Forum

profile |  register |  members |  groups |  faq |  search  login

The 9/11 debate
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Do We Need Another Theory?
- Kevin Ryan/ Foreign Policy Journal

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/06/04/do-we-need-another-911-conspiracy-theory/

"In the future, people will learn a great deal from the NIST collaboration with certain media, in terms of our present culture and the extent of our ability to deceive."


Last edited by marc on Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:15 am; edited 1 time in total
Mon Jun 04, 2012 1:28 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Inside Outside Onside


Isaac Newton 1 cartooNIST 0


Quote:
Simplified Case for Inside Involvement in 9/11
J.M. Talboo "Even if we accept that Bin Laden and gang were the masterminds of 9/11 it does not negate a slew of evidence indicating that they were allowed to succeed and had their results amplified. 9/11 very well could have been an inside and an outside job. The physical evidence, NORAD stand-down and whistle-blowers* prove the case.
* eg Dr James Quintiere, NIST Fire Chief and Kevin Ryan, UL Laboratories


I wouldn't describe 911 as an 'inside job'. Outside-inside-outsourced more like? An old story. The centre-piece of the event was an attention-grabbing horror visual, perfect for the television age. But like many a Hollywood horror film, it fell victim to overreach.

The hand of man is evident in the rapid structure take-downs: too fast, too symmetrical,too complete. Fine in physics-free Cartoon World, unsuitable for reality.

A stop-watch and a grasp of Newton's Third Law reveal the action to be synthetic, rather than organic. Quarter-mile high steel structures do not plunge to the ground through the path of greatest resistance in 11 seconds, not without an extra energy source fuelling volume-pressure work en route. [See scientist Jim Hoffman's comprehensive explanations] NIST itself discounted the planes as causative. Fires were contained to limited sections.

The jet fuel is estimated to have burned off within 10 to 12 minutes and what you had left was asymmetrical blaze, giving off tell-tale grey-black smoke which indicated dying fires. Cold steel columns, slightly thicker in their lower sections, constituted the bottom four-fifths of the structures.

As seen in videos, the top section of each tower does not fall as a block but erupts outwards before the lower section starts to give way. A worst case scenario would have been partial, sagging, asymmetrical collapse, not constant-acceleration to ground level, preceded by that sudden-onset eruption.

As US Dept of Commerce NIST investigator S Shyam Sunder said in a striking Freudian slip: "The obvious stares you in the face".

Only in cartoons do objects defy physics. Tom & Jerry move through walls, meeting no resistance. The day David Chandler cited Newtonian calculations at NIST's feedback session the score was:
Isaac Newton - 1 .. cartooNIST - 0. Pity media didn't think it newsworthy.

"The obvious stares you in the face'. When you *see* that quarter-mile-high steel buildings can not plunge through the path of greatest resistance, you understand that rank outsiders could not have pulled off *that* part of the operation.

If the designated enemy lands the first punch, you get to retain the moral high ground. If the first punch landed by The Enemy is shockingly awful enough, Victims then have carte blanche to righteously respond, at a time and place of their choosing. Anti-war protest (which plagued the military during the Vietnam War) is pre-emptively disabled. Critical thinking is blunted and side-lined. People found themselves washed on board the project, willy-nilly. Dissenting voices are surprisingly easily quashed by means of ridicule. The second super-power (public opinion) is rapidly mobilized behind a protective flag when threatened by an evil bogeyman.

Two hours is all it took to sweep western public opinion on side and get Nato officials preparing to invoke Article 5 of the Washington Treaty. No need for lengthy battles with the bleeding heart anti-war crowd. Two hours saw the instant realignment of political attitudes in the West.

"On the evening of 12 September 2001, less than 24 hours after the attacks, and for the first time in NATO's history, the Allies invoked the principle of Article 5 of the Washington Treaty". (ref nato.int)

"The events of September 11, 2001.. opened vast, new opportunities.” the US National Security Strategy reported to the Bush Administration in 2002 [1] Engineered blowback is a standard military technique. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_flag

Civilians don't realise that wars of occupation on the Afghanistan scale are not rolled out in days. They take months of logistics planning. US soldier Spc. Kerry Otjen of 5th Special Forces Group wrote: "Within hours of the attack on the World Trade Center, Soldiers of the 5th Special Forces Group began preparing for a rapid deployment. While their fellow citizens were still in shock after seeing the Twin Towers destroyed, Green Berets here found themselves packing their gear and loading aircraft." http://www.fortcampbellcourier.com/news/article_1db8403a-3ac0-11e0-abee-001cc4c03286.html

Cool-headed military-planners had ace troops hot-footing to Afghanistan, well before a dusty fog had cleared from Manhattan.

Quote:
Scientist Jim Hoffman neatly summarises the sweep of events thus
(in one of his many cogent essays, comprehensively footnoted with science references at his encyclopaedic site www.911researchwtc7.net):

The obliteration of the Twin Towers with terrifying rolling dust clouds

'was the centerpiece of the event that launched the 'War on Terror'.

Shocking on multiple levels, the events were especially traumatic for

Americans, being the first bombing on the US mainland in modern history

that killed thousands of people -- civilians -- in one day. Given the

collective psychological trauma of the attack, it is not surprising that

public discourse would remain free of observations that the destruction of

the Twin Towers bore obvious features of controlled take-down. Early

candid public remarks by reporters and demolition experts where quickly

retracted or forgotten. Passage of the USA PATRIOT Act and the invasion

of Afghanistan would proceed apace."



Steel skyscrapers blow their tops,
then throw themselves to the ground



What energy source caused the tops of both towers to suddenly explode outwards into massive clouds of shredded steel and dust, after standing firm through dying fires, for up to an hour and a half? Note the improbable symmetry of this initial debris distribution. As the tops of these buildings disintegrated outwards, what force (pile-driver) was left to supposedly hammer cold steel to pavement level? Jet fuel had burned off in the first 12 minutes. NIST itself excluded the planes as the cause of these sudden-onset eruptions. Mid-air pulverization of 80,000 tons of concrete & metal decking took place in seconds; massive steel columns shredded from top to pavement-level in 11 seconds. Afterwards, a 1200-foot-diameter debris field: no "pancaked" floors found, despite journalists' inaccurate claims. [thanks to engineers at ae911 for pointers]

Quote:
Advert from Controlled Demolition International website states the following about their company “A two thousand ton skyscraper collapses like a house of cards, crumbling in on itself – a waterfall of well-fractured steel and concrete debris. It lasts only seconds, and buildings within a few meters stand untouched. The very essence of Controlled Demolition, Inc. is in our name: CONTROL.”






Quote:
" If a massive crane hoisted the top 15 floors of the North Tower to the same height at which it sat on the morning of 9/11, and then released the top to fall unimpeded to the ground with nothing but air to block its way, it would have taken approximately 10 seconds to hit down. [...] ... the entire intact, undamaged, unaffected 90 floors worth of [cold steel] core building sitting underneath it, somehow providing NO further resistance to the falling building than air itself. - http://www.911hardfacts.com/report_08.htm


Quote:
BUILDING SPECS

- framework of WTC 1 and 2 (the Twin Towers) was 100% steel.

- buildings were structurally-supported by 47 massive, rectangular, steel-concrete core columns and 240 perimeter columns spaced one metre apart.

-- FEMA report acknowledges that the steel plate used in the buildings was so thick that American steel companies could not produce them. Rather, all the thick steel plate was produced in Japan.

- The 47-story high WTC Building 7 was reinforced by 25 steel-support columns and 57 exterior, or perimeter columns.

-Each of the buildings was designed to withstand multiple crashes by the largest jet liners then in existence (Boeing 707s; Jones, 2006).

- Indeed, they routinely withstood high winds (140 mph) that put greater stress on the buildings than plane crashes.

- Photographic evidence indicates that both Twin Towers were structurally intact, stable and motionless within a minute after being hit by the planes (Hufschmid, 2002).

- Under the laws of physics, the fires from the burning jet fuel could not even have weakened the steel structures of the buildings, let alone caused their sudden, catastrophic, and symmetrical collapses.

- It is important to note that the kind of steel used in the buildings will not start to bend until heated to temperatures above about 1200 °C (2192 °F), and it does not shatter under any temperatures.


Quote:
Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories originally certified the quality of the steel used in the WTC buildings.

He was fired for writing the following letter to NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology):

"We know that the steel components were certified to ASTU E119.

"The time temperature curves for this standard require the samples to be exposed to temperatures of 2000 °F for several hours.

"And as we all agree, the steel applied met those specifications.

"Additionally, I think we can all agree that even un-fireproofed steel will not melt until reaching red-hot temperatures of nearly 3000 °F. ….

"This story just does not add up.

"If the steel from those buildings did soften or melt, I’m sure we can all agree that this was certainly not due to jet fuel fires of any kind, let alone the briefly burning fires in the towers".

Kevin Ryan's blog - Dig Within

[b]

Last edited by marc on Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:10 pm; edited 15 times in total
Tue Jul 31, 2012 7:14 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Are the Right Terrorists Being Brought To Trial?
http://digwithin.net/2012/08/11/another-nineteen-investigating-legitimate-911-suspects/

"The Wall Street Journal recently commented on the upcoming military trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM). The article claimed that KSM and four other terrorists were somehow making a mockery of the U.S. justice system by trying to “use the open military trial to promote jihad and discredit American institutions, including the military system of justice.”[1] Unsuspecting readers might think that an “open military trial” would actually be less reflective of American institutions than the (actually open) civil trial requested for KSM by many of the 9/11 victims’ families. But the more important question is – are the right terrorists being brought to trial?

"That question is not welcome in polite conversation. ....... continue reading >
Sun Aug 12, 2012 11:45 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Was Isaac Newton a Conspiracy Theorist?

http://www.countercurrents.org/davis110911.htm

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

"We've learned from experience that the truth will come out. Other experimenters will repeat your experiment and find out whether you were wrong or right. Nature's phenomena will agree or they'll disagree with your theory. And, although you may gain some temporary fame and excitement, you will not gain a good reputation as a scientist if you haven't tried to be very careful in this kind of work. And it's this type of integrity, this kind of care not to fool yourself, that is missing to a large extent in much of the research in cargo cult science." - Richard Feynman.

"I took this stuff I got out of your [O-ring] seal and I put it in ice water, and I discovered that when you put some pressure on it for a while and then undo it it doesn't stretch back. It stays the same dimension. In other words, for a few seconds at least, and more seconds than that, there is no resilience in this particular material when it is at a temperature of 32 degrees. I believe that has some significance for our problem." - Richard Feynman, holding a glass of ice water, offering his very simple but definitive science correction at the press conference of the presidential commission into the Challenger disaster. (10 February 1986)

A fellow physicist once said that the “Feynman Problem Solving Algorithm” contained three steps: 1. Write down the problem. 2. Think very hard. 3. Write down the answer.

"If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility
that we have a small aquatic bird of the family Anatidae on our hands
."
- Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
Sat Aug 25, 2012 3:27 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Q and A Reply with quote

Q & A

Q: http://members5.boardhost.com/medialens/msg/1346140815.html

Quote:
"Why you should reject the claim that 9-11 was an inside job

"Why don’t I take the claim that 9-11 was inside job seriously? Because of statistics.

"The formal way to judge the probability of an event is to use Bayesian statistics, and the key point here is that you have to weigh your decision based not only on the evidence in front of you, but also by the prior probability that your hypothesis is correct.

"Classic example: What is the probability that you have cancer if you take a test that is 99% accurate. That is, 99% of the time the test is positive you have cancer, and 99% of the time it is negative it tests negative you don’t. You might think that testing positive means that you are likely to have cancer. It does not. Imagine a situation in which you test 1 million children who are extremely unlikely to have this cancer (say it is a cancer that almost only occurs in old people). For the sake of argument, lets assume that 1 child out of a million has cancer. If you give this test to all the children it will come out negative 99% of the time. In other word, 1% will test positive. 1% of 1 million means that 1000 children will test positive. But only 1 kid has it. So, if you test positive, you are only 1 in 1000 likely to have cancer, despite the fact that you tested positive on a test that is 99% accurate!

