Friday, January 23, 2009

9/11 Truth, Lies @ Salon

I often post over at Unclaimed Territory, Glenn Greenwald's blog at Salon.com.

Oftentimes, the subject of 9/11 Truth comes up. Glenn is not too keen on this as it is disruptive and generally "off topic". And as he says it quickly degenerates into a shouting match between the two opposing camps.

So today I offered to let people who want to discuss this in a more appropriate venue come here to Contumacious to discuss and of course YELL!

It's all good. Let the chips fall where they may.

My position is pretty clear, I don't buy the official story. I have no clear idea how they did it, as I am not privy to all the facts or the evidence, but I am sure that any good theory has to explain the facts, and my reading is that the official story fails to do this in many many ways.

So if anyone from Salon, or anywhere else for that matter, has something to say. Please feel free to say it here.

UPDATE

Some interesting links:

Operation Northwoods, the first draft for the 911 attack? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

Pilots for 911 Truth: http://pilotsfor911truth.org/

Prof. David Ray Griffin video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145&hl=en

Architects for 911 Truth: http://www.ae911truth.org/

UPDATE 2

OPERATION

Operation Northwoods, which had the written approval of the Chairman and every member of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, called for innocent people to be shot on American streets; for boats carrying refugees fleeing Cuba to be sunk on the high seas; for a wave of violent terrorism to be launched in Washington, D.C., Miami, and elsewhere. People would be framed for bombings they did not commit; planes would be hijacked. Using phony evidence, all of it would be blamed on Castro, thus giving Lemnitzer and his cabal the excuse, as well as the public and international backing, they needed to launch their war."
- James Bamford, Body of Secrets

A big objection to 911 being an "inside job" is the sheer size of the operation, and the ability of the conspirators to maintain secrecy after the fact. The truth is we don't know how many people had to be in on it, because we don't know exactly what happened. It is true that in the past we have things like the Manhattan Project that even Harry Truman knew nothing about until he became President.

Operation Northwoods is not a conspiracy theory, it happened but was rejected by President Kennedy. What this teaches us is that there were elements within the military, indeed the leadership of the military Admiral Leimnitzer was prepared to

1) Start rumors (many). Use clandestine radio.
(2) Land friendly Cubans in uniform "over-the-fence" to stage attack on base.
(3) Capture Cuban (friendly) saboteurs inside the base.
(4) Start riots near the base main gate (friendly Cubans).
(5) Blow up ammunition inside the base; start fires.
(6) Burn aircraft on air base (sabotage).
(7) Lob mortar shells from outside of base into base. Some damage to installations.
(8) Capture assault teams approaching from the sea or vicinity of Guantanamo City.
(9) Capture militia group which storms the base.
(10) Sabotage ship in harbor; large fires -- napthalene.
(11) Sink ship near harbor entrance. Conduct funerals for mock-victims (may be in lieu of (10)).
And this is just a partial list! If you want to read the whole story go here.

Did they think they could keep this a secret? Yes. Did they keep it a secret for almost 50 years? You bet.
The parallels between what happened and what was planned in America, by Americans, in 1962 are massive.javascript:void(0)

Update 2
Excellent video that documents the use of Thermate at the WTC.
H/T Frank!

 

562 comments:

1 – 200 of 562   Newer›   Newest»
Gary_7vn said...

To kick things off, here are some of my problems and questions with the official story.

The rate of collapse.
Just about anything to do with WTC 7 which collapsed at 5:20 PM even though it had never been hit by an airplane.
The fact that steel from the complex was sent to China.

The missing wreckage at the Pentagon and in Pennsylvania.

Hani Hanjours flying skills.

Cocktailhag said...

Well, my theory, to the extent I have one, given the crap we've been fed, is that A) The Bushies didn't try to stop it; B) The buildings were pieces of shit, and C) Something is seriously up with WTC7.
I confess I have to sympathize with the idas that the whole job would have been too hard for Dickie and the Deciders to pull off.....

Norm Breyfogle said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Norm Breyfogle said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Norm Breyfogle said...

Oops; sorry for the double post.

Gary_7vn said...

You are talking about LIHOP, Let it Happen on Purpose. The problem with that one is it doesn't explain the bizarre way that the buildings collapsed, straight down along the path of most resistance.

The buildings were not bad buildings, WTC 1 and 2 were wonders of their time, and great effort went into making sure that they were very strong. You may remember that the buildings were attacked back in the 90's and survived a massive explosion in the basement with hardly a wobble. The buildings were also designed to withstand the impact of not just one plane but several!

WTC 7 was a 53 story building that had been "hardened" by the city of New York to use as a command centre in the event of a catastrophe.

You are probably right that this was beyond Bush's skills, but then I never believed Bush was anything more than a sock puppet for the oligarchy, the secret government, skull and bones, CFR, whatever you want to call them - the people who really run the show.

Gary_7vn said...

Sorry Norm, I deleted your post in error!

Norm Breyfogle said...

Cripes, I deleted one of my posts when I saw that I could, and then noticed that you'd deleted the other one!

lol


Arrg.

Gary_7vn said...

I don't engage debate on this subject because it's too complicated for me and folks are rarely if ever convinced to change their minds, but I will write that I agreed with what "Bill Owen" wrote about this subject on Greenwald's site, though I have only a bit less confidence re the physics. No "diamond-hard" certainty here.

I did a lot of on-line research on all sides of this issue months ago ... so much so, that after I settled on my very general conclusions (i.e., some of our own power elites allowed it happen or maybe even caused it, but I don't know who exactly), I became exhausted on the subject.

For me, the motive is as important as is the physical evidence, if not MORE important. Who gained from 9-11? The answer seems clear: the military industrial complex's financial elites. As usual, war means big profits.
Normbrefogle (from the post I deleted by mistake)

Martin Gifford said...

I don’t believe 9/11 was an inside job. I base this on the psychological issue of motivation.

I just don’t think more money and power are strong enough motivations for people who are already very rich and very powerful when the risk is so high. Doing something that would destroy your life and reputation forever if you were caught isn’t worth the risk. And to organise something so big would require a lot of people, all of whom would have to be great secret-keepers.

And all participants would have to be willing to kill 3,000 Americans. I just don’t believe it.

The reactions of Bush and Cheney can also be explained in terms of psychology rather than conspiracy theories:

1. Bush - a lifelong failure - was embarrassed that 9/11 happened on his watch and so he overcompensated by acting “tough on terrorism” and saying "not on my watch".

2. Cheney - who was part of Nixon’s bureaucracy and was probably annoyed by his downfall - overcompensated by outdoing Nixon and sticking it to Congress.

Ultimately, I believe 9/11 happened because we have politicians running countries rather than qualified managers. Politicians failed to stop the threat, and politicians failed to respond professionally to the event.

Norm Breyfogle said...

Okay, here I go again:

I don't engage debate on this subject because it's too complicated and folks can rarely if ever be persuaded to change their minds, but I will express my own general conclusions when the subject arises or when I'm directly asked because I consider it my duty as an American citizen to speak my honest opinion on such an horrifically important series of events.

Months ago, I researched online many different and opposing povs re 9-11 and before I exhausted myself on the subject I came to some general conclusions, the main ones being: the official report is highly inadequate, the buildings fell way too quickly and easily, and the nonexistent USAF response is utterly inexplicable by the official explanation, and inexcusable in any sense.

But beside the physics, what's as or more important to me is the money trail and implied motives. Who benefited most? Answer: certain power-elite members of the military-industrial establishment. War is and has always been about big profits.

There are far more than enough inadequately answered questions to support further vigorous investigations. The rot runs very deep, and it's a rot that's affected every culture on the planet.

Norm Breyfogle said...

Ha ha ha! Now my old post is back up, along with my attempt to recreate it in a new post!

Oh well, leave 'em both up, please.

Gary_7vn said...

@ Martin

Never underestimate human greed Martin, it's limitless. Look at this Madoff guy, you'd think that one would feel that they have stolen "enough" after the first billion or so.

As for killing 3000 people, look up the characteristics of a sociopath or a malignant narcissist. Bush could be either. And don't forget that these are the same people who attacked Iraq and killed 4000 American soldier and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis. Sociopaths never worry about consequences either.

We know now that there no WMD's so what was their motivation? Power? Greed? Both?

The attack on the WTC certainly orbited around power and greed. Billions changed hands after 9/11.

Anonymous said...

For any conspiracy theory, you have to look at it from the other end of the telescope to see if it makes any sense.

ie, not to mount up all the details that might not add up (ever been in on any serious post-catastrophic investigation of any kind? There are always details that don't add up.) Instead, focus on a coherent theory of how it could have been done otherwise, what it would have taken to pull it off.

And that is where the conspiracy theorists fall down pretty hard. The scale of the conspiracy necessary to meet their claims, the air-tightness of its execution, beggar belief. It ain't just the Bushies (who obviously could not have pulled it off, they can barely tie their shoes), I simply cannot believe that any organization at all, and I know a lot about organizations, could pull it off.

If there is such a super competent organization out there, one would have to wonder why it dedicated such effort to what was, realistically, a fairly paltry effort. Well, if such an organization exists, I for one welcome our new overlords. The competency, mastery, and perfect execution required, to pull 9/11 off otherwise than the generally accepted version, speaks of a whole new order of ability, far beyond what any current government on earth can offer.

And certainly, any organization so fantastically competent, would, you would think, be able to shut down, with extreme prejudice if necessary, any critics of the official story that got too close to the truth. Unless the conspiracy is to make you believe there is a conspiracy... aren't rabbit holes fun?

(Incidentally, a couple of years back, on TLC or PBS or some such, there was a pretty good and convincing doc on exactly how and why the vertical collapse happened-- the WTC was constructed using very unique techniques, not widely copied elsewhere or since. And personally, as a one-time civilian blasting specialist who knows a little about explosives and setting up shots, the conspiracy theorists are talking out their asses about what is possible; they've seen too many bragging tv docs about how perfect and scientifically predictable building destruction is, which it is not.)

Canuckistan Bob

Gary_7vn said...

@ Canuckistanbob

You are reiterating Chomsky on this one, "there are always details..." not bad company, but my impression is that Chomsky devoted maybe ten minutes of mentation on this one. He also said, that even if the government did it, "who cares"? WTF?

True but "we" are not talking about details but major problems.

As for the sheer size of the conspiracy, the core team might not be as large as you think. One theory is that this was part of an exercise that was flipped live, and that only a small core group did the actual dirty work.

Have you read about the Lavon affair? Look it up. False flag operations are more common than you think.

Attah used to have a stripper girlfriend and drank liquor, hardly a devout Muslim.

The operation may also have been a blend of MIHOP and LIHOP. What if the perps had intel that the planes would be hijacked and decided to help out a little.

As for your point about perfect placement of the charges, they may have developed new techniques for this and whether the building went down "correctly" was not so important to them.

Thanks for your post!

loretta said...

Even after everything that has happened in the past 8 years, there are those still skeptical of the notion that certain government officials were involved in, or (in the very least) complicit in the "attack" on 9/11.

Logic will follow that if you believe the official conclusions from the 9/11 Commission report, you must then accept that our military air defense, our sophisticated infrastructure and response technology is across-the-board catastrophically inept.

Would you rather believe that? That NORAD, the military, the FAA, and every single person responsible for that day's reaction was incompetent? That the entire FBI and CIA are incompetent? Yet nobody was fired?

I'm not willing to believe that two over-designed, massive skyscrapers collapsed into their own footprints like a perfectly controlled demolition in under two hours because of isolated fires from jet fuel that could not burn hot enough to weaken steel in that period of time. Never mind that WTC7 didn't even have any jet fuel spillage to accelerate its demise and fell in 6 seconds like a perfect demolition scene from Hollywood.

I'm not willing to believe that the foreknowledge that is well documented in the official 9/11 report and widely reported in the MSM was ignored by our intelligence departments.

There is so much physical and scientific evidence and that points to an inside job and a cover-up of unprecedented proportions, it makes the Kennedy assassination and Iran-Contra look like someone stole the cookie money from the Girl Scouts.

I cannot over emphasize the need us to explore the evidence as carefully and doggedly as if we were discussing a high-profile murder trial - if not more so. If someone of real stature comes out, the whole house of cards comes down.

That is why the MSM is so terrified of investigating.

Anonymous said...

Hi Bill,
LondonLad here.
Thought I'd post a link to this site I discovered only the other day. I know nothing about it but it seems a good photographic resource site.
WTC Demolition Analysis, Evidence Based Research

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?&MMN_position=106:106

Gary_7vn said...

@ LondonLad

Nice to see you! I was hoping that you would show up.

Thanks very much for the link, I was not aware of that site. I am looking at it now. There is a lot to be said for having those materials in one place.

loretta said...

Fantastic stuff on that website, LondonLad. I remember watching TV the early afternoon of 9/11 (we were all sent home from work), and seeing the collapse of WTC1 and 2 thinking I was watching a movie. Then, when WTC7 fell, I saw it with the sound turned down low (I was doing other things) and immediately thought, "Oh, they decided to demolish it. Hmmm. I wonder why?"

It was so obvious.

It would behoove people to remember their initial impressions of that day, before the massive propaganda began.

Gary_7vn said...

On the Pentagon surveillance footage.

I don't think anyone would disagree that even prior to Sept. 11, 2001 the Pentagon had to have been one of the most heavily defended military sites in the world.

To that end there MUST have been, at a minimum, dozens, if not hundreds, of high resolution surveillance cameras; and that footage would have been stored for later analysis in the event of an attack.

So where is it?

To this day, we have only seen a few frames that show - essentially nothing. Why? Where is this footage? What is the rationale for not releasing this footage? National security? Hardly, we are told that a plane crashed there, we know what planes look like, the footage would have been from the outside and by definition cannot show us anything that someone walking by the Pentagon could not have seen.

Perhaps in the spirit of his new glasnost policy, President Obama could order that this footage released. If the official story is true than surely that would go a long way in silencing the critics and restoring confidence in the government.

Pilots for 911 Truth has done an excellent analysis of the flight data recorder from Flight 77 which shows that at the moment of impact was 100 feet above the Pentagon.

They also talk of the extreme difficulty that any pilot would have had in executing the extreme maneuvers that Hani Hanjour would have had accomplished in order to fly into the Pentagon 2 feet above the ground at 400 mph! Never forget that the people who trained Hani Hanjour are on record as saying that Hani could not fly a Cessna light aircraft.

Gary_7vn said...

@ Loretta

Thanks again for your comments! You make some excellent points about the ridiculously unlikely story that everyone, from the FAA to Norad, to the mavens at the Pentagon completely failed in their duties.

I have one small correction to your comments. 3 towers fell that day. WTC 7 is not much discussed, in fact most Americans have forgotten that a third tower fell that day, a tower that was a block away, and had been "hardened" against attack for it use as a command centre. WTC 7 was 53 stories tall and at the time would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Building 7 collapsed into its own footprint in 6.6 seconds. Unbelievable. A fairy tale.

loretta said...

Of course I did not forget WTC7, I just used "overdesigned" to describe WTC1 and 2; but, you are right, WTC7 had been renovated to be a sort of bunker for the mayor. Odd, that.

I have found over the years of discussing this subject with reluctant people that you have to narrow down your argument to the most salient evidence to your audience. For example, when I have talked to friends, acquaintances and relatives who serve or served in the military, I ask them one question: is it possible that the Pentagon could have been hit by anything (plane, missile) without a stand-down order?

To a man, they say, No.

The Reality Kid said...

A small but perhaps important point - one can accept that WTC-7 was intentionally demolished without concluding that the "main event" was the result of a conspiracy.

Gary_7vn said...

@ Loretta

You said you asked your friends in the military if it would be possible to hit the Pentagon without a stand-down order. I am dying to hear the answer!

Glad to hear that you know about Building Seven, sorry if I offended, I see you know your stuff!

loretta said...

The main event was a "conspiracy" whether OBL and his Muslim "extremists" did it or if a cabal of our government did it. Either way, it was a conspiracy.

loretta said...

Gary, my friends and relatives in the military told me that No Way could a plane reach the Pentagon, or a missile be fired at the Pentagon, and not be intercepted or blown away within 3 seconds of its sighting.

loretta said...

Furthermore, they told me that no target in Washington DC (Capitol, White House, Pentagon) or Langley, could be hit by enemy fire at any time and that no terrorist would even attempt it.

cocktailhag said...

I agree that WTC 7 and the Pentagon are really difficult to square with the official story, and the NORAD decisions are also unfathomable, but I must beg to differ that WTC 1 and 2 were in any way "overdesigned."
The skinny window mullions carried a substantial part of the weight, structurally, like a birdcage. There was no concrete core. That's called "lack of redundancy," and it is the cause of every building failure. Traditionally, skyscrapers had been designed with heavy steel columns, wrapped in masonry to protect the malleable steel from fire.
It worked, too, when the empire state building was hit, and the airplane was broken into sections by the interior columns, protected from the resulting fire by their masonry cladding.
With the WTC, the planes were able to cut through too many of the supporting columns on impact, and even the substantial interior columns were only protected by a hastily-devised asbestos-free foam which suffered much damage from weather during construction.
There's a reason this construction method was considered novel at the time, and we should all be glad it wasn't used more often. It was nothing more than a risky gamble, intended to create more rentable space and and add publicity-friendly height to the buildings at the lowest possible cost.

Gary_7vn said...

@ Loretta,

Never mind, I see you said NO. Sloppy reading on my part.

That's really frightening though isn't it? Another confirmation of what we suspected. I grew up in a military town, my Dad was in WWII, and like lots of guys, I read about the military, etc. So when on Sept. 11 they were telling me nonsense like we lost them, and no interceptor aircraft for god's sake. I just couldn't believe it. Right away. The Pentagon had nearly an hours warning - FROM CNN, and still the place was full of people and no planes in the air, no MAN PADS deployed, no anti-aircraft defences, and General Myers "busy" at meeting!!!

The mind just boggles and boggles.

Falling Up said...

why would anyone who wanted to demolish the buildings as a terrorist attack want the building to fall straight down. In other words, what is the motivation to go through the concerted effort to plant demolition in such a way as to force the building to fall the way it did? Clearly, this was the biggest blunder on the part of the conspirators. Ostensibly all they had to do is force portions of the buildings to topple, taking out other buildings in the process. That way no one would have suspected an inside job.

Gary_7vn said...

@ Cocktailhag

Glad to see you!

What evidence do you have the supporting columns were damaged by the planes? Keep in mind that WTC 2 was hit at an extreme angle and it would have been impossible for the impact to damage very many if any of the interiour support columns.

Please keep in mind that in contrast with other buildings the exterior of WTC 1 and 2 were not load bearing and performed essentially no role in supporting the building.

"Architect Minoru Yamasaki designed the towers as framed tube structures, which provided tenants with open floor plans, uninterrupted by support columns or walls. This was accomplished using numerous, closely-spaced perimeter columns to provide much of the strength to the structure, along with gravity load shared with the core columns. Above the seventh floor there were 59 perimeter columns along each face of the building and there were 47 heavier columns in the core.[5]

This is what NIST says caused the collapse of 1 and 2.
NIST also emphasized the role of the fires, but it did not attribute the collapses to failing floor joists. Instead, NIST found that sagging floors pulled inward on the perimeter columns: "This led to the 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."[4]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center

loretta said...

According to a plethora of documentation, the 47 steel cores of the WTC1 & 2 should have been left standing if the collapse was really due to fire. But, how do you explain the puliverization of all that concrete and the billowing energy of the smoke and debris rolling down the street if the buildings had only collapsed? You can't explain that energy without allowing for a lot of bombs or detonating exposive devices.

Plus, the fact that the buildings didn't break apart in sections, as would be the case if caused by fire, thus falling on neighboring buildings. Instead, they collapsed straight down. Unheard of.

Anonymous said...

I've been trying to keep a running tally of the coincidences and oddities involved, e.g.
1. I understand no black box has ever been completely lost (oh, some in deep water, but we know they're there cos they were still transmitting) but on that day we lost 3. Just "gone" ...
2. No steel frame hi-rise has ever collapsed from a fire, but on that day, 3 collapsed, from fires they should have survived.
3. Not only did they collapse, but they did so in the most physically improbable manner. I would posit that no falling building of any sort has ever collapsed straight down thru the path of greatest resistance within its own footprint, and leaving only very small pieces of rubble, but on this day, 3 of them did just that.
4. Where are the aircraft engines from the plane that hit the Pentagon? In the WTC hits, you can very easily identify the engines coming out the far side of one of the towers; hardly surprising, there are very dense structures designed to withstand pulling 70 tons thru the air ... but at the Pentagon there's a hole where the nose hit, but not even scratchmarks out where the engines should have hit. Being more dense that the nose, and far more concentrated mass/momentum, the engines should have made deeper holes than the nose. Where are they? "completely sublimated"? ... bullshit.
5. Why the panic to yank the video? If it shows what the official story says it shows, why not publish it? It cant be secret if you've just told us what is on it, by definition. It can only be a secret if it shows something DIFFERENT.
6 ... The elevator refurb project? Perfect cover for a demolition job, which its hard to deny all 3 collapses very startlingly resemble. Coincidence? ...hmmm ...
7. The money trail? Not sure about this one, but it looks smelly ...
8. Anything else?

I dont know WHAT to conclude from all this, but I know for sure some goatherder in a cave in the Khyber Pass had nothing much to do with it ... it stinks to high heaven.♦

loretta said...

The engines of a 767 are 9' diameter titanium.

Anonymous said...

I really don't get it. It is undeniable that planes did crash into the towers. So any conspiracy would merely involve an inside assist to make sure the towers collapsed.

Why bother? If it was a vast right wing conspiracy or something, the planes crashing into the towers, hell, all four planes crashing into fields and killing all the passengers but nobody else, would have been sufficient to provoke the US into the War on Terror and suppression of civil rights and so on.

So why bother? This doesn't make any sense.

Anonymous said...

Indeed, if it was a conspiracy, why bother with the planes at all? Surely it would be easier to recruit the same crew of arab fundies into working for an elevator company or something, and have them plant the charges in the core. They even get to live afterwards, and be heroes in real life for a while.

I mean if you've got the jam to cover up and manipulate the way the Great Conspiracy must have, setting up a paper elevator service company owned by and traceable back to bin Laden, who was in construction after all, should be a snap.

And much more reliable than depending on snafu free commercial aviation.

Canuckistan Bob

Gary_7vn said...

@ anon

Barack Obama, a kind man, a decent man, a good Christian, someone who obviously loves his kids, just committed an international war crime. He ordered two Predator attacks inside a country with whom America is NOT at war.

He killed 20 people, some of whom may have even been "terrorists" (or freedom fighters (depends on the month, is this still January?)

Did you notice? And if you did do you actually care? Do you know anyone who does? No?

It's about shock and awe, every week people in Iraq, still get blown up a dozen at time. Yawn.

Israel just made a pretty good run at "the record" 2700 dead at the WTC and the Pentagon. I wonder what's on TV, maybe I could rent the new Batman movie.

It's called complacency, it called outrage fatigue. Sure "they" could have crashed some planes in a field. It would have a good run. But would it have been enough to start a torture regime, attack two countries, bring in the fascist PATRIOT act (1000 pages written in one MONTH)? No, it would not, to really bring in a New World Order (and make trillions of dollars) you need Shock, and you need AWE!

911 was a psy op.

Klein's third book, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism, was published on September 4, 2007, becoming an international and New York Times bestseller[7] translated into 20 languages.[17] The book argues that the free market policies of Nobel Laureate Milton Friedman and the Chicago School of Economics have risen to prominence in countries such as Chile under Pinochet, Russia under Yeltsin and the United States. The book also argues that policy initiatives such as the privatization of Iraq's economy under the Coalition Provisional Authority were pushed through while the citizens of these countries were in shock from disasters or upheavals. It is also claimed that these shocks are in some cases, such as the Falklands war, created with the intention of being able to push through these unpopular reforms in the wake of the crisis.

The Shock Doctrine was also adapted into a short film of the same name, released onto YouTube. The film was directed by Jonás Cuarón, produced and co-written by his father Alfonso Cuarón. The video has been viewed over one million times.[7]

The Reality Kid said...

@Loretta - you're right, of course, poor choice of terms on my part. But perhaps you see the point I was trying to make.

One of the interesting conclusions that arises if one accepts that WTC 1 and 2 collapsed per the official story (which I'm personally inclined to), is that the United States suffered a serious loss of human life, not due to terrorism, per se, but due to bad engineering (and/or poor structural materials).

Anonymous said...

See, I always detect a sniff of racism. Those goatherds could not have possibly pulled it off without white help!

What I thought at the time, and still think now, is that the 9/11 attack was simply fucking brilliant. Tactically, before then, nobody had realized that an airplane packed to the gills with fuel was a flying bomb.

Security-wise, nobody had realized that all the admonishments from security Authorities to stay calm and comply and wait for the FBI or whoever to show up was a terrible weakness.

Strategically, well, a major shocking attack on the US produced more revenue, support, and recruits than the Islamic fundies had ever dreamed of.

For me, a lot of the 9/11 conspiracy stuff is mostly related to an unwillingness to admit that the poorly educated brown people kicked our ass and led us by the nose and out-thought, out-fought, and out-propagandized us. We just don't want to admit that we simply lost a round or two, to brown ignorant non-Christians. Hollywood would never accept such an ending, it would be inconceivable, and so much of our thinking is Hollywood thinking.

And, at the end of the day, it doesn't really matter what "really" happened, only what people believe happened, and what really matters isn't what a bunch of anonymous people on the internet thinks "really" happened, but what a large number of people on the streets of Baghdad and Cairo and Beirut and Peshawar and Islamabad and so on, and yes the people on the streets of Seattle and Philadelphia and Austin and yes, New York, think happened.

9/11 happened. It has entered history. History is not rewritten by sudden discoveries by conspiracy buffs; that has never ever happened, not even once, outside of Dan Brown and National Treasure.

Canuckistan Bob

Anonymous said...

Uh, Gary, what does a strike under Obama into Pakistan have to do with 9/11 Conspiracies? Please explain.

Whatever you think about the fighting in Afghanistan and its leaching into Pakistan, Obama made it pretty clear during the campaign that he was going to be pretty militarily aggressive in Afghanistan. You may not like it, you may not support it, but at the very least, there isn't much hypocrisy apparent.

Canuckistan Bob

Gary_7vn said...

@ Canuckistan Bob

My point was in response to a comment that said why go to all the trouble of crashing planes, explosives, et al. Just crash some planes and blame it on the Arabs, that would have been enough to accomplish their agenda.

My response was that it takes a lot these days to get people to notice and much much more to get them to actually care. I mentioned Obama, because pre 911 the Pres attacking a country was big news. It's not anymore apparently.

The massive shock and awe we saw on Sept. 11, was entirely necessary to reduce people to a receptive and passive state. Whoever did this was a brilliant student of social psychology.

Obama did say that he was planning on bombing Pakistan. I expected this, but it doesn't make it any less shocking.

loretta said...

I think the racist argument is weak. It's not that I don't believe that 19 Arabs could come up with the plan, especially if they were well-trained and funded. It's that after this group supposedly did this, our government stopped bothering to go after them, or the states that supported them (and if they knew who these 19 guys were within 2 days, they sure knew where they came from), and instead, within two months, tried to concoct a way to connect Iraq. Eventually, even Bush admitted he didn't care about going after OBL and he never focused on either Pakistan or Saudi Arabia - the two foremost states that sponsored the alleged 19.

loretta said...

@ Reality Kid: regarding the motive to destroy WTC1, 2 and 7? There are several theories about this, not least of which is what was demolished in those buildings and what the buildings were worth to the owner/lessors in re: insurance. I don't pretend to know the motive behind destroying the buildings, but I don't have to. That's the job of the investigators, and the commission did not probe that, nor did they explore the possibility, despite many witness accounts of explosions, that the buildings were destroyed by bombs or explosives. Makes you wonder how thorough this investigation was. It's also curious, to say the least, that most of the crime scene was cleared off and the steel shipped to China. In a murder case, that would be considered a serious breach. And, here we had 3,000 murders and FEMA wasn't even allowed on the site.

Anonymous said...

I was lurking over at the Greenwald comments section and saw that the thread had been derailed a little by the 9/11 'truth' subject, which then inspired our host to create his own thread and free Glen's back up.

I'm really only here to make some general comments and solicit some responses which may help me clear up my own understanding of the events of that day.

In no particular order:

* Obviously something fishy happened. Whether it was MIHOP, LIHOP, an actual successful terrorist attack, or something perpetrated by The Mossad (something that doesn't seem to be getting a lot of discussion for some reason). In any case, and IMO the 9/11 commission report created more room for speculation (as evidenced by the existence of this very thread and thousands like it)than the opposite.

* I've seen pictures (I'll try to dig them up and post links if anyone cares) of WTC7's face that was highly damaged by debris and shrapnel from the collapse and explosion of the other two towers. I'm not an architect or structural engineer, but I too initially found the pancake/footprint style collapse of the first two buildings a little coincidental, if not suspicions - and that of WTC7 to be downright suspect - especially given that it was 'hardened' and served as the command center of various national/state/local law enforcement and , if I'm not mistaken, terrorism prevention agencies.

* I am highly troubled by the presence of massive pools of molten steel found under ground zero weeks and months after the collapses. This kind of goes along with the footage of the molten metal flowing out of one of the towers prior to collapse. WTF would cause this if not some type of thermite-like substance?

* WRT to the Pentagon, I'm going to have to differ with the status-quo here. The building itself is located less than 2 miles (maybe less than 1?) from the approach path for the Ronald Reagan Airport. And while some rumors that there are 'missile batteries' which can automatically shoot planes down have surfaced, no evidence TMK has ever been provided. Further, with such high air traffic in the area, how would these ostensibly automatic systems know which target to track? Doesn't make any sense.

Might want to peruse this site for a bit and let me know what you think. Seems well reasoned enough for me:

http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_missile_batteries.html

-GZ

Gary_7vn said...

@Loretta

Yes, the destruction of the evidence at the WTC site is very suspicious, and is indeed central to the case against the official story.

In a normal plane crash, let alone "a new Pearl Harbor", they normally attempt to reconstruct the plane, like at Lockerbie.
http://tinyurl.com/dejrzt

So what did they do with the steel from the towers? Destroyed it as we know. Sent it to "The Kills" under guard, and from there to China. I remember when that happened, it was one of the first things that I had seen that really caused me to question the official story.

Gary_7vn said...

@ Anon 6:47 EST

If you want pictures. LondonLad posted this url earlier, I had not seen it. It's very comprehensive. I think you might find your pics there.

http://www.sharpprintinginc.com/911/index.php?&MMN_position=106:106

Your link about the anti-missiles made large use of the "automated" air defenses. That is a canard. First it ignores the presence of Andrews AFB, just 13 miles away. No planes were launched.

