Ellsberg Film, Swanson Talk in Norfolk, Va., April 14

Quote: "Daniel Ellsberg and Ray McGovern, both of whom used to work inside the entrails of Fascist, criminal Empire, are known for their courage to reveal the crimes of Western imperial, ROGUE nations, corporate and imperial fascist alliances".

There are other people. They are evidently not as well known to the public, but there are other people. There is Sibel Edmonds, but she's far from being the first and last. There are John Stockwell, Philip Agee, and other former CIA station chiefs or officers, and agents. There's Michael Levine, formerly of the DEA. There's Lt Col Anthony Shaffer, who was member of the treasonously terminated Able Danger team. And there are ... plenty of other people.

They should be known, their words should be known, by everyone. They should not be forgotten or ignored.

People can search for videos using the persons' names. For serious CIA "whistle blowers", "lamp lighters", people can search for videos using "Secrets of CIA" or "Secrets of the CIA", f.e. I think the latter was a Sky documentary, while "Secrets of CIA" is for a set of clips of what might be from the roughly two-hour Sky documentary, but if they're clipped from another source, then they're nevertheless for clips of brief interviews with serveral former CIA agents, including Phil Agee.

Some other people come to mind, two of whom are Mike Ruppert, who has had the website of From The Wilderness (dot com) and who was formerly LAPD detective or officer, and Frank Serpico, who had gotten himself into very near-death closure, for him. There are videos with Mike Ruppert, but I don't know if there are any with Frank Serpico; however, some of his relatives have or have recently had a website in his honor and I read there. It had some articles by him and one is to debunk the Hollywood or whatever movie called Serpico. It was an entertaining movie for me when it came out, but I've since learned from his writing that the movie does not depict what he was really like and what the real story was about or like. And he's the person I got "lamplighter", as opposed to "whistleblower", from. He really doesn't like the latter term and I can see why, for it's, "on the streets", anyway, a very bad term to be associated with.

Those two people might not seem all that important when we are talking about federal-level criminality, but this'd be a wrong assumption. The extreme criminality of the LAPD and NYPD, and NYC gov't, politics, are not really dwarfed by the federal-level criminality. There's a relationship between these spheres that people should realise is real and very serious. We're not likely to ever have such cities being this criminal without federal-level involvement. There has to be a relationship; unless most people at the federal level are all dumb or asleep, which they're not.

Frank Serpico's courage, maybe a little naive, but still courage nearly got him killed; missing by an inch or two. And Mike Ruppert says that attempts have been made against him. These were "just" former municipal, city police officers, in major cities.

The roguery, criminality is pervasive, but we have not hundreds, yet nevertheless plenty of people who have broken silence and some continue to do so. Sibel Edmonds is new and I guess Lt Col Anthony Shaffer is also new in this, while I think some of the prior people who broke silence have possibly died due to age or illnesses, and others have become silent due to retiring, say, but while leaving their prior words for us to learn from.

There's a "National Whistleblowers ..." association or organisation that I learned about through one or more websites that Sibel Edmonds had, and maybe still has, and this association consists of apparently many people; just that they're not well known. However, they apparently all have very important information for the public to learn from.

Maybe the reason, or one of the reasons for these people not being broadly known is, f.e., the Bush Jr-Cheney administration had placed a gag order against "whistle blowers"; certainly with Sibel Edmonds anyway. I think the gagging was broader though. And Lt Col Anthony Shaffer suffered serious consequences for his actions against the treasonous shut-down of Able Danger. Frank Serpico very nearly got himself killed because of going after or investigating top elites in NYC gov't and PD. Mike Ruppert says he's managed to escape from or survive a number of attempts against his life, and he does seem like a person some elites would have liked to be dispensed of the existence of, say. "Whistle blowing" is not well-viewed by the top elites!

But the Obama administration oddly, though interestingly, lifted the gag order against Sibel Edmonds. I don't know why the Obama admin. did this and (I) was a little surprised by it, but they probably figured that ungagging her wouldn't really be a serious risk, since Americans probably wouldn't become seriously stirred up once we learn what she said under oath last August. If that was the reason, then it wasn't difficult to guess that Americans wouldn't get particularly unrestful from what she testified about. After all, it's been clear for years that the anti-war movement in the U.S. is really non-threatening to the top ruling elites and their plans. And they, the elites, know they hold the reins of military and law enforcement forces.

They have evolved, say, the situation to the point where they could come out tomorrow and honestly declare that the Constitution is sewage material, disposed of, and that their aristocracy, oligarchy, plutocracy, plutogarchy malarchy, ... is in place, and what would the population do? Not much different than from what we have already been experiencing, I believe.

But another reason for the "whistle blowers", "lamp lighters", not being known is cover-up complicity by the corporate news media, and many alternative news media that are half-assed about being so-called alternative. Some are half-assed alternative, that is, negligent. Some just don't have sufficient staff. But some are also liars, ..., and evidently "in the business" (of so-called "alterntaive news" source(s)) only for money, for even some corporate news media have provided better or real coverage of, f.e., "9/11 truth".

Even Fox News provided some coverage for that topic and while FN was not supportive of the guest(s) against the "official story", fable, this corporate news media nevertheless provided broadcast airtime for this.

Not Huff Post, which first published and, within an hour afterwards, retracted a very fine, fair, honest article by Jesse Ventura. Huff Post is more supportive of the bogus "official story" than even Fox News is, for at least the latter didn't retract anything, or if it did, then it was after the debate, say, had already been aired. Even if FN's intended purpose was to try to mock "9/11 truth", which was clearly or surely the intention, FN still provided viewers or listeners (it's always good to listen to what's said, instead of only looking at pretty pictures) with what one or more "9/11 truth" spokespersons said. So what if that person was opposed by guests pretending to be able to defend the "official story"; at least viewers got [both] sets of views, instead of only the "official story" (fable). Huff Post is too journalistically spineless and unethical to even risk doing this!

HP, of so-called alternative news media, is less journalistically ethical than FN is, even if FN attempts this for intended purpose of deception, but while it's viewers, listeners who really decide what to believe, and not? FN provided a sampling of both sides, so viewers got a chance to hear some of what the truth-seeking and -demanding side says. HP? Doodle dandee yanker!

HP also replaced Jesse Ventura's article with a statement, and it happens to be half-truth. HP's replacement words were that HP doesn't support "conspiracy theory" content, including about 9/11, but it's at best a half-truth, for HP apparently does publish CT sort of content. It apparently is provably true, though not that I care, for I'm not an HP fan anyway. I learned to dislike the website several years ago, but it has published prior, I think two prior articles by Jesse Ventura (he vowed to no longer accept to write for HP at all, ever again, after his 9/11 article was unacceptably removed) and these or one of these were of "conspiracy theory" sort, I believe to have read. Actually, I think to recall that they're all from or related to his Conspiracy Theory cable tv show or propram, so his articles are all related to "conspiracy theories"; [except] his short article regarding 9/11 and which I have read a copy of did not really contain conspiracy "theory". It's based on results of very professional, expert research conducted by other people.

The copy that I read is at Infowars, and it has no content that is supsect, fantastical, ... whatever. It's a very fine piece. And, from what I recall, it's not based on his research, at all. Instead, it's his words, but based on what he's learned from technically and scientifically competent people and their research into the 9/11 attacks. It's better to read the article, which is not long, and which clearly is definitely publishable. All that I can really say is that I read it and it's not goofy, say, conspiracy theory; and if anything reads the piece and disagrees, then these people disagree with police investigations, etcetera, for investigative work is conducted based on hypotheses and theories, until the facts are determined!

There's no reason to ban such an article unless we really are wacky conspiracy theorists and believe the bogus "official story" on 9/11. That's such a wild conspiracy theory that some 9/11 truthers, some call us, say the "official story" is the greatest conspiarcy theory of 9/11 conspiracy theories; but there's some illogic to that. The "official story" does not really qualify for theory, [at all]. It doesn't even qualify for hypothesis, for once a hypothesis is proven to be false, then it's no longer a hypothesis; therefore, forget achieving the qualification of theory, which is stronger than hypothesis. The "official story" meets neither qualification. If it doesn't satisfy the requirements for being considered a hypothesis, then JUNK it; it's not going to be promotable to more than waste basket junk, or shredder or incinerator material, unless you want to use it for emergency toilet paper. (The ink should be safe; it's often or usually made with soy juice or some liquid made with soy.)

Okay, I'll grant naysayers some break.

It's true that 9/11 happened. But it's also true that it happens every September 11th. End of break for naysayers!

So what if the "official story" says a few things that truly happened; the main part of that story is BUNK. Even liars tell some truth. F.e., they usually use words found in the dictionaries. Wow! This doesn't mean these people aren't liars, including deliberate. Ruling elites have political pals who call us citizens. So what! Did we need to hear that from them in order to know that we're citizens? I hope not.

The "official story" about 9/11 is BUNK! And that's stating the reality of it nicely, for it's much worse than only bunk.

Anyway, I read that HP has posted other articles, I guess by other people, that were "conspiracy theory" sort, too; but maybe what I read was only about the two prior articles by Jesse Ventura and based on a couple of his TruTv.com's team of "Conspiracy Theory" research. Those articles were evidently published by HP, but it pulled the very fine one about 9/11 and a need for [a new investigation].

Why, why, ... oppose a new investigation? What's everyone trying to hide? If there's nothing to hide, or nothing to fear, then why oppose a new and [independent] investigation, especially when 9/11 Commissioners have denounced the final report of the 9/11 Commission? Why are people afraid of being as sure as we can humanly ensure that we are about the truth of the 9/11 attacks and what the White House, U.S. military, etcetera, did and didn't do, but what they should've done in relation to these attacks? What's to fear from a new and independent investigation? Why does HP and do other alternative so-called news media oppose truth-finding for the population of the U.S., as well as for all of humanity?

The cost would be a "drop in the bucket" compared to what's spent funding the wars, Wall Street banksters, and so on!

Would more fully ascertaining, in official terms, the truth about 9/11 jeopardize HP, or what? If it does jeopardize HP editors or owners, then it's possibly because they're idiots, even universities graduate idiots (consider John Yoo, f.e., among many other unpleasant examples); but it's not unlikely that they would have ties with The Establishment that is the aristocratic, plutocratic, plutogarchic, mularchic, bourgeosie, war-mongering (overtly and not), etcetera, league. Either way, it means little real relation to authentically being alternative news media source that's [democratic], for human rights, etcetera.

They don't provide competent news, views, etcetera, for anyone of reasonably sound mind can easily and quickly see that there's nothing really bannable about Jesse Ventura's 9/11-related or based article. Not all readers disbelieve the "official story", and it's tragic that they don't have any critically objective questions about it. But no sane person can really criticize what Jesse Ventura wrote. So any so-called news media that bans such articles is a [worthless] entity; it should not exist or should not pretend to be able to claim to be news media.

Again, even FOX NEWS did better!

People can do relatively simple Web searches to get this information, and a copy of JV's 9/11 article is available at Infowars. It's amazing that any so-called alternative news media would've yanked that article.

RAY MCGOVERN said, in one or more video-taped interviews about 9/11, that he can't support the notion that it was beyond the potential likes, say, of Cheney, f.e., to have actually been involved in orchestrating the 9/11 attacks. The video clips for this were online in late 2009 or early this year, so they should still be available. I found them by simply doing a video search using his name and "9/11".

If I recall correctly, then he made it cleat that he is not willing to say that Bush Jr would or likely could have been responsible, but also stated he doesn't think it's beyond the capabilities, say, of "persons" like Cheney, Rumsfeld, ...; to have been highly involved behind the 9/11 attacks. And I agree with him about this.

After all, I posted online often enough that I did not believe Bush Jr was the real President, but that, instead, Cheney was or seemed to be more in charge, while hiding, say, the lower profile title of VP. There are a number of examples or parts of the whole story of the Bush Jr-Cheney administration years to draw from to illustrate why I believe Cheney really was most in charge, and it's not something Bush Jr had to know about. He might have been really aware of this, but not necessarily. He could have been kept in serious ignorance of much that was done and just let himself be puppeted; a lot anyway.

Remember, and I think it was the 2004 electoral debates between him and the other S&B'er, John Kerry, when some news media cameraman happened to film or photograph Bush Jr standing at a podium, whatever, and we could see that he had some odd object (device) under his coat, on his back? It was most definitely an electronic device, but what kind could it have likely been? A commuication device. It wasn't a pacemaker, that's for sure. It also wasn't for air conditioning. Etcetera. It was hi-tech. electronic and most surely a communication device.

Now why would a President need such a device in an electoral debate unless it's for control purposes? If it's for control, then it could be ethically used only to tell the person to tone down when he'd start getting angry, or to tell him to stop speaking stupidly, f.e. Sure. These are possible uses. But another possible and likely use, especially since Karl Rover (watchdog Rover) wasn't called Bush Jr's "brain" for no reason by [many] people, well, it could have been to guide him through Q&A, f.e. And if it was for the latter reason, then it's clearly because elites didn't believe that he had the competence to stick with criminal cover-up, etcetera; he could've let some key information accidentally slip out, if not carefully monitored and controlled, puppeted.

That's speculation, but it's nevertheless based on the fact that he definitely had an electronic device on his back under his coat, suit coat, whatever those things are called. I think there's a specific term for coats of suits, like with matching pants, but forget what the term is.

However, Bush Jr did interestingly let one thing clearly slip out one time when he was speaking to some crowd of people. The video clip was at Youtube and I think the title for the page was something like "Bush ... Slip-up", but his last name and the word "slip" or "slips", anyway. It's an interesting clip to view.

Of course the world would be much better off if the U.S. withdrew from Iraq, he said! He literally said this in a video-recorded apparence before some crowd or group of people in what was perhaps some relatively small auditorium. It didn't seem to be a large number of people who were present, but there were multiple rows of seated people and he was quite close to them, too.

I didn't hear a question of that nature or wording from the crowd or anyone else there, but Bush seemed to say this as if he was answering someone who asked if the world or Iraq wouldn't be better off with the U.S. out of Iraq. Or maybe I did hear that person, a little, while only remembering Bush's response, which I'll [never] forget.

It seems very odd for someone who, in official term, role, title, was C-in-C and commanding the criminal wars, BUT that can be just a matter of apparence, surface, what the public is allowed to see and believe. I don't think he was the real C-in-C! He also demonstrated some softening vis-a-vis Iraq on I think two, maybe more than two, occasions, and it became immediately expectable that Cheney would rush forward over the later day or next couple of days and more-or-less reverse, undo Bush Jr's softening; charging forward like a mad bull, sort of like when he told a Senate member, who's son was serving in Iraq, to "fuck off". Cheney literally said that in the Senate to this Senator whose son was serving in Iraq, and who was speaking in honourable terms. The Senator did not say anything misplaced [at all], but was questioning and I think this was about the war, though don't recall what the questioning was in greater detail than this.

Was that Senator Webb? I think that may be the right name, anyway.

Anyway, Cheney more-or-less or else literally reversed Bush Jr's "softer moments" with regards to Iraq. It struck me the first time, because, first, I was suprised, though pleased by Bush's apparent softening and was hoping it was real. It must've been real to some degree, because Cheney always rushed forward later in the day or over the next couple of days like a mad dog viciously re-enforcing commitment to the war.

Anyway, Bush, 9/11, reading goat stories in Florida:

This is based on not the first time that this comes to my mind, but nevertheless because Daniel Ellsberg reminded me of this topic or question in the video linked closer to the start of this post. But I'll be phrasing this in my words, for it's a subject I've thought enough about to be able to be questioning about it, on my own.

It was indeed very peculiar that Bush was even scheduled to go to an elementary school classroom in Florida, or anywhere else, to partake in a class of children reading about some goat story, or for any other purpose. He was the President! What is a President doing with making these types of trips or visits? What's the point of a President of the U.S. going to any classrooms for?

Political, that is, electoral campaigns? Elementary school-aged children can't vote. Most high school-aged teenagers can't vote!

It really doesn't make sense, regardless of mass corporate bla bla or silence about this, and silence in so-called alternative news media. Alt. and corporate news media bot employ the tactic called silence, omission, besides many people being professional incompetent in various ways, or at times, anyway.

It doesn't make sense for a national leader to do this, especially when it's like a special trip for this sole sort of purpose; or nearly only this purpose. He didn't do anything else of value during that trip to Florida, so we can probably just say that he went there only to read "pet goatie" with children. Impressive presidency that makes!

As far as I recall, he only or mainly went there to be with the children and this is not sensible travel or activity for a President of the U.S., and maybe the same applies for [all] other national chiefs, worldwide. If recalling correctly, then this trip set a precedent among all national "leaders" throughout history, and a precedent to not be copied!

It's clearly about cover-up and distraction. There's something very awful that's related to the President making any trip like this. Otherwise, there'd be nothing to cover up, but there evidently was something being covered up and he had to be out of the way or at least used for distraction, with this weird visit he was scheduled, by others, to make. By others!

It could be a children's classroom in Wa., DC. It doesn't matter. What is a President making such visits for? PROPAGANDA. And why is that? DECEPTION. Hence, it's an example of propaganda of deception or deceit, though I'm not accusing him, who couldn't even manage a relatively small business on his own. ..., iow, pooh, he even once said that he wasn't interested in the political world and would have prefered to continue to coach children in baseball; not that that's really a suitable thing for a person with his personal history, but while I wouldn't want someone who's not truly good to be with children to be with children, it would've been better than him entering politics. It would've been easier to monitor what he did and to intervene, if there was a need to do so; but that was no longer really possible once he entered politics, which evidently was because of some anine selfish elites who needed a puppet they could easily string, say.

Anyway, the trip plan for Florida was deliberate, not accidental, and it's highly doubtful that this was his own plan. And it made no sense. It was a little aumusing, but if we critically think about it, then it was highly suspect.

DANIEL ELLSBERG states related concern or questions in the video further above. I've mentioned the concern or question before, but have now learned that I'm not alone. What I've previously said is more than one thing, and the elements were not always mentioned together, in the same posts, but I've also made combined statements wherein I repeat that I don't believe Bush Jr was the real President; believing, instead, mostly anyway, that Cheney had or took more authority, while hiding behind the sub- or lower title of VP. And I added that if any people in the Administration were complicit, or worse, in the 9/11 attacks, then Cheney would be a certainly likely suspect; whereas maybe not Bush Jr. Bush Jr could be suspected in this, but I'm not sure that much weight can really be put behind this. He might've been kept very much "in the dark", uninformed. Plenty can be presented for suspecting Cheney, but also Rumsfeld.

After all, many people interestingly said, and it was a reality-based assessment of the Administration, that Bush Jr was evidently controlled by his "brain", that is, Karl Rove. But he wasn't working alone, either; surely not. Some people also said or reported that it had been determined that Cheney had papers that normally are supposed to go to the President, first, re-routed; for the papers to first go to Cheney's office. I don't know if that's true, but it's possible and it's "not beyond" someone like Cheney, as Ray McGovern has said, to do or try to do things of highly criminal (and treasonous) nature.

Ray McGovern doesn't accuse Cheney, but he has said that if 9/11 is or was an "inside job", then Cheney and likes could surely be behind this. He didn't use those words, but it's basically what he said, and I can only agree with him. Shootie poohie, I was posting basically the same words for years; albeit not "shootie poohie", which I'm only using to be polite or non-offencive with this post. While media people, perhaps especially alternative media people, were bla bla bla'in away in the winds about Bush Jr, I posted several times that we should home in on Cheney, and that Bush Jr might just be a fool in all of this, not much aware of what was going on. I won't repeat all of the reasons that I had stated, for this is already a long post. However, while Bush Jr was officially Pres. and C-in-C, this was officialdom stuff, and that can be highly about deceptive apparences. We did not have really serious proof that he guilty much beyond just being dumb and accepting to continue to play dumb, which is surely easy for a dumb person to do and accept.

We had a lot more reason to home or zero in on Cheney, I believed, and still believe. Bush Jr, however is a little tricky. He seems perhaps trickier than since his years in the role of Pres. and C-in-C, but the difference may be only that he's been continuing to get a lot of "guidance", say, about what to say and support, than what could be noticed while was Pres. and C-in-C. After all, he was, back then, more regularly in the news media; whereas today, we don't seem to hear about or from him for months before hearing about or from him, or reading about what he's doing, again. If that's true, then it means that he could be getting plenty of coaching, secretly, that is less discernable now, than when he was Pres. and C-in-C.

I've heard a little of his statements since he's no longer President, and it seems that he might have been really improving his speeches in terms of accurate speech; very incorrect, very criminal, etcetera, but nevertheless said like someone who's very literate and, unfortunately, very criminal. That's worse, for the more intelligent dangerous criminals are, the more dangerous they are. If a criminal is going to be of a dangerous kind, then it's preferable if they're not brilliant! The dumber they are, the better for the rest of society.

However, and referring back to the years of their so-called Administration, I basically stated that getting Bush Jr out of DC seemed to fit with the testimony about Cheney having ordered the NORAD stand-down the morning of 9/11 as a plane was reported by a NORAD control panel or monitoring station worker asked a few times if military interceptors should be sent up to stop this plane flying in the direction of the Pentagon; or DC, anyway. Three times, the person asked, and Cheney repeatedly maintained the stand-down order.

Since when does the VP have authority, unilaterally, for ordering interceptor stand-downs? Maybe only when the President is "out of town", but Bush Jr could've been promptly contacted and wasn't. After all, it's not like we lack the tech. means for such prompt communications with someone just a couple of states away, not even 1,000mi. away, and within the same national borders. Bush Jr could've surely been contacted very quickly. But there was a "show" going on with all of this Bush Jr bla bla with school children; a show of distraction.

Bush Jr lied about when and how he supposedly first learned of the 9/11 attacks. And he surely didn't make up that lie on his own!

Maybe he was "out of the (info.) loop" and didn't learn about the attacks that were clearly pre-planned and executed with extremely high accuracy, precision, ..., until his time in a children's classroom; but he did [not] learn about the attacks as he (falsely) claimed. This has been more than sufficiently proven; that his story or claim is false; a lie, a fabricated story. I don't believe he's the fabricator, but his claim was clearly, enough, a deliberate fabrication; criminally incompetent fabrication, but nevertheless and clearly criminal fabrication. The question is not whether he fabricated this lie, but it nonetheless is, "WHO fabricated this lie; for it is nearly an absolute certainty that Bush Jr didn't, so who did?".

I don't know that there is any serious evidence, of any kind, that can be used to even suspect that he had foreknowledge of the attacks occurring when they did occur; BUT some people evidently did. There is sufficient evidence to support this; just that I don't know of any evidence that really is incriminating for him. He was perhaps not solely a puppet, but we have cause to believe that he was very much one, and it's the puppeteers who need to be NAILED, say.

Maybe he was kept out of the info. loop enough that he didn't know about the attacks until after they happened; that he didn't really understand the nonsensical purpose of a trip to Florida to play read-the-goat-story-book with a classroom of elementary school students, or any students, for that matter (goats are nice and fun animals, but ... let's get real; we're speaking of the President in his official role, not a vacationer, say). Maybe he was highly manipulated in all of this and just went along with the so-called guidance that he was provided; like we seem to be able to gather from a lot of his prior history.

F.e., when he went into the NG or U.S. military, and got through "loopholes", due to daddy and some other elites, this wasn't Jr's doing; he just went along with it. Always, which is very negative, but even if he could be justly charged for this, it would not be justice unless we NAILED the people who actually manipulated and covered for, say, him in these ways.

But Cheney was [not] out of the info. loop. He was a "key player", say. And this is not really difficult to prove. He was in charge of NORAD interception. He stayed in DC. Bush Jr was visiting young children in Florida for some false purpose. After all, the ruling elites and most U.S. politicians don't care about children, but it's also not really imaginable for a President to leave the White House to go read stories with children, anywhere. The President is not a baby-sitter, nanny, etcetera!

When Bush Jr left Florida, Cheney directed the flight to Denver or some place in Colorado, or Utah, whatever, I believe; keeping Bush Jr out of DC well after the morning attacks were over and there could've been enough interceptors in the skies to seriously confuse ATC workers, if they weren't informed about what all of the planes were about. Well, there could've been plenty of interceptors, if Cheney ended the stand-down order that he made, anyway.

Flight, AA, 77 did [not] hit the Pentagon. There is no evidence to believe the contrary, and people who claim that this is bunk can't provide evidence, for what they claim to be proof is [not] proof. And if we look at the first photos or images of the specific area of the Pentagon that was hit by some flying ufo, "unidentified", so far, then what do we see [is] NO proof that 77 or any such or similar plane, or any other plane, hit there. NO evidence of any plane humanly flown, so occupied, was found; there's NO evidence of this at the Pentagon that morning. We have evidence of a strike there, but no evidence of a plane or any humanly flown and occupied sort of plane, anyway, having been used for the strike.

Like Ray McGovern said, "[whatever] hit the Pentagon". And like some military pilot experts and some related tech. experts have said, "no plane hit" there; it was most likely a missile, instead. Lovely scenario this makes, right? Well, no, not really; but no 77 or any such plane hit there and it's not credible that [any] aeroplane with wings and other standard parts of an aeroplane hit there. And planes, contrary to what the military apparently misclaimed (lied about), do not turn into vaporware upon impact. Apparently, the military said 77 became vaporware. That specific word might not have been used, the plane vaporized, they said, but that's the same as saying the plane, and it's passengers, became vaporware.

That sort of thing is not going to happen! GET REAL!

What are they making planes out of if they turn into vaporware upon crashing these days, water? No! Helium? No! Aluminum? Yes. Titanium? Some components. Other metalic alloys? I guess. But nothing that would vaporize upon crashing.

The gov't supposedly wanted us to believe that AA flight 77 hit the Pentagon, traveled through six (five or six, but I think it's six) separate walls of roughly 18" thickness of concrete and rock or granite, with a soft-, aluminum-nosed aircraft measuring more than 16' in diameter and very long, with landing gear or whatever it's called made of extremely strong metal or metal alloy highly resistance to heat and damage, titanium, I think to recall, attached to long, extending wings, and the plane was loaded with plenty of passengers and crew, even if the aircraft was not of full capacity, and this aircraft hit and then just turned into vaporware, leaving really no evidence of what hit the Pentagon?

Ha ha. GET REAL!

A missile? That a sad, but nevertheless sensible view; but fired by Al Qaeda, at the Pentagon? I DO NOT THINK SO! Fired like in false flag fashion? Now that's sadly probable. The WTC towers, 1, 2 and 7, were [demolished], not destroyed by planes and jet fuel burning. 77 did not hit the Pentagon, and the White House knew very well that nothing like AA flight 77 hit there, but told us otherwise, say. This is very suspect; it stinks, badly.

The 77 plane, aluminum (SOFT metal) -nosed plane hit the Pentagon, made a quasi-perfect hole around 16' in diameter (the plane's fuselage is wider!), through 18" of concrete and rock, granite, whatever, through the outer Pentagon wall and then did the same thing with another five (or six?) inner Pentagon walls of the same or similar thickness and material? An aluminum-soft-nosed plane, and then it vaporised? Ha, ha. You're kidding, right?

It's what the US military chiefs apparently told us and wanted us to believe. The [large] plane penetrated all of these walls and left no real trace of itself, just vanishing, like vapor.

The US military chiefs need to stop watching too much sci-fi. It's impossible for such an event to happen; meaning the above, but maybe also the latter. Who knows, maybe the military chiefs are tied up with fiction so much that they forget to drop it when they want to tell us about real events.

I don't know for sure if AA flight 77 that purportedly, but definitely did not, hit the Pentagon on 9/11 really flew that day, at all. There's some cause to believe that 77 did not fly that day, but this requires more thorough investigation, I believe; perhaps anyway. I don't know what the status of finding out the truth about this flight or non-flight is, only having read that AA first said 77 never even flew on 9/11, but later changed this claim and said 77 flew. Yet I don't know more detail than that and if AA did make the latter statement, for it evidently did make the first one, then a question would be where did 77 fly, what route, and at what time. However, I think the person who wrote up this report and provided the supporting links did prove that AA did make both statements and I don't see why an airline company would get the information wrong to begin with, or in the second instance.

But the same report, similarly supported with links, said that 93 or another purportedly hijacked plane on 9/11, though I think it was 93, was claimed, by its airline, which I think was UA, to not have flown, at all, on 9/11, or only flew later in the day. The article that I read provided the exact information and supporting airline company links, or links to msm, I guess, news media articles about the airliner statments; whatever the links were to, I recall having checked and found the article to be accurate in what the writer said; re. both 93 and 77.

The article was supported from independent or unrelated, and reliable sources about both of these companies' statements. And the article is online, but I don't recall the title or website. However, it should not be difficult to find this or similar articles. I don't know when the article was published, but happened to come across it since the start of this year, I think back in February, though I wouldn't recommend using date to try to find the article.

If I needed to find such articles, then I'd be able to do it with a few different Web search attempts, but I don't need them and the information about 77 contradicts what Pilots for 9/11 Truth found from official flight records for 77, but then the contradiction only exists if AA's inititial statement was false, while it's second statement is true. It's likely that the pilots organisation got the right flight record and AA made an initially false statement, and AA could've initially made a false statement to try to avoid being held responsible for what 77 wasn't used to do, according to the "official" 9/11 story, but was nevertheless alleged to have been used to do; again, according to the "official" 9/11 story, which can't hold water than a paper bag can.

I'm pretty sure the two flights were 77, of AA, and 93 of UA, and I don't see how professional, very experienced pilots could be mistaken about 77's official record, for they obtained it from official source. I forget what the website is and the name of the source, but it's gov't-related. I did check the link or source, and this checked out. It's just the statements from AA that were switched from not flew to flew, and I think the latter was not about a route or schedule like we were officially told by the gov't, but I can't say for sure. I'd have to find the article again. What I do recall is that AA first said 77 didn't fly at all on 9/11 and AA later changed this.

As for what hit the Pentagon, it does not really matter if 77 flew at all on 9/11, or not, because it's clearly not what hit the Pentagon. This is my main point. The other stuff, above, is just about other things I read. They don't matter. If 77 did not fly on 9/11, then it clearly is not what hit the Pentagon. BUT, no similar plane did, either!

We get variations in some respects, but NO one can prove that any plane hit the Pentagon. This remains very definitely constant.

So we have mystery ghost hijackers who can pass through doors without opening them. Great. That really embellishes the official story.

When is the gov't going to call in Ghost Busters!

We need a new and [independent] 9/11 investigation. It's threatening, but not to us. It is threatening to "special" people though. Well, they think they're special, anyway.

There were blatant lies and obstruction of justice involved the first time. F.e., one or more of the 9/11 Commissioners denounced the military for what clearly were blatant lies about the interceptors, their presence or, rather, absence, inaction. The military pretended that these interceptors did take off, but the time of take-off was wherein the military lied, for it claimed take-offs at times that they didn't take off, or that they took off when they really hadn't. The Commission learned what the truth was from official records or some official source of the information or data that proved the military had clearly and deliberately lied. Some of the former Commissioners denounced Bush, Cheney and the CIA for what, imo, clearly were acts of criminal obstructionism. The obstructive conduct is so clear to me that, imo, these criminal should be convicted and severely punished.

Those two examples, alone, are sufficient for demanding and obtaining a new [and], this time, independent investigation and one that'd have the power or authority to convict the criminals of the White House administration, CIA, and military. I'm not sure who was guilty in the CIA, but believe to have read that there was CIA director Tenet.

DANIEL ELLSBERG does not say a lot in the above video, but his words are important and should definitely catch everyone's attention. If people can do that and they haven't yet viewed videos with Ray McGovern, then look for some. They're easy to find. I found some of them by simply using the Google Videos search engine page and his name, plus "9/11", last year. And we have good related documentaries that people should listen to. There are perhaps some things in "9/11: Press for Truth" by 9/11 Families or thanks to them that are not true, maybe one or two parts or things, perhaps; but I only viewed that first of two films by or because of them, so I can't say another about their second one. They provide two documentaries and these are definitely better than msm and many so-called alternative news media. The documentaries, from the different groups providing these films, are not of the same, or a unique style, but they provide truthful information that's important.

Re. "9/11: Press for Truth", the documentary

What I think might be untrue information in that film is wherein some guy, whose name I forget, says he was CIA field commander or chief in Afghanistan or for tracking down and capturing Osama bin Laden, et al, at Tora Bora. Anyway, it's about when the U.S. and, I think, some Afghan troops arrived at Tora Bora, and he says the U.S. clearly did make sure OBL, et al, could flee. I've read or heard that from this guy and maybe read it one or two other times, though don't know if those were based on what he said. But this part of the above documentary also shows, using computer-animated imagery, I think, or maybe actual video-taped footage, well, shows that U.S. aerial bombers were bombing on three sides at Tora Bora and, I think, the U.S. ground force couldn't enter the village or town, whatever it was, due to these bombings happening. The side that was not bombed is the one OBL et al used to flee.

Anyway, it'd be better for people to view the film to be able to know what the precise details of this story is. I don't know if it's true, for I read that someone else said that the U.S. did not help OBL et al flee from Tora Bora and Afghanistan. But, imo, it's rather clear that the Bush Jr-Cheney administration never really intended to capture OBL. After all, the whole war has been against the Taliban and, I guess, other Afghan resistance groups; none of which had anything to do with the 9/11 attacks in the U.S.

Some Americans don't like the Italian-made "Zero: Investigation into 9/11". Some say it's a little too eclectic, f.e., and it is eclectic, say. It's sort of artistic, in a way. That's okay with me, especially since the information provided in this film is wholly or 99%+ consistent with what we can learn from other 9/11 documentaries.

U.S. Lt Col Robert M. Bowman on Pentagon, a fortress:

He might not have used the term fortress in describing the Pentagon, but I think it's fitting.

The only part of Zero that irked me a little was when U.S. Lt Col Robert Bowman is interviewed. His words are consistent, but this time he's a little too eclectic (I guess) in his description of how strongly defended the Pentagon is. He spoke of the very same thing in other video recordings, but without the eclectic expressionism.
However, the more important thing is that he doesn't contradict himself. He's consistent in all videos I've viewed that were with him and he talked about the Pentagon defenses. And the same is evidently true with his articles. He just got a little too eclectic in his wording in the Zero film.

Ray McGovern on fortress Pentagon:

Ray McGovern also said in a 9/11-based interview that the Pentagon is HIGHLY defended, quite majorly so. Based on what he said in a video interview, perhaps with TheRealNews.com, but on 9/11, anyway, and based on what Lt Col Bowman said, there is NO WAY any airliner could be flown into the Pentagon, which has missile defense systems in place to guard against aerial attacks.

Neither of these two people is a believer in AA 77 having hit the Pentagon, but Lt Col Bowman, who is an expert military pilot who flew over 100 missions, has over 20, maybe around 30 years experience, is more emphatic about 77 not having the Pentagon; or, rather, that neither 77 nor any commercial airliner, or any plane that was flown by anyone of less than great piloting expertise could have hit the Pentagon where, like Ray McGovern said, "whatever hit the Pentagon" struck there. Lt Col Bowman says that even the most expert of pilots of the U.S. military would have to try twenty times before possibly being able to hit the Pentagon where it was hit and that even after twenty attempts, they might still fail; a good likelihood of still failing even after twenty attempts.

So Ray McGovern and Lt Col Rob. Bowman back each others' words about this, AA 77 ghost hit on the Pentagon, but there are other people who've expertly enough also backed this; and, again, when looking at what people who say that this is bunk, defending the official story, what they claim to be evidence of 77 having hit there is clearly not such evidence. There was and is no evidence that any airliner hit there. There is no evidence that any other kind of plane hit there. There is reason to believe a missile did hit there. Perhaps there's actual proof that a missile did hit there and I mean like parts of a missile, for even if there is none of that sort of proof, then there's still cause to believe that it was a missile. After all, whatever hit there made a nearly perfectly circular hole of around 16ft, or maybe it's 12ft, in diameter, and penetrated SIX walls 18in. thick of concrete and rock or granite. I forget if it's granite, but some of the people who've spoke of this or written about this specific information say what the material was, besides the concrete part.

Criminal removal of crime-scene evidence:

At both the Pentagon and "Ground Zero", the gov't had people immediately removing crime scene evidence before any investigation of legitimate kind was conducted. This is always criminal.

There are eye-witness testimonies about removal of crime scene evidence at "Ground Zero". There's also other proof of that, and one example was the immediate removal of steel from the WTC Towers that were ... demolished, a-la demolition. The steel was immediately hauled away and shipped to China where it apparently was melted down to be re-used for other purposes, or to simply destroy any traces of evidence left on these steel beams of the former WTC towers.

At "Ground Zero", there are testimonies of the FBI having found and removed the flight recorder boxes, "black boxes", I think they're called; although I have learned that they're not black, but, instead, bright orange or red.

At the Pentagon, we have some video clips showing plenty of people combing the property in front of where the Pentagon was hit; combing the property, lawn carefully, and removing things. We don't see people removing any large, not even suitcases or clothing, but they're removing something and this was at the crime scene before any formal investigation could be performed.

A new and independent investigation is [needed].

Anyone who believes the contrary really needs to spend some time reading about real life, instead of comic books. I had already realised that it was doubtful that AA 77 or any similar airliner hit the Pengagon. I doubted this for years, perhaps especially because people who pretend that 77 hit there claim to provide proof that is definitely and clearly not proof; but also because the very first images filmed or photographed of the strike point show just a hole in the Pentagon, a hole that is somewhere around 16ft (or 12ft?) in diameter, and it is not credible that any commercial plane could do this; especially when nothing would've been left of the plane. In all news footage of airliner crashes, and other plane crashes, we see plenty of the plane at the crash scene!

Ghost AA 77 flight path and the impossibility of it:

There's also flight path analysis that's been done and this, if true, again illustrates that no one could have flown a commercial airliner to hit the Pentagon where it was struck by, like Ray McGovern said, "whatever hit" there. This would back up what Lt Col Bowman and other expert pilots say about it not being credible, at all, that hijackers flew AA 77 into the Pentagon.

And the Pentagon being defended like or more than a fortress would make it also impossible for any plane to be flown into the Pentagon without secret, top secret, [above] top secret clearance.

Daniel Ellsberg is right to question, say, what the heck Bush was doing visiting an elementary school in Florida, while, imo, it would not matter what state the school was in. Even if the school, elementary grade, was in Wa., DC, even just a few blocks away from the White House, I don't see any valid point in a President making a visit to sit down with a classroom of children to read some story book for children. It could only be for distraction or propaganda, and neither is an acceptable reason.

