READER COMMENTS ON

"My Appearance on The Peter B. Collins Podcast: The Definitive 'Secret Koch Tapes' Interview (Sez Me!)"

(5 Responses so far...)





COMMENT #1 [Permalink]

... Billy said on 9/10/2011 @ 7:41 pm PT...



COMMENT #2 [Permalink]

... Phyllis T Albritton said on 9/10/2011 @ 8:38 pm PT...



As I read articles, including yours, about the Koch brothers, I am always amazed that nothing is ever said about how their fortune began: with their grandfather investing in oil pipelines in the Soviet Union (those communists) in the 1920's and 30's: http://www.alternet.org/...n_the_tea_party_movement

COMMENT #3 [Permalink]

... Think About It said on 9/11/2011 @ 11:37 am PT...



Well it's 9/11/2011 and I still don't see any kind of Brad Blog exposé for the tenth anniversary of the 9/11 false flag attacks which have been used as the excuse for everything in America's foreign policy since then as well as for its domestic police state repression. Maybe if it had something to do with allegations of vote rigging in some county commissioner election in Bumfuck, Nowhere then the Brad Blog would be all over it, right? I get it. OK then I will do you all a favor. Here are some of the most glaring problems with the official 9/11 myth which render it not just implausible but downright impossible:

1. The alleged "hijacker pilots" had no experience whatsoever in flying anything with jet engines and had proven consistently that they were quite incompetent in even flying small propellor engine planes. That they could allegedly jump in the cockpits of jet airliners and fly them like experts strains credulity far past the breaking point.

2. The alleged "hijackers" were to an individual so un-Islamic that they drank liquor heavily, snorted cocaine, ate pork, went to strip bars where they got lapdances and gambled in Vegas. That they would then be so allegedly devoted to Islam as to be willing to sacrifice their lives for their religion and take some "infidels" with them is laughable.

3. Several "hijackers" turned up alive and well days later and demanded an explanation as to why their names and photos were being used in connection to the 9/11 story, as reported by the BBC. Nevertheless the American corporate-owned news media still continues with its same "nineteen hijackers" nonsense as if this didn't occur.

4. Several "hijackers" lived in military base housing, one had attended the Defense Language Institute at Monterey, California, several others lived just outside the gates of the N.S.A. in Laurel, Maryland, others lived in close proximity to C.I.A. headquarters and still others lived with an F.B.I. informant. Sound like "Islamic radical hijackers"? Or C.I.A. asset patsies who thought they were in training to be C.I.A. drug smuggling pilots?

5. None of the airline pilots from the alleged four airliners in question entered the simple four-digit code that sends the message "Hey, I'm being hijacked". Not one.

6. The Pentagon was struck in the one wedge that was under renovation at the time meaning comparatively few military personnel were present that morning there instead of the other four wedges. And the one wedge that was struck had recently been structurally reinforced to make it more difficult for a massive fire there to spread elsewhere. And it was the farthest point in the building from Rumsfeld's office. And consider: If one intends to crash into the Pentagon and do the most damage possible one would fly the plane down into the roof, not zoom around and fly just above the ground to strike it in the outside wall. Not to mention that it would be infinitely easier to hit the roof. So wasn't it nice of the "hijacker terrorists" to go out of their way to make sure that when they hit the Pentagon they did so in a way that would inflict the least amount of damage and death possible? So they were humanitarian terrorists then?

7. The "airliner" that crashed into the Pentagon left no wings, no fuselage, no tail section, no luggage etc. on the Pentagon's lawn and the official story literally tells us that the wings folded alongside the fuselage and the whole plane was sucked into the building, then all 255,000 lbs. of airplane vaporized. Yeah.

8. The "airliner" that crashed near Shanksville in Pennsylvania also vaporized itself into nothingness, just a crater in the ground. But wouldn't you know it, even though a great big airliner vanished into thin air they were still able to "find" a "hijacker's" passport, youth hostel card and a bandana in pristine condition? Just like the "hijacker's" passport "found" days after 9/11 near Ground Zero. Wow they should make airplanes and buildings out of paper and plastic so as to be as indestructable as those convenient passports, right?

