Ellsberg Says that the Government Has ORDERED the Media Not to Cover 9/11

[ProfJohn]

So let's talk about 9-11.

Nah, let's talk about your other account.

No posts for years and then you pop up and start spewing anti-Israeli stuff right after wwwswimming gets some time off....

 

[spidey07]

So let's talk about 9-11.

Caught with thermite, det cord and some foil.

 

[Lemon law]

The other large distortion in the article is,

"For we engineers, the collapse of the WTC1 & WTC2 buildings themselves was very odd, a paranormal event, when the rules of physics were suspended for a day. 90,000 gallons of jet fuel do not contain enough energy to raise the temperature of the WTC structure -100,000 tons of steel - to the boiling point of water, much less to a temperature where it loses its structural qualities.

In short, you need a blast furnace to melt steel."

Exactly not the point for anyone who understands to the strength of steel I-beams as the temperature approaches and exceeds 1200F. Something a kerosine fire could easily do small sections of the building. But I have looked at the charts, and its definitely curve a linear for structural steel. From 100F to about 900F, steel does lose some strength but not much. From 900 F to 1200 F the strength loss curve trends almost totally vertical. But time is also a factor, it takes at least 5 to 15 minutes for the heat to get from the surface to the interior of the I beam.

After that, all that is needed is for the structural steel on any given floor failing, and then its the weight or all that is above it acting as a giant and unstop able hammer. Once it falls the first foot or maybe even inches, the acquired momentum can't be stopped. The rest of the structural steel may remain below even 100F, bu the welds are brittle, and will fail in terms of high speed cracks when they hit the ground.

 

[Gintaras]

It's called False Flag:

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

US have before planned similar to 9/11:

The planned, but never executed, 1962 Operation Northwoods plot by the U.S. Department of Defense for a war with Cuba involved scenarios such as fabricating the hijacking or shooting down passenger and military planes, sinking a U.S. ship in the vicinity of Cuba, burning crops, sinking a boat filled with Cuban refugees, attacks by alleged Cuban infiltrators inside the United States, and harassment of U.S. aircraft and shipping and the destruction of aerial drones by aircraft disguised as Cuban MiGs. These actions would be blamed on Cuba, and would be a pretext for an invasion of Cuba and the overthrow of Fidel Castro's communist government. It was authored by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but then rejected by President John F. Kennedy.

 

[Murloc]

 

[Karl Agathon]

Nah, let's talk about your other account.

No posts for years and then you pop up and start spewing anti-Israeli stuff right after wwwswimming gets some time off....

:thumbsup:

 

[BeauJangles]

Nah, let's talk about your other account.

No posts for years and then you pop up and start spewing anti-Israeli stuff right after wwwswimming gets some time off....

This times a million.

 

[Skitzer]

OP , go back to your lurking ... stop posting!

 

[amish]

Nah, let's talk about your other account.

No posts for years and then you pop up and start spewing anti-Israeli stuff right after wwwswimming gets some time off....

nice...

 

[kylebisme]

Uh, I don't see one word about Ellsberg in the post to support the thread topic. Shouldn't that required it be changed as inaccurate?

The title was taken from this blog entry, which I'm guessing the OP intended to include in the post. However, at least in the quoted text, Ellsberg didn't go so far as to say the government has ordered the media to not cover 9/11. Rather, he noted the fact that the government ordered the media not to cover the the NSA spying story, and suggested it's likely doing the same with regard to 9/11 whistle blower Sibel Edmonds.

 

[Craig234]

The title was taken from this blog entry, which I'm guessing the OP intended to include in the post. However, at least in the quoted text, Ellsberg didn't go so far as to say the government has ordered the media to not cover 9/11. Rather, he noted the fact that the government ordered the media not to cover the the NSA spying story, and suggested it's likely doing the same with regard to 9/11 whistle blower Sibel Edmonds.

Thanks for the link - but let's note the context.

For example, that blog entry links to another at the same site which says:

Similarly, 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn't have access . . . ." . He also says that he had long feared that the investigation depended too heavily on the accounts of Al Qaeda detainees who were physically coerced into talking, and that it might take "a permanent 9/11 commission" to end the remaining mysteries of September 11.

Notice how that makes it sound like a 9/11 commissioner is suggesting the US government might have been behind the attack?

Now look at the fuller quote:

Kerrey was dismissive of the conspiracy theories as well. Asked about the possibility of a controlled demolition at the World Trade Center, he scoffed, "There's no evidence for that." But he also noted that, quite apart from what Avery and others in the "truth movement" have proposed, many legitimate mysteries still surround the events of that day. "There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version," Kerrey said. The commission had limited time and limited resources to pursue its investigation, and its access to key documents and witnesses was fettered by the administration. "I didn't read a single PDB," Kerrey said, referring to the president's daily intelligence briefing reports. "We didn't have access to Khalid Shaikh Mohammed," the mastermind of the plot. "We accepted a compromise, submitting our questions to him through the CIA. Now, that's not the best way to go about getting your questions answered. So I'm 100 percent certain that [bin Laden] directed that attack, but am I completely comfortable saying there was no direct Saudi involvement, or that Saddam Hussein wasn't involved in some fashion, or that the Iranians weren't involved? I'm pretty close to 100 percent certain, but I'd be more comfortable if we'd interviewed Khalid Shaikh Mohammed."

