Monday, February 25, 2008

Big Pharma - Big Money (Part 1)

Green Mental Health Care – Reclaiming Lives From Psychiatric Drugs

by Genita Petralli, Nutritional Biochemist
The so-called “War On Drugs” has a new battleground – your doctor’s office, where the unholy alliance between the pharmaceutical and psychiatric industries presents a pseudo medical model that inflicts addictive, chemical abuse on innocent victims while lying to the public with “sales science” and calling it medicine. Their drugs are nothing more than variations of the very same illegal drugs the government has spent billions of dollars fighting—not because they care about you, only to preserve pharmaceutical sales. Make no mistake; a drug is a drug—pushed or prescribed. They are all toxic, and psychotropic pharmaceuticals are far more toxic to brain tissue and the liver; diminishing quality of life, causing multiple addictions and ultimately resulting in disease and death—never health and wellness!
My life is dedicated to reclaiming lives from psychiatric drugs and exposing psychiatry for what it is; a gang of white collar drug pushers robbing our society of every resource that supports it right down to our future; the children.
As a scientist and licensed practitioner I want to educate all those interested in what is causing the epidemic mental health crisis of today, how to avoid it, how to get off of psychiatric drugs if you are on them now, and why toxic drugs should never be sold as medicine.
My work is toward a medical model for all mental health issues to be based on patient outcomes and not profit. This is accomplished with Orthomolecular Neurochemical Rehabilitation (ONR).
I wrote Green Mental Health Care – How to Get Off & Stay Off Psychiatric Drugs because the psychiatric patient with Prozac in his/her medicine cabinet is in even more danger than the crack head smoking crack. This is because the crack head knows they have to stop smoking crack to get well—the psychiatric patient thinks they are taking medicine and that their condition is the best they can hope for—when neither is true. They don’t recognize the fundamental truth that drugs injure the body and mind – prescribed or pushed.
To sit on the sidelines and do nothing while I watch people suffer from the effects of psychiatric drugs is not an option. I know what these drugs do to cells, tissues, critical organs and brain function and I can’t just turn my head because everywhere I turn I see more pain and suffering while Big Pharma continues to make bank and control society. They are literally using our money against us, forcing out all evidence-based holistic options that should be sponsored by public medicine like pharmaceutical drugs are. They are using our taxes and out of pocket cash spent on their drugs to buy lobbyists in Washington to get pro-Pharma laws passed and forced medical practices pushed through such as the Mother’s Act, the language of which is now in the health care reform bill. Come on, the notion of giving an antidepressant to a pregnant woman? These drugs are extremely harmful to grown adults; can you imagine what they do to the development of a fetus that doesn’t have the functional maturity to even try to protect itself from them? They will stunt every process of development in that child and already have been shown in numerous studies to cause birth defects.
Psychiatric drug use is particularly destroying the youth in our society. The vast majority of the mass school shootings are done by young adults on psych meds (see People will say, “Well, that’s why they were on meds, there was something wrong with them” or “They weren’t taking their meds, therefore they went crazy.” Don’t believe this for a second, kids have been going through all the challenges and discomforts of adolescent bullying, ostracism etc.… since the beginning of time and it wasn’t until our toxic health care system started drugging them that they started taking guns to school and initiating mass murders.
Psychiatric drugs are responsible for increased car accidents, domestic violence, emergency room visits, hospital admissions, diabetes, cancer, aneurysms, tardive dyskinesia, suicide, violence, they are more abused by school children today than their illegal counterparts. As the damage these drugs do to the health of our global citizens takes its toll, they turn once productive people into parasites of society as we pay through our taxes for their subsidized housing, health care costs, and SSI/Disability payments monthly. Is it their fault? No- after all, they were told to take their medicine to get better—the only fault is that they believed their doctor whose practice is dictated by the “standards of care” created by a corrupt Big Pharma. We are all suffering the deluge of destroyed lives by these drugs and humanity as a whole is becoming crippled by them. I want to help stop the pain and suffering these drugs cause and teach what is causing their symptoms, how to find out what is the root cause, and how to cure it and live this one precious life we all share in the full spectrum capacity they were born capable of living it. I want to see humanity flourish and witness the beauty we are capable of creating on this planet. I want the planet to be inhabitable by my grandchildren and I don’t want them forced onto drugs for being children.
Government agencies are now forcing children to take drugs if a psychiatrist labels them with a “mental illness.” And they are calling those who speak against the government’s toxic health care initiatives “terrorists” and “crazy,” incarcerating and drugging them. The day I always feared has now seen its dawn; we are losing our right to refuse “medical care,” even with the volumes of evidence piled up that proves it is harmful, toxic and does not deliver its recipients to health. The people are too fog-brained by and addicted to their pushed and prescribed drugs in their food, environment and medicine to see what is happening and reclaim their lives and the potential of humanity that “God” is capable of. People are literally chemically lobotomized today and it is a pandemic.
You are no longer a freethinker if you are addicted to a drug, be it pushed or prescribed, and people are becoming more and more compliant as legal drugs become more and more prolific in our society. Only someone addicted, misinformed and symptomatic would find it plausible to believe that a toxic drug is a medicine and that that “medicine” has any chance of producing health and wellness. Big Pharma has done a very good job at creating masses of people who are addicted, misinformed and symptomatic in a very short period of time. The drug companies now have undue influence over our medicine, standards of care, our government and the FDA. They have become so powerful that they run our government to the point of using our own police to enforce laws that are unconstitutional that require parents to drug their children if their child is diagnosed with a mental disorder. Parents have had their children taken away for refusing to give them psychiatric medications! Yes, our own police officers have removed children from homes because their parents wouldn’t give them legal cocaine (Ritalin)!
This book is my contribution toward helping them get well and bring them from the dark corners they have quietly suffered in, into the light of health and wellness, hope, and the empowering feeling of being embraced by the love and compassion that those of us have for those harvested by the pushers of toxic “medicine.” With each person I detoxify and help to natural mental health, I am building an army of healthy environmentalists. By making the decisions you need to make to get well—starting with the needs of an individual cell to get well, you will by default become an environmentalist helping the planet detoxify and survive as well. When we discontinue the demand for the products that are making people crazy, we take their power and ability to buy Washington, the FDA, the NIH and their front people, psychiatrists (grants, ghost writing payoffs, schools, etc.) away. Our medicine and laws will become patient outcome driven as opposed to profit driven and those toxic chemicals that are causing disease, death and loss of quality of life will no longer be pushed upon us and offered at every turn of our head.
Believe it or not, we live in an era of “harvesting” and people are being harvested by psychiatry for future income. The pharmaceutical companies that are making the laws that force their drugs into people now pave the way for psychiatry’s methods. Psychiatrists are being sent to grade and intermediate schools to evaluate our children, they are the first “doctors” people being incarcerated see, elderly people in senior homes are being drugged to death. If you lose a loved one and are sad you get drugged, if you get in a car accident you are drugged, if you have anxiety about finals in college you get drugged, if you are going through a divorce you get drugged, if you’re not good at math you get drugged, if you speak against the government you are crazy and drugged. Psychiatric medication prescriptions skyrocket for those 65 and older, psych drugs are being pushed on television, in newspapers, magazines and through schools. The unholy alliance between Big Pharma and psychiatry is causing more deaths yearly than any illness if you consider not only the suicides and murders, but the diseases they are associated with.
Big Pharma and psychiatry are literally sucking the life out of humanity and destroying the ability to achieve the quality of life people hope to reclaim when they go to their doctor. For anyone interested in a free copy of the pamphlet version of my book, Green Mental Health Care – How to Get Off Psychiatric Drugs & Stay Off – A Comprehensive Guide to Staying Sane in a Toxic World, send an email to
Big Pharma's Cancer Cure SecretBy Shane Ellison M. Sc.
The People's Chemist
August 5, 2009
Coca-cola is over 120 years old. Only seven people in the history of the world have known the Coke formula. No matter how large, corporations are great at keeping secrets. Drug giant Eli Lilly is no exception. While working as an organic chemist, I was appalled to learn how they methodically kept natural remedies from the watchful eye of the media, especially when it involved effective cancer fighters like Madagascar periwinkle.
According to folklore, periwinkle is an effective ant-diabetic shrub. Looking closely into the unique medicinal properties, Eli Lilly used state of the art characterization techniques to identify about 70 different active ingredients known as alkaloids. Their studies unfolded an unexpected, yet shocking finding: It was also effective in treating leukemia and a wide variety of other cancers. Remission rates were found to be as high as 50% in short term studies. But long term studies ceased and were replaced with attempts at making more profitable, synthetic copy cats.
To date, only two of the 70 identified, anti-cancer compounds found in Periwinkle have been replicated. Unfortunately, they don’t carry the highly sought after remission rates as their inexpensive, nutritive parents do.
The final story on Madagascar periwinkle according to Big Pharma is that it’s poisonous. But In Madagascar, its extracts have been used for hundreds of years as medicine. If Eli Lilly is half as good as Coke at keeping secrets, this potential, natural cancer cure will probably forever remain under the pharmaceutical drug rug, along with all the other less profitable, natural cures.
Psychiatric Drugs, Violence and SuicideK.L. Carlson, Former Pharmaceutical Rep.
Sunday, July 19th, 2009
People often go through times of depression due to job loss, relocation, loss of a loved one, divorce, and many other situations that cause us to feel insecure. Our bodies do have natural ways of dealing with these emotions especially if people use healthy means including adequate sleep, exercise, healthy eating and emotional support from friends and family.
SSRI/SNRI (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors/Selective Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors) are antidepressant drugs that interfere with the body-mind’s normal functioning. These drugs are literally mind-altering. They can cause people to terminate loving, supportive relationships with family and friends, the very relationships that are extremely important to helping people recover from depression. The drugs can cause hallucinations, paranoia, and mania.
There is a direct correlation with the increase of antidepressant drug use and the rise in extreme, senseless violent acts. There are experts who have been trying to bring this to the attention of physicians, the FDA, and the public for more than a decade. Depression is not the problem. The drugs are the problem.
In 2001, GlaxoSmithKline was ordered to pay $6.4 million to the surviving family members after 60 year old Donald Schnell flew into a rage and killed his wife, daughter, and granddaughter only 48 hours after he began to take Paxil.
“I keep asking, when is somebody going to see this? But we’ve been so brainwashed about drugs. We think legal means safe,” Ann Blake Tracy, Ph.D. explains. “Most people don’t know that LSD once was legal and prescribed as a wonder drug. That PCP was considered to have a large margin of safety in humans. Most people don’t know that ecstasy was prescribed and sold for five years to treat depression. ”
The adverse effects of psychiatric drugs are regularly misdiagnosed as more signs of depression, anxiety or some other created-by-vote psychiatric disorder. Then patients are prescribed additional psychiatric drugs or the dosage is increased. That was the case of California teenager Dominique Slater. Only 14 years old she was on several antidepressants including Celexa and Wellbutrin. When her erratic behavior worsened her doctor prescribed double dose of Effexor. Fifteen days later she killed herself. She was barely a teenager yet she was prescribed multiple antidepressant drugs at high doses. The year was 2003. Britain had already sent letters to all physicians sternly warning against the use of any of these drugs in anyone under the age of 18 years. It took the FDA another year to issue a warning of increased suicide in youths under 18 years old. No letters were sent to physicians. And the drug companies created marketing campaigns specifically to get antidepressants into the offices of all types of physicians, not just psychiatrists.
More than 10 million prescriptions for antidepressants are issued each year for children younger than 18 in the U.S. Any physician, not just psychiatrists, can write prescriptions for psychiatric drugs. The age of children being given these powerful mind-altering drugs continues to get younger. Ohio physicians in the month of July 2004 prescribed psychiatric drugs for 696 babies aged newborn to 3 years old covered by Medicaid.
“It’s shocking,” said Dr. Ellen Bassuk, associate professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. “These medications are not benign. They can have dangerous side effects. Who is being helped by children being drugged, the babies or the caregivers?”
Scientific Evidence of Antidepressants’ Effects on Newborns
“When we put pregnant women on antidepressants, they can’t get off them,” an unconcerned gynecologist told my friend C. when she told him she had spent years trying to get off the antidepressant he had prescribed to her. Three years before this callous physician’s comments to C., the extreme health risks to the fetus had been reported in medical journals.
A study published in The New England Journal of Medicine in February 2006 reports pregnant women taking antidepressants have babies who are 6 times more likely to have primary pulmonary hypertension (PPH) or a developing lung disorder. PPH is extremely serious. A baby’s organs such as brain, kidney and liver are stressed due to lack of oxygen. PPH requires neonatal intensive care. PPH can be fatal and for babies who do survive there is often long-term health problems including breathing difficulties, seizures and developmental disorders.
Women taking SSRI/SNRI drugs during the first trimester of pregnancy are at 60 percent greater risk of their babies having heart defects and 40 percent greater risk of their babies suffering malformation.
“In conclusion, our results suggest that maternal exposure to fluoxetine (Prozac, Luvox, Sarafem and Symbyax) during pregnancy and lactation results in enduring behavioral alterations… throughout life,” a study reports in Pharmacology, spring 2007. Although the study was done with mice the physiological systems are similar to humans. There is nothing preventing drugs a pregnant woman takes from going directly into the bloodstream and then all the tissues of the fetus. And as this study indicates, antidepressants are also transferred to the baby through the mother’s milk.
As of February 2009, the drug companies, using their puppets and financial influence, are lobbying the U.S. Senate to pass a bill called the Mothers Act. This insane bill has already passed the U.S. House of Representatives. Supposedly this bill is meant to address postpartum depression. The truth is that it’s the drug industry influencing legislation in order to have more taxpayers’ money flow into drug companies’ profits. The 1,200 drug industry lobbyists on Capitol Hill are greasing the skids well so that this dangerous legislation that will harm, not help mothers, babies, and American families will easily pass. It’s about money, not health.
Merck Wrote Drug Studies for Doctors
By Stephanie Saul
April 16, 2008
The drug maker Merck drafted dozens of research studies for a best-selling drug, then lined up prestigious doctors to put their names on the reports before publication, according to an article to be published Wednesday in a leading medical journal.
The article, based on documents unearthed in lawsuits over the pain drug Vioxx, provides a rare, detailed look in the industry practice of ghostwriting medical research studies that are then published in academic journals.
The article cited one draft of a Vioxx research study that was still in want of a big-name researcher, identifying the lead writer only as “External author?”
Vioxx was a best-selling drug before Merck took it off the market in 2004 over evidence linking it to heart attacks. Last fall, the company agreed to a $4.85 billion settlement to resolve tens of thousands of lawsuits filed by former Vioxx patients or their families.
The lead author of Wednesday’s article, Dr. Joseph S. Ross of the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, said a close look at the Merck documents raised broad questions about the validity of much of the drug industry’s published research, because the ghostwriting practice appears to be widespread.
US Vaccine Maker Target of Homocide Investigation
By Jim Kouri

