SITREP America – Snippets April 10th 2008

• After seeing the videos and the pictures of aircraft hitting the Word Trade Center towers and play-by-play coverage of that fateful day when so many died on September 11^th, 2001, there are still those in their blind hatred for President George W. Bush (for whom I believe has been a dysfunctional president, but not what certain folks perceive or make him out to be) that believe there was some kind of conspiracy – staged event – concerning the incident. At George Washington’s Blog, an unlikely place to read that 14 structural engineers claim that the WTC twin buildings were brought down by “controlled demolition” considering the name of the blog. The accountant who publishes the blog is an American. What shame on George Washington’s name. Excerpts from April 9^th entry:

A prominent engineer with 55 years of experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this) …
Kamal S, Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:
“Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition”.
Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
“Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash – twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by an aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust.”

Concerning the third structure that was not hit by aircraft could be a legitimate question, weird conspiracy theories set aside.

Some answers are provided by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST).This agency conducted a 3-year investigation …

Some 200 technical experts – including about 85 career NIST experts and 125 leading experts from the private sector and academia – reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations of the sequence of events that occurred from the moment the aircraft struck the towers until they began to collapse.
Based on this comprehensive investigation, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires (which reached temperatures as high as 1,000 degrees Celsius) significantly weakened the floors and columns with dislodged fireproofing to the point where floors sagged and pulled inward on the perimeter columns. This led to an inward bowing of the perimeter columns and failure of the south face of WTC 1 and the east face of WTC 2, initiating the collapse of each of the towers. Both photographic and video evidence – as well as accounts from the New York Police Department aviation unit during a half-hour period to collapse – support this sequence for each tower.
NIST’s finding do not support the “pancake theory” of collapse …
NIST’s finding also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
- the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
- the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extend of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors. …
In summary, NIST found no corroborating evidence for alternative hypotheses suggesting that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition using explosives planted prior to Sept, 11, 2001. NIST also did not find any evidence that missiles were fired or hit the towers. Instead, photographs and videos from several angles clearly show that the collapse initiated at the fire and impact floors and that the collapse progressed from the initiating floors downward until the dust clouds obscured the view.

The 14 structural engineer “experts” claimed that the building fell in about “10 seconds” – they are saying this was the time taken to fall when it began to collapse – not the time it took before it began to collapse. And so on. And another question: What is WTC7? Officially they were named WTC1 and WTC2.

This is much like the argument whether the climate change is caused by humans or whether it is a natural cycle – of which the latter has more evidence to back it up.

Myth Blaster Verdict: FALSE. No evidence, an investigation spanning three years, shows that any of the statements by the 14 “structural engineers” are true. There are so many real events and circumstances involving corruption and conspiracies without making up any.

• British pop star, Elton John, played a fund raiser for Hillary Clinton via a concert in New York. He raised $2.5 million, and according to reports from bill collectors – Hillary needs it for her campaign. Elton John was quoted:

Having said that, I never cease to be amazed at the misogynistic attitude of some people in this country. And I say to hell with them. The reason I’m here tonight is to play music, but more importantly as someone who comes from abroad, and is in America quite a lot of the time and is extremely interested in the political process because it effects the whole world. I’ve always been a Hillary supporter.

• Kathy Gill, Newsvine, in her article Deconstructing The Myth of a Classless Society, writes:

The America myth is one of a classless society. Yet recent data from Pew Research turns the myth on its head, at least when middle class Americans reflect on America’s political parties. And twice as many (31%) middle class Americans believe they are worse off today than they were in 1964 (16%), a record drop. Neither message bears good news for the Republican Party come November.
Almost two-thirds of people who identify as middle class believe that the Republican Party favors “the rich”. …
A quarter of the Republicans surveyed believe that the Democratic Party favors the rich, contrasted with 16 percent of all middle class Americans. …
In this 2008 Pew survey of middle class America, 41 percent said that they were better off today than five years ago, the fewest since 1965 (49%). …
These survey responses reflect the trends in household income during the past decade, one marked by six years of a Republican president and Congress. The sentiment also deflects the myth of the “rising tide lifts all boats” metaphor that has been a Republican mainstay since 1980 – although one could argue that the upper 1& of households have been “lifted” at the expense of the other 99%.
The state of the economy could be enough to turn both Congress and the White House over to Democrats in November. But I’m not convinced that single-party control inside the Beltway is the best state of affairs for the majority of us living on the other side.

• Walter E. Williams, one of my favorite columnists, Townhall, writes in his article Political Loathesome …

Do any of the prospective nominees of either party deserve respect from the American people? The answer partially depends on your knowledge, values and respect for the U.S. Constitution.
When either Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain take office, they are going to place their hand on the Bible and take the oath, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of the President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
It will be a phony affirmation, …
…There’s a measure introduced in every Congress since 1995, by Rep. John Shadegg, R-Ariz., called The Enumerated Powers Act that would require that all bills introduced in the U.S. Congress include a statement setting forth the specific constitutional authority under which the law is being enacted.
The Enumerated Powers Act currently has 44 co-sponsors in the House. In the Senate, it has never had a single co-sponsor, and that’s a Senate that includes our three presidential aspirants. The question one might ask is why would Sens. Obama, Clinton and McCain have a distaste for, and fail to support, a measure binding them to what the Constitution actually permits?

… First, few congressmen, including our presidential aspirants, have the integrity, decency and courage to be bound by the Constitution, but more important is that congressmen and presidents simply reflect the constitutional ignorance or contempt held by the American people.
Most of what Congress is constitutionally authorized to spend for is listed in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution and includes: coining money, establish Post Offices, to support Armies and a few other activities. Today’s federal budget is over $3 trillion dollars. I challenge anyone to find specific constitutional authority for at least $2 trillion of it. That includes Social Security, Medicare, farm and business handouts, education, prescription drugs and a host of other federal expenditures. Americans who have become accustomed to living at the expense of another American would not want Congress to obey the Constitution, especially if it left out their favorite handout. …
Here’s what James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, said: “With respect to the two words ‘general welfare,’ I have always regarded them as qualified by the detail of powers connected with them. To take them in a literal and unlimited sense would be a metamorphosis of the Constitution into a character which there is a host of proofs was not contemplated by its creators.”
Later, Madison added, “If Congress can do whatever in their discretion can be done by money, and will promote the general welfare, the government is no longer a limited one possessing enumerated powers, but an indefinite one subject to particular exceptions.”
Thomas Jefferson explained, “Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
At one time there were presidents who respected the Constitution. Grover Cleveland vetoed hundreds of spending measures during his two-term presidency, often saying, “I can find no warrant for such an appropriation in the Constitution.” …
We should consider ending the charade and get rid of our 200-year-plus presidential oath of office and replace it with: I accept the office of president.

• We shop at stores and just about everywhere you will find products marked “Made in China” and one wonders if America manufactures anymore. But many cannot resist purchasing some products at cheap prices; seemingly ignoring quality over cost. Alexander Harvey, writes in his article: The Last Days of Cheap Chinese …

For years, American importers and Chinese factory managers have been having the same conversation. The importers would demand lower prices for products destined for American shelves. Factory managers would counter with a long list of reasons why they needed to charge more. Most of the time, the American importers would prevail, and Wal-Mart shoppers would rejoice.
Not anymore. The era of cheap Chinese consumer goods may finally be ending, thanks to irrepressible inflation. … Some Chinese factories are now asking their American customers for price increases of as much as 20 percent to 30 percent. …
The problem for American retailers and consumers hooked on $3 T-shirts and $30 DVD players is that there is no other China waiting in the wings to make cheap goods reliably for American shoppers. …
So importers are looking back to countries they once rejected in favor of China – Indonesia, Mexico, and Malaysia. … None offers the one-stop shop appeal of China, where factories make everything under the sun. For the time being, then, we will all still be buying a lot of “Made in China” products – and paying ever more for them.

Mark Penn, campaign advisor for Hillary Clinton campaign resigned when it was found he was working on passage of legislation that would promote Columbia Free Trade Agreement, which Hillary opposed. Yet, her husband –

Former President Bill Clinton has earned hundreds of thousands of dollars speaking on behalf of a Columbia-based group pushing the trade pact, and representatives of that organization tell The Huffington Post that the former president shared their sentiment. …
“It’s clear that President Clinton has a chummy relationship with the Columbian president,” said Lori Wallach, director of Global Trade Watch at Public Citizen, “someone whose administration is under a cloud and under investigation for associations with murderous paramilitaries, and whose administration has seen hundreds of labor unionists assassinated but not prosecuted these crimes, and whose administration has been involved in the forced displacement of thousands of Afro-Columbians. Having President Clinton be chummy with such a person, and having him be the closest adviser of Senator Clinton, is extremely disconcerting.”

Does this mean that Bill will finally deliver a coup de e’ tat upon the Hillary campaign – and maybe the eventual disappearance from the public scene? Don’t hold your breath. It’s hard to put down the Clintons when it comes to money and power.

• The government says …

Retail gas prices could climb as high as $4 a gallon this summer, but prices at such lofty levels will make many Americans think twice about hitting the road this summer, the Energy Department said Tuesday.

So what happens to seasonal businesses that depend upon Americans “hitting the road”? Is there something wrong with the old fashioned family vacation? We are not running out of crude oil on this planet, we are experiencing unnecessary price hikes from where America gets too much of their crude oil. And …

While high prices are damping demand in the U.S., petroleum consumption remains strong in China, India, Russia, and the Middle East, the EIA said.

Isn’t that special?

Meanwhile, Congress still isn’t doing anything about making America self-sufficient to where we only do business with those who will sell crude at a fair price, and even if the price of crude oil goes down we still have the problem of needing a new refinery, upgrading those in operation, and pumping the oil that is here in America. And here is the dilemma for American refineries:

The EIA report underscored the difficulties refiners are facing, despite high gas prices. Refiners have to buy the crude they process into fuel. But falling demand for gasoline prevents refiners from raising gas prices enough to keep up with the soaring price of crude.

• Our prison situation has been a mess for some time. Prisons have become nothing more than holding tanks, not the centers in which to rehabilitate inmates in order for them to be productive and law abiding citizens upon release. In fact, too many prison environments are just a miniature of the crime world they have been extricated from. Maybe that will change, according to Erik Eckholm, NY Times (April 8^th 2008) …

Today, as a legacy of those policies, not only are record numbers incarcerated, but also about 700,000 state and federal prisoners are released annually, many of them with little education or employment prospects and destined to be imprisoned again within a few years.
In a sharp change in attitudes about incarceration, many states and private groups have recently experimented with “re-entry” programs to help released prisoners fit back into their communities and avoid new crime.
The strategy will get a major boost this week; President Bush is to sign the Second Chance Act in a public ceremony on Wednesday, making rehabilitation a central goal of the federal justice system. In a sign of how far the pendulum has swung, the measure passed Congress with nearly unanimous bipartisan support.

Too bad President Bush isn’t so enthused or motivated to provide a pardon for wrongly imprisoned Border Patrol officers, Ramos and Compean.

The new push to help prisoners reintegrate into society has been driven in part by financial concerns: states cannot afford to keep building more prisons. It also reflects concern for the victims of repeat offenders and for the wasted lives of the offenders themselves, who are disproportionately black and from neighborhoods of concentrated poverty.

Meanwhile, federal employers are wasting your tax dollars, as reported by Hope Yen, Associated Press, and Newsvine …

Federal employees charged millions of dollars for Internet dating, tailor-made suits, lingerie, lavish dinners and other questionable expenses to their government credit cards over a 15-month period, congressional auditors say. …
For purchases over $2,500, nearly half – or 48 percent – were unauthorized or improperly received.

As the article states this fraudulent use of government credit cards is in the Agriculture Department, U.S. Postal Service, Pentagon, Justice and State Departments.

• If Obama wins the Democratic contest, will conservatives choose Obama over McCain in the presidential election of 2008? That is what the buzz is about in certain political circles. [The Right Choice? by Andrew J. Bacevich]
• The Washington Post reports the Five Myths about NAFTA, and reveals that Obama and Clinton are not being quite truthful. …

Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton often likes to take credit for her husband’s achievements as president. But then there’s NAFTA. … Sen. Barack Obama, meanwhile, makes the fallout from NAFTA sound downright nuclear, lamenting that “entire cities … have been devastated as a consequence of trade agreements that were not adequately structured to make sure that U.S. workers had a fair deal.”
Despite the heightened rhetoric, he, too, wishes to “fix” the treaty, not nix it. Only the presumptive Republican nominee, Sen. John McCain, would leave NAFTA untouched; his priority is freeing up global trade. … Here’s some information that could help them update their stump speeches.
1 – NAFTA has transformed the U.S. economy. Hardly. Critics rightly point out that NAFTA’s economic benefits were oversold, but they’re wrong to heap the blame for all America’s woes on it. NAFTA, which expanded the existing Canadian-U.S. free trade area to Mexico, has had only a marginal effect on the U.S. economy. Yes, exports to Mexico have more than tripled since 1993 – but at $161 billion last year, they still account for only 1.1 percent of the economy. …
2 – NAFTA has put countless Americans out of work. Not really. Obama claims that NAFTA has destroyed a million American jobs. … As Mexico opened its economy to U.S. trade and investment, NAFTA created new American jobs, too. …