Top products from r/911truth

Well, you need to actually listen to it very carefully, and in the context of the impossible cell phone calls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1GCeuSr3Mk#t=5906

Some commenters have posted the clip with the single phrase in that whisper at the end slowed down but that's not the least the bit helpful in discerning what she said and how she said it.

Go to wikipedia's flight 93 page, scroll about half way down to find the player on the left side, plug in your headphones, turn up the volume and listen very carefully as she suggests at the opening of the message left on her husband's answering machine.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

To better understand the problems with the phone record, I would highly recommend reading the book

Hijacking America's Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence, by Elias Davidson

which puts forward a very compelling case based on the content and style of the calls, even setting aside the impossible cell phone calls, that the people making them were not being genuine or authentic in their delivery and were in fact reading pre-made scripts delivered under some sort of duress or pressure points to keep them from going off script and saying something like "but don't worry it's just a military exercise".

I have pretty good discernment and evaluative skills, and stand by what I posted, but you have to listen to the whole call, it's tone, style, and how she chose to deliver her message, which seems directed as much to her captors, even to us, as to her husband.

You have to listen "very carefully" while assuming nothing. Note how casually and dismissively she describes the circumstance, with apparent fear creeping in only when she reports that she's aware that planes had hit the WTC.

And that's another unusual aspect of the phone record, that they all followed the same pattern involving nonchalant reporting on the status of plane and hijackers.

In a real world situation, the style and content of the calls would have been all over the map, but they were eerily consistent in a variety of ways that, like her call, are not congruent with the reality.

Combined with the evidence regarding the impossible cell phone calls and, sadly and infuriatingly, only one conclusion can be drawn and that is that these people were not on board the aircraft and were made to participate in what they can only have assumed or been told were military exercises involving simulated hijackings.

She knew the score and she dared to go off script, while choosing her entire delivery very carefully with the aim and hope that she would not be killed and would see her husband again, but she knew better, which is why she whispered "it's a frame" at the end of the call, after asking that she be listened to and heard very carefully.

Sister_Lauren, as I've told you before, you are the only other one here who admits to agreeing with me.

And it's actually quite strange, because I don't have a vested interest in the nuke hypothesis and thus it makes no difference to me whether people agree with it or they don't.

The problem, I suppose, is I don't support the thermite/nanothermite theory or Judy Wood's DEW theory, although I don't think anyone here supports that. If they do I've certainly not heard it mentioned. Btw, except for her DEW theory, I think Wood's book is excellent, by far the best written description of the demolition of the towers there is, and I would strongly recommend that everyone reads it.

http://www.amazon.com/Towers-Evidence-Directed-Free-energy-Technology/dp/0615412564

>What is presented in this book is not a theory and it is not speculation. It is evidence. It is the body of empirical evidence that must be explained in order to determine what happened at Ground Zero.

To know what I'm talking about, just read some of the reviews.

> Chris Bollyn and Kevin Ryan

These two people have vastly different opinions on 9/11.

Chris Bollyn is a hack, a disinformation specialist who masquerades as an investigative journalist and isn't a credible source of information on anything pertaining to 9/11, he is on the same level as Judy Woods and her dustification and Dimitri Khalezov with his nuclear bombs nonsense.


Kevin Ryan on the other hand is a well respected, prominent 9/11 researcher who uses a scientific evidence based approach on the subject and not a speculative, fantasy based approach like the three that are mentioned above.

He also does not believe Israeli did 9/11 like you implied, his excellent book, Another Nineteen: Investigating Legitimate 9/11 Suspects is evidence of that fact.

"I had burn marks, not like you'd have from a fire, but my face was all red, my chest was red, and for three or four days there was stuff coming out of my body like you wouldn't believe. It was like shrapnel. It's still coming out. I'll look at a little pinpoint under my skin and it will be bleeding." -Sue Keane, Former Army sergeant and police officer

From the book Women at Ground Zero: Stories of Courage and Compassion

Read the back story on the patriot act. It's pretty telling.

It was huge but ready to go 45 days after 9/11. Congress didn't have enough time to read it all and were under great pressure to pass it.

