from Kevin Ryan
We have two new letters and an article at the Journal of 9/11 Studies href=”http://www.journalof911studies.com/index.html” target=”_blank” rel=”nofollow noopener noreferrer”>http://www.journalof911studies.com/index.html
The article by Jérôme Gygax and Nancy Snow is titled “9/11 and the Advent of Total Diplomacy: Strategic Communication as a Primary Weapon of War.” Here’s an excerpt. “The? 9/11 attacks were used to justify an institutional revolution meant to complete a process of integration and coordination of all the assets of US national power through a strategic communication (SC) campaign deployed on a global scale.
The ‘Global War on Terror’ (GWOT) nurtured a narrative of crisis associated with this unprecedented public education effort. In order to sell its approaches, the United States government relied on a network of ‘experts’: military veterans, high ranking officers such as Admirals as well as professional journalists and academics who contributed to forging a consensus ,or, as Michel Foucault would call it, a ‘regime of truth’ that claims a certain interpretation to be right and true, while ignoring or discrediting critics and dissenting narratives.”
One letter is from Paul Schreyer and is called “ Update: Anomalies of the Air Defense on 9/11.” Schreyer writes: “Miles Kara insists that these were unrelated events. He says there is nothing on the tapes indicating a correlation and he points out that the Langley jets also made no attempt to change their altitude to get closer to the ‘Doomsday plane’ while flying southwest. So it´s possible that Kara is right here. However one still can only wonder about the series of anomalies in connection with the Langley scramble that all had just one effect: delaying the jets´ arrival over Washington.”
The second letter, from me, accompanies the first. It is called “Political Warfare and the 9/11 Commission.” “When the 9/11 Commission Report was published in July 2004, it provided a completely new explanation for why the U.S. air defenses had failed to intercept any of the four hijacked planes on 9/11. Certain 9/11 Commission staff members had helped to produce that new story, and at least one of them was behind earlier explanations that were contradicted by the new account. That was Miles Kara, a retired U.S. Army intelligence officer. Kara has since been working via his blog and his personal contacts to persuade those questioning the official account that the unanswered questions of 9/11 are often just minor misunderstandings or are simply unimportant.”