It's really hard to add anything to the important commentaries below other than to emphasize that Cheney, aptly termed the Darksider by the New Yorker and a million others, usually gets his way on these big ticket items: war, destruction and endless suffering.
I'm still skeptical about Bush-Cheney orchestrating another big or little 9/11 mostly because there are much less risky ways of managing the attack on Iran. The attack on Iran is the next 9/11.
See the Dover Bitch blog for a really good look from the inside on the recent 97-0 Senate vote effectively ok'ing any Bush attack on Iran -- Lieberman's (and Bush -Cheney et al's) wet dream. .
http://doverbitch.blogspot.com/2007/07/closer.html
Dover B's article omits the reason that the Democrats felt compelled to allow such a vote and their fear of raising their hands against it: AIPAC.
It's amazing, or simply a sign of the times that intelligent people, Lieberman included, can so cavalierly give up their own security and the welfare of their children and grandchildren to the greater purpose of starting a war with an enemy of Israel. They are so blind that they don't see that this is not only bad for Arabs, not to mention the rest of the world, but bad for Israel as well.
Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
Jeff wrote:
Should there be an Israeli attack on Iran, which has always been more of a possibility than one launched by the US, the current situation in Iraq will appear like a garden party, albeit a grisly one, in retrospect, with the possibilities of a wide spread Middle East war likely to be the outcome with a major disruption of the regional oil supply and a crisis in the world's economy a by-product. It should be clear that the prospect for such a scenario would not even be on the table were it not for the constant drumbeat over the past two years by the Jewish Zionist lobby in the US and only that lobby, spearheaded by its neocon strike force. Given the power of the lobby over the US Congress as well as the White House, we can expect loud applause from both Houses of Congress as well as the leadership of both political parties as well as from their leading presidential candidates should Israel attack. This will, of course, understandably inflame the already existing anti-American sentiment around the globe and make US institutions as well as its citizens targets for retaliation. What better time than that for the administration, in the spirit of Operations Northwoods, the sinking of the USS Maine, and quite likely, 9-11, to launch a smaller version of 9-11 or series of such events around the country in order to justify the imposition of martial law? I have been skeptical of such a scenario up to now, but as the administrations of both Bush and Olmert have seen the bottom fall out of their popularity ratings and consequently neither have anything to lose, and while the lobby has been behaving as if it is on steroids while the Congress is on valium, this disaster may well await the world.-JB
http://villagevoice.com/blogs/bushbeat/
Village Voice
The Bush Beat «by Ward Harkavy |
A Different 'Gut Feeling': Israel Attacking Iran
It always pays to be suspicious when a U.S. official ramps up fear, but Homeland Security czar Michael Chertoff's "gut feeling" remark about an Al Qaeda attack on the U.S. this summer sparks a different suspicion — and a similar sinking feeling: Israel is about to launch a unilateral strike on Iran.
It's not a cinch, but that queasy feeling is building. Seymour Hersh wrote long ago (in his January 2005 "The Coming Wars") about such a Pentagon-induced nightmare. But now that Iraq is a total disaster, the warhawks are stepping up the drumbeat to attack Iran — either by the U.S. or Israel, even arguing that Iran has in effect already declared war on the U.S. by aiding rebels in Iraq.
One of Israel's top officials says he's got the go-ahead from NATO's U.S. and European officials to attack Iran. Chertoff, aware of a longstanding, fierce debate in the White House over attacking Iran, admits a "gut feeling," saying it's about Al Qaeda but probably feeling queasier about what an attack on Iran would do to inflame terrorists. Condoleezza Rice, said to be an opponent of a U.S. attack on Iran, suddenly cancels a visit to Israel. For the warhawks, that keeps her out of harm's way and blunts her attempts to talk with both Muslims and Jews. Israel couldn't very well attack Iran while hosting the U.S. secretary of state.
For all you conspiracy theorists out there — and those of you who pooh-pooh this as simply conspiracy theorizing — here are some of the building blocks of that suspicion:
• July 2: Senator Joe Lieberman (D-Israel/Connecticut) tells the Hartford Courant that "the fact is that the Iranian government has by its actions declared war on us." Lieberman doesn't speak for the entire U.S. government, obviously, but he does speak for a substantial number of powerful warhawks in and out of the White House. Lieberman adds:
"The United States government has a responsibility to use all instruments at its disposal to stop these terrorist attacks against our soldiers and allies in Iraq, including keeping open the possibility of using military force against the terrorist infrastructure inside Iran."
• July 10: Israel's minister of strategic affairs, Avigdor Lieberman, says Europe and the U.S. have given tacit approval for Israel to unilaterally attack Iran's nuclear plants. From Israel Today:
"If we start military operations against Iran alone, then Europe and the US will support us," Lieberman told [Israeli] Army Radio following a meeting earlier in the week with NATO and European Union officials.
Lieberman said the Western powers acknowledged the severity of the Iranian nuclear threat to the Jewish state, but said that ongoing conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq are "going to prevent the leaders of countries in Europe and America from deciding on the use of force to destroy Iran's nuclear facilities," even if diplomacy ultimately fails.
The message Avigdor Lieberman said the NATO and EU officials conveyed to him is that Israel should "prevent the threat herself."
That's not as far-fetched as it sounds. As conservative anti-war talking head Philip Giraldi notes on the same day as Avigdor Lieberman's comments:
It is widely believed that Vice President Dick Cheney and his national security adviser David Wurmser have deliberately limited the playing field because they have no desire to engage Iran amicably and are instead fixated on regime change in Tehran as the only acceptable solution to the "Persian problem." Cheney has been ably seconded by fellow hawk Elliot Abrams at the National Security Council, who has been working to undercut Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's efforts to avoid a war. Wurmser, meanwhile, has been advising the like-minded at the American Enterprise Institute that Cheney does not believe in negotiations and has promised that the Bush Administration will deal with Iran militarily before its term of office ends.
The Cheney-Wurmser-Abrams axis is opposed to Administration figures like Rice, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, and the intelligence agency chiefs, all of whom are reluctant to do a replay of Iraq in Iran. The Iraq Studies Group (ISG) recommended engaging Iran and all other local players including Syria to help stabilize Iraq and the broader Persian Gulf region. It also recommended taking serious steps to resolve the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. As "serious steps" would consist of Washington pressuring Israel, the ISG report has been coolly received by the White House and with intense hostility by certain Congressmen who are closely tied to Israel.
• July 10: Chertoff tells the Chicago Tribune's editorial writers:
I believe we're entering a period this summer of increased risk. We've seen a lot more public statements from Al Qaeda. There are a lot of reasons to speculate about that but one reason that occurs to me is that they're feeling more comfortable and raising expectations. In the last August, and in prior summers, we've had attacks against the West, which suggests that summer seems to be appealing to them. I think we do see increased activity in South Asia, so we do worry about whether they are rebuilding their capabilities. We've struck at them and degraded them, but they rebuild. All these things have given me kind of a gut feeling that we are in a period of increased vulnerability.
• July 12: Rice hastily cancels her trip to Israel and the OPT (Occupied Palestinian Territories, as the U.N. and many others refer to it).
Spokesman Sean McCormack downplays it at his daily briefing for reporters as merely a postponement:
I want to update you on the Secretary's travel schedule. At this point, we are going to postpone the stop — the planned stops in Jerusalem and Ramallah until the end of the month. The Secretary and — Secretary Rice is going to be traveling to the region, as the President announced, in part with Secretary Gates. So she decided that it was appropriate to postpone these two stops and combine it with that trip. So we'll have more information on that trip, the dates, and the stops as we get closer to it, but I would expect that we would leave towards the end of the month and then there would be some joint travel with Secretary Gates at the very beginning of August.
At least some reporters are skeptical. One follows up with this:
Why was it appropriate to postpone those stops if she still plans to travel next week and she's going to be in Africa not that far away? Why not just go ahead and do the important work with the Israeli and the Palestinians?
McCormack's reply doesn't pass the smell test:
Well, if you look at where she is going, there is actually quite a distance from where she still plans to go to travel in the Middle East. And also, given the time in which we find ourselves, there's a lot of discussion going on concerning Iraq, there's certainly a lot of discussion, policy-wise, about the Middle East. And she thought it was appropriate to be back in Washington during this time and plus, from a logistical standpoint, it just made sense.
• July 12: U.S. intelligence chiefs meet at the White House to discuss a report that Al Qaeda is stronger now than at any time since 9/11. >From this morning's Times (U.K.):
Michael Chertoff, the Homeland Security Secretary, has spent days trying to play down comments that his "gut feeling" was that the US faced a heightened risk of attack this summer. . . .
Mr Chertoff emphasised yesterday that "we don’t have any specific information about an imminent or near-term attack on the homeland". However, the Times has been told that US and British intelligence services monitoring al-Qaeda networks have picked up "an increased level of chatter" in recent weeks.
Maybe so, but Chertoff could have been ratcheting up fear so that an attack on Iran would be more palatable to the masses as yet another "front" in the War of Terror. Or perhaps he was just unconsciously channeling the more ominous "chatter" from our own warhawks about an Israeli attack on Iran's nukes. Think about the poisonous cloud of radioactivity and even more terrorists that would produce.
categories: BUSHSPEAK, CHEERLEADERS, CHRIST, JESUS, COLLATERAL DAMAGE, CRUSADERS, Cheney, EXCUSES (FOR WAR), GWOT, Israel, SATAN, GREAT
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 9/11. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 18, 2007
Sunday, July 15, 2007
Kurt Nimmo: Osama: Dead, again! + Bleier on 911, Continuity of Government
If Kurt Nimmo has said it once, he's said it 100 times: Osama is dead. He died a natural death shortly after 9/11. Here Nimmo reprises some of the evidence and the links. Nimmo's blog was apparently written just before the appearance of the latest Bin Laden video tape on Sunday (7.14)
One interesting question is: Since the Bush-Cheney mob planned and executed 9/11, what prevents them from organizing another one as per the latest summer round of warnings? My guess is that it's not gonna happen. As the Brits say: it was a one off. The warnings are a clue. If it were to happen, they wouldn't be warning us. Second, I think the 9/11 Truth Movement should get some credit. There are perhaps scores of millions of people now who understand what really happened and are now alerted to the extent of some of the perfidy of this government.
On another related issue, it's far from clear to me that Cheney is not plotting some way to continue past Jan 2009. It's called continuity of government. Needless to say, they would need another Pearl Harbor/911 event in order to do so. The obvious candidate is an attack against Iran which could change everything. On the other hand such an attack would have to be handled in such a way so as not to backfire against them, especially bearing in mind their low approval ratings.
On the question of continuity of government, I've always wondered why Cheney was so adamant on 9/11 that Bush not return immediately to Washington, and kept him away for the whole day. Could it be that the original plan called for martial law and a suspension of the Constitution? In that case, until the dust settled, and Cheney could figure out what would follow, it was important to keep Bush away, in part to signal that Constitutional government had not yet resumed. On this sub-theme, it would be mighty interesting to know whether Bush's televised statements from different US bases across the country were coordinated with Cheney or were signs of a power struggle between the two camps.
Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
Kurt Nimmo writes:
Osama: More Bounty, More Baloney
Saturday July 14th 2007, 10:50 am
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=925
It is politics as usual. In order to hype the “war on terror” angle over what is perceived as a floundering effort in Iraq—in fact, the effort in Iraq is a smashing (no pun intended) success, as it has destroyed the country—the “U.S. Senate on Friday voted to double the bounty on Osama bin Laden to $50 million and require President George W. Bush to refocus on capturing him after reports al Qaeda is gaining strength,” according to Reuters. “By a vote of 87-1, the Senate set the reward for the killing or capture, or information leading to the capture, of the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.”
Of course, there is no evidence Osama bin Laden had anything to do with nine eleven and the government refuses to provide any, beyond pointing to a handful of obviously faked video and audio tapes.
Moreover, as the Arab and Asian media reported years ago, Osama bin Laden died in December, 2001, in Afghanistan. “A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa’da organization, stating that bin Laden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora,” al-Wafd, an Egyptian newspaper, reported on December 26, 2001.
It should be recalled that even the neocon-infested Bush administration admitted on January 18, 2002, that bin Laden “needs dialysis every three days,” as reported by CNN, and “that could be an issue when you are running from place to place, and facing the idea of needing to generate electricity in a mountain hideout,” according to an unnamed U.S. official. As any doctor will tell you, hemodialysis, or renal dialysis, “is something that really is reserved for patients in end-stage renal failure. That means their kidneys have just completely shut down,” as Dr. Sanjay Gupta notes. It is, to say the least, absurd to believe “al-Qaeda” would be able to keep a dying Osama on a complicated dialysis machine in a cave situated in a remote mountainous area of one of the most backward countries in the world. It is not, as the above quoted Bush factotum indicates, an “issue,” it is rather an impossibility.
In October, 2002, a London-based Arab news magazine published Osama’s last will and testament. “He did write the will as someone saying good-bye,” Hani Nakshabandi of the Arab news magazine Al Majalla told CNN. “He said one of the magazine’s reporters obtained the four-page document, said to be signed by the leader of the al Qaeda terrorist network and dated December 14, 2001, in Afghanistan…. In the document, which was translated for CNN, the writer expresses disappointment with the Taliban, who harbored him in Afghanistan, speaks of betrayal, and urges his children to shun al Qaeda.”
Naturally, this story soon found its way to the memory hole, as it does not jive with the plan to demonize Osama, a plan alive and well, unlike Bin Laden, and kicking around the U.S. Senate nearly six years after Osama departed the mortal coil to be with 72 virgins in heaven. It is interesting Osama warned his “children to shun al Qaeda,” good advice as the organization, named after a database of mujahideen mercenaries and patsies, is a CIA-ISI contrivance.
“My last advice is to the mujahedeen everywhere,” declares Osama’s will. “Take a breather and put aside for the time being, fighting the Jews and the Crusades, and instead devote your efforts to purifying your groups from the agents and the cowards and those impostors who claim to be scholars amongst you.” In short, “al-Qaeda,” according to its purported leader, was rife with fake jihadists, poseurs, spooks, and informers, as should be expected of a bogus terror organization created by the CIA.
Finally, to underscore the fact Osama is dead, last July the CIA “closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants,” the New York Times reported. No sense wasting precious resources hunting for a dead man, even if the hunt was a front all along.
“Top U.S. intelligence officials informed the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee this week that inhabitants of remote northwestern Pakistan, where bin Laden is believed to be holed up, have proved impervious to the financial rewards already on offer from the U.S. government,” Reuters continues. “The U.S. government says it has spent more than $62 million in a ‘rewards for justice’ program for various information that has helped prevent attacks or prosecute those responsible for attacks.”
Of course, the impoverished dirt farmers of northwestern Pakistan are “impervious to the financial rewards” because Osama is long dead and buried, not in Pakistan but over the border in Afghanistan.
But never mind. None of this matters. It is simply more propaganda designed to scare witless American adults and small children, as the Senate, once again, tells us “al Qaeda is gaining strength,” not unlike Orwell’s Emmanuel Goldstein, the stuff of two minute hate sessions on Fox News and CNN. In fact, the spooks are burning the midnight oil, cranking out “al-Sahab” propaganda tapes (the “al-Qaeda” supposed “propaganda unit” has issued 62 “messages” in just over six months this year), in order that terrorism remain front and center, never mind that the latest events attributed to “al-Qaeda,” namely the lame “attack” on the Glasgow airport, are so inept as to be entirely laughable, that is to say they would be laughable if not for the fact such cartoonish antics are used to slowly rob us of our liberty and lock us up in a high-tech police state.
One interesting question is: Since the Bush-Cheney mob planned and executed 9/11, what prevents them from organizing another one as per the latest summer round of warnings? My guess is that it's not gonna happen. As the Brits say: it was a one off. The warnings are a clue. If it were to happen, they wouldn't be warning us. Second, I think the 9/11 Truth Movement should get some credit. There are perhaps scores of millions of people now who understand what really happened and are now alerted to the extent of some of the perfidy of this government.
On another related issue, it's far from clear to me that Cheney is not plotting some way to continue past Jan 2009. It's called continuity of government. Needless to say, they would need another Pearl Harbor/911 event in order to do so. The obvious candidate is an attack against Iran which could change everything. On the other hand such an attack would have to be handled in such a way so as not to backfire against them, especially bearing in mind their low approval ratings.
On the question of continuity of government, I've always wondered why Cheney was so adamant on 9/11 that Bush not return immediately to Washington, and kept him away for the whole day. Could it be that the original plan called for martial law and a suspension of the Constitution? In that case, until the dust settled, and Cheney could figure out what would follow, it was important to keep Bush away, in part to signal that Constitutional government had not yet resumed. On this sub-theme, it would be mighty interesting to know whether Bush's televised statements from different US bases across the country were coordinated with Cheney or were signs of a power struggle between the two camps.
Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
Kurt Nimmo writes:
Osama: More Bounty, More Baloney
Saturday July 14th 2007, 10:50 am
http://kurtnimmo.com/?p=925
It is politics as usual. In order to hype the “war on terror” angle over what is perceived as a floundering effort in Iraq—in fact, the effort in Iraq is a smashing (no pun intended) success, as it has destroyed the country—the “U.S. Senate on Friday voted to double the bounty on Osama bin Laden to $50 million and require President George W. Bush to refocus on capturing him after reports al Qaeda is gaining strength,” according to Reuters. “By a vote of 87-1, the Senate set the reward for the killing or capture, or information leading to the capture, of the mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States.”
Of course, there is no evidence Osama bin Laden had anything to do with nine eleven and the government refuses to provide any, beyond pointing to a handful of obviously faked video and audio tapes.
Moreover, as the Arab and Asian media reported years ago, Osama bin Laden died in December, 2001, in Afghanistan. “A prominent official in the Afghan Taleban movement announced yesterday the death of Osama bin Laden, the chief of al-Qa’da organization, stating that bin Laden suffered serious complications in the lungs and died a natural and quiet death. The official, who asked to remain anonymous, stated to The Observer of Pakistan that he had himself attended the funeral of bin Laden and saw his face prior to burial in Tora Bora,” al-Wafd, an Egyptian newspaper, reported on December 26, 2001.
It should be recalled that even the neocon-infested Bush administration admitted on January 18, 2002, that bin Laden “needs dialysis every three days,” as reported by CNN, and “that could be an issue when you are running from place to place, and facing the idea of needing to generate electricity in a mountain hideout,” according to an unnamed U.S. official. As any doctor will tell you, hemodialysis, or renal dialysis, “is something that really is reserved for patients in end-stage renal failure. That means their kidneys have just completely shut down,” as Dr. Sanjay Gupta notes. It is, to say the least, absurd to believe “al-Qaeda” would be able to keep a dying Osama on a complicated dialysis machine in a cave situated in a remote mountainous area of one of the most backward countries in the world. It is not, as the above quoted Bush factotum indicates, an “issue,” it is rather an impossibility.
In October, 2002, a London-based Arab news magazine published Osama’s last will and testament. “He did write the will as someone saying good-bye,” Hani Nakshabandi of the Arab news magazine Al Majalla told CNN. “He said one of the magazine’s reporters obtained the four-page document, said to be signed by the leader of the al Qaeda terrorist network and dated December 14, 2001, in Afghanistan…. In the document, which was translated for CNN, the writer expresses disappointment with the Taliban, who harbored him in Afghanistan, speaks of betrayal, and urges his children to shun al Qaeda.”
Naturally, this story soon found its way to the memory hole, as it does not jive with the plan to demonize Osama, a plan alive and well, unlike Bin Laden, and kicking around the U.S. Senate nearly six years after Osama departed the mortal coil to be with 72 virgins in heaven. It is interesting Osama warned his “children to shun al Qaeda,” good advice as the organization, named after a database of mujahideen mercenaries and patsies, is a CIA-ISI contrivance.
“My last advice is to the mujahedeen everywhere,” declares Osama’s will. “Take a breather and put aside for the time being, fighting the Jews and the Crusades, and instead devote your efforts to purifying your groups from the agents and the cowards and those impostors who claim to be scholars amongst you.” In short, “al-Qaeda,” according to its purported leader, was rife with fake jihadists, poseurs, spooks, and informers, as should be expected of a bogus terror organization created by the CIA.
Finally, to underscore the fact Osama is dead, last July the CIA “closed a unit that for a decade had the mission of hunting Osama bin Laden and his top lieutenants,” the New York Times reported. No sense wasting precious resources hunting for a dead man, even if the hunt was a front all along.
“Top U.S. intelligence officials informed the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee this week that inhabitants of remote northwestern Pakistan, where bin Laden is believed to be holed up, have proved impervious to the financial rewards already on offer from the U.S. government,” Reuters continues. “The U.S. government says it has spent more than $62 million in a ‘rewards for justice’ program for various information that has helped prevent attacks or prosecute those responsible for attacks.”
Of course, the impoverished dirt farmers of northwestern Pakistan are “impervious to the financial rewards” because Osama is long dead and buried, not in Pakistan but over the border in Afghanistan.
But never mind. None of this matters. It is simply more propaganda designed to scare witless American adults and small children, as the Senate, once again, tells us “al Qaeda is gaining strength,” not unlike Orwell’s Emmanuel Goldstein, the stuff of two minute hate sessions on Fox News and CNN. In fact, the spooks are burning the midnight oil, cranking out “al-Sahab” propaganda tapes (the “al-Qaeda” supposed “propaganda unit” has issued 62 “messages” in just over six months this year), in order that terrorism remain front and center, never mind that the latest events attributed to “al-Qaeda,” namely the lame “attack” on the Glasgow airport, are so inept as to be entirely laughable, that is to say they would be laughable if not for the fact such cartoonish antics are used to slowly rob us of our liberty and lock us up in a high-tech police state.
