9/11: Cover For A Coup D’Etat?

Etter at jeg leste Peter Dale Scotts bok “The Road to 9/11” hvor Continuity of Government (COG) er et av hovedtemaene, var det uunngåelig å ikke tenke tanken, “Var 9/11 et coup d’Etat – i tillegg til andre ting?” Mye peker i den retning. Spekulasjon selvfølgelig, men substansiell.

Interessant artikkel:

Ed Encho: 9/11: Cover For A Coup D’Etat?

“A coup consists of the infiltration of a small but critical segment of the state apparatus, which is then used to displace the government from its control of the remainder.”

-Edward Luttwak

. . . A while back I found a piece of information that really gave credence to my strongest suspicions that the ‘terrorist’ attacks of 9/11/01 were used as cover for an actual coup d’etat by a rogue network of fifth columnists and their multi-national foreign allies who then utilized the (C.O.G) Continuity Of Government infrastructure to effectively seize control of the United States which would effectively render the actual attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon as not even the greatest crimes of that particular day. . .

John Judge: Asking the Wrong Question

Gammel, men …

***

John Judge: Asking the Wrong Question

(…)

They have spent $13 trillion tax dollars since the end of WWII on this military/intelligence complex, and it cannot protect its own headquarters?

It can track every electronic communication on earth, crack the codes of the Al Quaeda in advance of 9-11, locate bin Laden’s cell phone, but it can’t decipher what it all means?

And beyond that question is the more pertinent one hardly anyone is asking.

• Bush clearly and undeniably had advance knowledge of a terrorist attack on US soil using planes as weapons by 9:05 am on September 11.
• NORAD had it by 8:45 in an unprecedented simultaneous hijacking of four planes.
• The Pentagon had it, as did everyone in DC by 9:05 as well.
• The Pentagon began to evacuate the building, as did the White House and Capitol.
• EVERYONE had advance knowledge of Flight 77 coming towards DC for 40 minutes.

(…)

I bunn og grunn handler det ikke om konspirasjonsTEORI …

Det handler ikke om kreasjonisme, UFO, små grønne menn ved navn Elvis, ingen-fly-teorier eller energistråler fra verdensrommet. Det handler ikke om knasking av LSD eller hasjrøyking eller avsindige intergalaktiske eskapistfantasier.

Det handler om faktasjekking.

Man trenger verken være ingeniør, fysiker, konspirasjonsteoretiker, rusbruker – eller et politisk geni – for å forstå at det er noe riv ruskende galt med den offisielle 9/11-historien, slik den har blitt oss fortalt. Enhver som ikke er psykologisk inhabil – eller på et eller annet vis agendastyrt – vil svært raskt se dette.

Om fakta sjekkes, that is …

En av de mer dramatiske hendelsene i det 21. århundre – med dyptpløyende og katastrofale ringvirkninger – og vi har ikke fått tilfredsstillende svar. I mange tilfeller har vi ikke fått svar i det hele tatt.

Kriger har blitt startet. Av det “evigvarende” slaget, om vi lytter til BushCo. Folk dør den dag i dag grunnet 9/11. Med Norges hjelp.

Og jo, BushCo brukte 9/11 aktivt for å selge det usamerikanske folk Irak-invasjonen. Løgn – det også.

“Bevisene” som bragte oss til Afghanistan og “bevisene” for 9/11, er to sider av samme sak.

Trenger ingen konspirasjonsteori for å mene det.

“This document does not purport to provide a prosecutable case against Usama Bin Laden in a court of law.”

- “The Powell / Blair White Paper“

Ikke bra nok for rettssalen, men åpenbart mer enn godt nok for invasjon, drap og demonisering.

Hurra for oss – i den “siviliserte” delen av verden.

Vi vet ikke hva som skjedde den dagen, 11. september 2001. Med vi mener jeg oss alle, minus de faktisk skyldige. Men “vi” dreper som en følge av hendelsen. Uholdbart, etter min mening. Krig og drap er uholdbart åkkesåm – og på falske premiss direkte røti.

Trenger ingen konspirasjonsteori for å mene det.

Massiv overvåkning har blitt iverksatt. Og skal øyensynlig eskaleres. Mer enn trolig på falske premiss. Gufs …

“Store konspirasjoner skjer ikke,” sier folk. “Nei vel,” sier jeg, “og hva var opptakten til Irak-krigen?”

“There is only one difference between the evidence showing the Bush administration’s criminal culpability in and foreknowledge of the attacks of 9/11, and the evidence showing that the administration deceived the American public about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Both sets of evidence are thoroughly documented. They are irrefutable and based upon government records and official statements and actions shown to be false, misleading or dishonest. And both sets of evidence are unimpeachable. The difference is that the evidence showing the Iraqi deception is being seriously and widely investigated by the mainstream press, and actively by an ever-increasing number of elected representatives. That’s it.”

- Mike Ruppert, Beyond Bush

For godt dokumenterte opplysninger / fakta, som tegner et radikalt anderledes hendelsesforløp enn den offisielle 9/11-konspirasjonsteorien (OKT – nesten den villeste av dem alle!), anbefaler jeg Paul Thompsons Complete 9/11 Timeline (Cooperative Research).

Tidslinjen er lang, detaljert og stadig voksende, men kan innsnevres – eller utvides – etter ønske og behov. (Den svært gode dokumentarfilmen Press for Truth er i stor grad basert på Thompsons tidslinje.) Før man har lest denne, bør man ikke avfeie alternative syn på 9/11 som konspirasjonsteori. Ekte skeptikere gjør ikke det. Etter min – og andres – mening.

Magefølelse og psykologisk inhabilitet er ikke argumenter som holder vann.

PS – Mye annet interessant lese på Cooperative Researchs sider også:

Most Viewed Projects

• Complete 911 Timeline
• Decision to Invade Iraq
• Civil Liberties
• Bush’s Environmental Record
• History of US Interventions
• US Confrontation with Iran
• Prisoner Abuse in Iraq, Afghanistan
• Nixon and Watergate
• 9/11 Environmental Impact
• Alleged False Flag Attacks

Svært nyttig, svært informativt – og ikke så rent lite sjokkerende.

Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 “Impossible” “Defies Common Logic” “Violates the Law of Physics”

George Washington’s Blog: Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 “Impossible” “Defies Common Logic” “Violates the Law of Physics”

Numerous structural engineers now publicly challenge the government’s account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11, including:

A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition. . . .

9/11: Before one can let this in, fear must be dispelled

This is a very good, insightful, and logical essay. The problem is that the logical fallacies that are illuminated are clinged to by persons acting under the emotional compulsion of fear. I have friends who are scientists, and are therefore conversant with the scientific method, but are none-the-less overwhelmed by fear when it comes to actually looking at 9/11. To really look at 9/11 one must be open to the idea that one’s own trusted “protectors” have not only brutually murdered their own countrymen, but have engineered these brutal atrocities as a springboard to launch more brutal atrocities on their fellow human beings (not to mention the animals and plants that get poisoned and incinerated in the process). AND even more frightening is the acceptance of the fact that YOU and I and our families and friends, mean nothing at all to the people who orchestrated and carried out 9/11 — absolutely nothing.

To actually contemplate that this is the world that one lives in, is simply too much for a great many people to bear – notwithstanding the fact that those people may be scientists, or hold other positions requiring the exercise of logic.

So, this is a very good essay for those who are not blinded by fear. But fear and emotion trumps reason – and that is the problem. Before one can let this in, fear must be dispelled.

The fact is, that in a material sense, this is a fearful world. All material – even mountain ranges, suns and galaxies are subject to dissolution. The only real antidote to fear cannot be found in science or logic or rationality. The only real antidote to fear is Faith. Faith in what? That is up to each of us, as individuals to discover.

Blessings to all.

Love,

zmzmzm

9/11: Pentagon / Flight 77

Jim Hoffman / 9-11 Research: The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics

The idea that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon is easily the most controversial and divisive issue among researchers of the 9/11/01 attacks. Effectively promoted since early 2002, this idea has enjoyed an increasing acceptance in the 9/11 Truth Movement, despite its blatant incompatibility with the extensive body of eyewitness evidence that a 757-like twin-engine jetliner flew into the Pentagon and exploded.

Many researchers have ignored or dismissed this eyewitness evidence in favor of a seemingly overwhelming physical evidence case that no 757 crashed at the Pentagon, based on photographs of the crash site. As I show below, however, each of the pieces of evidence adduced in favor of the no-757-crash theory can be reconciled with the crash of a 757.

The controversy over this issue has eclipsed the many documented facts linking the 9/11/01 attacks to insiders. Defenders of the official story have seized on this issue as representative of the gullibility and incompetence of 9/11 “conspiracy theorists.”

(…)

Jim Hoffman / 9-11 Research: The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows

In this essay I look exclusively at the physical evidence of the Pentagon attack — post-crash photographs and verifiable information about the building, the Boeing 757-200 aircraft, and the physics of aircraft crashes based on case studies. In some cases I mention elements of eyewitness accounts, but only to frame my analysis of what the photographs show about the crash. I show that the physical evidence is consistent with the crash of a 757, noting flaws in popular arguments to the contrary.

The many eyewitness accounts of the Pentagon attack constitute a rich body of evidence that strongly supports the conclusion that the attack plane was either a Boeing 757 or a very similar aircraft. The physical and eyewitness evidence are thus mutually corroborating, a fact that is obscured by common errors in evaluating the physical evidence. Many researchers have dismissed the body of eyewitness evidence out of hand, primarily for two reasons:

(…)

Kaprerene / The Hijackers

Source: Jon Gold’s blog

This is a very short clip that explains some of the problems the families had in believing the identities of the hijackers, and the problems they had with the FBI’s ineptitude, and unwillingness to answer questions from the movie, “In Their Own Words: The Untold Stories Of The 9/11 Families“.

AUDIO: Dr. Peter Dale Scott On Air America’s Clout – 5.22.2008

Kunnskap er virkelig makt.

***

Source: Jon Gold’s blog

Audio
Click Here (MP3 21MB, Right Mouse Click And “Save File As”)

Dr. Scott,

You gave an absolutely brilliant performance tonight. You proved beyond the shadow of doubt that “Knowledge Is Power”. Thank you for your contribution to this country, and to this planet. It is an absolutely priceless one.

Sincerest Regards,

Jon Gold

That is the email I sent Dr. Scott after last night’s performance. This is not the entire show from yesterday. I thought Dr. Scott should get the “spotlight”.

VIDEO: The Put Options

Source: Jon Gold’s blog

This past weekend at the NE 9/11 Truth Symposium, Kyle Hence elaborated on the put options that were purchased prior to 9/11. I recommended to the audience to watch “In Their Own Words: The Untold Stories Of The 9/11 Families” because there was a good clip about the put options in it. This is that clip. 9/11 Family Members Lorie Van Auken, Monica Gabrielle, Bob McIlvaine, Mindy Kleinberg, and Patty Casazza make an appearance.

Unedited network coverage of 9/11/01. ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC, FOX

Unedited network coverage of 9/11/01. ABC, CBS, NBC, BBC, FOX

9/11: Dårlig info, propaganda og desinformasjon i Norge

Hvorfor holde oss til det vi vet, når vi kan gjette oss til det vi ikke vet?

9/11-sannhet i Norge er i ferd med å drukne i spekulasjon, feilinfo og regelrett desinfo. Ikke bare fra MSMs og Skepsis.nos side, men også fra såkalte sannhetssøkere.

Tåkeprat og svadateorier er uhyre skadelig for sannhetens fremmarsj. Hvilket ofte er intensjonen.

The result is the same; the truth is obstructed with “misleading” information. How can we tell if someone is intentionally trying to mislead us? Is intent relevant? Not if the truth about 9/11 can be obfuscated by any misleading arguments regardless of intent. We do not need to distinguish intent to show that misinformation and disinformation equally harm our ability to discern the truth. Therefore, we should equally understand and combat both misinformation and disinformation.

“Does their speculation get us any closer toward building a nationwide political movement and arresting the 9-11 plotters? Or is it a divisive strawman that will isolate us from the mainstream media and average Americans? … Suddenly it appears the controlled demolition, WTC 7, NORAD stand down, hijacking drills, war games, ‘Angel is Next’ call to Bush, living hijackers, double-agent hijackers, CIA insider put options, and ‘al-Qaeda’ links to Anglo-American intelligence are not enough. Now every researcher has their own pet theory about no planes, no hijackers, no phone calls, no Pentagon Boeing, and no flight 93 crash (they claim it landed it Cleveland and the wreckage in Shanksville was, you guessed it, planted).”

Dette er en liten liste over norske 9/11-nettsteder med dårlig info.

• 9/11 Truth Norway – ingen-fly-ved-Pentagon (“hullet var for lite”-teori) og
  sivilingeniør med “bomber i kjelleren” isteden for squibs, etc …

• Xiandos info – side med desinfo/feilinfo, ugrunnede personangrep, etc …

• Rolf Kenneth – conspiratainment; desinfo/feilinfo i monn

• Berit Ås / PK Gruppen – samme som Rolf Kenneth …

Mer om de overnevntes, Skepsis-folkets og MSMs teorier / propaganda in a jiffy …

Cosmos intervjuer Jim Hoffman om desinformasjon

Hoffman: I think it’s useful to put it in a little broader context… if you look at the history of disruption in [other movements] in the past, the disinformation component isn’t as large or as important as it is in the case of 9/11… articles about COINTELPRO list… infiltration, psychological warfare, harassment through the legal system, extra-legal force and violence—those are the types of tactics that were more prominent in those operations. With 9/11… the facts of the attack are so important just disinformation… takes on a much bigger component… the main [purpose of this disinformation] is to ridicule sceptics of the official story. It becomes less viable to do really nasty things like killing people… that would actually give us more credibility. That puts all the more emphasis on the necessity to muck things up by promoting false theories, bad information, muddying the waters—all kinds of disruption to create a hostile environment in which rational critique is not possible… shrouding the verifiable evidence, clear case for an inside job—a key component of the cover-up of 9/11. . . .

• To viktige Pentagon-spørsmål

Det er på tide å skru på bullshitdetektoren, folkens. Å hoppe fra den ene dårlige teorien til den andre er ikke fremskritt.

Bare et enkelt spørsmål

Hvorfor ville ikke Bush og hans administrasjon, av alle mennesker, etterforske hvordan og hvorfor 9/11 skjedde, slik at det ikke kunne skje igjen?

Jan S. Haugland har fremsatt en “forklaring”, men den gjør bare ikke susen; “En uavhengig granskning foretatt av den lovgivende forsamlig er noe enhver president eller regjering motsetter seg, i alle land, til enhver tid, uansett tema, som en ren ryggmarksrefleks.” [http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/categories/nyttFraVestfronten/2006/09/20.html#a9669]

Kanskje enhver president og regjering burde transplantere inn ny ryggmarg? Høres ut som en utskiftning er på sin plass.

Lurer på hva Haugland hadde ment om noen som stod ham nær gikk bort under lignende omstendigheter, og Den norske regjeringen gjorde det den kunne for å forhindre en ORDENTLIG granskning?

441 dager tok det før den uavhengige kommisjonen skred til verket. Eller mer korrekt “ble presset til verket.” På toppen av det var den alt annet enn uavhengig. Eller sannferdig – I might add.

JIM HOFFMAN: A critique of Ryan Mackey’s essay

Jim Hoffman / 9-11 Research:

Maintaining the Mirage: A Foray Into the Fallacy Factory of the Demolition Deniers

A critique of Ryan Mackey’s essay: “On Debunking 9/11 Debunking: Examining Dr. David Ray Griffin’s Latest Criticism of the NIST World Trade Center Investigation”

Introduction

In early 2007, Dr. David Ray Griffin published his fourth book on the crimes of September 11, 2001, Debunking 9/11 Debunking the third chapter of which is titled The Disintegration of the World Trade Center: Has NIST Debunked the Theory of Controlled Demolition? That chapter is the subject of Ryan Mackey’s lengthy article reviewed here.

Someone reading just the Introduction or Discussion of Mackey’s 180-page article might easily conclude that that the entire article is composed of insults, straw-man arguments, innuendo, and appeals to authority. However, the article contains a range of types of arguments, from the obviously falacious ones to cleverly misleading ones to superficially persuasive ones having some didactic value. This review will put Mackey’s arguments in context, reframed by the physical reality of the event.

This review is not a comprehensive critique of Mackey’s article. If it were it would be a sizable book, given the article’s length, and the number of counter-arguments its many arguments — valid and fallacious — invite. Instead, I will step back to take a broader view of the question of what destroyed the Twin Towers, while focusing on some of the arguments made by Griffin and Mackey pertaining to that question. I will treat NIST’s investigation only peripherally, having addressed it in some detail in Building a Better Mirage and A Reply to the NIST’s Answers to Frequently Asked Questions.

For this critique I use an organization that departs from both that of Griffin’s chapter and Mackey’s article, in order to bring the focus back to the core issue: what caused the swift and total destruction of the World Trade Center. Mackey’s long-winded article, like most reviews professing to debunk the case for controlled demolition, conceals that issue by redirecting readers into a bottomless well of exaggerated details and a variety of fallacies that depart ever further from the core evidence that speaks to the question at hand.

This review first outlines a series of arguments for controlled demolition, examining arguments by Mackey in relation to those arguments; then provides a “global analysis” of Mackey’s methods. This organization is intended to extract Mackey’s substantive and relevant arguments from his abundant unsupported and gratuitous assertions and characterizations regarding Griffin’s work, and to highlight and address those arguments.

(…)

Amy Goodman: “We need a complete investigation into what actually took place”

YT’s Blog: Amy Goodman: “We need a complete investigation into what actually took place”

Torture Policies Undermine 9/11 Case

Jason Leopold, Consortiumnews.com: Torture Policies Undermine 9/11 Case

The Bush administration’s torture of “war on terror” suspects has come back to haunt the prosecution of a top 9/11 suspect, the so-called “20th hijacker,” Mohammed al-Qahtani. With key evidence tainted by abusive interrogations, the Pentagon dropped the charges.

Disinformation Distracts and Discredits – a field guide to how disinformation is used by the government

“One of the primary means of immobilizing the American people politically today is to hold them in a state of confusion in which anything can be believed and nothing can be known… nothing of significance, that is.”

– E. Martin Schotz, “History Will Not Absolve Us: Orwellian Control, Public Denial, and the Murder of President Kennedy”

OilEmpire.us: Disinformation Distracts and Discredits – a field guide to how disinformation is used by the government

One means that Empires use to deflect effective criticism of their crimes is to control both sides of a debate. As the United States population has become more savvy about official conspiracies against democracy, especially with the rise of the internet, efforts to misdirect government and corporate critics have also accelerated. This page links to discussions that describe this tactic.

No Planes on 9/11: hoax history

Mark Rabinowitz, OilEmpire.us: The Complete “No Planes on 9/11″ Timeline

The “no Boeing hit the Pentagon” claim is the most important and widespread 9/11 hoax. It was probably set up before the event since government agents seized surveillance camera videos within minutes of the crash (which is tentative evidence for foreknowledge, but not for “no plane”). It is extremely likely that the conspirators who allowed (and assisted) 9/11 would have created misdirecting hoaxes before the “attack,” since they are aware that segments of the population would have suspicions about the events and therefore they would “need” to disrupt skeptical inquiry with red herrings, hoaxes, false dichotomies, etc.

The “no plane” claim is based on misrepresentation of photos taken shortly after the crash, ignoring of physical evidence and documented reports from hundreds of eyewitnesses who saw the plane.

There is NO credible, verifiable evidence in support of ANY of the many and varied “theories” pretending that Flight 77 did not crash into the Pentagon, and therefore, 9/11 was an inside job. . . .

Gammel, men: The Perplexing Puzzle of the Published Passenger Lists

Gary North: The Perplexing Puzzle of the Published Passenger Lists

Maybe you like puzzles. I hope so. I don’t like them. I regard them as a challenge, not a game. I avoid them because, when I cannot find a solution, my mind won’t stop working on them. Then I get very frustrated. So, I avoid magic shows, crossword puzzles, and similar brain- twisters.

Yet I am also a historian with a Ph.D. Historians are trained to solve puzzles with insufficient pieces. Historians never have all of the evidence that they would like in order to come up with a coherent explanation of what happened. They always want another piece in the puzzle before they go into print. (Of course, once they go into print, they will tend to reject any newly discovered piece that messes up their version of the completed puzzle.) At some point, they are supposed to come to a conclusion. They are supposed to make a judgment about what happened. I am presently stuck. So, I am sending out this report. Maybe there is someone my list who can get me unstuck.

Years ago, I saw a movie, “My Cousin Vinnie.” Vinnie was studying to be a lawyer. He wasn’t a good classroom student, but he had a unique ability. He could figure out how things fit together. Show him a magic trick, and he could tell you how the magician did it. Tell him a story with a missing link, and he could identify where the missing link was, and maybe what it was. He could solve puzzles. I am trying to locate Vinnie. This puzzle is no game.

The United States has gone to war on the basis of one solution to this puzzle. We have not yet been told what this solution is. The puzzle begins with the crash of four airliners. We must work our way backward from this. To do this, I decided to begin with official information that was published 16 days after the attack. To work my way backwards, I first leaped forward. . . .

John Judge: Extra Pieces of the Puzzle of 911 Published Passenger Lists

John Judge: Extra Pieces of the Puzzle of 911 Published Passenger Lists

(…)

If there were 19 in the plot, perhaps only one in each plane knew they were all to die. You can get a pilot to kamikaze, we know that much. But a whole crew? I know, for the “greater glory of Allah against the infidels”, or for a preacher in Guyana, or for a UFO cult in California, or for a sun cult in France. Right. Just don’t check the details. Which leaves two unexplored options: mind control or remote control. But those are “conspiracy theories” aren’t they. Sorry, I forgot. Is bin Laden and his thugs a conspiracy theory? Does it require a modicum of proof?

The secret evidence was viewed by foreign leaders, who are more qualified than the American public, and even they called it “circumstantial” and “not enough to take into court” but they agreed it was “sufficient” to go to WAR. Probably true, the first casualty of war is always the truth, and you don’t need much “evidence” to get a war going. Ask Goering. But you can’t even get the secret evidence to work if you can’t put the suspects on the planes now can you? It’s tough. You can’t put Oswald on the 6th floor of the Book Depository either, or James Earl Ray in the bathroom window, or Sirhan’s bullets into RFK; not if you pay attention to details anyway.

Oh, dear, have I revealed that I am not a “coincidence theorist”? Let’s just stick to the evidence, it will lead us where we need to go if we ever get to see it. For now the lack of it is enough for me. Good luck on a great puzzle. As my old pal Penn Jones used to say, “Take any one piece and research the hell out of it. It will eventually show you the whole“.

Thanks for thinking – John Judge

Pentagon – Why the no-757 crowd is making an ass out of itself

Joël van der Reijden: Pentagon – Why the no-757 crowd is making an ass out of itself

This author used to run Revelations 9/11, a website that discussed all the anomalous aspects of 911. However, the 911 Truth movement has been subject to so much mis- and disinformation that we are further than ever from getting an idea of what actually happened. Most researchers bring nothing new to table and when they do, it almost always turns out to be something highly questionable. For me, in case of 911, it has been much more rewarding to find out how the truth seekers have been completely misled about some of the key aspects of 911. Therefore I dumped my site and will only share one or two articles that prove that the one thing you can trust even less than the government’s official line, is the stuff promoted by the average conspiracy researcher.

What ever happened to the famous line ‘Think for Yourself’? Always look at the sources and keep a large ‘grey box’.

911: USA dropper anklagene mot den såkalte 20. kapreren

NIFS: 911: USA dropper anklagene mot den såkalte 20. kapreren

Bush-administrasjonen har blitt nødt til å droppe anklagene mot ‘the 20th hijacker’; Mohamed Mani Ahmad al-Kahtani – en saudi-araber som har sittet fengslet på Guantanamo Bay siden 2002. Al-Kahtani ble siktet for medvirkning sammen med seks andre i februar, men sies å være ‘unprosecutable’ på grunn av avhørsmetodene som ble brukt. . . .

AUDIO: Senator Karen Johnson on the Charles Goyette Show 2008-05-08

Source

Senator Karen Johnson was interviewed this morning on the Charles Goyette Show regarding the recent hit pieces by the Arizona Republic and the demolition of the Twin Towers and Building 7. Charles took calls from the audience.

http://www.archive.org/details/CharlesGoyetteInterviewsArizonaStateSenat…

Direct Link: http://www.archive.org/download/CharlesGoyetteInterviewsArizonaStateSena…

Charles Goyette has a history of asking poignant questions (Davin Coburn / Popular Mechanics – MUST HEAR):
http://www.911podcasts.com/display.php?cat=6&med=0&ord=Name&strt=0&vid=1…

Hvorfor er 9/11 så viktig? …

… undres mange.

H V O R F O R

E R

9 / 1 1

S Å

U V I K T I G ? ? ?

… undres jeg.

To viktige Pentagon-spørsmål

“A honey pot, in intelligence jargon, is a tempting source of information or ‘dangle’ that is set out to lure intended victims into a trap. Ultimately the honey pot is violently and maliciously discredited so as to destroy the credibility of anything stuck to it by association”

–- Michael Ruppert

. . . to create a honeypot to easily blow us out of the water when it becomes necessary with one fell swoop — just play the video of AA77 hitting the Pentagon all over the news stations over and over and over, and combine it with clips of notable members claiming a plane never could have hit there. . . .

– Victronix

Mange liker mentalgym av det spekulative slaget. Hvilket ikke bare er unyttig. Faktisk er spekulasjon avgjørende for å komme frem til en teori. Man spekulerer frem en teori på basis av (alle) tilgjengelige empiriske data. Passer alle data teorien, er den god. Passer de ikke, er den dårlig. Spekulativ.

Teorier om hva som traff – eller ikke traff – Pentagon er i stor grad basert på spekulasjon. Av det unødvendige slaget. Og nesten bare det. Har man ikke forstått det nå – i 2008 – kan et par runder i de indre topplokkgemakker være en fin ting.

Synsinger rundt angrepet har en tendens til å drukne (minst) to viktige spørsmål.

1. Hvordan kunne noe i det hele tatt treffe Pentagon? Verdens heftigste militærmakt kan ikke forsvare sitt eget hovedkvarter? Grunnet tilfeldighet eller inkompetanse??
2. Hvorfor vil Bush-administrasjonen at vi skal tro at de skjuler noe? Hvorfor kan de ikke frigi video som viser AA77 treffe Pentagon? Vi vet de har film. Vil de at vi skal spekulere?

“They have spent $13 trillion tax dollars since the end of WWII on this military/intelligence complex, and it cannot protect its own headquarters?… How were they allowed to come into the most restricted air space in the world with no challenge or defense? That is the question that answers both when Bush knew in advance and begs any rational response.”

–John Judge

“…making 9/11 complicity dependent on the no-plane claim was a brilliant tactic to discredit the real evidence for people inside the Beltway (Washington DC), both for the majority who vote against Bush and the political / military elites (especially the military officers who saw the plane crash or the plane debris)”

- OilEmpire.us om Pentagon

Michael Moore: Vis oss filmene!

• Sofistikert psykologisk operasjon, eller fantastisk tryllekunst?

Psykologisk operasjon:

Planlagt operasjon hvor nøye utvalgt informasjon plantes hos spesifikke [utenlandske] mottakere med henblikk på å påvirke deres følelser, motiver, sunne fornuft, og i siste instans hvordan myndigheter, organisasjoner, grupper og individer forholder seg.

Vi trenger ikke ingen-fly-ved-Pentagon for å bevise innsidejobb. Det er bortkastet å spekulere over ting som ikke fører noensteds hen. Og som fjerner energi og fokus fra andre langt viktigere tema. For eksempel ordentlige bevis.

***

John Judge er fra Washington DC – “inside the Beltway” – og burde kjenne topografien i Pentagonområdet bedre enn folk utenfor DC. Hvorfor topografien er viktig? Vel, er det nær på paddeflatt og åpent, ville f.eks. et missil istenden for AA77 være nokså risky butikk. PentaCons overflyvningsteori også. Det er flatt og åpent i DC-området. Et menneske med fotoapparat på rett sted til rett tid, og løgnen hadde vært avslørt. Sannsynlig risiko å ta? Neppe.

Judge har også bekjente som var vitner til hendelsen.

Noen gode Judge-artikler:

• Flight of Fantasy: Flight 77 Didn’t Hit the Pentagon [http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/f77FoF.html]

• The Pentagon Attack and American Airlines Flight 77 [http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/PAandAAF77.html]

• Pentagon and P-56 Preparations and Defenses and the Stand-Down on 9/11
  [http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/JohnJudge/P56A.html]

My father, John Joseph Judge was a WWII Army Air Corps veteran and had been a cryptographer assigned overseas. He worked as a civilian at the Pentagon after his return from the war until his death in 1965. My mother and my aunt both worked there as civilian employees beginning in 1943 until they retired. I grew up visiting the offices of my parents, and spending time at the Pentagon library. When the weather was nice, we would all often arrange to buy some food at the canteen and walk outside into the central courtyard area to sit and eat lunch together. When I was 10 or 11, to the best of my memory, which means 1957 or 58, I recall going outside and sitting down on a silver metal box. My father told me to get off of it. When I asked why he said it was a surface to air missile. (I could be off by 2-3 years on this recollection, but it was certainly before 1961). (Emphasis added)

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don’t know
We don’t know.

– Donald Rumsfeld, Feb. 12, 2002,
Department of Defense news briefing

Pentagon/Flight 77: Sofistikert psykologisk operasjon, eller fantastisk tryllekunst?

. . . Intelligence agencies have had decades of experience doing duping and manipulating people, and countless unwitting suspects to experiment on using everything imaginable. That’s a lot of data with which to keep a cover-up alive and well.

My guess — and not just mine — is that much of the Pentagon scam functions in these ways:

1) to distract from the powerful and provable evidences so activists and researchers will fight, instead of publish and document.

2) to excite people into believing a “magic show” went on and “everyone was fooled” into bizarre states of mind where no one notices jetliners flying over their heads, no one can identify one plane (even as they can identify the next one perfectly) etc. This also makes the Pentagon and it’s workers seem invincible and capable of any feat. And pretty soon we have “PentaCon” where all the items on the lawn and in the path were “fake” and “planted” and everyone was essentially “hypnotized.” This is the nonsense stuff they want us to spread all over the internet to tank us as credible people.

3) to lure people into promoting the idea that AA77 didn’t hit to keep us sidelined to the DC families, to local DC activists, etc., the people who *saw* the plane or know someone who did.

4) to create a honeypot to easily blow us out of the water when it becomes necessary with one fell swoop — just play the video of AA77 hitting the Pentagon all over the news stations over and over and over, and combine it with clips of notable members claiming a plane never could have hit there. . . .

– Victronix

Aviation Companies Blame FBI, CIA And Terrorists For 9/11

The Associated Press / Jon Gold’s Blog: Aviation Companies Blame FBI, CIA And Terrorists For 9/11

NEW YORK: Aviation companies sued by the families of Sept. 11 victims for failing to safeguard air travel are in turn blaming federal investigators — arguing the Federal Aviation Administration was not alerted that al-Qaida was poised to launch terrorist attacks.

In court documents filed this week in U.S. District Court in Manhattan, aviation companies are seeking to force five FBI employees to provide testimony that may help defend against claims the companies share blame in the attacks.

“The aviation parties anticipate that the FBI witnesses’ testimony will demonstrate that the FBI had information before Sept. 11 indicating that al-Qaida may have been about to launch terrorist attacks on civil aviation, which it did not timely pass along to the Federal Aviation Administration,” lawyers wrote. . . .

Jon Gold: Lee Hamilton Confirms Norman Mineta’s Testimony?

9/11 Truth: Lee Hamilton Confirms Norman Mineta’s Testimony?

As we all know, Norman Mineta’s testimony was never investigated or mentioned in the 9/11 Report. You would think that the “young man” that was involved in such an important moment during the 9/11 attacks would be named, and brought before the 9/11 Commission. He was not.

This clip is from C-SPAN’s 5/26/2005 taping of the “Washington Journal”. The caller clearly states that at the time the Pentagon was hit, Cheney was aware of the incoming plane according to Norman Mineta’s testimony. At the end of this segment, Lee Hamilton says that Cheney was “in the key position at the time”. Prior to that, he said that “the Vice President was in the operation room”, and “when the impact did occur.” To me, this sounds like Lee Hamilton just confirmed Norman Mineta’s testimony.

(…)

http://www.911blogger.com/node/15198

Christine Todd Whitman Not Liable For Telling Residents That World Trade Center Air Was Safe To Breathe, Judge Rules

The Huffington Post: Christie Todd Whitman Not Liable For Telling Residents That World Trade Center Air Was Safe To Breathe, Judge Rules

NEW YORK — Former EPA chief Christine Todd Whitman cannot be held liable for telling residents near the World Trade Center site that the air was safe to breathe after the 2001 terrorist attacks, a federal appeals court said Tuesday.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said Whitman apparently made comments reassuring people about the safety around the site based on conflicting information and reassurances by the White House.

The appeals court said legal remedies are not always available for every instance of arguably deficient governmental performance.

(…)

Første fagfellevurderte “9/11-avhandling” publisert i vitenskapelig journal

Dette er et historisk øyeblikk for 9/11-bevegelsen. Første publikasjon i en etablert sivilingeniørjournal. Genialt formulert …

Et absolutt MUST READ!!

Lenke til avhandlingen/brevet (pdf. download):

http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM

Prof. Jones’ Blog: Publication in a Peer-reviewed Civil Engineering Journal!

Finally! After submitting a half-dozen papers to established peer-reviewed technical journals over a period of nearly a year, we have two papers which have passed peer-review and have been accepted for publication. One of these was published TODAY! In science, we say that we have “published in the literature,” a major step in a nascent line of scientific inquiry.

(…)

In this Letter, we emphasize “points of agreement” with FEMA and NIST, seeking to build bridges for further communications. Of course, we will send a copy to NIST for their comment and hopefully open a public discussion on these crucial evidences and analyses. Note the title – but then read more—the paper only six pages long:

Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
The authors are: Steven E. Jones*,1, Frank M. Legge2, Kevin R. Ryan3, Anthony F. Szamboti*,4, James R. Gourley

(…)

George Washington’s Blog: Are We ALREADY Living in a Non-Constitutional COG America?

George Washington’s Blog: Are We ALREADY Living in a Non-Constitutional COG America?

One of the top investigative journalists in the country, Larisa Alexandrovna (the lead journalist at Raw Story), says the following concerning her attempts to determine whether or not the U.S. is still officially in a state of emergency, such as would justify the continuition of Continuity of Government (COG) Plans implemented on 9/11:

“Well, I have called around… believe it or not, no seems to have an answer as to this simple question: ‘are we in a state of emergency?’ “

Keep in mind that Alexandrovna has broken many top stories, later picked up by the New York Times and other mainstream publications, and has developed a broad network of contacts. And yet she couldn’t find an answer. (…)