To Anonymous,
When mentioning Helen Thomas's apparent acceptance of the official 9/11 story, I could not, of course, include mention of all the research that has been done which demonstrates that the official story is largely baseless, and that the Commission was, virtually, a rubber-stamp operation.
You are entitled to think what you like, but I do not follow other people's theories, I follow that facts, and here is something that cannot be explained in any way, other than the true facts about 9/11 were covered up, right from the start. If that is not a conspiracy to suppress the truth about what turned out to be the defining moment of the 21st century, then I do not know what a conspiracy is.
A Little Known Fact About the 9/11 Planes
by Anthony Lawson
Extract: ...it would be a remarkable irony, and quite possibly a unique circumstance in the annals of American jurisprudence, if the assumptions used as reasons for launching wars against two sovereign nations, as well as the more generalised 'War on Terror' would not stand up as evidence in either a criminal prosecution or a civil damages suit in an American court of law.
It is not a theory but a fact—one that is well known within the 9/11 truth movement—that the 9/11 Commission failed to ensure that at least one of the appropriate government agencies: the NTSB, the FBI or the FAA was commissioned to positively identify the aircraft which were allegedly involved in the murders of nearly 3,000 people, on September 11, 2001.
One does not need to be a Harvard Law School graduate to know that the first and most important requirement in any murder investigation is to determine the cause of death, which often leads to a requirement to identify, and trace to its origins, a murder weapon, or, in the case of 9/11: weapons. And there can be no doubt that each of the four planes which were allegedly hijacked on the morning 9/11 was posited as being a murder weapon, by the U.S. administration and the 9/11 Commission, yet there is absolutely nothing which firmly connects the four allegedly-hijacked planes to any of the 9/11 crash sites.
In fact it is not fanciful to suggest that if a lawyer, even of a far lower calibre than that of an Alan Dershowitz, were engaged to defend the airport security companies that allegedly allowed 19 box-cutter-carrying Arabs to get onto those planes, he would immediately call for the dismissal of such an action on the grounds that the planes which allegedly hit the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and the one which crashed near Shanksville had never been forensically identified as the planes which, allegedly, had been hijacked that morning.
And such a motion could not possibly be denied, as I will explain.
The planes in question were alleged to have been: American Airlines flight 11 (Tail Number: N334AA), North Tower; United Airlines flight 175 (N612UA), South Tower; American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA), the Pentagon, and United Airlines flight 93 (N591UA), which supposedly crashed near Shanksville, Pennsylvania. But the truth is that they could well have been different planes that had arrived on the scenes from quite different locations, because the crash debris recovered from those four crash sites has never been forensically linked to the planes that allegedly took off from Logan International, Boston; Dulles International, Washington and Newark International, New Jersey, and which were, allegedly, hijacked shortly thereafter. Therefore they cannot possibly be linked, without a reasonable doubt, to breaches of security at those airports.
So, it would be a remarkable irony, and quite possibly a unique circumstance in the annals of American jurisprudence, if the assumptions used as reasons for launching wars against two sovereign nations, as well as the more generalised 'War on Terror' would not stand up as evidence in either a criminal prosecution or a civil damages suit in an American court of law.
Air-crash investigations in the United States are normally carried out by the NTSB's air accident investigation division, and there are several documentary television series featuring this government agency's painstaking approach when investigating the causes of air crashes. During many such investigations, serial numbers from recovered parts are cross checked with the airline-in-question's purchase and maintenance records, to try and identify the reason for an accident, when it is suspected that mechanical failure may have been the cause.
However the NTSB has confirmed that—apparently for the first time from its inception, in 1967, since when it has investigated more than 124,000 other aviation accidents—it took no part in investigating any of the air crashes which occurred on September 11, 2001. So the world has been asked to take it on faith and hearsay that the four planes involved were normal scheduled flights which were hijacked by Arab terrorists, some of whom, are, allegedly, still alive.
Even more disturbing is the fact that documentation exists, and is available on the Internet, which indicates that the FBI, backed up by a separate letter from the Justice Department has refused to release any information, under the Freedom of Information Act, about any debris recovered from the crash sites, including the serial number of the "Black Box" Cockpit Flight Data Recorder allegedly found near the alleged crash site of United Airlines Flight 93. It may be recalled that a transcript taken from this recorder formed the basis for several TV dramas and one Academy-Award winning feature film.
By no means finally, but just as disturbing, the core of a jet engine, which can been seen in several 9/11 videos falling out of the northern face of the WTC's South Tower, and which hit a building on its way down, and was photographed and videoed—in the presence of FBI personnel and at least one FBI vehicle—where it came to rest at the junction of Church and Murray streets, was later photographed, prior to its burial in a land fill on Staten Island. So much for what murder investigators are usually so concerned about: The chain of custody and preservation of important evidence, pending its identification.
The events of 9/11 had consequences far beyond the destruction of life and property in the United States; they were the reasons for the launching of three wars. Yet it is obvious that a leader writer of an influential newspaper, the Washington Post, could not spare the time to look into such a serious matter—one that people with far fewer resources than he or she has access to have managed to do—before launching a scathing attack on a member of the Japanese parliament and the world-wide 9/11 truth movement, in general.
Just because the 9/11 Commission did not do its job properly is no excuse for newspaper writers not to do theirs. Unless, of course, newspapers such as the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times are playing a conscious role in a conspiracy to prevent the truth about these events from surfacing. In which case their editors and owners would almost certainly be guilty of misprision of felony.
I would like to stress that the identity of the planes is not the only reason why the 9/11 Commission's findings should be regarded as invalid, and its members found guilty, at the very least, of gross oversights in the collection of the evidence which was used in the writing of its Final Report. Even a cursory look at the visual evidence of the collapsing World Trade Center's Twin Towers and WTC 7 should have instilled grave doubts about the findings of some of the experts from the National Institute of Standards and Technology, NIST.
But, for my money, the real smoking guns were, and still are, the four aircraft that were used as weapons on that terrible day, and for them not to have been identified breaks every rule in any book which seeks to teach the art of solving crimes.
Anthony Lawson
Engine pictures:
http://www.rense.
June 18 , 2010
Anthony
I've been highly involved in the fight to expose "Holocaust" lies for over 21 years –and I'm 34 years old. I am skeptical of the Holocaust for many of the same reasons I'm skeptical of the increasingly /religious/ dogma that the United States government orchestrated the 9-11 attacks. Both stories amount to 'belief systems' by virtue of their status as so internally contradictory that a sort of blind faith is required to avoid apostasy. The promoters of both conspiracy theories descend into a vicious, rabid mania, almost screeching for blood the moment any heretic doubts the least of their claims. Both conspiracy theories rely heavily on the logical fallacy know as Argument From Authority: lists of names of experts who agree with at least one aspect of the theory (though promoters of both faiths hysterically rub these lists in the faces of any heretic who dares to take exception with /any single aspect/ of either faith, regardless of whether the authorities they use as a crutch believe that particular sub-theory or not). Devotees of both faiths include vast numbers of utterly unqualified laypersons to whom even the most inconclusive, problematic explanations of the physics of their respective theories constitute the FINAL word, such that any reviewer interested in so much as refining the theory through critique should be immediately burned at the stake.
I have rarely been impressed with the endless string of videos my friends have expected would convert me to their religion once and for all. What is plainly clear, however, is that the events did not unfold as the government or the media barons state. Some major questions need answering, but a better understanding of the nature of the relationship between the government and the ruling class (the highly disparate but also relatively unified transnational Jewish nation, most crucially their media barons) happens to be infinitely more congruent with the likely scenario as evidenced by all data, including the silly videos and reports produced by either the federal government or the "Truth" movement and its many clueless Hollywood devotees. I wish I could say that both sides' accounts were equally silly in my eyes.
In any event, my words are unlikely to influence anybody so much as they will enrage the faithful. Because I wish devotees of the "Truth" faith well, and would like nothing more than to see them push the public closer to some reality here or there, I would advise them to consider a few concepts as they proceed to alienate friends, family, and those sympathetic to our real emergency:
(1) The reasons even the world's top scientists still engage in operations called "experiments" is that even these earthly gods of academia-accredited omniscience can never be certain of the outcome of any sequence of movements in a (far more complex than "truthers" or "Holocaust survivors," ie, all Jews, understand) multi-variable physical system. For example: every steel building is different, and the argument that a B-25D crashing into the Empire State building without causing it to collapse means that the twin towers could not have collapsed without the advance placement of explosive charges makes one look as silly to an educated student of skepticism as it makes one look impressive to any halfwit who merely "wants to believe."
(2) One should do as the government does when it carries out naughty business a'la selling crack to blacks in Los Angeles: KEEP IT SIMPLE. By the principle of Occam's Razor, gravitate toward the explanation that requires the least assumptions, refute it and move up an assumption notch until a workable, plausible theory is reached that is not internally contradictory and (crucially) vulnerable to flaws by virtue of far-fetched or impossible necessary conditions of the assumption. For example: If, hypothetically, every single aspect of the "Truth" faith were true MINUS the advance placement of explosive charges in the twin towers, wouldn't that be sufficient to serve the evil regime's interests? The US would have embarked on CLEAN BREAK whether or not the towers collapsed. Why would it instead risk the disaster to unfold if a single remorseful demolition operative walked into a Belarussian media outlet tomorrow with incontrovertible proof and the story of the century? You only understand my point here if you see that evoking some other, utterly convincing evidence of controlled implosion would be completely irrelevant to my point.
(3) One should not repeat with certainty what he has heard from others without knowing for sure what HE is talking about. Doing so in the context of an aside, if easily disproved, can discredit one's entire faith/theory. In the context of the "Truth" movement, I would recommend that devotees and true activists (what few there are) concentrate on Building Seven and totally dispense with the idea that no 727 hit the pentagon. The entire body of conspiracy theories surrounding that sub-topic is so idiotic that the mere utterance of any element of it is, to possessors of brains, analogous to a homeless bag-lady's matter-of-fact reference to the pet purple unicorn she wonders if you can keep an eye on for a moment while she steps into the park porta-potty.
Just trying to help,
Anonymous
On 6/18/10 12:15 AM, "Anthony Lawson" <lawson911@gmail.com > wrote:
Hello,
I'm quite intrigued about the "Helen Thomas Affair." I once caught her bolstering the 19-Arabs-with-Box-Cutters 9/11 scenario, admittedly in a passing way, but such ways are often how a story is made to establish itself as fact, so I wondered: Could a person dedicated to being a news correspondent, never mind the White House adjective, in the United States fail to notice that the planes have never been forensically identified, or that well over a thousand architects and engineers dispute the official story about how the Towers and WTC 7 came down, and all the rest of it?
Either answer must mean that such a person was either:
a) Useless as an observer of what was going on around her, or
b) Was content not to mention these glaringly obvious discrepancies in the official story.
After all, many good men, women and children have died because no one who mattered stood up and cried: "This is wrong!", either just after 9/11 or during the massive weapons-of-mass-destruction swindle that was carried out in plain sight, from within the Oval Office and Downing Street, and which was then brought into the United Nation's Security Council as absolute fact.
Shouldn't Helen Thomas to be castigated for her silence on those issues, as well as many others, while praising her for her question to Obama about Israel's nuclear weapons and her forthrightness about the Palestine issue?
Anthony
On 18 June 2010 01:15, Michael <RePorterNoteBook@gmail.com > wrote:
http://www.informationclearinghouse .info/article257 33.htm
Peace.
Michael Santomauro
Editorial Director
@ 917-974-6367
What sort of Truth is it that crushes the freedom to seek the truth?
Let's End Thought Crimes in the Twenty-first Century. -- to separate historical fact from propaganda…peace is patriotic!
--
Only fools believe what they are told, when it is clear that much else is being hidden.
No comments:
Post a Comment