already sent email asking, no response yet

Did anyone attend the John Judge lecture in NYC last night?

i just read that Ian Henshall book. it was pretty good, short and to the point.

recent post on 9/11 on americablog, go instill some knowledge:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/2006/01/chris-matthews-likes-to-tie-demo...

I asked him to do a "write-up"... I don't know... I haven't spoken with him yet. One of the things John told me about recently was a theory that he had... that the anti-aircraft batteries actually were fired from the Pentagon. I thought it was an interesting angle which is why I remembered it. Of course, we're still in the same predicament we were before... RELEASE THE DAMN VIDEOS...

Yeah, I would love to see or hear that debate!

BTW, I've finally got my blog going and resurrected my 9/11 pages from another site that I had up before. Any comments/suggestions from you good people would be welcome. Thanks!

9/11 ~ The Ultimate Psy-Op

>> i just read that Ian Henshall book. it was pretty good, short and to the point.

The professional design, abundant references, and sober-sounding style of writing in 9/11 Revealed creates the illusion of serious reporting. Unfortunately, the book is anything but that. Rather, it uses an appearance of journalism in order to insert numerous poison pills -- ludicrous ideas whose purpose is to discredit challenges to the official story.

9/11 Revealed includes, in some form, almost every major hoax that has plagued the 9/11 Truth Movement, even the most ridiculous of these: that pods were mounted under the jets that hit the WTC towers. The hoaxes presented in here have been so thoroughly debunked over and over that I can't imagine why they are included except to intentionally discredit the movement.

Readers who have not researched the attack will also not be aware of the book's critical omissions, such as its avoidance of the direct evidence of controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7. Instead of including the strongest evidence for demolitions, already exposed on many 9/11 websites, we get outrageous excuses serving as cover, such as the idea that demolition charges must have been installed in the WTC towers at some point earlier to "prevent a sideways fall onto neighboring Manhattan."

I guess you should check with your building manager if you are in a highrise -- your building may be rigged to explode!

Sad to see the hoaxes packaged in a slick format and mixed with a lot of what appears to be the real evidence, but that's how these things are done. Thus, while pretending to reveal the crime, this book, instead, serves to subtly reinforce the official story.

Hey Jon, Iran is dumping the dollar and switching to the Euro Mar 20, therefore will will be branded terrorists and invaded before then to try to prevent it.

This is according to Tarpley...

9/11 Revealed is a good book, i think some of you people are way too critical. not everyone has the same exact views on 9/11, some people actually think Bush orchestrated the thing himself,some think no arabs were involved at all,and yes, some think there were "pods", but the book is a whole hell of a lot better than the "official" story,and i think your really nit-picking with your so called review.is it a perfect book? no, but what 9/11 book is?(i prefer Tarpley and Griffin) the point is, its a book that is critical of the official story, and to stress on the "pod" issue or whatever is pretty short-sighted if you ask me.take the book for what it is, another blow to the official conspiracy theory,and any book that does that is a plus despite your problems with it.

the fact that you say it "subtly reinforces the official story" shows you are not serious, or you didnt really read the book.it talks about most of the same issues in every 9/11 book,and you know as well as i do those issues destroy the official story,lets be for real.

Although I believe there were pods on the bottom of the planes (just like the pictures at the US Airforce web site), why derivate from the question of how WTC7 fell on 9/11. The official story butts head with Sir Isaac Newton who I have a great deal of respect for.

Great ... March again. There must be something to this numerology thing. The war started on my birthday, March 19. Can't we just watch the swallows come back to Capistrano???

Excusing Air Defense Failures

Hiding Multiple War Games

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/911revealed/#airdefense

9/11 Revealed mentions only a single war game exercise: Vigilant Guardian. It makes no mention evidence of as many as four other exercises also coincidentally planned for the time-frame of 9/11/01. These are well documented on websites cited by the book, such as such as FromTheWilderness.com, and here on 911Research, from which the book apparently lifted so much material without credit.

* Operation Northern Vigilance: This apparently had the effect of removing air defense resources away from the northeast corridor into northwest Canada.
* Operation Vigilant Warrior: This may have been a counterpart for the exercise they mention, Vigilant Guardian.
* The National Reconnaissance Office Plane Crash Drill: This exercise, simulating a plane crashing into the NRO's headquarters, disabled one of the office's functions -- that of monitoring airborne objects -- while the attack unfolded.
* The Tripod II Biowarfare Exercise: This had the effect of deploying FEMA to Manhattan in advance of the attack.

By mentioning only one exercise, 9/11 Revealed makes the war game issue seem easily explainable as a coincidence.
War Games as an Excuse

Conducting a combined anti-hijacking exercise on the symbolic date of 9/11 (the USA's emergency telephone number for all rescue services) would appeal to the military mind, not Al-Qaeda, for whom it has no meaning.
[page 54]

The fact that the date is significant in the U.S. is evidence that the attack was the work of insiders rather than Islamic fundamentalists. But instead of noting this in relation to the planning of the attack, the book uses it to suggest that the scheduling of the war game exercise on 9/11 was not a suspicious coincidence.

The NORAD exercise Vigilant Guardian provides some sort of explanation for the failure of the FAA to alert the US military.
[page 56]

Rather than pointing out that apologists for the official theory could use the war game as an excuse for the military response failures, the authors themselves excuse the failures.

search google for

"APOLLO GUARDIAN

(with quote!)