Who said that they needed to be automated? The navy does that with the AEGIS system but that is only at sea, in a battle zone.

The military evaluates capability like this, can they do it, would they benefit from doing it? Conclusion, they did it.

Could the Pentagon deploy small anti-missile or anti-aircraft batteries in the area or on the grounds? Easily. Would this be a good idea, i.e. potentially useful. Yes. I simply assume that they are there, just as I assume that had more than one security camera.

Aside from missile installations. Remember there are any number of man portable anti aircraft missiles such as the famous Stinger. The Pentagon knew for an hour that America was under massive attack and that planes were in the air that had been hijacked.

So where the hell were the guys with the MAN PADs? It's madness. Could not happen. No one is that stupid, clueless or ill prepared.

Not even the Pentagon.

The molten metal is another key point. Thermate is the answer. See: Prof.Stephen Jones

loretta said...

911 myths, ironically, is a website dedicated to debunking the theories about 9/11 coming from the people who don't believe in the official 9/11 story. How funny! Wouldn't they have saved themselves all sorts of time and energy if they had just told the truth the first time? If they had done a thorough investigation and presented the facts? If they hadn't whitewashed the report and tried to paint everyone who questioned anything as the dreaded "conspiracy theorist?"

I have read a lot of books about this issue by a myriad of sources and it sure does seem that the preponderance of evidence weighs against the "official story."

But, I encourage everyone to read everything they can find. It's quite a rabbit hole.

loretta said...

Incidentally, why is it that the authors of the website "911 myths" are anonymous? Clearly, it took a lot of work to break down those stories, make opinions and separate the wheat from the chaff. Seems to me anyone doing that much work would be proud to put their name on it.

The most valid sites and books about 9/11 are from people unafraid to put their names on it. Even the so-called debunking sites and the books by apologists are willing to put their names on it.

Any site that is written by nameless, faceless sources is suspect.

The best place to start any investigation is the unparalleled and brilliant 9/11 timeline found here:

http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

Anonymous said...

Regarding 911myths, I wasn't aware that they were anonymous. Interesting information, though. Although I do agree with their thought process and conclusions on several of the topics they address, it is a little strange that they'd choose to do it anonymously. I have to confess that I didn't search their site thoroughly today for a possible explanation for this fact (using a computer without a mouse right now, and navigating is difficult without a refresher course on shortcut keys).

I *was* hoping that someone had chimed in the the Mossad angle by now, or managed to debunk-the-debunking they offered wrt the proximity of Ronald Reagan Airport to the Pentagon and all the talk about 'heavily defended airspace', approach angles, etc.

One of the reasons I stopped reading so much about the events at the WTC complex is the rabbit hole loretta mentioned. And no matter which side you believe (and there are well researched and documented points on both), I can't quite completely buy the whole pancake/demolition style collapse of WTC1 and WTC2, much less WTC7.

Assuming a conspiracy (inside job, outside job, intentional complacency inside, etc.), piecing together a coherent and realistic motive, along with the monumental task (personnel, planning, maintaining secrecy, etc.) is the most difficult and convoluted part, IMHO.

I have almost no doubt that GWB was not involved in planning it or carrying it out, and I even have a problem with the allegations that he or his cabinet allowed it to happen with foreknowledge of the plot.

This is not to say that the sheer negligence of our first-response systems that day, the number of insane coincidences necessary for the events to transpire almost perfectly (for the perpetrators), and the lack of transparency and adequate investigation afterwards isn't all just mind boggling.

Reading and hearing the stories about Israelis who appeared to be professionals loudly cheering the events in NYC, I am still kind of hoping for some 'expert analysis' of, or a thorough debunking of the whole Mossad aspect.

Gary_7vn said...

@ anon 12:28 AM

With any crime you look for motive and opportunity. Then you look to see who "benefited".

As for motive, lots and lots of people had the motive. Even Fidel, or Chavez might have had motive, and yes, rightist authoritarian elements, neocons, and of course Mossad had motive; different, disparate motives to be sure, but motive just the same.

But when you look at who "opportunity" i.e. means, the list gets much shorter. Shorter because on Sept. 11, 2001 the entire US air defense was missing in action. This is almost understandable for the attacks on the towers, as from the time the hijackings were discovered to impact was only minutes.

8:19: Betty Ong, a flight attendant on Flight 11 [1] alerts American Airlines via an airphone, "“The cockpit is not answering, somebody’s stabbed in business class—and I think there’s Mace—that we can’t breathe—I don’t know, I think we’re getting hijacked.” She then tells of the stabbings of two flight attendants.

8:46: Two F-15 fighter jets are scrambled from Otis Air Force Base in Massachusetts

8:46:40: Flight 11 crashes at roughly 490 mph (790km/h or 219m/s or 425 knots) into the north face of the North Tower (1 WTC) of the World Trade Center, between floors 93 and 99.

But in the case of the Pentagon, they had ample warning, as I keep saying Otis AFB was only 13 miles away and had many interceptors.

There is a plethora of other information on the "stand down", please have a look a that. If in fact there was a stand down order, this eliminates Chavez, the Russians, and of course Bin Laden, because although they had the capability to hijack planes, they most certainly lacked the capacity to order a stand down of air defenses in the United States.

I assume that you are talking about the notorious "white van" from Urban Moving when you mention "professional loudly cheering the events in NYC". That incident is very troubling as well. Regarding 911, Binyamin "Bibi" Netanyahu, recently said,
"We are benefiting from one thing, and that is the attack on the Twin Towers and Pentagon, and the American struggle in Iraq," Ma'ariv quoted the former prime minister as saying. He reportedly added that these events "swung American public opinion in our favor."

Netanyahu reportedly made the comments during a conference at Bar-Ilan University on the division of Jerusalem as part of a peace deal with the Palestinians.
http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/975574.html

Just days after the attacks this is what he said, when asked what the 9/11 attacks means for relations between the US and Israel, replies, “It’s very good.” Then he edits himself: “Well, not very good, but it will generate immediate sympathy.” [New York Times, 9/12/2001]

The Dancing Israelis.
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/fiveisraelis.html

Gary_7vn said...

From the Memory Hole

Small Plan Crashes into White House, 1994

(Kind of puts the lie to the idea that no one anticipated someone trying to fly a plane into the White House or the Pentagon)

CRASH AT THE WHITE HOUSE: THE DEFENSES; Pilot's Exploit Rattles White House Official
By STEPHEN LABATON,
Published: September 13, 1994

Rattled security officials acknowledged today that they could not account for how a small Cessna airplane breached the closely guarded White House compound early this morning. Nor could they guarantee that they could prevent a similar occurrence in the future.

Frank Eugene Corder's early morning ride highlighted a vulnerability that has worried some experts for years.

Today's experience suggests that if a man with limited flying skill could blunder into a near-hit on the President's bedroom with no resistance, then a determined, skilled and knowledgeable assassin could inflict far greater damage.

Less than six hours after the crash, Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, the senior official overseeing the Secret Service, announced that plans for protecting the President from such attacks would be re-evaluated.
http://tinyurl.com/d3uu66

Gary_7vn said...

Air Surveillance Assets in Place and Available to the Secret Service, on Sept. 11, 2001

(September 2000 and after): Secret Service Has Air Surveillance Capabilities

It is reported that the US Secret Service is using an “air surveillance system” called Tigerwall. This serves to “ensure enhanced physical security at a high-value asset location by providing early warning of airborne threats.” Tigerwall “provides the Secret Service with a geographic display of aircraft activity and provides security personnel long-range camera systems to classify and identify aircraft. Sensor data from several sources are fused to provide a unified sensor display.” [US Department of Defense, 2000; US Department of the Navy, 9/2000, pp. 28 pdf file] Among its responsibilities, the Secret Service protects America’s highest elected officials, including the president and vice president, and also provides security for the White House Complex. [US Congress, 5/1/2003] Its largest field office with over 200 employees is in New York, in Building 7 of the World Trade Center. [Tech TV, 7/23/2002] Whether the Secret Service, in New York or Washington, will make use of Tigerwall on 9/11 is unknown. The Secret Service appears to have other air surveillance capabilities. Counterterrorism “tsar” Richard Clarke will describe that on 9/11, the Secret Service had “a system that allowed them to see what FAA’s radar was seeing.” [Clarke, 2004, pp. 7] Barbara Riggs, a future deputy director of the Secret Service who is in its Washington, DC headquarters on 9/11, will describe the Secret Service “monitoring radar” during the attacks. [PCCW Newsletter, 3/2006; Star-Gazette (Elmira), 6/5/2006] Furthermore, since 1974 the Secret Service operations center has possessed a special communications line from the control tower of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport. This hotline allows air traffic controllers monitoring local radar to inform agents at the White House of any planes that are off course or appear to be on a “threatening vector.” [Time, 9/26/1994]http://milkhouse-mouse.blogspot.com/2006/11/secret-services-air-surveillance.html

loretta said...

In a criminal trial, you don't need motive to prove guilt. I don't think motive will necessarily be difficult to prove if the evidence demonstrates that Cheney was one of the insiders. The war on Iraq is a big enough motive (and its requiste war profiteering) for any conviction.

I don't think Bush knew exactly what was going on, but he was certainly filled in after the fact; if he was clueless at the time. I'm sure Cheney knew the score, as did several other key people in the administration.

Anonymous said...

Gary, at January 26, 2009 2:44:00 EST PM did you just basically imply that the Jews did it, and then cover with a flurry of distracting subsequent posts?

Just asking.

Canuckistan Bob

BTW, this is NOT a site for an open argument about 9-11 conspiracies, it is a site for 9-11 conspiracists. Conspire away, ladies and gentlemen, conspire away. I doubt I'll be back.

Gary_7vn said...

@ Canuckistan

People can discuss what they want, I'm not censoring anything. It just happened that so far at least most people are in opposition to the official story.

As for me suggesting that it was the Israelis... I simply proposed them as suspects. See the Lavon Affair, where Israel got caught red handed committing acts of terrorism in Egypt and then in 1967 when they attacked and attempted to destroy the Liberty, USN. Probably planning on blaming on the Arabs. This kind of stuff happens. The Germans did the same thing when they faked an attack on a German radio station and blamed it on the Poles.

loretta said...

It's certainly not out of the realm of possibility that the Mossad was involved. They would have the inside track. They would have had to work with a few key military and political personnel, though.

Gary_7vn said...

@ Loretta

Entirely possible, especially given their history of such false flag events.

And it would have required the assistance of elements within the military and the government, but then there is a history of this kind of cooperation as well.

I think that countries, even the United States are no longer controlled completely from inside the country. There are now many extra-national interests at work inside most Western countries. Multi-national corporations are perhaps the best example of this. These giant entities know no national loyalties and exist for their own benefit.

911 may have been an example of foreign agencies working with elements within the United States government and it's military to create a situation beneficial to all.

Anonymous said...

testing

Anonymous said...

testing testing 911

Titonwan said...

The part left out of that Operation Northwoods scenario is the one they used... using a drone airliner painted to resemble a regularly scheduled flight that flew near to Cuba's air defenses. It was to meet the real airliner under rader and then take it's flight path while the real one was to fly to parts unknown in the US. Then the drone was to be detonated to simulate an explosion ostensibly by the Cuban air defenses. What the chilling part is, is what were they going to do with the passengers on the real airliner? You have to be a real piece of work even to imagine doing this sort of thing. "God & Country!" I suppose...

Gary_7vn said...

Thanks for the comment. I am very familiar with Operation NW. I talk about it in the post that opens this comment section.

I consider ONW a critical piece of the puzzle. It demonstrates, irrefutably, that the 911 mindset actually existed at the very highest levels of the military, the JCS!

So when people say that it's nuts to think that "our leaders" could do such a thing, well, they almost did. Kennedy shut it down.

It's pure pathology when people accept on the one hand that the memo is real, and that plans to launch a false flag attack on America were well advanced, and on the other hand reject the idea of a conspiracy simply on the basis of a belief that our leaders are too good to commit such an act.

That's why Peakdavid's list of emotional reasons reject 911 truth was well taken. This is what I run into most often with people who won't even entertain, not for a second, the idea that 911 was an inside job. It would destroy everything they think they know. Oh no, can't go there, that's the rabbit hole, the blue pill...

Gary_7vn said...

Sorry I meant to mention this in my last, I believe that the plan called for using a drone with no one on it. But they did suggest sinking a boatload of refugees, planting bombs, and assassination attempts on refugees.

This is the hell of it, this is what makes it real, this is what makes it possible for "decent" men to formulate such hellish plans. In their minds, these guys were not murdering monsters - no bad guy ever sees himself that way. No, in their mind they were patriots, who in their minds were "sacrificing" lives, to save lives. The were deluded right wing maniacs (think General elephantman), but in their minds they were heroes.

Gary_7vn said...

@ Titonwan

If anyone ever says nonsense to the idea of remote controlled aircraft. Suggest they watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-TrOA9WiUWs
"On December 1st, 1984, a remote controlled 4 engined transport jet took off from Edwards AFB, CA and crashed into a barren patch of nearby desert. This Controlled Impact Demonstration was a joint R&D program by the FAA and NASA."

ScuzzaMan said...

If I were some kind of CIA black ops guy, I could think of a number of ways to infiltrate such buildings.

Some time before the event I'd have an out of state team run a "security test" on the main buildings. But I'd tell them it has to be realistic, so the security guys and other local law enforcement won't know they are there. However, I've got them jobs working as elevator maintenance crews, for cover. Their "test" is to see if they can plant enough explosives - undetected - to bring the towers down. To bring in the several thousand pounds of explosives required for each building would only require about 20 trips each for a 20 man team. I'd tell them they have to actually install the stuff, I'd supply them with it all ready rigged with wireless remotes, but I'd tell them it isn't real, it's just to make the test simulate a realistic attempt at terrorism. Then on the morning of the event I'd have them take an early flight to Boston, ostensibly for a congratulations from some bigwig for a job well done, and I'd book them on the flight that left there to eventually hit one of the towers. Tie up the lose ends, right?

If I was running this operation out of WTC7 then I'd want it destroyed as well, since in the aftermath there is simply too much risk of some honest john law finding incriminating evidence. Whereas now it is gone, people can speculate but nothig can be proved. Simple risk management in action.

And the size of the group of conspirators required for such a plot?

Not as big as some people like to pretend, is it? And if one of them is the VP, who just happens to think that the CIA is his personal assassination squad ... well, that's not even controversial these days.

I dont expect anyone to change their minds either: because like the man said, a man see what he wants to see and disregards the rest.

di de di ...

But the problems of the official story far surpass those of the alternatives. The problems of the alternative scenarios are blown up out of all proportion in the minds of people who dont want to look at any alternative, because it either frightens and/or embarrasses them.

IMHO.

Gary_7vn said...

@ Scuzza
Good points. There was a shutdown a couple of weeks before, and you know that the security company in charge was run by a Bush right?

As you know, Jones et al, just published a peer reviewed paper that showed the presence of nanothermite. Nanothermite is highly energetic, I am not sure if it is more powerful than other substances normally used in demos, but if it is, then this would reduce the amount of explosives required to a few hundred pounds, maybe less. Remember that this was no normal controlled demolition, they did not have to be so careful, and could work fast.

The presence of nanothermite, a very obscure substance, at the WTC site, is damning. If you heard that the FD had found traces of gasoline at the local restaurant fire, well... it's arson right? Why can't people see this?

Anonymous said...

Hi, LL here just testing

Anonymous said...

LL here
We who don't believe the story often get smeared by being called "conspiracy theorists." I think I've got an adequate way around that that can be used so the Idiot Lie believers can't put a glove on you.
Its short sweet and uses only "what is" facts.
"What is" data is the term used in intelligence circles for that factual data both sides agree on. Both the CIA & the KGB both believed that the day has 24 hours. That's a "What is" fact. The North pole is at the top of the earth and the Antarctic at the bottom. Both can agree on that.
my "What is" explanation will follow in a couple of hours after I find out whether this post works. I'm busy at the mo.

Anonymous said...

loretta said...

"911 myths, ironically, is a website dedicated to debunking the theories about 9/11 coming from the people who don't believe in the official 9/11 story. How funny! Wouldn't they have saved themselves all sorts of time and energy if they had just told the truth the first time?"

The reason the government is using web sites to try and assualt the truth movement is because they can get away with a higher degree of speculation and flat out lying than they could in an official report.
So for instance NIST doesn't, can't and daren't try and explain the towers collapse because as soon as they tried they'd run straight into Newton who'd give 'em a bloody nose. But they can try it on on a what they call de bunk site.
It takes a village to make a child. It takes a city of PR men and a nation of saps to grow and sustain a lie.

Anonymous said...

LL.
The waters just got murkier, or clearer?, or more murkier?, can't decide:

UPDATE: U.S. BTS FOIA Records For 9/11 Planes Differ From BTS Online Database
According to a Freedom of Information Act reply from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 took place in December, 2000, nine months before the attacks, while no pre-9/11 final flight information was provided for American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA).

http://www.911blogger.com/node/20456

Anonymous said...

LL.
Then there is this I got from the Pilots website. You have to register now to get full access to the forum:

[F.B.I. Counsel: No Attempt Made By F.B.I. To Formally Identify 9/11 Plane Wreckage
Aidan Monaghan
03/18/08
Contained within a March 14, 2008 "DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME TO RESPOND TO AMENDED COMPLAINT" with the Nevada District U.S. Court, concerning a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit filed by Mr. Aidan Monaghan (Case #: 2:07-cv-01614-RCJ-GWF) to order the production of Federal Bureau of Investigation records concerning the 4 aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, Assistant U.S. Attorney Patrick A. Rose has indicated on behalf of the FBI, that records indicating the collection and positive identification of recovered wreckage created by these federally registered aircraft, do not exist.
http://pilotsfor911truth.org/latestnews.html]

Gary_7vn said...

Thanks London. Good digging. I am still trying to wrap my head around the implications of this. Without having any specifics, I would think that taking 3 aircraft out of service for nearly 10 months is something that just does not happen. And why only 3 planes and not 4?

The mind boggles, but now I suppose we must push to find out where those planes were. This revelation seems to have the potential to blow the lid off.

Obama will continue to do his level best to stonewall of course. It's his job.

Anonymous said...

Cheers Gary.
I was going to post an explanation as to how what happened during the collapse wasn't a free fall rate/free fall time event but because that was achieved whilst the "fall" happened through the line of MOST resistance the rate and time agreed by all must therefore have to be considered as an EXACT FACSIMILE of free fall rather than free fall itself.
This of course never happens in nature, but must only have been done because of man's design.
However, as David Chandler, physics teacher is better than me I'll leave it to him. Show these to anyone you know who still believes the story. They are each about two minutes long.

[North Tower Exploding
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtx_GcFCs6c
South Tower
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atSd7mxgsGY]

Anonymous said...

The plane for which no flight record history has been released is Flight 77, the plane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon but which left little trace of itself there.


http://www.911blogger.com/node/20456

LL

Anonymous said...

LL
I should stick to my comfort zone, Gravity & Newton.
Start getting into plane records and things can get sticky. The Transport authority may not have sent out all the records. There seems to have been records of those planes flying in 2001.
but then things get murky again with regards this:
AA have changed their wiki entry to say that two of their craft weren't airborne that day!
http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/2009/06/american-airlines-exposes-bushs-big-lie.html

23skidoo said...

LondonLad et al...

You might be interested in a current active thread on DailyKos (with poll) about whether the ban on 9/11 CT discussions should be lifted.

link here and @ sig (if that works)

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/6/26/747014/-Kosits-time-to-re-evaluate-that-no-9-11-conspiracy-theories-policy.

Gary_7vn said...

Yes, very interested. I remember when the ban went into effect. They used to have some good threads.
They said they wanted to be "part of the reality based community" when they brought the ban in. Smug bastards.

Anonymous said...

23skidoo thanks for the link to the Kos vote. I never have read Kos because on principle I would never visit a site that had a blanket ban on questioning 9/11. It was either exceptionally stupid or deeply suspect.
It doesn't surprise me in the least that the vote for lifting the ban is running at 7 to 1 for it.
But there is an interesting problem here. If you don't want to question and your news comes mainly from the prints the prints oblige by not publishing anything about it.
If you do want to research you have to go online. So the difference between those that question and those that don't is a technological divide as well as an attitude one.
By the way a must read. Sorry no link.
Matt Taibbi v Ray griffin. interview findable online.
Taibbi does not come out of it well at all.

23skidoo said...

@anon

Saw the Taibbi v Griffin matchup. Indeed, Taibbi must've thought contentless smugness (if not outright rudeness) would carry the day.

You might also check out the Democracy Now program where the Loose Change kids went mano a mano against the Mechanix Illustrated dweebs.

Anonymous said...

23Skidoo,
I need a link for that one if you could please.
Whilst I salute those young uns from Loose Change I don't hold a great store by them. They are all over the place. Too much energy not enough straight focus.

23skidoo said...

true dat. still, considering they're kids and the MI crew much older, they acquitted themselves rather well, I thought.

Kudos to Amy G for hosting the debate. She presented a model of what I would like to see in the future.

http://www.democracynow.org/2006/9/11/exclusive_9_11_debate_loose_change

I wish I could remember this other debate I saw. I can't remember who the parties were. But the truther guy had a deceptively sly approach and very effective. Will think on it more.

Anonymous said...

Thanks 23Skidoo,
I read the transcript. The L.C. guys did all right. I found this interesting.
"The Armed Forces DNA identification laboratory, which was responsible for the task [Pentagon}, was also responsible for identifying the dead in Shanksville. Keep that in mind for later."
That was a police job not the army's.

Take a look at this pic. From this one pic you can see it was obviously explosives wot did it. All the metal is stripped clean and comes in straight lengths. There are no lumps of building visible only dust. In fact we can see the metal because all the rest that is dust has sank below.
So the beams were cut first by explosive then other explosives pulverised everything else. This is screamingly obvious. What we are seeing is NOT consistent with a building merely collapsing. On the upper right and lower right you can see two buildings that have been severely damaged and gutted with fire. They remain standing. If you haven't already bookmark this site. Its a valuable resource.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzaerial4.html

Anonymous said...

Hi Guys, LL here,
I've got something that I think conclusively proves that NIST investigators were dry labbing and hence perpetrating ethics violations and did so deliberately to hide evidence of a crime.
If you go to the link you'll see a list of videos. Select the following ones and watch in order.

Three videos, Part 1,2, & 3, total running time around 28 mins
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=1F271C700C5A9C1A

Anonymous said...

Hi LondonLad here.
Some of you will by now have read Jones Thermate paper on Bentham. In it you can see a small vid of what Jones et al purport to be unreacted thermate found in the dust samples igniting.
Now I'm not saying those guys are pulling a fast one I believe them to be honest. But from this site a valid crit has been raised.
As thermate contains its own oxygen supply and is used for cutting purposes under water how come then to be properly convincing didn't Jones ignite the dust sample if not under water in a chamber containing inert gas?
Its a fucking good one. Got to hand it to him. Heres the link.
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2009/04/active-thermitic-material-claimed-in.html

But things are not lost by any means. Here is a link to a report on the dust done for Deutche bank. The firm RJ Lee Group found lead that had been VAPOURISED DURING the collapse covering particles of wire wool!! And they found microscopic spheroids of iron just like Jones. Here is their link. Very good of Deutche to allow a report they had done for their own purposes in a dispute with their insurers to be published on the web. Page 12 & 13 is where the comment about the lead lies
"Signature Assessment, 130 Liberty Street Property, (Deutche Bank)
http://www.nyenvirolaw.org/WTC/130%20Liberty%20Street/Mike%20Davis%20LMDC%20130%20Liberty%20Documents/Signature%20of%20WTC%20dust/WTCDustSignature_ExpertReport.051304.1646.mp.pdf

Gary_7vn said...

@ London

Very interesting paper that may just falsify Jones' et al thesis. And good for you to have an open enough mind to accept data that contradicts what you believe.

I read the papers you mentioned. I notice the Deutche Bank report is from 2004. Why hasn't the vaporization of lead (1300+ C~!!!) far far hotter than good old kerosene, been noticed before?

Does a PC really have 4 POUNDS of lead in it? Seems high.

Gary_7vn said...

Who the hell is Enrico Manieri?
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com

I visited his blog following a link from LL, and must say it is quite impressive.

Too impressive perhaps? He seems to be an Italian, yet his English is flawless and high level. He also seems to have a mastery of many different fields and disciplines, a true polymath.

Bottom line, I would like to know more about this fellow.

Anonymous said...

Hi Gary 7vn, LL here.
Yes I noticed the 4lb of lead comment as well. Irksome isn't it?
A simple error like that can so damage the credibility of an entire report.
One can only hope it was a typo of some kind that wasn't spotted at a proof reading session.
They probably meant 4 oz of lead in the solder joints of an average computer which would be more like it.

Anonymous said...

Hi there peeps as yet another year collapses at freefall rate into a footprint of its own hubris and delusion.
D. Chandler has a new video up. He has spotted evidence of cutter charges.

Chandler
http://www.911blogger.com/node/22236

But personally I think he makes a wrong assessment of the light at the top of the corner column during the beginning of its collapse. He thinks its sunlight. I think he is wrong on that and that the photo below shows evidence of bomb flash.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1nenw.html

Gary_7vn said...

Thanks London. Some of us miss you over at UT. The whole 911 Truth thing is unfortunately stalled. People just don't want to think about it. Obomba just announced he wants to get to the bottom of how some guy can light his underwear on fire. But 911? That's in the past, best to leave the rocks unturned. It's disgusting.

Anonymous said...

This is London Calling, This is London Calling, This is London Calling

"Flight deck recorders, do you know anything about them Bond? We've fitted one inside your crotch and it will record every thrust and detail about depth, speed and any change of direction of cock during any fuck you have during your next mission.
For christ sakes don't burn it out Bond."
Here is a vid
Flight 77: The Flight Data Recorder Investigation Files
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2833924626286859522#

Gary_7vn said...

Yes, well, it's good to know that the Brits are still on the case.
Be seeing you.

Good vid too, I have passed it on...

Lionel said...

I saw your link on Glenn Greenwald's blog today. Keith Olberman on MSNBC just had a segment with former Newsweek reporter and Obama biographer Richard Wolf saying that the White House thinks someone in intelligence is deliberately withholding information (re underwear bomber). Add to that the NY Times story about a plot to blow up Obama on Inauguration day

Inside Obama's War

Gary_7vn said...

Interesting article, I only had a chance to scan it but was puzzled by that bit about Obama making Gates his successor. I had thought that it would have been the Speaker of the House.

It reminds me of Al Haig jumping up on his hind legs after Reagan was shot, and declaring, "I'm in charge!". No Al, no, you're not.

I enjoyed the 911 debate at Glenn's even while feeling guilty. He can't deny 911 racks up the page views! Unique visitors, not so much.
thanks!

Anonymous said...

I am curious about Sec'ty Mineta's testimony--you know when he said a young man came in and said, "The plane is twenty miles out" etc--I wonder where that young man is, or if he is still living.

Gary_7vn said...

I posted about Mineta the other day on the epic 911 1400+ post at UT. Mineta, if you read his history, comes off as an honest dealer. I find his statements credible.

This is why we need a new investigation. Witnesses are dying, forgetting, and being deprogrammed. I've often wondered where that "young man" was, and what does he have to say today? There is a whole cast of characters, who walked on, then off the stage. Google "man who knew too much 911". Where is he today, where are those fireman who are on video talking about explosions? Barry Jennings will never testify now about the explosions he heard in 7 Building, World Trade Center, prior to the planes hitting, because he is dead now. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI&feature=player_embedded

After Pearl Harbour there were 6 independent investigations into what happened, and they were convened within weeks. 911 not so much, 18 months, then Kissinger, then not much better in Lee Hamilton, who at least today admits the process was deeply flawed.

Obama is in a big hurry to get to bottom, so to speak, of the under-bomber. He wants to find out how the system failed. 911 and the many transgressions of Bush and his team, not at all.

Gary_7vn said...

"Of course the orders still stand! Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Richard (Dick) Cheney, to some "young man", in his bunker, on Sept. 11, 2001

Death stare!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

john said...

watch out for the poster "Kitt" on Greenwald. I suspect he may be an undeclared moderator or enforcer who either works for Greenwald or has been imposed on Greenwald to cut down or cut out 9/11 talk especially when those who propose explosive use are good at arguing their point.
He seems to have banning powers. He might have got the inspectorknacker banned or it may have been David Buckely neither of whom have posted since.
Either way he smacks strongly of a lefty gate keeper.

Anonymous said...

Message for Randy from the Greenwald site. Randy Stone says this:
"The letters section of that topic then rambled on at record length and still the truthers failed to close the sale"

Watch and weep:
NIST said that WTC7 was the FIRST EVER steel framed building to collapse through fire alone.
That's bullshit and the Law of Probability tells you so. You don't hang around for 120 years of steel framed buildings before you get an un precedented event like that. If it happened then it would have happened many times before. Got it?
Then we come to "repeatability."
You couldn't repeat the exercise of dropping a building at freefall or near freefall using fire but you damned well could with explosives.
So there is your closed deal.
Explosives did it.

Gary_7vn said...

@ anon 5:43
Yes, that Randy is quite an operator. If you read back over his interactions with myself and others, you will see a pattern of cynical manipulation and a pathological need to prove others wrong. He congratulated himself several times for "winning" and "disproving", when of course he did nothing of the sort. See his comment about leading the "boob" around the way he torments his cat with his laser. Thus proving I suppose, that he is smarter than his cat. A point, which itself, is debatable.

I won't be engaging him any more, he can save his laser for his cat, who can save his cat may be a better question?

The physics, the politics, the testimony, the evidence, everything; points to an inside job, by whom and how we don't know, but we will.

Gary_7vn said...

@ John. Yes, Kitt has jumped in to "stop" truther talk before, but he is not alone, and her (I think)type is not limited to Salon. Some seem to really believe that Truth talk destroys "our" credibility. It does not, the right will always attack where ever and when ever it can, about what matters little. And even if it does hurt the left, if one believes that the story of 911, then one can hardly be expected to shut up. Tell me you disagree, demonstrate why you disagree, but don't ever tell me to shut up.

Having said that I don't think anyone but Glenn has that power, he does have an intern who has been empowered to delete posts based on 'strict guidelines' as he said. I am sure that he got a tonne of emails, many of which would have called for banning. 30-40% of the regulars there are truthers or in that room, that's a lot of banning. No, Kitt just calls em like she sees em. Most of the time I get along fine. 911 is always the elephant in the room though. It's worse elsewhere, try huffpo or god forbid Kos.

Anonymous said...

Here is a useful way to explain how the tower fall couldn't have happened the way they say.
They say the top acted like a hammer.
Well take one arm, one hammer one blow - it hits a nail into wood. Even though the hammer prevailed over the nail still there was an equal and opposite reaction from the nail.
This can be seen if you take the same blow on a succession of nails each one getting slightly larger and heavier. Each time that hammers blow would have less and less effect until you had a nail large enough that the hammer would bounce right back.
Gravity only supplies one size hammer blow. Lets say the top (hammer) hit one nail (floor) and lets say it could knock it out of position.
But there was eighty floors below the top (hammer).
So you lined up eighty nails (floors) head to point in a rigid line.
Then drop the hammer on the first nail - would it drive i9t down into the wood (ground)?
Of course not, because there would be all those other equal and opposite reactions waiting in line to resist the hammer (top) from driving them anywhere at all. Their accumulative effect would resist the hammer or top.

Anonymous said...

Hitler knows what Nano-Thermate in the WTC dust means.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbRc1BhXjvA

"I use emotion for the many, and reason for the few."
A. Hitler.

Anonymous said...

Rudy the red nosed liar who now likes to pretend that 9/11 didn't happen on Bush's watch happened to on the day to predict the towers coming down before they actually did.


Around the 1:50 min mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vCg8Fp8aw8.

Gary_7vn said...

@ anon 6:03

Yes, he was told. He admitted it on national television. Of course nowadays he has changed his story.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VECqSYJyRqQ

"we had no way to know that the towers would implode." Giuliani

Anonymous said...

Nice one Gary. The one lie now compliments the other in a two lie knock out competition between America's Liayor and himself.
I wonder who will win.

Anonymous said...

A seriously worrying paper here from one of Obama's top men Cas Sunstein.
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1084585&rec=1&srcabs=292149
They want to start countering CT's. Better watch out Bill. They even mention sober minded Canadians falling prey to them.

Gary_7vn said...

@ anon 1:48
I saw this at UT, your post I believe. Shocking stuff, expected to be sure, but shocking nonetheless.

Very worrying indeed. I was not able to download the paper for some reason, but based on what I read there and elsewhere, this is extremely worrying.

No way will they limit this to "fringe" groups like Truthers, it will spread.

His book, described as a "blue print" for internet censorship, is just the opening volley. They want to lock the web down. You will log on using your real identity, and everything you do will be logged. Anti government, anti-COG sites will not be found and when they are it will be sloooooow. I am sure that they have other measures planned.

The internet is/was the biggest threat to the aristocracy, and they will do anything to cripple it. Not destroy, cripple. There will still be plenty of funny cat videos! 911 Truth, or any kind of Truth for that matter. No.

Gary_7vn said...

@ anon (TS?)

I was able to download the document. Sober Canadians, give me a break, is this guy so fucking stupid he thinks he can characterize an entire country with one word "sober". Idiot.

I notice his email is up there as his phone number. I would encourage anyone who has a problem with the government infiltrating any legal group with spies and agents provocateurs to give him a call and or send a polite email. Maybe he can be reached, maybe he knows not what he does, maybe he really is just an academic dick with his head in the clouds.

Or maybe he really is an agent of repression, fully cognizant of the need to suppress dissent and maintain the power of our "shadowy masters".

Oh but that would be a conspiracy theory wouldn't it doc? And we cannot have that can we? It's dangerous, someone somewhere might not feel "safe". Send in the agents.

Cass Sunstein (Phone) 617-496-2291
(email) csunstei@law.harvard.edu

East Germany here we come!

John Friend said...

Everyone needs to look into what Daniel Hopsicker has reported regarding Mohammed Atta and the history of drug running with the knowledge and cover of very high level government officials. For example, google Iran Contra, drug running in Arkansas under then-Governor Bill Clinton, the Franklin County Credit Union scandal in Omaha, Nebraska that involved drugs, child prostitution/pornography, and child trafficking. The 9/11 "official story" is obviously a cover-up of epic porportions, and is easily debunked by any rational person. We need to keep at it and start talking to friends, family, and neighbors about this!!

Anonymous said...

John thanks for your input but...
With the Sustein paper out and us being able to see what one could anyway believe they would be up to, one is on far safer ground sticking to empirically provable facts about the what happened on the day.
That way they can't touch you.
No equal and opposite effects shown in the collapses. Freefall AND pulverisation can't happen under gravity alone because you can't use the same energy twice.
Building 7 lacks a prior precedent in a hundred years of a steel frame building collapsing due to fire which defies the law of probability. And the collapse as described couldn't be repeated by using fire but could very much be repeated using explosives.
Empirical facts based on the Laws of Physics and scientific method will do them every time and keeps us out of the "conspiracy theorist" hole they would like to stuff us.

Anonymous said...

They are beginning to pull posts of Greenwald threads now. A couple of posters are having their posts pulled for just telling Greenwald to be sceptical about Osama tapes.
Very sinister turn of events.

Anonymous said...

A little light entertainment me thinks.
I'd like that wretch Kitt from Salon to be forced to watch this as I waterboarded the freak 180 times before breakfast.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqeWz4Wrky8&feature=related

Gary_7vn said...

Brilliant video. Perfect explication of the physics. The sound track was perfect, I can see this being played at 911 Truth events to get everyone pumped.

Good work, I will post it.

Hope the fog's not too thick round your town tonight, mighty cold here today, minus 31 celsius, with the wind chill you could die in minutes.

Send me an email sometime, eyestir at gmail.

Anonymous said...

I suppose your reference to fog was you thinking I live in Dick van Dyke town where chimneys are swept each Friday and where young governess's by the name of Poppins are given a good seeing to all weekend in a vain attempt to stop them singing.
We don't have fogs these days. The Clean Air act saw to that 40 years ago.
The fog was anyway the smoke from coal fires mixed with horse fart from the Hansom cabs pushed groundward by the cold fronts of winter.
These days if I want smoggy horse fart I need only go to salon and read Kitt, Jebbie and Chuchi Pops wax lyrical as to how many Chinamen laid end to end to the moon and back would it take to set fire to a waste paper basket in WTC7.

Anonymous said...

The truly strange scuzz bucket called Michael Shermer has an article up on true/slant presuming to de bunk us.
I've held the fort well enough plus, as is my style, lightly taken the piss out of the story believers.

The job needs more hands to the pump with different voices.

if I might suggest, keep as far away from anything arguable as possible. Keep to the facts and the contradictions and you can hit the OS people round the head with a length of 2x4 morning noon and night.
Remember, their belief is facilitating the introduction of Fascism.
So get in there and do a reverse Sunstien.
Either enlighten the bastards or cripple their epistemologies even further by breaking the bastards legs

Anonymous said...

Hi Bill,
lost your e. So I'll go well of thread here.
Check out this fine new album.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2010/feb/02/gil-scott-heron-new-here

Anonymous said...

Here are the "Bee Gees" like you have never heard them.
If they stuck this on the radio and played it constantly it could work subliminally:

"9/11's a Lie"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tAscrfyF_88

When the kids start picking up on things, 9/11 Truth will become hip & fashionable as well as right, then house of cards must surely topple soon after

Anonymous said...

A sea change seems to have taken place.
ABC visited a Truth convention. They interviewed certain people but then only broadcasted skewered versions of same. The originals can be seen at 9/11Blogger.
Now they have a piece up on their website. All the commentators seem to be truthers. That I suppose is to ABC's credit. Their posters aren't even moderated as tightly as those on 9/11 are at the Huffington Post.
The HuffPost, Salon and others better change their tune a bit sharpish or they are going to miss the boat and lose any credibility with it.
In fact worse, those sites particularly will earn their readers contempt for holding to a false line all along.
http://blogs.abcnews.com/nightlinedailyline/2010/03/inside-a-911-truther-convention-/comments/page/2/#comments

Anonymous said...

Talk of the devil.
The Huffington Post continues to dig a ruddy great hole for itself.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jesse-ventura/for-some-the-search-for-w_b_491504.html
Deleting a Jesse Ventura blog is seriously not good for business or your cool.
The crack at this stage for any journal that wants at least a veneer of hip is to publish stuff whilst editorially remaining coolly non-committal.
That way you don't get egg all over your face when the egg finally cracks wide open.

Anonymous said...

BEWARE OF GREEKS WITH THEIR KNICKERS IN A TWIST.

Having got rid of Ventura a Navy SEAL who knows about explosives, now comes an FBI Special Agent spouting 9/11 Truth talk on Arianna's Vanity Press:

"Burying" the Truth: Nightline Reporter Channels Bill O'Reilly and Does a Hatchet Job

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/coleen-rowley/burying-the-truth-nightli_b_493127.html

Will it have to next take a Texan Ranger to turn up and tell her that you can't stop a man in the right from keeping on coming before she comes to her senses?

Anonymous said...

"HuffPost's absurd stand on "conspiracy theories" David Ray Griffin"
http://markcrispinmiller.com/2010/03/huffposts-absurd-stand-on-conspiracy-theories-david-ray-griffin/

Anonymous said...

The Huffington Post's, Kos's and Salon's position on trying to block 9/11 Truth is becoming more suspicious and now ludicrous by the day. The Truther's position is now being widely expressed even on the MSM.

Jesse Ventura discusses 9/11 on The View: Liz Hasslebeck tries to "school" Jesse with Popular Mechanics talking points
http://911blogger.com/blog/1123

Anonymous said...

Huffington has gone and done us all a favour by banning Ventura.
The MSN's refusal to allow discussion of 9/11 is itself now becoming an issue.
Here is the excellent RT report on it. Re 9/11 RT (Russia Today) is becoming like a terrier with a bone - they just wont let go of it:

Ventura: ‘You’re not allowed to ask’ about 9/11
http://de.smarthide.com/browse.php?u=Oi8vOTExQmxvZ2dlci5jb20%3D&b=13&f=norefer

Anonymous said...

TheShining has been banned from Salon for mentioning 9/11 and saying that the war on terror is a hoax.
That on a Greenwald thread as well.

Gary_7vn said...

What the hell? Old Joe, Bernbart, Russel and that boatload of insanity and utter stupidity and YOU get banned? What did you say?

Anonymous said...

FOX NEWS CRETIN LETS BIG CAT OUT OF THE BAG!

In a hit piece designed to discredit good old Jesse Ventura this twat went and said this:

Jeffrey Scott Shapiro states, “I was working as a journalist for Gannett News at Ground Zero that day, and I remember very clearly what I saw and heard.”
“Shortly before the building collapsed, several NYPD officers and Con-Edison workers told me that Larry Silverstein, the property developer of One World Financial Center was on the phone with his insurance carrier to see if they would authorize the controlled demolition of the building -- since its foundation was already unstable and expected to fall.”

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=30060

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/04/21/jeffrey-scott-shapiro-jesse-venture-book-lies-truthers-ground-zero-sept-shame/

Gary_7vn said...

That's strange to the point of being unbelievable. That means that they either wired up a burning building in just a few hours, or there were pre-planted explosives, and it means that perhaps dozens of emergency workers knew what was going on.

Also everyone was just told at the last minute that it was going to collapse, if they were doing anything like a controlled and authorized demo, why the hurry?

I can't make any sense of this report.

And if Silverstein was behind that why would he go on TV and admit it? It is true that "pull" in the demo business means "blow the building up" but it's more common meaning is to "remove personnel".

I do believe it was a controlled demo, but have problems believing that Silverstein was involved. That's when it starts to get hard to believe. I can see a cadre of spooks, etc. but why bring in amateur like Silverstein. The sheer number of people required to pull off an inside job is one of the biggest problems with "conspiracy theory".

Anonymous said...

Look Bill here is how you can pull this one off an ensure your own security and that everyone keeps their mouths shut.
First you compartmentalise. Those who's services are needed are told that something is going down but not entirely what and get them to play their part.
You then inform beforehand various others of influence about something going down without again letting them in on the full horror picture.
Then when it does go down you have loads of people looking with horror at it and saying, "Christ was I involved in all this for?"
And those people keep their mouths shut the best - if they know what's good for them.

Gary_7vn said...

I suppose. Certainly the Cosa Nostra used to know how to keep their mouths shut. Certainly this operation would have been compartmentalized and many of the operators would have believed that they were performing legitimate tasks. That was probably part of the reason for the exercises that took place that day.

Silverstein's comments still puzzle me. Why would he say on TV, I told them to pull it? He is the only source for that comment.

Here's an interesting story a Quebecois university is upset and worried about their "credibility" because Truthers were allowed to talk.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2010/05/04/montreal-911-conference-uqam.javascript:void(0)html

Anonymous said...

Funny that innit?
You invade and occupy a WHOLE FRIGGING country, merely in order to stop ONE MAN building training camps comprising of assault courses and small arms ranges.

Then 9 years later having failed to find that ONE man anywhere in the WHOLE of the country you just happen to find a trill$'s worth of mineral goodies, just like that!

Some people might think that's why you went there in the beginning.
But of course, anyone who thought like that would be a "conspiracy theorist".

Anonymous said...

Once again Salon.com shows its true colours.
BlindLemonShoppingTrolley has been banned after writing this in his last post:
[Right now at Patriots for Truth you can read of good honourable people going out on a limb that sure wont be doing their careers any good. And sometimes for all the effect it is having in an indifferent world they might as well be pissing in the frigging wind.

So another question arises. Does American society in the dreadful state it is in now actually deserve having people blow whistles for its own good?}

Anonymous said...

For those wishing to check that my account was actually closed. Try logging on as BlindLemonShoppingTrolley using "bluesman," no quotes as the password.

Anonymous said...

Hello Gary_7vn and all. Good to see LL back at Salon. Isn't it strange that the very event from which all the crap that this country, no--the world is suffering through may not be discussed in "legitimate" media--at Salon they say, "go to those 9/11 sites (and preach to the choir).

Bill Owen said...

Londonlad is back? Does he have a new name? Back where? Greenwalds'? I just had look at the latest comments, no londonlad, unless under a new name. It's a shame if Glenn is making him play the change your name game.

Anonymous said...

I found out that "Blindlemonshoppingtrolley" was banned at Salon--the poster referenced your site. Later in the thread another poster showed up who some regulars identified as LL. He/s was using a different name. (stupid of me not to remember it.) By the way, Bill, are you familiar with "the Existentialist Cowboy", Len Hart? His blog is very interesting re. 9/11 and other pertinent stuff.

Bill Owen said...

@July 20, 2010 1:32:00 PM EDT
No, not familiar with Len Hart, I will have a look.

Yeah, I found the new LL persona. Glad to see he is still around. I still don't understand why truther talk is considered so disruptive. Israel triggers the same kind of division and it derails the discussion just a truther talk does.

My best guess is that Glenn doesn't want to become known as a truther or even someone who supports the idea. They have managed to make the label toxic to career.

Bill Owen said...

An alternative to the poisoned term "conspiracy theory" from Peter Dale Scott.

Deep Politics

Deep politics is a phrase coined by researcher and academic Peter Dale Scott, which he describes thus;

“My notion of deep politics… posits that in every culture and society there are facts which tend to be suppressed collectively, because of the social and psychological costs of not doing so. Like all other observers, I too have involuntarily suppressed facts and even memories about the drug traffic that were too provocative to be retained with equanimity.(1)”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_politics

Anonymous said...

Bill--I wonder why we can't see the films or videos from the Pentagon strike. Many must exist. I suppose the FOIA is useless in that regard. The fact that this information is being witheld is mighty suspect in itself.

Bill Owen said...

@July 23, 2010 1:21:00 PM EDT

The Pentagon is one of the weakest links in the legend and perhaps that is why it gets so little press.

Many times I bring up the missing videos because this is something that the average person can understand. We've all been to WalMart and Staples, and seen the dozens of cameras.

Can anyone imagine a Pentagon -- The Pentagon, one of the world's biggest targets without dozens, if not hundreds of hi quality surveillance cameras? No of course not, it's silly silly silly.

Most people also understand that if a video of the attack exists then there can be nothing "secret" on it.

So where are they, and why can't we see them?

What are they hiding?

And don't even get me started on Hani Hanjour's flying skills!

Anonymous said...

Bill--It appears that we in the US must count on individuals such as yourself, in Canada, Europe or the Far East to push hard for a real investigation. Although there are good Truth Movements here in the US, so many of us accept the Official Story http://www.NuoViso.com Go there and watch the excellent video, in German, with subtitles--a good example of the work being done outside the US.

Anonymous said...

Bill--Len Hart has some interesting observations at his blog "Existentialist Cowboy" He has been on top of 9/11 from the beginning and writes well.

Anonymous said...

They have shot the dog.
But they have a new way of doing it. The ChiHuaHua could log on. write letter, press publish, see it in the anti chamber but then not see appear on the thread when you press the see other letters button.
Bill, white squares or dots NOT lines.
I meant about three dots I'd seen seemed to form a diagonal if you drew a line through them.
Three Photos of the Levelling of the North Tower from the Northeast
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc1exp5.html
Try this in the left hand picture you can see a white spot/square on the tower just above 7 in the front. You can see the same white spot/square hasn't moved in the middle picture.

Anonymous said...

Barrie Zwicker has information from an organization called CIT that the Pentagon explosion was from explosives planted inside the building, set to go of when a large aircraft "overflew" the Pentagon.see at radiodujour.worldprewss.com

Anonymous said...

Thanks for that about the pentagon. But also and mainly about Barry Zwicker.
I had only vaguely heard of him before. Seems like a good fellow - and fast. Truther in Jan 2002, no less!

Bill Owen said...

Barry Zwicker is very very good on this subject, highly recommended. He did a series of shows on the subject early on as well.

Towers of Deception - Barry Zwicker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jSy8b-IiNL8

Anonymous said...

Bill--they have identified the "young man" Norm Mineta referred to in his testimony. His name is Doug Cochrane, and there is an interview (mp3 audio) at: www.truthforum.co.uk

Bill Owen said...

"The young man" identified. Haven't had time to listen to the interview. This is going to interesting!

I see that Assange has been given his warning. Shut up or else.

First Ritter, then Assange, it's an old trick, false, embarrassing charges, made then withdrawn. From now on it will be "the vagabond Julian Assange convicted hacker, who was once accused of child molestation."

Thanks for this!

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry I may have gotten your hopes up--Cochrane didn't really answer any of Jeff Hill's simple questions--kept saying"the 9-11 Commission Report is the definative information on the events of that day. You might be able to contact Jeff Hill, Cochrane made him give his full address. He lives in Canada--Sault Ste. Marie.

Anonymous said...

Watch Greenwald. He's a gatekeeper. He scrubbed the following as soon as it appeared:

I'm hardly indignant. I'm not given to feeling victimised. We were idly and interestingly musing amongst ourselves on the death of Thomson. Were the harm in that was is any ones guess.
Re 9/11 you know as well as I and everyone else does the authorities are still milking it for all its worth.
It seems to me futile banning or scrubbing the one 9/11 questioner when even in the last year more and more have have started posting. your position is un fortunately for you and I say this with no pleasure that of a King Kanute.
And Glen the anniversary has just passed and it didn't do so without us all seeing that absolutely no closing or healing of the wound.
Its obvious then that it is in some ones interest that that wound remains opened and can be poked at their choosing and on their terms.
Now why would any one want to do that whilst closing down throughout the media any questioning how America was wounded to begin with?
I'm sure by choice that you wouldn't want to be on the same side as Sunstein but your actions would be to his liking.
Scrub this post and it will be posted else where for all to see that it was indeed scrubbed.

https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=10935592&postID=431205452461791316

LittleBrother said...

Watch Greenwald. He's a gatekeeper.
___________________________

I probably should cep my mouf shut, because I'm still too aggravated by Glenn's effusive pitch for Feingold.

Apart from the doomed strategy of urging financial support for "good" Democrats in the post-Citizen's United era, it's both exasperating and pathetic to witness Glenn reverting to pure catty bitchiness (or bitchy cattiness) and supercilious debater's tricks in his rebuttals to critics.

I believe that Glenn's book is about Chomsky, or at least he's got one in the pipeline. And like Chomsky, he resorts to disingenuous, elliptical arguments to avoid sticky topics; Glenn blows "Chomsky Bubbles" like a squid squirts ink when pressed.

But Glenn's patronizing snarls are more reminiscent of William F. Buckley.

Since I presume that anyone who sees this is familiar with Glenn's comments threads, I'll make a point I wouldn't dare make there: as loopy as bernbart is, and distorted as hers/his/its caricature of Glenn and the regulars may be, there is a germ of truth to it.

As I said in my post there yesterday, it's just bleeding obvious that all but the few radicals posting there were thrilled for a chance to play up to Glenn and "do their bit". Which is OK as far as it goes, were it not for the obsequious sycophancy compelling them to join forces in superciliously scorning and deriding nay-sayers.

I didn't go back to the thread, so I have no idea if I also got a personal smack from Glenn.

OK, I guess my mouf is opened, but I digressed. Glenn is certainly a "gatekeeper", but if he's confronted about this, expect his faithful to set up a howl; the Bouncer will pop up right away to put the Accuser in his or her place, etc.

BTW, it's the same with Amy Goodman. I generally respect and admire her for her good work, but like Glenn she undoubtedly is moderate and professionally conservative.

Articles by her are occasionally published at "Common Dreams", and God help the person in comments who brings up her limitations, even when the critic is careful to express appreciation for her generally.

It's exactly the same reaction! The same CD regulars leap into the breach to flame the critic, typically with the same combination of vituperation and bile-drenched sarcasm as Glenn's loyal defenders use.

And about LL/Columbo etc. being disappeared. Glenn is very clear about his policy: he's tolerant, or thinks he is, for a long time. But once he's "warned" the offender a sufficient number of times, he simply goes directly to capital punishment.

Once one is on the "banned" list, future comments under other nyms are removed. Period. I can't say this has been entirely consistent, since "Columbo's Bassett" seems to survive most of the time, even though vindictive weasels like "nuf said", "totallyblase", etc. just love to "out" LL and wave their hand at the teacher in hopes Glenn will promptly chuck him out again.

And yet utter time-wasters like the Rustle-Thing get unlimited privileges-- because they don't "cross" Glenn as LL does.

Ahem. Pardon my rant! I could go on, but this thread is already unwieldy. Maybe someone will start a blog called "After Greenwald".

LittleBrother said...

Watch Greenwald. He's a gatekeeper.
___________________________

I probably should cep my mouf shut; I'm still aggravated by Glenn's effusive pitch for Feingold.

Apart from the doomed strategy of urging financial support for "good" Democrats in the post-Citizen's United era, it's both exasperating and pathetic to witness Glenn reverting to pure catty bitchiness (or bitchy cattiness) and supercilious debater's tricks in his rebuttals to critics.

Like Chomsky, he resorts to disingenuous, elliptical arguments to sidestep sticky topics; Glenn blows "Chomsky Bubbles" like a squid squirts ink when pressed.

But Glenn's patronizing snarls are more reminiscent of William F. Buckley.

Since I presume that anyone who sees this is familiar with Glenn's comments threads, I'll make a point I wouldn't dare make there: as loopy as bernbart is, and distorted as hers/his/its caricature of Glenn and the regulars may be, there is a germ of truth to it.

As I said in my post there yesterday, it's just bleeding obvious that all but the few radicals posting there were thrilled for a chance to play up to Glenn and "do their bit". Which is OK as far as it goes, were it not for the obsequious sycophancy compelling them to join forces in superciliously scorning and deriding nay-sayers.

I didn't go back to the thread, so I have no idea if I also got a personal smack from Glenn.

OK, I guess my mouf is opened, but I digressed. Glenn is certainly a "gatekeeper", but if he's confronted about this, expect his faithful to set up a howl; the Bouncer will pop up right away to put the Accuser in his or her place, etc.

BTW, it's the same with Amy Goodman. I generally respect and admire her for her good work, but like Glenn she undoubtedly is moderate and professionally conservative.

Articles by her are occasionally published at "Common Dreams", and God help the person in comments who brings up her limitations, even when the critic is careful to express appreciation for her generally.

It's exactly the same reaction! The same CD regulars leap into the breach to flame the critic, typically with the same combination of vituperation and bile-drenched sarcasm as Glenn's loyal defenders use.

And about LL/Columbo etc. being disappeared. Glenn is very clear about his policy: he's tolerant, or thinks he is, for a long time. But once he's "warned" the offender a sufficient number of times, he simply goes directly to capital punishment.

Once one is on the "banned" list, future comments under other nyms are removed. Period. I can't say this has been entirely consistent, since "Columbo's Bassett" seems to survive most of the time, even though vindictive weasels like "nuf said", "totallyblase", etc. just love to "out" LL and wave their hand at the teacher in hopes Glenn will promptly chuck him out again.

And yet utter time-wasters like the Rustle-Thing get unlimited privileges-- because they don't "cross" Glenn as LL does.

Ahem. Pardon my rant! I could go on, but this thread is already unwieldy. Maybe someone will start a blog called "After Greenwald".

LittleBrother said...

Watch Greenwald. He's a gatekeeper.
___________________________

I probably should cep my mouf shut; I'm still aggravated by Glenn's effusive pitch for Feingold.

Like Chomsky, he resorts to disingenuous, elliptical arguments to sidestep sticky topics; Glenn blows "Chomsky Bubbles" like a squid squirts ink when pressed.

But Glenn's patronizing snarls and peevishness are more reminiscent of William F. Buckley.

Since I presume that anyone who sees this is familiar with Glenn's comments threads, I'll make a point I wouldn't dare make there: as loopy as bernbart is, and distorted as hers/his/its caricature of Glenn and the regulars may be, there is a germ of truth to it.

As I said in my post there yesterday, it's just bleeding obvious that all but the few radicals posting there were thrilled for a chance to play up to Glenn and "do their bit". Which is OK as far as it goes, were it not for the obsequious sycophancy compelling them to join forces in superciliously scorning and deriding nay-sayers.

I didn't go back to the thread, so I have no idea if I also got a personal smack from Glenn.

OK, I guess my mouf is opened, but I digressed. Glenn is certainly a "gatekeeper", but if he's confronted about this, expect his faithful to set up a howl; the Bouncer will pop up right away to put the Accuser in his or her place, etc.

BTW, it's the same with Amy Goodman. I generally respect and admire her for her good work, but like Glenn she undoubtedly is moderate and professionally conservative.

Articles by her are occasionally published at "Common Dreams", and God help the person in comments who brings up her limitations, even when the critic is careful to express appreciation for her generally.

It's exactly the same reaction! The same CD regulars leap into the breach to flame the critic, typically with the same combination of vituperation and bile-drenched sarcasm as Glenn's loyal defenders use.

And about LL/Columbo etc. being disappeared. Glenn is very clear about his policy: he's tolerant, or thinks he is, for a long time. But once he's "warned" the offender a sufficient number of times, he simply goes directly to capital punishment.

Once one is on the "banned" list, future comments under other nyms are removed. Period. I can't say this has been entirely consistent, since "Columbo's Bassett" seems to survive most of the time, even though vindictive weasels like "nuf said", "totallyblase", etc. just love to "out" LL and wave their hand at the teacher in hopes Glenn will promptly chuck him out again.

And yet utter time-wasters like the Rustle-Thing get unlimited privileges-- because they don't "cross" Glenn as LL does.

Ahem. Pardon my rant! I could go on, but this thread is already unwieldy. Maybe someone will start a blog called "After Greenwald".

LittleBrother said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bill Owen said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bill Owen said...

Oh my, little brother on my poor blog. It's an honour sir. Wonderful comment as usual and a shame if not a tragedy that such matters cannot be discussed frankly at, shh, UT.

I sent LL a mail on this, I asked him if Glenn could not be taken at his word on his rationale for wielding the bannhammer. It was just a question. I do think that what he said (not sure if you read it) was his 'real' motivation, or at least part of it.

I do refuse to believe that the man who penned a series of truly excellent exposés on the paucity of the official version of the anthrax attacks can look at the vast corpus of 911 'conspiracy' and not be moved to at LEAST skepticism.

I don't believe it. Glenn is better than that.

It's impossible. His defence, that vile Chomskian "shit happens" -- that there will always be unexplained and anomalous facts in any complex event. Well, duh.

He refuses to engage on this. I've even sent him a few mails asking him to reconsider his position, to no avail. This is a man who engages on EVERYTHING.

"Gatekeeper". Not sure what that means. Is he some kind of agent? No. Not bloody likely. Is he fighting against teh "truth"? No, as I said to LL, several times, he is fighting for his career. 991 CT is death for Mr. Greenwald, fine for non-entities like myself, but a career ender for the Greenwald. I suppose that he tell himself he has bigger fish to fry, well maybe not bigger fish, but certainly more friable ones than this tasty little morsel of a false flag attack.

As London constantly reminds us, the bullshit they try to cram in our mouths defies the very laws of physics. This is not something to be dismissed by Chomsky or Greenwald as shit, that happened. This is exceeding the speed of light, this is not goddamn opinion.

Next year, it will be 10 years. 10 years of war and death and murder and lies.

Frankly I grow tired. I have intelligent, educated friends who, on this subject at least, think that I am out of my fucking mind. They are not "gatekeepers". They are just people, people have not seen, as I have, the utter, complete, and for most people, the incomprehensible evil that some people are not only capable of, but actually fucking enjoy.

Has Glenn looked into that room? I think so! Was he repulsed, or amazed or shocked or frightened out of his mind? I don't know. It's a poser.

He is good on many things. Does he, as all heroes do, have an hamartia? Goddamn right he does, goddamn right.

Thanks for dropping by friend.

Anonymous said...

Say Bill,
I'm intrigued. Above your last post are two posts which it has been said have been removed by the author.
Does that mean the writer of the post or the blog owner you?
And who anyway wrote them?
Did you say it was Little Brother? If so why the fuck has he scrubbed his own posts, especially as I never got to read them?
Yours LL, the Banned Bassett from Outer Hell.

LittleBrother said...

This is a response to an automated e-mail I just got informing me that "Anonymous has left a new comment on the post "9/11 Truth, Lies @ Salon".

No need to quote the text, but it questioned why my comment from yesterday was deleted.

Blame it on Blogger and cold feet. I always seem to run into odd glitches with Blogger-- for instance, I don't even see the new Anonymous comment I just got notice of. WTF?

Anyway, last night I obviously did publish a long screed to get my exasperation at both Glenn and the incipient comments groupthink off my chest.

When I tried to publish it, I kept getting an error message that it was too long (or "large"). Of course, being Blogger, it didn't give me a word count as most other comments forums do.

So I cut out some stuff and tried again and again, each time getting the same "Blogger was unable to load your comment" or somesuch. While I was laboring over how much more to cut, I noticed that in spite of the repeated error message, one of the edited versions appeared after all.

But I deleted it, thinking that several more repetitions might manifest. Later, I decided to leave bad enough alone because I worried that some Greenwald comments commissar would happen upon it and divert this thread.

Sorry you asked? In any case, I still have the text and will re-post it.

LittleBrother said...

Reposted from yesterday:

Watch Greenwald. He's a gatekeeper.
___________________________

I probably should cep my mouf shut; I'm still aggravated by Glenn's effusive pitch for Feingold.

Like Chomsky, he resorts to disingenuous, elliptical arguments to sidestep sticky topics; Glenn blows "Chomsky Bubbles" like a squid squirts ink when pressed.

But Glenn's patronizing snarls and peevishness are more reminiscent of William F. Buckley.

Since I presume that anyone who sees this is familiar with Glenn's comments threads, I'll make a point I wouldn't dare make there: as loopy as bernbart is, and distorted as hers/his/its caricature of Glenn and the regulars may be, there is a germ of truth to it.

As I said in my post there yesterday, it's just bleeding obvious that all but the few radicals posting there were thrilled for a chance to play up to Glenn and "do their bit". Which is OK as far as it goes, were it not for the obsequious sycophancy compelling them to join forces in superciliously scorning and deriding nay-sayers.

I didn't go back to the thread, so I have no idea if I also got a personal smack from Glenn.

OK, I guess my mouf is opened, but I digressed. Glenn is certainly a "gatekeeper", but if he's confronted about this, expect his faithful to set up a howl; the Bouncer will pop up right away to put the Accuser in his or her place, etc.

BTW, it's the same with Amy Goodman. I generally respect and admire her for her good work, but like Glenn she undoubtedly is moderate and professionally conservative.

Articles by her are occasionally published at "Common Dreams", and God help the person in comments who brings up her limitations, even when the critic is careful to express appreciation for her generally.

It's exactly the same reaction! The same CD regulars leap into the breach to flame the critic, typically with the same combination of vituperation and bile-drenched sarcasm as Glenn's loyal defenders use.

And about LL/Columbo etc. being disappeared. Glenn is very clear about his policy: he's tolerant, or thinks he is, for a long time. But once he's "warned" the offender a sufficient number of times, he simply goes directly to capital punishment.

Once one is on the "banned" list, future comments under other nyms are removed. Period. I can't say this has been entirely consistent, since "Columbo's Bassett" seems to survive most of the time, even though vindictive weasels like "nuf said", "totallyblase", etc. just love to "out" LL and wave their hand at the teacher in hopes Glenn will promptly chuck him out again.

And yet utter time-wasters like the Rustle-Thing get unlimited privileges-- because they don't "cross" Glenn as LL does.

Ahem. Pardon my rant! I could go on, but this thread is already unwieldy. Maybe someone will start a blog called "After Greenwald".

LittleBrother said...

Reposted from yesterday:

Watch Greenwald. He's a gatekeeper.
___________________________

I probably should cep my mouf shut; I'm still aggravated by Glenn's effusive pitch for Feingold.

Like Chomsky, he resorts to disingenuous, elliptical arguments to sidestep sticky topics; Glenn blows "Chomsky Bubbles" like a squid squirts ink when pressed.

But Glenn's patronizing snarls and peevishness are more reminiscent of William F. Buckley.

Since I presume that anyone who sees this is familiar with Glenn's comments threads, I'll make a point I wouldn't dare make there: as loopy as bernbart is, and distorted as hers/his/its caricature of Glenn and the regulars may be, there is a germ of truth to it.

As I said in my post there yesterday, it's just bleeding obvious that all but the few radicals posting there were thrilled for a chance to play up to Glenn and "do their bit". Which is OK as far as it goes, were it not for the obsequious sycophancy compelling them to join forces in superciliously scorning and deriding nay-sayers.

I didn't go back to the thread, so I have no idea if I also got a personal smack from Glenn.

OK, I guess my mouf is opened, but I digressed. Glenn is certainly a "gatekeeper", but if he's confronted about this, expect his faithful to set up a howl; the Bouncer will pop up right away to put the Accuser in his or her place, etc.

BTW, it's the same with Amy Goodman. I generally respect and admire her for her good work, but like Glenn she undoubtedly is moderate and professionally conservative. And her loyal followers defend her against all criticism like a pack of rabid wolves.

And about LL/Columbo etc. being disappeared. Glenn is very clear about his policy: he's tolerant, or thinks he is, for a long time. But once he's "warned" the offender a sufficient number of times, he simply goes directly to capital punishment.

Once one is on the "banned" list, future comments under other nyms are removed. Period. I can't say this has been entirely consistent, since "Columbo's Bassett" seems to survive most of the time, even though vindictive weasels like "nuf said", "totallyblase", etc. just love to "out" LL and wave their hand at the teacher in hopes Glenn will promptly chuck him out again.

And yet utter time-wasters like the Rustle-Thing get unlimited privileges-- because they don't "cross" Glenn as LL does.

Ahem. Pardon my rant! I could go on, but this thread is already unwieldy. Maybe someone will start a blog called "After Greenwald".

LittleBrother said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bill Owen said...

@Little Brother

I had exactly the same problem, hence the "deleted" posts.

Our friend LL had asked me what was going on withe deletions. I was about to ask you to repost if you so wished.

But I see you did, thank you.

I doubt that the hall monitors will see this. You are in one of dark and dusty corners of the interwebs.

Sad...

Anonymous said...

Good sources of info--9/11 and related--Rock Creek Free Press--www.thecreek.com

Anonymous said...

Bill--I've seen your posts at UT about topics that can be discussed there, and appreciate them very much--I just lurk there, but I am there every day. Too bad Glenn doesn't give one column to us "truthers" to discuss nine-eleven. By the way, did you ever look at Len Hart's blog?

Bill Owen said...

@anon 12:41

Sorry, the site at thecreek seems to be down.

Bill Owen said...

@anon 12:58

Thanks!

Yes, I did go to his site when you mentioned him earlier. He is good. Thanks for reminding me, I had forgotten about him.

For anyone reading this who is interested, he can be found here:
http://existentialistcowboy.blogspot.com/

Anonymous said...

New address for Rock Creek Free Press: www.rockcreekfreepress.com

Bill Owen said...

@ Anon
Re: Rock Creek

That's interesting. Great idea, print a bunch of these up and put on buses, at airports, wherever.

Personally I think I would skip the airports now that I think about it. lol

Thank g_d for Prof. Griffin.

Anonymous said...

Too bad--the whole month of December and no further posts. I know Bldg. 7 is being pushed pretty hard, (correctly, I believe), but I would like to concentrate on the Pentagon coverup there is no evidence that an airliner crashed at that site! If you've seen evidence, please share it. My name is FrankM

Bill Owen said...

@FrankM

Building 7 gets pushed because it is, or at least it should be, very obvious that it was destroyed in a controlled demolition.

The Pentagon attack is more complicated and was better executed in the sense that events there fit well into the narrative of their little psychodrama. The destruction of WTC 7 (their command and control centre)seems to have been an afterthought.

Like everything that day, the official version of what happened at the Pentagon makes no sense.

A shit hot jet jock would have had a very difficult time flying a 757 like that. Hani Hanjour, no way.

Rumsfeld tells us he was on the lawn helping the victims. The defence secretary, on the Pentagon lawn, helping victims? WTF?

If this had been a real attack, his personal security detail would have immediately taken him to a bunker. No questions, no arguments, they would have carried him if he refused. That's how it works. But no, there was the American Sec Def, on the day "America was Attacked", carrying stretchers -- or something.

Didn't he have something else to do?

And never, ever, forget, the undeniable and proven fact that the Pentagon had their "flying White House" command and control aircraft in the air that day -- over Washington, over the White House, the Congress and the Senate, but they deny it completely. What was it doing there? Remember, they did not even have time to launch fighters from Andrews AFB which is only 13 miles from the Pentagon, but they had time to get their goddamn E4-B in the air, and then the nerve to lie about it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvGOjcn9J4s

Another thing about the Pentagon attacks is the fact that there is no video other than that low low res traffic cam. Does anyone believe that the Pentagon has fewer surveillance cameras than Walmart?

And finally I have serious problems with the idea that the Pentagon, which had about an hours warning that there were several (at least) hijacked jets in the air that were being crashed into buildings, yet could not manage a single guy with a Stinger missile on the front lawn? Really? Aside from that you will never ever be able to convince me that the nexus, the heart, the mind, indeed the very throat of the American war machine was not protected by dozens and dozens of anti-aircraft missiles. Dozens. Destroying a 757 with a Stinger is simple and easy. So why didn't they? Where were they?

As for what happened to the Truth movement? Well, it's been marginalized by pros, and infiltrated by "cognitive disrupters" a la Cass Sunstein. How many times have you said something like, "I have problems with the official story.", only to be met with completely programmed even robotic derision, laughter and even extreme hostility?

No, we are stalled at the moment, those who can believe do, those who can't, won't, not without some new evidence.

It's coming though. Truth will out!

Anonymous said...

Thanks for taking the time to reply to my post. what you say is so--we have been and are being fed bullshit--I think we need someone with enough investigative journalistic cred to get on the Pentagon story and get to the bottom of it. Fat Chance. I am sure that I am like most "truthers", I only want to know the facts--I have no "conspiracy theory" per ce, but I certainly don't trust the official story--period! FrankM

Anonymous said...

FrankM here--I found an interesting blogsite--kennysideshow.com The full url is:
http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/2011/01/911-truth-challenge.html

Anonymous said...

Hi Bill!

"the collective insanity" here.

Thanks for the link to your blog. I think I was the one who started the shit storm the other day. Unintentionally of course. It was interesting to finally see where Glenn stands on the subject. I was really shocked by his viewpoint.

I will be back. It is good to know that there are others out here trying to expose the lies.

Bill Owen said...

@Collective Insanity (great name!, very apt)

So you're the 'trouble maker'! It was interesting to hear Glenn expand on his thoughts around 911. I never thought he was afraid to write about 911, just that he had other priories.

Very disappointed that he did not really engage on the facts. In the end, he still simply dismissed the case with a wave of his hand. "Not convincing" -- never mind why.

Boston Patriots remarks to Glenn were very good and I think, accurately summed up Glenn's odd "position".

He did distance himself from Chomsky's bizarre and even sociopathic stance on 911. Some time ago he said he "agreed with Chomsky" (or words to that effect). Which I found disturbing -- since Chomsky does not seem to have spent much time on it, and does not consider the identity of the perpetrators important. Glenn said that was out of context, so I am going to find the context, because I did and do admire Chomsky and want to get this straight.

I was surprised at the more or less polite way some of the previously hostile and dismissive regulars approached the subject. Many take their cue from Glenn of course, and Glenn was NOT being dismissive. In fact he said he "respected" the views of serious investigators.

Myself, I don't bring it up there very often, not unless I see the subject as absolutely germane. After all, the group is familiar (more or less) with the facts and the arguments and for whatever reasons, reject them. Also, Glenn has asked that we refrain from bringing it up as it is disruptive and tends to take over the discussion just as it did yesterday. So I respect that.

I just wish that he would do piece on 911 and make all the discussion legit.

Like Boston and others I struggle with the idea that Glenn Greenwald, the man who shredded and destroyed the Anthrax attack fairy tale, does not have any problems with the ridiculous official story.

Thanks for dropping by!

Anonymous said...

@ Bill

the collective insanity here...

My pleasure...sincerely. Yes...I did get a sense that Glenn was struggling to get a foot hold. The Chomsky thing had always bothered me..."who cares" indeed!

I have been reading Glenn for years, but never knew where he stood on the issue of 9-11

Someone in the letter's thread said that he will tolerate only so much before he gives a warning.

I will post something on 9-11 when Glenn makes statement about OBL was responsible for 9-11 or like the other day it started because the topic was the media's submission to authority and the way they frame an "event" I proceeded to reference the media doing the same thing on 9-11...( with links of course) and then the fireworks began!

I always read your submissions in the comments section and I find them thoughtful and informative.

I love Titonwan....Little Brother....Morning's Minion and this new guy, Archibald Tuttle is very good as well.

I try and stay out of the purile name calling and attacks....( except for Old Joe....for some reason he hits every nerve!! Laugh!

Anyway Bill.....thanks for writing back to me. I will come here everyday and see what is new on your blog.

I moved to Australia about a year ago, so if I don't respond right away....it's because of the time difference!

See ya

tci

LittleBrother said...

Part 1 of 2:
_________________

I admire Chomsky, too. BUT (and it's a big "but")...

In 2005 I acquired renewed interest in the JFK assassination after reading Jim Douglass' excellent "JFK: Why He Died and Why It Matters".

I can't remember offhand if Douglass brings this up, but I was stunned to learn that both I.F. Stone and Chomsky notoriously refused to be drawn into the controversies surrounding the assassination, even insofar as challenging the legitimacy of the preposterous Warren Report.

I read somewhere that after the Warren Report was released, an investigative reporter telephoned Stone to pass on some interesting information which called into question the Official Whitewash. The reporter was stunned when Stone barked, "I don't want to hear about that asshole case!" and slammed down the phone.

Such behavior is diametrically opposite of what one might expect from these men, given their careers; Stone, a die-hard muckraker's muckraker; Chomsky, a forceful and eloquent critic of government abuse of power and institutionally-generated disinformation. Both are countercultural icons, legendary for "speaking truth to power". It truly blew my mind to learn that these stalwart über-leftists rolled over when confronted with an actual coup d'etat and heinous travesty of the rule of law.

Moreover, consider Chomsky's definitive work on "Manufacturing Consent". The not-quite-as-corporatized media and the government seamlessly partnered to push the official "Lone Nut" version of the JFK assassination. It's hard to think of a more significant and vivid example of "manufacturing consent". Yet, somehow, Chomsky didn't pursue that analysis. It's like Captain Ahab turning his back on Moby Dick, claiming there are more important fish to fry.

[... con't]

LittleBrother said...

[Part 2 of 2]
________________

I'm having a bad time with my cites and sources here, but someone wisely observed that one should expect brilliant minds to produce brilliant rationalizations. So it is with Chomsky. I've coined the term "Chomsky Bubble" in cases where he loftily and superciliously declines to engage the particulars of a certain topic (JFK, the Mystery of 9/11), and instead critiques normal, valid driving curiosity and interest on the subject.

There may be daylight between Chomsky and Greenwald, but to my chagrin, Greenwald simply mimics Chomsky's high-toned evasion. I would feel better about both men-- and this form of Trutherphobia-- if they simply took the position that it's futile to pursue the question, because the security state has made it impossible to ever determine the truth of the matter.

I don't agree with that argument, at least not to the extent that it's used to quash investigation and discussion of the Mystery. But at least it's straightforward.

Both Chomsky and Greenwald sort of say this, but they superciliously frame it as though they actually have a superior understanding or insight that we "truthers" don't get. They defend their reluctance to be drawn into the debate by archly couching their demurrals with phrases like, "I'm not convinced by the evidence..." or "I haven't seen evidence..." That is, they pretentiously imply that they've actually researched whatever controversial points they're confronted with, and reject them after due consideration.

Chomsky is really irksome when he takes this tone. For instance, when asked point-blank if he supported or agreed with the findings of the Warren Commission, he knows it would be uncool to simply sound like an Establishment flack and say "Yes, I do endorse the work of those distinguished public servants." Instead, he'll go into a tapdance and deconstruct the question by saying it isn't "important", or that it isn't a matter of "endorsing" the Commission, or somehow say "it is what it is" and insist that there are better things to do than worry about the validity of a government investigation-- anything to finesse the question and make it go away.

And frankly, that's bullshit. The fact is, they don't want to delve into the sticky questions, so they airily sidestep past or leapfrog over the controversy by pretending that they've rationally seen through and appropriately discounted whatever claims they don't want to substantively engage. That's called blowing a Chomsky Bubble; it's as distinctive a signature as Buckminster Fuller's geodesic dome.

The Collective Insanity said...

Little Brother....you have a wonderful way of expressing my thoughts in your words. I am not as articulate and I tend to let my emotions get in the way....it leads to sloppy writing and a scatter shot approach at prose.

I have always appreciated your insights and style at UT. Glad to know I can also read you here.

Take care my friend

the collective insanity.

The Collective Insanity said...

Hey Bill….I was wondering if your initial thought was similar to mine.

Glenn wrote about this William Galston guy and I will quote from Glenn’s blog

Listen to what he proposes:"first, those who acquire credible evidence of an individual’s mental disturbance should be required to report it to both law enforcement authorities and the courts, and the legal jeopardy for failing to do so should be tough enough to ensure compliance"; those reporting obligations should apply not only to family and friends, but extend to "school authorities and other involved parties." And "second, the law should no longer require, as a condition of involuntary incarceration, that seriously disturbed individuals constitute a danger to themselves or others"; instead, involuntary commitment should be imposed whenever there is "delusional loss of contact with reality." He concludes on this melodramatic note: 'How many more mass murders and assassinations do we need before we understand that the rights-based hyper-individualism of our laws governing mental illness is endangering the security of our community and the functioning of our democracy?"

My first thought was that they are priming the argument for 9-11 truth activists. What about you?

Bill Owen said...

Hmmm, no, not Truthers in particular, as, I am sorry, but I don't think they see us as real threat. The movement has stalled sans some new developments. But it did occur to me that it could, and will be, used against just about anyone they (don't) like.

We used to have trained/tame shrinks at CSC (Correctional Services Canada). They would ALWAYS determine that an offender was "dangerous".

So I can easily imagine them using "Doctors" to silence critics. Didn't Stalin used to do that?

Sadly, I don't think that they are too worried about we Truthers. The movement is pretty much stalled at this point. 'They' are really good at social control -- with the media playing a huge role. I have talked to several high level CBC types about doing a big story on this. One guy was outraged, really pissed that I would even bring the subject up! The other one, a very famous personality, a journalist with a capital J, promised me he would "look into it". I'm still waiting.

Since then CBC TV did an okay piece, but of course nothing happened.

And I really have to reply to Little Brother's long and as usual excellent post!

Thanks for posting. If you ever want to do a full on post, I can put it up, I don't get much traffic but you never know...

Bill

Bill Owen said...

@ Little Brother
I will respond later, it's late here, and I am just about done for tonight and I want to give your comments the attention they deserve.

I do think that our friend the Collective Insanity is on to something, it is a pretty thin line between saying you Truthers are crazy to saying, you Truthers really are crazy, come with me please. Historically, and more recently at Gitmo and Bagram, our 'good' Doktors have proven themselves only too willing to "help".

Bill Owen said...

@little brother

Thanks for that, very enjoyable post. You raise so many points.

"Brilliant rationalizations"

I am reminded here of the arguments about angels and pins, smart guys turning cartwheels to make nonsense "work"

There are genius's that accept the story of the ark as literal truth. If you are smart enough, you can convince yourself of anything, anything at all. We are all proof of that -- one way or another.

I avidly read Glenn's latest thoughts on the subject but was left puzzled. I actually respect Glenn enough that when he initially went public with his thoughts, terse as they were, that Truther talk was nonsense. I went back and rethought everything, I tried to believe. But could not.

And no matter how you try to spread the Chomsky mustard, his airy dismissals come off as very cold and certainly unconsidered.

Glenn is the man who turned a fire hose of truth, deduction and evidence on the Anthrax attacks, but just won't do the same for 911.

It is true that if somehow, someway it became irrefutable that Bush, or Cheney, or g_d forfend I_rael were involved, it would be the end of America as we know it.

In that sense, 911 is the biggest bomb, the biggest terrorist threat in the world. And it is. It was pivotal moment in history. Who did it and why is a question the answer to which could smash empires.

Not to mention careers.

BlackLADder said...

Hi LL here,
That's a good one there Bill.
"9/11 Truth is the biggest terrorist threat - to the terrorists.
P.S.
BLACKLADDER has just got banned.

Bill Owen said...

When I first read that I had to shake my head.

I haven't seen you doing anything really about 911, so what's up?

Must go have a look at your latest to see what you did.

What can I say? Yet the berbats and the silenced run wild.

Bill Owen said...

I'm back. I see, you did go there. No truther talk at Glenn's. Well, that's good to know.

LittleBrother said...

Can't resist jumping in.

My understanding of Glenn's policy-- not offered by way of endorsing or supporting it-- is that he truly dislikes banning commenters. FWIW, I believe him.

He then ostensibly administers "progressive discipline" in the form of warnings culminating in a Final Warning if the Unacceptable input persists-- what Amerikan employers call a "Last Chance Agreement".

If Glenn deems that a commenter has violated his Last Chance Agreement, he apparently bans them in perpetuity. Even if the Banned returns under another nym/ID, they are subject to being re-banned once Glenn or the Salon techies catch up with them.

But this doesn't explain or justify Glenn's special antipathy toward references to 9/11 truth. IMO, he doesn't like being disturbed inside the cozy Chomsky Bubble he's built for himself to avoid the subject.

This seems obvious to me because Glenn tolerates unlimited thread hijacking on other "contentious" subjects, particularly obnoxious, circular, and fruitless discussions about climate change and liberarianism.

And his "warnings" to those transgressors are mild and perfunctory at best.

Bill Owen said...

My understanding of Glenn's policy-- not offered by way of endorsing or supporting it-- is that he truly dislikes banning commenters. FWIW, I believe him.

* So do I, you are correct. It's the 911 that gets up his nose.

He then ostensibly administers "progressive discipline" in the form of warnings culminating in a Final Warning if the Unacceptable input persists-- what Amerikan employers call a "Last Chance Agreement".

* That's what I have observed.

If Glenn deems that a commenter has violated his Last Chance Agreement, he apparently bans them in perpetuity. Even if the Banned returns under another nym/ID, they are subject to being re-banned once Glenn or the Salon techies catch up with them.

* That's true for everyone but Zorkna. I've even had discussions with Salon troll hunters and they claim to be on him, sorry, it.

But this doesn't explain or justify Glenn's special antipathy toward references to 9/11 truth. IMO, he doesn't like being disturbed inside the cozy Chomsky Bubble he's built for himself to avoid the subject.

* There's a special place in hell for truthers. You know that, I know that, Glenn knows that. Rumsfeld would say that is a known known.

Fighting Sauron makes you strong. Fighting memes makes you weak.

This seems obvious to me because Glenn tolerates unlimited thread hijacking on other "contentious" subjects, particularly obnoxious, circular, and fruitless discussions about climate change and liberarianism.

* What do librarians have to do with it?

And his "warnings" to those transgressors are mild and perfunctory at best.

arf arf me hearties!

He seems to have a sliding scale, I think I remember him saying that our friend omoo made valued contributions or something like that; that was when he and Heru were having their cage match. He's human in the end, I, for instance would never ban LL, but some there would gone in a heartbeat. No one's perfect an all that.

And then look where all my truther talk gets me!

Other than some very fine posters here in the place that shall not be named of course;)

Anonymous said...

Hello, All--Does anyone have any knowledge of Dimitri A. Khalezov? He is a former Soviet nuclear expert/official. Supposed to have a pretty well-worked out explanation involving nukes to bring down the WTC. I'm kind of a klutz with the internet, so I didn't get very far investigating his thesis--but my interest is piqued.

LondonLad said...

To the Klutz above.
Never heard of the Russkie you mentioned. Suggest you take it up with John le Carre.
Of course had you asked us how many Chinese semolina pilchards laid end to end would it take to wire up the Eiffel Tower with all the sticks of RDX that it would take to fill the Albert Hall we might have been able to help.

LittleBrother said...

Bill, I don't want to clog up this thread with carping comments about problematic Greenwald regulars.

But I wonder if you saw this: http://bit.ly/h9HIC0

I do habitually, if not obsessively, ruminate over the Jekyll/Hyde personalities and Drama Queens who often dominate the comments.

I don't flatter myself that I'm the picture of mental health.

Still, there are a number of Greenwald regulars who elicit a certain reaction even though I try to resist being judgemental: I first take them at face value, then over time am struck by their inordinately volatile "demeanor", and finally-- sometimes reluctantly-- conclude they are simply "cracked".

Bill Owen said...

@14 February, 2011 3:34:00 PM EST
Anonymous
No, never heard of him. Lots of info on him.

I don't care. Nuclear weapons were not necessary, would leave vast amounts of evidence, and are freaking hard to obtain, (even if it was "gubmint" job).

I don't think it was energy weapons in out space either.

This operation would have been complex and risky enough without bringing in exotic weapons systems. Usually such theories amount to disinfo and an attempt to discredit the movement.

Bill Owen said...

@ Little Brother

Yes, I saw that at the time. He's pulled me up a few times, but never very hard. FWIW I think he "likes" me as much as he likes anyone.

I don't understand him either. We used to just say, "He's got a chip on his shoulder.", with no need to psychoanalyze. I try not argue with him. He once claimed to be smarter than Ondelette. A very odd claim, and who cares anyway? And of course, what does that even mean? Ondy would kill me in proper debate at Hahvard, and for my part I could keep him from literally getting killed in a biker bar. So what? We all have strengths and weaknesses and all that...

Maybe you intimidate him too. You certainly write more engagingly. Does he want to be the top dog? I don't know.

"Cracked" is probably as good as word as any. I am not very good at being empathic, but I imagine growing up as a Palestinian in America must have been very hard. I really can't imagine. Obviously this is a central part of his identity, hence the title of his blog, hyphenated-american or something like that.

It's sad really, if he were only more collegial he could make some great contributions. I am really reluctant to engage him on any level as I don't want to get "yelled" at, or have someone "deconstruct" my postings to "prove" I am an asshole.

And please don't worry about clogging this little thread, you are always welcome to use it for whatever purpose you find appropriate.

Or you could always drop me a line at eyestir@gmail.com.

Bill

LondonLad said...

Bill: "Usually such theories amount to disinfo and an attempt to discredit the movement."
Which is why I sent the Sunsteinian minion away to go cripple someone elses etymology.

Bill Owen said...

I think that this is interesting. The press, well, the CBC and a few other organs, still function as relatively good journalists.

The Current with Anna Maria Tremonte in particular is very good. For instance twice in the last two days they have done stories that referenced the pressure that the Israeli lobby can bring to bear in Canada via the Hartler regime.

Here is CBC's look at 911 Conspiracy Theories.
http://www.cbc.ca/documentaries/passionateeyemonday/2008/thethirdtower/

It's not bad for a mainstream tv show. I think that here in Canada we are more open in general to 911 Truth. We were not weaned on the Yankee exceptionalist milch and tend to view certain events, such as the 3-5 million dead in the VietCamblao area with a more baleful eye than our American fiends, sorry, friends.

Anonymous said...

Bill--Strong posts from you at Salon--Good stuff! Did you visit John Friend's blog? mrfriendsblog.blogspot.com

Anonymous said...

Can anyone state a good reason for not releasing the pictures taken at the Pentagon on 9/11? Crissake, it's been nearly ten years--now that Bin Laden is "taken care of", what could keep the gov't--our employees--from showing us the evidence that an airliner hit the Pentagon? Frank McElroy

John Burns/Nan Yar said...

Thanks Bill Owen. Exile from Salon's Greenwald cacophony, I personally came to the conclusion that 9/11 was a false flag as early as 2001. Now and then I read or watch something relevant but do not spend much time directly on the topic. I am more interested now in the Fact that it was so easy to do. How really blind and docile Americans are--as in 1963. Indoctrination in public schools? I am distressed though that the anti-Truthers are so unwilling to at least peruse some of the excellent material available and are so willing to swallow what is really horrid science. I can not believe Glenn belongs to this group but think he takes the stand he does so he can be on NPR. I wonder though if in the long run it is worth the sacrifice. Again, thanks to Bill Owen for the heads up.

Nan Yar said...

Recipe for locating the 9/11 truth. Take the on line video "Loose Change",then a few days later go to ae911truth.org and finally add some of David Ray Griffin. Take plenty of time and allow to mix well and settle. It becomes clear that to pull down three massive buildings two things were needed: very high technical skills and a lot of very hard to come by materials, and someone with a exceptional organizing ability and the cooperation of high public official and some private. All of these needs are well beyond the reach of AlQaeda. But not the CIA and the Mossad. So by mere elimination, one is forced to conclude: it was an inside job. Of course Bush had trouble staying on his couch but do not underestimate Cheney.

Bill Owen said...

Hi

Glad you were not offended. But it's true, you won't get anywhere, and you will just annoy people. There are many there who seem to think it is there job to shut us up, and they work hard at it.

Glenn's position on this has always puzzled me too, as did his recent dropping of the "alleged" in front of bin Laden. It's a goddamn fact that there is very very little in the way of anything we used to consider as evidence against bin Laden. The best they have is some crappy videos, (what, bin Laden could not afford a good camera?) never mind that bin Laden seems to have denied any involvement in 911. Even if he did, as Chomsky says, that means nothing.

Have you seen the Lone Gunman pilot, the one aired in March, 2001?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3WW6eoLcLI
It's uncanny, but they have the government doing a false flag attack on the WTC prior to Sept. 11! I'm sure you have seen it. An interesting bit is when John Fitzgerald Byers' spook father tells him that even though it's a false flag, many will claim responsibility, "Bring down a fully loaded 727 into the middle of New York and you'll find a dozen tin pot dictators all over the world, just clamoring to take responsibility. Begging to be smart bombed.".

I think you are probably right about Glenn, this is either a strange blind spot from the man who gave us Anthrax Attack truth, or it is a recognition, conscious or unconscious that becoming a truther is the end of him - and it would be.

I am always surprised to see people, intelligent people, reject the evidence out of hand. My best surmise is that this is just too much, most people would have to toss their entire world view out the window to believe in this stuff. So they don't.

In the past Glenn has said he agrees with Chomsky on this issue, but the problem with that is I don't see any evidence that either Chomsky or he has spent any real time on this. Or if they have, their initial biases overwhelmed their capacity to accept evidence that this was a false flag attack. Chomsky says that in any complicated event there will always be unexplained phenomena, which is true, but not dozens of unexplained, if not impossible events.

As Frank said in an earlier comment, why can't they release the Pentagon videos (and there HAVE to be videos)?

No, it's lies all the way down.

Anonymous said...

Hi Associative Individualist,
Well put in mentioning residuals in Greenwald's case. The poster Peace took him to task for suggesting some people make their decision based on career as offensive.
Peace shot back that he didn't suggest some people he suggested Glenn Greenwald.
He's on a hiding to nothing. The numbers of truthers are growing. His position is becoming more suspect by the week.

teri49 said...

Hi, Bill.
Just wanted to say I am glad you have opened this venue (who knew? I must have missed your earlier references to it). Looks like there is quite an amazing amount of information available by following links from other commenters - can't wait to dig in and read/watch.
Best,
Teri

Anonymous said...

9/11 was an inside job.
The reason nobody has squealed is one: there is no one there to squeal to.
Second: because loads of people will tell you to keep your mouth shut because most of whole of the nation are now inside on the job.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 562   Newer› Newest»