George Orwell, Big Brother Is Watching Your House

The Big Brother nightmare of George Orwell's 1984 has become a reality - in the shadow of the author's former London home.

It may have taken a little longer than he predicted, but Orwell's vision of a society where cameras and computers spy on every person's movements is now here.
Foresight: The cameras crowd George Orwell's former London home.

According to the latest studies, Britain has a staggering 4.2million CCTV cameras - one for every 14 people in the country - and 20 per cent of cameras globally. It has been calculated that each person is caught on camera an average of 300 times daily.

Use of spy cameras in modern-day Britain is now a chilling mirror image of Orwell's fictional world, created in the post-war Forties in a fourth-floor flat overlooking Canonbury Square in Islington, North London.

On the wall outside his former residence - flat number 27B - where Orwell lived until his death in 1950, an historical plaque commemorates the anti-authoritarian author. And within 200 yards of the flat, there are 32 CCTV cameras, scanning every move.

Orwell's view of the tree-filled gardens outside the flat is under 24-hour surveillance from two cameras perched on traffic lights.

The flat's rear windows are constantly viewed from two more security cameras outside a conference centre in Canonbury Place.

In a lane, just off the square, close to Orwell's favourite pub, the Compton Arms, a camera at the rear of a car dealership records every person entering or leaving the pub.

Within a 200-yard radius of the flat, there are another 28 CCTV cameras, together with hundreds of private, remote-controlled security cameras used to scrutinise visitors to homes, shops and offices.

The message is reminiscent of a 1949 poster to mark the launch of Orwell's 1984: 'Big Brother is Watching You'.

In the Shriji grocery store in Canonbury Place, three cameras focus on every person in the shop. Owner Minesh Amin explained: 'They are for our security and safety. Without them, people would steal from the shop. Although this is a nice area, there are always bad people who cause trouble by stealing.'

Three doors away, in the dry-cleaning shop run by Malik Zafar, are another two CCTV cameras.

'I need to know who is coming into my shop,' explained Mr Zafar, who spent £400 on his security system.

This week, the Royal Academy of Engineering (RAE) produced a report highlighting the astonishing numbers of CCTV cameras in the country and warned how such 'Big Brother tactics' could eventually put lives at risk.

The RAE report warned any security system was 'vulnerable to abuse, including bribery of staff and computer hackers gaining access to it'. One of the report's authors, Professor Nigel Gilbert, claimed the numbers of CCTV cameras now being used is so vast that further installations should be stopped until the need for them is proven.

One fear is a nationwide standard for CCTV cameras which would make it possible for all information gathered by individual cameras to be shared - and accessed by anyone with the means to do so.

The RAE report follows a warning by the Government's Information Commissioner Richard Thomas that excessive use of CCTV and other information-gathering was 'creating a climate of suspicion'.

Bill O'Reilly's Version Of Truth

It's sad when Geraldo is the voice of reason in terms of free speach.

Iran Broadcasts British Sailor's Apology

The big question is, were these guy's set up to get caught by Iran?

AP: Gen. tried to warn Bush on Tillman

By SCOTT LINDLAW,
Associated Press Writer


SAN JOSE, Calif. - Just seven days after Pat Tillman's death, a top general warned there were strong indications that it was friendly fire and President Bush might embarrass himself if he said the NFL star-turned-soldier died in an ambush, according to a memo obtained by The Associated Press.

It was not until a month afterward that the Pentagon told the public and grieving family members the truth — that Tillman was mistakenly killed in Afghanistan by his comrades.

The memo reinforces suspicions that the Pentagon was more concerned with sparing officials from embarrassment than with leveling with Tillman's family.

In a memo sent to a four-star general a week after Tillman's April 22, 2004, death, then-Maj. Gen. Stanley McChrystal warned that it was "highly possible" the Army Ranger was killed by friendly fire. McChrystal made it clear his warning should be conveyed to the president.

Entire Article:
Click Here

Neo-Con: 'Execute Rosie For Questioning the Government'

Feverish MSNBC guest calls for death penalty to stop free speech.
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Friday, March 30, 2007

Frothing bloodthirsty Neo-Con TV talking heads have crossed the line in their response to Rosie O'Donnell's comments on The View, with one MSNBC guest calling for O'Donnell to be executed for questioning the U.S. government.

