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.

Sunday, September 25, 2016

John Kerry Urges Russia and Syria to Stop Attacking Al-Qaeda

No wonder the United States insisted that its Syria ceasefire deal with Russia remain secret! It turns out that one of the US demands was that the Syrian air force must be prohibited from attacking al-Nusra Front (al-Qaeda in Syria).

Does this make any sense? It seem much more logical to argue that the threat of being bombed alongside al-Qaeda would be the greatest incentive for “moderates” to separate themselves from al-Qaeda as soon as possible!

You would think Washington would tell its “moderates”: “You must cease and desist from fighting alongside al-Qaeda in Syria within the next 48 hours or you will yourselves become targets of Syrian, Russian, and coalition planes.”

Instead Washington argues that because its “moderates” refuse to separate from al-Qaeda the Russians and Syrians must stop attacking al-Qaeda!

George W. Bush famously said, “either you’re with us, or you are with the terrorists.” But what happens when Washington itself is “with the terrorists”?
http://theduran.com/john-kerry-urges-russia-syria-stop-attacking-al-qaeda-video/

Related Info:

The Covert Origins of ISIS   


[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, September 26th, 2016.]


Trump: Obama is the founder of ISIS - Exposing the I.S.I.S Lie: How President Obama & Hillary Clinton Created I.S.I.S.

9/11 Awakening: My Personal Moment of Truth



I am not a truther. (And as Gore Vidal noted famously) nor am I a conspiracy theorist; I’m a conspiracy analyst. The official story of 9/11 is folklorish and mythological. It’s beyond unbelievable and is, like Napoleon’s definition of history, a set of lies that people have agreed upon. If you’ve never spent any time deconstructing the amazing rewriting of the physical evidence, eyewitness testimony, the laws of gravity, physics, structural engineering, architectural science, piloting, aerodynamics, evidence, common sense — well, you’ve missed one of life’s rare events.

But there’s no evidence of it being a US government “inside job” or false flag or state-sponsored. There. Feel relieved? I know that’s what bothers many Americans, especially those in the Ted Baxter sockpuppet media. I mean, when has the government ever lied about its knowledge or complicity? Heavens! Now, that’s not to say it’s not a possibility or unlikely or even far-fetched. No, certainly not. There’s simply no evidence of it. Nor is there evidence of motivation, goal or intended results or beneficiaries. Cui bono? Cui prodest? I think we know, certainly. But that’s not evidence of anything. Notwithstanding a mountain of fascinating facts and data that scream out for further investigation and review. Think a permanent Russell-Sartre Tribunal of sorts. Anything but the dog and pony show of Congress. And on a personal, individual level, and from having spent my life investigating reality versus “history” I do not believe that President Cheney or his manservant Dubya knew anything in advance or were involved directly in any aspects of our day of horror. Aside from the lack of evidence indicating such, there’s the benefit of plausible deniability and the absolute folly that would involve their involvement. While I believe also that Pearl Harbor was not as recorded or believed, I do not believe FDR was directly involved or had knowledge beforehand. Know when to be detective; know when to be juror. Suspicion versus the weighing of probity. Just because you have an Aha! moment in determining that a piece of evidence as advanced is not what you believe to be true, culpability is not assigned thereafter. Dig?