News & Analysis
Peter King's Terror Hearings Take Over
A controversial congressional hearing Thursday on the radicalization of Muslim Americans touched on sensitive questions involving terrorism and tolerance a decade after the 9/11 attacks. At times emotional and theatrical, the four-hour session of the House Homeland Security Committee included calls from moderate Muslims for support in overcoming extremists seeking to indoctrinate their children, as well as protests from Democratic legislators who complained the hearing unfairly implicated all Muslims for the criminal acts of a small minority. In the end, committee Chairman Peter King (left), R-New York, said the hearing that generated widespread media coverage "actually went a lot easier than it could have." He ... promised additional hearings in coming months, with the next perhaps focusing on the radicalization of Muslims in U.S. prisons. – CNN
Dominant Social Theme: Don't trust the Muslims.
Free-Market Analysis: Yesterday's hearing on radicalization of Muslim Americans brings up a larger perspective regarding what is going on in America and a close look into Western-style democracy. The incessant harping on "terrorist Islam" as presented in these US congressional hearings (see above article excerpt) does seem to indicate a trend regarding America's – in fact the entire West's – descent into authoritarianism, driven by hysteria over a religion that many of its worshippers (ironically) conflate with "peace."
Peter King is promising more hearings on Islamic terror and one has no reason to doubt they will occur. King has come under attack for these hearings, which some believe are deliberately whipping up hysteria against Muslims, but he has branded such accusations as false and baseless. In fact, ever since 9/11, King has been voicing concerns about Muslim fundamentalism and even wrote a novel about an Al Qaeda penetration in Long Island that resulted in a string of bombings. The protagonist of the book, a blunt, Irish congressman investigates and eventually exposes the plot.
There is about King – and certainly about the larger military industrial complex – a sense that they are manufacturing an industry as much as they are responding to legitimate threats. One has to go all the way back to 9/11 to piece together the genesis is what is taking place today. In this article we shall try.
9/11 is widely held to be the product of a band of Islamic terrorists who flew large planes into the World Trade Towers. But certain members of the 9/11 Commission itself have virtually disavowed the official narrative. The Commission's lead counsel, Rutgers's Law Dean John Farmer even wrote a book, The Ground Truth: The Untold Story of America Under Attack on 9/11 that accused the Washington intelligence and military establishment along with the Bush administration of lying serially to the commission about many aspects of 9/11.
There are so many anomalies and questions about the attacks that it is difficult to know where to begin. Three obvious – clear-cut – issues stand out. The first has to do with the calls made from the planes. Initially, the FBI said the calls were made from cell phones but it eventually emerged that the cell phone technology of the day was not viable from the altitudes at which the calls were supposedly made. The FBI then explained that the calls were made from phones installed within the planes themselves. Unfortunately, more research eventually showed that the planes in question did not have the phone technology. To date, there is no good explanation how passenger phone calls – widely reported at the time – took place. Neither cell phones nor in-plane phones were used.
Then there is the issue of the Afghanistan cave "bunkers" from where Bin Laden is said to have plotted and carried out the attacks of 9/11. Donald Rumsfeld conducted several interviews on national TV networks in which he provided colorful schematics of six-story caves complete with elaborate technology communication's gear and even various high-tech vehicles stored in subterranean garages. Videos of these presentations were on Youtube.com, though they appear to have been taken down. More importantly, not a single one of these elaborate cave bunkers were ever discovered despite months of searches by US soldiers in Afghanistan. Apparently, they never existed.
Finally, the FBI provided descriptions of the terrorists as well as their names but it later turned out that many of the identifications were incorrect. Individuals living in Europe and the Middle East came forward to complain that they had been incorrectly identified. The FBI admitted as much but it is still not clear who the terrorists actually were given the confusion about their IDs and the initial misinformation. Photos of the terrorists that were released showed them boarding a plane, but it later turned out that the plane being boarded was in Maine, not Boston, which was a later connection.
These three issues are only a fragment of hundreds of anomalies – questionable information and misinformation – that continue to plague the "official" 9/11 narrative. It has been reported that up to 70 percent of American adults would be in favor of a new commission – a non partisan one – that would attempt to clarify what was obviously a botched job so that some real closure an be achieved about the 9/11 narrative.
