Thread: New York’s 9/11 Memorial: When Did Honoring the Dead Become an Occasion for Fleecing

From the YouTube description: More than a decade after the 9/11 attacks, a new World Trade Center is finally rising, along with a memorial, museum, and a transit hub.
When the projects are slated to open they’ll supposedly symbolize America’s strength, determination, and refusal to cave in. But they really tell a different story about taxpayer rip-offs, public-sector incompetence, and union and corporate greed.
One World Trade Center, formerly known as the Freedom Tower, will be the most expensive office building in American history by a long shot. Cost overruns have driven the price tag to $3.8 billion. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, the public agency that’s running the show, is sticking commuters with part of the tab by hiking tolls across the Hudson River to $12.
The new complex will dump 3-million square feet of office space into a soft rental market meaning Condé Nast, the flush publisher of The New Yorker, Wired, and Vanity Fair, got beau coups subsidies to move in. And who-other-than the federal government signed on to fill up five floors at a cost of $351 million over 20 years?
Even The New York Times’ stimulus-pimping columnist Joe Nocera has called World Trade Center rebuilding an “example of just about everything wrong with modern government,” asking, “where’s the Tea Party when you need them?”
Just down the street from the Trade Center, a federally-financed transit hub is a billion dollars over budget, now coming in around $3.4 billion. Construction costs for the September 11th Memorial and Museum have climbed to $700 million, with taxpayers footing a portion of the bill.
New York’s politically connected construction industry has benefited the most from 9/11 largess, but the city’s real estate and banking cartels have gone whole hog at the taxpayer-funded trough, too.
The Bush administration gave New York $8 billion in tax-free Liberty Bonds, only to see a big portion of that gift go for projects that have nothing to do with September 11th. Brooklyn’s Atlantic Yards benefited from subsidized bonds, as did a midtown Manhattan office project. Even Goldman Sachs, which has nearly a trillion dollars in assets, got almost two million dollars towards its new headquarters.
Since when did honoring the dead become an occasion for fleecing the living?
After September 11th, small townships in New Jersey and Long Island quickly built modest but moving memorials to pay tribute to the loved ones they lost in the attacks. In Lower Manhattan, something else completely is being built: an overdue, over-budget monument to the ease with which politicians, bureaucrats, and opportunists spend other people’s money.


New York’s 9/11 Memorial: When Did Honoring the Dead Become an Occasion for Fleecing the Living?

Candidates mark 9/11 anniversary in race framed by bin Laden death


By Jeremy Herb and Julian Pecquet - 09/11/12 05:00 AM ET

Both presidential candidates will mark the 11th anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks Tuesday during a campaign shaped by President Obama’s aggressive electioneering on the killing of Osama bin Laden.
Obama will observe a moment of silence at the White House and attend a ceremony at the Pentagon memorial, while GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney will speak at the National Guard Association convention.
In Congress, House and Senate leaders are coming together on the steps of the Capitol for a remembrance ceremony.

Obama and Romney will not repeat the joint appearance at Ground Zero in New York that Obama made during the 2008 presidential contest with GOP candidate Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a shift that could highlight the politicization of bin Laden’s death.Obama and Democrats believe the bin Laden killing has given their party and candidate an historically rare advantage on national security. They seized on the issue at their political convention, where Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) said Republicans should ask bin Laden if he was better off now than four years ago.
The question for the Obama and Romney campaigns is how much of a difference the bin Laden mission — and national security in general — will make in an election both sides expect to turn on the economy.
RELATED ARTICLES

• Q&A with Michael Arad, designer of NYC 9/11 memorial

Republican strategist Ron Bonjean said that it is natural for the Obama campaign to try to get as much credit for the killing of bin Laden as the 9/11 anniversary approached.
“However, come Election Day, this is going to be based on a referendum on Obama’s stewardship of the economy and whether or not people feel they’re better off,” he said.
Democrats hope the campaign’s bin Laden rhetoric will strengthen Obama’s lead on national security and dull Romney’s edge with veterans in military-heavy swing states such as Virginia and North Carolina. Gallup polling in May gave Romney a 24-point lead with veterans over Obama, 58 percent to 34 percent.
Heather Hurlburt, executive director of the liberal-leaning National Security Network, said the bin Laden raid could help Obama if it makes voters think he is a stronger leader.
“Very few people go into the booth on Election Day thinking I am a national security voter, but national security and the associated questions about leadership are one of the things that underpins how people see presidential candidates,” she said.
An Obama campaign official said the death of bin Laden was highlighted because it was a major decision in his presidency.
“A key goal of our convention was to talk about the president’s record over the last four years and to outline his vision for the future,” the official said. “Being a responsible commander-in-chief is an important part of that record.”
Romney’s campaign has sought to blunt Obama’s advantage by criticizing his handling of Iran’s nuclear weapon program and the potential defense cuts through sequestration. Romney has also accused the president of not providing enough support for Israel.
Polls suggest Obama has a definitive edge over Romney on foreign policy and national security issues.
Some 54 percent of registered voters said they approved of his handling of foreign policy in a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll last month, and they preferred him over Romney as commander-in-chief by 45 percent to 38 percent.
Romney’s campaign has shifted in its response to the bin Laden issue.
When the Obama campaign touted the killing of bin Laden as the first anniversary approached in May, Republicans vocally accused Obama of “spiking the football” and Romney said he would have ordered the raid as well.
More recently, Romney conceded the bin Laden point to Obama, but suggested it would not turn the election’s outcome.
“I don’t know that that’s going to give him the support that he wants,” Romney told CBS’s “Meet the Press” Sunday when asked about the bin Laden raid. “But of course he deserves credit for giving the order for Seal Team 6 to go after bin Laden and take him out.”
While Tuesday’s commemorations primarily serve as a reminder of the terrorist attacks that killed nearly 3,000 people, they will also remind people of the fact that bin Laden is no longer walking the earth to make the anniversary himself.
And voters won’t need to watch campaign ads to get other high-profile reminders this fall of Obama’s decision to order the raid into Pakistan.
A newly released book written by a Navy SEAL who took part in the raid shot to No. 1 on best-seller lists. The book’s author insists his work shouldn’t be used as a political talking point by either side.
“This book is not political whatsoever,” said Matt Bissonnette, who wrote “No Easy Day” under the pseudonym Mark Owen. “It doesn’t bad mouth either party, and we specifically chose September 11th [as the initial release date] to keep it out of the politics. You know, if these crazies on either side of the aisle want to make it political, shame on them.”
A movie about the raid from “Hurt Locker” director Kathryn Bigelow will be released in December. While Bigelow’s film was held for release until after the elections to prevent it from being seen as a campaign video, trailers for the film are already being shown.
Bonjean said that it wasn’t in Romney’s political interest to try and fight Obama and the Democrats on the bin Laden raid, as it would only detract from his campaign’s core message.
“Republicans, instead of debating the Obama administration on national security, they’d rather take it to them on the economy, where [the Democrats are] extremely weak, and where the American people are going to vote on Election Day,” Bonjean said.



Candidates mark 9/11 anniversary in race framed by bin Laden death - The Hill's DEFCON Hill

What the real 9/11 witnesses saw and heard
Censored and silenced




Total failure by the news media
On 9/11, the news media did an epic job of NOT following up on the hundreds of eye witnesses who clearly stated they heard numerous explosions.

How do you do that?

How do you ignore eye witnesses to things like explosions?


Hundreds of eye witnesses
reported numerous explosions
inside the Twin Towers on
9/11.

The news media did an epic
job of not following up
with any of them.

Government studies ignored
them entirely.

Video:

The 9/11 Files What the real 9/11 witnesses saw and heard

- Brasscheck

P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and
videos with friends and colleagues.

That's how we grow. Thanks.

The 9/11 Solution (2006)




The cover story was prepared in advance
and real experts and witnesses were ignored
We had a lot of trouble getting this particular video to "stick" on Youtube.

This video is an important companion piece to the video that I call "Inside Job" (see the Brasscheck TV archive.)

"Inside Job" shows that thousands of eye witnesses and millions of live TV viewers heard and heard about MULTIPLE explosions in the Twin Towers that preceded their sudden and inexplicable collapse.

"The 9/11 Solution" shows that even as the World Trade Center was burning and immediately after the collapses, a stream of disinformation laying down the key official 9/11 myths was being actively being put in place via the US mass media (i.e. the impact of the planes weakened the structures, the "intense" fires caused the collapses, Bin Laden was the only possible suspect.)

The "Harley Guy" was identified as Fox freelance cameraman "Mark Walsh." Good luck finding anyone by that name advertising his services.

Click here for: The experts the news media ignores - and continues to ignore



We produced this video back
in 2006.

It was made from live footage
taken the morning of 9/11.

What you'll see is that the
cover stories ("Osama did it"
"Fire melted structural steel")
were methodically disseminated
by dubious experts and
eye witnesses immediately
after the attack while everyone
else was in shock.

Video:

The 9/11 Files The 9/11 Solution (2006)

- Brasscheck

P.S. Please share Brasscheck TV e-mails and
videos with friends and colleagues.

That's how we grow. Thanks.


For more The 9/11 Files videos, click here

The 11th Anniversary of 9/11 ~ Paul Craig Roberts

September 11, 2012 | Categories: Articles & Columns | Tags: 9/11,

The article below was written for the Journal of 9/11 Studies for the eleventh anniversary of September 11, 2001, the day that terminated accountable government and American liberty. It is posted here with the agreement of the editors.


In order to understand the improbability of the government’s explanation of 9/11, it is not necessary to know anything about what force or forces brought down the three World Trade Center buildings, what hit the Pentagon or caused the explosion, the flying skills or lack thereof of the alleged hijackers, whether the airliner crashed in Pennsylvania or was shot down, whether cell phone calls made at the altitudes could be received, or any other debated aspect of the controversy.
You only have to know two things.


One is that according to the official story, a handful of Arabs, mainly Saudi Arabians, operating independently of any government and competent intelligence service, men without James Bond and V for Vendetta capabilities, outwitted not only the CIA, FBI, and National Security Agency, but all 16 US intelligence agencies, along with all security agencies of America’s NATO allies and Israel’s Mossad. Not only did the entire intelligence forces of the Western world fail, but on the morning of the attack the entire apparatus of the National Security State simultaneously failed. Airport security failed four times in one hour. NORAD failed. Air Traffic Control failed. The US Air Force failed. The National Security Council failed. Dick Cheney failed. Absolutely nothing worked. The world’s only superpower was helpless at the humiliating mercy of a few undistinguished Arabs.


It is hard to image a more far-fetched story–except for the second thing you need to know: The humiliating failure of US National Security did not result in immediate demands from the President of the United States, from Congress, from the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and from the media for an investigation of how such improbable total failure could have occurred. No one was held accountable for the greatest failure of national security in world history. Instead, the White House dragged its feet for a year resisting any investigation until the persistent demands from 9/11 families for accountability forced President George W. Bush to appoint a political commission, devoid of any experts, to hold a pretend investigation.


On 9/11 Doubts Were Immediate

On September 11, 2001, a neighbor telephoned and said, “turn on the TV.” I assumed that a hurricane, possibly a bad one from the sound of the neighbor’s voice, was headed our way, and turned on the TV to determine whether we needed to shutter the house and leave.


What I saw was black smoke from upper floors of one of the World Trade Center towers. It didn’t seem to be much of a fire, and the reports were that the fire was under control. While I was trying to figure out why every TV network had its main news anchor covering an office fire, TV cameras showed an airplane hitting the other tower. It was then that I learned that both towers had been hit by airliners.
Cameras showed people standing at the hole in the side of the tower looking out. This didn’t surprise me. The airliner was minute compared to the massive building. But what was going on? Two accidents, one on top of the other?


The towers—the three-fourths or four-fifths of the buildings beneath the plane strikes–were standing, apparently largely undamaged. There were no signs of fire except in the vicinity of where the airliners had hit. Suddenly, one of the towers blew up, disintegrated, and disappeared in fine dust. Before one could make any sense of this, the same thing happened to the second tower, and it too disappeared into fine dust.


9/11 Eyewitness Commentary / World Trade Center collapse compilation. - YouTube
The TV news anchors compared the disintegration of the towers to controlled demolition. There were numerous reports of explosions throughout the towers from the base or sub-basements to the top. (Once the government put out the story of terrorist attack, references to controlled demolition and explosions disappeared from the print and TV media.) This made sense to me. Someone had blown up the buildings. It was completely obvious that the towers had not fallen down from asymmetrical structural damage. They had blown up.


The images of the airliners hitting the towers and the towers blowing up were replayed time and again. Airliners hit the top portions of the towers, and not long afterward the towers blew up. I turned off the TV wondering how it was that cameras had been ready to catch such an unusual phenomenon as an airplane flying into a skyscraper.


I don’t remember the time line, but it wasn’t long before the story was in place that Osama bin Laden and his al Qaeda gang had attacked the US. A passport had been found in the rubble. Another airliner had flown into the Pentagon, and a fourth airliner had crashed or been shot down. Four airliners had been hijacked, meaning airport security had failed four times on the same morning. Terrorists had successfully assaulted America.


When I heard these reports, I wondered. How could a tiny undamaged passport be found in the rubble of two skyscrapers, each more than 100 stories tall, when bodies, office furniture and computers could not be found? How could airport security fail so totally that four airliners could be hijacked within the same hour? How could authorities know so conclusively and almost immediately the names of the perpetrators who pulled off such a successful attack on the world’s only superpower, when the authorities had no idea that such an attack was planned or even possible?
These questions disturbed me, because as a former member of the congressional staff and as a presidential appointee to high office, I had high level security clearances. In addition to my duties as Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury, I had FEMA responsibilities in the event of nuclear attack. There was a mountain hideaway to which I was supposed to report in the event of a nuclear attack and from which I was supposed to take over the US government in the event no higher official survived the attack.


The more the story of 9/11 was presented in the media, the more wondrous it became. It is not credible that not only the CIA and FBI failed to detect the plot, but also all 16 US intelligence agencies, including the National Security Agency, which spies on everyone on the planet, and the Defense Intelligence Agency, Israel’s Mossad, and the intelligence agencies of Washington’s NATO allies. There are simply too many watchmen and too much infiltration of terrorist groups for such a complex attack to be prepared undetected and carried out undeterred.


Washington’s explanation of the attack implied a security failure too massive to be credible. Such a catastrophic failure of national security would mean that the US and Western Europe were never safe for one second during the Cold War, that the Soviet Union could have destroyed the entire West in one undetected fell swoop.
As a person whose colleagues at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington were former secretaries of state, former national security advisors, former CIA directors, former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, I was troubled by the story that a collection of individuals unsupported by a competent intelligence service had pulled off the events of 9/11.


As a person with high level government service, I knew that any such successful operation as 9/11 would have resulted in immediate demands from the White House, Congress, and the media for accountability. There would have been an investigation of how every aspect of US security could totally fail simultaneously in one morning. Such a catastrophic and embarrassing failure of the national security state would not be left unexamined.


NORAD failed. The US Air Force could not get jet fighters in the air. Air Traffic Control lost sight of the hijacked airliners. Yet, instead of launching an investigation, the White House resisted for one year the demands of the 9/11 families for an investigation. Neither the public, the media, nor Congress seemed to think an investigation was necessary. The focus was on revenge, which the Bush neocon regime said meant invading Afghanistan which was alleged to be sheltering the perpetrator, Osama bin Laden.


Normally, terrorists are proud of their success and announce their responsibility. It is a way to build a movement. Often a number of terrorist groups will compete in claiming credit for a successful operation. But Osama bin Laden in the last video that is certified by independent experts said that he had no responsibility for 9/11, that he had nothing against the American people, that his opposition was limited to the US government’s colonial policies and control over Muslim governments.


It makes no sense that the “mastermind” of the most humiliating blow in world history ever to have been delivered against a superpower would not claim credit for his accomplishment. By September 11, 2001, Osama bin Laden knew that he was deathly ill. According to news reports he underwent kidney dialysis the following month. The most reliable reports that we have are that he died in December 2001. It is simply not credible that bin Laden denied responsibility because he feared Washington.


But Osama bin Laden was too useful a bogeyman, and Washington and the presstitute media kept him alive for another decade until Obama needed to kill the dead man in order to boost his sinking standings in the polls so that Democrats would not back a challenger for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Numerous bin Laden videos, every one pronounced a fake by experts, were released whenever it was convenient for Washington. No one in the Western media or in the US Congress or European or UK parliaments was sufficiently intelligent to recognize that a bin Laden video always showed up on cue when Washington needed it. “Why would the ‘mastermind’ be so accommodating for Washington?” was the question that went through my mind every time one of the fake videos was released.
The 9/11 “investigation” that finally took place was a political one run from the White House. One member of the commission resigned, declaring the investigation to be a farce, and both co-chairman and the legal counsel of the 9/11 Commission distanced themselves from their report with statements that the 9/11 Commission was “set up to fail,” that resources were withheld from the commission, that representatives of the US military lied to the commission and that the commission considered referring the false testimony for criminal prosecution.
One would think that these revelations would cause a sensation, but the news media, Congress, the White House, and the public were silent.


All of this bothered me a great deal. The US had invaded two Muslim countries based on unsubstantiated allegations linking the two countries to 9/11, which itself remained uninvestigated. The neoconservatives who staffed the George W. Bush regime were advocating more invasions of more Muslim countries. Paul O’Neill, President Bush’s first Treasury Secretary, stated publicly that the Bush regime was planning to invade Iraq prior to 9/11. O’Neill said that no one at a National Security Council meeting even asked the question, why invade Iraq? “It was all about finding a way to do it.”
O'Neill: Bush planned Iraq invasion before 9/11 - CNN
The leaked top secret Downing Street Memo written by the head of British intelligence (MI6) confirms Paul O’Neill’s testimony. The memo, known as the “smoking gun memo” whose authenticity has been confirmed, states that “President George W. Bush wants to remove Saddam Hussein, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” In other words, the US invasion of Iraq was based on nothing but a made up lie.


As an engineering student I had witnessed a controlled demolition. When films of the collapse of WTC building 7 emerged, it was obvious that building 7 had been brought down by controlled demolition. When physics instructor David Chandler measured the descent of the building and established that it took place at free fall acceleration, the case was closed. Buildings cannot enter free fall unless controlled demolition has removed all resistance to the collapsing floors.
9/11: Blueprint for Truth - WTC Building 7 - 10 minute Segment from AE911Truth.org Companion Edition - YouTube
If airliners brought down two skyscrapers, why was controlled demolition used to bring down a third building?


I assumed that structural architects, structural engineers, and physicists would blow the whistle on the obviously false story. If I could see that something was amiss, certainly more highly trained people would.


The first physicist to make an effective and compelling argument was Steven Jones at BYU. Jones said that explosives brought down the twin towers. He made a good case. For his efforts, he was pressured to resign his tenured position. I wondered whether the federal government had threatened BYU’s research grants or whether patriotic trustees and alumni were the driving force behind Jones’ expulsion. Regardless, the message was clear to other university based experts: “Shut up or we’ll get you.”


Steven Jones was vindicated when chemist Niels Harrit of the University of Copenhagen In Denmark reported unequivocally that the scientific team in which he participated found nano-thermite in the residue of the twin towers. This sensational finding was not mentioned in the US print and TV media to my knowledge.


Several years after 9/11 architect Richard Gage formed Architects and Engineers for 9/11 truth, an organization that has grown to include 1,700 experts. The plans of the towers have been studied. They were formidable structures. They were constructed to withstand airliner hits and fires. There is no credible explanation of their failure except intentional demolition.


I also found disturbing the gullibility of the public, media, and Congress in the unquestioning acceptance of the official stories of the shoe-bomber, shampoo and bottled water bomber, and underwear bomber plots to blow up airliners in transit. These schemes are farcical. How can we believe that al Qaeda, capable of pulling off the most fantastic terrorist attack in history and capable of devising improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that kill and maim US troops and destroy US military vehicles would rely on something that had to be lighted with a match? The shoe and underwear bombers would simply have pushed a button on their cell phones or laptops, and the liquid bomb would not have required extended time in a lavatory to be mixed (all to no effect).


None of this makes any sense. Moreover, experts disputed many of the government’s claims, which were never backed by anything but the government’s story line. There is no independent evidence that anything was involved other than firecracker powders.


The case of the underwear bomber is especially difficult to accept. According to witnesses, the underwear bomber was not allowed on the airliner, because he had no passport. So an official appears who walks him onto the airliner bound for Detroit on Christmas day. What kind of official has the authority to override established rules, and what did the official think would happen to the passenger when he presented himself to US Customs without a passport? Any official with the power to override standard operating practices would know that it was pointless to send a passenger to a country where his entry would be rejected.


The circumstantial evidence is that these were orchestrated events designed to keep fear alive, to create new intrusive powers for a new over-arching federal policy agency, to accustom US citizens to intrusive searches and a police force to conducting them, and to sell expensive porno-scanners and now more advanced devices to the Transportation Safety Administration. Apparently, this expensive collection of high-tech gadgetry is insufficient to protect us from terrorists, and in August 2012 the Department of Homeland Security put in an order for 750 million rounds of ammunition, enough to shoot every person in the US 2.5 times.


Naive and gullible Americans claim that if some part of the US government had been involved in 9/11, “someone would have talked by now.” A comforting thought, perhaps, but nothing more. Consider, for example, the cover-up by the US government of the 1967 Israeli attack on the USS Liberty that killed or wounded most of the crew but failed to sink the ship. As the survivors have testified, they were ordered in a threatening way not to speak about the event. It was twelve years later before one of the USS Liberty’s officers, James Ennes, told the story of the attack in his book, Assault on the Liberty. I continue to wonder how the professionals at the National Institute of Standards and Technology feel about being maneuvered by the federal government into the unscientific position NIST took concerning the destruction of the WTC towers.


What will be the outcome of the doubts about the official story raised by experts? I worry that most Americans are too mentally and emotionally weak to be able to come to grips with the truth. They are far more comfortable with the story that enemies attacked America successfully despite the massive national security state in place. The American public has proved itself to be so cowardly that it willingly, without a peep, sacrificed its civil liberty and the protections of law guaranteed by the Constitution in order to be “safe.”


Congress is not about to expose itself for having squandered trillions of dollars on pointless wars based on an orchestrated “new Pearl Harbor.” When the neoconservatives said that a “new Pearl Harbor” was a requirement for their wars for American/Israeli hegemony, they set the stage for the 21st century wars that Washington has launched. If Syria falls, there is only Iran, and then Washington stands in direct confrontation with Russia and China.
Unless Russia and China can be overthrown with “color revolutions,” these two nuclear powers are unlikely to submit to Washington’s hegemony. The world as we know it might be drawing to a close.


If enough Americans or even other peoples in the world had the intelligence to realize that massive steel structures do not disintegrate into fine dust because a flimsy airliner hits them and limited short-lived fires burn on a few floors, Washington would be faced with the suspicion it deserves.


If 9/11 was actually the result of the failure of the national security state to deter an attack, the government’s refusal to conduct a real investigation is an even greater failure. It has fallen to concerned and qualified individuals to perform the investigative role abandoned by government. The presentations at the Toronto Hearings, along with the evaluations of the Panel, are now available, as is the documentary film, “Explosive Evidence–Experts Speak Out,” provided by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.


The government’s agents and apologists try to deflect attention from disturbing facts by redefining factual evidence revealed by experts as the product of “a conspiracy culture.” If people despite their brainwashing and lack of scientific education are able to absorb the information made available to them, perhaps both the US Constitution and peace could be restored. Only informed people can restrain Washington and avert the crazed hegemonic US government from destroying the world in war.


The 11th Anniversary of 9/11 ~ Paul Craig Roberts - PaulCraigRoberts.org

I brought all the links over from 911 this is from "r\Restore the Republic" of which I am a member



Help us restore the republic by forwarding this email!
11 years later... are you any freer?


Hand picked videos and news submitted by members of RTR below...


Not a member yet? Here is the invite code:
http://rtr.org/referral-code/443f87232f


Please watch and share these reports:



Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About The 9/11 Conspiracy Theory In Under 5 Minutes


RTR.org - Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About The 9/11 Conspiracy Theory In Under 5 Minutes




RTR.org - Everything You Ever Wanted To Know About The 9/11 Conspiracy Theory In Under 5 Minutes





Wesley Clark Confronted on 9/11
RTR.org - Wesley Clark Confronted on 9/11
John Kerry Confronted on Building 7 "Controlled Fashion" Comment
RTR.org - John Kerry Confronted on Building 7 "Controlled Fashion" Comment

General of all American Intelligence: 911 was a fraud!
RTR.org - General of all American Intelligence: 911 was a fraud!
Russian general reveals truth about 9/11
RTR.org - Russian general reveals truth about 9/11

BANNED FROM CNN Flight 93 eyewitness admits not seeing dead bodies
RTR.org - BANNED FROM CNN Flight 93 eyewitness admits not seeing dead bodies"The US Gov't made a decision not to tell the truth about what happened"
RTR.org - Album Photo View

A Small List Of Big 9/11 Truth Documentaries

Tuesday, September 11, 2012 8:57




MUST SEE Documentaries:















A Small List Of Big 9/11 Truth Documentaries | 9/11 and Ground Zero




PS, Some of these you may have seen some maybe not. There is one movie I couldn't bring over it is after the " missing link Israeli involvement in 911, I recommend you pass them around to family and friends, save them to a disk, because I can't imagine they will be around much longer, at the rate our country is going.

Part 2 of my post

A Small List Of Big 9/11 Truth Documentaries








If you dismiss everything else about the 9/11 conspiracy, the fact that there wasno sign of planes anywhere in shanksville or the pentagon, etc. etc., then look at WTC 7… If you only forward one video to your friends, send them this one!
-Mort

The video is at the link below

Op-Docs

The Program




The Program: The filmmaker Laura Poitras profiles William Binney, a 32-year veteran of the National Security Agency who helped design a top-secret program he says is broadly collecting Americans’ personal data.

By LAURA POITRAS


It took me a few days to work up the nerve to phone William Binney. As someone already a “target” of the United States government, I found it difficult not to worry about the chain of unintended consequences I might unleash by calling Mr. Binney, a 32-year veteran of the National Security Agency turned whistle-blower. He picked up. I nervously explained I was a documentary filmmaker and wanted to speak to him. To my surprise he replied: “I’m tired of my government harassing me and violating the Constitution. Yes, I’ll talk to you.”

A forum for short, opinionated documentaries, produced with creative latitude by independent filmmakers and artists.

• About Op-Docs | How to Submit »
• View Related Videos »

• Document: Letter to the Director of National Intelligence
  
  

Related in Opinion

• Op-Ed Contributor: Giving In to the Surveillance State (August 23, 2012)
  
  

Connect With Us on Twitter

For Op-Ed, follow @nytopinion and to hear from the editorial page editor, Andrew Rosenthal, follow @andyrNYT.



Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

• Read All Comments (77) »

Two weeks later, driving past the headquarters of the N.S.A. in Maryland, outside Washington, Mr. Binney described details about Stellar Wind, the N.S.A.’s top-secret domestic spying program begun after 9/11, which was so controversial that it nearly caused top Justice Department officials to resign in protest, in 2004.
“The decision must have been made in September 2001,” Mr. Binney told me and the cinematographer Kirsten Johnson. “That’s when the equipment started coming in.” In this Op-Doc, Mr. Binney explains how the program he created for foreign intelligence gathering was turned inward on this country. He resigned over this in 2001 and began speaking out publicly in the last year. He is among a group of N.S.A. whistle-blowers, including Thomas A. Drake, who have each risked everything — their freedom, livelihoods and personal relationships — to warn Americans about the dangers of N.S.A. domestic spying.
To those who understand state surveillance as an abstraction, I will try to describe a little about how it has affected me. The United States apparently placed me on a “watch-list” in 2006 after I completed a film about the Iraq war. I have been detained at the border more than 40 times. Once, in 2011, when I was stopped at John F. Kennedy International Airport in New York and asserted my First Amendment right not to answer questions about my work, the border agent replied, “If you don’t answer our questions, we’ll find our answers on your electronics.”’ As a filmmaker and journalist entrusted to protect the people who share information with me, it is becoming increasingly difficult for me to work in the United States. Although I take every effort to secure my material, I know the N.S.A. has technical abilities that are nearly impossible to defend against if you are targeted.
The 2008 amendments to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which oversees the N.S.A. activities, are up for renewal in December. Two members of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, Senators Ron Wyden of Oregon and Mark Udall of Colorado, both Democrats, are trying to revise the amendments to insure greater privacy protections. They have been warning about “secret interpretations” of laws and backdoor “loopholes” that allow the government to collect our private communications. Thirteen senators have signed a letter expressing concern about a “loophole” in the law that permits the collection of United States data. The A.C.L.U. and other groups have also challenged the constitutionality of the law, and the Supreme Court will hear arguments in that case on Oct. 29.
Laura Poitras is a documentary filmmaker who has been nominated for an Academy Award and whose work was exhibited in the 2012 Whitney Biennial. She is working on a trilogy of films about post-9/11 America. This Op-Doc is adapted from a work in progress to be released in 2013.
This video is part of a series by independent filmmakers who have received grants from the BRITDOC Foundation and the Sundance Institute.


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/op...gram.html?_r=2