Americans love a conspiracy. According to a May 17 Zogby poll, 42 percent believe the U.S. government and the 9/11 Commission are covering up what really happened on Sept. 11, 2001. There is something comforting about a world where someone is in charge—either for good (think gods) or evil (think Bush insiders plotting 9/11). Many people prefer to believe a Procrustean… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (1979)I’m sensing this discussion is nearing its end. With the passage of time and after re-reading Terry Allen’s essay, it’s all the more apparent that she was indeed ahead of the curve on this subject. She correctly recognized the erroneous nature of the “truth” movement, and understood how damaging it was becoming to rational political discourse:
But the work should be done. Pile conspiracies can be dangerous. Those who deny that HIV is responsible for AIDS, for example, have contributed to unnecessary infections and deaths.
And the 9/11 conspiracy hypotheses distract from the growing chain of evidence documenting how the Bush administration actually manipulated this country to war on a train of lies riding tracks of fear—cynically using the bodies of the 9/11 victims as fuel.
There have been several other voices from the left agreeing with Terry, but perhaps the most powerful to date comes from across the pond:
Like the millenarian fantasies which helped to destroy the Levellers as a political force in the mid-17th century, this crazy distraction presents a mortal danger to popular oppositional movements. If I were Bush or Blair, nothing would please me more than to see my opponents making idiots of themselves, while devoting their lives to chasing a phantom. But as a controlled asset of the new world order, I would say that, wouldn’t I? It’s all part of the plot.
Thanks Terry and George, for having the courage to call these guys out and identify them as the dangerous frauds that they are.
Too bad you don’t get paid for how many comments you engender. Or do you?
Posted by Natalie on Feb 20, 2007 at 3:43 PM THAT’S IT! I CANT LET YOU GET AWAY WITH YOUR LIES ANYMORE!
How dare you NATALIE continue to tell your filthy lies to these people!
It is time that you NATALIE stop trying to obstruct a new investigation that is called for by the majority of Americans or prepare to be trampled upon like traitorous lowly worms crushed under the weight of the great mass and majority of America’s step toward reclaiming our rights given to us by the Constitution that our forefathers fought and died for.
WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT ANSWERS AND WE WILL NOT EXCEPT THE GOVERNMENT STORY ON FAITH!
Seen in this light, the now established fact that the military has lied about 9/11 has a perhaps unforeseen implication—that there is no good reason to take the military’s new story on fAITH.
NO! Natalie I will not join your govenment FAITH movement!
Why didn’t the govt foresee the attacks, prevent them, etc.? Stupidity (“didn’t connect the dots”). Why did we fight in Vietnam for 10 years? Stupidity. (“A well-intentioned error.”) It goes on and on. In the last resort, the explanation, if there has to be one, is always “Gee, we were just too stupid.” Same thing here. “Oh, the FAA was just too stupid, NEADS was just too stupid, or they were all just too stupid” to prevent 19 Arabs with boxcutters from penetrating the national air defense system and striking at the heart of the defense establishment and of the financial center of the country.”
Why do we even consider such a lame excuse? FAITH! Faith that we were and are led by a bunch of stupid fools! Faith that the admittedly stupid fools would not lie to us but only fail us do to their stupidity!
If it really was stupidity, which we know it wasn’t, heads should roll by the hundreds, starting with Rumsfeld, at least, and also Bush, being the commander-in-chief. On the basis of this argument alone—that the govt FAILED TO DO ITS MOST IMPORTANT JOB (of protecting us), there should be immediate impeachment.
According to you NATALIE we are to have FAITH that the admittedly stupid fool who when informed that a second plane had struck the World Trade Center, continued to read about a pet goat. Because he was to stupid and foolish to do anything else.
We are to have FAITH that he had no idea that we were under attack when the first plane hit even though he knew about all of these warnings:
29 Warnings from leaders of other nations and foreign intelligence apparatus’ of terrorist threats
June 30, 2001 Senior Executive Intelligence Briefing (SEIB) entitled “bin Laden Threats Are Real”
The threat of President Bush’s assassination at the G-8 Summit by al Qaeda in July of 2001—-using aircraft to dive bomb the summit building
July 2001 Phoenix memo, which told of potential terrorists taking flight lessons
52 FAA warnings—- five of which mentioned al Qaeda’s training for hijacking
August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief entitled “bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”
National Intelligence Estimate (NIE)entitled “Islamist Extremists Learn to Fly”
Intelligence agency heads describing themselves with their “hair on fire” to characterize the imminent nature of the threats they were intercepting from Al Qaeda and their sense of urgency in relating them to the Bush Administration
The arrest of Zacharias Moussaoui in August of 2001
FBI Agent Harry Samit’s 70 unsuccessful attempts to get a FISA Warrant to examine Moussaoui’s belongings
So Natalie according to you we the American people are to have FAITH that those in the administration are so admitedly stupid and foolish that they thought the warnings in the months leading up to 9/11 had to do with U.S. interests outside of the U.S.!
WE ARE TO HAVE FAITH THAT THE ADMINISTRATION IS SO STUPID THEY COULD NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT EXACTLY THE WARNINGS WERE ABOUT AND WE SHOULD HAVE FAITH THAT THEY THOUGHT THE WARNINGS MENT OUTSIDE OF THE U.S.!
The August 6, 2001 Presidential Daily Brief was entitled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US”.
I’ve asked this question several times - what is it that you gain (as a tax paying citizen - presumption) if the truth movement is wrong? Wow they were a bunch of stupid crackpots and nobody cares the next day…What happens if you are wrong? You certainly don’t have history on your side…corrupt govts. duped, compliant and defensive segments of the population has been the downfall of many societies…What has changed?...When has it become acceptable to give the govt. the benefit of the doubt? Oh I forgot - dumbed down American thinks it’s when the govt. has made a case that the bad guys are coming to get us…Since the beginning of the latest Iraq War the head of Halliburton has earned $100 million dollars - meanwhile many Marines were sickened by contaminated water from the same comp….The chump who privately interrogated prisoners at Abu has made $23 million…Yeah we should have FAITH that we are not being lied to by our government.
Fundamentally, we (truthers) are on the correct path. We are fullfilling our Constitutional duty to question our government and not to just have FAITH in our government.
The administration has fought from day one to stop any kind of investigation into 9/11 why? They have strongly pushed the government FAITH movement! Then the administration has done everything to hinder the investigation as admited by the members of the ommission. I mean the commission and their ommission report.
The administration (almost from day one) has begged citizens “not to engage in any wild conspiracy theories” - and has spurred on the supposed anti-conspiracy movement - with our tax dollars. Paying for the propaganda to push the government FAITH movement. The position could have some sense of legitimacy had it not come from the very people who are being sought out as being involved in said conspiracy.
We are to have FAITH that no one in the administration had ever thought that planes be used as weapons because they were just to admitedly stupid and foolish to know what the reports and drills were about!
The North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the military air defense agency responsible for protecting the U.S. mainland, had run drills for several years of planes being used as weapons against the World Trade Center and other U.S. high-profile buildings, and “numerous types of civilian and military aircraft were used as mock hijacked aircraft”. In other words, drills using REAL AIRCRAFT simulating terrorist attacks crashing jets into buildings, including the twin towers, were run.
Remarkably, on the morning of 9/11 itself, [John] Fulton and his team at the CIA were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day.[National Law Enforcement Security Institute, 8/02] Fulton’s team was part of the National Reconnaissance Office, which “operates many of the nation’s spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA.“The simulation was to start at 9:00 a.m., four miles from where one of the real hijacked planes had just taken off. Apparently it was cancelled when real events took over. [AP, 8/21/02] Also on 9/11, NORAD was in the middle of another periodic war game, this one called Vigilant Guardian. Details are vague, except that the scenario tested “an imaginary crisis to North American Air Defense outposts nationwide” [Newhouse News, 1/25/02], and according to one NORAD employee, “everybody” at NORAD initially thought the real hijackings were part of the exercise. [Aviation Week and Space Technology, 6/3/02, Newhouse News, 1/25/02, ABC News, 9/11/02]
And a pre-9/11 National Intelligence Estimate was entitled “Islamic Extremists Learn to Fly”, and was apparently about Islamic people taking classes at U.S. flight schools.
Richard Ben-Veniste said the following to Condoleezza Rice the following question during her appearance before the 9/11 Commission:
“The extraordinary high terrorist attack threat level in the summer of 2001 is well documented, and Richard Clarke’s testimony about the possibility of an attack against the United States homeland was repeatedly discussed from May to August within the intelligence community, and that is well documented. You acknowledged that Richard Clarke told you that Al-Qaeda cells were in the United States.
(or watch the video).The CIA Director had warned congress shortly before 9/11 “that there could be an attack, an imminent attack, on the United States of this nature. So this is not entirely unexpected” according to a broadcast on National Public Radio
Newsweek stated “On Sept. 10, NEWSWEEK has learned, a group of top Pentagon officials suddenly canceled travel plans for the next morning, apparently because of security concerns” (pay-per-view; cached version of article here)
An employee who worked in the south tower stated “How could they let this happen? They knew this building was a target. Over the past few weeks we’d been evacuated a number of times, which is unusual. I think they had an inkling something was going on”
And a guard who worked in the world trade center stated that “officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks”
According to MSNBC, “There have been a slew of reports over the past decade of plots to use planes to strike American targets”.
For example, a 1998 report forwarded from the FBI to the Federal Aviation Administration concluded that “a group of unidentified Arabs planned to fly an explosive-laden plane . . . into the World Trade Center”.
Peter Rundlet, Counsel for the 9/11 Commission said: “A mixture of shock, anger, and sadness overcame me when I read about revelations in Bob Woodward’s new book about a special surprise visit that George Tenet and his counterterrorism chief Cofer Black made to Condi Rice, also on July 10, 2001 ...
If true, it is shocking that the administration failed to heed such an overwhelming alert from the two officials in the best position to know. Many, many questions need to be asked and answered about this revelation—- questions that the 9/11 Commission would have asked, had the Commission been told about this significant meeting. Suspiciously, the Commissioners and the staff investigating the administration,s actions prior to 9/11 were never informed of the meeting.”
Jamie S. Gorelick, 9/11 Commissioner said: Regarding recent revelations of a July 10, 2001 meeting between Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, and Cofer Black - “Jamie S. Gorelick, a member of the Sept. 11 commission, said she checked with commission staff members who told her investigators were never told about a July 10 meeting. “We didn’t know about the meeting itself,” she said. “I can assure you it would have been in our report if we had known to ask about it.” White House and State Department officials yesterday confirmed that the July 10 meeting took place…”
Timothy J. Roemer, PhD, 9/11 Commissioner said: Regarding recent revelations of a July 10, 2001 meeting between Condoleezza Rice, George Tenet, and Cofer Black - “In interviews Saturday and Sunday, commission members said they were never told about the meeting despite hours of public and private questioning with Rice, Tenet and Black, much of it focused specifically on how the White House had dealt with terrorist threats in the summer of 2001.
“None of this was shared with us in hours of private interviews, including interviews under oath; nor do we have any paper on this,” said Timothy Roemer, a Democratic member of the commission and a former congressman from Indiana. “I’m deeply disturbed by this. I’m furious.”
The you tell us to have FAITH that not only was the admistration a bunch of stupid fools but so was the Secret Service that did not secure the president, even though his location was publicly disclosed in the press for days before the school photo op on 9/11. This was a break in standard operating procedures that left the president vulnerable in the middle of a purported “attack” on America.
Natalie you tell us to have FAITH that we are being told the truth by our government when NORAD has told three different and conflicting stories explaining why no jet fighters intercepted any of the four hijacked airliners. Yet you say we should have FAITH that one of them could be, may be correct but all three also conflict with the official conspiracy theory of the 911 commission report.
Then you tell U.S. to have FAITH that the administration was so stupid and foolish that they never even thought that planes coul be used as weapons even though Vice President Richard Cheney was placed in charge of anti-terrorism training and military preparedness exercises by Bush on May 8, 2001. This gave him command authority during the 9/11 attacks because as many as nine war game exercises involving military and intelligence agencies were occurring simultaneously.
Then on top of all that you tell us to have FAITH that it was jus a coincidence that The military’s “Air Piracy” regulations were rewritten on June 1st 2001 to require the “Secretary of Defense” to give “approval” for military escort aircraft in the event of a hijacking. Donald Rumsfeld gave no “approval” that day.
But you really push the government FAITH movement on us whe you tell us that it was a Stupid misstake when Air Force General Richard Myers said: “When it became clear what the threat was, we did scramble fighter aircraft, AWACS, radar aircraft and tanker aircraft to begin to establish orbits in case other aircraft showed up in the FAA system that were hijacked…”
Senator Carl Levin: “Was that order that you just described given before or after the Pentagon was struck? Do you know?”
Air Force General Richard Myers: “That order, to the best of my knowledge, was after the Pentagon was struck.”
Reality intrudes. It became “clear what the threat was,” the moment the first hijacked airliner struck the North Tower at 8:45am. This congressional testimony is inexcusable and grounds for investigation into criminal negligence, dereliction of duty, and treason.
John J. Farmer, Jr., Senior Counsel, 9/11 Commission said: “I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described,” John Farmer, a former New Jersey attorney general who led the staff inquiry into events on Sept. 11, said in a recent interview. “The tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. ... This is not spin. This is not true.”
Timothy J. Roemer, PhD, 9/11 Commissioner CNN Article 8/2/06 : “A member of the 9/11 commission said Wednesday that panel members so distrusted testimony from Pentagon officials that they referred their concerns to the Pentagon’s inspector general. ... “We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting,” Roemer told CNN. “We were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission or merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy.”
Thomas H. Kean, Chairman, 9/11 Commission said: “We, to this day, don’t know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us,” said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. “It was just so far from the truth. ... It’s one of those loose ends that never got tied.”
Natalie you tell us to have FAITH in the government story and not listen to the 9/11 commissioners who thought they were set up to fail like Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman, 9/11 Commission who said: “I think basically it’s because they were afraid we were going to hang somebody, that we would point the finger, right in the middle of a presidential campaign - ‘Mr. Bush, this was your fault’”
when he was asked: “I guess the question is, you know, if forty odd million dollars were spent investigating President Bill Clinton’s sexual infidelities, why did the American people and the world have to wait 441 days for a commission [to begin its work] that was originally budgeted for 3 million dollars and given barely a year [to complete the investigation]?”
Senator Max Cleland—- Former member of the 9/11 Commission, said: “One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up.”
Regarding the 9/11 Commission “It is a national scandal.”
NO Natalie I cant bring myself to follow your government FAITH movement.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 21, 2007 at 1:09 AM Natalie—don’t reply. This is the loop I came in on. Why waste any others time looking into all this? I was intrigued by the Jones article, but would have likely figured it out faster without following up on all the links Joe posted. If no one replies, he will hopefully stop also and maybe even move on to a more productive task. So many misdeeds go uncovered, his energy and passion would be welcome. Dont be baited!!
Joe-I didnt want to hurt your feelings earlier, nor now. But I really think you just repeat the same things over and over without addressing the key question: why are those with specific knowledge supporting your claims only those on the fringes? I wont make any further replies here and have taken it off my notification list. Good luck, but do try and find a cause more worthy of all your effort. You make all who would battle against the deeds of the current admin look like kooks. Why else would Natalie continue to engage you, giver her perspective?
Posted by recursive prophet on Feb 21, 2007 at 1:45 AM The Saudi funded Sunni insurgency has caused 90% of the American casualties and has cost the U.S. Taxpayers over 98% of total costs do to damages/destruction of military equipment that are in the billions. Second place is the normal wear and tear + desert sand. Third place is the Shiite insurgents.
U.S. intelligence reports and the U.S. Iraq Study Group report as well as Iraqi intelligence reports said Saudis are funding Sunni Arab insurgents and the money is used to buy weapons, including Strelas, Russian shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.
If, indeed, the Iranians are funding, arming and training Shiite militias (who are responsible for 4% of American military deaths in Iraq and 6% of injuries inflicted on American military in Iraq) and we are threatening military action against Iran, then doesn’t it logically follow that we should be threatening military action against Saudi Arabia which has been funding the Sunni insurgency, (who is responsible for 90% of American military casualties) an insurgency that has killed far more Americans than the Shiite insurgency?
Why are we giving a free pass to the Saudis who are supplying money and weaponry to those doing the most killing of Americans in Iraq?
For the answer you have to look at 9/11. Then it is clear why we help those who are doing the most killing of Americans.
Besides the FACT that according to U.S. intelligence reports Saudi Arabia has an active role as a player in the nuclear black-market.
And besides the FACT that the U.S. State Department’s Human Rights Report shows Saudi Arabia is a brutal dictatorship that makes Iraq under Saddam Hussein look like Disneyworld.
According to U.S. intelligence reports the Saudi government played a direct role in funding 9/11 and 15 of the 19 9/11 hijackers were Saudis.
Who did the CIA memo dated August 2, 2002 say gave support for some of the September 11 hijackers while they were in the United States?
The Saudi government with its members of the Saudi Royal Family and members of the Bin Laden family with close ties to the royal family!
Who has direct financial ties to an oil, energy and weapons investment group which has raked in $Billions as a result of this War?
The Bin Laden family!
The bin Laden family has very strong ties in the Carlyle Group, a Washington-based investment company focused primarily in the arms, security, and energy industries.
Who was sued by the 9/11 victims family members for complicity in the attacks?
The Saudi Royal Family!
The Saudi Royal Family also has very strong ties to the Carlyle Group, which invests heavily in defense companies and is the nation’s 10th largest defense contractor with ties to Enron, Global Crossing, among others.
Who helped arange the evacuation of members of the Bin Laden Family after 9/11 and defended the Saudis against a lawsuit brought by the 9/11 victims family members?
A man who happens to be the senior counsel for the Carlyle Group!
Carlyle has profited immensely from the Afghanistan and Iraqi wars. Its legal matters are handled by Baker, Botts—-James Baker’s law firm in Texas. Mr. Baker also has a personal interest in Carlyle, amounting to some $180 million. Another client of Baker, Botts is Exxon-Mobil.
Who on the morning of September 11th had a investor conference with members of the familys incontrovertibly tied to 9/11?
The Carlyle Group held an investor conference in the Ritz Carlton in Washington DC on the morning of September 11th, 2001 with members of the Bin Laden family and ect, tied to 9/11.
The Carlyle Group, a Washington, DC based private equity firm that employs numerous former high-ranking government officials with ties to both political parties, was the ninth largest Pentagon contractor between 1998 and 2003, an ongoing Center for Public Integrity investigation into Department of Defense contracts found. According to this report, overall, six private investment firms, including Carlyle, received nearly $14 billion in Pentagon deals between 1998 and 2003. Considering the fact that Saudi Arabia is the top buyer of the U.S. weapons industry, Carlyle’s investment and its stake, and of course Jimmy Baker’s far reaching influence within the Pentagon and congress, everything seems to come together and fit perfectly to shield this foreign interest no matter the price to be paid by the American public.
That is why were giving a free pass to the Saudis who are supplying money and weaponry to those doing the most killing (90%) of Americans and why the investigation on the Saudi 9/11 connection was stopped.
Also the highest levels of the Bush Administration knew during the summer of 2001 that the largest bankruptcy in history was imminent.That Enron and the White House were working closely with the Taliban—including Osama bin Laden—up to weeks before the Sept. 11 attack.
The deal in Afghanistan was part of a desperate last-ditch “end run” to bail out Enron.
Unocal had the largest share, the “Central Asian Gas Pipeline” (CentGas) consortium had six other partners, including companies in Saudi Arabia’s Delta Oil Company—the next largest shareholder.
The U.S. looked for other options, and the Trade and Development Agency commissioned a feasibility study for an improbable east- to- west route that would cross the Caspian Mountains and end at a Mediterranean seaport in Turkey. The company hired for that study was Enron. If that pipeline were to be constructed, Turkmenistan signed an agreement that it would be built by Bechtel and GE Capital Services—the same American companies that were Enron’s business partners in the Dabhol power plant.
No matter which direction the Central Asia natural gas would eventually flow, Enron would profit. Should it go south towards ships waiting on the Pakistan coast, it would be still only a few hundred miles at sea to Dabhol. The trip from the Mediterranean would be farther (and thus more expensive for Enron to buy gas), but it was also the least likely route to be constructed. Estimated costs were almost $1 billion more than the route through Afghanistan, and engineering plans had not even started. No, the only practical route for the Caspian Sea gas was through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the border of India. All that was lacking was the political will to make it happen.
Bush’s long and personal relationship with Enron’s former CEO Kenneth Lay is now well known, as is his generous contribution of over $600,000 to advance the political career of the man who now holds the White House. Not so well known is how Bush has helped Enron.
Scarcely a month after Bush moves into the White House, Vice President Cheney has his first secret meeting with Ken Lay and other Enron executives on February 22, 2001. Other meetings follow on March 7 and April 17. It is the details of these meetings that the Bush Administration is seeking to keep private.
It’s clear the Cheney had his own conflicts of interest with Enron. A chief benefactor in the trans-Caspian pipeline deal would have been Halliburton, the huge oil pipeline construction firm which was previously headed by Cheney. After Cheney’s selection as Bush’s Vice Presidential candidate, Halliburton also contributed a huge amount of cash into the Bush-Cheney campaign coffers.
It is a FACT that there was a specific time frame for invading Afghanistan on the table before 9/11.
July 21, 2001: US Official Threatens Possible Military Action Against Taliban by October if Pipeline Is Not Pursued Niaz Naik. [Source: Calcutta Telegraph]
Three former American officials, Tom Simons (former US Ambassador to Pakistan), Karl Inderfurth (former Deputy Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs), and Lee Coldren (former State Department expert on South Asia) meet with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in a Berlin hotel. [Salon, 9/16/2002] This is the third of a series of back-channel conferences called “brainstorming on Afghanistan.” Taliban representatives sat in on previous meetings, but boycotted this one due to worsening tensions. However, the Pakistani ISI relays information from the meeting to the Taliban. [Guardian, 10/22/2001] At the meeting, Coldren passes on a message from Bush officials. He later says, “I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action.” [Guardian, 10/26/2001] Accounts vary, but former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik later says he is told by senior American officials at the meeting that military action to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan is planned to “take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.” The goal is to kill or capture both bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar, topple the Taliban regime, and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place. Uzbekistan and Russia would also participate. Naik also says, “It was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban.” [BBC, 10/18/2001] One specific threat made at this meeting is that the Taliban can choose between “carpets of bombs”—-an invasion—-or “carpets of gold”—-the pipeline. [Brisard and Dasquie, 2002] Naik contends that Tom Simons made the “carpets” statement. Simons claims, “It’s possible that a mischievous American participant, after several drinks, may have thought it smart to evoke gold carpets and carpet bombs. Even Americans can’t resist the temptation to be mischievous.” Naik and the other American participants deny that the pipeline was an issue at the meeting. [Salon, 9/16/2002]
The whole deal went sour.
On August 27, 2001, Abdullah, the de facto leader of Saudi Arabia, sent a message to President Bush threatening to end the Saudi alliance with the US.
August 31, 2001: Head of Saudi Arabia’s Intelligence Service Is Replaced
Enron had one last card to play, and that was selling the Dabhol plant for quick cash—if it could. If Enron could get its asking price of $2.3 billion, then maybe the company could pull out of its bankruptcy nose dive.
In late August, Lay appeared to threaten India in an article in the London Financial Times. We expect full price for the plant, he warned; if they received anything less, there could be backlash: “There are laws that could prevent the U.S. government from providing any aid or assistance to India going forward if, in fact, they expropriate property of U.S. companies,” he said. When Indian officials called these statements “strong arm tactics,” an Enron statement claimed Lay “was merely referring to U.S. laws.” Again Lay appeared to threaten India in a Sept. 14 letter to the Prime Minister, insisting that the $2.3 billion price was reasonable because they had a “legal claim” of up to $5 billion.
But the house of cards collapsed dramatically on November 8, when Enron disclosed that it had overstated earnings dating back to 1997 by almost $600 million. That same day, an e-mail (“Importance: High”), whose sender and recipient are blacked out, warned, “President Bush cannot talk about Dabhol as was already mentioned.” The memo also said that Bush economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey could not discuss Enron either. Lindsey had been an Enron consultant.
But it was not over for everyone. There were still some players left in this war for profit.
On October 7, 2001 the carpet of bombs is unleashed over Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai, the former Unocal consultant, is installed as head of an interim government. Subsequently he is elected President of Afghanistan, and welcomes the first U.S. envoy—-Mr. John J. Maresca, Vice President for International Relations of the Unocal Corporation, who had implored Congress three years previously to have the Taliban overthrown. Mr. Maresca was succeeded by Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad—-also a former Unocal consultant. (Mr. Khalilzad has since become Ambassador to Iraq.)
Presidents Karzai of Afghanistan and Musharraf of Pakistan meet on February 8, 2002, sign an agreement for a new pipeline, and the way forward is open for Unocal once more.
The Afghanistan President, and both the Afghan and Iraqi Ambassadors - all former Unocal Consultants. Coincidince? I think not.
“So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.”
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 21, 2007 at 6:25 AM Noam Chomsky has signed a petition written by the 9/11 “Jersey” widows calling for the release of classified documents relating to the 9/11 attacks.
I’ve followed Chomsky’s career and I can’t recall a single instance where he has ever admitted error; this petition is a tacit acknowledgement of his monumental mistake in dismissing 911 truth, even if its not an outright mea culpa. He is extremely smart and sees the writing on the wall. He knows that 9/11 Truth is rapidly reaching a tipping point! No wonder Chomsky looks tired.
But with that said I have to say I don’t mind accepting Chomsky without a word, but I sure as hell won’t thank his eminence. He can get right in the back of the big bus. Seat #6432!
It sure took him long enough.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 21, 2007 at 10:31 PM Putting aside the fact that embracing an action by the idiot socialist Noam Chomsky calls into question your so-called conservative credentials Joe, you are of course misconstruing his signing of this petition as being somehow supportive of your nutty “inside job” fantasies.
The petition:
We, the undersigned, demand the immediate declassification and release of all transcripts and documents relating to the July 10, 2001 meeting that took place between former CIA Director George Tenet and then National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice. It has been alleged that this urgent and out-of-the-ordinary meeting was called to discuss the increasingly dire warnings of an imminent al Qaeda attack within the U.S.
Given that much of the July 10, 2001 meeting has already been made public in Bob Woodward’s newly released book, “State of Denial”, it is unacceptable to continue to keep these documents and transcripts hidden from the American public’s view.
In addition, we again call for the declassification and release of both the redacted 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (JICI) and the CIA Inspector General’s report, “CIA Accountability With Respect To The 9/11 Attacks”.
The disastrous nature of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks warrant the release of all of this information so that the American public may learn what its government did or did not do to protect them. Had this nation been properly warned of the looming and imminent terrorist threat, life saving choices could have been made that day.
Now that’s a petition that I would even be tempted to sign. But since the Jersey Girls are just a bunch of Democrat hacks, I’m reluctant. I don’t remember them being much concerned about the years of seemingly deliberately missed opportunities to take out or take into custody OBL, or writing petitions to demand that Sandy Berger be held accountable for literally shredding the truth about those years. They don’t seem very curious about how decades of Democrat imposed restrictions on intelligence gathering enabled the plan to go undetected.
No, they’re focused strictly on the last seven or eight short months when a Republican was President. By this time it was probably too late for anyone to realistically have been able to stop the attacks, short of shutting down the entire country and telling everyone to stay home and keep their curtains closed.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 22, 2007 at 6:11 PM Natalie
I had brought up Chomsky because of recursive prophet (he had posted about him on this thread) and I have followed his career because he is so many times brought up in a debate on many things as well as 9/11.
Chomsky said he did not care about 9/11 because it did not matter and even if it was an inside job so what it does not change anything.
I was completely baffled and furious when he said that so I take this as a HUGE turn around of his monumental mistake in dismissing 911 truth, even if its not an outright mea culpa.
You also have to take into account that he has never ever admitted error that I know of in his career.
He is not stupid so he knows that this goes totaly against what he had been saying about 9/11 before.
But the reaction of many like myself is “too little too late”. Yeah I’m glad is eminence can admit his mistake in the only way his ego will allow him.
Im also glad he is on board becaus it will bring others but I am not ever going to say thank you because it is clear that his recent acknowledgement of his mistake and 180 degree turn around on the importance of 9/11 only came when it was obvious that 9/11 Truth is rapidly reaching a tipping point. He would have looked even more of a fool had he not swallowed his pride and acknowledge his “HUGE” and “GROSS” mistake in dismissing 911 truth.
So you have a criticism of the survivors strategy and think they are a bunch of Democrat hacks. Listen to Ann Coulter much or is that what all the Neo-“CONS” are saying?
First I am upset that the petition didn’t mention anything regarding Controlled Demolition but I dot think its because they are a bunch of hacks.
I think they didnt mention it because Controlled Demolition is only one aspect of 9/11. The same goes for Sandy Berger. There are other aspects as well. Not that these two are any less important.
1. The immediate declassification and release of all transcripts and documents relating to the July 10, 2001 meeting that took place between former CIA Director George Tenet and then National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice.
Why is that important? A few reasons. As reported by McClatchy News, “Former CIA Director George Tenet presented the briefing to commission member Richard Ben Veniste and executive director Philip Zelikow in secret testimony at CIA headquarters on Jan. 28, 2004, said three former senior agency officials.” Timothy Roemer, former 9/11 Commissioner said, “None of this was shared with us in hours of private interviews, including interviews under oath, nor do we have any paper on this” [,,,] “I’m deeply disturbed by this.” When Zelikow was asked about this he “didn’t respond to e-mail and telephone queries from McClatchy Newspapers.” Not long after, he resigned his position from the state department. Could it be because he said, “that no witness before the commission had drawn attention to a July 10 meeting at the White House, nor described the sort of encounter portrayed in Mr. Woodward’s book”, and instead of bringing further attention to the inadequate 9/11 Commission because of his lie, he dropped out of the spotlight? Maybe. This meeting also involved Condoleezza Rice. She denied any knowledge of the meeting, even though a memo exists that says she was, in fact, briefed. Another Condi lie. As we all know, Condi is KNOWN for lying, and everytime we catch her with one, it lends further credibility to our cause. Finally, this meeting was not mentioned anywhere within the 9/11 Report. A sign of a cover-up.
2. Declassification and release of the redacted 28 pages of the Joint Inquiry Into The Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001 (JICI).
Why is that important? Well known, and respected 9/11 family member Bill Doyle recently said he was told by a source that part of those 28 redacted pages talked about the United States funneling money to Pakistan. If everything checks out in regards to the $100,000 wire transfer from Omar Saeed Sheikh to Mohammad Atta, then that little tidbit of information could be VERY incriminating. Especially since what we know about the wire transfer leads directly to the White House.
3. Declassification and release of the CIA Inspector General’s report, “CIA Accountability With Respect To The 9/11 Attacks”.
Why is that important? Well, we know the report “calls for disciplinary reviews for former CIA Director George Tenet and current and former officials who were involved in faulty intelligence efforts before the attacks.” If that report is released, it could create a backlash because George Tenet himself said that he would not be the “Fall Guy” for 9/11. It is possible he would be willing to speak up at that point, and name names. I think it is worth a shot.
I have always supported the efforts of the family members, and no, I have not always agreed with them. However, there is more to 9/11 than Sandy Berger or Controlled Demolition, and just because their petition doesn’t mention them, doesn’t mean we should chastise them with negative conotations for their efforts.
And before you say the family members dont belive in CD because it is not in this latest particular petition.
Did you know that the family members were asking about WTC7 BEFORE the alias “Truther” existed?
13. On 9/11, no aircraft hit WTC 7. Why did the building fall at 5:20 PM that evening? Larry Silverstein is heard on a PBS tape saying “I remember getting a call from the, E.R., fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, “We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.” And they made that decision to pull and we watched the [WTC 7] building collapse,” said Larry Silverstein, WTC Leaseholder. - PBS (9/10/02) Does “pull” mean demolished? What do you know about this?
They were asking questions about the 9/11 event when it was considered blasphemous to do so because it had been shrouded in mythology and deemed sacred and beyond questioning.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 22, 2007 at 9:58 PM Natalie
If you hadnt also noticed recursive prophet’s argument was very similar to Chomsky’s in that Chomsky always appealed to authority on 9/11.
Thats why I didnt even bother with listing the demolition experts for recursive prophet when he asked becaue he would just say something like “their only famous and highly regarded in the demolition field of expertise in foreign countries such as those found in Europe” or something close to that so I did not bother even telling him about Danny Jowenko and ect, because I could see that he would do like Chomsky “USED” to do and come up with some reason to dismiss them even though there are now 4 different demolition experts who say 9/11 was a CD.
Besides recursive prophet said he read the thread so he knew who they were because I posted them many times before. So his asking again ment he did not think they mattered at all for whatever reason.
I assume because they are foreign or maybe it is because of their pedigree or because they didn’t come from an Ivy League college which was most important to recursive prophet.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 23, 2007 at 12:55 AM Natalie
9/11 has helped me see that maybe some of the German people really didnt belive that there were consentration camps all over Germany ect, controled by the German government killing millions of Jews and German dissidents. Even with all of the reports and trains and missing Jews and Germans who were employed at the concentration camps ect, ect, they still did not think it was happening and so did nothing to stop it.
We know for a fact it was not a secret hidden from the German people. So you might be wondering… How I could say that they didnt belive that the worlds worest crime was taking place on their watch by their government involving millions of Germans and tens of millions of Jews and ect.?
Well as I watch some old interviews of German citizens after World War II. The German citizens are asked how could you not know? I noticed they did NOT say they didnt know when answering. They all said close to the same thing which can be summed up to this statment.
We just couldnt belive…
Natalie do you belive… the German citizens that is. Were they really ignorant or was it willfull denial or maybe it was both because it was to hard to except.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 23, 2007 at 2:14 AM Natalie
I understand how hard and how dangerous this is for many people. I know and comprehend how violently people want to reject this idea - not because they are traitors, but because it is horrifying to think your own government is a bunch of mass murderers. Just like the German citizens who could not belive…
I acknowledge the severity of what we (truthers) are advocating, how difficult it is for ordinary people to accept, and how high the standard of proof has to be as a consequence.
Soon enough, grade 10 level physics students, armed with nothing more than a stopwatch and a few basic equations including Gallileo’s Law of Free Falling Bodies, and Sir Isaac Newton’s Laws of Inertia - will be able to PROVE, in incontrovertible and unequivocal terms, that the official story about the destruction of the World Trade Center (including Building 7 of course) is patently false and utterly absurd - thus making the “mere” absence of those buildings from the New York City skyline THE number ONE “smoking gun” of 9/11.
You see, the way and the manner in which those buildings came down, and in the case of the twin towers, went “poof” (in about 13 seconds flat), that is a physical occurance, in reality, which is preserved, in perpetuity, from generation, to generation, and from age to age.
Your grandchildren will look at you with those bright eyes and say “But anyone can tell those are controlled demolitions, why couldn’t you admit it?” And you’ll have to admit that you (like the German citizens) were so caught up with the material goods, that you were scared that your comfortable life would come to an end.
Or you can tell them you just couldnt belive…
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 23, 2007 at 2:53 AM I was completely baffled and furious when he said that so I take this as a HUGE turn around of his monumental mistake in dismissing 911 truth, even if its not an outright mea culpa.
My point Joe, was that this is NOT, by all indications, a HUGE turn around regarding his feeling about 9/11 “truth”.
He merely signed a petition that most anyone would gladly sign, even myself. He didn’t enlist with “scholars” for 9/11 “truth” for gosh sakes.
I too would like to know what these guys were talking about, but I would also like to know what Clinton talked about with Berger, and what he talked about with Tenet. I would like to know what was contained in the documents that Berger thought was so embarrassing that he would risk stealing them from the national archives and destroying them. Unless there is evidence that the Jersey girls also feel this way, then it’s pretty obvious they are being partisan, even though they are certainly justified in feeling frustrated by not being able to find out what they want to know regarding the current administration.
I don’t wish for the release of all this information because I suspect that any of these people were planning to murder 3000 or more innocent Americans, but because I think it would be better to simply admit shortcomings and be upfront and honest about EXACTLY what happened and therefore enable us to correct whatever problems contributed to 9/11 happening. If Clinton had adopted this attitude re: Monica, the whole thing would have been over in a few weeks. Al Gore would have easily become President.
It’s all about politics and not wanting to look bad in the eyes of the public. It’s not about murder.
But that’s not nearly as intriguing, is it?
Posted by Natalie on Feb 23, 2007 at 3:29 AM Ya see Joe when you start comparing us with Nazi Germany, you are engaging in yet another logical fallacy.
It’s not possible to compare German leader/citizen relationships with American leader/citizen relationships, because although German citizens and American citizens are pretty much alike, Nazis are NOT in any way similar to any American administration, past or present.
You are correct. You can use a stopwatch and basic physics to analyze the collapses of the towers. (Of course some rough mass and strength data might come in handy too) If you correctly apply these tools and values to the problem, you will indeed find that the way they fell in about 13 seconds fits in quite nicely with gravity being the sole force at work.
The only problem I’m going to have with my grandchildren is having to install a 9/11 kook filter on their computers so they have some chance of finding some legitimate information regarding that particular mass murder which was carried out by brainwashed Islamic a**holes.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 23, 2007 at 4:13 AM Natalie
I see that you are not aware of what Chomsky’s stance on 9/11 used to be. I have had to argue with him and his fans for some time because Noam has been one of our biggest gatekeepers and has even gone as far as to say “9/11 doesn’t matter” and to look into any of it was a waste of time that could be better used else ware, it wont change anything, ect, ect.
I do applaud him for signing the petition because its the right thing to do and because it seems the Chomskyites have flocked to the petition. If his name brings 1000 more signatures, then good. That being said, why did it take him so long to sign it? Why hasn’t he spoken about the significance of 9/11 Truth for the last 6 years? Why has he shunned the work that we’re doing when, according to him, we could be working on so many other important issues?
The great irony of why so many leftists avoid 9/11 Truth is that propaganda keeps them away. 9/11 skepticism has been smeared with every fringe idea out there, and these professional leftists like Chomsky are afraid of tarnishing their reputations. Guilt by association. The easy response is: They should have more courage. The reality is: Many of them are as addicted to power as the people they claim to oppose.
Natalie you said:
“I would also like to know what Clinton talked about with Berger, and what he talked about with Tenet.”That Berger comment is VERY VERY Telling! You will find it 48 minutes into the audio. also John Lehman talking about the attack on the Cole says it took them a few months to “create” the evidence.
Natalie you said:
“I would like to know what was contained in the documents that Berger thought was so embarrassing that he would risk stealing them from the national archives and destroying them.”The fact that no one is is pursuing it is very telling to. I mean come on the guy got next to nothing for what should be considered IMO a major crime!
We need to expose the frauds that control the Democratic Party as well. These people need to be pressured or grouped with the other politicians who are complicit.
Yes, Yes, Yes, It would be better to simply admit shortcomings and be upfront and honest about EXACTLY what happened and therefore enable us to correct whatever problems contributed to 9/11 happening.
Exactly! How are we soposed to prevent it from happening if we dont know exactly what the problems are that contributed to 9/11 happening?
And as for the partisan issue, its NOT a partisan issue!
Natalie you said:
“If Clinton had adopted this attitude re: Monica, the whole thing would have been over in a few weeks.”I sure cant argue with that. The fuss over a BJ would have been done and over alot sooner had he come clean.
Im sorry that is so bad but I just couldnt help it.
Something to consider though is if forty odd million dollars were spent investigating President Bill Clinton’s sexual infidelities, why did the American people and the world have to wait 441 days for a commission [to begin its work] that was originally budgeted for 3 million dollars and given barely a year [to complete the investigation]?”
Lee Hamilton, Vice Chairman, 9/11 Commission said:
“I think basically it’s because they were afraid we were going to hang somebody, that we would point the finger, right in the middle of a presidential campaign - ‘Mr. Bush, this was your fault’”
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 23, 2007 at 4:50 AM Natalie
Are you saying that all or the majority of the German citizens were Nazis?
Also you are aware that the Germans held elections until the genocidal maniacs took power and the peoples rights with the help of a false flag operation to get the people to give up those rights so as to protect them from the evil Jewish, Communist, terrorists.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 23, 2007 at 5:24 AM OK, so I was kinda thinking that maybe you had some kind of proof, some kind of quote, a Google or a UTube video— something that would lead us to believe that Noam had actually changed his mind about specifically the concept of an “inside job”.
I don’t see anything to that effect, even given that this was the prime window of opportunity for you to have presented evidence of such.
Absent such evidence, the question becomes obvious:
Why would you try to promote Noam’s signature on an uncontroversial petition, one that even I might sign, as being somehow supportive of the “inside job” philosophy?
Are you saying that all or the majority of the German citizens were Nazis?
I have no idea what would lead you to believe that I think that the majority of the German citizens were Nazis. I kinda think that I’ve said pretty much the opposite.
Please explain your reasoning for thinking this.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 23, 2007 at 7:35 AM Natalie
First off you really should sign it. Please there is no reason not to sign it unless your going to use Chomsky’s old excuse for not signing it but even that does not work as Chomsky admitted by finally signing it himself.
Sign it, sign it, sign it, sign it, sign it, sign it, SIGN IT!
Chomsky has an enormous ego so it is a big deal for him to acknowledge his mistake in dismissing 911 truth and it is a big deal for him to go against what he had argued for SO LONG about how he would not support any further investigation because it was a waste of time and we have all the answers we need from the commission ect, ect. By the way he said that even after HE KNEW that members of the commission agree that more of an investigation is needed.
I dont want to go into all of his old arguments as he has seen the errors in those arguments and has changed his stance on the importance of 9/11 and the need to look into it more. So I dont want to diss Chomsky he has alot of fans and they see he has finally done the right thing in regards to 9/11 and that is what matters most. Besides it was really for recursive prophet who had posted about him and had some similar arguments as Chomsky on this thread.
I should have posted it sooner when recursive prophet had brought him up and when he had used some of the same arguments as Chomsky but it was like (oh no not again) to me because it had been such a long hard debate with Chomsky just to get him to recognize the importance of 9/11 and how it still affects us today. Thats why I blew it off at first but after reading recursive prophet’s posts again I couldnt let it go.
That is also why I posted about the Iraq war and Saudi and how it connects to 9/11. So recursive prophet could see it does affect us to this day and is still very much important to this country and what is happening with it. The administration would not get away with this sh*t if we took the power of 9/11 away from them and to do it means we have to expose it for the fraud that it is. At the very least it was allowed to happen so they could do exactly what they are doing NOW and they knew they couldnt do it without “a new Pearl Harbor like event”.
Anyone who says there was nothing they could have done is saying that all their doing now does not make us safer so the government should not be doing any of this sh*t (its to long list as you know) to begin with.
Some people thought there could have been something done BEFORE 9/11!.
The administration had been pressed for enhanced vigilance by security screeners and police patrols around the airports because of the threat that Osama Bin Laden might target civilian airliners.
“We even warned other countries to do the same.”
Yet still the administration didn’t do anything to enhance airport security instead the enhancement of airport security was STOPPED because there was insufficient reason to explain the extra expense needed for the enhancement. Also they didn’t do anything to engage local law enforcement and they didn’t do anything to increase our border security and ect, ect.
Why? Because they had no reason to think Bin Laden would attack inside of the U.S. and because no one ever thought that planes would be used as weapons.
How in the world can anyone believe those LIES is beyond me.
Natalie could you please explain how It’s not possible to compare German leader/citizen relationships with American leader/citizen relationships, eventhough German citizens and American citizens are pretty much alike.
I had assumed you were saying most of the Germans were Nazis and that was how their government was able to get away with the Holocaust on their watch. It seemed to me that you are saying you cant compare it because most the citizens were Nazis so supported the mass killings and we would never do that.
I doubt that even a 10th of the Germans supported the mass genocide. So why did they allow it to happen?
I think to see that you need to look at how many Americans supported what we were doing to our Japanese citizens and how many of them admitted to themselves “ALL” of what we were doing to them at that time. I have found that some of our senior citizens still refuse to this day to except all of the crimes committed against our Japanese citizens because they cant belive that we did anything more than relocate them to nice but safe places for U.S. and there protection and that they wanted to go because it was free and that they were given everything back and ect, ect.
Most senior Americans just say they did not know it was as bad as it was for our Japanese citizens until after the facts came out. Do you belive them or do you think it was willful ignorance or that they were in denial or both?
We know the german people knew but alot of people are not aware that other countries Knew and even the Catholic church knew long before any of the camps had been liberated. The Pope himself even knew. Well I should say they had reports but they say they couldnt belive.
After 9/11 I can see that instead of not caring and just choosing to look the other way or being to much of a coward to say anything in protest to those horrible and disgusting crimes against humanity maybe they really just could not belive.
Naaaaa They were cowards or worse! That is why even their children and their childrens children have to live in shame for the Holocaust that their grandparents allowed on their watch because they were cowards or much, MUCH worse.
P.S. Please note that last part was me being sarcastic. I do not belive that a large percentage of any nation or race of people can be so evil or allow such evil to take place. I think they just could not belive…
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 23, 2007 at 10:29 PM Chomsky:
There’s by now a small industry on the thesis that the administration had something to do with 9-11. I’ve looked at some of it, and have often been asked. There’s a weak thesis that is possible though extremely unlikely in my opinion, and a strong thesis that is close to inconceivable. The weak thesis is that they knew about it and didn’t try to stop it. The strong thesis is that they were actually involved. The evidence for either thesis is, in my opinion, based on a failure to understand properly what evidence is. Even in controlled scientific experiments one finds all sorts of unexplained phenomena, strange coincidences, loose ends, apparent contradictions, etc. Read the letters in technical science journals and you’ll find plenty of samples. In real world situations, chaos is overwhelming, and these will mount to the sky. That aside, they’d have had to be quite mad to try anything like that. It would have had to involve a large number of people, something would be very likely to leak, pretty quickly, they’d all be lined up before firing squads and the Republican Party would be dead forever. That would have happened whether the plan succeeded or not, and success was at best a long shot; it would have been extremely hard to predict what would happen.
One part of the standard story is that they exploited the tragedy for their own purposes, which is certainly true, and was completely predictable; I pointed out in my first interviews a few hours later that every power system in the world would do that, including Washington, as they all did—one of the easiest predictions. So that shows nothing.Other than his signature on a petition that has nothing to do with these “inside job” conspiracy theories, what statement or writing of his can you point me to that would lead me to believe that Noam has changed his above position?
Not that it would really matter, because Chomsky is dead wrong on so much other stuff, as I’m sure you would agree being a conservative and all. My point is that you are improperly extrapolating his signature on that petition to mean something it doesn’t.
Why are you doing that? Unless perhaps there’s something he’s said that I’m not aware of?
Please note that last part was me being sarcastic. I do not belive that a large percentage of any nation or race of people can be so evil or allow such evil to take place. I think they just could not belive….
Exactly my point. People around the world are for the most part much alike, and want nothing but peace in which to raise their families. That is my basis for hope in Iraq, and for the whole world. Empower the people.
But the Nazi regime, which was perverted and evil, has no counterpart in American government past or present. The German people probably were in denial, and were deceived, but they unfortunately also had an evil government that had no problem deceiving them and manipulating them. The American people don’t have, and have never had that same evil in their midst, so your whole analogy doesn’t work.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 24, 2007 at 4:05 AM Natalie
The shock that hit me when I saw your post this morning nearly knocked me out of my chair.
How in the world can you think that the petition written by the 9/11 “Jersey” widows calling for the release of classified documents relating to the 9/11 attacks is not at least pointing to LIHOP?
When Chomsky was asked;
Do you endorse the family members’ call for a new investigation?Chomsky said:
“I don’t endorse it or object to it. In my opinion there are far more significant topics, but we have to use our own judgments.”He said “It would be a waste of time” and he “would not be at all surprised if government documents surface to keep the movement focused on this wild goose chase and to keep them away from real and serious crimes of state.”
“The threat of nuclear war and environmental catastrophe are here. The threat of fiscal train wreck and maintaining the worst health care system in the industrial world is here, and now, and causing far more deaths than 9/11. I do not happen to share your feeling that killing thousands of Americans is worse than killing tens of millions of others, but even if I did, 9/11 would rank low among crimes of Americans.”
And he said “Those who oppose those crimes have two clear choices: (1) take energetic action to bring them to an end; (2) engage in debates over the question of the responsibility for 9/11. My priorities happen to be (1), and I think one of the most harmful effects of the Truth Movement has been to draw enormous energies away from such efforts.”
Natalie I could go on and on about how he had made it clear he would not endorse ANY further investigation of 9/11 but to some it up he claimed ignorance to the evidence that points to the government (becuse he trusted the media and government experts) and when he had no choice but to acknowledge some of the evidence he acted surprised and said he was unaware up until recently of its existence and that he needed time to look into it. Natalie that was 2 months ago.
Has Chomsky let us know what his conclusion is since then? Not that I am aware of. But this petition is a tacit acknowledgement of his monumental mistake in dismissing 911 truth, even if its not an outright mea culpa. He is extremely smart and sees the writing on the wall. He knows that 9/11 Truth is rapidly reaching a tipping point!
Wars are being waged, civil liberties in multiple countries are under threat and great damage globally is being done, all with the justification of the event in question. Is it not right to demand absolute scrutiny of that event, when so much is at stake?
Chomsky did say: “It is true that 9/11 served as a pretext for extending policies already undertaken and planned.”
So Natalie maybe he cought on that since 9/11 has been used as a “pretext for policies already undertaken and planned”, then that means upwards of 655,000 dead Iraqis, 3000 dead American soldiers, an $8Trillion+ deficit, 70,000 sick first responders and New Yorkers, the Patriot Act I & II, the Military Commissions Act, the Signing Statements, Wiretapping, and so on, would not have happened if not for 9/11.
It is a fact there is evidence of foreknowlege. There is also evidence that Pentagon lied to the 911 Commission. The testimony of 9/11 Commissioners Thomas Kean, Jamie S. Gorelick, Timothy J. Roemer, John J. Farmer, Jr., Max Cleland who admitted that they were lied to and or purposely deceived. There is evidence that Atta received money from Pakistani intelligence. There is evidence that the wargames interfered with interception of the hijacked planes. There is evidence of motive in the PNAC documents. There is evidence of cover-up.
Natalie you said:
“The German people probably were in denial, and were deceived, but they unfortunately also had an evil government that had no problem deceiving them and manipulating them. The American people don’t have, and have never had that same evil in their midst, so your whole analogy doesn’t work.”Are you saying that a nation of pepole whom have a much longer history than our own can be fooled but we with our very short history cant? How do you reach that opinion?
You do not belive this is evil? Do you agree with it? You know the Nazis never openly endorsed that knid of EVIL.
Do you really think we have never been fooled into allowing and even supporting EVIL that has been done by our government?
I started to look up times that our government has admitted to doing exactly that (fooling us to commit crimes) and there are so many I dont even know where to begin to list them for you. I thought Natalie you just cant be that ingnorant.
If so please let me know and I will start to list examples were our government admits to fooling us from the fact that they did or so they could commit crimes with our support and/or with us being ignorant about what they were doing.
Posted by honestjoe on Feb 24, 2007 at 9:27 PM How in the world can you think that the petition written by the 9/11 “Jersey” widows calling for the release of classified documents relating to the 9/11 attacks is not at least pointing to LIHOP?
Joe, you’re projecting your own wishes and fantasies onto this little petition.
Not even the Jersey Girls themselves appear to me to have taken the “inside job” leap, although I guess it wouldn’t surprise me if a few within that group may have, as my own father did briefly.
Kristen Breitweiser talking to “Crooks & Liars”:
Because when you look at the record from 9/11, you see that there were so many failures and those failures contributed to the vast devastation of that day. There’s no denying that 19 hijackers brought the country to its knees, but when you look at the record and you see the governmental failures leading up to 9/11 and on the day of 9/11 itself, lives were clearly lost because of the government incompetence and neglect, and we wanted to know that that would never happen again.
And my grievance is - people say “You’re blaming the government for 9/11” - I’m not blaming the government for 9/11. I know that it was the terrorists that flew planes into buildings that day. What I blame the government for is contributing towards the vast devastation of that day, costing lives. And then thereafter not being interested in fixing those failures that cost lives. Because that tells me that on the day of the next attack, when those problems have yet to be fixed, that’s unconscionable. People are dying senselessly, and then we didn’t learn any lessons from 9/11 when 3,000 people were killed. I mean, the thing that boggles my mind more then anything is that the excuse that we heard for 9/11 and the government failing to heed the warnings was that they couldn’t “connect the dots.” The intelligence community couldn’t connect the dots. We spent $175 million on a computer system at the FBI that was supposedly going to connect those dots now. Well guess what? The computer system is wholly inoperable. The $175 million was completely wasted, and to this very day, they still do not have a computer system to allegedly “connect the dots.” To me, that’s unacceptable. Someone should be held accountable for that, and yet no one is held accountable. I mean, you’ve got a Director of Central Intelligence, George Tenet, failed to prevent the 9/11 attacks, failed to connect the dots, failed to tell the FBI about two hijackers in the country, under surveillance. 9/11 happened, is he held accountable? No, he’s turned to by the President to provide WMD intel that wrongly, dead wrongly, took us to a war in Iraq. And what is the response? We give George Tenet the Medal of Freedom. I mean, to me that’s just not the judgment.
So Ms. Jersey herself is “not blaming the government for 9/11”. How in the world can you characterize her petition as “pointing towards LIHOP”?
Why have you mischaracterized Chomsky’s signing of HER petition, which is simply asking for the release of some documents and not for some kind of further “independent investigation”, as being some kind of monumental change in his attitude about the “truth” movement?
Are you being “honest, Joe”, even with yourself I mean? Should I trust your side-by-side comparison of American Govts. to the Nazi regime?
And BTW, you won’t find the words “Clinton”, or “Berger” in that interview. No partisan politics at play in that little pre-election presentation. None whatsoever.
Posted by Natalie on Feb 25, 2007 at 5:59 AM Natalie
I have been busy with something that as Im sure you know by now went viral on the net even though there has been a major effort to suppress it.
So try to ignore this as you do everything else and just say it’s another coincidence. Nothing to see here.
The BBC World, CNN and News 24 as well were fed information that WTC7 had collapsed, 26 minutes before it actually did. They didn’t just report that the building had come down - they also reported casualty details (that there weren’t any) and other “facts” which later formed the official account (except one person actually WAS killed in WTC 7, but that isn’t mentioned officially). Then, just over 3 minutes before the building was ‘pulled’ and 26 minutes after the mistake had been made the transmission was cut.
That’s not just a rumor being “jumped on;” that is reporting the event, the reason, and the result 26 minutes before it happened.
How did they know it was going to collapse when WTC7 was designed and built to be extremely resilient and with redundant counter support, so even whole floors could be removed, and the structure would stand with no problems. It actually wound up being a fortified building within a building, completely immune to a symmetrical collapse at free-fall speed.
Who was the source that was puting this out? They reported this news without verifying the truthfulness of the information because they trusted their source which is the only “sin” they can be accused of during those 3 live broadcasts. That sort of thing would certainly not get to the anchorman without it having come from a trusted source that they had used before. And THAT source would not report a mere rumor as “has indeed collapsed.” Yes, there were rumors that day, but it is very unlikely that a rumor would be reported as an accomplished FACT! And the anchorman would never have misread the info or altered a speculative story to “has indeed collapsed.”
They owe the world a REAL EXPLANATION. And we are completely within our rights as curious human beings to press them on this point relentlessly.
But the fact that this story is being COMPLETELY blacked out by the MSM is further evidence of their complicity and their guilt. There must be a huge amount of personal intimidation on them to force them to try to contain this story while it fairly explodes in the alternate media.
They have been and still are taking it down as fast as we (Patriots) can get it up!
I uploaded the new, big version today and they deleted it immediately!
And less than an hour ago, I posted comments on a related thread that had a title similar to… ” Time Stamp Proves BBC Screwup…” or something similar to that. It already had 422+ Diggs at the time I posted. I then went to refresh the page and see if new comments had been posted and got a message that DIGG was down, while they “fix” a few things. I can no longer find that thread now, and it does not appear in the summary of articles I have Dugg.
Also they are trying to bury all the other related articles.
For an article with a mere 2000+ diggs, it has become the most commented story at Digg so far. That’s pretty impressive for a story so “lame”, don’t you think?
http://digg.com/politics/BBC_Reported_Building_7_Had_Collapsed_20_Minute es_Before_It_Fell
To get to the truth of the matter it’s helpful to use a technique known as occam’s razor, which basically states, the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible.
We don’t have to assume that they knew the building was coming down, we now have proof that they knew it was coming down.
We don’t have to assume that the MSM was uanaware of this situation, the fact that they are completely ignoring this recent revelation is proof positive that this is something they CHOOSE not to discuss.
We don’t have to assume that something other than bombs brought WTC7 down. We have video that clearly shows that bombs brought the building down (believe your own eyes, not the lies).
We don’t have to assume that this recent BBC revelation “doesn’t mean much”, the simple fact that the BBC felt compelled to respond IMMEDIATELY clearly prooves that this means a whole hell of alot.
We don’t have to assume that the BBC has nothing to hide. The obvious fact that they LIED (unconvingly) prooves that they have an enormous amount to hide.
We don’t have to assume that the BBC would rather “forget” about this particular broadcast rather than investigate the truth of the matter. The obvious fact that they have a “chief correspondent” who claims that she “cannot remember” much about her live broadcast on international television during the most significant event (thus far) of this millenium PROOVES that they would rather just forget about it.
We don’t have to assume that the MSM just picked up on rumors and speculation in reporting that WTC7 was about to come down, the obvious fact that BBC World, CNN and News 24 reported similiar stories BEFORE THE FACT prooves that they were reading from the same or a similiar script. The one difference being that the CNN correspondent realized midway through his report that WTC7 was still standing and corrected himself… somewhat.
We don’t have assume that this is something that “they” would have preferred stayed hidden, the obvious fact that Google removed the video several times and other blogs like “Buzzflash.net” and “Digg” are trying to suppress it prooves that this is not something they want us talking about.
Everybody can get their arms around this. No longer must we (Patriots) quote Newton’s Laws or Galileo to make a point.
This is a golden opportunity to reveal the incredible collapse of WTC7 to the millions of people who aren’t even aware that a third building collapsed that day. There was a poll awhile back—what was it—60% or some such weren’t even AWARE of WTC7?
This is the last aspect of the case they would want to draw attention to.
If this goes MSM, who cares how they may think or say it collapsed. They will have to mention that it did collapse. We (Patriots) will use this opportunity to show how impossible those fables are.
Posted by honestjoe on Mar 1, 2007 at 10:22 PM Natalie
William Rice, P.E., is a registered professional civil engineer who worked on structural steel (and concrete) buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. He was also a professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses.
Why the towers fell: Two theories
By William Rice
Posted March 1, 2007
Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11.
I was particularly interested in the two PBS documentaries that explained the prevailing theories as determined by two government agencies, FEMA and NIST (National Institute of Science and Technology). The first (2002) PBS documentary, Why the Towers Fell, discussed how the floor truss connectors failed and caused a “progressive pancake collapse.”
The subsequent 2006 repackaged documentary Building on Ground Zero explained that the connectors held, but that the columns failed, which is also unlikely. Without mentioning the word “concrete,” the latter documentary compared the three-second collapse of the concrete Oklahoma City Murrah Federal Building with that of the Twin Towers that were of structural steel. The collapse of a concrete-framed building cannot be compared with that of a structural steel-framed building.
Since neither documentary addressed many of the pertinent facts, I took the time to review available material, combine it with scientific and historic facts, and submit the following two theories for consideration.
The prevailing theory
The prevailing theory for the collapse of the 110-story, award-winning Twin Towers is that when jetliners flew into the 95th and 80th floors of the North and South Towers respectively, they severed several of each building’s columns and weakened other columns with the burning of jet fuel/kerosene (and office combustibles).
However, unlike concrete buildings, structural steel buildings redistribute the stress when several columns are removed and the undamaged structural framework acts as a truss network to bridge over the missing columns.
After the 1993 car bomb explosion destroyed columns in the North Tower, John Skilling, the head structural engineer for the Twin Towers, was asked about an airplane strike. He explained that the Twin Towers were originally designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 (similar in size to the Boeing 767). He went on to say that there would be a horrendous fire from the jet fuel, but “the building structure would still be there.”
(Natalie as you know NIST says 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to feed fires=590,000 MJ of energy.)
The 10,000 gallons of jet fuel (half capacity) in each jetliner did cause horrendous fires over several floors, but it would not cause the steel members to melt or even lose sufficient strength to cause a collapse. This is because the short-duration jet fuel fires and office combustible fires cannot create (or transmit to the steel) temperatures hot enough. If a structural steel building could collapse because of fire, it would do so slowly as the various steel members gradually relinquished their structural strength. However, in the 100-year history of structural-steel framed buildings, there is no evidence of any structural steel framed building having collapsed because of fire.
Let’s assume the unlikelihood that these fires could weaken all of the columns to the same degree of heat intensity and thus remove their structural strength equally over the entire floor, or floors, in order to cause the top 30-floor building segment (South Tower WTC #2) to drop vertically and evenly onto the supporting 79th floor. The 30 floors from above would then combine with the 79th floor and fall onto the next level down (78th floor) crushing its columns evenly and so on down into the seven levels below the street level.
The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.
Even if Newton’s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn’t exist.
The politically unthinkable theory
Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and “debunks” the message rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days for the president’s 9/11 Commission to start an “investigation” into a tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission’s investigation also didn’t include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the “unusual and unprecedented” manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed.
The media has basically kept the collapse of WTC Building #7 hidden from public view. However, instead of the Twin Towers, let’s consider this building now. Building #7 was a 47-story structural steel World Trade Center Building that also collapsed onto itself at free-fall speed on 9/11. This structural steel building was not hit by a jetliner, and collapsed seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed and five hours after the firemen had been ordered to vacate the building and a collapse safety zone had been cordoned off. Both of the landmark buildings on either side received relatively little structural damage and both continue in use today.
Contrary to the sudden collapse of the Twin Towers and Building #7, the four other smaller World Trade Center buildings #3, #4, #5, and #6, which were severely damaged and engulfed in flames on 9/11, still remained standing. There were no reports of multiple explosions. The buildings had no pools of molten metal (a byproduct of explosives) at the base of their elevator shafts. They created no huge caustic concrete/cement and asbestos dust clouds (only explosives will pulverize concrete into a fine dust cloud), and they propelled no heavy steel beams horizontally for three hundred feet or more.
The collapse of WTC building #7, which housed the offices of the CIA, the Secret Service, and the Department of Defense, among others, was omitted from the government’s 9/11 Commission Report, and its collapse has yet to be investigated.
Perhaps it is time for these and other unanswered questions surrounding 9/11 to be thoroughly investigated. Let’s start by contacting our congressional delegation.
Posted by honestjoe on Mar 1, 2007 at 11:08 PM Uh, Joe, relax. Is this the biggest thing you’ve got to get excited about?
BBC got some bum information and went it with before verifying, in a rush to get a scoop. Let’s remember, verification would have been a bitch that day. Doesn’t that make a hell of a lot more sense than what you’re implying? (just what are you implying, and how does it make sense? Why would the person who blew up 7 need to notify anyone that it had happened, and why would they do it early?)
Remember that concept from earlier?...... Context?
I’m sure there were plenty of reports coming out of the scene talking about how 7 was ready to collapse, and how it would be coming down soon. Someone in the info chain missed or left out “ready to”, or “soon”, and it came out “collapsed”. The reporter had no idea that was building 7 when she was looking out the window. If she did, she surely would have pointed it out to her bosses and the viewers.
Doesn’t that context make just a tad bit more sense?
As far as your engineer, the comments here pretty much sum up my opinion as well.
The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story <u>Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed</u>. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.
Even if Newton’s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself <u>crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor</u> while <u>maintaining a free-fall speed</u> as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn’t exist.
These two paragraphs tell us all we need to know about this guy’s grasp of structural engineering, physics, and how thoroughly he read the NIST report.
There’s a few loose ties in every railroad track. But unless there’s a bunch, the train doesn’t notice.
There’s a little “loose change” in everyone’s pocket or purse. Problem is, it never amounts to much.
Posted by Natalie on Mar 2, 2007 at 5:38 AM Natalie
You said:
“BBC got some bum information and went it with before verifying, in a rush to get a scoop.”The BBC World, CNN and News 24 as well were fed information that WTC7 had collapsed.
You said:
“Let,s remember, verification would have been a bitch that day.”Who was the source that was puting this out? They reported this news without verifying the truthfulness of the information because they TRUSTED THEIR SOURCE! That sort of thing would certainly not get to the anchorman without it having come from a trusted source that they had used before. And THAT source would not report a mere rumor as “has indeed collapsed.”
The most important thing about this is who was that source and why are they not wanting to tell us. Better yet why are they telling lies and covering it up? Do you think it is right that the MSM is again lying to us inorder to cover this up? Also do you think they should be allowed to suppress information from us?
you said:
“Someone in the info chain missed or left out “ready to”, or “soon”, and it came out “collapsed”.”Yes, there were rumors that day, but it is very unlikely that a rumor would be reported as an accomplished FACT! And the anchorman would never have misread the info or altered a speculative story to “has indeed collapsed.” But when you add that 3 MSM live broadcasts got the same information that they all TRUSTED enough they did not bother to verifying the truthfulness of the information. And that the source of the information had the casualty details (that there weren’t any) and the explination of why the building collapsed as well as other “facts” which later formed the official account. It makes me want to know who there source was and how they got it so wrong yet so right.
Plus they all realised that they were telling the world missinformation when just over 3 minutes before the building was ‘pulled’ and 26 minutes after the mistake had been made the transmission was cut (except for the CNN correspondent realized midway through his report that WTC7 was still standing and corrected himself… somewhat).
Why did’nt they correct the obvious mistake when they saw the building collapsed (Oh sh*t what building was that?) or if they still (in just over 3 minutes) did not figure out that they made a HUGE mistake then we should have been told about the forth building to collapse that day and given the details just as we had about the other.
They wouldnt have even had to ask their SOURCE because it was right in front of them! They could have said right then another building, a 4th building has just collapsed and they would not have had to confirm that a building just collapsed because it would have been impossible for them not to know.
They could say we are not sure wich one it is but another building “has indeed collapsed.” At least one of the 3 should have done that unless they new they made a mistake. Wich if they did they should have corrected it right then. But they did’nt wich means they cannot be trusted.
If they want to restore any credibility they need to tell us who their trusted source was!
They owe the world a REAL EXPLANATION! And we are completely within our rights as curious human beings to press them on this point relentlessly.
But the fact that this story is being COMPLETELY blacked out by the MSM is further evidence of their complicity and their guilt. There must be a huge amount of personal intimidation on them to force them to try to contain this story while it fairly explodes in the alternate media.
And as for the BBC it is ludicrous that the BBC expects us to believe it has lost its tapes of the most important event of the 21st century. No one is suggesting BBC is complicit in any conspiracy, and its attempt to frame this issue in that way is a blatant attempt to make the questions that it has not answered go away.
The BBC editor’s blog is currently carrying the following statement from Richard Porter, editor of BBC news:
“We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy). So if someone has got a recording of our output, I’d love to get hold of it. We do have the tapes for our sister channel News 24, but they don’t help clear up the issue one way or another.”
Mr Porter then says he would love to get hold of a copy. Yet it is blatantly clear that he is writing about the copy of the BBC’s output that kick started the entire controversy! So there he already has a copy, why can’t he watch that?
Even more incredibly he then goes on to declare that the News 24 footage, which the BBC DOES still have, fails to clear up the issue. This is patently false as we have today proven. Footage from the BBC’s News 24 channel that shows the time stamp at 21:54 (4:54PM EST) when news of the Salomon Brothers Building is first broadcast, a full 26 minutes in advance of its collapse. (It has since been taken down.)
(I have also tried to put up a longer version today and they deleted it immediately!)
Remember that both the official FEMA and the NIST reports on building 7 concluded that the building collapsed unexpectedly.
So why is the BBC continually lying to us and attempting to cloud this controversy instead of explaining it?
Even more remarkable is the fact that if the BBC maintains that its footage is indeed lost, this means that at least THREE copies have been lost from DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.
The BBC’s policy on retaining recordings of all television and radio broadcast outputs, last reviewed: 18/02/03 - which you can view online at the BBC’s own website, clearly states:
The following components to be retained:-
*Two broadcast standard copies of all transmitted/published TV, Radio and BBCi output – one to be stored on a separate site as a master
*One browse-quality version for research purposes, to protect the broadcast material
*All supporting metadata to enable research and re-use
*A selection of original (i.e. unedited) material for re-use/re-versioning purposes
*Hardware/software/equipment to enable replay/transfer of the mediaFurthermore:
“A retention schedule for each set of records kept /archived must be created as defined in the Core Records Policy. Retention periods are set according to the status and value of the record.”
This means that the safe retention of archived recordings is checked at regular intervals, and the more valuable they are deemed to be, the more frequently they are checked.
And yet more:
“All transmitted/published media content will be kept for at least five years to fulfil legal requirements and to enable re-versioning and re-use.”
This means that if the footage was “lost” prior to September 11th 2006 then the BBC has broken British broadcasting law!
So all in all we have a situation here whereby the BBC is either lying when it says all records of its World output on 9/11 are gone, or the BBC has categorically failed to uphold its own policy, and UK law, and is dismissing this as merely a “cock up”.
Also more BBC video from the day of 9/11 has been unearthed in which a correspondent, within hour of the towers coming down, claims the reason for the collapses is because of their design. He then then provides blatantly false information about the designs to justify the statement, without referring to any sources and negating the fact that the towers had 47 massive central core columns.
The Ministry of Truth and the rest of the MSM are nothing but liars and propaganda machines and they are BUSTED!
Posted by honestjoe on Mar 2, 2007 at 8:22 AM You may really be onto something here, Joe. Keep at those Limeys until they cough up the sad, sordid truth.
I’ll tell ya what. I’ll trade ya WTC7 for 1 & 2. After all, Danny Jowenko says they came down naturally. That’s gotta be pretty much be the last word on those two. Dan’s da man, right?
Posted by Natalie on Mar 2, 2007 at 8:40 AM You give mere mortal media people way too much credit, Joe. You assign all kinds of nefarious and mysterious motives when ordinary and natural human error and confusion are far, far more likely to be all that’s at work.
Here’s an example of how inaccurate the live reporting of a confusing event can be. I was at home on October 11, 2006, when Yankees pitcher Cory Lidle’s small plane crashed into the 30th floor of a residential building in Manhattan. I took notes on some of the early TV and internet reports.
Four witnesses said it was a helicopter…WRONG
“Conflicting reports whether it’s a fixed-wing or helicopter. Probably helicopter based on witness reports.”
“Believes it was a seaplane”...WRONG
City and the FDNY have confirmed that a helicopter crashed into the building….WRONG
UPDATE: NYC police and firemen now agree it was a helicopter instead of a small aircraft…WRONG
WABC 7 reports that the helicopter was flying in “exclusion airspace.”...WRONG
Death count is four…WRONG (it was 2)
A total of four people have been confirmed dead - two people from the plane, two people from the building…WRONG
Update: A distress call was made before the crash…WRONG
Latest reports say that the pilot made an emergency call about a fuel problem…WRONG
The FAA confirmed that the pilot of the plane made a mayday, stating that he was having fuel problems…WRONG
ABC Radio reports people in the area say they saw a helicopter in distress…WRONG
ESPN confirms that Cory Lidle was alone in the plane…WRONG
Where did the plane hit?
19th & 20th floor
20th floor
30th floor
32nd floor
40th floor
40th & 41st floor
30th-40th floor
44th & 45th floor (said it was a helicopter)Former Managing Director of NTSB Peter Goelz: “If I had to bet, I’d say it was probably a helicopter.”
Posted by Natalie on Mar 2, 2007 at 9:53 AM Natalie
Jowenko does not say they came down naturally.
Remember that concept from earlier?...... Context?
He said they did not look like any controled demoliton he has seen and that you do not bring a building down from the top but from the bottom.
He was looking at it like a standard CD but there was nothing standard about the CD of the WTC buildings.
But I would gladly “trade ya WTC7 for 1 & 2” as long as you see that we need a new investigation of 9/11.
Natalie you dont even have to belive that the WTC were a CD to see we have been lied to about 9/11 and that in the name of 9/11, our government has invaded, detained, tortured, and spied. It’s undermined the Constitution and shredded the Bill of Rights. And it shows no signs of stopping that means upwards of 655,000 dead Iraqis, 3000 dead American soldiers, an $8Trillion+ deficit, 70,000 sick first responders and New Yorkers, the Patriot Act I & II, the Military Commissions Act, the Signing Statements, Wiretapping, and so on, would not have happened if not for 9/11.
Skeptical? Ask yourself, without the 9/11 induced “war on terror,” would the Patriot Act have been enacted? Habeas corpus suspended? Torture legalized? Without 9/11, would the American people have allowed the president and Congress to illegally invade a sovereign country, spending billions of dollars there while ignoring major issues like _____and________and__________ect, ect.. What ever you want to fill in the blanks Natalie we all can think of plenty more that is MUCH better than what we are doing now.
What we are doing now we did for all the right reasons but those reasons were based on lies.
Maybe you’re hopeful that a new Congress will right these wrongs. But bear in mind, the president’s agenda has enjoyed bipartisan support. And, it remains unclear whether growing opposition to the war is because it’s illegal and unconstitutional, or simply because we’re not winning.
If we hope to reverse this administration’s agenda we must first know everything we can about 9/11—- the event that made that agenda possible. We must get truthful answers to these questions: What did our government know? When did it know it? Was it involved? And could it have prevented the attacks?
Natalie if you just want to think it was LIHOP fine as long as you see that we must have a new investigation.
For people who belive in LIHOP (wich leads to MIHOP) I point out this:
What more of a “Double standard” can there be than to declare a war on terror to get those who attacked us on 9/11 only to avoid holding to account those most responsible (the Saudi’s) and to not only allow them (the Saudi’s) to continue to support, fund and supply the terrorist whom are doing the most killing of Americans (90%) but now even “WE” are supporting Sunni factions of Al-Qaida.
The reason we are supporting and funding those Al-Qaida Sunni terror cells in Iran is so they can go after the Iranians. Which means we are the country that supports terror!
I mean what side are we on now the terrorists?
Its that stuff that makes me fell like we have become the badguys and we need to change that NOW. We would not be doing this whithout 9/11 so lets expose it for what it really is.
We need to demand a new investigation! That is all I ask of you Natalie is to do this not just for your self and your family but for America.
We can right the wrongs and restore the position of respect that we once held in the world and America could one day be liked again by the rest of the world instead of hated.
Natalie
Look at how they are using the tired, transparent straw man argument that either some of the reporters or their organization have been accused of foreknowledge or a part in a 9/11 conspiracy.
No one is suggesting the BBC is complicit in any conspiracy, and its attempt to frame this issue in that way is a blatant attempt to make the questions that it has not answered go away.
Any sentient human recognizes that they are using it to sidestep the larger, important mission: to discover who indeed fed the BBC this erroneous information, accompanied by a ready-made physical explanation which defies the experts to this day!
Richard Porter said:
“Because three BBC channels were saying this in quick succession, I am inclined to believe that one or more of the news agencies was reporting this, or at least reporting someone saying this.”Which is the heart of the matter. Who was the TRUSTED Source that gave “NOW 4” MSM broadcast, the event, the reason, and the result of WTC 7 collapse 26 minutes before it happened? A source that was TRUSTED enough that NONE of the 4 broadcasts reporters bothered to verify the information!
The fact that the reporters did NOT USE qualifiers such as “apparently” or “it’s reported” or “we’re hearing” also clearly shows they TRUSTED their source because they were making statments like “has indeed collapsed”!
It absurd that their suggesting this SOURCE can’t be tracked down and verified! That neither Richard Porter nor the on-camera readers can discover where the text that appeared on the teleprompters came from!
The questions being put to the BBC are not simply brushed away with a “fog of war” or “stuff happens” excuse.
They are now saying they don’t know which feeds they were receiving that day! One would think an organization stocked with journalists could muster the intellectual curiosity and skill to get to the truthful bottom of this matter.
Richard Porter said:
“3. Our reporter Jane Standley was in New York on the day of the attacks, and like everyone who was there, has the events seared on her mind. I’ve spoken to her today and unsurprisingly, she doesn’t remember…”So he is saying Jane Standley “has the events SEARED on her mind” but she cant remember reporting on a 47 story building for 26 minutes saying it collapsed and then her feed gets dropped just before (Oh sh*t what building was that?) the building really does collapse.
Ok fine she cant remember but what about the other BBC reporters that we NOW know about and what about the newsanchors? What none of them can remember either?
Even more incredibly he then goes on to declare that the News 24 footage, which the BBC DOES still have, fails to clear up the issue. This is patently false and has been proven. Footage from the BBC’s News 24 channel that shows the time stamp at 21:54 (4:54PM EST) when news of the Salomon Brothers Building is first broadcast, a full 26 minutes in advance of its collapse.
Even more remarkable is the fact that if the BBC maintains that its footage is indeed lost, this means that at least THREE copies have been lost from DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.
This means that if the footage was “lost” prior to September 11th 2006 then the BBC has broken British broadcasting law!
“All transmitted/published media content will be kept for at least five years to fulfil legal requirements and to enable re-versioning and re-use.”
So we have a situation here whereby the BBC is either lying when it says all records of its World output on 9/11 are gone, or the BBC has categorically failed to uphold its own policy, and UK law, and is dismissing this as merely a “cock up”.
The MSM is the SINGLE BIGGEST problem we face today. We are living under corporate fascism, but most people haven’t figured that out yet. The government commits horrendous crimes against its own citizens and the MSM follows behind with a barrage of scripted propaganda to protect the criminal government from getting caught. How will the people ever learn the truth about matters when the MSM constantly lies with every word they utter? Oh yeah we have the internet now….without that we would be truly lost.
Posted by honestjoe on Mar 3, 2007 at 10:26 PM Yes, complete context is always good. Dan da man says quite a bit about one & two:
Narrater: Danny Jowenko has been doing explosive demolitions for 27 years. He represents the absolute Dutch top. If anyone can judge whether explosives were used, it’s him.
(watches portion of “Loose change”—south tower collapses first)
Danny Jowenko: It crashed in a more favorable spot, a bit more in the center. Plus, the building’s own weight on top…
N: So it’s logical the second went first?
DJ: Of course. You see clearly that the building that was hit first was hit higher, so it went last because there was less weight to bring it down. That’s essential knowledge for anyone who knows anything about demolition. You have to use the building’s own weight.
N: Jowenko sees another sign that no explosives were used. The building collapses from the top down. If it had been done with explosives, it would have collapsed from below.
DJ: You’d place the explosives below, of course.N: And it would have started underneath.
DJ: Yes, that’s how you get the full weight. That’s a present. The less you have to blow up.
N: But the tower collapsed top-down.
DJ: It collapsed at the exact location where the plane hit and heated it.
(watches LC again, showing WTC1 collapsing in “ten seconds”.)
N: The conspiracy theory assumes that the explosives began at the top. Jowenko says that’s impossible.
DJ: It can’t have been explosives, as there was a huge fire. If there had been explosives, they would already have been burned. What’s more, before being burned, their igniters would have gone off at 320C, so they’d have detonated sooner.
(watches LC talking about squibs below collapse)
N: Where conspiracy theorists see explosives, Jowenko sees something else, which may explain the rapid collapse.
DJ: You also see, as it were, the bolts springing loose at each turn. It had a very strong core, and the beams were pretty long, but they’re joined, and it was 410 meters tall. The energy is very uneven. So every vertical column has to carry a certain weight at a slightly different moment from its neighbor, so to speak. It can’t bear it, so it breaks to pieces across its entire length, bolts and all. It comes loose, all the way down. And the side structures, also strong because of the wind stress, which is how the building was built, were mainly pressed outward.
(watches LC showing firemen talking about how the tower floors came down - “boom, boom, boom, all the way down”)
DJ: He [the fireman] also says it. It simply gave out. At every level the weight was too much.
N: But he says it was if….
DJ: That’s what it looks like. But don’t tell me they put explosives on all 100 floors. That’s not possible.
N: Why not?
DJ: Of course it’s not.
N: You wouldn’t do it like that?
DJ: It would take a year.
N: A year to place all those explosives?
DJ: And prepare them and hook them up, with all the cables down there.
(film goes on to describe how engineering students from a Dutch Univ., after studying the event and the towers, agree with Jowenko that explosives weren’t used.)
N: Had you expected this result, before you began?
Student: On the first day we all watched LC, I’d never seen it. I was immediately taken in and thought: Yes, this is very strange. But it’s all very suggestive. If you look at it yourself and try to look at everything evenhandedly, nothing much of that film holds up.
N: Do you feel cheated?
Student: In a certain sense I do.
(later in the film, Jowenko looks at the collapse of WTC7, and it appears to him it was a CD. He has trouble believing it was the same day as 9/11. He is asked how long it would take to wire it for demo, and told it was on fire. He becomes confused, and says it is very strange.
Posted by Natalie on Mar 4, 2007 at 4:30 AM Natalie
Exactly! He is comparing it with a standard CD with wired explosives.
At that time he was completely unaware of the fact that a device had been made before 9/11 and “recently” tested to cut through vertical steel columns in a fraction of a second. Held on magnetically for quick placement and remote detonated (NO WIRES NEEDED)! Also the device was made by using an OLD patent that was obtained before 9/11.
P.S. The placed charges would work better if the insulation was left on the steel to give it some distance for optimal performance when cutting the columns.
Posted by honestjoe on Mar 4, 2007 at 5:44 AM Well, how convenient. No wires needed, no sound, sticks right to the steel. Cuts instantly. What’s that old saying? If it sounds too good to be true…...
I guess since one of the “best in the business” apparently hasn’t heard of it, he’s not that informed or bright after all. He’s of no use to any of us.
Oh and thanks for the comic book, Joe. It provides abundant proof that Jones is either a clever con artist, or someone suffering from severe delusional tunnel vision. I especially liked this part:
What is the Scientific Method?
* Gather observations and Evidence
* Make hypothesis to explain
* EXPERIMENTS to test hypothesis DATA
* Refine or reject hypothesis, more experiments
* PUBLISH in peer-reviewed venues
* Repeat above cycle, others joining in…
* Generate Theory / Model of realityIt’s astounding to see how much evidence Jones has excluded or ignored during his narrow-sighted gathering operation.
It’s strange not to see any detailed equations and calculations that would prove idiots like Bazant wrong. Odd that he hasn’t seen fit to reproduce the summary conclusions of the extensive NIST investigation, and offer some kind of coherent intelligent reason why they’re wrong.
It’s amazing to see how his chosen hypotheses are based not on the most probable scenario, but upon political bias.
It’s amusing to hear him talk about “peer review”, when he has achieved no such thing related to 9/11.
It’s jaw-dropping to realize that he has in effect created his own “publication” in which to “publish” his “peer reviewed” “studies”, and has hand picked his reviewers. Real scientists are wishing they had those luxuries.
No, nobody of any significance has “joined in”, just other nut-cases. I see Jones still hasn’t cleansed his references of Holocaust deniers.
Model of reality? In his own mind, perhaps. Not in the mind of any legitimate scientific authority. Jones has substituted comical, selective and provocative slide shows for any understanding of advanced structural physics, or even the scientific method.
Posted by Natalie on Mar 4, 2007 at 10:12 AM Carpenter Marlene Cruz Proves Pre-planted Explosives in WTC Basement!
In this interview, Cruz says she was passed out for about 40 minutes after the explosion, after which she was discovered and taken to Bellevue Hospital. Additionally, the ambulance and hospital admission records reflect the times she was attended to wich goes with William Rodriguez and the 38 other eyewitnesses that corroborate his story.
Did you get that Natalie? This video corroborates that of William Rodriguez, the WTC janitor who witnessed the basement blasts, and saw others who were injured as well. How could a plane impacting the building 100 floors above create a huge explosive blast in the sub basement? Not possible.
It proves that there were explosions deep beneath the towers.
* The “jet fuel traveled down the elevators…” explanation is total crap.
* Most of the jet fuel burned up on impact.
* It could not have traveled down the elevators shaft and exploded in the basement causing the damage that it did without killing the people inside the elevators.
* The freight elevators are the only lifts that travel the length of the buildings.
* These explosions happened in advance of the planes striking the towers.Besides, wasn’t that jet fuel busy turning all the steel to gum? How could there be enough for a massive fireball, the basement explosions and turn the steel to gum in the building?
P.S. Sorry we do not have the the ambulance and hospital admission records yet.
P.P.S. But we have the EMTs who said the same things as well! They corroborate Marlene Cruz, William Rodriguez, and the other eyewitnesses!
Posted by honestjoe on Mar 4, 2007 at 11:04 AM Natalie
There is eyewitness testimony and eyewitness evidence can be used in a court of law.
You said:
“Well, how convenient. No wires needed, no sound, sticks right to the steel. Cuts instantly. What’s that old saying? If it sounds too good to be true…...”In the tests there was sound so Im not sure what you mean.
If you were expecting his tests to have big explosions to match those of the WTC please know that he was ONLY testing to see if the device would CUT through vertical steel columns.
The tests were ment to cut not explode. He has admitted that the device had NOTHING to do with the explosions at the WTC and the concrete pulverisation. He said that was done by something else NOT the thermate cutting device.
Natalie you said:
“It’s amazing to see how his chosen hypotheses are based not on the most probable scenario, but upon political bias.”Steven E. Jones, was a faithful supporter of George W. Bush and worse he voted for him not once but TWICE!
It was the evidence he found through his research using the scientific method that changed his opinion of Bush. So the evidence changed his plitical opinion and his political bias took him longer to except the evidence.
Posted by honestjoe on Mar 4, 2007 at 6:36 PM * The freight elevators are the only lifts that travel the length of the buildings.
Yes, and Marlene was in a freight elevator. She says so.
Did you get that Natalie? This video corroborates that of William Rodriguez, the WTC janitor who witnessed the basement blasts
You mean this William Rodriguez?:
BROWN: That’s a great way to put it.
On the subject of your friends, one of them is with you, a relatively new friend I know, William Rodriguez (ph). If Mr. Rodriguez (ph) is actually close enough, we’ve got a mike on him, just tell the story of how—William, tell the story of how the two of you met.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: [Rodriguez] Well, no, we knew each other for many years. We work at the—I work at the building. I personally in charge of all the stairs, of all the maintenance of the stairs in the building. And I knew David for probably 15, 16 years.
And at that terrible day when I took people out of the office, one of them totally burned because he was standing in front of the freight elevator and the ball of fire came down the duct of the elevator itself, I put him on the ambulance. And I came back running into the building. And the only person that I found there was Officer David Lim. And the first thing that he told me was, Willie (ph), do you have the key. Meaning if I had the master key to the building, which I have and I still have. It’s over here. This is the key that opened all the doors on the staircase. It’s called a T2 (ph) key. And he said let’s go.
And we went up, he opened the door on the lobby. We went on the basement, number one. And there when we opened the door, the fire department was there waiting in front of the 50 car elevator, which was already gone, because the airplane, when he came through the building, broke all the cables and practically destroyed the elevator because the elevator went down seven flights of floors. And, he said to the—to the firemen, follow me, we know the best way to go up and we have the access key. So we started going up the stairs and opening all the doors.
We got to remember that the World Trade Center was a Class A building which had three doors that did not open and one that did open. And we have to go floor by floor and opening all the doors. We were in front of the fire department. We were at the vanguard of what was happening and David was—I remember it was so difficult because he has so much equipment on that going up the stair, we were sweating bullets. It was so hard. And then the amount of people that was coming down the stairs were actually bumping against us. And we—we were having a terrible time.
Hmmm…..no mention of booms or explosions a year later. He described the event “like furniture moving, a rumbling” on the day of the event. Why wouldn’t he have taken these opportunities to tell the world about the those “huge explosions”, as he apparently later remembered?
His assumedly fresh in the mind testimony on 9/11, and a year later, seem pretty consistent with the theory that the cause of the explosions was jet fuel traveling down the central core, which of course was not comprised of sealed elevator tubes, but a relatively open area within which the elevators operated. There was still several thousand gallons of fuel available to fall down this rather porous area that the jets penetrated rather extensively.
Marlene’s testimony as well supports the jet-fuel theory, as do many others, who were burned by fireballs, and pushed by expanding fuel air explosions.
This doesn’t seem to fit in very well with thermite, and it doesn’t seem to explain the top-down collapse. It’s getting to be an ever more complicated controlled demo operation, with numerous phases and sequences and multiple devices.
It actually seems to bear the trademark of al Qaeda more than the good ol USA. Have you considered that unspeakable possibility?
All this would make a great thriller fiction novel, however!!
Posted by Natalie on Mar 5, 2007 at 11:41 PM Hi Joe and Natalie. Just dropped in to see if you guys were still at it. No surprise you are. Joe, you make some good points regarding the Saudis and Cheney’s background. You really should stick with that path and forget about the 9/11 conspiracy nonsense. Again I remind you the bad guys in our government couldn’t kill Fidel in 17 attempts yet you think they could have orchestrated a cover-up of something like 9/11? And Natalie, I am amazed you still play your part in this farce. If I come back in 2 months will this insane dialogue still be going on? An eternal loop?-Arpie
Posted by recursive prophet on Mar 5, 2007 at 11:59 PM Arpie
President William Jefferson Clinton was impeached for Obstruction of Justice, raising that particular offense to the level of an impeachable high crime. Has the Bush regime obstructed justice in regard to September 11th 2001?
Senior editor of In These Times with links to The Nation Magazine, Christopher Hayes said:
“Of course, the commission report was something of a whitewash—Bush would only be interviewed in the presence of Dick Cheney, the commission was denied access to other key witnesses and just this year we learned of a meeting convened by George Tenet the summer before the attacks to warn Condoleezza Rice [AND Rumsfeld AND Ashcroft] about Al Qaeda’s plotting, a meeting that was nowhere mentioned in the report.”—Is 9/11 Paranoia Bad for the Country?, The Nation/Alternet/In These Times
George Monbiot of the UK Guardian said:
“I believe that they [the Bush administration] were criminally negligent in failing to respond to intelligence about a potential attack by al-Qaida…”—George Monbiot, “9/11 fantasists pose a mortal danger to popular oppositional campaigns”, UK Guardian
Both are an admission of the glaring criminal negligence and/or cover up that—at the least—allowed the attacks of September 11th 2001 to occur.
“Criminal negligence becomes ‘gross’ when the failure to foresee involves a ‘wanton disregard for human life’... The accused is a social danger because he or she has endangered the safety of others in circumstances where the reasonable person would have foreseen the injury and taken preventive measures. ...Usually the punishment for criminal negligence, criminal recklessness, criminal endangerment, wilful blindness and other related crimes is imprisonment.”—Wikipedia, Criminal Negligence
Well then, the grossly “criminally negligent” Bush regime should certainly have been in no position to influence the outcome of the investigation into September 11th 2001. Is that an unreasonable statement? Is it common to allow the suspect to initiate his own investigation? (outside of Washington D.C?)
It is not difficult to convince an average reader that the investigations were insufficient.
Getting lost in the minutiae is not necessary, nor is it productive for the fraud of the 9/11 Commission Report and a cover up has already been exposed.
Even the so called debunkers admit there has been a cover up!
It is a fact there is evidence of foreknowlege. There is also evidence that Pentagon lied to the 911 Commission. The testimony of 9/11 Commissioners Thomas Kean, Jamie S. Gorelick, Timothy J. Roemer, John J. Farmer, Jr., Max Cleland who admitted that they were lied to and or purposely deceived.
So we need to demand a new independent investigation for there is NO excuse anymore from the left or the right to not have one.
In the name of 9/11, our government has invaded, detained, tortured, and spied. It’s undermined the Constitution and shredded the Bill of Rights. And it shows no signs of stopping that means upwards of 655,000 dead Iraqis, 3000 dead American soldiers, an $8Trillion+ deficit, 70,000 sick first responders and New Yorkers, the Patriot Act I & II, the Military Commissions Act, the Signing Statements, Wiretapping, and so on, would not have happened if not for 9/11.
What more of a “Double standard” can there be than to declare a war on terror to get those who attacked us on 9/11 only to avoid holding to account those most responsible (the Saudi’s) and to not only allow them (the Saudi’s) to continue to support, fund and supply the terrorist whom are doing the most killing of Americans (90%) but now even “WE” are supporting Sunni factions of Al-Qaida. We are supporting and funding those Al-Qaida Sunni terror cells in Iran is so they can go after the Iranians. Which means we are the country that supports terror!
I mean what side are we on now the terrorist?
If you want to stop this madness you need to demand that we investigate 9/11!
Posted by honestjoe on Mar 6, 2007 at 12:31 AM Can we please get an outline of just what this investigation would entail? Who would conduct it? Who would participate in it?
Would you be willing to abide by the conclusions of it, if they didn’t happen to agree with your “theories”?
There’s already been investigations done by the 9/11 commission, which was signed off by both parties, the FEMA reports, and the NIST reports. There was a U.S. Senate and a British investigation into the intelligence used regarding Iraq.
You don’t seem satisfied with any of these. Why would we think you’d be satisfied with the results of yet another investigation, unless of course it ruled that Cheney planted thermite in the upper portions of the towers, Bush planted distraction detonations in the basement which he later set off remotely after getting a phone call to Florida from CIA agent Atta, and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, supervised by Silverstein, used cordless hack-saws on the lower supports of WTC7?
The Saudis give money to all President’s libraries, they work with whoever’s in power in order to protect their little money drilling operation. To think that they’d willingly participate in what might easily jeopardize the relationship with their best customer is rather far-fetched, I would think.
I’m quite sure your fantasies about the Saudis are as unfounded as your theories about the towers. Not that I’m any big fan of the Saudis, for heaven’s sake. I do truly wish somebody would take them to task on their building and sponsoring of Islamic brainwashing domes. (mosques)
But of course the tolerant left, and even “new tone” Bush won’t do that.
So….... Let’s hear about this investigation. Who’s invited?
Posted by Natalie on Mar 6, 2007 at 4:07 AM President William Jefferson Clinton was impeached for Obstruction of Justice, raising that particular offense to the level of an impeachable high crime. Has the Bush regime obstructed justice in regard to September 11th 2001?
No Joe, YOU are obstructing justice BIG TIME, and you don’t even seem to have an inkling about it. You are the one acting as an apologist and providing cover for the organization that REALLY DID plan and carry out 9/11. You are the one who has implied that everyone from the dedicated people at NORAD to the poor hard working pocket-liner wearing structural engineers at NIST are the real villains.
You’ve got everything so backwards I’m having to read right to left.
Posted by Natalie on Mar 6, 2007 at 6:32 AM Natalie
I will respond to your other post as soon as I am done looking up the various laws ect. So I can make the investigation as fare as possible and maybe one that even YOU would agree with and yet still be able to do a thorough investigation.
You said:
“No Joe, YOU are obstructing justice BIG TIME”It is a fact there is evidence of foreknowlege. There is also evidence that Pentagon lied to the 911 Commission. The testimony of 9/11 Commissioners Thomas Kean, Jamie S. Gorelick, Timothy J. Roemer, John J. Farmer, Jr., Max Cleland who admitted that they were lied to and or purposely deceived. So in your opinion the 9/11 commissioners are obstructing justice because they ALSO have pointed out that there is a cover up.
Natalie you said:
“You are the one acting as an apologist and providing cover for the organization that REALLY DID plan and carry out 9/11.”No Natalie you are acting as an apologist and providing cover for those that have admittedly lied to the 9/11 commission in order to cover up what really happend. I am tired of your excuse that it was just to cover their a** for the mistakes they made.
What about the FACT that we are supporting and funding those Al-Qaida Sunni terror cells. Which means we are the country that supports terror!
So who is really an apologist and providing cover? Isnt it against the law to support or fund terrorist no matter if its directly or indirectly?
Cant those that are supplying and funding the terrorist be held as enemy-combtants?
How do we know who really did plan and carry out 9/11 when The testimony of 9/11 Commissioners Thomas Kean, Jamie S. Gorelick, Timothy J. Roemer, John J. Farmer, Jr., Max Cleland who admitted that they were lied to and or purposely deceived. When there is a cover up Natalie that means we dont know what really happend because it was COVERED UP! If we never know we will just blame it on someone else and invade their country like Iraq.
Natalie you said:
“You are the one who has implied that everyone from the dedicated people at NORAD to the poor hard working pocket-liner wearing structural engineers at NIST are the real villains.”No I am not implying everyone. I am only implying those that have and are still lying in order to cover up what really happened. NORAD has told three different and conflicting stories. The 9/11 commission so distrusted testimony from Pentagon officials that they referred their concerns to the Pentagons inspector general.
As far as NIST goes it is only a small key group of people who are missleading the American people with disinformation at NIST. Here is just one of many examples:
The Popular Mechanics debunking hit piece was debunked by NIST scientists 4 months before they even did the interview with one of the scientist from NIST who knowingly and purposefully gave Popular Mechanics false incorrect and misleading information (otherwise known as disinformation) to be disseminated among the American people (sheeple) and the rest of the world. Wich was the already thrown out pancake collapse theory.
What is most shocking about all this is the fact that Popular Mechanics has never sued NIST or the individual scientist whom knowingly and purposefully gave them the false incorrect and misleading information wich caused Popular Mechanics to print misinformation.
There are people who still refer to that book from Popular Mechanics even though it had “OFFICIALLY” been debunked before and it was even published!
If popular mechanics wants to restore any credibility they need to denounce the deceitful actions of NIST.
Because Popular Mechanics will not and has not done anything about the deceitful actions of NIST I feel they themselves are now just as guilty.
Posted by honestjoe on Mar 6, 2007 at 8:21 PM Joe,
You’re confusing bureaucratic confusion and perhaps a little butt-covering with “LYING”, presumably to cover up complicity.
You’re mistaking more and more accurate and reliable conclusions based on additional data for people diabolically “changing their story”, and “lying”.
You’re confusing pancake collapse initiation with the obvious and always agreed upon pancaking of the structure as a whole. The pull-in theory of collapse initiation was determined by additional information that previous theorists didn’t have.
You’ve confused informal hypothesizing by people or groups with some kind of “official story”, that the NIST report seemingly is not allowed to disagree with, lest they all be accused of being liars or conspirators. That’s some kind of B movie, not real life.
There’s no crime here Joe, except the obvious one that you seem to want to distract everyone from.
Why the hell is it so hard for you to accept the simple, obvious, well documented, well investigated and ADMITTED TO reality that a group of suicidal brainwashed animals took advantage of an open free nation, and transformed that nation’s peaceful instruments of transportation into weapons of war?
What is so hard to understand about the fact that this was a scenario that perhaps was envisioned by a few, but was certainly not on the radar screen of the country as a whole? Don’t you think a little confusion might be expected in a case like this?
What is so hard to comprehend about the simple fact that dozens and dozens of seemingly strange happenings and coincidences occur during every major event?
I would certainly join you in your skeptical excursion, if there was SOME kind of real, tangible evidence, or meaningful, believable testimony.
* Obvious and unmistakable evidence of explosions below the impact zone.
* Someone involved coming forward and putting forth verifiable details.
* Some kind of sensible motive for doing all this.
But minus all this, or ANYTHING ELSE, what you engage in here is highly irresponsible and highly destructive to your country. You’re helping to warp further the minds of young Muslims that already want to kill us. You’re illegitimately promoting distrust among a wide swath of the world’s population. You’re polluting the Internet with corrosive misinformation based on non-facts and distortions. You’re helping to falsely turn a generation against their govt. You’re smearing the very people that exist primarily to protect you from the types of people who would simply kill you for carrying out the distasteful behavior you insist on.
You have no justification or basis for what you contend, other than a bunch of questionable “well what about this and what about that” irrelevancies.
If you freaks think all this is so obvious, so iron-clad, so easily proven…..then file a claim. Have the courage to come out from behind your keyboards and your YouTube clips, and lay it out in public court.
Even a coherent summary of what an “independent investigation” would entail would be something.
If anything needs to be investigated, it’s the erroneously named “truth” movement.
Posted by Natalie on Mar 6, 2007 at 10:05 PM The conspiracy theory of history has always struck me as completely nuts. Hundreds or thousands or even 10’s of people can keep secrets? Never happens and never happened. Peace.
Posted by frank67 on Mar 8, 2007 at 2:16 AM frank67
The Manhattan Project had over 120,000 peole who kept it so secret that not even the vice president new of it.
The NSA was a secret nearly 40 years.
The inconvenient knowledge for lesser high-co-conspirators, means, if you come forward, you were harrased, lose your job- escpecially in a climate of fear and suppression
Even if there are confidants, that does not mean they talk openly about it (see 3rd Reich).You can keep them silenced with fear or the bogus “national security” and gag them”
Like they did with Sibel Edmonds. When her case went to the appeals court, they excluded the press from the court, and they excluded even Sibel and her attorneys from the court—- even though they were supposedly hearing their case—- they wouldn’t let her defense attorneys hear what the prosecution was going to say—- so it’s a bizarre use of this privilege, not just to take a piece of information out of a trial, but to kill a trial entirely.
Horton: Now, Sibel, is it not the case that the secrets that you know would compromise national security if you were to tell us?
Edmonds: Well, no!
Actually this is exactly what my attorneys at the ACLU argue. For example, we had this public report by the Justice Department’s own Inspector General’s office—- they issued an unclassified version of that report which basically vindicated my case—- and they wanted to introduce this report into evidence, right, and the government said “No, that is covered by the State Secrets Privilege.” Here is a report, a document that is readily available on the website of the Justice Department, but the Justice Department says “We consider it State Secrets Privilege, and classified.”
Now, they did the same thing with my languages—- the languages I speak, they called the nature of those languages as a State Secrets Privilege. They even went further, they said that where I went to school, and the topics of my university studies, they were all covered by the State Secrets Privilege. In fact, where I was born, and the countries I was raised in, they were all considered State Secrets Privilege, which is just absolutely bizarre!
And what is even more troubling is the fact that three judges in the appellate court agreed with it. Here is a government coming in this Kafkaesque situation, and claiming that my languages, my place of birth and even my date of birth, they were all covered by the State Secrets Privilege. And you have three judges sitting on the bench, saying “Okay—- we agree with the government. The entire case, and this information, is considered State Secrets Privilege.”
Here you have an Inspector General’s report out that there that came out a year and a half ago, and you already have Congressional offices that issued reports four and five years ago and statements confirming the case, saying that it involves criminal activities by certain people within the government.
NOW READ HER RESPONSE TO A LETTER!
Thank you for your support; kind words.
I usually don’t respond to inquiries via e-mail; I don’t grant interviews in writing either.
However,
Quote #1- Accurate: “once this issue [9/11] gets to be…investigated, you will be seeing certain [American] people that we know from this country standing trial; and they will be prosecuted criminally”
Quote#2- Accurate: “There is direct evidence involving no more than ten American names that I recognized”
Have a nice holiday.
Best,
SibelFrom the “most gagged person in American History.”
Now two more FBI whistleblowers confirm and support Sibel Edmonds but the actions were covered up by the Department of Justice and the Attorney General’s office.
Edmonds:
There are several veteran agents who are willing, who want to come forward and testify, because I was not the only person who reported these issues. These other agents reported these cases to the Justice Department, Inspector General’s office, with the FBI’s Office of Professional Responsibility, and most of these agents also have gone to the various offices in the Congress. They have gone to Senator Grassley, and Senator Leahy, for the Judiciary Committee, and some of these people have come forward and provided information to Congressman Waxman’s office. So we want to have these witnesses stand there and tell the American public, tell the Representatives what really has been happening within these agencies, and the criminal activities that have been taking place there.Several civil liberties and whistleblowers organizations have joined Edmonds and NSWBC in urging congress to hold public hearing on Edmonds’ case, including the supporting cases of SA Graham and other FBI witnesses, and the erroneous use of state secrets privilege by the executive branch to cover up its own illegal conduct.
Everyone involved has motive to cover up these reports and prevent investigation and public disclosure. No wonder they invoked the state secrets privilege in Edmonds’ case.
“The 9/11 terror plot intersected with the activities of a drug trafficking network of international scope, in ways that form a “crystal clear” picture of what was going on,” said Edmonds.
A man in Saudi Makram Chams whose convenience store in Venice Florida was used by Mohamed Atta and his cadre of terrorist hijackers to receive overseas wire transfers, and from whose apartment Atta and Marwan took taxis to Orlando Airport to pick up visiting Saudis has suit in Saudi Arabia, for a whopping $21 million, against Titan Corporation of San Diego for not paying him the agreed amount for work he did before and up to 9/11!
In addition to owning a convenience store, the peripatetic Chams’ recent resume includes having been a partner in a Jack Abramoff-style gambling boat which operated for two years in Venice without permits, working for the FBI in San Diego, and pulling down multi-million dollar contracts in Saudi Arabia, one of which is the Saudi Bin Laden Group, for controversial U.S. defense firm Titan Corp.
Strangely (or not) the FBI apparently never bothered to mention anything at all to the 9/11 Commission about Makram Chams. Even though “numerous local witnesses have stated that several of the terrorists basically hung out at (Chams’) Kwik Check.”
The FBI’s testimony before the 9/11 Commission revealed that the largest overseas money transfer the terrorists received had come from the UAE, for $70,000.
A copy of the money transfer was projected overhead.
What the FBI didn’t point out to the Commission was the significance of the address where the money was wired to: 201 Nokomis in Venice, the address of the Kwik-Check owned by Makram Chams, the man who shortly thereafter would be in Saudi Arabia procuring multi-million dollar contracts from the Saudi Bin Laden Group.
Atta and his fellow terrorists also availed themselves of a second floor apartment Chams rented in a building across the street from the convenience store. The apartment was occupied by his sister, May Chams, and her husband, an Indian Muslim named “Khal” who disappeared from Venice in the aftermath of the 9/11 attack.
Local Venice Yellow Cab driver Bob Simpson (whose testimony about Atta’s local associates was used by the FBI to apprehend a half-dozen Saudi nationals in Venice after the attack) says he picked up Mohamed Atta and his bodyguard Marwan at the apartment in his cab on several occasions, and taken them to the Orlando Airport.
Even Zacharias Moussaoui, whose presence in Venice, was confirmed was seen at Chams’ apartment.
“The FBI was especially interested in a rich Saudi guy, dressed in Armani, shades, manicure, and a gold Rolex, that I was sent to pick up at the Orlando Executive Airport,” said Simpson.
“They (the FBI) knew he’d ridden in my cab because they’d gotten my cab number from a surveillance camera there.”
Six weeks later, when Simpson received a call to go to the apartment to pick up the “rich Saudi in Armani and shades” and return him to the Orlando Airport,(Saudi billionaire Adnan Khashoggi) the cabbie was asked to help carry a chest, the kind kept at the bottom of a bed, down from the apartment and load it into the trunk of the cab.
“It was so heavy it took two people to carry it. I could not believe anything that small could weigh that much! It must have weighed at least 150 pounds.”
Carrying the other end of the chest was someone Simpson recognized much later. “A big bald guy who I later identified as Zacharias Moussaoui helped me carry it down to the cab.”
At some point after the attack Chams abandoned the mini-market (it has stood vacant since) and left Venice.
A story in the Sarasota Herald Tribune called the abandoned convenience store, “A pocket of urban blight in the otherwise smartly tailored suit of downtown Venice”.
Chams went to San Diego, said his sister, who worked at Barclay’s Pharmacy in Venice (the same pharmacy visited by Mohamed Atta and his Cairo lawyer father two weeks before the 9/1 attack).
Asked what he was doing in San Diego, she’d replied, “Helping out the FBI.”
Then recently we learned Chams had been working as a contractor in Saudi Arabia for controversial San Diego defense firm Titan Corp a 23-year old company which sells information and communication services to military and spy agencies, and has about 12,000 employees and revenues of about $2 billion a year.
An SEC filing last year Titan reported that Makram Chams had filed a $21 million lawsuit against them in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
Apparently Titan didn’t hold the lawsuit against Chams, because he recently received a six-figure payout from Surebeam, a bankrupt Titan subsidiary which, in the aftermath of the anthrax scare had been the lucky recipient of a big windfall from the U.S. Post Office.
Surebeam announced in a press release that the post office “would use Surebeam’s electron beam systems to eliminate the threat of anthrax in the U.S. mail system.”
Despite there being not the slightest hint of scientific evidence that the company could perform as advertised, the firm was awarded a $40 million contract to set up machines to detect and kill anthrax spores,
Makram Chams had apparently landed a $5 million contract in Riyadh for Surebeam with the Saudi Bin Laden Group.
Surebeam, in a curious press release, had boasted of winning a $5 million contract in Saudi Arabia, “to build a network of Surebeam facilities within the Kingdom for pathogen and environmental pest control.”
Oddly, the company which gave Surebeam the $5 million contract went unnamed in the press release, identified only as “a private Saudi Arabian conglomerate headquartered in Riyadh;” and as “a leading Saudi company whose business dealings involve high rise construction, large living compound construction, hotel design and construction, oil and gas projects, defense and security contracts.”
Only one company fits this description, while at the same time being a firm Surebeam would have wanted to keep quiet about having as a business partner…The Saudi Bin Laden Group.
Makram Chams curious curriculum vitae includes having been a partner in a gambling boat called Vegas-in-Venice, owned by a Philadelphia man alleged to have ties to organized crime. The gambling vessel somehow managed to operate for almost two years in Venice, despite having no approval to do so from the city of Venice, County of Sarasota, or State of Florida.
The only other local partner in the gambling venture, Max Burge, also did business with Skyway Aircraft/Royal Son principal Frederick Geffon.
In addition the well-connected Burge owned the light planes used by the terrorists in their flight training at Huffman Aviation, Burge once owned the Sandpiper Apartments across the street the airport where Mohamed Atta spent several months living with Amanda Keller and where the DEA had been conducting their surveillance out of.
The DEA were secretly conducting their investigation of the drug smuggling from the same apartment building that Atta was staying at which was located right by the flight school.
Terror flight school owner Wally Hilliard’s company’s Lear (N351WB) had been busted by DEA agents armed with machine guns, who, during the same month Atta arrived at his school, found 43 pounds of Al Qaeda heroin onboard.
The same month Mohamed Atta arrived to attend his flight school in Venice, Huffman Aviation, the owner of that flight school, Wallace J. Hilliard, had his Lear jet confiscated on a runway at Orlando Executive Airport by DEA agents who found 43 pound of Bin Laden’s best uncut Al Qaeda heroin onboard.
It was, said the Orlando Sentinel, the “biggest drug bust in Central Florida history,”
How did a convenience store owner with unexplained links to Abramoff-style gambling boat interests connected with organized crime, and unexplained links with the terrorists in Venice, end up working for a well-connected defense contractor embroiled in numerous major controversies?
“The 9/11 terror plot intersected with the activities of a drug trafficking network of international scope, in ways that form a “crystal clear” picture of what was going on,” said Edmonds.
Remember In May of 2004 Titan Corp. announced in a press release a major purchase from SkyWay, a penny stock fraud company about to go bankrupt amid accusations by investors of fraud after they discovered the firm had nothing but non-existent products to show for its two year cash burn of almost $40 million.
SkyWay said it’s patented technology promised to protect airplanes from terrorism, and provide high-speed Internet at 30,000 feet. To the shock and anger of investors who lost 30-40 million dollars, it did nothing of the kind.
Even a cursory inspection of the company and its principals quickly reveals that SkyWay had no products, no prospects, and nothing to demonstrate.
What they did have, though… were a couple of airliners masquerading as official U.S. Government planes.
Imagine the possibilities.
Before going “bankrupt”, the company which painted the plane to look like it belonged to the U.S. Government, SkyWay Aircraft, was clearly up to no good. They had no use for one DC9. Yet they controlled two.
Skyway Communication’s principal Kovar must have been looking well forward to justify the purchase; the company was then in the middle of losing $40 million in less than three years, between 2002 and its last annual report before bankruptcy in January 2005.
both the DC9 (tail number N900SA) and its twin, a second DC9 (N120NE) had been used by an operation which includes the former head of the CIA proprietary airline used to ferry TOW missiles to the Ayatollah Khomeini’s regime in Iran, as part of the Iran Contra Scandal.
Adnan Khashoggi lieutenant Ramy El-Batrawi, who supplied one of the two DC9’s, is the former President of an admitted CIA subsidiary airline.
The Tower Commission Report into the Iran-Contra Scandal first exposed Jetborne as a CIA proprietary. When it came time to begin shipping the missiles, said the report, Oliver North had asked a CIA official for the name of a “reliable” charter airline.
The public commercial charter airline North called was Jetborne International. By the time the firm was “outed” as a CIA airline, it had already gone “bankrupt”.
The DC9 (tail number N900SA) had recently busted at an airport in Ciudad del Carmen in the state of Campeche, Mexico freighted 5.5 tons of cocaine on its way to “US”!
The DC9 was purchased several years ago in a partnership between “Royal Sons Motor Yacht Sales, Inc. DBA “Royal Sons” and a company owned by Brent Kovar called Skyway Communications Holding Corp, which jointly signed a loan with United Bank and Trust Company in St. Petersburg, FL. for $1.5 million.
While Huffman Aviation’s familiar blue-awning flight school was at 400 E Airport, its hangar was several hundred feet down the runway, at 224 E Airport Ave. Royal Sons used this same address, apparently during the same time frame that the flight school was serving as the home-away-from-home of terrorist ringleader Mohamed Atta.
An address at Huffman Aviation at the Venice Airport apparently is the “green light from the DEA” it seems by the recent seizure of 5.5 tons of cocaine on a DC9 owned by a company which used Huffman’s address.
The same month Mohamed Atta arrived to attend his flight school in Venice, Huffman Aviation, the owner of that flight school, Wallace J. Hilliard, had his Lear jet confiscated on a runway at Orlando Executive Airport by DEA agents who found 43 pound of Bin Laden’s best uncut Al Qaeda heroin onboard.
Also of major significance is the fact that photos of the DC9, seized in Ciudad del Carmen, reveal that the plane is painted with the distinctive blue and white color color scheme of official U.S. Government planes.
Moreover, to reinforce the effect, or subterfuge, the plane carries an official-looking Seal painted on its side, which reads: SKY WAY AIRCRAFT, PROTECTION OF AMERICA’S SKIES, around an image of a federal eagle clutching the familiar olive branch in its talons. Many have been fooled into concluding that the plane belongs to the U.S. Transportation Security Administration.
It looks “EXACTLY” like a plane that belongs to the U.S. Transportation Security Administration.
The tricked-out airliners were supposedly used to perform in-flight demonstrations of the spiffy new technology of SKYWAY AIRCRAFT and its corporate parent SKYWAY COMMUNICATIONS HOLDING CORP.
Mexican Gen. Carlos Gaytan held a news conference, he told reporters that his soldiers had unfortunately been unable to apprehend the plane’s pilot.
It seemed almost exactly like what had happened when terror flight school owner Wally Hilliard’s Lear jet got busted with 43 pounds of Bin Laden’s best uncut Al Qaeda heroin aboard. Somehow, his pilot got off scot-free, too.
So there were two Mexican pilots arriving in a small Falcon business jet and they offerd to pay for the DC-9 to make an emergency landing, at a time when the airport was officially closed.
Hahahaha and they were the only ones detained. Not the one with enough cocaine to open a ski park in the summer.
Both of the detained Mexican pilots published reports revealed, they were employees of the Mexican government’s Federal Water Commission.
Although 5.5 tons of cocaine would seem to rate at least mild interest from American law enforcement, the Tampa DEA refuses to comment. The company’s owner appears to have no fear of being picked up anytime soon, even just for questioning.
The DEA undervalued the amount seized by a whopping $400 million dollars. Asked if they were investigating the American side of the 5.5 ton bust, the Tampa DEA office issued a terse no comment.
So would you think the 5-ton cocaine bust would deserve more attention? Well the MSM didnt think so.
“The 9/11 terror plot intersected with the activities of a drug trafficking network of international scope, in ways that form a “crystal clear” picture of what was going on,” said Edmonds.
Former U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft went to the Supreme Court to silence FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, to keep her from revealing what she had learned in translated documents, which, as she has stated, indicate that the State Department was covering up a drug trafficking network associated with the 9.11 attack.
Oh yea incase your interested, the cocaine was packed into 128 identical black suitcases stenciled on the side of each of the 128 pieces of identical black luggage is the word “Private.”
Al Qaeda must be a Private club with government connections.
Basically…
the bigger the lie, the less people want to hear it.
It hurts. Common people couldn’t imagine. What lays beyond imagination is not thinkable. The common people would never leave their own ethics or think that such evil behaviour is possible.
Posted by honestjoe on Mar 9, 2007 at 8:19 PM frank67
In case you forgot. The reason for the need of a way to eliminate the threat of anthrax in the U.S. mail system was because of the most devastating and horrific biological attack against the US in the history of it existence.
Chams received a six-figure payout from Surebeam, a bankrupt Titan subsidiary which, in the aftermath of the anthrax scare (the most devastating and horrific biological attack against the US in the history of it existence) had been the lucky recipient of a big windfall from the U.S. Post Office.
Surebeam announced in a press release that the post office “would use Surebeam’s electron beam systems to eliminate the threat of anthrax in the U.S. mail system.”
Despite there being not the slightest hint of scientific evidence that the company could perform as advertised, the firm was awarded a $40 million contract to set up machines to detect and kill anthrax spores,
Makram Chams landed the $5 million contract in Riyadh for Surebeam with the Saudi Bin Laden Group.
But you might have forgot because as I’m sure you have noticed this topic (the most devastating and horrific biological attack against the US in the history of it existence) is COMPLETELY off the idiot box.
Especially now that Dr.Hatfill has been proven to be not culpable for this homegrown USAMRIID brainchild FAKE Attack ?
During Dr.Hatfill’s so called “person of interest” affair, he once had FIB goons following him so closely that a FIB car ran over his foot as he was crossing the street. Subsequently he was charged with J-walking while the FIB goons were of course, let off scot free.
Now, the Whoreish MSM has not uttered ONE SINGLE WORD about the Anthrax Attacks. No mention of the status of the investigation, no other “persons of interest”, no timeline of the investigation, NO NOTHING. While drivel and useless crap about that idiotic moron Britney Spears is shoved down the throat of every braindead zombified ‘Murican Sheeple.
The letters contained highly classified weaponized anthrax (Ames Iowa strain, weaponized at Fort Detrick Maryland) developed by the U.S. military and/or the CIA.
Is it surprising that the CIA and FBI haven’t exposed the anthrax killers? Are the anthrax killers near the top of the FBI’s most wanted list?
Within a ten day period, immediately after the USA Patriot Act was passed, three top anthrax experts with knowledge of the U.S. bioweapons program died under suspicious circumstances. Within four months 8 more world-leading microbiologists were killed. Coincidentally, the controversial coroner of one microbiologist (Don Wiley) was later found wrapped in barbed wire with a live bomb strapped to his chest.
The day after the anthrax letters were mailed to Tom Daschle and Patrick Leahy (6 days before either Senator received the letters), the original batch of Ames strain anthrax was destroyed with the permission of the FBI—- making tracing this anthrax type much more difficult. Could it be incompetence, conspiracy or cover up that, two months after the anthrax attacks started, the FBI still had not investigated the only facility capable of producing weaponized anthrax—the biological warfare program based at Fort Detrick Maryland.
British microbiologist, weapons expert and would-be whistle blower David Kelly (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelly) died in an “alleged suicide” on July 17, 2003—- amidst world wide publicity that the U.S. and Britain had invaded Iraq largely based on fabricated “intelligence”. Half the world was anxiously waiting for further news releases on Kelly just before his mysterious death. It is notable that on the morning of his death, Kelly e-mailed New York Times reporter Judith Miller (of Valery Plame leak and Lewis Libby Indictment fame) and told her that many dark actors were playing games. (Email sent by Dr Kelly to Judith Miller on July 17, 2003) Were some of these dead microbiologists capable of exposing the anthrax killers? Had they been e-mailing each other about the attacks? This stuff has got all the makings of a detective thriller other than creating any serious doubts as to who was responsible for the letters. The only thing that really has to be established is a motive.
The people who profit the most from a crime are the people most likely to have committed it. Who profited the most from the Anthrax letters?
Dr. Francis A. Boyle holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude and a Ph.D. in political science, both from Harvard. is a scholar in the areas of international law and human rights whose distinguished career includes the drafting of the legislation for the Biological Weapons Convention, known as the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, that was approved unanimously by both Houses of the U.S. Congress and signed into law by President George H.W. Bush.
“I believe the FBI knows exactly who was behind these terrorist anthrax attacks upon the U.S. Congress in the Fall of 2001, and that the culprits were US government-related scientists involved in a criminal US government biowarfare program,” Boyle said.
Boyle is quoted in the article:
Although only a “handful” of scientists had the ability to perpetrate the crime, the culprit among them may never be identified as the FBI ordered the destruction of the anthrax culture collection at Ames, IA., from which the Ft. Detrick lab got its pathogens ...
(snip)
and that destruction of the Ames anthrax “appears to be a cover-up orchestrated by the FBI.I believe that the FBI knows exactly who was behind these attacks and that they have concluded that the perpetrator was someone who was or is involved in illegal and criminal biological warfare research conducted by the US government (the Pentagon or the CIA) or by one of the government’s civilian contractors. For that reason, the FBI is not going to apprehend and indict the perpetrator. To do so would directly implicate the government in conducting biological warfare research. So this is where we are today. The FBI says that they are working on it, but of course, that is ridiculous.
“Could it truly be coincidental,” he continued, “that two of the primary intended victims of the terrorist anthrax attacks - Senators Daschle and Leahy - were holding up the speedy passage of the pre-planned USA Patriot Act ... an act which provided the federal government with unprecedented powers in relation to US citizens and institutions?”
TRENTON—Rep. Rush Holt (D-Princeton) wants hearings into what he says is a lack of headway in the FBI’s investigation into the deadly anthrax attacks of 2001.
“It seems to me this investigation is not making progress. I can’t say for sure. They
won’t brief me,” Holt told The Times of Trenton for Saturday newspapers.“Not briefing Congress on the status of the probe into the biggest biological attack in United States history is inexcusable,” he said.
The anthrax attacks through the postal system killed five people across the country and sickened 17 in the weeks after Sept. 11, 2001. Investigators have not determined who was responsible for the attacks.
Over the years, Holt has been a vocal critic of the bureau’s handling of the case,
especially because anthrax contamination was found in mail facilities in and near Holt’s district.Holt on Friday called on four committee chairmen and one subcommittee chairman in the House to hold oversight hearings into the investigation. His request may carry more weight now that his party is in the majority in Congress.
Several earlier attempts to receive information failed. In September and October 2006, Holt formally requesting that the FBI brief Congress on the investigation. He was denied.
In December, a bipartisan group of 32 House and Senate members called on Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales to direct that the FBI brief Congress on the investigation. That request was also denied.
Richard J. Kolko, a bureau spokesman, defended the handling of the anthrax probe, saying it is “one of the largest and most complex” ever conducted. He said the investigation is still a high priority.
Posted by honestjoe on Mar 9, 2007 at 9:24 PM frank67
There weren’t lots of people involved in the 9/11 plot. It was likely around two dozen people in key positions- a couple of key intelligence people to protect the patsies by shutting down all investigations around them, a couple of key people in the Pentagon to orchestrate the war games, a couple of people owning all the major news media, and a couple of sick, twisted f*cks in PNAC to come up with the plan. Add a dozen operatives to rig WTC and there you go… a very small group pulls off 9/11.
The extensive history of black ops which have been revealed shows that complicated conspiracies have been kept secret for years or decades- GLADIO, AJAX, PBSUCCSES, NORTHWOODS, MK-ULTRA, MOCKINGBIRD, Gulf of Tonkin and on and on and on…
Many highly-qualified legal scholars believe that the horrible attacks of September 1, 2001, may intentionally have been allowed to happen or even been actively aided and abetted by elements within the United States government. This is important, since attorneys are good at assessing the strength of competing pieces of evidence, and since lawyers are the ones who will ultimately file any 9/11 prosecutions.
A small partial list of such scholars includes:
John Loftus (Former Federal Prosecutor, Office of Special Investigations, U.S. Department of Justice under Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; former U.S. Army Intelligence officer; currently a widely-sought media commentator on terrorism and intelligence services). See http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/#Loftus
Francis Boyle, PhD, LLD (Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign; a leading practitioner and advocate of international law; Boyle was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989, the American implementing legislation for the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; Boyle served on the Board of Directors of Amnesty International (1988-1992), and represented Bosnia- Herzegovina at the World Court. He holds a Doctor of Law Magna Cum Laude as well as a Ph.D. in Political Science, both from Harvard University). See http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Boyle
Richard Falk (Professor Emeritus, International Law, Professor of Politics and International Affairs, Princeton University; in 2001 Falk served on the three-person UN Commission on Human Rights for the Palestine Territories, and previously, on the Independent International Commission on Kosovo). See http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Falk
Burns H. Weston (Bessie Dutton Murray Distinguished Professor of Law Emeritus and Director, Center for Human Rights, University of Iowa; Fellow, World Academy of Art and Science. Honorary Editor, Board of Editors, American Journal of International Law). See http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Weston
C. Peter Erlinder, former president of the National Lawyers Guild. See http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Erlinder. and http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20041026093059633.
Mark Conrad (Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice at Troy University; associate General Counsel, National Association of Federal Agents; Retired Agent in Charge, Internal Affairs, U.S. Customs, responsible for the internal integrity and security for areas encompassing nine states and two foreign locations; former Federal Sky Marshall; 27-year U.S. Customs career). See http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Conrad
Horst Ehmke, PhD (Professor of Law, University of Freiburg; former Minister of Justice (West Germany)). See http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Ehmke
William G. Weaver, JD, PhD (Director of Academic Programs, Institute for Policy and Economic Development, University of Texas, El Paso, specializing in executive branch secrecy policy, governmental abuse, and law and bureaucracy; former U.S. Army Signals Intelligence officer; author of several books on law and political theory). See http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Weaver
Gerry Spence (famed trial attorney). See http://www.interlinkbooks.com/BooksN/New_Pearl_Harbor.html
Posted by honestjoe on Mar 9, 2007 at 10:38 PM So I guess any day now they’ll be filing their complaint. Can’t wait for that—-Saturday Night Live and Comedy Central are getting old.
Posted by Natalie on Mar 10, 2007 at 6:16 PM Natalie
Here is their complaint.
If you want to blow the 9/11 myth apart and open a new investigation you need to push Sibel Edmonds case with Henry Waxman and persuade him to hold hearings into her case.
Sibel and “OTHERS” have “PROMISED” that Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Dennis Hastert, and Marc Grossman (and others) will be thrown in jail, for treason.
Sibel Edmonds:
“had to do with information related to counter-terrorism division dealing mainly with the 911 terror attacks….retrieved a lot of documents and wiretap conversations - some of them dating back to 1999/2000”
“And I filed these issues, and when I filed them, I filed them with the supporting documents. - it was not me saying ‘This is what I think is happening.’”
“All the agents that I worked with, they were great individuals, they were patriotic, they were as frustrated as I was - and they were outraged that these layers from the Pentagon, and the State Department, that they were interfering with their investigations”
“present them with documents, and details, and file numbers etc. Initially, we had Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy, a Democrat and a Republican - this was in the summer of 2002. These two senators, together, came out publicly and they said ‘We started investigating this case, we have already interviewed the FBI officials, they confirmed all her allegations to us, and she’s 100% credible.”
“I’m not the only witness.”
“Some of these people’s names are not public because they haven’t come out to blow the whistle publicly, but they have to congress and the Justice Dept Inspector General’s office filing exactly the same reports that I filed.”
“veteran FBI agents who were in charge of these operations. They want to testify under oath, they want to testify publicly, and they have filed these reports.”
“so packed with damning information”
“there are so many agents, and I have their names, and they are willing to go and testify under oath.”
“information that will let the public know that here we have appointed officials and elected officials who are out there engaged in treason!”
“And these cases are documented, the files, the wiretaps, go back to 1997, 1998. They are documented, there are documents, there are witnesses and we need to expose these people and we need to see criminal indictments against these people - and it will (happen). All we need is for this hearing to take place, for people to testify, and for the documents to be introduced, then you’re going to see criminal indictments against these people.”
“there are individuals who are engaged in acts of treason, okay. People from the State Dept, people from the Pentagon”
“look at the board members, look at the people. You will see the same people involved in both fronts, because it is the same operation. And you come across the same individuals over and over again.”
She was talking about PNAC/AIPAC.
“You need to look at individuals like Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Marc Grossman, Dennis Hastert, and others. And documented evidence they have collected on these people.”
“many of them financial interests that have to do with the military industrial complex - and they had this information, and those same individuals - not the ones from Congress necessarily, but the ones from the State Dept and Pentagon.”
“‘Let’s defend our country against all enemies - not foreign,, but also domestic’”
“...take that two minutes, maybe less than two minutes, and call Chairman Waxman, and remind him that he’s the Chairman, there’s no obstacle.
This case is not allegation, it’s not a case that needs to be investigated, that has already been done. Even the Dept of Justice’s own Inspector General’s Office has put out a report vindicating the case. We have had bipartisan congressional statements saying that this is credible, and absolutely confirming it. So this is not taking something that is unknown. He’s the Chairman, he has the power, there’s nothing that stands in his way, this is a confirmed case, let’s see some justice and accountability.”
You can call Waxman at (202-225-3976 ) and Conyers at (202-225-5126) and demand open public hearings into Sibel’s case.
Posted by honestjoe on Mar 13, 2007 at 5:42 PM Yeah, I’d like to find out more about Sibel myself. However, you unfortunately can’t trust a bunch of partisan hack democrats to get the bottom of any kind of truth, especially when it starts to point to some left-wing entrenched bureaucrat within the CIA, jealous of some greenhorn showing them up.
It looks to me like the Edmonds case might illustrate how there’s too many special interests in govt., (Duh) but I fail to see how anything she says supports the “inside job” fantasies.
Even she doesn’t seem to really want to go there, unless perhaps it can get her on the Alex Jones show.
Posted by Natalie on Mar 14, 2007 at 10:00 PM Speaking of hearings:
9/11 mastermind confesses in Guantanamo
By LOLITA C. BALDOR, Associated Press WriterWASHINGTON - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks, confessed to that attack and a string of others during a military hearing at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, according to a transcript released Wednesday by the Pentagon.
Mohammed claimed responsibility for planning, financing, and training others for bombings ranging from the 1993 attack at the World Trade Center to the attempt by would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight with explosives hidden in his shoes.
In all, Mohammed said he was responsible for planning 29 individual attacks, including many that were never executed. The comments were included in a 26-page transcript released by the Pentagon, which also blacked out some of his remarks.
The Pentagon also released transcripts of the hearings of Abu Faraj al-Libi and Ramzi Binalshibh.
Binalshibh is suspected of helping Mohammed with the Sept. 11, 2001, attack plan and is also linked to a foiled plot to crash aircraft into London’s Heathrow Airport. Al-Libi is a Libyan who reportedly masterminded two bombings 11 days apart in Pakistan in December 2003 that targeted President Pervez Musharraf for his support of the U.S.-led war on terror.
The hearings, which began last Friday, are being conducted in secret by the military as it tries to determine whether 14 alleged terrorist leaders should be declared “enemy combatants” who can be held indefinitely and prosecuted by military tribunals.
Hearings for six of the 14 have already been held. The military is not allowing reporters to attend the sessions and is limiting the information it provides about them, arguing that it wants to prevent sensitive information from being disclosed.
The 14 were moved in September from a secret CIA prison network to the prison at the U.S. naval base at Guantanamo Bay, where about 385 men are being held on suspicion of links to al-Qaida or the Taliban.
I seem to remember something about Khalid being Osama’s third in command.
But then again, we all know that OBL serves at the pleasure of Dick Cheney. I learned that at the Loose Change forum!
Posted by Natalie on Mar 15, 2007 at 5:11 PM ‘I Decapitated’ Daniel Pearl, Mohammed Says
Military Releases Transcripts From Guantanamo Bay Hearing
March 15, 2007WASHINGTON - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed confessed to cutting off the head of American journalist Daniel Pearl, as well as plotting the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, according to a revised transcript of a statement released by the U.S. military.
“I decapitated with my blessed right hand the head of the American Jew, Daniel Pearl, in the city of Karachi, Pakistan,” Mohammed is quoted as saying in a transcript of a military hearing at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, that was released Thursday by the Pentagon.
In addition to the terrorist attacks and Pearl’s death, Muhammed claimed responsibility for at least 30 other al-Qaida attacks or plots. They ranged from the 1993 attack at the World Trade Center to the attempt by would-be shoe bomber Richard Reid to blow up a trans-Atlantic flight with explosives hidden in his shoes.
“I was responsible for the 9/11 operation, from A to Z,” an interpreter read from Muhammad’s statement to the Combatant Status Review Tribunal on March 10 in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
In the statement he pledged his allegiance to Osama bin Laden and finished with an admission to trying to destroy an American oil company in Indonesia owned by former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger.
He offered a confession to “managing and following up on the Cell for the Production of Biological Weapons, such as anthrax and others, and following up on Dirty Bomb Operations on American soil.”
He also named four other skyscrapers that were supposed to be destroyed in a “second wave” of attacks after Sept. 11. They were the Library Tower in Los Angeles, the Sears Tower in Chicago, the Plaza Bank in Seattle and the Empire State Building in New York City.
Mohammed also said he plotted attacks that were never carried out against then-President Bill Clinton, former President Jimmy Carter and the late Pope John Paul II.
“I shared responsibility for the assassination attempt against Pope John Paul II while he was visiting the Philippines,” Muhammad also said in the transcript.Muhammad’s lengthy closing oral statement began with a pledge to Allah in Arabic followed by a refusal to take an oath as part of the tribunal. He explained that he was not lying, but that his religious beliefs prevented him taking the oath and thereby accepting, at least in part, American law and its constitution.
Muhammad went on to say that he was not trying to make himself out to be a hero, but an enemy of America.
He drew a comparison between al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and George Washington, both fighting for independence, and said that the term terrorist is “deceiving.” He said that during the Revolutionary War, Washington would have been considered a terrorist by the British.
He closed by stating that war is part of life and that it will never stop.
You defend these guys, Joe. When will that stop?
Posted by Natalie on Mar 15, 2007 at 5:13 PM Natalie
Are you suggesting that we trust the people who have been cought with lie after lie and who has gone as far as treason and who routinely torture prisoners and hold secret trials—and bar all lawyers and reporters from even being in the courtroom—are saying that KSM has confessed to 9/11?
Natalie please think about what you are saying.
What we have here is a phantom terrorist confessing through a phantom “personal representative,” before a phantom “Recorder” and a phantom “judge.”
Some unnamed US Military person reads off a list of allegations and he responds in poor English, “I was not responsible, but share” by which he means he didn’t do any of the things listed but ‘shares’ in the struggle.
He ‘not-confessed’ to ploting to bomb a building in Seattle that doesn’t exist, plotting to bomb Big Ben, plotting to bomb the Panama Canal.
When Khalid Sheikh Muhammed twice brings up the fact that he was tortured and was ‘confessing’ to things he didn’t do… [REDACTED].
Tortured. http://movies.crooksandliars.com/yoo-1.mp3
KSM: Mmmmble Mmmmble…choke gag choke cough…
Personal Representative: Uh huh, yeah… so you had absolutely no affiliation with the Pakistani ISI, right…
KSM: Mmmmble Mmmmble…choke gag choke cough…
Personal Representative: Wow, so you managed to confuse the United States military for almost a full 2 hours on the morning of 9/11?Speaking through a personal representative “a member of the U.S. military” not to be confused with an attorney under any circumstances after being tortured for 2 1/2 years (KSM impressed his CIA torturers by lasting as long as he did) to suddenly come out with a FULL confession FROM A to Z is a joke.
Who uses the phrase “A to Z”, especially someone whose first language isn’t English? Dont the “Islamic letters” fall somewhat outside of that range?
Mr. Mohammed said he decapitated Daniel Pearl, a reporter for The Wall Street Journal, in Pakistan in 2002. The military said it had held back the passage about Mr. Pearl while it notified his family.
Hahaha What about Ahmed Omar Sheikh, who is appealing his death sentence in Pakistan for his role in Mr. Pearl’s abduction and murder that I have posted about on this thread? Do you not know the can of worms that would open if Ahmed Omar Sheikh case that was aided by the U.S. was overturned? Ahmed Omar Sheikh said ALOT of damning thigs about Al-Qaeda = ISI = CIA and ect.
Also in his confession, KSM claims:
“I was responsible for planning, training, surveying, and financing for the New (or Second) Wave of attacks against the following skyscrapers after 9/11: ...Plaza Bank, Washington state”
The Plaza Bank was not founded until 2006 according to their official Web site:
“Founded in early 2006, with a vision of creating the leading commercial bank in the Pacific Northwest, Plaza Bank’s story quickly captured the hearts and passion of some of the region’s leading business minds. From Jack Creighton, former CEO of Weyerhaeuser and United Airlines, to former Seattle Mariner Edgar Martinez, and nationally acclaimed salon operator Gene Juarez, the story of a bank founded to bring “class to the mass” simply could not be contained.”
This is supposed to be his confession, and there is no way he could have known about a Plaza Bank since he (allegedly) has been in custody since 2003.
The Seattle newspaper says he might have meant the Bank of America Plaza building which is near Columbia Center, and is connected by an underground concourse. Not likely, even if it were proper journalism to speculate that he meant something else. Bank of America Plaza Building is only 42 stories tall. Moreover, why would a terrorist name a skyscraper target - the tallest building in Seattle - using the name of another building?
Columbia Center was called the Bank of America Tower for many years, but the name was changed back to November 2005. It is most likely that “KSM” would refer to the building as “Bank of America Tower.” And how likely is it that rather than calling it the “Bank of America building,” he would call it the “Plaza Bank” building just because a Bank of America Plaza was nearby? Bank of America is a very well-known bank, and might itself be a target for that reason. But the basic target is the tallest building in Seattle, which has never had “Plaza” in its name.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia_Center
Plaza Bank is located in the U.S. Bank Centre Tower, which is 7 blocks north of Columbia Center. It is 44 stories tall.
http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=usbankcentre-seattle-wa-usa
It is not considered a skyscraper, unlike the U.S. Bank Tower in L.A. that was allegedly a target of KSM, according to the 9/11 Commission.
In short, a “Plaza Bank” has never been in the tallest building in Seattle, nor could KSM have meant US Bank Centre because it had no Plaza Bank until 2006 (and are we to believe KSM hates small Latino banks?). So it makes no sense for KSM to confess to targeting a “Plaza Bank.”
Even assuming the building was now named “Plaza Bank” or housed a “Plaza Bank,” there is no way that KSM could know that unless if was told that, and it would be very sketchy practice to put words into the suspect’s mouth. It is supposed to be his confession. And if the drafter of the confession made a mistake, would not KSM ask for a correction,since there is no way he could have been targeting a “Plaza Bank”?
“I get a sense that his ego was enormous, and that he would take credit for anything and everything,” said Jack Cloonan, an ABC News analyst and former senior agent on the FBI’s bin Laden squad who investigated Mohammed. “What’s missing is the evidence and details about the plots—the fact that he can’t provide that shows that he is in lying mode.”
Among the claims that provoked skepticism in Cloonan were previously unknown plots to attack U.S. military bases in South Korea and to assassinate President Carter…
Hahaha Natalie that is NUTS dont they realise that KSM would be quite young to be plotting against Pres Carter. April 14, 1965 is his BD.
“I’m surprised that he didn’t take responsibility for killing JFK,” says Cloonan. “That he was actually on the grassy knoll.”
I think we can say for quite certain that his entire confession is a fraud.
The gov used to be very creative, very well researched, LIARS. Now the lies are just made up and released without care - which is even more scary because its obvious that they just dont care. That tells me something very bad is going to happen very soon.
Posted by honestjoe on Mar 17, 2007 at 6:50 AM It’s true that he may have padded his resume a bit on some of his claims, but on the big one, 9/11, he admitted to that even before he was captured and supposedly tortured.
And of course, he was caught by surprise along with evidence in his possession.
Why are you trying so hard to defend this a**hole?
Not even the most partisan hack Democrats dispute the meat of his confession.
Posted by Natalie on Mar 17, 2007 at 10:31 PM Speaking years ago with Soviet dissident Valdimir Bukovsky about the behavior of Soviet dissidents under torture. He replied that people pressed for names under torture would try to remember the names of war dead and people who had passed away. Those who retained enough of their wits under torture would confess to an unbelievable array of crimes in an effort to alert the public to the falsity of the entire process.
We don’t have to draw conclusions that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was tortured (however logical those conclusions are), because U.S. government officials admit that he was tortured:
“”
According to the sources, CIA officers who subjected themselves to the water boarding technique lasted an average of 14 seconds before caving in. They said al Qaeda’s toughest prisoner, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, won the admiration of interrogators when he was able to last between two and two-and-a-half minutes before begging to confess.
“”From:
“CIA’s Harsh Interrogation Techniques Described: Sources Say Agency’s Tactics Lead to Questionable Confessions, Sometimes to Death,” Brian Ross and Richard Esposito, ABC News, November 18, 2005 http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1322866
And who are these said sources? From the above article:
“”
Harsh interrogation techniques authorized by top officials of the CIA have led to questionable confessions and the death of a detainee since the techniques were first authorized in mid-March 2002, ABC News has been told by former and current intelligence officers and supervisors.They say they are revealing specific details of the techniques, and their impact on confessions, because the public needs to know the direction their agency has chosen. All gave their accounts on the condition that their names and identities not be revealed. Portions of their accounts are corrobrated by public statements of former CIA officers and by reports recently published that cite a classified CIA Inspector General’s report.
...
The CIA sources described a list of six “Enhanced Interrogation Techniques” instituted in mid-March 2002 and used, they said, on a dozen top al Qaeda targets incarcerated in isolation at secret locations on military bases in regions from Asia to Eastern Europe. According to the sources, only a handful of CIA interrogators are trained and authorized to use the techniques:
“”Massive amounts of documentation wherein the U.S. government itself admits it is holding innocent people indefinitely without charges (including children and U.S. citizens), torturing them, raping them—including homosexually anally raping them—and murdering them, and that the orders to do so came from the highest levels of the U.S. government.
“Crushing Children’s Testicles: Welcome to the New Freedom,” TetrahedronOmega, August 12, 2006 http://www.armleg.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=59&mforum=libertyandtruth
If there was anything remaining of the Bush regime not already discredited, Mohammed’s confession removed any reputation left.
The most important part of the Mohammed story is yet to make the headlines. Despite having held and tortured hundreds of detainees for years in Gitmo, and we don’t know how many more in secret prisons around the world, the US government has come up with only 14 “high value detainees.”
In other words, the government has nothing on 99 percent of the detainees who allegedly are so dangerous and wicked that they must be kept in detention without charges, access to attorneys and contact with families.
And little wonder. The vast majority of detainees, alleged “enemy combatants,” are not terrorists captured by the CIA and brave US troops. They are hapless persons who happened to be outside their tribal or home territories and were kidnapped by criminal gangs or war lords who profited greatly at the expense of the naive Americans who offered bounties for “terrorists.”
The US government does not care that innocent people have been ensnared, because the US government desperately needs both to prove that there are vast numbers of terrorists and to demonstrate its proficiency in protecting Americans by capturing terrorists. Moreover, the US government needs “dangerous suspects” that it can use to keep Americans in a state of supine fearfulness and as a front behind which to undermine constitutional protections and the Bill of Rights.
The Bush-Cheney Regime succeeded in its evil plot, only to throw it all away by releasing the ridiculous confession by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed.
NOT ON MY WATCH! I will not be a good german who did’nt commit the cimes but also did’nt speak out. No instead I am exposing the lies and crimes done by the thugs in the white house by SPEAKING OUT!
Posted by honestjoe on Mar 17, 2007 at 11:07 PM What is it about BEFORE HE WAS ARRESTED AND SUPPOSEDLY TORTURED that you don’t understand, Joe?
Personally, I don’t have any problem with the guy who murdered 3000 Americans being tortured. Somehow, I don’t think most of the families of those who died do either.
Why do you?
Posted by Natalie on Mar 18, 2007 at 6:27 AM Is Khalid Shaikh Mohammed even alive? There are no recent descriptions of KSM given anywhere. Why are there no photos or video taken of him since his capture? Other then the 2 of him that looks like he just got out of bed with a major hang over?
There is not even a sketch of KSM at this tribunal. Just the same “Ron Jeremy on a bender” photo they’ve been pimping for 3 years (even in cartoon form in the graphic adaptation of the report).
Could this be a reason why no journlist were allowed in on the proceedings?
Here is a link to the Asia times that reported that Khalid Sheikh Mohammed was killed in a raid on his apartment on Sept. 11, 2002.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/South_Asia/DJ30Df01.html
Again the government thinks we are all stupid, they ask for our blind trust in their motives and their methods, despite the vast amount of evidence that shouts the government can not be and must not be trusted.
To quote Murrow:
A Nation of Sheep begets a government of wolves.Without a public display of the evidence and a full accounting of what the Military has been doing to this guy for the last 4 years, one can only assume he got the Padilla treatment, sensory depravation, mental torture that would all stop if he confesses to his crimes.
The depravity of it all boggles the mind.
They want to make us all complicit to their crimes.
By allowing this it makes us all accomplices with the torture system.
We know from John Yoo that the President has the legal authority to torture children… And I just got done reading the transcript of KSM’s “confession” and he implied that he was tortured… And he later stated that his wife and children had been arrested. If we take John Yoo at his word that the Pres has the legal authority to torture children… Why would John Yoo argue this point over and again if he wasn’t trying to get people used to the idea… And exactly what would the government be saving that for if it’s not for a 9/11 confession to quell the dissent?
Notice how they always heavily publicize “confessions” and never talk about any evidence that these confession are true. You need more than a confession prove someone committed a crime.
Let’s first keep in mind that The Japanese Red Army took responsibility for the 9/11 attacks, on the very same day…
The 9/11 Commission Report says that KSM had confessed 4 years ago.
So why did it take 4 years to get a confession out of him? And why did he impress his CIA torturers by lasting as long as he did when he could have just confessed? The entire case against OBL is allegedly based on KSM’s confessions prior to the Report.
Speaking of OBL—phew!—good thing no one has to talk about him anymore, now that KSM has confessed to organizing everything ever.
“I would like to assure the world that I did not plan the recent attacks.” —Usama bin Laden, CNN, “Bin Laden says he wasn’t behind attacks,” September 17, 2001
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.binladen.denial/Interview published in newspaper Ummat Karachi, 28th September, 2001
“I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. As a Muslim, I try my best to avoid telling a lie. I had no knowledge of these attacks, nor do I consider the killing of innocent women, children and other humans as an appreciable act. Islam strictly forbids causing harm to innocent women, children and other people. Such a practice is forbidden even in the course of a battle.”
That’s why Osama bin Laden is not in the FBI Most Wanted page for causing 9/11!
They knew all along that KSM was the mastermind!
Was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed responsible for the FBI ordering the 1993 World Trade Center bombing to go ahead? In his confession, KSM says he ran the attack but fails to explain why it was the FBI who provided the terror cell with the bomb materials through their informant.
Was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed responsible for the record number of ‘put’ options, speculation that the stock of a company will fall, that were placed on American and United Airlines in the days preceding September 11th? This despite a September 10th Reuters report stating ‘airline stocks set to fly.’
Was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed responsible for blocking FBI anti-terrorism investigations before 9/11 related to the bin Laden family and Saudi charities that were front groups for Al-Qaeda?
Was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed responsible for the Government being able to release the list of names of the alleged 9/11 terrorist 10 minutes before the 3rd plane crashed?
Was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed responsible for the ATC having supplied Pakistan’s A.Q. Khan network with hardware?
Was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed responsible for the Plame-Edmonds-ATC-AIPAC-Afghanistan-9/11-MIC-drug trade-weapons trade-nuclear proliferation-Brewster Jennings connections.
Was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed responsible for the American companies that Sibel overheard on the wiretaps whom also gave A.Q. hardware, logistical support and aid in large-scale drug deals that included cleaning billions of $?
Was Khalid Shaikh Mohammed responsible for the bribes that were paid to people at the State Department to facilitate this activity?
There is a lot of evidence (but none conecting Khalid Shaikh Mohammed) to support the claims - including, but not limited to, the fact that Valerie Plame’s front company, Brewster Jennings, had been conducting a counter-intelligence operation against the ATC for years.
Lets take a look shall we?
One very interesting aspect of Sibel’s case that has not really gained traction is that while the ATC is understood to be the key focus of her case, it appears that AIPAC is equally involved. In a terrific 2005 interviewwith Chris Deliso, Sibel said:
“Essentially, there is only one investigation – a very big one, an all-inclusive one… But I can tell you there are a lot of people involved, a lot of ranking officials, and a lot of illegal activities that include multi-billion-dollar drug-smuggling operations, black-market nuclear sales to terrorists and unsavory regimes, you name it… You can start from the AIPAC angle. You can start from the Plame case. You can start from my case. They all end up going to the same place, and they revolve around the same nucleus of people.”
And she went a little bit further in a great interviewwith David Swanson this last week:
“AIPAC helped form the American Turkish Council - look at the board members, look at the people. You will see the same people involved in both fronts, because it is the same operation.”
Reading between the lines (in a number of different places), it appears that Sibel was actively involved in ‘the AIPAC investigation’ as well as the investigation into the ATC. As she says, both the ATC and AIPAC are both ‘fronts’ for the ‘same (criminal) operation.’
Now again remember there is a lot of hard evidence! Documents, wiretaps, and a bunch of agents who were in charge of the counter-intelligence operations who are willing to testify.
And if that’s not enough, this has all been investigated and proven already in multiple forums.
The evidence has been deemed credible by Senators Grassley and Leahy, Congressman Waxman and the Inspector General. Furthermore, the Bush Administration’s reaction to much of the evidence, the excessive use of secrecy and national security to call evidence (some that was and still is in the public domain) clasified shows us the U.S. government takes the evidence seriously. They have even gone so far as to try to gag those in congress that heard and have seen the evidence. You know their scared when they want to gag congress.
The evidence will put many away for treason such as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Marc Grossman, Eric Edelman, and Stephen Solarz, William Cohen, Joseph Ralston, Dennis Hastert and others. But not Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.
Afghanistan supplies almost 90% of the world’s heroin, and most of that goes straight to Turkey where it is processed, packaged, warehoused, and then re-exported to other countries for final consumption. Turkey supplies approximately 80% of Europe’s heroin, and 15% of heroin in the US - worth approximately $40 billion at street prices.
Turkey is widely acknowledged to be controlled by a “Deep State.” In 1996, a deadly car crash at a place called Susurluk blew this out into the open. In the car were four people who probably shouldn’t have been in the car together:
“an MP, a police chief, a beauty queen and her lover, a top Turkish gangster and hitman called Abdullah Catli… Catli, a heroin trafficker on Interpol’s wanted list, was carrying a diplomatic passport signed by none other than the Turkish Interior Minister himself.
[]
The Susurluk Incident became Turkey’s Watergate, exposing the deep links between the Turkish state, terrorists and drug traffickers. It revealed what Turks call the Gizli Devlet, or Deep State – the politicians, military officers and intelligence officials who worked with drug bosses to move drugs from Afghanistan into Europe.”Sibel spells it out:
“The Turkish government, MIT and the Turkish military, not only sanctions, but also actively participates in and oversees the narcotics activities and networks.”
When researched more you see clearly that Sibel’s case demonstrates that Turkey’s Deep State ‘owns’ large parts of the American establishment, to the point where it appears that there also is a ‘Deep State’ in the US as well. ATC/AIPAC appear to be headquarters for this Deep State in the US, a cozy club where drug dealers, weapons traffickers and past-and-present government officials coexist. Happily!
“Heroin trafficking is also the main source of funding for the al-Qaeda terrorists. A Time Magazine articlein August 2004 reported that al-Qaeda has established a smuggling network that is peddling Afghan heroin to buyers across the Middle East, Asia, and Europe, and in turn is using the drug revenues to purchase weapons and explosives. The article states: “...al-Qaeda and its Taliban allies are increasingly financing operations with opium sales. Anti-drug officials in Afghanistan have no hard figures on how much al-Qaeda and the Taliban are earning from drugs, but conservative estimates run into tens of millions of dollars.”
In Adrian Gatton’s terrific recent article, The Susurluk Legacy, he quotes Huseyin Baybasin, a Turkish heroin kingpin who is now in jail in Holland:
“I handled the drugs which came through the channel of the Turkish Consulate in England… I was with the Mafia but I was carrying this out with the same Mafia group in which the rulers of Turkey were part.”
Gatton also describes how anyone in the UK government who dared speak about the issue were immediately rebuked by the Foreign Office (the UK equivalent of the State Department.)
The parallels with Sibel’s case couldn’t be clearer. As 60 Minutes first reported (youtube) in 2002, and Vanity Fair later reported, the Turkish Embassy was directing a lot of the heroin trafficking activity - in conjunction with people at the ATC.
“Sibel also recalled hearing wiretaps indicating that Turkish Embassy targets frequently spoke to staff members at the A.T.C.
[]
In her secure testimony, Edmonds disclosed some of what she recalled hearing… Many (calls) involved an F.B.I. target at (Chicago’s) large Turkish Consulate… Some of the calls reportedly contained what sounded like references to large scale drug shipments and other crimes.”And just as the UK Foreign Office silenced anyone in the UK who tried to speak out, Sibel says:
The Department of State is easily the most corrupted of the major government agencies.
[]
In some cases where the FBI stumbles upon evidence of high-level officials being involved in drug-smuggling, they’re even prevented from sharing it with the DEA [Drug Enforcement Agency]. The Department of State just comes in and says, “Leave it.”The DEA were secretly conducting their investigation of the drug smuggling from the same apartment building that Atta was staying at which was located right by the flight school.
Terror flight school owner Wally Hilliard’s company’s Lear (N351WB) had been busted by DEA agents armed with machine guns, who, during the same month Atta arrived at his school, found 43 pounds of Al Qaeda heroin onboard.
It was, said the Orlando Sentinel, the “biggest drug bust in Central Florida history,”
That jet was leased to Jeb Bush (before, during and after the drug bust) for FREE! And speaking of free, the pilot and every one else got off scot-free!
Also remember the DC9 (tail number N900SA) that had been in the drug bust (that looks “EXACTLY” like a plane that belongs to the U.S. Transportation Security Administration) at an airport in Ciudad del Carmen in the state of Campeche, Mexico on its way to the “U.S.” with ties to Bush,Saudi Bin Laden Group, and the controversial U.S. defense firm Titan Corp.
The owners used the same address, apparently during the same time frame that the flight school was serving as the home-away-from-home of terrorist ringleader Mohamed Atta.
And both the DC9 (tail number N900SA) and its twin, a second DC9 (N120NE) had been used by an operation which includes the former head of the CIA proprietary airline used to ferry TOW missiles to the Ayatollah Khomeini’s regime in Iran, as part of the Iran Contra Scandal.
Sibel says:
“For years and years, information and evidence being collected by the counterintelligence operations of certain U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies has been prevented from being transferred to criminal and narcotics divisions, and from being shared with the Drug Enforcement Agency and others with prosecutorial power. Those with direct knowledge have been prevented from making this information available and public by various gag orders and invocation of the State Secrets Privilege. Why?”
Some of the wiretaps relate to drug trafficking, some relate to the nuclear black market and other weapons trafficking, and some refer to terrorist activity - including 9/11.
Perhaps it’s not surprising, then, when she says:
“You have the same players when you look into these activities at high-levels you come across the same players, they are the same people.”
When you research the evidence those ‘same people’ appear to be Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Marc Grossman, Eric Edelman, and Stephen Solarz, William Cohen, Joseph Ralston, Dennis Hastert and others.
It does not look like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed is one of the people responsible for these crimes that were also conected with and gave aid to 9/11.
Posted by honestjoe on Mar 18, 2007 at 9:31 PM Yawn…
zzzzzzzzzzz…......
Anytime at all you see fit to boil all this misc. collective intrigue down into a coherent narrative of a paragraph or two, is fine with us.Until then, you’re putting us all to sleep, and/or making us believe that you really have no idea what you’re even trying to assert.
Coach Hastert? An international criminal? Not the coach!!
I betcha he’s got one of those fake pull-off faces.
Posted by Natalie on Mar 19, 2007 at 1:58 AM Apparently experts don’t have to have the brains necessary to figure out when it is stupid to use averages. And still get them wrong then. Of course the basements aren’t included in the mass of the building.
ROFL
psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Jun 11, 2007 at 2:26 AM Finally
It’s about time.
It’s taking 6 years to solve a problem that should have been easy in 6 months.
psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Jun 15, 2007 at 4:03 AM psikeyhackr
How you doing? Grate job and well explained.
I was wondering since you were discussing Dr Greening if you had read some of his latest comments about NIST?
It seems he is no longer pleased with NIST and he no longer agrees with NIST’s 10,000 pages of distraction!
Dr. Greening said:To answer some of the questions posted by the NIST apologists on this forum:
In truth, the NIST Report is seriously flawed in many respects. It is inconsistent and contradictory in the way it treats the tipping of the upper section of each tower. It assumes that global collapse ensues without modeling the collapse. Its fire simulations generate such a wide array of temperature profiles as to be essentially useless. Its assumptions about the loss of thermal insulation are mere speculation. It ignores the important effects of massive releases of corrosive gases in the fires. Its metallurgical analysis of the steel is perfunctory. It ignores evidence (micron sized spheres) for the presence of molten iron in the towers prior to collapse. It mentions sulfidation, which it does not explain, while ignoring chlorination. And finally, NIST still cannot explain the collapse of WTC 7 after 6 years of trying
However, if any WTC collapse theory is to gain full acceptance it must, at the very minimum, be able to explain certain well-documented phenomena such as:
Sudden on-set of the collapse of each tower
Near free fall descent of the block of floors above each impact zone
Pulverization and ejection of concrete during the collapse
The completeness of the destruction of each tower
Sustained high temperatures in the rubble pile long after 9/11Most, if not all, of these phenomena have been quoted as being problematic in some way to the currently proposed collapse theories.
In a 10,000 page report NIST make no effort to quantify the RATE of rotation of the upper block of either tower. In fact NIST lose interest in the collapse about 2 milliseconds after collapse initiation. The rotation of the upper section of the towers, especially WTC 2, was SUBSTANTIAL and crucial to the collapse mechanism. NIST describe it differently in two different sections of the report. NIST’s scientists, (god bless them), should do a better job of proof reading their reports and learn some trigonometry while they are at it! If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I’d be asking for a refund!
I sense the NISTIANS (who appear to dominate this site) are not ready to look “outside the box”, especially when its quite apparent they think they already know all the answers. This approach to 9/11 “research” is based more on CONVICTION rather than CURIOSITY.
So the REAL question is what melted the iron in the towers. And please note that the iron spheres were quite abundant in the WTC dust.
I wrote to NIST about this problem but they ignored my e-mail.
Anyway, sometimes the truth hurts!
Wow that was great. I realy liked that last part from Dr Greening wher he said “sometimes the truth hurts” that is why the “NIST apologists” or the “NISTIANS” (Dr Greening’s words) cant except the truth.
Posted by honestjoe on Jun 16, 2007 at 5:30 AM Dr. Greening also said:
“Spherical iron particles are direct physical evidence that the iron within the particle was molten at the time the particle formed.
Each of the references below specifically mention the detection of iron spherules in WTC dust samples (and in most cases also provide electron micrographs of the particles in question). Reference 1 includes two such micrographs labeled IRON-03-IMAGE and IRON-04-IMAGE. Reference 2 discusses which WTC particles could best be used as signatures of WTC dust; iron spheres were considered and rejected only because they were not found in ALL indoor dust samples. In reference 3 we read on page 17: “Various metals (most notably iron and lead) were melted during the WTC event, producing spherical metallic particles.” And finally in reference 4 we find a micrograph of a spherical iron particle and the comment that WTC dust contains evidence for “heat effected particles, including spherical particles.”
1. H. A. Lowers et al. “Particle Atlas of World Trade Center Dust.” USGS Open-File Report 2005-1165, (2005)
2. Various authors: “U.S. EPA Response to the Peer Review of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Final Report on the World Trade Center Dust Screening Study.” Page 28, (December 2006)
3. R. J. Lee et al. “Damage Assessment 130 Liberty Street Property: WTC Dust Signature Report on Composition and Morphology.” Issued December 2003.
4. S. R. Badger et al. “World Trade Center Particulate Contamination Signature Based on Dust Composition and Morphology.” Microscopy and Microanalysis 10 (Supplement 2), 948, (2004).
The formation of spherical iron particles has been well documented and researched for steel making processes, (See for example: Steel Research 64, 23, (1993) and Steel Research 72, 324 (2001)). Iron spheres in the 30 micron to 1 micron range are typically seen in the dust-laden off-gases produced by molten steel and are believed to be formed by the ejection of metal droplets when the liquid metal degasses.
NIST, in its fire simulations, tried very hard to get steel (>95 % iron) to temperatures above 1000 deg C but failed! This is not surprising because NIST was using kerosene or hydrocarbon/cellulosic-based fuels. NIST WANTED high temperatures to support the idea that the structural steel was weakened by heating effects.
Nevertheless, some steel appears to have melted in the WTC prior to the collapse of the buildings. Interestingly some of the NISTIANs posting on this site appear to be bothered by that, preferring to deny the physical evidence for molten iron…..
Oh, the IRONy!
About the suggestion that the iron spherules came from cutting operations:
1. It does NOT account for the high concentrations of airborne ZINC and the detection of zinc spherical particles in WTC dust - see the paper by E. M. Fireman entitled “Induced Sputum in Firefighters Exposed to WTC Dust” published in Environmental Health Perspectives 112(15), 1564, (2004).
2. Steel cutting operations (according to OSHA data) usually generate “fume” concentrations less than 1 mg/m^3 in the vicinity of a typical torch-cutting operation and less than 10 g of iron fume is released per operation. If there were 10,000 cutting operations at ground zero during site clean-up, that is a total of only 100 kg of iron fume. I have previously estimated that over 200 tonnes of iron spherules were produced during the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.
3. The iron spherules were ubiquitous in the WTC dust. Thus they were easy to find in a total of say 50,000 tonnes of dust. Try finding 100 kg of something in 50,000 tonnes of material.
4. Cutting operations were carried out on average within 5 meters of the ground. Iron particles in the size range we are considering (~ 10 microns) have settling velocities such that the particles would all settle-out within 200 meters of GZ given the wind speeds recorded in Lower Manhattan in September 2001.
5. The USGS samples were collected WITHIN ONE WEEK of 9/11 well BEFORE there had been major cutting operations and some USGS samples were collected up to 1 km from GZ. Many of the R.J. Lee Group’s samples were collected high up in 130 Liberty Street, a location that would be inaccessible to > 10 micron cutting fume particles.”
-Dr. Frank Greening, posted as “Apollo20” on Forums.Randi.org, April 2007Below are some various quotes from Dr. Greening posted on both Physorg.com and the Forums.Randi.org (JREF)....
“There is some crucial scientific evidence for the presence of molten iron or steel in the pulverized remains of WTC 1 & 2”
“I am referring to the observation of micron-sized iron spherules that have been seen in many WTC dust samples. These spherical particles are direct physical evidence that the iron within the particle was molten at the time the particle formed.”
“The formation of spherical iron particles has been well documented and researched for steel making processes… Iron spheres in the 30 micron to 1 micron range are typically seen in the dust-laden off-gases produced by molten steel and are believed to be formed by the ejection of metal droplets when the liquid metal degasses.”
“...some steel appears to have melted in the WTC prior to the collapse of the buildings.”
“Iron spherules and elevated levels of airborne ZINC prove there was molten iron/steel in the WTC.”
“This implies that some iron or steel in the twin towers was exposed to temperatures ABOVE 1539 deg C. Such temperatures are much too high for hydrocarbon fires in the twin towers according to NIST’s own studies.”
“I would say that the presence of molten iron in the WTC is inconsistent with the NIST Report’s conclusion that temperatures in the towers during 9/11 were well below the melting point of iron or steel.”
“NIST, in its fire simulations, tried very hard to get steel (>95 % iron) to temperatures above 1000 deg C but failed!”
“How did the fires in the rubble pile melt steel?”
“Why does the presence, I mean the FACT, of molten steel in the Twin Towers bother you so much?”
-Dr. Frank Greening, originally posted at Physorg.com March/April 2007 as forum member “NEU-FONZE”, and as “Apollo20” at Forums.Randi.org, April 2007
(Greening’s questions about the molten steel were directed at other forum members at JREF and Physorg who were denying the existence of molten steel at Ground Zero)
Frank Greening’s Bio:
http://www.911myths.com/html/dr_frank_greening_bio.htmlA few more recent quotes from Dr. Greening…
“I have a personal e-mail FROM A VERY RESPECTED PROFFESOR OF ENGINEERING at an AMERICAN UNIVERSITY in which he notes that his attempts to publish his research into the collapse of WTC 1 & 2 in US and British journals has been blocked.
This means work disputing NIST’s findings is nowhere to be found because it is simply being censored by over-cautious editors!”
-Dr. Frank Greeing, posted at Physorg.com as forum member “NEU-FONZE”, Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 91“NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST’s collapse theory falls apart.
The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory”
-Dr. Frank Greeing, posted at Physorg.com as forum member “NEU-FONZE”, Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg. 92“The truth about 9/11 is too important to declare the matter closed just because NIST have written a book or two on it.
NIST themselves call their version of the truth an HYPOTHESIS. Does that preclude the consideration of other hypotheses?
Is it the NIST apologists’ plan to keep up the nay-saying until they silence any dissenting voices and declare: “CASE CLOSED!”
Well, sorry to tell you, it won’t work!”
-Dr. Frank Greeing, posted at Physorg.com as forum member “NEU-FONZE”, Mar 20 2007 - 9/11 Events - part 3, pg.102
The truth movement is growing everyday!Over 100 Architectural and Engineering professionals who Question the NIST report!
http://ae911truth.org/And over 100 Senior Military, Intelligence, Law Enforcement, and Government Officials Question the 9/11 Commission Report! http://patriotsquestion911.com/
And almost 140 Professors Question the 9/11 Commission Report! http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html
And over 100 9/11 Survivors and Family Members Question the 9/11 Commission Report! http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html
And over 70 Entertainment and Media Professionals who Question the 9/11 Commission Report!
http://patriotsquestion911.com/media.htmlScholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice http://stj911.org/index.html
Pilots for 9/11 Truth http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/
Group of scientists, engineers and other professionals http://physics911.net/
I could go on and on but I think the point has already been made.
Posted by honestjoe on Jun 16, 2007 at 5:34 AM I only heard of F.R. Greening as a result of arguing with someone on another board. I started reading his report and that averaging error stuck out like a sore thumb.
I think the physics of the WTC incidents precludes the possibility of the planes bringing the entire buildings down level to the ground in less than 2 hours. It is absurd and I have very little respect for anyone who ever said they did.
Two 166 ton airliners containing 34 tons of kerosene, alias jet fuel, bring about the collapse of two 500,000 ton buildings that had withstood the wind for almost 30 years in less than two hours. ROFLMAO
I have downloaded and burned the NIST reports to DVD, 11,300 pages, 1.03 gigabytes. I can’t find the specification of the tons of concrete in those reports but they say one plane had 5 tons of cargo and the other 9 had tons.
I think Greening is smelling which way the wind is blowing and switching to the side that will win in the long run. It is somewhat revolting that so many experts have been silent about this but it is obvious that whoever did it had lots of resources and didn’t care how many people they killed. Deaths at the WTC might easily have risen to 10,000.
The NIST reports talk about “the natural frequency of oscillation” of the towers though they never say “resonant frequency.” The quantity and distribution of steel and concrete would affect that frequency. They conducted sway tests with accelerometers on the buildings in 1991. So why can’t THE EXPERTS tell us the tons of steel and concrete on every floor by now? That information should have been available within 6 weeks of 9/11. But if the wreckage can be disappeared then that information must be disposable too.
This whole situation is too inanely stupid to be believed.
psikey
Posted by psikeyhackr on Jun 16, 2007 at 1:15 PM psikeyhackr
You said: “I think Greening is smelling which way the wind is blowing and switching to the side that will win in the long run.”
I think your right. He is giving himself a way out for when the inevitable happens. People like Greening who are playing both sides are the worst. They know whats up but only care whats best for them not humanity. I have more respect for the fanatic Bush supporters that blindly belive the governments theory out of ignorance.
I no longer have any faith in the scientific establishment at large. The stupefying effects of paradigmatic thinking is a huge facter for why its taken scientists so long to “wake up” to the OBVIOUS controlled demolition of the Twin Towers.
Most remain in willful, petulant denial. We know that paradigmatic thinking has been a huge stumbling block for science throughout the ages. Geocentricity Vs. heliocentricity, flat earth Vs. round earth, “evil spirits” Vs. microbes… Like it or not, even scientists are subject to the same human psychology as the rest of us. They can be duped too.
It is easy to see how a small group of immoral scientists had created the fraudulent story around the collapse of the “THREE” wtc buildings, then stomped out dissenting voices with the help of the government and the media propaganda machine. Once the myth is prevalent and dominant it becomes “reality”, and the evidence / facts / data will be unconsciously “cherry-picked” by all but the most independent of thinkers to ensure that the conclusions will comport with the accepted “worldview”.
Not all of us can be physicists, or structural engineers. Therefore the public is vulnerable to obfuscation of the facts. Actually, even elite scientists are vulnerable to this. If one scientist somewhere in the world hits upon a discovery that shakes up the status quo, you can bet that powerful political and economic forces will work to insulate others from that info.
Hence th information such as the hundreds of eyewitness reports, molten metal, fire test results and even basic info such as the tons of concrete that were in the buildings are IGNORED.
This is not how science is supposed to work. Look at how scientists turned their backs on those that didnt agree with the goverment story. It was like something out of the old Soviet-bloc countries. There was an astonishing closing of ranks, with NIST dissidents expelled from the scientific community as social deviates, “deniers” (as in or like Holocaust deniers).
NIST dissidents were denied grants to study alternative hypotheses (the Gov didnt want any investigation at all), they were denied publication in journals, (as even pointed out by Dr Greening) and were even denied the opportunity to debate in public. And when the mainstream media bothers to cover the issue at all, the controversy is treated with ad hominem arguments at best.
So what do you expect but to have most of the scientists who see the obvious flaws in the governments story to scared to point them out. In the begining Im sure that they wish they hadnt noticed. Now its not as difficult to speak up because so many are. Do to those who were brave enough to be the first to say the world is not flat.
Posted by honestjoe on Jun 16, 2007 at 11:34 PM A federal judge has told the FBI that its disclosures about evacuating Saudis after 9/11 is inadequate.
Is this the first drop in what will eventually be a dam-bursting flood of information about 9/11 itself? Given that a federal judge is challenging the feds’ hollow claims for non-disclosure of vital information, let’s hope so.
“U.S. District Court Judge Richard W. Roberts of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia has ordered the Federal Bureau of Investigation to submit ‘proper disclosures’ to the Court and Judicial Watch by December 15, 2006 concerning the U.S. government’s evacuation of Saudi royals and members of the bin Laden family from the United States immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks,” Judicial Watch said in a press release.
Judicial Watch notes that Judge Roberts criticized “the adequacy of redaction descriptions, the accuracy of the sworn statement submitted with the documents, the validity of exemption claims, and other errors in the FBI’s disclosures.
“The FBI’s 220-page annotated production and accompanying … Declaration together do not, as they must, provide sufficient detail or precision about the withheld information … the FBI’s motion for summary judgment will be denied and the FBI will be directed to file disclosures that fairly meet the requirements of [court precedent],” wrote Judge Roberts.
Judge Roberts added that one particular FBI exemption argument “strains credulity.”
Posted by honestjoe on Nov 21, 2006 at 11:02 AM
Well guess what?
Posted by honestjoe on Jun 21, 2007 at 10:49 PM So let’s see. The FBI’s a big blundering bureaucracy. Tell us something we don’t know.
But wait….I thought bin Laden had nothing to do with the attack, and that most of the hijackers are still alive! He’s not the one on that confession tape!
Looks like the FBI was just doing its due diligence, by not harassing innocent parties!
Posted by Natalie on Jun 21, 2007 at 11:51 PM You mean Osama bin Laden gave orders to the FBI to have his family members escorted out of the country?
Maybe Osama told GWB to tell the FBI to do it.
It would be nice if we could get our facts straight after 6 years. Maybe we could get this sh!t resolved within the next 6.
psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Jun 22, 2007 at 12:07 AM It is common knowledge that there are some members of the Royal Family of Saudi Arabia, who (not so) secretly sympathize with Osama Bin Laden, let alone Bin Laden’s own relatives. They should have been interrogated for hours, even days, at a time. We knew at that time (see below) that some of them had possessed valuable knowledge. Instead, they were allowed to leave the United States, without being hindered.
And some of those flights took place while commercial traffic in the United States was under shoot-to-kill lockdown!
Some of the passengers were already wanted by the FBI:
Following a secret flight inside the US that is in violation of a national private airplane flight ban, members of the bin Laden family and Saudi royalty quietly depart the US. The flights are only publicly acknowledged after all the Saudis have left.
#1 The son of the Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan. Sultan is sued in August 2002 for alleged complicity in the 9/11 plot. Also he is alleged to have contributed at least $6 million since 1994 to four charities that finance al-Qaeda.
Counterterrorism tsar Richard Clarke says he agrees to the flights after the FBI assures him none of those on board has connections to terrorism and that it is “a conscious decision with complete review at the highest levels of the State Department and the FBI and the White House.” He said this before the US Congress on 9/3/2003!
Numerous experts are surprised that the bin Ladens are not interviewed more extensively before leaving, pointing out that interviewing the relatives of suspects is standard investigative procedure.
There are claims that some passengers are not interviewed by the FBI at all.
Abdullah bin Laden, who stays in the US, says that even a month after 9/11, his only contact with the FBI is a brief phone call.
Senator Graham’s revelation of a CIA memo dated August 2, 2002, concluded that there is incontrovertible evidence that there is support for the terrorists within the Saudi government with a terrorist support network that went through the Saudi Embassy; and a funding network that went through the Saudi Royal family with their close ties to the Bin Ladens.
Also the Treasury and State Departments have catalogued the Saudi government’s decades of support for Bin Laden and al-Qaeda.
According to U.S. intelligence reports the Saudi government played a direct role in funding 9/11 and Saudi Arabia has an active role as a player in the nuclear black-market. Also the U.S. State Department’s 2000 Human Rights Report shows Saudi Arabia is a brutal dictatorship that makes Iraq under Saddam Hussein look like Disney world. Plus U.S. intelligence reports and the U.S. Iraq Study Group report as well as Iraqi intelligence reports said Saudis are funding Sunni Arab insurgents and the money is used to buy weapons, including Strelas, Russian shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles. And nearly “ALL” of the shoot downs in Iraq are by Sunni insurgents and Sunni Al-Qaida factions.
The Saudi funded Sunni Arab insurgents has cost the U.S. Taxpayers over 96% of total costs do to damages/destruction of military equipment that are in the billions. Second place is the normal wear and tear + desert sand. Third place is the Shiite insurgents. Forth place is the Taliban.
What more of a “Double standard” can there be than to declare a war on terror to get those who attacked us on 9/11 only to avoid holding to account those most responsible (the Saudi government) and to not only allow them to continue to support, fund and supply the terrorist whom are doing the most killing of Americans (91%) but now even the US government is supporting Sunni Al-Qaida terror cells in Iran. Which means Bush supports terror!
Posted by honestjoe on Jun 22, 2007 at 3:13 PM Hmmm…..
Bush supports terror
andBush planted bombs in towers.
Now you’re making sense!!
Posted by Natalie on Jun 22, 2007 at 8:25 PM The FBI LIED about the date!
According to the documents, the Las Vegas charter (Ryan 441) was the one paid for by either the Saudi Royal Family or Osama Bin Laden.
In the follow up docs, it says the Saudis left California for Las Vegas after an earthquake because they feared more quakes. Here’s the earthquake on the 9th:
Minor earthquake rattles Los Angeles
2nd source for date and time
Note that the earthquake occurs at 4:59 pm California time on 9/9. There were no other earthquakes of sufficient magnitude in September to scare our Saudis.
California Seismic Network
2001 North Coast SeismicityYet the folks who left on the suspect charter were checked into various Las Vegas hotels on September 9th after chartering a plane out of LA supposedly after the earthquake. The FBI docs also state the earthquake was on 9/8, which it wasn’t.
So how long does it take after 4:59 pm California time to talk to 75 persons and agree to leave LA, pack bags for 75 persons, charter a plane, call 75 persons to tell them about the charter and where to show up to fly out, fly to Las Vegas, rent cars, and STILL check in at Las Vegas hotels on 9/9? Are the Saudi’s psychic, and they knew on 9/8 that an earthquake would occur on 9/9?
Something smells fishy to me. Like maybe a tip off of the 9/11 attacks!
Natalie what is your opinion on why the FBI filed a FALSE date on the report?
Posted by honestjoe on Jun 23, 2007 at 4:29 AM I have no idea whether they really did or not, and if they did, I have no idea why. You and I will never know—we’ve never really been in the loop as far as the FBI and the CIA are concerned, strangely enough.
My best guess, however, is that the truth is probably a lot more innocent, pedestrian and boring than you or I can imagine.
The very LAST thing I would suspect is some kind of big grand complicated shady conspiracy.
BTW, somehow I doubt Frank Greening is going to join your club anytime soon, unless he’s been way less than forthcoming with his fellow scholars:
Abstract:
Previous analysis of progressive collapse showed that gravity alone suffices to explain the overall collapse of the World Trade Center towers. However, it has not been checked whether the allegations of controlled demolition by planted explosives have any scientific merit. The present analysis proves that they do not…....
.......While the previous studies [1, 6, 17] showed the hypothesis of gravity driven collapse to be consistent with the observations, the present analysis further proves the alternative hypothesis of controlled demolition to be incorrect, and explains why.
Posted by Natalie on Jun 23, 2007 at 6:36 AM BTW, somehow I doubt Frank Greening is going to join your club anytime soon, unless he’s been way less than forthcoming with his fellow scholars:
ROFLMAO
I’ve emailed Frank Greening about his stupidity of averaging the mass of the WTC and not even mentioning the basements. There has been no response in more than two weeks. That work was real scholarly. The information was presented in a very complex scholarly manner. I think that is designed to intimidate people but it doesn’t necessarily mean it isn’t really dumb.
Like the NIST report that doesn’t tell us the quantity of concrete in the WTC.
ROFL
psikey
Posted by psikeyhackr on Jun 23, 2007 at 1:01 PM psikey,
For about the 13th time, your thinking on the tower’s collapses is based upon a fundamental misunderstanding of their mechanism.
I see what you’re thinking—the structural support elements of the towers were obviously more massive at the bottom and decreased in mass as they went up. This might affect the nature of collapse in a lot of cases, depending on the total height of a building and of course the design, but in the case of the towers it was somewhat irrelevant.
The columns varied in mass according to their placement vertically, however the floors, and their connecting brackets, were identical from top to bottom, excepting of course for the mechanical floors which were somewhat more robust.
So all you really need to do is imagine four, or six, or however many tall trees planted in a square pattern, their trunks naturally being bigger at the bottom, and having identical floor panels connected with identical brackets to the trees from top to bottom. Even at the top, the trunks are plenty big enough to support a floor, with even a safety factor of double perhaps. This is a safe, stable structure, until…...
Now, imagine a HUGE weight suddenly dropping on the top floor. The ensuing collapse has nothing to do with the downwardly increasing thickness of the trunks; the identical floors are simply systematically stripped from them as the ever increasing weight descends within their midst.
This is a simplification, obviously, but it’s essentially what happened to the towers. The outer columns fell away to the outside as the increasing mass of floors came down, and the inner columns actually remained standing for a brief time, naked of the floors, before they too collapsed like a pile of sticks. They were not in any way designed to remain stable without the lateral support of the floors which connected them to the outer columns.
Posted by Natalie on Jun 23, 2007 at 7:52 PM Now, imagine a HUGE weight suddenly dropping on the top floor.
ROFLMAO
I love how you can just project stupidity on people and pretend something that is relatively simple is really complicated and then create an example far simpler than the reality to explain things.
I let my MENSA membership expire in the 80’s. I took their IQ test to get in.
The HUGE weight would still be slowed down by the even more huge mass below it. In all probability the HUGE weight would slide off to the side and not come straight down. So how could the HUGE weights come straight down twice on the same day? Since the building were designed in the 1960’s is there some reason the experts can’t tell us the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every floor? HUGE is not sufficiently specific. Didn’t the designers have to know the masses they were dealing with to design every floor? Why should te experts object to giving out that information? What harm could it do? LOL
This involves more than just the collapse of the building. The impact of the plane would create a vibratory state in the building like nothing the wind could produce. If you search the NIST reports for oscillation you will find they often mention the “natural frequency of oscillation” of the building. For some reason they never say resonant frequency. Tests were conducted on the building in 1991 with accelerometers on the top floor. Jeff King said the building oscillated for four minutes after impact. Now how can you analyze that without the distribution of mass in the building?
psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Jun 23, 2007 at 11:35 PM I love how you can just project stupidity on people and pretend something that is relatively simple is really complicated and then create an example far simpler than the reality to explain things.
Well pardon me, but you’re the one who’s projected stupidity upon yourself. Anyone who goes on forever about not knowing the weight of the concrete, when it’s not even relevant to this particular collapse, is practically begging to be called stupid.
The collapse is in fact relatively simple, which makes it even more mind-boggling that someone supposedly of MENSA stock is unable to grasp it, and is unable to recognize the obvious dishonest tactics of those attempting to distort this simple, obvious reality.
The HUGE weight would still be slowed down by the even more huge mass below it. In all probability the HUGE weight would slide off to the side and not come straight down. So how could the HUGE weights come straight down twice on the same day?
Again you demonstrate your inability to grasp the uniqueness of the situation. Your statement reads like you assume the mass below to be a solid block. Hardly the case. In fact, the only mass the upper block had to overcome was that of the floor slab below, and its only restraint was the relatively insignificant fastening power of its connecting brackets, which were found to be bent in precisely the manner dictated by the mechanism of failure.
It would slide off to the side? Because YOU say so? Please, at this point, if you don’t have some advanced credential in structural engineering or structural physics, you are simply suffering from delusions of grandeur.
Twice on the same day? And what chance is there that two skyscrapers of identical design would be hit the same day in almost identical locations by almost identical forces? <u>THIS HAVING HAPPENED</u> goes a long way toward the two buildings falling in almost identical fashion, does it not? Or is basic logic falling out of favor of late?
In fact, the 2nd collapse was powerful proof that indeed such an event occurring to such a building will result in collapse after about an hour or two. Such a collapse will take ~30 - 40% longer than free-fall, and will appear symmetrical from afar.
So you see the event was <u>reproducible</u>, and in fact WAS reproduced, courtesy of the sufficiently accurate planning and piloting skills of the “Religion of Peace”.
Posted by Natalie on Jun 24, 2007 at 6:27 AM Anyone who goes on forever about not knowing the weight of the concrete, when it’s not even relevant to this particular collapse, is practically begging to be called stupid.
You CLAIM it is not relevant.
“All warfare is based on deception.” - Sun Tzu
Well if I am stupid and it is irrelevant then what reason is there to not to provide it? You would think the NIST would just happen to mention it in a report that took 3 YEARS and cost TWENTY MILLION DOLLARS. It would just be a table of 232 numbers. Is that too difficult for them? The fact that there were 5 tons of cargo in one plane and 9 tons in the other is SO RELEVANT. That made it into the NIST report.
And my assuming it was a solid block is total nonsense. There you go with the projecting stupidity again. You have developed it into an art form. The HUGE weight would encounter the top of the stump and have to crush it and lose kinetic energy in the process. The bottom of the HUGE weight would also be crushed. At this point it is unlikely that the HUGE weight would remain centered and would then get more and more off center until it came down the side of the building. The entire building would not come down in less than 20 seconds.
I notice you didn’t say anything about the oscillation of the building. How could I think it was a solid block if I brought up the oscillation? You will have to come up with better arguments NATALIE. But I suppose that is a problem when you have an indefensible position.
psikey
Posted by psikeyhackr on Jun 24, 2007 at 4:13 PM “Most of Building 7 of the World Trade Center was evacuated around the time the South Tower was hit (see (9:03 a.m.) September 11, 2001).” http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/item.jsp?item=a903
They evacuated building 7 right after the North Tower was hit, but they DIDN’T evacuate the South Tower. Instead they sent everyone back into the South Tower.
The fire department initialy ordered the lobby of WTC7 to be set up as the triage area for any wounded evacuated from the South tower. But an order came down (from an unknown official) between the time they assembled in the lobby and the time the second plane struck.
No reason has been given for the speedy evacuation of WTC 7. http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/item.jsp?item=a930oemevac
Barry Jennings, a City Housing Authority worker, and Mike Hess, New Yorks chief lawyer were in building 7 just after the evacuation. The two had gone up to the 23rd floor headquarters of the Mayors Office of Emergency Management just after 9:30am in an attempt to reach Rudy Guiliani, who they had determined was inside building 7 at that time. But found it empty.
Barry Jennings starts making some calls from the recently abandoned “bunker” and is then told to get out of builing 7 ASAP! So they then headed downstairs but became trapped around the sixth floor. Barry Jennings appears about 3:22 into this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IqSsTmWv7k&eurl;=
“We subsequently went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, when we reached the sixth floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and now had to walk back up to the eighth floor. After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark.” listen to Barry Jennings here: http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/190607clips2.mp3
“After the initial blast, Housing Authority worker Barry Jennings, 46, reported to a command center on the 23rd floor of 7 World Trade Center. He was with Michael Hess, the city’s corporation counsel, when they felt and heard another explosion. First calling for help, they scrambled downstairs to the lobby, or what was left of it. “I looked around, the lobby was gone. It looked like hell,” Jennings said.” http://www.record-eagle.com/2001/sep/11scene.htm
Barry Jennings, in a second clip detailed hearing further explosions and then described what he saw when he got down to the lobby: “It was totally destroyed, it looked like King Kong had been through it and stepped on it and it was so destroyed I didn’t know where I was. It was so destroyed that had to take me out through a hole in the wall, a makeshift hole I believe the fire department made to get me out.” http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/190607clips2.mp3
Many people assumed that the dusty African American fellow from all the movies “Barry Jennings” was talking about WTC1 or WTC2 just confirming William Rodriguez’ subsequent testimonies. NO, HE WAS TALKING ABOUT WTC7!
The key to this information is that the individual testifies this all happened BEFORE either tower collapsed, thus building 7 was at that point completely undamaged from any falling debris or resulting fires.
Here are a couple of several photos showing WTC 7 on fire on the 11 and 12 floors BEFORE the collapse of the Twin Towers while the WTC 7 sprinkler system was still intact, but after the fire alarm + sprinkler system was shut off. These pics confirm Barry Jennings story!
http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-31.jpg
http://www.amanzafar.com/WTC/wtc-30.jpg
Posted by honestjoe on Jun 24, 2007 at 9:06 PM Barry Jennings, a City Housing Authority worker, and Mike Hess, New Yorks chief lawyer were in building 7 just after the evacuation. The two had gone up to the 23rd floor headquarters of the Mayors Office of Emergency Management just after 9:30am in an attempt to reach Rudy Guiliani, who they had determined was inside building 7 at that time. But found it empty.
Could we possibly get any more uncritical?
Posted by Natalie on Jun 25, 2007 at 7:30 AM “All warfare is based on deception.”
This stood out for me. Because just who exactly is engaged in “warfare”?
Certainly not NIST, and the dozens of engineers and related professionals it collaborated with to produce an exhaustive, intensive and unprecedentedly detailed report based on visual, testimonial, computational and historical evidence.
Certainly not the dozens of other professional fire, civil and structural engineers around the globe that prepared their own INDEPENDENT professional analyses that basically agreed—and not for a moment entertained the slightest need for supplemental energy, but in fact often argued that either damage alone or fire alone was very nearly plenty.
No, not until a bunch of malcontent Sherlock Holmes wannabe lay-people started realizing they could fool the general public into believing they had some sort of credibility, based SOLELY upon the false bravado of their arguments, did the WARFARE begin.
Project much?
Posted by Natalie on Jun 25, 2007 at 7:58 AM Certainly not the dozens of other professional fire, civil and structural engineers around the globe that prepared their own INDEPENDENT professional analyses that basically agreed
But doesn’t that mean there are thousands of professionals who are silent?
Like you are about the oscillation of the building and the steel providing the spring tension for the oscillation and concrete providing the mass. Most sources say there were 200,000 tons of steel and 425,000 cubic yards of concrete in both towers. The concrete is about 100 pounds per cubic foot so that is 1.35 tons per cubic yard. So that is 100,000 tons of steel and 287,000 tons of concrete per tower.
Now the 116 floor slabs were:
206 * 206 - 136 * 86 = 30,740 sq ft and 4 to 5 inches thick
which comes to about 74,000 tons so that is 200,000+ tons of concrete unaccounted for. Was it in the core? How was it distributed? The steel provided the strength but the building had to support its own dead load so the steel had to hold up the concrete. The designers had to figure out the distribution of steel and concrete. Do your experts deny that? So why can’t they tell us after all of these years?
I take psychological gamesmanship as a sign of intellectual bankruptcy, NATALIE.
“Just the facts m’am, just the facts.”
psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Jun 25, 2007 at 5:53 PM Here are a couple of several photos showing WTC 7 on fire on the 11 and 12 floors BEFORE the collapse of the Twin Towers while the WTC 7 sprinkler system was still intact, but AFTER 9:04am when the fire alarm + sprinkler system was shut off.
So how did those fires start? Why and who shut off the alarm that was still working at 9:04am?
These pics confirm Barry Jennings story!
Jennings heads to the elevator and is waiting but it does not work because of the FIRE that was caused by the first explosions that were heard by Jennings when he was on his way up to the OEM.
They then decide to go down the stairs;
Barry Jennings says all of this was Before the WTC 1 & 2 collapsed.
So again I ask how did those fires start before the WTC 1 & 2 had collapsed? Could the fires have been set from the explosions heard by Barry Jennings or could Barry Jennings have set the fires? Either way they (the fires) were set before the collapse of WTC 1 & 2.
The fire department initialy ordered the lobby of WTC7 to be set up as the triage area for any wounded evacuated from the South tower. But an order came down (from an unknown official) between the time they assembled in the lobby and the time the second plane struck.Was the order given to cancel the triage from being set up in WTC 7 because they realized building 7 was on fire?
They evacuated building 7 right after the North Tower was hit, but they DIDNT evacuate the South Tower. Instead they sent everyone back into the South Tower.
Was this also because of the fires that were in building 7 BEFORE WTC 1 & 2 collapsed?
Again why and who shut off the alarm that was still working at 9:04am?
Posted by honestjoe on Jun 25, 2007 at 7:11 PM psikey,
I’m still not seeing the slightest indication that you have the slightest understanding of the mechanism of collapse. I explain it to you time after time and you just ignore it, going off on irrelevant tangent after irrelevant tangent.
Your fantasy that thousands of professionals are out there afraid to express their disagreement with NIST is just that.
Posted by Natalie on Jun 25, 2007 at 7:22 PM Joe,
Stop listening to Alex Jones and Loose Change. They are nothing more than con-artist opportunists, who are laughing all the way to the bank with formerly your money.
You promote their nonsense and they get tons of free advertisement. Wake up to this REAL conspiracy.
Posted by Natalie on Jun 25, 2007 at 7:26 PM Yeah, wake up to the real controversy.
NATALIE can explain the collapse without talking about the quantity and distribution of steel and concrete in the buildings that collapsed. This explanation is close enough for government work.
Actually it isn’t.
The NIST will talk about the oscillation of the building but she won’t.
ROFL
I didn’t say they were afraid. Maybe they don’t care. Maybe they TRUST the government. Maybe they don’t see anything in it for them.
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke:psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Jun 25, 2007 at 8:23 PM If you make a poll on the streets you will find that there are a lot of people who will tell you that the towers fell because fires melted the steel.
This unsientific explanation was pressed into the mind of the people to make them believe the official version, by government “$owned” experts of “deception”.
Matthys Levy, the chairman of Weidlinger Associates and one of the engineers on the study team said;
“As the steel began to soften and melt, the interior core columns began to give. Then you had this sequential failure that took place where it all pancaked—one after the other.”
Eduardo Kausel, M.I.T. professor of civil and environmental engineering, made this statement;
“I believe that the intense heat softened or melted the structural elements—floor trusses and columns—so that they became like chewing gum, and that was enough to trigger the collapse,”
and a lot of other ‘experts’, like Elmer Obermeyer, John Knapton, Chris Wise, Richard Ebeltoft, Manuel Garcia, made the molten steel claim.
*Government “$owned” experts of “deception”
*BBC (Chris Wise, ect.)
*Scentific American (Eduardo Kausel)
*NOVA video (Matthys levy)
*Henry Koffman from USC
*Tom Mackin from the Univ. of Illionis
*The New Scientiest
*Bazant, Z.P., & Zhou, Y.
*National Geographic Today - 2,900F
*A&E - 2,500F
*History Channel - 2,500FThey said: “What caused the building to collapse is the airplane fuel. . . burning at 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit. The steel in that five-floor area melts.” Additionally, the newspaper that quotes him says “Just-released preliminary findings from a National Institute of Standards and Technology study of the World Trade Center collapse support Brown’s theory.”
As this happened, “TRUTHERS” showed that this would be impossible, but were dismissed and not taken seriously (hey, they’re not experts…).
But as the “TRUTHERS” were succeeding in breaking this false unsicentific dogma by exposing the LIE!
The official explanation shifted in a way, that now “TRUTHERS” are labelled as using straw-men tactis.
Debunkers like Popular Mechanics now say “Nobody claimed that steel melted”. Though the “TRUTHERS” were right in the first place, the defenders of the official version are trying hard to suggest that “TRUTHERS” are using straw-men, stupid accusations.
We all know who brought up the “steel melted” bullshit. we “TRUTHERS” have not and will not forget about these so called experts who deliberatley lied to us to make us buy into the official conspiracy theory.
Even now the government “$owned” experts of “deception” are exaggerating the temperatures to aburd (defies the laws of physics) and impossibly high temps for a hydrocarbon fire to reach.
CHARLES THORNTON - 2000F, MANUEL GARCIA - 2000F, and etc,.
Not only does a 2000F hydrocarbon fire (that cant be reached even in a lab) defy the laws of physics it also goes against the testimony of the survivors.
Like Chief Oreo Palmer who was on the 78th floor and who saw only “two isolated pockets of fire” that would take 1, maybe 2 lines to put it out.
But the debunkers like to say Chief Oreo Palmer was located on the 78th floor and in NISTs estimates the 78th floor fires were nowhere near as serious as those just one floor above.
But testimony from the survivors does not agree at all with NIST on the conditions for the above floors.
Brian Clark was on the 84th floor of the South tower. After searching all around the 84th floor he went down from the 84th floor to the 81st floor, where he met some people ascending from the 80th floor. He did not see a roaring inferno on the 81st floor that NIST claims.
But neither did Stanley Praimnath who was on the 81st floor of the south tower.
The special thing is that the stairways transferred in the 76th floor.
And so from floor 77-81 the stairways of A and B were located outside the core.
and were transferred back to the inner core on the 82nd floor.
From their statments we could estimate that Clark was about 10-15 minutes after the impact on floor 81 (and not to forget that Ron DiFrancesco went up to the 91st floor and about 10 minutes after Clark and Praimnath descended from there). So we can take the 15 minute figure as reference from the NIST simulation figures, (black box stairway A location)
800 degree ceslsius, seems a little too hot for surviving. Worse on 82nd.
Still not survivable at all on the 83.
But this wouldn’t fit either, when we look at the 80th and 82nd floor of NIST case C where you find the only cool spot to be at least 650C on the 80th and 800c on the 82!
They left the stairway and checked every floor for survivors. according to the NIST-figures they had to walk through temperatures of several hundred degrees celsius.and not forget that on the 82nd floor the stairways were transferred to the inner core, expanding the area they had to walk through.
Also the walls were cracked and blown, so the stairways weren’t confined and seperated areas anymore.
Remember that Ron DiFrancesco descended later, between 15- and 30 minutes, when situation became worse.
They could never descend through stairway A from 84th to 79th floor, stop on every floor to look for people, grab someone out from floor 81, experience no high temperatures and see only small lingering flames if the NIST estimations (Case C and D) were near reality.
But then again, let’s not forget what NIST’s figures are: simulations. Not developed to imitate reality as near as possible, but to back up a conclusion already made before the investigations even began: fires brought down the towers.
They were so intense, you could walk through them!!
Posted by honestjoe on Jun 25, 2007 at 11:04 PM We’ve been through all this before Joe. You’re going in circles.
Nobody was trying to deceive anyone when talking about the steel. It was preliminary speculation by people who in most cases were probably ASKED to provide it.
The investigation proceeded. More information was gathered and analyzed. NIST came out with their best judgement in a very open and public way, and lots of other independent scientists/engineers offered theirs. Some thought NIST put too much emphasis on the effects of the fire. Some thought they put too much on the damage. Purdue recently completed a visual computer simulation that very closely confirmed NIST’s work. Heck, simply watching the collapse at the initiation point close up confirms NIST’s findings. NOBODY of any RELEVANCE thought that by gosh, there had to be bombs up there. NOBODY.
A structural engineer is absolutely best qualified to fully understand the collapses, even though lil ol me understands them fairly well. Your best clue as to the credibility of the “truth” movement, is the almost total lack of such a professional among their ranks.
And no, an oil rig worker who suspects mini-nukes and a retired golf course designer don’t count.
Posted by Natalie on Jun 26, 2007 at 1:20 AM All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. - Edmund Burke
True. But naturally you’ve got the players reversed. NIST and professional engineers in general are loath to, or simply don’t have time to, come out and deal with the improperly named “truth” movement, and so they continue to propagate their damaging crap on the Internet, largely unchecked.
In fact, this wise quote by Burke is my basic motivation for doing my small part in exposing their absurdity.
Posted by Natalie on Jun 26, 2007 at 1:30 AM Natalie here are just a few!
Mario Fontana, Dr Sc CE – Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, Institute of Structural Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former Director of the Steel Construction Division, Geilinger AG. Author of more than 40 papers on structural engineering. http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html#Fontana
Joseph Testa, P.E., Civil Engineer Thousand Oaks, CA he has been published in the American Society of Civil Engineers Magazine and has had many awards from the American Society of Civil Engineers. http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Joseph+Testa,+P.E.,+Civil+Engineer& ;btnG=Google+Search
William Rice, PE – Professor of Engineering at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses. Registered Professional Civil Engineer who worked on structural steel and concrete buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia. http://digg.com/general_sciences/Why_the_towers_fell_Two_Theories
Charles N. Pegelow—B. S. Civil Engineering, Lamar University B. S. Mathematics, Beaumont,Texas Use of following national and industry codes: ASIC, API RP 2A, ANSI 58.1 (AISC), UBC, DNV, ASME Div. VIII vessel. Has specific experience with the effects of fire on steel structures. With over 30 years of structural design experience on steel structures going back to 1972, member of The California board of Professional Engineers. http://www.911blogger.com/node/2257 David
Heller, BS Physics, M.Arch – Architect and Builder. http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm Jörg Schneider, Dr hc – Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering. http://www.iabse.ethz.ch/association/awards/honorarypres/schneider.php
Hugo Bachmann, PhD – Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. http://www.ibk.ethz.ch/emeritus/Bachmann/about/index_EN Joseph M.
Phelps, MS, PE. Structural Dynamicist (ret.), Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute of the American Society of Civil Engineers http://67.15.255.19/~c911sch1/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id= =37&Itemid=35
Thomas Spellman, B.Arch – Member, City Council, Lake Geneva, WI. http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html#Spellman
Commander Ted Muga, BS CE, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired Civil Engineer. http://stj911.org/
Richard Gage, B.Arch – Member, American Institute of Architects. A practicing Architect for 20 years who has worked on most types of building construction including numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings. Founding member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. http://ae911truth.org/aboutus.php
Dr. Robert Korol, PhD—Professor Emeritus in the Department of Civil Engineering at McMaster University, was feted by 500 practising engineers from the region for his research work in the area of design of steel structures and in helping to develop sustainable cities at home and abroad. Hamilton-Wentworth’s 1998 “Engineer of the Year” http://www.eng.mcmaster.ca/engalumni/macengineer/1999winter/engineerofyear.htm
H. Theodore Elden, Jr., B.Arch – Practicing registered architect in West Virginia for over 25 years. Now retired. Graduate of Carnegie Mellon University. Member, American Institute of Architects, West Virginia Chapter. Appointed Member of West Virginia State Board of Architects. Former Member, National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), and Member, National Committee, Intern Development Program for Architects (IDP). http://www.abodia.com/911/Articles/AIA_Letter_Nov_06.htm
Eric Douglas – Registered Architect in New York and California. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200612/NIST-WTC-Investigation.pdf
Jack Keller, PhD, PE – Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, Utah State University. Member, National Academy of Engineering. Selected by Scientific American magazine as one of the world’s 50 leading contributors to science and technology benefiting society (2004). Awarded State of Utah Governor’s Medal for Science and Technology (1988). Former member CALFED Independent Science Board. http://911scholars.org/ Ken Wrenn – Licensed Civil Engineer, State of North Carolina. http://st911.org/
Eric Hermanson, BS Engineering Physics, MS Engineering http://911scholars.org/
Doyle Winterton, B.ES (Engineering Science) – Retired Structural Engineer. http://stj911.org/
Heikki Kurttila, D.Sc. (Tech.) (Doctor of Technology) – Safety Engineer and Accident Analyst, National Safety Technology Authority (TUKES), Finland. http://www.saunalahti.fi/wtc2001/WTC7_collapse_examination.pdf
Jerry Lobdill, BS ChemE, magna cum laude, Texas Tech University – Retired Physicist Former Senior Analyst at U.S. Naval Research Laboratory. Author and co-author of several scientific papers. http://journalof911studies.com/letters/MoltenWhat2.pdf
Danny Jowenko – Proprietor, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V., a European demolition and construction company, with offices in the Netherlands. Founded 1980, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie is certified and holds permits to comply with the Dutch Explosives for Civil Use Act and the German Explosives Act. Jowenko’s explosives engineers also hold the German Certificate of Qualifications and the European Certificate for Shotfiring issued by The European Federation of Explosive Engineers. http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html#Jowenko
J. Marx Ayres, PE, Professor of Mechanical Engineer, University of California, Berkeley, CA. Outstanding Engineer Merit Award, Institute for the Advancement of Engineering, ASHRAE Distinguished Service Award, Listed Who’s Who in Engineering & Who’s Who in America State of California Energy Award, http://www.jmayres.com/Home.html
Anthony Szamboti, BS ME – Mechanical Engineer http://www.phillyimc.org/or/2007/03/37818.shtml
Gordon Ross, BSc ME, M.Eng – Mechanical Engineer. http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/NISTandDrBazant-SimultaneousFai ilure-WTCCollapseAnalysis2.pdf
Jeffrey G. Strahl, BS ME – Mechanical Engineer. Student Affairs Advisor, School of Engineering, University of California at Berkeley. http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2006/911-Conspiracy-Strahl30apr06.htm
Rob Steinhofer, MS ME – Mechanical Engineer http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=480683
Peter D. Morse, PE - Licensed Professional Mechanical Engineer in the State of Arizona. http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php
Grant Williams – Commercial construction with emphasis on seismic and structural engineering. http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineers.html#Williams
Joshua Mitteldorf, PhD – Researcher, Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of Arizona. Former instructor of physics, math, astronomy, and evolution at Harvard, University of California at Berkeley, Temple University, University of Pennsylvania, LaSalle University and Bryn Mawr. http://www.u.arizona.edu/~jmitteld/ Michael
Elliot, PhD – Teaching Fellow, School of Mathematics and Physics, Queens University, Belfast. http://www.qub.ac.uk/schools/SchoolofMathematicsandPhysics/TeachingDepartments/P PureMathematics/StaffList/DRMICHAELELLIOTT/
Bruce R. Henry, PhD – Professor Emeritus, Mathematics and Computer Science, Worcester State College. Former guidance systems engineer for Polaris and Trident missiles, General Electric Co. http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Henry David L.
Griscom, PhD – Research physicist, retired in 2001 from Naval Research Laboratory (NRL) in Washington, DC, after 33 years service. Fellow of the American Physical Society. Fulbright-García Robles Fellow at Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México in Mexico City (1997). Visiting professorships of research at the Universities of Paris and Saint-Etienne, France, and Tokyo Institute of Technology (2000 - 2003). Adjunct Professor of Materials Science and Engineering, University of Arizona (2004 - 2005). Winner of the 1993 N.F. Mott Award sponsored by the Journal of Non-Crystalline Solids, the 1995 Otto Schott Award offered by the Carl-Zeiss-Stiftung (Germany), a 1996 Outstanding Graduate School Alumnus Award at Brown University, and the 1997 Sigma Xi Pure Science Award at NRL. Principal author of 109 of his 185 published works, a body of work which is highly cited by his peers. Officially credited with largest number of papers (5) by any author on list of 100 most cited articles authored at NRL between 1973 and 1988. http://impactglassman.blogspot.com/
A. K. Dewdney, PhD – Professor Emeritus, Department of Computer Science, University of Western Ontario. Author of Scientific American’s “Computer Recreations” and “Mathematical Recreations” section, 1984 - 1993. Author of over 80 scientific papers on mathematics, computer science, engineering, astronomy and biology. Author of numerous books on science and mathematics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A._K._Dewdney Martin Walter, PhD –
Professor and Chairman of the Department of Mathematics, University of Colorado at Boulder. Member, Executive Committee of the Rocky Mountain chapter of the Sierra Club. http://www.colorado.edu/math/earthmath/marty.htmlSteven Jones, PhD – Former Professor of Physics at Brigham Young University. Retired in October 2006 to devote more time to 9/11 research. Principal Investigator for experimental Muon-catalyzed fusion from 1982 to 1991 for the U.S. Department of Energy, Division of Advanced Energy Projects. From 1990 to 1993, Jones researched fusion in condensed matter physics and deuterium, for the U.S. Department of Energy and for the Electric Power Research Institute. Author of over 40 papers published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_E._Jones
Mike Hawryluk, BA, MAT – Professor Emeritus of Physics and former Division Chairman, Suffolk County Community College, NY. http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Hawryluk
Kenneth L. Kuttler, PhD – Professor of Mathematics, Brigham Young University. https://math.byu.edu/~klkuttle/
Joanna Rankin, PhD – Professor of Physics and Astronomy, University of Vermont. http://www.uvm.edu/~jmrankin/?Page=default.html
Judy Wood, PhD – Assistant Professor, Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University. Member of the Society for Experimental Mechanics (SEM). Co-founder SEM’s Biological Systems and Materials Division. Currently serves on the SEM Composite Materials Technical Division. http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Wood
Garry Anaquod – Lecturer in Computer Science and Physics, First Nations University of Canada (formerly Saskatchewan Indian Federated College). http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Anaquod
Gary Welz, MSc – Instructor of Mathematics at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University New York. http://www.newmedialab.cuny.edu/people/welz/
Kenneth Sowden, MA – Instructor, Mathematics, West Hills Community College. http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Sowden
Robert J. Stern, MS – Associate Professor, Mathematics, Pellissippi State Technical Community College. http://patriotsquestion911.com/professors.html#Stern
Posted by honestjoe on Jun 26, 2007 at 2:15 AM Natalie
You said; “Nobody was trying to deceive anyone when talking about the steel.”
Then could you please explain how Even now the government “$owned” experts of “deception” are exaggerating the temperatures to aburd (defies the laws of physics) and impossibly high temps for a hydrocarbon fire to reach.
CHARLES THORNTON - 2000F, MANUEL GARCIA - 2000F, and etc,.
Not only does a 2000F hydrocarbon fire (that cant be reached even in a lab) defy the laws of physics it also goes against the testimony of the survivors.
Like Chief Oreo Palmer who was on the 78th floor and who saw only “two isolated pockets of fire” that would take 1, maybe 2 lines to put it out.
The debunkers like to say Chief Oreo Palmer was located on the 78th floor and in NISTs estimates the 78th floor fires were nowhere near as serious as those just one floor above.
But testimony from the survivors does not agree at all with NIST on the conditions for the above floors.
Brian Clark was on the 84th floor of the South tower. After searching all around the 84th floor he went down from the 84th floor to the 81st floor, where he met some people ascending from the 80th floor. He did not see a roaring inferno on the 81st floor that NIST claims.
But neither did Stanley Praimnath who was on the 81st floor of the south tower.
The special thing is that the stairways transferred in the 76th floor.
And so from floor 77-81 the stairways of A and B were located outside the core.
and were transferred back to the inner core on the 82nd floor.
From their statments we could estimate that Clark was about 10-15 minutes after the impact on floor 81 (and not to forget that Ron DiFrancesco went up to the 91st floor and about 10 minutes after Clark and Praimnath descended from there). So we can take the 15 minute figure as reference from the NIST simulation figures, (black box stairway A location)
800 degree ceslsius, seems a little too hot for surviving. Worse on 82nd.
Still not survivable at all on the 83.
But this wouldn’t fit either, when we look at the 80th and 82nd floor of NIST case C where you find the only cool spot to be at least 650C on the 80th and 800c on the 82!
They left the stairway and checked every floor for survivors. according to the NIST-figures they had to walk through temperatures of several hundred degrees celsius.and not forget that on the 82nd floor the stairways were transferred to the inner core, expanding the area they had to walk through.
Also the walls were cracked and blown, so the stairways weren’t confined and seperated areas anymore.
Remember that Ron DiFrancesco descended later, between 15- and 30 minutes, when situation became worse.
They could never descend through stairway A from 84th to 79th floor, stop on every floor to look for people, grab someone out from floor 81, experience no high temperatures and see only small lingering flames if the NIST estimations (Case C and D) were near reality.
But then again, let’s not forget what NIST’s figures are: simulations. Not developed to imitate reality as near as possible, but to back up a conclusion already made before the investigations even began: fires brought down the towers.
They were so intense, you could walk through them!!
Posted by honestjoe on Jun 26, 2007 at 2:29 AM Ever consider a second job as a cherry picker? You’re quite talented.
Regardless of these selective tidbits, the fire models by NIST, and others*, produced temperature patterns that were easily capable of resulting in the failure of the structure.
Especially when one considers the loss of fireproofing, which was a key factor, one which is often ignored by the “truth” zombies.
* The results of this comprehensive analysis, including the effect of thermal expansion on the perimeter columns showed that even without the plane impact the building could collapse due to the fire occurring on multiple floors. The Arup analysis shows that even if fire protection is in place in accordance with prescriptive codes the fire, without impact, can lead to collapse.
Posted by Natalie on Jun 26, 2007 at 3:05 AM Natalie
Cherry picker? Do you agree that both NIST and the 9/11 commission are a prime examples of cherry picking and omitting what does not support their theory?
NIST admits that the structural damage was not enough to cause instability “The towers likely would not have collapsed under the combined effects of aircraft impact damage and the extensive, multi-floor fires if the thermal insulation had not been widely dislodged or had been only minimally dislodged by aircraft impact.” NIST, p. xxxviii
Dr Greening says: “NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NIST’s collapse theory falls apart. The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory.”
Also the new information (in the leaked blueprints) show much larger columns used at the impact locations than previously assumed by NIST, which changes the calculations for the amount of kinetic energy absorbed by the building needed for the estimated damage previously calculated by MIT.
#1 MIT came up with 2,500 MJ as the kinetic energy provided by the aircraft and said it was consumed in damaging the aircraft and building, with no energy remaining to remove the insulation! And that was based on incorrect information in regards to the size and density of the perimeter columns which were greater than what MIT had calculated.
#2 But now the calculations are even more off than previously thought because it has now been discovered (from the leaked blue prints) that the CORE columns were “also” much larger at the impacted floors than what MIT had calculated.
#3 NIST gave 6,000 MJ as the kinetic energy needed (must be left over by the aircraft impacting the tower) to remove the insulation. Which is less by -3,500 MJ of energy as calculated by MIT and that is with them figuring both smaller and less dense perimeter columns and much smaller CORE columns (recently discovered in the leaked blueprints) than what was actually used in the construction of the WTC 1 & 2.
Also NIST said;
“The residual velocity and mass of the engine after penetration of the exterior wall was sufficient to fail a core column in a direct impact condition. Interaction with additional interior building contents prior to impact or a misaligned impact against the core column could change this result.” (NISTp382 para10)
The most dense and massive component of the aircraft, the engine, could cause, at most, only one column to fail—-and only if it were aligned perfectly and struck the column directly.
In WTC 2, one of the engines (and a landing gear) exited the building without significant obstruction. (NISTp390 para5)
So, if the engines could fail, at most, one column in WTC 2 and two columns in WTC1, what could have failed all of the other columns?
But now with the new information on the size of the core columns which is much larger than what was assumed by NIST and calculated by MIT, even if an engine were aligned perfectly and struck the much larger column directly it would not have failed!
Another example of their cherry picking;
So effective was FEMA at concealing the nature of the cores that the 9/11 Commission Report , citing the FEMA Report, denied the very existence of the core columns.
Establishing the true nature of the core structures is of great importance given that the most widely read document on the World Trade Center attack—the 9/11 Commission Report —denies their very existence, claiming the towers’ cores were “hollow steel shaft[s]:”
“For the dimensions, see FEMA report, “World Trade Center Building Performance Study,” undated. In addition, the outside of each tower was covered by a frame of 14-inch-wide steel columns; the centers of the steel columns were 40 inches apart. These exterior walls bore most of the weight of the building. The interior core of the buildings was a hollow steel shaft, in which elevators and stairwells were grouped. Ibid. For stairwells and elevators, see Port Authority response to Commission interrogatory, May 2004.”
Posted by honestjoe on Jun 26, 2007 at 5:46 AM Natalie
“The Arup analysis shows that even if fire protection is in place in accordance with prescriptive codes the fire, without impact, can lead to collapse.”
Bwaaaahahahahahaaaaaaaaha!
In 1975 the WTC had a fire that burned much LONGER than on 9/11 and much HOTTER! The fire started on the 11th floor, spread down to the 9th and up to the 19th! The fire burned on 11 floors!
The reason The 1975 fire burned LONGER and HOTTER is because at the time WTC had no sprinkler system so there was no water to slow it down or put it out and there was no fire stopper material in the gaps around the areas all the buildings cables ran through! And at that time the office furniture was highly flamable!
After the 1975 WTC fire was put out there was ZERO structural damage to the building, no trusses or anything else steel wise needed to be replaced and this was with a fire that burned LONGER and HOTTER as was seen by fire fighters when most all the windows on the 11th floor BLEW OUT unlike the hottest areas (according to NIST) that were supposedly ABOVE the impact zones.
On 9/11/01 there was a sprinkler system, improved insulation, fire proofing material filling those gaps and even the office furniture itself was more fire retardant and the fires did not burn hot enough to break any windows and burned less than an hour!
In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel-framed buildings.
Research that was funded by an EPSRC Case award through Ove Arup titled “The Behaviour of Multi-storey Composite Steel Framed Structures in Response to Compartment Fires”, discovered that;
In building fires outside of such laboratory experiments, steel beams and columns never exceed 500º C. In extensive fire tests of steel frame carparks conducted by Corus Construction in several countries, measured temperatures of the steel columns and beams, including in uninsulated structures, never exceeded 360ºC.
“The initial jet fuel fires themselves lasted at most a few minutes and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in a given location.” (NIST, 2005; p. 179)
The fires did not burn hot enough to melt, deform, or significantly weaken the steel, and NIST could not replicate the collapse of the steel when it doubled the temperatures, doubled the duration of the stress, and ignored the effect of insulation:
“Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse.
This was based on a method developed by NIST to characterize maximum temperatures experienced by steel members through observations of paint cracking.” NIST, p. 181
“None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 C (1092 F) for as long as 15 minutes.” NIST, p. 180
Dr. Greening said: “NIST, in its fire simulations, tried very hard to get steel (>95 % iron) to temperatures above 1000 deg C but failed! This is not surprising because NIST was using kerosene or hydrocarbon/cellulosic-based fuels. NIST WANTED high temperatures to support the idea that the structural steel was weakened by heating effects.”
The evaluation of paint deformation and spheroidization seem very straightforward, according to NIST the samples available were adequate for the investigation.
The tests show that the steel was exposed to temperatures of only about 500F (250C), which is exactly what you get from a thermodynamic analysis of the situation.
NIST now says about 4,500 gallons of jet fuel were available to feed fires=590,000 MJ of energy.
Office furnishings in the impact zone would have provided 490,000 MJ of energy Using masses and specific heats for materials heated, a maximum temp in the impact zone can be calculated.
The result is less than 600 degrees F Assuming fuel bruned with perfect efficiency, that no hot gases left the impact zone, no heat escaped by conduction, steel and concrete had unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat Thus, the maximum temperatures that could have been attained by the steel were much too low to soften it!
As pointed out by Eagar and Musso who said: “But it is very difficult to reach [even] this maximum temperature with a diffuse flame. There is nothing to ensure that the fuel and air in a diffuse flame are mixed in the best ratio… This is why the temperatures in a residential fire are usually in the 500C to 650C range [Cote, 1992]. It is known that the WTC fire was a fuel-rich, diffuse flame as evidenced by the copious black smoke…. It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425C and loses about half of its strength at 650C [Cote, 1992]. This is why steel is stress relieved in this temperature range. But even a 50% loss of strength is still insufficient, by itself, to explain the WTC collapse… The WTC, on this low-wind day, was likely not stressed more than a third of the design allowable… Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650C fire.” Eagar and Musso, 2001;
NIST exaggerated the temperatures, applied these temperatures for 2 hours (i.e. over twice the duration of fires known to have existed in the failure zones), striped all the fireproofing, and then doubled the height of the inward pull zone, and applied triple the weight of what the floors were known to actually be supporting to produce even a hint of bowing from fire. Which was 3 inches!
“All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing.” NIST, p. 143
“The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11.” NIST, p. 143
Posted by honestjoe on Jun 26, 2007 at 7:33 AM Dr Greening says: NIST has no PROOF that fire insulation was stripped by the aircraft impacts in the critical areas ABOVE the impact zones. In fact it is highly UNLIKELY that this happened, and without the loss of thermal insulation, NISTs collapse theory falls apart. The loss of thermal insulation idea is obviously an ad hoc hypothesis added by NIST to salvage a failed collapse theory.
I’m at a loss as to how Greening thinks he knows about the fireproofing. Simple common sense tells you that it would have been substantially dislodged.
Regardless, I don’t think Dr. Greening believes that there was any kind of nefarious activity by anyone but al Qaeda, even though he may have some quarrels with NIST on details.
Is he a truth zombie now?
Posted by Natalie on Jun 26, 2007 at 7:45 AM The 1975 fire was hardly comparable to the 9/11 event:
Only the 11th floor had significant fire damage.
Firefighters had full access to the fire.
The fire never left the concrete-enclosed cable shaft on the other floors.
It was a 3-alarm fire, not a 12-alarm.
The building was not hit by an airliner at 500 mph with resulting structural damage to load-bearing columns and beams.
Fire was not fueled by accelerant.
Fire insulation was not blown off the steel.
Posted by Natalie on Jun 26, 2007 at 9:01 AM Ever consider a second job as a cherry picker?
Wanting to know the tons of steel and tons of concrete on each floor of a building designed in the 1960’s is being a cherry picker? I would think that would be easy for world renowned scientists and engineers that could spend 3 years and $20,000,000 producing 11,300 pages. That is what they claim to be.
But considering they can’t even specify the quantity of concrete it is more likely they are idiots and/or liars.
psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Jun 26, 2007 at 3:09 PM Natalie
You said; “Is he a truth zombie now?”
Greening still stands by his theory that if the building does reach the point of collapse the smaller, lighter and weaker top portion will crush the much larger and stronger bottom portion of the building at near free fall speed until it reaches the ground and then will crush its self.
But he does believe that something was used to make both of the Twin Towers and building 7 reach the point of collapse. He thinks it was something else besides thermite/thermate and he even has a theory of how it was put in.
Greening’s theory is that they (He does not say who they are) put it (an accelerant “like” thermite) in the new coating of insulation that was being sprayed on the top floors that were also the floors impacted by the jets.
Greening is playing both sides by his theory that to get the building to the point of collapse (and explain all the evidence) you need an accelerant like thermite but once it reaches the point of collapse magic will take over and the laws of physics will no longer apply making his BS gravity driven collapse theory happen at impossible speeds for both towers.
Posted by honestjoe on Jun 26, 2007 at 5:44 PM The BIG lie is crumbling. Every day it is being exposed.
Also
Former Transportation Secretary Norman Mineta answered questions from members of 9/11 Truth Seattle.org about his testimony before the 9/11 Commission report.
Norman Mineta revealed that Lynn Cheney was also in the PEOC bunker already at the time of his arrival, along with a number of other staff.
And
The FBI and the DOJ has PROVED that Olsen is a Liar. We should force the government to account for its own lies. According to the Zacarias Moussaoui Prosecution Trial, Barbara Olson’s ONLY phone call lasted ZERO seconds. This means, that she attempted a phone call, and never got connected.
The government itself has presented evidence in a court of law, therefore, that implies that unless its former solicitor general was the victim of two faked phone calls, he was lying.
The government is no longer, even implicitly, supporting the view that high-altitude cell phone calls from airliners are possible. So this ZERO second call according to the government came from an air phone.
However, although the government has undercut much of the basis for the official and popular accounts of 9/11 by denying the occurrence of any high-altitude cell phone calls, it has, by paying this price, protected itself from the 9/11 truth movement’s charge that the official story is falsified by the fact that such calls are impossible.
Posted by honestjoe on Jun 27, 2007 at 3:41 PM So…..what are you saying, Joe?
Are you saying that there weren’t any other possibilities for secondary explosions besides deliberately placed bombs and natural gas?
Are you saying that Mineta thinks that the orders were to stand down, and not to shoot down? Are you saying that he absolutely has to be right on the timeline, and everyone else absolutely has to be wrong?
Are you saying that this means that flight 77 didn’t crash into the Pentagon? That all the forensic evidence identifying every last soul but maybe one was faked?
I’ve been asking you forever to construct some kind of coherent narrative as to why all this “inside job” thinking explains the events of 9/11 better than the simple and admitted to reality that a bunch of Islamic a**holes thought it would be really cool and noble to kill a bunch of Americans, and maybe start a war between Islam and the west.
I’m still waiting. Or are you just a down-line distributor of the latest distortions by the “truth” zombies?
I think I joined this carnival amidst the same kind of bogus “report” by “PrisonPlanet” that Barbara Olson was still alive in Europe.
“Our sources are telling us…...”
Posted by Natalie on Jun 27, 2007 at 11:14 PM Sorry Psikey, the cherry-picking comment was directed at Joe. You’re not so much cherry picking as you are up the wrong cherry tree.
But, it looks like you’re gathering some of those numbers and data on your own regarding the concrete and the steel.
Have you emailed NIST and politely asked them if they would mind supplying you with this information? Just tell them you’re writing a report for school, or something.
Posted by Natalie on Jun 27, 2007 at 11:20 PM Have you emailed NIST and politely asked them if they would mind supplying you with this information?
It is amusing that you say “politely ask”. They claim to be “world renowned scientists and engineers” but on needs to politely ask them for information they should have put into their $20,000,000 report in the first place.
ROFL
Yeah, I’ve seen this nonsense before. You have to pamper the egos of arrogant dummies with power.
OK, I’ll try it. It will take me a while to write it though. It will probably take me 20 versions to get it properly subservient. That isn’t my style.
LOL
peskeyhackr
Posted by psikeyhackr on Jun 28, 2007 at 12:58 PM Oh for cryin’ out lould. All I’m saying is DON’T EXPOSE YOURSELF TO BE A 9/11 “TRUTH” ZOMBIE!!
I’m quite confident emails from these folks are not answered. In fact, they’ve probably got filters for words like “thermite”, and phrases like “controlled demolition” and “faster than freefall”.
Remember, you’re writing a report for school. While you’re fibbing, you’re studying to become a structural physicist.
This is the only way you’re going to get the information you need to blow the lid off this case. You’ll be lying, but for the reason of exposing the truth!
Posted by Natalie on Jun 28, 2007 at 5:42 PM Natalie
You said; “Are you saying that there weren’t any other possibilities for secondary explosions besides deliberately placed bombs and natural gas?”
Well I’m eliminating one excuse/cause after the other. I would say its been narrowed down quite a bit and some of those reported explosions for their time and place dont have ANY explainable cause for them. That is why they were denied for so long.
Just like how NIST denied the existence of molten metal even though IT WAS IN THE FEMA REPORT! Even today John Gross, one of the lead engineers of the NIST report, still flatly denies the existence of any molten metal on the site even though it has been well documented and corroborated by numerous source including NASA.
Even Dr Greening said; “Iron spherules and elevated levels of airborne ZINC prove there was molten iron/steel in the WTC.”
“This implies that some iron or steel in the twin towers was exposed to temperatures ABOVE 1539 deg C. Such temperatures are much too high for hydrocarbon fires in the twin towers according to NIST’s own studies.”
“If I had just paid $20 million for the NIST report, I’d be asking for a refund!”
It would have been nice to have had a real investigation.
You said; “Are you saying that he absolutely has to be right on the timeline, and everyone else absolutely has to be wrong?”
Its more than just Norman Mineta who has twice said Dick Cheney was in the bunker around 9:20. Even Dick Cheney himself has twice said he was in the bunker around 9:20 and so did Richard Clarke as well as Condi Rice and even a White House photographer.
You said; “Are you saying that this means that flight 77 didn’t crash into the Pentagon? That all the forensic evidence identifying every last soul but maybe one was faked?”
I have not studied the the Pentagon like I have Building 7 or the terorrists. I went for the best evidence first. But so much is coming out where even the government has admited lie after lie that I am starting to feel its worth looking into.
Capt. Daniel Davis, U.S. Army – Former U.S. Army Air Defense Officer and NORAD Tac Director. Decorated with the Bronze Star and the Soldiers Medal for bravery under fire and the Purple Heart for injuries sustained in Viet Nam. Also served in the Army Air Defense Command as Nike Missile Battery Control Officer for the Chicago-Milwaukee Defense Area. Founder and former CEO of Turbine Technology Services Corp., a turbine (jet engine) services and maintenance company (15 years). Former Senior Manager at General Electric Turbine (jet) Engine Division (15 years). Private pilot. Said;
“As a former General Electric Turbine engineering specialist and manager and then CEO of a turbine engineering company, I can guarantee that none of the high tech, high temperature alloy engines on any of the four planes that crashed on 9/11 would be completely destroyed, burned, shattered or melted in any crash or fire. Wrecked, yes, but not destroyed. [Note: though the plane had according to the government liquefied because of the speed it crashed into the building and had melted because of the jet fuel the human remains remained intact enough to identify through their DNA.]
Additionally, in my experience as an officer in NORAD as a Tactical Director for the Chicago-Milwaukee Air Defense and as a current private pilot, there is no way that an aircraft on instrument flight plans (all commercial flights are IFR) would not be intercepted when they deviate from their flight plan, turn off their transponders, or stop communication with Air Traffic Control. No way! With very bad luck, perhaps one could slip by, but no there’s no way all four of them could!
Finally, going over the hill and highway and crashing into the Pentagon right at the wall/ground interface is nearly impossible for even a small slow single engine airplane and no way for a 757. Maybe the best pilot in the world could accomplish that but not these unskilled “terrorists”.”
[Note: the highjacker who according to the goverment pulled off that maneuver was such a poor pilot that he was not allowed to fly a small Cessna air plane just before 9/11.]Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) – Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984. Also commanded the U.S. Army’s Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army’s Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career. Member, Military Intelligence Hall of Fame. Said;
“One of my experiences in the Army was being in charge of the Army’s Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence during the Cold War. I measured pieces of Soviet equipment from photographs. It was my job. I look at the hole in the Pentagon and I look at the size of an airplane that was supposed to have hit the Pentagon. And I said, ‘The plane does not fit in that hole’. So what did hit the Pentagon? What hit it? Where is it? What’s going on?”
Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College. 34-year Air Force career. Licensed commercial pilot. Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic. Said;
“In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft—and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged.”
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force veteran. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Said;
“There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon.”
Lt. Col. Jeff Latas, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former combat fighter pilot (F-15E and F-111). Former President, U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board. Also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon’s Quadrennial Defense Review. Awarded Distinguish Flying Cross for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals. 20-year Air Force career. Currently commercial airline pilot. Said;
“The things that really got my attention were the amount of descent rate that you had to have at the end of the flight, of Flight 77, that would have made it practically impossible to hit the light poles. [Editor’s note: Destruction of the light poles near the Pentagon by Flight 77 was stated in the 9/11 Commission Report.] Essentially it would have been too high at that point to the point of impact where the main body of the airplane was hitting between the first and second floor of the Pentagon. ...
You know, I’d ride my bike to the Pentagon. So, you know I’m a little bit familiar with that area. [Editor’s note: Lt. Col. Latas served as a Weapons Requirement Officer at the Pentagon.] But, you know, that kind of descent rate it would have been impossible essentially for the results that we see physically from what the flight data recorder was recording. Like I say, that’s an area that I think deserves explanation. ...
The ground track [the path of the airplane] is off from the 9/11 Commission. There are several things that can be brought up but it’s been a while since I’ve seen the film and looked at the flight data recorder. And I can’t think of all the discrepancies I saw, but there are several there.” [The film he refers to is Pandora’s Black Box, Chapter 2, Flight of American 77.]
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Former Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. Commercial pilot for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years, flying 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777 ’s. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines airplanes that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC). Said;
“The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple.” … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could 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.”
[Note: the highjacker who according to the goverment pulled off that maneuver was such a poor pilot that he was not allowed to fly a small Cessna air plane just before 9/11.]
“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.”Commander Ted Muga, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired Naval aviator (Grumman E-1 and E-2). Retired Pan-Am commercial airline pilot (Boeing 707 and 727). Said;
“The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. I just can’t imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature.
[Note: the highjacker who according to the goverment pulled off that maneuver was such a poor pilot that he was not allowed to fly a small Cessna air plane just before 9/11.]
Commercial airplanes are very, very complex pieces of machines. And they’re designed for two pilots up there, not just two amateur pilots, but two qualified commercial pilots up there. And to think that you’re going to get an amateur up into the cockpit and fly, much less navigate, it to a designated target, the probability is so low, that it’s bordering on impossible.”
Posted by honestjoe on Jun 28, 2007 at 7:57 PM Well Im eliminating one excuse/cause after the other. I would say its been narrowed down quite a bit and some of those reported explosions for their time and place dont have ANY explainable cause for them. That is why they were denied for so long.
You’re ignoring the LION’S share of the sources of people’s PERCEPTIONS of explosions. And those are the impacts of the jets, and the collapses of the towers. Is that too boring and sensible to appeal to you?
I have not studied the the Pentagon like I have Building 7 or the terorrists. I went for the best evidence first. But so much is coming out where even the government has admited lie after lie that I am starting to feel its worth looking into.
Your gullibility regarding the Pentagon is NOT a good indicator of your ability to come to a rational conclusion on much of anything, Joe.
Posted by Natalie on Jun 28, 2007 at 8:32 PM Your gullibility regarding the Pentagon is NOT a good indicator of your ability to come to a rational conclusion on much of anything, Joe.
Don’t the people that accept the government’s story about the Pentagon have to believe that an airliner vaporized without scorching the lawn?
Oh yeah, the Pentagon was surrounded by that military grade genetically engineered grass.
LOL
Talk about gullibility.
psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Jun 28, 2007 at 10:40 PM Dont the people that accept the governments story about the Pentagon have to believe that an airliner vaporized without scorching the lawn?
OMFG!
(mouth agape in complete and utter disbelief and shock)
What kind of Cuckoo’s nest has been revealed here upon pulling back the leaves and grass?
Or more accurately, what kind of religious cult?
Calgon??????
Posted by Natalie on Jun 29, 2007 at 3:24 AM Natalie do you at least agree that the Saudis are in up to their eyeballs regarding 9/11?
It has been proven beyond a doubt that several members of the Saudi Royal family and the Bin Laden family not only knew before hand of the 9/11 attack but also gave aid to the terrorist.
Were the Saudi’s the only ones to gain from it? Do you realy think we didnt know what they the Saudis knew? If we did not already know from the Saudi’s them selves or from our own inteligence services then we at least knew from all the other foreign countries who warned U.S.!
From Day 1, Cheney/Bush had one plan in mind: take control of Iraq’s oilfields; everything else has followed from that. Cheney’s Energy Task Force, 9/11, Bin Laden’s “escape” from Tora Bora, the Iraq War: it’s obvious!
Bandar was given the top-secret war plans for the invasion of Iraq (the biggest military threat to Saudi Arabia), even before Colin Powell.
Remember Bandar Bush, the Saudi ambassador, who met with Bush on 9-13-01 just hours before the first flights left and who’s wife, Princess Haifa, had been making monthly transfers, $130,000 in all, to an FBI informant in counter-terrorism specializing in Arabic terrorist “Al Bayoumi” who assisted and funded the two hijackers who were based in San Diego.
Why do you think he left Washington? And why do you think Riggs Bank, which was his money launderer, went on the market?
Richard Clarke wrote; “Following lengthy investigations by the Treasury Department and the Senate, in 2005, Riggs Bank, once one of the most prestigious banks in the U.S., admitted its guilt in numerous money laundering schemes involving, among others the Saudi Embassy to Washington (which Bandar helmed)”
The funds were paid to two Saudi embassy accounts with Riggs Bank (later busted for money laundering) used by Bandar for his own expenses and used to fund terrorism. Embassy accounts were free of official scrutiny, money laundering reports and taxation.
Who has direct financial ties to an oil, energy and weapons investment group which has raked in $Billions as a result of this War?
The Bin Laden family and the Saudi Royal family both have very strong ties to the Carlyle Group, which invests heavily in defense companies and is the nation’s 10th largest defense contractor with ties to Enron, Global Crossing, among others.
Enron and the White House were working closely with the Taliban—including Osama bin Laden—up to weeks before the Sept. 11 attack.
The deal in Afghanistan was part of a desperate last-ditch “end run” to bail out Enron.
Unocal had the largest share, the “Central Asian Gas Pipeline” (CentGas) consortium had six other partners, including companies in Saudi Arabia’s Delta Oil Company—the next largest shareholder.
Read the march 2001 documents from Cheney’s Energy Task force, including maps of oil fields in Iraq.
It is a FACT that there was a specific time frame for invading Afghanistan on the table before 9/11.
July 21, 2001: US Official Threatens Possible Military Action Against Taliban by October if Pipeline Is Not Pursued Niaz Naik. [Source: Calcutta Telegraph]
U.S. OK’d plan to topple Taliban a day before 9/11
The U.S. looked for other options, and the Trade and Development Agency commissioned a feasibility study for an improbable east- to- west route that would cross the Caspian Mountains and end at a Mediterranean seaport in Turkey. The company hired for that study was Enron. If that pipeline were to be constructed, Turkmenistan signed an agreement that it would be built by Bechtel and GE Capital Services—the same American companies that were Enron’s business partners in the Dabhol power plant.
No matter which direction the Central Asia natural gas would eventually flow, Enron would profit. Should it go south towards ships waiting on the Pakistan coast, it would be still only a few hundred miles at sea to Dabhol. The trip from the Mediterranean would be farther (and thus more expensive for Enron to buy gas), but it was also the least likely route to be constructed. Estimated costs were almost $1 billion more than the route through Afghanistan, and engineering plans had not even started. No, the only practical route for the Caspian Sea gas was through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the border of India. All that was lacking was the political will to make it happen.
Bush’s long and personal relationship with Enron’s former CEO Kenneth Lay is now well known, as is his generous contribution of over $600,000 to advance the political career of the man who now holds the White House. Not so well known is how Bush has helped Enron.
Scarcely a month after Bush moves into the White House, Vice President Cheney has his first secret meeting with Ken Lay and other Enron executives on February 22, 2001. Other meetings follow on March 7 and April 17. It is the details of these meetings that the Bush Administration is seeking to keep private.
It’s clear the Cheney had his own conflicts of interest with Enron. A chief benefactor in the trans-Caspian pipeline deal would have been Halliburton, the huge oil pipeline construction firm which was previously headed by Cheney. After Cheney’s selection as Bush’s Vice Presidential candidate, Halliburton also contributed a huge amount of cash into the Bush-Cheney campaign coffers.
It is a FACT that there was a specific time frame for invading Afghanistan on the table before 9/11.
July 21, 2001: US Official Threatens Possible Military Action Against Taliban by October if Pipeline Is Not Pursued Niaz Naik. [Source: Calcutta Telegraph]
Three former American officials, Tom Simons (former US Ambassador to Pakistan), Karl Inderfurth (former Deputy Secretary of State for South Asian Affairs), and Lee Coldren (former State Department expert on South Asia) meet with Pakistani and Russian intelligence officers in a Berlin hotel. [Salon, 9/16/2002] This is the third of a series of back-channel conferences called “brainstorming on Afghanistan.” Taliban representatives sat in on previous meetings, but boycotted this one due to worsening tensions. However, the Pakistani ISI relays information from the meeting to the Taliban. [Guardian, 10/22/2001] At the meeting, Coldren passes on a message from Bush officials. He later says, “I think there was some discussion of the fact that the United States was so disgusted with the Taliban that they might be considering some military action.” [Guardian, 10/26/2001] Accounts vary, but former Pakistani Foreign Secretary Niaz Naik later says he is told by senior American officials at the meeting that military action to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan is planned to “take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.” The goal is to kill or capture both bin Laden and Taliban leader Mullah Omar, topple the Taliban regime, and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place. Uzbekistan and Russia would also participate. Naik also says, “It was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taliban.” [BBC, 10/18/2001] One specific threat made at this meeting is that the Taliban can choose between “carpets of bombs”—-an invasion—-or “carpets of gold”—-the pipeline. [Brisard and Dasquie, 2002] Naik contends that Tom Simons made the “carpets” statement. Simons claims, “It’s possible that a mischievous American participant, after several drinks, may have thought it smart to evoke gold carpets and carpet bombs. Even Americans can’t resist the temptation to be mischievous.”[Salon, 9/16/2002]
The whole deal went sour.
On August 27, 2001, Abdullah, the de facto leader of Saudi Arabia, sent a message to President Bush threatening to end the Saudi alliance with the US.
August 31, 2001: Head of Saudi Arabia’s Intelligence Service Is Replaced
Prince Turki al-Faisal, head of Saudi Arabia’s intelligence service for 24 years, is replaced. No explanation is given. He is replaced by Nawaf bin Abdul Aziz, his nephew and the king’s brother, who has “no background in intelligence whatsoever.” [Agence France-Presse, 8/31/2001; Wall Street Journal, 10/22/2001; Seattle Times, 10/29/2001] The Wall Street Journal later reports: “The timing of Turki’s removal—-August 31—-and his Taliban connection raise the question: Did the Saudi regime know that bin Laden was planning his attack against the US?
(An interesting and significant detail: Prince Sultan, the defense minister, had been due to visit Japan in early September, but canceled his trip for no apparent reason less than two days before an alleged planned departure.)” [Wall Street Journal, 10/22/2001] Also he is alleged to have contributed at least $6 million since 1994 to four charities that finance al-Qaeda. #1 The son of the Saudi Defense Minister Prince Sultan was flown out of the U.S. on the 13th by a private charter tail number N521DB, has been chartered frequently by the White House for the press corps traveling with President Bush. Sultan is sued in August 2002 for alleged complicity in the 9/11 plot (His name will later be dismissed from the suit because of diplomatic immunity.
(Another interesting and significant detail: Is that 75 members of both the Saudi Royal family and Bin Laden family leave LA by charter plane to Las Vegas and check in to a Vegas hotel on 9/9 where they wait until 9-13-01 to begin (while all U.S. flights are grounded - shoot to kill) being flown out of the U.S. by privite charter until 9-19-01.)
It will later come out that Turki’s removal takes place during a time of great turmoil in the relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia, though it is not known if there is a connection. Turki is later sued in August 2002 for his role in 9/11 (His name will later be dismissed from the suit because of diplomatic immunity, and is later appointed ambassador to Britain (see October 18, 2002) and then ambassador to the US (see August 21, 2005).
Enron had one last card to play, and that was selling the Dabhol plant for quick cash—if it could. If Enron could get its asking price of $2.3 billion, then maybe the company could pull out of its bankruptcy nose dive.
In late August, Lay appeared to threaten India in an article in the London Financial Times. We expect full price for the plant, he warned; if they received anything less, there could be backlash: “There are laws that could prevent the U.S. government from providing any aid or assistance to India going forward if, in fact, they expropriate property of U.S. companies,” he said. When Indian officials called these statements “strong arm tactics,” an Enron statement claimed Lay “was merely referring to U.S. laws.” Again Lay appeared to threaten India in a Sept. 14 letter to the Prime Minister, insisting that the $2.3 billion price was reasonable because they had a “legal claim” of up to $5 billion.
But the house of cards collapsed dramatically on November 8, when Enron disclosed that it had overstated earnings dating back to 1997 by almost $600 million. That same day, an e-mail (“Importance: High”), whose sender and recipient are blacked out, warned, “President Bush cannot talk about Dabhol as was already mentioned.” The memo also said that Bush economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey could not discuss Enron either. Lindsey had been an Enron consultant.
But it was not over for everyone. There were still some players left in this war for profit.
U.S. OK’d plan to topple Taliban a day before 9/11
On October 7, 2001 the carpet of bombs is unleashed over Afghanistan. Hamid Karzai, the former Unocal consultant, is installed as head of an interim government. Subsequently he is elected President of Afghanistan, and welcomes the first U.S. envoy—-Mr. John J. Maresca, Vice President for International Relations of the Unocal Corporation, who had implored Congress three years previously to have the Taliban overthrown. Mr. Maresca was succeeded by Mr. Zalmay Khalilzad—-also a former Unocal consultant. (Mr. Khalilzad has since become Ambassador to Iraq.)
Presidents Karzai of Afghanistan and Musharraf of Pakistan meet on February 8, 2002, sign an agreement for a new pipeline, and the way forward is open for Unocal once more.
The Afghanistan President, and both the Afghan and Iraqi Ambassadors - all former Unocal Consultants.
“So where is the oil going to come from?… The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world’s oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies.”
Richard Cheney - Chief Executive Of Halliburton
Posted by honestjoe on Jun 29, 2007 at 6:46 AM I would suggest forwarding this to the Hillary campaign, because surely, if anyone, THEY can use it to construct a devastating case against the the previous administration.
Or, you may consider including it in your explosive best-seller, perhaps a follow-up on the great writings of Paul O’Neil.
Of course. It’s so obvious. How could we notta seen it before?
Posted by Natalie on Jun 29, 2007 at 9:45 AM >>>>Dont the people that accept the governments story about the Pentagon have to believe that an airliner vaporized without scorching the lawn?<<<<
OMFG!
(mouth agape in complete and utter disbelief and shock)
What kind of Cuckoos nest has been revealed here upon pulling back the leaves and grass?
Or more accurately, what kind of religious cult?
Calgon??????
Are you saying it wasn’t an airliner that hit the Pentagon NATALIE?
If you are saying an airliner did hit the Pentagon then what happened to it?
Did it vaporize? Didn’t it vaporize?
Have you seen photographs of burned grass at the Pentagon?
I don’t pay much attention to the Pentagon business myself. The impossible physics of the WTC is enough for me.
psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Jun 29, 2007 at 2:45 PM So we’re going from the missing quantities of concrete at the WTC to the missing burned grass at the Pentagon.
Perhaps we should be asking whether your brain has been vaporized, or not.
I haven’t seen photographs of it, so until then, I’m not convinced that it exists.
Posted by Natalie on Jun 29, 2007 at 10:37 PM Here Joe, you can take this back to your camp.
The lesson here is that if you’re patient, persistent, polite, sincere and don’t let on that you’re a “truth” zombie, you can find out all kinds of accurate and reliable information.
Posted by Natalie on Jun 29, 2007 at 10:59 PM I haven’t seen photographs of it, so until then, I’m not convinced that it exists.
The burned grass or THE PLANE, THE PLANE.
Don’t tell me you are doubting the government’s story NATALIE?
LOL
psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Jun 30, 2007 at 5:09 AM The burned grass or THE PLANE, THE PLANE.
No, I wasn’t referring to either one of those.
“I haven’t seen photographs of <u>it</u>, so until then, I’m not convinced that it exists.”
Posted by Natalie on Jun 30, 2007 at 5:33 AM I recently learned there was no seismic data recorded as a result of the supposed airliner impact at the Pentagon. How could they be recorded from the WTC impacts at 960 and 1100 feet above the ground but not from the Pentagon at ground level?
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/Seismic/WTC_PENT_KIM.htm
Of course I didn’t hear about this from the MSM. I just ran across in on the net. 6 year old news that got buried.
How has this obviously stupid crap dragged on so long?
psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Oct 1, 2007 at 6:40 PM psikeyhackr
You have asked a good question but in so doing you have pointed out an even larger flaw to the Official Narrative.It is very important to place this dynamic in the forefront of our minds. The Official Narrative is [same as damn near] impossible for its remaining adherents to alter going forward. They have extensively documented a position they must take to their demise which can not be danced around with fluid semantics nor evoke “special sensitive secret evidence” needed to maintain “security”.
Any such ‘prior secrets only now releasable’ are immediately challengeable on the bases of balance for the insecurity such a “secret” has caused by inciting “rampant conspirsism” INTO a deep loss of domestic tranquility. With every subsequent change or update in Official Narrative, simply repeat the charge of too little too late for the ongoing loss of tranquility which thus FORMED insecurity.
Let them hang by their words, or hang faster by any change in their words.
From the information that was pointed out by psikeyhackr we kill the lie.
There exist two separate precision data time sets that address when the aircraft crashed into the Towers. Both data time sets are based on
UTC (Coordinated Universal Time, the world’s atomic clock system) and the sources that determined these times were prestigious, reliable and credible. There is no question regarding the precision and accuracy of the instruments used to record both data time sets, since their entire
function depends and relies upon temporal accuracy, and therefore there can be no doubt that both data time sets are correct. The time data sets represent objective scientific data recorded by two separate, independent entities.The problem is the data sets have different impact times. These times were given out years ago but at different times. Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University (LDEO) gave its findings around the time of the event with what it thought were impact times based upon the seismic data recorded, while the 9/11 Commission published its impact times, based upon FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic, years later in its Final Report.
2001 LDEO 8:46:26…..................2001 LDEO 9:02:54 seismic
2001 FAA 8:46:35…..................2001 FAA 9:03:14
2004 Commission 8:46:40…..................2004 Commission 9:03:11
Posted by honestjoe on Oct 2, 2007 at 2:53 PM LDEO Published Findings 2001
Link: http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.htmlLDEO confirmed its data as accurate:
Link: http://www.mgs.md.gov/esic/publications/download/911pentagon.pdf9/11 COMMISSION DATA AND TIMES
Commission Timeline Link: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/index.html“We have determined that the impact time was 9:03:11 based on our analysis of FAA radar data and air traffic control software logic.” [9/11 Commission Report, pg 460, Note 130]:
Link: http://www.insightful.com/infact/911/corpus/report_470_460.html
(Note 130 is the basis for WTC1 & WTC2 precision impact times to the second)All of this radar and accompanying Air Traffic Control data was recorded to UTC timestamping. These stations utilized primary radar return tracking with all times to the second. Also, an Air Traffic Controller replied to this investigation stating that a time-check is done daily by all stations to make sure that all radar tracking is precisely coordinated to UTC. Radar is based upon microwaves that travel at the speed of light, so error variance is not stated. The Commission Report has the impact times. Their data set is based upon actual flight data that ended when the Towers were struck. There is no question: AA Flight 11 died at 8:46:40 and UA Flight 175 at 9:03:11 [UTC—4 hrs]. Since the planes crashed at those times, the question is: What caused the LDEO times 14 and 17 seconds earlier? What caused those seismic spikes?
Evidence that shows how long the time was between the initial explosion and the later impact of AA Flt 11 at WTC1. Jenny Carr was at a business meeting with others on the morning of 9/11 at 1 Liberty Plaza, and a recording was being made of that meeting. During this recording a first explosion is heard, and then a second one about 9 seconds later.
What is interesting is, when the 9 seconds found on the Jenny Carr tape are added to the original LDEO seismic time of 8:46:26, the result is 8:46:35, the exact FAA impact time for AA Flt 11.
It also should be noted that the FAA’s 9:03:14 for UA Flt 175 matches closely to the time of 9:03:17 found in the Vanity Fair article by Michael Bronner. This 9:03:17 time occurred when NEADS received the call notifying them of a 2nd possible hijacking while “almost simultaneously” people in the NEADS control room watched Flt 175 crash into WTC2 on CNN, including Colonel Marr, the commanding officer.
2001 LDEO 8:46:26….................................2001 LDEO 9:02:54 seismic
2001 FAA 8:46:35….........................................2001 FAA 9:03:14
2004 Commission 8:46:40….......2004 Commission 9:03:11
Posted by honestjoe on Oct 2, 2007 at 3:28 PM Can’t they tell if they recorded the same event by the similarities in the waveforms?
If so I would say they were somewhat sloppy with their clocks.
The time of the detection is going to vary with distance of the detector from the source. They would then have to compute the time of the cause of the disturbance.
It doesn’t sound like a significant issue to me.
psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Oct 4, 2007 at 3:17 AM “I recently learned there was no seismic data recorded as a result of the supposed airliner impact at the Pentagon. How could they be recorded from the WTC impacts at 960 and 1100 feet above the ground but not from the Pentagon at ground level?”
Differences in construction design, methods and materials between the WTC towers and the Pentagon are no doubt at least partially the reason for the differences in seismic generation. The WTC columns were steel, relatively few, and were directly bonded to bedrock. The Pentagon was built upon thousands of concrete piles, which by definition presumably were pounded in until whatever solid material stopped them, which may or may not have been actual bedrock. Most of the energy was absorbed by the relatively solid concrete structure, not directly transmitted down to bedrock, I would presume.
Very different scenarios, and thus no big mystery why there was no discernible seismic signature generated by the Pentagon hit.
But we’ve yet to get past eye-witnesses actually seeing the “supposed” plane hitting the building, and forensic evidence positively identifying the plane which was flight 77, and nearly all its “supposed” passengers. If none of this were the case, it might make sense to start investigating seismic signatures.
Posted by Natalie on Oct 17, 2007 at 8:38 AM Most of the energy was absorbed by the relatively solid concrete structure, not directly transmitted down to bedrock, I would presume.
ROFLMAO
Yeah, right!
80 stories of WTC couldn’t have absorbed anything. LOL
People that can believe stupid bullshit can come up with ridiculous rationalizations. DNA evidence from people in a plane that vaporized.
ROFLMAO
psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Oct 18, 2007 at 7:11 AM I think you need a little LOVE education, psik.
Amazing how those seismic waves manage to travel miles and miles, let alone 80 stories. Could it have something to do with having a route conducive to propagation, and the ability to access that route in the first place?
“Vaporized” can be a technical or literary term. Technically, there was surely some complete vaporization of certain elements, but there was also sufficiently large remnants to make forensic ID of the plane and passengers possible, whether by DNA, personal effects, dental information or 757 parts. Some bodies were found still in their seats,* which could certainly not be properly characterized as being vaporized.
* “When Williams discovered the scorched bodies of several airline passengers, they were still strapped into their seats. The stench of charred flesh overwhelmed him”....
.....“Members of Congress who toured the site Thursday said rescue officials reported that much of the fuselage of the hijacked airplane remains intact in the ruins.”
Posted by Natalie on Oct 19, 2007 at 8:11 AM Some bodies were found still in their seats,* which could certainly not be properly characterized as being vaporized.
Care to provide links to photographs of those bodies?
Didn’t you say you needed photos before you believed the existence of something? LOL
I havent seen photographs of it, so until then, Im not convinced that it exists.
Posted by Natalie on Jun 29, 2007 at 11:33 PMpsik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Oct 20, 2007 at 12:51 AM “I haven’t seen photographs of it, so until then, I’m not convinced that it exists.”
Posted by Natalie on Jun 29, 2007 at 11:33 PMThe purpose of that reference, which apparently went right over your head, was to point out the absurdity of demanding pictures of everything in order to prove its existence. While I’m quite sure that photos do in fact exist showing those bodies, they would not necessarily be available for public viewing. If you were the information officer working with the rescue/recovery team, would you approve the release of such pictures?
Skepticism is great, but when you take it to ridiculous levels, it just makes you look ridiculous.
If you’d like though, you could probably track down these folks,* and consult with them about your theory, whatever exactly that is.
* Ruth’s 45-year-old daughter Leslie Whittington, her husband, Charles Falkenberg, and their two daughters, Zoe, 8, and Dana, 3, were passengers on the plane. The family, who lived in Washington, was heading to Australia, where Whittington, a Georgetown University professor, would work as a guest lecturer at the Australian National University in Canberra.
Those four marked the largest family group killed in the terrorist attacks.
“The fact it was so violent is hard to deal with,” Ruth Koch said, noting she’d thought about how the couple must have felt in those last moments, knowing their two little girls would die.
During an interview earlier this week, Koch delicately handled eerie mementos of the crash found during cleanup: Whittington’s battered driver’s license. One granddaughters’ luggage tag.
Of course, that stuff’s easy to fake, right psik?
Posted by Natalie on Oct 20, 2007 at 4:21 AM Is there some reason not to have photos of the seats once the bodies were removed? Have you seen those photos?
There is skepticism and there is gullibility and there is STUPID gullibility.
Airplane vaporizes from intact lawn but bodies in seats recovered.
News at 10 but NO pictures.
ROFLMAO
psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Oct 21, 2007 at 4:35 PM I don’t know about the seats, but there’s plenty of photos of other parts of the plane.
This letter to a jerk named Killtown very nearly applies to you, psik:
Killtown,
I am certainly aware of people like yourself who believe that those of us who suffered on 9/11 must be part of some giant plot, either as dupes or plotters. I was in the Pentagon when the plane hit, I held parts of that aircraft in my hands, covered with fuel and oil, and I helped with the triage area. I helped a guy with a headwound, aided ambulances coming in, and suffer to this day with ongoing nightmares on a very regular basis. When one has seen what I saw, and had to do what I had to do, the images, the smells, the sounds, resonate in your mind forever.
I do not object to your desire to dispute the facts of that day. While I feel you are hopelessly naive and silly, that is your right. But please know that your page on the Pentagon crash is deeply offensive to the survivors such as myself. Again, it’s not that you argue. But your tone is one of mocking, of making light of the greatest suffering I ever saw in my 25 years of military service. Your fake “quotes,” your quips, all mock the pain of those of us that were there, and served that day. I am very likely one of the people in some of your photographs, and I assure you our thoughts were not about the grass (a silly claim you make, by the way), but were deeply, intensely worried about the people hurt, the people left inside. I will never forget that day, and while I can forgive your foolishness in not understanding the facts, the science, the reality of that day, I find it much harder to forgive your willingness to laugh at those who were so terribly hurt that day. Such an attitude shows you to be a cruel and heartless person, in addition to a silly one.
LT Col Hal Bidlack
USAF RetiredAre you having to make an extra effort to be obtuse, psik, or does it just come naturally?
Posted by Natalie on Oct 22, 2007 at 7:40 AM I have communicated with a man who claims he worked in the World Trade Center and had just left the building 13 hours before the strike.
He claimed that every level of the building had the same amount of steel. I asked him if he had x-ray eyes and could look into the core.
Now the NIST even claims the steel at the bottom of the tower was much thicker than at the top. So what does that prove?
Now this man who claims he worked in the WTC referred me to an article by F.R.Greening with a PhD who wrote some interesting garbage.
There is so much bullsh!t flying around on this subject it is extremely annoying but the physics is so simple it should have been resolved in 6 months. There are lots of dummies that will believe stupid bullsh!t and liars willing to tell it. (there is some ammunition for you, LOL)
I am sure experiencing these events is quite traumatic but it really has nothing to do with my analyzing them.
Airliners don’t vaporize and there should have been A LOT of debris there to photograph and the lawn should have been a mess, not to mention seismic detection. No point in mentioning the hole should have been bigger. SIZE MATTERS!
psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Oct 23, 2007 at 3:31 AM I see you’re still hung up on steel and concrete mass. For the thirteenth time, it’s not really that relevant in this case. The building’s collapse didn’t depend on crushing or bending the ever thickening steel columns on the way down, it was a result of the sequential stripping of the identical floors, with identical fasteners, from that steel. Left with no lateral support, the exterior columns mostly fell away from the descending mass, and the interior columns collapsed after standing briefly, naked of floors.
The important factors are the weight of the masses above the impact zones, the dynamic force they exerted upon failure, and the strength of the structures and connections immediately below that mass.
Greenings more recent paper is here. It addresses this in detail, and unlike anything from the “truth” community, it has been submitted to a legitimate engineering journal. The professionals that review these papers are not likely to accept “stupid bullshit” or “liars”.
There WAS plenty of identifiable aircraft debris found in and around the Pentagon. The plane wasn’t so much vaporized as it was shredded. There are pictures of engine parts, landing gear parts, fuselage parts, etc.
The condition of the lawn and the size of the entrance hole simply reflected what actually happened when flight 77 hit the Pentagon on 9/11. They might not be what YOU think they should be, but then who exactly are YOU to be questioning people who were THERE and actually SAW what happened??
Shouldn’t that overrule a bunch of armchair fantasists in pajamas making wild claims with no REAL evidence whatsoever?
Posted by Natalie on Oct 24, 2007 at 6:02 PM the interior columns collapsed after standing briefly, naked of floors.
Pure unadulterated BULLSH!T.
The interior columns had horizontal beams connecting them like a normal skyscraper and did not need the floor slabs and trusses. The beams and columns in the core are shown in this simulation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8
The NIST can tell us the tons of cargo in the planes like that was so important. I guess creating a table with the steel and concrete and maximum load capacity of each level was too difficult for them in 3 years for a mere $20,000,000.
No, they can’t be bothered with explaining something that easy to understand. All of us dumb laymen are supposed to just BELIEVE AUTHORITY.
The south tower collapsed in 56 minutes. How much steel can be raised to 1500 degrees in 56 minutes. Oh, we don’t know how much steel was on the 79th, 80th and 81st floors. It must not matter then.
The building’s collapse didn’t depend on crushing or bending the ever thickening steel columns on the way down, it was a result of the sequential stripping of the identical floors, with identical fasteners, from that steel.
Haven’t you heard? The NIST rejects the pancake theory now.
psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Oct 26, 2007 at 5:00 AM The interior columns had horizontal beams connecting them like a normal skyscraper and did not need the floor slabs and trusses. The beams and columns in the core are shown in this simulation.
Was this assembly designed to stand on its own, and even shrug off the enormous effects of tons of building collapsing around and within it? Of course not.
Havent you heard? The NIST rejects the pancake theory now.
NIST rejects the pancake collapse <u>initiation</u> theory, but not the obvious reality that the floors failed sequentially as the mass descended. The discovry of dozens of floors compressed into dozens of feet of space, and the direction of bend of connection brackets above and below the impact zones make this intuitively obvious.
What makes you such an expert, psik? Specify the education and expertise you possess that qualifies you to engage in such off the wall dissent.
Posted by Natalie on Oct 26, 2007 at 9:52 AM Was this assembly designed to stand on its own,
It was designed to support the weight of the inner edge of the floors and It is what provided the rigidity to the entire building. Like you say the outer perimeter columns did not. What do you think pulled the building back to a vertical position from swaying in the wind? Therefore OBVIOUSLY it could have stood by itself.
The discovery of dozens of floors compressed into dozens of feet of space, and the direction of bend of connection brackets above and below the impact zones make this intuitively obvious.
Link?
NIST rejects the pancake collapse initiation theory, but not the obvious reality that the floors failed sequentially as the mass descended.
Sorry that is not obvious. The NIST just says “global collapse was inevitable” which just amounts to “believe what we say because we say so.” The mass would have to descend on the core also and the core could not pancake.
What makes you such an expert, psik? Specify the education and expertise you possess that qualifies you to engage in such off the wall dissent.
Intelligence and knowledge are two different things and physics is a continuum of phenomenon. I won a National Merit Scholarship and applied to MIT though not accepted. I went to another engineering school. My pledge father in the frat was an architect. We could see the Sears Tower being constructed from the living room of the frat. I was taking electrical engineering but you must remember that the Empire State building was constructed before the invention of the transistor.
We are talking about a high velocity object hitting a much larger object and you want to pretend that the type and distribution of mass in the larger object isn’t important. Like the distributions of steel and concrete in the WTC. You just try to convince people they are stupid if they don’t have a piece of paper in a particular specialty NATALIE.
Think what AUTHORITY tells you to think STUPID! You are pathetic.
ROFLMAO
What reason is there to not tell everyone the tons of steel and concrete on every floor? What can it hurt? Why did the NIST tell us the tons of cargo in the planes? What good is that?
psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Oct 26, 2007 at 3:11 PM I’m assuming from what you say that you have some kind of engineering degree. What specific area of engineering is it in, and how advanced is it? Is it in electrical engineering?
Do you have any training in structural engineering?
Posted by Natalie on Oct 27, 2007 at 12:02 AM Do you have any training in structural engineering?
Gravity has changed so much in the last 3000 years hasn’t it?
Where did the designers of the Taj Mahal and Pyramids and Parthenon get their degrees in structural engineering? They just didn’t have the steel to work with. The Romans had concrete.
This is a grammar school physics problem that people are making more complicated than necessary.
Since I was never even interested in getting training in structural engineering I didn’t. The funny thing about engineering is that it is applied physics.
Where is the link to this?
The discovery of dozens of floors compressed into dozens of feet of space,psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Oct 27, 2007 at 3:13 AM The Romans didn’t build quarter mile high buildings, or miles long suspension bridges. If they had attempted to, I’m quite sure they would have failed long before completion. Advanced understanding of structural engineering and the properties of materials and their relationships to other materials is required to design and build such structures.
However, the collapses are fairly easy to understand, as long as you apply your grammar school physics in such a way as to take into account the unusual construction of the towers. That is what you don’t seem to be doing. If you understand that the inner columns, the outer columns and the floor trusses acted together as a system to keep the building standing and stable, and that if any part of that system was sufficiently compromised in an area subjected to huge loads from above, the inevitability of collapse comes into clear focus, even for lay eyes such as my own.
Yes, I suppose engineering is applied physics in a lot of ways, but physicists don’t design skyscrapers, structural engineers do. And structural engineers are best suited to understand the failures of the buildings they design. And genuine, qualified structural engineers don’t entertain controlled demolition theories about the WTC towers.
“Under one tent sits what workers nicknamed “the moon rock.” It’s not a solid rock at all but actually four trade center floors compressed to 3 feet in thickness. Port Authority art restorer Gat has identified charred books, letters, wires and bathroom tiles in the rock”.
“Two weeks after 9/11, engineers Pablo Lopez and Andrew Pontecorvo are walking in the B2 basement level at the ruins of the World Trade Center, towards where the North Tower stood. They discover a “solid, rocklike mass where the basement levels of the tower had been,” and see “the recognizable traces of twenty floors, very much like geologic strata revealed by a road cut, compressed into a ten-foot vertical span. In one place, the steel decks of half a dozen floors protruded like tattered wallpaper, so close together that they were almost touching where they were bent downward at the edge. Nothing between the decks was recognizable except as a rocky, rusty mishmash. In a few places what might have been carbonized, compressed stacks of paper stuck out edgewise like graphite deposits.” As New York Times reporters James Glanz and Eric Lipton describe, Lopez and Pontecorvo have found “where the vanished floors [of the tower] had gone. They had not just fallen straight down. The forces had been so great and the floors so light that they had simply folded up like deflated balloons.” Furthermore, they see the massive core columns of the tower, which are over two feet wide and made of four-inch thick steel plate, appearing to have suffered “a compound fracture: the upper sections looked as if they had been kicked, with incalculable fury, about a foot south of the sections they were resting on.” Lopez remarks, “Can you imagine the force?” [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 292-293]
At some later time, ironworker Danny Doyle, who is also working at Ground Zero, finds that floors of the South Tower have been compressed into a formation like what happened with the North Tower’s. He discovers “a distinct mound of debris set into the pile, about six feet high, with strands of wire and pieces of rebar sticking out. It looked like layers of sediment that had turned into rock and been lifted up on some mountainside ..... Here were ten stories of the South Tower, compacted into an area of about six feet.” [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 310]
So, what is your degree(s) in, and how advanced is it?
Posted by Natalie on Oct 27, 2007 at 11:06 AM The Romans didn’t build quarter mile high buildings, or miles long suspension bridges.
Did you notice I said they didn’t have the steel. You ignore what you want to ignore NATALIE.
I never ask people about degrees on the internet though some people insist on telling like that is going to increase their credibility. I concentrate on whether or not what they are saying makes sense. I have heard people I know in real space with degrees talk bullshit for their own reasons and anybody can claim anything on the internet so it is pointless.
What about the people with degrees in economics?
Do you ever hear them talk about the planned obsolescence of automobiles?
How much do American consumers lose on depreciation of cars every year?
I don’t have a degree in economics either.
I had one person with a PhD in economics say I was correct and the text books were wrong. Another PhD economist called me a loony. I emailed back to him, “You will never know how much it pains me to be called a loony by a member of a profession that can’t do grammar school algebra.”
It’s nothing but grammar school algebra. Experts can be so full of crap. It is all about finding the missing but important information that is easy to understand. Like the tons of steel and tons of concrete on every level of the WTC. What is so difficult to understand about that? Why does an individual need a degree to see its importance?
The forces had been so great and the floors so light that they had simply folded up like deflated balloons.” Furthermore, they see the massive core columns of the tower, which are over two feet wide and made of four-inch thick steel plate, appearing to have suffered “a compound fracture: the upper sections looked as if they had been kicked, with incalculable fury, about a foot south of the sections they were resting on.” Lopez remarks, “Can you imagine the force?” [Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 292-293]
But we are supposed to assume the falling mass from the top could do that without knowing the distribution of mass beneath. It ain’t happening NATALIE. What reason can the EXPERTS have for NOT TELLING US? What can it hurt?
psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Oct 27, 2007 at 2:58 PM I said this:
Where did the designers of the Taj Mahal and Pyramids and Parthenon get their degrees in structural engineering? They just didnt have the steel to work with. The Romans had concrete.Then you said this:
The Romans didnt build quarter mile high buildings, or miles long suspension bridges. If they had attempted to, Im quite sure they would have failed long before completion. Advanced understanding of structural engineering and the properties of materials and their relationships to other materials is required to design and build such structures.The examples you site require large quantities of steel which I already said they didn’t have. If they could have made it they would have understood it. Schools don’t give people intelligence. People with intelligence just need good sources of informtaion not so called educators dribbling out information as slowly as possible.
If you want to learn some electronics:
I didn’t get to a real course about electricity until 4th semester at the engineering school I attended. Now it is in the 3rd semester and only one semester of chemistry is required. I never understood what that had to do with electrical engineering. Back then it was $1100 per semester now one year with room and board is $27,000. They started talking about Kirchoff’s Current Law and I was interested to know what it was. It turned out I knew it when I was in grammar school and it was so simple it never occurred to me there was a name for it. You see Kirchoff figured it out in 1845 and they didn’t know how atoms were constructed back then. It is pretty obvious once you know about electrons.
This book has it on page 75:
Teach Yourself Electricity and Electronics by Stan Gibilisco
Do It YourselfOnce you get to page 500 you should be ready for this:
The Art of Electronics by Horowitz & Hill
The ArtOf course there were no cheap computers to do electronic simulation back in the day.
Electronics Workbench Group NI Multisim 10.0.1 Student Edition
Sim VoltsKids just have it too easy these days. What is the world coming to?
I am tired of your crap. BYE!
psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Oct 27, 2007 at 3:32 PM Translation:
I don’t have a degree in anything—I’ve just studied enough stuff on my own to be dangerous.
That’s all well and good. I’m sure you know more about electronics than I do, or maybe even Frank Greening. But you don’t have sufficient understanding of structures and materials and physics to presume to question the world’s accredited engineers on their analysis of the WTC collapses, and you certainly have no business questioning their motives.
You don’t even understand the basic mechanisms of the collapses; either that, or you refuse to demonstrate it. You ask me for links to accounts of compressed floors; I give them to you, and instead of admitting that this is obvious proof of progressive collapse, you say: “I am tired of your crap. BYE”.
I think your arrogant maverick act is merely a tool to distract from your lack of ability to truly understand subjects in depth and in context, and to demonstrate and prove that understanding to those doling out degrees.
Posted by Natalie on Oct 27, 2007 at 11:00 PM
Posted by psikeyhackr on Nov 11, 2007 at 10:13 AM Do you smoke a lot of pot, psik?
I’m serious.
Be honest.
Posted by Natalie on Nov 12, 2007 at 12:10 AM All you can do is dish out psychological bullshit huh, NATALIE?
I haven’t touched the stuff since college. I had asthma as a kid. I hate getting sh!t in my lungs. I forced myself to try it then to see what the big deal was. This is like that When did you stop beating your wife? question.
And notice you didn’t actually provide links you just provided quotations.
Of course I did a search on the contents.
This link has information about a gold and silver robbery in progress at the time of the attack. Unfortunately they had to abandon their loot or the building would have fallen on them. Isn’t it an interesting coincidence that they just happened to do the robbery on the day of the attack? How did they know to abandon the loot at the right time to keep from getting killed? If they had gotten away how long before anyone would have noticed the gold was missing?
One of those things that makes you go Hmmmm…
Just like the puts on the stock the week before.
Way more interesting than whether I smoked pot but you didn’t supply the link.
You didn’t really comment on the video in a rational manner either. Can’t you handle grammar school physics?
psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Nov 12, 2007 at 4:56 AM “I haven’t touched the stuff since college.”
Gosh, I’m sorry to hear that, for your sake. At least that would be something easily correctable.
“And notice you didn’t actually provide links you just provided quotations.
Of course I did a search on the contents.”What in the world are you talking about here? This is why I suspected pot.
“Failed Heist” .......
If there really had been a “failed heist”, which appears to be a completely bogus story, a rational thinking person would suspect al Qaeda or their surrogates. They are the ones who flew the planes, and they were the ones who knew when and where the attacks would take place. But not you or any of the “truth” world. You immediately jump to the illogical but I suppose comforting conclusion that it must have been some group of neocons, I guess. This is why I suspected pot.
“One of those things that makes you go Hmmmm…”
Yeah well hmmm….. might it be far more likely that some newspapers got the story wrong, or partly wrong? That does happen, you know, with remarkable regularity. That is what I would first suspect, and that appears to be the case.
“Just like the puts on the stock the week before.”
You seem to be into financial stuff. Knock yourself out! But again, even IF the trading was done with foreknowledge of the attacks, why in the world not suspect al Qaeda or someone working beneath them attempting to raise funds for future activities? They are ALWAYS looking for money, from Muslim charities to selling opium.
“Way more interesting than whether I smoked pot but you didn’t supply the link.”
What link? What are you talking about? This is why I suspected pot.
“You didn’t really comment on the video in a rational manner either. Can’t you handle grammar school physics?”
I’m sorry, but I can’t imagine anything more irrelevant than that video for apparently arguing for something other than damage and fire being necessary for collapse initiation. (I’m not really sure WHAT you’re trying to say)
Perhaps if you’d built a close approximation to the design of the towers, approximated the damage to the suspected elements and started a fire with an accelerant that would then ignite simulated office furniture, carpets and plastics—- if you’d placed a to-scale weight at the top to simulate the weight of the upper blocks—you might begin to approach doing something that made some sense in the area of modeling.
You’ve gotta do way better than that to pass this class.
Posted by Natalie on Nov 12, 2007 at 9:43 AM So…. I wonder when Tony’s paper is going to be published in an engineering journal?
That’s right, he doesn’t need any of that. He’s got that other journal for people who don’t want to bother with all that nasty peer review by people who might say bad things about their paper and maybe even reject it.
It looks like he’s having trouble even passing this preliminary peer review. (Tony is realcddeal)
Not a good omen.
Posted by Natalie on Nov 12, 2007 at 10:52 PM Damn, I forgot the laws of physics had to pass a peer review.
Didn’t the steel that went into the WTC have to pass a peer review run by Underwriter’s Laboratory? It was supposed to take 2000 deg for 6 hours. So how did the buildings come down in less than two?
Those peer reviews just ain’t what they used to be.
psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Nov 13, 2007 at 6:11 AM No, not the laws of physics, the interpretation and explanation of those laws.
Actually, there were no tests done by Underwriters or anyone on the truss assemblies before/during constructioin, and certainly not on the structural steel. Recent tests suggested fire ratings of 1.5 - 2 hours for lengths up to 35’. There was doubt as to whether these ratings could be applied to the full length trusses, which were the ones determined to have played a key role in collapse initiation.
From NIST NCSTAR 1-6B, Fire Resistance Tests of
Floor Truss Systems (6 mb pdf)
ABSTRACT
The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) review of available documents related to the design and construction of the World Trade Center (WTC) towers indicated that the fire performance of the composite floor system of the WTC towers was an issue of concern to the building owners and designers from the original design and throughout the service life of the buildings. <u>However, no fire resistance tests of the WTC floor system were ever conducted.</u> As a result, NIST conducted a series of four standard fire resistance tests (ASTM E 119). In this series of tests, the effects of three factors were studied: (1) fireproofing thickness, (2) test restraint conditions, and (3) scale of the test. The tests were conducted by Underwriters Laboratories, Inc. and represented both full-scale (35 ft span), and reduced- scale (17 ft span) floor assemblies constructed to represent the original design as closely as practical. For three of the tests, the thickness of the sprayed fire resistive material was 3/4 in. which represented the average thickness applied in the original construction. In the fourth test, the thickness of applied fireproofing was 1/2 in. which was the thickness specified for the original design. Tests were conducted in both the restrained and unrestrained condition to provide bounds on the expected performance of the floor system under the standard fire exposure. The restrained full-scale WTC floor system obtained a fire resistance rating of 1.5 hr. while the unrestrained floor system achieved a 2 hr. rating. For the unrestrained test condition, specimens protected with 3/4 in. thick sprayed fire resistive material were able to sustain the maximum design load for approximately 2 hr. without collapsing; in the unrestrained test, the load was maintained without collapsing for 3.5 hr. Past experience with the ASTM E 119 test method would lead investigators to expect that the unrestrained floor assembly would not perform as well as the restrained assembly, and therefore, would receive a lower fire rating. A fire rating of 2 hr. was determined from the reduced-scale test with the average applied fireproofing thickness of 3/4 in. while a fire rating of 1.5 hr. was determined from the full-scale test with the same fireproofing thickness. This finding raises the question of whether or not a fire rating based on the ASTM E 119 performance of a 17 ft span floor assembly is scalable to a larger floor system such as found in the WTC towers where spans ranged from 35 ft to 60 ft.
(emphasis mine)
And of course these tests were done assuming no damage to the truss steel, concrete or fireproofing. What is so hard to believe about these elements (in the towers) failing after approx. 1 and 2 hours, especially when full length trusses were unfortunately unable to be tested?
Posted by Natalie on Nov 13, 2007 at 9:23 PM Excellent summation of the “truth” movement.
A total joke.
If it wasn’t so pathetic and disgusting, it might even be funny.
I can’t figure out if you’re really this obtuse, or if you’re just thinking maybe you can figure out a way to make some money off this scam.
Either way, a very poor reflection on your mentality.
Posted by Natalie on Nov 18, 2007 at 8:07 PM Now there you go trying to be mean and I was going to show you the sequel.
The pathetic thing is so many engineering students not being able to figure out they need to know the tons of steel and concrete to accurately analyze the incident in detail. They should all be able to do this in their heads:
But I have communicated with plenty that don’t buy the official story tho apparently far too many either do or don’t care. They are just focused on their careers.
psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Nov 18, 2007 at 9:07 PM Ah yes, the intimidation. Everyone knows it was an inside job, but they’re too terrified to say anything.
Might lose their jobs, you know. Exposing the crime of the century has its appeal, but I’m sure not gonna lose my job over it.
Either way, this doesn’t reflect well on their mentality. They’re either non/miseducated kooks, or they’re pathetic selfish cowards.
Posted by Natalie on Nov 18, 2007 at 10:17 PM >>>>Ah yes, the intimidation. Everyone knows it was an inside job, but they’re too terrified to say anything.<<<<
What did I say about intimidation?
You have to make implications to come up with something to be sarcastic about?
Why not just track down the steel and concrete on each level?
psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Nov 20, 2007 at 2:35 AM Why not provide some kind of actual proof of what you contend, whatever exactly that is?
That has been my never answered demand from the start of this lengthy thread.
An endless stream of red herrings and irrelevancies does not even begin to approach the plateau of credible proof.
Sorry, I misread your sentence about careers, expecting to see the oft made claim that this or that person is too scared to speak out.
But still not a very flattering reflection—supposedly knowing, and still not caring enough to interrupt one’s career. Or could it be that they’re really not that convinced?
Posted by Natalie on Nov 20, 2007 at 10:07 AM Some people at Purdue made this simulation:
I sent them this email about it:
———————————& ——————————— 8212;—-
Greetings,Congratulations on a great looking simulation.
Since some of the kinetic energy caused the entire building to shake and some did damage at the impact zone I was wondering how it was determined how much did what?
In six years I have not heard how much steel and concrete were on each level of the buildings so I am wondering how that information can be obtained.
You see I made my own video but the simulation is based on a physical model. I am having trouble understanding how this incident can be analyzed without the distribution of steel and concrete being taken into account. How many tons of steel were on the impact floors of the south tower to weaken in 56 minutes? I haven’t heard that in 6 years.
Sincerely,
———————————& —————————-I got this respone from Chris Hoffmann:
——————————— ;—————————-
Thanks for your interest.
Please contact Professor Sozen regarding the building particulars.
Best wishes, Chris Hoffmann______________________
Christoph M. Hoffmann, Computer Science
Director, Rosen Center for Advanced Computing
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907
ph: 765-494-6185, fax: 765-494-0739
http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh
______________________I emailed Professor Sozen the same day as Hoffman but I have gotten no response so far.
psikey
Posted by psikeyhackr on Nov 21, 2007 at 3:23 AM I warned you about this earlier. You can’t expose yourself as a 9/11 “truther” and expect to get an answer.
I think I may have advised you to simply ask for the information, and make up some story about how it was for your structural engineering class, or something.
Or just say it’s a project you’re doing related to structural analysis.
Make up a new identity and try again. Don’t include your video.Good luck.
Posted by Natalie on Nov 21, 2007 at 4:12 AM I’m not and don’t care what a 9/11 truther is.
The Laws of Physics don’t care either.
Purdue could not make an accurate simulation of the crash without incorporating mass information on the concrete and steel. Let them explain why they can’t tell EVERYONE the amount of steel and concrete on every level of a building designed in the 1960’s.
You constantly act like everyone is supposed to accept AUTHORITY because they can wave degrees from prestigious institutions. I am more interested in distributing enough understanding of physics for people to recognize bullsh!t. If people want to undermine the credibility of their institutions that is fine with me.
psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Nov 21, 2007 at 8:35 PM Im not and dont care what a 9/11 truther is.
Face it. You’re a 9/11 truther. Not that there’s anything wrong with that!
Posted by Natalie on Nov 22, 2007 at 8:09 AM Wouldn’t a SCIENTIST have to be a TRUTHER, be it 9/11 or otherwise.
Oh that’s right! Science is Politically Incorrect these days.
Scientists are all GAY! REAL MEN are Stupid! ROFL
They can believe 200 ton airliners can collapse 500,000 ton buildings in less than 2 hours.psik
Posted by psikeyhackr on Nov 22, 2007 at 8:01 PM Hmmm…... but you’re leaving out important stuff, like the extensive damage that was done by airliners traveling at high speed, visible in the Purdue simulation.
And the instantaneous and overwhelming nature of the initial fireball, which enabled the rapid and expansive ignition of secondary building content.
And the unique design of the towers, whose truss construction is feared by firefighters everywhere.
Here’s a little Thanksgiving present for you. It’s what you’ve been looking for. And it comes from one of your own! You might actually be able to get some keyboard time with him!
Unfortunately, it kind of disproves your long-running assumption that nobody knows/knew the quantities of concrete and steel in the towers.
Did you really think that Purdue did all that computing not knowing at least reasonably precise values for the elements that the planes impacted?
Posted by Natalie on Nov 22, 2007 at 11:11 PM Hi,
I thought I would stop by and see if you Natalie were still arguing on the side of the willfully ignorant and/or those in serious denial, otherwise known as the MINORITY!
It seems you are, as the “MAJORITY” have already realized the blatantly obvious!
2/3 Of Americans Believe There Was A 911 Conspiracy!
A national survey found that Nearly two-thirds of Americans think it is possible that some federal officials had specific warnings of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on New York and Washington, but chose to ignore those warnings, according to a Scripps Howard News Service/Ohio University poll.
Let me guess, you didn’t hear about this from the MSM did you!?!
Posted by honestjoe on Nov 25, 2007 at 6:17 AM -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Terry J. Allen
- Death by Privatization
For-profit prison healthcare system implicated in death of inmate. - Restless Vagina Syndrome
- Capitalist Health Insurance for All
- Zicam: Homeopathy Fails the Sniff Test
- More Drugs, Please
- Confessions of a Terrorist
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2006 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
