“If one looks at the way the towers came down, especially building 7, we see that the “hijackers” did not rig the controlled demolition. So as Clark knows damn well that these guys were not the ones who destroyed the World Trade Center. …”

My guess is that he’ld surely have realised this, surely by now anyway, and Hunter is right. The only alleged, not proven, hijackers couldn’t have possibly caused the destruction of even any of the towers. There’s no scientifically known example that’ld support the official conspiracy theory saying that the planes striking towers 1 and 2 caused the destruction. There was little fire, compared to other solid structures that’ve been totall engulfed with flames, complete infernos, and these buildings didn’t come close to collapsing, say. And the WTC buildings were structurally strong, very, very strong. I’ve seen a photo. of a large plane, military I believe, that had accidentally (what an accident!) flown into the top floors of a fairly tall building in I believe Iran, a much lesser structure than wtc 1 and 2, and I think also considerably lower than wtc 7. And that building stayed upright ; no collapsing or implosive destruction occurred whatsoever. Okay, there’ld be some debris falling, but the main structure stayed fully up. The WTC buildings were super-strong structures ; not minor construction. And I’m sure that strong construction guidelines or design was used in the construction of these buildings. The opposite is not plausible, I believe.

I imagine that Richard Clarke knows this and just stays silent about it, for whatever reason he’ld have or use ; because, it’s all too obvious for someone like him to be completely ignorant of this.

That, however, is not to say that what he said is unimportant. I think it’s important for us to take his words into account, as long as we don’t do it blindly. We individually have a duty to be INFORMED citizens about all important topics and/or issues, as much as we possibly can. It’s not possible to be omniscient, but we have duty calling upon us to do “the best that we can do”.

It requires alertness, vigilance, warding against being naive in decision-making, and, therefore, to LISTEN to what others relate. Some will say things that are provably wrong and quickly rejectable, but others who are honest, intelligent, quite competent, will relate knowledge or views, analyses, whatever, that we need to carefully consider, and we better do that.

It’s okay to be mistaken. It happens to everyone. The issue is the lying and fooling us with lies ; trying anyway. Just the act of trying to fool, deceive others with lies, or serious distortions of truth, which is another way to lie, is absolutely unacceptable. But when they succeed with their lies, then we’re in a hell hole, or simply hell ; small h, to not confound it with full Hell, if it exists. Haven’t been there, so I have no first-hand knowledge that Hell, capital H, exists. Well, we sure seem to have a hell of a lot of it in this world ; an extremely discomforting “fact of life”.

C’est la vie, babie? I don’t think so! Hell is not life!

Maybe Richard Clarke has spoken at better extent, say, about 9/11, adding words alluding to “inside job”, f.e., but this is the first or second video I’ve listened to him speak in, and if it’s the second, then the first time was plenty of years ago; having no recollection of it, only of having seen his name in relation to his testimony that was omitted from the final and so-called consclusive 9/11 Commission report, which several of the people who served as commissioners denounced, some of them having done that quite strongly, too. That’s something Clarke should be aware of and, I think, surely is aware of.

But he’s also been an “Establishment guy”, worker, and “The Establishment” has factions of ideological members and the ideologies vary, based on readings I’ve done anyway. And that wouldn’t be surprising with the oligarchy that Washington is run or controlled by. The interests of these oligarchs will surely vary and they can be in contest against one another, but they will “keep this damn ship afloat, no matter what”. Criminals work with other criminals, including rivals, when they can at least help each other to achieve each others’ individual interests, I guess.

The Satan’s Choice and Hell’s or Hells Angels, whatever, in Canada were rivals. They had a street war in downtown Montreal in, I think, the early 1970s, if not late 1960s. But they eventually merged.

There are rival groups in the overall, global Mafia, and they sometimes war between each other, but sometimes come to ally, temporarily, until “desired ends” are achieved, anyway.

There’s NO concrete proof that any of the alleged hijackers were on the planes used for committing attacks on 9/11, 2001. We have what for proof, Washington say-so? That’s hear-say crap ; not proof of anyone’s culpability. It’ld be one additional proof that Washington’s been lying about this, if we could prove that none of the alleged hijackers were on any of those planes, but we have no way of getting the evidence needed for this conclusion. We’re left guessing, hypothesizing, and I’ll stick with the simple and depressing fact that we don’t have any real proof that they were on those planes. And we have proof that six or seven of the alleged hijackers weren’t on those planes even if the FBI knows this and has retained these people on the 9/11 hijackers list. Several of these people were found to be alive well enough after 9/11 and NO ONE on those planes could’ve survived, or if any might have, which is extremely implausible, then it wouldn’t be six or seven. It might be one or two. They would’ve been on those planes crashing at 500 mph or so into the super-structures that WTC 1 and 2 were, and then just got off and what, walked down the stairs or taken the elevator downward? I DOUBT such a hypothetical scenario very much! Sorry, but I won’t bite on that bait and hook. I prefer natural bait, i.e., food, that’s not served on a hook to hook me with, thanks very much, Washington (and Wall Street, etc.)!

Richard Clarke should not withhold anything he knows and/or very seriously suspects about 9/11 and Washington relationship with Al Qaeda, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera ; and so on. It’s difficult to believe that he truly believes that the 9/11 attacks were committed solely by the alleged 19 Saudi hijackers, several of whom couldn’t have possibly been on those planes. He’s evidently an “Establishment” guy of a different faction than the neocons, but still of “Establishment” employ.

But, we can still take what he does say into careful consideration ; as long as we don’t rely only on his words. We need to use good sources and preferably not only one. If someone wishes to do a very thorough study of 9/11, then Richard Clarke’s words need to be taken into account. They need to be included, but it’s something that needs to be complemented with analysis, instead of non- or a-critically presenting his words. And the analysis needs to be competently, carefully performed and phrased, so it’s not just any “American” jack or jane who’s going to be able to do good work with this, for too many people have little awareness, if any, of their own personal biases, f.e. It’s very curious, however, that he doesn’t mention the possibility of “inside job”. Retired CIA analyst of nearly three decades experience serving US Presidents, Ray McGovern, has been supporting the legional call or demand for a new and real investigation for years ; he’s said that Cheney is surely suspect with respect to the 9/11 attacks, a view I definitely agree with ; and he’s said more. He added in an interview confirmation of what retired Lt Col Robert M Bowman said about the Pentagon, that it’s a strongly defended location, with missile anti-aerial, whatever, defence, making it very suspect that the Pentagon could be struck by a plane, which is what happened (see 911review.com about this if in doubt), without any interception having been even attempted ; a fact that former NTA Director Norman Minetta testified to the 9/11 Commission about (and there are videos at Youtube for his account), saying Cheney gave stand-down order regarding AA 77 and repeated the order twice, so gave it 3x, because the neocons needed a “New Pearl Harbor” attack to get the country into war.

What a bunch of nice and friendly people, eh! My buttocks!

We have beauty pageants. Shall we have pageants to give out awards for CENSORSHIP? We could have representatives of all big news media walk or parade out on stage, like women do in beauty pageants, but the award is for the greatest of these liars, not beauty. Wouldn’t this be entertaining?

If you think not, then we’re in agreement.

Long live and revive SOLIDARITY! It’s unfortunate that Richard Clarke wouldn’t say more about 9/11. I think that he must surely realise more about it than he speaks of and he therefore seems to be committing a little whitewashing. I’m not sure yet of exactly what he’ld be trying to cover up, details lacking; but, Washington is run by oligarchy and the oligarchs have variable interests, not all of them being readily alignable or pairable, say. Yet, the oligarchs all know that to get the “piece(s) of pie(s)” that each of them wants, they must accept to compromise with respect to the interests of the other oligarchs in this “team”. Otherwise, they’ld destroy their hijacking of Washington, which is an outcome that they don’t wish to risk causing.

Gangsterism :

Gang or mob, whatever, A is rival with gang B. They can fight against each other, but, eventually, they come to need each other to be able to achieve certain goals, say. So the leaders of the two groups meet, discuss, and come to an agreement that they’ll work together on project whatever they call it. James Bond movies might possibly be influence m in saying this, but whatever. So they work together, but their interests differ and A doesn’t like some things B does, and vice versa. Yet, for each to achieve their “desires”, then need each other as allies, temporarily anyway.

It’s time to put a complete end to that crap in Washington ; and NATO.

Sorry if my “poetry” is too long.

http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7374

I haven’t listened to that deposition yet, but know some of the things Ms or Mrs Edmonds has said with respect to the relationship between Washington, Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Turkey, and possibly more. Following 9/11, she was contracted by the FBI as a translator for two or more Middle Eastern languages, being able to certainly translate Iranian or Persian and Arab languages, Turkish anyway. And she discovered a “whole barrel of worms” Washington covered up and evidently must’ve been aware of. Again, she learned this at the FBI and they outed her for speaking up and trying to get FBI officials to apply corrective measures, which high-ranking officials in the FBI refused to do.

It’s not really surprising, after having learned about what former journalist Gary Webb discovered about CIA and FBI drug trafficking, and what former and crazily courageous NYPD officer or detective Frank Serpico have revealed, f.e. ; but, just because what she says might not surprise everyone, it wouldn’t mean that what she’s said and says in expository manner isn’t important. It’s very important. It’ld be important even if she was lying, which I doubt that she’s been doing. One reason for believing what she’s been saying for years, though placed under gag order by the Bush-Cheney administration, until she was evidently released from this in 2009, is that enough of what she says is complementary to what Lt Col Anthony Shaffer and Mike Springman have said, quite officially. If Mrs Edmonds has been lying, hen it’ld be very important to know this, because we need to be aware of all forms or manners of corruption with government, which is supposed to regulate against corruption, but doesn’t do that at all, except when it’s a matter of corrupt rival groups or factions acting against each others’ so-called interests and the party, of these, that’s in power wants to squash or side-line the other or others. Quite a party sort of situation ; and a very sick party it is, extremely perverse morality. Morals are not of concern to these criminal elites though, so we can just say perverse, rather than perverse morality. What morality do they have? They morally tie their shoe laces and have breakfast, and we’re supposed to be impressed while they destroy the USA and this world? No, not impressed at all! Not one bit whatsoever!

I’m not sure about Mike Springman and Sibel Edmonds, but Lt Col Anthony Shaffer has joined the legional call or demand for a new and, this time, real investigation into 9/11. That’s to be kept in mind when listening to the account or accounts that he gave and which people can find video copies of at youtube and/or other video websites. And this of course brings back to mind that several of the 9/11 Commissioners denounced, some strongly so, the final report of the commission, which was obstructed and corrupted by Bush, Cheney, Tenet, NORAD brass, and possibly others. We need a 9/11 investigation of a scale comparable to the Nuremberg tribunals or trials, which weren’t about traitors, enemies within anything or anywhere, but that’s just one difference with 9/11, for the attacks that day certainly required more than 19 Saudis to hijack those planes. We don’t even have any concrete proof that any of the alleged hijackers were on any of those planes! PROOF IS REQUIRED in courts of law ; although, they’re often corrupt, as well as incompetent. Putting those failures aside for the moment, however, proof is a requirement ; real proof. Washington say-so does NOT constitute any kind of proof, except for what Washington say-so’ers have said, of course.

Anyway, people should look for and listen to the videos in which these three people gave very important accounts that are related, variably, but nevertheless all relevant when considering 9/11. And then doing some serious study with ae911truth.org, or ae911truth at Youtube, as well as 911review.com will provide a lot more interesting and correlated research findings.

Of course this is only for people truly interested in real education. People wanting to only believe status quo bla bla bla wouldn’t be interested, and if any of them did risk to listen to and study from any of the aforementioned sources, then these people would likely be just a bunch of additional “keep the eyes closed shut ; believe the govt even when you know it’s lying to you” types of “folks”.

I hope there aren’t many typo. errors in this, but we’re not provided a Preview function or possibility, so I tried to be clear, typo.-correct, and hope it works out that way.

It is very hard for us to know who the “hijackers” were, or even what they really did on 9/11. We are dependent on the government for that information, but we can very easily see what happened to the buildings. It would be nice if someone could ask Clark which terrorists brought down WTC 7.

So when you hear “9/11 terrorists” or “hijackers,” you should really be thinking PATSIES. Or Dick Cheney.