"So, evidence has to be weighted by prior probability. So, the question that people like Chomsky ask is how likely is it that Bush would really blow up the twin towers for political gain? And how likely is it that he was incompetent? You need to weight these probabilities when looking at the evidence. And also look at the sources of the evidence! Are their any peer reviewed journals saying that the physics are inconsistent with a plane bringing down the towers?

"The arguments that Chomsky make are so compelling is not only does he have evidence, but they make sense – they have a prior probability that they are correct. The premise of Chomsky’s arguments is that the US is like every other nation on earth (its leaders and people of influence tend to be selfish, and protect their interests).

"It all comes down to a basic intuition. Strong claims require strong evidence. You have to provide incredible evidence to support incredible claims."


A: 911 and Probability Theory - Dr Frank Legge (Australia) 2008

http://files.meetup.com/562554/911%20and%20Probability%20Theory.pdf

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

What about the fact that the US Department of Commerce body NIST reports (on September 2001 building performance [b.p] in three high-rises) have never been peer-reviewed?

Yet the US govt and its allies blindly accept these non-peer-reviewed b.p. reports and use them as pillars to hold up their casus belli for war.

NIST itself conceded to 'freefall acceleration' in Building 7. The significance of 'freefall acceleration' is that it can only occur when all resistance is instantaneously removed.

NIST admits freefall, after public challenge during its “WTC 7 Technical Briefing” August 26, 2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=23VGrABNBlQ

Quote:
NIST ... while still under Sunder’s leadership and still defending its fire theory of WTC 7’s collapse, agreed that, as an empirical fact, free fall happened.

For a period of 2.25 seconds, NIST admitted, the descent of WTC 7 was characterized by “gravitational acceleration (free fall).”59

Besides pointing out that the free fall descent of WTC 7 implied that the building had been professionally demolished, [David] Chandler observed that this conclusion is reinforced by two features of the collapse mentioned above:

[P]articularly striking is the suddenness of onset of free fall. Acceleration doesn’t build up gradually. . . . The building went from full support to zero support, instantly. . . . One moment, the building is holding; the next moment it lets go and is in complete free fall. . . . The onset of free fall was not only sudden; it extended across the whole width of the building. . . . The fact that the roof stayed level shows the building was in free fall across the entire width. The collapse we see cannot be due to a column failure, or a few column failures, or a sequence of column failures. All 24 interior columns and 58 perimeter columns had to have been removed . . . simultaneously, within a small fraction of a second.”60

'For its part, NIST, knowing that it had affirmed a miracle by agreeing that WTC 7 had entered into free fall, no longer claimed that its analysis was consistent with the laws of physics.

'Back in its August draft, in which it was still claiming that the collapse occurred 40 percent slower than free fall, NIST had said – in a claim made three times – that its analysis was “consistent with physical principles.”61

'In the final report, however, every instance of this phrase was removed. NIST thereby almost explicitly admitted that its report on WTC 7, by affirming absolute free fall while continuing to deny that either incendiaries or explosives had been employed, is not consistent with basic principles of physics. [On this basis, NIST is being called out for scientific fraud - see 'Mysterious Collapse: Why the NIST report is Fraudulent and Unscientific' by D. R. Griffin.]

'Accordingly, now that it is established that WTC 7 came down in absolute free fall for over two seconds, one cannot accept the official theory, according to which this building was not professionally demolished, without implying that at least one miracle happened on 9/11.


'George Monbiot, as we saw, described members of this movement as “morons” who “believe that [the Bush regime] is capable of magic.” Unless Monbiot, upon becoming aware of NIST’s admission of free fall, changes his stance, he will imply that al-Qaeda is capable of magic. [..]”

- Snippet from essay "Left-leaning despisers of the truth movement: do you believe in miracles?" D. R. Griffin



NIST itself did not say the planes were causative. They blame the events on 'dislodged fireproofing'.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtctowers.cfm

From the horse's mouth: NIST: 'The WTC towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires that were encountered on September11, 2001, if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact."

From scientist Jim Hoffman at his site www.911research.wtc7.net: "What about 'the effect of steel's thermal conductivity, which draws away heat, and the considerable thermal mass of the 90,000 tons of steel in each Tower? The Report's implication that fire protection is essential is highly misleading, given that no steel-framed high-rise building has ever collapsed from fires, whether the steelwork was fire protected or not.'


Last edited by marc on Wed Aug 29, 2012 7:55 am; edited 2 times in total
Tue Aug 28, 2012 12:15 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Sensible Doubt: The Danish Point of View
A short documentary.

Architect Jan Utzon, MP Benny Engelbrecht, professor Niels Harrit, airline captain Niels Studstrup, journalist Tommy Hansen and artist Jacob Fuglsang talk about their skepticism and explain why they have come to think this way.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Qq3wPOvhjp8
Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:07 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

The War on Terror is a Fraud

http://landdestroyer.blogspot.com/2011/09/war-on-terror-is-fraud.html
Mon Sep 03, 2012 7:29 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

A couple of new articles from science writer Victoria Alexander:

Govt actually admitted it didn't explain 911 collapses


[...] "The first, most startling fact revealed to the documentary viewers is that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), which was given the charge of conducting the investigation into the collapses, did not investigate the actual causes of the way the buildings came down in the way that they did."

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/326622#ixzz25fyl1Ljb


New 9/11 truth documentary among 'most watched' on PBS this week

[...] "The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the government agency charged with the investigation, did not provide any data -- no measurements or estimates -- of the mass or energy that would be required to bring down the buildings in about ten seconds.

"Normally a scientific report would present all the data that is used to construct a theory.

"The omission of data is a red flag to anyone familiar with scientific procedure. It appears that the investigators may have intentionally produced reports that the scientific community would reject.**

According to the experts appearing in Explosive Evidence, the scientific community did reject the reports immediately, but it has taken a very long time for this message to reach the public."

