Michael Wolsey's Blog

Special Report: Thermite Fingerprint
Jul 30

The CIT Virus

By: ScootleRoyale and John-Michael P. Talboo

“The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth – persistent, persuasive and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.”
~ John F. Kennedy

Browsing the Screw Loose Change blog earlier we were somewhat alarmed to learn that David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage are endorsing the work of the Citizen Investigation Team. A post on 911Blogger includes their endorsements:

“This new film by CIT is far more professionally produced than their previous efforts. It is also more convincing, given the addition of more witnesses, so that they now have a total of 13 witnesses reporting that the actual flight path of the plane that approached the Pentagon was drastically different from the official flight path (which would have been needed if the plane was to knock over the felled light poles and to strike the Pentagon at the designated spot and angle). This part of the film’s thesis is now established beyond a reasonable doubt. The film does not establish its related claim—that the airliner pulled up and flew over the Pentagon—as clearly, but it does make a good case for it. One of the film’s most valuable parts is a scene in which cab driver Lloyde England, who otherwise gamely tried to maintain the truth of his testimony supporting the official story, admitted that the Pentagon operation had been planned by powerful people with lots of money. I am pleased to be able to recommend this important film with enthusiasm.”

~ David Ray Griffin, Author of The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé
 
“The exhaustive effort by Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team to contact, record, document, and analyze numerous first-hand eyewitness accounts of the actual flight path of the airliner at the Pentagon on 9/11 has been long overdue, but worth waiting for. The evidence they have uncovered and compiled in their DVD “National Security Alert” deserves serious attention – particularly in light of what we now know about the explosive destruction of the three World Trade Center high-rises that day.”
~ Richard Gage, AIA, Architect, Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Now we weren’t so much surprised by David Ray Griffin, he has after all been making a case for Pentagon no-plane theories for years, but Richard Gage, like many other researchers, has always remained neutral when it comes to the Pentagon so it was very surprising to learn he was endorsing them.

In all fairness however, we admit that years ago, we too were convinced by the Pentagon no-jetliner claims, and even 9/11 researcher and Pentagon no-jetliner claim debunker Jim Hoffman admits the same, while also pointing out these ideas have “tremendous intuituve appeal.” The apparent lack of large plane debris would seem to support such theories, and again Hoffman points out that this is “reasonable given the fact that other jetliner crashes have left large pieces.” Not to mention the fact that ideas such as these have been popularized in many films, such as the earlier versions of Loose Change. However, when one learns that the plane that hit the Pentagon was traveling at 500 mph, and in the words of Loose Change film maker Dylan Avery, crashed into the “only section that was renovated to withstand that very same kind of attack,” a different picture emerges. The renovations included exterior walls reinforced with steel, exterior walls backed with Kevlar, and nearly two inch thick blast-resistant windows.
In the video below the narrator informs us that “the US government wanted to test what would happen if a plane crashed into the concrete walls of a nuclear power station.” As we see the jet take off towards the wall in the video we are informed that it is traveling at 500 mph, watch and see the results…
As the narrator stated, “the plane disappeared into dust!” In light of these facts the physical evidence becomes far less puzzling and in fact becomes clear as being consistent with a jetliner crash.

In a previous post
it was argued that CIT & Pilots for 9/11 Truth are promoting disinformation and after a long debate on the Prison Planet forum it is clear that some uninformed judgments were made, and arguments put forward that they had already countered. However, we are now even more convinced that they are disinformation artists.
In an article by H. Michael Sweeny entitled “Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation”, the author outlines 25 techniques used by promoters of disinfo. The article is essential reading for anyone genuinely interested in the truth. Some of the most notable are:

 

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges. Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion of the real issues.

 

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule. This is also known as the primary ‘attack the messenger’ ploy, though other methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as ‘kooks’, ‘right-wing’, ‘liberal’, ‘left-wing’, ‘terrorists’, ‘conspiracy buffs’, ‘radicals’, ‘militia’, ‘racists’, ‘religious fanatics’, ‘sexual deviates’, and so forth. This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.

 

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which could be taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.

 

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and present your argument with enough ‘jargon’ and ‘minutia’ to illustrate you are ‘one who knows’, and simply say it isn’t so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

 

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid discussing issues except with denials they have any credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

 

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in place.

 

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can ‘argue’ with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order to avoid discussing more key issues.

 

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues by then focusing on how ‘sensitive they are to criticism.’

 

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs. This is perhaps a variant of the ‘play dumb’ rule. Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon.) In order to completely avoid discussing issues, it may be required that you to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other authorities have any meaning or relevance.

 

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations — as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

 

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so authoritatively.

The author also outlines 8 common traits of disinformationists. The two most interesting are:

3) Coincidental. They tend to surface suddenly and somewhat coincidentally with a new controversial topic with no clear prior record of participation in general discussions in the particular public arena involved. They likewise tend to vanish once the topic is no longer of general concern. They were likely directed or elected to be there for a reason, and vanish with the reason.

4) Teamwork.
They tend to operate in self-congratulatory and complementary packs or teams. Of course, this can happen naturally in any public forum, but there will likely be an ongoing pattern of frequent exchanges of this sort where professionals are involved. Sometimes one of the players will infiltrate the opponent camp to become a source for straw man or other tactics designed to dilute opponent presentation strength.

To anyone who has ever debated a “debunker” or no-planer, these traits and techniques will seem very familiar. We have noticed that supporters of CIT’s work seem to exhibit the two traits highlighted and use some of the above techniques. During the Prison Planet forum debate, four new users coincidentally signed up to post exclusively to that thread. They worked as a team and complimented each other. They ignored testimony of first responders, photographs and video of the heavily damaged Pentagon interior and people who actually SAW the plane hit the building. They instead focused on weaker arguments, attacked peoples characters, and questioned motives. Some even went as far as to accuse Scootle of being an undercover debunker!

Even Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog, who is famous for his ad-hominem laden commentary, recently pointed out that CIT supporters claim to be just arguing the “evidence,” but “throw around ad hominems like frisbees.”

What was especially worrying though is that until the moderators showed up Scootle was pretty much on his own. Virtually all of the participants in the thread sided with the CIT trolls…

Hey, Scootle, just F**K OFF ALREADY – I’ve been very patient with you, but that’s it. F**K YOU AND YOUR IDIOCY. You’re EXACTLY like those billions of sheeple who refuse to WAKE UP. You deserve your New World Order. I’m sorry it’s come to this but you’re a twat.
~ Mike Philbin
This is the frustrating beauty of the Pentagon no-plane theories – unlike the World Trade Center no-plane theories they are worryingly convincing. In rule 20 above we highlighted the sentence “This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.” This is because we believe the Pentagon attack was specifically designed with this very purpose in mind – to muddy the waters and promote pointless debates amongst researchers.
The Pentagon attack is shrouded in mystery: there is no clear video of the attack, witness accounts are so varied and conflicting and photographs are inconclusive – and that’s the way it was designed! The whole thing is a psy-op to trap researchers.

 CIT have 13 witnesses who all recollect a different flight path from the official story. To counter claims of fuzzy memory, CIT will argue that because they correlate with each other it proves they are all correct because they couldn’t all be mistaken the same way. If they were the only 13 witnesses then we would agree. But they weren’t the only 13 – they were 13 out of more than 100. When you have that many witnesses you are bound to have some correlation of incorrect recollections. That being said, the preponderance of reports supports a plane hitting the pentagon. This fact is not lost on debunkers, the government, or the media; always eager for easy ammunition against the 9/11 truth movement. Ludicrous objections of witness fraud and witness contamination are commonly used to explain away this overwhelming body of eyewitness testimony.


Ockham’s razor
dictates that indeed a Boeing 757 did hit the Pentagon, but who needs simple logic when by cherry picking witness statements and photographs we could probably build a strong case for a theory that a flying saucer hit the Pentagon if we wanted to.

We might start with the photograph showing a “small, round hole” and the video footage of UFOs over Washington in 1952, then pick out witness quotes that mention hearing strange sounds (or no sounds) while ignoring all the people who saw a commercial airliner, then interpret the “It is not a part from any Rolls-Royce engine that I’m familiar with” quote to mean it is a part only people at Area 51 would be familiar with and claim this photo is of officials removing the advanced alien technology from the scene and finally analyse the photos of burnt human remains, picking out every small anomoly and insensitively claim that they are actually alien remains.

There are witnesses who saw the plane come in from the south side, such as the four “operatives” CIT interviewed, there are witnesses who actually saw the plane hit the building such as Penny Elgas, who is also an operative according to CIT…

“Penny Elgas has a significant position in government and a very high profile highly publicized account so should be instantly considered suspect.”
~ Craig Ranke CIT

…And Steve Anderson, who was in the perfect position in relation to the Pentagon to actually see a flyover, but didn’t!

If CIT would actually interview someone from the Arlington Fire Department who was in there fighting the fires then maybe we’ll start taking notice of them. But there’s no need, it’s already been done. For the book “Firefight: Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11,” the authors interviewed more than 100 Pentagon first responders…

“They walked closer. At the mouth of the third hole they saw a piece of a wheel and countless shards of wreckage. Some of them looked like pieces of seats.” ~ Firefight, Page 149.

“For the first time, Regan’s team saw something they had expected to see all along but had been scarce until then: recognizable airplane parts. They all thought they would find big pieces of the airliner laying everywhere, the way car parts end up strewn across a highway after a crash. But the physics of an airplane crash were obviously different: Mostly there was just tons of shredded metal and melted plastic.

Finally, they found several airplane seats, piled among the usual mounds of upturned office furniture and random wreckage. A couple of the seats still had bodies belted into them, which had already been found and marked for the FBI. Most of the workers inside were conscientious about not gawking, yet the seats attracted a lot of attention. They were the first objects the nonaviation experts had seen that unmistakably belonged to an airplane.~ Firefight, Page 373.

“The airplane had nearly disintegrated, but Dan Fitch’s group found several huge cogs, bent and blackened, that weighed a couple hundred pounds each; it took a couple of workers to handle each one. Other objects nearby looked like large gears, and strips of metal that appeared to be fan blades. Workers realized that they were pulling apart the remnants of one of the aircraft’s two engines. The aluminum cowling that had encased it all had been torn away, but the guts of the engine were there.

FEMA crews used a blowtorch to free the core of the motor from the column in which it was embedded. Then Fitch and several others used pieces of six-by-six to pry the motor loose from the column and push it off the pile. With the help of some Old Guard troops, they rolled the heavy piece of machinery onto a dolly and finally managed to push it outside. The whole effort took the better part of an entire shift.” ~ Firefight, Page 425.

“As crews dug deeper, unmistakable remnants of a passenger plane were everywhere. Wallets, shoes, jewelry, and the everyday items that had been stuffed into dozens of suitcases were littered throughout the debris.” ~ Firefight, Page 426.

Tell those people a commercial airliner didn’t hit the Pentagon!

Now that we have addressed the eyewitnesses, the physical evidence, and the different scenarios in which the propaganda machine may be at work, what are we left with? We are left with CIT’s sister organization Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and their study of the Flight 77 National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) report. First off, let’s look at Pilots for 9/11 Truth; from the Debunking the Debunkers blog “CIT Stuff Is Disinfo – Wake Up!“:

“A number of Pilots for 9/11 Truth’s members promote World Trade Center no-plane theories – arguing that the speeds at which the planes were travelling were aerodynamically impossible at the altitudes they were flying at. Rob Balsamo, the head of the group, has defended these people’s opinions, saying they are qualified to have them. This was all debunked recently using a simulator. This fact alone is enough to raise serious questions about the credibility of Pilots for 9/11 Truth.”

Now, what do they gather from their study of the NTSB report? Here it is in a nutshell from their founder Rob Balsamo:

“The flght data recorder raw file that we have just decoded … it’s still showing too high for the Pentagon. … It shows the radar altimeter at 273 feet. That means 273 feet above the ground. OK? The Pentagon only gets up to 77 feet.”

In essence, they believe it supports the flyover theory, which we have demonstrated is not supported by the preponderance of eyewitness testimony, or the physical evidence. Might the propaganda machine be at work here also? Well the NTSB report does come from the government after all. Even their own press release on the matter was headlined “OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11 FLIGHT CONTRADICTED BY GOVERNMENT’S OWN DATA.”

As one commenter pointed out:

“Designed to confuse us?

I think we should be careful with any evidence that the government supplies. The ‘five frames’ and the black box data come from the government. Both were in the hands of the government for weeks and months before release to the public.

Do people here agree that this alone renders those two sources of evidence suspect? That’s how I view it. Why base theories on such suspect evidence? To me it looks as though these two pieces of evidence, which contradict each other, are meant to confuse.”

The largest problem in this whole ordeal is not the fact that Pilots for 9/11 Truth raise these issues, without any such commentary of their own, but that they almost exclusively focus on such issues, while much more concrete facts pointing towards complicity, of which pilots would have keen insight, are almost totally glossed over.

Another glossed over issue is an inherent contradiction in the Pilots for 9/11 Truth premise recently brought to our attention by Michael Wolsey of the website Visibility911.com, who states:

“You can’t contend that a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon and then use the flight data recorder that was found in the pentagon to bolster your argument that it didn’t hit!”

All that being said, it’s important to note that there is other research indicating that the flight data recorder of Flight 77 actually supports the official flight path, and that instead, the animation is wrong!

The Pentagon no-plane theories have taken on near religious preportions. It’s as if believing a plane didn’t hit the Pentagon somehow comforts people. On 9/11, planes crashed! That’s what 9/11 was all about, planes crashing! We’re interested in finding out who crashed the planes – not whether or not they did. The CIT/Pilots for 9/11 Truth theory is the only 9/11 theory that we actually laugh at…

“Yeh thats right … We crashed two planes into two skyscrapers… And completely demolished those towers killing thousands … And we ALMOST crashed a third plane into the Pentagon … Except we didn’t! … What we actually did was fly the plane low enough above the Pentagon to make it look like it hit and high enough above the building to not be caught on the Doubletree Hotel security camera… then we landed the plane, killed all the passengers and crew and disposed of the plane… We hired operatives to plant some light poles and stage the scene with the taxi to make it seem like the plane came in from a different direction … just for fun! … Some operatives also posed as fake witnesses… they all used their real names and were friendly to independent investigators to make it seem like they had nothing to hide… the best part was … we didn’t have to pay them! … they just wanted to be involved in a mass murder plot … Finally, we bribed the forensic officials and first responders to say they found and identified the burnt bodies of all of the passengers at the scene…”

“… And we would have gotten away with it too if it weren’t for those meddling CIT kids!”

Jul 30

KBDI To Air ‘9/11: Blueprint for Truth’: How You Can Help!

KBDI Colorado Public Television to Air ‘9/11: Blueprint for Truth
Saturday, August 15, 2009  -  7:00 – 9:00 pm MDT

9-11-beams-of-light

KBDI, Channel 12 will be featuring ‘9/11: Blueprint for Truth’  as a pledge drive fundraiser.   Richard Gage, AIA, will be at the studio for on-air interviews during this historic broadcast.

We are thrilled with this development!

However, please do not call or email KBDI.

The staff at KBDI thank you all for your calls and emails regarding the broadcasts of ‘9/11 Press For Truth’ and the upcoming broadcast of ‘9/11:  Blueprint for Truth.’  As much as they would like to be able to personally respond to everyone, they cannot as the volume of grateful responses is overwhelming their small staff!

But here are things you can do that will help the 9/11 Truth movement:

1) If you are outside the Colorado area, contact your local PBS station and deliver to them a copy of ‘9/11 Press for Truth,’ ‘Zero,’ and  ‘9/11:  Blueprint for Truth.’  Tell them of the great success KBDI Colorado Public Television has had with their pledge drive with ‘9/11 Press for Truth,’ and suggest they screen these films.

Don’t forget, this is a relationship you are building with your local PBS station.  We may soon have some guidelines for you–but you know what to do:  dress nicely, be polite, build credibility, thank them, follow up after they’ve had time to view the films, be patient, etc.

Look for an opportunity to volunteer for your local PBS station.

2) If you choose to support KBDI with a financial contribution when ‘9/11:  Blueprint for Truth’ is screened on August 15, 2009, call or email and make a pledge.  Colorado 9/11 Visibility will be at the phones and delighted to be overwhelmed by your calls!

70% of KBDI’s funding comes directly from the Colorado Community and mostly in the way of individual contributions — this is how they stay in business.

3) Donate anytime to KBDI!

Thank You!

Fran Shure, Tim Boyle and Michael Wolsey

for Colorado 9/11 Visibility

Jul 28

Minnesota Congressman Afraid of Town Meetings Because of 9-11

Did ‘Blue Dog’ bash his liberal constituents as conspiracy nuts?
Ron Brynaert
The Raw Story

A Democratic congressman may have some explaining to do to his constituents after telling Politico that a quarter of them back a crazy conspiracy theory.

In an article entitled “GOP headache: The birther issue,” Lisa Lerer and Daniel Libit report on how Republicans are finding out that “there’s no easy way to deal with the small but vocal crowd of right-wing activists who refuse to believe that President Barack Obama was born in the United States.”

But it’s this part in which the Democratic chairman of the House Agriculture Committee is quoted which might have the largest impact:

“Out-party politicians have long had to deal with conspiracy theorists on their side — the people who think that the Clintons killed Vince Foster or that the Bush administration helped orchestrate the Sept. 11 attacks.”

“Twenty-five percent of my people believe the Pentagon and Rumsfeld were responsible for taking the twin towers down,” said Rep. Collin Peterson, a Democrat who represents a conservative Republican district in Minnesota. “That’s why I don’t do town meetings.”

While there are certainly thousands upon thousands of Americans with legitimate questions about what really happened on 9/11, only the fringe elements have internally convicted Bush officials for “taking the twin towers down.”

No doubt, Peterson has his own questions, since in 2002, as a member of the House Intelligence Committee, he said of FBI whistle-blower Coleen Rowley, “It took a lot of guts to do what she did.”

Rowley had alleged “that FBI headquarters rewrote Minneapolis agents’ pre-Sept. 11 request for surveillance and search warrants for terrorism defendant Zacarias Moussaoui and removed important information before rejecting them,” the Associated Press reported in 2002. “Agent Coleen Rowley wrote that the Minneapolis agents became so frustrated that they began to joke that FBI headquarters was becoming an ‘unwitting accomplice’ to Osama bin Laden’s efforts to attack the United States, the officials said.”

Liberal activists have been targeting ‘Blue Dog’ Democrats, partially because of their opposition to the Obama administration’s plans to revamp health care.

At the Washington Independent, David Weigl highlights Peterson’s “head-scratching quote” in a post called “Blue Dog Values.”

“Asked about a problem in the Republican base, Peterson chooses to … bash liberals in his own district, which gave Obama a not-exactly-fringey 47 percent of the vote,” Weigl blogs.

Peterson was recently hailed for “shedding the ‘Blue Dog’ label when he supported Obama’s deficit-saturated budget” in April and the Waxman/Markey global warming tax.

But many Minnesotans in the seventh congressional district may wonder why their Democratic representative thinks a quarter of them are so nuts that he won’t go to town meetings anymore.

Jul 24

9-11 Blueprint for Truth to Debut on Colorado Public Television

Still reeling from the success of the recent historic broadcast  of 9-11 Press for Truth, the state of Colorado is about to get another strong dose of 9-11 truth.  Making an appearance on Visibility 9-11 with Michael Wolsey, Executive Producer at KBDI Shari Bernson made the major announcement that KBDI will be again making history with the PBS world premier of Richard Gage’s excellent documentary, 9-11 Blueprint for Truth on August 15, 2009 from 7:00 – 9:00 pm mountain time.

KBDI first made history with the 9-11 movement when they aired 9-11 Press for Truth during one of their periodic fund drives in June of 2009.  This endeavor was such a success that the entire three hour broadcast was repeated at least 6 more times!  This was an amazing night for me personally, full of emotion from A-Z.  It was great to finally meet Bob McIlvaine and Ray, and also good to see Kyle again.  The crew at KBDI was amazing.  They were tight….professional.  There was a feeling in the air.  Perhaps it was just me but I could feel that everyone involved knew they were making history.  I was honored to be part of this event and thank all those involved in making it possible.  It was amazing to me afterward how many people who I know saw this broadcast.  I am still running into people who saw this and me (I was on the phones that night and occasionally the cameras would pan to us dedicated volunteers!) on one of the broadcasts.

I look forward to the evening of August 15 at Five Points Media Center.  Members of Colorado 9-11 Visibility will be on hand to answer phones and Richard Gage, AIA will be in the studio for interviews during the fund raising breaks.  Please let KBDI hear from you.  Let them know how much you appreciate their courage in airing 9-11 documentaries and you want to see more!  If it is within your budget, let KBDI know with a donation on August 15, 7:00 – 9:00 pm mountain time.

-Michael

Jul 23

Visibility 9-11 Welcomes Shari Bernson, Membership Director and Executive Producer, KBDI-TV Channel 12 Denver

This episode of Visibility 9-11 welcomes to the program Shari Bernson, Membership Director and Executive Producer at KBDI-TV, Channel 12 in Denver Colorado.  KBDI has taken bold steps in recent months with an historic airing of 9-11 Press for Truth on June 3, 2009.  This 3 hour fund raiser for the Denver PBS station included a screening of this excellent documentary along with in studio interviews with Producer Kyle Hence, Director Ray Nowosielski, 9-11 family member Bob McIlvaine, and members of Colorado 9-11 Visibility who were on hand answering phones.

colorado911-kbdiShari Bernson is a nationally recognized producer with over 20 years-combined experience in the television, entertainment and media.  She has been a leader in her field and has raised over $17 million dollars for public television.  Shari is also an on-air talent for KBDI and was one of the hostesses during the June 3rd, 2009 airing of 9-11 Press for Truth.

This interview provides a behind the scenes look at some of the decision making processes which went into selecting this documentary for airing, how it was received by the public, the role of the local 9-11 group, and the groundswell of support from the Colorado community and indeed from around the world.  Shari also discusses how this event and film has changed her personally and the way she now views the mainstream media in America and the events of September 11th, 2001.

Most exciting of all during this interview was the announcement that KBDI will continue taking bold steps with regards to the events of September 11th with what shall prove to be yet another historic broadcast for 9-11 truth.  Tentatively scheduled, KBDI will be doing another fund raiser on August 15, 2009, this time featuring the world television premier of Richard Gage’s excellent documentary 9-11 Blueprint for Truth.  Additionally, KBDI will be flying Richard to Colorado for on-air interviews during this historic broadcast.  A press release is due to be published soon.

Download this episode here.Православни икони

Jul 21

New paper at The Journal of 9/11 Studies by Prof. Graeme MacQueen

New paper at The Journal of 9/11 Studies by Prof. Graeme MacQueen
from Kevin Ryan
July 21, 2009

A new paper is available at The Journal of 9/11 Studies. This is from Professor Graeme MacQueen, and is called “Did the Earth Shake Before The South Tower Hit the Ground?” Here is the abstract:

“In the debate over the collapses of the Twin Towers on 9/11, the shaking of the earth that accompanied these collapses has played an important role. This shaking registered clearly on seismographs. Less clear, however, are its causes and the times it began. The National Institute of Standards and Technology emphasizes the role of the debris from the collapsing buildings in producing the seismic signals. In assessing NIST’s hypothesis I focus on the collapse of the South Tower and attempt to determine the time the collapse began, the time the debris from the Tower struck the ground, and the temporal relation of these events to the shaking of the earth that accompanied the collapse. I consider both the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory’s seismic evidence and the evidence provided by a less studied form of seismic instrument, the video camera. I also draw on witness testimony. I conclude that key statements by NIST are false. Major shaking of the earth, and corresponding seismic signals, started well before the debris hit the ground. In fact, it seems certain that the shaking of the earth started before visible signs of building collapse. This evidence is incompatible with the official NIST hypothesis of the cause of the collapse of the Towers.”

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

Thanks to Professor MacQueen for this interesting new work, and for his other great papers at the Journal.

Jul 18

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation

Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth: The Rules of Disinformation
by H. Michael Sweeney
copyright (c) 1997, 2000, 2001 All rights reserved (Edited June 2001)

Permission to reprint/distribute hereby granted for any non commercial use provided information reproduced in its entirety and with author information in tact. For more Intel/Shadow government related info, visit the Author’s Web site.

Built upon Thirteen Techniques for Truth Suppression by David Martin, the following may be useful to the initiate in the world of dealing with veiled and half-truth, lies, and suppression of truth when serious crimes are studied in public forums. This, sadly, includes every day news media, one of the worst offenders with respect to being a source of disinformation. Where the crime involves a conspiracy, or a conspiracy to cover up the crime, there will invariably be a disinformation campaign launched against those seeking to uncover and expose the truth and/or the conspiracy. There are specific tactics which disinfo artists tend to apply, as revealed here. Also included with this material are seven common traits of the disinfo artist which may also prove useful in identifying players and motives. The more a particular party fits the traits and is guilty of following the rules, the more likely they are a professional disinfo artist with a vested motive. People can be bought, threatened, or blackmailed into providing disinformation, so even “good guys” can be suspect in many cases.

A rational person participating as one interested in the truth will evaluate that chain of evidence and conclude either that the links are solid and conclusive, that one or more links are weak and need further development before conclusion can be arrived at, or that one or more links can be broken, usually invalidating (but not necessarily so, if parallel links already exist or can be found, or if a particular link was merely supportive, but not in itself key) the argument. The game is played by raising issues which either strengthen or weaken (preferably to the point of breaking) these links. It is the job of a disinfo artist to interfere with these evaluation… to at least make people think the links are weak or broken when, in truth, they are not… or to propose alternative solutions leading away from the truth. Often, by simply impeding and slowing down the process through disinformation tactics, a level of victory is assured because apathy increases with time and rhetoric.

It would seem true in almost every instance, that if one cannot break the chain of evidence for a given solution, revelation of truth has won out. If the chain is broken either a new link must be forged, or a whole new chain developed, or the solution is invalid an a new one must be found… but truth still wins out. There is no shame in being the creator or supporter of a failed solution, chain, or link, if done with honesty in search of the truth. This is the rational approach. While it is understandable that a person can become emotionally involved with a particular side of a given issue, it is really unimportant who wins, as long as truth wins. But the disinfo artist will seek to emotionalize and chastise any failure (real or false claims thereof), and will seek by means of intimidation to prevent discussion in general.

It is the disinfo artist and those who may pull their strings (those who stand to suffer should the crime be solved) MUST seek to prevent rational and complete examination of any chain of evidence which would hang them. Since fact and truth seldom fall on their own, they must be overcome with lies and deceit. Those who are professional in the art of lies and deceit, such as the intelligence community and the professional criminal (often the same people or at least working together), tend to apply fairly well defined and observable tools in this process. However, the public at large is not well armed against such weapons, and is often easily led astray by these time-proven tactics. Remarkably, not even media and law enforcement have NOT BEEN TRAINED to deal with these issues. For the most part, only the players themselves understand the rules of the game.

Read the rest of this entry »

Jul 14

Kevin R. Ryan: Demolition access to the WTC Towers

Demolition access to the World Trade Center towers: Part one – tenants
by Kevin R. Ryan, 7-09-09

Distribution via the Unanswered Questions Wire
http://www.unansweredquestions.org/

Note: The author is indebted to a few particularly useful sources of information and inspiration, including Russ Baker’s book “Family of Secrets”, the websites nndb.com, sourcewatch.org and secinfo.com, and Richard Gage.

On occasion, the public has been asked by George W. Bush to refrain from considering certain conspiracy theories. Bush has made such requests when people were looking into crimes in which he might be culpable. For example, when in 1994 Bush’s former company Harken Energy was linked to the fraudulent Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) through several investors, Bush’s spokeswoman, Karen Hughes, shut down the inquiry by telling the Associated Press — “We have no response to silly conspiracy theories.” On another occasion, Bush said in a televised speech — “Let us never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th.”

But paradoxically, we have also been asked to believe Bush’s own outrageous conspiracy theory about 9/11, one that has proven to be false in many ways. One important way to see the false nature of Bush’s conspiracy theory is to note the fact that the World Trade Center buildings could only have fallen as they did through the use of explosives. A number of independent scientific studies have pointed out this fact [1, 2, 3, 4], but it was Bush’s own scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), through their inability to provide a convincing defense of the official line, who ultimately proved that explosives were necessary.[2, 5, 6, 7]

This leads us to ask the obvious question — Who could have placed explosives in the World Trade Center towers? To answer that question, we should first consider who had access to the buildings, specifically the areas of the buildings that would be relevant to a demolition operation. We should also consider the time periods of interest. Those who had access at the necessary times should be further considered in terms of their ability to obtain the necessary explosive technologies and expertise, their ability to be secretive, and the possibility that they could have benefited from the destruction of the WTC buildings or from the resulting War on Terror. But one thing is certain, unless it was done by one person acting alone, it must have been a conspiracy.

The Twin Towers and WTC 7, all highly secure buildings, were most readily accessed by tenants, security and building management staff, and construction-related contractors.

Read the entire comprehensive article which includes endnotes here.

Jul 14

Undercover Agents Smuggle Bombs into “High Security” Federal Buildings to Test Security: 10 Receive Failing Marks

GAO: Major Security Flaws at Federal Buildings
The Washington Post

The police agency in charge of protecting thousands of federal buildings nationwide has failed to keep bomb-making materials out of several high-security facilities in the past year, according to Congressional testimony provided by Senate aides. In the past year, investigators successfully smuggled bomb-making materials into ten high-security federal buildings, constructed bombs and walked around the buildings undetected, exposing weaknesses in security provided by the Federal Protective Service.

More than one million government employees work in 9,000 facilities guarded by FPS around the country, including at least 350,000 in the Washington region. The revelations come as the Obama administration prepares to reorganize the agency in the coming weeks.

Investigators carried liquid explosives and low-yield detonators — materials investigators note are not normally carried into federal buildings. The GAO said security concerns prevent it from revealing the exact locations or cities of the affected facilities, but that eight of them were government owned, while two were leased. They included offices of a U.S. senator and House member, as well as offices for the departments of Homeland Security, Justice and State, the GAO reported. In one instance, the GAO obtained a building security tape showing an investigator walking through a security checkpoint with bomb making materials.

In the past, security experts have criticized some GAO investigators for publicizing sensational findings or “sting” operations that are not based on intelligence-driven risk assessments. Investigators for the Congressional auditing agency stress however that they followed generally accepted government standards with this round of testing.

Read the rest of this entry »

Jul 14

How the FBI and 9/11 Commission Suppressed Key Evidence about Hani Hanjour, alleged hijack pilot of AAL 77

How the FBI and 9/11 Commission Suppressed Key Evidence about Hani Hanjour, alleged hijack pilot of AAL 77

by Mark H. Gaffney
http://www.the911mysteryplane.com/

The evidence was crucial because it undermined the official explanation that Hani Hanjour crashed American Airlines Flight 77 into the Pentagon at high speed after executing an extremely difficult top gun maneuver. But to understand how all of this played out, let us review the case in bite-size pieces…

In August 2004 when the 9/11 Commission completed its official investigation of the September 11, 2001 attack, the commission transferred custody of its voluminous records to the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA).[1] There, the records remained under lock and key for four and a half years, until last January when NARA released a fraction of the total for public viewing. Each day, more of the released files are scanned and posted on the Internet, making them readily accessible. Although most of the newly-released documents are of little interest, the files I will discuss in this article contain important new information.

As we know, the 9/11 Commission did not begin its work until 2003–––more than a year after the fact. By this time a number of journalists had already done independent research and published articles about various facets of 9/11. Some of this work was of excellent quality. The Washington Post, for example, interviewed aviation experts who stated that the plane allegedly piloted by Hani Hanjour [AA Flight 77] had been flown “with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm.”[2] Yet, strangely, when other journalists investigated Hani Hanjour they found a trail of clues indicating he was a novice pilot, wholly incapable of executing a top gun maneuver and a successful suicide attack in a Boeing 757. By early 2003 this independent research was a matter of public record, which created a serious problem for the 9/11 Commission…

Read the rest of this entry »

Jul 13

Decoding Scheuer’s Call for Osama to Kill Americans

Decoding Scheuer’s Call for Osama to Kill More Americans
“War on Terror” advocates want civilians to die to justify “War on Terror”

James Corbett
The Corbett Report
6 July, 2009

CIA analyst Michael Scheuer’s recent call for bin Laden to kill more Americans would be shocking if we hadn’t already heard it dozens of times before from other “War on Terror” advocates. “It’s an absurd situation,” Scheuer told FOX News personality Glenn Beck on his program last week. “Only Osama can execute an attack that will force Americans to demand that their government protect them effectively, consistently, and with as much violence as necessary.”

The comments have provoked much shock and outrage among pundits and websites like Jon Stewart and NewsHounds who may have considered him to be on their side. After all, he seemed to be a vociferous and effective critic of the neocons, having authored books like Imperial Hubris and having supported Ron Paul during the 2008 Presidential debates by asserting that 9/11 was merely blowback for American interventionism in the Middle East. With his latest comments, Scheuer is now relegated to the ignoble company of neocon shills like Stu Bykofsky of the Philadelphia Inquirer, who dreamed of another terrorist attack back in 2007 to rally people around the flag (and, presumably, George W. Bush) once again; Donald Rumsfeld, who complained in 2006 that the Bush regime was a victim of its own success in the “War on Terror” and that another terrorist attack was needed to remind people that the war was still necessary; and indeed the entire neocon establishment, who in their 2000 white paper Rebuilding America’s Defenses called for “a catalyzing event like a new Pearl Harbor” to mobilize the public to get behind their goal of projecting American military influence around the globe for another century. Despite his surprisingly unhelpful attempt to clarify his remarks, Scheuer is now—like all of those who have said that terrorism is needed to bring about political support for their idea—a terrorist himself by very definition.

Read the rest of this entry »

Jul 13

AE911Truth to Speak in Washington DC, July 14th-16th

AE911Truth to Speak in Washington DC in Washington DC, July 14th-16th

AE911Truth flies to DC July 11th with a team of five to produce these events:
1. Sign Up Architects at Our AIA Booth

We will host a 10′ x 10′ exhibit booth at the DC Convention of the American Institute of Architects – July 14, 15, and 16. We will be speaking to several hundred architects over the three-day period and giving them DVDs and brochures. We hope to sign up at least one hundred more architects on our website! Consider flying/driving to DC and helping us in our booth if you are in the area. You would need to competently convey the essential points of the explosive evidence at the 3 World Trade Center high-rises – while wearing professional attire. To find out more or RSVP, contact Dave Slesinger at 410-499-5403 and/or davidslesinger (at) yahoo.com. We will also host room #141 in the Convention Center where our new 30-minute version of 9/11: Blueprint for Truth – Companion Edition will be playing every hour on the hour followed by live Q&A. We are making major inroads into the building professional community with these AIA conventions. The reverberations throughout the country, from San Francisco, where we started, to DC and beyond, have been and will be deep and penetrating. The AIA is already supporting us, though silently, by deliberately approving the AE911Truth booth at their events. We have also already been approved for the November AIA Richmond, Virginia event. We are all feeling that the dam of official denial might be about to break.

Read the rest of this entry »

Jul 13

Glenn Beck Agrees: “The only chance we have as a country right now is” for bin Laden to “detonate a major weapon” in U.S.

Glenn Beck Agrees: “The only chance we have as a country right now is” for bin Laden to “detonate a major weapon” in U.S.

“Glenn Beck nods and agrees with his guest Michael Scheuer that the only way to “save” the US (from illegal immigrants, of course) is for Osama bin Laden to succeed in detonating a weapon on American soil. Scheuer and Beck hit all the conservative buttons, from Mexicans to the mainstream media and the worst of all, Europeans. From the June 30th, 2009 Glenn Beck on Fox News.”

“Last night Glenn Beck’s guest was ex-CIA person Michael Scheuer, who stated that the only hope for the country was for Osama Bin Laden to “deploy and detonate a major weapon in the United States.” Seriously.”

http://gawker.com/5305274/what-this-country-needs-is-a-good-terrorist-at…

YouTube viddy cribbed from: http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/200906300039

Jul 13

Naval “National Center for Energetics” Records Of Pre-9/11 Nano-Energetic Materials Development, Nonexistent Or Destroyed

Naval “National Center for Energetics” Records Of Pre-9/11 Nano-Energetic Materials Development, Nonexistent Or Destroyed
by Aidan Monaghan
911blogger.com

The Indian Head Division of the Naval Surface Warfare Center, (a branch of the Naval Sea Systems Command or NAVSEA), described in 1999 as the “national center for energetics”[1], “the only reliable source of aluminum nanopowders in the United States”[2] and in 2008 as “probably the most prominent US center for nano-thermite technology”[3], alleges via Freedom of Information Act replies that records “regarding research and development of nano-sized or Ultra Fine Grained (UFG) aluminum powders, nano-sized or Ultra Fine Grained (UFG) iron oxide powders or other metal oxide powders and Metastable Intermolecular Composites prior to 2002″ do not exist. According to Indian Head, “research may have been conducted by Indian Head Division personnel but not submitted.”

Records prior to 2002 of Indian Head’s private sector partnerships regarding nano-sized energetic materials development and production, were reportedly destroyed per policy after seven years (or all such records prior to 2002).

Explosive, unreacted thermitic material containing nano-meter sized grains of intimately mixed aluminum and iron oxide, has recently been discovered in dust created by the collapses of the World Trade Center buildings on September 11, 2001.[4]

Evidence prior to 2002 of Indian Head’s private sector partnerships regarding nano-sized energetic materials development and production exists.

December 2002:

“FY01 Technology Transfer Business Plan: IHDIV is considered the Navy’s Center of Excellence for Energetics development and has extensive expertise, capabilities, and information in energetics synthesis, formulation, and processing as well as in testing of energetic systems. IHDIV will transfer their knowledge of development and manufacturing energetics with respect to the use of TECHNANOGY produced nanoaluminum and supply TECHNANOGY with test data associated with the testing of TECHNANOGY nanoaluminum. TECHNANOGY is a leader in the production of nanoaluminum for use in energetic systems utilized for DoD purposes. To our knowledge, TECHNANOGY is the sole supplier of nanoaluminum for use in pilot scale processing. TECHNANOGY will share their material and knowledge of nanoaluminum processing subject to the terms and conditions of this CRADA. (cooperative research and development agreement).”

http://www.onr.navy.mil/sci_tech/3t/transition/training/docs/nswcih_busp…

“The Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) Program … ensures that the nation’s small, high-tech, innovative businesses are a significant part of the federal government’s research and development efforts.”

http://www.sbir.gov/about/index.htm