portland independent media center  
images audio video
newswire article reposts global

9.11 investigation

New Video: 911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77

This is pretty good - it explains the white smoke that Hufscmidt based his entire premise for a missile or Global Hawk on, and shows how the plane could have hit without damaging the lawn. The impact areas - lampposts, generator, building - appear correct. This flies in the face of films like Loose Change and In Plane Site which heavily promote that AA77 could not have hit the building, leading to constant media smearing of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77

You Tube | July 1 2006

A short animation with video and photos illustrating the final moments of Flight 77 on September 11, 2001.
 http://prisonplanet.com/articles/july2006/010706casestudy.htm

homepage: homepage: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fprisonplanet%2Ecom%2Farticles%2Fjuly2006%2F010706casestudy%2Ehtm


Does not prove it was a Boeing 01.Jul.2006 16:51

indy

This is a computer animation that proves only that computer animation is cool. The fact that poles were hit does not prove it was a Boeing that hit them. The Pentagon has yet to release all its video from its surveillance cameras and from what I understand has confiscated video from other cameras. There is no credible evidence proving this was a Boeing or any other large plane. It is more likely that it was a drone. We may never know exactly what hit the Pentagon, but what we do know is that the official story is full of holes and we need to be highly skeptical of it and keep questioning. Most important question to me is how did an airplane of any size pass unnoticed for an hour through the most protected airspace in the world?

animation psyops attempts to spin novel footage from 2.45 min into it 01.Jul.2006 17:30

researcher

First of all it only identifies the author at teh very end

www.mikejwilson.com

Overall after viewing, it tiptoes around evidence more than reveals anything. It's just a damn animation from a psyop firm. It's not real! We've moved past that, thank you. Just more disinfo above, I'm afraid. Though it does show that the people who funded this are afraid!

Show us the real tapes, FBI, that you stole minutes after the hit at the Pentagon! Explain the radiation at the Pentagon!

The AA77 can never be at the Pentagon because of the lack of a hole in the building, the lack of AA77 equipment, bodies, seats, luggage, etc., and the radiation issue. Even Boeing agrees that the Pentagon hit cannot be one of its planes, because there is nothing radioactive in the wing struts

AA77 never was at the Pentagon. The government's story of it being there has zero evidence for it, though plenty of extra expensive high powered animations, humorously.



The U.S. story about the AA77 It is a story like the proverbial "dog that doesn't hunt", a stupid conspiracy theory spun by the Bush Administration and the Pentagon to hide that they attacked themselves on 9-11.

Nothing Bush has said from day one has been true. Their 9-11 story is just one in a series of terrible lies to the world.

"Exhibit A" they claim is lamp pole damage. However, the lamp poles are UNDAMAGED, and they are just popped out of the ground as easily preriggable alibi by small charges. You would expect damage on the poles where they were supposedly hit by some plane, though there is nothing like that damage to be seen. Conclusion: no AA77 at Pentagon.

Odd things in the video like "lamp pole struck, smoke starts to billow from engine" [huh?]. That's a total fabrication and there is nothing to document that at all.

"Exhibit B" security cam video": The big lie moves on. What security cam video? They never released them! They released five framed anonmymously! In other words, they didn't even want to have a trail back to who releasd them. Besides what hit was edited out of the five frames, and the time stamps were so wrong that they show that some form of manipulation of these five frames occurred. Besides if you really had security cam videos of the event they would show those instead of this embarassing animation show.

They silently attempt to superimpose a falsely small AA77 to fit against the video cam pictures then. Ingenous lie, though lie nevertheless, because a AA77 would be much larger than what is shown in the released clips.

They ignore that the explosion signature of a hot white/red hot flash that expands to 2x the height of the Pentagon IS NOT THE CHARACTERISTIC OF A JET FUEL FIRE. It is the characteristics of an explosives charge.

What is interesting is that they are showing more of the footage now, though still with what hit left out.

What it shows is that "smoke maker" (trailer truck) thing on fire, instead of the pentagon anyway, as the smoke is billowing away from something in front of the pentagon instead of the Pentagon itself.

You can see the latest film from around 2:45 min into the presentation. That film ends around 3.20 min into it, then back to the animated world.

Just show us the real 30 some odd videos that you confiscated, FBI. We know you blew up the WTCs in 1993. the U.S. Government is not to be trusted anymore, perhaps, ever.

"Exhibit C: unscathed lawn and cable spools" Pretty savvy PR gesture here to claim that the main evidence for a lack of AA77, really is evidence (in the absence) for a AA77? Not. The AA77, if there would have left some wreckage, and its engines would have been plowing into the ground to have hit the pentagon that low anyway. (Ignoring of course that the U.S. government lie of Hani Hanjour piloting it--when Hani can't fly even small planes; and when all air traffic controllers said what was coming into the pentagon manouvered like a military plane instead. We additionally of course are required to suspend our disbelief that Cheney was not standing down on U.S. air defenses along with NORAD co-consipriators, which he was, since NORAD failed to respond to any planes within 2 hours. That is high treason and murderers and maniacs are running the U.S. 9-11 was just a Nazi Reichstag Fire event, a self-hit, a premeditated state terrorist attack when they lacked popularity.

