as test
  of 'belief'

.. just ...

  .. one lie ...

    .. kills credibility

Preamble: 'Believing'[1] is what they do in the absence of evidence.

To say: "That's unbelievable!" - reveals credulity[2]; better might be: 'Especially preposterous[4] assertions require substantiation, please supply proof.'
End preamble.

Disclosure: I don't want trouble.

But: As a seeker of truth, I must a) follow where the evidence leads, and b) expose any and all lies that I detect along the way. In addition to truth-seeking, I advocate for justice, as in "Fair go, ya mug!"
End disclosure.
[update 110916, update 110917.]


Consider the confusing: 'The exception proves the rule.' In fact it *doesn't*, since there's a bit left out, namely: 'the existence of;' altogether: 'A specific exception proves the existence of some general rule.' This points to the necessity for precision; both in science as in logic, an exception = contradiction or counter-example *disproves* the applicable thesis.

One assertion I make is that we are being propagandised {n. 1 organized propagation of a doctrine by use of publicity, selected information, etc. 2 usu. derog. ideas etc. so propagated.[POD]}, by which I mean more specifically, *lied* to. Since lies are deployed to deceive {lie2  -n. 1 intentionally false statement (tell a lie). 2 something that deceives. -v. (lies, lied, lying) 1 tell a lie or lies. 2 (of a thing) be deceptive.[ibid.]}, we are forced to ask 'Why are we being deceived?' - to which the obvious answer is: 'To be ripped-off in some way or other.' In this context it is useful to ask after motive, plus cui bono = who benefits?

Lies are difficult things to handle; by definition they differ from the truth = reality but worse, the differing may be divergent (i.e. capable of producing contradictions which would expose the lies - considered a bad thing, especially by the caught-out liars = disgrace, then possibly gaol or gallows.) A propaganda technique is to associate lies with a *narrative*, thus allowing coordination = apparent consistency.

When (note: Not 'if') we suspect we're being lied to, we may inspect the underlying narrative; any 'strong' lie (note again: Even 'little-white' lies are still lies) - any lie will act to disprove the underlying narrative. Examples: "Saddam has WMDs; we must disarm him!" (Result = Iraq destroyed, 1mio+ dead etc.), "Gaddafi's mercenaries (on Viagra) are attacking (and raping) citizens; we must save them!" (Result = Libya destroyed, 50k+ dead - so far - etc.). It's not too hard to see the lies; I suspect that the dumbed-down sheople are not all that dumbed-down that they can't see through the lies; propaganda is deployed to 'manufacture consent' which really means to club the electorate into (ever greater) subservience.

Now consider this narrative: “19 Saudi/Muslims (learnt to fly light planes in US, organised via Germany from ObL's cave in Afghanistan), hijacked 4 airliners, crashing 1 into a field, 1 into the pentagon, 2 into WTC 1 & 2, the latter *2* crash-and-burns causing WTCs 1, 2 and 7 = 3 towers to collapse (uncannily as if demolished); 'we' [= the US rogue-regime] give ourselves permission to attack any country - especially Muslim/Arab ones, starting with Afghanistan before 'moving on' to Iraq!” Latest is Libya; Syria or Iran next? On an informed guess, it would be the US/Z's preference to attack Iran; it has more oil.

Trigger article 1:

Robert Fisk: For 10 years, we've lied to ourselves to avoid asking the one real question
Saturday, 3 September 2011
  «By their books, ye shall know them.
I'm talking about the volumes, the libraries – nay, the very halls of literature – which the international crimes against humanity of 11 September 2001 have spawned. Many are spavined with pseudo-patriotism and self-regard, others rotten with the hopeless mythology of CIA/Mossad culprits, a few (from the Muslim world, alas) even referring to the killers as "boys", almost all avoiding the one thing which any cop looks for after a street crime: the motive.»

Comment 1; note: "international crimes against humanity," interesting comparing ~3000 WTC-dead against the US-regime's 'score' in Iraq alone = 1mio+ dead and the Z-regime's theft of almost an entire country, lying and ethnically cleansing as they genocidally go.

Comment 2; note: "rotten with the hopeless mythology of CIA/Mossad culprits," see McGovern next (and more to come).

Comment 3: Fisk's answer to the motive Q: "US support for Israel as a root cause of al-Qa'ida's opposition to the United States."  IMHO, Fisk gets at least that correct; the Zs rank equal 1st with the US as world's worst evil-doers.

