Tuesday, June 26, 2007

9/11 is a racket

War is a racket. It always has been. It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.

A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.

-- Two-Time Congressional Medal of Honor Recipient:
-- Major General Smedley D. Butler, USMC [Retired]

Sunday, June 24, 2007

Summary of this blog's arguments

Here's a quick summary of the arguments made at this blog about why there is no real evidence that planes hit the Twin Towers, and why there is strong reason to believe that false images were broadcast on 9/11. I will fill in the arguments with more links as time allows. Many of these ideas are not my original ideas, and I have tried to cite to original 9/11 researchers and be faithful to what they said.

1. Impossible crash physics, well illustrated by the Purdue animation.




and this recent interview of Joseph Keith, an engineer who worked on airframe testing for Boeing and says the planes would grind against the towers, not meld into them:


2. Impossible debris location, which physics professor Steven Jones has not been able to explain.




3. Witnesses who were in a position to see a plane, but did not.




and these accounts I just learned of, which are perhaps the most compelling:


Some witnesses that claim to have seen a plane appear to be lying, but others may simply be victims of misinformation effects on memory, as studied by Dr. Elizabeth Loftus:



4. No black boxes for any of the four planes. Pilots for 9/11 Truth has established that the "Flight 77" black box released by NTSB is not real because the data doesn't match impact with the Pentagon.


5. No debris found below the crash sites or evident in the videos. Wheels and fuselage pieces found beyond the towers on impossible trajectories don't count. No plausible debris for any of the four planes.

(See evidence in argument 2 above, and picture taken by David Handschuh at the Progressive Independent link in argument 3 above.)

6. NORAD/NEADS and FAA confusion about whether radar blips were real or "inputs," with NEADS personnel watching CNN per Vanity Fair. No reason to accuse these folks of complicity.


7. Technological possibility and military doctrine and practice, as discussed in the Washington Post, MIT, and Harvard articles referenced here:




8. Logistical reasons why planes would not be used:



9. Instant media framing of what happened ("collapse" due to plane impact and fire, and "bin Laden did it") as shown by BrasscheckTV:


10. Inconsistent entries in Bureau of Transportation Statistics database:



11. Finally, evidence of faked videos, skillfully compiled in September Clues.



but see



The videos are only part of the argument. To me, the crash physics and the lack of plausible aircraft debris are the most convincing.

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

No-plane witness?

The site is now down, but images are also available here:




After a while, I saw a huge fireball on the second tower -- being on the far side, I didn't see the plane and assumed a bomb or something had gone off. Other people behind me on land had a wider view and said they saw the second plane approach from far away, figuring it was a rescue plane of some kind. The second image shows the puff of the second impact, with arcing debris on the left side.

His view was wide enough to see a plane approach in the seconds before he took this picture of the tower exploding:

Larger version here:


Here are some photos with a plane, showing approach angles that should have been made them visible from the above perspective:


(Give the page time to load and go to the photos.)

I think the plane photos are fakes. Judge for yourself.

Here are some firefighters in a position to see and hear a plane that did not:


Sunday, June 17, 2007

The Dangers of Terrorism as Disinformation

The below article is entitled "The Dangers of Disinformation in the War on Terrorism." The clear implication of the article is that journalists must consider whether the terrorism itself is disinformation.

From the website of the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University:

The Dangers of Disinformation in the War on Terrorism
'We actually put out a false message to mislead people.'

by Maud S. Beelman

Nieman Reports, Winter 2001

Maud S. Beelman is director of the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, a project of the Center for Public Integrity in Washington, D.C. As an Associated Press correspondent, she spent five years covering the wars in the Balkans.


Excerpts in italics, with bold emphasis added:

In the summer of 1997, a group of senior Pentagon officers and military reporters gathered for a retreast aimed at improving their often rocky relationship. The Pentagon was 18 months into a successful Bosnian peacekeeping deployment, and reporters were getting good access to the troops. The mood was upbeat, and it appeared, for a while, that historic tensions might have eased. That is until talk turned to psychological operations, disinformation, and public affairs.

One of the guest speakers at the conference showed how video images could be created and/or altered electronically, and without detection, unless the creator inserted an electronic watermark to indicate it was a fabrication. But if the creator's intent was to misinform, then there would be no watermark, and the doctored image would be indistinguishable from reality.

With the Pentagon's fleet of EC-130 "Commando Solo" aircraft--capable of inserting radio and television programming into national broadcast systems--the implications of such electronic wizardry were obvious. First, journalists monitoring media in a war zone would need to question constantly whether what they were receiving was U.S. military disinformation. Assuming they asked, would the military take the journalists into confidence to spare them from spreading disinformation? The officers at the retreat indicated that they would not.

If Information Operations is a battlefield strategy, then information is a weapon.

. . .

Controlling the message in a 24-hour news cycle is a key element of Information Operations. While not necessarily disinformation, nonetheless it is a media management technique employed by the military that results in limiting crticial reporting, especially in a crises, when news departments that have cut defense beats rush inexperienced reporters to the front.

This technique was used to great effect during in NATO's air campaign over Kosovo in 1999 . . . "They would gorge the media with information," said one spokesman. "When you make the media happy, the media will not look for the rest of the story."
. . .

Major Gary Pounder, the chief of intelligence plans and presentations at the College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research and Education* at Maxwell Airforce Base . . . in an article in Aerospace Power Journal, [stated] "the public information battle space is simply too important to ignore."

End of excerpts.

Despite being published in Winter 2001, this article makes no mention of 9/11. Is it so far-fetched that the "public information battle space" that day was in New York City and on television sets throughout the country and the world?

It is no secret that the military considers the minds of the U.S. public to be battle spaces in the "Mind War":



Perhaps the 9/11 faked videos are too amateurish to be the product of the military's full capabilities. Nevertheless, the existence of these technologies and doctrines must be considered by journalists. This Nieman Report article shows that they were warned in 1997, and have never considered the possibility that the law against use of propaganda against American citizens is a dead letter.

These planes are not real

GIFs from Killtown, here:







"Cheney hit cartoon" (from Canadian Broadcasting Corporation show on Dick Cheney)

Posted by theSaigirl


and posted by The WebFairy


and a Windows Media Player video by person(s) unknown:


9/11 Pentagon Strike Conspiracy


Thursday, June 14, 2007

"September Clues" Part 5

See also "9/11 Solution" for suspicious instant explanations for the "collapse" of the towers, further suggestive of media complicity.


Sunday, June 10, 2007

Obviously wrong witness

Watch the guy interviewed beginning at 15 seconds of the below video. He denies there was a second plane, and says it was a bomb. The reporter knows that a second plane hit, so he moves on to look for a witness that knows what really happened. It doesn't matter where this witness was or what he saw, because he is obviously wrong. A plane hit, and thousands of people must have seen it, so we know a plane hit, and thousands of people saw it, so we know a plane hit. Most importantly, it was on television, so we know it happened.

The reporter knows the truth. "That's what we were told, a second plane. We saw it on television."

I am afraid this poor witness comes from a pre-mediated culture. Thankfully, the reporter went to find a witness who knew what the reporter really saw on television.

Still, I have to wonder what Professor Loftus would make of this guy who had not seen the truth on television.


CNN thought it was important for us to know that Palestinians were possibly claiming responsibility for 9/11

Beginning at 3:50 of the above video, the CNN announcer says that Flight 93 went down "not too far from Camp David," and says:

"Why is that significant? Because one of the groups possibly claiming responsibility for all this terrorist attacks is the Democratic Front for the Liberation of Palestine, and it was this week, and it was this day in 1978 that the Camp David accords were reached. Is there a connection? At this point we don't know but it is important to be aware of that situation."

The claim that DFLP was claiming responsibility was reportedly based on an anonymous call to Abu Dhabi television.


By 9:31 PM on 9/11,CNN was reporting that the leader of DFLP denied responsibility:


Why was it important to be aware that an unsubstantiated claim had been made about this group? What could viewers have possibly done with this information, even if confirmed to be true? Shouldn't the media have awaited confirmation before accusing this group, and indirectly, all Palestinians?

This of course pales in comparison to this media incitement to genocide:


CNN was engaged in propaganda, not news. That is why it was "important to be aware of this situation."

Saturday, June 9, 2007

Why didn't these firefighters see or hear a plane?

This is just a start and is not comprehensive.

I realize there are some firefighters that say they saw a plane. An example is Chief of Department Daniel Nigro, who says he was on West Street, heard the load roar of a plane, looked up, and saw a plane hit the South Tower.


Lieutenant William Walsh says he was on Church near Canal Street fixing a gas leak, heard a plane, looked up, saw an American Airlines plane flying over Manhattan, and saw it fly into the North Tower.


