Support 911Blogger


Lawrence Wilkerson, former Powell Chief of Staff, says 9/11 CR probably did not get 60% right

It's a 30-minute interview, and Wilkerson tries to emphasize the "incompetence" angle, but he says some interesting things about the government, for a guy who used to be in it.

I would like to hear Wilkerson

with another person, asking better questions.

Still interesting, thanks for posting.

1 Part Truth For Every 40 Parts Lie(s)

I see this guy as a pebble caster; down at the pond throwing his little pebbles, making sure everyone takes note of his disdain for the pond, but when someone comes by with a boulder and wants to throw that in, they immediately stand up and defend the pond.

Everything out of this guy's mouth is crap. I love, how near the close of the video, he says - Conspiracy Theories...with that tone, in his voice; even a paranoid is occasionally right. For a guy who sits there and tells you that the Warren Commission is a "whitewash", that's some pretty strange logic. I wonder if this moron knows where the term "conspiracy theory or theorist" comes from, because it showed up in the American media (roughly) 3 or 4 years after the assassination of JFK; when people started asking questions, as a result of the fact that they were not satisfied with and subsequently suspicious, of the answers they were being given - by their government.

I'd ask this over priced bozo the following - please get out a video tape of Shanksville, PA and show me where the jet is. Show us the video(S) of flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. These are simple requests, not paranoia.

To listen to this faux - he'd have us believe that they're all a bunch of hopeless, neer-do-wells, just bumping and stumbling their way through life, as if in some episode of Dukes of Hazard, show; awww....shucks...The Al Quaeda attacked us...dah...what to do.

To that argument - that they all mean well, but the fog of war, in-fighting, priorities, egos...all got and get (present tense, implies it's still that way, now) in the way, is just - too convenient. It's a recipe for no accountability and allowing "them" (your employees tasked with your safety and welfare) to get a way with, quite literally - murder.

On a related note - when they put up the pictures of Oklahoma City, I thought I'd be sick. He cracks off about Tim McVeigh...go to YouTube guy and punch in "OKC Original News Footage" and explain to us why the media and witnesses were reporting multiple, unexploded bombs in the building.

In furtherance - go listen to JFK's speech about Secret Societies and tell me he was paranoid; so paranoid he was murdered; along with the paranoid Dr. David Kelly, the paranoid DC Madam, the paranoid Barry Jennings, the paranoid Mike Connell et. al.

I say this to this sack of crap - go #### yourself; no one listens to or trusts your "type", anymore. You are persona non grata, with no credibility.

911 Was "Another" Inside Job....Mr. Wilkerson.

If unfamiliar with Col. Wilkerson

.. your reaction is somewhat fathomable.

But as someone who is familiar with Wilkerson's views, articulated by him in his many media appearances, I feel your characterizations of him are hyperbolic and unnecessarily derogatory: "Pebble caster", "Everything out of this guy's mouth is crap", "overpriced bozo", "sack of crap", "persona non grata, with no credibility."

These descriptions and gutter language don't do a scholar like Larry Wilkerson justice. He's been very vocal and outspoken about the Iraq War, the Jewish Lobby (AIPAC), Israel, American imperialism, torture, corruption, creeping totalitarianism, Iran, and so on and so forth. I understand his position on 9/11 won't be considered rebellious and confrontational enough to many in the 9/11 truth movement. I too disagree with Wilkerson on this point. But I don't understand the lack of nuance in the reaction. The tendency to throw away the baby with the bathwater; to immediately excommunicate and crucify those thinkers, academics and researchers (e.g. Chomsky) who don't agree with us. They are walking their own path, they have their own vocation, their own misgivings with the state of Western civilization. At least Wilkerson is engaging in debate, at least he's being sincere about what he believes. Do remember, that if Wilkerson were to accept the premise of deliberate orchestration, he must implicate himself and his bosses. He said he would move out of the country. I think Wilkerson is suffering from the exact same psychopathology your regular non-truther suffers from: the profound sense of betrayal and insecurity concomitant with the realization that your government is way more malicious than you could possibly imagine; it's overwhelming to the point of triggering severe, hardcore denial mechanisms.