Posted 1:00 AM Eastern
March 3, 2008
In a criminal case guaranteed to send shockwaves throughout the international pharmaceutical industry, French authorities are targeting a US-based drug company and its executives in a homicide investigation.
The multi-billion dollar corporation GlaxoSmithKline and one of its key executives are facing possible manslaughter charges stemming from allegations that the company failed to fully disclose side effects from an anti-Hepatitis "B" vaccine distributed between 1994 and 1998.
Also being investigated is the French-based drug company Sanofi Pasteur, which also sold doses of the Hepatitis "B" vaccine.
A formal investigation as been launched by French authorities against two managers from drug companies GlaxoSmithKline and Sanofi Pasteur. A second investigation for manslaughter has also been opened against Sanofi Pasteur MSD, according to French news sources.
"The investigations are in response to allegations that the companies failed to fully disclose side effects from an anti-hepatitis B drug used between 1994 and 1998," stated the French source.
Hepatitis B is a serious disease caused by a virus that attacks the liver. The virus, which is called hepatitis B virus (HBV), can cause lifelong infection, cirrhosis (scarring) of the liver, liver cancer, liver failure, and death, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
This virus spread through having sex with an infected person without using a condom (the efficacy of latex condoms in preventing infection with Hepatitis "B" is unknown, but their proper use might reduce transmission), by sharing drugs, needles, or "works" when injecting drugs, through needlesticks or sharps exposures on the job, or from an infected mother to her baby during birth.
In the US, the Hep "B" vaccine is usually mandated by the states for physicians, nurses, hospital workers, law enforcement officers, prison guards and others who are likely to come into contact with those at-risk of carrying the virus.

