More Shenanigans at 911Blogger
http://911blogger.com/node/9083
There's a blog post by none other than Carol Brouillet, famous in the movement for creating the "Bush did it" deception dollars.
She links to a movie, Severe Visibility, about the Pentagon attack. The movie itself is apparently a no plane at the Pentagon movie. The main character is a military dude who was somewhere where he would have seen the plane but he did not in fact see the plane, and can't bring himself to tell the foreign journalist (no doubt alluding to Thierry Meyssan) what he saw or didn't see.
In comments, "Chris" takes the opportunity to rub the whole Pentagon thing in Arabesque's face, which I would normally find entertaining. I clicked on the trailer for SV and watched it. Over and over it flashed in big letters "9/11/01 9:41 AM" in typical Hollywood style.
The focus on that--the time--was curious, and made me wonder if the whole point of all this attention was not in fact to buttress the notion that that was the time that the attack on the Pentagon actually occured. From Barbara Honegger's account we know that one of the anomalies at the Pentagon is the two clocks that were both stopped, presumably as a result of the initial blast, at 9:32 a.m. or thereabouts, not 9:41.
Perhaps I am being unfairly distrustful of anyone who has NOT like me been banned from 911Blogger. But perhaps not. :)
Whaddyall think?
"From Barbara Honegger's
"From Barbara Honegger's account we know"
I'd say stop right there!
sorry, more research needed
I think she wrote it up somewhere, but the clocks story is, I think, well attested. Can you elaborate on why she should not be trusted?
____
â™
Real Truther
"Truth will have no gods before it.- The belief in truth begins with the doubt of all truths in which one has previously believed."
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)
she's the one
who wrote the article saying that al qaeda had a mole who found out about the war games or something like that, I think. I'm not saying the clock thing is wrong, just that I wouldn't base anything solely on her work. Sorry, that's all I got!
thanks, that's helpful!
I think this guy has it about right--he's one of the resources for the Pentagon that I link to... Not only does he do an admirable job of collecting the relevant images and claims, he presents them in such a way as to make clear that while he doubts the OCT version of what happened, he can't say that the available evidence points strongly in any particular direction, which I think he correctly attributes to the design of the deception. Here's what he says...
I have done my best here to present a reasonably comprehensive review of everything that has been offered up as 'evidence' of what happened at the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001. It is up to each of you, my fearless readers, to decide which aspects of that evidence is credible, and which is not.
So what did cause the damage to the Pentagon that morning? Did American Airlines Flight 77 - missing from radar screens for half an hour, and undetected by America's state-of-the-art air defense systems - suddenly and inexplicably appear in the skies over Washington? Did it then, after performing a high speed maneuver normally beyond the capabilities of a Boeing 757 (according to some witness accounts), begin a high speed approach to the Pentagon at such a ridiculously low altitude that it actually clipped a car antenna? Did it cleanly uproot five sturdy steel light poles, and smash one of its wings into a large generator, and yet still maintain an arrow-straight, perfectly stable approach to the Pentagon? And did it then strike the Pentagon with such tremendous force that it was able to cleanly blast through over 300 feet of angled, reinforced concrete obstructions? And did it do all of that without anyone documenting it with a single frame of film or videotape?
Or was it something else that hit the Pentagon? Can we even say with any certainty that something did hit the Pentagon? Was it all done with explosives planted inside, and possibly outside, the building? If so, then what toppled those light poles? Can we ever hope to find answers to all the unanswered questions concerning the Pentagon attack? Or is that a hurdle that has been constructed so as to make it impossible to clear?
http://www.davesweb.cnchost.com/nwsltr68.html
____
â™
Real Truther
"Truth will have no gods before it.- The belief in truth begins with the doubt of all truths in which one has previously believed."
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)
i should add
That I'm a tad confused as to why people make so much of the flight data recorder data allegedly from the FDR found at the Pentagon. First of all, it's just the data that poeple are citing--this could be from anything, not necessarily an actual FDR. Second, it seems to indicate that whatever flight it came from was flying too high to strike the Pentagon.
So... how can they (for instance the pilots for 911 truth) have it both ways? If it's authentic and was found in the Pentagon wreckage then why does it indicate a radically different flight pattern? If it's not genuine then what exactly is it worth as evidence, especially since it was offered up by the "authorities" whether through a FOIA or not? As a side note, and from someone who knows lots of people who work for the federal govt, a freedom of information request is only as reliable as the people who are holding the information you want (which should be obvious). Whether the info you are provided under the act is legit or not is not guaranteed in other words...
____
â™
Real Truther
"Truth will have no gods before it.- The belief in truth begins with the doubt of all truths in which one has previously believed."
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)
keep it coming
you're one of the few that keep it interesting. if you ever quit this movement, we're done. maybe i'm overestimating your importance, but you seem to be one of the few "Real" ones out there. then again, you could be setting up the rational crowd for something unseen...
i think the problem is
That the real ones are often cowed or just drowned out by the "popular" ones. I'm not the only real truther out there, that's not at all what the name is meant to imply--just ONE of them--I hope to GOD I'm not in such a tiny minority that my quitting would have a huge effect! thanks for the vote of confidence though, it means a lot!
____
â™
Real Truther
"Truth will have no gods before it.- The belief in truth begins with the doubt of all truths in which one has previously believed."
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)
I know Carol Brouillet, and my impression of her...
is that she is a sincere passionate human being. She has sacrificed a lot for her dedication to 9/11 truth and other activism over the last 5 years. She may have unwittingly allowed herself to be manipulated by certain people like Jim Hoffman into downplaying/avoiding issues like the Pentagon and Zionism, but her heart is in the right place and I am confident of that.
Incidently, in private conversations with her, she does not reject the idea of the Zionist connection, she just chooses not to bring it up when she is trying to wake new people up to 9/11 truth. I can't say I blame her for that. Especially for newbies fresh out of their Matrix Pods, I tend to give people a simplified version of 9/11 truth, and then only after they make it safely down that rabbit hole is when I might bring up the Zionist rabbit hole.
I have no gripe with Carol
herself. She does seem to me to be legit, though I can't say I know her well enough to say for sure. I do take issue with some of the choices made of sites to list on the deception dollars but I don't attribute that to sinister motives on her part. I like what Gore Vidal said recently, that he doesn't believe Bush pulled off 9/11 because it was beatifully executed or something like that.
Her role in promoting this film I also can't conclude is sinister, but it's an interesting development nonetheless. I also don't start off with the Zionist connection so that is something I can respect, but it is one thing to claim to be open to it and to be of the opinion that it is a strong case, of which I find myself in the latter camp!
____
â™
Real Truther
"Truth will have no gods before it.- The belief in truth begins with the doubt of all truths in which one has previously believed."
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)
we had a talk about this movie at our local meeting
carol agreed this director's background was a shade shady and we put off promoting it until we all saw it and maybe have a chance to talk to the guy
Panties in a bunch over DEW and DRG
...over at 911blogger, that is. DRG has signed off on or endorsed this?
""II. Overwhelming evidence exists that the collapses of the Twin Towers and Building 7 were instances of controlled demolition, and/or of the application of exotic weapons such as land-based, air-based or possible space-based Directed Energy Weapons (DEW). But al-Qaeda operatives could not have obtained the needed access to the buildings to plant the explosives and would not have ensured that the buildings come straight down. Nor could al-Qaeda operatives have obtained command and control of advanced Directed Energy Weapons, Microfusion devices (4th generation mini-nuclear weapons), bunker-busters, or other exotic weapons alternatives that are known to be in the deployment or testing phase in the US Defense arsenal. The controlled demolition and/or Directed Energy Weapons (DEW) or exotic weapons application, therefore, had to be the work of U.S. Government and other insiders. "
http://peaceinspace.blogs.com/911/2007/06/international_l.html"
really?
yikes, if true! part of the rehabilitation of Uncle Fetzer? Like why he was included in the zeitgeist film? But really, DRG is OK with this? I always found it funny that Kevin Barrett always stuck by Uncle Fetzer, but DRG?
____
â™
Real Truther
"Truth will have no gods before it.- The belief in truth begins with the doubt of all truths in which one has previously believed."
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)
...
Do you know who John Kaminski is? Someone told me he's an anti-Semite (of the Jew-hating variety) and that Sofia, of 911 Mysteries, has some connection to him.
Anyway, among the local leftie Truthers, there was some concern that DRG was rather blase about using both Eric Hufschmid and Chris Bollyn as sources, without qualification. (That would be to acknowledge Hufschmid's antipathy toward Jews, which is the unacceptable kind of anti-Semitism, and distinguish between same and his 9/11 work, and to note that Bollyn used to be associated with the American Free Press, which is noxiously right wing.) DRG also forged a close alliance with Sofia, he said -- and the 911weknow sites has both a lengthy interview with Hufschmid and the Kay Griggs interview prominently featured (this is the one where she blames everything on Nazi homosexuals.) Anyway, I'm concerned that DRG is oblivious about some of these issues, and therefore it wouldn't surprise me if he didn't fully appreciate the controversy around DEW.
it would be kinda hard to miss
"the controversy around DEW"
especially for a sharp guy like DRG
but he's still an active member at Fetzer's fake scholars so it makes sense
Oh really?
What's your point, anonymoid?
If you're talking to me
A) try hitting "reply" on the post you're replying to
B) don't get all icky about me being anonymous, I already reg'd a name and I'm waiting for approval
C) the point is pretty fucking obvious, no?
Gee, thanks for the advice.
Gee, thanks for the advice. You may have noticed that it's a lot easier to reply at the bottom of the thread by mistake here than at 911blogger. So fuck you :)
Why don't you sign your posts while you're waiting for approval? Without any context to put your remark into, the point is NOT obvious -- or to put it another way, as far as I know, you're Brainster, and I'm not going to waste any effort on a nuanced discussion of this with someone who might be a fucktard.
Anytime
Let me know if you need any more help.
The point is, DRG still promotes Fetzer, Wood and Reynolds by endorsing Fetzer's group via his ongoing membership. It doesn't seem that strange that he's now endorsing this new DEW trojan horse that's receiving such a huge promotional push these past few days. I do realize that DRG is some kind of untouchable truth god, even to the most skeptical of truthers!
Is DEW so out of the question?
I tend to agree with the theory that some sort of DEW was probably utilized in the destruction of the twin towers, along with other conventional explosives. There is some evidence that does not seem to be explainable by conventional demolition charges, or by thermate/thermite, but does seem to fit with DEW, such as:
- cars being melted that were up to a block away from the twin towers
- sudden atomizing/disintegration of the steel core in mid-air
- a very bright glow developing in a large area as the collapse progresses
- large pieces of the buildings being ejected in all directions, even upwards, and hundreds of feet outwards, being trailed by what appears to be atomizing/disintegrating steel
that evidence + huge black budgets and new advanced weapons + psychopaths always wanting to try out their new toys = high probability in my mind of DEW being utilized.
I think there are very good arguments against --
for example, there is one low-res video of the steel core "dustifying" (or so it appears to some people) but other perspectives make it look like it is falling down and leaving dust in its wake. So I'm far from convinced that sci-fi weapons even deserve consideration.
OTOH, I think people completely overreact to the fringe theories and the "damage" they may do to the movement.
The dust theory doesn't make sense to me
The mysterious shattering and disappearance of the upper ~30% of the core is strange enough, but the "spire" seems to be an even stranger anomaly. The "spire" stood for about 20 seconds after the debris cloud fell away from around it, swaying slightly without tipping over despite its height and lack of support. It then began to drop straight down in place, but after dropping only a little way it abruptly turned into dust in place, very much as the towers themselves did. Also, I don't see how so much dust could have clung to the spire after the rest of the building was so violently exploded away.
And, what about the rest of the evidence? Compare a conventionlal demolition, like building 7, to the destruction of the twin towers. How do you explain the huge difference in behavior, and the other anomalies I mentioned?
I don't know how to explain
I don't know how to explain the differences, but I wouldn't automatically jump to hypothetical weapons. Maybe the Towers were just explosive overkill.
I *don't* think the spires turn to dust. I think they give somewhere below and then fall straight down. They were just as likely to be covered with dust as the surrounding area.
As for cars, there is some photographic evidence that blobs of molten metal were expelled from the debris, probably undergoing thermite-type reactions even after being blown out. Steven Jones argues that thermite would cause the damage to the cars that was observed.
I tend to agree with cass
The "dustifying spire"is pretty clearly visible in hi res videos to be simply falling. Why the weird way? Maybe because at the base of the core there were portions that were molten? And of course when explosives go off in a building of which portions have been melted some of that molten material will be (and can be seen moreover) blown outwards.
Is it possible that DRG is either too gullible or too kindly to see the truth about some of the folks he associates with? Perhaps. Is it possible that he too is disinfo? Perhaps. Is it possible that Sofia is disinfo? Perhaps. I too find the linking to the Kay Griggs interview weird--I find that whole story to be quite fishy, not least because it has been promoted by Hufschmid.
Let's remember what is an apparent atctic here--certain individuals gaining credibility by revealing promising, true info and then veering off from the true path into pointless and quite possibly fradulent evidence. Hufschmid seems a pro at this, as does Alex Jones.
In the face of so much deception I think the only reasonable position to take is a skeptical one and one that tries to follow the path of most credibility and that is most self-consistent. Nothing can be beyond suspicion, but at the same time it's important to try to be as positive as possible and not simply resort to debunking everything that comes our way. Some of the things that are revealed are bound to be useful and as such our job should be to try to make as much sense as possible from the stream of "mostly disinfo" that seems to pour out of (or into?) the "truth movement".
____
â™
Real Truther
"Truth will have no gods before it.- The belief in truth begins with the doubt of all truths in which one has previously believed."
Friedrich Nietzsche (1844 - 1900)