Lawsuit against Saudi Arabia can go forward

Excerpt from article

" U.S. District Judge George Daniels in Manhattan ruled that the lawsuit may proceed, citing the 2016 Justice Against Sponsors of Terrorism Act, which Congress passed by overruling a veto by President Barack Obama, who opposed the law because of the possibility U.S. troops and other government entities could be exposed to lawsuits in other nations.

Daniels also based his ruling on the plaintiffs’ deposition of Zacarias Moussaoui, an Al Queda operative currently serving six life sentences in U.S. federal prison for his role in the 9/11 attacks.

“According to Plaintiffs, Moussaoui’s testimony establishes new facts showing that the Moving Defendants aided Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda by providing funds and other forms of material support in furtherance of the 9/11 Attacks,” Daniels wrote.

In addition, Daniels said the plaintiffs may obtain discovery evidence regarding allegations that two Saudi government agents in California provided assistance to several of the 9/11 hijackers.

“We are very pleased to report that Judge Daniels denied Saudi Arabia’s motion to dismiss and ruled that the plaintiffs may conduct limited jurisdictional discovery of the Kingdom,” attorney Jim Kreindler, who is representing the 9/11 victims’ families, said in a statement....

www.breitbart.com/jerusalem/2018/03/29/lawsuit-accusing-saudi-arabia-financing-9-11-attacks-can-proceed-judge-rules/

What this could expose

The truth is Judge Daniels cleared everyone but two--

Everyone is let off the hook except for just two-Thumairy and Bayoumi...

The actual ruling:
"Plaintiffs shall be permitted to conduct limited and targeted jurisdictional discovery critical to answering that question, i.e. whether and to what extent Thumairy, Bayoumi, and their agents took actions in 2000, at the direction of more senior Saudi officials, to provide assistance to Hazmi, Mihdhar, and other 9/11 hijackers."
- page 23/41
https://www.scribd.com/document/375189424/Judge-Daniels-ruling

Basnan-Bandar and the rest get a free pass----BUT!->

Discovery on Thumairy SHOULD lead to Benomrane -who was THE reason investigators discovered Thumairy, and was also the person who EXPOSED where the hijackers stayed on arrival...

"They put this information into the communication requesting the initiation of an investigation on Thumairy." -Page 3/7
https://www.scribd.com/doc/243329031/Footnote-Box-1-Redwell-7-FBI-MFR-09292003-Fdr-MFR-Benomrane

This could be the end of protecting who had room 1777 at the Hilton Hotel at LA airport waiting for the hijackers arrival, and expose the traitors that protected them...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OszdR2C6E4c&t=18s

EXPOSED where the hijackers stayed on arrival...???

I think you mean "patsies" who never boarded the planes.

Here is more about Nawaf al-Hazmi and another 'hijacker'

“The 28 Pages” Revisits… “Man who met 9/11 Hijackers poisoned in Texas”
VIDEOs and GRAPHICS
http://911blogger.com/news/2016-04-24/28-pages-revisits-man-who-met-911-hijackers-poisoned-texas

Stop calling them hijackers

Is there any proof that these men actually took control of the planes? Any proof that they guided the planes with pinpoint accuracy to the targets?

Nope.

All we have are some crappy videos, (from just one out of three airports), of a few men arriving at the security checkpoint. Beyond that, nothing.

We cannot say with certainty that they walked through the door, or were seated, or did anything during the flight to divert the planes from their intended destinations. The challenge of removing ex-military pilots from their positions, by itself, is enough to cast doubt on the entire hijack scenario.

What we do have is the word of a corrupt agency of so-called investigators who are involved in directing a widespread, long-term operation to frame certain ethnic types. This operation resulted in the justification for endless war, millions of dead and wounded, and oh, let's not forget, MASSIVE new investigatory and detention powers for the directors.

Liberty got hijacked. Due process got destroyed. The real criminals remain at large.

flight path

"guided the planes with pinpoint accuracy"

True for the end of AA77, before that it's anything but. I need to go dig up the others, they all (except 93) ended with precision as AM's paper points out, but if I remember correctly it's a similar (very non-precise) path before that.

If someone links me to the radar data (it's buried in 911datasets somewhere) I'll add it to the appropriate pages on 911encyclopedia and make a "flight paths" page as well.

http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/09/11/2001_Aircraft

http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/911Encyclopedia_help_wanted

I'd contend the terminal

I'd contend the terminal parts of all the flight paths matter most; e.g. smashing directly into the offices of Marsh & McLennan is pinpoint accuracy if that is the destination.

This whole question of Saudi "hijackers" needs to be aired out at his site. I stand with Joe and Kawika (though I've never met them) and I trust them (and Tom) more than I trust others here. However, and especially since the Saudis--if properly investigated--will point fingers back at the US and some Israelis, I am *all for* lawsuits pertaining to Saudi/911 involvement.

It would seem that during or around 9/11, there were maybe 60 Israelis arrested in conjunction with the attack, most of them in New York City. We hear most about the group of five individuals arrested by the New Jersey Police, whereas those arrested by the NY Police we hear very little about. We know that the NJ Police say bomb-sniffing dogs reacted to their van as if it had traces of explosives in it. Also, biographical research on one of those arrested indicates he is an explosives expert. Curiously, mainstream newspaper articles make a big question as to whether the five were "spies." Important as that is, the bigger question--and the one they avoid--is: why was there an explosives expert in a van with apparent explosives residue in it, coming out of NY City on 9/11? And why was he celebrating demonstratively enough that a woman called and reported him and his four friends to the police, who arrested them? Yes. I know intelligence workers later downplayed all this. I don't trust them. And, why was so little said about the approx 55 other Israelis arrested in immediate conjunction with 9/11?

I could understand someone like Jim3100 making extensive study of the Saudis. But why is this done while avoiding evidence of Israel participation? An answer such as "I'm super-duper agent JimStein" isn't much of an answer.

If Israelis played no role in 9/11, I'd like to know it. But no one has come close to convincing me they didn't.

As for control of the planes, there is no way yet to know. It seems highly plausible they were, at some point, guided remotely. Certainly, remote guidance would lend advantages to the operation.

Will be back in a few months after a trip, and will gladly discuss or argue any of this at that time.

Site rules

Who you trust is not relevant to the discussion. From the rules:

http://911blogger.com/rules

Be civil. There have been disagreements about what happened on 9/11/2001 since it happened. If you feel compelled to point out factual errors in a blog entry, back up your observations with linked documentation.

Calling another user a liar, disinformation agent or any of the other related terms will not be tolerated. If you believe someone is lying post the facts and let the readers decide for themselves.

---------

As for the RC question, if you are blowing up the WTC under the guise of aircraft impacts, missing isn't an option.

http://911blogger.com/news/2010-03-27/discussion-vector-and-turn-analysis-observed-and-measured-flight-paths-911-wtc-aircraft
http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Explosions_Occurred_In_Each_Tower_Almost_Simultaneously_With_Each_Jet_Impact (this should be better known, these are 1000ft levers, the aircraft impacts (and fuel deflagration) alone isn't going to generate the observed seismic signals)
http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/World_Trade_Center_Jet_Impacts

Calls Real=hijackers

kawika said..."Is there any proof that these men actually took control of the planes? Any proof that they guided the planes with pinpoint accuracy to the targets?"

Well, there's the last dying words of the passengers as they are telling the world what they are experiencing, as their final moments of life are snuffed out.

kawika said..."Nope."

Oh. I'm sorry, It was obviously a rhetorical question.

kawika said..."All we have are some crappy videos, (from just one out of three airports), of a few men arriving at the security checkpoint. Beyond that, nothing."

Nothing? Well, there's the numerous phone calls from the passengers letting us know what was going on. A non "expert" on 9-11, or the average layman would probably mistake the calls from the planes as "important evidence", but I'm going to guess that you "don't stand with" or "trust" this evidence.

kawika said..."All we have are some crappy videos..."

I disagree. I'd like to propose the following....

Since all the phone calls were fake. That would mean the perps (Israel etc)employed several different "voice morphing technicians" working at once as there were lots of calls taking place to different people, this "fake" effort would require lots of work not to mention barely Beta tested technology. Lots of research and surveillance would also be required as some passengers missed their flight(Be careful! Don't want to call that family!)and some passengers switched flights. Most passengers talked of personal things only they would know(and the sneaky Mossad agents found out) and so not only did the "voice morphing" aspect of the operation work perfectly, all the research paid off as well, as every single family member got fooled! So the point is, when you say "All we have are some crappy videos..." we don't even have those! Because if the perps spent all that time and effort on the "fake phone calls to family members" to fool the public into thinking the planes had hijackers, imagine how easy it would be to just fake "some crappy video." So we have less than nothing, not even a crappy video of any so called hijackers, other than a fake one.

kawika said..."We cannot say with certainty that they walked through the door, or were seated, or did anything during the flight to divert the planes from their intended destinations. The challenge of removing ex-military pilots from their positions, by itself, is enough to cast doubt on the entire hijack scenario."

Next time you're riding in the back seat of a car, imagine how hard it would be for you to slit the throat of the driver. On a plane you'd have to get up though. That? By itself? Is enough to cast doubt on the entire hijack scenario? Now that I think about it, it would be about as impossible as making a real phone call from any of the planes on 9/11.

kawika said..."Liberty got hijacked. Due process got destroyed. The real criminals remain at large."

The victims families are giving us nothing but obstacles, first they fell for the old "Fake phone calls" trick, and now they are going after the framed Muslims as the real criminals remain at large.

They need to be stopped, not helped. You've converted me. Besides-how can anyone hijack a missile? We should help the falsely accused in the Saudi Lawsuit. Don't they know that they can prove that there wasn't any hijackers? Surely that would clear them. Hopefully one of their lawyers will read this blog and will use the research function to gather all the evidence they should need to not only defend themselves but expose those that framed them, and then we can all take pride in defending freedom. This is an opportunity to get our evidence into a court and clear the innocent, while going after the real criminals. Especially the ones making the fake calls.

Extensive history on the phone calls

"Fake" Phone Calls? What The Evidence Shows: http://911blogger.com/news/2009-12-22/fake-phone-calls-what-evidence-shows-1

Critique of David Ray Griffin’s 9/11 Fake Calls Theory by Erik Larson: http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-10/critique-david-ray-griffin-s-911-fake-calls-theory

Jesse Ventura’s Fake Phone Calls Claim Debunked: http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-23/jesse-ventura-s-fake-phone-calls-claim-debunked

David Ray Griffin: Reported Cell Phone Calls from the 9/11 Planes - Further Reflections Evoked By Critique: http://911blogger.com/node/17597

David Ray Griffin on the 9/11 Cell Phone Calls: Exclusive CBC Interview: http://911blogger.com/node/22192

from: http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Hijacked_Jet_Phone_Calls

Side note: I usually try to fix up any wiki page I ref, starting by adding the references with this form: http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Special:FormEdit/Publication_Form but when they are blog posts, it's a bit more difficult, what would help is for people who do all the work to put posts like that together is to use them as drafts, and then refine them into a pdf and publish it through one of the 911 related journals or just post a final pdf, that way it's official, it has a hash, so the exact paper can be referenced by it and differentiated from revisions. 911blogger is like a wiki, and it's going to be around forever, but it's much nicer to be able to pass around a pdf when it's a focused paper on a subject. IPFS is coming, and what I am suggesting gets even more useful with it.

MORPH NONSENSE

jimd3100 wrote: Since all the phone calls were fake. That would mean the perps (Israel etc)employed several different "voice morphing technicians" working at once as there were lots of calls taking place to different people, this "fake" effort would require lots of work not to mention barely Beta tested technology.

Nonsense.

Voice morphing is fine for a single statement, not a real-time conversation. There are so many reasons why the calls at altitude were not possible. Had to be on the ground. Study the facts about just one--Barb Olson.

No background noise, no panic, calm demeanor, records don't line up, distance from cell towers, air phones not working or not installed, etc, etc.

NONSENSE Indeed

kawika said...."Voice morphing is fine for a single statement, not a real-time conversation."

So "voice morphing technicians" were on the calls that made "a single statement" and the rest were real but the victims were "in on it"? Or they were not "in on it" but instead being forced somehow?

kawika said....."No background noise, no panic, calm demeanor"

Which means what? While a few people remained calm, most were not.

Not a single person called you, yet you claim....

kawika said....."No background noise, no panic, calm demeanor"

Here is what people that DID receive calls said....

"WINSTON COURTNEY SADLER - stated he was convinced immediately upon taking the call, that it was a legitimate telephone call from an airplane because he was use to hearing the background noise given by airplane telephones and this call had that background noise. SADLER stated when the airplane seemed to be flown erratically, that ONG would make statements such as "please pray for us .... oh God .... oh God."
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-13-FBI-FD302-winston-courtney-sadler.pdf

kawika said...."No background noise, no panic, calm demeanor"

"LEE HANSON said he heard noise of a woman screaming in the background."
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-11-FBI-FD302-lee-hanson.pdf

kawika said...."No background noise, no panic, calm demeanor"

"PETER HANSON continued, "Don't worry, Dad ... if it happens
it'll be very fast."
LEE HANSON said the call ended with his son saying "My God,
my God ... "
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-11-FBI-FD302-lee-hanson.pdf

kawika said...."No background noise, no panic, calm demeanor"

"BRITTON said they were turning and going to crash.___________then heard a lot of screaming and then the phone went dead."
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-20-FBI-FD302-UI-Marion-Britton.pdf

kawika said...."No background noise, no panic, calm demeanor"

"I was contacted by a female flight attendant. She spoke to me in a hurried and scared voice."
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-11-FBI-FD302-two-ual-employees.pdf

kawika said...."No background noise, no panic, calm demeanor"

"_______described the noises as sounding similar to the screams coming from individuals riding a roller coaster. There was then several minutes of silence on the telephone."
http://intelfiles.egoplex.com/2001-09-12-FBI-FD302-glick-family.pdf

kawika said......"air phones not working"

So the planes had air phones-but they didn't work? How come?

kawika said......"or not installed"

If the air phones were not installed, then I guess that would explain why they didn't work. But they were installed. Otherwise this work order from March 2002 to deactivate air phones on 757 aircraft wouldn't make any sense would it?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_go0r2XYwpws/Rut6XRAnZ9I/AAAAAAAAAL8/h3RSUc1GUjw/s1600-h/F0871+001.jpg

kawika said....."Study the facts about just one--Barb Olson."

Maybe I will someday-like this guy did 9 years ago --

http://911blogger.com/news/2009-12-22/fake-phone-calls-what-evidence-shows-1

the last sentence which said...

"I prefer the "truth" movement focus on truth, and have it's "facts" in order. Accusing victims of the attack as being "in on it" liars, when the evidence isn't there doesn't help a "truth" movement. It destroys it."

Any ideas on how to stop the Victims families?

Nearly 17 Years After 9/11, Middletown Son Seeks Answers From FBI
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-saudi-arabia-suit-20180409-story.html

On Monday, Blumenthal linked the Saudi state more explicitly to the Sept. 11 attacks. “Make no mistake — the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia probably sponsored the attack,” he said. “And now the United States government is trying to shield them from embarrassment.”
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-news-saudi-arabia-suit-20180409-story.html

“And now the United States government is trying to shield them from embarrassment.” <---Shielding them in order to murder Iraqis(9/11 used for Iraq War) would make them co-conspirators and traitors, to go along with mass murderers. It's called a cover up. It's the unraveling of the 9-11 conspiracy.

Should they be stopped because the conspiracy isn't like the one you had in mind?

Saudi "hijackers" is part of the government OFFICIAL story.

Saudi "hijackers" is part of the government OFFICIAL story. Errrh...I mean "myth", not story.
I got no stomach for no guberment kakistocracy saying that "This is how 9/11 occurred".
I stand with Joe and Kawika and Satyakaama.

Many of us have been at this 911blogger a long time, watching every post entry.
For me, it is a no brainer... the 19 'hijackers' did not pull off 9/11. Not even close. No way.

It is wonder that some of the hijackers could even crawl out of the topless clubs. Oh!...that's right!...a couple hijackers were smart enough to leave lots of evidence in the trunk of their car at the airport. And another hijacker had fireproof, thermite proof, I.D. which he threw out the airplane window during the crash.
Santa Clause is more real than the official story.

That said... I would like to see the Lawsuit go forward. Milk it. Milk it dry.
And then maybe Chiquita will be sued next. And then maybe some U.S. politicians will be sued for causing terrorism around the world.

(But what's up with down-votes? That is weird.)

Not suprising.

Remember the part about "back up your observations with linked documentation". Who you "stand with" is again, not even remotely relevant.

From the rules (seriously, go read them): http://911blogger.com/rules

"Do not make this site a rallying point for competing factions to battle and waste people's time."

Commenting about votes is a instant down vote in any rational forum. Do you really think it's "weird" that people disagree with you? I just posted the rules, and calling it "weird" to have people disagreeing with you is definitely not in the spirit of rational discussion. There are not many people active here, and some of those that are do spend their time posting useful well sourced comments, getting a down vote for your sourceless opinionated semi-rule breaking comment is totally normal.

There were a number of drills going on: http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Drills

And from Daniel Hopsickers research and others, it's likely the people referred to as hijackers were part of those (in addition to the drug running out of the interesting airport).

I see. I'm lost for words.

.

I'll try to help.

First, because something is part of the official story, does not mean it's false. Your comment makes that error, and then uses Santa as a rhetorical example of something that is more true. This isn't Reddit. It's part of the official story that planes hit the towers, and I have seen the _exact_ reasoning you used to support "no planes" and many other easily false things.

Then, you make points about planted evidence, I bet many people would agree with that... maybe even the single down voter, but you fail to make it all that useful because you miss the opportunity to back up your comment with sources. This site not only exists for 9/11 experts, you should write your comments expecting people who are new to read them.

"hijackers" part of the government OFFICIAL story- Amended

(I am going to try this again with a better format)

The Official 9/11 Story includes the Saudi "hijackers".
Tomes of information discuss 9/11/01 with many folks also questioning aspects of the official government renditions surrounding the event.
One cannot discuss the 19 "hijackers" without also discussing aspects of the 9/11 event.
Some folks have questioned the actual role which the "hijackers" played with the government's version of the 9/11 event.

Because there is a plethora of information about 9/11, it behooves an individual to research specific aspects regarding 9/11 which might need more clarification.

A great method of research is to utilize the "search" tab at 911blogger for any topic related to 9/11. Another alternative is to "Google Search" keywords starting with the keyword "911blogger".

EXAMPLE
In the Breitbart.com article about the Lawsuit, Zacarias Moussaoui is mentioned.
911blogger search - http://911blogger.com/search/node/Zacarias%20Moussaoui
From 911blogger search with the keywords: "Zacarias Moussaoui" & "waterboarding" - http://911blogger.com/search/node/Zacarias%20Moussaoui%20waterboard
An individual will find this statement in an article:
A telling revision perhaps extracted from one of Mohammed’s 183 waterboarding sessions – and certainly politically more convenient in that it obscured Mohammed’s other explanation implicating “U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.”
Thus, an individual can form their own opinion as to the validity of Moussaoui's testimony after 183 waterboarding sessions.

For many people, especially new people to the topic, searching each aspect about 9/11 becomes tedious and overwhelming.

Perhaps a good start for a new person is to get a 5 minute rendition of The Official Government Story About 9/11.
Here is a 5 minute video concerning the events of 9/11...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuC_4mGTs98

What is stellar about this 5 minute rendition is that it contains a transcript with references.
TRANSCRIPT
https://www.corbettreport.com/911-a-conspiracy-theory/

Many folks are skeptical about the role of the "hijackers".

