|
|
Saturday April 19,
2008
9/11 truth
shall
set us free -
but we must grope through piles of garbage
to find it ...
It's not as easy as, say, "finding" blueprints conveniently placed atop
a rubbish
heap, waiting to be discovered by the very person who would know what
it was and
would make a big stink about it.
See: Best laid
plans - March 20, 2008 and March 27/08 - News or
dramatic effect? Item 2: Blueprint for empty distraction.
Steve
Staples' own blog
has a brag about how he personally phoned the Ottawa Citizen on a
pretext (now we know why he is touted to be the "most outspoken" lefty
- he spends most of his time aggressively pestering the media until
they quote him on something) and then, almost as an afterthought, he
just happened to casually mention that his colleague Anthony Salloum
had found some DND blueprints!
Well, he couldn't let Anthony get ALL the press!
Have you wondered at all why this whole issue has died on the
vine? Well, now it's
surfaced as a story about WTC blueprints! Can you believe any
of this? Do you not know for certain by now that your mind is
deliberately being screwed with?
The original source of the item is the New York Post, a news outlet
that specializes in trash.
Anyway, the good news is that a paper by Steven Jones
of 9/11
Scholars fame, in collaboration with a group of other
researchers, has been published in a respected, peer
reviewed civil engineering journal. You can download
it and read it for free (.pdf format - requires Adobe
Reader). Click on the index for 2008 and
then on paper entitled: Fourteen Points of Agreement
with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction
By the way, the fact that there are two sites for 9/11 Scholars may
suggest some sort of disagreement in the ranks, but I've been seeing
emails back and forth among them that indicate a cordial relationship
and a recognition of the need for a "unified front" among all genuine
9/11 researchers.
As you may
already know, it
really irks me when big-ego, ambitious types use the peace and truth
movements for their own personal hoped-for fame and fortune. I'm
always wary when any one person is lauded as a hero from within these
movements. The fact that the research is, after all this time, finally
beginning to go mainstream suggests that millions of voices questioning
the truth of the official story of 9/11 can no longer simply be ignored.
The Jones,
et al report is 6 pages long, and in plain language, so there's no
excuse for not giving it a read. In spite of its title it contains a few sharp
nudges for those who accept the official story without question.
It seems the FEMA and NIST reports contained only what could be
accepted by the public and avoided mentioning what could not.
The Jones et al report mentions the Empire State Building's encounter
with a large plane, which naturally sent my unruly
mind off in that direction. I Googled and looked at the top
items that appeared - the ones from which the rest of the public are
most likely
to gain their impressions.
As is so often the case, the importance was brought home to me of not
trusting government and especially military reports of historical
events:
I suppose you know the basic story. A ten-ton B-25 bomber lost
its way in dense fog and slammed into the Empire State Building in 1945
(in not nearly so pristine a fashion as the WTC planes - one of the
B-25's wings reportedly snapped off and fell to the ground, for
instance).
But I was interested in what happened immediately before this disaster
occurred.
From About.com/History:
He
was on his way to Newark Airport to pick up his commanding officer, but
for some reason he showed up over LaGuardia Airport and asked for a
weather report. Because of the poor visibility, the LaGuardia tower
wanted to him to land, but Smith requested and received permission from
the military to continue on to Newark.
Note: His
job was to pick up his commanding officer, and that was apparently
important enough to the military that it gave the pilot permission to
continue his flight in spite of extremely hazardous weather conditions.
Kind of makes the military look stupid, doesn't it? This is the
organization people are taught to believe exists for civilian
protection.
From the Empire
State Building official website:
A
dense fog over the city led the air traffic controller to direct that a
landing be made. Smith, however, apparently believing he could maneuver
safely through the fog, asked and received permission to fly on to
Newark ...
Does this
sound to you as if it was air traffic control rather than the military
that gave permission? Do you think that might have been the
intended effect?
Reading on in the same article:
The
War Department, now a
section of the Defense Department, later determined the pilot erred in
judgment when electing to fly over Manhattan in the weather conditions
which prevailed at the time' -- Smith should never have been cleared to
proceed on to Newark.
Does this
sound like the military scapegoated the pilot? Does it also still
give the impression that it was air traffic control who gave him
permission? It does to me. Remember, this is for public
consumption - you know, to educate the public about history.
Now let's see what passes for the historical record of the Empire State
building tragedy on a military website. From With
the Command, written by a US Navy Career Firefighter:
...
attempts to land at LaGuardia airport were unsuccessful due to the
dense fog that had socked in the area. The plane then turned and headed
for Newark airport.
All fault
has now been removed from the pilot, and of course the military by
extension. He tried to land but couldn't, and therefore had no
choice but to continue on to Newark. This is accompanied by a
glowing report of the pilot's military record:
During
his time in Europe he had
amassed over a thousand hours flying time. For the hours he had flown
Col. Smith was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross, Air Medal and
the Croix de Guerre for his wartime service in the European theater.
As if this
were not self-serving enough, the military writer felt called upon to
minimize the human tragedy by saying: "Only 14 people
would perish in this incident and another 25 would suffer severe wounds."
(Emphasis mine.)
See?
Hardly any harm done. Almost a non-event, really. What's
important is that the military's image remains intact.
But, tucked away in a footnote, is this short statement:
Damage
to the building was estimated at $500,000.00, the Army paid up when the
negotiations were lowered to $288,901.00.
Other
reports put the damage at $1 million.
Now get this: of all three reports, only the military one contains a
military hero story.
Donald Maloney, a member of a branch of the military called the US Coast Guard,
is credited with saving the life of the woman who was trapped in the
fallen elevator.
That he injected morphine into an unconscious woman is
a little hard to believe, or perhaps military medical knowledge is
somewhat lacking? Administering morphine to an unconscious
person, especially one with a
head injury, could kill the patient. See: "The
general method for an unconscious patient with a head injury, under
Nursing a Head Injury - Pain and Sedation.
Well, nevermind, by September 2001, there was an addition to that
story that wafted out over the internet. The "unconscious"
woman, upon seeing Donald Maloney, said, "Thank God, the Navy's here.
I'll be OK."
It's that kind of indoctrination that keeps some people unable to
entertain the possibility that the military had a hand in perpetrating
9/11.
=====================
Not
incidentally: the newest TV recruiting ad for the Canadian Armed
Forces no longer says "Fight fear", "Fight distress"; it says "Fight
chaos".
There's a newish movie out called "Chaos Theory" (See the
trailer) in which the hero, who does all sorts of daring things
tells someone, "You're a crappy person, leading a crappy life. Crappy,
crappy, crappy."
Are the armed forces saying your life is already crappy so you might as
well
join the military?
======================
IS
A US ASSAULT ON IRAN IMMINENT?
Check out the
most recent READER
COMMENTS
yayacanada
|
|
