For example, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/09/20060915-2.html
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Tuesday, September 26, 2006
Take action -- click here to contact your local newspaper or congress people: REOPEN 9/11 INVESTIGATION
Allen L Roland is a practicing psychotherapist, author and lecturer who also shares a daily political and social commentary on his weblog and website allenroland.com He also guest hosts a monthly national radio show TRUTHTALK on Conscious talk radio www.conscioustalk.net
Monday, September 25, 2006
Houston Chronicle Article: Sept. 23, 2006, 8:23PM Oil crunch: U.S. Energy Department study concludes crude production will peak, requiring other energy forms Last September, a Chronicle editorial warned that global oil production would peak in this decade or the next, and then inexorably decline. Given that likelihood, the United States would have to embark on a crash program to develop alternative energy sources or endure crippling increases in the price of energy. Last week, a study performed for the U.S. Department of Energy concurred with the editorial's conclusions. The study, led by Robert Hirsch, warned that the world should be spending $1 trillion per year developing alternative energy sources — including tar sands, oil shale and gas liquefaction — to avoid having its economy crippled by oil shortages and the resulting chaos. The study recommends a 20-year lead time, so it might already be too late to prevent a crunch. The report said the timing was uncertain. Hirsch predicted peak oil production could come in five years, almost certainly by 2020. Actually, the world would not have to arrive at peak production in order to experience severe shortfalls in oil supplies. The aftermath of Hurricane Katrina showed what even a minor constriction in supply can do to drive prices skyward. Apart from natural disasters, wars, political unrest, government intervention, deteriorating equipment, accidents or any combination could interrupt the supply of oil. Demand for gasoline in the United States is dropping with the end of the summer vacation season. Consequently, prices also are dropping. But this trend is extremely temporary. Demand for oil in China, in India and throughout the developing world will continue to grow. Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson predicts that world demand for crude will increase 50 percent in a decade. Bloomburg News reported that the Energy Department study found that conventional oil production reached "soft and sudden" peaks in Texas in 1972, North America in 1985, Great Britain in 1999 and Norway in 2001. These dates were predicted by formulas used by proponents of the peak oil theory to predict the crest of global oil production. Perhaps the report's most serious conclusion is that the free market and private industry alone will not prevent economic catastrophe from energy shortages. Government must have a policy for managing the transition from conventional crude oil to other energy forms. Hirsch, a consultant and former government official overseeing research into solar and other renewable energy forms, said the conversion from oil could be compared to the race for the moon or the mobilization for World War II. Consumers, he said, could not rely on oil companies to get the huge job done. If oil company managers disagree, they need to demonstrate where all the oil is going to come from to meet rising demand, or propose their own plans for developing alternative sources. This article is: http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/editorial/4208727.html --
Sunday, September 24, 2006
9/11 TRUTH DVD's to be available to all comers at all times during LH business hours from Mon Oct 2nd. Also looking forward to reference library re Election Fraud and also the effects of corporate feudalism on energy resource fascism.
Further topics to follow? Hey--Make it happen ... with special thanks to FreeGeek for support in DVD hardware and software. If you have a worthwhile commuynity project that needs a LINUX/hardware/software jumpstart, FreeGeek wants to help out.
Monday, September 18, 2006
Saturday, September 16, 2006
Friday, September 15, 2006
"I beg your pardon. Apparently I made an error of fact in a recent column. It turns out, contrary to what I wrote that there never was a Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the United States. It wasn't hijacked airliners that brought down the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Nor did any airplane plow into the Pentagon. Nor did United Flight 93 come to earth in a field in Shanksville, PA. Rather this tragedy was staged by the U.S. government in order to dupe the nation into an oil war in the Middle East. Or at least, so I am told by a surprising plurality of readers. Add to that Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela and renowned loosed cannon, who said in a speech Tuesday the U.S. Government possibly had a hand in attacking itself on Sept. 11. Of course the U.S. government possibly doesn't even exist, that it and we and Chavez himself are only figments of the imagination of a little autistic boy staring into a snow globe. Possible, but not bloody likely. I don't propose to spend time debating whether Sept. unfolded as the official record says it did. If eywitness acounts ("I happened to look up and I saw this airplane not mor than 50 feet up coming right at us," Alan Wallace, a witness at the Pentagon, told the Washington Post), cockpit voice recordings ("Please, please don't hurt me", a voce on United Flight 93 pleads, ) cell-phone calls (passenger Thomas Burnett told his wife, "I know we're all going to die...I love you, honey" and common sense (if the planes wer not cashed, hat happened to them and their passengers?) are not enough to make the case, I can't imagine what would. No, I only bring this up because of what it says about our growing tendency to embrace separate but unequal facts en rout to separate but unequal truths. You might call it cynicysm, but cynicism is quaint and 20th century compaired to this new tendency to reflexively reject any facts provided by government or the dreaded mainstream media. Conspiracy thoerizing is not new -- ask Elvis next time you see him -- but what is new is that the Internet has broken the government/media monopoly on the dissemination and definition of news. While that's good in many ways, one troubling by product is this new notion that you cannot truly unerstand the great and terrible events of our time without access to some "factier" facts promugated by some Web site most of us never heard of, with an ideological slant that conveniently mirror's one's own. Granted, government lies sometimes and conspires somtimes, and media fail sometimes to be energetic watchdogs. So, certainly people have a right -- a duty --- to be skeptical of both. This, however, isn't skepticism. It's rote rejection, baby tossed out with the bath water. Once upon a time, we all drew from the same body of fact. We may have constructed different truths, but they were all based on commonly accepted facts. We all knew, for instance that the shuttle Challenger exploded in 1986. From that, we could debate what the tragedy meant, and we might or might not reach consensus. But as long as no on argued that it was really destroyed by aliens, we at least had the same frame of reference. No longer, as the question of whether there was really a terrorist attack Sept. 11 make abundantly clear. So honest debate becomes nearly impossible, and consensus even more so. I mean you may think a wall looks best in yellow, I may think it looks best in red. But if we can't agree on what yellow and red are, or what a wall is, we have no basis for even arguing about it. If you doubt that, ask yourself: When was the last time you had a political debate that was fruitful as opposed to merely loud? Don't feel bad. I can't remember one myself." Discuss. GR