[It is no coincidence that this incident occurs on the same day as Hariri's resignation, since the rocketeers are probably from the fringe group that calls itself Fatah el-Islam. It has been claimed in the past that Fatah el Islam was taking orders from the "Welch Club" (the Hariri group or the Saudis). ]Israel Complains to UN over Lebanon Rockets, Russia Voices Concern |
||
|
||
12/09/2009 Israel said on Saturday it had lodged a complaint with the United Nations after two rockets fired from southern Lebanon struck the north of the country without causing any casualties. “The sovereign government of Lebanon fails to meet its commitments under UN Resolution 1701 because it does not prevent the firing of rockets against our territory,” Israeli deputy foreign minister Danny Ayalon told public radio. He also accused Lebanon of “turning a blind eye” to arms transfers to Hezbollah. “The Lebanese government is in formation, but there is a transitional government that must assume its responsibilities, and our ambassador to the UN, Gabriela Shalev, has complained to the Security Council,” Ayalon said. “For now, our punctual response in the field is sufficient. But this isolated incident demonstrates the terrorists’ potential, and Israel will respond massively if the calm is seriously broken.” UNIFIL were monitoring the Lebanese border with Israel on Saturday, a day after rockets launched from south Lebanon slammed into Israel’s Galilee region, but the situation was “calm,” a spokeswoman said. The rockets triggered retaliatory artillery fire across the border. No injuries or casualties were reported. UNIFIL spokesperson Yasmina Bouziane told AFP on Saturday that the UN peacekeeping forces are monitoring Lebanon’s border with Israel, and the situation is calm.”UNIFIL in coordination with the Lebanese Armed Forces (LAF) deployed additional troops in the general area to prevent any escalation of the situation, but the situation is pretty calm today,” Bouziane said. The UNIFIL troops continued to urge both sides to exercise maximum restraint and had launched an investigation into the incident, Bouziane said, but would not comment on who could be behind the rocket attacks. “We will wait for the report,” she said. Israeli Army Radio quoted military sources as saying that a small jihad group with links abroad was likely behind the firing of the rockets. The member of the Development and Liberation parliamentary bloc MP Yassine Jaber said “at a time we don’t accept that the Southern territories turn into a source for the foundling and suspicious rockets because the security of the south is the security of the homeland and it is the responsibility of the legitimate Lebanese security forces backed by UNIFIL, we consider that the Israeli aggression yesterday against al-Qlaileh a violation of resolution 1701 and it is a translation for the recent Israeli threats against Lebanon, its resistance, its army and its people. “ Jaber added, “These ongoing Israeli aggressions, threats and violations against Lebanon by land, sea and air put before the international community and the UN. They also come to confirm that a strong Lebanese army, backed by the resistance, is a Lebanese national need to confront any Israeli aggression.” The National News Agency reported on Friday that President Michel Sleiman made the necessary contacts to follow up on the rocket exchange crisis and measures to be taken to capture the perpetrators. Sleiman also reiterated Lebanon’s commitment to UN Security Council Resolution 1701. Moreover, Foreign Minister Fawzi Salloukh issued a statement Friday condemning the day’s rocket exchange over the Blue line, particularly the “inappropriate Israeli attacks.” Salloukh reiterated Lebanon’s commitment to UN Security Council Resolution 1701, and called for handling the situation in cooperation with UNIFIL. Change and Reform bloc leader MP General Michel Aoun told OTV on Friday that he is “convinced” the rocket launch from the village of Al-Qlaileh onto the occupied territories is not Hezbollah’s “style of confronting Israel,” stressing that the Zionist entity rather than Hezbollah seeks conflict. RUSSIA VOICES CONCERN OVER THE ROCKET FIRE It added that in the current situation any complications “could have serious consequences” both in Lebanon and the wider region and called on all parties to avoid raising tensions. Washington too has condemned the rocket attacks, saying they were in violation of Resolution 1701. Assistant Secretary of State PJ Crowley said in Washington the incident “highlights the urgent need to put arms in Lebanon under control of the state and the need for the international community to remain fully committed on supporting UNIFIL which is the UN mission in Lebanon.” Meanwhile, many Lebanese complained that they received calls from Israel on midnight Friday holding the Lebanese government and people responsible for any attack on the Zionist entity. The message threatened to destroy Lebanon in case of such an attack. |
Daily Archives: September 12, 2009
Chavez Announces Russian Missile Purchase
Chavez Announces Russian Missile Purchase |
||
|
||
12/09/2009 Amid rising tensions with neighboring Colombia, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez announced late Friday that his country would soon take delivery of Russian-made missiles with a range of 300 kilometers. He stressed that his country had “no plans to attack anybody.” Responding to reports that Russia would sell tanks to the Latin Following the Medvedev-Chavez talks, the Russian and Venezuelan defense ministries signed an agreement, details of which were not released. Russian media reports ahead of Chavez’s visit said Venezuela was seeking to buy T-72 and T-90 tanks, Kilo-class diesel-powered submarines, BMP-3 armored vehicles, Mi-28 helicopters and land-based anti-ship missiles. Recent Russian arms sales to Venezuela also included 24 fighter jets Sukhoi-30, 50 combat helicopters and 100,000 Kalshnikov assault rifles. Moscow has also granted Venezuela a one-billion dollar credit to finance the acquisition of its weapons. |
Incoming Tokyo government threatens split with US
Incoming Tokyo government threatens split with US
A split is emerging between the United States and Japan over the new Tokyo government’s anti-globalisation rhetoric and its threats to end a refueling agreement for US ships in support of the war in Afghanistan.
By Julian Ryall in Tokyo
Published: 4:38PM BST 11 Sep 2009
Yukio Hatoyama blamed the US for the ills of capitalism Photo: AP
Yukio Hatoyama, the leader of the Democratic Party of Japan, has caused alarm in Washington after publishing an article blaming the US for the ills of capitalism, the global economy and “the destruction of human dignity”.
He also intends to examine an agreement that permits US warships to dock at Japanese ports, in violation of the nation’s non-nuclear principles. Mr Hatoyama says he will also look again at the $6 billion cost faced by Japan to transfer thousands of US troops from their base in Okinawa to the Pacific island of Guam amid a wide-ranging review of the American military presence on Japanese soil.
His election campaign promised a more “independent” foreign policy from Washington and closer relations with Asian neighbours, including China. On Thursday, he repeated his intention to defy the US and end the Maritime Self-Defence Force’s resupply mission in the Indian Ocean.
Mr Hatoyama will be sworn in on Wednesday after an historic victory that ended decades of near unbroken rule by the Liberal Democratic Party. He will have his first meeting with Barack Obama, the US president, at the United Nations on Sep 22.
The Pentagon reminded Japan of the expectations it faced as a “great power and one of the world’s wealthiest countries”. Geoff Morrell, a spokesman, said: “There is an international responsibility, we believe, for everyone to do their share, as best they can, to contribute to this effort to bring about a more peaceful and secure Afghanistan.”
The Defence Department would not “prejudge” Japan’s new political leadership, he added.
“We think that when the responsibility of governing comes about that people will appreciate, as we have every reason to believe they do, the importance of this alliance and the importance of working together on these [security] agreements,” he said.
Makoto Watanabe, a professor of media and communication at Hokkaido Bunkyo University, said: “The US has been critical of new trends in Japan, but we are not a colony of Washington and we should be able to say what we want.
“The Japan-US relationship will remain our most important bilateral link, but while under previous governments Japan had become a yes-man to the US, this suggests to me that healthy change is taking place.”
Nabucco Backs-Off Projection of Gas to European Union by 2014, Forgets Azerbaijan
Nabucco postpones terms of launch of gas supplies to European Union after 2016
Baku, Fineko/abc.az. The Nabucco Gas Pipeline International, consortium on building of gas pipeline Nabucco from Asia to Europe through Turkish territory, despite former declarations will not finish building of the pipeline in 2014 and will not launch gas supplies to the European Union (EU) by this term.
Chistian Dolezal, Press – Secretary of Nabucco Gas Pipeline International, stated at the XIX Economic forum in Polish town Krynitsa that construction work of Nabucco will be launched in 2011, and they are going to draw first thread to Ankara.
“In 2016, we will continue to build the gas pipeline from Ankara to EU,” C.Dolezal said. Earlier, completion of building of the gas pipeline was announced on 2014.
“The gas pipeline will be unite two large markets: Turkish and European. Presently, the question exists, where we will take gas in order to fill the gas pipeline. I think, gas supplies in Turkmenistan and in Iraq will be sufficient in order to satisfy demands of Turkey and Europe for gas and do Europe more independent from gas supplies from Russia,” C.Dolezal said.
He did not name Azerbaijan as a source to fill the pipe line. Azerbaijan is prepared for supplying up to 20 billion cu m per annum.
“For the time being, there is not a single contract to supply gas via the pipeline, but we are holding negotiations, and as soon as they appear, the company will inform of this ay once. Presently, there are 16 companies wishing to supply gas via the pipeline. All contracts will be concluded at public auctions,” C.Dolezal said.
On July 13, an intergovernmental agreement between Turkey, Austria, Bulgaria, Romania and Hungary as signed on Nabucco gas pipeline construction in Ankara.
Germany did not put its signature under the agreement as it is not a transit country.
A day before the signing ceremony the pipeline lost one of the possible sources of gas for its filling-in.
Iraqi government’s press secretary Ali ad-Dabah claimed that Iraq had not free gas for export via Nabucco pipeline.
Before Turkmen president Gurbanguli Berdimukhamedov stated that his country was ready to supply gas for Nabucco pipeline but the United States decided to tackle the problem of gas deficit for the pipeline quite another way.
US special envoy for Eurasian energy Richard Morningstar said that Russia could become a gas supplier for Nabucco and the project participating countries should regard Russia as a partner
Readiness for gas supply for Nabucco project was expressed by Iraq, Egypt and Syria, but Turkmenistan, together with AZerbaijan, Iran and Iraq are being considered as the key suppliers.
Earlier, Turkish Energy Minister Taner Yildiz stated that the agreement signing became possible as Turkey refused from a condition that 15% of gas to run via the pipeline should remain in Turkey. Instead Turkey obtained the right of future access to European gas reserves through Nabucco. For this the pipeline will be constructed to carry gas in two directions – from east to west (from Turkey to Austria) and from west to east back to Turkey.
Earlier, agreement signing in Ankara was scheduled for 25 June of the year.
Azerbaijan promised 7 bn cu m a year for transportation via the pipeline but Turkish sources consider the volume is insufficient to cover European Union’s annual needs of 20 bn cu m.
The Nabucco consortium participants are ready for involvement in tenders to be held before the end of 2009 for purchase and transportation of gas to be produced within Stage 2 of Shah Deniz Gas Project (Azerbaijan sector of the Caspian Sea).
Signing of the agreement is one of the preliminary conditions for making a decision on project financing.
At the same time Reinhard Mitschek, managing director of Nabucco Gas Pipeline International GmbH, indicates that in the 1st half of 2010 it is planned to make an investment decision and launch construction works.
For making an investment decision the Consortium needs to have guarantied delivery of 8-10 bn cu m of gas for the project to be attractive for investors and sponsors. The pipeline capacity then will be increased up to 20 bn cu m and 65 bn cu m at the next stage.
In the 2nd half of 2009 the Consortium is planning to launch environmental impact assessment (ОВОС). Then there will be carried out detailed engineering in different countries and clarified specifications for the tender on selection of the contractors.
Nabucco Project start is scheduled for 2014. Nabucco pipeline will supply gas to Europe across the border of Turkey with Georgia or Iran by-passing Russia.
Initially Azerbaijan was concerned with lack of progress in project officialization.
Azerbaijan agrees that the project is important and interesting, but indicates that the project participants are going to tackle a range of difficult challenges. Besides an intergovernmental agreement which the participants are planning to sign until the end of this June, they should solve the matter of definition of the gas pipeline route and re-purchase of land plots for it. Besides, the project participants do not have a transit agreement.
The presentation documents of Nabucco Gas Pipeline International say that at primary stage it is expected to lay only 2 000 km pipeline from Baumgarten to Ankara in Turkey and then receive gas from Azerbaijan and Ira via available Turkish gas pipeline network. At primary stage capacity of pumping via Nabucco to be built in 2011-14 will be only 8 bn cu m. Construction of the second stage of the pipeline – from Ankara to the Turkey’s borders with Georgia and Iran – can begin in 2014-15 and is intended to increase transportation capacity up to 31 bn cu m.
Meanwhile, it is obvious that at primary stage it will be built only 2,000 out of 3,300 km of design capacity of the pipeline including only 700 km out of 2,000 of its length in Tukrey. At primary stage the pipeline will not promote to expansion of capacity of neither Turkish pipeline network in the east of this country nor pipeline systems of other countries, including Georgia and Azerbaijan. Most probably, at the second stage Nabucco will make (or will try to make) the supplier countries to increase independently pumping capacities to the point of gas delivery in the region of Ankara.
Earlier, Nabucco Gas Pipeline International’s managing director Reinhard Mitschek stated that to launch the works Nabucco needs from 8 bn up to 12 bn cu m of gas expected to come from Azerbaijan.
At the same time the company is not going to buy gas independently giving this right directly to the purchasing countries.
Direct construction of 3,300 km Nabucco pipeline will start in 2011 and end in 2014. Nabucco project is estimated at EUR 7.9 billion and its capacity will make 31 bn cu m a year. The EU is ready to disburse up to EUR 272 million to finance initial stages of the pipeline construction.
The European Commission’s representative for Central Asia Pierre Morel voiced a doubt about pipeline’s commissioning in 2013. In his opinion, the pipeline construction can take 5-12 years.
Earlier World Bank’s country director for Turkey Ulrich Zakhau stated that WB was ready to give financial support to Nabucco project but on the condition of guarantees of pipeline filling-in by gas producers.
Later this January the European Commission agreed to allocate 250 million euro to the European Investment Bank (EIB) for financing the project. On 7 May the European Union will hold an energy summit at which it is going to publish a decision about start of Nabucco pipeline construction.
At the same time Central Asian gas states (Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan) confirm their readiness to sell natural gas to Russian monopoly Gazprom at European prices. As a result, the only potential gas supplier for Nabucco pipeline is Azerbaijan whose “big gas” expected after 2013 has not been contracted.
The Consortium has not settled project financing problem so far as well.