Why the hell is a President of a gov't like of the U.S. visiting elementary school children? Is he a paedophile? He has major responsibilities and he's visiting elementary school children? What the heck is that nonsense!

It's a set-up. It's distraction.

Daniel Ellsberg, in the video close to the top of this post, doesn't necessarily use the words that I'm using, but it's clear that he's critical of Bush having been at an elementary school classroom.

But there's a funny thing about distractions. If you're aware of them, then you can help to expose what the distraction's about, what the purpose is. Of course investigation is required, first, before being able to really expose what the distraction is or was used to try to hide, but some people are alert, investigative or inquisitive, and quickly conduct investigative research.

And it's not only Daniel Ellsberg and Ray McGovern who contribute to "9/11 truth", but such people who provide definitely valid reasons for not believing the "official story" on 9/11 are important. If Daniel Ellsberg and Ray McGovern are right in what they say about 9/11, and there is nothing provably wrong, incorrect, or invalid in what they say (there clearly isn't), then just these two people lend a lot of credibility to the fact that a new and independent investigation is needed.

What's odd is that the whole population and many so-called alternative media, and anti-war, etcetera, groups doesn't see this, and work against this. A signficant segment of the population supports the calls for a new and independent investigation. We don't have uniform beliefs about 9/11. Some people want a new and independent investigation because they don't believe the "official story" on 9/11 is right, or not wholly, anyway. Some believe the Bush-Cheney administration and other U.S. gov't people allowed the attacks to happen, like deliberately did this, which'd be like aiding or abetting. Some people believe that some people of the Bush-Cheney administration and, I guess, U.S. military were involved in "inside job" terms. Etcetera.

That's okay. We can't expect that everyone will agree on certain things. What's important is that all of these people support the call for a new and independent investigation, and some people don't only support this call, they press it. In this one regard, in which the whole "9/11 truth movement" is of uniform agreement, we have consensus, and it's about something highly important.

But "alternative" news and views media people who pretend that they can represent the population and the country's needs refuse to support the call for a new and independent investigation.

Who the ... are they really working for? George Soros, or what other liberal imperialist, corporatist, ...! (?)

What do they fear that a new and independent investigation could or would turn up? (!) Not the cost! Cost could not be credibly used as an argument, for the country can easily afford this "drop-in-the-bucket" cost for something as critically important as this! But it's also clear through their censoring ways that cost is not what they're afraid of. They're afraid of something much different and far worse than the cost, which'd be easy to afford, for the U.S. Even a small country could afford the cost; many small countries could, anyway.

Well, maybe they're afraid of cost, but not the cost for the country. Instead, and if they do fear cost if they were to support a new and independent investigation, the pressing need and the call for this, then the only cost these news media (so-called alternative) could be concerned about is their own costs. F.e., they might fear a cutting of funds from their most important funders, rich people; like George Soros, and ilk, f.e. He provides considerable funds to some "leftie", "liberal", ... organisations, etcetera, in the U.S., and elsewhere, and he supported the war on Kosovo in 1999 that was clearly criminal before being launched, because he liberally supports western imperialism and capitalism for Eastern Europe. So he might be seriously supportive, even if not publicly, of the criminal war on Afghanistan, and perhaps the criminal war on Iraq; and the criminal wars, though not theatrical, on the Congo, and ... etcetera, many other places.

From what I've read, some said-to-be "left", "liberal", ... organisations in the U.S. have some serious dependency on funds received from him and his foundation(s), and he uses this to influence, manipulate, control.

Any human rights organisations and groups supporting the defense of human rights, etcetera, which are to be really credible in a consistent way must be funded independently, through individual donations or subscriptions that don't permit anyone to have any kind of influential control. Once they start to receive disproportional funding from some fund sources, donors, say, then there's danger and the organisation will become ... well, not really respectful of democracy, anyway.

The question remains, WHY do people who pretend to be "alternative" news and views providers yet refuse to support the important and pressing call for a new and independent 9/11 investigation? What's to fear from such an investigation? It's independence? We fear independence, now, do we? I prefer to like independence, truth, integrity, ..., the real, true kind.

Even Fox News was better; on 9/11 truth, anyway. Even if FN's intention was to try to make 9/11 truthers look non-credible, it couldn't work with viewers possessing a half of a brain, say. So it wouldn't work with viewers with more than half of a brain; although I don't see why they'd then want to watch Fox [News], unless it's for info-tainment, or to be able to be critics of it in their writings, etcetera, say. The viewers might not be convinced that 9/11 was an "inside job", but viewers with some real intelligence would see that there's definitely a need for a new and independent 9/11 investigation.

NOT everyone can be expected to believe that 9/11 was an "inside job". It's clear that many people don't accept to believe this [possibility]. But many people support and call for a new and independent investigation.

Some of us believe "inside job" is highly probable, and even Ray McGovern has said, in a video interview he provided on the 9/11 attacks, that he wasn't prepared to say that people like Cheney are beyond being able to be this criminal. In other words, he said that he thinks Cheney and likes or ilk could be this criminal. But Ray McGovern did not say that he is certain that 9/11 was an "inside job". He just said that if it was, then he wouldn't be surprised if Cheney and his ilk would be found guilty. And neither would I, be surprised.

But there is definitely no need to believe that "inside job" even was at all possible in the 9/11 attacks in order to support a new and indepdent investigation, for we have more than enough proof that a new and independent one is not only justified, but also required.

So the words of these people make no different to censoring "alternative" news and views media editors, etcetera?

How, exactly, are they alternative?

Mike Corbeil