THE FLYOVER THEORY GETS SOME FAUX CLOUT
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
May 19 2008
updated 5/22 1am
Last Thursday night, May 15, saw a remarkable happening of Fraudsterism via the relatively high-profile venue of the Air America radio network and Richard Greene’s Clout program, of which I’d never heard until two days before the show. This tip-off, brought to my attention by an e-mail from a friend, was a press release by Pilots For 9/11 Truth.
05/13/08 - We hope you'll join us regarding the issues surrounding the Pentagon Attack this Thursday, May 15, 2008 at 9pm Eastern on Air America Radio with your host Richard Greene, Co-Produced by Rob Balsamo, Co-Founder, Pilots For 9/11 Truth.
Guest will be:
Craig Ranke from Citizen Investigation Team
Rob Balsamo, Co-Founder, Pilots For 9/11 Truth
Kevin Barret
Individuals supporting the govt story – TBA
[emph mine - original posting]
Background on how Greene and the Pilots hooked up back in March.
For this "Week of Truth" installment, the TBA part wound up meaning, it seems, ‘tiny blocks allowed’ for the only debunker to both be invited and respond, Ron Weick of Hardfire. He took his invitation to a JREF thread but scored no supporters. To hear Balsamo talk they were cringing in fear but really it looks more like skulking and/or sighing in exasperation. I had several good reasons for not getting directly involved, but did try to get a message through to Greene. I urged him to have CIT and PFT on with their promised groundbreaking revelation, but to be aware of my findings about their previous findings. I put the ball in his court, where it already was. If Greene doesn't research his guests, or ignores that they are promoting hoaxes, that's his own problem.
On the other side the list of ‘truthseekers’ invited for the program eventually expanded to include Barbara Honegger, Col. George Nelson, and even the eminent David Ray Griffin was able to take some time to elaborate his decrepit, myopic opinion of the Pentagon attack. Barrett apparently backed up to make room and did not appear, which helped, but… CIT's Aldo Marquis later complained of this over-booking "we are being drowned out. Two many chiefs and not enough Indians. This is why we will fail. We have incredibly important evidence and Ron Weik and Barbara Honegger get more air time than Craig and Rob did. Sucks. All old info all bunk. Whatever, you guys heard it. We've got a flyover witness(es)." [He's not exactly sure if it's plural yet.]Update: the Clout flyover witness
I too was mostly looking to hear the portion where the original guests were featured and this revelation triumphantly ejaculated, but unable to catch it live I had to rely on the later-posted audio links. Ranke and Balsamo were pushed to the last block, the link for which was the only one that didn't work (and still doesn't four days later). Due to delays in getting the segment in question (see below), the review has been delayed. I'll post it separately.
Clout Links:
- Clout episode blog page Entire show minus final segment with CIT and PFT available for listen here, as well as 200+ comments (several by myself and "Hetware" it seems, have been deleted with no explanation).
- Entire show in compressed (poor) wma format, but in one convenient zip file. Provided by Pilots For 9/11 Truth. (theirs is part 1 here, understandably.)
Showing posts with label Honegger. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Honegger. Show all posts
Monday, May 19, 2008
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
9:32 EVENT EVIDENCE ADDRESSED
PENTAGON ATTACK TIMELINE QUESTIONS PART 3: 9:32 EVENT EVIDENCE ADDRESSED
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
December 5 2007 3am
last updated 8/10/09
All The 9:32 Duckies Lined Up
In the previous post I established the overall logic (found wanting) of the claims for a 9:32 attack at the Pentagon, vs. the official time of 9:37:45. Now it’s time to analyze the evidence that is behind all this theorizing; something got people wondering ‘what happened at 9:32?’ We’ve looked at the two frozen clocks a bit, and will return to them by the end, so let’s start with the yet-unexamined supporting evidence first. If some major violence happened at that time and was covered up, it might leave traces pointing at some kind of coherent reality. Until he was temporarily banned and then seems to have stayed away, LCF member Terral hammered away at a nine-point list of evidence for his 9:31:39 missile impact [1], based on Barbara Honegger’s five-point list of a pre-plane bombing at about that time [2]. Analyzing the two together and dismissing those that have nothing to do with a set time of about 9:32 I have identified seven points, including the clocks combined as one point. Supports attempted for 9:30 I have disregarded as too early to fit this model and will be addressed separately in a later post.
The meat and potatoes of 9:32 evidence is as follows, as debunked as I care to try for along the way:
1) An Early FAA Chronology: A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) document called Executive Summary - Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis - September 11, 2001 reported that at “0932 ATC AEA reports aircraft crashes into west side of Pentagon.” [3] Assembled just six days after the attacks, this official report’s stated time has since been amended – cover-up or correction? ATC (air Traffic Control) means radar; they don’t see things crashing, just disappear from screens, which happens when it drops below a certain altitude. In the case of the Pentagon attack, it appears the plane dropped off screens at 9:37:15, 30 seconds before impact, not the 5-6 minutes before required for this report to be correct. Many have taken this as a temporary slip and admission of reality - but one still openly available despite its damning implications.
Another likely possibility is that this report was somehow wrong, perhaps a confused report reflecting, for example, the 9:34 call mentioned by Gaffney in the previous post– “American 77's lost […] they lost radar with him. They lost contact with him. They lost everything. And they don't have any idea where he is or what happened.” [4] It seems likely to guess it crashed – perhaps this report was hasty and based on some initial report to this effect without double-checking – and not necessarily a clue of anything.
Regarding early FAA reports from 9/11 and their relevance on timeline questions, for Flight 11 they reported (at one point, it's also since been revised) a shooting of passenger Daniel Lewin at 9:18 am (it had crashed at 8:46, documented and uncontested) and then “at 9:25 am, this flight crashed directly into one of the towers of the world trade center.” [5] Compared to AA’s flight 11 mix-up (possibly the origin of the ‘Phantom Flight 11’ that distracted defenders from the real threat of Flight 77), a single mis-citation of 77’s crash time is quite mundane.
And besides, it seems highly unlikely that ATC with their radar screens would report a non-plane related 9:32 explosion, however they may have heard about it, as evidence for the disappearance of a plane they were tracking - So this evidence’s connection to Honegger’s case is less than clear.
2) Per Stig Møler: The son of two Danish parliamentarians and a member of Det Konservative Folkeparti [6], Møler was in Washington, D.C. on 9/11, two months prior to his being appointed Foreign Minister of Denmark. The morning of the attack, Honegger recounts, “he looked out, heard an explosion and saw the smoke first rise from the Pentagon. He immediately looked at his watch, which read 9:32 am. He gave radio interviews in Denmark the next morning in which he stated that the Pentagon had been attacked at 9:32.” [7]
This seems to be good evidence; one would think if his watch was five minutes off, he'd know that and correct for such a momentous occasion. Or is he simply embellishing the watch check, and actually filling in the time based on some flawed source? [The FAA’s chronology would not be released or days, so that’s not a possible culprit]. Or is Honegger inserting the watch embellishment herself, while Møler only ever said it happened at 9:32? Her sources was listed as “interview with Denmark Radio P3, September 12, 2001, 6:15 am Denmark time.” The excerpt she included said “I saw smoke and fire rising from the Pentagon at 9:32...My first impression was that a bomb had been detonated at the Pentagon.” That in itself doesn’t clear things up, and being disinclined to find the original audio and get it translated, I’ll leave this point as vague at best.
Update: Someone named Josarhus from Denmark checked out the interview, joined and started a thread at the JREF forum about this:
3) Robert Andrews Top Civilian at Pentagon and director of “Special Operations” under Rumsfeld, Andrews shared with Honegger another wristwatch recollection. He told her in an interview that he had been in the Pentagon’s basement when “a violent event caused the ceiling tiles to fall off the ceiling and smoke to pour into the room. Andrews immediately looked at his watch, which read approximately 9:35 am but which was set fast to ensure timely arrival at meetings, so the actual time was closer to 9:32.” [8]
Barring another embellishment by the author (who does seem unable to provide direct quotes where witnesses clarify they got the time from their watches), this is quite specific and good evidence – almost too good. A Rumsfeld aide tells us the event occurred at 9:32. I'm starting to wonder if there really is a pattern behind all this evidence besides coincidence, but that it’s closer to Pentagon disinfo than emerging reality. If so, Rummy's 'missile-transcription” set the trend. Does ‘special operations” include disinfo work? Otherwise, maybe he just misspoke and said 9:35 when he meant to say 9:45. Then he could be referring to the 9:38 plane impact or to the later explosion around 9:43, depending on just how far ahead his watch was.
4) Al Gonzales Before becoming Attorney General, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales gave a lecture at Honegger’s Naval Postgraduate School in which, as Honegger noted, “Gonzales explicitly and clearly states that “The Pentagon was attacked at 9:32”. [9] It’s matter of public record and probably true that he indeed said this, but I don't see why it necessarily means anything. He may have just read an erred report – like the FAA’s cited above – while doing his background research for the speech. Or if there were an official effort to seed this idea, as suggested by Honegger's Andrews interview, there's no good reason to rule out Gonzales deciding to affirm it almost to Honegger's very face for her later use. For the moment I'll stick to the more innocent explanation.
5) The Doubletree Video Timestamp:
Neither the Pentagon nor the plane that hit it are visible in the Doubletree security video; with its view blocked by the raised roadway nearer the camera, only the massive column of fire and smoke in the distance gives us a clue that the Pentagon was struck at – 9:32? The video is very glitchy; an onlooker in the lot also blinks in and out of the screen twice and a totally different camera view of another parking lot comes and goes and later wrestles for dominance with the main view. The time-stamp is as jumpy and flickery as the picture but moves unsteadily along a natural timeline stamped 9:34. As the explosion rises at 9:34:42, the timeline then flickers to 9:32:43, which hold for one second until rolling back to 9:34:44. [10] A minute change precisely at the second rollover, simply showing a 2 instead of a 4 during that slot seems just a glitch; the date field also changes for one second at different points. 09-11-2001 briefly turns to 9-03-2001 (at 9:30:54). No one has yet claimed this as evidence of an explosion at the Pentagon eight days early.
Passing up the chance to make a fool of herself again, Honegger failed to include this anomaly of the minute space as evidence for here case, but 9:32:43 was taken up enthusiastically by Terral and analyzed (see above, his graphic) as another solid proof of his 9:31:39 event. “The proof is in the pudding,” he explained. “The Double Tree Security Video shows signs of monkey business. :0) I cannot tell you ‘why,’ but can show you ‘what’ the evidence clearly reveals from the 9:32:43 AM recorded explosion taking place […] This is another case of the ‘evidence’ supporting my 9:32 AM “first explosion”” hypothesis.” [11] Terral clearly is implying it was altered from 9:32 except for that frame, but as I asked him, “why would they 'alter' the time of the 9:32 blast to look like the 9:38 blast, but change the time to 9:34 instead and then let it flicker back to 9:32 at the end? What on Earth can this prove?” [12] Proof by glitch as further 'corroboration’ of a 9:32 event. He even used the quotes himself, and included that trademark clown face emoticon. This is just how seriously the case deserves to be taken.
6) April Gallop’s watch: A third wristwatch recollection related by Honegger Is that of April Gallop, an “Army employee with a Top Secret clearance,” had stopped by her office with her newborn son Elisha when her section exploded. Honegger’s point in including this curious witness was that “Ms. Gallop still has the watch she was wearing that morning, which stopped shortly after 9:30.” [13]
April certainly went through hell that day, with her baby, and suffered serious injuries to her right leg I believe, so it’s possible her watch was mechanically stopped by something that hit her arm as well. And if so, we have another stopped clock showing a time closer to 9:32 than 9:38. Given what Gallop went through, it may seem cold to cast aspersions, but of all the points on this list, she is in my opinion the most compromised by mis/disinformation concerns. Among the oddities of her account(s), she later told Jim Marrs “I know what a bomb sounds and acts like, especially the aftermath, and it sounded and acted like a bomb. There was no plane or plane parts inside the building, and no smell of jet fuel […] I figure the plane story is there to brainwash people.” [14] She’s also helped promote the PentaCon, and has described climbing out through the entry hole, which she has elsewhere incorrectly verified as “perfectly round” and “didn't appear to be big enough for the 757.” [15]
Even Terral knew not to touch this point, and she was not included in his five-point list. He explained “I omit Ms. Gallop’s testimony from my work entirely, because the other ‘clock damage’ appears to be from the ‘concussion’ of the explosions and not from an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). That means Ms. Gallop needed to strike her wrist against something at this critical time to stop the movement mechanism, OR my EMP suspicions are inaccurate.” [16] Okay, perhaps credibility was not his reason, but it should have been.
7) Those Clocks:
The pivotal evidence that started the whole search for a 9:32 event is that double-corroborated time recorded on those two famous clocks. This point has also proven the hardest to debunk with certainty. Since I have no solid rebuttal, and since this post is already too long, I'll just summarize what's up with that. Pickering seems to suggest mechanical damage after 9:32, with the diesngaged minute hands falling with gravity towards - but not quite to - the six, and proferred a challenge for anyone to try it at home and videotape the results. [17]. To my knowledge no one has taken him up (I have a clock but need to borrow a camera). In short, I have no sure answer for the clocks showing the wrong time. Just on their own strength, the possibility that they're right must be considered. Therefore, these seem to me the main possibilities:
1) Both clocks were about right and stopped at the impact time around 9:32
2) Both clocks stopped around 9:38 but were six minutes behind by sheer coincidence
3) Both stopped at 9:38 but the mechanism was broken so the minute hands only swung back towards the 6 or something to that effect.
4) Subtle psyop to confuse people: “be sure to move than hands back to 9:32 before the museum guys pick it up…”
5) Combinations and permutations – one was six minutes behind, the other broken, etc.
Why Not 9:32?
Some might wonder why I would bother dismantling this timeline construct. After all, if 9:32 were proven, a massive lie would be uncovered that could unlock yet more secrets. The problem with this case is that no matter how solid it seems at first glance, compared to the 9:38 case, it absolutely fails to hold water. With so little supporting evidence that pans out to suggest anything in particular happening at that time, two clocks does not a valid alternate make. Even if we ignore Honegger’s silly and unsubstantiated bombing/A3 attack, or Terral’s missile/flyover-and-A3 attack, just taking the first explosion at 9:32 as from the 757 impact (ala Gaffney), dozens of points of data had to be shifted ahead to around 9:38 for no good reason I myself can see. The next post in this series will endeavor to show just how much corroborating data would have to have been coordinated to bolster the official timelie. It’s really quite a bit…
rest coming...
Sources:
[1] Posted by Terral. Oct 15 2007, 04:02 PM. Loose Change Forum -> 9/11 Research -> The Pentagon -> “Best Evidence Of The Time Of Pentagon Explosion” -> Page 1. http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=16133&st=0
[2] [7] [8] [9] [13] Honegger, Barbara. The Pentagon Attack Papers: Seven Hours in September: The Clock that Broke the Lie. Appendix to The Terror Conspiray by Jim Marrs. Published September 6, 2006. html link - PDF link
[3] Federal Aviation Administration. Executive Summary - Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis - September 11, 2001 September 17 2001.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa5.pdf
[14] Marrs, Jim. Inside Job. Origin Press. 2004. Page 26.
[17] Posted by Russell Pickering, September 20 2007, 12:32 PM. Loose Change Forum -> 9/11 Research -> The Pentagon -> “Clock Question - Did Internal Explosions, Stop the clocks 5 to 11 minutes before…” -> Page 1. http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15994
rest coming...
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
December 5 2007 3am
last updated 8/10/09
All The 9:32 Duckies Lined Up
In the previous post I established the overall logic (found wanting) of the claims for a 9:32 attack at the Pentagon, vs. the official time of 9:37:45. Now it’s time to analyze the evidence that is behind all this theorizing; something got people wondering ‘what happened at 9:32?’ We’ve looked at the two frozen clocks a bit, and will return to them by the end, so let’s start with the yet-unexamined supporting evidence first. If some major violence happened at that time and was covered up, it might leave traces pointing at some kind of coherent reality. Until he was temporarily banned and then seems to have stayed away, LCF member Terral hammered away at a nine-point list of evidence for his 9:31:39 missile impact [1], based on Barbara Honegger’s five-point list of a pre-plane bombing at about that time [2]. Analyzing the two together and dismissing those that have nothing to do with a set time of about 9:32 I have identified seven points, including the clocks combined as one point. Supports attempted for 9:30 I have disregarded as too early to fit this model and will be addressed separately in a later post.
The meat and potatoes of 9:32 evidence is as follows, as debunked as I care to try for along the way:
1) An Early FAA Chronology: A Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) document called Executive Summary - Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis - September 11, 2001 reported that at “0932 ATC AEA reports aircraft crashes into west side of Pentagon.” [3] Assembled just six days after the attacks, this official report’s stated time has since been amended – cover-up or correction? ATC (air Traffic Control) means radar; they don’t see things crashing, just disappear from screens, which happens when it drops below a certain altitude. In the case of the Pentagon attack, it appears the plane dropped off screens at 9:37:15, 30 seconds before impact, not the 5-6 minutes before required for this report to be correct. Many have taken this as a temporary slip and admission of reality - but one still openly available despite its damning implications.
Another likely possibility is that this report was somehow wrong, perhaps a confused report reflecting, for example, the 9:34 call mentioned by Gaffney in the previous post– “American 77's lost […] they lost radar with him. They lost contact with him. They lost everything. And they don't have any idea where he is or what happened.” [4] It seems likely to guess it crashed – perhaps this report was hasty and based on some initial report to this effect without double-checking – and not necessarily a clue of anything.
Regarding early FAA reports from 9/11 and their relevance on timeline questions, for Flight 11 they reported (at one point, it's also since been revised) a shooting of passenger Daniel Lewin at 9:18 am (it had crashed at 8:46, documented and uncontested) and then “at 9:25 am, this flight crashed directly into one of the towers of the world trade center.” [5] Compared to AA’s flight 11 mix-up (possibly the origin of the ‘Phantom Flight 11’ that distracted defenders from the real threat of Flight 77), a single mis-citation of 77’s crash time is quite mundane.
And besides, it seems highly unlikely that ATC with their radar screens would report a non-plane related 9:32 explosion, however they may have heard about it, as evidence for the disappearance of a plane they were tracking - So this evidence’s connection to Honegger’s case is less than clear.
2) Per Stig Møler: The son of two Danish parliamentarians and a member of Det Konservative Folkeparti [6], Møler was in Washington, D.C. on 9/11, two months prior to his being appointed Foreign Minister of Denmark. The morning of the attack, Honegger recounts, “he looked out, heard an explosion and saw the smoke first rise from the Pentagon. He immediately looked at his watch, which read 9:32 am. He gave radio interviews in Denmark the next morning in which he stated that the Pentagon had been attacked at 9:32.” [7]
This seems to be good evidence; one would think if his watch was five minutes off, he'd know that and correct for such a momentous occasion. Or is he simply embellishing the watch check, and actually filling in the time based on some flawed source? [The FAA’s chronology would not be released or days, so that’s not a possible culprit]. Or is Honegger inserting the watch embellishment herself, while Møler only ever said it happened at 9:32? Her sources was listed as “interview with Denmark Radio P3, September 12, 2001, 6:15 am Denmark time.” The excerpt she included said “I saw smoke and fire rising from the Pentagon at 9:32...My first impression was that a bomb had been detonated at the Pentagon.” That in itself doesn’t clear things up, and being disinclined to find the original audio and get it translated, I’ll leave this point as vague at best.
Update: Someone named Josarhus from Denmark checked out the interview, joined and started a thread at the JREF forum about this:
Further more Per Stig Møller CLEARLY states that he thinks the time was around 9:32-9:34 based on when the meeting was supposed to end. The meeting was supposed to end at 9:30, but he didn’t look at his watch. In other words the time could very easily correspond with the official time of the crash.
To make it short, if anybody in the future claims that Per Stig Møller said that he heard an explosion and saw smoke and flames 5 minutes before the plane hit the Pentagon, tell them that the claim is based on an incorrect translation by the Dane Henrik Melvang and on deliberate distortions by Barbara Honegger.
3) Robert Andrews Top Civilian at Pentagon and director of “Special Operations” under Rumsfeld, Andrews shared with Honegger another wristwatch recollection. He told her in an interview that he had been in the Pentagon’s basement when “a violent event caused the ceiling tiles to fall off the ceiling and smoke to pour into the room. Andrews immediately looked at his watch, which read approximately 9:35 am but which was set fast to ensure timely arrival at meetings, so the actual time was closer to 9:32.” [8]
Barring another embellishment by the author (who does seem unable to provide direct quotes where witnesses clarify they got the time from their watches), this is quite specific and good evidence – almost too good. A Rumsfeld aide tells us the event occurred at 9:32. I'm starting to wonder if there really is a pattern behind all this evidence besides coincidence, but that it’s closer to Pentagon disinfo than emerging reality. If so, Rummy's 'missile-transcription” set the trend. Does ‘special operations” include disinfo work? Otherwise, maybe he just misspoke and said 9:35 when he meant to say 9:45. Then he could be referring to the 9:38 plane impact or to the later explosion around 9:43, depending on just how far ahead his watch was.
4) Al Gonzales Before becoming Attorney General, White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales gave a lecture at Honegger’s Naval Postgraduate School in which, as Honegger noted, “Gonzales explicitly and clearly states that “The Pentagon was attacked at 9:32”. [9] It’s matter of public record and probably true that he indeed said this, but I don't see why it necessarily means anything. He may have just read an erred report – like the FAA’s cited above – while doing his background research for the speech. Or if there were an official effort to seed this idea, as suggested by Honegger's Andrews interview, there's no good reason to rule out Gonzales deciding to affirm it almost to Honegger's very face for her later use. For the moment I'll stick to the more innocent explanation.
5) The Doubletree Video Timestamp:
Neither the Pentagon nor the plane that hit it are visible in the Doubletree security video; with its view blocked by the raised roadway nearer the camera, only the massive column of fire and smoke in the distance gives us a clue that the Pentagon was struck at – 9:32? The video is very glitchy; an onlooker in the lot also blinks in and out of the screen twice and a totally different camera view of another parking lot comes and goes and later wrestles for dominance with the main view. The time-stamp is as jumpy and flickery as the picture but moves unsteadily along a natural timeline stamped 9:34. As the explosion rises at 9:34:42, the timeline then flickers to 9:32:43, which hold for one second until rolling back to 9:34:44. [10] A minute change precisely at the second rollover, simply showing a 2 instead of a 4 during that slot seems just a glitch; the date field also changes for one second at different points. 09-11-2001 briefly turns to 9-03-2001 (at 9:30:54). No one has yet claimed this as evidence of an explosion at the Pentagon eight days early.
Passing up the chance to make a fool of herself again, Honegger failed to include this anomaly of the minute space as evidence for here case, but 9:32:43 was taken up enthusiastically by Terral and analyzed (see above, his graphic) as another solid proof of his 9:31:39 event. “The proof is in the pudding,” he explained. “The Double Tree Security Video shows signs of monkey business. :0) I cannot tell you ‘why,’ but can show you ‘what’ the evidence clearly reveals from the 9:32:43 AM recorded explosion taking place […] This is another case of the ‘evidence’ supporting my 9:32 AM “first explosion”” hypothesis.” [11] Terral clearly is implying it was altered from 9:32 except for that frame, but as I asked him, “why would they 'alter' the time of the 9:32 blast to look like the 9:38 blast, but change the time to 9:34 instead and then let it flicker back to 9:32 at the end? What on Earth can this prove?” [12] Proof by glitch as further 'corroboration’ of a 9:32 event. He even used the quotes himself, and included that trademark clown face emoticon. This is just how seriously the case deserves to be taken.
6) April Gallop’s watch: A third wristwatch recollection related by Honegger Is that of April Gallop, an “Army employee with a Top Secret clearance,” had stopped by her office with her newborn son Elisha when her section exploded. Honegger’s point in including this curious witness was that “Ms. Gallop still has the watch she was wearing that morning, which stopped shortly after 9:30.” [13]
April certainly went through hell that day, with her baby, and suffered serious injuries to her right leg I believe, so it’s possible her watch was mechanically stopped by something that hit her arm as well. And if so, we have another stopped clock showing a time closer to 9:32 than 9:38. Given what Gallop went through, it may seem cold to cast aspersions, but of all the points on this list, she is in my opinion the most compromised by mis/disinformation concerns. Among the oddities of her account(s), she later told Jim Marrs “I know what a bomb sounds and acts like, especially the aftermath, and it sounded and acted like a bomb. There was no plane or plane parts inside the building, and no smell of jet fuel […] I figure the plane story is there to brainwash people.” [14] She’s also helped promote the PentaCon, and has described climbing out through the entry hole, which she has elsewhere incorrectly verified as “perfectly round” and “didn't appear to be big enough for the 757.” [15]
Even Terral knew not to touch this point, and she was not included in his five-point list. He explained “I omit Ms. Gallop’s testimony from my work entirely, because the other ‘clock damage’ appears to be from the ‘concussion’ of the explosions and not from an electromagnetic pulse (EMP). That means Ms. Gallop needed to strike her wrist against something at this critical time to stop the movement mechanism, OR my EMP suspicions are inaccurate.” [16] Okay, perhaps credibility was not his reason, but it should have been.
7) Those Clocks:
The pivotal evidence that started the whole search for a 9:32 event is that double-corroborated time recorded on those two famous clocks. This point has also proven the hardest to debunk with certainty. Since I have no solid rebuttal, and since this post is already too long, I'll just summarize what's up with that. Pickering seems to suggest mechanical damage after 9:32, with the diesngaged minute hands falling with gravity towards - but not quite to - the six, and proferred a challenge for anyone to try it at home and videotape the results. [17]. To my knowledge no one has taken him up (I have a clock but need to borrow a camera). In short, I have no sure answer for the clocks showing the wrong time. Just on their own strength, the possibility that they're right must be considered. Therefore, these seem to me the main possibilities:
1) Both clocks were about right and stopped at the impact time around 9:32
2) Both clocks stopped around 9:38 but were six minutes behind by sheer coincidence
3) Both stopped at 9:38 but the mechanism was broken so the minute hands only swung back towards the 6 or something to that effect.
4) Subtle psyop to confuse people: “be sure to move than hands back to 9:32 before the museum guys pick it up…”
5) Combinations and permutations – one was six minutes behind, the other broken, etc.
Why Not 9:32?
Some might wonder why I would bother dismantling this timeline construct. After all, if 9:32 were proven, a massive lie would be uncovered that could unlock yet more secrets. The problem with this case is that no matter how solid it seems at first glance, compared to the 9:38 case, it absolutely fails to hold water. With so little supporting evidence that pans out to suggest anything in particular happening at that time, two clocks does not a valid alternate make. Even if we ignore Honegger’s silly and unsubstantiated bombing/A3 attack, or Terral’s missile/flyover-and-A3 attack, just taking the first explosion at 9:32 as from the 757 impact (ala Gaffney), dozens of points of data had to be shifted ahead to around 9:38 for no good reason I myself can see. The next post in this series will endeavor to show just how much corroborating data would have to have been coordinated to bolster the official timelie. It’s really quite a bit…
rest coming...
Sources:
[1] Posted by Terral. Oct 15 2007, 04:02 PM. Loose Change Forum -> 9/11 Research -> The Pentagon -> “Best Evidence Of The Time Of Pentagon Explosion” -> Page 1. http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=16133&st=0
[2] [7] [8] [9] [13] Honegger, Barbara. The Pentagon Attack Papers: Seven Hours in September: The Clock that Broke the Lie. Appendix to The Terror Conspiray by Jim Marrs. Published September 6, 2006. html link - PDF link
[3] Federal Aviation Administration. Executive Summary - Chronology of a Multiple Hijacking Crisis - September 11, 2001 September 17 2001.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB165/faa5.pdf
[14] Marrs, Jim. Inside Job. Origin Press. 2004. Page 26.
[17] Posted by Russell Pickering, September 20 2007, 12:32 PM. Loose Change Forum -> 9/11 Research -> The Pentagon -> “Clock Question - Did Internal Explosions, Stop the clocks 5 to 11 minutes before…” -> Page 1. http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=15994
rest coming...
Tuesday, November 13, 2007
ANOTHER SIX BACK? THE 9:32 CASE
PENTAGON ATTACK TIMELINE QUESTIONS PART 2: ANOTHER SIX BACK? THE 9:32 CASE
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Nov 13 2007, 3pm
Last Updated Nov 17 1am
Now that we’ve established that accepted times associated with the Pentagon attack have previously proven false, let’s turn our attention to the current attempt by some researchers at another shift in the impact/explosion time back again to about 9:32. Most well-known and visually convincing among the evidence backing a 9:32 event at the Pentagon is a pair of stopped wall clocks recovered at there: the one on the left was found in the heliport outside the building but near impact point, stopped at 9:31:30. At right is a clock from an office inside or near the damaged section, stopped at 9:30:40. It would be rather a coincidence for a 9:38 event to find two clocks roughly synched 6-7 minutes behind at the military’s lockstep headquarters. It stretches the imagination, and seems almost certainly significant and worthy of examination.
I’m not sure when the first 9/11 researcher discovered or commented on these clocks, but I would guess they were noticed one at a time almost immediately upon publishing. The earliest mention I’ve seen of both (exactly as pictured above) is by Pentagon no-planer Ralph Olmholt, who had noted back in late 2004 that “two stopped Pentagon clocks point to approximately 9:31, as do a variety of other reports and quotes. The dog didn’t bark on cue.” [1] After apparently simmering a while in obscurity, the 9:31-9:32 meme has amplified since then, trying to write itself a page in history in 2006.
Honegger’s Historic Moment
This timeline revision has been fueled most specifically by its prime champion, Barbara Honegger, a top journalist at the Navy Postgraduate School and oft-cited 9/11 researcher. Her recent works include The Pentagon Attack Papers, written September 2006 and published as an appendix in Jim Marrs’ The Terror Conspiracy. [PDF link - html link] In this, she argued against a big plane, using the “legion evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon" provided by clowns like Karl Schwarz, and for a traditional bombing that, she's certain, happened at 9:32.
Anything happening at the official time of 9:37 was some sort of cover – possibly the impact of “an airborne object significantly smaller than […] a Boeing 757,” most likely an A3 Skywarrior as identified by Schwarz. [2] That as I see it serves no purpose but to get the wrong plane parts inside and trick the witnesses with the wrong plane hitting at the wrong time. Too bad the debris and witnesses really agree on a 757 much better than a tiny A3, and that no one has reported any plane flying into an already bombed and smoldering building. Whatever the overall logic of Honegger’s case, the 9:32 evidence stands on its own to some extent and forms the core of her piece, which opens hyperbolically:
“The San Francisco Chronicle commemorated the 100th anniversary of The Great Earthquake of 1906 with a series of front-page articles headed by a single icon—a charred clock frozen at 5:12 am, the exact moment “The Big One” hit. A century after that devastating event, the stopped clock serves as both the ultimate evidence and the symbol that “captures it all.”
Again, almost 100 years later, clocks frozen in time at the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001 both “capture it all” and are the ultimate evidence that shatters the “Official Lie” of what happened that terrible morning. The Pentagon was first attacked at 9:32 am, much earlier than the 9/11 Commission and official cover story claim.”
The reason Honegger offers for the official timeline lie is shaky; she found that NORAD commander Gen. Larry Arnold sent one of his fighters on a low-level recon mission after the attack (the pilot “reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building.”) She concludes “this fighter jet—not Flight 77— is almost certainly the plane seen on the Dulles airport Air Traffic Controller’s screen making a steep, high-speed 270-degree descent before disappearing from the radar.” The loop would also match the near-circular loop shown in the Flight Data Recorder attributed to Flight 77, in Honegger land probably the fighter’s track set into the context of black box data, as it was copied over elsewhere.
So 9:32 is verboten because lacking a radar track for a 9:32 plane, officials decided at one point “to pretend the blip represented by Arnold’s surveillance jet approaching just before 9:37 was “Flight 77.”” Now however they’re caught in a loop from this and “the Pentagon cannot acknowledge the earlier 9:32 time without revealing an attack on the building prior to the alleged impact.” [3] This doesn’t make much sense, but the clocks do not stand alone; She cited “converging Lines of Proof of a 9:32 Violent Event at the Pentagon,” a mixed bag of evidence that does indeed have a compelling correlation of time if not of total logic. She provided four points to directly support the clocks, which I’ll address in the next post.
Gaffney: 35,000 at 9:32?
One more credible mind that bought Honegger’s case and helped elaborate on it is Mark Gaffney, introduced in the previous post. Having previously explained the documented presence of a top-secret E4B doomsday plane over DC, in his follow-up part II, Did the US Military Fudge the 9/11 Timeline? Gaffney nods to Honegger and verifies some of her points, though refreshingly, he disagrees with her on the evidence of a 757 strike, citing “the recovery of Boeing 757 parts from within the Pentagon” and that “the flight recorder data shows […] there were no interruptions in its flight path.” Gaffney cited Honegger’s clocks as Compelling physical evidence; “it appears that the powerful shock wave that occurred at the moment of impact knocked the clocks off the wall," stopping their hands "within a minute of the same time. Were they both running 5-6 minutes late? I think not.”
Gaffney's mental gymnastics in supporting a 9:32 event are not clumsy, but not enough to pass the hurdle of proof. He cited the 9/11 Commission, reporting that "the first notice to the military that Flight 77 was missing [...] had come by chance" when NEADS made a call TO the FAA's Washington Center at 9:34. The Commission had concluded ‘radar’ contact was lost at 8:56 am when the transponder was switched off – meaning a 38-minute FAA delay getting this information to the military, and even then only when they called for news. But looking at the transcript of this 9:34 call, Gaffney decided that it seemed to indicate contact was just lost, and notes the "Washington staffer [...] mentions, almost in passing, that Flight 77 was at 35,000 feet when it disappeared from radar. Seeing this, the average reader will probably conclude that Flight 77 was still at cruising altitude when Washington Center lost radar contact at 9:34 AM.” [4]
The doomed flight apparently was still airborne, but not this high. If this were true, it would then have to dive from 35,000 feet to basically sea level and impact altitude in less than four minutes, a feat that I hope ‘the average reader’ would discern as implausible. But this hypothetical false impression that no one I know of has ever had, Gaffney notes, would be a ‘misreading’ - therefore the staffer “was merely restating the plane's last known altitude, data that was current some 38 minutes before, […] Yet, the above transcript is ambiguous enough to reinforce the false impression that the plane was still aloft and cruising at 9:34 AM.” [5]
As covered in the previous post, he offers that the original time of 9:43 was set to provide cover for the E4B apparently circling DC at that time, so it could be said to be Flight 77 just before impact, though the un-acknowledgeable craft actually seems to have passed three minutes later than the time they set. Presumably fearing they’d stepped too far from the real time of 9:32 for which evidence might surface, or concerned that 9:43 indicated too slow a response, did they slide on over to the safer time 11 minutes earlier? No, they settled in the middle with 9:38, apparently afraid of straying too far from covering the E4B, though now eight minutes prior to its appearance, and apparently ignorant that conflating 77 and the E4B would lose all meaning once radar and FDR data became known to show 77 never did fly over DC anyway, despite the official over-DC flight path disinformation that some, like Gaffney, believe occurred for this same reason.
Among the Chat Monkeys
For a while there the 9:32 meme was all the rage at the Loose Change Forum; while I’ve been active in recent months, members JackD, SPreston, and others have jointly rallied around the clocks and other clues as evidence of a massive timeline cover-up. Example thread: Best Evidence Of The Time Of Pentagon Explosion. This revision has been championed there most forcefully by multi-forum ‘thesis monkey’ “Terral.” Using flawed reports, ‘expert’ testimony, ‘well-known’ but un-illustrated ‘facts,’ biblical scripture and deep theology sandwiched between blunt insults, silly rants, over-labeled under-comprehended graphic analyses, and the ‘proven’ time of impact of 9:31:39, he seeks to prove an impact by a cruise missile that crimped off the light poles with its ‘bowed shockwave’ of air, trailed by a decoy flyover, which he seems to believe is exactly what happened at9:31:39, the time proving the event and vice-versa. The graphic below shows the ‘before and after’ from his initial event and a ‘9:36’ follow-up A3 attack ala Honegger, just to get some jet fuel outside and engine parts inside to create the ‘three punch-out holes.’
Terral hammers away at a nine-point list of evidence for his 9:31:39 missile impact, based on Honegger’s five-point list of a pre-plane bombing, and dismisses any Pentagon theory that doesn’t carefully cite this time as the “official Bushie/Rove / DoD 9:38 AM 'First Explosion' Cover Story,” pushed by what he calls “the DoD and their Cover Story Operatives.” Terral also says “LC members running from thread to thread doing DoD dirty work," including myself perhaps foremost, "have the same innocent blood on their hands” as the perpetrators, and are afraid to confront the overwhelming 9:32 evidence, which is exactly what I will wrap my bloody hands around in the next post and we'll see how well it holds up (hint - the clocks are as good as it gets).
Sources:
[1] Olmholt, Ralph. "The Dog Should Have Barked." Pentagon Research.com. Undated (html creation date: Dec 22 2004). http://www.pentagonresearch.com/098.html
[2] Honegger, Barabara. “The Pentagon Attack Papers: Seven Hours in September: The Clock that Broke the Lie”
Appendix to The Terror Conspiracy by Jim Marrs. Publication date, Sept. 6, 2006. html version: http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id206.html PDF link: http://blog.lege.net/content/Seven_Hours_in_September.pdf
[3] See [2].
[4] Gaffney, Mark H. The 9/11 Mystery Plane (Part II): Did the US Military Fudge the 9/11 Timeline? Rense.com. July 5, 2007. http://www.rense.com/general76/wdb.htm
[5] See [4].
[6] Terral. Posted Oct 15 2007, 04:02 PM. Loose Change Forum->9/11 Research->The Pentagon ->Best Evidence Of The Time Of Pentagon Explosion. Page 1.
Adam Larson / Caustic Logic
The Frustrating Fraud
Nov 13 2007, 3pm
Last Updated Nov 17 1am
Now that we’ve established that accepted times associated with the Pentagon attack have previously proven false, let’s turn our attention to the current attempt by some researchers at another shift in the impact/explosion time back again to about 9:32. Most well-known and visually convincing among the evidence backing a 9:32 event at the Pentagon is a pair of stopped wall clocks recovered at there: the one on the left was found in the heliport outside the building but near impact point, stopped at 9:31:30. At right is a clock from an office inside or near the damaged section, stopped at 9:30:40. It would be rather a coincidence for a 9:38 event to find two clocks roughly synched 6-7 minutes behind at the military’s lockstep headquarters. It stretches the imagination, and seems almost certainly significant and worthy of examination.
I’m not sure when the first 9/11 researcher discovered or commented on these clocks, but I would guess they were noticed one at a time almost immediately upon publishing. The earliest mention I’ve seen of both (exactly as pictured above) is by Pentagon no-planer Ralph Olmholt, who had noted back in late 2004 that “two stopped Pentagon clocks point to approximately 9:31, as do a variety of other reports and quotes. The dog didn’t bark on cue.” [1] After apparently simmering a while in obscurity, the 9:31-9:32 meme has amplified since then, trying to write itself a page in history in 2006. Honegger’s Historic Moment
This timeline revision has been fueled most specifically by its prime champion, Barbara Honegger, a top journalist at the Navy Postgraduate School and oft-cited 9/11 researcher. Her recent works include The Pentagon Attack Papers, written September 2006 and published as an appendix in Jim Marrs’ The Terror Conspiracy. [PDF link - html link] In this, she argued against a big plane, using the “legion evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon" provided by clowns like Karl Schwarz, and for a traditional bombing that, she's certain, happened at 9:32.
Anything happening at the official time of 9:37 was some sort of cover – possibly the impact of “an airborne object significantly smaller than […] a Boeing 757,” most likely an A3 Skywarrior as identified by Schwarz. [2] That as I see it serves no purpose but to get the wrong plane parts inside and trick the witnesses with the wrong plane hitting at the wrong time. Too bad the debris and witnesses really agree on a 757 much better than a tiny A3, and that no one has reported any plane flying into an already bombed and smoldering building. Whatever the overall logic of Honegger’s case, the 9:32 evidence stands on its own to some extent and forms the core of her piece, which opens hyperbolically:
“The San Francisco Chronicle commemorated the 100th anniversary of The Great Earthquake of 1906 with a series of front-page articles headed by a single icon—a charred clock frozen at 5:12 am, the exact moment “The Big One” hit. A century after that devastating event, the stopped clock serves as both the ultimate evidence and the symbol that “captures it all.”
Again, almost 100 years later, clocks frozen in time at the Pentagon on the morning of September 11, 2001 both “capture it all” and are the ultimate evidence that shatters the “Official Lie” of what happened that terrible morning. The Pentagon was first attacked at 9:32 am, much earlier than the 9/11 Commission and official cover story claim.”
The reason Honegger offers for the official timeline lie is shaky; she found that NORAD commander Gen. Larry Arnold sent one of his fighters on a low-level recon mission after the attack (the pilot “reported back that there was no evidence that a plane had hit the building.”) She concludes “this fighter jet—not Flight 77— is almost certainly the plane seen on the Dulles airport Air Traffic Controller’s screen making a steep, high-speed 270-degree descent before disappearing from the radar.” The loop would also match the near-circular loop shown in the Flight Data Recorder attributed to Flight 77, in Honegger land probably the fighter’s track set into the context of black box data, as it was copied over elsewhere.
So 9:32 is verboten because lacking a radar track for a 9:32 plane, officials decided at one point “to pretend the blip represented by Arnold’s surveillance jet approaching just before 9:37 was “Flight 77.”” Now however they’re caught in a loop from this and “the Pentagon cannot acknowledge the earlier 9:32 time without revealing an attack on the building prior to the alleged impact.” [3] This doesn’t make much sense, but the clocks do not stand alone; She cited “converging Lines of Proof of a 9:32 Violent Event at the Pentagon,” a mixed bag of evidence that does indeed have a compelling correlation of time if not of total logic. She provided four points to directly support the clocks, which I’ll address in the next post.
Gaffney: 35,000 at 9:32?
One more credible mind that bought Honegger’s case and helped elaborate on it is Mark Gaffney, introduced in the previous post. Having previously explained the documented presence of a top-secret E4B doomsday plane over DC, in his follow-up part II, Did the US Military Fudge the 9/11 Timeline? Gaffney nods to Honegger and verifies some of her points, though refreshingly, he disagrees with her on the evidence of a 757 strike, citing “the recovery of Boeing 757 parts from within the Pentagon” and that “the flight recorder data shows […] there were no interruptions in its flight path.” Gaffney cited Honegger’s clocks as Compelling physical evidence; “it appears that the powerful shock wave that occurred at the moment of impact knocked the clocks off the wall," stopping their hands "within a minute of the same time. Were they both running 5-6 minutes late? I think not.”
Gaffney's mental gymnastics in supporting a 9:32 event are not clumsy, but not enough to pass the hurdle of proof. He cited the 9/11 Commission, reporting that "the first notice to the military that Flight 77 was missing [...] had come by chance" when NEADS made a call TO the FAA's Washington Center at 9:34. The Commission had concluded ‘radar’ contact was lost at 8:56 am when the transponder was switched off – meaning a 38-minute FAA delay getting this information to the military, and even then only when they called for news. But looking at the transcript of this 9:34 call, Gaffney decided that it seemed to indicate contact was just lost, and notes the "Washington staffer [...] mentions, almost in passing, that Flight 77 was at 35,000 feet when it disappeared from radar. Seeing this, the average reader will probably conclude that Flight 77 was still at cruising altitude when Washington Center lost radar contact at 9:34 AM.” [4]
The doomed flight apparently was still airborne, but not this high. If this were true, it would then have to dive from 35,000 feet to basically sea level and impact altitude in less than four minutes, a feat that I hope ‘the average reader’ would discern as implausible. But this hypothetical false impression that no one I know of has ever had, Gaffney notes, would be a ‘misreading’ - therefore the staffer “was merely restating the plane's last known altitude, data that was current some 38 minutes before, […] Yet, the above transcript is ambiguous enough to reinforce the false impression that the plane was still aloft and cruising at 9:34 AM.” [5]
As covered in the previous post, he offers that the original time of 9:43 was set to provide cover for the E4B apparently circling DC at that time, so it could be said to be Flight 77 just before impact, though the un-acknowledgeable craft actually seems to have passed three minutes later than the time they set. Presumably fearing they’d stepped too far from the real time of 9:32 for which evidence might surface, or concerned that 9:43 indicated too slow a response, did they slide on over to the safer time 11 minutes earlier? No, they settled in the middle with 9:38, apparently afraid of straying too far from covering the E4B, though now eight minutes prior to its appearance, and apparently ignorant that conflating 77 and the E4B would lose all meaning once radar and FDR data became known to show 77 never did fly over DC anyway, despite the official over-DC flight path disinformation that some, like Gaffney, believe occurred for this same reason.
Among the Chat Monkeys
For a while there the 9:32 meme was all the rage at the Loose Change Forum; while I’ve been active in recent months, members JackD, SPreston, and others have jointly rallied around the clocks and other clues as evidence of a massive timeline cover-up. Example thread: Best Evidence Of The Time Of Pentagon Explosion. This revision has been championed there most forcefully by multi-forum ‘thesis monkey’ “Terral.” Using flawed reports, ‘expert’ testimony, ‘well-known’ but un-illustrated ‘facts,’ biblical scripture and deep theology sandwiched between blunt insults, silly rants, over-labeled under-comprehended graphic analyses, and the ‘proven’ time of impact of 9:31:39, he seeks to prove an impact by a cruise missile that crimped off the light poles with its ‘bowed shockwave’ of air, trailed by a decoy flyover, which he seems to believe is exactly what happened at9:31:39, the time proving the event and vice-versa. The graphic below shows the ‘before and after’ from his initial event and a ‘9:36’ follow-up A3 attack ala Honegger, just to get some jet fuel outside and engine parts inside to create the ‘three punch-out holes.’
Terral hammers away at a nine-point list of evidence for his 9:31:39 missile impact, based on Honegger’s five-point list of a pre-plane bombing, and dismisses any Pentagon theory that doesn’t carefully cite this time as the “official Bushie/Rove / DoD 9:38 AM 'First Explosion' Cover Story,” pushed by what he calls “the DoD and their Cover Story Operatives.” Terral also says “LC members running from thread to thread doing DoD dirty work," including myself perhaps foremost, "have the same innocent blood on their hands” as the perpetrators, and are afraid to confront the overwhelming 9:32 evidence, which is exactly what I will wrap my bloody hands around in the next post and we'll see how well it holds up (hint - the clocks are as good as it gets). Sources:
[1] Olmholt, Ralph. "The Dog Should Have Barked." Pentagon Research.com. Undated (html creation date: Dec 22 2004). http://www.pentagonresearch.com/098.html
[2] Honegger, Barabara. “The Pentagon Attack Papers: Seven Hours in September: The Clock that Broke the Lie”
Appendix to The Terror Conspiracy by Jim Marrs. Publication date, Sept. 6, 2006. html version: http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id206.html PDF link: http://blog.lege.net/content/Seven_Hours_in_September.pdf
[3] See [2].
[4] Gaffney, Mark H. The 9/11 Mystery Plane (Part II): Did the US Military Fudge the 9/11 Timeline? Rense.com. July 5, 2007. http://www.rense.com/general76/wdb.htm
[5] See [4].
[6] Terral. Posted Oct 15 2007, 04:02 PM. Loose Change Forum->9/11 Research->The Pentagon ->Best Evidence Of The Time Of Pentagon Explosion. Page 1.
Saturday, August 25, 2007
BARBARA HONEGGER
THE PSYCHIC MUNCHKIN BEHIND THE HOLY GRAIL
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic/The Frustrating Fraud
December 15 2006
Perhaps the oddest case in the small but fertile world of government functionary-9/11 Truth crossover is that of Barbara Honegger, a dedicated but elusive and little seen 9/11 warrior with murky roots (apparently military and intelligence). She was allegedly into weird parapsychic stuff, channeling voices of supercomputers from the future and whatnot, [1] before she went to work in the late 1970s for a rising star named Martin Anderson at the Hoover Institute (where he remains as a Senior Fellow). She then followed Anderson to the White House as an assistant to join the Reagan-Bush transition team in 1980. Anderson advised Reagan on everything from foreign intelligence to education, finance, and arms control, probably worked for Bush sr., and during the Clinton Years focused on teaching classes at Stanford (home of the Hoover Institute and where Condi Rice was briefly provost). Anderson was later an advisor to George W. Bush in his 2000 presidential campaign, [2] and eventually became a member of Rumsfeld’s influential Defense Policy Board in 2001. [3]
Honegger herself had split off from her Republican benefactors early; she only served the Reagan White House as a researcher and policy analyst until she resigned in 1983 under unclear circumstances – either over sexual discrimination or something else. In May 1985 Newsweek ran a piece on Honegger titled “The Munchkin's Musical” that stated “White House aides began whispering that Honegger was a believer in ESP who claimed she'd ridden on Halley's comet.” [4]
At the time she was also among the first to have leaked details of the “October Surprise” scandal, much of which was later verified by numerous involved parties. The deal was allegedly made by George Bush and William Casey to delay the release of the hostages in Iran - a delay that cost Carter the White House and gained it for Reagan and Bush. [5] Her charges culminated with the 1989 book “October Surprise,” predating Gary Sick’s work of the same name (which does not mention her) by two years. In the end, the scandal cost Reagan nothing, covered up by an investigation headed by a certain Lee Hamilton, who would go on later to 9/11 Commission and Iraq Study Group fame. Honegger later left a small mark on the Iran-Contra scandal, carried out as it was by largely the same networks responsible for the October Surprise, continuing to weave a picture of Bush-centered intrigue.
Despite all this, she not only remained alive but went on to tie Bush's son and former Defense Secretary in with carrying out 9/11, her works on which carry the disclaimer "all of Honegger’s research and publications on September 11 are solely in her capacity as a concerned private citizen and do not imply official endorsement." This is because in 1995 she was given a cushy job as Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, which she holds till the present, writing about such things as a cyber-defense exercise in 2002: “all the National Security Agency’s Trojan horses and Air Force and Army’s info-warriors couldn’t break through the cyber walls erected by the Naval Postgraduate School’s ace “Blue” Team,” she wrote. [6] How ironic then that what some suspect of being NSA Trojan horse 9/11 arguments should have eventually broken through her psychic shields and into her research.
Honegger’s role in the 9/11 Truth movement is huge and will perhaps go down as her crowning achievement, for good or ill. Her legacy here is centered on revealing to Mike Ruppert inside info on the War Games of 9/11 which scrambled the defense and were probably co-ordinated by a Maestro working for Dick Cheney. These revelations formed what Ruppert called “in my opinion – the holy grail of 9/11 research,” and a key point for the smarter edge of the movement at large. [7] Her credentials thus seem solid, but her later works I’ve seen are sloppy and full of holes and leaps. In October 2004 she reportedly told a forum in Los Angeles that “shoe bomber” Richard Reid was really Osama bin Laden, who apparently dyed his hair, trimmed his beard, removed a few wrinkles and turned himself in as it were by trying to ignite his shoes on a trans-Atlantic flight. [8]
Honegger’s later works include "The Pentagon Attack Papers," published as an appendix in Jim Marrs’ “The Terror Conspiracy,” 2006, taking her squarely into this blog's turf. In her Pentagon analysis, she argued against a big plane and for a traditional bombing. This, she's certain, happened at 9:32, with anything happening at the official time of 9:37 being some sort of cover – possibly the impact of “an airborne object significantly smaller than […] a Boeing 757.” She cites a mixed bag of evidence, from hard fact like a stopped clock to repeated government “slips” to irrelevant coincidences, and has cited war games at the Pentagon that morning, which are unverifiable but likely incorrect. [9] (I will post on this theory in more detail sometime soon).
She has also tied the alleged original pilot of Flight 77 before it was hijacked, Captain Charles Burlingame, to “a Task Force that drafted the Pentagon's emergency response plan on what to do in case a plane hit the building.” She appears to be the source of the similar charge laid out in Loose Change, second edition’s opening segment. It’s an intriguing possibility, but it doesn’t help her tentative case that she then finds it “extremely likely, if not certain - that this 'task force' that […] Burlingame was part of was the Cheney counterterrorism preparedness task force, and that the Pentagon plane pilot, therefore, directly knew and even worked with/for Cheney.” [10] Maybe that parapsychic training is helping her to fill in the gaps with right-brain impulses or insights from the future that make it all make sense…
No more promising is her citation of “the already legion evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon:" “the small hole in the west side of the Pentagon being not nearly large enough for the plane’s fuselage, let alone wing width," "no damage to the lawn where Flight 77 allegedly struck and skidded before hitting the building," "wrecked plane parts at the site identified as being from an A-3 Sky Warrior, a far smaller plane than that of Flight 77, a Boeing 757.” [11] Of course my debunkings are legion as well, or getting there. "The small hole" - the unmarked lawn - the plane parts - The A3 Sky Warrior Theory.
While her reputation in the movement is generally sterling and I don’t know enough to cast large stones, these aspects of Honegger’s works – her unexplained leaps, need to tie Cheney in personally, and especially disagreeing with me over the Pentagon evidence - are deeply flawed. Whatever her intentions, she has served as a useful and strangely credible-seeming source, and also a comet-riding psychic moonbat in the employ of the US military pushing among the worst 9/11 theories. That doesn't prove anything but it's worth considering.
Sources:
[1] http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/mindnet/mn202b.htm
[2] “2001: Mr. Hoover Goes to Washington?” Myszewski, David. Stanford Review. Volume XXV, Issue 6: January 2001
http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXVII/Issue_7/2001/
[3] Martin Anderson: Keith and Jan Hurlbut Senior Fellow. http://www.hoover.org/bios/anderson
[4] Source lost... I'll check at the library and get back...
[5] http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhonegger.htm
[6] Honegger, Barbara. “NPS Aces Second Annual DoD Cyber Defense Exercise.” http://www.nps.navy.mil/PAO/Internal/Cyber_Defense.htm
[7] Ruppert, page 336.
[8] Propaganda Patterns: Official Stories, Limited Hang Outs, Best Evidence, Distracting Disinformation
a political map of political collapse and possibilities. http://www.oilempire.us/propaganda.html
[9] Honegger, Barbara. “THE PENTAGON ATTACK PAPERS: Seven Hours in September: The Clock that Broke the Lie”
Appendix to THE TERROR CONSPIRACY by Jim Marrs. Publication date, Sept. 6, 2006 http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id206.html
[10] "War Games" by the US military on 9/11: paralysis of air defenses that ensured the success of the attacks? who coordinated these efforts?” http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html
[11] See [9].
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic/The Frustrating Fraud
December 15 2006
Perhaps the oddest case in the small but fertile world of government functionary-9/11 Truth crossover is that of Barbara Honegger, a dedicated but elusive and little seen 9/11 warrior with murky roots (apparently military and intelligence). She was allegedly into weird parapsychic stuff, channeling voices of supercomputers from the future and whatnot, [1] before she went to work in the late 1970s for a rising star named Martin Anderson at the Hoover Institute (where he remains as a Senior Fellow). She then followed Anderson to the White House as an assistant to join the Reagan-Bush transition team in 1980. Anderson advised Reagan on everything from foreign intelligence to education, finance, and arms control, probably worked for Bush sr., and during the Clinton Years focused on teaching classes at Stanford (home of the Hoover Institute and where Condi Rice was briefly provost). Anderson was later an advisor to George W. Bush in his 2000 presidential campaign, [2] and eventually became a member of Rumsfeld’s influential Defense Policy Board in 2001. [3]
 |
At the time she was also among the first to have leaked details of the “October Surprise” scandal, much of which was later verified by numerous involved parties. The deal was allegedly made by George Bush and William Casey to delay the release of the hostages in Iran - a delay that cost Carter the White House and gained it for Reagan and Bush. [5] Her charges culminated with the 1989 book “October Surprise,” predating Gary Sick’s work of the same name (which does not mention her) by two years. In the end, the scandal cost Reagan nothing, covered up by an investigation headed by a certain Lee Hamilton, who would go on later to 9/11 Commission and Iraq Study Group fame. Honegger later left a small mark on the Iran-Contra scandal, carried out as it was by largely the same networks responsible for the October Surprise, continuing to weave a picture of Bush-centered intrigue.
Despite all this, she not only remained alive but went on to tie Bush's son and former Defense Secretary in with carrying out 9/11, her works on which carry the disclaimer "all of Honegger’s research and publications on September 11 are solely in her capacity as a concerned private citizen and do not imply official endorsement." This is because in 1995 she was given a cushy job as Senior Military Affairs Journalist at the Naval Postgraduate School, which she holds till the present, writing about such things as a cyber-defense exercise in 2002: “all the National Security Agency’s Trojan horses and Air Force and Army’s info-warriors couldn’t break through the cyber walls erected by the Naval Postgraduate School’s ace “Blue” Team,” she wrote. [6] How ironic then that what some suspect of being NSA Trojan horse 9/11 arguments should have eventually broken through her psychic shields and into her research.
Honegger’s role in the 9/11 Truth movement is huge and will perhaps go down as her crowning achievement, for good or ill. Her legacy here is centered on revealing to Mike Ruppert inside info on the War Games of 9/11 which scrambled the defense and were probably co-ordinated by a Maestro working for Dick Cheney. These revelations formed what Ruppert called “in my opinion – the holy grail of 9/11 research,” and a key point for the smarter edge of the movement at large. [7] Her credentials thus seem solid, but her later works I’ve seen are sloppy and full of holes and leaps. In October 2004 she reportedly told a forum in Los Angeles that “shoe bomber” Richard Reid was really Osama bin Laden, who apparently dyed his hair, trimmed his beard, removed a few wrinkles and turned himself in as it were by trying to ignite his shoes on a trans-Atlantic flight. [8]
Honegger’s later works include "The Pentagon Attack Papers," published as an appendix in Jim Marrs’ “The Terror Conspiracy,” 2006, taking her squarely into this blog's turf. In her Pentagon analysis, she argued against a big plane and for a traditional bombing. This, she's certain, happened at 9:32, with anything happening at the official time of 9:37 being some sort of cover – possibly the impact of “an airborne object significantly smaller than […] a Boeing 757.” She cites a mixed bag of evidence, from hard fact like a stopped clock to repeated government “slips” to irrelevant coincidences, and has cited war games at the Pentagon that morning, which are unverifiable but likely incorrect. [9] (I will post on this theory in more detail sometime soon).
She has also tied the alleged original pilot of Flight 77 before it was hijacked, Captain Charles Burlingame, to “a Task Force that drafted the Pentagon's emergency response plan on what to do in case a plane hit the building.” She appears to be the source of the similar charge laid out in Loose Change, second edition’s opening segment. It’s an intriguing possibility, but it doesn’t help her tentative case that she then finds it “extremely likely, if not certain - that this 'task force' that […] Burlingame was part of was the Cheney counterterrorism preparedness task force, and that the Pentagon plane pilot, therefore, directly knew and even worked with/for Cheney.” [10] Maybe that parapsychic training is helping her to fill in the gaps with right-brain impulses or insights from the future that make it all make sense…
No more promising is her citation of “the already legion evidence that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon:" “the small hole in the west side of the Pentagon being not nearly large enough for the plane’s fuselage, let alone wing width," "no damage to the lawn where Flight 77 allegedly struck and skidded before hitting the building," "wrecked plane parts at the site identified as being from an A-3 Sky Warrior, a far smaller plane than that of Flight 77, a Boeing 757.” [11] Of course my debunkings are legion as well, or getting there. "The small hole" - the unmarked lawn - the plane parts - The A3 Sky Warrior Theory.
While her reputation in the movement is generally sterling and I don’t know enough to cast large stones, these aspects of Honegger’s works – her unexplained leaps, need to tie Cheney in personally, and especially disagreeing with me over the Pentagon evidence - are deeply flawed. Whatever her intentions, she has served as a useful and strangely credible-seeming source, and also a comet-riding psychic moonbat in the employ of the US military pushing among the worst 9/11 theories. That doesn't prove anything but it's worth considering.
Sources:
[1] http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/mindnet/mn202b.htm
[2] “2001: Mr. Hoover Goes to Washington?” Myszewski, David. Stanford Review. Volume XXV, Issue 6: January 2001
http://www.stanfordreview.org/Archive/Volume_XXVII/Issue_7/2001/
[3] Martin Anderson: Keith and Jan Hurlbut Senior Fellow. http://www.hoover.org/bios/anderson
[4] Source lost... I'll check at the library and get back...
[5] http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/JFKhonegger.htm
[6] Honegger, Barbara. “NPS Aces Second Annual DoD Cyber Defense Exercise.” http://www.nps.navy.mil/PAO/Internal/Cyber_Defense.htm
[7] Ruppert, page 336.
[8] Propaganda Patterns: Official Stories, Limited Hang Outs, Best Evidence, Distracting Disinformation
a political map of political collapse and possibilities. http://www.oilempire.us/propaganda.html
[9] Honegger, Barbara. “THE PENTAGON ATTACK PAPERS: Seven Hours in September: The Clock that Broke the Lie”
Appendix to THE TERROR CONSPIRACY by Jim Marrs. Publication date, Sept. 6, 2006 http://johnmccarthy90066.tripod.com/id206.html
[10] "War Games" by the US military on 9/11: paralysis of air defenses that ensured the success of the attacks? who coordinated these efforts?” http://www.oilempire.us/wargames.html
[11] See [9].
Thursday, January 11, 2007
THE PENTAGON PILOT'S PENCHANT FOR PARALLELISM
THE BURLINGAME SEAM
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic / The Frustrating Fraud
January 11 2007
edited 1/21
"One of the true ironies of this crash is that it was into the Pentagon, where he worked for many years as a naval reserve officer. The people that perished in that crash could very well have been friends and colleagues of his."
– Brad Burlingame, brother of the deceased Flight 77 pilot.
The Pentagon was not unprepared for a hijacked 757 strike – though there was no warning and thus no time to implement them, in fact a new set of procedures had apparently just been approved. This was based on the findings of a series of at least two drills. Beginning with a MASCAL in October 2000 that posited a small passenger plane crashing into the building’s courtyard, followed by a reported exercise in May based on a hijacked Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon as an “ersatz guided missile.” Strange but true, they prepared for the 9/11 scenario just months before it came crushingly true, at least according to two reputable Pentagon-connected news sources. But sadly due to the radar blind spot we’re told, there was never any awareness of the plane and no time to put the new plan into motion so it became useless, another part of the tragedy of un-preparedness we’d need to “set right” after the attacks.
According to numerous 9/11 Truthers, one of the prime movers in the formation of this new and failed plan was Navy Captain Charles “Chic” Burlingame; Barbara Honegger specified as far back as late 2002 that Burlingame had “recently […] been part of a Task Force that drafted the Pentagon's emergency response plan on what to do in case a plane hit the building.” [1] Burlingame was also a pilot for American Airlines, who famously went on to be the very pilot assigned to Flight 77 – a Boeing 757 - before he lost control of it to the hijackers who crashed it into the Pentagon, fulfilling the terms of the second drill. If we think about this just a second, we see that this seems well beyond the realm of coincidence and “irony” as any official story that acknowledged all this would argue.
But there are problems with this construct, although it does seem more substantiated than the no-757 claims. The only “reputable” source I’ve seen indicating this is even worth considering is an early Washington Post piece stating that Burlingame had been “a Navy F-4 pilot and once worked on anti-terrorism strategies in the Pentagon.” [2] It would then be undeniably ironic – which is not always the same as relevant - that he should die in a terror attack on the Pentagon. Note that he worked in the Pentagon on countering terrorism in general, not countering or preparing for terrorist strikes against the Pentagon.
Loose Change, where I first heard of this seam, gives no source for his MASCAL involvement, but claims as evidence that Burlingame retired the Navy and went to work for American Airlines less than a year before the attack, or just after the drill. In actuality, he started flying for them in 1979, and retired from his reserve status in the Navy in 1996 to focus full-time on flying. [3] Another bitter irony! He was nearing retirement age at that job too, before his life stream was cut short one day from his 52nd birthday - September 12, 2001. (Later on and after a long battle, his special death earned him and his wife status to be buried at Arlington cemetery, normally reserved for service members who managed to live to 60.) [4]
The source Loose Change was citing seems to be Barbara Honegger, who sa Chic in on the plane preparations. It doesn’t help her tentative late 2002 case here that she then finds it “extremely likely, if not certain - that this 'task force' that Flight 77 pilot ‘Chick’ Burlingame was part of was the Cheney counterterrorism preparedness task force, and that the Pentagon plane pilot, therefore, directly knew and even worked with/for Cheney.” [5] That’s quite a leap, but the timing seems possible; he retired in 1996 and was allegedly involved with MASCAL in late 2000, possibly as a private-sector advisor. Cheney’s task force was created by President Bush in May 2001, to make the nation’s responses to a WMD attack “seamlessly integrated” under Cheney’s eye to “do the very best possible job of protecting our people from catastrophic harm.” [6] It had nothing to do with air defense, hijackings, or non-WMD terror threats as far as I've seen, but was directly headed by another recent Navy retiree and ace pilot, Admiral Steven Abbott. So Burlingame seems a likely candidate to come on board as well, but that he’d be working from the cockpit of a plane rather than an office at the White House seems a bit odd.
It’s hard to know if Burlingame was involved with this, shrouded as it is in secrecy. The effort’s staff director was in fact Col. John Fenzel III, director of Cheney’s energy task force, until then the prime model of Bush administration secrecy and apparent malevolence. But with unexplained certainty Loose Change has Burlingame in on MASCAL and Honegger has him in on Cheney's ‘effort’ with his questionable plane-into-Pentagon resumé. Though the clustering of coincidences here is stuning, especially when we factor in circumstantial cases like his only daughter dying in a suspicious apartment fire in Deember 2006, we're left with a tangled knot of unresolved mystery centered in the cockpit of a doomed airliner five years ago. If this Burlingame seam is indeed a scripted part of the master story, it would serve no practical purpose I can see in the event itself. But by making sure it was his plane that hit the Pentagon, as a follow-up psychological operation it could serve to draw attention via its oddities and suck energy into a seam that ultimately is probably irrelevant even though it seems a tempting window onto the true mechanics.
Or is this all just coincidence after all?
Sources:
[1], [5] Honegger, Barbara. "Feature: The U.S. Government, Not the Hijackers, 'Chose' the Date of the 9-11 Attacks"
Barbara Honegger. December 13 2002. http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/12-14-02/discussion.cgi.28.shtml
[2] September 11, 2001 By David Maraniss Washington Post. September 16 2001. Page A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38407-2001Sep15
[3] Loose Change. Second Edition. 4:07
[4] http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/cfburling3.htm
[6] Ruppert. Crossing the Rubicon. Page 412.
[9] Congressional Quarterly. April 15, 2004.Accessed August 5, 2005 at: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2004/congressionalquarterly041504.html
Adam Larson
Caustic Logic / The Frustrating Fraud
January 11 2007
edited 1/21
"One of the true ironies of this crash is that it was into the Pentagon, where he worked for many years as a naval reserve officer. The people that perished in that crash could very well have been friends and colleagues of his."
– Brad Burlingame, brother of the deceased Flight 77 pilot.
The Pentagon was not unprepared for a hijacked 757 strike – though there was no warning and thus no time to implement them, in fact a new set of procedures had apparently just been approved. This was based on the findings of a series of at least two drills. Beginning with a MASCAL in October 2000 that posited a small passenger plane crashing into the building’s courtyard, followed by a reported exercise in May based on a hijacked Boeing 757 crashing into the Pentagon as an “ersatz guided missile.” Strange but true, they prepared for the 9/11 scenario just months before it came crushingly true, at least according to two reputable Pentagon-connected news sources. But sadly due to the radar blind spot we’re told, there was never any awareness of the plane and no time to put the new plan into motion so it became useless, another part of the tragedy of un-preparedness we’d need to “set right” after the attacks.
According to numerous 9/11 Truthers, one of the prime movers in the formation of this new and failed plan was Navy Captain Charles “Chic” Burlingame; Barbara Honegger specified as far back as late 2002 that Burlingame had “recently […] been part of a Task Force that drafted the Pentagon's emergency response plan on what to do in case a plane hit the building.” [1] Burlingame was also a pilot for American Airlines, who famously went on to be the very pilot assigned to Flight 77 – a Boeing 757 - before he lost control of it to the hijackers who crashed it into the Pentagon, fulfilling the terms of the second drill. If we think about this just a second, we see that this seems well beyond the realm of coincidence and “irony” as any official story that acknowledged all this would argue.
But there are problems with this construct, although it does seem more substantiated than the no-757 claims. The only “reputable” source I’ve seen indicating this is even worth considering is an early Washington Post piece stating that Burlingame had been “a Navy F-4 pilot and once worked on anti-terrorism strategies in the Pentagon.” [2] It would then be undeniably ironic – which is not always the same as relevant - that he should die in a terror attack on the Pentagon. Note that he worked in the Pentagon on countering terrorism in general, not countering or preparing for terrorist strikes against the Pentagon.
Loose Change, where I first heard of this seam, gives no source for his MASCAL involvement, but claims as evidence that Burlingame retired the Navy and went to work for American Airlines less than a year before the attack, or just after the drill. In actuality, he started flying for them in 1979, and retired from his reserve status in the Navy in 1996 to focus full-time on flying. [3] Another bitter irony! He was nearing retirement age at that job too, before his life stream was cut short one day from his 52nd birthday - September 12, 2001. (Later on and after a long battle, his special death earned him and his wife status to be buried at Arlington cemetery, normally reserved for service members who managed to live to 60.) [4]
The source Loose Change was citing seems to be Barbara Honegger, who sa Chic in on the plane preparations. It doesn’t help her tentative late 2002 case here that she then finds it “extremely likely, if not certain - that this 'task force' that Flight 77 pilot ‘Chick’ Burlingame was part of was the Cheney counterterrorism preparedness task force, and that the Pentagon plane pilot, therefore, directly knew and even worked with/for Cheney.” [5] That’s quite a leap, but the timing seems possible; he retired in 1996 and was allegedly involved with MASCAL in late 2000, possibly as a private-sector advisor. Cheney’s task force was created by President Bush in May 2001, to make the nation’s responses to a WMD attack “seamlessly integrated” under Cheney’s eye to “do the very best possible job of protecting our people from catastrophic harm.” [6] It had nothing to do with air defense, hijackings, or non-WMD terror threats as far as I've seen, but was directly headed by another recent Navy retiree and ace pilot, Admiral Steven Abbott. So Burlingame seems a likely candidate to come on board as well, but that he’d be working from the cockpit of a plane rather than an office at the White House seems a bit odd.
It’s hard to know if Burlingame was involved with this, shrouded as it is in secrecy. The effort’s staff director was in fact Col. John Fenzel III, director of Cheney’s energy task force, until then the prime model of Bush administration secrecy and apparent malevolence. But with unexplained certainty Loose Change has Burlingame in on MASCAL and Honegger has him in on Cheney's ‘effort’ with his questionable plane-into-Pentagon resumé. Though the clustering of coincidences here is stuning, especially when we factor in circumstantial cases like his only daughter dying in a suspicious apartment fire in Deember 2006, we're left with a tangled knot of unresolved mystery centered in the cockpit of a doomed airliner five years ago. If this Burlingame seam is indeed a scripted part of the master story, it would serve no practical purpose I can see in the event itself. But by making sure it was his plane that hit the Pentagon, as a follow-up psychological operation it could serve to draw attention via its oddities and suck energy into a seam that ultimately is probably irrelevant even though it seems a tempting window onto the true mechanics.
Or is this all just coincidence after all?
Sources:
[1], [5] Honegger, Barbara. "Feature: The U.S. Government, Not the Hijackers, 'Chose' the Date of the 9-11 Attacks"
Barbara Honegger. December 13 2002. http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/12-14-02/discussion.cgi.28.shtml
[2] September 11, 2001 By David Maraniss Washington Post. September 16 2001. Page A01 http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38407-2001Sep15
[3] Loose Change. Second Edition. 4:07
[4] http://www.arlingtoncemetery.net/cfburling3.htm
[6] Ruppert. Crossing the Rubicon. Page 412.
[9] Congressional Quarterly. April 15, 2004.Accessed August 5, 2005 at: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2004/congressionalquarterly041504.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
