11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Moderators: DrVolin, 82_28, Elvis, Jeff

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby MacCruiskeen » Tue Sep 11, 2018 7:13 pm

Thanks, Dr Evil and WR, and my apologies for not even googling his name myself. (It's late and I'm very tired is my only excuse.). You'd think what Mr M reported would be big news, and worth a serious investigation, but no, it just vanished into that capacious memory hole.

Reminds me: It was reported at least 15 years ago that a dozen or more high-ranking military/spook/ govt employees were advised not to fly that day. Media response? Nothing to see here, move on. And they wonder why newspapers are dying.

Goodnight.
User avatar
MacCruiskeen
 
Posts: 9312
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:47 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby conniption » Sun Sep 16, 2018 12:41 am

MacCruiskeen wrote:From Edward Curtin's review of Griffin & Woodworth's new book 9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation:

[...]

As a sociologist who teaches research methods and does much research, I find the Consensus Panel’s method exemplary and their findings accurate. They have unmasked a monstrous lie. It is so ironic that such serious scholars, who question and research 9/11, have been portrayed as irrational and ignorant “conspiracy theorists” by people whose thinking is magical, illogical, and pseudo-scientific in the extreme.

A review is no place to go into all the details of this book, but I will give a few examples of the acumen of the Panel’s findings.

As a grandson of a Deputy Chief of the New York Fire Department (343 firefighters died on 9/11), I find it particularly despicable that the government agency, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), that was charged with investigating the collapse of the Towers and Building 7, would claim that no one gave evidence of explosions in the Twin Towers, when it is documented by the fastidious researcher Graeme MacQueen, a member of The 9/11 Consensus Panel, that over 100 firefighters who were at the scene reported hearing explosions in the towers. One may follow end-note 22 to MacQueen’s research and his sources that are indisputable. There are recordings.

On a connected note, the official account claims that there were widespread infernos in the South Tower that prevented firefighters from ascending to the 78th floor. Such a claim would support the notion that the building could have collapsed as a result of fires caused by the plane crashing into the building. But as 9/11 Unmasked makes clear, radio tapes of firefighters ascending to the 78th floor and saying this was not so, prove that “there is incontrovertible evidence that the firefighter teams were communicating clearly with one another as they ascended WTC” and that there were no infernos to stop them, as they are recorded saying. They professionally went about their jobs trying to save people.

Then the South Tower collapsed and so many died. But it couldn’t have collapsed from “infernos” that didn’t exist. Only explosives could have brought it down.

A reader can thus pick up this book, check out that section, and use common sense and elementary logic to reach the same conclusion. And by reaching that conclusion and going no further in the book, the entire official story of 9/11 falls apart.

[...]

http://edwardcurtin.com/the-fakest-fake ... woodworth/


This I had never heard before:

Or one can delve further, let’s say by dipping into the official claim that a domestic airline attack on the Pentagon was not expected. Opening to page 78, the reader can learn that “NBC’s Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski was warned of the Pentagon attack by an intelligence officer,” who specified the illogical spot where the attack would happen shortly before it did. In Miklaszewski’s words, “And then he got very close to me, and, almost silent for a few seconds, he leaned in and said, ‘This attack was so well coordinated that if I were you, I would stay off the E Ring – where our NBC office was – the outer ring of the Pentagon for the rest of the day, because we’re next.’” The authors say correctly, “The intelligence officer’s apparent foreknowledge was unaccountably specific.” For if a terrorist were going to fly a plane into Pentagon, the most likely spot would be to dive into the roof where many people might be killed, including top brass and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld. To make an impossibly acrobatic maneuver to fly low into an outside wall would make no sense. And for the government to claim that this impossible maneuver was executed by the alleged hijacker Hani Hanjour, a man who according to documentation couldn’t even pilot a small plane, is absurd. But the intelligence officer knew what would happen, and the reader can learn this, and marvel.

http://edwardcurtin.com/the-fakest-fake ... woodworth/


Is NBC’s Pentagon correspondent Jim Miklaszewski still alive? Reachable for questioning? Not that anyone will bother trying, and in any case Mr Miklaszewski's memory will undoubtedly fail him if he knows what's good for his health.


~~~

off-guardian

Published on September 15, 2018

Amazon Censorship of 9/11 Unmasked

Edward Curtin

On September 11, 2018, I published a laudatory review of the new book, 9/11 Unmasked: An International Review Panel Investigation by David Ray Griffin and Elizabeth Woodworth. It is the definitive book on the defining event of the 21st century. The book concludes that the official version(s) of the attacks of 11 September 2001 are false. The review was subsequently reposted at many publications. There was great reader response and interest in the book, which was due for official release the next day, 11 September. My review provided a link to the book’s Amazon page that noted the 11 September availability date.

By the next day readers were responding in great number that the Amazon site was reporting the book was “out of print,” when in fact it had just been published. This “out of print” notification lasted until the evening of 13 September when it was changed to “in stock on September 30, 2018.”

By the following morning it was changed to “in stock on September 21, 2018,” only to be changed again between 11-12 PM on September 14 to “in stock on September 24, 2018,” where it remains as of noon on Saturday the 15th. It is unheard of for a book that has an official release date and that is available straight from the publisher to be listed as “out of print.” Amazon Canada continues to report that the book “has not yet been released.” And obviously, all the date changes that push the book’s availability back by weeks suggest a clear-cut effort by Amazon to make sure readers cannot obtain the book quickly and in a timely manner from the most popular source, if ever.

Will they soon announce that the book will never be available for national security considerations or because it violates Amazon’s “content guidelines”? The book’s publisher, Interlink Publishing, is selling the book now and says Amazon has the books. So why is Jeff Bezos’s company playing this game? His other major business, The Washington Post, (known as the CIA’s newspaper) is surely not going to review the book, nor would their editorial staff post encomiums to David Ray Griffin, Elizabeth Woodworth, their colleagues in this important research.

Readers should demand that Amazon immediately change their website and accept orders to be shipped today. Whether they are responsible for this game of chaotic discouragement or the intelligences services, who are fully capable of hacking into Amazon, as Edward Snowden has pointed out, I do not know. But something very odd is happening and Amazon should correct it.

https://off-guardian.org/2018/09/15/ama ... -unmasked/
conniption
 
Posts: 1760
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby Iamwhomiam » Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:35 am

[url]https://link.theplatform.com/s/7wvmTC/p5UKhaD_7_M4?format=redirect&format=redirect&Tracking=true&Embedded=true&formats=MPEG4[/url

https://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/watch/nbc-correspondent-reflects-on-9-11-523660355908

Listen carefully beginning 2:00 to 2:52 and again at 4:05 to 4:48.
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 5759
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby Wombaticus Rex » Sun Sep 16, 2018 11:12 am

As someone who has pre-ordered -- and purchase-stalked -- books on Amazon before, what Mr. Curtin describes is actually not uncommon. When you weigh his claims against the fact Amazon, right now, sells dozens of explosively unofficial books on that very subject ... it's probably just the usual publishing industry SNAFUs.
User avatar
Wombaticus Rex
 
Posts: 10178
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:33 pm
Location: Vermontistan
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: 11 Years After That Clear Blue Tuesday...

Postby conniption » Sun Sep 30, 2018 6:29 pm

off-guardian

Published on September 30, 2018
Comments 15
Reddit “Quarantines” 9/11 Truth Board

On Septemtber 27th Reddit went on a surge of what it calls “quarantining”. Quarantining, in Reddit parlance, is putting certain boards behind warning screens, essentially placing a barrier between the public and the information. Some boards affected by this were r/TheRedPill and r/FULLCOMMUNISM (a full list of quarantined boards is available here).

For the most part the boards are concerning political opinion – whether about gay marriage, religion or gender. Some of these boards are potentially racist (one is called “white pride”). The majority of these boards carry a warning along these lines:

Image

The 9/11 Truth board carries this warning:

Image

Note that:

1. The warning is not about offensive speech or possibly disturbing images, but about “misinformation”.

2. The warning suggests a government-run website as an alternative.

Reddit is basically admitting, in their own warning, that this information is not offensive and is not hate speech. Their only concern is that it may be “misinformation”. In which case some questions become paramount:

1. Who gets to decide what is “misinformation” and what isn’t?

2. Is “misinformation” defined simply by whether not you agree with the government or its sponsored spokes people?

3. Is it appropriate to categorize alleged “misinformation” alongside violence or hate speech?

4. On a scale of 1-10 how Orwellian does this look?

Feel free to discuss below.

https://off-guardian.org/2018/09/30/red ... uth-board/


~~~

Image

Published on September 30, 2018
Comments 7
A compilation of OffGuardian’s 17th anniversary 911 articles

https://off-guardian.org/2018/09/30/a-c ... -articles/
conniption
 
Posts: 1760
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2012 10:01 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Previous

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests