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
"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.
The witnesses prove the light poles were staged but they do not prove the plane did not hit the Pentagon.
(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.
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.
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.
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
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.
"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:
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?
As Dr. Legge stresses, there are two essential points to note: