Top Secret America Eyeballs 1

Cryptome.org
August 27, 2011
 
Top Secret America Eyeballs Series: http://cryptome.org//tsa-series.htm

---

Essential reading to understand the post-911 top secret putsch by the military-intelligence-industry complex, Top Secret America: The Rise of the New American Security State, a book by Dana Priest and William M. Arkin expands their Washington Post series of the same name, and provides information too threatening to national security for the Post to publish. And the book publisher, no doubt opposing the authors, also failed to publish the specific findings of the wide-ranging investigation, omitting locations of top secret facilities which the master searcher Arkin discovered from open sources over many years and Priest visited for the series and book.
 
However, the book and the Post series provide vivid, detailed descriptions of the facilities and their occupants with ample clues to the secret locations, some of which Cryptome and others have published.
Cryptome will publish a series on these locations using the descriptions provided in the book, presumably the intent of the authors with their understanding that the Internet will provide sensitive information obsequiously concealed by fearful political leaders and media complicit in cloaking the national security state.
"TSA" indicates Top Secret America: The Rise of the New American Security State, a book by Dana Priest and William M. Arkin.

---

 
CIA Workforce Training Facility
TSA, pp 64-65: It had taken me an hour and a half to find the CIA site. ... At the entrance, a quaint historic marker announced the origins of the U.S. Army Training Center. ... I learned later from people who frequented the facility that the mountaintop range was a training center for the CIA's rapidly expanding contract workforce of security specialists --  people like Raymond Davis, who would later be briefly jailed in Pakistan inn 2011 after shooting two would-be assassins. The job of these specialists was to hide in foreign countries and discreetly manage security for agency operatives meeting with sources and traveling through risky neighborhoods.
 
Cryptome: This appears to describe Site B of the CIA's Warrenton Training Center, a four-site complex -- A, B, C and D -- near Warrenton, VA. It was originally used by the US Army for training and the identifying signs have been left in place as CIA cover.
Read the entire article

9/11 Heroes Not Welcome at Ground Zero

TheAlexJonesChannel
August 26, 2011
First Responders– including police, fire fighters, EMTs and others– have been barred from attending the ceremony commemorating the 10th Anniversary of the 9/11 attacks. Instead, warmongering politicos including President Obama and former President George W. Bush will grandstand at Ground Zero, trampling upon the memory of those who lost their life while stifling the living heroes who have increasingly questioned the official story, the lack of care for those who got sick and other travesties. Instead, responders enrolled in health care programs are screened through terrorism databases, literally adding insult to injury. What’s more, such databases are increasingly used by Homeland Security to control access to jobs, benefits and more.

Sarkozy cuts & runs, France 'riot-ready'

RT News
August 26, 2011



RussiaToday on Aug 26, 2011

The richest sector of French society are pledging another 3 per cent of their annual income to help the country battle its deepening debt crisis. That's as the French Prime Minister announces some 12 billion Euro worth of cuts, alongside gloomy forecasts for growth. But as RT's Daniel Bushell explains, the move could be too little too late, with fears social unrest could follow.
RT on Twitter: http://twitter.com/RT_com
RT on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/RTnews

Ron Paul: Mobs In Europe A Sign Of Things Coming

Rep. Ron Paul (R-Texas) on the challenges in reining in government spending.

AP-GfK Poll: 87% in US disapprove of Congress

Yahoo news

August 26, 2011

WASHINGTON (AP) — Americans are plenty angry at Congress in the aftermath of the debt crisis and Republicans could pay the greatest price, a new Associated Press-GfK poll suggests.

The poll finds the tea party has lost support, Republican House Speaker John Boehner is increasingly unpopular and people are warming to the idea of not just cutting spending but also raising taxes — anathema to the GOP — just as both parties prepare for another struggle with deficit reduction.

To be sure, there is plenty of discontent to go around. The poll finds more people are down on their own member of Congress, not just the institution, an unusual finding in surveys and one bound to make incumbents particularly nervous. In interviews, some people said the debt standoff itself, which caused a crisis of confidence to ripple through world markets, made them wonder whether lawmakers are able to govern at all.

"I guess I long for the day back in the '70s and '80s when we could disagree but we could get a compromise worked out," said Republican Scott MacGregor, 45, a Windsor, Conn., police detective. "I don't think there's any compromise anymore."

The results point to a chilly autumn in Washington as the divided Congress returns to the same fiscal issues that almost halted other legislative business and are certain to influence the struggle for power in the 2012 elections. They suggest that politicians, regardless of party, have little to gain by prolonging the nation's most consequential policy debate. And they highlight the gap between the wider public's wishes now and the tea party's cut-it-or-shut-it philosophy that helped propel Republicans into the House majority last year.

The survey, conducted Aug. 18-22, found that approval of Congress has dropped to its lowest level in AP-GfK polling — 12 percent. That's down from 21 percent in June, before the debt deal reached fever pitch.

The results indicate, too, that the question of trust remains up for grabs — a sign that the government's stewardship of the economy over the next year will weigh heavily on the fortunes of both parties in the elections. Republicans and Democrats statistically tied, 40 percent to 43 percent respectively, when respondents were asked which party they trust more to handle the federal budget deficit. Nearly a third of independents said they trust neither party on the issue.

Much about the next election hinges on independent voters, the ever-growing group fiercely wooed by campaigns for years. These respondents, the poll found, were the least forgiving toward incumbents and shifted substantially toward the need to raise taxes as part of the deficit and debt solution.

Among them, 65 percent say they want their own House representative tossed out in 2012, compared with 53 percent of respondents generally.

Read the entire article

Why Does Ron Paul Scare You?

Conor Friedersdorf
The Atlantic
August 23, 2011




Ron Paul



Every presidential candidate inspires voters to ask themselves, “If this person is elected, what’s the worst that could plausibly happen?” Since we’re risk averse, the imagined answers that take hold are huge factors in campaigns.

In 1964, when Barry Goldwater ran, the worst case scenario in the minds of the electorate was that if he won, there would be nuclear war with the USSR. Four years ago, Hillary Clinton tried and failed to persuade voters that if Barack Obama was elected, the worst case scenario was a 3 a.m. phone call that he was too inexperienced to handle. Evaluating John McCain, a lot of voters, myself included, thought the worst case scenario was that he’d die, making Sarah Palin into the world’s most powerful person.

So I got to thinking. What’s the worst thing that could plausibly happen if Ron Paul wins? And by that metric, how does he measure up to the folks he’s running against? Don’t ask why I chose him. It’s obvious. The idea of him in the White House makes a lot of the people reading this post uneasy. Despite my libertarian sympathies, there is even a part of me that has always felt, without ever having thought it through, that putting Paul in the White House would be the biggest gamble of all the possible candidates running in the GOP primary.

His tenure might have tremendous upsides: zero imprudently launched wars, a resurgence of civil liberties, more transparency. But he’s also a radical who wants to see more fundamental change than any other candidate, he is least beholden to the political establishment, which constrains the behavior of conventional pols, and we’ve never seen him operate as an executive. One reason I prefer Gary Johnson, the other libertarian in the race, is that he was governor of New Mexico. We’ve seen how he would act given executive responsibilities. He didn’t do anything that was crazy or obviously damaging to the state. As it turns out, he was easily reelected.

Read the entire article

Architects and engineers challenge official story of WTC 7 collapse

J.D. Heyes
Natural News
August 20, 2011

(NaturalNews) Most of us remember the horror of the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks, and the mental images of the collapse of the twin World Trade Center towers is forever etched into our minds. But while the reason for their demise is well-known, well documented and well accepted, there remain serious doubts about exactly why another WTC structure, Building 7, imploded in the afternoon on that fateful day.

Scores of television and radio news outlets who had reporters on the scene, as well eyewitnesses and – perhaps most importantly – a number of architectural engineers all believe that WTC Building 7 buckled and fell not because of raging fires on the first floor that tore through office furniture and weakened the structure, as a government agency concluded, but because it had been rigged well in advance with explosives.

As incredible as it sounds, the evidence – again, much of it from first-hand eyewitnesses and structural engineering experts – strongly supports that conclusion.

According to a video report by AE911Truth, some 1,500 engineers and architects now say WTC 7 “could not have been brought down by office fires.”
Watch the video at:
http://naturalnews.tv/v.asp?v=100AB…


One of those expert critics is Richard Gage, a member of the American Institute of Architects and founder of American Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, who says fire has caused equal or worse damage to other, taller structures, without ever producing the same effect.

“Fires have never before caused the collapse of any skyscraper, even though there are numerous examples of much hotter, larger and longer lasting fires in these buildings,” he said. “And in the case of Building 7, the fire that NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) said started the collapse had actually burned out over an hour before.

“It could not have caused the collapse as [the government] said,” he added, noting that the very “modern” Building 7 was not struck by an aircraft and collapsed “mostly into its own footprint… in just under seven seconds.”
Read the entire article