Thursday, August 31, 2006

Conspiracy theory number 9237

Who pulled off 9/11, and why? Clearly, among those who benefited were the neocons. But, the enormity of the 9/11 power grab makes me wonder: was a big part of the plotters' considerations the fight to control information?

In the world of the power elite, knowledge is power, and the internet revolution was threatening the hidden hands on society's control levers. There was an awful lot of hassle prior to 9/11 about the right of people to communicate secretly. The NSA was strongly suspected of weakening the NIST's Data Encryption Standard to make it vulnerable to NSA surveillance. The NSA tried to force the telecommunications industry to use a Clipper chip that would give the NSA keys to any encrypted communications.

Phil Zimmerman was threatened with prosecution for making Pretty Good Privacy encryption available on the net.

And, post 9/11, we have Congress pressing to assure that all encryption systems deposit keys with the U.S. government. Clearly, the telecom companies, in the main, thought they had to comply with warrantless surveillance given the tenor of the post-9/11 times.

One of the things that was barely noticed when the SWIFT financial data surveillance came to light was that new controls had been imposed after a spook was caught peeking at data for dubious reasons. Yes, well, knowledge is power.

If you can monitor secrets but others can't, you may be protecting the nation's security or you may be part of a scam to control business in such a way that competition is kept artfully in its place.

That is, plotters may easily have seen the subervsive 9/11 attack in context for their fight for global market dominance via control of information.

Below, I mentioned a couple of ideas for high-security encryption. A simpler method would be the exchange, via public key cryptograms, of a deterministic algorithm for generation of a a keyworm. Suppose you have a character set of 50. You use a specific pseudorandom number program to generate a random sequence of perhaps 2500 numerals such that 50 numerals are assigned to each character. "Eureka" would then be assigned two different numbers for "e," for example.

This is almost as good as a one-time pad. The chances of a numeral representing the same character twice are fairly low.

After the decrypt key is delivered, no message carries the key. The decrypt program runs the same pseudorandom generation program as the encrypt program, with the same initial input value. That value may simply be the final value of the previous message if a recursion algorithm is being used.

Of course, clever algorithms for numeral generation might be wise. If a well-known algorithm is used, the output should go through some disguise function, at a minimum multiplication or addition.

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Who will check official WTC simulations?

The NIST's report "Computer simulation of the fires in the World Trade Center" (NCSTAR 1-5F) gives much technical information on the input assumptions for the pre-collapse fires.
There may be enough information for experts to rerun the simulations and check the assumptions. Of course, they'll need access to a group of computers, because of the need for parallel processing.

Still, they'll have to get access to the Fire Dynamics Simulator program. The government did not publish a specific computer program, algorithm or protocol. Neither did it make available a downloadable animation.

Given the fact that much important data was omitted by NIST, I am not terribly confident that independent researchers will find it easy to check the simulations -- even though the country is full of computer scientists who are competent to at least see that the algorithms themselves are solid.

Also, news organizations are able to contract out this kind of scientific check. Maybe one will.

On another matter: Suppose the NIST's real mission was to cover up alleged shoddy work of designers and builders? That idea has actually been floated by John Young, architect and computer media person. Well, if so, I'd say that the Rockefellers might consider finding ways to distance themselves from NIST's cover story, knowing that the World Trade Center was essentially David Rockefeller's baby from a to z.

Saturday, August 12, 2006

GOP bungling war on terror

Bush, throwing caution to the winds, committed the United States to the biggest blunder imaginable in the war on terror: the invasion of Iraq. The Iraq war is consuming military resources that could have been better spent against al Qaeda, is whipping up horrific sectarian strife and is a breeding ground for terrorists.

Bush was warned by numerous experts on the likely consequences.

Not only that, Bush has managed to strengthen Iran's influence in the region, since Iraq's new Shi'ite government has strong religious, emotional and historical ties with Iran's Shi'ite government.

And, let's not forget that after 9/11 Bush moved quickly to protect everyone in the U.S. security committee -- before he could have known for sure who was responsible. That's reckless generosity.

The Cheney gang calls skeptics "weak on terror." Yet it is the GOP leadership, by sticking so close to Bush, that has encouraged a gigantic bungling of the war on terror.

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Trade center fall times: data conflict

How long did it take the World Trade Center towers to collapse? Various theories -- including the government theories -- of the collapses hinge on those numbers.

Yet the government seems to have made no serious effort to give the public authoritative estimates of the collapse times for WTC2, WTC1 and WTC7.

So we are left with the duration of the seismic signals picked up by earthquake monitors and with data-compressed internet videos. One severe disparity: WTC7 left a seismic signal of 18 seconds in duration. But Google Videos of the collapse give a fall time of about 7 seconds, according to the timers on the screens.

Another disparity: The collapse of WTC2 left a seismic signal of 10 seconds but a Google Video of the ABC news clip times the collapse at between 14 and 15 seconds. The seismic signal for WTC1's collapse was 8 seconds, which is 1.2 seconds shorter than the shortest time span in which the building could have fallen. I found no Google Videos of WTC1's collapse, despite the hundreds of video-cams trained on the burning building, many from across the Hudson in New Jersey.

If you can provide any info on fall times, please contact me.

See my page
Trade center collapse times: omissions and disparities

Another coincidence: Lieberman is knocked out of the Dem primary; British then foil airline terror plot; Cheney says Dems opposing Bush are soft on terror.

Knowing without a doubt that 9/11 was orchestrated by a conspiracy inside the government and a coverup carried out by conspiracies inside multiple governments, we must wonder whether the British plotters were being manipulated by a double agent.

Monday, August 07, 2006

Trade Center 7's national security status

A Huffington Post blogger recently wondered why conspirators would be so dumb as to show their hands with the uneccessary demolition of World Trade Center 7 some five hours after the fall of WTC1.

Good question, and something we must beware, I think. There is virtually no doubt that the 48-story WTC7 was blown. However, here's where the government can get sly.

CIA officials, speaking on deep background to selected members of the press, can say that, because WTC7 housed the CIA's New York station and numerous secret technologies, a decision was made to blow the building on national security grounds. However, the spook would likely say, the public cannot be told of this decision because it would divert attention from the war on terror and be fodder for demagogs.

So, yes, say the national security types, there are things that cannot be publicly discussed about 9/11, but...

But, such a "deep background" admission would tend to quiet the press chiefs and discourage further investigation into the events surrounding 9/11.

So, it is important to emphasize not only the WTC7 technical issues, but also technical disparities regarding the twin towers and the other events surrounding 9/11.

Fortunately, a few scientists are beginning to tackle that task.

Saturday, August 05, 2006

National controversy bursting seams

Were the 9/11 attacks an inside job by government conspirators or merely the result of bureaucratic bungling, as the Kean commission asserts? The 36 percent of Americans who strongly suspect an inside job are hopping mad, a Scripps Howard-Ohio University poll found.

This poll tends to validate the Zogby International poll published in May 2006 that found that 42% of Americans suspected cover-up. That poll was commissioned by 9/11 truth advocates and so carried less weight than the media poll.

Now clearly there is a tremendous passion here, a raging debate. YET, that controversy is largely uncovered -- though a Rocky Mountain News editorial took note that 9/11 skeptics were no longer in the lunatic fringe. However, the editorialist attributed the poll result to the fact that many people see the world as manipulated by small groups of amoral people (as if the communist and nazi conspiracies were minor abberations or as if s/he never heard of the Gulf of Tonkin incident).

But at least the Rocky Mountain News saw the fact that something is going on as worthy of note. Isn't the controversy a story in this especially hot election season?

Well, I'm sure we can expect more of the Fox News treatment (have a "conservative" fob it all off to "madness" stirred by "America haters") and I'm sure we'll see some hand-wringing about the mass psychology of strange beliefs. But, will we see the issue of the Bush bunch sandbagging its own credibility with sound bite propaganda that later came home to roost? And will we see reporters and editors publishing stuff that points to an inside job? There is plenty of evidence available and more is certain to be unearthed.

GOP weak on 9/11 truth

Wouldn't you like to see that headline in response to the GOP leadership attacking Democrats as weak on terrorism?

Thursday, August 03, 2006

9/11 coverup, NSA taps and 'defense of Israel'

An American scholar based in Israel says, "There is a huge, huge appreciation here of the president," according to Sheryl Gay Stohlberg's NY Times piece on Bush's "embrace" of Israel.
Many zionists and others interested in a militarily strong Israel think Bush is one of Israel's best friends ever.

Scroll down to my post, "The silence of major American Jewish organizations," regarding their lack of interest in warrantless NSA wiretaps. A Jewish Forward writer saw this lack of interest as a result of well-heeled zionists on the boards of these groups.

It seems quite likely that a number of media executives likewise harbor a zeal for the defense of Israel that causes undue protectionism of Bush. For example, the exit poll numbers showed that Bush lost to Kerry by a substantial margin, even in many "red" states. Yet the media helped in a post-election swindle perpetrated by the polling group, which offered up a ridiculous explanation of the discrepancies.

Check out Fair's comment on U.S. media coverage of the clusterbombs and phosphorous weapons unleashed by Israel against civilian targets
for an example of U.S. media lack of objectivity concerning Israeli military actions.

One might easily think that a clique of media Israelophiles reversed the public's rejection of Israel's best friend (and also apparently reversed the vote of most American Jews).

Likewise, there is no doubt at all that a conspiracy of coverup concerning the 9/11 attacks has occurred. Yet the established media are having a hard time covering the coverup story properly. It should be remembered that alert reporters for established media first reported the many bizarre happenings that raised many eyebrows. But much of that stuff has been given the enforced amnesia treatment.

So here we have a pretty convincing scenario: media Israelophiles are assisting in the 9/11 coverup in order to keep Israel's best friend in power in America.

Still, as I have said previously, these Israelophiles are clearly getting help from underground communism. ("Clearly" if you know anything about underground communism.)

Oh yeah. If my scenario is right, we can expect that whenever the 9/11 lid is close to blowing off, a crisis concerning Israel will occur. Then the clique of media Israelophiles can justify their muzzling of 9/11 truth by arguing that the "time isn't right" for such a political event as disclosure of 9/11 treason because Israel's defense is at stake.

This clique is not quite as obvious as Rupert Murdoch, whose news slant is aggressively pro-Bush and pro-militant-Israel. Their style is passive support, through blocking of coverage that would damage Bush too much, while otherwise posing as moderates.

Wednesday, August 02, 2006

One in three suspects 9/11 was inside job

Thanks to Guido Stempel for tipping us to the Scripps-Howard poll which shows that one-third of Americans suspect the federal government made sure the 9/11 attacks occurred.

The poll also reflects a rising level of personal anger against the government.

We need to accept that polls are not proof. And the mistrust is probably fueled by the Bush administration's poor record of veracity on Iraq and weapons of mass destruction.

However, there is a war between "the system" and 9/11 skeptics over credibility, with the skeptics fighting hard to avoid being dismissed as "wingnuts" and the like and also struggling to have their salient points heard.

Hopefully, more people with "credentials" will overcome their fear of politically motivated professional ostracism and speak out on the many scientific and technical absurdities inherent in the government's storyline.

I'm not sure, but it may be that the Wisconsin state legislators who are crusading against the 9/11 truth movement have run into more trouble than they realize. If at least a third of the voters of Wisconsin think Bush et al are lying about 9/11, some of that third will be Republicans.
Now that would imply a hefty majority of Republicans who aren't yet ready to suspect government wrongdoing on 9/11 -- but I'll bet much of that support is soft. They don't want to doubt the president, but that doesn't mean they're really comfortable with the 9/11 line and might easily turn vocal skeptic.

Tuesday, August 01, 2006

Rupert Murdoch's 9/11 conspiracy

Tony Blair is considering taking a plum job with media tycoon Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., it has been reported. Well, even if he doesn't, Blair's coziness with Murdoch is no secret.

The Murdoch-Blair alliance should be seen in light of Murdoch's role as a post-9/11 conspirator whose task was to lay down a propaganda barrage insinuating that Saddam Hussein had a hand in the 9/11 attacks.

A poll taken a while back showed that a high percentage of Americans who got most of their news from Fox News were convinced of Hussein's complicity in 9/11. The percentage of those so misinformed was substantially higher than for those whose main news source was not Fox.
This statistic demonstrates that Murdoch was part of a conspiracy to exploit 9/11 as a reason for war against Iraq. Bush, Cheney, Rice, Tenet, Powell, Rumsfeld and others were Murdoch's co-conspirators, some more eager than others.

The propaganda war of innuendo included the weapons of mass destruction charge, whereby the impression was created that ridding the world of Hussein would also take weapons of mass destruction out of the hands of someone who, by implication, was responsible for 9/11 the post-9/11 anthrax attacks.

Had not the Baltimore Sun disclosed the fact that the anthrax strain derived from the Pentagon, it seems probable that the biowar attacks would have been used even more obviously to try to link Hussein, who was publicly suspected of holding such weapons, to 9/11.

Now Blair avoided making too much of a Saddam-9/11 link. But he was certainly highly interested in sticking with the crew that wanted war with Iraq which, as we now know, were the neocons and militant zionists (note: I am breaking the U.S. media convention of declining to use the descriptive word "zionist" even for those who refer to themselves as zionists).

And one of the world's biggest propagandists for zionism is Rupert Murdoch, who wins high praise from militant Jews backing a "strong Israel" (see my article Fox News: trumpet of Israel's hard right at He is also active in media affairs with the noted zionist N.M. Rothschild, whom he has known since at the least the 1960s.

Of course, as I have said previously, not only did the Sharon government have something to gain from the 9/11 attacks, so did the Putin government, which wanted unreserved U.S. support for its campaign against the Islamic Chechnyan separatists.

My basic point is that the statistical result is very strong evidence of a media-government conspiracy to exploit 9/11. Now, if such people are provably part of a post-9/11 conspiracy, is it unreasonable to think that there was a pre-9/11 conspiracy, that it was an inside job?