Register

Recent posts

#1
The 28 Pages... / Re: Contents of the missing 28...
Last post by adam - September 01, 2018, 11:29:56 AM
Another person Harunani knew was Shuhaib Barzinji and therefore presumably Jamal Barzinji
#2
It is the best publicly available version of the story of 911.
They saw through a lot of lies told by the military and bureaucracy and the white house.

However they made excuses for Saudis, where if it was anyone else they would have found fault and it is only a limited and censored version of what really happened.
#3
September 11, 2001 Timeline / Five Men Detained As Suspected...
Last post by Archangel - August 17, 2017, 07:52:42 PM


Five Men Detained As Suspected Conspirators

Wednesday, September 12, 2001
By PAULO LIMA
Staff Writer

"About eight hours after terrorists struck Manhattan's tallest skyscrapers, police in Bergen County detained five men who they said were found carrying maps linking them to the blasts.

The five men, who were in a van stopped on Route 3 in East Rutherford around 4:30 p.m., were being questioned by police but had not been charged with any crime late Tuesday. The Bergen County Police bomb squad X-rayed packages but did not find any explosives, authorities said.

However, sources close to the investigation said they found other evidence linking the men to the bombing plot.

"There are maps of the city in the car with certain places highlighted," the source said. "It looked like they're hooked in with this. It looked like they knew what was going to happen when they were at Liberty State Park."

Sources also said that bomb-sniffing dogs reacted as if they had detected explosives, although officers were unable to find anything. The FBI seized the van for further testing, authorities said.

Sources said the van was stopped as it headed east on Route 3, between the Hackensack River bridge and the Sheraton hotel. As a precaution, police shut down Route 3 traffic in both directions after the stop and evacuated a small roadside motel near the Sheraton.

Sources close to the investigation said the men said they were Israeli tourists, but police had not been able to confirm their identities. Authorities would not release their names.

East Rutherford officers stopped the van after the FBI's Newark Field Office broadcast an alert asking surrounding police departments to look for a white Chevrolet van, police said.

"We got an alert to be on the lookout for a white Chevrolet van with New Jersey registration and writing on the side," said Bergen County Police Chief John Schmidig. "Three individuals were seen celebrating in Liberty State Park after the impact. They said three people were jumping up and down."

The East Rutherford officers summoned the county police bomb squad, New Jersey state troopers, and FBI agents, who waited alongside the van as prosecutors from the U.S. Attorney's Office tried to obtain a warrant to search the van late Tuesday, Schmidig said.

By 10 p.m., members of the bomb squad were picking through the van and X-raying packages found inside, Schmidig said.

At a near-by hotel in New Jersey:

A business traveler staying at the Homestead Studio Suites Hotel said she watched state troopers drive the suspects away in a procession of state police cars about 5 p.m.

The woman, who asked not to be identified, said the people detained appeared to be white men, but she could not give more details. About 5:30 p.m., police evacuated the hotel without offering guests an explanation.

"First, they told us we could hang out in the lobby, but then they told us we had to leave," the traveler said.

At 10 p.m., the hotel guest said she could see at least two police officers searching through the van while a crowd of other officers kept their distance. Except for police vehicles and a tow truck, the service road beside Route 3 was empty, she said.



Source: Killtown, The Record - N.J. News
#4
September 11, 2001 Timeline / Nationwide APB Is Broadcast Fo...
Last post by Archangel - August 17, 2017, 07:42:31 PM



Nationwide APB is Broadcast for a white van with Urban Moving Systems on the back.

The FBI puts out a nationwide All Points Bulletin, to keep police and citizens on the lookout for a 'suspicious white van, with Urban Moving Systems on the back"

Before the towers collapsed, four people were on top of a white van celebrating the attacks and videotaping them while cheering. Later, multiple car bombs went off at ground zero before the towers fell.

Even later that day, another van was pulled over by police which matched this description, and the van was found to test positive for explosives as well as had detonators in it....all occupants were Israeli. They were detained for 71 days, then sent back to Israel with no charges

Sources said the FBI alert, known as a BOLO or "Be On Lookout," was sent out at 3:31 p.m.
It read:
"Vehicle possibly related to New York terrorist attack. White, 2000 Chevrolet vanwith 'Urban Moving Systems' sign on back seen at Liberty State Park, Jersey City, NJ, at the time of first impact of jetliner into World Trade Center.

"Three individuals with van were seen celebrating after initial impact and subsequent explosion. FBI Newark Field Office requests that, if the van is located, hold for prints and detain individuals."

FBI spokeswoman Sandra Carroll declined to comment on the incident late Tuesday.
State police Lt. Col. Barry W. Roberson confirmed the traffic stop at a late night news briefing at state police headquarters in Trenton. He would not elaborate, however.

Sources: Killtown
#5
September 11, 2001 Timeline / Truck Bomb Reported Around 6th...
Last post by Archangel - August 17, 2017, 07:06:09 PM



Audio from Police Broadcast
#6
These 6 Corporations Control 90% Of The Media In America

Source: Business Insider

   
by Ashley Lutz

    Jun. 14, 2012, 9:49 AM 2,249,865

This infographic created by Jason at Frugal Dad shows that almost all media comes from the same six sources.

That's consolidated from 50 companies back in 1983.

NOTE: This infographic is from last year and is missing some key transactions. GE does not own NBC (or Comcast or any media) anymore. So that 6th company is now Comcast. And Time Warner doesn't own AOL, so Huffington Post isn't affiliated with them.

But the fact that a few companies own everything demonstrates "the illusion of choice," Frugal Dad says. While some big sites, like Digg and Reddit aren't owned by any of the corporations, Time Warner owns news sites read by millions of Americans every year.

Here's the graphic:
#7



Conan Shows how the news is not real news at all.
        Our news media used to compete for news and exclusive stories but now they all propagate the exact same pictures and story-lines so that no matter where you get your news  it will be the same exact story (official story). In this way the government can control what you see and believe. This sounds like communist China or North Korea to me. Why is our government telling us we are free all the while attempting to control our thinking just like those communist countries do? Does the cow ever realize that it is being groomed just so that it can be slaughtered and eaten? If it every does, it is already too late...

It's like a Russian comedian Yakov Smirnoff said in his act, "In Russia we only had two TV channels. Channel One was pro da. Channel Two consisted of a KGB officer telling you: Turn back at once to Channel One." It is not this bad in the USA yet but when every channel you are FREE to turn to shares the same exact point of view, you only have one point of view; the governments. This brings to mind another saying by Yakov Smirnoff "Many people are surprised to hear that we have comedians in Russia, but they are there. They are dead, but they are there". This is almost what it is coming to when you don't believe the "Official Story" and ask questions or speak out about why it is not true.

In the 50's the C.I.A. decided to infiltrate the media so that they could control the propaganda. This project was called "Project Mockingbird" aptly named because they were going to have all the media say the same things in order to influence the public in the way that they wanted the news viewed. Well, if you heard it on the news it has to be true, Right!?


In the old days when a news story broke, you changed from channel to channel to get more information because all news stations were independent and had their own views and sources for the news. There used to be "Exclusive New" that one news station had over the others. This was used to get the viewers to watch their station because only they had this news. Today it is all different, no matter which channel you choose you will not get any new information that the others do not have because they all get it from the same source. Now if that news happens to be show a particularity political agenda in a bad light, you won't be seeing that news ANYWHERE!


The news people are just Mockingbirds
In this way; when the "official story" is given, you will not be able to find a different point of view. So when everyone is in agreement it has to be true, yes? Supposed this happened with Watergate? We would never have had Nixon resign the office of President of The United States because the "official story" would have been whitewashed and you would have never heard of Watergate, and if you did the story might have been some lone nut that broke in with a magic bullet... But that reporter was allowed to investigate and the news fell where it fell with no agenda to pursue or master to obey. They made sure this would never happen again to their agenda.

You can generally tell when an "official story" has been manipulated and/or whitewashed. It is most always surrounded by documents and evidence that has to be kept from the public for a matter of national or public security. Also the documents at the time of their release will be heavily redacted or some future date will be applied to the documents release when most everyone involved will be dead already. This way no one every gets prosecuted and if their is anyone who remember the incident, is still alive the information that they have cannot be corroborated.  It's a shell game...
#8



Who Benefited From 9-1
9/11: Who Really Benefited?
From: Truth Theory

By Captain America
Michel Chossudovsky, July 24, 2011

Forget so-called conspiracy theories. Instead look at reality. Dare ask yourself who actually seems to have benefited from the 9-11 calamity. In light of the debt ceiling debates and the continuous corrupt politics as usual of Washington D.C., it is time for the American people, and individual states of this federation, to look at a troubling set of facts. It seems there were "several" beneficiaries of 9-11 that don't exactly fit the story line we were constantly fed by the propaganda machine and mainstream media as to how to connect the dots (which we were rhetorically asked to do).

Here is a list of peoples that benefited. Most of this list is factual. Some are more opinion but with strong support in reality-based argument:

1) The New York Port Authority was having difficulty renting out space in the Twin Towers. More importantly there was a huge asbestos liability. Surprisingly these Towers were sold to a new owner Larry Silverstein just three months prior—who managed to get an insurance contract for a big payout if any of the Tower buildings got hit by an airplane. This is a fact.

2) Our first international move was to bomb Afghanistan under the assumption that people there were involved. So the heroin industry of Afghanistan came back to life in a big way—that is international and local drug cartels rediscovered a gold mine of money supply. Bin Laden and the Taliban, because of their religious fanaticism, pretty much closed down the trade to a trickle. But after the bombing shake-up, people connected with the heroin trade in Central Asia reaped billion dollars rewards—including money-laundering groups of financiers—such as banksters, etc. (And this is pretty much all the U.S. military/ intelligence has really accomplished—despite all the rhetoric and high-sounding goals about exporting democracy.) This is fact and not fiction.

3) Investors of profitable corporations connected to the military industrial complex made a killing (pun intended). Obviously war has been profitable for some industries for eons as we are told by most war historians profits are an inevitable consequence of war for merchants of death yet they say profit is "not" the driving force behind war. Think again. For our American culture, since at least the Vietnam War, it seems to have become the driving force. (What else does America still manufacture?) Prior to 9/11 there was little in the way of war material inventories being depleted. But soon after 9/11 this all changed. In fact some corporate stocks immediately went up in value—as did some military contracts. Note as well that after the cold war both the Pentagon and the Intelligence apparatus should have cut their budgets in half. (But then no one would have been promoted and the Pentagon would have lost some of its clout.) That did not happen. Rather the budgets doubled in size. How is that for financial austerity? This is fact and not fiction.

4) Some powerful industry leaders and think tank politicos believed it was necessary for certain "companies" to "control" various strategic resources such as oil and gas. And not surprisingly the very countries in which we declared a war against terrorists are surprisingly the same countries that contain such resources—especially in the Middle East.

Gas and oil reserves are coveted by every industrial civilization and every military as a necessity. For example, there was a plan to build an oil pipeline through Afghanistan and Pakistan to ship out from the Indian ocean—requiring stable societies that don't sabotage pipelines. Nevertheless despite things not going as planned oil companies for whatever reason reaped huge profits. Fact and not fiction.

5) Advocates, such as Paul Bremer, for extreme laissez faire economic policies, attempted to rewrite an Iraqi constitution to promote a free market system of neo-liberal economic principles to make it especially easy for foreign nations to own Iraq's resources. And if you do your research you will come to learn that the U.S. did not have any gripes with Saddam Hussein until he kicked oil companies out of Iraq because they wanted to take the lion's share of the profits. He nationalized oil. This is fact and not fiction.

6) Israel benefited by having one of their neighboring enemies, namely Saddam Hussein and his standing army, weakened and preoccupied. It is not a coincidence that advocates and newspaper pundits most defensive about our invasion happen to be strong advocates of Israel's right-wing will. Evidence clearly shows that some Israeli supporters were part of the culture of deception to take us to war with Iraq—as they are now working to take us to war with Iran with a similar pattern of phony intelligence. Equally it is a fact that whatever Middle East group harbors hostility toward Israel is now considered terrorist in nature to Americans. It is a fact that the Israeli lobby pushed hard for war with Iraq.

7) Right-wing politicos, especially Christian and Judaic, who like to promote prejudice against anything Muslim and Arab benefited. Since 9-11 there has been a constant propaganda war against Muslims throughout Western countries. (This is not to argue that Americans should not be wary of foreign motives.) But the fact is that those who do not wish Muslims to have influence in this culture have clearly wages a major propaganda campaign for Westerners to fear and distrust a huge segment of the world's population—as a "cultural clash" or clash of civilizations like the medieval era of The Crusades. This is to say that Israel's enemies have become our enemies as "neocon" propaganda campaign harps on "Islamo-fascism," "Islamo-extremism," and "Islamo-fanaticism". Meanwhile this event is used to further persuade Americans Israel is America's "natural" ally and partner against the forces of evil. (Yet rightwing Israelis too are not willing to separate Church and State and so they discriminate against those not Jewish. Therefore they too do not share our democratic values of equality for "all" people—like many of the theocratic countries in the Middle East.) This is opinion but it still reflects reality.

8 ) Politically motivated people with the desire to use "fear," namely terrorism, as an excuse to curtail and destroy civil liberties and freedoms normally honored in democratic countries. We have become more a fascist state with Homeland Security surveillance. This curtailment is similar to those who continue to try to censor free speech—and make it more difficult to have the right to "associate" via technologies such as the Internet. Such mentality has allowed spying on citizens by "privatized" corporations not accountable to the tax paying public who pay organizations to secretly spy and keep records on its own citizenry. Obama and his team have done nothing to make real, substantive changes, and in fact have reinforced this tyranny. The curtailment of our freedoms is fact and not fiction.

9) Some international political operatives willing to take American bribe money in exchange to playing and saying our tune have benefited, such as some political factions in the Middle East who equally play they game with our tax dollars—including journalists who will write and say whatever Uncle Sam wants as long as there is a brick of one hundred dollar bills as "disappeared" just like military contracts that did not get performed—but were still played. This could also include those creating phony websites to spew messages or take credit for events done by others.

10) People with a desire to destroy the political strength and good will of the American people and government. Our country is no longer looked upon as a "positive" force for democracy. Further our economy has been severely damaged by corrupt forces willing to sacrifice real national security to greedy and self-interested ends. We are seen as the rogue state by too many. It doesn't seem to bother some profiting that America goes broke invading foreign countries—irrespective of what the rest of the world thinks—and what could be a long term disaster—if not a World War 3. (It almost seems like a deliberate foil to destroy military preparedness and to weaken our security.) Furthermore, those who believe in a two class system benefited because the wealth investor class, including most of the Congress and Senate, are "not" sending their kids to die—rather they rely on a volunteer military of lower and middle class kids that can't find jobs or have few prospects to go to school.

11) Along with this financial bust is a drive to destroy liberal notions of any kind of welfare for the less fortunate—save welfare for corrupt corporations. While it is true that there is no free lunch (unless you live in the beltway) there is also way too much scorn for people who are not super-rich as deserving some kind of humanity.

Perhaps Obama should let the country default. Perhaps individual states "should" give serious consideration to secede from the Union. It has become one massive failure anyway. This litany is as contentious as the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence written over two hundred years ago. And there is good reason to modify our current banking system and the Federal Reserve.

The U.S. Congress, like most pseudo-liberal chicken lefties, who have not had the guts to look seriously at what likely happened on 9/11, or why, have succumbed to the cowardliness of voting to not close the U.S. gulag. They are more afraid of their own lost of stature than they are of honoring the rights of law and justice. Meanwhile the legal system—id est lawyers—have been far too compliant.

This is to say that the U.S. is being strangulated by corporate America and its finance sector. This is a form of slavery to be manipulated into doing things under false assumptions. Why the ultra rich became even more so, they "own" Congress with their bribery of lobby money and especially the Republican party—despite all the Tea Party advocates.

You may not like these realities. Few do. So go ahead and continue to shun all "theories" about 9-11 as mere skewed imagination. Because while it is true that 99.99% of the Government is innocent that doesn't mean a relatively small, but high-ranking cabal, could not have been involved—especially given all the security transgressed and air force stand down that ensued.

Still it is easy to point fingers at identifiable groups of people as over-generalizations. Nevertheless many people looked the other way to not notice the dots the machine was drawing was itself tainted—which had its own wisdom of reticence. But where are we to go as a culture if we continue to play blind?

You can believe in fantasy as most people choose—because in the short term it feels easier. But it may turn out to be worse in the longer term with both parties being irremediably corrupt. More importantly to the sell out of our human rights to corporations with laws like Citizens United vs. the Federal Elections Commission.

Good Luck to all people who think they know something because they have been conditioned to believe what they currently do. Yet ask yourself how many Muslims actually benefited? Then ask that irrespective of who did it, does it not seem that our culture has some issues to contend with and some bureaucracy to address besides the liberal agenda? If lawyers don't start making more noise we could have some serious problems.
#9
United Airlines Flight 93 Crash / Crash Site Damage Already Pres...
Last post by Archangel - August 13, 2017, 09:09:44 PM



Flight 93 Crash Site 1994
This photo was taken from Google Earth in 1994 of Shanksville Mining site. You can see the area in the red rectangle where the same gash is in the ground that the government is saying that United Airlines Flight 93's wings made in 2001.
   
   

Flight 93 Crash Site 2001
In this photo, the only thing added to the gash in the ground was the center hole. No plane did this. So the media report that a black box was found here is totally false and just the official story that they would like us to believe.
#10
What Is Net Neutrality?

Net Neutrality is the internet's guiding principle: It preserves our right to communicate freely online.

Net Neutrality means an internet that enables and protects free speech. It means that ISPs should provide us with open networks — and shouldn't block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over those networks. Just as your phone company shouldn't decide who you call and what you say on that call, your ISP shouldn't interfere with the content you view or post online.

Without Net Neutrality, cable and phone companies could carve the internet into fast and slow lanes. An ISP could slow down its competitors' content or block political opinions it disagreed with. ISPs could charge extra fees to the few content companies that could afford to pay for preferential treatment — relegating everyone else to a slower tier of service. This would destroy the open internet.

Net Neutrality: What You Need to Know Now

When you go online you have certain expectations. You expect to be connected to whatever website you want. You expect that your cable or phone company isn't messing with the data and is connecting you to all websites, applications and content you choose. You expect to be in control of your internet experience.

When You Use The Internet You Expect Net Neutrality.

Net Neutrality is the basic principle that prohibits internet service providers like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon from speeding up, slowing down or blocking any content, applications or websites you want to use. Net Neutrality is the way that the internet has always worked.

In 2015, millions of activists pressured the Federal Communications Commission to adopt historic Net Neutrality rules that keep the internet free and open — allowing you to share and access information of your choosing without interference.

But right now this win is in jeopardy: Trump's FCC chairman, Ajit Pai, wants to destroy Net Neutrality. And on May 18, the FCC voted to let Pai's internet-killing plan move forward.

The Problem With Not Having Net Neutrality.

Now there are agencies, corporations and individuals that want to impede upon Net Neutrality. The move will limit free speech by giving power to the corporation and government agencies to limit what you can say online, websites you can visit, how fast your connection is and other such limitations. This move would deter any voice that is not mainstream from being heard just like in the media (news and television). This would make it easier for the government to silence you if you have ideas that do not go with their point of view.