text:
Front Page » Archives » September 2005 »
" 9/11, Four Years Later: And What Do We Have? Nothing!	"
9/11, Four Years Later: And What Do We Have? Nothing!
What's A Blogger To Do?
Introducing Jeff Wells and Rigorous Intuition
By Winter Patriot on 9/11/2005, 1:25am PT
Guest blogged by Winter Patriot
Don't look now, but it's September 11th. Four years on, and still we have nothing. No answers. No accountability. No truth. No justice. Just two horrible and totally unnecessary wars, many thousands of people dead, many more thousands of people maimed, our country --- indeed the whole world --- transformed in many ways, none of which seem to be for the better, and nothing of value. Nothing of any value at all.
I don't know. I honestly do not know. But it's not for lack of trying. I have sat here for hours, trying to write something that would make sense of it all. But I can't --- I just can't. Because it doesn't make any sense, unless you look at it from the proper angle. And I can't seem to get the right angle on it at the moment.
Fortunately, I know somebody who looks at things from an angle I can't quite reach. Permit me to introduce Jeff Wells, author of the excellent blog Rigorous Intuition.
In Jeff's words,
We're outside the gate, thank God. And if we want to do good work, that's where we'll stay. Because the walls need to be breached, and the gate that beckons us to normalcy is part of the problem.
If you don't read anything else today, please spend a few minutes with Jeff's post of August 2004, "The Coincidence Theorist's Guide to 9/11". It starts like this:
That governments have permitted terrorist acts against their own people, and have even themselves been perpetrators in order to find strategic advantage is quite likely true, but this is the United States we're talking about.
That intelligence agencies, financiers, terrorists and narco-criminals have a long history together is well established, but the Nugan Hand Bank, BCCI, Banco Ambrosiano, the P2 Lodge, the CIA/Mafia anti-Castro/Kennedy alliance, Iran/Contra and the rest were a long time ago, so there's no need to rehash all that. That was then, this is now!
That Jonathan Bush's Riggs Bank has been found guilty of laundering terrorist funds and fined a US-record $25 million must embarrass his nephew George, but it's still no justification for leaping to paranoid conclusions.
That George Bush's brother Marvin sat on the board of the Kuwaiti-owned company which provided electronic security to the World Trade Centre, Dulles Airport and United Airlines means nothing more than you must admit those Bush boys have done alright for themselves.
That George Bush found success as a businessman only after the investment of Osama's brother Salem and reputed al Qaeda financier Khalid bin Mahfouz is just one of those things - one of those crazy things.
That Osama bin Laden is known to have been an asset of US foreign policy in no way implies he still is.
That al Qaeda was active in the Balkan conflict, fighting on the same side as the US as recently as 1999, while the US protected its cells, is merely one of history's little aberrations.
The claims of Michael Springman, State Department veteran of the Jeddah visa bureau, that the CIA ran the office and issued visas to al Qaeda members so they could receive training in the United States, sound like the sour grapes of someone who was fired for making such wild accusations.
That one of George Bush's first acts as President, in January 2001, was to end the two-year deployment of attack submarines which were positioned within striking distance of al Qaeda's Afghanistan camps, even as the group's guilt for the Cole bombing was established, proves that a transition from one administration to the next is never an easy task.
Of course everyone is welcome to his or her own opinion.
My opinion is that you should read the entire piece.
And then you should read as much about 9/11 from Jeff Wells as you can.
"Where Drugs, Arms and Oil Intersect"
Dick Cheney, Terrorism Czar
Remembering September 10
The Flying Wedge
The Riddle of the Transponders
9/11 Truth or Consequences
Bushthink, and the Strength of Venezuelan Steel
Report: WTC Black Boxes Were Recovered
Binge, Purge and Repeat
Another "Timely Alert"
TIA Was Ready Before 9/11
"Give Me a Good Reason"
Rumsfeld Goes off Message
Ten Things We Learned in 2004 about 9/11
Michael Chertoff and the Sabotage of the Ptech Investigation
9/11 in the Courts. Sort of
Do You Know this Woman?
Oh, the Places You Go (When You Follow the Money)
Sibel's Way
The difference it makes
The guns of 9/11
Let me put it this way
Cynical, sophisticated and subtle
The sound of one-hand slapping
Don't get used to it
The trouble with normal
Plan 9 from Saudi Arabia
Article Categories: (Uncategorized)
« PREVIOUS STORY "BRAD SHOW Saturday and Sunday, Day and Night..."
"Former Bush Official Calls for Independent 9/11 Investigation" NEXT STORY »
"9/11, Four Years Later: And What Do We Have? Nothing!"
... hcocdr	said on 9/11/2005 @ 2:07 am PT...
{the long and plaigiarized comment formerly occupying this space has been removed by WP}
... Perry Logan said on 9/11/2005 @ 4:07 am PT...
& don't forget about the thousands dead, the countless thousands maimed, the hemorrhaging of our national wealth, the manic boom in Al Qaeda recruitment, & the tripling of international terrorism.
You see, this administration only LOOKS like the most criminal, incompetent administration in Amercian history. They weren't really elected, so none of it counts.
... MMIIXX	said on 9/11/2005 @ 4:52 am PT...
...hcocdr your sucking in to much of that DU over there man ,how's Iraq stack up against NAM .
{another irrelevant post from somebody who seems determined to bend the rules has been removed by WP}
... MrBlueSky	said on 9/11/2005 @ 7:27 am PT...
Good work, WP!!!
I always knew in my heart that the Bush Admin was directly responsible (or at least in cahoots) for 9/11.
On another blog, I issued a challenge to all... and I will reiterate it here....
TO BRAD, WP, and everyone here:
I would like to challenge you to provide irrefutable proof that Bush and Cheney were behind 9/11... not some whacko conspiracy theory... no... I want proof that we can take to the MSM... and if not them... then to file a lawsuit to place liability and culpability on them.
I need hard evidence people... and possibly a lawyer who could do this pro bono.
Anyone up to the task?
We need to put 9/11 on Bush's shoulders... where it firmly belongs.
To our troll...er... FRIEND... HCOCDR... I ask this... if we are so off base about 9/11, please tell me why we let Osama go in 12/01 at Tora Bora... some in the CIA are saying that our good troops were only hours from busting him and his inner circle, including Mullah Mohammed Omar, the leader of the Taliban...
who I believe, were thoroughly scapegoated for this incident.
... Zaratamara said on 9/11/2005 @ 7:39 am PT...
Nothing but MORE questions!
..How many MORE "Co-inkydinks" does it take a Conspiracy to make?
Yes that iSN't all. There was also the Janitor's testimony about blasts coming from the trade Center subfloors moments before the plane's impact, which burned a man so badly who was standing in front of the elevators that he was taken by several witnesses to the hospital... and there were records there.
Then there's the possibility of remote control of these planes... then there's the detail of no trace of WINGS at the Pentagon site, while in Penn. there was no sign of a plane at all, except the crater!
Then there's Bush slipping up, TWICE, on TV, saying "When I saw the FIRST plane hit..."
More? Anyone?
Meanwhile, here's an interesting view into how much it's costing us all to have the TRUTH HIDDEN FROM US!
In total, Washington spent at least $7.2 billion classifying records in 2004. The amount does not reflect spending by the Central Intelligence Agency.
The constant demand for secrecy is hardly surprising, given the track record of the current administration. No other administration in American history has spent so much money classifying so many documents, and even taking previously unclassified information out of the public domain.
Federal Government Secrecy at All Time High
Facing a severe budget deficit, the United States federal government last year spent a record amount of money keeping information from the public, according a recently released report conducted by a coalition of civil liberties and open-government advocacy groups.
In comparison, the 41 agencies studied spent only $1 declassifying records for every $148 spent keeping them out of reach, the OpentheGovernment.org report concluded. The year before, the government spent $120 to classify documents for every $1 spent making others publicly accessible. According to the compiled records, it cost taxpayers $460 to maintain each classified document last year.
And of course, this makes us wonder what ELSE being hidden.
Yeah, SURE, HCOCDR!
Yank your head outta there! It's dark and stinky!
(Not to mention your obvious on-going obsession with Clinton is getting a bit old, eh NEOCON?!)
Osama hasn't been "Caught" for the same reason Saddam hasn't gone to trial:
the LAST thing they want people to hear about is all those nasty "Co-incidental" CONNECTIONS Bush, Jr AND Senior have to these two~!
Much is being made of Saddam's gassing of the Kurds in the "News" this week... WITHOUT, of course, mentioning that in this period of time Bush Sr. was good pals with Saddam, (right up 'til he invaded Kuwait, actually, which he THOUGHT he was doing with Bush's tacit approval, via embassador April Glaspie) , even GAVE him the lethal gas for the job! About that same time there was that famous photo of Sadam shaking hands with the fawning Rumsfeld....Yeah, WHY indeed!
... Devlin Buckley	said on 9/11/2005 @ 8:47 am PT...
You want proof MrBlueSky? Follow these leads...
In June of 2001, a "high-placed member of a US intelligence agency" told BBC reporter Greg Palast that "after the 2000 elections, the agencies were told to "back off" investigating the Bin Ladens and Saudi royals."1
In May of 2002, former FBI Agent Robert Wright delivered a tearful press conference apologizing to the families who lost loved ones on 9/11. He described how his superiors intentionally obstructed his investigation into Al-Qaeda financing.2 3
Agent Wright would later tell ABC's Brian Ross that September 11th could have been prevented if his superiors had not obstructed his investigation into key al-Qaeda figures, such as Yassin al-Qadi (al Kadi), a powerful Saudi Arabian businessman with extensive financial ties in Chicago.4 One month after 9/11, the US government officially identified Yassin al-Qadi as one of Osama bin Laden's primary financiers and a specially designated global terrorist.5
In an interview with Computerworld Magazine, a former business associate described his relationship with al-Qadi: "I met him a few times and talked to him a few times on the telephone. He never talked to me about violence. Instead, he talked very highly of his relationship with Jimmy Carter and Dick Cheney." 6
The Muwafaq Foundation, which U.S. authorities have confirmed was an arm of bin Laden's terror organization, was headed by Yassin al-Qadi,7 who was also known as the owner of Ptech8 --- a company that has supplied high-tech computer systems to the FBI, the IRS, Congress, the Army, the Navy, the Air Force, NATO, the FAA, and the White House. A former FBI Counter Terrorism Agent commented: "For someone like [al-Qadi] to be involved in a capacity, in an organization, a company that has access to classified information, that has access to government open or classified computer systems, would be of grave concern." Also sitting on Ptech's board of directors was Yacub Mirza --- a senior official of major radical Islamic organizations that have been linked by the US government to terrorism. In addition, Hussein Ibrahim, the Vice President and Chief Scientist of Ptech, was vice chairman of a now defunct investment group called BMI, a company the FBI has named as a conduit used by al-Qadi to launder money to Hamas terrorists.9
1. BBC Newsnight - June 11, 2001
2. LA Weekly - August 2002
3. Cooperative Research - Robert Wright
4. ABC News: Primetime Live - December 19, 2002
5. Comprehensive List of Terrorists and Groups Identified Under Executive Order 13224
6. Computer World Magazine - January 17, 2003
7. The Weekly Standard - April 8, 2002
8. CNN - December 6, 2002
9. CBS - December 9, 2002
Correction to post #12...
Link #8 should point here.
... Kelly said on 9/11/2005 @ 9:44 am PT...
I just read this Chicago Sun-Times article by Mark Steyn. The bit about how no one can blame King George for Katrina didn't bother me, it's his delusional argument that we are winning the war on terror. He gripes about dirty liberals downplaying 9/11 as a tragedy when he insists it should only be viewed as an act of war, and compares it to Pearl Harbor.
Americablog is right, Bush could eat their children and they would still like him.
... Kraig	said on 9/11/2005 @ 10:50 am PT...
There are two additional threads regarding the 9/11 inside job that have just been added (one of them written by me and Winter Patriot put it on there-- Thanks a million WP!). You may have to turn your computer off and turn it back on like I did but it's there. Definately worth reading if I do say so myself.
... MarkH	said on 9/11/2005 @ 12:01 pm PT...
Defense attorney: So, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it's obvious to anyone that despite all the circumstantial evidence that there was no conspiracy, there was no plan to commit this heinous act. It was all just a coincidence that my client was found standing over the dead body with the gun which had just fired the bullet which killed the victim. It's all just a misunderstanding. Yes, the victim has been robbed, but the defendant has no money. He's virtually penniless unless you count his overseas bank accounts.
It's all just a misunderstanding. Nothin' to see here. Move along!
On New Orleans:
Is it true the may of New Orleans was a Republican who changed his registration to Dem, so he could win election in New Orleans?
On Meet the Press today he said, yes he'd made mistakes, but everyone has. That's a good way to smear the Dems since there's no Repub who's going to say they made any mistakes.
Seems the Repubs are just incompetent until you see the bigger picture and then somehow it looks like the disaster (9/11 or NO) becomes 'an opportunity'.
I was wondering how long it would be before I heard a Repub say something about not seeing NO as a disaster, but as an opportunity. Well, I heard Tim Russert say it first. That was mildly surprising. Apparently it's just coincidence though. No conspiracy of the press with the Repubs/Ruling Class.
Then there was the "fair and balanced" interviews on Stephanopoulos' show. He had on Conservative George Will, Revolutionary Newt Gingrich and to balance things off Zakaria, a journalist who said, yes Gingrich was right and the Dems had no ideas.
... Marain	said on 9/11/2005 @ 12:38 pm PT...
ObL is dead. He has been dead since 2001. This is how the pResident could slip up and accidentally say that he wasn't that worried about ObL - because he knew he was dead.
http://www.whatreallyhap...ened.com/osama_dead.html
Hey, hcocdr, what about the WMDs that had been under seal that the US forces unsealed and then left unguarded and that ultimately fell into the hands of terrorists that have been using them to make car bombs?
... Kraig	said on 9/11/2005 @ 2:42 pm PT...
To #17 Marain:
Osama bin Laden, the (former?) C.I.A. asset whose code name was Tim Osman who worked closely with the C.I.A. in the 1980s when the Soviets were in Afghanistan ("Al Qaeda" means "the database", as in the database of Islamic militants working with the C.I.A.; this is why many people refer to it as "Al C.I.A.da"), whose older brother Salem bin Laden (deceased) was a business partner of George H.W. Bush in the Bush family-bin Laden family joint venture called the Carlyle Group, was not responsible for 9/11. He is the patsy who has been used for years as a boogeyman in a manner reminiscent of the David Goldstein figure in '1984' by George Orwell, as a fake boogeyman to inspire mass hate. An excellent book and it eerily parallels many events going on nowadays.
We had been told for years "Al Qaeda" means just "the base" but a back in July the former British foreign minister Robin Cook in a speech before Parliament mentioned that "Al Qaeda" means "the database" and mentioned it's C.I.A. affiliation; about two weeks later the very physically-fit Robin Cook had a "heart attack" and "falls down a mountain" to die.
... Marain	said on 9/11/2005 @ 3:10 pm PT...
God bless Robin Cook for his integrity. He resigned his position because he disagreed with going to war in Iraq. But I think if someone wanted to get rid of him, they would have done so shortly after his resignation. "Al Qaeda" = "the database" and connections with CIA is information that has been in general circulation for more than a year. If we look at everything that happens as a conspiracy, then we risk that no one will take the real conspiracies seriously.
To #8 Mr.BlueSky:
You asked for someone "...to provide irrefutable proof Bush and Cheney were behind 9/11"...
Go check out the thread "9/11 Physical Evidence Contradicts Official Story". Among other things, check out point #2 about Bush's actions on the morning of 9/11, after Andy Card whispered to him that a 2nd plane struck the WTC, if the "official" story were true then Bush's Secret Service chief would have had to assume Bush might be a possible target and they would've immediately spirited him away to a safer and less-publicized spot. They didn't; Bush stayed in that school for almost an hour including giving his pre-scheduled widely-known press conference on the 'No Child Left Behind' act. This can only mean: Bush and his Secret Svc. chief had to have known he was not even a possible target on 9/11; the ONLY WAY that's possible is if Bush knew the 9/11 plans beforehand, ergo 9/11 was an inside job. There can be no other reason for Bush being allowed to stay in what would (per the "official" fable) have very likely been a life-threatening situation, and the Secret Svc. have the "final say" in matters regarding the pResident's security.
I don't look at everything that happens as a conspiracy, and yes I realize the real translation of "Al Qaeda" and its C.I.A. ties has been in circulation for a year or so, but it is very rare for anyone of such renown to publicly make a point of saying that. You have to admit, his death was suspicious (and wasn't too long after the 7 July MI6 bombings either as a matter of fact). On a similar note, you don't really think David Kelly's death a couple years ago was just a "suicide" do you?
... PetGoat	said on 9/12/2005 @ 1:24 am PT...
Re: BlueSky's #8 call for a lawyer
There's already been a $7 billion lawsuit by former Bob Dole Chief
of Staff Stanley Hilton against Bush. It was thrown out of court not
for lack of merit but on the principle of "sovereign immunity" which
says you can not sue a sitting President. I guess the precedent of
allowing the Jennifer Flowers lawsuit against Bill Clinton to go
forward on the grounds that "not even the President is above the
law" only applies to Democrats; or maybe it only applies to sexual
harassment but not mass murder.
Also re: #8
There's the Philip Berg lawsuit--Rodriguez v. Bush. William
Rodfriguez was a janitor in the WTC who went around unlocking
the doors for firemen and personaly rescued fifteen people and
was the last person to leave WTC1 alive. He's suing Bush.
... Joan	said on 9/12/2005 @ 6:17 am PT...
"...Bush could eat their children and they would still like him..."
don't know who first said that but it's the best li'l nugget I've heard for some time.
... Nana	said on 9/12/2005 @ 7:31 am PT...
I like that one too Joan, I think it's true. What do they see in this maniac? The only way I can reconcile, is to think of it as a cult. When you mix religion and politics you get a weird concoction of... I don't know, it's almost like they worship him.
... Marain	said on 9/12/2005 @ 10:24 am PT...
#22 Kraig I don't have a position on David Kelly.
#25, #26 Yes. Now they are spinning it that "Aides 'kept Katrina info from Bush'" - see:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com...id/9287434/site/newsweek
The people who support him can't see him for what he is. Or those who do don't care because he gives them everything they want.
... blimp pilot said on 9/12/2005 @ 12:27 pm PT...
JEFF WELLS IS A GATEKEEPER (ie, a limited-hangout disinfo agent)
Jeff's blog exclusively links to all the best 911 gatekeeper sites.
In fact, once you recognize some of the 911 gatekeeper sites (see https://bradblog.com/archives/00001827.htm#92 for an intro...), one need only look to see the list of 911 sites to which Jeff Wells links in order to start to see the fuller picture. (including the oilempire.us gatekeeper site, which is used by other gatekeeper sites to outsource the smear jobs --- oilempire maintains a list of "bogus" sites, and then the other gatekeepers, such as Sander Hicks, link to oilempire with a note in their link text about what a magical "sixth sense" Agent Robinowitz has for 'disinfo' sites).
Once upon a time, earlier this year, Jeff made the 'mistake' of linking to an honest 911 page (specifically Bush Implicates Bush) but that 'mistake' was 'corrected' within a few days.
You see, Jeff is apparently only allowed to link to authorized 911 gatekeeper sites (or else my guess is that he doesn't get paid).
... meohmy	said on 9/12/2005 @ 4:53 pm PT...
I have always thought Dubya was a puppet for whomever is REALLY in charge of the White House. With seeing his competency in the last four or five years, he is really slow and lame.
Judging his expression after being told the planes had hit the Twin Towers-to me it said,"They really did it,what do I do, what do I do?" His reaction is like he has just been found out or caught. Like 'uh oh', I better think of an excuse before Momma gets home.
Also, for him to sit there for so long and REMAIN at the school(no secret service sholving him off to safety) made it seem he KNEW this is ALL that was gonna happen, so he went on about his day.
When Dubya went to Ground Zero, how did he/they know nothing else would happen? For instance, a bomb going off in other parts of the US or armed terrorist waiting to pick off panicky citizens on the street. Or even more, cohorts sitting in the shadows waiting for him to show up and pick him off.
CONFIDENT ENOUGH TO GO OUT IN THE OPEN WITH A BULLHORN AMID THE RUBLE ,UNSURE WHO WAS IN THE CROWD OR IN ANY OF THE WINDOWS OR BUILDINGS AND KAOS TO "ANNOUNCE" RETRIBUTION. NO VISIBLE CONCERN FOR HIS SAFETY.(Like in the classroom)
Let's not for get White Spokesman Ari Fletcher said(not verbatim), "The administration does not think another attack will occur."
I have had serious doubt about it from day one.
ALERT! After 911 and on the lead up to the Iraq war, Dubya was quoted umpteen times calling Saddam a "madman"-helping to seal his bid to go to war. But, never , never , never referred to Osama(Usama) this way. As a matter of fact, barely mentioned his name. Almost as if it was taboo to say Osama bin Laden. Also, in the first prez debate, when Kerry said,"Saddam did not attack us, Osama did"--Bush referred to him and his cohorts as "FOLKS". Can you fathom that???
Good point #17. Bush did say he wasn't worried about UBL. Possibility knowing he was already dead caused him to let that comment "slip". Arrogant overconfidence that he and others KNEW what the rest of America and the world wondered. Maybe someone should follow up on that.
Cause of death? ....gunshot, bomb, or lacking his dialysis treatment?????(the latter he had in June 2001 along with other treatment right here in the USA) Go Figure
... Kira	said on 9/12/2005 @ 10:10 pm PT...
I don't think OBL is dead. I think he lives in Poppy's spare bedroom. I really don't think he's dead, though. I think b*'s not worried about him because he's "family."
MARAIN
Good link, 'How Bush Blew It', newsweek, and K. Olberman highlighted the article on his show last night. Thanks
... Dave King	said on 9/16/2005 @ 3:51 am PT...
You people will NEVER change ANYTHING as long as yousend news reports back and forth.Does anybody have an Individual thought or just keep repeating the news to each other? Seems you are so God Damned DUMB that your fear will not let you speak up to overthrow this Fascist regime. Act like you got a PAIR!!!!
I'm still waiting!
... Henry	said on 2/18/2006 @ 8:58 am PT...
chlook1 chlook2 chlook3 chlook4 chlook5 chlook6 chlook7 chlook8 chlook9
... Lfsd	said on 2/18/2006 @ 9:01 am PT...
goom10 goom11 goom12 goom13 goom14 goom15 goom16 goom17 goom18 goom19
... dsfsd	said on 2/18/2006 @ 9:05 am PT...
chlook10 chlook11 chlook12 chlook13 chlook14 chlook15 chlook16 chlook17 chlook18 chlook19
... sd	said on 2/18/2006 @ 9:10 am PT...
... pam	said on 2/18/2006 @ 9:13 am PT...
... hfdsjfh	said on 2/18/2006 @ 9:27 am PT...
... Tom	said on 2/18/2006 @ 9:31 am PT...
... Frank	said on 2/18/2006 @ 9:34 am PT...
chlook90 chlook91 chlook92 chlook93


text:
Nokia Windows Phone Launch Target Still Q4 Insists CEO
By Chris Davies/March 18, 2011 8:26 am EST
Nokia CEO Stephen Elop has said the company is still aiming to release a Windows Phone device in Q4 2011, despite previous suggestions from Nokia execs that we shouldn't expect a smartphone running Microsoft's platform until the tail-end of Q1 2012. "We're right now, today, having people work on the first Windows Phone devices from Nokia" the CEO said, "that work is already under way."
Meanwhile, Elop also denied that Microsoft was considering buying Nokia outright, saying that not only could he not envisage a suitable motivation for such a strategy, but that doing so would negatively impact the company's smartphone push. "I'm not aware of a strategic interest that Microsoft would have in the rest of the business," he said, "To the extent that a partnership has been formed around what they're really interested in, then what would an acquisition bring other than a good year of anti-trust investigation, huge turmoil, delays?"
Of course, Elop has always said 2011 would see the first Windows Phones launched, but rumors about Microsoft's delayed "Mango" update to the platform – which is now tipped to arrive early next year – have led to suggestions that the Nokia plans would be unavoidably altered. Still, Microsoft hasn't officially commented on the Mango timeline, and as such it's unsurprising that Elop would change his tune at this stage of the game.
[via WMPowerUser]

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


Superstition Mountain guest directory binder covers present a captivating and exciting visual experience. These beautiful solid mahogany guest directory binder covers have our butterfly design with premium coach faux leather for the quarterbind spine. The decoration is an embossed brass plate with natural light blue-green patina around the embossing. The plate is recessed in a window on the front cover. Branding quality binder covers.


text:
Q: Compiling code to run from external RAM I am considering designs for a minimalist game system based on a PIC18F85J5. Part of my design is that games can be loaded from an SD card without reprogramming the chip or flashing the program memory. I chose that chip because it has an external memory interface that will allow me to run code from an external SRAM.
The basic idea is that the internal program memory will contain an interface for browsing the sd card, and once the user selects a program it will copy a hex file from the sd card to the external ram, and then jump execution into the external ram space.
The internal program memory will also have various libraries for graphics, controller input and other various utilities.
I am fairly confident I know how to make the internal firmware parts work fine. The problem is creating programs to run from the external RAM. It doesn't feel the same as targeting a regular pic, and it needs to be aware of the library functions that are available in the internal memory, but not recompile them, only link to them. It also needs to start using addresses just after the 32k of internal flash, not at zero. Is there a good way to compile a program using these types of constraints?
I am using the MPLab IDE, but I am not super familiar with it, or how to do this kind of customization.

A: You have two separate issues:
*

*Building the code for the external RAM address range.
This is actually very easy.  All you have to do is make a linker file that contains only the address ranges you want the code to occupy.  Note that you not only need to reserve a particular program memory address range for these external apps, but also some RAM space.  This RAM space, like the program memory addresses, needs to be fixed and known.  Simply make only those fixed and known address ranges available for use in the linker file.  Don't forget to make them NOT available in the base code linker file.
After the base code loads a new app into external memory, it has to know how to execute it.  The easiest thing is probably to have execution start at the first external RAM location.  This means your code will need one CODE section at that absolute start address.  This contains a GOTO to the right label in the rest of the code, which will all be relocatable.

*Linking apps to library routines in the base code.
There is no immediately simple way to do this with the existing Microchip tools, but it's not that bad either.
A much bigger issue is how you want to deal with base code changes.  The simplistic strategy is to build your base code, run a program over the resulting map file to harvest global addresses, then have it write a import file with EQU statements for all the globally defined symbols.  This import file would then be included in all app code.  There is nothing to link, since the app source code essentially contains the fixed address references to the base code entry points.
That is easy to do and will work, but consider what happens when you change the base code.  Even a minor bug fix could cause all the addresses to move around, and then all existing app code would be no good and have to be rebuilt.  If you never plan to provide base code updates without updating all apps, then maybe you can get away with this, but I think it is a bad idea.
A better way is to have a defined interface area at a chosen fixed known address in the base code.  There would be one GOTO for every subroutine that app code can call.  These GOTOs would be placed at fixed known addresses, and the external apps would only call to those locations, which would then jump to wherever the subroutine actually ended up in that build of the base code.  This costs 2 program memory words per exported subroutine and two extra cycles at run time, but I think is well worth it.
To do this right you need to automate the process of generating the GOTOs and the resulting export file that external apps will import to get the subroutine (actually GOTO redirector) addresses.  You might be able to do with with some clever usage of MPASM macros, but if I were doing this I would definitely use my preprocessor since it can write to a external file at preprocessing time.  You can write a preprocessor macro so that each redirector can be defined by a single line of source code.  The macro does all the nasty stuff under the hood, which is to generate the GOTO, the external reference to the actual target routine, and add the appropriate line to the export file with the known constant address of that routine, all with appropriate names.  Perhaps the macro just makes a bunch of preprocessor variables with regular names (kindof like a run-time expandable array), and then the export file is written once after all the macro calls.  One of the many things my preprocessor can do that MPASM macros can't is to do string manipulation to build new symbol names from other names.
My preprocessor and a bunch of other related stuff is available for free at www.embedinc.com/pic/dload.htm.

A: Option 1: Interpreted Languages
This doesn't directly answer the question (which is an excellent question, BTW, and I hope to learn from an answer which does address it directly), but it's very common when doing projects which can load external programs to write the external programs in an interpreted language.  If resources are tight (which they will be on this processor, have you thought about using a PIC32 or small ARM processor for this?), it's common to restrict the language to a subset of the full specification.  Even further down the chain are domain-specific languages that only do a few things.
For example, the elua project is an example of a low-resource (64 kB RAM) interpreted language.  You can squeeze this down to 32k of RAM if you remove some features (Note: It won't work on your current processor, which is an 8-bit architecture.  Using external RAM will probably be too slow for graphics). It provides a fast, flexible language in which new users could easily program games if you provide a minimal API.  There is plenty of documentation available for the language online.  There are other languages (like Forth and Basic) which you could use in a similar manner, but I think that Lua is the best option at the moment.
In a similar vein, you could create your own domain-specific language. You would have to provide a more full-fledged API and external documentation, but if the games were all similar then this wouldn't be too difficult.
In any case, the PIC18 is probably not the processor I'd use for something which involves custom programming/scripting and graphics.  You may be familiar with this class of processors, but I'd suggest that this would be a good time to use something with a display driver and more memory.
Option 2: Just reprogram the whole thing
If, however, you're already planning on programming all the games yourself in C, then don't bother with loading just the game logic from the SD card.  You have just 32kB of Flash to reprogram, and could easily get a 4 GB microSD card for this.  (Note: larger cards are often SDHC, which is harder to interface with).  Assuming that you use every last byte of your 32 kB, that leaves room on the SD card for 131,072 copies of your firmware with whatever game logic you need.
There are plenty of appnotes for writing bootloaders for PICs, like AN851.  You'd need to design your bootloader to occupy a specific region of memory (probably the top of the memory region, you would specify this in the linker), and specify that the full firmware projects do not reach this region.  The appnote spells this out in more detail.  Just replace "Boot section of the PIC18F452" with "Boot section I specify in the linker" and it will all make sense.
Then, your bootloader just needs to allow the user to select a program to run from the SD card, and copy the whole thing over.  A UI could be that the user has to hold down a push button to enter the selection mode.  Ordinarily, the bootloader would just check the status of this button on reset, and, if it's not being held down, boot into the game.  If it's held down, it would need to allow the user to choose a file on the SD card, copy the program over, and continue to boot into the [new] game.
This is my current recommendation.
Option 3: Deep magic involving storing only part of the hex file
The trouble with your envisioned mechanism is that the processor doesn't deal with APIs and function calls, it deals with numbers - addresses to which the instruction pointer can jump and expect there to be code which executes a function call according to an API spec.  If you try to compile just a part of the program, the linker won't know what to do when you call check_button_status() or toggle_led(). You may know that those functions exist in the hex file on the processor, but it needs to know precisely which address they reside at.
The linker already breaks your code into multiple sections; you could theoretically break this into additional sections with some -section and #pragma incantations.  I have never done this, and don't know how.  Until the above two methods fail me (or someone posts an awesome answer here), I probably won't learn this mechanism, and so I can't teach it to you.

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaStackExchange


What is a Veterinary Radiologist?
What do Hyperechoic and Hypoechoic Mean?
Hyperechoic Fat on Ultrasound – What Does It Mean?
Is it a Hepatic or Splenic Mass?
What is a Bronchial Pattern?
Skin Mass or Pulmonary Nodule?


text:
Kościół św. Michała Archanioła w Błędowie – kościół parafialny dekanatu Wąbrzeźno.

Historia
W 1320 roku erygowano parafię w Błędowie. Z tego roku pochodzi też pierwsza wzmianka o kościele gotyckim w tej miejscowości. Budowlę sakralną wzniesiono prawdopodobnie na przełomie XIII i XIV wieku przez Krzyżaków. W 1410 roku kościół uległ zniszczeniu. Został odbudowany. Spalony w 1922 r. w 1924 odbudowany z zachowaniem murów obwodowych pierwotnego kościoła salowego w obecnej nawie. Gotycki, z niemal całkowitym zatarciem cech stylowych. Orientowany, murowany, w częściach gotyckich z kamienia polnego z użyciem cegły. W południowej ścianie nawy zamurowany portal gotycki z XIV wieku - ostrołukowy, profilowany, z formowanej cegły.

Przy kościele dzwonnica drewniana konstrukcji słupowej w kształcie krosna z XIX wieku. Dzwon prawdopodobnie z 1533 z minuskułowym napisem.

Miejscowości należące do parafii: Błędowo, Dąbrówka, Działowo, Goryń, Płąchawy, Wiewiórki.

Przypisy

Świątynie pod wezwaniem św. Michała Archanioła
Kościoły w diecezji toruńskiej
Obiekty sakralne w gminie Płużnica
Architektura I Rzeczypospolitej (województwo chełmińskie)
Zabytkowe kościoły w powiecie wąbrzeskim
Architektura gotyku w województwie kujawsko-pomorskim
Kościół

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia