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.


Top Secret CIA Documents on Osama bin Laden Declassified

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


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

    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.


    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
    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 ( 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). -

    "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

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

    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:

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

    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.


    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:

    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:


    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

    Thousands Of Victims' Family Members Want a new 9/11 Investigation.

    Thousands Of Victims' Family Members Believe 9/11 Was An Inside Job
    This Petition is Closed

    • Who: President Barak Obama
    • Sponsored by: 9/11 family members, Michele Little, Jane Pollicino, Bob McIlvaine, Josef Princiotta

    Respected Leaders and Families Launch 9/11 Truth Statement Demanding Deeper Investigation into the Events of 9/11

    9/11 Family Member "I Get Used As A Sacred Cow" 

    9/11 Family Member Patty Casazza: Government Knew Exact Date and Exact Target

    9/11 Families Ask: What Happened to the Third Building That Collapsed in the WTC Attacks?

    Manny Badillo, Leslie Young, Tony Szamboti and Bob McIlvaine joined other family members and technical professionals in the latest ad from the Remember Building 7 Campaign
      Geraldo Rivera, Bob McIlvaine, and Tony Szamboti make November a month to remember. Geraldo publicly questions the destruction of WTC 7, citing the credibility of "those 1,300 architects and engineers".

    Families, First Responders, Survivors Speak Out

    We, the undersigned Families, First Responders and Survivors of September 11 raise our voice with those from across our country and around the world in support of NYC CAN and the establishment of an independent, impartial subpoena powered investigation into the events surrounding the September 11 attacks on our nation.

    We believe a new investigation is our only path forward to the answers and accountability every American deserves and our only path back to the moral high ground upon which our great nation was built.
    We unite with NYC CAN and the citizens of the City of New York in support of an unbiased nonpolitical rendering of evidence and fact wherever they may lead and ask every American and every concerned citizen of the world, in defense of our nation and in defense of freedom, to join with us today.

    Scholars and Family Members Submit Request for Correction to 9/11 NIST Report

    "The Jersey Girls" support AE911Truth efforts

    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.]

    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.
    by Steve Watson


    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


    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"


    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: 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.

    Hope to see you there.

    M.I.T. No-Evacuations Study Debunked



    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!


    "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 - 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'


    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 War Games - Update 12/24/2014

    For those who have read my NORAD research before, below is just the newly added material dealing with war games, to read the lot of it, click the above link. 

    But "debunkers" will protest that the NORAD audio tapes prove the official story, no matter how implausible.  In response to David Ray Griffin, published the following and quotes the real purveyor of 9/11 myths, James Meigs of Popular Mechanics.
    And what about other physical evidence that debunks the interception theory, specifically the NORAD tapes, which document the chaos and confusion of American air defenses that morning in painstaking detail? Griffin's response is that the tapes have likely been doctored using morphing technology to fake the voices of the government officials and depict phony chaos according to a government-written script. It's not surprising, he says, that after 9/11, mainstream historical accounts would be revised to fit the official narrative.
    "This is a self-confirming hypothesis for the people who hold it," Meigs says. "In that sense it is immune from any kind of refutation and it is very similar to, if you've ever known a really hardcore, doctrinaire Marxist or a hardcore fundamentalist creationist. They have sort of a divine answer to every argument you might make."
    As Kevin Ryan wrote in his January 2013 Article, "The Case Against Ralph Eberhart, NORAD’s 9/11 Commander":
    The fourth and final story from NORAD was the official account given by the 9/11 Commission Report, now supported by NORAD.  In this explanation NORAD received “no advance notice” on any of the last three hijacked airliners.[11]  Instead of 20 minutes of notice on Flight 175, and 14 minutes notice on Flight 77, and 47 minutes notice on Flight 93, we were told that NORAD was not notified about any of them until it was too late.  The military was off the hook entirely.

