Previous  1  2  3  4  Next

Here's a link to an MP3 of a recent lecture by David Ray Griffin, theologian and author of "The New Pearl Harbor." Originally posted at:<br />
<a href="http://www.911blogger.com/2006/03/dr-david-ray-griffin-at-grand-lake.html">www.911blogger.com/2006/03/dr-david-ray-griffin-at-grand-lake.html</a> <br />
<br />
9/11 - The Myth & The Reality'<br />
(2 hours - 27MB MP3)<br />
<br />
MP3 download here:<br />
<a href="http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/20060330_David_Ray_Griffin_32k.mp3">http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/20060330_David_Ray_Griffin_32k.mp3</a>

   

Give this a gander:<br />
<br />
FROM THE MOMENT the first airplane crashed into the World Trade Center on the morning of September 11, 2001, the world has asked one simple and compelling question: How could it happen?<br />
<br />
Three and a half years later, not everyone is convinced we know the truth. Go to Google.com, type in the search phrase "World Trade Center conspiracy" and you'll get links to an estimated 628,000 Web sites. More than 3000 books on 9/11 have been published; many of them reject the official consensus that hijackers associated with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda flew passenger planes into U.S. landmarks.<br />
<br />
Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia. Wild conspiracy tales are peddled daily on the Internet, talk radio and in other media. Blurry photos, quotes taken out of context and sketchy eyewitness accounts have inspired a slew of elaborate theories: The Pentagon was struck by a missile; the World Trade Center was razed by demolition-style bombs; Flight 93 was shot down by a mysterious white jet. As outlandish as these claims may sound, they are increasingly accepted abroad and among extremists here in the United States.<br />
<br />
To investigate 16 of the most prevalent claims made by conspiracy theorists, POPULAR MECHANICS assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.<br />
<br />
In the end, we were able to debunk each of these assertions with hard evidence and a healthy dose of common sense. We learned that a few theories are based on something as innocent as a reporting error on that chaotic day. Others are the byproducts of cynical imaginations that aim to inject suspicion and animosity into public debate. Only by confronting such poisonous claims with irrefutable facts can we understand what really happened on a day that is forever seared into world history.--THE EDITORS<br />
<br />
(read the whole thing at the link below)<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html">http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html</a>

   

Popular Mechanics? "poisonous" claims? unbiased?

   

I believe some crickets are chirping out of bordedom over at the Afghanistan article. I don't blame you for not replying however. You're out of your element.

   

""Healthy skepticism, it seems, has curdled into paranoia.""

Judging by the number of books it is more likely 9/11 has become a cash cow.
Some Americans will capitalize on anything, form t-shirts to tomes to tombs and anything in between.
Any followers of 9/11 debunked the article in P\M
Before the were 24 hours old.

I'd much rather give it the goose,
or the bird






---
Real education must ultimately be limited to men who insist on knowing, the rest is mere sheep-herding.
Ezra Pound

   

Nice try.<br />
<br />
Popular Mechanics Attacks Its<br />
"9/11 LIES" Straw Man<br />
by Jim Hoffman<br />
Version 1.2, February 9, 2005<br />
<br />
The Hearst-owned Popular Mechanics magazine takes aim at the 9/11 Truth Movement (without ever acknowledging it by that name) with a cover story in its March 2005 edition. Sandwiched between ads and features for monster trucks, NASCAR paraphernalia, and off-road racing are twelve dense and brilliantly designed pages purporting to debunk the myths of 9/11.<br />
<br />
The article's approach is to identify and attack a series of claims which it asserts represent the whole of 9/11 skepticism. It gives the false impression that these claims, several of which are clearly absurd, represent the breadth of challenges to the official account of the flights, the World Trade Center attack, and the Pentagon attack. Meanwhile it entirely ignores vast bodies of evidence showing that only insiders had the means, motive, and opportunity to carry out the attack.<br />
<br />
The article gives no hint of the put options on the targeted airlines, warnings received by government and corporate officials, complicit behavior by top officials, obstruction of justice by a much larger group, or obvious frauds in the official story. Instead it attacks a mere 16 claims of its choosing, which it asserts are the "most prevalent" among "conspiracy theorists." The claims are grouped into topics which cover some of the subjects central to the analysis of 9-11 Research. However, for each topic, the article presents specious claims to divert the reader from understanding the issue. For example, the three pages devoted to attacking the Twin Towers' demolition present three red-herring claims and avoid the dozens of points I feature in my presentations, such as the Twin Towers' Demolition.<br />
<br />
The article brackets its distortion of the issues highlighted by 9/11 skeptics with smears against the skeptics themselves, whom it dehumanizes and accuses of "disgracing the memories" of the victims.<br />
<br />
More important, it misrepresents skeptics' views by implying that the skeptics' community is an undifferentiated "army" that wholly embraces the article's sixteen "poisonous claims," which it asserts are "at the root of virtually every 9/11 alternative scenario." In fact much of the 9/11 truth community has been working to expose many of these claims as disinformation. <br />
<br />
Continued at:<br />
<a href="http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/">http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/</a><br />
<br />
The Hidden Hand Of The CIA<br />
911 And Popular Mechanics<br />
By Christopher Bollyn<br />
<br />
SNIP<br />
<br />
"DISINFORMATION AND DECEPTION"<br />
<br />
"Ninety-five percent of the work of intelligence agencies around the world is disinformation and deception," Andreas von B|low, former parliamentary official responsible for the budget for Germany's intelligence agencies, told American Free Press in December 2001.<br />
<br />
Like Nazi Germany of 1933, American newsstands today carry a mainstream magazine dedicated to pushing the government's truth of 9/11 while viciously smearing independent researchers as extremists who peddle fantasies and make poisonous claims.<br />
<br />
The magazine pushing the government's 9/11 propaganda, Popular Mechanics (PM), is published by the Hearst family. Its March cover story, Debunking 9/11 Lies, has been exposed by credible researchers to contain numerous distortions and flawed conclusions. American Free Press revealed that Benjamin Chertoff, the 25-year-old senior researcher who authored the 9/11 article, is related to Michael Chertoff, the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The PM article illustrates how a propaganda method, used by dictatorships, is now being employed by the U.S. government: controlling mainstream media outlets to promote its version of 9/11.<br />
<br />
The actions of Michael Chertoff concerning the events of 9/11, the non-investigation that followed, the USA PATRIOT Act, and the propaganda being disseminated in PM, are strikingly similar to actions attributed to the Nazi ministers Joseph Goebbels and Hermann Gvring.<br />
<br />
While Chertoff is the czar of DHS, he is not sovereign at PM or Hearst Magazines, its corporate parent. The president of Hearst Magazines, one of the world's largest publishers of monthly magazines with 18 U.S. titles and more than 100 international editions, is Cathleen P. Black, a 60-year old native of Chicago. Black oversees the publication of 175 titles around the world including Cosmopolitan, Harpers Bazaar, Town & Country, Esquire, Good Housekeeping, and Popular Mechanics.<br />
<br />
Black is a former president and publisher of USA Today. In 1983, Black was made president of the new newspaper published by Gannett. The following year she was made publisher and soon became a member of Gannetts board of directors.<br />
<br />
Despite her efforts, her biography reads, USA Today did not show an operating profit in the eight years that Black was there. The newspaper's non-profitability notwithstanding, Gannett paid Black $600,000 a year for her efforts. USA Today reportedly had a circulation of 1.8 million when Black left in 1991. USA Today is often given away free of charge.<br />
<br />
Black left USA Today to become president and chief executive of the nascent Newspaper Association of America (NAA), formed on June 1, 1992. She then became the leading spokesperson and lobbyist for the nation's newspaper industry. Black's position at the NAA carried "considerable political heft," Paul Farhi of The Washington Post wrote, "given that the 1,400 members of her organization control the nations editorial pages.<br />
<br />
In 1995, for an annual salary reported to be "in excess of $1 million," Black was hired by Hearst Corp. to head its magazine division. Named by Fortune magazine as one of the Most Powerful Women in American Business, Black sits on the boards of Hearst Corp., the Advertising Council, IBM, and Coca-Cola. She is also a member of the Council on Foreign Relations.<br />
<br />
It is often said that USA Today is controlled by the CIA, which, like the paper, is based in McLean, Virginia. The little-known fact that Black is married to Thomas E. Harvey, an obscure lawyer who became a White House Fellow in 1977 and served as special assistant to the Director of Central Intelligence (DCI), provides substance to these rumors. Black's corporate biography does not mention her husband.<br />
<br />
President Jimmy Carter made Harvey a White House Fellow in May 1977. "In that capacity," Harvey's biography reads, he "served as special assistant to the Director of the C.I.A. Following that he held senior appointed positions within the Department of Defense."<br />
<br />
The DCI at the time was Stansfield Turner, who had replaced George H.W. Bush.<br />
<br />
Prior to serving the CIA, Harvey worked at the New York law office of Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy. The international law firm, co-founded by Morris Hadley, a 1916 member of Yale University's secret society Skull & Bones, has ties to the CIA and lists William H. Webster, DCI from 1987-1991, as a senior partner. Webster also serves on the Homeland Security Advisory Council.<br />
<br />
In the 1980s, Harvey served as General Counsel and Congressional Liaison of the U.S. Information Agency, the former external propaganda arm of the U.S. government. Harvey also served as Deputy Assistant Secretary for the Army and Navy. In 1992, Harvey was personnel director for the Bush-Quayle 92 Campaign.<br />
<br />
Calls to the offices of Black and Harvey for the purpose of this article went unanswered.<br />
<br />
THE COUP AT POPULAR MECHANICS<br />
<br />
In the months leading up to the Chertoff article in PM, a brutal take-over occurred at the magazine. In September 2004, Joe Oldham, the magazines former editor-in-chief was replaced by James B. Meigs, who came to PM with a deputy, Jerry Beilinson, from National Geographic Adventure. In October, a new creative director replaced PMs 21-year veteran who was given ninety minutes to clear out of his office.<br />
<br />
A former senior editor at PM, who is forbidden from openly discussing the coup at PM, told AFP that the former creative director was abruptly told to leave and given severance pay of two weeks wages for every year spent at PM. Three or four people have been similarly dismissed every month since, he said. He said he was astounded that the coup at PM had not been reported in the mainstream media.<br />
<br />
PM has long been a supporter of the U.S. military. The magazine ran a full page ad in support of the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan in May 2003. Since the purge last September, however, PM readers have noticed that government propaganda has replaced scientific writing. A letter to the editor in the current issue says, I think you guys are just another tool in the governments propaganda machine.<br />
<br />
<a href="http://www.rense.com/general63/brutalpurgeofPMstaff.htm">http://www.rense.com/general63/brutalpurgeofPMstaff.htm</a>

   

"I believe some crickets are chirping out of bordedom over at the Afghanistan article. I don't blame you for not replying however. You're out of your element."

which begs the question, Which element are YOU in?

---
Real education must ultimately be limited to men who insist on knowing, the rest is mere sheep-herding.
Ezra Pound

   

Apparently I'm in Bizarro world.

   

Paul Martin is also an attendee of the Bilderberg meetings, and you can bet he knows it was an iside job as well.

I'm trying to pin it on harper, I am just saying that he will cover for the Neo-Cons more than Paul Martin/Cretien would have, because he is alligned with their ideology.

Don't get me wrong, the Liberals introduced that legislation, and they had to know form DAY ONE it was an iside job, just from what went down with NORAD.
It was a Canadian General in charge of NORAD that fateful day, and once he knew was was going on, he had the last plane shot down.
Of course he's not going to talk about it, National Security and all.

One day they will not be able to deny it anymore.

   

**I'm Not trying to pin it on Harper**
typo :p

   

You live in Bizzaro World, Armyguy lives in the REAL World... where does that leave us, the majority?

   

Yes, this board clearly represents the *majority* of people. Your delusion knows no bounds! Whatever - as I said - I'm done with the paranoid rantings of this thread.

Enjoy, and get well soon!

   

Defeated? Out of arguments? Can you say: Klptzyxm ?

   

didn't I humiliate you on the Afghanistan thread? Yes, I did. You posted that turd and you can't even defend it. Not a single person here has offered A SINGLE THING.

Bye bye, Ray. See you over on the Afghanistan thread. But probably not, since you've proven yourself a lame duck in that argument. Maybe the good folks at "Serendipity" can feed you some lines.

It's 5:00 on Friday and I'm cutting out.

Try to take some time tonight coming up with some semblance of an argument wrt Afghanistan. you might save some face. Doubtful, but certainly as possible as 9/11 being orchestrated for BIG OIL!

LOL.

   

Jeff, I challenge you to explain why the hole in the side of the Pentagon is SMALLER than the fuselage of the plane that alledged hit it.

I also challenge you to tell me how a 757's wingspan can magically shorten by over half, it's landing wheel hubs shrink by more than %50, and it's engines by 60%?

The physics does NOT support your contention.



---
"and the knowledge they fear is a weapon to be used against them"

"The Weapon" - Rush

   

Previous  1  2  3  4  Next