NJ Military Fighters Responded to 9/11 at 10:28AM, 10:52AM & 11:17AM

Per 11/28/15 National Archives and Records Administration FOIA Release. I have re-listened to the 02/23/04 9/11 Commission interview with Lt. Col. Randy Morris several times. I respectfully urge everyone still concerned with learning the full details, the full truth about the September 11, 2001 mass killings to put yourself in that interview room with the commission and military personnel and hear for yourself in their own words from the people who were never interviewed publicly on CSPAN television or any other network.

Former commissioner Miles Kara surmised in an email exchange between he and I last year that the NJ Air National Guard (177th FW) would have reached NY at (9:00AM EST) and unarmed, therefore what good would they have been/"what were they supposed to do" [sic].

For those unaware, Kara has also acknowledged that the very same NJ-ANG "played" in the Vigilant Guardian mock hijack exercise on Friday September 7, 2001 wherein the NJ 177 Fighter Wing responded to and successfully intercepted a hijacking. After listening to the aforementioned February 2004 interview with Randy Morris (CONR) I've always wondering why the hell it took General Arnold so long to pass authority to "generate additional aircraft" to respond...especially in light of the fact that the 177th was good enough to practice intercepting a mock hijack four days before 9/11. Why weren't they "generated" for the real thing four days later when they clearly were the closest to do so and had demonstrated proficiency in doing so during practice?

Unfortunately, for everyone who cares the commission failed to broach the subject with General Arnold or anyone else in the military.

Listen to the interview at the nara's website in the 9/11 commission files.

Sincerely

Vance Green

Click Images to Enlarge

Related:

Lack of 9/11 Air Defense Explained?

Debunking the Debunkers on Pumpitout Radio - NORAD Section Update 12/24/2014

Incontrovertible - New 9/11 Documentary by Tony Rooke

Incontrovertible - New 9/11 documentary by Tony Rooke
A film for Coppers & Fire Fighters by Coppers & Fire Fighters.
Buy the standard definition DVD or Blu-ray version of the film fromhttp://www.incontrovertible911evidenc...

REVIEWS:
---------------

"Simply put, this is not just the best film I've seen on 911, it's the best film I have seen all year." - Sergeant John Meaders, 32 year ex Californian police officer

“One of the best 911 movies ever made!” - Kevin Barrett, Truth Jihad Radio

"All family members of a 9/11 victim should watch this film." - Matt Campbell, victim family member

"Incontrovertible is technically brilliant" - Ian Henshall, Author '9/11 Revealed' & '9/11 The New Evidence'

"Moving, powerful & informative" - Niels Harrit, Veteran Truth Campaigner

"Artfully crafted - manages to convince cumulatively that there are still questions to answer" - Joe Gill - Journalist - Middle East Eye

---------------

Please support the film maker, Tony Rooke, by purchasing a DVD or Blu-ray DVD of the film from his website http://www.incontrovertible911evidenc...

Please distribute copies of the film to serving police officers, fire fighters and military personnel.

If you live in the UK, stop funding the purposes of terrorism.

Section 15 Article 3 of the Terrorism Act (2000) states:

(3) A person commits an offence if he— (a) provides money or other property, and (b) knows or has REASONABLE CAUSE to suspect that it will or may be used for the purposes of terrorism.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2...

This film gives us more than REASONABLE CAUSE to suspect that in the UK we are ALL guilty of funding the purposes of terrorism through our taxes and funding of the BBC.

Related:

The BBC Cover-Up of 9/11 Truth (from Incontrovertible)

The Eleventh Fail: The BBC & 9/11 Truth ... Four and a Half Years On

Conspiracy Road Trip Reactions

JFK: The Chilling Truth

Related:

Proof of a JFK Assassination Plot Without Debating a Magic Bullet

Paris Terror Attacks Info Page

WHO ORGANISED THE ATTACKS OF JANUARY AND NOVEMBER 2015 IN PARIS? - French authorities previously infiltrated groups which perpetrated attacks

CONFIRMED: FRENCH GOVERNMENT KNEW EXTREMISTS BEFORE ATTACK

“WE WERE PREPARED”: COUNTER-TERRORISM EMERGENCY EXERCISE ON “MULTI-SITE ATTACKS” TOOK PLACE ON SAME DAY AS PARIS TERRORIST ATTACKS

The Paris Terrorist Attacks, “9/11 French-Style”, “Le 11 Septembre à la Française”

Syrian Passport Found Near Body of One of Paris Attackers

FUGITIVE PARIS JIHADI WENT TO GAY BARS, TOOK DRUGS AND WAS HOOKED ON PLAYSTATION

Joel Skousen: Some of the Paris Shooters Were White Guys Escaping in a Black Mercedes

The CIA and the Paris Gunmen - Weapons reportedly used in terror attack traced to arms dealer linked to agency

More Paris Puzzles – Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Political author Gearoid O Colmain discusses the Paris attacks with RT International

Paris Attacks: We Terrify You And Then We Do What We Want - The David Icke VideoCast

For people opposed to the endless wars President Hollande has just given the game away.  The response to the Paris attacks will be pitiless, he says.  Not a thorough investigation, no hint of reflection or analysis, no review of French foreign policy, just a pitiless response...

http://911truthactivism.blogspot.com/2015/11/pitiless.html

Pseudoscience & the “study” of “conspiracy beliefs” from message board postings

911truth.org
Originally published at the Political Film Blog by Joe Giambrone 

I read with some interest your “study” of some message board postings concerning the September 11th attacks. I found your efforts less than compelling. Random samplings of arguments on message boards are a legitimate way to understand the September 11th 2001 attacks? No. But it is a convenient way of lumping large disparate groups of people into simplistic categories in order to smear them.

An open letter to Michael J. Wood et al.
Regarding: “What about building 7?” A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories

As someone who has intensely studied the issue for some 13 years and counting, I would have to say that your approach is hamfisted, ignorant, and even juvenile. You and your partners have relied upon your own concepts of “belief” and “theory” and the utterances of message board posters, but lack a firm foundation to compare or contrast any of the information that was analyzed.

In other words, you don’t have an expert knowledge of the US government cover-up of the September 11th event (or even acknowledge it), nor of the many high-level government whistleblowers surrounding this issue. You lack an even rudimentary understanding of the event, and therefore have no basis to judge the competing arguments, at all. Nor do you concede the obvious fact of conspiracies throughout history, actual state crimes, of which there are numerous examples. This would lead to an examination of motive, and that the state gains an incredible amount of power after failing to stop an attack, including the power to wage foreign wars of aggression with impunity.

You know: 1 + 1=2 type stuff.

It is not difficult to engage in a conspiracy. Any two individuals on planet earth can commit a crime together, andvoila: there’s a conspiracy. The idea that conspiracy is rare or even non-existent(!), as some mainstream media pundits have argued, is absurd on its face and should discredit the author entirely. As an obvious example, you–as someone purportedly studying government conspiracy–should be well versed in the Iran-Contra fiasco of the 1980s. Colonel Oliver North was convicted, with ten others, to refresh your memory. So, is someone who “believes” in the Iran-Contra conspiracy more or less prone to “belief” in conspiracy, as per your definitions and comprehension?

Clearly we have a problem when you divide the public based upon generalizations that cannot possibly hold true when tested against real historical facts. The knowledge, or ignorance, of these facts is paramount.

So, Mr. Wood, did the Iran-Contra conspiracy happen? Are you a “conspiracist?” Do you engage in “belief” about it?

Next, your “psychological study” has not even a mention of the concept of disinformation. This omission discredits your work. Disinformation is the deliberate seeding of the public debate with false data in order to muddy the waters and make discovery of the true facts of the conspiracy more difficult. It throws off the dogs. Disinformation is rampant and easily achieved as soon as any individual concocts a false narrative and presses “send” or “post.” Apparently this has never occurred to your team, as it received zero scrutiny.

Some number of message board trolls will turn out to be posting disinformation, in my decade-plus experience with them, a situation your study failed to even conceptualize, nevermind correct for. Others post misinformation. This is the problem with relying upon message board flame wars for your data.

Therefore your study is tangential and irrelevant to learning what actually happened. Its approach reinforces the idea that psychological pseudoscience has relevance to the facts of real world crimes and terrorist events. It champions a specious view, one founded upon ignorance and random arguments over misinformation and disinformation, rather than seeking to understand what is actually known and what is unknown, to date, about the criminal attacks you purport to study.

Similarly your “study” commented on other controversial topics without any accompanying examination of something the rest of the world likes to call “evidence.” You and your cohorts feel supremely confident in pronouncing sweeping generalizations about “belief” without providing context as to why someone would hold such a belief (factual evidence). It is for this exact reason that I have labeled your efforts “pseudoscience.” You have divorced some abstract concept called “belief” from the hard evidence that causes such “belief.” Cause and effect are alien to your own theories, at least as presented in your “psychological study.” Your article ends up lightweight pondering and lacks the gravity of facts, or the due diligence required to examine and test those facts.

You have come to this party from ignorance, and you remain there, blissfully unaware of the veracity of any of the data, whatsoever. That’s a pretty harsh criticism, but is warranted.

PS.

Mr. Wood, was the September 11th attack not a “conspiracy?”

Joe Giambrone

See Related:

Other posts by Joe Giambrone and here.
The Facts Speak for Themselves.