News and Views you don't have to lose:
Move Evidence that 9-11 cover-up 19 July 05
The government may have fooled millions of Americans with its cockamamie official story, but the former fighter pilot, Russ Wittenberg, who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam and who sat for 35 years in the cockpit for Pan Am and United, wasn’t one of them.
Concerning 9/11, Wittenberg knew right off the bat the hijackers - who couldn’t handle a Piper Cub - couldn’t fly the ‘big birds” he flew for so many years, knowing the planes were also incapable of performing such high speed maneuvers as the government claimed.
Knowing the flight characteristics of the “big birds” like the back of his hand, Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77could have “descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.”
Wittenberg claimed the high speed maneuver would have surely stalled the jetliner sending it into a nose dive, adding it was “totally impossible for an amateur who couldn’t even fly a Cessna to maneuver the jetliner in such a highly professional manner, something Wittenberg said he couldn’t do with 35 years of commercial jetliner experience.
“For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible – there is not one chance in a thousand,” said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727’s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737’s through 767’s it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.
“I had to be trained to use the new, computerized systems. I just couldn’t jump in and fly one,” he added.
Finding more inconsistencies with the government story about Flight 77, Wittenberg recalled the recent statements made by a flight controller on an ABC 20/20 television program three months ago.
“If you listened to her carefully only an experienced pilot probably would have known that what she was saying was scripted,” said Wittenberg. “Remember the transponder was turned off on Flight 77 and when this occurs, all the particular flight data like air speed and even the plane’s flight identification goes with it.
“All that’s left on the controller’s screen is a green blip, that’s it. But here you have this flight controller on 20/20 saying she was tracking the flight with specific air speed and other coordinates which was totally impossible once the transponder was turned off. How would she even have known the flight number? The whole story is a pack of lies and this is just another example.”
“I ask them explain how Building No.7 collapsed? I ask them why haven’t the “black boxes” been recovered? I ask them to explain how jet fuel – fuel that burns cold not hot -- could bring down two high rise structures when more than 90% of the fuel on board burned outside the buildings?”
http://www.lewisnews.com/article.asp?ID=106623
HOW COMCAST CENSORS POLITICAL CONTENT
July 16, 2005 -- According to a recent Zogby poll, 42 percent of Americans favor impeachment proceedings if the President lied about the reasons for war, and according to a recent ABC News / Washington Post poll, 52 percent think he did. But this story is nowhere to be found in the corporate media. So, our website attracts a lot of traffic......We didn't know it, but for the past week, anyone using Comcast has been unable to receive any Email with "www.afterdowningstreet.org" in the body of the Email. That has included every Email from me, since that was in my signature at the bottom of every Email I sent. And it included any Email linking people to any information about the upcoming events.
From the flood this evening of Emails saying "Oh, so that's why I haven't heard anything from you guys lately," it seems clear that we would have significantly more events organized by now for the 23rd if not for this block by Comcast. Disturbingly, Comcast did not notify us of this block. It took us a number of days to nail down Comcast as the cause of the problems, and then more days, working with Comcast's abuse department to identify exactly what was going on. We'd reached that point by Thursday, but Comcast was slow to fix the problem.
During the day on Friday we escalated our threats to flood Comcast's executives with phone calls and cancellations, and we gave them deadlines. Friday evening, Comcast passed the buck to Symantec. Comcast said that Symantec's Bright Mail filter was blocking the Emails, and that Symantec refused to lift the block, because they had supposedly received 46,000 complaints about Emails with our URL in them. Forty-six thousand! Of course, Symantec was working for Comcast, and Comcast could insist that they shape up, or drop them. But Comcast wasn't interested in doing that.
Could we see two or three, or even one, of those 46,000 complaints? No, and Comcast claimed that Symantec wouldn't share them with Comcast either. By the time Comcast had passed the buck to the company that it was paying to filter its customers Emails, Brad Blog had posted an article about the situation and urged people to complain to Comcast.
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001602.htm
Brad quickly added Symantec phone numbers to the story on his website, and we called Symantec's communications department, which fixed the problem in a matter of minutes.So, why does this matter? Comcast has a near monopoly on high-speed internet service in much of this country, including much of the Washington, D.C., area. Many members of the media and many people involved in politics rely on it. Three days ago, I almost decided to put a satellite dish on my roof. There's no other way for me to get high-speed internet, unless I use Comcast. Comcast effectively censors discussion of particular political topics, and impedes the ability of people to associate with each other, with absolutely no compulsion to explain itself. There is no due process. A phrase or web address is tried and convicted in absentia and without the knowledge of those involved.
Now, did Comcast do this because it opposes impeaching the President? I seriously doubt it. Apparently the folks at Symantec did this, and Comcast condoned it. But why? Well, we have no evidence to suggest that these 46,000 complaints actually exist, but we can be fairly certain that if they do, they were generated by someone politically opposed to our agenda. There's simply no possible way that we've accidentally annoyed 46,000 random people with stray Emails and mistyped addresses. We've only been around for a month and a half, and we haven't spammed anyone. In fact, during the course of trying to resolve the problem, Comcast assured us that they knew we hadn't spammed anyone. And once we'd gotten Symantec's attention, they didn't hesitate to lift the block. But it had taken serious pressure to find out what the problem was and who to ask for a remedy.
We only solved this because we could threaten a flood of negative attention. This state of affairs means that anyone who wants to stifle public and quasi-private discussion of a topic can quite easily do so by generating numerous spam complaints. The victims of the complaints will not be notified, made aware of the accusations against them, or provided an opportunity to defend themselves. And if the complaints prove bogus, there will be absolutely no penalty for having made them. And this won't affect only small-time information sources. If the New York Times or CNN attempts to send people Email with a forbidden phrase, it won't reach Comcast customers or customers of any ISP using the same or similar filtering program. And there is no public list posted anywhere of which phrases are not permitted.
This is a Kafkan world. This is censorship as it affects a prisoner who sends out letters and does not know if they will reach the recipient or be destroyed. What if I had tried to Email someone about a serious health emergency during the past week, but they had been using Comcast and I had been including the address of my website in my Email signature? Is this not a safety issue?Above all, though, this is a First Amendment issue, as is well laid out in this excerpt of a statement released today by People-Link.org, the organization hosting the www.afterdowningstreet.org site: "This goes far beyond the normal anti-spam measures taken by major providers and represents an effective blocking of constitutionally protected expression and the fundamental right to organize and act politically on issues of concern."
Most spam blocking measures focus on the email address or the IP address of the suspected spammer. While there are anti-spam measures directed at the body of the email, these usually target attachments that could contain virus programs. "Targeting the inclusion of a website url can only have one outcome: that communications about that website and the issue it is presenting will be blocked from large numbers of people and that the communications from that site's administrators and the campaign's organizers will not reach their full constituency."
Whether Comcast's intention or not, this is effectively political and unconstitutional."It keeps people from getting valuable information about a campaign that is, in the opinion of many, critical to the future of this country's political system."It disrupts the organizing of this campaign and cripples the campaign's ability to use its most effective communications tool: the Internet." It damages people's confidence in this campaign since many people who write the campaign can't receive the response they expect and that the campaign has sent."Perhaps the worst part of this development is that Comcast has been reportedly doing this without the knowledge of the managers of this website or anyone affiliated with this campaign. In fact, no Comcast customer has received any indication that email to him or her containing this url was blocked."--
David Swanson is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0716-20.htm
http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/3103/
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes. MY NEWSLETTER has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is MY NEWSLETTER endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewsViewsnolose
The government may have fooled millions of Americans with its cockamamie official story, but the former fighter pilot, Russ Wittenberg, who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam and who sat for 35 years in the cockpit for Pan Am and United, wasn’t one of them.
Concerning 9/11, Wittenberg knew right off the bat the hijackers - who couldn’t handle a Piper Cub - couldn’t fly the ‘big birds” he flew for so many years, knowing the planes were also incapable of performing such high speed maneuvers as the government claimed.
Knowing the flight characteristics of the “big birds” like the back of his hand, Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77could have “descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 270 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon’s first floor wall without touching the lawn.”
Wittenberg claimed the high speed maneuver would have surely stalled the jetliner sending it into a nose dive, adding it was “totally impossible for an amateur who couldn’t even fly a Cessna to maneuver the jetliner in such a highly professional manner, something Wittenberg said he couldn’t do with 35 years of commercial jetliner experience.
“For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible – there is not one chance in a thousand,” said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727’s to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737’s through 767’s it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying.
“I had to be trained to use the new, computerized systems. I just couldn’t jump in and fly one,” he added.
Finding more inconsistencies with the government story about Flight 77, Wittenberg recalled the recent statements made by a flight controller on an ABC 20/20 television program three months ago.
“If you listened to her carefully only an experienced pilot probably would have known that what she was saying was scripted,” said Wittenberg. “Remember the transponder was turned off on Flight 77 and when this occurs, all the particular flight data like air speed and even the plane’s flight identification goes with it.
“All that’s left on the controller’s screen is a green blip, that’s it. But here you have this flight controller on 20/20 saying she was tracking the flight with specific air speed and other coordinates which was totally impossible once the transponder was turned off. How would she even have known the flight number? The whole story is a pack of lies and this is just another example.”
“I ask them explain how Building No.7 collapsed? I ask them why haven’t the “black boxes” been recovered? I ask them to explain how jet fuel – fuel that burns cold not hot -- could bring down two high rise structures when more than 90% of the fuel on board burned outside the buildings?”
http://www.lewisnews.com/article.asp?ID=106623
HOW COMCAST CENSORS POLITICAL CONTENT
July 16, 2005 -- According to a recent Zogby poll, 42 percent of Americans favor impeachment proceedings if the President lied about the reasons for war, and according to a recent ABC News / Washington Post poll, 52 percent think he did. But this story is nowhere to be found in the corporate media. So, our website attracts a lot of traffic......We didn't know it, but for the past week, anyone using Comcast has been unable to receive any Email with "www.afterdowningstreet.org" in the body of the Email. That has included every Email from me, since that was in my signature at the bottom of every Email I sent. And it included any Email linking people to any information about the upcoming events.
From the flood this evening of Emails saying "Oh, so that's why I haven't heard anything from you guys lately," it seems clear that we would have significantly more events organized by now for the 23rd if not for this block by Comcast. Disturbingly, Comcast did not notify us of this block. It took us a number of days to nail down Comcast as the cause of the problems, and then more days, working with Comcast's abuse department to identify exactly what was going on. We'd reached that point by Thursday, but Comcast was slow to fix the problem.
During the day on Friday we escalated our threats to flood Comcast's executives with phone calls and cancellations, and we gave them deadlines. Friday evening, Comcast passed the buck to Symantec. Comcast said that Symantec's Bright Mail filter was blocking the Emails, and that Symantec refused to lift the block, because they had supposedly received 46,000 complaints about Emails with our URL in them. Forty-six thousand! Of course, Symantec was working for Comcast, and Comcast could insist that they shape up, or drop them. But Comcast wasn't interested in doing that.
Could we see two or three, or even one, of those 46,000 complaints? No, and Comcast claimed that Symantec wouldn't share them with Comcast either. By the time Comcast had passed the buck to the company that it was paying to filter its customers Emails, Brad Blog had posted an article about the situation and urged people to complain to Comcast.
http://www.bradblog.com/archives/00001602.htm
Brad quickly added Symantec phone numbers to the story on his website, and we called Symantec's communications department, which fixed the problem in a matter of minutes.So, why does this matter? Comcast has a near monopoly on high-speed internet service in much of this country, including much of the Washington, D.C., area. Many members of the media and many people involved in politics rely on it. Three days ago, I almost decided to put a satellite dish on my roof. There's no other way for me to get high-speed internet, unless I use Comcast. Comcast effectively censors discussion of particular political topics, and impedes the ability of people to associate with each other, with absolutely no compulsion to explain itself. There is no due process. A phrase or web address is tried and convicted in absentia and without the knowledge of those involved.
Now, did Comcast do this because it opposes impeaching the President? I seriously doubt it. Apparently the folks at Symantec did this, and Comcast condoned it. But why? Well, we have no evidence to suggest that these 46,000 complaints actually exist, but we can be fairly certain that if they do, they were generated by someone politically opposed to our agenda. There's simply no possible way that we've accidentally annoyed 46,000 random people with stray Emails and mistyped addresses. We've only been around for a month and a half, and we haven't spammed anyone. In fact, during the course of trying to resolve the problem, Comcast assured us that they knew we hadn't spammed anyone. And once we'd gotten Symantec's attention, they didn't hesitate to lift the block. But it had taken serious pressure to find out what the problem was and who to ask for a remedy.
We only solved this because we could threaten a flood of negative attention. This state of affairs means that anyone who wants to stifle public and quasi-private discussion of a topic can quite easily do so by generating numerous spam complaints. The victims of the complaints will not be notified, made aware of the accusations against them, or provided an opportunity to defend themselves. And if the complaints prove bogus, there will be absolutely no penalty for having made them. And this won't affect only small-time information sources. If the New York Times or CNN attempts to send people Email with a forbidden phrase, it won't reach Comcast customers or customers of any ISP using the same or similar filtering program. And there is no public list posted anywhere of which phrases are not permitted.
This is a Kafkan world. This is censorship as it affects a prisoner who sends out letters and does not know if they will reach the recipient or be destroyed. What if I had tried to Email someone about a serious health emergency during the past week, but they had been using Comcast and I had been including the address of my website in my Email signature? Is this not a safety issue?Above all, though, this is a First Amendment issue, as is well laid out in this excerpt of a statement released today by People-Link.org, the organization hosting the www.afterdowningstreet.org site: "This goes far beyond the normal anti-spam measures taken by major providers and represents an effective blocking of constitutionally protected expression and the fundamental right to organize and act politically on issues of concern."
Most spam blocking measures focus on the email address or the IP address of the suspected spammer. While there are anti-spam measures directed at the body of the email, these usually target attachments that could contain virus programs. "Targeting the inclusion of a website url can only have one outcome: that communications about that website and the issue it is presenting will be blocked from large numbers of people and that the communications from that site's administrators and the campaign's organizers will not reach their full constituency."
Whether Comcast's intention or not, this is effectively political and unconstitutional."It keeps people from getting valuable information about a campaign that is, in the opinion of many, critical to the future of this country's political system."It disrupts the organizing of this campaign and cripples the campaign's ability to use its most effective communications tool: the Internet." It damages people's confidence in this campaign since many people who write the campaign can't receive the response they expect and that the campaign has sent."Perhaps the worst part of this development is that Comcast has been reportedly doing this without the knowledge of the managers of this website or anyone affiliated with this campaign. In fact, no Comcast customer has received any indication that email to him or her containing this url was blocked."--
David Swanson is a co-founder of After Downing Street, a writer and activist, and the Washington Director of Democrats.com. He is a board member of Progressive Democrats of America, and serves on the Executive Council of the Washington-Baltimore Newspaper Guild, TNG-CWA. He has worked as a newspaper reporter and as a communications director, with jobs including Press Secretary for Dennis Kucinich's 2004 presidential campaign, Media Coordinator for the International Labor Communications Association, and three years as Communications Coordinator for ACORN, the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now. Swanson obtained a Master's degree in philosophy from the University of Virginia in 1997.http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0716-20.htm
http://www.ufppc.org/content/view/3103/
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit for research and educational purposes. MY NEWSLETTER has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is MY NEWSLETTER endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NewsViewsnolose
posted by T. Scott Brineman at 4:44 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home