According to EIB president Philippe Maystadt, EIB will undertake 25% of project expenditures out of 200-300 million euro demanded at the first stage (cost of entire project is 7.9 bn euro), but only after readiness of project feasibility study and as minimum signing of intergovernmental agreement on it.
Thomas Mirow, the president of the European Bank of Reconstruction & Development (EBRD), set out quite more conditions of EBRD participation in project financing – contracts on gas supplies, investment guarantees, and technical parameters, environment assessment impact and study of public opinion in the regions through which Nabucco pipeline will run.
The companies participating in Nabucco project with equal stakes (16.67%) are OMV Gas & Power GmbH, MOL (Hungary), Bulgargaz (Bulgarian), Transgaz (Romania), Botas (Turkey) and RWE Supply & Trading GmbH (Germany). In December 2008 OMV and RWE established Caspian Energy Company (CEC) that will study the possibilities of gas transportation from Caspian region to Europe.
CHARLIE SHEEN AND 9/11
Link: http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/charlie-sheen-and-911/
On 8 September 2009, Prison Planet.com has an article entitled: Charlie Sheen Requests Meeting With Obama Over 9/11 Cover-Up (“20 Minutes With The President,” )
Among the points Charlie Sheen makes:
1. 60% of the 9/11 commissioners have publicly stated that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11 and that the Pentagon was engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack.
2. In August 2006, in the Washington Post, John Farmer, senior council to the 9/11 commission, stated: “I was shocked how different the truth was from the way it was described…
“The (NORAD Air Defense) tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years….”
3. Commissioner Max Cleland, an ex-Senator from Georgia, resigned, stating: “It is a national scandal. This investigation is now compromised. One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9/11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up.”
4. Several top commissioners suspected such serious deception that they considered referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.
5. Obama promised to abolish the Patriot Act and then voted to re-authorize it.
Obama pledged to end warrantless wire tapping against the American people and now energetically defends it.
Obama decried the practice of rendition and now continues it.
Obama promised over and over again on the campaign trail to end the practice of indefinite detention and instead, he has expanded it to permanent detention of ‘detainees’ without trial.
This far exceeds the outrages of the former administration.
6. It took 17 days to begin the investigation into JFK’s assassination and 11 days to begin the investigation into Pearl Harbor.
It took roughly 14 months to begin the 9 11 investigation.
It only took FIVE HOURS for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld after the initial 9 11 attack to recommend and endorse a full scale offensive against Iraq.
7. “Operation Northwoods” is a declassified Pentagon plan to stage terror attacks on US soil, to be blamed on Cuba as a pretext for war.
Staged provocations are said to include the USS Maine Incident, the sinking of the Lusitania and the Gulf of Tonkin incident.
8. The think-tank “Project For a New American Century” published “Rebuilding Americas Defenses”.
It was written by Dick Cheney and Jeb Bush.
This document states: “Further, the process of transformation, even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor.”
9. In early 2008, Pulitzer prize winning journalist Seymour Hersh and MSNBC, both reported that Cheney had proposed to the Pentagon a plan to have the U.S. Navy create fake Iranian patrol boats, to be manned by Navy Seals, who would then stage an attack on US destroyers in the Strait of Hormuz.
This event was to be blamed on Iran and used as a pretext for war.
10. On the FBI’s most wanted list Osama Bin Laden is not charged with the crimes of 911.
The FBI says: “There’s not enough evidence to link Bin Laden to the crime scene.”
Osama has never even been indicted by the Department of Justice (D.O.J.)
11. FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, was dismissed and gagged by the D.O.J.
She revealed that the government had foreknowledge of 9 11.
In July 2009, Sibel Edmonds revealed that Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban were all working for and with the C.I.A. up until the day of 9/11.
http://pakalert.wordpress.com/2009/09/09/charlie-sheen-and-911/
12. Mayor Giuliani, during an interview on 9/11 with Peter Jennings for ABC News, said: “I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse.“
Who told him it was going to collapse?
13. In April 2004, USA Today reported, “In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties.” One of the targets was the World Trade Center.
14. On 12 September 2007, CNN’s ‘Anderson Cooper 360′, reported that the mysterious “white plane” spotted and videotaped by multiple media outlets, flying in restricted airspace over the White House shortly before 10am on the morning of 9/11, was in fact the Air Force’s E-4B, a specially modified Boeing 747 with a communications pod behind the cockpit; otherwise known as “The Doomsday Plane”.
The 9/11 Commission did not believe the appearance of the military plane was of any interest and did not include it in the final 9/11 Commission report.
15. Three F-16s assigned to Andrews Air Force Base, ten miles from Washington, DC, are conducting training exercises in North Carolina 207 miles away as the first plane crashes into the WTC.
Even at significantly less than their top speed of 1500 mph, they could still have defended the skies over Washington well before 9am, more than 37 minutes before Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon. However, they did not return until after 9:55am.
Andrews AFB had no armed fighters on alert and ready to take off on the morning of 9/11.
16. Flight 93 is fourth plane to crash on 9/11 at 10:03am.
Vice president Cheney only gives shoot down order at 10:10-10:20am and this is not communicated to NORAD until 28 minutes after Flight 93 has crashed.
Three months before the attacks of 9/11, Dick Cheney usurped control of NORAD, and therefore he, and no one else, had the power to call for military sorties on the hijacked airliners on 9/11.
He did not exercise that power.
Three months after 9/11, he relinquished command of NORAD and returned it to military operation.
17. Scores of main stream news outlets reported that the F.B.I. conducted an investigation of reports that at least FIVE of the 9/11 hijackers were trained at U.S. military flight schools.
Those investigations are now sealed and need to be declassified.
18. In 2004, New York firefighters Mike Bellone and Nicholas DeMasi went public to say they had found the black boxes at the World Trade Center, but were told to keep their mouths shut by FBI agents.
Nicholas DeMasi said that he escorted federal agents on an all-terrain vehicle in October 2001 and helped them locate the devices, a story backed up by rescue volunteer Mike Bellone.
As the Philadelphia Daily News reported at the time, “Their story raises the question of whether there was a some type of cover-up at Ground Zero.”
19. Hundreds of eye witnesses including first responders, fire captains, news reporters, and police, all described multiple explosions in both towers before and during the collapse.
20. An astounding video, uncovered from the archives, shows BBC News correspondent Jane Standley reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6mxFRigYD3s)
Tapes from earlier BBC broadcasts show news anchors discussing the collapse of WTC 7 a full 26 minutes in advance.
The BBC at first claimed that their tapes from 9/11 had been ‘lost’ before admitting that they made the ‘error’ of reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it happened without adequately explaining how they could have obtained advance knowledge of the event.
Over an hour before the collapse of WTC 7, at 4:10pm, CNN’s Aaron Brown reported that the building “has either collapsed, or is collapsing.”
21. Solicitor General Ted Olson’s claim that his wife Barbara Olsen called him twice from Flight 77, describing hijackers with box cutters, was a central plank of the official 9/11 story.
However, the credibility of the story was completely undermined after Olsen kept changing his story about whether his wife used her cell phone or the airplane phone.
The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004.
American Airlines confirmed that Flight 77 was a Boeing 757 and that this plane did not have airplane phones on board.
According to the FBI, Barbara Olsen attempted to call her husband only once and the call failed to connect, therefore Olsen must have been lying when he claimed he had spoken to his wife from Flight 77.
22. The size of a Boeing 757 is approximately 125ft in width and yet images of the impact zone at the Pentagon supposedly caused by the crash merely show a hole no more than 16ft in diameter.
The engines of the 757 would have punctured a hole bigger than this, never mind the whole plane.
Images before the partial collapse of the impact zone show little real impact damage and a sparse debris field completely inconsistent with the crash of a large jetliner, especially when contrasted with other images showing airplane crashes into buildings.
23. During the 9/11 Commission hearings, the following information was given by then Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta.
During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to Vice President Cheney, “The plane is 50 miles out.” Then, “The plane is 30 miles out.” And when it got down to “the plane is 10 miles out,” the young man also said to the Vice President, “Do the orders still stand?”
And the Vice President turned and whipped his neck around and said, “Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?”
The plane was not shot down.
The Pentagon defensive system was not activated.
24. In May 2003, the Miami Herald reported how the Bush administration was refusing to release a 900-page congressional report on 9/11 because it wanted to “avoid enshrining embarrassing details in the report,” particularly regarding pre-9/11 warnings as well as the fact that the hijackers were trained at U.S. flight schools.
25. Top Pentagon officials cancelled their scheduled flights for September 11th on September 10th. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, following a security warning, cancelled a flight into New York that was scheduled for the morning of 9/11.
26. The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004, and even by that point it was only in the trial phase.
Calls from cell phones which formed an integral part of the official government version of events were technologically impossible at the time.
27. On April 29, 2004, President Bush and V.P. Cheney would only meet with the commission under specific clandestine conditions. They insisted on testifying together and not under oath. They also demanded that their testimony be treated as a matter of ’state secret.’ To date, nothing they spoke of that day exists in the public domain.
28. A few days after the attack, several newspapers as well as the FBI reported that a paper passport had been found in the ruins of the WTC.
In August 2004, CNN reported that 9/11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah’s visa was found in the remains of Flight 93 which went down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
At least a third of the WTC victim’s bodies were vaporized and many of the victims of the Pentagon incident were burned beyond recognition.
And yet visas and paper passports which identify the perpetrators and back up the official version of events miraculously survive explosions and fires that we are told melted steel buildings.
————————————————————————————
THE EXPLODING FLOORS OF 9/11 WTC and evidence of inside job, planted explosives
This newly released footage of the demolitions of WTC 7 and WTC 1 (North Tower) is very significant. There are several important aspects of the demolitions of 9-11 that are proven by these videos. The first is the incredible amount of pulverization of the concrete in WTC 7, which can be seen in the billowing pyroclastic clouds of dust rolling down the streets during its unexplained collapse at 5:25 p.m. on 9-11. Pyroclastic clouds are usually associated with volcanoes and are composed chiefly of rock fragments of explosive origin.
The pyroclastic clouds of dust were primarily composed of the concrete floors of the towers – and everything on them. This dust was not caused by a collapse but by a layer of super-thermite that had been applied directly to the floors, most likely on their undersides that were hidden from view – on the steel pans that held the lightweight concrete. The floor pans were exploded on 9-11 with most of the force of the blast directed downwards. There was no collapse. If the towers had collapsed or pancaked as the official report claims, there should have been a stack of 100 floor pans in the rubble, yet none were to be seen.
The dust clouds seen flowing down the street following the collapse of the 47-story Salomon Building, built and owned by Larry Silverstein, are identical to the pyroclastic clouds that accompanied the demolition and collapses of the Twin Towers, WTC 1 and 2. These dust clouds were caused by a super-explosive, a nano-composite form of thermite, fragments of which were found in the dust and identified by Dr. Steven E. Jones of Brigham Young University and others.
Chips of the super-thermite that pulverized the World Trade Center. (Steven E. Jones et al, 2009)This is the incredibly powerful explosive that evidently pulverized the 110 four-inch thick light-weight concrete floors of each tower. Besides reducing these concrete layers to pyroclastic dust, this super-thermite also destroyed everything on each floor and blew everything to smithereens and propelled the huge dust clouds of pulverized debris down the streets of lower Manhattan. The floors of the Twin Towers were exploded in a way that indicates that the super-thermite must have been in direct contact with the four-inch thick concrete floors or the metal pans the concrete was poured into. This is fairly obvious because these structures were primarily steel and glass towers with concrete floors. The only other surfaces would have been the temporary dry wall constructions on each floor, the suspended ceilings, plumbing, and elevator shafts. There was not much else in the way of surfaces that could have been applied with super-thermite.
This is why the newly-released video of the demolition of the North Tower is so important. It clearly shows that the floors and exterior walls were exploded first and that the crucial weight-bearing core columns of the tower were still standing! (NIST, please explain that and the absence of 110 floor pans stacked up in the rubble. How did 220 steel floor pans disappear?)
This is crucial evidence that helps explain how the towers were demolished. The floors and structures around the core were evidently exploded first – and then the core columns were cut with steel-cutting thermite charges, explosions that were shrouded by the dust and noise of the exploding floors. This is quite unlike the logical progression of a normal collapse even in the case of demolition. This is to say that the 47 weight-bearing core columns were not cut first leading to the collapses. The destruction of the Twin Towers were not really collapses although the demolition of WTC 7 resulted in a collapse that resembled a normal controlled demolition.
The 110 floors of each tower were simply exploded before, blowing downwards and away from the cores in a way that was designed to look like a collapse. There was one problem: the “collapses” fell faster than an object in free fall. This was the first solid piece of evidence that the towers had been demolished with explosives. The “collapses” occurred faster than the laws of physics allow — because they were not natural collapses. If they had been natural collapses there would have been layers of concrete pancaked on top of each other in the rubble pile, which is what often happens to multi-level buildings in strong earthquakes. We would expect to find 110 slabs of concrete and their steel pans stacked on top of each other, yet there is no evidence that any of these floor pans were found in the rubble, much less 110 of them stacked up. Where did these 220 steel floor pans go? How could they have simply disappeared? The fact that they were not found stacked up in the rubble clearly disproves the official version (NIST) of the “collapses” of the Twin Towers.
Many tons of steel from the Twin Towers were melted instantly by the super-thermite bi-layered explosive material found by Dr. Steven E. Jones in the dust. This is proven by the iron spheres found in the dust, as this image from the USGS survey clearly shows. This sphere is a solidified droplet of molten iron, the product of a thermitic reaction. This is evidently what happened to the 220 steel floor pans. In the wink of an eye they were melted by the detonation of the layer of super-thermite, which had probably been sprayed on their undersides, and then pulverized by the layer of organic material which had been added to the nano-thermite to create the gas pressure and explosive effect.
As we know there were no such solid remains of floor pans or the concrete floors of the Twin Towers — absolutely everything was reduced to dust, except for the structural steel that remained, although some of that was also vaporized. This is what the super-thermite did on 9-11. It exploded the concrete floors and everything on them. There was no so-called pancake collapse. This is certainly obvious to anyone who views these videos. Why have NIST and the media lied to the public that the demolitions were collapses caused by steel structures weakened by fire? This is pure rubbish.
Why is this video footage of the demolition of the North Tower so important? Because it suggests that the pulverizing super-thermite (a sol gel energetic bi-layer film) was applied directly to the acre-sized concrete floors surrounding the 47 core columns. That is to say that the super-thermite layer was evidently in direct contact with the floors in areas occupied by tenants, and not in the core area, which we can see remained standing for several seconds after the floors around it had been exploded away. So, how was this thermitic material applied to the floors? Was it sprayed to the undersides of the floor pans or was it applied to the floors themselves, perhaps disguised as a floor covering or as a layer beneath the floor covering? Perhaps it was applied to the floors in several ways.
One reader wrote to me after the show with Kevin Barrett with this interesting comment:
During the interview, you speculated that the nano thermite may have been sprayed on the floor during the asbestos abatement process while removing linoleum. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the asbestos abatement process would be removing the fireproofing from the floor trusses by accessing the trusses through the suspended ceiling located below. In other words, the sol jell could have been sprayed on the floor pans (which is 15-20 ga steel decking supported by the trusses that the concrete is poured in) and hidden by the ceiling tiles in the same day. No problem. Other areas of sol jell application would include the core columns located within the elevator shafts Ace Elevator was working on. If you think about it, as energetic as nano thermite is, relatively little sol jell would be needed for the exterior columns, and it would explain the shearing occurring at convenient truck size lengths.
It seems most likely that the undersides of the steel floor pans is where the super-thermite was applied. If the pans were sprayed with a layer of super-thermite disguised as a coating of rust-proofing for example, the force of the blast would be directed downwards. The steel pan and the concrete of the floor would be pulverized but the direction of the explosions would be downwards and outwards, which is what we see in the video. As each floor was detonated, the blast would be forced downwards by the steel and concrete above it. The blast would hit the floor below it and hasten the collapse. This is what seems to have occurred judging by the video evidence.
In my article, “Who Put Super-Thermite in the Twin Towers?” of July 20, 2009, I discuss how the super-thermite might have been put in the towers. One of the possible disguises for applying the thin layer of super-thermite could have been as a coating sprayed during asbestos abatement work in the towers, as the reader said in the comment above. As I wrote in this article:
We do know that a million-dollar contract for asbestos abatement in the twin towers had been put up for bids by contractors in the fall of 2000, exactly one year before 9-11:
Contract WTC-115.310 – The World Trade Center Removal and Disposal of Vinyl Asbestos Floor Tiles and Other Incidental Asbestos-Containing Building Materials Via Work Order Estimate Range: $1,000,000 annually Bids due Tuesday, October 17, 2000. (advertised by the PA on September 12, 2000)
Kevin Barrett asked me how I can say that the super-thermite was produced by the Zionists who I allege are behind 9-11? As I said in the interview, at this point I cannot say with absolute certainty that the nano-composite was made by Israeli scientists in the nuclear bomb factory near Dimona, but I suspect it was. It is a deduction I have made in the same way one solves an algebra problem. If we know the result of the equation and all of the factors except one we can determine the missing factor. This is what I have done. Every other aspect of this false-flag terror atrocity was done by Israelis or Zionists committed to Israel so I would conclude that Israelis were involved in the manufacture and application of the super-thermite in the World Trade Center towers that were demolished on 9-11, all three of them.
What we really need to find at this point is the names of the people who were responsible for placing the super-thermite in the towers and how it was done. When we have that information we will be able to determine who made the material and provided it. Then we will have the true culprits of 9-11. As we already know, this material was certainly not made by Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaida or the Taliban. We can safely say that no Muslim or Arab state or entity was responsible for loading the Twin Towers and WTC 7 with this advanced form of super-thermite. The government and media interpretation of 9-11 is, therefore, nothing but a pack of lies. This means that the war in Afghanistan has nothing whatsoever to do with 9-11 — except that it is being done on behalf of those who carried out the false-flag terror attacks.
We must remember that we really have nothing to fear but fear itself. The ones who are truly afraid are those who carried out 9-11 and those who have assisted in this massive hoax and cover-up. They, the real terrorists of 9-11, are trembling with fear and unable to sleep. We need to be dedicated, determined, and tenacious in finding the guilty parties and exposing them.
This is how they plan to deal with the subject of “mind control”
This is how they plan to deal with the subject of “mind control,”
by ridiculing the topic in the major media, every opportunity that can be made. They will use the terms “ludicrous”, “ridiculous” and “absurd” whenever anyone asks a serious question about this most serious topic. After all, “mind control” is the issue in nearly every serious question about who controls the “sheeple”? On all the topics that are covered here at No Sunglasses, “mind control” is the main and only issue. From education, to television, to propaganda, to the military and foreign policy, even to issues pending in Congress, the use of mind control techniques by the US government, developed from the original Nazi science, explains everything about the conspiracy of the ruling elite to dominate all of the earth.
Kidnap suspect: Mind control helped stop my sexual urges
CNN International - Mallory Simon – Aug 31, 2009
KCRA: Read transcript of Garrido’s interview after his arrest The documents provide a glimpse into the mind of a man who said he thinks he has a God-given …
Garrido’s wife, accused of abducting and raping Jaycee Dugard,… San Jose Mercury News
In Cambridge, students fidget while watching Obama speech
Boston Globe - Peter Schworm – Sep 8, 2009
They got fidgety because the mind control waves stopped when the Internet feed did. Only the fluoride in the public water supply kept them under control.
Obama’s school speech Baltimore Sun
Obama mind control experiment stopped by Dorchester County officials
theDiscust (satire) - Sep 8, 2009
That’s when Pye concluded, after reading an internet report from a school board member, that Obama’s speech was really a mind control experiment aimed at …
NTCcan.org Moving 911 Investigation to November Ballot
Amazing News From Ground Zero!
Friday, September 11, 2009 11:35 PM
From:
Hello friends,
I’m in New York for the We Demand Transparency Conference, where I’ll be speaking tomorrow at noon — hope to see you there. http://www.wedemandtransparency.com Special low price at the door for students and the economically challenged: only $20!