Trigger article 2:

Neither ink nor air
Did Tenet Hide Key 9/11 Info?
By Ray McGovern
August 17, 2011
  «Bulletin for those of you who get your information only from the New York Times, the Washington Post and other outlets of the Fawning Corporate Media (FCM): Former White House director for counterterrorism Richard Clarke has accused former CIA Director George Tenet of denying him and others access to intelligence that could have thwarted the attack on the Pentagon on 9/11.» 

Comment 1: McGovern goes on to give some proof that Tenet is a liar. No real surprise given that Tenet was a political appointment to the CIA and "All politicians lie," thanks, but "No, thanks!" - to JWHoward et al..

Comment 2: More serious is the report on some evidence known to have been so withheld: "If, as Tenet says in his memoir, it was the Aug. 6, 2001, PDB that prompted his visit on Aug. 17, what might have brought him back on Aug. 24? I believe the answer can be found in court documents released at the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui, the fledgling pilot in Minnesota interested in learning to steer a plane but indifferent as to how to land it."

Comment 3: This approaches 'he said, she said ...' etc.. One BIG problem is that once someone is proven to be a liar, *nothing* s/he says can be trusted = they've killed their own credibility. (Note that incomplete and/or contradicting reports were a big feature of the ObL-slaying-raid narrative - and no proof produced there either, rather some body/thing allegedly dumped into the Arabian Sea.)

Trigger article 3:

September 2, 2011
CounterPunch Diary
The 9/11 Conspiracists: Vindicated After All These Years?
  «We’re homing in on the tenth anniversary of the destruction of the Wall Street Trade Towers and the attack on the Pentagon. One in seven Americans and one in four among those aged 16-24, (so a recent poll commissioned by the BBC tells us) believe that there was a vast conspiracy in which the U.S. government was involved. But across those ten years have the charges that it was an “inside job” –– a favored phrase of the self-styled “truthers” — received any serious buttress?
The answer is no.»

Comment 1; note: *His* answer is no.

Cockburn goes on: «"The conspiracy virus is an old strand. The Russians couldn’t possibly build an A bomb without Commie traitors in the U.S.. The Russians are too dumb. ... JFK couldn’t have been shot by Oswald — it had to be the CIA." [Quoting some university person:] “I think the problem of conspiracy nuttery has got worse, and is part of a general trend. ... There wasn’t a single serious question about 9-11. The main engine of the 9-11 conspiracy cult is nothing political; it’s the death of any conception of evidence.
This probably comes from the decline of Western power. Deep down, almost everyone, across the political spectrum, is locked in a bigotry which can only attribute that decline to some irrational or supernatural power. The result is the ascendency of magic over common sense, let alone reason.”»

Comment 2a: Apart from any reservations there might be over the Russian A-bomb getting 'indirect' US/UK 'help,' or the Kennedy slaying being not what the 'official version' alleges, lumping those conspiracies in with 9/11 is a deliberate (nasty, fallacious) tactic designed to discredit - and as such hardly belongs in 'civilised discourse.'

Comment 2b: Bringing in unrelated information can be termed 'red herring' and/or non sequitur = both fallacious, and attacking an opponent is called the 'ad hominem' fallacy. Descending into fallacy -> kills credibility.

Then, consider a) "There wasn’t a single serious question about 9-11" and b) "the death of any conception of evidence."

Comment 3a: Interesting; it may well be 'technically' correct to say: "There wasn’t a single serious question" (emphasis = mine) - on the basis that there were/still are *many* serious questions...

Comment 3b: The two dare discuss 'evidence' while attempting to support the 'official version,' which itself goes out of its way to obscure, deny or outright ignore evidence.


There are three aspects to 9/11 evidence; 1) what's in the public domain (mostly 'news' videos), 2) what's *not* in the public domain, namely what was destroyed = WTC-wreckage (hastily sent to China as scrap), Pentagon-wreckage (incomplete, to say the least = no wings, say[7]) and Pennsylvania-wreckage (only a smouldering hole in the ground = non-existent? [8, 9 & 10]) and 3) what has been deliberately suppressed = hidden (we can't know what or how much, i.e. Pentagon = no film available - to us, we the people; why not?)


It's now 10 years; some Qs were immediately obvious 'back then' - like those prompted by the pictures of the smouldering holes in the Pennsylvania field (alleged UA93) & the Pentagon (alleged AA77). The first videos we saw were of the burning twin-towers, 'live' on our TV, with replays of jet-impacts. Then, one by one, the *3* towers collapsed - suddenly, symmetrically, compactly into their respective own footprints - highly 'unnatural' to say the least; here[5] are some videos, sourced via ae911truth (tip: To d/l your own copy, try <r-click>; 'save target as').

The most obvious Q is: 'How did they do it?' - where 'they' = 19 Saudi/Muslim alleged hijackers, and 'it' = *3* WTC symmetrical-collapses. They are, if you like, 3 *burning* questions; makes many a structural engineer go 'Hmmm,' such never happened before nor since - where 'such' = jet- or diesel- fuel fires causing structural-steel in 2*110-story & 1*47-story buildings, to melt then collapse the towers into great clouds of steel-lengths and concrete powder, and that Oh, so symmetrically, and at partly approximating free-fall speed to boot. (Free-fall speed would occur if all support immediately *below* was suddenly, totally removed = explosively demolished; ~working hypothesis. Watched any videos?)

These questions plus others, like the alleged mobile call from an hijacked plane - that turned out to be of zero-sec length[6](!!?) and not so BTW violating the cell-phone system's supposed capabilities, the fact that no air-to-air interceptions were made, that NORAD was (apparently, allegedly?) stood-down, that Bush continued reading fairy-stories to children -> approaching myriads of *BIG-Q*s, none of which have been *properly* addressed, if they were ever addressed at all; the 'official' enquiry was a fizzer - as, we find are most/all such enquiries = whitewashes. Nobody (who might be effective) seems to care, it's just 'Move on!'


Fazit, 1: The problem is that we *can't* just move on, because 9/11 *did* change our world, and (IMHO at least), for the *worse*. Consider Fisk's 'hopeless mythology of CIA/Mossad culprits.' The CIA, as the FBI, knew *something*, see the pilot-training stories. Mossad also knew *something*, see the The Five Dancing Israelis Arrested On 9-11. All, note, *before* the event. Others knew; there're the stories of (Israeli!) workers warned off going to work at the WTC-towers, massive Wall St. 'puts' against airline-stock, etc.. All this is so-called 'circumstantial' and vis-à-vis the actual perpetrators, no 'smoking gun.' Conned A'Sleeza (a specific Ms Rice) spoke of 'joining the dots' - mostly in the sense of having failed to do so; and/but: I'm *not* suggesting anything (excepting the odd extrapolation), basically letting the evidence we can see, plus what we might surmise as evidence 'destroyed/missing/hidden' - to speak for itself.

The most persuasive evidence I've seen is in the videos[5], and the Oh, so 'perfect' symmetry + ~free-fall speed. It was quite literally 'Wham, bam (pause, fire reducing); tower straight down.' WTC7, of course, was not struck, but had a minor fire - burnt out = stopped. Then pause; 'Wham, tower straight down.' A *thesis* (not at all mine alone), is that the *3* collapses so resemble 'controlled demolition' that it 'beggars belief' that it could have been anything other than that = controlled demolition - and that requires careful, thorough, beforehand *preparation* steps on *3* buildings = *not* 2 aircraft impacts on their own. Note that I just wrote 'belief' as part of an expression. I'm *not* a believer; believing is what others do in the absence of evidence.

The most unlikely evidence I've heard of is an alleged hijacker's passport that supposedly came fluttering down ('unsinged') out of the inferno.

IF you, dear reader, wish to believe that the 3 towers were caused to collapse by jet- or diesel-fuel fires, THEN you're welcome - and please move on; nothing (more) to see here - for you.

Fazit, 2: Preparation means pre-loading the towers with explosives plus associated detonator control systems, most likely would have been delivered via trucks to the loading-docks, access to columns & under-floors via ceiling crawl-spaces. The lift-system had recently seen maintenance-activity. Someone knew; it must have been seen & allowed - given that the towers had years-ago been internally bombed, security would have existed in the attempt at preventing a recurrence. If anyone knew (security company), so also the CIA/FBI *should* have known (who knows), but see Tenet = liar above. The concept of a 'black flag' attack by internal US operatives already 'had form,' see Operation Northwoods. Then, recall the five dancing Israelis. A 'CIA/Mossad as culprits' theory is not at all far-fetched (at least at the LIHOP level), but I always come back to the preparation; that was *certainly* not done by anyone with Arab/Muslim 'identities' = *authorisation*. Then, having 'primed' the towers, how convenient (no coincidences, please!) was it, for 19 Saudi/Muslim dead-beats to hijack 4 planes? Then perform amazing feats of airmanship, all practiced = 'perfected' in Cessna 150s/172s? "Wham!" - smack in the middle; at least one on a curved-approach (proven by visible bank-angle, see videos.)

Fazit, 3: Perhaps there's a *reasonable* explanation, but IF so THEN why doesn't the US-regime go after it? Save a lot of trouble, mostly for themselves. But when we talk about 'form,' we've since seen just how bad the US-regime can be (Afghanistan, Iraq, latest Libya) plus on reflection, just how bad the Z-regime is and has been all along, i.e. both murdering for spoil, one soil & the other oil - and lying about it, continually.

