BREAKING: Discover How A Slacker Makes $100,000 A Year!

WEBMASTERS! Get Your Website To The Top Of Google

Hillary Clinton: A Bilderberg Presidency

Saturday, February 2nd, 2008

European elite back Democratic frontrunner

By Daniel Taylor

“…Hillary will be good for America… we’ll be very pleased that she’s president.” — Lynn Forester de Rothschild, Portfolio magazine, October 5, 2007

While President Bush’s approval rating falls to record lows, the torch is being prepared to pass on to Hillary Clinton, with full endorsement from the global elite. With support from European nobility, Clinton has been selected as the candidate of choice for the continuation of globalist policies. Bill Clinton, being a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission, as well as the secretive Bilderberg group, was the creme de la creme establishment candidate. His wife, Hillary, who likely attended the 2006 Bilderberg conference in Ottawa Canada, now promises to follow in his path.

In an October 5th interview conducted by Lloyd Grove of Portfolio magazine, Lynn Forester de Rothschild, wife of Sir Evelyn Rothschild, openly proclaimed support for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. Lloyd Grove begins by commenting on Lynn’s influence, writing of her first meeting with her future husband Evelyn Rothschild which took place at the 1998 Bilderberg conference in Turnberry, Scotland,

“When 67-year-old British banking scion Sir Evelyn Rothschild first set eyes on 44-year-old Lynn Forester at the 1998 Bilderberg conference—the matchmaker was none other than Henry Kissinger—she was already a woman of major means.”

When asked by Grove if Clinton will be “good for business,” Rothschild replies,

“First of all, Hillary will be good for America. And so if we care about our country —which all of my fellow capitalists do —we’ll be very pleased that she’s president.”

Writing in the Council on Foreign Relations publication Foreign Affairs, Hillary Clinton outlines her agenda if elected president. Iran is in Clinton’s sights, along with regional government, and likely support of the North American Union - and possibly a Pan-American union - with a “policy of vigorous engagement” with Latin America.

Regarding Iran, Clinton echoes the rhetoric coming from President Bush and the Neo-cons,

“Iran must conform to its nonproliferation obligations and must not be permitted to build or acquire nuclear weapons. If Iran does not comply with its own commitments and the will of the international community, all options must remain on the table.”

Clinton’s “vigorous engagement” stance toward Latin America would make North American integration proponent Robert Pastor and the CFR proud. Regional government, as well as regional currencies have been a long term goal of Bilderberg globalists and the Council on Foreign Relations. Clinton, if elected president would pursue further integration of Africa into the African Union,

“We should target these countries for aid and other forms of support and work with them to strengthen regional institutions such as the African Union. The AU seeks to emulate the European Union by requiring and supporting democracy among its members…”

Hillary Clinton congratulated Walter Cronkite in 1999 for his global governance award, given to him by the World Federalist Association for his support for a system of world government. “For decades you’ve told us the way it is, and tonight we honor you for fighting for the way it could be,” said Clinton.

Watch this video to see Clinton’s statement:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=heegk07026I[/youtube]

The thin veil covering the almost indistinguishable difference between the two major parties has all but disappeared. The good Congressman from Texas named Ron Paul is the only candidate that comes with no strings attached leading to globalist puppeteers. Paul’s popular yet simple message of freedom is spreading, while the establishment scrambles to scare up support from ever more skeptical Americans for their increasingly un-popular candidates.

Daniel Taylor

Have Your Say: Hillary Clinton: A Bilderberg Presidency
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

How the Media Messes with Your Mind

Saturday, February 2nd, 2008

Statements made in the media can surreptitiously plant distortions in the minds of millions. Learning to recognize two commonly used fallacies can help you separate fact from fiction

By Yvonne Raley and Robert Talisse

In 2003 nearly half of all Americans falsely assumed that the U.S. government had found solid evidence for a link between Iraq and al Qaeda. What is more, almost a quarter of us believed that investigators had all but confirmed the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, according to a 2003 report by the University of Maryland’s Program on International Policy Attitudes and Knowledge Networks, a polling and market research firm. How did the true situation in Iraq become so grossly distorted in American minds?

Many people have attributed such misconceptions to a politically motivated disinformation campaign to engender support for the armed struggle in Iraq. We do not think the deceptions were premeditated, however. Instead they are most likely the result of common types of reasoning errors, which appear frequently in discussions in the news media and which can easily fool an unsuspecting public.

News shows often have an implicit bias that may motivate the portrayal of facts and opinions in misleading ways, even if the information presented is largely accurate. Nevertheless, by becoming familiar with how spokespeople can create false impressions, media consumers can learn to ignore certain claims and thereby avoid getting duped. We have detected two general types of fallacies—one of them well known and the other newly identified—that have permeated discussion of the Iraq War and that are generally ubiquitous in political debates and other discourse.

Spinning Straw into Fool’s Gold
One common method of spinning information is the so-called straw man argument. In this tactic, a person summarizes the opposition’s position inaccurately so as to weaken it and then refutes that inaccurate rendition. In a November 2005 speech, for example, President George W. Bush responded to questions about pulling troops out of Iraq by saying, “We’ve heard some people say, pull them out right now. That’s a huge mistake. It’d be a terrible mistake. It sends a bad message to our troops, and it sends a bad message to our enemy, and it sends a bad message to the Iraqis.” The statement that unnamed “people” are advocating a troop withdrawal from Iraq “right now” is a straw man, because it exaggerates the opposing viewpoint. Not even the most stalwart Bush adversaries backed an immediate troop withdrawal. Most proposed that the soldiers be sent home over several months, a more reasonable and persuasive plan that Bush undercut with his straw man.

The straw man is used in countless other contexts as well. In his acceptance speech at the 1996 Democratic Convention, for instance, Bill Clinton opined: “… with all respect [to Bob Dole], we do not need to build a bridge to the past. We need to build a bridge to the future.” Dole did discuss restoring the values of an earlier America, but Clinton falsely implied that Dole was only looking backward (whereas Clinton was looking forward). People may use a straw man to discredit theories to which they do not subscribe. Characterizing evolution, for example, as “all random chance” is a straw man argument; it misrepresents a complex theory that only partly rests on the randomness of mutations that may lead to better chances of survival.

Recently, in a 2006 paper co-authored with Scott F. Aikin, one of us (Talisse) documented a twist on the straw man tactic. In what Talisse dubs a weak man argument, a person sets up the opposition’s weakest (or one of its weakest) arguments or proponents for attack, as opposed to misstating a rival’s position as the straw man argument does. In a July 2007 edition of Talking Points, Bill O’Reilly took on a claim by the New York Times that we had lost the war in Iraq by saying that “the New York Times declared defeat in Iraq Sunday on its editorial page, and there’s no question the antiwar movement has momentum.” (The editorial actually said that “some opponents of the Iraq war are toying with the idea of American defeat,” but let us assume that O’Reilly’s characterization was correct.)

O’Reilly then offered a weak man explanation for the purported defeat: “The truth is the Iraqi government and many of its citizens are simply not doing enough to defeat the terrorists and corruption. The U.S.A. can’t control that country. No nation could…. Unfortunately, the Iraqi failure to help themselves has come true.” Although Iraq’s failure to aid in fighting terrorism and corruption could be why we are losing the war, the troubles in Iraq could also stem from a host of logistical reasons, some of which may shed a negative light on the current administration. O’Reilly, however, kept any discussion of these reasons offstage, suppressing the various other possible—and possibly more likely—reasons for “defeat” in Iraq. Meanwhile his claims that the “U.S.A. can’t control that country” and that “no nation could” deflected blame from the U.S. government.

Weak man arguments are pervasive. In a 2005 editorial in Denver’s Rocky Mountain News, conservative writer and activist David Horowitz picked on ethnic studies scholar Ward Churchill, formerly at the University of Colorado at Boulder, whose views he described as “hateful and ignorant.” Horowitz then went on to claim that Churchill’s radical “hate America” convictions “represent” those of a “substantial segment of the academic community.” Thus, he used the example of Churchill (the weak man) to argue that “tenured radicals” have made universities into leftist political institutions and subverted the academic enterprise, thereby failing to acknowledge the presence of more highly regarded and politically mainstream scholars in academia.

Trolling for Truth
Weak man tactics are harder to detect than those of the straw man variety. Because straw man arguments are closely related to an opponent’s true position, a clever listener might be able to spot the truth amid the hyperbole, understatement or other corrupted version of that view. A weak man argument, however, is more opaque because it contains a grain of truth and often bears little similarity to the stronger arguments that should also be presented. Therefore, a listener has to know a lot more about the situation to imagine the information that a speaker or writer has cleverly disregarded.

Nevertheless, an astute consumer of the news can catch many straw man and weak man fallacies by knowing how they work. Another strategy is to always consider a speaker’s or writer’s motivation or agenda and be especially alert for skewed statements of fact in editorials, television opinion shows, and the like. It is also wise to obtain news from more balanced news sources. An alternative approach is to try to construct, in your own mind, the best argument against what you have heard before accepting it as true. Or simply ask yourself: Why should I not believe this?

Have Your Say: How the Media Messes with Your Mind
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

VIDEO: What really happened in New Orleans?

Saturday, February 2nd, 2008

Big Easy to Big Empty

[googlevideo]http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7029031334565008156&hl=en[/googlevideo]
http://www.brasschecktv.com

A video from GregPalast.com

This excerpt of Greg Palast’s “Big Easy to Big Empty” also appears on “Food Music Justice”, a web site for people who care about the people of New Orleans.

If you want to know what’s really going on in New Orleans and how you can help, please visit:

http://www.FoodMusicJustice.com

Have Your Say: VIDEO: What really happened in New Orleans?
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Does the US fund energy projects in Iran?

Saturday, February 2nd, 2008

The World Bank is reportedly using US monetary contributions to help Iran build up and develop its various industries and gas sector.

The World Bank’s Multilateral Investment Guarantee Agency (MIGA) has issued $122.2 million in guarantee coverage for three foreign companies which have in turn invested a total of $42.8 million in Iran’s Mehr Petrochemical Company, Fox News reported.

The three companies are Cementhai Chemicals Company and National Petrochemical Public Company Ltd., both from Thailand, and Itocho Corporation, from Japan, with the latter providing the Iranian company with an additional $96 million shareholder loan, which is also underwritten by MIGA.

MIGA uses contributions to provide financial guarantees to secure foreign investments in developing countries. It is the first time, however, that the Agency has provided such coverage for foreign investments in Iran.

According to Fox News, The US has provided the World Bank with nearly $24 million since 2000.

These projects have helped Iran ‘diversify its exports away from oil’ and ‘contribute to government revenues’, Fox News quoted MIGA as saying.

AKM/AA

Have Your Say: Does the US fund energy projects in Iran?
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Ron Paul: Purpose of Constitution forgotten

Saturday, February 2nd, 2008

Republican hopeful Ron Paul says although America is falling from the purpose of the Constitution, it is not too late to change pace.

“What is frightening today is the war on terrorism, which has instilled fear in us,” Paul said Friday night at the Colorado Convention Center in Denver.

“They tell us that because the war is going to go for a long time, we have to sacrifice our liberties for a long time, and we have to say no to that. We have to take our civil liberties back,” expounded the 10-term congressman.

Paul, who has campaigned as a ‘true Republican’ urging American politicians to abide by the Constitution, also claimed he would withdraw US troops and end the war in Iraq if elected president.

The libertarian turned Republican then suggested that Washington has adopted policies that contradict the Constitution.

“The truth is [that] not everybody in the country understands what we do. A lot of people don’t understand and they just go with the flow… [But] once you know the truth, you have to act on it. You can’t sit on your hands any longer,” continued the 72-year-old Texas congressman.

Ron Paul’s supporters - Paulenteers - say the Republican congressman’s message of ‘freedom, peace and prosperity’ resonates with them and that time has come to repair the bad image of the United States in the international arena.

MD/AA

Have Your Say: Ron Paul: Purpose of Constitution forgotten
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Germany rejects US demand to increase troops

Saturday, February 2nd, 2008

By Tony Paterson in Berlin

A bitter diplomatic row between Germany and the United States deepened yesterday after Berlin flatly rejected demands from Washington that it deploy troops in war-torn southern Afghanistan and angrily dismissed the request as “impertinent” and a “fantastic cheek”.

Germany currently has some 3,200 soldiers stationed in comparatively tranquil northern Afghanistan and the capital Kabul as part of the current Nato peacekeeping mission. It has been urged to deploy troops in the south before but has consistently refused. Yesterday however, it became clear that Washington had stepped up pressure on Berlin to commit troops to the south.

The move followed increased Taliban attacks and threats from Canada that it would withdraw its Afghanistan contingent completely unless more Nato troops were sent south. Canada has lost 77 combat troops in the region.

Two US non-governmental studies released this week warned that Afghanistan could once again become a failed state and terrorist haven.

Details of what was described as an “unusually stern” letter written by Robert Gates, the US Defence Secretary, to Franz Josef Jung, his German counterpart, were leaked to the Süddeutsche Zeitung newspaper yesterday.

The letter described Germany’s performance as “disappointing” and asked it to consider a new Afghanistan mandate which would enable its paratroopers and helicopter units to be sent to the south of the country. It said the US wanted German soldiers to help replace an American contingent of 2,200 troops which is to be withdrawn this autumn.

Germany’s response was a mixture of outrage and surprise. Initial comments leaked from an unnamed defence ministry source described the Gates’ letter as “impertinent”, and as a “fantastic cheek”. One official accused Mr Gates of trying to inflict “psychological torture” on Germany.

Chancellor Angela Merkel let it be known through her spokesman that the issue was “not up for discussion”. Franz-Walter Steinmeier, the German Foreign minister, also flatly rejected the idea. “I think we must continue to focus our attention on the north,” he said.

Mr Jung later justified the German position insisting that there were “clear regional divisions” regarding troop deployment in Afghanistan. “Our current mandate only allows for German soldiers to be sent to the south in emergencies,” he said. The issue is expected to come to a head next week when Nato defence ministers meet in Lithuania to discuss Afghanistan. Social Democrat MPs in Ms Merkel’s conservative-led grand coalition government also argued strongly against the idea of sending troops south. Rainer Arnold, the party’s defence spokesman, warned that the idea risked undermining the already shaky public support for Germany’s entire Afghanistan mission.

“I cannot see broad acceptance for this idea coming from parliament or from the public”, he said “This is a precondition for our continued presence in Afghanistan.” Germany’s presence in the relatively peaceful north of Afghanistan is already unpopular. An opinion poll last year suggested that more than 50 per cent of Germans wanted a complete withdrawal of troops. Ms Merkel’s government is currently facing opposition to plans to deploy a 200-strong unit of combat forces in the north to replace a Norwegian unit which is currently policing the region.

Germany has already been afforded a special Nato caveat which in effective prohibits its troops from going on the offensive unless they are first attacked. At next Thursday’s Nato summit in Vilnius, Germany is expected to come under intense pressure to lift the caveat.

Several German commentators attacked the government for rejecting the American request. The left-leaning Süddeutsche Zeitung accused politicians of being afraid of the voters.

* The US Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, will visit London next week to discuss strategy on Afghanistan, Iran and other issues with the Foreign Secretary, David Miliband. Ms Rice, who arrives on Wednesday, will also meet the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown.

Have Your Say: Germany rejects US demand to increase troops
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

How The Clintons Played The Race Card

Saturday, February 2nd, 2008

The Clinton Game: America shouldn’t fall for it this time

I’m disgusted with Bill and Hillary Clinton. Not merely because they played the race card on Barack Obama, but because they’ve done it before.

It worked to perfection for them in 1992. I saw it up close when I was a part of the Los Angeles Times‘ political team covering Bill Clinton’s successful bid for the White House. Clinton entered the race a decided underdog, backed by a fragile coalition of black believers and disaffected white Reagan Democrats. As we crisscrossed the country, it became increasingly clear how he intended to keep the two disparate constituent groups in his corner: He would send mixed messages. In Southern churches filled with pious African-American worshipers, he sounded like a black Baptist preacher. In rural white communities, he did not hesitate to use racially coded rhetoric.

Early in the campaign, Clinton told a largely white audience that he represented the “new Democrats” who “should no longer feel guilty about protecting the innocent” victims of crime. Then he interrupted his campaign appearances to fly home to Little Rock, Ark., to demonstrate his willingness to let the execution of mentally retarded Ricky Ray Rector proceed without interruption. Rector’s execution allowed Clinton to distance himself from political rival the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who had publicly urged Clinton to spare Rector’s life. Second, it made him look tough on crime, especially crimes committed by black men on white victims. Together, these acts solidified Clinton as a “new Democrat” in the eyes of white voters.

Then came Sister Souljah.

On a blisteringly hot Saturday in June, I covered a Clinton speech at Jackson’s Rainbow Coalition at a downtown Washington, D.C., hotel. Relations between Jackson and Clinton were frosty. The civil rights leader had run unsuccessfully for the Democratic nomination in 1984 and 1988. He was withholding his support of Clinton and was toying with the idea of joining forces with third-party hopeful H. Ross Perot.

I didn’t realize it immediately, but Clinton had come primed for a fight with Jackson. He brought in the heavy guns for his appearance before some 300 African-Americans. In the media gallery, the candidate’s heavy-hitting advisers milled about. Paul Begala, George Stephanopoulos, and James Carville stayed behind the scenes plotting strategy. The fact that all three were there suggested that something big was going on.

Clinton gave a well-received speech that roused the crowd with a full-throated attack on President Bush’s policies. Then, in what seemed to all to be an unscripted moment, Clinton said he felt compelled to discuss racism with the audience because, he declared, all Americans must speak out against it.

Then, he turned his full attention to Sister Souljah, a young rapper who had expressed solidarity with the rioters in Los Angeles who attacked white motorists following acquittals in the Rodney King police-beating case. A few days earlier, Sister Souljah had been quoted in a Washington Post profile saying: “I mean if black people kill black people every day, why not have a week and kill white people? … So if you’re a gang member and you would normally be killing somebody, why not kill a white person?”

The day before Clinton’s speech, Sister Souljah had been invited to speak at the Rainbow Coalition forum where Jackson had praised her for contributions to his organization’s work. Clinton knew Jackson was vulnerable. “If you took the words ‘white’ and ‘black’ and you reversed them, you might think David Duke was giving that speech,” Clinton said, drawing audible gasps in the predominately African-American audience of Jackson supporters. He went on to take notice of her presence at the meeting the day before.

Jackson was embarrassed and outraged. Visibly shaken, he told me, “I do not know why he used this platform to address those issues. It was unnecessary. It was a diversion. … Perhaps he was aiming for an audience that was not here.”

Indeed, he was. Suddenly, I understood it perfectly. That’s why the team from Little Rock was at the ready. They were there to spin the story for the fat Sunday papers and well-watched talking-head shows.

Knowing that the second day story would be reaction from black leaders to the candidate’s comments, I (joined by Gwen Ifill, then of the New York Times) rushed to grab a quote or two from black congressional leaders. I wanted to know if they were as offended by Clinton’s comments as Jackson was.

Comparing notes, Ifill and I realized that Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., and Rep. John Lewis, D-Ga., had made almost identical comments to us. Clinton had given them his talking points in advance, covering himself beautifully.

You don’t have to strain to see the parallels.

Faced with the prospect of losing, the Clintons tried to marginalize Obama by making him nothing more than the black people’s candidate.

After the results were announced in South Carolina, Bill Clinton added the kicker: “Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in ‘84 and ‘88,” Clinton said in a speech on his wife’s behalf. “Jackson ran a good campaign. And Obama ran a good campaign here. … Now we go to February 5 when millions of Americans finally get in the act.”

See why I’m so disgusted? I know which Americans Clinton is talking about.

Sam Fulwood III is a writer for the Cleveland Plain Dealer and lecturer at Case Western Reserve University.

Have Your Say: How The Clintons Played The Race Card
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Cambridge University Twin Towers Theory Debunked

Saturday, February 2nd, 2008

Dr Seffen Paper Proven Ludicrous

By Mick Meaney
RINF Alternative News

In late 2007 a British academic, Dr. Keith Seffen of the University of Cambridge, published a new mathematical analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Centre – however the paper contains several ridiculous claims. Now a formal request has been made by Mr J A Blacker MSc IMI, who recently debunked the paper, to Dr. Chris Burgoyne, the Head of the Department of Engineering at Cambridge University, highlighting these errors and appealing for the misleading paper to be corrected.

The request points out that Dr Seffen’s paper defies several key laws of physics, i.e. conservation of momentum and conservation of energy.

Mr Blacker’s request also states:

“All the floors offered the same flimsy resistance, when in fact each had different construction characteristics, is beyond any logic as the lower floor core columns were over double the thickness compared to the upper floors.”

Such glaring errors should be an embarrassment to one of the world’s oldest and most prestigious universities.

Dr Seffen’s paper essentially claims that a falling body can fall through the path of most resistance. Such a claim is ludicrous and defies all logic or honest scientific integrity.

Another inaccuracy in the paper is the fact it does not take into account the energy needed to convert the 300,000 tons of concrete and steel to dust.

“The Seffen analysis is based on the columns being a hollow box construction. What about cross bracing?” states Mr Blacker.

“The Seffen paper claims that burning jet fuel in air can weaken ALL the steel girders evenly (hence symmetrical collapse due to gravity of all columns perfectly), yet both ends of these outer and inner massive columns were outside the fire zone to differing degrees hence heat would have conducted up and down very efficiently at different rates, and many columns were not even subjected to any significant fire. Are we really expected to believe that fire can weaken steel evenly despite the core columns conducting heat efficiently at varying rates away from varied regions of temperature?”

Simply put, for the University of Cambridge to continue supporting this absurd theory is to present a fictional view of physics.

Download the request here in PDF format.

Have Your Say: Cambridge University Twin Towers Theory Debunked
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Ron Paul: Secretive elite controls America

Saturday, February 2nd, 2008

Presidential candidate Ron Paul says he traces America’s problems to the flawed monetary policy of the wealthy and secretive elite.

During a speech at the University of Washington on Thursday, Paul said the Congress and the Federal Reserve will not be able to stem the recession spurred by the home mortgage meltdown.

“The most important thing you can do is nothing,” said the Texas congressman, who voted against the recent $146 billion economic stimulus package passed by the US House of Representatives.

The 10-term Texas congressman maintained that a series of wrong economic decisions by the Bush administration has led to a recession.

The government should allow the market to correct itself, Paul added.

Although the mainstream media attempts to keep a low profile on the 72-year-old presidential hopeful, he has managed to find a staunch group of supporters who say he has captured their hearts with his ‘message of freedom’ and constitutionalism.

“The Constitution was written for one specific purpose and that was to restrain the government, not to restrain the people,” Paul has said.

MD/AA

Have Your Say: Ron Paul: Secretive elite controls America
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

9/11 Truth - New Study Raises More Questions

Saturday, February 2nd, 2008

New study from Pilots for 9 11 Truth No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon

A study of the black box data provided by the government to Pilots for 9/11 Truth has confirmed the previous findings of Scholars for 9/11 Truth that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. We have had four lines of proof that no Boeing 757 hit the building, said James Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth. This new study by Pilots drives another nail into a coffin of lies told the American people by The 9/11 Commission:

The new society, an international organization of pilots and aviation professionals, petitioned the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) under the Freedom of Information Act and obtained its 2002 report on American Airlines Flight 77, a Boeing 757 that, according to the official account, hit the ground floor of the Pentagon after it skimmed over the lawn at 500 mph plus, taking out a series of lamp posts in the process. The pilots not only obtained the flight data but created a computer animation to demonstrate what it told them.

According to the report issued by Pilots for 9/11 Truth (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/), there are major differences between the official account and the flight data:

a. The NTSB Flight Path Animation approach path and altitude does not support official events.
b. All Altitude data shows the aircraft at least 300 feet too high to have struck the light poles.
c. The rate of descent data is in direct conflict with the aircraft being able to impact the light poles and be captured in the Dept of Defense 5 Frames video of an object traveling nearly parallel with the Pentagon lawn.
d. The record of data stops at least one second prior to official impact time.
e. If data trends are continued, the aircraft altitude would have been at least 100 feet too high to have hit the Pentagon.

As Robert Balsamo, co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, observes, The information in the NSTB documents does not support, and in some instances factually contradicts, the official government position that American Airlines Flight 77 struck the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001. The study was signed by fifteen professional pilots with extensive military and commercial carrier experience. They have made their animation, Pandora’ss Box: Chapter 2, available to the public at http://video.google.com/videosearchq=Pandora’ss+Black+Box%3A+Chapter+2 .

According to James H. Fetzer, founder of Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://911scholars.org), this result fits into the broader picture of what happened at the Pentagon that day. We have developed four lines of argument that prove–conclusively, in my judgment–that no Boeing 757 hit the building. The most important evidence to the contrary has been the numerous eyewitness reports of a large commercial carrier coming toward the building. If the NTSB data is correct, then the Pilot’ss study shows that a large aircraft headed toward the building but did not impact with it. It swerved off and flew above the Pentagon.

Fetzer, who retired last June after 35 years of teaching courses in logic, critical thinking, and scientific reasoning, expressed pleasure over the Pilot’ss results, which, he said, has neatly resolved the most pressing issue that remained about the Pentagon. He added, We have previously developed several lines of argument, each of which proves that no Boeing 757 hit the building, including these four:

(1) The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: there were no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Not even the engines were recovered, and they are practically indestructible.

(2) Of an estimate 84 videotapes of the crash, the three that have been released by the Pentagon do not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O’sReilly admitted when one was shown on The Factor. At 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 77-foot Pentagon is high and should have been visible. There are indications of a much smaller plane, but not a Boeing 757.

(3) Indeed, the aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory–flying more than 500 mph barely above ground level–physically impossible, because of the accumulation of a massive pocket of compressed gas (air) beneath the fuselage; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the official trajectory is impossible.

(4) Flying low enough to impact with the ground floor would have meant that the enormous engines were plowing the ground and creating massive furrows; but there are no massive furrows. The smooth, unblemished surface of the Pentagon lawn thus stands as a smoking gun proving the official trajectory cannot be sustained.

Members of Scholars have contributed to a new book that analyses the government’ss official account, according to which 19 Islamic fundamentalists hijacked four commercial airliners, outfoxed the most sophisticated air-defense system in the world, and committed these atrocities under the control of a man in a cave in Afghanistan. Entitled, THE 9/11 CONSPIRACY (2007), it includes photographs of the hit point before and after the upper floors collapsed, the crucial frame from the released videos, and views of the clear, smooth, and unblemished lawn.

Don’st be taken in by photos showing damage to the second floor or those taken after the upper floors collapsed, which happened 20-30 minutes later, Fetzer said. In fact, debris begins to show up on the completely clean lawn in short order, which might have been dropped from a C-130 that was circling above the Pentagon or placed there by men in suits who were photographed carrying debris with them. The most striking is a piece from the fuselage of a commercial airliner, which is frequently adduced as evidence.

James Hanson, a newspaper reporter who earned his law degree from the University of Michigan College of Law, has traced that debris to an American Airlines 757 that crashed in a rain forest above Cali, Columbia in 1995. It was the kind of slow-speed crash that would have torn off paneling in this fashion, with no fires, leaving them largely intact. Fetzer has been so impressed with his research he has invited Hanson to submit his study to Scholars for consideration for publication on its web site, 911scholars.org.

The Pentagon has become a kind of litmus test for rationality in the study of 9/11, Fetzer said. Those who persist in maintaining that a Boeing 757 hit the building are either unfamiliar with the evidence or cognitively impaired. Unless, he added, they want to mislead the American people. The evidence is beyond clear and compelling. It places this issue ’sbeyond a reasonable doubt’s. No Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon.

Have Your Say: 9/11 Truth - New Study Raises More Questions
Please read our posting guidelines before posting.
Alternatively you can discuss this report in our forum .

Related News

This entry was posted on Saturday, February 2nd, 2008 at 8:26 pm and is filed under General, Political News . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

Translate: