911blogger.com seeks to cover a broad spectrum of news, posts in the blogs section are the responsibility of the poster, readers are encouraged to check the facts and form their own conclusions.
The ICONOCLAST's blog
The new album by Monsters of Folk, comprised of four frontmen for other groups including Jim James of My Morning Jacket, have crafted a superb album that includes a song with a nod to the 9/11 debate.
The song is called baby boomer here is the relevant section:
"And we gotta stand a little closer
To the lessons that we’ve learned
Is it just a premonition?
Could we really get ourselves both burned?
I’ve been sent here on a mission to find what we agree upon
We don’t agree about September,
Could we agree on Vietnam?"
Check it out, great music.
WikiNews Archives Bin Laden 9/11 Denials, sourced by the FBIS (Foreign Broadcast Information Service, a division of the CIA)
September 15, 2008
Ten years of messages and interviews with al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden have been leaked. Translated by the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), the documents were posted on a blog Friday.
Posted to Secrecy News blog on September 12, and copied to similar sites including Wikileaks.org, the ten years of messages span from 1994-2004. The packet, issued in 2004, is nearly 300 pages, and labeled "official use only". It was translated by the Foreign Broadcast Information Service (FBIS), a division of the CIA, and includes interviews with bin Laden from various news agencies and also includes messages he sent directly to the United States.
One message includes bin Laden's denial of having anything to do with the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York City, Washington, D.C. and Pennsylvania.
One of the most frustrating feelings generated from this exploration of truth for me is the sense that, well now I know... now what?
I have done my best to wake up friends and family with a good amount of success but I suspect they feel the same as I do, now what?
I applaud all those street activists who have bravely weathered critics, government lackeys, and the just plain ignorant.
I admittedly have done nothing that could be called street action.
So as time passes I feel more and more uncomfortable with this admission.
I feel I need to do something but that creeping feeling of helplessness is washing over me, even with the prospect of joining others in the street. After talking to a friend of mine I arbitrarily mentioned that, "if shit doesn't start happening I am going to drive down to D.C. park my ass at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. and go on a hunger-strike until we have our day in court!"
I was not serious when I said it at first but it got us talking and I am actually considering doing it now.
We need to take action over those reprehensible remarks. Here is what I sent them.
"You guys should be ashamed of yourselves for suggesting people with questions about 9/11 or even people who claim it was an inside job be put in a secret prison. It's absolutely disgusting. This is the land of the free, I do not care how offended or annoyed you get by people voicing their opinion, you are setting a dangerous precedent even if you are joking. I demand a retraction or I will never watch MSNBC again and neither will my family. Good Day"
After following the developing rift between Kevin Barret and Ann Althouse, I decided it was time to send her an email. If you feel so inclined you should send her one as well. Here it is:
***A Must Read*** On Pseudo-Skepticism - A Commentary by Marcello Truzzi (former Professor of Sociology at E. Michigan U.)
Pseudo-Skepticism is so important for people to understand because it is quite possibly the strongest force preventing 911 truth from breaking wide open (although what an amazing achievement for the movement to have made it this far in the face of such seemingly insurmountable odds). Pseudo-Skepticism is the greatest enemy of 911 truth and as the great Sun Tzu remarked in his classic book, "The Art of War,"
"Know Your Enemy"
There is also a bit of advice at the end of the article that could certainly apply to 911 truthers and how they should conduct themselves when debating "debunkers."
PS - Michael Shermer is perhaps the greatest example of a Pseudo-Skeptic and he has been at the forefront of 911 truth debunking.
A Commentary by Marcello Truzzi*
Saudi Arabia's Interior Minister Prince Nayef said,"Bin Laden was a "tool" of others rather than the mastermind of 9/11"
An article from USA Today dated 2/06/2002, contains compelling statements made by Saudi Arabia's Interior Minister Prince Nayef. He said, Bin Laden was a "tool" of others rather than the mastermind of the attacks against the World Trade Center, Pentagon and in Pennsylvania. He did not say who he thought was the mastermind."
Interestingly enough, I came across this article cited by a debunking website as proof all the 9/11 hi-jackers are dead. Prince Nayef alleges that Saudi leaders were shocked to learn 15 of the hijackers were from Saudi Arabia. "The names that we got confirmed that," Nayef said in an interview. "Their families have been notified." However, the most interesting thing about this article was apparently not noticed by our OCT clinger and instead a rather vague remark about contacting the family members of the 15 Saudi hi-jackers is cited as proof positive they are all dead.
After reading a couple blog posts by Myopicvoid and AboveAverageAmerican (thank you for the insight by the way and I hope you aren't upset I "borrowed" your ideas). I put together this email that I then forwarded to everyone I know friends, family, etc. The response has been phenomenal! People who vehemently argued with me before are now, at least, admitting the official collapse explanation is not adequate. I could not believe the responses I received. One person said, and I quote," It was like someone suddenly turning on a light bulb." I am very encouraged by this and I owe it all to the sharing of ideas and strategies we have utilized on this site. Thanks to everyone, but in particular thank you to Myopicvoid and AboveAverageAmerican. Here is the email and you have my express permission to copy paste cut (as long as it stays within the general theme) or email to anyone you feel inclined to.
"Whenever you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Here it is:
This email is slightly more complicated than my usual emails, however, I believe it is pretty striking when viewed in whole.
"Where's Your Evidence?"
