www.Usenet.com
www.Usenet.com
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
Boudewijn Wegerif of Sweden is a leading voice in the world against the
current world monetary system and so-called free-trade and globalization
policies. How Wegerif and Kaminski agree that 9-11-01, shown to be a
false-flag black-op inside-job frame-up (see the evidence from the Pentagon
attack), is not a moot point, as Ruppert has been declaring it and continues
to declare, but actually is the exposed and vulnerable Achilles heel of
guilty mass-murdering war-profiteering debt-slavery globalization. --DE
Kaminski on Ruppert:
Having drawn an incisive parallel between 9/11 and the Kennedy
assassinations, Ruppert comes up with a red herring. He cites out of his
experience as an activist for government transparency, that nothing will be
accomplished by "those newly awakened voices of opposition who expend
needless energy debating whether explosives were placed in the towers,
whether the planes were remote controlled, whether an airliner really hit
the Pentagon..........."
Contra Ruppert:
" The fact that the government has been so effective with disinformation, so
as to turn every truth about what happened into a debating point, is no
reason to stop knocking at the door. No, lets start hammering. I firmly
believe that the established US government lie will be overturned, and so
great will be the struggle for this, there will be a domino effect. With the
overturning of the 9/11 lie, the established lies about the assassination of
the Kennedy brothers (and Martin Luther King) will also be overturned. And
from that will follow the overturning of the common mindset, which we all
share and which allows the bankers usury that underpins the inhuman,
competitive power structure that is today, now, killing the rain forests,
killing the dolphins and whales, killing, simply killing, for money, for
gain."
Received Boudewijn Wegerif (What Matters Programme, Sweden):
Dear friends of John Kaminski,
You may be interested in the What Matters commentary, below - 'To stop the
killing' - just
posted to the What Matters E-letter list, in which I agree with John
Kaminski, re Michael Ruppert's article.
Regards,
Boudewijn Wegerif
http://www.whatmatters.nu
_________________
WHAT MATTERS-154 --November 27, 2003
To stop the killing -
A commentary on 'The Kennedys, Physical Evidence and 9/11' by Michael
Ruppert, posted yesterday at
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/112603_kennedy.html
______________________
Dear list members,
Your gratitude to Michael Ruppert of From the Wilderness will accompany
mine, I am sure, when you read his article 'The Kennedys, Physical Evidence
and 9/11' attached.
In the article Ruppert spells out clearly the now obvious fact that "the
U.S. government was a deliberate facilitator of the attacks before they
occurred." And he spells out equally clearly the lie to the barrage of
anniversary programmes last week to commemorate the 'lone killer'
assassination of JFK, and incidentally the assassination of his brother
Robert by another 'lone killer'.
The conclusion Ruppert draws is that:
"PHYSICAL EVIDENCE - AS OBVIOUS AND GLARING AS IT MIGHT BE - HAS NEVER
BEFORE SUCCEEDED IN OVERTURNING AN ESTABLISHED GOVERNMENT LIE IN THE MINDS
OF THE PEOPLE."
We need to face up to this. We need to recognise the money beast's success
in getting away with murder.
Sadly, Michael Ruppert comes across as too accepting of that, however.
THE OBVIOUS TRUTH
Significantly, Ruppert's FTW (From The Wilderness) well-selling and much
seen video 'The Truth and Lies of 9/11' opens with a single segment from the
Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination, shot on November 22, 1963, which
shows that with the fatal head shot, JFK's body was pushed backwards and not
forwards.
"In the simplest laws of physics this means one thing and one thing only;
the shot was fired from JFK's front and hence, not by Oswald." Yet, writes
Ruppert in this week's article, so effective has been the mind-numbing media
coverage of events, at the end of the deluge of confusing anniversary
programmes, "one was left with the message that it was still likely Oswald,
a long-dead progenitor of crazed, lone, twentieth century-gunmen, who did
it."
Ruppert goes on: "The historical corollary to JFK's front-to-back motion is
the collapse of WTC Building 7, which was not struck by an aircraft at all,
and yet it collapsed faster than gravity would permit - and perfectly within
its own footprint. Inside that building were choice bits of history and
evidence. . . .Nothing makes sense to explain the collapse of this building
except controlled demolition. . . . It is inconceivable that this building
was brought down by planes that hit buildings approximately a hundred yards
away. But are there common citizens who believe it?"
SO WHERE DO WE GO FROM HERE?
Having drawn an incisive parallel between 9/11 and the Kennedy
assassinations, Ruppert comes up with a red herring.
He cites out of his experience as an activist for government transparency,
that nothing will be accomplished by "those newly awakened voices of
opposition who expend needless energy debating whether explosives were
placed in the towers, whether the planes were remote controlled, whether an
airliner really hit the Pentagon, or whether maybe Congress will actually do
something about any of it."
These debates, he argues, "are worse than rearranging the deck chairs on the
Titanic. They are expediting the demise of people who could otherwise be
constructing life rafts. The proof already exists that the government lied."
The central issue for Ruppert, on which he wants us to focus, is that the
government needed the 9/11 attack to "cause the American people to support
'the imperial mobilization necessary' to control 60 percent of the world's
known energy resources".
"The fact is that the world is starting to run out of hydrocarbon energy,
right now," writes Ruppert. "Wars, famines, economic failure and plagues are
upon us today. The children of the Bull Market are dying in Iraq and
Afghanistan." Therefore, Peak Oil and Gas is "the real story - the only
story. . . 9/11 was its first visible manifestation. I fight to expose Peak
Oil in part by exposing 9/11 in a way that registers in the public
consciousness. That is my obligation to my readers and - as I see it - to my
fellow man."
BUT WAIT A MINUTE - FIRST THINGS FIRST.
A crime has been committed; high treason, in fact. Justice must prevail, no
matter what the cost and consequences.
We have to keep knocking at the door to the truth about 9/11 - knowing that
that door will not open except out of a tremendous struggle in the land,
with reverberations right round the world.
The fact that the government has been so effective with disinformation, so
as to turn every truth about what happened into a debating point, is no
reason to stop knocking at the door. No, lets start hammering.
I firmly believe that the established US government lie will be overturned,
and so great will be the struggle for this, there will be a domino effect.
With the overturning of the 9/11 lie, the established lies about the
assassination of the Kennedy brothers (and Martin Luther King) will also be
overturned. And from that will follow the overturning of the common mindset,
which we all share and which allows the bankers usury that underpins the
inhuman, competitive power structure that is today, now, killing the rain
forests, killing the dolphins and whales, killing, simply killing, for
money, for gain.
I agree with John Kaminski, who sent me the Ruppert article, "9/11 is the
story of the millennium, the accurate reporting of which is the one thing
that could actually lead to peace in this world. It is a story if accurately
reported will not only bring down the Bush gang but the capitalist system
and its fake terror and legal immunity from charges of treason, robbery and
mass murder."
In friendship.
Boudewijn Wegerif,
What Matters Programme
Folkhogskola Vardingeby
150 21 Molnby, Sweden.
========
Note:
Mike Ruppert has aligned himself with John Judge and Kyle Hence who pose as
9-11 investigators and have self-appointed themselves as the sole
"watchdogs" of the "still worthwhile" 9-11 Commission -- pretending that
the latter is a serious investigation as long as responsible and respectable
moderate people like Judge and Hence "watch" it and nudge it along, this
while declaring that all investigations by independent 9-11 investigators
which have reached conclusions of mass-murder inside-job frame-up are
irresponsible blinded-by-anti-government-sentiment types etc. Ruppert's
letter, criticized above, was written as an endorsement of Judge and Hence
and the "Citizen's Watch" those two have created to lend new "public
oversight" credability to a thoroughly discredited proven coverup/whitewash
commission.
Of greatest concern is how Judge and Hence have gotten to the 9-11 victim
families and are filtering the information the families receive. Gerard
Holmgren writes on this new aspect of the vast 9-11-01 coverup operation:
------
I agree with what most of Peter has written here. However, we need to accept
that there will always be some who will blindly repeat that 2+2 = 5, just
because the govt tells them so. This in itself is not a matter for concern
and if Kyle and John Judge wish to part of that zombie group, thats up to
them.
What concerns me more is the deception that they are dissenting from the
chant and their use of that deception to filter the information that gets to
those who have perhaps more right than any to alternative sources of
information - the families.
Kyle has now admitted that has been in a postion to send significant
information to the families and has taken an executive decision not to do
so - and unforgiveably - has taken this executive decision without a full
and frank disclosure of this decision to those who have worked so hard to
uncover the truth and to distribute it as widely as possible - to then have
it covertly blocked at the very point where it may have the most effect.
Kyle may issue corrections here if appropiate, but since his replies have
been so rambling and evasive, I have been forced to extract these
conclusions from his replies.
Kyle has not sent the families any of the following
1) the series of TENC articles relating to the stand down
2) the series of TENC articles relating to the complicit movements of Bush
on the morning
3) Any of the media reports about the living hijackers
4) The CCN lists which show no Arab names on any of the hijacker lists
5) The investigations into the Pentagon attack by Eastman, myself, Meyssun
and Killtown
6) Investigations into the demolition by J. McMichael, Jeff King and Jim
Hoffman
7) Media reports relating to the pre-planned invasion of Afghanistan
8) Northwoods
9) Webfairy's video analysis of the WTC strikes. Northwoods
10) Any of the extensive documentation by TENC and globalresearch into the
covert links between the US and Islamic extremism/OBL.
Not only has Kyle abused the work done by those who have created and
distributed these documents, he has abused the trust of the families by
making executive decisions about what "they need to know".
If any family memebr were to respond with "don't send me any more of this
garbage", then of course, one must respect that. But that's not what's
happened.
Kyle has chosen to give them the impression that alternative sources of
media and investigation do not differ significantly from the garbage that
they are getting on CNN, FOX etc.
The families deserve better than this, so do we, so does the rest of the
world suffering under the consequences of this horrifc deception.
-----------------------
I have challenged Judge and Hence to debate myself and Kaminsky on the
Commission's efficacy and on the sufficiency and conclusiveness of the
evidence that no airliner crashed into the Pentagon. Here is that
challenge:
All right, Mr. Judge and Mr. Hence -- we will debate on the air with Mr.
Rense (or Tom Valentine, or Victor Thorn etc. -- you pick the forum,
gentlemen.)
----------------------------------
My position:
Citizen's Watch, the soi-disant "responsible and competent" "watchdogs"
monitoring the 9-11 Commission, founded by John Judge and Kyle Hence, has
taken a position with respect to 9-11 investigators who have reached the
conclusion that neither AA Flight 77, nor any Boeing 757, nor any commercial
airliner crashed at the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. For example, John
has explained his urging that my findings be dismissed out of hand by
stating that what I have provided is "speculations" born of
anti-establishmentarian ideology not scientifically or lintelligently based
on evidence. John further represents that I have insisted with fanatic's
zeal that everyone must accept my conclusions because I say so or else be
branded a conspiracy traitor. At the same time, he exalts his objectivity
and scientific procedure with the credential that he has not reached any
conclusions in his capacity as investigator and watchdog, implying that not
reaching conclusions is the touchstone criteria of an unbiased mind capable
of sound judgement in the case.
I deny any speculation on my part. I deny any ideological loading or
biasing in my analysis of evidence and the resulting isolation of logical
implications.
Rather than weave a conspiracy, as John's characterization of my work
implies I have done, my sole procedure has been to subject the official
story, i.e., the Boeing-did-it-thesis, to the the physical evidence, the
photographic evidence and to witness accounts. My conclusions have been the
work of elimination of elimination of official story and the arguments
defending the official story by establishing that these stories contradict
what the photographs of the crash site (before the collapse of the wall),
what the pictures of the attack from the security video camera show, what
the civil engineers have reported, what the witnesses agree in reporting
(airliner over the Naval Annex, over the gas station etc.)
My conclusion does not tell what happened, but it eliminates by disproof
from evidence, of what could not have happened.
For example, a two engined airliner could not have crashed centered on
pillar 14 because there is no corresponding damage that would have resulted
from a starboard engine hitting between pillars 17 and 18 where several
photos show interior wall still standing where the engine would have had to
have smashed through.
For example, the white trail of smoke behind the tail fin cannot be
contrail, it being too thick and "creamy" and too exactly like a photograph
showing the trail made by an air-to-ground missile being fired by an F-16
rather than the pictures of off-wing turbulence in comparison.
For example, in the seccurity camera picture that follows the picture of the
missile smoke trail we see the 200 ft high white-hot explosion that
represents too much energy being released at one time to be accounted for by
an aluminum airliner with kerosene jet fuel (which burns red and organge)
hitting a reinforced structure office building.
In short my conclusions are of this type:
The various established evidence and witness testimony is inconsistent
with the airliner that people saw over the Annex and gas station being what
hit the Pentagon and what caused the explosion the security camera recorded.
In all I have presented 14 impossible contradictions between the evidence
and the "Boeing-did-it" story.
If you look at the archived evidence presentations, 911pentagon and
911_demonstrative_evidence_of_frameup yahoogroup boards you will see that
all of my conclusions are arrived at by testing the official story against
the physical, photographic and witness evidence, starting with the facts and
drawing implications with the logical deductive method..
Or maybe I am a liar.
I challenge John Judge and Kyle Hence to name the "speculation" they say I
have made. Let them point out even one example of a conclusion that is not
evidentary-data-based and evidentary-data-controlled.
I challenge them to even show that they are familiar with my findings by
stating, in their own words, at least three or four of the nine
evidence-based proofs that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon.
But, understand one thing. All of the above does not mean that after
having, by a processing of elimination by testing against evidence, reached
the conclusion that neither the Boeing nor any other airliner crashed at the
Pentagon, that, having established that, I have not gone on, building from
that evidence-derived conclusion, to explore the implications of the act --
namely that Pentagon leadership and the White House must know what did not
really hit their military world headquarters building, and that -- no big
jump -- they must be intimately involved in the crime, in the, I conclude,
mass-murder frameup.
So tell me John Judge and Kyle Hence -- where is my speculation not based
on fact? Where is my conclusion pulled out of a hat merely because I am a
political extremist.
And let me add this. Unlike readers who are coming to this "altercation"
mid-stream, I know how illogical and unfair and dishonest John Judge's
treatment of investigators who have reached conclusions from the known data
are -- and he does not ever criticize, say, Sarah Roberts, Mike Rivero, Ron
Harvey, Joe Vialls who "reach the conclusion" on the presently known
information that the Boeing did hit the Pentagon, but reserves his criticism
only for those who dared to conclude the opposite -- so that the "sin" of
reaching conclusions based on existing evidence is absolved if you happen to
reach a conclusion that supports the Administration, but not if you really
sift the data and isolate the critical evidence which establishes the
smallness of the aircraft, the missile-warhead intensity of the initial
explosion etc.
I expect a response from John Judge on this. And I expect those who
continue to elevate John Judge and Citizens Watch as the most credible and
responsible of the "9-11 sceptics" (so-called) to also defend their choice
of denegrating my work and elevating Judge and Hence as the only competent
evaluators of the work of the 9-11 Commission.
I speak for myself here. Let other 9-11 investigators speak for themselves.
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Every man is repsonsible to every other man.
========================
Incidentally, Kaminski points out that if there was a fire that burned up
the aluminum airliner to nearly nothing (impossible by the way), then how
possibly could the DNA identifications on all the passengers been made by
Rumsfeld's appointed forensics team when DNA is totally destroyed in
temperatures above a mere 200 degrees F.
==================================
Finally, here again is my recent note on Judge and Ruppert's sudden shift of
position against involvement to support the new, as Peter Meyer and Carol
Valentine (and me too) call it, "fake opposition" :
-------------------
Ruppert has been stonewalling, but now that Citizen's Watch is on the scene
doing a constrained blinders-on "pc" "watchdog's-view-from-master's-lap"
show of investigating what Ruppert has avoided before -- he now changes his
tune, praising Judge and Hence, where my efforts of 20 months Ruppert
studiously ignored.
Here is Ruppert's fake "repentence:"
> I have always stated that the "independent" 9/11 commission
> would be a failure, and that it was intended to be a whitewash.
> But thanks to diligent efforts to slam the documentary (and
> unscientific) record in their faces by victim families, 9/11
> Citizen's Watch and other groups and individuals, that
> commission has been forced to subpoena the FAA to find
> out why fighters were not scrambled on 9/11. It has been
> embarrassed to the point of threatening to subpoena the
> White House on foreknowledge, and it has now engaged
> in an inexcusable compromise to protect the incriminating
> secrets we know are there.
So Mike Ruppert is saying we can thank John Judge and Kyle Hence for getting
the Commission on 9-11 to supoena the FAA to find out why fighters were not
scrambled??? Come again? Supoena the who? And the FAA would know what
about the Air Force's exclusive business of intercepting potential security
threats besides nothing?
Obviously Ruppert is writing a love letter to the new look of the coverup.
I am not impressed by Ruppert's praise of Judge and Hence and Citizen's
Watch.
Look carefully at the defense these two highly suspicious "watchdogs" give
the coverup.
Judge says you can't trust anyone who has already reached a conclusion, that
to reach a conclusion is ipso facto proof of prejudicial bias.
He asserts, wrongly and based on God knows what, that I somehow reached my
conclusions before I looked at any data and then promulgated those
conclusions without any real evidentary basis -- which is not at all true,
as every step of my interaction with the data in reaching conclusions is
archived in yahoogroups and Usegroups as no other investigator's.. More than
anyone else, I show my work; I share my progress notes. THE FACT IS THAT MY
CONCLUSIONS ARE WHAT IS LEFT AFTER CAREFUL EXAMINATION OF ALL THE EVIDENCE,
KNOCKING DOWN EVERY UNSUPPORTABLE EXPLANATION INCUDING THE "OFFICAL
(COVERUP) STORY" UNTIL ONLY ONE POSSIBILITY REMAINS, THE EXPLANATION THAT
FITS EVERYTHING IS KNOWN, WHAT SCIENTIFIC INVESTAGATION FORCES US TO
CONCLUDE IS WHAT REALLY HAPPENED.
And not only does Judge say that those who have already reached a conclusion
can't be trusted, but Kyle Hence adds that those researchers who are
proceedingly objectively without stating conclusions at this point also
become suspect if they are tainted by contact with researchers who have
dared to violate scientific proceedure by actually daring to reach a
conclusion from evidence.
How Judge comes by this monumentally stupid and disingenuous judgement is
truly amazing.
He asserts that all existing evidence, i.e., the photos of the crash site,
the security camera pictures of the attack in progress, the witness
accounts, the civil engineers structural report, the data on the aircraft,
the physics, chemistry, chemsitry facts that have been appealed to -- are
all insufficient to reach any declaration and that the only possible source
for significant information is the documents not currently released that
only whatchdogs Judge and Hence and their staff are competent to know about
and ask for.
John Judge rejected my information without a hearing -- the archived
records show this -- in fact he entered the investigation scene making the
assertion that the even the possibility that Flight 77 did not hit the
Pentagon was too absurd to spent even a moment seriously considering.
Yet at the same time, he defended his closing of the question with what must
be the most transparent witness falsehood of the entire 9-11 story.
Judge has written that his stewardess friend saw and recongized the tail fin
of Flight 77 in the wreckage. He asserts that she was able to identify the
particular 757 as the 757 she regularly flew in from the wreckage she saw.
He claims that she was able to pick out a photo of her stewardess co-worker
when shown a photograph of a severed arm with a bracelette that she and her
friend both wore. He tells us that this stewardess was given clearance to
walk around in the wreckage to make positive identification of the plane --
back when no one was yet quesitoning whether a Boeing had really crashed
there or not. And based on this, Judge was able to wave away, to dismiss
without even looking, all the photographic evidence showing the
too-small-hole, the too-short aircraft, the smoke trial of the air-to-ground
missile, the 200 ft. high white-hot explosion, the lack of debris on the
grass, the proven piece of 757 debris that was planted and photographed
hundreds of feet north of the crash but which was a piece of an AA757 that
could only have come from the starboard side which side, for the actual
killer jet that hit the Pentagon, was facing south, not north; etc. etc.
Judge is also known to have said that the Airliner hit the ground before
hitting the building. But the untouched grass belies that story.
Judge is one of those who spread the impossible physics story of the wings
of the plane folding back and entering the hole made by the fuselage.
Judge also spoke as though the Boeing crashed with its landing gear down,
and that the landing gear "sheared off" the passenger side of a car that was
there.
None of the physical evidence supports Judge's statements. Quite the
contrary.
Yet he has managed to assume a superior standing and pontificat my
blacklisting from the ranks of serious responsible and creditable
investigators like him, who don't reach anything so vulgar as conclusions
from the data.
Kyle Hence has joined Judge in this exclusive-club of "responsible"
investigators mentality -- saying that the Physics911 group may be tainted
because of contact with investigators who have -- gasp! -- drawn
conclusions from careful examination and consideration the data that exists
and is available.
I say Kyle Hence and John Judge are a new layer of coverup -- the fake
opposition that will be puffed by media and other moles in the investigation
community -- so that they and they alone will be giving the "responsible"
critique of the 9-11 commission.
No way John Judge and Kyle Hence are playing honest.
These two disqualify any investigator who has reached a conclusion simply on
the grounds that he has dared to reach a conclusion. Never mind that they
are denying the standing of the hardest photographic evidence and witness
testimony. Judge has all but declared that since he has rejected data and
the conclusions drawn from the data of hand, that that implies that he has
the highest scientific standards and is better researchers -- and thus he
and Hense alone are good enough to form valid opinions about the merit of
the work of the 9-11 Commission. In other words, just cover your eyes and
play the sceptical naysayer and the mantle of more rigorous science will be
conferred upon you.
But that is not right.
The better scientist is the one who takes all the data into account and who
draws those implications and only those implications that can be derived
from that data. This I have done. What John Judge has done is to cover his
ears and shout "no, no, no." without giving any analysis, without even
engaging the hardest data.
The fact is that John Judge is not even familiar with the data.
And this will be their verdict. John Judge and Kyle Hence will get in front
of some microphones and they will say:
"There are serious questions about 9-11, and unfortunately no significant
conclusions can be drawn without the release of documents that the
administration has refused to provide and which the Commission has
compromised in settling for less of which than what would be sufficient to
get to he bottom of the matter. Thus alas, we are duely disgusted and
register our protest, but too bad, nothing can be concluded and it is a
disgrace so thank you very much we tried."
And they will be the great heroes, written up in so many mass paperback
editions -- "the heroes who almost cracked the case" but were prevented
from doing so by prevading secrecy. yada yada yada "
You doubt it?. Wait and see.
Dick Eastman
Yakima, Washington
Every man is responsible to every other man.
The evidence presented below conclusively establishes many times over that
9-11 was the work of Pentagon insiders Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Meyer, Perle,
Kissinger, Gingrich and Vice President Richard Cheney. A jet fighter and an
air-to-ground missile were used in the surgical ground-floor attack, while
the Boeing 757 overflew the explosion and crash and landed at Reagan
National only one mile ahead and to the right. This fact establishes top
Pentagon leadership's involvement, as Rumsfeld et al. immediately begain
acting and reinforcing the now obviously untrue coverup. The evidence of
the true nature of the attack, presented among the following, is sufficient
to convince any impartial jury anywhere in the world.
http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=3
http://physics911.org/net/modules/news/article.php?storyid=13
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/10
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/18
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/message/3
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/1
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/2
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/3
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/26
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/7
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/9-11-demonstrative-evidence-of-frameup/message/38
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war
http://physics911.org/net/
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm
http://www.911dossier.co.uk/
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman1.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman2.htm
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/77_deastman3.htm
http://www.the-movement.com/Hijackers/Agents.htm
http://www.waronfreedom.mediamonitors.net/index.html
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/pentagon911/message/2
http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm
http://amigaphil.planetinternet.be/PentagonCrash.html
http://disc.server.com/Indices/149495.html
http://www.etherzone.com
http://www.antiwar.com
http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.html#preface
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/
| <-- __Chronological__ --> | <-- __Thread__ --> |