Drug Lobbyists Go After the Brains of ChildrenFriday, February 22, 2008
Byron Richards, CCN Big Pharma’s drug lobby machine (the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America) increased its financial arm-twisting of Congress by 25% in 2007 – in an effort to ward off competition and lock in bogus psychiatric medication sales to children.
Drug companies are struggling because their products don’t work for preventive health and they can’t make money just using them for appropriate uses. Their main trade group spent $22 million in 2007 to buy favors from Congress.
Partly this money was spent trying to maintain a legal monopoly – such as blocking less expensive drug re-importation, preventing fair-price drug negotiations for Medicare, manipulating patent laws to extend drug profits, and ensuring direct to consumer ads continue.
However, most of the increase in spending was to get Congress to reauthorize the State Children’s Health Insurance Program, a program to get and keep low-income kids on mind altering drugs – a cash cow worth billions for Big Pharma. These drugs cause permanent adverse alterations in the developing nervous system of children. There is a reason every school-related mass murder involves shooters that have been on psych drugs.
I’m all in favor of needed health care for any child. However, psych drugs do not replace the responsibility of parents to provide a home and family, the quality of food fed to children, and learning skills about how to live. Solving this problem is easy – provide health care for children but don’t cover the sale of any psych medication. Immediately you would find that Big Pharma no longer cares about children’s health.
60 Minutes Blows the Lid Off the FDA’s Trasylol Scandal
Monday, February 18, 2008
Byron Richards, CCN 60 Minutes told the world last night that FDA ineptitude over the heart-bypass drug Trasylol cost 1,000 American lives a month, killing at least 22,000 Americans while the FDA dragged its feet. Yes it’s true, I don’t have as much clout as 60 Minutes – as I broke the same story over a year ago. I’m just happy to see the truth start to come out and that there are people actually interested.
The reason 22,000 Americans had to die was so that the FDA wouldn’t look bad. FDA leadership, under the guidance of Andrew von Eschenbach, was also acting to protect Bayer from an avalanche of lawsuits. It is not simply an administrative mistake that so many lives were lost. Sure it was stupid. It was also intentional. It is high time that those in drug companies or the FDA who knowingly and recklessly kill Americans are held accountable.
Unfortunately for Americans, the Trasylol case is one of many current drug scandals that the FDA is trying to contain, many of which involve high numbers of deaths or destroyed quality of life. FDA incompetence goes beyond comprehension - a complete betrayal of the American people woven into a long-term culture of an insideously corrupt organization. If you wish to understand the history read my book, Fight for Your Health: Exposing the FDA’s Betrayal of America.
Branding Pregnancy as Mental IllnessBy Byron J. Richards, CCN
March 13, 2008
The Mothers Act is pending legislation that will indoctrinate hundreds of thousands of mothers into taking dangerous psych drugs. It is a great example of how the Big Pharma lobby controls Congress to the detriment of health, as well as needlessly and dramatically inflating the costs of our health care system for everyone. Like any piece of legislation it purports to address a troubling issue – in this case the mood distress of mothers following birth known as postpartum depression. It is true that 10% - 15% of women need some assistance in dealing with this topic – but the majority of them sure don’t need it from Big Pharma. That is the Big Lie.
The Mothers Act (S. 1375: Mom's Opportunity to Access Health, Education, Research, and Support for Postpartum Depression Act) has the net affect of reclassifying the natural process of pregnancy and birth as a mental disorder that requires the use of unproven and extremely dangerous psychotropic medications (which can also easily harm the child). Urgent consumer action is needed to stop this atrocity, as the Senate could now vote any day.
It is my understanding that the process of birth, the intimate bonding of mother and child, and the placing of significant responsibility on the father is all part of a healthy culture and the backbone of the fabric that makes strong families and consequently our great nation. I fail to see why we need laws that force health care professionals to emphasize the idea that the process is some type of mental illness affecting 80% of all women – what a bogus pile of crap.
The Mothers Act proposes sweeping and dramatic changes in the delivery of pregnancy care by all health professionals. It demands that health professionals indoctrinate pregnant women into mental health treatment options for mild depression-like symptoms experienced during or following pregnancy, including moderate symptoms they call “baby blues” which they say affects 80% of pregnant women. In other words, this is a massive federate health mandate to get the majority of pregnant and nursing mothers on psych drugs – a new target market for Big Pharma.
The bill was obviously written by the Big Pharma lobby and its passage into law would be considered laughable except that it is actually happening. The bill seeks to require taxpayer-funded grants to treat postpartum mood and anxiety disorders, as defined in the latest edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. For those of you who don’t know, this is the manual of vaguely defined mental health issues used by Big Pharma to allow the sale of their expensive psych drugs and get payment from Medicare and Medicaid at taxpayer expense. While some people certainly need help, this system racks up billions in fraudulent sales per year – including the sale of dangerous antipsychotic medications to our children. The Big Pharma lobby last year spent tens of millions to ensure the government would continue to cover vulnerable children so they could capitalize on this blatant scam.
Oxycontin Abuse in Canada
May 22, 2007. By Jane Mundy
Oxycontin (also known as Oxycodone) is a powerful narcotic drug used for the treatment of moderate to severe pain. In Canada it is sold under various trade names, including OxyContin, Supeudol, Endocet and Oxycocet. And it's also known as "hillbilly heroin" due to its popularity in poor regions of the US, where overdoses have claimed more than 100 lives.
But Oxycontin's overdoses and abuse isn't limited to the US. In the late 1990s, Ontario's Chief Coroner, Dr. Barry McLellan, asked that forensic scientists go back and review death files from people with drug overdoses for the past five years. They found that between 1999 and 2003 there had been between a four- and five-fold increase in deaths where Oxycodone had been detected in the blood of the deceased.
Oxycontin is a pill that operates on a time-release principle, but Hillbilly Heroin is made by crushing the pills and then either injecting or "snorting" the resulting powder.
Oxycontin Damage: A Timeline
In 2000, The USA based Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) reported a 400% increase in oxycodone related deaths, based on medical examiner and coroner reports.
In 2001, Oxycodone abuse was highly publicized throughout North America.
In 2003, the death toll in Canada mounted as 101 people in Ontario alone died with Oxycodone in their systems -- 10 times more than a decade ago.
In January of 2004, the FDA strengthened the warnings and precautions sections in the labeling of OxyContin (oxycodone HCl controlled-release) tablets after many reports of abuse, some resulting in death. In response, Purdue Pharmaceuticals, manufacturer of Oxycontin, issued a warning in the form of a "Dear Healthcare Professional" letter that was distributed to health professionals and the medical community.
In 2005, the CTV news reported a tragic tale about Kyle Blythe, a young man in Ontario whose life spiraled out of control. His doctor prescribed Oxycontin after Blythe suffered tendonitis in his wrist. To make a long story short, Blythe spent about $100,000 getting OxyContin illegally and ruined his life. At one time he had a wife and a house—he wound up moving in with his parents and enrolled in a legal methadone program to withdraw from Oxycontin.
All along, Purdue Pharma claimed that OxyContin, because of its controlled time release formulation, posed a lower threat of abuse and addiction to patients than did traditional, shorter-acting painkillers like Percocet or Vicodin.
And that claim earned them annual sales of $1 billion just a few years after the drug was approved in 1996.
Aggressive sales reps marketed Oxycontin to doctors who had little training in serious pain management or recognizing drug abuse and by 2000, Oxycontin abuse in mainly rural and poor regions of the U.S. was rampant.
Fast forward to May 10th. At a proceeding in a United States District Court in Abingdon VA, both Purdue Pharma and three company executives acknowledged that the company fraudulently marketed OxyContin for six years as a drug that was less prone to abuse, and one that also had fewer narcotic side effects. The company agreed to pay roughly $600 million in fines and other payments. As well, the three executives of Purdue Pharma pleaded guilty to misbranding ( which is a criminal violation) and agreed to $34.5 million in fines -- small potatoes considering the billions in sales Oxycontin earned Purdue Pharma.
Oxycontin Lawyer Help
If you have been adversely affected by using Oxycontin, you can send your complaint to an [Oxycontin Canada Lawyer] who will evaluate your claim at no charge or obligation.
Pharma See, Pharma Sue
The Canadian Association of University Teachers has strongly condemned a new lawsuit by the Apotex pharmaceutical company against Dr. Nancy Olivieri. As a liver specialist at the University of Toronto, Olivieri first came under attack from Apotex in 1996 [1] when she notified her patients that she had detected toxic side effects while conducting an Apotex-sponsored study of the company's drug, deferiphone. Claiming that Olivieri's actions violated their nondisclosure agreement, the company threatened her with legal action, and she was fired from her hospital (a recipient of hundreds of thousands of dollars each year in research funding from Apotex). After years of lawsuits, Apotex and Olivieri reached a legal settlement in 2004 in which the company agreed to pay $800,000 to Olivieri, while both sides were to refrain from further public "disparagement" of each other. Now Apotex is suing again, claiming that Olivieri has disparaged the company simply by participating at conferences on the relationship between universities and the pharmaceutical industry (even if she doesn't mention Apotex by name). Its legal filing also claims that she has engaged in disparagement when other people have written about her in newspaper stories and on Wikipedia [2]. "This would appear to be a baldfaced attempt to muzzle a critic [3] of the pharmaceutical industry," comments medical ethicist Howard Brody, author of the book Hooked: Ethics, the Medical Profession, and the Pharmaceutical Industry.

Saturday, February 23, 2008

War Against Serbia

The War against Serbia: Illusion Versus Realityby Ivan Eland
This article appeared on on May 3, 1999
The war against Serbia is being billed as a humanitarian attempt by NATO to impair and reverse Slobodan Milosevic's brutal ethnic cleansing of Albanian Kosovars. That spin creates an illusion that obscures the real motivation behind the war. In fact, the war is really a U.S.-dominated military operation designed to safeguard perceived U.S. interests in the Balkan region. The illusion is perpetuated by several myths.
Myth 1: The war against Serbia is being spearheaded by NATO.
Although NATO headquarters in Brussels is buzzing with activity, the forces engaged in battle are primarily American. U.S. aircraft have been flying 90 percent of the combat missions. That percentage will increase further after the current buildup of aircraft, which involves a disproportionate number of American planes, is completed.
Any ground force used to attack Kosovo or Serbia would also be dominated by Americans. American units have the best equipment, training, doctrine, communications, intelligence and logistics. Furthermore, NATO would not demand that the three NATO countries closest to Serbia -- Hungary, Greece and Italy -- send ground forces to fight there. Even though Hungary is a new member of the alliance and should be eager to show its support for NATO activities, the Hungarians claim that they cannot be expected to send troops to fight against a Serb army that includes a significant Hungarian minority. Greece, with a population that is orthodox Christian and pro-Serb, and Italy, which has a left-leaning government that is squeamish about NATO military actions, have pledged humanitarian and logistical support but would not be expected to help with the ground attack. Curiously, the United States -- half a world a way -- is more concerned about Milosevic's actions in Kosovo than are his neighbors.
Myth 2: Humanitarian concerns are driving the war against Serbia.
Although the recent case of genocide in Rwanda claimed the lives of almost a million people, dwarfing the number killed in the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo, the United States did not intervene. Moreover, the United States regularly, if tacitly, accepts brutal conduct by other regimes against their own people if it coincides with perceived U.S. interests.
The United States tacitly accepted Russia's attempt to brutally suppress the Chechen rebellion because of fears that Russia would disintegrate if other minority groups imitated the Chechens. In the Krajina region of Croatia, the United States tacitly accepted Croatia's ethnic cleansing of 300,000 Serbs because the killing weakened the Serb position in that country and in neighboring Bosnia. Because Turkey is a U.S. ally, the United States not only accepted the Turkish regime's brutal repression of the Kurdish minority (another conflict in which casualties have been much greater than those in Kosovo) but actively aided Ankara by helping apprehend the Kurdish leader Mohamad Ocalan.
In reality, the ostensible humanitarian justification for the war is secondary at best. It's the underlying perception that European security is threatened that's really driving this military intervention. The United States rarely intervenes militarily when there is no perception that its interests are at stake. So the military operation advertised as a NATO mission to relieve human suffering is actually a ham-handed U.S. attempt to defend perceived American security interests.
Those perceived interests flow from the Clinton administration's domino theory of instability and concerns about preserving NATO's credibility.
Instead of a fear of communism spreading from country to country, the administration's refurbished domino theory sees "instability" -- unless checked -- spreading and engulfing large parts of Europe. Instability has always existed in the volatile and remote Balkan nations, but it hasn't spread outside the region since 1914. The administration constantly alludes to the specter of World War I. But in the events leading up to that war, two powerful and hostile alliances exploited instability in the region -- a situation much different from the one that exists today. At present, instability in the Balkans has no relationship to American vital interests.
And getting into a war to preserve "NATO's credibility" sounds eerily like the "peace with honor" justification that kept the United States bogged down in Vietnam for an extra five years. In Vietnam, over a seven-year period, the average tonnage of bombs dropped per month was almost double that dropped per month during Desert Storm, which was in turn much greater than the tonnage dropped on Serbia and Kosovo during the past month. Seven years of pounding from the air did not dissuade the North Vietnamese from their battle to unify Vietnam (nor did an air onslaught alone persuade Saddam Hussein to withdraw from Kuwait). It's doubtful that a few months of far less intense attacks on Serbia will stop the Serbs' nationalistic effort to maintain the unity of Serbia.
In the end, the United States would have had more honor had it withdrawn earlier from Vietnam. Similarly, NATO will retain at least some credibility if it drops the pretenses, cuts its losses and negotiates a settlement with Milosevic before many more lives are lost in a ground war for dubious goals in a remote land.


