You are here: Home Forum
 
Media Lens Forum
Register Latest Topics
 
 
 


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 4 of 6      Prev   1   2   3   4   5   6   Next
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #46 
Daniele Ganser on 'Strategy of Tension' at Journal of 911 Studies:
http://www.journalof911studies.com/resources/2014GanserVol39May.pdf

Daniele Ganser heads the Swiss Institute for Peace & Energy Research, Basel.
He is a member of the 911 Consensus Panel. 


"Daniele Ganser is a leading student of Operation GLADIO, which ... is important for an understanding of 9/11 and the Global War on Terror. In addition to shedding light on Western modes of terror and deception, the article by Dr Ganser offers interesting responses to two of the objections most commonly encountered by those who challenge the official narrative of 9/11: "Surely no Western government would carry out such an act against its own people?" and,"Wouldn't someone have talked?"  - Journal editors Kevin Ryan and Graeme MacQueen
Quote:
His article concludes-
Conclusion- The two main arguments against the view that the attacks of  9/11 were influenced by the US government and its military have been apriori arguments.
One of these is that civilized Western governments in general, and the US government in particular, would never do such a heinous thing. The other main apriori argument is that if the attacks of 9/11 were carried out by forces within America’s own government, this fact could not have remained secret for this long. The information in this article shows both of these arguments to be dubious at best

Ganser's book: NATO's Secret Armies: Operation GLADIO and Terrorism in Western Europe. London:Cass, 2004.
fredjc

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 11
Reply with quote  #47 
It's the pictures that do it for me - there is 'some' truth in this - these buildings are turning to dust - just as i Dr Judy Woods presentations - so it looks to me that there's a combination of 'hot' micro-nuke' in the heart of the building, conventional explosives to take the 'earthing' of the buildings out(thus enabling the targetting of a directed-energy weapon on the (ungrounded) building, which explains why all the dust went upwards and was deposited? Where? Whatever, we are dealing with a viscious bunch of meglomaniacs so best I not post this[smile]

http://www.tomatobubble.com/putin_memorial.html

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2014/05/20/too-classified-to-publish-bush-nuclear-piracy-exposed/

Dr Judy Wood's at the Breakthrough Energy Conference...

Can you believe your eyes...Dustification...this is Directed Energy Weapons folks!



Cheers Fred



margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #48 
Fred,
If "nukes" had been used there'd be glaring clues, like e
vidence of widespread radiation and radiation sickness; evidence of melted glass and telltale chemical signatures (tritium etc). None of this evidence exists:

"Hard Evidence Repudiates the Hypothesis that Mini-Nukes were used on the WTC towers" 

- Dr Steven E Jones Jan 2007.  http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters.html [Scroll down to last link on page]
or PDF: http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/a/Hard-Evidence-Rebudiates-the-Hypothesis-that-Mini-Nukes-were-used-on-the-wtc-towers-by-steven-jones.pdf
Quote:
"While many pieces of evidence may support a hypothesis it logically takes
only one soundly established contradictory piece of evidence to require the
abandonment of a hypothesis. In the list above, we have not one but several
pieces of evidence which contradict the mini-nukes-at-WTC-Towers hypothesis".
- Steven E Jones
A Dr Cocket Grabbe looks at the same photographs and draws a different conclusion:
"Evidence of Explosions" - Dr C Grabbe
http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/GrabbeExplosionsEvidence.pdf

The same physicist pleads for the restoration of science: http://stj911.org/blog/120/120/
Quote:
The Audacity of Hope: Restoring Science to 9/11

by Crockett Grabbe

PRESIDENT Barack Obama’s inaugural promise that “We will restore science to it rightful place…” sounds like good news. In our article “Science in the Bush: When Politics Replaces Physics,” published on the web in September of 2007 [1], Lenny Charles and I pointed out how scientific integrity had been placed well behind politics in analysis, not only in areas such as climate change caused by humans and public health issues, but also particularly in analysis of the attacks on the World Trade Center in 2001.

As we pointed out in the article, scientists who speak out publicly have been the main source of credible information on what science really portrays. The press in general selectively shows scientific results, often with errors in their stories because of their own scientific misunderstandings. Knowing their limitations, they often tend to shy away from controversial issues like the scientific facts and evidence... So when the government promotes ideas and conclusions that are not scientifically accurate, scientists provide the principal credible counter to these errors.

