I have never laughed so much at a single headline in my life. This is so much fail it's almost beautiful. Osama Bin Laden, true to form, appears at a highly convenient time. This time in a rather unique way. Right around the time of numerous climate change scandals, he decides to publicly blame the US for global warming! They aren't even trying anymore. This is the sort of thing you'd expect to read on a parody site like The Onion or Uncyclopedia. I think this story essentially confirms everything I have suspected about both Bin Laden and climate change.
Some guy from here in the UK has made this debunking of CIT. It's a very good analysis of their methods and distortions. He does an amazing job at analysing Roosevelt Roberts' testimony in part 2, and even uses a flight simulator in Part 4 to prove that a north side impact may be possible.
From their apartment, Dawn Vignola and her roommate Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman saw American Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, September 11, 2001. Shortly afterward, they gave witness accounts to local and national TV media. In 2007, they were interviewed by Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), who attempted to discredit their testimony. I interviewed Dawn and her husband, Dan Ferrigno, January 5, 2010 at that same apartment and found them credible; they talked openly with me, their accounts have not changed since they were first offered, and I saw for myself that Dawn and Tim could have easily seen what they claimed to have seen.
On September 11, 2001 Dawn Vignola shared a 16th floor apartment with Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman, in Arlington, VA, which overlooked the Pentagon and the surrounding area. They were both at home, and Dawn was on the phone with her husband, Dan Ferrigno, because of what was happening in New York. She saw the plane approaching out the West window, over the top of a line of trees, and then it turned East. She could see the AA, and in the bright sun the plane appeared to be white. (See here for photos of the Boeing 757 N64AA, the plane that was American 77 on 9/11; notice how it appears white in the photos where there is direct sun on it). It was flying above the line of trees and buildings, and seemed to be over 395 or Columbia Pike.
As the plane disappeared from view past the window’s North edge, she went over to the window on the North side and watched for the plane, which she had noticed was flying unusually low; she and Tim were accustomed to seeing airplanes flying over the area, including over the Pentagon, as Reagan National Airport is close by. She saw the plane cross in front of the Sheraton Hotel on Columbia Pike, then it disappeared from view behind some nearby buildings. She watched for it to appear in view on the other side of a neighboring apartment building; it did, and she and Tim saw it impact the Pentagon, about 3/4 of a mile away. They did not see the plane fly over- in fact, it hit so low at the base, it looked like it hit the heliport first.
At the time, there was only vacant land and buildings under construction in between their building and the Pentagon, and these did not obstruct their view of the heliport. Since then, shorter buildings have been built in that area, but they still can still clearly see the upper floors of the Pentagon. In person everything appears much larger and clearer than it does on the accompanying video; when the camera is zoomed in, it actually gives a better idea of how large everything appears in person. Dawn and Tim had a clear view of the impact side and the airspace over the Pentagon, and would have seen the plane fly over- or seen something else hit- if that had happened. In addition, Dan’s office across the Potomac River had a view of the airspace over the Pentagon; he was looking at it while on the phone with Dawn, and saw the black smoke rising, but did not see a plane flying over or away from the Pentagon.
This is a short video of the view from Dawn’s apartment, with my narration based on the above points:
This photo gives an approximate idea of how large the Pentagon appears from Dawn and Dan’s apartment, but still does not accurately convey how clear everything appears in person (also note that the shorter buildings in the middle were not there on 9/11; the view of the helipad was not obstructed):
This Google Earth image shows Dawn Vignola's apartment and the line of sight to the Pentagon, as it was on 9/11/01. As can be seen from this photo, the area between her apartment and the Pentagon was largely vacant, with some construction going on:
Shortly after they saw the impact, Dawn called WUSA, the local CBS channel, and was interviewed live on the air. Tim was listening to the questions as they were asked by the TV reporter, and he can be heard in the background offering his input to Dawn, some of which she passed on over the phone. Later, Tim was interviewed by CNN. Dawn’s account has not changed since that interview; it is the same account she gave to Citizen Investigation Team in 2007 (judging by what CIT has said about it), and the same account that was given to me. Dawn is no longer in contact with Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman. There are a number of hits for ‘Hugh Timmerman’ online, but I did not attempt to track him down for comment; CIT has said they could not locate him.
Since 9/11, various people have claimed that AA 77 did not crash into the Pentagon. As there are numerous witness accounts of an AA 757 crashing into the Pentagon, some crash skeptics have questioned those accounts. For instance, in the case of Dawn’s account, blogger Steven Welch alleged that Tim was ‘coaching’ Dawn in her account, and claimed neither testimony could be considered credible. And, according to Dawn and Dan in my interview of them, when Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis (CIT) interviewed them in November 2007, Craig and Aldo were not simply interested in receiving Dawn’s account and verifying the view from the apartment. Rather, they sought information that would support their theory that the plane known as AA 77 had flown over the Pentagon, dismissed the elements of Dawn’s testimony that did not support this theory and attempted to persuade Dawn and Dan they were mistaken and their theory was correct. (For 2 sides to this story, see the ‘Plan271’ thread at CIT’s forum)
CIT insists they’re objective and have not done anything improper in their investigation and reporting. For instance, in a 12/12/09 podcast interview by Paul Tassopulos, Craig Ranke said, “Citizen Investigation Team, myself and Aldo Marquis, have been to Arlington, Virginia several times to interview dozens of eyewitnesses to the Pentagon attack. We went there with no pre-conceived notions about what happened- we went there with no particular theory in mind. Our entire goal was to objectively ask the people on the street what they saw, and report it, and let the chips fall where they may.” (2:05) However, it is clearly not the case that they went to Arlington with “no pre-conceived notions about what happened”; as early as 1/11/06, before Craig and Aldo joined the Loose Change forum, Aldo Marquis had posted an article online titled “Meet Agent Lloyd A. England (Pentagon Plant)“. Lloyd England says the plane knocked a lamp pole through his cab’s windshield, and numerous photos place him, his damaged cab and a broken light pole at the scene. Aldo attempted to show that England could not be telling the truth about what happened, and that the scene was staged. If the plane knocked the light pole through the windshield of England’s cab, the plane was on the ‘South of Citgo’ path, (not on the ‘North of Citgo’ path, as CIT claims certain other witness accounts prove), and this disproves CIT’s ‘flyover’ theory. And according to Pentagon crash witness Mike Walter, when he met Craig and Aldo at his barbeque on the first trip to Arlington, “They were saying things like, ‘Are you sure the plane didn’t land [at Reagan airport] and they set off a bomb?’ They kept coming up with all these scenarios.”
Dawn and Dan invited Craig and Aldo into their apartment, talked with them at length and gave them permission to record the view from their apartment, but declined to be interviewed on camera, as Dawn was close to 9 mo. pregnant at the time, and felt it would be invasive of her personal privacy. CIT recorded conversation at the apartment anyway, (and their phone conversations), without Dawn and Dan’s knowledge or consent. In a comment thread at 911Blogger, Craig Ranke acknowledged this at least in part, saying, “Obviously while we video taped her POV with her consent after being invited to her home our discussion with her at the time was recorded by the video camera. And we most certainly did record our initial conversations on the phone with her as we do with EVERY phone call we make in our investigation.”
“One-party consent” is all that’s required in Federal jurisdictions and 38 states, but there are differing opinions on whether it’s ethical for journalists to record subjects without their knowledge or consent is the subject of debate; “Some journalists see taping as an indispensable tool, while others don’t like the formality it may impose during an interview. Some would not consider taping a call without the subject’s consent, others do it routinely.” Craig Ranke defended CIT doing it, stating that in Virginia “one party consent” to a conversation being recorded is all that’s required by law (true), and that they do this “so nobody can falsely accuse us of behaving inappropriately or saying or doing something underhanded or deceptive.”
CIT also recorded a conversation with Lloyd England without his knowledge or consent, and released it (in part), claiming it was a “virtual confession” and that it supported their previously-issued charge that he is an “accomplice” to the 9/11 attacks and subsequent cover up. (See this discussion thread at 911Blogger for alternative views on whether Lloyd England’s statements are a “virtual confession”). It seems another reason CIT might record interviewees without their consent or knowledge is the potential for capturing bits of unguarded conversation which they can represent as damaging to the credibility of witnesses whose testimony contradicts their ‘flyover theory’; certainly they’ve demonstrated they will release recordings if it they think it does. As CIT haven’t released their recordings of Dawn and Dan, it may be there’s simply nothing on them they feel would work to their advantage if released. CIT expert Adam Larson (no relation) has documented a consistent pattern of CIT attempts to dismiss or discredit witness accounts that support the ‘South of Citgo’ path or plane hitting the Pentagon; 33 cases, including Dawn Vignola, Tim Timmerman and Lloyd England: CIT WITNESS VERIFICATION PART III: ROUGHSHOD OVER THE SUSPICIOUS ONES.
On 11/29/07, CIT published an entry on their forum titled Details of our Nov 2007 research trip to Arlington, more data proving a deception, and included this statement regarding their interview of Dawn: “Previously published witness Dawn Vignola who was coached by her former roomate [sic] Hugh Tim Timmerman on the radio as an eyewitness declined to be interviewed on camera but let us into her Pentagon City high rise apartment to get shots of her POV and the one of the best possible views of the the event from high up. Dawn swears that the plane was white and although with her panoramic view she got a great look at it approaching from a ways away, once it got near the Pentagon it was obscured by the building in front of her until a split second before the explosion. She says it hit the heliport. We know this isn’t true because there was no damage to the heliport so likely the explosion and fireball simply concealed what the plane really did.”
Following this, on 1/15/08, on CIT’s forum, Aldo Marquis posted an entry titled, Witnesses List Broken Down, No such thing as 104 “impact” witnesses, and under a sub-heading for witnesses categorized as, “Only saw plane (possibly from far away location), could not see pentagon, light poles or impact, either deduced or are lying OR do not directly mention or CONFIRM seeing an impact”, he listed Dawn Vignola as “(TALKED TO by CIT, claimed the plane was white seemed unsure of final position)”
1/21/08, ‘plan271’ confronted Craig and Aldo on the CIT forum regarding inaccurate/misleading statements about ‘coaching’, the view Dawn and Tim had of the plane, the Pentagon and the crash, and what they had said about it. Craig and Aldo defended making an issue out of Tim interjecting comments during Dawn’s TV interview, although in dialogue with plan271 they referred to it as Tim ‘helping’ Dawn. They also denied accusing Dawn and Tim of lying, but continued to insist they could not have seen what they said they saw:
Craig Ranke, 1/21/08: “As soon as we saw the view from their apartment I knew instantly that there is no way she would have been able to physically see an impact and could only have deduced it based off the explosion.”
Aldo Marquis, 1/21/08: “We believe Timmerman and Vignola merely deduced the impact.”
12/5/08 (perhaps earlier) CIT posted this .gif of video from Dawn and Dan’s apartment:
Notice this was filmed wide angle, from the middle of the apartment (not from Dawn’s vantage point); this gives uncritical viewer’s the impression that Dawn and Tim could barely see the Pentagon, which is not true.
Dawn and Dan are aware of the allegations and misrepresentations regarding Dawn and Tim’s accounts. Dawn told me that after seeing the plane crash into the Pentagon, she felt it was important to alert the media, but hadn’t expected to be put on the air live, and had not wanted to attract attention. But now they’re part of the controversy over ‘what’ hit the Pentagon.* Dawn and Dan OK’d my coming to their apartment to record the view and spoke with me for over an hour, but due to their experience with CIT, they did not want the conversation recorded, and I didn’t. As Dawn explained in a January 2, 2010 email to Michael Wolsey, which she authorized for public release,
“I am now hesitant to have a telephone conversation recorded or even to be interviewed since my experience has been that I cannot trust how it will loaded onto the Internet or whether others will be able to access it and then edit it, unjustly, for their own pursuits. The last time I trusted someone in this sort of matter, in particular Craig and Aldo, I found my words being distorted, taken out of context, and/or insinuations that I meant something other than what I said.”
In the near future, Dawn and Dan will be launching a website that will host photos, video, Dawn’s personal account written down shortly after witnessing the Pentagon crash, and other related material, in an effort to set the record straight.
For more information on Citizen Investigation Team, see the articles written by Arabesque and Adam Larson.
*NOTE: This article was written to shed light on Dawn Vignola’s and Tim Timmerman’s witness accounts, and the manner in which CIT has conducted its investigation and reporting. I support independent research and investigation of 9/11, and there are many reasons to question the official version of events. I take issue with selective interpretation of evidence, absolute claims regarding events for which contradictory or incomplete evidence exists, and the promotion of speculation as fact.
Certainly, the US government should release all photos, video and documentation related to ‘what’ hit the Pentagon. By withholding evidence, the US government is diminishing its credibility, as well as fueling the controversy about ‘what’ hit, and this in turn has distracted from larger questions, including the questions about why the Pentagon was hit at all; about the reason there was no air defense over D.C. more than half an hour after the second WTC impact, close to an hour and a half after the first signs of hijacking, after a ‘summer of threat’ that included warnings from different nations about an impending attack on the US using planes, when the CIA, FBI, NSA and SOCOM had developed their own intelligence on the impending plot, when the FAA, NMCC, NORAD and NEADS have procedures that enable quick interception of aircraft and had known for decades of attempts to use aircraft as missiles, and when the NSC and White House were aware of “patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.” (Aug 6 PDB)
The 9/11 Commission omitted and distorted facts that are part of the public record, including in its own and other government reports. The Complete 9/11 Timeline at HistoryCommons.org gives a comprehensive overview of what’s known about 9/11 and related entities and events, based on ‘mainstream’ sources. In addition, 9/11 Research, and the Journal of 9/11 Studies, document many unanswered questions and disturbing facts related to the total destruction of WTC 1, 2 & 7, and about NIST’s investigation of same. The big picture and thousands of details make the case that there needs to be a full, independent investigation of 9/11, before that day- or any other terrorist attack- are used again to justify increased funding for the military-industrial complex, foreign interventions, and draconian domestic security measures.
But it's okay, right? At least the money's going to a good cause, right? WRONG! Read some of the posts on these sites to see what your money's really going to ...
... Totally sick. And I wonder what they mean by the lyrics at 0:36...
"So here's my theory: the country's already starving So we sacrifice many to shed light on all of them."
Weird ... I also found out today, Matt Bellamy isn't the first celebrity to go back on his 9/11 views. An Oscar winning french actress named Marion Cotillard did the same thing a few years ago.
*Sigh* I wish these celebrities would learn from Martin Luther King:
"On some positions, cowardice asks the question 'is it safe?' Expediency asks the question 'is it politic?' Vanity asks the question 'is it popular?' But conscience asks the question 'is it right?' And there comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe nor politic nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right." ~ Martin Luther King [Audio of Quote]
This is an open discussion about 9/11 truth and "The War on Terror" that took place within the Japanese Parliament. This is a series of 8 videos. I have presented 1 of the eight here. I have viewed all eight vids and found it worth my time. While this was done in 2008 I thought it was very relevant given that some people have attempted to say that 9/11 Truthers have no case. I say ..OH Contraire. It is clear that Councilor Yukihisa Fujita of Japanese Democratic party certainly does not feel that way. It is wonderful to hear 9/11 truth being openly discussed and considered. We have repeatedly asserted that 9/11 truth will set us free. This discussion by the Japanese regarding the possibility of not supporting Americas War on Terror because of 9/11 disinfo from America's government is the power of the truth at work. This little jewel below was in the info column of the vid.
At the National Diet of Japan on January 10, 2008, Councilor Yukihisa Fujita of Democratic Party of Japan, the main opposition party questioned 9/11. Later the Japanese government took rare steps to force parliamentary approval of a controversial bill reviving a naval mission in the Indian Ocean in support of US-led forces in Afghanistan. Ahead of the voting Councilor Yukihisa Fujita of Democratic Party of Japan, made a statement at the House of Councilors, the National parliament of Japan, For 30 minutes he questioned the official version of 9/11 presented to the Japanese government and the public by the US administration. He concluded that the Japanese governments support of the "war against terror" is solely based on information provided by the US-administration. He demanded further investigations and questions being answered in the face of the governments drive to support the war more actively.
I honestly cannot believe what I have just watched. It is actually kind of scary being part of a movement the Pentagon is blatantly trying to set up!
From about 1:20 in this clip, he goes on about how the president better watch out for radical 9/11 truthers. And he quotes some guy who was probably one of Sunstein's trolls.
