F**K OFF, F**K OFF, F**K OFF and DIE Tony Blair

F**K OFF, F**K OFF, F**K OFF and DIE Tony Blair


Cartoon from The Guardian, the most respected Newspaper in England:




Bush and Blair's last official meeting:




Britain is the murder-lapdog of the USA:

Sunday Herald: British military intelligency
actually created loyalist murder gangs to operate as proxy assassins. They
even cleared areas in which the gangs were operating of police and army,
to allow them to carry out their hits and escape....

read more:
http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2007/02/in-england-mi5-extrajudicial-killings.html




There is no historic parallel that can be drawn, nothing compares with the
accomplishments of the Bush family. No dictator or tyrant can equal the
suffering and destruction they have wrought on humanity, as they are not
mere tyrants themselves, but the makers and breakers of tyrants, the
organizers and profiteers of war and death. They are not alone and solely
responsible for creating the present day military industrial complex,
however since 1915 the Bush family has been directly involved in World War
One and Two, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, numerous CIA secret wars,
the Gulf War, and now a "Never Ending War". The past four generations of
this one family have had a hand in promoting and profiting from most of
major wars that America has waged since the beginning of the ..

read more:

http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2007/06/bush-dynasty-of-death.html




The installation of a missile defense system in Eastern Europe
is, virtually, a declaration of war. Simply imagine how the US would react
if Russia or China or Iran or in fact any foreign power dared even to
think about placing a missile defense system at or near the borders of the
US, let alone carrying out such plans. In these unimaginable
circumstances, a violent US reaction would be not only almost certain but
also understandable for reasons that are simple and clear.

It is well known on all sides that missile defense is a first strike
weapon. Respected US military analysts describe missile defense as "not
simply a shield but an enabler of U.S. action." It "will facilitate the
more effective application of U.S. military power abroad." "By insulating
the homeland from reprisal, [missile defense] will underwrite the capacity
and willingness of the United States to `shape' the environment
elsewhere." "Missile defense isn't really meant to protect America. It's a
tool for global dominance." "Missile defense is about preserving America's
ability to wield power abroad. It's not about defense. It's about offense.
And that's exactly why we need it." All quotes, from respected liberal and
mainstream sources -- who favor developing the system and placing it at
the remote limits of US global dominance.

The logic is simple, and well understood. A functioning missile defense
system informs potential targets that "we will attack you as we please,
and you will not be able to retaliate, so you cannot deter us." The system
is being marketed to Europeans as a defense against Iranian missiles. Even
if Iran had nuclear weapons and long-range missiles,

read more:
http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2007/06/czech-polish-missile-attack-enabler.html

http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2007/06/chomsky-eliminate-nuclear-weapons.html

educate!
http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2007/05/must-watch-documentaries.html

Blair Bloody Hands in for Middle East

How can Blair possibly be given this job?

Here is a politician who has failed in everything
he has ever tried to do in the Middle East

by Robert Fisk June 27, 2007

I suppose that astonishment is not the word for it. Stupefaction comes to
mind. I simply could not believe my ears in Beirut when a phone call told
me that Lord Blair of Kut al-Amara was going to create "Palestine". I
checked the date - no, it was not 1 April - but I remain overwhelmed that
this vain, deceitful man, this proven liar, a trumped-up lawyer who has
the blood of thousands of Arab men, women and children on his hands is
really contemplating being "our" Middle East envoy.

Can this really be true? I had always assumed that Balfour, Sykes and
Picot were the epitome of Middle Eastern hubris. But Blair? That this
ex-prime minister, this man who took his country into the sands of Iraq,
should actually believe that he has a role in the region - he whose own
preposterous envoy, Lord Levy, made so many secret trips there to
absolutely no avail - is now going to sully his hands (and, I fear, our
lives) in the world's last colonial war is simply overwhelming.

Of course, he'll be in touch with Mahmoud Abbas, will try to marginalise
Hamas, will talk endlessly about "moderates"; and we'll have to listen to
him pontificating about morality, how he's absolutely and completely
confident that he's doing the right thing (and this, remember, is the same
man who postponed a ceasefire in Lebanon last year in order to share
George Bush's ridiculous hope of an Israeli victory over Hizbollah) in
bringing peace to the Middle East...

Not once - ever - has he apologised. Not once has he said he was sorry for
what he did in our name. Yet Lord Blair actually believes - in what must
be a record act of self-indulgence for a man who cooked up the fake
evidence of Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" - that he can do good in
the Middle East.

For here is a man who is totally discredited in the region - a politician
who has signally failed in everything he ever tried to do in the Middle
East - now believing that he is the right man to lead the Quartet to patch
up "Palestine".

In the hunt for quislings to do our bidding - ie accept even less of
Mandate Palestine than Arafat would stomach - I suppose Blair has his
uses. His unique blend of ruthlessness and dishonesty will no doubt go
down quite well with our local Arab dictators.

And I have a suspicion - always assuming this extraordinary story is not
untrue - that Blair will be able to tour around Damascus, even Tehran, in
his hunt for "peace", thus paving the way for an American exit strategy in
Iraq. But "Palestine"?

The Palestinians held elections - real, copper-bottomed ones, the
democratic variety - and Hamas won. But Blair will presumably not be able
to talk to Hamas. He'll need to talk only to Abbas's flunkies, to
negotiate with an administration described so accurately this week by my
old colleague Rami Khoury as a "government of the imagination".

The Americans are talking - and here I am quoting the State Department
spokesman, Sean McCormack - about an envoy who can work "with the
Palestinians in the Palestinian system" to develop institutions for a
"well-governed state". Oh yes, I can see how that would appeal to Lord
Blair. He likes well-governed states, lots of "terror laws", plenty of
security - though I'm still a bit puzzled about what the "Palestinian
system" is meant to be.

It was James Wolfensohn who was originally "our" Middle East envoy, a
former World Bank president who left in frustration because he could
neither reconstruct Gaza nor work with a "peace process" that was being
eroded with every new Jewish settlement and every Qassam rocket fired into
Israel. Does Blair think he can do better? What honeyed words will we hear?

I bet he doesn't mention the Israeli wall which is taking so much extra
land from the Palestinians. It will be a "security barrier" or a "fence"
(like the famous Berlin "fence" which was actually called a "security
barrier" by those generous East German Vopo cops of the time).

There will be appeals for restraint "on all sides", endless calls for
"moderation", none at all for justice (which is all the people of the
Middle East have been pleading for over the past 100 years).

And Israel likes Lord Blair. Indeed, Blair's slippery use of language is
likely to appeal to Ehud Olmert, whose government continues to take Arab
land for Jews and Jews only as he waits to discover a Palestinian with
whom he can "negotiate", Mahmoud Abbas now having the prestige of a rabbit
after his forces were crushed in Gaza.

Which of "Palestine"'s two prime ministers will Blair talk to? Why, the
one with a collar and tie, of course, who works for Mr Abbas, who will
demand more "security", tougher laws, less democracy.

I have never been able to figure out why the Middle East draws the
Balfours and the Sykeses and the Blairs into its maw. Once, our favourite
trouble-shooter was James Baker - who worked for George W's father until
the Israelis got tired of him - and before that we had a whole list of UN
Secretary Generals who visited the region, frowned and warned of serious
consequences if peace did not soon come.

I recall another man with Blair's pomposity, a certain Kurt Waldheim, who
- no longer the UN's boss - actually believed he could be an "envoy" for
peace in the Middle East, despite his little wartime career as an
intelligence officer for the Wehrmacht's Army Group "E".

His visits - especially to the late King Hussein - came to nothing, of
course. But Waldheim's ability to draw a curtain over his wartime past
does have one thing in common with Blair. For Waldheim steadfastly,
pointedly, repeatedly, refused to acknowledge - ever - that he had ever
done anything wrong. Now who does that remind you of?

MICHAEL MOORE (fair press)

Re; SiCKO, the new Mocie by Michael Moore

download the movie here:
http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2007/06/download-sicko-new-movie-by-michael.html

Here an example of a FAIR press article. Very very very rare in USA:

=== The Christian Science Monitor ===

from the June 18, 2007 edition -

http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0618/p15s02-cogn.html

Michael Moore refocuses healthcare debate

His latest film, 'Sicko,' may boost efforts for a national healthcare
system, an idea that still faces stiff resistance in Washington.

by David R. Francis | Columnist

Filmmaker Michael Moore is making headlines again. His new documentary,
"Sicko," promotes a national healthcare program like Canada's. The film,
due to open in theaters June 29, got a big boost when the US Treasury
Department sent Mr. Moore a letter acknowledging a probe into his trip
to Cuba to obtain medical treatment for three 9/11 rescue workers . and
film a segment for his movie.

An "appalling" form of harassment, declared Moore, saying his work as a
journalist is protected by the United States Constitution.

Advocates of a single-payer national healthcare system welcome Moore's
movie. With millions of viewers likely to see the film, it's
"unquestionably" helpful, says a spokesman for Physicians for a National
Health Program. PNHP, with a membership of 14,000 physicians, has been
campaigning for a national system for 20 years. But the prospects of
success for PNHP are not great yet, figures Henry Aaron, an economist at
the Brookings Institution in Washington.

One reason is the power of various medical industry lobbies. Americans
spend as much on healthcare today as the entire gross domestic product
of France and Spain combined, notes one economist. If health-related
costs continue to rise rapidly, spending could soon equal the entire GDP
(that is, the output of goods and services) of Germany.

The $2.1 trillion the US spends per year on healthcare creates "strong
interest groups," notes Mr. Aaron. These include a host of politically
powerful private health insurance companies and for-profit hospitals.

But a cofounder of PNHP, Steffie Woolhandler, a Harvard Medical School
associate professor, is more hopeful for radical reform . though not
under the Bush administration. That's because she sees a slow-motion
collapse of the present employer-based health insurance system.

Faced with globalization and severe competition from abroad, American
companies are moving to reduce their health insurance costs. They are
raising deductibles, requiring bigger copayments, and trimming the
medical services covered. As these trends hit the middle class, the
political result will be a "big storm," Dr. Woolhandler predicts.

As it is, the US devotes about twice as much to healthcare as a
proportion of GDP than do other rich nations with nationalized health
systems.

Economists at the federal Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services
said last February that, if current trends continue, $1 of every $5
spent in 2016 will go toward healthcare. Today, healthcare takes close
to $1 of every $6, or about 16 percent of GDP. "We must do something
large and serious and soon," says Alain Enthoven, a healthcare expert at
Stanford University in California.

If a Republican president is elected in 2008, reform will be "relatively
timorous," says Aaron, possibly involving deductions for health
insurance premiums on income and payroll taxes. Changes will probably
most benefit the well-to-do, he says, and not much will be done to cover
the 47 million Americans without health insurance.

If a Democrat is elected president, reform could be more ambitious. The
"implicit taboo" on a large-scale health plan that followed Hillary
Clinton's failed effort in 1993 is gone, says Aaron. But no Democratic
candidate is advocating a national health insurance plan, a move that
would substantially redistribute national income and impact strong
health-industry interest groups.

Aaron would like to see Washington help fund state measures to broaden
health insurance coverage, such as the plan in Massachusetts. In
California last week, Moore joined the Cali­fornia Nurses Association to
push for a statewide, single-payer healthcare system at a legislative
briefing and rally. But Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed a bill in 2005
that would have broadened coverage in the state in favor of working with
insurance companies.

So far, such Democratic presidential candidates as John Edwards and
Barack Obama are advocating plans that keep the private health insurance
industry intact. "Different flavors of the same plan," complains a PNHP
spokesman. Insurance companies would still strive to insure the healthy
and exclude the sick, he says, noting this process adds to
administrative and other overhead costs.

A study by Woolhandler and others published in 2003 calculated that, in
1999, health administration costs in the US amounted to at least $294
billion. That's $1,059 per capita, compared with $307 per capita in
Canada. By now, administrative costs are probably about $350 billion, a
sum big enough to provide insurance coverage for uninsured Americans,
reckons a PNHP spokesman.

Americans would like to have the federal government guarantee health
insurance to everyone, especially children, according to a recent New
York Times/CBS News poll. They say they'd be willing to pay as much as
$500 more in taxes a year and forgo future tax cuts to do so. But a
campaign against a national health insurance plan is already building.

Harry and Louise, the couple portrayed in TV ads by America's Health
Insurance Plans that helped kill Hillary Clinton's health plan, may yet
return.

Bloomington Pantagraph 911 discussions

http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2007/06/27/opinion/letters/126615.txt

"Normal" US citizens are divided about 9/11 crimes.

Many raising questions about events of Sept. 11 There are several organizations that are raising key questions about what really happened on Sept. 11 and are calling for a truly independent commission to investigate those questions. One is Patriots Question 911. This group is made up of military officiers, members of intelligence agencies, government officials, professors, 911 survivors, family members, first responders and media professionals. The U.S. military officers include Gen. Wesley Clark, retired; Maj. Gen. Albert Stubblebine, retired; Col. Ronald Ray, retired; Col. Robert Bowman, retired; Col. George Nelson, retired; Maj. Douglas Rokke, retired; Capt. Russ Wittenberg, Capt. Daniel Davis, Maj. Scott ritter and Maj. Erik Kleinsmith. Federal officials include two presidential candidates, Republican Congressman Ron Paul and Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich. Others in the group include: -- Norm Mineta, secretary of transportation from 2001 to 2006; Joseph Wilson, Morgan Reynolds and Daniel Elsberg. -- World Trade Center survivors William Rodriguez, who spoke in Peoria this past April; Philip Morelli and Marlene Cruz. -- Scientists and engineers such as William Rice and Steven Jones. -- First responders such as Deputy Fire Commissioner of the New York Fire Department Thomas Fitzpatrick and New York firefighter Joseph Montoperta. Another group is Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. It has a similar list of professional people willing to go on record with their questions and concerns. To learn more about these organization, do your own search or go to the Pantagraph Web site’s letters section where I will post some background information. Gregg Brown Bloomington

Reader comments on this story - 101 total Note: All views and opinions expressed in reader comments are solely those of the individual submitting the comment, and not those of the Pantagraph or its staff. I wonder wrote on Jun 27, 2007 2:23 PM: " I wonder if either: Bloomington/Normal has a lot of world class experts in skyscrapper construction (even though we do not have any in B/N) or just a bunch of people that have left the mother ship without their tin foil hats? " Firefighter wrote on Jun 27, 2007 2:00 PM: " You don’t need Jet fuel to heat metal to the point of failure, or even kerosene as stated before. Did you see the fire and amount of smoke on the TV the day the WTC was hit, there was fire and a lot of it. Anytime you have that much fire burning, impinging on exposed steel it will fail. Just ask the nine we just buried in SC. You can argue the other points all day long, but two planes hit the buildings, they burned and then failed. Ask any rookie firefighter and he’ll tell you once a fire burns uncontrolled for any length of time I don’t care what structure you’re in, something bad is going to happen. God Bless the 343. " Li'l Johnny wrote on Jun 27, 2007 1:07 PM: " OMG! OK, here is the real truth about 911: These buildings were actually attacked by Cloaked Romulan War birds. They used holographic projections to make their photon torpedoes look just like commercial airplanes. After hitting the twin towers they blasted building #7 on their way to get the Pentagon. At which point they retreated to Area 57 where they have been hiding in a secure area ever since Admiral Kirk chased them to Earth back in the 60s. Saddam was waiting for them with Champaign, then they partied for a while and then transported him back to one of his palaces. I’ll tell you what. This is as believable a scenario as what these absolutely Looney conspiracy buffs are proposing. What really cracks me up is the pseudo scientific and unsupported totally weird architectural ‘EXPERTS’, declaring their statements as absolute fact. What scares me the most though; is these people are voters! " moby wrote on Jun 27, 2007 12:06 PM: " Why talk about an old conspiracy when we could talk about the next? Type NSPD 51 into your search engines. " Most people wrote on Jun 27, 2007 11:58 AM: " Most people don’t know that the WTC Towers were designed to be structurally unaffected by a Boeing 707 plane crashing into it. Allegedly, a Boeing 767 crashed into it and the 767 is 35% more massive than a 707. But what is interesting is that the Tower that fell first was not hit by the entire 767, as much of its fuel burned up in the air outside the Tower in a massive fireball. So why did that Tower collapse in 50 minutes? " ConspiracyTheorist wrote on Jun 27, 2007 11:32 AM: " You can't have a pancake collapse in 10 seconds. The law of conservation of momentum is violated. Video shows the buildings collapsing at the same speed as beams falling through mid air. The towers and bldg 7 fell at the speed of gravity. Pancaking is ruled out. The steel used in the construction of the trade centers was tested at Underwriters Labs by heating it to 2000 F (no fireproofing) at which point it retained 95% of its original strength. Kerosene in an uncontrolled unvironment will not burn hotter than about 800 F. NIST's tests of the steel revealed that they were not subjected to temperatures greater than 650 F. The structural integrity of the floors below the crash was not compomised by impact nor weakened by fire. The beneficiaries of 911, aside from Silverstein, are Bush and Cheney and Saudi Arabia. Cheney's stock options in Halliburton have increased in value to the tune 3620%. " If the heat was so intense... wrote on Jun 27, 2007 11:13 AM: " ...then why were people seen standing in window areas, waving their arms seeking attention/help ? Obviously if the steel melted, these people should have melted as well. * Fact: Cheney ordered NORAD TO STAND DOWN!!! For the first time ever since the inception of NORAD, F-15's were not scrambeld for our defense. Please explain the logic to this as NYC, DC, & the Pentagon are the most protected air spaces in the world! Wake up those of you who doubt that this was an inside job, WAKE UP. DO the research! Quit feeding at the trough of mainstream media. And by the way, did you know that Bush & Cheney have declared themselves "above the law?" The dictators have arrived and they brag about it! Openly! My gawd...some of you people are so naive. " Disorderly Conductor wrote on Jun 27, 2007 11:11 AM: " They fell now their gone get over it. The government had it's hands dirty in my mind even if they never pulled the switch. The government empowered Bin Laden many years before this event and that makes our government just as responsible for those who actually flew the planes into the buildings. Babbling about this and that and posing questions that will never be answered is pointless and a waste of time. Get over it they are gone forever. " Another jarhead wrote on Jun 27, 2007 10:31 AM: " Although I suspect I'm to the left of Semper Fi, I have to agree with my brother Marine on this one: there's no way such a conspiracy could be successfully hidden. Nixon, a much shaper cookie than G.W.B., couldn't keep Watergate secret, and that involved much smaller numbers of "conspirators". I have no love for the current Bush administration, but I can't see this kind of thing coming out of there. It makes no sense. " Two things wrote on Jun 27, 2007 10:30 AM: " First, people ask how could the demolition be kept secret. Since it only takes about six weeks for a crew of about 20 men to set up the explosives to demolish a big building. This would means that 100 men could easily set up the explosives for the Towers. Did you know that during WWII 50,000 people worked on making the three atomic bombs that were made and nobody knew about it for over three years? So the government organizations can keep secrets. Second, I have Oklahoma City news footage from the day of the Oklahoma City bombing and the newscasters were announcing that two larger undetonated bombs had been found in the building. Why wasn’t this shown nationally? " Structural Engineer wrote on Jun 27, 2007 10:12 AM: " Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6, which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more. The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was omitted from the government’s 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse has yet to be investigated. Perhaps it is time for these and other unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 to be thoroughly investigated " Adam wrote on Jun 27, 2007 9:17 AM: " I'll be the first to admit I do not trust the Bush admin. I also can say that I don't totally buy into the idea of a massive conspiracy. However there are tons of questions surrounding the events. The fall of the buildings being my biggest question. Even the "explained" pancake theory proposed by the experts makes zero sense. The supports below are capable of holding the load of the above floors. You can make the arguement that the added weight of the plane pulled them down, but at some point the supports are simply going to handle the load and it would slide to one side. Any child who has played jenga knows that when you weaken a structure it never falls straight down, it goes to the sides. " Steel melting? wrote on Jun 27, 2007 9:16 AM: " We're worried about if the steel was melted? Hello? A 757 flew into the side of the building at 300-500 MPH. The steel pretty much was compromised the minute the jet flew into the building. The steel only needed further weakening to collapse on itself. Good lord you comspiracy nutjobs are clueless. " SEMPER FI wrote on Jun 27, 2007 9:04 AM: " Wow, can I have some Electric Kool-Aid and take a bong hit too. People that think the government did this are real kooks. Explain to me how this has been kept secret. It would take several hundred people several weeks to wire those buildings for demolition. I think people working there would notice strange things like that going on? What happened to the people that were on the hijacked flights? Did the government make them disappear? Oh by the way, remember what happened recently in California? A tanker truck blew up on a bridge, and the fire from the burning fuel caused the STEEL STRUCTURE to weaken enough that the roadway came down. A much smaller fire than what happened at the WTC Towers. Steel doesn't have to melt to fail. Get it up to around 1200 degrees F and it starts to weaken and lose strength. Catastrophic failure ensued. The fire proofing in the towers was compromised when the buildings were built, because the material was change from asbestos to another material. This other fire proofing had adhering problems. " 2+2=4 wrote on Jun 27, 2007 8:04 AM: " George Bush Sr. - Head of the CIA. After watergate - many powers of CIA taken away. George Bush Sr - elected President. Arms and trains Sadaam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden before they were "terrorists". George W. Bush Elected President. George W. Claims terrorists (Osama - put into power originally by George Bush Sr.) attacked WTC. After 911 - Former restrictions on CIA removed. You do the math. How about an apology and some accountability by the CIA and George Bush for training these whackos in the first place? Especially if they are blaming them for the attacks?? " Leland Lesher wrote on Jun 27, 2007 8:03 AM: " You all are too, TOO funny! " My God wrote on Jun 27, 2007 7:57 AM: " Most of you are so ignorant that you actually ridicule anyone challenging the "official" story that has been spoon fed to you. Lemming, all lemmings. The fact that you all believe everything coming out of Washington is really concerning to me. Do you believe everything, or only the 9\11 explanations? Even when faced with EXPERT testimony from structural engineeers, people hold on to their safe little beleifs that the USA is the "good guy" and can do no wrong. I guess that makes you great citizens, but stupid human beings. " It's about time!! wrote on Jun 27, 2007 7:47 AM: " The scariest thing to me is this: The conspirators in the 911 attacks (most likely members of our own government) have PROVEN that the American public will buy ANY story they come up with. They basically have free reign to do whatever they want, blame it on terrorists, and rally support for a new war in the future. We are way too gullible as a society. Ever hear of Pearl Harbor? Same thing, almost. We didnt orchestrate those attacks, but the goverment knew they were coming WELL in advance, didnty tell anyone, and let those American troops and civilians die to rally support for the war. Do any of you really think that the people running our government today are not capable of that same kind of sick manipulation, and worse? " Judy wrote on Jun 27, 2007 7:40 AM: " Did all of these buildings have the same construction? Steel would be more likely to melt than concrete, but concrete would not be good at withstanding earthquake tremors. " Old Conspiracy wrote on Jun 27, 2007 7:24 AM: " AFTer the Oklahoma City bombing. It was determined that Timothy McVeigh detonated the only bomb which all but destroyed the Murrah Building. However, during live morning broadcasts in Oklahoma City, on-air personalities were reporting multiple explosions as they occured. How could that have been? Also, how is no wreckage of a plane was found at the Pentagon after September 11? After TWA Flight 800 exploded over the Atlantic Ocean in 1996, how was it that almost the entire plane was recovered and put back together in an airport hanger, yet we can't find wreckage at the Pentagon, serial numbers of planes at the World Trade Center Towers? " Structural Engineer wrote on Jun 26, 2007 11:10 PM: " Controlled demolition of the World Trade Center is so politically unthinkable that the media not only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and “debunks” the message rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days for the president’s 9/11 Commission to start an “investigation” into a tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission’s investigation also didn’t include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the “unusual and unprecedented” manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed. The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from public view. However, instead of the Twin Towers , let’s consider this building now. Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on 9/11. This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on either side received relatively little structural damage and both continue in use today. " willaim To To Judy 9:33 wrote on Jun 26, 2007 10:33 PM: " That comment is uncalled for. " willaim wrote on Jun 26, 2007 10:31 PM: " This reminds me of the book "Chariots of the Gods" by Eric Von Daniken. Same wild theorys supported by so called experts. Give it a rest. " hmmh wrote on Jun 26, 2007 10:07 PM: " While reading this article and some of the replies it is easy to see why people like Hillary and Obama are popular. But it is funny that if someone says anything about them they refuse to believe it. I guess you call that selective thinking. And, if Bill Clinton had been president when the 2nd (he was president when the 1st happened but that wasn't questioned) attack occurred I bet he would just be getting praise. I guess you call that selective thinking too. Oh well it is almost time to elect a new president and they have to come up with all kinds of tales to gain support from the mindless Americans we seem to have. " Judy wrote on Jun 26, 2007 10:04 PM: " But if the heat was not that intense, how do you explain the ashes? I mean, they were really fine. " To Judy wrote on Jun 26, 2007 9:33 PM: " No, there was no intense heat. The thousands of gallons of jet fuel, fueling the fire wasn't really that intense. There's no way that it could have weakened steel enough that the hundreds of thousands of tons it was supporting could possible collapse. Are you stupid? " Judy wrote on Jun 26, 2007 8:34 PM: " Thank you so much for responding, but do you have a little more. I'm not real comfortable with credentials for Steven Jones, but that would be a common name and my research was very brief. " to Judy wrote on Jun 26, 2007 8:11 PM: " Intense heat can melt steel, but Professor Steven Jones has shown that there was no intense heat on any of the beams during 9/11. Check out his scientific paper that he presented to 60 of his peers who all agreed that the buildings couldn't have collapsed the way the government is saying. In fact, this is part of the point of Gregg Brown's letter that there is a group of architects and engineers who are saying we need an honest investigation because the buildings couldn't have collapsed the way our government is saying they did. " Judy wrote on Jun 26, 2007 7:56 PM: " I always thought the intense heat caused the metal beams to collapse. Is that not possible? " facts wrote on Jun 26, 2007 7:56 PM: " i am a well known conspiracy theorist author.i would like to thank all of my idiots.....oops i mean customers for making me a millions.hope to make much more soon.again thank you " to: who and why wrote on Jun 26, 2007 7:55 PM: " Not saying it was a conspiracy but it is negligent not to look at it more deeply. It is no secret that the neocons, as they stated, needed a cataclysmic event to be able to sell the invasion of Iraq to the public. Iraq was to be the first domino that fell, which would presumbably then fell the Syrian and Iranian governments. Iraq is a lunatic plan, so nothing would surpise me. " to many wrote on Jun 26, 2007 7:37 PM: " wow you must have found a new web page nuts.com.you need to wake up and learn " all the truth/ all the time wrote on Jun 26, 2007 7:19 PM: " Can't you see that at Pres. Bush's request the fox news people fabricated the entire incident for ratings. With the help of the chinese the original plans for the twin towers were stucturally altered because of cost overruns. This explains the ease at which they collapsed, and the quick clean up was needed because the news value for tv coverage would be short lived. Hugo Chavez has made offers for the property at a very reduced rate, with hopes of building a good will statue of himself. I am still puzzled, thinking Israel must have had a financial stake in this. If evil is allowed to flourish while we talk, we are at fault. You folks are having trouble sighting in the bad guys. " To Nettleton wrote on Jun 26, 2007 6:58 PM: " You would be a cheerleader for a wacky conspiracy theorist. It also makes sense you do not have the courage or the ambition to write a letter yourself. Your liberal comments Nettleton are really getting mundane, as are your political views. " to many wrote on Jun 26, 2007 5:49 PM: " Lucy, Mental Health, Debunking and others have not studied history. The Nazis came to power by burning down the German Congress building called the Reichstag. LBJ fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin incident to attack Vietnam and he also allowed the USS Liberty to be attacked by Israeli jets. During JFK's short term, his generals came up with a plan to fake a jet airliner crash and pin it on Castro while shooting a handful of US citizens. That was in 1962 and it was called Operation Northwoods. People striving for power have killed others during all historic times. Some of you are concerned about 2,500 Americans but don't think twice that we've ruined Iraq and caused thes deaths of hundreds of thousands of non-Americans. Most of you don't even know that over 5,000,000 people from the Congo have been violently killed during the past ten years just so wealthy countries can get hold of their resources. Wake up and learn. " Dawn wrote on Jun 26, 2007 5:47 PM: " The video DVD 911 mysteries says it all. I encourage anyone who has not seen it to log on and watch. Just google it and you will find it. Prepare to be confounded. " fact#15 wrote on Jun 26, 2007 5:28 PM: " you would have to be a nut to believe facts 1 thru 14 " to fact wrote on Jun 26, 2007 4:55 PM: " i have not seen a single fact in all of your facts.why don't you just tell us which wacky web site you are using,you could save yourself alot of typing " New Theory wrote on Jun 26, 2007 4:52 PM: " Fill in the blank...Why didn't Bush capture Bin Laden in Torah Torah? Because... " To Lucy wrote on Jun 26, 2007 4:51 PM: " Never under-estimate the power and greed of government. Any government. " Lucy wrote on Jun 26, 2007 4:40 PM: " To all of you who think this was a conspiracy, I think you are nuts. NUTS...The government does many things that we don't agree with, but what all of you (liberals) are saying is just plain hogwash. I just don't believe the US government would stoop so low to kill thousands of innocents in our own country. I am giving them the benefit of the doubt. I think our government does some pretty lousy things (like welfare for more than 2 illegitimate kids)...but killing innocents (to start a war) is not one of the things I believe they do! " To to:Mental Health? wrote on Jun 26, 2007 4:01 PM: " Think of the many more thousands who would die there and around the world, including the U.S. if we leave too soon. The Islamic terrorists are emboldened by any sign of weakness, and they have every intention to take over Iraq and the world. They are bent on their way or death for everyone. " Fact #14 wrote on Jun 26, 2007 3:48 PM: " In August of 2002, a $116 TRILLION lawsuit was brought against part of the Saudi royal family and the bin Laden group corporation by over 600 Americans who lost relatives in the 9/11 tragedy because it is believed that they allegedly bankrolled the Al Qaeda. Notice that these Americans do not blame Afghanistan or Iraq. Still the US government has removed troops from Saudi Arabia, the country where most of the alleged 19 terrorists were from and attacked a different country. What kind of logic is that? The press does not dwell on this. " for You wrote on Jun 26, 2007 3:45 PM: " Who are gullible enough to to believe the pancake theory, this would mean that to fell any buildiing all a demolishionist would have to do is destroy the support members for just ONE floor midway up a building. How come demolition companies never do it that way? Do you think it could be that they know it is just not possible? " to Mental Health wrote on Jun 26, 2007 3:14 PM: " There's an important lesson in your oversimplified generalization - namely that it is specifically our love for this country that pushes us forward in seeking the truth. And you can drop the Bush/Fox News soundbites dude, I've got a brain thanks :-) " to Matt wrote on Jun 26, 2007 2:56 PM: " It doesn't matter if it hit ten stories lower. Why did the fifty floors below the implact suddenly disintegrate? How could all the massive steel collumns suddenly no longer keep there incredible steel toughness? Why did they not put up any resistance to the falling floors above? " Fact #13 wrote on Jun 26, 2007 2:52 PM: " The plane that supposedly flew into the ground in Pennsylvania had debris spread over six miles. A plane flying at roughly 300 miles per hour when crashing onto soft earth will not have its parts rolling over a six mile diameter. This means that the plane must have been either blown up or shot down in the air and broke apart and rained upon the surrounding area. This would have explained the debris being spread over a six-mile area. The press did not dwell on this. " to Mental Health wrote on Jun 26, 2007 2:25 PM: " There's an important lesson in your oversimplified generalization - namely that it is specifically our love for this country that pushes us forward in seeking the truth. And you can drop the Bush/Fox News soundbites dude, I've got a brain thanks :-) " Matt wrote on Jun 26, 2007 2:15 PM: " Re: the second fact #9; The second building was hit far lower than the first, therefore the damaged area had far more weight on it. I've seen the video that spoon fed you your opinion, and it is laughable. They ignore way too many important facts to be taken seriously. " to: Mental Health wrote on Jun 26, 2007 2:06 PM: " Sorry that this whole thing isn't in black and white for you, as I know simple-minded Republicans generally have difficulty seeing the gray. Take a look a the facts, do some research on the subject, then draw a conclusion. And no, just because some of us may question the events of that day does not mean that we hate America. It is simple-minded people such as yourself who are ruining this great country and threatening the welfare of the entire world (see also: Bush Presidency).... " to:Mental Health? wrote on Jun 26, 2007 2:04 PM: " But the goverment does conspire to kill thousands of people with there pointless, which is a byproduct of the events of September 11th. Which if everyone doesn't know by now, Iraq had NOTHING to do with. Yet how many more thousands will die before we leave? " to Mental Health wrote on Jun 26, 2007 1:54 PM: " There's an important lesson in your oversimplified generalization - namely that it is specifically our love for this country that pushes us forward in seeking the truth. And you can drop the Bush/Fox News soundbites dude, I've got a brain thanks :-) " to Mental Health wrote on Jun 26, 2007 1:51 PM: " There's an important lesson in your oversimplified generalization - namely that it is specifically our love for this country that pushes us forward in seeking the truth. And you can drop the Bush/Fox News soundbites dude, I've got a brain thanks :-) " The minute... wrote on Jun 26, 2007 1:51 PM: " you mentioned Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich is when I really started to laugh. :) Great stuff, and to think I only thought the comics were funny in the paper. " to Mental Health wrote on Jun 26, 2007 1:50 PM: " There's an important lesson in your oversimplified generalization - namely that it is specifically our love for this country that pushes us forward in seeking the truth. And you can drop the Bush/Fox News soundbites dude, I've got a brain thanks :-) " Fact #11 and #12 wrote on Jun 26, 2007 1:42 PM: " There were firefighter tapes that had recorded that the fire commander stated they only needed two teams to put out the fires and later firemen stated that the fires were all out in one of the buildings. And yet not only did the two tall buildings collapse, but also the 47 story building 7, which had not been hit by the planes. In fact, PBS of all TV stations played a story with the current leasor of the WTC, Silverstein, said to "PULL the buildings!" which is standard demolition term for blowing up a building. #12 In Germany, Andreas Von Buelow, the former Minister of Defense, wrote a book. The translation of the title is “9/11 and the CIA.” It was a best seller in Europe. The premise is world fascism exists in the United States and a powerful military industrial complex engineered terror attacks to scare us into attacking other countries. In his words, 9/11 was an inside job. This is a very serious accusation. Why wasn't it covered in the press? " to Lucy wrote on Jun 26, 2007 1:38 PM: " It was a Fox News reporter. But I guess you're right in thinking that most news that you see is generated by nuts. So wake up and don't believe everything you hear. " questionseverything wrote on Jun 26, 2007 1:37 PM: " the max temp for a hydrocarbon fire w/o pressurization or pre heating is 1517 degrees f steel melts at 2750 degrees f the pantagraph reported "rivers of moltem metal" 4-5 weeks after the attacks the concrete was pulvorized these r physical facts that lead me to beleive something besides jet fuel was responible for the 3 steel frame buildings collapse " Debunking is correct wrote on Jun 26, 2007 1:34 PM: " The WTC was built different than any skyscraper before or after it. The damage to the fireproofing occurred when the building was struck by the plane. Fire was then able to impinge directly on steel building members causing them to fail. He was further correct in stating that the support of the building relied on the exterior structure elements, thus assisting the building with the straight down pancake collapse. Conspiracy or not, the WTC buildings were hit by plans and due to the amount of fuel and the building construction caused them to collapse the way they did. Never has there been so much photographic evidence of a building collapse, and there was no indication of “explosions” being set off on lower floors causing the building to fall the way it did. Who did it or why…debate all day. How is overly evident. " to Debunking Facts 1-4 wrote on Jun 26, 2007 1:27 PM: " you said "Instead of stacks of steel columns on the intereior, the entire support system for the towers where on the exterior. " This is WRONG. The main structural support for the WTC twin towers was a network of 47 central core columns running all the way from bedrock to the top of the buildings. Please get your facts right before attempting to debunk, otherwise you just look ignorant :-) " Mental Health? wrote on Jun 26, 2007 1:21 PM: " You conspiracy theorists are sad. You are so full of hate for your own country that you find it easy to believe that thousands in our govt could and would successfully conspire to kill thousands of American civilians. None of these conspirators have come forward (amazing), and in spite of many reputable studies, most recently Purdue University Engineering dept, showing how these buildings collapsed, you persist in your delusions. I've seen the web sites, and it's far from convincing. But never fear, there are millions of gullible, not so bright Americans who will gobble up your hate and lies. " to Debunking Facts 1-4 wrote on Jun 26, 2007 1:18 PM: " you said "Instead of stacks of steel columns on the intereior, the entire support system for the towers where on the exterior. " This is WRONG. The main structural support for the WTC twin towers was a network of 47 central core columns running all the way from bedrock to the top of the buildings. Please get your facts right before attempting to debunk, otherwise you just look ignorant :-) " Lucy wrote on Jun 26, 2007 1:15 PM: " To Fact #9.......How could the plane have no windows? What about all the people on that plane that had tickets...Don't you think they would have turned around and gotten off the plane? The guy that says the plane had no windows is just plain nuts! " Jon wrote on Jun 26, 2007 1:07 PM: " Anyone who dismisses alternative conspiracy theories without even looking at the arguments and evidence they put forward, is blinkered, prejudiced and unscientific. There are some features of the 9/11 building "collapses" which, if we believe the Government's conspiracy theory, actually defy the laws of physics. For those who don't believe, do your research first, look at the arguments from both sides, then come to a conclusion. Personally, I thought it was a wacky story until I looked into it closely. You need to do the kind of analysis that you ain't gonna find on Fox News. Peace " Jon wrote on Jun 26, 2007 1:01 PM: " Anyone who dismisses alternative conspiracy theories without even looking at the arguments and evidence they put forward, is blinkered, prejudiced and unscientific. There are some features of the 9/11 building "collapses" which, if we believe the Government's conspiracy theory, actually defy the laws of physics. For those who don't believe, do your research first, look at the arguments from both sides, then come to a conclusion. Personally, I thought it was a wacky story until I looked into it closely. You need to do the kind of analysis that you ain't gonna find on Fox News. Peace " Google search wrote on Jun 26, 2007 1:00 PM: " If you go to the Patriots Question 9/11 web site, you see that the page itself states that Patriots Question 9/11 "is not an organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website." It seems that the whole argument of this letter, that many reputable people are part of this "group" that is questioning the events 9/11 so we should question those events too, is based on false premises. I'm not saying you shouldn't make an argument on this subject, but you could at least come up with one based on cogent foundations. " Fact #9 wrote on Jun 26, 2007 12:41 PM: " Firemen in New York City are extremely angry at ex-Mayor Giuliani for hurrying their work at the World Trade Center and then for barring them from finishing their work. Never before had a modern steel-framed, high-rise building collapsed from a fire and all of a sudden three did within a few hours of each other (World Trade Center buildings 1, 2 and 7). If this had been really caused by a fire, then the firemen could have added immeasurably to their knowledge on how to make high-rises safer from fires by investigating the wreckage. But I guess Giuliani knew it was not a fire that had brought down the buildings and his job was to help cover up what really had occurred. What is especially remarkable about this is that the building that was hit second fell first even though most of the fuel from the airplane that hit it burned up in the air outside that building. I guess the laws of physics did not apply to that building. The press did not point this out. " Big_Skyy wrote on Jun 26, 2007 12:25 PM: " What an ingenious plan to flood the Pantagraph's website with activity: issue a cryptic, mysterious letter full of generalities that suggest a nefarious plot to take down America, and state "a lot of people have questions about what really happened." (Come to think of it, I have a lot of questions, too, though likely with a far different thrust than Gregg's). Then issue four "facts" all of which have been disproved or easily explained by Popular Mechanics magazine about four years ago. Consider my hat doffed. If I was a conspiracy nut, I would have to conclude the Pantagraph editorial board goes by the name of "Gregg Brown" and hatched this sinister plot to drive up revenue from hits on the website. But next consider this: Who is the real Gregg Brown and what has the Pantagraph done with him? " Fact #9 wrote on Jun 26, 2007 12:13 PM: " Immediate eyewitness testimony and even news reports contradict the official story. For instance, Mark Burnback, a FOX reporter referring to one of the planes that hit the WTC stated, “It definitely didn’t look like a commercial plane, I didn’t see any windows on the side. Again, it was not a normal flight that I’ve ever seen at an airport. It had a blue logo on the front, and it did not look like it belonged in the area.” CNN Jamie McIntyre reporter stated, “but from my close up inspection, there’s no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.” Many witnesses, including firemen and building maintenance workers like William Rodrieguez, stated they heard one or more explosions. " to Debunking wrote on Jun 26, 2007 12:01 PM: " You say "The WTC tower that fell not only was on fire, but had severe structural damages from the falling towers" That is illogical. How can a building cause itself structural damage. Have you debunked yourself? What exactly are you studying? Fox news? " Fact #8 wrote on Jun 26, 2007 11:54 AM: " The two most experienced airlines in the world, American Airlines and United Airlines, each had two hijackings at the same time starting within an hour of each other. This never happened before. The FAA has standard guidelines in place to handle planes that are not responding to communications let alone hijackings. In fact, these guidelines have been routinely put into action about once every ten days for years. However in this case, the air traffic controllers were slow to respond and notify the Air Force. In fact, the first jet interceptor was not launched until 75 minutes after the first hijacking. When they did, the Air Force only sent two planes out of 6,000 operational fighters. And these two planes flew at about 25% of their top speed. Perhaps, one reason they are slow is the fact that the Pentagon was conducting at least THREE major exercises that simulated terrorists crashing planes into buildings on September 11, 2001, and this would have caused considerable confusion. This reeks of something far out of the ordinary and, as usual, the press did not investigate this. " To Who & Why wrote on Jun 26, 2007 11:48 AM: " How about to put us at war, and to take away our rights? If we are at war Lots of people make lots of money. And just this May your President passed law that during an "emergecy event" he will be given absolute power to control the goverment, martial law here we come " Debunking facts 1-4 wrote on Jun 26, 2007 11:42 AM: " I've also have done research on these facts. The WTC tower that fell not only was on fire, but had severe structural damages from the falling towers as did other buildings in the vicinity. The fire was the result of a gas line explosion. Put all of those factors together and it's no mystery why the building fell. None of the buildings fell just because of fire. Tower 1 and 2 where built completely differently than the Empire State Buliding. Instead of stacks of steel columns on the intereior, the entire support system for the towers where on the exterior. When the planes exploded, the structural integrity of the entire buliding was affected. The plane that hit the empire building was not, as conspiracy theorists clame, a b-52 bomber, but rather a much smaller b-25. The damage was minimal compared to the 9/11 attacks. Only a small portion of the 78th floor was actually damaged. Look at the photographs. The bulidings where allowed to free fall on themselves since the support for the building was on the exterior. There was nothing stopping the interior to free fall. " to to Fact #2 wrote on Jun 26, 2007 11:37 AM: " You probably forgot, although they showed it on TV over one hundred times about the tower that was hit second. There was a massive burnoff of fuel outside the building with most of the fuel burning up in a few seconds in the air. Also the pancake theory has been discredited by even FEMA. " Fact #6 and #7 wrote on Jun 26, 2007 11:25 AM: " The passengers on the plane that allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania made several cell phone calls at altitude. This is highly unlikely, because cell phones have extreme problems passing thru the aluminum shell of a passenger plane and the switching software for cell-tower communications is not designed for cell phones moving quickly (300 to 500 mph) from one cell-tower to the next (at least not with 2001 cell phone technology). The caller will lose his connection. However, the technology was available to copy anyone’s voice and fool someone on a phone that they are talking to someone else. Yes, even their mother. #7. High level government officials in the FBI, CIA and other organizations stopped all serious investigations by any of their lower level employees who happened to stumble on parts of any activity that were related to 9/11 terrorism. (FBI memo’s ). Why would government officials be stopped from doing their job to protect the United States? " Krusty Krab wrote on Jun 26, 2007 11:21 AM: " Wow! "Facts 1,2,3 and 4" are the keys to the puzzle! They decidedly point to the location of Jimmy Hoffa, Kenndey's "other" assassin, and that dog gone elusive bogey man! " spoede wrote on Jun 26, 2007 11:19 AM: " Looks like Gregg has abandoned global warming and moved his orbit further out. " Wat Tyler wrote on Jun 26, 2007 11:18 AM: " Facts are strange things. Gregg got most of them wrong. From the top down, first of all, acceleration in earts gravity is 9.8 m/s/s. At what point was the building measured at just below freefall speed? This is a nonsense statement. The WTC weighed about 500,000 tons. It collapsed over 1000 feet. I'll bet that caused a seismic event recordable 21 miles away. Wouldn't you? Gregg conventiently doesn't provide his calculations, just baldly states it is impossible. Finally never has a modern skysraper been filled with 23,000 gallons of jet fuel, had a cross-ventalation path established and set on fire. Maybe that is why they didn't collapse when the furniture burned. " Paladin wrote on Jun 26, 2007 11:09 AM: " ...the fire-proofing of the bars at WTC was stripped away by the body of the airplane crashing into them. The impact stripped them, then they were compromised by the heat. Fairly simple logic. The B-24 that hit the Empire State Building didn't have anywhere near the fuel capacity of the jumbo jets, and the heat generated wasn't the equivalent of the heat at WTC. Each collapsing floor added to the force of the preceding floor, with force generated and focused in a multitude of directions at once (not just straight down). Think of multiple shaped charges, going off at once, sequentially (and increasing in power with each floor), to equate to the force generated. That would CERTAINLY be enough to cause the collapse that occurred. " Fact #5 wrote on Jun 26, 2007 11:08 AM: " Aircraft have many parts with unique serial numbers stamped on them. Whenever there is an airplane crash, investigators always find components with their identifying serial numbers. Of the four crashes on 9/11, not one piece of a plane with a serial number on it matching those of the four airliners was found. To not find any identifying parts is not only unusual, but it has never happened before in aviation history when investigators were able to examine the wreckage. Thus, since investigators have found no identifiable parts from the four commercial airliners that allegedly crashed into the towers, the Pentagon and Pennsylvania, we must conclude it is unknown what happened to those airliners. " Crybaby wrote on Jun 26, 2007 11:07 AM: " "Facts 1 & 2": Re: World Trade Center: sounds like mighty poor construction to me. " re: Lucy wrote on Jun 26, 2007 11:05 AM: " Lucy....you a wack job.... " Who & Why wrote on Jun 26, 2007 11:05 AM: " If 9/11 was a conspiracy then what was the purpose? Also who was behind it? It couldn't have been Bush because let's face it he's not smart enough to pour water out of a boot when the instructions are written on the sole. " to Fact #2 wrote on Jun 26, 2007 11:02 AM: " How about the "fact" that the army plane you mention held up to 1000 gallons of fuel and the jet that hit the twin towers held 23000 gallons of fuel? How about the fact that the jet that hit the towers had almost doube the wing span of your example? The "FACT" is there has been "NO" comparible crash in the history of flight. This plane was larger, full of fuel and going at a fast speed. You can come up with all of your "facts", but there are simply too many "truths" that outweigh your conspiracy theory. " Fact #3 and #4 wrote on Jun 26, 2007 10:40 AM: " Speed of fall. All of the WTC buildings fell only slightly slower than freefall speed. The laws of physics and the practice of structural engineering make this impossible. The tremendously strong steel columns below the impact points must give tremendous resistance to the fall of the floors above it. This is why demolition companies must place many explosive charges throughout the buildings that they demolish, because if they didn’t, the buildings wouldn’t fall straight down. #4. Seismologists at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory in Palisades, N.Y., 21 miles north of the World Trade Center, recorded strange seismic activity on Sept. 11 that has still not been explained. What they recorded was a spike of energy that happened just before each collapse that was much greater than any energy recorded from the debris of the falling buildings. Scientifically, this is not possible from a building that is collapsing from above. " Fact #2 wrote on Jun 26, 2007 10:10 AM: " Planes have flown into steel-framed buildings before and have not hurt their structural support at all. In fact, on Saturday at 9:49AM, July 28, 1945, a US bomber crashed into the Empire State building on the 79th floor setting it on fire. The elevators above the 60th floor were not operational and the firemen had to carry their heavy gear up 19 flights. The fire burned for over an hour before firemen could put it out. Mayor La Guardia also hurried to the scene and walked up the last 19 floors. When he reached the 79th floor he found that “a fiery furnace” was still raging there, but he remained until after the flames had been put out. (Sorry New York, but you were stuck with the courage-challenged Giuliani.) Before the day was out, engineers, architects and the city building department declared the building structurally sound. All you need to realize is that the structural soundness of the World Trade Center was several times better than that of the Empire State building. To repeat, until 9/11, no steel-frame high rise ever “collapsed” from an airplane crash or a fire. " Fact #1 wrote on Jun 26, 2007 9:47 AM: " Never has a steel-framed building ever collapsed from fire. There have been several notable fires in other skyscrapers lasting hours and they never endangered the structural integrity of those buildings. Four famous high-rise fires that you can look up in newspapers are: 1) August 5, 1970, a 50 story building in New York City burned for 6 hours, 2) May 4, 1980, a 62 story building in Los Angeles burned for 3 hours, 3) February 23, 1991, a 38 story building in Philadelphia burned for 19 hours, and 4) October 17, 2004, a 56 story building in Caracas, Venezuela burned for 17 hours. None of these buildings collapsed and none of their steel-frames were compromised. And the WTC tower that collapsed first burned slowly for 50 minutes. " garand wrote on Jun 26, 2007 9:46 AM: " there is a guy on ebay that sells tin foil hats if you can't make your own.... " nettleton wrote on Jun 26, 2007 9:21 AM: " D'oh! Meant Executive Branch. " Overwhelming evidence wrote on Jun 26, 2007 9:04 AM: " Hey Sheeple, wake up. Look at the evidence, decide for yourself, use critical thinking don't let the media and government feed you what they want you to believe. As far as the Popular Mechanics debunking of a conspiracy, Popular Mechanics is owned by the Herst Corporation, does that tell you anything. Thanks Greg. " Let me guess... wrote on Jun 26, 2007 8:58 AM: " The second plane came from the grassy knoll........ " an open society wrote on Jun 26, 2007 8:50 AM: " In an open society such as ours "things happen." Just recently, due to bureaucratic foul-ups at multiple levels, the fellow with a highly dangerous form of tuberculosis was allowed to travel overseas. Was this a terrorist conspiracy? Democracy in a country as large as ours moves too slowly to fix gaps in its security. And when someone like Bush does make a few changes (to personal freedoms) that affect practically none of us, you have the whole liberal community up in arms. You can't have it both ways. " Lucy wrote on Jun 26, 2007 8:48 AM: " Do they all meet with Oliver Stone and Michael Moore? The entire truth is we (the government...especially, Bill Clinton) let them get away with terrorist activities against the US for years with only a slap on the wrist. When they (the terrorists) did the biggie on 9/11 they thought we were still sleeping...but not on Dubya's watch! Go George! " Kennedy assassination all over again wrote on Jun 26, 2007 8:44 AM: " Yes, mistakes were made on 9/11, mainly in the area of letting terrorists get on the planes. But let's face it- the idea there was some huge conspiracy is far more ridiculous than the charge that Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy. Think of all the people involved in intentionally allowing GROUPS of men to get on FOUR planes. PREPOSTEROUS. Hundreds of people would be involved- in this society you couldn't keep more than 2-3 people quiet. We just screwed up, that's all. " Hold On wrote on Jun 26, 2007 8:19 AM: " Let me guess, we didn't land on the moon, Aliens did land at Roswell, and of course, the most hated president orchestrated the largest conspiracy to get the U.S. into war. Most say that Bush isn't smart enough to tie his own shoes, but he can do this type of conspiracy. Really, I am thinking that the U.S. is becoming dumber by the second. " Nettleton wrote on Jun 26, 2007 8:10 AM: " Thanks Greg for actually mentioning this subject in the open forum of this newspaper. I know that alot of people will laugh it off as conspiracy theory, but there are to many unanswered questions from that day. To many strange coincidence,s for my liking. Maybe one day we will get those answers, but don't hold your breath. When the Vice President claims his office isn't in the judical branch so he doesn't have to follow the law, i'm sure only history will ever answer these questions. " Your point? wrote on Jun 26, 2007 7:52 AM: " Not sure what you're getting at... unless you're just another bored conspiracy theorist. " Tony S wrote on Jun 26, 2007 7:13 AM: " These people getting together for a coffee clatch (sic)? What are the questions? " BN Cynic wrote on Jun 26, 2007 6:40 AM: " I'm not saying I necessarily believe the 9/11 truthers/conspiracy theorists, but the Bush Regime isn't exactly trustworthy either. Maybe we'll find out what happened in 50 years when things start to be declassified. " WW wrote on Jun 26, 2007 6:36 AM: " It is high time someone start looking into the truth of the entire affairs around the events of September 11th. We've been fed a bill of goods and like the good sheep we are, we believed it. It is time for a change. " Gregg Come on wrote on Jun 26, 2007 5:01 AM: " Conspiracy theorists really to tickle me. To think adults have nothing better to do with their time than to dream up wacky things about events in history. I find it odd that every person Gregg mentioned in his letter as far as sources go are liberals. Oh yes I said liberals as Ron Paul only has an R next to his name to get elected in his district. What a list of nobodys you provide as a basis for your theory Gregg. I honestly believe you people do have you hearts in the right place, however when it comes to trying to sell your ideas the majority of us are not buying them. I really wish seeminly intelligent people would steer their time and efforts into something a little less Sci-Fi and something tanglible to benefit fellow citizens. Oh and for the record Gregg, I am not waiting for Art Bell to come down with the mother ship. " u2r2h comments: Reading this discussion I feel like I life in the 51st state.. the state of denial. Welcome to the US of Amnesia .. or is it the US of Angst? Bush said: -- Let us never tolerate outragoues conspiracy theories -- .. about 911. How could they?! 911 an inside job -- is a credibility-holocaust for the media, courts, military, spooks and any honest citizen. Shoudl this be a heinous lie, now for almost 6 years, WE'D ALL BE COMPLICIT. There is no firing-squad that can give us satisfaction when we find out. But we are hardly alone... the creme de la creme of US intellects (Chomsky) have dismissed "Conspiracy theories" as whacko. Who could blame you? Well, you have to be gullible. Two towers, 4 airplanes, WTC7, pentagon, UA93, no defense, ALL THE EVIDENCE IS GONE, and 19 young 20 somethings suceeded an all fronts... but gained zip. ... .. (German accent:) Chomelunt sekuriti .... enacted while UNNOWN anthrax murders ... fear of saddams BIO-weapons ... but now we have strategic new air-bases near the OIL .. To me it is amazing they got you to believe it in the first place. As I a say: gullible! What will we swallow next, suck on what? My guess is that "they" have to be careful not do overdo it now.. there are many suspicious people.. But we are all such cowards. NOT A SINGLE PROSECUTION over 911 evidence tampering or negligence.. NOT ONE. wow. United States of Amnesia. But the fact we can be writing our thoughts internationally and uncensored... needs to be mentioned. Times are changing... and we need to inform .. google U2R2H for my efforts.. Please remember that the Germans were quite democratic, devided and educated in 1933. And everything Hitler did (on behalf of the corporations) .. was legal. Lee Illinois Regional Newspapers: Carbondale | Charleston-Mattoon | Decatur | DeKalb -- Pantagraph Publishing Co. and Lee Enterprises 301 W. Washington St., PO Box 2907, Bloomington, IL 61701-2907 | Ph. 309-829-9000 | 800-747-7323

COMMENT for "Forward Observer: Beware Iran Hawks"

Please publish my comment on your article

"Forward Observer: Beware Iran Hawks"
By George C. Wilson CongressDaily June 25, 2007

Name: Kerry Zwiebelberg
Email: u2r2h@gmx.net
Position: Business Travel Executive
City: based near Brisbane, Australia

Re: COMMENT for
http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0607/062507cdam1.htm

Iran Hawks?

How many bloodbaths has the USA "been getting wet in"? When you include
the covert "operations" there are too many to count.

And Iran?

The CIA denied Iran democracy (Mossadeq).

The USA ally Saddam Hussain started a horrendous slaughter between Iran
and Iraq, with US weaponry.

USA & Israel now are threatening an aggressive nuclear war against Iran?

Has Iran ever even threatened any neighbour?

Inform your readers about the proper translation of Ahmedinajad's
"anti-Israel" comments. It's not a even direct threat against Israel.

The threats of nuclear bombing by the hawks in the USA, however are hard
to mistranslate into any language.

Iran never threatened any country, right?

The american public is lead to believe that Iran is a covert threat and
the western world opposes Iran UNIFIED and OPENLY. Neither is true.

As you read this the USA Joint Chiefs of Staff are actively preparing for
bloodshed against MANY COUNTRIES via their elaborate covert SPACE WEAPONS
programme.

The installation of a missile defense system in Eastern Europe is,
virtually, a declaration of war.

Simply imagine how the US would react if Russia or China or Iran or in
fact any foreign power dared even to think about placing a missile defense
system at or near the borders of the US, let alone carrying out such
plans. In these unimaginable circumstances, a violent US reaction would be
not only almost certain but also understandable for reasons that are
simple and clear.

Missile defense is a first strike weapon. Respected US military analysts
describe missile defense as "not simply a shield but an enabler of U.S.
action."

A functioning missile defense system informs potential targets that "we
will attack you as we please, and you will not be able to retaliate, so
you cannot deter us." The system is being marketed to Europeans as a
defense against Iranian missiles. Even if Iran had nuclear weapons and
long-range missiles, the chances of its using them to attack Europe are
lower than the chances of Europe being hit by an asteroid, so if defense
is the reason, Czech Republic should be installing a system to defend the
country from asteroids.

We should better fix our health system.

Download Moore's new film SiCKO

http://u2r2h.blogspot.com/2007/06/download-sicko-new-movie-by-michael.html

No amount of weapons will secure Americans, however much profit they
generate for our elites.

Ordinary Fascism

Obyknovennyy fashizm (1965) German dubbed version: Der.gewoehnliche.Faschismus DOWNLOAD DEUTSCH VERSION: http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3726673 Ordinary Fascism Obyknovennyj fašizm Michail Romm | USSR | 1965 | 122 min. a fascinating documentary on Nazism by Soviet film maker Mikhail Romm. brother sister murdered minutes later. Undemocratic, unelected corporations naturally are inclined to aggressive wars, as the most profitable "enterprise" under the cover of the corrupted state. THe Germans learnt their lesson and the pro-business conservative party stated in their election-program of 1947 that all large industries need to be socialized. Logical, because they did cause the holocaust, factually. As with all very large industries -- since they effect the society directly they must be directed by society. In capitalism, ownership is the logical way to set their direction. In practical terms full employment and efficiency is inherent in socialisation. for example health-insurance works best if the load of sickness is borne by the widest mass of shoulders. Your premiums go down, because you don't have to pay for ever more CEO and board pork and skyscrapers. Same with electricty, communication and water for example. Your rates don't have to pay for armies of lawyers and take-over battles. Q.E.D. Fascism means hunger and War Franz Josef Strauss Corrupt Capitalist West German politician Hitler fanatics, Hitlergruss shouting Sieg Hail - mass psychology in action Hitler's Niece and Mussolini's son in law (Does anyone know their names? please leave them in the comments!) Even the disabled had their arms lifted Woman waiting to be executed by Nazi war-criminals. US Marine training for the next USA bloodbath and murder A masterpiece of the collage technique in documentary film, Ordinary Fascism is made up solely of archival material from such sources as Nazi propaganda films, footage from the concentration camps, and images of daily life in both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in the 1960s. By association, the film seeks to expose and understand all forms of fascist, totalitarian ideologies. The brilliant commentary to the film, written by the director, though it starts off sarcastically, expands to become a personal memoir and testimony of the struggle of one man to understand the crimes of the 20th century. The film’s success also revived the use of the collage technique and remains one of the finest examples of this art form today. GERMAN dubbed 2 VCD mpg version of ORDINARY FASCISM by Mikhail Romm 1965 black and white German NAZI crimes, valuable World War II history lesson, fantastic archive footage!! Original title OBYKNOVENNYI FASHIZM (Obyknowenny Faschism) Mosfilm, 1964 Script: Mikhail Romm, (Michail Romm) Maja Turovskaia (Turowskaja) , Iu. Khaniutin (Juri Chanjutin) Director: Mikhail Romm, Camera: G. Lavrov (Kamera: German Lawrow), cut: Walentina Kulagina, Music: (Alemdar Karamanow) E. Khachaturian, (Deutsche Fassung Heinz Baldin, Ernst Dahle, Martin Floerchinger, Wolfgang Franke, Renate Georgi, Erika Hinz, Joachim Hopfer - DeFa Studio fuer Synchronisation) A tremendously hard-hitting compilation film on Fascism in Germany and its effects both in Germany and on the world, intercut with cruelest violence and shots of Muscovites in 1964 going on with their normal lives. The film is also interesting because it shows the range of materials available in Soviet archives. Romm viewed 2 mio metres of footage and spent over two years in over twenty different archives in the countries in the Soviet sphere, and much of his footage is unknown to western audiences. The film contains some striking (rare western-suppressed) footage of Socialist and Communist marches in pre-Hitler Germany, as well as London, Paris and New York in the twenties and thirties. It has one shot of [b]Heinrich Himmler kissing Alfred Krupp[/b] on the cheek that shows how corporations love fascism. The similarity between the USA Marine Corps and the NAZi Waffen SS is also not overlooked. good GERMAN INFO here a german DVD is available: from AMAZON.DE Since the invention of Film-making there have been a dozen countries that do no longer exist or had their flags changed. I think this film should bear the flag of the USSR. The film-makers were not only from Russia, nor would they have wanted to be. On Emule there is a GERMAN dubbed 2 VCD mpg version of ORDINARY FASCISM by Mikhail Romm 1965 black and white http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059529/ MPG FORMAT (1152kbit video 352x288 - 224kbit stereo audio) Original Filename (from Emule): UdSSR.-.Der.gewoehnliche.Faschismus.-.VCD1.MPG - 768,135,452 bytes 1hr 13min 27sec and UdSSR.-.Der.gewoehnliche.Faschismus.-.VCD2.MPG - 560,890,428 bytes 53min 37sec DOWNLOAD DEUTSCH VERSION: "Der gewohnliche Fashismus" http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3726673 nur 180mB fur 2 stunde Film! Der gewöhnliche Faschismus (russischer Originaltitel Обыкновенный фашизм; Obyknowenny Faschism) ist ein sowjetischer Dokumentar- und Propagandafilm des Regisseurs Michail Romm aus dem Jahre 1965. Romm geht in sechzehn Kapiteln der Frage nach, wie es zum Massenwahn Faschismus kam bzw. kommt und was den Menschen dazu bringt, zum Mörder zu werden. Bereits der Einstieg deutet eine besondere Herangehensweise Romms an das Sujet des Faschismus an und zeigt zunächst eine lose Abfolge von Kinderzeichnungen; einen fröhlichen Kater, einen hungrigen Kater, einen listigen Kater, einen traurigen Löwe, einen Bären. Es folgen Aufnahmen von Eltern und ihren Kindern und Studenten in Warschau, Moskau und Berlin. Der artikulierte Gedanke dieser Bilder: „Jeder sieht die Welt ein bisschen anders, aber jeder ist Mensch.“[1] Die Idylle wird abrupt durch einen Schuss unterbrochen und eine Fotografie wird eingeblendet, auf der ein Wehrmachtsoldat eine Frau erschießt, die ihr Kind in den Armen hält. Die Kamera geht zurück auf ein Kind das traurig in die Kamera blickt, es steht symbolisch für die Frage, was einen Menschen so grausam werden lässt. Diese durchzieht den ganzen Film und es wird anhand verschiedener Bilder, beispielsweise von Massenaufmärschen und Reden der Nazis und Faschisten, versucht, eine Antwort zu finden. Auch Ausschnitte aus Propagandafilmen der Nazis werden gezeigt, die vom Regisseur oft ironisch kommentiert werden. Am Ende des Films werden die „Faschisten“ der Zukunft gezeigt: trainierende amerikanische GIs. Romm wertete für seine Dokumentation Filmmaterial aus, das die Rote Armee nach dem Einmarsch in Deutschland sicher gestellt hat. Es entstammt größtenteils dem ehemaligen Reichsfilmarchiv und gelangte als Kriegsbeute in die Sowjetunion. Hinzu kamen weiteres Archivmaterial und teilweise auch Privataufnahmen; zusammen mit seinen Mitarbeitern sichtete er mehr als zwei Millionen belichtete Filmmeter. Um seine filmischen Botschaft zu vermitteln, wählte Michail Romm eine direkten Dialog; er wendet sich zu Beginn persönlich an die Zuschauer und der neben ihm sitzende Übersetzer lädt den Betrachter ein "mit [ihm] zu denken". Romm zeigt eine Vielzahl an Aufnahmen, unter Anderem Reden von Hitler und Mussolini. Hierbei geht es ihm allerdings weniger um die rhetorischen Fähigkeiten der Redner, sonden vielmehr um deren Verhalten und um ihre Gestik. So fallen bei Mussolini besonders dessen Mundbewegungen auf, die durch die lange Fokussierung und Romms Kommentar ins Lächerliche gezogen werden. Viele Bilder werden lakonisch kommentiert und verleihen dem Film stellenweise eine heitere Atmosphäre, beispielsweise wenn Hindenburg den Weg beim Abschreiten einer Formation nicht findet. Romms Spott spiegelt sich auch in einer der Kapitelüberschrifen wider, „Mein Kampf oder wie man Kalbsfelle bearbeitet“, in dem gezeigt wird, wie Gerber und Buchmacher eine besonders kostbare Ausgabe von Hitlers „Buch der Deutschen“ anfertigen. Auf solche ironischen Darstellungen folgen oft unvermittelt Szenen großer Grausamkeit, beispielsweise kommt zu Beginn nach der Darstellung einer Mutter mit ihrem Kind in friedlicher Atmosphäre die Darstellung eines Soldaten, der eine Mutter erschießt; nach einer ebenfalls kommentierten Szene, in der es um Rassenhygiene geht, folgen Bilder von Soldaten, die mit fröhlichem Gesichtsausdruck neben den Toten stehend fotografiert wurden. Das gestalterische Mittel des Kontrasts lässt erkennen, dass Michail Romm sein Metier bei Sergei Eisenstein gelernt hat. Er orientierte sich am Modell der sowjetischen Stummfilme, deren Ikone Eisenstein ist; harte Kontraste, Detailaufnahmen und übertriebene Darstellungen, wie sie z.B. in Panzerkreuzer Potemkin in Erscheinung treten, sind typisch für dessen Ästhetik und auch die von Der gewöhnliche Faschismus. Dass Der gewöhnliche Faschismus von der Parteiführung der KPdSU nicht verboten wurde, verdankte der Film Romms Einsatz selbst. Dieser hinterging die Verantwortlichen in Moskau und schickte den Film 1965 ohne Absprache an das VIII. Internationale Leipziger Festival für Dokumentar- und Animationsfilm, wo der Film großen Zuspruch erhielt und mit dem Spezialpreis der Jury ausgezeichnet wurde [2]. Nach seiner gefeierten Premiere durfte er allerdings nicht im Fernsehen gezeigt werden und war nurmehr einem ausgewählten Publikum zugänglich. Das Buch zum Film durfte ebenfalls nicht erscheinen - mit dem Kommentar des Zensors "Millionen [hätten] ihn (den Film) gesehen und Millionen [hätten] ihn vergessen."[2] Der Grund, weswegen die Parteiführung in Moskau den Film verbieten lassen wollte, lag in der Darstellungsart der Gewaltszenen. Diese Gewalt wurde zwar den Faschisten zugeschrieben, doch viele sowjetische Bürger haben Dinge, wie sie im Film gezeigt werden, ebenso erlebt, nämlich unter der Herrschaft Herrschaft Stalins. Von der Partei abweichende Meinungen waren im sowjetischen Sozialismus weder erwünscht noch wurden sie gebilligt. Der Film beinhaltet nicht nur eine Kritik am Faschismus, sondern am Totalitarismus an sich, sei dieser faschistischer oder kommunistischer Färbung, geleitet von der Frage "wie man sich verhält, wenn die Macht totalitär ist." Der Dokumentarfilm "Der gewöhnliche Faschismus" gilt als Meilenstein der Filmpublizistik. Der russische Regisseur Michail Romm versucht anhand von historischem Bildmaterial aus der Zeit des Nazi- Regimes am Phänomen des Faschismus das unmenschliche Antlitz sichtbar zu machen und den Mechanismus des Betruges an Millionen von Menschen aufzudecken. Er analysiert die Wurzeln des Faschismus und dessen verhängnisvollen Einfluss auf die menschliche Psyche. Sein bewusst eingesetzter, persönlicher Kommentar verleiht dem Angriff der Bilder auf Entstehung und Erscheinungsformen des Faschismus stärkeren Ausdruck. Mit Hilfe der zusätzlichen Worte unter Anwendung rhetorischer Mittel in seinem Kommentar werden die Zusammenhänge zwischen Bild und Kontext hervorgehoben und verdeutlicht, um andere Interpretationen auszuschließen. Romms Methode der filmischen Montage folgt der rhetorischen Figur der Ironie und ist Ansatz und Versuch zugleich, durch Aufdeckung und Zerstörung der Sehkonventionen des Zuschauers, die Geschehnisse des Zweiten Weltkrieges besser begreifbar zu machen. 128 Min., Dokumentation, 1965, s/w, ab 12 Jahren Regisseur: Michail Romm, Sprache: Deutsch "Zu einem Markstein in der Entwicklung der Filmpublizistik wurde »Der gewöhnliche Faschismus« von Michail Romm. Dieses anklagende, parteiliche Dokument stützt sich auf historische Filmmaterialien. Romm versucht, den Mechanismus des sozialen Betruges an Millionen von Menschen aufzudecken, die Wurzeln des Faschismus und dessen verhängnisvollen Einfluß auf die menschliche Psyche zu analysieren. Er erstellte eine Montage von Dokumentarfilm-Aufnahmen aus sowjetischen, deutschen und anderen Archiven." Quelle: Videoumschlag Kritik : "Der gewöhnliche Faschismus war und bleibt für mich der erste und einzige Film, der eine Antwort auf die gewiss sehr komplizierte Frage gab: Wie decken wir das "Geheimnis" auf, wie der deutsche Faschismus es fertigbrachte, in die Seele und in den Verstand von Millionen und Abermillionen Deutschen Eingang zu finden." (Konrad Wolf) "[...] Bemerkenswert durch den detailbesessenen und unbestechlichen Blick, der vor allem die alltäglichen und gewöhnlichen Aspekte der Barbarei enthüllt; revolutionär durch den subjektiven, essayistischen Kommentar, der auf voreilige Erklärungen verzichtet und zum Mitdenken und -fühlen auffordert. Ein Klassiker des analytisch-didaktischen Dokumentarfilms." (Lexikon des internationalen Films) "Nicht wegen bisher unbekannter Filmstreifen und Fotos ist dieser Film sehenswert, sondern weil hier ein Mann, der etwas mitzuteilen hat, dem aufmerksamen Zuhörer vielleicht helfen kann, zu begreifen und sicherer als bisher totalitäre Formen aller Art, auch schon in ihren Anfängen, zu erkennen; er könnte auch von der Notwendigkeit überzeugen, diejenigen Politiker im eigenen Land argwöhnisch zu verfolgen, denen nationale Phrasen zu leicht über die Lippen gehen und die auf internationale Verständigung wenig Wert legen - Dieser Film von Michail Romm sollte in unseren Schulen Gegenstand des staatsbürgerlichen Unterrichts sein." (film-dienst) "Besonderheiten und Probleme des Films - Der Film zeigt nicht den historischen Verlauf der Entwicklung des Nationalsozialismus', des 'Dritten Reichs'. - Die Film-Dokumente ,dokumentieren nicht historisches Geschehen, sie werfen in der Montage Fragen auf, provozieren dauernd Reaktionen der Zuschauer. - Der Film hat 'Unterhaltungswert', doch verhindert Romms Methode eine reine Konsumhaltung: der Zuschauer muß denkend die Teile mit zusammensetzen, Beziehungen herstellen. - Romm macht lächerlich, verzerrt; Erscheinungsweisen des Faschismus' werden so 'zur Kenntlichkeit entstellt' (Ernst Bloch). - Der Kommentar ist kein objektiver Bericht, sondern er ist entstanden aus Gedanken, Meinungen und spontanen Reaktionen des Regisseurs auf das Filmmaterial (im Original spricht Michail Romm den Kommentar selbst). - Der Film hat empfindliche Lücken: Er erweckt den Eindruck, als habe der 2. Weltkrieg nur an der 'Ostfront' stattgefunden. Die russischen Soldaten werden idealisiert. Es fehlen wichtige gesellschaftliche und politische Faktoren, wie: der Vertrag von Versaille, Inflation, Massenarbeitslosigkeit und Wirtschaftskrise, der Stalin-Ribbentrop-Pakt, die Bekämpfung der sog. 'entarteten Kunst'. Das Proletariat wird idealisiert." (Benner, Wolfgang: Begleitheft : Der gewöhnliche Faschismus. Die Analyse eines Massenphänomens / [Wolfgang Benner]. Hrsg. von atlas film + av. - [Duisburg] : atlas film + av, 1986. - S. 10) Einleitende Worte von Eugen Kogon zum Film: " Zwar spricht der Film, meine Damen und Herren, den Sie jetzt sehen werden, für sich selbst. Trotzdem sind einige Worte der Einleitung nützlich, ja notwendig. Geschichte in Bilddokumenten wiederzugeben, ist höchst reizvoll, jedoch auch gefährlich. Kameraaufnahmen haben - wer wüßte es nicht - ihre eigene Aussagekraft. Ehe man sich's versieht, ist Propaganda aus ihnen geworden. Wir wollen aber, besonders, wenn es sich um Vorgänge handelt, an denen wir beteiligt waren, objektiv unterrichtet werden, nicht willkürlich. Es hängt viel vom Archivmaterial ab, das zur Verfügung steht und von der Art der Zeugnisse, ob Selbstdarstellung oder Fremdaufnahmen. Wenn diese zweiten, dann ist es natürlich wichtig, wer sie gemacht hat - ein Freund, ein Gegner, ein sozusagen Neutraler. Schließlich gibt die Auswahl, die man vornimmt, und die Zusammenstellung, die zustandekommt, den Ausschlag. Der Versuch, das ungeheuerliche historische Ereignis, das der Nationalsozialismus darstellt, filmisch sichtbar zu machen, ist schon mehrfach unternommen worden. In zwei- bis vierzehnstündigen Darbietungen wurden die Abläufe und die Zusammenhänge gezeigt. Meines Erachtens ist jedes dieser Unternehmen bis zu einem hohen Grade gelungen. Man gewann Einblick in das Geschehen, das viele von uns, wie auch immer, selbst miterlebt haben. Warum hat sich nun abermals ein Autor darangemacht, das Gesicht des Nationalsozialismus in Bild und begleitendem Wort zu kennzeichnen: Michail Romm, der sowjetrussische Spielfilmregisseur? Ihn bewegte nicht in erster Linie ein geschichtliches Interesse, zu wissen, wie es wirklich gewesen, sondern ein psychologisches, das ja auch bei uns zahlreiche Menschen zu immer neuen Darstellungen sich zuwenden läßt, wie es denn möglich war. Romm hat sich auf die Suche nach einer sozusagen menschlichen Erklärung des unmenschlichen Phänomens gemacht, daher der Titel seines Film: 'Der gewöhnliche Faschismus'. Das Außergewöhnliche, das kaum zu fassen ist, es sei denn in Fragen, mußte irgendwo im Alltäglichen seine Wurzeln haben. Sie wollte Romm ausfindig machen. Wie ist es gekommen, so fragte er sich, daß im Zeitalter der allseitigen Aufklärung, der Wissenschaftlichkeit, der hochzivilisatorischen Technik, der sozialen Revolution, dies in Menschen und durch Menschen geschehen konnte? Durch Deutsche? Romm und seinen Mitarbeitern standen zwei Millionen Meter Filmmaterial zur Verfügung. Die russische Besatzungsmacht hat es seinerzeit in den Archiven des Reichspropaganda-Ministeriums, aus dem Privatbesitz von Goebbels selbst und aus anderen Bereichen beschlagnahmt. Es ist durch Aufnahmen, die sich bei zahlreichen Justizbehörden in Osteuropa und in der Sowjetunion befinden, ergänzt worden. Noch nie hat jemand so umfassende und so vielfältige Voraussetzungen für die Arbeit gehabt, den verzweigten und doch wahrscheinlich einfachen Motivationen des Faschismus auf die Spur zu kommen. Was Romm fand, konfrontiert ja dann mit der Normalität unseres Daseins, mit den gewöhnlichen, den so schönen und so außerordentlichen Möglichkeiten des Menschen zu leben, zu lieben, zu arbeiten. In den Gegensatzbildern, die sich ergaben, wird das Unerklärliche des Faschismus, ob grausam oder lächerlich, gigantoman oder banal, begreifbar. Es ändert sich dadurch nicht die Unmenschlichkeit. Sie wird nur noch deutlicher. Es wird sichtbar, wohin der Mensch gerät, ja, ganze Völker geraten können, wenn die Humanität als Maßstab verlassen wird. Es ist also gar kein historischer Film, den Sie jetzt sehen, noch einer zu den über den Nationalsozialismus bereits vorhandenen hinzu, sondern am geschichtlichen Fall eine Dokumentation der menschlich-unmenschlichen Möglichkeiten in der unmißverstehbaren Absicht, auch dadurch einer besseren Welt den Weg zu bereiten, einer Welt ohne Barbarei, einer Welt ohne Krieg, einer Welt des Friedens und des friedlichen Zusammenlebens. Der sowjetische Autor ist, wie Sie sich überzeugen werden, in dieser Sache tief engagiert. Er bezieht Partei. Trotzdem ist kein antideutscher Film entstanden. Romm präsentiert am deutschen Fall ein Kollektivphänomen. Es hatte zur konkreten Voraussetzung spezifisch deutsche Umstände, aber meinen Sie, die Millionen Sowjetrussen, als ihnen der Film vorgeführt wurde, seien nicht in der Lage gewesen, ihrerseits den allgemein moralischen Appell zu begreifen, der aus Bild und Kommentar spricht? Im übrigen bezieht Romm die deutsche Gegenwirklichkeit, ihre Möglichkeiten immer wieder in seine Darstellung mit ein. In Kindern und in Erwachsenen - das andere Deutschland. Doch scheint es mir nützlich zu sein, in Deutschland sowohl wie außerhalb zu erfahren, wie das Bild aussieht, das Millionen Sowjetbürger vom faschistischen Deutschen in der Erinnerung und ihrem aktuellen Bewußtsein tragen. Es ist ein Stück politischer Realität, mit ihr ist zu rechnen, man muß sie kennen. Aus dem russischen Kommentar, den Romm mit aller Eindringlichkeit, oft mit Ironie, gelegentlich, wo es angebracht erschien, mit Humor im Original selber spricht, hat daher die deutsche Übersetzung und Einrichtung Stellen, die da und dort hart klingen mögen, nicht weggelassen. Denn es soll die ungeschminkte sowjetrussische Bewußtseinswirklichkeit zur Kenntnis genommen werden. Es läßt sich daraus die Bedeutung der besorgten Frage erschließen, die im Osten, aber nicht nur im Osten, immer und immer wieder gestellt wird: Können, werden die Deutschen einer derartigen Entwicklung ein zweites Mal anheimfallen? Romm und alle Beteiligten möchten natürlich dazu beigetragen haben, daß dies keinesfalls geschieht. Sie, meine Damen und Herren, da Sie die Voraussetzungen des Films und die Absicht, die sich mit ihm verbindet, nunmehr kennen, müssen selbst beurteilen, ob sein Zweck erreicht wird." (Kogon, Eugen: Einleitende Worte. - In: Benner, Wolfgang: Begleitheft : Der gewöhnliche Faschismus. Die Analyse eines Massenphänomens / [Wolfgang Benner]. Hrsg. von atlas film + av. - [Duisburg] : atlas film + av, 1986. - S. 29 - 32 FILM RUNTERLADEN DEUTSCHE FASSUNG: http://thepiratebay.org/tor/3726673