I think this performance is regrettable. The incompetence argument is painfully out of tune and cliche. Incompetence, which is certainly prevalent, widespread and pervasive in government bureaucracies, is not mutually exclusive with conspiracy. The government is extremely competent as well as extremely incompetent. You can't generalize one way or the other. In that sense, the state is not monolithic. Like Mike Ruppert said about incompetence theory: "you fools, you buy it every time, don't you?"

I'm not ready or willing to discard and declare Wilkerson 'my enemy', just as I'm not ready to do the same with Chomsky. I will simply disagree with Wilkerson and accept that. There are disagreements within the truth movement as well. Not everybody who disagrees with me is my 'enemy'. I can weigh Wilkerson's contributions to the common good of humanity (coming clean about Iraq, for example, and leveraging his metier, geostrategy, for criticism of the imperialist agenda) and find that ultimately, the scale tips in his favor.

As to your other points: JFK's speech was mainly about communism, not about Freemasons, Skull and Bones, Cloak and Dagger, the NWO or the Illuminati. And flight 77 and flight 93 crashed exactly where the hundreds of witnesses saw them crash. I'm interested in truth, not in proving a negative as substitute for proving a positive. Proving what didn't happen doesn't automatically validate the alternative theory du jour. If a commercial airliner crashed at the Pentagon (and it did) then I will accept that and move on. Pentagon no plane theory, in the face of an orgy of evidence to the contrary is frankly embarrassing. If anything is overpriced, it's "L'effroyable Imposture" by Thierry Meyssan. On the Pentagon issue, this movement wasted years.

There are many other questions which could have been asked of Wilkerson. For example, military brass not flying commercially on 9/11. Condoleezza Rice possibly warning major Willy Brown not to fly on 9/11. Standdown orders. War games. Able Danger. Insider trading. Operation Cyclone. Ali Mohamed. ISI involvement. Saudi involvement. Guilty demeanor. Various inexplicable cases of prior knowledge. NORAD lies. Kevin Fenton would have a field day with Wilkerson on these points. And we haven't even discussed the remaining engineering questions.

An astute reply

...to Suspicious Patriot's apparent and common frustration.

What the Col. knows in life he knows too well. It's a blind spot which he -- like most -- is not aware. Wilkerson is not a liar (my opinion).
For me, the physics of the collapses make the case. The voluminous corroborating 'coincidences' seals it.

...

@ A Confederacy

You read that post and deemed it an "astute reply"?

Witnesses prove a jet crash @ Shanksville? We've wasted years on the Pentagon? We know flight 77 crashed there?

This is an astute reply? And in defense of a man who tells you that he knows about false flag operations and previous lies?

I wonder what he knows about the Bilderberg meetings, the Bohemian Grove, pedophile sex rings in Washington, the drug trade and the Federal Reserve.

Trust this guy - please.

Litmus Test Failure

"He's been very vocal and outspoken about the Iraq War, the Jewish Lobby (AIPAC), Israel, American imperialism, torture, corruption, creeping totalitarianism, Iran, and so on and so forth."

So what?

He utterly fails the 9/11 Truth litmus test.

How do you know that he is not being used to further the overt limited hangout operation which continues in the vein of John Farmer’s book: “The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America’s Defense on 9/11″?

Frankly, I would say it is now perfectly obvious that is exactly what is going with Col. Wilkerson.

His "boss" is still Colin Powell et al.

@ bofors My sentiments,

@ bofors

My sentiments, exactly; hence the post.

Show "@ SnowCrash - Faux or Foe" by Suspicious Patriot

JFK Secrecy

"My Other Points - JFK's Speech - you've obviously never listened to the speech, if that's the conclusion you've drawn."

I found the entire speech to see the context to make sure what JFK was saying and at the time concluded,
"COMMUNISM!".

I now know he was addressing the secret world behind the scenes that is very much alive. The unseen force that hijacked our government and most of the world. The perps who did 9/11 are part of this.

JFK's speech

...was about communism, the Cold War, national security and the freedom of the press. JFK is comparing the American system of free press to the communist system of censorship and unfettered secrecy. Many people look up JFK's speech on Youtube and are presented with heavily (and misleadingly) edited versions that suggest JFK's speech was something it wasn't. Below is the FULL transcript of the speech, emphasis mine.

Transcript
Audio

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.

I

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.


The widespread distortion of this speech is an excellent example of the kind of a wild goose chase that wastes time. Like Pentagon no plane theory. I want the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; what I don't want is people doing a Sean Hannity on JFK's speech.

@ SnowCrash

You posted an entrie speech - LOL!!!. You couldn't print the link?

SC - why did you put so much effort into this waste of effort? You told this thread, that you would present your "orgy of evidence" proving that flghts 77 and 93 crashed @ The Pentagon & Shanksville.

...well, we are waiting. When does this orgy start?

Look Deeper into the "Communism" of which JFK Speaks

Look Deeper into the "Communism" of which JFK Speaks.

Joe

I know exactly what you mean, but I have never regarded the forces you speak of as either "communist", "marxist", "collectivist" or "socialist", but rather the exact opposite: fascist, capitalist, monopolist, oligarchic, plutocratic, aristocratic and clerical.

Furthermore, one can always speculate about a deeper layer under any man's words, but such claims can't be verified, and therefore, they can be made at random. Note the Karl Marx introduction. The references to invasion, to foreign powers, to a foreign diplomat attempting to censor the press, repeated references to the importance of national security, repeated references to the cold war.

Based on this clear evidence of JFK's intentions in the full transcript, I have to conclude other interpretations are rooted in wishful thinking. Clearly, JFK asserts that the United States should be a free and open society, and as such, it is opposed to 'secret societies and secret oaths'. But take for example, this passage:

"It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion.

For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money."

JFK speaks of the cold war and a "foreign power" learning the secrets of spy satellites. He speaks of the danger of "outright invasion". This speech must be seen in its proper context: the nuclear arms race and the height of the cold war. Anything else, sorry to say, is just sensationalist bunk. And I refuse to become a researcher who molds and sculpts a conspiratorial narrative fingering people and institutions I'm ideologically at odds with simply because I find that to be the most appealing explanation for world events. JFK doesn't mention Russia by name, but he does mean Russia, communist Russia, and not the "communist" "NWO", which is not only not communist, not socialist, not Marxist and not collectivist, but also not characterized as a "foreign power" that is interested in "the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons" and "details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed".

And what frankly irritates me, is the contextomy of this speech on Youtube. What this speech should be embraced for, is JFK's empathic and steadfast dedication to transparency, and his constant weighing of the interests of the free press against the security responsibilities of his administration, operating under the constant and imminent threat of nuclear escalation with a rival superpower.

Come to think of it, in my opinion, and I have long thought this, the Tsar Bomba, detonated six months after the Bay of Pigs fiasco, was another good reason for military brass to support an assassination of JFK. Can you imagine being a military commander or a CIA DD/P, who see JFK as an incompetent, Chamberlain-like milquetoast, and you get word of the Russians detonating this monster, knowing they have an ally in your backyard which will shortly have the means to deliver it? Because a Cuba coup attempt failed due to, among other things, a commander in chief who does not appreciate your efforts?

Response

Suspicious Patriot: "Please do not presume to tell me when my reactions are fathomable or not. You are not qualified."

"assertion that the opponent lacks the qualifications necessary to comprehend a point of view"

Special pleading

Suspicious Patriot: "Or will you sit here and tell us that the Warren Commission got it right? Are you that wrong?"

Straw man argument

Suspicious Patriot: "My - “characterizations of him are hyperbolic and unnecessarily derogatory". It is what it is and it's The Truth. I personally find the murder of 3,000 being orchestrated, in order to initiate the murder of millions, the destruction of The Constitution, the looting of the public purse and the invasions of sovereign nations, all in an orgy of hegemonic lies...to be hyperbolic and unnecessarily derogatory. What say you?"

Bait and switch? Two wrongs make a right? Schopenhauer says, in point 16 of his “38 Ways To Win An Argument”:

16 When your opponent puts forth a proposition, find it inconsistent with his or her other statements, beliefs, actions or lack of action.
Example: Should your opponent defend suicide, you may at once exclaim, “Why don’t you hang yourself?”
Should the opponent maintain that his city is an unpleasant place to live, you may say, “Why don’t you leave on the first plane?”

Citing a lack of nuance and composure in your criticism of Larry Wilkerson is not inconsistent with my beliefs.

Suspicious Patriot: "Your defense of him, his ignorance, duplicitous and schizophrenic view of false flag operations - is appalling. You come across as an apologist for the NWO."

Calling Larry Wilkerson ignorant is the height of arrogance. And the latter reproach, I'll respond to by again quoting Schopenhauer, point 32 this time:

32 A quick way of getting rid of an opponent’s assertion, or of throwing suspicion on it, is by putting it into some odious category.
Example: You can say, “That is fascism” or “Atheism” or “Superstition.” In making an objection of this kind you take for granted

1)That the assertion or question is identical with, or at least contained in, the category cited;

and

2)The system referred to has been entirely refuted by the current audience.

After all, if you succeed in somehow associating me with the "NWO", you hope I will be discredited automatically.

Suspicious Patriot: "My Other Points - JFK's Speech - you've obviously never listened to the speech, if that's the conclusion you've drawn."

I discuss the speech in my reply to Joe. The versions posted on Youtube have been deceptively edited.

Suspicious Patriot: "I had a 13 year old, in the middle of thanks giving dinner, two years ago, turn to the family dinner table and blurt out...911 Was An Inside Job - There's no jet at Shanksville. What is it that a 13 year old can figure out, that you cannot? Witnesses - LOL! They've got witnesses who say they say the passenger's faces on flight 77, as it went by them on its way into the Pentagon - LOL! In a 757, moving @ 500+ miles an hour, how ever many feet away from and above them, they saw the screaming, terrified faces of the passengers - LOL! That is laughable."

To turn that around (Schopenhauer #26): why must you think like a 13-year-old?

Suspicious Patriot: "...proving a negative as substitute for proving a positive" - The government & the 911 Commission, can't even prove their own story. So, you're one that holds The Truth Movement to a standard that you don't hold the government, to? Wow!"

The 9/11 commission report is, according to Larry Wilkerson, 60% fiction. It purports to prove a positive, not a negative. Therefore, your argument doesn't make sense here. In any case, I see plenty of use for falsification, but the end result of falsification by itself is uncertainty. That is, if indeed you prove something false, you haven't proved an alternative narrative true. It helps, but it's not quite it. Nanothermite found in WTC dust, on the other hand, is an example of a positive claim (It doesn't prove what is NOT in WTC dust, but what IS), implicating the USG. But implicating the USG isn't equivalent to exculpating Al Qaeda.

Suspicious Patriot: "Tell me SnowCrash, why is it that the media won't play the video of Shanksville? It's never been played since, that day. Why? I know why SC, the same way any serious person pursuing The Truth knows it's, because there's no evidence of a jet. No evidence of 100 tons of jet called flight 93. That's why they don't play it. "

By the same token, the media is playing the destruction of the WTC over and over, which is considered evidence of explosive demolition by most. Is the media as schizophrenic as you claim Larry Wilkerson is? Plane crashes leave various amounts of debris depending on the angle of impact and the speed of impact. And there are photos of debris:

United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui -- Criminal No. 01-455-A

See P200057 and onwards. I know you will claim that this evidence is insufficient and/or fake. But I would like you to substantiate your case properly. I have a newspaper laying beside me that I haven't scanned and published here yet, showing how little debris was left in a different plane crash in Libya in may 2010, with a more straight angle of approach. Contrast that with flight 93 nosediving into the ground at close to the speed of sound. The effects of kinetic energy:

The same principle is used to cut steel with water cutters. The "hurt" and the destruction applied to any material is a function of the kinetic energy it possesses before collision. Misunderstanding of these principles of physics fueled "no plane at the WTC" theories as well, because it was erroneously claimed that aluminum cannot penetrate steel.

Suspicious Patriot: "And the jet fuel - what happened to that? The big bad jet fuel is dropping buildings in New York left, right and center (1,2,7...you don't dispute 3 buildings fell that day and that it was at free fall speed, do you?)"

First, "freefall speed" does not exist. The correct term is freefall acceleration. Second, WTC 7 was in freefall for 2.25 seconds or approx. seven to eight stories. Third, the WTC towers did not fall at gravitational acceleration; they fell at approximately 0.6 ~ 0.7g. See also:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/freefall.html

Suspicious Patriot: "...yet, when flight 93 crashed into a field, next to a forest, the big bad jet fuel couldn't even lite a twig on fire. How is that? Where was the ragging fire, SC? They were on the scene within minutes; fire department, news crews...yet, there was no fire to put out and no fire to film. Odd, don't you think."

Odd, but not sufficiently odd to claim no plane crashed there at all. Proving a negative without proving a positive. Where is flight 93 now?

Suspicious Patriot: "You believe witnesses - I believe my eyes; the same as the 13 year old. You say you can't prove a negative. I say, they can't prove their story. Again, where's the 100 tons of jet?"

Argument from repetition. And your eyes don't always deceive you: in this case your poor command of physics does.

Suspicious Patriot: "As to witnesses, I guess you've never watched the Wall Miller interview - Shanksville...coroner? Go listen to the guy who ID'd the bodies and was all over that "crime scene" and see what Wally has to say."

404 not found.

Suspicious Patriot: "I assume, also, that you've never heard Susan McElwain's testimony. She was driving beside the field when the crash happened - go listen to her "eye witness account".

This pretty much sums it up:

Interviewer: "You think it was.. what do you think it was?"

Susan McElwain: "I can only go by whatever other people have said to me, because at the time I thought it was a plane, but with like.. that guy from California that's e-mailed me a lot of pictures, the guy from Bedford that sent me a lot of pictures, they all said the same thing, that, you know, it had to be a missile or an unmanned plane or something because of the shades and how it maneuvered."

How not to conduct research with eyewitnesses.

In fact, this sort of clumsy, amateurish and deceptive nonsense is infuriating and disgraceful. She saw a plane, is highly emotional about it, and is then coached and influenced by "researchers" with confirmation bias. Using this "methodology", people have been coached into death row by police interrogators with no conscience. She said it, it's right there: "I can only go by whatever other people have said to me, because at the time I thought it was a plane".

The "research" you cited is nauseating at best.

Suspicious Patriot: "How do you fit a 100 ton plane, with a 120+ foot wing span and a 47 foot tail section, through a 25 foot (perfect) hole; six times;"

Six times? Could it be that you are confused about the proper orientation of the light wells?

As for the "small hole" argument, see: ERROR: 'The Pentagon Attack Left Only a Small Impact Hole

Suspicious Patriot: "particularly if it's being flown by a guy who doesn't know anything about flying 757's?"

I don't know how little or much Hanjour knew about 757's, fact is he had never flown in one. We agree on this point. Yet hijacker remains were found inside the Pentagon, as well as remains and personal possessions of passengers and crew.

and:

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-01/conversation-researcher-and-lecturer-john-judge

But perhaps, in your binary worldview, John Judge is a "sack of crap" also for not believing controlled demolition?

Suspicious Patriot: "And in regard to witnesses - @ the Pentagon - I guess you've never heard of April Gallop or seen a film called National Security Alert."

Perhaps you should stop and think and ask around before making such claims. Or dig through 911blogger.

I'll keep it brief. April Gallop's court case was full of holes and as a result, it was dismissed in court as 'frivolous'. Why did they take this flawed case to court? So that 9/11 truth could be declared 'frivolous' and 'delusional' and discredit the rest of us? National Security Alert is discussed by Chis Sarns here. I like jim3100's theory: flight AA 77 actually flew UNDER the Pentagon, through a secret tunnel.

Suspicious Patriot: "Orgy of evidence" that flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon - please SC, let the orgy begin; we're all waiting with baited breath, for you to demonstrate this evidence of yours. I wonder what you will show us, those "stills" from the gate camera...photos of Donald Rumsfeld walking around on the Pentagon lawn; AWOL from his post in the middle of an attack, which he didn't know the nature, source or extent of."

You can start by addressing the witnesses:
Albert Hemphill - Pentagon Eyewitness
Alan Wallace - Pentagon first responder
Noel Sepulveda - Pentagon witness
Keith Wheelhouse - Pentagon Witness
Major Lincoln Lieber - Pentagon first responder

Eric Bart's Pentagon Attack Eyewitness Account Compilation
Pentagon Attack Eyewitness Account Compilation by 'SomeGuyYouDontKnow33'

Both compilations overlap, but each contains accounts the other doesn't.

By the way, you can spare me the CIT talking points that only their witnesses count (who by the way, without exception say the plane hit, see Summary and Analysis of "National Security Alert" by Chris Sarns).

Suspicious Patriot: "You're interested in The Truth - you do not leave that impression. You leave an utterly different impression, with your blend of acceptance, refutation, acknowledgment and denial. "

"You at least - come across as someone who likes to leave the impression of education, discernment and possible wisdom, yet, when one peels back the layers of the onion and scrutinize it, one realizes that you are a naive and un or ill informed fool; one possibly trying to deceive others. I will leave that up to those who read this post, to discern that for themselves."

And you conclude by comparing me to the Harley Guy, widely seen in the 9/11 truth movement (correct or not) as a hired actor by the 9/11 perpetrators.

What leads you down this noxious path is your disapproval of my opinion, not factual rebuttal. You don't allow the readers of your post to make up their own minds at all, in fact, you are engaging in snitchjacketing. You implore your readers to think of me as an agent, because you haven't got a leg to stand on in actual scientific or historical debate, and you know it. To accuse someone of being an agent is against the rules of 911blogger, which is why you resort to the sanctimonious charade of implying it and then asking everybody to "make up their own mind".

I've had this happen to me so many times, usually by people out of their depth desperately grasping at straws, that I simply don't care anymore. I was once labeled a 'zionist mossad agent' and an 'anti-semitic conspiracy theorist' at the same time by two different extremists who I refused to placate.

If this is the sort of behavior you want to make yourself known for here at 911blogger, be my guest. But it reflects poorly on you, not on me.

I request

moderator intervention, because you are in clear violation of the rules.

Like I said

I don't care about such accusations. They are an admission of defeat.

My advice to you: cool down; you are only embarrassing yourself by throwing this temper tantrum.

I gave you a very long list of witnesses

some of whom are independently confirmed by Jeff Hill. Pretending as if you didn't see these witness compilations isn't going to be a very successful tactic, I'm afraid.

Yet Another Limited Hangout

I want to briefly comment that I previously held Col. Larry Wilkerson in relatively high regard. Now, I see him as being nothing more than a very good liar.

Frankly, I found the pathetic excuses (or should I say single excuse of "bureaucracy") he offered disgusting. He is clearly still working for the powers that be.

On the other hand, I think we need to carefully examine what has changed with Paul Jay and TheRealNews. Their position on 9/11 Truth seems to have changed radically for the better. Why?

Unfortunately

Col. Larry Wilkerson is wrong. I normally respect his insights and opinions very much. It's regrettable he was involved in the cover up. He could do more to speak out. He has already owned up to his responsibility for the WMD lies, now it would dignify him if he would own up to his responsibility for the 9/11 lies as well.

We, the 9/11 truth movement, know more than Larry does. We've been investigating this for ten years. (six myself) Here's one example:

Patty Casazza: "We met other whistleblowers on the side of the road of Maryland, you know, to hear what they could tell us, none of them revealed state secrets to us by the way, but... they had information and basically the government knew, you know, other than the exact moment, they knew the date and the method of which the attacks were supposed to come. And none of this made it to mainstream media, none of it made it into the commission, and yet... , again, all of your representatives, on the day that the commission book came out, were on their pulpits saying: what a fabulous job this commission has done, a real service to this nation.. and it was anything but a service, it was a complete fabrication."

(Inaudible question from the audience)

Patty Casazza: "Other than the exact perhaps time, you know, cause planes don't always go off on time, they knew the date, they knew the method, that it was going to be with airplanes."

(Inaudible question from the audience)

Patty Cassaza: "Yep, they knew that it was that day and they were gonna happen, they knew the targets."

Source: "Jersey Girl" Patty Casazza and Bob McIlvaine

(I can't embed and use time jump at the same time, so just click the link)

Regrettably, 'LIHOP' evidence is a faux pas in the no hijacker theorist zone. After all, you can't 'know' anything about hijackers who simultaneously 'do not exist' and are 'still alive'. Able Danger, by the same token, is meaningless in no hijacker land. As is the curious tale of quadruple agent Ali Mohamed. All of them require 9/11 hijackers to exist.

.

An admitted liar.

"He has already owned up to his responsibility for the WMD lies, now it would dignify him if he would own up to his responsibility for the 9/11 lies as well."

I think that makes Col. Wilkerson an admitted liar and hence seriously untrustworthy. These are quite obviously very serious lies as well.

He did not resign when he says he should have either. Hence, his internal moral conflict is quite evident. So, trusting his sincerity is foolish.

I also want to add, that he very clearly believes that any kind of democracy is dead in America. He flat out calls it a "corporatocracy" and says the American people have essentially no power. Neither this nor his career of what amounts to strictly following orders without question should so simply be ignored.

Catharsis , the point.

Mr Wilkerson, wondering 'what good it would do' to further investigation 911, is contending that an administration, upon finding the evidence we know lies there , would ask "what to do with it' or 'what good would it do', 'ultimately the people in the government that would have to deal with its recommendations are the same people that are in government now, and they aren't going to do it" - so its not worth 'wasting that treasure'.......
a fellow thinking that might well accept 'manipulations within an inch of a LIE undertaken on behalf of Rice and her commission testimony being only organized to 'save her arse., or to hold her ''not culpable...not negligent pre 911... not deliberate'...he might well be satisfied with that . Although here I find it difficult to think of someone in high office, involved in testimony manipulation, aware of Cheney's raw data control and use during a pre-emptive aggressive illegal war, the cherry picker politik and the labyrinth of bureaucracy............ wouldn't task himself AFTER 911.........to a whole lot more than this.

I reckon the 'people' might well know 'what do do' with the catharsis heat generated by break through trauma truth 911 will ignite. which is possibly more to the point of not investigating further. Instinctive knowledge of what it means to an 'insider' at what we may find there.

Wilkerson is currently a Prof

@ Wiliam & Mary in Virginia.

catharsis heat - nicely put

The simple and raw truth about 9-11 and other false flag events is what we must stick to and hammer home. Amazing to me though how some still allow themselves to be snowed by the likes of Wilkerson, Chomsky. So desperate I suppose for any "legitimation" that might attend high academic achievnment or high government "service".

By 'some'

you of course mean me. Yes, I do hold these people in high esteem, but I do not look to them for answers about 9/11, because I know more about 9/11 than they do.