Nice Interview with 9/11 widow Lorie von Auken; Sibel Edmonds says she has Pentagon sources

[spooked911]

saying that flight 93 was shot down.

http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/2011/08/19/podcast-show-51/

[hack89]

1. So she is is obstructing justice by not naming her sources? Coward. nt

[JackRiddler]

10. Coming from someone who thinks Bradley Manning is a traitor, your comment...

is not nearly as cute as you might smugly believe.

[greyl]

11. "Objection! Not being cute enough!"

Overruled. Answer the question, OP.

[hack89]

12. He at least had the courage of his convictions. She does not.

at what point do you start wondering whether she is playing you? It has been ten years after all - is milking this part of her retirement plan?

[JackRiddler]

13. Are you disappointed that you don't get to read about her torture, like Manning's?

[hack89]

14. No - I simply find it interesting that the evil government is ignoring her

if she really had anything, why aren't they treating her like Bradley Manning?

[JackRiddler]

15. Apparently the "evil government" (your phrase) is more flexible about strategy and tactics...

than your pretense will allow.

[hack89]

16. Or she has nothing. nt

[zappaman]

17. yeah, well...there is that. n/t

[JackRiddler]

20. Obviously why they revived the State Secrets Act after it was dormant for decades.

You have nothing, other than an algorithm for delivering a limited set of talking points, always completely predictable and in support of the USG official story (or, in this case, in defense of USG not even having one, since the secrets must be kept).

[hack89]

21. But surely it is different now that Obama is in office.

I could understand Bush using it to suppress the truth but what does Obama have to hide?

[zappaman]

22. Duh

Obama is in on it.
Jeezus, bone up on conspiracy theories will ya?

[JackRiddler]

23. Obama, Bush, they are what they do, not what motives you attribute to them.

In practice, whatever the pronouncements, Obama has continued and even reinforced Bush policies with regard to secrecy and whistleblowers. More whistleblowers are being tried for even more trivial "offenses." (The Drake case was atrocious.) Did they release the files Edmonds specified? Has the administration reacted to her claims, officially lifted the gag order (non-enforcement is different), or otherwise acted to clarify?

[hack89]

24. So 911 was much more than Bushco

or is Obama part of Bushco?

[JackRiddler]

26. Who cares? Everyone should listen to the informative podcast linked in the OP.

Something I very much doubt hack89 has done.

As for you hack89, I refuse to be roped into debating your false categories.

[hack89]

27. You are the one implicating Obama in a 911 conspiracy

As for the podcast I listened to it - so what? She is just another Truther parroting all the Truther talking points. She is also a coward if she is covering up for 3 material witnesses - she is obstructing the very justice she says she so desperately wants.

[JackRiddler]

28. I have of course not done so. You baited this, I failed to take the bait...

and now, in the fashion of a PR drone, you merely repeat the intended accusation as though now proven. You should be sad for yourself, to engage in such an impoverished and tawdry shadow of true discourse.

Any readers out there? Don't listen to anyone here. Follow the link and hear for yourself.

[hack89]

31. So why did you bring up the issue of the state secrets act?

are you saying it is not being used to suppress 911 truth? Or was it just Bush? In which case, what relevance does it have to the OP since Bush is out of office?

[terrafirma]

30. It's actually called

Obamushco now.

It's got a Yiddish feel to it.

Coincidence?!?!?!!?

[JackRiddler]

25. DEAR NON-POSTING READERS (assuming there are any)

I urge you to ignore this knee-biting and just listen to the informative interview with Lorie van Auken and Sibel Edmonds. It's easy listening. Ignore the talking-point nonsense here from all sides, and decide for yourself.

[pauldp]

32. Kick for a great interview. One everyone should listen to.

No matter what your view of 911.

[KDLarsen]

2. Sibel Edmonds' track record on delivering promises so far..

is not very good.

Did we ever get those records that proved that the US was working with multiple bin Ladens?

[deconstruct911]

3. I think she is part of the psy-op

[spooked911]

4. I don't trust Sibel Edmonds either

but still, an interesting interview. I think von Auken has a great amount of credibility, and is good for intro skepticism, if there even any out there without an opinion.

[dflprincess]

5. As horrible as it is to say,

Flight 93 needed to be shot down and if it wasn't, Bush & Cheney should have been made to explain why it didn't happen.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that it had been shot down - but a story about heroic passengers made much better propaganda.

[KDLarsen]

6. Why Bush & Cheney?

The buck may have stopped with them (even if it never didn), but they weren't the ones running NORAD that day.

[spooked911]

7. the problem with the shoot-down theory is that the flight 93 crash crater

is absolutely fake. The whole thing goes much deeper than a shoot-down.

[zappaman]

8. uh huh

why go for a little conspiracy when you can go whole-hog, right?
At this point, you must have gone and visited the site?

[spooked911]

18. what would be the point of visiting the site at this point?

I don't think the public is even allowed near the purported crash site.

[William Seger]

9. Yes, much deeper

First, a fake Flight 93 was substituted for the real one. The real 93 went on to land in Chicago, so it much have been the fake 93 that was shot down, very near where the fake crater had been built and where the fake witnesses were waiting.

The pieces are starting to fall into place...

[spooked911]

19. Chicago, eh?

How do you figure that?

[terrafirma]

29. C'mon Will...

It wasn't Chicago.

It was somewhere in Canada.

And for solid proof that the 93 crash site was faked, see Spooked's updated MSPaint (it used to be in pencil) explanation of physics here. While not nearly as flashy as Judy Wood's new book, one cannot refute the science... or the artistry for that matter.