Their "animation" lie shows a Boeing going into the Pentagon, though no Boeing ever did so, and there is no video evidence of such and they refuse to relase the DOZENS of real tapes they confiscated.

"Exhibit D: generator and ground structure damage" Very funny. Of course it belies that that generator damage (all that smoke) obviously came from something that didn't hit it, because its shell is undamaged while it smokes away and creates the theater set of a terrorist attack. Their "animation" lie shows the (not there) Boeing engine hitting it. Not reflected by the actual evidence, sorry.

The interesting point is that there would hardly be any smoke at all at the Pentagon without that flaming generator--which is conveniently placed there on stage left to give the smoke impression. It's all staged folks.

Their "ground structure damage" is (get this!) a broken curb! A whole freaking Boeing is not there--not shown--and they claim that that a broken curb is evidence of what they still do not show. Get a grip.

Their "animation" lie shows the whole Boeing going into the animation Pentagon. Well, there's no evidence of that. Besides all the windows that are undamaged is totally left out. Sorry, you are still state terrorists without a AA77 to speak of at the Pentagon. Plus, their animation leaves out the small hole in the brick three levels deep, through three rings of concrete reinforced steel, which could not have been made by the AA77 at all, and besides there is nothing in the hole showing where a plane should be. This is just the kind of amateur stuff that this animation does--it is forced to ignore evidence of no AA77 to make its "animated" case.

"Exhibit E: airplane debris" they show (a) the casing from the (single! not double! as required) round edge condenser casing. However, the actual manufacturers themselves said that that doesn't come from a Boeing, sorry. The little film doesn't even mention that. They show the (a) single (not double! sorry) airplane engine turbofan without the fanblades. However, the manufactuers said that that ain't a Boeing either. The little film doesn't even mention that. (c) They show a wheel base (one! not double! sorry!), that is overly small for a Boeing. They don't mention that either. What the little film leaves out is that nothing of an AA77 was found--and the FBI walked the line to clean up all the little fragments from the crime scene (something else left out), then they covered up the whole place to hide further obvious non-AA77 evidence, under tons of dirt and gravel (something else left out). (d) they show a few more odd pieces, which of course hardly show that it came from the Pentagon even at all. the only association is entirely filmic--that they place those shots in their animation driven film. (e) They show the illegal removal of Pentagon evidence being heaved about by black pants black tie Pentagon workers with buzz cuts (who seem to be smiling and awfully relaxed). That of course is hardly evidence of anything except tampering with evidence by the Pentagon staff. They aren't even wearing gloves, and there these guys pop out of nowhere and start moving pieces about with their bare hands, pieces seemingly never photographed at all besides then.

In conclusion, the whole animation is really a shallow PR gesture showing the state terrorists are afraid of their lie coming out. They only released the five anonymous tampered with frames in the fir. They have never given evidence of a AA77 at the Pentagon, and this amination attempt is just a continuation of still avoiding supplying anyone with evidence. Of course they already have a PR gesture from the whole millions thrown at the lie of the "Flight 93" movie, which is the height of state propoganda to scare the masses just like Hitler would have loved.

Perhaps will come out with a TV miniseries about the WTC plane hits as well to perpetuate lies there.

The whole U.S. is almost entirely run by traitors. All involved in the 9-11 state terrorism should get the death penalty for the acts, along with everyone who covered up.

good job 01.Jul.2006 17:50

bf

Why shouldn't a jumbo jet have been used to hit the Pentegon? The animation video shows how much precision flying was involved. No amateur pilot could have accomplished the Pentagon hit.

In Plane Site and Loose Change present red herrings with Flight 77. Whether or not it was disinfo doesn't matter. Loose Change II is highly effective at overcoming the psychological resistence to 911 truth. For more accuracy, check out Stephen Jones. www.st911.org

Too bad more people don't understand the threat of the Real ID Act.

Deunking the nonsense claims 01.Jul.2006 18:20

repost

>>Loose Change II is highly effective at overcoming the psychological resistence to 911 truth.

That's your opinion - sure, lots of people already into UFOs and Chemtrails are now in 9/11 because the film presents an X-Files style drama, but are the engineers, the professors, the scientists and the researchers into 9/11 because of 'Loose Change'? Or are they being turned away by it? One scientist told he the film turned him off to 9/11 truth because of it's extremist claims. And by promoting so hard the claims about missiles and drones at the Pentagon, the film is ridiculed in mainstream media and keeps people interested in credibility from joining. The film excites a lot of people who don't really care about the validity of the evidence, only the hype of the wildest claims. Some of the claims are good, but a lot are bogus, and risk turning away those interested in credibility, not hype.

Those have been debunked here:
 http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html

question to repost 01.Jul.2006 19:52

ses

Could you please tell me what you think is bogus or not verifiable about the happenings of 9/11 shown in the film "Loose Change"?

I am always interested and open to other perspectives that I can research out to verify.

spin harder, trolls, or you'll loose your jobs! 01.Jul.2006 20:16

.

On Loose Change, the film is ridiculed by the mainstream media because its true. Mainstream media isn't god anyway. It's the devil.

Over the past several years, mainstream media has been loosing much of its "news" watchers because no one trusts their nonevidentiary psychodrama driven stories anymore.

Only scum--Colbert's famous "backwash" of the public--believe the Bush Administrations stories about 9-11. And thankfully, from that Zogby Poll of June 2006, they are definitely in the minority.

And simply claiming that this is the opinion "of an engineer" you know is hardly worthy of confidence or verification. Besides, you'd have to ignore the actual engineers who were politically punished for being truthful (like that New Mexico guy writing in the immediately wake of 9-11 that the WTCs were a controlled demoliton; or the physicist Dr. Jones and his thermate samples at the WTC.

Bush has no case. Never has. Never gave any evidence of Bin Laden involvement in 9-11. Just talked about it. over and over. That's the only thing we're dealing with. Bush propoganda, versus the real truth that Bush's team killed Americans for their own international empire goals.

eye witnesses? 01.Jul.2006 21:05

MPF

This is a good animation but it does not really shed much light here. I am always suspicious of grainy photos --surely our technology is better than that. Plus the pictures of "wreckage" wasn't recognizable--such as a wing or 2 ton engine or a tail section--wretckage I've seen in plane crash photos.

I may have missed it but I never heard or read any eye witness accounts. What did the cab driver say? The highways around the pentagon are usually busy--the plane would have had to have come pretty damn close to the cars and would have scared them because it would have felt like it was about to land on them. Given how the press likes to get eye witness accounts, what was published in the Washington Post and Washington Times? Were there any TV accounts of eye witnesses--you know, something like like "I thought I was a goner. I thought this plane was going to land on me." Was anyone looking out the window of the Pentagon or from the high rises in Rosslyn--again, this plane would have been flying lower than the typical planes and it would have been very loud. People would have heard it even if they did not see it, but chances are, they would have run to a window. Low flying jets drown out all tv and phone conversations.
The theory that it was not a plane that hit the pentagon is much harder to accept, so the evidence has to be solid.
The evidence that WTC buildings were wired for detonation is quite strong and if we could get people to focus on that, it would basically shatter the current story that they just collapsed--and would open up an investigation that would raise the question of who was actually behind the 9-11 attack.

Eye Witnesses 01.Jul.2006 22:11

YUP

In fact there were many eyewitnesses who say they saw a jet fly towards and hit the Pentagon. That is why you will not read about them here. Throws a wrench in the whole cottage industry.

Yes, many people saw it 01.Jul.2006 23:59

Fred Bauer

People trying to support the government story often say that many witnesses saw a 757 as if that were an indisputable fact, but they fail to provide references. If you read the accounts for yourself, you will find much disagreement. Take a look at the link below. Some saw a jet airliner. Some saw a missle. Some saw a commuter plane. Some saw a helicopter.

Then there is the fact that there is no hard evidence of a 757. There was never any proper investigation or forensication. The offical conspiracy theory is that the plane simply "vaporized". Well, I don't know of any other cases of a plane simple "vaporizing" except for flight 93 that went down in Shanksville on the same day, dispite reports that it had landed safely in Cleveland.


PNAC signers claim to "see Boeing" ; besides, AA77 unscheduled to fly 9-11 02.Jul.2006 12:17

conflict of interest watch

One of the fabled witnesses who was thrown in front of the cameras at the Pentagon stage setting was a signer of the Project for a New American Century. Small world. Another so called "AA77 witness" was Bobbe Eberle, boss of GOP USA, Jeff Gannon's "journalism/softball thrower/White House prostitute" cover career.

Below, I think you should look up David Holmgren's well organized rebuttal to many of these witness claims of a 757. Beware Chip Berlet of the CIA (who "Democracy Now" let pounce all over David Ray Griffin in a contrived set up issue) may want to jump your case, as Chip Berlet gets awfully sensitive about this issue and wants to hog the media, since that is his job.

1.

newswire article 25.Oct.2002 17:15
9.11 investigation
Physical and mathematical analysis of Pentagon crash
author: gerard holmgren
It is not in dispute that something hit the Pentagon wall and damaged it. Neither is it in dispute that AA 77 is missing. But was AA 77 involved in the Pentagon incident? This article presents an analysis of the physical aspects of the incident, and concludes with a brief examination of the issue of eyewitnesses
PHYSICAL AND MATHEMATICAL ANALYSIS OF PENTAGON CRASH.

by Gerard Holmgren

 investigation77@hotmail.com

Copyright: Gerard Holmgren. October 23 2002.This work may be freely copied and distributed without permission as long as it is not for commercial purposes. Please include the author's name, the web adress where you found it, and the copyright notice.

here:
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2002/10/29256.shtml



2.

New Pearl Harbor Author Griffin's Responses to Berlet
author: repost
The link to this response on Berlet's site is so small that I felt I had to repost it elsewhere. It's worth a read to see what Berlet is about.
RESPONSE TO CHIP BERLET'S REVIEW OF THE NEW PEARL HARBOR
David Ray Griffin
May 1, 2004

...

CONCLUSION

In sum, although Berlet asserts that The New Pearl Harbor is marred by serious flaws of various sorts, I cannot see that he has supported this assertion. I cannot see, therefore, that he has shown that Richard Falk, Rosemary Ruether, and Howard Zinn should be embarrassed by having lent their names to the book.

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/05/289392.shtml

3.

Bush tell the world "Arabs" hit the Pentagon. However, there are ZERO ARABS on either the flight roster or the Pentagon "plane autopsy" claims. So Bush is lying.

Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77
 http://www.sierratimes.com/03/07/02/article_tro.htm

Now Updated:No Arabs on Flight 77: Part II -The Passengers
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/03/313698.shtml


4.

As said above, a (non)"trustworthy" witness connects into Jeff Gannon Gate, Bobby Eberle! The whole witness thing was staged by Bush cronies who the neocons put into the cameras to talk about their lies of witnessing something that didn't happen. Scroll down on the comments on this large image file of a PIMC page:

 http://stream.paranode.com/imc/portland/images/2005/05/316971.png
from:
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/316862.shtml


5. Another witness just came forward mad that the media entirely lied about what he told them.

Proof That 'Flight 77' Eyewitness Report Skewed
'I saw faces of passengers' man furious with newspaper for twisting his words

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | June 30 2006

Many Flight 77 skeptics who believe that an American Airlines Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11 scoff at eyewitness testimony which claims to describe intricate details about the alleged commercial airliner. In at least one case those doubts have now been validated.

James R. Cissell, an eyewitness to the object that struck the Pentagon on September 2001, is furious with a Cincinnati newspaper for falsely attributing quotes to him that he never made.

The Cincinnati Post reported Cissell's comments in a September 12 story headlined, 'I saw the faces of some of the passengers.'

Here is how the Post quoted Cissell in full.

''Out of my peripheral vision,'' Cissell said, ''I saw this plane coming in and it was low - and getting lower."

''If you couldn't touch it from standing on the highway, you could by standing on your car."

''I thought, 'This isn't really happening. That is a big plane.' Then I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board,'' Cissell said.

For an earlier article, we undertook a simple video analysis in which a low flying American Airlines Boeing 757 was speeded up by four times to approximate what eyewitnesses would have seen.

It's plausible they could have identified the jet as a large American Airlines Boeing 757, but comments about seeing intricate details of the plane as it zoomed past at over 500 MPH are outside the realm of possibility.

We concluded the analysis by commenting,"The video and any degree of common sense suggests that Cissell could not possibly have seen the faces of the passengers on board. Even when the video is reduced to normal speed, four times slower than the reported speed of Flight 77, you can't see passengers in the windows."

That conclusion has now been proven accurate in a development that will cast more suspicion on embellished accounts of what eyewitnesses saw crossing the Pentagon highway before it ploughed into the building.

James R. Cissell contacted us to express his anger at the newspaper for taking his comments completely out of context.

"The Cincinnati Post article, which you refer, angered me greatly after reading it. It is almost completely fiction based loosely on an interview I did with a Cincinnati Post reporter Kimball Perry who called me in response to an on air phone report that I did for Channel 12 in Cincinnati."

Cissell relates what he actually told the reporter.

"The reporter took extreme creative license not only with the title but also with the story as a whole. Why he felt the need to sensationalize anything that happened on September 11 is beyond me. My words to the reporter were, "I was about four cars back from where the plane crossed over the highway. That it happened so quickly I didn't even see what airline it was from. However, I was so close to the plane when it went past that had it been sitting on a runway, I could have seen the faces of passengers peering out."

Here's the Post quote again.

"I saw the faces of some of the passengers on board.''

Compared to, "Had it been sitting on a runway, I could have seen the faces of passengers peering out."

Cissell's comments were taken so far out of context that this seems to be a deliberate attempt at sensationalism or even an effort at lending bias towards the assumption that the plane was a large commercial airliner with passengers on board.

Cissell has himself worked in media and expressed his incredulity at the sloppy journalism betrayed in the article.

His numerous calls, e mails and letters to the Post went unanswered and though he was promised the online version of the article would be removed, as of June 30th it is still online without retraction.

Regarding the speculation that something other than Flight 77 hit the Pentagon and alternate explanations behind the event, Cissell is not certain that the plane was as large as a 757, but at least as large as a 727.

"As far as the size of the plane, it happened very quickly. What I can say is that it was a passenger plane at least as big as a 727 maybe bigger. From the time I heard it over my left shoulder and turned to see it I had one thought, 'he's off course'; I was used to seeing planes fly along the Potomac on the other side of the Pentagon to land at national airport just a mile or two away. My next thought wasn't a thought, it was the realization of what was happening and that happened moments or even a moment before the plane struck."

"Later I found it remarkable that someone even saw what airline it was from. The plane was coming from left and behind of me - I guess if you were on the other side of the highway and facing the plane as it came in you would have had a lot more time to react," said Cissell.

These comments cloud the accuracy of the eyewitness reports of people who claimed to have seen clear markings which would have irrefutably identified the aircraft, such as Christine Peterson, who claimed that the plane was "so close that I could read the numbers under the wing."

Did Peterson really say this or was she also taken out of context?

Why would reporters need to sensationalize one of the biggest events in world history? Was its scope not gargantuan enough?

Cissell disagrees with some aspects of how the official version of events describes the approach of the aircraft.

"Looking at the trajectories in the diagrams they have online seems off to me. I remember the plane coming in more directly at the side of the building than at an angle," said Cissell.

Cissell makes it clear that speculation that the object was a missile or that there was no plane at all is off base.

"With regards to conspiracies in general, I think the conspiracy people need to be focusing on is the one where Bush and his administration leveraged the tragedy of 911 to enter a war for money and oil that cost the lives of who knows how many civilians, a couple thousand soldiers and undid 30 years of progress in a region that was slowly healing itself."

 http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2006/300606flight77.htm


7. And let's remember the U.S. Governments military electronic guidance C-130 that was guiding non-AA77 thingy into the Pentagon (or at least accompanying it all the way to be sure):
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/316862.shtml


8. In summary 10.Jun.2005 21:39
Gerard Holmgren link

The witness article I wrote
 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/witness.html

demonstrates that there is no basis for claiming that witness evidence supports a large plane hitting the petnagon.

from comments at:
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/316966.shtml

And I also wrote a companion article on the physical aspects

 http://members.iinet.net.au/~holmgren/physical.html

Again, notwithstanding any minor nitpicking, this article proves that the official story is a lie.

At the time I wrote these articles, it had not yet been discovered that the alleged AA77 didn't even exist. [i.e., it was not even scheduled to fly on September 11, 2001]

9.

And on the Chip Berlet CIA connection: here's his contrived set up "attack" on attempting to discredit David Ray Griffin, thanks to the willingness of his 9-11 cover up sidekick Amy on her show Democracy Now, which let him:

wrong, JOHN FOSTER (Dulles) Berlet, you are the chip off the old CIA block 17.Jun.2006 15:26
repost link

Learning about the secret societies is key to a real progressivism instead of one directed by your masters.


1.

'CHIP BERLET' REAL NAME IS...


beware "JOHN FOSTER (Dulles) Berlet", who "watches the left" for the CIA 05.Aug.2005 02:44
behind the curtain watch link

note that someone already has their "form letter disinfo" read for us! By ol Chip Berlet. Well it's time to out ol Chip as a government disinfo guy:

"
I think the real story was how does Chip Barlet get implanted onto any program about 9-11--particularly when Chip Barlet has admitted secret police state intelligence meetings--designed for defamation intent--of which he was a part.
"
and his real name is a morph of the founder of the CIA, John Foster (Dulles) Berlet.


in the comments here on ol CIA meeting Chip Barlet
 http://madison.indymedia.org/newswire/update/index.php

in the disinfo peddling Chip Berlet on 9-11, trashing the popular books of the author David Ray Griffin when he was "set up" on Democracy Now with a fake attack, when ol Chip loudly criticized him for a totally minor point of fact that happened after the book he wrote was published.

 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/316966.shtml

and

Regulated Resistance: Pt. 2 - The Gatekeepers of the So-Called Left
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/316865.shtml

and


"However, at the last minute, Goodman abruptly and without explanation changed the format of the show from an interview to a "debate," and brought in long-time "anti-conspiracist" Chip Berlet. Berlet is not an expert on 9/11 research, and his group, Political Research Associates, is an alleged "Left" organization that is funded in part by the Ford Foundation. (It is interesting to note that "Chip" Berlet's full name is John Foster Berlet. He was named after John Foster Dulles who, with his brother Allen, designed the CIA for Harry Truman in 1947, and played a prominent role in smuggling Nazis into America to help build the post-WWII American "Defense" and Intelligence apparatus)."
 http://tampaindymedia.org/bin/site/templates/
default.asp?area_2=imc/open%20newswire/2005/Jul/4140.22607421875.dat

and

Chip Berlet 9-11 dog & pony show already exposed as intell. agent operation 18.May.2005 02:36
got it? link

 http://madison.indymedia.org/newswire/display/24059/index.php


Re: Chip Berlet of Political Research Associates, PSYOPS, not neutral; whole show to be a farce, read on
by shearing the sheeple
(No verified email address) 11 May 2005

"Suspicious" is an overstatement given the funding data is from open sources such as IRS990 but the title indicates where the author is coming from.

In an article entitled, "ALTERNATIVE MEDIA CENSORSHIP: SPONSORED BY CIA's FORD FOUNDATION?", Bob Feldman devotes a chapter to POLITICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES' EDELMAN-BUNDY CONNECTION (  http://www.questionsquestions.net/feldman/feldman10.html), pointing to suspicious sources of funding for Berlet's organization.

ALTERNATIVE MEDIA CENSORSHIP:
SPONSORED BY CIA's FORD FOUNDATION?

by bob feldman

Part 10:

POLITICAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES' EDELMAN-BUNDY CONNECTION

In a 1998 book that was subsidized by the MacArthur Foundation, the Lyndon Baines Johnson Foundation and The Rockefeller Foundation, entitled THE COLOR OF TRUTH: MC GEORGE BUNDY AND WILLIAM BUNDY: BROTHERS IN ARMS, a contributing editor of Katrina vanden Heuvel's NATION magazine, Kai Bird, recalled that in June 1968, then-Ford Foundation President McGeorge "Bundy arranged fellowships totaling $131,000 for eight members of" the mysteriously-slain Robert F. "Kennedy's campaign staff."

Bird also noted that recipients "included Frank Mankiewicz ($15,000 for a study of the Peace Corps in Latin America), Adam Walinsky ($22,200 for a study of community action programs) and Peter Edelman ($19,090 for a study of community development programs around the world)."

In recent years Peter Edelman has been sitting on the board of a foundation, the Public Welfare Foundation, which subsidizes the alternative media work of Chip Berlet's Political Research Associates [PRA] group. In 2002, for instance, Peter Edelman's Public Welfare Foundation gave a $50,000 grant to Political Research Associates to provide "general support for research center that collects and disseminates information on extremist groups and provides information and training to local, state, and national organizations working to counter extremist activity."

PRA's form 990 also indicates at least $90,000 in additional grant money was given to Political Research Associates by Peter Edelman's Public Welfare Foundation between 1993 and 1996; and in 1999, another grant of $50,000 was given to the Political Research Associates group by the Public Welfare Foundation.

Prior to working as a staffperson for RFK and then receiving his Ford Foundation fellowship from former National Security Affairs advisor Bundy, Public Welfare Foundation board member Edelman worked as a law clerk to a Supreme Court Justice named Arthur Goldberg. According to the 1982 book Rooted In Secrecy: The Clandestine Element in Australian Politics by Joan Coxsedge: "Arthur Goldberg, the General Counsel of the CIO engineered the expulsion of the Left from this organization...After the left-wing purge of the CIO, Goldberg worked to achieve union with the conservative American Federation of Labor [AFL] headed by rabid anti-communist and long-time CIA stooge, George Meany, and what was left of the CIO."

Public Welfare Foundation board member Edelman is also both the political godfather/rabbi of U.S. Senator Hillary Rodham-Clinton and a former Clinton Administration official. According to the Center for Responsive Politics' web site, Public Welfare Foundation board member Peter Edelman also gave two campaign contributions, totalling $1,500, to Hillary Rodham-Clinton's campaign on September 26, 2000 and another $1,000 campaign contribution to Senator Rodham-Clinton's campaign on November 9, 2000. Marian Edelman of the Children's Defense Fund NGO also gave a $1,000 campaign contribution to Hillary Rodham-Clinton on November 9, 2000.

In the late 1990s, the Massachusetts-based Political Research Associates [PRA] was also given a $120,000 grant by the San Francisco Foundation. The board of trustees and/or the investment committee of the San Francisco Foundation has included the following members of the Bay Area Establishment in recent years: 1. Levi Strauss Foundation Board Member Peter Haas Jr.; 2. Advent Software Inc. Chair and U. of California-Berkeley Foundation board member Stephanie Marco; 3. Equidex Inc. Chair and former U.S. Ambassador to Luxembourg James Hormel; 4. Oakland Private Industry Council CEO Gay Plair Cobb; 5. Brookings Institute Trustee Emeritus and U. of California-Berkeley Foundation board member F. Warren Hellman; 6. Stanford University Trustee Leslie Hume; 7. Pacific Gas & Electric [PG&E] Chief Finance Officer Kent Hardy; 8. Seneca Capital Management Founder Gail Seneca; and 9. Foundation for Chinese Democracy Chair/President Rolland C. Lowe.

In addition, the San Francisco Foundation presently controls over $695 million in assets and takes in about $15 million a year in investment income from its corporate stock portfolio.

Contributions exceeding $5,000 were also made to Political Research Associates by the following other individuals or foundations between 1993 and 1996: William & Robie Harris ($32,000); Jean Hardisty ($125,588), Thomas P. Jalkut ($85,000), Hannah Kranzberg ($5,000), Sister Fund ($20,000), CS Fund ($30,000); Funding Exchange ($12,000); Haymarket Peoples Fund ($17,000); Ms. Foundation for Women ($15,000); Nathan Cummings Foundation ($80,000); the Stresand Foundation ($7,500); Threshold Foundation ($27,825); Tides Foundation ($69,260); Unitarian Universalist Veatch ($50,000; Sylvia Goodman ($11,000); Michael Kieschnick ($29,279); Albert A. List Foundation ($75,000); US Trust ($5,032); The New Land Foundation ($5,000); and PRRAC ($10,000). In 1999, additional contributions exceeding $5,000 were made to Political Research Associates by the following individuals and foundations: Unitarian Universalist Veatch Program ($25,000); The Prentice Foundation ($5,000); Stephen & Diana Goldberg Foundation ($10,000); Tides Foundation ($57,550); Albert A. List Foundation ($25,000); Carol Bernstein ($5,000); Irving Harris Foundation ($25,000); Nathan Cummings Foundation ($55,000); Thomas Jalkut ($15,000); Nancy Meier ($15,025);; Warsh-Mott Legacy ($20,000); Chambers Family Fund ($25,000); and the Ms. Foundation For Women ($15,000).

At least $11,000 in politically partisan campaign contributions have also been made by a Jean Hardisty of Political Research Associates since 1992, according to the Center for Responsive Politics web site. On November 15, 1999, for instance Ms. Hardisty gave a $1,000 campaign contribution to the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee. And on September 12, 2000, Ms. Hardisty gave a $1,000 campaign contribution to KidPAC.

In the acknowledgment section of the 1995 Eyes Right! book which Chip Berlet edited, the Establishment Foundation-sponsored Political Research Asociates executive wrote: "An extra tip of the hat to Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive for his special assistance."

Coincidentally, in recent months Berlet joined PROGRESSIVE magazine editor Rothschild in attempting to smear and marginalize 9/11 conspiracy journalists and researchers, while apparently failing to do much political research into possible links between the Ford Foundation, the Trilateral Commission, the Carlyle Group and/or the Bush White House.

 http://www.questionsquestions.net/feldman/feldman10.html

In other words, just another example of psyop left gatekeepers connected to the very criminals in power.
Commentary: WORT
Re: PDA's techniques are very police state like, clandestinism and denunciation
by shearing the sheeple
(No verified email address) 11 May 2005

Like Chip Barlet does, are you really part of "the left" if you meet in secret with the US political police to plan defamation stratgies? More on the so called "expert" about to be thrown at you on WORT.

Numerous researchers have pointed to signs of covert collaboration between Berlet and the right-wingers he professes to oppose:

"The ADL does not hail from any particular portion of the left-right political spectrum. Such a classification is irrelevant once a group becomes a private intelligence agency, as then they generally inbreed with their adversaries and mutate into a peculiar political animal. John Singlaub's Western Goals, and Political Research Associates (PRA) of Cambridge, Massachusetts, both extremely tiny compared to the ADL, are two additional examples of this phenomenon. All three groups identify with certain constituencies as a flag of convenience: the ADL with the Jewish community, Western Goals with the right, and PRA with the left. But by using the same methods of collecting information -- garbage surveillance, infiltration of target groups, and the use of guilt-by-association in their propaganda -- each of these three groups has perverted itself with clandestinism and denunciation for its own sake.

This opinion of mine is based on statements from John Rees {formerly of Western Goals and a person with extensive computer files on the left), Chip Berlet of PRA (formerly a BBS operator, with extensive files on the right), and testimony from Mira Boland of the ADL (extensive files on everyone). All admit to attending one or more secret meetings in 1983-1984 with U.S. intelligence operatives such as Roy Godson, representatives from intelligence-linked funding sources, and journalists such as Patricia Lynch from NBC....

I think the real story was how does Chip Barlet get implanted onto any program about 9-11--particularly when Chip Barlet has admitted secret police state intelligence meetings--designed for defamation intent--of which he was a part.

 http://madison.indymedia.org/newswire/display/24059/index.php

and

Amy and Chip gang up on Griffin--over cherrypicked, staged, contrived issue! 18.May.2005 03:22
toto link

Chip Berlet of the CIA chimes in the quote above: "One of the people that Griffin relies on is this -- is a researcher named Holmgren, who goes into great lengths say that he can't find this witness, Dave Winslow. [THE SET UP] He went on to say that Dave Winslow probably doesn't exist and if he does, he should come forward. Dave Winslow is an A.P. Radio reporter. [THE RELEASE] If you pick up the "Washingtonian magazine" for September, 2002, there's a picture of Dave Winslow and an interview of what he saw. That's the substandard research being relied on here."

David Ray Griffin could have honestly responded:

Actually since Holmgren's article was only published in June 2002, Chip--and what you cite comes from September 2002--it's a totally bogus analysis or complaint without substance. By launching into discussing Holmgren with this completely contrived smear, what was your intention? How could Holmgren had access to September 2002 documentation in June 2002? How is that an important point to make, Chip? Who knows perhaps, Chip, you even intentionally handpicked this out of the Holmgren article and then they went to the trouble of arranging a highly publicized interview several months after Holmgren's article came out--intentionally handpicking someone Holmgren was unable to find using the huge Lexis-Nexis in June 2002 for highlighting Dave Winslow shilling later. Then you come on Democracy Now! and claim to "complain about the level of analysis" that Holmgren didn't integrate the September 2002 evidence into his June 2002 article--that's really the very low standard of observation that you are shilling about Chip: so you are asking really: "Why didn't Holmgren read the September 2002 article for his June 2002 witness examination article?" Berlet, you works yourself up over something that couldn't ever have occurred, and you know it.

Berlet's low brow strategies are strangely reminiscent of the idiots sent around here at PIMC to attempt to convince people that their ability to put two and two together sometimes equals zero..if Bush says it equals zero. hee hee

Just as rome wasn't built in a day, it wasn't destroyed in a day. Keep Chipping away at it though, it's really going to give away all at once when it goes.

---
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/317582.shtml


3.

see this:
20 Amazing Facts About Voting in the USA
author: Angry Girl
There is no democracy in America, we live in a dictatorship.
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/11/328450.shtml
Conspiracy! It's not just your grandma's conspiracy theory anymore. It's your life.


4.

or this for many of your parent's life:

Feminist Gloria Steinem of the CIA: "Ms. Emmanuel Goldstein" attracting/guiding dissent
author: astounding, as not seen on TV
...writer and consulting editor for Ms, which she cofounded in 1972--and CIA background. She became a media darling due to her CIA connections. MS Magazine, which she edited for many years was indirectly funded by the CIA. Steinem has tried to suppress this information, unearthed in the 1970's by a radical feminist group called "Red Stockings", which she was actually observing /witnessing. In 1979, Steinem and her powerful CIA-connected friends, Katharine Graham of the Washington Post and Ford Foundation President Franklin Thomas prevented Random House from publishing it in "Feminist Revolution." Nevertheless the story appeared in the "Village Voice" on May 21, 1979.

THE CIA SPONSORSHIP MEDIA EMPIRE: CIA's Cord Meyers ---> CIA Clay Felker (Esquire Magazine, others) ---> Gloria Steinem (Ms. Magazine) ---> Ms.'s first publisher, Elizabeth Forsling Harris, CIA-connected PR executive/planner of John Kennedy's Dallas motorcade route on which he was assassinated.

'In 1958, Steinem was recruited by CIA's Cord Meyers to direct an "informal group of activists" called the "Independent Research Service." This was part of Meyer's "Congress for Cultural Freedom," which created magazines like "Encounter" and "Partisan Review" to promote a left-liberal chic to oppose Marxism. Steinem, attended Communist-sponsored youth festivals in Europe, published a newspaper, reported on other participants, and helped to provoke riots. One of Steinem's CIA colleagues was Clay Felker. In the early 1960's, he became an editor at Esquire and published articles by Steinem which established her as a leading voice for women's lib. In 1968, as publisher of New York Magazine, he hired her as a contributing editor, and then editor of Ms. Magazine in 1971. Warner Communications put up almost all the money although it only took 25% of the stock. Ms. Magazine's first publisher was Elizabeth Forsling Harris, a CIA-connected PR executive who planned John Kennedy's Dallas motorcade route.'
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/02/310075.shtml

from:
 http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/05/338820.shtml?discuss#226577

A well organized rebuttal? 02.Jul.2006 17:04

Huh?

A well organized rebuttal to the witnesses claims? Like the couple of hundred who described seeing a plane hit the Pentagon?

And Chip Berlet wants to hog the media and works with the CIA; and Amy Goodman apparently too? Wow.

But I guess one at least cannot argue with the Berlet comments. After all, he was named after John Foster Dulles, and god knows you can never escape the clutches of your name. That's great logic.

Witnesses were roughly consistent 02.Jul.2006 17:40

repost

>>People trying to support the government story often say that many witnesses saw a 757 as if that were an indisputable fact, but they fail to provide references. If you read the accounts for yourself, you will find much disagreement.

Fred,

I ALWAYS provide references.

There are many small and varied details that people described at the Pentagon, but they are massively redundant in that they virtually all report a large passenger jet - which some even describe as a 757 - hitting the building and exploding. It's normal and human for different people to report the event slightly differently. Not a single person out of nearly 100 documented accounts ever said they SAW a missile, not a commercial jet. Some say the commercial jet sounded like a missile.

What would be a red flag was if you had roughly equal or large numbers of people saying they saw something other than a commercial jet -- but this is not the case. Only 2 people say they saw a small plane and they were located far from the scene, while dozens and dozens report a large passenger jet.

I urge people to read all the witness reports and see for yourself.

 http://eric.bart.free.fr/iwpb/witness.html

This animation actually proves that IT WAS NOT A BOEING 757 !! 03.Jul.2006 17:33

Mr. Frodo

This website has been updated to include the evidence provided
by the animation:

 http://www.justiceforbush.com

(scroll down)

Witnesses 03.Jul.2006 18:06

MFP

Thanks for the info.
It would be helpful if the reports were organized thmeatically so it would be easier to corroborate them or note differences. For example, it would be helpful to see all the reports by people who said they saw a plane grouped together, and those who saw the aftermath and wreckage grouped together. The folks who felt the explosion or saw the smoke or fire engines arrive could be grouped separately. Is it possible for you to organize the material so that it was easier for people to do research? thanks.
Also, it would also help to know if the plane seen over Seminary Rd. could have also been seen by someone in the Sheraton hotel, and still hit the Pentagon they way it's been reported. Maybe the wizards who do computer mapping can help here by overlaying the reported eyewitess flight patterns over a map over that part of N. Virginia.
I don't know what to believe and I have not seen evidence that really nails it from either side of this debate.
I also wonder why these eyewitness accounts did not show up in the Washintgon Post or Washington Times or AP storeis? Any clues?

Analysis of the Pentagon Attack Eyewitness Accounts - look here 04.Jul.2006 09:17

repost

Pentagon Eyewitnesses
Analysis of the Pentagon Attack Eyewitness Accounts
 http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/witnesses.html

Given the geography of the Pentagon's surroundings, and the traffic jam that brought thousands of cars to a near-standstill on the highways on its west side on the morning of September 11, 2001, hundreds if not thousands of people must have witnessed some aspect of the attack. Accounts of scores of these witnesses were recorded in the form of press interviews and reports on websites.

On this page, we first look at the picture created by the body of eyewitnesses as a whole, and then scrutinize the evidence more critically to address questions of bias and fraud:

* Trends in witness data
* Questions of witness fraud
* Questions of witness contamination

(continued)