Wednesday, December 31, 7000

Permanent Top Post by JM Talboo and Steve W.

By JM Talboo and Steve W. 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.

“I think it’s implausible to believe that 19 people, most of whom didn’t speak English, most of whom had never been in the United States before, many didn’t have a high school education, could have carried out such a complicated task without some support from within the United States” - 
Former Sen. Bob Graham on 60-Minutes 

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.


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.

Thursday, July 28, 2016

What’s the real difference between Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby? The media is starting to ask.

From the Washington Post:

What’s the difference between the alleged sexual misconduct of Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby? No two cases are identical, of course, but can you really articulate why one man is a national disgrace and the other remains a political icon, hitting the campaign trail for the wife who stood by him in the face of multiple allegations?
MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough doesn’t think you can. “I am fascinated to hear why comparing Bill Clinton to Bill Cosby is wrong,” the “Morning Joe” host said on Monday’s program.
He added: “I wonder how the public looks at Bill Cosby and says, ‘This beloved man who changed American culture as much as any entertainment figure in our lifetime is going to have to be accountable for the way he treated women behind closed doors.’ How does a public that has come to that conclusion say, ‘The Bill Clinton stuff is okay?'”
Scarborough, a former Republican congressman from Florida, drew the comparison during an exchange with guest Harold Ford Jr., the former Democratic congressman from Tennessee. Ford contended that “Bill Cosby and Bill Clinton’s cases are completely different,” noting that more than 50 women have come forward with similar accounts of being drugged and sexually assaulted by the legendary comedian.
It’s true that Clinton’s list of accusers isn’t nearly as long. He’s generally portrayed in the media as a philanderer, not a predator, owing to admitted extramarital affairs with Gennifer Flowers and Monica Lewinsky, as well as claims of affairs by Dolly Kyle Browning, Elizabeth Ward Green and Sally Miller.
But Clinton has also been accused of rape by Juanita Broaddrick, a former campaign volunteer who repeated her claim last week on Twitter and in an interview with Vox.

I was 35 years old when Bill Clinton, Ark. Attorney General raped me and Hillary tried to silence me. I am now never goes away.

Clinton also paid $850,000 to settle a lawsuit brought by former Arkansas state employee Paula Jones, who said the then-governor propositioned her and exposed himself in 1991. And Kathleen Willey, a former White House aide, accused Clinton of groping her in his office in 1993.
Some will surely argue that this accounting of allegations against Clinton from the WP is a bit whitewashy...

There’s Eileen Wellstone, who claimed in 1969 that Clinton raped her when she was 19 after they met at a pub. There’s the unnamed then 22-year-old woman who claimed in 1972 that Clinton sexually assaulted her. There’s the Arkansas University student who complained Clinton – who was her law school instructor – in 1974 tried to prevent her from leaving his office and groped her and put his hand inside her blouse.

There’s Juanita Broaddrick who claims Clinton raped her in 1978. There’s Carolyn Moffet who in 1979 met Clinton at a fundraiser and was later invited to meet him in a hotel room where he greeted her wearing only a shirt and tried to make her perform oral sex on him. There’s at least seven more women identified by Arkansas State Troopers on Clinton’s security detail who claimed Clinton either forced or attempted to force himself on sexually.

There’s Elizabeth Ward, a former Miss Arkansas and Miss America who claimed she was forced by Clinton to have sex with him in 1982. There’s Connie Hamzy who claims Clinton propositioned her at a Little Rock hotel in 1984.

There’s Paula Corbin Jones, Sandra Allen James, Christy Zercher and Kathleen Willey who all claimed in the late 1980s and early 1990s to have been on the receiving end of sexual assaults and harassing behavior by Clinton.

There’s Gennifer Flowers, Elizabeth (Ward) Gracen, Dolly Kyle Browing, Sally Perdue, Lencola Sullivan, Elizabeth Ward, Susie Whiteacre and Bobbie Ann Williams who engaged in long-term affairs with Clinton.

And of course, there’s Monica Lewinsky, the impressionable young White House intern that Clinton took advantage of, an act that ultimately resulted in his impeachment.

Finally, Clinton’s reputation as a philander continues, and he’s known to have ridden more than once on pedophile Jeffery Epstein’s private jet dubbed “Lolita Express.”

And during that time, Hillary engaged in on-going intimidation and smear campaigns against any “bimbo eruptions” that might pop up. Her tactics included slander by her and her surrogates, and having henchmen murder pets, slash tires, burgle their homes and leave threatening messages in order to keep the women silent.

The Clintons' War on Women by Roger Stone... by debunkerbuster


Wednesday, July 27, 2016

'The Long-Hidden Saudi-9/11 Trail' by Kristen Breitweiser


by James Hufferd, Ph.D.                                                                                      
Coordinator, 911 Truth Grassroots Organization
     The United States of America, as to a greater or lesser extent other western democracies in-name-only, is today, like a perfectly-good sponge might be when saturated with a cyanide solution, contaminated thereby. There is nothing basically wrong with the sponge itself; it is the cyanide that is the problem.
     The best and clearest (though far from the only) example of this most-thorough contamination and spoilage of which I am aware is the ever-more-rotten electoral process, the operation and outcome of which, of course, quite literally determines the outcome of almost everything else. This is something very distressing that I’ve mentioned here before; but the subject is of such overriding importance as to bear further exploration.
     The set of conditions involved such as can be readily accessed in cyberspace would stun Orwell by both their immediacy and their audacity. Basically, their vileness is practiced out in the open, and the precise circumstances, although certainly not some of the practices, are unique to this year’s presidential contest.
     The first outstanding circumstance started years ago with the beguiling of a young progressive-by-appearance political chameleon activist from birth, a sometime “Goldwater girl” named Hillary Rodham, by the same neo-Nazi elitist internationalist “intellectuals” who also beguiled her new husband at the time, Bill, the Arkansas wonder-boy and his super-prolific teacher/mentor, Carroll Quigley before him, to become favored adopted spawn of the American affiliate Council on Foreign Relations, the hatchery of American militarist foreign policy.
     Politically, Ms. Rodham Clinton has proven conveniently to be a lot like the unflavored Jello my mom used to buy – she can blithely (and rather notoriously) assume any flavoring or content needed to advance her, secure the praise of her adoptive highfalutin multi-billionaire “cohorts”, and almost imperceptibly deliver them in return the favors and discretionary control their fawning support entitles them to. Note, I said almost imperceptibly, because she tends to be so sloppily nonchalant in trying to cover it up that people who look at all closely are often startled to practically observe that happening or follow its trail in broad daylight.
     And so she’s stumbled her inept, unprincipled, frequently bad-tempered way through enough placements and experiences to attract the cachet of “experienced”, which is invoked unendingly by her own numerous fawning, tone-deaf train of acolytes, while her neocon (neo-Nazi) attachments have made her disastrously pro-war all the time, in the riskiest sort of way of any serious presidential candidate since James K. Polk.
     As I have said, lots of people have seen through her constant and characteristic machinations and manipulations (and I’m not talking about her partisan knee-jerk haters – I. after all, am a normally-progressive sometime-Democrat (as are Susan Sarandon, Ben Jealous, Cenk Uygur, etc.).  She got one of her top acolytes, Florida Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, appointed chair of the national Democratic Party, and Wasserman-Schultz made damn sure anyone who dared oppose her in the primaries would get totally shafted on voter exposure and debate scheduling, and irregularities (including outright felony election fraud) started showing up early in state after state in the running and counting of their DNP-sponsored primaries and caucuses.
     In at least 11 states, the privately-owned and programmed, restricted-access voting machines used must have been programmed to flip or nullify her opponents’ votes, because the announced final tallies, invariably favoring Clinton in those states, differed wildly from the normally-accurate exit poll results, so that she was declared the winner and recipient of most of the delegates in states where she had struggled to fill school gymnasiums and church basements with local followers at her rallies, while her opponent regularly filled stadiums with exuberant overflow crowds.
     And that’s how she “won” – all the while under ultimately feckless FBI criminal investigation into her, as it turned out, open-source State Department emails. And the deleted, but hacked giant trove of DNC and Clinton emails delivered in a first installment this week by Wikileaks details in part, forbodingly, what else she, the national Democratic Party, and the campaign she headed did.
     And now, her defeated opponent (who probably defeated her, truth be told, with the nationwide primary electorate) is expected to meekly concede and turn over his delegates to her. And in the attempt to at least defeat the “awful” Mr. Trump and save America from that fate, her opponent predictably will (and by now has done) – all the while seeming smilingly oblivious to the citizen-mounted election fraud lawsuits playing out on his behalf, doomed and slower than snail’s-pace.
     Oh, and, by the date of the massive California primary, at the end of the primary season in June, the DNC had put a complete stop to the embarrassing exit polls exposing the sham results in so many of the earlier contests.
     It’s been pointed out that, in foreign elections, which the U.S. State Department (not long ago headed by HRC herself) routinely monitors, a deviation in the announced results of more than 2% from the results of the exit polls will cause the elections to be thrown out, or at least not recognized by the U.S. or accepted internationally, due to confirmed fraud.
     So, the question arises, who would support this ill-reputed, untrusted, shall we say thoroughly reviled by a majority presidential candidate, Hillary Rodham Clinton? What gives such an obvious ringer of a nominee even a ghost of a chance against the candidate of the other major party? Of course, only one factor – the identity of the other major candidate, the said to be as well universally-reviled, foul-mouth, loud-mouth, insulting widely reputed right-wing hate-monger billionaire builder and developer Donald J. Trump, deftly role-caste as the candidate even Hillary Rodham Clinton could beat in the vituperous cage-match-to-the-death we are about to witness – the outcome of which may well depend on which side controls the most voting machines.
     Then, assuming for a moment a somewhat fair count, what if we the people, the voters, don’t go along with the √©lite’s deal, of seeing Trump, all in all, as just too, too bad? What if we decide to take our chances with this odious-and-to-be-every-day-made-more-odious Trump, rather than the (to them) only somewhat reeking international criminal, faded empty-pantsuit wonder-vessel so confidently thrust in our faces? What if we, like the Brits, say a considered, close, but in its result resounding and impudent “no” and stick our fingers in the clever controllers’ eyes, opting to pick up the pieces and recover over the years to come? Why don’t we just try that? And you abroad can watch us.
JH: 7/26/16