 

[ProfJohn]

Nice job Craig.

 

[Triumph]

The other large distortion in the article is,

"For we engineers, the collapse of the WTC1 & WTC2 buildings themselves was very odd, a paranormal event, when the rules of physics were suspended for a day. 90,000 gallons of jet fuel do not contain enough energy to raise the temperature of the WTC structure -100,000 tons of steel - to the boiling point of water, much less to a temperature where it loses its structural qualities.

In short, you need a blast furnace to melt steel."

Exactly not the point for anyone who understands to the strength of steel I-beams as the temperature approaches and exceeds 1200F. Something a kerosine fire could easily do small sections of the building. But I have looked at the charts, and its definitely curve a linear for structural steel. From 100F to about 900F, steel does lose some strength but not much. From 900 F to 1200 F the strength loss curve trends almost totally vertical. But time is also a factor, it takes at least 5 to 15 minutes for the heat to get from the surface to the interior of the I beam.

After that, all that is needed is for the structural steel on any given floor failing, and then its the weight or all that is above it acting as a giant and unstop able hammer. Once it falls the first foot or maybe even inches, the acquired momentum can't be stopped. The rest of the structural steel may remain below even 100F, bu the welds are brittle, and will fail in terms of high speed cracks when they hit the ground.

What did they do, assume the ENTIRE mass of the WTC, then calculate the amount of fuel needed to raise it to the melting point? I'd like to meet these "engineers" and see their math.

 

[kylebisme]

Thanks for the link - but let's note the context.

For example, that blog entry links to another at the same site which says:

You aren't noting the context there, you're changing the subject. In regard to the subject at hand, here's what the blog entry I linked says about Ellsberg:

What Does Ellsberg Say?

Ellsberg says that the government has ordered the media not to cover 9/11:

Ellsberg seemed hardly surprised that today's American mainstream broadcast media has so far failed to take [former FBI translator and 9/11 whistleblower Sibel] Edmonds up on her offer, despite the blockbuster nature of her allegations [which Ellsberg calls "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers"]. As Edmonds has also alluded, Ellsberg pointed to the New York Times, who "sat on the NSA spying story for over a year" when they "could have put it out before the 2004 election, which might have changed the outcome."
"There will be phone calls going out to the media saying 'don't even think of touching it, you will be prosecuted for violating national security,'" he told us.
* * *
"I am confident that there is conversation inside the Government as to 'How do we deal with Sibel?'" contends Ellsberg. "The first line of defense is to ensure that she doesn't get into the media. I think any outlet that thought of using her materials would go to to the government and they would be told 'don't touch this . . . .'"
​

He supports a new 9/11 investigation.

He says that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". (Here's some of what that whistleblower says.) He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11.
And he says that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of those in office, and that there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath (see this and this).

 

[kylebisme]

I'd like to meet these "engineers"

Good luck with that, as search for the phrase "For we engineers, the collapse of the WTC1 & WTC2 buildings themselves was very odd" on Google turns up nothing but links back here to Anandtech, so it seems the OP pulled that statement out of his rear. That said, it wouldn't be hard for you to meet actual engineers who take issue with the official story of how the WTC buildings came down, as Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth does presentations regularly around the globe. I met a few at a nearby college a couple years back.

 

[JEDIYoda]

You aren't noting the context there, you're changing the subject.

Truth hurts huh, kyle....??? lolol

 

[Blackjack200]

wwswimming has left the building . . . again.

Perknose
Forum Director

:biggrin: Laters!

 

[dali71]

 

[BeauJangles]

:biggrin: Laters!

Hahaha,

The most amazing part is that he's so stupid that he came back and didn't even bother trying to change his completely bizarre posting style. It's one thing when you come back using an alt and talk like a normal person, it's another when you get banned and immediately a new account shows up talking the exact same crazy.

 

[xj0hnx]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yldgS-ySo24

 

[davmat787]

Hahaha,

The most amazing part is that he's so stupid that he came back and didn't even bother trying to change his completely bizarre posting style. It's one thing when you come back using an alt and talk like a normal person, it's another when you get banned and immediately a new account shows up talking the exact same crazy.

Obviously perknose is a government agent for silencing wwwswimming again. :biggrin: You have to be pretty dumb to think a simple handle change will fool most people.

 

[Craig234]

You aren't noting the context there, you're changing the subject. In regard to the subject at hand, here's what the blog entry I linked says about Ellsberg:

I agree that I changed the subject from the Ellsberg quotes specifically to the blog referencing them.

But now you show why that context is important, let's take another look at the latest link you provided to bradblog.com.

That link asserts about her:

She, and her allegations, have been confirmed as both serious and extremely credible by the FBI Inspector General, several sitting Senators, both Republican and Democratic, several senior FBI agents, the 9/11 Commission, and dozens of national security and whistleblower advocacy groups. She was even offered the possibility of public hearings on these matters by the Chairman of the U.S. House Government Accountability and Oversight Committee, after briefing his staff in a special high-security area of the U.S. Capitol reserved for the exchange of classified information.

Wow, pretty impressive. But take a look at, say, 'the FBI Inspector General' report they conveniently leak:

According to some media accounts, Edmonds made additional allegations relating to the September 11 terrorist attacks and the allegedly inappropriate reaction by other FBI linguists to those attacks. However, Edmonds never raised those allegations to the OIG, and we did not investigate them in our review. Rather, we understand that staff from the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) interviewed Edmonds regarding these claims. Our review focused on the allegations made by Edmonds to the OIG, particularly Edmonds' allegations regarding the FBI's handling of the concerns about the co-worker, her allegations about inappropriate practices in the language program, and her allegation that the FBI retaliated against her for raising those allegations.

So, she made various allegations against a co-worker and some practices - having nothing to do with 9/11. It's only THOSE allegation that the Inspector investigated, only THOSE allegations that his comments were about that 'some of her allegations were credible' - nothing to do with her 9/11 allegations.

Again, I changed the subject from Ellsberg - but it shows these sites need to be looked at pretty carefully.

Suddenly, 'her allegations' being supported by the FBI Inspector General go from being about unnecessary travel expenses by the FBI to the government being behind 9/11.

 

[Craig234]

A bit more on Sibel Edmonds. The blog entries you link further link a Vanity Fair 'detailed story' on her allegations.

There is plenty of talk around them - but they don't appear to have anything to do with the US 'being behind 9/11'. Rather, things like possible congressional bribery.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article9774.htm

She has, the blogs report, said she will 'tell all' about the names she has withheld - IF a major network (ABC, CNN type) promises to air her full statement, unedited.

I think that sort of agreement happens very rarely in the news. What if she fills it with slander? What if it makes them look like idiots by being filled with obvious nonsense?

 

[kylebisme]

let's take another look at the latest link you provided to bradblog.com.

Take a look at this paragraph from that link, notably the part I bolded:

She has previously indicated a litany of criminal corruption, malfeasance, and cover-ups concerning the penetration of the FBI and Departments of State and Defense by foreign agents in senior positions; influence-peddling and bribery by shadowy Turkish interests throughout the U.S. government over several administrations; undisclosed information related to 9/11; including alleged illegal activities of former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert, and, most recently, two other "well-known" members of Congress whom she will now name to the mainstream media.

And if you follow the first link in that quote, you'll find this related of 9/11 related aspects of Edmond's testimony:

9/11 Related:

• Information omitted and covered-up regarding documented and confirmed case of a long-term FBI Informant & Asset who provided the FBI with specific information and warnings in April & June 2001 regarding 9/11 terrorist attacks.
• Information omitted & covered up regarding documented information in the possession of the FBI in July 2001 regarding blue prints and building composite information of Sky Scrapers being sent to certain groups in the Middle East by certain Middle-Eastern suspects in the State of Nevada.
• Information omitted & covered up regarding arrangements made between the State Department and certain countries to deport certain Middle-Eastern and Central Asian detainees from jails in New Jersey & New York off the record and without having them interrogated in November 2001. (Documents related to these suspects were forged at the FBI).
• Information omitted & covered up regarding nuclear related information illegally obtained by certain foreign entities and US persons (government officials) from several US labs being sold to a certain Middle-Eastern group in the United States in 1998-2000. The operation involved individuals with Diplomatic cover, foreign Ph.D. students, and US employees.
• Information omitted & covered up regarding money laundering & narcotics operations, some of which involved entities from the Middle East and the Balkans, in several US cities.
• Information omitted & covered up regarding certain Pakistani Inter-Service Intelligence (ISI)-related activities linked to the 9/11 attacks between August & October 2001.
• Certain terrorist related Counterintelligence/FISA information & investigations were prevented from being transferred to counterterrorism & criminal division by the Department of State and the Pentagon; "preserving sensitive diplomatic relations" and "protecting certain US foreign business relations (mainly involving weapons procurement)" were cited as reasons.
• Intentional mistranslation & blocking of foreign language intelligence of FBI counterterrorism and counterintelligence investigations.

That's what Ellsberg is referring to, amongst the rest of Edmond's testimony.

Suddenly, 'her allegations' being supported by the FBI Inspector General go from being about unnecessary travel expenses by the FBI to the government being behind 9/11.

Much of her allegations are about the government covering up information related to 9/11, which isn't the same thing as the government being behind 9/11, but you're the one ignoring that distinction here.

 

[Doppel]

Hell of a lurker postt

Like a nutcase sleeper cell.