If you like this blog

Don't miss Kevin Barrett's radio shows! And visit TruthJihad.com for more...

Sunday, July 19, 2009

9/11 Pentagon "Jetliner Attack" Illusion Exposed

The Proof that 9/11 Was an Inside Job that Several Leading 9/11 Truth Sites Don't Want You to See

In his first 9/11 book The New Pearl Harbor (2004), David Ray Griffin wrote that if the government's version of the "757 attack" on the Pentagon was not THE most obviously false part of the official story, it was at the very least tied for first place. (Presumably with Building 7.)

Since then, Griffin has not changed his mind, and the vast majority of 9/11 truth-seekers agrees with him.

Unfortunately, a tiny fringe element of truth-seekers (real and/or counterfeit) has been working overtime to smear anyone who brings up this issue. Worse, they have been smearing the very people who who have been doing the hard work necessary to settle the issue. And even now, after the issue has been definitively settled, they continue to fight a rear-guard action in favor of the proven-false proposition that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon. It would be funny, except that these people have seized power at several key 9/11 truth websites and used ad hominem attacks to vilify the researchers who have proved that David Ray Griffin was and remains correct: The government's "757 attack on the Pentagon" story is either AS obviously false as its claim that WTC-7 collapsed from fires, or possibly even MORE obviously false.

Rob Balsamo of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, and Craig Ranke and Aldo Marquis of Citizen Investigation Team, have worked their tails off doing primary research. Using the government's own alleged black box data (Balsamo) and in-depth recorded interviews with every Pentagon witness they could track down (Ranke and Marquis) these three guys have proven beyond anybody's reasonable doubt that the government's story is false. What's more, Ranke and Marquis have offered a plausible alternative hypothesis--a jetliner flyover timed to coincide with the detonation of a bomb--and found convincing eyewitness testimony to back it up. This alternative hypothesis lines up well with the evidence Barbara Honegger uncovered in her interviews with Pentagon personnel.

These brave researchers have been repeatedly smeared by -- who else? -- the anonymous cyber-entity that calls itself "Arabesque." This web handle (I have no idea if an actual person corresponds to it, or whether its true name is Operation Arabesque) specializes in cherry-picking little out-of-context word-turds from the internet, and assembling them into deceptive TIN RATS (They'll Never Read All This S**T). The result looks somewhat like actual scholarship to those unfamiliar with the genuine article, and provides those guided more by emotion than intellect -- especially people who are deathly afraid that the 9/11 truth movement will become identified with a claim that looks outlandish to the general public (!) -- with reasons to embrace their knee-jerk emotional reactions rather than engage intellectually with the evidence. (Check out this excellent deconstruction of Operation Arabesque's deceptive attacks on CIT.)

It's funny how the opinions of real 9/11 truth leaders like David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage (who recently endorsed CIT's work) are ignored by certain 9/11 sites, while the deceptive nonsense spewing from the cyber-orifice of Operation Arabesque is accepted. It makes you wonder about the judgement, if not the sincerety, of the people who run these sites.

I urge everyone to watch CIT's new 81 minute presentation, National Security Alert, and listen to my interview last week with Craig Ranke and this coming Tuesday with Rob Balsamo: http://noliesradio.org/archives/category/shows/fair-balanced. Also, please note that Rob and Pilots for 9/11 Truth really need some financial help right now. You can contribute by scrolling down the left column to the "Chip In" button at PilotsFor911Truth.org.

Don't let the trolls, ops and gatekeepers put these brave 9/11 primary-evidence researchers out of business.

6 comments:

  1. Kevin, it will greatly help if you please provide full Griffin quote you allude to as being more than the quotes you embed in lieu of the alluded to Griffin position you characterize/coin in Your Words (apart from the following quotes you Do provide: "757 attack" / "757 attack on the Pentagon".

    thank you ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Griffin was thoroughly busted lying about Pentagon on-site defense systems by someone who really does care about the truth: http://www.jod911.com/There_Are_No_Missile_Defenses_at_the_Pentagon.pdf
    and if no plane hit it, then why did American Airlines pay damages in the April Gallop lawsuit and others alleging that one of theirs did?
    I'd also like to know why Steven Jones and his fellow researchers won't demonstrate for us how this nanothermite they claim to have discovered in WTC dust actually works on steel and concrete, since it supposedly severs in-place columns with precise timing, turns hundreds of thousands of yards of floor slabs to fine dust in seconds, and keeps steel molten in debris piles for at least three months, if you believe Richard Gage and some of the other 9/11 theorists.
    You should be grateful for any response you and the rest of the 9/11 "truth movement" get at this point, Kevin, because most people just ignore you, for obvious reasons.

    ReplyDelete
  3. beware of hegelian misdirection routines ~ ;-)

    WhoDid9/11? We Need To Know!
    http://tinyurl.com/1bago7

    Focus Unite on Stalwart Accountability We Seek by embracing that Accountability.
    Focus Unite on 'WhoDid911?'
    (don't be distracted misdirected fooled marginalized into sabotaging the prime core directive unassailable stalwart position: WhoDid9/11?
    ---
    avoid being suckered into divisive pissing contests against focus unity mission position: 'WhoDid9/11?'
    We Need To Know

    ReplyDelete
  4. Kevin, CIT is a crock. They numb your mind with all their evidence for the north-of-CITGO flight path, and then the provide lousy evidence for the flyover. Their only witness claims he saw a jetliner for five seconds, and that it made a U-turn in that time.

    I wish you would stop promoting nonsense like William Rodriguez's impossible hero tales, CIT's baloney, and Captain Eric May's predictions of false flag events that never come true. Can't you see that bullshit harms the movement? Ot are you just desperate to fill up your air time?

    ReplyDelete
  5. alburyt said ...

    "I'd also like to know why Steven Jones and his fellow researchers won't demonstrate for us how this nanothermite they claim to have discovered in WTC dust actually works on steel and concrete, since it supposedly severs in-place columns with precise timing, turns hundreds of thousands of yards of floor slabs to fine dust in seconds, and keeps steel molten in debris piles for at least three months, if you believe Richard Gage and some of the other 9/11 theorists."

    Perhaps alberyt can explain to us exactly what did "sever in-place columns with precise timing, turn hundreds of thousands of yards of floor slabs to fine dust in seconds, and keep steel molten in debris piles for at least three months".

    Presumably alberyt has the authoritative answer.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I have been noticing a trend of so-called 9/11 truters attacking real investigators. Jon Gold and several others are even trying to get us to go all the way back to the limited hangout of LIHOP. This "arabesque" guy[?] is just another one of the disinfo agents attempting to divert the movement from geeting too close to the actual truth. Good researchers include Kevin Ryan, Steven Jones, Richard Gage, David Ray Griffin, Niels Harrit, et al. I also trust Keven Barret. He's not perfect, but who is? I get the feeling that he is genuinely interested in finding the truth. "Arabesque" is most likely a disinfo/misdirection plant. There are a bunch of them in the movement. As soon as you hear them tell you not to get into controlled demolition and the pentagon incident, be wary....be very wary.

    ReplyDelete