The indictment charging self-professed mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and four others was unsealed when US Attorney General Eric Holder referred the case to the Defense Department for military trials instead of trials at a US federal court in New York.

Holder said Sheikh Mohammed, Walid bin Attash, Ramzi Binalshibh, Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali and Mustapha Ahmed al-Hawsawi could have been prosecuted in federal court and blamed Congress for imposing measures blocking civilian trials of Guantanamo Bay inmates.

They will be tried in military courts in the US naval base in southeastern Cuba.

The now-public details show that the United States, nearly 10 years after hijackers flew planes into the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, reconstructed step by step the logistics of the five accused men.

They compiled bank transactions, flight records, visa applications, and dozens of telephone conversations to create the most comprehensive account of the chain of events before the attacks.

Implementation of the plan began in 1999, when Sheikh Mohammed (referred to as “KSM” by US officials) proposed to Osama bin Laden to use commercial airliners as missiles against US targets.

Until the last minute, according to the indictment, Sheikh Mohammed controlled the entire operation.

“From in or about December 1999, through in or about June 2000, Al-Qaeda selected operatives to pilot the airplanes to be hijacked and dispatched the operatives to the United States to obtain flight training and otherwise carry out the plot,” the indictment said.

Walid bin Attash, born in Saudi Arabia in 1979, traveled in first-class between Bangkok and Hong Kong, with a knife in his pocket “and approached the cockpit to test security measures.” He then took several other international flights, each time with his penknife undetected.

Meanwhile, Ramzi Binalshibh in Hamburg became friends with future hijacker Mohamed Atta. Binalshibh, a 38-year-old Yemeni, applied four times for a visa to the United States in 2000 but was denied each time.

So, at the request of KSM, Binalshibh became and intermediary between KSM and the future hijackers.

At the same time, from Dubai, KSM nephew Ali Abd al-Aziz Ali, of Pakistan, provided flight simulation software to the hijackers and began transferring money to US accounts. Between January and June 2000, US investigators pinpointed 35 telephone calls between him and the hijackers.

Mustapha Ahmed al-Hawsawi, a 42-year-old from Saudi Arabia, was accused of being the principal financier of the attacks.

Bank transfers were made in small amounts so as not to arouse suspicion and different names were used each time. Tens of thousands of dollars arrived in US accounts, including for Zacarias Moussaoui, who was involved in the plot but was arrested a month before the attacks.

In the United Arab Emirates, al-Hawsawi monitored the operations and discusses them with KSM.

Between July 9-16, 2001, Ramzi Binalshibh met with Mohamed Atta in Spain. The two men “discussed, among other aspects of the plot, potential targets for the hijacking attacks.”

On July 23, KSM filed a visa application for the United States which was refused. At the end of August, he told bin Laden of the date for the attacks.

Between September 4-10, the men made their way from the UAE to Pakistan.

Walid bin Attash was with bin Laden on September 11, after which the Al-Qaeda leader ordered him to Tora Bora in Afghanistan to prepare for an offensive.

The five men, all of whom were arrested in Pakistan, could face the death penalty if convicted.

One year after the attacks, Pakistani police arrested Binalshibh at a home in a chic Karachi suburb. He was alone and didn’t put up a fight.

In March 2003, al-Hawsawi and Sheikh Mohammed were picked up by Pakistani special forces in a raid in Rawalpindi.

The indictment said the two men were “at a safe house where they possessed false identification and materials related to Al-Qaeda and the planning and execution of the September 11, 2001, attacks.”

Bin Attash and al-Aziz Ali were arrested by Pakistani police in April 2003.

All five men disappeared into secret prisons until September 2006, when they reappeared at Guantanamo.

Sheikh Mohammed is known to have been “waterboarded” or subjected to simulated drowning 183 times during his years in US custody, a method widely recognized as torture.

After his arrest in 2003 he was handed over to American agents who held him in secret prisons before sending him to Guantanamo.

Sheikh Mohammed also claims to have personally beheaded US journalist Daniel Pearl in 2002 with his “blessed right hand” and to have helped in the 1993 World Trade Center bombing that killed six people.

The post US Reveals Evidence Against Alleged 9/11 Plotters appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

Here is an excerpt:

“There have, however, been other interested parties who looked at the available data and came to different conclusions. Researcher John Farmer concluded that there was indeed a defect in the file and that about 4 to 6 seconds of data was missing from the end. If this is true it would be easy to find a flight path which would permit the plane to descend and pull up safely. Despite this finding the adherents of the contrary theories have remained adamant that the plane flew over the building or could not have survived the final pull-up. They continue to maintain that the official account of the path of the plane, which necessarily includes impact with the Pentagon, is false. A number of analyses have been presented which indicate that there are elements of the official account of the attack on the Pentagon which are false but it is our purpose to show that the FDR data is not one of them.”

Many interested parties have discussed the issues related to this paper, but few have been willing to approach it with a thoughtful, objective manner and with attention to detail. As we have in the past, my co-editor Steve Jones and I call for a similarly thoughtful, objective and detailed response that addresses all the evidence. If such a response can be made, we would welcome it as a submission to the Journal of 9/11 Studies.

The post New Paper at The Journal of 9/11 Studies appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

My name is Russell Pickering. I spent approximately 4 years of my life seriously dedicated to understanding what happened at the Pentagon. I used to have the Pentagon Research website. When I decided to leave the 9/11 movement I handed it off to Cosmic Penguin. They let the domain lapse and now it is a purveyor of 9/11 books.

The reason I’ve decided to share some observations here is so that those of us with a pre-disposition to myopia might look up for a minute and assess the current social climate and its implications for near future events.

Many here are astute observers and certainly the majority of you carry credentials far beyond my GED, so, bear with me and just consider this message fairly. Most of you here are sincere Patriots with a deep regard for Truth. Some here are not so benevolent!

After meticulous and dedicated research, including a trip to DC as part of Loose Change’s research team, I can assure you with 100% certainty an aircraft impacted the Pentagon. This is just a physical fact – albeit a counterintuitive one.

So, how did this all start? The forces behind 9/11 realized very quickly after Meyssan’s initial book, and the fortuitous circumstance that for all practical purposes there was nothing indicating an aircraft struck the Pentagon, the option of leaving a void of data was the best tactic.

Let’s test this hypothesis in the real world. How many hours have brilliant people spent arguing this? How many words typed? How much energy and passion has been drained from creating an orderly presentation of 9/11 Truth to the American public? How many people have sickened of this wretched debate and quit contributing all together? How many hours of public awareness of WTC 7 and many much more obvious facts have been sacrificed? This list goes on and on and on.

You see? This plane/no-plane debate at the Pentagon is responsible for more division, destruction and disgusting behavior than any other 9/11 topic. It has deterred more of the general public from understanding the BIG PICTURE than any other aspect of 9/11. It has misdirected more passion and energy than any other 9/11 Truth topic. It has fueled the egos and delusions of a few to the point they can no longer be regarded as honestly caring anything about the uninformed American citizen. They just want to win the argument, support themselves financially and be the gatekeepers of Pentagon “truth”.

If I had it to do over again I wouldn’t spend one minute arguing this issue. Not one! As an example, I recently watched Jesse Ventura’s presentation on the Pentagon. Despite the fact he was drawn into a non-factual belief about there being no plane, his work will do more to stir the thoughts of the American people than the thousands of hours and millions of words exchanged over the last nine years regarding this matter.

The American public generally won’t take the time to sort the details in any case. However, the fact that something is amiss will fuel their doubt about 9/11 and the elements within our government that orchestrated it. This is what we need now, not a bunch of egomaniacs yakking at each other on the Internet. If you haven’t noticed there is a Revolution brewing. At various levels, and for a multiplicity of reasons, the dense fog of sleep is lifting from those we originally claimed to care about – the average Citizen.

We have 8 months now to capitalize upon this phenomenon as the 10th anniversary of 9/11 approaches. It will be THE OPPORTUNITY we’ve all been dreaming of! 10 years of lessons learned. 10 years to refine data. 10 years to amass informed specialists in various disciplines. 10 years for the government to show its true colors.

What will you do with your 8 months? If you haven’t noticed, the coupe starting with 9/11 is so far successful. The Constitution is eviscerated, the illegal occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan has become an obvious disaster and the U.S. is descending into Banker controlled fascism. The general public is finally starting to ask why.

What will your answer be?

Sincerely and with great hope,

Russell Pickering

The post My Pentagon Manifesto (In Retrospect) appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

“The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments.”

        Friedrich Nietzsche, German philosopher (1844 – 1900)

This article is a response to “Is Leading 9/11 Truth Site Working For The Other Side?”, credited to “staff writers” at the Rock Creek Free Press, November 2010 edition, available at: http://www.rockcreekfreepress.com/CreekV4No11-Web.pdf

The “leading 9/11 Truth site” being referred to is 911Blogger.com. The authors of the article critiqued here chose to remain anonymous, and the article’s title doesn’t lend itself to an easily pronounceable acronym. Therefore I will refer to the article’s authors, along with their vocal message board sympathizers and Barrie Zwicker, as The Complainers. We will abbreviate Citizen Investigation Team as “CIT” and their video National Security Alert as “NSA” (noting the irony).

I normally prefer the high ground when it comes to accusations regarding intentions. However, since the Complainers routinely impute sinister motives to their critics, the reader must consider whether that behavior is more consistent with an intention to support or subvert the overall agenda of the 9/11 Truth Movement.

Contents

The Complainers’ article, like NSA itself, is fraught with logical fallacies and intellectual dishonesty. Examples are discussed in the following sections:

A Running Ad Hominem…………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 2

A Key Exaggeration………………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 3

False Statements and Exaggerations………………………………………………………………………………………….. 4

“There was no [plane] wreckage at the Pentagon”…………………………………………………………………………… 4

“CIT came along and proved [that] the plane flew away”…………………………………………………………………… 7

“The leading 9/11 truth site is actively suppressing CIT’s evidence”…………………………………………………….. 8

“Zwicker is an expert on the subject of infiltration of social movements.”……………………………………………… 9

“Many well respected 9/11 truth activists and scholars have been banned from 911 blogger without

   explanation or cause”……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 9

Refusal to Acknowledge Rational Criticism and Respond to It Rationally……………………………………………… 10

Appeal to Popular Opinion………………………………………………………………………………………………………… 11

“Authorities Would Blame Controlled Demolition on Al Qaeda”…………………………………………………………… 11

A Severe Non Sequitur: Poor Political Analysis……………………………………………………………………………… 12

Deceptive Mentions of NSA “Endorsements” or Reviews………………………………………………………………….. 13

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………. 13

A Running Ad Hominem

Most of the article consists of a running ad hominem attack, accusing people who run one of the admittedly “leading” 9/11 Truth websites of wanting to cover up mass murder. The Complainers correctly state “it would be surprising if the perpetrators of 9/11 had not attempted to infiltrate and subvert the 9/11 truth movement”, but knowing this alone does not help to identify the infiltrators.  Sorting out the cast of characters requires close examination of the devilish details in order to distinguish among knavish infiltrators, simple fools, and sincere truth-seekers who have been fitted into a well-designed “snitch jacket” in the spirit of COINTELPRO.  The implicit assumption of the Complainers is that criticizing the investigative quality of CIT’s work is the same as working to cover up 9/11 – a manipulative appeal to emotion. The accusation of disloyalty echoes the McCarthyists and their modern-day brethren. It comes from the same playbook used by those who defend the illegal invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, for which 9/11 served as the pretext, by calling 9/11 activists “terrorist sympathizers.”

The Complainers drew warnings from 911Blogger moderators, for their vicious and divisive attacks on other researchers, the real cause of the banning of which the Complainers … complain. A moderator told them that this was one of the reasons that they were banned. Yet this explanation brought no humility or lessened outrage to the Complainers. Is their reaction simply an inability to see their own misbehavior as others see it, or something more? Does it perhaps come from the idea that the best defense is a good offense? (Readers with a well-developed sense of consistency will understand my indulgence in some questions regarding the Complainers’ intentions, given that they “went there” first.)

Whatever the reason, many comments supportive or critical of CIT/NSA that violated 911Blogger rules were allowed to stand because of the overwork that is endemic to the 9/11 truth movement. Whatever inconsistencies there might have been, in terms of who was allowed to get away with what, say little or nothing about the moderators’ intentions.

A Key Exaggeration

The Complainers write as though the evidence against a large airliner having flown into the Pentagon were strongly in their favor, and they make vastly exaggerated claims for the power and the clarity of that evidence. Jim Hoffman’s essay, The Pentagon No-757-Crash Theory: Booby Trap for 9/11 Skeptics, published in October 2004, finds that much of the evidence regarding what hit the Pentagon is inconclusive, and is incapable of being made much better than it is. Since the 9/11 Truth movement is working to uncover the truth about 9/11, against a backdrop of blatant lies that constitute an orchestrated coverup, it is important to deal very cautiously with facts.  Deviating from the official story carries a heavy burden of proof, especially in the mind of the public. Speculation lays us open to debunking. Speculation that appears outrageous, and is proved wrong, can paint the whole 9/11 Truth Movement with a broad brush as crazies. We could lose all the hard fought ground we have gained, rendering our solid accomplishments moot. On these grounds, the question of what hit the Pentagon is a self-defeating choice as the focus of any demand for a new investigation. In one of his later analyses Hoffman concludes that “[the] evidence comports with the crash of a Boeing 757.” He added that while “the evidence does not conclusively prove that the aircraft was a 757, much less that it was Flight 77”, “that lack of conclusiveness should not be surprising given the systematic suppression of evidence by authorities.” We need to be willing to let the official story stand unless the proof to the contrary is extremely solid.

For critiques of the deceptive tactics used by CIT, see:

    * Victoria Ashley, “To Con A Movement: Exposing CIT’s PentaCon ‘Magic Show’”

     * Chris Sarns, “Summary and Analysis of ‘National Security Alert’”

     * Shinki and Ed Paik Accounts vs. CIT Methods by Erik Larson

     * Dawn Vignola’s Account vs. CIT’s Methods by Erik Larson

Here are three essays and a shorter but very recent piece describing what the Pentagon evidence actually shows. They also contain explanations of the severe disadvantages of focusing publicly on the question of what hit the Pentagon, and the benefits of focusing on the evidence that many other key aspects of the official account of what happened at the Pentagon are demonstrably false:

     * Jim Hoffman, “The Pentagon Attack: What the Physical Evidence Shows”

     * Michael Green, “How They Get Away With It.”

     * Frank Legge, “What Hit the Pentagon? Misinformation and its Effect on the Credibility of 9/11 Truth”

     * Kevin Ryan, “A dozen questions about Flight 77 and the Pentagon that might lead to justice, and one that won’t”

False Statements and Exaggerations

 “There was no [plane] wreckage at the Pentagon”

It’s amazing that people who apparently consider themselves investigative journalists could make a statement like this. There are many pictures of plane wreckage at the Pentagon from 9/11:

Some people have argued that some of this wreckage did not come from a 757 (though that claim doesn’t withstand scrutiny; see http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/nodebris.html). But to claim that there was no plane wreckage is simply false – and the Complainers obviously should know that it’s false.

“CIT came along and proved [that] the plane flew away”

This is a laughably arrogant claim, considering the many trenchant criticisms of CIT’s methods and reasoning that remain unaddressed, let alone rebutted, many months after such criticisms were published and made known to CIT. Contrary to CIT’s marketing hype, only one witness, Roosevelt Roberts, claimed to have seen a plane fly away from the Pentagon soon after the explosion. CIT does not even describe Roberts’ testimony accurately. Roberts is not a witness to Flight 77 flying over the Pentagon through the explosion. He is a witness to what he considered to be a second plane (and which CIT considers the same plane) flying back in the same general direction from which Flight 77 came from. It is only a presumption (and a poorly founded one at that) on the part of CIT and the Complainers that the plane Roberts saw was the same plane that all the other witnesses saw flying toward the Pentagon from the west or southwest.

What are the chances that that presumption is correct? Virtually nil:

1. There would be no reason for the perpetrators to give all the witnesses on the west side of the Pentagon a chance to see the same plane flying back toward them after the explosion. In fact there would be every reason for them not to do that. Any flyover plane would have continued on, turning to the southeast toward Reagan National Airport, or otherwise remaining out of sight of witnesses who were intended to be fooled by the flight path and explosion.
2. If the perpetrators had made such a mistake in their plan, or in the execution of the plan, as to have the same plane fly back toward the west or southwest after the impact, many other witnesses besides Roberts would have reported it both to the mass media and to members of the 9/11 Truth movement. Obviously, even more people would have been paying attention to what was going on in the area – given that the Pentagon was in flames, for the first time in history – than were paying attention before the impact/explosion.
3. The interview with Roberts, of which CIT tries to make so much, was not conducted until many years after the highly politicized events of the day. Any investigator knows that witness statements are far less reliable under such conditions, regardless of whether there is any intent to deceive.

“The leading 9/11 truth site is actively suppressing CIT’s evidence”

It is somewhat bizarre for a successful DC-area alternative publication to complain that others are “suppressing evidence” that it has successfully been publishing to a substantial audience for more than a year. It is even more bizarre for the Complainers to choose as their target the managers of a website that provided extensive publicity to help get the Rock Creek Free Press off the ground, even though it allowed the new evidence regarding no-757 to be posted and discussed at length from the beginning.

Wikipedia defines “suppression of evidence” as a “term used in the United States legal system to describe the lawful or unlawful act of preventing evidence from being shown in a trial.” For the Complainers to accuse 911Blogger of “suppression of evidence” is another exaggeration, at best.

The Complainers’ article lauds the NSA DVD, which has surely been circulated to thousands of people. On top of that, thousands if not tens of thousands of comments have been published on various Internet message boards by the Complainers, ensuring that the 9/11 truth movement has had every opportunity to hear about their views.

To the extent that 911Blogger is now “suppressing” what CIT and its supporters submit as evidence, it is mostly because CIT and its supporters consistently violate the rules of civility at 911Blogger. A secondary reason is that most of the evidence and argument submitted in support of no-757 or flyover is poor and weak. No media outlet has any ethical obligation to publish material about which it holds these views. 

“Zwicker is an expert on the subject of infiltration of social movements.”

There is nothing in Zwicker’s published works or his Wikipedia biography that would support this claim. Zwicker has written extensively about how the media shuts out alternative points of view, but not about infiltration of social movements. Even if he had written such works, the argument presented is merely an argument from authority.

Regardless of the question of whether Zwicker should be considered an expert, here is something posted three years ago on 911Blogger and attributed without evidence to Zwicker by “Doughnut”:

…[W]hat’s needed is politically relevant education. Education about agents of all kinds, especially agents provocateurs, their history, who employs them, their tactics… While educating ourselves and others we can simultaneously actively combat agents of the state by refraining from engaging in the types of behaviour they employ to sow dissention: name-calling, rumour-mongering, insinuation. Especially specific name-calling. Refraining from this does not stifle vigorous discussion and debate…. (http://911blogger.com/node/11648)

How unfortunate that Zwicker has now endorsed a group that so regularly and thoroughly disregards this excellent advice. 

“Many well respected 9/11 truth activists and scholars have been banned from 911 blogger without explanation or cause”

There is no evidence to support this claim. The cause of any bannings has always been violation of the rules. It would be interesting to know who exactly “well respects” those who have been banned, besides their comrades who have also been banned or warned for the same reasons.

911Blogger has not violated anyone’s rights by warning, banning, or deleting posts. No one has the right to post there; membership and posting are privileges, not rights. 911Blogger’s admins do an excellent job of maintaining an environment of civil discussion. They have arguably defended the rights of those who have been defamed by aggressive members (whatever their position on the Pentagon).

People who refuse to behave themselves after several warnings or temporary bannings aren’t welcome at 911Blogger or at any moderated forum, no matter how much they may whine about it and blame others for the natural consequences of their incivility. If more forums rode herd on their members as 911Blogger’s admins do, the Internet would be a far more enjoyable and productive medium in which to engage in research and debate. 

Refusal to Acknowledge Rational Criticism and Respond to It Rationally

One of the hallmarks of crank science and propaganda is a refusal to engage in rational debate in response to rational criticism. The Complainers and CIT have mischaracterized criticisms of their methods and reasoning as “personal attacks,” while freely attacking the personal motives of their critics (snitch-jacketing them), and even threatening them. (It is easier to keep track of the different speakers in the passage below in the original, at http://arabesque911.blogspot.com/2007/11/cit-craig-ranke-aldo-marquis-and.html.

CIT research[er] Aldo Marquis describes “the ‘team’ that came out after to help reinforce [the ‘official story’]. ‘John Farmer’, ‘Arabesque’, and ‘Adam ‘Caustic Logic’ Larson’. There is not a doubt in my mind that we are dealing with ops here. I dare Adam Larson to provide a history and proof of his identity. I defy Arabesque to do the same. You can all laugh, but what they do is called ‘neutralization’. This is exactly what COINTEL, does…”

Craig Ranke has also insinuated that Caustic Logic “made a sad attempt to neutralize our info… and he’s a bad writer too.  It’s like he is a cointelpro flunkie but he keeps trying!” While Ranke says “neither [Arabesque or Caustic Logic] are smart enough to be actual cointelpro,” he contradicted himself elsewhere when he called Caustic Logic “a brainwashed minion of the Pickering/Hoffman/Arabasque [sic] squad  rather than a professional.” Ranke sums up his dismay that “people like the Frustrated Fraud have directed so much energy to spin and neutralization [sic] of the facts…”

…Aldo Marquis accused an entire online conspiracy theory forum of a conspiracy to manipulate their research:

“Craig, I told you. ATS [Above Top Secret Forum] is trying to control the information. This thread should not have been moved to our forum. Yet it was. I am not putting up with this spook operation at ATS.”…

… Eventually, the Loose Change Forum finally had enough of CIT:

    “It has been deemed necessary by the bulk of active admins of [the Loose Change] forum that Aldo Marquis and Craig Ranke CIT are no longer welcome here. The reasons for banning are as follows:

    – repeated behavior and threads/posts aimed at only causing trouble

    – ignoring of repeated warnings and suspensions

    – starting irrelevant threads in the pentagon section, even after previous ones were removed

    – unnecessary character assassination i.e. “stop seducing married women, Russ” or “go smoke another blunt, Dylan”

    – threatening Dylan that they were going to ‘expose’ him”…

… # Aldo Marquis: “People like you and Jim Hoffman are dangerous to the truth. You will calmly suggest irrational suggestions in order that you mold the mind of the reader.”

# Aldo Marquis: “…You are such a disgusting entity. Call him you coward. Call him… What does that have to do with all of them placing it on the north side, Disinfobesque? … You are a joke and we’re coming for you… Does one actually need to, you crackpot? The plane was on the north side. THAT is the smoking gun. Do you understand anonymous disinfo op? … You are pegged and a joke. You are a tool for the unitiated [sic] and unresearched. You peddle day dreams for these idiots who bought into the honey pot theory or LIHOP. Yet, you are simply that, an anonymous blogger who has never interviewed witnesses, victims, rescuers, firefighters. You’ve never even set foot in Arlington, huh? You make me sick.”

# Aldo Marquis: “You screwed everybody. You didn’t do your homework. You made a movie that got heavily debunked and yet you CONTINUED TO SELL IT!!!!! You should be ashamed of yourself. Now you are releasing watered down version which now makes you and everybody who supported you look like fools. I actually back up my accusations with facts, research, evidence, and logic Dylan. That’s not your department.”

For general background on how propagandists manipulate public opinion generally and with regard to 9/11, see:

Enforcing Mediocrity (http://911review.com/denial/bigtent.html)

Personal Attacks (http://911review.com/disinfo/intimidation.html)

Stigmatizing Critique (http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/911mysteries/conflating.html) 

Appeal to Popular Opinion

Another fallacy in which the Complainers indulge is the appeal to popular opinion:

   In the 9/11 truth community, even among those who are not familiar with CIT, the general consensus is that no plane hit the Pentagon….

   [Barrie Zwicker:] Most people in the truth movement that I talk to in the real world are agreed that no plane hit the Pentagon.

Even if these claims are true, so what? Most people in the 9/11 Truth movement are far from having the time and skill to be excellent researchers and to be able to draw reasonable conclusions from ambiguous, hotly contested and often incorrectly stated evidence. Even on far less contentious questions, majorities are often wrong about facts and the conclusions those facts support. Survey after survey show embarrassing levels of ignorance among Americans about history, geography, and especially science.

Note also Zwicker’s swipe at the people who believe it’s more likely that a plane did hit the Pentagon, implying that they are not living in the real world – another ad hominem attack.

 “Authorities Would Blame Controlled Demolition on Al Qaeda”

I credit the Complainers for explicitly stating why they think no-757 at the Pentagon “is in a class by itself”:

“It may be possible to convince the American public that al Qaeda placed bombs in the World  Trade Center towers, but the public will never believe, (nor should they) that al Qaeda planted bombs in the Pentagon.”

How exactly is the first possibility any more reasonable than the second? What are the chances that the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center would ever be admitted by authorities, with the new detail of blaming that demolition on al Qaeda – with broad success?

There is no question of authorities ever blaming any major aspect of the 9/11 attack on anyone other than the official perpetrators. If this is really the Complainers’ reason for considering no-757 to be more valuable in our 9/11 truth efforts than the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, this only provides another example of their poor skills in political analysis.

 A Severe Non Sequitur: Poor Political Analysis

“Evidence of an elaborate deception at the Pentagon is iron clad proof of complicity at the highest levels of government”

In itself, this statement is indisputably true. However, by no means does it follow that we must promote every claim of elaborate deception at the Pentagon regardless of how strongly it is supported by the evidence. It is easy to show that there has been “an elaborate deception involving the Pentagon” without engaging in the factually questionable and emotionally provocative denial that Flight 77 was the attack aircraft:

• That any plane was able to hit the Pentagon without even being intercepted by fighter jets (not the same as being shot down; but see the last point here).
• That the incompetent pilot Hani Hanjour executed a tight maneuver with military precision in a passenger jetliner.
• The failure to target the top brass’s offices in favor of the recently reinforced, barely occupied section. That section housed accountants who might have detected and exposed “off-the-books” spending of some of the missing $2.3 trillion, and the Office of Naval Intelligence, which might have been “out of the loop” of responsibility for the attack while other government employees and contractors were in on it.
• Cheney’s order not to shoot down the airliner approaching the Pentagon – the “order that still stood.”

Wouldn’t undisputed facts that undermine the official story – or elements of the official story that are inconsistent with each other – be the best evidence for generating a new investigation? Instead, the Complainers keep insisting that we all focus on the most hotly disputed question in the entire 9/11 Truth movement. If people who have already taken the Red Pill and agree that 9/11 was an inside job cannot agree on a specific major element of what really happened, what reason is there to expect this element of our alternative account to convince people who are still in the Matrix? What does the screeching emphasis by the Complainers on a hotly debated point indicate about their skills in political analysis, if not their intentions?

Deceptive Mentions of NSA “Endorsements” or Reviews

The Complainers continue to refer to a brief review of CIT’s NSA video by Richard Gage as an “endorsement,” but they never (to my knowledge) mention that Gage subsequently clarified that he did not endorse the flyover theory, which is the entire point of the video:

http://911blogger.com/node/22029

In fact, neither Gage’s original review nor his explicit clarification agree with any of the conclusions presented in the video. Gage is a naturally friendly person who does not always express disagreement.

Peter Dale Scott also explicitly clarified that he does not endorse “flyover”:

http://citwatch.blogspot.com/2009/08/peter-dale-scott-clarifies.html

Conclusion

The Complainers’ fallacies, confusion of facts with conclusions, absurdly improper emphasis on a controversial issue, and various forms of emotional manipulation have gone on long enough. We call upon them all, one more time, to retract and stop their personal attacks, stop rehashing the same arguments, and start taking a scientific and legal approach. Until they do that, and much more conclusive evidence regarding the Pentagon is released than has been released so far, the evidence for the controlled demolition of World Trade Center Building 7 and the Twin Towers will remain the centerpieces of a rational call for a real 9/11 investigation.

The post “Debating” by Exaggeration, Namecalling and Threats appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.

There are many questions to be answered about the events at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Here are a dozen such questions that, if answered, might help to bring about justice.

1. Exactly how was Flight 77 hijacked, considering, among other things, that the alleged hijackers were said to be identified as security risks (possibly linked to al Qaeda) when they tried to board, and were not physically imposing (all 5 and a half feet tall or less, and slender in build)?[1]

2. How was the nation’s air defense system disabled on 9/11, and how could anything have hit the Pentagon approximately 80 minutes after the first plane was known to be hijacked?

3. Why was Dick Cheney tracking Flight 77?[2]

4. Why were explosive experts, who had a history of covering-up the OKC bombing and have since been accused of obstructing other investigations, hired to write the FEMA report? (Mete Sozen and Paul Mlakar).[3],[4]

5. Why did the roof of the Pentagon collapse 30 minutes after impact, giving additional evidence for the use of explosives? Note: The use of explosives at the Pentagon seems to be in agreement with the use of a large plane, which would have had little penetrating power.

6. Why was AMEC, the company that had just finished refurbishing Wedge 1 of the Pentagon, hired to lead the clean-up effort at Ground Zero?[5]

7. Why did the NTSB not make public reports on any of the planes as is the normal procedure?[6]

8. Why did none of the planes squawk the hijack code?

9. Why was the official explanation for alleged phone calls made by Flight 77 passenger Barbara Olsen changed several times, and ultimately how could Ted Olsen’s story make any sense?[7]

10. Why did high-ranking Pentagon officials cancel travel plans for the morning of September 11 “…apparently because of security concerns.”?[8]

11. How could Hani Hanjour still have successfully piloted Flight 77 given his poor qualifications?[9]

12. Why are those interested in The Pentagon not intently reviewing documents released by the FAA and 9/11 Commission that reveal startling questions about the aircraft and events of that day?[10]

Why are these questions NOT being pursued by independent investigators? That’s because the attention of many potential investigators has been hijacked by the much less useful question of “What hit the Pentagon.” This is certainly the favorite subject of intentional disruptors and official story supporters.

A great example was when 9/11 Commission staffer Miles Kara and I exchanged messages a few months ago. He had written to my local group in an inquiry seeking support for his positions. My response was apparently not to his liking, and he therefore sought something in my own work that could be criticized. Despite the fact that the vast majority of my 9/11 work has centered on the World Trade Center, Army intelligence officer Kara searched through my articles and presentations over the last seven years and chose one minor statement I made about the Pentagon, in March 2006. He then enlarged this into his own emotional statement, suggesting that those who question what hit the Pentagon do “a disservice to the men, women and children who died there that day. Visit the Pentagon Memorial and sit on the bench of the youngest victim.“[11] Kara was most interested in discussing what hit the Pentagon only so that he could turn the issue into an emotional question about the victims. That is usually the case with mainstream media hit pieces, and with intentional disruptors as well.

The question of what hit the Pentagon leads directly to the question of what happened to the passengers, as Miles Kara was trying to insinuate. That fact was also emphasized by the leading promoter of the “fly-over” theory when he gave a presentation in Europe recently. His presentation ended with the questions he really wanted us to think about.

“Demand answers to the question of what happened to the people on the plane.”

“How did they really die?”

“Where they killed them, how they killed them, I can’t know.”

“I can only know what the witnesses tell me.”[12]

Is this a good way to encourage people to question 9/11, and to bring justice? Obviously not.

Finally, note that “endorsements” are a good way to pit people against each other, and that’s exactly what has been done. There has never been another issue in the truth movement that has required the pursuit of endorsements but, for some reason, this least important question about the Pentagon is promoted as an important issue requiring us to divide into camps. Divide and conquer is the strategy of the intentional disruptor.

In other words, what hit the Pentagon does not bring us closer to justice but actually brings us farther from that goal because it exacerbates the divisions within the truth movement while we waste time. That’s probably why the intentional disruptors and government supporters always drive the conversations to that one question.

People who are serious about 9/11 truth and justice focus on the facts that help us come not only to truth, but to a useful truth. We should make only minimal reference to any facts that do not help us achieve truth and justice. Instead, we should make note that what hit the Pentagon, for example, is a minor and nearly useless issue that is used by intentional disruptors and official story promoters as they work to keep the truth from being exposed.
______________________________________________________________________

[1] Complete 911 Timeline, American Airlines Flight 77, http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&day_of_9/11=aa77

[2] Norman Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission makes clear that Dick Cheney was tracking Flight 77 while it was more than 50 miles away from Washington DC. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y

[3] Mete Sozen has since become a leading spokesman for the official story about the WTC as well. For more about him, see my articles “Looking for Truth in Credentials: The Peculiar WTC ‘Experts’”, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=RYA20070313&articleId=5071 and “Finally, an apology from the National Geographic Channel”, http://911blogger.com/news/2009-08-22/finally-apology-national-geographic-channel

[4] Some very seriouis accusations have been made against Paul Mlakar by Prof. Raymond B. Seed of the University of California, Berkeley, Letter entitled Re: New Orleans, Hurricane Katrina, And the Soul of the Profession, October 30, 2007, http://911blogger.com/news/2010-10-15/pentagon-investigation-leader-paul-mlakar-obstructed-investigation-new-orleans-according-uc-berkeley-professor

[5] Kevin R. Ryan, Demolition Access to the WTC Towers: Part Four – Cleanup, 911Review.com, February 11, 2010, http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p4.html

[6] 911Research.com, NTSB Reports: Long-Hidden NTSB Reports Contain Flight Data, http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/evidence/ntsb.html

[7] David Ray Griffin, Ted Olson’s Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials, GlobalResearch.ca, April 1, 2008, http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514

[8] The Family Steering Committee for an Independent 9/11 Commission, http://www.911independentcommission.org/

[9] Complete 911 Timeline, Hani Hanjour, http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&the_alleged_9/11_hijackers=haniHanjour

[10] See the FOIA responses obtained by the 9/11 Working Group of Bloomington,

http://www.911workinggroup.org/

Also see the documents released by the 911 Commission,

http://archives.gov/legislative/research/9-11/commission-memoranda.html

Here’s an example:

UAL and AAL employees: Contradictions about transponders. ACARS data missing. UAL had radar continuity.

http://media.nara.gov/9-11/MFR/t-0148-911MFR-01098.pdf

Many of the documents are just cover pages saying the information is still “Restricted”. These include interviews of the CIA agents, Prince Bandar, and the first responders.

[11] Miles Kara, Archive for the ‘Bloomington Group’ Category, 9/11 Revisited website, http://www.oredigger61.org/?cat=25

[12] Parody video of CIT tour and presentation in which, at 02:18, the speaker tells his French audience the reasons why CIT is working so hard. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sx0tFvlQ2F0&feature=player_embedded

The post A Dozen Questions About Flight 77 and the Pentagon appeared first on 9/11 Truth News.