Transcript Excerpt (with source links provided in the original transcript)-
These 19 hijackers, devout religious fundamentalists who liked to drink alcohol, snort cocaine, and live with pink-haired strippers, managed to knock down 3 buildings with 2 planes in New York, while in Washington a pilot who couldn’t handle a single engine Cessna was able to fly a 757 in an 8,000 foot descending 270 degree corskscrew turn to come exactly level with the ground, hitting the Pentagon in the budget analyst office where DoD staffers were working on the mystery of the 2.3 trillion dollars that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld had announced “missing” from the Pentagon’s coffers in a press conference the day before, on September 10, 2001.

Transcript Excerpt -
On the morning of September 11, 2001, 19 men armed with boxcutters directed by a man on dialysis in a cave fortress halfway around the world using a satellite phone and a laptop directed the most sophisticated penetration of the most heavily-defended airspace in the world, overpowering the passengers and the military combat-trained pilots on 4 commercial aircraft before flying those planes wildly off course for over an hour without being molested by a single fighter interceptor.

From the paragraph above, an individual is invited to entertain the validity of a "hijacker" with a boxcutter threatening and overhwelming combat trained commercial airplane pilots (and/or passengers).
Thus, an individual has to evaluate for himself, whether a light weight "hijacker" really could whoop the commercial airline crew and passengers by waving around a boxcutter.

Research Lesson

TomT said..."A great method of research is to utilize the "search" tab at 911blogger for any topic related to 9/11. Another alternative is to "Google Search" keywords starting with the keyword "911blogger".

"EXAMPLE
In the Breitbart.com article about the Lawsuit, Zacarias Moussaoui is mentioned.
911blogger search - http://911blogger.com/search/node/Zacarias%20Moussaoui
From 911blogger search with the keywords: "Zacarias Moussaoui" & "waterboarding" - http://911blogger.com/search/node/Zacarias%20Moussaoui%20waterboard
An individual will find this statement in an article:
A telling revision perhaps extracted from one of Mohammed’s 183 waterboarding sessions – and certainly politically more convenient in that it obscured Mohammed’s other explanation implicating “U.S. foreign policy favoring Israel.”
Thus, an individual can form their own opinion as to the validity of Moussaoui's testimony after 183 waterboarding sessions.

For many people, especially new people to the topic, searching each aspect about 9/11 becomes tedious and overwhelming."
__ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- --- - - - - --- - - - - --- - - - ---

Thank you for the lesson on how to research. In the example you provide, all sources of information in the entire world will be cut off and only information posted on 911blogger will be available for research.

The results of your research:

"Thus, an individual can form their own opinion as to the validity of Moussaoui's testimony after 183 waterboarding sessions."

Your research has concluded that Moussaoui's testimony might be problematic because it was after 183 waterboarding sessions. And strongly implies his testimony was coerced due to his 183 waterboarding sessions.

In actuality-your "research" has resulted in you putting out misinformation. Moussaoui was NEVER waterboarded. Not once. You have mixed in Moussaoui's testimony with Mohammed’s 183 waterboarding sessions. Moussaoui and Mohammed are two different people with two different testimonies.

Moussaoui--NEVER waterboarded claimed Al Qaeda received their funding from Saudi Gov officials.

KSM ( Mohammed)-- WAS waterboarded by the CIA 183 times. The CIA doesn't allow anyone to ask him anything. They "tell us what he told them". So where does (according to the CIA) the money come from, according to Mohammed, who was waterboarded 183 times to get his info?

"To date, the U.S. government has not been able to determine the origin of the money used for the 9/11 attacks.
Compelling evidence traces the bulk of the funds directly back to KSM, but from where KSM obtained the money remains unknown at this time." page 12/20
https://www.9-11commission.gov/staff_statements/staff_statement_16.pdf

In other words, according to the CIA..
.
KSM after being waterboarded 183 times and raped with large "feeding hose"....

"HAAAHAAAHAAA - I'll never tell! And you'll never know. HAHAHHAAHA But I'll talk about anything else."
"Oh...and death to America!" - KSM

I'll "stand with" and "trust" Moussaoui, who was NOT waterboarded, over the CIA's version of Mohammed's testimony after being waterboarded 183 times due to-- common sense and other sources that back up his claim.

Misinformation:
TomT said..."Thus, an individual can form their own opinion as to the validity of Moussaoui's testimony after 183 waterboarding sessions."

Thank you for the lesson and the consequences of bad research.

Here's a research lesson for

Here's a research lesson for ya. Get someone to actually approve blog posts that debunk NIST's whole ANSYS model, and facilitate downloads of the structural drawing books for the towers and ARA's FEA analysis pdf from 2005.

Just a suggestion, because I have posted all of this in the last 2 weeks at this site, and whoever admins it seems to think that an inane debate about hijackers Vs Patsies issomehow more productive. No wonder people look elsewhere these days for their info re 911, as opposed to this echo chamber. The irony of someone telling you to refine your searches to include only this site is indeed astounding.

We have not denied any.

That's something I and the other mods are very interested in, always have been. It's extremely rare to deny a blog post, I can only think of one in recent history.

You made three blog posts today, and none that were not approved before that. It's normal for it to take a day or so to approve new blogs, but I don't see any evidence in the mod logs of you posting them before today.

Your last post was:

2018-02-14 19:04: http://911blogger.com/news/2018-02-14/nists-wtc-ansys-model-issue-long-vs-short

and it was approved.

Looking at the other 3 now. Posted:

http://911blogger.com/news/2018-04-05/2005-ara-presentation-re-tower-impact
http://911blogger.com/news/2018-04-05/structural-drawing-book-3-twin-towers-core-column-details
http://911blogger.com/news/2018-04-05/twin-towers-drawing-book-9-core-truss-details

It would be much more useful if you added context and pointed to the exact things that are interesting, just posting links to large PDF's is a good start but very few people have enough context to know what is interesting there. You can edit the blogs, or add it in comments there. Also, please source the documents. Which FOIA #'s are each from? You mention "drawing book x", I have an idea of what that is and how to find it, but very few people know that, please dig up the links on NIST's site or reference the FOIA numbers.

Last I checked, we don't have the full WTC1/2 ANSYS model, and the director withheld the connection details for WTC7 when we took them to court to get it. The WTC1/2 simulations end before the main sequence, and even before that it does not resemble the video evidence of what happened to the buildings. The WTC7 simulation does not even remotely match what happened on video. Some more context (or write a paper to explain it) would be awesome.

Note: OneDrive, Scribd, and any other sites that make it difficult to retrieve the original file without executing some arbitrary JavaScript are memory holes. Those links will not work in a few years, I guarantee it. It's like posting an important video to youtube. Sure, they are convenient now, and that's why they get used, but it would be way better to post the files direct on something like archive.org.

My latest post was denied

>> It's extremely rare to deny a blog post, I can only think of one in recent history. <<

My latest blog posting has in fact apparently been rejected by 911Blogger.com. However, if anyone here would like to read it, they can see it on my own blog. The article is titled, "Media Business Middleman Was Shown an Unreleased Video, Which Revealed That 'Something Other Than a 757 Hit the Pentagon on 9/11'" and its URL is http://shoestring911.blogspot.com/2018/03/media-business-middleman-was-shown.html

That's the one

I was going to email you about it, odd how the guy can publish a book about a video, but not post the video.

BTW: We have video: http://911speakout.org/plane-at-the-pentagon-b/

More: http://911encyclopedia.com/wiki/index.php/Pentagon

Very first link on 911encyclopedia.com: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOQvMY0JlwA

I read Shoestring's article

I read Shoestring's article a few weeks back. I enjoyed reading it.
As far as I am concerned, it brought to light some relevant questions, and also another perspective.

Information about Pentagon attack video needs to be publicized

Thanks Tom.

I think the information in my article is potentially very important. And my main source, independent news producer Larry Garrison, certainly seems to be credible. The more people that are aware of the video of the Pentagon attack that Garrison says he was sent, the greater the likelihood of that video being released to the public, in my opinion.

Credible how?

What makes you think he is credible? He tried to sell the video, and wrote a book about it, but cant post it?

The physical and video evidence that a large jet hit the pentagon is substantial. You have to get into body planting, FDR modification, and the whole "everything that supports it is fake" line of reasoning if you want to argue otherwise. I could go on.

Why write an article about a unavailable pentagon video and not mention the sourced video we have? Would someone interested expect that?

What about the people that saw it in person (as opposed to the 2nd hand hearsay about a unavailable video of someone who wont support _any_ of their assertions)? I would love to know which pilot emailed him, I rate the chance that he posts that full unredacted email with headers somewhere arb close to zero. I found your article an interesting window on how the Pentagon no-plane story started. It's really a loss that he hasn't sourced his claims. Who showed him the secret (except to the people he tried to sell it to) video?

My response to questions

jkeogh: I have tried to answer some of your questions below.

>> What makes you think he is credible? He tried to sell the video, and wrote a book about it, but cant post it? <<

In my article I wrote: "[Larry Garrison] is the 'king' of his line of work, according to numerous sources at the ABC network. He has decades of experience in the media business, and has produced and brokered major news stories for ABC News, CBS News, Fox News, NBC News, and other major media organizations."

So it would surprise me if Garrison was prepared to risk throwing away a reputation he'd spent decades building by putting out a story in his memoir that was fabricated. Others may disagree, but I personally thought he came across as credible. This was the general impression I got when I read his description of how he came across the video of the Pentagon attack.

You can read the relevant excerpt of the book yourself on Google Books, here: https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=QMhZnTBP5DYC&pg=PA103
See pp. 103-108.

>> Why write an article about a unavailable pentagon video and not mention the sourced video we have? Would someone interested expect that? <<

I do mention all of the videos that have been released of, and relating to, the Pentagon attack in my article. This is in the paragraphs under the heading, "VIDEOS OF THE PENTAGON ATTACK THAT HAVE BEEN RELEASED ARE UNCLEAR." Garrison also mentions the video of the attack that was released in May 2006 in his book. I refer to what he says in this section of my article.

>> What about the people that saw it in person (as opposed to the 2nd hand hearsay about a unavailable video of someone who wont support _any_ of their assertions)? <<

The explanation I hinted at in my article was that some alleged eyewitnesses to the Pentagon attack may have been ordered to lie about seeing a large commercial aircraft hitting the Pentagon on September 11. I wrote that Garrison's story "implies that people who claimed they witnessed a large commercial aircraft crashing into the Pentagon were either mistaken or lying." Again, others may disagree, but I personally think this is a possibility.

Like what?

This thread is already offtopic, lets just get it out. What from the PR expert who tried to shop around video he wont post or source did you find relevant? Also, are you going to acknowledge the error you made on the other matter above?

Ben Swann-Reality Check: Could 9/11 Victim Families Actually Sue

Reality Check: Could 9/11 Victim Families Actually Sue Saudi Arabia?

Ben Swann
Published on Apr 8, 2018

Last week a U.S. District court judge rejected a request by Saudi Arabia to dismiss lawsuits accusing the nation of being involved in the 9/11 attacks. So what does this mean for the families of 9/11 victims? Does this mean that Saudi Arabia’s immunity in the case has run out? Let’s give it a Reality Check you won't get anywhere else.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-jvyPAsNlI

My two cents...

https://sputniknews.com/us/201804101063407292-911-us-records-saudi/

"In the opinion of long-time 9/11 justice activist Jon Gold, all of these records should be released in full. Gold told Sputnik, “Everything having to do with the lead up to 9/11, after action reports, PDBs, basically, anything having to do with 9/11 should be released immediately and completely unredacted. The families of the victims, and the people of the world deserve to see these things happen."