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.
Adam Syed's blog
Since I'm sure our lurking opposition will try to seize this moment and cry "Troofer idiots suggest Buffalo plane crash was a conspiracy!" I might as well state that I am NOT submitting this story to imply that Beverly Eckert was murdered. I'm submitting it because it certainly does fall under the category of 9/11-related news. -kam
By Alex Nussbaum and David M. Levitt
Feb. 13 (Bloomberg) -- The jets that crashed into the World Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001, made Beverly Eckert a widow and transformed her life from busy insurance executive to an activist who took on the president, the Pentagon and Congress.
Eight years after the terror attacks killed her husband, Aon Corp. vice-president Sean Rooney, Eckert, 57, died in last night’s crash of a Continental Airlines Inc. commuter plane approaching Buffalo Niagara International Airport. The snowy wreck killed 48 other passengers and one person in the house it hit.
163 minutes in duration. (Yup, it's long!) I'm about half way through right now. Jason is kicking ass. The host doesn't seem to be too impressed with Bennett's counter-arguments to Bermas. Bennett and his kind are not debunkers. They're anti-truthers. WE are the real debunkers, as we debunked the official story and proved it to be a lie. I refuse to any longer dignify them by using the word "debunker," even in scare quotes.
The title says it all!
Once again, a news.google.com search on "9/11 truth" brings up a new item. The Kennebec Journal bravely published a pro 9/11 truth letter.
Machiavelli wrote, "There are many who think a wise prince ought, when he has the chance, to foment astutely some enmity, so that by suppressing it he will augment his greatness."
This tactic has often been used or considered. Germany was blamed during World War I for an unprovoked attack on the "Lusitania," which was carrying arms to the British, and the Vietnam War was expanded based on a false report on Aug. 4, 1964, of an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin.
Operation Northwoods, a 1962 military plan to fake a Cuban attack on the U.S., proposed shooting down a civilian plane with Americans onboard.
There is a NY Daily News article today not specifically about 9/11 truth, but 9/11 as accepted by the official story. I guess some 9/11 family members still have a Rush Limbaugh style mentality.
A 9/11 family member chides the new President for closing Guantanamo terror camp
"With his shameful order to close Guantanamo Bay, President Obama has perfectly filled the stereotype of the classic clueless ultra-Liberal - the one who can generate great passion for the rights of the guilty defendant and none for the innocent victim.
"With a single stroke of the pen, Obama has delayed justice for the victims of 9/11, and in essence granted a reprieve for Al Qaeda mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the architect of 9/11.
America does not honor our "rule of law and the rights of man" as he put in his inauguration speech by such an action. Instead, this nation abdicated its duty to justice."
Anyway, click on the link to read the rest. I took advantage of this to register (it takes 30 seconds) and post the following comment:
Just as the Mujahadeen were trained by the CIA to defeat communists, only to later become our enemy when they started "blowing back," the same is true of Hamas and Israel. I never looked at the Israel/Hamas situation quite this way before, but Dr. Paul makes alot of sense.
As internet activists, it's always good to do regular news.google.com searches on "9/11," "9/11 conspiracy" and "9/11 truth" to see if there are any recent articles worth mentioning. Today, I happen to find the following piece, very favorable, written by an obviously well-read Shelton Lankford. While the article is positive, the first 10 or so comments are rather hateful, negative comments telling Mr. Lankford to take his meds. I was the first positive comment. I realize that many of us feel lazy when it comes to registering an account with a paper in order to comment, but it really does only take a minute. Please take the time to not only comment but also e-mail the author and thank him.
The calendar has ticked over and in 16 days, we won't have President Bush to kick around any more.
Often times, opponents of the 9/11 truth movement will try their methods of armchair psychology at analyzing 9/11 truthers, claiming that we WANT to believe that 9/11 was an inside job. They claim that we believe the "real" truth (official story) is just too boring. John McCain made this charge in his foreword to the Popular Mechanics propaganda book.
Over at JREF, an entire thread is dedicated to asking about the experiences of "former truthers," people who were briefly on our side but were then swayed back to official story belief after having read Popular Mechanics, 911myths(dot)com, etc. A forum regular there, Parky76, says+the+following:
i remember how scared my mom was when i spouted all the conspiracy theories at her. she was not happy at all that i was saying all these things.
i text messaged my ENTIRE family: "i have seen a new video, which shows compelling evidence, that our own government was responsible for 9-11!!"
i got zero responses...=)
Taped Dec. 22, 2008. My first appearance on the show. I am the one at the far left with the Investigate 9/11 sweater. We eased the audience in with the financial crisis, which led to discussion of the Fed, which then segued into false flag terrorism, and finally 9/11. We figured it would be more effective than hitting the audience hard with 9/11 stuff from the get-go.
(continued below the fold)
My main question for fellow 911bloggers is this: should we tear them up in the comments section (so far 99% infested by debunkobots), and answer the questions they want us to answer (some of which are extremely infantile, like "why haven't the perps killed Dylan and DRG?"), or do we even acknowledge their presence? Obviously I'm acknowledging it here since I'm writing this entry, but should we take them out on their own turf? Is it even worth it? Do you think we'd convince a fence-sitter who might happen to be reading the Counterknowledge website?
So, apparently it was Oswald after all.
In preparation for the 45th anniversary of the assassination of John F. Kennedy, the Discovery Channel assembled a team of experts to re-investigate the shooting. According to its program that aired last night, modern technologies like blood-splatter analysis and computer modeling show that the shots came from the sixth floor of the Texas School Book Depository Building. The grassy knoll has been ruled out.
Don't expect this to convince too many people. Scientifically speaking, the case has been closed for decades. There are plenty of fishy things about Oswald and the CIA, but all the evidence points toward a lone gunman. Despite this, polls consistently show that most Americans believe in a "second shooter."
Conspiracy theories are seductive. When I was a sophomore in high school, I started a Web site to explain how the Apollo 11 moon landing was faked in a Hollywood studio by Stanley Kubrick. I found lots of photos where the shadows looked funny, a few where the crosshairs were missing or at strange angles, and even a video that made it look like the American flag was waving in the supposedly windless atmosphere.
Sarah Palin was confronted at a rally by WeAreChange Ohio.
"Do you support the family members and first responders who are calling for a new 9/11 investigation?"
Oh, the bizarre irony. She responds in the affirmative to the question of whether she supports the families/responders who call for a new investigation, while her running mate wrote the foreword to the Popular Mechanics propaganda.
This is written by one of the people who debated Graeme McQueen and Michael Keefer on Toronto's "Agenda" program. You don't even need to register to post comments on this one, so let's let him have it. So far there are three comments (including mine) and all three are pro truth.
When I walked across Cooper Square last Thursday just after dark, I found two columns of bluish light rising into the Manhattan night sky, an illuminated reminder of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. The “Tribute in Light” was a sight that stirred memories of that tragic day in New York seven years ago, and all that has followed.
Perhaps we should invite David Scott, chairman of CTBUH, to a live open debate. He says he has examined the truth movement's claims and finds in our movement "no credibility whatsoever."
"I believe that the NIST report is a responsible attempt to find the cause of the failure, however there are many questions that are not answered in any detail and several of these questions are already on the discussion forum. I think that with a responsible dialog and debate that the NIST report can be much better and clearer than it is in the current form.
What Really Happened on September 11?
September 08, 2008 09:40 AM EST
An Interview with David Ray Griffin
On September 11, I entertained a couple of house guests, senior journalists from Scandinavia. I remember watching in horror and disbelief the unfolding drama, as the United States was being subjected to multiple deadly attacks on-screen. I turned to the international affairs editor of a major Danish paper and told her "This could not have been done by al-Qaida." I am an Israeli and, as such, I have a fair "sixth sense" as to the capabilities of terrorists and their potential reach.
Enter David Ray Griffin. I was introduced to him by a mutual acquaintance. He is emeritus professor of philosophy of religion and theology at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University. He has published over 30 books, including eight about 9/11, the best known of which is "The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Expose"
A friend called me up today to tell me that another Chris Matthews type event got onto the MSM today at the RNC; the MSM reporters were drowned out by inside job chants. Surely someone caught this???
While all this was going on, I split off by myself and infiltrated the event with the bullhorn (I was urged to do this after we got a whiff of what was coming) and waited for them at the Cincinnatus statue.
This event does raise the issue of "private sponsors" like radio stations renting public property for major events like Cincinnati's annual Riverfest. The security guard who ended up attacking the signholder insisted that for this event, the normally public property is temporarily private, and hence the signs were not welcome.
Finally, when the police arrived, they ended up ultimately siding with the truthers! The fact that private sponsors were funding Riverfest didn't change the fact that the land was public; they gave us their blessing to peacefully hold our "9/11 was an inside job" sign inside the event where we could be seen. A classic example of the 1st Amendment triumphing over the concept of "free speech zones."
You have no rights unless you exercise them.
(Edit - from 7.28.2008 - missed this one.)
Not much needs to be said except Keep it Up Jesse!
As a high-profile 9/11 truther you may arguably be able to actually have MORE of an effect with this cause than you would have in the restrained PC, taboo-forbidden, controlled nature of the halls of our U.S. Senate. Don't let your wife's disgust with politics keep you from perpetually speaking the truth!
Excellent job spreading the Herman Goering quote!
In light of NIST's WTC7 report, it would be good to have a look at DRG's excellent debunking of the widely held misconception that a document by scientists makes it an ipso facto scientific document. From page 23 of "Debunking 911 Debunking:"
Having looked at two ways in which people, as illustrated by journalists, can avoid confronting the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, I now look at a third: the assumption that if an explanation is given by scientists, it is a scientific explanation.
Prior to 9/11 truth, my #1 activist issue was speaking out very loudly against the War on Drugs and cannabis legalization in particular. Now, I'm reminded of why. The War on Drugs was our boogeyman between Communism and Bin Laden. Now I guess it's just an "assistant" boogeyman since the War on Terror is front-and-center.
As a pet owner who loves his cat dearly, I'm especially incensed by this.
But I'm proud to be an American, where at least I know I'm free...
And we need this War on Drugs, it's vital to the security and safety of our homeland...
And remember, let's get the terrorists over there so we don't have to fight them here...
Seriously, the real dogs who should be shot are the ones who support cannabis prohibition and other unConstitutional laws and acts of anti-freedom.
I had several times looked for a youtube video of just this one clip alone but it didn't seem to exist. Now, I just checked out MichaelMoore.com for the first time in a few months and he's showcasing the clip on his front page. It just reminds us of how things are and can be a good warm-upper for those friends and family of ours who just have a psychological resistance to anything that smacks of "conspiracy garbage." ;)
Do you believe that the 9/11/01 attacks were carried out by Islamist terrorists without the knowledge or assistance of anyone connected to the US government, and that these perpetrators were wholly responsible for the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC7?
Please post Yes, No or Don't Know. I am not asking for a lot of discussion.
Shouldn't be too hard to log in and post "no," no?
GeorgeWashington's excellent essay a couple weeks back hit the nail on the head as to how to answer the claim, asked by newbies and exploited as a main debunker talking point, that if 9/11 were an inside job, the hijackers would have been Iraqi.
This reminded me of a post I made on Amazon over a year ago, while debating a guy called Steve Farrell. Steve was an interesting guy by the way. He started out being very civil, so you believe he's a genuine newbie. But a couple hundred posts later, after his points had been continuously answered or rebutted, he became increasingly hostile and JREF-like. Anyway, in an arrogant tone, he said to me:
Occasionally, in order to make sure our blogging community hasn't missed any opportunity to add comments to places and spread the truth, I do a google news search on "9/11," "9/11 truth" and "9/11 conspiracy." Here is one short but unfriendly blog at City Pages. Please comment to add strength in numbers:
From the link:
"He's just the latest person to fall prey to the so-called 9/11 Truth Movement."
How 9/11 Truth, the War on Drugs and the Pledge of Allegiance are interconnected (my review of Jesse Ventura's book)
My review of Jesse Ventura's book almost reads more like a blog entry than a book review; I personally think this is one of my better pieces of prose because I manage to intertwine 9/11 Truth, the War on Drugs, and the Pledge of Allegiance. Amazing how everything all ties together!
Anyone who reads my [Amazon] reviews in chronological order will see that Ventura's book from 2000, "Do I Stand Alone?", was my first review. Jesse was one of my first political role models when I read that book after coming across it in the Borders' store. Prior to that, all I knew was that he was a former wrestler turned governor. One of the first things that outraged me, and jolted me to be a political activist, was the criminalization of drugs and the war on marijuana smokers in particular, an outrage Ventura also shares. After going on my own political journey of various awakenings over this decade, Jesse has come back into my life during the 2008 election season with his best book yet.
I think all of us will be surprised that this gentleman didn't end up screaming "Don't taze me bro!" It just goes to show how exercising your rights, peacefully, if somewhat stubbornly, can still work even in the USA of 2008.
Immigration checkpoints reek of police state. Remember, once a person/vehicle has cleared the border, they should not have to be randomly stopped AGAIN. Jesse Ventura discussed these kinds of checkpoints in his book and on the Meria Heller interview. He said he'd refuse to even show his driver's license unless it's a state trooper, and reminds us that the Constitution forbids the random stopping of Americans within America without probable cause.
First, a spoiler alert if anyone is still reading Jesse Ventura's "Don't Start the Revolution Without Me." This is a book in which even though the entire thing is truly excellent, the real knockout fireworks are saved for the last few pages, the Epilogue. I feel obliged to reveal those contents in the hope that doing so might excite the rest of the movement as it has me.
Hi everyone, I was in a crowded place tonight and saw a clip of Jesse Ventura on Fox News. Unless this was a snippet from his H&C appearance, this might be a new one worthy of someone posting if they captured it. A few moments later I saw Geraldo on screen so it might have been his show.
Jesse Ventura was one of my first political idols early in the decade. I was casually browsing Borders' in Cleveland, and the hard-back first edition of his book "Do I Stand Alone?" was on the $5 shelf. Taking it to the cafe and reading it, I could not put it down, so I purchased it. (The original edition was on sale because it was pre-election2000, and the paperback edition is updated to after the Bush inauguration.) Anyway, 9/11 was what turned me on to current events in general, and although I had put faith in the Bush administration for a little while right after the attacks, my gut skepticism in the honesty of our current government was beginning to surface, though I did not become a Truther in the MIHOP sense until 2005. But three years earlier, Ventura taught me what the Founding Fathers meant in so many instances, and raised so many other important issues in his prose, that I sorely wished that he would run for President, which he never did but doesn't rule out in the future; by the way, I'm awaiting an Amazon delivery of his latest book, "Don't Start the Revolution Without Me."
In 9/11 Contradictions, David Ray Griffin discusses internal contradictions within the official story. Some of these contradictions I was not previously aware of, including the constantly changing testimony of Sandra Kay Daniels, the Florida classroom teacher. My review of DRG's book contains a paragraph which sums up DRG's research concisely: