1. “What Hit the Pentagon?
There has been heated debate about what hit the Pentagon. At first glance it appears that the 757 could not have hit the Pentagon because there appeared to be too little debris, and too little damage at the impact site. It is very attractive to find evidence to support these claims because, if true, it would prove once and for all that the official story is a pack of lies, and many people have tried very hard to do so. However if you look at the evidence carefully you will find that it cannot be conclusively proved that no 757 hit the Pentagon. This doesn’t matter in the overall 9/11 analysis, however, because there is ample physical evidence that explosives were used at the World Trade Centre. That is sufficient to prove that the official story is false and that the NIST report and 9/11 Commission report are simply parts of an artful cover-up.
The first thorough scientific exposition of the evidence for controlled demolition, using
explosives, at the World Trade Centre was that of Professor Steven Jones in 2006. There is
now an updated version of this paper:
2. “There are two essential points to note:
1. Nothing should have hit the Pentagon. This implies a stand-down order existed, as
appears to be confirmed by Mineta’s testimony to the 9/11 Commission.
2. The authorities could easily show us what hit the Pentagon but they do not.
Together these provide prima facie evidence that the official explanation of the event at
the Pentagon is false and that a cover-up exists.31 This is more than sufficient to demand a new investigation, regardless of what hit the Pentagon.
The light pole in the photo above was supposedly hit by the wing of an airplane going over 500mph. It was broken in two and knocked sideways. The pole would have had lateral momentum that had to be arrested by the ground. There would be lateral gouges in the grass where the pole skidded to a stop. There are no gouges. This pole was laid there.
Pointing out an obvious staged event discredits the official story. This is significant and doesn’t depend on witnesses. You can see it with your own eyes.”
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21024
2. “The Case for Deflation”
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/08/case-for-deflation.html
3. “Emergency Control” of the Internet
You have to hand it to congressional Democrats. Mendacious grifters whose national security agenda is virtually indistinguishable from Bushist Republicans, when it comes to rearranging proverbial deck chairs on the Titanic, the party of “change” is second to none in the “all terrorism all the time” department.
While promising to restore the “rule of law,” “protect civil liberties” while “keeping America safe,” in practice, congressional Democrats like well-coiffed Republican clones across the aisle, are crafting legislation that would do Dick Cheney proud!
As the Cybersecurity Act of 2009 (S.773) wends its way through Congress, civil liberties’ advocates are decrying provisions that would hand the President unlimited power to disconnect private-sector computers from the internet.
…
McCullagh avers: “Translation: If your company is deemed ‘critical,’ a new set of regulations kick in involving who you can hire, what information you must disclose, and when the government would exercise control over your computers or network.”
And there you have it, a “cybersecurity” blacklist to accompany a potential state takeover of the Internet during a “national emergency.” What will they think of next!“
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=14964
