Former Pilot Says 'Jet Blast' Dismissal Doesn't Fly

A

Anders

Guest
I found this today on Prison Planet, and thought it interesting as we have talked before about the effect of Jetblast. The unnamed pilot wants people to focus on other 911 issues despite his own conviction that no-757 hit the pentagon. Reminds me of Michael Ruppert, who didn't want people to look at the Pentagon attack.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/230506doesntfly.htm

Former Pilot Says 'Jet Blast' Dismissal Doesn't Fly
Contradicts facts of previous story about Flight 77 knocking cars off Pentagon highway

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | May 23 2006

Following the publication of our article questioning claims that wake turbulence or jet blast could have thrown cars around the highway as Flight 77 approached the Pentagon at a reported altitude of 20 feet, a former pilot and aeronautical engineer contacted us to refute the arguments presented in the piece.

It is our intention to explore both sides of the argument and leave the reader to decide for themselves if the Pentagon Flight 77 issue is a genuine smoking gun of 9/11 or an attempt by the government to bait us into a honey pot trap by later releasing crystal clear footage of Flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. At no turn do we doubt the validity of the overwhelming body of evidence proving 9/11 as an inside job. The 9/11 truth movement is currently enjoying its widest exposure ever, and a new Zogby poll which shows half of Americans nationwide (not just New York) want a new independent investigation into 9/11 is proof that this issue is evergreen and growing in popularity.

The pilot, who wishes to remain anonymous, stated that the photos carried showing planes coming in to land at St. Maarten-Princess Juliana Int'l Airport in the Netherlands, and the apparent lack of wake turbulence or jet blast as a result of their low altitude over people on a beach, were misleading. The photos depict slow moving planes at speeds of no more than 100 knots, not 400 knots as reported with Flight 77.
He said that it was key to point out the difference between jet blast and wake turbulence. Wake turbulence is defined as a ,"turbulent air condition caused by small, tornado-like horizontal whirlwinds training an aircraft's wingtips (wingtip vortices)." In contrast, jet blast is described as, "phenomena resulting from the passage of an aircraft through the atmosphere. The term includes vortices, thrust stream turbulence, jet blast, jet wash, propeller wash, and rotor wash both on the ground and in the air."

While the Boeing website points out that the direction of the entire envelope of wake turbulence can be directed upwards, sideways or downwards depending on wind conditions, no such deviation is possible with jet blast and that the sheer force of power from the jet blast of a plane traveling at 530 miles per hour would not have been altered whatsoever by wind patterns.



Therefore the pilot states unequivocally that jet blast would have tossed people and cars around like rag dolls if they were 20 feet or less below a Boeing 757, as is claimed by eyewitness reports.

Regarding the eyewitness report of Pentagon renovation worker and retired Army officer Frank Probst, who claimed that the plane flew so low past him that the engine was six feet away, our source exclaimed that this was a ridiculous impossibility.

The pilot said that Probst would have been sucked into the engine like a bird in a giant vacuum and that he had personally been in the cockpit and seen birds from 100 feet away that almost immediately get sucked into the engines.

Similar devastation would have been wrought on cars 20 feet below the plane according to the pilot, contradicting eyewitness reports describing only light shaking of vehicles.

The pilot also entertained the notion that eyewitnesses had grossly overestimated the altitude of the plane and that it was higher than the reported 20 feet but he was still adamant that those who claimed to have seen the faces of the passengers in the window were living in a fantasy land because the speed of the plane would have meant it appeared as a blur and akin to a bullet flying over their heads.

Our source, having had direct and extensive personal flying experience at low altitudes, also completely dismissed the feasibility that a Boeing 757 could be flown for any significant distance at just 20 feet above ground. He also cited other pilots of large commercial aircraft who concurred.

A phenomenon called 'ground effect' describes the energized cushion of air between the wings and the ground which increases in energy the faster the plane flies. Flight 77 is reported to have whisked up the highway and into the Pentagon at breakneck acceleration, even increasing in speed before it hit, a maneuver described as impossible by the pilot at 20 feet above the ground, due to the reaction of the energized ground effect layer which would simply not have allowed it, even if the pilot was furiously pulling back the throttle which was not the case.



The pilot and aeronautical expert said that the evidence suggests a Global Hawk was used to attack the Pentagon, citing alleged Flight 77 pilot Hani Hanjour's complete lack of flight skills and the incredulous story that he and four other conspirators overpowered two burly 185lbs aircraft veterans and pulled off military class flight maneuvers to attack what was virtually an invisible target.

Despite this, the pilot, who first approached Flight 77 questions in an effort to disprove them, was adamant that the government would soon release a "fantastic clear shot of Flight 77 coming in and close the book." He points out that modern technology and computer generated graphics can accurately forge any event and make it appear completely seamless and fears the entire Pentagon issue is a trap to distract researchers and eventually will be used to discredit the entire 9/11 truth movement.

Our source pleads with people to focus on the real hardcore smoking guns of 9/11, in particular the unexplained collapse of Building 7 and clear evidence that the twin towers were brought down by a controlled demolition. As an experienced aeronautical engineer, the pilot was stunned that he too bought the official version of events at first glance and believed that a giant modern day steel building could completely collapse from limited fire damage. Our source is now working behind the scenes to aid others in the 9/11 truth movement help educate the world on the reality behind the monumental scam perpetrated on September 11 2001.
 

thorbiorn

The Living Force
FOTCM Member
On the two pictures below one can see samples of light poles toppled by the incoming Pentagon strike object. The pictures were found on http://www.sauron2k.de/wtc/pentagon/pentagon.htm
lat_01.jpg

lat_02.jpg


The web site reports that five posts were toppled, in another place I saw three, but in any case the hits did not influence the object and as one can see from the shape of the poles they can not have been hit significantly. The suggestion is to attribute the toppling to wind effects caused by the passing object. Any other ideas?

thorbiorn
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Anders said:
The pilot and aeronautical expert said that the evidence suggests a Global Hawk was used to attack the Pentagon, citing alleged Flight 77 pilot Hani Hanjour's complete lack of flight skills and the incredulous story that he and four other conspirators overpowered two burly 185lbs aircraft veterans and pulled off military class flight maneuvers to attack what was virtually an invisible target.

Despite this, the pilot, who first approached Flight 77 questions in an effort to disprove them, was adamant that the government would soon release a "fantastic clear shot of Flight 77 coming in and close the book." He points out that modern technology and computer generated graphics can accurately forge any event and make it appear completely seamless and fears the entire Pentagon issue is a trap to distract researchers and eventually will be used to discredit the entire 9/11 truth movement.
Again I say, releasing a computer generated video of Flight 77 is very risky business considering the alleged fact that at least three countries not particularly friendly to the US (though that could be just for deceiving the masses) have satellite photos of the Pentagon Strike. Imagine what would happen if the US Gov released such a "Hollywood version" and this was followed by exposure from abroad? That would mean the firing squad for Georgie, Dick, Rumsfeld, and a lot of others...

I don't think they are willing to take that risk. They were already entrapped with the Pentagon Strike to begin with - which is why it is such a sore toe, and why it is the only thing they bother to try to combat, pitiful though their efforts are. I don't think they will ever trust anybody again under any circumstances.

I only give Bush about until August before everything falls apart anyway... so it will be a "long, hot summer."
 
P

Project9

Guest
Sorry, but that answer brings two more questions:

a) How do you know this?

b) Why haven't we seen those photos yet?
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Project9 said:
Sorry, but that answer brings two more questions:

a) How do you know this?

b) Why haven't we seen those photos yet?
a) I was given that information by an individual with "connections," shall we say. I didn't see the photos, but the information came from a source that COULD know that and the story was plausible. That is, he was in a position to know, with the connections, and after playing devil's advocate about the story in my head for about a year, I finally concluded that it was probably true. Part of the story is that these photos were shown to Thierry Meyssan and it was his job to "leak" the info in his book but WITHOUT recourse to the photos or the claim to their existence.

b) for the same reason that everything else is controlled: Blackmail and power games. Do you know who controls the media over most of the planet? Have you seen some of the strange games being played with Putin and Chirac's people? Do you ever wonder what is really going on behind the scenes? I can't say as much about China because I don't follow it as closely and they have their own media control as far as I know. But rest assured, those documents are either "insurance" for somebody, or useless because their hands are tied by someone else.

Did you ever think about the long period of time that Bush was incommunicado on 9/11 and what he was doing? Who he might be talking to? What they were saying or, perhaps negotiating? Or whether someone else was doing all the talking and negotiating and he was just waiting to get the word that it was okay to come out now? Did you ever wonder why he was in Florida and his brother had passed an emergency law BEFORE 911 so that in the event of anything going awry, they could cover their behinds and "git outta Dodge"? Lot of other strange things were happening in Florida on that day, too.

You can go here and access most of our articles on the subject: http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/site_map_qfg.htm

Particularly:

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/boeing.htm

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/globemovers.htm

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/mahmoud_ahmed.htm

http://signs-of-the-times.org/signs/Above_Top_Secret_article.htm

http://www.signs-of-the-times.org/signs/exposing_the_big_con.htm

In the above articles you will get MOST of what is in our 9-11 book though I will say we add some significant connecting of the dots in the book that we haven't posted on the web. But there is enough in the above to figure it out.
 
P

Project9

Guest
a) I was given that information by an individual with "connections," shall we say. I didn't see the photos, but the information came from a source that COULD know that and the story was plausible. That is, he was in a position to know, with the connections, and after playing devil's advocate about the story in my head for about a year, I finally concluded that it was probably true. Part of the story is that these photos were shown to Thierry Meyssan and it was his job to "leak" the info in his book but WITHOUT recourse to the photos or the claim to their existence.
So the only basis for your claim is the word of a certain individual with "connections" that i dare to guess that you can't disclose for "security reasons" ... you do know that Bush and Powell had the same kind of sources to backup their claims about the WMD's in Iraq. Sorry but your hypothesis is a bit hard to swallow.

b) for the same reason that everything else is controlled: Blackmail and power games.
France had financial reasons to oppose the war in Iraq ... shouldn't they have used this kind of leverage to attain their goal? The same goes for Russia. Yet none of them was able to stop the U.S. from going to war. If they haven't released those images because they want to extort the U.S., that was a great opportunity which they seem to have missed.

Also, you said that if the U.S. comes up with a hollywood version of what happened that day these countries would release these images ... does that makes sense to you? I mean, would they just loose their leverage against the U.S. just because the U.S. made a "hollywood version" of the event? Given that there's no gain for them in doing so, i really doubt it.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Well, I've said all I can say so that's it. Read what I suggested, clues scattered here and there. I will only add that your analysis is extremely naive.
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Project9 said:
So the only basis for your claim is the word of a certain individual with "connections" that i dare to guess that you can't disclose for "security reasons" ... you do know that Bush and Powell had the same kind of sources to backup their claims about the WMD's in Iraq. Sorry but your hypothesis is a bit hard to swallow.
No. This is not the ONLY basis. The basis is the totality of available data and the analysis of these data.

France had financial reasons to oppose the war in Iraq ... shouldn't they have used this kind of leverage to attain their goal?
Poiltics is multi-faced. Simple argumentation does not work there. There are always multiple reasons, multiple pressures. Multiple interests.

The same goes for Russia.
See above.


Yet none of them was able to stop the U.S. from going to war.
You are drawing conclusions too fast. Perhaps they were able, but they have chosen not do so. There are many reasons possible.

If they haven't released those images because they want to extort the U.S., that was a great opportunity which they seem to have missed.
They may have not missed any opportunity. They have chosen to act the way they acted, because they had reasons to do so.

Also, you said that if the U.S. comes up with a hollywood version of what happened that day these countries would release these images ... does that makes sense to you? I mean, would they just loose their leverage against the U.S. just because the U.S. made a "hollywood version" of the event? Given that there's no gain for them in doing so, i really doubt it.
What is a "gain" and what is not, this depends on many circumstances that are not static. They change with time. This is a nonlinear world, a little difference may result in a huge difference. For instance: USA may have been blackmailing heads of the governments with the data that their intelligence has collected. What was working as a blackmail some time ago may not work when circumstances are different, when there are anew data and new approaches how to counteract the blackmail, when the society is more ready to see the truth. Blackmail is one possibility, most probable I would say. But there are other factors that could have beeen working with the similar end result.
 
P

Project9

Guest
Well, I've said all I can say so that's it. Read what I suggested, clues scattered here and there. I will only add that your analysis is extremely naive.
So your reply is just the old cliche:"the truth is there, you just have to find it" ... sorry, but you'll have to do much more than that to support your claims. My analysis would be naive if i just bought right away into your tale.

No. This is not the ONLY basis. The basis is the totality of available data and the analysis of these data.
That's a pretty vague statement, i'm sorry but a statement so vague doesn't provide any answers ... on the contrary, all it does is create more questions.

Poiltics is multi-faced. Simple argumentation does not work there. There are always multiple reasons, multiple pressures. Multiple interests.
Fine, i'll rewrite what i said: France and Russia had multiple reasons to oppose the war in Iraq, yet they didn't use the photographs you claim they have to prevent it. Unless you can point to the specific benefits they got from letting the war happen, there's a huge hole in your hypothesis.

You are drawing conclusions too fast. Perhaps they were able, but they have chosen not do so. There are many reasons possible.
So, according to you they chose not to stop the war using the photographs (risking to loose their interests in Iraq) ... yet they continued their efforts to stop the war in the U.N. theater ... a bit of a contradiction there eh? And way too convenient for the support of your hypothesis.

They may have not missed any opportunity. They have chosen to act the way they acted, because they had reasons to do so.
Another vague statement. Unless you find a credible reason (and you can cite a credible source) such statements won't give any credibility to your hypothesis, in my eyes they do exactly the opposite.

What is a "gain" and what is not,
A simple dictionary definition might do the trick here.

this depends on many circumstances that are not static.
Unless the U.S. beats them to the punch and releases the photographs first, these countries could use them to extort the U.S. as long as these photos exist.
 
A

Anders

Guest
Project9 said:
Laura said:
Well, I've said all I can say so that's it. Read what I suggested, clues scattered here and there. I will only add that your analysis is extremely naive.
So your reply is just the old cliche:"the truth is there, you just have to find it" ... sorry, but you'll have to do much more than that to support your claims. My analysis would be naive if i just bought right away into your tale.
Yes, it would be naive to buy into anything without thinking first, analyzing the facts, probabilities and the likelihoods of a variety of scenarios. ( suggest you read the links that Laura provided)
Military satellites do not come with a 'made in US' label on them only. Many countries gather intelligence and a number of them have spy satellites. 9-11 was by all accounts a day with clear blue skies above the areas of attack. No extreme solar flares were reported as far as i know and it would be a strange coincident if all the other nations spy satellites malfunctioned on that day, especially since most countries would have more than just one satellite over any given area.
Intelligence information is valuable and can provide valuable bargaining chip/leverage in various negociations of the power elite. The value can change over time as circumstances change.

The goverments with this information might not have been too sad about an excuse to impose draconian laws in their own countries under the guise of a terrorist threat from 'outside'. And although they had some compromising photos about the Pentagon, we do not know what kind of compromising intelligence the Americans had which could work as a counter bargaining chip against their 'adversaries'.


Ark said:
Politics is multi-faced. Simple argumentation does not work there. There are always multiple reasons, multiple pressures. Multiple interests.
Intelligence information such as photos of the Pentagon crash are of high value and like gold, can increase or decrease in value as time goes on. Timing is therefore of essence in order for maximum gain. This point is probably not lost on those with photos in their possessions.
 

ark

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Project9 said:
So your reply is just the old cliche:"the truth is there, you just have to find it" ... sorry, but you'll have to do much more than that to support your claims. My analysis would be naive if i just bought right away into your tale.
Your analysis is naive and shallow, whether you buy or not.

No. This is not the ONLY basis. The basis is the totality of available data and the analysis of these data.
That's a pretty vague statement, i'm sorry but a statement so vague doesn't provide any answers ... on the contrary, all it does is create more questions.
General statement that deeply concerns the issue. General truth that you have neglected. That is why your analysis is shallow and naive. Because you are not taking into account the fact that in politics nothing is simple.

Poiltics is multi-faced. Simple argumentation does not work there. There are always multiple reasons, multiple pressures. Multiple interests.
Fine, i'll rewrite what i said: France and Russia had multiple reasons to oppose the war in Iraq, yet they didn't use the photographs you claim they have to prevent it. Unless you can point to the specific benefits they got from letting the war happen, there's a huge hole in your hypothesis.

Again your thinking lack precision and depth. You fail to understand the issue. Even IF there are multiple reasons to do something, there may be more reasons, with more weight NOT to do the thing. That is why politicians have many advising committees and strategy game simulators. You certainly know it, but you consider it convenient to forget it here.


So, according to you they chose not to stop the war using the photographs (risking to loose their interests in Iraq) ... yet they continued their efforts to stop the war in the U.N. theater ... a bit of a contradiction there eh? And way too convenient for the support of your hypothesis.
Contradictions are daily bread in the world politics. And you certainly know it, but you find it convenient to forget it here (what politicians often do - they forget, when it is convenient, they sell arms to Sadam, and they invade him).


Another vague statement. Unless you find a credible reason (and you can cite a credible source) such statements won't give any credibility to your hypothesis, in my eyes they do exactly the opposite.
Credibility is subjective. Something is not credible for you - fine. Find another source that you find credible. CNN, Fox News, President's Bush Secretary - these are my suggestions.


this depends on many circumstances that are not static.
Unless the U.S. beats them to the punch and releases the photographs first, these countries could use them to extort the U.S. as long as these photos exist.
Again, your reasoning is naive, and you are forgetting that in politics nothing is simple. The politics is full of contradictions and many game players are participating. For instance you may think that US and Russia are enemies. But they may have common plans. The same with France. You certainly know it, but you chose to forget it here.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
It is also important to keep in mind, as Ark has suggested, that the political drama that is played out for the masses is just that: a drama. France may appear to oppose the war, but that is because the French people have to be taken into account. Most French people do NOT like Chirac. In fact, they don't like politicians in general and feel that it is their duty to oppose anything proposed by them. Moreover, there is a HUGE Muslim population in France. So, had Chirac been in favor of the war, there would have been a far worse situation in France than there was in the case of the recent employment law, the EU Constitution, the headscarf ban, etc. You simply have NO idea how active even the most ordinary French citizen is in politics.

Regarding blackmail, as I noted, there is ONE group that runs about everything on this planet (though less so in China, but I understand they are making inroads even there.) This group is primarily Zionist, though not exclusively. And when I say "Zionist," I don't necessarily mean Jewish either. Some of the most rabid Zionists are Christian Fundies trying to "Initiate the Eschaton" by supporting Israel, with the firm belief that Israel and all the Jews will be destroyed in the end if they don't get "saved." So, let's just call them Pathocrats - psychopaths at the top. There are high level pathocrats in about every country. At the top, the "national divisions" seem to fall away and each "top person" looks at his constituency, his "masses of plebes" as his "ante into the pot" for the overall game.

Notice also that here, I am not necessarily talking about elected or publicly known individuals, but rather those who really run things. I don't like to call them Illuminati or even to refer to the alleged "masters," the Rothchilds because I am not entirely certain that these are not just red herrings to distract attention.

So, imagine a group of these men, the ones with the power to make or break heads of state, conspiring as to how they are going to implement a massive population reduction program to eliminate about 90 percent of the planet's population, to preserve their own elite groups, and to have perhaps enough common people left to serve their needs and interests. These people know that the planet is beginning a process of global climate change that will lead to massive food shortages, water shortages, disease, and possibly even cataclysm. They know that if they do not do something to deal with masses of people, to eliminate many of them, and to control the rest, that they, themselves, are in danger of losing control, even their lives.

Now, how do you suppose they would go about setting up the game to accomplish this?

Well, they would do something like create a lot of apparent global conflict and disagreement so as to provoke many different groups and nationalities into stances that are oppositional to one another. The more provocation to chaos they can provoke, the more reasons they have for imposing draconian laws because the people will be frightened of the chaos and will want that protection. At the same time, the fires of nationalism will be lit and the various groups will be ready, willing and able to go out and kill each other off which results in accomplishing precisely what the pathocrats want. Those troublesome people with fire in their bellies just eliminate each other, the passive cowardly types are well and truly fenced in and accepting total control, their own position is secured and even enhanced, and everybody's happy.

It's simple Machiavelli, ideas as old as Time that have been in use, consciously, for millennia.

So of course, France, Russia and China aren't going to play those cards. But trying to observe their behavior and figure out the reasons can be an interesting challenge, well worth the time for anyone with an abundance of firing neurons.

If, right after 911, they had done so, well, the whole thing would have been so simple, right? The U.S. population would have turned against Bush and his Pathocrats and the peoples of France, Russia and China would have backed their governments up in coming over and overseeing the straightening out of the U.S. corrupt gov systems.

But then, they would have all lost the golden opportunity to have a war or two or three and decimate large numbers of people! And believe me, at the TOP, that IS the agenda!

As for the leaking of the IDEA via Thierry Meyssan, my thought is that he was just another useful idiot, primed by the fire in the belly for righteousness. In a certain sense, we are all useful idiots because we all just contribute to the general melee of ideas while the Masters of Deception pick and choose which idea they want to push or suppress from one day to the next.

Will the truth ever be revealed, will the alleged photos ever be published or otherwise circulated?

Possibly. But look at what happened to such things as the Downing Street Memos. Was that a leak by someone with a conscience, or was it a deliberate leak to just create more controversy between those who can see and those who just cling desperately to naive beliefs? Observe how it was spun and/or ignored, or how it came and went and Bush is still spying on congress and journalists, the neocons are goosestepping along their merry way without a care in the world about what the masses of Americans think.

I think that if they are revealed, it will be when the moment is precisely right for the revelation to lead to the greatest number of deaths and the greatest chaos.

Some other thoughts I have had while observing the global gamesmanship is that it has been a very clever maneuver for France, Russia, China, and even Israel, to more or less step back and allow the U.S. to engage itself and its resources on different fronts. The U.S. is now weaker than it has ever been, stretched beyond endurance both economically and personnel wise. Most professional jobs and manufacturing jobs are outsourced overseas, the education system is worse than you can even imagine, (especially if you are not familiar with European schooling), and its goal seems to be to produce cannon fodder, health is declining at a massive rate, and the other countries are just sitting around like vultures waiting for the weakness to become sufficient that they can begin the picking and pecking. Why would France or Russia or China or even Israel want to HELP the U.S. population? After all, the U.S. is full of 300 million people that are competitors for resources. Better to sit back, refuse to engage your own people (yet) and let the U.S. wear itself out, stretch itself thin, and go down the tubes on its own. And, after all the years of the arrogant U.S. lording it over everyone else, don't think that, at some level, there isn't some fiendish satisfaction at watching the process!

There are so many levels, so many games being played, so much drama created for the average person, all designed to appeal to different types, different mentalities, different goals, that there is truly something for everyone here in this smorgasbord of death and destruction that has been laid on the table for the population of the planet.

So, after you have spent some time in the presence of actual TOP level government ministers and/or intell agents, have had the opportunity to listen to them talk, to observe how they act, and to put those pieces together to form a picture of what kind of people they are in general, and how they think and play the game, come back and talk to me. I've done it and you can believe it or not. It's really immaterial to me. I doubt that anything either of us think, do, or say will make one whit of difference. I do what I do only because it is the right thing to do and for no other reason. It would be a shame for our civilization to come to an end and nobody stood up for the truth.

Later:
I wanted to add, after it occurred to me during breakfast, it is entirely possible that Project9 HAS spent time hanging out with government types. That may be exactly why he is here... to promote their agenda of deception and ignorance.

Another thing that I thought of was the handle: "Project9". Makes me think of two things: 1) a really absurd sci-fi movie, "Plan 9 From Outer Space," which critics say was so bad that it is actually good; 2) The Nine of the Stargate Conspiracy. You can get the details on that HERE.
 

Laura

Administrator
Administrator
Moderator
FOTCM Member
Just to reinforce the points I have made above, there is this today:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/wales/5028470.stm

BBC said:
Gore in Hay climate change plea

Former US vice-president Al Gore owned up to failing to get his climate change message across as a politician when he appeared at the Hay Festival.

In his first UK speech on the subject, Mr Gore promised to devote himself to the task of warning people about the impending "planetary emergency".

He appealed to the audience to act to halt the growing crisis.

"I will own up to shortcomings in my ability to communicate," said Mr Gore, who ran against President Bush in 2000.

"But I'm not through with this yet and I am devoting myself to it".

Mr Gore was the key note speaker of the 19th Hay Festival on the mid-Wales border.

Five years ago Bill Clinton spoke at Hay on his many roles in conflict resolution.

But Mr Gore, fresh from an appearance at the Cannes film festival, delivered a starker message that the world was now facing a "danger which could bring the end of civilisation."

A documentary which premiered at Cannes, An Inconvenient Truth, is based on lectures Mr Gore has been delivering about environmental crisis for many years.

He was asked by a member of the Hay Festival audience to run for president again.

But Mr Gore replied: "I honestly believe that the role I can most usefully play is to try to change the minds of the American people...about what this crisis is about."

He said addressing the issues around climate control were "on the agenda in 2000 but was never seen and heard as an issue worthy of the top rank of consideration".

Mr Gore said global warming was seen as an "arcane" issue with more than half the US media denying there was any problem and his opponent "pledged to regulate CO2 - a pledge not broken until after the inauguration".

In a passionate speech, Mr Gore said: "We face a challenge in the conversation of democracy that we must be up to in order to save the climate balance on which our civilisation depends."

He said he believed scientists who said that there may be 10 years remaining to avoid "crossing the point of no return".

"Then does that change you? It should, it's happening on our watch," said the former vice-president.

He said he was "carbon neutral" himself and he tried to offset any plane flight or car journey by "purchasing verifiable reductions in CO2 elsewhere".

He said the only way to bring about the change was "a sea change in the public's understanding and opinion".

"The only way that political leaders of all parties will find the courage for the bold actions that are needed."

Mr Gore was given a standing ovation by the audience whom he begged "to make the changes in your own life to make your part of the solution (to the problem)".

He said: "There are more than enough people here to really change the world.

"I hope that many of you will accept and act on that - so much is at stake."
Problem is, Gore is as likely part of the "gang" as anyone.

For a very good perspective on what is really behind the global war games including the cointelpro action in the 911 Truth Movement, have a look at Joe Quinn's article:

Ruppert and Hopsicker Co-Opting the 9-11 Truth Movement Or Exposing the Big Con - Lies and Disinformation At The End Of Civilisation As We Know It
 
Top Bottom