The amazing news is that NYCcan.org has prevailed and is on track to have the NYC Ballot Initiative on the ballot this November: http://nyccan.org/ This puts the bad guys in a difficult position: How can they stop it without publicizing it? Stay tuned for updates in this astonishing battle between the forces of good and evil…
Ugly reality of ‘war on terror’ — II
|
Ugly reality of ‘war on terror’ — II |
|
Huzaima Bukhari and Dr. Ikramul Haq
|
 Born in Mazar-e Sharif in 1951, Khalilzad hails from the old ruling elite of Afghanistan. His father was an aide to King Zahir Shah, who ruled the country until 1973. Khalilzad was a graduate student at the University of Chicago, an intellectual center for the American right-wing, when the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979. Khalilzad became an American citizen, while serving as a key link between US imperialism and the Islamic fundamentalist mujahideen fighting the Soviet-backed regime in Kabul — the milieu out of which both the Taliban and bin Laden’s al Qaeda group emerged. He was a special advisor to the State Department during the Reagan administration, lobbying successfully for accelerated US military aid to the mujahideen, including hand-held Stinger anti-aircraft missiles which played a key role in the war. He later became Undersecretary of Defence in the administration of senior Bush, during the US war against Iraq, and then went to the Rand Corporation, a top US military think-tank. After George W. Bush was installed as president by a 5-4 vote of the US Supreme Court, Khalilzad headed the Bush-Cheney transition team for the Defence Department and advised incoming Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Significantly, however, he was not named to a sub-cabinet position, which would have required Senate confirmation and might have provoked uncomfortable questions about his role as an oil company advisor in Central Asia and intermediary with the Taliban. Instead, he was named to the National Security Council (NSC), where no confirmation vote was needed. At the NSC, Zalmay Khalilzad reported to Condoleezza Rice, then national security advisor [later became US Secretary of State] who also served as UNOCAL consultant on Central Asia. After serving in the first Bush administration from 1989 to 1992, Rice was placed on the board of directors of Chevron Corporation and served as its principal expert on Kazakhstan, where Chevron holds the largest concession of any of the international oil companies. The oil industry connections of Bush and Cheney were well known, but little was said in the media about the prominent role being played in Afghan policy by officials who advised the oil industry on Central Asia. One of the few commentaries in the America media about this aspect of the US military campaign appeared in the San Francisco Chronicle on September 26, 2001. Staff writer Frank Viviano observed: “The hidden stakes in the war against terrorism can be summed up in a single word: oil. The map of terrorist sanctuaries and targets in the Middle East and Central Asia is also, to an extraordinary degree, a map of the world’s principal energy sources in the 21st century…. It is inevitable that the war against terrorism will be seen by many as a war on behalf of America’s Chevron, Exxon, and Arco; France’s TotalFinaElf; British Petroleum; Royal Dutch Shell and other multinational giants, which have hundreds of billions of dollars of investment in the region.” This reality is well understood in official Washington, but the most important corporate-controlled media outlets — the television networks and major national daily newspapers — have maintained silence that amounts to politically motivated self-censorship. The sole exception was an article which appeared December 15, 2001 in the New York Times business section, headlined, ‘’As the war shifts alliances, oil deals follow.’’ The Times reported, ‘’The State Department is exploring the potential for post-Taliban energy projects in the region, which has more than 6 percent of the world’s proven oil reserves and almost 40 percent of its gas reserves. The Times noted that during a visit in early December to Kazakhstan, “‘Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said he was particularly impressed with the money that American oil companies were investing there. He estimated that $200 billion could flow into Kazakhstan during the next 5 to 10 years.” Secretary of Energy, Spencer Abraham also pushed US oil investments in the region during a November visit to Russia, on which he was accompanied by David J. O’Reilly, chairman of ChevronTexaco. Former Defence Secretary Rumsfeld also played a role in the oil pipeline maneuvers. During a visit to Baku, capital of Azerbaijan, he assured officials of the oil-rich Caspian state that the administration would lift sanctions imposed in 1992 in the wake of the conflict with Armenia over the enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. Both Azerbaijan and Armenia aligned themselves with the US military thrust into Central Asia, offering the Pentagon transit rights and use of airfields. Rumsfeld’s visit and his conciliatory remarks were the reward. Rumsfeld told President Haydar Aliyev that the administration had reached agreement with congressional leaders to waive the sanctions. The White House released a statement hailing the official opening of the first new pipeline by the Caspian Pipeline Consortium, a joint venture of Russia, Kazakhstan, Oman, ChevronTexaco, ExxonMobil and several other oil companies. The pipeline connects the huge Tengiz oilfield in northwestern Kazakhstan to the Russian Black Sea port of Novorossiysk, where tankers are loaded for the world market. US companies put up $1 billion of the $2.65 billion construction cost. The Bush statement declared, ‘’The CPC project also advances my Administration’s National Energy Policy by developing a network of multiple Caspian pipelines that also includes the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan, Baku-Supsa, and Baku-Novorossiysk oil pipelines and the Baku-Tbilisi-Erzurum gas pipeline.’’ There was little US press coverage of this announcement. Nor did the media refer to the fact that the pipeline consortium involved in the Baku-Ceyhan plan, led by the British oil company BP, is represented by the law firm of Baker & Botts. The principal attorney at this firm was James Baker III, Secretary of State under Bush’s father and chief spokesman for the 2000 Bush campaign during its successful effort to “shut down the Florida vote recount”. The subsequent invasion of Iraq by US and its allies using the myth of weapons of mass destruction [which proved to be a hoax] and appointment of Zalmay Khalilzad as US Ambassador proved beyond any doubt that the reality of ‘war on drug’ is nothing but quest for OIL. Donald L. Barlett and James B. Steele [TIME, May 19, 2003] remarkably exposed the dark side of American oil policy from classified government documents and oil industry memos, involving a pair of Iraq’s neighbours, Iran and Afghanistan. The aim of controlling Iranian oil forced Americans for 25 years to spend more than $20 billion in U.S. taxpayers’ money as military aid and subsidized weapons sales for the Shah’s most undemocratic rule, its oppressive armed forces and ruthless intelligence apparatus SAVAK. These policies lead to takeover of Iran by anti-US forces in 1979. Resultantly for two decades, American oil companies were barred by the U.S. government from doing business with Iran. The writers, tax lawyers, authors of many books and articles on narco-terrorism, are visiting Professors at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) |
US Pres. Security Council, Hariri Resignation, Rockets, Litani River–(formula for new aggression)
Israel Files Complaint with U.N. Over Rocket Attack from Lebanon
Israel has complained to the United Nations about the rocket attack from southern Lebanon on Friday as military sources in the Jewish state said a global jihad group was most likely behind the rocket firing.
Israel’s envoy to the U.N. Gabriela Shalev sent a letter on Friday to U.S. ambassador Susan Rice, whose country is currently holding the rotating Security Council presidency, and to Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
Shalev said in the letter that the attack was “another example of the presence of munitions and terror activity south of the Litani River in direct violation of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1701.”
Israel held the Lebanese government responsible and said Beirut wasn’t doing enough to prevent the presence of armed groups and weapons south of the Litani River, as outlined in Resolution 1701.
The rocket firing prompted Israel to respond with artillery fire. The exchange, in which no casualties were reported by either side, was the latest in persisting tensions between the two countries. It was the third time this year rockets were fired from Lebanon into Israel, each time bringing Israeli retaliation.
The Israeli army said it fired artillery at the source of rocket attack in Qlaileh. The military “views this incident very severely and we hold the government of Lebanon responsible,” a statement said.
“UNIFIL in coordination with the LAF (Lebanese army) deployed additional troops in the general area to prevent any escalation of the situation, but the situation is pretty calm today,” the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon spokeswoman Yasmina Bouziane told Agence France Presse on Saturday.
The peacekeeping troops continued to urge both sides to exercise maximum restraint and had launched an investigation into the incident, Bouziane said, but would not comment on who could be behind the rocket attacks.
“We will wait for the report,” she said.
Israel Army Radio quoted military sources as saying that a small jihad group with links abroad was likely behind the firing of the rockets.
Meanwhile, many Lebanese complained that they received calls from Israel on midnight Friday holding the Lebanese government and people responsible for any attack on the Jewish state. The message threatened to destroy Lebanon in case of such an attack.
Ugly reality of ‘war on terrorism’ — III
|
|
Huzaima Bukhari and Dr. Ikramul Haq |
In Afghanistan the story was even more bizarre as in 1977 the CIA “sounded an alarm on the Soviets’ faltering energy prospects in a secret 14-page memo titled: The Impending Soviet Oil Crisis.” President Jimmy Carter, in the wake of Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, concluded that the Soviet Army was passing through Afghanistan to seize the Middle East oil fields and “any outside attempt to gain control of Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United States of America…” Soon after Reagan took office the CIA began one of its largest, longest and most expensive covert operations, “supplying billions of dollars in arms to a collection of Afghan guerrillas, fighting the Soviets”. The arms shipments included Stinger missiles, the shoulder-fired, anti-aircraft weapons that were used with deadly accuracy against Soviet helicopters—these are now in circulation among terrorists who fight US and NATO forces in Afghanistan. Among the rebel recipients of U.S. arms was Osama bin Laden, who is now considered as Enemy No.1 in ‘war on terrorism’. At the same time the USA was moving into the Persian Gulf militarily and supplying Afghan rebels, all based on a faulty CIA oil assessment, it was also secretly supporting Saddam Hussein — in 1982 when the State Department removed Iraq from its list of countries supporting terrorism. The root of all this folly was the US government’s officially sanctioned version of faltering Soviet oil production, which was at odds with reality. In fact, Russia today is the world’s second largest [oil] producer, after Saudi Arabia. Instead of becoming a major buyer of Middle East oil, as the CIA had warned, Russia ships 3 million bbl. a day to other countries, including the US. As all this makes clear, the former Soviet Union was not running out of oil. Neither is the world. The one exception: the USA, which was the Saudi Arabia of the first half of the 20th century, is finally running out. As a result, thanks in part to American policy that put an emphasis on foreign intervention rather than domestic conservation, Americans are more dependent than ever on imported oil. The second myth that Taliban was not able to effectively curb poppy cultivation and drug trade is equally false. According to The Economist (August 16-22, 2003), the Taliban regime clamped down on poppy growing with an iron fist, and banned it completely in 2000. Production collapsed from its peak of over 4,500 tonnes in 1999 to 185 tonnes in 2001. However, the ban did not cover trade, and opiates kept on flowing into Central Asia. After the downfall of the Taliban, poppy cultivation re-appeared with a vengeance, in spite of a fresh ban imposed by US-installed Hamid Karzai’s government. According to UN estimates, United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, production increased to over 8,000 tonnes in 2007. Afghanistan once again dominates world production of opium, with almost 80 percent of the total annual global yield. About 70-80 percent of Afghans depend on what they can grow. But Afghanistan lacks water and cultivable land. Even in the halcyon 1970s, less than 5 percent of the land was irrigated. The war halved that. Then during the seven-year-long drought in some places, most of the livestock died and staple crops failed. In the south and south-west of the country, water-tables are dangerously low. Even with the best possible governance, that part of Afghanistan is a poor proposition. In post-Taliban Afghanistan, drought, drugs and insecurity started to feed off each other. Three of the country’s five big drug-producing provinces – Helmand, Uruzgan, and Kandahar – remained unsafe and parched. In today’s Afghanistan, poppy cultivation is spreading to new areas, and with it insecurity. The nightmare is a new Colombia: a place where drug lords capture and wreck governments and the economy alike — the return of butcher likes Rashid Dostum in August 2009 elections proves the point. The drug trade in the post-Taliban Afghanistan is becoming institutionalized. Opium is now being processed into morphine and heroin inside Afghanistan. That means a lot more money for warlords and militia commanders on the ground, something made apparent by the switch-over to ever more expensive jeeps. Self-styled, US-hijacked, NATO-sponsored democracy (sic) in Afghanistan plays in the hands of more sophisticated narco-enriched criminals — these include members of parliament, warlords and militia commanders. Obama administration like that of his predecessor is not interested in democracy in Afghanistan. On assuming power Obama promised more military operations in war-ravaged country. In fact, no US administration has ever engaged in any ‘war on terrorism (sic). In reality, they have launched “oil and war bonanza” around Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan with multiple objectives: ensuring continuous enormous profits for war industry, control over oil and gas rich countries and containment of China by physical military presence in its nearby areas. The statement of Bush on September 8, 2008 declaring Pakistan “a major theatre” in ‘war on terror” and Obama’s Af-Pak Policy, followed by wanton attacks on civilians inside our territories, should be viewed in proper perspective: the purpose is to forewarn new democratic government in Islamabad not to deviate from the commitments given by ex-ruler Musharraf — with House of Saud acting as a guarantor — or results would be disastrous. Had Unites States been really serious in uprooting the causes of drug trade and terrorism, it could have played a useful role by acknowledging and supporting the efforts of Iran – whose policy on narcotics trafficking is in many ways more intelligent – and by cracking down on warlords and commanders. However, the American stance is diametrically opposite. Clinton, Bush, Obama et al have been leveling baseless allegations against Iran and of late Pakistan of supporting militants whereas CIA covertly keeps on aiding these elements. It unveils the hidden agenda of USA and its allies in Afghanistan and elsewhere to promote war industry, grab oil and gas resources, protect drug trade, use religious fundamentalism to threaten undesirable States and enforce mass acceptance of its policies of fascism for its own self-interests and economic benefits of certain corporations in which the ruling elite has substantial interest. (Concluded) The writers, tax lawyers, authors of many books and articles on narco-terrorism, are visiting Professors at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS) |
Ugly reality of ‘war on terrorism’—I
Ugly reality of ‘war on terrorism’—I
Huzaima Bukhari and Dr. Ikramul Haq
Eight years after the wanton attack on New York’s twin towers — masterly planned and executed to create a pretext to invade Afghanistan — majority believes that the United States and its allies have pushed the world into a frenzied quagmire. The perpetuation of terrorism since 2001 — coupled with mishandling of the entire issue by US and its allies — has been posing serious threat to international peace. In the name of fighting terrorism, so-called proponents of “peace”, “democracy” and champions of human rights are colonizing oil and mineral rich countries, conspiring to topple some “unwanted” governments and lending support to drug trade and mass acceptance of fascism in the name of reforming the world.
The US intervention in Afghanistan is as disastrous as were its earlier actions in Cambodia, Angola, Mozambique, Ethiopia, Nicaragua, Grenada, Panama, and elsewhere. The purpose behind all these interventions has been the same: prevention of egalitarian social change, bringing into power retrograde elements, leaving the economy in ruins, and pitilessly laying waste, many innocent lives. Purportedly, the invasion of Afghanistan was due to the reason that the Taliban were providing sanctuary to Al-Qaeda, who claimed responsibility of 9/11 shameless aggression. Nobody raised the question as to why Clinton or Bush administrations did not ever place Afghanistan on the official State Department list of states charged with sponsoring terrorism, despite the acknowledged presence of Osama bin Laden as a guest of the Taliban government. Obviously, such a “rogue state” designation would have made it impossible for any US oil or construction company to enter an agreement with Kabul for a pipeline to the Central Asian oil and gas fields.
Very few people know that really compelling — though less advertised —reason for plunging deeper into Afghanistan was ownership of oil and gas reserves of Central Asia. A decade before 9/11, Time magazine (18 March 1991) reported that US policy elites were contemplating a military presence in Central Asia. The discovery of vast oil and gas reserves in Kazakhstan and Turkmenistan provided the lure, while the dismemberment of the USSR removed the one major barrier against pursuing an aggressive interventionist policy in that part of the world. US oil companies acquired the rights to some 75 percent of these new reserves. A major problem was how to transport the oil and gas from the landlocked region. US officials opposed using the Russian pipeline or the most direct route across Iran to the Persian Gulf. Instead, they and the corporate oil contractors explored a number of alternative pipeline routes, across Azerbaijan and Turkey to the Mediterranean or across China to the Pacific.
The route favored by UNOCAL, a US-based oil company, crossed Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. The intensive negotiations that UNOCAL entered into with the Taliban regime remained unresolved by 1998, as an Argentine company placed a competing bid for the pipeline. Bush’s war against the Taliban rekindled UNOCAL’s hopes for getting a major chunk of business. Zalmay Khalilzad, Condoleezza Rice, Hamid Karzai, all had established links with UNOCAL.
It is a matter of record that much before 9/11, the US and its NATO allies decided to invade Afghanistan. The decision to this effect was taken in Berlin during the joint meeting of Council of Ministers held in November 2000. It exposes the claims of US and coalition partners that 9/11 was the sole reason for invading Afghanistan. The actual cause was apprehension regarding Turkmenistan Gas Pipeline Project in which powerful corporate entities who in reality, rule US and other capitalist countries, had financial interests. It was not the existence of so-called al Qaeda in Afghanistan that forced US and its allies to invade Afghanistan but the “financial terrorism” of US and its blind allies was the main cause of action. Till the said time al Qaeda was a weapon in the hands of US policymakers to put pressure on Islamic States having enormous oil, gas and mineral wealth to toe its line and extend financial benefits uninterruptedly or face the onslaught of “fundamentalists’.
It needs to be remembered that President Bush appointed former aide to the American oil company UNOCAL, Afghan-born Zalmay Khalilzad, as special envoy to Afghanistan nine days after the US-backed interim government of Hamid Karzai took office in Kabul. This appointment underscored the real economic and financial interests at stake in the US military intervention in Central Asia. Khalilzad was intimately involved in the long-running US efforts to obtain direct access to the oil and gas resources of the region, largely unexploited but believed to be the second largest in the world after the Persian Gulf.
As an advisor for UNOCAL, Khalilzad drew up a risk analysis of a proposed gas pipeline from the former Soviet Republic of Turkmenistan across Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean. He participated in talks between the Oil Company and Taliban officials in 1997, which were aimed at implementing a 1995 agreement to build the pipeline across western Afghanistan. UNOCAL was the lead company in the formation of the Centgas consortium, whose purpose was to bring to market natural gas from the Dauletabad Field in southeastern Turkmenistan, one of the world’s largest gas reserves.
The multi-billion project involved a 48-inch diameter pipeline from the Afghanistan-Turkmenistan border, passing near the cities of Herat and Kandahar, crossing into Pakistan near Quetta and linking with existing pipelines at Multan. An additional $600 million extension to India was also under consideration. Khalilzad also lobbied publicly for a more sympathetic US government policy towards the Taliban. Four years ago, in an op-ed article in the Washington Post, he defended the Taliban regime against accusations that it was a sponsor of terrorism, writing, ‘’The Taliban does not practice the anti-U.S. style of fundamentalism practiced by Iran.’’
‘’We should… be willing to offer recognition and humanitarian assistance and to promote international economic reconstruction,’’ he declared. ‘’It is time for the United States to reengage’’ the Afghan regime. This ‘’reengagement’’ would, of course, have been enormously profitable to UNOCAL, which was otherwise unable to bring gas and oil to the market from landlocked Turkmenistan.
Khalilzad only shifted his position on the Taliban after the Clinton administration fired cruise missiles at targets in Afghanistan in August 1998, claiming that terrorists under the direction of Afghan-based Osama bin Laden were responsible for bombing US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. One day after the attack, UNOCAL put Centgas on hold. Two months later it abandoned all plans for a trans-Afghan pipeline. The oil interests began to look towards a post-Taliban Afghanistan, and so did their representatives in the US national security establishment.
(Part II can be read here, but my new anti-virus software says that it is loaded with a trojan)
The writers, tax lawyers, authors of many books and articles on narco-terrorism, are visiting Professors at Lahore University of Management Sciences (LUMS)
Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas, Swedish Researchers Find
“There is no doubt that our research proves that crude oil and natural gas are generated without the involvement of fossils. All types of bedrock can serve as reservoirs of oil,” says Vladimir Kutcherov. (Credit: Image courtesy of Vetenskapsrådet (The Swedish Research Council))
Fossils From Animals And Plants Are Not Necessary For Crude Oil And Natural Gas, Swedish Researchers Find
ScienceDaily (Sep. 12, 2009) — Researchers at the Royal Institute of Technology (KTH) in Stockholm have managed to prove that fossils from animals and plants are not necessary for crude oil and natural gas to be generated. The findings are revolutionary since this means, on the one hand, that it will be much easier to find these sources of energy and, on the other hand, that they can be found all over the globe.
“Using our research we can even say where oil could be found in Sweden,” says Vladimir Kutcherov, a professor at the Division of Energy Technology at KTH.
Together with two research colleagues, Vladimir Kutcherov has simulated the process involving pressure and heat that occurs naturally in the inner layers of the earth, the process that generates hydrocarbon, the primary component in oil and natural gas.
According to Vladimir Kutcherov, the findings are a clear indication that the oil supply is not about to end, which researchers and experts in the field have long feared.
He adds that there is no way that fossil oil, with the help of gravity or other forces, could have seeped down to a depth of 10.5 kilometers in the state of Texas, for example, which is rich in oil deposits. As Vladimir Kutcherov sees it, this is further proof, alongside his own research findings, of the genesis of these energy sources – that they can be created in other ways than via fossils. This has long been a matter of lively discussion among scientists.“There is no doubt that our research proves that crude oil and natural gas are generated without the involvement of fossils. All types of bedrock can serve as reservoirs of oil,” says Vladimir Kutcherov, who adds that this is true of land areas that have not yet been prospected for these energy sources.
But the discovery has more benefits. The degree of accuracy in finding oil is enhanced dramatically – from 20 to 70 percent. Since drilling for oil and natural gas is a very expensive process, the cost picture will be radically altered for petroleum companies, and in the end probably for consumers as well.
“The savings will be in the many billions,” says Vladimir Kutcherov.
To identify where it is worthwhile to drill for natural gas and oil, Vladimir Kutcherov has used his research to arrive at a new method. It involves dividing the globe into a finely meshed grid. The grid corresponds to fissures, so-called ‘migration channels,’ through underlying layers under the surface of the earth. Wherever these fissures meet, it is suitable to drill.
According to Vladimir Kutcherov, these research findings are extremely important, not least as 61 percent of the world’s energy consumption derives from crude oil and natural gas.
The next step in this research work will involve more experiments, but above all refining the method will make it easier to find places where it is suitable to drill for oil and natural gas.
Vladimir Kutcherov, Anton Kolesnikov, and Alexander Goncharov’s research work was recently published in the scientific journal Nature Geoscience.
Journal reference:
- Anton Kolesnikov, Vladimir G. Kutcherov, Alexander F. Goncharov. Methane-derived hydrocarbons produced under upper-mantle conditions. Nature Geoscience, 2009; 2 (8): 566 DOI: 10.1038/ngeo591
Adapted from materials provided by Vetenskapsrådet (The Swedish Research Council), via AlphaGalileo
Loading Image…// <