Questions have been raised about Walsh by Ray Ubinger.


Walsh's recollection is obviously influenced by information learned later because it is implausible he could see that it was an American Airlines plane, but Walsh's statement has been published so I will acknowledge it here.

What I want to begin looking at is firefighters that appear to have been in a position to hear and see planes, and did not report that.

This guy was riding his bicycle across the Brooklyn Bridge when the South Tower exploded. He did not know a plane had hit the North Tower, and had just seen that it was on fire on television. As an off-duty firefighter, he left his home in Brooklyn and headed for Manhattan on his bicycle to assist. Even if he did not look up until he heard the explosion, wouldn't he have heard a plane and looked up?

This is the same guy that made me ask a hypothetical about a bicyclist on the Brooklyn Bridge a while back:


You can see views of the South Tower from the Brooklyn Bridge linked from that comment.




I rode over the Brooklyn Bridge. When I was roughly in the middle of the span, there was a massive explosion on the south tower . . . Again I didn't see a plane or anything, so I didn't know it was a plane that hit the tower. I think in my mind I just thought there was a massive explosion on one of the upper floors and now you had a real bad fire.





A bunch of firemen came out of the firehouse, went to the corner. You could see the first tower on fire. So then we were available, they assigned us to the call, they said to switch over to Citywide. We proceeded over the bridge. Once we got over the bridge, the second plane hit. There was an explosion. We didn't know it was a second plane. We thought it was just exploding from the first plane. Then over Citywide we heard people saying it was a second plane and it was deliberate.


This guy did not look up until he heard an explosion, and saw a fireball. They were within a few blocks of the South Tower. Even with the noise of the city and their sirens, how could none of them have heard a plane?




We went over the Brooklyn Bridge, came down I believe it was Broadway and stopped the rig on Broadway and Liberty. At the same time, the second plane hit. So when we were stepping off the rig, we heard the explosion and we looked up and we what everybody else saw, a big ball of fire, smoke, flame debris, building debris.


This guy says a fellow firefighter on his rig saw the explosion - no word of a plane. They were still in Brooklyn.




So we went around and passed the bridge and were heading towards the tunnel when the fellow sitting on the other side of the rig saw the south tower explode. He saw an explosion. He told us the building just exploded. We looked over and we saw the south tower, a lot of orange and a lot of smoke. So we continued towards the Battery Tunnel. There was a lot of traffic. Took us awhile to get there.


This guy is near the towers, yet does not report hearing a plane and only saw an explosion. It's hard to say where he was, because Chambers and Liberty are parallel and not intersecting. He may be saying they stopped at Chambers, then at Liberty, and is describing what he saw at Liberty, directly under the impact side of the South Tower. Or maybe he was stopped at Chambers and confused the cross street. Even from Chambers, on the far side of the towers, the plane should have been audible.




We were actually looking -- we were trying to figure out exactly the position of where we had to put the rig because they wanted us down, I guess, it was really on West Street and Vesey, and it turned out we had stopped at Chambers and Liberty and we were waiting there because there were thousands of people and everybody was filming and just couldn't get across and we're trying to figure out, and then there was a gigantic explosion. I had the OB and I looked up and I just saw the top of World Trade Center go up like a lit candle. It just everything just lit up and I thought it was maybe a secondary explosion, because if you looked from where we were, they're twins, so you're going to picture the second -- I didn't see the plane go in and I thought it was just a secondary explosion in the same tower, and everything just came down on the street. It was just raining steel.


This guy was in a car at the Manhattan end of the Brooklyn Bridge. He saw and heard the explosion, but did not see or hear a plane. He was alone and driving, had sirens on and perhaps windows up, so one could argue he would not have heard a plane and didn't look up until after a plane had hit.




I went, lights and sirens, over the Brooklyn Bridge. Just as I was reaching the end of the bridge, there was a loud explosion and I saw a fireball come across the sky, realizing that the south tower --
Q. Did you actually see the south tower?
A. Yes. I could see it from the bridge. I saw an explosion and fireball and thick black smoke just going across the sky. Then I realized we were being attacked. I didn't know if it was missiles coming in or another plane.

Thursday, June 7, 2007

"September Clues" - great film about the 9/11 Media Perfidy

"When criminals have unlimited access to instruments of mass persuasion, solid proofs of their crimes are hard to expose."