    All the evidence for notifications and response, which had constituted the official account for nearly three years, had been thrown out the window.  In place of these documents and testimonies, new explanations were given for why the scrambled aircraft never reached the hijacked airliners. These included unbelievable claims of communication failures and misdirection of the scrambled jets, as well as the introduction of a never-before mentioned “Phantom 11” scenario.[12]
    The 9/11 Commission Report account was supported two years later by an article in Vanity Fair. [13]  Allegedly, the author of the article was given privileged access to audio tapes that were not available to the public.  Although the newly revealed “NORAD tapes” ostensibly bolstered the Commission’s new timeline, credible explanations were never given for throwing out the years of testimony and evidence that supported entirely different timelines.
    The blog responds to the "debunkers" and demonstrates why Griffin believes what he believes, but also why his view of how the tapes were manipulated isn't necessary to conclude the tapes are not the end of the story.
    NASYPANY (to floor): Negative. Negative clearance to shoot.… Goddammit!…
    FOX: I’m not really worried about code words at this point.
    NASYPANY: Fuck the code words. That’s perishable information. Negative clearance to fire. ID. Type. Tail.
    A page on claims that Michael Bronner’s Vanity Fair article has “debunked” two “conspiracy theories,” including “(2) That the air force was ordered to ‘stand down’ on 9/11.” What???? Admittedly, since none of the hijacked planes were ever intercepted, one could dismiss the no-shoot order as irrelevant. But there was indeed such an order. The mere existence of such an order was anything but “debunked” by Bronner’s article. To “debunk” that, one would have to claim that tapes were voice-morphed – with no conceivable motive.

    A Prison Planet article, NORAD Tapes Only Intensify Implausibility Of 9/11 Official Story by Paul Joseph Watson, August 2 2006, says:
    Despite the lies of Cheney in his subsequent TV interviews and statements given under oath to the 9/11 Commission, those shoot down orders never arrived, even after United 93 had crashed in Pennsylvania.
    A reasonable summary.

    Another Prison Planet article, NORAD Tapes Expose Lax Military Attitude On 9/11 Air Defense by Paul Joseph Watson, August 4 2006, deals with the lackadaisical attitude of the Navy air traffic controller who was in charge of the two planes from Langley Air Force Base. Watson says, “NORAD tapes released this week which shed light on the negligence of the U.S. military in providing adequate air defense on 9/11 contain a conversation with a Navy air traffic control operator that provides another smoking gun for the assertion of a deliberate stand down policy on the morning of the attacks.” Of course, the Navy ATC himself probably just didn’t know what was going on. But why didn’t he know? Why wouldn’t he have been told?

    Also on Prison Planet is an interesting article about Robin Hordon: Boston Air Traffic Controller Says 9/11 An Inside Job by Paul Joseph Watson, Thursday, December 14, 2006.

    On I found 9/11 Live or Fabricated: Do the NORAD Tapes Verify The 9/11 Commission Report? by David Ray Griffin. The contents of this article are similar to what Griffin says about the NORAD tapes in Debunking 9/11 Debunking.

    Griffin’s main point is that the tapes themselves are suspect. For one thing, the tapes contradict many previous accounts, by many different officials, including people in both the FAA and the military.
    Furthermore, the 9/11 Commission’s tapes-based account differs from all previous accounts in an amazingly consistent way, consistently placing 100% of the blame upon the FAA, whereas all previous accounts consistently do not place 100% of the blame upon the FAA. According to the 9/11 Commission’s tapes-based account, the military was not informed at all about any of Flights 175, Flight 77, or Flight 93 until after they had crashed. On the other hand, in all previous accounts, from the military as well as from the FAA, the military was notified about at least Flights 175 and Flight 77 (and, in many accounts, Flight 93 too) before they crashed. In all previous accounts, the military also tried to do something about each flight they heard about before it crashed. Also, according to the 9/11 Commission’s tapes-based account, the fighters from Langley were scrambled not in response to any real hijacked plane, but only in response to “phantom Flight 11,” a false FAA rumor that WTC 1 had been struck by something other than Flight 11, and that Flight 11 was still in the air and on its way to Washington, D.C. According to Griffin, “phantom Flight 11″ had never been mentioned in any previous reports.

    So, if the tapes are genuine and all previous reports are false, then it is understandable why the FAA would have lied earlier, to cover its own ass. But, Griffin argues, why would military officials lie to cover the FAA’s ass, at the expense of opening themselves up to charges of incompetence or worse? (It is also very unlikely that military officials could have honestly forgotten that they were informed too late to do anything about any of the hijacked planes.)

    Furthermore, Griffin finds it incredible that the FAA could actually be as incompetent as the tapes portray. I’m not as incredulous as Griffin is about the possibility of false alarms, such as “phantom Flight 11,” on such a panic-inducing day as 9/11. But it does seem very unlikely to me that anyone in the FAA would have been so extremely lax about reporting any abnormal behavior by either Flight 77 or Flight 93 after both WTC towers had been hit, at which point it was clear that there was a coordinated attack. It also seems very unlikely to me that anyone in either the Boston FAA Center or the New York FAA Center would have been lax about communicating with the military about Flight 175, after Flight 11 crashed into WTC 1.

    Griffin then suggests that the tapes could have been fabricated via voice-morphing. This is possible, but I think it more likely that some of the timestamps may have been massaged a bit. Doctoring the timestamps would have been simpler to accomplish than a convincing voice-morph.
    Griffin also endorses the idea that phone calls from the passengers on Flight 93 may have been voice-morphed. That’s an idea I personally find very hard to believe. As far as I am aware, no families or co-workers of the passengers have ever expressed any doubts about the authenticity of those calls. And a convincing voice-morph would have required lengthy voice samples plus familiarity with the person’s idiosyncrasies. That being the case, it seems to me more likely that the “cell phone” calls were in fact Airfone calls, and that the cell phone vs. Airfone issue was merely an error in early reports.

    Back to the NORAD tapes. It should be noted that the tapes do not include absolutely everything that happened. They do not include conversations amongst the high-level officials, for example. Only on some phone lines were conversations recorded. In addition, perhaps there might have been some cherry-picking of the conversations that were recorded.

    Griffin writes, regarding his belief that the NORAD tapes were fabricated:
    But Would All Those People Participate in a Lie?
    There is, to be sure, a rather obvious objection to this hypothesis: If the NORAD and FAA tapes as described by Bronner have both been altered, then many military and FAA personnel would know this. Surely at least some of them would speak up? Surely not everyone would be willing to be complicit in such an enormous fraud by remaining silent!
    However–and this could turn out to be the most important implication of the new story–it is now known that members of both the FAA and the military are capable of such deceit and complicity. On the one hand, if the new story is true, then many people in both the FAA and the military knew the old story to be false and yet supported it–whether actively or by their silence–from 2001 to 2004. On the other hand, if the new story is false, then many people in both the FAA and the military know this and yet have supported it–whether verbally or merely by not challenging it–since the publication of The 9/11 Commission Report in July 2004. Given Bronner’s portrayal of some of the people at NEADS, to be sure, it is not pleasant to think of them as consciously participating in an enormous lie. But we have no choice, because if the new story is true, then they were complicit in an enormous lie between 2001 and 2004. And if so, we have no reason to believe they would not participate in a new, improved lie.
    I would add that, if voice-morphing were not done but only the timestamps were altered, then a lot of people might not even notice the changes, or might honestly just assume that both their own and everyone else’s memories were wrong.
    In David Ray Griffin's book The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposed, he writes:

    And for what's it's worth there is an individual online who claims there exists proof of the tapes being manipulated, who wrote:
    My name is david . and i would like to pass information about what happen on 911, 2 days before (sept 9th and 10th) but i would rather post a mp3 which will cover alot of info. my lawyer told me i should wait until there a new investigation, and its very dangerous for me to post, blog, or even tell anyone what happen. this is very hard for me to write it down. or on video. before i start let me give you some back ground. 1 i am a DJ, re mixer, and producer. for over 18 years...
    the NORAD tapes was recorded on a Digital Audio Tape recorder. when loose change got of hold of the NORAD tapes on mp3 which is a no no because its WAY better if you get a copy of dat to dat not mp3 !!! because when you record 24 people at the same time its lock it will never go off (synchronisation) every producer know this. if you play one by one using windows media player its not cutting it. on a adat you have timings hr, min, sec, (timing is a key thing ) what they did they moved sections, fade,cut, paste,adding distortion,and a filter. my lawyer has 4 of the names on who manipulated the NORAD tapes which all 4 are in deep S@@@ because 2 of them are cia the other 2 have no clue. basically Evidence tampering.obstruction of justice also Obstruction of criminal investigations. i have the names but i cannot tell no one i leave it as that there so much about this case its mind blowing. i even got death threatS as soon I GOT THE NAMES. my lawyer is trying to contact other prosecutors around the country to round up other well know producers and Engineers. as soon a new investigation kicks in i have to testify with other producers and witnesses. i will explain more please chill out and if i were you guys contact EVERYONE AS MUCH YOU CAN FROM alex jones , loose change cats,we are change, you name it. because after i post the mp3 im gonna have to request that this topic must be deleted. on the 5th of sept . forgive my writings much love NJ1
    Adding to the point made about the tapes not including everything that happened is an article by "Shoestring" on entitled, "What Do NORAD's 9/11 Computer Chat Logs Reveal?," where it's noted:
    In an August 2006 Vanity Fair article based on the recordings, Bronner therefore referred to these "NORAD tapes" as "the authentic military history of 9/11." [3]

    However, the NORAD tapes are not the only record of the actions of NORAD and its Northeast Air Defense Sector on September 11. In her recent book Touching History: The Untold Story of the Drama that Unfolded in the Skies Over America on 9/11, commercial pilot and author Lynn Spencer revealed the existence of other crucial documentation. Yet, more than seven years on from 9/11, this record remains unreleased to the public and its contents are almost completely unknown.

    Spencer described how, at around 9:25 a.m. on September 11, Master Sergeant Joe McCain, the mission crew commander technician at NEADS, received a call from the Continental U.S. NORAD Region (CONR) headquarters at Tyndall Air Force Base in Florida. Major General Larry Arnold and his staff at Tyndall had been trying to gather information about the ongoing crisis, and wanted to know the transponder codes for the two fighter jets that had been launched in response to the first hijacking. The CONR officer that made the call told McCain to "send [the transponder codes] out on chat." By "chat," he meant NORAD's computer chat system. [4]


    According to Spencer, the chat system used by NORAD that day was "similar to the chat rooms on most Internet servers, but classified." It had three chat rooms that could be used by anyone with proper access. One room was specifically for NEADS, and connected its ID, surveillance, and weapons technicians to its alert fighter squadrons, and was where NEADS received status reports on fighter units and their aircraft. Another chat room was for CONR, and was where its three sectors--NEADS, the Western Air Defense Sector (WADS), and the Southeast Air Defense Sector (SEADS)--communicated with each other and could "upchannel" information to CONR headquarters. The third room was the Air Warfare Center (AWC), where senior NORAD commanders from the three NORAD regions--CONR, Canada, and Alaska--communicated with each other. Although NEADS was allowed to monitor this room, it could not type into it. [5]

    Furthermore, when a training exercise was taking place, one or two additional chat windows would be open specifically for communicating exercise information, so as to help prevent it being confused with real-world information. [6] This fact is of particular significance, as the whole of NORAD, including the staff at NEADS, was involved in at least one major training exercise the morning of 9/11. The annual "Vigilant Guardian" exercise has been described as "an air defense exercise simulating an attack on the United States," and was scheduled to include a simulated hijacking that day. [7]
    In regard to how the NORAD stand-down was achieved, many have speculated that inaction by an intentionally AWOL chain of command, combined with wargames that were conducted on 9/11, caused deliberate confusion.

    In a piece entitled, "Discussion with Miles Kara about 9/11 air defense." the following exchange with researcher Paul Schreyer is relayed [Kara was a staff member of the 9/11 Commission]:
    Paul Schreyer: Vigilant Guardian - the fake inserts on NORAD radar screens. Are you sure, that this was "value added", as you write about the impact of this exercise? I think this was "noise added".

    Miles Kara: Vigilant Guardian had not started up that morning when Cooper called. But NEADS was poised, the Battle Cab was operational, and additional assets were available without the need to recall anyone. That was a major plus as they expanded operations that morning. Plus, Nasypany could immediately talk to Marr, in fact could turn around and see him behind glass in the Battle Cab. When the electronic feed started up Nasypany recognized that immediately and gave orders to suppress the feed, orders that were carried out instantly. You can surmise all you want that it was "noise added" but you are simply wrong, based on the NEADS tapes, primary source information. Take the time to reread my Nasypany series to understand how well NEADS functioned that morning, over all.

    Paul Schreyer: Just to understand you right: do you say there were no fake inserts on NORAD radar screens that morning?

    Miles Kara: Just briefly at NEADS, a matter of seconds until Nasypany took action to suppress the feed.

    Paul Schreyer: If it is right what you say, that the feed of fake inserts on the radar screens was suppressed immediately, than why all the chatter at NEADS as for example "I think this is a damn input" (9:04), "turn your sim switches off", "let´s get rid of this damn sim" (9:30) and so on? At what exact time was the feed suppressed?

    Miles Kara: Read my article again, the one where I discuss, in detail, the times that the exercise is mentioned. ( It was only when I did the research for that article that I correlated Nasypany's order with the immediate reaction by the head of the Surveillance Section.  Before that I was not aware of the sequencing of those comments.  The comment that "I think this is a damn input" is simply a muse at the time, based on years of experience in dealing with both exercises and real world.  You need to review my work on Vigilant Guardian to gain a sense of how NEADS balanced real world and exercise events concurrently.  They were well practiced in the art and knew exactly what they were doing.  Outsiders can never gain an appreciation for how professional NEADS was that morning, they performed very well, given the lead times they had, or lack thereof.  The best perspective so far is my Nasypany series.

    Paul Schreyer: You mention in your article the "turn your sim switches off" dialogue at 9:30. And you suggest that the sim feed startet just in that minute. How do we know that it hadn´t started well before?

    Miles Kara: We know this.  The exercise had not yet started, and never started.  We know that the Surveillance Technicians did not acknowledge any exercise feed on their scopes, prior.  We know that Nasypany's reaction was instantaneous and we know from his experience and professionalism that he would have noticed it earlier if it had occurred.  We also know that any such electronic feed had to support an exercise inject.  There was no such inject, at least as of the time that Cooper called, since the exercise had not yet started.  What we don't know is the time that the first inject was supposed to occur.  It may be that I can sniff that out from the other channels and perhaps a written scenario somewhere, but I don't really see the need to do that.
    Similarly, the "War Games" page at 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, there is a substantial amount of evidence indicating that things were not as easily managed as Kara and 911myths let on. And there are certainly experts "well practiced in the art," just like those mentioned by Kara, who think things could have got very intentionally confusing that day. In a press release posted on entitled, "Expert Panel Reports False Accounts of US Political and Military Leaders on 9/11," it's noted 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 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.

    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:
    Here are the key points and few excerpts on the lesser reported issues suggesting, "the confusion caused by the exercise" was "intended to paralyze the military," from another of Shoestring's reports:

    'Real-World or Exercise': Did the U.S. Military Mistake the 9/11 Attacks for a Training Scenario?









    Another remarkable aspect of Vigilant Guardian is that in the days just before September 11, the actor playing the air traffic controller who gave NEADS information about the simulated events said their name was "Colin Scoggins," even though it was unusual for a mock controller to give their name during an exercise. And then, on September 11, the real Colin Scoggins--an employee at the FAA's Boston Center--happened to be the key person calling NEADS with information about the actual attacks, even though it was not his usual role to perform such a duty. This curious apparent coincidence could surely have made it more likely that NEADS personnel would mistake the 9/11 attacks for part of the exercise.

    While an actor calling himself "Colin Scoggins" gave NEADS information about simulated exercise events in the two days before 9/11, apparently by coincidence, the real Colin Scoggins served as a key liaison between the Boston Center and NEADS on September 11. Scoggins has said he made "about 40" phone calls to NEADS that day. [37] Robert Marr said Scoggins was in fact "about the only one that was feeding us information [during the attacks]. I don't know exactly where he got it. But he was feeding us information as much as he could." [38] According to Lynn Spencer, other than the calls from Scoggins, NEADS's only source of information on the hijacked planes was "the coverage on CNN." [39]...

    Therefore the unlikely and unusual situation arose that during the exercise on September 9 and September 10, and also during the attacks on September 11, NEADS was given key information by someone calling himself Colin Scoggins. The question arises as to whether this created any confusion during the 9/11 attacks, causing some NEADS personnel to think information coming from the real Colin Scoggins was part of the exercise. While the person answering calls from Scoggins on September 11 may have recognized that the caller had a different voice to the actor playing Scoggins on the previous days, other NEADS personnel could have been unaware of the different voices, and only have heard from their colleagues that a particular piece of information came from "Colin Scoggins."

    It was not just exercise events during the previous few days that may have resulted in confusion at NEADS on September 11. What could also have increased the likelihood that NEADS personnel would mistake the 9/11 attacks for part of the exercise is the fact that during the previous two years, these personnel had participated in other exercises based around scenarios closely resembling what happened on September 11.

    For example, the previous Vigilant Guardian, held in October 2000, included a scenario in which a pilot planned to deliberately crash an aircraft into a skyscraper in New York. The simulation involved an individual stealing a Federal Express plane with the intention of using it for a suicide attack on the 39-story United Nations headquarters building. [44]

    Another exercise NEADS took part in, called "Falcon Indian" and held in June 2000, was based on the possibility of a "Communist Party faction" hijacking an aircraft bound from the western to the eastern United States. The fictitious hijackers intended to crash the plane into the Statue of Liberty, located close to the Twin Towers, in New York Harbor. [45]

    Remarkably, one NORAD exercise, held at an unspecified time in the two years prior to 9/11, was based on the possibility of a hijacked aircraft being used as a weapon and deliberately crashed into the World Trade Center. [46] Furthermore, NORAD has stated that most of the four major exercises it held each year before 9/11 "included a hijack scenario." [47] So, although most of the personnel on the NEADS operations floor were unaware beforehand what the exercise was going to entail on September 11, they might surely have wondered if the plane hijackings and the attacks in New York that day were simulated, since these events so closely resembled scenarios played out in previous exercises.

    One might think that television coverage of the 9/11 attacks would have convinced those at NEADS that they were dealing with actual terrorist attacks rather than simulated ones. However, there is evidence that casts doubt on this assertion.

    It is known that simulated television news reports had been used in training exercises before 9/11. For example, a two-day exercise was held at Andrews Air Force Base, Maryland, in June 2001, called "Dark Winter," based on the scenario of a smallpox attack on the United States. This exercise, according to New York magazine, included "simulated news clips from an imaginary cable news network called NCN." [48] Whether NORAD exercises prior to 9/11 included simulated television footage is unknown. But this possibility should certainly be investigated.

    The possibility should also be investigated that NEADS personnel mistakenly thought television news reports of the 9/11 attacks were video created to make their exercise seem more realistic. Unlikely as it might seem, evidence shows this scenario is plausible.

    It has been reported that volunteers taking part in another military exercise on the morning of September 11 did incorrectly think that television coverage of the attacks in New York was video footage created for their exercise. That exercise, called "Timely Alert II," was held at Fort Monmouth, an Army base about 50 miles south of New York City, and was based around a simulated biochemical terrorist attack at the base. Exercise participants later recalled that "when they first saw live footage of the events unfolding at the World Trade Center, they thought it was some elaborate training video to accompany the exercise." One training officer was told by a participant, "You really outdid yourself this time." [49] If workers at Fort Monmouth could make this error, surely those at NEADS could have done so too.

    After careful examination, I believe Kara may very well be right concerning the false radar blips never making it onto screens that day, but here is the other side of that argument. Compare and contrast. But the contention at of there being "a distinct lack of evidence for any of these exercises adversely affecting the response to 9/11" [shared by Kara] is bunkum.
    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... and created general confusion.
    After much research, I still find these expert opinions the most compelling.
    Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director, decorated with the Purple Heart, the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal stated that "there is no way that an aircraft . . . would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control ... Attempts to obscure facts by calling them a 'conspiracy Theory' does not change the truth. It seems, 'Something is rotten in the State.'"

    "I knew within hours of the attacks on 9/11/2001 that it was an inside job. Based on my 11-year experience as an FAA Air Traffic Controller in the busy Northeast corridor, including hundreds of hours of training, briefings, air refuelings, low altitude bombing drills, being part of huge military exercises, daily military training exercises, interacting on a routine basis directly with NORAD radar personnel, and based on my own direct experience dealing with in-flight emergency situations, including two instances of hijacked commercial airliners, I state unequivocally; There is absolutely no way that four large commercial airliners could have flown around off course for 30 to 60 minutes on 9/11 without being intercepted and shot completely out of the sky by our jet fighters unless very highly placed people in our government and our military wanted it to happen. - Robin Hordon, Former FAA Air Traffic Controller at the Boston Air Route Traffic Control Center, located in Nashua, NH, 1970 - 1981. FAA certified commercial pilot. FAA certified Flight Instructor and certified Ground Instructor. After leaving the FAA, he had a 12-year career in the field of comedy ending up as artistic coordinator for "Catch A Rising Star" in Harvard Square in Cambridge, MA.

    Debunking the Debunkers on Pumpitout Radio