Maniacal Neo-Con attack dogs cannot debate Rosie O'Donnell on a level playing field about the issues she raises on her show and therefore always have to resort to ad hominem name calling, demands that she be fired and as was broadcast last night, public calls for her to be hanged.

Actor and radio host Danny Bonaduce, appearing as a guest last night on MSNBC's Scarborough Country, hosted by former Republican Congressman Joe Scarborough, advocated the death penalty in response to Rosie O'Donnell's statements about the Iran hostage crisis and her questioning the official story behind 9/11.



"Personally I think at this point if anyone had a rope thick enough, I think that Rosie should be strung up for treason," states Bonaduce, claiming that O'Donnell is giving "aid and comfort to the enemy."

Bonaduce was quick to cry foul after claiming his own family had received death threats after he appeared in a You Tube video being asked about 9/11 conspiracies, but it seems he has no qualms about advocating the murder of Rosie O'Donnell.

Unlike Bonaduce and his ilk, we afford him the right to make his sick and disgraceful comments under the banner of the first amendment, but the nature of his warped rhetoric highlights perfectly the attitude of these festering Bush cheerleaders and their fundamentalist zeal to see anyone who questions the government hung from the highest rafter.

Because Bonaduce doesn't have the intellectual capacity nor the decorum to calmly refute Rosie with reasoning, logic and evidence, his only recourse is to impetuously demand she be killed.

Likewise, the Hannity's, Scarborough's and O'Reilly's of the world can only keep feeding their braindead audience the kool-aid by wrapping themselves in phony patriotism and calling O'Donnell un-American because she doesn't agree that U.S. troops should be fed into another meat grinder.
Death penalty for Rosie?

These mouthpieces have the nerve to demand O'Donnell apologize to troops in Iraq when it was their willful and unquestioning pimping of war propaganda fed to them by the Bush administration that helped get the troops into the disaster in the first place.

The remainder of their rebuttal consists of highlighting O'Donnell's weight, while repeating a string of childish insults to the glowing approval of their mindless desecrated American flag made in China waving drunken audience.

The other aspect to it is that they are panicking about their ratings dropping month after month and know that starting a feud with O'Donnell will temporarily bring back attention to their failing broadcast and briefly rejuvenate their stuttering careers.

Any rational minded person can look at what both sides are saying and come to a decision as to who is more likely telling the truth - an individual who presents evidence and asks questions in a detailed and calm manner, or a gaggle of attack dogs who hurl 3rd grade level insults and demand the individual be killed for questioning the status quo.

You decide.

O'Donnell 9/11 Rant Reaches 30 Million Viewers

Promises to feature physics professor on The View to discuss WTC collapse.

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, March 29, 2007


Rosie O'Donnell is certainly not backing away from her public stance about 9/11, and this morning on The View went on a 9 minute rant about the many questions surrounding the attack, reaching around 30 million viewers in the process.

This is the largest single exposure 9/11 truth has enjoyed to date and it represents a watershed moment in the quest to bring the truth to the masses.

Rosie O'Donnell is certainly not backing away from her public stance about 9/11, and this morning on The View went on a rant about the many questions surrounding the collapse of Building 7, reaching around 30 million viewers in the process.

This is the largest single exposure 9/11 truth has enjoyed to date and it represents a watershed moment in the quest to bring the truth to the masses.





O'Donnell and her co-panelists debate the situation concerning Iran's seizure of the British marines before O'Donnell states, "Historically, have governments ever faked incidents or incited incidents in order to get them into wars?"

The discussion then moves on to the level of trust one can place in the Bush administration before O'Donnell asks, "What do you have to do to get an impeachment in this country?"

The debate moves on to the "propaganda of the war on terror," with O'Donnell stating, "In America we are fed propaganda and if you want to know what's happening in the world go outside of the U.S. media because it's owned by four corporations, one of them is this one (ABC)."

"Go outside of the country to find out what's going on in our own country because it's frightening."

"I think Democracy is threatened in a way it hasn't been in 200 years and if America doesn't stand up we're in big trouble," says O'Donnell.

Neo-Con panelist Elizabeth Hasselbeck tries to make an argument that thinking Iraq was involved in 9/11 was justifiable at the time, before asking O'Donnell if she believed the U.S. government had anything to do with 9/11.

"No, but I do believe it's the first time in history that fire has melted steel - I do believe that it defies physics for the World Trade Center Building 7, which collapsed in on itself, it is impossible for a building to fall the way it fell without explosives being involved - World Trade Center 7."

"One and two got hit by planes, 7 miraculously the first time in history, steel was melted by fire - it is physically impossible," states O'Donnell.

"I don't know but to say we don't know and it was imploded in a demolition is beyond ignorant, look at the films get a physics expert here from Yale, from Harvard, pick the school, it defies reason."

In a video blog posted on her website yesterday, O'Donnell promised to feature physics professors on The View to discuss the highly suspicious collapse of the WTC towers.

"The thing about World Trade Center 7 is that it was totally left out of the 9/11 Commission - that's weird," said O'Donnell.

"It's only the third time in history that fire has brought down a steel building, the other two times it happened was on the same day, World Trade Center One and World Trade Center Two - they both crumbled into dust and it was steel - very odd."

"I wanna have some physics professors on the show to explain if that is actually possible, that World Trade Center 7 could have imploded the way it did without being a controlled demolition - and if it was a controlled demolition why didn't they just tell people that in the 9/11 Commission Report?"

WTC Blueprints Leaked by Whistleblower

Unseen documents show official investigations used flawed construction details.

Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Wednesday, March 28, 2007

A whistleblower that was on a team working for Silverstein Group in 2002 has made public an extensive set of detailed architectural drawings of the World Trade Center, that prove beyond any doubt that the official reports into the collapse of the towers misrepresented their construction.

The documents were passed to physics Professor Steven Jones, formerly of Brigham Young University, who has done extensive research into the collapse of the buildings and contends that explosives were used to bring them down.

Little is known about the identity of the whistleblower at this point, however the blueprints provided consist of 261 drawings included detailed plans for the North Tower (WTC 1), the World Trade Center foundation and basement, and the TV mast on top of the North Tower.

Most of the drawings can be viewed here.

The blueprints, unlike those of any other publicly funded building, have been withheld from public view since the 9/11 attacks without explanation and were even unavailable for viewing by the team of engineers from the American Society of Civil Engineers, who were assembled to investigate the collapses by FEMA, until they had signed legal documents which bound them to secrecy and demanded that they never use the information against the buildings' owners as part of a lawsuit.

The website 911research.wtc7.net, one of the sites at the forefront of independent investigation into 9/11 for years now, states:

The detailed architectural drawings make clear what official reports have apparently attempted to hide: that the Twin Towers had massive core columns, and those columns ran most of the height of each Tower before transitioning to columns with smaller cross-sections.

Both of the government-sponsored engineering studies of the Twin Towers' "collapses" -- FEMA's and NIST's -- are highly misleading about the core structures. Neither Report discloses dimensions for core columns -- dimensions that are clearly evident in the architectural drawings. Both Reports use a variety of techniques seemingly designed to minimize the strength of the cores or to conceal their structural role entirely.

FEMA, in its explanation of the collapses, stated:

As the floors collapsed, this left tall freestanding portions of the exterior wall and possibly central core columns. As the unsupported height of these freestanding exterior wall elements increased, they buckled at the bolted column splice connections, and also collapsed.

The blueprints show that FEMA's report was inaccurate in stating that core columns were "freestanding" when in fact large horizontal beams cross-connected the core columns in a three-dimensional matrix of steel.

The NIST report into the collapses has also been proven inaccurate by the blueprints as it has implied that the only the corner columns were "massive" and that the core columns decreased in size in the higher stories when, in fact, the sixteen columns on the long faces of the cores shared the same dimensions for most of each Tower's height.

These omitted and distorted facts serve to render the official reports extremely questionable. It seems that facts were being tweaked in order to get closer to an explanation for the collapses. Even then the reports both failed to provide adequate explanations of why the buildings fell.

The buildings more or less fell into their own footprints, which is something that normally takes weeks of expert planning when a building is intentionally demolished and there are only a few companies on the planet that can do it.

