The 9/11 Faith Movement

Natalie

I know you have never said this so please forgive me for assuming but
you are not alone in how you feel right now all or most of us went through the doubts that you are having and it was not easy for any of us to accept the truth.

NORAD seems to have no respect for the truth. In late 2001, Major General Larry Arnold wrote how NORAD’s 9/11 response was “immediate” and “impressive.“Moving into outright fiction, Arnold claimed, “we were able to identify, track and escort suspected hijacked aircraft after the initial attacks,” “our reaction time outpaced the process in some instances,” “our well-practiced rapid response capability may very well have prevented additional surprise attacks on the American homeland saving countless lives,” and so on. [American Defender, 2001] With Arnold sitting next to him, Major General Craig McKinley admitted in the May 2003 hearings, “We had not positioned prior to September 11, 2001, for the scenario that took place that day.” [New Jersey Star-Ledger, 5/24/03] “McKinley admitted that NORAD was utterly unprepared for the attack.” [UPI, 5/23/03] He called NORAD"s 9/11 stance “a Cold War vestige.” [New Jersey Star-Ledger, 5/24/03] NORAD now claims to be so incompetent that they had to rely on the FAA for all radar information, and even had to go through the FAA to communicate with their own pilots. [Knight Ridder, 5/24/03]

NORAD’s explanations about 9/11 have never made sense, and their new eagerness to be seen as an incompetent “Cold War vestige” is equally suspect. NORAD officials brazenly lied throughout their testimony. In the new NORAD timeline they presented, they even claimed that CNN first began showing images of the World Trade Center on fire at 8:57 when it is easily verifiable that CNN began doing this at 8:48. [CNN, 9/11/01, NORAD Testimony, 5/23/03] Like their many other lies, one can see how this lie serves to cover up the extent of their failure. Unfortunately, the Independent Commission did not require that testimony be given under oath, so these officials cannot be charged with perjury.

One Toronto Star columnist wrote in May 2003, The great majority of people, sickened and overwhelmed by the horror of the attacks, unquestioningly accepts the White House version [of what happened on 9/11]. Many thousands, however, are patiently stitching together the documented evidence and noting the huge holes in the fabric of that official story. [Toronto Star, 5/18/03] A Sarasota Herald-Tribune columnist recently called the “restrained—even failed—standard US military air defense protocols while the attacks were occurring” a “real mystery” that deserves a serious investigation. [Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 5/20/03] But most of the mainstream media doesn’t appear at all interested in these mysteries.

Given the many warnings that came before 9/11, it is not only NORAD that deserves blame for the utter failure to defend the skies on 9/11. Thousands of lives could have been saved if standard procedures were properly followed. Perhaps only those in the World Trade Center’s North Tower need have died, if the FAA and NORAD did their job properly. No wonder the government passed a law making it difficult for relatives of the 9/11 terrorists to sue anyone but the terrorists. [Los Angeles Times, 1/17/02] There has been no accountability for all these failures and needless deaths. There still has not been one demonstrable firing or punishment for any government employee because of 9/11. Many unanswered questions remain, and are likely to remain unanswered until people put pressure on the media and government to finally stop covering up what happened on 9/11.

Posted by honestjoe on Sep 24, 2006 at 8:14 PM

” i put that there so that Mr White didnt think I was some weirdo.”

Good move.  I’m sure Mr. White was reassured.  Since you’ve got a real job, there’s no way you can be a kook.  Steven Jones is certainly evidence of that, at least until the review board rules.

Joe, I feel like I’m being lured into the Church of Scientology or something.  It’s no secret, no mystery and really no surprise that our reaction to nearly simultaneous commandeering hijackings of commercial airliners was far from perfect.

What IS mysterious is why people insist on turning an honest attempt to deal with an unprecedented and extraordinarily difficult situation into some kind of deep dark pre-planned plot.

It simply doesn’t make any sense.  If you can come up with a coherent narrative that does, please spell it out.  (no pun intended)

What does make perfect sense, and what also happens to be backed up by voluminous evidence, is that about 20 brainwashed arab murderers plotted and planned this operation for several years.  They studied and practiced and made dry runs.  They had no regard for the lives of Americans, and thought what they were doing was noble.

They crashed their planes and their hostages and themselves into the towers and the Pentagon.  Passengers aboard flight 93 kindly helped them with a new short approach landing technique.

The towers fell with no help from thermite, thermate, or termites.

You remember that old show Columbo?  He muddled and fuddled with things that didn’t make sense to him, and somehow arrived at a scenario that fit together perfectly and finally did make perfect sense.

I’ve been waiting several years for a Columbo moment from the “truth” movement.  It only took the good Lt. 55 minutes.

Posted by Natalie on Sep 24, 2006 at 11:02 PM

Natalie

Both the Vanity Fair article and Griffin’s analysis are very complex and (I find) wearisome) to comprehend in detail. We should be thankful to David Griffin for having done it! Here is his conclusion:

“The new story is hence best seen as the military’s replacement of its old story, which did not fully get it off the hook, with its new story, which does.

“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. For if the military was lying to us between 2001 and 2004, we have no basis for trusting what it says now. To appreciate this point, it is important to get the logic of the situation right. The truth of the new story would imply the falsity of the old story. But the falsity of the old story would not imply the truth of the new story: they could both be false. And if the previous story, which only partly absolved the military from suspicion, was a lie, should we not suspect that the new story, which fully absolves it, is also a lie?

“This implication will not be seen, to be sure, as long as one accepts the narrative promulgated by the 9/11 Commission and repeated by the Times—that the military had to be “forced” to tell this story, to its great embarrassment, by the 9/11 Commission. But once we see that this is the military’s new story, which it used the 9/11 Commission to tell (albeit perhaps with some coaching from this Zelikow-led body), then we have reason not to accept this new tale without examining its inherent plausibility, its conflict with prior reports, and the possibility of fraudulently produced tapes.

“And when this tale is examined with those questions in mind, I have suggested, there are many reasons to consider it a lie.”

As Griffin says, the “received truth” is that the tapes are authentic, and (as VF also says) the military lied in their previous stories. Griffin’s argument (a good one) is that they are also lying now.

However, we can simplify. The bottom line here, as always, is the Stupidity Theory. 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? 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.

Natalie there are far more holes in this new lie then in the last lie.

I have pointed out in this thread (a) the number of MIL ATC sites (military air traffic control) that were in the multiple 9-11 incident zones (b) the number of joint military/civilian ATC facilities in the same multiple incident zones. I have also proven the accuracy is within 10th of a second for our military and 1 second for the FAA. At least that is what they admit to it most likely is even more accurate but I cant say for sure because its classified. 

In addition, factor in the # of MIL RAPCON (radar approach and control facilities) in the multiple incident zone. I have shown how many there are and where are they located. Wich makes the new lie impossible and proves beyond a doubt that it is just a new lie.

I have made sure that you are completely familiar with MIL ATC SOP - the military air traffic control -standard operating procedure.

I find it interesting that you ignore (perhaps out of pure ignorance) the above that indicates that the military was fully aware of one or all of the planes as soon as it went off transponder.

Additionally, many of the corridors in the incident area - require constant hand-off & coordination between civiilan and military ATC. On a daily basis the Air Force and other branches have thousands of planes/helos intersecting civilian and/or shared air corridors - which require seemless communication betwen the various centers.

For example, many military ANG (Air National Guard) faciilties are located at civilian airports - there are typically military ATC assigned to those facilities as well.

My simple proposition to you - as well as to folks who question 9-11 is to employ further depth around the analysis. Sadly the govt./military thrives off of the ignorance of folks such as yourselves.

Fundamentally, we (truthers) are on the correct path. We are fullfilling our Constitutional duty to question our government with what little facts and scattered details we have…Additionally, I have found many inconsistencies in the times of planes responding etc..in the govt. reports and various media reports….

The administration has fought from day one to stop any kind of investigation into 9/11 why? 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. 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.

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 keep waving that flag and fighting the good fight.

Perhaps some of your questions will help refine the case that is growing against the govt…I watched a news clip from a local affiliate in Louisiana - where a popular dentist (the familiy alleges he was poisoned) died- after producing a manuscript about his meeting three of the hijackers well before 9-11…they were lving near Barksdale AFB..he talked to FBI etc…but like the other leads of this nature the case was pushed aside…The are one too many stories of this nature to be silly CT or coincidence…Still haven’t heard you guys talk about Michael McCormick - 9-11 Hero- who was SWAT teamed after - getting the news out about the fake EPA report (ANOTHER GOVERNMENT LIE) - that has left many first responders fighting for their lives - yeah I know more CT…

Natalie you said; It simply doesn’t make any sense.  If you can come up with a coherent narrative that does, please spell it out.  (no pun intended)
Ha ha ha Thank you, we do need humor in these dire times.

Posted by honestjoe on Sep 25, 2006 at 7:56 AM

Natalie

A piece of logic that you can include is the fact that the statements were “50 miles out”, “30 miles out”, “10 miles out”, etc.

Those statements suggest they knew the ultimate destination/target for the plane.

The fact that Cheney never had any question as to its direction, whether it had changed course, possible targets, etc suggest he knew it was aiming for the Pentagon.

the FAA memo submitted to the Commission, stating that information was being conveyed in teleconferences about “all flights of interest, including flight 77”. The Commission does not mention the memo in its final report.

The information about the the truth just keeps comming! Please look at all those websites that try to debunk 9-11 theories and try to justify the official story.
The information given by the alternative explanations of what happened on 911 seems to have more detail and a scientific based approch when analyzing on what happened on 911.

What’s makes it hard to believe the official story is all the lies they have been caught saying on national television, like when they said: they had no idea they would attack us with hijacked aircraft, but yet there is the official declasified august 6 2001 memo here is the link to see the memo: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/terrorism/80601pdb.html , and all the inteligence that warned the US of an terrorist attack using airplanes before 9-11.

An excellent study of what appears to have been a major motive for hitting the Pentagon, including, in my opinion, striking with a missile before the aircraft itself hit the building, as I have explained in my reply to J.R.Dunn in THE AMERICAN THINKER (21 September 2006), which is archived on st911.org. The casualty list at the Pentagon includes the names of at least sixteen persons identified as “budget analyst”, “accountant”, “financial manager”, and the like, where some eight others have designations that might mean they had similar backgrounds and specializations. There were 125 listed casualities at the Pentagon, excluding any who may have been aboard the plane. 9/11 would therefore appear to have been a rather dangerous time to have been involved in attempting to track what happened to $2.3 trillion on behalf of the taxpayers, which we may reasonably assume was the case. As I explain there, a missile could be more precisely targeted to hit an exact location, which a plane might or might not strike “on target”. Moreover, on “Hannity & Colmes”, FOX NEWS (22 June 2006), during my appearance (where Ollie North stood in for Sean Hannity), I pointed out that we had discovered (a) that the Twin Towers had been brought down by controlled demolition, (b) that Norman Mineta had given this devastating testimony to the 9/11 Commission, and (c) that the FBI had recently acknowledged having “no hard evidence” tying Osama bin Laden to the events of 9/11. Neither Ollie nor Alan expressed any interest in these points, no matter how devastating they may be to the official account of what happened on 9/11, who was responsible and why, but only with whether I had discussed them with my students. The program, which was recorded, is also archived on st911.org. THE NEXT MORNING, THE SECRETARY OF TRANSPORTATION ANNOUNCED HIS RETIREMENT, WICH WAS NOT ONLY UNEXPECTED BUT MEANT THAT HE, NORMAN MINETA, WOULD NO LONGER BE A PUBLIC SERVANT AND EXPECTED TO RESPOND TO REPORTERS’ QUESTIONS. It was, like the hit itself, another rather remarkable “coincidence”. by Fetzer

Motives

According to USA Today, the attack occurred on “the only part of the Pentagon that already had been renovated in an 11-year, $1.3 billion project meant to bolster it against attack.” Renovations were due to be completed on September 16th, 2001.
Casualties in the Pentagon consisted mostly of Navel Intelligence Officers and accountants. The Office of Naval Intelligence were likely monitoring the classified US Military war games that were taking place the morning of 9/11, which simulated terrorists using hijacked airplanes as weapons.  The confusion that ensued between the real world hijackings and the imaginary drills is likely what allowed the attacks to succeed.  The deaths of accountants, bookkeepers and budget analysts and the destruction of accounting information also likely prevented discovering the whereabouts of $2.3 trillion that Donald Rumsfeld admitted on September 10th, 2001 that the Pentagon “cannot track”. [CBS. The War on Waste. January 29th 2002.]
Below is the entire CBS article, The War on Waste, since the article reveals shocking amounts of money missing and damaging testimony that has been largely overlooked and provides clear motive for Cheney allowing the plane to strike the Pentagon.

Directly from CBS:

(CBS) On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, “the adversary’s closer to home. It’s the Pentagon bureaucracy,” he said.

He said money wasted by the military poses a serious threat.

“In fact, it could be said it’s a matter of life and death,” he said.

Rumsfeld promised change but the next day Sept. 11—the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.

Just last week President Bush announced, “my 2003 budget calls for more than $48 billion in new defense spending.”

More money for the Pentagon, CBS News Correspondent Vince Gonzales reports, while its own auditors admit the military cannot account for 25 percent of what it spends.

“According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions,” Rumsfeld admitted.

$2.3 trillion that’s $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America. To understand how the Pentagon can lose track of trillions, consider the case of one military accountant who tried to find out what happened to a mere $300 million.

“We know it’s gone. But we don’t know what they spent it on,” said Jim Minnery, Defense Finance and Accounting Service.

Minnery, a former Marine turned whistle-blower, is risking his job by speaking out for the first time about the millions he noticed were missing from one defense agency’s balance sheets. Minnery tried to follow the money trail, even crisscrossing the country looking for records.

“The director looked at me and said ‘Why do you care about this stuff?’ It took me aback, you know? My supervisor asking me why I care about doing a good job,” said Minnery.

He was reassigned and says officials then covered up the problem by just writing it off.

“They have to cover it up,” he said. “That’s where the corruption comes in. They have to cover up the fact that they can’t do the job.”

The Pentagon’s Inspector General “partially substantiated” several of Minnery’s allegations but could not prove officials tried “to manipulate the financial statements.”

Twenty years ago, Department of Defense Analyst Franklin C. Spinney made headlines exposing what he calls the “accounting games.” He’s still there, and although he does not speak for the Pentagon, he believes the problem has gotten worse.

“Those numbers are pie in the sky. The books are cooked routinely year after year,” he said.

Another critic of Pentagon waste, Retired Vice Admiral Jack Shanahan, commanded the Navy’s 2nd Fleet the first time Donald Rumsfeld served as Defense Secretary, in 1976.

In his opinion, “With good financial oversight we could find $48 billion in loose change in that building, without having to hit the taxpayers.”

CBS. The War on Waste. January 29th 20002.

DONT WORRY NOTHING BUT HUNDREDS OF COINCIDENCES THATS ALL. SO WHAT THEY HAVE BEEN COUGHT IN LIES. IT JUST MEANS THEY WILL BE MORE HONEST WITH US FROM NOW ON. THATS WHY WE PROMOTED THEM.

Posted by honestjoe on Sep 25, 2006 at 10:59 AM

According to Mineta’s testimony, the plane approaching the Pentagon was “50 miles out” at around 9:26.  Since the Pentagon was hit at 9:37:46, it therefore took about 12 minutes for the plane to fly 50 miles, make a 330 degree turn descending 7000 feet and strike the Pentagon.

The 9/11 Commission Report tells us that:
At 9:34, Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport advised the Secret Service of an unknown aircraft heading in the direction of the White House.  American 77 was then 5 miles west-southwest of the Pentagon and began a 330-degree turn.  At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet, pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington.  The hijacker piloted then advanced the throttles to maximum power and drove toward the Pentagon.

At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, traveling at approximately 530 miles per hour.  All on board, as well as many civilian and military personnel in the building, were killed.

Because the pilot “advanced the throttle to maximum power” after his 330 turn, we know the plane must have traveled the 45 miles at a speed significantly under 530mph.  And since we know that at 9:34, the plane was 5 miles out, the plane would have traveled 45 miles in about 8 minutes according to Mineta’s timeline.  Assuming the plane traveled at 400mph, it would have taken almost 7 minutes for the plane to travel 45 miles.  From this calculation, Mineta’s timeline is accurate to within a couple of minutes.  Mineta arrived at around 9:20 and he recalled that the “young man” told Cheney the plane was “50 miles out” about 5 or 6 minutes after he entered the PEOC.  Mineta’s memory that the plane was “50 miles out” at 9:26 proved to be very close to the actual time that the plane was in fact 50 miles out, which would have been around 9:27, only 1 minute off.  So when Mineta said the conversation occurred “probably about five or six minutes” after he arrived, it would have been more like six or seven minutes, or maybe he arrived closer to 9:21, or some combination thereof.  But the bottom line is that Mineta’s timeline proved to be as accurate as could be expected and nearly exactly fits with his assumption that the conversation concerned the plane approaching the Pentagon.

To confirm the accuracy of the time when the plane was “50 miles out” which was calculated above to be around 9:27, the 9/11 Commission Report also tells us that

“At 9:29, the autopilot on American 77 was disengaged; the aircraft was at 7,000 feet and approximately 38 miles west of the Pentagon.59 At 9:32, controllers at the Dulles Terminal Radar Approach Control “observed a primary radar target tracking eastbound at a high rate of speed.” This was later determined to have been Flight 77.”

So if the plane was 38 miles out at 9:29, then when would it have been at 50 miles out?  Assuming this fact and that the plane was traveling at around 400mph, the plane would have been 50 miles out at right around 9:27.  Again, Mineta’s timeline completely fits with the subsequent facts presented to us in the 9/11 Commission Report.

Supporters of the official story could argue that the “young man” was actually referring to a different plane, since there were still many planes in the sky during that time.  This is an unlikely option since it would require this other plane to be “50 miles out” of some place of interest other than the Pentagon at the same time the plane approaching the Pentagon was also 50 miles out.  This would be an awful coincidence.  Imagine that, some imaginary plane, which was of no threat, was “50 miles out” of somewhere else, when a real plane that was a threat to the Pentagon and White house, was also 50 miles out at that same time.  There is no evidence to support that any other plane was “50 miles out” of anywhere of interest at this time, or any other time.  Also, Mineta clearly states that he was in fact referring to the plane that hit the pentagon by explaining “during the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say to the Vice President, “The plane is 50 miles out”.  One of the Commissioners conducting the cross-examination, Lee Hamilton, then later clarifies by asking him if “the flight that you’re referring too…” and Mineta finishes his sentence by saying “the flight that came into the pentagon”.

The official theory and the 9/11 Commission Report implies that Mineta’s testimony is not accurate by claiming that Cheney was not even in the Presidential Emergency Operations Center (PEOC) until after the Pentagon was struck.  The 9/11 Commission Report states that news of an incoming aircraft (later discovered to be American 77) prompted the Secret Service to order the evacuation of the Vice President just before 9:36. The Vice President entered the underground tunnel that led to the shelter at 9:37.  This proposed timeline by the 9/11 Commission Report does not make rational sense when considering the testimony of Norman Mineta.  If Cheney didn’t arrive until after the Pentagon was stuck, this would require the belief that Mineta had lied and completely fabricated the entire event of a “young man” telling Cheney that a plane was “50 miles out” .  Mineta clearly states that the plane in question, which was “50 miles out”, was the plane approaching the Pentagon.  If this conversation occurred after 9:37, why would Mineta think that Cheney and the “young man” were discussing the plane that hit the Pentagon if the Pentagon was already hit?  Mineta gave this testimony over a year and half after 9/11/01, and it makes no rational sense why he would be under the belief that Cheney and the “young man” were discussing the plane approaching the Pentagon if the Pentagon was already attacked.

Norman Mineta’s Testimony Proves 9/11 Was an Inside Job

Posted by honestjoe on Sep 25, 2006 at 11:42 AM

Natalie

I thought you would be interested to know that Sergeant Lauro “LJ” Chavez.
Has been joined by many others confirm his story. He did speak to his friend, the former comander of ACOE and more are saying that there were not only drills about flying into the WTC ect. But othere are saying there was a stand down order. Though none can confirm that it originated from the Vice. Pres.

Oh here is evidence of his credentials viewed here.

Posted by honestjoe on Sep 25, 2006 at 12:45 PM

Hilarious!

Americans are being “protected” from unpleasant truths being reported in the media. 

People in most countries expect news of the world from Newsweek. 

Of course real news, won’t keep you all growing happily under the auspices of the worst administration in history,  will it my little mushrooms?

By the way Nat.  There are numerous experts in all manner of relevant fields in the 9/11 truth movement, literally hundreds.  Neither they nor I nor Joe, are moved by the denial of a moron like you.  They don’t get their expertise from you dear.  The list of such people is still growing, we gain at least one high profile person every week at the moment, which is why you shills are working overtime. The whistle blowers are also coming out of the woodwork as we speak.  Your lie is doomed, so doomed.

What I keep asking from such donkeys as you, is for a list of credible people who not being employed by the government in any way, have spoken out on behalf of the fairy tale?  Got any? 

If you are still trying to presume that those who have not spoken out, accept the official lies, then you are in for a sad dissapointment.  Our number are between a third and a half of the population, and growing!  This includes the most intelligent and informed and this is verifiable.

The polls show that those who believe the official lies, include people who didn’t even know WTC-7 fell down as well.  The same group also believes that Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11, something even Bush pretends was never even said.  (but you know it was said don’t you Batgirl? which means he lied then, and he lies again now.)  YET most of the idiots who believe the official trash, don’t realise.

You can simply assume that most scholars, most qualified profesionals, most people who are actually informed, will be with us, the numbers have it.  The division line is one between intelligence and reason.  Having such things leads one to the realisation of the truth. Lacking these things makes for a prime believer in the fairy tale.  Your own particularly dumb act is quite typical of a “believer”, but being one of such low intellect does mean wjile we can see you for what you are, you cannot see past your own limitations.  Which explains why you seem convinced that only a physicist can understand gravity. Or only peple who build skycrapers understand why they might fall down.  The classic compartmentalised thinking of the moron.  Fantastic. 

That Newsweek business shows how a bunch of brainwashed sheeple are being kept carefully in the dark.

We don’t have to convince anybody, just inform them.  Truth goes forward, lies sink, its just the way of things dear.  BTW, you still think that Terri Allen is one of yours don’t you?

Posted by Rabbit on Sep 25, 2006 at 10:20 PM

An admitted recent convert to the truth, has collated the following list of Patriots who support the truth.

Where is the list of intelligence, government and military professionals who support the lie?

Never forgetting that this article started on the back of a Poll which showed 42% support for the truth.  That alone should give a Bat a hint as to what Teri Allen actually was doing by writing the silly piece she wrote.  Read her other articles, Bat, you’ve been conned!

Poll showing that any claims of a FRINGE are farcical.

Poll co-author, W. David Kubiak concurs, saying: “Despite years of relentless media promotion, whitewash and 9/11 Commission propaganda, the official 9/11 story still can’t even muster 50% popular support. Since this myth has been the administration’s primary source of political and war-making power, this level of distrust has revolutionary implications for everyone working for peace, justice and civil liberties. If we ever hope to reclaim this country, end aggression and restore international respect, we all must finally scrutinize that day when things started to go so terribly wrong. The media and movement leaders ignore this call at their peril, because tens of millions are clearly telling us here they are ready for 9/11 truth.”

Of course we’ve seen this before, but just reminding Batgirl that she belongs to a minority these days, a fringe so to speak, of morons.

NEW ZOGBY POLL REVEALS OVER 70 MILLION VOTING AGE AMERICANS DISTRUST OFFICIAL 9/11 STORY AND SUPPORT NEW INVESTIGATION OF POSSIBLE US GOVERNMENT ROLE IN THE ATTACKS.

SCOPE: The poll covered five related areas: 1) Iraq - do Americans think the Bush administration exploited 9/11 to attack Iraq? (44% do, 44% don’t); 2) Cover up - did the government and its 9/11 Commission conceal or refuse to investigate evidence that contradicts their official story? (only 48% said no); 3) The collapse of WTC 7, which was not even mentioned by the 9/11 Commission and has seldom been reported in the media—-were respondents aware of this collapse and, if so, did they think it should be investigated (only 52% knew about it, but over 70% of this group believe it should have been investigated); 4) new investigation of official complicity - do respondents think we need one? (only 48% said no); and 5) mass media - how do people rate its performance, including its coverage of alternative 9/11 theories, unanswered questions and inquiry issues? (43% rate it positively, 55% negatively).

(The poll sponsors see knowledge of the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 as a bellwether issue, because if people do not know this elementary fact, they have probably not been exposed to any independent 9/11 research at all. Since only 52% of respondents had ever heard of this collapse and 45% support a reinvestigation, it may be reasonably inferred that a public fully informed of all the unreported 9/11 facts might support a new investigation by a margin of 80% or more.)

Some more interesting whistleblowers are speaking out now, but I shall leave it a few days to mature before dropping these bombs on the Bat.

When does the Bat expect the numbers to start going her way?  Does she think eventually people will become convinced by the official fairy tale?  Does she maybe think eventually people will forget about 9/11?  Has the bat noticed that 9/11 has for the first time now become an issue in the media?  Bit by bit the media are having to let it past.  They are already going starkly against their readership and viewers.  I know that Chaneel seven here in Oz got a royal hiding from it’s viewers for running that recent garbage path to 9/11 bullshit.  They admit they seriously misjudged the public response.  MSNBC has of course learnt their lesson.  Their poll included more than sixty thousand and it was nearly sixty percent against the official lie. 

You are not even a captain Batgirl, but you’ll be going down with the ship at this point.  All the lifeboats are gone.  Keep paddling bat, keep on paddling.

Posted by Rabbit on Sep 25, 2006 at 10:49 PM

There are numerous experts in all manner of relevant fields

I’ll ask you to name the top three.  The cream of the crop that you would call to testify.  Keep in mind that they’ll be cross-examined.

What I keep asking from such donkeys as you, is for a list of credible people who not being employed by the government in any way, have spoken out on behalf of the fairy tale?  Got any?

Just one.

The list of such people is still growing, we gain at least one high profile person every week at the moment,

Yes, phenomenal growth.  Now Hiring!!  Structural Engineer needed.  Signing Bonus!!!  Fake Degrees OK!!  Apply Now!!

Our number are between a third and a half of the population

No, once again, 6% believe in thermite.  16% believe in space aliens.  Perspective…...get some. 

That Newsweek business shows how a bunch of brainwashed sheeple are being kept carefully in the dark.

Perhaps a little more research would be advisable before trying to draw a conclusion from one magazine cover difference.  I can assure you, because I go to the store a LOT, that overtly anti-war, anti-administration Time and Newsweek covers like that one on Afghanistan are displayed regularly right beside the Star and the Globe that the truthies buy.

Posted by Natalie on Sep 26, 2006 at 2:21 AM

Natalie got jokes…..Funny…..But you know nat…that the facts as you continue to deny…are against your demagogically inspired dilemma…...

Let us all observe…as the waters of truth begin to flow….The deluge of which…washing against the lies of fear and incompetence…begin too melt and cleans away the satanic witchery that is the incumbency of Natalies delusions…...................

Yes…Natalie…one would guess that the New York Times is now a liberal progressive rage…for editorializing against the Bush administration and their war-mongering nonsense…...

The old saying states….That practice makes perfect….now if you practice ” stupidity “....it would appear that you will become perfectly stupid….this is the situation you have painted for yourself….ol’ girl…You are in a position that renders yourself as .... ” perfect stupidity “...........

Posted by Redhorse on Sep 26, 2006 at 3:30 AM

Redhorse got poems….....unfortunately, they don’t make any sense…... That’s O.K., poems don’t always have to….....know what….....I mean….?

Yet another fine example of projection.  One of the most incoherent, senseless, and indeed stupid posts in days is (I think) accusing me of stupidity.

A free course in psychology.  Right here at In These Times.  Socialism rocks!!........dude…......

Posted by Natalie on Sep 26, 2006 at 10:02 AM

Natalie….did you bang your head…..? Oh , my bad…...that’s you…Hey Nat….Redhorse didn’t know you are a lump-en ; that’s lumpen….....my bad…................

Now ; concerning your stupidity….See , Redhorse was going to say that Natalie is ignorant….but then I thought…no…Nata-lie is not ignorant….because obviously ol’ girl knows some facts ; no matter how muddled the propaganda…but stupid is more fitting because her choices are so screwed up…..What did Forest Gumps mother say…...” Son , stupid is as stupid does….” 
Now,.the Horse thought to himself ; that’s my Natalie…”.stupid is as stupid does “........yeah ! !

Posted by Redhorse on Sep 26, 2006 at 3:12 PM

Natalie

Here is some food for thought and some questions I hope you are not against being asked. At the very least could you answer those that I had posted before. It is hard for me to know how you come by your opinions. I am sure you must have some sources that helps you come to your conclusions and beliefs so could you please help me understand by answering. Please do not give links and or names of government sources. Thank you for your time in trying to ensure I see things accurately.

It’s getting harder and harder to write off everyone raising questions about 9-11 as marginal moonbats when a solid 30% of the public (and growing fast) is involved. The shrillness of the self-styled debunkers has only grown as their position shrinks, and a virulent anger has come to be their signature style. There is a distinct eliminationist tone to the rhetoric: anyone presenting evidence or expert opinion that points to 9-11 being an inside job is not simply misguided, they are deeply evil people deliberately spreading lies that endanger national security. The idea that they are acting in good faith, much less that they could actually be right, is never permitted. They’re indirectly claiming that large portions of NYC, and now the country, have mental illnesses. That’s just stupid and irresponsible. I’ve always said that a lot of people won’t believe this stuff until they’re the victims of the suffering, and it seems like first responders are learning the hard way.

Natalie you said; And there is also no debate (among professionals) that some combination of collision and heat damage caused the collapse, and that any further help from explosives would be quite unnecessary.

Please give me names or links. I would love to know why these guys are considerd professionals and others are not.

Natalie you said; There is no debate, however, that once collapse was initiated, the upper block would, and in fact did, easily crush the rest of the structure, in close to free-fall time.

Please tell me how you come to this. Please give me some names and links. This goes against everything I have read from around the world.

Natalie you said; Admittedly, there is some debate about the varying degrees of influence the fires vs. the structural damage had on the initiation of the collapse.  Some engineers believe that the huge and encompassing fires alone, with insulation in place, would have been easily sufficient to bring down the towers.  This of course doesn’t bode well for the bombs in the building theory.  Some believe that the collapses needed very little additional help beyond the plane damage, just a small shove from a little increased heat.  Also not exactly supportive of the bombs in the buildings theory.

Again Natalie give me names and links to your “professionals”. I hope you have applied the same standards to them as others. I want to know the names of the engineers who believe that the so called huge and encompassing fires alone, with insulation in place, would have been easily sufficient to bring down the towers. This would be the first time in history that fire could or has done this to any simular building!!!!!!!
How can anyone say or think this when it has never happend before or since!?!

The first 2 stories that NORAD submitted to the 9/11 comission painted them in a worse light. Why would they lie to make themsevles look worse?

Why would a couple of military officers risk their careers to say they saw Atta only to be proved wrong by the official report (Able danger) Why was 1.5 TB of data then destroyed?

Why was the anthrax said to have come from US military and then that statement withdrawn? Why was the whitehouse on Cipro? Why would Islamists target sentators? More likely would be the administration.

Why was a dentist who informed the FBI about 3 hijackers poisoned? and his claims refuted. (Did he lie too?)

Why was the EPA whistleblower SWAT teamed?

Why does the USG not care in following up the Pakistan lead? Why would they then meet the same ISI and treat them with respect?

How was Building 7’s collapse predicted? Were there any outward signs that it would collapse? You may say they building was damaged and on fire, but many other buildings were damaged and on fire (some were damaged far more severely) Why was the fire alarm switched off that very morning?

Also, you telling me that Mineta lied? If he didn’t have an exact timeframe why would he specify one?

What’s the likelihood of having 5 war game exercises occur on that very day, some imitating the actual attack?

Would you have admitted the possibility that the Bush admin had some prior knowlegde of the fact if it weren’t for the PDB?

Would you have admitted that the JCS would sign off on a false flag against their people if it weren’t for Northwoods?

Why did Bush show no reaction when told of the news. (Not even a casual question?) Why was he holding a book upside down? Why did he refuse to testify on the record for the 9/11 comission?

Why has the bin Laden tape not been confirmed by the CIA as to authenticity? Why is the picture quality so poor? Why does the FBI think he’s left handed when the video shows him to be right handed? Why haven’t the FBI officially charged him with 9/11? Why did the FOIA request for the facts surrounding the tape turn up nothing (I mean this is an important tape, are they that disorganized to not keep track of this info?)

Atta: What of reports that he trained at a US mil base? Why did one FAA employee identify him as wearing a suit yet the pic (with no timestamp, and blurry, I could not make a positive Id) show him to not have a suit jacket on? Why was he going to take his last will and testament with him on the plane? What of his drinking, drug and lap-dance habits. Do you think he was really ready to die after all that?

Uranium!

DU contaminates land, causes ill-health and cancers among the soldiers using the weapons, the armies they target and civilians, leading to birth defects in children.

Professor Doug Rokke, ex-director of the Pentagon’s depleted uranium project—a former professor of environmental science at Jacksonville University and onetime US army colonel who was tasked by the US department of defence with the post-first Gulf war depleted uranium desert clean-up—said use of DU was a ‘war crime’.

Rokke said: ‘There is a moral point to be made here. This war was about Iraq possessing illegal weapons of mass destruction—yet we are using weapons of mass destruction ourselves.’ He added: ‘Such double-standards are repellent.’

The latest use of DU in the current conflict came on Friday when an American A10 tankbuster plane fired a DU shell, killing one British soldier and injuring three others in a ‘friendly fire’ incident.

According to a August 2002 report by the UN subcommission, laws which are breached by the use of DU shells include: the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; the Charter of the United Nations; the Genocide Convention; the Convention Against Torture; the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980; and the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which expressly forbid employing ‘poison or poisoned weapons’ and ‘arms, projectiles or materials calculated to cause unnecessary suffering’. All of these laws are designed to spare civilians from unwarranted suffering in armed conflicts.

DU has been blamed for the effects of Gulf war syndrome—typified by chronic muscle and joint pain, fatigue and memory loss—among 200,000 US soldiers after the 1991 conflict.

It is also cited as the most likely cause of the ‘increased number of birth deformities and cancer in Iraq’ following the first Gulf war.

‘Cancer appears to have increased between seven and 10 times and deformities between four and six times,’ according to the UN subcommission.

The Pentagon has admitted that 320 metric tons of DU were left on the battlefield after the first Gulf war, although Russian military experts say 1000 metric tons is a more accurate figure.

In 1991, the Allies fired 944,000 DU rounds or some 2700 tons of DU tipped bombs. A UK Atomic Energy Authority report said that some 500,000 people would die before the end of this century, due to radioactive debris left in the desert.

The use of DU has also led to birth defects in the children of Allied veterans and is believed to be the cause of the ‘worrying number of anophthalmos cases—babies born without eyes’ in Iraq. Only one in 50 million births should be anophthalmic, yet one Baghdad hospital had eight cases in just two years. Seven of the fathers had been exposed to American DU anti-tank rounds in 1991. There have also been cases of Iraqi babies born without the crowns of their skulls, a deformity also linked to DU shelling.

A study of Gulf war veterans showed that 67% had children with severe illnesses, missing eyes, blood infections, respiratory problems and fused fingers.

Rokke told the Sunday Herald: ‘A nation’s military personnel cannot wilfully contaminate any other nation, cause harm to persons and the environment and then ignore the consequences of their actions.

‘To do so is a crime against humanity.

‘We must do what is right for the citizens of the world—ban DU.’

He called on the US and UK to ‘recognise the immoral consequences of their actions and assume responsibility for medical care and thorough environmental remediation’.

He added: ‘We can’t just use munitions which leave a toxic wasteland behind them and kill indiscriminately.

‘It is equivalent to a war crime.’

Rokke said that coalition troops were currently fighting in the Gulf without adequate respiratory protection against DU contamination.

I found these good questions coming from many concernd people and think everyone would be grateful for some answers. Again thank you.

Posted by honestjoe on Sep 26, 2006 at 4:50 PM

Red,

If you would like to join the debate, and contribute something besides baseless, nonsensical insults, you are welcome anytime.

Otherwise, you’re only offering additional proof that the “truth” movement’s “science” is not based on facts, well-informed analysis and reasonable, provable conclusions, but merely on hateful emotion and a political agenda.

It’s your choice, naturally.

Posted by Natalie on Sep 26, 2006 at 7:03 PM

First…the debate is done…from my perspective ; the Horse already stated that particular fact too Ms. Nata-lie sometime ago….Your depleted Uranium post told me all I needed to know…

Second…Redhorse decides when Redhorse wants too ” join ” the debate….one does not need or want an invitation from yooouu…seen

Third…with all the facts and data already present…Natalie…you appear too xenophobically ostentatious to know fact from ideology….Redhorse does not have that problem , understand , now listen clearly , because ” I HAVE NOTHING TO PROVE…”.

Fourth…making satirical jokes about you and scorp and that fool Jay Cline, TexIndy….it’s too EZ….I don’t know…there’s no love lost over this stuff , because I’ve seen this shit before..yu know..how crazy some of you white folks get over shit that happens , mostly neo-nazi types ,but it’s amazing what effect it has on the rest of the population , guy’s like WTH…..You guy’s never collectively consider what you do too cause the problem in the first place…Your like children ; totally unresponsible for what you do…and then want to blame other people….

And finally # five…anytime a post is made that is just to accurate and on the money…all of a sudden…Natalie does not understand what the discussion is about…You’re just bullshitin’ people…it’s like all nata-lie is about is playin’ like some wannabe dominant alpha she-bitch….it’s tacky and your tacky….....................................too ’ toon….

Posted by Redhorse on Sep 26, 2006 at 8:03 PM

As expected Batgirl has nothing.  Figures. By the way Batgirl, you are a broken record on that structural engineer issue. More than a dozen have been refferred to since his thread began, perhaps you would be advised to ocasionally read things after all.  You are falsely claiming we have none.  In fact you do not have any sort of engineers or profesionals in any field outside of government employees, hence totally unreliable.

Continually calling for some new sort of fact or spokesman, like Old King Cole, isn’t wining you any ground.  In fact as the following article shows, the tide is coming in fast, you’ll drown soon.

Having resisted the theory that Nukes were involved in the WTC collapses, I was sceptical to see the following title, but read it of course, being of a sound and open mind. 

[url=“http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/06/09/24/ward.htm”]The US Government’s Usage of Atomic Bombs - Domestic - WTC
By Ed Ward, MD[/url]Well, this doesn’t seem to leave a lot of doubt anymore, though I shall be doing a lot more checking of the massive amount of sourcing behind the article.  One mater which strikes me as relevant may be the recently announced survey of NYC which shows 80 radiation hotspots.  The actual sites and their radiation values has not yet been released but I know someone who is seeking the release of that info now.  I’d say that if one of those hotspots is centred on the WTCs, then it’s all over red rover.  If the nuke scenario is true, then it would be likely that they will resist releasing the radiation info as long as they can.  If they resist, all things considered, I’d call it a smoking gun.  We have so many smoking guns these days that it is only in the USA where even a third of the population can still buy the official bullshit.  30% doesn’t quoite qualify you as afringe group Batgirl, but once you reach 20% I think we’ll have to see you as part of a deluded fringe group.  As it is you are simply among the minority, the lowest intellect and lowest level of information as proven by the above polls.  Does Batgirl still think Saddam was involved in 9/11 by the way?

I’d expect Batgirl should be able to debunk the whole article in what?  Two paragraphs?  Maybe she’ll go for economy and just attack the site or something.

Ho hum.  Luckily she is typical of the sort of idiots still holding out for the official lies.  Actually Bat person, you will need about two pages just to cover half of the issues raised, so off you go Batty, get flapping. Don’t bother reading it moron girl, (as if you would)  we know you can debubnk anything without having to actually read it.  It’s all you ever do.

Posted by Rabbit on Sep 26, 2006 at 9:02 PM

In the center of every criminal investigation is the question “Who did it?”. This question comes first then the question who ordered the criminal act.
For very strange reason many OCTlers and also many Ctlers aren’t interested at all in this question. Threads about the alleged hijackers are rarely answered. It’s a sideshow and people prefer to insult each other over photos that have already been posted a 1000 times. I’ll try to change that. So, please bare with me as I’ve as I’ve a few questions to ask you.

HOW WAS THE IDENTITY OF THE ALLEGED HIJACKERS UNCOVERED?
This was explained under oath during a hearing of the 9/11 commission.
Robert Bonner, the head of Customs and Border Protection, said under oath :
“We ran passenger manifests through the system used by Customs” “two were hits on our watch list of August 2001 (...) And by looking at the Arab names and their seat locations, ticket purchases and other passenger information, it didn’t take a lot to do a rudimentary link analysis. Customs officers were able to ID 19 probable hijackers within 45 minutes. (...) I saw the sheet by 11 a.m. And that analysis did indeed correctly identify the terrorists.
(New York Observer, 2/12/04)
online: Paranoia
is a
Pretty impressive. And pretty quick indeed.
Yet here comes the first question.

1.
One day after 9/11 John Ashcroft said there were three to six hijackers on each plane.
term
(Los Angeles Times, 9/13/01)
Who were the alleged hijackers that at first weren,t suspected for sure?
Who were the five passengers that were possible suspects?

2.
On a sworn in FBI affidavit from September 12 we read:
“A review of the public database for Al Omari has determined that his address is reported as 4032 57th terrace, Vero Beach, Florida.”
called a
As it turned out this was Abdul Rahman Al Omari who had left the US one week prior to 9/11.
How come that this victim of a similarity of his name to Abdulaziz Al Omari had a not very innocent connection?
“Alomari had listed two vehicles as authorized to park in his parking space. One of this vehicles is registered to Atta.”
“stop-think”
word.
And given the fact that Al Omari’s passport was found in Atta’s bag in Logan Airport why didn’t this lead to the “correct” hijacker right from the start?
It has

3.
In the mid-day of September 12 six names had appeared in the media as possible hijackers. Besides Atta and Al Shehhi we find some less known names:
Adnan and Ameer Bukhari, Ameer Kamfar and their neighbour Abdul Rahman Al Omari.
(A detailed analysis based entirely on MSM articles is here:
been
used in
If these four names were on the passenger manifest then which four alleged hijackers did use an alias boarding the plane according to the official explanation?
If these four names didn’t appear on the passenger manifest then how come they were suspects?
This is especially strange as Ameer Bukhari did indeed die in an airplane crash on September 11. But in the year 2000.
And is this a typical behaviour of people who are innocent:
“Two employees at Rooms To Go, a furniture store in Vero Beach, said Bukhari made a hasty purchase as news of the bombing was breaking on a television in the showroom. Bukhari bought a $1,795 living room set within five minutes and said the furniture needed to be exported to Saudi Arabia immediately.”
Kamfar and his family also disappeared quickly from their Vero Beach home. According to a neighbor, “they took all their stuff and put it out by the trash: clothes, furniture, pots and pans.
public

4.
On the first official FBI list published September 14 the name Jarrahi is used.
cluture
If he boarded the plane using Jarrah as his name then how come the FBI named him Jarrahi?
And if he boarded the plane using Jarrahi as his name then how can he have boarded the plane as he had no identification documents on the name of Jarrahi?
And how come the passport found at the crash site was on the name of Jarrah?
The name Jarrah only appeared in the media on September 15.

5.
On September 13 FBI Director Robert Mueller declared
that “18 hijackers were on the four planes.”
to label
Only on September 14 a 19th name was added.
The name was first announced by CNN:
“American Airlines flight number 77. Cammid Al-Madar, and Mosear Caned (ph), Majar Mokhed (ph), Nawar Al Hazni (ph) and Salem Al Hazni (ph).”
people
(Discussion here:
who
highlight

Even if the given names are transferred phonetically how can it be explained that instead of the name of Hani Hanjour a completely different sounding name, Mosear Caned, was presented?
Why has there never been any explanation for this?

6.
Only on September 14 Hani Hanjour was added to the list.
the elites
His late identification was explained by the possibility that he had no ticket.
plots
But then how did he got aboard?
And why does FBI Mueller state that Hanjour bought a ticket paying cash?
in an(p. 7f)
And if he bought a ticket then why does it take three days till his name appears as a hijacker?

Conclusion I:
First of all we can clearly conclude that “for whatever reason” Robert Bonner had lied under oath.
And also this former FBI agent lies about how the alleged hijackers were identified:
“A former FBI agent and a former federal prosecutor who helped direct the New England investigation of the Sept. 11 attacks told Newsday that one bag found in Boston contained far more than what the commission report cited, including the names of the hijackers, their assignments and their al-Qaida connections.” ” It had all these Arab-language papers that amounted to the Rosetta stone of the investigation,” former FBI agent Warren Flagg said. The former federal prosecutor, who declined to be identified publicly, supported Flagg’s account.
“How do you think the government was able to identify all 19 hijackers almost immediately after the attacks?” Flagg asked. “They were identified through those papers in the luggage. And that’s how it was known so soon that al-Qaida was behind the hijackings.”
effort

Why does everybody lie about how the alleged hijackers were identified?
Based on the passenger manifests a quick identification should have been possible.
Why are the four passenger manifests so mysterious that they didn’t hinder so many apparent errors?
Why haven’t these magic passenger manifests not been published?
And why are there even more mysterious concerning these passenger manifests?
Why does a comparison of manifests published by several major newspaper for AA 11 amount a total of 100 people aboard (although officially there were only 92)?
to create

How come that people like the Larsons who have never even bought tickets for this flight appeared on the list?
“stop think”

The way the identities of the alleged hijackers have been uncovered is unclear.

HOW CERTAIN ARE THE OFFICIAL IDENTITIES OF THE ALLEGED HIJACKERS?

7.
5 people having the very same name as the alleged hijackers and sharing the same identity have turned up alive after 9/11. Four of them have been interviewed by “The Telegraph”:
Saeed Al-Ghamdi
effect.
We can

Abdulaziz Al Omari
see it
here.
In the
comments

Ahmed Al-Nami
posted
by Natalie

Salem Al-Hamzi
on this

Waleed Al Shehri
(London Times, 9/20/01
online: thread.
the

Furthermore there four cases of people having the same name as the alleged hijacker possibly still alive:
Khalid Almihdhar
Mohand Alshehri
Marwan Al Shehhi
Wail Alshehri
(For details check out the timelines on these alleged hijackers.
“stop-think”

Please be aware that the phrase “Hijackers still alive” is pure nonsense!
People and identities are not the same. What’s a fact is that people having the very same identity as the ones of the alleged hijackers are still alive.
Does this imply that the official identities are wrong?

8.
Journalists had their doubts about the officially presented identities of the alleged hijackers. Journals like “Observer” decided to put their names in quotation marks.
method
And the FBI had its doubts, too.
The FBI acknowledged “that some of the terrorists involved in the attacks last week were using false identities”.
has been
But even the FBI list published in January 2002 uses the words
“possible”
and “believed”
for every single hijacker.
used to

In September 2002, Mueller told CNN twice that there is “no legal proof to prove the identities of the suicidal hijackers.”
After that admission a strange thing happened nothing.
No follow-up stories.
No follow-up questions.
(Insight, 7/7/03)
Why until today has there been no official list of the hijackers that at least manages to give their definite date of birth or their definite residences?
Do you want a legal proof?

Conclusion II:
Based on the facts I agree with the FBI that there is until today no certainty at all about the real identity of the alleged hijackers.

POSITIVE IDENTIFICATION OF THE ALLEGED HIJACKERS

9.
It goes without saying that the positive identification is crucial for a criminal case.
All passengers have been identified at the Pentagon and Shanksville but none of the nine alleged hijackers of AA 77 and UA 93 were positively identified.
Instead they have been “identified” by the “process of exclusion”.
prevent
herself
The positive identification wasn’t possible for a very simple reason:
“The FBI has not given the institute any DNA to match up in those crashes, said the spokesman.”
from
Given the fact that the FBI had collected many samples of DNA of the alleged hijackers I can only ask: Well, why not?
And why is one DNA sample of the alleged hijackers 50% more likely to be of Caucasian origin than Middle Eastern origin?
thinking
(p.84, table 6)
see discussion by stickdog :
further

Of the ten alleged hijackers in AA 11 and UA 175 two were positively identified in 2003.
into the
“Examiners could not say
which of the hijackers’ remains had been discovered because the FBI
did not identify which of the DNA samples belonged to which hijacker, she” (said Ellen Barakove, a spokeswoman for the New York Medical Examiner’s office) said.
truth
Why is that ?

In 2005 it is stated that three alleged hijackers have been positively identified but still none can be identified by name.
presented
Very strange observation by somebody who should know:
“In, Who They Were,” his new inside account of the identification effort, Shaler writes that he believes “the terrorists identified were in the back of the planes - and not the monsters who plowed the jets into the towers”
to her.
This is very surprising given the fact that in AA 11 we have phone calls till the crash and in UA 175 till two minutes before the crash. No passenger mentioned any passengers coming back to the rear of the plane.
(Discussion here:
These
items
(For more details on the identification process check out:
piose
a real

Conclusion III:
The FBI is extremely reluctant in positively identifying the alleged hijackers.
Therefore it is unclear how the alleged hijackers were identified in the first place.
The identities of the alleged hijackers are very far from being clear.
One can hardly say that the alleged hijackers were positively identified.

11.
There has been much discussion about the lack of piloting skills of Hani Hanjour and also of the often ignored difficulty of crashing a plane into the WTC.
Hosni Mubarak, President of Egypt:
“I find it hard to believe that people who were learning to fly in Florida could, within a year and a half, fly large commercial airlines and hit with accuracy the towers of the World Trade Center which would appear, to the pilot from the air,
the size of a pencil.”
danager
Or in the words of German journalist Christian C. Walther:
“From an altitude of 29.000 ft and hundred miles to the north New York looks like an ordinary city map - 30 yards away from your eye.”
(Christian C. Walther: 119 Fragen, p. 24.)

More details on this issue here:
(For details please check: “Crime of the Century,” p. 105ff
to her

Given the discrepancies between the piloting kills of the alleged hijackers and the professionalism of the manoeuvres of the hijacked planes on 9/11 what proof do we have that really the alleged hijackers as they are officially presented were piloting the planes?

Posted by honestjoe on Sep 26, 2006 at 9:15 PM

Just some of the facts are: widespread    cancer inthe responders, molten steel, melted cars, steel beams hurled hundreds of feet, aerosolized metals, vaporized steel witnessed and video, aerosolized and pulverized  concrete, elevated tritium levels, vanishing (vaporized) victims, only sliver fragments of victims on roof tops, EMP - Electro Magnetic Pulse effects on communications,    hundreds of eyewitness testimony of ancillary explosions by heroic rescuers and victims, massive dispersal of debris, demolition expert states hydrogen bomb needed for this type of demolition,  audio of a massive explosion prior to collapse, video of ancillary explosions, audio of ancillary explosions, significant reduction in debris pile, ancillary thermate found in wreckage, shockwave of a mini yield nuclear blast knocked people off their feet, vaporization of 200,000 gallons of water, removal of wreckage without investigation, only remnants of fire in one tower minutes after the plane collision, unprecedented history of 3 skyscrapers collapsing secondary to fire, early miscalculation stating WTC building 7 ‘pulled’, towers fall at demolition or free fall speed, foreknowledge of WTC 7 immediate collapse, slow-motion video evidence of plane appendage with smoke and explosion immediately prior to impact of both planes, [url=“http://www.arcticbeacon.com/30-Nov-2004.html “]unprecedented
NORAD non response[/url] to variant flights, FEMA drill scheduled for same day, military ‘exercise’ of exactly what was taking place to prevent NORAD response, most of NORAD protection planes sent far away in another ‘exercise’ to prevent response, prevention of examination of wreckage by those assigned to investigate, seismic evidence of a mini yield nuclear explosion, Cheney takes over NORAD response command, Cheney prevents NORAD response, WTC towers designed for 757 collision and fire, 911 used falsely for previously planned war, government fabrication of ‘evidence’ correlation for starting war, hundreds of people found themselves trapped by locked doors and missing escape routes above and below the impact zone, and not all inclusively, but finally, Bush brands anyone noting any of these facts a terrorist

The spectrum and percentages of cancer are massive. There are at least 4 classifications of blood-cell cancers: leukemia, lymphoma, Hodgkin’s and myeloma. There are many more classifications of soft tissue cancers. There is brain cancer. There is breast cancer. For most of these there are subclassifications of many different types of specific cancer in each, so far not publicly disclosed. There are huge percentages of respiratory distress and loss of function. Multiple reports of ‘irregular cycles’ (miscarriages?). Most likely there will be several more types of cancer to follow. In particular, responders should be checked for thyroid cancer and function. There has been no noting of birth defects which also needs to be done. There is one thing and only one thing that can cause all these cancers and problems - RADIATION.

Posted by Rabbit on Sep 26, 2006 at 9:24 PM

Joe, you have buried the Bat in facts, killed her fairy tale dead.  Still she flaps about, mad as a wasp stung dog, trying to spin and twist and create smokescreens.  She really does deserve a single convert, just for here efforts.  I wish we could find someone who would be convinced by anything she posts, but sadly I don’t think there are any morons left who don’t already believe the official fairy tale.  Unfortunately for her, many of them will be slipping away as the numbers who know the truth has reached critical mass.  There are that large group of people who will now abandon the official tale just to go along with the majority, us, but of course the only reason they ever bought the official conspiracy theory was to go along with the majority, so not much difference will come of their shift.  Except it will be leaving the crazies out in a shrinking fringe.

Rabbit is starting to take bets on how much longer the 9/11 shills will battle on.  They are to be found about the place still and they have a few new tricks up their sleeves, though nothing which survives the telling. They seem more to be concentrating on coming to 9/11 threads a few weeks after the threads die down, only to chuck in the bit of propaganda.  Mostly this is no more than the usual emotional rhetoric and ad-hominem which says anyone who doesn’t beleive the official tale is a terrorist and crazy as a snake.

The irony that they are now a minority, is amusing.

Posted by Rabbit on Sep 26, 2006 at 9:37 PM

12.
All the mentioned doubts and unanswered questions lead straight to this general question.
Until today the official passenger manifests haven’t been published.
Until today no boarding cards of the alleged hijackers have been published.
(And no comparison between finger prints on the boarding card and in the cars, hotel rooms of the alleged hijackers has been published).
Until 2004 no video footage of any security camera showing the alleged hijackers in the airport of their final flight.
The video footage from Atta and Al Omari is from Portland not from Boston.
Officially the big airports Boston Logan and Newark Airport hadn’t any cameras.
The only video footage of the alleged hijackers in the airport of their last flight was presented in 2004. Strangely it lacks any time stamp.
What happened at Dulles Airport was especially interesting as an American Airlines agent who checked the tickets recalled having seen the alleged hijacker brothers Al Hazmi. But his description clearly differs from their official photos.
because
(Discussion here: of the

Why was no proof presented to the public showing that the alleged hijackers actually boarded the plane although this proof must exists (e.g. the boarding cards)?

13.
Contrary to the official story there are plenty of information that the alleged hijackers lived not a religious and certainly not a fundamentalist life in the US.
(For details please check: “Crime of the Century, p. 89ff
awareness

Why were they never seen at mosques, loved lap dances, drank alcohol if they were on a mission in the name of Allah?
Why didn’t they even show any religious signs on September 10?

14.
Some of the alleged hijackers were under surveillance even before entering the US.
When Atta in November ’98 first moved into the apartment at 54 Marienstrasse, Hamburg the place was under surveillance by German intelligence, because of investigations into businessman Mamoun Darkazanli.
of the
turth.
The very same person with contacts to Atta that the CIA had tried to recruit as informant since December ‘99.
(Chicago Tribune, 11/17/02
online: By labeling
Without success.
The German intelligence provided the CIA with Al Shehhi’s first name and phone number in March ‘99.
it paranioa,
And in January 2000 Atta is also put under surveillance by the CIA while still living in Germany.
(AFP, 9/22/01; Focus, 9/24/01; Berliner Zeitung, 9/24/01)
The same month the CIA was also tracking Khalid Almihdhar and Nawaf Alhazmi.
(Joint Inquiry, 13.)
Days before they entered the US.
In the months before September 11 “U.S. customs agents were investigating financial dealings between (alleged hijacker Ahmed) Alghamdi and former Boston cab drivers Nabil al-Marabh and Raed Hijazi, identified by the FBI as operatives of al-Quaeda leader Osama bin Laden.
The U.S. customs investigation (...) found that (alleged hijackers) Alghamdi and (...) Satam Suqami had engaged in financial transactions with al-Marabh”.
(Cox News Service, 10/16/01
online: Natalie
The information are contradictory if Jarrah was also under surveillance by the CIA prior to 9/11.
(For further information:
no longer

How come that alleged hijackers had no problems getting a visa to enter the US?
How come that they could even buy the tickets for 9/11 using their real names?

15.
“According to expert analyses of the visa-application forms of 15 of the 9/11 terrorists (the other four applications could not be obtained), all the applicants among the 15 reviewed should have been denied visas under then-existing law. Six separate experts who analyzed the simple, two-page forms came to the same conclusion:
All of the visa applications they reviewed should have been denied on their face.
Even to the untrained eye, it is easy to see why many of the visas should have been denied. Consider, for example, the U.S. destinations most of them listed. Only one of the 15 provided an actual address — and that was only because his first application was refused — and the rest listed only general locations — including »California,» »New York,» »Hotel D.C.,» and »Hotel.» One terrorist amazingly listed his U.S. destination as simply »No.» Even more amazingly, he got a visa. (...) All six experts strongly agreed that even allowing for human error, no more than a handful of the visa applications should have managed to slip through the cracks. Making the visa lapses even more inexplicable, the State Department claims that at least 11 of the 15 were interviewed by consular officers. Nikolai Wenzel, one of the former consular officers who analyzed the forms, declares that State’s issuance of the visas »amounts to criminal negligence.»
needed
to think

Why were the alleged hijackers so lucky?
And why did they test their luck instead of caring more to fill out the application form correctly?

16.
Seven alleged hijackers were at one point illegally in the US.
Ziad Jarrah
(violated his immigration status as a tourist by going right away to a full-time flight school when entering the US on June 27, 2000)
Hani Hanjour (since December 8, 2000.)
Mohamed Atta (December 2, 2000 – January 10, 2001).
Atta even left the US without valid visa visa.
Marwan Al-Shehhi (Mid-December 2000 – January 18, 2001.)
Al Shehhi even left the US without having a valid visa.
Satam Al Suqami (since May 21, 2001)
Nawaf Alhazmi (since August 2001)
Khalid Almihdhar (since August 27, 2001)
(For detailed information and sources check out the timeline of each alleged hijacker:
about
A discussion started by Andre II:
the truths

Why didn’t the alleged hijackers care about being legally in the US?
Why did they even run the risk to leave the country without any visa that assured that they would be able to return to the US?
Why did they always have the luck on their side?

17.
The official story tells:
“They carried out their attacks with meticulous planning, extraordinary secrecy, and extensive knowledge of how America works.”
brought
forth,

But contrary to this statement the alleged hijackers showed many times a complete lack of any carefulness.
(For details please check: “Crime of the Century, p. 81ff
and thus

But they were always lucky.
Why didn’t the alleged hijackers behave more carefully?
Why don’t they try to avoid more carefully the contact with the local police?

18.
Atta and Al-Shehhi have been identified by the Able Danger program in January 2000.
How is this possible given the fact that both lived in Germany at that time and according to the official story never had touched the ground of the US yet?
(A discussion started by Andre II here:
protected

19.
No less than 15 of 19 alleged hijackers entered the US prior to their official entrance date :
Saeed Alghamdi
Ahmed Alnami
Ziad Jarrah
Majed Moqed
Salem Alhazmi
Hani Hanjour
Khalid Almihdhar
Nawaf Alhazmi
Ahmed Alghamdi
Hamza Alghamdi
Marwan Al Shehhi
Satam Al Suqami
Fayez Ahmed Banihammad
Mohamed Atta (according to Able Danger)
Marwan Al Shehhi (according to Able Danger)

The case of alleged hijackers clearly being in the US before their official entrance date is by far more than only a proof of an inaccurate investigation. It is far more than that.
The entrance date are documented by INS papers.
If these documents have been faked by the INS then we need to wonder what could be so important to cover up?
If the INS documents are authentic than we can conclude that one person with the name of an alleged hijacker did indeed enter the country while another person with the same name of an alleged hijacker was already in the US. So, it would be another proof of having two different people using the very same identity.
What’s your take?

For info on each alleged hijacker and presentation of evidence that he entered the country before the official entrance date see:
herself

(A discussion started by Andre II:
from the

20.
A detailed analysis of the alleged hijackers reveal:
Strongly differing behaviour.
Strongly differing English speaking ability/accent.
Strongly differing signatures.
Strongly differing height.
For details please check the timelines on these alleged hijackers here:
danagers

How do you explain the innumerous amount of strong contradictions in the timelines of the alleged hijacker?

21.
No less than seven alleged hijackers possessed identification documentation that officially they didn’t have?
Abdulaziz Alomari
Fayez Banihammad
Hani Hanjour
Mohamed Atta
Satam Al Suqami
and Wail Al Shehri.

Why?
Is this another reason for considering that the alleged hijackers might have had some sort of doubles?
For details please check the timelines on these alleged hijackers here (with special thanks to the research of Kevin Fenton):
of the

22.
Right after 9/11 several press reports pointed out that Mohammed Atta had gone
to the International Officers School at Maxwell Air Force Base in Alabama.
Al-Omari to the Aerospace Medical School at Brooks Air Force Base in Texas; and
Al-Ghamdi to the Defense Language Institute at the Presidio in Monterey, Calif.”
(New York Times, 9/15/01
online: truth.
To her,
in her
mind,
Saeed Al-Ghamdi, Ahmad Al-Nami and Ahmed Al-Ghamdi trained in Naval Air Station Pensacola.
Newsweek, 9/17/01
online:http://www.prnewswire.com/cgi-bin/micro_stories.pl?ACCT=617800&TICK=NEWS&STORY;=/www/story/09-15-2001/0001572748&EDATE=Sep+15,+2001”>all things</a>
are settled
“Military records show that the three used as their address 10 Radford Boulevard, a base roadway on which residences for foreign-military flight trainees are located.”
Newsweek, 9/17/01
online:as simply

That an Air Force Statement stating that the alleged hijackers are
“probably”
not identical to the alumnis of U.S. military courses suffice to end the reports in the media only shows how important an official statement is.
http://web.archive.org/web/20011024161527/...structingt.html
Does this word “probably” suffice in view of the many questions surrounding the identity of the alleged hijackers?

23.
A detailed analysis of the alleged hijackers reveal that several of them must have had some sort of double.
Please note that the term “double” doesn’t necessarily imply that each alleged hijacker had his “own” double. Different explanations are possible. In the words of medienanalyse:
“Duplication is a way to produce leads. That is the behest, the goal. There are other ways too. Invent a person, give it a paper trail, and you only need ONE agent to do all the physical show ups. It is efficient and who cares for the contradictions.”
paranoia,

A very convincing case of this is Atta being drinking in Shuckums as witnessed by several eyewitnesses who were interviewed right after 9/11 by the FBI and whose story was all over the news and at the very same time according to official documents Atta is sitting in a plane from Fort Lauderdale to Baltimore.
no more

The summary of the timelines lists:
thinking

Proof of an alleged hijacker having a double:
Mohamed Atta

Very strong indications of an alleged hijacker having a double:
Ziad Jarrah
Hani Hanjour
Marwan Al Shehhi

Strong indications of an alleged hijacker having a double:
Khalid Almihdhar
Salem Alhazmi
Nawaf Alhazmi

Considerable indications of an alleged hijacker having a double:
Ahmed Alghamdi
Hamza Alghamdi
Waleed Al Shehri

Please check the timelines of these alleged hijackers for further information.
is required.

One simple question at the end:
24.
How do you explain the many occasions when alleged hijackers are witnessed at two different locations at the same time?
(Please check the timelines of these alleged hijackers for further information.
Thus that
and discussion started by Andre II:
is why
she cant see the truth.

Posted by honestjoe on Sep 26, 2006 at 9:44 PM

In a failed demolition, a 20 story concrete building, Zip Feed Mill in South Dakota, of significantly weaker construction than the WTC buildings, takes a 4 story dive while the top 16 floors remain intact.

Now where might the Scorpling be?  Since he is so sure he has everybody convinced he knows something about engineering (don’t burst his bubble, as if!), I wonder if he is capable of appreciating the significance of this one. It actually makes the suggestion that the weight of the upper stories was able to collapse the lower ones a total farce.

Any half alert person with even a minimum of structural comprehension can appreciate that with a four story drop, by sixteen stories, the force would have been relatively much more massive and should have resulted in a continued collapse, IF the WTC buildings could have collapsed the way they like to pretend. This building didn’t, despite massive explosives damage and a four story, gravitational collapse of the upper section.  Therefore the three WTCs didn’t collpase from the upper story weight at all. It can’t happen!

Before the Bat gets idiotic, by suggesting that the WTC’s were heavier, there is a simple little fact of engineering she needs to be aware of. Buildings are engineered relative to heir own height and weight.  If the top half of a two hundred story building collapsed onto the bottom half, the amount of strain on the building’s parameters would be the same as if the top half of a twenty story building collapsed onto the lower half, assuming the same construction.  In fact this building was much weaker that the WTCs, which moves the official lie even further into the realms of impossibility..

Posted by Rabbit on Sep 26, 2006 at 9:48 PM

Right Rabbit, you’re a structural engineer now.  You sure wear a lot of hats.

I’ve answered a lot of questions on this thread, and on the 411 thread.  Perhaps it’s the truthie’s turn to answer a few.

Why doesn’t a single “truth” site ever address the possibility that it was alkyduh that set explosives in the buildings?  Wouldn’t that make more sense?  They certainly have a history of bombing things, they have motive, they were in on the plane thing. They would know right where to hit the buildings in order to miss their set-up.  Why, of all the wacky and way-out theories put forth, is this not even a consideration by anyone?

If some group of clandestine operatives actually did do what you theorize, for justification to go to Iraq for oil, why in the world not make the terrorists be Iraqi, or at least with direct ties to Iraq?  Why make them Saudis, the very people Bush is always said to be so cozy with?

If this group was so clever and leak-proof, and for some reason they didn’t think to use or manufacture Iraqi terrorists, why wouldn’t they also have simply planted some fake WMD in Iraq in order to galvanize world opinion for further occupation?  Surely this would be child’s play compared to the main event.

You seem pretty informed on much of this Joe.  Surely you know that Northwoods could possibly be a hoax, and if not, that killing people was not part of the plan.

Posted by Natalie on Sep 26, 2006 at 10:23 PM

I think Red was on the O.J. jury.  There was a lot of science sacrificed for the sake of emotion and political revenge there too.

Posted by Natalie on Sep 26, 2006 at 10:39 PM

Redhorse would surely have freed the gumpy Mr.Simpson….
Weak case…weak evidence…lot of junk food hype…no real factual nutritional evidence….Just a bunch of boot-jack storm-trooper cops…lead by the Dickhead Det.Furman…riding around LA with the blood sample it his pocket…
The only scenario that would have made sense was if OJ had hired a hit on Nicole…that’s is what it looked like to this Horse…But your superior race fascist LAPD NEVER MENTIONED THAT POSSIBLITY….never…
I find it amusing when racist ; so hell bent on a particular course of action , end up , screwing themselves…..
See Natalie…that’s why Redhorse enjoys satirizing about you…because despite all the info too the contrary…you remain brazenly uninformed…..
All Johnny Cochran had too do was get out of the way of the investigation…and the nonsense of the whole affair was made apparent.  the prosecution failed to prove its case…end of story…
Now in the nata mind-set ...it is interseting that you can see the giult of Mr.Simpson , with all that flimsy evidence…but here with a mountian of evidence to the contrary…you, my sow of a little shill, remain pleasantly mute concerning possible wrong doing of high racking Gov’t officials…..

Posted by Redhorse on Sep 27, 2006 at 3:42 AM

WOW! I am simply AMAZED some people are still in a deep coma concerning 9/11!

The guilt of the highest leaders in the U.S. has been demonstrated for all to see by their concealment of evidence, obstruction of investigations, and obvious lies explaining that day and the subsequent carnage that has been wreaked because of them.

Just one of the MANY, MANY FACTS is that the brief amount of time that the towers took to fall proves the building cores were control-demolished. The twin towers were built to resist such attacks and the official line is that the fire caused them collapse, yet no building in the history of the world has collapsed due to a fire! The facts are so totally ‘‘in your face’’ yet some people still refuse to admit they were wrong. So if some government hired so called ‘‘experts’’ say it was the fire that caused all of the tower’s steel strucutres to just ‘‘INSTANTLY VAPORIZE!!!” you believe them? Come on people get a grip! Wake up and realize that the government is taking you for ignorant clowns. People that still refuse to believe the facts are like a heard of sheep! And that’s what these people are : sheep, because they are either too lazy or too afraid to face the facts (they are too proud to admit the US government has taken them for fools) and just want to be in fashion with the brainwashed crowd. How pityful, how sad, how tragic…

This whole event is so chilling because it shows just how easy the population of a country can be manipulated - thereby bypassing ‘‘democracy’’ as governments are able to get support for their actions by lying to the population and controlling its biggest asset of democracy : the media, which we all know is controlled by big ass corporations which have a specific money making agenda.

Natalie I put your NORTHWOODS hoax in here just so you can tell me all about how it is a hoax. Is this a hoax as well Pentagon’s Civilian Inmate Labor Program,?

Former Minnesota Governor, actor and wrestling star Jesse Ventura has publicly questioned the official version of events behind 9/11 and gone further than ever before in citing Operation Northwoods and the Gulf of Tonkin as examples of how the government has planned and carried out staged war provocations in the past.

Ventura has temporarily left his Baja Mexico surfing lifestyle to lend support to Texas gubernatorial candidate Kinky Friedman. At a press conference yesterday Ventura said that the Republicans and Democrats were “destroying our country” and its political process. Sporting a beard and dreadlocks, the former Vietnam veteran also criticized the Iraq war.

Alex Jones and his film crew were able to set up a last minute interview with Ventura at a San Antonio restaurant after his appearance before a packed house at the University of Texas.

Ventura first stated that he had many unanswered questions about 9/11. The former Governor cited Operation Northwoods, a 1963 Joint Chiefs of Staff plan to stage terror attacks and kill American citizens to start a war with Cuba, as an example of how the U.S. government wanted to kill its own people and blame it on foreign enemies to justify war. Ventura found it painful, having dutifully served himself, that elements within the government would go to such barbaric and deceitful lengths to con its own populace into supporting militarism.

Ventura then raised the issue of the Gulf of Tonkin, citing recently released declassified information confirming that American ships were never attacked and the incident was manufactured in order to provide the entree to the Vietnam war. This was particularly unpalatable for Ventura because he joined as a Navy Seal on September 11 1969, fought in Vietnam and lost many friends there.

Ventura asked that if the U.S. government were prepared to stage such a gargantuan historical event in terms of its significance in leading a nation to war then, why they would they refrain from doing so again today?

Ventura also highlighted 9/11 itself in contrasting the lax response of NORAD air defense to the four commercial airliners on 9/11 compared with the immediate interception of golfer Payne Stewart’s Lear Jet in October 1999.

Ventura said that the argument that Americans should give up liberty in exchange for security in the war on terror was horrible and that government should never be trusted. He encouraged Americans to be skeptical of anything the government claims in light of their past duplicity.

Ventura seemed visibly upset during the interview, calling the American public apathetic, seemingly wanting to say more, and openly stated the possibility that he would be targeted by the government for his dissent on 9/11 and the Iraq war.

Ventura had previously aired his skepticism of the official version of events on Jay Leno and elaborated on a 2004 radio show but the former Governor went further than ever before during this interview.

[url=“http://prisonplanet.com/”]Former Governor Jesse Ventura Questions Official 9/11 Story
Goes further than ever before, cites Northwoods, Gulf of Tonkin, NORAD stand down, staged war provocations[/url]

Posted by honestjoe on Sep 27, 2006 at 10:03 AM

Thank you Red, for confirming so clearly what forms the basis of your scientific method.  Emotion, hate, and paranoia.

What makes the notion that somebody would deliberately plant evidence against O.J. ridiculous, is that everybody loved O.J.  Everybody wanted for him NOT to be the one that did that.  Unfortunately, his behavior immediately afterward was exactly NOT that of an innocent man.  The DNA evidence, and a LOT of other evidence, made it a lock.  This is not to say that the prosecution didn’t make some mistakes, but to actually believe that O.J. was innocent of those murders, as in the 9/11 issue, is to ignore large amounts of direct evidence and rely on feelings.

Of course if we’re to use Rabbit’s method of determining the truth, we could simply cite polls to scientifically determine O.J.‘s guilt or innocence.

Posted by Natalie on Sep 27, 2006 at 11:20 AM

Natalie you said; And there is also no debate (among professionals) that some combination of collision and heat damage caused the collapse, and that any further help from explosives would be quite unnecessary.

Please give me names or links. I would love to know why these guys are considerd professionals and others are not.

Rest assured Joe there are plenty of links I could give you.  For now, perhaps it would best illustrate my point to ask you to name even one structural, civil, or fire engineering organization, association or institute that supports the CD theory.

Natalie you said; There is no debate, however, that once collapse was initiated, the upper block would, and in fact did, easily crush the rest of the structure, in close to free-fall time.

Please tell me how you come to this. Please give me some names and links. This goes against everything I have read from around the world.

The answer above applies here.  The collapse event is not regarded as controversial by any serious engineer or other professional in a <u>relevant</u> field.  When you find that you can’t find any <u>such person</u> that is confused about the forces involved, that should answer your question.  Exactly what are you reading?

Posted by Natalie on Sep 27, 2006 at 11:22 AM

Natalie you said; Admittedly, there is some debate about the varying degrees of influence the fires vs. the structural damage had on the initiation of the collapse.  Some engineers believe that the huge and encompassing fires alone, with insulation in place, would have been easily sufficient to bring down the towers.  This of course doesn’t bode well for the bombs in the building theory.  Some believe that the collapses needed very little additional help beyond the plane damage, just a small shove from a little increased heat.  Also not exactly supportive of the bombs in the buildings theory.

Again Natalie give me names and links to your “professionals”.  I hope you have applied the same standards to them as others. I want to know the names of the engineers who believe that the so called huge and encompassing fires alone, with insulation in place, would have been easily sufficient to bring down the towers. This would be the first time in history that fire could or has done this to any simular building!!!!!!!
How can anyone say or think this when it has never happend before or since!?!

Another interesting finding from this article stems from the consideration of safety factor and redundancy. The issue of symmetric versus asymmetric loading is an important one because unsymmetrical damage, i.e. the WTC towers, could be far more devastating in the global collapse scheme because the number of inactive columns is actually double the amount that were actually destroyed, while the amount of remaining, load carrying columns is reduced accordingly. Depending on the safety factor for which the towers were constructed, <u>we have proven that the airplane impacts were able to bring the structures to the verge of collapse</u>.  MIT

We have carried out computer simulations which show that <u>the towers would have collapsed after a major fire on three floors at once, even with fireproofing in place and without any damage from plane impact</u>. —Lane said the difference of opinion was significant because clients had begun to demand that designs had NIST-compliant fire protection (NCE 30 June).  ARUP

There has not been a building of similar design engulfed by such a large and instantaneous fire before in history.  If there had been such a building, and there had been such a fire, and the building didn’t collapse, your reasoning would make perfect sense.

Posted by Natalie on Sep 27, 2006 at 11:37 AM

GOV. VENTURA: He was flying in a private jet. And when they had that mechanical malfunction that apparently killed everyone on board, and the jet was up there flying on automatic pilot; well it only took them a matter of minutes to scramble a fighter jet and have it up there on the wing. And had Mr. Stewart’s plane, if it looked like it was going to go down and hit a metropolitan area, of course they would blow it out of the air. But when they saw it was just going to land in a field in Nebraska [sic. - actually South Dakota], why they just let it go down and crash on its own.

This goes to show how uninformed Ventura is.  Stewart’s plane was not intercepted until an hour and a half after being non-responsive, by your own link Joe.  And the transponder was never turned off!!

So if some government hired so called “experts” say it was the fire that caused all of the tower’s steel strucutres to just “INSTANTLY VAPORIZE!!” you believe them?

This goes to show how apparently uninformed you are, Joe.  No steel “vaporized”.  Nobody said it did. 

Ventura first stated that he had many unanswered questions about 9/11. The former Governor cited Operation Northwoods, a 1963 Joint Chiefs of Staff plan to stage terror attacks and kill American citizens to start a war with Cuba

Again, uninformed.  Northwoods never called for any Americans to be killed, and it’s not even clear that it called for anyone to be killed.  The fact that it was rejected is actually evidence that our Govt. DOESN’T do such things.  But even if it had in this case, it probably would have been a positive.  But no deaths!!!

Posted by Natalie on Sep 27, 2006 at 11:46 AM

Natalie MIT was given incorrect infomation by our government wich is admited by both MIT and the government and if you use their math with the correct information THE BUILDINGS COULD NOT COLLAPSE LIKE THAT!!!!!!! I have pointed out that they where led to belive that the outer cloumns where far less in strength and size than they were!!!!!!!
But their math is still good and should be used with the new correct information wich it has and AGAIN BY MIT’S MATH THE BUILDINGS COULD NOT COLLAPSE LIKE THEY DID!!!!!!!!

Thank you for looking at the link to MIT. MIT puts NIST

Posted by honestjoe on Sep 27, 2006 at 12:17 PM

Natalie

You are uninformed for our government has been involved in killing its own people in false flagg operations as well as experamints where they have admited they new for sure that that the people would die!

I am having trouble posting some things because they are black listed!
Wow some are from government sites that where archived so still there eventhough the government got rid of the info.

Natalie the government admits to having people in these camps since the 80’s and that is how they perfected their program for if it ever went into full operation!!!!

Look at how it talks about starving low production wokers to increase the production of the other inmates as had been proven in their test time and time again.!!!!!

They even talk about a loop hole that makes it ok to kill through starvation!!!!

It is important to stress that the historical precedent mirrors exactly what the Halliburton camp deal outlines. Oliver North’s Reagan era Rex 84 plan proposed rounding up 400,000 refugees, under FEMA, in the event of “uncontrolled population movements” over the Mexican border into the United States.The real agenda, just as it is with Halliburton’s gulags, was to use the cover of rounding up immigrants and illegal aliens as a smokescreen for targeting political dissidents. From 1967 to 1971 the FBI kept a list of persons to be rounded up as subversive, dubbed the “ADEX” list.

Halliburton, through their KBR subsidiary, is the same company that built most of the major new detention camps in Iraq and Afghanistan. KBR have been embroiled in a human sex slave trade that their representatives have lobbied to continue.

We have a company that has been handed a contract to build prison camps in America that is engaged in trafficking young girls and women. Can this horror movie get any more frightening?

George Bush has declared himself to be dictator and to have supreme power over and above the limitations of the US Constitution. Bush administration officials like Alberto Gonzales have declared Bush to be “above the law.” White House advisors are openly discussing the legality of crushing a child’s testicles as part of the war on terror. Preparation for the internment of thousands of Americans who are ‘disloyal’ in times of emergency are afoot.

The next step is clearer than it has ever been. One more large scale staged terror attack in America and the result will be martial law. When even famous singers like Morrissey are being detained and questioned by the secret service for “speaking out against the American and British governments,” we know we are in a lot of trouble.

Not that George W. Bush needs much encouragement, but Sen. Lindsey Graham suggested to Attorney General Alberto Gonzales a new target for the administration’s domestic operations—Fifth Columnists, supposedly disloyal Americans who sympathize and collaborate with the enemy.

“The administration has not only the right, but the duty, in my opinion, to pursue Fifth Column movements,” Graham, R-S.C., told Gonzales during Senate Judiciary Committee hearings on Feb. 6.

“I stand by this president’s ability, inherent to being commander in chief, to find out about Fifth Column movements, and I don’t think you need a warrant to do that,” Graham added, volunteering to work with the administration to draft guidelines for how best to neutralize this alleged threat.

“Senator,” a smiling Gonzales responded, “the president already said we’d be happy to listen to your ideas.”

In less paranoid times, Graham’s comments might be viewed by many Americans as a Republican trying to have it both ways—ingratiating himself to an administration of his own party while seeking some credit from Washington centrists for suggesting Congress should have at least a tiny say in how Bush runs the War on Terror.

But recent developments suggest that the Bush administration may already be contemplating what to do with Americans who are deemed insufficiently loyal or who disseminate information that may be considered helpful to the enemy. Top U.S. officials have cited the need to challenge news that undercuts Bush’s actions as a key front in defeating the terrorists, who are aided by “news informers,” in the words of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

I have more Natalie what do you want me to show you just ask. Do you want more false flagg operations that the government admits to or do you want to know more about where they will eventualy put all the sheeple?

And you dont think we need to carefuly pay close attention to our government?

You have made so many misstakes just give me a moment to get all the links together. and yes I know about the time zone with the plane.

P.S. How in the world could you say they have not found steel that got so hot it evaporated or is that different than INSTANTLY VAPORIZE!!!

Posted by honestjoe on Sep 27, 2006 at 12:38 PM

Hi Rabbit,  Horse and Joe,

Being a rather ordinary dumb citizen, it took me years to envisage that CheneyCo MIGHT have done this.

The classic argument AGAINST is that government is so inefficient that it could not have done it.

My argument FOR is that Organised Crime, the Unofficial Government,  is Very Efficient. 

Nearly 30 years ago Reagan appointed a ‘Drugs Czar’ . Big joke. Do any of you americans now see fewer drugs in the USA ?

The FACT that 911 is now USED as a pretext for any and every foreign invasion, or infringement on the rights to Free Speech in the US, leads me to believe that CheneyCo might very well be complicit. in 911.

Maybe I’m WRONG , and WTC 1,2, and Seven, collapsed as they did , as neatly as they did, purely from the impact of planes, or DEBRIS flying outwards.

Flying Girders anyone ? How heavy , how far did they ““fly”” ?

Thinking back to our youth, records stacked on a spindle might explain that “pancake theory”, but look at a PLAN, and those 47 core columns are no “spindle”.  Solid Stuff !

Way back, I posited  that with the $ billions spent on explosives research, THEY damn well should have something new up their sleeves .

rabbitlink to NUKES

Being like most people here, an honest and puzzled onlooker, I cannot guarantee that Cheney KNEW, that there WERE ‘‘revolutionary nuke ‘demolition charges’ in place.

There are so many unknowns , BUT there is so much giving rise to DEEP suspicion.

Unlike rabbit, horse, joe, wiley, myself, and so many others, GWB and Cheney and associated SCUM , are unmoved by the death and destruction visited upon a few thousand American families and a few million “RAGHEADS”.

GWB does not give a fuck about one more dead american kid or man or woman.  Or Iraqi.

I do, as do most of you.

The Thais recently threw out a totally corrupt Prime Minister. Maybe we supposedly more mature “democracies” might get our arses into gear ?

Posted by frog on Sep 27, 2006 at 1:23 PM

Can you read ....this is what I’m talking about…Natalie…you just make shit up,Redhorse never said evidence was planted…I said the only possible scenario for him being guilty was if he had hired a hit on Nicole….

And secondly…everybody did not Loove…OJ…My feeling is that OJ was a Sambo…catering too white folks , he was not being an authentic individual…But hey…you would not understand…Plus many white folks do not care for inter-racial couples….

So now , there you go…get to twistin’...shill..shill…the pill…..........

Posted by Redhorse on Sep 27, 2006 at 2:21 PM

Joe,

Has MIT commented recently on the final NIST reports on towers one and two?  I haven’t been able to find where they have, perhaps you know one way or another.

One thing you do need to admit.  Nowhere in ANY of the analysis by MIT, or ARUP, or NIST, or FEMA, or in the journals of the ASCE, JOM, NCSEA, etc, etc, does ANYONE even remotely suspect or postulate that explosives were planted in the buildings.  In fact in some cases, they have gone out of their way to address the truthies and inserted paragraphs explicitly stating such.  Does this not give you the slightest pause?

Does it bother you to see Northwoods misrepresented, as by Ventura, as an operation that was intended to kill Americans?  Does it bother you in the least that all kinds of people misrepresent the Stewart case as an example of there being some kind of magical instant response capability by NORAD?

Does it bother you that Steven Jones has misrepresented a photograph as being previously molten steel, when in fact it is obvious even to the casual observer that it’s a chunk of pancaked floors, and other misc. debris?  Does it bother you that he clipped out the one sentence from Bill Manning’s editorial that would have made it clear that Manning suspects fire, and not bombs as being responsible for collapse?

Does it bother you that Silverstein’s comments have been misrepresented?  Does it bother you that quotes from firemen and others have been clipped, taken out of context, or misused due to there being lack of information at the time of the quote?

I’m still waiting for a precise, coherent and sensible narrative that addresses the monolithic opinion of all the world’s relevant professionals, and provides a sensible and logical motive for such crimes to be even contemplated, much less carried out.

And surely you Joe should know better than to trust ANYTHING from infowars, prisonplanet, rense, “the price of liberty” and the like.  Surely as a conservative, you have that cut-above perception that alerts you to their obvious agenda and willingness to take practically ANY position that will continue to intrigue their readers and listeners and keep them clicking on and tuning in.

Why Joe, did you <u>perpetuate</u> the misinformation about Stewart’s plane if you already knew the facts on it?

Why haven’t you attempted to answer any of my above questions about alkyduh planted explosives, using Iraqi terrorists and planting WMD?

And Joe, your use of the term “vaporized steel” was in the context of building collapse.  As in there suddenly not being anything to hold it up.  Not some isolated instances of an occasional beam having some evidence of extreme heat or pressure or both.

Posted by Natalie on Sep 27, 2006 at 2:36 PM

<i>“the Dickhead Det.Furman…riding around LA with the <u>blood sample it his pocket</u>

Posted by Natalie on Sep 27, 2006 at 2:45 PM

The statement is what it is…as usual nata-lie will read whatever she whats into it….look if you think Furman planted evidence…thats ok….

Posted by Redhorse on Sep 27, 2006 at 3:34 PM

HI Frog

I could not agree with you more. You know what helped me to be open minded enough to fallow Rabbit down his hole. It was a year ago when because of the cost of gas I decided to try out a hydrogen fuel cell. I had heard alot about them and have a weilder friend who uses one in his shop.

To make a long story short I have been driving on water for about a year now and so are many others as well. The reason I bring this up is because it has been through this that I discoverd the government does keep information from us wich to me is the same as a LIE.

All you have to do is look it up on the web its not hidden or anything like that. The only reason more are not driving on water is because the MSM does not talk about it. Oh and I have yet to see any problem so far with the car. I put it in myself so again any one can do it. I do not and have not made it a habit to work on cars yet I was able to put it in because it is so simple. Yes before anyone asks my altinator is enough to power the fuel cell.

the most expensive part was the oscilloscope to get the correct pulse, any way it is just an example of a government LIE and coverup.

Please dont let this change the subject. There are hundreds of sites you can go to talk about fuel cells but that is not for here please. Again I was just pointing out that all of us who are driving on water HAVE NOT discoverd something new this is old news that the government has not shared with the people because of the influence of big corporations.

These are just some sites to help you along if your interested there are many more and they are not in any order and some are not sites you can surf through just help in your calculations you will see.

www.waterfuelcell.org
CL System
Water Car FAQ
SDSI Hydrogen Generation System
The Quest For Overunity

P.S. Thank you Natalie I just looked at your post and will be happy to answer all of your questions I wish you could do the same for me. I am grateful for those that you have answerd and hope you will try to answer the many others that sill have not been.

Posted by honestjoe on Sep 27, 2006 at 4:30 PM

Joe, I’m happy to answer relevant questions.

However, speculation as to whether our govt. might or might not be inclined to kill potentially several tens of thousands of people for whatever reason, based on a bunch of questionably sourced accounts of the CIA and such doing something a little shady in the past, is ridiculous and irrelevant.  Such speculation would be promptly thrown out of any court except Judge Ito’s, and rightly so.

Red, so you don’t think evidence was planted?  Then how do you explain the DNA?  Or does that simply just not exist?......like the hijackers?.......??......it was all faked?

Posted by Natalie on Sep 27, 2006 at 6:12 PM

Again with the shillery…Redhorse made no such statement….obviously…Furman riding around with the blood sample from OJ is extremely questionable….

For someone that is so particularly anal about facts and scientific observations…your interpretations are qiute broad….

As far as your response too HJ….Pathology is a recognized science…the logic of which can be applied to the sequential process concerning fraud or deceitfulness…Prior behavior is indeed relevant….
Let the judge decide…....................................

Posted by Redhorse on Sep 27, 2006 at 8:19 PM

Red,

Still not sure if you think that evidence was planted, or not.  First you say no, then you seem to say maybe.  It doesn’t appear obvious to me.

If one talks about a police officer traveling around with blood samples from a suspect in his pocket, I think most reasonable people would infer that you meant to suggest that said officer might be engaging in the planting of blood evidence.

Actually, I think it’s Vannatter you’re thinking of.  The defense did indeed suspect evidence was planted as a result of him carrying it around in his pocket.  And of course, they also suspected Fuhrman of planting the bloody glove, no doubt after dousing it with Vannatter’s vial.

Simpson’s blood sample was drawn at the Los Angeles Police Department on June 13, 1994, the morning after the killings, but was not immediately booked into evidence by Detective Philip Vannatter. Vannatter had put it in his pocket and took it to Simpson’s estate where criminalists were collecting evidence. Jurors questioned why he would have carried it around for hours instead of booking it. The defense suggested evidence planting.

So, the defense thought evidence was planted.  But you don’t?

“My feeling is that OJ was a Sambo…catering too white folks , he was not being an authentic individual”

My goodness.  From this statement, I tend to think that the racist label fits you better than it does Fuhrman.

Posted by Natalie on Sep 27, 2006 at 8:59 PM

This is why Terry Allen wrote this article.

Posted by Natalie on Sep 27, 2006 at 9:18 PM

I’m done talking about OJ…ol’ girl..done..not interested…..

But if your looking for xenophobic assholes…try your local christian conservative community church…Redhorse is sure you will find the racist , fascist mentality you so admire and look up too…..

Oh yeah….my poem…are you ready…...Look into Natalies mind…the lice have gotta farm…she raises them 7/11 for a dime…..
 
Yes , Nata-lie…you are indeed of the order Anoplura….a parasite on the collective body of the community…a small , flat , wingless creature…making it’s living by biting and sucking…..kind of like your former life as the #466thousandth neo-con whore, just one of many cheap tricks…Come to think of it…Nata-lies brightest moments are when she is sucking…DICK Cheneys here….......ugh…...

Posted by Redhorse on Sep 28, 2006 at 2:30 AM

Ah, that’s the old Red I miss and need so much.  Surely you know I was just anglin for a fix.

Pretty good point I made though.  Truthies and O.J. jurors both reject science and logic in favor of conspiracy theories with no basis in evidence, and venting hatred for “the man”.

Posted by Natalie on Sep 28, 2006 at 9:59 AM

Natalie -

In an article on the Connecticut Senate race, the left nut blogs, Kos and such, are cited for “the vicious tone, use of the f-word more frequently than a comma, insults, scathing all-out hatred of dissent from the party line, conspiracy theories, accusations of the New York Times being a tool of the Republican National Committee”.

Does the leftist lilt remind you of anyone?

So, who is winning in Connecticut?  Joe Lieberman is winning, by a nice margin, thank you.  And Kos has actively backed about twenty leftist politicians in previous elections, and every single one of them lost. 

Too bad we can’t get an accurate poll of the truthies, who seem to think, or at least they profess to think, that they are winning the battle against rational thought (GWORT).  Maybe if they scream, and curse, and insult, and call people enough names, and cite enough irrelevant non-facts, they really will win.  Or not.

Posted by scorp on Sep 28, 2006 at 6:13 PM

Hi scorp,

Just came across this article that I thought fit quite well with your post above.  Not all, some are just in it for the money, but I think a large part of the “truth” movement is an extreme extension of the garden variety hatred and refusal to accept reality that emanates from the left.  (another free psychology lesson)

A few weeks ago I wrote a column on the anniversary of 9/11 that offhandedly dismissed 9/11 conspiracy theorists as “clinically insane.” I expected a little bit of heat in response, but nothing could have prepared me for the deluge of fuck-you mail that I actually got. Apparently every third person in the United States thinks George Bush was behind the 9/11 attacks.

.......I challenge a 9/11 Truth leader like Loose Change writer Dylan Avery to come up with a detailed, complete summary of the alleged plot—<u>not the bits and pieces</u>, but the whole story, put together—that would not make any fifth grader anywhere burst out in convulsive laughter. And without that, all the rest of it is bosh and bunkum, on the order of the “sonar evidence” proving the existence of the Loch Ness monster. If you can’t put all of these alleged scientific impossibilities together into a story that makes sense, then all you’re doing is jerking off—and it’s not like no one’s ever done that on the Internet before.

Not bits and pieces, Joe!!

Posted by Natalie on Sep 28, 2006 at 9:47 PM

Natalie, Scorp

I just got in this morning and Im run down and tired but I had to see what has been posted since I was gone. Not much I see. That is not suprising since there realy is nothing to deffend the government myth.

I know it is hard to realize our government is no longer ours (we the peoples) and I know you find it difficult to realise that Bush Co would not lose a second of sleep for killing a few thousand of their own let alone any others. I also know that you cant seem to realise that our MSM is a bought and paid for propaganda machine by and for our government.

On this last trip I had a chance to meet many people in all walks of life who are waking up to this Nazi like government. From all that I talked to I feel many more would as well if they had a chance to get all the information about what is going on. I am shocked that there are so many uninformed people who still think they can get their news from MSM but I found 9/11 press for truth was a great way to wake them up to the fact MSM filters and suppress the truth.

Here is an example of how the MSM surpress’s the truth. They pulled this. I find it is a good way to see how they (Bush administration) dont care how many die so they can reach their goals.

====================================================

RICE OK’D CLAIM OF ‘SAFE AIR’ AFTER 9/11
By SUSAN EDELMAN, HEATHER GILMORE and BRAD HAMILTON
————————————————————————————————————————

Condoleezza Rice’s office gave final approval to the infamous Environmental Protection Agency press releases days after 9/11 claiming the air around Ground Zero was “safe to breathe,” internal documents show.

Now Secretary of State, Rice was then head of the National Security Council - “the final decision maker” on EPA statements about lower Manhattan air quality, the documents say.

Scientists and lawmakers have since deemed the air rife with toxins.

Early tests known to the EPA at the time had already found high asbestos levels, the notes say. But those results were omitted from the press releases because of “competing priorities” such as national security and “opening Wall Street,” according to a report by the EPA’s inspector general.

The chief of staff for then-EPA head Christie Todd Whitman, Eileen McGinnis, told the inspector general of heated discussions, including “screaming telephone calls,” about what to put in the press releases.

The notes come from a 2003 probe into public assurances made on Sept. 16, five days after the 9/11 attacks. They tell how a White House staffer “worked with Dr. Condoleezza Rice’s press secretary” on reviewing the press releases for weeks.

Whitman said through a spokeswoman Friday that she never discussed her press releases directly with Rice. She also defended her collaboration with the White House.

Now-retired Inspector General Nikki Tinsley told The Post her auditors tried to question the head of President Bush’s Environmental Quality Council, but “he would not talk to us.”

Calls and e-mails to Rice were not returned.

susan.edelman@nypost.com
September 24, 2006

Do you know how many schools in lower Manhattan reopened based on the EPA Whitman’s press release September 18th, 2001, that stated that she wanted to reassure New Yorkers the air was safe? Does that touch your conscience that thousands of children were subjected to dangerous levels of dozens on toxins and may one day suffer deathly illnesses because of those lies? It appears you don’t give a dam about the almost 70,000 first responders and construction workers who were exposed or the fact that 70% are now suffered respiratory illnesses.

For all those the stand by the Official Lie of 9/11, maybe you should start to look at the facts and evidence.

U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts

“No reasonable person would have thought that telling thousands of people that it was safe to return to lower Manhat tan, while knowing that such return could pose long-term health risks and other dire consequences, was conduct sanctioned by our laws,” Judge Batts said. She found Whitman’s actions “conscience-shocking” because the EPA chief knew the twin towers’ collapse had generated tons of airborne toxic materials.

10/2/2006

(CBS/AP) NEW YORK Several Manhattan Democrats are urging the federal government to pay for health insurance for students who attended school in Lower Manhattan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Representative Jerrold Nadler, Borough President Scott Stringer and Councilman Alan Gerson held a news conference Sunday. They also called on the government to pay for research and medical screenings for the students.

Amit Friedlander, a 2002 graduate of Stuyvesant High School joined them at the conference. He recently received a diagnosis of Hodgkins lymphoma and suspects toxic dust from Ground Zero was a cause.

Sorry folks, there’s no going around it. Neglegence on this scale from the Secretary of State, an individual who is to be selected on holding and maintaing the premium level of intellect, evaluating expertise, refined sway, and all the best qualities one of us could ever muster, well, it’s repulsive. She holds one of our Nation’s most honored and noble poisitions in our Government. Her wrecklessness with thousands of lives during the immediate days after 911 is a century mark of the worst carelessness we could ever expect. Imagine you were her making the call, “yeah, send them back to work, and tell Rudy to tell all of them to go shopping.” She encouraged the population to return as soon as possible to the area; millions exposed to toxic and pulverized carcinigous dust and debris. I was at ground zero on 911 and 912, and the days and days following the air reeked a unique smell. I believe it was reffred to as the Trade Center smell or something similiar. We’ve already been seeing the wave of rescue workers suffering, and some dying, and more to come, many more to come. And it’s our Secretary State, Condi Rice, who holds the weight. Anything short of jail time will not be acceptable within a rational and widly grasped concept of a democracy. This is BLATANT. If Condi gets off the manslaughter charges, there is not a person who can say with a straight face we are living in a democracy. If she slides, this is not America anymore.

Natalie you keep saying how it is crazy to think that our Nazi like administation would ever place people in harms way for their own gain. When they do it all the time. Cant you see? Of course we dont want to belive it but we cant keep living in denial and must except the truth.

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 2, 2006 at 9:25 AM

Why is it so hard for you to see thet we have been lied to? It happens all the time and it does not mean the victims of the lie are fools. Its only when they continue to make excuses for the LIERS and continue to fall for another lie again and again when they should know by now that lies are all you are ever going to get. If one cant learn after the first few dozen lies will they ever?

Sept. 11 Panel Wasn’t Told of Meeting, Members Say
By PHILIP SHENON
Published: October 2, 2006 NYTimes

WASHINGTON, Oct. 1 — Members of the Sept. 11 commission said Sunday they were alarmed that they were told nothing about a July 2001 White House meeting at which George J. Tenet , then director of central intelligence, is reported to have warned Condoleezza Rice , then national security adviser, about an imminent attack by Al Qaeda and failed to persuade her to take action.

Details of the meeting on July 10, 2001, two months before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, were first reported last week in a new book by Bob Woodward. The White House disputes his account.

The final report from the Sept. 11 commission made no mention of the meeting, nor did it suggest that there had been such an encounter between Mr. Tenet and Ms. Rice, now secretary of state.

Since the release of the book, “State of Denial,” the White House and Ms. Rice have disputed major elements of Mr. Woodward’s account. Ms. Rice has said through spokesmen that there had been no such exchange in a private meeting with Mr. Tenet and that he had expressed none of the frustration attributed to him in Mr. Woodward’s book.

“It really didn’t match Secretary Rice’s recollection of the meeting at all,” said Dan Bartlett, counselor to President Bush, in an interview on “Face the Nation” on CBS. “It kind of left us scratching our heads because we don’t believe that’s an accurate account.”

Passages of the book suggest that Mr. Tenet was a major source for Mr. Woodward. The former intelligence director has refused to comment on the book since its release.

There has also been no comment on the book from J. Cofer Black, who was Mr. Tenet’s counterterrorism chief, and who, the book says, attended the July 10 meeting and left it frustrated by Ms. Rice’s “brush-off” of the warnings.

Mr. Black is quoted as saying, “The only thing we didn’t do was pull the trigger to the gun we were holding to her head.” He did not return calls left at Blackwater, the security firm he joined last year.

The book says Mr. Tenet hurriedly organized the meeting, calling ahead from his car as it traveled to the White House, because he wanted to “shake Rice” into persuading the president to respond to dire intelligence warnings about a possible terrorist strike.

Mr. Woodward writes that Mr. Tenet left the meeting frustrated because “they were not getting through to Rice.”

The disclosures took members of the bipartisan Sept. 11 commission by surprise last week. Some questioned whether information about the July 10 meeting was intentionally withheld from the panel, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States.

In interviews Saturday and Sunday, commission members said they were never told about the meeting despite hours of public and private questioning with Ms. Rice, Mr. Tenet and Mr. Black, much of it focused specifically on how the White House 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 J. Roemer, a Democratic member of the commission and a former congressman from Indiana. “I’m deeply disturbed by this. I’m furious.”

Another Democratic commissioner, the former Watergate prosecutor Richard Ben-Veniste, said the staff of the Sept. 11 commission was polled in recent days on the disclosures in Mr. Woodward’s book and agreed that the meeting “was never mentioned to us.”

“This is certainly something we would have wanted to know about,” he said, referring to the meeting. “We asked broad questions which should have elicited this information.”

He said he had attended the commission’s private interviews with both Mr. Tenet and Ms. Rice and had pressed “very hard for them to provide us with everything they had regarding conversations with the executive branch” about terrorist threats before Sept. 11.

Philip D. Zelikow, the executive director of the Sept. 11 commission and now counselor to the State Department, agreed that no witness before the commission had drawn attention to a July 10 meeting at the White House or described the sort of encounter portrayed in Mr. Woodward’s book.

Mr. Zelikow said it was “entirely plausible” that a meeting occurred on July 10, during a period that summer in which intelligence agencies were being flooded with warnings of a terrorist attack against the United States or its allies.

But he said the commissioners and their staff had heard nothing in their private interviews with Mr. Tenet and Mr. Black to suggest that they made such a dire presentation to Ms. Rice or that she had rebuffed them.

“If we had heard something that drew our attention to this meeting, it would have been a huge thing,” Mr. Zelikow said. “Repeatedly, Tenet and Black said they could not remember what had transpired in some of those meetings.”

Democratic lawmakers have seized on Mr. Woodward’s book in arguing that the Bush administration bungled the war in Iraq and paid too little attention to terrorism threats in the months before Sept. 11.

Senator Joseph R. Biden Jr. of Delaware, the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, said on CBS that there had been “rumors” of such an encounter between Mr. Tenet and Ms. Rice in the summer of 2001.

Mr. Woodward’s book, he said, raised the question of “why didn’t Condi Rice and George Tenet tell the 9/11 commission about that? They were obliged to do that, and they didn’t.”

—————

(Big lead story on CNN also)

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 2, 2006 at 9:56 AM

Remember this Sen. who was sent anthrax by our government to keep quite about the dreaded and draconian nature of the patriot act. Well I guess he wasnt going to go down without a fight.

Sen. Patrick Leahy Questions Why Bush Administration Allowed 9/11 to Happen

His statement:

“The two questions that the congress will not ask, because republicans wont allow it, is why did 9/11 happen on George Bush’s watch when he had clear warnings that it was going to happen? Why did they allow it to happen? And secondly, when they had Osama Bin Laden cornered why didnt they get him? Had there been an independent congress, one that could ask questions these questions would have been asked years ago..”

Natalie lets not forget LIHOP leads to MIHOP!

AMY GOODMAN: It’s good to have you with us, Senator. Now, if you could explain exactly what this bill that the Senate has just approved with a number of Democrats joining with the Republicans, what exactly it does.

SEN. PATRICK LEAHY: First off, as you probably gathered from what I was saying on the floor, it’s a terrible bill. It removes as many checks and balances as possible so that any president can basically set the law, determine what laws they’ll follow and what laws they’ll break and not have anybody be able to question them on it.

In this case, the particular section I was speaking about at that point was the so-called habeas protection. Now, habeas corpus was first brought in the Magna Carta in the 1200s. It’s been a tenet of our rights as Americans. And what they’re saying is that if you’re an alien, even if you’re in the United States legally, a legal alien, may have been here ten years, fifteen years, twenty years legally, if a determination is made by anybody in the executive that you may be a threat, they can hold you indefinitely, they could put you in Guantanamo, not bring any charges, not allow you to have a lawyer, not allow you to ever question what they’ve done, even in cases, as they now acknowledge, where they have large numbers of people in Guantanamo who are there by mistake, that they put you—say you’re a college professor who has written on Islam or for whatever reason, and they lock you up. You’re not even allowed to question it. You’re not allowed to have a lawyer, not allowed to say, “Wait a minute, you’ve got the wrong person. Or you’ve got—the one you’re looking for, their name is spelled similar to mine, but it’s not me.” It makes no difference. You have no recourse whatsoever.

This goes so much against everything we’ve ever done. Now, we’ve had some on the other side say, ‘Well, they’re trying to give rights to terrorists.’ No, we’re just saying that the United States will follow the rules it has before and will protect rights of people. We’re not giving any new rights. We’re just saying that if, for example, if you picked up the wrong person, you at least have a chance to get somebody independent to make that judgment.

Natalie there are so many who keep coming forward with the truth. You should take a look at all the latest names at http://patriotsquestion911.com/ It’s important people know there are powerful people speaking out and all we seek is Truth and accountablity.
No matter what your beliefs concerning 9/11, one thing everyone agrees 100% is that there was countless failures on the part of our government and military. Even “incompetence” should have been dealt with, not rewarded with promotions or being re-elected. If you address the “incompetence” most of us know that the true face of COMPLICITY of Treason and Mass Murder will be naked for the world to see!

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 2, 2006 at 10:49 AM

Natalie do you have any idea how long I have been talking about this and have been told that its just a stupid myth. How can people just assume its a myth without even looking at the facts? This is another great example of how the MSM filters what we are told. As long as this has been going on and nothing from the MSM!?! When are you going to see that we are being lied to?

WASHINGTON – While several members of Congress have denied any knowledge of efforts to build “NAFTA superhighways” or move America closer to a union with Mexico and Canada, four members of the House have stepped up to sponsor a resolution opposing both initiatives.

Rep. Virgil Goode Jr., R-Va., has introduced a resolution – H.R. 487 – designed to express “the sense of Congress that the United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System or enter into a North American Union (NAU) with Mexico and Canada.”

“Now that Congress is preparing to take up the issues of the North American Union and NAFTA superhighways, we are moving out of the realm where critics can attempt to disparage the discussion as ‘Internet conspiracy theory,’” explained Jerome Corsi, author and WND columnist who has written extensively on the Security and Prosperity Partnership – the semisecret plan many suspect is behind the efforts to create a European Union-style North American confederation and link Mexico and Canada with more transcontinental highways and rail lines. “This bill represents a good first step.”

Corsi explained to WND that the Bush administration is trying to create the North American Union incrementally, under the radar scope of public attention.

“Even today,” said Corsi, SPP.gov has a ‘Myths vs. Facts’ section that denies the administration is changing laws or working to create a new regional government. Unfortunately, the many references on SPP.gov to Cabinet-level working groups creating new trilateral memoranda of understanding and other trilateral agreements makes these denials sound hollow.”

The resolution introduced by Goode had three co-sponsors: Reps. Thomas Tancredo, R-Colo., Ron Paul, R-Texas, and Walter Jones, R-N.C.

The “whereas” clauses of the resolution lay out the case against the North American Union and NAFTA Superhighways as follows:

Whereas, according to the Department of Commerce, United States trade deficits with Mexico and Canada have significantly widened since the implementation of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA);

Whereas the economic and physical security of the United States is impaired by the potential loss of control of its borders attendant to the full operation of NAFTA;

Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System from the west coast of Mexico through the United States and into Canada has been suggested as part of a North American Union;

Whereas it would be particularly difficult for Americans to collect insurance from Mexican companies which employ Mexican drivers involved in accidents in the United States, which would increase the insurance rates for American drivers;

Whereas future unrestricted foreign trucking into the United States can pose a safety hazard due to inadequate maintenance and inspection, and can act collaterally as a conduit for the entry into the United States of illegal drugs, illegal human smuggling, and terrorist activities;

Whereas a NAFTA Superhighway System would be funded by foreign consortiums and controlled by foreign management, which threatens the sovereignty of the United States.
The resolution calls for the House of Representatives to agree on three issues of determination:

The United States should not engage in the construction of a North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Superhighway System;

The United States should not enter into a North American Union with Mexico and Canada; and

The President should indicate strong opposition to these or any other proposals that threaten the sovereignty of the United States.
“As important as this resolution is,” Corsi said, “we need still more congressional attention. Where is congressional oversight of SPP? We need congressional hearings, not just congressional resolutions.”

H.Con.Res.487 has been referred to the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and to the Committee on Internal Relations for consideration prior to any debate that may be scheduled on the floor of the House of Representatives.

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 2, 2006 at 12:30 PM

Joe,

Do you really perceive Condi Rice to be the kind of person that would deliberately allow U.S. citizens to be murdered in order to pursue some foreign policy objective?  Many suspected that some kind of attack was likely.  Nobody knew specifics.  It’s really no more complicated than that.

What would you have advised, stripping everyone naked before they got on every plane in the country, and everyone on every plane coming into the country?  Everybody stay home in their house and pull the curtains and turn out the lights and have the Post Office hold the mail?

Lots of people working at the WTC didn’t wear respirators like they were urged to.  The authorities in charge (not the Bush administration, not the EPA) did not feel like pushing the issue due to the emotional situation at ground zero.  It’s really no more complicated than that.  Sad, and even maddening in retrospect, but an indication of malice?  I don’t think so.

I’m not sure how much of this NAFTA superhighway talk is real, and how much is fabrication and imagination.  If Bush in fact is on board with something like this, I would take extreme issue with him.  But I fail to see how that would prove an “inside job”.

Highlighting a bunch of political issues that have been spun to one side’s benefit is of little value in ascertaining what brought down the towers.  They’re great for campaign ads, though.

I assume you’re working on answering my questions from earlier, and I’m still waiting for a reasoned essay on why and how 9/11 was an inside job.  The 9/11 commission wrote a pretty darn good one, and provided tons of real world relevant evidence to back it up.

Also, it would seem that your Mr. Chavez is likely a big phony.

Posted by Natalie on Oct 3, 2006 at 1:01 AM

“The 9/11 conspiracy theories are not just loony, <u>they are morally detestable</u>. One of the doomed passengers of Flight 93 informed his mom by cell phone that they were about “to do something.” Conspiracy nut Dylan Avery denies that this conversation ever took place. It was faked by, well, “them.” Avery apparently doesn’t find his own life or God’s world interesting enough. He entertains himself by trying to erase the heroism of Flight 93. What a wonder that such a large imagination can fit within the compass of so small a man.”

(via Conspiracy Smasher)

Posted by Natalie on Oct 8, 2006 at 12:18 PM

Natalie…You are old and alone…....

While you babble on about the 9/11conspiracy theories…the game plan in Iraq is in the toilet….

US TROOPS ATTACKED ON AN AVERAGE OF EVERY…15…MINUTES…....

The republican party has severe moral , ethical , and probably most important to the neo-con elements within the party….a extremely serious PR dilemma…..

Should Hastert resign ...many conservative rags think he should….

With the war in Iraq going so poorly…and the Rumsfeld doctrine in shambles…why is Rumsfeld still on the job….

Are Cheney and Rummy running the president…or is the president scared to run the show by himself , at this point in the game….Whats the ol’ saying…..If your in a hole…stop digging…..

Now as far as President Chavez….true Venezuela has problems…but the bulk of the distress is caused by the fairly well to do…and the continued work stoppages orchestrated by that class of the society…

Like all progressive movements that come into executive administrative authority ,after an extended period of unchecked corporate nepotism , the rich and upper middle classes get nervous about their fortunes….

Chavez has not jailed any opposition party members…they freely assemble and raise their concerns…What they need to do is get on board…and stop standing in the way of a new and better Venezuela…where US corporate interests do not dominant the national economic agenda…..

On another subject…Sen. John Warner has returned from Iraq…and what he had to say was not good for thr neo-cons…..“no improvement in 90 days…or the military strategy has got to change…all possiblities are on the table…”...now that doesn’t sound to good , does it Natalie…......comment…..?

Posted by Redhorse on Oct 8, 2006 at 1:25 PM

Well Red, this thread happens to be about 9/11 kook theories.  If you want to comment on those, please do so.  Otherwise, you should maybe go to the dailykos or some such.  I wasn’t referring to Hugo Chavez, silly.

How the war in Iraq is going, and the hollow and hypocritical democrat accusations of immoral behavior are completely unrelated to what brought down the towers.

I may be alone on this thread at this particular moment, but in the future Google will bring more inquiring minds that needn’t be warped by bizarre, mindless and false theories that are based on nothing more than hate, paranoia and/or sheer stubborn ignorance.

——————————-vv—————————-

Before you incorporate the arguments put forth by the 9/11 “truth” movement into your daily interactions with friends and family, you may want to fact check them first, and consider them in the context of common sense.  You will be spared possibly permanent embarrassment if you simply run your revelation du jour through the following before opening your mouth at that party, or sending that email to that friend who still assumes you are sane.—- Natalie

9/11 myths
Debunking 911
Peer reviewed papers debunking the “truth” movement.
(using Steven E. Jones’ standard for peer review)  ;-)

16% of people believe in space aliens.  6% believe in bombs and missiles.  (Truthies love polls, especially ones they can mis-represent.)

(most of this 6% don’t have more than a high school education and/or live in trailer parks)  (not that there’s anything wrong with that—I don’t, and I used to!)

Truthies love videos
(warning…graphic images and coarse language)

——————

Not a single institute of Structural, Civil, Fire and Safety or Demolition Engineers on the planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.  Not a single institute of Architects on the planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.  Not a single institute of Engineers in any field on the planet agree with the controlled demolition theory.

Which begs the question— Why do you?

——————

We all know that the select group of incredibly intelligent, talented and brave people, who are capable of designing, building and fighting fires in huge structures such as the World Trade Center Twin Towers, universally agree that a combination of airplane impact damage, heat from fire, and gravity caused their collapse.

However, it should also be noted that another group of highly accomplished people, comprised of those who are capable of safely demolishing such structures, concurs.

Posted by Natalie on Oct 9, 2006 at 12:21 AM

Natalie -

You are not alone.

Posted by scorp on Oct 9, 2006 at 1:53 AM

Frankly ol’ girl….Redhorse thinks you are kicking a dead dog…the issue is mute at this time…maybe after the november selections…oh, my bad…elections…

Posted by Redhorse on Oct 9, 2006 at 2:36 AM

scorp,

Glad to see you’re still out there.  I guess Joe is working on his essay.  I wonder what happened to Rabbit? 

Maybe he’s gone back to school to get a structural engineering degree so he can be the first one to join the “scholars” for “truth”.

Take care now

Posted by Natalie on Oct 9, 2006 at 12:37 PM

Yet another example of Steven E. Jones manipulating and misrepresenting a photograph.  This all in the purported context of simply searching for the “truth”.

The excellent paper by Mark Roberts talked about on the above blog can be accessed here. (~8 mb pdf file)

Posted by Natalie on Oct 10, 2006 at 5:21 PM

Actually Nataliar

Rabbit has better things to do than converse around and round the mulbery bush with ignoranuses like thyself.

However, since the latest news is that the latest Zogby Poll puts the 9/11 faith brigade at less than 16% support in the United States of Avarice and those who now believe the US regime is hiding the truth at 84%, I just thought it would be worth popping by to taunt you with the news.

You now speak for a mere 16% of the US population.  I did tell you your day of riding high on your ship of shit was coming to a sudden end. 

North Korea, no doubt under Chinese tutelage has called the bluff of the great satan and fired off a nuke or two, which completely shafts the neo-con plans to attack Iran over “suspician, unfounded of a nuclear weapons program.

For those who actually get the real news and who think for themselves, this is the event which just put a fatal hole in US global hegemony plans.  Now no matter what stunt your sickening masters pull, you are finished.

You belong now to a small, weird and still shrinking group of tossers who still buy the official fairy tale. 

We who demand a new and independent investigation are now numbering 84%.

You are a weird nutjob, a fringe conspiracy theorist it seems, Nat the brain dead bat.  I hope you enjoy that territory, the title certainly fits you better than it ever did those like rabbit who bring intelligence, education and experience to 9/11 truth.

Having been an outspoken 9/11 activist since our numbers were less than 220%, I cannot begin to tell you how satisfying it is to see our victory and your complete rout on the horizon.

Depleted Uranium is also busting out of the box, and becoming a public issue at last.

Why would I want to waste time bantering back and forth with an idiot like yourself, who has never won a single soul to her lies, who has attracted only pre-existing morons to her cause and who is facing war crimes tribunals eventually if justice is ever done?  Your defeat is imminent, your defeat on all fronts is staring you in your dim and closed shut eyes.

The US is in very serious trouble with the brave Iraqi resistance having blown up the biggest US ammunition dump in the green zone; I’ve just been watching the resistance video footage of the explosions, awesome.  The truth about the actual US casualties in Iraq which is closer to ten thousand now with 25,000 wounded is also seeping out finally.  The Pentagon is lying like always but they no longer hold all the cards.

Also some of us have to work for a living and the rabbit has been busy making and selling lots of Kayaks in what is our summer season.  Finally some good news has just come the rabbit’s way.  It seems he is to inherit a small fortune, which is really quite nice since it is due entirely to having been a nice and trusting rabbit that good fortune has smiled upon him at this time in his life.  I just thought I’d mention that since I’m sure you will be so happy for the rabbit.  Of course I shall just continue to do what I do, since I enjoy making little boats for people but it’s nice to know financial pressures are a thing of the past.  This should allow me to concentrate on activism for truth.

The worm is turning Nat the Batgirl.  I hope you are looking forward to being hunted down one day soon as a war criminal, since after the US empire has collapsed, the victors will be tidying up like they always do.

I have made a point of mentioning your shilling efforts in certain circles and you are recognised as a full card carrying member of the war criminal set.  Shilling for war crimes has after all been internationally recognised as a war crime in itself, I hope you know. Your own failing fascist empire’s intelligence apparatus will dissolve as soon as the end is nigh.  Get ready for it.

Bye Bye

Posted by Rabbit on Oct 16, 2006 at 11:29 PM

At least Scorpy is probably thinking he has a way out with his Chinese wife and all, but don’t be too sure Scorpy that you won’t end up on a farm working the fields all the same.

This is what you are facing in a worst case scenario.  So all you can hope is that the current lunatics in office will not invite a worst case scenario with all the usual hubris and blind stupidity for which they are known.  That seems like a long shot. They are so busy chasing young boys around the white house that anything so mundane as running the country intelligently and thoughtfully is beyond their ability to attend to.

You cannot win in Iraq, now you will simply have the backbone of your land based army broken, while your navy is busily lining itself up for it’s own destruction at the hands of Iranian and Chinese and Russian missiles.  I’ll bet your RW circle jerks have not mentioned the Russians and their allies who have been co-ordinating exercises in tandem with the Iranians and whose own navy and other forces ae all moving into position to counter what they percieve as a US threat?

There really is no way you can win a war with the people you have managed to get completely offside.  Your big Navy is a white elephant and the airforce will be unable to save you, all they can do is incur the rising wrath of your enemies by killing large numbers of civilians. You will come to wish you had never dropped bombs and missiles on so many innocents, you will come to curse the airforce to be sure.  The desertion rate of the military is about 25,000 at this point, and the rate at which veterans are getting sick from DU poisoning means you are using up soldiers at an alarming rate.  I hope that child of yours is ready to join up soon Nat?  He will be needed for cannon fodder before long.  The USA now has a defunct constitution, no Habeus Corpus, limited rights of free speech and no rights to a fair or speedy trial.  In fact you can now be held in detention indefinately, without charge.  About the only nation on earth who has enshrined such atrocities into law.  You have the largest prison population of any nation despite having far from the largest population and you still have the highest violent crime rate and one of the highest execution rates in the world.  You lead Iran and China in these regards. You have peadophiles in government, idiots in bureacracies and lots of tax breaks for the rich, but no health care for the poor. You have got a social security system unworthy of the name, decreasing workers rights and a rampant illegal immigration problem being tacitly protected by the wealthy to ensure even lower working conditions will continue.  You are the largest debtor nation in the world, and it is your ostensible enemies who holds the keys to that debt.  The amazing thing is that all of this has been achieved by one man, George W Bush, in only five years. 

The scariest thing about this to any thinking person would have to be that he still has two years left in power: since your democracy is no longer capable of reigning in the power of a madman at the helm.  The worst case scenario is now your ongoing future, as long as all you shill for stands.

So much excitement is coming your way! Practice that Russian for “I surrender” and “please be gentle” like I suggested you do once before won’t you. You have no idea how handy that will come in.

Of course it might be best for you if the Russians take over and occupy the USA, at least they recognise Habeus Corpus!

Posted by Rabbit on Oct 16, 2006 at 11:43 PM

Wow Rabbit,

You haven’t lost your talent for misinterpreting information.  The poll you cite still fails to ask anything close to the central claims of the “truth” movement.

It’s one thing to think that the administration might be hiding something,  —after all, when was the last time any administration of any country didn’t do that regarding just about everything?  But to stretch that question into meaning that everyone now thinks there were pre-planted bombs in the towers, or that a missile hit the pentagon, is a careless and sophomoric leap of logic.

I’m quite sure that if the same question was asked in the NYT CBS poll that was asked in the so far only scientific poll that has asked the specific questions, the result would be the same—6% firmly believe in bombs/missles, and 16/14% maybe believe in bombs/missiles respectfully.  And 16% would believe in little green men.  And most of these would be under-educated and easily fooled young people.

And, the scholars are still looking for a structural engineer.  Darn it, I thought you just might be working on that.

And, Jones is turning out to be a bigger fraud than anyone imagined.  (see above)

Let us know if you ever, ever manage to come up with a single shred of credible physical or testimonial evidence that hasn’t been distorted, misrepresented or tampered with.

The rest of your anti-US spewing is completely and totally irrelevant to the questions at hand here.  But do know that the very freedom hating “resistance” you cheer for would not hesitate to simply kill you if they had their way, unless you agreed to embrace their bigoted, backward and oppressive ideology.  Somehow I doubt you’d be afforded the freedom to cook boats in peace and keep much of the profit, or enjoy that occasional adult beverage or scantily clad romp on the beach. 

America’s unsophisticated youth have been led astray by Internet kook propagandists such as Charlie Sheen and yourself for a long time.  But now, they’ve been shown the light by their far and away most trusted and admired TV personalities.

The boys are back in town.  And none too soon.

Posted by Natalie on Oct 17, 2006 at 2:32 AM

Wow, Batgirl you haven’t lost your talent for ignoring the obvious or spinning that which cannot be spun.

Moron.

Posted by Rabbit on Oct 17, 2006 at 2:55 AM

The hilarious Batgirl still does like to say silly things.

Not a single institute of Structural, Civil, Fire and Safety or Demolition Engineers on the planet agree with the official fairy tale.  Not a single institute of Architects on the planet agree with the official fairy tale.  Not a single institute of Engineers in any field on the planet agree with the official fairy tale. 

Those which are paid for by the discredited criminal regime, don’t count of course.

However many individuals in all those fields have expressed their support for the obvious FACT of controlled demolition.  These people are coming out of the woodwork lately.  Go and check the comments from many such experts which are being posted on scholars for 9/11 truth. More engineers and professionals in other fields just as relevant are speaking out as every week passes. 

You cannot possibly be trying to tell us that the mere 16% of clowns who still buy the fairy tale includes all the experts.  That group includes idiots like you Nataliar, and stupid pretenders like Scorpse.  Basically the dumbest, the lowest common denominators. Those who don’t even know that WTC-7 came down that day, as a previous poll showed. The 84% don’t all agree with the truth yet, many of them have not yet heard it, but they all agree that the government is not telling the truth, I didn’t spin anything, you wish.

By the way, no theorising about controlled demos, that is how such buildings are brought down in that maner all the time.  I do wonder that you can keep on ignoring the obvious and talking as if controlled demolition was some sort of nutty theory like the now discredited and abandoned pancake theory for example. 

Until you nut cases can come up with a theory which explains all the observed facts, the only theory which fits is controlled demolition. A FACT in itself you go to great lengths to try and drag down to the same level of farce as your silly and uterly imposible “weird” other theories.

Too bad for you that no steel framed skyscraper ever fell down in such a manner as all three WTCs did on 9/11, EXCEPT by controlled demolitions.  We don’t even have to prove this, it is a fact.

Anyway turkeys, Rabbit is not interested in wasting time with shills for a war criminal regime and a fascist state. Your time is ending, your days are numbered, I just wanted to point out that the tide is coming in fast while you are stuck in the mud of desperate denial. Never did I expect you to accept it. You have taken mental aberration to new heights and made denial a way of life.  It won’t save you, it won’t help your cause.  That is doomed.

As for being anti-American; I and most people in the world most certainly are.  Just as we would abhor any evil empire, and of course many good Americans are also just as disgusted with the failing fascist state. Of course being anti-American, is not the same as being anti-Americans. Los of Rabbit’s good friends are Americans.  Just not the same sort as sickos like you and the evil little Scorpy.

Bye now; you can gnash your nasty teeth at thin air, stick pins in my image in my absence, for Rabbit has no desire to soil his paws with dealing with a sick shill and potential candidate for war crimes tribunals.  Your shilling for DU will be your undoing one day, I feel quite sure of this.  If the world doesn’t punish you through the courts when the US empire is kaput as it will soon be, the justice will find you in other ways.

Posted by Rabbit on Oct 17, 2006 at 4:33 AM

That last post was really divorced from reality, Rabbit.  You’re sure everything’s OK down there?

Are you under the erroneous impression that every engineering firm on the planet is under the control of the U.S. Govt.?  Seems like it.

No, I’m quite confident that a poll conducted strictly among professional, certified engineers and architects would result in no more than a tiny fraction of a fraction agreeing with your little fantasies.  After all, these guys and gals have way more than a high school education, and also a lot of real world experience in the areas that pertain to this subject.  A little different than some dumb white bigoted Cartman type watching a propaganda video and concluding, “wow, did you see that?, no doubt that was a controlled demolition.  It’s so obvious!”

You’ve shown a profound talent for getting everything exactly wrong.  No, I’m not guilty of war crimes, but you are guilty of aiding and abetting self-admitted mass murderers.  It’s breath-taking when you think about it, but I guess as a society we tend to treat the mentally deficient with patience and understanding, and so we cut them slack.

That’s reality, Rabbit.  To find it in the future, just look in the exact opposite direction of what you first think it is.  After a while, you’ll learn to see it right away.

Posted by Natalie on Oct 17, 2006 at 9:53 AM

Rabbit….welcome back….the trolls have been busy…but their handlers keep shootin’ themselves in the foot….things are not going well for them , what with the Foley thing and folks getting wise to the war….

Did a little research on termite…don’t know why natalie doesn’t see the facts as they are…seems pretty clear at this point….

One would guess..if ol’ nata-lie was to catch her husband or boyfriend foolin’ around, all dude would have to do is tell her..”.no…that was not me , you did not see that…”,  ol’ natalie would have to believe him…because there were no certified eye specialist to check her vision..before and after the incident of betrayal….

It would seem that the ” poor thing ” is so use to others thinking for her…she has lost the ability to see straight….oh well…such is life under the neo-con regime….

TERMITE…the elixir of neo-cons near and far…...what a bitch….

Nice tiny little pieces , that can be scooped up…and hauled away….

And what happened to the steel frame of the Twin Towers…..?...

All gone…AT FREE FALL SPEED….faster actually….

And then Bldg 7….boom…..zoom….

That building came down , faster than the Redhorse could run the 100 yard dash…in high school…...! !

So in closing….one would hope that one day…in the far off future , little nata , will grow up , and see things the way adults do…but until then sweet nata…stick to the cartoon channel and your barbie & ken doll set…...........

Posted by Redhorse on Oct 17, 2006 at 3:07 PM

Natalie said:

“A little different than some dumb white bigoted Cartman type watching a propaganda video and concluding, “wow, did you see that?, no doubt that was a controlled demolition.  It’s so obvious!”

I guess I should have said dumb white or black bigoted Cartman type.  Didn’t mean to leave you out, Red!

My bad.  Forgot about that outreach directive from…....Karl…....

Posted by Natalie on Oct 17, 2006 at 3:49 PM

Natalie you are flat and uninspired….not even patronizing….......

Posted by Redhorse on Oct 17, 2006 at 4:50 PM

Tell me more about termite, Red.

Posted by Natalie on Oct 17, 2006 at 7:16 PM

<i>........We had begun our plunge down the rabbit hole…....

........The 9/11 Truth Movement invariably describes the mainstream account of 9/11 as the

Posted by Natalie on Oct 17, 2006 at 11:08 PM

Game over!!!! There is no stoping the mass awakening that is happening!!!!! This just came out!!!!

Freedom to Fascism

Nothing else needs to be said.

P.S Read the latest court case where the IRS has been cought!!!! 1040 checkmate!!!!

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 22, 2006 at 11:08 PM

Natalie

I hope my last post explained for you the why question you had about 9/11. Now watch this power point presentation that just came out and try to argue for the government story and their cover up of what realy happend on 9/11. I think you will find it quite shocking!!!

A New Standard for Deception: The NIST WTC Report

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 23, 2006 at 9:11 AM

Hi Joe,

Science and engineering questions are <u>never</u> accurately answered by watching google videos produced by biased people who are strictly motivated by profit and/or politics.

Why does this simple and easily understood reality continuously escape you?

Posted by Natalie on Oct 23, 2006 at 2:43 PM

Natalie

The power point presentation that I posted talked about the science used by the “biased people who are strictly motivated by profit and/or politics” that were apointed by Bush to investigate 9/11. Which is clearly a direct conflict of interest. So I find it odd you would use that as your argument if you watched it. Here this talks more about Bush science and the politicaly motavated people who were and still are heading the investigations around 9/11. It also points out the many who have a conflict of intrest because of their dependence to their huge government contracts.

It is your point that is being used in the presentstion to demand a new investigation.

Natalie I am starting to doubt that you even watched it when you bring up one of the key points of the presentation. But you could have somehow missed it so try reading this.

What is 9/11 Truth? - The First Steps

You also could use these links to do some research.

By Jon Gold
10/23/2006

A lot of us within the 9/11 Truth Movement spend an inordinate amount of time trying to figure out the crime that took place on 9/11. We want to figure out who, what, when, why, and where. Simply put, no one within this movement has the proper access to the information we need in order to do that. We don’t have access to classified documentation, the Air Traffic Controllers, the pilots, the NORAD officers on duty that morning, the individuals within the PEOC, and many other facets that would need to be looked at in order to solve this crime.

Sure, we have an idea of who was involved. Sure, we have an idea of why they were involved. However, we could spend an eternity trying to figure out the what, when, and where, and never accomplish anything.

Most of us “joined” the movement when we realized that our Government was covering up aspects of the crime. There are a plethora of examples that show this.

The following list shows the signs of a cover-up involving our Government, and the attacks of 9/11:

  * Colin Powell promised a “white paper” that would establish the guilt of Osama Bin Laden and associates. That never came.
  * Dick Cheney and George Bush asked Tom Daschle to “limit the scope” of the Congressional Inquiry.
  * The Congressional Inquiry released a report with 28 redacted pages.
  * The family members had to fight “tooth and nail” against the Bush Administration to create a commission to investigate the attacks.
  * The Bush Administration appointed Henry Kissinger to lead the Commission. A man known for too many secrets.
  * After the families’ forced Kissinger’s resignation, the Bush Administration appointed Thomas Kean, someone “who will be easily controlled by the administration” to head the Commission.
  * The Bush Administration appointed Lee Hamilton to be the co-chair. Hamilton chaired the Iran Contra Congressional Investigation, and “was shown ample evidence against Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush, but he did not probe their wrongdoing.”
  * The Bush Administration appointed Philip Zelikow to be the Executive Director of the 9/11 Commission. A man who served on the Bush Transition Team. A man who was a good friend of Condoleezza Rice’s. A man who is a self described expert at creating “public myths.”
  * The families submitted well researched questions to the 9/11 Commission in the hopes that they would be answered. The Commission touched on, at best, 30% of their questions.
  * The families asked for Zelikow’s resignation, but were denied.
  * The 9/11 Commission was underfunded, and had a limited amount of time to conduct their work.
  * Very few individuals that testified before the 9/11 Commission, did so under oath. In fact, the Vice President, and the President refused to do so. They testified together, not in public, and no recordings were allowed. The families requested the transcripts of their meeting, but were denied.
  * The 9/11 Commission turned away whistleblowers with pertinent information.
  * One whistleblower they were forced to see by the families’, Sibel Edmonds, is now the “most gagged person in American History.” She testified for 3 hours before the 9/11 Commission and received a footnote in the back of their report.
  * The White House vetted each and every chapter of a report that was supposed to be independent, and bi-partisan.
  * On October 21, 2003, Philip Zelikow, the executive director of the 9/11 Commission, two senior Commission staff members, and a representative of the executive branch, met at Bagram Base, Afghanistan, with three individuals doing intelligence work for the Department of Defense. The work they were doing was in regards to Able Danger. Something that was completely omitted from the 9/11 Report.
  * A July 10, 2001 meeting that took place between former CIA Director George Tenet and then National Security Advisor, Condoleezza Rice was completely omitted from the 9/11 Report.
  * The CIA Inspector General’s report,“CIA Accountability With Respect To The 9/11 Attacks” has not been released to the public.
  * World Trade Center 7 was not mentioned in the 9/11 Report, even though it was one of the three buildings that collapsed that day. NIST has yet to release a report explaining the collapse of that building.
  * Upwards of 5 wargames were taking place on the morning of 9/11. Only one received a footnote in the back of the 9/11 Report.
  * Pakistan’s involvement in the 9/11 attacks was not even mentioned in the 9/11 Report even though it was one of the questions submitted by the families.
  * The 9/11 Commission thought that following the money behind the 9/11 Attacks was “of little practical significance.”

Given the loss of civil liberties, the war that “won’t end in our lifetime”, the bankrupting of this country, and the threat to our Democracy, don’t you think it’s time we found out what they are trying to cover-up?

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 23, 2006 at 4:12 PM

Honestjoe…..stop guessing whether ol’ natalie watched the video…cause ya know she didn,t….Natalie doesn’t think for herself…she contracts that task out to misfits like Rupert Murdock and the Fox News Entertainment channel or Ann Coulter….nata has no time too THINK and use CRITICAL ANALYSIS skills…..oh no….not her….And if playing the obnoxious bimbo doesn’t work…she’ll say she can’t understand your sentence structure…or she simply denies everything….

HJ….it’s clear at this point that the attacks on 9/11…were premeditated…staged events , executed by covert operators within the infrastructure of the CIA….

Givin the info ( evidence ) at this juncture…if it was any other case…any other criminal investigation…one could be 10000 percent sure there would be criminal charges of mass murder..conspiracy to committ genocide…treason…terrorism , war profiteering. and arrests made of the officials involved….

But here in this situation , we have individuals that are at this point in time…” above the law “...High ranking public and private personalities are and had to be involved…there is no way this operation could be executed without a coordinated effort on their part….

The key point of reference being that the WTC buildings…every one of them…fell at free fall speed , or faster….that’s what gave it away to the regular guy watching this on TV or a video…

If the conspirators could have slowed down the collapse , made it look more like a crumble…instead of an implosion…it would be more believable…but in the end…” fools know no boundaries…”

Ya can’t burn down a steel structure…with a carbon fueled flame….
Never happened before…didn’t happen on 9/11….......

Posted by Redhorse on Oct 23, 2006 at 5:20 PM

Redhorse

I agree about the speed that the WTC buildings collapsed was a huge giveaway to it being an inside job but I also feel there is so many more huge in your face clues that point to an inside job such as these that also could be added to the list I had posted by Jon Gold.

Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001or you can see the criminal’s exposed here when the 9/11 commission said it was “of little practical significance”

“According to CBS News, in the afternoon before the attack, “alarm bells were sounding over unusual trading in the US stock options market.” It has been documented that the CIA, the Mossad, and many other intelligence agencies monitor stock trading in real time using highly advanced programs such as Promis. Both the FBI and the Justice Department have confirmed the use of such programs for US intelligence gathering through at least this summer. This would confirm that the CIA should have had additional advance warning of imminent attacks against American and United Airlines planes. [CBS News, 9/19/2001] There are even allegations that bin Laden was able to get a copy of Promis. [Fox News, 10/16/2001]”

Interesting, why wouldn’t the American people be warned? Or at the very least security could have been “stepped up” at our airports while Bush was lounging at a Florida resort with surface-to-air missles installed on the roof? (Not standard procedure)

Do you ever ask yourself why there seems to be such a lack of interest in the 9/11 money trail? Is it really, as the 911 commission put it, “of little practical significance” that the events of 911 could have been funded by the attacks themselves? Wouldn’t a real investigation dig deeper into this evidence?

Also I think the terrorist group that did place the ‘bet’ had wonderful knowledge that the hijackers, whoever they may be, would have a 100% success rate on passing through airport security. If they don’t pass through, the put options fall through with a loss of huge sums of money. Wouldn’t you agree that’s a very risky bet unless you knew for certain they were going to have a 100% mission success rate? Hey do you think the cave dwellers had access to Ameritrade or what? How do you place put options on a company from a cave anyway? Wireless access thanks to the Pakistanis?

From Project Censored:
“The New York Times, on September 28, 2001, reported that the “short positions and volume of put options rose sharply across the travel industry—which has been cited repeatedly in news reports as possible evidence of illegal trading.” The London Telegraph quoted Ernst Weltek, president of Bundesbank, on September 23, 2001 as saying that “there are ever clearer signs that there were activities on international financial markets that must have been carried out with the necessary expert knowledge.“10 Dylan Ratigan of Bloomberg Business News said that “this could very well be insider trading at the worst, more horrific, most evil use you’ve ever seen in your entire life. This would be one of the most extraordinary coincidences in the history of mankind if it was a coincidence.“11 CBSNews.com quoted McLucas, former Securities and Exchange Commission Enforcement Director, as saying that “the options trading in particular suggests to me that somebody, somewhere, may have had an inkling that something bad was going to happen to certainly those airlines stocks.“12

The 9/11 Commission report scantly covers the stock options issue. On page 499, footnote #130, the 9/11 Commission reports that, “some unusual trading did in fact occur, but such trade proved to have an innocuous explanation…A single U.S. based institutional investor with no conceivable ties to al Qaeda purchased 95% of the UAL puts on September 6 as part of a trading strategy that also included buying 115,000 shares of American on September 10.” This explanation only addresses the UAL and American put-options, ignores trades in other companies, and fails to identify the purchaser, thereby leaving even more unanswered questions.”

Also the destruction of physical evidence should still be mentioned here - especially regarding WTC - as well as the refusal to release video footage. Then we have the ‘classified’ blueprints of the buildings, all this stuff which would theoretically support the official story. The fact that the Government is relying on Pop Mechanics to disprove controlled demolition theories instantly suggests something is very wrong…

There’s also the manner in which they handle Al Quaeda members in custody - anyone remember Khalid Shaikh Mohammed? The guy who supposedly, like, planned everything, and supposedly has no problem talking about it, and has been in US custody for years now, without a single piece of evidence so suggest he is even still alive? Plus the guy they refused to let testify in the German hearings, as well as all the anonymous inmates at Gitmo… if Al Quaeda is not, in fact, a Western intelligence front, you’d think they’d have busted enough people to prove that by now…

The amount of information being withheld makes it a fact, not a theory, that there is a coverup. The question is what are they covering up?

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 23, 2006 at 7:00 PM

Everyone must see this!!!!!  This has been put out FREE for the American people to see, WAKE UP and share!!!

Critics Are Raving…

“A thought-provoking clarion call for the masses to wake up before it

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 23, 2006 at 7:53 PM

Natalie & Scorp

I am very interested in your opinion about this movie. I realy think this movie will help you to see the light and leave the dark side. It should at least get you both to wake up enough to start asking questions rather than just blindly believe everything the government tells you. I pray for you both that you can leave the sheeple and come join we the people in our struggle for truth, freedom and to maintain the ideals of our forefathers who wrote the Constitution to protect all us lovers of Liberty from tyranny. It is not to late to stop letting your pride get in the way of excepting the truth and joining humanity. I know it is hard for you to stop defending the evil and criminal cobol that has taken over our government but I have faith that there is still some good left in both of you and that somehow you will find your harts again and learn the power of love and honesty. I promise it has a lot more health benefits than your low level radiation thats emitted from depleted uranium.

One of the best parts was the Jewish IRS commissionerer yelling in Yiddish, when he had to admit the income tax is illegal. It was great!!! Aaron Russo got him to admit on film that it is against the Constitution and the Supreme courts decisions and that was when the commissioner said that the IRS overrules the supreme court!!!!  Then the commissioner tells Aaron Russo that it doesnt matter nothing will help you in Yiddish!!! This is on the video!!!!
I am still shaking from watching that scene. It has my hair standing up on the back of my neck.

Please does anyone know how I can get a transcript of this movie?

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 23, 2006 at 11:58 PM

<i>“The key point of reference being that the WTC buildings…every one of them…fell at free fall speed , or faster….that

Posted by Natalie on Oct 24, 2006 at 2:13 AM

Damn Natalie…your like somebodies brat-ass little child….loud and wrong again….

Redhorse will explain it like I’m talking to a 6 year old….

For this too appear legit…the buildings should have taken at least 90 to 120 seconds to collapse…at least….3 to 10 minutes of crumbling dismantlment would have been better…and there is not way the steel frame core of that building should’ve fallen , because of some fire…any fire….

So again el stupidio Natalie…you are with the ostentatious nonsense…quibbling over a few meaningless seconds..when the collapse should have taken at the very least minutes…..

Why was all the concrete pulverized…?

Why did the wreckage smoulder for weeks…weeks…?

Still think depleted Uranium is healthy to breath…...?

Where are all the case studies you said you had seen…..?

How about all the health problems concerning the first responders…the search and rescue teams afterwards…..all the died search dogs….?

Denial is ugly Natalie…why are you so much in the ugly….?

How can the ” free fall ” be nonsense when it happened right in front of your fuckin eyes….

And yes…why would large steel columes be thrown across large areas…unless explosives were used….

Stop with the festering nonsense…foolish girl…..you are being HAD…PLAYED…made to look like a BOOB…....not by the so-called “truthies”...but by yourself…

One last question….Natalie….Why so contemptuously hostile towards folks searching for the truth…?

Your continuous marginalization of them with your ” truthies ” label…..

Could it be that you live and breath…deception….dear Ms. Lie…....

Posted by Redhorse on Oct 24, 2006 at 4:12 AM

All other reviews for the book in question:

Natalie

34 reviews, average is (top) 5 star rating.

Former CIA Officer Robert Steele Reviews Tarpley’s ‘Synthetic Terror’

Amazon’s #1 Non-fiction Reviewer: Tarpley’s 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA is “strongest of the 770+ books I have reviewed”

  Progressive Press announced that its “9/11 Synthetic Terror” has just been cited as the best non-fiction book ever by Amazon’s top non-fiction book reviewer, intelligence professional Robert Steele, in a 5-star review at http://www.amazon.com/dp/0930852370 .

  Progressive specializes in books that contend 9/11 was an “inside job.” Publisher John Leonard says “it’s a coup to have Steele with us on this. Here you have a level-headed, respected insider, lifelong Republican, veteran spy, and he’s breaking the taboos. It’s a great tribute and a vindication of the work we put into 9/11 Synthetic Terror.”

  Steele’s statement that 9/11 was a “US-based conspiracy” may be a first coming from a senior US intelligence community figure. He came to this conclusion “with great sadness” after reading “9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA,” which he praises as “without question, the most important modern reference on state-sponsored terrorism.”

(visit the link for the full press release)

From wikipedia:

  Robert David Steele Vivas (b. July 16, 1952 New York City), is a former Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer for twenty years and was the second-ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988-1992. Steele is a former clandestine services case officer Central Intelligence Agency.[1] He is the founder and CEO of OSS.Net, Inc. as well as the Golden Candle Society.[2] Steele also was a member of the Adjunct Faculty of Marine Corps University in the mid-1990’s.

From Strategic Strategy Research Military site:

  ROBERT D. STEELE is a retired Marine Corps infantry and intelligence officer. He is the founder and president of Open Source Solutions, Inc., and is an acknowledged expert on computer and information vulnerabilities. Mr. Steele holds graduate degrees in International Relations and Public Administration from Leigh University and the University of Oklahoma. He has also earned certificates in Intelligence Policy from Harvard University and in Defense Studies from the Naval War College.

From Steele’s Amazon review:

  It is with great sadness that I conclude that this book is the strongest of the 770+ books I have reviewed here at Amazon, almost all non-fiction. I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war (see my review of Jim Bamford’s “Pretext for War”), and I am forced to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to indict (not necessarily convict) Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and others of a neo-conservative neo-Nazi coup d’etat and kick-off of the clash of civilizations (see my review of “Crossing the Rubicon” as well as “State of Denial”). Most fascinatingly, the author links Samuel Huntington, author of “Clash of Civilizations” with Leo Strauss, the connecting rod between Nazi fascists and the neo-cons.

This is, without question, the most important modern reference on state-sponsored terrorism, and also the reference that most pointedly suggests that select rogue elements within the US Government, most likely led by Dick Cheney with the assistance of George Tenet, Buzzy Kronguard, and others close to the Wall Street gangs, are the most guilty of state-sponsored terrorism.

My favorite list of political books currently is this:

—-> “The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11”
(by David R. Griffin)
you
The best overview of everything that’s smelling “fishy” about the government’s own Conspiracy Theory (“19 Muslim terr’rists armed themselves with box-cutters, were directed by Osama b.L. hiding in an Afghan cave, ....”)

—-> “The Terror Timeline: Year by Year, Day by Day, Minute by Minute: A Comprehensive Chronicle of the Road to 9/11—and America’s Response”
(Paul Thompson)
must
Invaluable resource if you want to dig for facts, sources and links. This thing also has an online presence, which is continuously updated with new research results:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

—-> “Towers of Deception: The Media Cover-up of 9/11”
(Barry Zwicker)
wake up
Provides twenty-six “exhibits” of evidence proving “beyond a reasonable doubt” that 9/11 was an inside job

—-> “Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil”
(by Michael Ruppert)
before
This book establishes the thesis, that 9/11 and the resulting “war on terror” are parts of a massive authoritarian response to an emerging economic crisis of unprecedented scale.

—-> “The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions”
(by David R. Griffin)
it is
Piece-by-piece dissection of the official 9/11 report

—-> “The War On Truth: 9/11, Disinformation And The Anatomy Of Terrorism”
(Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed)
to late
In-depth research into 9/11 by an outstanding British expert and academic researcher into the worldwide web of terrorist networks across space and time and their intermingling with multiple intelligence agencies of various countries.

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 24, 2006 at 7:50 AM

Natalie

We truthers now have over 50 professionals in the intelligence gathering field alone that say after reviewing the massive amount of evidence they belive 9/11 was an inside job and at the very least they demand for a new investigation!!!!

How do you ignore that?

Natalie he even points out the connecting rod between Nazi fascists and the neo-cons!!!

Thats right Natalie, Steele another former US Intelligence insider has turned whistleblower and concedes that the 9/11 attacks represented a “Neoconservative Neo-Nazi Coup D’etat”!!!!!

Natalie this comes from the man who was advocating the re-election of George W Bush before the 2004 election!!!!

Steele goes on:

“I am forced to conclude that 9/11 was at a minimum allowed to happen as a pretext for war (see my review of Jim Bamford’s “Pretext for War”), and I am forced to conclude that there is sufficient evidence to indict (not necessarily convict) Dick Cheney, Karl Rove and others of a neo-conservative neo-Nazi coup d’etat and kick-off of the clash of civilizations (see my review of “Crossing the Rubicon” as well as “State of Denial”). Most fascinatingly, the author links Samuel Huntington, author of “Clash of Civilizations” with Leo Strauss, the connecting rod between Nazi fascists and the neo-cons.”

Steele’s biography is impressive. He was the second-ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988-1992. Steele is a former clandestine services case officer for the Central Intelligence Agency.

He is the founder and president of Open Source Solutions, Inc., and is an acknowledged expert on computer and information vulnerabilities. Steele holds graduate degrees in International Relations and Public Administration from Leigh University and the University of Oklahoma. He has also earned certificates in Intelligence Policy from Harvard University and in Defense Studies from the Naval War College.

This is another example of how far the 9/11 truth movement has come over the past year. Before the 2004 election Steele advocated the re-election of George W Bush. Given what he knows now I don’t think that would still be the case.

Last month we highlighted how Bill Christison, a A 28-year CIA career man, former National Intelligence Officer and the Director of the CIA’s Office of Regional and Political Analysis had gone public to say 9/11 was an inside job.

Along with 16 year CIA veteran Ray McGovern, this trio have a combined total of over 65 years in intelligence. it’s safe to say they know a covert op when they see one.

Over the past couple of years we have seen a deluge of former government and intelligence agency insiders to boldly go public with their doubts about the official story behind 9/11. This is very encouraging and sets the precedent for future whistleblowers who might be considering the same course of action.

Did you read that Natalie? Just three of the professionals alone have a combined total of over 65 years in intelligence.

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 24, 2006 at 9:37 AM

WE THE AMERICAN PEOPLE WANT ANSWERS!!!

It is time you explain why you do not support the majority of firefighters, other first responders, and victim’s families in their quest for a new investigation!!!

You need to explain why you are against the vast majority of the people of the United States of America!!!

According to a more recent New York Times/CBS poll, 53% of the American public thinks that the administration is hiding the truth from the American people and 28% believe it is lying. Only 16% believe that the administration has been telling the truth. They have been withholding massive quantities of evidence in 12 categories from public inspection. They clearly have a lot to hide. All we want to know is how and why 3,000 of our fellow citizens died on 9/11.

The President himself has admitted that Saddam had nothing to do with 9/11. The FBI has acknowledged that it has “no hard evidence” relating Osama to 9/11. But if neither Saddam nor Osama had anything to do with 9/11, then who was responsible? That’s the question that we the American people are seeking and trying to answer and you have viciously attacked the majority of us the American people for having legitimate questions and wanting answers.

You have attacked all scholars and scientists who dispute the government’s account of 9/11. Yet you never seem to be upset by those government owned scholars and scientists who have admittedly lied to you about fire melting steel columns in the World Trade Center buildings causing them to collapse or the government owned scholars and scientists who claim they did not lie but that it was out of ignorance of the melting temperatures of steel that they made those claims. How are you not insulted by their refusal to apologize for their admited lies or their ignorance concerning what they told you about the World Trade Center’s collapse?

Yet you dare to attack and insult those scholars and scientists who merely pointed out the the most obvious (and now agreed by all) errors in the Official Story of what caused the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings. Then in your most blatant disregard for truth and honesty you say you have more faith and still support those government owned scholars and scientists that admitedly lied to you or misinformed you do to their ignorance and/or that have been exposed for their clear and obvious ties to the current administration than listen to those scientists and scholars that had been proven correct so far from the very beginning!!!

You most certainly owe us the American people an explanation for your biased and unethical behavior, actions and comments that you have used said and done in order to stop any kind of new and more thorough investigation from being done!!!

It is time that you 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.

God bless America and the beliefs this great nation was founded upon!!! The sleeping giant is awakening!!!

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 24, 2006 at 1:22 PM

For this too appear legit…the buildings should have taken at least 90 to 120 seconds to collapse…at least….3 to 10 minutes of crumbling dismantlment would have been better…and there is not way the steel frame core of that building shouldn’t have fallen , because of some fire…any fire….

Two minutes, you say.  Wow.  Where did you do those calculations, on your fingers and toes?  Red, I suspect you of many things, but somehow I don’t suspect you are a structural engineer.  I may be going out on a limb here, but I don’t think you are an engineer or scientist of any type.

But you do seem to think that you’re awful darn smart.  Tell me, smart one, why should I believe your numbers over those of every relevant professional engineer on planet Earth?  Common sense tells us that a large portion of these professionals are anti-war and anti-Bush, even anti-American.  These ranks include thousands of such professional from <u>all over the world</u>.  Surely they can’t be all under the influence and spell of the Bush Admin, can they?

Do you have any explanation as to why not a <u>single one</u> of them has been able to get a paper published in any legitimate science or engineering journal, promoting the truthie POV?

Again, how far would a steel column section, say 30’ long, fall in 12.5 seconds if it was unrestricted?  (free-fall)  Remember, this is the lower estimate of the actual collapse time.

Why was all the concrete pulverized…?

The 4” concrete floors in the towers weren’t made of conventional high-strength concrete like on a sidewalk, a driveway or a bridge.  It was necessarily, for weight considerations, a lightweight concrete, which was much more easily ground up and yes pulverized by the force of the collapse which was unimaginable, but real non-the-less:

Kausel also reported that he had made estimates of the amount of energy generated during the collapse of each tower. “The gravitational energy of a building is like water backed up behind a dam,” he explained. When released, the accumulated potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (10 to the 12th Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours). “That’s about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb,” he noted.

The M.I.T. professor added that about 30 percent of the collapse energy was expended rupturing the materials of the building, while the rest was converted into the kinetic energy of the falling mass. The huge gray dust clouds that covered lower Manhattan after the collapse were probably formed when the concrete floors were pulverized in the fall and then jetted into the surrounding neighborhood. “Of the kinetic energy impacting the ground, only 0.1 percent was converted to seismic energy,” he stated. “Each event created a (modest-sized) magnitude 2 earthquake, as monitored at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Observatory, which is located about 30 kilometers away from New York City.” Kausel concluded that the “the largest share of the kinetic energy was converted to heat, material rupture and deformation of the ground below.”

————————

And yes…why would large steel columes be thrown across large areas…unless explosives were used….

See above.  There’s your energy for whatever “ejecting” of whatever occured.  A lot of what you saw ejected so far was the lightweight aluminum cladding that covered the exterior columns.  It was not necessarily steel columns, although there was plenty of energy for it.

Why did the wreckage smoulder for weeks…weeks…?

Because, quite simply, there was a lot of burning material deep in the pile that was essentially an insulated furnace.  There were vehicles full of gasoline and oil.  There were plastics and furniture and carpets and fabrics.  Ask Smokey the Bear if you need more info.  Think of what’s under your own feet if you dig down far enough.

One last question….Natalie….Why so contemptuously hostile towards folks searching for the truth…?

But you’re not.  If you were, you wouldn’t continue to ignore the mountains of direct evidence that point to what for most people is the obvious, and which has been overwhelmingly confirmed by exhaustive investigations by qualified and highly ethical professional engineers and related scientists.  And you’re a fine one to be accusing me of conteptuous hostility.  LOL.

Your continuous marginalization of them with your “truthies” label…..
Could it be that you live and breath…deception….dear Ms. Lie…....

You’re exactly 180 degrees wrong.  You, Rabbit, Joe and the rest of the “truth” movement need to look in the mirror.  You need to realize that you’ve been duped by unqualified deceitful propagandists, who seek to fool you with selective and/or erroneous information.

Posted by Natalie on Oct 24, 2006 at 2:37 PM

Hahaaahhaahaahhhaahhaaaaaaaaahhhhaahahahahhhahaahhahaahahaaaaahahhahahhaahahahahhaaaaahahahahahhahahahahhaaaahahahahhhhah what a joke!!!!

I am sorry to say your last post was so embarrassing that I’m blushing over your ignorance.  Honestly you can’t truly still be that out of touch with the latest government theories concerning the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings.  I find it hard to believe that you still are unaware that nonsense you just posted had been tossed out for the garbage that it is a long long long time ago by NIST.

Please dont tell me you got that off of one of your so called debunking web sites for I may end up laughing so hard I’ll pass out.

Natali you said: Kausel also reported that he had made estimates of the amount of energy generated during the collapse of each tower. “The gravitational energy of a building is like water backed up behind a dam,” he explained. When released, the accumulated potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. With a mass of about 500,000 tons (5 x 108 kilograms), a height of about 1,350 ft. (411 meters), and the acceleration of gravity at 9.8 meters per second 2, he came up with a potential energy total of 1019 ergs (10 to the 12th Joules or 278 Megawatt-hours). “That’s about 1 percent of the energy released by a small atomic bomb,” he noted.

Since each tower weighed about 500,000 tons, Kausel is making a huge error by assuming all the mass is concentrated at the tops of the towers. Nor would it be correct to make the simplifying assumption of the mass being concentrated at the midsection, since the lower portions of the buildings had much heavier-gauge steel.

But even more important is the fact that Kausel based this on the incorrect findings of Tomasz Wierzbicki and others from MIT who calculated that all of this was consumed in damaging the aircraft and building, with no energy remaining and that was when he and others at MIT where told the exterior columns where made of A36 steel. Which by the way also cancels out the number of core columns that where severed. Oh and guess where he and the others at MIT got the incorect information about the exterior columns?

Natalie you said: The M.I.T. professor added that about 30 percent of the collapse energy was expended rupturing the materials of the building, while the rest was converted into the kinetic energy of the falling mass. The huge gray dust clouds that covered lower Manhattan after the collapse were probably formed when the concrete floors were pulverized in the fall and then jetted into the surrounding neighborhood. “Of the kinetic energy impacting the ground, only 0.1 percent was converted to seismic energy,” he stated. “Each event created a (modest-sized) magnitude 2 earthquake, as monitored at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Observatory, which is located about 30 kilometers away from New York City.” Kausel concluded that the “the largest share of the kinetic energy was converted to heat, material rupture and deformation of the ground below.”

In this scenario most of the kinetic energy of falling mass would not be converted to pulverizing forces until the rubble hit the ground. Yet clearly, the buildings were pulverized in mid-air. The amount of energy needed to convert the towers into the fine dust that blanketed Lower Manhattan is on the order of the total potential energy of the buildings’ elevated mass.

This is also based on the pancake or domino theory, that NIST no longer agrees with and for which there is no evidence. Nearly every version of the theory promotes misrepresentations of the Towers’ construction, such as omitting the cross-trusses, and claiming that only bolts attached the trusses to the perimeter walls.

Oh lets not forget some of the other crap that was said:

“In my theory, the hot fire weakened the supporting joint connection,” Connor continued. “When it broke, one end of a floor fell, damaging the floor system underneath, while simultaneously tugging (pulling) the vertical members to which it was still attached toward the center of the building and down.” This phenomenon started a parasitic process that accelerated until total failure and the structure fell in on itself, he said.

Eduardo Kausel proposed an alternative failure explanation that he acknowledged was independently developed by Zdenek Bazant, a professor at Northwestern University. “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,” he said.

To turn the columns into the consistency of chewing gum would have required heating them to at least 1200º C, well above what can be achieved with jet fuel, even with a directed flame and pressurized oxygen. Not to mention it takes much longer than the 45 minutes that is in the NIST report to heat the steel.

Then he actualy tried to convince sombody that “The towers’ resistive systems played no role. Otherwise the elapsed time of the fall would have been extended,” he noted. As it was, the debris took about nine seconds to reach the ground from the top.

Did you catch that? the towers’ resistive systems played no role. The at least 85,000 tons of intact steel structure below the impact zone provided no resistance. It all magically got out of the way. Note that the Kausel cites a collapse time that is simply impossible—even admitting the use of controlled demolition—since the elapsed time of an object on the Tower’s roof in a vacuum was 9.2 seconds. Even air resistance slowed the descent of rubble enough that it took 13 to 17 seconds to reach the ground.

Natalie I hope you know I hardly even touched that bulls**t you posted for whats the point when NIST gave that s**t up a long time ago.

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 24, 2006 at 4:51 PM

So Joe, what makes you think that you know better than every (well, maybe 99%) structural, civil and fire engineer on the planet?  What makes you think that you know better than 99% of architects on the planet?

What makes you think that you know better than 84% of the general public that doesn’t think the towers were brought down by anything other than planes, fire, and gravity.

BTW, what is your theory on the Pentagon?  If you’ve said so, I’ve forgotten.

“Did you catch that? the tower’s resistive systems played no role. The at least 85,000 tons of intact steel structure below the impact zone provided no resistance. It all magically got out of the way.”

HOORAY!!!!

You are absolutely correct!!  I think there’s hope.  Tell him what he’s won, Johnny!!

Posted by Natalie on Oct 24, 2006 at 5:39 PM

Natalie

You just cited old material that even the scholar who had written it no longer agrees with its conclusion as well as NIST who threw it out long ago.  So now you stand on your own against all scientists and scholars including those who back the official government explanation as to why the World Trade Center buildings collapsed.  You really are making no sense anymore for you make it impossible to tell who you believe or what it is that you believe caused the World Trade Center buildings to collapse. 

As for the rest of your comments I can’t answer until I know where you stand and who it is that you believe and what theory you think is accurate.  Please get it through your head that there are no structural civil and fire engineers anywhere on this planet including NIST that believes the crap you just posted could even be remotely possible. This even includes the author of the very material you just cited due in part to the incorrect information that was given to him by the government. Wich even the government admits doing.

Did you not notice that in my last post I never gave or backed any theory but merely stated facts. I hope to God you realise all structural civil and fire engineers know by now and are fully aware of the fact the crap you posted is worthless trash.

Cant you at least get cought up with with what is happening NOW!!! NIST does not support the old theory of a pancake collapse!!! Even NIST agrees That it is impossible!!! No offense but you are really humiliating yourself. Are you ok?

look Im really sorry if I’ve been kind of hard on you. Dont worry about it ok? Just please get cought up on whats going on so you wont be so confused.

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 24, 2006 at 7:43 PM

Joe,

I simply cited a generic calculation of the total energy generated by the collapse of the towers, in an attempt to illustrate the magnitude that was involved, and in order to account for the pulverization of the concrete and the supposed ejection of whatever steel columns that actually did occur.  The amount of energy exerted by the upper block of floors was sufficient in spades to instantly crush the lower structure. 

That, Joe, is something that is unquestioned by anyone who actually understands the forces involved in such an event.  In other words, 99.99 percent of structural engineers and even still employed physicists on the planet.

No, I’m not behind, but you are missing an important distinction, I believe.  Yes, indeed, NIST did determine that the collapse was not initiated by a “pancaking” of the floors in the immediate area of the plane impacts, but by the sagging of the floor trusses that resulted in the pulling in and buckling of the exterior columns on one side of each building.  This was arrived at through the very intensive “investigation” and “further study” that the truthies so often demand. 

But as far as the ensuing collapse, the fact that the floors pancaked subsequently is not in question by NIST or anyone else.  In fact, it is intuitively and visually obvious.  It is described as such by NIST, and by Bazant in his recent 2006 follow-up and further analysis of the complete collapse.

This was covered (by me) previously on this very thread.

I’ve admitted that there is a certain amount of uncertainty as to precisely what combination of plane impact damage and the resulting heating of the steel components caused the collapse.  Remember the discussion of the two opposing opinions by ARUP and MIT, where one thought that the structural damage alone brought the towers to the brink of collapse, and the other thought that all-encompassing fires alone would have been sufficient to initiate collapse, independent of any damage or removal of fireproofing?

Does this disagreement in your mind lend any weight to the CD theory?  No, it takes away from it, big time.

However, there is virtual unanimity on the fact that explosives were not involved in the collapse, nor would they have been needed in the slightest.

Joe, in order to be taken seriously regarding this debate, you or someone in the “truth” movement needs to cite a particular volume and page in the NIST report, and prove it to be fallacious by the use of legitimate scientific principles, and preferably calculations.  Your analysis needs to pass muster within the real scientific/engineering community.

Unfortunately, I don’t think that anyone in the “truth” movement is capable of performing this very basic and necessary task.

Posted by Natalie on Oct 24, 2006 at 9:31 PM

Natalie

I will put the links up later let me get all of these many pages up first because it is going to take me some time to get them all up.

You said:
I simply cited a generic calculation of the total energy generated by the collapse of the towers, in an attempt to illustrate the magnitude that was involved, and in order to account for the pulverization of the concrete and the supposed ejection of whatever steel columns that actually did occur.  The amount of energy exerted by the upper block of floors was sufficient in spades to instantly crush the lower structure.

If you want to talk about science Natalie you cant use something that has been shown to be false as an example of what happend. You can only use it as an example of what could not happen. Besides it was all based on incorect information that was used in the calculations. The only other reason to use it is to missinform people.

You said:
That, Joe, is something that is unquestioned by anyone who actually understands the forces involved in such an event.  In other words, 99.99 percent of structural engineers and even still employed physicists on the planet.

What planet are you talking about it most certinly is not Earth. Here are just a few examples in order to save space and time.

By adopting Dr. Greening’s own arguments, corrections, contentions, figures and reasoning, the analysis once again shows that the collapse would be arrested at an early stage. Dr. Greening has not disproved the logic and conclusions of Dr. Ross’s article, but has in fact reinforced the most important conclusion: that collapse would have been arrested at an early stage.

Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of “pancake collapse”, which normally only occurs with concrete structures of “lift slab” construction and could not occur in “redundant” welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as the Structural Engineer Charles Pegelow has pointed out.

The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 9 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.

The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain.

If the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt, and total demolition that was observed.

In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11,so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like “puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil.” Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?

physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.

An expert on demolition said that the trade centers were brought down with explosives (and see TV interview here; both in Danish)

Two structural engineers at a prestigious Swiss university said that,  on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)

A Dutch demolition expert stated that WTC 7 was imploded

A U.S. professor of physics stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition

A U.S. professor of mechanical engineering argued that the trade centers were brought down with explosives

Several U.S. structural engineers, such as this one (second interview), have concluded that the collapse of the Trade Centers on 9/11 cannot be explained by the plane crashes and fires in the buildings

An expert on why buildings collapse said controlled demolitions make buildings fall straight down (as opposed to falling over like a tree, which is what normally happens when buildings collapse) because the vertical columns are destroyed simultaneously by explosives, and “that’s exactly what it looked like and that’s what happened” on 9/11

The head of a national demolition association stated that the collapse of the towers looked like a “classic controlled demolition”

“Some engineers . . . have accused NIST of repeatedly changing its explanation of the collapse mechanism.” (Google’s cached version of the article is here)

You said:
No, I’m not behind, but you are missing an important distinction, I believe.  Yes, indeed, NIST did determine that the collapse was not initiated by a “pancaking” of the floors in the immediate area of the plane impacts, but by the sagging of the floor trusses that resulted in the pulling in and buckling of the exterior columns on one side of each building.  This was arrived at through the very intensive “investigation” and a further study that the truthies so often demand.

Nat Thank you for the information and the last link you had given me. Have you read the link in wich you gave me as a properly peer reviewd paper? It says; Since we are are not attempting to model the details of the real failure mechanisms [ WICH THEY DONT AND CANT ] but to seek only to prove that the towers must have collapsed and do so in the way seen. So they come up with an explanation of the towers collapse starting with the heating of the majority of colums of a single floor far exceeding 800*C for a prolonged period of time. Yet they give no explanation how that is even remotely possible. It couldnt be the jet fuel and besides this uniformly super hot heat sorce must have started before the impact of the jets. But thats not all it gets worse. Except for the math on the load distrabution after impact. They do agree that the damage from the planes could and was handeld well. In other words the load spread or redistributed itself to the remaining colums and they where more than able to continue to sustain it. This is needed to make the rest of there calculations work in regards to the uniform collapse that takes place after the super hot prolonged and magical fire. My God Im a fool for not researching this before and I am ashamed with my self for beliveing this sham, scam, lie! Please forgive me for my spouting off but the more I read about this the more upset I have become. God help us. I ask you Natalie please help my faith in my goverment has been shaken. I promise I will research anything you have to offer to help me regain my faith and trust in my government. I am truely sad and scared for my children.
or
Editing available for 90 minutes after posting
United States Posted by honestjoe on Aug 11, 2006 at 9:45 PM
You said:
This was arrived at through the very intensive “investigation” and “further study” that the truthies so often demand.

For example, the former director of the FBI says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission.

And the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn’t bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only “the first draft” of history.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

And former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “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”.

But let’s back up and look at the 9/11 Commission in more detail. Preliminarily, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney took the rare step of personally requesting that congress limit all 9/11 investigation solely to “intelligence failures”, so there has never been a congressional probe into any of the real issues involved.

The administration also opposed the creation of a 9/11 commission. Once it was forced, by pressure from widows of 9-11 victims, to allow a commission to be formed, the administration appointed as executive director an administration insider, whose area of expertise is the creation and maintenance of “public myths” thought to be true, even if not actually true (and see this article).

The administration then starved the commission of funds, providing a fraction of the funds used to investigate Monica Lewinsky, failed to provide crucial documents (and see this article also), and refused to require high-level officials to testify under oath, and allowed Bush and Cheney to be questioned jointly.

More importantly, the 9-11 Commission refused to examine virtually any evidence which contradicted the administration’s official version of events. As stated by the State Department’s Coordinator for Counterterrorism, who was the point man for the U.S. government’s international counterterrorism policy in the first term of the Bush administration, “there were things the [9/11] commission[s] wanted to know about and things they didn’t want to know about.”

For example, the 9-11 Commission report fails to mention the CIA director’s urgent warnings to top administration officials in July 2001 of an impending attack (indeed, the 9-11 Commission was briefed on these warnings, but denied they knew about them until confronted with contrary evidence). Moreover, numerous veteran national security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 commission, even though they had information directly relevant to the commission’s investigation. And the 9/11 Commission Report does not even mention the collapse of World Trade Center building 7 or any explosions in the buildings (the word “explosion” does not appear in the report). There are literally hundreds of other examples of entire lines of evidence which contradict the government’s account which were ignored by the Commission.

A very well-documented book by a distinguished professor shows that the 9-11 Commission was a whitewash. According to law professor Richard Falk of Princeton, the author of this book “establishes himself, alongside Seymour Hersh, as America’s number one bearer of unpleasant, yet necessary, public truths” (Seymour Hersh, as you might know, is the Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal). See a synopsis of the book here; and a summary of a portion of the book here.

Indeed, the very 9-11 widows who had pressured the administration to create the 9/11 Commission now “question the veracity of the entire Commission’s report”, and have previously declared it a failure which ignored 70% of their detailed questions and “suppressed important evidence and whistleblower testimony that challenged the official story on many fronts”.

Moreover, a leading firefighters’ trade publication called the investigation concerning the world trade center a “half-baked farce”. In addition, the official investigators themselves were largely denied funding, access to the site and the evidence contained there, or even access to such basic information as the blueprints for the world trade center. Similarly, a professor of fire protection engineering, and the former chief of the fire science and engineering division of the agency now investigating the world trade center disaster, wrote that the world trade center buildings could not have collapsed due to jet fuel fires, that evidence was being destroyed, and that there was no real investigation into the collapses.

Indeed, the blueprints for the world trade center are apparently STILL being withheld from reporters and the public, and the government agency in charge of the investigation has grossly mischaracterized the structure of the buildings.

And the government agency tasked with examining the collapse of the World Trade Centers did NOT investigate any anomalies in the collapse of the buildings, failing to even examine any of the following evidence: the buildings impossible near free-fall speeds and symmetrical collapses; the unexplained fact that the core of the North Tower failed first; the apparent demolition squibs; the fact that the buildings turned to dust in mid-air; the presence of molten metal in the basement areas in large pools in all of the buildings; the unexplained presence of unusual compounds in the steel; the unexplained swiss-cheese like holes in the steel; and the unexplained straightening out of the upper 34 floors of the South Tower after they had precipitously leaned over and started toppling like a tree.
Indeed, an article from a respected civil engineering trade journal states:
“World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualizations [i.e. models] of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers”.
The article goes on to state “a leading U.S. structural engineer said ‘By comparison [to the modeling of fires] the global structural model is not as sophisticated’ . . . The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls . . . it would be hard to produce a definitive visualization from the analysis so far.” (free subscription required; copy posted here)(in other words, the government refused to release a visual model of the collapses, and even the non-visual computer models which the government used to examine why the trade centers collapsed are faulty). 
The same journal points out that “Some engineers . . . have accused NIST of repeatedly changing its explanation of the collapse mechanism.” (Google’s cached version of the article is here)
See also this question and answer exchange at a recent government press conference (skip to 1 minute and 23 seconds into the video).  And this short video on building 7 and the subsequent investigation (you may wish to disregard brief partisan portion).

And did you know that investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House?

Or that a former FBI translator who Senators Leahy and Grassley, among others, have claimed is credible, and who the administration has gagged for years without any logical basis—has stated that “this administration knowingly and intentionally let many directly or indirectly involved in that terrorist act [September 11th] go free “untouched and uninvestigated”?
Or have you heard that the FBI long ago found and analyzed the “black box” recorders from the airplanes which hit the Twin Towers, but has consistently denied that they were ever found?

Or did you know that the tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times?

And amazingly, many years after the FBI stated it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute Bin Laden for 9/11, that agency apparently still does not have hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the crime.
Still think the government really investigated and disclosed what happened on 9/11?
Indeed, there are even indications that false evidence may have been planted to deflect attention from the real perpetrators.

“Zelikow is calling the shots. He’s skewing the investigation and running it his own way.“11 As executive director, moreover, Zelikow was able to control what would appear in—and be excluded from—The 911 Commission Report.

the commissions executive director and de facto member of the Bush administration, Philip Zelikow, controled the entire investigation as well as the writing of the report. Most of the 9/11 commission members were simply there to present an appearance of unanimity. Therefore the official story is not represenative of work by the U.S. government as a whole, but is largely the view of the Bush administration.

The commission’s story has been shown to be entirely false do to their lies of ,omission and distortion, and one significant event their report omitted entirely was the collapse of WTC7. They left this part to be fabricated by NIST.

This second report done by NIST inorder to tie up the loose ends is a direct product of the Bush adminastration, with cabinet member Carlos Gutierrez’ name emblazoned on page one. Of course NIST itself is a government agency whos directors are also presidential appointees. Those relying on this report always fail to note the fact that the leaders of NIST’ WTC investigation were appointed directly by George W. Bush.

Shankar Nair, was one of those “experts” on whom the government depended to support what turned out to be an ever-changing, but always flimsy, story. Not surprisingly, many of the contractors who contributed to the NIST investigation, like the company for which Nair works, just happen to depend on good relationships with the government in order to earn their living. Nair’s company, Teng & Associates, boasts of Indefinite Quantity Contracts, long-term relationships with federal government agencies, and federal projects worth in excess of $40 million.

Others who worked so hard to maintain the official story included Gene Corley, a concrete construction expert listed by the National Directory of Expert Witnesses as a source for litigation testimony. Corley was more than just a witness, however. He had led the Oklahoma City bombing investigation and then was asked to lead the initial ASCE investigation into the WTC disaster.Corley himself ended up being a very versatile resource, however, providing testimony supporting the pre-determined conclusions many times, and even posing as a reporter during an NIST media session.

Another expert who served on NIST’s advisory committee was Charles Thornton, of the engineering firm Thornton and Tomasetti. Thornton’s partner, Richard Tomasetti, was reported to be behind the unprecedented and widely criticized decision to destroy most of the steel evidence.11Early on Thornton said: “Karl, we all know what caused the collapse.” He was talking to Karl Koch, whose company erected the WTC steel. Also see James Glanz and Eric Lipton, City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center (New York: Times Books, 2003), 330.

Oh and let us not forget that the Bush adminisration has been criticized heavily for their disdane of science. The House Committee on Government Reform found “numerous instances where the administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings.” Also a group of leading scientists, now including 49 Nobel Laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, and 175 members of the National Academics, has said that the Bush administration engages in “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.”

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 25, 2006 at 12:38 AM

Oh poor Natalie…..Look , Redhorse is not a truth movement activist…What is interesting is that….many who are involved ,and have done extensive research….are so carelessly flipped off by yourself….

You are nothing more than a broken record…more stuck up, than critical of the information presented to you…you’re just a wordy bitch…

It’s obvious by your posts that you don’t even check out the source information thats provided…nata-lie just blows it off…

Your offical version bullshit was old 4 maybe 5 years ago…damn Redhorse wasn’t even on the internet at that time…but I was aware that all those structural weakening theories were bogus….

Where the fuck have you been..is my question….? 

Hell…World News Tonight and BBC could have shown you that fact….

What..been in a coma , for the last couple of years ......?

Again…I AS AN INDIVIDUAL AM NOT INVOLVED IN THE TRUTH MOVEMENT FOR 9/11….and as cold as this may sound…what is done is done…Redhorse could care less about getting the ” truth out to the masses of Amerikans “...

History and personal experience has shown…that Amerikans don’t care or want the true…about anything…

From my personal perspective…if all you flag waving patriots had not been so gullible…and hate filled in the past…these neo-cons would NEVER have tryed this shit…

But given the institutionalized xenophobic racist nature of Amerikan society…you guys were ” jello pudding ” for an operation of this nature….

So now the child-like mind of the Amerikan citizenry must grow up and see their executive branch parents for who they really are , and what they have always been…trifling scoundrels….a bunch of murderous no count trifflin’ scoundrels…...

Now Redhorse understands that point alone is a big pill to swallow for most Amerikans…

I was once in that position as a youth…we all grow up believing that the cowboys were the good guys…that John Wayne was always right….

So my advice would be too…” take small bits…and chew thoroughly , before swallowing…”

Posted by Redhorse on Oct 25, 2006 at 1:31 AM

Natalie

You know that I am just giveing you less than .001 of all the research thats been done that proves the government myth is a lie but for the sake of time and space I have just pointed out the simple and easy stuff for you to grasp.

You said:
But as far as the ensuing collapse, the fact that the floors pancaked subsequently is not in question by NIST or anyone else.  In fact, it is intuitively and visually obvious.  It is described as such by NIST, and by Bazant in his recent 2006 follow-up and further analysis of the complete collapse.

Zdenek Bazant and Yong Zhou must be super-geniuses. They were able to understand how two skyscrapers could crush themselves to rubble, a newly observed behavior for steel structures, and write a paper about it just two days. Their “Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?-Simple Analysis” uses “Elastic Dynamic Analysis” to confidently proclaim:
The structural resistance is found to be an order of magnitude less than necessary for survival.

The paper repeatedly claims to make the most optimistic assumptions about building survival with no discussion of what that means. It contains nonsensical engineering claims such as:
[... if the] majority of columns of a single floor to lose their load carrying capacity, the whole tower was doomed.

There are two major fallacies in this assertion:

  * It implies that the columns were capable of supporting only twice the gravity loads they were bearing above the impact zone. This ignores the fact that the upper floors, lacking standing-room-only crowds, were not carrying their design live loads, and it implies that reserve strength ratios (the extra strength designed into a structure beyond what is required to resist anticipated loads) are two-to-one instead of the five-to-one typical in engineered steel structures.
  * It implies that a failure of the columns to support the gravity loads above the impact zones would automatically lead to total collapse, despite the absence of a single example of a local collapse event leading to total collapse in any steel-framed building.

The paper mislabels phenomena, calling a fireball a blast. It is fond of vacuous qualifiers. It explains the buildings were doomed because after the first story collapsed, there was enormous kinetic energy and enormous vertical dynamic load, far exceeding [the columns’] load capacity. And with even larger mass falling with a greater velocity we get impacts and failures all the way down. It makes quantitative claims but doesn’t back them up. Where did they find the following 12%?
(indeed, the energy dissipated in the columns during the fall is at most equal to 2X the yield moment of columns, X the number of columns, which is found to be only about 12% of the gravitational potential energy release if the columns were cold, and much less than that at 800º C).

The whole argument seems to be based on some (undisclosed) estimate of bending moments, in which case one of their simplifying assumptions seems to be that the columns are infinitely thin and have no compressional rigidity. The paper gives no argument that the model it is applying is applicable to the survivability of the Twin Towers. It makes sweeping claims that can’t possibly be true. It’s evasive, claiming to make only simplifying assumptions optimistic to building survival, without even bothering to list those assumptions.

One of the paper’s assumptions it does disclose is that all of the columns of the first story to collapse were heated to 800º C. In that case they would have been glowing red-hot. Perhaps Bazant and Zhou can be forgiven for this oversight and for their wildly innaccurate engineering assumptions, given the short publication deadline they had to meet.

A Mechanical Engineering professor suggested that I review a paper by Zedenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou, which I did.  Quoting:

  The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft.  So why did a total collapse occur? (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)

  Correct “the WTC Towers were designed to withstand forces caused by large commercial aircraft” we can agree on that.  MIT,s Thomas Eagar also concurs “because the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001).

  We continue with Bazant & Zhou:

  The conflagration, caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure, causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800oC (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)

  But here we note from the recent NIST report that: “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, emphasis added.) Certainly jet fuel burning was not enough to raise steel to sustained temperatures above 800oC. But we continue:

  Once more than half of the columns in the critical floor.. suffer buckling (stage 3), the weight of the upper part of the structure above this floor can no longer be supported, and so the upper part starts falling down onto the lower part below. (Bazant and Zhou, 2002, p. 2.)

  Bazant & Zhou do not explain how “more than half of the columns in the critical floor [can] suffer buckling” at the same time to precipitate the complete and nearly symmetrical collapse observed. There were 47 huge steel core columns in each Tower, and 24 such support columns in WTC 7 (NIST 2005; NISTb, 2005).

  NIST makes the startling admission in a footnote on page 80 of their Final Report:

  The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached…(NIST, 2005, p. 80, fn. 12; emphasis added.)

  Again, on page 142, NIST admits that their computer simulation only proceeds until the building is “poised for collapse”, thus ignoring any data from that time on.

  The results were a simulation of the structural deterioration of each tower from the time of aircraft impact to the time at which the building became unstable, i.e., was poised for collapse. ...(NIST, 2005, p. 142; emphasis added.)

  What about the subsequent complete, rapid and symmetrical collapse of the buildings?  What about the observed squibs?  What about the antenna dropping first in the North Tower?  What about the molten metal observed in the basement areas in large pools in both Towers and WTC 7 as well?  Never mind all that: NIST did not discuss at all any data after the buildings were “poised for collapse”. Well, some of us want to look at ALL the data, without “black-box” computer simulations that are “adjusted”, perhaps to make them fit the desired outcome. An hypothesis which is non-refutable is non-scientific.  On the other hand, Occam’s razor suggests that the simplest explanation which addresses and satisfies ALL the evidence is most probably correct.

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 25, 2006 at 1:54 AM

The scientists who’ve concocted this “pancake theory” made a fatal error: they forgot to check their work! Which is an easy thing to do, even without any physical evidence to forensically examine. Anyone, at any time, can check the work of the scientists—that incredible pancake theory of theirs—using simple, high-school physics!

And that’s what we’re about to do here. We’re going to check the work—something every grade-schooler is taught to do—of those “scientists”.

We will use a simple, unassailable, incontrovertible conservation-of-energy analysis to perform a simple, basic reality check that establishes, once and for all, that the U.S. government, PBS, Popular Mechanics, and Scientific American have misrepresented the true nature of the events of 9/11.

How Gravity Acts

Sir Isaac Newton noticed, centuries ago, that apples fell (down! never up…) from trees. Lots of others, before him, had also noticed this, but none had ever devised a theory of gravity from the observation. Over the years, mankind has learned that the force of gravity comes from an acceleration of known constant magnitude, depending only upon mass and separation. (That doesn’t mean we know HOW it works, or WHY, but we have managed to be able to predict its effects with a high degree of precision and an even higher degree of certainty—gravity has always had the same, predictable, effect.)

Of course, people didn’t figure this stuff out immediately. According to legend, Galileo Galilei used the leaning tower of Pisa to demonstrate that a large ball and a small one (of lesser mass) fell (accelerated) at the same rate. Prior to Galileo, people had just assumed that heavier objects fell faster (much the way mankind had long assumed that the Earth was flat!).

So while an object of greater mass will exert more force upon anything which is supporting it against gravity’s pull (ie, it’s heavier), it does not experience any greater acceleration when gravity’s pull is not opposed (ie, when it’s falling). Earth’s gravity can only accelerate objects downward at one known, constant, maximum rate (1 g). Heavier objects are not accelerated any quicker than are lighter objects, as Galileo demonstrated centuries ago.

The Simplest Case

From experimentation, it has been discovered that, near the surface of the Earth, Earth’s gravity will produce a downward acceleration of 32 feet per second per second.

What that means is that an object, after falling one second, will be falling at 32 ft/sec.

After the 2nd second, it will be falling at 64 ft/sec.

After the 3rd second, it will be falling at 96 ft/sec.

And so on.

Further, since gravity’s acceleration is constant, and it’s falling at 32 ft/sec after one second has elapsed, we know that it has averaged 16 ft/sec for the entire distance, which, after one second, is 16 feet.

As you might imagine, after quite a few such thought experiments, some simple free-fall equations have been derived which can be used to harness this knowledge via numbers and arithmetic:

Velocity = Gravity x Time

and

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

So if we want to know how far the object has free-fallen after 3 seconds:

Distance = 1/2 x 32 x 9 = 144 feet

So after 3 seconds, in Earth’s gravity, an object will have fallen 144 feet and will be falling at 96 ft/sec.

Checking Our Work

OK, we’ve just solved a simple physics problem! Now let’s check our work, using conservation of energy.

We know that energy is neither created nor destroyed. It merely changes forms. If we take the potential (chemical) energy in a barrel of oil and burn it, we get heat energy. When we take refined oil and burn it in our car’s engine, we get kinetic (ie, motion) energy (plus some heat; an engine’s not 100% efficient). When we use our car’s brakes to bleed off some of that kinetic energy (ie, slow down), the energy is converted into heat (the brakes get HOT).

In the case of the free-falling body, the two kinds of energy we are concerned with are kinetic energy and potential energy. Examples of potential (gravitational) energy are the water stored way up high in a water tower, or a boulder perched atop a hill. If whatever’s holding them up there is removed, they will come down, under the influence of gravity’s pull.

So, as an object falls, it gives up potential energy for kinetic energy.

It turns out that the equation for potential energy is as follows:

Potential Energy = Mass x Gravity x Height

It turns out that the equation for kinetic energy is as follows:

Kinetic Energy = 1/2 x Mass x Velocity(squared)

So let’s just say, for the sake of simplicity, that our falling object has a mass of 1. (Remember, the object’s mass will affect its energy, and its momentum, but not its rate of free-fall.)

The potential energy given up by falling 3 seconds (144 ft) is 1 x 32 x 144 = 4608

The kinetic energy gained after falling 3 secs is 1/2 x 1 x 96(squared) = 1/2 x 9216 = 4608

So, all of the available potential energy was converted to kinetic energy. Seeing that energy was, in fact, conserved is how we know that the answer in The Simplest Case, above, was correct. We’ve checked our work, using an independent analysis, based upon the sound principle of conservation of energy. Now, and only now, we can be certain that our answer was correct.

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 25, 2006 at 2:25 AM

honestjoe….I admire your persistence but ol’ girl ain’t interested in facts or any critically based viewpoints…scientific or physics based arguments confuse her and only result in the habitual denial syndrome….

I’m sure you are aware that many Amerikans…somewhere in the range of ( 42%), still believe that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and planned the WTC attacks…..

Those lies don’t die EZ….especially when enforced and institutionalized by the executive branch of the alleged aforementioned democracy…..

My guess is ol’girl is a Rush Lump-baugh fan..yu know Rush Lump-baugh bedsheets and matching curtains , carpet….lamp shades , posters and other bullshit…..

Same denialist mentality…the on going syndrome of the ” ostentatious cripple “...

Soo… blinded by their own ostentiousness…that the ” conditioning ” cripples their ablity to objectively view reality…..

Posted by Redhorse on Oct 25, 2006 at 2:52 AM

Redhorse

You are right but I cant give up no matter how futile especially when I see the figures about how many Americans here or the much worse figures about how many Americans in Iraq still think Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and or helpd plan and finance the attacks on 911. People are always pointing that out to me and it gets me so upset I feel even more determined to expose the lies and spread the TRUTH!!!

Natalie

I dont know why but I was not able to post any more last night even though I tried again and again many different ways or pages and for what ever reason something wouldnt let me get them up. I always seem to have a hard time posting stuff on this thread. I wasnt abel to even use the edit to put my links in but it looks like its working now.

Please pay attention even a child can understand this. Continued from my last poast

One Little Complication

Air resistance.

The free-fall equations reflect a perfect, frictionless world. They perfectly predict the behavior of falling bodies in a vacuum. In fact, some of you may have seen a science class demonstration in which the air is pumped out of a tube and then a feather will fall, in that vacuum, as fast as will a solid metal ball.

That’s how parachutes work: much of the falling object’s potential energy gets expended doing the work of pushing a lot of air out of the way in order for the object to fall. As a result, not all of the potential gravitational energy can go towards accelerating the object downward at gravity’s maximal rate of 32 ft/sec/sec.

In other words, only when there is zero resistance can any falling object’s potential energy be completely converted into kinetic energy. Anything which interferes with any falling object’s downward acceleration will cause its acceleration to be reduced from the maximum gravitational acceleration of 32 feet per second per second, as some of gravity’s potential energy is consumed doing work overcoming resistance.

That’s why you may have heard the term “terminal velocity”. The free-fall equations predict that a falling object’s velocity will continue to increase, without limit. But in air, once a falling object reaches a certain speed, it’s propensity to fall will be matched by air’s resistance to the fall. At that point the object will continue to fall, but its speed will no longer increase over time.

A Quick Recap

Earth’s gravity causes objects to fall. They fall according to precise, well-known equations. The equations assume no (air) resistance. Any resistance at all will cause the object to fall less rapidly than it would have without that resistance.

It is that last sentence which bears repeating.

There is a maximum possible rate at which objects fall, and if any of gravity’s potential energy is consumed doing anything other than accelerate the object downward—even just having to push air out of the way—there will be less energy available to accelerate the object downward, and so that object’s downward acceleration will be diminished.

And if an object’s downward acceleration is diminished, it will be going slower along the way, and thus it will take longer to fall a given distance.
 
Free-falling from WTC heights

The towers were 1350 and 1360 feet tall. So let’s start by using our trusty free-fall equation to see how long it should take an object to free-fall from the towers’ former height.

Distance = 1/2 x Gravity x Time(squared)

or

Time(squared) = (2 x Distance) / Gravity

Time(squared) = 2710 / 32 = 84.7

Time = 9.2

So our equation tells us that it will take 9.2 seconds to free-fall to the ground from the towers’ former height.

Using our simpler equation, V = GT, we can see that at 9.2 seconds, in order to reach the ground in 9.2 seconds, the free-falling object’s velocity must be about 295 ft/sec, which is just over 200 mph.

But that can only occur in a vacuum.

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 25, 2006 at 7:51 AM

Natalie

I am still finding it difficult to post my comments on this thread. Please read this so you can understand what it is you are talking about and will stop embarrassing yourself.

Since the WTC was at sea level, in Earth’s atmosphere, you might be able to imagine how much air resistance that represents. (Think about putting your arm out the window of a car moving half that fast!) Most free-falling objects would reach their terminal velocity long before they reached 200 mph. For example, the commonly-accepted terminal velocity of a free-falling human is around 120 mph. The terminal velocity of a free-falling cat is around 60 mph. (source)

Therefore, air resistance alone will make it take longer than 10 seconds for gravity to pull an object to the ground from the towers’ former height.

Observations from 9/11

On page 305 of the 9/11 Commission Report, we are told, in the government’s “complete and final report” of 9/11, that the South Tower collapsed in 10 seconds. (That’s the government’s official number. Videos confirm that it fell unnaturally, if not precisely that, fast. See for yourself: QT Real)

But as we’ve just determined, that’s free-fall time. That’s close to the free-fall time in a vacuum, and an exceptionally rapid free-fall time through air.

But the “collapse” proceeded “through” the lower floors of the tower. Those undamaged floors below the impact zone would have offered resistance that is thousands of times greater than air. Recall that those lower floors had successfully supported the mass of the tower for 30 years.

Air can’t do that.

Can anyone possibly imagine the undamaged lower floors getting out of the way of the upper floors as gracefully and relatively frictionlessly as air would? Can anyone possibly imagine the undamaged lower floors slowing the fall of the upper floors less than would, say, a parachute?

It is beyond the scope of the simple, but uncontested, physics in this presentation to tell you how long the collapse should have taken. Would it have taken minutes? Hours? Days? Forever?

Perhaps. But what is certain, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that the towers could not have collapsed gravitationally, through intact lower floors, as rapidly as was observed on 9/11.

Not even close!

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 25, 2006 at 8:46 AM

Natalie

I am having a really hard time getting this stuff posted!!!

The government story is a myth!

Because, as you may recall, not only was much energy expended in causing the observed massive high-speed sideways ejections, but virtually all the glass and concrete was “pulverized”—actually “dissociated” is a much better word. (Nevermind what happened to all the supporting steel core columns…!!!) And the energy requirements to do anything even remotely like that rival the total amount of potential energy that the entire tower had to give. (source) So while gravity is nearly strong enough to cause some things to fall that far, through air, in the observed interval, and while gravity is probably not strong enough to have so thoroughly disintegrated the towers under their own weight, gravity is certainly not strong enough to have done both at once.

Conclusions

In order for the tower to have collapsed “gravitationally”, as we’ve been told over and over again, in the observed duration, one or more of the following zany-sounding conditions must have been met:

  * The undamaged floors below the impact zone offered zero resistance to the collapse
  * The glass and concrete spontaneously disintegrated without any expenditure of energy
  * On 9/11, gravity was much stronger than gravity
  * On 9/11, energy was not conserved

However, none of these physics-violating conditions can be accounted for by the official government conspiracy theory of 9/11, nor by any of the subsequent analyses designed to prop up the official theory of 9/11.

Bottom line: the government/PBS/PM/SA explanation for the WTC collapses fails the most basic conservation-of-energy reality check. Therefore the government/PBS/PM/SA theory does not fit the observed facts; the notion of a “pancake collapse” cannot account for what happened. The “pancake collapse theory” explanation is impossible, and thus absurd.

It is utterly impossible for a “gravitational collapse” to proceed so destructively through a path of such great resistance in anywhere near free-fall times. This fact debunks the preposterous contention that the observed WTC collapses can be blamed solely upon damages resulting from aerial assaults.

So, to the extent that people accept the ridiculous “pancake collapse” explanation, Gates’ other premise, that people know what they saw, is also incorrect. It is left to the reader to decide if his conclusion, which was based upon two incorrect presumptions, is also flawed.

The purported “gravitational” collapse (video) of World Trade Center building 7, which was hit by zero aircraft, and which also vertically collapsed in within a second of free-fall-time-in-a-vacuum later that same day, similarly fails this same conservation-of-energy analysis.

The explanation for how and why so many highly-accredited and credentialed people all so miserably failed to check the “pancake collapse” theory, by giving it this basic reality check, is beyond the scope of this simple physics discussion

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 25, 2006 at 9:07 AM

“”“”“”“”“”“"Concrete Pulverisation”“”“”“”“”“”
Concrete pulverisation was immaterial to the initial argument of whether the collapse
would be arrested or continue. It was included as indicative of the energies required and showed
the early arrest of the collapse, but if considered as zero the collapse would have been arrested
within the next few tenths of a second as the strain energy requirements instead drained the
energy supply of the impacting mass. I specifically chose the analysis by Dr. Greening so as to
avoid unnecessary debate on this important but not directly considered aspect.
However, regarding Dr. Greening’s new analysis there are one or two points which are
worth examining. The analysis using 5MPa and 8.5m/sec would use up 128 MJ for one floor,
but an average collision would have 20 MPa and 35m/sec, so this would roughly give a total
consumption for the pulverisation of concrete throughout the tower of 220GJ.
We know that the potential energy of the tower was roughly 1000GJ. We also know that a
momentum only analysis of a tower of equal storey mass would give the collapse front
progressing from initiation level to the ground level in just under 12 seconds and reaching a
velocity of 52m/sec. This would give a remaining kinetic energy of 690 GJ using a mass of 510
ktonnes. A similar analysis of a tower whose mass more emulates the tower would show 13.5
seconds, reaching 46m/sec and having kinetic energy of 540GJ. To remove 220GJ from this
figure in order to pulverise the concrete would leave only 320GJ and this would indicate a
collapse front of 17.5 seconds taking into regard only the energies consumed in momentum
changes and in pulverisation of concrete. None of the energies required to distort any of the steel
structure, nor to pulverise the remainder of the tower construction materials or contents, nor to
disperse the debris and dust, nor any of the other energy demands and sinks associated with the
collapse, are included in this figure of 17.5 seconds, only the inherent momentum demands and
the pulverisation of the concrete.

By adopting Dr. Greening’s own arguments, corrections, contentions, figures and
reasoning, the analysis once again shows that the collapse would be arrested at an early stage.
Dr. Greening has not disproved the logic and conclusions of my article, but has in fact
reinforced the most important conclusion: that collapse would have been arrested at an early
stage.
Further doubt has been cast on a gravity-driven collapse using the analysis Dr.
Greening has provided in reference to the pulverisation of the concrete. Combining this
with our knowledge of the theoretical minimum collapse time having regard only to
momentum transfer, it is shown that a collapse time of 17.5seconds, is the theoretical
minimum collapse time having regard only to the momentum transfers and the concrete
pulverisation. This timing contrarily does not take regard of the loss of effective mass that
would be present due to the pulverisation and the ejection of the concrete pieces outside the
area where they play a role in promulgating the collapse. Having regard to this and the
other energies involved, the theoretical minimum collapse time can be seen to be
approaching double that of the figures given for the collapse timing in official reports, even
with no account taken of the energy demand from the distortion and destruction wrought
to the steel superstructures.

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 25, 2006 at 10:15 AM

As part of NIST’s investigation, Underwriters Laboratories performed
additional tests to establish the fire resistance of models of the WTC floor assemblies. The results were that the floor assembly models not only didn’t collapse, invalidating the longstanding
“Pancake Theory”, but the floors barely sagged – only about 3 inches, despite the use of
double the known floor load and two hours of fire exposure (i.e. over twice the duration of fires
known to have existed in the failure zones).13 NIST then added this 3 inch sag to their computer
model, and by way of an unknown transformation, it suddenly became 42 inches of extreme
sagging.14
At this point it is difficult to continue, but since our own futures depend on this story, we must.
Step six says that sagging floors pulled exterior columns inward. To support this, NIST plugged
at least nine different scenarios into their computer, with just one of these showing inward
bowing in their virtual reality. To do this, they had to take a computer mock-up of a nine story
high by nine column wide wall section, remove it from it’s web of support by “disconnection”,
strip off ALL the fireproofing, expose this section to twice the known fire time yet again (90
minutes), and then apply some unspecified, utterly miraculous inward pull.15 Without a doubt,
one rarely finds more shameful and obvious examples of the distortion of science.

How about NIST’s last collapse initiation step? They don’t say much here except that
“instability spread” around the entire building. Since the buildings came down uniformly into
their footprints, and did so in approximately 10 seconds, there was precious little time for
instability spread. If we give them half a second to accomplish this, the instability would have
had to move at nearly twice the speed of sound. That is, of course, not realistic.

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 25, 2006 at 10:54 AM

Natalie

Remember this is admited by the government about the incorect information that was given to MIT.

  Thank you for looking at the link to MIT. MIT puts NIST

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 25, 2006 at 11:27 AM

Those supporting the Bush Administration

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 25, 2006 at 12:20 PM

Natalie

Mike Taylor of the national Association of Demolition Contractors said the collapse of the WTC towers looked like a classic controlled demolition, it cascaded down like an implosion .

Ronald Hambuger a structural engineer and contributor to FEMA and NIST reports said it appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building.

That is just two of many.

But What I think should stand out is that none of the official investigations ever looked into demolition.

Natalie why are you not mad about being lied to when the government owned experts said jet fuel melted the steel?
*BBC (Chris Wise, ect.)
*Scentific American (Eduardo Kausel)——-Hahahahh you remeber him?
*NOVA video (Matthys levy)
*Henry Koffman from USC
*Tom Mackin from the Univ. of Illionis
*The New Scientiest
*And many more Government “experts” of deception

They exaggerated the Temperatures and then there lies where repeted
*National Geographic Today - 2,900F
*A&E - 2,500F
*History Channel - 2,500F
* And many “news” and other major media continued the lie.

I dont remember an apology from those lying traitors do you?

And dont you even try to tell me that those government owned “experts” did not lie but were ignorent about the tempature that steel melts at 2,800F or that the government owned “experts” didnt know that jet fuel fires burn at a maximum of 1,500F or that the steel in the towers is a huge natural heat sink and that steel temps are different than gas temps because steel temps lag way behind. Trust me They knew its their job to know.

And without even looking at the steel they new that they could easily figure the thermodynamic calculations to see that the steel temperatures in the impact zones could not have reached any higher than a maximum of 600F. But did they? No they forgot!?!

The so-called “experts” that promoted this lie should be arrested and tried for treason immediately.

So why dont we look at those government “experts”  that started and pushed the lie?

Would you be surprised to find out that if you follow the lies to where they started you will find the same government owned so called experts were involved in not just the ASCE, FEMA BPAT, Silverstein/weildinger, and NIST investigations but also the OKC Murrah Building bombing investigations? They did the reports for all of them!!! Whats really funny is that each report is different than the other. Oh yea I almost forgot they where also the government owned “experts” sent to tell us what happend at the pentagon!!!

It gets worse Natalie much worse!!!

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 25, 2006 at 2:13 PM

Prescript:  this response does not address your last two posts, Joe.

————

Joe, I apologize if I’m wrong, but I don’t think this is all your work and your words.  It looks like you’re randomly cutting and pasting a lot of stuff and making very little effort to cite where it came from and who wrote it.

Pasting other people’s words is fine, but give them credit, and give us a chance to check their credentials and determine the purity of their motivations.

There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding my simple attempt to quantify the huge amount of energy that was released during the collapse.  I simply typed “total energy world trade center collapse” or similar into a search engine.  There appears an article from MIT, which was based on a speculative panel discussion a mere month after the attack, which gave a rough preliminary calculation based on the mass and height of the buildings.  NOT meant to be the kinetic energy of the upper block.  NOT meant to be anything more than an APPROXIMATION of the TOTAL energy released.

Now, for some reason, you two redefined this as some kind of authoritative final report, and have said things like “they were given wrong information by the govt.” or “this is an outdated report so why are you quoting from it”  (paraphrasing, obviously)  No, I don’t think a month after the tradjedy that anyone in the govt. was worried about giving information to MIT, wrong or otherwise.  This was simply a speculative article based on common knowledge of the towers.  It was not meant by me or them to be the final authoritative word on the specific mechanics of the collapse.  But, it was a perfectly valid source of information regarding the approximate amount of total energy released during the collapse.

Bazant and Zhou also wrote an early report which focused on the fact that once the upper block began its descent, by whatever exact means, that it was simply unstoppable.  The report acknowledged lack of exact building specifications, and exact temperatures.  However, they also stated that any differences would have to be an order of magnitude different to change the fact that the upper block wouldn’t easily overcome the rest of the building below.  Their early report was accepted and approved by the many engineers working and consulting for NIST, who are equally knowledgeable of advanced structural physics, and realized that attempting to analyze the collapse any further was pointless.  Doing so would eat up funds that would be better spent elsewhere, like making recommendations for changes in building codes, and the analysis of what made WTC7 collapse.  However, Bazant did subsequently analyze the entire collapse in his 2006 paper, which I’m sure you’re familiar with.  He reevaluated and confirmed his earlier conclusions in light of the extensive investigations by NIST, and continued on to the ground.

You go to great pains Joe, and execute countless keystrokes in attempting to divine something mysterious out of the speed of collapse of the towers.  However, you miss a basic and well understood (by egg-heads other than us) fact, arrived at through advanced understanding of structural physics and the WTC design, thus:

The enormous mass of the upper block was such that the underlying structure was essentially not there, in terms of substantially affecting the speed of collapse.

I’ll leave it up to you to realize what a teeny tiny influence that air resistance would play.  I’ll leave it up to you to realize how laughable it is for people who wouldn’t make it past the first question on a professional structural engineering licensing test to be making such sweeping and confident proclamations regarding what made the towers collapse, and why they collapsed like they did.

Posted by Natalie on Oct 25, 2006 at 3:07 PM

Mike Taylor of the national Association of Demolition Contractors said the collapse of the WTC towers looked like a classic controlled demolition, it cascaded down like an implosion .

Ronald Hambuger a structural engineer and contributor to FEMA and NIST reports said it appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building.

No no no.  You can’t just drive by, throw this crap out and leave.  Prove to us that you haven’t taken these guy’s words and opinions out of context, or simply made them up.

Links.  Proof.  Context.

Posted by Natalie on Oct 25, 2006 at 3:24 PM

Natalie

I have only read the firirst sentance and I just wanted to respond now. No I did not write all of that it is from many places and I do apologise for not puting the links in but I will as I stated in my first response to your Oct 24, 2006 at 10:31 PM comment.

I did have the links in when I first tried to respond but it kept disappearing and I was tired of doing it over and over again so I thought I would just get it up now and go back later with all the links.

I feel alot better to know that you read what I put up and that you will use the links. Thank you for your time and I promise you will find it very informative.

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 25, 2006 at 3:57 PM

Yes, Joe, I try to read what you present, but you need to throttle back on the litany thing.  You continue to apparently think that you can somehow decide scientific and engineering questions by shallowly ticking off one dubious contention after another.

Even if the Bush administration tried to spin or hide scientific reports that might work against their general policies, that is a far cry from murdering thousands of people in cold blood.

I’m quite sure that the opposite party did their share of spinning and hiding of scientific reports to benefit their agenda.  Does that mean that they must have had a hand in it too?

Just because a CIA agent or two has suspicions that agree with yours, what is the context?  What motivates these particular agents?  Are they rabidly anti-semitic like so many in the ‘truth” movement?  What percentage of CIA agents share his view?  If it turns out that his opinion makes up only 1/2 of one percent of all CIA agents, do you still hang your hat there?  Context.  Examination.  Evidence. 

Stuff like this is meaningless, and you would do well to concentrate on finding some actual evidence that explosives were planted in the buildings.  I think the fact that there isn’t any is the reason you feel compelled to continuously bring up all of these kinds of irrelevant subjects.  The “truth” movement ultimately hurts its cause by doing so.

Posted by Natalie on Oct 25, 2006 at 6:39 PM

Natalie

I have been posting links to every statment made above (please keep going to the top) and I have to keep reduing it because some dont show up at all but after I post them again they do. Its odd because even the <a

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 25, 2006 at 8:07 PM

Mike Taylor of the national Association of Demolition Contractors said the collapse of the WTC towers looked like a classic controlled demolition, it cascaded down like an implosion .

Ronald Hambuger a structural engineer and contributor to FEMA and NIST reports said it appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building.

Can we clear this up Joe?

One thing at a time.

Posted by Natalie on Oct 26, 2006 at 9:25 AM

I am so upset I only just now got back on line since last night not long after my last post. For what ever reason my service was down it was nothing with my computer. But what really gets me upset is that I have to sit here and repost all the links I put up since my last post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I had made it all the way down to my Oct 25, 2006 at 11:54 AM comment and was geting ready to start posting links on the next comment when I lose my connection and now I see that the last links are gone!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I almost was done with the entire page!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dont worry Im not going to give up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Every thing I posted will have links!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I want to say again that there is nothing at all wrong with my computer!!!!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I will walk a thousand miles to take the truth to you and any one alse who still has not woken up to the lies and the deception.

If you only new how many times my work is just vanishing!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

At least it still shows the 83 new links that I had put up before that so please take a look. They are all different links as well to different sorces.

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 26, 2006 at 11:08 AM

The Democrats and Republicans are just two heads of the same monster so of course they have a hand in it to. You have to remember that both parties are being controlled by the same corporate and banking interests. Natalie you are a slave and dont even know it which makes it all the more worse for you.

Do you realize what you’re saying here Joe?  You’re saying that there are people in our govt, regardless of party, that would murder three, potentially tens of thousands of people in order to bow to “corporate and banking interests”.

Are you serious?  This is an extremely irresponsible and offensive charge.  Normally when people make charges of MASS MURDER, they have a little thing called DIRECT EVIDENCE to support them.  You don’t have a shred of that—not physical, not testimonial—and you don’t even have a sensible motive.

It’s a hell of lot more than one or two.

The website “Patriot’s Questions” is very deceptive, I think.  What it seeks to do is confuse in people’s minds what the true beliefs and concerns of the various people are.

For instance, the first person, Curt Weldon, has raised the issue of Able Danger.  He is angered by what he perceives to be a lack of communication between the Pentagon and the FBI.  He doesn’t believe that 9/11 was an inside job, and he certainly doesn’t believe in controlled demolition.

Max Cleland doesn’t believe in an inside job.  He doesn’t believe in controlled demolition.  He’s a political hack, who is just trying to do whatever he can to make President Bush and any and all Republicans look bad.

Mark Dayton is concerned about what he perceives to be negligence on the part of NORAD.  He doesn’t believe in an inside job or controlled demolition.  He’s also a big political hack.

Louie Freeh doesn’t believe in an inside job.  He doesn’t believe in controlled demolition.  He is also interested in Able Danger, but not from the perspective of someone deliberately allowing or helping the attack. 

So the first big four, the big stars with the biggest names that might actually have some credibility would probably laugh in your face if you asked them about an inside job or controlled demolition.

From there we go down the list and find an assortment of misinformed and confused old men, (the hijackers turned up alive, that hole in the Pentagon twern’t made by no plane) deliberate frauds like Doug Rokke, and various other nuts, hucksters or creepy anti-semites that have either a political ax to grind, or maybe are just trying to make some money off this business.  Not a single solitary one of them presents anything that wouldn’t be laughed out of each and every courtroom in the country.

Perhaps the most telling part of the page is the list of links to 9/11 victims organizations.  There is not the slightest reference to an inside job or controlled demolition on any of them.  I would think that if any of this inside job talk made the slightest sense to any of them, that they would at least have some reference to the subject, somewhere.

Our Mission
Founded in September 2001, the World Trade Center United Family Group is a nonprofit organization headquartered in New Jersey and comprised of September 11th families, survivors and rescue workers from all over the United States and the world. Collectively, we strive to provide emotional support to each other, protect the legacy and memory of the victims of the September 11th attacks, ensure an authentic perpetuation of the historic events and promote civic participation within our community and the general public. Our community, built on the principles of trust and shared experience, will serve as a living tribute to the thousands of innocent men, women and children murdered in the September 11th <u>attacks</u> on America.

Families of September 11, Inc. (FOS11) is a nonprofit organization founded in October 2001 by families of those who died in the September 11 <u>terrorist attacks</u>. Membership is open to anyone affected by the events of September 11, be they family members, survivors, responders, or others as well as those who support our mission. The group has two goals:
* To support families and children by offering updated information on issues of interest, access to resources, relevant articles, and advocacy to raise awareness about the effects of terrorism and public trauma.
  * To champion domestic and international policies that <u>respond to the threat of terrorism</u> including support for the 9/11 Commission Recommendations, and to reach out to <u>victims of terror worldwide</u>.

Posted by Natalie on Oct 26, 2006 at 10:32 PM

Natalie

First I would like to thank you for using the links. I have many more (Im almost done, then I will send) that confirm the need for a new investigation.

You said:
Do you realize what you’re saying here Joe?  You’re saying that there are people in our govt, regardless of party, that would murder three, potentially tens of thousands of people in order to bow to “corporate and banking interests”.

“An Environmental Protection Agency whistleblower who has long argued that her agency failed to issue proper warnings about air quality at the World Trade Center disaster site, has leveled new accusations against the agency, RAW STORY has learned.

As RAW STORY reported this past August, Cate Jenkins, an EPA biochemist, sent a letter to the New York congressional delegation, alleging that the inconsistent official reports about inhalant alkalinity were part of an intentional cover up by government scientists and officials.

Jenkins’ latest sixty-page document, addressed to the acting Inspector General of the EPA, is in large part a compilation of her previous allegations, but also claims to offer new evidence that criminal fraud is to blame.

Here is an example of how the MSM surpress’s the truth. They pulled this. I find it is a good way to see how they (Bush administration) dont care how many die so they can reach their goals.

====================================================

RICE OK’D CLAIM OF ‘SAFE AIR’ AFTER 9/11
By SUSAN EDELMAN, HEATHER GILMORE and BRAD HAMILTON
————————————————————————————————————————

Condoleezza Rice’s office gave final approval to the infamous Environmental Protection Agency press releases days after 9/11 claiming the air around Ground Zero was “safe to breathe,” internal documents show.

Now Secretary of State, Rice was then head of the National Security Council - “the final decision maker” on EPA statements about lower Manhattan air quality, the documents say.

Scientists and lawmakers have since deemed the air rife with toxins.

Early tests known to the EPA at the time had already found high asbestos levels, the notes say. But those results were omitted from the press releases because of “competing priorities” such as national security and “opening Wall Street,” according to a report by the EPA’s inspector general.

The chief of staff for then-EPA head Christie Todd Whitman, Eileen McGinnis, told the inspector general of heated discussions, including “screaming telephone calls,” about what to put in the press releases.

The notes come from a 2003 probe into public assurances made on Sept. 16, five days after the 9/11 attacks. They tell how a White House staffer “worked with Dr. Condoleezza Rice’s press secretary” on reviewing the press releases for weeks.

Whitman said through a spokeswoman Friday that she never discussed her press releases directly with Rice. She also defended her collaboration with the White House.

Now-retired Inspector General Nikki Tinsley told The Post her auditors tried to question the head of President Bush’s Environmental Quality Council, but “he would not talk to us.”

Calls and e-mails to Rice were not returned.

susan.edelman@nypost.com
September 24, 2006

Do you know how many schools in lower Manhattan reopened based on the EPA Whitman’s press release September 18th, 2001, that stated that she wanted to reassure New Yorkers the air was safe? Does that touch your conscience that thousands of children were subjected to dangerous levels of dozens on toxins and may one day suffer deathly illnesses because of those lies? It appears you don’t give a dam about the almost 70,000 first responders and construction workers who were exposed or the fact that 70% are now suffered respiratory illnesses.

For all those the stand by the Official Lie of 9/11, maybe you should start to look at the facts and evidence.

U.S. District Judge Deborah A. Batts

“No reasonable person would have thought that telling thousands of people that it was safe to return to lower Manhat tan, while knowing that such return could pose long-term health risks and other dire consequences, was conduct sanctioned by our laws,” Judge Batts said. She found Whitman’s actions “conscience-shocking” because the EPA chief knew the twin towers collapse had generated tons of airborne toxic materials.

10/2/2006

(CBS/AP) NEW YORK Several Manhattan Democrats are urging the federal government to pay for health insurance for students who attended school in Lower Manhattan after the 9/11 terrorist attacks.

Representative Jerrold Nadler, Borough President Scott Stringer and Councilman Alan Gerson held a news conference Sunday. They also called on the government to pay for research and medical screenings for the students.

Amit Friedlander, a 2002 graduate of Stuyvesant High School joined them at the conference. He recently received a diagnosis of Hodgkins lymphoma and suspects toxic dust from Ground Zero was a cause.

Sorry folks, there’s no going around it. Neglegence on this scale from the Secretary of State, an individual who is to be selected on holding and maintaing the premium level of intellect, evaluating expertise, refined sway, and all the best qualities one of us could ever muster, well, it’s repulsive. She holds one of our Nation’s most honored and noble poisitions in our Government. Her wrecklessness with thousands of lives during the immediate days after 911 is a century mark of the worst carelessness we could ever expect. Imagine you were her making the call, “yeah, send them back to work, and tell Rudy to tell all of them to go shopping.” She encouraged the population to return as soon as possible to the area; millions exposed to toxic and pulverized carcinigous dust and debris. I was at ground zero on 911 and 912, and the days and days following the air reeked a unique smell. I believe it was reffred to as the Trade Center smell or something similiar. We’ve already been seeing the wave of rescue workers suffering, and some dying, and more to come, many more to come. And it’s our Secretary State, Condi Rice, who holds the weight. Anything short of jail time will not be acceptable within a rational and widly grasped concept of a democracy. This is BLATANT. If Condi gets off the manslaughter charges, there is not a person who can say with a straight face we are living in a democracy. If she slides, this is not America anymore.

Thousands have been tried and covicted for much, much less!!!!!!!

Natalie you keep saying how it is crazy to think that our Nazi like administation would ever place people in harms way for their own gain. When they do it all the time. Cant you see? Of course we dont want to belive it but we cant keep living in denial and must except the truth.

It’s been done before… Sept 2001, EPA administrator Christie Whitman went to Libby, Montana, which had a big problem with mined vermiculite used in soil conditioners and insulation,. They stopped mining in 1990 because a substance called tremolite contains lethal levels of asbestos fiber and has killed and seriously injured thousands of Libby miners and families. The EPA’s records show that almost 16 BILLION tons of this deadly ore have been shipped to some 750 fertilizer and insulation manufacturers throughout the US. and estimated 15 to 35 million homes have been insulated with this toxic material. UNBELIEVABLY the Bush-Cheney White House killed the EPA’s planned emergency announcement. Dick Cheney has been working to get Congress to pass legislation removing liability for companies with asbestos problems… such as Halliburton who was involved with lethal Libby ore.

Natalie we are nothing to them do you think they care how many die? They care about money and power and what they can get away with to gain either.

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 27, 2006 at 8:03 AM

Natalie

You said:
The website

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 27, 2006 at 9:09 AM

Mike Taylor of the national Association of Demolition Contractors said the collapse of the WTC towers looked like a classic controlled demolition, it cascaded down like an implosion .

Ronald Hambuger a structural engineer and contributor to FEMA and NIST reports said it appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building.

Joe?  Please?

Posted by Natalie on Oct 27, 2006 at 9:38 AM

Yeah right Joe, and Republicans want to kill children with school lunch cuts.  They want to poison you with arsenic in the water.  Bush steered the hurricane toward New Orleans and then blew up the levies.  People that aren’t sheep laugh at this kind of nonsense.

Whatever judgments were made with regards to the air quality at ground zero, to attempt to use that as some kind of “evidence” that these people were conscientiously trying to kill people is ridiculous, and I’m quite confident that the whole situation has been spun for political gain by the opposition.  Maybe some misjudgments were made, but maybe also a lot of people chose not to follow recommendations.

Whatever Curt Weldon thinks about Able Danger, he doesn’t suspect an inside job by our govt.  He doesn’t go along with the CD science fiction.  I’d like some more investigation into Able Danger myself, but not for the reason that I think anyone was deliberately trying to kill Americans, (other than terrorists) but because I suspect there was a lot of blind adherence to stupid laws, enacted by Democrats, no doubt, that prevented information from being shared.  His call for investigation is based on very real phenomenon—political correctness, institutional rivalry and stupid Democrat party ACLU endorsed rules that end up benefitting criminals, and screwing the innocent.  His call for investigation is a responsible one.  The website Patriot Questions seeks to recruit his responsible call for investigation in order to help support other’s irresponsible calls.

I doubt he is happy being included among many of the other kooks on that list.

Posted by Natalie on Oct 27, 2006 at 9:57 AM

Natalie

Yeah right Joe?????

Former NYPD Officer Craig Bartmer was a 9/11 First Responder and a committed worker at Ground Zero. He, like many others who worked to clean Ground Zero, has developed respiratory illnesses as a result of the toxic dust inhaled at the site. Also like many others who were physically affected by the attacks, Craig Bartmer is now combating Post Traumatic Stress Disorder. In this interview he details his eyewitness account of the collapse of World Trade Centre Building 7. He also speaks out against the official 9/11 story, the lies told by the EPA about the air quality at Ground Zero and the critical need for a fresh independent investigation into the 9/11 attacks.

He had to sign a waiver not to file suit against the government in exchange for victim relief funds.

And did he say 26 dead already?? If so, WHY IS THIS NOT NEWS???? Just this year!!!!!

We realize that when it comes to freedom of the press, the USA has fallen to Number 53 in the world——tied with our fascist homies in Croatia and the islanders of the Kingdom of Tonga!——but do we have to make is so damned obvious?

Mike Taylor of the national Association of Demolition Contractors said “It cascaded down like an implosion”

Ronald Hambuger a structural engineer and contributor to FEMA and NIST reports said “It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building”.

Natalie keep looking at the posts I have put up after your Oct 24, 2006 at 10:31 PM comment I have been adding many links all the time and I think I have figured out why they were vanishing. It was I think because I was sending to many at one time? It seems to work if I send a few at a time anyway.

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 27, 2006 at 12:08 PM

U.S. Military Blocks Troops From Visiting Alternative News Websites

Wonkette | October 27 2006

Another Marine stationed in Iraq has sent us a screenshot of what happens when you need some hot news on Macaca and Foley:forbidden, this page (http://www.wonkette.com) is categorized as (Personal Pages) ALL SITES YOU VISIT ARE LOGGED AND FILED.Nice little threat at the end, too.
Notice the other browser tabs. Two actual “personal pages” that rah-rah for Bush (What’s her name, the wannabe Coulter, and Hugh Hewitt) show up just fine, as our Marine Operative confirms. But “Talking Points Memo,” which is apparently one of the “left leaning” sites one hears so much about these days, is prohibited.

Writes the Corporal: “I think that this kind of censoring is a big deal. I can understand blocking porn, music and movies, and blatantly illegal sites, but blocking sites that some higher up just doesn’t agree with is disgusting. They are blocking a huge portion of voters from information that will help them determine which side to vote for. Because of this, the only news we get is from the big corporations or conservative based sites.”

What did this guy expect? Hahaha he acts surprised hahahhaahah. You have to admit that the poor guy is clueless not to expect that. Duh!!! What did this guy just wake up? I hope he is not like the 93% or acording to another poll only 87% that think thier there to revenge 9/11 or that the Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein help to cause 9/11 by aiding and funding the 911 terrorist.

That is not by accident that they are so missinformed!!!!!!!!!!

P.S. Natalie you said His call for investigation is a responsible one. Reguarding Curt Weldon.

I Just want to say thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you thank you!!!!!!!!! We need one NOW!!! Oh yea not all have to belive in a CD for there are many many other areas that need to be investigated as well!! I am so glad that you can see at least one of them.

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 27, 2006 at 12:59 PM

—————————————-ABLE DANGER————————————-9/11 was an inside job!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Mohammad Atta Allowed To Escape One Year Before 9/11

Rep. Weldon On The Washington Journal - Video Inside

Congressman: Defense Knew 9/11 Hijackers

Congressman Wants Another Look At 9/11 Commission Probe

Rep. Curt Weldon (R) Talks About “Able Danger” - Video Inside

Rep. Weldon’s Preemptive Strike Against The CIA

Whitewashing the Protection of Terrorists on US Soil - Nafeez Ahmed - RawStory Exclusive

Kristen Breitweiser: Enabling Danger

Was Mohammad Atta Overlooked?

Errors Of Commission

Senate May Hold Hearings On Able Danger, Info Sharing

Open Letter To The 9/11 PDP, Challenge To A Debate And Forum On Findings Of 9/11 Rep.

The 9/11 Omission: Did The 9/11 Commission Get It Wrong?

9/11 Widows Group Decries Pentagon Call For Closed Judiciary Hearings On Able Danger

9/11 Relatives Charge Cover-Up

Former Family Steering Committee Members Request Judiciary Compell Testimony

Atta Known To Pentagon Before 9/11

“Able Danger” & 9/11 Foreknowlede

Full Text Of Rep. Weldon’s Floor Speech, 10/21/2005

Is Able Danger A Hoax?

Rep. Curt Weldon Accuses Lee Hamilton Of Participation In Bush 9/11 Coverup

Clearance And Present Danger

Pentagon Probes Treatment Of ‘Able Danger’ Officer

Dear Friends, Colleagues And CitizensWatch Members…

Weldon Pushes ‘Able Danger’ Criminal Probe

Readers Demand New York Newsday Give A Fair Hearing To 9/11 Skepticism

Pentagon Firing Lt. Col Anthony Shaffer, Ending His Military Career

Prospect For Able Danger Hearings Gain Ground

Able Danger II

Letter From CitizensWatch Reader Calls DOD’s Bluff

9/11 Probers Leave Questions Behind

A 9/11 Tip-Off: Fact Or Fancy?

What Did U.S. Military Know Before 9/11?

Philip Zelikow: The Bush Administration Investigates The Bush Administration

Weldon Rips 9/11 Commission Over Intelligence Failures

URGENT: Please Sign Able Danger Petition Now - Demand Rumsfeld Ungag “WBs”

Kean And Hamilton On “Meet The Press” - Transcript Inside

Questions For The 9/11 Commissioners & Staff Regarding Able Danger

Commissioners Explain Why Able Danger Was Omitted From Their Report

Ex-Top General Disputes Claim That 9/11 Boss Atta Was Identified In 2000

Able Danger Officials Will Testify Before Congress

Rep. Curt Weldon Refers To The 93 Bombings As Something We Should Know About

Weldon To Get His Chance To Prove 9/11 Accusations

The King’s Red Herring

Before 9/11, Bush Lost His Spy Cap

The Bush Family Coup

Able Danger And Moussaoui

Terror Alert Weeks Before Cole Bombing Ignored

Congressman Subpoenaed For 9/11 Trial

Congress To Hear Pre-9/11 Report

“13” Cyber Clues To 9/11 Pilot

Judge Bars Moussaoui From Courtroom

Spitzer Blocks Top Aide From 9/11 Congressional Testimony

Weldon Responds To Omission Of Able Danger From 9/11 Report

Able Danger And The 9/11 Whitewash

Exclusive Interview With Sander Hicks: 9/11 Author, Candidate For NY Governor

Ex-State Department Security Officer Charges Pre-9/11 Cover-Up

Representative Curt Weldon Says Osama Bin Laden Is Dead

New Yorkers To Challenge NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer

Spitzer On The Spot

Representative Curt Weldon Takes Part In A Town Hall Meeting - Audio Inside

The 9/11 Story That Got Away

Hijacked Truth?

Former Clinton Officials, And 9/11 Commissioner Are Trying To Get Weldon Out Of D.C.

9/11 “Conspiracy Theorists” Vindicated: Pentagon Deliberately Misled Public Opinion

11 Questions Avoided By The Media In Recent Reporting Of DoD Violations Of Law

Another 9/11 Coverup In The Making?

The 9/11 Commission: A Play On Nothing In Three Acts

Kean-Hamilton Statement On Able Danger

Able Danger Intel Exposed “Protected” Heroin Trafficking

Senate Judiciary Cmte. Hearing On Able Danger And Intelligence Sharing - Video Inside

‘Able Danger’ Officer’s Clearance Revoked

Pentagon Probes Treatment Of ‘Able Danger’ Officer

Able Danger’s Computer Found Condoleeza Rice To Be A Threat

Rep. Curt Weldon Talks About 9/11 Coverup On CNN - Video Inside

Rep. Curt Weldon: DIA Lies, Destroys Reputations

Weldon: Atta Papers Destroyed On Orders

Rep. Curt Weldon Says There May Still Be WMD In Iraq, Total Bullshit

Rep. Curt Weldon Included In List Of 20 Most Corrupt Members Of Congress

Pentagon: Secret Unit Couldn’t Stop 9/11

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 27, 2006 at 2:48 PM

Natalie

I know that last post was a lot and I hope they dont “vanish”.

You said:
Mike Taylor of the national Association of Demolition Contractors said the collapse of the WTC towers looked like a classic controlled demolition, it cascaded down like an implosion .

Ronald Hambuger a structural engineer and contributor to FEMA and NIST reports said it appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building.

No no no.  You can

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 27, 2006 at 11:05 PM

Joe,

I’m afraid I must conclude that Able Danger is much ado about nothing.  In fact, it appears that Shaffer might have much in common with another fraud recently discussed here—Lauro Chavez.  Both sound credible, smart, well spoken.  But in reality, nothing but ego-centric bull-shitters.  I think that Weldon loved what he heard—sounded convincing, made Clinton look bad, good stuff.

The IG report shows, however gingerly and circumspectly, that a principal public face of Able Danger, an Army reserve lieutenant colonel named Anthony Shaffer, who has worked in a variety of Defense Intelligence Agency “special” and secret projects as an officer on active duty and as a civilian, exaggerated, lied and possibly worse.  Shaffer, who is shown in the IG’s report to be peripheral to the Able Danger effort and less knowledgeable than he claims, also is shown to have a selective and inconsistent memory.  On the one hand, Shaffer remembers specifically seeing photographs of Mohamed Atta on charts and documents that by his own telling he only saw once or twice six years ago.  Yet Shaffer’s mind goes blank and he can not recollect if he had or set up a meeting with an FBI official who also happens to be a best friend from high school.

When I said “context”, I guess I should have stipulated “correct context”.

Kevin Ryan mined Ronald Hamburger’s quote here:

Ronald Hamburger turned on his television on the day of the attack just in time to watch the collapse of the second World Trade Center tower.

“<u>It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building</u>,” said Mr. Hamburger, chief structural engineer for ABS Consulting in Oakland, Calif.  Upon learning that no bombs had been detonated, “I was very surprised,” said Mr. Hamburger. The buildings “certainly did not do as well as I would have hoped.”

But obviously, this was just a first impression that many people had before they knew any details about the building’s unusual construction. 

Context.  (correct context)

Kevin Ryan mined Mike Taylor’s quote here:

<u>The collapse of the WTC towers looked like a classic controlled demolition</u>, said Mike Taylor of the National Association of Demolition Contractors in Doylestown, Pennsylvania.

The lack of collapse in higher stories was one reason why the 454 kilogram bomb detonated in the underground garage of the World Trade Center in 1993 failed to destroy the building.

Context.  (correct context)

So we are left to conclude that Kevin Ryan is either deliberately deceiving us, or feels no need for researching the quotes he uses in his presentations past the first 9/11 conspiracy site he clicks on.

Either way, it doesn’t bode well for the credibility of the rest of his little side….er uh….slide show.

Posted by Natalie on Oct 28, 2006 at 2:02 AM

Natalie

You still have not used my links!!!!!!!!!!!!! The last link where Kevin Ryan used the quotes was an inderct link of the quotes. If you want to see the original articles that the quotes came from then you need to go back to the top and use my links!!!!!!!! Wake up and open your eyes!!!!!!! USE MY LINKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why do you not use them? Can you still not see? Are they still vanishing from your denial?

No building in history has ever collapsed showing all the characteristics of an implosion that looked like a clasic controlled demolition that was not a controlled demolition!!!!!!

Now you have to admit from their own statements and first impression there was enough reason to at least examine the evidence for signs of explosives. Wich by the way they still refuse to do using the steel “evidence” in the hangar that wasnt already disposed of!!!!

BIG RED FLAG DUH!!!!!!!!!!!!! HELLO!!!!!!!!!!!!! OPEN YOUR EYES!!!!!!!!!!!

“Unusual construction”?????? What the fact building seven was built like a bunker because it was a bunker!!!!!!!!!!! Oh lets not forget it was not hit by a plane so there goes the magic explosive, super hot jet fuel!!!

THE GOV. SAYS MOVE ALONG NOTHING TO SEE HERE AND YOU DO!!??!! has it ever occurred to you that we’re supposed to closely monitor our government for it has been proven throughout history that those in power always seek more and if not watched closely by the people it will no longer be for them but against them (the people) to put it simply.

Please tell me where the evidence about Able Danger needs Shaffer to show a huge coverup!!!!!!! Please show me where the evidence about NORAD standing down depends on Lauro Chavez when there are other higher ranking personnel that backed up Norman Minetas testimony!!!!!! Who cares that his (Minetas) testimony was never used or mentioned in the 911 commission’s report or the fact that it’s been deleted from the archives!!!! We the people still have it and We will not forget!!!!!!!!!!!!

USE MY LINKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Im sure you have heard the call to the FBI bucause thats the old one but have you heard this one where they are cought again..Lier Lier pants on fire. Run forest run. If you like those and have not heard them I have many, many, many more. I know I know Im sure you have heard them for they have been put up on google and you tube under many names in different categories. So many agencies and so many LIES have been busted!!!!!!!!!

The lines are being drawn between good and evil where do you stand?

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 28, 2006 at 10:49 AM

You still have not used my links!!!!!!!!!!!!! The last link where Kevin Ryan used the quotes was an inderct link of the quotes. If you want to see the original articles that the quotes came from then you need to go back to the top and use my links!!!!!!!! Wake up and open your eyes!!!!!!! USE MY LINKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Joe, I can’t seem to find where you talked about Taylor and Hamburger before.  Do us all a favor and post the links again.  But I’m really starting to wonder if you have any concept of context.

No building in history has ever collapsed showing all the characteristics of an implosion that looked like a clasic controlled demolition that was not a controlled demolition!!!!!!

According to implosion experts, that would be people that actually do implosions, the collapses of the towers did NOT look like a classic demolition.  They were completely at odds with one. You’re just making stuff up here, Joe.

(first item addressed in paper)

Now you have to admit from their own statements and first impression there was enough reason to at least examine the evidence for signs of explosives. Wich by the way they still refuse to do using the steel “evidence” in the hangar that wasnt already disposed of!!!!

First impressions were that the first plane hit was an accident.  Maybe we should track down that lead.  I personally saw a clear outline of Kyle from South Park in the debris cloud.  Why that hasn’t has been followed up on, I don’t know.  Thousands of others I’m sure saw it.  I think it was covered up by the media.

Unusual construction”?????? What the fact building seven was built like a bunker because it was a bunker!!!!!!!!!!! Oh lets not forget it was not hit by a plane so there goes the magic explosive, super hot jet fuel!!!

I was talking about the towers, and now you suddenly want to jump to building 7?  Why the dodge?  Building 7 was a bunker?  Really?

Man, the details of science and engineering you can learn on YouTube.  Why in the world waste time on college degrees any more?

Posted by Natalie on Oct 28, 2006 at 6:45 PM

Natalie

You said:

Joe, I can’t seem to find where you talked about Taylor and Hamburger before.  Do us all a favor and post the links again.  But I’m really starting to wonder if you have any concept of context.

HERE IT IS AGAIN FOR YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! With links to over 400 scholars, scientists, engineers and physicists who say the government myth defies the laws of physics!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You said:
I simply cited a generic calculation of the total energy generated by the collapse of the towers, in an attempt to illustrate the magnitude that was involved, and in order to account for the pulverization of the concrete and the supposed ejection of whatever steel columns that actually did occur.  The amount of energy exerted by the upper block of floors was sufficient in spades to instantly crush the lower structure.

If you want to talk about science Natalie you cant use something that has been shown to be false as an example of what happend. You can only use it as an example of what could not happen. Besides it was all based on incorect information that was used in the calculations. The only other reason to use it is to missinform people.

You said:
That, Joe, is something that is unquestioned by anyone who actually understands the forces involved in such an event.  In other words, 99.99 percent of structural engineers and even still employed physicists on the planet.

What planet are you talking about it most certinly is not Earth. Here are just a few examples in order to save space and time.

By adopting Dr. Greening’s own arguments, corrections, contentions, figures and reasoning, the analysis once again shows that the collapse would be arrested at an early stage. Dr. Greening has not disproved the logic and conclusions of Dr. Ross’s article, but has in fact reinforced the most important conclusion: that collapse would have been arrested at an early stage.

Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of “pancake collapse”, which normally only occurs with concrete structures of “lift slab” construction and could not occur in “redundant” welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as the Structural Engineer Charles Pegelow has pointed out.

The destruction of the South Tower in 10 seconds and of the North in 9 is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.

The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain.

If the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt, and total demolition that was observed.

In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11,so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like “puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil.” Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?

physics research has established that only controlled demolitions are consistent with the near-gravity speed of fall and virtually symmetrical collapse of all three of the WTC buildings. While turning concrete into very fine dust, they fell straight-down into their own footprints.

An expert on demolition said that the trade centers were brought down with explosives (and see TV interview here; both in Danish)

Two structural engineers at a prestigious Swiss university said that,  on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)

A Dutch demolition expert stated that WTC 7 was imploded

A U.S. professor of physics stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition

A U.S. professor of mechanical engineering argued that the trade centers were brought down with explosives

Several U.S. structural engineers, such as this one (second interview), have concluded that the collapse of the Trade Centers on 9/11 cannot be explained by the plane crashes and fires in the buildings

An expert on why buildings collapse said controlled demolitions make buildings fall straight down (as opposed to falling over like a tree, which is what normally happens when buildings collapse) because the vertical columns are destroyed simultaneously by explosives, and “that’s exactly what it looked like and that’s what happened” on 9/11

The head of a national demolition association stated that the collapse of the towers looked like a “classic controlled demolition”

“Some engineers . . . have accused NIST of repeatedly changing its explanation of the collapse mechanism.” (Google’s cached version of the article is here)

You said:
No, I’m not behind, but you are missing an important distinction, I believe.  Yes, indeed, NIST did determine that the collapse was not initiated by a “pancaking” of the floors in the immediate area of the plane impacts, but by the sagging of the floor trusses that resulted in the pulling in and buckling of the exterior columns on one side of each building.  This was arrived at through the very intensive “investigation” and a further study that the truthies so often demand.

Nat Thank you for the information and the last link you had given me. Have you read the link in wich you gave me as a properly peer reviewd paper? It says; Since we are are not attempting to model the details of the real failure mechanisms [ WICH THEY DONT AND CANT ] but to seek only to prove that the towers must have collapsed and do so in the way seen. So they come up with an explanation of the towers collapse starting with the heating of the majority of colums of a single floor far exceeding 800*C for a prolonged period of time. Yet they give no explanation how that is even remotely possible. It couldnt be the jet fuel and besides this uniformly super hot heat sorce must have started before the impact of the jets. But thats not all it gets worse. Except for the math on the load distrabution after impact. They do agree that the damage from the planes could and was handeld well. In other words the load spread or redistributed itself to the remaining colums and they where more than able to continue to sustain it. This is needed to make the rest of there calculations work in regards to the uniform collapse that takes place after the super hot prolonged and magical fire. My God Im a fool for not researching this before and I am ashamed with my self for beliveing this sham, scam, lie! Please forgive me for my spouting off but the more I read about this the more upset I have become. God help us. I ask you Natalie please help my faith in my goverment has been shaken. I promise I will research anything you have to offer to help me regain my faith and trust in my government. I am truely sad and scared for my children.
or
Editing available for 90 minutes after posting
United States Posted by honestjoe on Aug 11, 2006 at 9:45 PM

You said:
This was arrived at through the very intensive “investigation” and “further study” that the truthies so often demand.

For example, the former director of the FBI says there was a cover up by the 9/11 Commission.

And the 9/11 Commissioners knew that military officials lied to the Commission, and considered recommending criminal charges for such false statements, yet didn’t bother to tell the American people (free subscription required).

Indeed, the co-chairs of the Commission now admit that the Commission largely operated based upon political considerations.

9/11 Commission co-chair Lee Hamilton says “I don’t believe for a minute we got everything right”, that the Commission was set up to fail, that people should keep asking questions about 9/11, that the 9/11 debate should continue, and that the 9/11 Commission report was only “the first draft” of history.

9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey said that “There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version . . . We didn’t have access . . . .”

And former 9/11 Commissioner Max Cleland resigned from the Commission, stating: “It is a national scandal”; “This investigation is now compromised”; and “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”.

But let’s back up and look at the 9/11 Commission in more detail. Preliminarily, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney took the rare step of personally requesting that congress limit all 9/11 investigation solely to “intelligence failures”, so there has never been a congressional probe into any of the real issues involved.

The administration also opposed the creation of a 9/11 commission. Once it was forced, by pressure from widows of 9-11 victims, to allow a commission to be formed, the administration appointed as executive director an administration insider, whose area of expertise is the creation and maintenance of “public myths” thought to be true, even if not actually true (and see this article).

The administration then starved the commission of funds, providing a fraction of the funds used to investigate Monica Lewinsky, failed to provide crucial documents (and see this article also), and refused to require high-level officials to testify under oath, and allowed Bush and Cheney to be questioned jointly.

More importantly, the 9-11 Commission refused to examine virtually any evidence which contradicted the administration’s official version of events. As stated by the State Department’s Coordinator for Counterterrorism, who was the point man for the U.S. government’s international counterterrorism policy in the first term of the Bush administration, “there were things the [9/11] commission[s] wanted to know about and things they didn’t want to know about.”

For example, the 9-11 Commission report fails to mention the CIA director’s urgent warnings to top administration officials in July 2001 of an impending attack (indeed, the 9-11 Commission was briefed on these warnings, but denied they knew about them until confronted with contrary evidence). Moreover, numerous veteran national security experts were turned away, ignored, or censored by the 9/11 commission, even though they had information directly relevant to the commission’s investigation. And the 9/11 Commission Report does not even mention the collapse of World Trade Center building 7 or any explosions in the buildings (the word “explosion” does not appear in the report). There are literally hundreds of other examples of entire lines of evidence which contradict the government’s account which were ignored by the Commission.

A very well-documented book by a distinguished professor shows that the 9-11 Commission was a whitewash. According to law professor Richard Falk of Princeton, the author of this book “establishes himself, alongside Seymour Hersh, as America’s number one bearer of unpleasant, yet necessary, public truths” (Seymour Hersh, as you might know, is the Pulitzer prize-winning reporter who uncovered the Iraq prison torture scandal). See a synopsis of the book here; and a summary of a portion of the book here.

Indeed, the very 9-11 widows who had pressured the administration to create the 9/11 Commission now “question the veracity of the entire Commission’s report”, and have previously declared it a failure which ignored 70% of their detailed questions and “suppressed important evidence and whistleblower testimony that challenged the official story on many fronts”.

Moreover, a leading firefighters’ trade publication called the investigation concerning the world trade center a “half-baked farce”. In addition, the official investigators themselves were largely denied funding, access to the site and the evidence contained there, or even access to such basic information as the blueprints for the world trade center. Similarly, a professor of fire protection engineering, and the former chief of the fire science and engineering division of the agency now investigating the world trade center disaster, wrote that the world trade center buildings could not have collapsed due to jet fuel fires, that evidence was being destroyed, and that there was no real investigation into the collapses.

Indeed, the blueprints for the world trade center are apparently STILL being withheld from reporters and the public, and the government agency in charge of the investigation has grossly mischaracterized the structure of the buildings.

And the government agency tasked with examining the collapse of the World Trade Centers did NOT investigate any anomalies in the collapse of the buildings, failing to even examine any of the following evidence: the buildings impossible near free-fall speeds and symmetrical collapses; the unexplained fact that the core of the North Tower failed first; the apparent demolition squibs; the fact that the buildings turned to dust in mid-air; the presence of molten metal in the basement areas in large pools in all of the buildings; the unexplained presence of unusual compounds in the steel; the unexplained swiss-cheese like holes in the steel; and the unexplained straightening out of the upper 34 floors of the South Tower after they had precipitously leaned over and started toppling like a tree.
Indeed, an article from a respected civil engineering trade journal states:
“World Trade Center disaster investigators are refusing to show computer visualizations [i.e. models] of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers”.
The article goes on to state “a leading U.S. structural engineer said ‘By comparison [to the modeling of fires] the global structural model is not as sophisticated’ . . . The software used has been pushed to new limits, and there have been a lot of simplifications, extrapolations and judgement calls . . . it would be hard to produce a definitive visualization from the analysis so far.” (free subscription required; copy posted here)(in other words, the government refused to release a visual model of the collapses, and even the non-visual computer models which the government used to examine why the trade centers collapsed are faulty). 
The same journal points out that “Some engineers . . . have accused NIST of repeatedly changing its explanation of the collapse mechanism.” (Google’s cached version of the article is here)
See also this question and answer exchange at a recent government press conference (skip to 1 minute and 23 seconds into the video).  And this short video on building 7 and the subsequent investigation (you may wish to disregard brief partisan portion).

And did you know that investigators for the Congressional Joint Inquiry discovered that an FBI informant had hosted and even rented a room to two hijackers in 2000 and that, when the Inquiry sought to interview the informant, the FBI refused outright, and then hid him in an unknown location, and that a high-level FBI official stated these blocking maneuvers were undertaken under orders from the White House?

Or that a former FBI translator who Senators Leahy and Grassley, among others, have claimed is credible, and who the administration has gagged for years without any logical basis—has stated that “this administration knowingly and intentionally let many directly or indirectly involved in that terrorist act [September 11th] go free “untouched and uninvestigated”?
Or have you heard that the FBI long ago found and analyzed the “black box” recorders from the airplanes which hit the Twin Towers, but has consistently denied that they were ever found?

Or did you know that the tape of interviews of air traffic controllers on-duty on 9/11 was intentionally destroyed by crushing the cassette by hand, cutting the tape into little pieces, and then dropping the pieces in different trash cans around the building as shown by this NY Times article (summary version is free; full version is pay-per-view) and by this article from the Chicago Sun-Times?

And amazingly, many years after the FBI stated it did not have sufficient evidence to prosecute Bin Laden for 9/11, that agency apparently still does not have hard evidence linking Bin Laden to the crime.
Still think the government really investigated and disclosed what happened on 9/11?
Indeed, there are even indications that false evidence may have been planted to deflect attention from the real perpetrators.

“Zelikow is calling the shots. He’s skewing the investigation and running it his own way.“11 As executive director, moreover, Zelikow was able to control what would appear in—and be excluded from—The 911 Commission Report.

the commissions executive director and de facto member of the Bush administration, Philip Zelikow, controled the entire investigation as well as the writing of the report. Most of the 9/11 commission members were simply there to present an appearance of unanimity. Therefore the official story is not represenative of work by the U.S. government as a whole, but is largely the view of the Bush administration.

The commission’s story has been shown to be entirely false do to their lies of ,omission and distortion, and one significant event their report omitted entirely was the collapse of WTC7. They left this part to be fabricated by NIST.

This second report done by NIST inorder to tie up the loose ends is a direct product of the Bush adminastration, with cabinet member Carlos Gutierrez’ name emblazoned on page one. Of course NIST itself is a government agency whos directors are also presidential appointees. Those relying on this report always fail to note the fact that the leaders of NIST’ WTC investigation were appointed directly by George W. Bush.

Shankar Nair, was one of those “experts” on whom the government depended to support what turned out to be an ever-changing, but always flimsy, story. Not surprisingly, many of the contractors who contributed to the NIST investigation, like the company for which Nair works, just happen to depend on good relationships with the government in order to earn their living. Nair’s company, Teng & Associates, boasts of Indefinite Quantity Contracts, long-term relationships with federal government agencies, and federal projects worth in excess of $40 million.

Others who worked so hard to maintain the official story included Gene Corley, a concrete construction expert listed by the National Directory of Expert Witnesses as a source for litigation testimony. Corley was more than just a witness, however. He had led the Oklahoma City bombing investigation and then was asked to lead the initial ASCE investigation into the WTC disaster.Corley himself ended up being a very versatile resource, however, providing testimony supporting the pre-determined conclusions many times, and even posing as a reporter during an NIST media session.

Another expert who served on NIST’s advisory committee was Charles Thornton, of the engineering firm Thornton and Tomasetti. Thornton’s partner, Richard Tomasetti, was reported to be behind the unprecedented and widely criticized decision to destroy most of the steel evidence.11Early on Thornton said: “Karl, we all know what caused the collapse.” He was talking to Karl Koch, whose company erected the WTC steel. Also see James Glanz and Eric Lipton, City in the Sky: The Rise and Fall of the World Trade Center (New York: Times Books, 2003), 330.

Oh and let us not forget that the Bush adminisration has been criticized heavily for their disdane of science. The House Committee on Government Reform found “numerous instances where the administration has manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings.” Also a group of leading scientists, now including 49 Nobel Laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, and 175 members of the National Academics, has said that the Bush administration engages in “distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.”

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 28, 2006 at 8:18 PM

Scientific Method versus Political Method: The US administration and its interpretation of the events of 9/11.

9/11 was a terrorist attack—-or was it?

The US administration released several documents that claim that 9/11 was a terrorist attack. The NIST report[1], 9/11 commission report[2], FEMA report and the EPA report on air quality[3] were made by government scientists and high ranking government officials. Excluding the EPA report, all of these reports are used to claim that the official story is true.

Many assume that the reports are accurate and tell the full story of the events of 9/11. Unfortunately, an examination of the track record of the government in relation to science raises serious questions about their credibility.

Credibility[4] is defined as “the quality, capability, or power to elicit belief:”[5]

The most reliable form of credibility is based on science. The least reliable form is established through repeated or “pathological” lying. If we know someone to be a frequent liar, we will refuse to accept anything they say. Indeed, we will ignore them. This is therefore the most damning blow to credibility.

Is the US administration credible in their scientific reports?

Before answering this question accurately we should first define science. What is the difference between the Scientific method and the Political method?

  * Scientific Method: Start with the facts and then use them to reach an argument or thesis.
  * Political Method: Start with a thesis and then examine only the facts that confirm the argument.

The Scientific method is significantly more credible as it does not ignore evidence—-it must consider every detail. If evidence contradicts the thesis it must be rejected in favor of a new thesis that follows all of the given evidence. In contrast, the political method often attempts to preserve its thesis even in the face of contradicting evidence.

The US administration has occasionally made reference to “creating our own reality”.[6]

‘‘We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality—judiciously, as you will—we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.’‘[7]

Reality is not subjective; it consists of scientific laws that are observed to be true. “Creating our own reality” entails using facts that support an imaginary “reality” and ignoring facts that do not. This is the very definition of the political method.

But is this policy limited to political thought? In 2004, “a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates”[8] declared:

“The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad… Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke in the conference call, said the administration had “engaged in practices that are in conflict with the spirit of science and the scientific method.”[9]

It also found:

  * There is a well established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being.
  * There is strong documentation of a wide-ranging effort to manipulate the government’s scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration’s political agenda.
  * There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about “sensitive” topics.
  * There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the abuse of science by the Bush administration are unprecedented.[10]

According to these prominent scientists, the US administration is also creating its own “scientific reality”. As defined, this is not science—-it is the political method. It is another form of “creating our own reality”. Therefore we must conclude that the credibility of the US administration is lacking if it will distort science to support “policy goals”. This statement by prominent scientists is a damning blow to the scientific credibility of the US administration if it considers policy goals more important than scientific results. If the US government is censoring scientists, then we simply can not trust any single report that they release. Censorship of science is a way to ignore evidence and is therefore not science! It is the political method in action.

A perfect and credibility crushing example of this practice is shown by the EPA shortly after the 9/11 attacks took place:

“On September 18, 2001, as fires still smoldered at the trade center, [Christine Todd] Whitman said the air in Lower Manhattan was “safe to breathe.” She continued to reassure New Yorkers in the days and weeks that followed.”[11]

This has to be one of the most blatant examples of “creating our own [scientific] reality” This report was completely false and has resulted in a lawsuit:

US District Court Judge Deborah Batts called Whitman’s statements “misleading” and “conscience-shocking.” She did not grant Whitman immunity from the lawsuit. Residents, students and workers in Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn sued in 2004, saying the actions of Whitman and the EPA endangered their health.”[12]

The report was not only false; it was known to be false!

“Two devastating memos, written by the U.S. and local governments, show they knew. They knew the toxic soup created at Ground Zero was a deadly health hazard. Yet they sent workers into the pit and people back into their homes.”[13]

According to the New York Times, Condoleezza Rice gave “final approval to those infamous EPA press releases days after 9/11.”[14] Therefore, the Government is directly responsible and accountable for this false report that has made several thousands of rescue workers severely ill and disabled from the toxic dust. People are dying and will continue to die because of this report.[15]

Lying is defined as “a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.”[16] As mentioned, the most devastating blow to credibility occurs when lying is involved. It is quite evident from this shocking example that the US government has a track record that lacks scientific credibility, and therefore should never be completely trusted until they earn that credibility back.

If the government has been historically shown to lack scientific credibility, undermine the results of science, and deliberately lie in “scientific” reports, then it begs the question:

Are the reports released about the 9/11 attacks true? Can we trust them based on their past history of distorting science?

The answer sadly, is no. We can not trust them. Independent scientists with actual credibility are challenging these reports. If a source lacks credibility it is the responsibility and duty of the Media to evaluate other sources that posses more credibility.

Scholars for 9/11 truth is one such group that should be considered more credible than the government[17]. Hundreds of scientists and scholars supporting one basic viewpoint have major credibility[18]. If they lacked as much scientific credibility as the current US administration it is obvious that they would have been fired a long time ago and would not be in a position of authority to have serious questions about the facts of 9/11.

One of the fundamental questions about 9/11 is the WTC tower collapses. The 16 million dollar NIST report is considered the definitive report on the subject of the collapse of the Towers.

By the definition of science the NIST report is not scientific. Analysis proves it uses the political method—-not the scientific method. NIST deliberately ignores evidence that contradicts its stated thesis.

Apparently, a 16 million dollar study does not buy much these days—-NIST does not attempt to explain a fundamental question (i.e. ignoring evidence) about the full behavior of the structural collapse:

[The report] does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached.”[19]

It seems like a good idea that the NIST report did not try to explain this (at least, from their point of view)—-as doing so would have to account for a fundamental law of physics known as conservation of momentum, which would completely disprove their hypothesis that fire and jet damage were the main reasons the buildings completely collapsed.

Indeed, the NIST collapse hypothesis that fire and damage caused the towers to completely collapse is easily disproved. According to seismic data[20], the buildings fell in approximately 10 seconds, which is about the rate of free fall speed.[21] In order to fall at free fall speed there would have to be no resistance from material below the collapsing area. Fire and damage alone are inadequate to explain this fact. This is related in a paper entitled “Why Indeed did the WTC towers completely collapse” by physicist Steven E. Jones:

“The rapid fall of the Towers and WTC7 has been analyzed by several engineers/scientists (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). The roof of WTC 7…. falls to earth in (6.5 +- 0.2) seconds, while an object dropped from the roof (in a vacuum) would hit the ground in 6.0 seconds. This follows from t = (2H/g)1/2. Likewise, the Towers fall very rapidly to the ground, with the upper part falling nearly as rapidly as ejected debris which provide free-fall references (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/proofs/speed.html; Griffin, 2004, chapter 2). Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum—-one of the foundational Laws of Physics? That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors—-and intact steel support columns—-the fall must be significantly impeded [i.e. slowed down] by the impacted mass.”[22]page 27-28

When an object hits another object, it must slow down. Everyone intuitively understands that you can not walk through walls as if they were not there for the reason that a physical resistance will impede you. The towers and WTC7 fell at free fall speed. This fact alone proves the official report is inadequate to explain what truly happened. When evidence is ignored, it is not science. It is “creating our own reality"the political method.

It can not be emphasized enough: science by definition considers all of the evidence, it does not ignore evidence. Another stunning example of ignoring evidence is seen in the molten metal[23] found in the towers which is not discussed in the NIST report.[24] NIST claims:

“In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires.”[25]

If this is the case, then why is there molten steel in the basements of the twin towers and WTC7 for three weeks after the disaster?[26] Where do the molten pools of steel come from and what process created this reaction? Why does NIST ignore this question? Ignoring this question is not scientific. Analyzing the steel is a central issue and is fundamental to understanding why the towers collapsed. Indeed, it is very likely related to what actually caused the collapse. If fires did not cause this—-NIST has stated on the record that fire did not cause steel to melt;[27] something else must have. It is a fact that normal fires are incapable of melting steel.[28]

If fire can not melt steel, what can? Jones argues that:

“these observations are consistent with the use of high-temperature cutter charges such as thermite, HMX or RDX or some combination thereof, routinely used to melt/cut/demolish steel. [See Grimmer, 2004] Thermite is a mixture of iron oxide and aluminum powder. The end products of the thermite reaction are aluminum oxide and molten iron.”[29]

Placing explosives in buildings—-is this far-fetched? The answer is no; if it is scientifically provable[30], then it is not impossible. On an issue this serious, science must determine our conclusions—-not gut feelings or emotions. We must accept this as fact if the evidence supports this claim. Interestingly, in 1995 the government was implicated for placing bombs in the Oklahoma City Building—-this example suggests that planting bombs has been done in the past.[31]

Here is yet another example of NIST “science” in action: computer models are used to “prove” that fire caused collapse:

“World Trade Center disaster investigators [at NIST] are refusing to show computer visualizations of the collapse of the Twin Towers despite calls from leading structural and fire engineers, NCE has learned. Visualisations of collapse mechanisms are routinely used to validate the type of finite element analysis model used by the [NIST] investigators.”[32]

Is proof scientific if no one can see it? To believe that we can trust NIST on this “evidence” is absurd. Science is not a state secret!

9/11 whistleblower Kevin Ryan, formerly a manager at UL who was peripherally involved in some of the NIST tests, has a laundry list of points that continue to prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that the NIST study is not scientific and therefore should not be considered credible:

  * Steel framed buildings have never completely collapsed due to fire in history.[33]The scientific method looks for real-life examples to provide a hypothesis.
  * Ryan argues that they started with this pre-determined conclusion [despite the fact that this hypothesis has never been documented before in history as mentioned above].[34]
  * Destroying evidence is a crime and is not scientific. It is a way to ignore evidence. NIST investigator Richard Tomasetti approved the decision to recycle the steel.[35]
  * The buildings were designed to survive plane crashes thus contradicting the pre-determined hypothesis: “[Building designer John Skilling states that] our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there.”[36]

As well, NIST’s scientific data contradicted their own theory: This is not science:

  * Paint tests indicated low steel temps (480 F) “despite pre-collapse exposure to fire”
  * Microstructure tests showed no steel reached critical (half-strength) values (600 C)[37]
  * Lab tests showed: Minimal floor sagging.
  * No floor collapse
  * “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 11th.”[38]

All of this NIST data directly contradicts the stated collapse hypothesis. The scientific method demands rejecting a thesis if the evidence contradicts it.

Ryan summarizes the NIST investigation methods:

  * Documents needed just happened to be missing
  * Eyewitnesses to demolition characteristics were ignored[39]
  * Physical tests that disproved pre-determined conclusions were downplayed or ignored
  * Entire theory is built on fudged, inaccessible computer simulations. [40]

In summary: NIST data contradicts theory, contradictory evidence is ignored, eyewitness testimony is ignored, and the entire theory is based on a computer simulation that no one can see. Ignoring evidence is the very basis of the political method, not the scientific method. Can any sane person call the NIST report science?

Unbelievably, there are even more examples that prove the NIST study is not scientific.[41] I believe the above evidence has sufficiently proven this argument. Because the NIST report is not scientific it lacks any credibility. I agree with Kevin Ryan that the NIST report is not science. [42] Indeed, the NIST study is an extremely blatant and scandalous example of the political method at its worst.

Unlike the US government, Steven Jones and the Scholars for 9/11 Truth have credibility and a much more convincing explanation for why the WTC towers collapsed.[43] “No building exhibiting all the characteristics of controlled demolition has never not been a controlled demolition.”[44]

The 9/11 commission report is also problematic and is yet another example of the political method. Instead of discussing the issues here, I point you towards David Ray Griffin"s book “The 9/11 Commission Report: omissions and distortions” which concludes that the official report is a “571 page lie”[45] Again, lying is the most damaging blow to credibility.

In conclusion, the US administration overwhelmingly lacks any scientific credibility. The fact that civil liberties are being destroyed and the constitution is being flagrantly subverted should be disturbing enough in itself. The Media has done a very poor job of evaluating the credibility of the US government and must start to question and be skeptical of any and all reports that are being released until a trace of credibility has been restored. Credibility is established through repeated believability—-the US administration has been shown to lack this. In my opinion their credibility on Iraq is even worse than their credibility on 9/11. When are we going to demand some accountability? When are heads going to roll for the continuous stream of lies and unscientific “science” we are fed and told to accept as the truth? Enough is enough.

Author: Arabesque.

Note: This essay was made through my own research. I encourage you to do your own and think for yourself. Don’t let others tell you what to think and that includes myself.

More information about the book can be found here: http://www.interlinkbooks.com/Books_/911CommRep.html
A Google video with elements from the book can be seen here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6837001821567284154

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 28, 2006 at 8:29 PM

Natalie

Unfortunately, an examination of the track record of the government in relation to science raises serious questions about their credibility.

How do you still think that the reports are accurate and tell the full story of the events of 9/11?

the government has been historically shown to lack scientific credibility, undermine the results of science, and deliberately lie in “scientific” reports, then it begs the question:

If you know the government to be a frequent liar, why do you still accept anything they say? Indeed, you should ignore them or at least not trust them.

Why are you not mad about being lied to when the government “owned” experts said jet fuel melted the steel? Doesnt that alone make you realise they have NO CREDIBILITY?!?!?!?!?!?!

*BBC (Chris Wise, ect.)
*Scentific American (Eduardo Kausel)——-Hahahahh you remeber him?
*NOVA video (Matthys levy)
*Henry Koffman from USC
*Tom Mackin from the Univ. of Illionis
*The New Scientiest
*And many more Government “owned” experts of “deception”

They exaggerated the Temperatures and then there lies where repeted
*National Geographic Today - 2,900F
*A&E - 2,500F
*History Channel - 2,500F
* And many “news” and other major media continued the lie.

I dont remember an apology from those lying traitors do you?

And dont you even try to tell me that those government “owned” experts did not lie but were ignorent about the tempature that steel melts at 2,800F or that the government “owned” experts didnt know that jet fuel fires burn at a maximum of 1,500F or that the steel in the towers is a huge natural heat sink and that steel temps are different than gas temps because steel temps lag way behind. Trust me They knew. Its their job to know.

And without even looking at the steel they new that they could easily figure the thermodynamic calculations to see that the steel temperatures in the impact zones could not have reached any higher than a maximum of 600F. But did they? No they forgot!?!

The so-called “experts” (government owned) that promoted this lie should be arrested and tried for treason immediately.

So why dont we look at those government “owned” experts that started and pushed the lie?

Would you be surprised to find out that if you follow the lies to where they started you will find the same government “owned” so called experts were involved in not just the ASCE, FEMA BPAT, Silverstein/weildinger, and NIST investigations but also the OKC Murrah Building bombing investigations? They did the reports for all of them!!! Whats really funny is that each report is different than the other. Oh yea I almost forgot they where also the government “owned” experts sent to tell us what happend at the pentagon!!!

It gets worse Natalie much worse!!!

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 28, 2006 at 9:59 PM

Joe, you still haven’t addressed my original challenge:

Can you prove to me that you haven’t taken Mike Taylor and Ronald Hamburger out of context?

You obviously brought them up as supportive of the controlled demo theory:

Mike Taylor of the national Association of Demolition Contractors said <u>the collapse of the WTC towers looked like a classic controlled demolition, it cascaded down like an implosion.</u>

Ronald Hambuger a structural engineer and contributor to FEMA and NIST reports said <u>“it appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building”</u>.

Do you think these guys support the controlled demo theory?  Did you see them at the latest truth convention?

Your flood doesn’t impress me, nor does it hide the fact that you don’t have any real evidence for bombs in the buildings.  You still haven’t managed to cite ANYONE who is qualified to debunk, much less understand the advanced structual physics involved in the analysis of the WTC collapses.  No, Charles Pegelow and Judy Wood fall well short in this regard.

I’m looking for some original thoughts and a believable narrative that supports your contentions.  I can surf to any “truth” site and see all the same recycled crap you continue to laughably rely on as proof of something.

Come on, Joe.  Talk to the jury in your own words and convince them with Columbo-like logic that what you say is true.  If the inside job bomb theory is so obvious, like all truthers regularly say, it should be pretty darn easy.

Say something that makes sense, or at least quote a genuine, qualified and RELEVANT expert accurately and in context.

Oh yea I almost forgot they where also the government “owned” experts sent to tell us what happend at the pentagon!!!

Oh yea, Joe, tell us what YOU think happened at the Pentagon.  Your own words would be refreshing.

Posted by Natalie on Oct 29, 2006 at 12:45 AM

Natalie

If you have an explanation of WTC 7’s collapse that does not involve explosives, perhaps you ought to let the government know. To date, they have not provided any explanation for the collapse to WTC 7. Both the first 9/11 Commission Report and the NIST report fail to explain the collapse of WTC 7 at all and as for WTC 1 & 2 they declared their own findings inconclusive:

“With the information and time available, the sequence of events leading to the collapse of each tower could not be definitively determined.” “FEMA BEPAT, Executive Summary, p.2

Second, the airplane impacts did not topple WTC 1 and 2, and the official theory is essentially based on the claim that fire brought down steel-reinforced skyscrapers for the first time in history:

“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

Third, the fires did not burn hot enough to melt or deform steel, and NIST could not replicate the collapse of the steel when it burned models for over 2 hours:

“None of the recovered steel samples showed evidence of exposure to temperatures above 600 degrees C for as long as 15 minutes.” “NIST, p. 180

“Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 degrees C 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

“All four test specimens sustained the maximum design load for approximately 2 hours without collapsing… “NIST, p. 143

Fourth, the towers were built with redundancies capable of withstanding much more than an airplane crash and brief and moderate fire:

“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

Fifth, FEMA itself characterized its theory that fire caused WTC7 to collapse as having a “low probability of occurrence,” strong words for a scientific report.

Finally, the official explanation of why the towers collapsed does not explain what happened after collapse initiation. There is no official explanation of why the towers fell as they did:

“The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the ‘probably collapse sequence,’ although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.” “NIST, p. 82

It appears that the first impression many experts had such as Ronald Hambuger a structural engineer and contributor to FEMA and NIST reports who said “It appeared to me that charges had been placed in the building”. is still the correct and only explanation to explain all the scientific findings and anomalies for over 5 years after the collapse.

I think it’s not only odd but shocking that they still refuse to test for the use of explosives especially when they’re having such difficulty trying to explain the causes for the collapse of the WTC buildings.

IT IS ABSOLUTELY CRIMINAL ALL THE SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE THEY HAVE IGNORED!!!!!

I belive Mike Taylor of the national Association of Demolition Contractors who said “It cascaded down like an implosion” and I think if it walks like a duck…...

One of the relatively few previous peer-reviewed papers relating to the WTC collapses provides “An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7.” This brief but important letter states:

While the exact location of this beam could not be determined, the unexpected erosion of the steel found in this beam warranted a study of microstructural changes that occurred in this steel. Examination of other sections in this beam is underway. ANALYSIS Rapid deterioration of the steel was a result of heating with oxidation in combination with intergranular melting due to the presence of sulfur. The formation of the eutectic mixture of iron oxide and iron sulfide lowers the temperature at
which liquid can form in this steel. This strongly suggests that the temperatures in this region of the steel beam approached ~1,000C by a process similar to making a “blacksmith’s weld” in a hand forge. (Barnett, 2001)

Other tests from other samples were done by Biederman and Sisson that also agreed with Barnett.

Finally, sulfidation was observed in structural steel samples found from both WTC7 and one of the WTC Towers, as reported in Appendix C in the FEMA report.

HOW IS THIS EXPLAINED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The latest hypothesis (another try) is this: oxygen tanks from planes somehow survived the plane crashes and the fireballs, yet leaked about an hour later to release the oxygen in the tanks. This relatively small amount of oxygen was somehow enough, to burn office materials such as to melt the structural steel in the building.

Wich cant explain WTC 7 besides the data from the solidified slag are not consistent with molten structural steel since it contains almost no chromium, yet shows significant fluorine and elemental sulfur, and high concentrations of nickel and zinc.

While gypsum in the buildings is a source of sulfur, it is highly unlikely that this sulfur could find its way into the structural steel in such a way as to form a eutectic. The evidence for the use of some variant of thermite such as sulfur-containing thermate in the destruction of the WTC Towers and building 7 is sufficiently compelling to warrant serious
investigation.

How can steel get so hot that it evaperates?

a straightforward way to achieve 1,000C temperatures (and well
above) in the presence of sulfur, and that is to use thermate (or a similar variation of thermite). Thermate is a high-level thermite analog containing sulfur developed by the [url=“http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/PatentDetail.aspx?type=description&id=6766744&
HL=ON”]military[/url]

Natalie search on www.scholar.google.com

search for the words “wtc” “dust” “explosives” “911”. Then evaluate each article individually. Create four categories on how the article relate to 911 dust and the indication that explosives were used to bring down the buildings.

1. Explosives Not Used
2. Explosives Used
3. Access Restricted
4. Not Applicable/Page Not Found

You will find that a lot of the articles I thought would be interesting, like electromagnetic readings on 911 and composition of various samples ended up being Page Not Found.

Here are the results of my research.

0 (0%) - - Explosives Were Not Used
4 (2%) - - Access Restricted
9 (5%) - - Explosives Were Used
178 (93%) - - Not Applicable/Page Not Found

As you can and will see, of the 200 or so articles, 93 percent were not relevant. Of the articles that were relevant, 100 percent said explosives were used.

This is one of the nine interesting articles found: Thursday, May 15, 2003 - group of 3 >SA SESSIONS, A Session - Anesthesiology, 1995 - itaccs.com

http://www.itaccs.com/traumacare/archive/spring_03/thursday.pdf

The eighth section into the paper, “Lessons Learned 911” by Dario Gonzalez, MD, FACEP, Medical Director, Office of Emergency Management, City of New York, Brooklyn, New. York, and Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA

In the “Hazard Analysis” section, I found this statement:

“Hazard Analysis. The environment contained hazardous materials, such as jet fuel,
battery acid, asbestos, lead paint, silica, explosives (munitions), radioactive debris, and products of combustion.”

As you can see, this study explicitly states that explosives (munitions) was found at ground zero. It is quite possible that more than one type of cutter-charge was involved on 9/11, e.g., HMX, RDX and thermate in some combination.

But what I realy think is interesting is some of the other things found even in government reports such as:

“One molecule, described by the EPA’s Erik Swartz, was present at levels “that dwarfed all others”:

[url=“http://www.newsday.com/news/health/nyhsair0911,0,471193.
story?coll=ny-homepage-right-area
“]“1,3-diphenylpropane. “We’ve never observed it in any sampling we’ve ever done,” Swartz said.”[/url]

“He said it was most likely produced by the plastic of
tens of thousands of burning computers.”

If the 1,3 DPP was due to burning computers, why was it not
previously observed “in any sampling we’ve ever done”? It is
possible, but then sampling of air from fires where computers
are burning should show the 1,3 DPP. Such sampling is
encouraged to resolve the question.

Al203 wich is a thermite-product, comes off mainly in white dust form. Also expected in BOTH dust and solidified slag, from oxygen bearing compounds (typically used in thermites): Abundant Iron, Zinc; Barium & Sulfur (typical in military thermates*), Manganese (from KMnO4…), Fluorine (from polytetrafluoroethylene as a base). [url=“http://www.dodtechmatch.com/DOD/Patent/PatentDeta
il.aspx?type=description&id=6766744&HL=ON”]What do we find?[/url]

Fluorine is present in an oxidizer using Polytetrafluoroethylene as its base,used in thermite charges.

Potassium Permanganate (KMnO4) is also commonly used as an oxidizer in thermite-reactants (aluminothermics).

Hence, K, Mn and F are often present in thermite residue, suggesting they are part of a “thermite fingerprint” at WTC.

ZINC oxide would be a good choice to add to thermites: high-energy release.

USGS independently confirms much Zinc in the WTC dust, 1500 ppm typical (up to about 3000 ppm)
Note also high concentration of Barium (Ba(NO3)2 commonly added to thermate). Also high concentration of Manganese, which we noted early from our microprobe maps of WTC solidified slag. A consistent picture begins to emerge: Thermites were used at WTC incorporating aluminum powder and oxygenbearing compounds of iron, zinc, barium, and manganese….

AGAIN WE HAVE ANOTHER COINCIDENCE AND AT THE SAME TIME NO EXPLANATION FROM THE GOVERNMENT!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

WHY DO THEY REFUSE TO CONSIDER THE EVIDENCE AND WHY DO THEY REFUSE TO TEST FOR THE USE OF EXPLOSIVES?!?!?!?!?!?!?

All tests and papers I have shown or writen about on this post do NOT come from ANY OF THE OVER 400 SCHOLARS FOR 9/11 TRUTH but the government and other independent scientist so please feel free to insult them or say their work is not from genuine, qualified and RELEVANT experts.

Thanks for your time.

You know the last time I looked there where more but its been happening for a while now (the vanishing articles) but like I said you still have nine left to look at just dont take to long are there may be even less for you to look at.

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 30, 2006 at 9:10 AM

Thanks for bringing scholar.google to my attention, Joe.  It appears to be an excellent way to cut through most of the nonsense perpetuated by unqualified individuals all over the Internet.

But let’s put in some words that make some sense to our argument, shall we?

For instance, if we type in “world trade center” and “controlled demolition”,  (phrases in quotes beside each other) we get a grand total of 16 results, with only about 3 actually saying that is what caused the towers to collapse.  The other 13 or so used the phrase “controlled demolition” in other contexts.  In a general web search we get 215,000 results.

So clearly, the vast, vast majority of the world’s “scholars” aren’t talking about the World Trade Center having been deliberately imploded.  In fact, only two people come up—Jones and Griffin—one of whom is certainly not qualified to make such judgments, and the other who has been shown over and over again to be either a complete dope or a deliberate fraud.  So essentially—nobody.

Put in the phrases “world trade center” and “progressive collapse” or “buckling”, however, and you will get around 130 results, with around only 3 disagreeing with these theories of collapse, the same basic 3 as before.  And even these guys are not really relevant experts, we’ve got an agenda driven history professor and an agenda driven discredited solar physicist.

About zinc and barium.  Is thermite the best conclusion you could come up with for the origin of these elements?  Wouldn’t a far more likely source be building materials, and building contents?

But let’s use scholar.google again here.  If we put in “world trade center”, zinc and thermite in the box what do we get?

One result, which is not even supportive of bombs in the building.

If we say “world trade center”, barium, and thermite, we get one result again.  Guess who?  The nutty professor Jones.

Garbage in, garbage out Joe.  If you want to argue using search engine results, you need to learn to use words and phrases that are specific and relevant to the argument, and that really tell you something meaningful with the results they generate.

Posted by Natalie on Oct 30, 2006 at 5:51 PM

Natalie

You seem to have changed locations? Not that it matters.

Hahhaaahhha nice way to avoid the evidence. Im sure over time it will all vanish as well like so many others all across the net (like those from the archives) but it wont help. We the people will not forget. Not this time for to many have awoken. Your desperate and you have made it clear. The propaganda at its most fearsome has been unable to slow the mass awakening.

More Americans waking up to what aspects of our government and private sector are pulling under our noses. For starters prior to 9/11 this country experienced the ‘93 bombing of the WTC (more state sponsored terrorism) and Oklahoma City Alfred P Murrah Building (more state sponsored terrorism). There are more I can list in this country if you also want to count Coup attempts and successes.

For those of you who have watched Natalie fail miserably while defending the government myth.I have a little treat for you. Its a short run down of the globalist reason for 911 and where there taking us from here.

Wall Street is at war. This is sort of the 3rd world war being fought by only one army on the field, controlling the game before it gets started.
The EUR$ can cripple the US$, not to mention the Anglo-American alliance in the oil industry (as in BP-Amoco) and weapons production (“Big Five” plus BAES).

Petrodollars and the US dollar are the integral parts of this new ‘Anglo-American military-oil axis’. And it looks like it really started gaining steam around ‘99, it’s a long story.

But the EUR$ and the US$ rival financial and monetary systems are competing worldwide for control of global money creation and credit. It’s almost end-game and only one can win - whoever’s dollar is the petrodollar.

The geopolitical and strategic implications are massive and already marked by new splits in the Western defence industry and the oil businesses. The old boys are regrouping.

The US is poised to militarily rule the chessboard. Only public and global sentiment could stop them, and even then…

Who but oilmen and bankers would have the balls:

-US Empire is built on the dollar and it’s unique tie to oil
-US$ and petrodollar future in jeopardy if EUR$ becomes a petrodollar
-Iraq on 2003 schedule for change from US$ to EUR$, Iran on 2006 schedule
-Certain US depression if debt not controlled and US$ strength not secured
-Global efficiencies point to lower petrol useage, require higher oil prices for profits
-Quadrillions of dollars in oil transfers in US$‘s make it the global fiat currency
-Collapse of US real-estate, markets and gdp imminent, only strong US$ will stop it
-Spending US$ on massive level bouys economy and US$, internal arms race
-Biggest creditor is Saudi, loans up $4Trillion since 9.11
-Securing largest world oil reserves akin to giving them to Saudis
-Tie the operation to a debt forgiveness program long term
-Pay off debt through oil credits, ongoing bouying of US$ through control of wells
-Nobbling and leaving oilwells at low productivity great for Saudis also
-Saudi wealth is petrodollar growth is US$ growth equals ongoing world power
-Need to mobilize military to secure oilwells or find alternative to devalue EUR$
-Public sentiment for unjustified invasion totally negative as is world’s
-Troops and public need to be united for invasion and ongoing military operations
-9.11 planned and executed as necessary Pearl Harbour event to enrage public
-9.11 launches military-economy and wartime measures powers still ongoing
-Public sentiment positive for worldwide retaliation and internal change
-Public unified and deem new society and finance bills acceptable
-Afghanistan provides control of pipelines and ports to Russia/China
-WMD’s cover up petrodollar crisis/motive
-Massive spending, increased debt, dollar stabilized, Saudi profits soar
-Mobilized and growing military deployed in middle east
-Iraq wells nobbled and secured and trading in US$
-Iraq oil traffic controlled by US security council, anglo american, bp - gottit!
-Ongoing 9.11 terror distraction justifies ongoing military expansion
-Iranian oil boyse still on a countdown to convert to EUR$
-Saudi+Iraq+Iran wells ~70% global oil = control in europe and beyond
-Iran currently not controlled
-Speculation on method to mobilize into Iran: new 9.11? nuclear? misinformation? ?
- One way or another Europe’s banks and military will become US controlled

Yeah, I know, there are other oil supplies, but it’s not about total domination, this will all look very benevolent by the time it’s played out this administration; it’s ONLY about keeping the US$ in control of the petrodollar, and with Iran the future is secure.

Hmmm, in about 25 years those wells should be gone and us living in pretty orange skies - the Alberta oilsands are the only next big reserve, by then the cost per barrel will be humungeous and the US will have benefited from another quarter-century of huge profits and growth/global ownership. All thanks to a partnership that dates back almost 60 years..

Who’d a thunk it possible but this plan worked. The public possibly wouldn’t even care if this was spun out the right way (see Kyoto accord), but there’s no turning back now; and no loose lips so far.

So who’s the brains behind it? Who spotted the method of profiting on all sides of a game like this? Where’d the plan get cooked up and funded?
Keep following the money! Who makes the money? Damn there are tons of them. You can sort of spot it just with public profits over the last 3 years but the big money comes to those who hedge oil and who’s running the ports.

Clearly Anglo-American oil giants (BP-Amoco, Chevron-Texaco, Exxon-Mobil, Shell) – supported by the Anglo-American military axis are fighting Europe’s oil giant Total-Fina-Elf and Italy’s ENI, with huge interests in Iraq, Iran, and Central Asia.
And to mobilize into the region a big bang was necessary.

With Anglo-American control of Afghanistan and Iraq they have control of about half of the oil interest north of Saudi and into Europe - with Iran they’ll control and dictate the terms for oil throughout Europe until someone comes and takes it away from them.

Anglo-American is a company. It owns lots of the companies you already know are profitting in Iraq. It’s still only a subsidiary, though, sort of the front-man if and when you need one.
There just isn’t enough typing to go over what and who’s in that place and beyond - this goes up to Lon-Rhodes, world Gold control, Diamond control, and the same guys run THE Big 6 (Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, General Dynamics, Boeing, Northrop Grumman, and BAES). Oh yeah.

In Europe and America, monetary policy, although formally under State jurisdiction, is controlled by the private banking sector.
The European Central Bank based in Frankfurt is overseen by Germany’s largest banks and businesses.
The U.S. Federal Reserve Board is formally under State supervision with a close relationship to the U.S. Treasury. The 12 Federal Reserve banks (of which the Federal Reserve Bank of New York is the most important) are controlled by their shareholders, which are mainly private banks.

In other words, “the Fed” which is responsible for monetary policy and hence money creation for the nation, is actually run by ... Wall Street. Literally.

These viscious bastards have the chance to change the methods and control of global money. A huge victory for the US$ and the American Empire.

That’s your New World Order!

It’s so neat and clear, precise and inevitable; but this took some planning.

“Run the worlds banks as a by-product of saving your own dollar’s ass through massive military operations to control oil, initiated by the planned 9.11 event”

All for the greater good?
Treason and mass murder?
Yup.

This is the point where you sit back and wonder: “9.11 so I can keep my house and car and pension? Hmmm. Should I just keep my mouth shut?”.

Quite the screwup, though, this is the first time anyone actually caught them at one of these world-history-altering operations.. Still ... no loose-lips, yet ! No loose-bladders, yet..

But that’s the end of the money trail, as far as I can tell, Wall St…. It comes right back to Manhattan. (ohh the horrible irony)

Who?...well at least you’ve got a Zip code to go on…

Keep buying gold folks.

The only thing to do now is wait for the new Iranian front to open up.

This is really going to piss off the Russians and most of Europe - the Japanese and Chinese can handle it - the Brits stand to profit whichever way the petrodollar tumbles.
Possibly forming a rift irrepairably damaging the US but nonetheless securing the US$ and taking the Euopean banks out of the picture.
Will they fight? Naw. They can’t figure out who the bad guys are either.

But how ? The jugernaut can’t slow down in the time period. What to do next?

Placing bets on: Discovery of weapons shipments into Iran
Seizing incriminating assets abroad.
Discovery of Iranian WMD’s (naw)
New intelligence and counterintelligence
Another massive psy-op or new 9.11
Israeli first strike or retaliation
US first strike or invasion following new gulf crisis

Stay tuned folks…

Posted by honestjoe on Oct 30, 2006 at 7:15 PM

I’m sure that’s all very interesting Joe, but it’s hardy relevant to this discussion.

The sky seems to be constantly falling in your world, links vanish, all kinds of strange anomalies occur.  I even change locations for you, but not for me.  Amazing.  Probably the FBI has infected your computer with self-destruct viruses because they could tell you were getting just a little too close.

Thanks again for the heads up on the google scholar site.  An excellent natural filter for all the nonsense out there.  What was it in that poll?  Oh yeah, the less education you have, the more likely you are to believe in conspiracy theories.

I guess I’m one of those exceptions you hear about.

Posted by Natalie on Oct 30, 2006 at 7:54 PM

THEY HATE US FOR OUR FREEDOMS?

Pentagon Will “Catapult the Propaganda” Via U.S. Media
Military, government indoctrination wing formally declares psychological warfare on the American people

The Pentagon has formally declared psychological warfare on the American people by announcing it will engage in propaganda and indoctrination by using the Internet and media to “set the record straight” on the war on terror. Recent history clearly indicates this is just the latest outreach of an insipid brainwashing agenda that is totally unlawful and anathema to the U.S. Constitution.

In the past, the military or the government did not announce that they were planting surreptitious propaganda to target U.S. audiences, they did it secretly and for a very good reason - because it was and still is illegal.

But since George W. Bush, backed by his renegade legal advisors, officially announced the end of the Republic and the birth of the “decidership,” he can arbitrarily create out of thin air, ignore, or amend any law he likes and to all intents and purposes is above the Constitution and has ascribed to himself total dictator power. The only thing that remains is, in his own words, to“catapult the propaganda,” in an attempt to legitimize his absolute rule and assure the blind obedience of the American people to his junta’s future desecrations of foreign lands and the bill of rights at home.

The new program is simply another wing of the Pentagon’s Office of Strategic Influence, publicly announced after 9/11 but simply the latest incarnation of a PR brainwashing scam that spans back decades. The OSI exploited legal loopholes by planting its propaganda in foreign newspapers that would later be picked up by U.S. newswires. In today’s environment even that seems quaint, with the Pentagon openly and proudly shouting from the rooftops that they will knowingly violate the law to indoctrinate the American people.

Perhaps the most alarming case of the military’s information tentacles burrowing their influence deep into media circles in recent years was in February 2000, when another branch of the same Pentagon propaganda bureau, Psychological Operations Command (PSYOPS), had placed their operatives “in the news division at CNN’s Atlanta headquarters as part of an “internship” program starting in the final days of the Kosovo War.”

FAIR speculated that the purpose was twofold, one to directly propagandize the American people via CNN and also potentially to allow the “military to conduct an intelligence-gathering mission against the network itself,” because the “military needed to find ways to “gain control” over commercial news satellites to help bring down an “informational cone of silence” over regions where special operations were taking place.”

With the knowledge that government propagandists were utilizing U.S. news network hubs at CNN to run what was described as a “vast psychological warfare operation of the kind the military conducts to influence a population in enemy territory,” and that this took place over six years ago - just imagine how infested today’s networks and newsrooms are with paid agent provocateur propagandists whose sole job specification is to orchestrate methods of mind control over the population of the United States.

In October 2005 Government Accountability Office investigators concluded that the Bush administration’s secret policy to pay off influential journalists to plant fake news and positive spin on Bush’s policies was illegal and that the “administration had disseminated “covert propaganda” in the United States, in violation of a statutory ban.”

The consequences were not the drafting of new legislation that would clearly outlaw such actions in future, nor any form of criminal proceedings against the protagonists. The upshot of it all was a slap on the wrist for Armstrong Williams and a request that he pay back part of the money that the government had given him - not even all of it.

“Armstrong Williams is going to pay back $34,000 to the government for work he failed to deliver, but who’s going to pay the taxpayers for the rest of the quarter million dollars Williams was paid for his propaganda services to the administration?,” asked Congressman George Miller, as the Justice Department hurried a settlement and swept the whole sordid affair under the rug.

Impromptu mass e mail circulations and talking points spread around messageboards and social networking websites that triumph the moral virtues of the war on terror have been rife for years and are clearly part of a gargantuan propaganda campaign that has been insipid for years but is only just being announced now.

Here are a couple you’ll probably remember from the past few months.

A recent diatribe that was forwarded more times than an annoying “meet the love of your life” chain letter concerned a visit to the White House by a man who was overwhelmed by the intensely warm and gracious personality of George W. Bush, and astounded by the negative media stereotype of his nature. The man just felt the need to share his tear-jerking story of how the President shook him by the hand, looked in his eyes and made him feel like the most important person in the room - and by a miracle it just happened to bypass our spam guards and end up in tens of millions of Americans’ inboxes.

Another example that similarly wormed its way through MySpace bulletin boards was an attempt at bolstering the credibility of the flagging war on terror and countering the progress of the 9/11 truth movement by simply listing terror attacks over the last three decades and their alleged perpetrators. A modified version of this was used in a speech by Bush propaganda architect Karl Rove just a week ago where he referenced terror attacks that had occurredbefore the invasion of Iraq, therefore attempting to absolve charges that the Iraq invasion provoked an increase in terrorism. So under that twisted logic, drug dealers shouldn’t worry about creating more addicts by selling drugs because there were always drug addicts before them!

In both cases, as soon as you read the first paragraph of these screeds, the big fat stinking rat of covert government propaganda scuttled across the computer screen.

Now the modern day gang of Goebbels wannabees seek to sink their teeth even further into the last outpost of free speech - the Internet - and impose a blackout on any dissent under the auspices of “disseminating enemy propaganda.”

The White House has made it perfectly clear that it will target American citizens for propagating information harmful to the interests of the U.S. government and classify them as enemy combatants. This is codified in sub-section 27 of section 950v. of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.

Bush’s own strategy document for “winning the war on terror” identifies “conspiracy theorists,” meaning anyone who exposes government corruption and its lies about major domestic and world events, as “terrorists recruiters,” and vows to eliminate their influence in society.

In a speech given last Monday, Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff identified the web as a “terror training camp,” through which “disaffected people living in the United States” are developing “radical ideologies and potentially violent skills.”

Chertoff has pledged to dispatch Homeland Security agents to local police departments in order to aid in the apprehension of domestic terrorists who use the Internet as a political tool.

A program on behalf of CENTCOM is also underway to infiltrate blogs and message boards to ensure people, “have the opportunity to read positive stories,“presumably about how Iraq is a wonderful liberated democracy and the war on terror really is about protecting Americans from Al-CIAda.

The eminently hypocritical tenet of the Pentagon’s justification for the propaganda program - that they need to correct “inaccurate statements” and “set the record straight” is borne out by the fact that they participated in the dissemination of the most lurid and damaging propaganda since Hitler’s final speech - a deliberately fomented lie about weapons of mass destruction that killed 655,000 Iraqis and thousands of American soldiers.

How dare this gaggle of criminals lecture us about how the insurgents control the media while equating anyone who even mildly criticizes their bloodlust with being a terrorist?

They are the liars, they are the crooks, they are the propagandists and it is we the alternative media - the fifth estate - that should mobilize like never before to counter their spurious deception.

Daily Tech | November 1 2006

Former CIA clandestine case officer Robert David Steele made some very hot comments on his appearance on the Alex Jones radio show. Steele cites his contacts within the agency with the information that Google and the CIA are involved with one another.

Steele said, “I think that Google has made a very important strategic mistake in dealing with the secret elements of the U.S. government - that is a huge mistake and I’m hoping they’ll work their way out of it and basically cut that relationship off.”

In reference to Google’s fight against the U.S. Department of Justice for the privacy of its users, Steele claims that it was an elaborate charade intended for the public eye.

“Google was a little hypocritical when they were refusing to honor a Department of Justice request for information because they were heavily in bed with the Central Intelligence Agency, the office of research and development,” concluded Steele.

Steve Bryant / E Week | October 31 2006

Is Google a Government Spook?

According to Robert David Steele, who was once the second highest-ranking civilian in the U.S. Marine Corps, Google is “in bed with” and working in tandem with the CIA. Steele cites his sources within the CIA and his contacts at Google. (Steele also says the World Trade Center buildings collapsed from placed charges, so set your phasers on WTF.)

This isn’t the first time the search giant has been suspected of wrongdoing. The publishers of Alex Jones’ Terror Storm, think that Google intentionally buried their video about the Bush administration’s “Machiavellian Borg Hive drive to burn down the Middle East, usher in total and generational war, trash the Constitution here in America, and build a police state of high tech control.”

Insinuations that Google works with the government aren’t new. And of course, most claims of Google censorship involve the search engine being censored. But Google observer and book author Stephen Arnold of Arnold IT says Google’s technology could be used for everything from tracking terrorist e-mails to decoding trend data.

Reuters | November 1 2006

The U.S. intelligence community on Tuesday unveiled its own secretive version of Wikipedia, saying the popular online encyclopedia format known for its openness is key to the future of American espionage.

They also said it could lead to more accurate intelligence reports because the system allows a wider range of officials to scrutinize material and keeps a complete, permanent record of individual contributions including dissenting points of view.

Nate Anderson / ARS Technica | October 31 2006

Steele, who now runs OSS.net and is a proponent of open source intelligence, said that “Google has made a very important strategic mistake in dealing with the secret elements of the U.S. government—that is a huge mistake and I’m hoping they’ll work their way out of it and basically cut that relationship off.” In his view, Google’s attempt earlier this year to avoid turning over information to the Department of Justice was little more than a hypocritical charade.

Steele has made these claims for some time; back in January, he said the same things at a conference organized by his company at which several sources came forward and spoke about the alleged cooperation. According to security site HSToday.us, which had a reporter in attendance at the conference, one unnamed security contractor “said three employees of an intelligence agency he declined to identify are in Mountain View, Calif. where Google is based, working with the company to leverage the search engine company’s user data monitoring capability in the interests of national security.”

A former clandestine services officer for the CIA who also maintains close relationships with top Google representatives says that the company is “in bed with” the intelligence agency and the U.S. government. He has also gone public on his deep suspicions about the official explanation behind 9/11.

Robert David Steele appeared on the nationally syndicated Alex Jones radio show and began by voicing his deep doubts about the official 9/11 story.

While Steele stopped short of saying 9/11 was a complete inside job, he agreed that the evidence points to the overwhelming complicity of the Bush administration.

“The U.S. government did not properly investigate this and there are more rocks to be turned over,” said Steele adding, “I’m absolutely certain that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition and that as far as I’m concerned means that this case has not been properly investigated.”

“There’s no way that building could have come down without controlled demolition.”

Steele pointed the finger of suspicion directly at the Vice President saying, “There’s no question in my own mind that Dick Cheney is the tar baby in this whole thing.”

Steele outlined the bizarre circumstances preceding the attack that would have greased the skids for bombs to be planted in the buildings.

“You do have the whole issue of the security cameras being disengaged, the bomb sniffing dogs being removed, the family ties with Bush - I mean if you smell a rotten fish there’s probably a rotten fish somewhere around.”

Steele’s biography is impressive. He was the second-ranking civilian (GS-14) in U.S. Marine Corps Intelligence from 1988-1992. Steele is a former clandestine services case officer for the Central Intelligence Agency.

He is the founder and president of Open Source Solutions, Inc., and is an acknowledged expert on computer and information vulnerabilities. Steele holds graduate degrees in International Relations and Public Administration from Leigh University and the University of Oklahoma. He has also earned certificates in Intelligence Policy from Harvard University and in Defense Studies from the Naval War College.

Before the 2004 election Steele advocated the re-election of George W Bush and he has been cited by numerous Republican luminaries as a credible source. His testimony is added to the chorus of other credible 9/11 whistleblowers both in and out of government and academia.

Steele raised eyebrows when he confirmed from his contacts within the CIA and Google that Google was working in tandem with “the agency,” a claim made especially volatile by the fact that Google was recently caught censoring Alex Jones’ Terror Storm and has targeted other websites for blackout in the past.

“I think that Google has made a very important strategic mistake in dealing with the secret elements of the U.S. government - that is a huge mistake and I’m hoping they’ll work their way out of it and basically cut that relationship off,” said the ex-CIA man.

“Google was a little hypocritical when they were refusing to honor a Department of Justice request for information because they were heavily in bed with the Central Intelligence Agency, the office of research and development,” said Steele.

Steele called for more scrutiny to be placed on Google if it continues to engage in nefarious practices, saying, “If Google is indeed starting to do harm then I think it’s important that be documented and publicized.”

Google Admits Terror Storm Blackout

Google’s response in full is reprinted below.

Thanks for your email and we apologize for any frustration. We understand that you are concerned about the number of public views “Terror Storm” received.

The temporary statistical change in public views was a result of system issues experienced earlier this week. However, this issue was resolved, and the playback statistics are now accurately reflecting the number of views this video is receiving. We have confirmed that this video is currently appearing on the top 100 list.

Please note that this technical issue affected all videos, not just the video in question. However, we are taking steps to ensure that this does not happen in the future.

In addition, we rank videos based on a number of factors, including the video file name, title, and any associated metadata to determine whether videos are relevant to a query. We do not alter any video’s statistical information nor do we manually select the ranking of videos.

We apologize for any confusion and appreciate your understanding. Thank you for taking the time to write us.

Since that response Google has been cought numerus times again and only on truth exposing documentary such as 9/11 related videos.  America Freedom to Fascism Authorized version is another that had been cought again and again so it seems anything that is exposing the truth is censored by Google.

[url=“http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4645596.stm”]Google’s censorship policies in China and even those directed against US websites that are mildly critical of China prove that the company that was founded on the principle “don’t be evil,” is slowly beginning to resemble the very controlling Big Brother image it claimed to despise.

The Google help page used to state that it did not censor search results. <a href=“http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/01/27/google_doesnt_censor/”>This policy has now changed[/url] and Google now carried that proviso that, “in response to local laws, regulations, or policies,” it may censor certain content.

Google’s recent announcement, that it would use in-built computer microphones to spy on the habits of 150 million Americans, should send a chill down the spine of anyone who still cherishes personal privacy and freedom - especially as analysts predicted the technology would subsequently be turned over to the government who would use it to conduct blanket NSA spying trawls in the name of the war on terror.

In light of Google’s $1.65 billion acquisition of You Tube, potential control and censorship of the Internet’s newest burgeoning platform - online videos - should be of paramount concern.

For the first time in what some fear will signal a growing trend, Google Inc. has banned and removed a mainstream news website from all its worldwide search engines, seemingly due to the website’s reports on China’s geopolitical affairs and military technology.

That excuse can today be put to bed because Google has banned its users inside the US and the rest of the world from accessing the Space War website from its search engine.

Space War is a reasonably tame mainstream website that focuses on geopolitical affairs and satellite and military technology advancements. It is based in Australia and carries articles from AFP and United Press International.

In a statement posted on its website today, the President and Publisher of Space.TV Corporation Simon Mansfield released the following comments,

“Google Inc. has banned SPACEWAR.COM, a news site covering military space. Reasons for the ban by Google are unclear. The company did not communicate with Space.TV Corp., the owner of SPACEWAR.COM, prior to its action, and Google representatives did not respond to requests for comment.”

Comment: Comedy Central clips are being removed. We regularly upload Daily Show clips, which have been removed from our You Tube account under the threat of termination in recent days.

If YouTube is in fact pulling down Comedy Central clips, as reported by the New York Times, then it’s not doing a terribly good job.

As of this writing late Monday afternoon, thousands upon thousands of clips from The Daily Show, South Park and The Colbert Report were available on YouTube - Google’s overpriced high school AV club. The existence of such clips seems to counter a Times report that YouTube had agreed to follow a Comedy Central request to remove all of its copyrighted material. Of course, the newspaper cited but one source for its story.

This fact has been talked about before it came to print because the first to feel the censor was the truth movment. The movement has felt the the blow to freedom before most because it is their work that has been top on the list for censoring. In the last few days it has seen the worst censoring yet. 

Natalie yes alot of the links I have tried to post have been blocked or dont show and you have to know by now that the government has admited to removing testimony and evidence from the archives also you can find if you take the time to use alternative searches that many scholarly articles have also been blocked from standerd searches. The nine I pointed out were not by any of the scholars for 9/11 truth nor was any of the other articles that I pointed out to you before that would be considerd evidence. Natalie if you look and if you pay attention you will see articles are being erased from history or being changed that use to show damning evidence about crimes commited by the criminals who have hijaked our government.

I think that you are not as ignorant as you try to act at times and that you know all of this by now you may even be more aware than the average citizen. So then I wonder why you choose to cover for these criminals?

THERE IS A WAR GOING ON AND ITS AN INFORMATION WAR!!!!! 

You cant count on the mainstream news the media owes allegiance to its advertisers… which make bank-loads from war. Mass media is run by the big corporations who pay huge taxes to government and lobby group to protect their own interests. (don’t bite the hand the feeds you)

Posted by honestjoe on Nov 1, 2006 at 10:09 AM

Hmmm…..

Still not a single solitary shred of evidence for controlled demo, or missiles in the pentagon, or a deliberate attempt to prevent the hijackers from being intercepted.

Just more paranoid rantings, most of which are probably baseless, all of which are completely irrelevant to this discussion.

Joe, you are illustrating that you have no credible argument for the above claims with each and every meaningless diatribe you post.  If you think that the anti-Bush media wouldn’t jump on your theories in a heartbeat if they thought for a moment there was anything credible about them, you simply are living in a dream world.  If you’re not aware that a person can barely distinguish anything real about the 9/11 disaster through the pervasive thicket of 9/11 truth propaganda on the Internet, you are delusional.  If you think that the guys in charge of Google and YouTube are anything but flaming liberals that would die for all this to be true, you are uninformed.

The truth movement is an excellent window into human psychology, but there is no legitimate science or engineering to be viewed therein.

The truth movement is filled with creative writers, wanna-be film makers and documentarians, and anti-semitic hysterical revisionists, but a single credible unbiased legitimate scientist or engineer does not exist therein.

You should suspend your search for the “truth”, and concentrate on searching for somebody that isn’t a biased nut or a neo-nazi to help you make your case.

Posted by Natalie on Nov 1, 2006 at 2:29 PM

Natalie

Here are a few more of those neo-nazi moon-bats for you.

EXCERPTS FROM: Denver Post, Boulder Daily Camera

“I happen to be an engineer and the facts just don’t add up,” said Steven Dunbar, a Lafayette resident who is dubious of the government’s innocence in the 9/11 attacks. “The scientific evidence is not adding up.”

...Members of http://www.Colorado911Visibility.org include psychologists, lawyers, civil engineers, electrical engineers, an aerospace engineer, physicists and lots of people with doctorates and master’s degrees in the sciences.

They’re well-read people, and they understand why people want to dismiss them. They say people want to attack them as messengers because it’s too disturbing to believe the government that is supposed to protect us would orchestrate the deaths of more than 3,000 Americans….

....The year-old group has an e-mail list of about 350 people. Among them is Earl Staelin, a 66-year-old civil litigator who lives in Littleton.

He started attending the meetings, held at 7 p.m. the third Friday of every month, after watching a film about 9/11 at his church, First Universalist Church of Denver.

He said many of his friends who are engineers didn’t believe the official story, that the towers fell because burning fuel from the planes caused the steel beams of the buildings to buckle. After he showed films, such as “9-11 Mysteries: Demolitions,” they came to the same conclusion: demolition experts must have planned this in advance.
—————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Natalie I have taken your advise and well to be honest I was doing it before you said anything and that was asking local engineers to look into it and give me their opinon. First it was set aside because they were busy and so on but after the first one looked into it I found it easy to get the next and the next and so on and now there is a group that meet regularly out of their concern over the lies told by our government. I try not to judge them for not screaming it from the roof tops and I understand when they explain that they have familys and this is something that they have to be careful about and bla bla bla so on so forth. My point is I have not personaly met one (engineers) who does belive the government myth. Yes I am in a perfect situation to talk to many with my costantly having to deal with the building department and the building inspectors and ect…

NIST’s latest, ever-evolving collapse theory foresakes their former pancake theory.

This puts some of the 911 OCT propaganda organs at odds with one another, such as Pop Mechanics which still promotes the pancake theory.

Posted by honestjoe on Nov 1, 2006 at 5:53 PM

I’m still not seeing anything I can sink my teeth into here, Joe.

Just because there’s a bunch of uninformed kooks in Colorado doesn’t do a thing to debunk the exhaustive and thorough investigation that was done by NIST.  Just as soon as one of them is able to get a paper published in a legitimate scientific or engineering journal, then we will will stand up and take notice.

But, nobody has even come close to doing that.  I haven’t seen anyone in the truth movement that strikes me as able to do that.

If you know engineers, structural I assume, that have this ability, then encourage them to write it up and send it off.  Nobody is going to know about it if it is rejected.  Everyone will be in awe of him (or her) if they are accepted.  They will be the first to credibly call into question the conclusion of the conventional wisdom of the entire world.  They will be respected by the OCTers, and will be hailed as a Rockstar by the CTers.

Posted by Natalie on Nov 1, 2006 at 6:38 PM

10 QUESTIONS FOR NATALIE

Unfortunately, an examination of the track record of the government in relation to science raises serious questions about their credibility.

How do you still think that the reports are accurate and tell the full story of the events of 9/11?

the government has been historically shown to lack scientific credibility, undermine the results of science, and deliberately lie in “scientific” reports, then it begs the question:

If you know the government to be a frequent liar, why do you still accept anything they say? Indeed, you should ignore them or at least not trust them.

Why are you not mad about being lied to when the government “owned” experts said jet fuel melted the steel? Doesnt that alone make you realise they have NO CREDIBILITY?!?!?!?!?!?!

*BBC (Chris Wise, ect.)
*Scentific American (Eduardo Kausel)——-Hahahahh you remeber him?
*NOVA video (Matthys levy)
*Henry Koffman from USC
*Tom Mackin from the Univ. of Illionis
*The New Scientiest
*And many more Government “owned” experts of “deception”

They exaggerated the Temperatures and then there lies where repeted
*National Geographic Today - 2,900F
*A&E - 2,500F
*History Channel - 2,500F
* And many “news” and other major media continued the lie.

I dont remember an apology from those lying traitors do you?

And dont you even try to tell me that those government “owned” experts did not lie but were ignorent about the tempature that steel melts at 2,800F or that the government “owned” experts didnt know that jet fuel fires burn at a maximum of 1,500F or that the steel in the towers is a huge natural heat sink and that steel temps are different than gas temps because steel temps lag way behind. Trust me They knew. Its their job to know.

And without even looking at the steel they new that they could easily figure the thermodynamic calculations to see that the steel temperatures in the impact zones could not have reached any higher than a maximum of 600F. But did they? No they forgot!?!

The so-called “experts” (government owned) that promoted this lie should be arrested and tried for treason immediately.

Natalie

So I can understand where on earth your coming from and so I can give you something you can sink your teeth in. Will you please let me know which category you fall under.

Yes the government lied but they learned their lesson and wont do it again.

No they just made a few simple misstakes that anyone could have made.
——————————————————————————————————————————————————

Does a scholar &/or ect. lose credibility when they make misstakes?

Does a scholer &/or ect. lose credibility when those misstakes are pointed out yet they still submit their paper?

Does a scholar &/or ect. lose credibility for printing a paper writen to explain the cause and effect of some event that defies the basic laws of physics and even after having that fact pointed out to them they allow it to be published?
——————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Does a scholar &/or ect. regain credibility when they finaly admit after their paper was published that it was incorrect because it defies basic laws of physics?

If yes to the above question then how many times can they regain credibility after allowing a paper to be put out that defies the basic laws of physics? Is it more than twice? Or in some more than 5 times?

When a scholar &/or ect. has admited finaly to their obvious mistakes that defied the laws of physics does that then mean the scholars who had said and pointed the misstakes out from the begining were correct to point out those misstakes?

If yes to the above question does that mean the scholars who stood up for accuracy and had voiced their concerns could then be considerd credibile?
————————————————————————————————————————————————-
If a scholar &/or ect. continue to have a paper published that they know has incorrect information and defies the basic laws of phisics (proven scientific fact then becomes an understood law of science) should they be charged with a crime?

Or if they have done it more than twice and in some it has been more than five times should they be charged again for each case separatly?

If they have admited to it before a charge was filed does that mean they should be charged with a lesser crime?
————————————————————————————————————————————————-

10 easy questions so I can understand what you need that you can sink your teeth into. Just so I am sure about who you call credibile and who you say is not.

Members of http://www.Colorado911Visibility.org include psychologists, lawyers, civil engineers, electrical engineers, an aerospace engineer, physicists and lots of people with doctorates and master’s degrees in the sciences.

Just because there’s a bunch of uninformed kooks

They’re well-read people, and they understand why people want to dismiss them.

HOW IN THE WORLD DO YOU THINK THOSE INACCURATE PAPERS GOT PUBLISHED? SOMEONE MUST HAVE SOME PULL IN HIGH PLACES.

What is realy shoking is they still have not apologized. Its like they dont even care about us as if we are not worthy of an apology. I guess thats because they admited their misstakes so now we should be ok with it. Even though it is obvious that they new about the misstakes before it was even published. Does any of this bother you?

P.S. Those comments can be found all over the country not just Colorado.

Posted by honestjoe on Nov 1, 2006 at 9:06 PM

I know this goes against everything that Scorp belives and I know Natalie does not think this is relevent but I strongly feel that this will help to explain more of why 9/11 was done and whats next.

A report in The Sydney Morning Herald stated, “Australia’s Treasurer Peter Costello has called on East Asia’s central bankers to ‘telegraph’ their intentions to diversify out of American investments and ensure an ‘orderly adjustment’….Central banks in China, Japan, Taiwan, South Korea, and Hong Kong have channeled immense foreign reserves into American government bonds, helping to prop up the US dollar and hold down interest rates,’ said Costello, but ‘the strategy has changed.’”

Indeed, the strategy has changed. The world has come to its senses and is moving away from the green slip of paper that is currently mired in $8.3 trillion of debt.

The central banks now want to reduce their USD reserves while trying to do as little damage to their own economies as possible. That’ll be difficult. If a sell-off ensues, it will start a stampede for the exits.

There’s little hope of an “orderly adjustment” as Costello opines; that’s just false optimism. When the greenback begins listing; things will turn helter-skelter quickly.

In September, we saw early signs that the dollar was in trouble. The trade deficit registered at $70 billion but the Net Foreign Security Purchases (NFSP) came in at a paltry $33 billion. That means that our main trading partners are no longer buying back our debt which puts downward pressure on the greenback. The Fed had two choices; either raise interest rates substantially or let the currency fall. Given the tenuous condition of the housing bubble and the proximity of the midterm elections, the Fed did neither.

A month later, in October, the trade deficit hit $69.9 billion but, then, without warning, a miracle occurred. The Net Foreign Security Purchases skyrocketed to a “historic high” of $116.8 billion; covering both months’ shortfalls almost to the penny.

Coincidence?

Not likely. Either the skittish central banks decided to “stock up” on their dollar-denominated investments or the Federal Reserve (and their banking-buddies) is buying back its own debt to float us through the elections.

This is exactly the kind of hanky-panky that people expected when Greenspan stopped publishing the M-3 last March keeping the rest of us in the dark about what was really going on with the money supply.

Are we supposed to believe that the skeptical central banks suddenly doubled up on their T-Bills while they’re (publicly) moaning about the dollar’s weakness and threatening to diversify?

That’s a stretch.

According to the Wall Street Journal the Chinese Central-bank governor Zhou Xiaochuan stated unequivocally that “We think we’ve got enough.” The Chinese presently have nearly $1 trillion in USD and US Treasuries.

“Enough”?

The United States runs a $200 billion per year trade deficit with China. If they’ve “got enough” we’re dead-ducks. After all, it doesn’t take a sell-off to kill the dollar, just unwillingness on the part of the main players to stop purchasing at the same rate.

Of course, everyone in Washington already knew that doomsday was approaching. That’s the way the system was designed from the very beginning. It’s all part of the madcap scheme to “starve the beast” and transfer the nation’s wealth to a handful of western plutocrats. That’s explains why the Fed and the White House whirred along like two spokes on the same wheel; every policy calculated to thrust the country headlong toward disaster.

The administration never created a funding mechanism for the $400 million tax cuts or for the 35% expansion of the Federal government. Defense spending increased by leaps and bounds as did the “no-bid” contracts for friends of the Bush clan. At the same time, interest rates were lowered to rock-bottom to put as much money as possible into the hands of people who couldn’t meet the traditional criteria for a mortgage. And, if gluttonous waste, reckless overspending and “Mickey Mouse” loans were not enough; the Fed capped it off by doubling the money supply in 7 years; a surefire prescription for hyper-inflation.

So, which one of these policies was not deliberate?

The financial crisis that we now face was created by design. It is intended to destroy the labor movement, crush the middle class, quash Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, reduce our foreign debt by 50 or 60%, force a restructuring of America’s debt, privatize all public assets and resources, and create a new regime of austerity measures which will divert more wealth to the banking and corporate establishments.

The avatars of neoliberalism invariably use crooked politicians to spawn enormous “unsustainable” debt so that the nations’ riches can be transferred to ruling elites. It works the same everywhere. It’s a form of corporate colonization, only this time the victim is the good old USA.

“The Phase of Impact”

According to Richard Daughty in his prescient article “The Phase of Impact” the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Dept have already manned the battle-stations. Here’s an excerpt:

“Mr. Paulson, the Secretary of the Treasury, is, by virtue of his ascension to the throne, now the head of the shadowy President’s Working Group of Financial Markets (which was created by Presidential Order 12631) and he is insisting that they meet more often, namely every 6 weeks!

This whole Working Group thing was originally set up as a fallback, ad-hoc, if-then defense to deal with possible economic emergencies, but now they are routinely meeting every 6 weeks. He has even ordered Jim Wilkinson, his chief of staff, to ‘oversee the creation of a Treasury Command Center to track markets world-wide and serve as an operations base in a crisis”! (Wall Street Journal) World-wide!! The American government is moving to take control of the world-wide economy as the result of an anticipated crisis? Yikes!”

Daughty goes on to say: “So a lot of the hubbub is obviously being caused by some approaching upheaval, perhaps reflected in something sent to me by Phil S., which is the Global Europe Anticipation Bulletin No8 which reminded us that last May they predicted that the economy would have a ‘phase of acceleration’ that would begin in June, and it “would be spread out over a period of a maximum of 6 months’, which it subsequently did. They said then, and are saying again now, that a ‘phase of impact will begin in November 2006’, and that this impact phase would be the ‘explosive phase of the crisis’.

This ‘phase of impact’ that is due to begin momentarily is, they explain, ‘a period when a series of brutal crises starts affecting by contamination the total system. This explosive phase of the crisis, which will last 6 months to one year, will affect directly and very strongly financial players and markets, the owners of investment schemes with fixed incomes in dollars, pension funds and the strategic relations between the United States on the one side, and Europe and Asia on the other.” (Richard Daughty; “The Phase of Impact” Kitco.com)

Predictions, of course, are rarely reliable and Daughty’s scenario may be a bit too apocalyptic for many. But if we accept the premise that the tax cuts, the expansion of the federal government, the doubling of the money supply, and the $10 trillion that was sluiced into the housing bubble were not merely “honest mistakes” made by “supply side” enthusiasts; then we must assume that this is all part of a loony plan to demolish the economic foundation-blocks of the current system and remake society from the ground up.

Domestically, that plan appears to involve the activation of the police state.

In the last few weeks the Bush administration has passed the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which allows the president to arrest and torture whomever he chooses without charging him with a crime. Also, unbeknownst to most Americans, Bush signed into law a provision which, according to Senator Patrick Leahy, will allow the president to unilaterally declare martial law. By changing The Insurrection Act, Bush has essentially overturned the Posse Comitatus Act which bars the president from deploying troops with the United States. The John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 (as it is called) also allows Bush to take control of the National Guard which has always been under the purview of the state governors. Bush now has absolute power over all armed troops within the country, a state of affairs which the constitution purposely tried to prevent. The administration’s dream of militarizing the country under the sole authority of the executive has now been achieved although the public still has no idea that a coup that has taken place.

Internationally, the falling dollar means that America’s debt will be reduced proportionate to the percentage-loss of the dollar in relation to other currencies. This is a great deal for the U.S. First the Fed prints fiat money to buy valuable resources and manufactured goods and then it nabs a discount by depreciating its currency. It’s a “win-win” situation for Washington, although it will undoubtedly cheat unwitting foreign-creditors out of their hard-earned profits. It’s doubtful that their interests will weigh very heavily on the money-lenders at the US Treasury or the Federal Reserve.

The dollar faces a second crisis at home which is bound to play out throughout 2007. The $10 trillion dollar housing bubble is quickly losing air causing a precipitous drop in GDP. The housing industry is seeing its steepest decline in 30 years and home equity is beginning to shrivel. Housing has been the one bright spot in an otherwise bleak economic landscape. With the housing market slowing down and prices decreasing, the $600 billion of consumer spending which was extracted in 2005 from home equity will quickly evaporate triggering an overall slowdown in the economy. (Consumer spending is 70% of GDP)

By the Fed’s own calculations; “The total amount of residential housing wealth in the US just about doubled between 1999 and 2006 up from $10.4 trillion to $20.4 trillion. (“Times Online”) If these figures are accurate than we can assume that much of America’s “perceived” growth has been nothing more than the expansion of debt. In fact, that seems to be the case. Wages have been stagnant since the 1970s, 3 million manufacturing jobs have been outsourced, savings have shrunk to below 0%, and personal debt is soaring. We have become an “asset-based” society and when the principle asset begins to loose its value, we are in deep trouble. As housing prices continue to decline through 2007 we can expect a full-blown recession. If energy prices rear their ugly head again, (were they lowered for the elections?) it will just be that much worse.

So, how will recession affect the dollar?

Capital has no loyalties. It follows the markets. When America’s bustling consumer market stalls, we’ll undergo capital flight just like everywhere else. The 3 million lost manufacturing jobs, the 200,000 lost high-paying high-tech jobs, the tax incentives for major corporations doing business outside the country; all signal that corporate America has already loaded the boats and is headed for more promising markets in Asia and Europe. A sluggish consumer market could further weaken the dollar and force Americans to begin saving again but, (and here’s the surprising part) the decision-makers at the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Dept don’t really care if the face-value of the greenback goes down anyway.

What really matters is that the dollar retains its position as the world’s reserve currency. That allows the Federal Reserve to continue to print the money, set the interest rates, and control the global economic system. The dollar presently accounts for 66% of foreign currency reserves in central banks across the globe, an increase of nearly 10% in one decade alone. The dollar has become the international currency, a de-facto monopoly. This is the goal of the globalists and the American ruling elite who dream of one system, the dollar-system; with us running it.

So, how will this cadre of plutocrats coerce the other nations to continue to use the dollar while it plummets from its perch?

Oil.

As long as oil is denominated in dollars, the central banks will be forced to stockpile American scrip regardless of its value. It’s no different than holding a gun to someone’s head. They will use our debt-plagued greenbacks or their cars and trucks will sputter, their tractors and factories will wheeze, and their economies will grind to a halt. It’s just that simple.

America cannot maintain its superpower status unless it continues to control the global economic system. That means the linkage between the dollar and oil must be preserved. The Bush troupe sees this as an existential issue upon which the future of America’s ruling class depends. By 2020, 60% of the world’s oil will come from the Middle East. Bush will do everything in his power to control the resources of the Caspian Basin, thereby expanding US dollar-hegemony and paving the way for a new American century

Mike Whitney | November 1 2006

Posted by honestjoe on Nov 1, 2006 at 9:54 PM

Joe, you’re operating on the basis of a false premise. 

Some people <u>in and out</u> of government speculated early on that steel in the towers may have melted.  That is a far cry from the govt. “lying”.  In addition, the term melt may have been used by some to mean sagging, softening or bending, which is what happened.  Some people’s remarks may have been taken out of context by reporters trying to make their stories more colorful.  Nobody as far as I know produced any kind of “report” that stated categorically that steel melted, as in flowing rivers of goo.

FEMA, working with much less information than did NIST, theorized that floors in the impact areas may have pancaked, initiating the collapse.  NIST later determined that the collapse was initiated by the pulling in of exterior columns by the floor trusses, and a pancaking collapse ensued.  If you want to classify what FEMA first theorized as a lie, then you are a very unforgiving and rigid person indeed.  Every theory is open to being debunked, or modified, but one criteria for doing so is that you need to have evidence.

Does a scholar &/or ect. lose credibility when they make misstakes?

I guess that depends on the scope of the mistake, and how they characterized their claim.  For instance, if a respected scientist produced a report that categorically stated that the steel in the towers melted into flowing pools, and later it was shown that this was a careless and unfounded conclusion, then yes he would lose credibility. 

If he stated that he thought there was a possibility, given the variety of materials and fire scenarios in the offices, that some degree of melting of some steel could possibly have occurred, then that would be a completely different matter. 

I’m not aware of a case of any scientist or researcher on my side of this argument having said anything that would be a source of a significant loss of credibility.  If you are, then please specifically bring chapter and verse to my attention.  Therefore, the rest of your questions really don’t apply.

What you call “LIES”, and what you imply to be deliberate distortions are nothing of the sort. They are minor discrepancies that would be inherent in any kind of investigation, large or small.  The overwhelming   consensus of the world’s experts is well…...you know what it is.

However, when a “scholar” such as Steven Jones deliberately leaves out parts of other people’s quotes in order to better fit with his pre-conceived theory, that “scholar” loses a huge amount of credibility.  Add to that manipulated photos to serve the same purpose, and it’s pretty much shot.

When a manager of a health laboratory poses as a fire expert and a structural engineer, and writes an unauthorized and error-filled letter to a govt. agency on company time and letterhead without the approval of his superiors, he loses a lot of credibility and even his job.  When he takes quotes of genuine experts like Ronald Hamburger and Mike Taylor out of context to mislead people into thinking that they agree with him, his credibility is pretty much in the crapper.

When a lot of biased and angry people form groups in Colorado and elsewhere, but don’t contain any relevant credible experts in the appropriate fields, they too have very little credibility.

Posted by Natalie on Nov 2, 2006 at 2:10 AM

This idea that a person needs to be an engineer or a physicist to understand that the planes could not knock down the towers in 56 and 102 minutes is ridiculous.  Trusting experts that hide info is absurd. 

This is the NIST report on the World Trade Center collapse.

http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf

I have done searches and listed all of the pages with the words steel, concrete, C (celsius), F (fahrenheit), tons, degrees, kip and ksi. I have already found things I consider oddly interesting.

They say the towers had “roughly 200,000 tons of steel”. That doesn’t seem very precise to me. That could mean anywhere from 175,000 to 225,000. I would have thought they would want to be much more precise than that. In addition to that I can’t find any mention of the weight of steel and/or concrete on the floors where the planes struck. How can you analyze the overall effect of the impact without having an accurate idea of the distribution of mass within the building?

This report looks like it’s biased in favor of the airplanes to me. All the uses of the word degree concern the angles of the planes hitting the buildings.  How can whether the plane is banked at 25 or 30 degrees be more important than the tons of steel and concrete at the point of impact?

I think the physics should be addressed first but doing that analysis properly with total certainty would require having the wreckage from the WTC.

Why isn’t it all spread out in a field under tents?  Why was it shipped out of the country and destroyed?  Did the Arab terrorists do that too?

psikeyhackr

Posted by psikeyhackr on Nov 2, 2006 at 10:41 AM

“This idea that a person needs to be an engineer or a physicist to understand that the planes could not knock down the towers in 56 and 102 minutes is ridiculous.  Trusting experts that hide info is absurd.”

No, it’s ridiculous to think that lay people, who wouldn’t have the foggiest notion about how to design and build such structures, or how to deliberately demolish them, somehow are better able to render judgment on what caused them to collapse than people who do.

It’s almost equivalent to saying that you would trust your mailman to give you a root canal, or climb aboard an airplane that was designed and built by…..me!

NISTNCSTAR1 is only a small portion of the total report on the WTC investigation done by NIST.

You can view the entire collection of reports here.

For the opinion of those who actually do intentionally demolish buildings, click here.

More than likely you will find the answers to your questions therein.

Posted by Natalie on Nov 2, 2006 at 5:21 PM

No, it’s ridiculous to think that lay people, who wouldn’t have the foggiest notion about how to design and build such structures, or how to deliberately demolish them, somehow are better able to render judgment on what caused them to collapse than people who do.

NISTNCSTAR1 is only a small portion of the total report on the WTC investigation done by NIST.

The laws of physics for PhDs are no different for the laws of physics for college dropouts.  Do you doubt that there are race car drivers that are better at driving cars than some race car designers even though the drivers couldn’t do a decent job of designing the cars?  Do you doubt that there are people that can shoot pool better than people with PhDs in physics?  Just because the physicist could do the calculations better doesn’t mean he could play worth a damn.  When experts know what they are talking about and want to communicate clearly about it and be understood they can do it but when they want to bullsh!t they can do that also and expect the laymen to behave like good littlemushrooms.  Kept in the dark and fed bullsh!t.

Why does that report which claims to be about the collapse go into great detail about how the airplanes strike but doesn’t specify the amount of steel and concrete on each floor but wastes space talking about the stairwells which had nothing to do with the collapse?  Why isn’t all of the evecuation information in a separate report since they need to make so many?  Are the experts deliberately scattering information around to make it difficult to figure things out?

I worked for IBM for 4 years.  Almost all computers are von Neumann Machines.  I never saw the term or heard anyone use it during that 4 years.  I didn’t learn it until after I quit.  But I built my first computer the year I started with them so I understood how they worked.  To this day I would have a hard time finding a good explanation of how a von Neumann machine works on the internet.  I have looked several times.  The best explanation I know of is in chapter 10 of The Art of Electronics by Horowitz and Hill.  The funny thing is the term von Neumann Machine isn’t in the book.  It is like there is an intellectual separation between electronics and computer science.

I will search alll of those reports.  But if the info is there it would have been simple and obvious to put it in the report I already searched.  Don’t these extperts have enough brains to properly organize information?  Or is keeping layman ignorant and confused a deliberate strategy?

Like we are supposed to believe economists can’t figure out planned obsolescence is going on in automobiles 37 years after the moon landing.  ROFL

http://discussions.pbs.org/viewtopic.pbs?t=28529

psikeyhackr

Posted by psikeyhackr on Nov 2, 2006 at 11:44 PM

The laws of physics for PhDs are no different for the laws of physics for college dropouts.

Well, no, I guess not if you’re comparing how the laws of physics affects them.  But comparing how they might affect (apply) the laws of physics in order to build something or understand why it fell down reveals vast differences.

Do you doubt that there are race car drivers that are better at driving cars than some race car designers even though the drivers <u>couldn’t do a decent job of designing the cars</u>?

I can’t see how this statement does anything but support my position which states that the layman is simply unqualified to determine the mechanisms of collapse of the WTC towers.  Now, if these “drivers” were actually up in the impact zone, observed what actually took place, and survived to tell the “designers” what happened in the “crash”, then that would be quite different.  However, I’m quite confident that what they observed would match up pretty closely with what has been theorized through not only knowledge of structural behavior under stress and heat, but from visual and photographic evidence, albeit from outside looking in.

Do you doubt that there are people that can shoot pool better than people with PhDs in physics?  Just because the physicist could do the calculations better doesn’t mean he could play worth a damn.

Yes, and I’m also sure that there are people that can walk up stairs in a tall skyscraper better and faster than the lazy desk-jockeys that designed it.  But that would prove…..what exactly?

When experts know what they are talking about and want to communicate clearly about it and be understood they can do it but when they want to bullsh!t they can do that also and expect the laymen to behave like good littlemushrooms.  Kept in the dark and fed bullsh!t.

The NIST reports could easily be put in laymen’s terms if there was a need for it. (They’re actually quite dumbed down from the raw.)  The conclusions and the basis for reaching them would be the same.  Your suspicion that a bunch of elite egg-heads are deliberately keeping you in the dark is irrational and unfounded.  There are thousands of engineers and scientists from all over the world that have the ability to determine whether the investigation is somehow flawed.  However, so far none have felt the need to write a rebuttal and forward it to a respected relevant journal. 

This is not to say that there aren’t some minor disagreements on the exact mechanism of collapse, but these disagreements tend to make the need for supplemental explosives even less.

I don’t understand your obsession with knowing the exact amount of steel and concrete in the buildings.  (Although I would bet that if it’s anywhere, it’s in the NIST reports somewhere.)  It has been determined, and never refuted in 5 years, that any difference in the estimates for such values would have to be an order of magnitude different for the upper block not to be able to easily overcome the structure below.

Upon reading your posts about economics, it is obvious to me that you are totally wrong in virtually all of your assertions, even though I don’t know a thing about economics, other than how to pay the cashier for my groceries.  I’m pretty darn skilled at swiping my card and putting in my PIN.  I actually have to wait on the computer—that’s how fast and skillful I am.

Posted by Natalie on Nov 3, 2006 at 1:53 PM

The NIST reports could easily be put in laymen

Posted by psikeyhackr on Nov 3, 2006 at 4:06 PM

You’re completely wrong on depreciation, computers, and even oriental rugs.

I have no expertise in any of the above subjects, but I can tell just from a cursory glance that you are totally and woefully wrong.

von Neumann Machines?  You’re completely wrong on those, too.  What you say about them is totally false.

Posted by Natalie on Nov 3, 2006 at 6:57 PM

Man you don’t know anything about anything and all you can say is, “You’re wrong,  you’re wrong, you’re wrong.”

ROFL

Here is a source:

Any discussion of computer architectures, of how computers and computer systems are organized, designed, and implemented, inevitably makes reference to the “von Neumann architecture” as a basis for comparison. And of course this is so, since virtually every electronic computer ever built has been rooted in this architecture.

http://www.csupomona.edu/~hnriley/www/VonN.html

The IBM 3033 mainframe was introduced in 1978.  It cost $3,000,000.  It had the processing power of a 300 MHz Pentium 2.  There is a table of benchmark data in the Jan 1983 BYTE magazine including the source code.  I have run it on my 300 MHz Panasonic CF-27 Toughbook.

The technology of oriental rugs doesn’t change by leaps and bounds every couple of years so the depreciation isn’t that great.  Go to estate auctions to buy them.

psik

Posted by psikeyhackr on Nov 3, 2006 at 7:30 PM

psikeyhakr….

You will find ol’ girl Natalie extremely frustrating…in the area of confronting what is…..

Hold up an apple…she’ll call it an orange… then give you a wordy(DELUSIONAL) explanation of why the apple is an orange…

If you’re not a gov’t certified fruit expert….telling her what ...” she wants too hear “....yu are short with ol’ girl…..

She just denies the facts….

Thinks ” depleted Uranium “...is safe to breath…..

The lady is BOGUS…......

Just so yu know….

Posted by Redhorse on Nov 3, 2006 at 7:48 PM

psikeyhackr,

Why in the world should I take the word of “H. Norton Riley of the Computer Science Department at California State Polytechnic University in Pomona, California” on computers or anything else?  What gives him/her the authority to make sweeping, unsupportable statements such as:

“<i>Any discussion of computer architectures, of how computers and computer systems are organized, designed, and implemented, inevitably makes reference to the

Posted by Natalie on Nov 3, 2006 at 10:40 PM

You will find ol

Posted by psikeyhackr on Nov 4, 2006 at 2:36 AM

Psik(otic)?

Natalie has deliberately adopted the form of incoherent rambling that Horse invariably uses; indeed, Horse is incapable of anything more profound. 

The joke might have been more obvious if she had randomly misspelled words and used more fragmented sentences.  Had she done so, you could not have independently determined whether the author was Horse, or someone else, with a strong supposition that it was Horse because of his long history of writing similar nonsense. 

Horse is a joke.  You obviously do not get the joke.

Posted by scorp on Nov 4, 2006 at 8:31 AM

Excellent, psikeyhackr!

Now, just take that brainlessly obtuse concept and apply it to the 9/11 truth crowd.  In fact, apply it to yourself I’m afraid.

I attempt to illustrate, employing the fact that your knowledge of economics, computers, and oriental rugs is superior to mine, how ridiculous it is for me to think that I am qualified to declare your conclusions on these subjects wrong, and thereby how silly it is for you or even me to think we are able to debunk the NIST report.

And you don’t seem to even get it. You seem unable to pick up on a simple satirical comparison.

I guess I gotta wonder just how smart you really are.  You seem intelligent, you seem to have used some pretty advanced critical thinking in analyzing economics,  but then you apparently buy into this load of 9/11 “truth” crap.

What’s up with all this?

Posted by Natalie on Nov 4, 2006 at 10:10 AM

Hey, scorp,

Didn’t see your post there before I did my last one.

I like the tie-in with Horse to a joke!  He’s a joke that even…....he doesn’t….......get?  Remind you of anyone?  Two word clue:  John. Kerry.

Two word clue, psikeyhackr: 

Evi
dense

Spellcheck…..clean up on page 16!

Posted by Natalie on Nov 4, 2006 at 10:25 AM

Well Scorpy at least you could spell psikeyhackrs name correctly….

Still making excuses for your fellow troll nata-lie…..

With all the ” foot shootin’ ” going on with the republicans…now a big time republican evangelist minister has declared that ; yes, he bought the meth…but didn’t smoke it…and only contacted the dealer( a gay male escort whore) ,for a MASSAGE….ok…...

One can never tell what is going on with yu extremist types…....

How come all your top personalities have serious personality disorders, that have something to do with closeted homosexual behavior…children…and drugs….?

Scorpy…yu have nothing too gloat about , your boys are imploding….

Apparently you and yours is the joke…you’re all a bunch of under-cover drug using homosexuals…..

Not that there’s anything wrong with that…...

And Natalie…what a bitch…two trolling meth -heads for the entertainment value only they as faithful neo-con fascist could or would want to know….

What perverted realities lurk in the vast darkness of the neo-cons psychotic sexual mindset…

Feasting off of each others droppings .wallowing in the fallaciousness of their own fecal mismanaged agendas…not yet coming too realize….how disgusting they are…..........ugh.

ps…Sorry Natalie…my apologizes…Redhorse forgot your drug of preference is depleted Uranium dust…..

In the olden days when Immortals
To earth came visibly down,
There went a youth with an Angel
Through the gate of an Eastern town;
They passed a dog by the roadside,
Where dead and rotting it lay,
And the youth, at the ghastly odour,
Sickened and turned away.
He gathered his robes about him,
And hastily hurried thence;
But nought annoyed the Angel’s
Clear, pure,immortal sense.
.....................................................................

By came a lady , lip luscious,
On delicate, mincing feet;
All the place grew glad with her presence,
All the air about her sweet ;
For she came in fragrance floating,
And her voice most silverly rang ;
And the youth, to embrace her beauty ,
With all his being sprang.
A sweet, delightsome lady ;
And yet , the Legend saith,
The Angel , while he passed her,
Shuddered and held his breath !

Gerald Massey…originally Circa 1900…...

Posted by Redhorse on Nov 4, 2006 at 10:39 AM

mmmmmm…....depleted uranium dust

yummy!!

I think psycho-hacker’s stuck back on pg. 15.

Posted by Natalie on Nov 4, 2006 at 11:27 AM

Hi guys and gals.

Ive been gone a few days and I see I missed out but not of anything much.

psikeyhackr

If you are interested in the WTC towers here is just a short list I have put together over the last 5 years. I hope this will help. No you will not find much in the NIST report that should be there and yes there is much that is just junk that really does not need to be in the report.

“First tenant occupancy of the 110-story north tower (WTC 1) was in December 1970, and occupancy of the 110-story south tower (WTC 2) began in January 1972. The other WTC buildings were constructed during the 1970s and into the 1980s, with WTC 7 constructed just north of the WTC site in 1985. WTC 3, located immediately west of the south tower, was a 22-story hotel operated by the Marriott Corporation. WTC 4 and 5 were nine-story office buildings, and WTC 6 was an eight-story office building. WTC 7 was a 47- story office building. The seven-building complex provided approximately 12 million square feet of rentable floor space occupied by a variety of government and commercial tenants”

“Height: 1,368 and 1,362 feet (417 and 415 meters)
Owners: Port Authority of New York and New Jersey.
(99 year leased signed in April 2001 to groups including Westfield America and Silverstein Properties)
Architect: Minoru Yamasaki, Emery Roth and Sons consulting
Engineer: John Skilling and Leslie Robertson of Worthington, Skilling, Helle and Jackson
Ground Breaking: August 5, 1966
Opened: 1970-73; April 4, 1973 ribbon cutting
Destroyed: Terrorist attack, September 11, 2001”

“There is no question that an important, yet overlooked, hero of 9/11, was the structural redundancy built into the framing of the Twin Towers,” says Schuring. “Structural redundancy means there are multiple load paths to sustain the building weight. This redundancy provided precious time for thousands of workers to escape. And although it’s not technically feasible to design a skyscraper to be invulnerable from impact by fully fueled jetliners, as design professionals we must develop improved details and systems that provide ever-greater protection against progressive collapse such as what occurred at the WTC site”

“On September 13, 2001, the cover of the New Civil Engineer in the UK consisted of a picture 1 WTC during its collapse with a single word written across it: “unthinkable”. “Just hours earlier, it had been genuinely inconceivable that structures of such magnitude could succumb to this fate.”

“Leslie E. Robertson, the lead structural engineer on the team that designed the towers, wrote that “The events of September 11 are not well understood by me . . . and perhaps cannot really be understood by anyone.” As NIST would also conclude”

“It was estimated by the Port Authority that the population of the WTC complex on September 11, 2001, was 58,000 people. “

“It was assumed in the 1960s design analysis for the WTC towers that an aircraft, lost in fog and seeking to land at a nearby airport, like the B-25 Mitchell bomber that struck the Empire State Building on July 28, 1945, might strike a WTC tower while low on fuel and at landing speeds.”

“Boeing 707 considered by the designers, weighed 263,000 pounds and the Boeing 767s that hit the towers weighed about 274,000 pounds. This is a difference of 4%. ...Incidently, the maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707 is 336,000 pounds. The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.”

“1,000,000 t of rubble will require 20,000 to 30,000 truckloads to haul away the material. The asbestos fire insulation makes the task hazardous for those working nearby. Interestingly, the approximately 300,000 t of steel is fully recyclable and represents only one day’s production of the U.S. steel industry. Separation of the stone and concrete is a common matter for modern steel shredders. The land-filling of 700,000 t of concrete and stone rubble is more problematic. “

In the upper floors there is as much as 40,000 square feet of office space per floor. The floor construction is of prefabricated trussed steel, only 33 inches in depth, that spans the full 60 feet to the core, and also acts as a diaphragm to stiffen the outside wall against lateral buckling forces from wind-load pressures.”

“To a structural engineer, a skyscraper is modeled as a large cantilever vertical column. Each tower was 64 m square, standing 411 m above street level and 21 m below grade. This produces a height-to-width ratio of 6.8. The total weight of the structure was roughly 500,000 t, but wind load, rather than the gravity load, dominated the design. The building is a huge sail that must resist a 225 km/h hurricane. It was designed to resist a wind load of 2 kPa—-a total of lateral load of 5,000 t.”

And so you can reach a fare opinion your self I have a small list from both sides, well mostly from the supporters of the government myth for they need all the help they can get. Though Natalie is doing all she can to support the LIE but she could do better if she came up with an explanation for building seven.

Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation
Published in JOM by Thomas Eagar and Christopher Musso, 2001
Feature: Special Report
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html

An Initial Microstructural Analysis of A36 Steel from WTC Building 7
Published in JOM by J.R. Barnett, R.R. Biederman, and R.D. Sisson, Jr., 2001
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...erman-0112.html

Another site I frequented:
http://www.iti.northwestern.edu/research/wtc/index.html

Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_t…ld_Trade_Center

World Trade Center - Some Engineering Aspects - Civil Engineering - The University of Sydney [info about the WTC’s]:
http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml

911 Research:
http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/WTC_ch1.htm

New Jersey Institute of Technology Civil Engineering Professor Details How the Towers Collapsed; the Impact of 9/11 on Civil Engineers, Professors, Students:
http://www.njit.edu/v2/News/Releases/254.html

psikeyhackr it is very important to know the exact details such as the amount of steel and ect..

Lord Kelvin:
“I often say . . . that when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind; it may be the beginning of knowledge, but you have scarcely, in your thoughts, advanced to the stage of science, whatever the matter may be.”

Posted by honestjoe on Nov 5, 2006 at 3:07 PM

Natalie

Thank you for your response.

You said:
Some people in and out of government speculated early on that steel in the towers may have melted.

I just read again their reports and watched and read again their interviews and watched the videos that went step by step with their reports. They are not speculating they are saying it as a fact that the jet fuel was so hot it melted the steel—-like rubber or chewing gum and ect.. Some much worse!

I strongly suggest that you try doing that and I would be amazed if you were not angry at the insult to the American peoples intelligence. It made me so upset that it brought me to tears. Please Natalie try it so you can be reminded of the lies. Please, please so you can see all of the early lies such as the construction of the WTC buildings and ect..

Those lies have still infected the minds of some people to this day! Didnt you just one week ago reference to an article that was based on lies, omissions and distortions?

It’s easy to see how—they say at the outset that their analysis is based on an assumption—that the temperature of the steel “apparently” reached 800 degrees celsius, or 1472 degrees fahrenheit, meaning the steel would have been red hot. A jet fuel fire burning in open air as in the towers would only reach a maximum of 1200 degrees fahrenheit, and we know from photos taken of the impact zone that people were walking around inside the very area where the fires are supposed to have been raging so fiercely that Bazant and Zhou believe the steel could have been raised to red hot temperatures. No serious scientist is still quoting that nonsensical paper that they put out two days after the collapses, and why you would not know this is beyond me. Try again, And please don’t try to seize the moral high ground—you are either incredibly ignorant or intentionally trying to deceive readers of this thread with reference to discredited work.

Re Prof. Bazant’s paper, this line from the bottom of page 3 sure gives one a lot of confidence - not!

“Therefore, no further analysis has been necessary to prove that the WTC towers had to fall the way they did.”

I watched his latest video with Bazant trying to explain his bulls**t how can you not see what a joke this guiy is?

You are so confused. Look at this clown, half way through he admits he had to make up his data because he didn’t have the actual figures.

Did you even listen to this clown? This is the OFFICIAL representation?

Hilarious!

Ha! This guy totally debunks his own story.

Shows a slide, written ON THE SLIDE. Says building collapsed in 9 seconds (uh-oh, I thought the debunkers debunked that- now what?)
The official story disregards physics. What do you think about that??

In the above links you will see the quotes used just as I had or Jones and ect.. But they are being used by the supporters of the government myth. They used them before I or Jones and ect had used them and they used them in the same way. Such as this:

“One demolition expert on the day of the collapse said it looked like implosion but this is not very strong evidence. Implosion firstly requires a lot of explosives placed in strategic areas all around the building. When and how was this explosive placed in the building without anyone knowing about it. Second, implosion required more than just explosives. Demolition experts spend weeks inside a derelict building planning an event. Many of the beams are cut through by about 90% so that the explosion only has to break a small bit of steel. In this state the building is highly dangerous, and there is no way such a prepared building could still be running day to day like WTC was.”

Natalie you will find that seven times the same quotes were used (before Jones even thought of looking into it like he was asked) by supporters of the government myth. Im sure the idea was to bring them up (the quotes) before anyone else did so they could excuse them with lame garbage.

You said:
If he stated that he thought there was a possibility, given the variety of materials and fire scenarios in the offices, that some degree of melting of some steel could possibly have occurred, then that would be a completely different matter.

Natalie what are you thinking? It is not able to happen at all and even NIST agrees!!!!!!!! Once again you are going against NIST and therefor the government myth. That is why their whole argument depends solely on the majority of fireproofing being removed so as to allow the now admited much cooler fires to affect the steel. But even with no fireproofing at all the fires still were not hot enough nor did they last long enough to affect the steel so as to cause symmetrical collapse. let alone the fact that the building acted like a giant heat sink. NIST canot and has not explained the steel that was found at all three WTC sites.

Yes I know about the latest hypothesis (another try) is this: oxygen tanks from planes somehow survived the plane crashes and the fireballs, yet leaked about an hour later to release the oxygen in the tanks. This relatively small amount of oxygen was somehow enough, to burn office materials such as to melt the structural steel in the building.

NIST would have gone with it to if so many people (true patriots) hadnt argued the high improbability of this ever happening! Greening has gone off the deep end trying to support the government myth as well for it cant be done a LIE is a LIE is a LIE!!! Besides it doesnt explain building 7. They are in deep with the admited low probability of the fire causing the collapse of the World Trade Centers and they know it.

it’s just like the magic bullet theory now we have the magically hot fires theory. They both go against the laws of science physics in particular.

Posted by honestjoe on Nov 5, 2006 at 3:10 PM