Support 911Blogger


Why I "Support" the Official Story

Why I "support" the official story.

By "Official Story" I am referring to Government Investigations into the 9-11 attacks, official government documents, Mainstream news reports, and reports from established "mainstream" authors.

The official story tells us that when given repeated warnings of a catastrophic attack, the Secretary of Defense deserted his post when the attacks finally happened on 9-11, along with the President of the United States, who not only deserted his post but lied to the American People as to the Motive behind the attacks and committed obstruction of justice and treason while conducting a cover up. The official story tells us that VP Dick Cheney and National Security Adviser C Rice are both liars that lied about the events that took place on 9-11. The official story tells us that the U.S. Government knew exactly what the conclusions of the NIST Investigation into the WTC disaster would be before NIST even was assigned to do an investigation.

"There are people who hate freedom. This is a fight for freedom." - President Bush
http://www.studentnews.cnn.com/2001/US/09/17/gen.bush.transcript/

The people he is referring to were called "Freedom fighters" by the U.S. Government when we and the Saudis were both funding and training them to fight the Russians. The President is lying. The hijackers made videos and made it clear why they wanted to be martyrs and it was because of the American interference in other countries and it's unwavering support for Israel and it's unfairness in the Israeli-Palestinian situation. So he has no intention on solving the roots of this kind of terrorism, or even being honest in it's cause.

"The former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee tells Salon that the White House has suppressed convincing evidence that Saudi government agents aided at least two of the hijackers."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/08/graham

In his book, Graham asserts that the White House blocked investigations into Saudi Arabian government support for the 9/11 plot, in part because of the Bush family's close ties to the Saudi royal family and wealthy Saudis like the bin Ladens

"Graham's allegations -- supported by the Republican vice chairman of the House-Senate 9/11 investigation, Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, but not his co-chairman, Rep. Porter Goss, Bush's nominee to become director of the CIA -- are not new. But his book states them more forcefully than before, even as Graham adds new insight into Bush's decision to invade Iraq, made apparently well before the president asserted he had exhausted all options."
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/08/graham

That's called obstruction of Justice and treason. The charge isn't being made by a tin foil hat wearing "conspiracy theorist". It's being made by the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee who investigated the attacks of 9-11.

The official story tells us that most of the attackers of 9-11 were Saudi's. Are the Saudi 's going to help us investigate 9-11?

"Thursday, September 13, 2001
The Saudi Arabian ambassador to the United States, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, insisted that Middle Eastern suppliers will keep up America's fuel stock. He also pledged yesterday that "the kingdom of Saudi Arabia, the Arab people, the Muslim people will help to expose the identities of the perpetrators."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A21240-2001Sep12

Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar, aka Bandar Bush claims he's on our side, but the official story also says he assisted Saudi agents and terrorists including the terrorists of 9-11.

"October 2 2001
Prince Bandar said he met Bin Laden in the 1980s when he was supporting Afghanistan in its war against the Soviet Union."

"He came to thank me for my efforts to bring the Americans, our friends, to help us against the atheist communists... Isn't it ironic?"
http://www.iol.co.za/news/world/bin-laden-had-unhappy-childhood-says-prince-1.74570

As this video shows Bandar has access to the highest levels of the U.S. Government including the head of the CIA.

"He's got instant access to the CIA, anybody he wants." - Ex CIA R Baer
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BryZokrUk5s

In the following video interview from 12-17-01, several months after 9-11, Bandar still claims he was surprised to find out Saudis were involved, and he also explains that thanks to 9-11, what Americans considered to be dissidents are now terrorists, because the wonderful Government of Saudi Arabia is nothing more than the Saudi royal family. After 9-11 anyone against any government(including the Saudi Government)is a terrorist to that government, so in that sense 9-11 was a pretty good deal as far as increasing government control over populations.............

MSNBC Bandar interview 12-17-01
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33iMXVEueMI

Finally he admits(not on American TV)that Saudi Intelligence knew all about the 9-11 hijackers, he should know since his brother in law was the head of Saudi Intelligence at the time, and FBI reports that he was assisting Saudi Agents helping the hijackers.

"Speaking to the Arabic satellite network Al-Arabiya on Thursday, Bandar -- now Abdullah's national security adviser -- said Saudi intelligence was "actively following" most of the September 11, 2001, plotters "with precision."
"If U.S. security authorities had engaged their Saudi counterparts in a serious and credible manner, in my opinion, we would have avoided what happened," he said."
http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/meast/11/01/saudiarabia.terrorism/index.html

"Hijackers Lived With FBI Informant"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/09/09/attack/main521223.shtml

If our elected officials are going to Investigate the 9-11 attacks that would be someone worth talking to wouldn't you think? The President disagreed.

According to the Official story, The President committed obstruction of justice and treason. This paragraph from the Congress and Senate joint inquiry into the attacks of 9-11 proves it.

"The Administration has to date objected to the Inquiry’s efforts to interview the informant in order to attempt to resolve those inconsistencies. The Administration also would not agree to allow the FBI to serve a Committee subpoena and deposition notice on the informant. Instead, written interrogatories from the Joint Inquiry were, at the suggestion of the FBI, provided to the informant. Through an attorney, the informant has declined to respond to those interrogatories and has indicated that, if subpoenaed, the informant would request a grant of immunity prior to testifying." page 51/858
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf

The official story tells us that after the FBI informant refused to co operate in the joint inquiry investigation he was rewarded with $100,000.

"Initially the asset was not paid. In July 2003, the asset was given a $100,000 payment and closed as an asset." footnote 197 DOJOIG report
http://www.justice.gov/oig/special/s0606/chapter5.htm

Here is a 31 page FBI report showing OMAR AL BAYOUMI to be an agent of Saudi Arabian Intelligence who assisted several of the 9-11 hijackers, and introduced them to the informant...

http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2002-04-15-FBI-LHM-omar-al-bayoumi2.pdf

More from FBI reports showing Saudi Intelligence Agents assisting the 9-11 hijackers.....

"2. Al-Bayoumi has been determined to have co-signed for hijackers
Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid Al-Mihdhar when they rented an apartment at
the Parkwood Apartments complex and to have sometimes paid rent for
them."

"6. {redacted}has been identified as a citizen of Saudi Arabia
who, in October 1992 hosted a party for Sheik Omar Rahman, the
mastermind of the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Towers. {redacted}
has also been determined to have known Osama Bin Laden's family in
Saudi Arabia and to have telephonic contact with members of Bin
Laden's family who are currently in the U.S."

"On September 11, 2001, Nawaf AI-Hazmi and Khalid AlMihdhar
hijacked American Airlines Flight #77 and crashed the plane
into the Pentagon. Passenger manifests from American Airlines
confirmed Al-Hazmi and Al-Mihdhar were passengers on American
Airlines #77."