Within each trade tower there were 47 steel columns at the core and 240 perimeter steel beams. 287 steel-columns in total. According to the official story, random spread out fires on different floors caused all these columns to totally collapse at the same time and at a free fall speed, with no resistance from undamaged parts of the structure.


Professor Steven Jones points out that the total annihilation of the building, core columns and all, defies the laws of physics unless it was artificially exploded:


"Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum – one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors – and intact steel support columns – the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. If the central support columns remained standing, then the effective resistive mass would be less, but this is not the case – somehow the enormous support columns failed/disintegrated along with the falling floor pans."



Below is an examination of the official reports in more detail.



The Official Explanation of the collapses of the Trade Towers and Building 7

The official explanation says that the towers collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. The report put out by FEMA said: “The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building".
And building 7's collapse according to FEMA was also due to fire, however FEMA could not give specific details:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse [“official theory”] remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis [fire/damage-caused collapse] has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."
FEMA is not an investigative agency, but it was entrusted with the sole responsibility for investigating the collapses. It began to coordinate the destruction of the evidence almost immediately. The structural steel was quickly removed and loaded on ships for transport to blast furnaces in India and China. Meanwhile, FEMA's investigation of the collapses consisted of assembling a group of volunteer investigators from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), dubbed the Building Performance Assessment Team (BPAT). The group was headed by W. Gene Corley, a structural engineer from Chicago who led the investigation of the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
FEMA's investigation of one of the worst and most pivotal events in history was farcical:
No independent investigation was funded: FEMA allocated $600,000 for the BPAT's study, which included the cost of printing their report.
Except for an early "tourist trip", The BPAT volunteers were barred from Ground Zero.
They did not see a single piece of steel until almost a month after the disaster.
They had to guess the original locations of the few pieces of steel they saw.
They collected 150 pieces of steel for further study (out of millions of pieces).
Their report, which called for "further investigation and analysis", was published after Ground Zero had been scrubbed.
A key facet of the FEMA report on the towers' collapse was the pancaking floors theory, whereby each floor successively gave way due to buckled columns and the weight from above. This theory has since been roundly dismissed as it totally ignores the fact that the building's central core columns even existed and also ignores the toppling effect witnessed during the collapse of the South Tower and the explosive pulverizing of all materials into fine powder.
NIST's Investigation
It was not until long after the Ground Zero clean-up was completed that an investigation with a multi-million dollar budget began: NIST's 'Federal Building and Fire Safety Investigation' was funded with an initial budget of $16 million.
Where as the FEMA investigation in understanding the Collapse of the World Trade Center could be chalked up as a farce, the NIST's investigation cannot. NIST's results strongly indicate a cover-up. NIST's Final Report on the Twin Towers shows that:
NIST avoids describing, let alone explaining, the "collapse" of each Tower after they were "poised for collapse." Thus, NIST avoids answering the question their investigation was tasked with answering: how did the Towers collapse?
NIST describes the Twin Towers without reference to the engineering history of steel-framed buildings, and separates its analysis of WTC Building 7 into a separate report. By treating them in isolation, NIST hides just how anomalous the alleged collapses of the buildings are.
NIST avoids disclosing the evidence sulfidation documented in Appendix C of the FEMA's Building Performance Study.This unexplained phenomenon was described by the New York Times as "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation."
NIST has refused to publish the computer models that its report imply show how the fires in the Towers led to "collapse initiation".
The report explains the collapse of both towers with the following sentence:
"The change in potential energy due to downward movement of building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could have been absorbed by the structure. Global collapse then ensued."
So NIST promulgates a theory of "progressive collapse" - ie once the top started coming down, the whole lot came down with it, even the undamaged sections of the building.


NIST admits that it didn't even attempt to model the undamaged portions of the building and only modeled a portion of each tower in any detail -- its "global floor model" which consisted of "several stories below the impact area to the top of the structure." Thus the structurally intact floors 1-91 of WTC 1 and floors 1-77 of WTC 2 were excluded from the so called "global" models of the towers. NIST provides no evidence that its model even predicted "collapse initiation".
The excellent research website http://www.911review.com/, which everyone should visit, succinctly sums up the cover up perpetrated by the NIST report:
In summary: The reports by NIST say nothing about how -- and if! -- the collapse was able to progress through dozens and dozens of structurally intact floors without being stopped. If no external energy was available e.g. in the form of explosives, this would have been the opportunity to show that no such energy was needed. On the other hand, if some unaccounted-for energy broke the supporting structures enabling the collapse to progress with the speed it did, there would have been many good reasons not to try to model the impossible, ie. a purely gravitation-driven collapse. Stopping the analysis early enough also saves NIST from trying to explain the symmetrically of the collapses (despite non-symmetrical impact damage and fires), the almost complete pulverization of non-metallic materials as well as the extremely hot spots in the rubble. These remain as inexplicable by the official story as they have ever been.
Despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, and despite the fact that they published models of the plane impacts, NIST has refused to publish visual simulations from its computer models of the collapses.
In an even more startling admission in its own report, NIST reveals that it "adjusted the input" of variables in tests beyond the visual evidence of what actually happened in order to save its own hypothesis:
"The more severe case (which became Case B for WTC 1 and Case D for WTC 2) was used for the global analysis of each tower. Complete sets of simulations were then performed for Cases B and D. To the extent that the simulations deviated from the photographic evidence or eyewitness reports [e.g., complete collapse occurred], the investigators adjusted the input, but only within the range of physical reality. Thus, for instance,…the pulling forces on the perimeter columns by the sagging floors were adjusted..." (NIST, 2005, p. 142)
NIST simply "discarded" realistic tests based on the empirical data because they did not cause the buildings to collapse.

If this is not indicative of a cover up then what is? The investigation is the wrong way round, NIST has already decided what happened and is manufacturing data to prove it!

Startust Casino Demolition

I want to know why so much time and money was spent gutting the building and lacing it with explosives? Everyone knows that all you have to do is use some jet fuel and the sucker will come down without a hitch.

WTC7 The Smoking Gun Of 9/11

WTC7 The Smoking Gun of 9/11 (updated)
Uploaded by 11septembervideos

Recruiting kids on the paintball field

By Andrew Romano
Newsweek
March 19, 2007 issue

- Sgt. Cory Elder smiled as he surveyed the field of battle. There were soldiers everywhere—300 camouflaged combatants gripping machine guns and barking into walkie-talkies. There were smoke grenades. There were Humvees. There was even an airplane. But despite all the accoutrements, this was hardly Fallujah, and these troops—in Coram, N.Y., last Sunday to play a paintball game called Behind Enemy Lines—were only weekend warriors. For now, that is. Hoping to convert today's wanna-bes into tomorrow's cadets, Elder, an Army recruiter, had stocked an "Army of One" tent with key chains, coffee mugs, footballs, baseball caps, T shirts and customized dog tags. Soon, a bunch of teenage boys were grasping for the prizes—and giving recruiters their names, numbers and e-mails in return. "This is our target audience," says Elder. "It's a perfect match."

This is some twisted brainwashing shit right here.

Halliburton Moving to Dubai

Well well well. Halliburton is moving it's headquarters to Dubai. How telling is that. How can people still not see what's going on?

Move along people. Nothing to see here. Just a company awarded no-bid contracts from our government that just so happend to be previously ran by Dick Cheney.

Your Papers Please

Just a Thought

I woke up this morning thinking about this. If you watch the answers from people who support this war, most of them agree that the war is for the "greater good". They would say the getting Saddam out of there and "liberating" the Iraqi people are what we are there for. Not to mention the WMD's.

So basically the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent people, the deaths of thousands our own soldiers and others from around the world, the wounding of tens of thousands of soldiers, the enormous amount of money that is being spent, is all worth it. Most who support this war want to send more U.S. soldiers there for godsake so they must believe it is being done for the "greater good".

But what if the people involved with pulling off 9/11 were told that it was for the same things? That we needed this event to happen in order to free the people of the Middle East. That it had to happen to get rid of Saddam. That they have WMD's that they want to use on us.

Wouldn't they have had the same mentality that the war supporters have?

The strange thing that comes from all of this is that the war supporters are the same kind of people who would be willing to allow 9/11 to happen. All for the "greater good" of course.

Eyewitness & Media Accounts Of Bombs At The WTC on 9/11.

Kill the Messenger

Sibel Edmonds is very brave indeed.