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


Reply
  Author   Comment   Page 6 of 6     «   Prev   3   4   5   6
madeleine

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #76 
Thanks for posting the article Margo
madeleine

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #77 

Air Defense Exercise a Month Before 9/11 Was Based Around Osama Bin Laden Carrying Out an Aerial Attack on Washington

http://www.shoestring911.blogspot.fr/2015/09/air-defense-exercise-month-before-911.html

Wsvfdrfd

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 3
Reply with quote  #78 
I really don't agree that the casesam deed was actually carried out. And the ourcase.co.uk dynamics of the three falling buildings are inconsistent.
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #79 
As news emerges of Osama Bin Laden 'death files' being purged from official data banks [1],  the New York Times (29/10/15) features a long front-page article this week, offering a retrospective, cover-your-ass legal explanation for OBL's assassination and disposal of body. [2]

Note the players and sources in the NYT article: intelligence and establishment insiders. This is an official press release, regurgitated. A story re-worked: protest too much?  Nowhere is the bigger question addressed: why was the master-mind of the biggest attack on American soil killed rather than taken in for interrogation?  This man was a gold-mine of information on AlQaeda as well as how Al Qaeda operatives managed to simultaneously hijack four passenger planes on US soil and fly under the radar for one and a half hours. Why did the Pentagon decide to kill the man instead of getting him to spell out exactly how he subverted US defences? In killing and dumping OBL in darkest night, the US strangely gave up the kind of huge opportunities it usually relishes to (a) parade a body pour encourager les autres as was done with Saddam Hussein and Ghaddafi and/or (b)  parade an enemy through the ICC?
> See Stephen Lendman on 'NYT Perpetuates the Osama Myth' [3]

See also this latest Vanity Fair article [4], "There’s Just One Problem with Those Bin Laden Conspiracy Theories".  911Blogger writes: "Mark Bowden, author of "Black Hawk Down", takes aim at Sy Hersh and other "conspiracy theorists" who challenge the OBL death narrative.

-- - - - -

[1] 'Pentagon Urges Purge of Osama Bin Laden Death Files from Data Bank' / Global Research

http://www.globalresearch.ca/pentagon-orders-purge-of-osama-bin-ladens-death-files-from-data-bank/5342055

[2] 'How Federal Lawyers Gave Legal Authorisation and Paved Way for Bin Laden killing' / New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/29/us/politics/obama-legal-authorization-osama-bin-laden-raid.html

[3] 'NYT Perpetuates the Osama Myth' / Stephen Lendman

http://www.globalresearch.ca/obama-killed-osama-nyt-perpetuates-the-myth/5485485

[4] "There’s Just One Problem with Those Bin Laden Conspiracy Theories " / Vanity Fair

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/10/mark-bowden-bin-laden-capture-conspiracy

Note:

Peter Bergen Takes Shots at NYT and Hersh

Excerpt from: "The New York Times triples down on bizarre Bin Laden story" / Peter Bergen

 http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/24/opinions/bergen-times-triples-down-bin-laden-story/index.html
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #80 
While corporate Washington Consensus journalists hide behind media billboards for war,
RT journalist Daniel Bushell interrogates the war-triggering event of 11/09/2001:


Myers

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 18
Reply with quote  #81 
A link to a response by victim family member and campaigner Kirsten Breitweiser in Huff Post:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kristen-breitweiser/condi-rice-heres-your-911-smoking-gun_b_8430814.html

She was one of the 'Jersey Girls' featured in the excellent film Press For Truth. As the links show, she was responding to Condalizza Rice's defence of Bush in the light of Donald Trump's accusations that W failed to defend US on 911.

There are many more things that Breitweiser could have written in laying out the case that there was either:

-mystifyingly huge incompetence that has lead to precisely zero reprimands

-intentional negligence on the part of several US agencies for purposes unknown

-complicity within the ranks of US officials

E.g.the testimonies of Sybil Edmonds, of Anthony Schaeffer (of the Able Danger programme), of Coleen Rowley and John o'Neill of the FBI, of Susan Lindauer and Michael Springman, of the Israeli 'students' spy ring.....and so on.

In short, the idea that 911 was a surprise attack is flatly dis-proven, it is an absurd lie.
Yet nobody has been even remotely held accountable for incompetence, negligence or complicity.

Trump, I am loathed to say was right in what he said.
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #82 
This article takes on the BBC article 'Sinai Crash: Four Theories' .
It has some relevance for plane performance and 911 investigations.
'Suspicions about Russian plane crash' (5/11/2015)
http://www.bollyn.com/home/#article_15282

---------------

"the war of terror is a criminal fraud" - professor michael keefer

Link > http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38618.htm
margo

Avatar / Picture

Senior Member
Registered:
Posts: 184
Reply with quote  #83 
What the US can do in secret

The Coming Wars
SEYMOUR HERSCH

New Yorker 2005 > LINK > http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2005/01/24/the-coming-wars

[extract]

In his conversation with me, Smith emphasized that he was unaware of the military’s current plans for expanding covert action. But he said, “Congress has always worried that the Pentagon is going to get us involved in some military misadventure that nobody knows about.”

Under Rumsfeld’s new approach, I was told, U.S. military operatives would be permitted to pose abroad as corrupt foreign businessmen ... In some cases, according to the Pentagon advisers, local citizens could be recruited and asked to join up with guerrillas or terrorists. This could potentially involve organizing and carrying out combat operations, or even terrorist activities. Some operations will likely take place in nations in which there is an American diplomatic mission, with an Ambassador and a C.I.A. station chief, the Pentagon consultant said. The Ambassador and the station chief would not necessarily have a need to know, under the Pentagon’s current interpretation of its reporting requirement.

The new rules will enable the Special Forces community to set up what it calls “action teams” in the target countries overseas which can be used to find and eliminate terrorist organizations. “Do you remember the right-wing execution squads in El Salvador?” the former high-level intelligence official asked me, referring to the military-led gangs that committed atrocities in the early nineteen-eighties. “We founded them and we financed them,” he said. “The objective now is to recruit locals in any area we want. And we aren’t going to tell Congress about it.” A former military officer, who has knowledge of the Pentagon’s commando capabilities, said, “We’re going to be riding with the bad boys.”

One of the rationales for such tactics was spelled out in a series of articles by John Arquilla, a professor of defense analysis at the Naval Postgraduate School, in Monterey, California, and a consultant on terrorism for the rand corporation. “It takes a network to fight a network,” Arquilla wrote in a recent article in the San Francisco Chronicle:


When conventional military operations and bombing failed to defeat the Mau Mau insurgency in Kenya in the 1950s, the British formed teams of friendly Kikuyu tribesmen who went about pretending to be terrorists. These “pseudo gangs,” as they were called, swiftly threw the Mau Mau on the defensive, either by befriending and then ambushing bands of fighters or by guiding bombers to the terrorists’ camps. What worked in Kenya a half-century ago has a wonderful chance of undermining trust and recruitment among today’s terror networks. Forming new pseudo gangs should not be difficult.

“If a confused young man from Marin County can join up with Al Qaeda,” Arquilla wrote, referring to John Walker Lindh, the twenty-year-old Californian who was seized in Afghanistan, “think what professional operatives might do.”

A few pilot covert operations were conducted last year, one Pentagon adviser told me, and a terrorist cell in Algeria was “rolled up” with American help. The adviser was referring, apparently, to the capture of Ammari Saifi, known as Abderrezak le Para, the head of a North African terrorist network affiliated with Al Qaeda. But at the end of the year there was no agreement within the Defense Department about the rules of engagement. “The issue is approval for the final authority,” the former high-level intelligence official said. “Who gets to say ‘Get this’ or ‘Do this’?”

A retired four-star general said, “The basic concept has always been solid, but how do you insure that the people doing it operate within the concept of the law? This is pushing the edge of the envelope.” The general added, “It’s the oversight. And you’re not going to get Warner”—John Warner, of Virginia, the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee—“and those guys to exercise oversight. This whole thing goes to the Fourth Deck.” He was referring to the floor in the Pentagon where Rumsfeld and Cambone have their offices.

“It’s a finesse to give power to Rumsfeld—giving him the right to act swiftly, decisively, and lethally,” the first Pentagon adviser told me. “It’s a global free-fire zone.”

[...]

“Rummy’s plan was to get a compromise in the bill in which the Pentagon keeps its marbles and the C.I.A. loses theirs,” the former high-level intelligence official told me. “Then all the pieces of the puzzle fall in place. He gets authority for covert action that is not attributable, the ability to directly task national-intelligence assets”—including the many intelligence satellites that constantly orbit the world.“Rumsfeld will no longer have to refer anything through the government’s intelligence wringer,” the former official went on. “The intelligence system was designed to put competing agencies in competition. What’s missing will be the dynamic tension that insures everyone’s priorities—in the C.I.A., the D.O.D., the F.B.I., and even the Department of Homeland Security—are discussed. The most insidious implication of the new system is that Rumsfeld no longer has to tell people what he’s doing so they can ask, ‘Why are you doing this?’ or ‘What are your priorities?’ Now he can keep all of the mattress mice out of it.”
madeleine

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #84 
new 9/11 documentary by Tony Rooke







Myers

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 18
Reply with quote  #85 
I didn't expect to get much from watching that, but in fact I did.

Tony has produced a film with focus and gravitas that is a genuine addition to the documentaries already out there.

I am reminded and convinced once again after watching it that there will be no peace until there is truth, justice and reconciliation. Those who purport to challenge the doctrine of Neocon wars but who have neither studied nor made public their views on matters 911, have a case to answer in my opinion. 

madeleine

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 9
Reply with quote  #86 
yes, the intro is a bit long but this film is an important piece of work that I hope will go mainstream
Ian_Neal

Junior Member
Registered:
Posts: 2
Reply with quote  #87 
Hi

I'd like to pick up and support Myers post here

Like Myers, I have followed ML since its beginning and like Myers I also wrote to ML a couple of times years back regarding their silence on 9/11 and like Myers

Quote:
it was clear from their response [to my inquiry] that they saw no value in pursuing this line of inquiry, and that they saw no validity in the questions.


I had similar responses when the UK 9/11 truth campaign sought to join Stop the War or speak at their events or sought coverage on indymedia or when campaigners support from leading anti-imperialist/'radical' voices like Pilger, Chomsky, Monbiot, Mark Steele, Galloway, etc.

This was hugely disappointing since I'm a fan of ML's work in general and hugely ironic since the response of the 2 David's to 9/11TM echoed their experience of challenging the MSM; in other words they ignored or dismissed as crackpot or irrelevant the message of 9/11 truth in much the same way as the MSM routinely ignore, patronise, dismiss or distort the lucid arguments of ML when they point out the bias and agenda of MSM.

ML's position is not honest in my opinion. Just like the others I mention (Chomsky, Monbiot, Steele, STW, indymedia, etc) I have never seen ML engage in a discussion of the 9/11 evidence. The reasons given by ML (in common with the others) for dismissing 9/11T were (1) it is an irrelevant, side issue of little consequence and (2) people in the know would have blown the whistle. NEITHER argument stands up to scrutiny.

Firstly 9/11 has shaped the world in the past 14 years: driving both multiple illegal foreign wars and domestically driving the rise of the police-surveillance state whilst squandering squillions and murdering millions.

Secondly, there have been numerous whistleblowers: those that claim otherwise betray their lack of knowledge of 9/11 and there are numerous examples of huge crimes that have been successfully covered up for years (USS Liberty, Hillsborough and BBC pedophilia to name 3)

I would love to see an honest discussion with either of the 2Ds or anyone else close ML on why they have this myopia towards 9/11T but based on past experience I won't hold my breathe.
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...