From: Sherry Swiney <taoss@worldnet.att.net>
http://educate-yourself.org/cn/911video16sep04.shtml
September 16, 2004
----- Original Message -----
From: Sherry Swiney <taoss@worldnet.att.net>
To: Everyone
Sent: Thursday, September 16, 2004 6:19 PM
Subject: VIDEO - Documentary
Dear Everyone,
I am sending this email only to A-L in my address book, as that's all that's
been cleaned out and updated so far. Feel free to pass this along to others.
If you are not interested in any research that's been done in search of
what really happened on 9-11-2001, then I apologize for the intrusion -
please just delete this message and go on with your day, and may God bless
you for the work you are doing. Also, if you would like me to remove you
from my address book, please let me know.
I am sending this information to all of you because I just finished watching
the film mentioned below. It's a documentary and I highly recommend it (available
in VHS and DVD).
[Addendum, Sep. 17, 2004:
----- Original Message -----
From: Promolang
To: Editor@educate-yourself.org
Sent: Friday, September 17, 2004 6:41 AM
Subject: How to download the "In Plane Site" video
Dear Ken,
a propos of your latest news update on this excellent video, you can download
it in full (a Divx AVI quite good quality version) here:
As many people as possible should see it! Keep up your good
work,
Cheers, Steve Lawrie, Toulouse]
As it is said, "All truth goes through three stages. First it is ridiculed.
Then it is violently opposed. Finally, it is accepted as self-evident."
-- Schoepenhouer.
Blessings to all,
Sherry Swiney
================
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Thursday, August 19, 2004 3:31 PM
Subject: 9/11 VIDEO SHOCKS SACRAMENTO CITIZENS
A new 9-11 video was screened last night in Sacramento, California,
leaving the audience stunned. '911 in Plane Site' is basically presented
in two parts. The first segment is 52 minutes and designed for showing on
television with the balance of a one hour time slot reserved for commercials.
Part II continues with more film and analysis. This video is digitally mastered
making details sharp and clear.
'911 in Plane Site' presents actual film from that fateful
day and careful analysis focusing on the Pentagon and the two World Trade
Center buildings. By slowing down the actual news feeds that day from networks
like CNN, FOX, the BBC and others, what you see is quite different from
what most people
saw in "real time" that day. Live footage from the Pentagon and
what was missed by most because of the smoke and confusion was captured
up close by
the media. Following the showing, a retired vet remarked, "How did
we miss this all this time? I've seen media clips of the front of that building
[the Pentagon] many times, but I wasn't really seeing what was there. I
feel sick."
One particular interview that brought gasps from the audience
and many looking around with shock etched on their faces was an interview
conducted -
live at the time - by FOX News. This intense interview with Mark Burnback,
an employee of FOX News, contains the following narrative, paraphrased:
Burnback was close to the path of the second plane and had a good long look
at what he describes was not a commercial airliner. The plane that hit the
second tower had no windows, Burnback was very clear about that. The plane
had some kind of blue logo on the front near the nose and looked like a
cargo plane. This point was driven to the viewer several times along with
the comment from this FOX employee that "this plane wasn't from around
here
or anything you'd see take off from the airport."
Other footage includes several women who had a very clear
view watching the second plane hit were yelling, "That wasn't American
Airlines....It wasn't
American Airlines going into the building." These interviews were played
that morning once on FOX News, never to be replayed again, despite the massive
saturation and repetition by the media for many days to come.
Other extremely disturbing segments of this video are the
clear, slow motion shots of the second plane going into the towers which
show a flash right before the nose of the plane hits the building and a
pod attached to the bottom of the plane. This strange flash is clearly recorded
from four different angles from four different cameras. While there is only
one known piece of film showing the first plane hitting the first tower,
in slow motion one can clearly see - as with the second plane - a flash
from the nose section right before impact. What caused this?
This video raises extremely disturbing questions about the
planes that hit the Pentagon and the World Trade Centers, but no conclusions
or accusations are made by the commentator. To date, only one piece of film
has been released by DoD of the front of the Pentagon. The question raised
in the video is where is all the other film footage from the Pentagon? The
heart beat of America's military and security, with a building and perimeter
loaded with cameras, but no film for the public to view of events as they
unfolded except from one camera?
According to the producers, the purpose of '911 in Plane Site'
is to demonstrate that Americans saw one thing that morning that was so
shocking, so horrific and so massive, the finer details weren't really being
picked up. The producer reinforces to the viewer that after one broadcast
of many very controversial interviews live on the spot, these particular
interviews were never broadcast again, i.e. firefighters on the spot talking
about the explosions and bombs inside the towers. Since 9-11, it has been
reported that "Building Seven" collapsed because of the two World
Trade Center towers collapsing. However, the footage on this video tells
a different story and raises more questions.
'911 in Plane Site,' distributed by Power Hour Productions
(866-773-9469), leaves one with many questions as demonstrated by a very
upset senior citizen who requested her last name be withheld. Mary asked,
"If these weren't commercial airliners, where are those flights? Where
are the passengers? My, God what really happened that day?" Indeed,
this seemed to be the biggest question expressed by viewers after the lights
came back on, but for which there were no answers. Some viewers were visibly
upset, angry and "want damn answers" from the Bush Administration.
Others just walked out the door in silence. One upset man commented on the
way out of the viewing, "It's time to get this on PBS and every investigative
news program on TV. We need answers."
===================
----- Original Message -----
From: Judy Cumbee
To: Sherry Swiney
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 10:05 AM
Subject: Re: 9/11 VIDEO SHOCKS SACRAMENTO CITIZENS
At 09:24 PM 8/19/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Sherry, Thanks VERY much for sending info about "911 in Plane Sight"
(Do you have ordering information?). The public sight has been clouded ever
since that horrific day. Why did the Bush administration initially refuse
to set up the 9-11 Commission and then why, when it could no longer be avoided,
was the mandate given the group to focus on what can be done to improve
security now, NOT to investigate what actually happened.
Kerry said the Commission should be continued--did he say
for 18 months? I say the membership should be expanded and the investigation
continued for as long as it takes to answer compelling questions raised
by Professor of Religion at Claremont Thelological Seminary, David Ray Griffin,
in his book "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush
Administration and 9/11." Just a few of those include one referred
to in the article you sent: why did Bldg 7 of the World Trade Center, untouched
by any airplane, explode?
Why were no fighter jets scrambled to intervene as soon as
screens revealed planes had gone off path. Griffin explains in Nick Welsh's
article from Santa Barbara Independent Online (Apr. 1, 2004): "jets
typically get to [a hijacked] plane within no later than 15 minutes anywhere
in the United States. And on that day, there were four airplanes that went
for a half-hour or more after they were hijacked without jets intercepting
them?" WHY were standard operating procedures not followed that day?
About the Pentagon crash "...physical evidence contradicts
so violently the official account, that the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing
757--Flight 77....The physical evidence, photographs, and eyewitness testimony
say that the Pentagon was hit by something that caused a hole no longer
than 18 feet in diameter. The story the Pentagon put out...published in
the Washington Post...was that the hole ...was five stories high and 200
feet wide.....Whatever went into the Pentagon pierced six reinforced walls....This
had to have been something with a very powerful head on it. A Boeing 757
has a very fragile nose and would not have pierced through all those walls;
it would have been crushed by hitting the Pentagon. And given that it only
penetrated these three rings, the rest of the aircraft would have been sitting
outside on the yard. And yet the photographs taken just as the fire trucks
got there--very shortly after the crash--show no plane whatsoever....The
official story is that the whole aircraft went inside the Pentagon. The
problem with that--the firefighters in there would have seen the airplane.
They would have seen the engines...the aluminum fuselage, but they reported
nothing. Ed Plower, the fire chief, when asked what he saw, said, ' I didn't
seen any big pieces, no fuselage, no engines, no nothing.' BUT about a month
later, when asked he said, 'Oh yes, I saw all that.' His memory had had
time to be refreshed."
When three airplanes had been hijacked and the U.S. experienced
the most horrific attack ever, Secret Service with Pres. Bush at the elementary
school "would have had to assume that one or more of them were heading
toward President Bush himself...the Secret Service surely would have whisked
him away immediately" (from this highly publicized site). But Bush
continued for 15 minutes to listen to the students read......."then
the president went on national TV, going forward with an interview that
had been planned and announced in advance...then they took their regularly
scheduled motorcade back to the airport. In other words, [Bush and the Secret
Service] showed no fear whatsoever that they would be targeted for attack,
which strongly suggests they knew how many aircraft were being hijacked
and what their targets were."
I'm copying below part of an email sent me several months
ago with other relevant, some very dated, info for people who want to inquire
further. At the end is ordering info for another video, The Great Deception,
by Barrie Swicker from Canada.----Judy
(5) from Dana:
A founding member of 9/11 CitizensWatch, Allan Duncan has received this
request from 9/11 victim family member Mindy Kleinberg of September 11th
Advocates, widow of Alan Kleinberg who was killed at Cantor Fitzgerald in
WTC Tower One. They are looking for support in putting pressure on the White
House not to block full disclosure of materials pertinent to the investigation
by the National Commission.
9/11 CitizensWatch and UnansweredQuestions.org wholly support
such a campaign. May it begin in earnest now and not let up until we have
answers to all the questions raised in the wake of 9/11.
Please forward far and wide. Thank you for doing your part
in working toward accountability and the truth.
Kyle F. Hence
Co-founder
UnansweredQuestions.org
911citizenswatch.org
To review Mindy's compelling testimony during the first open
hearings held by the National Commission please visit: http://www.911commission.gov/hearings/hearing1/witness_kleinberg.htm
Mindy's message follows:
If you could possibly send this message out to anyone who wants to help,
I would appreciate it. The article below talks about the WH looking to exert
executive privilege on many relevant documents that are needed in order
for the Commission to properly do its investigation. We would appreciate
it if
people would either call or fax a letter to the White House letting them
know that they are outraged by the possibility of this administration trying
to block pertinent information from getting to the Independent Commission.
Preventing the truth from coming out will cause this country to remain in
peril.
Sincerely,
Mindy Kleinberg
The White House Phone Numbers
COMMENTS: 202-456-1111
SWITCHBOARD: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
http://www.msnbc.com/m/pt/printthis.asp?storyID=910676
September 11 Showdown
MICHAEL ISIKOFF AND MARK HOSENBALL
NEWSWEEK
An imminent and potentially nasty confrontation over an independent
commission's authority to investigate the White House's handling of the
September 11 terror attacks was narrowly averted last week--just before
President Bush landed a jet aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln in a carefully
crafted ceremony touting the toppling of Saddam Hussein as a major victory
in the war on terrorism.
BUT THE BATTLE over the issue is far from over. In fact, NEWSWEEK
has learned, President Bush's chief lawyer has privately signaled that the
White House may seek to invoke executive privilege over key documents relating
to the attacks in order to keep them out of the hands of investigators for
the
National Commission on Terror Attacks Upon the United States--the independent
panel created by Congress to probe all aspects of 9-11.
Some commission members now fear a showdown over the issue--particularly
over extremely sensitive National Security Council minutes and presidential
briefing papers--could be coming in the next few weeks. "We do think
it's important to engage this issue relatively early--i.e., now," says
Philip Zelikow, the executive director for the commission, who is negotiating
with administration lawyers to inspect documents and interview senior officials.
Zelikow says he is still hopeful an accommodation can be reached
with administration lawyers and that the issue is now in the hands of senior
officials in the White House. But he made it clear that the 9-11 panel has
no intention of backing down from its insistence that it receive full access
to a wide range of material that has never been reviewed by any outside
body--much less made public. "We expect to get what we need,"
Zelikow says. "We're not going to go quietly into that good night."
Zelikow's comments, and even stronger ones from some commission
members, suggest that last week's brief contretemps over access to transcripts
of secret congressional testimony was only one small flare-up in a much
broader and potentially high-stakes struggle that could ultimately wind
up in federal court.
Just two weeks ago, one commission member, Tim Roemer, a former
Democratic congressman from Indiana, had sought to read transcripts of three
days of closed hearings that had been held last fall by the House and Senate
Intelligence Committees-- hearings that Roemer, as a member of the House
panel, had actually participated in.
But when Roemer went down to a carefully guarded room on Capitol
Hill to read the classified transcripts--he says to refresh his memory--he
was stunned to learn that he couldn't have access to them. The reason, relayed
by a congressional staffer, was that Zelikow had acceded to a request by
an administration official to permit lawyers to first review them to determine
if the transcripts contained testimony about "privileged" material.
Roemer called the deal "outrageous" and 9-11 family
members victims bombarded the panel with angry calls. But late Tuesday,
White House lawyers relented, thereby averting an embarrassing ublic escalation
of the dispute--and inevitable charges of a White House cover-up--that could
well have marred last Thursday's highly publicized ceremony aboard the USS
Abraham Lincoln in which Bush declared the military action in Iraq "one
victory in a war on terror that began on September 11, 2001, and still goes
on."
But that by no means settled the matter, sources say. Publicly,
the White House has pledged cooperation with the panel and two months ago
chief of staff Andrew Card even distributed a memo to agency chiefs instructing
them to work with the panel and provide them access to documents. But privately,
talks have been far more problematic. Thomas Kean, the former Republican
governor of New Jersey who Bush named to chair the panel, confirmed to NEWSWEEK
that in private talks with White House chief council Alberto Gonzales, the
president's chief lawyer, has already told him that he "may seek to
invoke executive privilege" over some documents sought by the commission.
Executive privilege is a doctrine traditionally invoked by
all White Houses to keep confidential briefings or advice given to the president.
But the precise boundaries of the doctrine are hardly settled. And it is
far from clear how a White House attempt to withhold material from a congressionally
authorized national commission on 9-11 will play out.
Gonzales and the rest of the White House legal staff are known
to feel particularly passionate about the sanctity of staff advice given
to the president--a view that reflects Bush's and Vice President Dick Cheney's
adamant opinion that internal executive-branch decision-making should be
conducted without
fear of congressional or media scrutiny. "Those are like the crown
jewels--we'll never give those up," one White House lawyer predicted
to NEWSWEEK recently when asked about presidential briefing papers that
were likely to be sought by the commission.
But some commission members say it might be politically difficult
for the White House to sustain that position--especially given the panel's
broad legal mandate to unearth all pertinent facts relating to the events
of 9-11. The invocation of executive privilege could fuel suspicions that
the White House is
stonewalling the panel in order to cover up politically embarrassing mistakes.
"I think they have got to be worried about this," says one panel
member. "This is a bipartisan commission, and we've got the family
members."
Among the most sensitive documents the commission is known
to be interested in reviewing are internal National Security Council minutes
from the spring and summer of 2001 when the CIA and other intelligence agencies
were warning that an attack by Al Qaeda could well be imminent. The panel
is also expected to seek interviews with key principals--such as national-security
adviser Condoleezza Rice and her chief deputy, Stephen J. Hadley--to question
them both about advice they gave the president and about what actions they
took to deal with the rising concerns of intelligence-community officials
about the Qaeda threat.
An equally dicey subject, sources say, is the commission's
expected request to review debriefings of key Al Qaeda suspects who have
been arrested--such as Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and Ramzi bin al-Shibh--who
played critical roles in the 9-11 plot. The intelligence community has treated
those debriefs as among the most highly classified material in the government,
and the Justice Department is stoutly resisting a ruling by the federal
judge overseeing the Zacarias Moussoui case to make bin al-Shibh available
to the defense.
May. 11, 2003. 08:25 AM
Conspiracy crusader doubts official 9/11 version
MICHELE LANDSBERG
Barrie Zwicker gazes calmly into the camera, hands clasped,
voice clear and resonant, looking the quintessential Canadian progressive:
a colourful knitted vest over an open-collared shirt, a neat little beard,
a personality that radiates boyish, almost naive friendliness.
Not a shard of irony, not a sliver of petulant, up-to-date
narcissism.Perfect. You couldn't possibly be more agreeable or less threatening.
Then, of course, he ruins it all by asking questions. They
are questions that 99 per cent of Canadian journalists have not dared or
deigned to ask, and that most Canadians would prefer not to hear.
In these strange times, asking direct and probing questions
about 9/11 will get you instant put-downs.
Zwicker grins as he mimics the upward eye-roll and patronizing
hand-flap that go along with the phrase "conspiracy theorist."
As Vision TV's media critic for the past 15 years, and as
a journalist with a long list of solid credentials (he's worked at The Globe
and Mail and The Toronto Star, taught at Ryerson University, and was awarded
a Southam Fellowship at the University of Toronto), Zwicker should be safely
out of the line
of fire. It's a measure of his determination to challenge conventional wisdom
that he has willingly kept his head up, instead of down, and tried to look
facts right in the eye.
"You know, the people who just shrug off these questions
with the `conspiracy theorist' epithet should be asked what they stand for.
Unquestioning acceptance of the official narrative? Sure, there are outlandish
theories out there - aliens, Atlantis - but there have also been real and
huge
conspiracies," Zwicker told me in an interview in his home office.
I knew about some of those conspiracies. Last January, I wrote
a column about American declassified documents that verify a long history
of top-level conspiracies. The U.S. government, its military and its secret
service have plotted to justify wars and impose their control on other countries
through
intricate secret schemes of drug-running, gun smuggling and assassination.
They even considered rigging fake terrorist attacks that would cost American
lives in order to stir the public to war-ready outrage.
Immediately, I was deluged with hundreds upon hundreds of
approving e-mails from American citizens. Some of them praised the TV work
of Barrie Zwicker - a Globe and Mail colleague of my youth.
I sat down, with a fair degree of skepticism, to watch Zwicker's
video, The Great Deception, which challenges the U.S. government's account
of what really happened on 9/11. Slowly, a frightening chill came over me.
These were the very questions I had asked myself on 9/11 and for several
weeks after. Failing to find easy answers, I had locked the subject away.
Why did the United States Air Force fail to scramble interceptor
jets - in defiance of all long-standing rules and well-established ractice
- for almost two hours after it was known that an unprecedented four planes
had been hijacked?
How could the world's most powerful military fail to react
throughout a prolonged, horrifying attack on the financial and political
capitals of the nation?
How did the FBI know the exact identities of the hijackers
within 24 hours of the attacks? If their files were so readily to hand,
why hadn't they been apprehended earlier? After all, several conscientious
FBI agents had raised the alarm about a number of known Al Qaeda sympathizers
at U.S. flight
schools, and had been ignored.
Why did Donald Rumsfeld call for a war on Iraq (not Afghanistan)
the morning after the Saudi hijackers had accomplished their attack?
Why did the two squadrons of fighter jets at Andrews Air Force
base, 19 kilometres from Washington, not zoom into action to defend the
White House, one of their primary tasks?
Why did George Bush sit for half an hour in a Florida classroom,
listening to a girl talk about her pet goat, after his chief of staff told
him about the second plane? For that matter, why did he pretend that he
first learned of the attacks in that classroom, when he had actually been
briefed as he left his hotel that morning?
Why has there been no public investigation into the billions
of dollars "earned" by insider trading of United and American
Airlines stock before 9/11?
I went to interview Zwicker because I was fascinated by his
courage in raising these unpopular questions and wanted to know what made
him persist. I saw the answer for myself. At nearly 69, Zwicker has boundless
energy, intellectual as well as physical. (This is an environmentalist who
gave up cars in
1966 and who bicycles thousands of kilometres across country for fun).
He has a restless scientific curiosity, coupled with humanistic
principles absorbed from his United Church minister father. At age 12, as
a fledgling skeptic growing up in Swan River, Manitoba, Zwicker couldn't
merely accept the common schoolboy belief that Coca-Cola contained acid
powerful enough
to dissolve a penny. Into five bottles of Coke he dropped a penny, a nail,
a piece of leather, a strip of cloth and a cube of bread. Next morning,
he found all intact.
In his teens, anguished at his loss of faith, he turned to
his father. "Out there in his garden, near the sweet peas, he put his
arm around my shoulder and said `Barrie, follow the truth, wherever it leads
you.'"
Zwicker and his wife Jean (they've been married 40 years and
have a grown son and daughter) are avid gardeners and theatre fanatics with
subscriptions to nearly every series in town.
His energy seems equalled only by his good humour and relentless
pursuit of honest fact.
You can catch Zwicker's Eye Opener media critique on the current
affairs show, 360 Vision, Thursdays at 8 p.m. on Vision TV. He has sold
more than 1,000 of his Great Deception videos at near-cost. You can order
one for $38 (that includes shipping) by calling 416-651-5588.
And if you call him a conspiracy theorist, call me one, too,
because I agree with Zwicker when he says, "I don't know exactly what
happened, but something smells very fishy." Even more rank-smelling
is the refusal of most Canadian journalists to ask embarrassingly uncool
questions about one of the worst catastrophes of our time.
Michele Landsberg's column usually appears in the Star Saturday
and Sunday. Her e-mail address is mlandsb@thestar.ca
========================
----- Original Message -----
From: Sherry Swiney
To: Judy Cumbee
Sent: Friday, August 20, 2004 6:02 PM
Subject: Re: 9/11 VIDEO SHOCKS SACRAMENTO CITIZENS
Hi Judy,
Yes, I found a website sponsored by American Patriots Network where you
can order the film. I have already placed my order. Please see http://www.thepowermall.com/
People want answers and when enough people demand the answers, we shall
see what happens. More outrageous coverups? Another attack? Or the Truth?
All information posted on this web site is
the opinion of the author and is provided for educational purposes only.
It is not to be construed as medical advice. Only a licensed medical doctor
can legally offer medical advice in the United States. Consult the healer
of your choice for medical care and advice.