Bosnia War

Under its nationalist president Franjo Tudjman (1922-), Croatia declared its independence from Yugoslavia on June 25, 1991, provoking an immediate response from the federal military. Unlike the brief fighting in Slovenia, the other breakaway republic, the clashes between federal troops and republic defense forces in Croatia erupted into full-scale war. Federal ships off the coast fired on targets in Croatia, while Croatian forces blockaded federal barracks, cutting off utilities and food; besieged soldiers then shelled nearby civilian areas. In 1991 Serbs constituted one-eigth of the Croatian population; encouraged and armed by the federal military, Serb guerrillas took control of about one-third of the republic, driving out members of other ethnic groups. Some federal leaders in Belgrade (the Yugoslav capital) disagreed with the aggressive tactics of the army, which they saw as acting in the interests of its Serb officers and not of the country as a whole. In January 1992, after at least 10,000 people had died in Croatia and after 14 cease-fires had been broken, a United Nations-sponsored truce took hold. For nearly three years 14,000 UN peacekeeps maintained an uneasy standoff between the Croation defense forces and the rebel Serbs, who eventually declared their own republic of Krajina, consisting of the territory captured in 1991. As the July 1992 shelling of Dubrovnik by rebel Serbs shows, however, fighting never entirely stopped during those three years. At the same, neighboring Bosnia and Herzegovina was also engulfed in war, and the Croats feared that Bosnian Serb advances in late 1944 would further embolden the Krajina Serbs. In May 1955 the Croatian army swept through one of the Krajina Serb enclaves, expelling the residents; the Serbs then sent missiles into the Croatian capital, Zagreb, killing a handful of people and injuring more than 150. The Serb retaliation did not halt the Croat offensive; by August Croation troops had retaken most of the Serb-held land and had sent more than 100,000 Serbs fleeing. The war in Croatian (along with the war in Bosnia) officially ended on December 14, 1995, when leaders of Croatia, Bosnia, and Serbia signed the Dayton peace accords.
Last Update: December 16, 2000

US, NATO prepare public opinion for ground war against SerbiaBy the Editorial Board
30 March 1999
Less than one week ago, according to no less an authority than President Bill Clinton, most Americans had never heard of Kosovo and would not know where to find it on a world map.
Now, after several days of massive bombing, the escalating media campaign over the fate of the Kosovan Albanians is setting the stage for the commitment of US troops in the war against Serbia and the long-term military occupation of Kosovo.
In an article that is typical of what has been appearing in American newspapers and television over the last three days, Charles A. Kupchan, who served on the staff of the National Security Council during Clinton's first term, wrote in the Los Angeles Times:
"Now that the air campaign is underway, the president has no choice but to prepare the country and America's armed forces for a major ground war in the Balkans ...
"Air attacks will no doubt weaken Yugoslav defenses and soften up the units operating in and around Kosovo. But it may take ground forces to expel them from Kosovo and stop the killing of Albanians."
In interviews conducted on national television, two leading senators--Shelby of Alabama and McCain of Arizona--stated that the Clinton administration must be prepared to place troops on the ground in Kosovo. "I don't know myself of any war," Shelby said, "that's been totally won by air power." Warning that the desire to avoid casualties should not determine US strategic aims, McCain declared, "We're in it, and we have to win it. This means we have to exercise every option."
While the Clinton administration continues to state that it does not "intend" to order ground forces into battle, it has signaled an impending change in policy by claiming that the violence of Serb army attacks on Kosovan Albanians has come as a surprise. If this were true, it would mean that the policy pursued by the Clinton administration in launching the bombing was not merely reckless, but also extraordinarily stupid. It is, however, impossible to believe that the tragic events that have been the first fruits of this war were not foreseen by the US government.
The very nature of the US-NATO demands--that Serbia cede control of Kosovo, acquiesce in the expulsion of the Serb minority from the province, submit to foreign occupation and the destruction of its national sovereignty, and accept the revision of its international borders--could not but lead to an eruption of violence against the Kosovan Albanians once full-scale war broke out.
It is the height of cynicism for the United States to feign horrified surprise over the fate of the Kosovan Albanians when similar methods were employed by Croatia, with US political support and military assistance, during the Croatian offensive against Serbs in Krajina province in 1995. As even the New York Times admits, "the West looked the other way" as 200,000 Serbs were "ethnically cleansed" from Krajina and tens of thousands more were driven from their homes in Bosnia because the actions of Croatia served the strategic interests of the United States.
It would not be difficult to prove that the Clinton administration's invocation of "human rights" and "self-determination" as a justification for its onslaught against Serbia is shot through with duplicity and hypocrisy. (We invite our readers to review an earlier article, " Whom will the United States bomb next?")
But what concerns us here are the implications of the accelerating pace and escalating scale of US military violence. Serbia is the fourth country to have been bombed by the United States in less than seven months. Since August 1998, US cruise missiles and bombs have been launched against the Sudan, Afghanistan, and, of course, Iraq.
The war against Serbia promises to become the bloodiest and most ambitious exercise of all. This extraordinary projection of US military power portends a major turning point in the history of American imperialism.
Since the collapse of the Soviet Union, US government, military and academic think tanks have been engaged in a protracted debate over the extent and potential of American hegemony. A continuous source of frustration has been the persistent and widespread opposition within the United States, despite the outcome of the gulf war, to foreign military engagements.
[under construction]

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Oklahoma City Bombing - Missed Attempt?

Nefarious nexus: The 1995 Oklahoma City Bombing, DHS & MIAC memosAnniversary Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma CityBy Doug Hagmann Friday, April 17, 2009
Sunday will mark the 14th anniversary of the 1995 bombing of the Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City that claimed 171 lives - 168 men, women and children and three unborn. It is also a day on which the largest criminal conspiracy and cover-up of the 20th century began and continues today.
Before I continue, I want to point out that it seems to be a fairly common practice for Internet bloggers and others who live the majority of their lives in the virtual realm to throw around accusations such as “conspiracy” and “cover up” based on what they read or find as a result of Internet searches. This practice, usually by people who have not even changed out of their pajamas or left their homes, frequently diminishes the importance associated with those accusations. Therefore, it is important for readers of this article to understand that the accusations of conspiracy and cover-up referenced herein are based on the information developed from real life investigation, external, on-site research and even surveillance conducted by professional investigators over the last several years.
The April 19th, 1995 bomb blast that shredded the Murrah building and the lives of hundreds of American families continues to reverberate within the United States in a way that the Islamic terrorists connected to the plot and the bombing, all who have been and remain domiciled in the United States, could have only dreamed about. It is successfully serving as a catalyst to shred something else - the constitution of the United States and the rights of patriotic citizens.
It is absolutely no coincidence that the bombing of the Murrah building is referenced within nearly all of the government investigative documents that culminated with the nine-(9) page assessment published by the Department of Homeland Security on 7 April 2009. That document, which (and this is VERY important to understand) is merely an unclassified assessment of a collection of much more detailed documents, began to “go viral” when radio talk-show host Roger Hedgecock broke the story last week. Its release was accompanied by outrage, mainly by right-wing conservatives, who were appropriately disgusted but its implications. That outrage was further fueled by the remarks made by Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano that she stood by the report.
It was nearly two months ago when a similar document issued by the Missouri Information Analysis Center (MIAC) was leaked. That document, which was based on a collection of other documents published by DHS and distributed among their fusion centers, also referenced the dangers posed by right-wing extremists in the U.S., hinting by association at the Oklahoma City bombing.
It is important to understand that these two documents are merely a miniscule representation of a growing number of reports shaping the current policy of the Department of Homeland Security. The DHS, ostensibly established to enhance the security of law-abiding Americans from the threats of terrorists, has been effectively manipulated from within and externally. One has to look no further than the southern border fence project to understand that the homeland security is less about security and more about control, although that will be addressed separately.
Obviously, one can see a pattern that has developed and is being carefully refined through a very well orchestrated molding of public perception by various government officials having a larger agenda. That agenda is advanced further through the actions of a cooperative and highly compromised media. That agenda consists, in part, of demonizing the conservative element of America through unfounded accusations and facilitating the advancement of their globalist aspirations. And 14 years after the 1995 terrorist bombing in Oklahoma City, they are exploiting the tragic loss of life to shamefully advance their own agenda.
Over the next several days as we mark the anniversary of this attack, I will be publishing an extensive series on our investigative findings of the Oklahoma City bombing, the Muslim terrorists who were involved in the planning and execution of that attack yet continue to walk the streets of America, and the politicians who let them.
Meanwhile, if you would like to get important information - the real truth behind the Oklahoma City Bombing, I would recommend grabbing a copy of The Third Terrorist by Jayna Davis. Of all the books written about the 1995 terrorist attack, her book is unquestionably the most authoritative investigative product you can get on this subject.

What Really Happened in the Oklahoma City Bombing? Many Victims' Families Believe FBI Knew Bombing Was Being Planned;
By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard
As printed in Human Events, October 31, 1997, pp. 12,13,18.
In his new book The Secret Life of Bill Clinton: The Unreported Stories, just published by Regnery, renowned investigative reported Ambrose Evans-Pritchard alleges massive corruption and cover-ups in the Clinton Administration in connection with many incidents, including the death of Vincent Foster, drug dealing in Arkansas, and the Paula Jones case.
He also raises, as the Terry Nichols trial begins, some very serious questions about the tragic 1995 bombing of the federal building in Oklahoma City. There is no doubt that Timothy McVeigh was guilty, says Evans-Pritchard, but he believes that nothing like the full story has ever come out. Why? Because the government, although it interviewed over 20,000 people, failed to call many knowledgeable witnesses during the trial, witnesses who could discuss collaborators with McVeigh and Nichols. He makes a strong case that the reason the government covered up--and continues to cover up--is that bumbling FBI agents knew in advance that the bombing plot was afoot but failed to stop it.
He discloses what he calls "the smoking gun of the Oklahoma bombing," a memo written only two days after the bombing. The memo discusses the FBI's debriefing of a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms undercover agent who infiltrated a neo-Nazi paramilitary group where men close to McVeigh talked about using violence against the U.S. government.
The charges in this book are sure to stir emotional reactions, but, writing about the book last week, national syndicated columnist Robert Novak said that Evans-Pritchard "is no conspiracy theory lunatic [and] is known for accuracy, industry, and courage." Evans-Pritchard has reported from the United States for both the Spectator and the Sunday Telegraph, for which he was Washington bureau chief.. He has recently returned to England and is now serving as the Daily Telegraph's roving European correspondent. In the following excerpts from the first two chapters of The Secret Life of Bill Clinton, Evans-Pritchard explains why so many families of bombing victims are suspicious of the official story of what happened that day and why hundreds have now filed suit against the government.
Affidavit: McVeigh had high-level help

False Testimony In McVeigh CaseEvidence Tampering, Perjury Alleged by FBI Lab Workers; Proof Withheld from Defense
By Mike Blair
As Oklahoma brings Terry Nichols, the convicted accomplice in the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City, to trial on state charges, lawyers are discovering that the federal prosecution of alleged “lone bomber” Timothy McVeigh was in many respects a sham.
Prosecutors believe that the FBI not only tampered with evidence but also may have rigged the trial of McVeigh in 1997. The FBI concealed what it had done right up to the point when the Gulf War I veteran was executed in 2001.
Ten days before McVeigh's execution, lawyers for employees of the FBI laboratory, which processed physical evidence for the prosecution of McVeigh, wrote an urgent letter to Attorney General John Ashcroft citing evidence that Steven Burmeister, now chief of the lab's scientific analysis, may have given false testimony about key forensic data.
The FBI did not divulge the letter to McVeigh's attorneys and later retrieved all copies of the document from the lawyers by offering their clients a cash settlement.
Burmeister's part in the McVeigh prosecution “stinks,” said the former FBI special agent in charge of the Los Angeles office, Ted L. Gunderson, now retired, who has been investigating the Oklahoma City bombing since it happened.
FBI whistle-blower Frederic Whitehurst, who was Burmeister's mentor at the FBI lab, said Burmeister, an explosives expert, had complained in the months leading up to the trial that he was being pressured by prosecutors and lab employees to change his testimony and scientific conclusions.
“Steve definitely spoke of the pressure to me,” Whitehurst wrote in a letter in which he alleged that prosecutors twice tried to get Burmeister to testify in a certain way in the Oklahoma City case.
Shortly after the bombing, Burmeister indicated in a statement that there were improprieties in the manner in which evidence was handled at the lab in the McVeigh case.
However—18 months after the bombing—just before McVeigh's trial, Burmeister corrected himself in another interview by investigators, saying, “there are several statements in the (first) interview, which I would like to clarify or correct.”
The lab official then went on to correct or retract earlier statements that he had made about colleagues who worked on the bombing evidence, that they did not use proper techniques or were unqualified to do some tests they performed.
“I'm not sure why I would have said that,” Burmeister said at one point in the follow-up interview. He was referring to his earlier statement that a knife with possible explosives residue on it should not have been swabbed in the lab.
FBI officials have admitted that they do not know whether Burmeister's interviews were ever turned over in McVeigh's case or in the trial of his supposed accomplice, Nichols, who is serving life in prison on federal charges.
“Contradictory sworn statements are the kind of information a jury could take into consideration in evaluating his [Burmeister's] credibility, especially when those statements come to bear on the very expertise he is supposed to have,” Stephen Gillers, a New York University law professor who specializes in legal ethics, told Associated Press.
Even the inspector general, who investigated the FBI lab following the Whitehurst revelations, found Burmeister's second interview unconvincing.
According to Oklahoma bombing conspirator, ranking officials were involved in the attack
By Pamela Manson
The Salt Lake Tribune, Article Last Updated: 02/21/2007 01:03:43 AM MST
Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols says a high-ranking FBI official "apparently" was directing Timothy McVeigh in the plot to blow up a government building and might have changed the original target of the attack, according to a new affidavit filed in U.S. District Court in Utah.
The official and other conspirators are being protected by the federal government "in a cover-up to escape its responsibility for the loss of life in Oklahoma," Nichols claims in a Feb. 9 affidavit. Documents that supposedly help back up his allegations have been sealed to protect information in them, such as Social Security numbers and dates of birth. The U.S. Attorney's Office in Utah had no comment on the allegations. The FBI and Justice Department in Washington, D.C., also declined comment.
Nichols does not say what motive the government would have to be involved in the bombing. The affidavit was filed in a lawsuit brought by Salt Lake City attorney Jesse Trentadue, who believes his brother's death in a federal prison was linked to the Oklahoma City bombing. The suit, which seeks documents from the FBI under the federal Freedom of Information Act, alleges that authorities mistook Kenneth Trentadue for a bombing conspirator and that guards killed him in an interrogation that got out of hand.
Trentadue's death a few months after the April 19, 1995, bombing was ruled a suicide after several investigations. The government has adamantly denied any wrongdoing in the death.In his affidavit, Nichols says he wants to bring closure to the survivors and families of the attack on the Alfred B. Murrah Federal Building, which took 168 lives. He alleges he wrote then-Attorney General John Ashcroft in 2004, offering to help identify all parties who played a role in the bombing but never got a reply.
Nichols is serving a life sentence at the U.S. Penitentiary Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence, Colo. McVeigh, who carried out the bombing, was executed in 2001.McVeigh and Nichols were the only defendants indicted in the bombing. However, Nichols alleges others were involved. McVeigh told him he was recruited for undercover missions while serving in the military, according to Nichols. He says he learned sometime in 1995 that there had been a change in bombing target and that McVeigh was upset by that. "There, in what I believe was an accidental slip of the tongue, McVeigh revealed the identity of a high-ranking FBI official who was apparently directing McVeigh in the bomb plot," Nichols says in the affidavit.
Nichols also says that McVeigh threatened him and his family to force him to rob Roger Moore, an Arkansas gun dealer, of weapons and explosives. He later learned the robbery was staged so Moore, who was in on the phony heist, could deny any knowledge of the bombing plot if the stolen items were traced back to him, Nichols claims. He adds that Moore allegedly told his attorney that he would not be prosecuted in connection with the bombing because he was a "protected witness."Moore could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
In addition, Nichols says McVeigh must have had help building the bomb. The device he and McVeigh built the day before the bombing did not resemble the one that ultimately was used, Nichols says, and "displayed a level of expertise and sophistication" that neither man had.
Terry Nichols Implicates FBI Informant in Bombing
Amazing New Evidence Emerges in Oklahoma BombingBy Pat Shannan
A recent raid on the one-time home of Terry Nichols has uncovered more evidence implicating federal agents in the bombing of Oklahoma City’s Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995.
A source has told AFP that bomb components discovered at the former home of the OKC bombing accomplice have been linked to a federal informant who investigators believe lied during the trial of Timothy McVeigh, who was executed after his conviction in the bombing.
There are now serious allegations that the FBI, using an informer as a conduit, supplied McVeigh and Nichols with the blasting components the two used to construct explosive devices, one of which may have been employed in the tragic Oklahoma City bombing.
Although there was much recent media hoopla surrounding the March 31 FBI raid on Nichols’s vacant home in Herington, Kan., the entire story, which is not being told by the mainstream media, suggests evidence of federal government complicity in events leading up to the OKC tragedy.
While the media reported that previously undiscovered explosives were found on the raid at Nichols’s home, adding further fuel to widespread public belief that Nichols—and McVeigh—were solely responsible for the OKC bombing, there’s much more to the story than meets the eye.
In fact, AFP has learned that Nichols himself apparently leaked the information about the previously undiscovered cache in his Kansas home.
Why Nichols did so is the real story behind the story that the media seems to be keeping under wraps. Nichols’s apparent goal in sharing this information was to provide information not only to bust the man who allegedly supplied the material, an FBI informant named Roger Moore—Nichols being certain that Moore’s fingerprints would be on the material—but also to expose the FBI’s role in supplying Moore the material in the first place.
The Oklahoma City Bombing: 30 Unanswered QuestionsFrom Team Infinity Despite Timothy McVeigh's guilty verdict, numerous unanswered questions about the murderous Oklahoma City bombing remain. Indeed, there are so many unanswered questions, it is amazing that the prosecution was able to secure a conviction at all. So pull up a front-row seat for the McVeigh lynching, folks, and contemplate a few of the contradictions in the official account of the OKC bombing before it all gets flushed down the memory hole. [Go to website for 30 unanswered questions]

Monday, February 04, 2008

Oil - Have We Been Taken to the Cleaners or What? (Part 1)

Discovery backs theory oil not 'fossil fuel'
New evidence supports premise that Earth produces endless supply
Posted: February 1, 2008, 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi

© 2008

A study published in Science Magazine today presents new evidence supporting the abiotic theory for the origin of oil, which asserts oil is a natural product the Earth generates constantly rather than a "fossil fuel" derived from decaying ancient forests and dead dinosaurs.
The lead scientist on the study – Giora Proskurowski of the School of Oceanography at the University of Washington in Seattle – says the hydrogen-rich fluids venting at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean in the Lost City Hydrothermal Field were produced by the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in the mantle of the earth.

The abiotic theory of the origin of oil directly challenges the conventional scientific theory that hydrocarbons are organic in nature, created by the deterioration of biological material deposited millions of years ago in sedimentary rock and converted to hydrocarbons under intense heat and pressure.
While organic theorists have posited that the material required to produce hydrocarbons in sedimentary rock came from dinosaurs and ancient forests, more recent argument have suggested living organisms as small as plankton may have been the origin.
BLACK-GOLD BLUES Discovery backs theory oil not 'fossil fuel'New evidence supports premise that Earth produces endless supply
Posted: February 1, 20081:00 a.m. Eastern
By Jerome R. Corsi© 2008
A study published in Science Magazine today presents new evidence supporting the abiotic theory for the origin of oil, which asserts oil is a natural product the Earth generates constantly rather than a "fossil fuel" derived from decaying ancient forests and dead dinosaurs.
The lead scientist on the study – Giora Proskurowski of the School of Oceanography at the University of Washington in Seattle – says the hydrogen-rich fluids venting at the bottom of the Atlantic Ocean in the Lost City Hydrothermal Field were produced by the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in the mantle of the earth.
The abiotic theory of the origin of oil directly challenges the conventional scientific theory that hydrocarbons are organic in nature, created by the deterioration of biological material deposited millions of years ago in sedimentary rock and converted to hydrocarbons under intense heat and pressure.
While organic theorists have posited that the material required to produce hydrocarbons in sedimentary rock came from dinosaurs and ancient forests, more recent argument have suggested living organisms as small as plankton may have been the origin.
(Story continues below)
The abiotic theory argues, in contrast, that hydrocarbons are naturally produced on a continual basis throughout the solar system, including within the mantle of the earth. The advocates believe the oil seeps up through bedrock cracks to deposit in sedimentary rock. Traditional petro-geologists, they say, have confused the rock as the originator rather than the depository of the hydrocarbons.
Lost City is a hypothermal field some 2,100 feet below sea level that sits along the Mid-Atlantic Ridge at the center of the Atlantic Ocean, noted for strange 90 to 200 foot white towers on the sea bottom.
In 2003 and again in 2005, Proskurowski and his team descended in a scientific submarine to collect liquid bubbling up from Lost City sea vents.
Proskurowski found hydrocarbons containing carbon-13 isotopes that appeared to be formed from the mantle of the Earth, rather than from biological material settled on the ocean floor.
Carbon 13 is the carbon isotope scientists associate with abiotic origin, compared to Carbon 12 that scientists typically associate with biological origin.
Proskurowski argued that the hydrocarbons found in the natural hydrothermal fluids coming out of the Lost City sea vents is attributable to abiotic production by Fischer-Tropsch, or FTT, reactions.
The Fischer-Tropsch equations were first developed by Nazi scientists who created methodologies for producing synthetic oil from coal.
"Our findings illustrate that the abiotic synthesis of hydrocarbons in nature may occur in the presence of ultramafic rocks, water and moderate amounts of heat," Proskurowski wrote.
The study also confirmed a major argument of Cornell University physicist Thomas Gold, who argued in his book "The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels" that micro-organisms found in oil might have come from the mantle of the earth where, absent photosynthesis, the micro-organisms feed on hydrocarbons arising from the earth's mantle in the dark depths of the ocean floors.
Affirming this point, Proskurowski concluded the article by noting, "Hydrocarbon production by FTT could be a common means for producing precursors of life-essential building blocks in ocean-floor environments or wherever warm ultramafic rocks are in contact with water."
Finding abiotic hydrocarbons in the Lost City sea vent fluids is the second discovery in recent years adding weight to the abiotic theory of the origin of oil.
As WND reported in 2005, a NASA probe to Titan, the giant moon of Saturn, discovered abundant Carbon-13 methane that the agency declared to be abiotic in origin.

'Fossil fuel' theory takes hit with NASA finding
New study shows methane on Saturn's moon Titan not biologicalPosted: December 1, 200511:48 a.m. Eastern
© 2005

NASA scientists are about to publish conclusive studies showing abundant methane of a non-biologic nature is found on Saturn's giant moon Titan, a finding that validates a new book's contention that oil is not a fossil fuel.
"We have determined that Titan's methane is not of biologic origin," reports Hasso Niemann of the Goddard Space Flight Center, a principal NASA investigator responsible for the Gas Chromatograph Mass Spectrometer aboard the Cassini-Huygens probe that landed on Titan Jan. 14.
Niemann concludes the methane "must be replenished by geologic processes on Titan, perhaps venting from a supply in the interior that could have been trapped there as the moon formed."
The studies announced by NASA yesterday will be reported in the Dec. 8 issue of the scientific journal Nature.
"This finding confirms one of the key arguments in 'Black Gold Stranglehold: The Myth of Scarcity and the Politics of Oil,'" claims co-author Jerome R. Corsi. "We argue that oil and natural gas are abiotic products, not 'fossil fuels' that are biologically created by the debris of dead dinosaurs and ancient forests."
Methane has been synthetically created in the laboratory, Corsi points out, "and now NASA confirms that abiotic methane is abundantly found on Titan."
The realization that hydrocarbons are produced inorganically throughout our solar system was a key insight that led Cornell University astronomer Thomas Gold to write his 1998 book, "The Deep Hot Biosphere: The Myth of Fossil Fuels." Gold wrote:
It would be surprising indeed if the earth had obtained its hydrocarbons only from a source that biology had taken from another carbon-bearing gas – carbon dioxide – which would have been collected from the atmosphere by photo-synthesizing organisms for manufacture into carbohydrates and then somehow reworked by geology into hydrocarbons. All this, while the planetary bodies bereft of surface life would have received their hydrocarbon gifts by purely abiogenic causes.
Gold wryly noted that he was sure there had not been any "big stagnant swamps on Titan" to produce the biological debris that conventionally trained geologists think was required on Earth to produce oil and natural gas as a "fossil fuel."
"If petroleum and natural gas are abiotic as we maintain in 'Black Gold Stranglehold,'" Corsi commented, "then the 'peak oil' fear that we are going to run out of oil may have been based on a giant misconception."
Paradigms in science change slowly and with great resistance, he noted, "But NASA has given us today incontrovertible evidence that Titan has abundant inorganic methane."
"If the scientists have ruled out that biological processes created methane on Titan, why do petro-geologists still argue that natural gas on Earth is of biological origin?" Corsi asked.
Abiotic Oil: Science or Politics?
By Ugo Bardi
[Ugo Bardi is professor of Chemistry at the University of Florence, Italy. He is also member of the ASPO (Association for the study of peak oil). He is the author of the book "La Fine del Petrolio" (the end of oil) and of several studies on oil depletion.
Ugo Bardi offers a simple assessment of the abiotic theory. His logic is so clear, and the culmination of his argument is so cogent, that even a child could understand it. And the conclusion is inescapable - at least to honest enquiry - abiotic theory is false, or at best irrelevant. -DAP]OCTOBER 4, 2004: 1300 PDT (FTW) -- For the past century or so, the biological origin of oil seemed to be the accepted norm. However, there remained a small group of critics who pushed the idea that, instead, oil is generated from inorganic matter within the earth's mantle.
The question might have remained within the limits of a specialized debate among geologists, as it has been until not long ago. However, the recent supply problems have pushed crude oil to the center stage of international news. This interest has sparked a heated debate on the concept of the "production peak" of crude oil. According to the calculations of several experts, oil production may reach a maximum within a few years and start a gradual decline afterwards.
The concept of "oil peak" is strictly linked to a view that sees oil as a finite resource. Several economists have never accepted this view, arguing that resource availability is determined by price and not by physical factors. Recently, others have been arguing a more extreme view: that oil is not even physically limited. According to some versions of the abiotic oil theory, oil is continuously created in the Earth's mantle in such amounts that the very concept of "depletion" is to be abandoned and, by consequence, that there will never be an "oil peak."
The debate has become highly politicized and has spilled over from geology journals to the mainstream press and to the fora and mailing lists on the internet. The proponents of the abiotic oil theory are often very aggressive in their arguments. Some of them go so far as to accuse those who claim that oil production is going to peak of pursuing a hidden political agenda designed to provide Bush with a convenient excuse for invading Iraq and the whole Middle East. Normally, the discussion of abiotic oil oscillates between the scientifically arcane and the politically nasty. Even supposing that the political nastiness can be detected and removed, there remains the problem that the average non-specialist in petroleum geology can't hope to wade through the arcane scientific details of the theory (isotopic ratios, biomarkers, sedimentary layers and all that) without getting lost.
Here, I will try to discuss the origin of oil without going into these details. I will do this by taking a more general approach. Supposing that the abiogenic theory is right, then what are the consequences for us and for the whole biosphere? If we find that the consequences do not correspond to what we see, then we can safely drop the abiotic theory without the need of worrying about having to take a course in advanced geology. We may also find that the consequences are so small as to be irrelevant; in this case also we needn't worry about arcane geological details. In order to discuss this point, the first task is to be clear about what we are discussing. There are, really, two versions of the abiotic oil theory, the "weak" and the "strong":
- The "weak" abiotic oil theory: oil is abiotically formed, but at rates not higher than those that petroleum geologists assume for oil formation according to the conventional theory. (This version has little or no political consequences).
- The "strong" abiotic theory: oil is formed at a speed sufficient to replace the oil reservoirs as we deplete them, that is, at a rate something like 10,000 times faster than known in petroleum geology. (This one has strong political implications).
Both versions state that petroleum is formed from the reaction of carbonates with iron oxide and water in the region called "mantle," deep in the Earth. Furthermore, it is assumed (see Gold's 1993 paper) that the mantle is such a huge reservoir that the amount of reactants consumed in the reaction hasn't depleted it over a few billion years (this is not unreasonable, since the mantle is indeed huge).
Now, the main consequence of this mechanism is that it promises a large amount of hydrocarbons that seep out to the surface from the mantle. Eventually, these hydrocarbons would be metabolized by bacteria and transformed into CO2. This would have an effect on the temperature of the atmosphere, which is strongly affected by the amount of carbon dioxide (CO2) in it. The concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is regulated by at least two biological cycles; the photosynthetic cycle and the silicate weathering cycle. Both these cycles have a built-in negative feedback which keeps (in the long run) the CO2 within concentrations such that the right range of temperatures for living creatures is maintained (this is the Gaia model).
The abiotic oil-if it existed in large amounts-would wreak havoc with these cycles. In the "weak" abiotic oil version, it may just be that the amount of carbon that seeps out from the mantle is small enough for the biological cycles to cope and still maintain control over the CO2 concentration. However, in the "strong" version, this is unthinkable. Over billions of years of seepage in the amounts considered, we would be swimming in oil, drowned in oil.
Indeed, it seems that the serious proponents of the abiotic theory all go for the "weak" version. Gold, for instance, never says in his 1993 paper that oil wells are supposed to replenish themselves.1 As a theory, the weak abiotic one still fails to explain a lot of phenomena, principally (and, I think, terminally): how is it that oil deposits are almost always associated to anoxic periods of high biological sedimentation rate? However, the theory is not completely unthinkable. At this point, we can arrive at a conclusion. What is the relevance of the abiotic theory in practice? The answer is "none." The "strong" version is false, so it is irrelevant by definition. The "weak" version, instead, would be irrelevant in practice, even if it were true. It would change a number of chapters of geology textbooks, but it would have no effect on the impending oil peak.
To be sure, Gold and others argue that even the weak version has consequences on petroleum prospecting and extraction. Drilling deeper and drilling in areas where people don't usually drill, Gold says, you have a chance to find oil and gas. This is a very, very weak position for two reasons.
First, digging is more expensive the deeper you go, and in practice it is nearly impossible to dig a commercial well deeper than the depth to which wells are drilled nowadays, that is, more than 10 km.
Secondly, petroleum geology is an empirical field which has evolved largely by trial and error. Petroleum geologists have learned the hard way where to drill (and where not to drill); in the process they have developed a theoretical model that WORKS. It is somewhat difficult to believe that generations of smart petroleum geologists missed huge amounts of oil. Gold tried to demonstrate just that, and all that he managed to do was to recover 80 barrels of oil in total, oil that was later shown to be most likely the result of contamination of the drilling mud. Nothing prevents others from trying again, but so far the results are not encouraging.So, the abiotic oil theory is irrelevant to the debate about peak oil and it would not be worth discussing were it not for its political aspects. If people start with the intention of demonstrating that the concept of "peak oil" was created by a "Zionist conspiracy" or something like that, anything goes. In this case, however, the debate is no longer a scientific one. Fortunately, as Colin Campbell said, "Oil is ultimately controlled by events in the geological past which are immune to politics."
1 Thomas Gold, of Cornell University, has been one of the leading proponents of the abiotic oil theory in the West. The theory, actually, had its origin in the work of a group of Ukrainian and Russian scientists.
Framing the Debate on Abiotic Oil
Mr. McGowan:
You have employed dishonesty, straw arguments, and libelous characterassassinations instead of addressing the only question that matters toanybody. That question - Is abiotic petroleum and natural gas readily available and making its way into commercial use in sufficient quantities to establish that there is no imminent energy shortage? - is rightly the only question any of us should give a damn about. That is the question for debate.
Instead you are dancing around the issue with falsehoods which aretypified (as only one example) by your statement that I and a number of petroleum scientists argue that oil is derived from dinosaurs. Neither Inor any reputable scientist - especially those who are warning of PeakOil -- has ever made such a claim. We all gagged as you put these words in our mouths. Yet it suits your purpose to falsify our statements andthen defeat words which we never uttered to prove a point and thus boostyour ego. You remind me of Norman Solomon. I don't participate in these kinds of debates. The Arabs have a saying that one should never argue with a fool or a liar because people might not be able to tell the difference.

Friday, February 01, 2008

What Really Happened at the 1993 WTC Bombing

Car Bomb Attack in 1993

A car bomb exploded underneath the World Trade Center in New York on Friday, February 26, 1993 killing at least five people and injuring scores more. About 100,000 people work in and visit the 1,700ft towers every day - the blast happened at their busiest time. The bombing has shocked America which had seemed immune from acts of terrorism that have plagued other parts of the world.
An emotional Mario Cuomo, New York's state governor, told journalists: "We all have that feeling of being violated. No foreign people or force has ever done this to us. Until now we were invulnerable."
The immense blast happened at 12:18 PM local time in the Secret Service's section of the car park underneath and between what are New York's tallest buildings. It left a gaping hole in the wall above the Path underground station. Most of those who died are believed to have been crushed by the station ceiling.
It ripped through three floors of concrete, scattering ash and debris and set off a fire that sent choking smoke and flames up through one of the 110-story "Twin Towers". Thousands of office workers were trapped as smoke billowed up through the buildings. With no working lifts or lighting there was total pandemonium.
People did not know whether to stay in their offices or brave the journey down via the smoke-filled stairwells. Desperate for air, some people smashed windows with office furniture. Hundreds eventually poured out of the building gasping for air and covered in soot. Rescue workers struggled to get oxygen to those in the upper floors.
In May 1994, four men - Mohammed Salameh, Nidal Ayyad, Mahmud Abouhalima and Ahmad Ajaj - were sentenced to life for bombing the World Trade Center. In October 1995 Sheikh Omar Abdel Rahman, a blind cleric who preached at mosques in Brooklyn and Jersey City, was sentenced to life for masterminding the bombing.

Rahman _____________________________________Yousef

FBI Blunders and the First World Trade Center Bombing
James Bovard
Posted November 10, 2004

As Americans continue trying to understand how the government failed to stop the 9/11 hijack conspiracy, important clues can be garnered from examining the first World Trade Center bombing in February 1993. This bombing — the most economically destructive terrorist attack ever to occur in the United States up to that time — was partly the result of mind-numbing federal incompetence.
On November 5, 1990, Rabbi Meir Kahane was giving an anti-Arab speech at a New York hotel. Kahane, founder of the radical Jewish Defense League (JDL), vigorously advocated forcible expulsion of all Arabs from Israel and the occupied territories. Israel’s parliament, the Knesset, banned Kahane’s political party for “inciting racism” and “endangering security.”
At the end of his speech on that November 1990 night, El Sayyid Nosair, a 36-year-old Egyptian immigrant, walked up to Kahane, pulled out a .357, and fatally shot him in the neck. Nosair was part of a cabal of Muslims filled with intense hatred toward Israel and the Egyptian government of Hosni Mubarak. When police searched his residence, they carried off 47 boxes of documents, paramilitary manuals, maps, and diagrams of buildings (including the World Trade Center). But, as a 2002 congressional report on federal failures before 9/11 noted in September 2002,
The NYPD and the District Attorney’s office resisted attempts to label the Kahane assassination a “conspiracy” despite the apparent links to a broader network of radicals. Instead, these organizations reportedly wanted the appearance of speedy justice and a quick resolution to a volatile situation. By arresting Nosair, they felt they had accomplished both.
The trial of “lone gunman” Nosair, beginning in late 1991, was “marked by rioting outside the courthouse, death threats against the judge and lawyers, calls for ‘blood’ revenge against the defendant and cries of ‘Death to Jews!’ from his Moslem supporters.” A small band of Muslims paced the sidewalks each day in front of the court, denouncing Israel, the United States, and the supposed persecution of Nosair. As a July 4, 1993, Los Angeles Times article, headlined “N.Y. Trial in Rabbi’s Death Planted an Explosive Seed” observed,
Out of those loud demonstrations of contempt for the U.S. judicial system would emerge what authorities now say was a clandestine cell of terrorists who conspired to set off the World Trade Center bomb blast, plotted an unparalleled wave of attacks on U.S. landmarks and political figures and shattered America’s image of invulnerability to terrorism.
The FBI placed an informant named Emad Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian military officer, in the midst of the Muslim protesters. Salem insinuated himself and became the bodyguard for Sheik Abdul Rahman, a radical Muslim cleric. The sheik had been heavily subsidized by the U.S. government while in Pakistan in the late 1980s helping to inspire Muslims to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan.
Though the evidence that Nosair killed Kahane was stark, the jury found him not guilty on the murder charge but guilty of a firearms charge — that is, possessing the murder weapon. After the trial, Salem continued his work as an FBI informant, receiving $500 a week, plus expenses.
Shortly after Nosair was convicted, Salem began meeting regularly with other members of the group of hard-line Muslims who coalesced during the Kahane trial. In mid 1992, Salem repeatedly warned the FBI that the Muslim group was planning to carry off a catastrophic bombing in New York City. FBI supervisors were convinced he was concocting tall tales and fired him.
The FBI Allowed the 1993 WTC Bombing to Happen
By Ralph Blumenthal
Thursday October 28, 1993

Law-enforcement officials were told that terrorists were building a bomb that was eventually used to blow up the World Trade Center, and they planned to thwart the plotters by secretly substituting harmless powder for the explosives, an informer said after the blast.
The informer was to have helped the plotters build the bomb and supply the fake powder, but the plan was called off by an F.B.I. supervisor who had other ideas about how the informer, Emad Salem, should be used, the informer said.
The account, which is given in the transcript of hundreds of hours of tape recordings that Mr. Salem secretly made of his talks with law-enforcement agents, portrays the authorities as being in a far better position than previously known to foil the February 26th bombing of New York City's tallest towers.
The explosion left six people dead, more than a thousand people injured, and damages in excess of half-a-billion dollars. Four men are now on trial in Manhattan Federal Court [on charges of involvement] in that attack.
Mr. Salem, a 43-year-old former Egyptian Army officer, was used by the Government [of the United States] to penetrate a circle of Muslim extremists who are now charged in two bombing cases: the World Trade Center attack, and a foiled plot to destroy the United Nations, the Hudson River tunnels, and other New York City landmarks. He is the crucial witness in the second bombing case, but his work for the Government was erratic, and for months before the World Trade Center blast, he was feuding with the F.B.I.

Who Bombed the U.S. World Trade Center? — 1993Growing Evidence Points to Role of FBI Operative
By Ralph Schoenman
(published in Prevailing Winds Magazine, Number 3, 1993)

The London Periodical Impact (march 12, 1993 and April 8, 1993) revealed, in an article titled "Who Bombed the World Trade Center," that on February 26, the day the bomb exploded, an Israeli intelligence group sent an urgent communiqué over a telephone access computer network about the event. The communiqué was picked up when it was discovered accidentally on a confidential government "information base" known in the Israeli intelligence community as "Matara," an official source of classified data pertaining to intelligence and security matters.
Either leaked or accessed by news sources, the communiqué states that Israeli Intelligence had advance knowledge of the timing and target of the World Trade Center bombing and that it would be attributed to "known activists from the Occupied Territories."
Three days after the bombing, "Anne," an Israeli operative of the Shin Bet, Israel’s FBI, was cited by journalists in Israel "boasting of Israeli Intelligence capabilities." She stated that Israel had advance knowledge of the bombing, confirming the communiqué disclosed on Matara.
The next day, an Israeli Defense Force spokesperson responded to a direct question from a Jerusalem reporter concerning Israeli governmental involvement in the bombing of the world Trade Center.
The Jerusalem journalist (whose name will be protected here) told Irfan Mirza, the author of the Impact articles, how he had confirmed that "Israeli intelligence knows more about the bombings than they are ever going to disclose at this time."
This author discussed the data with journalist Lorraine Mirza, who confirmed that Irfan Mirza’s investigation led to bomb threats which were taped. He has left London. On March 6, an article in the London Times confirmed that "Israeli intelligence has detailed information" about the World Trade Center bombing, adding that "the FBI has given no explanation as to why Israel has not come forward to the U.S. authorities with information."
Zafar Bangas, editor of Crescent International, an Ontario, Canada-based journal conversant in Islamic politics and one of the most widely read newspapers in the Muslim world, confirmed to this author that Guzie (Josie) Hadas was long-established as a Mossad operative. She had penetrated Islameic circles in New York, as had another intelligence operative, Emad Ali Salem, a colonel in Egyptian intelligence.
Bangas confirmed investigative work of Irfan Mirza concerning the role of Emad Ali Salem. It was he who rented the van in the name of Mohammad Salameh, purchased and disseminated chemical and bomb materials in various apartments and who tipped his employers, the FBI, as to his handiwork.
The serial number released by the ATF after, supposedly, coming upon a metal fragment, nominally buried under five stories and tons of debris, came from "undercover operative, Emad Ali Salem" (Ibid.). Salameh had attempted to report the theft of the van rented in his name previous to the bombing of the World Trade Center. Despite the public impact of the explosion, Salameh, unaware of the significance of the van, showed up asking for the return of the deposit.


World Trade Center Was Jump Point For Global Police State
December 12, 2001

I shall now take this opportunity to tell you something that you will not believe. Not today, or tomorrow, or next month. But in time youwill come to believe what I say now. You WILL come to the same conclusion I have.
The government of the United States had advance knowledge of the"attack" on the WTC. Elements within the security structure and ruling elite KNEW in advance the "Attack on America" would occur and they allowed it to occur for their own maleficent objectives.
I say this to you today, just months after the event transpired, that the "attack" was allowed---to further the interests of those who really run this country and have a plan of their own for this nation's future.I am telling you that THEY knew---where, how and when.
Now, of course, you do not believe this possible. Your thought processes will not now allow it. No more than your fathers could believe that theUnited States government knew in advance that the Japanese would attack Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
In time, you will, despite your every intention not to, despite your fear of this terrible truth, come to believe---two, three or more years from now---that men in the government who had the power (but not the will) to stop the events of 09/11/01 allowed the "Attack On America," just as men in government did December 7, 1941. You will come to believe this not because of anything I have or have not said today. Were I not to write a word on this subject you would nonetheless, come to believe that your government sacrificed the lives of several thousand people and forever changed this country on 09/11/01 for motives you can only vaguely comprehend.
You are merely getting a mental jump start here in this essay. I say this because if in November of 1963 someone had told the American people that the CIA had played a role in the murder of President John F. Kennedy, few would have believed it at that time. Thirty-eight years after the assassination it is hard to find an informed citizen who does not know of involvement by CIA agents in JFK's death. Most educated people in this country have arrived at the conclusion that the government in some form participated in the killing of a president.
I take no pleasure in the thought that you will at some point in the future come to believe what I have said here today, for it is a burden to have your nightmares affirmed, your fears of evil in high places accepted as reality by your fellow citizens. For such a conclusion means that none of us are safe. The implications are brutal if you consider them.
You have been informed today. The rest is up to you. Do not limit your thinking to that which you are told---by those responsible to some degree---for the murders at the world trade center, murders just like those committed at Pearl Harbor, of John F. Kennedy, the shooting and burning at Waco, the clear complicity of government agents with the bombers of the Oklahoma Federal Building, of the first (1993) World Trade Center bombing and now the most horrific of all---the murderous destruction of human life in New York this year.
The conclusion I have presented above is difficult for the average person to believe. I understand that. Indeed, when an acquaintance of mine who is well read and versed upon the power structure that governs the U.S. suggested to me shortly after the bombing that "the government was behind" the WTC attack of 09/11/01, I told him right then that I did not believe it and that what he said sounded like just another "conspiracy theory" and could not be true because the events made the government look too bad. I believed it showed the government to be incapable of protecting the country, and that the bombing was just too much of a black eye for them to want it to occur. So I dismissed his outrageous claim.
Nonetheless, I begin to read the details of the attack with "new eyes,"just in case such a thing was possible. I begin to compare the events of 09/11/01 with similar events in U.S. history. I have now come to the conclusion, based upon my own research, not his research, that the government is culpable in the matter.
I, also, believe that the government's long range objectives for a military-industrial police state were more important than any temporary"black eye" they would receive from the bombing, that those in power believed gains for their political objectives would in short exceed any temporary appearance of weakness.
You see, we do have a representative government in this country---it just does not represent you and me, but rather the military-industrial complex.

[under construction]