9. The alleged four airliners had flight manifests that showed them as being extremely under capacity for those alleged four flights. A Boeing 757 and -767 will hold between 180 and 220 passengers depending on configuration. So is it really plausible that two separate airlines would be flying planes that weren't even half full? One even having literally forty-five passengers? Airlines want to stay in business, not bankrupt themselves.

10. The N.I.S.T. and 9/11 whitewash Commission both admitted that the Twin Towers, once the "collapses" started, came down at freefall rate in air. Meaning they expect you to believe that all that solid concrete and steel underneath the uppermost falling mass offered no more resistance to said mass than air. This is preposterous in the real world unless one is talking about controlled demolitions using explosive charges, a common sense issue considering when one thinks about it one quickly realizes that something (i.e. explosives) had to have reduced the solid majority of skyscraper to such a state that it is unable to offer any more resistance than air. Common sense OK? Solid things in the real world offer many magnitudes more resistance than air unless one disintegrates them with explosive charges. Which would explain the numerous eyewitness accounts of first responders who said they saw, heard and felt explosions, some even being blown down by the overpressure wave. It would also explain the "collapse" of WTC # 7 building which came down later that day immediately after two parallel lines of puffs of smoke went up the face of the building. Wonder what that was. Maybe demolition charges? Ya think?

11. The most expensive and technologically advanced air force the world has ever seen was no more effective that morning, the most important morning of its existence, than if they had been flying ancient biplanes. Part of the reason is that most of the fighter planes in the northeast U.S. had been conveniently sent to Alaska for military exercises scheduled for the morning of 9/11 so they would be far out of the way. (What a strange coincidence, right?)Others that remained were scrambled to intercept with no ammo for their guns and no missiles and instead of being flown straight to Manhattan were flown by a circuitous route taking them out over the Atlantic and eventually to New York. But if it was incompetence then why was the highest ranking Air Force officer, Gen. Richard Myers who was then the acting chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, not fired or court martialed? Instead, a month after 9/11, he was PROMOTED to full chairman.

12. In the week just before 9/11 there were record amounts of "put" options placed on the stock of United Airlines, American Airlines and several companies based in the WTC. Put options are basically betting that a certain stock is going to plummet in value. Was someone just a really really really good guesser?

13. The mayor of San Francicso at the time, Willie Brown, was warned in advance to not fly on September 11, 2001 and to avoid the World Trade Center in New York. More psychics at work I guess.

14. When Bush was in Booker Elementary that morning and was told by Andy Card that "America is under attack by terrorists" then instead of being allowed to remain in that school for over a half hour, even giving a short press conference on its front steps (!), Bush's Secret Service agents SHOULD have immediately whisked him away to a much safer location. Were the official myth of 9/11 true then letting him remain there would have been putting Bush's life at risk, their own lives at risk as well as all those schoolkids. So they would have had to know that Bush wasn't even a possible target that morning, something they would have absolutely no way of even guessing about if 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

15. Bush had war plans for the invasion of Afghanistan on his desk ready to be signed two days before 9/11, even though it would have been politically impossible for the U.S. to have launched the invasion of Afghanistan WITHOUT a 9/11 event. So, is Bush clairvoyent? Or was 9/11 an inside job?

16. Bush and Cheney stonewalled against allowing a commission to investigate 9/11 to even be formed for over a year, only relenting when they were allowed to dictate its scope (no going beyond the official "nineteen hijackers" myth) and the terms by which they themselves would appear before it, namely behind closed doors, with Bush and Cheney together so their stories can't be contrasted, with their attorneys present, NOT under oath and with no recordings made and no notes allowed to be kept. Now does this sound like the actions of two men with nothing to hide?

These and other bits of evidence all point to one inescapable conclusion: The official story of 9/11 is an impossible myth and by extension the ones forcing this myth down America's throat are the ones responsible. Ignoring it won't change this, it will only make it that much more likely that if there is another false flag attack the American people will again be dupes and fall for it.