They (The FBI) used a Spanish Lawmakers face to show us what Bin Laden would look like today. HUH????? They even used his unique facial lines. You know the lines around a persons eyes ect.Those kind of features are unique to each person, sorta like a fingerprint. The FBI distributed widely the digitally enhanced poster of Osama. Naturally Gaspar Llamazares was quite horrified to discover that the FBI had used his face for the Osama update. Here's a quote from this article. "Gaspar Llamazares of the United Left party said he would no longer feel safe traveling to the United States after his hair and facial wrinkles were taken from the Internet and appeared on a wanted poster updating the U.S. government's 1998 photo of the Al-Qaida leader."
All I can say is wow. Time and time and time again we see this ... drills coinciding with real events. But I never thought it would happen with a natural disaster!
Anti_Illuminati on the PrisonPlanet Forum posted this a few days ago. I just noticed it and had to post it here.
"On Monday, Jean Demay, DISA's technical manager for the agency's Transnational Information Sharing Cooperation project, happened to be at the headquarters of the U.S. Southern Command in Miami preparing for a test of the system in a scenario that involved providing relief to Haiti in the wake of a hurricane. After the earthquake hit on Tuesday, Demay said SOUTHCOM decided to go live with the system." - http://www.nextgov.com/nextgov/ng_20100115_9940.php
Memorize that exact quote people ... and let it sink in! Just like with 9/11, 7/7, and numerous other events, a real world crisis has once again coincided with an eerily similar drill. The probability of that just being a coincidence is enormously low.
This probably means they at the very least knew the disaster would happen in advance and did nothing to warn the citizens ... or they somehow made it happen!
It could be hoped that the comments from the structural engineers quoted in this article would silence the 'debunkers' who dismissed our arguments first because, allegedly, no engineers agreed with us. That was never true to begin with. After AE911Truth was formed and scores of engineers signed the petition, these debunkers predictably moved the goalposts, saying we didn't have any engineers who know anything about heavy steel structures such as tall buildings. Since the 29 engineers interviewed for this article do in fact possess that knowledge, the goalposts will no doubt just be moved again. This kind of behavior should make clear the nature of the game that is being played. One word for it is sophistry.
AE911Truth Structural Engineer Dismantles the NIST Analysis of WTC 7
Brookman is one of over 40 structural engineers who have signed the AE911Truth petition calling for a truly independent investigation of the events of 9/11, with emphasis on the destruction of the WTC Towers and WTC building 7. Click here to read the entire article.
Recently, a debunker offered a unique criticism of the thermite issue that I've never seen before. I'd really appreciate if you could address and debunk his criticism. That would really help the truth movement.
the debunker added - "And something not mentioned there is that he did not test the combustion of the substance in an inert atmosphere. Thermite has its own oxidizer, so test it in a oxygen free environment and it might help to prove that it is indeed thermite. Why don't you ask them why they refuse to run this simple test?"
I would really appreciate it if you could address these concerns. Thank you."
Thanks for the compliment. I wrote one of the authors of the paper and shared your comment with him, here is his reply:
We ran the test the way we did because the literature described a previous test of nanothermite that was run in an ordinary atmosphere. If we had run it in an inert atmosphere, we would not have been able to compare apples to apples in terms of the energy released.
We agree that the test you are describing should be run by someone. We did our study on a shoestring budget as pro bono work, and there are many tests that we have not been able to run yet. It would be nice if others would pick up the ball and do some tests rather than continuing to ask us to do everything. I'm not saying that every one of our critics should perform such tests, but those who have the qualifications and the interest in the topic should consider investing a little more than they have been investing so far to get to the bottom of what really happened on 9/11.
In my previous post I said James Meigs and Cass Sunstein have the creepiest smiles ever. I take that back ... these are the creepiest smiles ever...
Three of the most corrupt puppets in US history now care about the Haitians, isn't that sweet! And they want your money so they can spread joy and happiness! Pay no attention to the demonic smirks on their faces throughout the entire address. This is looking an awful lot like Katrina. It honestly wouldn't surprise me if the earthquake was man-made using something like HAARP.
I've just watched the final episode of Jesse Ventura's Conspiracy Theory about 2012. Like I said before I think the science is all disinfo BS. But after watching the episode there's no denying they are building underground bunkers for something. When the guy at Cheyenne Mountain was asked if the guards are prepared to fire on the citizens and he said "they'll do what they have to do", that sent a chill down my spine. I think it would be funny though if the elite of the planet all went into bunkers and the billions of people left outside decided to spend their last days burying them in!
I hope the show is renewed for a second series. I'd like to see them do an episode on social networking sites like Facebook, MySpace and Twitter. I have long suspected there to be some big brother / social engineering agenda behind these sites. There was an article in the Daily Mail last year that said "Sites such as Facebook, Twitter and Bebo are said to shorten attention spans, encourage instant gratification and make young people more self-centred." A number of my friends who are regular users of MySpace and Facebook have certainly become more self-centered over the past few years ... and I don't believe that that happened just by accident. There's a good internet video about Facebook called Do You Have A Facebook?. Follow the money I guess.
Two things on 9/11 truth. One, it seems that Matt Bellamy of Muse appears to have gone back on his 9/11 beliefs.
"September 11 is clearly an inside job, there's massive evidence that suggests that it was either allowed to happen or even worse, deliberately made to happen. There was a document called 'Project For The New America Century' which was made by neo-Con writers in the 90s who supplied most of the agenda that Bush is putting into place now, which clearly says, 'We need a Pearl Harbor-level of event so we can have an excuse to invade the Middle East.'" - Matt Bellamy, October 2006 http://www.cmumusicnetwork.co.uk/daily/061013.html
"Usama bin Ladin is wanted in connection with the September 11, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon and for the August 7, 1998 bombings of the United States Embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and Nairobi, Kenya."
However the key thing here is the indictments. As it goes on to say...
"The individual listed above has been indicted on the following charges:
Murder of U.S. nationals outside the United States; conspiracy to murder U.S. nationals outside the United States; and attack on a federal facility resulting in death."
I don't see "Conspiracy to murder U.S. citizens INSIDE the United States" or anything like that. So it would appear he has still not been formally indicted for 9/11. Which was our argument all along. He hasn't been indicted because there isn't any hard evidence that he was involved. Now that doesn't mean he wasn't involved (I've always been hesitant about defending Bin Laden and Khalid Sheikh Mohammed etc because the world isn't black or white. Just because the US and other international intelligence agencies were involved doesn't mean Bin Laden, KSM, the Hijackers and Al-Qaeda weren't involved), we're just telling you what they are saying.
James Meigs and Cass Sunstein - Creepiest smiles ever!
Cass Sunstein, one of Obama's czars has had a paper out on the web for the last two years discussing how the government should deal with 'conspiracy theories'.
Some of the quotes from this paper are shocking, he says conspiracy theories should be banned or taxed:
"What can government do about conspiracy theories? Among the things it can do, what should it do? We can readily imagine a series of possible responses. (1) Government might ban conspiracy theorizing. (2) Government might impose some kind of tax, financial or otherwise, on those who disseminate such theories. (3) Government might itself engage in counterspeech, marshaling arguments to discredit conspiracy theories. (4) Government might formally hire credible private parties to engage in counterspeech. (5) Government might engage in informal communication with such parties, encouraging them to help."
Real life thought crime! Here's another interesting quote:
"The first dilemma is that either ignoring or rebutting a conspiracy theory has distinctive costs. Ignoring the theory allows its proponents to draw ominous inferences from the government’s silence. If the theory stands unrebutted, one possibility is that it is too ludicrous to need rebuttal, but another is that the government cannot offer relevant evidence to the contrary; the suppliers of the conspiracy theories will propose the second inference. On this view, all misinformation (the initial conspiracy theory) should be met with countermisinformation."
Countermisinformation?! In other words, if we can't debunk it with facts we'll just make stuff up! Or we'll ignore it and say it's too ludicrous to need rebuttal. That's right, the nanothermite evidence is too ludicrous to need rebuttal. It's obviously just your run-of-the-mill explosive nanocomposite primer paint!
But the most interesting quote is this...
"Expanding the cast further, one may see the game as involving four players: government officials, conspiracy theorists, mass audiences, and independent experts – such as mainstream scientists or the editors of Popular Mechanics – whom government attempts to enlist to give credibility to its rebuttal efforts."
ENLIST?! So they were enlisted were they? They didn't just get sick of people approaching them at parties and asking them about 9/11, as Davin Coburn has repeatedly claimed? Here we have documented confirmation of what we have suspected for a while. How can they be "independent experts" if they are enlisted by the government!?
The MO and possible motives of defenders of the official story is also spoke of and put into a larger historical context. Mentioned is a declassified CIA memo from April 1967 entitled, "Countering Criticism of the Warren Report," which states that one way to achieve this goal is to:
Employ propaganda assets to answer and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passage to assets. Our play should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (i) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (ii) politically interested, (iii) financially interested, (iv) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (v) infatuated with their own theories.
Sam, a good friend of mine, recently sent me an email, delightfully showing off his new findings... That Charlie Sheen was recently arrested for a domestic violence altercation with his wife, which Sam so cleverly entitled, "The Questions Charlie... The Questions..." if he came up with that himself... (Now imagine the sight and sound of me puking all over my monitor...)
So, anyway, I immediately assumed, since I had already found out about the Sheen situation, that this was another desperate attempt, by Sam ofcourse, to belittle a messenger of information, instead of actually addressing the information itself. Something Sam has become almost as good at as the likes of Hannity, Olbermann, and O'Reilly, etc.
I can now expect, with a reasonable amount of confidence, that if something is said that Sam disagrees with, he will immediately seek and distribute any information he can find that will attempt to discredit that individual, as if the information itself is therefore no longer valid because Sam found something out about the individual who relayed that information. (lol, isn't that cute!)
At any rate, I also assumed this to be the case as Charlie Sheen, being the highest paid TV actor in Hollywood right now, thought it would be a good idea to do a mini-documentary, released on 9/11/09, and subsequent public contest, highlighting the 20 most obvious questions that have still gone unanswered by a true "independent" 9/11 Commission, where Charlie keeps mentioning in the video, "The questions, Mr. President... The questions..." (And something that the establishment media was ultimately very, very quiet about...shhhhhhhh!)
Therefore, being that Sam is intent on ridiculing and demonizing messengers of information that differs with his own understanding of reality, specifically considering 9/11 for instance, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at what some of the actual 9/11 Commissioners themselves have publicly come forward to say, since the commission disbanded in 2005 upon the "completion" of their report. (A very interesting and ironic position to put Sam in, wouldn't you say?)
I mean, since Sam's general line of thinking supports the 9/11 Commission Report, as do many others, and all of the magazines like Popular Mechanics and scientific tv shows that quickly produced all their material that supported the Commission's final findings, published in the "Official Report" itself, who better to look to about all this than the commissioners themselves...right?
I mean, these are the guys! The very guys that wrote the report that Sam is so enamored with he will defend it to the point of lambasting an individual's self respect and dignity in an attempt to prove his or her information is invalid if it differs with the report! (Even though publications like the Popular Mechanics debunking hit piece in 2005 was largely edited by a guy with the name Benjamin Chertoff, who happens to have the same unusual last name as former high ranking W. Bush cabinet member Michael Chertoff...hmmmmmm?)
Anyway, without further ado, lets get some of the actual 9/11 Commissioner's takes on the final findings! You know, the ones that "everyone" goes by, and "mainstream" TV, and "mainstream" magazines... and Sam.
---------------------
Here we have a gentleman by the name of Bob Kerrey, one of the 9/11 Commissioners who stated in a salon.com interview in June of 2006, "many legitimate mysteries still surround the events of that day. There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version," Kerrey said. "The commission had limited time and limited resources to pursue its investigation, and its access to key documents and witnesses was fettered by the administration."
Really? Now that's very interesting! Unanswered questions huh? Wow! I wonder if any of those "unanswered questions" are similar to the one's Charlie Sheen asked? hmmmm...
But that's just one of the Commissioners... Let's see what some of the other Commissioners have had to publicly say about the commission and their "investigation"...
Really? Conflicts of interest, huh? And every single one of the commissioners have conflicts? I wonder what those conflicts consist of? Doesn't sound very "independent" to me! Maybe Sam would like to do the honors and dig that up for us so that we all know what those actual conflicts are? (Well, I take that back... Sam may not be the best person for that job)
How about any other Commissioners... What are they saying?
How about 9/11 Commissioner Timothy Roemer, regarding interrogation of Pentagon Officials told CNN on Aug. 2nd 2006, "We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting," Roemer told CNN. "We were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission or merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy." CNN: "The panel even considered taking the matter to the Justice Department for a possible criminal probe, commission member Tim Roemer said."
Really? So, Pentagon officials were lying to the Commission, and the Commission considered criminal charges against them? Why would they do that? hmmmm.... What did they have to hide? Sounds very very shady to me!
Seriously! This is crazy! So far, everything I've heard is that this commission was a total fraud! What the hell is going on??? Jesus Christ, these are the actual Commissioners themselves saying this stuff!!! Am I in the twilight zone here???
Well Sam... What can you possibly say now? What can you possibly come up with to hide it from yourself now?Most of the Commissioners have come forward to admit that the 9/11 investigation was a total hoax, as to were the ensuing news reports, TV shows, and magazine articles that backed the story as if it were iron clad, and set in stone, or the Bible itself!
You can't very well ridicule these messengers, or their message for that matter... What are you gonna do now?
--------------------
If you're still reading, here are a few more interesting tidbits about the "independent" 9/11 commissioners, set up by the Bush Administration.
Lehman himself is a textbook example of conflict of interest. In 1998, 9/11 Commission executive director Zelikow published an article in Foreign Affairs, the journal of the Council on Foreign Relations, entitled Catastrophic Terrorism: Imagining the Transformative Event. Some two years later, PNAC picked up the Zelikow language, saying that the campaign to convince the public to allow expanded use of U.S. military force around the world "is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor". Lehman was a member of PNAC, and a signatory to PNAC's plea for "a new Pearl Harbor". See this video and this essay.
When taken with other facts undermining the Commission's credibility (and see this), Lehman's revelation should completely destroy the idea that there has been any real investigation into 9/11.
So I've now watched all of the aired episodes of Jesse Ventura's show and I'm very impressed with it. The 9/11 episode, the global warming episode and the Bilderberg episode are by far the best. The manchurian candidate episode was a little weird but I have no doubt this sort of thing goes on. You only have to watch shows like Derren Brown: Trick of the Mind and The Hypnotic World of Paul McKenna to see mind control is very real, and we'd be naive to think the CIA doesn't experiment with it. One more episode to go - 2012. Or as I will call it ... the turd in the punchbowl! ... I mean seriously! 2012!? I'm more likely to believe in the reptilians than that BS.
While you Americans are getting some balanced and informative conspiracy television, we Brits on the other hand are getting our usual dose of propaganda from Orwell's ministry of truth, the BBC. On Sunday they aired another episode of our favourite TV show The Conspiracy Files. Mike Rudin, one of many people who make me ashamed to be British, produced yet another hatchet job on the truth movement. This time on the subject of Osama Bin Laden. I don't know much about the Bin Laden stuff so I don't have a lot to say but here's some things I noticed...
3. When they attempt to debunk the fake video claims they overlay parts of Bin Laden's face over the blackbeard Bin Laden video and it appears to match quite well.
Well, using the same logic ...
Pretty convincing right!? Except it's total BS. The BBC's analysis proves nothing. Also when they get to the "fatty bin laden" video. They do a slow fade from one Bin Laden to the other. While I've never really doubted the man in that video is Bin Laden (I've always found the idea of a fat guy in a suit sitting down with the real al-Zawahiri a little ridiculous), I should point out that a slow fade is not the best way to analyse things because there can be minor changes between each frame that amount to drastic changes over time, which you don't see because you're skipping through it so slowly. This is a trap I've fell into before when analysing the collapse of WTC7 frame by frame. I skip through 20 or so frames and think a certain point hasn't moved at all, then go back to the first frame and see it has actually moved quite a bit.
The rest of the piece is just the usual appealing to authority nonsense, mixed with psychological analysis and character attacks. We're a religion, we want to believe in conspiracies because it makes us feel better, the truth is too scary, they're too incompetent to pull off such a huge conspiracy, blah blah blah yadda yadda yap yap dribble dribble blah. They even go as far as to say we are HELPING BIN LADEN! That's right. As if subtly linking us to Muslim extremism in the 7/7 piece wasn't bad enough, they are now saying our theories are helping Bin Laden! Conspiracy theorists are now officially terrorists.
Sadly that's not the most disturbing thing I've heard this week. 9/11 has inspired a lot of evil and it has inspired a lot of good. It has triggered a global awakening of humanity and it has inspired many great musicians such as My Chemical Romance. However this has to be by far the sickest thing it has inspired... A life size robot girlfriend that you can have sex with!
Inspiration for the sex robot sprang from the September 11, 2001 attacks, when planes crashed into the World Trade Center in New York City, the Pentagon and an empty field in Pennsylvania.
"I had a friend who passed away in 9/11," Hines said. "I promised myself I would create a program to store his personality, and that became the foundation for Roxxxy True Companion."
The human race, ladies and gentlemen! WTF!? What's even sicker is there's a video on Youtube [mature content], which I'm guessing (and hoping) is just something some sick person has made and isn't an actual promotional video for the doll. The video features digitally synthesized voices talking about things like jet fuel, molten metal, the twin towers etc and mixing it with references to anti-semitism, pedophilia, bestiality and 9/11 victims burning in hell. Either way it's a sick joke. And it's got 55,000 views in 1 day. I repeat. The human race, ladies and gentlemen! I bet the eugenicist social engineers are just loving this.
The ScrewLooseChange guys have largely ignored this blog, except to make fun of us when we make little mistakes. Considering this blog is essentially devoted to responding to their blog, you'd think they'd pay a little more attention. Obviously they know they can't win. Hey guys I'm still waiting for someone to debunk my song. ;)
YOU ARE ENTITLED TO YOUR OWN OPINION, BUT NOT YOUR OWN FACTS.
Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, and Ron Craig, explosives and Hollywood special effects expert locked horns in their second live radio debate in two years. The exchange was hosted by Richard Syrett of The Conspiracy Show. LISTEN TO THE DEBATE NOW.
While no data is available yet for listenership numbers, we do know that the show could be heard from Thunderbay Ontario to the Carolinas....from Maine to Minnesota, NYC, Chicago, Washington and all points in between. Also, the program is offered as a podcast, so it will be available on iTunes as a download. It's the most downloaded show on the radio station – Zoomer Radio from Ontario. The show will also be broadcast on TV - http://www.theconspiracyshow.com/
After brief introductory statements, the debate began right away with two very different views of reality on display. Gage's comments were based on observations that the three WTC towers did not suffer a natural collapse as a result of plane impacts and fires, but came down due to an engineered explosive destruction. Craig, on the other hand, asserted the belief that the plane strikes delivered three times the kinetic energy that the buildings were designed to withstand, that the construction was faulty, and that there was "no signature of explosions".
Craig also mentioned that the plane strikes would account for much of the pulverization of the concrete - without additional explanation as to why up to 30% of the powder blanketing Lower Manhattan was composed of finely ground concrete.
The debate proceeded with Ron Craig's denial of what we consider to be observed facts of the building's explosive destruction. He denied the existence of concrete dust as well as the iron spheres found in the dust samples by USGS and RJ Lee, and offered no explanation for the creation of the spheres. He denied that there were red/gray chips in the WTC dust – suggesting that they were planted by the scientists and somehow slipped past the peer-review process.
We believe that he is entitled to his opinion, but not to his own version of the facts.
Craig hinges his argument on the assertion that many tons of precisely placed explosives would hardly damage the stout columns or make a large enough signature blast to be heard for miles. He believes that, if it existed, he would be aware of any higher-tech explosive comprising nano-thermite. “No boogie man here.”
When the issue of “fire initiated collapse” was raised, Gage pointed to the fact that this type of collapse has never happened before or after 9/11, but only three times - on that one day. Craig countered with a video reference to the Delft building consumed in fire which sustained a partial collapse.
The discussion of fire opened up the evidence of moltn metal found weeks after 9/11 in the debris pile. Craig simply denied its existence, though photo, video, and eyewitness evidence suggests otherwise. Once again we feel that Mr. Craig is entitled to his opinion, but not to his own facts.
Please listen to the debate. The commercials have been cut out from this MP3 file, so the resulting length is about 1 ½ hours.
And please let us know what you think and how you feel our debating technique as well as our content can be improved. We have a few more debates coming up in the next months – at KBDI Denver PBS TV in March – tentatively with physicist/mathematician Dave Thomas from the New Mexico Tech Institute. And then, tentatively, in London at Oxford hosted by former Parliamentary George Galloway.
Related Info:
"When the issue of 'fire initiated collapse' was raised, Gage pointed to the fact that this type of collapse has never happened before or after 9/11, but only three times - on that one day. Craig countered with a video reference to the Delft building consumed in fire which sustained a partial collapse."
A demolition company actually destroyed the Delft building, check the comments here.
This one goes out to all the "debunkers" who think we are just "paranoid nutters."...
By Marc Estrin OpEdNews.com January 10, 2010 at 16:06:41
Cass Sunstein is President Obama's Harvard Law School friend, and recently appointed Administrator of the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs.
In a recent scholarly article, he and coauthor Adrian Vermeule take up the question of "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures". (J. Political Philosophy, 7 (2009), 202-227). This is a man with the president's ear. This is a man who would process information and regulate things. What does he here propose?
[W]e suggest a distinctive tactic for breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories: cognitive infiltration of extremist groups, whereby government agents or their allies (acting either virtually or in real space, and either openly or anonymously) will undermine the crippled epistemology of believers by planting doubts about the theories and stylized facts that circulate within such groups, thereby introducing beneficial cognitive diversity. (Page 219.)
Read this paragraph again. Unpack it. Work your way through the language and the intent. Imagine the application. What do we learn?
-- It is "extremists" who "supply" "conspiracy theories". -- Their "hard core" must be "broken up" with distinctive tactics. What tactics? -- "Infiltration" ("cognitive") of groups with questions about official explanations or obfuscations or lies. Who is to infiltrate? -- "Government agents or their allies", virtually (i.e. on-line) or in "real-space" (as at meetings), and "either openly or anonymously", though "infiltration" would imply the latter. What will these agents do? -- Undermine "crippled epistemology" -- one's theory and technique of knowledge. How will they do this? -- By "planting doubts" which will "circulate". Will these doubts be beneficial? -- Certainly. Because they will introduce "cognitive diversity".
Put into English, what Sunstein is proposing is government infiltration of groups opposing prevailing policy. Palestinian Liberation? 9/11 Truth? Anti-nuclear power? Stop the wars? End the Fed? Support Nader? Eat the Rich?
It's easy to destroy groups with "cognitive diversity". You just take up meeting time with arguments to the point where people don't come back. You make protest signs which alienate 90% of colleagues. You demand revolutionary violence from pacifist groups.
We expect such tactics from undercover cops, or FBI. There the agents are called "provocateurs" -- even if only "cognitive". One learns to smell or deal with them in a group, or recognize trolling online. But even suspicion or partial exposure can "sow uncertainty and distrust within conspiratorial groups [now conflated with conspiracy theory discussion groups] and among their members," and "raise the costs of organization and communication" -- which Sunstein applauds as "desirable". "[N]ew recruits will be suspect and participants in the group's virtual networks will doubt each other's bona fides." (p.225).
And are we now expected to applaud such tactics frankly proposed in a scholarly journal by a high-level presidential advisor?
The full text of a slightly earlier version of Sunstein's article is available for download here.
Marc Estrin is a writer, cellist and activist from Burlington, VT, and author of the novels Insect Dreams, The Half Life of Gregor Samsa; The Education of Arnold Hitler; Golem Song; The Lamentations of Julius Marantz, Skulk, The Annotated (more...)
Thanks to Gregg Roberts of 911research.wtc7.net and ae911truth.org for passing this along. He would have chose the headline: OMG: They really are out to get us - Our conspiracy theorizing is a disease that needs to be cured
"Nanothermite paper = the first peer reviewed paper in which the chief editor NEVER reviewed it"
"The editor in chief of the journal where recently the paper: 'Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe' was published, resigned, claiming she wasn't informed of the publication. She proceeds to provide not a single solid scientific rebuttal, only administrative bickering and personal political bias against, well.. inconvenient science. One particularly notable comment attributed to Ms. Pileni is this one: "Marie-Paule Pileni points out that because the topic lies outside her field of expertise, she cannot judge whether the article in itself is good or bad.". Strangely, her areas of research seem to contradict that." - Source: http://911blogger.com/node/19963
No fish were harmed in the posting of this blog. Being a vegetarian I prefer my fish bullet-free. But in the interest of debunking the debunkers that would have you believe shooting fish in a barrel is not actually easy:
Here is the quote from "Salon News "First, although our intelligence community had learned a great deal about the Al Qaeda affiliate in Yemen, called Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, that we knew that they sought to strike the United States and that they were recruiting operatives to do so, the intelligence community did not aggressively follow up on and prioritize particular streams of intelligence related to a possible attack against the homeland."
Obama invoking 9/11 and calling America "The Homeland" are techniques employed by those who have the need for propaganda or PR to spindoctor something so that "We The People" will buy it. (Remember that Obama and all presidents reads from a teleprompter and someone writes his/their speeches.) I went to http://www.gatecreepers.com/entries/propaganda-techniques-infowarrior-resource-part/#1.9 and looked up propaganda. Here is what they had to say. Propaganda Techniques" is based upon "Appendix I: PSYOP Techniques" from "Psychological Operations Field Manual No.33-1" published by Headquarters; Department of the Army, in Washington DC, on 31 August 1979 (from http://www.zoehouse.com/is/sco/proptech.html) Here are a few of the types of propaganda that I heard in Obama's talk. Assertion: Assertions are positive statements presented as fact. They imply that what is stated is self-evident and needs no further proof. Assertions may or may not be true. Glittering Generalities: Glittering generalities are intensely emotionally appealing words so closely associated with highly valued concepts and beliefs that they carry conviction without supporting information or reason. They appeal to such emotions as love of country, home; desire for peace, freedom, glory, honor, etc. They ask for approval without examination of the reason. Though the words and phrases are vague and suggest different things to different people, their connotation is always favorable: "The concepts and programs of the propagandist are always good, desirable, virtuous." Generalities may gain or lose effectiveness with changes in conditions. They must, therefore, be responsive to current conditions. Phrases which called up pleasant associations at one time may evoke unpleasant or unfavorable connotations at another, particularly if their frame of reference has been altered. Vagueness: Generalities are deliberately vague so that the audience may supply its own interpretations. The intention is to move the audience by use of undefined phrases, without analyzing their validity or attempting to determine their reasonableness or application. Rationalization: Individuals or groups may use favorable generalities to rationalize questionable acts or beliefs. Vague and pleasant phrases are often used to justify such actions or beliefs. Simplification: Favorable generalities are used to provide simple answers to complex social, political, economic, or military problems. Transfer: This is a technique of projecting positive or negative qualities (praise or blame) of a person, entity, object, or value (an individual, group, organization, nation, patriotism, etc.) to another in order to make the second more acceptable or to discredit it. This technique is generally used to transfer blame from one member of a conflict to another. It evokes an emotional response which stimulates the target to identify with recognized authorities. Least of Evils: This is a technique of acknowledging that the course of action being taken is perhaps undesirable but that any alternative would result in an outcome far worse. This technique is generally used to explain the need for sacrifices or to justify the seemingly harsh actions that displease the target audience or restrict personal liberties. Projecting blame on the enemy for the unpleasant or restrictive conditions is usually coupled with this technique. Last but not least I leave you with this quote from Hermann Göring "Of course the people don't want war ... that is understood. But voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."