It us unfortunate that 9/11, in all its confusion, remains at the heart of the changes that have taken in place in the United States. Even though the narrative as it is currently constituted, has been disavowed by members of the commission themselves, the conclusions have been used to justify the virtual erection of a police state in America that has suspended civil rights and created a burgeoning intelligence-industry complex dedicated to spying on American citizens.
Since the 9/11 narrative itself remains unclear, everything that has flowed from it including the endless Afghanistan war and even Homeland Security, must be seen as built on a shifting foundation of unreconciled facts and even misinformation. Rather than seeking to clarify issues that should be made clear for historical purposes as well as policy ones, federal legislators like Peter King march further afield with investigations into "Islamic terrorism."
King's point is that the Muslim community is not engaging forcefully enough with the FBI and other policing agencies that are trying to keep citizens safe from a growing Islamic threat. But here too we would argue that the points on which he seeks clarity are not the ones that need to be clarified initially. There is still a good deal of confusion about what Al Qaeda is and where it came from. It has been argued that it was an initial creation of the CIA during the Afghanistan fight against USSR occupation and that the name simply means "the list." Bin Laden himself is said to have denied involvement in 9/11 and to this day he has not formally been accused of involvement in 9/11 by US law enforcement.
With so much confusion over basic facts surrounding 9/11 and additional questions about the fundamentalist group that supposedly sponsored the attacks, it is no wonder that King's hearing on Thursday spawned a sharp backlash. What was unspoken in many of the complaints was the bottom-line distrust in the central narrative of 9/11 itself.
If the official story is riddled with logical inconsistencies, then one would believe that King might use some of the Congressional resources at his disposal to clarify some of the remaining questions regarding that fateful day and those behind it. Instead, he treats the narrative as a given – using it as a template and touchstone on which to launch his larger concerns about Muslim fundamentalist violence.
Conclusion: Without taking steps to clarify the initial narrative, King runs the risk of looking exploitative rather than genuinely concerned. This is probably the way that some in the Muslim community see it and an unspoken reason as to why the hearings caused such a public furor. There still is no clarity to aspects of the official story and everything that has come thereafter must be seen as questionable if not suspect as well. This is the type of democracy King wants the Islamic community to embrace?
l 
|
You must be a site member to submit suggested edits or post feedback. In addition to submitting edit suggestions and posting feedback, your Free Membership to The Daily Bell gives you access to our Member Zone where you will discover a plethora of other member benefits. Want to learn more? click here |
|||||
|
|
||||
 |
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 03/14/11 05:52 AM
@ One Born Free (again)
You got me thinking about the bottom up thing. Turns out the record for the tallest controlled demolition (that anyone is talking about) was the J.L. Hudsons department store in 1998, 439 feet. It was a bottom up demolition:
Click to view link
WTC 1 was 1368 feet tall near as I can tell, about three times the height.
The top of WTC 1 was moving around 3 feet a minute faster than the foundation:
((2(pi)r/24 – 2(pi) (r .125)/24) * 5280) / 60 = 2.879 ft./minute
where r = 3963 miles at the equator.
To simplify things I ignored latitude since all I cared about was the change in speed between base and apex, not the absolute speed of either.
So if you started at the bottom I think it would have tried pretty hard to fall over.
|
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 03/14/11 02:24 AM
@ The Free Pirate
"In my opinion, the collapse videos are all fakes"
Well you could have a point there I didn't produce the films nor was I there to witness the events first hand, however if they are fakes then I'd say they were decent fakes of something that looked like a controlled demolition.
Interesting point about controlled demolitions being bottom up affair but I don't believe we have any historical examples of a controlled demolition involving a structure the size of the WTC. I can imagine that a bottom up approach to blowing up a building that tall would be a problem since the tops of those buildings were moving faster than their bases. For a more complete discussion of why such a demolition had to occur top down Scroogle "WTC angular momentum".
None of this is to say I think the pancake theory holds water.
 |
Posted by Onebornfreeatyahoo on 03/14/11 12:05 AM
Daily Bell said:""You can't trust Islam." Now there's an analysis!"
You can't trust Islam but you _can_ trust a politician and his "public hearings" :-)Yeah, right! Regards,onebornfree.
|
Posted by Peter J Brock on 03/13/11 09:33 PM
Numbnuts. You can't trust Islam. 911 is not only what this is about. How many terrorist attacks have been attributed to Muslims? Over how long a period of time? Islam does not inculturate unless it is under their conditions.
The points re 911 you cite do require explanations but you propose to stand around and nit pick in face of the larger picture instead of investigating via public hearings ala King.
Some people need to be hit in the head with a hammer to put things in perspective. You'll find the wielder of the hammer is a Muslim and hopefully you will experience it personally while pontificating from you chalet in Switzerland,
Reply from The Daily Bell
"You can't trust Islam."
Now there's an analysis!
|
Posted by Onebornfreeatyahoodotcom on 03/13/11 09:29 PM
Zenbillionaire said:
"The photographic record of the event clearly documents a controlled demolition"
I disagree, as a none-engineer:-).
In my opinion, the collapse videos are all fakes, that is, they are computer simulations from start to finish, for 3 reasons.
1] a billiard ball dropped from 1300 ft would hit the ground in 9.2 seconds, freefalling in a vacuum] .
WTC 1& 2 collapse sequences depict 1300 ft tall, 500,000 ton steel and concrete buildings collapsing to street level in as little as 10 seconds [north tower], meaning the collapses occurred at near freefall speeds [or greater than, when you factor in air resistance instead of a vacuum]. This means that the collapse sequence videos completely defy major laws of Newtonian physics, as far as I can see, making them obvious fakes.
2] My understanding is that in demolitions, buildings are always demolished from the ground up,never from the top down, because tall buildings are built to be strongest a their bottom , where the entire weight of the above building must be supported. Therefor the building base always has to be removed first in a demolition.
All video records of the miraculously fast collapses of WTC 1 &2 show the buildings exploding upwards and outwards;starting at the top of each building.[This alone also invalidates the "pancake theory", as there can be little or no weight from above floors hitting floors below if those top floors all explode upwards/outwards and turn to dust first, as all of the videos depict.]
3]All collapse sequence videos show obvious signs of fakery, in particular sunlight and shadows being out of place for location, time of day, angle of sun etc.[meaning they often contradict both each other _and_ real life, video to video], plus various suspicious "glitches" and anomalies too numerous to list here.
The most complete analysis of the computerised fakery of the 9/11 video footage that I have seen to date can be viewed here:
Click to view link
So yes, the buildings were demolished, but no, it was not recorded on camera.
The real-world demolitions must have occurred behind a military style smoke-screen, and taken far longer than the 10-15 seconds depicted on all network videos. Regards,onebornfree.
|
Posted by Ol' Grey Ghost on 03/13/11 06:46 PM
@ Summer
Walaikum assalam. I hope I got that right...
|
Posted by Bexar Mann on 03/13/11 05:44 PM
Perhaps since you censored my last post about issues surrounding 911, Johnathan May who was also illegally arrested in America for standing up against the Federal Reserve Crowd out of NYC and England then perhaps this would sum it up for those of us who read your information...
Click to view link
please read this article and watch these videos...only difference being in USA they carry weapons and are willing to use them...so do Americans who far out number the element that is also destroying through debt based system vs. credit based system our economy...please post this as I am watching...
Reply from The Daily Bell
Who censored you?
 |
Posted by Summer on 03/13/11 05:27 PM
@ Ol' Grey Ghost,
"Peace be with you and yours and may we all break bread together one day and tell funny stories of our great-grandchildren to each other around a big round table..."
What a wonderful image! Walaikum assalam wa rahmatullah hi wa barakaatahu, from the depth of my heart.
|
Posted by Bexar Mann on 03/13/11 05:26 PM
It appears when you cite historical facts on this site that you get screened...sad to see this as I like most of what the Bell staff has to Click to view link is normally right on...confused Bexar
Reply from The Daily Bell
You have not been screened.
|
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 03/13/11 01:37 PM
@ Robert Neville
"I have been involved in engineering all my life and I have seen numerous things fail due to unforeseen circumstances"
Mr. Neville, I too am an engineer and understand you position concerning unexpected failures. My specialty is fault tolerant systems, systems with high levels of redundancy and designs intended for use in mission critical applications where there is a threat to human life. That field has led me to become a sort of expert in the area of probability and statistical mechanics, which is the handmaiden of non-linear dynamics and chaos theory.
The pancake explanation of the WTC collapse leaves much to be desired from an engineering perspective. Your discussion of fastener shear strengths depends on something that doesn't occur in nature; specifically the simultaneous failure of multiple independent fasteners.
For your theory to be correct, each of the fasteners would need to fail at precisely the same instant. A very slight delay in the failure of any single faster would result in a minor deflection of the falling mass, a deflection that would become progressively more apparent as the mass continued its descent. The result would be a disorderly fall and would have caused debris to tumble well outside the footprint of the buildings. This effect is easily reproduced.
The photographic record of the event clearly documents a controlled demolition. There should be no doubt in anyone's mind that the buildings were destroyed using a very sophisticated and well executed plan. The question is not whether they were demolished using pre-set explosive charges, but why.
I have my own explanation, I'm sure others have theirs. Mine goes like this: following the unsuccessful attempt to bomb the foundation of the WTC in the early 1990's the insurance underwriters for the buildings demanded that the owner take steps to mitigate future attempts. The buildings were wired for demolition at that time. This information was kept secret in order to maintain the value of the property and surrounding neighborhood, since no one would want to lease space in or near a structure that had been rigged for programmed demolition. At some point following the events of 9/11, a decision was made to destroy the buildings in order to prevent them from toppling.
That's my explanation. I'd certainly like to have it (or some equally reasonable scenario) confirmed. The current story is an insult to my intelligence.
|
Posted by Ol' Grey Ghost on 03/13/11 11:18 AM
@ Summer and others:
"Thank you, DB, Lila, Bionic Mosquito, Berthe, Ol' Grey Ghost, Timur the Lame, Onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom, Bluebird and others for being balanced in your views. Without you this forum would would have looked like some extremist hellhole!"
Peace be with you and yours and may we all break bread together one day and tell funny stories of our great-grandchildren to each other around a big round table...
Reply from The Daily Bell
Thank you for your many lucid contributions.
|
Posted by Onebornfreeatyahoodotcom on 03/13/11 10:03 AM
@ Summer.
When you are feeling low,for a good laugh, take a look at Mr King's photo-it has it all,the hair, the eyebrows, the expression. If you are unable to laugh at that-well you just might be in trouble:-)
|
Posted by Summer on 03/13/11 06:50 AM
Thank you, DB, Lila, Bionic Mosquito, Berthe, Ol' Grey Ghost, Timur the Lame, Onebornfreedotblogspotdotcom, Bluebird and others for being balanced in your views. Without you this forum would would have looked like some extremist hellhole!
|
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 03/13/11 12:11 AM
My point being? Come now. If you didn't get the point you wouldn't be asking the question.
|
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 03/12/11 10:48 PM
Magnesium Sulfate, common Epsom Salts, can be taken in small doses on the order of 2 to 3 teaspoons in an 8 once glass of water to flush the liver and gall bladder. It causes rapid contractions of the gall bladder, ridding the patient of unwanted gall and bile and has few side effects; it strengthens the bones, lowers blood pressure and benefits the nerves.
Reply from The Daily Bell
Your point being? ...
|
Posted by Summer on 03/12/11 09:13 PM
@Bud Bromley
So you work for the University of California under the Muslim-Jewish section? Whoever employs you I guess your paid well to spend so much time, on trying to attack Islam, maybe by AIPAC, Israel or US government? Since you are so concerned with ideologies of hatred; being vehemently against the Zionists (extremist Jews) might be a cause you want to attach to? Or perhaps that's a little too close for comfort?
ISRAELI STATS:
"6 wars
4 million Palestinian Refugees
3 million Occupied
254 km of an Apartheid Wall
562 Humiliation-check-points
20K Political-prisoners
468,831 new settlers on an Occupied land
Disappearance of Palestine
Destruction of 350 Churches & Mosques
World Leader in UN Violations, at 69
Has Killed more innocent civilians per capita than any other country 50,000
Has Imprisoned more civilians per capita 250,000
Has rendered more civilians Handicapped per capita 50,000 "
Some videos of extremism you may want to make your 'mission' to abhor...
Click to view link
Click to view link
Click to view link
Click to view link
Click to view link
Click to view link
Click to view link
You need to check with your masters/managers about Banu Mustaliq a JEWISH tribe settled in an ARAB location. The Holy Prophet offered to marry the chief's daughter (a proposal Juwarriyah accepted) to make the peace, with these treacherous plotters who had made attempts on the Prophet's life and the Muslims and broken peace treaties etc. and with whom THERE WAS A PROTRACTED STATE OF WAR. The Prophet married a Jewess because in the Qur'an (which you so calculatingly quote out of context) says Ahle-kitaab (people of the Book ie. Jews and Christians) can be married.
Click to view link
Click to view link
The rebuttal your allegations against the Qur'an can be found in the links below, in the COMMENTARY (revealing the CONTEXT). You quote parts of the Qur'an without the relevant proceeding or preceding verses that elaborate them. You purposefully ignore the context (war/historical scenarios etc.) to aide your smear campaign against Islam. Furthermore, there are variations of translations of the Arabic and without the commentary of the Qur'an there are some passages that can easily be plucked and misconstrued but I guess that's the point for you, right?
Click to view link
Click to view link
As for your references to Ahadith you can have your questions answered here Click to view link
Other references that you quote are not primary sources for Islam and even many Muslims disregard, so they do not represent a large enough body of 'following' in Islam anyway to be representative in general terms, which you like to speak in.
You are a clear enemy of Islam, which has such a vast following, YOU couldn't possibly hope to represent even one sect's views in a comprehensive fashion. Your references are disjointed, misinterpreting and do not offer a narrative of any permutation of Islam. If you are so worried about the dangers of Islam, study all 72 sects and isolate the ones you have problems with. Then approach the followers of those sects you object to, with THEIR interpretation of scripture that you object to and see if you can come to a conclusion on AN overall perception of Islam as a hateful philosophy in regards to that sect. You cannot isolate certain passages, OUT OF CONTEXT to gain a picture of Islam or Marxism or Judaism or Christianity or Slavery or any other 'system' of belief.
But that's not what your interested in, so carry on with your selective hatred, showing yourself as the hypocrite you are, instead of focusing so many other potential/realised violent ideologies/religions/social systems/economic systems, whilst revealing what you REALLY are.
END
|
Posted by Onebornfreeatyahoodotcom on 03/12/11 07:48 PM
Ol' Grey Ghost said: "..keep your eyes open to all threats and to avoid allowing someone to misdirect your attention in another direction, which will leave you vulnerable to a sneak attack from the direction you weren't looking"
As Bruce Lee stated/illustrated:"Click to view link is like a finger pointing a way to the moon- don't concentrate on the finger or else you will miss all that heavenly glory".
Click to view link
|
Posted by Onebornfree-atyahoodotcom on 03/12/11 07:40 PM
@Working Class: Thank you,very well stated!Regards
|
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 03/12/11 04:47 PM
@ John Danforth
P.S.-- It's embarrassing to ask but I must know: Is your middle name Claggatt and do your friends call you Jack?
|
Posted by Zenbillionaire on 03/12/11 04:42 PM
@ John Danforth
"Think about it. You are being played."
Once again the award for clarity, brevity and insight goes to Mr. John Danforth. If we had a nation or even a village populated by men of your intelligence many of our problems would simply disappear.
I value the Bell's questioning of Peter King and his motives not because I think his actions are in any way mysterious or that there is some occult motive we might discover, but because asking the question brings more people into the conversation and thereby serves to educate. The tactic s no different than the one used to promote Global Warming; they assert the problem exists, declare the debate settled, and move on to do whatever they want in order to address the problem they've fabricated. As John points out so succinctly, we're being played.
|
|