The Anthrax Deception goes into quite a few details on that whole period in time.

Documentaries on side bar: The New Pearl Harbor and David Chandler’s research...

Kevin Ryan’s book Another Nineteen was a great read...

not too much more--the MSM is so controlled...there’s just a drip-by-drip release of intelligence files...

Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory is a good reply to those that push the Popular Mechanics book.

Great list...

and MORE FACTS:

http://911blogger.com/news/2009-10-06/facts-speak-themselves

http://rememberbuilding7.org/7-facts-about-building-7/

http://www.amazon.com/Another-Nineteen-Investigating-Legitimate-Suspects/dp/1489507833/

Yes I have. For a sound rebuttal to all purveyors of the official story I highly recommend the book Debunking 911 Debunking by David Ray Griffin. The evidence itself is extremely strong, but seeing the ways in which those responsible for producing the official explanation have bent over backwards to deceive, hide, and generally obfuscate the events of 9/11 is perhaps even more damning.

For example, the presence of persistent, extreme temperatures in the rubble following the destruction of the towers was well documented (took literally weeks to put out the fires) however it presented a huge problem for the NIST because that type of heat requires a source of energy not available in their fabricated version of the story. As a solution, the NIST merely pretended the molten steel never happened, despite rampant evidence. Please watch this video where it shows John Gross of the NIST smirking and then denying any evidence of molten temperatures, followed by many firefighters attesting to just that. Contrast that approach then, with a paper like this written by Steven Jones which exhaustively demonstrates how the forensic evidence clearly indicates the means by which energetics were used to demolish the towers and building 7.

The bottom line is that the 9/11 Truth movement has produced a substantial body of evidence that has to date been successfully swept under the carpet by various federal and media authorities. As such, people like me currently have little recourse aside from complaining on reddit and organizing largely impotent local groups. But until our evidence is properly addressed, we will not go away, and perhaps someday the tools necessary for combating such large scale propaganda will become available.

Philip Zelikow:

• lawyer for Barry Seal appointed at behest of George H. W. Bush.
  
  
• lawyer for Barry Seal who got him released to a halfway house with minimum security where Barry Seal was quickly assassinated by "Colombians"
  
  
• secretly in contact with Karl Rove while overseeing the entire 9/11 Commission
  
  
• worked with Condi Rice closely from 1989-1998, including writing a book together, thus making his position of investigating her for the Commission a massive conflict-of-interest
  
  
• director of Aspen Strategy Group which included Rice & Cheney
  
  
• works now for Obama

Interview 27 min. - Paul Zarembka - The Hidden History of 9-11



Abstract The Hidden History of 9-11-2001


The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, Volume 23 (Research in Political Economy) (Research in Political Economy) Hardcover – July 14, 2006 Amazon


The hidden history of 9-11-2001 Slideshare

Here it is on amazon vod

Here is the book:
https://www.amazon.com/Big-Bamboozle-11-War-Terror/dp/1468094580/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1525111053&sr=8-1&keywords=the+big+bamboozle

Kevin Ryan might have some answers: Demolition Access to the WTC Towers: Part Four - Cleanup by Kevin Ryan February 11, 2010 http://911review.com/articles/ryan/demolition_access_p4.html

His book "Another 19"- http://www.amazon.com/Another-Nineteen-Investigating-Legitimate-Suspects/dp/1489507833

Interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-yMe2Nla5M

If we must go there...

I would rather suggest that people read "debunking 9/11 debunking".

Not a message board, but a blog by scientist/engineer Kevin Ryan who also wrote the thoroughly investigated book "Another 19" called Digwithin

Griffin wrote a book which (I presume) is largely a response to that book:

http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Mechanics-Defenders-Conspiracy/dp/156656686X/ref=dp_return_1?ie=UTF8&n=283155&s=books

Israel is a country. This was done by individuals. And it was done in America. Perhaps you should try looking at what we actually know. https://digwithin.net/

His book: Another Nineteen

And MacQueen's excellent book: The 2001 Anthrax Deception: The Case for a Domestic Conspiracy

Israel did 911 (even if some Israelis were involved) is for simple-minded people unable to distinguish between the particular and the general and functions (in the minds of reasonable people) as disinformation by mischaracterizating 911 Truth.

If you read the book "Day Of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor" and ponder the evidence presented in it, you'll be either more terrified or reassured that our government has done similar crimes before.

The book is definitely recommended. In short, it'll shed new light on both the "good war" and the way the US government practices realpolitik and propaganda.

You can't prove it definitively without a smoking gun, but there is a mindboggling amount circumstantial evidence that could be proved in a court of law more than enough for a criminal conviction if only given the opportunity.

Graeme MacQueen in his book The Anthrax Deception gives a compelling argument that the people who were responsible for 9/11 were also the people who sent the anthrax starting only one week after 9/11, which were traced to one (and maybe more) of only three labs in the world and they were Department of Defense and CIA labs here in the USA. I would try to tie that in with your essay.

https://www.amazon.com/2001-Anthrax-Deception-Domestic-Conspiracy/dp/0986073121

You can also listen him in an interview.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KE15RSSHHFE

All you do on reddit is to offer conjecture about accuracy of conspiracy theories. Read David Ray Griffin's book for a post-commission, concrete review of all their inaccuracies (the cover-up) and then offer us a conjecture as to why there was such massive fact-hiding. Because they wanted to protect Osama? Pakistan? Or Israel and the massive military industrial complex that the US has become?

BTW Daily Kos is no more reputable than Zogby, so ad hominem is not really going to get you very far.

> That figure is in one of Richard Rhodes books on nuclear weapons. He wrote three books on this subject

Would this be the same Richard Rhodes who wrote "The Making of the Atomic Bomb," which was recently released in a 25th Anniversary Edition Paperback? Obviously, there's no "shelf life" on scientific facts, but are we so niave to think that the book on nuclear weapons was closed in 1991, when the test ban treaty was signed?? No. Secret research into these weapons continued in both the US and Isreal (which, it can be said, has spied so much on the US programme that they can be said to be more advanced at this time).

> Frankly, this argument of uber bombs makes as much sense as the "nano-thermite" does.

No. Absolutely not at all. We are not talking about nukes, or nuclear weapons here. We are talking about neutron bombs, nuclear devices which put out very little explosive force (at least, in that they can be understood or compared to "yield," a la TNT). These are HIGH ENERGY bombs that are DESIGNED, from the ground up, to yield high energy like X-rays and gamma rays. They are better understood as precision nuclear demolition charges. They would fit into the size of a bread box (detonator, clock sync & timing, shielding, etc.) and could be easily synced and timed with other devices (Prager estimates that up to 30 devices were required for EACH WTC tower).

In Sep 2000, the neo-con PNAC web-site argued that the U.S. needed "a new Pearl Harbor event". A year later, 9/11 was orchestrated and the neo-cons got their wish.

Historian George Nash has now made public Herbert Hoover's secret history of the 1943-1963 period, and we find that the original Pearl Harbor was also an orchestrated event.

> In November, the U.S. intercepted two new offers from Tokyo: a Plan A for an end to the China war and occupation of Indochina and, if that were rejected, a Plan B, a modus vivendi where neither side would make any new move. When presented, these, too, were rejected out of hand.

> At a Nov. 25 meeting of FDR’s war council, Secretary of War Henry Stimson’s notes speak of the prevailing consensus: “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into … firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.”

> “We can wipe the Japanese off the map in three months,” wrote Navy Secretary Frank Knox.

-- Patrick Buchanan, "Did FDR Provoke Pearl Harbor?", Antiwar.com, 07 Dec 2011

Notice that the U.S. is using the same tactic against Iran today: instantly rejecting all conciliatory proposals made by Iran, then using this orchestrated "failure of diplomacy" to provide the justification for military aggression.

The difference is that Iran has so far refused to take the bait and respond to U.S. provocations and acts of war. This means that the U.S. will have to construct a false-flag terror attack on itself, similar to the bogus used-car-salesman assassination plot perhaps, and then use that deceit as a fig-leaf for aggression.