Because of the media silence about 9/11, it is all too easy to forget all of the people who did speak out and question the official story.
PETITION: Revise the U.S. government final report on the collapse of Building 7
Revise the U.S. government final report on the collapse of Building 7
Why this petition is important:
Building 7 of the World Trade Center, a 47 story building, contained offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) several financial institutions and then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management.
Despite never being hit by an airplane, Building 7 was reduced to a pile of rubble in about 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001. After 9/11 this fact has been widely covered up by the U.S. mass media and was even omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report.
NIST, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (a U.S. government agency) was authorized by Congress to determine “why and how WTC 7 collapsed.” NIST produced a preliminary draft of their final report in August, 2008 omitting the fact that Building 7 fell at free fall acceleration for part of its descent. After a physicist challenged NIST on this point the final report, in November 2008 admitted free fall acceleration for 105' or 2.25 seconds.
NIST wrote, “A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found . . . (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s . . . .” (Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, NIST NCSTAR 1A, page 48)
However NIST claimed that this was consistent with their own fire based collapse theory which alleged that the entire collapse began because column 79 became laterally unsupported and buckled due to heat. NIST has refused to disclose their entire computer model and this column 79 theory was not based on any hard evidence.
NIST has already admitted the scientific fact of free fall acceleration in Building 7. This is remarkable! Now we ask that NIST tell what this means: that the entire building structure below for at least eight floors was removed just as Building 7 began to fall. Does this not imply use of explosives? We petition for a response.
This may give a very different understanding of what really happened on 9/11.
The reason this matters in 2012 is that the U.S. continues to kill countless people in the so called war on terror all based on the assumption that the World Trade Center attacks were done solely by Muslims.
Muslims would not have had the access to Building 7, the equipment, the knowledge of the sophisticated process of controlled demolition nor the time to arrange it.
I want peace for myself, my family and friends and millions of people I don’t even know.
Thank you.
Why this petition is important:
Building 7 of the World Trade Center, a 47 story building, contained offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) several financial institutions and then-Mayor Giuliani's Office of Emergency Management.
Despite never being hit by an airplane, Building 7 was reduced to a pile of rubble in about 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001. After 9/11 this fact has been widely covered up by the U.S. mass media and was even omitted from the 9/11 Commission Report.
NIST, the National Institute for Standards and Technology (a U.S. government agency) was authorized by Congress to determine “why and how WTC 7 collapsed.” NIST produced a preliminary draft of their final report in August, 2008 omitting the fact that Building 7 fell at free fall acceleration for part of its descent. After a physicist challenged NIST on this point the final report, in November 2008 admitted free fall acceleration for 105' or 2.25 seconds.
NIST wrote, “A more detailed analysis of the descent of the north face found . . . (2) a freefall descent over approximately eight stories at gravitational acceleration for approximately 2.25 s . . . .” (Final Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, NIST NCSTAR 1A, page 48)
However NIST claimed that this was consistent with their own fire based collapse theory which alleged that the entire collapse began because column 79 became laterally unsupported and buckled due to heat. NIST has refused to disclose their entire computer model and this column 79 theory was not based on any hard evidence.
NIST has already admitted the scientific fact of free fall acceleration in Building 7. This is remarkable! Now we ask that NIST tell what this means: that the entire building structure below for at least eight floors was removed just as Building 7 began to fall. Does this not imply use of explosives? We petition for a response.
This may give a very different understanding of what really happened on 9/11.
The reason this matters in 2012 is that the U.S. continues to kill countless people in the so called war on terror all based on the assumption that the World Trade Center attacks were done solely by Muslims.
Muslims would not have had the access to Building 7, the equipment, the knowledge of the sophisticated process of controlled demolition nor the time to arrange it.
I want peace for myself, my family and friends and millions of people I don’t even know.
Thank you.
FULL LENGTH MOVIE: 9/11 Press for Truth
This is one of the BEST movies.
It shows how hard the families of the victims of 9/11 fought the Bush Administration to get a real (and honest) investigation into the events surrounding 9/11 - and to their disappointment and sorrow ~ it did not happen.
SHORT FILM: Blindfold
We feel Eve's frustration as she trys to counter the cognitive dissonance her father has when encountering 9/11 truth for the first time.
This little flick has some familiar villains...a hate radio talker and a sleazy lawyer.
Bush Anything But Moronic - Dark Overtones in His Malapropisms
by Murray Whyte, November, 2002 (The Toronto Star)
When Mark Crispin Miller first set out to write Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder, about the ever-growing catalogue of President George W. Bush's verbal gaffes, he meant it for a laugh.
ED NOTE: This is another fascinating insight into the troubled mind of George W. Bush:
A renowned Washington psychoanalyst updates his portrait of George W.'s public persona—and how it has damaged the presidency.
Insightful and accessible, courageous and controversial, Bush on the Couch sheds startling new light on George W. Bush's psyche and its impact on the way he governs, tackling head-on the question few seem willing to ask: Is our president psychologically fit to run the country?
When Mark Crispin Miller first set out to write Dyslexicon: Observations on a National Disorder, about the ever-growing catalogue of President George W. Bush's verbal gaffes, he meant it for a laugh.
But what he came to realize wasn't entirely amusing.
Since the 2000 presidential campaign, Miller has been compiling his own collection of Bush-isms, which have revealed, he says, a disquieting truth about what lurks behind the cock-eyed leer of the leader of the free world. He's not a moron at all. On that point, Miller and Prime Minister Jean Chrtien agree.
But according to Miller, he's no friend.
"I did initially intend it to be a funny book. But that was before I had a chance to read through all the transcripts," Miller, an American author and a professor of culture and communication at New York University, said recently in Toronto.
"Bush is not an imbecile. He's not a puppet. I think that Bush is a sociopathic personality. I think he's incapable of empathy. He has an inordinate sense of his own entitlement, and he's a very skilled manipulator. And in all the snickering about his alleged idiocy, this is what a lot of people miss."
Miller's judgment, that the president might suffer from a bona fide personality disorder, almost makes one long for the less menacing notion currently making the rounds: that the White House's current occupant is, in fact, simply an idiot.
If only. Miller's rendering of the president is bleaker than that. In studying Bush's various adventures in oration, he started to see a pattern emerging.
"He has no trouble speaking off the cuff when he's speaking punitively, when he's talking about violence, when he's talking about revenge.
"When he struts and thumps his chest, his syntax and grammar are fine," Miller said.
"It's only when he leaps into the wild blue yonder of compassion, or idealism, or altruism, that he makes these hilarious mistakes."
While Miller's book has been praised for its "eloquence" and "playful use of language," it has enraged Bush supporters.
Bush's ascent in the eyes of many Americans, - his approval rating hovers at near 80 percent - was the direct result of tough talk following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In those speeches, Bush stumbled not at all; his language of retribution was clear.
It was a sharp contrast to the pre-9/11 George W. Bush. Even before the Supreme Court in 2001 had to intervene and rule on recounts in Florida after a contentious presidential election, a corps of journalists were salivating at the prospect: a bafflingly inarticulate man in a position of power not seen since vice-president Dan Quayle rode shotgun on George H.W. Bush's one term in office.
But equating Bush's malapropisms with Quayle's inability to spell "potato" is a dangerous assumption, Miller says.
At a public address in Nashville, Tenn., in September, Bush provided one of his most memorable stumbles. Trying to give strength to his case that Saddam Hussein had already deceived the West concerning his store of weapons, Bush was scripted to offer an old saying:
Since the 2000 presidential campaign, Miller has been compiling his own collection of Bush-isms, which have revealed, he says, a disquieting truth about what lurks behind the cock-eyed leer of the leader of the free world. He's not a moron at all. On that point, Miller and Prime Minister Jean Chrtien agree.
But according to Miller, he's no friend.
"I did initially intend it to be a funny book. But that was before I had a chance to read through all the transcripts," Miller, an American author and a professor of culture and communication at New York University, said recently in Toronto.
"Bush is not an imbecile. He's not a puppet. I think that Bush is a sociopathic personality. I think he's incapable of empathy. He has an inordinate sense of his own entitlement, and he's a very skilled manipulator. And in all the snickering about his alleged idiocy, this is what a lot of people miss."
Miller's judgment, that the president might suffer from a bona fide personality disorder, almost makes one long for the less menacing notion currently making the rounds: that the White House's current occupant is, in fact, simply an idiot.
If only. Miller's rendering of the president is bleaker than that. In studying Bush's various adventures in oration, he started to see a pattern emerging.
"He has no trouble speaking off the cuff when he's speaking punitively, when he's talking about violence, when he's talking about revenge.
"When he struts and thumps his chest, his syntax and grammar are fine," Miller said.
"It's only when he leaps into the wild blue yonder of compassion, or idealism, or altruism, that he makes these hilarious mistakes."
While Miller's book has been praised for its "eloquence" and "playful use of language," it has enraged Bush supporters.
Bush's ascent in the eyes of many Americans, - his approval rating hovers at near 80 percent - was the direct result of tough talk following the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. In those speeches, Bush stumbled not at all; his language of retribution was clear.
It was a sharp contrast to the pre-9/11 George W. Bush. Even before the Supreme Court in 2001 had to intervene and rule on recounts in Florida after a contentious presidential election, a corps of journalists were salivating at the prospect: a bafflingly inarticulate man in a position of power not seen since vice-president Dan Quayle rode shotgun on George H.W. Bush's one term in office.
But equating Bush's malapropisms with Quayle's inability to spell "potato" is a dangerous assumption, Miller says.
At a public address in Nashville, Tenn., in September, Bush provided one of his most memorable stumbles. Trying to give strength to his case that Saddam Hussein had already deceived the West concerning his store of weapons, Bush was scripted to offer an old saying:
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
What came out was the following:
"Fool me once, shame ... shame on ... you." (Long, uncomfortable pause.) "Fool me - can't get fooled again!"
Played for laughs everywhere, Miller saw a darkness underlying the gaffe.
"There's an episode of Happy Days, where The Fonz has to say, `I'm sorry' and can't do it. Same thing," Miller said.
"What's revealing about this is that Bush could not say, `Shame on me' to save his life. That's a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy who is absolutely proud of his own inflexibility and rectitude."
If what Miller says is true - and it would take more than just observations to prove it - then Bush has achieved an astounding goal.
By stumbling blithely along, he has been able to push his image as "just folks" - a normal guy who screws up just like the rest of us.
This, in fact, is a central cog in his image-making machine, Miller says: Portraying the wealthy scion of one of America's most powerful families as a regular, imperfect Joe.
But the depiction, Miller says, is also remarkable for what it hides - imperfect, yes, but also detached, wealthy and unable to identify with the "folks" he's been designed to appeal to.
An example, Miller says, surfaced early in his presidential tenure.
"I know how hard it is to put food on your family," Bush was quoted as saying.
"That wasn't because he's so stupid that he doesn't know how to say, `Put food on your family's table' - it's because he doesn't care about people who can't put food on the table," Miller says.
So, when Bush is envisioning "a foreign-handed foreign policy," or observes on some point that "it's not the way that America is all about," Miller contends it's because he can't keep his focus on things that mean nothing to him.
"When he tries to talk about what this country stands for, or about democracy, he can't do it," he said.
This, then, is why he's so closely watched by his handlers, Miller says - not because he'll say something stupid, but because he'll overindulge in the language of violence and punishment at which he excels.
"He's a very angry guy, a hostile guy. He's much like Nixon. So they're very, very careful to choreograph every move he makes. They don't want him anywhere near protestors, because he would lose his temper."
Miller, without question, is a man with a mission and laughter isn't it.
"I call him the feel bad president, because he's all about punishment and death," he said. "It would be a grave mistake to just play him for laughs."
"Fool me once, shame ... shame on ... you." (Long, uncomfortable pause.) "Fool me - can't get fooled again!"
Played for laughs everywhere, Miller saw a darkness underlying the gaffe.
"There's an episode of Happy Days, where The Fonz has to say, `I'm sorry' and can't do it. Same thing," Miller said.
"What's revealing about this is that Bush could not say, `Shame on me' to save his life. That's a completely alien idea to him. This is a guy who is absolutely proud of his own inflexibility and rectitude."
If what Miller says is true - and it would take more than just observations to prove it - then Bush has achieved an astounding goal.
By stumbling blithely along, he has been able to push his image as "just folks" - a normal guy who screws up just like the rest of us.
This, in fact, is a central cog in his image-making machine, Miller says: Portraying the wealthy scion of one of America's most powerful families as a regular, imperfect Joe.
But the depiction, Miller says, is also remarkable for what it hides - imperfect, yes, but also detached, wealthy and unable to identify with the "folks" he's been designed to appeal to.
An example, Miller says, surfaced early in his presidential tenure.
"I know how hard it is to put food on your family," Bush was quoted as saying.
"That wasn't because he's so stupid that he doesn't know how to say, `Put food on your family's table' - it's because he doesn't care about people who can't put food on the table," Miller says.
So, when Bush is envisioning "a foreign-handed foreign policy," or observes on some point that "it's not the way that America is all about," Miller contends it's because he can't keep his focus on things that mean nothing to him.
"When he tries to talk about what this country stands for, or about democracy, he can't do it," he said.
This, then, is why he's so closely watched by his handlers, Miller says - not because he'll say something stupid, but because he'll overindulge in the language of violence and punishment at which he excels.
"He's a very angry guy, a hostile guy. He's much like Nixon. So they're very, very careful to choreograph every move he makes. They don't want him anywhere near protestors, because he would lose his temper."
Miller, without question, is a man with a mission and laughter isn't it.
"I call him the feel bad president, because he's all about punishment and death," he said. "It would be a grave mistake to just play him for laughs."
ED NOTE: This is another fascinating insight into the troubled mind of George W. Bush:
A renowned Washington psychoanalyst updates his portrait of George W.'s public persona—and how it has damaged the presidency.
Insightful and accessible, courageous and controversial, Bush on the Couch sheds startling new light on George W. Bush's psyche and its impact on the way he governs, tackling head-on the question few seem willing to ask: Is our president psychologically fit to run the country?
With an eye for the subtleties of human behavior sharpened by thirty years of clinical practice, Dr. Justin A. Frank traces the development of Bush's character from childhood through his presidency, identifying and analyzing his patterns of thought, action, and communication.
The result is a troubling portrait filled with important revelations about our nation's leader
Applying Common Sense to New World Order Conspiracy Theories
by Scepcop, Sun Feb 05, 2012
Much of all this info regarding conspiracies is ambiguous. One can only speculate regarding the agenda behind conspiracies because it's all a secret of course. However, let's try to apply some common sense here.
Much of all this info regarding conspiracies is ambiguous. One can only speculate regarding the agenda behind conspiracies because it's all a secret of course. However, let's try to apply some common sense here.
All this conspiracy stuff is too black and white, almost like a religion. The elite can't be all "evil forces of darkness" vs. us the "innocent good guys". That is too black and white, with an "us vs. them" mentality, and more like what religions preach.
In reality, the world is very complex and is not that black and white. There must be some good people among the elite. They can't all be "the bad guys" like characters in some movie, can they? People in real life are not all good or all bad (like in the movies); they are a mixture of the two.
It's also hard to believe that so many people could be in on something and agree to it. In reality, it's very hard to get a lot of people to all agree without dissent to being in on the same agenda, especially people in power and high places since these types are used to getting their way, not being told what to do. The elite have very big egos, so imagine how much harder it would be to get them to all agree on some secret agenda.
Humans tend to fight and disagree, especially since they are governed by an innate moral conscience which is both in their DNA and in the "morphic resonance" energy field (coined by Rupert Sheldrake) that all living things share.
It's also hard to believe that so many people could be in on something and agree to it. In reality, it's very hard to get a lot of people to all agree without dissent to being in on the same agenda, especially people in power and high places since these types are used to getting their way, not being told what to do. The elite have very big egos, so imagine how much harder it would be to get them to all agree on some secret agenda.
Humans tend to fight and disagree, especially since they are governed by an innate moral conscience which is both in their DNA and in the "morphic resonance" energy field (coined by Rupert Sheldrake) that all living things share.
It's too far fetched to believe that these "shadow elite" are all some collective hive mind that is plotting sinister things against the world, as though they were all "minions of the dark side of the Force".
Nevertheless, conspiracies do exist in that powerful people do get together and make plans in secrecy. No one disputes that. The only question is: What kind of plans, secrets and conspiracies are they? Are we talking about mundane secrets - such as "under the table" deals and alliances, "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" type of arrangements, and covert operations involving power and profits?
Nevertheless, conspiracies do exist in that powerful people do get together and make plans in secrecy. No one disputes that. The only question is: What kind of plans, secrets and conspiracies are they? Are we talking about mundane secrets - such as "under the table" deals and alliances, "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" type of arrangements, and covert operations involving power and profits?
Or are we talking about a secret Illuminati plan of world domination and microchipping the population under a New World Order global government? Is there a fantastic conspiracy involving UFO's, Aliens and secret technology? Or just politicians with mundane dirty secrets involving money laundering scams, under the table deals, arms deals, sex scandals, and other mundane types of unethical behaviors?
Even Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the elite's long-time geostrategists, has admitted on public TV in an interview with Charlie Rose that "dirty secrets" and "under the table deals" exist among the elite, but denies that there is any "Illuminati NWO plot" to take over the world and instate a one world government. If there is a NWO plot though, then is every country in on it?
Even Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the elite's long-time geostrategists, has admitted on public TV in an interview with Charlie Rose that "dirty secrets" and "under the table deals" exist among the elite, but denies that there is any "Illuminati NWO plot" to take over the world and instate a one world government. If there is a NWO plot though, then is every country in on it?
Or just the US and UK elite and the Zionists behind them? It's too far fetched to believe that the governments of all 200 countries of the world would all agree to be in on something.
All we know for sure are:
- The media and government often lie and fabricate things.
- There is definitely a shadow government that works outside of the democratic process and public scrutiny, to implement big changes that the elite think tanks want that would take too long if the public were involved. The Iran Contra Scandal revealed that shadow governments do exist. This shadow government is involved in a lot of sinister operations, but for what purpose, we don't know.
- The US military industrial complex and elite class, or whoever runs the USA (it's certainly not the common people), are definitely war mongerers who have a history and pattern of starting ridiculous unnecessary wars that don't make sense. (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, etc.)They do not tell the public the truth about why they start them, but only give BS copout excuses that don't add up. So we can only speculate and guess on their true motives. All we know for sure is that they love getting involved with wars for some reason. Whatever their true reasons are, they are likely to be very disturbing.
- Too many important figures who would have changed the world for the better had they lived, have been murdered by too many lone nut cases (e.g. JFK, RFK, MLK, John Lennon). Had JFK and RFK lived, the Vietnam War would probably have never happened, millions of lives would have been saved, people would trust their government more, and the CIA/Federal Reserve/Military Industrial Complex (which Eisenhower warned about) may not have hijacked the USA as it has today. So two lone nuts changed the tide of world history for the worse? Yeah right.
Also, if Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the election in 2000, the Iraq War and War on Terror may have never happened, since Al Gore is not a war monger type, and millions of live may have been saved. (assuming of course, that the election was real and that Gore really wanted to win) I wonder how Ralph Nader sleeps at night, knowing that he could have prevented the Iraq War mess had he not stolen votes from Gore.
All we know for sure are:
- The media and government often lie and fabricate things.
- There is definitely a shadow government that works outside of the democratic process and public scrutiny, to implement big changes that the elite think tanks want that would take too long if the public were involved. The Iran Contra Scandal revealed that shadow governments do exist. This shadow government is involved in a lot of sinister operations, but for what purpose, we don't know.
- The US military industrial complex and elite class, or whoever runs the USA (it's certainly not the common people), are definitely war mongerers who have a history and pattern of starting ridiculous unnecessary wars that don't make sense. (e.g. Vietnam, Iraq, etc.)They do not tell the public the truth about why they start them, but only give BS copout excuses that don't add up. So we can only speculate and guess on their true motives. All we know for sure is that they love getting involved with wars for some reason. Whatever their true reasons are, they are likely to be very disturbing.
- Too many important figures who would have changed the world for the better had they lived, have been murdered by too many lone nut cases (e.g. JFK, RFK, MLK, John Lennon). Had JFK and RFK lived, the Vietnam War would probably have never happened, millions of lives would have been saved, people would trust their government more, and the CIA/Federal Reserve/Military Industrial Complex (which Eisenhower warned about) may not have hijacked the USA as it has today. So two lone nuts changed the tide of world history for the worse? Yeah right.
Also, if Ralph Nader didn't cost Al Gore the election in 2000, the Iraq War and War on Terror may have never happened, since Al Gore is not a war monger type, and millions of live may have been saved. (assuming of course, that the election was real and that Gore really wanted to win) I wonder how Ralph Nader sleeps at night, knowing that he could have prevented the Iraq War mess had he not stolen votes from Gore.
How can one stupid act from one stupid man change the course of the world like that and destroy millions of lives? It's just too convenient.
- The formation of the European Union and attempt to create a North American Union as well, are indicators of a NWO plan, since the formation of these unions would be a logical step they would take in order to consolidate power into an eventual one world government.
However, the key unanswered questions are:
- What is the true agenda of the elite? Are they really seeking to establish a NWO and one world government and have the population microchipped? Or do they just enjoy mind-blank everyone and reveling in the chaos they create and set up, which they derive a form of "dark ecstasy" from? (a theory proposed by conspiracy researcher and podcast host Jeff Grupp)
- What do they want? Is it just about power, control and profit? Don't they have enough of that? What more do they need? Do they have a more sinister and hidden motive?
- Are the elite of all countries involved in the NWO? Or is it just the US and UK?
- Could the whole NWO thing just be a diversion? Why else would they allow millions of videos about it on YouTube and millions of websites/forums about it to stay up? Is it all part of their plan to incite us into a revolution? And why would they let conspiracy leaders such as David Icke and Alex Jones spread conspiracy knowledge to so many disgruntled people and expose the plans of the elite? Icke travels the world doing public seminars to spread his message, yet nothing ever happens to him. Isn't that odd? Are they shills? Or is what they do part of the elite's plans? Or do the elite view them as too small of a problem to bother with, especially since anything that happens to a conspiracy leader will be interpreted as a "silencing act" by the elite?
- Even if a NWO or one world government succeeded, how long would it last? History has shown that Empires don't last long without public support. Not even Alexander the Great or Napoleon could hold an Empire together long term. Empires are easily toppled by a combination of many market forces. No elite group can stop that. The elite must know this. Any NWO would be short lived. So I gotta wonder what their real agenda is.
All of this is inconclusive and ambiguous. It's hard to say if there is a NWO plot or not, and if there is, what the plot is really about. The motives don't seem to make any sense.
- The formation of the European Union and attempt to create a North American Union as well, are indicators of a NWO plan, since the formation of these unions would be a logical step they would take in order to consolidate power into an eventual one world government.
However, the key unanswered questions are:
- What is the true agenda of the elite? Are they really seeking to establish a NWO and one world government and have the population microchipped? Or do they just enjoy mind-blank everyone and reveling in the chaos they create and set up, which they derive a form of "dark ecstasy" from? (a theory proposed by conspiracy researcher and podcast host Jeff Grupp)
- What do they want? Is it just about power, control and profit? Don't they have enough of that? What more do they need? Do they have a more sinister and hidden motive?
- Are the elite of all countries involved in the NWO? Or is it just the US and UK?
- Could the whole NWO thing just be a diversion? Why else would they allow millions of videos about it on YouTube and millions of websites/forums about it to stay up? Is it all part of their plan to incite us into a revolution? And why would they let conspiracy leaders such as David Icke and Alex Jones spread conspiracy knowledge to so many disgruntled people and expose the plans of the elite? Icke travels the world doing public seminars to spread his message, yet nothing ever happens to him. Isn't that odd? Are they shills? Or is what they do part of the elite's plans? Or do the elite view them as too small of a problem to bother with, especially since anything that happens to a conspiracy leader will be interpreted as a "silencing act" by the elite?
- Even if a NWO or one world government succeeded, how long would it last? History has shown that Empires don't last long without public support. Not even Alexander the Great or Napoleon could hold an Empire together long term. Empires are easily toppled by a combination of many market forces. No elite group can stop that. The elite must know this. Any NWO would be short lived. So I gotta wonder what their real agenda is.
All of this is inconclusive and ambiguous. It's hard to say if there is a NWO plot or not, and if there is, what the plot is really about. The motives don't seem to make any sense.
HUMOR: Al Qaeda Says "9/11 Conspiracy Theories Ridiculous"
Sometimes there is much truth in humor.
'Shadow Government' News To Congress
Reprint, February 11, 2009 by Francie Grace:
(CBS) Key congressional leaders say they didn't know President Bush had established a "shadow government," moving dozens of senior civilian managers to secret underground locations outside Washington to ensure that the federal government could survive a devastating terrorist attack on the nation's capital, The Washington Post says in its Saturday editions.
Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) told the Post he had not been informed by the White House about the role, location or even the existence of the shadow government that the administration began to deploy the morning of the Sept. 11 hijackings.
An aide to House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said he was also unaware of the administration's move.
Among Congress's GOP leadership, aides to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.), second in line to succeed the president if he became incapacitated, and to Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (Miss.) said they were not sure whether they knew.
Aides to Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) said he had not been told. As Senate president pro tempore, he is in line to become president after the House speaker.
Mr. Bush acknowledged yesterday that the administration had taken extensive measures to guarantee "the continuity of government," adding, "This is serious business."
Such an operation was conceived as a Cold War precaution against nuclear attack during the Eisenhower administration but never used until now. It went into effect in the first hours after the terror attacks and has evolved over time, said senior government officials who provided details of the plan.
Without confirming details of the government-in-waiting, Mr. Bush told reporters in Iowa: "We take the continuity of government issue seriously because our nation was under attack. And I still take the threats we receive from al Qaeda killers and terrorists very seriously."
"I have an obligation as the president and my administration has an obligation to the American people to put measures in place that should somebody be successful in attacking Washington there is an ongoing government," Mr. Bush said. "That is one reason why the vice president was going to undisclosed locations. This is serious business. And we take it seriously."
Under the classified "Continuity of Operations Plan," which was first reported by The Post in its Friday editions, high-ranking officials representing their departments have begun rotating in and out of the assignment at one of two fortified locations along the East Coast.
The Post said the first rotations were made in late October or early November, a fact confirmed by a senior government official late Thursday.
Officials who are activated for the duty live and work underground 24 hours a day, away from their families, according to the Post. The shadow government has sent home most of the first wave of deployed personnel, replacing them most commonly at 90-day intervals.
A government official who spoke to The Associated Press said President Bush does not foresee ever needing to turn over government functions to the secret operation, but believed it was prudent to implement the long-standing plan in light of the war on terrorism and persistent threats of future attacks.
The team, drawn from every Cabinet department and some independent agencies, would seek to prevent the collapse of essential government functions in the event of a disabling blow to Washington, the official said.
The underground government would try to contain disruptions of the nation's food and water supplies, transportation links, energy and telecommunications networks, public health and civil order, the Post reported. Later, it would begin to reconstitute the government.
The government-in-waiting is an extension of a policy that has kept Vice President Dick Cheney in secure, undisclosed locations away from Washington. Cheney has moved in and out of public view as threat levels have fluctuated.
As next in line to power behind Mr. Bush, he would need help running the government in a worst-case scenario.
"We take this issue extraordinarily seriously, and are committed to doing as thorough a job as possible to ensure the ongoing operations of the federal government," Joseph W. Hagin, White House deputy chief of staff, told the Post, though he declined to discuss details. "In the case of the use of a weapon of mass destruction, the federal government would be able to do its job and continue to provide key services and respond."
According to the Post, the backup government consists generally of officials from top career ranks, from GS-14 and GS-15 to members of the Senior Executive Service. The White House is represented by a "senior-level presence," one official said, but well below such Cabinet-ranked advisers as Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
Many departments, including Justice and Treasury, have completed plans to delegate statutory powers to officials who would not normally exercise them, the Post said. Others do not need to make such legal transfers, or are holding them in reserve.
The report said civilians deployed for the operation are not allowed to take their families and may not tell anyone where they are going or why.
The two sites of the shadow government make use of local geological features to render them highly secure, the Post said. They are well stocked with food, water, medicine and other consumable supplies, and are capable of generating their own power.
(CBS) Key congressional leaders say they didn't know President Bush had established a "shadow government," moving dozens of senior civilian managers to secret underground locations outside Washington to ensure that the federal government could survive a devastating terrorist attack on the nation's capital, The Washington Post says in its Saturday editions.
Senate Majority Leader Thomas A. Daschle (D-S.D.) told the Post he had not been informed by the White House about the role, location or even the existence of the shadow government that the administration began to deploy the morning of the Sept. 11 hijackings.
An aide to House Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo.) said he was also unaware of the administration's move.
Among Congress's GOP leadership, aides to House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (Ill.), second in line to succeed the president if he became incapacitated, and to Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott (Miss.) said they were not sure whether they knew.
Aides to Sen. Robert C. Byrd (D-W. Va.) said he had not been told. As Senate president pro tempore, he is in line to become president after the House speaker.
Mr. Bush acknowledged yesterday that the administration had taken extensive measures to guarantee "the continuity of government," adding, "This is serious business."
Such an operation was conceived as a Cold War precaution against nuclear attack during the Eisenhower administration but never used until now. It went into effect in the first hours after the terror attacks and has evolved over time, said senior government officials who provided details of the plan.
Without confirming details of the government-in-waiting, Mr. Bush told reporters in Iowa: "We take the continuity of government issue seriously because our nation was under attack. And I still take the threats we receive from al Qaeda killers and terrorists very seriously."
"I have an obligation as the president and my administration has an obligation to the American people to put measures in place that should somebody be successful in attacking Washington there is an ongoing government," Mr. Bush said. "That is one reason why the vice president was going to undisclosed locations. This is serious business. And we take it seriously."
Under the classified "Continuity of Operations Plan," which was first reported by The Post in its Friday editions, high-ranking officials representing their departments have begun rotating in and out of the assignment at one of two fortified locations along the East Coast.
The Post said the first rotations were made in late October or early November, a fact confirmed by a senior government official late Thursday.
Officials who are activated for the duty live and work underground 24 hours a day, away from their families, according to the Post. The shadow government has sent home most of the first wave of deployed personnel, replacing them most commonly at 90-day intervals.
A government official who spoke to The Associated Press said President Bush does not foresee ever needing to turn over government functions to the secret operation, but believed it was prudent to implement the long-standing plan in light of the war on terrorism and persistent threats of future attacks.
The team, drawn from every Cabinet department and some independent agencies, would seek to prevent the collapse of essential government functions in the event of a disabling blow to Washington, the official said.
The underground government would try to contain disruptions of the nation's food and water supplies, transportation links, energy and telecommunications networks, public health and civil order, the Post reported. Later, it would begin to reconstitute the government.
The government-in-waiting is an extension of a policy that has kept Vice President Dick Cheney in secure, undisclosed locations away from Washington. Cheney has moved in and out of public view as threat levels have fluctuated.
As next in line to power behind Mr. Bush, he would need help running the government in a worst-case scenario.
"We take this issue extraordinarily seriously, and are committed to doing as thorough a job as possible to ensure the ongoing operations of the federal government," Joseph W. Hagin, White House deputy chief of staff, told the Post, though he declined to discuss details. "In the case of the use of a weapon of mass destruction, the federal government would be able to do its job and continue to provide key services and respond."
According to the Post, the backup government consists generally of officials from top career ranks, from GS-14 and GS-15 to members of the Senior Executive Service. The White House is represented by a "senior-level presence," one official said, but well below such Cabinet-ranked advisers as Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr. and national security adviser Condoleezza Rice.
Many departments, including Justice and Treasury, have completed plans to delegate statutory powers to officials who would not normally exercise them, the Post said. Others do not need to make such legal transfers, or are holding them in reserve.
The report said civilians deployed for the operation are not allowed to take their families and may not tell anyone where they are going or why.
The two sites of the shadow government make use of local geological features to render them highly secure, the Post said. They are well stocked with food, water, medicine and other consumable supplies, and are capable of generating their own power.
"Shear" Ignorance: NIST and Building #7
NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) LIED about the collapse of WTC Building #7.
To access these images, you have to right click and 'save as'
Drawings used in this video:
E12/13 link: http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/9155/wtc7frankele1213.png
S810 link: http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/8417/wtc7cantors810.png
S820 link: http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8043/wtc7cantors820.png
Drawings showing more shear studs detail:
S24a link: http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/7158/wtc7cantors24a.png
To access these images, you have to right click and 'save as'
Drawings used in this video:
E12/13 link: http://img859.imageshack.us/img859/9155/wtc7frankele1213.png
S810 link: http://img84.imageshack.us/img84/8417/wtc7cantors810.png
S820 link: http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/8043/wtc7cantors820.png
Drawings showing more shear studs detail:
S24a link: http://img689.imageshack.us/img689/7158/wtc7cantors24a.png
CIT publishes response to David Chandler & Jonathan Cole's Joint Statement about the 9/11 Pentagon Attack
One wonders if those who appear to have recently signed on to marginalize, ridicule, misrepresent and attack CIT, refuse to debate why they support the official govt. official story of the Pentagon... might possibly be part of an intelligence infiltration team?
Some of these people were considered "heros" for telling the truth about the WTC attacks and they would make great agents for the "official govt story regards the Pentagon".
Unfortunately they fool a lot of truthers who have come to trust them. The group that now controlls 911blogger has also "gone over to the dark side" I wonder how much the government cover-up department pays for this kind of work? I assume it is plenty.
"We've been put in the difficult position of having to defend ourselves against people whose work regarding the destruction of the World Trade Center we respect and appreciate. Although we had never spoken to David Chandler or Jonathan Cole prior to the publication of their "joint statement" on the Pentagon attack, we had always considered them natural allies, had never badmouthed them or had any inclination to do so, and had even praised their work.
Unfortunately they did not have the courtesy or sense to get in touch with us to see if we had any responses to their apparent serious issues with our work before publicly denouncing it. The result, as we have now documented in great detail, was a simplistic, horribly sloppy, and defamatory essay which reveals that, at best, they had barely spent any time at all on our website, let alone bothered to view our extensive catalog of video presentations to familiarize themselves with the full scope -- or even many of the basics -- of the evidence we present, or us personally, before rushing to judgment and aggressively attacking us.
Due to the frequent and extreme falsity of their claims, a very lengthy response was necessitated. Sometimes a single sentence would have multiple false and/or misleading claims requiring several paragraphs to untangle. We'd have preferred a shorter rebuttal, but there was no other way to do it if we were to remain accurate and thorough, as we strive to do in everything we publish.
While it was frankly quite obnoxious to have to spend so much time refuting a such a simplistic and shoddy essay that these two men clearly did not put much time into at all, the silver lining is that it gave us an opportunity to address their essay in the context of the dishonest and dishonorable campaign being waged against CIT by a relatively small clique which has gained control over 911Blogger.com, where we are not only "censored", but more importantly, attacked on a virtually daily basis with misinformation and disinformation and denied a "right of reply". For some reason David Chandler apparently has no problem with this situation considering that he published the "joint statement" by him and Jonathan Cole there and then further badmouthed us and our work in the comments section.
Given these circumstances, and the wide-ranging nature of our response to David Chandler and Jonathan Cole, we ask you to please set aside AT LEAST an hour or two to read our response in full so that you can hear our perspective. Unlike Chandler and Cole's essay, our response is heavily sourced, so if you can set aside extra time to REALLY dig into its contents and follow the links and sources, even if you do so over the course of several days, this will give you a MUCH more detailed look at the intricacies of what is going on here, and we feel that the reality of the situation will become that much more clear to you. This is an especially important thing for you to do if you are a regular reader of 911Blogger, since this means that you have likely spent hours over the past months or even years reading the frequent bogus attacks against us which we are forbidden from responding to.
I'd like to thank our webmaster for his critical help with writing this response and putting it together. Please pass it along to anyone you can and encourage them to read it. Thank you for paying attention to both sides of this manufactured controversy by reading our entire response":
http://www.CitizenInvestigationTeam.com/CIT-Response-to-David-Chandler-and-Jonathan-Cole-Pentagon-Statement
Sincerely,
Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team
"We've been put in the difficult position of having to defend ourselves against people whose work regarding the destruction of the World Trade Center we respect and appreciate. Although we had never spoken to David Chandler or Jonathan Cole prior to the publication of their "joint statement" on the Pentagon attack, we had always considered them natural allies, had never badmouthed them or had any inclination to do so, and had even praised their work.
Unfortunately they did not have the courtesy or sense to get in touch with us to see if we had any responses to their apparent serious issues with our work before publicly denouncing it. The result, as we have now documented in great detail, was a simplistic, horribly sloppy, and defamatory essay which reveals that, at best, they had barely spent any time at all on our website, let alone bothered to view our extensive catalog of video presentations to familiarize themselves with the full scope -- or even many of the basics -- of the evidence we present, or us personally, before rushing to judgment and aggressively attacking us.
Due to the frequent and extreme falsity of their claims, a very lengthy response was necessitated. Sometimes a single sentence would have multiple false and/or misleading claims requiring several paragraphs to untangle. We'd have preferred a shorter rebuttal, but there was no other way to do it if we were to remain accurate and thorough, as we strive to do in everything we publish.
While it was frankly quite obnoxious to have to spend so much time refuting a such a simplistic and shoddy essay that these two men clearly did not put much time into at all, the silver lining is that it gave us an opportunity to address their essay in the context of the dishonest and dishonorable campaign being waged against CIT by a relatively small clique which has gained control over 911Blogger.com, where we are not only "censored", but more importantly, attacked on a virtually daily basis with misinformation and disinformation and denied a "right of reply". For some reason David Chandler apparently has no problem with this situation considering that he published the "joint statement" by him and Jonathan Cole there and then further badmouthed us and our work in the comments section.
Given these circumstances, and the wide-ranging nature of our response to David Chandler and Jonathan Cole, we ask you to please set aside AT LEAST an hour or two to read our response in full so that you can hear our perspective. Unlike Chandler and Cole's essay, our response is heavily sourced, so if you can set aside extra time to REALLY dig into its contents and follow the links and sources, even if you do so over the course of several days, this will give you a MUCH more detailed look at the intricacies of what is going on here, and we feel that the reality of the situation will become that much more clear to you. This is an especially important thing for you to do if you are a regular reader of 911Blogger, since this means that you have likely spent hours over the past months or even years reading the frequent bogus attacks against us which we are forbidden from responding to.
I'd like to thank our webmaster for his critical help with writing this response and putting it together. Please pass it along to anyone you can and encourage them to read it. Thank you for paying attention to both sides of this manufactured controversy by reading our entire response":
http://www.CitizenInvestigationTeam.com/CIT-Response-to-David-Chandler-and-Jonathan-Cole-Pentagon-Statement
Sincerely,
Craig Ranke
Citizen Investigation Team
CIT Controversy for Dummies
This isn't rocket science folks. It's pretty simple:
THE OFFICIAL GOVT STORY: The Red Line indicates the path of a "hijacked" plane that hit the Pentagon on 9/11. As it flew on a path to the South of the Citgo Station, it hit and knocked down five light poles (yellow lines).
One of the light poles that got knocked down by the airplane went through the windshield of cab driver, Lloyde England.
CIT EVIDENCE (Blue Line) PROVES THE OFFICIAL STORY TO BE A LIE: Citizen's Investigation Team (CIT) went to DC and found dozens of eye-witnesses to the Pentago attack who had been standing at the nearby CITGO gas station and Arlington National Cemetery on the morning of 9/11.
All of these eye-witnesses independently confirm the (blue line) flight path to the North of the Citgo Station.
CIT found and interviewed the cab driver on tape. If you watch it, anyone can see that Lloyde England’s account is not at all credible and he is unable to offer a remotely plausible story (i.e., he is lying - and did it badly).
So what does the CIT evidence suggest?
The plane passing to the north side of the Citgo Station proves the light poles could not have been knocked down by an airplane* and that the Pentagon was an inside job.
All of the witnesses prove the North path - namely the officers at the Citgo, stood by where they saw the plane even after learning the implications. Ditto federal employees at the Cemetary.
The witnesses CIT interviewed would have a better idea than any others to tell us where the plane flew in relation to the gas station....and all agree that it was a North path.
About those five downed light poles:
With the CIT proof of a North path plane, these light poles could not have been knocked down by the plane as claimed in the official story.
Again absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I don’t need to find witnesses who saw light poles being planted as we have proof that they WERE planted (thanks to Lloyde England's lies).
Planted debris could have been in there before the explosion. Remember the section that was “hit” was under “renovation” and much of he area was unoccupied. This has been covered over and over.
Again absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. I don’t need to find witnesses who saw light poles being planted as we have proof that they WERE planted (thanks to Lloyde England's lies).
Again, it was likely done in the middle of the night using vans or trucks under the guise of securing the area for the presidents arrival scheduled sept 11 afternoon. The foundations were likely busted when they took down the original light poles. Not hard to do. Light pole removal accomplished over weeks or months would go unnoticed as it would appear to be normal highway work. Nothing that would be memorable.
Why is CIT controversial?
It isn't controversial. It is rock-solid evidence.
So why the big flap over CIT?
For starters, no genuine 9/11 truthers would fight to suppress these eye-witness accounts, especially when many of these witnesses including police officers, would testify to it.
It is interesting to note that no detractor of CIT will agree to a live debate (and what does that tell you)? It is also interesting that CIT and all of its supporters have been banned from 911blogger.
Those who marginalize and ridicule and misrepresent CIT, and minimize the importance of their evidence are most likely part of an intelligence infiltration team.
So what can you do about it?
You have to ask yourself why these so called truthers won’t let the witnesses speak for themselves and let the chips fall where they may.
Look at the CIT evidence for yourself and decide. If you want the truth about 911 to come out, don't "go along to get along" in this effort to marginalize CIT.
What Happened to Russell Pickering's Website Pentagonresearch.com?
Russell Pickering is a former 9/11 Pentagon event researcher who was present with Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) on their first research trip to Arlington, VA in 2006.
Craig Ranke, CIT: "This bit of history explains how he eventually let it slip that he initially withheld from us the information about the north of the Citgo witness account of station employee Robert Turcios.
When he realized we would likely find out about Robert on our own when we visited the station the next day, Russell hastily informed us of the witness at the last minute but tried casting doubt on the source (the station manager) by falsely suggesting she bizarrely changed her story within minutes, having allegedly claimed Robert was a female at first."
For some more interesting details, please read the following article by Citizen's Investigation Team, January 27, 2012 (also reprinted below):
For some more interesting details, please read the following article by Citizen's Investigation Team, January 27, 2012 (also reprinted below):
What Happened to Russell Pickering's Website Pentagonresearch.com?
Russell Pickering was arguably the most well known 9/11 Pentagon event researcher for a few years prior to December 2007 when he dramatically "quit" the truth movement as documented here. He was the creator and owner of the now defunct website pentagonresearch.com that is cited numerous times in David Ray Griffin's book "Debunking 9/11 Debunking". An archive of his site from February 2007 can be found here:
www.web.archive.org/web/20070207221439/http://pentagonresearch.com -cached backup
Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) spent a few days with Russell in person during our very first research trip to Arlington, VA in late August 2006 while we were volunteering as research consultants to the 9/11 documentary "Loose Change Final Cut" by Dylan Avery.
We respected some of Russell's work that he had already published at the time even if we disagreed with his conclusions. The relationship started out amicable but turned progressively ugly after we returned to Arlington a second time (without him and Dylan) in November of 2006 to obtain the witness interviews at the former Citgo proving that the plane flew north of the gas station and therefore did not hit the light poles or Pentagon.
Russell had a reputation for being professional, logical, and even-tempered, but after we obtained this evidence he started emotionally spiraling out of control while desperately working to cast doubt on our findings with an aggressive campaign against us personally.
Before we met Russell in person on our first research trip he had already proclaimed to us his belief that a large airplane hit the Pentagon. He suggested that it was not piloted by alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour as claimed by the government but that it was likely "remote controlled" into the building. He had no evidence to support this claim and merely asserted it as his unsubstantiated belief.
During this 2006 research trip Russell started expressing concern and frustration with his research as he states in the following two minute video:
Listen to audio here (1.81 mb).
Download video here (28.5 mb).
Despite this dramatically expressed extreme uncertainty with his findings and conclusions, only a few days after we returned he was all of the sudden more sure than ever of a large plane impact. September 18th, 2006 he said:
"My official statement now on the Pentagon is that something with a wingspan of greater than 100 feet but less than 140 hit the building. [...] If I were asked what my belief is, it is that a 757 hit the building..."
-screenshot
-original source -cached backup
Notice how Russell does not cite anything new to explain what lifted the frustration he expressed in the video less than 30 days prior. His certainty in the official impact narrative only continued to grow as we proceeded to uncover overwhelming evidence proving otherwise. Instead of providing counter-evidence, he responded with steadily increased personal attacks against us, a reaction that discredits him as a logical 9/11 truth seeker.
He was further discredited in August 2007 when he let it slip that he found out about the north side witness a day before we all visited the Citgo station together. This is explained and sourced here. This is significant because all of us (including Dylan) remembered that Russell first mentioned the witness after we arrived at the station.
Before we met Russell in person on our first research trip he had already proclaimed to us his belief that a large airplane hit the Pentagon. He suggested that it was not piloted by alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour as claimed by the government but that it was likely "remote controlled" into the building. He had no evidence to support this claim and merely asserted it as his unsubstantiated belief.
During this 2006 research trip Russell started expressing concern and frustration with his research as he states in the following two minute video:
Listen to audio here (1.81 mb).
Download video here (28.5 mb).
Despite this dramatically expressed extreme uncertainty with his findings and conclusions, only a few days after we returned he was all of the sudden more sure than ever of a large plane impact. September 18th, 2006 he said:
"My official statement now on the Pentagon is that something with a wingspan of greater than 100 feet but less than 140 hit the building. [...] If I were asked what my belief is, it is that a 757 hit the building..."
-screenshot
-original source -cached backup
Notice how Russell does not cite anything new to explain what lifted the frustration he expressed in the video less than 30 days prior. His certainty in the official impact narrative only continued to grow as we proceeded to uncover overwhelming evidence proving otherwise. Instead of providing counter-evidence, he responded with steadily increased personal attacks against us, a reaction that discredits him as a logical 9/11 truth seeker.
He was further discredited in August 2007 when he let it slip that he found out about the north side witness a day before we all visited the Citgo station together. This is explained and sourced here. This is significant because all of us (including Dylan) remembered that Russell first mentioned the witness after we arrived at the station.
This means he withheld that information for a day until he knew we would likely find out about it ourselves and he felt he had no choice but to tell us. We were supposed to share all of our findings with each other as the trip progressed in order to keep each other honest, yet Russell withheld key information likely hoping that we would go home the next day without ever discovering it.
Russell was well aware that a plane on the north side could not possibly have created the damage trail, obviously making this critical information that he should have immediately shared with us.
Pickering eventually removed his entire website with all of his "research" from the internet and, as already mentioned and sourced in the beginning of this essay, he quit 9/11 research all together. The only thing we are aware that he has published regarding 9/11 since then was titled "My Pentagon Manifesto (In Retrospect)" which was published in the beginning of 2011 at a variety of websites (archived here).
Pickering eventually removed his entire website with all of his "research" from the internet and, as already mentioned and sourced in the beginning of this essay, he quit 9/11 research all together. The only thing we are aware that he has published regarding 9/11 since then was titled "My Pentagon Manifesto (In Retrospect)" which was published in the beginning of 2011 at a variety of websites (archived here).
If you search the title you may notice that in some places his name has been removed. It seems as though Russell has made an effort within the last few weeks to erase his name from the internet in an attempt to hide his significant history with the 9/11 truth movement.
In light of this effort, this essay is meant to document for the historical record our experience dealing with his subversive behavior. As made clear in his "manifesto", Russell authoritatively states that be believes with "100% certainty an aircraft hit the Pentagon" and even goes so far as to call it a "physical fact".
Of course he ignores the fact that we have continued our investigation and have provided an overwhelming amount of additional evidence validating our initial findings since he "quit" at the end of 2007.
Since Russell has removed himself from the discussion we have had to deal with several other entities who claim to be part of the 9/11 truth movement but dedicate a significant amount of energy to fraudulently casting aspersions on our findings and our characters.
Since Russell has removed himself from the discussion we have had to deal with several other entities who claim to be part of the 9/11 truth movement but dedicate a significant amount of energy to fraudulently casting aspersions on our findings and our characters.
Details regarding much of that and responses to their arguments are provided in a comprehensive essay that can be found here. We highly recommend that everyone who may have heard about these accusations takes the time to read that essay in full in order to get both sides of the argument. This will help you to understand the scope and context of the numerous attacks against us from those who have followed Russell Pickering's lead.
The fact that CIT is still around exposing the 9/11 deception while our detractors keep falling by the wayside only to be replaced by other shadowy entities says it all. Respected media critic Barrie Zwicker put it best in his endorsement of our work:
"Arguably no single group is being targeted more toxically than the honest citizen detectives of CIT. That this disinformation campaign is being waged is a signal tribute to the historic importance of CIT’s work -- work that must be supported unflaggingly."
The fact that CIT is still around exposing the 9/11 deception while our detractors keep falling by the wayside only to be replaced by other shadowy entities says it all. Respected media critic Barrie Zwicker put it best in his endorsement of our work:
"Arguably no single group is being targeted more toxically than the honest citizen detectives of CIT. That this disinformation campaign is being waged is a signal tribute to the historic importance of CIT’s work -- work that must be supported unflaggingly."
*Editor note continued: The thing we find bizarre is that many of CIT’s detractors support the official government claim that a 757 did hit the Pentagon on 9/11. This ignores most of the physical evidence: Where’s the wreckage? Where’s the damage caused by the wings hitting the building? Where are the wings? What caused the punch-out hole? What caused the destruction and deaths in the Pentagon’s innermost ring?
We have strong evidence that explosives were planted inside, and, according to the Flight Data Recorder that was supposedly found inside the building, the plane would have been too high to hit the building and its trajectory would also have had it missing the five downed light poles.
Both Ranke and Marquis (CIT) have turned up numerous credible eyewitness testimony that proves the "official story" wrong - and consequently they have been banned from 911Blogger so they can never answer the constant stream of attacks (many personal) levelled at them.
We have strong evidence that explosives were planted inside, and, according to the Flight Data Recorder that was supposedly found inside the building, the plane would have been too high to hit the building and its trajectory would also have had it missing the five downed light poles.
Both Ranke and Marquis (CIT) have turned up numerous credible eyewitness testimony that proves the "official story" wrong - and consequently they have been banned from 911Blogger so they can never answer the constant stream of attacks (many personal) levelled at them.
Is this criticism out of proportion with the facts? Does it ring true? Or is there another agenda? Who are the CIT detractors really working for? It does not appear to be the TRUTH.
This is an excellent video that explains how CIT began (and thank heavens it did).
HUMOR: Jersey Shore's Snooki speaks out on 911 Truth
Here is somebody's creative way to get the message out. Who knows? It might work.
"Confession of a 9/11 Conspirator" - A Feature Film in Development
Confession of a 9/11 Conspirator is a dramatization of the first day of the President's New Investigation of 9/11.
The movie will show that the Bush-Cheney administration is guilty of conspiring to cover-up the truth about 9/11 - whatever it is.
This includes making false and misleading statements in their official reports - and misusing government agencies - for the purpose of deceiving the public - and the Congress - into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted.
For leaders of the Bush-Cheney administration to have been involved in such a cover-up is treasonous.
The film simply proves the official reports aren't true. It does not speculate as to what might have really happened.
That's for a REAL new investigation to find out.
WTC- Collapse FOIA Release
This is a good video of the lower destruction wave....pulverized concrete being ejected....tube box column structure blown outward....repeated all of the way down:
FOIA Release January 5, 2012
News on the Day BEFORE 9/11/2001: $2.3 Trillion Dollars Missing from Pentagon
Its been 10 years since the 9/11 tragedy and still so many unanswered questions remain.
Whether you are a 9/11 conspiracy theorist or not most educated people will admit that there are flaws & inconsistencies in the "official" 9/11 story & anyone that has done their research understands that the 9/11 commission was hindered from finding the truth from the very outset.
This video covers an issue related to 9/11 that many people are unaware of:
The fact that Donald Rumsfeld gave a speech to a large group of Pentagon employees on Sept. 10th, 2001 basically declaring war on the institution of the Pentagon itself. He also spoke about the fact that $2.3 TRILLION in pentagon spending could not be accounted for.
The very next day on 9/11/2001, the section of the Pentagon that was destroyed housed ALL the computers & accounting documents containing information relating to the Pentagon's "financial mismanagement" of those missing funds.
Of course after 9/11 missing money was the last thing Americans were concerned about.
And not long after that Bush increased DOD spending by billions of dollars to fund the "War on Terror."
FAKING IT: HOW the Media Manipulates the World into War
Far from being a dispassionate observer of these developments, however, the media has in fact been central to increasing those tensions and preparing the public to expect a military confrontation.
But as the online media rises to displace the traditional forms by which the public forms its understanding of the world, many are now beginning to see first hand how the media lies the public into war.
Ron Paul Claims "Israeli Mossad Behind 1993 World Trade Center Bombing"
ED NOTE: We found the source of the persistent rumors that the Israeli Mossad attacked the WTC. It is from an old Ron Paul newsletter published in April 1993.
He made this and many other extreme homophobic, racist and anti-semitic claims over a period of 25 or so years...and currently says that (after making millions off of these newsletters) "I don't know who wrote my newsletters."
From the Ron Paul Survival Report, April 1993 (PDF):
TRANSCRIPT: "It was only a few days after the World Trade Center bombing before Mohammed A. Salameh was arrested. Is he guilty? Who knows? Some people think this a frameup by anti-Arab interests. Recall that shortly after the Kennedy assassination, Lee Harvey Oswald was apprehended and accusations were made. We're still sorting that one out. From my point of view, it's hard to believe the perpetrators could be as stupid as the authorities maintain.
We now know what one homemade bomb can do to a large city—one billion dollars of damage. Whether it was a setup by the Israeli Mossad, as a Jewish friend of mine suspects, or was truly a retaliation by the Islamic fundamentalists, matters little. The cities have become centers of violence, whether through the daily and routine terrorism of crime, political bomb terrorism, or the terrorism of mob behavior as in Los Angeles."
Taxi driver comes close to admitting he was part of 9/11 cover story
By Craig McKee, Truth and Shadows, 12.27.2010
If there is an Achilles heel to the official 9/11 cover story, it has to be Lloyde England.
The Washington D.C. taxi driver is an essential part of the official story that American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m. on Sept. 11, 2001. His car is supposed to have been hit by one of the light poles knocked over by the plane right before it hit the Pentagon. This story was supposed to offer rock solid confirmation of the Pentagon government account. Instead, it’s the weakest link.
Not only is England’s version of what happened to him that day not supported by the witnesses or the physical evidence (as we shall see), but in an unguarded moment in the film National Security Alert (by Citizen Investigation Team), England came very close to admitting he had been a part of the conspiracy.
England told CIT (he didn’t realize the camera was running, but he clearly understood he was talking “on the record.”) that there was a lot more to the 9/11 events than meets the eye:
“When people do things and get away with it, eventually it’s going to come to me. And when it comes to me, it’s going to be so big. So it had to be stopped in the beginning when it’s small, you see, to keep it from spreading.
“This is too big for me man. This is a big thing. Man you know this is a world thing happening. I’m just a small man. My lifestyle is completely different from this. I’m not supposed to be involved in this. This is for other people. People who have money and all this kind of stuff. Well, I not supposed to be involved with this, I don’t have nothing.
“People with money – this is their thing. This is for them.”
People with money? Does that sound like he’s describing Al-Qaeda? If this was a case of a hijacking that briefly touched on him (as the result of his cab being hit), he wouldn’t have said, “…it had to be stopped in the beginning when it’s small, you see, to keep it from spreading.”
Is he talking about covering up the truth at the beginning before too many questions are asked? He certainly doesn’t sound like someone who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time when a fundamentalist Muslim plot to attack America unfolded in front of him.
He goes on to say that what we’re led to believe happened by historical accounts isn’t necessarily true.
“History is ‘his story.’ It’s not the truth. It has nothing to do with the truth.”
England's own drawing of the pole through the windshield of his cab.
England says he stopped his car after it was impaled by the pole. The pole was supposedly wedged all the way in his back seat and protruding from the front of the car. He says he flagged down a man in a van who pulled over and helped him pull the pole out of the windshield.
To date, not one witness claims to have seen the pole hit the cab or anyone pulling it out of the car. And the physical evidence just doesn’t support his story.
England was interviewed in National Security Alert, a remarkable bit of investigative journalism by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of CIT. The film features interviews with a number of witnesses who contradict the official flight path of Flight 77. And that flight path is critical to the official story because of the downed light poles.
What makes these witnesses particularly important (in addition to the fact that two of them are Pentagon cops) is where they were positioned when they say they saw the plane. All the witnesses in the film were situated to the west of the Pentagon – in the vicinity of the Citgo gas station or the Navy Annex building – and were in a position to see whether the plane passed to the north or to the south of both. Both cops were at the station when the plane passed them; a third witness worked at the station.
The cops and all the rest of the witnesses that CIT interviewed confirmed the plane had passed to the north of the station and to the north of, or directly over, the Navy Annex. Not only does this contradict the official version (which had the approach on the south side) but it also means that the light poles that were allegedly hit by the plane (there were five) could not have been.
The pole evidence had to have been staged.
That brings us back to Lloyde England. If the pole evidence is fake, then he must have been part of the deception. And if he’s shown to have lied, then the official story crumbles.
By the time of the National Security Alert interview, England already knew of the witnesses who contradict the flight path “evidence.” He seemed to try to overcome this by insisting that he had been right beside the Pentagon instead of to the south where the poles were downed. Despite dozens of attempts by Ranke to show him photographic proof of where his car was, he continued to insist he was somewhere else. If he were being honest would he not have shown even a shred of doubt in the face of clear proof?
Photographs, including the one at the top of this article, show that the windshield of the cab is smashed. They also show that there was no damage to the hood of the car. Was the pole lying on the hood, England was asked? “Ya, ya. But there’s no scratches on the hood.”
The piece of the pole we see lying on the ground is more than 20 feet long. And England confirms that it was the curved and thinner end that was in his back seat. The majority of the length of the pole protruded well beyond the front of the car (the heavy end). Somehow, the pole stayed impaled in the car without damaging the hood. Interior damage to the car also was not consistent with a huge pole becoming embedded in the back seat (no more than a tiny rip in the upholstery).
After the plane had just smashed into the Pentagon to his left and a light pole had come smashing through his windshield, England made an odd decision. He decided he needed to remove the pole immediately.
England flagged down a man driving a van. He claims he lifted the pole out of the car with the help of the stranger, who then drove off without a word. Apart from how unlikely this all sounds, the idea that this long, heavy pole would stick out of the front of the car without crashing down on the hood is simply unbelievable. England even agrees with this, pointing out the lack of hood damage even before interviewers could point it out.
He also makes a point that there didn’t seem to be enough of a hole in the Pentagon to accommodate a 757. Did he say this to muddy the waters, to make himself sound more like he had no hidden agenda?
England’s wife, Shirley Hughes England, adds to the mystery. She was working for the FBI in 2001, and in an interview with CIT, she states that she knows why the FBI didn’t take the cab in for a forensic examination, but she won’t say more. Later in the film, she says the car was taken in “for a day or two.”
Ranke recounts how he told Hughes how the plane didn’t hit the Pentagon but continued on. She said, “ya.” He said, “What?” She said, “Ya, what you said. I’m not going to say anymore.”
There is obviously a great deal more to the England story than just having a pole hit his cab. He seems uncomfortable with his role in the whole thing. If the government had any real interest in finding the truth, then an attempt would be made to either verify or disprove England’s account.
We’ll just have to add this to the list of critical areas that have been ignored by any and all investigations into 9/11.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
