Thursday, November 8, 2012
Obama wins spot behind 8-ball
On 9/11/12 terrorists attacked the U.S. embassy in Benghazi and killed the ambassador. Immediately, the White House and State Dept. went into disinformation mode: confuse the issue with a bogus impression of what happened so as to duck the charge of being weak on terrorism just before the election. Then, along came Hurricane Sandy to drive the Benghazi story off the airwaves and to permit Obama to look good as a leader.
But Sandy may well have been the silver lining with a cloud inside.
The House remains in the hands of the GOP, which has strong reasons for reviving the Benghazi incident. And Obama's complicity was demonstrated when he leaped to grab the mike and tell the nation that the embassy had in fact been struck by terrorists -- once he learned that the House was airing testimony that undercut the Obama administration line.
Obama's actual statement immediately after the attack is carefully crafted to protect him from a charge of straight-out lying while permitting the bogus idea to circulate that the attack had occurred as a result of a mob angered by some internet video.
So what we have is a scenario in which the president and his aides deliberately deceived the American people in order to avoid looking weak on terrorism.
Many are too young to recall what happened in the Watergate affair. The initial crime and coverup occurred before Nixon won handily a second term. But, the House and Senate were in Democratic hands and his fate was sealed the day of the election, especially considering the doggedness of several Watergate reporters: Woodward, Bernstein and Hersh, among them.
Obama needn't worry about trial in the Senate, which is in Democratic hands -- unless for reasons unknown the Benghazi affair is not contained by America's Obama-friendly media. However, the House will be able to hold Obama's feet to the fire on the Benghazi incident, meaning his presidential power, already somewhat trimmed by a divided Congress, will be further eroded.
Though Americans have temporarily lost interest in the Benghazi deception, it could well revive as people shake their heads that a president could be such a bald-faced deceiver.
No worries?
During the presidential race, the Obama administration pooh-poohed Julian Assange's claim that he needed to avoid extradition to Sweden because federal authorities wanted to nail him for some criminal offense. Guess what, there's a secret federal probe still in progress concerning Assange and Wikileaks.
Though governments obviously dislike Wikileaks, the site was simply doing a computerized version of what American reporters have traditionally done.
http://rt.com/usa/
On 9/11/12 terrorists attacked the U.S. embassy in Benghazi and killed the ambassador. Immediately, the White House and State Dept. went into disinformation mode: confuse the issue with a bogus impression of what happened so as to duck the charge of being weak on terrorism just before the election. Then, along came Hurricane Sandy to drive the Benghazi story off the airwaves and to permit Obama to look good as a leader.
But Sandy may well have been the silver lining with a cloud inside.
The House remains in the hands of the GOP, which has strong reasons for reviving the Benghazi incident. And Obama's complicity was demonstrated when he leaped to grab the mike and tell the nation that the embassy had in fact been struck by terrorists -- once he learned that the House was airing testimony that undercut the Obama administration line.
Obama's actual statement immediately after the attack is carefully crafted to protect him from a charge of straight-out lying while permitting the bogus idea to circulate that the attack had occurred as a result of a mob angered by some internet video.
So what we have is a scenario in which the president and his aides deliberately deceived the American people in order to avoid looking weak on terrorism.
Many are too young to recall what happened in the Watergate affair. The initial crime and coverup occurred before Nixon won handily a second term. But, the House and Senate were in Democratic hands and his fate was sealed the day of the election, especially considering the doggedness of several Watergate reporters: Woodward, Bernstein and Hersh, among them.
Obama needn't worry about trial in the Senate, which is in Democratic hands -- unless for reasons unknown the Benghazi affair is not contained by America's Obama-friendly media. However, the House will be able to hold Obama's feet to the fire on the Benghazi incident, meaning his presidential power, already somewhat trimmed by a divided Congress, will be further eroded.
Though Americans have temporarily lost interest in the Benghazi deception, it could well revive as people shake their heads that a president could be such a bald-faced deceiver.
No worries?
During the presidential race, the Obama administration pooh-poohed Julian Assange's claim that he needed to avoid extradition to Sweden because federal authorities wanted to nail him for some criminal offense. Guess what, there's a secret federal probe still in progress concerning Assange and Wikileaks.
