Posts Tagged ‘9/11’





The “Daily Banter” shows its hand as the most despicable fount of lies and political smear pieces seen for some time. They took on Caitlin Johnstone, but they know absolutely nothing about her, nor about the many controversies they mention. Ignorance has become their religion.

“Having never trained as a journalist, been around other journalists…”

THAT is grounds for a big cash lawsuit.

A lot of people are brainwashed into going along with the dominant myths, and dissenters are routinely attacked by loathsome swamp creatures like those at DB. They are dishonest and disreputable, sniping from their perches and without the testicles to debate honestly.





Some similar content there to check out…

9/11 & 28 pages of treason


They are not just protecting Saudis who sponsored the 9/11 attacks. They are protecting US Deep State traitors.

New bill in congress:



“They will raise thousands of other questions.”



What the 28 pages mean.


hqdefault (3).jpg
“…and they didn’t act.”


“Do we see a pattern?”



Anyone who’s seriously delved into what happened to the Pentagon, that “act of war” which Dick Cheney made sure to label on the evening of 9/11, knows that it’s nothing but a throbbing headache.

Here you’ll see why if you’re interested. I find it sufficient to establish a COVER UP, and there are several associated with the Pentagon strike. Let’s not forget the CIA was hiding the alleged hijackers who supposedly crashed into America’s military headquarters. The Pentagon also had an hour and 16 minutes to defend itself according to the official story! And yet the Air Force apparently couldn’t defend its own headquarters. Sound like a justification for “Rebuilding America’s Defenses?

Vic Sadot sent this in:

The above video presentation is in dispute and is opposed by some, supported by others…

Dr. Timothy Eastman – Review of “The Pentagon Event: The Honegger Hypothesis Refuted” by Victoria Ashley et al. [main author Wyndham]

        Though I was pleased to see that the authors conclude (p. 66) that “these events… are best approached with a commitment to… examining all the evidence, eschewing all personal bias and other personal considerations and by testing each hypothesis for its consequences”, this paper does not live up to its stated goal.

        It assumes the validity and integrity of official evidence while omitting compelling evidence against the official story compiled  by Ms. Honegger, and my reading revealed at least 25 direct or implied personal attacks on Ms. Honegger (e.g., p. 43: “Her contention here is scientifically naive…”;  p. 63: “Honegger’s scenario is divorced from reality”), all of which should be expressed in a neutral way in a scholarly paper.  While the authors make more than 20 claims as to how “scientific” this present work is and how Ms. Honegger’s work is “unscientific”, they apply clearly inconsistent logic in an attempt to refute a central pillar of her thesis, claiming that only clocks stopped earlier than the official story time are the result of minute hands having been moved due to dropping, but not also clocks stopped closer to the official story time. I find Ms. Honegger’s clock analysis more believable, in terms of overall coherence and consistency, than to assume that only the “9:37 clocks” should be believed and that all other timepieces — including April Gallop’s 9:30-stopped watch and the digital-clock time of 9:34:10 for the initiation of the black smoke cloud embedded in the Doubletree Hotel video —  should be dismissed.  Indeed, if there is as much failure associated with minute hands as the authors claim, why should we accept any clock readings?  Questioning of clocks should apply to all of them, not just to those not giving close to the official time.



Interview with Philip Shenon

(audio podcast)