitting the towers, and those 40 or so Israelis quickly deported to Israel, it’s not unreasonable to assume the Israelis had advance notice. Back in Israel, one of the van guys appeared on Israeli TV, saying we went over there to capture the moment. And, how about all those Israeli student “artists?” If Israel had advance notice and didn’t tell the US government, isn’t that something to be concerned about? Some special ally. And we reward it.

        • Bandolero
          July 18, 2010, 8:21 am

          @syvanen
          You say:
          “What totally infuriated me is that the 911truthers raised so many stupid hypotheses that the few rational possibilities that you mention were drowned out in the ensuing debate.”

          I agree with you. And if I would have been carrying out a false flag attack and after this I had no-nonsense people like Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer, Kevin Ryan and the like going after me, how would I drown out these in the ensuing debate?

          I would recruit, support and encourage a lot of ufo theorists, white supremacists, holocaust deniers and the like to support the “false flag theory” and make them output ot’s of sheer nonsense. In the next step I would call my journalist contacts in the mass media and encourage them to make stories about the nonsense like “Conspiracy theories on false flag op sheer nonsense, just serving the interests of ufo theorists, white supremacists, holocaust deniers”

          You say further:

          “If I was willing to push totally unsupported conspiracy theories, I would posit that Shin Bet is behind the whole 911truther movement in order to discredit the serious questions that could be raised.”

          Here I disagree with you. It’s not “totally unsupported conspiracy theories”. If it’s true that 9/11 was a false flag op, it’s logical. Is it done? In my opinion, yes, it is done. Have a closer look at the center of the “tin foil hat crowd” supporting 9/11 false flag theory to discredit it and turn attention away from the rational “Israel profits” outlined by Bibi himself.

          Google the center of this “tin foil hat crowd” yourself: Alex Jones + Israel.

        • Berthe
          July 18, 2010, 9:44 am

          Raimondo and others seem to think that Israel or the US government was aware of this Al Qaeda plot and did nothing to stop it —- ??? Why posit something so complicated when we have never seen any evidence that the “19 Arab hijackers” did it and the evidence we know of is (1) confessions obtained with torture and (2) a bin Laden confession the US army claims to have “found” in a house?

          On the other hand, we have absolute proof that false identities were involved because of the story of the Bukharis — CNN reports on 9/11 said Adnan and Ameer Bukhari were among the hijackers but Ameer had died a year earlier and Adnan was found alive in his apartment in Florida and completely cleared of any involvement. Clear, absolute proof that someone was collecting and using Saudi identities.

        • Berthe
          July 18, 2010, 9:47 am

          syvanen,
          re your professional training in thermodynamics, it reminds me of the Dorothy Parker poem that concludes, “And I am Marie of Rumania.”

          Oh, life is a glorious cycle of song,
          A medley of extemporanea;
          And love is a thing that can never go wrong;
          And I am Marie of Romania.

        • lysias
          July 18, 2010, 9:52 am

          The evidence Raimondo presents in The Terror Enigma: 9/11 and the Israeli Connection of at the least Israeli foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks seemed to me very powerful when I first read the book when it came out (shortly after 9/11) and when I recently reread it.

          Raimondo seems not to believe — or at least unwilling to state any belief — that there was any U.S. government participation in such a plot. There, I am very much inclined not to agree with him. (In as murky a matter as 9/11, I am only willing to talk about suspicions I hold, I have no firm beliefs — beyond the fact that the official story about 9/11 is a tissue of lies.)

        • Mooser
          July 18, 2010, 10:10 am

          Jesus Christ, you could see the squibs! You could see the goddam squibs! I saw it live, and was waiting for the news-guy to say “My God, they wired the building.

          Syvanen, you could take a curtain-wall box structure building by it’s hilt (where the central columns go into the ground_ and wield it like a sword! You are making the same mistake everybody makes- you think the floors are stacked on top of each other, like a stick-built house, or stone-block building. The floors hang from the central box structure!. You could strip away the , oh never mind.

        • Taxi
          July 18, 2010, 10:23 am

          Yeah, me too with Avi.

          Thanx Moose.

        • Berthe
          July 18, 2010, 10:39 am

          Mooser,

          Exactly. Thats the principle of cast iron structural innovation that allowed skyscrapers to be built to any height. (Steel being a purefied form of iron). Theres an old movie, Liebestraum, (no, its not German, takes place in Illinois, stars Bill Pullman) that has a description of the suspension of floors from the central structure and why it allowed architects to keep going up.

        • Donald
          July 18, 2010, 11:47 am

          Syvanen–

          I agree that the one rational portion of all this is the idea that some people in the US or Israeli governments knew something was up ahead of time. That is possible–the world of intelligence and terrorism is probably some weird puzzle palace of double agents and triple agents and betrayals all over the place. And it’d be a lot easier to allow some terrorist operation to go forward (what could be easier to fake than governmental incompetence?) than it would be to start lugging hundreds of tons of explosives into buildings.

          Anyway, I’ve got no interest in the opinions of laypeople on structural engineering or the opinions of laypeople on which experts can be trusted. I’m not an expert on catastrophic failure of large structures myself, but have enough sense to realize this. Fortunately there’s no link between string theory and the I/P conflict–I don’t doubt the internet world would become crammed full of instant string theory experts.

        • annie
          July 18, 2010, 12:13 pm

          donald, a few wives of fireman (i think their husbands were fireman) called the new jersy wives..they were the one’s that lobbied before congress for a long time to finally get the commission who btw didn’t answer their questions (because anything controversial was kept out of the final report by design as a requirement of the panel) they banded together w/this timeline researcher who did nothing but collect reports that had been issued by the mainstream press and place them in a timeline format.

          it is interesting what reports were immediately dropped vs those repeated or altered. they made a movie w/just these reports. it doesn’t come to any conclusions but it’s really worth viewing. it’s called 9/11 press for truth, it’s very straightforward and as i said doesn’t offer any conclusions.

          for me, one of the most fascinating aspects was the original news clips of following the trail of funding and bank transfers of the highjackers which eventually just dropped from any coverage but not until after those names were revealed.

        • Berthe
          July 18, 2010, 1:04 pm

          Why would it be hard to lug hundreds of tons of explosives into the World Trade Center? Tons of stuff got lugged into those buildings every day of the week! What kind of deliveries went into the big firms and government agencies that had several floors? Tons. Every day. Tons of computer paper alone. Think about it.

          That third building that came down, Building 7, the one that wasn’t hit by an airplane and which the government has been FORCED to admit experienced 2.25 seconds of freefall, would have been the tallest building in 33 states and I wonder if thats not a factor in the gullibility, that most Americans don’t come into much contact with massive, enormous, awesome buildings like those, especially the 2 WTC 100+story towers. New Yorkers have always been more skeptical. The planes that hit the 2 towers were NOT “jumbo jets.” They were 767s, midsize planes, seats only 7 across. (Jumbo jets like 747s have seats 10 across and twice total seating capacity).

        • Berthe
          July 18, 2010, 1:09 pm

          annie,
          Remember the stories about mysterious stock trades in American Airlines, United Airlines and Morgan Stanley – “put” options, betting on the stocks to go down? Very unusual high volume. The 9/11 Commission dealt with those trades in circular reasoning fashion: The trades were made by people with no known connection to Al Qaeda, hence were irrelevant! Recently, in response to a FOIA request, the SEC has stated that it destroyed all records of those trades.

          Rather like the CIA destroying all the recordings of the interrogations yielding confessions that the 9/11 Commission used as the basis of its report.

        • kylebisme
          July 18, 2010, 1:35 pm

          Donald,

          It really doesn’t take more than a layperson’s understanding of physics and a clear head to come to terms with the fact that the WTC buildings were brought down with explosives. Unfortunately, many people have been too traumatised by the attacks to address them with a clear head, structural engineers and otherwise.

          Also, surely you have enough understanding of the scientific method to respect the fundamental principle of reproducibility? Were the official story for what happened to the towers true, experimental confirmation could easily be produced to prove as much. Instead we have a bunch of establishment approved “experts” telling us how splendid the emperor’s new cloths are, while experts like these and everyone else who speaks the truth are slandered as heretics.

        • kylebisme
          July 18, 2010, 1:50 pm

          Berthe,

          The insider trading was flagrant. yet the 9/11 Commission dismissed by claiming it was all one big coincidence because they couldn’t find any link between those who gamed the system and al Qaeda. The official story is so full of reverse scientific method it’s astounding, though not so much as the fact that so many still cling to like gospel.

        • Mooser
          July 18, 2010, 2:21 pm

          Avi, I think extra explosive force was applied to cause a demolition. And that’s all I think.

        • Donald
          July 18, 2010, 2:48 pm

          A layperson’s understanding of physics isn’t worth a bucket of spit.

          For anyone interested, here’s an exchange about Bazant’s paper, including the crushup crushdown problem that Kyle mentioned above. Good luck to the layperson who thinks his or her opinion is worth anything here.

          link to civil.northwestern.edu

        • kylebisme
          July 18, 2010, 3:09 pm

          Donald.

          Bazant and his congregation can fudge equations around and scrawl out pictures while rambling on about what an expert he is from here to oblivion. However, neither him nor anyone else will ever provide any semblance of experimental confirmation to back his arguments, because they have no basis in reality. On the other hand, anyone with a clear head and at least a rudimentary understanding of Newtonian physics can understand reality.

        • syvanen
          July 18, 2010, 3:16 pm

          This is perfect example of controlled-demolitionoid science. Steel is NOT a purified form of iron. Purified iron is called, well iron. Steel is mixture of iron and carbon — it provides tensile strength.

          High rise buildings are most definitely not made out of cast iron. Structural steel is used. Buildings more than a dozen stories constructed of cast iron will collapse of their own weight.

          I left this pseudoscience spiel out here for few hours to see if any of the truthers could spot this nonsense. Seems no one could. You guys live in science fantasy world.

        • Donald
          July 18, 2010, 3:34 pm

          Kyle, I looked at your controlled demolition link setting pictures of controlled demolition next to the Trade Center buildings and I have to reply “What’s your point?” Demolish the supports of a given floor and the rest of the building comes down. You get a lot of debris blown out sideways as the building collapses. It’s what I’d expect–remove the supports and it doesn’t matter whether it happened as a result of a jet plane and fire weakening the supports or explosives removing them.

          This reminds me of a book I read as a kid–”The Fire Came By”, about the 1908 Siberian explosion. The authors (theater critics) thought there was something significant about the fact that there was a mushroom cloud in the 1908 explosion. It didn’t occur to them that if you heat a large volume of air very quickly, it rises, then air rushes in from the sides and the result is a mushroom cloud. It doesn’t prove a nuclear explosion was involved.

          And btw, there’s been a fair amount of progress made in physics by people fudging equations around. It’s a big part of what separates, say, Galileo from Aristotle.

        • kylebisme
          July 18, 2010, 3:36 pm

          Syvanen,

          While you are correct in explaining the difference between iron and steel, you’re living in a fantasy world in imaging that nobody calling it out is the same as nobody spiting it. Rather, I simply didn’t care to nitpick that misconception, as the pseudoscientific spiel which is the official story for how the WTC buildings came down is far more deserving of attention.

          Tell me, did you read through the comments from structural engineers which I linked previously above? If you’d to take issue with anything said by them, or by me, I’d be happy to explain how you’re wrong. Until then, you are just picking at low hanging fruit to fallaciously defend your own misconceptions.

          Also, for those who might think I replied to Donald too soon to have read the paper he linked. It’s not that I didn’t take the time to read it, but rather that I’d read it long before he posted it here. On the other hand, I can’t help but wonder if Donald ever read it himself, as he seems completely incapable of addressing the physics of the matter in his own words.

        • Donald
          July 18, 2010, 3:40 pm

          Incidentally, in that link of yours, the building on the left in the first 10 or 20 seconds–I wish the film clip had gone on longer, because it looked to me like maybe it was an illustration of Bazant’s theory, but it didn’t last long enough. A floor got blown out (that’s not important–the point is the supports were removed) and it looked like the top half of the building started falling without being destroyed and I almost thought I could see the floor immediately underneath being crushed. But I’m not sure. That would be “crush down” happening without “crush up”, which is what Bazant claims will initially happen.

          Anyway, this has been another episode of “Laypeople discuss a complex technical field as though it matters what they think”. It’s been fun, but someone may need me elsewhere to resolve difficult theoretical problems in general relativity.

        • Donald
          July 18, 2010, 3:42 pm

          “Bazant claims will initially happen.”

          Or rather, he says that initially there might be a little of both, but then crush down takes over until the upper part of the building makes contact with the ground.

          Okay, that’s it for me. Off to solve what happens when Superman falls into a black hole.

        • kylebisme
          July 18, 2010, 3:53 pm

          Donald

          What matters is the fact that removing the supports tales a lot of force, far more than what one can expect or will ever see accomplished by fire, regardless of if a building is hit by a jet (WTC 1 & 2) or otherwise (WTC 7). Furthermore, traditional controlled demolitions, as WTC 7 was, kick out the support from the bottom ~ 1/3 to allow the upper ~2/3 to build the acceleration to crush itself on the ground. Blasting out the top ~1/4 – 1/6 (WTC 2 & 1) respectively, would result top section shredding itself into the bottom and grinding to a halt well before it hit the ground. This is a simple matter of Newton’s Third Law.

          Please think this through. If the official story had any basis in reality, I’d refine and patent fire-induced demolition to make a fortune. You’re telling me there’s gold in them thar hills, but where’s all the prospectin’? This is the reason demolition companies haven’t cut their overhead in response to the supposed discovery of fire-induced demolition, saving money on explosives by starting fires; the official story has no basis in reality.

        • syvanen
          July 18, 2010, 6:22 pm

          OK I will bite you keep on insisting that you are scientifically literate. You write:

          What matters is the fact that removing the supports tales[sic] a lot of force, far more than what one can expect or will ever see accomplished by fire, regardless of if a building

          Actually the force that brought down the WTC was gravity. It was not the impact of the planes nor even the fire. That was in the original reports. The significance of the fires was that they managed to heat the central steel supports in excess of 800 deg.

          Why is that temperature significant? Because the structural steel in those columns lose their temper and in fact are reduced to having their load bearing capacities no better than cast iron. (above you ridiculed concern about the distinction between structural steel and cast iron as being trivial, it is not in the sense that I have encountered more that one 911truther who is oblivious to the difference). Then you go on:

          Blasting out the top ~1/4 – 1/6 (WTC 2 & 1) respectively, would result top section shredding itself into the bottom and grinding to a halt well before it hit the ground. This is a simple matter of Newton’s Third Law.

          I have no idea what your point is here — for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. OK, no problem, this law was not violated during the collapse. But “grinding to a halt” before it reached ground would be a violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Remember that one : energy cannot be created nor destroyed in a non-relativistic situation. Now once the building began to collapse huge amounts of energy were released. That is the potential energy stored in the buildings height (delta h) were released as kinetic energy once the fall began according to the equation m x delta h x g where m is the mass of the falling building and g is the gravitational constant (Newton did this one too if you recall). In any case if you consider the height and the mass of the WTC, once the thing started to fall was no force that would stop it accept the ground (as was duly noted by the seismographs in the the NY area that recorded the resulting shock waves).

          Finally you conclude with:

          Please think this through. If the official story had any basis in reality, I’d refine and patent fire-induced demolition to make a fortune.

          No you wouldn’t. Compare the price of 40,000 gallons of jet fuel with the cost of 50 pounds of plastique. You have no idea what you are talking about. You still deserve the F I gave you yesterday.

        • Berthe
          July 18, 2010, 6:53 pm

          Syvanen
          Try looking it up:

          Steel is made from purifying iron and alloying it with other metals.

        • Berthe
          July 18, 2010, 7:01 pm

          kylebisme,
          I don’t know what syvanen is talking about re steel. Steel is made by purefying iron and alloying it to other metals, carbon being the most common. Wikipedia says the carbon content is “between 0.2% and 2.1% by weight.” Its purefied iron.

        • Berthe
          July 18, 2010, 7:10 pm

          The government admits that the jet fuel lasted “at most a few minutes.” Exactly what material are you thinking was present in the buildings that could have burned hot enough to weaken the 90,000 tons of interconnected steel in each of the 100+ story towers? Honest question.

          Steel conducts heat; that heat would have been conducted throughout the entire structure for the building to weaken and totally collapse all at once like that. In about an hour or so, right?

        • kylebisme
          July 18, 2010, 7:13 pm

          Actually the force that brought down the WTC was gravity.

          Sure, but that couldn’t have happened without the mass amounts of explosives which blasted multi ton chunks of the steel supports loose, many flying hundreds of feet laterally, lodging some into the surrounding buildings. Absent explosives all the way down the towers, the top section would’ve ground to a halt before hitting the ground.

          In any case if you consider the height and the mass of the WTC, once the thing started to fall was no force that would stop it accept the ground (as was duly noted by the seismographs in the the NY area that recorded the resulting shock waves).

          Calculating the PE of a free standing structure as a point mass to claim has enough energy to crush itself is absurd, and it’s around triply use the height of the building rather than it’s center of mass, and that is just the big stuff. Please take the time musings to the test of experimental confirmation, as you’ll find you can no more do so than those who proclaim belief in psychic spoon bending.

          Compare the price of 40,000 gallons of jet fuel with the cost of 50 pounds of plastique.

          Note the fact that WTC 7 had no jet fuel in it, and according to the official story came down primarily due to office fires. Again, you defenders of the official story keep telling me there’s gold in them thar hills, but I ain’t seein’ no prospectin’.

        • syvanen
          July 18, 2010, 7:21 pm

          Berth please keep this up:

          Steel is made by purefying iron and alloying it to other metals, carbon being the most common. Wikipedia says the carbon content is “between 0.2% and 2.1% by weight.” Its purefied iron.

          You make my point, the 911truthers do not understand even the most elementary facets of science.

        • kylebisme
          July 18, 2010, 7:22 pm

          Berthe,

          Syvanen was referring to the fact that pure iron is somewhat heaver and far more brittle than steel . Granted, his was just nitpicking the trivial matter of your mistakenly referring to steel as iron to avoid addressing your point.

        • kylebisme
          July 18, 2010, 7:25 pm

          By the way, the grammatical mistakes like my “his” and “he” are the results of dyslexia impaired proofreading after paraphrasing myself. Please don’t take them as anything but that.

        • RoHa
          July 18, 2010, 7:32 pm

          But my favourite touch was the Arabic flight manuals found in the car. I imagine them in the parking lot, just after they arrive.

          “O.K., guys. Last minute check. Pop quiz: Ahmed, how do you make the plane go faster?”

          “Eeeerr ….. push forward on the stick thingy?”

          “Close enough.”

          Mind you, they probably needed it. By all accounts, they were such rotten pilots that they couldn’t hit the ground with a Cessna if the wings feel off. With that last minute swotting they managed a nifty bit of flying on the the day.

        • Berthe
          July 18, 2010, 7:38 pm

          You are really being silly. The principles that Mooser mentioned in that post way back when – floors suspended from central columns/structure out to the frame was an innovation of cast iron architecture that allowed building tall buildings. That is how the WTC skyscrapers were built: the floors were suspended from central core columns to the steel frame.

          What is your point? Are you saying the WTC buildings were not built with frame and central structure and the floors suspended?

        • Keith
          July 18, 2010, 7:38 pm

          BANDOLERO- There is certainly plenty of evidence that the Bush administration knew in
          advance, or should have known in advance of the 911 attacks, and was, at the least, criminally
          negligent in not preventing them. However, the notion that the towers were brought down by a
          controlled demolition is somewhat preposterous. Two points: the first is that a true controlled
          demolition is not that easy to do, requiring the skillful pre-placing of high explosives (NOT
          thermite) at strategic locations, and wired up. Difficult to imagine in an occupied building with the
          walls, ceilings and floors intact, and full of inquisitive people. Second point, a “controlled”
          demolition is inconceivable in a building following an airplane strike. How is it possible that the
          high explosives weren’t dislodged around the impact point? How is it possible that the wires
          weren’t severed? Most significantly, how is it possible that high explosives could withstand the
          extended exposure to a raging inferno without pre-detonating (cooking off)? And for what? When
          the first plane hit the first building, Bush had his 911. A relatively simple operation, not all that
          difficult to pull off. Why risk failure with a needlessly complex “mission impossible” operation?
          As for the “missile-not-an-airplane”strike on the Pentagon, I am amazed that anyone can take that
          seriously. How did these scenarios gain such traction? Because David Ray Griffin and others ran a
          well-funded operation to get 911 Truthers to discredit themselves by spouting nonsense. And it
          worked!

        • RoHa
          July 18, 2010, 7:38 pm

          I can’t say whether Bazant’s theory makes sense or not. What I can say is that, even if it does, it is only a theory of what might have happened if no explosives were involved.

          However, since we have independent reasons to believe demolition explosives were involved, I would suggest that the best explanation for an event that looks like a controlled demolition is that it was a controlled demolition.

          Is there any good reason to reject this explanation?

        • Berthe
          July 18, 2010, 7:47 pm

          Yeah, I got that avoidance but if I put “steel is a purefied form of iron” into google, I come up with 211,000 results and looking through a few, they concur that steel is iron with its impurities reduced to a minimum and its carbon content carefully controlled. Syvanen is off on a silly tangent.

        • Berthe
          July 18, 2010, 7:50 pm

          Thats good, sure, but NOTHING beats Bush continuing to read “My pet goat” and chat with the second graders after he’s told.

        • kylebisme
          July 18, 2010, 7:52 pm

          Berthe,

          I’m simply saying that the WTC buildings were not cast iron by any stretch, and rather were framed with steel. But again, you are correct in your general argument, the buildings would have held together just fine if it wasn’t for all the explosives.

          RoHa,

          The official story of the alleged hijackers is arguably as full of holes as that of the destruction of the WTC buildings.

        • syvanen
          July 18, 2010, 7:54 pm

          Kyle flunks yet again:

          Sure, but that couldn’t have happened without the mass amounts of explosives which blasted multi ton chunks of the steel supports loose,

          Nope. What happened is that the temper of the structural steel supports was lost due to the hydrocarbon fires. Basically their load bearing capacity was compromised and they failed. Once that point was reached the kinetic energy released into the buildings was sufficient to undermine the load bearing strength of rest of the structural steel. At that point there was nothing to stop the fall except the ground. Basic physics dear Kyle, you should learn it some day.

        • Berthe
          July 18, 2010, 7:56 pm

          There are pilots with many hours in 757s and 767s who say they could not have done the Pentagon maneuver. Me, I have no idea. It is hard for me to believe that the Pentagon didn’t have many, many security cameras of super duper quality that could have shown what happened. They released that one video and it was not possible to see what it was. They confiscated security video from a gas station and have not released it.

        • Berthe
          July 18, 2010, 8:00 pm

          Ha! Isn’t that interesting how syvanen put the 2 of us off on a tangent! Of course, I never said the buildings were cast iron but that the principle is the same (floors suspended off central structure and frame), as I noted was explained rather nicely and succinctly in that movie Liebestraum from the early 90s.

        • Berthe
          July 18, 2010, 8:01 pm

          What material burned that hot to weaken steel, totally weaken 90,000 tons of structural steel, in about an hour or so?

          Remember, NIST itself says the jet fuel was gone in “at most a few minutes.”

        • kylebisme
          July 18, 2010, 8:14 pm

          Syvanen,

          A particularly keen scientist by the name of Richard Feynman once said:

          It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.

          With that in mind, the official story total destruction of the WTC buildings is so very wrong that neither you nor anyone else will ever be able to provide any semblance of experimental confirmation to support it. If you insist on contending otherwise, please take the time to put your beliefs to the test, as that is the day you will learn some basic physics which currently eludes you.

        • Bandolero
          July 18, 2010, 8:44 pm

          @Keith
          Don’t get me wrong, Keith. I’m not sure about controlled demolition. But especially WTC7 looks in my opinion very much like controlled demolition. And in my opinion, to say the least, the whole official 9/11 surprise story smells extremely fishy.

          So, in my experience, a good question to start thinking, is the question: Cui bono? What could be a reasonable motive for such a crime?

          And here we go: In the year 2008 Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was as following on the record:

          “We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq,” Ma’ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events “swung American public opinion in our favor.”

          Of course his families messianic terror background and his connection to Larry Silverstein are well known. Does it mean that Netanyahu is guilty of 9/11? No. But shifting public opinion is the classical motivation for a false flag attack. So he should be one of the prime suspects in any serious investigation.

          Now I hear Netanyahu being taped in summer 2001 speaking on world public opinion on continued settlement policy:

          Woman: wait a moment, but then the world will say “how come you’re conquering again?”
          Netanyahu: the world won’t say a thing. The world will say we’re defending.
          Woman: Aren’t you afraid of the world, Bibi?
          Netanyahu: Especially today, with America. I know what America is. America is something that can easily be moved. Moved to the right correction.

          You see, Netanyahu is confident, that world and US opinion can be “easily be moved”. 9/11 did exactly this: shifting opinion – and the folowing “war against terror” gave Israel a free hand to do almost everything it wanted with the Palestinians. Coincidence? Maybe. But it fits to the suspicion of an Israeli hand in 9/11.

          And of course we all know from Justin Raimondo’s “Terror Enigma” that Israeli agents were present allegedly monitoring Al Qaeda, so at least a passive Israeli monitoring of 9/11 is very likely.

          Comes the question to controlled demolition of WTC7. If that was controlled demolition, how could it have been done? We have chemistry professor Niels Harrit, who says he found nanothermite in the rubble of 9/11. I think, that claim is not unreasonable. I think nanothermite could be an explanation of what I saw on video, how WTC7 fell in it’s footprint. In my oppinion it could be eg like this: make some fire with oil in the basement and put some nanothermite to the steel structure, to be sure, that the building really comes down. Bushists, whose SEC files were buried, have probably opened a bottle of champagne for there SEC files destroyed. And also nice for Bush and Cheney that their Halliburton wasn’t sued for asbestos in the towers anymore, because the building was down. If nanothermite was used, to give the fire a bit more and better directed power, who would be able to do this? American intelligence? I doubt it. The risk would be too high that some patriots would start talking later. I think, the only agency able to do nanothermite demolition of WTC7 and/or WTC1/WTC2, is Israeli intel. And this would fit the theory that Ehud Barak may have had access to nanothermite since spring 2001.

          Don’t get me wrong. I do not say that these theories are true, and if so, to what degree. But I say, they make a lot more sense than the official explanations and fake investigations. And the way Netanyahu is here on video is not contradicting an Israeli hand in 9/11 but more like supporting this assumption.

        • syvanen
          July 18, 2010, 8:53 pm

          Like Wile Coyote kyle keeps on coming back for more:

          Calculating the PE of a free standing structure as a point mass to claim has enough energy to crush itself is absurd, and it’s around triply use the height of the building rather than it’s center of mass, and that is just the big stuff. Please take the time musings to the test of experimental confirmation, as you’ll find you can no more do so than those who proclaim belief in psychic spoon bending.

          I didn’t consider the WTCs as point masses, not at all. Nor did I even consider where the center of mass was located. The model we have been discussing is that there was a single level in the WTC where the structural integrity of the building failed. Basically this is the two or three floors where the planes impacted the building. This resulted in an intense hydrocarbon fire. At that point there was a failure in the structural steel that supported the whole building. This resulted in a major collapse of the upper floors onto the point of failure. This collapse represented the fall of a major mass (M) through a distance of (we will call it H, but is likely about 4 to 15 meters) that means the potential energy of the above floors has just been converted into kinetic energy. This energy release is equal to MGH where G is the gravitational constant. It is very easy to calculate the amount of energy that was released at this point. (folks, try to do the calculation, it is a huge number, much larger than energy released from burning the fuel in the jets that crashed into the building). Keep in mind the buildings are still standing. The problem for the building is where does that energy go (equal to MGH). Well most of it moves through the building in a series of shock waves (we are back to that first law of thermodynamics, the energy cannot be destroyed, just converted into other forms). These shock waves can be seen in initial photos where we see the windows blowing out at the beginning of the collapse. Some of the energy is released as sound waves (basically shock waves in the air) and heat. Yes the heat from the final fall will be significant. Well the next steps as the building falls, and more kinetic energy in the form of shock waves throughout the building is released, is that the WTC is converted into a pile of dust consisting for the most part a moldering pile of gypsum, aluminum and iron at ground level.

        • kylebisme
          July 18, 2010, 9:03 pm

          Bandolero,

          I assure you that WTC 1, 2, and 7 couldn’t have come down as they did absent explosives, lots of explosives in the case of the first two. As Mooser’s approach seems so effective, see this video explanation of WTC 1 & 2 in that style, and another for WTC 7.

        • kylebisme
          July 18, 2010, 9:11 pm

          Like Wile Coyote kyle keeps on coming back for

          Seeing Syvanen say that only to go on to quote and dispute another part of a post he had already responded to previously, while ignoring my more recent reply to him is sheer comedy. As I said in that last response to him, if he ever bothers to put his beliefs to the test of experiment, that’s the day he will learn some basic physics which currently eludes him.

        • hayate
          July 18, 2010, 9:13 pm

          Berthe July 18, 2010 at 7:50 pm

          “Thats good, sure, but NOTHING beats Bush continuing to read “My pet goat” and chat with the second graders after he’s told.”

          Hey, bush, goat pictures and self control, what can one say? The goats portrayed were especially hot. Have you seen the illustrations?

        • Berthe
          July 18, 2010, 9:22 pm

          Do you know about Edna Cintron (who is in the NIST report)? She stood in the place where the plane hit the building for a long time, waving. She could have been saved if the building hadn’t been blown up. The firemen weren’t far off. How could she stand there if there was such an intense hydrocarbon fire?

          Edna Cintron in NIST photos

        • hayate
          July 18, 2010, 9:24 pm

          kylebisme July 18, 2010 at 9:11 pm

          “Seeing Syvanen say that only to go on to quote and dispute another part of a post he had already responded to previously, while ignoring my more recent reply to him is sheer comedy. As I said in that last response to him, if he ever bothers to put his beliefs to the test of experiment, that’s the day he will learn some basic physics which currently eludes him.”

          Physics has nothing to do with what sylvia scribbles, but hasbara has a great deal to do with it. Same style as the witty/wanderingjew/daily zionist troll.

          How long would israel continue to exist after their role in the crimes were exposed? Should the truth of what happened be exposed, zionists and their facilitators would be deep trouble. This is why the sylvias, donnies and kieths are tasked to go to so much trouble opposing investigation and promoting the official propaganda.

        • RoHa
          July 18, 2010, 9:32 pm

          Berthe, are you sure that was the real Bush? I doubt that he can read at that level.

        • RoHa
          July 18, 2010, 9:36 pm

          kylebisme,

          “The official story of the alleged hijackers is arguably as full of holes as that of the destruction of the WTC buildings.”

          I know that. But we still have to believe the official story, because otherwise we would be a bunch of tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy nuts.

          Wouldn’t we?

        • Donald
          July 18, 2010, 9:41 pm

          Keith, Syvanen –

          Forgot my key pad. Will have to type this in the clear. Our role as Zionist agents has been exposed–repeat, our role as Zionist agents has been exposed. Retreat to agreed to rendevous point and plan further hasbara efforts from there.

          Coded instructions in the following weblink, which masquerades as the opinions of a demolitions expert who does not believe explosives were used on 9/11.

          link to implosionworld.com

        • kylebisme
          July 18, 2010, 10:00 pm

          Berthe,

          Edna Cintron was surely getting a nice cool breese from the air sucked in by what little fires were there near the center of the buiding at that point. By the way, some pre-911 info on how strong the towers were. Most notably, the lead structural engineer, John Skilling:

          Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, … The building structure would still be there.

          Note that believing the official story doesn’t just require believing the man who built the towers and his team was wrong, but completely wrong, as the buildings structures were not “still there” by any stretch. On the other hand, one only has to look to how steel-frame high-rises are typically brought down to see the truth, though of course the top-down destruction of the towers was an atypical form of explosive demolition.

        • kylebisme
          July 18, 2010, 10:08 pm

          Donald links yet again to something else I’ve already read. Anyway, one can find a collection of comments from demolitions experts who aren’t in denial of the fact that explosives were used on 9/11 here. I wonder if Donald will bother to read that.

        • Donald
          July 18, 2010, 10:43 pm

          I’ve read a lot of stuff on your side kyle. The point I made some time back is that laypeople aren’t qualified to have an opinion on this. You and I can have one, but it means nothing unless we take the time to master the subject. I doubt you have and I know I haven’t. Your calls for experiment seem strange–there’s a lot of data on the behavior of steel, but if you are calling for a scale model recreation that would be difficult or impossible to do right–as you undoubtedly know, different physical properties scale differently–Galileo first pointed that out as the reason why giants are mainly found in mythology. If we don’t build a minature model and and choose to rebuild the WTC and fly a large plane into it we’d get some answers, but it would be expensive.

          I could go into my initial reaction to the Gourley criticism,–initially it seemed plausible. I’ve read technical stuff on shock waves in hypervelocity impacts many years ago, though I’m very rusty now. When an asteroid hits the ground one shock wave goes into the ground and the other goes back into the asteroid, so when Gourley said that the crushed zone should propagate both upwards into the building above where the failure began and also down, that sounded plausible to me, though of course with the WTC we weren’t talking about hypervelocity impacts. But Bazant responded to that in the original paper and in more detail in the response I linked above and said that it doesn’t work that way–the crushed zone is not a wave phenomena and he claims to have done detailed calculations showing you get crush down first and then crush up. Well, I’m not the structural engineering expert–he is. Maybe he’s wrong, but it would take more effort than I am going to expend to find out. Your dismissal of his equations doesn’t inspire confidence that you’re going to try too hard either. And the links you provided of buildings being demolished might show what Bazant is talking about, but I’m not sure. I’d like to see a full film of a building where for some reason the explosives were placed halfway up and follow what happens to the floors above and below and see if Bazant is right.

          Anyway, I’m not going to learn the physics of building collapse talking to people as ignorant as myself on a blog. That’s the blind talking to the blind about Rembrandt.

          What bugs me about politics in general is that it seems everyone ends up going nuts one way or another. The righties believe in WMD’s on little evidence and disbelieve in global warming and they have their experts and conspiracy theories. The center swallows whatever the mainstream feeds them and thinks it’s being sensible. The left sees through that, but then starts fitting everything into its own convenient mythology. Unfortunately politics matters, so you have to pay attention, but IMHO virtually everyone who gets too deeply involved in it turns into a nutcase. Presumably me as well in ways I don’t see.

          I’m going to be offline for a week. If I have any sense I’ll spend less time posting when I get back anyway, but we’ll see how much sense I have at that time.

        • Donald
          July 18, 2010, 10:56 pm

          I just clicked on your link and read some of what was there. Not all by any means, but everything I saw is what I’ve read before and the link I provided discusses many or most of those claims. The debunking sites usually mention all the standard truther arguments and provide links.

        • Keith
          July 18, 2010, 11:22 pm

          BANDOLERO- Indeed, let us examine motives. The motive for crashing airplanes into the WTC is somewhat obvious: to create a new Pearl Harbor. In my opinion, when the first plane hit the first building that was achieved. Now, what would be the motive for collapsing the buildings? Had the buildings remained standing, they would have nonetheless been destroyed. Probably have had to be taken down by a real controlled demolition for safety reasons. Perhaps left standing as the ultimate memorial and reminder of that fateful day. All of this relatively easy to achieve. What is the motivation to risk a relatively simple plan involving a relatively small group to engage in a high risk adventure with no obvious additional benefit? How long were these buildings rigged with high explosives? Chance of an accident? What if one of the planes didn’t make it? Who is going to remove the high explosive? What benefit is it to blow up WTC7? This adds to the “new Pearl Harbor?” Why bother with plane strikes on the twin towers only to simply blow up WTC7? Etc, etc, etc.

        • kylebisme
          July 18, 2010, 11:50 pm

          Donald,

          Do you comprehend the fact that while one could come up with a bunch of math and diagrams to explain how Uri Geller bends spoons with his mind, that wouldn’t prove he does? I didn’t dismiss the equations Bazant used, only his fudging them around to support a story which has no basis in reality. Furthermore. Bazant only vaguely references the physical properties of the towers, while making declarations of crush-down before crush-up which would be easily demonstrable with a simple model of any scale, were it not for the fact that his claims have no basis in reality.

          Besides, these wonderful computers we have provide a means of full scale testing of physical phenomena which can also be used to produce a reasonable semblance of experimental conformation of real world behavior. This video shows some examples from one of the most impressive of such simulation programs I’ve seen. Also, you can find some info on a simulation of a fire-induced progressive collapse here, though as the researchers note:

          And furthermore, the collapse speeds were much slower than the free-fall or saturated speed in these cases, which does not explain the high-speed collapse of the WTC towers.

          That’s about the best you could ever hope for in the contrast of the official story, as one can’t get anywhere close to the ~2/3 free fall acceleration and saturated speed of the towers with fire while respecting the laws of physics, as many experts will tell you.

          Anyway, while I’m no expert, you’re only further deluding yourself my imaging me as ignorant on such matters as you. You’re also fooling yourself by mistaking this as a partisan issue, as there are many who speak out against the 9/11 cover-up across both sides of the political spectrum, and I’m a libertarian who has no allegiance to either side. Finally, much of the arguments made by those so-called “debunking sites” are completely bunk.

        • kylebisme
          July 18, 2010, 11:58 pm

          Keith,

          Your inability to comprehend why the buildings were brought down with explosives does nothing to change the fact that it’s physically impossible for them to have come down anything like they did without explsoives. At least in the case of the towers that is, the way WTC 7 came down could theoretically be done though some elaborate means other than explosives, but the fact remains that explosives were used. The final sequence of explosions which brought down WTC were even faintly recorded by an interview mic four blocks away.

        • hayate
          July 19, 2010, 2:39 am

          Donald July 18, 2010 at 9:41 pm

          Ah….how thweet. You and keith remind me of linda grant’s old “me too” entourage at the guardian. Not much there, but you know who is buttering your bums.

        • Bandolero
          July 19, 2010, 12:21 pm

          @Keith
          “The motive for crashing airplanes into the WTC is somewhat obvious: to create a new Pearl Harbor.”

          This is not completely true. While it is obvious, that shifting public opinions for the planned War on Terror probably was one of the motives, it’s far from being clear, that it was the only motive for that the 9/11 attacks were executed, and especially the style they were executed. Different people involved in the attacks could have had different motives. Bush and Cheney for example could have had a strong asbestos motive.

          “In my opinion, when the first plane hit the first building that was achieved.”
          Of course the scale of the operation is questionable. Was it neccessary to have such a large scale op to achieve the goals? Would have a single plane crashed into WTC with perhaps no crashed tower had the same effect on public opinion like what actually happened? I doubt it.

          “Had the buildings remained standing, they would have nonetheless been destroyed.”
          I doubt it. I’ld think the insurer would have told the owner to repair the building if possible and economically sensible. In such a case Larry Silverstein would have not made a billion profit from insurance gains. And even worse, had the towers not crashed Cheney’s Hallinurton and the Bush family might have been bancrupted altogether with Larry Silverstein due to the Bushs Dresser asbestos problems:

          link to 911research.wtc7.net

          That the towers fell, was good to avoid asbestos claims.

          Further, had the towers not come down, WTC7 could not have fell down with a somehow plausible reason. The SEC papers in WTCC7 could have meant many years prison for the cronies, just like the papers proving bilion dollar defense scams in the pentagons bookkeeping department, that were luckily destroyed on 9/11.

          So, while the “kick off for war on terror motive” is obvious, and benefits for Israeli settlement is confirmed, it doesn’t say anything about further or different motives from other people possibly involved.

          And yes, I agree, that if explosives were used to help bringing down the towers, it has been a quite risky operation. I also agree, that it is an argument contradicting the likelyhood of using exposives. But it’s far from excluding that possibility.

          And like I said, especially the videos of WTC7 collapse look in my opinion very much like controlled demolition. Just putting away what can be seen on video, because it would mean, that there must have been a complex and risky operation in the background I find not very reasonable. The better question to ask in my opinion, if there had been a complex and risky operation in the background, who could have been able to carry it out? In my opinion, if anybody could do this, it would be Israel.

        • Psychopathic god
          July 19, 2010, 12:52 pm

          Cantor Fitzgerald was overstaffed and its long awaited electronic platform was ready to go fully operational.

          as well, Cantor was involved up to its eyeballs in the not-yet-exposed Enron scandal; Cantor largely eluded exposure on the extent to which its hands were in the Enron-Dyncorp til.

          just a coincidence that plane crashed into Cantor’s floors.

          Building on the works of Friedman, Huntington, and Fukuyama, and then taking a leap beyond, Barnett crystallizes recent American military history and strategy, sets the parameters for where our forces will likely be headed in the future, outlines the unique role that America can and will play in establishing international stability-and provides much-needed hope at a crucial yet uncertain time in world history. I ran a series of workshops with Cantor Fitzgerald, atop the World Trade Center, where we brought together Wall Street heavyweights, National Security Council members and OSD, office of secretary of defense, planners and whatnot, and subject matter experts, and we explored the future of globalization and what could threaten globalization and what would be new definitions of international instability and crisis.

          That gets wiped off the board with 9/11 because Cantor loses so many people. At that point, the person who had been the president of the Naval War College, Vice Admiral Art Zabrowsky (ph), retires as president, goes to work for Don Rumsfeld as his transformation guru. They start this new office within the office of the secretary of defense called the Office of Force Transformation. It`s going to be about really transforming the U.S. military for the tasks that lie ahead. This administration comes in very committed to this concept. We`re going to build the military of tomorrow today.

          So Art Zabrowsky calls me soon after 9/11, knowing that my project`s been shot out from under me, somewhat literally, and says, Come work for me. We need rationales. We need an explanation of the world that says not only that we`re transforming because we`re a rich and technologically capable country and thus can have a, you know, well-endowed and technological enabled military, but that we`re doing this transformation of the U.S. military in response to real changes in the international security environment that we think we now understand, in part, thanks to 9/11, that a certain world has been revealed to us.

          {snip}

          And what the War College offered up in Newport was this unique research partnership with Cantor Fitzgerald, the bond trader firm, where they had asked the War College to come together with them and help think about the future of the world and how globalization and national security were coming together. That became the New Rules Sets Project that I had with Cantor Fitzgerald, and specifically with a retired four-star admiral, who was one of the senior people at that point in Cantor Fitzgerald, a guy named Bud Flanagan. And it was an amazing exploration of how the world worked, and it was in that process that I started to get a sense of the rules and started understanding there were more ways to look at China, for example, than to say this is a possible strategic competitor of the United States down the road, and we should plan war against the China. . . .

        • Keith
          July 19, 2010, 4:29 pm

          DR. KYLEBISME- No matter how much research you have done on building construction and demolition, no matter how many building demolitions you have been personally involved in, no
          matter how many technical papers you have published in peer reviewed literature, in view of the novelty of the situation and lack of empirical data concerning the effects of fully loaded jumbo jets crashing into buildings at high speed, don’t you feel that the phrase “…it’s physically impossible for them to have come down anything like they did without explosives.” is a tad presumptuous,
          indicating perhaps a bit of hubris? Not being an expert in controlled demolition such as you feel you are, I must defer technical questions to others. Please be aware, however, that I am not the only one that does not comprehend your obvious truth. Dr. Manuel Garcia, a physicist, has written on this very topic in CounterPunch: link to counterpunch.org .
          Perhaps you could read the article. His e-mail address is at the bottom so you can contact him directly and carry on a technical conversation. Who knows, you may resolve your differences and
          co-author a technical article for the peer reviewed literature.

          But before you go, perhaps you could indulge me a few more non-technical questions that have been bothering me. Why did the person controlling the demolition wait so long to detonate the
          charges, taking over 45 minutes on one building and over an hour on the other, and inexplicably collapsing the second struck building first? This is a controlled demolition, right? Wouldn’t it
          seem more logical to drop the first building struck first, after about 10 minutes? Also (I think I may have asked this before) how was it possible for these pre-placed explosives to survive the
          jetliner impact and raging inferno for 45 minutes to over one hour without exploding? How did they know exactly where to place these explosives without knowing exactly where the airplanes
          would hit (you try hitting exactly xx stories down flying over 500mph)? Finally, why do so many 911 Truthers seem convinced that it was a missile that struck the Pentagon, not an airplane?

        • Keith
          July 19, 2010, 5:22 pm

          BANDOLERO- When one estimates the probabilities before the fact, there is, of course, uncertainty. If the 911 attack was simply a terrorist attack, then the motive is to cause as much damage as possible with the means available (airplanes). Rigging the buildings with high explosives is not an option. However, trying to put myself in the position of someone trying achieve “a new Pearl Harbor” (the obvious primary objective if the government was behind it as alleged by the 911 Truth movement), I would calculate the odds of achieving my objective as quite good by means of the relatively safe (for me) and uncomplicated plan to crash fully loaded jumbo jets into the twin towers. Safe because all I would have to do would be to stand aside (facilitate?) as known terrorists do their thing. Of course, there is no way to predict the exact consequences, however, it seems quite reasonable to assume a huge loss of life (plane passengers
          and building occupants) and massive destruction. With the corporate media playing along, I think it reasonable to assume that a massive propaganda blitz would achieve the desired result. On the other hand, I find the rigging of the twin towers with high explosives to entail a quantum leap in complexity, uncertainty and risk. I have no idea how anyone could pull this off. Forget the
          certitude of amateur demolitions experts, it is nonsense to talk about a controlled demolition following an airplane strike. As for whether the un-collapsed buildings would have been unsalvageable, one can’t say for sure, however, I have difficulty imagining these buildings ever passing a safety inspection after what happened (structural damage, liability, etc), or that the cost
          of salvage would be less than taking them down. As for the possible motives of private individuals, this only adds another layer of complexity onto an already overly complex scenario.

        • Bandolero
          July 19, 2010, 5:23 pm

          @Keith & kylebisme
          I think, it would be good to overcome discussion, if it was controlled demolition or not. We all simply don’t know. There are many parameters no one knows, so even experts could not be sure. Just as examples:

          - Nobody knows for sure, which steel columns were in deed destroyed by the impact of the planes
          - Was really used the temperature resistant steel as it was certified? Or did there happen some corruption while building WTC to use cheaper steel? It could also be, that just at higher places cheaper steel was used in a corruptive way of saving costs, because it wouldn’t have anway to bear so much weight.
          - Were there really used fireproof materials inside WTC or did they just use cheap stuff and bribe controls?

          I would say, that’s hard to know. So, if the USA is a very corrupt country, as I believe, it is possible, that the buildings just came down by fire and plane impact, though they were ought to be designed to stand it.

          On the other hand we have Niels Harrit, who analyzed a probe of rubble and found – years later – high-tech nanothermite. That’s a strong hint that explosives were used. But even if I believe, that he carefully did his examinations, and I do so, there remain lot’s of possible sources of error. Just as example:

          - Were the samples really from WTC dust? Or did someone exchange the probes somewhere? I can’t verify that.

          And the other way round as many question marks occur. Keith, if you ask, how was it possible for these pre-placed explosives to survive the jetliner impact and raging inferno for 45 minutes to over one hour without exploding, the question is also double edged. How can it come, that the fireproof steel of the building was just collapsing 45 minutes after impact? If the jet had a “lucky strike”, hitting the steel structure mechanically at bad points, the structure should have collapsed immediately.

          So, many physical parameters have some question marks attached, and in the end we can only argue based on our believes who is credible and what information is credible. I think I know what I’m talking about. I spend a lot of time investigating 9/11 and I hold an engineer degree myself. So you may expect I’m able to read the tech papers.

          I do not want to create a rift – and especially not on technical analysis. I think many theories of how 9/11 happened have good reasons behind and the political goal shall be a new investigation, where Israeli intelligence – among others – is a prime suspect.

          When I started the 9/11 topic here in this thread, I wanted just to say, what Netanyahu says in this video, supports the theory of an Israeli government hand in it or at least advanced knowledge. A hand in it or advanced knowledge is very hard to separate from each other.

        • annie
          July 19, 2010, 5:40 pm

          don’t you feel that the phrase “…it’s physically impossible for them to have come down anything like they did without explosives.” is a tad presumptuous, indicating perhaps a bit of hubris?

          i don’t think it is presumptuous at all, i think it makes perfect sense.

        • MHughes976
          July 19, 2010, 6:10 pm

          We might benefit from a thread dedicated to claims about false flag operations, distortions of history and lying legends – but it is important that we recognise that these are not our main concern and that enquiries do not always reach unquestionable results.
          The most famous crime in our history over here in England, the murder of the young King Edward V and his brother in 1483, dramatically pinned on Richard III by Thomas More and William Shakespeare, has never after 500+ years been solved to everyone’s satisfaction, though I must say I tend to believe the official version.

        • annie
          July 19, 2010, 6:13 pm

          i checked out your blog keith. you claim to have “A radical dissident perspective”. i recall you didn’t think much of goldstone’s report either. bone up on your radical bonafides, think outside the box little.

        • Keith
          July 19, 2010, 7:23 pm

          ANNIE- Perhaps you can refresh my memory as to my criticism of the Goldstone Report. I vaguely recall criticizing Goldstone himself somewhat due to his rewriting his mandate to include
          Palestinian war crimes when I felt that the Palestinians are engaged in lawful resistance to an occupying force. Also, Goldstone’s presence on the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal suggests that he participated in a kangaroo court to blame the Serbs and absolve NATO for the consequences of the US/German dismemberment of the former Yugoslavia. I am very pleased that the Goldstone report seems to be having a positive effect on the Palestinian struggle for peace and justice, however, I am not ready to deify this Zionist quite yet.

          As for my blog, I am pleased that you have visited my infrequently visited site, and, of course, would welcome comments on any of the posts. So you think that I tend to think inside the box? Interesting. What brought this on? Is this spillover from my comments regarding 911 Truth?

        • RoHa
          July 19, 2010, 7:41 pm

          MHughes976

          “the murder of the young King Edward V and his brother in 1483,”

          It is always pretty naive to believe the official version. I suspect MI5, the CIA, and Mossad for that one.

        • MRW
          November 8, 2011, 4:21 pm

          Yeah, Mooser, I like the part where the upper floor whack gets it to disintegrate into fine dust before it finishes collapsing. (Or else my lyin’ eyes were killing me when I watched the video.)

          Thwack. Dust. Then fall. 8.5 seconds.

    • potsherd
      July 17, 2010, 10:17 am

      The world says what Israel wants it to say. The truth is buried.

    • Egbert
      July 17, 2010, 1:47 pm

      Bibi’s gonna be real pissed “If you can’t trust a Jew, who can you trust?”

      • Taxi
        July 17, 2010, 1:48 pm

        Ghostbusters?

        • Egbert
          July 17, 2010, 5:21 pm

          Good call! Have you got their number?

  2. Citizen
    July 17, 2010, 9:15 am

    “The trick is not to be there and break down. The trick is to be there and pay a minimal price. ”

    And he’s doing that with the current “peace process.” He can, because our US MSM never hones in on the settlements in any detail, and ditto as to the occupation.

    • Les
      July 17, 2010, 12:26 pm

      I think you mean “piece process,” by which Israel gets to keep what it stole in 1967. Legitimacy will be provided by the kind of judge who can (fairly) decide how much of the stolen loot a subway mugger gets to keep.

  3. Avi
    July 17, 2010, 10:01 am

    An independent journalist should directly confront Obama with these excerpts and press him for a direct answer. If the MSM can’t do it, then the average citizen, someone like the guy who confronted Schumer, should challenge Obama on Yahoo’s remarks and how they reflect on US ‘efforts’ to ‘resolve’ the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

    • James
      July 17, 2010, 10:14 am

      they won’t be working for the msm for much longer if they do what you suggest.. i agree with you too… look what has happens to anyone who speaks openly on anything to do with the i/p issue..

    • potsherd
      July 17, 2010, 10:18 am

      Like Helen Thomas did? Obama’s a slippery slimy evasive bastard who wiggles and weasels whenever this happens.

    • Avi
      July 17, 2010, 10:36 am

      My steamed :) colleagues,

      When I wrote “independent” journalist I meant someone who was not owned by the mainstream media conglomerates, however. I can see how one might misread my comment.

      • potsherd
        July 17, 2010, 11:25 am

        And who will listen to them? Look at how Max Blumenthal refuted Israeli lies about the Turkish flotilla, and look at how the lies survived and thrived.

        • Avi
          July 17, 2010, 11:39 am

          I strongly believe that things have a way of trickling up. I have seen it happen time and again. It’s merely a matter of persistence and perseverance.

          Nonetheless, just because Obama hears about it, or the MSM acknowledges it, doesn’t mean it’s going to make any difference. In general terms, I have found that it’s far easier to spread information than to effect change as a result of that information becoming widely available. Do you see where I’m going with this?

          But, I always stay hopeful that the tipping point will eventually come about, for if I abandoned hope, what else is left?

        • Taxi
          July 17, 2010, 12:14 pm

          The best person to use this footage, to help get it out and about on a fantastically controversial scale, is for politician, one with a silent grudge against AIPAC, to use this candid video against their ‘lobby-fattened’ opponent. This renegade politician could claim the AIPAC brown-nozing opponent is ‘palling’ around with anti-Americanists, ‘cozy’ with foreigners who belittle us behind our backs. His own youtube offensive campaign strategy against the local zionist implant should include the following messages to his constituents and to the youtube nation: IS THIS FAT LOBBY-MINION PATRIOTIC ENOUGH? HOW OFTEN DOES HE WEAR THE ISRAELIS FLAG AS PIN ON HIS LAPEL?

          Am I devious? Yes. My enemy has taught me well.

          :-)

        • Bandolero
          July 17, 2010, 12:30 pm

          Try to ask Joe Sestak to do this. He has every reason to do so.

          link to richardsilverstein.com

          The clip of the “Emergency Committee for Israel” will look very funny when it’s countered with the Bibi video.

        • potsherd
          July 17, 2010, 1:00 pm

          for if I abandoned hope, what else is left?

          Cynicism.

        • Taxi
          July 17, 2010, 1:06 pm

          Oh yeah Sestak sure does: the meat on his corpse is still on the ground half-fresh, still being pecked off by passing AIPAC vultures.

          Poor bastard! What’s he got to loose at this stage, right?

          Me, I’m hoping for a ‘new’ face/name to step up to the cunning opportunity! A buzzing guy/gal, already post-obamesque, read a couple of books, shall we say – energetic and with a good/humorous turn-of-phrase. Someone starting new with no previous aipac stamp of approval or any other such deals with the devil or his mistress!

          Even if this video destroys this courageous budding politician, it still would have been worth the information it spotlighted.

          Oh yeah in the name of revolution and in the name of truth, we find a long list of men and women who sacrificed to change the course of history.

        • Avi
          July 17, 2010, 4:02 pm

          Taxi,

          That’s a great idea. If there is a smart politician out there, he or she would use this in the run up to the Congressional elections in a district where most of the constituents are unemployed or have been evicted from their homes while Israel continues to receive 10 million US dollars per day. That ought to put a dent in AIPAC’s designs.

        • James
          July 18, 2010, 1:14 am

          thanks avi.. i appreciate your positive attitude and i think in the long run you are bang on… it is the short run here that has most folks concerned.. regardless i appreciate your comments..

        • Citizen
          July 18, 2010, 8:46 am

          Dante’s Inferno?

    • Psychopathic god
      July 17, 2010, 9:01 pm

      Napolitano has worked for Fox News for a dozen years.

      He’s a good guy (wash my mouth).

      You gotta listen to this interview with Ralph Nader

      Andrew Napolitano: Lies the Government Told You

      • Bumblebye
        July 17, 2010, 9:26 pm

        Nope. Disagree. He’s willing to impose incubator status on half the human race should they fall pregnant unwantedly. Hardly “libertarian”. Just as a fetus is hardly “independent”. Teeth on edge. Can’t listen further.

  4. James
    July 17, 2010, 10:13 am

    quote from the bottom of the article by Glenn Kessler
    “Of course, the video is from nearly ten years ago. Opinions change, based on circumstances and experience. But who knows what leaders are really saying when they think the cameras aren’t filming?”

    is this guys thinking -lets water the article down to the point of irrelevance?

    • Avi
      July 17, 2010, 11:07 am

      Exactly, James. He’s trying to use the I-was-young-and-impressionable defense (or something like that), as if Yahoo, Sharon, Shamir, Rabin, Ben Gurion or Golda radically changed their views regarding THE ARABS over the course of their public AND private lives. The Netanyahu of 2001 is the same as 2010 Netanyahu, the difference is that back in 2001 many were still under the illusion that Israel was honestly seeking reconciliation. Such a revelation in 2001 would have been dismissed as taken out of context.

      • annie
        July 17, 2010, 12:54 pm

        right, because bibi only followed his daddy’s orders back then, he’s all grown up now.

      • Taxi
        July 17, 2010, 1:29 pm

        Here comes the intellectually and linguistically absurdist apology phrase: ‘I Mis-spoke’.

        Or is it ‘Mispoke’?

        How the hell do you spell this non-existent word that ONLY politicians have the habit of regularly using?!

        • annie
          July 17, 2010, 8:47 pm

          ‘I Mis-spoke’.

          Or is it ‘Mispoke’?

          i believe the update version is ‘i don’t recall’

        • rmokhtar
          July 18, 2010, 1:11 pm

          Nope I think the latest version is:

          “It depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.”

  5. potsherd
    July 17, 2010, 10:20 am

    What’s needed is a campaign with photos and video of Israeli atrocities and a caption: Why are we supporting this country? Why are we giving more money to this country?

  6. Richard Parker
    July 17, 2010, 10:48 am

    I always get confused; is it Netanyahu or Rahm Emanuel who has an extremist father? Or both?

    • Bandolero
      July 17, 2010, 10:59 am

      Benjamin Netanyahus father Ben-Zion Netanyahu was the personal assistant of the inventor of “revisionist zionism”, Vladimir Yabotinsky, who was a founder of terror organisation Haganah and became in 1937 chief commander of the terrorgroup Irgun. Rahm Emanuel’s father Benjamin M. Emanuel was allegedly a member of this terror organization Irgun.

      • lysias
        July 17, 2010, 11:45 am

        There was an article in Ha’aretz earlier this year about the celebration of the 100th birthday of Bibi’s father. It made it clear the father still influences his son’s policies a lot.

        • Bandolero
          July 17, 2010, 12:02 pm

          Yes, I know. There was a homestory on Netanyahu half a year ago in German magazine Spiegel, which said also so and lined out their messianic faith.

          Now, what’s the question I ask myself: Is it possible, that these people have orchestrated 9/11 and the subsequent “war on terror”, so that US and world opinion shifted against “Muslims” and “Arabs”, so that Bibi and his friends could continue the colonialization of East Jerusalem and the West Bank undisturbed by public pressure?

          I think, that theory makes a lot of sense – more than any other I know regarding 9/11. See my comment above.

        • potsherd
          July 17, 2010, 4:37 pm

          Cui bono

  7. annie
    July 17, 2010, 10:49 am

    no wonder why they’ve eliminated oslo from the high school curriculum.

  8. annie
    July 17, 2010, 10:57 am

    anybody want to place bets on how fast this story will go nowhere and make no difference? check out the comments from wapo. how many americans will it take to sway the policy away from total support for israel? 60%, 70%, 80%, 90%. the politicians will still support aipacs letters.

  9. Dr Gonzo
    July 17, 2010, 11:12 am

    The story has also been mentioned on the Huffington Post

    link to huffingtonpost.com

    Hopefully it is starting to get some legs should be on every major news broadcast.

    • potsherd
      July 17, 2010, 11:26 am

      Don’t hold your breath.

    • Berthe
      July 17, 2010, 11:37 am

      Unlikely it’ll be on Meet the Press. David Gregory, I understand, is an extremely religious Jew. I stopped watching when he had a panel of Michael Chertoff, Jane Harman and Joe Lieberman, with himself, 100% Jewish. He’s talking about US security with these 3 Iraq War supporters who couldn’t give a damn about US security because they’ve got their refuge in Israel and plenty of money to get there.

      • Richard Parker
        July 17, 2010, 12:36 pm

        They’ve probably all got accounts at Swiss banks and Bank Leumi. Tthe Swiss ones for whenever Israel goes finally and terminally loony).

        • potsherd
          July 17, 2010, 1:01 pm

          Price to pay for freedom.

  10. Khawja
    July 17, 2010, 11:49 am

    YES – Bibi is right. Israelis have understood long time ago that it’s much cheaper to buy the entire US political system than buying a tank to fight Hizbullah or Hamas.

    Hasbara: ‘I Am Israel’
    link to rehmat2.wordpress.com

    • Citizen
      July 18, 2010, 7:29 am

      Buy the first, you get the second practically for free. So it goes.

      • Egbert
        July 18, 2010, 4:06 pm

        In the US, it is known as a twofer, or more accurately a hundredfer.

  11. Mooser
    July 17, 2010, 1:41 pm

    This is sure a pleasant place after a few shots of troll-be-gone! A vast improvement. Hope it lasts.

    • Mooser
      July 17, 2010, 2:08 pm

      Well Mondoweiss is a great place, no doubt about, but the music is better at JSF!
      For instance, today’s featured preformers are Johnny Rotten and Gilad Atzmon, together again for the first time for this premier farewell performance.

      • hayate
        July 18, 2010, 11:23 pm

        “but the music is better at JSF!”

        80′s Britpop?

        (Shudders at such an aural travesty and quickly wipes that mental image with something positive link to youtube.com )

        ;D

    • potsherd
      July 17, 2010, 2:25 pm

      I don’t want to see all the Zionists gone from this site. They serve a valuable purpose, if not the purpose they have in mind.

    • Donald
      July 17, 2010, 2:37 pm

      Who got booted?

      • Mooser
        July 17, 2010, 2:58 pm

        Whoa, I don’t know if anybody got booted, but about half a dozen posts with no trolls is a hopeful sign.

        • jonah
          July 17, 2010, 3:51 pm

          “about half a dozen posts with no trolls is a hopeful sign.”

          No, it’s only terrible boring … like a one-crop.

        • jonah
          July 17, 2010, 3:52 pm

          errata corrige: terribly boring

        • potsherd
          July 17, 2010, 4:39 pm

          Rather have one of the better ones than this.

        • annie
          July 17, 2010, 8:50 pm

          maybe they were speechless for awhile. after a few shots of ziocaine they start diverting. this topic is not a comfort zone for them.

        • thankgodimatheist
          July 17, 2010, 9:44 pm

          “Rather have one of the better ones than this.”

          Now potsherd! Don’t make the mistake in believing jonah, bless her heart, could not be a rocket scientist..Just remember that rocket is also a salad variety..

        • rmokhtar
          July 18, 2010, 2:11 pm

          Well, if you are bored, you could try haunting the more Zionist-leaning blogs/magazine sites?

          That’s what megaphoners do 24/7 to ‘anti-Israel’ sites.

        • jonah
          July 18, 2010, 4:35 pm

          Nooo, it’s only right to put occasionally some critical controversial arguments in the self-righteous nearly Stalinist mainstream-uniformity of the anti-Zionist Israel hating camp. I’m definitely for biodiversity, against one-crops.

        • thankgodimatheist
          July 18, 2010, 6:55 pm

          “I’m definitely for biodiversity, against one-crops.”

          You’re making the mistake of confusing weed with crop..

        • hayate
          July 18, 2010, 10:33 pm

          Zionist trolls are gm crops. Artificially created to make profits for a few, and totally screw things up for everyone else.

          A lack of trolling makes a board a lot more interesting. Not everyone needs a silly argument to keep an interest in conversation alive.

        • jonah
          July 19, 2010, 2:06 am

          yes you are right, thankgod, your anti-Israeli propaganda is not really like a crop, rather a plague of venomous weeds …

        • hayate
          July 19, 2010, 2:27 am

          You do realise that you are making that whale nauseous, joanie.

        • hayate
          July 19, 2010, 2:32 am

          BTW, joan, where I live, having a yard of weeds is not considered messed up, it’s considered being environmentally responsible. Have you ever ventured outside that cinder block hovel you live in and observed the wildflowers? They are really quite beautiful.

        • thankgodimatheist
          July 19, 2010, 4:03 am

          Look who’s talking about biodiversity!! The guy to whom the notion of an exclusive “jewish” state is perfectly acceptable..!!

        • thankgodimatheist
          July 19, 2010, 4:08 am

          Jewish only state
          Jewish only “neighbourhoods”:
          Jewish only roads..
          Jewish only streets.
          Jewish only law of “return”..
          And many more I’m sure I’m forgetting..

        • jonah
          July 19, 2010, 4:51 am

          You obviously have a very limited notion of Jewishness.

        • thankgodimatheist
          July 19, 2010, 5:06 am

          Not a limited as your notion of diversity on this blog.

        • jonah
          July 19, 2010, 5:07 am

          Example of “Apartheid” in Tel Aviv, Israel (July 2003):

          link to life.com

        • sherbrsi
          July 19, 2010, 5:27 am

          Example of Israeli “Democracy” (1948-present):

          link to maannews.net

        • jonah
          July 19, 2010, 6:31 am

          Strange, the Arab population in Israel has grown from 159,100 in 1949 to 1,413,300 in 2006. Of course they all live in caves.

          link to israelipalestinian.procon.org

          In the same period the Jewish population in Arab countries sunk from almost one million to less than 10,000 persons.

          link to en.wikipedia.org

          Of course they all left freely and voluntarily in order to build the Jewish “Apartheid” system in Israel.

        • sherbrsi
          July 19, 2010, 6:53 am

          Do you mind telling me what the system of government has to do with demographics? Typical irrelevant and off-topic deception from Zionists.

          Of course they all live in caves.

          Nah, it’s much easier to strangle the savages by containing them to a strip.

        • Shingo
          July 19, 2010, 6:57 am

          How many Arab countries are bulldozing homes, enthniclaly cleansing populations, murdering Jews by the thuosands and militarly occupying land that they stole?

          Oh and BTW. you might want to explain why the second largest Jewish population, in the Middle East, refuses to migrate to Israel even in spite of generous bribes to do so.

        • thankgodimatheist
          July 19, 2010, 8:41 am

          “Strange, the Arab population in Israel has grown from 159,100 in 1949 to 1,413,300 in 2006. Of course they all live in caves.”

          Swindler..
          You failed to mentioned that their numbers were close to million in 1948..
          Tsk tsk tsk…..

        • thankgodimatheist
          July 19, 2010, 8:45 am

          From 1,000,000 in 1948
          to 150,000 in 1947 …
          I wonder what happened…Any idea jaundice?

        • rmokhtar
          July 19, 2010, 8:51 am

          HAMAS have the power to retroactively kick whole Arab masses out to suit the Palestinian present day narrative…see, Iran’s developed a time-machine that they sent over to their Iranian port in Gaza.

        • thankgodimatheist
          July 19, 2010, 9:16 am

          “From 1,000,000 in 1948
          to 150,000 in 1947 …”

          Ok, replace the 1948 by 1947 and vice versa and that should do the trick..

        • jonah
          July 19, 2010, 10:45 am

          Well, thanky, there was a war in between, didn’t you read it in your books?
          And what about one million of Jews ethnic cleansed from Arab lands as revenge for the establishment of the state of Israel? Did the Arabs make ammend for them, did the expelled Jews get their lost properties houses and land back from the countries of origin? Are they still living in refugees camps, misused by their brethtren to blackmail the enemy?

          Shingo, are you dreaming? There is no ethnic cleansing in Israel or in the territories. The Palestinians are champions in making children, their population growth rates are great, in Gaza many people have overweight problems.
          But of course there is a low-intensity war underway, the Arabs want still to get rid of the Jews as in 1948, 1967, 1973 and in the ciclical terror waves (Second Intifada stage 1 – suicide bombs – and stage 2 – rocket attacks), the Jews in tiny Israel face a persistent hostility from the Palestinians AND their neighbours to which they oppose a policy of deterrence and settlements. It’s quite simple. There is a consequent logic of negative reciprocity in the Arab-Israeli relationships, indeed.

        • Taxi
          July 19, 2010, 10:54 am

          Jonah,

          “There is no ethnic cleansing in Israel or in the territories.”

          Enough of your criminal fuckerie!

          I could blast you sideways with an infinite amount of verified proof of ethnic cleansing, but assholes like you don’t actually deserve the truth.

          You deserve a long stream of piss right down your ear hole for all the Palestinian deaths that your deaf racism enables and encourages.

          In other words: fuck off your racist bastard!

        • jonah
          July 19, 2010, 2:33 pm

          Poor Taxi-guy…

        • Taxi
          July 19, 2010, 2:38 pm

          I’m actually quite rich. Need a buck towards your lobotomy buddy?

        • Shingo
          July 19, 2010, 4:32 pm

          “And what about one million of Jews ethnic cleansed from Arab lands as revenge for the establishment of the state of Israel?”

          Never happened. Expulsion doesn;t take place over a periof of 30 years.

          “As early as 1975, at the time of WOJAC’s formation, Knesset speaker Yisrael Yeshayahu declared: “We are not refugees. [Some of us] came to this country before the state was born. We had messianic aspirations.”

          Shlomo Hillel, a government minister and an active Zionist in Iraq, adamantly opposed the analogy: “I don’t regard the departure of Jews from Arab lands as that of refugees. They came here because they wanted to, as Zionists.”

          In a Knesset hearing, Ran Cohen stated emphatically: “I have this to say: I am not a refugee.” He added: “I came at the behest of Zionism, due to the pull that this land exerts, and due to the idea of redemption. Nobody is going to define me as a refugee.”

          link to haaretz.com

          “There is no ethnic cleansing in Israel or in the territories.”

          You;reconfucing enthnci clernsing with genocide, though genocide can be achieved through ethnic cleansing. Ethnic cleansing is defined as the forceful removal of one popation by another, and looking at these maps, it is pretty obvious that it took place.

          link to whatreallyhappened.com

          By 1948, Zionists were already getting rid of Palestininasn, having already druiven 200,000 off them out of Palestine.

          Israelis leaders have all pretty much admitetd that Israel started the 1867 war over false pretenses, so I don’t knwo why you’re even bothering to resort to that worn out old tyre.

          The 1973 war was a consequence of the 1967 war and resulted becasue Israel refused to return land that it stole.

          After the revelations about Bibbi’s admission ovetr undermining Olso, it’s amazing you’re stil prepared to mentikon Oslo.

          er FRocket atatcks. Israel fired as mamy shells over tehr 12 months after they departed from Gaza as all the rockets Hams subsequently fired, and needless to say, Israel broke the 2008 ceasefire because they wanted to avoid having to make pece with Hamas (just as they did with the PLO in the 80′s).

          This is too easy Jonah. You are your fascist little state are on the wrong side of history and your talking points are being shredded on a daily basis. One day, someone will release a stufy on the sickness of the Zionist ideology.

        • sherbrsi
          July 19, 2010, 6:46 pm

          You;reconfucing enthnci clernsing with genocide, though genocide can be achieved through ethnic cleansing.

          He isn’t confusing anything. He is playing right by the Hasbara Handbook. The conflation of ethnic cleansing with genocide is the most primary reason given to assert the denial of Israel not engaging in either.

    • Avi
      July 17, 2010, 5:07 pm

      Mooser July 17, 2010 at 1:41 pm

      This is sure a pleasant place after a few shots of troll-be-gone! A vast improvement. Hope it lasts.

      Mooser,

      It’s still the Sabath in many parts around the globe. Since many trolls like to think of themselves as ‘real’ and ‘good’ Jews, it’s not surprising that they are absent today.

      Those Ziocaine-consuming trolls don’t seem to be very smart, by the way. If they were smart, they’d station one Ziobot in, say, Australia, so that when the Sabath comes in San Diego, he or she will be able to cover for that Ziobot. Work in shifts, that’s what I say.

      • Mooser
        July 17, 2010, 7:26 pm

        “They’d station one Ziobot in, say, Australia….”

        Wouldn’t work. As soon as it’s Shabbos anywhere, it’s Shabbos everywhere! And it’s Shabbos everywhere until it isn’t Shabbos anywhere.

        • wondering jew
          July 17, 2010, 7:31 pm

          Orthodox Jews everywhere are thankful that Mooser is not a rabbi or else they would have to follow the dictates of his law.

        • Mooser
          July 18, 2010, 10:13 am

          Oh really? You have a really good understanding of the function of Rabbis, don’t you? Just like a combonation of priests and kings, huh? And Jews must follow their “dictates”? Okay!

          And what would be wrong with Shabbos lasting longer? I always enjoyed Shabbos and wished it wouldn’t end. Your feeling may differ.

      • Mooser
        July 17, 2010, 7:34 pm

        “Those Ziocaine-consuming…”

        I dislike quibbling over technical points as much as the next fellow (and he really, really hates it) but they don’t consume it, they produce it given the right stimulus, which as we’ve seen can be anything.
        I thought about that for a minute, and decided to become a Jehovah’s Witness. I am so avoiding blood transfusions. I don’t think that’s anti-Semitic, it’s just facing facts. I mean, c’mon, who are all the doctors?

        • Citizen
          July 18, 2010, 7:32 am

          They tossed the JWs in the ovens too, didn’t they?

        • Mooser
          July 18, 2010, 10:15 am

          C’mon. Citizen, think about it! I go under for an operation on an ingrown toenail, and while I’m out they give me a transfusion from Wondering Jew or Witty? Hell no!

        • hayate
          July 18, 2010, 10:38 pm

          “they produce it given the right stimulus”

          They could try using a deodorant…..

        • hayate
          July 18, 2010, 10:38 pm

          Or ingesting some beano….

  12. joer
    July 17, 2010, 2:52 pm

    If you think this disgraceful display of arrogance will provoke a meaningful response from the American people, you will probably be disappointed. Nothing the government or big business does will motivate most of us to get off our asses and cause any disruption to the grinding machinery that makes a mockery of our supposed values or interests. Just in the last ten years, we have had at least one stolen national election, two major wars(still going on)that no one can really say what the goal is, the BP disaster, the Katrina failure…well you get the point. If all that won’t get more of a response than,”if this continues, I may something to someone”, then a ten year old video won’t do it. Before there can be some kind of movement in this country, we have to figure out what is wrong with us.

    • VR
      July 17, 2010, 3:12 pm

      The first problem is not facing reality, however this seems to be a rare occurrence

      • joer
        July 17, 2010, 3:44 pm

        vr:

        Can you really blame people for not wanting to face reality? With the economy the way it is, two ugly wars, and now the BP disaster in the gulf, isn’t it a lot more fun to listen to the latest tape of Mel Gibson going crazy? I remember chatting with a guy fixing my computer when the economy crashed in 2008. He said he never watches the news, much less follow events on blogs like this, because it’s depressing and there’s nothing he can do about it anyway. This attitude is pretty fucking common these days. And there’s all sorts of ways for us to entertain ourselves from internet porn to religious revivals to reality television. Don’t get me wrong: I like being entertained, too-but not every waking hour. I also wonder if all the medication, both recognized pharmaceuticals and recreational drugs, have got most of the country doped up.

        • Mooser
          July 17, 2010, 7:40 pm

          It’s flabberghasting, and unbelievable, and horrifying, but I am getting the feeling that Americans would like to start another war.
          It’s the only thing which can solve our biggest national problem, how to avoid any kind of accounting for the last ten years. By now, not much else will do.

        • joer
          July 17, 2010, 7:54 pm

          My own feeling is Americans are sooooooooooo tired of war. We have so much on our plate already-and the katrina experience showed us what shape our country is really in. Now there’s this bullshit happening in the Gulf of Mexico. And I’m sure there are a lot of Americans of all political stripes who worry like I do that another war could really bring the whole house down.

        • potsherd
          July 17, 2010, 7:55 pm

          Keep repeating: $10/gal gasoline

        • VR
          July 17, 2010, 8:27 pm

          Now they have capped off the well, and every news putlet has given the story – without giving the story. The reason why it took so long is that they had to fabricate a stoppage that would still give them access to the iol. In other words, it took all this time because they wanted (BP) their access to the oil, no matter how much devastation it reeked in the Gulf – and no matter how many peoples lives were ruined, all that mattered was their eventual access to that oil.

          This is what it was all about, while every news outlet pops a cork about it being halted – no one mentions why it too so terribly long. The reason why the government allowed this is because they do not serve you (the people), they only serve a moneyed elite and their interest. It is what I said at the beginning of the disaster, and it remains the same – when are you going to wake up and stop living in a fantasy world?

          KATRINA TWO, CRIMINAL CORPORATE ENVIRONMENTAL CATASTROPHE AND INDIFFERENCE TOWARD THE PEOPLE

          Excerpt (May 29th, 2010) –

          This can be compared to Katrina and the Bush administration, in reference to the indifference. Essentially, since corporations are the new “we the people,” it is only their will and concerns that count. In a nutshell this is the situation we are facing in this gulf disaster.

          This brings us to a little deeper analysis, just what is it that the government has been doing? It is doing what it always has been doing, what it is set up for – protecting moneyed interest. Did you think that anything else was going on? Really, I don’t know why people continue to kid themselves, believing that they have some sort of voice which these so-called representatives and this administration listen to (in other words, it is no different than the previous administration on this point, or any other for that matter).

          On other blog sites I have made posts that deal with this strange idea that foreign and domestic policy is totally different, and one does not supposedly affect the other. Did the people of the USA really think they are not subject to the same treatment of other people in other countries by US foreign policy?

          Lets examine this carefully, whether it is foreign or domestic policy it has always had an overarching similarity, dis-empowering people. Whether it is foreign or domestic policy it has also had the overarching characteristic of doing the lions share for the moneyed few, either personally or instrumentally through corporations.

          CRY YOUR TEARS

        • VR
          July 17, 2010, 9:13 pm

          Want they answer?

          UPRISING

        • thankgodimatheist
          July 17, 2010, 9:48 pm

          “news putlet”

          Which makes me think of why they call it news outlet?…And in this specific case wouldn’t it rather be ‘news inlet’ where nothing goes out! Just thinking..

        • hayate
          July 17, 2010, 10:36 pm

          thankgodimatheist

          Considering the resultant effluent produced by the zionist controlled “news”, I believe a certain bovine orifice would be the best name for the origination of the crap.

        • VR
          July 18, 2010, 2:26 am

          Fidel Castro comes out of retirement to warn of a looming nuclear war on the horizon.

        • Citizen
          July 18, 2010, 7:54 am

          You might be right, Mooser; I’ve found, talking to self-described simple Christian men who also look to the bible for their POV in fly-over land, that they think the bankers and the lawyers are the main factional enemy–and they pay lots of attention to the Constitution–they don’t connect any dots between domestic and foreign policy & if you mention the US involvement in the I-P situation more than once or twice–they think there is something wrong with you. The name AIPAC rolls off their back like water off a duck, but they will be totally intrigued by the original 13th Amendment proposal and think it was ratified back in the early 1800s, hence lawyers should be excluded from running for any public office. They think this will go a long way in ridding the country of unpatriotic “Factions.” They are not anti-semitic at all. They do sometimes refer to things like “Arab hordes.”

        • Mooser
          July 18, 2010, 10:20 am

          At this point, I am starting to beleive that America would rather endure anything other than an accounting. The fact that America may be compared to its own standards for itself scares us much more than war.

          Say, did I mention that I had an anniversary this week? 21 years of wedded abyss! Don’t look for me to participate in the coming conflict, there’s no fight left in me.

        • Mooser
          July 18, 2010, 10:21 am

          My wife wants to give me a gift from her own two little hands. She’s knitting me a set of shrouds.

        • Citizen
          July 18, 2010, 11:53 am

          Congrats, Mooser! That is a positive net accomplishment.

        • Mooser
          July 18, 2010, 2:24 pm

          “My own feeling is Americans are sooooooooooo tired of war.”

          Yet we can’t stop one of them.

        • Mooser
          July 18, 2010, 2:27 pm

          “Congrats, Mooser! That is a positive net accomplishment.”

          You know it! I have high hopes my MIL will stop referring to me as “that guy” or (when she’s being nice) “him” and use my name.

        • Egbert
          July 18, 2010, 4:11 pm

          $10/gal gasoline

          That’s what I like – an optimist in the house.

  13. hughsansom
    July 17, 2010, 5:27 pm

    Netanyahu’s “the world won’t say a thing” comment is painfully reminiscent of Hitler’s observation that, since the world ignored the Turkish genocidal campaign against Armenians, it would likewise remain silent about the Jews. I don’t think it can reasonably be denied that there are Israelis and Americans who would remain silent were Israel to do the worst in Occupied Palestine. Benjamin Netanyahu, Avigdor Lieberman, Joseph Lieberman, Jane Harman, Charles Schumer, Alan Dershowitz, Pamela Geller, Abe Foxman, Liz Cheney, Glenn Beck, Michele Bachmann, Sarah Palin . . . . There is ample reason to believe that they and others like them — fortunately, a minority — would endorse without qualification unlimited Israeli atrocities against the Palestinians.

    • thankgodimatheist
      July 17, 2010, 10:01 pm

      “There is ample reason to believe that they and others like them — fortunately, a minority ”

      I don’t live in the US but my impression is that they aren’t a minority..On the contrary..Am I having the wrong impression here?

      • hayate
        July 17, 2010, 10:31 pm

        Most americans generally go along with what they are told. Are they like the ziofascist crub mentioned by hughsansom? A good sized chunk of them are, but most simply don’t give damn about things outside their immediate surroundings. Most americans are also notoriously of short memory and logically challenged. They’ll be anti-war, yet be sitting in front of the idiot box soaking up the propaganda and nodding their heads yes, for example. It’s depressing the number of times I’ve argued with women I’ve dated about war. I argue against, they argue for – based upon what the israeli occupied propaganda media tells them at dinner time over the idiot box, or over their car radios. Then when it goes pear shaped and the propaganda is exposed as lies, they exclaim “men, they are all a bunch of little boys playing with their war toys”. Thesepeople can not make logical connections any more, for the most part. One has to hold their hand and walk them through even the most simple reasoning.

        • thankgodimatheist
          July 17, 2010, 11:25 pm

          Thanks hayate..most helpful.

        • Citizen
          July 18, 2010, 8:10 am

          Hayate, as you know many everyday American men are the same, but
          they don’t blame it on their own gender of course. They never see the usual pro-Israeli rhetoric uttered by our TV talking heads as a red flag.
          After enough of this pattern, one gets the idea that the neocons & PEP
          people really do have a good grasp of these Joe Blows. The bible nuts
          always fall back on some version of it’s all part of God’s plan & the thing to do is look to salvation in the afterlife–or a mild version of Shakespeare’s kill all the lawyers.

        • Citizen
          July 18, 2010, 8:15 am

          In constrast, they will argue down to the smallest detail the pros and cons of sports, sports figures, and sports history. Bread & circuses uber alles? This might change, but only if the Military Draft returns–not likely.

          OTH, if Israel ever attacks Iran, our regime will jump in; this could lead to another draft–would females be drafted? The mere possibility would wake these Americans up real quick.

        • Mooser
          July 18, 2010, 10:28 am

          “This might change, but only if the Military Draft returns–not likely.”

          Citizen, why on earth do you think the draft will be administered any more fairly then it has been? Acquaint yourself with the procedures governing the choices made by Selective Service boards. There is no assurance, no procedure which makes them choose anybody other than whoever the hell they want.
          Wait a minute, Cit, you are in the legal industry, right? Pose your self this problem: You suspect that economic and racial prejudice are influencing the local Draft Board’s choices. How would you go about using the law and it’s devices to open the deliberations of the Draft Board to public view, and how would quotas be set?
          Don’t look to conscription to spread burdens evenly, it won’t.

        • Mooser
          July 18, 2010, 10:42 am

          “or a mild version of Shakespeare’s kill all the lawyers”

          Like Shylock, that line is used completely out of context. The idea of “killing all the lawyers” was to let villiany procede unimpeded. Check your First Folio.

        • annie
          July 18, 2010, 10:59 am

          It’s depressing the number of times I’ve argued with women I’ve dated about war. I argue against, they argue for

          ee gads, that’s something i would find out before the first date. why bother dating someone so out of touch w/reality.

        • lysias
          July 18, 2010, 11:53 am

          The first thing Jack Cade, Dick the Butcher, and the other rebels do after Dick has come out with that line about killing all the lawyers in Henry VI Part 2 is to condemn to be hanged the Clerk of Chatham, simply because he has shown himself to be literate. It is of course impossible to believe that Shakespeare, the author and graduate of Stratford Grammar School, would have approved of this.

        • Citizen
          July 18, 2010, 1:14 pm

          Gee, Moosey, did I suggest the Draft was ever administered fairly?
          I thought I said merely that if it became possible again due to the
          realities that could occur after a war on Iran, it would be news affecting the average man, and possibly the average woman given
          the inroads of feminism in our society. Could become an issue nearly as immediate as price of gas at the pump. Be harder to lackadaisically buy the usual hasbara spiel from one’s standard leaders. Any new Draft should be much more transparent as to selection than any ever has been. How about spin-the-bottle on TV for all able-bodied citizens not significantly physically or mentally handicapped?

        • Citizen
          July 18, 2010, 1:18 pm

          I guess those women should be told to fill out that draft registration card available at every US PO–after reading the intact penalities that already exist for males who don’t register.

        • Citizen
          July 18, 2010, 1:21 pm

          The people I was talking about, Mooser, never read Shakespeare and are likely proud of it.

        • hayate
          July 18, 2010, 2:22 pm

          annie July 18, 2010 at 10:59 am

          RE “It’s depressing the number of times I’ve argued with women I’ve dated about war. I argue against, they argue for”

          “ee gads, that’s something i would find out before the first date. why bother dating someone so out of touch w/reality.”

          Hey, they seemed to be normal, antiwar, progressive types right up until the news told them the usa should militarily help some poor souls living under the latest “hitler of the moment”.

        • Mooser
          July 18, 2010, 2:36 pm

          “Gee, Moosey, did I suggest the Draft was ever administered fairly?”

          No, you didn’t, but I guess I decided to assign you some legal research anyway. I’m just flying off the handle this morning. Now I’ve gotten myself curious about how the draft would be administered, starting with has Selective Service been updated since it was last used? which bumps right into the women thing and gay rights.
          It would be a mess, and like you say, would get everyone’s attention focused on war and politics like nothing else.

        • Egbert
          July 18, 2010, 4:12 pm

          Don’t look to conscription to spread burdens evenly

          Ask Cheney about that.

    • Citizen
      July 18, 2010, 11:57 am

      Netanyahu’s “the world won’t say anything” is very much akin to Hitler’s
      remark about the Armenian massacre. I bet Netanyahu knows it too. BTW, have the Germans ever officially acknowledged the genocide of the Armenians? I think not; if so, an interesting position from a nation so zealous in remembering the Shoah.

      • lysias
        July 18, 2010, 12:17 pm

        I’m not aware of any official German recognition of the Armenian genocide. Such recognition would be highly appropriate, since there was a significant amount of German government complicity in the genocide. This is detailed in the powerful German-language book, Operation Nemesis: Die Türkei, Deutschland und der Völkermord an den Armeniern, by Rolf Hosfeld, which is also very good on the genocide in general, and on the Armenian operation after the war to hunt down and kill those members of the Young Turk government who had been involved in the genocide. One such Armenian assassin was acquitted on a technicality in a trial in Berlin, undoubtedly because the jury thought the murder was committed under extenuating circumstances (the genocide).

        • potsherd
          July 18, 2010, 12:44 pm

          Germany still dances to an Israeli piper playing the guilt song. Wait til the next vote when Israel orchestrates recognition of the genocide to spite the Turks.

        • Citizen
          July 18, 2010, 1:22 pm

          Too funny, postsherd! Especially since it is plausible.

  14. hayate
    July 17, 2010, 10:09 pm

    ‘The world won’t say a thing’– Netanyahu on ongoing Israeli expansion”

    They know they own enough guvs that what israel does will encounter little opposition from Anglo and European guvs. The people there might have a different perspective from their guv, but zionists call the shots, so those people are essentially powerless to stop them. Right now.

  15. Sin Nombre
    July 17, 2010, 10:54 pm

    The funny thing about this videotape is that the person it’s most likely to please—indeed to a great preponderant degree—is Netanyahu himself, while the most abashed and rueful person is going to be Obama.

    After all the subtext of damn near every Israeli election is who can get the most out of the U.S., and it was indeed one of the arguments against Netanyahu—proven now to be spectacularly wrong—that his obstreperous nature would alienate Washington. All this does is polish Netanyahu’s domestic credentials.

    On the other hand, especially after nearly publicly fellating Bibi during their recent meetings, it’s Obama who is doubtless most upset over the tape being found and played. Not that he wouldn’t have known that Israeli governments and Netanyahu especially have unsentimental feelings about using the U.S.—Obama maybe a relative neophyte but nobody could miss that—but simply that it highlights what Netanyahu has been doing to him and just got done doing even further to him.

    Kind of like breaking of a quasi-secret deal: U.S. Presidents pretend to push the Israelis towards peace, in exchange for the Israelis not letting slip to the world what a sham it is.

    Seems to me any anger whatsoever at Netanyahu by US citizens is misplaced, much less any increased anger over this: We ought not expect anything less than cynicism and an attempt to manipulate us from any foreign country. Instead it’s Obama who deserves the anger and shaming; allowing this entire country to be taken advantage of so as to obtain or keep some mere, cheap partisan political advantage.

    At least Bush *believed* in supporting Israel; better than Obama’s truckling the interests of our entire country to it like some pathetic, easily-bought lickspittle.

    • Citizen
      July 18, 2010, 8:18 am

      SN, your last sentence is incisive.

      • Chaos4700
        July 18, 2010, 11:23 am

        I agree. At least Bush was a fanatic. Obama is a sell-out.

        • Chaos4700
          July 18, 2010, 11:23 am

          Which, incidentally, is starting to look like the only actual tangible differences between Republicans and Democrats, as a whole.

    • potsherd
      July 18, 2010, 12:46 pm

      I’m not entirely sure Bush did believe it. He is, after all, his father’s son. And he began by pointing out to Ariel Sharon that he was stealing Palestinian land.

      But Bush wasn’t in charge of these matters, Cheney was, and Cheney is a Zionist to the hilt.

      • Citizen
        July 18, 2010, 1:24 pm

        Shrub didn’t like that the blowhard Iraqi tried to kill his Daddy. Is Cheney a real Zionist or just purely cynical?

  16. hayate
    July 17, 2010, 11:10 pm

    “Instead it’s Obama who deserves the anger and shaming; allowing this entire country to be taken advantage of so as to obtain or keep some mere, cheap partisan political advantage.”

    It’s the whole u.s. capitalist establishment. It went on long before “al jolson” offered his services. He’s actually a very minor player, though totally one with the ziofascists/fascists. Think of obama as another advert reader.

    “At least Bush *believed* in supporting Israel; better than Obama’s truckling the interests of our entire country to it like some pathetic, easily-bought lickspittle.”

    The bush family has a long history of nazi connections, it’s very doubtful jr. has a peanut-on for Jews or israel, given the family history. He was just another opportunistic cow, like so many other fascist american politicians. Think of the goatsod as another yeltsin.

    • hayate
      July 17, 2010, 11:18 pm

      Hmmmm….maybe I read Sin Nombre’s point wrong? Obama is probably far more likely to actually believe the zionist tosh he’s chosen to represent. He celebrates the Jewish holidays in a way I don’t remember junior ever doing. I don’t believe bushit went that far and I think his support for israel was more based upon cynical self interest, while obama seems to have a real emotional attachment to the ziofascists.

      • Citizen
        July 18, 2010, 8:28 am

        I have no evidence, but I feel that Shrub found it easy to sell himself by a few easy bows to fundie thinking coupled with his cynical self interest, while in contrast, I feel that Obama at heart feels himself to be Robin Hood for the blacks, not a bible story; his true voice was spoken in Cairo as to the Palestinians yet his recent kiss to N is pure cynical self interest–which I’m sure he’s reminded of constantly by Immanuel and Axlerod, a dark angel on each little shoulder (but he’s got a good leftie b-ball arm).

        • annie
          July 18, 2010, 10:06 am

          his true voice was spoken in Cairo as to the Palestinians yet his recent kiss to N is pure cynical self interest–which I’m sure he’s reminded of constantly by Immanuel and Axlerod

          i don’t think it is rahm and axlerod as much as pelosi and other dem leaders trying to ensure dems keep the house and senate. they need funds to run their campaigns and i wager they told him to kiss up to bibi to fill their coffers. this is a crucial time for fundraising. buying ad time for the fall season is expensive.

        • Mooser
          July 18, 2010, 10:47 am

          ” I feel that Obama at heart feels himself to be Robin Hood for the blacks,”

          Oh, please! You wouldn’t be ready to give us a single example of the way Obama has sought to advantage blacks over whites, would you?
          Is it all the reparations Obama is demanding for the descendants of former slaves, or is it all the stuff Obama does generally to turn the economic structure of the US upside down, and make the rich poor and the poor rich?

        • Citizen
          July 18, 2010, 12:00 pm

          Annie, I agree; I don’t think what I said is inconsistent at all.

        • Citizen
          July 18, 2010, 12:04 pm

          Well, he’s kinda hemmed in; I think he feels Obamacare is a start.

        • annie
          July 18, 2010, 12:29 pm

          sorry citizen, i didn’t mean to imply my idea was inconsistent with yours re rahn and axe because i agree there’s pressure there to align (cough, nice way of putting it). the timing just leads me to speculate pressure from congress is the leading driver now. it’s just my speculation besides they probably go hand in hand anyway. one side has their hand out and the other says ‘beg harder’.

        • Citizen
          July 18, 2010, 1:26 pm

          Yep, annie, you got that right.

        • hayate
          July 18, 2010, 2:44 pm

          For the rightwing dittoheads, obama is a socialist Muslim working for “the blacks”. For the liberals, he’s this well meaning progressive guy who has to trim his humanity because he has to work with already established fascists. These are nothing more than false myths to sell americans the same shite that was sold to them under bush..under clinton…under bush….under reagan…..under carter….under ford….under nixon and so on down the line. They continue to sell these same silly myths because american people always fall for them.

          This “humane” obama, hemmed in by blood thirsty money grubs is a carefully crafted selling myth. The reality is obama has done nothing for blacks or the poor. The only people he has helped are the very rich. He’s always worked for them. They are the only minority he has helped, ever. People like emanuel and pelosi are not pressuring obama into anything, that’s a stage show for the dim to continue to justify their giving obama the benefit of the doubt when the evidence has long been in that he’s a fascist/ziofascist.

        • Citizen
          July 19, 2010, 7:28 am

          Yeah, I see Obama’s new financial reforms are just window-dressing; one key is nothing in them will prevent future bailouts of the banks too big to fail. And nothing done, as far as I can see at the moment, about the whore rating agencies. A few shallow bumps for the derivative mongers to easily walk over… Nothing much for the personal credit score companies to worry about either.

  17. hophmi
    July 18, 2010, 12:09 am

    So, the point of all this is?

    Netanyahu’s a Likud member. You’ve showed he opposed Oslo and that he think he can rely on American support because most Americans support Israel.

    Also, in other news, the sky in blue.

    Netanyahu is a different person in power, just like Ariel Sharon was.

  18. joer
    July 18, 2010, 12:50 am

    I thought this bit was revealing:

    Netanyahu: The fact is that they want us in the sea, yes, but over there in the sea [points aside]. The Arabs are currently focusing a war of terror and they think it will break us. The main thing, first of all, is to hit them. Not just one hit, so many painful its that the price will be to heavy to be borne. The price is not too heavy to be borne, now. A broad attack on the Palestinian Authority. To bring them to the point of being afraid that everything is collapsing.

    Woman: They’re not afraid, they’re making fun of us. They shoot into our settlement and make fun of us.

    First, because of the sheer brutality of the strategy-hardly the words of a man who wants peace with his neighbors. Second because they conflate being made fun of with terrorism-as if if you make fun of a settler, then you must support the terrorists and thus you deserve to be pounded again and again.

  19. Egbert
    July 18, 2010, 3:22 am

    This is Bibigate, the whole enchilada. Derailing the peace process, control of the US, AIPAC etc as foreign agents (as they do the actual moving). Where has the US been moved to? A Homeland Security state, war in Iraq for Israel, war to come in Iran for Israel.

    • Citizen
      July 18, 2010, 8:31 am

      But Bibi is right in his assessment because if you bring it up, Egbert, as you do here, in an average American bar, pub, or tavern the tipplers will think you are a nut case. Or jew hater.

      • VR
        July 18, 2010, 9:49 am

        When Bibi says “world” he does not mean the people, he means the systems and those in power in the systems. Even if the people made a fuss about what is occurring with the occupation nothing would be heard in the sense of some sort of moved response by those in power. This is why he made the reflection of the relative ease of “moving” the USA, the movement does not depend on the people – they are an appendage, they look at what is happening from the outside in and have become satisfied as mere spectators not participants.

        Perhaps one of the most cogent statements made a while back was made by a member of the Goldstone committee, Colonel Travers – “GAZA IS THE ONLY GULAG IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE; MAINTAINED BY DEMOCRACIES, CLOSED OFF FROM FOOD, WATER AND AIR”

        GAZA A GULAG MAINTAINED BY DEMOCRACIES

        Actually, that same could be said for the entire Zionist project in Palestine, it is a gulag created for the Palestinians. One could look at what is happening in the OT as not only an occupation but a foreign murderous military rule over the people, wherever you look this is all maintained by “democracies.” It does not matter if the money comes from the Jewish communities in these “democracies,” both the USA and others throughout Europe have policies that allow the free flow of these monies.

        • VR
          July 18, 2010, 10:08 am

          However Citizen, essentially you are right about the “average” American, they are too busy living the “dream” –

          LIVING THE DICHOTOMY

        • Citizen
          July 18, 2010, 12:06 pm

          And you, VR, are right about what N meant.

        • lareineblanche
          July 18, 2010, 5:50 pm

          GAZA IS THE ONLY GULAG IN THE WESTERN HEMISPHERE

          That’s a revelatory statement, as it’s not in the W hemisphere at all geographically – so Israel is ideologically part of the West, the West being in fact an archipelago of democratic states, and not necessarily lumped together physically…
          …wherever you look this is all maintained by “democracies.” – I guess this is what he means. Still strange, though.

          This “East/West” dichotomy is like the “Left/Right” one in political discussions, taking a physical notion (seating arrangements in the French parliament during the revolution) and turning it into an ideological one – it becomes more and more vague and cloudy over time, though I’m sure there are decent definitions of them both if cares to think about it enough.

          Mr. Weiss contributed to this one, it’s long but worth reading :
          link to amconmag.com

        • VR
          July 19, 2010, 1:04 am

          The Zionists like to brag that the citizens of the USA do not care about what is happening in Palestine, and indeed this may be the case. However, it is not just specifically with the case of the conflict, it is the case with everything, or anything of consequence both foreign and domestic. Because like I said above, they are just spectators and not participants in anything significant – that is how this government in built, how it was meant to function, with the people pulling meaningless levers in the voting both, it is a joke.

        • hayate
          July 19, 2010, 3:41 am

          lareineblanche July 18, 2010 at 5:50 pm

          “so Israel is ideologically part of the West, the West being in fact an archipelago of democratic states, and not necessarily lumped together physically…”

          Where are these mysterious western democracies? I’ve never seen them shown on any map.

        • Citizen
          July 19, 2010, 7:32 am

          Yep, basically a heavy one party system with two shallow wings. Manages to fly over the sheeple grazing below–they really do need to wear hats.

  20. Gaius Baltar
    July 18, 2010, 9:27 am

    Is this stale because it was 10 years ago? Does this quote still represent the position of the Israeli government?

    Ask FM Lieberman. Just last year he stated publicly stated that “[b]elieve me, America accepts all our decisions.”

    “Lieberman: U.S. to accept any Israeli policy decision” (Haaretz, April 29, 2009).

    So no, nothing has changed.

  21. annie
    July 18, 2010, 9:57 am

    al jazeera is linking to mondoweiss for translation in their coverage of the video. i just did a search and aside from the one wapo blog only entry there is no other mainstream US news organization covering this. thank you al jazeera!

    • Citizen
      July 18, 2010, 1:27 pm

      That sucks; well i tweeted it; hope others retweet at least.

    • lysias
      July 19, 2010, 5:42 pm

      The video has been discussed on Glenn Greenwald’s forum.

      By the way, I relayed to Glenn Greenwald’s forum the information found above in this thread that the video dates from a few weeks before 9/11. I would be grateful if somebody could explain how it is that the video can be dated then. (The timing of the Second Intifada attack that Bibi was responding to?)

  22. AreaMan
    July 18, 2010, 3:18 pm

    Iran and some other Muslim groups want to destroy America. Netanyahu comforts a frightened woman by saying he can persuade America. So which one is Mondoweiss opposed to?

    • hayate
      July 18, 2010, 3:32 pm

      AreaMan July 18, 2010 at 3:18 pm

      “Iran and some other Muslim groups want to destroy America. Netanyahu comforts a frightened woman by saying he can persuade America. So which one is Mondoweiss opposed to?”

      Wrote that all by yourself, did you?

      :D

    • annie
      July 18, 2010, 4:35 pm

      Netanyahu comforts a frightened woman by saying he can persuade America.

      okie dokie so for the sake of it area man let’s pretend bibs was just comforting a frightened woman. move on i say! so next up..what do you think of bibs tanking olso? do you think

      a. it isn’t true and things just ever so coincidentally happened to work out so that israel controled all the land and was able to pick and choose whatever palestinian land they needed for security which just so happened to be moving over the green line to steal a bunch of land.

      b. all of the above but he did it on purpose just like he said.

      c. you approve of israel getting to take all the palestinian land it wants and bibs has nothing to be ashamed about in fact he just forgot about informing us of all this earlier becasue it slipped his mind and you’ll do anything to defend his actions no matter what.

      Iran and some other Muslim groups want to destroy America.

      frankly i’m more concerned about another religious factions that has a hankering for false flag operations just in case americans loose their taste for this’ war on terror’. but that’s just me.

    • eljay
      July 18, 2010, 5:30 pm

      >> Iran and some other Muslim groups want to destroy America.

      Seems like fair play, seeing as how America and some other non-Muslim groups want to destroy Iraq…ooops, done that. I mean, Afghanistan…ooops, done that too. I mean, Iran. Yeah, that sounds right – after all, I’m pretty sure Iran is part of Al-Qaeda, and they’re responsible for 9/11. Oh, and they have TONS of nukes…

    • thankgodimatheist
      July 18, 2010, 6:43 pm

      “Iran and some other Muslim groups want to destroy America. ”

      AreaMan
      There are many many intelligent people reading this blog and the comments. Did you decide to rather target the rest?

  23. Mooser
    July 18, 2010, 3:31 pm

    “Iran and some other Muslim groups want to destroy America.”

    I’m hiding under the sofa right now. The Iranians will never find me. I still am worried about the “other Muslim groups”. Have you got a list? What if one asked me to join, and I didn’t know it was one of the ones who they wanted to destroy America?
    And so I joined, just to be polite? PLEASE SHOW US THE LIST!!!

    • LeaNder
      July 18, 2010, 4:04 pm

      lmao,
      cute, the above probably will be rated too short by Phil’s softwar, so I better add a little something: :-) _;-)_,-)_.-)

    • rmokhtar
      July 18, 2010, 5:13 pm

      Lol Mooser, damn!

      Ever think about joining Jon Stew’s crew? They prob take you on in a heartbeat.

    • Citizen
      July 19, 2010, 7:36 am

      And also show us who actually puts people/groups on and off THAT S*** LIST of TERRORISTS. And spell out the criteria, pulleeze!

  24. Gaius Baltar
    July 19, 2010, 11:07 am

    Test

    • Taxi
      July 19, 2010, 11:15 am

      Welcome et bien venu, Gaius!

  25. LeoBraun
    July 20, 2010, 12:40 am

    “There is no other mainstream US news organization covering this”! [Annie]

    For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist.

    A murder is less to fear!