Friday, June 29, 2012

9 11 Truth New CIA documents released June 19th 2012

The already staggering amount of 9/11 prior-knowledge, some as specific as could be, continues to stack up. Before getting into the new material, take a look at the first minute and 24 seconds here at least, for a flashback to the bombshell information from last year.



This evidence strains the incompetence excuse offered up the government and "debunkers" beyond it's breaking point.

Published on Jun 28, 2012 by freedom4kaz



9 11 Truth New CIA documents released June 19th 2012

Over 120 CIA documents concerning 9/11, Osama bin Laden and counterterrorism were published today for the first time, having been newly declassified and released to the National Security Archive. The documents were released after the NSA pored through the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission and sent Freedom of Information Act requests. The material contains much new information about the hunt before and after 9/11 for bin Laden, the development of the drone campaign in AfPak, and al-Qaida's relationship with America's ally, Pakistan. Perhaps most damning are the documents showing that the CIA had bin Laden in its cross hairs a full year before 9/11 — but didn't get the funding from the Bush administration White House to take him out or even continue monitoring him. The CIA materials directly contradict the many claims of Bush officials that it was aggressively pursuing al-Qaida prior to 9/11, and that nobody could have predicted the attacks. "I don't think the Bush administration would want to see these released, because they paint a picture of the CIA knowing something would happen before 9/11, but they didn't get the institutional support they needed," says Barbara Elias-Sanborn, the NSA fellow who edited the materials.
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20120626073402372

Related:

Top Secret CIA Documents on Osama bin Laden Declassified http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20120620045527883

National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 381
Posted June 19, 2012
Edited by Barbara Elias-Sanborn with Thanks to Archive Senior Fellow Jeffrey T. Richelson
The National Security Archive

Excerpts:

Highlights of the CIA September 11 Document Collection Include:
  • The 1998 Raw Intelligence Report on UBL's Plans to Hijack an Airplane that Became an Item in the December 4, 1998 President's Daily Brief [1998-12-03].
    • The report details how bin Laden was planning "new operations against the United States (U.S.) targets in the near future. Plans to hijack a U.S. aircraft were proceeding well. Two individuals from the relevant operational team in the U.S. had successfully evaded security checks during a trial run at "New York airport [excised]."...
•A Series of CIA Senior Executive Intelligence Briefs (SEIBS) from June-September 2001 Warning of "Imminent" Al-Qaeda Attacks:


  • 2001-06-23 – "International: Bin Ladin Attacks May Be Imminent [Excised]" Senior Executive Intelligence Brief. [Chapter 8, Endnote 14, See also p. 257 9/11 Commission Report]
  • 2001-06-25 – "Terrorism: Bin Ladin and Associates Making Near-Term Threats," Senior Executive Intelligence Brief. [Chapter 8, Endnotes 12, 14]
  • 2001-06-30 – "Terrorism: Bin Laden Planning High Profile Attacks [Excised]," Senior Executive Intelligence Brief. [Chapter 8, Endnote 12]
  • 2001-07-02 – "Terrorism: Planning for Bin Ladin Attacks Continues, Despite Delay [Excised]," Senior Executive Intelligence Brief. [Chapter 8, Endnote 18]
  • 2001-07-13 – "Terrorism: Bin Ladin Plans Delayed but Not Abandoned [Excised]," Senior Executive Intelligence Brief. [Chapter 8, Endnote 28]
  • 2001-07-25 – "Terrorism: One Bin Ladin Operation Delayed, Others Ongoing [Excised]," Senior Executive Intelligence Brief. [Chapter 8, Endnote 28]
  • 2001-08-07 – "Terrorism: Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in the US," Senior Executive Intelligence Brief. [Chapter 8, Endnote 38. Chapter 11, Endnote 5. Page 342]


  • Related:

    Cheney Lied... There Isn't a Doubt

    Alleged 9/11 Plotters Offer to Confess at Guantánamo - What Does it Mean for the 9/11 Truth Movement?

    Christina Consolo: Fukushima Facts the Mainstream Media Isn't Talking About

    Essential News UPDATE on the Fukushima situation:



    This is a really informative radio interview on the subject. Put it on in the background and listen.

    The Debunkers should recognise the consequences of a system fixated with covering up highly damaging (to the status quo) information. Sometimes it is CRITICALLY IMPORTANT to come clean with the truth. At present, when various actions could be taken to lessen the impact of this disaster, we find nothing substantive is happening. Efforts to entomb the reactor site, even now, must be made.

    The stakes are pretty straightforward too. Do nothing, and face higher and higher levels of contamination, and eventual early death for yourself and family, or act and take measures to prevent long term damage to our species. Debunkers, experts at assessing information and creating disinformation, are smart enough to know what the deal is.

    Related Info:

    Japan to burn drums of unprocessed radioactive waste from nuclear accident — Facility to be built 100 km from Tokyo in Ibaraki (insane)

    Is That Fukushima Debris Dangerous?

    Thursday, June 28, 2012

    Occupy Wall Street asks you to pledge to *Fight Back*


    Pledge to Fight Back

    Fellow occupier, we need your help to end the relentless class war against the 99%. Sign your name to something better by taking the FIGHT BACK pledge at OccupyWallSt.org.

    http://occupywallst.org/fightback/

    Why should I promise to fight? Because the 1% wreck our economy, kill our jobs, seize our homes, assault our rights, destroy the environment, and sentence us to lives of debt and war. For years, we have petitioned our governments for change without redress and have fought tirelessly to elect politicians who only betray us. In a world where the 1% have usurped democracy and politicians refuse to serve the people, the people have but one choice—to fight back!

    How can I fight? Occupiers use direct action to create change, because it works better than voting and is way more fun. Read the pledge to learn how to use some of these tactics.

    “Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of leaders…and millions have been killed because of this obedience…Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves… (and) the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.” – Howard Zinn
    Click here and pledge to flight back today!

    If you've already signed, please forward this to a friend or consider a donation to support a part of the occupy movement.

