911blogger.com seeks to cover a broad spectrum of news. Blog posts are the responsibility of the poster. Readers are encouraged to check the facts, debate, and form their own conclusions.
August 11, 2012
By Kevin Ryan
The Wall Street Journal recently commented on the upcoming military trial of Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM). The article claimed that KSM and four other terrorists were somehow making a mockery of the U.S. justice system by trying to “use the open military trial to promote jihad and discredit American institutions, including the military system of justice.” Unsuspecting readers might think that an “open military trial” would actually be less reflective of American institutions than the (actually open) civil trial requested for KSM by many of the 9/11 victims’ families. But the more important question is – are the right terrorists being brought to trial?
That question is not welcome in polite conversation.
For example, last August I was invited to appear on National Public Radio (NPR) to discuss the lasting phenomenon of 9/11 skepticism. The show’s regular host was replaced by a woman who had clearly made up her mind about the subject. Ironically, throughout the show she made snide comments about “conspiracy theorists” when referring to the millions of people who don’t believe the official conspiracy theory. Her other guests, from the Hearst Corporation and Canada’s National Post, joined her in using some variation of this phrase every thirty seconds during the hour long show. As the sole representative of 9/11 skeptics, I was allowed five minutes to speak until it was clear the conversation was not going as intended.
Direct Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcZKso_Z6M8
City firefighters leave for 5,000-mile motorcycle ride to raise funds, honor 9/11 dead, and help veterans
Firefighters will show respects at Shanksville, Oklahoma City and Aurora
By Corinne Lestch / NEW YORK DAILY NEWS
Tuesday, July 31, 2012, 6:00 AM
The “War On Terror” Has Changed, and Not One In 1,000 Americans Has Noticed... We're now fighting alongside Al Qaeda.
What You Should Know about this “Unthinkable” Development…
In George Orwell’s novel 1984, the country of Oceania has been in a war against Eurasia for years.
Oceania suddenly switches sides, naming Eastasia as its enemy and making its mortal enemy, Eurasia, its new ally.
The government uses propaganda to convince people that, “We’ve always been at war with Eastasia”. The dumbed-down public doesn’t even notice that they’ve switches sides, and blindly rallies around Eurasia as its perennial friend and ally.
The same thing is happening in real life with Al Qaeda.
Western governments and mainstream media have admitted that Al Qaeda is fighting against the secular Syrian government, and that the West is supporting the Syrian opposition … which is helping Al Qaeda.
The U.S. also funds terrorist groups within Iran.
Of course, Al Qaeda was blamed for 9/11, and the entire decades-long “War on Terror” was premised on rooting out Al Qaeda and related groups.
So the fact that we now consider Al Qaeda fighters to be allies in any way, shape or form is positively Orwellian.
By Russ Baker on Jul 31, 2012
History has shown us, however, that acts of violence, with or without declared sponsorship, are not the exclusive province of crazy loners or renegade regimes. In fact, we know from experience that, as horrendous as it sounds, those in power have sometimes terrorized their own populace while blaming the violence on others. The reasons for this vary widely, but include justifying retributive acts abroad or domestic repression.
One classic technique of creating disorder to justify subsequent repression or military action is the “false flag” attack, so named to describe a ship’s flying an enemy flag while attacking one of its own country’s vessels. The cases in which such attacks were intended to become the basis for a severe reaction could fill a book. Here are a few:
9/11: Journey for Truth
Written by Marta Nielsen
Orcas Island resident Rena Patty embarks today on the journey of lifetime – a bicycle ride across America. Patty, with traveling companion Pamela Senzee from Phoenix, AZ, expects to take 90 days to reach their destination New York City. Both women are Action Group Team Leaders for the nonprofit Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth). Their journey is dedicated to all who have died and suffered loss on account of 9/11. Their mission is to educate the public about the scientific forensic evidence of the destruction of the three World Trade Center (WTC) hi-rises on 9/11 and to introduce people to the experts at AE911Truth.
Rena Patty will be educating Americans about the 9/11 evidence as she treks from coast to coast
The women have concern about the accuracy of reports produced by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), the government agency tasked to analyze the destruction of the WTC hi-rises on 9/11. WTC building 7 was the third hi-rise to collapse on 9/11. At 5:20 p.m., WTC 7 collapsed suddenly into its own footprint in about 6.5 seconds, the first 2.25 seconds at a rate indistinguishable from free-fall. NIST claims the building fell because of normal office fires. Structural engineers from AE911Truth requested to see the computer model used by NIST to explain the sudden collapse of WTC 7. NIST refused, saying that to release the computer model would “jeopardize public safety.” More than 1700 credentialed architects and engineers have signed the AE911Truth petition calling for an independent investigation into the destruction of the WTC hi-rises on 9/11.
Pam Senzee has coordinated several successful events for AE911Truth in the Phoenix area
On their journey, Patty and Senzee are distributing a new documentary, “9/11: Experts Speak Out.” The documentary features interviews with the most highly credentialed AE911Truth petition signers. Experts like Richard Humenn, former chief electrical engineer for the WTC complex, and Roland Angle, a civil engineer who was responsible for designing blast resistance of the Minuteman Missile silos. Patty says, “This bike trip is not about us, it’s about introducing people to these experts.” The idea of a bike ride arose two months ago as Patty and Senzee brainstormed ideas of possible legal nonviolent actions to bring attention to this issue. Patty says, “My college degree is in science. The scientific evidence presented by AE911Truth looks extremely important to me. We wanted to do something big enough to let people know how important this issue is to us.”
Anticipating traveling 40–80 miles per day, the women will cross the North Cascades on Highway 20 and continue across the Rockies in northern Montana. They expect to arrive in New York City by late October. Patty visited the WTC site in October, 2011, while participating in the Occupy Wall Street protest in Zucotti Park in New York City.
|Written by Dennis P. McMahon, J.D., L.L.M.|
|Thursday, 19 July 2012|
It’s often difficult for people who are aware of the evidence for the controlled demolition of the WTC skyscrapers to understand why so many Americans are unwilling to rationally discuss this vital information. For over ten years now, 9/11 Truth advocates have been trying to get relatives, friends, and strangers to listen to the undeniable facts that point to the need for a real 9/11 investigation. We often encounter emotional resistance, which poses the question: “Why is the evidence so difficult for so many people to accept?” In the new documentary, “9/11 Explosive Evidence – Experts Speak Out,” AE911Truth petition signers with psychological expertise step forward with answers.
|Written by Adam Taylor|
|Thursday, 19 July 2012|
In order to understand what nanothermite is, we first must understand what ordinary commercial thermite is. Thermite is a mixture of a metal and the oxide of another metal, usually aluminum (Al) and iron oxide (Fe2O3), in a granular or powder form. When ignited, the energetic Al-Fe thermite reaction produces molten iron and aluminum oxide, with the molten iron reaching temperatures well in excess of 4000° F. These temperatures are certainly high enough to allow cuts through structural steel, which generally has a melting point of around 2750° F.
There is also a variant of thermite known as thermate, which is a combination of thermite and sulfur, and is more efficient at cutting through steel. This form of thermite is believed to have been used in the demolition of World Trade Center Building 7. Although conventional thermite has the capability to cut through structural steel, it is technically an incendiary and not an explosive.
By Kevin Ryan
July 21, 2012
“Terrorism is theater.” – Brian Michael Jenkins
For many years prior to 9/11, two Americans were in unique positions to originate and frame the national conversation about terrorism. Those same two people, Brian Michael Jenkins and L. Paul Bremer, played extraordinary roles related to aviation security and World Trade Center (WTC) security in the few years before the 9/11 attacks. Could Bremer and Jenkins have been front men for a program that hyped the threat of terrorism while at the same time manufacturing terrorist events for political purposes?
If so, it would not have been the first time that the American people were subject to the hard sell of a threat to national security only to discover that the threat was overblown or non-existent. The Soviet military threat to the U.S. after World War II is now widely known to have been a fabrication hyped for political and financial gains.
The propaganda that drove the Cold War was effective in establishing government policy primarily because it was effective in framing the national conversation about what threats were important to consider, and in controlling the media. The same has been true for the propaganda driving the War on Terror. A short review of the people and reports that promoted the Soviet communist threat is helpful in understanding the “Islamic terrorist” threat that has evolved from it.
According to the theology of one of the leading experts of "9/11 truth," America is in the grips of a struggle with "demonic evil."
Alternet / by Jan Frel
July 18, 2012
David Ray Griffin holds high status in the 9/11 Truth community as its leading scholar and advocate. Over his career, Griffin has metamorphosed from a long-time professor of philosophy, religion and theology into a 9/11 publishing machine, selling well over 100,000 copies of a slew of exhaustively annotated conspiracy theory books, and writing many dozens of papers and articles. Griffin figures in two of the most-popular documentaries of the past decade. He is credited as a script editor for Loose Change: Final Cut, the best-known, most-watched 9/11 Truth film of all time, and has a starring role in what may be the most-watched documentary series of all time, Peter Joseph's Zeitgeist.
Asked in a 2005 interview with the L.A. Times about his “role as a 9/11 dissenter depart from [his] life's work as a scholar and theologian,” Griffin responded, “At first glance it may seem strange, but the task of a theologian is to look at the world from what we would imagine the divine perspective, [which] would care about the good of the whole and would love all the parts. [So] 9/11, if it was brought about by forces within our own government for imperial reasons, is antithetical to the general good.”
The judge refused to recuse himself Tuesday from the trial of the alleged Al-Qaeda operative accused of masterminding the 2000 suicide attack on the USS Cole.
Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri faces the death penalty over the bombing of the US Navy destroyer off Yemen in October 2000 that killed 17 sailors and an attack two year later that killed one person on the French oil tanker MV Limburg.
Al-Qaeda claimed responsibility for the suicide attack on the USS Cole, which saw militants riding an explosives-laden skiff blow a 30-by-30-foot (10-by-10-meter) hole in the ship.
Nashiri’s lawyers had called on Judge James Pohl to recuse himself from the Guantanamo military tribunal trying the case, pointing to a judicial and financial conflict of interest.
But at a pre-trial hearing on Tuesday, Pohl — the longest-serving judge in the US military — said his impartiality could not be questioned and refused to stand down.
Self-confessed 9/11 “mastermind” falsely confessed to crimes he didn’t commit
U.S. Drugged Detainees, Which Interfered with their Ability to Tell the Truth
The Inspector General for the the U.S. Department of Defense reports that the military heavily drugged some detainees in a way which impaired their ability to provide accurate information:
Detainees in custody of the US military were interrogated while drugged with powerful antipsychotic and other medications that “could impair an individual’s ability to provide accurate information,” according to a declassified Department of Defense (DoD) inspector general’s report.
Over the past decade, dozens of current and former detainees and their civilian and military attorneys have alleged in news reports and in court documents that prisoners held by the US government in Guantanamo, Iraq and Afghanistan were forcibly injected with unknown medications and pills during or immediately prior to marathon interrogation sessions in an attempt to compel them to confess to terrorist-related crimes of which they were accused.
World Premiere Tour of 9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Final Edition, Tampa FL, introduction by Richard Gage, Director/Architect, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (www.AE911Truth.org).
Video Archive: http://www.ustream.tv/channel/wkoalive
Chris Steiner, Organizer, We Are CHANGE Tampa (www.WeAreCHANGETampa.org)
New NSA docs contradict 9/11 claims: “I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released," an expert says...
“I don’t think the Bush administration would want to see these released," an expert tells Salon
Tuesday, Jun 19, 2012
Over 120 CIA documents concerning 9/11, Osama bin Laden and counterterrorism were published today for the first time, having been newly declassified and released to the National Security Archive. The documents were released after the NSA pored through the footnotes of the 9/11 Commission and sent Freedom of Information Act requests.
“I have no desire to attack the Pentagon; I want to liberate it. We need to save it from itself.” Donald Rumsfeld, September 10, 2001
The official account of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 leaves many questions unanswered. The work of independent investigators has also failed to address those questions. In an attempt to find answers, an alternative account of the Pentagon attack is considered.
An alternative account would be more compelling than the official account if it explained more of the evidence without adding unnecessary complications. Considering means, motive and opportunity might allow us to propose a possible “insider conspiracy” while maintaining much of the official account as well.
A few of the more compelling unanswered questions are as follows.
- How could American Airlines Flight 77 have hit the building as it did, considering that the evidence shows the alleged hijacker pilot, Hani Hanjour, was a very poor pilot?
- Why did the aircraft make a 330-degree turn just minutes before hitting the building?
- Why did the aircraft hit the least occupied one-fifth of the building that was the focus of a renovation plan and how was it that the construction in that exact spot just happened to be for the purpose of minimizing the damage from a terrorist explosion?
- Why was the company that performed the renovation work, just for that one-fifth of the building, immediately hired in a no bid contract to clean-up the damage and reconstruct that area of the building? (Note: The same company was also immediately hired to clean-up the WTC site within hours of the destruction there.)
- What can explain the damage to the building and the aircraft debris or lack thereof?
- Why were the tapes from the surveillance videos in the area immediately confiscated by the FBI and never released?
These questions should be considered along with the fact that U.S military and “Homeland Security” expenditures since the 9/11 attacks have totaled approximately $8 trillion. This paints a picture that calls for an in-depth investigation into the people running the Pentagon, to see if they might have had the motivation and ability to plan and execute the attack.