Now, you decide - believe in fantasies, or look to the facts.


PS This 'work' (truth-seeking, justice-advocating) is not easy. One result is truly horrendous, namely that it is not 'merely' that our so-called 'leaders' = tyrannical rulers lie to us (proven with Iraq, aggressive invasion thereof = Nuremberg = gallows), but that they *may* have at least tolerated, if not directly carried out (via some rogue-agency, CIA/Mossad = 'prime suspects') - a 'black flag' operation against some 3000 of their own (if agency = US) or allied (if agency = Z) innocents. Once on the crime-path (again *proven* by Iraq after Afghanistan, now Libya), no 'offence' (mainly against morality, since law is both arbitrary and often ignored) - is too outrageous. Only true psychopaths can perpetrate such vile crime(s). Makes me sleep poorly, when at all.

PPS Pragmatics; where to from here? Some 9/11 “truthers” (thanks, but "No, thanks!" to Cockburn et al., for the malevolently arrogant, *erring* vilification), call for some 'full & fair' new enquiry; will never happen - see 'whitewashes' above. All such enquiries are 'poacher as gamekeeper,' only differing by degree. 'Baddies' are in control and until *forcibly* removed, will continue their lying and murdering for spoil, damaging good people instead of moving to save our once jewel-like planet's life-support system. Same old same old, but someone has to keep on agitating (and someone needs to *effectively* act) - the alternative is to cave-in to evil - not me.



[1] believe  v. (-ving) 1 accept as true or as conveying the truth (I believe it; don't believe him). 2 think, suppose. 3 (foll. by in) a have faith in the existence of (believes in God). b have confidence in (believes in homoeopathy). c have trust in as a policy (believes in telling the truth). 4 have (esp. religious) faith.  believable adj. believer n. [Old English] [POD]

[2] credulous  adj. too ready to believe; gullible.  credulity n. credulously adv. [Latin: related to *credo]

Usage  Credulous is sometimes confused with credible[3]. [ibid.]

[3] credible  adj. believable or worthy of belief. [Latin: related to *credo] [ibid.]

[4] preposterous  adj. 1 utterly absurd; outrageous. 2 contrary to nature, reason, or sense.  preposterously adv. [Latin, = before behind] [ibid.] 

[5] (Me: All care ...) World Trade Center Buildings 1 and 2

CBS footage of World Trade Center Building 1 Collapsing
  (9 seconds, 4.7 MB., MPEG Format)

World Trade Center Building 2 Demolition - South View
  (1 min and 53 seconds, 53 MB, AVI Format)

World Trade Center Building Demolition - North East View
  (45 seconds, 20 MB, MPEG-4 Format)

World Trade Center Building 2 - molten metal and base smoke
  (2 min. and 43 sec., 72.7 MB, MPEG-4 Format)

WTC2 Demolition - South East View
  (2 min. and 32 sec., 29 MB, MPEG-4 Format)

News Video of WTC2 Demolition Waves
  (1 min. and 11 sec., 83.7 MB, Windows Media Format)

WTC1 - Explosions Highlighted
  (5 min. and 31 sec., 30 MB, MPEG-4 Format)

WTC1 Collapse - North East View
  (18 sec., 3 MB, MPEG-4 Format)

WTC1 Demolition
  (56 sec., 70 MB., Windows Media Format)

WTC1 Collapse - CBS News Clip
  (40 sec, 16 MB, MPEG-2 Format)

PBS Footage of WTC1 Demolition
  (55 sec., 69.8 MB, Windows Media Format)

North View of WTC2 Collapse from ABC News
  (36 sec., 15 MB, MPEG-2 Format)

World Trade Center Building 7

World Trade Center Building 7 Implosion
  (18 sec., 9.2 MB., MPEG-2 Format)

Dan Rather from CBS News Reports about WTC #7
  (25 sec., 4.4 MB, MPEG-4 Format)

[6]^Update 110916, 16:51; AA77 mobile phone and 'exit wound.'[7]^^
[8]^Update 110917, 09:51; UA93 crash site:[9]^[10]^[«back»]


  new economic suit



Off-shoring jobs creates unemployment, long-term or short-term into lower-paid jobs.

Increasing productivity = getting more output from same or fewer workers or paying workers less in total - or both.

Increasing unemployment (US reported ~9% but more likely closer to 20%) shows direction. Increasing numbers onto food-stamps (~46mio), ditto.

With less income, people have less to spend (der...)

Purchases down mean increased profits can only come from wider margins.

Unless the workers' share goes up, the spiral-down will not stop, just cannot stop.

In a $14trio economy, $1trio spent on bombs-for-export = 7%, which when exploded remove that 'value' from the planet, along with all the innocent 'collateral' lives = murder. This 7% = outright loss, possibly 'compensated' for only if the US can 'harvest' much of the target countries' oil-income (Iraq, Libya (Iran next?), Afghanistan = pipelines, all = US hegemony targeted *at* Russia & China, *for* Israel.)

Of Obama's recent one-time $400bio economy goosing-proposal, only about $150bio is considered 'new' = might create things = 1% possible gain. Compare that to the 7% outright, year-on-year loss...

What else? The only other US exports I can see are from Boeing (more CO2 to f**k the planet's climate) and Microsoft (this article is being written on a lovely PC made in China, almost *crippled* by W7 = total s**t compared to XP, itself hardly problem-free.) Apple makes squillions on marking-up Chinese-made *toys* like iPods (an 8GB 'touch' sells for $10 less than my new netbook), iPhones (Yuppie-toys) & iPads (ditto but as a PC = very expensive, very poor joke.)

Oh, yeah, one other export = neoliberal economics (plus globalisation, supply-side, economic rationalism etc., Wall St. = casino; un-taxing the rich whilst strangling all less-well off = predator economics) - which is ruining the economies of most of rest of the world, as they 'ape' the 'great' US - idiots all.


More of the same?

The 2001 aggressive invasion of Afghanistan (Nuremberg-class), followed by the 2003 aggressive invasion of Iraq (also Nuremberg-class) did not help the US, nor any of its snivelling quisling sycophantic hangers-on (SQSH-Os) like the UK (and Aus, but Aus has mountains of minerals - for now). So why has the US+NATO, mainly F+UK, now done 'more of the same' = aggressive invasion (Nuremberg-class) to Libya?

US-aggressive-war is clearly (mainly, see hegemony + Israel above) only for $s - but the 1st two outrages did *not* appreciably better the economies of the attacker-countries, so what's up? Mainly-US predator economics seemingly can't live *without* war, but doesn't appear to benefit much *with* war either - more idiots.

Bush (the elder) called Reaganomics "voodoo," because (one thinks) he (+ advisors) could not understand how it might work. But now (been getting evidence all along; some was seen in advance), we have *proof* that it *doesn't* work - because most Western countries are descending into debt and other economic crises = chaos, suggested remedy = austerity (à la IMF SAPs - Perkins' "Economic Hit Man"), building & reinforcing a downward spiral. Looks to me like *no-one* understands it, even the head economist of the ECB has resigned in violent disagreement.

The proof is easy: IF neoliberalism worked THEN no crises. Hmmm?

Update 13:13; PS

There's an old expression: "Taxation is theft."

It *certainly* is, unless the money raised, every cent, is spent *responsibly*, on things which bring true benefit to the whole community, like water, sewage, electricity, public transport, roads, phones etc. - all the things capitalism failed at or didn't want 'back in the days,' and which means never to the benefit of anyone who does not strictly need 'community assistance.' Should be clear enough.

Just as "Taxation is theft" - except under strict conditions, so too "Privatisation is theft," where the benefit is *not* strictly to the entire community, exactly as for taxation.

Generally speaking, neoliberalism has skewed the taxation system to the benefit of one certain 'special interest' group = the mostly already (obscenely) rich. Privatisation has worked in exactly the same direction, adding costs (interest, bizarre 'management' fees and obscene CEO payments - whilst reducing employment), effectively robbing the community of egalitarian assets, whilst increasing the cost of the services - water, elec., etc. as above, at the same time reducing the availability (less or no preventative maintenance); if medicine for profit (privatising Medibank, say, or Medicare) - then it's approaching a Crime Against Humanity, and *is* a CAH if/when the poor simply cannot pay.

Again the proof is easy: The rich have made themselves filthy-richer.

THEN consider the 'democratic covenant,' whereby we, the people 'allow' representatives to 'govern' us, also, as for taxation, to the strict benefit of the *entire* community.

The representatives - from both 'sides' - bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic - have presided over the implementation of neoliberalism across 'the West,' with the consequences we can see, and some of us anticipated from '1st sight,' having been Thatcherism + Reaganism, morphed to neoliberalism and its fellow-travellers.

The representatives have put themselves beyond democracy, repeat bipartisan = un- & anti-democratic, and have thus turned themselves into both tyrants and our, we the people's enemy.


Declining Household Income
Real household income has fallen by about 10 percent since the start of the last recession, with a greater decline after the recession ended.