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/332051#tab=comments&sc=1530297#ixzz25g4NqrfG

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Thu Sep 06, 2012 9:52 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Are Tall Buildings Safer As A Result of the NIST Reports?

http://digwithin.net/2012/09/07/are-tall-buildings-safer/

... "Despite its grandiose claims, NIST knows that the building community has ignored the WTC investigation findings. That’s clear from NIST’s own tracking sheet on its website. This tracks all 30 recommendations from the NIST WTC investigation and lists the code “outcomes” from each.[19] As of August 2011, the most recent update, not one NIST recommendation related to progressive global collapse, “widely dislodged” fireproofing, or linear thermal expansion has been adopted...
[...] The truth, however, is that the NIST WTC investigation was a politically motivated diversion that produced reports which are known to be false. This fact is re-emphasized by the knowledge that the international building community, including that of New York City, has not adopted code changes that can be traced to the root causes cited by NIST for the WTC destruction."


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


Comments in Scientific American[/i: Letter from a Senior Research Fellow in Structures And Fire, University of Edinburgh

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=letters-jan-12

SUPERTALL SCRUTINY

[Dear Scientific American]

In presenting the changes that have occurred in the design of skyscrapers since September 11, 2001, in “Castles in the Air,” Mark Lamster notes three threats: aircraft impact, earthquakes and wind. He correctly claims that structural engineers are now able to effectively design against them.

Unfortunately, the Twin Towers collapsed primarily because of fire [according to NIST], and nowhere in the article is fire explicitly mentioned as a structural threat.

On 9/11 we clearly saw that fire can [apparently] cause entire modern high-rise buildings to collapse. (Indeed, 7 World Trade Centre, a steel-framed high-rise, was not struck by an aircraft but collapsed because of fire ignited by debris from the Twin Towers.)

To ensure safety in ever taller buildings, the potential impacts of uncontrolled fire need to be explicitly considered during the structural design process with the same care as earthquakes and wind. While changes in escape-stair width, firefighter communications systems and the addition of sky bridges (all noted by Lamster) can only improve life safety in tall buildings, they do not prevent structural collapse resulting from fire.

Preventing another 9/11 requires that the structural engineering and architecture communities own up to the reality of what uncontrolled fire can do to tall buildings and take the necessary actions.

Luke Bisby
Senior Research Fellow in Structures and Fire
University of Edinburgh

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[i]Another Comment:

Finally, with the publication of Luke Bisby's letter, Scientific American has dared to touch (however obliquely) the scientific question of what happened to cause three steel superstructure buildings to collapse on September 11th of 2001.

The official pronouncements from our government are that somehow three steel frame buildings of two different construction designs collapsed completely and symmetrically due to fires on that day. They were --supposedly -- the first three steel superstructure buildings ever to completely collapse due to fire.

With the collapses of the twin towers we are asked to believe that buildings damaged high up in the structure could burn for an hour to an hour and a half and then collapse completely to the ground at or near free fall speed.

This would mean that each of the 47 huge steel columns in the center of the building for all those lower floors -- undamaged by either the airplane crash or the fire -- snapped on each floor in anticipation of the falling debris, otherwise the resistance from these central columns would certainly have slowed (and probably stopped) the collapses.

And, they all had to snap simultaneously on each floor because otherwise the collapse would have been asymmetrical.

Of course, Building 7 -- the third building that fell that day -- also collapsed absolutely symmetrically and for at least eight floors fell at free fall speed. Supposedly, this building also fell because of the effects of fire on a single column. However, the government's report stops short of saying how a collapse of a single column could lead to the instantaneous collapse of all the columns on eight floors of the building.

After over a decade of silence on this issue -- to disastrous effect to our political and economic environments -- Scientific American should bring this issue into the light.

Mr. Bisby is absolutely correct in saying architects and engineers should face up to this issue.

What Mr. Bisby and Scientific American fail to mention is that over 1,600 architects and engineers have indicated that there is no way that fires brought down these buildings.

This magazine should be at the forefront in demanding a scientific investigation into the causes of these collapses, not bringing up the rear.

It's just like Galileo all over again, Scientific American can either side with science or with the dictates of the political authorities of our time. It's way past time that the magazine spoke up for science.

Andy Swamp

Amusing comment follows this article:
http://www.911blogger.com/news/2012-09-07/are-tall-buildings-safer-result-nist-wtc-reports#new

"I am most concerned for the safety of the NIST personnel still using their multi-story Gaithersburg facility. I think they should put the safety of their staff first, moving them out of that death trap that could experience similar thermal expansion leading to global collapse, and into a more suitable structure that is more in line with the quality of their computer models.....like a mud hut."

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Whatever our view on 9/11, we can all recognise that significant errors that are wilfully ignored by professional journalists, fatally undermine the credibility of democracy's Fourth Estate.


Last edited by marc on Wed Sep 12, 2012 10:33 am; edited 3 times in total
Sat Sep 08, 2012 8:09 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

President of Italy's Supreme Court to Refer 911 crimes to ICC

http://www.peacepalacelibrary.nl/2012/09/president-of-italys-supreme-court-to-refer-911-crimes-to-international-criminal-court/
Mon Sep 10, 2012 8:20 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

911 Pseudo Science: A US Foreign Policy Built on Fraud
- Michael Fullerton

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2012/09/10/911-pseudo-science-a-us-foreign-policy-built-on-fraud/
Tue Sep 11, 2012 8:00 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

An ex 911 Commissioner blows smoke and looks for a 'new investigation' under Obama. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-graham/911-saudi-arabia_b_1868863.html
Wed Sep 12, 2012 7:10 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

The WTC building demolition is so self-evident [visual proof freely available on video - uniform, rapid, symmetrical, global pulverisation. Pentagon info is not even needed to prove that the official story is a scam.

The Pentagon: a joint statement by Chandler (physicist) and Cole (engineer)
http://911truthnews.com/the-pentagon-a-joint-statement-by-chandler-and-cole/

Jim Hoffman on the Psychology and Propaganda of the Pentagon discussion
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html#allure


Last edited by marc on Sun Oct 07, 2012 4:17 pm; edited 5 times in total
Thu Sep 13, 2012 5:22 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Cleall



Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 103

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Marc

I'm very aware of the controversy surrounding the Pentagon and all the misinformation that abounds. However, I'd not heard April Gallop speak before and her account of the events inside the Pentagon came across as clear, honest and direct. I thought the interview worth while to post and let people make up their own minds.

Here's a link to The Corbett Report on The Meaning of 9/11 Truth -

http://www.corbettreport.com/episode-242-the-meaning-of-911-truth/
Sat Sep 15, 2012 8:54 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

How one man's non-transparent testimony provided all the proof Nato needed to go to war. Yet weeks later, a 'white paper' allegedly providing proof of Bin Laden's role, promised to the press by Colin Powell, failed to appear, as Seymour Hersch reported.


Quote:
Preparations for war 'complete', 'everything in place', less than four weeks after Sept 11 incident. This competes with information that logistics planning for invasion of a foreign country can take up to a year.

'We're ready to go in' - PM
The Observer, 7 October 2001

PRESIDENT George Bush and Tony Blair yesterday warned the Taliban regime in Afghanistan in the starkest terms that preparations for the war against them were complete and attacks could be launched at any time.
[...]
Bush's comments were echoed by Tony Blair, who was even more outspoken in suggesting that an outbreak of hostilities was imminent. He told journalists accompanying him as he returned from three days of whirlwind diplomacy in Russia, Pakistan and India: 'We are ready to go. Everything is in place.'

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/07/politics.september11

'Within hours of the attack...'

Wars of occupation onthis scale are not rolled out in days. Yet US soldier Spc. Kerry Otjen of 5th Special Forces Group, which was rapidly deployed into Afghanistan, wrote: "Within hours of the attack on the World Trade Center, Soldiers of the 5th Special Forces Group began preparing for a rapid deployment. While their fellow citizens were still in shock after seeing the Twin Towers destroyed, Green Berets here found themselves packing their gear and loading aircraft." http://www.fortcampbellcourier.com/news/article_1db8403a-3ac0-11e0-abee-001cc4c03286.html

At this stage, no-one knew or had any proof who had attacked the US. It could have been Palestinian or Serbian hijackers, for all anybody knew.


See Official Statement from Nato on Brigadier General Frank Taylor (given Roving Ambassador job eight week prior to 911 event) at ..www.nato.int/docu/update/2001/1001/e1002a.htm

Was America Attacked by Afghanistan on September 11 2001?
Michel Chossudovsky/Global Research

http://www.globalresearch.ca/was-america-attacked-by-afghanistan-on-september-11-2001/

extract from longer article:

The Invasion of Afghanistan: NATO’s Doctrine of Collective Security

The legal argument used by Washington and NATO to invade Afghanistan was that the September 11 attacks constituted an undeclared “armed attack” “from abroad” by an unnamed foreign power, and that consequently “the laws of war” apply, allowing the nation under attack, to strike back in the name of “self-defense”.

The “Global War on Terrorism” was officially launched by the Bush administration on September 11, 2001. On the following morning (September 12, 2001), NATO’s North Atlantic Council meeting in Brussels, adopted the following resolution:

Quote:
if it is determined that the [September 11, 2001] attack against the United States was directed from abroad [Afghanistan] against “The North Atlantic area“, it shall be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty”. (emphasis added)

In this regard, Article 5 of the Washington Treaty stipulates that if:

“The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.” (NATO, What is Article 5, NATO Topics – NATO and the Scourge of Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009, emphasis added)

“Use of Armed Force” only “If It is Determined…”

There was an “if” in the September 12 resolution. Article 5 would apply only if it is determined that Afghanistan as a Nation State was complicit or behind the 9/11 attacks.

In practice, the “if” had already been waived prior to 9/11. The entire NATO arsenal was already on a war footing. In military terms, NATO and the US were already in an advanced state of readiness. Known to military analysts, but never revealed in the Western media, the implementation of a large scale theatre war takes at least one year of advanced operational planning, prior to the launching of an invasion.

Moreover, there was evidence that the war on Afghanistan had been planned prior to 9/11.

The Atlantic Council responded almost immediately in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, in the morning of September 12, 2001.

The use of article 5 of the Washington Treaty had in all likelihood been contemplated by military planners, as a pretext for waging war, prior to 9/11.

There was, however, no official declaration of war on September 12th. The Alliance waited until 3 days before the invasion to declare war on Afghanistan, an impoverished country which by no stretch of the imagination could have launched an attack against a member state of “The North Atlantic area”.

The September 12 resolution of the Atlantic Council required “determination” and corroborating evidence, that:

1) Al Qaeda led by Osama bin Laden with the support of a foreign power had ordered the “attack from abroad” on the United States of America;

2) The terrorist attacks of 9/11 constituted a bona fide military operation (under the provisions of Article 5) by an alleged foreign country (Afghanistan) against a NATO member state, and consequently against all NATO member states under the doctrine of collective security:

Quote:
“Article 5 and the case of the terrorist attacks against the United States: The United States has been the object of brutal terrorist attacks. It immediately consulted with the other members of the Alliance. The Alliance determined that the US had been the object of an armed attack.

The Alliance therefore agreed that if it was determined that this attack was directed from abroad, it would be regarded as covered by Article 5. NATO Secretary General, Lord Robertson, subsequently informed the Secretary-General of the United Nations of the Alliance’s decision.

Article 5 has thus been invoked, but no determination has yet been made whether the attack against the United States was directed from abroad. If such a determination is made, each Ally will then consider what assistance it should provide. In practice, there will be consultations among the Allies. Any collective action by NATO will be decided by the North Atlantic Council. The United States can also carry out independent actions, consistent with its rights and obligations under the UN Charter.

Allies can provide any form of assistance they deem necessary to respond to the situation. This assistance is not necessarily military and depends on the material resources of each country. Each individual member determines how it will contribute and will consult with the other members, bearing in mind that the ultimate aim is to “to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area”.

By invoking Article 5, NATO members have shown their solidarity toward the United States and condemned, in the strongest possible way, the terrorist attacks against the United States on 11 September.

If the conditions are met for the application of Article 5, NATO Allies will decide how to assist the United States. (Many Allies have clearly offered emergency assistance). Each Ally is obliged to assist the United States by taking forward, individually and in concert with other Allies, such action as it deems necessary. This is an individual obligation on each Ally and each Ally is responsible for determining what it deems necessary in these particular circumstances.

No collective action will be taken by NATO until further consultations are held and further decisions are made by the the North Atlantic Council. (NATO, NATO Topics – NATO and the Scourge of Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009, emphasis added)


The Mysterious Frank Taylor Report

The final decision to invoke Article 5 in relation to the 9/11 attacks came three weeks later upon the submission to the NATO Council of a mysterious classified report by a US State Department official named Frank Taylor. The report was submitted to NATO on October 2nd, 5 days before the commencement of the bombing and invasion of Afghanistan.

Frank Taylor was working in the US State Department. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francis_X._Taylor He had been entrusted with the writing of a brief to establish whether the US “had been attacked from abroad”, pursuant to the North Atlantic Council’s resolution of September 12 2001.

US Ambassador at Large and Co-ordinator for Counter-terrorism Frank Taylor briefed the North Atlantic Council on October 2nd, five days before the commencement of the bombings.

On October 2nd he handed his brief to NATO “on the results of investigations into the 11 September attacks…. ” (NATO – Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the fight against Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009).

The classified report was not released to the media. And to this date, to our knowledge, it has remained classified.

NATO’s Secretary General Lord Robertson casually summarised the substance of the Frank Taylor report in a press release:

Quote:
“This morning, the United States briefed the North Atlantic Council on the results of the investigation into who was responsible for the horrific terrorist attacks which took place on September 11.

The briefing was given by Ambassador Frank Taylor, the United States Department of State Coordinator for Counter-terrorism.

This morning’s briefing follows those offered by United States Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage and United States Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, and illustrates the commitment of the United States to maintain close cooperation with Allies.

Today’s was classified briefing and so I cannot give you all the details.

Briefings are also being given directly by the United States to the Allies in their capitals.

The briefing addressed the events of September 11 themselves, the results of the investigation so far, what is known about Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaida organisation and their involvement in the attacks and in previous terrorist activity, and the links between al-Qaida and the Taliban regime in Afghanistan.

The facts are clear and compelling. The information presented points conclusively to an al-Qaida role in the September 11 attacks.

We know that the individuals who carried out these attacks were part of the world-wide terrorist network of al-Qaida, headed by Osama bin Laden and his key lieutenants and protected by the Taliban.

On the basis of this briefing, it has now been determined that the attack against the United States on September 11 was directed from abroad and shall therefore be regarded as an action covered by Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that an armed attack on one or more of the Allies in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all.

I want to reiterate that the United States of America can rely on the full support of its 18 NATO Allies in the campaign against terrorism.” (Lord Robertson, NATO Secretary General, statement to the NATO Council, State Department, Appendix H, Multinational Response to September 11 NATO Press http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/10313.pdf, accessed 24 November 2009, emphasis added)


In other words, on October 5, 2001, two days before the actual commencement of the bombing campaign on October 7, the North Atlantic Council decided, based on the information provided by Frank Taylor to the Council “that the attacks were directed from abroad” by Al Qaeda, headed by Osama bin Laden, thereby requiring an action on the part of NATO under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty ( NATO – Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the fight against Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009):

NATO action under article 5, was outlined in an October 4 decision, three days before the commencement of the bombings. This NATO decision implied eight measures in support the United States, which were tantamount to a declaration of war on Afghanistan:

-- to enhance intelligence sharing and co-operation, both bilaterally and in appropriate NATO bodies, relating to the threats posed by terrorism and the actions to be taken against it;

-- to provide, individually or collectively, as appropriate and according to their capabilities, [military] assistance to Allies and other states which are or may be subject to increased terrorist threats as a result of their support for the campaign against terrorism;

-- to take necessary measures to provide increased security for facilities of the United States and other Allies on their territory;

-- to backfill selected Allied assets in NATO’s area of responsibility that are required to directly support operations against terrorism;

-- to provide blanket overflight clearances for the United States and other Allies’ aircraft, in accordance with the necessary air traffic arrangements and national procedures, for military flights related to operations against terrorism; to provide access for the United States and other Allies to ports and airfields on the territory of NATO nations for operations against terrorism, including for refuelling, in accordance with national procedures;

-- that the Alliance is ready to deploy elements of its Standing Naval Forces to the Eastern Mediterranean in order to provide a NATO presence and demonstrate resolve; and that the Alliance is similarly ready to deploy elements of its NATO Airborne Early Warning Force to support operations against terrorism.
(NATO – Topic: Terrorism, NATO and the fight against Terrorism, accessed 24 November 2009)

Press reports of Frank Taylor’s brief to the NATO Council were scanty.

The invocation of Article 5, five days before the bombings commenced, was barely mentioned. The media consensus was: “all roads lead to Bin Laden” as if bin Laden was a Nation State which had attacked America.

What stands out are outright lies and fabrications. Moreover, prior to October 2nd, NATO had no pretext under Article 5 of the Washington Treaty to intervene militarily in Afghanistan.

The justification was provided by Frank Taylor’s classified report, which was not made public.

The two UN Security Council resolutions adopted in the course of September 2001, did not, under any circumstances, provide a justification for the invasion and illegal occupation of a UN member country of 28 million people. (See: Security Council resolution 1368 (2001) Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, Security Council resolution 1373 (2001) Threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts).

UNSC Resolution 1373 (2001) called for prevention and suppression of terrorist acts, as well suppression of the financing of terrorism:

Quote:
“(e) Ensure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice and ensure that, in addition to any other measures against them, such terrorist acts are established as serious criminal offences in domestic laws and regulations and that the punishment duly reflects the seriousness of such terrorist acts;



“3. Calls upon all States to:

“(a) Find ways of intensifying and accelerating the exchange of operational information, especially regarding actions or movements of terrorist persons or networks; forged or falsified travel documents; traffic in arms, explosives or sensitive materials; use of communications technologies by terrorist groups; and the threat posed by the possession of weapons of mass destruction by terrorist groups;

“(b) Exchange information in accordance with international and domestic law and cooperate on administrative and judicial matters to prevent the commission of terrorist acts;

“(c) Cooperate, particularly through bilateral and multilateral arrangements and agreements, to prevent and suppress terrorist attacks and take action against perpetrators of such acts;



“4. Notes with concern the close connection between international terrorism and transnational organized crime, illicit drugs, money-laundering, illegal arms-trafficking, and illegal movement of nuclear, chemical, biological and other potentially deadly materials, and in this regard emphasizes the need to enhance coordination of efforts on national, subregional, regional and international levels in order to strengthen a global response to this serious challenge and threat to international security;

“5. Declares that acts, methods, and practices of terrorism are contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations and that knowingly financing, planning and inciting terrorist acts are also contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations (excerpts of UNSC Resolution 1373 (2001, See also UN Press Release SC 7178 SECURITY COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY ADOPTS WIDE-RANGING ANTI-TERRORISM RESOLUTION; CALLS FOR SUPPRESSING FINANCING, IMPROVING INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION, Security Council, 4385th Meeting, September 2001)


Nowhere in this resolution is there any mention of military action against a UN member State.

The War on Afghanistan Had been Planned Prior to 9/11

Known and documented, the war on Afghanistan had been planned prior to 9/11. According to Jane Defense India had been approached in March 2001 by US to participate in a US military operation against Afghanistan:

Insider accounts published in the British, French and Indian media have revealed that US officials threatened war against Afghanistan during the summer of 2001. These reports include the prediction, made in July, that “if the military action went ahead, it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.”

The Bush administration began its bombing strikes on the hapless, poverty-stricken country October 7, and ground attacks by US Special Forces began October 19. (see Patrick Martin, US planned war in Afghanistan long before September 11, wsws.org, November 20, 2001)

According to statements of former foreign Secretary of Pakistan Niaz Naik, the US had already decided to wage war on Afghanistan prior to 9/11 ( BBC report published one week after the attacks, September 18, 2001) ”Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.

The underlying objective according to Mr Naik, was to “topple the Taleban regime” and install a government “possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah.” He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Centre bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks.

See link for Concluding Remarks: Eleven Years Later

- - ----- - -

See also: http://www.corbettreport.com/afghanistan-ten-years-of-war/

excerpt: "On October 2nd, the Council met again to announce that they had dropped the word “if” from their previous declaration on the basis of a report issued by a US State Department official named Frank Taylor. To this day, the evidence presented in Frank Taylor’s briefing is still classified, and the information that Secretary General Robertson called “clear and compelling” information pointing “conclusively” to an al-Qaida role in 9/11 has never been made public.

"Nor was this evidence ever presented to the FBI, who told investigative journalist Ed Haas in 2006 that there was “no hard evidence” linking Osama to 9/11.

"As the documentary record shows, the lip service paid to “finding Osama” was never more than a convenient excuse for the Afghan invasion.

"In February of 2001, the Taliban offered to turn bin Laden over to the United States, but the US refused. The offer was repeated in October of 2001, shortly after the bombing started, but again the US rejected it. Bin Laden himself was not even in Afghanistan at the time of the 9/11 attacks, a point later confirmed by CBS News.

"Eventually, all pretence was dropped that the invasion of Afghanistan had anything to do with finding Osama bin Laden."


Last edited by marc on Mon Oct 15, 2012 3:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
Sun Oct 07, 2012 2:18 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: DAMP SQUIBS vs BIG FIREWORKS Reply with quote

Damp squibs vs Fireworks

Why Fly Planes into Towers AND Bring them Down?
Bombs in Towers: Why?

- Washington's Blog
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/bombs-in-towers-why.html

and

911: Made for a Movie-Mad World
- Tom Engelhardt
http://www.tomdispatch.com/post/118775/

Note: World Trade Center (WTC) towers were heavily redundant buildings, designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft, as well as hurricane winds. http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/nist/WTC_FAQ_reply.html

[snip] Engelhardt: "SO HERE was my what-if thought. What if the two hijacked planes, American Flight 11 and United 175, had plunged into those north and south towers at 8:46 and 9:03, killing all aboard, causing extensive damage and significant death tolls, but neither tower had come down?

What if, as a Tribune columnist called it, photogenic "scenes of apocalypse" had not been produced? What if, despite two gaping holes and the smoke and flames pouring out of the towers, the imagery had been closer to that of 1993? What if there had been no giant cloud of destruction capable of bringing to mind the look of "the day after," no images of crumbling towers worthy of Independence Day?

We would surely have had blazing headlines, but would they have commonly had "war" or "infamy" in them, as if we had been attacked by another state? Would the last superpower have gone from "invincible" to "vulnerable" in a split second? Would our newspapers instantly have been writing "before" and "after" editorials, or insisting that this moment was the ultimate "test" of George W. Bush's until-then languishing presidency? Would we instantaneously have been considering taking what CIA Director George Tenet would soon call "the shackles" off our intelligence agencies and the military?

Would we have been reconsidering, as Florida's Democratic Senator Bob Graham suggested that first day, rescinding the Congressional ban on the assassination of foreign officials and heads of state? Would a Washington Post journalist have been trying within hours to name the kind of "war" we were in? (He provisionally labeled it "the Gray War.") Would New York Times columnist Tom Friedman on the third day have had us deep into "World War III"?

Would the Times have been headlining and quoting Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz on its front page on September 14, insisting that "it's not simply a matter of capturing people and holding them accountable, but removing the sanctuaries, removing the support systems, ending states who sponsor terrorism." (The Times editorial writers certainly noticed that ominous "s" on "states" and wrote the next day: "but we trust [Wolfowitz] does not have in mind invading Iraq, Iran, Syria and Sudan as well as Afghanistan.")

Would state-to-state "war" and "acts of terror" have been so quickly conjoined in the media as a "war on terror" and would that phrase have made it, in just over a week, into a major presidential address? Could the Los Angeles Daily News have produced the following four-day series of screaming headlines, beating even the President to the punch: Terror/Horror!/"This Is War"/War on Terror?

If it all hadn't seemed so familiar, wouldn't we have noticed what was actually new in the attacks of September 11? Wouldn't more people have been as puzzled as, according to Ron Suskind in his new book The One Percent Doctrine, was one reporter who asked White House press secretary Ari Fleischer, "You don't declare war against an individual, surely"? Wouldn't Congress have balked at passing, three days later, an almost totally open-ended resolution granting the President the right to use force not against one nation (Afghanistan) but against "nations," plural and unnamed?

And how well would the Bush administration's fear-inspired nuclear agenda have worked, if those buildings hadn't come down? Would Saddam's supposed nuclear program and WMD stores have had the same impact? Would the endless linking of the Iraqi dictator, Al Qaeda, and 9/11 have penetrated so deeply that, in 2006, half of all Americans, according to a Harris Poll, still believed Saddam had WMD when the U.S. invasion began, and 85% of American troops stationed in Iraq, according to a Zogby poll, believed the US mission there was mainly "to retaliate for Saddam's role in the 9-11 attacks"?

Without that apocalyptic 9/11 imagery, would those fantasy Iraqi mushroom clouds pictured by administration officials rising over American cities or those fantasy Iraqi unmanned aerial vehicles capable of spraying our East Coast with chemical or biological weapons, or Saddam's supposed search for African yellowcake (or even, today, the Iranian "bomb" that won't exist for perhaps another decade, if at all) have so dominated American consciousness?

Would Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahiri be sitting in jail cells or be on trial by now? Would so many things have happened differently?

The Opportunity of a Lifetime

What if the attacks on September 11, 2001, had not been seen as a new Pearl Harbor? ....../ [end snip]





Empire State Building hit by a B25 in its upper floors in 1945.
Debris damage and raging fires - no collapse - lower half open for business as usual by Monday
Thu Oct 11, 2012 4:52 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
marc



Joined: 24 Jun 2008
Posts: 491

Post Post subject: Reply with quote

911 Revisited - International Conference - Perdana Global Peace Foundation, Kuala Lumpur

http://www.perdana4peace.org/events/conferences/911_revisited/

Audio of final summary available at the link. Hear prof Graeme MacQueen (founder of McMaster University Centre for Peace Studies) talking at 12 minutes in...

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

9/11 The Worst Man-made Disaster, Says Mahathir

KUALA LUMPUR, Nov 20 (Bernama) -- Former prime minister Tun Dr Mahathir Mohamad today laid bare the repercussions of the 9/11 attacks... labelling it as the worst man-made disaster for the world since the end of the last World War in 1945.
http://www.bernama.com.my/bernama/v6/newsindex.php?id=710016

VIDEO of Perdana Conference now available:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHBSG7Mf8T8&list=FLg8oq6NqbldVOWxmyRxfjZg&index=1&feature=plpp_video

JAMES CORBETT of CORBETT REPORT reports back from his visit to the International 911 Conference in Malaysia:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=foB3xQyJBEk&list=UU7TvL4GlQyMBLlUsTrN_C4Q


Last edited by marc on Tue Nov 27, 2012 12:18 pm; edited 1 time in total
Fri Nov 23, 2012 8:15 am
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Peter Cleall



Joined: 31 Jan 2008
Posts: 103

Post Post subject: The Osama bin Laden Myth Reply with quote

By Paul Craig Roberts
November 26, 2012
PaulCraigRoberts.org

The interview below with Osama bin Laden was conducted by the Karachi, Pakistan, daily newspaper, Ummat and published on September 28, 2001, 17 days after the alleged, but unsubstantiated, al Qaeda attack of September 11, 2001, on the World Trade Center twin towers and Pentagon. The interview was sensational. The alleged “mastermind” of 9/11 said that he and al Qaeda had nothing to do with the 9/11 attack. The British Broadcasting Corporation’s World Monitoring Service had the interview translated into English and made public on September 29, 2001.

Osama bin Laden’s sensational denial was not reported by the US print and TV media. It was not investigated by the executive branch. No one in the US Congress called attention to bin Laden’s refusal of responsibility for the greatest humiliation ever inflicted on a superpower.

To check my memory of the lack of coverage, I googled “Osama bin Laden’s interview denying responsibility for 9/11.” Some Internet sites reproduced the interview, but the only mainstream news source that I found was a 1 minute YouTube video from CNN in which the anchor, after quoting an al Jazeera report of bin Laden’s denial, concludes that “we can all weigh that in the scale of credibility and come to our own conclusions.” In other words, bin Laden had already been demonized, and his denial was not credible.

The sensational news was unfit for US citizens and was withheld from them by the american “free press,” a press free to lie for the government but not to tell the truth.

Obviously, if bin Laden had outwitted not only the National Security Agency, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, and the FBI, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies, all intelligence agencies of Washington’s NATO puppet states, Israel’s Mossad, and in addition the National Security Council, NORAD, US air traffic control, and airport security four times on the same morning, it would be the greatest feat in world history, a movement building feat that would have made al Qaeda the most successful anti-imperialist organization in human history, an extraordinary victory over “the great satan” that would have brought millions of new recruits into al Qaeda’s ranks. Yet the alleged “mastermind” denied all responsibility.
Read more -
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20121126085434911
Mon Nov 26, 2012 9:43 pm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Media Lens Forum Index -> off-topic All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 21, 22, 23
Page 23 of 23

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2005 phpBB Group
    printer friendly
eXTReMe Tracker