    Related:

    9/11 Truth Movement Trying to Co-opt the Occupy Movement? - Edited 8/15/12 to remove unintended repetition and fix other errors.

    MIT Physics vs. 9/11 Conspiracy - Jeff King 1946-2012

    David Chandler relays some sad news at 911blogger.com:
    Jeff King, an early scientific voice in the 9/11 Truth Movement, died on June 19 after a lengthy battle with amyloidosis and multple myeloma. He studied physics and engineering at MIT, left for a number of years, then re-enrolled, finished with a degree in Biology (with a combined course of study later labeled Biomedical Engineering), then went on to medical school and became a physician.

    Jeff was a neighbor and a good friend. You may know of him through his online name, Plague Puppy (http://www.plaguepuppy.net/). Some of his thinking about 9/11 was speculative and out of the mainstream of the 9/11 Truth Movement, but I knew him to be extremely inquisitive, well read, independent in his thinking, and non-dogmatic. He was one of the early influences in my getting involved with the 9/11 Truth Movement. He was a gentle and caring person, beloved by his patients...

    He will be missed.
    Jeff King, MD, SB EE (MIT Science Baccalaureate in Biology and Electrical Engineering) – Family Practice Physician (27 years). Former Electrical Engineer (8 years). - http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html#King

    "Debunkers" who try to downplay the credentials of the members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth and other individuals in the truth movement ignore that even electrical engineers take classes relevant to the issues surrounding 9/11.
    Jeff King gives his thorough analysis of the WTC collapses on 9/11 in 2003 and concludes that explosive controlled demolition is the only scientifically explainable hypothesis. This is research from early on, and doesn't account for many of the later discoveries, however, it's still a very important video.



    Wednesday, June 27, 2012

    Watch '9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out Final Edition'


    Video streaming by Ustream
    Related:

    Petition to President Obama: 9/11 Families Ask You to Watch “9/11: Explosive Evidence -Experts Speak Out”

    http://www.change.org/petitions/president-obama-9-11-families-ask-you-to-watch-9-11-explosive-evidence-experts-speak-out-2

    The following includes related links that debunk the debunkers and demonstrate that thousands of 9/11 family members think 9/11 was an inside job to some extent:

    http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/06/president-obama-911-families-ask-you-to.html

    WTC 7 Petition to the National Institute for Standards and Technology, U.S. Congress, and President Obama

    http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/05/wtc-7-petition-to-national-institute.html

    Alex Jones Show Complete (Commercial Free) Tuesday June 26th 2012 - Jesse Ventura

    Published on Jun 27, 2012 by AlexJonesComplete

    Tuesday June 26th 2012

    2 Guests Today - Jesse Ventura, Billy Corgan.

    Smashing Pumpkins frontman Billy Corgan talks with Alex in an explosive taped interview. Corgan and Jones cover a variety of issues, from the police state to GMO and more.

    Alex also talks with actor, author, former professional wrestler and the former governor of Minnesota, Jesse Ventura. Alex and Ventura talk about TSA whistleblowers, the disintegration of republic and his new book, DemoCRIPS and ReBLOODlicans, now available at the Infowars store.

    Alex also confronts the latest news and takes your calls.

    http://www.infowars.com/
    http://www.prisonplanet.tv/
    http://www.prisonplanet.com
    http://planet.infowars.com



    Related:

    Yes, Ventura has endorsed the theory that Directed Energy Weapons were used to demolish the buildings on 9/11 and the theory that the plane that hit the Pentagon actually flew over it while a bomb exploded, and no he doesn't always have all his facts as straight as we like around here. That said, he does promote a lot of good 9/11 and other info that is widely distributed to the masses. So rather than ignore him we opt to point these things out and hope people find our blog through searching for him and then are able to separate the wheat from the chaff. So, here is his entire book, 63 Documents The Government Doesn't Want You to Read, in audio format.

    The full audio book of Jesse Ventura's American Conspiracies



    Whistleblower: TSA Deliberately Hiring Psychopathic Criminals

    Debunking Study That Claims TSA Body Scanners Are Safe

    TSA - Grope & Pillage

    Coming Soon to an Airport Near You - Thanks to 9/11

    The official 9/11 lie used by TSA as a reason to abuse children, women, and the handicapped

    TSA: Bullies, Thieves, Rapist and Child Molesters

    Why doesn't the TSA use dogs trained to sniff out explosives?

    Airport Body Scanners Safe, Experts Say (Ignore those that don't)

    Even Ron Jeremy Thinks Airport Body Scanners Are Ridiculous!

    Two Questions Answered About the Naked Body Scanners

    IT'S A TRAP!!!

    Sunday, June 24, 2012

    Former Iowa Governor Chet Culver Supports Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth?

    Holly Berkowitz in Iowa City, IA, comments on the petition entitled, "President Obama: 9/11 Families Ask You to Watch “9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out”:

    Thank you so much, Governor Culver for forwarding this petition. I'm surprised it took so long for many to notice. The evidence is overwhelming and truth usually wins eventually . . . in justice anyway. Critical flows that hold the web for all life intact balance for justice and justice balances. I hope Tom Miller is working on this. Thanks again!

    We need a real investigation into the many, many inconsistencies about 9/11.
    From Wikipedia:

    Chester John "Chet" Culver (born January 25, 1966) is the Governor of Iowa.

    Culver was born in Washington, D.C.. His father, John Culver, was a United States Senator. Before entering politics, Culver was a teacher.

    In 1998, Culver won election to be the Iowa Secretary of State. He was reelected in 2002. After Governor Tom Vilsack said he would not run for Governor in 2006, Culver became a Democratic candidate for Governor. In November of 2006, he defeated his Republican opponent, Jim Nussle, and in January he became Governor of Iowa.

    Office of the Governor website
    The following includes related links that debunk the debunkers and demonstrate that thousands of 9/11 family members think 9/11 was an inside job:

    http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2012/06/president-obama-911-families-ask-you-to.html

    Thursday, June 21, 2012

    Random Ranting

    1. Pat Curley has attacked me for being lazy:
    I think it's time to get off your duff and let people know that you've begun to worry that your eight YouTube videos and your "over fifty articles" might be wrong. James and I make an effort to correct the occasional posts where we make a mistake (although with thousands of posts I am sure we have failed to correct something somewhere).
    This is rich coming from ScrewLooseChange. How about you guys get off your duff and actually acknowledge the existence of the many articles on this blog that expose your BS?

    2. Rand Paul insults the intelligence of his supporters:
    Much has been speculated and written since my endorsement of Mitt Romney for president. Many in the liberty movement and my longtime supporters wondered if, as a result of endorsing someone for office, I would stand up to them when they went astray. The question to me is as strange as the answer is simple: Yes, strongly. Every time I have always done what I believe and I have never been blinded by party. In my time in the United States Senate, I have opposed the USA Patriot Act, voted against the NDAA ... I endorsed Governor Romney for many reasons, not the least of which is that we simply cannot afford four more years of President Obama. Obamacare, Dodd-Frank, an out-of-control EPA and NLRB, and trillion-dollar deficits are combining to strangle our economy ... I do not yet know if I will find a Romney presidency more acceptable on foreign policy
    And if you believe Romney is going to be better on any of these things, you're a moron. Rand mentions Obamacare, which Romney practically wrote. He mentions the NDAA, which Romney supports. And he talks about Romney's foreign policy as if there is any doubt that he is a war mongerer. There isn't. He is going to be a war mongerer, no doubt about it! This article is pure damage control. Rand is playing the false left-right game. "We simply cannot afford four more years of President Obama", he says. Because anyone who's not Obama has got to be better! Right?! Yeah, that's what everyone was saying about Bush in 2008.



    I guess it's true what they say. You don't change politics, politics changes you. I mean, what the hell? What'd they do, show him never-before-seen footage of the Kennedy assassination? What is it with all these good politicians suddenly selling out? Reminds me of when Dennis Kucinich reversed his position on Obama's health care plan after a ride in Air Force One two years ago. What went on during that flight is anyone's guess.



    "All hail the brain slugs!"

    3. Tony Blair is still ... Tony Blair



    I don't know what it is, but something about Tony Blair just enrages and sickens me to my very core. Arrest that lying, murdering piece of canine excrement for f**k sake! All those people in the audience ... Seriously, WTF?! Why would anyone want to go hear this guy speak?!

    Wednesday, June 20, 2012

    9/11: Jesse Ventura vs FOX News

    Published on Jun 20, 2012 by TheTruthseeker55

    Patriot Jesse Ventura on 'Fox & Friends' back in 2010

    FAUX News - faux/fō/ Adjective:
    1. Artificial or imitation: "faux pearls".
    2. Not genuine; fake or false: "her faux New York accent".

    View the original (full-length) here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWmUJU43irg



    Related:

    Yes, Ventura has endorsed the theory that Directed Energy Weapons were used to demolish the buildings on 9/11 and the theory that the plane that hit the Pentagon actually flew over it while a bomb exploded, and no he doesn't always have all his facts as straight as we like around here. That said, he does promote a lot of good 9/11 and other info that is widely distributed to the masses. So rather than ignore him we opt to point these things out and hope people find our blog through searching for him and then are able to separate the wheat from the chaff. So, here is his entire book, 63 Documents The Government Doesn't Want You to Read, in audio format.

    The full audio book of Jesse Ventura's American Conspiracies


    Friday, June 15, 2012

    BBC Planning Huge New 7/7 Conspiracy Hit Piece

    The BBC is set to air a new 'Conspiracy Road Trip' hit piece on the 7/7 London bombings. As we saw with last summer's 9/11 version, the program tries to get "truthers" to recant and swallow the official story - in the process ideologically burning them at the stake for the consumption of the viewing sheeple.

    I talk to Jon Scobie of We Are Change Birmingham who took part in the filming as one of the central participants. He astoundingly reveals that producers admitted to him from the start that the show would not be unbiased, and that no less than five executive-level directors make the decisions on editing before the programme even airs
    .



    Great interview. Worth checking!

    *And check out the related info that explains the ACTUAL train arrival and departure times on 7/7 juxtaposed to the official story. It seems that it was impossible for the bombers, arriving at Luton station at 7:21:54, in the rush hour, to have caught all the necessary departing trains, except for one, so that the full bombing scenario could play out.

    Related Info:

    The 7/7 Train Times from Luton to King's Cross Disprove the Official Story

    Tuesday, June 12, 2012

    Jesse Ventura: Make Politicians Wear NASCAR Suits




    Published on Jun 12, 2012 by TheAlexJonesChannel

    [Editor's Note: Jesse's latest book is currently available in the Infowars Shop.] http://www.infowarsshop.com/DemoCRIPS-and-ReBLOODlicans_p_644.html

    Former Governor of Minnesota Jesse Ventura called for the abolition of the Democratic and Republican parities in an appearance last night on CNN, saying they are worse than violent warring street gangs.

    In an interview with Piers Morgan, Ventura did not hold back, urging that "We need to abolish the political parties," and "Make them political action committees."

    As he does in his new book, the former Navy Seal compared the current two party US political system to the infamous Los Angeles street gangs the Bloods and Crips.

    "They call the blue states Democrats, well that is also the colors of the Crips," he explained. "Naturally, the Bloods' color is red and the Republican states are called red states."

    "They're worse," Ventura continued. "Let me explain why they're worse: The Crips and the Bloods, the street gangs, while they can be devastating to a certain small part of the population, the Democrips and the Rep-bloodicans, they affect everybody in this country."

    Ventura elaborated by explaining that the system has been corrupted by big money and both parties are bought and paid for, leaving no room for a third party to have any success.

    Ventura suggested that presidential candidates should be "required to wear a NASCAR racing suit" to "show who owns them".

    The former Governor also had some choice words for the corporate media, for not scrutinizing the political system and instead concentrating on pap. http://www.infowars.com/ventura-abolish-both-political-parties/
    by Steve Watson

    Related:

    I think it's safe to say that if Tupac Shakur was still with us he would be a fan of Ventura's new book.

    Tupac Shakur breaks down the truth about the perpetual culture of Gangs and how our Country founded the mentality. A never before seen clip from inside his prison walls while incarcerated, Tupac had the chance to convey how he feels that our Government has made us the way we are today!



    Yes, Ventura has endorsed the theory that Directed Energy Weapons were used to demolish the buildings on 9/11 and the theory that the plane that hit the Pentagon actually flew over it while a bomb exploded, and no he doesn't always have all his facts as straight as we like around here. That said, he does promote a lot of good 9/11 and other info that is widely distributed to the masses. So rather than ignore him we opt to point these things out and hope people find our blog through searching for him and then are able to separate the wheat from the chaff. So, here is his entire book, 63 Documents The Government Doesn't Want You to Read, in audio format.

    The full audio book of Jesse Ventura's American Conspiracies

    Debunking Study That Claims TSA Body Scanners Are Safe




    Another Bogus “Study” Claims Irradiating TSA Body Scanners Are Safe

    Related:

    TSA - Grope & Pillage

    Coming Soon to an Airport Near You - Thanks to 9/11

    The official 9/11 lie used by TSA as a reason to abuse children, women, and the handicapped

    TSA: Bullies, Thieves, Rapist and Child Molesters

    Why doesn't the TSA use dogs trained to sniff out explosives?

    Airport Body Scanners Safe, Experts Say (Ignore those that don't)

    Even Ron Jeremy Thinks Airport Body Scanners Are Ridiculous!

    Two Questions Answered About the Naked Body Scanners

    IT'S A TRAP!!!

    Procrastination, not Conspiracy

    Apparently I'm being gagged, according to the anti-9/11 truth tabloid masquerading as a skeptical website, ScrewLooseChange. Last month, I accidentally prematurely published a draft post I was working on (still not used to this new blogger), and even though it was only up for like a minute, someone was able to take a screen grab and share it with the JREF community. In the leaked draft post I express my concerns about AE911Truth promoting the red/gray chips as a key piece of evidence in their film. My silence since that post was leaked has led Pat Curley and many SLC commenters to suspect that I am being gagged by John-Michael and Adam. I love it when debunkers engage in conspiracy theorizing!

    First of all, JM at least (not sure about Adam) actually shares my concerns. He is currently in the process of writing a post about the red-gray chips that addresses Millette's report and outlines an upcoming, blind study of the WTC dust commissioned by Mark Basile.

    Second, the reason I never finished the "Red chips or Blue Pills" post and haven't responded to the leak until now is simple: procrastination. I've been suffering from blogger burnout recently and keep starting posts and never finishing them. On my other blog, Skeptic Denialism, I haven't published anything since December and have unfinished posts going back to last August! I was also going to write about Basile's study in my Blue Pills post and wanted to wait until it was officially going ahead before I finished it.

    Last month, I spent two weeks writing a lengthy response to Adam Savage's comments at the Reason Rally in March, in which I outlined various 9/11 "myths" the MythBusters could easily test (from both truthers and debunkers) and basically told Savage to do a 9/11 episode or shut up. When I finally finished, I hit publish and for some reason only the first two paragraphs were published while the rest of the post was memory holed into oblivion and I ended up losing all my work. Since then I've been even more fed up with blogging.

    You gotta love debunkers. When Sibel Edmonds gets officially, federally gagged, it's no big deal. When I don't blog for a month, it's a conspiracy!

    So where do I stand now on the nanothermite issue? The last three years, I've emphasized the red-gray chips as a key piece of evidence in most of my YouTube videos[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] - even my song[8] - and have uploaded both videos of chip ignitions to my channel[9] [10] and devoted entire videos to debunking paint claims[11] [12]. On this blog, Adam, JM and myself have written over fifty articles defending the work of Harrit et al against debunker criticisms. We've all invested a lot of time into promoting and defending this work, and I doubt you'll find more passionate endorsers of it than us. But since reading Millette's report and some of Oystein's JREF posts, doubts have formed in my mind. I haven't switched sides just yet, but I am more neutral. I think Oystein makes an interesting point about the similarity in composition to LaClede primer...



    And I can see what people are saying when they say the Al/Si/O plate-like particles look more like Kaolin than nanoaluminum...

     

    But I still think the chemical behaviour is key. Even super JREFers Oystein and Ivan Kminek have admitted that they don't know why primer paint would produce iron-rich spheres when burned.

    My main frustration is lack of data. I keep hearing how Harrit, Farrer et al have a lot more data than what was published in the Active Thermitic Material... paper, including TEM images, FTIR plots and XEDS spectra of chips (a)-(d) prior to washing, data that allegedly undermines certain debunker criticisms (such as Oystein's contamination denial). Great, let's see it! I've also been told that early drafts of the Active Thermitic Material... paper were several times longer with such data included but the authors were told by peer-reviewers to cut the length down. I just wonder why they didn't make all the data they had to take out available on the Journal of 9/11 Studies website as supplementary material or something.

    For me, it all comes down to Basile's study. Whichever side is 2-1 up after that is the one I'll side with. JM says the same. If we feel the conclusions of Harrit et al have been refuted, we'll say so. We'll write a blog post announcing that we've changed our views and we'll put a disclaimer on every blog we've ever written about the red/gray chips linking readers to that announcement, and I'll put annotations on all my YouTube videos saying the work of Harrit et al has been debunked. We may have invested a lot of time into defending it, but don't worry, unlike debunkers, we don't let emotional investments and cognitive dissonance cloud our rational judgement!

    Again, my big concern is what a refutation of Harrit et al will mean for AE911Truth and their movie. No amount of thermite debunking will convince me that the collapse explanations offered by NIST and Bazant are in any way consistent with the laws of physics, so I'll defend the 1700 individual A&Es to the death, but the organization itself is pissing me off a little. If the chips do turn out to be LaClede primer, then this could be used to completely discredit "Experts Speak Out", AE911Truth and 9/11 Truth as a whole.

    Comment from John-Michael:

    I agree with you that ae911 should have waited to see how things panned out with Millette before releasing their film, but the claim by Pat that Experts Speak Out "relies heavily on the nanothermite claim" is an overstatement. In the final edition, the thermite related evidence section takes up approximately 18 minutes of a roughly 96 minute film. The majority of time is devoted to the undebunkable physical evidence I cited in my Millette article, which will soon to be updated with a short reply to Oystein. Couple this with the fact that the 9/11 truth movement survived the early versions of Loose Change and I think things will be just fine no matter what.

    Also, Pat says he has "been rather critical of the folks over at the rebunking 9-11 blog." In reality, he has mostly avoided our rather substantial criticism of him as well as our rebuttals to the small amount of criticism he has levied at us (example).

    Monday, June 11, 2012

    My Amazon Review of Popular Mechanics' "Debunking 9/11 Myths, 2011 Edition"


    Source: http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/product-reviews/1588165477/ref=cm_cr_dp_synop?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=0&sortBy=bySubmissionDateDescending#R21XROM24OW63X

    Popular Mechanic's revised edition of their book "Debunking 9/11 Myths" will surely impress those who already believe the 9/11 Truth Movement has no credibility. It will likely serve as reassurance that the so called "conspiracy theories" about the September 11th attacks have officially been put to rest. However, for those of us who have actually taken the time to analyze the claims made by both truthers and debunkers alike, one finds that PM not only gets the facts wrong, but also engages in deliberate misrepresentations of the Truth Movement's arguments. Granted, I do believe that a plane hit the Pentagon and that Flight 93 crashed in Shanksville. So as far as that's concerned, PM is more or less right. However, their discussion of the WTC controlled demolition theory is one of the most disgustingly flawed things I've ever read.

    Even after 5 years of addressing PM's many flawed arguments, they still continue to rehash many of the same claims that have long been debunked by members of the Truth Movement. For example, they continue parrot NIST's claim that the molten flow seen coming from the 81st floor of the South Tower was molten aluminum, a claim that has long been refuted. (Google: Experiments to test NIST "orange glow" hypothesis... ) Also, PM's assessment of the Truth Movement is disgustingly misrepresentative, and even downright deceptive. For on pages 28-29 of their 2011 book, they actually claim that "not one of the leading conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields." Of course! Never mind that fact that there are currently over 1600 architects, engineers, and other building professionals who believe that the Twin Towers and Building 7 were destroyed with explosives. See: ae911truth.org In fact, in all of PM's 216 page book, there is not a single mention of the group Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, or its founder architect Richard Gage. (Google: The 9/11 Truth Movement has no credentialed experts... ) Despite the fact that PM claims to be taking on the Truth Movement and its arguments, PM somehow missed the largest group of credentialed experts who agrees with the Movement. Either this is extremely bad journalism on PM's part, or simply shear deception.

    And PM is fond of doing this on a smaller scale in their new book as well. While attempting to debunk truther claims of "free fall" for the Twin Towers, they mention a scientific paper by Dr. Keith Seffen supporting the "plane impact/fire" theory, and then quotes one random truther claiming that Seffen is "an accessory after the fact in the crime of mass-murder." However, when reading this part of PM's book, you might notice that they don't provide a direct source for this particular quote. They provide us with this person's personal website, yet nowhere is this quote found on said site. When one takes the time to track down PM's source, you'll find that the quote comes from a random blogspot site discussing Keith Seffen's paper. This truther's quote was merely a comment posted on the blog. (Google: 9-11 Anniversary Propaganda Special! WTC Demolition theory challenged by Cambridge University engineer ) In their attempt to portray truthers as irrational individuals, PM actually goes so low as to pull a random quote off a blogspot site that many in the Movement probably have never heard of. Were there any other members of the Movement PM could have quoted in regards to Keith Seffen's paper? Apparently not, unless you count Dr. Crockett Grabbe's detailed refutation of Seffen's paper (Google: sealane response to Seffen )

    By far PM's saddest attempt at "debunking" the Truth Movement is their section on the nanothermite discovered in the WTC dust. Rather than actually trying to "debunk" this evidence, PM simply attempts to discredit the findings of the scientists who made this discovery by trying to cast doubt on the peer review of the study. This of course is nothing more than a dodge on PM's part. Rather than engage in an actual scientific debate, PM apparently prefers to smear their opponents with lies.

    The structure of the book matches the poor quality of the information provided. In virtually every case where PM quotes a member of the Movement, they provide no direct source for where the quote came from. At most, PM will provide the reader with a website URL that the quote might have come from, but they apparently feel no need to provide the reader with a direct link to where the quote came from on that site. They provide no endnotes that take the reader to direct sources either. Basically, because their information is sourced so poorly, it's impossible to know whether they've got something right or not without going back and essentially redoing all their work. This basically makes their book useless, for why even bother reading the book when you're just going to end up redoing all their work anyway?

    PM's book is by far one of the poorest attempts at discrediting the extensive research done by the members of the 9/11 Truth Movement. If you're a debunker or any other type of defender of the official story, this book will no doubt tickle your funny bone as you continue to mock and laugh at the "twoofers." However, if you actually take the time to review PM's information and their methods, you will find that these are not laughing matters, and that a new investigation into the events of 9/11 is desperately still needed.

    For detailed refutations of PM's book, Google: "Debunking the REAL 9/11 Myths: Why Popular Mechanics Can't Face Up to Reality."

    My New Blog



    If anyone is interested, I've started up my own separate blog where I'll be posting on a wider variety of topics other than just 9/11.

    http://adamtaylor42.blogspot.com/

    Hope to see you there.

    M.I.T. No-Evacuations Study Debunked

    ESSENTIAL VIEWING:

    __________________________________

    The consequences of pushing cover-ups on the population will also impact upon those doing the debunking. In the end we might all be bathing in a sea of radiation if we do not treat such issues seriously. To those doing the "debunking" - please, cut it out.

    And if you think that you are performing an important National Security job or "helping the planet" in some way then I say you should reconsider. There is more than one way to "help" our planet - covering-up nuclear disasters is not the way. Plus some jobs make you an expendable pawn for misguided, power centric individuals.

    Dear Debunkers, we need your help to blow the lid off our mainstream cover-up system before we all end up in a pickle jar. There is more than one path towards the future.

    Related Info:

    The CONSEQUENCES of Ignoring the Reality of False Flag Terror:

    Sunday, June 10, 2012

    EXCLUSIVE AE911Truth Colorado 911 Visibility & Richard Gage: Premier Explosive Evidence w Live Panel

    Published on Jun 8, 2012 by WACCTV

    Colorado 911 Visibility brought Richard Gage to town to premier the final release of 9/11: Explosive Evidence Experts Speak Out Final Edition. Special to this premier and likely none of the other places it will premier was the panel of psychologists from the movie live to answer questions. This video contains more than an hour and a half of a never before seen question and answer session with Richard himself and the panel where topics from nanothermite to Judy Wood to Ace Elevator Company to Amy Goodman and Democracy Now! are all covered. We R Change was in the hizouse and Michael Storm got Richard to let him film it. Enjoy!



    Related:

    "A variety of media sources, including Popular Mechanics, BBC and the History Channel, have dismissed the assertions of AE911Truth and presented their own arguments in favor of the theory that jet fuel and office fires were the primary factor in the WTC skyscrapers' collapse." - Source

    Here is a point-by-point refutation at AE911Truth, of Popular Mechanics' weak arguments regarding the controlled demolition of the three WTC buildings, written by Debunking the Debunkers blog contributer Adam Taylor

    Hold the BBC Accountable - AE911Truth.org Action

    Mock Debate: Strongest 9/11 Myth Arguments Crumble as Truth Prevails - The Video of the Debate

    Debunking Joseph Nobles/boloboffin of AE911Truth.INFO

    '9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out' Trailer & Rebuttal to Pat Curley

    Here is the feature-length, low-resolution, pre-release version of the film:



    Watch '9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out Final Edition'

    Excerpt:

    Psychologists help out the conspiracy theorists that won't let go of the official conspiracy theory.



    Twenty Four Uncut Interviews from the Film

    Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth debunk Judy Wood

    News that the Democracy Now! radio show was scheduling a debate on 9/11/2006 between a spokesperson for the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths and the creator of Loose Change Dylan Avery prompted the following letters

    Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth LA Press Conference

    AE911Truth Podcast Episode 1

    LIVE STREAM WORLD PREMIERE "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out"

    WORLD PREMIERE TOUR "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out"

    Opening Night - "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out" Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - Beverly Hills, CA

    Friday, June 8, 2012

    Debunking 911myths.com: War Games


     
    The "War Games" page at 911myths.com states:
    Many prominent 9/11 researchers claim that the US air defence system would have prevented the 9/11 attacks under normal circumstances, but were unable to do so because air traffic controllers, the FAA and NORAD were confused by "war games" that were running at the same time...

    ...There’s a distinct lack of evidence for any of these exercises adversely affecting the response to 9/11, or even to contradict the NORAD and 9/11 Commission view that they actually helped.
    However, this past Tuesday 911truth.org published a press release entitled, "Expert Panel Reports False Accounts of US Political and Military Leaders on 9/11," which notes that:
    The 20-member 9/11 Consensus Panel analyzed evidence from press reports, FOIA requests, and archived 9/11 Commission file documents to produce eight new studies, released today.

    The international Panel also discovered that four massive aerial practice exercises traditionally held in October were in full operation on 9/11. The largest, Global Guardian, held annually by NORAD and the US Strategic and Space Commands, had originally been scheduled for October 22-31 but was moved, along with Vigilant Guardian, to early September.

    Although senior officials claimed no one could have predicted using hijacked planes as weapons, the military had been practicing similar exercises on 9/11 itself -- and for years before it.

    The Panel, discovering widespread reports of confusion and delays in the defense response, looked into who was overseeing the air defenses after the second Tower was hit at 9:03 AM.
    Going to the report itself, we learn that, "Although the 9/11 Commission mentioned only one military exercise – Vigilant Guardian – that was scheduled for 9/11, evidence shows that at least 12 exercises had been scheduled for that day."

    9/11 researcher Dr. Webster Tarpley puts the number of exercises taking place on 9/11 at 22.

    (Note: I strongly disagree with many of Tarpley's conclusions about 9/11 and his unfounded allegations against several other 9/11 researchers.)

    The first bio listed on the 9/11 Consensus Panel is that of "Dr. Robert Bowman, former head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering at the US Air Force Institute of Technology, and the Director of Advanced Space Programs Development (“Star Wars”) under Presidents Ford and Carter."

    The WhatReallyHappened.com page, "War Games: The Key to a 9/11 USAF Stand Down," notes that Dr. Bowman who is "so decorated with medals and honors they could fill a patriotic Christmas tree... has inside knowledge of military protocol, and has stated that it is apparent to him that the massive military exercises that took place on September 11, 2001 were intentionally staged to confuse civil defenses."

    The panel, whose members also include a retired US Navy fighter pilot who subsequently spent 27 years as an airline pilot, as well as a U.S. Air Force pilot who served for 31 years, continues their report:
    One would expect that having so many exercises would have caused some confusion, which might have slowed down the military response. Indeed, statements to this effect have been made:

    According to a summary of a 9/11 Commission interview with Canadian Lt. Gen. Rick Findley, who was at NORAD as the Battle Staff Director at Cheyenne Mountain Operations Center (CMOC) on September 11,2001, there was, following the second attack on the Twin Towers, “confusion as to how many, and which aircraft, were hijacked. There was no situational awareness that was directly credible, and CMOC was relying on the communications over the phone lines with its operations sectors. Findley opined that AA 11 was reported still airborne and headed towards Washington, D.C. because of the added confusion of many hijack reports.” - Source

