Wednesday, December 31, 7000

Permanent Top Post by JM Talboo and Steve W.



By JM Talboo and Steve W.

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2008/10/debunking-myths-on-conspiracy-theories.htmlMany people subconsciously make the mistake of only seeing the issues concerning 9/11 in black and white, as opposed to shades of gray. This is known as the black-or-white fallacy. In this case, the false dilemma is: 9/11 was either carried out by Al-Qaeda or it was "an inside job."

Just because the evidence suggests that rogue elements of US and other international intelligence agencies were involved doesn't mean bin Laden and Al-Qaeda hijackers weren't involved.

In the fight to uncover the truth about 9/11 we must contend with individuals and groups that distort, omit and lie about important details in order to defend the official narrative - the 911 truth Debunkers.

 

The NORAD-stand-down, various whistleblowers, and physical evidence centered around the destruction of the 3 World Trade Center Buildings in New York, make a strong case that the attacks involved substantial inside help.

“I think it’s implausible to believe that 19 people, most of whom didn’t speak English, most of whom had never been in the United States before, many didn’t have a high school education, could have carried out such a complicated task without some support from within the United States” - 
Former Sen. Bob Graham on 60-Minutes 



We might be wrong about where we suspect this all leads, but the "debunkers" are wrong when many essentially argue that it's acceptable for 70% of 9/11 family members questions to have never been answered by the 9/11 Commission. So of course, most have no qualms about promises made to 9/11 family members being broken by the Commission to investigate all whistleblower claims, which a substantial amount of the public find highly-suspicious at minimum, with many regarding the evidence as suggestive of complicity to varied degrees.

The below link proves that many thousands of family members want a new investigation. Likely the amount of people killed that day is outnumbered by these 9/11 victim's family members.


[On the left side (above) is a video of WTC 7 collapsing. On the right side is a video of a controlled demolition.]


And it stands to reason, that these ilk feel the lack of air defense story is above scrutiny to the point that secrecy and rewards are warranted. So what if this tale consists of 3, or some contend 4, mutually contradictory versions of events and admitted lies. It makes perfect sense that the top officials from NORAD and the FAA received promotions, as opposed to having to provide documents with data that would prove that the jet fighters were acceptably responsive, given the past response time averages.


Unsurprisingly, they hate even the best of the "Loose Change" films, but loose ends are no biggie.

The Washington Post reported on August 2, 2006 that:
Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources... "We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. 'It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
So, if 9/11 didn't have an inside element, what's to stop such a scenario from taking place in the future when we get investigations that have attributes like these? 

It is therefore the purpose of this website to rebut the hollow claims of the so-called 911 truth 'Debunkers' and clarify what is known about the attacks for the benefit of those following the debate and also for the largely uninformed public.

Sorry that we don't allow any comments, but if you wish to communicate any thoughts you have about the published material please contact us here. Ad hominems will be ignored, but well-formed rebuttals may be addressed (and that is a subjective matter) provided we have not refuted the points therein numerous times on this blog already.

FAIR USE NOTICE

National Security Notice via Washington's Blog:

We are NOT calling for the overthrow of the government. In fact, we are calling for the reinstatement of our government. We are not calling for lawlessness. We are calling for an end to lawlessness and lack of accountability and a return to the rule of law. Rather than trying to subvert the constitution, we are calling for its enforcement. We are patriotic Americans born and raised in this country. [Four foreign countries also represented here at DTD]. We love the U.S. We don't seek to destroy or attack America ... we seek to restore her to strength, prosperity, liberty and respect. We don't support or like Al Qaeda, the Taliban or any supporting groups. We think they are all disgusting. The nation's top legal scholars say that draconian security laws which violate the Constitution should not apply to Americans. Should you attempt to shut down this site or harass its authors, you are anti-liberty, anti-justice, anti-American ... and undermining America's national security.

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

Blink Comparator Views of the Plane at the Pentagon

In March, 2002 five frames from one video camera were released (leaked?) as small bmp images that purportedly showed the Pentagon plane. It had an erroneous time stamp (added later it turns out; not in the original), lack of context, small image size, and it did more to sow confusion than shed light on what hit the Pentagon. Here is the first frame of that set just before impact, together with a zoomed detail view. [See link for image]
 

Longer videos from two cameras, one with and one without the foreground obstruction, were released in 2006 in response to a FOIA request for surveillance camera videos at or near the Pentagon on 9/11. One of the videos contained the original five frames. These images are archived by the 911datasets.com project through the 911encyclopedia.com website, which also documents the source FOIA.
 
Many people viewing these as still frames over the years (ourselves included) failed to see the plane. The lack of a clear visual image of the plane led to speculation that there was instead a small plane or a missile, and it opened the door to speculation that there was no plane at all. By the time the two longer videos were released in 2006, "no-plane at the Pentagon" speculation was well established to the point that this belief was virtually synonymous with the 9/11 Truth movement, in many people's minds.
 
The images shown below "blink" the frames that contain the plane with the frames just prior to them. These png images, blinked with a custom Javascript routine, use the images provided in the 2006 FOIA release. Animated GIF images were tried earlier, but the GIF compression reduces the color resolution. We have done no image enhancement: only magnification of the zoomed image pairs.

Cam1
This is a zoomed-in detail of the view from what we shall call Camera 1. 
Cam1-Cam2

The view from Camera 2 shows the plane a fraction of a second earlier. The wide angle lenses introduce barrel distortion, so the earlier image of the plane, which is closer to the edge of the frame, appears shortened.
http://911speakout.org/wp-content/uploads/BlinkedPentagonPlane.html

Go to the linked article to see the blinked images and a full explanation. 

The attacks of 911 were a false flag event. Aircraft were used to strike both the Twin Towers and the Pentagon in order to kick off the global 'war on terror'. Explosives were used at the Twin Towersand most likely at the Pentagon to 'finish the job' in terms of destroying their intended targets. World Trade Centre Building 7 was also brought down by explosives, and may have been timed to go down with the Twin Towers (in the dust clouds), except that it failed and didn't come down until 5:20pm. We know explosives had been set off inside WTC7 at an early stage due to the testimony of Barry Jennings.

Related Info:

A Plane Hit the Pentagon on 9/11 - Countering Disinformation and Misunderstandings

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, August 23rd, 2016.]

Wednesday, August 17, 2016

Fact Checker: Bill Clinton's misleading claim about 'marked classified' information in Hillary Clinton's emails

Fact Checker: Bill Clinton's misleading claim about 'marked classified' information in Hillary Clinton's emails
The Providence Journal8 hours ago
On July 8, Clinton's language over emails changed again: "I certainly did not believe... received or sent any material that was classified, and, indeed, any of the documents ...

Excerpt:

Bill Clinton is correct that Comey "amended" his statement in the hearing, to provide more details about what the FBI had found. But Comey did not say Hillary Clinton "had never received any emails marked classified." Two of three emails that had portion markings were call sheets that were improperly marked, and State Department considers the markings no longer necessary or appropriate at the time they were sent. Comey acknowledged that Clinton may not have known what the little-C marking meant.
The whole dispute over the little "c" versus big "C," portion markings versus header, and so on, is the political equivalent of three-card monte. Democrats, like Bill Clinton, have cherry-picked Comey's comments from the five-hour hearing to declare Hillary Clinton vindicated. But what they conveniently sweep under the rug are the 110 emails - which were not a part of the 2,000 that were retroactively classified - that were found to "contain classified information at the time they were sent or received."
Moreover, the diversion to "little-C" markings is an effort to distract the public from the disturbing finding by the FBI that Clinton was "extremely careless" in handling her emails, and should have protected the information whether or not it had a classification marking. And it distracts voters from the fact that for more than a year, Clinton modified her excuse over and over to position herself in a way she can declare she was technically right in some form or another.
Related:

Congress Files Perjury Charges Against Hilary