Though governments obviously dislike Wikileaks, the site was simply doing a computerized version of what American reporters have traditionally done.
http://rt.com/usa/
Monday, October 15, 2012
Might Afghan troops trigger
a horror plague in America?
A British man died of a species-jumping tick-borne virus that apparently infected him while he was in Afghanistan.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217774/The-Armageddon-virus-Why-experts-fear-disease-leaps-animals-humans-devastate-mankind-years.html
a horror plague in America?
A British man died of a species-jumping tick-borne virus that apparently infected him while he was in Afghanistan.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2217774/The-Armageddon-virus-Why-experts-fear-disease-leaps-animals-humans-devastate-mankind-years.html
Friday, October 5, 2012
Notes from Cyberia
From time to time, Newz from Limbo ruminates on IT matters.
Many internet and other cyber glitches might be resolved with the use of redundant subroutines (that is, "failsafe" backup algorithms).
Assuming redundant subroutines are effectively independent, the probability of system failure goes down drastically with number of such sub-algorithms. If a software program statistically is known to fail at a rate x, we might try pinpointing a few weak points in the program and building in redundancies. Hence, if routine A fails, routine B takes over and so on, up to n subroutines. Suppose subroutine A has 0.05 probability of failure, B has 0.03 and C 0.06. The total probability of failure is then simply those quantities multiplied, or 0.00009, which is far lower than any individual probability here.
This leads this non-expert observer to wonder whether cyber security might be greatly improved by simply making EVERY (or nearly every) security subroutine redundant. That is, if one lock is hacked, there are three or four more on that particular door, greatly reducing the likelihood of successful hacking.
From time to time, Newz from Limbo ruminates on IT matters.
Many internet and other cyber glitches might be resolved with the use of redundant subroutines (that is, "failsafe" backup algorithms).
Assuming redundant subroutines are effectively independent, the probability of system failure goes down drastically with number of such sub-algorithms. If a software program statistically is known to fail at a rate x, we might try pinpointing a few weak points in the program and building in redundancies. Hence, if routine A fails, routine B takes over and so on, up to n subroutines. Suppose subroutine A has 0.05 probability of failure, B has 0.03 and C 0.06. The total probability of failure is then simply those quantities multiplied, or 0.00009, which is far lower than any individual probability here.
This leads this non-expert observer to wonder whether cyber security might be greatly improved by simply making EVERY (or nearly every) security subroutine redundant. That is, if one lock is hacked, there are three or four more on that particular door, greatly reducing the likelihood of successful hacking.
Monday, September 24, 2012
Freaky facts about 9 and 11
I have added some new material on Force 1089.http://paulpages.blogspot.com/2012/09/freaky-facts-about-9-and-11-scroll-down.html
Saturday, September 22, 2012
Jurist sees 9/11 plot,
sends case to Hague
An Italian jurist with long experience fighting Mafiosi and terrorists is referring the 9/11 case to the international criminal court of justice at the Hague for prosecution of those complicit in what he sees as a covert U.S. operation that was intended to increase power of those in control of security and stir up war fever.
The judge's referral to the prosecutor is explained in a letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters.html
http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Structure+of+the+Court/Office+of+the+Prosecutor/
Ferdinando Imposimato, honorary president of the Italian supreme court and a former senator who served on the anti-Mafia commission, charges in a letter that the 9/11 attacks were a "global state terror operation permitted by the administration of the USA, which had foreknowledge of the operation yet remained intentionally unresponsive in order to make war against Afghanistan and Iraq."
He added that the attacks were an "instance of the strategy of tension enacted by political and economic powers in the USA to seek advantages for the oil and arms industries" and likened it to what he said were CIA activities in Italy to carry out bombings in order to undermine the once politically powerful Communists by blaming Marxist radicals for the terrorism.
Imposimato, who has authored seven books on international terrorism and state corruption, charged that there is "much evidence of this strategy," both circumstantial and scientific.
He writes:
"The reports of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), November 20, 2005, set forth the following conclusions. The airplanes that struck each of the twin towers caused a breach as well as an explosion evidenced by a giant fireball. The remaining jet fuel flowed onto the lower floors, sustaining the fires. The heat from the fires deformed the building structures and both towers collapsed completely from top to bottom. Very little that was of any size remained after these events except steel as well as aluminum fragments and the pulverized dust from the concrete floors.
"World Trade Center 7 also collapsed--in a way that was inconsistent with the common experience of engineers. The final NIST report claimed that the plane strikes against the twin towers were responsible for all three building collapses: WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. All three buildings collapsed completely, but Building 7 was not hit by a plane. WTC7’s collapse violated common experience and was unprecedented."
The jurist, a grand officer of Italy's Order of Merit, cited research by architect Richard Gage and engineer Jon Cole, whose analyses point to controlled demolitions from planted charges and agreed with theologian David Ray Griffin's reasoning for urging the hypothesis of controlled demolition.
The judge cited much evidence developed at the "Toronto Hearings," a forum set up by professionals who are sharply critical of the official 9/11 narratives.
http://torontohearings.org/
The judge wrote that Peter Dale Scott, a witness at the hearings, "demonstrated that there was a systematic CIA pattern of withholding important information from the FBI, even when the FBI would normally be entitled to it."
He cited former U.S. counter-terror chief Richard Clarke's interviews on European television to show that the CIA knew that a major attack was imminent and saw this and other material as implicating the CIA chief at the time, George Tenet, in a murderous conspiracy.
Recently leaked presidential briefing material shows that the CIA knew a big attack was coming, but the theory was put forth that its warnings were brushed off by President Bush whose neoconservative aides saw a political trick to divert attention from their ambitions against Iraq, which was eventually assigned much blame for the 9/11 attacks by Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
sends case to Hague
An Italian jurist with long experience fighting Mafiosi and terrorists is referring the 9/11 case to the international criminal court of justice at the Hague for prosecution of those complicit in what he sees as a covert U.S. operation that was intended to increase power of those in control of security and stir up war fever.
The judge's referral to the prosecutor is explained in a letter to the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters.html
http://www.icc-cpi.int/Menus/ICC/Structure+of+the+Court/Office+of+the+Prosecutor/
Ferdinando Imposimato, honorary president of the Italian supreme court and a former senator who served on the anti-Mafia commission, charges in a letter that the 9/11 attacks were a "global state terror operation permitted by the administration of the USA, which had foreknowledge of the operation yet remained intentionally unresponsive in order to make war against Afghanistan and Iraq."
He added that the attacks were an "instance of the strategy of tension enacted by political and economic powers in the USA to seek advantages for the oil and arms industries" and likened it to what he said were CIA activities in Italy to carry out bombings in order to undermine the once politically powerful Communists by blaming Marxist radicals for the terrorism.
Imposimato, who has authored seven books on international terrorism and state corruption, charged that there is "much evidence of this strategy," both circumstantial and scientific.
He writes:
"The reports of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), November 20, 2005, set forth the following conclusions. The airplanes that struck each of the twin towers caused a breach as well as an explosion evidenced by a giant fireball. The remaining jet fuel flowed onto the lower floors, sustaining the fires. The heat from the fires deformed the building structures and both towers collapsed completely from top to bottom. Very little that was of any size remained after these events except steel as well as aluminum fragments and the pulverized dust from the concrete floors.
"World Trade Center 7 also collapsed--in a way that was inconsistent with the common experience of engineers. The final NIST report claimed that the plane strikes against the twin towers were responsible for all three building collapses: WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7. All three buildings collapsed completely, but Building 7 was not hit by a plane. WTC7’s collapse violated common experience and was unprecedented."
The jurist, a grand officer of Italy's Order of Merit, cited research by architect Richard Gage and engineer Jon Cole, whose analyses point to controlled demolitions from planted charges and agreed with theologian David Ray Griffin's reasoning for urging the hypothesis of controlled demolition.
The judge cited much evidence developed at the "Toronto Hearings," a forum set up by professionals who are sharply critical of the official 9/11 narratives.
http://torontohearings.org/
The judge wrote that Peter Dale Scott, a witness at the hearings, "demonstrated that there was a systematic CIA pattern of withholding important information from the FBI, even when the FBI would normally be entitled to it."
He cited former U.S. counter-terror chief Richard Clarke's interviews on European television to show that the CIA knew that a major attack was imminent and saw this and other material as implicating the CIA chief at the time, George Tenet, in a murderous conspiracy.
Recently leaked presidential briefing material shows that the CIA knew a big attack was coming, but the theory was put forth that its warnings were brushed off by President Bush whose neoconservative aides saw a political trick to divert attention from their ambitions against Iraq, which was eventually assigned much blame for the 9/11 attacks by Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Friday, September 21, 2012
9/11 doubts infiltrate
the mainstream media
By Ian Henshall
www.reinvestigate911.org
As the annual 9/11 remembrance draws to a close, the world is as split as ever. Not so much over the Afghan and Iraq invasions, but between those who accept Washington's official 9/11 story and those who do not.
Under the mainstream media radar, the number of those who do not is steadily increasing, forming substantial majorities in places like Pakistan and Egypt and significant minorities even in NATO's heartland countries, France, the UK and the US itself. The issue is not whether, despite his denials, Osama Bin Laden might have wanted to organise the 9/11 attacks but whether Al Qaeda actually had the capability to infiltrate 19 terrorists into the US, including some very well known to the CIA. Not only that but, four turned out to be exceptionally skilled pilots with very little training. Up to the extraordinary coup of 9/11 Al Qaeda's biggest and most complex success was to set off two truck bombs in East Africa. [See footnote (1)]
The stereotype promoted by the corporate media of a 9/11 sceptic, a badly educated redneck watching Fox News in a trailer park, could hardly be further from the truth. The website Patriot's Question 9/11
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
lists hundreds of university professors, over a thousand architects and engineers and hundreds of aviation professionals who have spoken out against the official 9/11 story. (8)
The most significant expert may turn out to be Judge Ferdinando Imposimato, the widely respected honorary president of the Italian Supreme Court and legendary mafia hunter who lost his brother in a revenge attack. Imposimato has written to the Journal of 9/11 Studies announcing his intention to bring a case before the International Criminal Court citing key figures in the US administration for involvement in the execution of the 9/11 attacks. (2)
Imposimato's take has received indirect support from people close to the heart of Washington's power elite. Richard Clarke, White House anti-terror czar at the time, has confirmed what researcher Kevin Fenton has established based on a meticulous examination of recently released official reports. Someone at the top of the CIA "made a decision" to stand down the FBI and the CIA, allowing the alleged hijackers a free run in the US when they would otherwise have been arrested and the plot foiled. (9)
Meanwhile the 9/11 truth movement continues with a drip, drip of new research. This year we have seen nothing on the scale of the revelations of iron spheres and uncombusted nanothermite in the dust at Ground Zero, strong indicators that the Twin Towers' spectacular collapses on live TV were caused by something a lot hotter than diesel fuel fires. But there are significant developments nonetheless.
Scientist Kevin Ryan was fired from work some time ago after he went public saying his employer Underwriters Laboratories, the company which had certified the quality of the steel used in the World Trade Centre, was involved in creating fake computer simulations to help support the official story that the fires were sufficiently hot to cause the disastrous collapse of three skyscrapers. He has since been beavering away at various aspects of the 9/11 story.
This year Ryan has released an analysis of the changes that the 9/11 events have brought to the US building industry. If the official story is to be believed, 9/11 was an architectural and engineering disaster. Buildings expressly designed to withstand a high speed jet impact and subsequent fire failed spectacularly. This disaster should have led to an urgent and exhaustive inquiry with many action points for other buildings of the same construction. Instead, says Ryan, nothing like that happened. The US engineering community has acted as though it does not believe the official 9/11 story any more than the alleged conspiracy theorists in their trailer parks. (3)
Meanwhile the US Public Broadcasting System became the conduit for the latest film from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth: Explosive Evidence - The Experts Speak Out, with downloads nationally pushing Bill Clinton's Convention Speech into third place, an astonishing success for a topic the mainstream media as usual were entirely deaf to (4). The film has a section in which psychologists and counsellors explain why the media and sections of the public are so reluctant to doubt an official story that might, from another government, seem highly unlikely if not absurd. The reasons come down to trauma, belief in authority and a phenomenon psychologists call cognitive dissonance. For every trailer park dissident there are several other citizens with a very strong desire to believe in authority, especially after the terrifying circumstances and unprecedented media barrage of 9/11. Confronted with contradictory evidence some time later, such people suffer from painful cognitive dissonance and often resort to denial.
An example of cognitive dissonance occurred last week on CNN when Piers Morgan tried to dismiss Jesse Ventura, a maverick politician and broadcaster. Morgan clearly knew little about the issue and could only say the suggestion of an inside job was "preposterous". The studio audience applauded Ventura. (10)
Another 9/11 researcher who goes by the name of Shoestring has presented a very detailed analysis of the various emergency offices that failed on the morning of 9/11. Probably the most shocking was the FBI's emergency management office in Washington, designed to cope with up to five major emergencies at one time, which knew nothing more than the TV channels. In light of so much other bizarre activity - at the CIA, on the building investigation, the failure of Washington's Andrews Airbase to scramble any of its fighters for nearly two hours - the official 9/11 story of coincidence, surprise and cock-up begins to look less likely than some of the alternatives. (5)
But surely the post 9/11 war against Al Qaeda has produced a network of detainees, led by Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who have corroborated the official 9/11 story of a plot hatched in the caves of Afghanistan? Even the supine 911 Commission was disturbed by the CIA's refusal to allow them any contact with KSM or even his interrogators. As suspicions of systematic torture were confirmed in media leaks, the CIA illegally destroyed most of its own records, presumably to save its officers the worry of future prosecution. This ugly picture of detainees tortured into corroborating the official 9/11 story has been enhanced by another recent revelation from the Defence Department Inspector General: detainees were given truth drugs, or to put it in official language were drugged with powerful antipsychotic and other medications that “could impair an individual’s ability to provide accurate information". (6)
Last year's bombshell from the White House anti-terror czar at the time has produced a sequel. Richard Clarke has focused on the role of the CIA saying the then boss George Tenet must have known about the shocking unexplained decision to block three FBI field offices from acting against several 9/11 hijackers. Most researchers agree that the CIA's dedicated Osama Bin Laden Unit, kept secret until some years after 9/11, is the best place to start asking questions. Up to now they have focused on Bush favorite and torture advocate Cofer Black who oversaw the unit before moving on to make money as a principal in Blackwater, the mercenary company in Iraq.
Recently another CIA official has come into the frame: Black's deputy in the CIA's counter terror center, Enrique “Ricky” Prado. A book based on sources in the Miami Vice Squad describes Prado's apparent double life as CIA official and a member of Florida's Cuban mafia. The story was ignored by much of the mainstream media but carried in detail in Wired magazine, the Daily Beast and the UK's Daily Mail, which operates under stringent libel laws. (7)
When will the truth be known? Many agree that the planet's intelligence services probably already know. Iran's President Ahmedinajad's UN General Assembly speech calling for a new investigation into 9/11 was greeted with predictable outrage and the corporate media applauded when the NATO countries angrily walked out. But most countries did not walk out and with global opinion ever more sceptical as time goes by, this could prove a bad omen for Washington.
(1) In the UK a poll by ICM taken last year showed only seven percent were fully confident they had been told the whole story of the attacks, while in France a large minority thought the US government was involved in the attacks. Middle East experts as diverse as Alan Hart and Mohamed Heykal have both said that any Al Qaeda plot would have immediately been known to the many intelligence services who had agents in the ramshackle setup.
(2) http://www.journalof911studies.com/
(3) http://digwithin.net/2012/09/07/are-tall-buildings-safer/. Note: the media have featured someone claiming to be from the original engineers team who has said that planners never imagined a plane crash into the WTC but this is contradicted by the written record and there is scant evidence that this individual was in the role he claims.
(4) digitaljournal.com/article/332051
(5) http://shoestring911.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/why-were-us-intelligence-facilities-in.html
(6) http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/07/u-s-drugged-detainees-to-obtain-false-confessions.html
(7) http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/28/did-a-cia-agent-work-for-the-mob-excerpt-from-evan-wright-s-new-book.html
(8) For an interesting review of some of the questions raised see
http://www.WantToKnow.info/911/9-11_official_story_questions
(9) Fenton's book is "Disconnecting the Dots", published by Trine Day
(10) http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2012/09/18/piers-intv-jesse-ventura-911.cnn
Reinvestigate 9/11
www.reinvestigate911.org
info@reinvestigate911.org
http://www.youtube.com/user/reinvestigate911org
01273 326862 daytime
07946939217
We will support any new investigation of the 9/11 attacks so long as
*it is run by uncompromised people with a range of opinion including those inclined to disbelieve the official 9/11 story,
*it follows the evidence wherever it leads
if it takes place in the US to be credible it will need
*full legal authority to demand immediate access to any evidence and any witness it chooses
*the resources it requires to carry out its investigation
Reinvestigate 911 is supported by Coffee Plant ( www.coffee.uk.com) suppliers of organic and Fairtrade coffees to caterers and retail customers. Phone 0208 453 1144
Henshall comments that his article is a "roundup of new developments on the 9/11 issue" that is "designed to appeal to mainstream media consumers as well as the rest of us, not a very easy trick to pull off." He adds: "I will probably get one or two emails suggesting we blame Israel or asserting that the Towers were brought down with secret advanced weaponry. My response is that RI911 is not a news or a research site but a campaign that is doing its best to maintain a consensus over the key facts which sink the official story."
Also, he writes: "Please feel free to forward and post. Thanks for all the support, and please don't forget the Accountable Democracy conference on November 10 with Niels Harrit and Lars Schall on 9/11."
_______________________________________________
Reinvestigate911-l@reinvestigate911.org
To unsubscribe: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/options/reinvestigate911-l
the mainstream media
By Ian Henshall
www.reinvestigate911.org
As the annual 9/11 remembrance draws to a close, the world is as split as ever. Not so much over the Afghan and Iraq invasions, but between those who accept Washington's official 9/11 story and those who do not.
Under the mainstream media radar, the number of those who do not is steadily increasing, forming substantial majorities in places like Pakistan and Egypt and significant minorities even in NATO's heartland countries, France, the UK and the US itself. The issue is not whether, despite his denials, Osama Bin Laden might have wanted to organise the 9/11 attacks but whether Al Qaeda actually had the capability to infiltrate 19 terrorists into the US, including some very well known to the CIA. Not only that but, four turned out to be exceptionally skilled pilots with very little training. Up to the extraordinary coup of 9/11 Al Qaeda's biggest and most complex success was to set off two truck bombs in East Africa. [See footnote (1)]
The stereotype promoted by the corporate media of a 9/11 sceptic, a badly educated redneck watching Fox News in a trailer park, could hardly be further from the truth. The website Patriot's Question 9/11
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
lists hundreds of university professors, over a thousand architects and engineers and hundreds of aviation professionals who have spoken out against the official 9/11 story. (8)
The most significant expert may turn out to be Judge Ferdinando Imposimato, the widely respected honorary president of the Italian Supreme Court and legendary mafia hunter who lost his brother in a revenge attack. Imposimato has written to the Journal of 9/11 Studies announcing his intention to bring a case before the International Criminal Court citing key figures in the US administration for involvement in the execution of the 9/11 attacks. (2)
Imposimato's take has received indirect support from people close to the heart of Washington's power elite. Richard Clarke, White House anti-terror czar at the time, has confirmed what researcher Kevin Fenton has established based on a meticulous examination of recently released official reports. Someone at the top of the CIA "made a decision" to stand down the FBI and the CIA, allowing the alleged hijackers a free run in the US when they would otherwise have been arrested and the plot foiled. (9)
Meanwhile the 9/11 truth movement continues with a drip, drip of new research. This year we have seen nothing on the scale of the revelations of iron spheres and uncombusted nanothermite in the dust at Ground Zero, strong indicators that the Twin Towers' spectacular collapses on live TV were caused by something a lot hotter than diesel fuel fires. But there are significant developments nonetheless.
Scientist Kevin Ryan was fired from work some time ago after he went public saying his employer Underwriters Laboratories, the company which had certified the quality of the steel used in the World Trade Centre, was involved in creating fake computer simulations to help support the official story that the fires were sufficiently hot to cause the disastrous collapse of three skyscrapers. He has since been beavering away at various aspects of the 9/11 story.
This year Ryan has released an analysis of the changes that the 9/11 events have brought to the US building industry. If the official story is to be believed, 9/11 was an architectural and engineering disaster. Buildings expressly designed to withstand a high speed jet impact and subsequent fire failed spectacularly. This disaster should have led to an urgent and exhaustive inquiry with many action points for other buildings of the same construction. Instead, says Ryan, nothing like that happened. The US engineering community has acted as though it does not believe the official 9/11 story any more than the alleged conspiracy theorists in their trailer parks. (3)
Meanwhile the US Public Broadcasting System became the conduit for the latest film from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth: Explosive Evidence - The Experts Speak Out, with downloads nationally pushing Bill Clinton's Convention Speech into third place, an astonishing success for a topic the mainstream media as usual were entirely deaf to (4). The film has a section in which psychologists and counsellors explain why the media and sections of the public are so reluctant to doubt an official story that might, from another government, seem highly unlikely if not absurd. The reasons come down to trauma, belief in authority and a phenomenon psychologists call cognitive dissonance. For every trailer park dissident there are several other citizens with a very strong desire to believe in authority, especially after the terrifying circumstances and unprecedented media barrage of 9/11. Confronted with contradictory evidence some time later, such people suffer from painful cognitive dissonance and often resort to denial.
An example of cognitive dissonance occurred last week on CNN when Piers Morgan tried to dismiss Jesse Ventura, a maverick politician and broadcaster. Morgan clearly knew little about the issue and could only say the suggestion of an inside job was "preposterous". The studio audience applauded Ventura. (10)
Another 9/11 researcher who goes by the name of Shoestring has presented a very detailed analysis of the various emergency offices that failed on the morning of 9/11. Probably the most shocking was the FBI's emergency management office in Washington, designed to cope with up to five major emergencies at one time, which knew nothing more than the TV channels. In light of so much other bizarre activity - at the CIA, on the building investigation, the failure of Washington's Andrews Airbase to scramble any of its fighters for nearly two hours - the official 9/11 story of coincidence, surprise and cock-up begins to look less likely than some of the alternatives. (5)
But surely the post 9/11 war against Al Qaeda has produced a network of detainees, led by Khalid Sheik Mohammed, who have corroborated the official 9/11 story of a plot hatched in the caves of Afghanistan? Even the supine 911 Commission was disturbed by the CIA's refusal to allow them any contact with KSM or even his interrogators. As suspicions of systematic torture were confirmed in media leaks, the CIA illegally destroyed most of its own records, presumably to save its officers the worry of future prosecution. This ugly picture of detainees tortured into corroborating the official 9/11 story has been enhanced by another recent revelation from the Defence Department Inspector General: detainees were given truth drugs, or to put it in official language were drugged with powerful antipsychotic and other medications that “could impair an individual’s ability to provide accurate information". (6)
Last year's bombshell from the White House anti-terror czar at the time has produced a sequel. Richard Clarke has focused on the role of the CIA saying the then boss George Tenet must have known about the shocking unexplained decision to block three FBI field offices from acting against several 9/11 hijackers. Most researchers agree that the CIA's dedicated Osama Bin Laden Unit, kept secret until some years after 9/11, is the best place to start asking questions. Up to now they have focused on Bush favorite and torture advocate Cofer Black who oversaw the unit before moving on to make money as a principal in Blackwater, the mercenary company in Iraq.
Recently another CIA official has come into the frame: Black's deputy in the CIA's counter terror center, Enrique “Ricky” Prado. A book based on sources in the Miami Vice Squad describes Prado's apparent double life as CIA official and a member of Florida's Cuban mafia. The story was ignored by much of the mainstream media but carried in detail in Wired magazine, the Daily Beast and the UK's Daily Mail, which operates under stringent libel laws. (7)
When will the truth be known? Many agree that the planet's intelligence services probably already know. Iran's President Ahmedinajad's UN General Assembly speech calling for a new investigation into 9/11 was greeted with predictable outrage and the corporate media applauded when the NATO countries angrily walked out. But most countries did not walk out and with global opinion ever more sceptical as time goes by, this could prove a bad omen for Washington.
(1) In the UK a poll by ICM taken last year showed only seven percent were fully confident they had been told the whole story of the attacks, while in France a large minority thought the US government was involved in the attacks. Middle East experts as diverse as Alan Hart and Mohamed Heykal have both said that any Al Qaeda plot would have immediately been known to the many intelligence services who had agents in the ramshackle setup.
(2) http://www.journalof911studies.com/
(3) http://digwithin.net/2012/09/07/are-tall-buildings-safer/. Note: the media have featured someone claiming to be from the original engineers team who has said that planners never imagined a plane crash into the WTC but this is contradicted by the written record and there is scant evidence that this individual was in the role he claims.
(4) digitaljournal.com/article/332051
(5) http://shoestring911.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/why-were-us-intelligence-facilities-in.html
(6) http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2012/07/u-s-drugged-detainees-to-obtain-false-confessions.html
(7) http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/06/28/did-a-cia-agent-work-for-the-mob-excerpt-from-evan-wright-s-new-book.html
(8) For an interesting review of some of the questions raised see
http://www.WantToKnow.info/911/9-11_official_story_questions
(9) Fenton's book is "Disconnecting the Dots", published by Trine Day
(10) http://edition.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2012/09/18/piers-intv-jesse-ventura-911.cnn
Reinvestigate 9/11
www.reinvestigate911.org
info@reinvestigate911.org
http://www.youtube.com/user/reinvestigate911org
01273 326862 daytime
07946939217
We will support any new investigation of the 9/11 attacks so long as
*it is run by uncompromised people with a range of opinion including those inclined to disbelieve the official 9/11 story,
*it follows the evidence wherever it leads
if it takes place in the US to be credible it will need
*full legal authority to demand immediate access to any evidence and any witness it chooses
*the resources it requires to carry out its investigation
Reinvestigate 911 is supported by Coffee Plant ( www.coffee.uk.com) suppliers of organic and Fairtrade coffees to caterers and retail customers. Phone 0208 453 1144
Henshall comments that his article is a "roundup of new developments on the 9/11 issue" that is "designed to appeal to mainstream media consumers as well as the rest of us, not a very easy trick to pull off." He adds: "I will probably get one or two emails suggesting we blame Israel or asserting that the Towers were brought down with secret advanced weaponry. My response is that RI911 is not a news or a research site but a campaign that is doing its best to maintain a consensus over the key facts which sink the official story."
Also, he writes: "Please feel free to forward and post. Thanks for all the support, and please don't forget the Accountable Democracy conference on November 10 with Niels Harrit and Lars Schall on 9/11."
_______________________________________________
Reinvestigate911-l@reinvestigate911.org
To unsubscribe: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/cgi-bin/mailman/options/reinvestigate911-l
Wednesday, September 19, 2012
Homeland Security hides
9/11 hijacker documents
A freedom of information advocate has demanded anonymity, on grounds of not wishing to be associated with Newz from Limbo, long after the following material was published. Google honored his request to block the post without FIRST consulting this journalist. The original material appeared on a public journalism site with his byline, but with no copyright claim. That material has been rewritten in accord with journalistic norms.
More than 10 years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the Department of Homeland Security is still concealing important documents regarding one of the purported hijackers, according to data published on an Investigative Reporters and Editors site.
More than 10 years after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the Department of Homeland Security is still concealing important documents regarding one of the purported hijackers, according to data published on an Investigative Reporters and Editors site.
The U.S. immigration service, which falls under Homeland Security. admits to having documents on the alleged chief hijacker, Mohamed Atta, but refuses to let the public see them on grounds that to do so would interfere with an investigation -- even though the 9/11 commission closed its doors several years ago.
The source of this information, a freedom of information act advocate with a law degree, said in his communication that Homeland Security seems to be evading a presidential order on freedom of information act requests that provide for a presumption of openness.
The freedom of information advocate who demands anonymity says the following records are under wraps:
# A copy of Mohamed Atta's change of status application from a B-2
visitor visa to an M visa for foreign student pilots in 2000 or 2001.
# Copies of Atta's immigration service forms I-94, I-130,
# Copies of Atta's immigration service forms I-94, I-130,
I-131, I-129, I-539, including any I-20 forms noting
transfer of a B-2/B-1 visa.
# Copies of any applications Mohamed Atta filed for schools.
# Copies of passports issued to Atta, including a copy of applications for
# Copies of any applications Mohamed Atta filed for schools.
# Copies of passports issued to Atta, including a copy of applications for
the Conch Republic Passport.
No comments:
Post a Comment