203 Flight 77 Cockpit Door Never Opened - Pilots for 9/11 Truth

(1) Europe becomes Muslim; India too
(2) Good riddance to the old Europe
(3) Flight 77 Cockpit Door Never Opened - Pilots for 9/11 Truth
(4) Obama appointee advocates 'cognitive infiltration' of 9/11 truth movement
(5) Zionist-Operated 9/11 Commissions in US & UK
(6) Images of suffering Palestinian children used to raise funds for 'Jewish only' charities
(7) Israeli general Brigadier-General Uzi Eilam says it will take Iran 7 years to make nukes
(8) Yemeni Jews refuse to leave for Israel

(1) Europe becomes Muslim; India too

From: chaitanya <chaitanya.siddhanthi@gmail.com> Date: 14.01.2010 02:02 AM

I have read the speech which was about 'Europe becomes muslim'.

I would like to let you know that the i have observed the same in India.

There are muslim neighbourhoods, mosques raising up in every nook and corner of the country.

It was an excellent speech with facts.

Thanks and regards,
Chaitanya

(2) Good riddance to the old Europe

From: Eric Walberg <efgh1951@yahoo.com> Date: 14.01.2010 03:05 AM

re who lost europe

good riddance to that europe.

> Now you know why Winston Churchill called Islam 'the most retrograde force in the world', and why he compared Mein Kampf to the Quran. 

more confirmation that islam is the true path

(3) Flight 77 Cockpit Door Never Opened - Pilots for 9/11 Truth

From: Dr. Gunther Kümel <sapere--aude@web.de> Date: 12.01.2010 04:02 AM

Flight 77 Cockpit Door Never Opened During 9/11 “Hijack"

By Sheila Casey / Rock Creek Free Press

December 15, 2009

http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/285492999/flt77fdr

Pilots for 9/11 Truth has reported that the data stream from the flight data recorder (FDR) for American Airlines flight 77,

which allegedly struck the Pentagon on 9/11, shows that the cockpit door never opened during the entire 90 minute flight.

The data was provided by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), which has refused to comment.

The FDR is one of two “black boxes” in every commercial airliner, which are used after accidents to help determine the cause of a crash. One black box records flight data, the other records voice data (everything said in the cockpit during the flight). With those two sets of data, NTSB investigators can usually piece together the events that led to a crash. The status of the door to the cockpit is checked every four seconds throughout a flight and relayed as a simple 0 or 1, where 0=closed and 1=open, with approximately 1,300 door status checks performed during AA77’s 90 minute flight. Every one of those door status checks shows as a 0, indicating that the door to the cockpit never opened during the entire flight.

Accident investigators monitor the cockpit door with the FDR because it may yield clues to pilot error in a crash. The FDR begins recording once the pilots are in their seats and readying for takeoff, and the plane cannot take off unless the FDR is working.

The official story about flight 77 is that five Muslim terrorists brandishing box cutters forced their way into the cockpit and herded two pilots, four flight attendants and all the passengers to the back of the plane. This story came into being via Ted Olson, US Solicitor General, who told CNN — that he received two phone calls from his wife Barbara Olson, a passenger on the doomed flight. Ted Olson’s story changed several times. Sometimes he claimed that the calls from his wife were made from seat back phones, other times that she used her cell phone.

According to American Airlines customer service, the American Airlines maintenance manual for that aircraft, and American Airlines Captain Ralph Kolstad, seatback phones on 757s had been deactivated prior to 9/11/01. (They were later removed entirely, as they never worked well.)

Barbara Olson couldn’t have used a cell phone either: numerous 9/11 researchers, most notably David Ray Griffin, have pointed out that cell phones did not work on airplanes on 9/11. The speed and altitude of a commercial airliner both present overwhelming obstacles to a cell phone’s need to lock onto a cell tower and then hand off to another tower in a new location.

It was the FBI that revealed the evidence that decisively disproves Ted Olson’s story. In the Zacarias Moussaoui trial in 2006, the FBI presented a report on the cell phone calls from all four 9/11 flights. Their report on AA77 shows that there was only one phone call from Barbara Olson, but that it was an unconnected call lasting zero seconds. So Ted Olson either lied about receiving calls from his wife or was deceived into believing he received calls from her.

According to the UK Telegraph, Barbara Olson delayed her flight on 9/11 so that she could have breakfast with her husband on his birthday. That delay put her on the doomed flight. Ted Olson remarried in 2006 to tax attorney Lady Booth, whom he reportedly met the year after Barbara died.

There are numerous oddities and contradictions about AA77’s black boxes.

The government claims that the voice data recorder was damaged during the crash and that no usable data was retrieved from it. If true, this would be the first time in aviation history that a solid-state data recorder was destroyed during a crash.

While it was widely reported in the media that the FDR for AA77 was found at 4 am on September 14, 2001, the file containing the FDR data was dated over four hours earlier. In other words, we are asked to believe that the data from the FDR was downloaded prior to the FDR being found.

Researcher Aidan Monagahan has established that the NTSB does not have either serial or part numbers for the FDRs from AA77. The NTSB’s own handbook indicates that the part number and serial number of the FDR are required for data readout of the FDR. The NTSB did not have this information, giving us another reason to question how the FDR data was created.

Structural engineer Allyn Kilsheimer claimed that he personally found AA77’s black box on 9/11. But in the Popular Mechanics book Debunking 9/11 Myths, Kilsheimer is quoted as saying, “I stood on a pile of debris that we later found contained the black box …”

Kilsheimer’s story changes again in August 2007 in a piece done by the History Channel, “The 9/11 Conspiracies,” where he claims “I tripped over something; it was the black box.”

In earlier work, Pilots for 9/11 Truth (P4T) has determined that the same data set provided by the NTSB shows the plane too high to hit the Pentagon, based on an altimeter that uses air pressure to calibrate altitude.

As reported in the April 2009 Rock Creek Free Press, Citizen Investigation Team, citizen journalists from southern California, has collected evidence from 14 eyewitnesses that shows that the plane seen that morning near the Pentagon did not hit the building, but flew over it at the moment explosives detonated in the Pentagon, leading observers to conclude that the plane had crashed into the Pentagon.

Questions about what happened at the Pentagon have intrigued 9/11 researchers for years, beginning with photos from the alleged crash scene which do not show the wreckage of a plane.

This new evidence, showing that the cockpit door never opened during flight, is another nail in the coffin of the official story about flight 77. Clearly, if the cockpit door never opened, then hijackers did not storm the cockpit and herd the pilots to the back of the plane. The data, which originated from the government, does not support the government’s story.

Why would the government release data which contradicts its own version of events? It is possible they were just sloppy, or that they never anticipated that anyone would parse the data as carefully as Pilots for 9/11 Truth have. They may have also felt secure, that regardless of what damning revelations were contained in the FDR data, no mainstream media outlet would give them ink or air time, keeping the official story intact for the vast majority of Americans who receive their news from mainstream sources.

Rob Balsamo, founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth, stated: “We have not located any independently verified data which confirms the government’s story. The FBI and NTSB refuse to comment.” Founded in August 2006, Pilots For 9/11 Truth is an organization of aviation professionals from around the globe who are investigating the government’s claims about the attacks of 9/11.

Sheila Casey is a DC based journalist. Her work has appeared in The Denver Post, Reuters, Chicago Sun-Times, Dissident Voice and Common Dreams

(4) Obama appointee advocates 'cognitive infiltration' of 9/11 truth movement

From: Dr. Gunther Kümel <sapere--aude@web.de> Date: 15.01.2010 04:46 AM

http://rawstory.com/2010/01/obama-staffer-infiltration-911-groups/

Obama staffer wants ‘cognitive infiltration’ of 9/11 conspiracy groups

By Daniel Tencer
Wednesday, January 13th, 2010 -- 10:48 pm

Share on Facebook Stumble This!

In a 2008 academic paper, President Barack Obama's appointee to head the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs advocated "cognitive infiltration" of groups that advocate "conspiracy theories" like the ones surrounding 9/11.

Cass Sunstein, a Harvard law professor, co-wrote an academic article entitled "Conspiracy Theories: Causes and Cures," in which he argued that the government should stealthily infiltrate groups that pose alternative theories on historical events via "chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine" those groups.

As head of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Sunstein is in charge of "overseeing policies relating to privacy, information quality, and statistical programs," according to the White House Web site.

Sunstein's article, published in the Journal of Political Philosphy in 2008 and recently uncovered by blogger Marc Estrin, states that "our primary claim is that conspiracy theories typically stem not from irrationality or mental illness of any kind but from a 'crippled epistemology,' in the form of a sharply limited number of (relevant) informational sources."

By "crippled epistemology" Sunstein means that people who believe in conspiracy theories have a limited number of sources of information that they trust. Therefore, Sunstein argued in the article, it would not work to simply refute the conspiracy theories in public -- the very sources that conspiracy theorists believe would have to be infiltrated.

Sunstein, whose article focuses largely on the 9/11 conspiracy theories, suggests that the government "enlist nongovernmental officials in the effort to rebut the theories. It might ensure that credible independent experts offer the rebuttal, rather than government officials themselves. There is a tradeoff between credibility and control, however. The price of credibility is that government cannot be seen to control the independent experts."

Sunstein argued that "government might undertake (legal) tactics for breaking up the tight cognitive clusters of extremist theories." He suggested that "government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action."

"We expect such tactics from undercover cops, or FBI," Estrin writes at the Rag Blog, expressing surprise that "a high-level presidential advisor" would support such a strategy.

Estrin notes that Sunstein advocates in his article for the infiltration of "extremist" groups so that it undermines the groups' confidence to the extent that "new recruits will be suspect and participants in the group’s virtual networks will doubt each other’s bona fides."

Sunstein has been the target of numerous "conspiracy theories" himself, mostly from the right wing political echo chamber, with conservative talking heads claiming he favors enacting "a second Bill of Rights" that would do away with the Second Amendment. Sunstein's recent book, On Rumors: How Falsehoods Spread, Why We Believe Them, What Can Be Done, was criticized by some on the right as "a blueprint for online censorship."

Sunstein "wants to hold blogs and web hosting services accountable for the remarks of commenters on websites while altering libel laws to make it easier to sue for spreading 'rumors,'" wrote Ed Lasky at American Thinker.

(5) Zionist-Operated 9/11 Commissions in US & UK

From: Israel Shamir <adam@israelshamir.net> Date: 05.01.2010 06:35 AM

The Chilcot Inquiry: Britain's 9/11 Commission

By Maidhc Ó Cathail

http://axisoflogic.com/artman/publish/Article_57995.shtml

Sabbah Report

Monday, Jan 4, 2010

All too often, official inquiries are conducted by the very people who should themselves be under investigation.

In this respect, Britain's Chilcot Inquiry on the Iraq war bears a distressing similarity to the 9/11 Commission.

In a remarkable symmetry, both inquiries involve a Jewish Zionist historian, who not only advised his country's leader to go to war against Iraq, but actually provided the ideological justification for that unnecessary war.

Preemptive Wars

Perhaps Philip Zelikow was one of the few people who was not surprised by his appointment as executive director of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, better known as the 9/11 Commission. After all, the Professor of History at the University of Virginia had shown uncanny prescience in foreseeing an event such as 9/11 itself. In 1998, as project director of the Catastrophic Terrorism Group, Zelikow had written:

"An act of catastrophic terrorism that killed thousands or tens of thousands of people … would be a watershed event in America's history.… Like Pearl Harbor, such an event would divide our past and future into a 'before' and 'after'."

Yet despite his awareness of an imminent threat of "catastrophic terrorism" against the United States, in the Bush administration Zelikow was instrumental in downgrading the status of the National Coordinator for Counterterrorism, Richard Clarke. Effectively cutting off his direct access to the President, this prevented Clarke from discussing al-Qaeda with George W. Bush before September 11.

In an even clearer conflict of interest, as a member of Bush's Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board, Zelikow had authored the 2002 National Security Strategy of the United States. Dubbed the "Bush Doctrine" by the Washington Post's hawkishly pro-Israeli columnist Charles Krauthammer, it advocated the necessity of "preemptive war." Based on a policy first mooted in 1992 by two other Jewish neoconservatives, Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis Libby, the Zelikow Doctrine provided the justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.

While Bush probably believed he was "ridding the world of evil," Zelikow knew exactly why Iraq was being targeted. In a rare moment of candour, he told an audience at the University of Virginia on September 10, 2002:

"Why would Iraq attack America or use nuclear weapons against us? I'll tell you what I think the real threat (is) and actually has been since 1990—it's the threat against Israel. And this is the threat that dare not speak its name, because the Europeans don't care deeply about that threat, I will tell you frankly. And the American government doesn't want to lean too hard on it rhetorically, because it is not a popular sell."

Nevertheless, as executive director of the 9/11 Commission Zelikow did his very best to "sell" the Iraq war to the American people. The first expert witness he called had "no special expertise on the events of September 11," but that didn't seem to matter too much. Instead of discussing 9/11, Abraham Sofaer, a board member of the pro-Israeli Koret Foundation, made an impassioned speech in support of the "preemptive war" against Iraq.

An even more controversial "expert" witness called was Laurie Mylroie. Known as the "neocons' favourite conspiracy theorist," the American Enterprise Institute scholar had made a career out of seeing the hand of Saddam Hussein behind every anti-American terrorist attack during the previous decade. Her 2000 book, Study of Revenge, in which she laid out her flimsy case against Saddam, acknowledged the assistance of Wolfowitz and Libby, and was blurbed by Richard Perle as "splendid and wholly convincing."

Exercising a scepticism toward Mylroie's "batty" theories lacking in much of the media coverage, one of the 9/11 widows lambasted Zelikow for this transparent "sales pitch for the Iraq war."

Zelikow's persistent efforts to rewrite the Commission staff's reports to give the impression of a link between al-Qaeda and Iraq "horrified" some of his staff, many of whom considered him a "White House mole." Little did they suspect, however, that Zelikow's loyalties might lie much further afield. 

Humanitarian Wars

If British Prime Minister Gordon Brown were genuinely interested in finding out why his predecessor followed George Bush into the Iraq quagmire, his appointment of Sir Lawrence Freedman to the five-member Chilcot Inquiry was an odd choice. As the political editor of the BBC's Newsnight programme, Michael Crick, pointed out, "Critics of the war might argue Sir Lawrence was himself one of the causes of the war!"

Crick was referring to a Freedman memo which formed the basis of Tony Blair's 1999 Chicago speech, "The Doctrine of the International Community." In what became known as the "Blair Doctrine," Freedman had offered an answer to the specious question: "When was military action justified for liberal, humanitarian reasons?"  

In addition to the Freedman Doctrine's justification of military intervention in "rogue states" such as Iraq, Freedman has admitted that he "instigated" a pre-war seminar for the British Prime Minister, because he was "aware of misgivings among some specialists in Iraq about the direction of policy." Clearly, Freedman has no such "misgivings" himself about the illegal invasion of Iraq. It was, he claims, motivated by "rather noble criteria."

In his recent book, A Choice of Enemies: America Confronts the Middle East, Freedman is dismissive of those who suspect less "noble" motives for the war.

"Another popular theory," he writes, "is that U.S. foreign policy was effectively hijacked by a group of neoconservatives with a grand design to reshape the Middle East. A conspiratorial version of this theory argues that the aim was to help Israel, by removing a leading rejectionist state from the scene."

Presumably, the consistency of the prescriptions that runs from Oded Yinon's "A Strategy for Israel in the 1980s," through Perle, Feith and Wurmser's "A Clean Break," to the so-called "Bush Doctrine" is merely coincidental. Evidently, the learned Professor of War Studies needs to read "The Israeli Origins of the Middle East War Agenda" in Stephen Sniegoski's?The Transparent Cabal.

Perhaps it is also "conspiratorial," or worse, to wonder about the media's hyping a book which obscures why America "confronts" Israel's enemies in the Middle East, while one which exposes the Zionist agenda gets the silent treatment. But it certainly is cause for concern when Freedman's book, which also opts for the euphemism of a "security fence" to describe Israel's Apartheid Wall, and repeatedly refers to the illegally occupied West Bank as Judea and Samaria, is given such credence.

Despite its obvious shortcomings, A Choice of Enemies won the 2009 Lionel Gelber Prize, awarded to "the world's best non-fiction book in English that seeks to deepen public debate on significant global issues." The prize is presented by the Munk Centre for International Studies, which was financed by Peter Munk, the chairman and founder of Barrick Gold, the world's largest gold-mining corporation.

In 1944, Munk was one of the 1700 Hungarian Jews—mainly young Zionists and some of the more affluent members of the Jewish community—whose lives were spared at the expense of the 450,000 non-Zionist and less fortunate Jews the Zionist leader Rezsö Kasztner helped send to their deaths. Kasztner's collaboration with the Nazis, which Adolf Eichmann described as "a good bargain," is the subject of Ben Hecht's Perfidy.

Perhaps one day an equally outraged American or British writer will dramatize the perfidy of Philip Zelikow or Lawrence Freedman in sending his unwitting compatriots to fight and die in wars for Israel. But for the time being, their treason looks set to remain obscure.

Just as the Zelikow-directed 9/11 Commission suppressed evidence that the main motive for the September 11 attacks was American support for Israel, Freedman's presence on the Chilcot Inquiry is a clear indication that there will be no inquiry into the role of Zionist insiders in taking Britain to war against Iraq—a country that posed a threat not to British interests but to Israel's regional hegemony.

* Maidhc Ó Cathail is a freelance writer living in Japan. He has written for Sabbah Report, Antiwar.com, Dissident Voice, The Palestine Chronicle, OpEd News, Media Monitors Network and many other publications.

(6) Images of suffering Palestinian children used to raise funds for 'Jewish only' charities
From: ReporterNotebook <RePorterNoteBook@Gmail.com> Date: 15.01.2010 11:57 AM

http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2010/01/14/israeli-charities-cashing-in-on-palestinian-suffering/

ISRAELI CHARITIES ‘CASHING IN’ ON PALESTINIAN SUFFERING

January 14, 2010 at 11:36 am (Deceit, DesertPeace Editorial, Israel, zionism)

The above photo (part of an ad campaign) is being circulated throughout the Israeli press. The organisation that sponsored the ad operates (for hungry Jews only) soup kitchens in every major Israeli city. Below is the ad in question….

Feeding the poor is a wonderful deed…..asking for contributions to continue this work is to be expected….. BUT…. the photo used is not one of a poor, hungry Jewish child. It is the photo of a child in Gaza at the funeral of her brother who was killed by the zionists during the blitzkrieg a year ago. The same child can be seen in THIS article that appeared in the Telegraph.

The following montage shows the child in the ad and the (same) Palestinian child.

click on image to enlarge

How could the zionists be so deceptive? Along with their beliefs that Palestinians are not human, do they also believe that they feel no pain or suffering? Do they see nothing morally wrong with using images of suffering Palestinian children to raise funds for ‘Jewish only’ charities?

I have no problem supporting charitable institutions, especially those that feed the hungry, but I would NEVER support one that would turn away a non Jew, especially one such as Meir Panim.

Just another example of the inhumanity of zionism and those associated with it.

(7) Israeli general Brigadier-General Uzi Eilam says it will take Iran 7 years to make nukes

From: IHR News <news@ihr.org>  Date: 15.01.2010 08:55 AM

Israeli Brigadier-General Denies Iran is Nuclear Threat
The Times (Britain)
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/middle_east/article6982447.ece

Israeli general Brigadier-General Uzi Eilam denies Iran is nuclear threat

Uzi Mahnaimi in Tel Aviv  

A general who was once in charge of Israel’s nuclear weapons has claimed that Iran is a “very, very, very long way from building a nuclear capability”.

Brigadier-General Uzi Eilam, 75, a war hero and pillar of the defence establishment, believes it will probably take Iran seven years to make nuclear weapons.

The views expressed by the former director-general of Israel’s Atomic Energy Commission contradict the assessment of Israel’s defence establishment and put him at odds with political leaders.

Major-General Amos Yadlin, head of military intelligence, recently told the defence committee of the Knesset that Iran will probably be able to build a single nuclear device this year.

Binyamin Netanyahu, the prime minister, has repeatedly said that Israel will not tolerate a nuclear-armed Iran. Israeli forces have been in training to attack Iranian nuclear installations and some analysts believe airstrikes could be launched this year if international sanctions fail to deter Tehran from pursuing its programme.

Eilam, who is thought to be updated by former colleagues on developments in Iran, calls his country’s official view hysterical. “The intelligence community are spreading frightening voices about Iran,” he said.

He suggested that the “defence establishment is sending out false alarms in order to grab a bigger budget” while some politicians have used Iran to divert attention away from problems at home.

“Those who say that Iran will obtain a bomb within a year’s time, on what basis did they say so?” he asked. “Where is the evidence?”

He has just published Eilam’s Arc, a memoir in which he reveals that he opposed the Israeli attack on Iraq’s nuclear reactor at Osirak in 1981.

According to well-placed defence sources, Israel is speeding up preparations for a possible attack on Iran’s nuclear sites. Last week its defence forces released footage that showed training to refuel F-15 jet fighters in mid-air. “This was a warning not to Iran but to the Americans that we’re serious,” said an Israeli defence source.

But Eilam argues “such an attack [against Iran] would be counter-productive”.

“One strike is not practical. In order to delay the Iranian programme for three to four years, one needs an armada of aircraft, which only a super-power can provide. Only America can do it.”

(8) Yemeni Jews refuse to leave for Israel

From: WVNS <ummyakoub@yahoo.com> Date: 15.01.2010 11:56 AM

Wed, 06 Jan 2010
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=115462&sectionid=351020206

Jews in Yemen prefer to stay in the impoverished Arab nation rather than relocate to Israel amid mounting speculations that the US might launch a new war in the country.

An official at the World's Jewish Congress Foundation, Moshe Nahum, said they have tried in vain in the past three decades to convince Yemeni Jews to move to Israel.

He said the foundation has even dispatched teams from New York and London and promised money and benefit to lure the tiny community to migrate.

"But they are afraid of losing what they have," Nahum said in an interview with the Israeli daily Yediot Ahronot, published on Tuesday.

Yemen has a small community of two to three hundred Jews who mostly reside in the capital Sana'a, while dozens of them have chosen to convert to Islam.

Devastating offensives backed by US and Saudi militaries have been plowing through the Arab nation, mostly targeting the north where the Shia Houthi fighters are prey to regular attacks by Yemeni-Saudi warplanes.

In December, the US joined Sana'a in pounding the southern part of the country to weed out what Washington claims is a cell of al-Qaeda operating in the Arabian Peninsula.

Local officials and witnesses maintain that scores of civilians have been killed in operations confirmed by US media as being directly carried out by the American army.

On Tuesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton described insecurity in Yemen as a threat to regional and global stability, saying Washington was working closely with its allies on deciding "the best way forward" to address the issue.

Clinton said the Yemeni government had to take measures to restore stability or risk losing Western support.

MRS/SC/DT