Wednesday, December 31, 7000

Permanent Top Post by JM Talboo and Steve W.



By JM Talboo and Steve W.

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/10/debunking-myths-on-conspiracy-theories.htmlMany people subconsciously make the mistake of only seeing the issues concerning 9/11 in black and white, as opposed to shades of gray. This is known as the black-or-white fallacy. In this case, the false dilemma is: 9/11 was either carried out by Al-Qaeda or it was "an inside job."

Just because the evidence suggests that rogue elements of US and other international intelligence agencies were involved doesn't mean bin Laden and Al-Qaeda hijackers weren't involved.

In the fight to uncover the truth about 9/11 we must contend with individuals and groups that distort, omit and lie about important details in order to defend the official narrative - the 911 truth Debunkers.

 

The NORAD-stand-down, various whistleblowers, and physical evidence centered around the destruction of the 3 World Trade Center Buildings in New York, make a strong case that the attacks involved substantial inside help.


We might be wrong about where we suspect this all leads, but the "debunkers" are wrong when many essentially argue that it's acceptable for 70% of 9/11 family members questions to have never been answered by the 9/11 Commission. So of course, most have no qualms about promises made to 9/11 family members being broken by the Commission to investigate all whistleblower claims, which a substantial amount of the public find highly-suspicious at minimum, with many regarding the evidence as suggestive of complicity to varied degrees.

The below link proves that many thousands of family members want a new investigation. Likely the amount of people killed that day is outnumbered by these 9/11 victim's family members.


[On the left side (above) is a video of WTC 7 collapsing. On the right side is a video of a controlled demolition.]


And it stands to reason, that these ilk feel the lack of air defense story is above scrutiny to the point that secrecy and rewards are warranted. So what if this tale consists of 3, or some contend 4, mutually contradictory versions of events and admitted lies. It makes perfect sense that the top officials from NORAD and the FAA received promotions, as opposed to having to provide documents with data that would prove that the jet fighters were acceptably responsive, given the past response time averages.


Unsurprisingly, they hate even the best of the "Loose Change" films, but loose ends are no biggie.

The Washington Post reported on August 2, 2006 that:
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources... "We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. 'It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
So, if 9/11 didn't have an inside element, what's to stop such a scenario from taking place in the future when we get investigations that have attributes like these? 

It is therefore the purpose of this website to rebut the hollow claims of the so-called 911 truth 'Debunkers' and clarify what is known about the attacks for the benefit of those following the debate and also for the largely uninformed public.

Sorry that we don't allow any comments, but if you wish to communicate any thoughts you have about the published material please contact us here. Ad hominems will be ignored, but well-formed rebuttals may be addressed (and that is a subjective matter) provided we have not refuted the points therein numerous times on this blog already.

FAIR USE NOTICE

National Security Notice via Washington's Blog:

We are NOT calling for the overthrow of the government. In fact, we are calling for the reinstatement of our government. We are not calling for lawlessness. We are calling for an end to lawlessness and lack of accountability and a return to the rule of law. Rather than trying to subvert the constitution, we are calling for its enforcement. We are patriotic Americans born and raised in this country. [Four foreign countries also represented here at DTD]. We love the U.S. We don't seek to destroy or attack America ... we seek to restore her to strength, prosperity, liberty and respect. We don't support or like Al Qaeda, the Taliban or any supporting groups. We think they are all disgusting. The nation's top legal scholars say that draconian security laws which violate the Constitution should not apply to Americans. Should you attempt to shut down this site or harass its authors, you are anti-liberty, anti-justice, anti-American ... and undermining America's national security.

Wednesday, July 1, 2015

Alex Jones Debunks The So-Called 911 Debunkers


A review of the history of military orders governing response to hijackings casts doubt on the idea that the June 1 order was instrumental in hobbling the military's response on September 11. The June 1 order superseded the 1997 directive CJCSI 3610.01. 3   The 1997 directive also stipulated that the NMCC "forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance for piracy (hijacking) to the Secretary of Defense for approval."
The 1997 directive cancels three earlier ones:
  • MCM-102-92, 24 July 1992, "Hijacking of Civil Aircraft"
  • CJCS MOP 51, 13 April 1992, "Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Military and Military Contract Aircraft"
  • MCM-- 173-90, 14 September 1990, "Destruction of Derelict Airborne Objects"
These earlier documents do not appear to be archived on dtic.mil. It would be interesting to learn what policy they mandated for military response to hijackings, and, in particular, whether it required approval by the Secretary of Defense.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/defense/june1.html

Layered Failures

The air defense network had, on September 11th, predictable and effective procedures for dealing with just such an attack. Yet it failed to respond in a timely manner until after the attack was over, more than an hour and a half after it had started. The official timeline describes a series of events and mode of response in which the delays are spread out into a number of areas. There are failures upon failures, in what might be described as a strategy of layered failures, or failure in depth. The failures can be divided into four types.
  • Failures to report: Based on the official timeline, the FAA response times for reporting the deviating aircraft were many times longer than the prescribed times.
  • Failures to scramble: NORAD, once notified of the off-course aircraft, failed to scramble jets from the nearest bases.
  • Failures to intercept: Once airborne, interceptors failed to reach their targets because they flew at small fractions of their top speeds and/or in the wrong directions.
  • Failures to redeploy: Fighters that were airborne and within interception range of the deviating aircraft were not redeployed to pursue them.
http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/analysis/norad/

Pumpitout Radio: Foreknowledge and Lack of Air Defense - NORAD Section Update 12/24/2014

Who is Winning the Peer-Reviewed Scientific Literature Battle?

Monday, June 29, 2015

Radio interview–John-Michael Talboo joins Stan Monteith - February 25, 2009

Just recently posted to YouTube.



http://911debunkers.blogspot.com

John-Michael Talboo – Debunking 9/11 Debunkers

Radio interview on www.RadioLiberty.com with host, Dr. Stan Monteith

February 25, 2009 3:00pm, 1 hour

Slight Correction:

Max Cleland didn’t resign specifically due to objections over Zelikow, although from looking at press reports, he wasn’t happy about it. When asked about Zelikow by Amy Goodman, Cleland stated it was “not the staff directors fault, it is the White House’s fault, it’s president Bush’s fault.” Seeing as how Zelikow had “deep, lasting ties to several members of both the Bush I and Bush II Administrations,” what is the difference really? Regardless, he did call the investigation a “white wash.”

http://www.911truth.org/radio-interview-john-michael-talboo-joins-stan-monteith/

Correction:

The explosive power of nano-thermite was also unintentionally misrepresented.

The explosive nature of nanothermite

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-06-20/explosive-nature-nanothermite

Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Debunking 9/11 Debunkers Video Playlist

Here is a video playlist that looks to be largely filled with videos refuting 9/11 debunkers, although there are some videos made by the debunkers thrown in the mix as well. Compare and contrast.

Monday, June 8, 2015

911, Building 7

Published on Jun 8, 2015

Excellent video. Dismantling all debunkers lies.
Part of the film "September 11, The new Pearl Harbour" by Massimo Mazzuco