We described in some detail in the article how the physics in the NIST Committee analysis of what happened in the WTC collapses is wrong. A paragraph of it was quoted from our article by noted columnist Paul Craig Roberts in his September 11, 2007 editorial “9/11: 6 years later” [2]:

"Physicists have raised unanswered questions about the official explanation’s neglect of the known laws of physics. Recently, Dr. Crockett Grabbe, a Caltech trained applied physicist at the University of Iowa, observed: “Applying two basic principles, conservation of energy and conservation of momentum, the government explanation quickly unravels. NIST conspicuously ignored these principles in their reports. NIST also ignored the observed twisting of the top 34 floors of the South Tower before it toppled down. This twisting clearly violates the conservation of both linear and angular momentum unless a large external force caused it. Where the massive amounts of energy came from that were needed to cause the complete collapse of the intact parts below for each tower, when their tops were in virtual free fall, is not answered in NIST’s numerous volumes of study.”

These scientific principles are a fatal flaw for the NIST Committee’s explanations for the building collapses, as expounded in my Letter [of] January 29, 2008 [3]. Our government must correct all of the errors in their multiple studies of the collapse of these buildings. To do that, scientific integrity must be restored. [...]
[Notes and references at link]


margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #49 
"Numbers of 911 workers with cancers is growing"

http://www.newsmax.com/newswidget/911-workers-cancers-growing/2014/07/27/id/585157/?promo_code=12985-1&utm_source=12985Foreign_policy_journals&utm_medium=nmwidget&utm_campaign=widgetphase1

Commentators often put these high cancer numbers down to "all the asbestos in the air".

There was some asbestos in the dust, along with other chemicals common in demolitions and others 'never before seen' according to a peer-reviewed paper [1] . But we can exclude asbestos as the prime reason for the cancer increase. The long latency period (25 to 45 years) between the time of initial asbestos exposure and a definitive cancer diagnosis is one of the hallmarks of mesothelioma, so WTC cancers cannot be asbestos related.


The reason the air was unsafe to breathe is because the buildings were demolished.

Quote:
As seen in this recent demolition of UK structure as reported by the Guardian, the quick 10-second descent (roughly same time, given a second or two, as WTC towers' descent) and the characteristic pyroclastic dust cloud 'blowdown' are familiar sights in a rapidly-executed event:

"Explosive demolition can be dangerous if not managed in a professional and coordinated manner... Explosive demolitions ... cause a cloud of dust which will travel in the direction of the wind...
The towers were brought down using 180kg of explosives and teams of cleaners were due to go into the area to take charge of the "blowdown" – the dust cloud caused by the collapse of the chimneys. The cleaners will use jet washers and road sweepers to clear the dust from roads, railway tracks and houses, said a spokesman for Coleman and Company, the firm in charge of the operation."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/jul/27/didcot-power-station-demolition-cooling-towers


Environmental Protection Agency whistle-blower Dr Cate Jenkins published her 2007 "Complaint and Additional Evidence of pH Fraud by: USGS, OSHA, ATSDR, NYC, EPA, and EPA-funded scientists" after she was angered that the finely pulverised caustic dust from the  WTC demolition scene was not adequately dampened before workers were urged back into the city. Jenkins was fired at the time. Years later, after a legal battle, she was  re-instated.[2]

Notes

[1] Environmental anomalies at the World Trade Centre: evidence for energetic materials

Journal: The Environmentalist Publisher: Springer Netherlands (August 2008)

Abstract: Investigators monitoring air quality at the World Trade Center, after the September 11th attacks, found extremely high levels of volatile organic chemicals as well as unusual species that had never been seen before in structure fires. Data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency indicate striking spikes in levels of benzene, styrene, and several other products of combustion. These spikes occurred on specific dates in October and November 2001, and February 2002. Additionally, data collected by researchers at the University of California Davis showed similar spikes in the levels of sulfur and silicon compounds, and certain metals, in aerosols. To better explain these data, as well as the unusual detection of 1,3-diphenylpropane, the presence of energetic nanocomposites in the pile at Ground Zero is hypothesized.

Keywords World Trade Center - EPA - 1,3-diphenylpropane - Aluminothermics - Energetic nanocomposites - Volatile organic chemicals / Read the full article here, courtesy of The Environmentalist: PDF (367.0 KB)

[2] Interview with Dr Jenkins at Democracy Now: "As Study Links 9/11 Debris to Cancer, Details Emerge on How Officials Downplayed Ground Zero Dangers"
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/9/9/as_study_links_9_11_debris

margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #50 
A handy intro into the 2001 event is found at  http://911research.wtc7.net. Its founder is research scientist, Jim Hoffman, who's worked in software engineering, mechanical engineering and scientific visualization. He reckons the article "Did Muslims Suspend Physics in 2001?"  triggered his research:  http://www.911review.com/articles/jm/mslp_1.htm


Here's a rare video of Hoffman talking through his analysis:

Part 1



Part 11


The 911-triggered wars are predicated on the fact that Americans believe steel poses no more resistance than air. The ongoing wars were launched on the back of this hypothesis. Americans do have access to primary video footage recording exactly how (and how fast) steel high-rises plunged through the path of greatest resistance.

NIST itself exludes the planes as directly causative of subsequent implosions. NIST director, the US Dept of Commerce employee Shyam Sunder, attributes the building failures to 'fire'.

Setting aside who hijacked and flew the planes (part one of the event) and moving on to who later brought three buildings down (part two of the event) one observes with the naked eye that despite the fact the  three buildings ere asymmetrically damaged in different ways (one not even hit by a plane) all buildings plunged symmetrically about their vertical axes. Symmetrical dismemberment around the vertical axis is the hallmark of controlled demolition. Demo companies don't rely on fires to drop buildings because if even one column fails to give way, the building will tip asymmetrically and damage neighbouring real estate.

A note on symmetry:

"Both of the Twin Tower collapses exhibited remarkable symmetry, from start to finish.
The centred collapses meant the falling mass followed the path of maximum resistance. That's the opposite of how we expect a structure to behave when it falls apart in any kind of natural process. Even if the towers were made out of clay, we wouldn't expect them to collapse in such a dead-centred fashion. It's all the more incredible that a steel structure would shred itself by falling into itself instead of falling over". http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/symmetry.html

margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #51 

The Sacred Mysteries of 9/11
GRAEME MACQUEEN

What role is played by political parties, the corporate media and the universities
in the construction of the cult of 9/11?

"Today, our nation saw evil." George W. Bush, September 11, 2001

September 11 will not be a simple anniversary of an extraordinary day but the mythic return of a day that is now in the calendar of American civil religion.

American citizens will be urged to re-achieve the levels of patriotic fervour stimulated by the original event by flying the nation’s flag.[1]

Pilgrimage to “Ground Zero” will thrive.

No one familiar with war and nationalism will be surprised by the religious aspects of these memorials and revisitings.[2]

The homeland was violated. Blood sacrifice and murder were accomplished. The nation, after reeling from the blow, found a sense of meaning and direction only by setting off on its own path of blood sacrifice.

I will not discuss here the well known aspects of the path chosen -- the illegal invasions and torture abroad, the degrading of civil rights at home, and the parallel developments in other states...

My concerns in this essay are different. I am troubled by something else. I am troubled by the role the political parties, the corporate media and the universities have played, and are still playing, in the construction of the cult of 9/11.

I am bothered by the way they continue to set this day aside as if some sacredness protects it from all rational scrutiny and examination of evidence.

Those of us who want to treat 9/11 like a historically important but otherwise ordinary day -- who want to examine the crime scene and found out who did it and how — are treated like heretics.


http://www.thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=127


margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #52 
from AntiWar.com:

911 and Iraq revisited: Remembering How We Were Lied Into War

http://antiwar.com/blog/2014/09/19/911-iraq-revisited-remembering-how-we-were-lied-into-war/
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #53 
"If government has confidence in its 911 story why does it make every effort to block investigation?"
Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/09/29/government-confidence-911-story-every-effort-investigate-blocked/

margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #54 
Panorama and how it reported September 11 war-trigger events and subsequent 'war on terror'

http://eprints.bournemouth.ac.uk/14615/1/1215_1123.pdf
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #55 
"Why the Bad Guys Keep Winning" - Washington's Blog

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/12/bad-guys-winning.html

Danish Documentary: 'Questioning 911" - featuring a scientist, an architect, an airline pilot, an investigative journalist, a politician.



Myers

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 18
Reply with quote  #56 
I realise that this thread is verging on dormancy, but I have just read through all the comments here with interest, so I feel moved to leave an opinion.

I have followed ML since its beginning, along with other sites which have a similar focus of media analysis and criticism. Of note, I would say is the Project Censored site and their publications, which liaise with several university departments around the world, and like ML they cite the work of Chomsky and Herman as their initiating impulse. However, unlike ML, Chomsky and the vast majority of critics of US foreign policy, they have published and spoken publicly about the evidential questions and inconsistencies that surround the 911 narrative.

I wrote to ML a couple of times years back when I was studying the 911 material, as I was interested in their opinion and in their lack of writing about the matter. It was clear from their response that they saw no value in pursuing this line of inquiry, and that they saw no validity in the questions.

As far as my opinion on the matter at hand, I think it is important to stress from the outset the nature of what is under observation and discussion; the background into which this must fit. The academic Peter Dale Scott has, I think, brought forward the best framework, that of 'Deep Politics', with its recognition that all societies (including our own) have their taboos, and that strict adherence to studying the documented political structures around us (a discipline of Scott's contemporary, Chomsky) can risk missing the wider picture.

That said, there is no shortcut to getting to the bottom of this subject. It took a lot of reading and fact checking for me to be settled in my opinion- a youtube documentary can be eyeopening, but there is no substitute for grappling with the arguments and counter arguments in detail, and that means time spent reading. One of the most puzzling and uncomfortable aspects of the whole '911 truth' phenomenon is the failure of the alternative media to give it a fair and penetrating analysis. (Pitching Dylan Avery against the Popular Mechanics authors on Democracy Now was exemplary of the level of analysis that has been regarded adequate). So the information filters which are so heavily compromised through the corporate media, break down completely with a subject like 911, we are left to do the research ourselves and to try to find reliable sources and consistent arguments.

The unavoidable truth is that there are credible and responsible academics and professionals who have brought provably legitimate questions and evidence to light in the proper manner. The papers at the Journal for 911 Studies, the Toronto Hearings, the conference in Malaysia, the works of Griffin, MacQueen, Ryan, Harrit and others - these people can not be written off as cranks, they are clearly genuine people who back up what they claim. So where is the response, the debate, the people of equal caliber on the other side? I do not know, after eight years of searching I have found only anonymous posts on the James Randi Educational Forum, Popular Mechanics and David Aaronovich. All that there is, is an assumption, one that says that 'truthers' are eccentric and misguided, and the assumption combined with the taboo of the subject matter is enough to dissuade most/many serious researchers from delving further, it is bizarre. Most bizarre for me are the comments of the Noam Chomsky's and Monbiot's of this world, not because they disagree with me, but the arguments they think back up their position. The only collection of responses with any coherence or authority to the controversial questions and points of evidence that I am aware of is a book titled ,'Debunking 911 Myths' by Dunbar and Reagan, and I strongly urge anyone serious about this subject to read that book and question its assertions.

Whether the Russian story has any truth or not, I think that it is clear and accepted that the Saudi's were involved, and as Jon Gold titled his recent piece, 'For every finger pointing at Saudi Arabia there are five fingers pointing back at the US'.

911 was not an inside job. After studying the subject, I am convinced that there is ultimately no meaning to the concepts of 'inside' and 'outside'; they are constructs designed to keep us from looking at the true nature of power in the world. Studying 911 is an education in so much more than the attacks themselves, and I still wish that 'the Davids' could see that and speak to the truth of it.
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #57 
"Bombs in Towers? Why?"   / George Washington's Blog


http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/bombs-in-towers-why.html

If rogue elements within the U.S. government did cause 9/11, why would they have used bombs to bring down the Twin Towers, when crashing planes into the buildings would have been sufficient to act as a "Pearl Harbor" type justification for war?

Because planes alone would not have scared the American people to the point where we would have relinquished -- for the sake of security -- traditional American ideals of fighting only defensive wars and of having broad personal freedoms (we weren't necessarily following these ideals; but Americans at least believed in them). The war in Iraq and the wholesale suspension of personal liberties -- through the Patriot Acts and secret executive orders -- could not have happened without the "shock and awe" of the collapse of the Twin Towers.

We've all seen images of plane crashes before. While planes crashing into the Twin Towers would have been horrible, that wouldn't have been traumatic enough to cause us to blindly follow power-hungry leaders with an insane agenda spouting obvious lies. Indeed, "only" a few hundred people, at most, would have died from the plane crashes -- a tragedy, but not enough to shake us to the point where we would totally abandon our idea of what it means to be American. Without the trauma of the collapse of the towers, could the vote fraud, WMD hoax, war in Iraq (and perhaps Iran, Syria, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela), torture, suspension of legal due process, and patriot acts all have happened within a few short years?

But the collapse of the two tallest buildings in New York, symbols of American business, and the death of close to 3,000 Americans, put us into a state of shock. The controlled demolition of the towers was necessary to instill the degree of fear and confusion required to successfully implement the objectives laid out by Brzezinski in the book "The Grand Chessgame", in the writings of the Project for a New American Century, and in the minds of the other wannabe-conquerors of the Middle East and the larger world.

Modern Americans are jaded by Hollywood special effects, where even everyday TV shows include visually-dazzling images. The original Pearl Harbor may have worked on our grandparents' radio-listening generation using only planes (it is now well-documented that we knew of the Japanese plan of attack, but let it happen in order to justify America's entry into the war). But the "New Pearl Harbor" -- 9/11 -- had to be much more spectacular, and inflict not only tremendous loss of life but also spectacular damage in order to sufficiently terrorize entertainment-overloaded and visually-jaded Americans.

As stated by one writer:

Those two mighty towers came crumbling down in that vast, roiling, near-mushroom cloud of white smoke before the cameras in the fashion of the ultimate Hollywood action film (imagery multiplied in its traumatizing power by thousands of replays over a record-setting more than ninety straight hours of TV coverage)
.

Indeed, an expert on controlled demolition stated:

The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said.

"One of the things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack and secondary device," Romero said.

Attackers detonate an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion, he said.

Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the diversionary attack would have been the collision of the planes into the towers.


If you learn about the secret history of false flag operations in America and around the world, you will gain a clearer understanding of why the perpetrators of 9/11 thought the demolition of the towers necessary.
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #58 
Chemical attack on America (2001)

"The perpetrators of the 2001 anthrax attacks are still at large
German journalist Lars Schall interviews Graeme MacQueen, author of "The Anthrax Deception: The Case for Domestic Conspiracy" [1]

"FBI's anthrax case just unravelled as ex FBI agent turns whistle-blower" 
Washington's Blog [2]

"Head of FBI's anthrax investigation says the whole thing was a sham" 
Global Research [3]


"The Anthrax Cover-Up Exposed" 
Paul Craig Roberts [4] [5]

Refs

[1]
http://www.larsschall.com/2015/02/04/the-perpetrators-of-the-2001-anthrax-attacks-are-still-at-large/


[2] http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2015/04/fbis-amerithrax-case-just-unravelled-ex-fbi-agent-directed-investigation-suing-fbi-turns-whistleblower.html

[3] http://www.globalresearch.ca/head-of-the-fbis-anthrax-investigation-says-the-whole-thing-was-a-sham/5443516

[4] http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/04/the-anthrax-coverup-exposed/

[5] http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2015/04/21/the-anthrax-coverup-exposed/

margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #59 
Described as one of the best mathematicians and code-breakers in NSA history, whistle-blower Wiliam Binney [1] [2] resigned from the NSA after a 32-year career, in October 2001.

[1] Greenwald's reporting shows Binney was right: >
from Business Insider:  "Latest Greenwald Scoop Vindicates One Of The Original NSA Whistle-blowers"
http://www.businessinsider.com/nsa-whistleblower-william-binney-was-right-2013-6?IR=T

[2] William Binney interviewed more recently:
Myers

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 18
Reply with quote  #60 
I posted this under a Glenn Greenwald article the other day:

Glenn, you wrote some excellent pieces back at Salon.com about the anthrax attacks of 2001. I wondered if you are going to revisit the subject in light of the recent lawsuit filed by lead investigator, Richard Lambert against his former employer the FBI, claiming that evidence was withheld and that Ivins could not have been convicted had he lived.
In a lawsuit filed in federal court in Tennessee last Thursday, Mr. Lambert accused the bureau of trying “to railroad the prosecution of Ivins” and, after his suicide, creating “an elaborate perception management campaign” to bolster its claim that he was guilty.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/09/us/ex-fbi-agent-claims-retaliation-for-dissent-in-anthrax-inquiry.html?_r=0

If you do, I hereby put in a request that you at least give fair mention of the work of Grahame MacQueen on this subject (linked below).

This deeply troubling book should be read by all thinking Americans.
Denis J. Halliday, UN Assistant Secretary-General 1994-98

http://www.claritypress.com/MacQueen.html

..........

The anthrax issue is an interesting one, in that it is widely reported that the FBI case has basically imploded; and this is 'acceptable discourse' within the MSM and alt media. Yet anyone who looks at the case now, must quite quickly come to the realisation that it is intimately connected to 911 in multiple ways. A consequence could be that more of the 'skeptical' liberals might be forced by this story to actually consider the 911 evidence honestly and thoroughly -as so many of them have failed to do.

Previous Topic | Next Topic
Print
Reply

Quick Navigation:


Create your own forum with Website Toolbox!

leftAll photos courtesy of the Creative Commons, a nonprofit organization that enables the sharing and use of creativity and knowledge through free legal tools..

Like, Tweet and Share...