    At Andrews Air Force Base outside Washington, DC, FAA Air Traffic Controller James Ampey, stationed at Andrews Tower, reported in a 9/11 Commission interview that there were an unusually high number of aircraft taking-off and landing at Andrews that morning because previously scheduled military exercises were underway. The radar screens were showing “emergencies all over the place.” - Source

    General Larry Arnold, commander of NORAD’s Continental U.S. Region, said: “By the end of the day, we had 21 aircraft identified as possible hijackings.” - Source

    Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke: “There were lots of false signals out there. There were false hijack squawks, and a great part of the challenge was sorting through what was a legitimate threat and what wasn’t.” - Source

    FAA Deputy Administrator, Monte Belger, said: “Between 9:20-9:45 there were many confusing reports about various aircraft being unaccounted for.” - Source

    An independent study in 2011 gave detailed accounts of nine falsely reported hijackings on 9/11, plus nine other reported aircraft emergencies.
    This study by 9/11 researcher "Shoestring" is the most important reference, it begins:
    Although it has been widely reported that four commercial aircraft were hijacked over the United States on September 11, 2001, what is less well known is that while the terrorist attacks were taking place and for many hours after, numerous additional aircraft gave indications that they had been hijacked or, for other reasons, were singled out as potential emergencies. More than 20 aircraft were identified as possible hijackings, according to some accounts, and other aircraft displayed signs of emergencies, such as losing radio communication with air traffic controllers or transmitting a distress signal.

    Reports about these false alarms have revealed extraordinary circumstances around some of the incidents and bizarre explanations for how they arose. For example, it has been claimed that the pilots of one foreign aircraft approaching the U.S. set their plane's transponder to transmit a code signaling they had been hijacked simply to show authorities that they were aware of what had been taking place in America that morning. Another aircraft reported as transmitting a distress signal while approaching the U.S. was subsequently found to have been canceled, and still at the airport.

    There may be innocent explanations for some of the less serious false alarms, such as those simply involving the temporary loss of radio communication with the plane, which is a common occurrence and happens on a daily basis. But, viewed in its entirety, the evidence appears highly suspicious and raises serious questions. Why, for example, were there so many false alarms on September 11? Why did so many of them involve false reports of hijackings or aircraft falsely signaling that they had been hijacked? The details of specific incidents that have been reported, which I describe below, show that these false alarms must have been something more than just the results of confusion caused by the terrorist attacks.

    MILITARY EXERCISES INCLUDED SIMULATED HIJACKINGS
    One possibility to consider is that some of the false alarms related to training exercises taking place on September 11. There is evidence supporting this contention.
    Read the entire report here:

    http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2011/04/many-false-hijackings-of-911.html

    So much for the contention at 911myths.com of there being "a distinct lack of evidence for any of these exercises adversely affecting the response to 9/11."

    Similarly, Shoestring's article, "'Let's Get Rid of This Goddamn Sim': How NORAD Radar Screens Displayed False Tracks All Through the 9/11 Attacks," debunks the claim at the 911myths.com war games page that "there's no evidence at all that 'false blips' were in use on 9/11."

    These blips were part of the war game exercise Vigilant Guardian. In a March 2012 article entitled, "'Real-World or Exercise': Did the U.S. Military Mistake the 9/11 Attacks for a Training Scenario?," Shoestring writes:
    It has been claimed that Vigilant Guardian was terminated shortly after United Airlines Flight 175 became the second plane to crash into the World Trade Center, at 9:03 a.m. on September 11. However, evidence indicates it may have continued long after that time. It has also been claimed that the participation of military staffers in the exercise had little effect on their ability to protect America against the attacks, and that Vigilant Guardian may even have had beneficial effects. For example, in its final report, the 9/11 Commission claimed that the response to the attacks "was, if anything, expedited by the increased number of staff at the sectors and at NORAD because of the scheduled exercise." However, a significant amount of evidence casts doubt upon this claim.
    Again, "a significant amount of evidence" not a "a distinct lack of evidence."



    Conclusion from the 9/11 Consensus Panel:
    Because of the rescheduling of military exercises normally scheduled for different times, there were an extraordinary number of exercises underway the morning of September 11, 2001.

    The Department of Defense and the 9/11 Commission failed to report all but one of the exercises that occurred that morning.

    They also denied that such exercises slowed down military responses to the attacks.

    Had the 9/11 Commission reported the full extent of the exceptional number of exercises it knew were operating that morning, the above-quoted statements by military officers such as Eberhart, Marr, and Myers – that the exercises did not, by causing confusion, slow down the military response – would have seemed implausible.

    Any new investigation should probe the fact that, taken together, this evidence suggests that:

    (1) the Pentagon, after creating conditions that confused the military response to the attacks, sought to cover up its creation of these conditions, and that

    (2) the 9/11 Commission facilitated this cover-up by not making public the information held in its records cited above.
    But the Arabesque: 9/11 Truth blog perhaps put it best:
    NORAD commander-in-Chief Ralph Eberhart was asked by the 9/11 Commission if these war games "helped" response to the 9/11 attacks and responded nonsensically, "sir, my belief is that it helped because of the manning, because of the focus, because the crews - they have to be airborne in 15 minutes and that morning, because of the exercise, they were airborne in six or eight minutes. And so I believe that focus helped." This was clearly a ridiculous statement; if the war games "helped" response to the attacks, why were none of the planes intercepted during the attacks; what "response" was there at all? In fact, there is very strong evidence that these drills hindered response since they moved air defenses away from New York and Washington, added "injects" to radar screens, and created general confusion.
    Related:

    Pumpitout Radio: Foreknowledge and Lack of Air Defense

    Lack of 9/11 Air Defence Explained?

    Looks like peroxide and pepper can destroy a bus after all



    One question a lot of people have asked about the 7/7 bombings is, could homemade explosives made from hydrogen peroxide and black pepper have caused the observed damage, or must the explosives have been, as early reports claimed, "of military origin"?[1] [2] [3]

    See: Terror on the Tube - What Went Bang?



    This is something I've wanted the MythBusters or someone to test for a while (blowing shit up is, after all, the MythBusters' specialty!). Well apparently the BBC are going to finally settle the debate. Remember that 9/11 conspiracy road trip program? Well this year they're airing one about 7/7. In the video above, Paul Joseph Watson interviews one of the participants of the upcoming program. Apparently one of the things the BBC did was blow up a bus in a quarry using the ingredients the bombers allegedly used. Should be interesting.

    Thursday, June 7, 2012

    Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth LA Press Conference

    Press conference with Ed Asner

    Related:

    "A variety of media sources, including Popular Mechanics, BBC and the History Channel, have dismissed the assertions of AE911Truth and presented their own arguments in favor of the theory that jet fuel and office fires were the primary factor in the WTC skyscrapers' collapse." - Source

    Here is a point-by-point refutation at AE911Truth, of Popular Mechanics' weak arguments regarding the controlled demolition of the three WTC buildings, written by Debunking the Debunkers blog contributer Adam Taylor

    Hold the BBC Accountable - AE911Truth.org Action

    Mock Debate: Strongest 9/11 Myth Arguments Crumble as Truth Prevails - The Video of the Debate

    Debunking Joseph Nobles/boloboffin of AE911Truth.INFO

    '9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out' Trailer & Rebuttal to Pat Curley

    Here is the feature-length, low-resolution, pre-release version of the film:



    Watch '9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out Final Edition'

    Petition to President Obama: 9/11 Families Ask You to Watch “9/11: Explosive Evidence -Experts Speak Out”

    Excerpt:

    Psychologists help out the conspiracy theorists that won't let go of the official conspiracy theory.



    Twenty Four Uncut Interviews from the Film

    EXCLUSIVE AE911Truth Colorado 911 Visibility & Richard Gage: Premier Explosive Evidence w Live Panel

    AE911Truth Podcast Episode 1

    LIVE STREAM WORLD PREMIERE "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out"

    WORLD PREMIERE TOUR "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out"

    Opening Night - "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out" Tuesday, May 22, 2012 - Beverly Hills, CA

    Wednesday, June 6, 2012

    RECAP: The 911 Debunkers' Debating Tactics

    By "Truth Sleuth"

    1. Dummy up. If it's not reported, if it's not news, it didn't happen.

    2. Wax indignant. This is also known as the "How dare you?" gambit.

    3. Characterize the charges as "rumors" or, better yet, "wild rumors." If, in spite of the news blackout, the public is still able to learn about the suspicious facts, it can only be through "rumors." (If they tend to believe the "rumors" it must be because they are simply "paranoid" or "hysterical.")

    4. Knock down straw men. Deal only with the weakest aspects of the weakest charges. Even better, create your own straw men. Make up wild rumors (or plant false stories) and give them lead play when you appear to debunk all the charges, real and fanciful alike.

    5. Call the skeptics names like "conspiracy theorist," "nutcase," "ranter," "kook," "crackpot," and, of course, "rumor monger." Be sure, too, to use heavily loaded verbs and adjectives when characterizing their charges and defending the "more reasonable" government and its defenders. You must then carefully avoid fair and open debate with any of the people you have thus maligned. For insurance, set up your own "skeptics" to shoot down.

    6. Impugn motives. Attempt to marginalize the critics by suggesting strongly that they are not really interested in the truth but are simply pursuing a partisan political agenda or are out to make money (compared to over-compensated adherents to the government line who, presumably, are not).

    7. Invoke authority. Here the controlled press and the sham opposition can be very useful.

    8. Dismiss the charges as "old news."

    9. Come half-clean. This is also known as "confession and avoidance" or "taking the limited hangout route." This way, you create the impression of candor and honesty while you admit only to relatively harmless, less-than-criminal "mistakes." This stratagem often requires the embrace of a fall-back position quite different from the one originally taken. With effective damage control, the fall-back position need only be peddled by stooge skeptics to carefully limited markets.

    10. Characterize the crimes as impossibly complex and the truth as ultimately unknowable.

    11. Reason backward, using the deductive method with a vengeance. With thoroughly rigorous deduction, troublesome evidence is irrelevant. E.g. We have a completely free press. If evidence exists that the Vince Foster "suicide" note was forged, they would have reported it. They haven't reported it so there is no such evidence. Another variation on this theme involves the likelihood of a conspiracy leaker and a press who would report the leak.

    12. Require the skeptics to solve the crime completely. E.g. If Foster was murdered, who did it and why?

    13. Change the subject. This technique includes creating and/or publicizing distractions.

    14. Lightly report incriminating facts, and then make nothing of them. This is sometimes referred to as "bump and run" reporting.

    15. Baldly and brazenly lie. A favorite way of doing this is to attribute the "facts" furnished the public to a plausible-sounding, but anonymous, source.

    16. Expanding further on numbers 4 and 5, have your own stooges "expose" scandals and champion popular causes. Their job is to pre-empt real opponents and to play 99-yard football. A variation is to pay rich people for the job who will pretend to spend their own money.

    17. Flood the Internet with agents. This is the answer to the question, "What could possibly motivate a person to spend hour upon hour on Internet news groups defending the government and/or the press and harassing genuine critics?" Don't the authorities have defenders enough in all the newspapers, magazines, radio, and television? One would think refusing to print critical letters and screening out serious callers or dumping them from radio talk shows would be control enough, but, obviously, it is not.

    http://forum.911movement.org/index.php?showtopic=2434&st=30
    _____________________________________________

    Also in regard to the last point about flooding the Internet with agents. Often more than one debunker will attempt to misdirect the audience and put "peer" pressure on their opponent(s).

    The debunkers will try to form a little consensus with one debunker playing dumb and then "eventually" agreeing with the points being made by the other debunkers. Of course there are certain individuals who are genuinely suckered into believing some of the misguided arguments put out by the disinformation trolls. The effect is the same.

    Remember the truth about 911 is vitally important since it can end the endless war on terror. The establishment culture of committing and covering up crimes, plus other disasters, will end badly for us all. If you look towards the inaction over Fukushima, a disaster as bad or worse than Chernobyl, you can see where this is all headed.