This statement is an inevitable response given by people who have trouble see the obvious lies and distortions regarding 9/11. Of course none of us have slam-dunk documented evidence that proves exactly what happened. The whole raison d'etre of this movement is to discover the who, how, and why (although the why seems pretty clear at this point). So the next time you encounter this reactionary auto-response a very effective strategy is to simply in return ask them, "where is your evidence that the official story is wholly true." Thus de-activating this ridiculous mental block. I have utilized it several times and at the very least it enables the conversation to focus on what has not been proven rather than what can be proven.
I watched the whole movie, I thought it was certainly their best work. However, I was very surprised to find that nothing, in terms of the chemical evidence (i.e. thermate signatures, iron-rich spheres, sulfidation and oxidation of steel) where presented as evidence. Similarly I was expecting to see multiple interviews with Richard Gage along with other architects and engineers. These bits of information are powerful indicators of a scientific nature and cannot be disregarded with ease. Again I think it was the most coherent and professional effort to date, I just wished they had taken the opportunity to present the stronger pieces of evidence. What did everyone else think about it?
I have been spending the last few hours trying to come up with a way to compare the explosive forces between the '93 bomb and the plane impacts of 2001. However, my lack of expertise in this area of physics, pertaining to kinetic energy, explosive force, pressure, etc. is preventing me from making any sort of informed conclusion. On the other hand the information I have gathered suggests ( and I use that term lightly) that a bomb ( on the order of magnitude used in the '93 bombings: The bomb exploded in the underground garage at 12:17 P.M., generating a pressure estimated over one GPa (Giga Pascal) and opening a 30-meter-wide (98 foot) hole through four sublevels of concrete. The detonation velocity of this bomb was about 15,000 ft/s (4.5 km/s). Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_1993_bombings#Bomb_chara...) planted in the sub-level basement (which houses the critical main support for the tower) had a much larger probability of collapsing the building than an impact of a 767 carrying 10,000 gallons of jet fuel nearly 1,000 feet up from the basement.
I know some of you believe this is a no-brainer. You might say, "oh, well Mark Roberts is a schill or an idiot" but consider for a minute that he is another human being like all of us. (and for the record I am not a Mark Roberts apologist) However, I just spent well over 5 hours (more than I would have liked to really) reading over his material and I have a simple question; How is Mark Roberts wong? Please do not come at me with disinfo non-sense or any sort of character assault. I have read his material and have my own opinions on the matter. However I am interested in what other people think. If you have never read a word from him, DO NOT RESPOND. I am not interested in immature name calling or unsubstantiated claims. If you do have solid evidence that might be of interest to us all, please share but please do not throw out inflammatory comments that do nothing to address the issue at hand. And to make sure I am making myself absolutely clear. This is not an attempt at Debunking! I am simply encouraging critical thinking and investigation. So please if you would humor me...How is Mark Roberts wrong?
For all of us who see that the official 911 narrative as really just an 'easy-to-swallow' control pill, it may be extremely hard for us to fathom why the designers of such a plan would be so cocky as to have such a detailed and documented account of that horrific day.
Shouldn't these perpetrators be frightened by the clear evidence of demolition in the hundreds of videos available?
Shouldn't these perpetrators be scared the NORAD "failure" (aka stand down) is just too unlikely to be true?
Shouldn't these perpetrators shake in their boots at the overwhelming evidence of conspiracy and complicity?
The short answer is: No. And the short answer to why these perpetrators are not scared is: JFK and American Indifference.
Below I have compiled a list of powerful politicians and other governmental personnel, from both past and present, as well as their connections to the corporate world. In case anyone was wondering why our leaders are not doing anything, it may having something to do with that fact that it is in their best interest not to. It is pretty scary when you realize how deeply intertwined the American government is with Corporate America.
John M. Deutch: C.I.A. Director 1995-1996 -- Board of Directors of Citigroup(Banking Firm) Raytheon (Military Contractor)
Robert M. Gates: National Security Council,C.I.A. Director 1988-1992 Secretary of Defense 2006 -- Board of Trustees of Fidelity Investment(Banking Firm) On Board of Directors of SAIC (military contractor)
Dick Cheney: White House Chief of Staff 1975-1977, Secretary of Defense 1989-1993, Vice President 2000 -- Served as CEO and Chairman of the Board at Halliburton(Military Contractor) Board of Directors Procter & Gamble(Multinational Consumer Goods Manufacturer), Union Pacific (Largest Railroad company in America), Electronic Data Systems (Computer technologies).
Several months have passed since Prof. Jones revealed his startling evidence that supposedly proves some sort of explosives/incendiaries were used in the demolition of the WTC 1,2 and 7. When I first viewed his presentation I was floored because this was the physical evidence we needed. Since then however I have heard little about it. Does anybody know what the status is with that? And what can we do to help speed up the process of getting this information out there and peer-reviewed? any ideas? Take care everyone, keep fighting the good fight
"The educated differ from the uneducated as much as the living from the dead" - Aristotle
Is anybody else getting sick of the, "WTC 7 had structural damage" argument. Look at these two pictures. One is of the Federal building in OKC, it is almost half-way gone and yet it did not collapse. The Damage to WTC 7 does not even come close, yet it fell onto itself in 6.5 seconds. So how did WTC 7 fall? Structural damage...? I don't think so.
Absolutely demolished, yet still standing
Not even a significant percentage of the building is demolished, and as anyone with a 5th grade education knows if this building collasped due to this structural damage than it should have fallen towards the wound, not straight down in 6.5 seconds.
"Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution inevitable."
-John F. Kennedy