Part 1 of "September Clues" by "social service," a well-chosen name.

Watch it and weep. Watch it and rejoice. Watch it and take action.

Parts 2-4 can be seen here:


Broadcast of hoaxes is prohibited under FCC rules


The Commission's prohibition against the broadcast of hoaxes is set forth at Section 73.1217 of the Commission's rules, 47 C.F.R. § 73.1217.

This rule prohibits broadcast licensees or permittees from broadcasting false information concerning a crime or a catastrophe if: (1) the licensee knows this information is false; (2) it is foreseeable that broadcast of the information will cause substantial public harm; and (3) broadcast of the information does in fact directly cause substantial public harm.

Any programming accompanied by a disclaimer will be presumed not to pose foreseeable harm if the disclaimer clearly characterizes the program as a fiction and is presented in a way that is reasonable under the circumstances.

For purposes of this rule, ``public harm'' must begin immediately, and cause direct and actual damage to property or to the health or safety of the general public, or diversion of law enforcement or other public health and safety authorities from their duties.

The public harm will be deemed foreseeable if the licensee could expect with a significant degree of certainty that public harm would occur.

A ``crime'' is any act or omission that makes the offender subject to criminal punishment by law.

A ``catastrophe'' is a disaster or imminent disaster involving a violent or sudden event affecting the public.

Complaints alleging violation of this rule should be sent to the Federal Communications Commission, Enforcement Bureau, Investigations & Hearings Division, 445 12th Street, SW, Washington, D.C. 20554. Complaints should include the call sign and community of license of the station, the date and time of the broadcast(s) in question, and a detailed description of the public harm caused as a result of the broadcast. In addition, if possible, complaints should include a transcript or recording of the broadcast in question.

Monday, June 4, 2007

Are "9/11 Truth" filmmakers responsible for the images they show?

Both Loose Change and 9/11 Mysteries prominently feature the video broadcast on CNN of a plane penetrating the South Tower.

In both movies, the image is assumed to be authentic.

In a recent debate with Killtown, Dylan Avery, maker of Loose Change, refuses to answer what hit the South Tower.


(at 8:05)

Earlier in the video, Avery says "it's not about me," meaning that he has no responsibility for the image he shows in Loose Change of a plane penetrating the South Tower. Avery claims it is all about Killtown for daring to question the authenticity of this image, yet Avery offers no real defense of the image he has passed off to millions of viewers through his film.

Sophia Smallstorm also features the CNN footage at the beginning of her film "9/11 Mysteries." During Q&A after a recent showing of her film, I stated that this image was fraudulent and asked Ms. Smallstorm whether she had considered that issue. She did not state that she believed the image was authentic. She merely stated that she was making another film and that "we" were looking into it. Given that 9/11 Mysteries ends with a statement about the power of corporate media to influence us, I would have hoped that visual images from corporate media would be carefully reviewed
by the filmmakers before passing them off to their audience as real.

"9/11 Truth" filmmakers should have a position on whether or not the corporate or government media images they show in their films are real. If they choose to show an image despite knowing that questions have been raised about its authenticity, they should be prepared to answer questions about authenticity.

Does anyone dispute this?

Lying with Pixels

Lying with Pixels

Seeing is no longer believing. The image you see on the evening news could well be a fake—a fabrication of fast new video-manipulation technology.

By Ivan Amato

MIT Technology Review, July/August 2000

Later version, Janury 2002.


The Corporate Takeover of U.S. Intelligence

by Tim Shorrock
Global Research, June 3, 2007



Outsourcing increased dramatically after 9/11. The Bush administration and Congress, determined to prevent further terrorist attacks, ordered a major increase in intelligence spending and organized new institutions to fight the war on terror, such as the National Counterterrorism Center. To beef up these organizations, the CIA and other agencies were authorized to hire thousands of analysts and human intelligence specialists. Partly because of the big cuts of the 1990s, however, many of the people with the skills and security clearances to do that work were working in the private sector. As a result, contracting grew quickly as intelligence agencies rushed to fill the gap.

That increase can be seen in the DNI documents showing contract award dollars: Contract spending, based on the DNI data and estimates from this period, remained fairly steady from 1995 to 2001, at about $20 billion a year. In 2002, the first year after the attacks on New York and Washington, contracts jumped to about $32 billion. In 2003 they jumped again, reaching about $42 billion. They have remained steady since then through 2006 (the DNI data is current as of last August).