Aug 192013
 

Published on May 20, 2013

Barbara Honegger’s presentation titled “Behind the Smoke Curtain” in Seattle’s Town Hall Theater, January 12, 2013, on what happened and what didn’t happen at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

To purchase the DVD please send an email to bshonegg@gmail.com with the subject “DVD Request”. To request a speaking event with Barbara Honegger please use the same email with the subject “Speaking Event”.

You can also purchase the “Behind the Smoke Curtain” DVD at http://911ts.org

You can download this video for free at http://archive.org/details/BTSC-051113D

Links mentioned in this video:

Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth: http://ae911truth.org

Patriots Question 9/11: http://patriotsquestion911.com

Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth: http://pl911truth.com

Aaron Russo’s offer from Nicholas Rockefeller: http://youtu.be/iSii-xWoyKM

Another version of Wesley Clarke’s statement: http://youtu.be/SXS3vW47mOE

International Conference in Malaysia, 2012, “9/11 Revisited — Seeking the Truth”:

http://www.perdana4peace.org/events/c…

9/11 Truth Seattle: http://911ts.org

http://911truthseattle.org

A Video by Mark Snyder
File: BTSC051113D.MP4

A presentation by Barbara Honegger, M.S.

Music by Kevin MacLeod (incompetech.com) used under creative commons license.

Copyright © 2013 Barbara Honegger and Mark Snyder
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED – Permission is granted to reproduce, distribute and/or embed this video as is, in its entirety, and unaltered in any way.

Category

Nonprofits & Activism

License

Creative Commons Attribution license (reuse allowed)

Jul 152013
 

Published on Jul 12, 2013
Abby Martin goes over news that the US’ top special operations commander just ordered military files related to the Osama Bin Laden raid to be kept hidden from the public, and talks to BTS producer Manuel Rapalo about the flimsy official narrative surrounding everything we’ve been told about Bin Laden.
LIKE Breaking the Set @ http://fb.me/BreakingTheSet
FOLLOW Abby Martin @ http://twitter.com/AbbyMartin
FOLLOW Manuel Rapalo @ http://twitter.com/Manuel_Rapalo

Apr 202013
 

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-04-17/sept-11-hearings-delayed-until-june-after-computer-crash.html

By David Glovin – Apr 18, 2013 7:08 AM GMT+1200.

Five days of hearings scheduled for next week in the case of the accused plotters of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks were postponed after defense lawyers said internal documents went missing on government computers.

The judge, Army Colonel James Pohl, postponed the hearings until mid-June in a two-page order posted today.

Lawyers for the accused plotters requested the delay last week after complaining that their confidential work was inexplicably missing from the U.S. Defense Department computers on which they store documents.

Army Lt. Colonel Todd Breasseale, a Pentagon spokesman, said in a statement that the Office of Military Commissions, which is prosecuting the case, “suffered from a nearly catastrophic server ‘crash’” that led to “losses of indiscriminate data.” Of almost 400 gigabytes of data initially lost, “seven gigabytes have yet to be accounted for,” he said.

Hearings in the case, which began last year, have been plagued by delay. In August, the threat of a hurricane canceled a week of arguments while hearings this year were slowed as the judge probed defense claims that the government was eavesdropping on them.

Read full article here

Jan 312013
 

9/11 Military Trial Judge – Like 9/11 Commission – Frustrated by Government Shenanigans

Posted on January 31, 2013 by WashingtonsBlog

Kangaroo Court Show Trials

Huffington Post reports:

A judge expressed frustration on Monday that an unknown U.S. government entity censored his courtroom audiovisual feed, cutting public access to pretrial hearings for five accused Sept. 11 plotters.

“If some external body is turning the commission on or off based on their own views of what things ought to be, with no reasonable explanation … then we’re going to have a little meeting about who turns that light on and off,” said the judge, Col. James Pohl.

Pohl’s comments came after an unknown censor cut off a live media feed to the court proceedings as David Nevin, a lawyer defending Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, began discussing his request for information on his client’s case.

A court security officer positioned next to the judge has the ability to dump the feed if anything secret arises. That officer didn’t activate the censorship button on Monday.

“I would like to know who has the permission to turn that light on and off, who is listening to this, who is controlling these proceedings, or controlling that aspect of these proceedings,” Nevin said.

This is just one of a series of outrages regarding investigation and trial of alleged 9/11 terrorists.

Read article here

Jan 152013
 

The Case Against Ralph Eberhart, NORAD’s 9/11 Commander
Posted on January 12, 2013
by Kevin Ryan

In a 2004 U.S. Senate hearing, Senator Mark Dayton remarked that “this country and its citizens were completely undefended” for “109 minutes” on 9/11.[1] Dayton went on to clarify that officials within the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) had covered up the facts about the lack of air defenses by lying to the 9/11 Commission, to Congress and to the American people. And they were not held accountable.

One man was most responsible for both the air defense failures and the lying that covered it up. U.S. Air Force General Ralph Edward Eberhart had taken over command of NORAD from General Richard Myers in February 2000. The position included leadership of all air defense operations in North America and, also, the U.S. Space Command. Therefore, on 9/11, Eberhart was the man most responsible for failure to intercept the four hijacked aircraft over a period of nearly two hours.

NORAD is the joint U.S.-Canadian military organization responsible for monitoring and defending the airspace over North America. Long-standing operating procedures at NORAD, for dealing with airliners that have gone off-course or been hijacked, were not followed on 9/11. Each of the four flights involved in the 9/11 attacks should have been intercepted when they lost radio contact, deviated from their course, or turned off their transponders.[2]

The procedures for interception were automatic and required no special orders to implement. Through these procedures, interceptor jets had been scrambled 129 times in the year 2000 and 67 times in the year prior to June 2001. A 1994 government report stated — “Overall, during the past four years, NORAD’s alert fighters took off to intercept aircraft (referred to as scrambled) 1,518 times, or an average of 15 times per site per year. Of these incidents, the number of suspected drug smuggling aircraft averaged … less than 7 percent of all of the alert sites’ total activity. The remaining activity generally involved visually inspecting unidentified aircraft and assisting aircraft in distress.”[3]

On 9/11, the NORAD interception system failed completely and we have been given multiple, conflicting explanations for why that happened. Considering that there is strong evidence for an alternative hypothesis of insider involvement in 9/11, it is reasonable to assume that an intentional compromising of the U.S. air defenses might have occurred that day. Adding to this suspicion is the fact that guilt tends to be reflected in false testimony. And as Senator Dayton said, NORAD officials “lied to the American people, they lied to Congress and they lied to your 9/11 Commission.”[4]

Exactly which NORAD statements were lies and which were not is a matter that is still not clear to this day. This is partly because the explanations and testimony that are now said to have been false were far more damning to NORAD than the final account, which exonerates NORAD entirely. Why would NORAD leaders want to lie so as to make their performance look worse?

In order to better determine the facts, investigators should begin with at least three areas of inquiry: 1) the times at which NORAD was notified (or made aware) of the hijackings, 2) the times at which NORAD responded in the form of scrambling jets to intercept, and 3) the instructions given to the interceptor pilots in terms of speed and direction.

NORAD’s ever-changing story

The military’s explanations began with a short description of the response to the hijackings. Two days after the attacks, General Richard Myers gave this account to the Senate Armed Services Committee, in an official hearing for his confirmation as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (CJCS). He said that no fighter jets were scrambled to intercept any of the hijacked 9/11 flights until after the Pentagon was hit.[5]

Although Myers was not in command of NORAD on 9/11, he should have known two days later if normal procedures had been followed. As Acting CJCS on 9/11, and as Vice Chairman otherwise, his role was to ensure the president and secretary of defense were informed of critical military matters.

A second story was given a week after the attacks, when NORAD provided a partial timeline of the notifications it had received from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the responses that followed. General Eberhart reiterated this timeline in testimony to the U.S. Senate a few weeks later and for over two years it stood as the official account.[6] This timeline said that NORAD had received notification about three of the hijacked planes with plenty of time left to ensure interception and had scrambled jets from multiple bases as the attacks proceeded.

This timeline showed that NORAD was notified about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43 am, a full twenty minutes before it impacted the south tower of the World Trade Center (WTC). Moreover, F-15 interceptor jets from Otis Air Force Base (AFB) were said to be airborne by 8:52, having been scrambled in response to the first hijacking. This allowed twice the time needed for the jets to reach New York City before Flight 175 crashed.

Eberhart added that NORAD was notified about the hijacked Flight 77 coming into Washington at 9:24 am, fourteen minutes before it impacted the Pentagon. He told the Senate Armed Services Committee (repeatedly) that this was a “documented notification.”[7] If true, interceptor jets from Andrews AFB, only ten miles from the Pentagon, could have easily reached the errant airliner given this lead time.

Although the military might now use the excuse that Andrews was not technically under the command of NORAD, the 9/11 Commissions says Eberhart’s statement was simply not true. In fact, both Commission counsel Dan Marcus and Team leader John Farmer were later very blunt about this being a false statement.[8] Therefore, it is clear that Eberhart should be brought up on a charge of contempt of Congress. It is illegal to make any materially false statement or representation in testimony to the Unites States Congress.[9] And that was not the only false statement that Eberhart apparently made to the senators.

In May 2003, Eberhart’s subordinates General Arnold and Colonel William Alan Scott presented a slightly revised version of NORAD’s timeline. They contradicted the timeline for Flight 175, saying that NORAD was not notified of the hijacking until 9:05, three minutes after the aircraft crashed into the south tower. This was despite the fact that when asked by a U.S. Senator about “the second hijacked plane somewhere up there” (Flight 175), Eberhart had previously said “Yes, sir. During that time, we were notified.”[10]

Arnold and Scott also revealed for the first time that NORAD was notified about the hijacking of Flight 93 at 9:16 am. This was 47 minutes before that flight allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, at 10:03 am. Obviously, interceptor jets could have easily reached and escorted Flight 93 given this revised timeline.

The fourth and final story from NORAD was the official account given by the 9/11 Commission Report, now supported by NORAD. In this explanation NORAD received “no advance notice” on any of the last three hijacked airliners.[11] Instead of 20 minutes of notice on Flight 175, and 14 minutes notice on Flight 77, and 47 minutes notice on Flight 93, we were told that NORAD was not notified about any of them until it was too late. The military was off the hook entirely.

All the evidence for notifications and response, which had constituted the official account for nearly three years, had been thrown out the window. In place of these documents and testimonies, new explanations were given for why the scrambled aircraft never reached the hijacked airliners. These included unbelievable claims of communication failures and misdirection of the scrambled jets, as well as the introduction of a never-before mentioned “Phantom 11” scenario.[12]

The 9/11 Commission Report account was supported two years later by an article in Vanity Fair. [13] Allegedly, the author of the article was given privileged access to audio tapes that were not available to the public. Although the newly revealed “NORAD tapes” ostensibly bolstered the Commission’s new timeline, credible explanations were never given for throwing out the years of testimony and evidence that supported entirely different timelines.

The changing stories given by NORAD led to placing more blame for the failed air defenses on the FAA. After NORAD’s 2003 timeline was issued, however, the FAA publicly stated that NORAD had in fact been informed throughout all the developments that morning. FAA official Laura Brown wrote a memo to the 9/11 Commission in which she stated that FAA shared “real-time information” with NORAD about “loss of communication with aircraft, loss of transponder signals, unauthorized changes in course, and other actions being taken by all the flights of interest, including Flight 77.”[14]

FAA leadership certainly did fail that morning and there are shocking questions to be answered in that regard.[15] Not the least of these questions is why evidence that might have helped was destroyed by an FAA official after the attacks.[16] But the multiple stories given by the military indicate that NORAD was at least as culpable as the FAA in the inexplicable lack of air defense. And the facts indicate that NORAD was in the loop earlier than its 2003 timeline suggested, meaning that there is no reasonable explanation for why NORAD-controlled jets did not intercept most, if not all, of the planes hijacked on 9/11.

When questioned by the 9/11 Commission, Eberhart confirmed that if NORAD had been in the loop as the FAA said it was, his people would have been able “to shoot down all three aircraft — all four aircraft.”[17]

Read full article here

Dec 022012
 

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article33194.htm

By: AFP

December 02, 2012 “The Nation” — The United States must prepare for a time when it no longer is at war with Al-Qaeda, and when sweeping federal powers ushered in after the September 11, 2001 attacks come to an end, the Pentagon’s top lawyer said.

The address by Pentagon general counsel Jeh Johnson marked the first time a senior US official publicly raised the possibility of an end to the so-called “war on terror,” launched by former president George W. Bush in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks on New York and Washington.

With the US military campaign against Al-Qaeda now entering its 12th year, “we must also ask ourselves: how will this conflict end?” Johnson said Thursday in remarks delivered at the Oxford Union in Britain.

Read article here

Jun 152012
 

http://digwithin.net/2012/06/15/from-renovation-to-revolution-was-the-pentagon-attacked-from-within/

by Kevin Ryan

“I have no desire to attack the Pentagon; I want to liberate it. We need to save it from itself.” Donald Rumsfeld, September 10, 2001

The official account of what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11 leaves many questions unanswered.[1] The work of independent investigators has also failed to address those questions. In an attempt to find answers, an alternative account of the Pentagon attack is considered.

An alternative account would be more compelling than the official account if it explained more of the evidence without adding unnecessary complications. Considering means, motive and opportunity might allow us to propose a possible “insider conspiracy” while maintaining much of the official account as well.

Read article here