"Rental records for the Parkwood Apartments, 6401 Mount Ada
Road, San Diego; California indicate that, prior to moving into
apartment 150, hijackers Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid AI-Mihdhar lived
with Omar Al-Bayoumi at 6333 Mount Ada Road, apartment 152 San Diego,
California. Prior to that, they indicated they lived in Saudi
Arabia. Al-Bayoumi further appears as co-signer and guarantor for
AI-Hazmi and AI-Mihdhar on their rental application. AI-Bayoumi
recommended Al-Hazmi and Al-Mihdhar to the property manager of the
Parkwood Apartments and was listed as the co-signer and guarantor on
their lease because they did not have established credit. According
to the apartment manager of the Parkwood Apartments, Al-Bayoumi
occasionally paid rent for Al-Hazmi and Al-Mihdhar."

"Investigation has determined after vacating the apartment
at Parkwood, AI-Hazmi and AI-Mihdhar moved to the above address in
Lemon Grove, California which they found through an advertisement at
the Islamic Center of San Diego."

"The possibility {redacted}being affiliated with the Saudi
Arabian Government or the Saudi Arabian Intelligence Service is
supported by {redacted} listing his employment in 1992 as the
{redacted redacted redacted}
Parkwood Apartment complex in July 2001 could indicate he succeeded
Omar AI-Bayoumi and may be undertaking activities on behalf of the
Government of Saudi Arabia."

"On October 17, 1992,{redacted} hosted a party at his house
in Washington, D.C. for Sheik Omar Rahman, convicted mastermind of
the 1993 World Trade Towers bombing."
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-10-03-FBI-penttbomb-bayoumi.pdf

That classified FBI report indicates that alleged hijacker associate Osama Basnan has long-time links to both the bin Laden family and the Saudi government.

"The FBI report, which will be obtained by the website Intelwire.com in 2008, is heavily redacted, and all mentions of Basnan’s name appear to be redacted. However, one can sometimes determine when Basnan is being referred to. For instance, the same paragraph that mentions his link to the bin Laden family also says the same person with that link hosted a party for Sheikh Omar Abdul-Rahman in 1992, and press reports have indicated that person was Basnan"
http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=sheikh_omar_abdul-rahman#a100301basnanfbi

According to the official story al-Bayoumi associates with terrorists.

"Since September 11, the FBI has learned that al-Bayoumi has connections to terrorist elements." (senate/congress joint Inquiry)
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf

According to Time magazine Prince Bandar supports terrorists, including those assisting the 9-11 hijackers. The joint inquiry also states this but President Bush refused to allow 28 pages of the report which exposes that to be released, because he evidently is a traitor protecting Saudi Arabians.

"A Saudi national, Bassnan was living in San Diego last year and has been linked to Omar al Bayoumi, a Saudi student who befriended two men who wound up helping crash Flight 77 into the Pentagon. The sources also say that the ambassador, Prince Bandar bin Sultan, gave $15,000 to Bassnan."
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1003790,00.html

"Bassnan was a close associate of al-Bayoumi, [censured] [censured] Bassnan also had close ties to a number of other persons connected to the hijackers, including [censured]" page 228/858
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf

"After September 11, the FBI developed information clearly indicating that Bassnan is an extremist and a Bin Ladin supporter. [censured] [censured]"
page 229/858
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf

The joint inquiry into the 9-11 attacks says Saudi Agents being funded by Prince Bandar assisted the hijackers....

"One of the FBI’s best sources in San Diego informed the FBI that he thought that al-Bayoumi must be an intelligence officer for Saudi Arabia or another foreign power." page 226/858 (from congress/senate Inquiry)
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf

This FBI report reports that as well.....

"The exact nature of Bayoumi's employment has remained unclear, but his close associates suspected him of being a Saudi intelligence officer." (FBI Document)
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2008/02/2002-04-15-fbi-letterhead-memorandum.html

The FBI reports Bandar associates with terrorists including those assisting the 9-11 hijackers....

"4. Associations: Closely associated with {redacted}Ambassador Prince Bandar)." (FBI Document)
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2002-10-09-FBI-Saudi-Links-May-Be-Conflated.pdf

"Since September 11, the FBI has learned that al-Bayoumi has connections to terrorist elements." (senate/congress joint Inquiry)
http://www.gpoaccess.gov/serialset/creports/pdf/fullreport_errata.pdf

The official story tells us that the Bush Administration is covering all this up, and that makes Bush a traitor......

"Congressional Record: October 28, 2003 (Senate)
The amendment is as follows:
(Purpose: To urge the President to release information regarding
sources of foreign support for the 9-11 hijackers)
At the appropriate place, insert the following:
Sec. . Sense of the Senate on declassifying portions of
the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities
Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 2001.
(a) Findings.--The Senate finds that--
(1) The President has prevented the release to the American
public of 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry into Intelligence
Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks
of September 2001.
(2) The contents of the redacted pages discuss sources of
foreign support for some of the September 11th hijackers
while they were in the United States."
http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/2003_cr/s102803.html

Bandar has been an international arms dealer for many years. Wars are good for business.

"I can buy you. You can buy me. Everybody has a price. It depends how much." - Prince Bandar Page 161
http://www.amazon.com/Kings-Messenger-Americas-Tangled-Relationship/dp/0802716903

Martin Indyk worked in the National Security Council and was a former Ambassador to Israel, he's also a Zionist and researcher for AIPAC, so it's funny to see these people point the finger at each other. Yea Bush and Cheney were surrounded by Zionists and Israel was a big benefactor on the "war on terror". But they and the Saudis do agree on some things. They both hated Saddam and they both fear and distrust Iran which is Shiite(Saudi Arabia are mostly Sunnis)

"Indyk remembered a different Bandar, one who was a super-hawk when it came to Saddam. "He was always pushing for the United States to bomb Iraq, much more than Paul Wolfowitz." He was referring to the neoconservative scholar and senior Pentagon official who would later press so hard for the U.S. Invasion of Iraq in 2003. "He wanted us to knock off Saddam." Indyk was convinced the prince had a personal grudge to settle with Saddam. When the State Department had taken away his security detail after Clinton came into office, Bandar had protested vociferously, arguing he needed it because Saddam had taken out a contract to have him killed. Also, Saddam had tried to assassinate his favorite U.S. president, George H.W. Bush, while he was visiting Kuwait after leaving office in April 1993. So the prince couldn't wait for the U.S. bombs to fall." page 137
http://www.amazon.com/Kings-Messenger-Americas-Tangled-Relationship/dp/0802716903

So the Official Story tells us that Prince Bandar aka Bandar Bush was assisting Saudi Agents and terrorists, and he himself admits Saudi Intelligence were tracking the 9-11 hijackers with precision, and it's also known Bandar is close to the head of the CIA, not just the Bush Family.....

"Some CIA sources say that George Tenet set the tone for the CIA's Saudi relationship by relying heavily on developing close relationships with top Saudi officials, including Prince Bandar bin Sultan bin Abdulaziz, then the Saudi ambassador to the United States. Tenet met regularly with the Saudi ambassador. CIA officers familiar with the agency's relationship with Saudi Arabia say that about once a month, Tenet would slip away from CIA headquarters and travel to Bandar's nearby estate in McLean, Virginia, for quiet talks."

"Bandar and Tenet had a very close relationship," said one CIA officer. "Bandar had a unique role, he was in charge of the American relationship for Saudi Arabia."

"But some CIA officers handling Saudi issues complain that Tenet would not tell them what he had discussed with Bandar, making it difficult for agency officials to know the nature of any deals their boss was arranging with the Saudis." page 188
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743270665/centerforcoop-20#noop

"Prince Bandar, for example, was extremely close to the first President Bush and the entire Bush family; in his book about the war in Iraq, Plan of Attack, Bob Woodward reported that President Bush alerted Bandar to the timing of the 2003 invasion before he notified Secretary of State Colin Powell." Page 189
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0743270665/centerforcoop-20#noop

Bandar, who according to the official story is assisting terrorist agents who are helping the hijackers is basically a member of the Bush Administration:

"Subsequently, on January 11, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Joint Chiefs Chairman Gen. Richard Myers met in Cheney's office with Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the United States."
"At that meeting, Myers showed Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador, a map labeled "top secret noforn," meaning that it was not to be seen by any foreign national, Woodward told CBS."
"The map outlined the U.S. battle plan for Iraq, which was to begin with an air attack, followed by land invasions moving north from Kuwait and south from Turkey, according to the book."
"Two days after the meeting with Bandar, on January 13, Bush met with Powell in the Oval Office to inform his chief diplomat that he had decided to go to war."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/18/woodward.book/

Moving on to the day of 9-11

The official story tells us that after getting numerous warnings all summer long of an impending attack NSA Rice and President Bush both knew a commercial Airliner struck the WTC before he stepped into the classroom....

Emma E. Booker Elementary School principal Gwen Tose'-Rigell explains.......

"Tose'-Rigell, 50, says she first knew something was amiss when Bush emerged from his car and was whisked into a special holding room to take a telephone call. Then she was summoned to the room to talk to the president."

"He said a commercial plane has hit the World Trade Center, and we're going to go ahead and go on, we're going on to do the reading thing anyway," Tose'-Rigell recalls. "At that point my summation was they wanted him to know about this because it was important, but it couldn't be anything huge."
http://s3.amazonaws.com/911timeline/2002/ap081902d.html

Released notes from 9-11 Commission (POTUS = President of the United States).....

"October 24, 2001
Sequence of events
- First plane hits; Rice calls POTUS - tells him at end of convo that it's a commercial plane.

November 1,2001
Sequence of Events
• Called POTUS after first hit; said at first it's a twin engine and then a few minutes later said no, it's a commercial plane (so POTUS knew when he hung up it was a commercial plane??)

August 2,2002
Sequence of Events
• First plane hits; "we thought maybe a twin engine plane of some kind, a small plane." [She omits the reference to it being a commercial plane]

THOUGHTS:
• Call to POTUS after WTC 1 hit: in the first interview w/Woodward (10/24/01) she mentions that at the end of this call "Tony" said they think it's a commercial plane, and she passes this along to POTUS. This description drops off in subsequent interviews.

• John King (CNN) asks her about MINETA"s description of the military aide in the PEOC asking the VP if the shoot down orders still stand - the point is that MINETA has told this story before."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16571575/T3-B11-EOP-Produced-Documents-Vol-III-Fdr-102401-Rice-Transcript-Notes-998

What is Bush's reaction to hearing a passenger jet has flown into the WTC?

"There's one terrible pilot"
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=dbc_1188804768

The official story tells us that Bush Rumsfeld Rice and Cheney all lied to the American people, and the official story tells us that Bush and Rumsfeld are the only ones authorized to issue shoot down orders and neither one did. Bush finally did after it was confirmed the last plane was down......

"Prior to 9/11, it was understood that an order to shoot down a commercial aircraft would have to be issued by the National Command Authority (a phrase used to describe the president and secretary of defense)." page 17/46
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

"Minutes after terrorists crashed hijacked planes into the World Trade Center, President Bush ordered military jets into the air around Washington with orders to shoot down
any airliner that refused to turn away from the city, Vice President Richard B. Cheney said yesterday."
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=WT&p_theme=wt&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direc...

Nope...that's a lie....

"At 10:10, the pilots over Washington were emphatically told "negative clearance to shoot." Shootdown authority was first communicated to NEADS at 10:31." - 9-11 Commission
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

"The time of notification of the crash of United 93 was 10:15."
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5233007

"The Vice President was logged calling the President at 10:18 for a two-minute conversation that obtained the confirmation. On Air Force One, the President's press secretary was taking notes; Ari Fleischer recorded that at 10:20, the President told him that he had authorized a shootdown of aircraft if necessary."
- 9-11 Commission
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch1.htm

"Fleischer’s 10:20 note is the first mention of shootdown authority. See White House notes,Ari Fleischer notes, Sept. 11, 2001; see also Ari Fleischer interview (Apr. 22, 2004)."- 9-11 Commission
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Notes.pdf

So what did they tell Woodward of the Washington post (and us?)....

"Bush then talked to Rumsfeld to clarify the procedures military pilots should follow in trying to force an unresponsive plane to the ground before opening fire on it. First, pilots would seek to make radio contact with the other plane and tell the pilot to land at a specific location. If that failed, the pilots were to use visual signals. These included having the fighters fly in front of the other plane.
If the plane continued heading toward what was seen as a significant target with apparently hostile intent, the U.S. pilot would have the authority to shoot it down. With Bush's approval, Rumsfeld passed the order down the chain of command."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/18/AR2006071801175_5.html

The 9-11 Commission asked them about that, because they had the documents and records proving it was a lie....are they going to tell this lie to the commission? No.....they will get amnesia....

"The President apparently spoke to Secretary Rumsfeld for the first time that morning shortly after 10:00. No one can recall the content of this conversation, but it was a brief call in which the subject of shootdown authority was not discussed." - 9-11 Commission
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf

The official story tells us that NSA C Rice lies to us about these shoot down orders as well....

Here's Condi Rice lying to you.....

"Q At one point that morning, the President gave an order to the Combat Air Patrol pilots giving them permission to shoot down U.S. commercial airliners. How did that decision come about, and how did you take on board the gravity of that decision?

DR. RICE: The President did give the order to shoot down a civilian plane if it was not responding properly. And it was authority requested through channels by Secretary Rumsfeld, and the Vice President passed the request, the President said yes."
http://www.scribd.com/doc/16571537/T3-B11-EOP-Produced-Documents-Vol-III-Fdr-8602-Terry-MoranABC-Interview-of-Rice-003

John Farmer exposes this false statement in his book "The Ground Truth"......

"The authority was not requested through channels, when Secretary Rumsfeld joined the Air Threat Conference Call at 10:30 and was told about the shoot down order by Vice President Cheney, he was clearly unaware of it. Whether the vice president had requested prior authorization from the president is disputed, but uncorroborated by the records of the day." page 260
http://www.amazon.com/Ground-Truth-Untold-America-Attack/dp/1594488940/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260588203&sr=1-1

Moving on to the WTC collapse......

I don't know if nanothermite was found in the dust. I'm no expert. I find the work of the scientist on this issue very interesting but like I said, I'm no scientist. But I do know that several news anchors on the day of 9-11 seemed to think these were demolitions, admittedly that doesn't mean they were, but it shows it's not "crazy" to think so......

Peter Jennings suggest controlled demolition
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrlAvPgtYso

9/11: DAN RATHER SAYS WTC COLLAPSES LOOK LIKE DEMOLITIONS
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nvx904dAw0o

CNBC Anchor WTC Collapse Was Planned
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tpNAy923x14

What does the official story say? The official story says that the U.S.Government knew exactly what the conclusions of the NIST report would be, before NIST was even assigned the task of investigating the cause of collapse. That's kind of interesting isn't it? All that money was wasted. It was already known what the conclusion was going to be as this Government document issued to embassies around the world just a couple of weeks after 9-11 proves....

"Shortly after 9/11, U.S. embassies around the world were instructed to deliver a top-secret briefing to world leaders on the attacks of September 11.
Embassies were instructed on Oct. 2, 2001, to deliver "oral briefings only and not [repeat] not leave the document" in hard copy form."
http://intelwire.egoplex.com/

From the document:

"THE 767 AIRCRAFT THAT STRUCK THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
CAUSED MASSIVE LOSS OF LIFE IN ADDITION TO KILLING THE 148
PASSENGERS AND CREW ON BOARD. THOUSANDS WERE KILLED
IMMEDIATELY AND THOUSANDS MORE WERE TRAPPED BY FIRE AND
SMOKE ON THE TOWER'S UPPER FLOORS. WITHIN 90 MINUTES BOTH
TOWERS--STRUCTURALLY WEAKENED BY THE INTENSE HEAT OF THE
FLAMES--COLLAPSED, KILLING THOUSANDS MORE INCLUDING
SEVERAL HUNDRED POLICE AND FIRE FIGHTERS WHO HAD RUSHED
INTO THE BURNING BUILDINGS ON A COURAGEOUS RESCUE MISSION."
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-10-02-DOS-Qaeda-Overview.pdf

This is just a small sample of why I "support" the official story. Because the official story itself, shows how elements of the government(not just the U.S. Government) were involved in the 9-11 attacks, and how there was a cover up. The official story itself shows the need for a truth and accountability movement.

P.S.

P.S. And the twin towers of the world trade center, as well as the Smith Soloman Brothers Building, Building 7 of the WTC complex, all THREE buildings, according to the immutable laws of physics, were BLOWN UP with explosives, and did not undergo any sort of "collapse" on September 11th, 2001, and very few people, including mainstream media reporters, on that day, were of the impression that the destruction of the buildings was the sole and direct result of the plane impacts.

Let us cut to the very root of the problem here - the buildings did not "collapse" but HAD to have been blown up with explosives, no other conclusion may be drawn based on the observed physical record, something preserved in perpetuity.

The crux of the whole 9/11 myth is based almost solely on the notion that the plane impacts were the sole cause of the total destruciton of the twin towers on 9/11.

But I get the point being made, that even according to the OCT myth about 9/11, even then, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, et al, are at the very least traitors, and liars.

Neverhthelesss, THE BUILDINGS DID NOT "COLLAPSE". That's the biggest lie of them all.

Correct

The buildings did not "collapse."

The interceptor jets

I think also that it's important to focus on the lack of interceptor fighter jets on 9/11. For 90 minutes 4 hijackings were going on but they weren't intercepted. Normally intercepts could happen 10 minutes or thereabouts from the point of a hijacking being known, and on 9/11, as the military testified, they should have been able to intercept quicker than normal as the wargames meant that everybody was up, airborn already.

...so why werent interceptions happening in record time ?

Rumsfeld changed the rules on 6/1/2001

From http://demopedia.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_m...
------

Despite the fact that it doesn't appear on the list of changes, this .pdf document
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf
shows (page A-2, item 3.c.1.) that procedures were changed to require an approval from the Secretary of Defense before scrambling aircraft.

Previously, according to most sources which cite the change, local authorities could scramble first, then ask for approval to shoot down the target if necessary. Rumsfeld's changes, effective June 1, 2001, made sure those aircraft couldn't be scrambled.

Then, on the morning of 9/11 he disappeared--he and his buddy Paul Wolfowitz were busy warning Members of Congress that within the next twelve months there would be an incident which would demonstrate the importance of America's defenses. Then they wandered back to the office and had a meeting together, rather than drop by the NMCC to give the scramble order.

According to the commander of the National Military Command Center, Rumsfeld was off the map for a critical half hour.

----

The scramble order authority was changed back to local authorities after 9/11/2001

The June 1 order changed things--but didn't really

The Emergency Protocol was explicitly exempted from this memo, and that is the protocol that should have been implemented (with or without the slower, "laissez-faire" Hijacking Protocol) in all four cases.

Right from the beginning, Flight 11 showed signs of experiencing an in-flight emergency—well before it was known to be a hijacking. The faster protocol should have kicked in within minutes, notwithstanding the June 1, 2001 memo.

BUT, as Robin Hordon has explained in detail, although the memo didn't actually preclude emergency scrambles, it probably had that effect due to confusion on the part of FAA officials as it filtered down the chain. This does need to be an object of the new investigation.

However, if any of the True Believers try to raise this issue and carry on with this nonsense about how all these multiple levels of escalation had to be pursued (think Popular Mechanics), one question to ask them might be: Then how do you explain the Langley scramble at 09:24?

(Then hit your stopwatch and see how quickly they change the subject.)

Here is a reference to an interesting meeting

On Saturday (9/08/01) night, he (Bandar) attended a party hosted by Bruce Riedel, and most of the official Middle East policy community was there, including both the Saudi and Israeli ambassadors, as was CIA director George Tenet. Afterward, Bandar left with Tenet for an all-night schmooze that lasted through breakfast on Sunday morning. According to Reidel, the prince told Tenet that the crisis in U.S.-Saudi relations they had just weathered had been but the tip of an iceberg. The leading lights of the House of Saud had undertaken a sweeping reappraisal of the kingdom's ties to the United States, and the debate had gone on for months. A consensus had emerged in favor of a dramatic change in direction away from reliance on the Americans. In his message, Abdullah had been speaking not just for himself but for the entire family. The good news was that events of the past week had changed all that, and U.S.-Saudi relations were back on track.

From pg. 154 of The King's Messenger by David Ottaway

I don't recall exactly but I think "events of the past week" refer to Bush administration pledges to renew commitment to Israeli/Palestinian peace talks.

send this to the media.

Including the alternative popular media outlets.
Be polite.
And wait.
And wait.
Nothing.
Ever.
EVER.

This is a great compilation of lots of information. Hopefully someone in the Muslim world, or in South America, will see this, as OUR media, except a very few outlets that really only preach to the choir, will ignore it.

too bad. It is good.

Jesse Ventura on Censorship

Was Jesse being impolite here?

He said, "The HuffingtonPost censored me".
Is that ok to say, or should he have said, "the Huffington Post just is confused about the issues", or "the Huffington Post probably was angered in some way by me and has a right to have censored me".........."I'll be more polite next time"

I guess Jesse is out of line here. I guess the alternative media, like Hpost, is very sensitive, or easily confused about the message from the 9/11 truth movement.

I've learned from people on 911blogger that it is completely out of line to say that POSSIBLY the Huffpost is controlled, coerced, or threatened, and THAT is the reason they have censored Jesse.
He must go on presenting his information and never criticize the media. That way, I'm told, the media will be more likely, even after 9 years, to take up his message and present it.

The reason he said they censored him . . .

. . . is because they censored him.

Regardless of how the Huffington Post feels about questioning 9/11, Jesse Ventura (that's the Hon. Jesse Ventura) is a former governor of an American State, having been elected twice. That should be reason enough to allow him a platform. He was invited to write for the newspaper—his views on 9/11 having already been publicly known—and he is justified on any ground in publicly raising an objection to his article being pulled.

I found it invigorating to see someone of his stature forcefully call attention to and publicly criticize suppression of 9/11 Truth from a mainstream publication!

Impolite?

I think not. He was just being honest. I love this man. He is a true patriot. We need more people like him.

Censorship

pfgetty, see Danse's reply below. I think it hits the nail on the head.

Now, I have offered you a way to settle this issue, and frankly, it seems I'd be better off if I did it myself, but fact is, you are not going to do it. You said you don't even want to hear about it.

Your theory is that the alternative media is acting in concert to censor 9/11 truth. This implies that a hierarchy exists that, by chain of command, instructs the alternative media to censor 9/11 truth. You have no evidence of this, yet you keep promoting this speculation as fact.

I understand your sentiments, but in a truth movement, theories and hypotheses should be tested and verified before being promoted as fact.

Your theory could be true. It could be false. But this is getting all of us nowhere. You could continue your sarcastic jabs or you could put your hypothesis to the test. But unless you DO put your hypothesis to the test, don't expect me, or kdub, or whoever to just yield in the face of this sarcastic taunting. I'm not sure what you're trying to accomplish anyway. We are, I hope, on the same side.

If alternative media censorship is part of a CIA campaign, outreach efforts are pointless. If not, the 9/11 truth movement has a credibility problem. My theory is the latter. But again, there is no way to know, and conjecture isn't going to move us forward.

By the way, IMO, we ARE the alternative media.

you've got me wrong....................as usual...........

you seem to want to paint me into a corner, but it won't work.
I have said OVER AND OVER again, that I do not KNOW exactly why the popular alternative sites and programs have been ignoring or even mocking our 9/11 information, and I have listed several reasons why this censorship has happened over the years.

That is what people seeking the truth do. They think of all the reasons why something is, or has happened, and then select the most likely reasons. Eventually they may get enough evidence one way or another to definitively say which one reason for sure is the answer. Until enough evidence is in, conjecture and reason rule, leaving an open mind for the future. People who do not want the truth to come out would rather the whole subject sort of stay out of sight. That seems to be your objective. Don't know...........just sayin'

Anyway, I've listed some reasons why the ignoring of 9/11 truth goes on, and, really, only one reason makes sense to me......that some kind of control is going on.
That is not convicting anyone without evidence. It is whittling down the reasons and logically looking at them. The only reason that makes sense why something like a dozen popular alternative sites, for nine years, have ignored the massive evidence about 9/11 truth, is that there is some coercion going on, or threats to take away foundational funding, or some other controlling factor from those who do not want the truth to come out.

I know that statement bothers you, but you do not have any good, reasonable reason to ensure that this statement has to be covered up or negated. It is not a conviction without evidence. It is a rational statement of the possibility that there is control from above of the alternative media.

I'm not sure why you so very much want this to not be said. To me it is weird that you and a few others are so bothered by this. I don't think you are telling me why you don't like this being aired here.........the real reason. Just my feeling.................

Oh come on

"People who do not want the truth to come out would rather the whole subject sort of stay out of sight. That seems to be your objective. Don't know...........just sayin'"

Could you please stop insinuating I am some sort of 'agent'?

You say there is some sort of 'control' don't you? Didn't I suggest you contact all these alternative media outlets to test your hypothesis?

If you don't want to do that, and you said you don't, then aren't you doing this:

Instead of this:

Why are people like me and kdub at fault for asking that you test your hypothesis instead of nonchalantly asserting it as fact? My hypothesis, in contrast, is that the alternative media doesn't take us seriously because of the nonsensical, weak and speculative theories we as a movement have been promoting. I stick with that hypothesis for now, because that's what people like Cockburn tell us. I don't particularly expect Cockburn and others to come around if we clean up our act; they may still remain hostile, and I will oppose them as will others where they are unfairly dismissive. But that doesn't mean furthering another conspiracy theory about the alternative media is going to help solve this problem does it? If you promote this new conspiracy theory based on your 'gut feeling', you are going to be ridiculed. If you can prove it, however, you have a gigantic scoop. Why don't you just try to back it up instead of pondering yet another conspiracy theory, somehow involving me or others who don't immediately go along with your viewpoint? Isn't this becoming absurd? Do you realize it's becoming absurd?

Cockburn censors 9/11 truth, because he hates it! Why is that an unreasonable conclusion in the absence of documentary evidence of a top-down conspiracy to control the alternative media? Don't you think the alternative media is obsessed with 'credibility' exactly because they are the alternative media?

I don't deny there could be a top-down conspiracy of silence in the alternative media, I am merely asking for some direct evidence. That's something I can work with, that's something I can defend in discussions. What I can't defend, is this paranoid siege mentality which is only going to escalate the problem, imo.

There could be so many explanations.. all we have now is speculation. Some of them could be careerist. Some of them could simply be ideologically divorced from the 9/11 truth movement. Some of them could have colluded to exclude 9/11 truth because they, as alternative journalists, are a gossipy circle jerk. So many possibilities, so little research. A scientist would conduct a poll. An investigative journalist would start making some phone calls. What do we do? We start attacking each other.... How ingenious.

Oh, and one more thing, in my humble opinion, we are the alternative media, and we spend all of our time addressing 9/11... full time.

Not either-or

Above, you said you thought Danse's comment in this thread 'hits the nail on the head.' I agree, but I find it to be quite different from the either-or dichotomy you seem to present here--wherein the only two possibilities apparently are an orchestrated, top-down, CIA Mockingbird-type operation on the one hand; and the failure of the 9/11 truth movement to present sound arguments on the other.

We're talking about outlets of news and opinion which (a number of them, at least), when it comes to the claims of the US government and the corporate media--whether they concern Venezuela or Serbia or the West Bank or Iraq or Iran or practically anyplace else--have known to be skeptical. But present them with a blurry photo of a bearded 'Muslim extremist' in a turban, and they're all eager to lap up whatever the authorities have to say about what they did, restricting their skepticism only to the alleged motives of the accused (that is, attributing terrorism against US targets to 'blowback' as opposed to the official line of 'hating our freedoms').

It wasn't 'nonsensical, weak, and speculative theories' that convinced my 9/11 was an inside job; and when people who are supposed to be skeptics and critical thinkers demonstrate, in the process of being dismissive, that they haven't even bothered to acquaint themselves with the body of information which has led not just me but so many of us to the view that it was an inside job--well, it doesn't do much to their critical-thinker credentials in my book. If they're going to differ with us, they could at least come up with better reasons than the dismissive sneers that are typically offered.

But more to the point--finding alternative theories about what did happen to be unsatisfactory is no excuse for uncritical acceptance of the government's version of what did happen. And this failing is all the worse on the part of ostensible opponents of US policy in that the government's version of events in this case provides it with its ideological basis for perpetual war abroad and lawlessness at home.

What defines a 'gatekeeper' to me is the act of gatekeeping--of inhibiting the circulation of information. I see no reason to weigh the term down with assumptions of motive; that is, to restrict it to conscious, deliberate, Mockingbird-type 'false front' journalists. Even if explanations for such behavior were to turn out to be less pernicious (as described in the comment from Danse, below), or even understandable, the effects are just as harmful in my view: Regardless of motive or explanation, there is critical information to which they are leaving their audiences as unexposed as the very same corporate media to which these outlets are supposed to present an 'alternative.'

I agree

completely with your comment, actually. And I appreciate you pointing out the false dilemma that might have crept into my argument, but I also want to point out that I get into 'many possibilities' near the bottom. So I don't believe this false dilemma myself, either. But the core of my argument remains that we don't know unless we make an effort to find out. IMHO, sometimes, we are spending too much time trying to interpret the news that is fed to us instead of doing investigative research like Russ Baker does. And I agree with your interpretation of 'gatekeeper'. It's obvious that HuffPo and Daily Kos are 'gatekeeping': they admit it. There is a certain 'unison' in their approach.

I understand how this might lead to accusations of top-down hierarchy censorship, through commercial and/or intelligence interests. Who could forget the CIA memo suggesting attacks on critics of the Warren Commission Report? Now, that was hard evidence, but we still don't know which actors directly acted upon that memo. In Carl Bernstein's 25000 word article for Rolling Stone, he names names of 'journalists' who were involved in Mockingbird-type operations. That's the sort of work I'm looking for. In the case of Fox News, with Glenn Beck flanked by Mike Baker, 'former' CIA operative, brandishing 9/11 truthers as Holocaust deniers and terrorists, there can be little doubt what's going on, they don't even make an effort to hide it. (However, a sizable contingent of 9/11 truthers are indeed, unfortunately, Holocaust deniers, and I believe this trend to be extremely damaging, they are playing into the hands of the likes of Glenn Beck and Mike Baker) But if the alternative media are going to be accused of the same MO, all I ask is some solid evidence. Otherwise, I have no way to know and no other recourse but to assume they just don't like 9/11 truth.

...

We are all "asking for solid evidence."

There is consternation evident here, in all the posts in this thread -- and in all posts about it for years now -- that 'alternative' is not alternative where this issue is concerned.

I do hope a Russ Baker sort of journalist can take this on. I personally do not know how to research it properly. Do you? I can only hope that some alternative journalism insider can tell the tale.

But there may be other possible sources of information. Are there?

Journalism

That's a good question. One that deserves an entire blog post, but... I think it's prudent to start with the golden rule of journalism: one source isn't a source, two sources are half a source, and three sources are a source.

The above is a guiding principle, sometimes you have to make do with what you have. That means: if you feel you have found something important to report, try to gather sources to support it. Try also to apply the principle of audi alteram partem, which essentially means: "to hear the other side", meaning that if you level accusations at a certain party, it's proper decorum to ask them for a response.

A 'primary' source means there are no intermediate steps between you and the source of the claim. Somebody tells you something they have direct knowledge of, and you report it. If Alexander Cockburn tells you, on the phone, that he censors 9/11 truth because he was instructed to do so by his sponsors, if any, then you have a primary source. There are also secondary and tertiary sources, in descending order of reliability.

Another principle of (investigative) journalism, historiography and research is verifiability, which is distinct from the truthfulness of a report. Of course, you strive for truthfulness, especially in investigative reporting, but first you cover your bases by making sure your sources and references are verifiable.

A friend of mine studied journalism, I asked him some questions now and then about the profession. Another way to go about it is to visit an academic bookstore and just buy a book about journalism.

Let me conclude by citing a passage from the book: "Being Logical - A Guide To Good Thinking" by D. Q. McInerny

2. Get the Facts Straight

A fact is something made or done. It has clear objective status. It is something we respond to as having an independent status all its own. It is naggingly persistent, demands recognition, and can be nasty if ignored. There are two basic types of objective facts, things and events. A "thing" is an actually existing entity, animal, vegetable, or mineral. The White House is an example of the first type of fact, and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln of the second. The first type is more basic than the second because events are made up of things or of the actions of things. A state dinner is to be held at the White House. Such an event could not take place were it not for the existence, first and foremost, of the fact that is the White House, and countless other facts as well. In order to establish the factualness of an event, any number of concrete things need to be appealed to. To determine the reality of a fact that is a thing, all you need do is pay it a visit. If it actually exists it must be somewhere, and, assuming its place to be accessible to you, you can verify its factualness by direct observation.

Take the case of the White House. To ascertain its being a fact, rather than purely imaginary, you can travel to Washington, D.C., and there see the White House with your own eyes. That is the most direct and reliable way to establish its factualness. But you could also rely on indirect evidence: For example, by taking the word of a trustworthy eyewitness that the White House is indeed in Washington, D.C. Or you could decide that photographic evidence is sufficient to establish factualness. But what about an event like Lincoln's assassination? We say that is a fact. What is the justification for that claim? It is an event that is over and done with, and there are no living witnesses to the event whom we might consult. Obviously, we did not ourselves witness the event, so direct evidence is out of the question. In this case our approach will be to acquaint ourselves with a variety of things that serve as indirect evidence of the event. For example, we would consult official documents (police reports, the death certificate, etc.), newspaper accounts, photographs, memoirs, diaries, and items in the Congressional Record, all of which are facts in their own right and whose only reasonable explanation is the factualness of Lincoln's assassination. On the basis of the factualness of these things, we establish the factualness of the event. And we thus establish a historical fact.

Facts can also be thought of as objective or subjective. Both things and events are objective facts. They exist in the public domain and are in principle accessible to all. A subjective fact is one that is limited to the subject experiencing it. A headache would be an example of a subjective fact. If I am the one experiencing the headache, then I have direct evidence of its factualness. But if it is you experiencing the headache, I can establish its factualness only indirectly. I must take your word that you have a headache. Establishing the reality of subjective facts depends entirely on the trustworthiness of those who claim to be experiencing them. To sum up how we get the facts straight: If a given fact is an actually existing thing to which we have access, then the surest way to establish its factualness is to put ourselves in its presence. We then have direct evidence of it. If we cannot establish factualness by direct evidence, we must rigorously test the authenticity and reliability of whatever indirect evidence we rely upon so that, on the basis of that evidence, we can confidently establish the factualness of the thing.

There are only a very limited number of significant public events which we can experience directly. This means that, in almost every case, we must rely on indirect evidence. In establishing the factualness of events by indirect evidence, we must exercise the same kind of care we do in establishing the factualness of "things" by indirect evidence. It all comes down to the authenticity and reliability of our sources. A subjective fact, to the subject experiencing it, is self-evident under normal circumstance. However, through such mechanisms as self-delusion or rationalization, a person could fail to get straight a fact even about himself. Because the establishment of the factualness of a subjective fact pertaining to another person depends entirely on the trustworthiness of that person, you must first, insofar as it is possible, establish the trustworthiness of the person in question.

---

P.S. This is the theoretical background, for a practical example see here. I hope all of this was remotely helpful — regards, Michiel

P.P.S. See also this.

Don't forget the E4B

filmed by CNN flying above the capitol, before the Pentagon was hit. Check out the book 911 Mystery Plane.

the OCT says ...

... through Sham Sunder that steel structures can not fall at free fall through themselves from a fire induced collapse as that would indicate no resistance which the supports would provide and then later tell us that WTC7 freefell, strongly implying to anyone with at least a few working brain cells that the supports were quickly removed.

Yet, many Americans doubt that WTC7 was a C/D ... hmmm. Do 'we' fluoridate our water and vaccinate our children here in the good, old USA?

we flouridate the water of and we vaccinate physics teachers

Except for David Chandler.

Physics teachers are an even more culpable group than journalists - because physics teachers know better.

They are worse than lawyers and politicians,.

Okay - "blaming" is very low consciousness. I admit it. I am eating chocolate.

Prove me wrong physics teachers. Publically take a stand with Sir Issac Newton instead of cowering in mute silence.

Whoops. Blaming again and being holier than thou.

I posted here on 911blogger a few years ago............

..............about a letter writing campaign in which I wrote to all 32 Physics professors at the NC State Engineering school in Raleigh, NC. In it I talked of the evidence that has been found about nanothermite, free fall speed of collapse, molten iron, etc. I gave references like ae911truth.org, etc etc. I asked them to help me make up my mind about what happened to make those buildings collapse. I told them what I had learned made me believe it was controlled demolition, but I would love to be wrong and would like to have help from them to help me make up my mind.

Within hours I got two replies, one from a professor who told me he knew people at NIST and they would never lie, and the other gave me the NIST website for me to study.

After that, no other replies. The word, I guess, got out, and nobody else was nice enough to even acknowledge my letter.

Yeah, Physics teachers are of very little help.

A 12 year old child of average intelligence

that has seen other CDs to compare it to - can SEE that 7 was a controlled demolition.

It is beyond, beyond obvious.

terrific...

An incredibly valuable article I look forward to spending more time with.

This complicates our view of the "official story" in a helpful way, pointing out that, on its face, the story is highly incriminating. What our officials and popular press organs concede about the 9/11 attacks is damning, something we in the truth movement should never lose sight of, even as we concentrate on those areas where the official story proves hopelessly inadequate and/or false.

Thank you immensely, jimd3100. Your article is a valuable reminder of the blatant and thoroughgoing nature of the deception to which we have been subjected by the 9/11 criminals, a deception which a number of our own officials have been pointedly candid about...almost as if they were trying to tell us as much of the ugly truth as they dared. That is something I think we all can "support." (On that note, I am still struck by 9/11 Commission member Bob Kerry's stunning statements to We Are Change about a year or so back, including his view that the commission's work should absolutely NOT be taken as the last word on 9/11, and his troubling--nay, vexing--suggestion that the 9/11 conspiracy goes back decades...)

Steady as she goes, truthers, we may have more friends than we think, and the truth we seek may indeed be stranger than even we are prepared for!

From Brooklyn, peace and courage to all.

Bush responds

Hey thanks! But you know to be fair, I should include what President Bush has to say when confronted with some of this stuff. But first...what was the mandate of the 9-11 commission?.....

"The Commission's mandate is to provide a “full and complete accounting” of the attacks of September 11, 2001 and recommendations as to how to prevent such attacks in the future."
http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/about/faq.htm#q1

New York Times reporter Philip Shenon covered the 9-11 Commission for the paper then wrote a book later called The Commission. In his book is the following.......

"John Lehman thought that he asked some of the tougher questions of Bush during the session, especially about the possibility of Saudi government ties to some of the hijackers. Lehman recalled asking Bush about the news reports that checks for thousands of dollars written by the wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador in Washington, might have been funneled to two of the hijackers in San Diego. "He dodged the questions," said Lehman.
page 344
http://www.amazon.com/Commission-Uncensored-History-11-Investigation/dp/...

"He dodged the questions," said Lehman. page 344
http://www.amazon.com/Commission-Uncensored-History-11-Investigation/dp/...

Sounds like he took the fifth, and didn't want to talk. I wonder why Cheney didn't want this person with "terrorist connections" who refused to talk, to get water boarded?

Bush Responds again

"I answered every question they asked" --G Bush after meeting with 9-11 Commission (1:55 mark of following video)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vio68c0h-h4&feature=related

"He dodged the questions," said Lehman. page 344
http://www.amazon.com/Commission-Uncensored-History-11-Investigation/dp/...

Jim

Thank you for another amazing blog article. I don't know how you find all those sources, but they seem to be walking right into your lap. Great work. With very sad, disturbing, infuriating implications.

pfgetty

You are right many media outlets have resisted us. This resistance is constantly being fueled the fact that people claiming to be representative of 9/11 truth have not been polite as you suggested above and have not been mature or civil in discussion. Truthers are to quick to yell and claim 'nwo scum' or whatever in interviews past. Truther's have been to quick to drop huge conclusions which they have taken years to come to instead of SIMPLY explaining how these conclusions were reach. Don't give up on reaching folks on all sides of the political spectrum and media. They are actually a huge potential for us. We may have to apologize for the people claiming to represent 9/11 truth who have called them names like "Gatekeepers." We may have to agree with them on debunking point which they prove incorrect. But if WE are the ones who keep our cool and spread good info backed with hard evidence. 9/11 Truth can win over way more of the media than we ever used to imagine possible. Not many Truthers have been very polite and it is actually time to start trying a new approach. The AJ method is a trap.

Well, thanks to you I now have one more reason..........

...........that the alternative media has ignored us: we have been impolite, we have taken to name calling (gatekeepers), and we have been accusatory.

Thanks for that kdub.
I really want to get all of the reasons possible why the alternative media has not presented our case.

So, I guess I'll just rehash what I've learned, if I may:

The alterative media has ignored the massive amounts of evidence proving the official story of 9/11, thus missing possibly the biggest journalistic story of all time, because:

1. They simply didn't know of any of the information that the 9/11 truth movement has compiled.

2. The information given to them by the 9/11 truth movement is confusing, contradictory, some of it ridiculous, etc etc.

3. The new one: they have ignored us because some in the truth movement have been impolite, resorting to name calling and being accusatory without proof, and generally being obnoxious.

4. The alternative media has censored us purposely becaue they have been coerced, controlled, or have been threatened. They may have been threatened with having their foundational support removed if they present 9/11 truth.
OR, they, themselves, the editors or owners or managers or senior writers of these outlets may themselves want the 9/11 truth evidence to be hidden, for personal agenda reasons of their own.

I guess I am getting somewhere on this.
Can anyone else think of reasons why the monumentally great work of the 9/11 truth movement has been ignored by such popular sites as:

Counterpunch
DemocracyNow
CommonDreams
antiwar.com
Zmag
Nationmag
Huffpost
Alternet
Motherjones

Let's try to figure this out.
To me, the first three reasons seem ludicrous. But I am all ears.

5.

5. Cognitive dissonance due to the nature of the Big Lie and the sheer magnitude of evil involved.

6. Apparent causes ie: we were attacked

It's unnatural and very uncomfotable to conclude that anything other than the OCT is true.

That's primarily the reason why imho.

Which is really the key to the 'evil genius' of the black-op psyop of 9/11, because it forces the mind to draw the only apparent and obvious conclusions whereby anything else may be considered lunacy and labelled "conspiracy theory".

I am reminded of Bush's admonition to the UN in the wake of 9/11 - "let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories, regarding the attacks of September 11th. Malicious lies designed to drect attention away from the evil doers, away from the guilty."

Good. Thanks.

Of course, that would seem reasonable if we were talking about average Americans.
In this case we are talking about those who have seen the lies before. In fact, I was alerted to the lies of WMD by just these very same people.
It is difficult for me to believe that people who know the score about the Gulf Of Tonkin, the lies about the 2000 election, the lies about Iran Contra, the lies about Panama, the lies about the Iraqis throwing the babies out of the incubators, the lies about Nicaragua, Grenada, etc etc............these people would so fumble over clear and well presented evidence that there was lying in HUNDREDS of areas in the investigation of 9/11.

But that's just me.
I think it over again and again, and honestly I can not imagine how people like Alexander Cockburn, Justin Raimondo, Joshua Holland, Amy Goodman, Juan Gonzalez, and other very bright and always informed people missed all this, and yet I, much less in tune with the lies of the government, picked up on it years ago.

In fact, it was Justin Raimondo who in 2003 published, The Terror Enigma, 9/11 and the Israeli connection. A reviewer on Amazon says: Raimondo amasses so much evidence - all culled from "mainstream" sources -- that Israeli agents were tracking the 9/11 hijackers that I don't see how any objective analyst can deny it.

I would think that the leaders in the alternative media would not only accept what he has presented here, but realize that there is a LOT more that can be investigated by good journalists.

But, in fact, Justin doesn't even go further. After that book, he goes mostly silent on 9/11, except for a few mocking articles about 9/11 truthers, precisely the kinds of people who would have read his book and wanted even more information.

Very odd. And no followup from any other of the popular alternative sites.

I know that Amy Goodman, on a daily basis, sees through the flack that is thrown around by our government, and gets to the meat. And yet it seems people feel that she just can't see through the very well documented facts of 9/11 truth. Many times she has been handed fully written and documented accounts of things like the collapses of the towers, some of it from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth. With 1300 of them, you'd THINK she'd take notice. I'm sure she has. But no word from her show. Odd, very odd.

And 911bloggers mostly feel that these journalists are too confused, or the level of deception and horror is too great for them, or they are mad because 9/11 truthers are sometime rude.

I don't know..................well, I feel I DO know............I think it is number four. Nothing else makes sense.
Nothing else even comes close

Thanks, though. We need all the scenarios we can get.

Nobody wants to be the next Barry Jennings

Anyone who would murder others would murder Y-O-U and me too to cover it up.

Nobody wants to be the next Barry Jennings

"Into the Buzzsaw"

I think most journalists are simply afraid. [ Read the book, "Into the Buzzsaw: Leading journalists Expose the Myth of a Free Press."
http://www.freedomofthepress.net/intothebuzzsaw.htm ]

Most journalists probably look around and see very clearly that basically NO one else in the MSM has dared open that closet of skeletons. And who are they to be the most courageous writer in America? They see the reasons for journalistic silence: careers and lives can be crushed by the PTB.

What they fail to perceive is that Pulitzer prizes and fame and ongoing book deals demand no less than that level of courage. This is perhaps *the* opportunity of a lifetime especially for an established journalist, if s/he could crack this nut so publicly that not a shadow of doubt would cross his/her path. Fearless journalism. Maybe well positioned journalists like Amy Goodman, who have achieved some level of monetary success and reputation, stay quiet as they count on some young unknown journalist with little to lose and lots to gain, to take that big 9/11 story and run hard with it. The conundrum is, what journalist without Goodman's level of professional achievement and audience reach, would be read or heard??

Gatekeepers?

Hi PFG,

I notice you’ve brought this subject up on countless threads, so I’ll offer my own opinion if you’re interested.

I think there are undoubtedly some Mockingbirds scurrying about, especially at places like the Nation magazine and Mother Jones; I also think that funding may come into play at outlets like Democracy Now and some of the larger, more visible “alternative” websites.

However, I think these factors are overstated when it comes to “alternative” media as a whole.

I don’t consider Daily Kos and Huffpo an example of such: they’re basically just mouthpieces for the Democratic Party ie the establishment. So I would only be slightly less surprised if they embraced 911 truth than if the NY Times did same.

For "mainstream" reporters the issue is largely a non-starter; to explicitly endorse 911 truth would probably spell the end of their careers. They know this, so they self-censor.

The controversy arises at sites like Counterpunch and Znet – media outlets which are (imo) spot on about 95% of the time, as well as amongst prominent figures on the left – Chomsky, Arundhati Roy, Zinn (RIP) and so forth. People and orgs which are legitimately radical. If it was just a question of a few people I might entertain the death threat or Mockingbird argument, but we’re talking about huge numbers of radical intellectuals.

To me, the single most important factor in explaining the hostility to 911 truth on the (radical) left is the search for credibility. These people have spent their lives speaking out against power, and are frightened of being cast aside as paranoid kooks. Even the fearless Gore Vidal has refused to go all the way, stressing some variant of LIHOP while also calling 911 a coup d’etat.

Many dissident intellectuals are apparently frightened of having their reputations destroyed by being labeled nutty conspiracy theorists. Similarly, many architects and engineers are frightened of pointing out the obvious w/respect the towers and building 7.

There is also what Canadian philosopher and 911 truth advocate John McMurtry described as the “ruling group mind”. Unfortunately, in this society, human beings often behave like flocks of birds; when one flies in one direction, the others follow.

I noticed above that you seemed to equate explaining an action with justifying it. This is false. To use an extreme example, the fact that I might try to explain why a Palestinian engaged in a suicide bombing against civilians does not mean that I endorse that behavior.

Finally, in terms of solutions, I would suggest doing what most of us have been doing along: engaging in civil outreach and education. It is also important to financially support those alternative websites that DO support 911 truth – Information Clearinghouse, Dissident Voice, Project Censored leap to mind – while withholding donations from places like Counterpunch (and explaining why).

Above all, we need to BYPASS the dinosaurs of alternative news in favor of our own websites and media.

Our efforts are not in vain, even amongst celebrated left intellectuals. For example, William Blum (whose work was endorsed by one of the Bin Laden fakes) recently expressed support for the CD hypothesis.

Gore Vidal on 9/11 and Censorship

9/11 Truth: Gore Vidal recommends 'The New Pearl Harbor'

There is no CD hypothesis - CD is a proven fact

The only thing not known are the precise details - but the FACT of CD has been established.

CD

Give yourself a big pat on the back, zm.

The point here is that William Blum -- whose book on Cold War murder was praised by Ollie Stone and described by Chomsky as "Far and away the best book on the topic", and who was actually referenced by one of Bin Laden's various fakes, recently came around to CD. So that's obviously a positive development and an indication that the 911 truth movement is making waves.