By Ellen Nakashima
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, November 6, 2010; 12:41 AM

The Pentagon's new Cyber Command is seeking authority to carry out computer network attacks around the globe to protect U.S. interests, drawing objections from administration lawyers uncertain about the legality of offensive operations.

Cyber Command's chief, Gen. Keith B. Alexander, who also heads the National Security Agency, wants sufficient maneuvering room for his new command to mount what he has called "the full spectrum" of operations in cyberspace.

Offensive actions could include shutting down part of an opponent's computer network to preempt a cyber-attack against a U.S. target or changing a line of code in an adversary's computer to render malicious software harmless. They are operations that destroy, disrupt or degrade targeted computers or networks.

A well known, and often committed, logical fallacy is the false dilemma.^[1] When you consider two variables (US Government, Al Qaeda), you have the following, logically possible options:

That's four possibilities, not "either the US did it, or Al Qaeda did it". As you'll note, "neither" and "both" are also options.

What happens when we add Israel, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan?

Source: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_usa_iraq_leaks

Pentagon braces for huge WikiLeaks dump on Iraq war

By Phil Stewart Phil Stewart

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Pentagon said on Sunday it had a 120-member team prepared to review a massive leak of as many as 500,000 Iraq war documents, which are expected to be released by the WikiLeaks website sometime this month.

Source Link:
http://www.infowars.com/jesse-ventura-this-is-a-country-of-fear/

In this interview with Judge Napolitano, former MN Governor Jesse Ventura says he will be covering the Pentagon attack on 9/11. Although the official website for his show does not mention the 9/11 show, Jesse mentions here in the interview.

http://www.trutv.com/shows/conspiracy_theory/episodes/index.html

IMHO:

In October of 2007, a letter was written to Dr. William F. Marcuson, President of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), by Professor Raymond B. Seed of the of the UC Berkeley department of Civil and Environmental Engineering. Professor Seed was very concerned about the ASCE and obstruction of the investigation into the breakage of levees in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina. That obstruction was coordinated by Dr. Paul Mlakar of the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), who claimed that his assignment was to "spar" with the independent investigators.

Mlakar is well known by independent investigators, as he was one of the four engineers who conducted the FEMA "investigation" into the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. The other three were Gene Corley, Charles Thornton, later of the NIST WTC Advisory Committee, and Mete+Sozen, who has been a leading spokesman for the official story about the WTC.

Mlakar also led+the+ASCE+investigation+at+the+Pentagon+after+9/11, along with Sozen.

Professor Seed, who led one of the independent investigations into the breaking of the levees in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina, claimed that Paul Mlakar obstructed his investigation. Below are some relevant quotes from the letter, but the entire letter is well worth reading.

"These past two years, both the USACE and ASCE have been dishonored by the unacceptable, and even unfathomable, actions of a few. These are two of the most important civil engineering organizations in the world. If that cannot be reversed and repaired, and if recurrence cannot be prevented, then the ethics and the very soul of the Profession are in peril."

hyperlinks at source - loose nuke

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0619/pentagon-revives-domestic-spying-unit/

Pentagon revives Rumsfeld-era domestic spying unit By Daniel Tencer

Saturday, June 19th, 2010 -- 7:13 pm

The Pentagon's spy unit has quietly begun to rebuild a database for tracking potential terrorist threats that was shut down after it emerged that it had been collecting information on American anti-war activists.

The Defense Intelligence Agency filed notice this week that it plans to create a new section called Foreign Intelligence and Counterintelligence Operation Records, whose purpose will be to "document intelligence, counterintelligence, counterterrorism and counternarcotic operations relating to the protection of national security."

But while the unit's name refers to "foreign intelligence," civil liberties advocates and the Pentagon's own description of the program suggest that Americans will likely be included in the new database.

While at a Gun Show in St. Petersburg, Florida, We are Change-Tampa had the opportunity to speak with an Army Ranger who was at the Pentagon removing bodies and residual remains. This Ranger states that he was perplexed at the lack of damage at the entry point where the wings should have been, he then surmised that due to the mass damage to the floors below grade that the plane must have came in at a great angle. When asked, He could not account for the damage to the outer part of the third ring due to downward pattern of damage.

The video begins several minutes into the interview after understanding the gravity of his statements. For the record, He stated before recording began that he witnessed windows from a jetliner amongst the debris inside the pentagon and that he could not understand why there was debris found in the center courtyard, based on his idea of impact.

posted in full for posterity; hyperlinks, images and video at source - loose nuke:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2010/03/27/wikileaks/i...
The war on WikiLeaks and why it matters
BY GLENN GREENWALD

A newly leaked CIA report prepared earlier this month (.pdf) analyzes how the U.S. Government can best manipulate public opinion in Germany and France -- in order to ensure that those countries continue to fight in Afghanistan. The Report celebrates the fact that the governments of those two nations continue to fight the war in defiance of overwhelming public opinion which opposes it -- so much for all the recent veneration of "consent of the governed" -- and it notes that this is possible due to lack of interest among their citizenry: "Public Apathy Enables Leaders to Ignore Voters," proclaims the title of one section.

WASHINGTON — The Pentagon on Friday officially dropped military charges against the accused mastermind of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and four other alleged conspirators, a development that likely foreshadows their transfer to New York City to face charges in a civilian federal court.

Source:
http://www.idahostatesman.com/2010/01/22/1097055/pentagon-drops-charges-...

The Pentagon said the dismissal of the charges "without prejudice" against alleged plot leader Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and the others, Walid Bin Attash, Ramzi Bin al Shibh, Ali Abdul Aziz Ali and Mustafa Ahmed Adam al Hawsawi, was a procedural step to clear the way for their civilian trials.

There was no word on when indictments would be issued in New York against the men or when they would be transferred from Guantanamo to the United States.

Attorney General Eric Holder announced on Nov. 13 that the five men would be tried in federal court for the 9/11 attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people. Criticism quickly followed by Republicans and others who said trying the men inside the United States would create security risks and allow the defendants legal protections that they shouldn't have.

Craig Ranke has written an extensive rebuttal to the piece Erik Larson wrote a couple weeks ago. Craig's rebuttal is entitled Dawn Vignola's Account vs. Erik Larson's Methods by CIT. I'll let readers go to the link to read the whole thing. Here are my own thoughts and highlights:

Larson's essay began with the following:

"From their apartment, Dawn Vignola and her roommate Hugh ‘Tim’ Timmerman saw American Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, September 11, 2001. Shortly afterward, they gave witness accounts to local and national TV media. In 2007, they were interviewed by Citizen Investigation Team (CIT), who attempted to discredit their testimony."

Craig correctly points out that Larson stated this particular aspect of the OCT as proven fact (AA77 hitting the Pentagon [whether piloted by Hanjour or remote control]), with "zero skepticism or objectivity applied whatsoever (it would be impossible for any witness to definitively tell that the plane was "Flight 77" or specifically tail# N644AA)."

I discovered this website entitled: Veterans Today. Military veterans and foreign affairs journal. It's been around since 2003 and has lots of articles relevant to 911 Truth. The article that caught my attention is entitled:
Don't just stand there, arrest somebody, by Gordon Duff, the Chairman of the journal's editorial board.

I agree with most of what he says in this article and virtually every other one I've glanced at (there are many). I do find he has a bit of a rough approach -- as a disabled veteran I'll grant him that, and I don't get all of his irony, but don't let that stop you from taking a good look at this article and some of the other recent ones such as the murders at Guantanamo or the day democracy ended in America (yesterday). Many of the articles are by Gordon, but he also has other journalists on staff.

This guy is a major ally. He knows about the CIA overthrowing Iran in 1953, the plot against Cuba by killing Americans: Operation Northwoods in the 1960s; he has bitter memories and knowledge of corruption during Vietnam and has really done his homework on 911 and the military industrial congressional complex.

http://paulsdomain.libsyn.com/index.php?post_id=562135

A week ago, I was excited to hear that one of CIT's critics accepted Craig's challenge to step up to the plate and engage in live, recorded debate.

John Bursill debated Craig Ranke on 12/19/09 and the entire conversations lasted longer than most full-length motion pictures! Paul Tassopulos of Artists for 9/11 Truth recorded and hosted the debate, although he virtually never stepped in as a moderator.

John has posted his own essay+writeup over at the 911oz forum; maybe he'll submit it here too. While John and Craig still have specific disagreements mostly centering on choice of words and method of approaching people (i.e. whether to call the flyover scenario "proof" or a "working hypothesis"), I was surprised to see him graciously concede the following point:

Impossible to Prove a Falsehood True:
Aircraft Parts as a Clue to their Identity

by George Nelson
Colonel, USAF (ret.)
http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson

The precautionary principle is based on the fact it is impossible to prove a false claim. Failure to prove a claim does not automatically make it false, but caution is called for, especially in the case of a world-changing event like the alleged terror attacks of September 11, 2001. The Bush administration has provided no public evidence to support its claim that the terror attacks were the work of Muslim extremists or even that the aircraft that struck their respective targets on September 11 were as advertised. As I will show below, it would be a simple matter to confirm that they were - if they were. Until such proof is forthcoming, the opposite claim must be kept in mind as a precaution against rushing to judgment: the 911 hijackings were part of a black operation carried out with the cooperation of elements in our government.

Earlier this year I wrote a review of CIT's "National Security Alert" in which I recommended that we all take a closer at the eyewitness accounts supporting the "North path" of American Airlines Flight 77 at the Pentagon. CIT's investigation includes detailed in-person interviews which appeared quite compelling. As AE911Truth's focus is the destruction of three buildings at WTC, I didn't perform an exhaustive review of CIT's material and methods. My quick statement (see below) should not be portrayed as an endorsement of CIT's conclusion that the airliner "flew over" the Pentagon.

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Original Review:

Pentagon Pouring Your Money Into Afghanistan: Are They Preparing for a Very Long War?
By Nick Turse, Tomdispatch.com
Posted on November 9, 2009

In recent weeks, President Obama has been contemplating the future of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan. He has also been touting the effects of his policies at home, reporting that this year's Recovery Act not only saved jobs, but also was "the largest investment in infrastructure since [President Dwight] Eisenhower built the Interstate Highway System in the 1950s." At the same time, another much less publicized U.S.-taxpayer-funded infrastructure boom has been underway. This one in Afghanistan.

While Washington has put modest funding into civilian projects in Afghanistan this year -- ranging from small-scale power plants to "public latrines" to a meat market -- the real construction boom is military in nature. The Pentagon has been funneling stimulus-sized sums of money to defense contractors to markedly boost its military infrastructure in that country.

From the OpEd article:
Independent Investigation into Pentagon Attack Yields Alarming Information, Garners Wide-Ranging Endorsements
http://www.opednews.com/articles/INDEPENDENT-INVESTIGATION-by-Craig-Rank...
"The eyewitnesses in all of the most critical vantage points, on the other hand, independently, unanimously, and unequivocally report a drastically different flight path, proving that the plane absolutely could not have hit the light poles or the building."

The underlined part of this statement is not true.

At 14:37 in this video, P4T establishes the north flight path into the Pentagon is aerodynamically possible.
http://video.google.ca/videoplay?docid=-1248677650819981509&hl=en#

The witnesses prove the light poles were staged but they do not prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon.

http://www.reuters.com/article/latestCrisis/idUSN06213945
(Updates to show tape is not new, adds background)

WASHINGTON, Nov 6 (Reuters) - A videotape of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden released on Friday is the Pashto-language version of a tape released several months ago, said IntelCenter, a U.S.-based terrorism monitoring firm.

The tape, titled "To Our People in Pakistan," was broadly released in Arabic and Urdu on July 12, IntelCenter said. Excerpts had been aired by the Al Jazeera television network on June 3, it added.

Earlier on Friday, IntelCenter had said al-Qaeda's as-Sahab Media had released a new video from bin Laden.

In his remarks broadcast by Al Jazeera in June, Saudi-born bin Laden said U.S. President Barack Obama had planted the seeds of "revenge and hatred" toward the United States in the Muslim world and warned Americans to prepare for the consequences.

In an audio message posted on an Islamist website in September, Osama warned Americans over their government's close ties with Israel.

Osama is believed to be hiding in the mountainous border areas of Pakistan and Afghanistan.

April 20, 2008 The New York Times broke the news that the Pentagon (and members of the Bush Administration) had been coordinating with retired military analysts on talking points to cover in their media appearances, as part of a 'psyop' on the American public to sell the 'post-9/11 world', the 'War on Terror', Guantanamo, torture, and the continued occupation of Iraq. These 'analysts', many of whom had undisclosed conflicts of interest such as financial ties to defense contractors, appeared over 4500 times in the media, as part of this campaign. The media outlets responsible for participating in the program- which includes the NY Times- have generally not acknowledged any fault on their own part, and some commentators attempted to spin the psyop as simply the Pentagon telling their side of things. A DOD Inspector General investigation found no wrong doing on the part of the Pentagon, but that report was later found to be so flawed, it was retracted and removed from the DOD's website.

Episode 20 of our Weekly TV show is up, and I finish the presentation I started last week on the Pentagon; this episode airs the testimony of Roosevelt Roberts and Lloyde England, then we turn to Flight 93 and the anomalies at that crash site, which in turn will be continued on the next show. My presentation, after the show's intro, starts at 7:45. Enjoy, and please keep it civil in the comments, me included! ;-)

I (Student) found this at Truthout. It speaks of 'deep' politics -- even if in a mild way -- more clearly than usual whether in mainstream or more alternative news.

What Obama Is Up Against

Monday 02 November 2009

by: Russ Baker, t r u t h o u t | News Analysis

The first anniversary of Barack Obama's historic election finds many of his supporters already grousing. Fair enough: Obama has been more vigorous in some areas than others. But one essential question goes unasked: How much can any president accomplish against the wishes of recalcitrant power centers within his own government?

Last Wednesday evening on Cincinnati 9/11 Truth's weekly TV show, I gave a presentation, close to half an hour, on Pentagon attack anomalies and eyewitness testimonies. I explain the background as to why people were suspicious of the Pentagon to begin with, the lack of evidence for some of the early theories in the movement, the importance of the official flight and damage path. Then I present three eyewitnesses from the gas station who are one hundred percent certain that the plane did not fly that official path. This coming Wednesday: Roosevelt Roberts' and Lloyde England's testimony. Enjoy!

Starts at about the 1 minute mark on the first video.

ETA after viewing the preview of this entry: How beautiful that the third video's still image is of Lagasse saying "100% bet my life on it" !

Calculation errors in the previous version have been corrected. Version 5 included a table showing that a range of flight paths exist which would enable a Boeing 757 to hit the light poles and the Pentagon without experiencing excessive g-force. As some researchers have stated that this is impossible the issue of misinformation arises and is examined.

http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug...

Truth News Radio Australia features Craig Ranke of CIT

Hereward Fenton with TNRA welcomes Craig Ranke to discuss the important evidence CIT presents in their latest video National Security Alert and to address the latest paper by Australian truth movement personality Frank Legge.

For those fence sitters who haven't taken the time and have only a vague idea of what CIT's research is about, perhaps based on a quick skim of the blogs, and aren't sure whether CIT or their opposition are closer to the truth, it is interesting to note that within the first couple minutes of the show, the host makes it clear that he takes a very strong stand against disinformation. He points out that the "no planes at the WTC" is a blatant example. Then he makes clear that the Pentagon is another story, and indeed, that the video National+Security+Alert goes beyond speculation; it provides a very fine compilation of verifiable information.

Version 5 has considerable revision from page 8 on, and a few minor edits earlier. The main addition is a table showing that there is a range of flight paths which would enable the plane to hit the light poles and the Pentagon, without excessive g-force being encountered.

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf

Already I have found errors in version 5 so there will be a version 6. The errors are in the table of flight paths going over the Navy Annex. The argument remains unchanged however. The paths going over and to the south of the VDOT antenna I still believe are correct.

If anyone can give me the height of the Navy Annex roof above sea level I would appreciate it.

Some comments have already appeared on the previous thread. It would be best if future comments were placed in this, the curent thread.

Numerous criticisms have been received of "What Hit the Pentagon?". Some pointed to errors, some were unfounded. The new version, version 4, has now been placed at the Journal of 9/11 Studies. I have attempted to correct errors and have added a preface to help explain the purpose of the paper.

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/2009/WhatHitPentagonDrLeggeAug.pdf

If this proves to provoke further criticism, a version 5 may well be produced, as I regard this issue as extremely important. The fact that explosives were used at the WTC is now widely accepted by the truth movement, as the science is now well understood. In the case of the Pentagon attack, however, there is a lack of cohesion in the movement because widely differing views are held. This damages our credibility. The paper provides a study of evidence to show what can, and more importantly, what cannot, be scientifically proved. It makes the case for avoiding asserting to the public what cannot be proved. It is important to avoid action which will impede progress toward a new investigation, with the hope of prosecution of those responsible for 9/11.

September 16, 2009
by Moign Khawaja
Source: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com

For the extensive article go to: http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2009/09/16/911-unanswered-questions/

Eight years have passed since the fateful bombings took place on 11th of September, 2001 in New York and nearby states. Every year thousands of people gather in downtown Manhattan to commemorate the terrorist atrocities. Every year the President of the United States of America addresses the nation and renews his pledge to track down the terrorists and defeat them. The newspapers publish special supplements that weigh tons and media outlets fill hours of airtime to recall the incidents that took place eight years ago.

Since then, two wars have been waged, unknown number of terrorists have been nabbed, several inquiries have been launched and several regimes have been uprooted across the world. Thousands of innocent people lost their lives on 9/11 of 2001. Hundreds of thousands of more innocent civilians since then have lost their lives in events related to the 9/11 attacks. The worst thing – the end of bloodshed is no where in sight.

It seems like it’s showdown time on 9/11 all around the world.

In the US Charlie Sheen has openly challenged the debunkers to debate 9/11 on Larry King. In my country (Italy) I have done the same with the top debunking TV host, Piero Angela, who has recently attacked the “conspiracy theorists” as a bunch of sickos from national TV. In France, ReOpen911 has posted a rebuttal to Canal Plus' hit piece. Russia Today has written favorably of the Truth Movement.

Jon Gold
9/3/2009

"A good theory explains most of the relevant facts and is not contradicted." - Dr. David Ray Griffin

There are many theories concerning what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11/2001. The reason these theories exist is because those who should be able to answer our questions, REFUSE TO DO SO. That being said, some of the theories promoted are contradicted by information, and a common practice in the movement is to proclaim those contradictions as "fake" or "planted." In my opinion, it is irresponsible to proclaim something "fake" or "planted" simply because it doesn't coincide with what you THINK happened. Especially if there is no information to suggest that something is "fake" or "planted."

The most common theory is that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. There IS information that exists that contradicts this theory. To my knowledge, here are those contradictions:

Visit our podcast page:
http://www.truthnews.com.au/radio/wordpress/?p=320

Tonight we welcome Dr. Frank Legge back to show for an extended discussion on one the most vexed questions about 9/11: what hit the Pentagon?

Dr. Legge has written an important paper on this topic which has been published at the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

As Dr. Legge stresses, there are two essential points to note: