News Just IN, KSM booked for CONFEST 2007!

Waleed Mohammed bin Attash, long suspected of plotting the bombing of the USS Cole, confessed at a hearing in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, to planning the attack, according to a Pentagon transcript released Monday.

This has enraged the world champion confessor, alleged 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, or KSM as he has become known. The mainstream media darling was planning to open the confession gig 'confest 2007' with confessing to being the 'mastermind' behind the audacious attack, and to providing the equipment, personnel and even to piloting the craft and being killed in the attack!

The Pentagon sponsored event is expected to attract the cream of international terrorism patsies to confess to both solved and unsolved crimes before an audience of heckling conservative rednecks. As a special treat, Pentagon spokesperson said that there would be some extra surprises at this years event and hinted at spectacular expose's of who created the 'face' on Mars and how crop circles are really formed.

This Year's CONFEST is set to be the biggest and best for years, with the staff at the Pentagon having worked overtime diligently preparing the confessions for this years show.

"We have really pushed the boat out this year and utilised every tool at our disposal to come up with the most amazing collection of confessions possible." said a Guantanamo spokesperson, on the condition of annonimity. "This year is set to be the best year for confessions we have ever had."

However, speculation was quashed about an amazingly spectacular confession by the Israelis at this years show. "The attack on the USS Liberty will not be in this years show, and anyone that is claiming it is, is a dirty anti-semite and a friend of the terrorists." Said the spokesperson.

Well we should not expect miracles now, should we?

Why the BBC is plain wrong!

The BBC managed to, somehow, predict the collapse of WTC 7 half an hour in advance of it happening. They also predicted HOW and WHY it fell in advance. The same how and Why that has been parroted without question ever since by the 'official' news media and the 'official' government.

I am NOT suggesting that the BBC is part of the conspiracy, but I am still waiting for them to explain how they got detailed talking points in advance of the collapse happening.

This 'official' version of the conspiracy of Islamic terrorists attacking the USA and causing the collapse of WTC 1, 2 and 7 is what has lead to several wars and a major reduction in our civil liberties and a significant change in our way of life, not to mention that it has been used almost daily ever since by the Government and media to deliberately attempt to scare the population and make us live daily in fear and to submit to the Government ever since.

The Problem is WTC 7 could not have collapsed the way the official version suggests it did. Why? well below is one argument:

"Just to give you an example of the strength of a weld, for example; a 5/16" fillet weld 6" long, .928 x 5 x 6 = 27.84 kips per each 6" weld. A kip is equal to 1000 pounds, so this weld strength would be 27,840 pounds, if properly welded. thats 14 ton of force per 6 inches of weld or nearly 2.5 ton per inch. I have just read that WTC7 had steel added for reinforcement with 12 miles of welding. It supposedly fell down, at freefall speed with no resistance because of fire, no way. Workout the resistance 12 miles of welding would produce at 2.5 tons per inch. That’s 63360 inches per mile which is 760320 inches per 12 miles at 2.5 tons per inch which is 1900800 ton of resistance or 41,000 ton of resistance per floor using an average. The resistance is the force needed to shear the weld and the way this building was built all the welds per floor would need to shear at the same time to fall the way it didl. That is only the calculation for added steel. Absolute nonsense, this is so obviously not feasable.How can you meet such massive resistance and fall as fast as finding no resistance at all.If 41,000 ton of weight fell on 41,000 ton of resistance it would stop. If 100 ton of force met 50 ton of resistance you would have 50 ton of force so my point is you will meet resistance on every floor maybe not enough to stop it but easily enough to slow it..You don’t need to have any engineering knowledge to know freefall speed with absolutely no resistance is simply not possible,you just need some common sense and I despair that so many people appear not to have any.As for the heat causing the metal to weaken garbage,steel is a very good heat transferor.You can heat one beam and the heat will transfer to every other interconnected beam like a massive heatsink.Carbon fires would do diddly squat to that steel.This building WTC7 was a controlled demolition,it is the only possible explanation.
- ROBBY B | 03.01.07 - 7:04 pm"

And here is another-

the building was constructed with a huge amount of structural redundancy built in. In other words, it could stand having entire floors removed and still maintain structural integrity. In other words, it was VERY BLOODY STRONGLY BUILT! : Read more...

Why No One Could Have Predicted The Collapse Of WTC 7


So in the way that the BBC has tried to muddy the water and avoid answering serious questions, they have only brought more people into contact with the WTC 7 story. Some of these people realise that, whenever, or however the collapse story came out, that the collapse, as described by the media, is (according to the laws of physics) impossible.

However plausible the notion that during the day, firefighters believed the building became structurally unsound and cleared a collapse zone, believing the building to be in danger of collapse.(fact) The news of this spread the news agencies (fact) the BBC mistakingly went to air with a collapse presented as fact half an hour before it happened (fact). The BBC was NOT part of the conspiracy to attack the United States (fact). The fact remains that, without the use of explosives, the firemen should have been keeping people away from the building for days until the area was finally cleared by the 'deconstruction and site clearing engineers. Says who? THE LAWS OF PHYSICS!

Why did the firefighters believe the building was going to collapse? Some because their colleagues told them, some it was gut instinct, they looked at the building, and after everything that happened that day, they just thought it would. Some firefighters thought it would, because they had been told it was going to be blown up! SO, WHO TOLD THEM?

Therefore, it makes the media's pre-determination of collapse with their description of cause even more suspiscious.

More unsatisfactory answers from the BBC.

Hello and thank you for your email in reaction to claims made in an
article published online.

The notion that the BBC has been part of any conspiracy is patently
ludicrous. We reported the situation as accurately as we could, based on
the best information available. We cannot be categorical about the exact
timing of events that day - this is the first time it has been brought
to our attention and it was more than five years ago. If in the chaos
and confusion of that day our correspondent reported that the building
had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been a genuine error.

With regards
BBC World Customer Relations

Sorry, but that does not come even close to an acceptable reply. I have not ever at any point suggested in this question that the BBC were part of a conspiracy on the day and for you to suggest this is both offensive and beneath contempt.

Your response to this may lead people to suggest that you have become part of the cover up, however.

> The notion that the BBC has been part of any
> conspiracy is patently ludicrous.

I agree!

> We reported the
> situation as accurately as we could, based on the
> best information available.

Not True, you did not check the story at all, nor did you offer any attribution.

> We cannot be categorical
> about the exact timing of events that day - this is
> the first time it has been brought to our attention
> and it was more than five years ago.

Check the video of the day? Oh you can't, you LOST them! (in breach of your own procedures!) download a copy from the internet then!

> If in the chaos
> and confusion of that day our correspondent reported
> that the building had collapsed before it had done
> so, it would have been a genuine error.

IF? The building was clearly standing behind her! there is no IF in this. However I do accept that reporting this was a genuine error, now what we want to know is, how, exactly, did this error occur? It is obvious from the video that an error occured, that is NOT the issue here, the issue is HOW?

I have several very reasonable questions that the BBC, for some unknown reason, is refusing to answer.

1. How did you get the report that the WTC 7 had collapsed (past tense) before it happened?

2. Who prepared the detailed talking points about the collapse?

3. Were talking points prepared for the other (closer to to the two towers) buildings in the WTC complex, just in case they collapsed also? If not why not? Why only for this building?

4. Why was this news rushed to air live? without attribution or qualification, but presented as factual? I thought the BBC had a duty to check it's stories OR Attribute them. on this occasion they did neither.

5. Why has the BBC not complied with it's own obligations with regards to keeping copies of it's broadcasts?

6. What was the cause of the dropped feed 5 minutes before the building collapsed?

7. What did the correspondent in Manhatten think as the building actually collapsed? and what did she think once she realised it was the building that she had already described in detail collapsing, before it collapsed?

These are serious questions that, for some reason, the BBC refuses to take seriously, or answer. So far the BBC has lied and contradicted itself in response to valid questions of it's handling of a very serious story on a very significant day.

9/11 is a day so infamous that barely a news day goes by when it is not trumpeted as the cause of many major national and international policies, from ID cards, to immigration, to detention withoout charge or trial, to participating in multiple theater wars and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people worldwide, paid for out of our taxes.

Why, then, are you taking such a cavalier and condescending approach to people asking very reasonable questions about the BBC's conduct on his day?

I have been trying, seriously, for 5 years to dis-prove the notion that WTC 7 was deliberately imploded. I have failed to PROVE this.

I can state that it may be plausable that it looked like WTC 7 might be compromised to some people and they thought that it MIGHT fall over. These are unqualified people who were going off their gut instinct, however this story may have been changed, in a chinese wispers effect to become 'has collapsed' (instead of 'may collapse') and was passed on the wires and unquestioningly reported as fact by the BBC and CNN, but this still does not explain, why you reported as fact without attribution or source or checking, a surprise collapse well before it happened. Nor does it explain why the BBC lost the tapes from this day.

NIST has not helped, by only adding supposition to their conclusions. FEMA has not helped. Larry Silverstein did not help by saying that he had the building 'pulled'. Many fire fighters have written sworn affidavids that they were told that the building was to be "brought down". Add this to the fact that no steel frame building had ever collapsed due to fire, the building collapsed in a way that was fully consistant with a controlled demolition, molten metal has been reported at the site. WTC 7 was further away from and behind two other buldings, so was unlikely to be compromised by the two towers collapsing.

Add all this and more together and the whole, "we accidentally broadcast an un-attributed claim of a demolished building, without it being checked, 25 minutes before it actually fell", and it begins to look very much like someone (who? and how?) knew it was going to collapse in advance. How else could you have repoerted the collapse 25 minutes early? How did they know? Whilst this does NOT prove forknowledge, it IS VERY suspicious.

IF this building was so badly damaged, by the collapsing towers, that for public safety reasons, it had to be deliberatly brought down, then that is a reasonable conclusion, given what had happened that day. However therin lies the problem.

How long does it take to wire up a 47 story building for a controlled demolition? A lot more than the few hours that they had had that day. This would mean that the building had to have been prepared before 9/11. That would mean more than forknowledge of the attacks. It would mean a deliberate involvement in the instigation of these attacks. Complicity!

The public who are paying for the multiple wars with their hard earned taxes, the people whose international reputations are going down the drain further with every innocent child bombed because of 9/11 has a right to have these VERY SERIOUS questions answered.

This has NOT been seriously investigated by anybody except the 'oddball conspiracy fringe'. NIST has not covered this properly, FEMA hasn't, the official 9/11 commision didn't. and now the BBC parrot without question the 'official line'. WHY CAN YOU NOT INVESTIGATE THIS?

You mention it has been five years since the attacks, very true. Why has it taken so long for this to come out? Because the mainstream media has (and largely still does) completely refuse to touch the WTC 7 story with a barge pole. Why? Because when people see that building come down, the obvious conclusion people (including demolition experts with 40 years of Controlled Demolition experience) draw, is that this WAS a controlled demolition.

This needs to be investigated. We need an answer that stands up to close scrutiny. We have had years of the Bush and Blair administration lying to us about WMD and Iran's nuclear ambitions and so much more. We have also had years of the BBC parroting these false and demonstratably fraudulent claims as fact. Without any investigation whatsoever, the BBC has been a propaganda mouthpiece for the Government.

It is time the people were represented and it is time you gave an honest account of both yourselves and of WTC7.

There are still too many if this happened and if that happened then that means that, on both sides of the debate. EVERY version of what happened that day, including the official one backed by the BBC, is a 'conspiracy theory'. None of these theories stand close scrutiny, they all have holes in them.

We just want the truth!

Ken Hall.

More from the BBC.

Another video has been found, this time from BBC news 24, with a UK timestamp.



The BBC is a nexus at the heart of the establishment, for all intents and purposes, it IS the establishment. Their number one priority with regards to 9/11 was to ignore the truth at all costs. Only when the truth would not go away, did they lend their enormous credibility to the 'official' conspiracy to try to shut up, once and for all, the so called conspiracy nutters.

The problem is, the people who made sure that 9/11 happened, left far too many clues and we are now living in an age where the information is available. We surfs are not stupid, and can make our own minds up. BBC take note, the truth movement will never let this go and after your inteventions in this subject area, you are either part of the solution, or you are part of the problem. You can decide which.

the facts remain. the BBC announced the collapse of a building with pre-prepared, detailed, specific talking points before the actual building collapsed.

These where not, "a source tells us", or "we are hearing that" sort of qualifications. this was reported as established fact with talking points.

1. Where did the talking points come from?

2. Who prepared them?

3. How did they know the building was going to collapse before it actually did?

4. How did they know the cause of the collapse five and a half years before NIST?

5. Did they provide talking points for WTC buildings 3, 4 and 5, (which where closer to the two towers), Just in case these buildings also fell down? if not, why not?

6. Why did the BBC not check this story at all? even to the extent of a glimpse through the window?

The BBC obviously trusted the source implicitly, or was following orders from ? whom?

If the source was trusted, then it must be part of the mainstream media, or the Government. first responders on the scene are not trusted enough to provide information, without it being checked, or attributed to them as a source. This story was niether checked, nor attributed. it was reported as established fact.

BBC, we are coming after you!.

EDIT ) 01 March 2007.

So, Google have removed the 'fair use' timestapmed clip from their website eh? WHY? If all this was a mistake on a shocking and confusing day, why hide it?

Why are the Questions not being answered and the footage that the questions refer to is constatantly being (pointlessly) removed? Something to hide?

The BBC videos of the report of WTC 7 collapsing, before it collapsed are available here:

Shouldn't someone let the Department of Homeland Security know about this?

Bush funding Al Queda? State sponsored terrorism brought to you by the GOP!





And as a brilliant put down of the ignorant and incompetenet Condi Rice:



'Nuff said!

The BBC responds! with utter contempt for our intelligence

My response to the BBC's contemptuous reply:

"1. We're not part of a conspiracy. Nobody told us what to say or do on September 11th. We didn't get told in advance that buildings were going to fall down. We didn't receive press releases or scripts in advance of events happening."

You did not get told in advance that the building was going to fall down? Then how did you report, from detailed talking points, that the Building had collapsed, what caused it to collapse, that people had been evacuated etc etc? BEFORE it had happened? clairvoyance? Tarot cards? Time Machine? This is BBC world service, not some two piece amatuer wacko news like FOX or SKY! HOW THE HELL COULD YOU NOT EVEN LOOK THROUGH THE WINDOW AND SEE THAT THE BUILDING WAS STILL STANDING??? Your excuse is not good enough by a long shot! The news crew obviously picked the information about the Solomon Brothers Building collapsing from somewhere and had talking points prepared and even had the news ticker saying that the Solomon Brothers Building had collapsed. This all happened BEFORE the building collapsed.

"2. In the chaos and confusion of the day, I'm quite sure we said things which turned out to be untrue or inaccurate - but at the time were based on the best information we had. We did what we always did - sourced our reports, used qualifying words like "apparently" or "it's reported" or "we're hearing" and constantly tried to check and double check the information we were receiving."

There where no "qualifying words" in the ticker. The additional information that was discussed were void of the kind of qualifying statements that should have been used too, considering that the building in question was clearly visible over the reporter's shoulder. This was a pre prepared set of talking points presented as established fact. Who would prepare these talking points before the building had actually collapsed, and WHY? Were there also talking points prepared for any of the other buildings in the WTC complex, for just in case they collapsed also? If not why not? How could they have known in advance that the building would collapse? and how would they know the cause in advance too, when NIST still have not decided how wtc 7 collapsed over 5 years later?

"3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I've spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn't remember minute-by-minute what she said or did - like everybody else that day she was trying to make sense of what she was seeing; what she was being told; and what was being told to her by colleagues in London who were monitoring feeds and wires services."

You have just contradicted your point in number 1. Either you were being told or you were not. Which is it? and if so, who by?

"4. We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I'd love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don't help clear up the issue one way or another."

You can get copies that are flying all over the internet. If the BBC was engaged in any serious genuine investigative journalism, that should not be a problem. Why not recruit a proper journalist, like Mike Rivero, or Alex Jones? They have more footage of that day than the BBC do apparently.

"5. If we reported the building had collapsed before it had done so, it would have been an error - no more than that. As one of the comments on You Tube says today "so the guy in the studio didn't quite know what was going on? Woah, that totally proves conspiracy... ""

An error, sure, but who gave you the detailed talking points before the building had collapsed? How did they know it was going to collapse?

This is the key point here. That many many first responders, police, fire fighters, emergency workers, amblulance workers have all come forward and told that they where told that they were going to 'bring the building down' Larry Silverstein, the leaseholder of the WTC complex, admitted on PBS that they decided to pull the building. It may be this news that was misconstrued and reported mistakenly as fact, before the building was pulled, BUT the point is, this shows pre-determination that the building was to be brought down. How long does it take to do that? was the building wired up before 9/11 to be brought down?

WTC 7 was quite a long distance from the two towers. There where other buildings between the two towers and wtc 7. No plane hit wtc 7. No steel frame building has ever collapsed due to fire prior to, or since 9/11. Even large skyscrapers that have burned for days and days have not collapsed.

All this information added together is VERY suspicious, and for the BBC to try to brush this under the carpet and dismiss it, instead of investigate is just staggeringly unbelieveable. The last part where you quote some loon from youtube is just beyond a joke. I could quote some nutter from youtube saying that 9/11 was caused by aliens, would that automatically make it true?

Your defence of this is far from satisfactory, and in fact is bordering on contemptuous. Enquiring minds want to know the truth, as the official version of what happened that day, the Government and mainstream media backed version is a wacky conspiracy theory that has been massively debunked. Why cannot the BBC take this seriously and actually investigate?

Is the BBC too scared?

What has the BBC to say about this?

Below is a message that I have sent to the BBC. Now I am NOT claiming that the BBC is part of a conspiracy and it was inside the 'inside job'! Nor am I suggesting that those who may possibly (but not certainly) be behind an inside job have given the BBC inside knowledge of it in advance. That would be preposterous.

I suspect that in the confusion of that day, the BBC picked up some prematurely released, and possibly speculative talking points and ran with them, WITHOUT ANY INVESTIGATION AT ALL! All they had to do was look out of the window for pity's sake, but no! they ran with a story that the Solomon Brothers Building has just collapsed and read off the pre-prepared talking points of how and why it collapsed, whilst the building in question was clearly STILL STANDING in the background!

As for some of the people querying this news, it was live, (as the ticker proves) it was filmed in front of a window - NOT A PREVIOUS RUN VIDEO, the news anchor in Manhatten turns and look out of the window at the scene to describe it. Additionally the time can be Established as the newsreader in London says that the attacks started eight hours previously and there is a top of the hour news headline review during the clip. This clearly places the time of this live news as being before WTC 7 Collapses.

The established facts therefore are that the BBC prematurely announces a building collapses 25 minutes before it actually does.

below is my submission to the BBC. If I get a response I shall post it immediately:

I know that on 9/11 there where many conflicting reports surfacing and there was lots of confusion, but given the revelations surrounding WTC 7, from the admission by it's leaseholder (Larry Silverstien) on PBS that he ordered the building 'pulled' and the revelations that emergency crews on the scene were told in advance that the building was to be brought down, is it not suspicious that the BBC reported that the building had collapsed a full 25 minutes before it actually did, and that the building was visible behind the correspondent clearly standing as she was describing, live, how and why it had collapsed?

This video is blazing around the internet and being seen by hundreds of thousands of people, if not millions. the BBC's reputation as an accurate reporter of news is at risk.

What is the BBC's response to this?
Why did you run with a set of talking points before they had been checked?
Where did these talking points come from?
Who prepared them in advance of the building collapsing? and Why?
How did the source of the talking points know that the building was likely to collapse?

No steel framed building (not leased by Mr Silverstien) has ever collapsed due to fire and there is significant doubt surrounding the cause of this particular building. The BBC's lax editorial control is adding fuel to the conspiracies surrounding this building and the rest of the attacks in general. What have you got to say for yourselves?

Will the BBC respond accurately or honestly? Watch this space.

Propaganda Extravaganza

So I have spent a good deal of this evening reading the accounts of the "highly" secretive, "ultra-classified" and "on monumental background" Iran briefing that the White House orchestrated today, just in time for Monday's breaking news. What is quite clear is that US corporate press has become an extension of the White House public relations department.

Under what circumstances would the following criteria for a news story ever be considered "journalism:"

The U.S. Administration have been caught lying again and again to deliberately and willfully launch un-neccessary wars. Why should we believe them now, on such utterly pathetic and flimsy evidence (and that is being generous) and when the stakes are so much higher.

As I have been saying, until I am blue in the face, the intelligence was NOT wrong on Iraq. the intelligence community was constantly telling the Pentagon and the Whitehouse that they could NOT corroberate the intelligence coming from the zionist office of special plans. Feith was twisting, exaggerating and inventing evidence of WMD plans, even from known disreputable single sources.

IN FACT: there are more witnesses that can claim that WTC 7 was deliberately brought down in a controlled demolition on the afternoon of 911, than there where to corroberate the lies coming out of the office of special plans. many, many, separate emergency workers have come forward stating that they were told to evacuate the media and the public out of the vacinity as the Building was going to be "BLOWN UP"

The American Way of War

Being a military thinker of the profoundest sort, I offer the following manual of martial affairs for nations yearning to copy the American way of war. Read it carefully. Great clarity will result. The steps limned below will facilitate disaster without imposing the burden of reinventing it. The Pentagon may print copies for distribution. more......

by Fred Reed

Fred Reed is author of Nekkid in Austin: Drop Your Inner Child Down a Well and the just-published A Brass Pole in Bangkok: A Thing I Aspire to Be.

Copyright © 2007 Fred Reed

At last, some common sense. Who'd have thought it?

The director of public prosecutions, Sir Ken Macdonald, put himself at odds with the home secretary and Downing Street last night by denying that Britain is caught up in a "war on terror" and calling for a "culture of legislative restraint" in passing laws to deal with terrorism.

Sir Ken warned of the pernicious risk that a "fear-driven and inappropriate" response to the threat could lead Britain to abandon respect for fair trials and the due process of law....

Sir Ken (great name) should be highly commended for speaking truth to power. At last some common sense.

Needed: New BS meter. Mine just exploded!

The President of the USA is in trouble. His poll numbers are in the toilet and with even more unpopular policies in the pipeline, he is to deliver his State of the Union Address in the next 24 hours.

It is against this back drop that an Al Queda video suddenly appears, specifically targeting the 21,000 new troops heading to Baghdad. You have got to admire the timing. Just when Bush needs a populist boost for his 'purge', along comes Al Queda, right on time, to help him out. How kind.

And people still doubt that Al Queda is a CIA psyop.

If the mainstream media allows you to see the video, pay close attention to the quality, backdrop and the way the face moves. It is clearly a computer generated fake and a poor one at that. It is a digitally altered manipulation of Ayman Alzawahri created, specifically, to help a desparate Bush.

Watch this and decide for yourself what is possible:



and this is the quality of the video image:



This video is poor quality, but are we really being expected to believe that, on the one hand, AL Queda is a global threat to the most sophisticated and technologically advanced nation on earth, well funded it can afford an endless supply of armunition, explosive and even WMD if it can find any, It can launch simultaneous global attacks against US interests, it is the greatest threat faced by the west since the cold war. AND on the other hand, they cannot find a decent quality video camera for love nor money, hence the grainy internet pictures. BS! These pictures are either grainy and pixelated because:

A) They are a digitally created fake and the grainy, pixelated pictures are deliberate to hide the obvious manipulation, or
B) As in the superb documentary, the power of nightmares,(below) the real Al queda really are a tiny organisation that cannot frighten a camel, let alone the USA, and the CIA's or Mossad's version of Al Queda is required to frighten the western population into abject submission to the Western Government's will.

Or a bit of both!

For the truth on Al queda watch these:
Part 1:


Part 2


Part 3


Educate and inform yourself. The evil old guard is failing. Humanity is evolving. Love and peace to you all.

We are seeing the dawning of peace.

The linked article shows clearly that the Iranian nuclear issue shall be resolved peacefully. We move towards peace and witness the Israeli's extremists fail in their demands for a nuclear attack on Iran.

We need leaders of vision and uncommon courage and resolve to pursue peaceful outcomes. We are experienceing the beginning of a process whereby the Iranians are becoming more moderate and the extremists are losing support. We need to be engaging with the moderate Iranians and helping them to create their nuclear power-stations in return for the promised entry into the global fold. The world needs moderate people in positions of power. Impeach those who would wage war as a first resort, whether they be Iranian, Israeli or American.

Peace and love to all.

Additionally, Iran has just announced that it is banning some IAEA inspectors from conducting inspections. In various places in the dishonest mainstream media, this is being mis-reported as the Iranians banning the IAEA. This is not true. They are stopping some specific members of the IAEA from visiting and Iran is completely within their rights and this action is 100% legal. That is something that even FOX news (to its credit and my surprise) admitted.

And these people believe they are part of the world's most superior nation.

There are stupid people in every country, BUT these countries do not believethat they are the best and most intelligent country in the world. They do not have people supporting every dumb military misadventure without having the first clue about what is being fought over, where or why or what the consequences are.

Many of the people here are allowed to vote! HOW SCARY IS THAT!!! Now I know why the imbecile (a dunce; blockhead; dolt) in the video below got so many votes. This is typical of the mentality of people who support the war, purely because they are so stupid that they do not realise that they don't have to support it. I bet after these interviews they went straight onto yahoo answers. It would explain a lot!

The world is in dire peril!

I think it is time that presidential candidates took an IQ test before being allowed to run for high office. Surely, when you are looking to place someone in a position of high power, you expect that they are intelligent and more capable than average. The highest level positions need to be filled by the best possible candidates.

American supporters of Bush should realise that this video is exactly what the rest of the world thinks Bush is.

If you support bush, does this video really make you feel proud that he is what is representative of America in the world today?



And the clip of the party at the end? That was filmed at about 5:00am May 2nd 1987. the morning of the general election victory of the Labour Party in the UK. This was the labour leadership (and Kinnock) celebrating wrestling power from the Tories after 18 years. So in reality it shows a bunch of very happy, but very tired old farts 'dad dancing' OK they don't have a natural rythm and look like prats, but that is not what they were elected for. I don't care how my political leaders look on the dancefloor. I do care how they perform in their duties at looking after the state. Unfortunately, labour are better dancers than they are statesmen.

Who do you think you are kidding Mr Hain?

Mr Peter Hain MP has labeled the current Administration, 'the most right wing in living memory'. he has stated that the neo-con agenda has been knocked for six and is delighted that the democrats have done so well in the November mid-terms.

This is supposedly to position himself in a better light to attract the grass-roots support in the Labour party deputy leaders election.

Well, forgive me for having a functioning memory and brain, BUT, He NEVER EVER CONTRADICTED THE NEO-CONS ON ANY POLICY!

He voted to go to war, and if he genuinely believed that Iraq had WMD at the time, then he was as big an idiot then as he is a liar and spiv now!

He has loyally supported every right wing policy of Blair over the last 10 years and has been as right wing as the neo-cons he supported.

He cannot back away from his past. And, if he believes that the neo-con agenda has been knocked off course, then he is clearly STILL an idiot, as the neo-cons send 21,000 more troops to Iraq and they are gearing up for a military attack on Iran!

Hain is a weak, cowardly spiv. he is just as detestable as all the other labour cabinet put together. Now he is realising the extent as to how wrong he has been, he is fleeing as far from his decisions as possible. It will not do.

Hain IS A NEO-CON PUPPET! He has been in bed with them and is every bit as guilty as them for the mess of Iraq as they are, He has toured the TV News studios Backing Tony Blair to the hilt for years.

Hain looks like a desparately foolish and cowardly man.

It's not a right vs left thing. It's a right vs wrong thing.

I am increasing hacked off at being accused of being a liberal because I am against war crimes and idiotic shortsighted strategically inept military adventures overseas. Sure the liberals may be against the Iraq war because it is an easy stick with which to beat a tired, corrupt and incompetent administration bereft of ideas other than for their own personal survival and enrichment, but in reality the Iraq war is just plain bad.

Any way you slice it, the iraq war is wrong. And that is not a liberal view, its a common sense, decent, honest, truthful and conservative view.

As a lifelong conservative, I am appalled that I am more and more agreeing with liberals, as the CON-servatives move further and further away from real conservatism to nestle on the banks of a neo-fascist extremist interventionist worldview. REAL conservatives are appalled also at how the CON-servatives waste billions in support of terrorist regimes (Bush is the best recruitment sergeant Al Queda ever had) to create fear at home to terrify the population into submission.

Conservatives like small Government and people taking care of and taking responsibility for themselves. Conservatives do not waste billions on constructing extensive surveillance systems for controlling people.

Conservatives believe in a fair and level playing field for business, not tax free handouts for corporations whilst small businesses are stifled by increased taxes and red tape.

Conservatives support working people. Conservative believe in playing fairly by the rules and being honest.

The current CON-servatives (republicans, pro war democrats and Tony Blair's cabinet) are a sad stain on the name conservative.

They are really fascists.

Conservatives are against the this war too.

Outstanding!!!

Impeach them all!

It is my belief that the current potentially catastrophic problems in the world today could be solved and fairly soon. ie within the next 12 - 18 months.

We the people of this planet do have the opportunity and ability to make a very positive change, if we only had the brass cahoneys to sieze it.

In the west, we have many voices calling loudly for the impeachment of Bush. In the middle east, in Iran, the Parliament is starting impeachment proceedings against president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. I hope both cases of impeachment succeed!

We need to start calling, sending letters and faxes by the million in support of peacefull and legal measures that lead to the removal of tyrants at home and abroad.

Click here to support these measure now!

My experiment appears to be creating ever more examples supporting the theory of the law of attraction. These are but two, but as time continues this year, we will se more and more.

Peace and love to all.

CNN apologizes for Obama gaffe in Bin Laden graphic

It is hardly surprising that the mainstream media fools over at CNN made a simple mistake of getting Obama and Osama mixed up. After all, they had Osama and Saddam mixed for well over a year prior to Saddam's arrest.

Can the media really be so stupid as to allow these basic errors go unchecked? Or is there a far more sinister deliberation involved?

More awakenings

As we venture into the undescovered and fresh new dawn of 2007, There feels like the awakening is accelerating.

More and more people are waking and understanding where we find oursleves, spiritually and in reality.

At a new year party last night, the subject of Saddam's execution was brought up, typically, in the form of a joke: Why should saddam be in porn films? Because he is bloody well-hung!

Well this (to my surprise) did not get a laugh, or even a mild titter. But people stood silent for a short while and then each person in the room expressed their disgust in the manner of Saddam's demise.

Now for those reading this, the party was not at a muslim house, nor was it attended by anyone with any natural sympathy for Saddam at all. In fact it was at a house in a white 'working class' Northern town with a labour MP. This is a typical 'salt of the earth' working class area. at the party where people of all political persuasions, but everyone was disgusted at the way in which Saddam was publicly executed and in the way in which we all where collectively tarred, as British subjects, with the same brush as Blair.

Christians, atheists, labour supporters, tories and independents all agreed upon what was wrong. All agreed that Bush and Blair are the greatest terrorists on earth.

When many people from such diverse backgrounds and beliefs all agree on these things, then surely an awakening of consciousness is taking place. The dark forces are losing. 2007 shall bear witness to even greater understandings of the awakening of the human spirit.

With peace and love to all. Happy new year!