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Bleier/Still Diggin: No planes on 911
In April, Still Diggin sent me the email below including a link to his 911 blog. As you’ll see, he says that he has spent 4 months researching no planes and he’s concluded:
No planes crashed anywhere on September 11th. It’s a fact.
I like this. Succinctly stated. Of course there's the little matter of proving it.
The most interesting information I found on his blog is Exhibit A, his interpretation of a frame from one of the (in)famous videos of the plane going into the South Tower (the second hit). Once you're convinced, as I am from the work of Holmgren and Reynolds and Webfairy etc. that no big passenger planes were involved in the 9/11 terror, Still Diggin's photo and his interpretation makes sense. But as he says himself, one photo is not going to change most people's minds.
His exhibit B may or may not make sense. I'm not capable of judging.
His exhibit C, information and photos and diagrams relating to the supposed exit of parts of the plane from the South Tower that we saw on the video is more interesting. One part that I found easy to understand is that a photo he reproduces of the aftermath of the _plane_ exiting the South Tower, reveals that no sections of steel columns are missing. This is circumstantial evidence that the video showing parts of the plane exiting the building is a fake.
We can deduce that if the video is a fake than something other than a big passenger jet caused the damage. So that's helpful.
Still Diggin's subsequent comments are interesting but marred I found by his sarcastic tone which may put off some readers.
It was very good to see another convert to the cause. If people would like to pursue this issue I recommend they read breakthrough essays by Gerard Holmgren and Morgan Reynolds (see below). If they do, they will find for example that the government has refused (or been unable) to present "a single airplane part by serial number for independent corroboration," and why there is no confirmed debris of any of the alleged four planes
It goes without saying that the importance of the no planes theory (NPT) cannot be overstated. If there were no planes involved in the 9/11 terror, than there were no hijackers, Muslim fanatics or otherwise. Those who refuse to look objectively at NPT evidence may be said to some extent to be supporting the official account and more importantly, implicitly supporting the bogus war on terror since they would seem to be acknowledging that Islamic fundamentalists were involved, even if only as patsies.
No Planes is perfectly consistent with Bush administration policies regarding torture, Guantanamo, warrantless wiretapping, etc. If there were no Muslim hijackers, then can be no evidence to produce against them, and thus no fair judge who would sign an order for them to continue to be detained. And that might partly or largely explain why the Bush administration refuses to allow them due process. And also why they have arranged matters so that every single person in the world, including American citizens, is liable to be termed an enemy combatant and lose all habeas corpus protections.
Ronald
Bibliography
Gerard Holmgren, "Manufactured Terrorism – The Truth About Sept 11," (2004, revised 2006). www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=51
Morgan Reynolds, "We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories," (March 2006). http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes
***
Still Diggin wrote:
April 2007
I devoted 4 months to advancing the "no-planer" argument.
Now I'm trying to spread the word. Maybe you can help?
The Earth Is Not Flat
No planes crashed anywhere on September 11th. It’s a fact.
I like this. Succinctly stated. Of course there's the little matter of proving it.
The most interesting information I found on his blog is Exhibit A, his interpretation of a frame from one of the (in)famous videos of the plane going into the South Tower (the second hit). Once you're convinced, as I am from the work of Holmgren and Reynolds and Webfairy etc. that no big passenger planes were involved in the 9/11 terror, Still Diggin's photo and his interpretation makes sense. But as he says himself, one photo is not going to change most people's minds.
His exhibit B may or may not make sense. I'm not capable of judging.
His exhibit C, information and photos and diagrams relating to the supposed exit of parts of the plane from the South Tower that we saw on the video is more interesting. One part that I found easy to understand is that a photo he reproduces of the aftermath of the _plane_ exiting the South Tower, reveals that no sections of steel columns are missing. This is circumstantial evidence that the video showing parts of the plane exiting the building is a fake.
We can deduce that if the video is a fake than something other than a big passenger jet caused the damage. So that's helpful.
Still Diggin's subsequent comments are interesting but marred I found by his sarcastic tone which may put off some readers.
It was very good to see another convert to the cause. If people would like to pursue this issue I recommend they read breakthrough essays by Gerard Holmgren and Morgan Reynolds (see below). If they do, they will find for example that the government has refused (or been unable) to present "a single airplane part by serial number for independent corroboration," and why there is no confirmed debris of any of the alleged four planes
It goes without saying that the importance of the no planes theory (NPT) cannot be overstated. If there were no planes involved in the 9/11 terror, than there were no hijackers, Muslim fanatics or otherwise. Those who refuse to look objectively at NPT evidence may be said to some extent to be supporting the official account and more importantly, implicitly supporting the bogus war on terror since they would seem to be acknowledging that Islamic fundamentalists were involved, even if only as patsies.
No Planes is perfectly consistent with Bush administration policies regarding torture, Guantanamo, warrantless wiretapping, etc. If there were no Muslim hijackers, then can be no evidence to produce against them, and thus no fair judge who would sign an order for them to continue to be detained. And that might partly or largely explain why the Bush administration refuses to allow them due process. And also why they have arranged matters so that every single person in the world, including American citizens, is liable to be termed an enemy combatant and lose all habeas corpus protections.
Ronald
Bibliography
Gerard Holmgren, "Manufactured Terrorism – The Truth About Sept 11," (2004, revised 2006). www.911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=51
Morgan Reynolds, "We Have Some Holes in the Plane Stories," (March 2006). http://nomoregames.net/index.php?page=911&subpage1=we_have_holes
***
Still Diggin wrote:
April 2007
I devoted 4 months to advancing the "no-planer" argument.
Now I'm trying to spread the word. Maybe you can help?
The Earth Is Not Flat
Saturday, February 17, 2007
Brasscheck TV: Clues to 911 as an inside job
This short video is well worth watching. It's more circumstantial evidence that there were early, incredibly early attempts to spin the story towards what would become the official story.
This evidence is likely to be most interesting to those already convinced that the official story cannot be true. It may also be helpful if not decisive for those still looking for answers to many unanswered questions. For those firmly entrenched into the official version -- well, they're used to explaining much stronger stuff away.
After you watch the video you may be interested to see below that Google (which has apparent CIA connections) quickly removed this popular video from their video site and apparently didn't allow YouTube to host this video.
Item: See my No Planes article for my quibble about Brasscheck's claim below about the supposed air defense stand down. If there were no planes, there was no need for a stand down. And if there was controlled demolition there was no need for planes to crash into the buildings. The planes story was just a distraction.
Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
PS. For those interested in more very informative videos like this one, check out the brasscheck site below.
The 9/11 Solution: The big clue everyone missed
www.brasschecktv.com
9 min 43 sec - Jan 27, 2007
Average rating: (18 ratings)
Description: A very specific and measurable program to manipulate public opinion began within minutes of the September 11 attacks. Many "myths" about what happened on 9/11 were presented as facts by the US mass media long before anyone could have possibly had the information or done the research to verify them. This indicates that in addition to arranging for air defense to fail on 9/11, the conspirators also took care to prepare cover stories well in advance of the attacks and had the means to have these cover stories aired on the major networks while perceptions of the situation were still fluid. This video is based on news footage that appeared within just a few hours (and sometimes just a few minutes) of the initial attacks. Most of these clips were aired once never to be seen again. They offer support to the hypothesis that the 9/11 attacks were very specifically anticipated by elements within US intelligence and the military.
Want to see more cool videos?
Go to video.google.com/
Think you have an even cooler video?
Add it at video.google.com/videouploadform
If you're having trouble watching the video, try copying the following URL into your browser:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3074561005024763960&pr=goog-sl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 9/11 Solution
The big clue everyone missed
How the key 9/11 myths were implanted
Two major 9/11 anomalies have been thoroughly documented, specifically:
1) The stand down of US air defense on the morning of 9/11 that permitted commercial jet aircraft to fly erratically and in restricted air space without challenge
2) Overwhelming physical evidence that World Trade Center buildings #1, #2, and #7 were brought down by controlled demolition
A third significant anomaly has not been discussed, let alone acknowledged: the reporting by the major US TV news networks in the first few hours immediately after the attacks.
Specifically:
1. MSNBC presented an elaborately detailed story about the lifestyle and anti-US philosophy of Osama bin Laden - while both towers were still burning and long before Bin Laden had been accused by anyone.
2. Fox News featured a "man in the street" eye witness who explained in strangely formal language the science behind why the towers collapsed when most engineers and firemen were utterly baffled and in shock by what had just taken place.
3. CBS featured a Bush administration insider (and not identified as such) as a guest who actively worked to dissuade Dan Rather (and viewers) from speculating that there must have been explosive charges placed in the buildings for them to have collapsed the way they did.
How was it that these stories - based on no fact, no research and no inquirry - appeared in full blown form so quickly on US news networks and then became part of the core myths of what happened on 9/11?
Were these stories prepared in advance?
There's an old intelligence saying that "once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, but three times is enemy action."
Because most of these clips ran only once and were not repeated after they'd done their job, it made it difficult, if not impossible, for viewers to analyze them critically.
Now, thanks to the magic of video tape and a few people who immediately started taping the news after the attacks, we have this important evidence that at the very least these attacks appear to have been anticipated and prepared for by forces that have the ability to exert strong influence over the output of the newsrooms of major US news networks.
See the complete catalog of
free Brasscheck TV videos
This evidence is likely to be most interesting to those already convinced that the official story cannot be true. It may also be helpful if not decisive for those still looking for answers to many unanswered questions. For those firmly entrenched into the official version -- well, they're used to explaining much stronger stuff away.
After you watch the video you may be interested to see below that Google (which has apparent CIA connections) quickly removed this popular video from their video site and apparently didn't allow YouTube to host this video.
Item: See my No Planes article for my quibble about Brasscheck's claim below about the supposed air defense stand down. If there were no planes, there was no need for a stand down. And if there was controlled demolition there was no need for planes to crash into the buildings. The planes story was just a distraction.
Ronald
http://desip.igc.org
PS. For those interested in more very informative videos like this one, check out the brasscheck site below.
The 9/11 Solution: The big clue everyone missed
www.brasschecktv.com
9 min 43 sec - Jan 27, 2007
Average rating: (18 ratings)
Description: A very specific and measurable program to manipulate public opinion began within minutes of the September 11 attacks. Many "myths" about what happened on 9/11 were presented as facts by the US mass media long before anyone could have possibly had the information or done the research to verify them. This indicates that in addition to arranging for air defense to fail on 9/11, the conspirators also took care to prepare cover stories well in advance of the attacks and had the means to have these cover stories aired on the major networks while perceptions of the situation were still fluid. This video is based on news footage that appeared within just a few hours (and sometimes just a few minutes) of the initial attacks. Most of these clips were aired once never to be seen again. They offer support to the hypothesis that the 9/11 attacks were very specifically anticipated by elements within US intelligence and the military.
Want to see more cool videos?
Go to video.google.com/
Think you have an even cooler video?
Add it at video.google.com/videouploadform
If you're having trouble watching the video, try copying the following URL into your browser:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3074561005024763960&pr=goog-sl
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 9/11 Solution
The big clue everyone missed
How the key 9/11 myths were implanted
Two major 9/11 anomalies have been thoroughly documented, specifically:
1) The stand down of US air defense on the morning of 9/11 that permitted commercial jet aircraft to fly erratically and in restricted air space without challenge
2) Overwhelming physical evidence that World Trade Center buildings #1, #2, and #7 were brought down by controlled demolition
A third significant anomaly has not been discussed, let alone acknowledged: the reporting by the major US TV news networks in the first few hours immediately after the attacks.
Specifically:
1. MSNBC presented an elaborately detailed story about the lifestyle and anti-US philosophy of Osama bin Laden - while both towers were still burning and long before Bin Laden had been accused by anyone.
2. Fox News featured a "man in the street" eye witness who explained in strangely formal language the science behind why the towers collapsed when most engineers and firemen were utterly baffled and in shock by what had just taken place.
3. CBS featured a Bush administration insider (and not identified as such) as a guest who actively worked to dissuade Dan Rather (and viewers) from speculating that there must have been explosive charges placed in the buildings for them to have collapsed the way they did.
How was it that these stories - based on no fact, no research and no inquirry - appeared in full blown form so quickly on US news networks and then became part of the core myths of what happened on 9/11?
Were these stories prepared in advance?
There's an old intelligence saying that "once is happenstance, twice is coincidence, but three times is enemy action."
Because most of these clips ran only once and were not repeated after they'd done their job, it made it difficult, if not impossible, for viewers to analyze them critically.
Now, thanks to the magic of video tape and a few people who immediately started taping the news after the attacks, we have this important evidence that at the very least these attacks appear to have been anticipated and prepared for by forces that have the ability to exert strong influence over the output of the newsrooms of major US news networks.
See the complete catalog of
free Brasscheck TV videos
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
