tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37753692011-04-21T12:06:09.265-07:00Sept 11 JournalReactions to current events since Sept 11, 2001Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comBlogger181100tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775369.post-60080847584135435252007-06-19T16:14:00.000-07:002007-06-19T16:25:04.158-07:00Did F77 hit the Pentagon? Eyewitness accounts examinedby Gerard Holmgren911dossier notes:http://web.archive.org/web/20051101025900/http://www.911dossier.co.uk/pen07.html#1According to the Official Story there were many eyewitnesses to the Pentagon attack. But Gerard Holmgren has made an in depth investigation of the apparent eyewitness accounts, with some surprising results. Here is his posting Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775369.post-62242412580156051012007-06-17T08:32:00.000-07:002007-06-18T07:57:00.890-07:00WTC Hole NOT made by a planeGerard HolmgrenWTC ForensicsNovember 11 2005Gerard HolmgrenObserve that we have a hole in the tower which is approximately the size and shape of a 767, indicating that the alleged large passenger jet punched decisively through the building. Also observe that we have no wreckage significant enough to be identifiable.The combination of these two factors is a forensic Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775369.post-36948943665459438872007-06-17T08:22:00.000-07:002007-06-17T08:25:37.972-07:00Gerard HolmgrenWhy they didn't use planesSometimes people ask me "why would they use missiles or whatever and run the risk of being caught out ? If they're going to sell a story about planes, why not make it as convincing as possible and use real planes" ?It's a silly question, because in the face of direct visual and forensic proof that they didn't use planes (mostly supported by what little Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775369.post-89367784123177159812007-06-17T08:19:00.000-07:002007-06-17T08:21:23.453-07:00Gerard Holmgren No HijackingsWhether there was actually a stand down centres around one unknown piece of info.Was the airforce actually told in real time that there were hijacked planes at large?Later in this mail, I'll present the evidence that there were no hijacked planes. But just for the moment, go with me on that and assume I'm right, and that the govt and media told us a retrospective lie Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775369.post-88679347637751113572007-06-17T08:08:00.000-07:002007-06-17T08:10:32.026-07:00Gerard Holmgren911 Evidence Kit - Important LinksTHE TRUTH ABOUT SEPT 11compiled by Gerard HolmgrenLast updated April 3 2004.The following compilation presents documents and research fromvarious sources demonstrating that the events of Sept 11 wereplanned and carried out by the US govt and its agencies. Thiscompilation is my own creation and it cannot be assumed that theindividual authors of the Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775369.post-51417657542830646282007-06-16T19:52:00.000-07:002007-06-16T19:55:28.421-07:00MANUFACTURED TERRORISMhttp://911closeup.com/index.shtml?ID=51THE TRUTH ABOUT SEPT 11By Gerard Holmgren holmgren@nettrade.com.au April 18 2004.There's just one problem with the official story of Sept 11 - it isn't true.This article presents a summary of the evidence that entire event was planned and carried out by the US govt and its agencies.The research and documentation to support the charges Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775369.post-1087146281798791542004-06-13T09:48:00.000-07:002004-06-13T10:04:41.796-07:00Malthus exchanges -- Big changes coming quickly 6.12.04 In a previous email Alypius Skinner referenced several mass dieoffs, or civilization collapses a. an 8k event (6000 BC) b. the cutback of the 23rd century BC c. the 6th century AD d. the 14th century e. 17th century I gather that C is a reference to the fall of the Roman Empire although I understood that that occurred in Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775369.post-1087144991691261172004-06-13T09:40:00.000-07:002004-06-13T09:43:11.690-07:00Re Alterman on Kerry's Dance: (see Alterman text below) 6.12.04 Friends: At the end of his column Alterman outlines the speech that we’re waiting for Kerry to make, the speech that would get him elected. The question is, why doesn’t he make the speech. It’s not for the lack of those who would give him such advice, as the Alterman column shows. The question is, why is he choosing to ignore Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775369.post-1084812448069510112004-05-17T08:53:00.000-07:002004-05-17T09:52:15.456-07:005.16.04 Letter re Alan Greenspan and Interest Rates The New York Times Letter to the Editor: May 16, 2004 To the Editor: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/16/opinion/16GRAN.html James Grant's “Low Rates, High Expectations,” (Op ed, 5.16.04) ignores the political point that Alan Greenspan, an ideological Republican, refuses to raise interest rates despite increasing signs of rising inflation inRonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775369.post-1084809415590557812004-05-17T08:46:00.000-07:002004-05-17T08:56:55.590-07:00May 9, 2004 Note: A link to the Forward editorial follows. Letter to the Editor: The Forward Forward letters letters@forward.com May 9, 2004 To the Editor: It’s disappointing to see the Forward labeling a "miscalculation," Sharon’s defeat in a Likud party referendum on his disengagement plan. (“Sharon’s Blunder,” editorial May 7, 2004) Circumstantial evidence supports the view thatRonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775369.post-1083438829029218922004-05-01T12:13:00.000-07:002004-05-01T12:18:02.326-07:00The New York Times letters@nytimes.com Letter to the Editor: April 30, 2004 To the Editor: Krugman correctly notes that current proposals for an Iraq exit strategy are ?either impractical or far behind the curve.? [?In Front of Your Nose,? Op-ed, 4.30.04] But the situation would be different if the U.S. were willing to allow Iraqi sovereignty over their economic and foreign policies. A Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775369.post-1082854829071018532004-04-24T18:00:00.000-07:002004-04-24T18:04:33.576-07:00Friends: Back in March I responded to an article by Gabriel Kolko with the first paragraph below. I have since added several more paragraphs where I explicate some of the threats posed by the Bush administration to our current system. A link to the Kolko article follows. Gabriel Kolko’s article for Counterpunch is a fun or scary riff on the Cockburn/Nader view that Kerry is just as bad asRonaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775369.post-1082738843473309072004-04-23T09:47:00.000-07:002004-04-23T09:51:25.543-07:00Friends: I agree with virtually everything in the important articles you will find below. Nevertheless I can't resist the opportunity to advance my quibble with Sniegoski/Raimondo and others who think Bush is dimwitted or actually stupid. True, he’s inarticulate, illiterate, generally ignorant and extraordinarily narrow minded and ideological –very much like the bulk of his supporters, but Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775369.post-1081793376031954062004-04-12T11:09:00.000-07:002004-04-12T11:13:24.140-07:00Connected and unconnected dots by Ronald Bleier April 12, 2004 Many of the dots have now been connected. Critically important dots are provided by the now public PDB of August 6, 2001 (see below), by Richard Clarke’s book and his public testimony and by Condoleezza Rice’s disingenuous public testimony. It is becoming clearer that the 9/11 hijackers succeeded not because of a structural Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775369.post-1066146283133405352003-10-14T08:44:00.000-07:002003-10-17T18:32:52.180-07:00Tanweer Akram sent following letter to The Havard Crimson. It appears that the editors have decided not to publish it. http://www.hlrecord.org/news/530895.html October 4, 2003 Editor Editorial Board The Harvard Crimson 14 Plymouth St., Cambridge, MA 02138 Email: letters@thecrimson.com Dear Editor: Alan Dershowitz’s Letter (“Professor Dershowtiz ‘Rest His Case,’” Harvard Crimson, October 3, Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775369.post-896552822003-02-24T10:06:00.000-08:002003-02-24T10:06:21.310-08:00The New York Times Letter to the Editor letters@nytimes.com February 23, 2003 To the Editor: Re: "Power and Leadership:The Real Meaning of Iraq" (Editorial, 2.23.03) The Times seems to be endorsing the notion that Iraq represents a current or future threat to U.S. interests that can only be dealt with through military means. Such a stance temporizes with what amounts to unprovoked U.S. Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775369.post-880539832003-01-26T10:11:00.000-08:002003-01-26T10:11:18.053-08:00 Pol S11 Blog 1.26.03 NYT Editorial: “The Race to War” The Times helps to confuse the issue by writing that, “No one who knows [Saddam Hussein’s] history can doubt that he is secretly trying to develop weapons of mass destruction.” While this has been repeatedly asserted by the Bush administration, no evidence that the Iraqi government has embarked on a secret program to develop nuclear (or Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3775369.post-814784482002-09-11T16:03:00.000-07:002002-12-02T17:27:11.000-08:00September 11th Journal -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The following is a journal of relevant writing I’ve done since the U.S. military campaign action against Afghanistan which began on October 7, 2001. A common thread so far is the question over whether the Bush administration's war fighting policy advances or detracts from our national and Ronaldhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06894911763711058827noreply@blogger.com