I'll start adding evidence, as I see it.
Where's the plane? I checked on an air disaster site: http://www.airdisaster.com/ and plane crashed leave visible debris...lots of it. Where's the plane from flight 93?
Article from the time it happened:
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2p2.asp
[attachment deleted by admin]
There's so much evidence, it'll take me a while to put it up here. I'll be adding to this gradually. Obviously that one item doesn't mean 9-11 was an inside job.
There are definitely a lot of questions. I currently don't believe the government did it, but I do believe they knew it was coming and choose to not do anything about it, so they could use it as a "pearl Harbo" event. Several neo-cons said they wanted such a thing prior to 9/11. The political classes definitely had motive.
Tracy
I've checked out a lot of this, but not all. I haven't found anything to be untrue.
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
by Dr. David Ray Griffin
In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been ?a 571-page lie.? (Actually, I was saying ?a 567-page lie,? because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.
Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique?s subtitle, ?Omissions and Distortions.? It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated ?distortions? can be considered lies.
It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention ?to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11.? They are also lies insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least most instances.
Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know. But, deciding to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had identified over 100 of them. Once I had made the list, it occurred to me that others might find this summary helpful. Hence this article.
One caveat: Although in some of the cases it is obvious that the Commission has lied, in other cases I would say, as I make clear in the book, that it appears that the Commission has lied. However, in the interests of simply giving a brief listing of claims that I consider to be lies, I will ignore this distinction between obvious and probable lies, leaving it to readers, if they wish, to look up the discussion in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. For ease in doing this, I have parenthetically indicated the pages of the book on which the various issues are discussed.
Given this clarification, I now list the omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:
1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).
2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission?s claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).
3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).
4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).
5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).
10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was ?a hollow steel shaft?---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the ?pancake theory? of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).
11. The omission of Larry Silverstein?s statement that he and the fire department commander decided to ?pull? Building 7 (28).
12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).
13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).
14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani?s statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).
15. The omission of the fact that President Bush?s brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).
16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).
17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).
18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing?s fa?ade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).
19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).
20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).
21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).
22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld?s reference to ?the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]? (39).
23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).
24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).
25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).
26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).
27. The omission of David Schippers? claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).
28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).
29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).
30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).
31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America?s ?most wanted? criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).
32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).
33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).
34. The omission of Gerald Posner?s account of Abu Zubaydah?s testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).
35. The Commission?s denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).
36. The Commission?s denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar?s wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).
37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).
38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).
39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).
40. The omission of Coleen Rowley?s claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).
41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright?s charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).
42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui?s computer (91-94).
43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds?-testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).
44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan?s intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).
45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).
46. The Commission?s claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).
47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).
48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan?s Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).
49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).
50. The omission of Gerald Posner?s report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).
51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be ?coming down? (114).
52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as ?opportunities? (116-17).
53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that ?a new Pearl Harbor? would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).
Continued....
54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).
55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks?-Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).
56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).
57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).
58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).
59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).
60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld?s conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).
61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that ?the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein? (133-34).
62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).
63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD?s Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).
64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).
65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).
66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane?s transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military?s radar to track that plane (166-67).
67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD?s response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).
68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).
69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).
70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD?s earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).
71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).
72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175?s hijacking (183-84, 186).
73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).
74. The omission, in the Commission?s claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).
75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI?s counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).
76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military?s radar (191-92).
77. The failure to explain, if NORAD?s earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was ?incorrect,? how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).
78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).
79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).
80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke?s videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).
81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because ?none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department?---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).
82. The Commission?s claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke?s videoconference---although Clarke?s book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).
83. The endorsement of General Myers? claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke?s contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke?s videoconference (213-17).
84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke?s account of Rumsfeld?s whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld?s own accounts (217-19).
85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta?s testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).
86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).
87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a ?high-speed dive?) and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).
88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from ?Phantom Flight 11,? were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).
89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).
90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93?s hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).
91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).
92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).
93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).
94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC?s Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).
95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).
96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).
97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).
98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).
99. The omission of Clarke?s own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).
100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).
101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).
102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).
103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).
104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).
105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).
106. The endorsement of General Myers? claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).
107. The endorsement of General Myers? claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).
108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).
109. The failure to probe the issue of how the ?war games? scheduled for that day were related to the military?s failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).
110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).
111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).
112. The failure to point out that the Commission?s claimed ?independence? was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).
113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).
114. The failure to point out that the Commission?s chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).
115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report ?without dissent,? to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of ?looking at information only partially,? had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).
I will close by pointing out that I concluded my study of what I came to call ?the Kean-Zelikow Report? by writing that it, ?far from lessening my suspicions about official complicity, has served to confirm them. Why would the minds in charge of this final report engage in such deception if they were not trying to cover up very high crimes?? (291)
Look into Operation Northwoods. It was a plan by the Us government to attack our own people, including crashing planes & substitution of planes mid-air as a pretext to start a war in Cuba. It shows that they're willing to do such things. It admits they've done it in the past, i.e. The Maine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
This is the declassified document released under the Freedom of Information Act.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf
The PDF is a little hard to read in places, but you can get the relevant info if you stick with it.
Quote from: katdillon on September 06, 2005, 04:59 PM NHFT
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
B.S. alert. The second airplane hit lower down the tower than the first one, thus leaving far more weight upon the structure of the tower. This is why it appeared to split in half when it collapsed, as opposed to the other tower that pancaked floor upon floor as it collapsed.
Quote from: katdillon on September 06, 2005, 05:08 PM NHFT
Look into Operation Northwoods.? It was a plan by the Us government to attack our own people, including crashing planes & substitution of planes mid-air as a pretext to start a war in Cuba.? It shows that they're willing to do such things.? It admits they've done it in the past, i.e. The Maine.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
This is the declassified document released under the Freedom of Information Act.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf?
The PDF is a little hard to read in places, but you can get the relevant info if you stick with it.
OMG, I thought that was fake. :o
Quote from: katdillon on September 06, 2005, 04:45 PM NHFT
I'll start adding evidence, as I see it.
Where's the plane?? I checked on an air disaster site:? http://www.airdisaster.com/ and plane crashed leave visible debris...lots of it.? Where's the plane from flight 93??
Article from the time it happened:
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2p2.asp
They said bits and pieces of it were spread over a 5 mile radius. That doesn't quite make sense to me. However, they may have cleaned up the crater before this picture was taken. So far, I cannot find any pictures of debris from flight 93, which is strange.
If it wasn't flight 93, then why did so many people call to report a large airliner flying low, then an explosion like dynamite, and a plume of smoke? Maybe the terrorists weren't lying when they told passengers they had a bomb. It could have been a remote detonator for a bomb in their luggage that was stored in the cargo area. That could explain a lot of things.
The people who came on the scene first said they didn't see huge airplane parts.
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on September 06, 2005, 05:25 PM NHFT
Quote from: katdillon on September 06, 2005, 04:59 PM NHFT
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
B.S. alert. The second airplane hit lower down the tower than the first one, thus leaving far more weight upon the structure of the tower. This is why it appeared to split in half when it collapsed, as opposed to the other tower that pancaked floor upon floor as it collapsed.
The fire in that building didn't even cover the whole floor. How did that building fall symetrically? How does a fire that, according the the firefighters themselves, was almost out, cause a building to fall? What about the numerous experts who say there's no way kerosene can melt steel?
Quote from: katdillon on September 06, 2005, 09:05 PM NHFT
What about the numerous experts who say there's no way kerosene can melt steel?
There's about 1,500-2,000F difference (depending on composition) between "melt" and "soft as putty".
How many people would it take to pull off a conspiracy such as this? How is it nobody has turned if that were the case? If these people were frigging smart enough to do this and get away with it, how the hell are the screwing up Iraq so incompently? Or is that part of their cover?
Send it to Myth Busters, I don't buy it.
I tend to read The New American -- a John Birtch Society publication -- and they have lots of information that doesn't quite make sence too.
I wouldencourage people to read this PDF file from "Freedom-Force International"
On the War on Terror.
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling4.pdf
There are numerous things that don't make sence.
Tracy
Quote from: AlanM on September 06, 2005, 11:11 PM NHFT
? Looking at the history of government conspiracy, from the lies surrounding the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, to the sinking of the Maine, to the Lusitania, to Pearl Harbor, then on to the Bay of Pigs, the Tonkin Gulf incident, the Kennedy assasinations, the MLK assasinations, and most recently the Weapons of Mass destruction, can anyone doubt the ability of Government to attempt something on the scale of 9-11?
Although the events that followed the conspiracies you discribe, up to Tonkin, were horrible, the conspiracies themselves to actually pull off, were not of the scale of 911.
The government probably had nothing to do with the assasinations of R. Kennedy or MLK.
Even though Iraq's possesion of WMD's was none of our business and no excuse to invade, many experts in many countries assumed they had these weapons.
Do you ever get the feeling that if this country or the world were ever under attack or facing some major disaster, that while the dems and republicans pointed fingers at each other, we would all die.
You know....they would never get those old retired astronots into a rocket to blow up the asteroid hurtling towards earth.
Quote from: tracysaboe on September 07, 2005, 02:31 AM NHFT
I tend to read The New American -- a John Birtch Society publication -- and they have lots of information that doesn't quite make sence too.
The John Birch society is an organization of paranoid delusional conspiracy theorists of the Nixon/freemason/illuminati stripe. No credibility, IMO. And yes, I know Ron Paul is a part of it.
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on September 07, 2005, 01:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: tracysaboe on September 07, 2005, 02:31 AM NHFT
I tend to read The New American -- a John Birtch Society publication -- and they have lots of information that doesn't quite make sence too.
The John Birch society is an organization of paranoid delusional conspiracy theorists of the Nixon/freemason/illuminati stripe. No credibility, IMO. And yes, I know Ron Paul is a part of it.
Well, they have reason to be paranoid, conspiracy, theorists.
BTW, Helen Chenowith is also part of it. Next to Ron Paul she was the best Representive in the country. And she was mine when I as in Idaho. Unfortunitly she actually honored her "promise to America" onlike most "other" conservatives, so she's no longer there.
Tracy
Tracy
QuoteHow many people would it take to pull off a conspiracy such as this
it would take only about 20 - 30 or so people who are "in" on the conspiracy to make it work. The rest of the people that were involved in making it happen would only have had to know enough to do their part. Full compartmentalization. Ruppert compares it to the people making the atom bomb back in the 60's: The person enriching the uranium has no idea of the plan. The person flying the bomber doesn't have any idea of the plan. Only the scientists developing it and a few of the people coordinating everything really need to know about the atom bomb.
I'm not saying the U.S. government planned 9-11, or that Bush knew anything about it prior to it happening. I tend to think that Bush probably didn't. (Plausible deniability.) But in view of just how significant the "intelligence failures" really were ... it seems to me that some elements inside our government had to be in the know. Hell, Mossad sent in agents to watch it happen after informing the CIA and being rebuffed.
The smoking bomb (Vreeland) is sitting in a cell in Canada.
The thought that "our government couldn't have been involved because its too hard for that many people to keep a secret" is fairly weak. Three can keep a secret if two of them are dead ... OR if the information would destroy all three of them.
Caleb
Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean nobody is after you. ::)
What about WTC 7?
Larry Silverstein, who owned the WTC properties and purchased them several months before 9/11 even, was on PBS a year or two ago and sat right in that chair and admitted to the public that he had ordered FDNY to "pull" Building No. 7.
In other words, that building went down like a stack of um, well, floors used in a controlled demolition.
Use the photography, folks! Even the AP stuff, the CNN stuff, the Washington Post, Time Magazine stuff! You can't fit a commercial airliner into the hole that hit the Pentagon. There's just no way. If a jetliner did in fact hit the Pentagon, where's the massive security camera footage of it all? We have yet to see one credible piece of footage that shows a jetliner hitting the Pentagon.
That Cleveland, Ohio TV station's report about Flight 93 isn't credible? Give me a break! It landed two hours after we were "told" it crashed!!
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Not once has anyone said, "look at their organizations they're tied to." You don't think the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderbergers, Skull & Bones and all those other "organizations" wouldn't put their agenda (i.e., Rockefellers, etc.) forward by putting a bunch of fruitcake figurehead politicians in power to carry it out? Come on!
This is all in plain view! I do believe a lot of folks in the libertarian community have very thick blinders on. Either you're just too trusting, or just won't pry open your brain a little to question everything you read or hear.
Must be the reporter in me.
Quote from: JonM on September 06, 2005, 10:07 PM NHFT
How many people would it take to pull off a conspiracy such as this?? How is it nobody has turned if that were the case?
Lots of people have .... those are the guys that Alex Jones and others interview. :)
Say.....have you heard about the chemtrails they've got up there...watching us?
I don't get that one.
just a play on a couple of other conspiracy theories.
Does everyone have their foil hats?
Is your computer Tempest shielded?
Quote from: joeyforpresident on September 07, 2005, 08:45 PM NHFT
What about WTC 7?
Larry Silverstein, who owned the WTC properties and purchased them several months before 9/11 even, was on PBS a year or two ago and sat right in that chair and admitted to the public that he had ordered FDNY to "pull" Building No. 7.
In other words, that building went down like a stack of um, well, floors used in a controlled demolition.
It collapsed just like a half-dozen other buildings that collapsed in that area AND were not hit by airplanes. ?"Pull" means to exit their positions at 7 WTC. ?Firefighters do not know how to install dynamite, wire it, or trigger it. ?The FDNY has NOTHING to do with demolition work.
The fact that you haven't even questioned this assumption damages your credibility as a reporter and an individual.
Quote from: joeyforpresident on September 07, 2005, 08:45 PM NHFT
Use the photography, folks! Even the AP stuff, the CNN stuff, the Washington Post, Time Magazine stuff! You can't fit a commercial airliner into the hole that hit the Pentagon. There's? just no way. If a jetliner did in fact hit the Pentagon, where's the massive security camera footage of it all? We have yet to see one credible piece of footage that shows a jetliner hitting the Pentagon.
No credible footage? ?I have footage of it on my computer. ?Everyone has seen it on the news. ?How is it that you haven't seen it?
Quote from: joeyforpresident on September 07, 2005, 08:45 PM NHFT
That Cleveland, Ohio TV station's report about Flight 93 isn't credible? Give me a break! It landed two hours after we were "told" it crashed!!
According to ONE news station 134 miles away from the crash site? ?You call that credible?
There were many witnesses of the plane going down, the plume of smoke, etc. ?Besides, it only takes about 15 minutes, NOT 2 hours, for a 757 to go the 134 miles from Pittsburgh to Cleveland.
Quote from: joeyforpresident on September 07, 2005, 08:45 PM NHFT
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Not once has anyone said, "look at their organizations they're tied to." You don't think the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderbergers...
Never heard of 'em.
Quote from: joeyforpresident on September 07, 2005, 08:45 PM NHFT
...Skull & Bones and all those other "organizations" wouldn't put their agenda (i.e., Rockefellers, etc.) forward by putting a bunch of fruitcake figurehead politicians in power to carry it out? Come on!
Skull and Bones? ?Joey... seriously... you think a dorky old secretive Yale frat group is trying to take over the world? ? ::)
LeRuineur, it doesn't bother you, even a little, that the people's representatives never bothered to look into the matter? We have a Congressional inquiry into steroid use by baseball players, but not even a single congressional investigation into the who, what, when, where, why, and hows of the greatest terrorist attack on American soil? That's what's frustrating to me. The questioning is completely missing, and we are expected to believe what the government says, despite the fact that a) not only is the critical information all classified, but b) our elected representatives have never investigated the matter! Granted, I want full disclosure, but I'd sure as hell feel a lot better if there were 535 people who all knew the truth and had seen all of the classified information. Instead, all we have is the privileged "9-11 commission" with absolutely no accountability. Why has the Congress been silent on this investigation? Why has no one lost their job over the intelligence failures? Heads should be rolling at Langley, but instead all we see is ass-covering.
Caleb
Not only that, they've majorly increased the budgets of all the security agencies....rewarding them for failure.
Quote from: calibaba77 on September 08, 2005, 06:49 PM NHFT
LeRuineur, it doesn't bother you, even a little, that the people's representatives never bothered to look into the matter?? We have a Congressional inquiry into steroid use by baseball players, but not even a single congressional investigation into the who, what, when, where, why, and hows of the greatest terrorist attack on American soil?? That's what's frustrating to me.? The questioning is completely missing, and we are expected to believe what the government says, despite the fact that a) not only is the critical information all classified, but b) our elected representatives have never investigated the matter!? Granted, I want full disclosure, but I'd sure as hell feel a lot better if there were 535 people who all knew the truth and had seen all of the classified information.? Instead, all we have is the privileged "9-11 commission" with absolutely no accountability.? Why has the Congress been silent on this investigation?? Why has no one lost their job over the intelligence failures?? Heads should be rolling at Langley, but instead all we see is ass-covering.
Caleb
That's what politicians and bureaucrats do. Everyone covers for each other. Even enemies will work together to stay in power because power seems to shut off their conscience. Nothing you say or do will ever make the government honestly investigate itself.
Of course this bothers me, but that does not make me susceptible to becoming a paranoid conspiracy theorist like Nixon or Hitler.
Mike, I have been taking a look at the facts that are out there. Whose facts? As many as I can find. The Government facts don't add up for me, plain and simple.
QuoteOf course this bothers me, but that does not make me susceptible to becoming a paranoid conspiracy theorist like Nixon or Hitler.
Don't forget McCarthy. ;) :)
I understand your points, but this isn't conspiracy theory. Look, I don't think any reasonable person is suggesting that a there is widespread complicity on the part of most people in government service. That taxes the imagination of even the most creative.
But during the Soviet cold war era, there were numerous spies, reaching into the highest levels of government, working for the Soviet cause and against the interests of the American people. It doesn't require too much imagination to believe, using history as our guide, that there were those within the highest reaches of our government who would be willing sacrifice a few Americans if it advances their agenda. The intelligence "failures" were just too many.
Let's just take Coleen Rowley for instance. Now she tried over and over again to get a warrant to check Zacharias Mussoui's computer, and was completely rebuffed time and time again. What's interesting is that, as a last resort, she went to the CIA with pertinent information. (What that was, we'll not know for quite some time, it's been classified.) But it does raise an interesting point: Would you go to the CIA if you didn't have hard information? How would that go? "Hey, I captured a guy who was learning to fly airplanes. But ... he's Arabic. I'm with the FBI, but they won't issue a warrant. Maybe you should check into it." She would have been laughed out of town! The only reason she would have gone to the CIA was if she had HARD, CREDIBLE information.
So lets put two and two together. She needs a search warrant to make the evidence
admissable. That doesn't mean she hadn't read it. If she had read it, that would explain her hard information that she relayed to the CIA, (still classified).
With it being classified, I can't prove that the FBI and the CIA knew a sufficient amount to stop the attacks. But that is precisely the allegation that Ms. Rowley made. And if they knew, why did they not issue the warrant, or at least act to take Zacharias' friends into custody for questioning. Someone sat on that information.
You might call it an "intelligence failure" ... but shouldn't Congress at least investigate a failure of such a magnitude for possible intent? They could have access to the classified information simply by issuing a Congressional subpeona.
Caleb
Quote from: calibaba77 on September 10, 2005, 09:13 AM NHFT
You might call it an "intelligence failure" ... but shouldn't Congress at least investigate a failure of such a magnitude for possible intent?? They could have access to the classified information simply by issuing a Congressional subpeona.
News reporter: "Mr. Government, it appears that you failed to protect us from the terrorists. The result of your enormous failure is a massive increase of your money and power. But the people want answers! Will you carry out an investigation of yourself so you can tell us why this was allowed to happen?"
Government: "Yeah, I'll get right on that... *coughNOTcough* Thanks for the money and power though." 8)
News reporter: "But 3,000 people died and---"
Government: "Now STFU and move along before I audit you!"
Mike, or anyone else,
Do you believe in the existence of the Chautauqua movement? It meets the criteria of a conspiracy.
J. Edgar Hoover was involved in many conspiracies.
The Sons of Liberty was a conspiracy.
Conspiracies exist.
Quote from: AlanM on September 10, 2005, 09:44 AM NHFT
Mike, or anyone else,
Do you believe in the existence of the Chautauqua movement? It meets the criteria of a conspiracy.
J. Edgar Hoover was involved in many conspiracies.
The Sons of Liberty was a conspiracy.
Conspiracies exist.
IMO, 9/11 was a conspiracy of men who hate our government, for good reason.? I hate our government too, but I'm not going to kill anyone over it.
These men were previously trained and funded by our government, which completely destroyed their countries while playing with them like pawns during the Cold War.? Of course they had reason to hate our government.
Everything about 9/11 is obvious.? The cause is obvious:? foreign interventionism.? The method was obvious:? a few guys easily controlled hundreds of people in victim disarmament zones (airplanes).? It was probably pretty easy to pull off given the circumstances, especially with today's technology, like GPS transponders, to direct them to their targets.
This country was just waiting for something like 9/11 to happen.? I'm surprised we haven't been surprise-nuked yet by some suicidal foreign government that feels victimized by the US government.? It's probably only a matter of time.
Much has been made about Bush's lack of reaction when he was told of the 9-11 attacks while in the kindergarten classroom. His reaction, to me, was entirely consistent with someone who knew it was going to happen, and what the ramifications would be. It is if he was pausing and thinking to himself, "So, it begins. Am I right?"
If all of what the conspiracy theorists holds is true, then why wouldn't these "people" make you disappear for attempting to expose them?
Quote from: JonM on September 10, 2005, 12:10 PM NHFT
If all of what the conspiracy theorists holds is true, then why wouldn't these "people" make you disappear for attempting to expose them?
They don't need to. At least until the point that lots of people start paying attention, at which point a massive campaign to discredit will begin. For now they just need folks to throw out the phrase, "Another conspiracy theory."
So shortly after being elected to office, George Bush murders 3000 + americans for what purpose again?
Quote from: JonM on September 10, 2005, 12:21 PM NHFT
So shortly after being elected to office, George Bush murders 3000 + americans for what purpose again?
For starters:
1. To create public hysteria conducive to passage of the Real ID Act, the Patriot Act, The Homeland Security Department.
2. To gather the support for his administration.
3. To deflect attention away from his critics.
4. To create support for his need to invade Iraq.
I'm struck by those who simultaneously believe that Bush is an incompetent fool and a devious mastermind, and will express both thoughts in the same sentence.
Not speaking of anyone in particular here, just an observation in general.
Kevin
I, for one, have never thought him to be a fool. He didn't get where he is by being a fool. He is one of a powerful group who decided to make him their figurehead.
Again I ask, if these people who are such geniuses at manipulation as to convince us that it was terrorists who took out the towers in order to gather support for invading Iraq among other things, why the hell is Iraq so screwed up?
Quote from: AlanM on September 10, 2005, 12:01 PM NHFT
Much has been made about Bush's lack of reaction when he was told of the 9-11 attacks while in the kindergarten classroom. His reaction, to me, was entirely consistent with someone who knew it was going to happen, and what the ramifications would be. It is if he was pausing and thinking to himself, "So, it begins. Am I right?"
Well!....Shit!.....thats all the evidence I need!
Quote from: JonM on September 10, 2005, 12:45 PM NHFT
Again I ask, if these people who are such geniuses at manipulation as to convince us that it was terrorists who took out the towers in order to gather support for invading Iraq among other things, why the hell is Iraq so screwed up?
Why do you think that one implies the other? In the US they are dealing with a passive population willing to believe anything they are told by the Government. In Iraq, they don't have that situation. And it could be something as simple as the fact that they miscalculated.
Hunter S. Thomson was working on an article on how 9-11 was an inside job when he "suicided".
Quote from: katdillon on September 10, 2005, 01:34 PM NHFT
Hunter S. Thomson was working on an article on how 9-11 was an inside job when he "suicided".
So now Dr. Gonzo was offed by the conspirators?
Damn, they're good... they got him while he was on the phone with his wife and his kids were in the house!
Take a look at this:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/hilton_interview.htm
Some say that several witnesses were coerced to recant their testimony.
Perhaps you could go to the graves of the fire fighters and policemen who died going into the towers and piss on them directly. You could also find say, an 8 year old who is the daughter of someone who was on one of the flights that slammed into the WTC and spit in her eye while you're at it.
JonM, why would I want to do that? They have suffered enough.
Penn & Teller did a Bullshit episode on this exact conspiracy theory, and I have to agree with them. 100% bull fucking shit. I have a much easier time believing our government was too incompetent to stop this than there is a cabal of people in America who decided murdering up to 50,000 Americans would be a good policy move. If such a group exists, and were able to somehow, with nobody noticing, wire explosives into every floor, and pull off the most disturbing mass murder in American history without a single person defecting from their ranks in disgust and ratting them out, why in god's name would they let the Free State Project get moving? That would be a direct threat against them.
This is the same government that couldn't keep an idiot break-in at a psychiatrist's office under wraps. But I'm sure there's a good conspiracy theory on why they threw Nixon to the wolves as well.
You are entitled to your opinion, as I am entitled to mine. I resent your post about the children, however. Try to be civil.
I say your statements are no betters than walking up to the children of the people who died in those planes and pissing on them. Your support of this conspiracy theory says their parents did not die in a horrible terrorist attack but were in on it and have abandoned them for the rest of their lives.
Quote from: JonM on September 11, 2005, 11:20 PM NHFT
I say your statements are no betters than walking up to the children of the people who died in those planes and pissing on them.? Your support of this conspiracy theory says their parents did not die in a horrible terrorist attack but were in on it and have abandoned them for the rest of their lives.
Excuse me, but I have never said the passengers or victims in the towers were involved in the conspiracy.
One of the main "inside job" theories has it that it was not the passenger jets that collided with the towers, but drones, meaning all those people missing from those flights had to go somewhere. If they can't go home, then either the government executed them (and why not fly them into the towers if that's the case) or they were in on it. Tom Clancy wrote about a fuel filled jumbo jet flying into a joint session of congress what, 10 years or more ago? It wasn't a unique concept for them to come up with, the towers were built to take a 737 running into them. They used a bigger jet, the damn things were built of mostly glass and steel, not concrete. Once the heat from the fire weakened the supports holding the floors above it, they had nowhere to go but down, and momentum just took the rest with it. The jet fuel helped, but office equipment isn't exactly non-flammable. A lithium-ion battery will burn at 700 degrees Celsius when damaged. Keep that in mind if you ever drop your notebook.
The promotion of these conspiracy theories dishonors the memory of every single person who died that day.
Quote from: JonM on September 11, 2005, 11:36 PM NHFT
One of the main "inside job" theories has it that it was not the passenger jets that collided with the towers, but drones, meaning all those people missing from those flights had to go somewhere.? If they can't go home, then either the government executed them (and why not fly them into the towers if that's the case) or they were in on it.? Tom Clancy wrote about a fuel filled jumbo jet flying into a joint session of congress what, 10 years or more ago?? It wasn't a unique concept for them to come up with, the towers were built to take a 737 running into them.? They used a bigger jet, the damn things were built of mostly glass and steel, not concrete.? Once the heat from the fire weakened the supports holding the floors above it, they had nowhere to go but down, and momentum just took the rest with it.? The jet fuel helped, but office equipment isn't exactly non-flammable.? A lithium-ion battery will burn at 700 degrees Celsius when damaged.? Keep that in mind if you ever drop your notebook.
The promotion of these conspiracy theories dishonors the memory of every single person who died that day.
I puzzled over that for a long time, intil I read a theory that said the planes were controlled from the ground (the technology exists) and that the crew and passengers would have been gassed, possibly a nerve gas, just as the planes were taken control of from the ground. No, I do not think the passengers or crew were in on the conspiracy.
What is so hard to accept about a bunch of terrorists getting on the plane, taking it over while the crew and passengers believe they're merely being hijacked in the "traditional" manner and flown into the two towers?
There are far too many inconsistencies in the Governments case. Kat posted a number of them. The slips of the tongue by several different people, including Rumsfeld's using the term missle in regards to the Pentagon attack. It doesn't add up. Plus why didn't Osama immediately claim credit for the attack if it was him? Why did the Saudi Government claim one of the alleged attackers was still alive? It is my belief that the conspirators want us to believe the story they are presenting, but it doesn't add up.
Your case adds up far less than that. The fact that our government is run by morons doesn't take away from the fact that it was not Americans who flew those planes into the WTC and Pentagon.
Quote from: JonM on September 11, 2005, 11:56 PM NHFT
Your case adds up far less than that.? The fact that our government is run by morons doesn't take away from the fact that it was not Americans who flew those planes into the WTC and Pentagon.
There are a lot of very smart, very shrewd people in this administration, and to call them morons, I think is a mistake. Bush is merely the figurehead, the continuation of the dynasty, the One World group that controls him is very dangerous, and will stop at nothing to achieve their ends.
They let Clinton run things for 8 years . . . why? Oh wait, that doesn't matter in that world, I keep forgetting. I suppose the fact that twice Bush was barely able to eek out an electoral victory against some of the most unappealing Democrats ever to run for President was just part of the "show" as well? Shrewd people can act like morons; they do it all the time. They've shrewdly gotten Bush down to a 39% approval rating. They've shrewdly fucked up Iraq tremendously. The shrewd mishandling of the Katrina disaster is mostly the state government's fault, but they've shrewdly screwed up in making that clear.
Why do you still breathe if this conspiracy theory is true? Shouldn't "they" have had you killed by now? Of course, that would just lend credence to this nutjob conspiracy theory. That I can't conceive of anyone in our government's power being so disgustingly callous to other Americans, and indeed be willing to risk the total economic collapse of our country in this attack is perhaps my failing. Your inability to provide anything but supposition, guesses and statements that "things just don't add up" as opposition to the facts as presented is not my failing.
They have no need to worry about me. I have no power.
I can see that you are the type of person who sees the good in people, not the bad. You still trust our leaders are trying to do the best for us. I used to feel that way, but no more.
I trust them to be greedy self-serving egomaniacs twisting the system at every oppurtunity to benefit themselves and their cohorts. I just don't see any upside for that sort of person to attempt 9/11. The risk-reward ratio just doesn't make sense for them to try it. If they get caught, they face worse than being strung up in the real and very physical sense. They got a PATRIOT act that many people denounce, which is having issues being renewed. They got a REAL ID act that the states are rebelling against implementing (sadly over cost rathern that the loss of liberty). They got a war in Iraq (which they were going to go after regardless of 9/11) that is not turning out well in ANY sense of the word.
All this at the risk of what would happen if the conspiracy were revealed? THAT does not add up.
Quote from: EagleClaw on September 11, 2005, 06:38 PM NHFT
Take a look at this:
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/hilton_interview.htm
Some say that several witnesses were coerced to recant their testimony.
Stanley Hilton keeps saying how he's got mountains of direct evidence that Bush directly ordered 9/11, yet he hasn't offered up a single shred for public scrutiny. He (and Alex Jones) keep publicly worrying about his safety, because surely "they" will off him for exposing what "they" did. Apparently they're not concerned that these mountains of evidence could die with Hilton.
Were I in that situation, and truly had lots of hard evidence that could lead to my death, the last thing I'd do would be to sit on it. I'd be spreading copies like crazy, to every possible venue. When asked about the evidence in interviews, I'd be citing document dates and authors, and quoting them directly and providing a URL for people to download them.
But no... apparently Stanley Hilton's $7,000,000,000 lawsuit takes priority over spreading the "truth".
I wonder what the contingency fee is on $7 Billion...
Kevin
Quote from: JonM on September 11, 2005, 11:14 PM NHFT
Penn & Teller did a Bullshit episode on this exact conspiracy theory, and I have to agree with them.? 100% bull fucking shit.? I have a much easier time believing our government was too incompetent to stop this than there is a cabal of people in America who decided murdering up to 50,000 Americans would be a good policy move.? If such a group exists, and were able to somehow, with nobody noticing, wire explosives into every floor, and pull off the most disturbing mass murder in American history without a single person defecting from their ranks in disgust and ratting them out, why in god's name would they let the Free State Project get moving?? That would be a direct threat against them.
This is the same government that couldn't keep an idiot break-in at a psychiatrist's office under wraps.? But I'm sure there's a good conspiracy theory on why they threw Nixon to the wolves as well.
Exactly.
The government screws up everything they touch.? Even the Nazis couldn't get away with blaming the Reichstag fire on one communist boy, and most of Germany knew the Nazis burned it down.? Luckily for governments, people's attention spans are short and they are easily controlled by flag-waving, wars, and... more flag-waving.
No government short of a complete dictatorship could pull off an event like 9/11 against their own people.? The idea that a typical government could do this to its own people is absurd and illogical.? Governments succeed only at complete and utter failure with vast unintended consequences.
Of course Bush sat in a classroom listening to children for 5 minutes after being told that the US was at war - he's an idiot.? I've seen many videos of Bush speaking off-the-cuff, and I'm not talking about any practiced event like the New Orleans photo-op.? When cameras talk to him at his ranch, he proves that he's a blundering idiot.
For example, I've made exact transcripts of a few of these video clips:
"Well what... what I'm worried about... is... uhhh... job creation.? Uhhh... and I'm worried about those who... are unemployed.? I... uhhhh... I am concerned about those who... uhh... are looking for work and can't find work, so next week when I talk about an economic stimulus package, I will talk about... uhhhhh........ how to create jobs... how BEST to create jobs... as well as how best to take care of those who don't have a job.? I'm concerned about ALL people.? And I don't view the politics... and I understand the politics of... of economic stimulus.? If some would like to turn this into class warfare... uhhhh... I... uhh...... That's not how I think!? I think about the overall economy, how best to help those folks who are looking for work."
Example 2:
"Well, first of all... uhhh... I think it's important to remember that... Saddam Hussein was close to having a nucular weapon.? Uhh... We don't KNOW whether or not he has a nucular weapon.? Uhhh... We do expect him to disarm... his weapons of mass destruction; that's what we expect.? Uhh secondly... uhhhh... the uhh international community has been trying to resolve... the situation in Iraq with diplomacy for... uhh eleven years!? And for eleven years Saddam has defied... the international community.? And uhhhhh...... and now we brought the world together to send a clear signal we expect him to disarm... get rid of his weapons of mass destruction.? Uhh The first step in determining whether or not he can do that is... was discouraging!? His declaration was short!? And... uhhhhhh... uhhh... the... international community recognized that..... that he wasn't forthcoming.? Awww...? Again, I hope this Iraq situation can be resolved peacefully.? One of my New Year's resolutions was to work a... uh deal with these situations in a way that they're resolved peacefully.? But uhhhh...... thus far it appears that uhhh..... on-- at first look that Saddam hadn't heard the message!"
Example 3:
"Secretary Powell will make a... strong case about the danger of a armed Saddam Hussein.? We'll uh... make it clear that uh... Saddam Hussein is... fooling the world... trying to fool the world.? We will make it clear... that Saddam is... is a... uhhh... menace to peace in his own neighborhood.? We will also talk about... Al Qaeda links.? Links that... uhhh... really portend... uhhh... a danger for America and for Great Britain--anybody else that loves freedom.? As the Prime Minister said, the War on Terror is not confined to--just to a shadowy terrorist network.? The War on Terra includes those who are willing to train... and to equip... a... organizations such as Al Qaeda."
::)
Bush is an idiot.? Period.? Without significant coaching, help, and scripting, he cannot even speak like a normal human being.? He is BEYOND stupid.
I am now questioning the original official explanation of 9/11 ..... I don't think that is disrespectful to anyone who died in the buildings or planes.
I think its spitting in the face of the families of the victims NOT to demand the truth.
Caleb
The truth is terrorists from another country killed thousands of Americans on 9/11. The only thing that was left to explore was why we didn't stop it ahead of time. To suggest that someone inside the government could conceive of this and attempt to pull it off is ludicrous. There may be someone in the intelligence community who suspected this would happen and was either unable or unwilling to raise the alarm, but how can you look at one of children of those victims and tell them to their face that it was really their government who did this with no =REAL= evidence of it?
Yes, letting the real criminals off scott free, ready to wreck more havoc upon us...now there some spit for ya.
And who would these real criminals be, and how would they have commited this crime? And WHY would they have commited this crime?
Well....to throw the country into economic havoc so they would increace tax plunder.......wait a minute.....never mind......
Quote from: JonM on September 12, 2005, 07:54 PM NHFT
The truth is terrorists from another country killed thousands of Americans on 9/11.? The only thing that was left to explore was why we didn't stop it ahead of time.? To suggest that someone inside the government could conceive of this and attempt to pull it off is ludicrous.? There may be someone in the intelligence community who suspected this would happen and was either unable or unwilling to raise the alarm, but how can you look at one of children of those victims and tell them to their face that it was really their government who did this with no =REAL= evidence of it?
What is "Real Evidence"? Believe me, any tangible evidence has been concealed and/or destroyed by the perpetrators. Most of the evidence which would be readily obtainable would be from various "loose canon" witnesses.
All I know is, that damn Patriot Act was whipped up way too fast to have been written AFTER the 911 attacks. It was clear that the authors didn't want the Congressmen to have time to read it (also true for other anti-liberty bills that were passed later).
Most of America has been Neo-Conned... This country is getting more dysfunctional all the time.
That they had a wish list of police powers they would like to see enacted does not mean they perpetrated that attack. It means they're opportunists. That is not evidence, it is supposition.
Quote from: JonM on September 12, 2005, 09:30 PM NHFT
That they had a wish list of police powers they would like to see enacted does not mean they perpetrated that attack.? It means they're opportunists.? That is not evidence, it is supposition.
Agreed.? Every government wants these police powers.? The various departments have probably been asking for these powers for decades.? Somewhere, there's a massive laundry list of powers the government wants, and this list will be pulled out whenever something bad happens.
I'm sure the FBI has been looking for an excuse to raid our library records since its inception. It's quite a big stretch to say the FBI killed 3,000 innocent Americans in order to get that ability.
From Alex Jones's Prison Planet.com
Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact
By Randy Lavello
By now the misinformation and ignored findings surrounding the September 11, 2001 attacks have evaporated the official version into the land of fiction. Didn?t it seem strange that we learned everything of the government version by the next day? Much has been learned about the attacks, yet the official version has never changed; it seems as though our government thinks the point moot since it used this excuse to pass unconstitutional laws and wage wars resulting in oil profits. The time has come to admit the sorry truth as a nation, so that we can move on - as a nation.
The planes did not bring those towers down; bombs did. So why use planes? It seems they were a diversionary tactic- a grand spectacle. Who would want to divert our attention from the real cause of the collapse of those towers? It must be those who benefited most from these attacks. Let?s recount some facts of that dreadful day.
Any time an aircraft deviates from it?s course, the air traffic controller requests a military intercept according to military response code 7610-4J. This was the first time interceptors were not sent up in the history of this policy. The intercept pilots are trained to make a visual check of the cockpit? could this be the reason these interceptors were intercepted? Planes were sent to the New York area, after unprecedented delay, from Falmouth, Massachusetts rather than nearby Ft. Dix or Laguardia. Of course, they didn?t arrive in time - there was no visual scan of the cockpits.
Captain Kent Hill, retired from the Air Force, explained that the U.S. had flown unmanned aircraft, similar in size to a Boeing 737, on preprogrammed flight paths from Edwards Air Force Base, California to Australia on several occasions. He believes the airliners used in the attacks had their on board computers knocked out and were subsequently choreographed by an Airborne Warning and Control System. Along side Captain Hill, an Air Force officer with more than 100 sorties in Vietnam stated, ?Those birds either had a crack fighter pilot in the left seat, or they were being maneuvered by remote control.? We know that the technology exists to fly hijacked commercial airliners by remote control - it?s called ?Globalhawk.? We also know that the military has had an unmanned drone aircraft known as the ?Predator,? since 1994. A saboteur would merely have to reprogram the controls to switch from manual to remote; those airliners practically fly themselves already with the autopilot. This would require electronic security codes? acquisition of electronic codes would also explain the lapse of interceptor response due to sabotage. Furthermore, it?s a fact that Air Force One codes were known and punched in by a rogue source on 9/11, proving the presence of an inside, subversive element.
As usual, it?s not a good conspiracy, if it doesn?t involve a Bush! Introducing Marvin Bush - brother of George Jr. Marvin is a substantial shareholder and was on the Board of Directors until 2000 of a security company aptly named Securacom. This is not an ordinary security force with canvas badges and walkie-talkies; it?s an electronic security company, which was ?coincidentally? involved with Dulles Airport until 1998. Handling electronic security at Dulles seems like an excellent way to gain access to Air Traffic Control communication codes with NORAD, which is in charge of intercept missions. According to CEO Barry McDaniel, the company ?handled some of the security at the World Trade Center up to the day the buildings fell down.? How convenient, huh? Bombs were in those towers? Bush?s presidency was saved by these attacks - just something to think about.
Five of the twenty ?suicide hijackers? are alive and well according to the BBC and they want their names cleared. So who was flying those planes? We may never know exactly what happened with those jets; what we do know is that the official version crumbles under scrutiny. These planes were merely a diversion, as proven by the presence of bombs? that?s right, PROVEN!
Before beginning this article, I met Auxiliary Lieutenant Fireman and former Auxiliary Police Officer, Paul Isaac Jr. at the World Trade Center Memorial. Paul, along with many other firemen, is very upset about the obvious cover-up and he is on a crusade for answers and justice. He was stationed at Engine 10, across the street from the World Trade Center in 1998 and 99; Engine 10 was entirely wiped out in the destruction of the towers. He explained to me that, ?many other firemen know there were bombs in the buildings, but they?re afraid for their jobs to admit it because the ?higher-ups? forbid discussion of this fact.? Paul further elaborated that former CIA director Robert Woolsey, as the Fire Department?s Anti-terrorism Consultant, is sending a gag order down the ranks. ?There were definitely bombs in those buildings,? he told me. He explained to me that, if the building had ?pancaked? as it?s been called, the falling floors would have met great resistance from the steel support columns, which would have sent debris flying outward into the surrounding blocks. I asked him about the trusses, and quoted the history channel?s ?don?t trust a truss? explanation for the collapses. He responded in disbelief, and told me, ?You could never build a truss building that high. A slight wind would knock it over! Those buildings were supported by reinforced steel. Building don?t just implode like that; this was a demolition.?
Just after the disaster, Firefighter Louie Cacchioli said, ?We think there were bombs set in the building.? Notice he said ?we?. At 9:04, just after flight 175 collided with the South Tower, a huge explosion shot 550 feet into the air from the U.S. Customs House known as WTC 6. A huge crater scars the ground where this building once stood. Something blew up WTC 6 - it wasn?t a plane; it must have been a bomb of some sort.
The seismic record from Columbia University?s observatory in Palisades, NY (21 miles away) provides indisputable proof that massive explosions brought down those towers. At the precise moment the South Tower began collapsing, a 2.1 earthquake registered on the seismograph. At the precise moment the North Tower began collapsing, a 2.3 earthquake registered; however, as the buildings started to crumble these waves disappeared. The two ?spikes?on the seismograph, which both occurred at the exact instants the collapses began, are twenty times the amplitude, or more than 100 times the force of the other waves. If the buildings had simply collapsed, the largest jolts would have occurred when the massive debris struck the earth, not at the beginnings of the collapses. Seismologist Arthur Lerner-Lam of Columbia University stated, ?Only a small fraction of the energy from the collapsing towers was converted into ground motion. The ground shaking that resulted from the collapse of the towers was extremely small.? In other words, the collapsing did not cause 2.1 and 2.3 magnitude earthquakes. Furthermore, a ?sharp spike of short duration? is how underground nuclear explosions register on seismographs. Underground explosions, where the steel columns meet Manhattans granite would account for both the demolition-style implosions and these ?spikes? on the seismograph. Another seismologist at the Palisades observatory, Won Young Kim said the 1993 truck bomb did not even register on their seismographs because the explosion was ?not coupled? to the ground. Imagine the magnitude of explosions it would take to register the two earthquakes, when the truck bomb didn?t even show up.
The American Free Press reported that in the basements of the collapsed towers, where 47 central support columns (per building) connected with the bedrock, hot spots of ?literally molten steel? were discovered more than a month after the attack. There is only one explanation for this: An explosion of unprecedented magnitude destroyed the bases of the columns, then the massive structures buried the impact points, trapping the intense heat below for all that time.
The tower which was struck second suffered less damage from the plane because it was a less direct hit and most of the jet fuel was seen ignited outside the structure? yet this tower collapsed first. Just before this collapse, the firefighters were up on the burning levels and were heard saying, ?Battalion seven? Ladder fifteen, we?ve got two isolated pockets of fire. We should be able to knock it down with two lines.? How could two isolated pockets of fire destroy the bases of the support columns causing the buildings to implode? Paul Isaac told me, ?Based on video footage of the collapse of the South Tower, the structural collapse is not consistent with the angle the building was struck.?
Why was no investigation permitted of the debris? Dr W. Gene Corley headed the FEMA sponsored engineering assessment of the World Trade Center collapse, which performed no tests on the steel for traces of explosives. When asked about this process known as ?twinning,? he responded, ?I am not a metallurgist.? Dr. Corley also ?investigated? the debris at Waco and Oklahoma City? and we all know how thoroughly those ?investigations? were performed.
No government agency performed forensic examinations of the rubble; no effort was made to validate their official story. The rubble was quickly loaded onto ships and delivered to China for smelting. These are the actions of criminals disposing of evidence! By these actions, FEMA proves itself to be a subversive element in our government!
Former Deputy Director of the FBI, John P. O?Neil stated, ?The main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it.? Can you think of anyone (Bush) linked to both wealthy Saudi Arabians and U.S. corporate oil? John O?Neil resigned from the FBI after 31 years of service after Barbara Bodine, currently part of the Iraqi transition team, barred him from following up his investigation of the attack on the U.S.S Cole. He took a job heading security at the World Trade Center? his first day of work - September 11, 2001. John O?Neil received the job from Jerome Howard, Former Director of the New York Office of Emergency Management, who happened to have the day off on 9/11. We may only speculate on the case of Mr. O?Neil, but he does seem to be a person which U.S. oil corporate interests would want out of the way? especially during these wars for oil and power in Iraq and Afghanistan.
The top FBI officials in Minneapolis called off investigations of Zacarais Moussaoui, causing bitter resentment among field agents. The man who made the decision not to investigate was promoted! Israeli intelligence agents lived next to the alleged hijackers in Hollywood, Florida. The ?hijackers? were trained at U.S. government flight schools. Insider training on United Airlines leads to the conclusion that there was foreknowledge of these attacks; it also establishes that those with this foreknowledge are, at least, relatively wealthy. Another suspicious finding is that the World Trade Center was sold to Vornado Realty Trust in February, seven months prior to the attacks for 3.25 billion dollars? this doesn?t prove anything, it?s merely suspicious.
Who gained the most from the attacks of September 11th? Who had the motive? An Israeli expert on terrorism at the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, Ehud Sprinzak said, ?From the perspective of Jews, it is the most important public relations act ever committed in our favor.? David Stern, an expert on Israeli intelligence operations stated, ?This attack required a high level of military precision and the resources of an advanced intelligence agency. In addition, the attackers would have needed to be extremely familiar with both Air Force One flight operations, civil airline flight paths, and aerial assault tactics on sensitive U.S. cities like Washington.? He elaborated that the attacks ?serve no Arab group or nation?s interest, but their timing came in the midst of international condemnation of Israel?? He goes on to claim ?A U.S. military intelligence report revealed details of an international intelligence memo linking Mossad to the World Trade Center and Pentagon attacks. The memo was in circulation three weeks before the attacks.?
Furthering the suspicion of Mossad involvement, five Israelis were seen atop a van smiling and celebrating, while taking videos of the disaster from across the Hudson River. These five were arrested by the FBI and detained for two months before being deported back to Israel. Two of these men were positively identified as Israeli intelligence agents. Eighty-one nations are represented among the World Trade Center?s dead - Israel is not one of these nations even though approximately 1200 of its citizens worked there. As if that wasn?t enough, an instant messaging firm in Israel, named Odigo, received warnings about the towers two hours before the attacks. Everyone who points out the wrongdoings of Israel is immediately labeled ?anti-Semitic?? well, the truth knows no race or religion - it?s just the truth. These aren?t Jews carrying out these plans; it?s merely sick animals who hide behind the Jews!
WorldTradeCenter.com describes David Rockefeller as the ?Visionary behind the World Trade Center.? He pushed the construction of these towers through major opposition with the aid of his brother, then governor, Nelson Rockefeller. David has been quoted as saying, ?We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order.? Was this the ?right major crisis? to advance the aims of a global government?
There is overwhelming evidence to support the findings that these alleged Arab terrorists were merely scapegoats used to advance the World Government agend. During the attacks, ?President? George Jr. was reading a book with school children about goats! (Scapegoats?) Arab terrorists did not carry out these attacks which were detrimental to the Muslim world.
All evidence points to elements inside, high atop the governments of Israel and the United States. Those wishing to implement their world government through their control over finance, media and militaries are guilty of these most heinous crimes. This atrocity is proving to advance the domestic police state agendas and consolidate the Middle East?s oil reserves. The people who most benefited from these attacks are the wealthiest, most privileged and powerful men on earth who feel they will finally be able to hold dominion over the nations of the world through their New World Order. For some of these globalists, these attacks were merely a means to an end - a huge step toward ruling a world socialist system. But for others, likely the planners of such a vile crime, this was a mass sacrifice to themselves. This mass ritual sacrifice of the vulnerable and the heroes who tried to save them was perpetrated by power crazed freaks who are simply - satanic.
That article is so full of non-sequiturs, unsupportable conclusions, leaps of logic (leaps of faith?), deliberate ignorance of science, and just plain stupidity, that I don't know where to begin. It can't even be dismissed paragraph-by-paragraph... each sentence contains things to be disputed on several levels!
I think the first line of the last paragraph sums up the author's true feelings: the Jews were behind it all, and the secret agencies of the U.S. government were their minions.
Kevin
I sent Kat the two DVD documentaries, Loose Change & 9/11 In Plane Site-The Director's Cut last week.
I hope all of you live near Kat, or at least can watch those two films soon.
Your skepticism will be deluded after watching both of them...
Quote from: joeyforpresident on September 13, 2005, 12:58 AM NHFT
Your skepticism will be deluded after watching both of them...
"Deluded"... Interesting choice of words, Joey. ;)
Again, I ask this of anyone watching these videos: when first watching them, mute the audio (no fair reading closed captions). Look at what you're seeing, and etch it into your mind. Do this several times if you have the chance.
Only after you're familiar with the video, should you turn on the audio and let someone else tell you what you're seeing. What you know you saw, and what the voice now tells you, might be very very different.
I'm not commenting on Joey's videos, because I haven't seen them. But, I apply the same standard to any "The Real Truth!" videos about OKC, Waco, Ruby Ridge, Abu Graib, Columbine, etc.
Kevin
MMM.... New World Order! Now it all makes sense!
When I was in the Air Force we changed the encrpytion codes on our communications equipment every single day. The codes came on a one time use piece of paper tape that looked like the crappy correction tape spools for typewriters of a bygone error. Every day we would take the new code and run it through the equipment designed to read it, and pray the damn paper didn't tear. Now you expect me to believe NORAD left the same ones on for 3 years?
Once again, go piss on the 8 year old girl whose parent was in one of those planes if you wish to promote this fantasy. EVEN IF there were bombs in the place that doesn't mean it was our government that did it. Or was the 1993 bombing of the WTC just advanced cover-up planning? I've seen buildings implode on TV. I've never seen one implode like the WTC collapsed.
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html
Quote from: JonM on September 13, 2005, 09:39 AM NHFT
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/seismic.html
Hmmmm... looks like "Snopes for 9/11". Heavy on facts and data, looks at all angles, and only draws conclusions based on evidence.
More reading is in order... :)
Thanks!
Kevin
Okay, after I read some of that site's debunking, I backed out to the root, to see their overall take on 9/11. And what do we find? That they're debunking other conspiracy sites, because those other sites' errors are part of an even larger disinformation conspiracy designed to make the public skeptical of the skeptics, through easily-refuted nonsense!
AAAAAAaaaaarghhh!
::)
Gotta love it. Is there more to the story than the office report? Perhaps. Did anyone in the government stand to benefit enough from this attack to make it worth the risk? I can't see that, and until someone can show me an equation where that makes sense, I will have a hard time believing that anyone within the government would attempt to pull this off. They could have flown planes into the statue of liberty and the washington monument and gotten the same reaction from the populace in support of war and anti-terror police state laws without risking sending the economy into the crapper for years.
We've all seen what the government is capable of doing against its citizens in Ruby Ridge and Waco. That's a far cry from what happened at the WTC.
Quote from: joeyforpresident on September 13, 2005, 12:58 AM NHFT
I sent Kat the two DVD documentaries, Loose Change & 9/11 In Plane Site-The Director's Cut last week.
I hope all of you live near Kat, or at least can watch those two films soon.
Your skepticism will be deluded after watching both of them...
Do not trust one single video clip from these DVDs. Verify them against others available throughout the internet and you will find that the "9/11 in Plane Site" DVD has been modified to add a bright flash of light before the planes enter the buildings. These flashes are not present in any other video I've ever seen. The DVD is pure garbage.
Quote from: AlanM on September 12, 2005, 11:43 PM NHFT
From Alex Jones's Prison Planet.com
Bombs in the Building: World Trade Center 'Conspiracy Theory' is a Conspiracy Fact
By Randy Lavello
Prison Planet = Info Wars = zero credibility.
Look at the garbage on their website. Claims that New Orleans was flooded on purpose, 9/11 conspiracy theories, etc. They may have some factual stories, but I wouldn't trust ANYTHING on these websites.
3,000 people were murdered, but firefighters who supposedly witnessed explosive charges are too afraid to talk about it? That is completely absurd.
Everything in this article makes me laugh. The assumptions, "facts", and quotes are beyond ridiculous. They are obvious fabrications. The entire article is a complete fabrication. Prison Planet is a joke.
No offense intended.
Kevin and Mike,
I'm truly trying to understand where you're coming from here. I'm one whose mind is not made up on this issue yet. It seems difficult for me to believe that there was any sort of mass conspiracy.
But I have also been very troubled by the way that everything has been handled by the government. I simply ask myself, "What would I have done if I had been President ... " and what I would have done and what the government actually did are so far apart they can't even see each other.
Mike, are you happy with the government's response?
Kevin, are you?
Look at the huge volumes of information that is still classified. Why? Can you understand why people are suspicious? A good rule to follow is that if it looks like a skunk, and smells like a skunk, its probably a skunk. If the government is trying desperately to keep information from people, it only stands to reason that they are hiding something. And until that information is out in the open, can you understand why people will be trying to figure out what the government is hiding? If the government wants these conspiracy theories to go away, all it has to do is declassify all the information and allow everyone access to investigate it as they wish.
Caleb
I'll post this again.
http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/pdf/futurecalling4.pdf
There are lots of questions about 9/11 that have yet to be answered, and many conflicting answers.
Tracy
Quote from: calibaba77 on September 13, 2005, 07:03 PM NHFT
Kevin and Mike,
I'm truly trying to understand where you're coming from here. I'm one whose mind is not made up on this issue yet. It seems difficult for me to believe that there was any sort of mass conspiracy.
The existence of the professional conspiracy theory industry casts doubt onto much that they say or do, simply because they always assume there is a conspiracy behind every government action, and they actively look for data that can be presented to support their claim.
The technique at work here is not unlike Michael Moore's work. On further thought, it's
exactly like Michael Moore's work. The uncritical audience is led and manipulated and told what they're seeing, and its significance, and its meaning -- all of which is unsupported by the actual data. The conclusion requires huge leaps of logic and fact.
QuoteBut I have also been very troubled by the way that everything has been handled by the government. I simply ask myself, "What would I have done if I had been President ... " and what I would have done and what the government actually did are so far apart they can't even see each other.
Mike, are you happy with the government's response?
Kevin, are you?
I'm not sure of which response you're speaking. I assure you that each of us here has a laundry list of "If I were the President..." alternatives.
Do you mean the decision to go to war? Which war? Do you mean the Patriot Act? Do you mean the 9/11 Comission?
And just who do you mean when you say "the government"?
Quote
Look at the huge volumes of information that is still classified. Why?
Having held a TSBI-PRP, I can tell you that the intelligence side of the house suffers from massive information overload, even more now in the computer age than 20 years ago when I was on active duty.
The bulk of the data remains classified not for the secrets it might reveal, but because they don't know what's in there that might be highly significant, but unrecognized. They don't know which sources might be endangered by release of the information.
And frankly, the biggest reason it's classified, is because no one has taken the time to fully analyze and declassify it. Our biggest complaint about government is its behemoth slothfulness and ineptitude. How often has government paperwork been screwed up because someone checked the wrong box, or mis-filed a folder, or accidentally shredded an original document? Similar things have probably happened a dozen times this week, right here in my little workplace, but it wasn't a conspiracy.
Quote
If the government wants these conspiracy theories to go away, all it has to do is declassify all the information and allow everyone access to investigate it as they wish.
People --good people, on our side-- die when certain things get declassified. Sources disappear, making the quest for truth rather impossible.
Kevin
Quote from: KBCraig on September 13, 2005, 07:53 PM NHFT
...or accidentally shredded an original document...
Late one night John, the office manager, is walking by the copy room and sees the CEO in front of the shredder looking confused with some papers in hand.
"Can I help you, sir?" he says.
"I'm trying to figure this out."
"Oh," John says, taking the papers, "you put these in here, like this." The machine whirrs and the papers are safely shredded into confetti.
Looking very relieved, the boss says, "Thanks, John! I need ten copies of those for the meeting I'm having right now!"
And then the meeting was more productive!
"People --good people, on our side-- die when certain things get declassified. Sources disappear, making the quest for truth rather impossible."
I don't think anyone on the inside is on my side .... I am on the outside
Weldon: Atta Papers Destroyed on Orders
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050916/ap_on_go_co/sept11_hijackers
By DONNA DE LA CRUZ, Associated Press Writer 15 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - A
Pentagon employee was ordered to destroy documents that identified Mohamed Atta as a terrorist two years before the 2001 attacks, a congressman said Thursday.
ADVERTISEMENT
The employee is prepared to testify next week before the Senate Judiciary Committee and was expected to name the person who ordered him to destroy the large volume of documents, said Rep. Curt Weldon (news, bio, voting record), R-Pa.
Weldon declined to name the employee, citing confidentiality matters. Weldon described the documents as "2.5 terabytes" ? as much as one-fourth of all the printed materials in the
Library of Congress, he added.
A Senate Judiciary Committee aide said the witnesses for Wednesday's hearing had not been finalized and could not confirm Weldon's comments.
A message left Thursday with a Pentagon spokesman, Army Maj. Paul Swiergosz, was not immediately returned.
Weldon has said that Atta, the mastermind of the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and three other hijackers were identified in 1999 by a classified military intelligence unit known as "Able Danger," which determined they could be members of an al-Qaida cell.
On Wednesday, former members of the Sept. 11 commission dismissed the "Able Danger" assertions. One commissioner, ex-Sen. Slade Gorton, R-Wash., said, "Bluntly, it just didn't happen and that's the conclusion of all 10 of us."
Weldon responded angrily to Gorton's assertions.
"It's absolutely unbelievable that a commission would say this program just didn't exist," Weldon said Thursday.
Pentagon officials said this month they had found three more people who recall an intelligence chart identifying Atta as a terrorist prior to the Sept. 11 attacks.
Two military officers, Army Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer and Navy Capt. Scott Phillpott, have come forward to support Weldon's claims.
I read a great article the other day by Cynthia McKinney questioning the government's role in 9-11. Hopefully I'll post it in the next few days. But what struck me was how desperate the government is to squash any talk about the subject. This, to me, is suspicious behavior. I mean, if someone suggested that I personally was responsible for 9-11, I would laugh at it because its obviously foolish.
It seems to me that only the guilty have to squash criticisms that they did something.
Cynthia McKinney's congressional seat was targeted by the same Republicans who targeted Bob Barr's seat. Both lost in the primary. Barr, a staunch conservative, was an outspoken critic of the Patriot Act. He currently spends his time doing the talk radio rounds and working for the ACLU fighting the Patriot Act in the courts.
Why did the administration target these two? What are they afraid of?
Caleb
Quote from: calibaba77 on September 17, 2005, 09:11 AM NHFT
I mean, if someone suggested that I personally was responsible for 9-11, I would laugh at it because its obviously foolish.
And yet, if you were a government official and laughed it off, that denial would be "proof" for the conspiracy theorists.
Kevin
Quote from: russellkanning on September 14, 2005, 03:12 PM NHFT
"People --good people, on our side-- die when certain things get declassified. Sources disappear, making the quest for truth rather impossible."
I don't think anyone on the inside is on my side .... I am on the outside
That statement stood out like a red flag to me, too.
I go a step further and note the contradiction of justifying the government keeping secrets, while also believing it isn't on my side and is engaged in conspiracies against me.
Nothing undermines trust in government more than governments keeping any secrets for any reasons because the secrets creates the conspiracy theories that cause one to distrust government.
I recall a scifi story about a republican society that didn't have secrets and that was completely open being attacked by an enemy who had joined the society to collect information for the attack.? The story focused on the nature of society, and then in the epilogue the spy is captured and held by the one he befriended.? The spy asks how they could win when he knew all their plans, and the response was, "well, we all knew that you had left and we all knew what we told you, so we all knew what you knew about our weaknesses so we all knew how you would attack us, so we defended against your obvious attack."
That reminds me of the war game before Iraq where the adversary defeated Rumsfeld's wetdream electronic battlefield in two days by not using any radios, passing all commands by hand, and by not using the technology he had, but relying on guerilla techniques.? He was ruled to have violated the rules of engagement and the game was reset, and he was told that he had to lose the battle according to rules of the game.? Afterward, they proclaimed the war game to have proved the effectiveness of the electronic battlefield or whatever.
If I were magically president, I would eliminate all classified information and announce every weakness in every aspect of America, and then wait for the conspiracy theories to fly on both sides.? "He has just told us of the failed attempt to overthrow our government, which we suspected, but he must now have a double secret plan to overthrow us, or trick us into abdicating power...."? Meanwhile the local conspiracy theorist would be claiming that there is double secret secret conspiracy to classify information of an operation to take power and the revealing of all the secret information is to hide the conspiracy in the mountain of revealed secrets.
What I'm surprised at is the lack of conspiracy theories around the destruction of New Orleans.? It should be clear that this was directed by Osama.? At the top of FEMA's list of greatest risks, issued in Jan 2001, was NYC terrorist attack, flooding of New Orleans, and finally the big quake in LA.? Knowing the nature of the environment around New Orleans and the increasing vulnerability, I told all that would listen that the next best target for Osama was to have a team in New Orleans during hurricane season that would blow up the levees in some critical spots and that would be the end of a symbolic icon.? As we haven't heard a claim of responsibility, I can only conclude that they decided to blow it up on Sep 11th for symbolic reasons and they weren't able to plant the bombs in time to create the necessary new reel footage, and the surrounding storm damage inhibited their ability to blow up things outside of New Orleans.? Who set all those fires in New Orleans?? Just consider all the water around-it would take man made firestarting materials to get water logged building to burn.? Definitely the work of terrorists.? Why did Bush take so long to act.? Clearly so that the terrorists had the full opportunity to be caught in some clear act of violence so that Bush would be able to gain the support to invade Iran.
;-)
Quote from: joeyforpresident on September 13, 2005, 12:58 AM NHFT
I sent Kat the two DVD documentaries, Loose Change & 9/11 In Plane Site-The Director's Cut last week.
I hope all of you live near Kat, or at least can watch those two films soon.
Your skepticism will be deluded after watching both of them...
I'm not at all impressed with the 9-11, In plane site video, and I believe the government did it!
Quote from: katdillon on September 18, 2005, 12:13 PM NHFT
Quote from: joeyforpresident on September 13, 2005, 12:58 AM NHFT
I sent Kat the two DVD documentaries, Loose Change & 9/11 In Plane Site-The Director's Cut last week.
I hope all of you live near Kat, or at least can watch those two films soon.
Your skepticism will be deluded after watching both of them...
I'm not at all impressed with the 9-11, In plane site video, and I believe the government did it!
LOL
QuoteAnd yet, if you were a government official and laughed it off, that denial would be "proof" for the conspiracy theorists.
But Kevin, you're proving my point.? Because they don't laugh it off.? Let me give you an example.
A paranoid wacko named David Ickes accused Senator McCain of being a Reptilian space alien.? When McCain was informed, he did the only thing you can do when faced with such nonsense:? He laughed at it.? He didn't target Mr. Ickes for some government probe or try to destroy his career.? Mr Ickes still flies worldwide promoting these theories, and as far as I can tell, Mr. McCain hasn't done anything at all to try to stop it because he's not threatened by it in the least.?
But the administration doesn't laugh when accused.? Early after 9-11, Mr. Bush informed us somberly that we shouldn't even consider any sort of conspiracy theories regarding 9-11.? Why even mention it?
Then there's Senator Charles Shumer, who wants to criminalize such speculations.? He introduced a bill (HR 2580) in response to conspiracy theories regarding the Oklahoma City bombing.? His bill would seek to punish someone with five years in prison for engaging in "unseemly speculation" or publishing "baseless conspiracy theories regarding the Federal government of the United States".
Does it seem to you that these gentlemen are laughing it off like McCain did the reptilian space alient comments?
So in conclusion, let me throw a wild conspiracy theory at you ...
In 1933, the German Reichstag parliament building was burned.? Officially, no one really knows who burnt it, as I was informed at this website:? http://www.aviewoncities.com/berlin/reichstag.htm? A brief quote from the website:
It is to date still unclear who started the fire, but the Communists were blamed. It gave a boost to Hitler's Party, the NSDAP, who would soon come to power.
Now, I'm going to go out on a limb here and say ... If it looks like a skunk and smells like a skunk, it's probably a skunk.? So ... if Hitler's party benefitted from it, I'm going to say Hitler probably arranged for the Reichstag to be burned.? I know, I know.? Ridiculous.
If it looks like a skunk, and smells like a skunk ...
Has the fruit of 9-11 singed your nosehairs yet?? Patriot Act.? War on Terrorism (which Cheney says will last "our lifetime").? American citizens are arrested on American soil and held without without being charged as "enemy combatants", and denied the writ of Habeus Corpus, as guaranteed by the Constitution.? We have a war in Iraq.? A War in Afganistan.? Promis software patrols emails.? All in the name of security.?
If it looks like a skunk, and smells like a skunk ...
Caleb
PS: I have a little running signature, but I think it bears repeating here: "Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day;
but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers,
too plainly prove a deliberate and systematical plan of reducing us to slavery."
I won't mind if the war on terror lasts for Cheney's lifetime, I think he's not one for the over portion of the over/under bet on the actuarial tables. So you're saying the attack against America was a bi-partisan affair?
absolutely
waco - Clinton
oklahoma city - clinton
9/11 - Bush
seems to be the organizations not necessarily the white house :(
So Timmy was really a government agent and not an anti-government nutjob?
As for the faults of Janet Reno, don't forget Ruby Ridge and Elian Gonzalez. I'm not sure how to pin those on on another group, but I'm sure someone else can.
I think that the atf blew it up .... I am not sure what Tim M part was. :-\
So Kat, I'm guessing you received the two DVDs?
Will you still try to make public showings of them?
Quote from: KBCraig on September 06, 2005, 09:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: katdillon on September 06, 2005, 09:05 PM NHFT
What about the numerous experts who say there's no way kerosene can melt steel?
There's about 1,500-2,000F difference (depending on composition) between "melt" and "soft as putty".
I watched a blacksmith working the other day and asked him some questions (horray for homeschool field trips)...a couple observations:
1. Only the part of the metal which was directly in the hottest part of the stoked coal fire softened enough for him to be able to shape the metal.
2. He was working on a 1/4" piece of steel stock. He said he could possibly work much larger pieces of metal, but he would need to heat it for so long, it just wasn't practical.
How long would it take to heat an extra large steel girder in an "almost out" fire (according to the fire department) to even melt it to the soft pliable stage? How come no other steel buildings with fires that have burned much longer have never collapsed?
Even if those enourmous steel support columns did somehow melt in one hour, how would that break them in the rest of the building? Why weren't columns left standing way up in the air?
Quote from: katdillon on September 18, 2005, 12:13 PM NHFT
Quote from: joeyforpresident on September 13, 2005, 12:58 AM NHFT
I sent Kat the two DVD documentaries, Loose Change & 9/11 In Plane Site-The Director's Cut last week.
I hope all of you live near Kat, or at least can watch those two films soon.
Your skepticism will be deluded after watching both of them...
I'm not at all impressed with the 9-11, In plane site video, and I believe the government did it!
We watched Joey's CD the other day, and it wasn't the movie I was thinking of. It's a good one. I was doubtful about the flashes before the planes hit the towers. I got the 9-11, America Remembers cd .... the CNN recap of the whole thing. I watched it, slowing it down frame by frame in places....those flashes are clearly visible on the original CNN footage. Not that that in itself means there was a conspiracy, but people have claimed that they used doctored footage, which as far as I can tell, they didn't.
Maybe the conspiracy is the WTC towers were shoddy construction and nobody wants to face that monumental lawsuit.
Quote from: katdillon on October 01, 2005, 03:51 AM NHFT
We watched Joey's CD the other day, and it wasn't the movie I was thinking of.? It's a good one.? I was doubtful about the flashes before the planes hit the towers.? I got the 9-11, America Remembers cd .... the CNN recap of the whole thing.? I watched it, slowing it down frame by frame in places....those flashes are clearly visible on the original CNN footage.? Not that that in itself means there was a conspiracy, but people have claimed that they used doctored footage, which as far as I can tell, they didn't.
Oh, the original digital footage I found must not have been a high enough quality to see the flashes. Regardless, if I were one of those planes, I would have made a big flash if I ran into those buildings. ;)
A hypothetical situation:
A plane runs into floors 51 and 52 of a building.? Several floors immediately topple onto each other, tripling to weight being held up by the 50th floor.? If the metal heats up, that floor collapses, and the floor below it has no hope of holding quadruple its normal capacity, and the floor below that one can handle the above weight even less, so the entire building immediately collapses.
Now how much does the metal really have to heat up before that happens?? Probably not much and maybe not at all.? Maybe it just took time for the building's structure to give in and the floors' supports to bend under the pressure.? It's amazing the buildings did not collapse immediately upon impact.
It doesn't take an expert to see that the buildings began to collapse exactly where they were hit by the airplanes and there were no obvious explosive charges visible from the footage of the collapses.
When thousands of people die like this, the truth will find a way out into the open.? It already has.? OBL has repeatedly admitted doing it and he is praised in the middle east because America is hated throughout the region.
The world full of evidence against a 9/11 conspiracy by the government cannot be overcome.? Perhaps some government files on the 9/11 hijackers are disappearing to hide the government's complete and miserable failure to connect the dots and protect us.? In my mind, that's much more easy to imagine than to believe the government carried it out.
Quote from: katdillon on October 01, 2005, 03:44 AM NHFT
Even if those enourmous steel support columns did somehow melt in one hour, how would that break them in the rest of the building?
They were originally created in small sections a few feet long.? These pieces were scattered all over the place, I assume because of he enormous weight of the building collapsing on them:
http://www.ctgreatbay.com/files/wtc066-sm.jpg
Quote from: katdillon on October 01, 2005, 03:44 AM NHFT
Why weren't columns left standing way up in the air?
I assume the collapse scattered them.? This is all that was left of the buildings:
http://www.ctgreatbay.com/files/wtc067-sm.jpg
They weren't welded together? :o
Quote from: katdillon on October 01, 2005, 08:18 PM NHFT
They weren't welded together?? ?:o
Maybe they used elmer's glue.
These buildings were very poorly constructed, IMO. ?I think they depended on the outside of the building to hold up the inside.
Or something.
???
Quote from: sung on October 01, 2005, 08:23 PM NHFT
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on October 01, 2005, 08:22 PM NHFT
I think they depended on the outside of the building to hold up the inside.
Yep, that I can confirm from inside knowledge.
Brilliant! :P
"When thousands of people die like this, the truth will find a way out into the open."
It has ..... it finally made its way to me in the last few months ..... now it has reached you. :)
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on October 01, 2005, 08:24 PM NHFT
Quote from: sung on October 01, 2005, 08:23 PM NHFT
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on October 01, 2005, 08:22 PM NHFT
I think they depended on the outside of the building to hold up the inside.
Yep, that I can confirm from inside knowledge.
Brilliant! :P
I love your rigorous source-checking. :P
This is interesting video from the construction of the WTC:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/newyork/sfeature/sf_building.html
"Massive steel beams formed the core columns" I don't believe those things either busted or melted in one hour.
The beginning of that film made me wonder if eminent domain was used to build the twin towers. I found this..
QuoteWith the help of his brother, Nelson Rockefeller, the governor of New York state at the time, David Rockefeller got The Port of New York Authority involved. The Port of New York Authority, now known as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, is a government institution that heads up public projects in the New York and New Jersey port area. While the Port Authority is a public organization, it functions like a private corporation -- it charges its "customers" directly and profits from investments, rather than taking tax money.
Since its creation in 1921, the Port Authority had been concerned mainly with bridges, tunnels, airports and bus transportation. It had never undertaken anything near the scale of the World Trade Center before, but nonetheless, the organization was the most logical choice to head up the project. It had the rare combination of government connections, diverse resources and the power of eminent domain.
Rockefeller commissioned early designs for the WTC in 1958, the Port Authority got involved in 1960, and the initial plans were made public in 1961. Then things slowed down considerably. For years, the Port Authority slogged through fiscal problems, public relations debacles and legal wrangling, not to mention the unpopular task of evicting the hundreds of businesses and homes occupying the building site.
http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc1.htm
Yeah, both the World Trade center and the Twin Towers are not representitive of "Freedom"
Both were founded on government theft.
Tracy
I'm still undecided on this one, but I'm leaning very heavily on at least partial government complicity ...
Here's the challenge I would pose to anyone out there who believes the government's official story. Read "Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael Ruppert. It opened my eyes.
Caleb
If anyone would like to take up Caleb's challenge, here's the book:
http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/Crossing_The_Rubicon.pdf
http://www.911busters.com/911_new_video_productions/MOV/Painful_Deceptions.html
Quote from: katdillon on October 07, 2005, 09:06 AM NHFT
http://www.911busters.com/911_new_video_productions/MOV/Painful_Deceptions.html
Wow... the most agonizingly long non-sequitur I've ever seen.
It looks to me like a 757 never hit the pentagon and that building 7 was demolished.
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/1,1249,635160132,00.html
Y. professor thinks bombs, not planes, toppled WTC
By Elaine Jarvik
Deseret Morning News
The physics of 9/11 ? including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell ? prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor.
In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones.
In a paper posted online Tuesday and accepted for peer-reviewed publication next year, Jones adds his voice to those of previous skeptics, including the authors of the Web site www.wtc7.net, whose research Jones quotes. Jones' article can be found at www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html.
Image
Stuart Johnson, Deseret Morning News
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three (WTC) buildings," BYU physics professor Steven E. Jones says.
Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations.
"It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes ? which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes.
As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, "I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation."
Previous investigations, including those of FEMA, the 9/11 Commission and NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology), ignore the physics and chemistry of what happened on Sept. 11, 2001, to the Twin Towers and the 47-story building known as WTC 7, he says. The official explanation ? that fires caused structural damage that caused the buildings to collapse ? can't be backed up by either testing or history, he says.
Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science.' "
In a 9,000-word article that Jones says will be published in the book "The Hidden History of 9/11," by Elsevier, Jones offers these arguments:
? The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" ? and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."
? No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.
? WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors ? and intact steel support columns ? the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.
? With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing ? and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."
? Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.
? Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel ? and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.
? Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.
? Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.
Jones says he became interested in the physics of the WTC collapse after attending a talk last spring given by a woman who had had a near-death experience. The woman mentioned in passing that "if you think the World Trade Center buildings came down just due to fire, you have a lot of surprises ahead of you," Jones remembers, at which point "everyone around me started applauding."
Following several months of study, he presented his findings at a talk at BYU in September.
Jones says he would like the government to release 6,899 photographs and 6,977 segments of video footage for "independent scrutiny." He would also like to analyze a small sample of the molten metal found at Ground Zero.
This hread title is ridiculous and insulting to Americans. :o
There's a lot of good stuff on this site, but this is manure, plain and simple. >:(
I have to agree that these claims have zero credibility. A few simple questions cannot overturn the mountains and mountains of evidence to the contrary.
I'm still watching closely to see if conspiracy theorists come up with anything concrete.
Nothing so far. *shrug*
I say if the government is this far gone Atlas has shrugged and the FSP is worth nothing.
Aren't we atlas and we are shrugging by what we are doing in NH?
Quote from: free55 on November 11, 2005, 08:03 PM NHFT
This hread title is ridiculous and insulting to Americans. :o
There are many Americans that are insulted that the government ignores their stories about what they saw and heard on 9/11 like basement explosions.
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on November 11, 2005, 08:08 PM NHFTI'm still watching closely to see if conspiracy theorists come up with anything concrete.
The concrete was blown up and the evidence carted away. All we have is tapes, photos and people's memories.
Would you like to read a good book?
'The New Pearl Harbor"
How does a plane hit the pentagon without being shot down by its missle defenses? It is made to defend against a missle attack. How could it not stop a plane?
Why do people get mad and disgusted by the mere questioning of the official federal government version of 9/11?
I don't get mad and disgusted by people questioning the official version and seeking the truth.
I just laugh at the people who always assume that everything is a conspiracy by some secret cabal, and that every official explanation is a cover-up. I do get irritated when they start claiming "proof" when they have nothing but supposition, and they then build layer upon layer on nothing more than shifting sands.
I'm especially distrustful of those claiming to have proof, but who don't offer it into evidence, and with those whose biggest "proof" is denial of their claims.
edited to add:
I'm sorry if that sounds disparaging to Russell, Kat, or anyone else here on the Underground who happens to believe that the WTC was brought down by something other than (or in addition to) airplanes.
My comments have been about those who engage in the professional conspiracy industry, peddling snake oil to the choir, who always promise a little more "inside scoop" in exchange for another book sale. Traveling revival preachers have nothing on the conspiracy industry when it comes to shearing the flock.
Kevin
The people who attacked the WTC in the 90s used car bombs in the basement.
It could be there is something to the idea that explosives were used to bring down the WTC.? That doesn't mean the government did it.
Quote from: russellkanning on November 11, 2005, 08:41 PM NHFT
There are many Americans that are insulted that the government ignores their stories about what they saw and heard on 9/11 like basement explosions.
???
Basement explosions? Is that why the underground malls were all actually
intact weeks after 9/11? I've seen the video footage of them intact after 9/11. Someone could have lived down there for weeks with all the food and drinks, it was in such good condition.
And of course building 7 collapsed - MANY buildings collapsed from the damage. Others further away had pieces of WTC beams stuck in them. The source of these theories have no credibility and cannot override the mountain of evidence that I've seen with my own eyes.
Is it really that hard to imagine that the government was just too stupid to stop 9/11, JUST like they were too stupid to protect New Orleans. Yet people claim New Orleans was flooded intentionally as well on these whackjob conspiracy theorist websites.
No offense intended, but Prison Planet is not my idea of a credible organization. It's a professional conspiracy-theory organization that probably makes a lot of money from the tabloid garbage they feed to their readers. :o
In the previous year the military was able to intercept every single possible hijack situation ..... but then failed 3 out of 4 times on 9/11
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on November 12, 2005, 02:13 AM NHFTNo offense intended, but Prison Planet is not my idea of a credible organization. It's a professional conspiracy-theory organization that probably makes a lot of money from the tabloid garbage they feed to their readers. :o
I haven't found anything on prison planet that isn't true.
Are we only allowed to stray so far from political correctness? I used to think that alternate theories of 9/11 were not possible .... but after I looked at piles of evidence, I have changed my mind.
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on November 12, 2005, 02:13 AM NHFTBasement explosions? Is that why the underground malls were all actually intact weeks after 9/11? I've seen the video footage of them intact after 9/11. Someone could have lived down there for weeks with all the food and drinks, it was in such good condition.
I haven't seen this footage or pictures. Can you point me to them?
Quote from: russellkanning on November 11, 2005, 08:46 PM NHFT
How does a plane hit the pentagon without being shot down by its missle defenses? It is made to defend against a missle attack. How could it not stop a plane?
The question you need to ask yourself is how a piss poor pilot like Hani Hanjoor who couldn't even manuever a Cessna, managed to perform a 270 degree roll in a 747 while dropping 5,000 feet to hit a target less than five stories high, a move that professional pilots say requires a "legendary level of skill".
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on November 12, 2005, 02:13 AM NHFT
Basement explosions? Is that why the underground malls were all actually intact weeks after 9/11? I've seen the video footage of them intact after 9/11. Someone could have lived down there for weeks with all the food and drinks, it was in such good condition.
Where did you see this footage?
QuoteAnd of course building 7 collapsed - MANY buildings collapsed from the damage. Others further away had pieces of WTC beams stuck in them. The source of these theories have no credibility and cannot override the mountain of evidence that I've seen with my own eyes.
Actually the damage to WTC 7 was far from enough to make it collapse - especially not the manner that it collapsed. But this is all moot, Larry Silverstein, controller of the WTC complex, admitted in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY jointly decided that the Solomon Bros building, commonly referred to as WTC 7, should be pulled - industry slang for demolished. The manner in which it "collapsed" was the best evidence of this.
QuoteNo offense intended, but Prison Planet is not my idea of a credible organization. It's a professional conspiracy-theory organization that probably makes a lot of money from the tabloid garbage they feed to their readers. :o
I agree - but Prison Planet isn't the only group questioning the official story.
Quote from: Incrementalist on November 13, 2005, 09:43 AM NHFT
The question you need to ask yourself is how a piss poor pilot like Hani Hanjoor who couldn't even manuever a Cessna, managed to perform a 270 degree roll in a 747 while dropping 5,000 feet to hit a target less than five stories high, a move that professional pilots say requires a "legendary level of skill".
Maybe it can be programmed into the navigation system and then just push "autopilot".
Quote from: russellkanning on November 13, 2005, 07:58 PM NHFT
Maybe it can be programmed into the navigation system and then just push "autopilot".
That would have to explain it, as the plane performed that manuever for no real purpose. It was approaching at the ideal speed and descent to hit the side of the pentagon where Rumsfeld and all the policymakers work. The manuever, took it around to the back, which had been obviously under construction for some time. Odd.
Quote from: Incrementalist on November 13, 2005, 09:37 PM NHFT
Quote from: russellkanning on November 13, 2005, 07:58 PM NHFT
Maybe it can be programmed into the navigation system and then just push "autopilot".
That would have to explain it, as the plane performed that manuever for no real purpose.? It was approaching at the ideal speed and descent to hit the side of the pentagon where Rumsfeld and all the policymakers work.? The manuever, took it around to the back, which had been obviously under construction for some time.? Odd.
Yes, definitely odd. Why would terrorists attack the area of the Pentagon where there was no one, because of the construction?
Quote from: Incrementalist on November 13, 2005, 09:43 AM NHFT
The question you need to ask yourself is how a piss poor pilot like Hani Hanjoor who couldn't even manuever a Cessna, managed to perform a 270 degree roll in a 747 while dropping 5,000 feet to hit a target less than five stories high, a move that professional pilots say requires a "legendary level of skill".
Only a piss-poor pilot would be in the position of having to maneuver like that to hit his target.
Quote from: russellkanning on November 13, 2005, 07:58 PM NHFT
Quote from: Incrementalist on November 13, 2005, 09:43 AM NHFT
The question you need to ask yourself is how a piss poor pilot like Hani Hanjoor who couldn't even manuever a Cessna, managed to perform a 270 degree roll in a 747 while dropping 5,000 feet to hit a target less than five stories high, a move that professional pilots say requires a "legendary level of skill".
Maybe it can be programmed into the navigation system and then just push "autopilot".
The autopilot won't make such maneuvers.
It would be nice if someone who actually has a clue about this stuff, like Varrin, would join the conversation.
Kevin
Quote from: KBCraig on November 13, 2005, 09:48 PM NHFT
Quote from: russellkanning on November 13, 2005, 07:58 PM NHFT
Quote from: Incrementalist on November 13, 2005, 09:43 AM NHFT
The question you need to ask yourself is how a piss poor pilot like Hani Hanjoor who couldn't even manuever a Cessna, managed to perform a 270 degree roll in a 747 while dropping 5,000 feet to hit a target less than five stories high, a move that professional pilots say requires a "legendary level of skill".
Maybe it can be programmed into the navigation system and then just push "autopilot".
The autopilot won't make such maneuvers.
It would be nice if someone who actually has a clue about this stuff, like Varrin, would join the conversation.
Kevin
Varrin sais, either on this forum, or the FSP forum, that cell phones don't work on planes. How do you explain the Gov's insistence about the phone conversations the guy who said, "Let's roll" was supposed to have had with his wife?
Those little rectangles in the seatback in front of you . . . phones.
I once spent like $25 on one of those to cancel a hotel room for the guy who missed the flight. If a plane were flying low enough, a cell might work as well, 35,000 feet, natch.
Quote from: JonM on November 13, 2005, 10:47 PM NHFT
Those little rectangles in the seatback in front of you . . . phones.
I once spent like $25 on one of those to cancel a hotel room for the guy who missed the flight.? If a plane were flying low enough, a cell might work as well, 35,000 feet, natch.
Not the same as your average cell phone. The antenna is on the exterior of the plane.
I've never heard if the calls were supposedly made from personal cell phones, or from the built-in AirPhones (or whatever they call them).
There are many anectdotal cases of cell phones working from planes; there are many variables involved.
Quote from: KBCraig on November 13, 2005, 09:48 PM NHFTThe autopilot won't make such maneuvers.
It would be nice if someone who actually has a clue about this stuff, like Varrin, would join the conversation.
Kevin
That was a joke .... we were just talking about auto-pilot with Varrin at our meeting yesterday.
Quote from: KBCraig on November 13, 2005, 09:46 PM NHFT
Only a piss-poor pilot would be in the position of having to maneuver like that to hit his target.
Since he was flying from the West, why wasn't his target just the side facing him? Why would he circle, unless he missed the first time or something? It doesn't make any sense to me.
Quote from: russellkanning on November 14, 2005, 09:10 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on November 13, 2005, 09:46 PM NHFT
Only a piss-poor pilot would be in the position of having to maneuver like that to hit his target.
Since he was flying from the West, why wasn't his target just the side facing him? Why would he circle, unless he missed the first time or something? It doesn't make any sense to me.
He was looking for the building.
Quote from: russellkanning on November 12, 2005, 06:01 AM NHFT
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on November 12, 2005, 02:13 AM NHFTNo offense intended, but Prison Planet is not my idea of a credible organization. It's a professional conspiracy-theory organization that probably makes a lot of money from the tabloid garbage they feed to their readers. :o
I haven't found anything on prison planet that isn't true.
Quote from: russellkanning on November 12, 2005, 06:02 AM NHFT
Are we only allowed to stray so far from political correctness? I used to think that alternate theories of 9/11 were not possible .... but after I looked at piles of evidence, I have changed my mind.
Just because you can't prove all of Prison Planet's propaganda is false, that doesn't mean it's true by default.
Everything is false by default from a source with no credibility that prints any and every minor conspiracy theory story that ever surfaces.
Quote from: Incrementalist on November 13, 2005, 09:53 AM NHFT
QuoteNo offense intended, but Prison Planet is not my idea of a credible organization.? It's a professional conspiracy-theory organization that probably makes a lot of money from the tabloid garbage they feed to their readers.? :o
I agree - but Prison Planet isn't the only group questioning the official story.
Of course the official story is false. But a conspiracy theory requires a near-religious leap of faith that I'm not willing to make without a mountain of evidence.
I believed the CIA's report of documents from Niger were forged within days after they were announced to the public because many credible news sources started quoting many anonymous officials and intelligence individuals stating the documents were not only a complete forgery, but a bad forgery at that. I had relatively credible sources for this information which turned out to be true.
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on November 14, 2005, 11:11 AM NHFT
Quote from: Incrementalist on November 13, 2005, 09:53 AM NHFT
QuoteNo offense intended, but Prison Planet is not my idea of a credible organization.? It's a professional conspiracy-theory organization that probably makes a lot of money from the tabloid garbage they feed to their readers.? :o
I agree - but Prison Planet isn't the only group questioning the official story.
Of course the official story is false.? But a conspiracy theory requires a near-religious leap of faith that I'm not willing to make without a mountain of evidence.
I believed the CIA's report of documents from Niger were forged within days after they were announced to the public because many credible news sources started quoting many anonymous officials and intelligence individuals stating the documents were not only a complete forgery, but a bad forgery at that.? I had relatively credible sources for this information which turned out to be true.
So, what do you believe happened on 9-11, if you believe the official version was false.
Quote from: Incrementalist on November 13, 2005, 09:53 AM NHFT
QuoteAnd of course building 7 collapsed - MANY buildings collapsed from the damage.? Others further away had pieces of WTC beams stuck in them.? The source of these theories have no credibility and cannot override the mountain of evidence that I've seen with my own eyes.
Actually the damage to WTC 7 was far from enough to make it collapse - especially not the manner that it collapsed.? But this is all moot, Larry Silverstein, controller of the WTC complex, admitted in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY jointly decided that the Solomon Bros building, commonly referred to as WTC 7, should be pulled - industry slang for demolished.? The manner in which it "collapsed" was the best evidence of this.
Yeah, the fire department is trained in demolition work. ? ::)
They most likely decided to "pull" OUT of the area rather than trying to save the building.
Even if they did demolish the building, which they most likely did not considering the miniscule evidence in support of that theory and the mountain of evidence to the contrary, it was probably very seriously damaged and unsafe anyways, like all buildings in that area were, so I wouldn't even care.
I hear this "pulled" quote constantly, as though it is the bible of the conspiracy theorists.
But it proves nothing.
Quote from: AlanM on November 14, 2005, 11:14 AM NHFT
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on November 14, 2005, 11:11 AM NHFT
Quote from: Incrementalist on November 13, 2005, 09:53 AM NHFT
QuoteNo offense intended, but Prison Planet is not my idea of a credible organization.? It's a professional conspiracy-theory organization that probably makes a lot of money from the tabloid garbage they feed to their readers.? :o
I agree - but Prison Planet isn't the only group questioning the official story.
Of course the official story is false.? But a conspiracy theory requires a near-religious leap of faith that I'm not willing to make without a mountain of evidence.
I believed the CIA's report of documents from Niger were forged within days after they were announced to the public because many credible news sources started quoting many anonymous officials and intelligence individuals stating the documents were not only a complete forgery, but a bad forgery at that.? I had relatively credible sources for this information which turned out to be true.
So, what do you believe happened on 9-11, if you believe the official version was false.
The official story is that we were caught off-guard by animals who hate freedom.
In reality, the government funded and trained Al Qaeda in Afghanistan in order to use them as pawns against the USSR during their invasion of that country. Their country was thus devastated and 9/11 was one of their acts of retaliation. OBL, Al Qaeda, and therefore 9/11 were all funded, directly or indirectly, with US taxpayer dollars.
9/11 isn't just one example of the government being caught off guard, it's more proof that government cannot and will not protect us, and we should be completely free to defend ourselves, even on an airplane.
I don't quite get how you filter out new information Mike. If you meet a new person, you don't believe anything they say unless it matches something "credible". How do you decide what is credible?
They never give up on skyscapers. They put out fires and fix the building. Steel buildings don't just collapse from fires. The mountain of evidence is on the skeptics (of the government) side.
Quote from: AlanM on November 13, 2005, 09:39 PM NHFT
Quote from: Incrementalist on November 13, 2005, 09:37 PM NHFT
Quote from: russellkanning on November 13, 2005, 07:58 PM NHFT
Maybe it can be programmed into the navigation system and then just push "autopilot".
That would have to explain it, as the plane performed that manuever for no real purpose. It was approaching at the ideal speed and descent to hit the side of the pentagon where Rumsfeld and all the policymakers work. The manuever, took it around to the back, which had been obviously under construction for some time. Odd.
Yes, definitely odd. Why would terrorists attack the area of the Pentagon where there was no one, because of the construction?
I won't attempt to draw conclusions. I'll just present the facts.
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on November 14, 2005, 11:04 AM NHFT
Quote from: russellkanning on November 14, 2005, 09:10 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on November 13, 2005, 09:46 PM NHFT
Only a piss-poor pilot would be in the position of having to maneuver like that to hit his target.
Since he was flying from the West, why wasn't his target just the side facing him? Why would he circle, unless he missed the first time or something? It doesn't make any sense to me.
He was looking for the building.
And you know this because....
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on November 14, 2005, 11:11 AM NHFT
Of course the official story is false. But a conspiracy theory requires a near-religious leap of faith that I'm not willing to make without a mountain of evidence.
No theory requires much of a leap of faith. A hypothesis, perhaps, but not a theory. A theory is supported by data, testing, and evidence. Of course the official story is false, and no, you shouldn't believe all the hyped up conspiracy stuff. But look at the data. Look at the evidence. Something fishy was definitely afoot, and the 9/11 commission existed just to whitewash the issue, as they failed to address any of the relevant questions (such as the logic/skill/performance of Mr. Hanjoor).
QuoteI believed the CIA's report of documents from Niger were forged within days after they were announced to the public because many credible news sources started quoting many anonymous officials and intelligence individuals stating the documents were not only a complete forgery, but a bad forgery at that. I had relatively credible sources for this information which turned out to be true.
Yeah, it's a damn shame the amount of BS that this administration churns out.
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on November 14, 2005, 11:17 AM NHFT
Yeah, the fire department is trained in demolition work. ::)
They made a decision, as they are authorized to do. They didn't do the demolition work.
QuoteThey most likely decided to "pull" OUT of the area rather than trying to save the building.
No, they pulled the building. The conversation was not about human presence in the area, it was about the building itself, continued use, liability, and best options for future use. Silverstein was the property owner, as such it was his call - human presence in the area would not have been his call.
QuoteEven if they did demolish the building, which they most likely did not considering the miniscule evidence in support of that theory and the mountain of evidence to the contrary, it was probably very seriously damaged and unsafe anyways, like all buildings in that area were, so I wouldn't even care.
Where's this mountain of evidence to the contrary? The building was not damaged enough to warrant a fall, especially a picture-perfect four point fall.
QuoteI hear this "pulled" quote constantly, as though it is the bible of the conspiracy theorists.
Or the truth.
Quote
But it proves nothing.
Except that the property owner authorized with permission of NYC the demolition of a structure on his property.
So you believe the NY firemen decided to kill themselves and demolish a building they were still in?
Don't you realize how stupid that sounds?
In you desire to find a conspiracy, you step over the facts while denying them.
::)
Quote from: free55 on November 22, 2005, 02:18 PM NHFT
So you believe the NY firemen decided to kill themselves and demolish a building they were still in?
Please name one fireman who died on 9/11 in WTC 7.
QuoteDon't you realize how stupid that sounds?
It does sound stupid, because I never claimed that the firemen demolished the building, and no firemen died in WTC 7 anyway.
QuoteIn you desire to find a conspiracy, you step over the facts while denying them.
Please list evidence that I have a desire to find a conspiracy.
This whole thread about the attack on 9-11 being an inside job is just idiotic.
The next thing will be that OBL was just misunderstood, having had a troubled childhood. Jeesh!
(Sorry if I offend some.)
These people are religious fanatics (see other thread on religion) that kill innocent people, torture their own, and abuse women as a sport...all in the name of god. Amen.
Do we hate our own government so much so as to make claims like this? Overtaxing is one thing, but we're talking treason by our own officials.
Quote from: freedombabe on November 23, 2005, 09:33 AM NHFT
These people are religious fanatics (see other thread on religion) that kill innocent people, torture their own, and abuse women as a sport...all in the name of god.? Amen.
Do we hate our own government so much so as to make claims like this?? Overtaxing is one thing, but we're talking treason by our own officials.
If you think the only problem with our government is over taxing, then you could not even conceive of the ability of those in power wishing to attempt to acquire absolute power. I believe there are those in power whose goal is absolute power. Of course they believe in their hearts they are doing it for the good of their fellow man, but all the evil despots of the world believed they were doing right.
Quote from: freedombabe on November 23, 2005, 09:33 AM NHFT
These people are religious fanatics (see other thread on religion) that kill innocent people, torture their own, and abuse women as a sport...all in the name of god. Amen.
That is quite an accusation against most of our US Presidents.
Quote from: freedombabe on November 23, 2005, 09:33 AM NHFT
Do we hate our own government so much so as to make claims like this?
Yes.
Quote from: freedombabe on November 23, 2005, 09:28 AM NHFT
The next thing will be that OBL was just misunderstood, having had a troubled childhood. Jeesh!
I think that OBL was part of the killing. He probably did have a troubled childhood .... no excuse.
Quote from: katdillon on November 23, 2005, 12:11 PM NHFT
Quote from: freedombabe on November 23, 2005, 09:33 AM NHFT
Do we hate our own government so much so as to make claims like this?
Yes.
Your response is a little startling. But, I respect your expression as honest and even courageous.
I haven't gotten to that "place" yet. Maybe I'm just hoping that if enough of our neighbors become elected to important positions, they'll do the "right" thing. I'm hoping that the gov't can be reshaped into a more acceptable image and a more responsive body.
Have you given up on our govt completely and want to can it and start over?
Is there a better model out there that you can point to, or are you considering that it hasn't been developed or tried yet?
Or, is govt overthro the solution with anarchy the best and most free result?
freedombabe ...
You do understand that a substantial number of people on this board are anarchists, right?
As for me, I'll just stick by this statement, as my own personal official statement on the federal government:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ?Such has been the patient sufferance of these States; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government.
Quote from: freedombabe on November 23, 2005, 04:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: katdillon on November 23, 2005, 12:11 PM NHFT
Quote from: freedombabe on November 23, 2005, 09:33 AM NHFT
Do we hate our own government so much so as to make claims like this?
Yes.
Your response is a little startling.? But, I respect your expression as honest and even courageous.
I haven't gotten to that "place" yet.? Maybe I'm just hoping that if enough of our neighbors become elected to important positions, they'll do the "right" thing.? I'm hoping that the gov't can be reshaped into a more acceptable image and a more responsive body.
Have you given up on our govt completely and want to can it and start over?
Is there a better model out there that you can point to, or are you considering that it hasn't been developed or tried yet?
Or, is govt overthro the solution with anarchy the best and most free result?
The model I and several others so far are looking at is the Tuath. Medieval Ireland had no government for a thousand years. Read more about in on the thread discussing Medieval Iceland: http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=1949.0
Also the Freedom Friends Tuath we are starting: http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=2305.0
Quote from: freedombabe on November 23, 2005, 09:33 AM NHFT
Do we hate our own government so much so as to make claims like this? Overtaxing is one thing, but we're talking treason by our own officials.
I think you're offending the 100 million people killed by their own governments during the 20th century. Why is America so immune to hidden agendas and shady leadership? I'm not saying anybody is guilty of treason, but its naive to think that we're somehow insulated from the possibility.
(http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/november2005/231105perspective.jpg)
Big Cheney is watching you!
BYU Physic professor Steven Jones paper on WTC collapse:
http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html
and radio interview:
http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/231105jones.mp3
Isn't it remarkable that more and more people are doubting the "official" version of the events of 9-11. The mask of secrecy and lies is slowly being peeled off.
Did you hear how he first started wondering about it? He was at a lecture on something completely unrelated and the woman speaking said something like "if you believe the official story on 9/11, you're in for a big surprise" and he said the whole audience broke into applause.
Police find explosives in world trade center:
http://www.soulawakenings.com/underground/explosives.wmv
Quote from: katdillon on December 05, 2005, 07:37 PM NHFT
Police find explosives in world trade center:
Police find explosives Reporter says police found "suspicious device" in world trade center:
Do you know how many "suspicious devices" get blown up every year, which turn out to be completely benign? (Me either, but a helluva lot more than actual bombs!)
The 9-11 commission .... the real slap in the face to victims.
"Kristen Breitweiser, whose husband, Ronald, was killed at the World Trade Center, said the interviews underscore a conflict-of-interest problem at the commission and cast serious doubts on the panel's credibility.
"We've had it," said Breitweiser, who met with several commission leaders last week. "It is such a slap in the face of the families of victims. They are dishonoring the dead with their irresponsible behavior." "
http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/01-20-04/discussion.cgi.67.html
Did anyone notice the C-130 that crashed into an apartment highrise in Iran? It didn't collapse, though it burned extensively. Hmmm....
The WTC buildings had slightly more weight bearing down upon the lower levels that caused it to collapse.
I would SO love to be proven wrong if a massive cover-up is blown wide open and it results in the end of the US government. But I very highly doubt I will be proven wrong.
Quote from: KBCraig on December 05, 2005, 08:00 PM NHFT
Police find explosives Reporter says police found "suspicious device" in world trade center:
Do you know how many "suspicious devices" get blown up every year, which turn out to be completely benign? (Me either, but a helluva lot more than actual bombs!)
And how many of those were found in buildings that blew up in the next hour?
Quote from: katdillon on December 08, 2005, 05:05 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on December 05, 2005, 08:00 PM NHFT
Police find explosives Reporter says police found "suspicious device" in world trade center:
Do you know how many "suspicious devices" get blown up every year, which turn out to be completely benign? (Me either, but a helluva lot more than actual bombs!)
And how many of those were found in buildings that blew up in the next hour?
In your case, they were found
after the attack. Everything was suspcious at that point.
Look at the Miami airplane incident yesterday: the crazy guy was already dead, no bombs were found... but three pieces of luggage were still blown up as "suspicious".
Kevin
Quote from: KBCraig on December 08, 2005, 11:13 AM NHFT
Look at the Miami airplane incident yesterday: the crazy guy was already dead, no bombs were found... but three pieces of luggage were still blown up as "suspicious".
I bet they found traces of explosives in the bags... after they blew them up with explosives. ;D
Quote from: LeRuineur6 on December 07, 2005, 09:55 PM NHFT
I would SO love to be proven wrong if a massive cover-up is blown wide open and it results in the end of the US government. But I very highly doubt I will be proven wrong.
To this day, there's still no proof that Hitler burned down the Reichstag, even though many analysts agree that he was behind it. That's likely how we'll see this crisis in 60 years.
This lady's websites are interesting.
"The American public have not heard who is the real culprit behind 9/11"
Most Gagged Whistleblower in US history Sibel Edmonds joins Alex Jones on air, says there are strong criminal elements within all three branches of Government.
Prisonplanet | January 19 2006
Last Tuesday nationally syndicated radio host Alex Jones was joined on air by FBI whistleblower Sibel Edmonds for an in depth interview
Edmonds was hired shortly after Sept. 11 to translate intelligence gathered over the previous year related to the 9/11 attacks. She says the FBI had information that an attack using airplanes was being planned before Sept. 11 and calls Condoleezza Rice's claim the White House had no specific information on a domestic threat or one involving planes "an outrageous lie."
Although Edmonds is officially barred from revealing the specifics of what she found out, she has revealed that she was hired to find and cover up the prior knowledge intercepts. She refused to go along with the cover up. Of course only small criminal elements of the government were involved on 9/11, the majority of those working for the FBI, the CIA and the NSA are good people who would have picked up on the pre-intelligence.
Edmonds has also previously gone on record with revelations of government run drug shipping and other organized crime operations.
Firstly Edmonds was keen to stress that information relating to pre 9/11 terrorist activity was intentionally blocked by elements of the intelligence agencies.
"I started reporting these cases together with documents and other witnesses in the department, within two months after I started working for the bureau, around November/December 2001. I went to my superiors, to their superiors and even all the way to the top of the chin, to Director Mueller himself within the FBI headquarters. Initially they were asking me not to push through this and in return they offered to give me a raise... When I did not continue reporting these issues, in about February 2002, they accused me of reporting these issues to the Congress via email."
At this time Sibel was not attempting to do this, she was attempting to raise the issues internally. The FBI then sent several agents to her house and confiscated her home computer and took it apart to check exactly who Edmonds had ben contacting.
They then forced her to take a polygraph test to determine whether she had been speaking to anybody outside the agency. This was the last straw for edmonds who decide it was time to blow the case wide open and go to Congress with her vital information.
"So I went to these people within the Senate Judiciary Committee, I briefed their staff who had clearance, I went inside the secured facility and gave them documents, and about two weeks after that I was terminated without any reason being cited, in fact the letter I received from the Department of Justice said that 'your contract is being terminated as of this date purely for the convenience of the Government."
Ms Edmonds went on to talk about the specifics of what elements of the Government are now doing and covering up.
Starting with the revelation that forces inside the Congress and the FBI confirmed that House Speaker Dennis Hastert was illegally receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash bribes from foreign lobbying organizations in exchange for political favors.
Other Senators and Congressmen have also been exposed in the activity of taking illegal cash.
She then went on to talk about former Attorney General John Ashcroft who in an unprecedented move officially gagged the Congress over her case in order to "protect certain diplomatic relations of the United States and to protect sensitive US-foreign business relations."
Ashcroft did not elaborate at all and many have come forward to suggest that the gagging order was wholly illegal.
Edmonds then made an analogy, as she often does when she cannot reveal specific facts. She suggested that there could be a so called "war on drugs" but it is an unwritten rule that you only go after the lower end drug dealers and leave alone the middle men and those at the top because the government can directly profit from their activity. This is how things were handled with terrorism in the lead up to 9/11.
"Intentionally, I and I want to underline this, intentionally they are not going after the middlemen and the people at the top. So to this day the American public have not heard who is the real culprit behind 9/11. There is money laundering, and certain narcotic and weapons procurements involved."
Ms Edmonds went on to reveal that the criminal elements are active within all three branches of Government. Plus there are those who are working outside government towards the same agenda. She suggests that we should look towards lobbying groups who are registering as agents of foreign governments, such as International Advisors Inc, the lobbying company set up by arch Neo-Con Richard Perle, which is registered with the State Department as "agents of Turkey."
These groups, with weighty influences upon the foreign policy of the US Government, some, including Perle, Pentagon architects of the Iraq war, are operating with elements of the Government in a nexus like fashion, moving around vast amounts of money and arms and profiteering from directing world events.
Edmonds suggested that this information would become more widespread should more people demand that the media cover these issues. There are simply too many people who are not concerned by such revelations or who simply take no notice.
"Our founders repeatedly stressed eternal vigilance because we can't say we have separation of powers, we have our Constitution and our Bill of Rights, they're going to take care of themselves and they are going to last, no, it does take eternal vigilance." Edmonds commented.
Prisonplanet.tv subscribers watch this space for the full exclusive audio interview.
Visit Sibel Edmonds' websites at http://www.nswbc.org and http://www.justacitizen.com/
This would be one of the non-existant whistleblowers.
Why can't she reveal certain things? Wasn't she fired?
I believe that whistleblowers get squashed (I work for DoJ, remember?)
But I don't believe that this lady was hired from the street to find and hide pre-9/11 intelligence, especially since she seems to have no bent towards hiding stuff. Jones comments on how it's only a small, secretive, compartmentalized group that had access. But less than two months after being hired, she's gained access to very high-level SCI and taken it to the Director? Hogwash!
It's very possible that she saw a document that she thought was significant, and ran it up the chain of command, and then went to Congress with it. That doesn't mean it actually was significant, especially since she "can't reveal" what it was.
As for being fired, she was a probationary employee, meaning she was employed at will. With two months in the FBI, she wasn't even trusted with the key to the break room, much less conspiracy-busting classified data. Having already shown that she would disclose classified information, I'm not at all surprised that she was fired. That doesn't mean she had uncovered The Truth.
This is one of the things I don't like about Alex Jones: he gives full credence to incredible sources, and holds them up to be something much more than they really are. This leaves people even less likely to believe him if a valid story comes along.
Kevin
Yes, she was fired.
The plot thickens!
When researching this topic, I came across this site: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/buffett.html (http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/buffett.html)
So where was Warren Buffett the morning of 9/11 and what was he doing?
Mr. Buffett was reportedly at his home in Omaha, Nebraska watching TV when he heard about the terrorist attacks. He was getting ready to host his "last annual golf charity event" which just happened to be at the U.S. Strategic Command headquarters located at Offutt Air Force Base in Omaha. Offutt AFB is, coincidentally, where President G. W. Bush flew to on Air Force One later in the day for "safety". This early golf charity event hosted by Mr. Buffett was to include celebrities, professional athletes, and a small group of business leaders in which one of these business leaders became a very lucky person.
This very lucky person was Ann Tatlock, the CEO of Fiduciary Trust Co. International. Now what made Mrs. Tatlock such a lucky person for being invited to this charity event that morning? Mrs. Tatlock not only works in the World Trade Center, but her offices were right where Flight 175 crashed into the WTC 2.
Why would Warren Buffett want to lose $3,000,000,000 in one day? He had to pay out 10% of the damages at the WTC.
"We believe that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11," the group says in a statement released Friday announcing its formation. "We believe these events may have been orchestrated by the administration in order to manipulate the American people into supporting policies at home and abroad."
http://deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,635179751,00.html
Quote from: lawofattraction on February 24, 2006, 09:10 AM NHFT
911 as a controlled demolition has finally hit the mainstream media:
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/news/columnists/robert_steinback/13760721.htm
With the same flawed questions and premises that belong on Alex Jones instead of in the Miami Herald.
There is always manipulation of the public after something like this so it makes you wonder...
I truly believe that Oklahoma City was an inside job..yet with a perfect scapegoat all set up so that no one would suspect.
My 9/11 questions have been answered ...... the federal government did it.
The same federal government that has royally screwed up everything it has touched?
Yea .... I think Billy was telling me some of his theories ..... one was that 9/11 was actually a botched attempt to do something else.
That was one of my reasons not to believe that they were behind it before. I now think they did it ..... poorly.
Do you have any unanswered questions about 9/11?
Perhaps, but none of them lead me anywhere near the conclusion that the government did it. There's not enough upside reward for the downside risk in my opinion.
I don't care who burned down the Reichstag toppled the towers anywhere near as much as I care about the actions taken in response.
Quote from: russellkanning on February 24, 2006, 01:08 PM NHFT
Yea .... I think Billy was telling me some of his theories ..... one was that 9/11 was actually a botched attempt to do something else.
Now there is something to think about... :o
To Kevin,
Since you're such a believer in the government, please answer this simple question for me: Where was Donald Rumsfeld when flight 77 hit the Pentagon and shortly thereafter?
I ask this because he has given THREE completely different, completely contradictory answers to that question. And Clark supplies a FOURTH answer, that is nothing like any of Rumsfelds answers.
Follow that ONE lead, and see where it takes you. How far down the rabbit hole do you want to go?
Caleb
Quote from: rhelwig on February 24, 2006, 02:07 PM NHFT
I don't care who burned down the Reichstag toppled the towers anywhere near as much as I care about the actions taken in response.
That is exactly how I used to feel. We know for sure that they have turned that event into a reason for a police state.
Quote from: JonM on February 24, 2006, 01:27 PM NHFT
Perhaps, but none of them lead me anywhere near the conclusion that the government did it. There's not enough upside reward for the downside risk in my opinion.
What downside risk are you talking about?
Punishment by the government or ridicule by the non-believers or something else......
Who is "the government" here? People did this. If it was discovered the people who did this worked for our government, with actual evidence, and not supposition based on stuff that doesn't add up, you don't think bad things would happen to those people?
Quote from: calibaba77 on February 24, 2006, 06:30 PM NHFT
To Kevin,
Since you're such a believer in the government, please answer this simple question for me: Where was Donald Rumsfeld when flight 77 hit the Pentagon and shortly thereafter?
No, first you have to present something: why does it matter?
The Alex Jones school of conspiracy theory loves to throw out questions, as if the lack of definitive answers is proof of something. In reality, the proper response is usually, "So what?", "What difference does it make?", or "Who cares?"
And what makes you think I'm "such a believer in the government"?
You guys and the internet should have been around after the Kennedy Assasination.
Thanks, law! Welcome to the Underground. Don't underestimate the importance of hanging out on this forum; as forums go this place is probably closer than any other to being a "last best hope" for liberty. I hope you will stick around!
Quote from: rhelwig on February 24, 2006, 02:07 PM NHFT
I don't care who burned down the Reichstag toppled the towers anywhere near as much as I care about the actions taken in response.
Ron, who toppled the towers is far more important than the response.
IF we accept the premise that the towers were toppled by foreign terrorists, then the response could merely be a misguided attempt to do the right thing and to protect innocent American lives. Thus, some hope might remain that we can negotiate with them and help them to understand that there is a better response.
However, IF we accept the premise that the government (or elements within the government) conspired to bring down the towers, there can be NO reasoning with them. There can be NO hope for change. It only remains for us to "alter or abolish" our current form of government. This is so because the "response" is in actuality not a misguided attempt to protect us at all; instead, it is an engineered attempt to deprive us of our liberties.
Caleb
Quote from: JonM on February 24, 2006, 07:14 PM NHFT
Who is "the government" here? People did this. If it was discovered the people who did this worked for our government, with actual evidence, and not supposition based on stuff that doesn't add up, you don't think bad things would happen to those people?
The evil people who control our government did this to us. They will not punish themselves, we have to break away from them or not cooperate in their deeds.
Quote from: KBCraig on February 24, 2006, 07:52 PM NHFT
The Alex Jones school of conspiracy theory loves to throw out questions, as if the lack of definitive answers is proof of something. In reality, the proper response is usually, "So what?", "What difference does it make?", or "Who cares?"
Isn't the government supposed to answer the people's questions? Some of their expanations either contradict or cannot be true. Do you not care if these people lie or tell the truth to us?
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on February 24, 2006, 08:26 PM NHFT
You guys and the internet should have been around after the Kennedy Assasination.
We are around after his assassination. ;)
Maybe we should start doing something about it.
Quote from: russellkanning on February 25, 2006, 01:05 AM NHFT
Quote from: JonM on February 24, 2006, 07:14 PM NHFT
Who is "the government" here? People did this. If it was discovered the people who did this worked for our government, with actual evidence, and not supposition based on stuff that doesn't add up, you don't think bad things would happen to those people?
The evil people who control our government did this to us. They will not punish themselves, we have to break away from them or not cooperate in their deeds.
You have no proof of this, merely speculation. You don't think the Democrats hate Bush enough to go after him if there were proof he were involved? Or do you suggest that this treachery is a bipartisan treason?
QuoteOr do you suggest that this treachery is a bipartisan treason?
BINGO! We have a winner!
QuoteYou have no proof of this, merely speculation.
www.st911.org
Its amazing how much "proof" there is.
Quote from: JonM on February 25, 2006, 09:51 AM NHFT
Quote from: russellkanning on February 25, 2006, 01:05 AM NHFT
Quote from: JonM on February 24, 2006, 07:14 PM NHFT
Who is "the government" here? People did this. If it was discovered the people who did this worked for our government, with actual evidence, and not supposition based on stuff that doesn't add up, you don't think bad things would happen to those people?
The evil people who control our government did this to us. They will not punish themselves, we have to break away from them or not cooperate in their deeds.
You have no proof of this, merely speculation. You don't think the Democrats hate Bush enough to go after him if there were proof he were involved? Or do you suggest that this treachery is a bipartisan treason?
[/quote
Read the book "Tragedy and Hope." Wrote in 1964 by Georgetown law professor Carroll Quigley, it gives an insider's view of the internationalist's plan make both political parties virtually the same, so when one party gets voted out, there will be no policy change when the new party came in. Take the beginning of 2000 when Bush was elected. No one would've believed that He could possibly out-spend Clinton like he did. Point being, the liberal was taken out of office and a neocon was installed and business continues as usual. Or worse.
PS: Checkout reopen9/11.org
Quote from: calibaba77 on February 25, 2006, 11:18 AM NHFT
QuoteYou have no proof of this, merely speculation.
www.st911.org
Its amazing how much "proof" there is.
The only thing that's amazing is that highly intelligent people, such as yourself and Russell, believe that speculation constitutes proof.
This article, for instance, is titled "The Destruction of the World Trade Center: Why the Official Account
Cannot Be True" (emphasis mine):
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
It starts out with a misdirection: that fire cannot cause the collapse of a steel-framed highrise building. Who has ever said that fire alone caused the collapse of the towers? Yes, the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of a jetliner. I'll note that such design specifications are very difficult to quantify, and impossible to test. This was the only time the towers were tested for impact of a full-size airliner, massive explosion, and raging fire. They failed the test.
Steel-framed buildings collapse all the time due solely to fire damage. High-rise buildings are obviously designed to a tougher standard, and they include fire suppression systems. No fire system is sufficient to put out a fire fueled not just by tens of thousands of pounds of flammable liquid, but also by the massive draft.
This paper also tears down the oft-used strawman that the fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel beams. This is so utterly transparent that I don't know why it's survived, except that it keeps being repeated by those who willingly suspend disbelief. The steel beams
do not have to melt in order to lose their load-bearing capacity.
For starters, the article doesn't discuss the composition of the steel. This is important, because different alloys have different degrees of plasticity at different temperatures. Mild steel becomes significantly plastic around 1,200F, and is workable down to around 700F, where S2 (a shock-resistant tool steel) remains extremely difficult to work right up to the point where it begins to burn.
The next strawman is the temperature at which jet fuel burns. Jet fuel (kerosene, diesel) is not a hot-burning fuel, when burned
at standard conditions. That is, in open air. Acetylene gas burns even cooler, barely burning at all, with a flickering yellow flame giving off massive amounts of soot. But combine it with oxygen, as in an oxyactylene torch, and it will blast through thick pieces of steel at almost 6,000F.
Propane gas burns hot enough to heat water and cook food, but not hot enough to raise steel to working temperature. But combine it with a blast of air, either from a blower or an induced draft, and you can burn steel into a useless molten mess.
These two examples, coming from no expertise other than my limited experience as an erstwhile amateur blacksmith, counter the "proof" that jet fuel couldn't have burned hot enough to weaken the steel support structure. Given 110+ stories of draft acting as a venturi, I would not be surprised if internal temperatures in the fire exceeded 4,000F.
I've given my background, so that you can judge whether or not I have any knowledge that gives me a valid basis for my thinking. What about the author of this piece?
The author is listed as "David Ray Griffin, PhD". Due to the discussion of materials, engineering, and physics, the reader would naturally assume that Dr. Griffin is schooled in the hard sciences. Curious, I checked the "Who we are" section of st911, and found that Dr. Griffin is "Emeritus Professor of Philosophy of Religion & Theology, Claremont School of Theology & Claremont Graduate University".
I trust that Dr. Griffin is an expert in his field, but his field is not engineering, architecture, or physics. His field is the exact opposite, existing solely in the spiritual plane, not the physical.
I have read this piece, but I will admit that I have not chased down all the citations. Here's why: when an author practices such flagrant deception in his opening paragraphs, I assume that he will continue to deceive through selective omission and partial quotation. His opening premise chimes 13 times; the remainder simply cannot be trusted.
Lest I be accused (again) of being a government apologist, I'm one of their biggest detractors. I have no doubt that the government told untruths, both through incompetence and dishonesty. I know that certain things will never be revealed, because they would compromise intelligence operations.
But, I also know that professional conspiracy theorists like Dr. Griffin are even less trustworthy, and, frankly, not all that good at their lies.
Kevin
KBCraig,
As a civil engineer I can vouch for your point, that the intense heat from the fire(s) was enough to weaken the steel columns and initiate collapse. The collapse of both buildings was exactly consistent with a structural failure at or near the location of the fires. Of coarse that does not mean there weren't coverups --probably for security reasons or just officials trying not to look like incompetent fools-- but the controlled-demolition part of the conspiracy theory (at least for bldg. 1 & 2 ) is bogus.
Kevin,
I am not sufficiently trained in the sciences to make a judgment call. I was going to be a physics major, but I'm a flunky, so I hardly would qualify as an expert. Take these opinions, therefore, with the grain of salt they are intended.
I consider the collapse of the buildings to be a relatively minor point; in other words, it wasn't that particular line of thinking that convinced me that the government is complicit. (What started me down the rabbit hole is evidence that many of the "hijackers" are still alive. I previously believed the government story. More on that in a second.) That having been said, I will note several things about the collapse of the buildings that are incompatible with the current theory, from a scientific standpoint.
First, on the assumption that the fires were raging so hot that they could have weakened the steel sufficiently: I understand that there is a difference between the heat required to melt steel, and the heat required to weaken its load bearing. I won't pretend to know what that point is, but I feel confident in assuming that that point must be higher than the point at which humans would be uncomfortable. There are, to be sure, photographs of people jumping from the first tower to their deaths, but the other tower has pictures of people walking around in the entry site, taking a look around. Who knows, maybe those people were Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego. :) But that is suspicious to me. It's also suspicious that people reported hearing bomb blasts, but that information wasn't included in the report. Even more suspicious is the report from Mike Pecoraro (a maintenance worker in WTC) that a bomb had gone off in the basement LONG BEFORE the tower collapsed.
http://valis.gnn.tv/blogs/11129/Maintenance_workers_saw_evidence_of_apparent_bombings_in_the_WTC_basement_prior_to_the_collapse
So once again, I'm not an expert, but there is some pretty damning circumstantial evidence. And what most people don't know is that there is no general agreement on how the buildings collapsed. You seem to be advocating the "pancake theory", but largely based on pictures that showed evidence that the heat wasn't that great on the exterior, an engineering firm ("Wesserstein" or some similar name) concluded that the failure had been in the building's central concrete core, which had absorbed most of the heat. The problem with that theory (once again, I'm only going off of my limited physics background) is that the buildings fell at nearly the standard gravitational rate (10 meters per second per second), whereas it would seem that even collapsing concrete would provide some degree of resistence.
At any rate, there is no plausible theory to explain the collapse of wtc 7.
Caleb
Kevin,
I?m sorry for accusing you of being a government apologist. I meant specifically with respect to 9-11, not the government as a whole, but it wasn?t a kind charge, and I apologize.
I hadn?t read Dr. Griffin?s paper, but I went ahead and did so because its difficult to comment on things that you haven?t even read.
First of all, Dr. Griffin DOES acknowledge precisely what you say he doesn?t: That the official story is, not that fires alone caused the collapse, but fires combined with the explosions and jet crash:
?With this definition in mind, let us look at the official theory about the Twin Towers, which says that they collapsed because of the combined effect of the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires. The report put out by FEMA said: ?The structural damage sustained by each tower from the impact, combined with the ensuing fires, resulted in the total collapse of each building? (FEMA, 2002).?
And again ?
?Defenders of the official theory, of course, say that the collapses were caused not simply by the fire but the fire combined with the damage caused by the airliners.?
It is true that Dr. Griffin focuses mainly on the fires, rather than the structural collapse, but he noted his reasons for doing so, citing this official statement of the cause of the collapse:
The NIST Report (2005, pp. xliii and 171) says: ?the towers withstood the impacts and would have remained standing were it not for the dislodged insulation (fireproofing) and the subsequent multifloor fires.?
Dr. Griffin is trying to make the point that, although the official story speak of both ?fires? and ?structural damage?, the structural damage was irrelevant because the building was designed to redistribute load through multiple redundancies. Thus, whatever you may think of the logic of his argument, I don?t think its fair to accuse him of dishonesty because he never omits or distorts anything. He presents it, and then rejects one of the assertions as being irrelevant. You may disagree with his conclusion, but he hasn?t been dishonest.
Going on, you state this about Dr. Griffin?s article: ?This paper also tears down the oft-used strawman that the fire wasn't hot enough to melt the steel beams. This is so utterly transparent that I don't know why it's survived, except that it keeps being repeated by those who willingly suspend disbelief. The steel beams do not have to melt in order to lose their load-bearing capacity.?
But Dr. Griffin never asserted that was the position of the official story. In fact, he states quite the opposite. After noting that a few people at the outset made the astounding claim that the steel had been melted, Dr. Griffin makes this statement:
?Most defenders of the official theory, in fact, do not make this absurd claim. They say merely that the fire heated the steel up to the point where it lost so much of its strength that it buckled.?
He thus addresses the very points that you imply he does not address. Once again, you may not agree with his conclusions, but I think it is unfair to charge him with dishonesty.
In fact Dr. Griffin addresses many speculations that you have not even mentioned. He appears to be trying to come at it from ?every angle.?
And ? I?m trying to be fair to you here, Kevin, but I feel its important to bring this point up: You singled Dr. Griffin out, noting that he is not an expert in the field. However, there is another paper on the same website, placed immediately above Dr. Griffin?s article by Professor Steven Jones, who is an expert in that particular field. In fairness to Dr. Griffin, wouldn?t the argument that he?s not an expert in the field at least mitigate the charge that he is being intentionally dishonest? You seem to be treating Dr. Griffin in two contradictory ways. First, you dismiss his positions because he is not an expert in the field. And yet, you then turn around and hold him to the standards of an expert in the field and accuse him of dishonesty. But you correctly note that he is a Professor of Theology. Wouldn?t being an expert in that particular field cause you to at least give him the benefit of the doubt that he is not being intentionally dishonest?
My position is this: I agree with GK Chesterton. I don?t think a person needs to be an expert to hold an informed viewpoint on a subject. However ? to the extent that there are experts on the website who are better trained than Dr. Griffin, I will hold them as more authoritative.
You should have read Dr. Jones? article, not Dr. Griffin?s, if you are interested in reading from an expert in the field. Dr. Griffin does not claim to be an expert.
I chose the Griffin article rather randomly, because the author was listed as a PhD. It's listed on st911.org as a paper proving the towers didn't collapse from the impact and fire. Given what the group aims have others believe, I assume it's representative.
You're correct that Griffin makes note of those who doubt his view. Perhaps we came away with a different overall feel for the article, but here's my paraphrase of it: "Those who buy the official line point out x and y. But that's just silly, and they're wrong." He notes the argument, then dismisses it out of hand. That's not the same as coming at it from all angles.
Should there ever be actual proof of government complicity in 9/11, I'll be surprised. Not surprised that there are people in government who are so evil as to do such a thing, but very surprised that anyone could be competent to pull off such a large and complex operation, requiring hundreds of participants, and yet maintain total secrecy.
Apology noted and accepted on the "believer in government" remark. Thanks, and I look forward to a long friendship, and future robust debates. ;D
Kevin
Dr. Griffin is not a conspiracy theory author. He just had questions about 9/11 and gathered up all the problems into a book and then a second one later. We heard him in Brattleboro a little while ago and enjoyed him. His books are good. He has gone from a questioner of the governments story to a firm believer in their deceptiveness. I agree with him.
Thanks Kevin, I do consider you a friend and am glad you forgive me. Now, if we can only convince you ... you'll be a powerful ally.
Part of the problem with the st911.org website is that, like almost all the 9-11 truth sites, the information is of varying quality. Personally, I think Dr. Griffin is one of the best advocates. No one can be an expert in everything. But rational and intelligent people tend to come up with rational and intelligent conclusions.
Russell is quite right: Griffin is not, primarily, a conspiracy theorist. He has written only two books that could be called "conspiracy theories", both of them on the topic of 9-11. Compare that to Fetzer, (also on the st911.org website), who has written on JFK, the moon landing (he thinks it was faked), 9-11, etc. Griffin has written many, many books, and with the exception of the two 9-11 books, they have all been scholarly religious tomes. He is widely respected; Claremont is one of the most prestigious seminaries in the nation. I have several of his non-911 books, and have been very impressed with his presentation of his subjects.
It makes a difference, Kevin, because if you identify someone as a "conspiracy theorist" that indicates that the person is already inclined to believe somewhat extraordinary claims. If I went around speaking about "Chemtrails" and "alien abductions", I would think that a person would be fair in not listening when I speak about something that seems incredible, such as 9-11. But when persons who you know have a reputation for sane and reasoned thinking come to a conclusion that seems extraordinary, we tend to listen more because we figure that they have arrived at the extraordinary conclusions in the same manner that they arrive at their more mundane conclusions. I think you would find that to be true of members of the 9-11 truth community such as Jones, Griffin, Ruppert, and Judge. It is, by its very nature, filled with people who make extraordinary claims, and I don't say that you should accept what everyone says. But when the above four make a statement, I listen because I have no reason to suspect that they tend to deviate from their otherwise sane and reasoned conclusions. Of course, I'm not recommending that you suspend your own judgment, regardless of who says something, but I do suggest that certain people are more worthy of respect than others, and that applies regardless of the subject under consideration.
Caleb
but then Caleb believes it .....so we can throw credibility right out.
Russell, perhaps if you had been abducted by aliens, you would see things the way I do too! ;)
I watched the snippets from the "Confronting the Evidence" video. It was pretty good. It was a tape of a conference where the had a bunch of the guys who have made movies or books about 9/11 and "experts", so it had a good combination of subjects. It has clips from all the 9/11 movies I have seen.
So .....
'Confronting the Evidence' was good
'Painful Deceptions' is good
'In Plane Site' was ok and
'Loose Change' is ok
The also had video from "The Great Conspiracy" which was decent, but I haven't seen the whole thing. It is from a Canadian reporter guy.
Quote from: calibaba77 on February 26, 2006, 05:13 PM NHFT
Russell, perhaps if you had been abducted by aliens, you would see things the way I do too! ;)
Well....this explains everything.
[/quote]
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html
Steel-framed buildings collapse all the time due solely to fire damage.
I have read this piece, but I will admit that I have not chased down all the citations. Here's why: when an author practices such flagrant deception in his opening paragraphs, I assume that he will continue to deceive through selective omission and partial quotation.
Kevin
[/quote]
Kevin, can you cite an example of a skyscraper brought down by fire?
I know that the WTC twin towers were constructed with dissimilar metals (aluminum and steel) that could have resulted in corrosion in the surrounding salt air. This was a faux pas as far as material's science is concerned.
Why do you think the government has locked up all the prints of the project?
The 9-11 report contends that a fireball decended the elevator shafts to the sub-basement. Elevator shafts don't typically go that far without a transition floor. If there was an exception to this rule (like a freight elevator) why won't the government show the plans?
I read where the buildings were built without a sprinkler system. That one was added later but that the redacted words of the on scene firefighters were "Where's the f*^king sprinkers?"
Kind of brings the following story into a new light eh?
AP Katherine Smith, top left, was charged in a scheme to sell fraudulent driver's licenses with five Middle Eastern men. Tuesday, February 12, 2002 MEMPHIS, Tenn. - A driver's license examiner charged in a scheme with some Middle Eastern men to sell fraudulent licenses died the day before her first court appearance in a fiery car wreck prosecutors called "most unusual and suspicious." Forensics tests were being performed on Katherine Smith's car to determine what caused the fire, FBI spokesman George Bolds said Tuesday. "We're looking at everything ... whether it was an accident, whether it was a suicide or whether it was something else," said Bolds, who would not specifically discuss the possibility of explosives. The FBI also said it is investigating whether Smith's five co-defendants have connections to the Sept. 11 attacks or other terrorist ties. Smith, 49, was killed early Sunday. The 1992 Acura Legend she was driving ran off the road and struck a utility pole just north of the Mississippi state line, Highway Patrol Lt. Col. Mark Fagan said. Smith's car "was immediately engulfed in flames," but authorities do not know whether the fire started before or after the crash, Fagan said. The body was so badly burned it took authorities until Tuesday to confirm Smith's identity. The cause of death remains under investigation. FBI agent J. Suzanne Nash said the gas tank did not explode and the car was only slightly dented from the crash. Prosecutor Tim DiScenza called the crash "most unusual and suspicious." Smith was one of six people charged last week by federal officials with conspiracy to get Tennessee driver's licenses under false pretenses. She had been scheduled for arraignment on Monday. Also charged were Khaled Odtllah, 31, Sakhera Hammad, 24, Mohammed Fares, Mostafa Said Abou-Shahin and Abdelmuhsen Mahmid Hammad. Authorities did not give ages for the last three and said they admitted being in the country illegally. The case broke last week when authorities staked out the driver's license office where Smith worked on a tip from the FBI in New York that several illegal immigrants from the Middle East were traveling to Memphis to illegally obtain state IDs, Nash said. Smith, an examiner for nine years, told authorities that Odtllah was a friend who had asked her to help him obtain driver's licenses six or seven times, Nash said. Nash said that when Sakhera Hammad was arrested, investigators found a visitor's pass for the World Trade Center, dated Sept. 5, 2001, in his wallet. He told authorities he was a plumber who worked on the center's sprinkler system. He said Abdelmuhsen Mahmid Hammad was a cousin who worked with him, Nash said. Federal authorities learned that Odtllah drove to Memphis from New York City on Sept. 11, Nash said. Anthony Helm, attorney for Odtllah, asked Nash in court: "You certainly don't have any indication any of these fellows is a terrorist, do you?" "Not at this time, no sir," Nash said. A hearing for Abou-Shahin, Abdelmuhsen Mahmid Hammad and Fares is scheduled for Wednesday. Odtllah and Sakhera Hammad remain held without bond until their trial.
As I understand it all the "middle easterners" in the above story were deported back to thier home country of...
Israel. :D
In fairness, Israel DID warn us prior to 9-11 that there was a significant threat. I don't think Israel is to blame here. Was Israel spying on us? Yes. Did Israel know what was going to happen? Yes. Did Israel cause it? No.
Another excellent conservative video about 9/11 is
Hijacking Catastrophy.
It doesn't get into conspiracy theory, but the position that government definitely used it as an excuse.
Tracy
There is using it and causing it ...... to me there is a big difference.
Quote from: russellkanning on February 26, 2006, 11:35 PM NHFT
There is using it and causing it ...... to me there is a big difference.
And to me too. There's no doubt the government used 9/11, even though I do doubt they caused it.
Kevin
Since there is a difference ..... you should watch some of the videos mentioned here. I want people to be exposed to the truth about the federal government.
I don't think the government caused it. I think they had evidence it was being planned, and allowed it to happen, a la the Reichstag fire. They wanted something to scare the Bejeezus out of the sheeple, and they got it.
Quote from: tracysaboe on February 26, 2006, 10:12 PM NHFT
conspiracy theory
I love the use of this term, as it applies best to the official story of 9/11. The official story involves a plot by more than one individual that is supported by evidence but has yet to be proven, ergo, a conspiracy theory.
We live in the grey area between fact and fiction.
We live, in the Twilight zone.
Do de do due do de do due.... ;D
Quote from: lawofattraction on March 03, 2006, 08:07 PM NHFT
Quote from: Incrementalist on March 03, 2006, 07:55 PM NHFTI love the use of this term
The history of how the idiom "conspiracy theory" became a part of our language is most interesting.
Due tell!
Group of scholars asking for release of information about 9/11:
http://www.thepetitionsite.com/takeaction/929981172?ltl=1141667399
Audio for the interview http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/200306sheen.htm which I haven't listened to yet.
Actor Charlie Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story
Calls for truly independent investigation, joins growing ranks of prominent credible whistleblowers
Alex Jones & Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | March 20 2006
Actor Charlie Sheen has joined a growing army of other highly credible public figures in questioning the official story of 9/11 and calling for a new independent investigation of the attack and the circumstances surrounding it.
Over the past two years, scores of highly regarded individuals have gone public to express their serious doubts about 9/11. These include former presidential advisor and CIA analyst Ray McGovern, the father of Reaganomics and former Assistant Secretary of the US Treasury Paul Craig Roberts, BYU physics Professor Steven Jones, former German defense minister Andreas von Buelow, former MI5 officer David Shayler, former Blair cabinet member Michael Meacher, former Chief Economist for the Department of Labor during President George W. Bush's first term Morgan Reynolds and many more.
Speaking to The Alex Jones Show on the GCN Radio Network, the star of current hit comedy show Two and a Half Men and dozens of movies including Platoon and Young Guns, Sheen elaborated on why he had problems believing the government's version of events.
Sheen agreed that the biggest conspiracy theory was put out by the government itself and prefaced his argument by quoting Theodore Roosevelt in stating, "That we are to stand by the President right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
"We're not the conspiracy theorists on this particular issue," said Sheen.
"It seems to me like 19 amateurs with box cutters taking over four commercial airliners and hitting 75% of their targets, that feels like a conspiracy theory. It raises a lot of questions."
Sheen described the climate of acceptance for serious discussion about 9/11 as being far more fertile than it was a couple of years ago.
"It feels like from the people I talk to in and around my circles, it seems like the worm is turning."
Suspicious collapse of buildings
Sheen described his immediate skepticism regarding the official reason for the collapse of the twin towers and building 7 on the day of 9/11.
"I was up early and we were gonna do a pre-shoot on Spin City, the show I used to do, I was watching the news and the north tower was burning. I saw the south tower hit live, that famous wide shot where it disappears behind the building and then we see the tremendous fireball."
"There was a feeling, it just didn't look any commercial jetliner I've flown on any time in my life and then when the buildings came down later on that day I said to my brother 'call me insane, but did it sorta look like those buildings came down in a controlled demolition'?"
Sheen said that most people's gut instinct, that the buildings had been deliberately imploded, was washed away by the incessant flood of the official version of events from day one.
Sheen questioned the plausibility of a fireballs traveling 110 feet down an elevator shaft and causing damage to the lobbies of the towers as seen in video footage, especially when contrasted with eyewitness accounts of bombs and explosions in the basement levels of the buildings.
Regarding building 7, which wasn't hit by a plane, Sheen highlighted the use of the term "pull," a demolition industry term for pulling the outer walls of the building towards the center in an implosion, as was used by Larry Silverstein in a September 2002 PBS documentary when he said that the decision to "pull" building 7 was made before its collapse. This technique ensures the building collapses in its own footprint and can clearly be seen during the collapse of building 7 with the classic 'crimp' being visible.
The highly suspicious collapse of building 7 and the twin towers has previously been put under the spotlight by physics Professor Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan of Underwriters Laboratories, the company that certified the steel components used in the construction of the World Trade Center towers.
"The term 'pull' is as common to the demolition world as 'action and 'cut' are to the movie world," said Sheen.
Sheen referenced firefighters in the buildings who were eyewitnesses to demolition style implosions and bombs.
"This is not you or I watching the videos and speculating on what we saw, these are gentlemen inside the buildings at the very point of collapse."
"If there's a problem with building 7 then there's a problem with the whole thing," said Sheen.
Bush's behavior on 9/11
Sheen then questioned President Bush's actions on 9/11 and his location at the Booker Elementary School in Florida. Once Andy Card had whispered to Bush that America was under attack why didn't the secret service immediately whisk Bush away to a secret location?
By remaining at a location where it was publicly known the President would be before 9/11, he was not only putting his own life in danger, but the lives of hundreds of schoolchildren. That is unless the government knew for sure what the targets were beforehand and that President Bush wasn't one of them.
"It seems to me that upon the revelation of that news that the secret service would grab the President as if he was on fire and remove him from that room," said Sheen.
The question of how Bush saw the first plane hit the north tower, when no live footage of that incident was carried, an assertion that Bush repeated twice, was also put under the spotlight.
"I guess one of the perks of being President is that you get access to TV channels that don't exist in the known universe," said Sheen.
"It might lead you to believe that he'd seen similar images in some type of rehearsal as it were, I don't know."
The Pentagon incident
Sheen outlined his disbelief that the official story of what happened at the Pentagon matched the physical evidence.
"Show us this incredible maneuvering, just show it to us. Just show us how this particular plane pulled off these maneuvers. 270 degree turn at 500 miles and hour descending 7,000 feet in two and a half minutes, skimming across treetops the last 500 meters."
We have not been able to confirm that a large commercial airliner hit the Pentagon because the government has seized and refused to release any footage that would show the impact.
"I understand in the interest of national security that maybe not release the Pentagon cameras but what about the Sheraton, what about the gas station, what about the Department of Transportation freeway cam? What about all these shots that had this thing perfectly documented? Instead they put out five frames that they claim not to have authorized, it's really suspicious," said Sheen.
Sheen also questioned how the plane basically disappeared into the Pentagon with next to no wreckage and no indication of what happened to the wing sections.
Concerning how the Bush administration had finalized Afghanistan war plans two days before 9/11 with the massing of 44,000 US troops and 18,000 British troops in Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, and in addition the call for "some catastrophic and catalyzing event - like a new Pearl Harbor," as outlined in the PNAC documents, Sheen stated, "you don't really put those strategies together overnight do you for a major invasion? Those are really well calculated and really well planned."
"Coincidence? We think not," said Sheen and he called the PNAC quotes "emblematic of the arrogance of this administration."
A real investigation
Sheen joined others in calling for a revised and truly independent investigation of 9/11.
Sheen said that "September 11 wasn't the Zapruder film, it was the Zapruder film festival," and that the inquiry had to be, "headed, if this is possible, by some neutral investigative committee. What if we used retired political foreign nationals? What if we used experts that don't have any ties whatsoever to this administration?"
"It is up to us to reveal the truth. It is up to us because we owe it to the families, we owe it to the victims. We owe it to everybody's life who was drastically altered, horrifically that day and forever. We owe it to them to uncover what happened."
Charlie Sheen joins the rest of his great family and notably his father Martin Sheen, who has lambasted for opposing the Iraq war before it had begun yet has now been proven right in triplicate, in using his prominent public platform to stand for truth and justice and we applaud and salute his brave efforts, remembering Mark Twain's quote.
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man, brave, hated, and scorned. When his cause succeeds however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
check this story out :-)
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/200306charliesheen.htm
Quote from: katdillon on March 21, 2006, 12:43 PM NHFT
Sheen stated, "you don't really put those strategies together overnight do you for a major invasion? Those are really well calculated and really well planned."
The Pentagon has plans to invade just about every country so that should not be suprising.
Fox News - 911 The Israeli Connection
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAoe26MaTew&search=fox%20news
I just finished watching this. it was interesting to say the least.
Quote from: Dreepa on March 22, 2006, 12:37 PM NHFT
The Pentagon has plans to invade just about every country so that should not be suprising.
Your tax dollars at work.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/240306supportsheen.htm
As of Friday morning you can still vote in the poll and I encourage you to do so by clicking here. A.J. Hammer and CNN Showbiz Tonight need to be given their due as the only mainstream television news show to give balanced coverage of serious 9/11 questions.
This is a watershed moment in the struggle to create a powerful, educated and active contingent of individuals with no hierarchical structure but with a unified cause.
According to the CNN poll, 86% agree with Sheen and have doubts about the official story...almost 15000 people agreeing.
Must be something wrong with the software. These results just don't seem "fair and balanced". Better shut down the internet till we can find the "problem". :o
tonight {friday} on cnn showbiz tonight at 7 pm charlie sheen will be on again for the third night about 911. i participated in a poll cnn is running and 83% believe the us government covered up what really happened.
7 pm check it out.
on alex jones show:
he made a public challenge to silverstien {the owner of trade towers and bldg #7} to explain what he said on pbs interview that "they made a decision to pull the building so we pulled it"
if every american was doing what mr. sheen is now. we would get our govt. back from these evildoers.
america's being destroyed by design
Quote from: Tunga on March 24, 2006, 01:22 PM NHFT
Must be something wrong with the software. These results just don't seem "fair and balanced". Better shut down the internet till we can find the "problem". :o
Ah Ha! Here's the problem.
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/240306_b_Bandwidth.htm
Wasn't microsoft trying to buy out google or something at one time? Did that ever go through? >.> seems irrelivant, sorry, haha, but could it be something like that going on?
I have never heard that MS was going to buy Google.
Quote from: 1984IsNow on March 24, 2006, 07:16 PM NHFT
Wasn't microsoft trying to buy out google or something at one time? Did that ever go through? >.> seems irrelivant, sorry, haha, but could it be something like that going on?
Three words. China, communist China. Billy bob Gates gave the source code to windows to the PLA. The very same code used by our US Navy to steer and command our most advanced warships. The reds know where every single boat in the blue water US Navy is 24/7. But don't despair our most generous president Billy bob Clinton gave the red Chinese a pass into the bowels of the pentagon for a yardsale exclusive that included the prints to our most advanced rocket gyroscope technology. So now when the Chinese minister tells us that "we will not trade Los Angeles for Tiawian" we kinda haveta take him seriously. Google is guilty of the lesser crime of pointing out to the murderers in charge of the Chinese internet police where all the nodes of natural rights emenated from. This alleviates the need to lock all the internet cafe goers inside the building while it gets torched.
Hope this clears up any misconceptions you might be holding for Microsoft or Google.
Just because the ships may have 'windows' on board does not mean that that controls the ships.
How would that data be transfered from the ship to the PLA?
Via the fringed flag? ::)
Good one Dreepa!
Having never been in the Military Tunga can only make this kind of shit up. The windows based NT opperating system was detailed in an article posted in Scientific American about an American warship that spent several "hours" dead in the water when it's Windows OS crapped out.
NEST stands for something like Nuclear Emergency SEARCH Team. They supposedly have the codes to every military nuke worldwide. Tunga speculates that this implies all Nuclear equiped parties have access to all other parties codes and the real time locations of those devices.
No?
http://www.milnet.com/nest.htm
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/march2006/260306Scholars.htm
If you have seen photos of the exit hole in the wall of the pentagon and wondered why there was no logical explanation offered for its existance. This story will just make it worse for you.
http://rense.com/general70/bhole.htm
Tunga has worked with engineers and he can confirm the damage shown in the photos is NOT consistant with the definition of the the terms "Cracking and Spalling". If the damage to the column in question was caused by a Jet engine, where did said engine go after it broke through the wall? Poof! You don't need to know. >:(
Liberty lovers Penn & Teller study 9/11:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7501020220921158523
Hmm..more insiders going public.
How many insiders have to speak before folks begin to listen?
The interview is good:
http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/030406bowman.htm
Here's the guy's bio:
Dr. Robert M. Bowman is President of the Institute for Space and Security Studies, Executive Vice President of Millennium III Corporation, and Presiding Archbishop of the United Catholic Church. The recipient of the Eisenhower Medal, the George F. Kennan Peace Prize, the President's Medal of Veterans for Peace, the Republic Aviation Airpower Award, The Society of American Military Engineers' Gold Medal (twice), the Air Medal with five oak leaf clusters, and numerous other awards, he is one of the country's foremost authorities on national security.
Until July, 1982, he was a Vice President of Space Communications Company. Before that, Dr. Bowman was Manager, Advanced Space Programs at General Dynamics, responsible for the communications spacecraft product line. Culminating a 22-year Air Force career in 1978, Col. Bowman was Director of Advanced Space Programs Development for the Air Force Space Division. In that capacity, he controlled about half a billion dollars worth of space programs, including the "Star Wars" programs, the existence of which was (at that time) secret. Dr. Bowman taught at five colleges and universities, serving as Associate Professor, Department Head, and Assistant Dean. From 1971 to 1974, Dr. Bowman was responsible for Air Force and NASA contracts in Europe, Africa, the Middle East, and Southern Asia. In 1969 and 1970, Col. Bowman flew 101 combat missions in Vietnam. He is active in national and international professional societies and chaired eight major conferences. His PhD is in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering from Caltech. Dr. Bowman has lectured at the National War College, the United Nations, Congressional Caucuses, the Academies of Science of six nations, and the House of Lords. He has appeared on McNeil-Lehrer, ABC News, the Larry King Show, Donohue, and Firing Line. He has hosted radio talk shows in New York, Rhode Island, and Florida.
Archbishop Bowman has preached at the National Cathedral and at churches of many faiths, including Roman Catholic, Protestant, Anglican, and Orthodox Christian Churches, Jewish synagogues, and a Muslim mosque. He has been keynote speaker for religious and clergy conferences nationwide and has spoken at theological seminaries and at the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. He has appeared on many Christian radio and TV talk shows, including the 700 Club.
Bob Bowman was the first presidential candidate officially recognized by the Reform Party for the 2000 election, and for several weeks was the only one. He beat Pat Buchanan in Iowa, Illinois, and California before dropping out of the race for lack of money and media coverage. Central to his campaign were (1) electoral reform (severing the connection between big money and political power), (2) international trade reform (gaining democratic control of the WTO), (3) health care reform ( a doctor-run single-payer national health system), (4) structural reform (ending the domination of society by transnational corporations and banks), (5) economic reform (allowing workers to keep more of the wealth they create), and (6) foreign relations reform (freeing the American people from the threat of nuclear terrorism by a return to a Constitutional foreign and military policy which refuses to go to war for the financial interests of the wealthy few).
Bush's poll numbers are at an all time low. I expect there will be either another terrorist attack inside the US, or an invasion of someone else by US, possibly Iran, before the 2006 Federal elections.
Not to mention that the President promised to shitcan the guy that outed the CIA agent working on Newculer weapons proliferation. Turns out it was the President himself. Bu Bye now.
After the viewing of Loose Change, Second Edition the other night, people were discussing what we should do about it. We're forming a group to discuss this issue and take action:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/NH911Action/
I'm not sure if we'll ever know for sure what happened to 93, but I have heard that story as well.
What I do know (and I live in PA and have seen the area, as well as photos immediately after) is that the official crash site was over 8 miles long with an extremely small almost nonexistent main impact site.
This correlates with the plane being shot down in the air and the debris spreading out and then hitting the ground. There are also locals who say they saw fighter jets in the area before the crash. There was even a caller into Howard Stern that lived in the area and said it was shot down on the day of the attacks.
8 mile debris field does not indicate a crash. Of course, the "let's roll" fable makes for nice propaganda and movie sales.
Chances are the passengers on that plane were either unaware or it was a drone and there was no one on that plane.
Quote from: AlanM on April 06, 2006, 09:27 AM NHFT
How many insiders have to speak before folks begin to listen?
As long as the corporate bankers run the media, no credence will be given to the 9-11 truth movement. The underground will have to make it happen.
WWIII Started And We Weren?t Told?
http://www.dvorak.org/blog/?p=5265
We haven't had much talk on this forum about the Flight 93 movie.
In my opinion there is more to the story and the way it is portrayed is to generate patriotic support.
Flight 93 confuses me. I don't know how you make a movie of it.... we don't know what happened. Is this another "perfect storm"?
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://usaattacked.com/shank-092201b.jpg&imgrefurl=http://usaattacked.com/flight_93.htm&h=450&w=600&sz=104&tbnid=bhOKlhLOSKm94M:&tbnh=99&tbnw=133&hl=en&start=4&prev=/images%3Fq%3DFlight%2B93%2Bcrash%2Bsite%26svnum%3D10%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26sa%3DG
Quote from: russellkanning on May 06, 2006, 07:55 PM NHFT
Flight 93 confuses me. I don't know how you make a movie of it.... we don't know what happened.
I certainly had no desire to see it, and for exactly that reason.
Fictionalized accounts of highly emotional and tragic major events is the root of most progaganda. I don't see how this movie could be anything but propaganda, no matter how much the producer's politics differ from Bush's.
Kevin
I found this to interesting and thought provoking.
From:
9/11 SYNTHETIC TERRORISM
MADE IN USA
By Webster Griffin Tarpley
? 2004 by Webster Griffin Tarpley
XII: CONSPIRACY THEORY: THE GREAT
AMERICAN TRADITION
The neocons, who are themselves a conspiracy, do not like conspiracy theories. But if we
look at actual American history, we find conspiracy theories everywhere, even in the
most exalted places. The neocon hysteria about conspiracy theories is therefore radically
anti-historical, like so much else about this ideological and fanatical faction.
As the Harvard historian Bernard Bailyn convincingly argues in his prize-winning study,
The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution (1967), the American Revolution
was based on a conspiracy theory which saw the individual actions of George III as all
being governed by a singly unifying design, which was to impose tyranny on the UK?s
North American colonies. This theory had been learned by some among the founding
fathers from such British political figures as Edmund Burke, who made similar
allegations themselves in a slightly different context. As Bailyn points out, the notion of a
conspiracy centered on George III and his court was shared by the broadest spectrum of
the founding fathers, from firebrand revolutionaries to cautious right-wingers like
Dickinson.
Before the United States ever existed, there was a conspiracy theory. According to
Bailyn, the Americans of the eighteenth century
?saw about them, with increasingly clarity, not merely mistaken, or even
evil, policies violating the principles upon which freedom rested, but what
appeared to be evidence of nothing less than a deliberate assault launched
surreptitiously by plotters against liberty both in England and in America.
The danger in America, it was believed, was in fact only the small,
immediately visible part of the greater whole whose ultimate
manifestation would be the destruction of the English constitution, with all
the rights and privileges embedded in it. This belief transformed the
meaning of the colonists? struggle, and it added an inner accelerator to the
movement of opposition. For, once assumed, it could not easily be
dispelled: denial only confirmed it, since what conspirators profess is not
what they believe; the ostensible is not the real; and the real is deliberately
malign. It was this ? the overwhelming evidence, as they saw it, that they
were faced with conspirators against liberty determined at all costs to gain
ends which their words dissembled ? that was signaled to the colonists
after 1763; and it was this above all else that in the end propelled them
into Revolution. (Bailyn 95)
This conception was endorsed by George Washington in the Fairfax Resolution of 1774,
written in collaboration with George Mason. Here Washington asserted the existence of a
?regular, systematic plan? of oppression. In conformity with this plan, the British
government was ?endeavoring by every piece of art and despotism to fix the shackles of
slavery upon us.? Washington wrote in a letter of this time that ?beyond the smallest
doubt?these measures are the result of deliberation?I am as fully convinced as I am of
my own existence that there has been a regular, systematic plan formed to enforce them.?
(Bailyn 120)
Thomas Jefferson agreed; he wrote in a pamphlet of 1774 that although ?single acts of
tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day? a series of oppressions,
begun at a distinguished period and pursued unalterably through every change of
ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate and systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.?
(Bailyn 120) This language prefigures the final text of the Declaration of Independence.
John Adams estimated in 1774 that ?the conspiracy was first regularly formed and begun
to be executed in 1763 or 4.? At other times Adams traced the conspiracy back to the
1750s and the 1740s, mentioning in this context Governor Shirley of Massachusetts.
According to Adams, the proponents of the conspiracy were exchanging letters that were
?profoundly secret, dark, and deep;? this was a part of what Adams called a ?junto
conspiracy.? (Bailyn 122) According to the Boston Committee of Correspondence, one of
the most important pre-revolutionary institutions, awareness of the conspiracy was a gift
of divine providence, practically a revelation. They thanked God who had ?wonderfully
interposed to bring to light the plot that has been laid for us by our malicious and
invidious enemies.? (Bailyn 122) For these colonists, God was a conspiracy theorist.
Even the Tories, the pro-British faction among the colonists, believed in a conspiracy
theory of their own. In 1760 the royalist Governor Bernard of Massachusetts alleged that
a ?faction? had organized a conspiracy against the customs administration; he saw this
group as a secret, power-hungry cabal. (Bailyn 151)
As Bailyn sums up his exhaustive reading of the pamphlet literature and political writings
of the time, ?the conviction on the part of the Revolutionary leaders that they were faced
with a deliberate conspiracy to destroy the balance of the constitution and eliminate their
freedom had deep and widespread roots ? roots deeply embedded in Anglo-American
political culture?. The configuration of attitudes and ideas that would constitute the
Revolutionary ideology was present a half-century before there was an actual
Revolution? and among the dominant elements in this pattern were the fear of
corruption ? of its anti-constitutional destructiveness ? and of the menace of a ministerial
conspiracy. At the very first signs of conflict between the colonies and the administration
in the early 1760s the question of motivation was openly broached and the imputation of
secret purposes discussed? The conviction that the colonies, and England itself, were
faced with a deliberate, anti-libertarian design grew most quickly where the polarization
of politics was most extreme?. But in some degree it was present everywhere; it was
almost universally shared by sympathizers of the American cause?. The explosion of
long-smoldering fears of ministerial conspiracy was by no means an exclusively
American phenomenon. It was experienced in England too?.? (Bailyn 144-145)
THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE: CONSPIRACY THEORY
The US Declaration of Independence signed in Congress in Philadelphia on July 4, 1776,
is one of the most celebrated conspiracy theories of all time. Here we read towards the
beginning a description of the present situation of the states which notes that
?when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the
same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it
is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government and to provide
new guards for their future security?.
This is followed by a long catalogue of misdeeds and abuses committed by the British
monarch, introduced by the refrain: ?He has?.? At the end of the catalogue, there is a
summary paragraph which makes clear that what has been presented should not be
thought of as a laundry list of complaints about disparate events, but rather as the
implacable and systematic operations of a concerted plot ? of a conspiracy. In the words
of Thomas Jefferson, as edited by Benjamin Franklin and others:
The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated
injuries and usurpations, all having, in direct object, the establishment of
an absolute tyranny over these States.
The ministers changed, the policies shifted, but the controlling goal of tyranny remained.
It is a conspiracy theory of the type which would make many a modern academic or
neocon talk show host squirm. It is also one of the greatest political documents of world
history. Were Jefferson and Franklin paranoids, mere conspiracy buffs?
It is perfectly correct to say that the United States as a country was founded on
conspiracy theory, one which served as a powerful unifying ideology for the entire
revolutionary generation. The approach of their analysis, it should be noted, was
empirical as well as analytical: they recognized the need to back up their conspiracy
theory with an abundant supply of factual material. This point of documentation and
intelligibility is a key point, which the analysts and researchers of today need to
remember.
I think this movie is your typical ploy to rally the American people around the government's official story while at the sametime glorifying the passengers and winning the hearts and minds of the American people. We'll never know what happened because the FBI/NSA classifies any and everything in the name of national security and then releases their 'official' verdict. While I feel bad for everyone involved, I don't think their memory is honored by disinformation.
Check this out! Scroll down to 'Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime'
http://freedomtofascism.blogspot.com/
Could someone snag this? I have dial-up and it would take me a week to watch this. I watched about two minutes of stop and go, but can't stand to do it for the full 1:11 minutes.
It's good. A lot of stuff I hadn't heard about. I got halfway before my computer crashed. Don't see a way to download it, though :-\
http://www.911blogger.com/2006/05/video-everybodys-gotta-learn-sometime.html
That would make sense.
Could a plane fly into that building easily?
Quote from: russellkanning on May 15, 2006, 11:32 PM NHFT
That would make sense.
Could a plane fly into that building easily?
Only in a vertical dive.
Interesting theory, but pretty implausible.
Quote from: KBCraig on May 16, 2006, 01:07 AM NHFT
Quote from: russellkanning on May 15, 2006, 11:32 PM NHFT
That would make sense.
Could a plane fly into that building easily?
Only in a vertical dive.
Interesting theory, but pretty implausible.
Unless the twin towers were not standing in the way.
If the reason wtc7 was demo'ed was because it contained a command center, then I would think that would go against the idea of 93 headed there, unless it came much later and they had time to leave.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=50234
William Kammer, chief of the Department of Defense, Office of Freedom of Information wrote to Judicial Watch: "Now that the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui is over, we are able to complete your request and provide the video. ?"
Pentagon to Release 9/11 Security Video
55 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - The
Pentagon said Tuesday it planned to release video images of American Airlines Flight 77 crashing into the military headquarters building and killing 184 people in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
The images, recorded by a Pentagon security camera, were to be released in response to a Freedom of Information Act request by Judicial Watch, a public interest group. The video had previously been leaked and publicly circulated, but this is the first time the government will have officially released the imagery.
The hijacked American Airlines plane slammed into the southwest side of the Pentagon at 9:38 a.m. EDT, shortly after two other hijacked airlines were flown into the twin towers at the World Trade Center in New York. The attack set off fires in a portion of the Pentagon and killed 125 people inside, in addition to those on board the plane.
"We fought hard to obtain this video because we felt that it was very important to complete the public record with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch.
Wow, they're really going to need some creative videography for this. But of course, they've been working on their imposter video for almost five years.
Looks pretty small for a Jumbo jet.
Still no Citgo video. Just the security cam at the gate.
We're getting slimed here folks.
http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/index.html
All I saw was a missle hitting the pentagon.
I don't believe the pentagons conspiracy theory that an arab stole a 757 and plowed it into their building.
I am not paying for damages .... it was probably arson.
Quote from: katdillon on May 16, 2006, 07:32 PM NHFT
All I saw was a missle hitting the pentagon.
I certainly couldn't see a plane in the grainy frames on CNN today. By comparison, it makes the Zapruder film seem like a feature-length IMAX movie.
Quote from: katdillon on May 16, 2006, 07:32 PM NHFT
All I saw was a missle hitting the pentagon.
Missiles don't carry jet fuel. High explosives don't produce big orange fireballs, but low-order flammables like JET-A do. A missile strike would produce a shock wave and a cloud of dust, with no visible flame or smoke. A plane crash would produce a big orange fireball and black smoke, exactly like is seen on the video.
Before everyone gets too worked up about the apparent size of the flying object that hits the Pentagon, please remember that both camera views are extreme wide angle, so that the farther away objects are, the smaller they appear.
Note: I'm not repeating the government line, and I don't expect anyone else to do so, either. I want the truth, but "Truth" must be based on facts. When you argue against the government line, please do so with
actual, verifiable facts. "I don't believe it, so they must be lying" doesn't constitute proof.
Kevin
Does that look like a 757 to you?
Would you even think that unless someone told you to?
Quote from: russellkanning on May 17, 2006, 02:37 AM NHFT
Does that look like a 757 to you?
It doesn't look like it's not a 757. It definitely doesn't look like a cruise missile, which would look more like a cigarette at that range. Insufficient data for a conclusion.
Quote
Would you even think that unless someone told you to?
I wouldn't think it was, or wasn't, whether anyone told me to, or not.
It's a one-frame blurr in a bad video. Insufficient data to say yea or nay. Anyone who claims proof either way is relying on a previous conclusion, not evidence as presented.
Kevin
Until the government proves their side .... I am going to be a skeptic.
Quote from: KBCraig on May 17, 2006, 03:45 AM NHFT
Quote from: russellkanning on May 17, 2006, 02:37 AM NHFT
Does that look like a 757 to you?
It doesn't look like it's not a 757. It definitely doesn't look like a cruise missile, which would look more like a cigarette at that range. Insufficient data for a conclusion.
Quote
Would you even think that unless someone told you to?
I wouldn't think it was, or wasn't, whether anyone told me to, or not.
It's a one-frame blurr in a bad video. Insufficient data to say yea or nay. Anyone who claims proof either way is relying on a previous conclusion, not evidence as presented.
Kevin
A Skyhawk has a high wing vs. a 757 which has a low wing. The absence of any ripped up lawn lends credence to the high wing. The blur appears to be hugging the lawn. Tunga is aware of "ground effect" and that the length might be subject to the approach angle relative to the camera.
We don't know the shutter speed but the length seems short for the 155 feet of 757. Using the vertical height of 80 feet of the Pentagon as a scale.
Tunga has read about discrepencies in the approach angle which if true don't help the governments case. Why don't they release the other 84 videos too? Not blurry enough?
Bunker busters also contain two charges. There might not be any photographic evidence of the secondary explosion from one of those. Assuming it was detonating deep inside the building.
Quote from: KBCraig on May 16, 2006, 01:07 AM NHFT
Quote from: russellkanning on May 15, 2006, 11:32 PM NHFT
That would make sense.
Could a plane fly into that building easily?
Only in a vertical dive.
Interesting theory, but pretty implausible.
How Flight 77 Hitting The Pentagon Would Really Look?
http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/pentagon_video_how_flight_77_really_look.htm
Alex Jones played clips of this one reporter on September 11th and now. September 11th he was at the Pentagon and says all day long that he sees no pieces of plane, no fuselage, no evidence a plane hit the building. Then clips from the same person reporting on it now...where the guy is saying that he was there that day and saw plane pieces all over.
I think we need to be careful we don't get too sucked in to the no plane/missle theory. I personally don't believe it was a passenger plane that hit it that day but we'll never really know.
The reason we need to use caution telling people new to the 9/11 truth movement about the no plane thing is that it has been 5 years. That's long enough to create whatever they want. Imagine a perfectly rendered 3d plane just like in the movies added to the footage. Then they blur it badly and make it look like security footage and all of the sudden *poof* they'll claim they squashed the "crazies" that believe 9/11 was an inside job.
I believe 9/11 was an inside job- without a doubt. But we need to focus on things like insider trading, controlled demo of 7, and all the now public officials, etc.
Whether it was a plane or a missle that hit the pentagon- bin laden didn't do it.
Bin Laden 'probably back home in US'
http://archive.gulfnews.com/articles/06/05/13/10039526.html
Quote from: KBCraig on May 17, 2006, 01:30 AM NHFT
Quote from: katdillon on May 16, 2006, 07:32 PM NHFT
All I saw was a missle hitting the pentagon.
Missiles don't carry jet fuel. High explosives don't produce big orange fireballs, but low-order flammables like JET-A do. A missile strike would produce a shock wave and a cloud of dust, with no visible flame or smoke. A plane crash would produce a big orange fireball and black smoke, exactly like is seen on the video.
Before everyone gets too worked up about the apparent size of the flying object that hits the Pentagon, please remember that both camera views are extreme wide angle, so that the farther away objects are, the smaller they appear.
Note: I'm not repeating the government line, and I don't expect anyone else to do so, either. I want the truth, but "Truth" must be based on facts. When you argue against the government line, please do so with actual, verifiable facts. "I don't believe it, so they must be lying" doesn't constitute proof.
Kevin
I don't believe it. But I don't believe these controled demolition conspiracy theories either.
I think the government did know about it and purposely didn't do anything to stop it. It's a much more plausible "conspiracy" theory, and it's also grounded in history. A simular thing happened around pearl harbor. And if IS a theory that fits into all the questions cerounding the incident that the government isn't answering. The government's too stupid to come up with anything as ellaborate as controlled demolition.
Tracy
QuoteThe government's too stupid to come up with anything as ellaborate as controlled demolition.
I only wish such was the case.
Or perhaps WTC 7 just got tired and fell down?
....did someone say pearl harbor?
I wonder if all the buildings in NY are that fragile.
http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson.htm
Fun video.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2006/230506_b_Crosswinds.htm
Zogby Poll: Over 70 Million American Adults Support New 9/11 Investigation
http://news.yahoo.com/s/prweb/20060522/bs_prweb/prweb388743_4
RWEB) - Utica, NY (PRWEB) May 22, 2006 -- Although the Bush administration continues to exploit September 11 to justify domestic spying, unprecedented spending and a permanent state of war, a new Zogby poll reveals that less than half of the American public trusts the official 9/11 story or believes the attacks were adequately investigated.
ADVERTISEMENT
911Truth.org Urges 2006 Reform Candidates to Recognize a Powerful New Constituency
But all these people are just tinfoil hat freaks, there is no such thing as conspiracy...right
Putting it past the government to use controlled demolitions to bring down the towers is bordering on naivete. They have more money than you can imagine at their disposal. Plus, they can spend money on classified projects and stear clear of the public eye.
Quote from: FSP-Rebel on May 29, 2006, 11:39 AM NHFT
Putting it past the government to use controlled demolitions to bring down the towers is bordering on naivete. They have more money than you can imagine at their disposal. Plus, they can spend money on classified projects and stear clear of the public eye.
I so agree with you!
So first I watched the gypsy lady video.
That led me to this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194
Wow.... I have some research to do. :'(
The latest "loose change" video was what we saw at the Keene library.
Quote from: Dreepa on May 31, 2006, 09:47 PM NHFT
So first I watched the gypsy lady video.
That led me to this:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194
Wow.... I have some research to do. :'(
People are blowing the whistle about this all over the place.
Maybe that is why this is so important.
U.S. Supreme Court eases whistleblower protections
http://www.wpherald.com/storyview.php?StoryID=20060531-110926-1846r
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911smokingguns.html
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911_firefighters.html
9/11 Firefighters: Bombs and
Explosions in the WTC
Digg reference:
http://digg.com/politics/September_11th_42_percent_of_US_citizens_doubtful_about_official_version
saw another one of those non-existent whistleblowers
General Stubblebine
he said a plane did not make the whole in the Pentagon.
He didn't say he was selling a book or otherwise making money off of his statements. ;)
Quote from: russellkanning on July 10, 2006, 01:50 PM NHFT
saw another one of those non-existent whistleblowers
General Stubblebine
he said a plane did not make the whole in the Pentagon.
He didn't say he was selling a book or otherwise making money off of his statements. ;)
He is, however, insane.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate_Project
http://www.mindcontrolforums.com/hambone/lecture.html
I've been involved in a discussion over at FTL BBS and the majority of the responders just do not believe anything regarding the 9-11 truth movement. I just don't even bother anymore.
What do you say when a witness keeps changing his story? Would you think he was lying?
http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/griffin/griffin-faulkner-8-30-2006.mp3 NPR interview with David Ray Griffin
The feds killed 1000's of people in NY .... what are you going to do about it?
personally, i'm going to DC on 9/11/06 to what is becoming a considerably large demonstration. would love to see you there!
I hope they don't do something to you guys down there to scare people and grab more power.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=514&u=/ap/20060905/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush_terrorism_12
WASHINGTON -
President Bush used terrorists' own words Tuesday to battle complacency among Americans about the threat of future attack, defending his national security record as the fall campaign season kicks into high gear.
ADVERTISEMENT
Bush said that despite the absence of a successor on U.S. soil to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the terrorist danger remains potent.
"Bin laden and his terrorist's allies have made their intentions as clear as Lenin and Hitler before them," the president said before the Military Officers Association of America and diplomatic representatives other countries that have suffered terrorist attacks. "The question is `Will we listen? Will we pay attention to what these evil men say?'"
Quoting extensively from letters, Web site statements, audio recording and videotapes purportedly from terrorists, as well as documents found in various raids, Bush said that al Qaida, homegrown terrorists and other groups have adapted to changing U.S. defenses.
For example, Bush cited what he called "a grisly al Qaida manual" found in 2000 by British police during an anti-terrorist raid in London, which included a chapter called "Guidelines for Beating and Killing Hostages." He also cited what he said was a captured al Qaida document found during a recent raid in
Iraq. He said the document described plans to take over Iraq's western Anbar province and set up a governing structure including an education department, a social services department, a justice department, and an execution unit.
"The terrorists who attacked us on September the 11th, 2001, are men without conscience, but they're not madmen," he said. "They kill in the name of a clear and focused ideology, a set of beliefs that are evil but not insane."
It is almost like he likes it this way.
ha. imagine if the public got ahold of the official US guidebook for CIA and military interrogations of hostages i mean prisoners.
are you NH'ers planning any events on 9/11?
check this video out
http://infowars.com/video/clips/daily/090306_911_truth_traitors_patriots.htm
sorry :-)
What video?
i was sleepy , but i fixed it lol
Yall should see what type of response you get from the FTL bbs with this topic. Not nearly as friendly as here though. I promise.
Most of the conspiracy theories have been debunked. Unfortuntitly those sites only give you the information that shows them to be right.
If you want to see some of the debunking you can find it here: http://www.debunking911.com/
most of the debunking has been debunked ... but that won't stop the Kbcraig and the Lildog's of the world from clutching the debunking sites like a security blanket. A little too scary for some of us.
if only this administration had given us some reason over the past 5 years (it's only been five years? - eek - seems like a million lifetimes) to believe them...
about anything.
...there might not be so many people who dont buy their version of the 9/11 events.
i took a poll of my backyard and 95% of americans believe that the administration is, for selfish reasons (not those of national security), withholding some relevent information about 9/11. thats a pretty big number. and it includes rabbits.
maybe if they told us the truth about 9/11, or the truth about anything, we might be less likely to suspect, as each day passes increasingly so, that what they know is, in some way, criminal.
Quote from: Caleb on September 07, 2006, 07:08 PM NHFT
most of the debunking has been debunked ... but that won't stop the Kbcraig and the Lildog's of the world from clutching the debunking sites like a security blanket.
Caleb, perhaps in some moment of weakness, I personally insulted you while debating this matter. Perhaps I sunk so low as to call you a blanket-clutcher for stating your personal beliefs, although I don't recall saying such a thing. If I did, then I sincerely apologize, but I'd appreciate it if you could point out the specifics so that my apology would be more heartfelt and sincere than is currently the case.
And while you're at it, could you please elaborate on your apparent position that one must be either: A) A Bush blanket-clutcher who unquestioningly believes the "official" version of 9/11; or, B) Someone who "knows" that the Bush administration wasn't just sloppy, but actively orchestrated the entire 9/11 attacks.
Seems like a false dichotomy to me, especially since I fit into neither catgegory.
Thanks for your clarification,
Kevin
Quote from: Caleb on September 07, 2006, 07:08 PM NHFT
most of the debunking has been debunked ... but that won't stop the Kbcraig and the Lildog's of the world from clutching the debunking sites like a security blanket. A little too scary for some of us.
For most of the conspiracies to hold true litterally THOUSANDS had to be in on the planning and carrying out of what they think happened.
Do I think the US is telling us everything they know? No of course not, plus I think there is a lot they themselves don't know so they are guessing big time to make it sound like they know everything.
But to suggest Bush (the bumbling idiot who can't do much right) somehow pulled together this master plan and was able to do so with the thousands needed to be involved to carry it out without a single whistle blower is just insane.
Wow, lildog, so many errors in just a tiny little post. Where to begin?
QuoteFor most of the conspiracies to hold true litterally THOUSANDS had to be in on the planning and carrying out of what they think happened.
Michael Ruppert suggested about 20 people for his plan. David Ray Griffin suggests a "small A team" that is actually "in" on the plot. Most of the work would come from people who did not know what they were doing. An example might be running an exercise (Vigilant Guardian, for example), without understanding that the A team was using it to confuse the radar screens. We'll call these people the B-team. You can't expect the A-team guys to come forward: they have too much to lose. You can only expect that B-team people would come forward with something that, while not quite a smoking gun, is highly suggestive. And that is exactly what HAS happened.
QuoteBut to suggest Bush (the bumbling idiot who can't do much right) somehow pulled together this master plan
I don't know ANYONE who has credited George Bush with this. In fact, I tend to think he would be kept in the dark as much as possible: why involve the one guy who has the most to lose and might decide to pull the plug on the whole operation? Just my suspicion, but I tend to think Bush was told just enough to incriminate him, and not much more.
Quotethe thousands needed to be involved to carry it out without a single whistle blower is just insane.
Once again, DOZEN OR SO, not THOUSANDS. The rest would be "B-team" guys, many of whom HAVE come forward as "whistleblowers". The problem with "B-team" guys is that since they aren't actually in on it in the sense of knowing it was happening and being in on the plot, you don't count them as a whistleblower. But they are, because they are coming forward with the only information they have. For instance, the State Department official who told about the intentional plot by the Saudi Arabian embassy to intentionally allow highly questionable figures to enter the country on Visas.... There are tons of people with stories like this, but ... like I say no smoking gun because they aren't the A-team. The A-team obviously has no reason to incriminate itself, although I suspect that if we could get Mahmoud Ahmad here facing a jury he might start talking to save his skin.
Caleb
Caleb, your "dozen or so operatives" theory is very easily disproven by the absolute, indisputable fact that wiring buildings the size of the WTC towers would take many dozens of experts in controlled demolition, months to accomplish. All the while, they'd be tearing through sheetrock and walls in big, obvious ways. So the circle of silence would have to include the hundreds who worked in the towers and escaped the attacks.
Kevin
Well, here's one expert's scenario that would involve only five people in the know, KB ... http://www.serendipity.li/wot/finn/1/soldier1.htm
I'm not saying that is how it happened. Truth is, I don't know. Those who buy the guvment's story like to ask people like me to explain every last little detail, while letting the guvment get away with glaring inaccuracies and half truths. What would it be like, KB, if you held the government to the same standards as you hold those who challenge it on the issue of 9/11?
Quote from: Caleb on September 08, 2006, 08:42 PM NHFT... while letting the guvment get away with glaring inaccuracies and half truths.
So, I take it you've never looked at a school district budget?
Your mistake is assuming that the "guvment" even has its stuff together well enough to even have the slightest clue of what's accurate or true.
You've convinced me, Mike. The fact that local school boards are somehow inept in conclusive proof that Covert Intelligence Operations are theoretically impossible. ::)
Quote from: Caleb on September 08, 2006, 08:42 PM NHFT
I'm not saying that is how it happened. Truth is, I don't know.
Exactly. You don't know. The only thing you know is that you don't trust or believe the government, therefore they must have been behind 9/11.
QuoteThose who buy the guvment's story like to ask people like me to explain every last little detail, while letting the guvment get away with glaring inaccuracies and half truths.
Again, you keep throwing out this false dichotomy as a strawman: "Either you believe the government did it, or you believe the 'government version' unquestioningly."
I've told you repeatedly that the official reports are suspicious and full of hasty conclusions, but you continue to accuse me of being a government apologist when I point out the malarkey in your "government did it" nonsense. By this point, you're beyond simply ignoring my position: you're deliberately misrepresenting it to the point of dishonesty.
QuoteWhat would it be like, KB, if you held the government to the same standards as you hold those who challenge it on the issue of 9/11?
What makes you think I don't? I'm not arguing the official position.
And vice-versa, Caleb: what if you held Alex Jones to the same standards you demand of politicians?
Kevin
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080261/#anc_QOD_060908
Do you believe any 9/11 conspiracy theories that indicate the U.S. government was involved? * 14833 responses
Yes, I believe there's evidence.
48%
No, that's ridiculous.
39%
I'm not sure.
13%
Thank you for voting.
KB ...
It's quite simple, really, and anyone with knowledge of criminal investigations can tell you that the government's behavior is indicative of a guilty person. Michael Ruppert (noteworthy because he WAS a criminal investigator) has explained this quite concisely in his book Crossing the Rubicon.
If you were an investigator, and found that one of the prime suspects was a) intentionally lying b) destroying evidence c) silencing witnesses d) obstructing the investigation what would be the natural conclusion?
Why won't you apply the same logic to the government? My answer (that you didn't like) is that you have emotional reasons for not wanting to accept it: namely, that it is a horrible thing to contemplate. But we should not let these emotional concerns keep us from objectively considering the evidence.
Quote from: Caleb on September 09, 2006, 05:01 PM NHFT
KB ...
It's quite simple, really, and anyone with knowledge of criminal investigations can tell you
Good thing I qualify on that front. Do you?
QuoteIf you were an investigator, and found that one of the prime suspects was a) intentionally lying b) destroying evidence c) silencing witnesses d) obstructing the investigation what would be the natural conclusion?
The logical conclusion is that the person lying wants to lie. The wrong conclusion would be that the person lying is the guilty party, and the really wrong conclusion is that the lying party is doing so for any logical reason.
I've seen countless cases where people blatantly lie out of a sense of embarassment. Or a sense of shame that they "should have done something", but didn't. Or a desire to protect someone they believe might be guilty (but who isn't necessarily). Or, most commonly, out of a desire to make themselves look better. Or sometimes --ta-da!-- just because they're psychopaths, and they get off on making people dance to their lies.
There's a southern phrase that seems appropriate: "He'd rather walk a mile to tell a lie than cross the street to tell the truth."
I am not arguing the government position, yet you seem determined to put me in that role. Sorry. Not playing.
QuoteWhy won't you apply the same logic to the government? My answer (that you didn't like) is that you have emotional reasons for not wanting to accept it: namely, that it is a horrible thing to contemplate. But we should not let these emotional concerns keep us from objectively considering the evidence.
;D
Okay, so now you want to objectively consider evidence? That's quite a switch. I've been consistent in my arguments and concerns, while you've flitted about from Messianic Jew to Congregationalist "pastor"; from candidate for U.S. House of Representatives to hard-core anarchist; from Republican to Libertarian to independent anarchist.
You've consistently been a Colts fan, and I'll support you in the "Peyton v. Eli" match on Monday. Cheers! ;D
I don't have any "emotional reasons for not wanting to accept" your position. Yes, it would be a horrible thing to contemplate if our own government committed the 9/11 attacks, but I'm perfectly willing to examine objective evidence. Not to mention, my emotional bent is quite contrary to the government, and I'm quite distrusting of the bureaucracies (especially since I work for one). The best you've offered are distorted snippets and twisted factoids. You gleefully profer easily-countered nonsense, while simultaneously rejecting logical and obvious evidence.
The "evidence" offered by ST911, et al., is so flimsy that it doesn't merit further examination. It's rather like citing the Flat Earth Society in an argument about whether or not the Apollo program really landed a man on the moon.
We'll have a beer over this when I land in NH. I do like you. I don't like your arguments, and I really don't like ad hominem accusations.
But when we've downed a few brews while the Colts kick butt, I'm confident we'll agree that we're both working together to secure greater Liberty in NH and America.
Kevin
Quotewhile you've flitted about from Messianic Jew to Congregationalist "pastor"; from candidate for U.S. House of Representatives to hard-core anarchist
Wow! Can't let you get away with that personal attack. One, never been a messianic Jew. A long time ago, in my youth, I flirted with some of the ideas that a Christian could keep the Torah, but wouldn't really say that qualifies me as a Messianic Jew. Perhaps you're thinking of Joey for President? In fact, on the FSP Christian forum, I have been fervently critical of the Messianic Jews, as quite some time ago I came to the realization that they are, in fact, not Christians. They have convinced many Christians that they are just a Christian outreach to the Jews (and in fact, I believe many who are affiliated with the Jews for Jesus group are, in fact, just that), but more radical elements are Judaizers, and I have never advocated for Judaizing. As I am of Jewish ethnic extraction (though NOT of the Jewish faith), I have been recruited by Messianic Jewish groups for evangelization.
Congregationalist? Don't know where you got that idea. Just a Christian. Eschew denominational labels.
Not that my religious beliefs are any of your business, but like Peter says, I stand ready to give a defense for those who have requested of me.
My religious affiliations went even deeper than you know, and I don't particularly care to elaborate on a public forum. If you'd care to know more, I'd be happy to discuss it in a PM.
As to my run for Congress, what can I say other than that I am still running, except I switched parties since Hodes' lead was insurmountable. I didn't particularly care to spend $500 just to get on the ballot and face a guy with that much money. The development of the Republic of NH and the opportunity to start a new Independence Party is something that I think is worth my time, though I have maintained my affiliation with the Democrat Party. Once again, not that its any of your business.
Quotefrom Republican to Libertarian to independent anarchist.
Never been a Republican (yuck) although I have helped them in their campaigns. Never been a Libertarian either, though I probably prefer their platform to any other.
So, now that we've addressed the ad hominem, care to get back to the issue of 9/11?
Quote
Good thing I qualify on that front. Do you?
Ruppert does, as an LAPD investigator, not as a jailer. You can read his analysis in his books.
Quote
I am not arguing the government position, yet you seem determined to put me in that role. Sorry. Not playing.
Well, then why don't you just ignore these threads, KB? Frankly, you are the main person on this forum that likes to debunk other people's questions. Whatever the answer is, it can't be complicity. No. That can't be.
I'm not trying to get on your case, and I thank you for your well wishes in tonights game. We will need it tonight, as this will be an emotionally charged game for the Giants.
But I do think you bit my head off needlessly. I never attacked you, I just suggested that you have emotional reasons for your position, which in my opinion reflect a lot of fear. You can't let a 9/11 post go by without comment. This indicates that it is an emotional issue for you. That's all I'm saying. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But that's just my opinion, take it or leave it.
Caleb
Here's the problem, KB, and I think this will explain it concisely:
1) Apparantly, we both agree that the government has lied through its teeth. It has destroyed evidence, it has obstructed justice. It has obtained "gag orders" to silence witnesses. Since there have been so many untruths told by the government, we know have no effective way of knowing what really happened on 9/11. These untruths affect nearly every part of the story:
a) we don't know who the hijackers were
b) we don't know how the planes were hijacked
c) we don't know when the planes were hijacked, nor when or how the government responded
d) we don't know what happened to the evidence in many cases, and when we do know its whereabouts, the government has generally either destroyed it or classified it.
e) we don't know how the buildings fell.
In addition to these questions, we have other evidence that has accumulated. Among others:
a) evidence that there was foreknowledge of the attacks by 1) government FBI agents 2) Intelligence operatives 3) foreign governments, and that furthermore this evidence was ignored and attempts to investigate further were obstructed prior to 9/11
b) evidence that the US government had considered these attacks to be possible, as evidenced by their war games planning.
c) the strong coincidence of 9/11 style war games occurring on the same day: 9/11.
d) strong evidence that the government had the opportunity to respond to the attacks, and yet failed to do so. In responding to these accusations the government concealed the evidence. Specifically, the federal government lied about 1) the readiness status of fighters at Andrews AFB 2) the capabilities of Norad's radar system 3) the communication times when information relating to the hijackings was relayed to NORAD by the FAA 4) the speed and response times of fighters on alert that were dispatched.
e) strong evidence that there is an ongoing relationship between the principle suspect, Osama Bin Laden's Al Qaeda group, and the federal government. As examples: 1) a CIA agent met with Osama Bin Laden at a hospital in the months prior to 9/11 2) credible evidence shows that Osama Bin Laden's phone lines were tapped; thus, he could not plan anything without their knowledge. 3) evidence that the US government and Al Qaeda collaborated in Chechnya in 2002, after the events of 9/11. 4) evidence that the US government has maintained strong relationships with Al Qaeda by means of Pakistani ISI agents, including the chief of Pakistani Intelligence himself.
And this is just off the top of my head, KB. There are many, many more. As you can see, many times the lies coincide with places where the truth would necessitate some version of complicity. The Sherlock Holmes test applies: when you have eliminated the impossible ... whatever remains ... however improbable, must be the truth.
Final results from that poll:
Do you believe any 9/11 conspiracy theories that indicate the U.S. government was involved? * 31527 responses
Yes, I believe there's evidence.
58%
No, that's ridiculous.
30%
I'm not sure.
11%
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3080261/
Quote from: Caleb on September 10, 2006, 06:17 PM NHFT
Quotewhile you've flitted about from Messianic Jew to Congregationalist "pastor"; from candidate for U.S. House of Representatives to hard-core anarchist
Wow! Can't let you get away with that personal attack.
I apologize for bringing religion into it. It had nothing to do with the issue. And for the record, I have no problem with Christians keeping kosher, and I certainly don't have a problem with Messianic Jews (ethnic/bloodline Jews who accept Jesus as Messiah).
QuoteQuote
I am not arguing the government position, yet you seem determined to put me in that role. Sorry. Not playing.
Well, then why don't you just ignore these threads, KB? Frankly, you are the main person on this forum that likes to debunk other people's questions. ( . . . ) You can't let a 9/11 post go by without comment.
I let almost all of them go by without comment. I'm responding to this because you brought my name up specifically:
Quote from: Caleb on September 07, 2006, 07:08 PM NHFT
most of the debunking has been debunked ... but that won't stop the Kbcraig and the Lildog's of the world from clutching the debunking sites like a security blanket. A little too scary for some of us.
So you see, the ad-hominem has been mutual. I apologize for crossing that line, because I've tried to base my entire discussion of 9/11 on facts, not wild conjecture.
Kevin
Kevin,
Just curious. Have you read John Taylor Gatto's book The Underground History of American Education?
Well, Kevin, I apologize to you for the ad hominem attack too. I wasn't trying to demean you. I get sick of old, worn out, debunking sites, that are based on very old information that has been discredited.
I'll give you just one example: from the Popular Mechanics article, it says that the reason Norad didn't know where the planes were is because its radar was focused outward (into the ocean) and not inward. It also makes a false claim (if I remember right) that Norad is prohibited by posse comitatus from monitoring domestic airspace.
This overlooks two points: First, THE SECRET SERVICE has its own radar system that is intertwined with the FAA's, and is state of the art. Even if the Norad story were true, that doesn't explain why the secret service would not have been able to communicate with Norad, especially since they were aware of the hijackings from the very outset, according to Dick Cheney's interview with Tim Russert.
The second point that is overlooked is that it has been demonstrated that that story is false. Norad DOES have internal radar, and is authorized to monitor domestic airspace. In fact, they are not only "authorized", but actually required to protect UN and Canadian domestic airspace, and accomplish this on a daily basis.
So, the "debunking" has been debunked ... and yet it keeps cropping its head up. It gets a little irritating to keep seeing the same arguments over and over again, when they have been demonstrated to be false.
I'm not willing to assign pure motives to the government. When I observe them lying, destroying evidence, interfering in the investigation, and intimidating witnesses, I tend to feel that its not so benign, especially when the evidence that they are covering up is so damning. Sorry, but it DOES MATTER that a CIA agent met Bin Laden in the Dubai hospital in the months prior to 9/11. That DOES matter. There's no way to spin that away and make it less damning. We can ignore it, we can focus on the weakest links of the 9/11 truth movement, we can demand that those who are asking questions try to demonstrate how every little detail could be accomplished. We can post old debunking sites, but the questions remain, and in fact grow by the day. The government's story has fallen apart. If it wants to try to regain legitimacy, it should come clean on what really happened. Until that happens, I would be remiss if I didn't challenge them on it.
But like I said, they have to explain more than just 9/11. They have to explain their ongoing relationship with Al Qaeda, continuing even after the events of 9/11. I'm not optimistic that they will be able to do so in a way that doesn't show that they are complicit.
Caleb
Quote from: AlanM on September 10, 2006, 08:15 PM NHFT
Kevin,
Just curious. Have you read John Taylor Gatto's book The Underground History of American Education?
I've read it online. Or, to be more accurate, I've read most of it, taking it in chunks, limited by my patience and the medium. A book-length work really doesn't lend itself to reading via a website. I do appreciate Gatto putting it online, and I've recommended it to others in debates about public/private/homeschooling.
Kevin
Quote from: Caleb on September 10, 2006, 11:00 PM NHFT
Well, Kevin, I apologize to you for the ad hominem attack too. I wasn't trying to demean you. I get sick of old, worn out, debunking sites, that are based on very old information that has been discredited.
Just as I grow weary of dealing with "truth" sites that are based not just on old and discredited information, but information that is plainly implausible on its face at best, and downright lies at worst.
So... enough.
Good job, Peyton!
Kevin
Quote from: KBCraig on September 10, 2006, 11:38 PM NHFT
Quote from: AlanM on September 10, 2006, 08:15 PM NHFT
Kevin,
Just curious. Have you read John Taylor Gatto's book The Underground History of American Education?
I've read it online. Or, to be more accurate, I've read most of it, taking it in chunks, limited by my patience and the medium. A book-length work really doesn't lend itself to reading via a website. I do appreciate Gatto putting it online, and I've recommended it to others in debates about public/private/homeschooling.
Kevin
Good, you've read it.
Don't you think a government, composed of the Elitists he describes, who are willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of children into intellectual slavery, all in the name of the common good, also capable of doing the same (sacrificing the lives, in this case) to the workers in the WTC? Again for a public policy objective it sees as being for the greater good?
Hi Alan
Patriotism surge now is slipping
Copyright 2006 Deseret Morning News
By Lisa Riley Roche
Deseret Morning News
Most Utahns continue to consider themselves more patriotic as a result of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States ? but a growing number no longer share that feeling, according to a new poll.
While 72 percent of residents surveyed statewide for the latest Deseret Morning News/KSL-TV poll said they have a deeper sense of patriotism post-9/11, nearly one-fourth said they don't.
The poll, conducted for the newspaper and television station by Dan Jones & Associates, was conducted Aug. 28-31 of 425 Utahns and has a margin of error of plus or minus 5 percent.
The results are a significant change from the first time Utahns were asked that question, in October 2001. Then, an overwhelming 92 percent considered themselves more patriotic with just 8 percent saying the attacks hadn't affected their level of patriotism.
"Immediately after, we really were a united country," said Kirk Jowers, director of the University of Utah's Hinckley Institute of Politics. "So there really was that strong feeling of America and sticking together. We didn't yet have the baggage."
Concerns raised about some of the methods used by the Bush administration to counter terrorism ? such as questioning the patriotism of anyone opposed to war ? has caused conflicting feelings among many Americans in the past five years, Jowers said.
"That whole mentality of, 'either you support the war or you're not patriotic' was a turn-off to people," he said. "We all want our government to protect us, but we're very divided on how it does that and what measures we will accept. Utah is no exception."
Pollster Dan Jones agreed. "More people are starting to question the war," he said, even in Utah. Jones said it would take something on the scale of capturing terrorist leader Osama bin Laden "for the people to become more united and feel we are starting to win the battle."
The divide created over whether dissent can be considered patriotic was evident in the reaction to protests surrounding President Bush's visit to Salt Lake City last month to deliver the first in a series of speeches intended to boost lagging support for the war in Iraq.
Salt Lake Mayor Rocky Anderson's involvement in an anti-war rally during the visit attracted both cheers and jeers from Utahns, and some of his critics went so far as to challenge his patriotism.
But even as the president warned during his speech to the American Legion that giving up the fight overseas would mean facing terrorists here at home, he made a point of describing those who want to end the country's involvement in Iraq as both sincere and patriotic.
"Bush finally realized there can be patriotic protesters," Jowers said, something that could eventually help reverse the trend identified in the poll results as people decided they couldn't call themselves patriotic "in the sense it was being defined by their government."
That drop in patriotic feeling does not mean, however, that Utahns feel the administration's efforts haven't been effective. The poll found that 73 percent believed the country's anti-terrorism efforts have made the United States safer than it was on Sept. 11, 2001.
And 60 percent of Utahns polled said they did not believe it was likely they or someone they know would someday become a victim of a terrorist act on U.S. soil. Around one-third of respondents over the past three years have said their anxiety levels have decreased.
"Utah still supports its president more than any other state in the country, and this poll seems to bear out that it has faith in the way he's protecting us from terrorism," Jowers said. "But as in the rest of the country, there are people here who have issues."
That's inevitable, he said, in the long-term aftermath of the attacks.
"Nobody wants another 9/11 attack to occur, and yet we are conflicted about how far the administration has to go to protect us. Every step the administration takes in the name of keeping us safe will cause questions."
http://www.deseretnews.com/dn/view/0,1249,645199937,00.html
Quote from: AlanM on September 11, 2006, 07:09 AM NHFTGood, you've read it.
Don't you think a government, composed of the Elitists he describes, who are willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of children into intellectual slavery, all in the name of the common good, also capable of doing the same (sacrificing the lives, in this case) to the workers in the WTC? Again for a public policy objective it sees as being for the greater good?
Don't you think it's a little ridiculous to equate sending kids off to public schools with brutally killing 3,000 people?
And you're missing the point - whether they were "capable" of doing so, either intellectually or practically, has little bearing on whether they actually did except in the fever-swamps of the 9/11 "Truth" movement.
There are actually people who postulate that there were no airplanes, just missiles wrapped in "holograms." Does anyone here find that theory to be plausable, or are there limits to the absurdity?
Once I was passing a semi truck in a little blue Ford Escort, when a piece of the truck's tread flew off. It smacked into the pavement and bounced, and sounded like a rifle shot right next to the car. And after reading that, I have no doubt that the 9/11 theorists would be looking for bullet holes.
I think the government used planes to kill people on 9/11.
The government also pushes vaccinations on kids in schools that can kill them.
Quote from: mvpel on September 11, 2006, 09:44 AM NHFT
Quote from: AlanM on September 11, 2006, 07:09 AM NHFTGood, you've read it.
Don't you think a government, composed of the Elitists he describes, who are willing to sacrifice the lives of millions of children into intellectual slavery, all in the name of the common good, also capable of doing the same (sacrificing the lives, in this case) to the workers in the WTC? Again for a public policy objective it sees as being for the greater good?
Don't you think it's a little ridiculous to equate sending kids off to public schools with brutally killing 3,000 people?
And you're missing the point - whether they were "capable" of doing so, either intellectually or practically, has little bearing on whether they actually did except in the fever-swamps of the 9/11 "Truth" movement.
There are actually people who postulate that there were no airplanes, just missiles wrapped in "holograms." Does anyone here find that theory to be plausable, or are there limits to the absurdity?
Once I was passing a semi truck in a little blue Ford Escort, when a piece of the truck's tread flew off. It smacked into the pavement and bounced, and sounded like a rifle shot right next to the car. And after reading that, I have no doubt that the 9/11 theorists would be looking for bullet holes.
I'll ask you the same question. Have you read Gatto's book?
Yes, I've read parts of it.
I'll ask you the same question, again: SO WHAT?
Quote from: mvpel on September 11, 2006, 12:06 PM NHFT
Yes, I've read parts of it.
I'll ask you the same question, again: SO WHAT?
Well, MV, the original question was addressed to Kevin. You haven't read it all, so there's no reason to continue discussing this with you.
Quote from: Caleb on September 08, 2006, 07:50 PM NHFT
Wow, lildog, so many errors in just a tiny little post. Where to begin?
Not knowing what theories you buy into I made a general statement about the theories I?ve read so far.
I appreciate the link as until now I haven?t heard ANY theories as how everything suggest could have been pulled off without thousands of people involved.
Now since you believe these theories, would you be willing to go through fact by fact with me and see which we can identify as true facts and which are just theories? Being an engineer, I always believe to look at the facts and see what they point too? most theorists I?ve found come up with a theory then look for the facts to support it.
For instance, most theorists believe the buildings were taken down by explosives. I haven?t seen ANY facts to support this, only theories. Can you work with me listing some of the facts surrounding the buildings?
For instance, you can agree that one plane hit each of the towers is fact yes?
Quote from: AlanM on September 11, 2006, 01:21 PM NHFTWell, MV, the original question was addressed to Kevin. You haven't read it all, so there's no reason to continue discussing this with you.
Uhh... wait. I thought we were discussing 9/11?
Did you even see my response above, where I said that a willingness to do something like that does not constitute evidence that they did it?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/september2006/110906Jones.htm
Good interview with Professor Steven Jones.
QuoteNow since you believe these theories, would you be willing to go through fact by fact with me and see which we can identify as true facts and which are just theories?
Not really, because there is no way to persuade you. For instance, I could agree to the terms, with the caveat that you would have to apply the same techniques to the government's theories. Unfortunately, as we've been told, your opinion is that "the fact that the government lies doesn't implicate them". So there is no way for me to win. I've already told you that I don't know, exactly, how every detail was pulled off. I can tell you that the governments theories are BS. The framework for the debate, therefore, has been set up by you in this way:
I POKE A HOLE IN YOUR THEORY = MEANINGLESS
YOU POKE A HOLE IN MINE = CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT COMPLICIT.
Sorry, but I don't like the terms of the debate, unless you can come around to some reasonable way in which you would accept damage to your theory as evidential that the underpinning assumptions might be false.
QuoteFor instance, most theorists believe the buildings were taken down by explosives. I haven?t seen ANY facts to support this, only theories. Can you work with me listing some of the facts surrounding the buildings?
For one, the existence of thermate in structural steel residue from WTC.
http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/video_911_truth_alex_jones_unanswered_questions.htm
Really good video....I especially like the part where he says the police are the most controlled/brainwashed of all of us, and the part where he makes it clear that we can indeed make a difference...we can change the horrible things that are happening to this country.
Here's a little blast from the past - call it the "Pearl Harbor Truth Movement:"
Quote from: Franklin D. Roosevelt, Fireside Chat, February 23, 1942The consequences of the attack on Pearl Harbor -- serious as they were -- have been wildly exaggerated in other ways. And these exaggerations come originally from Axis propagandists; but they have been repeated, I regret to say, by Americans in and out of public life.
You and I have the utmost contempt for Americans who, since Pearl Harbor, have whispered or announced "off the record" that there was no longer any Pacific Fleet -- that the Fleet was all sunk or destroyed on December 7th -- that more than (1,000) a thousand of our planes were destroyed on the ground. They have suggested slyly that the Government has withheld the truth about casualties -- that eleven or twelve thousand men were killed at Pearl Harbor instead of the figures as officially announced. They have even served the enemy propagandists by spreading the incredible story that ship-loads of bodies of our honored American dead were about to arrive in New York harbor to be put into a common grave.
Almost every Axis broadcast -- Berlin, Rome, Tokyo -- directly quotes Americans who, by speech or in the press, make damnable misstatements such as these.
Quote from: Caleb on September 11, 2006, 06:58 PM NHFT
QuoteNow since you believe these theories, would you be willing to go through fact by fact with me and see which we can identify as true facts and which are just theories?
Not really, because there is no way to persuade you.
A fact is a fact is a fact. If something is factual there is no debating about it.
For instance, two planes hit each of the two towers. That is fact. There are tons of videos showing this, eyewitnesses, a list of those who were on the planes etc. It?s not something that can be agreed or disagreed with.
Quote from: Caleb on September 11, 2006, 06:58 PM NHFT
For instance, I could agree to the terms, with the caveat that you would have to apply the same techniques to the government's theories. Unfortunately, as we've been told, your opinion is that "the fact that the government lies doesn't implicate them". So there is no way for me to win. I've already told you that I don't know, exactly, how every detail was pulled off. I can tell you that the governments theories are BS.
For a theory to be B.S. there have to be facts, which prove it to be false. So far I have yet to see those facts.
That?s what I?m looking for here. You?re refusal to even attempt that is unfortunately that of every other theorist I?ve tried to discuss with. They either refuse to debate, or they refuse to accept any evidence they dislike (usually trying to claim it?s fake) or they demand evidence that does exist.
Case in point, there is video showing the hijackers in an airport. One theorist I?ve tried to discuss this with said that isn?t proof that they boarded the plane, they in turn demanded video showing them actually boarding the plane. Now the commission report points out that there weren?t any security cameras set up to capture that. In fact there weren?t any beyond security, so they refused to even accept any discussions about terrorists boarding the plane unless I could somehow provide this video that didn?t exist. The insisted that the manifests were fake, the cell phone calls were somehow doctored, etc.
It is because of those types of conversations I have yet to be convinced. So I?m asking you to build your case, I?m the open minded jury here? convince me.
Quote from: Caleb on September 11, 2006, 06:58 PM NHFT
The framework for the debate, therefore, has been set up by you in this way:
I POKE A HOLE IN YOUR THEORY = MEANINGLESS
YOU POKE A HOLE IN MINE = CONCLUSIVE PROOF THAT THE GOVERNMENT WAS NOT COMPLICIT.
Sorry, but I don't like the terms of the debate, unless you can come around to some reasonable way in which you would accept damage to your theory as evidential that the underpinning assumptions might be false.
That?s just it, no one has been able to poke a hole in the government theory that I've seen. The best argument the theorists have is the demolition argument but there is very little supporting evidence to back it and nothing I?ve seen disproves the theory that the planes did in fact take down the buildings. Only opinions.
Quote from: Caleb on September 11, 2006, 06:58 PM NHFT
QuoteFor instance, most theorists believe the buildings were taken down by explosives. I haven?t seen ANY facts to support this, only theories. Can you work with me listing some of the facts surrounding the buildings?
For one, the existence of thermate in structural steel residue from WTC.
Actually the only actual statements I?ve found about Thermate is comments from Steven Jones who said he found ?strong evidence? of Thermate. If you can direct me to further comments I?d be interested in reading them.
Also we would have to question whether or not Thermate (or is it thermite?) was used in the cleanup. If it was that would explain why traces could have been found. Also has the question of whether or not the traces that were found were used in the construction been asked?
I willing to explore this as a possibility but currently there aren?t enough facts to say it?s definitely true. And it does raise questions?
Why are there no reports of anyone seeing people planting the explosives in the buildings? You?d need just about a quarter pound for every pound of steel it?s cutting through so there would have had to have been a large amount needed.
And I would assume all these thermite charges would need to have been set off by something. Either wiring going the length of the building or remote chargers. None were found during the clean up efforts. Why?
So I?ll keep that open as a possibility but we?d need more evidence to conclude it to be fact.
I ask again, are you willing to go through fact by fact?
QuoteFor instance, two planes hit each of the two towers. That is fact. There are tons of videos showing this, eyewitnesses, a list of those who were on the planes etc. It?s not something that can be agreed or disagreed with.
Believe it or not, some people actually do disagree with it - a couple in London recently featured in the news claims that what actually hit the towers were missiles wrapped in holograms - I assume using some super-secret Star Trek military technology that nobody realizes has been invented yet.
Then the landing gear and other pieces of the planes which fell to the ground several blocks from the WTC complex were also holograms?
caleb and the kannings are correct.
look, it's not up to the people of america to do a indepth research into what happened on 9/11. but the research that several independent people and groups have done, WITHOUT the cooperation of MOST government officials, leads us to be able to very quickly point out not only holes in the official story, but a series of simply unexplained "coinicidences" that logically point to either the govt being complicit or actually organizing or even carrying out the attacks.
the same false flag activities were being done in london on 7/7/05 as were done in nyc and in the skies on 9/11/06. these activities do not happen every day.
that is simply one item. there are numerous. it is NOT THE JOB of the PEOPLE to suppoena government insiders for real information. it is the job of OUR elected officials to INSIST that there is a truly independent investigation.
the bush administration has lied about nearly every single aspect of its domestic and foreign policies. and the bush administration and its corporate attachments (the definition of fascism, btw) have far and away profited the most from the 9/11 attacks.
i met with a lot of these activists yesterday in washington. there is a lot of ONGOING research by independent groups. they wouldnt have to do this research if we had a government that was trustworthy. and there wouldnt be ANY holes in ANY of the THEORIES (including the govt's story, which is also merely a THEORY) if there was ONE conclusive and solid investigation into those events. we dont want to insist that one theory is valid over another. we want the truth. plain and simple. we want full disclosure. we want testimony UNDER OATH from the administration.
however, the bottom line is that whether or not the govt participated in 9/11 is relatively immaterial. the bush administration's list of impeachable offenses is endless. i would prefer that the people of the US, via these debates that point out holes in the government's story, launches a government effort from responsible elected officials to get a truly independent investigation into 9/11. any crimes that may have been committed by our administration or military need to be investigated this way, not by independent filmmakers and researchers.
we can impeach bush for what he has done independent of 9/11. once we really know what happened that day, any legal action can be initiated against those who may have committed crimes.
Like a typical 9/11 conspiracy theorist, they simply disregard or attribute to cover-up any evidence that doesn't fit their ideas.
http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2006/09/121820.php
QuoteI ask Shayler if it's true he has become a "no planer" - that is, someone who believes that no planes at all were involved in the 9/11 atrocity. Machon looks uncomfortable. "Oh, f-- it, I'm just going to say this," he tells her. "Yes, I believe no planes were involved in 9/11." But we all saw with our own eyes the two planes crash into the WTC. "The only explanation is that they were missiles surrounded by holograms made to look like planes," he says. "Watch the footage frame by frame and you will see a cigar-shaped missile hitting the World Trade Center." He must notice that my jaw has dropped. "I know it sounds weird, but this is what I believe."
Quote from: firsty on September 12, 2006, 10:37 AM NHFT
look, it's not up to the people of america to do a indepth research into what happened on 9/11. but the research that several independent people and groups have done, WITHOUT the cooperation of MOST government officials, leads us to be able to very quickly point out not only holes in the official story, but a series of simply unexplained "coinicidences" that logically point to either the govt being complicit or actually organizing or even carrying out the attacks.
Firsty, there was a 9/11 commission that was made up of both republcians and democrats that DID look into what happened. The theorists have claimed it was all lies so now the burden is on them to show WHY it is all lies.
I have yet to see where these holes are and I'm asked here for someone to walk me through the facts that show the government's claim of the events to be wrong. Since you beleive them to be wrong, can you show me to these facts that made you believe the way you do?
The holes in the government's official story are, unfortunately for the "9-11 truth movement," few and far between.
Quote from: lildog on September 12, 2006, 11:12 AM NHFT
Quote from: firsty on September 12, 2006, 10:37 AM NHFT
look, it's not up to the people of america to do a indepth research into what happened on 9/11. but the research that several independent people and groups have done, WITHOUT the cooperation of MOST government officials, leads us to be able to very quickly point out not only holes in the official story, but a series of simply unexplained "coinicidences" that logically point to either the govt being complicit or actually organizing or even carrying out the attacks.
Firsty, there was a 9/11 commission that was made up of both republcians and democrats that DID look into what happened. The theorists have claimed it was all lies so now the burden is on them to show WHY it is all lies.
I have yet to see where these holes are and I'm asked here for someone to walk me through the facts that show the government's claim of the events to be wrong. Since you beleive them to be wrong, can you show me to these facts that made you believe the way you do?
i havent versed myself in entire details because watching video of 9/11 causes flashback problems for me. the impact of the jets rocked my building. i saw the south tower collapse from a couple of blocks away. if you drop a large pen on my desk, i will duck every time.
there are a few things that i subscribe to in the truth movement. one is the way that the towers fell was simply inconsistent with the way buildings fall. this is from scholars, not me. i dont know engineering. another is the eyewitness accounts of a lot of people who heard explosions on the scene. another is the fact that the pentagon plane supposedly disintegrated on impact, including 2 steel and titanium engines which their manufacturer (rolls royce) has said could not disintegrate in any kind of heat created by rocket fuel. and, this disintegrated jet, which is now simply dust, then, i think 3 internal rings away, supposedly sent its landing gear (rubber and steel which is the only thing that didnt "disintegrate") into a concrete re-inforced wall, creating a 16-foot hole.
bush and cheney did not give sworn testimony to the 9/11 commission. this may not mean much for bush, but damn sure means a lot for cheney.
the administration has lied about every single thing theyve done. congress is meaningless in this country. the democrats are just as corrupt as the republicans.
the biggest reason there are holes in the alternative theories behind 9/11 is because they had limited access to government documents. the govt supplied images to popular mechanics in order to "debunk" the "theories" but those images are not available to the public.
why were they running false flag drills on the mornings of 9/11 and 7/7?
why did NORAD fail?
the 9/11 commission report does not answer these questions. until we have answers, the drive and desire and need of individuals in america to get to the truth, to have questions answered, is going to create speculation.
my only request to the government is that they give us something we can believe. if the govt wishes to reduce the nearly 40% of people in this country who believe that 9/11 was, to some degree, an inside job, they should answer and even work with the independent researchers, the scholars, the engineers and scientists who doubt some of the official details.
also, the bbc has reported that at least four of the 19 hijackers are still alive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
this means either the govt named the wrong guys by mistaken identity, or that the individuals to whom they applied names simply had nothing to do with it.
the fbi acknowledges that the identity is in doubt.
i'm not satisfied with that answer. why should i be?
OH, that again? Those four were later found to have been victims of identity theft. Try again.
yeah. identity theft.
one of the organizers of the assembly in DC yesterday was unable to pick up his purchased ticket because his credit card, the one he bought the ticket with, was "scrambled" and unusable when he got to the airport.
is it identity theft when the author of a book critical of bush ends up on a no-fly list, or when an infant needs to pass extra security because she shares a name with a "suspected terrorist"?
the bush administration has given us EVERY REASON to believe they are lying about everything, and deceiving us in ways we may not fully understand for 40 years.
The no-fly list is definitely out of hand. But it has nothing to do with any of the above allegations re 9/11.
what the government's handling of the no-fly list indicates is their lack of regard for human rights. i dont have to mention the other, more vastly harmful, aspects of bushco's policies that demonstrate their lack of regard for human rights.
with publicly available information, we can prove operation northwoods, which has connections to the current administration, and goes to establish a pattern of military strategy that includes carrying out terrorist attacks in america in order to justify a war with another countyr.
these arent large leaps to take. the number of abnormalities that day justify a much deeper, truly independent investigation (made by legal experts, not congressional whores).
Operation Northwoods has been gathering dust for years. That it exists is a far cry from that a similar plan was implemented. You have nothing but unproven allegations and a sheer lack of evidence to back them up.
Quote from: error on September 12, 2006, 12:22 PM NHFT
Operation Northwoods has been gathering dust for years. That it exists is a far cry from that a similar plan was implemented.
thats your point of view and i respect it. i dont think any harm would come from a more independent investigation. if it proves me wrong, i'd be thrilled. we dont need more enemies than we already have.
Quotethere are a few things that i subscribe to in the truth movement. one is the way that the towers fell was simply inconsistent with the way buildings fall. this is from scholars, not me. i dont know engineering.
There are no other buildings in the world that were built in quite the same way as the Twin Towers, and certainly none that have fallen or been taken down. Their design was unique and highly innovative, with the exterior walls as load-bearing. They were the first super-tall buildings to be constructed without masonry. To compare their collapse with "how buildings fall" is absurd on its face. Does these "scholars" suggest how they "should" have fallen when hit by airplanes, if not precisely as they did? And on which of the unique design characteristics of the Twin Towers did they base their suggestions?
here is a good article to read from alternet:
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/41474/
Last week, Bush conceded that there were indeed secret CIA prisons, when finally announcing that the group of "key witnesses" to the 9/11 disaster would be moved to Guantanamo and for once afforded visits form the Red Cross and minimal legal representation. Some of them have been interrogated in secret for up to five years, with the Bush Administration left as the sole interpreter of what they revealed.
After five years of official deceit, it is not too difficult to believe that the isolation of those prisoners was done less for reasons of learning the truth about 9/11 and more in an effort to politically manage the narrative released to the public.
There is glaring evidence that the latter was the case. The 9/11 Commission report contains a disclaimer box on page 146, in which it is stated that the report's account of what happened on 9/11 was in considerable measure based on what those key witnesses allegedly told interrogators, and that the commissioners were not allowed to meet the witnesses or their interrogators.
so, even the 9/11 commission wasnt able to get a complete report.
the 9/11 commission report is expressly incomplete.
QuoteDetainee Interrogation Reports
Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members. A number of these "detainees" have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot.
Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses--sworn enemies of the United States--is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process.
We have nonetheless decided to include information from captured 9/11 conspirators and al Qaeda members in our report.We have evaluated their statements carefully and have attempted to corroborate them with documents and statements of others. In this report, we indicate where such statements provide the foundation for our narrative. We have been authorized to identify by name only ten detainees whose custody has been confirmed officially by the U.S. government.
There you go misrepresenting the facts again. I've provided the actual text from page 146 of the 9/11 Commission report so that everyone can compare what it really said to what you claimed it said and see the difference for themselves.
Here's one joker's attempt to attack the plane crash facts, as posted on DU:
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/spooked/4_fire.jpg)
Quote from: error on September 12, 2006, 01:41 PM NHFT
QuoteDetainee Interrogation Reports
Chapters 5 and 7 rely heavily on information obtained from captured al Qaeda members. A number of these "detainees" have firsthand knowledge of the 9/11 plot.
Assessing the truth of statements by these witnesses--sworn enemies of the United States--is challenging. Our access to them has been limited to the review of intelligence reports based on communications received from the locations where the actual interrogations take place. We submitted questions for use in the interrogations, but had no control over whether, when, or how questions of particular interest would be asked. Nor were we allowed to talk to the interrogators so that we could better judge the credibility of the detainees and clarify ambiguities in the reporting. We were told that our requests might disrupt the sensitive interrogation process.
We have nonetheless decided to include information from captured 9/11 conspirators and al Qaeda members in our report.We have evaluated their statements carefully and have attempted to corroborate them with documents and statements of others. In this report, we indicate where such statements provide the foundation for our narrative. We have been authorized to identify by name only ten detainees whose custody has been confirmed officially by the U.S. government.
There you go misrepresenting the facts again. I've provided the actual text from page 146 of the 9/11 Commission report so that everyone can compare what it really said to what you claimed it said and see the difference for themselves.
your inability to recognize the difference between me and the author of the article i linked to is all the evidence i need to dismiss your opinions as simplistic and facile.
cheers.
You weren't the author of the article? Oops, sorry, my mistake.
Quote from: firsty on September 12, 2006, 11:38 AM NHFTi havent versed myself in entire details because watching video of 9/11 causes flashback problems for me. the impact of the jets rocked my building. i saw the south tower collapse from a couple of blocks away. if you drop a large pen on my desk, i will duck every time.
So you?re willing to push theories you are unwilling to actually look into?
I?ll give you a name: Christopher Mozzillo
He was a member of my fraternity, Alpha Phi Delta. Pledge master and all around good kid. He was also a NY city fireman who died.
I was there in the city days after it happened. At the time I was the fraternities national president. He was one of three guys we lost that day. I saw first hand the pit of rubble, the bodies and the damage. I looked at countless photographs taken from those who were there including my own sister. Some of which depicted bodies and body parts.
So you don?t need to tell me how horrible that day was. But if you?re going to push out conspiracy theories and actually post them on message boards as if you are quoting fact then you better be prepared to point to the facts backing it up when questioned by people!
Quote from: firsty on September 12, 2006, 11:38 AM NHFTthere are a few things that i subscribe to in the truth movement. one is the way that the towers fell was simply inconsistent with the way buildings fall. this is from scholars, not me.
There are even MORE scholars stating it is consistent. Remember these weren?t blocks falling over, they were buildings whose insides were mostly empty air. How exactly would you expect them to fall? So just because someone said so doesn?t make it so.
Quote from: firsty on September 12, 2006, 11:38 AM NHFTanother is the eyewitness accounts of a lot of people who heard explosions on the scene.
The sites quoting people talking about explosions take them out of context.
http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm
That site has the quotes posted on many conspiracy sites AND their full context as well as the links as to where they came from.
Quote from: firsty on September 12, 2006, 11:38 AM NHFTanother is the fact that the pentagon plane supposedly disintegrated on impact, including 2 steel and titanium engines which their manufacturer (rolls royce) has said could not disintegrate in any kind of heat created by rocket fuel. and, this disintegrated jet, which is now simply dust, then, i think 3 internal rings away, supposedly sent its landing gear (rubber and steel which is the only thing that didnt "disintegrate") into a concrete re-inforced wall, creating a 16-foot hole.
So where did the plane go? There was a plane, there were people on it. Heck I can give you the name of a guy who had a ticket for that flight but had to change it at the last minute because his mom was sick and having surgery.
Quote from: firsty on September 12, 2006, 11:38 AM NHFTthe administration has lied about every single thing theyve done. congress is meaningless in this country. the democrats are just as corrupt as the republicans.
I agree but if you look at facts such as Clinton?s signing policies that prevented government agencies from sharing data, its clear both sides had a lot of covering their asses to do. Doesn?t mean the government set this up, only that they were incompetent fools.
Quote from: firsty on September 12, 2006, 11:38 AM NHFTthe biggest reason there are holes in the alternative theories behind 9/11 is because they had limited access to government documents. the govt supplied images to popular mechanics in order to "debunk" the "theories" but those images are not available to the public.
Search the web, I found a number of sites that have photos showing alternate views to building 7 which clearly show the damage it received after the towers fell. But the conspiracy sites leave that photo out because it disproves what they want to push. In fact that link I gave above has at least one such picture.
Quote from: firsty on September 12, 2006, 11:38 AM NHFT
why were they running false flag drills on the mornings of 9/11 and 7/7?
How often do they run these drills in general?
Quote from: firsty on September 12, 2006, 11:38 AM NHFTwhy did NORAD fail?
Why did the system we develop that was intended to shoot down missiles from Russia fail every test? It?s a government system, just about every thread on this forum is talking about a government program failing, suddenly you?re shocked about NORAD?
Quote from: firsty on September 12, 2006, 11:38 AM NHFT
the 9/11 commission report does not answer these questions. until we have answers, the drive and desire and need of individuals in america to get to the truth, to have questions answered, is going to create speculation.
There?s the great thing about conspiracy theories? until every single question is answered to the satisfaction of the theorist the theory can remain. This is what a lot of defense lawyers use to create reasonable doubt as well. EVERY situation will have unanswered questions. Heck, just look at the OJ case. Do you think he?s innocent because the gloves didn?t fit? I could give you a lot of theories on that case I got directly from Henry Lee when I worked at the Hospital Association in CT. But that?s off the topic.
Quote from: firsty on September 12, 2006, 11:38 AM NHFTmy only request to the government is that they give us something we can believe. if the govt wishes to reduce the nearly 40% of people in this country who believe that 9/11 was, to some degree, an inside job, they should answer and even work with the independent researchers, the scholars, the engineers and scientists who doubt some of the official details.
I still fail to see why what they?ve put out as the story is so hard to believe. And the only data I?m aware of that they are actually preventing from going public is video from the pentagon which is after all our nation?s military nerve center so can you understand why video there would be held back?
Quote from: firsty on September 12, 2006, 11:43 AM NHFT
also, the bbc has reported that at least four of the 19 hijackers are still alive.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm
this means either the govt named the wrong guys by mistaken identity, or that the individuals to whom they applied names simply had nothing to do with it.
the fbi acknowledges that the identity is in doubt.
i'm not satisfied with that answer. why should i be?
How many IDs did the hijackers have in their cars and rooms? And you think identy theift is not reasonable here? Why?
Quote from: firsty on September 12, 2006, 12:16 PM NHFT
with publicly available information, we can prove operation northwoods, which has connections to the current administration, and goes to establish a pattern of military strategy that includes carrying out terrorist attacks in america in order to justify a war with another countyr.
I've seen and read the Northwoods document. It's nothing that can't be faked with a common typewriter. I've seen nothing to prove it real (although I would be interested in exploring this).
The question I have is, why, if this document were in fact real, wouldn't every major network and newspaper have put out a story about?
Instead it was first disclosed in a book put out by an ABC producer. And the ONLY network to have anything about it was ABC... funny how that works. Question, weren't they the ones who got caught with their pants down pushing a fake document about Bush?
And the only other sites I've seen even mention this document are 911 conspiracy sites.
But even assuming it were 100% real, showing the govenrment under JFK ran the ideas of a govenrment attack prove the 9-11 attack were actually pulled off by the government? It doesn't, but if it's real it at least helps build your case.
to clarify, this is not MY case. i am not educated enough in engineering or military tactics etc to respond to these challenges. there are PLENTY of people who can respond directly to those challenges. nothing posted here contradicts the few items i said i subscribed to, other than simply promoting a different opinion.
neither set of theories (the govt's nor the "alternative" theories) is complete or without challenge. there is enough to contradict the govt's story and there is enough evidence that information supplied to the 9/11 commission was incomplete to demand a truly independent investigation.
i think you'll find that, in the coming months, the demand for that investigation will increase. i think it's worthwhile.
thats it.
Quote from: error on September 12, 2006, 11:21 AM NHFT
The holes in the government's official story are, unfortunately for the "9-11 truth movement," few and far between.
The government says fires caused the collapses. That has never happened before or since.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on September 12, 2006, 03:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: error on September 12, 2006, 11:21 AM NHFT
The holes in the government's official story are, unfortunately for the "9-11 truth movement," few and far between.
The government says fires caused the collapses. That has never happened before or since.
747s have never crashed into sky scrapers before or since either.
Seriously, how many chances have the experts really have to see what would happen if burning jet fuel was to be poured through the channels of the inside of a skyriser? What I read in popular mechanics makes as much sense as what the theorists put out so I fail to see how they can just say it's not true period.
One more thing to add... look at the video of the fire of the skyscraper in Madrid. Theorists are using that as "proof" but personally I see it as proof of just the oposite.
It shows fire nearly brought that building down. Add in additional damage from falling buildings or a plane and the extra heat from jet fuel.... and I think you see where I'm going.
Also I notice in that video the same falling "molten steel" I see on many conspiracy sites can be seen in the video falling from the building in madrid.
Quote from: firsty on September 12, 2006, 12:03 PM NHFT
or when an infant needs to pass extra security because she shares a name with a "suspected terrorist"
not doubting your claim here, just stating my disgust:
I find it utterly incredible that 1) anyone involved with the air travel process would ask for an infant passenger's name 2) a parent would have no problem with disclosing the name of the child
???
I know that many people love when Penn & Teller debunk myths.
What if the myth is:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3143048862360929736&q=bullshit&hl=en
QuoteA fact is a fact is a fact. If something is factual there is no debating about it.
For instance, two planes hit each of the two towers. That is fact. There are tons of videos showing this, eyewitnesses, a list of those who were on the planes etc. It?s not something that can be agreed or disagreed with.
I?ll agree that facts are facts. But not every fact can be known. That is why ?theories? are developed. Theories take known facts and attempt to suggest a rational explanation that includes all the facts.
It is interesting that you chose this particular ?fact?, because in a sense it undermines the government?s theory. You say that we have ?a list of those who were on the planes?. Unfortunately, that list has never included any of the hijacker?s names. So, no, we don?t know that the men named as ?hijackers? were on the plane. That is NOT a fact. It may be that the flight manifests we have been given simply omitted the names of the hijackers as part of government policy. I?m not contesting that. I?m just showing you that you don?t really have a fact that you think you have. You must take the government?s word for it, that the hijacker?s names are on the unedited version, because you have not seen it, nor has it been printed in the paper.
QuoteThey either refuse to debate, or they refuse to accept any evidence they dislike (usually trying to claim it?s fake) or they demand evidence that does exist.
I didn?t refuse your debate, I said that I wouldn?t accept it on the terms offered. I basically challenged you to come up with some terms that would enable me to convince you, and asked you what that would be. The problem is that you guys won?t take the government?s lies as evidence, because you take it for granted that the government has been untruthful. But the government?s lies are all over the spectrum, and since theories are based on facts, when the facts have been eroded so completely, there?s nothing left to build a theory on, and you?re left taking the government?s word that it wasn?t complicit based merely on authority. And the government's word is more often than not worthless.
QuoteCase in point, there is video showing the hijackers in an airport. One theorist I?ve tried to discuss this with said that isn?t proof that they boarded the plane, they in turn demanded video showing them actually boarding the plane. Now the commission report points out that there weren?t any security cameras set up to capture that. In fact there weren?t any beyond security, so they refused to even accept any discussions about terrorists boarding the plane unless I could somehow provide this video that didn?t exist. The insisted that the manifests were fake, the cell phone calls were somehow doctored, etc.
So what if the terrorists boarded a plane? I don?t think that is even in question. There were people who made calls to their family members saying that there were hijackers on board, so I?m certainly not disputing that there were hijackers.
It?s interesting that you mention this particular episode, however, because it, too, undermines the official story. Why would the hijackers fly to Maine, and then back again to Boston on that day? It doesn?t make any sense, EXCEPT if the purpose were to intentionally show up on a video monitor. But why would terrorists who were unaffiliated with the government want to do such a thing?
Quote
So I?m asking you to build your case, I?m the open minded jury here? convince me.
Well, keep in mind this is just a theory, but I like to apply Occam?s razor. I think there were terrorists and planes, frankly. Those who deny that are ? well, they?re further out than I want to be, and frankly they are making it far too complicated in my opinion. My rough outline would go something like this. The government (which has, by the way, thoroughly infiltrated Al Qaeda) finds out about an Al Qaeda plot to attack the WTC and several sites in Washington. This would be sometime in about 1998. Rather than stop the plot, they decide it would be in their advantage to allow it to happen in a controlled way. They infiltrate the cells with CIA operatives of Middle Eastern descent on stolen passports, (who incidentally, don?t know that it is a suicide mission, but think it is a routine hijack. This would explain the voice of the hijacker saying ?We?re going back to the airport?. It also makes it far less complicated to explain why they were in strip clubs, etc. They weren?t particularly Islamic zealouts: They didn?t know they were going to die!) The planes are controlled from the ground, out of the pilots? control. (The technology to do this existed at the time.) This explains a) why none of the pilots ever pressed the hijack button (they COULDN?T if the controls had been taken away) b) why hijackers were able to fly expertly when none of them were known to be expert flyers.
Like I said, just a theory, but one that fits in with a lot of dangling facts.
Here?s a link to a story about the thermate. It was done by a chemical analysis, according to the article. http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml
It?s inconceivable that thermate was used in the construction, as that would be a clear fire hazard. Possibly the cleanup, (if they used explosives to make the pieces smaller that could be conceivable), but its unclear why they would want to add the sulpher to the thermite for a cleanup operation, since it would make it burn hotter and increase the cooling time, delaying removal. Since Dr. Jones had predicted thermate, specifically, prior to the discovery (based on his theory as to how the WTC fell), then the presence of thermate adds to the prestige of his theory (a good theory should be predictive), and puts the onus on his critics to demonstrate conclusively how and under what circumstances thermate could be found in the residue.
QuoteWhy are there no reports of anyone seeing people planting the explosives in the buildings? You?d need just about a quarter pound for every pound of steel it?s cutting through so there would have had to have been a large amount needed.
And I would assume all these thermite charges would need to have been set off by something. Either wiring going the length of the building or remote chargers. None were found during the clean up efforts. Why?
Good questions, and frankly, I don?t know. I think you need far less thermate than thermite, for one. I think it would be relatively easy to plant them, since most people would simply assume that anyone they saw was with building maintenance, and it wouldn?t even occur to them otherwise, even afterwards. It would be easy enough for the government to secure whatever identification would be needed to have whatever access they wanted. The detonation devices will probably never be known with complete certainty, but presumably they could have a remote device that self destructs on explosion. I would think that would be fairly normative, actually. It would be hard to imagine an explosive device that didn?t self-destruct. Should there be some evidence of it somewhere? You?d think, but who knows what all was found, catalogued, or recycled in the mess that followed? Those doing the investigations may not have known one piece of plastic or metal from another, and it seems to me that they probably weren?t looking for evidence of that nature anyway, so it may have just been thrown out with a lot of the other pieces of office furniture and other pieces of who knows what.
Quote
I assume using some super-secret Star Trek military technology that nobody realizes has been invented yet
This is what is known as a Straw Man.
Quote
Firsty, there was a 9/11 commission that was made up of both republcians and democrats that DID look into what happened. The theorists have claimed it was all lies so now the burden is on them to show WHY it is all lies.
And David Ray Griffin has done precisely that. Have you read his book, ?The 9/11 Commission Report: Errors and Omissions??
QuoteThe holes in the government's official story are, unfortunately for the "9-11 truth movement," few and far between.
To the contrary, the number of holes in the government?s story are so voluminous that it is overwhelming. To attempt to catalogue all the evidence that has accumulated undermining the government?s story ? well, to quote St. John, ?I suppose the world itself could not contain the scrolls written.?
QuoteOH, that again? Those four were later found to have been victims of identity theft. Try again. (referring to the hijackers who are still alive)
This is a very good point, and Error actually made my point for me: They were victims of identity theft! YES! EXACTLY! This is such a crucial point: They were victims of identity theft! Let?s all say it together: THEY WERE VICTIMS OF IDENTITY THEFT.
Error, don?t you see how significant that is? Actually, almost ALL the ?hijackers? had reported their passports lost or stolen in the years preceding 9/11. The four that are still alive (actually, its more like six or possibly seven) obviously did have their identity stolen. So ? WHO WERE THOSE PEOPLE? The answer is, WE DON?T KNOW AND IF THE GOVERNMENT ISN?T COMPLICIT NEITHER DOES THE GOVERNMENT!!! All the government can say is that someone using such and such?s identity hijacked a plane. But who was the ultimate hijacker? It obviously wasn?t the person whose identity was stolen. And a real Muslim hijacker would have no reason to conceal his identity: he would want to get credit for his jihad after the fact. Someone has a vested interest, therefore, in convincing us that 19 Middle Eastern Muslim men (mostly of Saudi descent) hijacked the planes? But who?
Another interesting story about the hijackers involves ? Jeddeh, I think. I might have the wrong name. The interesting story here is that he WAS A LEBANESE CHRISTIAN! DOH! Whoever stole his identity sure screwed the pooch on that one; seems someone forgot that not all Middle Eastern men are Muslims.
Quote
Operation Northwoods has been gathering dust for years. That it exists is a far cry from that a similar plan was implemented. You have nothing but unproven allegations and a sheer lack of evidence to back them up.
Of course it isn?t evidential in this particular case, but it is evidential of the fact that the government WOULD do such a thing. In fact, Northwoods was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the only reason it wasn?t implemented was because JFK pulled the plug on it. So, the argument that ?the US government just doesn?t think that way? is certainly invalid. Let?s call Northwoods what it is: It?s a character witness
Quote
Remember these weren?t blocks falling over, they were buildings whose insides were mostly empty air.
YOU are mostly air. Don?t believe me? Ask the physics pro, Tracy. 99.9999% of the area of an atom is empty space.
Then again, I would be most shocked to see Lildog collapse into his own footprint, regardless of how much his head was on fire.
Caleb
Quote from: Dreepa on September 12, 2006, 07:00 PM NHFT
I know that many people love when Penn & Teller debunk myths.
What if the myth is:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3143048862360929736&q=bullshit&hl=en
;D ;D ;D
To draw an analogy: just picture Jesus Himself bitch-slapping Fred Phelps.
caleb, thank you for stating those points so clearly.
Quote from: Caleb on September 12, 2006, 10:31 PM NHFTI?ll agree that facts are facts. But not every fact can be known. That is why ?theories? are developed. Theories take known facts and attempt to suggest a rational explanation that includes all the facts.
That?s just it Caleb, many of the theories I?ve seen surface do NOT look at facts but take lack of facts as ways to form their theories.
For instance, as I already pointed out there are videos of the hijackers in the airports. In face there is evidence that at least one was pulled aside for extra screening (lot of good that did) and as a result the airline held his bags until it was confirmed he was on the plane. So there is evidence showing he and the other terror suspects boarded the plane. There is also evidence (the many ids found in their cars and or rooms) that show they faked Ids. But since some of the names suspected to have been used were found to be those of living people, theorists discount that the terrorists were ever on the planes. Come on, that?s ignoring facts and going off into left field!
Quote from: Caleb on September 12, 2006, 10:31 PM NHFT
It is interesting that you chose this particular ?fact?, because in a sense it undermines the government?s theory. You say that we have ?a list of those who were on the planes?. Unfortunately, that list has never included any of the hijacker?s names.
Actually Caleb, you need to do your homework and stop listening only to the conspiracy sites alone for your information. They were shown to be WRONG on this point. But since many of these sites also pimp books or DVDs, it?s in their best interest not to be proven wrong.
The conspiracy sites use the list of victims printed in most major newspapers as the list of passengers which since the terrorists where terrorists they were not victims and hence left off those lists. CNN printed the actual manifest days after 9-11, which did show the names of the terrorists and even gave their seat numbers.
http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/05/those-passenger-lists.html
Quote from: Caleb on September 12, 2006, 10:31 PM NHFTI didn?t refuse your debate, I said that I wouldn?t accept it on the terms offered. I basically challenged you to come up with some terms that would enable me to convince you, and asked you what that would be.
Just list facts, that?s all I?m asking. Then we can examine the facts and a) see if they are real facts and b) see what theories they actually support or disprove.
Quote from: Caleb on September 12, 2006, 10:31 PM NHFTSo what if the terrorists boarded a plane? I don?t think that is even in question. There were people who made calls to their family members saying that there were hijackers on board, so I?m certainly not disputing that there were hijackers.
Well doesn?t that fly directly in the face of the theories that say the hijackers are still alive? Clearly if you support the idea that they were on the planes as fact then unless there is evidence showing something happened to the planes other then their hitting the towns, the hijackers would be dead as well. And that supports the theory that 19 hijackers flew the 4 planes into 4 different locations.
So far I don?t see where the conspiracy theories would come up from that?
Quote from: Caleb on September 12, 2006, 10:31 PM NHFT
It?s interesting that you mention this particular episode, however, because it, too, undermines the official story. Why would the hijackers fly to Maine, and then back again to Boston on that day? It doesn?t make any sense, EXCEPT if the purpose were to intentionally show up on a video monitor. But why would terrorists who were unaffiliated with the government want to do such a thing?
They tested security on a number of occasions. I don?t see why this is even relevant? Why would someone believe that killing themselves would send them to heaven where 71 virgins would be waiting for them? Can?t answer that either but it doesn?t mean people don?t believe it and blow themselves up.
Quote from: Caleb on September 12, 2006, 10:31 PM NHFT
Well, keep in mind this is just a theory, but I like to apply Occam?s razor. I think there were terrorists and planes, frankly.
Ok, we have a starting point we agree on. Some theorists don?t even agree on that point.
Quote from: Caleb on September 12, 2006, 10:31 PM NHFTMy rough outline would go something like this. The government (which has, by the way, thoroughly infiltrated Al Qaeda) finds out about an Al Qaeda plot to attack the WTC and several sites in Washington.
Ok this so far isn?t unbelievable. Thanks to Clinton the agencies were unable to share information so I do believe they had all the information needed to prevent 9-11 but walls prevented them from actually connecting the dots and doing something about it.
Quote from: Caleb on September 12, 2006, 10:31 PM NHFT
This would be sometime in about 1998. Rather than stop the plot, they decide it would be in their advantage to allow it to happen in a controlled way.
See that?s where I disagree. I think it?s just government incompetence and even though they knew what (maybe not when) and might have even known who, they weren?t able to get their act together enough to actually do something about it.
Napoleon once said, ?Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence.?
Quote from: Caleb on September 12, 2006, 10:31 PM NHFT
They infiltrate the cells with CIA operatives of Middle Eastern descent on stolen passports, (who incidentally, don?t know that it is a suicide mission, but think it is a routine hijack. This would explain the voice of the hijacker saying ?We?re going back to the airport?.
Another explanation could be that the hijackers knew people would fight for survival if they were told they were going to die. If you say sit back and everything will be ok vs. I?m going to kill you, the person has more of a chance of sitting back in hopes you wont actually kill them (at least prior to 9-11 they would).
Quote from: Caleb on September 12, 2006, 10:31 PM NHFTIt also makes it far less complicated to explain why they were in strip clubs, etc. They weren?t particularly Islamic zealouts: They didn?t know they were going to die!)
I can show you tons of cases of religious hypocrites, some who even devote their lives to a faith then turn around a rape young boys.
Quote from: Caleb on September 12, 2006, 10:31 PM NHFT
The planes are controlled from the ground, out of the pilots? control. (The technology to do this existed at the time.) This explains a) why none of the pilots ever pressed the hijack button (they COULDN?T if the controls had been taken away) b) why hijackers were able to fly expertly when none of them were known to be expert flyers.
You don?t need to be an expert pilot to point a plane and crash it. Heck, I?ve done that tons of times in flight simulator games.
Also, if the pilots lost control PRIOR to the hijackers taking over, why wouldn?t they have communicated that over the intercoms? This is a case of a theory with no evidence to support it.
I can come up with tons of theories of what could have happened, but the probability of their being true (especially considering there is no evidence to support them) is slim to none.
Quote from: Caleb on September 12, 2006, 10:31 PM NHFT
Here?s a link to a story about the thermate. It was done by a chemical analysis, according to the article. http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2006/06/341238.shtml
I?ve been looking for a site with his actual words on them or his actual finding. As I pointed out with the manifests, many conspiracy sites either twist the truth or have been shown to report false information. I?m going to keep reading up on this.
Quote from: Caleb on September 12, 2006, 10:31 PM NHFT
QuoteWhy are there no reports of anyone seeing people planting the explosives in the buildings? You?d need just about a quarter pound for every pound of steel it?s cutting through so there would have had to have been a large amount needed.
And I would assume all these thermite charges would need to have been set off by something. Either wiring going the length of the building or remote chargers. None were found during the clean up efforts. Why?
Good questions, and frankly, I don?t know. I think you need far less thermate than thermite, for one. I think it would be relatively easy to plant them, since most people would simply assume that anyone they saw was with building maintenance, and it wouldn?t even occur to them otherwise, even afterwards. It would be easy enough for the government to secure whatever identification would be needed to have whatever access they wanted.
Ok, fair explanation. But this is adding to the level of complexity and the number of people involved necessary to pull this off. When you start getting into theories where hundreds or thousands of people needed to be in on it then I wonder how that many people could have been in the know on a plan where they were going to kill their own country men and in the case of the pentagon, co-workers and not a single person blew the whistle. That?s just a little hard to swallow. Heck I know if I caught wind of a plot to kill people I?m be yelling from every soapbox I could find.
The other thing that wouldn?t make sense is why if they were plotting this out to blow up buildings with explosives, would they have picked WTC 7?
There are so many other things that would seem out right stupid if the government in fact was trying to do this in a way not to arise suspicion. Such as Bush months before saying we were going to be attacked on National TV? why raise a flag if he were in fact the one doing the attacking?
Quote from: Caleb on September 12, 2006, 10:31 PM NHFT
And David Ray Griffin has done precisely that. Have you read his book, ?The 9/11 Commission Report: Errors and Omissions??
I don?t doubt the government may have gotten parts of its story wrong. Remember, they are doing just what conspiracy theorists are doing and trying to guess what happened based on the facts on hand (which some theories out right ignore).
If you look at murder cases, they sometimes theorize incorrect about what happened. Heck look at Jack the Ripper, how many different theories are there around that. And most of them are plausible.
Quote from: Caleb on September 12, 2006, 10:31 PM NHFT
To the contrary, the number of holes in the government?s story are so voluminous that it is overwhelming.
Then why can?t someone show me the facts that clearly show these holes.
The best I?ve seen is thermite which I?m still reading up on and it hasn?t proven anything to me yet.
Quote from: Caleb on September 12, 2006, 10:31 PM NHFT
This is a very good point, and Error actually made my point for me: They were victims of identity theft! YES! EXACTLY! This is such a crucial point: They were victims of identity theft! Let?s all say it together: THEY WERE VICTIMS OF IDENTITY THEFT.
Error, don?t you see how significant that is? Actually, almost ALL the ?hijackers? had reported their passports lost or stolen in the years preceding 9/11. The four that are still alive (actually, its more like six or possibly seven) obviously did have their identity stolen. So ? WHO WERE THOSE PEOPLE? The answer is, WE DON?T KNOW AND IF THE GOVERNMENT ISN?T COMPLICIT NEITHER DOES THE GOVERNMENT!!! All the government can say is that someone using such and such?s identity hijacked a plane. But who was the ultimate hijacker? It obviously wasn?t the person whose identity was stolen. And a real Muslim hijacker would have no reason to conceal his identity: he would want to get credit for his jihad after the fact. Someone has a vested interest, therefore, in convincing us that 19 Middle Eastern Muslim men (mostly of Saudi descent) hijacked the planes? But who?
See this is where I don?t understand the leap of faith. You accept the fact that 19 men did hijack the planes. There?s evidence to support that. You also accept the fact that at least two of the planes flew into buildings (there?s theories around the other two so I?ll leave them out). But you suddenly leap to a belief for which there is no real evidence to support, which is they were not the ones who actually flew the planes into the buildings. Why is that so hard to believe but a plot involved demolition experts, remote control planes and hundreds of people if not thousands required to turn on their own country without saying a word about it is totally believable? And with very little evidence to support (mostly just unanswered questions)?
Quote from: Caleb on September 12, 2006, 10:31 PM NHFT
Another interesting story about the hijackers involves ? Jeddeh, I think. I might have the wrong name. The interesting story here is that he WAS A LEBANESE CHRISTIAN! DOH! Whoever stole his identity sure screwed the pooch on that one; seems someone forgot that not all Middle Eastern men are Muslims.
If they were stealing identities why would it matter who?s they stole? If they were Muslim I could understand why they wouldn?t want Billy Joe Bob as that wouldn?t be believable but as long as it?s another Muslim name, does it matter who?s it is?
Quote from: Caleb on September 12, 2006, 10:31 PM NHFT
Of course it isn?t evidential in this particular case, but it is evidential of the fact that the government WOULD do such a thing. In fact, Northwoods was approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the only reason it wasn?t implemented was because JFK pulled the plug on it. So, the argument that ?the US government just doesn?t think that way? is certainly invalid. Let?s call Northwoods what it is: It?s a character witness
Ok, assuming it?s actually a true document, I agree it would be a character witness. But then shouldn?t the countless terror attacks including the 1993 WTC bombing be considered as well? There is FAR more evidence showing terror attacks then 1 document showing JFK?s staff considered attacks on their own country.
Quote from: Caleb on September 12, 2006, 10:31 PM NHFT
YOU are mostly air. Don?t believe me? Ask the physics pro, Tracy. 99.9999% of the area of an atom is empty space.
Then again, I would be most shocked to see Lildog collapse into his own footprint, regardless of how much his head was on fire.
Then why do controlled demolitions fall into their own footprints?
The above argument would lean toward buildings NEVER falling into their own footprints.
Here?s a good article you should read:
http://progressive.org/mag_wx091106
Oh, there was plenty of government incompetence. I've even documented some of it (http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2006/09/11/911-whistleblowers-ignored-retaliated-against/).
Quote from: Caleb on September 12, 2006, 10:31 PM NHFTYOU are mostly air. Don?t believe me? Ask the physics pro, Tracy. 99.9999% of the area of an atom is empty space.
Physics pro Tracy would probably correct you by saying that "air," consisting mainly of atoms of nitrogen and oxygen, is not the same thing as "empty space."
QuoteThen again, I would be most shocked to see Lildog collapse into his own footprint, regardless of how much his head was on fire.
Did you ever visit the WTC? Did you ever stand quietly on the observation floor just to feel the building swaying just a little in the wind beneath your feet? Have you ever stood in the plaza and gazed up in wonder at the enormity of human achievement that they represented? I remember the last time I was there, and I really regret that I didn't bother to take the trip up to the top.
But your statement here, Caleb, suggests to me that you have utterly no understanding of how the WTC towers were designed and constructed, with a load-bearing outer wall, tubular inner core, open floorplan, and concrete floors supported by 32-inch trusses topped with corrugated metal.
Because if you did have even the slightest understanding, you would realize that the design of the WTC towers made it virtually impossible for them to collapse in any other way than straight down. If someone is postulating otherwise, then it is incumbent upon them to show how the buildings "should have" collapsed when their principal supporting members softened and weakened.
I'll try to get to a commentary on this tomorrow, if I can, Lildog. I don't have time right now to give your commentary the analysis it deserves. From what it seems, we are in agreement on much. I'm not a far out conspiracy theorist, as I believe a little common sense can go a long way. I think you'll find most of those on this forum who believe the government was complicit do *not* buy into the more radical theories. In fact, I am more suspicious of some in the truth movement than I am of people like yourself who believe that the government was not complicit, and require strong evidence for the assertion. That is, after all, the basis for any belief: strong evidence. If strong evidence is not available, then strong conclusions are, at best, merely a hunch. My suspicion is that much in the 9/11 truth movement is disinformation designed to make us look like kooks. Unfortunately, in discussing 9/11, I end up having to explain repeatedly to people that I do not buy into certain theories. That's why I gave you the rough outline. It wasn't designed to "prove" anything, per se, but just to give you a rough outline of what I consider plausible so you'll know where I stand.
To mvpel, I would say that you might benefit from some research into the design of the WTC building. The assertion that the walls were what held most of the weight was an assertion made in the 9/11 Commission report, but it does not stand up to the evidence. There were 47 central steel columns that supported the weight of the building. Even in the unlikely event of the collapse of the floors, the collapse of these columns is inexplicable. The 9/11 report ignores these columns entirely.
Caleb
Quote
Physics pro Tracy would probably correct you by saying that "air," consisting mainly of atoms of nitrogen and oxygen, is not the same thing as "empty space."
Correct, but then again, air actually provides some resistence, whereas "empty space" does not. Therefore, Lildog should be more likely to collapse into his own footprint than was WTC. ;)
Quote from: Caleb on September 13, 2006, 10:30 PM NHFTCorrect, but then again, air actually provides some resistence, whereas "empty space" does not. Therefore, Lildog should be more likely to collapse into his own footprint than was WTC. ;)
::)
Is Rick's atomic structure arranged as a load-bearing outer wall, tubular inner core, open floorplan, and concrete floors supported by interior trusses topped with corrugated metal? You're getting flat-out ridiculous here, Caleb, is it the cognitive dissonance kicking in?
Let me try again, in the interests of FSP camraderie.
The visual evidence of the air providing resistance to the fall of the towers is the plumes of smoke, paper, ash, and dust that were forcibly ejected from each floor as the thousands of tons of the floor above pancaked downward. Is it possible for you to slap two pieces of plywood together from an inch apart without having them deflect significantly? Think about it.
The width of each WTC tower was 208 feet - that is to say each floor in the 110-story was wider than the wingspan of a 767, and almost exactly
one acre in area. And they were 1,362 feet high, for an average floor height of about 12 1/2 feet. The width and breadth of each floor was 15.3% of the height. The floors themselves were about three feet deep, counting the 32" trusses and the concrete floor surface:
So for example, if you had a piece of half-inch thick plywood represent the 36-inch-thick floors, or 1/72 scale, your model would be nearly three feet (2 feet 10 inches) wide, and each piece would be separated by - get this - 1.5 inches. So something along these lines:
|------------------------------------|
|------------------------------------|
|------------------------------------|
|------------------------------------|
Or more precisely:
(http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/fig3.gif)
I would really love to know how 110 acre-sized slabs of concrete can fall any way other than essentially straight down, as each floor above comes slamming down with all the enormous accumulated weight of the upper floors on each floor below, especially when the towers were built to withstand about 11 million pounds of deflecting wind-shear force on a single face. What would push such a structure with such immense inertia off to one side?
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
mvpel,
I've never said the tower should not have come down; it's how it came down that I find suspicious.
1) For one, if it "pancaked" down it should have left the central steel columns intact.
2) Secondly, the tower's supports on the weakened floors should not have fallen uniformly. The weakened joints should have given first, with the result that the weakened side of the building would have collapsed, placing undue stress on the unweakened joints, which then would have collapsed. The collapse was too uniform, in my opinion.
3) Thirdly, the floors below the impact point should have been unaffected by the fires or impact. That means that their collapse would be due entirely to the weight of the collapsing floors weakening the joints. Whereas an object that falls naturally (without resistance) will fall at a uniform rate of acceleration, the towers should have fallen with an initial burst of acceleration (representing the weakened joints collapsing initially), followed by a sudden decrease in the rate of acceleration (as the collapsing floors met resistence from unweakened joints) while the rate of acceleration gradually increased with each subsequent floor (since each floor would have a greater weight than the previous floor, each lower floor would be able to resist the accumulating weight for gradually lower periods of time, resulting in an increase in the RATE of acceleration.)
Let me explain this point 3 a little more. On earth, objects fall at a rate of acceleration of 10 meters per second each second. (The first second, it falls 10 meters, the second second it falls 20 meters, the third second it falls 30 meters, etc.) This is the rate of acceleration, and will hold true unless their is resistance. The floor joints should have provided a gradually reducing amount of resistance, (since as weight was added, they would collapse sooner with each floor). I don't have the engineering talent to work the numbers out for you, but it should be possible to determine roughly how long it should have taken the floors to collapse, given a certain amount of weight, and this number would result in an increasing rate of acceleration. On the other hand, the controlled demoliton theory would predict the destruction of the underlying supports prior to the collapse of each floor, and therefore the controlled demolition theory (perfectly executed) should anticipate a roughly even rate of acceleration, without significant variance. If it were not perfectly executed, the controlled demolition theory should predict fluctuating rates of acceleration (with no pattern, as opposed to the pancaking theory, which should anticipate a steady upward pattern in the rate of acceleration). The point is, it should be possible to determine which theory is correct merely by timing the collapse at various points and determining if the rate of acceleration increased or was even or haphazard. To my eyes, the rate of accleration looked even ... but that having been said, we could be talking about tiny fractions of a second, so we would probably need precise instrumentation to make that call. I've not seen any studies done on that, but it would be a relatively easy way to decide whether the collapse was natural or not.
4) The final point I want to make on the towers is that I don't know who suggested that they should just have toppled over on their side. I haven't heard that, but I have heard a lot of talk about whether they should have toppled at all. I personally don't think they should have toppled at all. I think the firemen should have put out the fires, the buildings should have been repaired, and they should still be standing today. The man who designed the towers said that he thought they could take multiple plane impacts. I know, I know "it failed the field test" ... but a cynic could simply retort right back at you "or DID IT?" It's just begging the question, since the question is, precisely, whether the towers collapsed naturally.
Caleb
ps, mvpel, you need to lighten up a little, bud. Loosen the tie and have a few beers or something. The comment about lildog collapsing into his own footprint was a quip. That's why I put the little ;) sign. I'm not expecting that to happen anytime soon, and as far as I know he isn't composed of "a load-bearing outer wall, tubular inner core, [weight bearing central steel columns], open floorplan, and concrete floors supported by interior trusses topped with corrugated metal." ;)
Caleb, according to the NIST, that's exactly what happened (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm):
QuoteIn other words, the momentum (which equals mass times velocity) of the 12 to 28 stories (WTC 1 and WTC 2, respectively) falling on the supporting structure below (which was designed to support only the static weight of the floors above and not any dynamic effects due to the downward momentum) so greatly exceeded the strength capacity of the structure below that it (the structure below) was unable to stop or even to slow the falling mass. The downward momentum felt by each successive lower floor was even larger due to the increasing mass.
From video evidence, significant portions of the cores of both buildings (roughly 60 stories of WTC 1 and 40 stories of WTC 2) are known to have stood 15 to 25 seconds after collapse initiation before they, too, began to collapse.
If Truthers are really looking at all the evidence, then they owe it to themselves to read:
http://loosechangeguide.com
I was persuaded by some of Loose Change. It's a very slick production. This site pointed out how gullible I was.
http://911myths.com
Just digging into this one, also interesting. I like this page: http://911myths.com/html/site_faq.html
(http://media.salemwebnetwork.com/TownHall/Car/b/06.09.14.NewDesecrater.jpg)
Digging for truth is not an insult to victims.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on September 16, 2006, 01:57 PM NHFT
Digging for truth is not an insult to victims.
Digging for truth, finding it and rejecting it, now that's an insult.
I agree, Error. ;)
Thank you, Error. No wink.
Kevin
CENTCOM Sergeant Details Traitorous Stand Down Orders On 9/11
Military whistleblower comes forward with key information
Steve Watson / Infowars | September 26 2006
Alex Jones was joined on air yesterday by a former Sergeant in the United States Army named Lauro "LJ" Chavez. Chavez was stationed at MacDill AFB where he claims he witnessed unusual preparations for a potential airplane hitting the base on the morning of 9/11 and distinctly heard officers talking about a stand down. This has led him to go public in questioning the NORAD stand down and the demolition of the twin towers.
In a letter that first appeared on the 9/11 Veterans For Truth Website, Sergeant Lauro "LJ" Chavez responds to a Cincinnati Post hit piece article by outlining his own doubts about the official version of 9/11 and his personal experiences of the strange prelude to the events of that morning.
Despite early (and healthy) reactions claiming this may be a hoax designed to poison the well of the 9/11 truth movement, Sergeant Chavez has now provided us with evidence of his credentials, his honorable discharge documents showing the military installations he was located inside. The last station he held was inside United States Central Command in Tampa - the pdf can be viewed here. http://www.infowars.com/articles/sept11/LChavez_214.pdf
Mr Chavez was quick to point out that he does not have all the answers, but does have what he feels is vital information regarding the events of 9/11:
''I'm in no way in a position to tell people that 'this is the official story so believe me', no, I want to give people the information so they can go away and look for themselves and formulate a logical decision with all the evidence." Chavez said.
Mr Chavez worked within CENTCOM, one of the five American regional unified commands consisting of Marines, Navy and air force officers. CENTCOM's area of jurisdiction is in the Middle East, East Africa and Central Asia. CENTCOM has been the main American presence in many military operations, including the Persian Gulf War, the United States war in Afghanistan, and the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Chavez was stationed at CENTCOM's headquarters at MacDill AFB, in Tampa, Florida. His commanding officer was Four Star General Tommy Franks.
Chavez worked in the J6 department that was in charge of all the computer systems, the network backbone of CENTCOM. Chavez ran a team of six soldiers on the helpdesk network side. He was personally responsible for the maintenance of commanding officers computers, including those of General Tommy Franks. He has letters of recommendation from Franks and even went to Franks' house to work on his computers.
Chavez described how the military has a ring of computer networks according to different security clearance levels. Chavez worked only with systems classified as top secret or higher.
On the morning before 9/11 Chavez was in the Secure Compartmented Information Facility, the secure bunker at the base of CENTCOM HQ which is populated by high ranking military intelligence personnel. This is a facility that requires a top secret gamma clearance. Inside are systems that can monitor weather systems and flight paths of all aircraft within the country.
That day he was involved with supporting computer equipment being used in the Vigilant Guardian exercise and another exercise based in Egypt. On this day Chavez got to see information that he wasn't supposed to see.
"I was working on psyops commander's computer and next to his PC was a top secret document that was open, his neglect was my ally, I was sitting there working on his computer and was waiting for some passes to download and I look over and I'm reading the document, and it's the off order for the exercise that they are participating in."
This raises major questions because normally wargames or exercises are not classified as top secret as it is a requirement to let some information be public, especially if the exercise is taking place in a populated area.
Chavez continued:
"So I'm reading this document and it's giving proposed situations for scenarios for this wargame the scenarios include a hijacked plane, most of them were hijacked planes, I saw one that was like a car bomb trying to blow up something, but one of them was a hijacked plane crashing into a nuclear power plant in California, the Sears Tower, the World Trade Center, The Pentagon obviously, the White House, our building was one of the targets as well."
Chavez went on to describe how CENTCOM HQ was being heavily fortified the day before 9/11 and access to the base was restricted to top secret personnel only. This ties in with a declaration of Martial Law by Jeb Bush two days previously throughout the entirety of Florida.
Chavez also described how during the exercises the aerospace grid with "enemy" blips on it has to be piped in to the air traffic controllers of all the airports in the affected area so they know there is a military exercise going on. This ties in with the released NORAD/NEADS and FAA tapes and accounts that are riddled with references to the drills and exercises taking place on 9/11.
Chavez described the plot as "genius" and stated:
"If you want to crash planes into a building, and you've got the aerospace grid at your beckoning call, so you put a bunch of blips on it so no one knows which ones are real and which ones are fake... All you have to do is have someone in charge of the computer systems to put the blips on the screen and then you can do whatever you want."
Chavez proceeded to detail the key discussions that he heard inside the bunker on the day of 9/11:
"I didn't get to see tower one hit, I was in there talking with individuals and i was tired, I'd been there since four in the morning. Then all of a sudden everybody started hustling and bustling. it was like NASA when Apollo 13 was about to crash, everybody running around, and then they put it on the big screen, CNN with the tower on fire.
Then we see the other plane come in and hit it and at that point everybody is standing up. The air force had commanders in contact with NORAD. The plane, or whatever, hit the Pentagon and then we were like 'Why aren't they scrambling jets?' We were asking, there was eight or nine people... Colonels and Lieutenant Colonels asking the Lieutenant Colonel in charge of the air force 'why isn't NORAD scrambling jets? and he said 'we received an order to stand down''. And that just perplexed everybody."
Mr Chavez did not know the Lieutenant Colonel and so does not know his name, yet if he can be identified, then we have uncovered a direct link to the stand down order. If that man or any others who were present at CENTCOM on 9/11 can be identified and made to testify under oath, then the whole cover operation could be blown. A real independent investigation would have secured this.
The entire riveting interview is freely available online at Prisonplanet.tv now. Please spread this information far and wide.
http://prisonplanet.tv/audio/260906chavez.mp3
Mr Chavez has since been informed that the computer company he now works for, as information security manager, has been receiving threatening phone calls demanding his dismissal. Mr Chavez is another example of someone who is bravely putting his career, reputation and life on the line to get the truth out about the 9/11 cover up.
That was really interesting and useful, except for all the Alex Jones conspiracy type stuff, which really detracts from the sergeant's information.
You keep moving the bar, error. For years, we've been told "Stand down order? There was no stand down order!"
Now, I suppose we're going to progress to, "Of course there was a stand down order. But that doesn't prove the government was complicit!"
Caleb
Moving the bar? Hell, all I wanted was a clear account of what the guy was saying, and Alex Jones is no journalist.
As for the "stand down" order. What stand down order? He said he overheard something about an order to stand down. That says nothing about what the order was or what it applied to. So that's something you might want to look into.
And we all know the reason planes weren't scrambled is because (1) the FAA is a bunch of incompetent idiots (I've spent some time lately documenting this), and (2) there weren't very many to be had anyway (much better people than I have well documented this).
Quote from: error on September 27, 2006, 02:13 AM NHFT
Moving the bar? Hell, all I wanted was a clear account of what the guy was saying, and Alex Jones is no journalist.
That is a reason I like him.
So should we fire the FAA and the military and start over again?
Alex Jones' Terror Storm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5948263607579389947&q=alex+jones
No, we should fire the FAA and the military, and not start (a government) again.
Apparently, the conspiracy theorists might not be such nutcakes after all. *dodges everyone's fists* ;)
Blaise Pascal said, in his dying words now to be found in the book "Pens?es," that "pyrrhonien," or extreme skepticism, is one of a good scientist's three defining qualities. In other words, please excuse my extreme skepticism, and also, please realize that such a quality is not a vice.
Finally, please excuse my unusually extensive use of bold, but this is earth-shattering evidence in my view.
Woodward book portrays a White House in turmoil
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003282308_woodward30.html
...
Snow confirmed one detail in the book: Henry Kissinger has been advising Bush about Iraq. :o
In an interview scheduled to air Sunday on "60 Minutes," Woodward says Kissinger, who served in the Nixon and Ford administrations, has been telling Bush and Cheney that in Iraq, "'victory is the only meaningful exit strategy.' "This is so fascinating. Kissinger's fighting the Vietnam War again, because in his view, the problem in Vietnam is we lost our will. That we didn't stick to it."
...
The book also reported that then-CIA Director George Tenet and his counterterrorism chief, Cofer Black, grew so concerned about a possible al-Qaida attack in summer 2001 that they abruptly decided to drive straight to the White House to get high-level attention.
Tenet called Rice, then the national-security adviser, from his car to ask to see her in hopes that the surprise appearance would make an impression.
But the meeting on July 10, 2001, left Tenet and Black frustrated and feeling brushed off, Woodward reported. Rice, they believed, did not feel the same sense of urgency about the threat and was content to wait for a policy review.
:o :o :o :o :o :o :o
The unfortunate thing here is, if Tenet would have announced this to the national media on 9/11 or 9/12, the Bush administration would probably not exist right now.
As it is, he kept his mouth shut and eventually took credit for the "intelligence failure." ::)
What was he THINKING? ???
Since when is Woodward a source we can trust?
Quote from: Dreepa on September 30, 2006, 01:38 PM NHFT
Since when is Woodward a source we can trust?
Why else would fear strike the White House upon publishing this book?
"State Department spokesman Sean McCormack, responding on behalf of Rice, said Tenet and Black had never publicly expressed any frustration with her response. Tenet and Black did not respond to messages Friday."
It sounds to me like Woodward is telling the truth.
But why would they allow 9/11 to happen? I do not understand how anyone with even the smallest heart could do that. THAT is what I find unbelievable, even assuming Woodward's book is factual.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 26, 2006, 03:57 PM NHFT
CENTCOM Sergeant Details Traitorous Stand Down Orders On 9/11
Military whistleblower comes forward with key information
Yet another fake crashes and burns:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64837
Reminds me of Jesse Macbeth.
Kevin
Quote from: KBCraig on September 30, 2006, 05:06 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 26, 2006, 03:57 PM NHFT
CENTCOM Sergeant Details Traitorous Stand Down Orders On 9/11
Military whistleblower comes forward with key information
Yet another fake crashes and burns:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64837
Reminds me of Jesse Macbeth.
Kevin
I zoomed in on the document myself. These guys are apparently lying about the pixel patterns unless something is drastically wrong with my installation of Paint Shop Pro 7, but I doubt that.
Why would they lie about this? :-\ ???
I pulled out the offending sections of the document for you to see for yourselves:
(http://www.fcsbrookline.com/files/MilitaryRecord-Pixel-Copying.gif)
As you can see, NONE of the "4" characters match, nor do the sets of "YRS" characters.
Ah, nevermind, I see what happened. The version of the document I zoomed in on was originally saved, by one of them, in a zoomed-out version, as a bitmap.
They're right. This document has been modified after being scanned.
Quote from: Michael Fisher on September 30, 2006, 06:41 PM NHFT
They're right. This document has been modified after being scanned.
Yes, I wasn't even looking for problems with the DD-214 to start with. It was offered up as proof of the guy's service before anyone had even questioned it. So since it was there, I took a look at it.
When I opened it, it immediately jumped out at me that the "4 WKS" looked wrong (bold and blobby), and the "14 WKS" was obviously pasted in, with the "1" overlapping a slash. And the "1" in "14 WKS" doesn't match the "4 WKS" part, which is identical to the other problematic "4 WKS".
Then there's the fact that there's no such thing as an "expert marksman" badge, and where "expert" was pasted in, there's still a remnant of the top of a slash.
It's not even a good fake. For those of you who keep up with Alex Jones, has he addressed this development? Or glossed right over it? Or claimed it as evidence of a conspiracy shooting down a whistleblower? Anything?
Kevin
Quote from: KBCraig on September 30, 2006, 07:16 PM NHFT
Quote from: Michael Fisher on September 30, 2006, 06:41 PM NHFT
They're right. This document has been modified after being scanned.
It's not even a good fake. For those of you who keep up with Alex Jones, has he addressed this development? Or glossed right over it? Or claimed it as evidence of a conspiracy shooting down a whistleblower? Anything?
But... but... Alex Jones would NEVER lie about ANYTHING!
Well, I'm probably going to surprise some of you here by issuing a mea culpa on the Chavez situation: It appears he is a fraud.
The underlying question here is whether the fraud was perpetrated by Alex Jones, or on Alex Jones. Either way, he has some explaining to do. If the papers were scanned by him ... then he is trying to pull the wool over our eyes. Hard to believe he would be that dumb. But if the papers were scanned by Chavez (which I'm going to assume is the case,) Jones was sloppy in not demanding copies of the originals.
Either way, I apologize for jumping on it too soon, as it now appears the story was quite false.
Caleb
Sorry, Michael, but I think you're swallowing a line. First of all ... Woodward is probably a CIA asset. Think it's a coincidence that he "broke" the Nixon story?
The goal of this story is to create the impression that the CIA is not culpable and to shift blame onto the Administration (specifically the President). If people are inclined to blame the government for 9/11, they want to make sure that the finger points towards the (temporary) Administration and not where it properly belongs on the (permanent) institutions (CIA, FBI, NSA, Pentagon).
My hunch is that the Administration, and particularly the President, was set up from the very beginning to take the fall here in the worst case scenario. They *will* let Bush be the scapegoat if push comes to shove.
And trust me ... I'm no Bush apologist. But my hunch is that Bush is scared because he knows he ought to be scared. He knows the gig ... and has known it from the beginning. He knows who's going to take the fall if everything hits the fan.
Rockefeller Predicted "Event" To Trigger War Eleven Months Before 9/11
Hollywood director Russo recalls remarkable "forecast" of coming attack
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | October 28 2006
Hollywood director and documentary film maker Aaron Russo, currently receiving a wave of plaudits for his latest release, America: From Freedom to Fascism, told The Alex Jones Show that Nicholas Rockefeller had personally assured him there was going to be an "event" that would trigger the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq eleven months before 9/11 took place.
Saying he had been approached many times by the Rockefellers and other members of the CFR elite in an attempt to recruit him, Russo recalled a conversation that would come home to roost on September 11, 2001.
"Here's what I do know first hand - I know that about eleven months to a year before 9/11 ever happened I was talking to my Rockefeller friend (Nicholas Rockefeller) and he said to me 'Aaron there's gonna be an event' and he never told me what the event was going to be - I'm not sure he knew what the event was going to be I don't know that he knew that," said Russo.
Russo related how Rockefeller knew precisely what the event would lead to and which countries would be militarily targeted by the elite.
"He just said there's gonna be an event and out of that event we're gonna invade Afghanistan so we can run pipelines through the Caspian sea, we can go into Iraq to take the oil and establish bases in the middle east and to make the middle east part of the new world order and we're going to go after Venezuela - that's what's going to come out of this event."
"Eleven months to a year later that's what happened....he certainly knew that something was going to happen."
"In my relationships with some of these people I can tell you that it's as evil as it really gets - this is it - this is the game," stated Russo - also relating how members of the elite were routinely obsessed by creating a world identification society where people had to carry ID cards and prove who they were at all times.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Launch of Aaron Russo's From Freedom to Fascism on DVD!
Neither left- nor right-wing, this startling examination exposes the systematic erosion of civil liberties in America, the federal reserve scam and the plan to track and trace the movements of every US citizen.
Click here to get your copy!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rockefeller also told Russo that the elite families created and financed the women's lib movement so they could tax another half of the population and so that the children would be trained by them in government schools rather than in the context of the family unit.
Russo also sounded off on 9/11, openly airing his view for the first time that it was a complete inside job.
"People know that 9/11 was an inside job," said Russo, "look what they did here in America, look at 9/11, look what they did - they killed thousands of Americans - people jumping out of windows from a hundred floors up - they don't care," said the director.
"There's no way that Building 7 came down without a controlled demolition, it takes weeks to do the controlled demolition, they couldn't have done it in a few hours like Larry Silverstein said - it blows the whole game - concrete doesn't turn to powder unless its exploded."
"We all know that 9/11 was a fraud - an inside job," concluded Russo.
::) As long as these major "9/11 Truth" folk are alive, I'm going to have trouble believing that a secret society/Jewish conspiracy/Masonic lodge/Rotary club/American government did this. If there's a super-powerful organization willing to slaughter thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of brown folk for oil, then you can bet it'll have no problem killing Russo. And where's all that oil we were promised from Iraq?
Super-secret agencies that want to control American government ...
Try NSA ... CIA ...
Quote from: Braddogg on October 29, 2006, 11:31 AM NHFT
::) As long as these major "9/11 Truth" folk are alive, I'm going to have trouble believing that a secret society/Jewish conspiracy/Masonic lodge/Rotary club/American government did this. If there's a super-powerful organization willing to slaughter thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of brown folk for oil, then you can bet it'll have no problem killing Russo. And where's all that oil we were promised from Iraq?
You put your fnger on it without realizing it. If Aaron Russo, et al, were to be killed, or mysteriously die or disappear, people would KNOW they were telling the truth. Too many people look at things staight on, and this is why the devious ones succeed.
Maybe the oil isn't for us.
It isn't about the oil itself, it is about selling oil in dollars. It is the fact that oil is sold in dollars that keeps the US dollar strong. It is the world's base currency. If oil were to be sold in Euros, the US dollar would collapse.
We knew Saddam Hussein was evil long before Gulf War 1. It was only when he started talking about selling his oil for Euros that we attacked him. We knew Iran had a nuclear program, but it only became a real problem when Iran floated the idea of an Oil Exchange based on Euros, that they became a real problem.
If Chavez were to start selling oil in euros, instead of dollars, you can bet we would have him assassinated, or, failing that, Bush would invade Venezuela.
Quote from: AlanM on October 29, 2006, 11:38 AM NHFT
You put your fnger on it without realizing it. If Aaron Russo, et al, were to be killed, or mysteriously die or disappear, people would KNOW they were telling the truth. Too many people look at things staight on, and this is why the devious ones succeed.
Ludicrous. Gary Webb is offed and they "KNEW" then. ::)
Quote from: FTL_Ian on October 31, 2006, 11:39 PM NHFT
Quote from: AlanM on October 29, 2006, 11:38 AM NHFT
You put your fnger on it without realizing it. If Aaron Russo, et al, were to be killed, or mysteriously die or disappear, people would KNOW they were telling the truth. Too many people look at things staight on, and this is why the devious ones succeed.
Ludicrous. Gary Webb is offed and they "KNEW" then. ::)
Who was Gary Webb?
I have friends who were either in the WTC, across the street, or in Jersey City who would confirm the fact that two airliners hit the towers. These stupid conspiracy theories really bring your credibility into question Kat. :( :( :(
Quote from: SeanSchade on November 01, 2006, 09:52 PM NHFT
I have friends who were either in the WTC, across the street, or in Jersey City who would confirm the fact that two airliners hit the towers. These stupid conspiracy theories really bring your credibility into question Kat. :( :( :(
But, no plane hit Building #7. Plenty of eyewitnesses heard explosions going off as the towers came down. Planes hitting the Towers only serves as the cover story. According to the above Russo story, I would say that this should serve as the straw that broke the camel's back. This shows the magnitude of the powers of the banking elite. In order for liberty to ever thrive, these people need to be exposed and stopped. Finally, these people should be relinquished of control over our lives.
Quote from: Rebel on November 01, 2006, 11:03 PM NHFT
But, no plane hit Building #7.
The falling towers did, though.
Kevin
Quote from: SeanSchade on November 01, 2006, 09:52 PM NHFT
I have friends who were either in the WTC, across the street, or in Jersey City who would confirm the fact that two airliners hit the towers. These stupid conspiracy theories really bring your credibility into question Kat. :( :( :(
When have you heard Kat say that she doesn't think 2 planes hit the towers?
Do you believe the government's version of what happened?
Can you explain to me why I need credibility with SeanS? I don't care.
Quote from: KBCraig on September 30, 2006, 07:16 PM NHFT
Then there's the fact that there's no such thing as an "expert marksman" badge, and where "expert" was pasted in, there's still a remnant of the top of a slash.
The link won't open up for me so I don't know the context that this statement was made in. But, if you're talking about military service there most certainly is such a thing as an "expert marksman" badge in the Army. I qualified for it every time while in the service. ;)
I recall the Air Force had an expert marksman ribbon.
I don't see anything for the army here:
http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/rackbuilder/armyribs.php
But they do have the air force one here:
http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/rackbuilder/airforceribs.php
Quote from: Jon Maltz on November 02, 2006, 11:05 AM NHFT
I recall the Air Force had an expert marksman ribbon.
I don't see anything for the army here:
http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/rackbuilder/armyribs.php
But they do have the air force one here:
http://www.gruntsmilitary.com/rackbuilder/airforceribs.php
It's not a ribbon, but a badge. :)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weapons_Qualification_Badge
zoomies like ribbons!
Quote from: SeanSchade on November 02, 2006, 10:58 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on September 30, 2006, 07:16 PM NHFT
Then there's the fact that there's no such thing as an "expert marksman" badge, and where "expert" was pasted in, there's still a remnant of the top of a slash.
The link won't open up for me so I don't know the context that this statement was made in. But, if you're talking about military service there most certainly is such a thing as an "expert marksman" badge in the Army. I qualified for it every time while in the service. ;)
No, you didn't.
There are three weapons qualification badges: "marksman", "sharpshooter", and "expert". "Expert marksman" is a contradiction, an oxymoron, a conflation of the highest and lowest rankings of shooting proficiency.
Kevin
OK, you got me...I only qualified "Expert" then. I misread marksman for marksmanship. :P
Quote from: KBCraig on November 02, 2006, 01:53 AM NHFT
Quote from: Rebel on November 01, 2006, 11:03 PM NHFT
But, no plane hit Building #7.
The falling towers did, though.
Kevin
Planes hitting the towers were needed to cover the reality of the situation. Just like at the OKC bombing, the ampho bomb in the truck out front was needed to cover the shake charges that were placed in the building itself.
Quote from: Rebel on November 02, 2006, 01:41 PM NHFT
the shake charges that were placed in the building itself.
Shape Charges... ::)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaped_charge
More paranoid hogwash...
Tolstoy use to laugh about military men and their scraps of ribbon.
BUSH: So, what's the plan again?
CHENEY: Well, we need to invade Iraq and Afghanistan. So what we've decided to do is crash a whole bunch of remote-controlled planes into Wall Street and the Pentagon, say they're real hijacked commercial planes, and blame it on the towelheads; then we'll just blow up the buildings ourselves to make sure they actually fall down.
RUMSFELD: Right! And we'll make sure that some of the hijackers are agents of Saddam Hussein! That way we'll have no problem getting the public to buy the invasion.
CHENEY: No, Dick, we won't.
RUMSFELD: We won't?
CHENEY: No, that's too obvious. We'll make the hijackers Al Qaeda and then just imply a connection to Iraq.
RUMSFELD: But if we're just making up the whole thing, why not just put Saddam's fingerprints on the attack?
CHENEY: (sighing) It just has to be this way, Dick. Ups the ante, as it were. This way, we're not insulated if things go wrong in Iraq. Gives us incentive to get the invasion right the first time around.
BUSH: I'm a total idiot who can barely read, so I'll buy that. But I've got a question. Why do we need to crash planes into the Towers at all? Since everyone knows terrorists already tried to blow up that building complex from the ground up once, why don't we just blow it up like we plan to anyway, and blame the bombs on the terrorists?
RUMSFELD: Mr. President, you don't understand. It's much better to sneak into the buildings ourselves in the days before the attacks, plant the bombs and then make it look like it was exploding planes that brought the buildings down. That way, we involve more people in the plot, stand a much greater chance of being exposed and needlessly complicate everything!
CHENEY: Of course, just toppling the Twin Towers will never be enough. No one would give us the war mandate we need if we just blow up the Towers. Clearly, we also need to shoot a missile at a small corner of the Pentagon to create a mightily underpublicized additional symbol of international terrorism -- and then, obviously, we need to fake a plane crash in the middle of fucking nowhere in rural Pennsylvania.
RUMSFELD: Yeah, it goes without saying that the level of public outrage will not be sufficient without that crash in the middle of fucking nowhere.
CHENEY: And the Pentagon crash -- we'll have to do it in broad daylight and say it was a plane, even though it'll really be a cruise missile.
BUSH: Wait, why do we have to use a missile?
CHENEY: Because it's much easier to shoot a missile and say it was a plane. It's not easy to steer a real passenger plane into the Pentagon. Planes are hard to come by.
BUSH: But aren't we using two planes for the Twin Towers?
CHENEY: Mr. President, you're missing the point. With the Pentagon, we use a missile, and say it was a plane.
BUSH: Right, but I'm saying, why don't we just use a plane and say it was a plane? We'll be doing that with the Twin Towers, right?
CHENEY: Right, but in this case, we use a missile. (Throws hands up in frustration) Don, can you help me out here?
RUMSFELD: Mr. President, in Washington, we use a missile because it's sneakier that way. Using an actual plane would be too obvious, even though we'll be doing just that in New York.
BUSH: Oh, OK.
RUMSFELD: The other good thing about saying that it was a passenger jet is that that way, we have to invent a few hundred fictional victims and account for a nonexistent missing crew and plane. It's always better when you leave more cover story to invent, more legwork to do and more possible holes to investigate. Doubt, legwork and possible exposure -- you can't pull off any good conspiracy without them.
BUSH: You guys are brilliant! Because if there's one thing about Americans -- they won't let a president go to war without a damn good reason. How could we ever get the media, the corporate world and our military to endorse an invasion of a secular Iraqi state unless we faked an attack against New York at the hands of a bunch of Saudi religious radicals? Why, they'd never buy it. Look at how hard it was to get us into Vietnam, Iraq the last time, Kosovo?
CHENEY: Like pulling teeth!
RUMSFELD: Well, I'm sold on the idea. Let's call the Joint Chiefs, the FAA, the New York and Washington, D.C., fire departments, Rudy Giuliani, all three networks, the families of a thousand fictional airline victims, MI5, the FBI, FEMA, the NYPD, Larry Eagleburger, Osama bin Laden, Noam Chomsky and the fifty thousand other people we'll need to pull this off. There isn't a moment to lose!
BUSH: Don't forget to call all of those Wall Street hotshots who donated $100 million to our last campaign. They'll be thrilled to know that we'll be targeting them for execution as part of our thousand-tentacled modern-day bonehead Reichstag scheme! After all, if we're going to make martyrs -- why not make them out of our campaign paymasters? Shit, didn't the Merrill Lynch guys say they needed a refurbishing in their New York offices?
RUMSFELD: Oh, they'll get a refurbishing, all right. Just in time for the "Big Wedding"!
ALL THREE: (cackling) Mwah-hah-hah!
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies/1
I liked South Park's 9-11 explanation better.
Excellent post lildog! ;D ;D ;D
It seemed to work on some people.
Quote from: AlanM on November 01, 2006, 09:34 PM NHFT
Who was Gary Webb?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Webb
In short, he's the guy who exposed the CIA connection to drug running. He was prepping another expose and turned up dead. Coroner ruled it a suicide, but many people think otherwise.
My point is, the Gary Webb "suicide" story was trumpeted in all the usual conspiracy places as evidence that the NWO is real and the conspiracy is true! While totally plausible and possible that Webb was murdered, what has changed as a result of all this knowledge?
Not a damn thing. In fact, for many conspiracy theorists, this knowledge just scares them even more into doing nothing. Killing off Alex Jones and the rest of them would also result in a continuing lack of action on the part of those "in the know".
I agree Ian. I think it is helpful to know what is true about events like 9/11, but it is a shame to watch most theorists scared into inactivity. Alex Jones seems to want to work within the voting system, even though he knows it is corrupt and built to enslave him. Hopefully guys like him will be willing to stand up against the monster more in the near future.
BTW (in the Alex Jones voice)
the government is killing people!
I want to know the truth, but I also should help people not just preach.
Things get really bizarre when you talk to some of them who embrace the idea of inaction as they believe the NWO is leading the world towards the return of Jesus. The essentially say to themselves that they shouldn't do anything so as to hasten "His" return.
The entire conspiracy movement is disempowering to its followers, as it insists that the govt is effective and efficient. Therefore reinforcing their feeling of hopelessness.
Don't forget vigilant!
Quote from: FTL_Ian on November 07, 2006, 12:24 PM NHFT
Things get really bizarre when you talk to some of them who embrace the idea of inaction as they believe the NWO is leading the world towards the return of Jesus. The essentially say to themselves that they shouldn't do anything so as to hasten "His" return.
Especially when the Bible doesn't mention anything about cooperating with evil to speed up the process.
That's it! I want a divorce.
The CIA probably should be disolved.
But Americans are not responsible for planning or executing 9-11. Maybe inept, ignorant, slow to react to the threat, but complicity? Thats whak-o. You'd be better off spending your time looking for info on UFO cover-ups. They're more likely (though also assanine).
-Objectivist
Quote from: Objectivist on November 16, 2006, 11:06 AM NHFT
The CIA probably should be disolved.
But Americans are not responsible for planning or executing 9-11. Maybe inept, ignorant, slow to react to the threat, but complicity? Thats whak-o. You'd be better off spending your time looking for info on UFO cover-ups. They're more likely (though also assanine).
-Objectivist
Ever hear of a false-flag operation? The sinking of the Maine and the Lusitania? Pearl Harbor? Gulf of Tonkin? 9-11 is the same.
Quote from: AlanM on November 16, 2006, 11:12 AM NHFT
The sinking of the Maine
1999 National Geographic Magazine investigation showed that "it appears more probable than was previously concluded that a mine caused the inward bent bottom structure and the detonation of the magazines." Of course, many people hold on to the position that it was the crew's error. I haven't heard any credible sources saying this was a deliberate destruction by the U.S.
Quote
and the Lusitania?
A German U-Boat did, indeed, fire a torpedo at the Lusitania. The torpedo caused the contraband to explode, and the two explosions caused the Lusitania to sink.
Quote
Pearl Harbor?
I don't know as much about this as I probably should. I have Stinnett's book on my reading list, so I won't comment on it beyond to say that the Japanese did lead an attack on a US naval base.
Quote
Gulf of Tonkin?
There was an attack on a US ship in the Gulf of Tonkin. That there was one attack is virtually undisputed.
Quote
9-11 is the same.
The similarity to those incidents is the way the President failed to put the attacks in context of previous US aggression and used the incidents to go to wars far exceding proportional response to the incident.
The CIA and FBI usually do a cost-benefit analasys when hiring spies. The man was surely an operative, but they decided it was better that he be free and working for evil, while informing the US of the greater operations of the organization, than taken and killed. He might have been our only eye in to al quaeda.
Rockefeller told Russo that 9/11 would happen, 9 months before it did.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263677258215075609&hl=en
Two months ago, I was having a chat with George Soros, and he told me that it would be really warm in early January, and then it would get really cold at the end of January. Soros said that it was a test of a weather control project by the new world order. That project would develop a weapon that the NWO could then use to control politicians in countries that tried to defy the NWO. I guess the test went as planned!
I thought they already controlled most politicians.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on January 30, 2007, 08:28 AM NHFT
I thought they already controlled most politicians.
Yeah, most. But if the political revolution that Denis and the folks at the NHLA are planning occurs, then the NWO may have to use the threat of the weather weapon to get compliance from US politicians.
George Soros joined the NWO?! Oh no! Now what are we going to do?!?!?
The most important thing is education. Let people know the truth about January's weather. Then, people will finally be convinced that the NWO exists. There's been a direct correllation, according to Mr. Soros, between the number of people who know about the NWO and its power: More educated people, less power.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on January 30, 2007, 08:13 AM NHFT
Rockefeller told Russo that 9/11 would happen, 9 months before it did.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1263677258215075609&hl=en
I just watched that this morning, creepy! Why do you think he told Russo though?
I'm sick of feeling like these rich people's toy! What am I saying "feeling like", aren't I already? Something's gotta be done to stop all of this, but what? :-\
Quote from: Braddogg on January 30, 2007, 08:31 AM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on January 30, 2007, 08:28 AM NHFT
I thought they already controlled most politicians.
Yeah, most. But if the political revolution that Denis and the folks at the NHLA are planning occurs, then the NWO may have to use the threat of the weather weapon to get compliance from US politicians.
Geesh, this sounds like it's from a cartoon. I know it really exists but remember when the evil villian wanted to take over the world using stuff like this in cartoons? All of the protests, petetions, ect. aren't going to stop something like this. Someone on the inside has to destroy weapons like this, but who? ???
Quote from: raineyrocks on January 30, 2007, 09:35 AM NHFT
I'm sick of feeling like these rich people's toy! What am I saying "feeling like", aren't I already? Something's gotta be done to stop all of this, but what? :-\
Exactly what we're already doing: downsize the government and reduce its power at all levels.
Quote from: error on January 30, 2007, 09:46 AM NHFT
Quote from: raineyrocks on January 30, 2007, 09:35 AM NHFT
I'm sick of feeling like these rich people's toy! What am I saying "feeling like", aren't I already? Something's gotta be done to stop all of this, but what? :-\
Exactly what we're already doing: downsize the government and reduce its power at all levels.
Is it going to work though? Even against weapons like this? I read that Russia and China have the same weather weapon capabilities.
Who cares what the weather is. You can have a nonviolent revolution rain or shine! :)
Quote from: error on January 30, 2007, 11:06 AM NHFT
Who cares what the weather is. You can have a nonviolent revolution rain or shine! :)
I guess your right but what if "they" produce tornados and hurricanes? Just messing, I get your point! Thanks
Tornadoes and hurricanes in New Hampshire?! Since when?
Quote from: error on January 30, 2007, 01:40 PM NHFT
Tornadoes and hurricanes in New Hampshire?! Since when?
A. Magnetic Pole Shift
B. Evil Government weather weapons
3. I don't know what I'm talking about
;D
Quote from: raineyrocks on January 30, 2007, 09:35 AM NHFT
I'm sick of feeling like these rich people's toy! What am I saying "feeling like", aren't I already? Something's gotta be done to stop all of this, but what? :-\
a nonviolent way to no longer be a slave of the current ruling elite .... ideas from Jesus, Thoreau, Tolstoy, Gandhi, and King:
http://underground.soulawakenings.com/tiki-index.php?page=Readings%20for%20Civil%20Disobedience
The truth can set you free, but you have to take that next step that has been revealed to you. :)
Most people say that they feel like they are carrying a heavy burden. I say it is time for atlas to shrug.
Matthew 11:30 "For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
Quote from: raineyrocks on January 30, 2007, 09:41 AM NHFT
All of the protests, petetions, ect. aren't going to stop something like this.
Their whole goal is to enslave you .... if you refuse ... they cannot win.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on January 30, 2007, 03:14 PM NHFT
Quote from: raineyrocks on January 30, 2007, 09:41 AM NHFT
All of the protests, petetions, ect. aren't going to stop something like this.
Their whole goal is to enslave you .... if you refuse ... they cannot win.
I agree 100% about their goal to enslave me but what ways can I refuse? That's what I want to do but I don't understand how, maybe I'm so used to having a certain mind-set and I want to break free from it but what actions do I take?
Like when Rick goes to work they take taxes out already so I can't think of anything to do there.
My thoughts on not being a slave are this: Learn how to live off the grid but I need money to intiate this, alternative sources of energy cost money to set up, buying bulk foods cost money, would I have to give up a telephone and internet? I don't know. So Rick would have to continue to work to set this up, we'd have to move to a smaller, lower mortgage house (which is fine with me, if we could sell the house we have). Am I on the right track?
Cathleen said something awhile ago to me that makes perfect sense. She said to learn a tool that was in demand and trade services also. I'm pretty sure I have that right (what Cathleen said), so for weeks I thought about anything I have a talent in that would be beneficial and I honestly can't come up with any. I don't know how to sew good, I'm not a good writer (thought about writing a book), I am horrible in math blah, blah. I could clean people's houses though is that maybe something useful? I love kids and babies so I could babysit but I don't want to babysit for people I don't know because if the kid gets a bruise or falls I don't feel like getting sued or going to jail for something I didn't do.
I am sorry for all of the questions but I really want to learn so I have to ask all of these questions.
Quote from: raineyrocks on January 30, 2007, 03:42 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on January 30, 2007, 03:14 PM NHFT
Quote from: raineyrocks on January 30, 2007, 09:41 AM NHFT
All of the protests, petetions, ect. aren't going to stop something like this.
Their whole goal is to enslave you .... if you refuse ... they cannot win.
I agree 100% about their goal to enslave me but what ways can I refuse? That's what I want to do but I don't understand how, maybe I'm so used to having a certain mind-set and I want to break free from it but what actions do I take?
Like when Rick goes to work they take taxes out already so I can't think of anything to do there.
My thoughts on not being a slave are this: Learn how to live off the grid but I need money to intiate this, alternative sources of energy cost money to set up, buying bulk foods cost money, would I have to give up a telephone and internet? I don't know. So Rick would have to continue to work to set this up, we'd have to move to a smaller, lower mortgage house (which is fine with me, if we could sell the house we have). Am I on the right track?
Cathleen said something awhile ago to me that makes perfect sense. She said to learn a tool that was in demand and trade services also. I'm pretty sure I have that right (what Cathleen said), so for weeks I thought about anything I have a talent in that would be beneficial and I honestly can't come up with any. I don't know how to sew good, I'm not a good writer (thought about writing a book), I am horrible in math blah, blah. I could clean people's houses though is that maybe something useful? I love kids and babies so I could babysit but I don't want to babysit for people I don't know because if the kid gets a bruise or falls I don't feel like getting sued or going to jail for something I didn't do.
I am sorry for all of the questions but I really want to learn so I have to ask all of these questions.
living absolutly debt free and make a plan to move to a simpler lifestyle obtainable at a moment of personal or society emergency.
here is a great song about the times we live in. http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=18359&Disp=All
click on a "great song about 911" (in red text)
[attachment deleted by admin]
yes, getting out of debt is one of the most powerful ways to free yourself from their grasp.
It is a process. A never ending process. The easy steps first, like getting debt free, living simply, and becoming more self sufficient. I am still trying to master the level of risk tolerance that Russell exhibits.
The most freeing step yet was the move to NH.
Cathleen
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on September 07, 2005, 06:41 AM NHFT
Quote from: AlanM on September 06, 2005, 11:11 PM NHFT
Looking at the history of government conspiracy, from the lies surrounding the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson, to the sinking of the Maine, to the Lusitania, to Pearl Harbor, then on to the Bay of Pigs, the Tonkin Gulf incident, the Kennedy assasinations, the MLK assasinations, and most recently the Weapons of Mass destruction, can anyone doubt the ability of Government to attempt something on the scale of 9-11?
Although the events that followed the conspiracies you discribe, up to Tonkin, were horrible, the conspiracies themselves to actually pull off, were not of the scale of 911.
The government probably had nothing to do with the assasinations of R. Kennedy or MLK.
Even though Iraq's possesion of WMD's was none of our business and no excuse to invade, many experts in many countries assumed they had these weapons.
You were wrong, I believe, about JFK and MLK, and now, in hindsight, it turns out you were wrong about WMDs.
God I love a good conspiracy thread! 8)
Quote from: joeyforpresident on September 07, 2005, 08:45 PM NHFT
What about WTC 7?
Larry Silverstein, who owned the WTC properties and purchased them several months before 9/11 even, was on PBS a year or two ago and sat right in that chair and admitted to the public that he had ordered FDNY to "pull" Building No. 7.
In other words, that building went down like a stack of um, well, floors used in a controlled demolition.
Use the photography, folks! Even the AP stuff, the CNN stuff, the Washington Post, Time Magazine stuff! You can't fit a commercial airliner into the hole that hit the Pentagon. There's just no way. If a jetliner did in fact hit the Pentagon, where's the massive security camera footage of it all? We have yet to see one credible piece of footage that shows a jetliner hitting the Pentagon.
That Cleveland, Ohio TV station's report about Flight 93 isn't credible? Give me a break! It landed two hours after we were "told" it crashed!!
Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh.
Not once has anyone said, "look at their organizations they're tied to." You don't think the Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderbergers, Skull & Bones and all those other "organizations" wouldn't put their agenda (i.e., Rockefellers, etc.) forward by putting a bunch of fruitcake figurehead politicians in power to carry it out? Come on!
This is all in plain view! I do believe a lot of folks in the libertarian community have very thick blinders on. Either you're just too trusting, or just won't pry open your brain a little to question everything you read or hear.
Must be the reporter in me.
Jeebus!
Joey's been around here since 2005? :o Good post, too.
New found respect for Joey! :P
Quote from: Russell Kanning on January 30, 2007, 03:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: raineyrocks on January 30, 2007, 09:35 AM NHFT
I'm sick of feeling like these rich people's toy! What am I saying "feeling like", aren't I already? Something's gotta be done to stop all of this, but what? :-\
a nonviolent way to no longer be a slave of the current ruling elite .... ideas from Jesus, Thoreau, Tolstoy, Gandhi, and King:
http://underground.soulawakenings.com/tiki-index.php?page=Readings%20for%20Civil%20Disobedience
The truth can set you free, but you have to take that next step that has been revealed to you. :)
Most people say that they feel like they are carrying a heavy burden. I say it is time for atlas to shrug.
Matthew 11:30 "For my yoke is easy and my burden is light."
Thanks Russell, that link is very helpful. :D Thanks too Caleb, Sticherman, and Cathleen! ;D
It's funny that none of the anti-truthers from FTL ever chime in here on this post. They stay over at the BBS where they feel more at home. I have negative Karma over there (like I care) for just discussing the topic even though I'm a plat amplifier. Clearly the moderator over there is a hater. There's just too many teenagers over there that are so impressionable that they'll ride Ian's coattails on anything. And of course, it takes lots of time to sift through all the relevent info. What's even more funny is that they call anyone that peruses Jones' sites asshats. I mean Bush and co. could admit to wrong-doing and these juveniles still wouldn't believe it. When I move to NH this year, I think I'll be done with the FTL BBS.
P.S. as another example of these chumps immaturity, they'll hijack 9-11 truth threads and start chatting about cocks, assholes, who's gay and who isn't. These crybabies aren't the type of freedom folks that I want to work with. It's hard to apply the Zero-Aggress-Princ to annoying lowlifes like them
I just ignore the talk about cocks, assholes, and who's gay and who wants to fuck whom. That's the main reason I spend a lot more time over here.
As for the "truth" about 9/11, I'm not even going there. It's useless to attempt to bring reason into this.
Seems like it makes sense to be reasonable about what is the truth about 9/11.
check out this great song !
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=18359&Disp=All
open and click on the red print "hear a great song about 911"
[attachment deleted by admin]
http://www.911timeline.net/whatwouldyoudo.ra
Quote from: Russell Kanning on February 06, 2007, 02:47 PM NHFT
http://www.911timeline.net/whatwouldyoudo.ra
i like the liberty post better !
it gives the lirics ; with each line web sites to each verse to check out. :P
[attachment deleted by admin]
Quote from: Rebel on January 31, 2007, 04:34 PM NHFT
It's funny that none of the anti-truthers from FTL ever chime in here on this post. They stay over at the BBS where they feel more at home. I have negative Karma over there (like I care) for just discussing the topic even though I'm a plat amplifier. Clearly the moderator over there is a hater. There's just too many teenagers over there that are so impressionable that they'll ride Ian's coattails on anything. And of course, it takes lots of time to sift through all the relevent info. What's even more funny is that they call anyone that peruses Jones' sites asshats. I mean Bush and co. could admit to wrong-doing and these juveniles still wouldn't believe it. When I move to NH this year, I think I'll be done with the FTL BBS.
Maybe because for any complex organized plan to work it requires lots of data to be left around. No just some papers, but actual odd things like bills of sales, warehouse invoices, and other such stuffs. You make a complex story with no real paper trail to be found. Hell, we can find paper trails on Hoffa, J. Edgar Hoover, MK-Ultra, and other such government travesties, but we can't find a single decent speck of truth out of the 9/11 crackpottery. Not a tittle. If you can give me more than Loose Change and Alex "I hate gay people" Jones, then I'll listen. But if you can't then please keep your opinion to yourself or expect reprisals in kind.
QuoteP.S. as another example of these chumps immaturity, they'll hijack 9-11 truth threads and start chatting about cocks, assholes, who's gay and who isn't. These crybabies aren't the type of freedom folks that I want to work with. It's hard to apply the Zero-Aggress-Princ to annoying lowlifes like them
You're not being "aggressed" upon, since words are not physical force against your person.
-- Bridget
Quote from: Russell Kanning on January 31, 2007, 05:59 PM NHFT
Seems like it makes sense to be reasonable about what is the truth about 9/11.
Idiotic government pencil necks setting us up for a fall due to 50+ years of aggressive foreign policy against brown people? Yeah, that's the most logical answer to it all, tbh.
-- Bridget
Quote from: ladyattis on February 06, 2007, 04:13 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on January 31, 2007, 05:59 PM NHFT
Seems like it makes sense to be reasonable about what is the truth about 9/11.
Idiotic government pencil necks setting us up for a fall due to 50+ years of aggressive foreign policy against brown people? Yeah, that's the most logical answer to it all, tbh.
-- Bridget
it is more complicated than that but , yeah could be a "means to an end".
[attachment deleted by admin]
Yeah, you forgot utterly incompetent.
Quote from: error on February 06, 2007, 05:10 PM NHFT
Yeah, you forgot utterly incompetent.
everything is going as planned for the people who gw work for .
farenheight 911 is a great example of that propoganda wants to portray that this messed up world is because of incompetence. HELLO !
Quote from: Rebel on January 31, 2007, 04:34 PM NHFT
It's funny that none of the anti-truthers from FTL ever chime in here on this post. They stay over at the BBS where they feel more at home. I have negative Karma over there (like I care) for just discussing the topic even though I'm a plat amplifier. Clearly the moderator over there is a hater. There's just too many teenagers over there that are so impressionable that they'll ride Ian's coattails on anything. And of course, it takes lots of time to sift through all the relevent info. What's even more funny is that they call anyone that peruses Jones' sites asshats. I mean Bush and co. could admit to wrong-doing and these juveniles still wouldn't believe it. When I move to NH this year, I think I'll be done with the FTL BBS.
P.S. as another example of these chumps immaturity, they'll hijack 9-11 truth threads and start chatting about cocks, assholes, who's gay and who isn't. These crybabies aren't the type of freedom folks that I want to work with. It's hard to apply the Zero-Aggress-Princ to annoying lowlifes like them
everyone learns the truth at there own pace. unfortunatly our society teaches simplness and simple judgment calls that are kept as fact; and the door to learn more is closed for decades; if not a lifetime.
unfortunatley the american trained mind is to make a judgment and hold a perspective on whatever subject and never take another objective look at it again. like their ego is involved to admit they were wrong.
It's only the fearful and the weak that seek a complex cause to a simple problem. -- Me.
-- Bridget
let the "trolls" give this a fresh review.
why "COMPLAIN" ?
[attachment deleted by admin]
I'm in 0% denial of the truth of 9/11
I accept as fact with absolutely no doubt that 9/11 was an inside job. This is after years of study and research. It's not a conclusion that's easy to come to or quick to come to. It takes some time for it to really "set in."
I'm offering my support for a solution to the problem by acknowledging the problem.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be explained by stupidity" ...or something like that. ;)
One problem with the application of that axiom in this case is the overwhelming evidence of preexisting malice.
See:http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf) [page 51] "...absent some
catastrophic and catalyzing event – like a new Pearl Harbor." for example,
or:http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm (http://www.newamericancentury.org/statementofprinciples.htm) signed by Elliott Abrams, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, I. Lewis Libby, Donald Rumsfeld and Paul Wolfowitz, among others.
Then there are the many unanswered questions about policy violations and other actions which seem insensible if no malice existed. One of my personal favorites is the flight of Air Force One from Florida.
Air Force One was located within less than 30 minutes flying time (including scramble) from one of the few Air Force bases on the east coast with actual "alert birds", Homestead AFB.
When the order was given to clear US airspace, all commercial and civilian flights were ordered to proceed to the nearest appropriate airfield, not to their intended destinations. The immediate result of this stupid order was that almost every commercial flight in the air was now off its flight path, and air traffic control in US commercial airspace was reduced to near chaos. So now, after at least three known hijackings, the "land ASAP" order had eliminated the single best method of identifying a hijacked airliner, since all of them were now off their flight paths.
Then, in the midst of the worst air traffic control crisis in the history of US aviation, the decision was made to put Air Force One in the air with no fighter escort, even though one was readily available, and even though there were an unknown number of unidentifiable and potentially hostile hijacked airliners still in the air over the US, any of which might be intending to attempt a midair collision with Air Force One.
If this was all done by stupidity, I have to give credit where it's due; it was truly world class stupidity. If, on the other hand, malice was involved, it makes perfect sense. They knew it was safe to fly Air Force One, because they knew where the dangerous aircraft were in the midst of the chaos.
Troublesome little details like that just make you wonder, don't they? :-\
Quote from: raineyrocks on January 30, 2007, 03:42 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on January 30, 2007, 03:14 PM NHFT
Their whole goal is to enslave you .... if you refuse ... they cannot win.
I agree 100% about their goal to enslave me but what ways can I refuse? That's what I want to do but I don't understand how, maybe I'm so used to having a certain mind-set and I want to break free from it but what actions do I take?
Sorry I didn't join this thread earlier - The whole idea of the Alternatives Expo that we're putting on (during the NH Liberty Forum coming up) is to offer a chance to get these questions answered by a bunch of folks already in New Hampshire. Check out http://www.AltExpo.org - we're loading up our schedule with a lot of really interesting stuff. The only reason we won't have more, because they're all out there, is due to the short time schedule this was put together in. I hope you'll check out the program sessions. The Second Life guys may even broadcast them in Second Life for people who aren't in attendance.
Quote from: SAK on February 12, 2007, 07:34 PM NHFT
I'm in 0% denial of the truth of 9/11
I accept as fact with absolutely no doubt that 9/11 was an inside job. This is after years of study and research. It's not a conclusion that's easy to come to or quick to come to. It takes some time for it to really "set in."
I'm offering my support for a solution to the problem by acknowledging the problem.
You've got to come hear Steve Goodale of Western Mass 911 Truth present at the Alt Expo (http://www.altexpo.org/). His talk is titled: "Fast Train Out of La-La-Land: A Brief History of Information Warfare, Mind Control and Synthetic Terror & Explanations of Why 9/11 and Our War On Terror Have Succeeded to Date"
Here's the program list, still being updated a couple of times a day: http://www.altexpo.org/programs.htm
I'm going to bring along a bunch of videos pertaining to the events of 9/11 to the expo, as well as the book which has proven to be the authority on the subject: "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil" written by Michael C. Ruppert. http://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Rubicon-Decline-American-Empire/dp/0865715408/sr=8-1/qid=1171342322/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-9051422-0181221?ie=UTF8&s=books
Likewise I haven't gotten engaged in to this topic, largely because of the enormity of the thread :o and my only recent move to NH and getting involved on the forum.
BTW, one of the 9-11 Truth filmmakers, Michael Berger, is touring New England in April and help is needed to organize his appearance in Concord and Nashua, if anyone's interested. He'll also be in Keene, but that one is all set up, I think.
I'll post the other info I've got on it later, but here's what I remember:
Michael Berger is the filmmaker of "Improbable Collapse; The Demolition of our Republic" - he's the media director of 911Truth.org. Jonathan Mark of flybynews.com in Western Mass. is organizing the N.E. tour - Jonathan will be at the AltExpo in Concord Saturday the 24th if anyone wants to talk to him about helping organize and promote this.
Michael Berger will be going to Keene, Concord (still needs organizing), Dover, Nashua (still needs organizing) and Wilton in N.H., Amherst and elsewhere in Mass, Burlington and elsewhere in Vermont, and Hartford, Connecticut on his New England tour.
Ordo ab Chao
Order out of chaos. The way to bring a malicious "order" (as if any social order isn't malicious) is by creating chaos. The social engineers do this all the time. The worse things get with welfare programs, utilitarian laws, disarmament, centralization, etc, the better things are for the "reformers." Constant unrest in society means job security for the politicians!
If you don't think the federal government is malicious, look at how they handle ANY crisis. Katrina, anyone? I guess holding trucks and boats filled with food/water for relief back at GUN POINT is standard operating procedure for FEMA? Cutting all the communication lines and power lines helps things too, right?
That's OK, just bring in the national guard, the army, and even the Mexican military! Then disarm everyone, pack them into stadiums, and call it a day.
Anyhow, the "foreign attackers" ploy is as old as dirt. They used to do it in Egypt when the people would start to see through the pharaohs. Right before the people were ready to revolt, attackers (mercenaries) would come in from elsewhere, fight, lose, and leave. The sure way to get support of your people, no matter HOW bad you are to them, is to give them a foreign enemy that threatens them. A threat from an outside force instantly unifies people and throws their support behind their leader.
These operations are also known as "false flag" operations. It's like attacking your own ship with another one of your ships, but flying the flag of another country. The U.S. has done this 1000 times now. Look up the USS Liberty -- attacked by our own allies, and was going to be used to go to war with the arabs. Our own president, LBJ at the time, said he wanted that ship SUNK. Hours and hours the attack lasted, and the jets that had been sent out from a nearby carrier were CALLED BACK IN by the president. The commander of the carrier was FREAKING OUT. They wanted that ship gone, and they wanted to blame it on Egypt or some other country to have reason for war.
Terrorism has been used all over the world to scare the population into giving up rights. It has also been used to sustain political unrest. Guess who's responsible for a lot (probably the majority) of the attacks? The intelligence agencies worldwide. We (USA) started Al Qaeda -- which was named after an intelligence database we ran (interestingly enough, it also sounds like "I'm going to go take a shit" in Arabic). Nice name for a big bad terrorist organization.
Who do you think was behind the countless revolutions of South American countries? African and Middle-Eastern countries? You guessed it -- US. We've been killing people all over the world for over a century. Do you honestly think the people who make these decisions -- the people that are supposed to serve us -- value our lives anymore than they value the lives of the victims in other countries? You don't think they're willing to sacrifice a few of us for "the greater good?"
It would sure seem that we want to take out Iran now. We had a boner for Iraq for the longest time, and came up with the perfect "weapons of mass destruction" bullshit to go in there. It looks like Iran will be next. But what if the American people don't want another crazy war? What if we don't support this policy? Simple, there will be yet another convenient terrorist attack. Perhaps a nuke will go off in one of our cities, and it'll be blamed on Iran.
Terrorism accomplishes nothing. You need perhaps only 2 brain cells to understand that attacking America is the most stupid thing in the world -- it's a quick ticket to getting your entire country razed. Terror attacks don't take land, they don't take valuables, they capture nothing. They guarantee only that you're going to get fucked -- especially if it's the U.S. that you attack. Terrorism is actually quite unnatural. It's only real purpose is to control a population with FEAR. And guess what, no Arab expects to accomplish this. A lot of people in power sure do.
If you can't see "both" parties and almost everyone in the major positions in our government ALL pushing us towards a one world government -- international government -- then perhaps your eyes will never be opened. The true enemies of this country are domestic. You can't even call them traitors because they were NEVER on our side. They were recruited, commissioned, and promoted because of their loyalties which lie elsewhere.
I haven't been able to understand how so many people can so easily attribute evil to other cultures, races, ethnicities, religions, and the like. Do you honestly think other human beings are different for these reasons? The truth is that most human beings are the same -- good. They wish no harm on others, nor wish to take from others. They want to live their lives, be left in peace, raise a family, etc. Most of humanity shares these values -- I believe they are inherent to humans -- if not all, then the vast vast vast majority. However, there exists a tiny minority of deviants. These people wish to victimize others and take that which does not belong to them. They take pleasure from manipulation, coercion, and trickery. They exist in every race and supposed creed. Many of them resolve to work together and have been doing so generation after generation. These types of people try to keep us fighting with one another over stupid things. While we are fighting one another, they conquer us.
Well, I could go on forever. I can't fight a lifetime of propaganda and programming. Hopefully more will awake from the deep sleep.
I hope you will awaken, too, and stop accusing us of being any part of, or worse, complicit in the actions of the U.S. government.
I was just reading about a guy named Dan Wallace. He died recently -- at the end of last month. He was 23 years old and died mysteriously in his sleep -- no health problems or anything before that. It is said he died of a heart attack.
His dad was killed in the attacks, and he began researching into it. He became out of the most outspoken activists for the truth movement. He was the ONLY direct family member of a victim that was outspoken in the truth movement. Apparently he just finished a 9/11 documentary film on the attacks as well.
This is all the info I have. He's certainly not the first 9/11 truth activist to die in a weird way. I guess with all the 23 year olds dying of heart attacks these days, you just never know ::)
Sometimes when a nail pops up, it has to be pounded back down again.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/260207building7.htm
BBC reported Building 7 collapse 20 mins before it collapses, and with it standing in the background of her report.
6 minutes well done starring larry silverstein
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/280207Perspective.htm
[attachment deleted by admin]
I heard from someone just yesterday that CNN also reported WTC7 collapsed an hour before it did. Has anyone heard this or do you have a link to a clip of that newscast?
a new episode (#250) of OUT THERE TV ; news and anthony hilder. new federal laws, 911 police state, mind control, weather analomies,globalization, immigration, pat robertson, false flags, $10 a gallon gas,supression of technology, and more .
1 hour long.
http://www.lvitv.com/OutThereTV/playflash.php?v_id=250&state=flash
enjoy
[attachment deleted by admin]
So, raise your hand if you feel like just talking about it.
It seems to me that if we keep talking or taking the Gandhi -- let my ass get whipped -- route of resistance...we're in for some real trouble.
We aren't accepting their war or their national ID cards. That means they'll need to orchestrate another synthetic terror attack. I imagine they'll do something far worse than last time, like nuke one of our cities. We could prevent this, but we'll have to get off our asses and make a stand (like Ed Brown is doing).
Keep your powder dry, people. I for one think this has gone far enough. 9/11 should be a sobering wake-up call for all of the peaceniks around here. I look forward to a revolt no more than you, but I see no alternative other than SEVERE losses of innocent American life by the hands of a ruthless and corrupt totalitarian government.
What do I propose? I'm not 100% sure. I know I don't condone ANY acts of uninitiated violence. I also don't condone ANY offensive moves that would result in innocent deaths (like how they tried to blame the Oklahoma bombing false-flag op on the "militia movement"). So start this off by standing your ground. If they come to arrest/kill you when you've done no wrong, defend yourself and help your neighbor defend himself. This alone should do the trick and start things rolling in the right direction. The military will be on our side, just watch out for special government agents. Our boys and girls in Iraq should get their asses home and start killing the real enemies.
Our battle isn't about race, religion, ethnicity, color, or even politics. It is about the basic natural rights of men and women. You have the right to life, liberty, owning property, and protecting yourself. Time to start exercise those rights, hold fast to them, and start blasting away the enemies of these rights -- starting with the worst.
Watcha gonna do if they try to attack Ed Brown or someone like him? What do you think you're supposed to do?
I prefer to stand up to the government in Gandhi fashion than "keeping my powder dry". I can actually take steps this way. I don't have to just keep talking about violent revolution. Anyone can join the nonviolent revolution .... now.
If all the peacenic talk on this forum bothers you, I am sure you can join other forums where the talk will be 100% powder and bullets.
I love nonviolence actually an am a nonviolent person myself. I feel very comfortable with the nonviolent people here.
I would say it's a good idea to be prepared for defense, though. Soon they may decide to start killing us off in droves. They could nuke a city at any time and blame it on Iran. Those 600+ detention facilities in the country are ready for action. Care to see a repeat of the Nazi concentration camps or the Soviet Gulags? I do not.
We didn't fight off the British by holding hands and locking arms. Although we were allowed to win the war, the battles were still very real. Gandhi may have won doing it his way, but I guarantee they let him win that one as well. Perhaps it was a useful "defeat" if only to bring about this idea of nonviolence. We never separated from Britain completely and neither did India.
Unarmed nonviolent citizens being slaughtered in droves vs. active militia members willing to meet force with force. I'll take the latter. I don't wish to fight any more than the next guy, but at least by fighting we are giving ourselves a CHANCE.
Edit: How many of Gandhi's followers died? Thousands? Tens of Thousands? Weren't 100s of 1000s imprisoned? He lost his wife, did he not? Quite a sacrifice there. It would have been morally superior for the aggressors to die instead of the victims. I've seen enough of my fellow Americans die by the hands of our tyrannical government.
Quote from: SAK on March 06, 2007, 12:17 AM NHFT
I would say it's a good idea to be prepared for defense, though. Soon they may decide to start killing us off in droves. They could nuke a city at any time and blame it on Iran. Those 600+ detention facilities in the country are ready for action.
Gandhi may have won doing it his way, but I guarantee they let him win that one as well.
what is your plan for nuclear defense?
When we win ... the government will have let us win. It is called voluntary activity.
I don't have a plan for nuclear defense. I have a plan for nuclear prevention. That plan is simple -- make our move and take these SOBs out now.
Most people would like to think that humans have evolved over the years. I think it is the exact opposite. I think we have devolved, and there is a lot of evidence to show that. Human children used to do HIGH level mathematics in grade school. We have lost a considerable amount of our mental power. Even right now, the population is becoming more and more and more and more dumbed-down. People sit in front of TVs and totally veg-out. It's sickening.
So, rather than view us as having "evolved" and becoming or attaining more than that with which we were created, I think it is the opposite. I believe we were created with FAR more than what we have and use now. I believe we were far more spiritual beings, connected with nature, connected with one another, and living peacefully in groups. There were few deviants (even fewer than today) to society. It may have been those very deviants that have banded together to form a brotherhood/priesthood, and used systems like religion, money, government, etc to control the populations.
The point I'm trying to make is that we're not more advanced or moral than we were before. We haven't moved up and become higher spiritual beings. We haven't become morally superior to what we were. We aren't on some new higher plane. These ideas of absolute nonviolence aren't part of some evolution.
Look at every other living creature on this planet. They have a defense mechanism, and it is usually one of two things -- fight or flight. If the animal can't fight a predator, it flees. Sure there are other animals that have shells (turtles, etc) or other curious mechanisms, but for the most part it's fight or flight. No animal rolls over and lies down before its predator and surrenders to the violent attack.
No animal except the human does this. The human, for whatever reasons (usually fear and non-preparedness) freezes up or worse thinks that the best course of action is to COMPLY with its aggressor, it's predator. I do not believe this is wise, "evolved," or even moral. We're at the point where society actually punishes self-defense. Nothing could be more dangerous to the security of all.
My problem with this absolute nonviolent approach is that it seems HIGHLY UNNATURAL. This unnatural behavior is unhealthy and dangerous. How can we teach another person to defy the laws of nature by refusing to run away or fight off an attack? I think this dangerous doctrine has been put on us for a reason. It's sure worked damn wonders these last 40 years as our country has floored the gas pedal on its trip to hell.
I doubt anyone here looks forward to a fight -- or a war. We know what it would mean. But I promise you that if we don't do it, and we keep going along with what's going on (or keep beating back the branches instead of hacking at the roots), we are in for some SERIOUS trouble. I bet that worse will happen to this country than has happened to any country the past 2 centuries. It's on the horizon -- we can see it coming. Why do we still sit idly and do nothing? It IS time to make that stand -- that stand will at least give us a chance.
Quote from: SAK on March 06, 2007, 10:16 AM NHFT
I don't have a plan for nuclear defense. I have a plan for nuclear prevention. That plan is simple -- make our move and take these SOBs out now.
Then why not start?
It seems right for me to follow a path of nonresistance to evil and one of the side benefits is that I can actually do it ... now. Jesus instructions are very powerful and can actually be followed.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 06, 2007, 10:57 AM NHFTThen why not start?
It seems right for me to follow a path of nonresistance to evil and one of the side benefits is that I can actually do it ... now. Jesus instructions are very powerful and can actually be followed.
[emphasis added]
New Hampshire Constitution -- Bill of Rights
[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government.
The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.June 2, 1784
[emphasis added]
Unfortunately, I think the doctrine of complete nonviolence fits perfectly into the plan for a "new world order" or whatever you want to call it. They put this doctrine out there and sold it to us. It sounds like a beautiful thing -- it really does. It also sounds great to have a society without guns.
My research on religions, including Christianity (I used to be a Christian), has shown me that these religions were mostly manufactured for a purpose -- to control or lead society in a certain way. I agree with most of Christ's teachings -- they truly are an example on how to live. However, I can't agree with the nonviolence or nonresistance/compliance teachings. These are destructive to any life we've been given by a Creator.
There's a big difference between nonresistance (or compliance) to evil, and nonviolent noncompliance.
There won't be a big difference for those people who are desperately searching for a firearm.
Over 170,000,000 killed last century by their own governments. Almost all were disarmed completely before it happened. They're working hard to disarm us here at this time. What will follow?
I disagree with the NH constitution.
So what are you going to do SAK?
Having a firearm is all well and good, but since you don't know WHO to shoot, and WHEN to shoot them, what have you accomplished?
And there's much more to it than just "shooting the bastards," anyway.
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=460&Itemid=36
bbc world coverage of 9/11 building 7
I'm all in favor of a Revolution--who isn't. There's certainly just cause for it, but as a good friend pointed out to me the other day--"Who's going to be in charge once the Revolution succeeds? Hillary Clinton? The American people aren't ready for a Revolution" and I tend to agree. While a Revolution is certainly justified, the sheeple aren't ready for it. We're not ready for leaders or for anarchy because we've been so dumbed down and helpless. What solutions that offers us...
The sheeple have leaders right now ... so people must be ready for that.
We don't have to be ready for anarchy. We can just start living it as best we can. Nothing is perfect. :)
The tides are swaying, Russell--I am on the verge of embracing the non-violent revolution. It's taken some time for me since I have learned the truth about 9/11 and government, but I am coming around. I'll see you all in the FEMA camp soon enough!
Jeremy
Quote from: error on March 06, 2007, 10:41 PM NHFT
Having a firearm is all well and good, but since you don't know WHO to shoot, and WHEN to shoot them, what have you accomplished?
An institution that seeks to oppress comes out in the open when they seek to implement their oppression. It's tough to decide "who" and "when" now, as we are in a state of cuddly fascism, but the lines will be far clearer in the case of open police state tyranny.
Quote
And there's much more to it than just "shooting the bastards," anyway.
True, but the "much more" is doable by individuals willing to band together and fight for their life and liberty.
The person who said I was spitting on the graves of the 9/11 victims really should see this movie:
9/11 Press for Truth
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kYEMu48apIA
9/11 Widows questioning what happened.
I refuse to believe it 9-11 was an inside job. It is obvious that i was an upside job :-*
Quote from: Kat Kanning on March 10, 2007, 10:58 AM NHFT
The person who said I was spitting on the graves of the 9/11 victims really should see this movie:
9/11 Press for Truth
http://youtube.com/watch?v=kYEMu48apIA
9/11 Widows questioning what happened.
That was a great documentary. It was from the point of view of the victims families and this guy who has done a decent timeline of all the media reports surrounding 9/11.
Any comments on the newest documents?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0315071pearl1.html?link=rssfeed
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0314071gitmo1.html?link=rssfeed
Perfect time for Ian or Mark to chime in :P
Quote from: lildog on March 15, 2007, 03:24 PM NHFT
Any comments on the newest documents?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0315071pearl1.html?link=rssfeed
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2007/0314071gitmo1.html?link=rssfeed
Officials: Mohammed exaggerated claims [http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070315/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/terrorist_plots_4]
Quote from: jaqeboy on March 15, 2007, 09:40 PM NHFT
Officials: Mohammed exaggerated claims
Whether you think his hatred is justified or not, KSM hates America so much that I wouldn't be surprised if he claimed responsibility for JFK, MLK, and the Lindberg baby.
Kevin
He probably went back in time and assassinated Lincoln too
I heard he killed KEITH!
The bastards.
I think you mean:
BASTARDS!
Hmmm ... KSM is undoubtedly so full of himself that it's hard to believe a word he says.
That having been said, I'm far more interested in his ISI connections than I am with his Al Qaeda connections.
Terror Mastermind KSM is an Imposter - The Confession is Fake *PIC*
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=100966
Quote from: jaqeboy on March 18, 2007, 12:38 PM NHFT
Terror Mastermind KSM is an Imposter - The Confession is Fake *PIC*
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=100966
From the article:
QuoteSee: http://www.tribuneindia.com/2003/20030309/world.htm
Note the heavy-set frame, the nearly closed eyes, and the grey sideburn in front of Qudoos right ear.
This is the caption to the photo of Qudoos: Ahmed Abdul Qadus (centre) is brought to an anti-terrorist court in Rawalpindi, Pakistan, on Saturday. Qadus, an activist of the Jamat-e-Islami, was arrested earlier this month with Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, suspected mastermind of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks in the USA. ? AP/PTI
Now compare that person's face with that of the alleged terror mastermind, KSM:
http://www.nrc.nl/multimedia/archive/00158/Khalid_Sheikh_Moham_158759a.jpg
Unless they gave him a nose job and added about 3/4 inch, it's not even vaguely the same guy.
"Improbable Collapse: The Demolition of our Republic" with Michael Berger
Thursday, April 12, 2007
6:30 PM
KEENE STATE COLLEGE - Putnam Theater and Lecture Hall
Wyman Way
Keene, NH
Monadnock 9/11 Truth
Valley 9/11 Truth presents: "Improbable Collapse: The Demolition of Our Republic," the first film to look at the events of September 11, 2001 from a scientific perspective. Discussions will follow the film screening with film-maker Michael Berger; DVDs and other resources will be available.
On September 11, 2001, the World Trade Center Twin Towers disintegrated in a manner that some scientists say resembled deliberately calculated demolitions. The facts open for discussion include: at 5:20 p.m. that same day another building, the 47-story WTC 7, completely collapsed within 70 feet of its footprint in 6.6 seconds. These three buildings became the first such structures to ever suffer complete collapse due to fire and structural damage.
"The dramatic collapse of World Trade Center 7 is something everyone ought to see... It really does have the characteristics of an explosive demolition." –Dr. Steven Jones, physicist, author of "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?"
The new documentary, "Improbable Collapse – The Demolition of our Republic," closely examines one of the world's worst catastrophes from a civil engineering perspective. Using photo and video footage as well as expert scientific testimony, the film thoroughly analyzes the official reports, offering varied criticisms of the official findings, while presenting a more plausible hypothesis. Both government investigations and the mainstream media have quietly ignored the findings from these scientific experts.
"Improbable Collapse – The Demolition of our Republic" is produced by Michael Berger and Connect the Dots LLC. As the media coordinator for 911truth.org, Berger has appeared on ABC World News Tonight, CNN Showbiz Tonight, and Scarborough Country as well as dozens of radio appearances including a recent debate with Matthew Rothschild, editor of The Progressive Magazine.
Please help promote this event. Download one of these flyers, make copies, distribute everywhere!
http://www.911truth.org/images/resources/Poster%20bw-Keene%20NH.pdf http://www.911truth.org/images/resources/Poster%20color-Keene%20NH.pdf
link: www.FlybyNews.com
Local college students started up this group:
Welcome to Student Scholars for 9|11 Truth. Our goal is to help inform the public of the current happenings surrounding the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks. If you are a student enrolled at a university around the world and are interested in joining, please check out our "Join" page. Thank you in advance for taking the time out to take a look at our website. If you have any questions, please contact us. To the pursuit of truth!
http://sst911.org/index.html
http://digg.com/political_opinion/Air_Force_Fighter_Pilot_and_Instructor_Comes_Out_for_9_11_Truth_2 (http://digg.com/political_opinion/Air_Force_Fighter_Pilot_and_Instructor_Comes_Out_for_9_11_Truth_2)
Every day, additional military and government people come out for 9/11 truth. The latest is Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer .
Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Retired U.S. Air Force fighter pilot (F-111, F-15E, F-16, B-1, F-18, Mig-29, and Suu-22). Flew combat missions over Iraq. Former instructor at the USAF Fighter Weapons School and NATO's Tactical Leadership Program.
• Statement to this website 3/25/07: "After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. It is now time to take our country back.
The "collapse" of WTC Building 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane] shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were pre-planned. There is simply no way to demolish a 47-story building (on fire) over a coffee break. It is also impossible to report the building's collapse before it happened, as BBC News did, unless it was pre-planned. Further damning evidence is Larry Silverstein's video taped confession in which he states "they made that decision to pull [WTC 7] and we watched the building collapse."
We cannot let the pursuit of justice fail. Those of us in the military took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.
We owe it to those who have gone before us who executed that same oath, and who are doing the same thing in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Those of us who joined the military and faithfully executed orders that were given us had to trust our leaders. The violation and abuse of that trust is not only heinous, but ultimately the most accurate definition of treason!"
If more people don't wake up and acknowledge the truth, then I hope the people we have so far will carry the extra burden.
QuoteThe "collapse" of WTC Building 7 [570 feet tall, 47 stories, and not hit by an airplane] shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were pre-planned.
Goes to show there's dumbf--ks in the highest level of our military. No surprise there. Looks like Rosie O'Donnell could qualify for Lieutenant Colonel.
(http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/wtc7-430.jpg)
(http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/wtc7/wtc7_fires.jpg)
(http://media.popularmechanics.com/images/WTC7-Damage.jpg)
Why did the 9/11 commission not mention wtc7 at all?
Why did the fema report (I think) only have one line about wtc7s collapse ... and that was about how their was no explanation of its collapse that was very likely?
The government has questions to answer .... not me. They did the cleanup ... they built the buildings .... they used them .... they investigated ... they have no answers ......... they blew the buildings up.
The entire WTC complex was on a single, multi-story "basement." I expect that, if you were to collapse one half of my house, the other half would probably be significantly weakened. Similarly, if you drop two giant towers into the basement, it's going to weaken the other towers. Then take a chunk out of the corner of one, and what happens?
As I've said many times, I have no doubt that members of the government could decide to destroy the WTC for political gain. I am not convinced that they did (it's easy enough to goad fanatics until they do something, without needing to hold their hands through the process), but it's certainly well within the realm of possibility. However, the easiest way to take down a building like that is simply to fly the planes into it. The planes are enough to destroy it, so why add demolitions and such in a massive conspiracy that's sure to have leaks? It just doesn't make sense.
Joe
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 05, 2007, 09:21 AM NHFTWhy did the 9/11 commission not mention wtc7 at all?
Why did the fema report (I think) only have one line about wtc7s collapse ... and that was about how their was no explanation of its collapse that was very likely?
You're talking about the same FEMA that performed so admirably in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, right? And the 9/11 Commission which had as one of its members the person most directly responsible for the "wall" between the intelligence and law-enforcement communities which hobbled any possibility of identifying and preventing the attack, right?
The explanation for its collapse is right there in front of you in those three pictures - first it was "sandblasted" with hundred-ton chunks of steel and concrete flying at hundreds of kilometers per hour, then it burned for a while, the fires perhaps fed by pressurized generator fuel, and then it collapsed.
so why didn't they put that in their report?
They're FEMA.
Quote from: mvpel on April 05, 2007, 09:40 AM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 05, 2007, 09:21 AM NHFTWhy did the 9/11 commission not mention wtc7 at all?
Why did the fema report (I think) only have one line about wtc7s collapse ... and that was about how their was no explanation of its collapse that was very likely?
You're talking about the same FEMA that performed so admirably in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, right? And the 9/11 Commission which had as one of its members the person most directly responsible for the "wall" between the intelligence and law-enforcement communities which hobbled any possibility of identifying and preventing the attack, right?
The explanation for its collapse is right there in front of you in those three pictures - first it was "sandblasted" with hundred-ton chunks of steel and concrete flying at hundreds of kilometers per hour, then it burned for a while, the fires perhaps fed by pressurized generator fuel, and then it collapsed.
what a load of crap. you other people on this thread will not even call this govt. op on this bullshit. 3000 people dead and you people swallow this shit; nhfree what madness....sandblasted..... pressurised generator fuel.....
here re-eat it again...........
The explanation for its collapse is right there in front of you in those three pictures - first it was "sandblasted" with hundred-ton chunks of steel and concrete flying at hundreds of kilometers per hour, then it burned for a while, the fires perhaps fed by pressurized generator fuel, and then it collapsed.
candy asses
Kat's friend is so nice.
Quote from: KBCraig on April 05, 2007, 07:26 PM NHFT
Kat's friend is so nice.
thank you..
when someone feeds a lie that brings humanity down the road to one of the darkest places that humans have ever seen, i am gonna call them on it.
did you ever consider i spend my time on this thread because i just think of myself? and get into it with all this disimformation that is being pushed out because i am a person who only cares only about myself?
i put myself out in this public internet in this day and age with what is going on in society for me? come on, nails that stick there head up get hit; we all should know that,and where we are all headed if things do not start to turn around. i speak candidly, and i apologise for that; it is who i am, it is what i do.
god bless you all
Eyes wide shut. Watch some films about 9/11 for crying out loud. For the first time in history, a steel-framed building collapsed because of fire. It didn't happen once, but 3 times. Watch the collapses -- they are perfect demolitions. Open your eyes FFS.
911 -- In Plane Site (http://video.google.com/url?docid=-8585976043115686394&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=in+plane+site&vidurl=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-8585976043115686394%26q%3Din%2Bplane%2Bsite%26hl%3Den&usg=AL29H208Y2sgCLnnxrNV-rDCndxLmzNsFg)
Loose Change 2e (http://video.google.com/url?docid=7866929448192753501&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=loose+change&vidurl=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D7866929448192753501%26q%3Dloose%2Bchange%26hl%3Den&usg=AL29H20z-LqmSyQXEZLSIDep6w480YP0cw)
Improbable Collapse -- The Demolition of Our Republic (http://video.google.com/url?docid=4026073566596731782&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=improbable+collapse&vidurl=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D4026073566596731782%26q%3Dimprobable%2Bcollapse%26hl%3Den&usg=AL29H204aGgTRagKFa3s34t2bj3NmO1pXw)
Great Illusion p1 (http://video.google.com/url?docid=-1103725146236500421&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=great+illusion&vidurl=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-1103725146236500421%26q%3Dgreat%2Billusion%26hl%3Den&usg=AL29H22bLMW3v1J8XlICz971Pqeb1bumjQ)
Great Illusion p2 (http://video.google.com/url?docid=-7347491944410924647&esrc=sr2&ev=v&q=great+illusion&vidurl=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D-7347491944410924647%26q%3Dgreat%2Billusion%26hl%3Den&usg=AL29H21pp-tKSllxR9u1Ugx_DJHGgAYiHg)
Alex Jones' TerrorStorm (http://video.google.com/url?docid=786048453686176230&esrc=sr1&ev=v&q=terror+storm&vidurl=http://video.google.com/videoplay%3Fdocid%3D786048453686176230%26q%3Dterror%2Bstorm&usg=AL29H23tMS1IUp8sHes3sMYxk9sRHta95g)
NOW LISTEN UP PLEASE THANKS :)
IF YOU ARE SOOOOOOO CONFIDENT THAT IT WAS MUSLIM JIHADISTS WITH BOX CUTTERS (aka the turban+box-cutter theory) THEN WATCH THESE MOVIES. YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE, RIGHT? IF THE FILMS ARE WRONG, THEN THEY CAN ONLY MAKE YOU LAUGH AT HOW RIDICULOUS THE POINTS THEY TRY TO MAKE ARE, RIGHT?
So watch these movies -- you have nothing to lose. If you have a movie that claims to prove 9/11 happened exactly how the government says, I will gladly watch it. I am confident in my beliefs. If you refuse to watch the movies, then it suggests you are not confident in yours.
Quote from: error on April 05, 2007, 06:07 PM NHFT
They're FEMA.
there you go with your incompetence assumsion of fema again; and again.
think tanks run this matrix. and i think you should know that.
i think you do know that.
the latest movie with David Ray Griffin in it is great .... covers all the myths connected with 9/11.
Quote from: SAK on April 05, 2007, 08:59 PM NHFT
IF YOU ARE SOOOOOOO CONFIDENT THAT IT WAS MUSLIM JIHADISTS WITH BOX CUTTERS (aka the turban+box-cutter theory)
Turbans are an Asian item; the alleged 9/11 hijackers were Arabs who, if, they wore traditional dress, would sport a keffiyeh (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keffiyeh), not a turban. Every time you repeat the "turban+box-cutter theory" line, you diminish your own believability.
QuoteTHEN WATCH THESE MOVIES. YOU HAVE NOTHING TO LOSE, RIGHT? IF THE FILMS ARE WRONG, THEN THEY CAN ONLY MAKE YOU LAUGH AT HOW RIDICULOUS THE POINTS THEY TRY TO MAKE ARE, RIGHT?
I have watched them, and others like them. I didn't laugh; I shook my head sadly when I saw people so religiously committed to a lie that they are unable to engage in rational and objective thought.
Kevin
quote from kbcraig
"Turbans are an Asian item; the alleged 9/11 hijackers were Arabs who, if, they wore traditional dress, would sport a keffiyeh, not a turban. Every time you repeat the "turban+box-cutter theory" line, you diminish your own believability."
since sept. 11 2001 my observation of the conspiracy the govt. and corporates mainly use the term "muslim extremists".
because you use the words or label "keffiyeh" and "arabs" it does not diminish or enhance your "believability" or diminish your ability to express yourself.
what i have noticed your basis is built upon a lie.
it comes across clearly.
those planes did not cause those bulidings collapse into "small piles".
building 7 ? something is up with that. there is something going on that we are not being told.
Quote from: KBCraig on April 06, 2007, 03:02 AM NHFTEvery time you repeat the "turban+box-cutter theory" line, you diminish your own believability.
So you attack someone on technicalities like flavoraid and keffiyeh .... and then defend the federal government. What kind of heart attitude does that reveal?
Quote from: SAK on April 05, 2007, 08:59 PM NHFTEyes wide shut. Watch some films about 9/11 for crying out loud. For the first time in history, a steel-framed building collapsed because of fire. It didn't happen once, but 3 times.
Yes, there was only a fire. No planes crashed into them and destroyed large percentages of the supporting structure first.
It's a very simple failure mode. Take out a chunk of the structure. Then heat the remaining structure with a fire. The steel is softened, and expands, as a result of the heat. The expansion shifts the loads onto the hottest, weakest elements. Those elements fail. Now there are fewer supporting elements, and they are taking even more load. They fail. It's a simple cascade failure, which any competent structural engineer can explain.
The steel does not have to be melted by the fire to fail, contrary to what the "armchair experts" in the conspiracy theories claim.
Quote from: SAK on April 05, 2007, 08:59 PM NHFTWatch the collapses -- they are perfect demolitions.
Have you ever seen a tall building collapse any other way? See, there's this thing called gravity. Oddly enough, it's fairly strong. When you weaken a building that size to the point that it fails, the downward gravity vector is far stronger than any lateral loading, so the building drops straight - or almost straight - down. This is basic, basic physics. I suggest signing up for a few physics classes at a local college...
Joe
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 06, 2007, 08:16 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on April 06, 2007, 03:02 AM NHFTEvery time you repeat the "turban+box-cutter theory" line, you diminish your own believability.
So you attack someone on technicalities like flavoraid and keffiyeh .... and then defend the federal government. What kind of heart attitude does that reveal?
An attitude that is concerned with actual facts, not Truther nonsense.
And please point out where I've defended the federal government. Good luck in your search.
What I still don't get and maybe some of you here who believe the 9-11 truth movement sites etc can explain this to me is why?
Why would the government blown up WTC 7?
Why, if they planned the whole thing to try to justify invading Iraq wouldn't they have created stronger connections between 9-11 and Saddam?
Why would they have used a missile at the Pentagon yet crashed planes every where else including into the middle of no where PA?
Why even bother crashing planes into the twin towers if they were going to take them down with explosives anyway, especially since there had already been bombing attempts made on them back in 1993?
And lastly, why is it so hard to believe that 19 terrorists flew the planes into buildings when we see others in the middle east blowing themselves up all the time in many cases just to kill one or two others?
Quote from: KBCraig on April 06, 2007, 12:09 PM NHFT
An attitude that is concerned with actual facts, not Truther nonsense.
And please point out where I've defended the federal government. Good luck in your search.
You attack those of us that want to dismantle the government.
You believe the governments story of 9/11 and attack those of us that would dare question it.
You aid the feds and take money from them. Your actions are even more important than your debates.
Quote from: MaineShark on April 06, 2007, 09:16 AM NHFT
Quote from: SAK on April 05, 2007, 08:59 PM NHFTEyes wide shut. Watch some films about 9/11 for crying out loud. For the first time in history, a steel-framed building collapsed because of fire. It didn't happen once, but 3 times.
Yes, there was only a fire. No planes crashed into them and destroyed large percentages of the supporting structure first.
It's a very simple failure mode. Take out a chunk of the structure. Then heat the remaining structure with a fire. The steel is softened, and expands, as a result of the heat. The expansion shifts the loads onto the hottest, weakest elements. Those elements fail. Now there are fewer supporting elements, and they are taking even more load. They fail. It's a simple cascade failure, which any competent structural engineer can explain.
The steel does not have to be melted by the fire to fail, contrary to what the "armchair experts" in the conspiracy theories claim.
Quote from: SAK on April 05, 2007, 08:59 PM NHFTWatch the collapses -- they are perfect demolitions.
Have you ever seen a tall building collapse any other way? See, there's this thing called gravity. Oddly enough, it's fairly strong. When you weaken a building that size to the point that it fails, the downward gravity vector is far stronger than any lateral loading, so the building drops straight - or almost straight - down. This is basic, basic physics. I suggest signing up for a few physics classes at a local college...
Joe
you are so full of shit.
there are highrise pictures abound that gut out completely by fire and the steel frame is still there.
next time i light my gas grill wich burns 500 degrees hotter than jet fuel and the grill grate does not melt i will think how hundreds of millions of dollars are spent , paid to people like you to push out bullshit by, people who think they are part of the system.
you truly have no morals. you live a lie. you think you are better and smarter than us.
you are fake.
may god have mercy on your soul.
http://infowars.com/articles/sept11/video_11th_day_of_every_month.htm
6 minute video to realize every 11th day of the month, to hold the truth self evident on the street on your lawn .
turn off your television for good and tune in to the 11th of every month.
Quote from: realitycheck on April 06, 2007, 06:47 PM NHFTyou are so full of shit.
there are highrise pictures abound that gut out completely by fire and the steel frame is still there.
How many were struck by jet aircraft flying hundreds of miles per hour, prior to the fire?
Of course, as I said, the fire did not
melt the steel frame.
Quote from: realitycheck on April 06, 2007, 06:47 PM NHFTnext time i light my gas grill wich burns 500 degrees hotter than jet fuel and the grill grate does not melt...
Just how hot do you think the flame of an atmospheric LP burner is, actually? C'mon, let's hear a number...
Quote from: realitycheck on April 06, 2007, 06:47 PM NHFT...i will think how hundreds of millions of dollars are spent , paid to people like you to push out bullshit by, people who think they are part of the system.
Uh, who's paying these hundreds of millions of dollars? I could sure use hundreds of millions of dollars, right now. So far, all the government has ever done to me is
take money.
For the record, I'm an anarchist; I'm not part of anyone's system. I do happen to have a fairly good understanding of engineering, and I call BS on anyone who believes conspiracy websites written by people who clearly don't even understand gravity.
Quote from: realitycheck on April 06, 2007, 06:47 PM NHFTyou truly have no morals. you live a lie. you think you are better and smarter than us.
you are fake.
may god have mercy on your soul.
Who is "us." I'm certainly "better and smarter" than many people. Define who this set called "us" is and I'll tell you if I'm better and smarter than everyone in it... ::)
Joe
you're right .... why let them sweep this under the rug of history?
Quote from: MaineShark on April 06, 2007, 07:43 PM NHFTI do happen to have a fairly good understanding of engineering, and I call BS on anyone who believes conspiracy websites written by people who clearly don't even understand gravity.
Some of these guys http://stj911.org/ spend a lot of time studying gravity. :)
That Steven Jones guy has always struck me as a very serious investigator of truth with experience in the field of physics. He had questions about the towers and he has found some answers.
http://www.keenefreepress.com/mambo/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=490&Itemid=36
Quote from: MaineShark on April 06, 2007, 07:43 PM NHFT
Quote from: realitycheck on April 06, 2007, 06:47 PM NHFTyou are so full of shit.
there are highrise pictures abound that gut out completely by fire and the steel frame is still there.
How many were struck by jet aircraft flying hundreds of miles per hour, prior to the fire?
Of course, as I said, the fire did not melt the steel frame.
Quote from: realitycheck on April 06, 2007, 06:47 PM NHFTnext time i light my gas grill wich burns 500 degrees hotter than jet fuel and the grill grate does not melt...
Just how hot do you think the flame of an atmospheric LP burner is, actually? C'mon, let's hear a number...
Quote from: realitycheck on April 06, 2007, 06:47 PM NHFT...i will think how hundreds of millions of dollars are spent , paid to people like you to push out bullshit by, people who think they are part of the system.
Uh, who's paying these hundreds of millions of dollars? I could sure use hundreds of millions of dollars, right now. So far, all the government has ever done to me is take money.
For the record, I'm an anarchist; I'm not part of anyone's system. I do happen to have a fairly good understanding of engineering, and I call BS on anyone who believes conspiracy websites written by people who clearly don't even understand gravity.
Quote from: realitycheck on April 06, 2007, 06:47 PM NHFTyou truly have no morals. you live a lie. you think you are better and smarter than us.
you are fake.
may god have mercy on your soul.
Who is "us." I'm certainly "better and smarter" than many people. Define who this set called "us" is and I'll tell you if I'm better and smarter than everyone in it... ::)
Joe
you can kiss my ass if you think i am gonna jump through your questions. you want answers go figure it out yourself.
if you just open up your mind you might be able to see the way reality really is.
What makes you "better and smarter" than most people. genetics ? you prick. You are either working for the government or you are ignorant. Which one?
Building # 7, the world trade centers 1 and 2 fell to the ground into the basement and you know it... Have you ever seen a building the has been prepped with explosives ? remember they always showed buildings being taken down with explosives before 911 on local and national television, and now you do not ever see it. Why is that? Since then there has never been a demolition of a high rise building on television since. Why? Because it looks just like the buildings that were taken down on 911.... Wake up and see the truth... April 11 is comming up so join us as we expose the truth about 911. ya ever seen the movie the pianist"?
realitycheck--I have no idea who you are, nor can anyone else by looking at your profile. You may be a troll or you may be sincere, but I can tell you this, that you are not going to win any heart or minds by insulting people on this board. Many of us have been posting for a number of years and have established relationships.
No matter what the argument is, use some respect. There are reasons why your abrasive language and insults have earned you a negative rating.
For the record, I am a "9/11 Truther", whatever that may mean. I've serious misgivings about what the "official conspiracy theory" dictates, and am upfront about it on my MySpace profile. I'm also involved in some activism, but try to be pretty careful about what I say on a public forum. Word to the wise--Let facts speak for themselves without devolving in to elementary name-calling. The same goes for the rest of you!
Yeah, I'm gonna have to side with the truthers here. The deal clearly didn't happen in the way the government said it did.
Quote from: Insurgent on April 06, 2007, 09:51 PM NHFT
realitycheck--I have no idea who you are, nor can anyone else by looking at your profile. You may be a troll or you may be sincere, but I can tell you this, that you are not going to win any heart or minds by insulting people on this board. Many of us have been posting for a number of years and have established relationships.
No matter what the argument is, use some respect. There are reasons why your abrasive language and insults have earned you a negative rating.
For the record, I am a "9/11 Truther", whatever that may mean. I've serious misgivings about what the "official conspiracy theory" dictates, and am upfront about it on my MySpace profile. I'm also involved in some activism, but try to be pretty careful about what I say on a public forum. Word to the wise--Let facts speak for themselves without devolving in to elementary name-calling. The same goes for the rest of you!
point well taken. thank you.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 06, 2007, 03:50 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on April 06, 2007, 12:09 PM NHFT
An attitude that is concerned with actual facts, not Truther nonsense.
And please point out where I've defended the federal government. Good luck in your search.
You attack those of us that want to dismantle the government.
You believe the governments story of 9/11 and attack those of us that would dare question it.
Those are both blatant falsehoods.
I have both publicly and privately cheered attempts to peacefully dismantle the government, even when I have doubts about the long-term success of anarchy.
I do not believe "the government's story"; I believe what I saw. I do not attack anyone who questions the government's story, but I do question the integrity of those who propagate made-up theories as "truth" -- no matter whether those theories are the government's or those opposing the government.
Quote
You aid the feds and take money from them. Your actions are even more important than your debates.
As are yours, and I welcome you to retract your false statements about me.
Quote from: realitycheck on April 06, 2007, 09:32 PM NHFT
you can kiss my ass if you think i am gonna jump through your questions. you want answers go figure it out yourself.
if you just open up your mind you might be able to see the way reality really is.
To sum up: "Screw your facts and data. They get in the way of my 'reality'!"
::)
You work for the feds .... you cannot possibly work against them while you work for them. You use force to keep people in fed prison. Let them go.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 07, 2007, 01:25 AM NHFT
You work for the feds .... you cannot possibly work against them while you work for them. You use force to keep people in fed prison. Let them go.
I would have to use force to let people go. I'd have to use force against many people to let someone out the gate. Maybe you can help me narrow down the list of who should be "let go"; would you choose the cops who beat people and tortured false confessions out of them? Or the men who raped their stepdaughters and posted pictures on the internet? The nursing home attendant who beat and raped elderly patients? Perhaps you'd side with the politicians who took bribes to steal tax money from Person X, to give to Person Y, and help them be free to continue to steal tax money and give it to the biggest
briberdonor.
And now for the reality check: how many of them would you welcome into your own home? If they're discharged from prison, would you offer them a room?
I have repeatedly said on this forum that I wish my job didn't exist. Eliminate unconstitutional laws, and my job wouldn't exist. But you don't argue for that; you prefer to accuse me of evil, when you'd do nothing to stop someone from raping your step-daughter in front of her mother, and would then protest any "government" that locked him up.
How do you live with
your conscience, Russell? Or do you just ignore it and blow off anything that doesn't fit with your argument of the moment?
Quote from: realitycheck on April 06, 2007, 09:32 PM NHFTyou can kiss my ass if you think i am gonna jump through your questions. you want answers go figure it out yourself.
if you just open up your mind you might be able to see the way reality really is.
Someone with an open mind has no problem with questions, becuase someone with an open mind has the answers.
Quote from: realitycheck on April 06, 2007, 09:32 PM NHFTWhat makes you "better and smarter" than most people. genetics ? you prick.
Most people do derive their intelligence primary through inheritance, although there are rare occurances of random mutations.
Quote from: realitycheck on April 06, 2007, 09:32 PM NHFTYou are either working for the government or you are ignorant. Which one?
So, have you stopped beating your wife?
Quote from: realitycheck on April 06, 2007, 09:32 PM NHFTBuilding # 7, the world trade centers 1 and 2 fell to the ground into the basement and you know it... Have you ever seen a building the has been prepped with explosives ?
Yes. I could probably calculate where to place the charges, if I wanted to.
Quote from: realitycheck on April 06, 2007, 09:32 PM NHFTremember they always showed buildings being taken down with explosives before 911 on local and national television, and now you do not ever see it. Why is that? Since then there has never been a demolition of a high rise building on television since. Why? Because it looks just like the buildings that were taken down on 911.... Wake up and see the truth... April 11 is comming up so join us as we expose the truth about 911. ya ever seen the movie the pianist"?
I've seen plenty of demolition videos played on national television since. And I don't even have cable or an antenna, so those are entirely from watching television at other peoples' houses... a statistically tiny portion of my time. So I would likely have seen more if I watched television as much as the average American.
Any vertical collapse of a tall building will look like that, due to physics. It does not take explosives.
Joe
Quote from: KBCraig on April 07, 2007, 03:56 AM NHFT
How do you live with your conscience, Russell? Or do you just ignore it and blow off anything that doesn't fit with your argument of the moment?
If I had your job ... I would just have to quit.
I would free all the prisoners if I could ..... even evil government paid guys who killed others on 9/11.
"But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5:15
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5224963246223576086&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5224963246223576086&hl=en). This video was excellent and it makes some points that you don't really hear that much.
Quote from: KBCraig on April 07, 2007, 03:56 AM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 07, 2007, 01:25 AM NHFT
You work for the feds .... you cannot possibly work against them while you work for them. You use force to keep people in fed prison. Let them go.
I would have to use force to let people go. I'd have to use force against many people to let someone out the gate. Maybe you can help me narrow down the list of who should be "let go"; would you choose the cops who beat people and tortured false confessions out of them? Or the men who raped their stepdaughters and posted pictures on the internet? The nursing home attendant who beat and raped elderly patients?
And now for the reality check: how many of them would you welcome into your own home? If they're discharged from prison, would you offer them a room?
I have repeatedly said on this forum that I wish my job didn't exist. Eliminate unconstitutional laws, and my job wouldn't exist. But you don't argue for that; you prefer to accuse me of evil, when you'd do nothing to stop someone from raping your step-daughter in front of her mother, and would then protest any "government" that locked him up.
I agree with you KB Craig and I wouldn't want a murderer, rapist or child molester in my home let alone out of prison; it's where they belong. There are a lot of innocent people in prison but that's not KB's fault, he's not the prosecutor that perhaps overlooked facts on a particular case. Everyone needs a job it doesn't make them evil just because they have a job that others don't agree with. The judgment written about here against KB is ignorant and cruel! How about some body pay his bills then and support his family? Sometimes life isn't as easy as you make it out to be Russell.
Quote from: Caleb on April 07, 2007, 09:51 AM NHFT
"But if you bite and devour one another, take care that you are not consumed by one another." Galatians 5:15
Here Here, this is getting out of hand.
I make this post just knowing I am going to be sorry for getting involved.
Maybe every one can just debate facts and leave out name calling and
who is what.
Russell you are one RCH from sounding like the decider=
Either you are totally with everything I say or your against me.
Every one is on a different rung of the freedom ladder
if we start kicking people in the head, that are on a lower
rung or grabbing people on a higher one.
The ladder is going to be empty and fallen over.
I am calling to KB .... who is on a ladder leading in a different direction. :)
Quote from: KBCraig on April 07, 2007, 12:08 AM NHFT
I do not believe "the government's story"; I believe what I saw. I do not attack anyone who questions the government's story, but I do question the integrity of those who propagate made-up theories as "truth" -- no matter whether those theories are the government's or those opposing the government.
So what
do you believe happened on 9/11? I think that's the crucial point here. You can say, "I don't believe the government's story, and I don't believe the conspiracy theorists. I only believe what I saw with my eyes."
OK. Well and good. But what you saw with your eyes is incredibly limited. You saw two planes strike the twin towers. Then you saw three buildings fall. You don't *know* who was responsible from that. For all you know from what your eyes tell you, it was all a grievous accident: some poor soul was trying to land his jumbo jet in LaGuardia, and accidentally hit the world trade center. Then another pilot went in with his jumbo jet to get a closer look, and he accidentally hit the second one. You don't know, (going strictly by what you saw) who the pilot was, nor the circumstances surrounding the events. So this whole "I believe what I saw with my eyes is a red herring." I, for one, also believe what I saw with my own eyes. But you and I have a totally different understanding of who planned and executed it. And I can guarantee you that neither of our conclusions are based on what we actually saw.
And that's another point, Kev. I say, "I believe the US government is complicit." Sometimes, I might even omit the "I believe" part and just say, "The US government is complicit." Either way, it's clear that when I say that, I'm talking about my belief. You inserting things calling people who believe certain things to be "dishonest" (as you have done from time to time. You may say that you haven't done that, but I remember specifically a conversation you and I had wherein you specifically called Professor Griffin a liar) is every bit as inflammatory as Russell calling you out on your job. Because you are asserting that I am being dishonest just by holding certain beliefs and positions. It's a form of intellectual intimidation.
Anytime you say, "I believe this or that" you put yourself out on a limb, because someone can always challenge you on it. So in fairness, on this issue, I'm going to ask you to do one of two things:
Either:
a) specify, in a very specific manner, what you believe actually happened on 9/11. Name names and point fingers at the culprits. Explain how it was not prevented, and correlate all this together in a seamless story that completely matches all available evidence...
or
b) lighten up on people who have a different understanding of what happened. If you aren't willing to put yourself "out there" then you shouldn't be so quick to attack others who are trying to figure it all out.
Quote from: raineyrocks on April 07, 2007, 03:40 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on April 07, 2007, 03:56 AM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 07, 2007, 01:25 AM NHFT
You work for the feds .... you cannot possibly work against them while you work for them. You use force to keep people in fed prison. Let them go.
I would have to use force to let people go. I'd have to use force against many people to let someone out the gate. Maybe you can help me narrow down the list of who should be "let go"; would you choose the cops who beat people and tortured false confessions out of them? Or the men who raped their stepdaughters and posted pictures on the internet? The nursing home attendant who beat and raped elderly patients?
And now for the reality check: how many of them would you welcome into your own home? If they're discharged from prison, would you offer them a room?
I have repeatedly said on this forum that I wish my job didn't exist. Eliminate unconstitutional laws, and my job wouldn't exist. But you don't argue for that; you prefer to accuse me of evil, when you'd do nothing to stop someone from raping your step-daughter in front of her mother, and would then protest any "government" that locked him up.
I agree with you KB Craig and I wouldn't want a murderer, rapist or child molester in my home let alone out of prison; it's where they belong. There are a lot of innocent people in prison but that's not KB's fault, he's not the prosecutor that perhaps overlooked facts on a particular case. Everyone needs a job it doesn't make them evil just because they have a job that others don't agree with. The judgment written about here against KB is ignorant and cruel! How about some body pay his bills then and support his family? Sometimes life isn't as easy as you make it out to be Russell.
Hello?
Is anybody in there!?!
(and I quote)
"Everyone needs a job it doesn't make them evil just because they have a job that others don't agree with"
(end qote)
Hey Rainey...
My "job" is to hunt you down, kidnap you, and hold you until either you or Brian Severance tells the judge where David is... and if you resist I'll just have to use "superior force"(beat, spray, shock, stab, and/or shoot) to bring you in...dead or alive...
But...I'm not evil...hey...it's just my job...right!?!
So...
When you assist the "government" in it's evil activities...
You become evil by association!
Go Russell Go!
I don't think it's fair to call Kevin evil.
That's not an approval of his line of work. But if it is wrong to do something, that doesn't mean that someone who does that wrong thing is *evil*. If only evil people work the positions of power and violence, then we are hopelessly doomed.
Quote from: Caleb on April 07, 2007, 05:31 PM NHFT
I don't think it's fair to call Kevin evil.
That's not an approval of his line of work. But if it is wrong to do something, that doesn't mean that someone who does that wrong thing is *evil*. If only evil people work the positions of power and violence, then we are hopelessly doomed.
It's my personal opinion...and I can't be the only one...
That to work within an evil system makes you either...
Evil...
or
Ignorant...
and I don't think anyone on this forum can be called ignorant...
QuoteHello?
Is anybody in there!?!
(and I quote)
"Everyone needs a job it doesn't make them evil just because they have a job that others don't agree with"
(end qote)
First of all Powerchuter, your comments above are rude and demeaning so I won't waste my time commenting, live with your rude self, I don't care.
QuoteHey Rainey...
My "job" is to hunt you down, kidnap you, and hold you until either you or Brian Severance tells the judge where David is... and if you resist I'll just have to use "superior force"(beat, spray, shock, stab, and/or shoot) to bring you in...dead or alive...
But...I'm not evil...hey...it's just my job...right!?!
What a stupid comparison, KB doesn't hunt people down, kidnap them, ect. If your job was to hunt me down and kidnap me for no reason whatsoever your job would be considered evil. Let me put it this way, maybe you'll understand ::), if someone broke into your home and tortured and murdered your family, would you want that someone out on the street free and clear? What you and Russell are saying is, open the prison doors and let these scumbags back on the street to hurt more people?
I'm well aware that the overall government sucks, does evil things, supresses people; but it does not mean KB does them, does it? I don't know the particulars of KB's life but let's just say this is the only job he could get to support his family, who are you to tell him he should not work where he does? When did you become the same judge and jury that you imply is so wrong? Doesn't that make you an equal suppressor of someone elses life?
If your even going to respond to my post, show some class and don't be nasty to me for having my own opinion.
Quote from: Rebel on April 07, 2007, 11:24 AM NHFT
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5224963246223576086&hl=en (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5224963246223576086&hl=en). This video was excellent and it makes some points that you don't really hear that much.
Wow; that's a really interesting video. It's only 20 minutes, too which is nice. There are very few videos on the subject of 9/11 that I will promote or endorse, and that is one.
The best one that I have found is "The Truth and Lies of 9/11" with Mike Ruppert http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145&q=The+Truth+and+Lies+of+9%2F11&hl=en
and "Improbable Collapse" by Michael Berger, media directer of 911truth.org
He is going on a New England tour, showing the film and answering questions afterwards. This is a great opportunity to bring a skeptic and come away with some great info. http://improbablecollapse.com/
Quote from: Caleb on April 07, 2007, 05:31 PM NHFTIf only evil people work the positions of power and violence, then we are hopelessly doomed.
Evil people are attracted to those positions .... or invent them.
The people that planned and executed the 9/11 killings need to turn from their evil ways.
We all do bad stuff, but we can choose to fix it and make better choices in the future.
Quote from: raineyrocks on April 07, 2007, 07:03 PM NHFTLet me put it this way, maybe you'll understand ::), if someone broke into your home and tortured and murdered your family, would you want that someone out on the street free and clear? What you and Russell are saying is, open the prison doors and let these scumbags back on the street to hurt more people?
Yes
I do not believe that powerchuter shares my thoughts on imprisoning torturers and killers.
But I do agree with him that some jobs are not right to perform.
Quote from: raineyrocks on April 07, 2007, 07:03 PM NHFT... but let's just say this is the only job he could get to support his family...
There has to be another way. If the job includes using force against others, then it must not be the right thing to do.
Kevin had a lot of time in his employment track before he discovered liberty. Giving up his present employment would probably effect the pension he has worked for for years. Unless you have worked 30 years towards a goal and are willing to give it up, I don't think you should be too hard on him. I'm guessing that is everyone one this page.
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on April 08, 2007, 07:23 AM NHFT
Kevin had a lot of time in his employment track before he discovered liberty. Giving up his present employment would probably effect the pension he has worked for for years. Unless you have worked 30 years towards a goal and are willing to give it up, I don't think you should be too hard on him. I'm guessing that is everyone one this page.
Lloyd that makes perfect sense. It's nice to see some non-judgmental, intelligent thought process here! :D
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 08, 2007, 06:21 AM NHFT
Quote from: raineyrocks on April 07, 2007, 07:03 PM NHFT... but let's just say this is the only job he could get to support his family...
There has to be another way. If the job includes using force against others, then it must not be the right thing to do.
Russell of course you know that your entitled to your opinion as is everyone else on this board. Why all of the sudden the attack on KB Craig though? In my opinion he has every right to live his life the way he wants just like you and he has been nothing but a positive contributor to this forum.
Kevin is almost completely a positive contributer to the forum. His sole liability is that he seems to have a burden in his heart to challenge everyone who doubts the official government story on 9/11. Ironically, he admits that he doesn't believe the government story. But he only seems to want people to go down certain paths or certain lines of inquiry.
Quote from: raineyrocks on April 08, 2007, 07:48 AM NHFT
In my opinion he has every right to live his life the way he wants just like you and he has been nothing but a positive contributor to this forum.
I wouldn't go that easy on him, he is, after all, a federal employee. He doesn't have a right to live at the expense of (net) taxpayers.
Quote from: Caleb on April 08, 2007, 07:57 AM NHFT
Kevin is almost completely a positive contributer to the forum. His sole liability is that he seems to have a burden in his heart to challenge everyone who doubts the official government story on 9/11. Ironically, he admits that he doesn't believe the government story. But he only seems to want people to go down certain paths or certain lines of inquiry.
If that is so then why can't those be the points being made here, instead of his employment? :)
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on April 08, 2007, 07:59 AM NHFT
Quote from: raineyrocks on April 08, 2007, 07:48 AM NHFT
In my opinion he has every right to live his life the way he wants just like you and he has been nothing but a positive contributor to this forum.
I wouldn't go that easy on him, he is, after all, a federal employee. He doesn't have a right to live at the expense of (net) taxpayers.
I'm not trying to go easy or hard on anyone. I'm just trying to say that even if he makes a living off of the taxpayers it's his choice and we're not the all mighty jury on KB's life. :)
Quote from: raineyrocks on April 08, 2007, 07:48 AM NHFT
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on April 08, 2007, 07:23 AM NHFT
Kevin had a lot of time in his employment track before he discovered liberty. Giving up his present employment would probably effect the pension he has worked for for years. Unless you have worked 30 years towards a goal and are willing to give it up, I don't think you should be too hard on him. I'm guessing that is everyone one this page.
Lloyd that makes perfect sense. It's nice to see some non-judgmental, intelligent thought process here! :D
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 08, 2007, 06:21 AM NHFT
Quote from: raineyrocks on April 07, 2007, 07:03 PM NHFT... but let's just say this is the only job he could get to support his family...
There has to be another way. If the job includes using force against others, then it must not be the right thing to do.
Russell of course you know that your entitled to your opinion as is everyone else on this board. Why all of the sudden the attack on KB Craig though? In my opinion he has every right to live his life the way he wants just like you and he has been nothing but a positive contributor to this forum.
This thread has so much crap in it, how can anyone stand it!?!
Rainey states "In my opinion he has every right to live his life the way he wants just like you"!?!?!
So, what I get from that is...
Kevin can continue to assist in the continued incarceration of both the innocent and the not so innocent...at the direct and indirect expense of those who pay taxes under threat of being incarcerated by the very system that keeps Kevin employed...
I'm with Russell and others in feeling that "the jailers" not only keep plenty of innocent political prisoners incarcerated, but also use aggression, incarceration, and lethal force to tax(steal) from the people to get their share of the loot.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 08, 2007, 06:06 AM NHFT
Quote from: raineyrocks on April 07, 2007, 07:03 PM NHFTLet me put it this way, maybe you'll understand ::), if someone broke into your home and tortured and murdered your family, would you want that someone out on the street free and clear? What you and Russell are saying is, open the prison doors and let these scumbags back on the street to hurt more people?
Yes
I do not believe that powerchuter shares my thoughts on imprisoning torturers and killers.
But I do agree with him that some jobs are not right to perform.
Russell,
I'm interested in clarifying the "yes" in your previous post and also desire to inquire about your thoughts on imprisoning torturers and killers(you know, both the currently incarcerated and those still at large like Bush and Cheney to name just a few).
Thanks
Quote from: Caleb on April 07, 2007, 05:06 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on April 07, 2007, 12:08 AM NHFT
I do not believe "the government's story"; I believe what I saw. I do not attack anyone who questions the government's story, but I do question the integrity of those who propagate made-up theories as "truth" -- no matter whether those theories are the government's or those opposing the government.
So what do you believe happened on 9/11? I think that's the crucial point here. You can say, "I don't believe the government's story, and I don't believe the conspiracy theorists. I only believe what I saw with my eyes."
Fair enough. I believe that four airplanes were seized in flight on 9/11. Two airplanes were deliberately flown into the WTC towers. A third hit the Pentagon. The fourth crashed near Shanksville, PA.
I have read, or attempted to read, many of the "9/11 Truth" documents and watched the videos. I say "attempted", because some are just so obviously wrong that there's no point continuing to read. (That is actually a common technique for recruiting into religious cults and seminar sales: present something so outrageous that potential doubters are driven away, and anyone who remains is "pre-qualified" as manipulable.)
I believe it's entirely possible that those who seized the planes and flew them into their targets were either working for, or manipulated by, some unknown element in the U.S. government. I also believe it's entirely possible that they were not connected to the government in any way. Neither
possibility constitutes
evidence, much less proof.
I do not believe the towers were pre-wired with explosives. Not only would that require months of invasive work, it would be completely unreliable, because the aircraft impact alone would have too great a chance of destroying the wiring. It's also implausible; why do both?
I believe most of the "9/11 Truth" movement is driven by dislike and distrust of government. And that's fair: we have every reason to dislike and distrust the government, because the government itself has shown plenty of contempt for the public.
What is
not fair is to use that dislike and distrust to believe that the government must have done this, and then search for supporting evidence while ignoring all contrary evidence. The same standard applies to the government apologists. Scientific evidence is politically neutral, and doesn't seek a pre-determined conclusion.
Quote from: Caleb on April 08, 2007, 07:57 AM NHFT
Kevin is almost completely a positive contributer to the forum. His sole liability is that he seems to have a burden in his heart to challenge everyone who doubts the official government story on 9/11.
That's not quite correct. My challenge is to people who present nonsensical fairy tales as "truth".
Why do I keep challenging? Because I want it to be obvious to casual onlookers that not everyone in the Freedom movement believes 9/11 was an inside job.
QuoteIronically, he admits that he doesn't believe the government story. But he only seems to want people to go down certain paths or certain lines of inquiry.
I don't want to limit lines of inquiry. I only want people going down those paths to recognize giant gaping chasm across the path when they see them, instead of making that leap of logic across the gap and continuing on as if it wasn't there.
Kevin
Quote from: raineyrocks on April 08, 2007, 07:48 AM NHFTWhy all of the sudden the attack on KB Craig though?
For good or bad I have been hassling KB for a long time on this forum. :)
Quote from: powerchuter on April 08, 2007, 08:45 AM NHFT
Russell,
I'm interested in clarifying the "yes" in your previous post and also desire to inquire about your thoughts on imprisoning torturers and killers ...
Time to set the prisoners free. :)
psst..... did you know that 9/11 was an inside job?
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 08, 2007, 07:21 PM NHFT
Quote from: raineyrocks on April 08, 2007, 07:48 AM NHFTWhy all of the sudden the attack on KB Craig though?
For good or bad I have been hassling KB for a long time on this forum. :)
It's mutual. ;D
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on April 08, 2007, 07:23 AM NHFT
Kevin had a lot of time in his employment track before he discovered liberty. Giving up his present employment would probably effect the pension he has worked for for years. Unless you have worked 30 years towards a goal and are willing to give it up, I don't think you should be too hard on him. I'm guessing that is everyone one this page.
Almost everyone has to deal with this issue at one point or another: the desire to get rid of everything the government does, except for our one pet issue. This is even harder when your pet issue also happens to be your retirement.
Quote from: powerchuter on April 08, 2007, 08:40 AM NHFT
author=raineyrocks link=topic=1747.msg143047#msg143047 date=1175990607]... but let's just say this is the only job he could get to support his family...
There has to be another way. If the job includes using force against others, then it must not be the right thing to do.
Russell of course you know that your entitled to your opinion as is everyone else on this board. Why all of the sudden the attack on KB Craig though? In my opinion he has every right to live his life the way he wants just like you and he has been nothing but a positive contributor to this forum.
This thread has so much crap in it, how can anyone stand it!?!
Rainey states "In my opinion he has every right to live his life the way he wants just like you"!?!?!
So, what I get from that is...
Kevin can continue to assist in the continued incarceration of both the innocent and the not so innocent...at the direct and indirect expense of those who pay taxes under threat of being incarcerated by the very system that keeps Kevin employed...
I'm with Russell and others in feeling that "the jailers" not only keep plenty of innocent political prisoners incarcerated, but also use aggression, incarceration, and lethal force to tax(steal) from the people to get their share of the loot.
If this thread has so much crap in it which by the way some is your very own then don't read it anymore. I wasn't aware Kevin needed my permission to do anything or yours. "The jailers" also keep murderers, rapists and other criminals away from other people and as I stated before I'm well aware there are innocent people locked up but was Kevin their jury and judge? So let's see you can't stand people that steal, (get their income from taxes), but rapists and murderers belong free?
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 08, 2007, 07:21 PM NHFT
Quote from: raineyrocks on April 08, 2007, 07:48 AM NHFTWhy all of the sudden the attack on KB Craig though?
For good or bad I have been hassling KB for a long time on this forum. :)
I did not know this, sorry! :)
Quote from: KBCraig on April 08, 2007, 12:35 PM NHFTWhat is not fair is to use that dislike and distrust to believe that the government must have done this, and then search for supporting evidence while ignoring all contrary evidence. The same standard applies to the government apologists. Scientific evidence is politically neutral, and doesn't seek a pre-determined conclusion.
Exactly.
I have no trouble swallowing the notion that certain elements of the US Government could fake a terrorist attack for political gain. What I do have trouble swallowing is the notion that they used complex and wholly un-necessary methods to do that, when the obvious method could easily accomplish the task, and would only require a tiny conspiracy to pull off. Heck, the actual folks who flew the planes didn't even need to be in on it.
One person in the right place could have convinced them to do it, and gave the order.
Joe
Quote from: raineyrocks on April 09, 2007, 06:47 AM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 08, 2007, 07:21 PM NHFT
Quote from: raineyrocks on April 08, 2007, 07:48 AM NHFTWhy all of the sudden the attack on KB Craig though?
For good or bad I have been hassling KB for a long time on this forum. :)
I did not know this, sorry! :)
It involves many people over many years ... It's a conspiracy!
Quote from: MaineShark on April 09, 2007, 02:12 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on April 08, 2007, 12:35 PM NHFTWhat is not fair is to use that dislike and distrust to believe that the government must have done this, and then search for supporting evidence while ignoring all contrary evidence. The same standard applies to the government apologists. Scientific evidence is politically neutral, and doesn't seek a pre-determined conclusion.
Exactly.
I have no trouble swallowing the notion that certain elements of the US Government could fake a terrorist attack for political gain. What I do have trouble swallowing is the notion that they used complex and wholly un-necessary methods to do that, when the obvious method could easily accomplish the task, and would only require a tiny conspiracy to pull off.
That's what I used to think.
I didn't start looking into 9/11 until a year or so ago. But after a couple books and a bunch of videos, I am convinced that many people in/outside the government conspired to destroy those buildings and cover it up later ..... mostly to further their goals for a bigger US government empire.
New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin is a good resource.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 09, 2007, 02:24 PM NHFTThat's what I used to think.
I didn't start looking into 9/11 until a year or so ago. But after a couple books and a bunch of videos, I am convinced that many people in/outside the government conspired to destroy those buildings and cover it up later ..... mostly to further their goals for a bigger US government empire.
New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin is a good resource.
I guess I'm just cynical... I started looking into it before it happened. The notion of taking down tall buildings with jetliners was not a new concept, and the structural engineering said it could be done, long before it actually happened.
Like I said, I have no problem accepting the notion that folks within the government could (maybe did) pull off a stunt like that, but the
methods proposed by the "9/11 Truth" groups don't add up. And it's just plain silly... why make such a fuss trying to "prove" that fire can't melt steel (and other such claims), when it's irellevant to who holds the blame? If some group within the government can pull off a complex demolitions job, why can't the just do the easier thing, and actually crash planes into buildings? And how are the magically "more guilty" if they do the former instead of the latter?
Joe
There are just too many questions raised by the theories for them to hold true... after all why would they have used planes in NY, another in a field in PA then used a missile at the pentagon?
Why take down the two towers in NY then knock down WTC-7?
And the biggest question I have is how does anyone expect to believe that a government that can't accomplish anything without screwing up somehow pulled off one of the greatest cons of all time?
Quote from: Russell Kanning on April 09, 2007, 02:24 PM NHFTNew Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin is a good resource.
This is a link to a video of a real controlled demolition, (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/08/real-controlled-demolition.html) and the deafening cracks of the explosive charges set throughout the building drowned out the sound of the helicopter from which the demo was being filmed, and echoed around downtown Forth Worth.
Here's video of a series of electrical transformer explosions. (http://www.stupidcollege.com/items/Electric-Transformer-Explosion)
Here's a photo of WTC7 before its collapse:
(http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/db_images/db_Magnum11.jpg)
The problem with those couple of books and bunch of videos, Russell, is that they're leading you along to exactly where they want you to go, with a trail of carefully-chosen little breadcrumbs of fact and assumptions, sometimes ripped forcibly out of context - like the quote of the fellow, Mike Walter, who used a metaphor to describe the sight of an airliner going hundreds of miles per hour a few hundred feet off the deck to a "cruise missile with wings" - to use you as a tool in their self-promoting machine.
Quote from: Mike WalterBut I do remember using a metaphor to describe what happened. I indicated to Jamie that the jet had become a weapon that day. I said it was like a cruise missile with wings. I never imagined for a moment that a statement like that would come back to haunt me over and over again. A French author would come out with a book describing in detail the conspiracy theory and he would use that quote out of context to help promote his conclusions. I was very angry about all of this, and I remain angry about it today.
That's just one example of a blatantly obvious misdirection and deception.
Look at Griffin's own words:
QuoteThe official theory is rendered implausible by two major problems. The first is the simple fact that fire has never---prior to or after 9/11---caused steel-frame high-rise buildings to collapse.
How many other buildings damaged by severe, fuel-laden fires following the high-speed impact of a jetliner were constructed in just the same way as the WTC towers, with 110 acres of concrete stacked atop one another supported at their perimeters? He cites a FEMA report describing beams and girders sagging and twisting, but assumes that such sagging and twisting has exactly the same implications in the impact-damaged frame of WTC 1 and 2 as it did in One Meridian Plaza, in spite of radically different designs.
Quote from: mvpel on April 09, 2007, 04:13 PM NHFT.. to use you as a tool in their self-promoting machine.
That is a funny phrase. If you watched a presentation by Griffin .... he doesn't have much of a self-promoting machine. :)
Quote
How many other buildings damaged by severe, fuel-laden fires following the high-speed impact of a jetliner were constructed in just the same way as the WTC towers, with 110 acres of concrete stacked atop one another supported at their perimeters?
None that I know of .... not even wtc7 :)
I actually think that wtc1 and 2 were built better than the average building in the world to withstand airliners and fires.
Most people I know who have decided the government is to blame for 9/11 .... came to that position because of the evidence.
Quote from: mvpel on April 09, 2007, 04:13 PM NHFT
This is a link to a video of a real controlled demolition, (http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2006/08/real-controlled-demolition.html) and the deafening cracks of the explosive charges set throughout the building drowned out the sound of the helicopter from which the demo was being filmed, and echoed around downtown Forth Worth.
I thought many people in NYC used the term "explosions" when they describe the 9/11 collapses. Am I wrong?
Only because they've never heard an earthquake, which is what they really sounded like. :)
The guy who designed the WTC towers seemed surprised they lasted as long as they did with a big gaping hole in the external support structure.
Griffin points out that the buildings were designed to withstand the impact of an airplane as a point of suspicion.
But the fact that only 3,000 people died, instead of the 35,000 people at their desks at 9:00am on a given weekday and a portion of the 200,000 daily visitors, bears out that the towers did, in fact, withstand the impact of an airplane.
The trouble with all this arm-chair theorizing is that the arguments are based upon physical evidence; evidence which was quickly and deliberately destroyed soon after 9/11. That action in and of itself is felonious.
It's pointless to argue about what really hit the Pentagon, what really crashed in PA (leaving no wreckage) or what really brought down the towers because all the evidence is gone. There is nothing for a detective to present to a prosecutor for a trial.
The murderers committed the crime and got away with it, pure and simple. The whitewash commission issued their report and the case is now closed. There will never be an official independent investigation, and the guilty will never be brought to justice. We need to accept that fact, and move on. I believe that it's important to understand the motives behind 9/11, though for us to move on.
The best resource I have found that talks about 9/11 is a book written by Michael C Ruppert, a former LAPD officer, called "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil"
http://www.amazon.com/Crossing-Rubicon-Decline-American-Empire/dp/0865715408/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-3130915-8678565?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176167118&sr=8-1
The book description: "Crossing the Rubicon is unique not only for its case-breaking examination of 9/11, but for the breadth and depth of its world picture-an interdisciplinary analysis of petroleum, geopolitics, narcotraffic, intelligence and militarism-without which 9/11 cannot be understood.
The US manufacturing sector has been mostly replaced by speculation on financial data whose underlying economic reality is a dark secret. Hundreds of billions of dollars in laundered drug money flow through Wall Street each year from opium and coca fields maintained by CIA-sponsored warlords and US-backed covert paramilitary violence. America's global dominance depends on a continually turning mill of guns, drugs, oil and money. Oil and natural gas-the fuels that make economic growth possible-are subsidized by American military force and foreign lending.
In reality, 9/11 and the resulting "war on terror" are parts of a massive authoritarian response to an emerging economic crisis of unprecedented scale. Peak Oil-the beginning of the end for our industrial civilization-is driving the elites of American power to implement unthinkably draconian measures of repression, warfare and population control. Crossing the Rubicon is more than a story. It is a map of the perilous terrain through which, together and alone, we are all now making our way."
The 600+ page book is summed up in the words of the author:
"This is a detective story that gets to the innermost core of the 9/11 attacks. It places 9/11 at the center of a desperate new America, created by specific, named individuals in preparation for Peak Oil: an economic crisis like nothing the world has ever seen. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 were accomplished through an amazing orchestration of logistics and personnel. Crossing the Rubicon discovers and identifies the key suspects and persons of interest - finding some of them in the highest echelons of American government - by showing how they acted in concert to guarantee that the attacks occurred and produced the desired result.
"In this book the author makes several key points:
1. I name Vice President Richard Cheney as the prime suspect in the mass murders of 9/11 and will establish that, not only was he a planner in the attacks, but also that on the day of the attacks he was running a completely separate Command, Control and Communications system which was superceding any orders being issued by the FAA, the Pentagon, or the White House Situation Room;
2. I establish conclusively that in May of 2001, by presidential order, Richard Cheney was put in direct command and control of all wargame and field exercise training and scheduling through several agencies, especially FEMA. This also extended to all of the conflicting and overlapping NORAD drills -- some involving hijack simulations -- taking place on that day.
3. I demonstrate that the TRIPOD II exercise being set up on Sept. 10th in Manhattan was directly connected to Cheney's role in the above.
4. I also prove conclusively that a number of public officials, at the national and New York City levels, including then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, were aware that flight 175 was en route to lower Manhattan for 20 minutes and did nothing to order the evacuation of, or warn the occupants of the South Tower. One military officer was forced to leave his post in the middle of the attacks and place a private call to his brother - who worked at the WTC - warning him to get out. That was because no other part of the system was taking action.
5. I also show that the Israeli and British governments acted as partners with the highest levels of the American government to help in the preparation and, very possibly, the actual execution of the attacks."
"There is more reason to be afraid of not facing the evidence in this book than of facing what is in it.""
Quote from: Insurgent on April 09, 2007, 08:15 PM NHFTIt's pointless to argue about what really hit the Pentagon,
We have an eyewitness who states that it was an American Airlines jet, and a list of 64 passengers and crew from American flight 77 and first-person accounts of two phone calls made from the plane, and we have people postulating that the video camera footage and photos of the scene were faked. Which explanation is more credible and likely?
Don't forget the hundreds of rescue workers who pulled airplane parts out of the Pentagon. I suppose they're ALL fake rescue workers?
Quote from: mvpel on April 10, 2007, 12:06 PM NHFT
Quote from: Insurgent on April 09, 2007, 08:15 PM NHFTIt's pointless to argue about what really hit the Pentagon,
We have an eyewitness who states that it was an American Airlines jet, and a list of 64 passengers and crew from American flight 77 and first-person accounts of two phone calls made from the plane, and we have people postulating that the video camera footage and photos of the scene were faked. Which explanation is more credible and likely?
<cough> STRAWMAN! <cough>
I think that my point has been dismissed. Oh well ::)
Quote from: Insurgent on April 10, 2007, 09:18 PM NHFT
I think that my point has been dismissed. Oh well ::)
(http://www.antiquark.com/entropyzone/wallpaper/no_bullshit_tn.jpg)
That is a completely inappropriate response to a serious posting. Since you apparently can't factually contradict anything I said, though I will interpret it as an immature and amateurish lashing out against an idea which causes cognitive dissonance in your psyche.
The events preceding, including and after 9/11 are far too serious to be relegated to this phony moonbat conspiracy theory-vs-mainstream media showdown.
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/02_11_02_lucy.html details a time-line of events; the veracity of which the author backed a $1,000 reward to anyone who could disprove any part of it. Get to work, skeptics!
Quote from: Insurgent on April 11, 2007, 08:37 PM NHFT
That is a completely inappropriate response to a serious posting. Since you apparently can't factually contradict anything I said, though I will interpret it as an immature and amateurish lashing out against an idea which causes cognitive dissonance in your psyche.
The events preceding, including and after 9/11 are far too serious to be relegated to this phony moonbat conspiracy theory-vs-mainstream media showdown.
Ouch!
Quote from: Rebel on April 11, 2007, 11:04 PM NHFTThe events preceding, including and after 9/11 are far too serious to be relegated to this phony moonbat conspiracy theory-vs-mainstream media showdown.
You're right. So it's time to set aside the moonbat conspiracy theories, such as the one expressed in the title of this thread.
Quote from: "Chicago Fire Chief D.J. Swenie,b]1858[/b]"]No ... building of any kind in which inflammable goods are stored should ever exceed 125 feet in height, and might with advantage be much less. This is not because we cannot throw water high enough. But suppose such goods are stored in a twelve-story building; a fire breaks out, say on the sixth floor, and gets to burning furiously. The heat ascends and causes the pillars and beams to expand. The expansion first raises all that part of the building above where it takes place. At the same time the whole weight above continues on the expanded metal. Before you know where you are something is going to give, and what will be the results? They will be too fearful to contemplate.
(http://www.rense.com/general76/CNNphoto.jpg)
Well there you go, proof doesn't get more solid then that. ::)
As interesting as arguments can be, I simply don't have the time or energy to try and convince those who choose to be willfully ignorant of easily verifiable facts. I'm not referring to anyone in particular, but in a general sense. My energies are best spent working with those who are already on the same page, or working to become so.
I've put out some good tools and maps for us to use; take them or leave them. Another great opportunity is happening with the NE tour of Michael Berger, media director of 911truth.org and his film "Improbable Collapse: The Demolition of Our Republic"
http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=7647.0
We're trying to promote the heck out of it and would welcome any support. Sincere skeptics can come and watch the film, and have the opportunity to ask questions of a real expert on 9/11. Hope to see you there!
Quote from: lildog on April 12, 2007, 10:13 AM NHFT
(http://www.rense.com/general76/CNNphoto.jpg)
Well there you go, proof doesn't get more solid then that. ::)
Look! It's a bird, it's a plane, it's Superman! (sorry I couldn't help myself).
Quote from: Insurgent on April 12, 2007, 07:45 PM NHFTAs interesting as arguments can be, I simply don't have the time or energy to try and convince those who choose to be willfully ignorant of easily verifiable facts. I'm not referring to anyone in particular, but in a general sense.
How fascinating, because I feel exactly the same way about the Truthers.
I'd appreciate it if you name one easily-verifiable fact that you have in mind.
mvpel, the best way to get to a real authority to have the discussion or disagreements with is to come see Michael Berger, media coordinator of 911Truth.org. He's touring New England to show his video "Improbable Collapse; The Demolition of Our Republic" with stops still to come in Concord on the 18th, Dover on the 19th and Wilton on the 22nd. I believe all these appearances are free of charge (donations for costs appreciated).
The sites describing the tour are: http://911truth.org/article.php?story=2007041075216573, http://improbablecollapse.com. The site for the Concord event and future local events is: http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org and a regional one for all Northeast organizations is: http://NE911Truth.org.
Again, if you are "911 curious" and want to hear some info from one of the most studied people in the country on the subject, come see Michael Berger in Concord at the Best Western Motel next Wednesday the 18th and ask all the questions you want after the film.
It should be really interesting. Here's a comment from someone after the first appearance on the tour:
Quote"Mike Berger's program at U of Hartford, Holyoke, Northampton has been quite impressive.. in depth.. I expected MB to be one decent person, but hadn't expected the depth of his research and knowledge in connecting many of the dots around the events of 9/11."
So, again, this is the opportunity to find out the information independent investigators have been able to dig up in the "information war" against the propaganda barrage from the state-sponsored packaged solution to what really happened on 9/11. Get your info from the experts - come to the April 18th event with Michael Berger in Concord. Then if you still have questions, see him again in Dover on the 19th and in Wilton on the 22nd.
Hope to see you in Concord, mvpel, and hear what Michael Berger has to say in answer to your questions - you never know, you might learn something that would change your mind.
How about you, can you name one of the easily-verifiable facts that Insurgent referred to?
Wow, that was a nicely done sales pitch. But it hardly answered the question.
I think we can all agree, no matter who was behind 9-11, what the government has done in reaction to it is unconscionable.
Quote from: Jon Maltz on April 13, 2007, 01:20 PM NHFTI think we can all agree, no matter who was behind 9-11, what the government has done in reaction to it is unconscionable.
Is there anything the government does that isn'? :o
Joe
Quote from: mvpel on April 13, 2007, 09:19 AM NHFT
Quote from: Insurgent on April 12, 2007, 07:45 PM NHFTAs interesting as arguments can be, I simply don't have the time or energy to try and convince those who choose to be willfully ignorant of easily verifiable facts. I'm not referring to anyone in particular, but in a general sense.
How fascinating, because I feel exactly the same way about the Truthers.
I'd appreciate it if you name one easily-verifiable fact that you have in mind.
OK, I'll bite: Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's ISI (intelligence service) arranged for $100,000 to be wired to Mohammed Atta in the days preceding the 9/11 attacks. After this was brought to the attention of the Bush Administration, the Bush Administration failed to request Mr. Ahmad's extradition.
Instead, we attacked Saddam Hussein.
Right now, Mr. Ahmad is living free as a bird in Pakistan, despite being clearly implicated in the events of 9/11. On the day of 9/11, Mr. Ahmad was in America, meeting with the head of the Senate and House intelligence committees. Earlier in that week he had met with Bush Administration officials.
Interesting company Mr. Bush keeps.
Whatever happened to seeking out all known terrorists and bringing them to justice?
Just got back from an evening over in Brattleboro and got to be involved in the discussion after dinner with Mike Berger. If you question the 9-11 conventional story or totally buy it, you've got to hear this guy - he really knows his stuff.
Concord on Wednesday night - be there to be in the dialog.
One of the most damning pieces of evidence is the inside trading that happened with many stocks, particularly on United and American Airlines stocks, in the days immediately preceding 9/11.
Some good reports that line up the dots:
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/10_09_01_krongard.html
http://911research.wtc7.net/sept11/stockputs.html
http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/12_06_01_death_profits_pt1.html
Caleb & Insurgent...
I believe mvpel was referring to "facts" regarding the theory that the various buildings fell due to some factor other the aircraft impacts.
I don't think either he or I were questioning the possibility that the government could be responsible, but rather the methodology they might have used...
Joe
Insurgent often makes the point that it's very difficult or almost pointless to argue about how the collapse occurred, since the physical evidence was spirited away (and hence nothing to use as evidence in court) and there's hardly anything to go on but video evidence.
In Improbable Collapse, (this Wednesday in Concord you'll be able to cross-examine the researcher and filmmaker behind it), Steven Jones (physics prof. at BYU) details his findings on one piece of physical evidence that did get out of the collapse site. Michael Berger (the filmmaker) told us Friday night that he was instrumental in getting that physical sample to Jones. It's little to go on, again since the physical evidence was sequestered from forensic examiners and taken off and melted down offshore (That's one item that raises suspicion, of course - why would "they" make darn sure no one COULD examine the physical evidence?)
So, this is the fascination with the collapses - can researchers solve the mystery given only the remaining documentary evidence (and one tiny physical specimen that Jones got his hands on)? One other remaining documentary piece is the seismological reports. They eyewitness reports of sounds (of explosions?) is also very interesting and one of the most powerful eyewitnesses is William Rodriquez, who was a maintenance man in the WTCs 1 & 2. He reports many interesting observations (eg: explosions in the basement) - I'm sure Mike Berger can be questioned on that Wednesday night.
I can't emphasize enough how valuable an appearance this is for those in our area who are "9-11 curious" - Wednesday night in Concord at the Best Western. Come at 6PM to help set up, movie starts at 7PM, Q&A with Mike Berger afterwards. If you're truly a knowledge-seeker, this is a HUGE opportunity. Even if you are a skeptic and arguer, it's still an opportunity - to prove "9-11 Truthers" wrong by the force of your information and strong arguments, or to become better informed in your opinions by gleaning information from a top researcher. Methinks this forum (the movie showing / Q&A) would be THE place to become better informed to argue, if that is your choice of methods to deal with one of the greatest horrors and mysteries that we have ever seen and has shaped our world in the most profound way ("...the Demolition of Our Republic" as Michael Berger says).
On top of all this, it's free (donations appreciated to cover costs) and is a way to outreach to the larger community that is concerned about justice and loss of liberties in America. Be there or be (taken less seriously in this discussion) square!
Info on the Wednesday night showing in Concord (Best Western): Merrimack Valley 911 Truth: http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org - still have more questions for Mike Berger? ---
Info on the Thursday night showing in Dover (Friends Meeting House): Northern New England 9/11 Truth: http://9-11.meetup.com/284/ - still more questions? ---
Info on the Sunday afternoon showing in Wilton (Wilton Town Hall Theater - big screen): http://www.wiltontownhalltheatre.com/
There are other area showings if you have scheduling issues or want to meet and network with other folks. Cambridge at the Democracy Center is always a good time. We could meet up and carpool down for that Saturday evening. Info: http://boston911truth.org/ [Note: libertarians afraid of the word "democracy" - stay away! ;) ] - also check out the films the Boston Sons of Liberty are showing there on the 29th of April - another good chance to carpool down together and have a good time networking with the Boston group.
Don't be square and just sit at the tube and argue - go to the vid, meet the filmmaker, ask questions, become better informed and aware.
BTW, there is talk of a big 9-11 Truth conference in Manchester this year on September 11th. Mike Berger may know more about it to share with us - I think it's still in the planning stages, though. The idea would be to be in town and bird-dog presidential candidates about re-opening the investigation.
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 14, 2007, 09:37 PM NHFTInsurgent often makes the point that it's very difficult or almost pointless to argue about how the collapse occurred, since the physical evidence was spirited away (and hence nothing to use as evidence in court) and there's hardly anything to go on but video evidence.
People sure seem to have filled that void with a lot of notions of what happened...
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 14, 2007, 09:37 PM NHFTI can't emphasize enough how valuable an appearance this is for those in our area who are "9-11 curious" - Wednesday night in Concord at the Best Western. Come at 6PM to help set up, movie starts at 7PM, Q&A with Mike Berger afterwards. If you're truly a knowledge-seeker, this is a HUGE opportunity. Even if you are a skeptic and arguer, it's still an opportunity - to prove "9-11 Truthers" wrong by the force of your information and strong arguments, or to become better informed in your opinions by gleaning information from a top researcher. Methinks this forum (the movie showing / Q&A) would be THE place to become better informed to argue, if that is your choice of methods to deal with one of the greatest horrors and mysteries that we have ever seen and has shaped our world in the most profound way ("...the Demolition of Our Republic" as Michael Berger says).
I think I would be a lot more inclined to attend something like this if I thought there would be anything new to hear. I wouldn't want to spend my time, just to listen to arguments that were old when they were new.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on April 14, 2007, 09:48 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 14, 2007, 09:37 PM NHFTInsurgent often makes the point that it's very difficult or almost pointless to argue about how the collapse occurred, since the physical evidence was spirited away (and hence nothing to use as evidence in court) and there's hardly anything to go on but video evidence.
People sure seem to have filled that void with a lot of notions of what happened...
I think it's pretty natural to speculate on what did happen, if one is not inclined for some reason or other to accept the standard story. I believe it's a bit of postulating a theory to explain observations, then following that with research to determine if that theory can be supported. There are some who are unscientific in their approach due to lack of training, but the movie coming up Wed. night, IC, interviews scientists, some involved with Scholars for 911 Truth (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/), and doesn't venture into any wild-eyed speculation.
Some of the video evidence leads to some interesting speculation, for example, the appearance of reddish-orange hot molten metal pouring from the side of the building (WTC2, I believe) at a high level (Jones and others believe it to be molten metal from thermite/thermate cutter charges) or the explosive puffs jetting out of windows progressively from floors way below the collapse zone. Makes you wonder, eh?
Quote from: MaineShark on April 14, 2007, 09:48 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 14, 2007, 09:37 PM NHFTI can't emphasize enough how valuable an appearance this is for those in our area who are "9-11 curious" - Wednesday night in Concord at the Best Western. Come at 6PM to help set up, movie starts at 7PM, Q&A with Mike Berger afterwards. If you're truly a knowledge-seeker, this is a HUGE opportunity. Even if you are a skeptic and arguer, it's still an opportunity - to prove "9-11 Truthers" wrong by the force of your information and strong arguments, or to become better informed in your opinions by gleaning information from a top researcher. Methinks this forum (the movie showing / Q&A) would be THE place to become better informed to argue, if that is your choice of methods to deal with one of the greatest horrors and mysteries that we have ever seen and has shaped our world in the most profound way ("...the Demolition of Our Republic" as Michael Berger says).
I think I would be a lot more inclined to attend something like this if I thought there would be anything new to hear. I wouldn't want to spend my time, just to listen to arguments that were old when they were new.
Joe
I believe what Mike Berger offers is very up-to-date research, so not a lot of "old" at this upcoming event. You'll probably be hearing a lot of stuff that is "hot off the press." Given that the 9-11 attacks are the nexus of the huge attacks on our liberties ("after 9/11, everything is different"), it's one of the most important things for libertarians to come to grips with. If it was an inside job, for example, it would be important to find out who were the insiders and bring them to justice. This would, of course, shake a lot of trees - as the possibility of it being an inside job shakes a lot of peoples' psyches. I'm still with the philosophy of "Ye shall know the truth and the truth will set you free." It will be worth your time, trust me.
Jack
Quote from: mvpel on April 13, 2007, 12:05 PM NHFT
How about you, can you name one of the easily-verifiable facts that Insurgent referred to?
I guess I'm not really involved in the dialog that you and insurgent are having. I'm trying to promote the "Ye shall know the truth..." thing by helping make the connection between the curious (us) and the well-informed (Mike Berger). I look at his upcoming visit as a tremendous opportunity for the curious. I haven't read a lot of the back messages on this thread, so not sure what you and insurgent's beefs are.
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 14, 2007, 11:59 PM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on April 14, 2007, 09:48 PM NHFTPeople sure seem to have filled that void with a lot of notions of what happened...
I think it's pretty natural to speculate on what did happen, if one is not inclined for some reason or other to accept the standard story. I believe it's a bit of postulating a theory to explain observations, then following that with research to determine if that theory can be supported. There are some who are unscientific in their approach due to lack of training, but the movie coming up Wed. night, IC, interviews scientists, some involved with Scholars for 911 Truth (http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/), and doesn't venture into any wild-eyed speculation.
It's a large leap from distrusting the government, to saying that "fire has never melted steel, in the history of the world" and such nonsense.
Isn't "Scholars for 911 Truth" the group that claims that they are right and sctructural engineers are wrong, because every structural engineer in the country is secretly working for the government? Hardly scientific...
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 14, 2007, 11:59 PM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on April 14, 2007, 09:48 PM NHFTI think I would be a lot more inclined to attend something like this if I thought there would be anything new to hear. I wouldn't want to spend my time, just to listen to arguments that were old when they were new.
I believe what Mike Berger offers is very up-to-date research, so not a lot of "old" at this upcoming event. You'll probably be hearing a lot of stuff that is "hot off the press." Given that the 9-11 attacks are the nexus of the huge attacks on our liberties ("after 9/11, everything is different"), it's one of the most important things for libertarians to come to grips with. If it was an inside job, for example, it would be important to find out who were the insiders and bring them to justice. This would, of course, shake a lot of trees - as the possibility of it being an inside job shakes a lot of peoples' psyches. I'm still with the philosophy of "Ye shall know the truth and the truth will set you free." It will be worth your time, trust me.
I already know that they're using the September 11th attacks to justify oppression, so why should I attend this?
Joe
It's the latest in a long, long line of excuses by which the government justifies its oppression of people. It wasn't necessary for the government to cause, enable, or look the other way. They get the same benefit, the oppression of We the People, regardless of whether they caused 9/11 or were entirely blindsided by it.
"I already know that they're using the September 11th attacks to justify oppression, so why should I attend this?"
Joe
You should come to this because there will be new information presented by experts that you likely haven't considered before.
I believe in this enough that I'll even offer a money-back guarantee. Since I booked the conference room and paid for it, I can do this! If you attend and feel it was a complete waste of time, I'll give you your $5 back Same goes for everyone else :)
Quote from: Insurgent on April 15, 2007, 10:36 AM NHFTYou should come to this because there will be new information presented by experts that you likely haven't considered before.
Why is that "likely"?
Quote from: Insurgent on April 15, 2007, 10:36 AM NHFTI believe in this enough that I'll even offer a money-back guarantee. Since I booked the conference room and paid for it, I can do this! If you attend and feel it was a complete waste of time, I'll give you your $5 back Same goes for everyone else :)
My time is worth more than $5.
Joe
I learned a lot from the film, and I've been following information related to 9/11 since day 1. The scientists in the film present their findings in an approachable manner. Michael Berger, the film maker is also a wealth of knowledge about 9/11 and world events. I had the chance to finally meet him last week and was very impressed with him. So many people who talk about 9/11 come off as moonbats, but his credibility is impeccable.
Anyway, I'm not going to argue the point. I regret having got into the argument with mvpel because it ultimately only caused us to become angry with each other. I'm presenting this event as a wonderful time to perhaps learn something and interact with other people who have questions about 9/11 :)
Quote from: Insurgent on April 15, 2007, 02:38 PM NHFT
Anyway, I'm not going to argue the point.
You suck because you won't play the arguing game anymore!!!
What do you think you're trying to do? be effective, or something? ;D
Seriously, now... I've heard recommendations from 2 or 3 people in the last week to watch Oil, Smoke and Mirrors - they've all said it ties a lot of things together: home page: http://www.oilsmokeandmirrors.com/, google video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8677389869548020370. I'd watch it right now, but I have to sleep sometime!
Maybe MV911T can show that next to the assembled crowds (no arguers invited this time). Wonder if this filmmaker will go on tour?
Quote from: Caleb on April 13, 2007, 09:15 PM NHFTOK, I'll bite: Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's ISI (intelligence service) arranged for $100,000 to be wired to Mohammed Atta in the days preceding the 9/11 attacks. After this was brought to the attention of the Bush Administration, the Bush Administration failed to request Mr. Ahmad's extradition.
Instead, we attacked Saddam Hussein.
Right now, Mr. Ahmad is living free as a bird in Pakistan, despite being clearly implicated in the events of 9/11. On the day of 9/11, Mr. Ahmad was in America, meeting with the head of the Senate and House intelligence committees. Earlier in that week he had met with Bush Administration officials.
Okay, so how does that set of facts prove that the towers were deliberately demolished by government operatives as suggested in the title and content of "Improbable Collapse," or any kind of Bush Administration complicity in the 9/11 attack, instead of just being an example of craven political expediency in the face of the extremely thorny prospect of criminally extraditing the chief of intelligence of a nominally-allied (SEATO, CENTO), nuclear-armed nation while we're trying to cultivate and repair post-Cold-War relations in the wake of a 40-year partnership in containing Soviet expansionism?
Quote from: mvpel on April 15, 2007, 09:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on April 13, 2007, 09:15 PM NHFTOK, I'll bite: Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's ISI (intelligence service) arranged for $100,000 to be wired to Mohammed Atta in the days preceding the 9/11 attacks. After this was brought to the attention of the Bush Administration, the Bush Administration failed to request Mr. Ahmad's extradition.
Instead, we attacked Saddam Hussein.
Right now, Mr. Ahmad is living free as a bird in Pakistan, despite being clearly implicated in the events of 9/11. On the day of 9/11, Mr. Ahmad was in America, meeting with the head of the Senate and House intelligence committees. Earlier in that week he had met with Bush Administration officials.
Okay, so how does that set of facts prove that the towers were deliberately demolished by government operatives as suggested in the title and content of "Improbable Collapse," or any kind of Bush Administration complicity in the 9/11 attack, instead of just being an example of craven political expediency in the face of the extremely thorny prospect of criminally extraditing the chief of intelligence of a nominally-allied (SEATO, CENTO), nuclear-armed nation while we're trying to cultivate and repair post-Cold-War relations in the wake of a 40-year partnership in containing Soviet expansionism?
Why don't you tell us what's really bothering you?
Former Bush Speechwriter Hints at 9/11 Inside Job
Says Neo-Cons would have created a false flag to justify war had it not been for WTC attack, questions official story
by Paul Joseph Watson
Global Research, April 13, 2007
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WAT20070413&articleId=5381
Thermite And A Controlled Demolition Of The World Trade Center.
Good short video into to the suspicion surrounding a possible method of demolition of WTC buildings: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3873474711036143711&hl=en
Quote from: Insurgent on April 15, 2007, 10:12 PM NHFTWhy don't you tell us what's really bothering you?
The fact that you won't set forth one of the "easily verifiable facts" that you say I'm willfully ignoring, Insurgent.
As for "thermite," Jaque, do you know what happens when aluminum from an airplane and gypsum interact chemically? Do you know whether the reaction between steam and steel is endothermic or exothermic, and what its byproducts are?
Quote from: mvpel on April 15, 2007, 09:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on April 13, 2007, 09:15 PM NHFTOK, I'll bite: Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's ISI (intelligence service) arranged for $100,000 to be wired to Mohammed Atta in the days preceding the 9/11 attacks. After this was brought to the attention of the Bush Administration, the Bush Administration failed to request Mr. Ahmad's extradition.
Instead, we attacked Saddam Hussein.
Right now, Mr. Ahmad is living free as a bird in Pakistan, despite being clearly implicated in the events of 9/11. On the day of 9/11, Mr. Ahmad was in America, meeting with the head of the Senate and House intelligence committees. Earlier in that week he had met with Bush Administration officials.
Okay, so how does that set of facts prove that the towers were deliberately demolished by government operatives as suggested in the title and content of "Improbable Collapse," or any kind of Bush Administration complicity in the 9/11 attack, instead of just being an example of craven political expediency in the face of the extremely thorny prospect of criminally extraditing the chief of intelligence of a nominally-allied (SEATO, CENTO), nuclear-armed nation while we're trying to cultivate and repair post-Cold-War relations in the wake of a 40-year partnership in containing Soviet expansionism?
Exactly! I can't understand how people can look at the same government that evicts Katrina survivors out of their trailers then turns around and has problems on how to deal with all the empty trailers they have which they are trying to give away ( http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=8186.0 ) and suddenly think that in the case of 9-11 they suddenly gained competency.
Quote from: lildog on April 16, 2007, 10:28 AM NHFT
Quote from: mvpel on April 15, 2007, 09:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on April 13, 2007, 09:15 PM NHFTOK, I'll bite: Mahmoud Ahmad, head of Pakistan's ISI (intelligence service) arranged for $100,000 to be wired to Mohammed Atta in the days preceding the 9/11 attacks. After this was brought to the attention of the Bush Administration, the Bush Administration failed to request Mr. Ahmad's extradition.
Instead, we attacked Saddam Hussein.
Right now, Mr. Ahmad is living free as a bird in Pakistan, despite being clearly implicated in the events of 9/11. On the day of 9/11, Mr. Ahmad was in America, meeting with the head of the Senate and House intelligence committees. Earlier in that week he had met with Bush Administration officials.
Okay, so how does that set of facts prove that the towers were deliberately demolished by government operatives as suggested in the title and content of "Improbable Collapse," or any kind of Bush Administration complicity in the 9/11 attack, instead of just being an example of craven political expediency in the face of the extremely thorny prospect of criminally extraditing the chief of intelligence of a nominally-allied (SEATO, CENTO), nuclear-armed nation while we're trying to cultivate and repair post-Cold-War relations in the wake of a 40-year partnership in containing Soviet expansionism?
Exactly! I can't understand how people can look at the same government that evicts Katrina survivors out of their trailers then turns around and has problems on how to deal with all the empty trailers they have which they are trying to give away ( http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=8186.0 ) and suddenly think that in the case of 9-11 they suddenly gained competency.
It's a common error to point out the incompetence of government and conclude that therefore covert operations and conspiracies can't happen. It is important to define, too what we mean by "an inside job". It's not as though Congress passed a law to make it happen, or that it was an official CIA operation. We'll probably never know exactly who was involved, suffice to say that rogue elements within government and the military industrial complex were responsible.
It would not have required very many people to be in the know in order to pull this off, and some people with smaller, specific roles may not have even known the bigger picture of what was to take place.
These issues, along with issues surrounding the collapse of the three buildings on 9/11 will all be addressed Wednesday at the film showing and Q&A. I'm really looking forward to it :)
Quote from: Insurgent on April 16, 2007, 06:12 PM NHFTIt's a common error to point out the incompetence of government and conclude that therefore covert operations and conspiracies can't happen.
It doesn't mean they
can't happen, but it does mean we shouldn't automatically leap to that conclusion. And we certainly shouldn't then extend that assumed conspiracy to be mroe complex than needed to accomplish the supposed goal.
Quote from: Insurgent on April 16, 2007, 06:12 PM NHFTIt is important to define, too what we mean by "an inside job".
Indeed. Do we mean that some elements within the government paid, convinced, brainwashed, or otherwise led a few individuals to hijack planes and crash them into buildings? Or do we mean that a vast conspiracy planted demolitions charges in buildings days ahead of time, even though the buildings would have collapsed anyway, just to "frame the guilty" or somesuch, and detonated them with no apparent explosions?
One of those is reasonable to infer, given the hard evidence that is available, physics, and the record the government has. The other is not.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on April 16, 2007, 08:35 PM NHFTAnd we certainly shouldn't then extend that assumed conspiracy to be mroe complex than needed to accomplish the supposed goal.
See that's the key problem with the conspiracy theories they are SOOOOO complex.
We have planes hitting buildings, which were also wired with explosives, then other unrelated buildings also wired with explosives (motivation for which is who know?), the missile supposedly used in Washington etc... I mean seriously, which is more likely... 19 guys hijack planes and fly them into buildings or this HUGE government conspiracy which would have needed hundreds if not thousands of people to pull off involving misery white planes, missiles, pre-planted explosives, remote control planes etc etc etc etc.
I liked South Park's take on the 9-11 conspiracy myself.
Quote from: mvpel on April 16, 2007, 08:48 AM NHFT
As for "thermite," Jaque, do you know what happens when aluminum from an airplane and gypsum interact chemically? Do you know whether the reaction between steam and steel is endothermic or exothermic, and what its byproducts are?
These seem like interesting questions you may want to pose to Michael Berger tomorrow.
There will be an additional opportunity to meet him and grill him:
3PM - 5PM
Grand Buffet
South Willow Street (across from the Mall of New-Hampshire)
ManchesterBuffet lunch is $6.99 til 3:30, so come on time for the best price
The gathering will be in the party room off to the left of the lobby.
Hope to see you there and/or at the film showing later in Concord
Quote from: MaineShark on April 16, 2007, 08:35 PM NHFT
Quote from: Insurgent on April 16, 2007, 06:12 PM NHFTIt is important to define, too what we mean by "an inside job".
Indeed. Do we mean that some elements within the government paid, convinced, brainwashed, or otherwise led a few individuals to hijack planes and crash them into buildings?
Webster Tarpley, in his book "9-11 Synthetic Terror" details how previous state-terror false flag ops have gone down and he postulates how the 9-11 op most likely went down. His book will be on sale at the Best Western, Concord, 7PM Wed. nite.
Quote from: MaineShark on April 16, 2007, 08:35 PM NHFT
Or do we mean that a vast conspiracy planted demolitions charges in buildings days ahead of time, even though the buildings would have collapsed anyway, just to "frame the guilty" or somesuch, and detonated them with no apparent explosions?
It looks like William Rodriquez will be coming to New-Hampshire 19 May to talk about this. He was the maintenance supervisor for the WTC 1-2 buildings and was the "last man out." He was recognized by George Bush for his bravery and his life saving. He was pulling injured people out of the buildings - injured by explosions in the basement! He also reports hearing some mysterious construction sounds going on certain floors (see this report in "911 Mysteries", probably on Google video).
Quote from: lildog on April 17, 2007, 09:05 AM NHFT
Quote from: MaineShark on April 16, 2007, 08:35 PM NHFTAnd we certainly shouldn't then extend that assumed conspiracy to be more complex than needed to accomplish the supposed goal.
See that's the key problem with the conspiracy theories they are SOOOOO complex.
We have planes hitting buildings, which were also wired with explosives, then other unrelated buildings also wired with explosives (motivation for which is who know?), the missile supposedly used in Washington etc... I mean seriously, which is more likely... 19 guys hijack planes and fly them into buildings or this HUGE government conspiracy which would have needed hundreds if not thousands of people to pull off involving misery white planes, missiles, pre-planted explosives, remote control planes etc etc etc etc.
Webster Tarpley, as mentioned below, is probably one of the best to weave together what
is known surrounding 9-11 into the most likely scenario. The book will be $15 at the event.
Tarpley has committed to come to Manchester for an event to be put together for September 11th of this year. He was here a couple of months back in Dover and was a very compelling presenter. He also does a radio show every Saturday on a short-wave station. I think you can find archived shows by Googling.
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 17, 2007, 01:23 PM NHFTWebster Tarpley, as mentioned below, is probably one of the best to weave together what is known surrounding 9-11 into the most likely scenario. The book will be $15 at the event.
That's the other problem I have with many of the people coming up with these theories, they use them to sell books etc.
Quote from: lildog on April 17, 2007, 01:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 17, 2007, 01:23 PM NHFTWebster Tarpley, as mentioned below, is probably one of the best to weave together what is known surrounding 9-11 into the most likely scenario. The book will be $15 at the event.
That's the other problem I have with many of the people coming up with these theories, they use them to sell books etc.
How about I not hold a copy for you then?
Slight correction:
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 17, 2007, 01:16 PM NHFT
It looks like William Rodriquez will be coming to New-Hampshire 19 May [date not definite, but around this timeframe] to talk about this. He was the maintenance supervisor for the WTC 1-2 buildings and was the "last man out." He was recognized by George Bush for his bravery and his life saving. He was pulling injured people out of the buildings - injured by explosions in the basement! He also reports hearing some mysterious construction sounds going on certain floors [in the weeks before September 11th] (see this report in "911 Mysteries", probably on Google video).
Quote from: lildog on April 17, 2007, 01:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 17, 2007, 01:23 PM NHFTWebster Tarpley, as mentioned below, is probably one of the best to weave together what is known surrounding 9-11 into the most likely scenario. The book will be $15 at the event.
That's the other problem I have with many of the people coming up with these theories, they use them to sell books etc.
Yeah, darn free market! Ya know, if someone does a lot of research and spends a lot of money on his academic training and has some knowledge to impart to other people, we shouldn't let him
crassly commercialize on that and make money off us poor saps - why, that would be exploitation! If we could only control which people could write and publish books, we could stop all this foolish nonsense! Yeah, these pesky "theory people" - they're causing a lot of problems for us people who already know the real truth! ;)
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 17, 2007, 09:06 PM NHFT
Quote from: lildog on April 17, 2007, 01:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 17, 2007, 01:23 PM NHFTWebster Tarpley, as mentioned below, is probably one of the best to weave together what is known surrounding 9-11 into the most likely scenario. The book will be $15 at the event.
That's the other problem I have with many of the people coming up with these theories, they use them to sell books etc.
Yeah, darn free market! Ya know, if someone does a lot of research and spends a lot of money on his academic training and has some knowledge to impart to other people, we shouldn't let him crassly commercialize on that and make money off us poor saps - why, that would be exploitation! If we could only control which people could write and publish books, we could stop all this foolish nonsense! Yeah, these pesky "theory people" - they're causing a lot of problems for us people who already know the real truth! ;)
lol pwned!!!
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 17, 2007, 09:06 PM NHFT
Quote from: lildog on April 17, 2007, 01:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 17, 2007, 01:23 PM NHFTWebster Tarpley, as mentioned below, is probably one of the best to weave together what is known surrounding 9-11 into the most likely scenario. The book will be $15 at the event.
That's the other problem I have with many of the people coming up with these theories, they use them to sell books etc.
Yeah, darn free market! Ya know, if someone does a lot of research and spends a lot of money on his academic training and has some knowledge to impart to other people, we shouldn't let him crassly commercialize on that and make money off us poor saps - why, that would be exploitation! If we could only control which people could write and publish books, we could stop all this foolish nonsense! Yeah, these pesky "theory people" - they're causing a lot of problems for us people who already know the real truth! ;)
See that's just it, you uncover evidence of the crime of the century and instead of trying to start a revolution against a government willing to kill its own people the first thing these people do is look for book deals.
Maybe it's just me but if I seriously though the government was killing people I wouldn't be sitting back writing books about it.
Oh the government is definately killing people. The Drug War can account for a ton of that all on its own.
Quote from: Jon Maltz on April 18, 2007, 10:46 AM NHFT
Oh the government is definately killing people. The Drug War can account for a ton of that all on its own.
You raise an interesting philosophical question here. Is the out right murder of thousands of innocent people the same as creating victimless crime laws which lead to countless deaths?
I think that issue was addressed at the Nuremberg trials.
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 17, 2007, 09:06 PM NHFTQuote from: lildog on April 17, 2007, 01:28 PM NHFTThat's the other problem I have with many of the people coming up with these theories, they use them to sell books etc.
Yeah, darn free market! Ya know, if someone does a lot of research and spends a lot of money on his academic training and has some knowledge to impart to other people, we shouldn't let him crassly commercialize on that and make money off us poor saps - why, that would be exploitation! If we could only control which people could write and publish books, we could stop all this foolish nonsense! Yeah, these pesky "theory people" - they're causing a lot of problems for us people who already know the real truth! ;)
I'm going to back lildog up on this one. It's not that they
can't sell the story, but it's a matter of credibility.
I don't take what a used-car salesman says without a grain of salt. He has a vested interest in selling me a car. I have to weigh the likelyhood that he will misrepresent things against the likelyhood that he will avoid doing so in order to protect his good name. If he works for a well-established company that has a reputation at stake, he may be less likely to risk lying to me just to make a sale (or sell at a higher price).
Similarly, if someone asks me to quote a new heating system, he has to understand that my reputation is at stake, and
that is why he should trust what I tell him. But I still don't expect someone to just blindly believe what I say, without doing any research of his own. I don't blidnly trust manufacturers of equipment, either (eg, one of the reasons I deal with Greenwod Boilers for wood boilers is because they have an extensive listing of their competitors with links to websites and everything, right on their own page; they are the best I've seen, and they know it and aren't afraid of a little competition).
What interests do the folks selling conspiracy theories in books have? Selling conspiracy theories in books. If they don't do that, they don't get paid. I can't see that the authors of these books have any risk if they tell outright lies on every single page.
Quote from: lildog on April 18, 2007, 04:01 PM NHFTQuote from: Jon Maltz on April 18, 2007, 10:46 AM NHFTOh the government is definately killing people. The Drug War can account for a ton of that all on its own.
You raise an interesting philosophical question here. Is the out right murder of thousands of innocent people the same as creating victimless crime laws which lead to countless deaths?
Yes. Absolutely and unequivocally. Anything else would be like someone eating meat, but opposing the killing of animals.
Joe
(posted from the Improbable Collapse thread)
Wow, what a great day! About a dozen people turned out for the lunch meeting and good discussion was had. The Grand Buffet is a good place to have a meeting, too. I think it would seat around 40 people, and the food isn't bad either.
About 26 people turned out for the film showing, which packed the meeting room at the Best Western. A good mix of people were there; seven porcupines, some students from the Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth http://www.sst911.org four people from NHPeaceAction and even a guy from off the street.
Reception to the film was great, as it should be. The arguments in it are airtight and it's as credible as can be. Afterwards the film make, Michael Berger, had us on the edge of or seats as he spoke on a number of topics, including: how the three towers collapsed on 9/11, the financial gains that occurred from the record put options just before 9/11, Deep Politics, Peak Oil, the CIA and illegal drug money, the impossible cell-phone calls on 9/11 and much more.
The man is just a wealth of information; he spoke for over an hour, citing dates and people's name without even referring to any notes. He has dedicated the last three years of his life researching all of this and making the film, cashing in his life savings to make the film. We owe him a great debt of gratitude.
Again, his website for the film is http://improbablecollapse.com watch the trailer and see for yourself. There are still a couple more screenings of the film where he will be appearing and dates and times are listed there as well. I encourage everyone to make it to one; you won't be disappointed!
Quote from: MaineShark on April 18, 2007, 05:00 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 17, 2007, 09:06 PM NHFTQuote from: lildog on April 17, 2007, 01:28 PM NHFTThat's the other problem I have with many of the people coming up with these theories, they use them to sell books etc.
Yeah, darn free market!...these pesky "theory people" - they're causing a lot of problems for us people who already know the real truth! ;)
I'm going to back lildog up on this one.
...
Joe
I'm going to have to say that I guess my point was lost.
Happy to report though that the events on the "Improbable Collapse" tour with Michael Berger went well today. Good turn out at both the luncheon in Manchester and at the video showing in Concord - 1/4 of the attendees at the showing were Porcs, so the coalitioning strategy is working well and we're overlapping our networks with others to spread our influence in the greater community, including the colleges, through our hook-up with Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth: sst911.org. Student Scholars are the ones bringing Wm. Rodriquez to Franklin Peirce College on 18 May. They also have an article about their meeting with Ron Paul on their site here: http://sst911.org/articles/candidateskucinichandpaul.html.
There are still a few chances to catch Michael Berger on his Northeast "Improbable Collapse" tour:
19Apr-Friends Meeting House, Dover, N.H.
21Apr-Democracy Center, Cambridge, Mass. (a carload of Porcs are going down to this - could arrange a meeting place for any carpooler interest, or caravanning if there'll be more than 1 car)
22Apr-Wilton, N.H. (Route 101 is still blocked, but traffic is diverted down Main Street in Wilton, right past the Town Hall Theater where the showing will be)
23Apr-Hampshire College, Amherst, Mass.
(full tour schedule details at http://flybynews.com/ or http://911truth.org/ or http://improbablecollapse.com/)
Lot's of good info out there for those who are curious. MV911T acquired more materials, including some more copies of the Tarpley book, Synthetic Terror mentioned below. Be sure to join the MeetUp group accessible through MerrimackValley911Truth.org to get further announcements of events in the area.
Quote from: MaineShark on April 18, 2007, 05:00 PM NHFTQuote from: lildog on April 18, 2007, 04:01 PM NHFTQuote from: Jon Maltz on April 18, 2007, 10:46 AM NHFTOh the government is definately killing people. The Drug War can account for a ton of that all on its own.
You raise an interesting philosophical question here. Is the out right murder of thousands of innocent people the same as creating victimless crime laws which lead to countless deaths?
Yes. Absolutely and unequivocally. Anything else would be like someone eating meat, but opposing the killing of animals.
I'm not a big fan of victimless crimes here but let me play the devils advocate on this one for a moment.
Don't you think intention has a lot to do with it? After all in the case of 9-11 regardless of who you think actually pulled it off the intent was to murder. That was the goal.
In the case of drug laws, the intent is to save lives. Now we know in reality it doesn't but I would say this would be more like someone trying to disarm a bomb in the middle of a room full of people and having it go off early by mistake. If you just left the bomb alone the people most likely could have left the room in time to be ok.
Quote from: lildog on April 19, 2007, 08:27 AM NHFTDon't you think intention has a lot to do with it? After all in the case of 9-11 regardless of who you think actually pulled it off the intent was to murder. That was the goal.
In the case of drug laws, the intent is to save lives. Now we know in reality it doesn't but I would say this would be more like someone trying to disarm a bomb in the middle of a room full of people and having it go off early by mistake. If you just left the bomb alone the people most likely could have left the room in time to be ok.
The intent of the Drug War is to destroy the last vestiges of the Bill of Rights and to raise the level of violence on the streets in order to justify a larger police presence. That is it. The people who push these laws have no interest in saving lives. Drops in crime rates give them ulcers. They want high crime and the ability to suspend the last restrictions that exist on the power of government.
There was no "drug problem" before they started prohibition. You could buy drugs at any pharmacy, without a prescription. Just walk in and ask for some heroin, cocaine, etc. The original laws were passed to target immigrants who used different drugs than the White majority, because the politicians knew they could get those laws to pass by claiming that marijuana makes Mexicans violent, and similar nonsense. The majority didn't much care for the rights of immigrants at that time, and they didn't know the drugs that the immigrants were using, so they couldn't refute the claims. The laws gradually encroached onto other things.
The purpose of the drug war is no different than the purpose of the September 11th attcks (regardless of who perpetrated them): to use violence against civilians in order to instill fear in people as a political tool.
Joe
Maineshark, I think you give the government far too much credit. I don't think the government as a whole is that smart in the least.
Quote from: lildog on April 19, 2007, 09:31 AM NHFTMaineshark, I think you give the government far too much credit. I don't think the government as a whole is that smart in the least.
We're not talking anything complex. And the evidence is all there, for anyone who bothers to look. This isn't some big secret.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on April 19, 2007, 08:38 AM NHFT
Quote from: lildog on April 19, 2007, 08:27 AM NHFTDon't you think intention has a lot to do with it? After all in the case of 9-11 regardless of who you think actually pulled it off the intent was to murder. That was the goal.
In the case of drug laws, the intent is to save lives. Now we know in reality it doesn't but I would say this would be more like someone trying to disarm a bomb in the middle of a room full of people and having it go off early by mistake. If you just left the bomb alone the people most likely could have left the room in time to be ok.
The intent of the Drug War is to destroy the last vestiges of the Bill of Rights and to raise the level of violence on the streets in order to justify a larger police presence. That is it. The people who push these laws have no interest in saving lives. Drops in crime rates give them ulcers. They want high crime and the ability to suspend the last restrictions that exist on the power of government.
There was no "drug problem" before they started prohibition. You could buy drugs at any pharmacy, without a prescription. Just walk in and ask for some heroin, cocaine, etc. The original laws were passed to target immigrants who used different drugs than the White majority, because the politicians knew they could get those laws to pass by claiming that marijuana makes Mexicans violent, and similar nonsense. The majority didn't much care for the rights of immigrants at that time, and they didn't know the drugs that the immigrants were using, so they couldn't refute the claims. The laws gradually encroached onto other things.
The purpose of the drug war is no different than the purpose of the September 11th attcks (regardless of who perpetrated them): to use violence against civilians in order to instill fear in people as a political tool.
Joe
Heh--this is what the Libertarian Party has taught us what is behind the war on drugs. That is surface politics, what is easily seen and discernable. Not that it isn't true, but it doesn't begin to scratch the surface.
One of the points that I tried to make earlier is how this is all ties together. Without going in to lengthy dissertations here, I would encourage interested people to make the time and watch this stunning speech in order to connect the dots:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145&q=michael+ruppert
There will be a caravan/carpool down to the Saturday night, Cambridge showing of Improbable Collapse, with a mini tour of Cambridge (OK, one eatery featured in Good Will Hunting).
We could do a more thorough tour of Cambridge if people wanted to leave more like noon-time, rather than the scheduled 4:45PM departure. It's a very cool place, especially in springtime with all the buskers around Harvard Square, where Bob Dylan and other notables used to perform for change.
Details at the thread about the movie: http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=7647.0
Quote from: MaineShark on April 19, 2007, 12:51 PM NHFTWe're not talking anything complex. And the evidence is all there, for anyone who bothers to look. This isn't some big secret.
I think I'm still waiting for someone to post one of those easily-verifiable facts that they say I'm ignoring.
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 20, 2007, 12:22 PM NHFT
There will be a caravan/carpool down to the Saturday night, Cambridge showing of Improbable Collapse, with a mini tour of Cambridge (OK, one eatery featured in Good Will Hunting).
We could do a more thorough tour of Cambridge if people wanted to leave more like noon-time, rather than the scheduled 4:45PM departure. It's a very cool place, especially in springtime with all the buskers around Harvard Square, where Bob Dylan and other notables used to perform for change.
Details at the thread about the movie: http://forum.soulawakenings.com/index.php?topic=7647.0
Cancel the idea about a more thorough tour - I've got work pressures that don't allow me to take off any earlier - maybe soon, though, because the street music scene (and magic and puppets and fire-eaters, etc.) starts really hopping when the weather turns good.
Quote from: mvpel on April 20, 2007, 12:52 PM NHFT
Quote from: MaineShark on April 19, 2007, 12:51 PM NHFTWe're not talking anything complex. And the evidence is all there, for anyone who bothers to look. This isn't some big secret.
I think I'm still waiting for someone to post one of those easily-verifiable facts that they say I'm ignoring.
www.improbablecollapse.com
Improbable Collapse is definitely the most convincing documentary that I have seen to date.
Although...
As I watched the events of 911 in "real time" there was no doubt in my mind whatsoever...
All three structures crumbled and were reduced to rubble at gravitational free-fall speed...
Buildings do not do this except during precision controlled demolitions...
There has never been a similarly constructed building that has done this "naturally"...
I don't say this to convince those who are still in shock. disbelief, and/or denial...
I only say it for those who have matured in their wisdom of these and similar events...
And who are willing to read, hear, and/or view the evidence and discussions with an open mind, common sense, and a healthy appetite for the truth...
"And by their Exercised and Well Regulated Sovereignty...or lack thereof...ye shall know them as Masters or slaves"
Quote from: mvpel on April 20, 2007, 12:52 PM NHFT
Quote from: MaineShark on April 19, 2007, 12:51 PM NHFTWe're not talking anything complex. And the evidence is all there, for anyone who bothers to look. This isn't some big secret.
I think I'm still waiting for someone to post one of those easily-verifiable facts that they say I'm ignoring.
There are 2 remaining showings of Improbable Collapse in the area (Cambridge, Mass. today and Wilton, N.H. Sunday) where you can view a film presentation and question Michael Berger, the filmmaker about his research. Everything in his film is public record stuff, with the exception of some footage shot surreptitiously at the WTC7 site by someone with a hidden camera.
Berger admits that there is a lot that we do not know about these collapses, but from his information, claims that the standard story is "Improbable." From his website:
"The film closely examines one of the world?s worst catastrophes from a civil engineering perspective. Using photo and video footage as well as expert scientific testimony, the film thoroughly examines the official reports, offering varied criticisms of the official findings, while raising a more plausible hypothesis. The findings from these scientific experts have been quietly ignored by both government investigations and the mainstream media. "
He stated at the showing in Concord that we (the non-professionals) won't know and can't possibly know what really happened, but should push for a re-opening of the investigation by professionals (and by a commision not lead by insiders like Henry Kissinger or Phillip Zelikow).
Your answer to getting your questions answered could start with attending tonight's showing (carpool meetup just one exit down from you), or tomorrow's showing in Wilton. All are welcome. Viewing this vid. should be a pre-requisite to being in this discussion, in order to be operating on some common ground.
(reposted from Improbable Collapse thread)
What a great time today! Jack, Mark and I drove down to Cambridge and Jack gave tour guide tidbits along the way. We ate at a popular burger place then headed over to the venue for the film.
About 40 people showed up to watch it, and they seemed like a pretty good mix of people. The film went over well with them and people were receptive during Michael's talk and q&a afterwards. They kept asking good questions right up to the time when we had to leave the building to make room for the next group.
We had the privilege of giving Michael a ride up to Manchester and I grilled him with questions the whole way up. He is a veritable wealth of information about 9/11 and related events.
Still two more showings and chances to meet him:
Sunday, April 22, 2007
4:00 PM
WILTON TOWN HALL THEATRE
40 Main Street
Wilton, NH
Monday, April 23, 2007
8:00 PM
HAMPSHIRE COLLEGE - Franklin Patterson Main Lecture Hall
893 West St.
Amherst, MA
Quote from: powerchuter on April 20, 2007, 09:13 PM NHFTAs I watched the events of 911 in "real time" there was no doubt in my mind whatsoever...
All three structures crumbled and were reduced to rubble at gravitational free-fall speed...
Buildings do not do this except during precision controlled demolitions...
There has never been a similarly constructed building that has done this "naturally"...
Okay, can you name any building, anywhere in the world that was constructed similarly to the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, which has collapsed? I have a healthy appetite for the truth, so feed me.
You claim to have such a healthy appetite, yet you've had plenty of opportunities to come up to the trough in the last two weeks. I guess someone's on a diet, after all.
Quote from: Insurgent on April 23, 2007, 08:09 PM NHFTYou claim to have such a healthy appetite, yet you've had plenty of opportunities to come up to the trough in the last two weeks. I guess someone's on a diet, after all.
The folks who made Improbable Collapse are actually paid by the government to promote the notion that hijackers couldn't pull off such an attack, because people would demand to be armed while flying if they knew how simple it was for hijackers to take over planes and use them to destroy buildings. Guns in the hands of passengers would stop those sort of attacks, and the government doesn't want to allow that. So, they secretly pay people to make these movies that claim that only explosive charges could demolish buildings, to convince fence-sitters not to support arming passengers.
Really. I have all the documents, as well as experts who I've paid to testify that they personally talked to a hot dog vendor who knows this guy whose cousin once found a napkin in a bar that had strange writing on it which he translated using methods only he knows, and it said all that. Of course, he's not a linguist, but all the linguists are in a conspiracy to support Improbably Collapse, so they all say it was a ring from spilled beer, but we know they're just covering for the Improbable Collapse people.
Oh, and I can prove it. You just have to pay to attend my movie, which is 27 hours long, and the evidence is at the end, but it won't make any sense unless you watch from the beginning. If I have to pause it so you can go to the bathroom, I charge $9 per second, so go quickly.
C'mon, Insurgent. He asked a simple question, Consider it a teaser for the film.Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on April 23, 2007, 09:20 PM NHFT
Quote from: Insurgent on April 23, 2007, 08:09 PM NHFTYou claim to have such a healthy appetite, yet you've had plenty of opportunities to come up to the trough in the last two weeks. I guess someone's on a diet, after all.
The folks who made Improbable Collapse are actually paid by the government to promote the notion that hijackers couldn't pull off such an attack, because people would demand to be armed while flying if they knew how simple it was for hijackers to take over planes and use them to destroy buildings. Guns in the hands of passengers would stop those sort of attacks, and the government doesn't want to allow that. So, they secretly pay people to make these movies that claim that only explosive charges could demolish buildings, to convince fence-sitters not to support arming passengers.
Really. I have all the documents, as well as experts who I've paid to testify that they personally talked to a hot dog vendor who knows this guy whose cousin once found a napkin in a bar that had strange writing on it which he translated using methods only he knows, and it said all that. Of course, he's not a linguist, but all the linguists are in a conspiracy to support Improbably Collapse, so they all say it was a ring from spilled beer, but we know they're just covering for the Improbable Collapse people.
Oh, and I can prove it. You just have to pay to attend my movie, which is 27 hours long, and the evidence is at the end, but it won't make any sense unless you watch from the beginning. If I have to pause it so you can go to the bathroom, I charge $9 per second, so go quickly.
C'mon, Insurgent. He asked a simple question, Consider it a teaser for the film.
Joe
Heh--I'll take that in good spirit. My main point was this has been an extraordinary point in time to see this film and afterwards interview the film maker. How often do you get to do that? According to Michael, this will be the last tour before he tries to revisit some semblance of day-to-day business. It has nothing to do with making money, by the way--he spent his life savings making this film plus three years of his life. I guess he has a lot to gain by selling 3-5 DVD's per showing ::)
The fact that none of the vocal skeptics on this board even expressed interest, never mind visited a viewing, shows something, I think. I won't mention names but some other people, otherwise known on this NHFREE forum, visited and took part in discussion afterwards.
Quote from: Insurgent on April 23, 2007, 09:47 PM NHFTHeh--I'll take that in good spirit.
Good.
Quote from: Insurgent on April 23, 2007, 09:47 PM NHFTMy main point was this has been an extraordinary point in time to see this film and afterwards interview the film maker. How often do you get to do that? According to Michael, this will be the last tour before he tries to revisit some semblance of day-to-day business. It has nothing to do with making money, by the way--he spent his life savings making this film plus three years of his life. I guess he has a lot to gain by selling 3-5 DVD's per showing ::)
The fact that none of the vocal skeptics on this board even expressed interest, never mind visited a viewing, shows something, I think. I won't mention names but some other people, otherwise known on this NHFREE forum, visited and took part in discussion afterwards.
Well, why should we? He's telling us that "it couldn't have happened that way," when basic physics says it could. Heck, I knew those buildings were coming down the minute I saw the video footage on the news. And even if we were to say, "well, maybe even though it could, it still might not have," no one seems willing to provide any evidence to support that. You told mvpel that there were numerous easily-verifiable facts to support your claims, but you haven't been willing to share them. Saying "people benefitted from this" could be evidence that those people caused it, but it isn't evidence that they used some particular
method to cause it.
As I said before, my time is valuable. If this film actually contains meaningful facts on the subject of the physical failure that people claim was caused by demolition charges, I'd be interested in seeing it. But I'm not interested in the rest. It's like framing the guilty. It's like someone announcing that they have proof that Hilter kicked a dog. The evidence might or might not hold up, and it's easy enough to believe that he did, but would it actually matter, with everything else he did?
The United States government burned men, women, and children to death on American soil on national television, admitted doing it, and blamed the victims for forcing them to do it. And what came of that? They put the survivors in prison and called it a day. A Federal sniper murdered a woman holding a child, and they gave him a medal for it. How many people do they kill and otherwise harm every year? Right here in America, and right in the public spotlight?
I have no desire to discuss the possibility that they are behind the September 11th attacks. It is plausible, but it wouldn't lower my opinion of them even if you could prove it. It's well within character.
What I take issue with is the claim that they did it by using demolitions charges or somesuch, rather than simply hiring people to fly the planes into the buildings, which would be more keeping with their typical methods. If you have evidence to support that claim, post it.
Joe
I didn't go to the World Trade Center on 9/11. I must be in on it!!!
Quote from: MaineShark on April 23, 2007, 10:02 PM NHFT
Quote from: Insurgent on April 23, 2007, 09:47 PM NHFTHeh--I'll take that in good spirit.
Good.
Quote from: Insurgent on April 23, 2007, 09:47 PM NHFTMy main point was this has been an extraordinary point in time to see this film and afterwards interview the film maker. How often do you get to do that? According to Michael, this will be the last tour before he tries to revisit some semblance of day-to-day business. It has nothing to do with making money, by the way--he spent his life savings making this film plus three years of his life. I guess he has a lot to gain by selling 3-5 DVD's per showing ::)
The fact that none of the vocal skeptics on this board even expressed interest, never mind visited a viewing, shows something, I think. I won't mention names but some other people, otherwise known on this NHFREE forum, visited and took part in discussion afterwards.
Well, why should we? He's telling us that "it couldn't have happened that way," when basic physics says it could. Heck, I knew those buildings were coming down the minute I saw the video footage on the news. And even if we were to say, "well, maybe even though it could, it still might not have," no one seems willing to provide any evidence to support that. You told mvpel that there were numerous easily-verifiable facts to support your claims, but you haven't been willing to share them. Saying "people benefitted from this" could be evidence that those people caused it, but it isn't evidence that they used some particular method to cause it.
As I said before, my time is valuable. If this film actually contains meaningful facts on the subject of the physical failure that people claim was caused by demolition charges, I'd be interested in seeing it. But I'm not interested in the rest. It's like framing the guilty. It's like someone announcing that they have proof that Hilter kicked a dog. The evidence might or might not hold up, and it's easy enough to believe that he did, but would it actually matter, with everything else he did?
The United States government burned men, women, and children to death on American soil on national television, admitted doing it, and blamed the victims for forcing them to do it. And what came of that? They put the survivors in prison and called it a day. A Federal sniper murdered a woman holding a child, and they gave him a medal for it. How many people do they kill and otherwise harm every year? Right here in America, and right in the public spotlight?
I have no desire to discuss the possibility that they are behind the September 11th attacks. It is plausible, but it wouldn't lower my opinion of them even if you could prove it. It's well within character.
What I take issue with is the claim that they did it by using demolitions charges or somesuch, rather than simply hiring people to fly the planes into the buildings, which would be more keeping with their typical methods. If you have evidence to support that claim, post it.
Joe
Basic Physics says that it could, what? That buildings specifically built to withstand the crash of a comparable aircraft and associated fires would collapse at free-fall speed? Which law of Physics is that?
The statement that I made about verifiable facts was in reference to all of the events pertaining to 9/11, not just the building collapses. That being said, the one aspect that no skeptic will be able to explain is the speed at which the buildings fell--including Building 7 which wasn't even hit by a plane. If one buys in to the "pancake theory" then explain why there was no resistance from the lower floors during the collapse.
Again, I need to point out that "the government" murdered the people at Waco and Ruby Ridge, as you referenced. "The government" did not orchestrate 9/11. This is what confuses many people and causes them to cast aside any "conspiracy theories". While we will likely never be able to finger every individual who was involved in the attacks, we can certainly point to rogue figures within the government and intelligence agencies.
The film does go in to great detail about the collapse of the buildings, shredding the "official story". It was a perfect opportunity to view it and take part in a q&a with the film maker afterwards. While that window has closed, the opportunity to watch the video still exists and I strongly encourage everyone to see it. There are few 9/11 "conspiracy videos" that I will recommend, but this is one that I will.
How about verifiable falsehoods?
Quote from: error on April 24, 2007, 08:28 PM NHFT
How about verifiable falsehoods?
I'm interested in verifiable falsehoods as well as verifiable truths. The film maker is, too which is why he steers clear of all the moonbat stuff and only discusses facts which are on the public record. You guys wouldn't know that, though since you haven't seen the film or listened to Michael's presentation afterwards. Easier to just smite me, instead :)
The WTC was, according to the guy who designed it, built to withstand being hit by a 707 with low fuel, off course during a landing attempt, not going at full speed. What did hit it was bigger, had a full fuel load, and was going at a much higher speed. That wasn't part of the design.
Quote from: Insurgent on April 24, 2007, 08:36 PM NHFT
[You guys wouldn't know that, though since you haven't seen the film or listened to Michael's presentation afterwards.
He does have a good point... how to talk about the movie if you haven't seen it?
I wasn't talking about the movie.
Quote from: Dreepa on April 24, 2007, 08:58 PM NHFT
Quote from: Insurgent on April 24, 2007, 08:36 PM NHFT
[You guys wouldn't know that, though since you haven't seen the film or listened to Michael's presentation afterwards.
He does have a good point... how to talk about the movie if you haven't seen it?
Thank you, Chris for helping to point out the painfully obvious! :)
Quote from: Jon Maltz on April 24, 2007, 08:45 PM NHFT
The WTC was, according to the guy who designed it, built to withstand being hit by a 707 with low fuel, off course during a landing attempt, not going at full speed. What did hit it was bigger, had a full fuel load, and was going at a much higher speed. That wasn't part of the design.
These details are specifically discussed in the film. I'd be curious to see what your sources are for this statement.
Quote from: error on April 24, 2007, 09:03 PM NHFT
I wasn't talking about the movie.
OK, Michael--what are you talking about?
Quote from: Insurgent on April 24, 2007, 08:26 PM NHFTBasic Physics says that it could, what? That buildings specifically built to withstand the crash of a comparable aircraft and associated fires would collapse at free-fall speed? Which law of Physics is that?
Have you ever studied engineering?
First of all, just because something is "designed" to withstand a given event, doesn't mean that it
will.
Secondly, I described the mode of failure in a thread on the FSP forum. If you like, I can try to find it and re-post here.
Quote from: Insurgent on April 24, 2007, 08:26 PM NHFTThe statement that I made about verifiable facts was in reference to all of the events pertaining to 9/11, not just the building collapses. That being said, the one aspect that no skeptic will be able to explain is the speed at which the buildings fell--including Building 7 which wasn't even hit by a plane. If one buys in to the "pancake theory" then explain why there was no resistance from the lower floors during the collapse.
And by what method was the speed determined? The resistance of the lower floors would have been small, but present. Remember also that there was an impressive basement under the WTC complex. The lower floors were pushed downward into it. In other words, the "lower" floors that are visible are actually mid-level floors, and their behavior is consistent with such.
Quote from: Insurgent on April 24, 2007, 08:26 PM NHFTAgain, I need to point out that "the government" murdered the people at Waco and Ruby Ridge, as you referenced. "The government" did not orchestrate 9/11. This is what confuses many people and causes them to cast aside any "conspiracy theories". While we will likely never be able to finger every individual who was involved in the attacks, we can certainly point to rogue figures within the government and intelligence agencies.
I cast aside "conspiracy theories" because they are based on falsehoods. And, for the demolition that is claimed to have been orchestrated, it would take a huge chunk of the government, not just a few rogues. That would be a massive operation.
Quote from: Insurgent on April 24, 2007, 08:26 PM NHFTThe film does go in to great detail about the collapse of the buildings, shredding the "official story". It was a perfect opportunity to view it and take part in a q&a with the film maker afterwards. While that window has closed, the opportunity to watch the video still exists and I strongly encourage everyone to see it. There are few 9/11 "conspiracy videos" that I will recommend, but this is one that I will.
Oh? Please share...
Joe
Quote from: Insurgent on April 24, 2007, 09:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: Jon Maltz on April 24, 2007, 08:45 PM NHFT
The WTC was, according to the guy who designed it, built to withstand being hit by a 707 with low fuel, off course during a landing attempt, not going at full speed. What did hit it was bigger, had a full fuel load, and was going at a much higher speed. That wasn't part of the design.
These details are specifically discussed in the film. I'd be curious to see what your sources are for this statement.
I was watching Modern Marvels about engineering disasters and buildings that collapsed, they interviewed the architect of the WTC.
Quote from: Jon Maltz on April 25, 2007, 09:40 AM NHFT
Quote from: Insurgent on April 24, 2007, 09:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: Jon Maltz on April 24, 2007, 08:45 PM NHFT
The WTC was, according to the guy who designed it, built to withstand being hit by a 707 with low fuel, off course during a landing attempt, not going at full speed. What did hit it was bigger, had a full fuel load, and was going at a much higher speed. That wasn't part of the design.
These details are specifically discussed in the film. I'd be curious to see what your sources are for this statement.
I was watching Modern Marvels about engineering disasters and buildings that collapsed, they interviewed the architect of the WTC.
That was probably the Leslie Robertson (chief engineer) interview - I think I saw the Modern Marvels one. He has conducted several interviews, and he is often shown in 9-11 Truth videos. A friend of mine has spoken with him before and after the collapses - I'll have to ask him to review what he learned from him.
The architect, Minoru Yamasaki, died in 1986. Good Wikipedia article on WTC at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center
What's probably good to keep in mind is, as Insurgent has said before, is that it's almost impossible to determine the cause of the collapses, since the forensic evidence has been hauled off and destroyed. What most people are basing their conclusions on are videos, though there are so many interesting ones still coming out of the woodwork, esp. the one showing the molten metal flowing out of the side of one of the towers (shown in Improbable Collapse). I have to say that one was a stunner to me.
Steven Jones (featured in IC) was able to obtain a few fragments of steel from the towers from a monument (obtained by someone else and transported to him for analysis).
Michael Berger revealed while he was on his North East tour that some material has been retained and not destroyed - it's being held in a hangar at JFK in case it's needed in one of the pending lawsuits. It would be interesting to see what an independent analysis of that material yielded!
Quote from: mvpel on April 23, 2007, 11:07 AM NHFT
Okay, can you name any building, anywhere in the world that was constructed similarly to the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, which has collapsed? I have a healthy appetite for the truth, so feed me.
Were you the guy up in the balcony with his hand up waving it back and forth with your question in mind - and you never got called on?
Darn.
John Kerry: WTC Building 7 Was Controlled Demolition
http://youtube.com/watch?v=KLnaogsm60A
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 26, 2007, 11:07 AM NHFT
Quote from: mvpel on April 23, 2007, 11:07 AM NHFT
Okay, can you name any building, anywhere in the world that was constructed similarly to the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, which has collapsed? I have a healthy appetite for the truth, so feed me.
Were you the guy up in the balcony with his hand up waving it back and forth with your question in mind - and you never got called on?
Darn.
::crickets chirping:: Nope, I don't think that was him :)
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 26, 2007, 11:01 AM NHFTWhat's probably good to keep in mind is, as Insurgent has said before, is that it's almost impossible to determine the cause of the collapses, since the forensic evidence has been hauled off and destroyed.
For something that's impossible to do, the conspiracy theorists certainly seem certain of the cause, despite physics.
Joe
It's important to respect each individuals right to believe as they so choose...
Some believe certain things...and some don't...
It's not that big of a deal in the overall scheme of things...
What is a bigger deal, in my honest, humble opinion...is that we can let this petty BS come between us and our common efforts and goals...
The buildings are down and gone...the people are dead and buried...and the mourning will continue for many years to come...
We have a greater duty and mission and that is to cause and affect a peaceful transition from the illegitimate "power" that the criminal elite "hold" over us...to a society and world based on the Non-Aggression Principle and the Golden Rule...
And...with all that said...
In my honest, humble, personal opinion...
I viewed the buildings as they came down(via all the video footage) on Sept. 11, 2001...
And from the first time I viewed these(as the events were actually unfolding)...
I formulated an opinion that I have not altered since that day...
Controlled Demolition.
Thank you for respecting my honest, humble, heart-felt opinion...
Quote from: MaineShark on April 27, 2007, 07:01 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 26, 2007, 11:01 AM NHFTWhat's probably good to keep in mind is, as Insurgent has said before, is that it's almost impossible to determine the cause of the collapses, since the forensic evidence has been hauled off and destroyed.
For something that's impossible to do, the conspiracy theorists certainly seem certain of the cause, despite physics.
Joe
To refer to a bunch of individual people as "the conspiracy theorists" (as a class - as if they were of one opinion) is to
collectivize, hence "fails to identify" anything - just fogs all individual opinions together. That adds no value to the discussion of the cause of the collapses.
To determine the facts would involve identifying and analyzing
individual pieces of evidence, etc. The evidence (re the collapse) available so far (correct me if I miss anything) would include video and audio footage, seismographic records, eyewitness testimony (includes firefighters on the scene), air samples (not sure about these), some few metal samples obtained surreptitiously. What is encouraging is that, per M Berger, there are some metal samples retained over in a hangar at JFK, whereas most had thought that all the metal was removed and destroyed.
Only 3 government reports were issued. The NIST report, I believe, would be the one that spends the most effort on the technical analysis. What most have called for is a re-opening of the investigation, by professionals. The grass roots discontent with the 911 Commission report is understandable, given that they do not answer many basic questions. You would favor a re-opening of the investigation by professionals, wouldn't you? - to put to rest wild theories and get to the truth. The 911 Truth Squads, pose the simple question to presidential candidates that they bird-dog: "Will you re-open the investigation of 911?"
As I (and others) have said, I want to see the evidence. The claim is made by numerous individuals and groups that this was a demolition, and I want to see the proof of that. Saying "there isn't evidence" isn't proof of that. It's proof that people are making a lot of claims based on nothing.
Physics and engineering say that the buildings could have fallen due to the impact, or due to demolition. Either is an option. I've seen no evidence to indicate the latter.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on April 27, 2007, 12:26 PM NHFT
As I (and others) have said, I want to see the evidence.
You may have to go to JFK to the hangar where the materials are to view all the evidence, but I'll bet it's guarded by FBI. Good luck getting in ;)
Quote from: MaineShark on April 27, 2007, 12:26 PM NHFT
The claim is made by numerous individuals and groups that this was a demolition, and I want to see the proof of that.
Again, good luck getting in at JFK!
Quote from: MaineShark on April 27, 2007, 12:26 PM NHFT
Saying "there isn't evidence" isn't proof of that.
Obviously, no one is saying there isn't evidence. This poster listed evidence that he knew of, some publicly available, some not. Much video, audio and seismological evidence is available to the public.
Quote from: MaineShark on April 27, 2007, 12:26 PM NHFT
It's proof that people are making a lot of claims based on nothing.
Nothing other than the evidence that is available to them. As mentioned, many want a re-investigation to pull together the evidence and have it examined by professionals.
Quote from: MaineShark on April 27, 2007, 12:26 PM NHFT
Physics and engineering say that the buildings could have fallen due to the impact
Obviously, Physics and engineering don't "say" anything, but physical science should be used in the analysis of the evidence. As far as I know, and I'm no expert on this, no one is saying that WTC 1 & 2 fell due to impact of the airplanes, but due to the weakening caused by the combination of the structural breakage caused by the collision and by the ensuing fires. See FEMA and NIST reports, though they only weakly claim this.
For example, the FEMA report concludes that, "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. The best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence.
Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue." [emphasis added - this is what most seem to want!]
Then, I don't believe anyone is claiming that WTC7 fell "due to the impact" (of an airliner!)
Quote from: MaineShark on April 27, 2007, 12:26 PM NHFT
, or due to demolition. Either is an option.
Thanks for that clarification.
Quote from: MaineShark on April 27, 2007, 12:26 PM NHFT
I've seen no evidence to indicate the latter. [demolition theory]
Joe
Most of us won't get to see the evidence, other than the video evidence that is already all over the net. As I read it, your beef is with people who make exaggerated claims of knowledge. If you can identify those people, let's all get together, have a few beers and jointly vilify them (and then move on...please?). Hopefully, this can be taken as positive suggestion - but criticism for criticism sake grates and doesn't advance the dialog. Repetition that something has not been proven to you doesn't improve the message, and besides, I don't really think you're claiming that someone has an obligation to convince you, are you?
I may have missed the first few dozen pages of this thread and someone may have made some claims that have truly rankled you. I hope you can learn to move on from your ranklement if you are interested in this issue and its impact on our world, so that the real evidence can be reviewed as it is discovered by researchers like Michael Berger. It's unfortunate that you missed the opportunity to hear him and talk to him over lunch or dinner - he was very accessible and the New-Hampshire contingent (at the Cambridge showing) got a special audience with him.
If your interest continues, presentations of new findings continue online at
911Truth.org or
911blogger.com, and of course, at many other sites. Local events/presentations are held around New England and can (probably) be found at
NE911Truth.org. Closest at hand to you is
MerrimackValley911Truth.org. Upcoming events of interest include this weekend's Alternative Media Film Festival in Cambridge held by
Boston Sons of Liberty (see separate thread), May 18th's appearance of William Rodriquez (Maint. Man at WTC towers) at Franklin Pierce College in Rindge and some TBA video showing at next MV911Truth meetup.
Enjoy!
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 27, 2007, 01:41 PM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on April 27, 2007, 12:26 PM NHFTPhysics and engineering say that the buildings could have fallen due to the impact
Obviously, Physics and engineering don't "say" anything, but physical science should be used in the analysis of the evidence. As far as I know, and I'm no expert on this, no one is saying that WTC 1 & 2 fell due to impact of the airplanes, but due to the weakening caused by the combination of the structural breakage caused by the collision and by the ensuing fires. See FEMA and NIST reports, though they only weakly claim this.
Figure of speech. I meant "impact" in terms of everything ensuing as a result of that, not just the physical impact.
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 27, 2007, 01:41 PM NHFTMost of us won't get to see the evidence, other than the video evidence that is already all over the net. As I read it, your beef is with people who make exaggerated claims of knowledge. If you can identify those people, let's all get together, have a few beers and jointly vilify them (and then move on...please?).
My beef is with people who exaggerate their knowledge, as well as those who make false claims for personal gain (or just to muddy the waters for the heck of it). People claiming that there is no way the "obvious" (crashes, structural damage, fires, etc.) could have caused the buildings to fall are among them. It doesn't take complex engineering to demonstrate that these causes would be sufficient to collapse the buildings.
If someone wants to claim that it would be
possinle for demolitions to be used to collapse the buildings, that's fine. But when he goes on to claim (as many/most do) that the crashes of the airplanes and the direct results of those crashes
couldn't have done it, he's crossing the line into disinformation.
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 27, 2007, 01:41 PM NHFTHopefully, this can be taken as positive suggestion - but criticism for criticism sake grates and doesn't advance the dialog. Repetition that something has not been proven to you doesn't improve the message, and besides, I don't really think you're claiming that someone has an obligation to convince you, are you?
No one is
obligated to do anything towards me, except for refraining from initiating force against me. But if someone wants me to take him seriously, he has to back up his claims, and refrain from making false ones.
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 27, 2007, 01:41 PM NHFTI may have missed the first few dozen pages of this thread and someone may have made some claims that have truly rankled you. I hope you can learn to move on from your ranklement if you are interested in this issue and its impact on our world, so that the real evidence can be reviewed as it is discovered by researchers like Michael Berger. It's unfortunate that you missed the opportunity to hear him and talk to him over lunch or dinner - he was very accessible and the New-Hampshire contingent (at the Cambridge showing) got a special audience with him.
Well, let me ask you this: does he claim that the buildings could not have fallen as a result of the aircraft crashing into them and the ensuing fires?
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on April 27, 2007, 07:35 PM NHFT
Well, let me ask you this: does he [Michael Berger] claim that the buildings could not have fallen as a result of the aircraft crashing into them and the ensuing fires?
Joe
You'll probably have to catch him on his next tour around, if there is one, to ask him detailed questions, though I know you could write him via improbablecollapse.com or 911truth.org. I do have his cell number, if you want that (let's cover that offline, tho) - he is very accessible. Per the title of the film, I can say pretty surely that he thinks it's "Improbable." From the quote in the post below, it appears the author of the FEMA report feels at least a bit puzzeled, if not the same way.
News flash: gasoline melts concrete and steel! (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070429/D8OQG8600.html)
>:D
Quote from: KBCraig on April 29, 2007, 11:29 PM NHFT
News flash: gasoline melts concrete and steel! (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20070429/D8OQG8600.html)
>:D
What? That was clearly a controlled demolition! See how neat and clean the cuts were? And there's no trace of a tanker truck anyway. Plus, it was done while nobody was actually around to see it.
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 26, 2007, 11:01 AM NHFTWhat most people are basing their conclusions on are videos, though there are so many interesting ones still coming out of the woodwork, esp. the one showing the molten metal flowing out of the side of one of the towers (shown in Improbable Collapse). I have to say that one was a stunner to me.
The reaction of steam and iron is exothermic at 400 degrees. The gypsum in wallboard and aluminum react in a violently exothermic reaction under the right conditions. The plane contained dozens of oxygen generators which burn rather spectacularly when ignited.
The molten metal could have been a pool of aluminum from the airplane and other sources within the building, collected in the visibly sagging floors, heated by reaction with gypsum wallboard or other chemical sources of heat.
Quote from: San Francisco Chronicle (http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/04/30/MNGK8PI1CI1.DTL)"It was massive," said Rodriguez, a 53-year-old sanitation supervisor at the East Bay Municipal Utility District wastewater treatment plant. "It looked like a big slab of plastic because it was melted."
But it was no big slab of plastic. The overpass was a critical component of one of the Bay Area's busiest highway interchanges, the MacArthur Maze. The network of connector ramps merges the East Bay's three major highways: Interstates 80, 580 and 880.
Maybe five years from now Rodriguez will be quoted to in a book trying to prove that the overpass was actually a big slab of plastic.
QuoteThe driver escaped just before the overhead ramp collapsed -- the fire had melted its steel undergirders. When the smoke cleared around daybreak Sunday, one ramp was draped like a comforter over the lower connector.
...No sign of the truck remained by daybreak. A Caltrans worker held up his thumb and forefinger an inch apart to describe how big the tanker was by then.
QuoteEngineers estimate Sunday?s flames reached close to 3,000 degrees. Here?s a breakdown of heat?s effects.
Molten lava: 3,140?
Iron melts: 2,797?
Steel melts: 2,750?
Gold melts: 1,947?
Silver melts: 1,763?
Steel loses half its rigidity: 1,000?
Lead melts: 622?
Water boils: 212?
Source: "Comparisons" by the Diagram Group and Chronicle research
And that's just gasoline burning freely on a freeway overpass, instead of inside a big chimney.
(http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/30/ba_tanker.jpg)
(http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/30/mn_highway_collapse_caoak101.jpg)
Rosie O'Donnell on 9/11: "I do believe that it's the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel."
Does that mean this is the second time?
New site of interest: http://www.911truthgroups.org/
From the site:
This is a multi-portal gateway for groups of people who are advocating a complete, open and honest investigation of the events surrounding September 11, 2001. This is the "Community Center" portal and it contains information and resources common to all 9/11 Truth Advocates.
Before you dismiss this as being nothing more than a ?Conspiracy Theory?, please review this partial List of Prominent People who challenge the 9/11 Commission findings and who champion a new, full and impartial investigation into the events preceding, during and since September 11, 2001.
And to get a better idea of how many world citizens are actively working together to reveal the Truth surrounding 9/11 please review the
* US Directory of 9/11 Truth Communities
* International Directory of 9/11 Truth Websites
In general our goal is to provide teamwork tools to help local 9/11 Advocates in the same region areas to find each other, get organized and effective as quickly as possible.
William Rodriguez, the "last man out" of the WTC North Tower is coming to New-Hampshire to speak at Franklin Pierce College on May 18th upcoming.
Details are on the Merrimack Valley 911 Truth website: http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org. Carpooling information can be found there, as well as invitation cards you can print out yourself for handing out at other meetings.
I'll start a separate thread for this for details and carpooling chatter.
The Student Scholars for 911 Truth are organizing the event: http://sst911.org - good going guys!
Quote from: mvpel on April 30, 2007, 09:48 AM NHFT
And that's just gasoline burning freely on a freeway overpass, instead of inside a big chimney.
(http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/30/ba_tanker.jpg)
(http://sfgate.com/c/pictures/2007/04/30/mn_highway_collapse_caoak101.jpg)
Rosie O'Donnell on 9/11: "I do believe that it's the first time in history that fire has ever melted steel."
Does that mean this is the second time?
Bay Area Roadway Collapse Was Actually Cyclist Terrorism, Sources Say (http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2007/05/bay_area_roadwa.html)
(http://blog.wired.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/05/01/mazemeltdown_jef_poskanzer_2.jpg)
My secure phone has been buzzing with disturbing tips undermining the official story about the Sunday morning inferno that brought down a key Bay Area highway connection ramp near the Bay Bridge. In fact, the official story is a lie, something THREAT LEVEL wanted to break open on its own, but an intrepid blogger has already leaked some of the key info at 429Truth.com, where tough questions like "Did Arnold Know?" and "Were incendiary devices planted in the retaining walls?" are already being asked.
There is, however, disturbing misinformation at that site. The destruction of the bridge is, in truth, clearly the work of rogue cyclists intent on destabilizing the Homeland and the Middle East by reducing demand for oil. Just two days earlier, the San Francisco Chronicle gossip reporters got wind that a coalition of rogue cyclists known as Critical Mass was going to riot in the streets AGAIN. Once the cyclists got wind their plan was foiled, they pretended to hold a peaceful parade, but were actually traveling around the city in a giant pack filling their little plastic water bottles with gasoline siphoned from cars using old bicycle tire tubes cut in half.
And Sunday morning, a horde of them stuck their Lycra shorts in the top of those bottles, sneaked onto the highway and used their cyclist Molotov cocktails to firebomb a gasoline truck, and then disappeared onto local roads. The goal? To topple Saudi Arabia and install a puppet cyclist dictator who would jack up oil prices until all of us would be stuck riding Huffy mountain bikes to the mall for the rest of our lifetimes. That's what my sources tell me.
Unless of course global warming was at fault.
Posted by Ryan Singel 8:35:40 PM in Threats
http://prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/010507ludicrousfreeway.htm
(I don't normally recommend articles published on PrisonPlanet.com but this one hits the nail on the head. I knew that it would be just a matter of hours before 9/11 debunkers gleefully announced that the bridge collapse "proves" the buildings fell because of fire)
Debunkers Use Ludicrous Freeway Comparison To Attack 9/11 Truth
Desperation evident as thin rebars impacted by gasoline firestorm compared to twin tower's thick steel beams and concrete core
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, May 1, 2007
Debunkers have again betrayed their desperation by citing the partial collapse of a freeway bridge in San Francisco to claim that the controlled demolition of the World Trade Center towers and Building 7 has been discredited. In reality, the comparison is ludicrous and wildly inaccurate.
Nationally syndicated radio host Neil Boortz and other Neo-Con talking heads immediately seized on the bridge collapse in unison as part of a coordinated attack on the 9/11 Truth Movement.
Even mainstream science and technology websites jumped on the bandwagon, "When the I-580 overpass buckled, it brought back memories of the World Trade Center," reported Wired News.
Such bold assertions were notably absent when the 32-story Windsor Building in Madrid was gutted by intense fires for 28 hours but did not collapse in February 2005.
The frenzy was particularly evident at Fark.com, with posters reveling in the notion that the freeway accident had made "WTC conspiracy theories collapse as quickly as that highway did." Farkers, who judging from the website spend most of their time discussing hookers, obese lesbians and lauding a "semi-hot female coach getting it on with an underage female student," attacked 9/11 truthers for their lack of scientific credentials.
So in response to the numerous naysayers desperately clamoring for anything to stop the wild runaway popularity and growing credibility of the 9/11 Truth Movement, we talked to a physicist and a steel welding expert about the freeway collapse and why it is completely outlandish to compare it with the fall of Building 7 and the towers.
Professor Steven Jones, a Ph.D. physicist and cold fusion expert, joined Alex Jones on the air yesterday to talk about the monumental differences between the two collapses.
Jones said that the notion that steel supporting columns completely melted from fire is impossible and that what actually happened was that thin supporting bolts were warped, resulting in the collapse of the bridge section. In comparison, the south tower of the World Trade Center imploded at almost free fall speed, proving that even if the "truss failure" theory was accurate, the building would not have collapsed in 10 seconds with no resistance and would not have aerosolized, turning concrete support pillars into dust.
If the building had pancaked, the collapse would have taken around 40 seconds according to recent studies undertaken by Steven Jones' colleagues, almost four times longer than what was witnessed. In addition, the "pancake" collapse of the freeway did not even manage to collapse the section of road below it, whereas the collapse of the south tower pulverized over 10 floors a second.
The freeway section was made of highly flammable asphalt and took the brunt of a gigantic gasoline explosion with open air fires shooting 200 feet in the air. In comparison, the twin towers were impacted by aluminum planes filled with significantly less flammable kerosene and suffered limited fires that were oxygen-starved and almost out before the collapses occurred.
Building 7 was not hit by anything save a small amount of debris from the towers and suffered limited fires across just eight floors. In addition, explosions were being reported by occupants within WTC 7 before the towers had even collapsed.
The columns supporting the freeway were not pulverized into dust as in the case of the towers, but are clearly still standing as can be seen in all the photographs.
Halfway through the discussion with Steven Jones, a steel welding expert joined the conversation to express his incredulity at the fact that Fox News was comparing the collapse of the highway with the World Trade Center buildings.
"You can't even begin to compare 5 inch thick steel plate core columns, approximately 2 foot by 5 foot rectangle 5 inch thick boxes to quarter inch and 3 quarter inch dowels that connect the steel to the support members," said the steel expert.
"The logical deduction is that the rebar steel was exposed horizontally, that whole bridge surface and it was exposed intention, not like the fires that were lapping up fire-proofed 5 inch thick plate columns in the World Trade Center - these little bars had no heat sink and after two hours with all that weight on them they fell."
Debunkers have also failed to acknowledge the fact that freeways in the San Francisco area have already been weakened by multiple earthquakes and regularly collapse entirely of their own accord by accident.
Highway sections across the country have collapsed with no fire damage whatsoever being involved, including a case in Oklahoma in 2002 when a 500-foot section of an Interstate-40 bridge collapsed after barge collided with a bridge support.
The website Stop The Lie also compiled an excellent analysis debunking claims that the freeway collapse in any way mirrors what happened at the World Trade Center and that article is reproduced below.
*********
I can already hear defenders of the official account screaming "See, fire can cause a steel structure to collapse-the bridge collapsed!"
Comparing the circumstances surrounding the fire and subsequent partial collapse of this bridge to the circumstances surrounding the fires and subsequent complete collapse of the towers and WTC 7 is flawed from end to end. This fact should be obvious to most people; but let's point out a few things just in case they weren't already noticed.
1. This was an open air environment where flames were able to reach their absolute maximum temperature; white-hot and shooting upwards of 200 feet in the air.
2. Those 200 foot flames were acting on a single support truss that was fastened to the two columns pictured here. That truss (and the connectors that fastened it to the columns) represents a small fraction of the steel that would have been found on a single floor of the towers or WTC 7. So again, far more heat focused on a single truss and no way to redistribute the load once that truss was weakened.
3. You'll notice that despite the intense fires ability to weaken the truss and connectors that there is NO mention of molten metal in the debris. Also, unlike the debris of the towers and WTC 7, it's not likely we're going to hear anything about thermate (specifically used to destroy steel columns) in the bridge debris.
4. You'll notice that the concrete roadway that "pancaked down" on the roadway below did not cause the lower freeway to collapse. Nor has the concrete disintegrated into a fine powder.
5. You'll notice the columns were not torn down by the collapse, nor did they evaporate into thin air, rather they are still standing (having only lost the the truss and connectors that held the roadway to them.)
So to quickly recap:
White-hot 200 foot flames acting on a single truss (and no ability to redistribute the load once weakened.)
No molten metal and certainly no thermate found
No column failure
No evaporation / pulverization of concrete
No "pancake collapse"
-Ending with a paragraph from The 1-hour Guide to 9/11.
For the record, few in the scientific community doubt that it's theoretically possible for a building to experience failure if it is subjected to devastating heat for a sufficient period of time. And additional factors like no fire-proofing, no sprinkler systems, insufficient steel to "bleed off" heat or inferior construction greatly increase the possibility. However, what is "doubted" (or more accurately; considered downright impossible) is that such a failure would resemble anything like what was witnessed on 9/11. -Gradual, isolated, asymmetrical failures spread out over time; perhaps -simultaneous disintegration of all load bearing columns (leaving a pile of neatly folded rubble a few stories high) -no way.
This is probably old hat to readers of this list, but has anyone seen this site?:
250+ 9/11 'Smoking Guns' Found in the Mainstream Media: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911smokingguns.html
Lot's o' links to just the Mainstream Media articles on each issue.
Quote from: Insurgent on May 03, 2007, 05:41 PM NHFTProfessor Steven Jones, a Ph.D. physicist and cold fusion expert...
Um, that's really all you need to know that he's a loon.
I'll go through the thing point-by-point if you guys like...
Joe
QuoteJones said that the notion that steel supporting columns completely melted from fire is impossible and that what actually happened was that thin supporting bolts were warped, resulting in the collapse of the bridge section.
Who said anything about the steel supporting columns "completely melting" either in the WTC or in the bridge?
The WTC had an acre's worth of concrete per floor supported by steel trusses attached to the perimeter columns. If the warping and weakening of the bridge trusses in a serious fire is enough to detach its supporting means, then why is that not sufficient to detach the supporting means of a given acre-sized concrete floor of the WTC tower? There's clear photographic evidence that this is exactly what happened, floors can be seen draping down onto floors below them through the narrow windows.
And "controlled" demolition, yeah right:
(http://www.poems2u.com/911/wtc1-3.jpg)
QuoteIn addition, the "pancake" collapse of the freeway did not even manage to collapse the section of road below it, whereas the collapse of the south tower pulverized over 10 floors a second.
If only the top floor of the WTC had collapsed onto the floor below it, and that's all, then the WTC would still be standing today. Likewise, if twenty overpasses had all dropped onto the lower overpass at once, it wouldn't still be standing. Has Jones never heard of "momentum?"
QuoteBuilding 7 was not hit by anything save a small amount of debris from the towers and suffered limited fires across just eight floors.
A "small" amount of debris? Are they witholding evidence and photographs?
Oblique view of WTC7 involvement in WTC1 collapse. (http://photos1.blogger.com/photoInclude/blogger/2116/144/1600/WTC7AerialObliqueWTC1Collapse.jpg)WTC southwest corner damage:
(http://www.rense.com/general65/WTC7_sw_after_1.jpg)
The collapse of WTC-1 generated a 0.6 magnitude earthquake, and sent thousands of tons of steel flying through the air, and nobody has any photos of the side facing the site of the collapse, and the buildings were only 300 feet apart, and they're definitively claiming a "small amount of debris?"
Limited fires?
(http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7_Smoke.jpg)
QuoteIn addition, explosions were being reported by occupants within WTC 7 before the towers had even collapsed.
Video of electrical transformers exploding. (http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/content/transblow.wmv)QuoteThe freeway section was made of highly flammable asphalt
Wrong again. I've driven on those freeway sections many times, and they're made of concrete, not asphalt.
QuoteDebunkers have also failed to acknowledge the fact that freeways in the San Francisco area have already been weakened by multiple earthquakes and regularly collapse entirely of their own accord by accident.
Okay, now "regularly collapse???" I lived there for five years and I think if a freeway section had collapsed of its own accord, I would have heard about it.
QuoteSo again, far more heat focused on a single truss and no way to redistribute the load once that truss was weakened.
That's why it fell in a matter of minutes, instead of hours. At least they've made the conceptual leap that fire can weaken steel to the point where there is structural failure.
Quote"You can't even begin to compare 5 inch thick steel plate core columns, approximately 2 foot by 5 foot rectangle 5 inch thick boxes to quarter inch and 3 quarter inch dowels that connect the steel to the support members," said the steel expert.
The steel was only five inches thick near the bottom of the structure, where it had to withstand the most force, it tapered down to perhaps 2" thick near the middle of the building, down to perhaps as little as a quarter inch thick near the top.
This technique of tapered columns is common in all steel structures, as there's no point in using five inches of steel where you only need two, it's just a waste of money.
So what was this so-called and self-proclaimed "steel expert's" name? They don't say.
QuoteHowever, what is "doubted" (or more accurately; considered downright impossible) is that such a failure would resemble anything like what was witnessed on 9/11. -Gradual, isolated, asymmetrical failures spread out over time; perhaps -simultaneous disintegration of all load bearing columns (leaving a pile of neatly folded rubble a few stories high) -no way.
"Neatly folded?" "A few stories?" Give me a f---ing break.
There were "gradual, isolated, asymmetrical failures" spread out over 62 minutes and 104 minutes, respectively, saving the lives of thousands and thousands of people.
The WTC complex sub-basement "bathtub" was about seven stories deep.
(http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2002-05/3137393.jpg)
(http://www.mdtextreme.com/wtc/rubble.jpg)
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/2/8/7/2878a8ab6f8a68e3266920579cfc1fb3.png)
Think about it.
Give up. Truth is irrelevant to "truthers."
Quote from: error on April 15, 2007, 08:53 AM NHFTIt wasn't necessary for the government to cause, enable, or look the other way.
They thought it was necessary .... to have a pearl harbor type event .... as explained in their necon paper. So they did it.
Quote from: MaineShark on April 15, 2007, 11:36 AM NHFT
Quote from: Insurgent on April 15, 2007, 10:36 AM NHFTI believe in this enough that I'll even offer a money-back guarantee. Since I booked the conference room and paid for it, I can do this! If you attend and feel it was a complete waste of time, I'll give you your $5 back Same goes for everyone else :)
My time is worth more than $5.
Joe
So why do you spend time on this thread? You don't even think this topic is important enough to learn more about .... but you will argue with those that do.
Quote from: error on May 04, 2007, 02:23 PM NHFT
Give up. Truth is irrelevant to "truthers."
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were in a negative frame of mind when you made this comment, and also give you the opportunity to retract it in order to save face.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on May 04, 2007, 05:05 PM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on April 15, 2007, 11:36 AM NHFTMy time is worth more than $5.
So why do you spend time on this thread? You don't even think this topic is important enough to learn more about .... but you will argue with those that do.
Sitting through a video which is likely (from the ads I've seen) "more of the same" made by someone I don't know is not my idea of a good opportunity to get a return on my time investment. Maybe it has new information, but I've asked for examples of that and so far no one has named any, so my "Vegas odds" on it are pretty long against it actually containing anything I haven't seen before.
On the other hand, many people here are my friends, and I enjoy discussing this with them, so I am getting value in return for my time. I don't need to have everyone I talk to agree with me, just to enjoy myself. Actually, that often gets boring.
Like I said, I agree that certain individuals within the government could have caused this event. My only issue is with the claims that some make with regards to the particular method. While I joked about it earlier, I do believe that there is a high probability that the "hijackers couldn't have done it" theory was started by members of the government to head off calls for arming passengers. Look how many of the proponents are government-employed professors...
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on May 04, 2007, 08:14 PM NHFT
Like I said, I agree that certain individuals within the government could have caused this event.
You will probably be interested in hearing William Rodriguez speak on May 18th then (see other thread or http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org for more info). He was a janitor in the WTC North Tower and heard explosions in the basement BEFORE he heard the plane hit above. He went on to rescue a lot of people and assist the firefighters in getting access to various floors. He is often referred to as "the last man out" of the North Tower and was honored by George Bush, among others, for his heroic bravery.
He testified to the Keane-Hamilton commission and it was not reported out. He has grown so concerned that he became the lead plaintiff in a RICO suit against George Bush. See his presentation at the LA Scholars Conference of 2006 here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4380137365762802294
He's coming to Franklin Pierce College in just 2 weeks, thanks to the Student Scholars for 911 Truth, so for those interested in getting to the truth about the 9-11 tragedies, this would be a "must see" event and it's local! As with any of these things, the opportunity to speak directly to an eyewitness trumps any written account or folk legend/rumors.
Quote from: Insurgent on May 04, 2007, 07:57 PM NHFT
Quote from: error on May 04, 2007, 02:23 PM NHFT
Give up. Truth is irrelevant to "truthers."
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you were in a negative frame of mind when you made this comment, and also give you the opportunity to retract it in order to save face.
There's nothing to retract. And my face doesn't need saving.
Quote from: mvpel on April 23, 2007, 11:07 AM NHFT
Okay, can you name any building, anywhere in the world that was constructed similarly to the Twin Towers of the World Trade Center, which has collapsed?
No
I hope that helps. :)
Quote from: MaineShark on April 23, 2007, 10:02 PM NHFT
I have no desire to discuss the possibility that they are behind the September 11th attacks.
ok then ..... do you mind if the rest of us do?
Quote from: error on April 23, 2007, 11:35 PM NHFT
I didn't go to the World Trade Center on 9/11. I must be in on it!!!
that is a possibility .... you do work for homeland stupidity :)
Quote from: MaineShark on April 27, 2007, 12:26 PM NHFT
As I (and others) have said, I want to see the evidence.
I don't think the government will give it to you .... and you are paying them. :(
Quote from: mvpel on May 04, 2007, 09:24 AM NHFT
And "controlled" demolition, yeah right:
(http://www.poems2u.com/911/wtc1-3.jpg)
that is what a controlled demo would look like if you busted a plane into the side of the building first ..... it would come down .... just not quite as planned. :)
Loose Change Final Cut teaser, posted by Dylan Avery: http://z10.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=8646
More archive video footage has been unearthed that re-emphasizes the fact that President Bush lied about how he first came to know about the events of September 11, 2001.
[YouTube video here http://youtube.com/watch?v=N4rkfgHTK-M]
ABC News reporter John Cochran told ABC's Peter Jennings [9:17AM], "He got out of his hotel suite this morning, was about to leave, reporters saw the White House chief of staff Andy Card whisper into his ear, then reporters said to the President 'do you know what's going on in New York'? - he said he did and would have something to say about it later."
This contradicts Bush's statement that he made on two separate occasions, that he first learned of what was going on in New York from watching a television outside of the classroom as he prepared to talk about education with a group of Florida schoolchildren.
Posted on 911blogger:
"A fine paper by Prof. David Ray Griffin has been published in the May 2007 issue of the Journal of 9/11 Studies.
The American Empire and 9/11 (PDF: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/DavidRayGriffin911Empire.pdf)
We appreciate the interest and rapid growth of informative peer-reviewed papers in this Journal.
Sincerely,
Steven Jones "
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 05, 2007, 09:37 AM NHFT
...paper by Prof. David Ray Griffin, May 2007 issue of the Journal of 9/11 Studies, The American Empire and 9/11 (PDF: http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/DavidRayGriffin911Empire.pdf)
Conclusion on p.29 (excerpted in part):
Conclusion: The Preeminent Importance of 9/11The above evidence, plus the fact that all the ?evidence?
that seems to implicate the alleged hijackers, such as
cellphone calls, airport photos, and discovered luggaqe and
passports, appears to have been fabricated, leads to the
conclusion that 9/11 was a false-flag operation orchestrated
by the Bush administration for primarily imperial reasons.
If this conclusion is correct, then exposing the
falsity of the official account of 9/11 should be high on
the agenda of all people committed to reversing the present
policies of the U.S. government, for at least four reasons.
First, 9/11 has provided the pretext for at least most
of the malevolent and destructive policies carried out by
the Bush-Cheney administration since that day. When any
objection is raised to this administration?s illicit
policies---from illegal invasions to torture to illegal
spying to weaponizing space to talk of a nuclear first
strike---the answer is always the same: ?The critics fail to
understand that the world changed on 9/11.? Until the truth
about 9/11 is exposed, it will remain a blank check for
virtually anything desired by this administration.
-------------------
This well-footnoted paper is a good summary of findings over the past 5 years, with references to everything germane. Could be a good starting point for those just coming to question the truth of the official story and trying to come to grips with the "why" of it all.
Tower Blueprints - http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/blueprints.html
...
Whistleblower Releases Blueprints
In March of 2007, an extensive set of detailed architectural drawings of the World Trade Center became public through the actions of a whistleblower. The 261 drawings included detailed plans for the North Tower (WTC 1), the World Trade Center foundation and basement, and the TV mast atop the North Tower. The set of drawings does not include plans for the other six buildings in the World Trade Center complex. However, since the Twin Towers were of almost identical construction, it is safe to assume that the structural details that the drawings shown for the North Tower are largely applicable to the South Tower.
The drawings contain a wealth of detail about the buildings, including the dimensions of structural members such as the core columns.
------
This site should be of interest to those wanting to see evidence (joe) - there's a listing of the known evidence down the left column of the above page: including destroyed, missing and surviving evidence.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on May 05, 2007, 05:44 AM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on April 23, 2007, 10:02 PM NHFTI have no desire to discuss the possibility that they are behind the September 11th attacks.
ok then ..... do you mind if the rest of us do?
Nope. Like I said, I think it's "framing the guilty," but you can do that if you like.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on May 05, 2007, 05:50 AM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on April 27, 2007, 12:26 PM NHFTAs I (and others) have said, I want to see the evidence.
I don't think the government will give it to you .... and you are paying them. :(
I am? Only at gunpoint... And as little as possible.
Joe
Thanks for posting that link to the blueprints, that has the potential to bring a lot of insight to the discussion, and expose the misrepresentations flying around.
It makes me wistful, looking at them. They were remarkable structures, and I still remember the last time I was there. What's odd about it is that there was a fire department response at the time, I have the photos around somewhere of the team of firefighters going into the building.
Yeah, I have a couple of stories about my visits there, too. I took my niece and nephew there once - man is that high up on top of the observation walkway.
Here's a link to a poster about the upcoming William Rodriquez talk on May 18th at Franklin Pierce College. It ought to be interesting to talk to a real eyewitness/survivor.
poster: http://www.sst911.org/willieposter.gif
Our friends over on the Seacoast write to Fosters:
Note: This letter, which is being published in Foster's today, has a few errors in the signatures: (1) It was signed by Betsy (not "Becky") Burton, (2) It should have listed the SEACOAST 9-11 QUESTIONS GROUP, (3) Not all of the signers were from Dover, and (4) There were a total of 10 signers, so at least the number should have been indicated. Dave
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Buying the official story of Sept. 11
To the editor:
Last week we saw Bill Moyers on public television ("Buying the War,"April 26 on Channel 11) give an in-depth account of how the mainstream corporate media in this country passed on government propaganda and helped mislead the country into a disastrous war against Iraq.
We saw how it became unfashionable and risky for journalists to dissent from the official line. The few journalists who questioned administration lies were attacked as "anti-American" and "unpatriotic." But we know, now that administration reports of Iraqi WMD and ties to al-Qaeda have been proven false, that those few journalist were right after all.
If the press and the administration had listened to the journalistic dissenters (and the peace movement) over 3,000 Americans and maybe a million Iraqis now dead might still be alive.
Moyers noted that the key component in Bush's justification for the war against Iraq was Sept. 11. "At least a dozen times during this news conference (on March 6, 2003) he will invoke 9/11 and al- Qaeda to justify a preemptive attack on a country that has not attacked America."
While Bill Moyers didn't go on to question the official story of Sept. 11 he might well have, since Sept. 11 was and remains central to the administration's war propaganda.
Even more vehemently than other war dissenters, those who question the official story of Sept. 11 are vilified as "hating America," "kooks," and "conspiracy theorists." This despite numerous unanswered questions about the events of Sept 11, 2001, questions whose likely answers point to that tragedy having been an inside job with the purpose of justifying resource wars in the Middle East.
The "conspiracy theorist" accusation rings hollow when made by the administration with the worst record of all time for lies, secrecy and deception. In addition, the official story about the 19 hijackers is a conspiracy theory itself. It will take a real investigation to show which conspiracy theory is true.
For more information go to the website www.911truth.org or read any book on this subject by David Ray Griffin: "The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11," "The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions," or "Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory."
Let's no longer buy the deceptions that led to the disastrous Iraq war. Let's also no longer buy the official story of Sept. 11, which is being used to justify a never-ending so-called "war on terror" and "preemptive" strikes against any country the Bush administration chooses to crush.
David Diamond
Jason Howard
Becky Burton
Marika Wilde
William Woodward
Pat Galloway
Dover
PNAC - Project for a New American Citizen con in Austin, Texas - 14 April 2007
Dr. Stephen Jones presents new evidence - analysis of dust from WTC towers' collapse:
video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4549750234983943323
Steven Jones discusses the NIST report, thermite, and his new analysis of "iron rich spheres" found in dust samples taken from an apartment across the street from Ground Zero. This analysis provides additional "smoking gun" evidence that thermite was used in the destruction of the WTC towers.
In what may be a partial answer to an earlier hinted question from mvpel, Jones answers (someone else):
"Gypsum is comprised of calcium sulfate, so that when sulfur is associated with gypsum as suggested by Eagar [Professor Thomas Eagar of MIT], then calcium will also be present. In my talk at UT-Austin one finds that sulfur is present in the Fe-Al-S-rich microspheres with an absence of calcium Âthus ruling out the gypsum-origin notion. I specifically looked for Ca, but it was absent in these iron-rich microspheres."
Answers to the provenance of the dust are apparently in the talk, as are some other answers. Looking for a full text of the talk so it will be searchable.
boy ... some of these 9/11 researchers are going to great lengths and into great details to find out what happened ... the government's 9/11 commission stopped looking years ago.
They dishonor the victims by trying to find out who killed them! ;)
IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH!
Caleb
For upcoming interest, there will be an international 9-11 Truth conference in Hartford Connecticut in October - big name speakers will be there from all over. Details can probably be found on 911Truth.org when they are finalized.
I've read a lot of these posts on this thread and I'm still not sure who believes what. :BangHead: I'm not stupid I just have comprehension issues. :)
I'll jump in and leave all of the steel beam and bomb stuff out of what I'm going to write. I am not making a statement of what I believe happened on 9/11 because I'm not sure but the first thing my brother and I said to each other on the phone that day was, "why aren't fighter jets surrounding the planes?". Also how can 3 or 4 airplanes just go anywhere they want on/off radar and no one was extremely alarmed until after the fact? :dontknow:
I've read conspiracy theories about the Pentagon, that it wasn't a real plane that flew into the Pentagon but it was a hologram. That kind of thing is hard to believe but who the heck knows? Also how and why were the cell phone conversations taped on the plane that was supposedly taken over by the passengers and crashed in to the field? I mean I didn't know it was common practice to do that. My husband called me from a plane one time and it wasn't a clear, long conversation.
Quote from: raineyrocks on May 14, 2007, 10:32 AM NHFT
I've read a lot of these posts on this thread and I'm still not sure who believes what.
I don't think that is too important. :)
You can read several books on the subject or visit a few good websites and you will know as much as me .... and that has been enough for me to change my mind as to who is responsible.
David Ray Griffins stuff is all very logical and simple to follow.
I don't know anything about holograms. I don't see why the government would use holograms at the pentagon when they could just use a drone plane as a missile.
But then again I didn't see why the government thugs would use planes and bombs to blow up buildings to get their way .... until I read their plans and saw the evidence. :)
Thanks Russell, I will read David Ray Griffins stuff. :)
Yeah I thought the hologram theory was pretty lame too but really who the heck knows anymore.
If you read the books mentioned in this thread, you will know a lot more. Researchers from outside the government keep getting closer and closer to the truth.
BTW .... why do you want to know more about what happened on 9/11?
Quote from: Russell Kanning on May 14, 2007, 11:23 AM NHFT
If you read the books mentioned in this thread, you will know a lot more. Researchers from outside the government keep getting closer and closer to the truth.
BTW .... why do you want to know more about what happened on 9/11?
I like knowing what has or is really going on. Also if the kids bring up the subject I'd like to be able to talk to them about the facts not the mass media's crap.
Quote from: raineyrocks on May 14, 2007, 10:32 AM NHFTI'll jump in and leave all of the steel beam and bomb stuff out of what I'm going to write. I am not making a statement of what I believe happened on 9/11 because I'm not sure but the first thing my brother and I said to each other on the phone that day was, "why aren't fighter jets surrounding the planes?". Also how can 3 or 4 airplanes just go anywhere they want on/off radar and no one was extremely alarmed until after the fact? :dontknow:
Repeat after me: "GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS."
(http://apollopony.net/images/air_traffic.jpg)
Nobody knew what the hell was really going on until it was too late. The Eastern Seaboard is the busiest air traffic control region in the country, and the hijacked planes were not squawking the hijack transponder code which would have flagged the planes in the ATC system, probably because the takeover of the cockpit was sudden, violent, and bloody.
QuoteI've read conspiracy theories about the Pentagon, that it wasn't a real plane that flew into the Pentagon but it was a hologram. That kind of thing is hard to believe but who the heck knows?
You do, assuming you have two brain cells to rub together.
Witnesses saw the plane flying low and fast towards the Pentagon.
QuoteAlso how and why were the cell phone conversations taped on the plane that was supposedly taken over by the passengers and crashed in to the field? I mean I didn't know it was common practice to do that. My husband called me from a plane one time and it wasn't a clear, long conversation.
A friend of mine knew Todd Beamer. There's no "supposedly" about Todd Beamer's unborn child losing her father.
The planes altitude was low, so the range to the cell towers was within the parameters of the cellphone system. Normal airline altitude is around 6-7 miles, but Flight 77 was at 7,000 feet thirty five miles out from the Pentagon, then at 2,000 feet about four miles out. And the calls weren't clear and long - they cut out on a number of occasions. In addition, there were GTE AirPhones on the planes.
What's bizarre is that this conspiracy theorist: http://www.apfn.net/messageboard/08-23-04/discussion.cgi.42.html
... posts a quote saying that cell calls were possible made by an industry expert, "From high altitudes, the call quality is not very good, and most callers will experience drops," but then apparently takes that to mean that calls from high altitudes are NOT possible.
I appreciate you taking the time to answer some of my questions but could have done without the sarcastic jabs such as:
QuoteYou do, assuming you have two brain cells to rub together.
QuoteRepeat after me: "GOVERNMENT BUREAUCRATS."
I though you were nicer than that going from some of your posts.
Anyways I never said that I believed it was a hologram plane, I said it was something I read about. I also never said that there wasn't an actual plane crash in the field. I said ,"the plane that was supposedly taken over by the passengers and crashed in to the field?" Which brings up the question of, was this plane shot down by missiles or was it taken over by the passengers?
Have you read David Ray Griffins info? I just did and it's very interesting. My point is that there are more questions than just about melting steel beams. I don't know exactly what happened so stop being so defensive.
You said "who knows whether or not it was a hologram." I said, YOU know it.
I find it very hard to be nice when such patent absurdity is flying about, such as the absurdity of questioning the reality of the death of Barbara Olson or Todd Beamer by postulating alien-technology holograms. I can put up with repeated pointless questions from my three year old, since I know he'll grow out of it, but nearly six years of it from full grown adults gets under my skin.
Did you know that steam and iron will burn at about 400 degrees? It's called pyrophoric oxidation. Gypsum in wallboard has a chemical composition of CaSO, about 17.6% sulfur, which would have become a source of sulfur for hydrogen-sulfide-driven pyrophoric oxidation of the steel.
Indeed, by pumping water for weeks into the rubble pile at Ground Zero, the NYFD was probably adding fuel to the fire as the steam reacted with the steel and released hydrogen to either combine with the sulfur in gypsum to burn violently with the steel or to burn with oxygen in the air.
As for United 93 and the missile theory, close your eyes and think about what you would do if you were fighting with knife-wielding people trying to prevent you from unbuckling their harnesses and pulling them out of their seat at the controls taking over the plane. Think about what they would do. Think about the tight space between the head and the galley near the cockpit of a typical plane. Think about the width of the door. Think about the cramped quarters of the cockpit. Think about a dead body in that space. Think about how slippery great gouts of blood are. And watch "United 93" if you want to see one possible answer to whether the plane crashed or not. The final instants of that movie are overwhelming.
Plausible? Yes or no.
Quote from: mvpel on May 14, 2007, 12:32 PM NHFT
You said "who knows whether or not it was a hologram." I said, YOU know it.
I find it very hard to be nice when such patent absurdity is flying about, such as the absurdity of questioning the reality of the death of Barbara Olson or Todd Beamer by postulating alien-technology holograms. I can put up with repeated pointless questions from my three year old, since I know he'll grow out of it, but nearly six years of it from full grown adults gets under my skin.
As for United 93 and the missile theory, close your eyes and think about what you would do if you were fighting with knife-wielding people trying to prevent you from unbuckling their harnesses and pulling them out of their seat at the controls taking over the plane. Think about what they would do. Think about the tight space between the head and the galley near the cockpit of a typical plane. Think about the width of the door. Think about the cramped quarters of the cockpit. Think about a dead body in that space. Think about how slippery great gouts of blood are. And watch "United 93" if you want to see one possible answer to whether the plane crashed or not. The final instants of that movie are overwhelming.
Plausible? Yes or no.
Okay, your right I did say, who knows regarding the hologram. I meant that in a way that anything is possible but I truly don't think it's probable. I never said that Barbara Olson or Todd Beamer didn't die and I would never intentionally minimize someone's suffering. I don't even have to close my eyes and think about the atrocities of 9/11. I watched it on tv and was crying hysterically when I saw people jumping to their deaths out of the World Trade Center.
United 93 was a movie and I bet it was disturbing to watch that's why I don't want to see it, plausible? Yes it is but you or I don't know exactly what happened on United 93, is that plausible?
The United 93 movie wasn't nearly so disturbing as the news footage. Over and over. BTW, I saw what happened to those people after they hit the ground. That's something I'll never forget.
Quote from: raineyrocks on May 14, 2007, 01:11 PM NHFT... but you or I don't know exactly what happened on United 93, is that plausible?
Yes, of course.
But in the field of diagnostics, there's a saying "when you hear hoofbeats, think 'horses,' not 'zebras.'"
And the 9/11 conspiracy theories involve not only zebras, but all too often unicorns, centaurs, and fauns.
Quote from: mvpel on May 14, 2007, 01:24 PM NHFT
Quote from: raineyrocks on May 14, 2007, 01:11 PM NHFT... but you or I don't know exactly what happened on United 93, is that plausible?
Yes, of course.
But in the field of diagnostics, there's a saying "when you hear hoofbeats, think 'horses,' not 'zebras.'"
And the 9/11 conspiracy theories involve not only zebras, but all too often unicorns, centaurs, and fauns.
Your right, that's why I was avoiding the subject of melting steel beams. :)
Quote from: error on May 14, 2007, 01:16 PM NHFT
The United 93 movie wasn't nearly so disturbing as the news footage. Over and over. BTW, I saw what happened to those people after they hit the ground. That's something I'll never forget.
I can't even imagine what that would be like, what I saw on tv was something I'll never forget. Do you know the Alan Jackson song about 9/11? I cry every time I hear that, it says almost everything that I felt that day and even now. Were you there when it happened?
I wasn't there. Was supposed to have been, being a tourist, but decided not to go. (My lizard friends in the NWO called and tipped me off.)
Here's a link that I got in one of my FFNN letters for all you 9/11 buffs.....
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070512&articleId=5626 (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=20070512&articleId=5626)
I still think that the UA 93 flight was shot down... even if everything else turns out to be 'as reported'.... I think that the USAirforce said no way to a 4th flight and took that plane out.
Quote from: error on May 14, 2007, 01:39 PM NHFT
I wasn't there. Was supposed to have been, being a tourist, but decided not to go. (My lizard friends in the NWO called and tipped me off.)
Aahh, your lizard friends huh? It's good to know reptiles in low places!
Quote from: mvpel on May 14, 2007, 12:32 PM NHFT
You said "who knows whether or not it was a hologram." I said, YOU know it.
I find it very hard to be nice when such patent absurdity is flying about, such as the absurdity of questioning the reality of the death of Barbara Olson or Todd Beamer by postulating alien-technology holograms. I can put up with repeated pointless questions from my three year old, since I know he'll grow out of it, but nearly six years of it from full grown adults gets under my skin.
Did you know that steam and iron will burn at about 400 degrees? It's called pyrophoric oxidation. Gypsum in wallboard has a chemical composition of CaSO, about 17.6% sulfur, which would have become a source of sulfur for hydrogen-sulfide-driven pyrophoric oxidation of the steel.
Indeed, by pumping water for weeks into the rubble pile at Ground Zero, the NYFD was probably adding fuel to the fire as the steam reacted with the steel and released hydrogen to either combine with the sulfur in gypsum to burn violently with the steel or to burn with oxygen in the air.
As for United 93 and the missile theory, close your eyes and think about what you would do if you were fighting with knife-wielding people trying to prevent you from unbuckling their harnesses and pulling them out of their seat at the controls taking over the plane. Think about what they would do. Think about the tight space between the head and the galley near the cockpit of a typical plane. Think about the width of the door. Think about the cramped quarters of the cockpit. Think about a dead body in that space. Think about how slippery great gouts of blood are. And watch "United 93" if you want to see one possible answer to whether the plane crashed or not. The final instants of that movie are overwhelming.
Plausible? Yes or no.
LOL. You are the king of strawmen, mvpel. You like to attack the craziest ideas proposed. I for one believe that "hologram theories" are government disinformation designed to distract from the strong arguments of men like David Ray Griffin. I have no problem believing that real planes hit real buildings.
What's funny is that by your own admission, the Pentagon plane was flying "fast and low" - the problem seems to be, from my perspective, that none of the pilots on board the plane were qualified to fly a plane in this fashion. I'm curious who the pilot was, aren't you?
How about the guy who went to learn how to be a pilot, but didn't learn how to land?
Quote from: Caleb on May 14, 2007, 06:34 PM NHFT
What's funny is that by your own admission, the Pentagon plane was flying "fast and low" - the problem seems to be, from my perspective, that none of the pilots on board the plane were qualified to fly a plane in this fashion. I'm curious who the pilot was, aren't you?
What is it about your perspective that makes it impossible, or implausible, or even unlikely, that one of the accused hijackers was flying "in this fashion"? Do you believe that fast and low is harder than fast and high?
Not my words, KB -- this is from the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A14365-2001Sep11¬Found=true
-------
Quote"Controllers had time to warn the White House that the jet was aimed directly at the president's mansion and was traveling at a gut-wrenching speed -- full throttle.
But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver. The plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controllers' screens, the sources said.
Less than an hour after two other jets demolished the World Trade Center in Manhattan, Flight 77 carved a hole in the nation's defense headquarters, a hole five stories high and 200 feet wide.
Aviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious."
The supposed hijacker, Hani Hanour, could barely fly a Cessna; he was so bad, his flight trainers recommended that he give up his training.... So ... who piloted flight 77?
Quote from: raineyrocks on May 14, 2007, 01:11 PM NHFT
United 93 was a movie
Thanks for reminding people of that Rainey!
on the front page of 911Truth.org now - looks like it would be a good read:
Sunday, May 13 2007
Debunker Buster
by Tod Fletcher
May 12, 2007
_Debunking 9/11 Debunking_ is a monumental accomplishment by David Ray Griffin. He exhaustively and definitively destroys the pretensions of four major "9/11 debunking" publications published in 2006, shortly before the fifth anniversary of the events. Although the book is organized into chapters dealing with each one of the four publications in turn, Griffin has such a broad knowledge of all the evidence pertaining to the events, and such command of logic and argument, that the book is thoroughly cohesive and progressively builds an integrated critique of all dimensions of the official theory. _Debunking 9/11 Debunking_ will effectively serve as a veritable encyclopedia of not just the facts of 9/11, but of the best arguments to debunk the official (and semi-official) lies about the facts. Griffin, as usual, avoids speculation and focuses on showing that the official story of what happened that day cannot be true. . . .
_Debunking 9/11 Debunking_ is a tremendous book, which should be read by everyone. By utterly destroying each of the well-funded, best efforts of the government to defend its case in the court of public opinion, the book effectively finishes off the official conspiracy theory. With this book in its arsenal, the 9/11 truth movement is set to take the offensive. It is time to launch this Debunker Buster at the hardened fortresses of the mass murderers within. Do what the perpetrators fear most. Read this book!
Quote from: raineyrocks on May 14, 2007, 02:40 PM NHFT
Quote from: error on May 14, 2007, 01:39 PM NHFT
I wasn't there. Was supposed to have been, being a tourist, but decided not to go. (My lizard friends in the NWO called and tipped me off.)
Aahh, your lizard friends huh? It's good to know reptiles in low places!
and remember .... he is a domestic terrorist.
Quote from: Dreepa on May 14, 2007, 02:37 PM NHFT
I still think that the UA 93 flight was shot down... even if everything else turns out to be 'as reported'.... I think that the USAirforce said no way to a 4th flight and took that plane out.
I think so too.
Home grown!
Rosie Sounds Off On WTC Demolition & Destruction Of Crime Scene
vid clips of what she said on the View yesterday on Alex Jones' website:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/140507rosiesoundsoff.htm
Quote from: Caleb on May 14, 2007, 07:52 PM NHFT
Not my words, KB -- this is from the Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A14365-2001Sep11¬Found=true
-------
Quote"Controllers had time to warn the White House that the jet was aimed directly at the president's mansion and was traveling at a gut-wrenching speed -- full throttle.
But just as the plane seemed to be on a suicide mission into the White House, the unidentified pilot executed a pivot so tight that it reminded observers of a fighter jet maneuver.
This was published the day after the attacks, so hyperbole is to be expected.
I have to ask: who are these "observers"? Did they have any experience that qualified them to judge the maneuvers of a 757 versus a fighter jet?
QuoteQuoteThe plane circled 270 degrees to the right to approach the Pentagon from the west, whereupon Flight 77 fell below radar level, vanishing from controllers' screens, the sources said.
Less than an hour after two other jets demolished the World Trade Center in Manhattan, Flight 77 carved a hole in the nation's defense headquarters, a hole five stories high and 200 feet wide.
I do hope you quote this passage to people who insist the Pentagon was hit by a missile.
QuoteQuoteAviation sources said the plane was flown with extraordinary skill, making it highly likely that a trained pilot was at the helm, possibly one of the hijackers. Someone even knew how to turn off the transponder, a move that is considerably less than obvious."
The supposed hijacker, Hani Hanour, could barely fly a Cessna; he was so bad, his flight trainers recommended that he give up his training.... So ... who piloted flight 77?
While he apparently could "barely fly a Cessna", he
did earn a commercial pilot's rating. The chief instructor of the school said "Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot." He also said, "There's no doubt in my mind that once that (hijacked jet) got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it."
Turning off the transponder is "less than obvious" to someone wandering into the cockpit, but it's easy for someone --a commercial-rated pilot, for instance-- who had trained to do exactly that.
Thanks for for the link.
Kevin
Quote from: KBCraig on May 15, 2007, 11:32 AM NHFT
While he apparently could "barely fly a Cessna", he did earn a commercial pilot's rating. The chief instructor of the school said "Despite Hanjour's poor reviews, he did have some ability as a pilot." He also said, "There's no doubt in my mind that once that (hijacked jet) got going, he could have pointed that plane at a building and hit it."
Or it could have been one of the other guys on the plane.
Quote from: KBCraig on May 15, 2007, 11:32 AM NHFT
I have to ask: who are these "observers"? Did they have any experience that qualified them to judge the maneuvers of a 757 versus a fighter jet?
I think there has also been air traffic controllers that were wondering what that thing was too, because of the speed and changes of direction.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on May 15, 2007, 02:52 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on May 15, 2007, 11:32 AM NHFT
I have to ask: who are these "observers"? Did they have any experience that qualified them to judge the maneuvers of a 757 versus a fighter jet?
I think there has also been air traffic controllers that were wondering what that thing was too, because of the speed and changes of direction.
It's way outside the norm for what they typically see from any aircraft, even fighters on normal flights within ATC space (as opposed to USAF training areas).
But commercial aircraft can do things you wouldn't think they could do (http://www.patricksaviation.com/videos/perabrown/1596/).
Kevin
kb, I've never said that the Pentagon was hit by a missile. I think there are some suspicious things surrounding the Pentagon hit, but these could very well be attributed to government disinformation, so I think it is most unwise to claim that it was a missile that hit the Pentagon. Now ... to question certain things about the Pentagon attack is most prudent:
1) By all accounts, flight 77 was heading towards the White House. Why were the white House anti-aircraft missiles not fired at flight 77? Also, I think the government needs to come clean as to what defenses the Pentagon itself has. It is not credible to claim that the Pentagon it not defended by some sort of anti-aircraft devices.
2) There is also the issue of Andrews Air Force Base, and why fighters were not scrambled from there. Prior to 9/11, Andrews Air Force base maintained a website that claimed that it had fighters on standby. Soon after 9/11, this was changed, and the government now maintains that the reason fighters were not scrambled from Andrews is because Andrews does not have fighters on standby. This is not credible. Andrews is charged with protecting Washington D.C.; also, even the fighters dispatched from Langley had sufficient time to intercept, but for some reason did not. By my math, the military had time to intercept (about 34 minutes from the time the military found out about flight 77) from pretty much any of the military bases on the Eastern seaboard. Remember that the F-16's can fly around 1800 miles per hour. An F-16 on alert status can go from command to 25,000 feet in less than three minutes. That means they had 31 minutes to get there, so any plane dispatched within roughly a 900 mile radius should have got there in time to protect the Pentagon. Andrews could have had planes to help the Pentagon in less than 5 minutes.
3) Who was the pilot, given the fact that none of the pilots had the qualifications to fly flight 77 in the manner flown. It is not only observers who were awed by the maneuver, even President Bush (a trained military fighter pilot) said that that must have been one hell of a pilot. He was aiming at the White House, then executed a sharp, descending 180 turn....All this so that he could hit the Pentagon in a non-strategic place that was largely empty? One hell of a fortunate coincidence for the bigwigs sitting in the East Wing, huh? Wouldn't it have been simpler for him to just descend and smash into the East Wing in the first place, and take out a bunch more people? If you're a terrorist, that's the way to go. If you're a government planner, that's the last thing you would want to do: take yourself out. Here's an LA Times article on this "coincidence"
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/pentagon/analysis/latimes_leastvulnerable.html
Quote from: Caleb on May 15, 2007, 06:42 PM NHFT
kb, I've never said that the Pentagon was hit by a missile.
I didn't say that you did. I was just hoping you'd quote the same article to those who do. It's more a refutation to them than to me.
Quote1) By all accounts, flight 77 was heading towards the White House.
That doesn't mean the White House was the target. We don't know the trigger distance for the White House air defense systems, so wondering why they weren't launched is just speculation. After all, thousands of flights a day head "toward" the White House; that doesn't mean they're targeting it, nor that they should trigger a missile launch.
Quote2) There is also the issue of Andrews Air Force Base, and why fighters were not scrambled from there. Prior to 9/11, Andrews Air Force base maintained a website that claimed that it had fighters on standby. Soon after 9/11, this was changed, and the government now maintains that the reason fighters were not scrambled from Andrews is because Andrews does not have fighters on standby.
I don't know the mission of the fighter squadron there either before or after 9/11, but I do know this: they're part of the DC Air National Guard, and they weren't necessarily on standby at that time, because that mission rotates from base to base.
QuoteThis is not credible. Andrews is charged with protecting Washington D.C.; also, even the fighters dispatched from Langley had sufficient time to intercept, but for some reason did not. By my math, the military had time to intercept (about 34 minutes from the time the military found out about flight 77) from pretty much any of the military bases on the Eastern seaboard. Remember that the F-16's can fly around 1800 miles per hour. An F-16 on alert status can go from command to 25,000 feet in less than three minutes. That means they had 31 minutes to get there, so any plane dispatched within roughly a 900 mile radius should have got there in time to protect the Pentagon. Andrews could have had planes to help the Pentagon in less than 5 minutes.
You're off a bit in your calculations. First, top speed of an F-16 is just over Mach 2, about 1350 mph, but that's only in level flight at 40,000 feet. At sea level, it's just over 900 mph. Next, they consume fuel at a horrendous rate at those speeds, leaving nothing left for fighting; even
if they could fly 1800 mph (instead of just 1350), they'd be out of gas long before they got there. An F-16 taking off with a medium armament load, performing a routine patrol and returning to base will burn about 9,000 pounds of fuel in a one hour mission. That's not even in combat. And maximum fuel capacity with both external tanks is 14,000 pounds, which is one of the criticisms of the aircraft:
very short combat radius in high performance conditions.
Then there's the problem of finding the target. With transponders off, it was mostly lost in a sea of blips.
Quote3) Who was the pilot, given the fact that none of the pilots had the qualifications to fly flight 77 in the manner flown. It is not only observers who were awed by the maneuver, even President Bush (a trained military fighter pilot) said that that must have been one hell of a pilot. He was aiming at the White House, then executed a sharp, descending 180 turn....All this so that he could hit the Pentagon in a non-strategic place that was largely empty? One hell of a fortunate coincidence for the bigwigs sitting in the East Wing, huh? Wouldn't it have been simpler for him to just descend and smash into the East Wing in the first place, and take out a bunch more people? If you're a terrorist, that's the way to go. If you're a government planner, that's the last thing you would want to do: take yourself out. Here's an LA Times article on this "coincidence"
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/pentagon/analysis/latimes_leastvulnerable.html
Again, that's speculation based on the assumption that the White House was a target. Why would they make it appear to be a target, then change?
As to qualifications, a long time back in this thread, I pointed out that what was being called remarkable pilot skill, could just as easily have been pilot ineptitude. Too low, too fast, turning too sharp, overshooting the target and having to double back... Hitting the World's Largest Building was not, in itself, evidence of any piloting skill that couldn't be acquired playing flight simulators.
Kevin
Sorry for getting the speed wrong ... for some reason 1800 mph had stuck in my head. But no matter. Even 1300 mph is more than sufficient for the fighters sent from Langley to reach it. I think it was Griffin who calculated that they were flying around 250 mph ... slower than the jets they were pursuing! Why?
I'm not going to let you get off so easy by saying that "they didn't know what to look for, the transponders were off." C'mon, KB! You don't go looking for the plane, you defend certain areas. If you are charged with protecting the protected airspace over Washington DC, you don't have to go wandering around the country looking for the plane that might one day make it to DC ... you just go and fly around within the protected area.
I'm trying to imagine believing that the US Government has no contingency plan for planes flying into protected airspace, but I don't think I could ever be that naive. Particularly when it is known that there are hijacked planes flying around the country (at one time, the FAA was reporting far more than just the four actual hijacked planes.) You're telling me that it didn't occur to the federal government to protect its own headquarters?
Sure, there are contingency plans for protecting the White House. But they aren't so high a priority when he's out of town.
They must not mind if Cheney is killed ..... oh wait didn't he call off the defenses?
Quote from: Caleb on May 15, 2007, 09:07 PM NHFT
Sorry for getting the speed wrong ... for some reason 1800 mph had stuck in my head. But no matter. Even 1300 mph is more than sufficient for the fighters sent from Langley to reach it.
I think you missed this point: F-16s don't leave the runway going 1300 mph. They can hit Mach 2.05 in level flight at 40,000 feet, whereupon they have just a few seconds throttle down and start looking for a gas station.
Top fuel dragsters can run a quarter mile in under 4.5 seconds and hit 330 mph. You shouldn't extrapolate that to mean they could drive from Keene to Winchester in 24 seconds.
QuoteI think it was Griffin who calculated that they were flying around 250 mph ... slower than the jets they were pursuing! Why?
Pursuing? Or meeting in a head-on engagement, or aiming to intercept? Or searching for?
QuoteI'm not going to let you get off so easy by saying that "they didn't know what to look for, the transponders were off."
I didn't say they didn't know what to look for. I said they didn't know
where to look, because Flight 77, without a transponder signal, was lost in a sea of blips. A goodly number of those blips were General Aviation craft, which don't have always have transponders. When Flight 77 left the standard flight lanes, went to low altitude, everyone was confused. Pilots of any fighter-interceptors could only rely on their eyeballs for finding the hijacked plane.
I recommend anyone who is interested in this, check with your local flight school. Most have an introductory special for $59 or so, where an instructor will take you up for a short flight. Look around while you're up there, and try to spot other aircraft. You'll be amazed at how many of them there are, that you can't see.
Ask Varrin about it sometime. I've got a couple dozen hours of bootleg time behind the yoke, so I'm no expert, but Varrin has more PIC hours than any of us here. Ask someone who flies for a living how easy it would be to find and attack a plane like Flight 77.
QuoteYou're telling me that it didn't occur to the federal government to protect its own headquarters?
As error noted, the protection plan changes based on who's in town. They don't respond the same, because they don't want to reveal their reaction plan. Not to mention, they protect the person, not the building. In this case, the president was in Florida, so the military response really wasn't worried about something hitting the White House.
Quote from: Caleb on May 15, 2007, 06:42 PM NHFT3) Who was the pilot, given the fact that none of the pilots had the qualifications to fly flight 77 in the manner flown.
"Qualifications"? What qualifications?
According to the government of NH, I'm not "qualified" to do plumbing work, because I don't have the proper licensing. I betcha I can snake a toilet, if I were so inclined...
Quote from: Caleb on May 15, 2007, 06:42 PM NHFTOne hell of a fortunate coincidence for the bigwigs sitting in the East Wing, huh? Wouldn't it have been simpler for him to just descend and smash into the East Wing in the first place, and take out a bunch more people? If you're a terrorist, that's the way to go. If you're a government planner, that's the last thing you would want to do: take yourself out. Here's an LA Times article on this "coincidence"
What would hitting the White House have accomplished? The bomb shelter is pretty impressive. An atomic attack on DC wouldn't crack it, so a commercial airliner isn't exactly a threat.
Quote from: Caleb on May 15, 2007, 09:07 PM NHFTI'm not going to let you get off so easy by saying that "they didn't know what to look for, the transponders were off." C'mon, KB! You don't go looking for the plane, you defend certain areas. If you are charged with protecting the protected airspace over Washington DC, you don't have to go wandering around the country looking for the plane that might one day make it to DC ... you just go and fly around within the protected area.
"Airspace over DC" is a large volume of space. An airliner is fairly small. Needle in a haystack.
Joe
Reminder that to hear a survivor of the WTC Towers collapse, see and hear William Rodriquez, the "Last Man Out" of the North Tower, speaking at 6:30PM this Friday at Franklin Pierce College in Rindge.
See http://www.MerrimackValley911Truth.org for details. Carpooling details are at the bottom of the description page. If all goes well there will be carpools leaving from Concord, Nashua, Amherst and Keene.
Just a last shot reminder. Most of us have not gotten to talk to someone who was actually at the WTC on 9/11, much less anyone that was as involved as William Rodriguez was. That's why I think this is an excellent opportunity to increase one's knowledge about what really happened on that day - a pivotal day in the state v. freedom struggle to be sure.
I'll bet there will also be DVD's and books for sale, too.
The carpool from Nashua (leaving ex. 6 Park & Ride at 4:45PM), going through to meet the carpool in Amherst is going on (leaving Amherst Library at 5:15PM). Concord area carpool is a no-go, though individuals are going. Keene area folk have made their arrangements in separate cars.
De-bunkers may want to hear William's experiences directly from his own mouth - no internet or nutcases in between that and your ears to alter things in translation!
Details at http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org.
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 16, 2007, 11:09 PM NHFT
Reminder that to hear a survivor of the WTC Towers collapse, see and hear William Rodriquez, the "Last Man Out" of the North Tower, speaking at 6:30PM this Friday at Franklin Pierce College in Rindge.
See http://www.MerrimackValley911Truth.org for details. Carpooling details are at the bottom of the description page. If all goes well there will be carpools leaving from Concord, Nashua, Amherst and Keene.
I'm excited to hear all about the presentation, as I was unable to be there :-\ How many on the forum, and otherwise, ended up attending?
What a great evening! The Nashua-Amherst carpool had a vanload of people and one came separately from Nashua. There was a big Keene contingent for a total crowd of 130-140 with the Keene Sentinel covering it. I didn't see any of our usual de-bunkers there, so I guess their curiosity wasn't piqued by someone who was actually there and survived the WTC towers' collapses. It was great to see Porcupines there amidst the crowd of students, progressives, conservatives, newbies to 911T, etc.
William Rodriquez's talk was absolutely stirring! He told, in pretty graphic detail what he experienced and saw on that day. Luckily for him, he had called in a half hour late that day or he would have been up on the 106th floor having breakfast with his friends from the building. He pulled injured and trapped people from the B2 basement level where there was an explosion 6 or 7 seconds before the plane hit above. In addition, he had one of only 5 master keys to all the stairwell doors and let the firemen in at each level up to about the 43rd floor. He was helping carry a handicapped man out from the 27th floor and was about to go back in when the building started to go. Police across the street yelled for him to RUN, so he ran and dove under a fire truck where he became buried under debris for 4-1/2 hours before he was rescued.
He has told his story many times, but the MSM doesn't pick up on it much here, though he was interviewed on Fox25 out of Boston yesterday and it was pretty solid. He has been covered extensively on Univision and Telemundo, the Spanish TV channels. He has also spoken often overseas, as other countries are very interested in what really happened on 9/11.
Willie, as he likes to be called, was instrumental, with the Jersey Girls, in putting pressure on the administration to get the commission establlished and instrumental in getting Henry Kissinger off of it (by merely asking him to disclose his client list!). He has also led massive peace marches in NYC with US military joining in.
He gave a stirring closing where he implored us all to get involved in seeking the truth, since this was the pivotal event which led to war and the loss of civil liberties at home. He was right up our alley on this.
In case you missed the talk, he has one more stop on his New England swing, 2PM Saturday at the First Congregational Church of Lee, 25 Park Place, Lee, Massachusetts (almost to the New York border).
He admits to financial difficulties because what he does, doesn't actually pay, so he operates on donations. There may actually be some opportunities for him ahead. He does have a DVD out now, which we can show at one of the MV911T meetings.
He, and others, are calling for an international investigation. He doesn't have the answers, but he's determined that the victims' families deserve the truth. He insists on an investigation that is not under the thumb of the Bush administration.
An excellent event! Lots of networking with other groups from all over. The Student Scholars for 911 Truth, Justin Martell and Mike Jackman, founders, are to be commended for organizing a very informative and successful event. Our own New-Hampshire students have started an international student movement! Another thing to be proud of from our Granite State. They've even got a conservative nemesis at FPC called "Students Against Student Scholars for 911 Truth" - a sure sign they're making waves.
Thanks for the update; sounds like an exciting presentation and I'm sorry to have had to miss it. Here's the picture of it you sent me via text-msg
[attachment deleted by admin]
I have a couple of others I'll send you. I should have got more closeups, but in the period after I was too busy networking and forgot to ask when I was talking to him if I could get a pic with him.
Quote from: lawofattraction on May 19, 2007, 06:57 PM NHFT
The creators of "Loose Change", as well as William Rodriguez, will be guests on "The View" with Rosie O'Donnell Thursday.
That should be interesting. If anyone watches it, please give a report.
I don't recommend either version of "Loose Change" because they really just create more questions than they answer, and also have enough holes in the arguments to be able to be picked apart by debunkers. There are far more credible videos on the subject; that being said, I am curious to see the version 3 that is supposed to be coming out soon.
Per the Alex Jones Show and ABC programming. 9/11 hero William Rodriguez and the makers of Loose Change will appear on The View, Thursday May 24th.
According to a release from ABC, Korey Rowe and Dylan Avery, creators of the 9/11 conspiracy documentary Loose Change will appear on the May 24th show. Also listed is William Rodriguez, who was a janitor at the North Tower of the World Trade Center, who has since become part of the 9/11 truth movement. The only other guests listed for that date are the winners of Dancing With the Stars, so it appears that the show will not have representatives from both sides of the topic. Rosie O'Donnell has said before that we have been hearing the other side for years, so maybe the show will only cover the topic from one angle. However, since the show line-up often goes through changes before the show is taped, it is possible that they might be adding additional guests. It is also possible that they might have the other side in another segment on a different day.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2073592843640256739&q=wtc+7
I just came across this 16 minute video which talks about WTC 7 collapsing; it worth watching for many reasons. It shows some different angles of the building coming down which I hadn't seen before (many people have never even seen any footage of the building collapsing)
The video also shows a clip from a Dutch TV programme where they interview a man who owns a building demolition company in the Netherlands. When shown the footage of the collapse, he concludes that "it was definitely a professional demolition job". He is then told that it happened on 9/11, which he wasn't aware of before watching it. That isn't hard to believe since the media barely even mentioned it happening, and still to this day many people think that only two buildings fell that day.
Everytime I see productions from both sides, it makes me wonder what really happend. The evidence proves 'something' other then what we have been told happened, actually happened. Someone is lying, we should keep looking for the truth. I don't trust the government for answers because they have already lied to us in the past.
Quote from: Insurgent on May 19, 2007, 08:18 PM NHFT
Quote from: lawofattraction on May 19, 2007, 06:57 PM NHFT
The creators of "Loose Change", as well as William Rodriguez, will be guests on "The View" with Rosie O'Donnell Thursday.
That should be interesting. If anyone watches it, please give a report.
I don't recommend either version of "Loose Change" because they really just create more questions than they answer, and also have enough holes in the arguments to be able to be picked apart by debunkers. There are far more credible videos on the subject; that being said, I am curious to see the version 3 that is supposed to be coming out soon.
I think it is a good thing to generate something (Loose Change) that makes people ask questions, or question government, or the media. One thing I want to point out is that the only common denominator in the 9/11 Truth Movement is the desire for a new investigation. There are many different theories and ideas out there but no one knows for sure what happened. Was it the Bush administration? The Mossad? The NWO globalist elite? The Illuminati?
We do know that there is a cover up and that there are many unanswered questions. Loose Change is part of a (now huge) movement that started to ask questions, created debate, and got many people to research false flag terrorism in general. All great things! Those with open minds and open hearts will follow a path of discovery that at times will take them into some dark places. Government sponsored terrorism, CIA mind controlled sex slaves and child sex slaves, CIA drug smuggling, and many other government black operations that would make your head spin.
Then out the darkness you will arise committed to bringing down these evil beings and their agendas to reclaim this country and planet.
Quote from: Insurgent on May 20, 2007, 01:30 PM NHFT
The video also shows a clip from a Dutch TV programme where they interview a man who owns a building demolition company in the Netherlands. When shown the footage of the collapse, he concludes that "it was definitely a professional demolition job". He is then told that it happened on 9/11, which he wasn't aware of before watching it.
So you value his judgement, even though he issued a declaration about the cause, while being completely ignorant of the facts and circumstances of the building's collapse?
Improbable Collapse:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=XUMKP4WaMgM Part 1
http://youtube.com/watch?v=sd0N2fYEGoI&mode=related&search= Part 2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=BRGO3SDosdw&mode=related&search= Part 3
http://youtube.com/watch?v=oE9zCa1gYK4&mode=related&search= Part 4
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZhWne5gajYA&mode=related&search= Part 5
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Iu7h714ohCE&mode=related&search= Part 6
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Li1fmpllAAQ&mode=related&search= Part 7
Quote from: KBCraig on May 20, 2007, 05:14 PM NHFT
Quote from: Insurgent on May 20, 2007, 01:30 PM NHFT
The video also shows a clip from a Dutch TV programme where they interview a man who owns a building demolition company in the Netherlands. When shown the footage of the collapse, he concludes that "it was definitely a professional demolition job". He is then told that it happened on 9/11, which he wasn't aware of before watching it.
So you value his judgement, even though he issued a declaration about the cause, while being completely ignorant of the facts and circumstances of the building's collapse?
Are you that naive!
Here is a professional demolitions expert who viewed a building taken down...
And says without a doubt that it was controlled demolition...
There is no way to take a building down like that...
without it being a controlled demolition...
Those who know...
Don't need your belief...
Or your approval of that professional determination...
A professional determination which would be respected and valued in a "court of law"...
Honestly, I don't believe we'll ever know the whole truth about 911...
There are too many players involved and too much deceit...
Suffice to say...much like Pearl Harbor...911 was needed to gain the support of the sheeple...
Quote from: powerchuter on May 20, 2007, 05:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on May 20, 2007, 05:14 PM NHFT
Quote from: Insurgent on May 20, 2007, 01:30 PM NHFT
The video also shows a clip from a Dutch TV programme where they interview a man who owns a building demolition company in the Netherlands. When shown the footage of the collapse, he concludes that "it was definitely a professional demolition job". He is then told that it happened on 9/11, which he wasn't aware of before watching it.
So you value his judgement, even though he issued a declaration about the cause, while being completely ignorant of the facts and circumstances of the building's collapse?
Are you that naive!
Here is a professional demolitions expert who viewed a building taken down...
And says without a doubt that it was controlled demolition...
He viewed a building
falling down, having no idea that it had been seriously damaged by falling debris, and had been on fire for hours, but you accept the "without a doubt" pronouncement?
I'm completely baffled why truthers insist WTC must have been destroyed. The terror was accomplished by the towers being destroyed; no one cared about this little toadstool of a building.
Quote from: lawofattraction on May 20, 2007, 10:09 PM NHFT
Does anyone know if the 911 debunkers have been able to debunk the assertion that the BBC reported on the collapse of WTC7 20+ minutes before it fell?
The BBC did indeed report that WTC7 fell, about 20 minutes before it actually did. The reporter is standing in front of a window with WTC7 still visible off in the distance. Her video feed went dead about fifteen minutes later, though. The BBC has since claimed to have lost all archives of video footage from that day.
It's an intriguing footnote to everything that happened that day, but I don't know that it proves anything one way or another.
This evening I flipped through the channels and came across a National Geographic special called "Inside 9/11". It went through the day chronologically and from the perspectives of many survivors. It was effective in conveying the emotional horror that happened and was interesting to watch visually.
As far as the facts conveyed, though it followed the official story right down the line. 2,000 degree fires raged in the buildings, weakened the steel, and caused the buildings to collapse. What amazed me, though was that it skipped right past 5:20pm when WTC7 fell, as if it didn't even happen. The collapse of a 47 story building collapsing didn't even warrant a brief mention in the story!
I guess that KBCraig is right; no one cares about "this little toadstool of a building". They care about it so little that it wasn't mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report, and FEMA gives an ambiguous conclusion in its findings:
Loss of structural integrity was likely a result of weakening caused by fires on the 5th to 7th floors. The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyzes are needed to resolve this issue. [Ch. 5, p. 31.]
Quote from: lawofattraction on May 20, 2007, 10:09 PM NHFT
Does anyone know if the 911 debunkers have been able to debunk the assertion that the BBC reported on the collapse of WTC7 20+ minutes before it fell?
Yeah, I heard someone say it was a time zone issue (Daylight savings time confusion), but that doesn't make a bit of sense given that the bldg was in the picture as she was speaking!
I heard there was some CNN reporting even earlier, but haven't seen that footage, so don't know if that report was real.
http://jonesreport.com/articles/270207_bbc_lost_response.html
Quote from: powerchuter on May 20, 2007, 05:59 PM NHFTQuote from: KBCraig on May 20, 2007, 05:14 PM NHFTSo you value his judgement, even though he issued a declaration about the cause, while being completely ignorant of the facts and circumstances of the building's collapse?
Are you that naive!
Here is a professional demolitions expert who viewed a building taken down...
And says without a doubt that it was controlled demolition...
There is no way to take a building down like that...
without it being a controlled demolition...
Come on, Rob. A professional wouldn't issue an opinion based solely on a bit of video. A professional would insist on seeing the structural details of the building, at very least.
There is no need for demolitions to accomplish that kind of collapse, with sufficient damage due to debris and fires. If someone had described that sort of impact
before September 11th, 2001, and asked me what would happen, I would have predicted a vertical collapse. While watching the news on that day, I was surprised by how long the buildings remained standing.
Joe
Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 23, 2007, 07:44 AM NHFT
http://jonesreport.com/articles/270207_bbc_lost_response.html
Thanx, Kat. Yeah, at least Aaron Brown at CNN realized that the script he was fed had to be off. Wonder what he says nowadays. Anyway, the way I hear it postulated, it appears the "PR team" got ahead of the "ops team" or the ops team had trouble getting the fuse lit ;) while the PR team proceeded right on schedule.
I have heard one more thing from a guard in WTC 7 - that the building was pre-wired and charged for demolition from the beginning because of the tenants with sensitive information. This seems like a stretch, but, if true, would explain how something like this could be pulled off without obvious prep work going on in the preceeding weeks. I'll see if I can find more details on this claim..
http://www.keeneequinox.com/home/index.cfm?event=displayArticle&uStory_id=dc967af8-c18d-45e0-b184-981fbe4556c0
Keene Equinox
Controversial ground zero documentary grounded in science
Movie Review [of Improbable Collapse]
Sean Connor
Issue date: 4/19/07
Quote from: KBCraig on May 20, 2007, 09:57 PM NHFTI'm completely baffled why truthers insist WTC must have been destroyed. The terror was accomplished by the towers being destroyed; no one cared about this little toadstool of a building.
silversteen cared
if a 47 story tall building fell in NH, it would be called the greatest disaster in our history .... oh wait ... we don't even have that big of a toadstool.
Hey, a bunch of folks are coming to town to help us locals bird-dog presidential candidates about re-opening the investigation of the events of 9/11 at the upcoming debates. Anyone care to join in? Debates are just a week away! Be sure to contact Dave Diamond as mentioned on the MV911T site to get a T-shirt to wear at the event.
Some details are at: http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org
more at: http://9-11.meetup.com/284/?gj=sj6 in Dover
Just be sure you take videos of each candidates' response and send them to Michelle Malkin.
sure, CNHT, can do that - send over her email address. I could just send over a note to her with links to all the vids. Do you know her? Where does she stand on 9-11 and getting at the truth?
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 26, 2007, 07:41 PM NHFT
sure, CNHT, can do that - send over her email address. I could just send over a note to her with links to all the vids. Do you know her? Where does she stand on 9-11 and getting at the truth?
She seems to think that anyone who approaches a candidate about this issue qualifies that candidate to be on the lunatic fringe (great song by the way) and thus tried to do a hit piece on Ron with one of our videos.
However, I seem to have an article from 2002 in my possession where Ms Malkin questioned whether it was really a missile that shot down Flight 93.
See: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/michelle/malkin030802.asp
Furthermore, she freaked out when she saw the design of the Flight 93 Memorial claiming the 'crescent' was a symbol of Islam:
http://michellemalkin.com/archives/003513.htm
She needs to be flooded with videos of ALL the candidates being questioned on 911 just so she knows that it's a GOOD candidate who freely gives audience and listens thoughtfully to his/her questioners...
Her email is: writemalkin@gmail.com and put 'TIP' in the subject line. Probably best to send email telling her you have videos of X Candidate being questioned by 'Truthers' and would she like to use them for her series? She did NOT get permission to use the last one, at least I don't think I was so drunk that I signed a release to see my mug on FOX News!
>:D
Presenting some of the evidence that the WTC 1 and WTC 2 were brought down by explosives. The following indications are typical of controlled demolition, but not typical of "gravity induced" collapse. (I use the term "gravity induced" because, whereas the controlled demolition theory allows for a gigantic amount of energy coming from the pre-planted explosives, all the energy of the "official" theory would come from normal gravitational processes.)
1) SUDDEN ONSET.
Steel subjected to stress does not give out suddenly. It gradually loses its integrity. This is in contrast to what was actually seen: The buildings were motionless one moment, collapsing the next.
2) FELL STRAIGHT DOWN.
Some apologists for the official story (even on this forum) will make the ludicrous claim that "of course the buildings fell straight down: they have no where else to go." If this is the case, why are firms paid big bucks to demolish buildings so they fall straight down. Of course buildings will fall down. Gravity pulls them down. Its getting them to fall straight down, so the collapse does relatively little damage to surrounding structures, that is the trick. Mark Loizeaux, the president of Controlled Demolition, said that in order to bring a building straight down so that no other structure is harmed the demolition needs to be "completely planned" using "the right explosive and the right pattern of laying the charges."
3) RAPID COLLAPSE
WTC 1 and 2 fell quickly, the South Tower falling in just over 10 seconds. This is just a little over free fall speed, and is typical of controlled demolition. If the official theory is true, we should expect that each story would provide a modicum of resistance before giving way, and the towers should have fallen much more slowly.
4) TOTAL COLLAPSE
This is one of the strongest points, because the official pancake theory fails to account for the 47 interior steel core columns. These should have been left standing if the official theory is accurate. Instead, they were demolished. Any theory that does not account for the demolition of the core column is insufficient. As will be seen shortly, the controlled demolition theory accounts for it quite nicely.
5) SLICED STEEL
Controlled demolition uses high explosives to cut steel into small pieces. The rubble at WTC ground zero is consistent with this theory.
6) PULVERIZED CONCRETE
Controlled demolition generates a lot of dust, as concrete is pulverized. Any video of the collapse will show that the collapse of WTC 1 and 2 is consistent with this theory.
7) DUST CLOUDS EJECTED
Some who accept the official theory will say that the official theory can also account for the dust clouds, because each collapsing floor would generate a rush of air that would eject the pulverized concrete. This may be true for the lower floors, but NOT for the upper floors. Gravity has a rate of acceleration of 10 meters per second per second. Thus, at the very beginning of the collapse, the collapse was only occurring at 20-30 miles per hour, hardly generating enough energy to pulverize the concrete. And yet, video from the scene shows that a large amount of concrete dust is seen to be ejected from the top of the building, very early in the collapse, when gravity had not yet had time to build up sufficient speed (and thus energy) to pulverize the concrete.
8) HORIZONTAL EJECTIONS
One of the features of controlled demolitions is that they tend to eject lots of matter from the collapsing building. In the case of WTC 1 and 2, heavy pieces of steel were ejected up to 500 feet away, and pieces of aluminum were ejected over 700 feet. The official theory cannot account for these, whereas the controlled demolition theory can.
9) DEMOLITION RINGS
A distinctive feature of controlled demolitions are "demolition rings", which are a series of small explosions that produce flashes which can be seen running rapidly around a building. These demolition rings were reported in the oral histories that were released by court order in 2005. As this is a distinctive feature of controlled demolitions, it is impossible to account for these in any of the posited official theories.
10) MOLTEN STEEL
Massive quantities of molten steel were found in the basement of ground zero. The official theory only asserts that the steel was weakened, not melted, by the fires, because hydrocarbon fires cannot reach a high enough temperature to melt steel. The presence of molten steel, then, is indicative of the presence of extremely hot fires, and is consistent with the controlled demolition theory.
11) SOUNDS OF EXPLOSIONS
The oral histories released in 2005 contain a large number of people who testified to the presence of explosions in the buildings. Particularly devastating to the official theory is the testimony that these explosions occurred in the basement!
FIVE ADDITIONAL SUSPICIOUS FACTS
1) STEEL REMOVED
The City of New York removed the steel before it could be properly examined to determine the cause of collapse.
2) NORTH TOWER ANTENNA DROP
The video of the collapse of the north tower shows its antenna drops right before the collapse. This is indicative of the interior core, the 47 massive steel columns, collapsing FIRST. This is devastating to the official story because the official story says that the cause of collapse was the pancaking of each floor. If the interior core collapsed first, that would require some sort of theory in addition to the pancake theory; NIST says that each pancaking floor pulled sections of the interior core with it, but that wouldn't hold any water if the interior core collapsed FIRST.
3) SOUTH TOWER TIPS THEN DISINTEGRATES
This is very suspicious. The top of the south tower, during the collapse, begins to tip. It then inexplicably readjusts itself to return to a full vertical collapse, then disintegrates. The law of conservation of momentum says that once the upper 34 floors began to tip, they should have continued their descent at that angle, unless acted upon by a torque. Thus, the upper 34 floors should have fallen well outside of the building's footprint. Instead, they readjusted course, then disintegrated. The conventional theory cannot explain this phenomenon.
4) WTC SECURITY
Some have questioned how explosives could have been pre-planted in the building. From 1993 to 2000, Securacom was in charge of security for WTC. Marvin Bush (W's brother) was one of the company's directors. And from 1999 until January 2002, Wirt Walker III was CEO of Securacom. (Wirt Walker III is W's cousin.) Scott Forbes testified that on the weekend of September 8-9, 2001, there was a power down in the WTC complex. They were told that this was to upgrade the cabling. But for this time, while the power was off, there was no security cameras, and according to Forbes "many `engineers' were coming in and out" of the towers.
5) FOREKNOWLEDGE OF THE SOUTH TOWERS COLLAPSE
Rudy Giuliani testified that he was told that the South Tower was going to collapse while he was in the command center. Who knew this? The collapse of the south tower caught all emergency personnel on the scene by surprise.
1) Says who?
2) Reliably causing a vertical collapse of a small (relatively speaking) building takes careful planning. Do you have any comprehension of how strong the force of gravtiy is on that much mass? It would require tremendous levels of energy to cause any sideways motion on a building that size.
3) This has already been addressed numerous times. The people saying this don't take into account the forces involved or the presence of the basement levels.
4) Why would they remain standing? People act like steel is this amazing wonder-material that cannot be destroyed. It's not.
5) I haven't seen evidence of steel slicing on the level needed to demostrate demolitions work. We'd be talking thousands of shape-charge slices, which leave distinct markings.
6) Oddly enough, so does any building collapse. Or, to put it another way, why would controlled demolition produce more dust than other collapses? The controlled demolition procedure would directly impact only the steel supports, so why should it have any particular effect on the concrete?
7) Yup, a 20-30 mph wind is slow and definitely wouldn't kick up any dust! I think you can ask anyone who's tried to paint a car outside to contradict that one.
8) Again, do you have any comprehension of the energies involved? Of course debris was ejected.
9) Of course, that wasn't show in any of the videos, was it? If you watch a video of a controlled demolition, they are quite obvious racing through the building.
10) Hydrocarbon fires can cut steel, easily. Acetylene being one hydrocarbon that is regularly used for such purposes.
11) I'm curious if any of them were asked to listen to recordings structural elements of a building failing under stress, as well as recordings of explosives being detonated, and then asked to determine which was which. Most people seem unable to tell the difference between a firecracker and a gunshot, and those are distinctly different sounds.
I'd keep going, but it's time for breakfast.
Joe
I love how how the government apologists can't let any challenge to the official story go unchallenged. I don't have time to rebut your answers, and frankly don't want to get into a debate with you on it. For now I have presented 11 indicators of controlled demolition. Some are completely unexplainable given the government's official story (like explosions in the basement prior to the collapse.) Others are explainable only with effort, but each is far more consistent with controlled demolition. I will comment just briefly on this one:
Quote11) I'm curious if any of them were asked to listen to recordings structural elements of a building failing under stress, as well as recordings of explosives being detonated, and then asked to determine which was which. Most people seem unable to tell the difference between a firecracker and a gunshot, and those are distinctly different sounds.
You know, this type of argument really pisses off the people who lived through this and gave honest testimony about what they saw and heard. It's basically an argument from the stupidity of the victims ... so I'm sure you can understand why they get pissed off when you use it. One of them said, when questioned about it: "Look! I've been in that building for 20 years! I know sounds that come from 80 floors above me and sounds that come from the basement, and I'm telling you there were explosions in the basement!"
I guess I'll go with him over you, since he was there.
Caleb
Quote from: Caleb on May 27, 2007, 08:12 AM NHFTI love how how the government apologists can't let any challenge to the official story go unchallenged. I don't have time to rebut your answers, and frankly don't want to get into a debate with you on it. For now I have presented 11 indicators of controlled demolition. Some are completely unexplainable given the government's official story (like explosions in the basement prior to the collapse.) Others are explainable only with effort, but each is far more consistent with controlled demolition.
Who, precisely, is a government apologist? I'm an engineer, and I have a low tolerance for people expressing bad engineering. The evidence supports the "planes caused the collapse" theory. That's why you don't see hordes of structural engineers calling for a new investigation. If there were all these inconsistencies that were legitimate, don't you think some good percentage of the millions of engineers would be saying, "hey, what gives?" All I've heard from the conspiracy side on that issue is that there is an even larger conspiracy than the one they claim demolished the buildings, which is silencing all the engineers.
Quote from: Caleb on May 27, 2007, 08:12 AM NHFTQuote11) I'm curious if any of them were asked to listen to recordings structural elements of a building failing under stress, as well as recordings of explosives being detonated, and then asked to determine which was which. Most people seem unable to tell the difference between a firecracker and a gunshot, and those are distinctly different sounds.
You know, this type of argument really pisses off the people who lived through this and gave honest testimony about what they saw and heard. It's basically an argument from the stupidity of the victims ... so I'm sure you can understand why they get pissed off when you use it. One of them said, when questioned about it: "Look! I've been in that building for 20 years! I know sounds that come from 80 floors above me and sounds that come from the basement, and I'm telling you there were explosions in the basement!"
Eyewitnesses are among the most unreliable sources of evidence available. Ever try the experiment where you take a group of people and show them either a picture or a short video that they watch for a minute, then put it away and spend ten minutes talking about something else, and finally ask them basic questions about the scene they viewed? Heck, even without the ten minute interval, most people cannot recall even basic details about what they just saw with any accuracy.
The brain is a remarkable thing that can rationalize things it does not understand in order to provide a working model for the owner of that brain. That is fundamental to human nature. If someone's brain encounters a previously-unknown situation, it will immediately begin attempting to build a model to fit it, or try to fit it into an existing model.
And, as I said, what qualifies someone who was there to identify the difference in sound between a structural failure and an explosion? Has he ever been inside a building during a demolition? I thik not. Sounds from failures above could be transmitted down through steel columns (steel is an excellent transmitter of sound; as anyone who's used a railroad track to listen for an approaching train) only to resound off the concrete foundation. And vibrations and structural stresses could cause individual connectors to fail in the basement, prior to the collapse.
Quote from: Caleb on May 27, 2007, 08:12 AM NHFTI guess I'll go with him over you, since he was there.
I'll go with the answer that actually fits physics.
Joe
I wasn't able to make it to his presentation, but didn't the WTC custodian William Rodriguez witness explosions in the basement before the plane hit?
Quote from: Insurgent on May 27, 2007, 08:45 AM NHFT
I wasn't able to make it to his presentation, but didn't the WTC custodian William Rodriguez witness explosions in the basement before the plane hit?
Yes, Wm. Rodriquez reported basement explosions on the B-2 level (2 levels below street level) 6 or 7 seconds before the plane impact. (He reported this to the Keane-Hamilton commission, as well, but it did not get included in their report.) He rescued a man named Felipe David who was near enough to that explosion to have some portion of the skin blown off his arms and one side of his face. Could probably Google him, or go to Rodriquez's site: http://william911.com/ - info on that may be there somewhere (I haven't perused the site). I believe he has come out with a DVD telling his story - one in our group picked up a copy. Maybe MV911T could get hands on it and show it for those unable to attend his talk.
Quote from: MaineShark on May 27, 2007, 08:37 AM NHFT
Quote from: Caleb on May 27, 2007, 08:12 AM NHFTI love how how the government apologists can't let any challenge to the official story go unchallenged....
Who, precisely, is a government apologist? I'm an engineer, and I have a low tolerance for people expressing bad engineering. The evidence supports the "planes caused the collapse" theory. That's why you don't see hordes of structural engineers calling for a new investigation....I'll go with the answer that actually fits physics.
Joe
See Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth: http://ae911truth.org/
Quote from: MaineShark on May 27, 2007, 08:37 AM NHFT
Who, precisely, is a government apologist? I'm an engineer, and I have a low tolerance for people expressing bad engineering. The evidence supports the "planes caused the collapse" theory. That's why you don't see hordes of structural engineers calling for a new investigation. If there were all these inconsistencies that were legitimate, don't you think some good percentage of the millions of engineers would be saying, "hey, what gives?"
For you engineers and architects: http://bpathvideo.blogspot.com/2007/04/proof-of-controlled-demolition-from.html
Architect, Richard Gage explores the flawed conclusions of the 911 Commission report and the conclusions of NIST, in this new presentation on evidence supporting controlled demolition for World Trade 1, 2 and 7. The presentation at Sonoma State Univ, Project Censored, April 20, 2007, is divided in 3 parts, this is part 1. Parts 2: http://bpathvideo.blogspot.com/2007/04/part-2-proof-of-controlled-demolition.html ; Part 3: http://bpathvideo.blogspot.com/2007/04/proof-of-controlled-demolition-with.html
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 27, 2007, 12:09 PM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on May 27, 2007, 08:37 AM NHFTWho, precisely, is a government apologist? I'm an engineer, and I have a low tolerance for people expressing bad engineering. The evidence supports the "planes caused the collapse" theory. That's why you don't see hordes of structural engineers calling for a new investigation....I'll go with the answer that actually fits physics.
See Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth: http://ae911truth.org/
20 whole members, none of who are named, and nothing but "coming soon" in the pages? Not precisely helpful at this point in time.
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 27, 2007, 02:19 PM NHFTFor you engineers and architects: http://bpathvideo.blogspot.com/2007/04/proof-of-controlled-demolition-from.html
Architect, Richard Gage explores the flawed conclusions of the 911 Commission report and the conclusions of NIST, in this new presentation on evidence supporting controlled demolition for World Trade 1, 2 and 7. The presentation at Sonoma State Univ, Project Censored, April 20, 2007, is divided in 3 parts, this is part 1. Parts 2: http://bpathvideo.blogspot.com/2007/04/part-2-proof-of-controlled-demolition.html ; Part 3: http://bpathvideo.blogspot.com/2007/04/proof-of-controlled-demolition-with.html
I will certainly look these over when I have time later. Thank you.
Joe
3 June 07 - 911 Truth demo/video Q&A at Democratic candidate debate
Democratic presidential candidates are coming to Saint Anselm College in Manchester on Sunday afternoon, June 3rd. 911 Truth groups from around New England and New York are coming to Manchester to demonstrate outside and pose questions to the candidates. Details can be found at http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org. Videographers especially are invited! Videos to be posted on YouTube.
If you are sincerely curious why someone would question the government's story on 911, I'm sure there will be an opportunity to discuss that with some of those attending. There is sure to be literature, books and DVD's, available at this gathering. If there will be a pre-debate or after-debate meetup, the details will appear on the MV911T site.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070523/us_nm/wtc_insurance_settlement_dc
World Trade Center insurers in $2 bln settlement
By Joan Gralla and Dan Wilchins Wed May 23, 7:01 PM ET
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Seven insurers have agreed to pay an additional $2 billion to developers of the World Trade Center, resolving all outstanding claims from the September 11, 2001, attacks and speeding redevelopment of the site, New York State officials announced on Wednesday.
The settlement, which will be split between the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, which owns the Ground Zero site and developer Larry Silverstein, who held the lease on the buildings when they were destroyed, ends more than five years of litigation between Silverstein and the insurers.
...
Quote from: MaineShark on May 27, 2007, 03:03 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 27, 2007, 12:09 PM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on May 27, 2007, 08:37 AM NHFTWho, precisely, is a government apologist? I'm an engineer, and I have a low tolerance for people expressing bad engineering. The evidence supports the "planes caused the collapse" theory. That's why you don't see hordes of structural engineers calling for a new investigation....I'll go with the answer that actually fits physics.
See Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth: http://ae911truth.org/
20 whole members, none of who are named, and nothing but "coming soon" in the pages? Not precisely helpful at this point in time.
Hope this helps, Shark:
===================================
Documentation at: http://www.ae911truth.org/
On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7.
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
Architects (Degreed & Licensed)
Architectural Professionals (Degreed)
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA
Scott Page, M. Arch / Designer
Berkeley, CA
Don Gibbons, Architect
Pleasant Hill, CA
Jeffrey Tam, Architectural Professional
Oakland, CA
Jeff Arnold, Architect
Orinda, CA
Oscar Cisnero, Architectural Professional
Antioch, CA
John Cole, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA
Elwin Wong, Architectural Professional
Oakland, CA
David Crawford, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA
Henri Tso, Architectural Professional
Walnut Creek, CA
Haluk Akol, Architect & Structural Engineer
Lafayette, CA
Arthur Stopes, Planner
Berkeley, CA
John Eisenhart, Architect
San Diego, CA
Ken Huthcinson, Architectural Professional
Eugene, OR
Joe Bellows, Architect
Martinez, CA
Jan Leits, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA
John Howland, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA
Michael Reuter, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA
Eric Douglas, Architect
Howard Beach, NY
Chris Jung, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA
Peter Hendrickson, Architect
Santa Rosa, CA
Tim Clark, Architectural Professional
Albany, CA
Osvaldo Valdes, Architect
New York, NY
Jason Wilkinson, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA
Lily Livingston, Architect
Oakland, CA
Wendy Sitler, Designer
Berkeley, CA
Chris Swigert, Architect
Oakland, CA
Dominique Roddier, phD, Naval Architect
Berkeley, CA
Jim Bedinghaus, Architect
St. Petersburg, Florida
Karlene Gullone, Architectural Professional
San Francisco, CA
C. Bryan Phelps - AIA, Architect
Boulder, CO
Dave Heller, Architectural Professional
Berkeley, CA
Christian Mungenast AIA, Architect
Arlington, MA
Kurt Worthington, Urban Planner
San Francisco, CA
Engineers (Degreed & Licensed)
Engineering Professionals (Degreed)
Ken Kious, Electrical Engineer
Walnut Creek, CA
Gregg Brazel, BSCNE, Constr. Engr'g
Evanston, IL
J. Marx Ayres, PE, Mechanical Engineer
Santa Monica, CA
Ted Muga, BSCE, Civil Engineer
San Diego, CA
Robert Nielson, PLS, Land Surveyor
Walnut Creek, CA
Kevin Ryan, BS Chem., Certified Quality Engineer
Bloomington, IN
John F. Shanahan, PE, Electrical Engineer
Rancho Cucamonga, CA
Ken Jenkins, BS Carnegie Melon, Electrical Engineer
San Rafael, CA
Joseph Testa, P.E., Civil Engineer
Thousand Oaks, CA
John Shinn, phD., Chemical Engineer
Pleasant Hill, CA
John L Bursill, Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer Avionics
Sydney, NSW
John Rexroat, Mfr. Engineer
Walnut Creek, CA
Nazareth "Blue" Lansing, Engineer
Houston, TX
Tony Szamboti, BS, Mechanical Engineering Professional
Dr. Michael Voschine, PhD., Structural Engineer
Miami, Florida
Doug Plumb, EE, Elecrical Engineering Professional
Toronto, ON
Rob Tamaki, M.A.Sc., P.Eng., Civil Engineer
Vancouver, BC
Christopher Backus, BS, Mechanical Engineering
Redmond, WA
Jasper Tomlinson MA(Oxon) CEnv MCIWEM, Environmental and Water Resources Engineer
London Uk, London
Jason Griffin, BS, Civil Engineer
Washington Dc,
Jay Easwaran, Ph.D. (Metallurgy & Materials Sci.), Metallurgical Engineer
Indianapolis, Indiana
John Sotelo, BSME, MD, Mechanical Engineer
Eureka, CA
S. Drake, Electrical Engineer
Bear, DE
Ron Wilson, Engineering Staff
Fort Worth, Texas
Crystal, Mechanical Engineer
Seattle, WA
David Gregg Ph.D., Chemical Engineer
Moraga, California
James Brooks, B. Civil Eng, University of Texas, Engineering Consultant
Austin, TX
Others and Students
Angelo Petraglia, B. Arch., Student
Jackson, NJ
Ellis Goldberg BSEET, MBA, Marketing Engineering Consultant
Danville, CA
Mr. Roman Dulgarov, Student
Goose Creek, South Carolina
Abhinav Dhaka, Student
New Delhi, Delhi
Sterling Weeks, Student
Irvine, CA
Lloyd Hart, Construction Contractor
Oak Bluffs, MA
Peter Hinners, Realtor
Joliet, IL
Dr P S Gill MD, Medical Doctor
Southampton, Hampshire
Matthew Naus, Teacher
Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Jason Northrup, Computer Tech/IT Consultant
San Rafael, CA
Brooke Stiltner, IT Consultant/Student
San Francisco, CA
max, jr
Bozeman, MT
Johan L Golibal, Engineer
Spain, The Future
Robert S. Lynch, Structural Steel Detailer
Falls City, TX
Sam Christmas, Technical Support Analyst
Brighton, Uk, East Sussex
Randy Caruso, Web Designer
Beacon, NY
Rita Hill, Software Engineer
Trinidad, CO
John Mustanich, Mr.
Millbrae, CA
Justin Keogh, Physics Student
Tucson, AZ
Brian Kausler, Student
La Grande, Oregon
Harrison Heitman, Student
Conyers, GA
See Yang, Student
Maplewood, MN
Bill Donnelly, Computer Consultant
Chico, CA
Gabriella Sankovich
Richmond, CA
Thomas Spellman, Urban Activist
Lake Geneva, WI
Bruce A. Scherzer, Retired Power lineman
Bay City, Michigan
and by Active Participation
We cordially invite all Architects, Engineers, Interns and affiliates to JOIN US in this worthy patriotic cause. We welcome everyone who has an interest in contributing to the success of ongoing investigations into the WTC building collapses on 9/11. We want to hear about your interests, background, and what type of contribution you may be well-suited to make. Please let us know the kinds of activities that would appeal to you the most, such as forming/participating in a committee, local speaking arrangements, authoring statements, presenting lectures, appearing on radio, etc. in Section IV on the join form.
With our deepest appreciation,
Richard Gage, Architect
_______________________________________________
Project-Censored-L mailing list
Project-Censored-L@sonoma.edu
https://webmail.sonoma.edu/mailman/listinfo/project-censored-l
=====================================
Maybe us engineers can start a local chapter, eh?
Jack Shimek, Mechanical Engineer, Material Science and Metallurgy
Amherst, New-Hampshire
Oh, I see the headings over the names got munged up when I copied and pasted it into this little box. Properly formatted membership list here: http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php
Thanks for posting Jack!
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 29, 2007, 10:18 PM NHFTHope this helps, Shark:
Some, although I do like the format on the Scholars' site, where they have bios for the folks. Can't get everything, eh?
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on May 29, 2007, 11:10 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 29, 2007, 10:18 PM NHFTHope this helps, Shark:
Some, although I do like the format on the Scholars' site, where they have bios for the folks. Can't get everything, eh?
Joe
You ask a lot - seek and ye shall find.
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 29, 2007, 11:57 PM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on May 29, 2007, 11:10 PM NHFTQuote from: jaqeboy on May 29, 2007, 10:18 PM NHFTHope this helps, Shark:
Some, although I do like the format on the Scholars' site, where they have bios for the folks. Can't get everything, eh?
You ask a lot - seek and ye shall find.
That was just a random comment, not a request. :)
Joe
QuoteThe BBC did indeed report that WTC7 fell, about 20 minutes before it actually did. The reporter is standing in front of a window with WTC7 still visible off in the distance.
And I suppose that when a journalist reports that a police officer loaded their "Glock service revolver," it's evidence of a heretofore unknown design of Gaston Glock's, right?
Quote from: mvpel on May 30, 2007, 08:00 AM NHFT
And I suppose that when a journalist reports that a police officer loaded their "Glock service revolver," it's evidence of a heretofore unknown design of Gaston Glock's, right?
Shhhhhhh! That's a top secret government model!
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 29, 2007, 10:18 PM NHFT
Sincerely,
The Undersigned
Architects (Degreed & Licensed)
Architectural Professionals (Degreed)
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
Walnut Creek, CA
Scott Page, M. Arch / Designer
Berkeley, CA
Don Gibbons, Architect
Pleasant Hill, CA
Jeffrey Tam, Architectural Professional
Oakland, CA
snip
And for a little different opinion of that "architectural professional" list:
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=83483
It turns out that forum member "Friday" attended the film screening of Improbable Collapse and also the presentation given by William Rodriguez. There is a wonderfully-written and objective account of her findings on her blog, The Free State Observer http://www.freestateobserver.com/?p=116
Quote from: lawofattraction on May 30, 2007, 08:03 PM NHFT
Giuliani Confronted At New York Fundraiser
The guys that confronted Rudy were at the Democrats debate yesterday and will be at the Republican debate Tomorrow. They're in the area, but I don't know how to contact them. They're with WeAreChange.org - pretty hard-core bunch. They've also confronted David Rockefeller! and others (see their site). Tuesday should be interesting, esp. since they are all Ron Paul supporters and the local Ron Paul supporters don't want to see him linked with 911 Truthers!
Quote from: jaqeboy on June 04, 2007, 11:35 AM NHFT
They've also confronted David Rockefeller!
Showing how tough you are while yelling threats at an old man as he's walks from his home to is car isn't "confronting someone" on an issue. Calling a man you want to influence "scum and trash" while posting his home address on youtube and encouraging people to go there is just stupid.
This kind of crap will destroy any hopes Ron Paul has of gaining credibility.
Quote"I--I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us."
"The towers" is not the same thing as the "World Trade Center" - he may well have been referring to WTC-7 (WTC stands for World Trade Center) here, from which the firefighters and rescue personnel retreated because it was becoming evident that it would collapse due to the serious structural damage and extensive fires. The emergency operations center was located in WTC-7.
9/11 Truth: "When you hear hoof-beats, think centaurs!"
Quote from: lawofattraction on May 30, 2007, 08:03 PM NHFT
Giuliani replied by saying, "I didn't realize the towers would collapse." He later added, "No one that I know of had any idea they would implode. That was a complete surprise."
imploding buildings is a bad thing
Especially if you're in them at the time.
Quote from: richardr on June 04, 2007, 11:54 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on June 04, 2007, 11:35 AM NHFT
They've also confronted David Rockefeller!
Showing how tough you are while yelling threats at an old man as he's walks from his home to is car isn't "confronting someone" on an issue. Calling a man you want to influence "scum and trash" while posting his home address on youtube and encouraging people to go there is just stupid.
Luke, the guy that confronted DaveRock was there last night at Murphy's Tap Room. I hope you got a chance to discuss with him his philosophy about his action. Not sure if he was really trying to "influence" Rockefeller, but, I didn't ask him.
Quote from: error on June 06, 2007, 08:58 AM NHFT
Especially if you're in them at the time.
Good point! ;D
From Alan Miller alan.miller@patriotsquestion911.com
---------------------------------------------------------------------
I want to let you know that I'm preparing a new page for the PatriotsQuestion911.com website, which will feature statements from more than 100 Engineers and Architects. This new page will be made public on June 18.
The site currently features statements by 400 credible individuals that criticize, question, or contradict the official account of 9/11, with more being added all the time. They currently include:
* 100+ Senior Military Officers, Intelligence Services and Law Enforcement Veterans, and Government Officials
* 130+ Professors
* 100+ 9/11 Survivors and Victim Family Members
* 70+ Entertainment and Media Professionals
The preliminary version of the new page can be seen on the private webpage at http://patriotsquestion911.com/engineerstest.html
If you know of anyone who would be an appropriate addition to this, or any, page on the website, I would greatly appreciate it if you would share this information with them. Or, let me know of them and I'll contact them directly.
This is a very controversial subject and so I have a policy that inclusion of material on the site is entirely voluntary. If anyone ever wants their citation revised, I'll work with them to make the changes. If anyone ever wants their citation entirely removed, it will be removed immediately.
I also want it to be clear that this is not an organization and none of these individuals are formally associated with the website. The website is a reference collection of their public statements.
By the way, for the truthers and the de-bunkers out there, there will be videos on 911T and related stuff going on nearly non-stop from Wednesday night on in the AltExpo video tent on the BoardWalk field at PorcFest. With several peoples' libraries of DVD's available, there should be, oh, about 50 titles to choose from.
We'll try to have an organized schedule set up with a handout (not sure if everything will get organized by then...) Bring your favorite vid and email Charles@AltExpo.org beforehand to tell him that you want it to be added to the schedule,
AltExpo schedule will be at: http://altexpo.org/videos
Announcement is also at http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org
General Alternatives Expo information is at: http://AltExpo.org - register on the site to participate in the blogs and forums.
Truthers and debunkers have probably already made up their minds on the issues. I'd like to get some undecided folks to see some videos and take part in the presentations and discussions afterwards. Steve Gooddale, especially is a wealth of information on the subject, and is also a very good presenter. Of all the speakers at PorcFest and AltExpo, he will probably be the most interesting. :)
Quote from: Insurgent on June 16, 2007, 10:27 PM NHFT
Truthers and debunkers have probably already made up their minds on the issues. I'd like to get some undecided folks to see some videos and take part in the presentations and discussions afterwards. Steve Gooddale, especially is a wealth of information on the subject, and is also a very good presenter. Of all the speakers at PorcFest and AltExpo, he will probably be the most interesting. :)
You're right, of course. The battle is for the hearts and minds of the undecideds.
And, Steve is awesome - I'm glad he's coming up to AltExpo#1
I was sure the government was not involved .... and now I have changed my mind. I was not an undecided person, so there is always hope.
100 Professors Question The 9/11 Commission Report
http://www.wanttoknow.info/070618professorsquestion911
Many respected and distinguished university professors have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. A number even allege government complicity in the terrorist acts of 9/11. Below are the highly revealing public statements on this vital topic of over 100 university professors with links for verification and further investigation.
9/11 Bombshell: WTC7 Security Official Details Explosions Inside Building
Says bombs were going off in 7 before either tower collpased
Steve Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/190607interview.htm
The Alex Jones show today welcomed Loose Change creators Dylan Avery and Jason Burmas to discuss an exclusive interview they have conducted with an individual with high level security clearance who was inside the Office of Emergency Management in World Trade Center 7 and has descibed and detailed explosions inside the building prior to the collapse of any of the buildings at ground zero on 9/11.
The interview, to be featured in the forthcoming Final Cut of Loose Change is currently under wraps but the creators have allowed some details to leak purely to protect themselves and the individual involved who has asked to remain anonymous until the film is released.
We can reveal that the individual concerned was asked to report to building seven with a city official after the first attack on the North tower but before the second plane hit the South Tower and before their eventual collapse, in order to provide the official with access to different floors of the building.
The city official he was escorting was attempting to reach Rudy Guiliani, who he had determined was inside building 7 at that time. According to Avery and Burmas this official now works for Guiliani partners.
The individual was also asked to provide access to the Office Of Emergency Management on the 23rd floor of the building, this was the so called "bunker" that was built inside WTC7 on the orders of Rudy Guiliani.
When he got there he found the office evacuated and after making some calls was told to leave immediately.
It was at this point that he witnessed a bomb going off inside the building:
"We subsequently went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, when we reached the sixth floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and now had to walk back up to the eighth floor. After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark."
The individual in a second clip detailed hearing further explosions and then described what he saw when he got down to the lobby:
"It was totally destroyed, it looked like King Kong had been through it and stepped on it and it was so destroyed i didn't know where I was. It was so destroyed that had to take me out through a hole in the wall, a makeshift hole I believe the fire department made to get me out."
He was then told by firefighters to get twenty blocks away from the area because explosions were going off all over the World Trade Center complex.
The key to this information is that the individual testifies this all happened BEFORE either tower collapsed, thus building 7 was at that point completely undamaged from any falling debris or resulting fires. It also means that explosions were witnessed in WTC7 up to eight hours before its collapse at around 5.30pm.
listen to the clips here. http://www.prisonplanet.com/audio/190607clips2.mp3
I heard this today, If this guy is what they say he is, ( a respected higher government person, he testified to the 911 commission, and has the key to the city) this may be really huge.. time will tell. I'm not holding my breath, because we all know how responsive the government is to questions like this being asked of them.
E-ville
Another really interesting talk coming up put on by the Seacoast 911 Questions group:
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=9387.0
Michael Moore Calls For New 9/11 Investigation
http://kia-ora.dailykos.com/
Quote"We subsequently went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, when we reached the sixth floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and now had to walk back up to the eighth floor. After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark."
I've posted the video of electrical transformers exploding before, but I suppose I'll do it again.
http://www.collegeafterhours.com/content/media/movie_1270.wmv
The WTC blueprints posted earlier indicate that the seventh floor was a mechanical area, and the floor plans show a huge electrical substation in the bottom center of the diagrams.
There were undoubtedly many, many explosions during the demise of the towers, of various things. Here's a video of an aircraft oxygen generator burning, for instance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i_l_ux3R-4
Just because there was an explosion, and someone heard it and survived, doesn't mean it was a demolition or an "inside job."
Quote from: mvpel on June 26, 2007, 12:52 PM NHFT
I've posted the video of electrical transformers exploding before, but I suppose I'll do it again.
http://www.collegeafterhours.com/content/media/movie_1270.wmv
At least the explosion took care of that nasty 60 Hz hum. ;D
Quote from: jaqeboy on June 25, 2007, 07:35 AM NHFT
Another really interesting talk coming up put on by the Seacoast 911 Questions group:
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=9387.0
I'm really interested to attend this--hear it from the horse's mouth, so to speak.
Quote from: mvpel on June 26, 2007, 12:52 PM NHFT
Quote"We subsequently went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, when we reached the sixth floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and now had to walk back up to the eighth floor. After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark."
I've posted the video of electrical transformers exploding before, but I suppose I'll do it again.
http://www.collegeafterhours.com/content/media/movie_1270.wmv
The WTC blueprints posted earlier indicate that the seventh floor was a mechanical area, and the floor plans show a huge electrical substation in the bottom center of the diagrams.
There were undoubtedly many, many explosions during the demise of the towers, of various things. Here's a video of an aircraft oxygen generator burning, for instance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i_l_ux3R-4
Just because there was an explosion, and someone heard it and survived, doesn't mean it was a demolition or an "inside job."
you mvpel you are a phycopath ...........
you stay on this site spewing your ignorance.....and you are a lying , well lets say you are a hore. you truly are a hore. you are a scientist.
Quote from: slave on June 26, 2007, 06:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: mvpel on June 26, 2007, 12:52 PM NHFT
Quote"We subsequently went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, when we reached the sixth floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and now had to walk back up to the eighth floor. After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark."
I've posted the video of electrical transformers exploding before, but I suppose I'll do it again.
http://www.collegeafterhours.com/content/media/movie_1270.wmv
The WTC blueprints posted earlier indicate that the seventh floor was a mechanical area, and the floor plans show a huge electrical substation in the bottom center of the diagrams.
There were undoubtedly many, many explosions during the demise of the towers, of various things. Here's a video of an aircraft oxygen generator burning, for instance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i_l_ux3R-4
Just because there was an explosion, and someone heard it and survived, doesn't mean it was a demolition or an "inside job."
you mvpel you are a phycopath ...........
you stay on this site spewing your ignorance.....and you are a lying , well lets say you are a hore. you truly are a hore. you are a scientist.
Go away. This thread is for intelligent dialogue concerning events related to 9/11, not for name-calling
Quote from: mvpel on June 05, 2007, 10:22 AM NHFT
Quote"I--I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the police commissioner, the fire commissioner, the head of emergency management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us."
"The towers" is not the same thing as the "World Trade Center" - he may well have been referring to WTC-7 (WTC stands for World Trade Center) here, from which the firefighters and rescue personnel retreated because it was becoming evident that it would collapse due to the serious structural damage and extensive fires. The emergency operations center was located in WTC-7.
9/11 Truth: "When you hear hoof-beats, think centaurs!"
what about the other 10 story buildings that were left in a shell of metal frames? in the same block? bldg 7 was blocks away.
to all you people on this forum; to let this guy spew his bullshit across this space?
and do not challenge him on this ?
many of you will move to nh and change your life and will stay silent with this bullshit being pushed across this thread?
and bla.. bla ....bla.........
you know that people are asleep; and i appreciate that....they were born in captivity,all of them, all of us. i was asleep for years.
i am challenging to you to look to yourselves. are you a hore? a slave ? lets see if you will attack the messenger or ? you know we can ALL do more including myself. i am doing more by approaching this thread ; to at least challenge this spew that continues to bring humanity to apoctolypto.
Quote from: KBCraig on June 26, 2007, 01:49 PM NHFTAt least the explosion took care of that nasty 60 Hz hum. ;D
Makes the skin crawl, doesn't it? :o
Quote from: Insurgent on June 26, 2007, 07:16 PM NHFT
Quote from: slave on June 26, 2007, 06:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: mvpel on June 26, 2007, 12:52 PM NHFT
Quote"We subsequently went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, when we reached the sixth floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and now had to walk back up to the eighth floor. After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark."
I've posted the video of electrical transformers exploding before, but I suppose I'll do it again.
http://www.collegeafterhours.com/content/media/movie_1270.wmv
The WTC blueprints posted earlier indicate that the seventh floor was a mechanical area, and the floor plans show a huge electrical substation in the bottom center of the diagrams.
There were undoubtedly many, many explosions during the demise of the towers, of various things. Here's a video of an aircraft oxygen generator burning, for instance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i_l_ux3R-4
Just because there was an explosion, and someone heard it and survived, doesn't mean it was a demolition or an "inside job."
you mvpel you are a phycopath ...........
you stay on this site spewing your ignorance.....and you are a lying , well lets say you are a hore. you truly are a hore. you are a scientist.
Go away. This thread is for intelligent dialogue concerning events related to 9/11, not for name-calling
those statements with his knowledge of 911 means that he is a hore and a sphycopath. you tell me to go away ? intellegent dialogue strait to hell.
ya........ that be you .
Quote from: slave on June 26, 2007, 07:37 PM NHFTbldg 7 was blocks away.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.svg/486px-WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.svg.png)
"Blocks away?"
Who's spewing bullshit here, hmmmm?
I walked in the WTC plaza on a couple of different occasions, and have photos stashed in a box somewhere of the buildings and their surroundings. WTC7 is about 100 meters away from the base of WTC1, and the two towers are about 450 meters high.
An interesting paper discusses the kinetic energy involved in the collapse of the buildings: (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf)
QuoteA comparison of these Q values with the initial kinetic energies, Ti (WTC 1) and Ti (WTC 2), shows that a relatively small fraction of the available energy, (6.7 % for WTC 1 and 3.3 % for WTC 2), is converted to heat by the first impact of the upper blocks of floors. Because the fractional conversion of energy to heat is even smaller for subsequent impacts, most of the kinetic energy of collapse is conserved from one floor impact to the next. Thus a rapid self-sustaining total collapse of the towers is an inevitable consequence of first order momentum transfer theory.
Quote from: mvpel on June 26, 2007, 07:58 PM NHFT
Quote from: slave on June 26, 2007, 07:37 PM NHFTbldg 7 was blocks away.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1e/WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.svg/486px-WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan.svg.png)
"Blocks away?"
Who's spewing bullshit here, hmmmm?
I walked in the WTC plaza on a couple of different occasions, and have photos stashed in a box somewhere of the buildings and their surroundings. WTC7 is about 100 meters away from the base of WTC1, and the two towers are about 450 meters high.
An interesting paper discusses the kinetic energy involved in the collapse of the buildings: (http://www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf)
QuoteA comparison of these Q values with the initial kinetic energies, Ti (WTC 1) and Ti (WTC 2), shows that a relatively small fraction of the available energy, (6.7 % for WTC 1 and 3.3 % for WTC 2), is converted to heat by the first impact of the upper blocks of floors. Because the fractional conversion of energy to heat is even smaller for subsequent impacts, most of the kinetic energy of collapse is conserved from one floor impact to the next. Thus a rapid self-sustaining total collapse of the towers is an inevitable consequence of first order momentum transfer theory.
4,5, and 8 never collapsed. the steel shells remained.
look at the map................
and the people who think they stand up for the truth sit there and negative carma me .
and the others?
no posts.
silence.
Quote from: Insurgent on June 26, 2007, 07:16 PM NHFT
Quote from: slave on June 26, 2007, 06:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: mvpel on June 26, 2007, 12:52 PM NHFT
Quote"We subsequently went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, when we reached the sixth floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and now had to walk back up to the eighth floor. After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark."
I've posted the video of electrical transformers exploding before, but I suppose I'll do it again.
http://www.collegeafterhours.com/content/media/movie_1270.wmv
The WTC blueprints posted earlier indicate that the seventh floor was a mechanical area, and the floor plans show a huge electrical substation in the bottom center of the diagrams.
There were undoubtedly many, many explosions during the demise of the towers, of various things. Here's a video of an aircraft oxygen generator burning, for instance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i_l_ux3R-4
Just because there was an explosion, and someone heard it and survived, doesn't mean it was a demolition or an "inside job."
you mvpel you are a phycopath ...........
you stay on this site spewing your ignorance.....and you are a lying , well lets say you are a hore. you truly are a hore. you are a scientist.
Go away. This thread is for intelligent dialogue concerning events related to 9/11, not for name-calling
intelegent dialogue.......?
yoiu think your science will pull the wool over everyones eyes?
not this guy.
if it walks like a duck
and talks like a duck
and looks like a duck
it's probably a duck
you are a fake.
a concious liar.
Quote from: slave on June 26, 2007, 08:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: Insurgent on June 26, 2007, 07:16 PM NHFT
Quote from: slave on June 26, 2007, 06:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: mvpel on June 26, 2007, 12:52 PM NHFT
Quote"We subsequently went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, when we reached the sixth floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and now had to walk back up to the eighth floor. After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark."
I've posted the video of electrical transformers exploding before, but I suppose I'll do it again.
http://www.collegeafterhours.com/content/media/movie_1270.wmv
The WTC blueprints posted earlier indicate that the seventh floor was a mechanical area, and the floor plans show a huge electrical substation in the bottom center of the diagrams.
There were undoubtedly many, many explosions during the demise of the towers, of various things. Here's a video of an aircraft oxygen generator burning, for instance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i_l_ux3R-4
Just because there was an explosion, and someone heard it and survived, doesn't mean it was a demolition or an "inside job."
you mvpel you are a phycopath ...........
you stay on this site spewing your ignorance.....and you are a lying , well lets say you are a hore. you truly are a hore. you are a scientist.
Go away. This thread is for intelligent dialogue concerning events related to 9/11, not for name-calling
intelegent dialogue.......?
yoiu think your science will pull the wool over everyones eyes?
not this guy.
if it walks like a duck
and talks like a duck
and looks like a duck
it's probably a duck
you are a fake.
a concious liar.
I'm sorry for saying "go away". What I should have written is that "This thread is for intelligent dialogue concerning events related to 9/11, not for name-calling. Disrespect, countless misspelled words, incomplete sentences and lashing out will likely result in negative karma and possibly the ignore button, from many readers. Thoughtful and researched replies are welcome" :)
i believe that one of the hijackers of 9/11 was Jesus in disguise coming back to smite this country for electing an evil monkey for president.
No way. Al Gore invented 9/11!
Al Gore is God and that's why he sent in Jesus to hijack one of the planes.
Quote from: jaqeboy on June 25, 2007, 07:35 AM NHFT
Another really interesting talk coming up put on by the Seacoast 911 Questions group:
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=9387.0
If we work up a carpool plan for this talk, we'll post it at http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org - and probably here, too.
Quote from: slave on June 26, 2007, 08:16 PM NHFT4,5, and 8 never collapsed. the steel shells remained.
Yes, and of course they were constructed in exactly the same way as the buildings which did collapse, and suffered exactly the same sort of forces, damage, and fire as the others, right?
No?
Well, gee... ::)
Article by a great libertarian writer Wilt Alston on 9/11 here (http://www.karendecoster.com/blog/archives/002458.html), entitled "Conspiracy Realists of the World Unite!" Critical of the official story.
Thanks for the link, Braddogg--really good article! Concise, engaging and hard-hitting. It hits the nail on the head, particularly concerning the vapid argument that "the government can't deliver the mail on time--how could they pull this off"!
Yeah. It was very well-written article, thought y'all would enjoy it. I'm certainly not buying whatever the government is selling (Wilt made a good point -- the gov't was able to ID the terrorists very quickly by cross-referencing intel watch lists with passenger lists). But I really don't think the scientific and visual evidence confirms the theory of controlled demolition. I like how Wilt ends the article :)
Quote from: jaqeboy on June 27, 2007, 01:29 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on June 25, 2007, 07:35 AM NHFT
Another really interesting talk coming up put on by the Seacoast 911 Questions group:
http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=9387.0
If we work up a carpool plan for this talk, we'll post it at http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org - and probably here, too.
Looks like we have 3 from Nashua interested in going to this - maybe meet up at the Exit 8 Park&Ride lot again - details when the date gets closer.
"9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!" - interviews with eyewitnesses
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&mode=related&search
Quote from: jaqeboy on June 29, 2007, 06:07 PM NHFT
"9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!" - interviews with eyewitnesses
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&mode=related&search
I watched the first three minutes of that (the grainy video and over-dramatic music got the best of me and I moved on to Girls on Trampolines). Can you try and debunk this yourself? I mean, help me think of things that might create loud noises in a building that had already been hit by an airplane?
Some on this list say "exploding generators"
btw, what's the link for the site you mentioned? ;D
Quote from: jaqeboy on June 29, 2007, 11:39 PM NHFT
Some on this list say "exploding generators"
I've never heard a bomb, nor an exploding generator, so I won't pretend to speak with authority about it. What do you think -- think it could be an exploding generator? What sorts of things might cause a generator to explode?
Quotebtw, what's the link for the site you mentioned? ;D
;D I'm afraid the site might crash if I give it out to too many people
Quote from: Braddogg on June 30, 2007, 12:22 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on June 29, 2007, 11:39 PM NHFT
Some on this list say "exploding generators"
I've never heard a bomb, nor an exploding generator, so I won't pretend to speak with authority about it. What do you think -- think it could be an exploding generator? What sorts of things might cause a generator to explode?
I wasn't there either, so obviously didn't hear anything. The prevalence of reports of explosions before the collapse of the buildings leads many to suspect that the building was "pulled" by use of explosives. Videos such as these lead to or support the suspicion that this was the case.
My concern is the creation of "public myth" that may cause or be used to support a whole chain of other untoward events, ie, wars, loss of liberties, etc. (Upcoming talk on 10 July about this should be interesting - see http://9-11.meetup.com/307/calendar/5832078/ for details re the talk). Apparently, public myth can be created by ignoring some facts, denying others, manipulating or distorting others, even adding some to create a final report that is the authoritative foundation document of the myth, eg, the Warren Report, or the 9/11 Commission Report.
In the case of the 911 story, the Bush admin didn't even want to have a commission to investigate (and just let the administration's statement of what happened stand), and it took families of the survivors (the Jersey Girls) to create the public pressure that forced the Keane-Hamilton commission into existence. They initially appointed Henry Kissinger to head it, but the families forced him off by asking to see his client list(!).
So, in the vein of the explosions reported, William Rodriquez (spoke here 18 May) reported explosions on the B2 level
before the plane hit to the commission - it appeared nowhere in their report. If his was the only incident, one might accept the omission, but if it were one of a long chain of omissions, denials, distortions and manipulations, a reasonable man would have cause to wonder what was going on and what the real story is. I think that's where we are right now, and, in a famous survey, 84% of the population polled answered that they don't believe the government's story fully.
Here's an example of a government actor making statements that appear to be part of the fabric of creating/supporting the myth:
YouTube video of John Gross, the lead engineer on the NIST report, denying that any molten metal was found at the WTC towers site, counterposed with video of eyewitness testimony: http://youtube.com/watch?v=_p_o7d8rDCQ. It's the kind of thing that makes a reasonable man wonder...
The situation we are in is one in which all the authorities that perform investigations of crimes such as these are saying "case closed" while evidence keeps cropping up that counters some of what the authorities say - the list is long, so I won't attempt repeating.
Reasonable men call for a re-investigation that is independent of influence from the White House or other powerful governmental players.
Here's a video, for example, where it is claimed that the NIST used "phantom forces in a highly-manipulated computer model" to come to their conclusions (as well as other criticisms of NIST and their report):
http://www.dailymotion.com/relevance/search/9-11/video/x1cvkz_911-truth-nist-report-debunked_news
(Note: there is at least 1 error in this video: "Empire State Building hit by B-52")
I guess the thing to remember about the creation of the 9/11 myth is that it only took 3 government reports, which Michael Berger pointed out when he spoke in Concord recently, to create the "official story": the Keane-Hamilton commission report (9/11 Commission), the FEMA report and the NIST report. They all have their serious flaws. Here's Karen Kwiatkowski at Lew Rockwell on the 9/11 Commission report: http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski88.html.
The talk coming up in Portsmouth on 10 July (http://9-11.meetup.com/307/calendar/5832078/) should be really interesting in that the speaker has heard Phil Zelikow, the exec. director of the 9/11 Commission, state that "his job is to create public myth." Anyone wanting to hear how the mechanics of this works should attend this talk. Carpooling from Manchester will be arranged - details to be posted on the http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org site. How about a field trip over and then a return to Murphy's for a late Taproom Tuesday to recap the talk?
Slave ...
You will have more pleasant conversations on this board if you ignore the people who defend the government and just present your information.
More and more people are waking up everyday. It is sad that so many people who claim to love liberty expend massive amounts of energy to defend the government, particularly when an unbelievably compelling case has been presented against the government by men such as David Ray Griffin and Dr Chussodovsky. We are not likely to win over those who insist on defending the government; many of them believe that the cause of liberty is "harmed" by attaching it to such "controversial" topics, and will thus fight you regardless of the amount or quality of the evidence you present.
Your target audience is those that haven't made up their minds yet, and who haven't seen the evidence yet. That is probably most on this forum.
If you waste your time fighting the government apologists, you will only frustrate yourself.
I say this to you by way of friendly advice. Trust me, I've promised myself so many times that I will never come back to this thread ... and yet I keep coming back.
Saying that it's unlikely that the government was responsible for or complicit in the 9/11 attacks is not the same thing as defending or apologizing for the government.
Another good video from a former MI-5 guy: David Shayler:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1882365905982811133&hl=en
911 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy - new documentary by Adrian Connock and David Shayler about the BBC's selective and distorted ... all » 911 coverage. With particular reference to the Conspiracy Files programme aired on BBC Two on February 18th 2007
Quote from: mvpel on July 03, 2007, 12:11 PM NHFT
Saying that it's unlikely that the government was responsible for or complicit in the 9/11 attacks is not the same thing as defending or apologizing for the government.
Possibly not. It could just mean you are uninformed.
Quote from: mvpel on July 03, 2007, 12:11 PM NHFT
Saying that it's unlikely that the government was responsible for or complicit in the 9/11 attacks is not the same thing as defending or apologizing for the government.
enough, this is where the knife cuts the grass.
fact: the corporate and govt. line and the 911 commision report is false. a lie.
fact:white guys in suits are responsible for 911. bldg. 1,2,and seven;.............. to the ground, in the basement.
fact: certain people on this thread are well aware of these above facts wich is known, over all the imformation passed within there time on this thread.
and go round and round forever..........concious liars covering up for the murder of 3000 people on 911 and the direct result of way over 5,000 dead servicmen and women and who knows how many corporate soldiers and up to at least 750,000 persians.
and i got a minus 13 carma?
willfull denial of truth expressed to you all who participate and observe as they post there trash here; this is fact.
they are not slow learners; they do know.
Quote from: slave on July 05, 2007, 05:44 PM NHFT
and i got a minus 13 carma?
From what I've seen here, the majority agree with your opinion on 9/11.
You karma could just be a reflection on your charming personality.
Quote from: KBCraig on July 05, 2007, 08:13 PM NHFT
Quote from: slave on July 05, 2007, 05:44 PM NHFT
and i got a minus 13 carma?
From what I've seen here, the majority agree with your opinion on 9/11
You karma could just be a reflection on your charming personality.
you read all the bullshit lies ,that you just admitted that you know are are lies ,and not call them on this .
yet you will attack my character for speaking the truth and not them.
and i am the one with whose character you choose to criticise ?
you are something else.
Quote from: slave on July 05, 2007, 08:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on July 05, 2007, 08:13 PM NHFT
Quote from: slave on July 05, 2007, 05:44 PM NHFT
and i got a minus 13 carma?
From what I've seen here, the majority agree with your opinion on 9/11
You karma could just be a reflection on your charming personality.
you read all the bullshit lies ,that you just admitted that you know are are lies ,and not call them on this .
yet you will attack my character for speaking the truth and not them.
and i am the one with whose character you choose to criticise ?
you are something else.
A. You really have a problem with reading comprehension.
B. You are a very poor mind-reader.
Other than that, I'm sure you're a lovely person.
Kevin
4 days till the "Creating Public Myth" talk next Tuesday in Portsmouth. I think this will be a very important presentation. Many people don't know that their mind and beliefs are shaped by some masterful individual like Phil Zelikow who chose to design and create the myth (9/11 Commission Report) they will hear repeated over and over again in the media.
We're talking carpooling from Murphy's with a brewski or 2 when we get back with the Taproom Tuesdays crowd. We should leave there at 5:45 or 6 latest. Details over at http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org or on the other thread for this: http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=9387.0
that is also the theme of Griffen's speechs now ... very good
I overhear people making decisions based on this 9/11 myth created by bad men. It is a shame.
Interesting interview with Christopher Brown. He notes some differences in construction between WTC1 & WTC2. He notes also that the recently released engineering drawings were conceptual, not the final plans and that they have been modified - he thinks they're disinfo. He makes a big point that the interior core of the towers was a steel-reinforced concrete structure and that demolition was designed in, since the building would eventually have to be brought down somehow!
Lots of detailed discussion about actual construction of the towers and demolition in general:
Twin Towers - Built for Demolition
breakfornews.com - "The Next Level - 9/11 without tinfoil":
http://breakfornews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2854
Pretty controversial concept about how the towers were blown to bring them down.
Interesting talk by Walter Burien at the 9/11 Accountability Conference in Phoenix re where the money went:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ycj6KFOvGVo
This ought to be good. Bob Bowman is a retired Army Lt. Colonel who was on the Strategic Defense Initiative (Star Wars) project.
Dr. Robert Bowman Patriot Tour
Dr. Bob Bowman will speak about peace, justice, and anti-war and 9-11 activism, as part of his nationwide Patriot Tour. Described by the Los Angeles Times as "The Best Public Speaker in the Country," Dr. Bowman challenges us to "Take Back America" for the people. He explains why we need a government that (1) Follows the Constitution, (2) Honors the Truth, and (3) Serves the People.
Admission: $5 at the door.
Sponsored by: Seacoast 9-11 Questions Group, Seacoast Peace Response, Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth, and Seacoast Progressive Alliance, and supported by Merrimack Valley 911 Truth and Independent Voices for Truth.
For more information on the Patriot Tour, go to Bob's web site at www.thepatriots.us
Location: Sugar Shack, on Route 4, a half mile west of the Lee Traffic Circle in Barrington, turn in at the Park and Ride Parking Lot (no sign on street for Sugar Shack)
RSVP: to Seacoast 9-11 Questions Meetup site: http://9-11.meetup.com/284/calendar/5913116/
When: Monday, July 23, 2007 at 7:00 PM
Where: Sugar Shack
314 Route 4
Barrington, NH 03825-3198
603-973-1555
Event fee: USD5.00 per person
More information about the event and about carpooling from the Merrimack Valley area at: http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org - join this Meetup group to receive other announcements regarding 911 Truth events in the Merrimack Valley area of New-Hampshire.
That looks to be an intriguing talk!
In other breaking news, a new MySpace has been created to support and promote the Merrimack Valley 9/11 Truth group. http://www.myspace.com/merrimackvalley911truth Get on there--let's be friends :)
Not a strictly 9-11 article, but it does show how news is "created" when need be (for those who think "they don't do stuff like that":
http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/us-says-iraqi-rebel-head-is-an-invention/2007/07/19/1184559957228.html
Sydney Morning Herald
US says Iraqi rebel head is an invention
Tina Susman in Baghdad
July 20, 2007
IN MARCH, he was declared captured. In May, he was declared killed, and his purported corpse was displayed on state-run TV.
On Wednesday, Omar al-Baghdadi, the supposed leader of an al-Qaeda-affiliated group in Iraq, was declared non-existent by US military officials, who say he is a fictional character created to give an Iraqi face to a foreign-run terrorist group.
In reality, said Brigadier-General Kevin Bergner, an Iraqi actor has read statements attributed to al-Baghdadi, who has been identified since October as the leader of the group, known as Islamic State of Iraq.
[----snip----]
Did anyone happen to catch Deval Patrick's comments about the mill fire in MA? He was talking about the melted steal beams and how they ended up looking like spaghetti.
I was wondering if any of the theorists had any comment about that?
Do you have a link to anything on this. I didn't hear about it.
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 24, 2007, 09:15 AM NHFT
Do you have a link to anything on this. I didn't hear about it.
http://www.telegram.com/article/20070724/NEWS/707240666/1116
QuoteThe governor, along with other local, state, and federal officials, took a brief tour of the site yesterday afternoon. He described what he saw as extraordinary.
"The steel girders look like piles of spaghetti," the governor said.
What was the combustible in the building? Wood?
Would love to see pics of those girders - I didn't see any in the article. I'll look around for other articles with pics.
Quote from: lildog on July 24, 2007, 08:59 AM NHFT
I was wondering if any of the theorists had any comment about that?
I don't know if there are any government theorists available to comment.
I'll try.
The building burned because the terrorists hate our freedom. We will now get rid of those freedoms so you can be safer.
There were very few spaghetti beams at the WTC site because the flames were so hot it all melted into a pile .... that we sent to China so we could be safe from its intensity.
... sorry I am not very good at this theorizing business
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 24, 2007, 01:11 PM NHFT
What was the combustible in the building? Wood?
Would love to see pics of those girders - I didn't see any in the article. I'll look around for other articles with pics.
It was an old mill with a few shops in it from my understanding.
They have been covering it on the TV fairly well. When I heard the quote it was on the radio. The paper had the second half "The steel girders look like piles of spaghetti". He first stated that the steel melted which made me think of the 9-11 debate so I thought I'd bring it to your attention for discussion and consideration.
Quote from: lildog on July 24, 2007, 02:49 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 24, 2007, 01:11 PM NHFT
What was the combustible in the building? Wood?
Would love to see pics of those girders - I didn't see any in the article. I'll look around for other articles with pics.
It was an old mill with a few shops in it from my understanding.
They have been covering it on the TV fairly well. When I heard the quote it was on the radio. The paper had the second half "The steel girders look like piles of spaghetti". He first stated that the steel melted which made me think of the 9-11 debate so I thought I'd bring it to your attention for discussion and consideration.
Yeah, definitely I'm interested. I just haven't had time to find any pics and I haven't been watching the tube. My degree is in Mechanical Engineering with a specialization in Materials Science and Metallurgy, so I might be able to lend some credible analysis to this. I may try calling the Commonwealth of Mass to see if the materials can be inspected - I don't want to just trust a statement by the governor quoted in the media, eh?
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 25, 2007, 12:19 AM NHFT
Quote from: lildog on July 24, 2007, 02:49 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 24, 2007, 01:11 PM NHFT
What was the combustible in the building? Wood?
Would love to see pics of those girders - I didn't see any in the article. I'll look around for other articles with pics.
It was an old mill with a few shops in it from my understanding.
They have been covering it on the TV fairly well. When I heard the quote it was on the radio. The paper had the second half "The steel girders look like piles of spaghetti". He first stated that the steel melted which made me think of the 9-11 debate so I thought I'd bring it to your attention for discussion and consideration.
Yeah, definitely I'm interested. I just haven't had time to find any pics and I haven't been watching the tube. My degree is in Mechanical Engineering with a specialization in Materials Science and Metallurgy, so I might be able to lend some credible analysis to this. I may try calling the Commonwealth of Mass to see if the materials can be inspected - I don't want to just trust a statement by the governor quoted in the media, eh?
Aerial pic from one of the 3 Telegram and Gazette articles together on one site: http://fallenbrothers.com/community/attachment.php?s=6b78f20635eac1a107bfeeea85912896&attachmentid=3410&stc=1&d=1185196463
Original article at: http://www.telegram.com/article/20070723/NEWS/707230592/1116
Not sure if this represents what the governor saw, as this is pretty high up. Also, from this distance, you can't discern any melting or twisting - you can see a lot of collapsed, though still straight, pieces of framing (presumably steel).
I'll contact the reporters (Steven H. Foskett Jr., sfoskett@telegram.com & Richard Nangle at rnangle@telegram.com) to see if they have links to any closer shots. Also will try the Uxbridge Chief (Peter Ostroskey) and the State Fire Marshall (Stephen D. Coan) to see what they have on any melted metal.
As far as combustibles, here's what I found in the articles, but this doesn't seem to be conclusive yet:
"The oil-soaked floors that define that sort of a complex allow a fire to spread quickly and make the firefighting extremely difficult, he said." [obviously wooden floors]
"Chief Ostroskey expressed concern that Foam Concepts, a facility that contained a large amount of unprocessed polystyrene foam, would soon be engulfed. He concentrated several crews on that building, successfully batting away flames." [apparently not ignited]
No references to melted or twisted steel, though one reference to:
"state and federal fire investigators combed through
twisted and smoldering mountains of wreckage and ruins yesterday"
Will report back what I find from the media and the authorities - not planning on going there to inspect.
BTW, this is one type of steel damage at WTC 1 & 2 that lead to suspicion:
(http://breakfornews.com/3i/algoxy_files/explorupturedcolumn.gif)
suspected to have been ruptured by an explosion, not melted by fire.
My request to Steve Foskett of Worcester Telegram and Gazette:
To: Steven H. Foskett Jr., Worcester Telegram and Gazette;
I'm just writing because of the governor's comment that "The steel girders look like piles of spaghetti". I've seen the photo on the site that is from high up. Do you have any closer photos of the steel girders that you could send to me?
I'm a metallurgist and I hope you understand that there is considerable discussion amongst our community regarding whether or not steel girders will melt in a building fire (in reference to the WTC 1, 2 and 7 collapses). I'm just doing my due diligence in keeping abreast of this issue, so anything you have would be helpful for my files.
-----------------------------
Reply:
Thanks for your interest. The only photos I know of are the ones posted to
our website, www.telegram.com. We take all our photos digitally, and the
ones we don't use are typically discarded rather early. We'll be running
more stories all week, including Sunday, so there will be more photos
running. So keep checking back to see if there's something that helps you
out.
Sounds like interesting stuff.
--Steve
Btw, there's a strong possibility that the girders in this mill were iron, not carbon steel. We could check on the contruction epoch, but I'd bet they're iron.
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 25, 2007, 10:55 AM NHFT
Btw, there's a strong possibility that the girders in this mill were iron, not carbon steel. We could check on the contruction epoch, but I'd bet they're iron.
The melting point of Iron is 1535º C ( 2795º F ) http://www.noblemind.com/search.exe?keyword=Iron+Melting+Point&var=2
Not sure what the critical temp is for iron as far as structural safety calculations are concerned. I'm sure lots of things were calculated differently when this mill was constructed.
Made similar request to Richard A. Nangle
--- his reply ---
I'll see what i can pull together and e-mail them to you. If you don't hear from me in a couple of days write again.
Richard A. Nangle
Reporter
Worcester Telegram & Gazette
Jaqeboy is quite the conversationalist, eh? ;D
Sorry if that was a monologue - it was late, no one else was on and I was on a tear!
;D ;)
Quote from: alohamonkey on July 28, 2007, 01:18 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on July 28, 2007, 09:42 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 28, 2007, 12:57 AM NHFT
I know, I'm the one that suggested moving this, but...
Quote from: KBCraig on July 27, 2007, 07:43 PM NHFT
...
This was not an open-air flame. It was forced-air, from the massive draft....
Kevin
To what are you referring here? Where was there a massive draft in WTC7? Just want to know if you have some line on something I have not heard about.
Where? Ummm... everywhere. Big fire in what amounts to a large chimney, means massive draft.
I'm not following you here man.
The notion that there was a large chimney effect and a massive draft doesn't seem to be supported by the photos that I have seen, such as on this page: http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7/fire.html
Do you have some pics that show the fires burning with this large chimney effect? The flames in the above pics appear to burning outside the windows to get their oxygen.
Did they release blueprints of the building? Does it show a large chimney that could carry the smoke, etc. up a flue-like passage? I want to see the possibilities here. Are the 9/11 Truth sites cherry-picking the photos of WTC7 to manipulate us?
BTW, speaking of WTC7, has anyone seen any other information about this official who claims to have been present when there were explosions in WTC7 before the collapse of 1 & 2?
Don't know what to think of this! I guess the idea is that the Loose Change crew will reveal all when LC Final Cut is released.
Oops, here's the link:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june2007/190607interview.htm
Another "burning" question: Has everyone seen the Alex Jones interview of Aaron Russo?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5420753830426590918
Just showing it to a friend and it occurs to me that we should show it at the next Merrimack Valley 911 Truth event as an intro, so MOPs (members of the public) will get an insight into the bigger picture of how the establishment players, like the Rockefellers, think and operate. Looks like Nick Rock was terribly indiscrete about the planning of the "event" and the follow on war on terror. Has anyone heard any negative feedback about the Russo interview? Any reason to doubt it?
We have started a new movement
Bumpkins 4 9/11 Truth
It has room for country bumpkins, truth seekers, conspirace debunkers, rubes, hicks, and yokels like me that are interested in getting to the bottom of what happened on 9/11.
We will put up a new page on the wiki soon.
Let us know (or just do it) if you want to add your picture, your ideas or you think we are all just dumb hayseeds who should leave the analysis to the experts, the official government 9/11 commission, the various scholars, or the mainstream media.
The Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth interviewed a couple of Presidential candidates and got it all on video:
Mitt Romney (http://youtube.com/watch?v=pl8tHzjhD7Q)
Mike Gravel (http://youtube.com/watch?v=KEJYofMeRIo)
If anyone would like to receive announcements of 9/11 Truth events in the region, Boston 9/11 Truth manages a moderated announcement list that you can subscribe to here:
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://lists.boston911truth.org/mailman/listinfo/announce
There are a slew of 9/11 Truth events coming up, including a meeting in Keene tonight.
A bunch of things are posted on the Merrimack Valley 911 Truth (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org) calendar for convenience. I think the policy there is to post everything that is within an hour - 1.5 hour drive from Manchester.
Of great interest will be 2 conferences and many street actions on September 11th in New York. I believe there will be a charter bus arranged for transport to that event, but info will be posted on MV911T.
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 29, 2007, 01:40 PM NHFT
BTW, speaking of WTC7, has anyone seen any other information about this official who claims to have been present when there were explosions in WTC7 before the collapse of 1 & 2?
Don't know what to think of this! I guess the idea is that the Loose Change crew will reveal all when LC Final Cut is released.
That Prison Planet article is the only thing I've seen about this. I thought I would have heard more by now. Either A) the information was bunk or B) it is being kept under wraps until the final release of Loose Change. I think the Loose Change guys are holding out on info until the final cut.
Quote from: alohamonkey on July 30, 2007, 12:19 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 29, 2007, 01:40 PM NHFT
BTW, speaking of WTC7, has anyone seen any other information about this official who claims to have been present when there were explosions in WTC7 before the collapse of 1 & 2?
Don't know what to think of this! I guess the idea is that the Loose Change crew will reveal all when LC Final Cut is released.
That Prison Planet article is the only thing I've seen about this. I thought I would have heard more by now. Either A) the information was bunk or B) it is being kept under wraps until the final release of Loose Change. I think the Loose Change guys are holding out on info until the final cut.
OK, that's all I got, too. It seems like this would be really critical to doubters about WTC 7. That kind of stuff would have to make anyone wonder, eh?
absolutely . . . I was all fired up to learn more about it right when it came out. but then i didn't hear anything and it sort of slipped to the back of my mind until you brought it up again. I really hope they break it out for the final cut.
Jaqeboy - are you familiar with the "chimney" argument from error and kb? it's something i've never come across and didn't know if I was missing something? as far as I know, from all the studies I've read, open-air flame refers to any fire not created in a stove or other device designed for metal-working . . . am I incorrect in this assumption?
Quote from: alohamonkey on July 30, 2007, 12:28 PM NHFT
absolutely . . . I was all fired up to learn more about it right when it came out. but then i didn't hear anything and it sort of slipped to the back of my mind until you brought it up again. I really hope they break it out for the final cut.
Jaqeboy - are you familiar with the "chimney" argument from error and kb? it's something i've never come across and didn't know if I was missing something? as far as I know, from all the studies I've read, open-air flame refers to any fire not created in a stove or other device designed for metal-working . . . am I incorrect in this assumption?
No, that's what I would take it to mean. That's why I asked KB to clarify where or how there was a chimney effect at work in the WTC7 fires, because photographically, it just didn't appear that way to me. I think the big difference would be that with a "chimney" effect, you would have air coming in from one area (like a fireplace) and going out an unobstructed channel (the chimney) that is in the direction of natural flow for the combustion gases from the fire (up, in other words). You'd probably get a lot better flow of oxygen to the fire that way.
With a fire inside a building, it seems to me like you have to have the air coming in the broken window to get to the combustibles, and then the combustion gases would have to exit from the same hole in the windows, so I would think that the incoming air and the outgoing combustion gases would sort of impede each other's flow and intermix somewhat, creating a natural limitation to the rate that the fire could burn at. I was thinking that KB had some new information, so was going to wait to hear what it was.
There is one phenomenon that happens, not with the fires, but with people's ability to accept a horrible truth. I'm just listening to an interview with Sofia, the 911 Mysteries filmmaker where she delves into that. She mentions a friend who just didn't want to believe the horrible truth because she "just wants to have a nice life." Sofia examines her friend and many others in the conflict between their cognitive and their emotional sides. It's a pretty good interview and she is really pleasant in her explanation of what she thinks is going on (ie, not an Alex Jones type). The interview is accessible from a link on the MerrimackValley911Truth.org site (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org) on a newly-created "Interviews" page (http://9-11.meetup.com/307/pages/Interviews/).
So, maybe we'll get an answer on the chimney effect thing soon. It'd be good to get some new information about the mysterious cause of the WTC7 collapse.
I just came across this intriguing ten-minute synopsis of who really benefited from 9/11. Bin Laden? Al Qaeda? Saddam Hussein? Others?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puWqNJI8Mjo&mode=related&search
There was an article in this month's Harper's Magazine about Rudy Giuliani. It mentioned that he put an emergency control center, in the wake of the first attack on the WTC, in World Trade Center 7. In WTC7 included a few unprotected gasoline supplies (for use in generators in case of a power outage). The author mentioned that the burning debris from the main towers hit WTC7, eventually causing these gasoline tanks to ignite, which led to its collapse. Have any of you run across this claim before?
I think they had major deisel supplies in WTC7. There were definitely fires in that building. I think you see smoke coming out of windows for a long time that day. I would guess they got started because of the other buildings. I don't know. I am just a back woods shire bumpkin.
8 June 1999, June 8, 1999: New York Emergency Command Center Opened in WTC Building 7
(http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/events-images/050_giuliani_center2050081722-8055.jpg)
Giuliani's emergency command center. [Source: CNN]
New York City Mayor Rudolph Giuliani opens a $13 million emergency Command Center on the 23rd floor of World Trade Center Building 7. [Newsday, 9/12/2001] The center is intended to coordinate responses to various emergencies, including natural disasters like hurricanes or floods, and terrorist attacks. The 50,000 square foot center has reinforced, bulletproof, and bomb-resistant walls, its own air supply and water tank, beds, showers to accommodate 30 people, and three backup generators. It also has rooms full of video monitors from where the mayor can oversee police and fire department responses. It is to be staffed around the clock and is intended as a meeting place for city leaders in the event of an act of terrorism. [CNN, 6/7/1999; London Times, 9/12/2001; Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 233] The center is ridiculed as "Rudy's bunker." [Time, 12/22/2001] Most controversial is the 6,000-gallon fuel tank. In 1998 and 1999, Fire Department officials warn that the fuel tank violates city fire codes and poses a hazard. According to one Fire Department memorandum, if the tank were to catch fire it could produce "disaster." Building 7 will be destroyed late in the day on 9/11; some suspect this tank helps explains why. [New York Times, 12/20/2001]
Their building shakes when the North Tower is hit at 8:46 a.m. OEM Commissioner John Odermatt initially believes a freak accident has occurred involving a ground-to-air missile, but soon after, OEM is informed that a plane hit the WTC. Immediately, OEM staff members begin to activate their emergency Command Center, located on the 23rd floor of WTC 7 (see June 8, 1999). [Jenkins and Edwards-Winslow, 9/2003, pp. 15] They call agencies such as the New York fire and police departments, and the Department of Health, and direct them to send their designated representatives to the OEM. They also call the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and request at least five federal Urban Search and Rescue Teams. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 293] OEM's Command Center will be evacuated at 9:30 a.m. due to reports of further unaccounted for planes (see 9:30 a.m. September 11, 2001). By this time, none of the outside agency liaisons will have arrived. [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 305]
The headquarters of New York's Office of Emergency Management (OEM), which is on the 23rd floor of WTC Building 7, is evacuated. The headquarters was opened in 1999 and was specifically intended to coordinate the city's response to disasters such as terrorist attacks (see June 8, 1999). [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 283-284] A senior OEM official orders the evacuation after being told by a Secret Service agent that additional commercial planes are unaccounted for (see (9:30 a.m.) September 11, 2001). [9/11 Commission, 7/24/2004, pp. 305] OEM personnel do not initially respond to the evacuation order with a sense of urgency. According to a 2003 report by the Mineta Transportation Institute, "They calmly collected personal belongings and began removing OEM records, but they were urged to abandon everything and leave the building quickly." [Jenkins and Edwards-Winslow, 9/2003, pp. 16] Fire Commissioner Thomas Von Essen will arrive at WTC 7 shortly before the collapse of the South Tower, looking for Mayor Giuliani. Learning that the OEM headquarters has been evacuated, he later claims that he thinks, "How ridiculous. We've got a thirteen-million-dollar command center and we can't even use it." [Essen, 2002, pp. 26] He says in frustration, "How can we be evacuating OEM? We really need it now." He will later tell an interviewer that he'd headed for the OEM headquarters because, "I thought that was where we should all be because that's what [it] was built for." [Fink and Mathias, 2002, pp. 230] All civilians were evacuated from WTC 7 earlier on, around the time the second WTC tower was hit (see (9:03 a.m.) September 11, 2001).
[source: http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/context.jsp?item=a96oemtrains]
There was definitely diesel fuel there - 6000 gals on floor 5 and 36,000 gals at street level (from my quick review). However, all that being said, FEMA concluded in their report:
"The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue." -FEMA: WTC Study, Chp 5 (05/02)
NIST report (slides) here (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf) reports the fire locations (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20IIC%20-%20WTC%207%20Collapse%20Final.pdf)
This site shows pictures of the fires and a reviews of media reports. (http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc7/fire.html)
Most of this stuff is not in controversy. Your recounting of the Harper's story just seems to be a summary of the basic line, but the "which led to its collapse" line is the part in controversy, even apparently at FEMA. There are only 3 main official reports on 9/11, the Keane-Hamilton Commision report (known as the 9/11 Commission report), the FEMA report and the NIST report (see Michael Berger, Improbable Collapse video for summary of their findings). The 9/11 Commission report doesn't cover WTC7, so that leaves the official reporting of FEMA and NIST on WTC7. Both reports seem inadequate, hence the call for further investigation and analysis.
Innnnnteresting. So when someone says "WTC7 wasn't even hit! How did it collapse? Obviously it was bombed!", would it be appropriate to mention the diesel fuel as a possible explanation, do you think? Of course, since the presence of the fuel violated all sorts of building codes, the reply could be that Giuliani did this on purpose to aid in the collapse of the building a few years later . . . . But my theory is that it was just an act of extreme incompetence.
B-dogg, it looks like it's a little more complicated than that. According to the FEMA report, http://killtown.911review.org/wtc7/archive/fema_403.html the layout of the fuel oil distribution system is (Hm, couldn't paste the table in - see link above, table 5.2).
The report states, in the 5th paragraph below the table:
"Engineers from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation investigated oil contamination in the debris of WTC 7. Their principal interest was directed to the various oils involved in the Con Ed equipment. However, they reported the following findings on fuel oil: "In addition to Con Ed's oil, there was a maximum loss of 12,000 gallons of diesel from two underground storage tanks registered as 7WTC." To date, the NY State Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and DEC have recovered approximately 20,000 gallons from the other two intact 11,600-gallon underground fuel oil storage tanks at WTC 7."
This means that, of the capacity of 23,200 gal in 2 particular tanks (if the tanks were completely full), only 3,200 gallons would have burned (if it did) - the likelihood of the tanks being exactly topped up on that morning is not known - It could be that the tanks were down 3,200 gallons and none of it burned. Similar conditions could apply to the other tanks (there were others - see table 5.2)
A good starting point for you, since you have this interest in the WTC7 fires, would be to read the FEMA report. I haven't read the whole thing myself.
Btw, do you know of or have any information on the chimney-effect and forced air blast that KBC has mentioned? I'm still trying to pin that one down. I suppose I'd learn all about it if I went ahead and read the whole FEMA report like he probably has.
Quote from: Braddogg on July 31, 2007, 09:14 PM NHFT
Innnnnteresting. So when someone says "WTC7 wasn't even hit! How did it collapse? Obviously it was bombed!", would it be appropriate to mention the diesel fuel as a possible explanation, do you think?
I sort of thought the presence of diesel fuel was common knowledge. The fuel, if ignited, would definitely have accelerated the fire. My biggest issue with the official story is that . . . no matter how intense the fire, I still can't comprehend how it could cause all structural supports to fail at the exact same time and cause the building to fall directly into it's footprint. And I don't buy the "pancake collapse theory" because it assumes that the top floors would encounter resistance on the way down. WTC 7 fell into its own footprint . . at free-fall speed. Take a look at the fourth picture in this link . . . barely any debris fell 30 feet outside the foundation of the building!
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/oem1.html
This is especially concerning when you find out how well WTC 7 was constructed.
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=950DEFDD113BF93AA25751C0A96F948260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
"In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project.
''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need.''And there were many other ways that we designed as much adaptability as possible into the building because we knew that flexible layout is important to large space users.''
Quote from: alohamonkey on July 31, 2007, 10:38 PM NHFT
Quote from: Braddogg on July 31, 2007, 09:14 PM NHFT
Innnnnteresting. So when someone says "WTC7 wasn't even hit! How did it collapse? Obviously it was bombed!", would it be appropriate to mention the diesel fuel as a possible explanation, do you think?
I sort of thought the presence of diesel fuel was common knowledge. The fuel, if ignited, would definitely have accelerated the fire.
I thought we all knew that place had a bunch of deisel in the basement, but I guess that is what this thread is about.
I wonder what is a normal amount of fuel for a building like that.
Does anyone remember that story from a guy going up WTC7 and finding noone at the command center and them trying to get people out before they "pulled" the building?
Quote from: Russell Kanning on August 01, 2007, 05:23 AM NHFT
I thought we all knew that place had a bunch of deisel in the basement, but I guess that is what this thread is about.
I wonder what is a normal amount of fuel for a building like that.
Does anyone remember that story from a guy going up WTC7 and finding noone at the command center and them trying to get people out before they "pulled" the building?
Actually Russell . . . I read something about that last night. Let me look for it and I'll post the article later today. There is also video of firefighters being told to evacuate the WTC 7 area because "There is a bomb in the building and it's going to come down." I'll look for that video too.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on August 01, 2007, 05:23 AM NHFT
I thought we all knew that place had a bunch of deisel in the basement, but I guess that is what this thread is about.
Well, it appears that I'm just a simple bumpkin' lookin' for some truth too ;)
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 31, 2007, 10:37 PM NHFT
A good starting point for you, since you have this interest in the WTC7 fires, would be to read the FEMA report. I haven't read the whole thing myself.
One of these rainy days I may just do that; thanks :)
QuoteBtw, do you know of or have any information on the chimney-effect and forced air blast that KBC has mentioned? I'm still trying to pin that one down. I suppose I'd learn all about it if I went ahead and read the whole FEMA report like he probably has.
Nah, I don't know anything about that. I just did a google search and found that first article in the newspaper.
Quote from: Braddogg on August 01, 2007, 11:13 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 31, 2007, 10:37 PM NHFT
A good starting point for you, since you have this interest in the WTC7 fires, would be to read the FEMA report. I haven't read the whole thing myself.
One of these rainy days I may just do that; thanks :)
Yeah, sounds like exciting reading, eh?
Link to the NIST report (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1CollapseofTowers.pdf), 296 pgs.
index page of NIST & FEMA reports, 9/11 WTC Tower Collapse Analyses (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/nist,femareports,911structuralengineerin), Articles by and about the tower engineers
Link to the 9/11 Commission report (http://www.9-11commission.gov/)
Found over on FSP forum: a Libertarians for 911 Truth Yahoo group has been formed: Libertariansfor911Truth@yahoogroups.com
Friday, Aug. 3, through Sunday, Aug. 12:
Join a coalition of hundreds of Americans at house parties across the country coming together as part of the national "Answers For 9/11 Families Week". Go directly to http://pressfortruth.bravenewtheaters.com/ and sign up to host a screening of '9/11 PRESS FOR TRUTH'
For more information contact: Ray Nowosielski, Director/Co-Writer/Co-Producer, 9/11 PRESS FOR TRUTH at Ray@BandedArtists.com.
At least one local showing is listed at Merrimack Valley 911 Truth (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org) - one on Sunday, Aug. 5, at 7 pm, at Dave Diamond's apartment in Dover. We should work on setting up others.
There's a big Scholars for 9/11 Truth (http://911scholars.org/) conference this weekend in Madison, Wisconsin: The Science and the Politics of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's Not.
Presenting will be: Kevin Barrett, Jim Marrs, Judy Wood, Jerry Leaphart, Bob Fitrakis, Morgan Reynolds, Dave von Kleist, Ace Baker, Leuren Moret, Alfred Webre, Doug Rokke, and others.
Steve Goodale, an AltExpo presenter, is attending and will report to us his observations. Just talked to him out there and got a few details. Apparently Jim Fetzer, the founder of Scholars is coming around somewhat from some of his controversial and divisive stands (that led to the split within Scholars). We'll see.
Conference info here. (http://twilightpines.com//index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=104&Itemid=70)
Billed as: This is the conference of the year, which pushes the envelope of scientific research in a concerted effort to finally figure
out what actually happened on 9/11. You don't want to miss it!
A little more about the Scholars conference in Madison:
Scholars for 9/11 Truth is sponsoring its first conference, which is
on "The Science and the Politics of 9/11: What's Controversial, What's
Not", from 3-5 August 2007 at the Radisson Madison in Madison, WI.
The purpose of this conference is to provide an opportunity (a) to review
multiple proofs that the "official account" of 9/11 cannot possibly be
true, (b) to explore some of the issues that have generated controversy
in the research community, (c) to afford the opportunity for students
of 9/11 to interact personally with leading investigators, and (d) for the
participants to reflect upon 9/11 in the context of the neo-con agenda.
A final session will be devoted to assessing the state of current research.
Computer Simulation Disputes 9/11 Conspiracy Theories (http://liberalvaluesblog.com/?p=1719)
This video appears on Ron Chusid's blog, Liberal Values; Defending Liberty and Enlightened Thought
This appears to be what mvpel refers to in another post. I can't see that the animation in this video justifies the title above.
This is the page mvpel refers one to: http://www.cs.purdue.edu/cgvlab/papers/popescu/popescuWTCVIS07.pdf
Here my view on 911:
3 buildings came down by planned demolition.
Now lets prove who did it.
Connect the dots.
Kola
Screw the eyewitnesses and the photographs, eh?
NYC Police Saw Sign of Tower Collapse (http://quote.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000087&sid=aCuh.ATdfOXc&refer=top_world_news)
QuoteAt 10:06 a.m. that morning, an officer in a police helicopter reported that ``it's not going to take long before the north tower comes down.'' This was 20 minutes before it collapsed. In another radio transmission at 10:21 a.m., the officer said he saw buckling in the north tower's southern face, Shyam-Sunder said.
The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns.
Police had already ordered a complete evacuation of the north tower at the time those transmissions were made, said Police Department Inspector Michael Coan. Both transmissions came after the south tower was already down, he said.
" The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns."
Got a link to these photos? I'd like to see them.
Quote from: kola on August 02, 2007, 02:20 PM NHFT
Here my view on 911:
3 buildings came down by planned demolition.
Now lets prove who did it.
Occam's Razor says two airplanes flew into two buildings. Major structural damage followed, from both the impact and the ensuing fires. The buildings collapsed from the damage; they were demolished, exactly as planned by whoever was flying the planes.
I guess you can call that "planned demolition".
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 03, 2007, 10:11 PM NHFT
" The report includes photographs taken from police helicopters showing the bending columns."
Got a link to these photos? I'd like to see them.
Wrote to the reporter at Bloomberg for link to the photos mentioned above. Article is dated 18 June 04, so the "progress report by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, which is conducting the study" must be dated sometime shortly prior to the article.
Scoured NIST for the progress report and photos. BTW, their site for everything WTC is http://wtc.nist.gov/ and they mention 10,000 pages of reporting so far - all available in print, pdf or disk.
OK, found this report: NIST-SP 1000-5, dated 5 June 04: http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/progress_report_june04.htm (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/progress_report_june04.htm). The executive summary (http://wtc.nist.gov/progress_report_june04/execsummary.pdf), on p. xxxv states "...new evidence has been found showing inward bowing of perimeter columns...ont the south face of WTC1 and the east face of WTC2...", still ooking for photos, though.
The Bloomberg reporter states: "You should check with NIST. They're in the report." Already spent ~4 hrs searching for the photos in the report. Mvpel, do you have a quick link or page number or anything to speed up the search?
I submitted the query about the photos and the column buckling to Steve Goodale, who is attending the Scholars conference this weekend in Madison, Wis., so we'll see if he was able to ask the various scholars about it, or if they have seen the pics and have a comment.
man ... are you on a 9/11 :treadmill: ?
some of us bumpkins have been talking while we wittle on the porch ... we haven't finished our report, but it has been an easy ride. :)
noone can accuse jack of not checking into all available details 8)
Another Firefighter Testifies On Explosions Inside WTC
We Are Change
Wednesday, August 8, 2007
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7471885217846396761
BROOKLYN, N.Y. - Firefighter John Schroeder, assigned to Engine Company 10 directly across the street from the World Trade Center complex, holds back tears and describes his first-hand experience on Sept. 11th. His story directly contradicts many aspect of the National Commission on Terrorist attacks though corroborates many other eyewitness testimony.
"Standing outside the firehouse with my buddies, we were talking about how beautiful the day was. Then just like that, our lives changed forever. Some of those guys I would never see again."
In this exclusive interview, Firefighter Schroeder recollects in great detail how he was one of the first firefighters to rush to the complex. "We first assembled on West Street, where we saw someone burnt beyond recognition. We were like 'What is going on here?' and then went straight into the Marriot building" From there, Firefighter Schroeder made his way to the lobby of the North Tower. "It looked like a bomb went off, and we started making our way up the stairs to rescue as many people as we could."
As they were making there way up the floors, Firefighter Schroeder heard a huge explosion. "The elevators just blew right out. We couldn't believe it. The plane hits 80 floors up but the elevators explode at least five minutes later? It was unreal."
Firefighter Schroeder made it all the way up to the 23rd floor before barely hearing on the failing radios that another plane was coming in. That plane would hit the South Tower though for some reason "We were tossed like a rag doll by another explosion in our building. People were making there way down the stairwells burnt like you couldn't believe. We were all shocked because it seemed as if there was fire everywhere, on so many floors. It just didn't make sense".
The stairwells were black, and at that point, firefighters were making the decision to head back down stairs. In making there way down to the third floor, they were not able to find an exit. "The lobby was like a war zone. We could not find our way out. Then, all of a sudden, one of the maintenance workers had a key that opened a back door that got us out of there. He saved my life." That worker was Willie Rodriguez. "I want to thank him from the bottom of my heart.
Firefighter Schroeder today has lost 40% of his lung capacity. "We haven't been treated properly at all. From the day of the attack, our physical and mental health has deteriorated and it seems as if no one cares. To lose friends, to have to recover their bodies in the days after, to be offered no protections against that horrific-smelling dust that was everywhere even though the government said the air was OK to breathe is just not right." Some of Firefighter's Schroeder's best friends have gotten out of the FDNY altogether while others accepted money and trips to help. "I stayed right here and did the right thing and now it feels as if I'm suffering the most. Where is our government to help the one's with the toughest jobs on that day and the days after?"
John Schroeder, we want to thank you for being as brave as your job requires in speaking out about your experiences on Sept/ 11th. You have set the historical record straight by explaining your story. This Nation is forever greatful to you as your account will help to save and protect many more lives.
Today, tens of thousands of such 9/11 first responders are in dire need of medical care due to the environmental conditions after the 3 towers imploded at Ground Zero. Diagnosed with cancers and debilitating respiratory illnesses, these true American heroes have been denied the financial benefits required to save their lives. While suffering and deteriorating, their health crisis has been ignored by state and federal policy. Many have already died.
Composed of family members, friends and fellow Americans of individuals who perished on that fateful day, We are Change will fight to raise awareness and consciousness to the first responder's illnesses and hardships. We are determined to put a face to the thousands of forgotten victims of the 9/11 attacks 6 years later.
Stories from other 9/11 survivors:
http://patriotsquestion911.com/survivors.html
Boston 911 Truth did an action yesterday on the Boston Common:
[youtube=425,350] iZs26Xk_DrQ [/youtube]
They're a great group and plan to do actions on the 11th of each month, except probably next month, when everyone will be converging on New York, Ground Zero.
Interesting article about the revision of physics in the post-9/11 world.
http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/august2007/150807_not_collapse.htm
China's Tallest Building Catches Fire, Does Not Collapse
World Financial Center in Shanghai miraculously defies physics
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Shanghai's World Financial Center, the tallest building in China upon completion, defied all known physics yesterday afternoon when it caught fire but did not collapse, a modern day miracle in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer limited fire damage implode within two hours.
Anyone who has visited Shanghai's Pudong district will note that the World Financial building eerily resembles the twin towers in New York that were destroyed on 9/11, which is why the sight of it catching fire yesterday would have led many to immediately fear the imminent collapse of the structure.
"According to an eyewitness, the building caught fire around 4:35 p.m., and floors above the 40th floor were shrouded with dark smoke. The fire was fierce, burning debris fell from the building. Many people fled the building in panic," reports Epoch Times.
"According to Mr. Deng, a local resident, floors above the 30th floor were engulfed in thick layers of smoke, while the top of the building was also smoking."
Officials put the time of the outbreak of the fire at 4pm and said that was extinguished by about 6pm. The south tower of the WTC burned for just 56 minutes before collapsing, while the north tower lasted around an hour and 45 minutes. According to the official transcripts of the firefighter tapes, fires in both towers were almost out immediately before the collapses.
The World Financial Center in Shanghai bravely remains standing after fires gutted its top floors, a modern day miracle of science and a bizarre contradiction to the officially revised version of physics that came into effect on September 11, 2001.
The saving grace that could have rescued the Shanghai tower from imploding may have been the fact that it was not hit by a plane, as the twin towers were on 9/11.
However, the absence of a jet strike wasn't enough to prevent WTC 7 from crumbling into its own footprint within 7 seconds later that fateful afternoon.
Residents of Shanghai should rejoice that the building defied the revised version of basic physics that officially came into effect at 9:56am on September 11, 2001, and remained standing, avoiding a potential death toll of thousands.
The population of Madrid were similarly blessed in February 2005 when the 32-story Windsor Building (pictured above) was gutted by intense fires for 28 hours but did not collapse.
Hundreds of buildings worldwide suffered major fires that gutted the entire facade of their structure before 9/11 and did not collapse, but since the twin towers behaved differently, rather than consider an alternative explanation for the collapse of the towers, experts simply decided to reverse the fundamental precepts of all known physics to make it easier for everyone to understand.
Since that time, it has been commonly accepted that limited fires in tall buildings are 99% certain to cause an almost instantaneous collapse.
I'm certain it was just an oversight, but Mr. Watson neglected to mention the 300,000 pound airplane slamming into the World Financial Center at 590 mph, dumping 10,000 gallons of burning fuel into the interior.
That did happen, right?
Quote from: KBCraig on August 15, 2007, 04:54 PM NHFT
I'm certain it was just an oversight, but Mr. Watson neglected to mention the 300,000 pound airplane slamming into the World Financial Center at 590 mph, dumping 10,000 gallons of burning fuel into the interior.
That did happen, right?
No, the World Financial Center Buildings were not hit by an airplane and they all still stand.
Three World Financial Center did sustain heavy damage when the
World Trade Center towers collapsed, though, but it was patched up.
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 15, 2007, 05:18 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on August 15, 2007, 04:54 PM NHFT
I'm certain it was just an oversight, but Mr. Watson neglected to mention the 300,000 pound airplane slamming into the World Financial Center at 590 mph, dumping 10,000 gallons of burning fuel into the interior.
That did happen, right?
No, the World Financial Center Buildings were not hit by an airplane and they all still stand.
Okay, just checking, since Watson seemed to think he was making a cute point comparing the WFC to the WTC.
QuoteThree World Financial Center did sustain heavy damage when the World Trade Center towers collapsed, though, but it was patched up.
A building in Shanghai was damaged by a collapsing building in NYC?
Yeah . . . the phrase "limited fire damage" was an interesting one.
Quote from: KBCraig on August 15, 2007, 04:54 PM NHFT
I'm certain it was just an oversight, but Mr. Watson neglected to mention the 300,000 pound airplane slamming into the World Financial Center at 590 mph, dumping 10,000 gallons of burning fuel into the interior.
That did happen, right?
KB, I guess I should preface my posts since nobody here knows me that well. My issue with the official story of 9/11 doesn't revolve around the Twin Towers (WTC 1 and WTC 2).
No plane crashed into WTC 7 and it had much smaller and contained fires than the building in this article . . . yet it collapsed at free-fall speed. If something was used to bring down that building, like the landlord Larry Silverstein said . . . then I have issues with the whole "official" story.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5wGnEneYa5M (please ignore the song on this link)
Quote from: KBCraig on August 15, 2007, 04:54 PM NHFT
I'm certain it was just an oversight, but Mr. Watson neglected to mention the 300,000 pound airplane slamming into the World Financial Center at 590 mph, dumping 10,000 gallons of burning fuel into the interior.
That did happen, right?
I just went back through the article and I found this:
"The saving grace that could have rescued the Shanghai tower from imploding may have been the fact that it was not hit by a plane, as the twin towers were on 9/11.
However, the absence of a jet strike wasn't enough to prevent WTC 7 from crumbling into its own footprint within 7 seconds later that fateful afternoon."
Watson does address the fact that no plane hit the World Financial Center and then offers an alternate comparison that you choose to ignore.
NO plane hit WTC 7.
Quote from: Braddogg on August 16, 2007, 12:01 AM NHFT
Yeah . . . the phrase "limited fire damage" was an interesting one.
Compare the fires in this link:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=5wGnEneYa5M
I would say that the fires are definitely "limited" in WTC 7 compared to the Windsor Building.
Also, look at some of the pictures of the fire in Shanghai's World Financial Center building here:
http://propagandamatrix.com/articles/august2007/150807_not_collapse.htm
Those fires are defnitely more intense than the ones at WTC 7.
This is a good video on WTC7 and controlled demolitions:
[youtube=425,350]90ChRS3KzT0&NR[/youtube]
Even I Question The 'Truth' About 9/11
By Robert Fisk
26 August, 2007
The Independent
(posted at countercurrents.org) (http://www.countercurrents.org/fisk260807.htm)
Quote from: KBCraig on August 15, 2007, 04:54 PM NHFT
I'm certain it was just an oversight, but Mr. Watson neglected to mention the 300,000 pound airplane slamming into the World Financial Center at 590 mph, dumping 10,000 gallons of burning fuel into the interior.
That did happen, right?
except that he did mention it
Here is my main issue with 911.. building 7 was demolished.. even the owner (Silverstien) admitted it on PBS... there is tape of him saying "they decided to pull the building"...
So we have fact by the owner to blow the building up.. The biggest problem with this is the building fell a few hours after the planes hit the towers.. Thats important why?
There saying that in all the confision of the events, the rescue efforts etc.. they made a rational descision to demolish this very large office building, they went in to the disaster zone and preped and wired the entire building for demo while its on fire, then demolished it.. all in a few hours... How could that all be done in the confusion.. and how so fricken quickly when there is feet of mangled building from the towers falling..
It takes alot longer than hours to wire and prep a building for demo.. you have to get every column exposed and prepped, haul in hundreds of pounds of high explosives while the building is on fire,wire it all and then demo it.. even in ideal conditions it takes days to weeks to do this properly.. and the demo was perfect, it fell perfectly into it's foot print..
This shows that the building was set to demo, before the planes hit, its not like the building was built with a self destruct button and they just had to push it..
So our government would destroy buildings and kill innocent people to start a war, We think this is really bad, what about the stuff we still have not found out about yet..
I used to not believe the JFK and Roswell conspiracy stuff.. but now after seeing this utter crap going on... I have no idea what's really the truth..
All I do know is anything the feds deal with should never ever be trusted.
Quote from: E-ville on August 29, 2007, 12:02 AM NHFT
Here is my main issue with 911.. building 7 was demolished.. even the owner (Silverstien) admitted it on PBS... there is tape of him saying "they decided to pull the building"...
So we have fact by the owner to blow the building up.. The biggest problem with this is the building fell a few hours after the planes hit the towers..
From prisonplanet.com, quoting from the aforementioned PBS interview: Silverstein states, "I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." (I had to edit their grammar for clarity . . . .)
So Silverstein is on the phone with the FDNY, mentions the loss of life, and later in the sentence suggests the commander "pull it." I have no idea how the jump was made from that comment to "Silverstein admitted to PBS that he had WTC7 demolished with professional explosives."
And in that context, what does "pull it" mean?
There's infinite discussion on this and Silverstein has shut up on it, counted his money and rebuilt a new building there (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center). Another (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/bu/?id=170407) & another (http://www.wtc7.net/newbuilding7.html).
Here's a good survey page on the "pull it" remark (http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/cutter.html) from a former Derry, New-Hampshire boy, Mike Rivero.
"If the FEMA collapse report were true then the fires shown would have been burning throughout entire floors, not just in a few rooms."
Ironically, this captioned a picture of 7 WTC which appears to show the fires burning throughout entire floors, not just in a few rooms.
And the page really doesn't do much to address the "pull it" remark except for speculate.
Quote from: E-ville on August 29, 2007, 12:02 AM NHFT
Here is my main issue with 911 ... building 7 was demolished ... they went in to the disaster zone and preped and wired the entire building for demo while its on fire, then demolished it.. all in a few hours ... It takes alot longer than hours to wire and prep a building for demo.. you have to get every column exposed and prepped, haul in hundreds of pounds of high explosives while the building is on fire,wire it all and then demo it.. even in ideal conditions it takes days to weeks to do this properly.. and the demo was perfect, it fell perfectly into it's foot print..
This shows that the building was set to demo, before the planes hit, its not like the building was built with a self destruct button and they just had to push it...
One theory is that the building was "built for demolition", ie built from the beginning so it could be brought down - I read something on this, but can't find it quickly for you.
Also, here's a site de-bunking the controlled demo theory (http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm).
Quote from: E-ville on August 29, 2007, 12:02 AM NHFT
I used to not believe the JFK and Roswell conspiracy stuff.. but now after seeing this utter crap going on... I have no idea what's really the truth..
I think the PTB benefit from the confusion, hence they spend billions of dollars on disinformation to keep us unsure. That's the real challenge here - getting to the truth trough the fog of information.
I also have trouble trusting information on a web page which looks like the design was done by Internet marketers spammers. :)
Quote from: Beavis on August 29, 2007, 07:28 AM NHFT
"If the FEMA collapse report were true then the fires shown would have been burning throughout entire floors, not just in a few rooms."
Ironically, this captioned a picture of 7 WTC which appears to show the fires burning throughout entire floors, not just in a few rooms.
Those don't look like the entire floors to me. Compare to other skyscraper fires (http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html). These pics are what give a lot of people pause and the ones that
do show raging fires across an entire flloor still didn't collapse.
Quote from: Beavis on August 29, 2007, 07:28 AM NHFT
And the page really doesn't do much to address the "pull it" remark except for speculate.
There are other pages that quote seemingly all known instances of the contemporaneous use of the terms "pull it" for context. I'll post it if I run accross it again.
One guy called Controlled Demolitions, Inc. to ask them what the terms meant - text and audio at this site: http://killtown.blogspot.com/2006/06/cdi-pull-it-means-pull-it-down_30.html
Another "pull it" analysis page (http://www.911review.com/errors/wtc/pullit.html).
you pull buildings and
pull bank jobs
we all know what that means
At the same time, I might pull my men out of a dangerous situation.
Quote from: Beavis on August 29, 2007, 08:18 AM NHFT
At the same time, I might pull my men out of a dangerous situation.
Yeah, I know - I agree. That's what keeps a lot of this a mystery - the ambiguity of some (a lot ) of the evidence. One theory says the best thing the PTB have going is that the people are kept in confusion. If it was really clear one way or the other, then we would be unanimous in knowing what to do!
Huh? What to do is already crystal clear, since the government's response to 9/11 would have been exactly the same whether it was an inside job or just a convenient excuse.
That is: reduce, take down and dismantle this corrupt, immoral system.
IF you believe that this building fell from a fire,you must not understand the phisical properties of steel.. stel doesnt just break when it gets hot it bends.. if this building was engulfed in flames from top to bottom it would not have fallen like it did in a streight down path and at the sped of gravity.. the only way this happens is all the suport beams were cut with explosives all at the same time (ok miliseconds apart) this is how you get a building to fall..
Really if they werent hiding somthing then why don't they just tell us and prove what hapened... They cant becuase the truth is very very damaging to them...
Over all there is more evidence to support 911 being a inside job than a terrorist attack..
Really cops try that on us.. they say "Can I search your car.. you don't have anything to hide do you?" but there is a diffrence, were protected by the constitution and bill of rights.. the government isnt there here to serve us the people that pay there paychecks.
But how can you trust a government to police its self, history has proven that it will get currupted and self destruct.. Power atracts greedy people.. its that simple!
Quote from: Beavis on August 29, 2007, 11:28 AM NHFT
That is: reduce, take down and dismantle this corrupt, immoral system.
Speaking of corrupt, immoral systems . . . have you seen this article?
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/16076312/the_great_iraq_swindle
Since I'm still new to the libertarian perspective, how does a free market enterprise guard itself against greed and corruption like this? I understand that there would be less corruption if the government wasn't in charge of contracting but this is still an issue I battle with in regards to libertarianism.
The "pull it" remark is a honey-pot, also known as a red-herring, designed to distract from meaningful research and discussion. While people debate endlessly about it and speculate that it's a smoking gun proving the fact that WTC7 was deliberately demolished, more significant facts become glossed over.
The wonderful website, OilEmpire.us has an article discussing this at http://oilempire.us/911bait.html Scroll down the page a little bit to find these statements about the "pull it" quote:
===================================
The State Department website about World Trade Center Building 7 verifies how inferential evidence of physical anamolies are unlikely to accomplish needed political changes. Two discussions about "physical evidence" and 9/11 complicity are worth reading to see how their predictions have been shown to be correct.
"The case of 9/11, now being tried in our metaphorical court of the corporate media and public perception, leaves no doubt as to who could produce more expert witness testimony or present them in the most impressive manner. ... It is something else to analyze the temperature at which steel is weakened and determining whether or not an unproven amount of burning jet fuel, in unspecified concentrations and unknown locations could have weakened steel supports in the World Trade Center to the point where an unspecified amount of weight might cause them to buckle.
-- Michael Ruppert, Crossing the Rubicon, pp. 13-14
www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/112603_kennedy.html
The Kennedys, Physical Evidence, and 9/11
by Michael C. Ruppert
Most 9/11 skeptics are now familiar with the statement by Larry Silverstein, who leased the WTC shortly before 9/11, that he decided "pull it" regarding Building 7 (the building that collapsed but was not hit by a plane). Some in the 9/11 truth movement made this comment a "smoking gun" for demolition claims, even though the case for demolition of WTC 7 was made long before his comment was publicized, most notably at the website www.wtc7.net
http://wtc7.net/pullit.html
A review of the numerous websites that assert that Silverstein's remark constituted an admission of demolishing WTC 7 is revealing. Few such sites note that the physical characteristics of the collapse exactly match conventional demolitions, or that fires have never before or since felled steel-framed high-rise buildings -- two facts that constitute an overwhelming case for the controlled demolition of WTC 7. Instead, the pull-it controversy seems to have created a distraction, eclipsing the case for controlled demolition.
"Pull it" is a deliberately ambiguous statement that could have been a form of bait, and now has been discredited by its utterer, probably in an effort to discredit its promoters just as the Rumsfeld "missile" quote was floated and then withdrawn.
The best website that discussed the "pull it" controversy was by Dutch author Joël v.d. Reijden, who has unfortunately "pulled" his excellent analysis from the web (he evidently grew tired of the abusive emails from promoters of the "no planes" hoaxes). Here is his analysis of "pull it"
http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/911_my_own_review.htm [no longer on line]
9/11 – My own review of the entire event.
Apparently Larry Silverstein tries to explain something to us in the 2002 PBS documentary 'America Rebuilds':
"I remember getting a call from the, uh, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "You know, we've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is, is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and then we watched the building collapse."
I mailed Jowenko BV and asked if 'pull' was an industry term for 'demolish'. They said it wasn't. Implosionworld said the same thing. I run into the same problem when looking into different dictionaries. There is always a distinction made between 'pull down', 'pull away' and 'pull back'. And I have not been able to find one person on the internet who uses this word as a substitute for 'demolish'. So I think it's safe to assume that Larry needs to clarify what he meant, but unfortunately he refuses to do that.
In the same PBS documentary this is said by one of the construction workers:
"[narrator]The department of design and construction had leveled World Trade Center buildings 4 and 5...[telephone rings] Hello?...ow, we're getting ready to pull building six....[The documentary moves on to the next person] We had to be very careful how we demolished building six..."
Now, lets see what implosionworld told me:
"There is no such phrase in explo-demo. Most likely he meant "pull out" as in have people evacuate. Conventionally, "pull a building" can mean to pre-burn holes in steel beams near the top floor and affix long cables to heavy machinery, which then backs up and causes the structure to lean off its center of gravity and eventually collapse. But this is only possible with buildings about 6-7 stories or smaller. This activity was performed to bring down WTC 6 (Customs) after 9/11 because of the danger in demolishing conventionally."
Of course these companies are not going to adhere to any conspiracy theories, but they did help in dispelling another possible red herring. The fact that it is very likely that 7 WTC has been blown up doesn't change at all, but I wonder why Silverstein made this strange statement and especially why PBS conveniently put that 'ready to pull building six' sentence in. Maybe someone is messing with our heads. I don't know.
and from the same author:
http://home.planet.nl/~reijd050/911_summary.htm
Were there explosives in WTC I, II and/or VII? If I had to guess, I would say it's likely, but this theory sounds so ridiculous, that we need more eyewitness accounts and videos. Something that makes me very uncomfortable is that all the prominent 'researchers' I do not trust are peddling the explosives-at-the-WTC-theory.
Update: General Benton K. Partin doesn't seem to agree with this theory. Read that article here
[note: retired General Partin publicized his beliefs that the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing involved multiple explosions, and therefore was more than merely a crime involving just Tim McVeigh]
It is hard to say whether the Silverstein "pull it" quote is (1) bait, (2) boasting or (3) greatly misinterpreted. Any attorney or public relations representative would state that the context is "the firefighter team had such a terrible loss of life, so therefore they made the decision to pull it (the firefighters)."
The State Department discussion of "pull it" shows that this prediction has been verified.
In September 2005, Silverstein's office issued a "clarification" that shows the futility of relying on this sort of "evidence" to make political change.
http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2005/Sep/16-241966.html
The Collapse of World Trade Center 7
Allegation: 9/11 Revealed suggests that the 47-story World Trade Center 7 building, which collapsed at 5:20 pm on September 11, was intentionally demolished. The primary piece of evidence for this is a comment that Mr. Larry Silverstein, who owned the World Trade Center complex, made on the September 2002 television documentary American Rebuilds. Mr. Silverstein said:
I remember getting a call from the Fire Department commander, telling me they were not sure they were going to be able to contain the fire. I said, you know, "We've had such terrible loss of life that the smartest thing to do is just pull it." And they made that decision to pull it and we watched the [World Trade Center 7] building collapse.
9/11 Revealed and other conspiracy theorists put forward the notion that Mr. Silverstein's suggestion to "pull it" is slang for intentionally demolishing the WTC 7 building.
Facts: On September 9, 2005, Mr. Dara McQuillan, a spokesman for Silverstein Properties, issued the following statement on this issue:
Seven World Trade Center collapsed at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001, after burning for seven hours. There were no casualties, thanks to the heroism of the Fire Department and the work of Silverstein Properties employees who evacuated tenants from the building.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) conducted a thorough investigation of the collapse of all the World Trade Center buildings. The FEMA report concluded that the collapse of Seven World Trade Center was a direct result of fires triggered by debris from the collapse of WTC Tower 1.
In the afternoon of September 11, Mr. Silverstein spoke to the Fire Department Commander on site at Seven World Trade Center. The Commander told Mr. Silverstein that there were several firefighters in the building working to contain the fires. Mr. Silverstein expressed his view that the most important thing was to protect the safety of those firefighters, including, if necessary, to have them withdraw from the building.
Later in the day, the Fire Commander ordered his firefighters out of the building and at 5:20 p.m. the building collapsed. No lives were lost at Seven World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.
As noted above, when Mr. Silverstein was recounting these events for a television documentary he stated, "I said, you know, we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is to pull it." Mr. McQuillan has stated that by "it," Mr. Silverstein meant the contingent of firefighters remaining in the building.
another debunking of "Pull It"
http://crimesofthestate.blogspot.com/2007/02/tales-of-911-truthiness.html
FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 02, 2007
Tales of 9/11 Truthiness
Quote from: Beavis on August 29, 2007, 11:28 AM NHFT
Huh? What to do is already crystal clear, since the government's response to 9/11 would have been exactly the same whether it was an inside job or just a convenient excuse.
That is: reduce, take down and dismantle this corrupt, immoral system.
Go ahead - please do this!
What do you think I've been working on?!?
Quote from: Beavis on August 30, 2007, 12:00 AM NHFT
What do you think I've been working on?!?
Lemme know when you're done.
Meanwhile, there are questions (for those curious) about events of recent history. Some of those answers might lead to restraint, prosecution and punishment of the perpetrators of the crimes, which would hopefully reduce the danger to the remainder of the American (and other) people.
Preliminary announcement:
Hartford International 9-11 Truth Conference
3 & 4 November 2007
I believe this will be the first International conference and several people we have already met are involved in the organizing of this event. A couple of organizers had to drop out, so the organizing committee is looking for a couple more to help out. They do the organizing work by conference call on Sunday evenings. PM me if you can be involved and I'll fwd your email over to the committee.
There is also a need for numerous volunteers the days of the events, just to man tables, etc.
The Hartford location was chosen to draw from both Boston and NYC and also to be close to an international airport. I don't have info on the con location, etc., but it will all be posted at MerrimackValley911Truth.org.
Should Rudy speak at 9/11/07 ceremony?? (after destroying all the evidence of the crime scenes?)
Please, take two seconds and vote in this survey!!!!
http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/am-poll0829,0,386525,post.poll (http://www.newsday.com/news/local/newyork/am-poll0829,0,386525,post.poll)
Question: Should Rudy Giuliani be allowed to speak at the annual memorial ceremony at ground zero?
Dave von Kleist will be in the area and has a couple of time slots available before and after his appearance at the Browns on September 15th. He has a new movie 911 Ripple Effect (http://911rippleeffect.com/index_hi.html) and a talk about how to heal America.
Anyone want to help put together a short notice event? I believe he is available the evening of the 13th and afternoon and evening of the 16th. Boston 911 Truth may want him for the Conspiracy Cafe on the afternoon of the 16th, tho, since that is their regular date.
I'd organize it, but I'm not sposed to take on one more thing right now!
Monadnock 911 Truth Alliance will be hosting Dave in Keene, where he's presenting at the Night Owl Cafe at Keene State College, Friday 9/14 at 7pm. They've got flyers, posters, letters to the Editor, and will have him on two local radio shows that morning.
Merrimack Valley will likely carpool over to the Keene event - see MerrimackValley911Truth.org for details on that.
An organizer in MV could just model Monadnock's stuff. We'll find out today if Boston's 911 Truth group wants him for the Conspiracy Cafe on the 16th.
Quote from: Beavis on August 29, 2007, 08:18 AM NHFT
At the same time, I might pull my men out of a dangerous situation.
but you would say "pull it" but maybe "pull them" or pull our guys
Let's try some of this reading.
http://www.911myths.com/index.html
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/loose-change
Quote from: Russell Kanning on September 02, 2007, 07:40 PM NHFT
Quote from: Beavis on August 29, 2007, 08:18 AM NHFT
At the same time, I might pull my men out of a dangerous situation.
but you would say "pull it" but maybe "pull them" or pull our guys
'It'. The firefighting operation. The team. Et cetera.
For me that's the first thing popping into my head when I hear that phrase. I guess my mind is programmed to take things as they are rather than carving my own meaning into them..
Quote from: Lasse on September 03, 2007, 08:30 AM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on September 02, 2007, 07:40 PM NHFT
Quote from: Beavis on August 29, 2007, 08:18 AM NHFT
At the same time, I might pull my men out of a dangerous situation.
but you would say "pull it" but maybe "pull them" or pull our guys
'It'. The firefighting operation. The team. Et cetera.
For me that's the first thing popping into my head when I hear that phrase. I guess my mind is programmed to take things as they are rather than carving my own meaning into them..
That would be a normal response, test it. Find someone who knows nothing about it and most respond that he meant the firefighters. I personally think he was trying to show off a Little by using FF Slang and it bite him.
http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey
Quote from: Lasse on September 03, 2007, 08:30 AM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on September 02, 2007, 07:40 PM NHFT
Quote from: Beavis on August 29, 2007, 08:18 AM NHFT
At the same time, I might pull my men out of a dangerous situation.
but you would say "pull it" but maybe "pull them" or pull our guys
'It'. The firefighting operation. The team. Et cetera.
For me that's the first thing popping into my head when I hear that phrase. I guess my mind is programmed to take things as they are rather than carving my own meaning into them..
well ... I heard pull it and thought building .... seems like the way things are to me
Found from link on the Zeitgeist "Activism" page:
Webster Tarpley, "Only Impeachment and Removal Can Stop Him; Cheney Determined to Strike in U.S. with WMD's This Summer" (http://archive.wbai.org/files/mp3/070731_150001talkback.MP3), WBAI-New York interview with Kathy Davis on 'Talk Back", July 2007, ("Talk Back" program starts after long station intro at 7:05) - This interview includes a capsule explanation of Tarpley's theory of what happened on 9/11, but goes on to explain the Cheney Doctrine of War Provocation against Iran.
Supporting the Tarpley strategy is actindependent.org (http://actindependent.org), which developed The Philadelphia Platform back on July 4th.
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect - "How The Towers Fell" - Complete 2 Hour Presentation:
http://911blogger.com/node/10025
This might answer some questions submitted earlier by a poster who asked "Why aren't architects and engineers questioning the WTC towers' collapses?"
The Merrimack Valley 911 Questions group (MerrimackValley911Truth.org (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org)) is holding an organizing and planning meeting Thursday evening, starting at 6:30 PM at the Common Man in Concord, upstairs in the Liberty Lounge. We checked it out Wednesday evening late and it looks to be a comfortable setting, though we heard it might be quite busy (and maybe noisy) during the ~ 6-8PM busy time.
It'll be the first organizing meeting, so we'll see what we can cover, but the agenda will include:
Travel, lodging and misc. details for the NYC trip this weekend to the events in the city. If anyone wants to go, has a bigger car or van, has a cheap place to crash in the city, etc., please chime in on this one;
The general strike idea for 9/11;
The Kennebunkport Warning;
local video showings;
printed literature;
street actions;
other ideas invited.
See you there!
KPFA "Guns and Butter" interview with Richard Gage, Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, 5 September 2007, 1:00 PM:
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=22116
9/11 Blueprint: The Architecture of Destruction
Interview with Bay Area architect Richard Gage, AIA, about the organization he has formed, "Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth". Outreach to architects and engineers; presentations to the public and to professionals; the physical evidence of controlled demolition of the World Trade Center twin towers and building seven. Richard Gage, AIA, will give the keynote address on September 11, 2007 at 7:00pm at the Grand Lake Theatre in Oakland. Visit his website at ae911truth.org (http://ae911truth.org).
AE911T has over 150 architect and engineer and over 330 non-architect/engineer members now and has submitted a request for a hearing in Congress to Henry Waxman of the House/Senate Intelligence Committee for an unimpeachable (non-executive dept.) investigation.
Released: September 06, 2007
Zogby Poll: (http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=1354) 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks; Over 30% Seek Immediate Impeachment
67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7
Kansas City, MO (Zogby International) September 6, 2007 - As America nears the sixth anniversary of the world-churning events of September 11, 2001, a new Zogby International poll finds a majority of Americans still await a Congressional investigation of President Bush' and Vice President Cheney's actions before, during and after the 9/11 attacks. Over 30% also believe Bush and/or Cheney should be immediately impeached by the House of Representatives.
The truth of 9/11 is Ready For Mainstream! (http://ready4mainstream.ny911truth.org/program.htm)
See above link for NY911Truth program at Cooper Union
Saturday, September 8th & Sunday, September 9th
Ground Zero & Union Square Park on Tuesday September 11
Then view the event at Webcast.ny911truth.org (http://webcast.ny911truth.org/) . There will be a $5 fee to defray costs,
as well as fund the NYC Ballot Initiative to obtain a new, independent investigation of 9/11.
------------------------------------------
A few of us are going to NYC for the NY911Truth events and for the We Are Change events on a shoestring budget. Leaving early AM Saturday from New-Hampshire with some of the transpo options to be settled later today. PM me if you want to come along.
Rudy lies on camera about the command center to avoid responsibility:
[youtube=425,350]T0E0wfShJ58[/youtube]
New film, The Real Rudy; Command Center (http://therealrudy.org), by Robert Greenwald, Brave New Films
Painful 9/11 Truth (http://blogcritics.org/archives/2007/09/04/143308.php)
Written by Joel S. Hirschhorn
Published September 04, 2007 on BlogCritics
Author of Delusional Democracy - Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government; formerly a senior staffer for the U.S. Congress and the National Governors Association. Co-founder of Friends of the Article V Convention www.foavc.org. Also a member of Patriots for 911 Truth and Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth.
Today marks the 6th anniversary of this awful event; I had to work today and couldn't participate in any of the vigils, protests or activities during the day, but had the thought that at 9:11pm tonight I could observe a moment of silence to remember all the lives that were lost on that day.
I observed the day Bruce Schneier style (http://www.schneier.com/essay-124.html).
http://www.physorg.com/news108737007.html
QuoteA new mathematical analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Centre has been published by a Cambridge University academic, with results that challenge conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11th attacks.
The new paper, by Dr Keith Seffen, uses established engineering models to demonstrate that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.
Although the causes that initiated the collapse of the twin towers are now well understood, engineers continue to speculate about the speed and totality with which the buildings were demolished during the fateful attacks.
Some have even dared to suggest that the catastrophic events that followed two planes being flown into the buildings were the result of a conspiracy that extended to the top of government itself.
Dr Seffen, a Senior Lecturer in the Structures Group in the Department of Engineering, was moved to find a scientific explanation for the collapse when he heard about reports of possible insider involvement. Claims of "controlled demolition" were being suggested, in order to explain the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.
"I thought immediately that there had to be a rational explanation for why collapse happened as it did, one which draws on engineering principles," he said. "After searching the current literature, it became clear that many studies focused on the phase just before collapse settles in.
"They rightly show that the combination of fire and impact damage severely impaired those parts of the building close to where the aircraft hit to hold the weight of the building above. The top parts were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts."
Dr Seffen's new analysis, which will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics, focuses on calculating the residual capacity of the building to resist the weight of the floors above under collapse conditions.
He then develops a dynamic model of the collapse sequence, which simulates the successive squashing, or "pan-caking" of individual storeys based on the residual capacity already identified. The process is already well known from other studies of progressive collapse, but usually applies to other structures such as undersea pipelines, rather than buildings.
This allowed Dr Seffen to predict that the residual capacity of both buildings was limited, and once collapse had started, it would take only 10 seconds for the building to go down - just a little longer than the free-falling of a coin dropped from the top of either tower.
"The aim was to produce a credible scientific explanation for the totality of collapse once it began," he said.
"In all senses, the collapse sequence was quite ordinary and natural. The World Trade Centre towers were designed to absorb an aircraft impact, but an accidental one with much less fuel and speed. It is widely acknowledged that the impacts on September 11th were extraordinary, which led to consequences well in excess of the design capacity for the buildings. The original design of both towers must be praised for standing as long as they did, saving more lives than might have been expected."
Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth gave one of the presentations at the "911 Truth - Ready for Mainstream" event sponsored by New York 911 Truth and held at Cooper Union in New York over the past weekend. He is showing himself to be a very credible source and very effective presenter.
His new video, "9/11: Blueprint for Truth; The Architecture for Destruction" will be shown in several locations soon by Merrimack Valley 911 Truth - an announcement of the dates, times and places will be made on this forum and on the website for MV911T. This would be a good opportunity for those curious about what the controversy is all about.
Gage works full-time as an architect designing steel-framed buildings and makes a presentation every Friday at lunchtime to a different architecture firm. He claims that after each presentation he leaves his colleagues 100% convinced that the 3 WTC skyscrapers were destroyed by explosive demolition.
There is a simple, effective postcard tool on the Architects and Engineers site here: http://www.ae911truth.org/cardsorder.php
I was curious about Richard Gage and his credentials, so I searched for information about his credentials and specialization. After all, an architect can be a member of AIA and design nothing more complex than wood-frame tract houses.
Twelve pages in to a google search for "Richard Gage, AIA", I gave up on finding anything other than 9/11 sites. The one exception was a brief bio (http://forums.therandirhodesshow.com/lofiversion/index.php/t118211.html) on Randi Rhodes' show (emphasis mine):
Richard Gage, AIA is the founding member of ae911Truth.org. He has been a practicing Architect for 20 years and has worked on most types of building construction including numerous fire-proofed steel-framed buildings. He is employed with a San Francisco Bay Area architecture firm and has most recently performed Construction Administration services for a new $120M High School campus including a $10M steel-framed Gymnasium. Currently he is working on the Design Development for a very large mixed use urban project with 1.2M sq.ft. of retail and 320K sq.ft. of high-rise office space — altogether about 1,200 tons of steel framing.
Points:
- The plumbers and drywall hangers can also say they have "worked on" numerous buildings. That doesn't mean they designed, engineered, or served as architect on them.
- Performing "Construction Administration services" means he did not design the project. And even if he had, a $10M gym is a piddling one story project. That's damning by faint praise.
- Wow, 320,000 square feet of "high rise office space", huh? The WTC was 8.9 million square feet (just counting the twin towers; the complex was 13.4 million square feet). How "high rise" is this building? If it had the same footprint as one of the twin towers, it would be 8 stories tall.
- Again, he is not the architect of this new project, but "working on the Design Development", which could mean almost anything (none of which requires any engineering skills or knowledge).
I am not an architect. I am not an engineer. I was an engineering major once upon a time, but life circumstances caused me to choose another degree route. I have had a lifelong fascination with building design, and seriously contemplated going back to grad school to become an architect.
While studying the options in architecture education, I learned there are two major schools of schools, if you'll pardon the repetition. Architecture schools are focused on either engineering, or design. The difference in coursework should be obvious. One can graduate a "design" school with a degree in "Environmental Architecture" or "Landscape Architecture", draw lots of pretty pictures, join the AIA, and have not the faintest notion of the load bearing rating of a 2x4.
If anyone has any information on Richard Gage's actual CV, degree, projects where he was the architect, etc., please post them so that we may judge his credibility as a source.
As I have often said: skepticism works both ways. Be equally skeptical of those who support your prejudices, as you are of those who oppose them.
Kevin
Quote from: KBCraig on September 14, 2007, 01:02 AM NHFT
I am not an architect. I am not an engineer. I was an engineering major once upon a time, but life circumstances caused me to choose another degree route. I have had a lifelong fascination with building design, and seriously contemplated going back to grad school to become an architect.
If your are committed to the goals of ae911truth, you may join if you are not an architect or engineer, but there is a check box for that so they show their "professional" member count separate from their non-professional membership count.
You can see one of his presentations - linked to from MerrimackValley911Truth.org | About Us | Videos, or hear an interview of him MerrimackValley911Truth.org | About Us | Interviews. You won't have to be an architect or engineer to understand his points.
You could probably email him to request his CV. I'm sure he's got it posted somewhere on the ae911truth.org site or on a personal site.
I just finally got around to watching the History Channel's debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, "9/11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction."
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6099377220232534455&q=fact+or+fiction+911+duration%3Along&total=20&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Has anyone else seen this? If so, what did you think. IMO, the producers picked some of the most outlandish "conspiracy theorist" claims and disproved them to discredit the movement. Also, the film seemed to be lacking facts and just going on the assumption that "the experts" know best.
some of us are just bumpkins looking for thruth ... where does that put us on your "able to see truth" scale kbcraig?
have you actually seen his presentations ... or are you just going to condemn him based on professional certifications and references?
Quote from: alohamonkey on September 19, 2007, 09:46 PM NHFT
I just finally got around to watching the History Channel's debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, "9/11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction."
...
... IMO, the producers picked some of the most outlandish "conspiracy theorist" claims and disproved them to discredit the movement. Also, the film seemed to be lacking facts and just going on the assumption that "the experts" know best.
This seems to be a favored tactic. Penn & Teller use this in their de-bunking vid. Does that mean that they believe everything the Bush/Cheney cabal will dish out and attack then
any questioning of this one official story? It almost seems so. There seems to be a psychological barrier to some believing someone would kill their own countrymen to further the imperial agenda - a barrier so high that some ban themselves from surmounting it to peek over to view the truth. Note that some on these forums won't even view some of the videos, interviews, etc. offered and instead engage themselves in the faux battle of credentialling the presenter to death rather than considering the material presented. There must be a name for this logical fallacy, eh? Would that be the ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attack?
The trend in the 911 Truth movement seems to be predominately to clearly establish that the administration's story is a fabrication, so we may empanel an objective body (no ties to the administration like the Zelikow-controlled Commission farce) to re-investigate (with subpoena power) to establish then what did really happen. Meanwhile brave independent researchers continue to unearth nuggets of truth and present them. Some will insist on positing theories, but they have the same problem over and over - the material evidence has been destroyed!
...and the list grows.. as 7 CIA agents will be sent to the gulags.
Yavolt!! (click boots together)
Extremist Kola
An engineering professor joins the dissidents:
Online Journal
Painful 9/11 truth
By Joel S. Hirschhorn
Sep 12, 2007, 01:31
Many technical analyses cast doubt on the official explanation of the collapse of three World Trade Center buildings, including those presented by an impressive new group: Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
More difficult than discovering the truth, however, is convincing most of the public to accept the bitter truth. Americans easily block out painful truths. Powerful societal forces keep much of the population distracted and uninterested in complex issues. Entertainment-oriented mainstream media contribute to mass ignorance. And the political establishment often buries the truth, uses propaganda and manipulates citizens.
Intelligent, strong-willed people can fight all these. But on a deeper level, many truths are blocked psychologically, because they produce too much pain. This results when truths sharply disagree with strongly held beliefs. The conflict produces cognitive dissonance that can block full acceptance of the disturbing truth. People fall victim to self-manipulation and self-delusion. Truths are dismissed and false beliefs remain embedded.
When it comes to 9/11, we face the strong belief that only Al-Qaeda caused 9/11. But analyses by many experts reveal the collapse of three WTC buildings was not caused by the two airplanes exploding into the two towers. Without getting into details that one can spend many hours examining on a number of websites, the general view is that the buildings were brought down by controlled demolition.
If correct - IF - the immediate reaction is like a cosmic big bang. It would have taken considerable effort by a number of people with expertise and access to the buildings to rig them so that they could be intentionally collapsed when the two jets hit the towers.
Tough questions flood in: Who could have engineered all this? Could foreign agents accomplish such complex actions - and if they did, why not take credit for it? If Americans did it, why would they intentionally inflict inevitable mass death and devastation? Worse, they seemingly knew about the plan to fly the jets into the towers.
Post-9/11, why have the government and official investigations not come to the same controlled demolition conclusion? This might be explained if the government was involved. Pull one string and the whole 9/11 story unravels as your imagination triggers unending questions. Can Americans support a reinvestigation and rethinking of the 9/11 event? Or would they rather avoid even more pain and preserve the official account that places all blame on Al-Qaeda?
So easy to criticize those who offer different explanations as conspiracy nuts. After all, the new truth would be so shocking that we would have to question our political and government system. Could there have been such malevolence somewhere in our government? Did a monumental conspiracy push us into attacks on Afghanistan and Iraq? Did petroleum and corporate interests shape 9/11?
Like other groups, Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth wants a new, honest and comprehensive study that considers all the evidence for controlled demolition. First, let the technical truth emerge. Then, if necessary, cope with the inevitable political, conspiracy and other questions. But let us not allow a possible painful truth block the primary task of determining once and for all what caused the collapse of the WTC towers and building no. 7.
If there were non-Muslim forces - possibly U.S. government ones - that played a major role in the WTC catastrophe, then let us have the courage to face the truth. Suppose some element of our government played a secret, awful role. If we do not uncover it, then we are vulnerable to repeat nefarious and unimaginable activity in the future - possibly to impact the 2008 presidential election.
Discovering 9/11 truth would enshrine the wisdom of the old adage: the truth hurts. That means suffering the pain of revealing lies and cover-ups. Mourning over the deaths of building victims and heroic first responders would expand with new anger. And another reason to hate and oppose the Iraq war would surface.
If those who believe the official 9/11 story - especially elected officials - trust their views, then let them support a serious investigation to test the validity of the controlled demolition hypothesis. If they fear and reject doing so, then let us see that as suspicious and unacceptable.
As a former engineering professor with growing skepticism about the official WTC story, I joined Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth; you can learn about the controlled demolition findings and other similar truth-seeking efforts at www.ae911truth.org. You choose: seek the truth yourself or take the easy way and just criticize those who question the official story.
To sum up, horrific possible answers can cause us to shun a question. But clearing our minds of fears of painful truths is essential to clearing our nation of destructive lies. Otherwise, we stay stuck in a delusional democracy.
--------------
Joel S. Hirschhorn was a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and a senior staffer at the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association. He is the author of "Delusional Democracy -- Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government" and a founder of Friends of the Article V Convention. He can be reached through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.
Details are finalized for the Hartford 911 Conference in early November. A great opportunity for the curious, the critics and the convinced - all. Kind of "put up or shut up" time for 911 Truth de-bunkers. Hartford is only 2 hours from Nashua and several of us will share rides and rooms for economy. If you want to question the active players, like Stephen Jones et.al., be there or be square!
Info will be at http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org (including local carpooling and room-sharing info) - write merrimackvalley911truth@gmail.com to discuss joining in on the shared operations).
The organizers' site is: http://911Hartford.org
----------------------
From the site:
Join us for a powerful one-day symposium
Saturday November 3, 2007
Saint Joseph College,
West Hartford, Connecticut
Sponsored by: Citizens for a New 9/11 Investigation
Co-Sponsored by: Architect & Engineers for 9/11 Truth - Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice - The FealGood Foundation - Student Scholars for 9/11 Truth - 911truth.org
Join us for an authoritative one-day symposium exploring the questions that still surround the events of September 11th, 2001. Our intention is to bring the undisclosed stories, testimony and evidence concerning 9/11 into mainstream public discourse. It is our belief that an educated public will demand new independent investigations that will ultimately lead to our larger goals of justice and redress for the countless victims of 9/11 and its aftermath.
Time: 10:00 a.m. - 10:00 p.m. with lunch and dinner breaks
Program: The program starts at 10 am with a showing of the first part of the documentary film "9/11 Press for Truth" introduced by Robert McIlvane, 9/11 family member who lost his son on 9/11 followed by presentations and panels through to 10 pm.
William Pepper
International Human Rights Attorney - Commissioner of the New York City 9/11 Ballot Initiative
John Feal
9/11 First Responder - Founder of the FealGood Foundation, a non-profit organization advocating for 9/11 first responders
Steven Jones, Ph.D.
Physicist - Founder of Scholars for 9/11Truth & Justice
Donna Marsh O'Connor
9/11 Family Member - Mother of Vanessa Lang Langer, WTC Tower II, 93rd floor and www.911truth.org Advisory Board member
Richard Gage - AIA Architect
Founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
Robert McIlvaine
9/11 Family Member - Father of Robert G. McIlavine, 106th Floor, North Tower
Sofia
Producer & Director of groundbreaking film "911 Mysteries"
Gordon Haberman
9/11 Family Member – Father of Andrea Lyn Haberman, 92nd Floor, WTC Tower I
always fun to read
try not to get stuck on 911 there is more 911 is good to bring people to the truth
but it is just the tip
i can not stress that enough
try not to get stuck on 911 there is more 911 is good to bring people to the truth
but it is just the tip
i can not stress that enough
i forgot to say go to infowars.com
or "youtube" alex jone for free moves
or question911.com
go to the free down load section
its funny jello wresting is more popular than the open subvertion of our common laws
Quote from: BaneOfTheBeast on October 26, 2007, 04:19 PM NHFT
That event sounds good Jaqeboy, impressive cast of characters, I hope to make it.
Got a Chrysler, as big as a whale? - that seats about 20? That's what we really need to go down to these things in. I'm driving a 2-seater right now. I'll call that guy, Rik, from Derry that has come to Boston and NYC events - he's got a big van! (but no back seats :( )
9/11 Truthers Respond to Bill Maher
[youtube=425,350]BoJJIYWMZlY[/youtube]
Bill Maher faces off with 9/11 Truth Movement LIVE on television.
Top story on 911Truth.org:
http://www.911truth.org/
I haven't been watching his show - anybody see this episode?
Bill Clinton Trades Blows With 9/11 Truthers
For the second time in as many months a public appearance by former president Bill Clinton has been interrupted by 9/11 truth activists.
Story on Infowars.com: http://infowars.net/articles/october2007/251007Clinton_heckled.htm
Also: http://www.kare11.com/news/news_article.aspx?storyid=268082
"The Reflecting Pool" Extended Trailer
"The REFLECTING POOL," the first narrative movie to question the offical version of the 9/11 events, will have its World Premiere at the 22nd Annual Fort Lauderdale International Film Festival.
Saturday, November 3
9:00 PM
Cinema Paradiso Theatre
Fort Lauderdale
Florida
[youtube=425,350]32b-e-xwuB8[/youtube]
Cheesy hollywood drama?
i like the part where he says "pull it"
I just found this article, well worth reading...
WHY IS THE 911 "FRINGE" MOVEMENT SO MAINSTREAM?
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd317.htm
"It just didn't make any sense to me... When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official story." September 5, 2007 - U.S. Navy 'Top Gun' pilot, Commander Ralph Kolstad...
I read Devvy's article when it came out and thought about how some in this movement and on this forum seem to be behind the general public on this one ::) - how'd that happen in a movement based on skeptical inquiry into the govt's motivation and behaviour in other areas.
Did you see this one? FEMA tries to pull the wool over the public's eyes about their performance during the California fires by holding a press conference Tuesday - only it was staged! The questioners were also FEMA employees :o .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502488.html
"I'm very happy with FEMA's response so far," Johnson said... :D
the best site for this info is
infowars.com
or
question911.com
Quote from: jaqeboy on October 27, 2007, 09:40 PM NHFT
I read Devvy's article when it came out and thought about how some in this movement and on this forum seem to be behind the general public on this one ::) - how'd that happen in a movement based on skeptical inquiry into the govt's motivation and behaviour in other areas.
Did you see this one? FEMA tries to pull the wool over the public's eyes about their performance during the California fires by holding a press conference Tuesday - only it was staged! The questioners were also FEMA employees :o .
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/25/AR2007102502488.html
"I'm very happy with FEMA's response so far," Johnson said... :D
That FEMA press conference is the most telling piece of news that has come out in decades. I can't believe more people aren't making a fuss about it. It is rock-solid, concrete proof that the government is willing and able to manipulate the information that it feeds to the general public. It should make
everyone doubt
everything that they've been told by the news, the government, public officials, etc.
Quote from: BaneOfTheBeast on October 30, 2007, 04:24 PM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on October 30, 2007, 04:15 PM NHFT
That FEMA press conference is the most telling piece of news that has come out in decades. I can't believe more people aren't making a fuss about it. It is rock-solid, concrete proof that the government is willing and able to manipulate the information that it feeds to the general public. It should make everyone doubt everything that they've been told by the news, the government, public officials, etc.
Seriously!
Amen!
hey Jaqeboy .... could you give us a recap from the Hartford event for the Keene Free Press?
We could also use short articles from NHer folk who are 9/11 Truthers. We have not run an article for a while. Time to stir the pot. :)
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 30, 2007, 09:48 PM NHFT
hey Jaqeboy .... could you give us a recap from the Hartford event for the Keene Free Press?
We could also use short articles from NHer folk who are 9/11 Truthers. We have not run an article for a while. Time to stir the pot. :)
Yeah, I can give a summary of the event for KFP. More and more stuff keeps coming out, even 6 years on, so it might be good to keep your readership up-to-date.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 30, 2007, 09:48 PM NHFT
hey Jaqeboy .... could you give us a recap from the Hartford event for the Keene Free Press?
We could also use short articles from NHer folk who are 9/11 Truthers. We have not run an article for a while. Time to stir the pot. :)
Press gets in for free :)
http://911hartford.org/#media
"Press/Media Policy:
We encourage all members of the press and media to attend. Free admission with valid press credentials. Video or photographs allowed for only non commercial purposes. Press/Media information and questions please call Damon Bean 860-559-8203"
Not sure if they would accept my laminated KFP badge as "valid press credentials" though. Suppose it's worth checking!
Martin Sheen Questions Official 9/11 Story
Follows in footsteps of son Charlie Sheen, highlights implausible collapse of WTC 7, asks why building was "rigged"
Article and video: http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/october2007/291007_sheen_questions.htm
[youtube=425,350]ocUxplGLnT4[/youtube]
Interviewed at an anti-war rally in L.A.
we heard the lead counsel for the government down in guantanamo explaining how and why they do things there on npr tonight.
He says the war began on 9/11 and that they are just protecting the usa. Everything for him comes down to 9/11 and not forgetting. He thinks people are forgetting.
Quote from: Insurgent on October 31, 2007, 08:41 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 30, 2007, 09:48 PM NHFT
hey Jaqeboy .... could you give us a recap from the Hartford event for the Keene Free Press?
We could also use short articles from NHer folk who are 9/11 Truthers. We have not run an article for a while. Time to stir the pot. :)
Press gets in for free :)
We encourage all members of the press and media to attend. Free admission with valid press credentials. Video or photographs allowed for only non commercial purposes. Press/Media information and questions please call Damon Bean 860-559-8203"
Not sure if they would accept my laminated KFP badge as "valid press credentials" though. Suppose it's worth checking!
It has always worked for me. You can even say you head up the "9/11 desk".
Quote from: Russell Kanning on November 01, 2007, 09:11 PM NHFT
Quote from: Insurgent on October 31, 2007, 08:41 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 30, 2007, 09:48 PM NHFT
hey Jaqeboy .... could you give us a recap from the Hartford event for the Keene Free Press?
We could also use short articles from NHer folk who are 9/11 Truthers. We have not run an article for a while. Time to stir the pot. :)
Press gets in for free :)
We encourage all members of the press and media to attend. Free admission with valid press credentials. Video or photographs allowed for only non commercial purposes. Press/Media information and questions please call Damon Bean 860-559-8203"
Not sure if they would accept my laminated KFP badge as "valid press credentials" though. Suppose it's worth checking!
It has always worked for me. You can even say you head up the "9/11 desk".
"9/11 desk"--nice! I guess that I'll bring my camera, pencil and press pass and see what transpires. It looks to be a phenomenal event!
Quote from: Insurgent on November 01, 2007, 09:26 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on November 01, 2007, 09:11 PM NHFT
Quote from: Insurgent on October 31, 2007, 08:41 PM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on October 30, 2007, 09:48 PM NHFT
hey Jaqeboy .... could you give us a recap from the Hartford event for the Keene Free Press?
We could also use short articles from NHer folk who are 9/11 Truthers. We have not run an article for a while. Time to stir the pot. :)
Press gets in for free :)
We encourage all members of the press and media to attend. Free admission with valid press credentials. Video or photographs allowed for only non commercial purposes. Press/Media information and questions please call Damon Bean 860-559-8203"
Not sure if they would accept my laminated KFP badge as "valid press credentials" though. Suppose it's worth checking!
It has always worked for me. You can even say you head up the "9/11 desk".
"9/11 desk"--nice! I guess that I'll bring my camera, pencil and press pass and see what transpires. It looks to be a phenomenal event!
You need one of those old school hats, like Matt Drudge wears. Then you tuck this tag under the ribbon that says "PRESS."
Quote from: Insurgent on November 01, 2007, 09:26 PM NHFT
"9/11 desk"--nice! I guess that I'll bring my camera, pencil and press pass and see what transpires. It looks to be a phenomenal event!
If you can get us a nice picture of the crowd or something like that along with the short account, it will help a lot.
MaineShark, I remember you were concerned about what Architects and Engineers have to say about WTC tower collapse phenomenon. Richard Gage, the founder of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth, will be at the Hartford Conference this weekend. Can you make it? If it's a financial hardship, I'll pay your way in and put you up for the night.
Details at http://911Hartford.org. Call me if you want to meet down there for lodgings and hangin out, ok?
does that mean it is too complicated for us bumpkins? ;)
http://www.newhampshireunderground.com/wiki/tiki-index.php?page=Bumpkins+4+9-11+Truth
Quote from: lawofattraction on November 03, 2007, 07:24 PM NHFT
This Devvy Kidd article should be of interest to the 911 truthers among us:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd319.htm
Great article, law--thanks for the find!
"My recent column on 911 brought in a handful of emails calling me all kinds of colorful names and worn out labels. It never ceases to amaze me when people send email accusing me of saying all sorts of things in one of my columns that aren't there..."
Quote from: lawofattraction on November 03, 2007, 07:24 PM NHFT
This Devvy Kidd article should be of interest to the 911 truthers among us:
http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd319.htm
The Dynamite Redhead says:
"I say those who call family members, first responders, FDNY personnel, former commercial airline pilots and just average Americans who ask reasonable questions, nut cases and worse, and who haven't done a single minute of research,
you are gutless cowards. Because to find out the truth would require you to step up to the plate and do the morally right thing: join millions of us in demanding a new, unbiased investigation and a grand jury and that would disturb the old comfort zone."
Some good aerial shots (58) from the first footnote link in the Devvy Kidd article:
http://devvy.net/pdf/oct07/911.pdf
Still looking for good shots of the damage on the south side of WTC7 (facing the towers), but these still seem hard to come by. The theory that the damage on the south face makes it obvious it fell due to damage would depend on some shots showing extensive damage there for me to believe it. I have heard both that there are shots that show extensive damage and shots showing no damage, but haven't seen either.
These frames do show WTC7, which jumps out of the picture often due to it's trapezoidal footprint: 17, 18, 20, 22, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33, 37, 38, 40, 45, 46, 47, 50, then after the collapse: 51, 52, 55, 56.
The NIST final report on WTC7 is due out before the end of the year and they supposedly have thousands of pics and many videos, all of which they purchased from private parties.
The latest they have apparently said is what's in the June 29, 2007 status report press release (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_062907.html).
At the Hartford Conference, Richard Gage says he and his organization ae911truth.org had asked NIST what the latest was, and that's when they responded "end of the year."
Quote from: lawofattraction on November 07, 2007, 02:16 PM NHFT
Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy
By THOMAS HARGROVE
Scripps Howard News Service
More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.
The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be.
Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appears to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
More here:
http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll
Good find, LoA. States exactly why it (911 Truth) is
the premiere issue for libertarians and their greatest recruiting opportunity. MV911T should have some news on local educational efforts soon.
Quote from: jaqeboy on November 07, 2007, 02:52 PM NHFT
Quote from: lawofattraction on November 07, 2007, 02:16 PM NHFT
Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy
By THOMAS HARGROVE
Scripps Howard News Service
More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.
The national survey of 1,010 adults also found that anger against the federal government is at record levels, with 54 percent saying they "personally are more angry" at the government than they used to be.
Widespread resentment and alienation toward the national government appears to be fueling a growing acceptance of conspiracy theories about the 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
More here:
http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll
Good find, LoA. States exactly why it (911 Truth) is the premiere issue for libertarians and their greatest recruiting opportunity. MV911T should have some news on local educational efforts soon.
OK, Merrimack Valley 911 Truth announces a video showing of Architect Richard Gage's video: 9/11: Blueprint for Truth. Actually, that's tonight at the Great Buffet in Manchester at 6:30PM.
details are at the MV911T website (http://merrimackvalley911truth.orgl).
It has come up on this thread that some who question the standard Bush line on what really happened on 9/11 are not credible for one reason or another. Richard Gage and Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://ae911truth.org) give a professional view and analysis. See it tonight and you may want to join the group at ae911truth.org (http://ae911truth.org).
Also, this evening could serve as a preview, since Richard Gage is coming to Keene on 13 December and you could ask follow-up questions of him then.
Here I go again posting on this subject, it usually doesn't turn out well but here goes. :)
If this has already been posted, sorry.
Let's say that there were no bombs in the World Trade Center, no implosion, whatever, okay? There is still the undeniable fact that the U.S. fighter jets were told to stand down, right? Why?
Okay, that's all I have to write for now.
The ostensible reason is that you have up to 22 different military and preparedness exercises in progress on 9/11 or just before, and resources were already committed elsewhere or they were confused by the exercises (couldn't tell if "it's real or exercise").
These exercises are listed in several places, including these 2 books: Webster Tarpley, 9/11 Synthetic Terror; Made in USA (http://books.google.com/books?id=KwvKAAAACAAJ&dq=Webster+Tarpley) and in Michael Ruppert, Crossing The Rubicon: The Decline Of The American Empire At The End Of The Age of Oil (http://books.google.com/books?id=ezyLJrAu1SIC&dq=Michael+C+Ruppert&prev=http://www.google.com/search%3Fhl%3Den%26q%3DMichael%2BRuppert&sa=X&oi=print&ct=result&cd=1&cad=author-navigational).
The exercises even included "inserts" or false blips on the Air Traffic Control radar (no actual planes). In the confusion of the real hijackings and the military exercises, it can easily be speculated that some could be convinced to standown, since "it's only an exercise."
Another book: Zarembka, The Hidden History of 9-11-2001, p. 135 (http://books.google.com/books?id=o9jo_In37aEC&pg=PA135&dq=Military+exercises+on+9/11&sig=z4mFRfh2EEXr2qXlQD9kaC5VcS4#PPA135,M1) lays out the scenario (quoting both Tarpley and Ruppert) of Dick Cheney's involvement.
Cheney was apparently in charge of exercises (at a high level) and the puzzling evidence we have before us is Norman Mineta's testimony before the 9/11 Commission that he heard Cheney bark out that "the orders still stand", to a serviceman who advised him a plane was inbound towards Washington. The commission didn't attempt to ascertain who the serviceman was or what those orders were. One guess is that Cheney was referring to an order to not shoot down that plane, so that indicts Cheney in the Pentagon attacks.
In other words, though, it appears to all be speculation as of yet, hence the need to re-open the investigation. And, if it were incompetence, rather than sabotage, it shows how poorly the people are protected.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 06, 2005, 04:45 PM NHFT
I'll start adding evidence, as I see it.
Where's the plane? I checked on an air disaster site: http://www.airdisaster.com/ and plane crashed leave visible debris...lots of it. Where's the plane from flight 93?
Article from the time it happened:
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2p2.asp
So from this article I gather:
1) Flight 93 was definitely hijacked.
2) People actually saw it coming down.
3) It left a big crater in the ground.
Sounds just like the official story to me!
Quote from: jaqeboy on October 27, 2007, 09:40 PM NHFT
I read Devvy's article when it came out and thought about how some in this movement and on this forum seem to be behind the general public on this one ::) - how'd that happen in a movement based on skeptical inquiry into the govt's motivation and behaviour in other areas?
Because there's also some skeptical inquiry into nutty conspiracy theories?
Quote from: mvpel on September 12, 2007, 01:30 PM NHFT
http://www.physorg.com/news108737007.html
QuoteA new mathematical analysis of the collapse of the World Trade Centre has been published by a Cambridge University academic, with results that challenge conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11th attacks.
The new paper, by Dr Keith Seffen, uses established engineering models to demonstrate that once the collapse of the twin towers began, it was destined to be rapid and total.
Although the causes that initiated the collapse of the twin towers are now well understood, engineers continue to speculate about the speed and totality with which the buildings were demolished during the fateful attacks.
Some have even dared to suggest that the catastrophic events that followed two planes being flown into the buildings were the result of a conspiracy that extended to the top of government itself.
Dr Seffen, a Senior Lecturer in the Structures Group in the Department of Engineering, was moved to find a scientific explanation for the collapse when he heard about reports of possible insider involvement. Claims of "controlled demolition" were being suggested, in order to explain the speed, uniformity and similarity between the collapses of both towers.
"I thought immediately that there had to be a rational explanation for why collapse happened as it did, one which draws on engineering principles," he said. "After searching the current literature, it became clear that many studies focused on the phase just before collapse settles in.
"They rightly show that the combination of fire and impact damage severely impaired those parts of the building close to where the aircraft hit to hold the weight of the building above. The top parts were bound to fall down, but it was not clear why the undamaged building should have offered little resistance to these falling parts."
Dr Seffen's new analysis, which will be published in a forthcoming issue of the American Society of Civil Engineers' Journal of Engineering Mechanics, focuses on calculating the residual capacity of the building to resist the weight of the floors above under collapse conditions.
He then develops a dynamic model of the collapse sequence, which simulates the successive squashing, or "pan-caking" of individual storeys based on the residual capacity already identified. The process is already well known from other studies of progressive collapse, but usually applies to other structures such as undersea pipelines, rather than buildings.
This allowed Dr Seffen to predict that the residual capacity of both buildings was limited, and once collapse had started, it would take only 10 seconds for the building to go down - just a little longer than the free-falling of a coin dropped from the top of either tower.
"The aim was to produce a credible scientific explanation for the totality of collapse once it began," he said.
"In all senses, the collapse sequence was quite ordinary and natural. The World Trade Centre towers were designed to absorb an aircraft impact, but an accidental one with much less fuel and speed. It is widely acknowledged that the impacts on September 11th were extraordinary, which led to consequences well in excess of the design capacity for the buildings. The original design of both towers must be praised for standing as long as they did, saving more lives than might have been expected."
Yeah, you know, two huge aircraft filled with explosive jet fuel plow into buildings at high speed -- and the buildings fall! Unbelievable! There MUST be some other explanation. High speed impact from large, explosive objects have never been known to knock down buildings before.
Quote from: jaqeboy on September 20, 2007, 08:49 AM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on September 19, 2007, 09:46 PM NHFT
I just finally got around to watching the History Channel's debunking of 9/11 conspiracy theorists, "9/11 Conspiracies - Fact or Fiction."
...
... IMO, the producers picked some of the most outlandish "conspiracy theorist" claims and disproved them to discredit the movement. Also, the film seemed to be lacking facts and just going on the assumption that "the experts" know best.
This seems to be a favored tactic. Penn & Teller use this in their de-bunking vid. Does that mean that they believe everything the Bush/Cheney cabal will dish out and attack then any questioning of this one official story? It almost seems so. There seems to be a psychological barrier to some believing someone would kill their own countrymen to further the imperial agenda - a barrier so high that some ban themselves from surmounting it to peek over to view the truth. Note that some on these forums won't even view some of the videos, interviews, etc. offered and instead engage themselves in the faux battle of credentialling the presenter to death rather than considering the material presented. There must be a name for this logical fallacy, eh? Would that be the ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attack?
1) This new group ("Architects and Engineers") is
all about credentials, so if their credentials suck, that's a valid criticism.
2) An ad hominem attack would be to say, "He sleeps with minors, therefore let's ignore him," not, "He has no knowledge of or experience on buildings like WTC although he's faking that he does; therefore, let's ignore him."
Quote from: Nick Danger on November 30, 2007, 04:53 AM NHFT
Yeah, you know, two huge aircraft filled with explosive jet fuel plow into buildings at high speed -- and the buildings fall! Unbelievable! There MUST be some other explanation. High speed impact from large, explosive objects have never been known to knock down buildings before.
Show me one
(just one) other example of another steel structure collapsing due to fire damage (WTC 7). If you can, I won't put you on ignore. ;)
I saw what happened, I watched it. I have herd the fire fighters. I have herd Silverstien say he gave the order to (Pfft) pull the building (building 7). I herd the announcers announce bombs in the building going off in the basement sections of the buildings. I saw what I saw. I know what happened. The Feds on this forum have a vested interest in the statous quo'.
"Beware of the weeping widows" if it ever comes out proof positive that the Feds took down the buildings. I pray to God it never comes out. They'd have no choice but to kill American citizens even more to protect their petty kingdoms, and they'd do it in the name of National Security.
All we can do is give our anger and rage to Jesus. Let God deal with these people. He will in his own time. They are going to kill more of us for their NWO, but the war has already been won. God will prevail. :icon_cheers:
Quote from: Nick Danger on November 30, 2007, 04:35 AM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on September 06, 2005, 04:45 PM NHFT
I'll start adding evidence, as I see it.
Where's the plane? I checked on an air disaster site: http://www.airdisaster.com/ and plane crashed leave visible debris...lots of it. Where's the plane from flight 93?
Article from the time it happened:
http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/20010912crashnat2p2.asp
So from this article I gather:
1) Flight 93 was definitely hijacked.
2) People actually saw it coming down.
3) It left a big crater in the ground.
Sounds just like the official story to me!
I have heard that there are new (satellite) photos of the gash before and after the "crash", which btw, wasn't a "big" crater. I'll post when I get them.
Quote from: lawofattraction on November 07, 2007, 02:16 PM NHFT
Third of Americans suspect 9-11 government conspiracy
By THOMAS HARGROVE
Scripps Howard News Service
More than a third of the American public suspects that federal officials assisted in the 9/11 terrorist attacks or took no action to stop them so the United States could go to war in the Middle East, according to a new Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll.
And about half of Americans think the earth is only 6000 years old!
Quote from: alohamonkey on November 30, 2007, 08:09 AM NHFT
Quote from: Nick Danger on November 30, 2007, 04:53 AM NHFT
Yeah, you know, two huge aircraft filled with explosive jet fuel plow into buildings at high speed -- and the buildings fall! Unbelievable! There MUST be some other explanation. High speed impact from large, explosive objects have never been known to knock down buildings before.
Show me one (just one) other example of another steel structure collapsing due to fire damage (WTC 7). If you can, I won't put you on ignore. ;)
Hey, isn't that what Creationists do with fossil evidence -- put it on ignore?
In any case, the official NIST report did not assign the primary cause to fire damage, but to structural damage caused by the collapse of the twin towers, which took out a good bit of the south face of the building.
Quote from: grasshopper on November 30, 2007, 09:55 AM NHFT
I saw what happened, I watched it.
And I can assure you the Earth does not move -- just look at it! Standing still as plain as day.
Quote from: alohamonkey on November 30, 2007, 08:09 AM NHFT
Quote from: Nick Danger on November 30, 2007, 04:53 AM NHFT
Yeah, you know, two huge aircraft filled with explosive jet fuel plow into buildings at high speed -- and the buildings fall! Unbelievable! There MUST be some other explanation. High speed impact from large, explosive objects have never been known to knock down buildings before.
Show me one (just one) other example of another steel structure collapsing due to fire damage (WTC 7). If you can, I won't put you on ignore. ;)
"I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
So this kind of thing happens "a lot"!
Quote from: alohamonkey on November 30, 2007, 08:09 AM NHFT
Quote from: Nick Danger on November 30, 2007, 04:53 AM NHFT
Yeah, you know, two huge aircraft filled with explosive jet fuel plow into buildings at high speed -- and the buildings fall! Unbelievable! There MUST be some other explanation. High speed impact from large, explosive objects have never been known to knock down buildings before.
Show me one (just one) other example of another steel structure collapsing due to fire damage (WTC 7). If you can, I won't put you on ignore. ;)
Here are several other examples:
http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=148816 (http://www.libertypost.org/cgi-bin/readart.cgi?ArtNum=148816)
It turns out that these sort of collapses are
common, something apparent in about 10 minutes of research.
Quote from: Nick Danger on December 01, 2007, 10:21 AM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on November 30, 2007, 08:09 AM NHFT
Quote from: Nick Danger on November 30, 2007, 04:53 AM NHFT
Yeah, you know, two huge aircraft filled with explosive jet fuel plow into buildings at high speed -- and the buildings fall! Unbelievable! There MUST be some other explanation. High speed impact from large, explosive objects have never been known to knock down buildings before.
Show me one (just one) other example of another steel structure collapsing due to fire damage (WTC 7). If you can, I won't put you on ignore. ;)
...
In any case, the official NIST report did not assign the primary cause to fire damage, but to structural damage caused by the collapse of the twin towers, which took out a good bit of the south face of the building.
It's my understanding that NIST has
not published a final report for WTC7 yet - they are way overdue and report that they anticipate issuing a draft report by the end of 2007. If they actually have already issued it, could you please post a link to it? Thanks.
I know they purchased all the photographic and video evidence they could get their hands on, but I have never seen good photo evidence that shows damage to the south face (Vesey Street) of the building, which I would really like to see. I have heard, on the contrary, that there are photos showing no damage to the south face after the towers' collapses, but haven't seen those pics either. Could you post your photos of the damaged south face for all to see or link to them please. Much obliged.
I know we went through many posts on just this subject several pages back on this thread, so it would be good if you have updated info/photos to add to that.
Btw, Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (http://ae911truth.org) continues to report that his evidence (as of 3 weeks ago when I spoke with him) still indicates controlled demolition. If you are in-state, he is coming to Keene on December 13th, Western Mass. on the 14th and Boston on the 15th of December. Details of his Keene visit are posted on the Merrimack Valley 911 Truth site (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org) and his Boston visit on the Boston 911 Truth site (http://boston911truth.org). You may want to discuss the info you have with him to inform him better or he may have something you haven't seen yet to inform you better. In any event, good luck getting to the truth.
Quote from: Nick Danger on December 01, 2007, 01:07 PM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on November 30, 2007, 08:09 AM NHFT
Quote from: Nick Danger on November 30, 2007, 04:53 AM NHFT
Yeah, you know, two huge aircraft filled with explosive jet fuel plow into buildings at high speed -- and the buildings fall! Unbelievable! There MUST be some other explanation. High speed impact from large, explosive objects have never been known to knock down buildings before.
Show me one (just one) other example of another steel structure collapsing due to fire damage (WTC 7). If you can, I won't put you on ignore. ;)
"I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."
So this kind of thing happens "a lot"!
Then what is this? Mr. Vincent Dunn hasn't encountered molten steel before because he hasn't been around thermite.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=ExrVgioIXvk
Please post the NIST report on WTC 7 when you have a chance. I've been patiently waiting since . . . . well, since 9/11/01 . . . . I can't wait to catch up on some reading ::)
Letter from John Wyndham re calling 9/11 Truthers "terrorists"
36 Union Street
Peterborough
NH 03458
November 30, 2007
AN OPEN LETTER TO:
The Honorable Jane Harman, Chairwoman
Subcommittee on Intelligence, Information Sharing and Terrorism Risk
Assessment
176 Ford House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Representative Harman:
Your bill H.R. 1955 and the attempt by Mark Weinstein on Nov. 6 to use your
ear to limit freedom of speech in the ongoing public investigation by the
American people of the crime committed on Sept. 11, 2001, are causes for
great concern. While I am not a member of Architects and Engineers for 9/11
Truth, I find Mr. Weinstein's attempt to categorize this organization as
"terrorists" highly reprehensible. I request that your committee and the
Congress closely examine Mr. Weinstein's reasoning and motives for this
assertion.
The mass murder that took place on 9/11 is no less horrendous than the
Holocaust itself, simply smaller in scope as far as the number of innocent
lives lost. Mr. Weinstein has apparently forgotten the unrelenting
persistence of Simon Wiesenthal in pursuing "The Murderers Among Us", as
well as the sacrifices made by those who risked their lives to save a life.
My family is among those who sheltered a little Jewish child from the Nazis
in The Netherlands during World War II. When the Gestapo came to take the
child, my aunt clung to the baby fiercely, and declared the child was her
own. Adult relatives of that child perished. That small child is now a
grandmother and an integral member of my extended family. Before their
passing, my uncle and aunt, Pieter and Hendrieka Hooijkaas of Hilversum, The
Netherlands, traveled to Israel as guests of the Israeli government to
receive a medal and the honor accorded those who had saved a life during the
Holocaust.
It is increasingly apparent to many citizens that the 9/11 Commission Report
failed miserably in answering a host of questions that require an answer.
Even Kean and Hamilton, who chaired the Commission, themselves state in
their book "Without Precedent" (p. 261) that: "Fog of war would explain why
some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why
all of the after-action reports, accident investigations, and public
testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was
untrue." Is it any wonder, then, that the American people are not satisfied
with their Report?
By failing to answer questions that are obvious and imperative to those who
look at the evidence, the government itself is largely responsible for the
proliferation of so-called "conspiracy theories." It is a source of
continuing wonder that the government, having failed in countless ways to
prevent the attacks of 9/11, could "solve" the whole plot within 48 hours,
resist a scientific investigation, and still neglect years later to sanction
anyone for incompetence. This behavior is enough to put a strain on the
credulity of most citizens.
My own independent study of the events of 9/11 and the destruction of the
three buildings, WTC 1, 2, and 7, raises concerns far beyond the
deficiencies of the 9/11 Commission Report. As a PhD physicist, I find that
the physical evidence surrounding the events does not support the official
theory. To this day, neither NIST nor FEMA can explain the collapses
themselves or the many obvious features that suggest some form of explosive
demolition. These features cannot be attributed to gravitational collapse
following damage by impacting planes, flying debris, and fire.
Those who deprecate the research efforts of Architects and Engineers for
9/11 Truth, and other scientists, do not understand the methods of science
or the scientific mind. Scrupulous honesty and intellectual integrity are
the norm for scientists. Their search for truth is apolitical, but their
findings can have immense political and social ramifications.
Galileo presented truths that challenged the authorities of his day. If your
committee and Bill are used to silence valid scientific research, a thousand
"Galileos" will arise, both to your shame and the shame of our nation. If
the official theory of the buildings' collapse is correct, let it be proven
beyond all scientific doubt. The safety and engineering of high-rise
steel-framed buildings depends on the physical truth - a question for
science, not politics. And if the truth lies elsewhere than in the official
theory, it cannot and should not be suppressed. To do so would spurn 400
years of scientific progress as well as confirm Joel S. Hirschhorn's
suggestion that we have only "a delusional democracy."
As the International Task Force Director and UN Representative of the Simon
Wiesenthal Center, Mark Weitzman has an obligation to carry on the work of
Simon Wiesenthal in its spirit and letter. The biography of Simon
Wiesenthal, as found on the Center's website, is illuminating and pertinent.
Mr. Wiesenthal had an "architect's structural acumen, . and a brilliant
talent for investigative thinking." In like manner, the members of
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and others are pursuing the
complexities of 9/11 despite a recalcitrant government, a disinterested
Congress, and a mass media that mocks their efforts. And eventually, for the
victims of 9/11 and their families, they will be able to say, like Simon
Wiesenthal, "I did not forget you."
Sincerely yours,
John D. Wyndham
cc: Rep. Norman D. Dicks, Rep. James R. Langevin, Rep. Christopher P.
Carney, Rep. David G. Reichert, Rep. Ed Perlmutter, Rep. Bennie G. Thompson,
Rep. Christopher Shays, Rep. Charles W. Dent, Rep. Peter T. King, Sen. Judd
Gregg, Sen. John Sununu, Rep. Paul Hodes, Rep. Carol Shea-Porter, Richard
Gage, Mark Weinstein, Rabbi Marvin Hier
Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job
Man who set up Operation Gladio tells Italy's largest newspaper attacks were run by CIA, Mossad
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/december2007/120407_common_knowledge.htm
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Tuesday, December 4, 2007
Former Italian President and the man who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio Francesco Cossiga has gone public on 9/11, telling Italy's most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad and that this was common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies.
Cossiga was elected President of the Italian Senate in July 1983 before winning a landslide 1985 election to become President of the country in 1985.
Cossiga gained respect from opposition parties as one of a rare breed - an honest politician - and led the country for seven years until April 1992.
Cossiga's tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio - a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 60's, 70's and 80's.
Gladio's specialty was to carry out what they coined "false flag operations," terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition.
Cossiga's revelations contributed to an Italian parliamentary investigation of Gladio in 2000, during which evidence was unearthed that the attacks were being overseen by the U.S. intelligence apparatus.
In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, "You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force ... the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."
Cossiga's new revelations appeared last week in Italy's oldest and most widely read newspaper, Corriere della Sera. Below appears a rough translation.
"[Bin Laden supposedly confessed] to the Qaeda September [attack] to the two towers in New York [claiming to be] the author of the attack of the 11, while all the [intelligence services] of America and Europe ... now know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the CIA American and the Mossad with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic Countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part ... in Iraq [and] Afghanistan."
Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9/11 in 2001, and is quoted in Webster Tarpley's book as stating that "The mastermind of the attack must have been a "sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel."
Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga's assertion that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies is highly unlikely to be mentioned by any establishment media outlets, because like the hundreds of other sober ex-government, military, air force professionals, allied to hundreds more professors and intellectuals - he can't be sidelined as a crackpot conspiracy theorist.
WOW!! :o
man, the shit has GOT to hit the fan....soon.
kola
You had to figure that there would be some whistle-blower with a conscience that would speak up sooner or later.
Whoa! Kat, thanks for posting that article. I hadn't seen that yet.
The thing is . . . there have been plenty of people stepping up. Nobody wants to listen though. Hopefully this individual is the one that convinces people to consider the possibility that 9/11 was a false flag op - considering he was a high ranked politician and quite involved in government affairs. More power to him for going public.
Quote from: jaqeboy on December 04, 2007, 02:44 PM NHFTYou had to figure that there would be some whistle-blower with a conscience that would speak up sooner or later.
Someone who admittedly took part in terroristic bombings against civilians in order to further the cause of Statism has a
conscience?
I doubt it. How soon before he signs a book deal?
Joe
For folks who have questions of building professionals about the WTC building "collapses" on September 11th, Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth will be speaking at Keene State College on December 13th.
Announcement in MyKSC: https://prod.campuscruiser.com/PageServlet?pg=home_annboard&tg=AnnBoard-detail&annId=277539&cx=22.160
Another oddity:
FBI Again Refuses To Confirm Identity Of 9/11 Planes (http://rinf.com/alt-news/911-truth/fbi-refuses-to-confirm-identity-of-911-planes/1875/)
Quote from: MaineShark on May 27, 2007, 08:37 AM NHFT
...That's why you don't see hordes of structural engineers calling for a new investigation. If there were all these inconsistencies that were legitimate, don't you think some good percentage of the millions of engineers would be saying, "hey, what gives?" All I've heard from the conspiracy side on that issue is that there is an even larger conspiracy than the one they claim demolished the buildings, which is silencing all the engineers.
I guess your prayers have been answered! Op-Ed piece by Richard Gage, Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth:
=================
230 Architects & Engineers demand WTC Re-investigationOfficial Explanations of WTC Destruction Fail Under Scrutiny; Do Not Address WTC 7
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
On September 11, 2001 the world was shocked and horrified as our nation was attacked by terrorists. Nearly 3,000 people were killed in the plane crashes and the collapses of the World Trade Center towers. The attacks have been used to justify huge increases in defense spending, the invasions of two other countries, and sweeping reductions in our cherished civil liberties.
While the World Trade Center twin towers were hit by airplanes, the 47 story high-rise WTC 7 was not. Yet it was completely destroyed later that day when it fell at free-fall pace in 6.5 seconds into a tidy rubble pile.
Molten metal persisted in the rubble for more than a month and was seen and attested to by numerous witnesses. However the official reports acknowledge that the jet fuel and office fires could not have melted structural steel. So where did the molten metal come from? Physicist Steven Jones, Ph.D. and other scientists have found chemical evidence of the incendiary Thermate in samples of the previously molten metal.
The official explanation of the total destruction of the World Trade Center skyscrapers has explicitly failed to address the massive evidence for explosive demolition. The destruction exhibited characteristics found only in controlled demolitions:
* Rapid onset of destruction
* Sounds of explosions & flashes of light heard by 118 first responders at the onset of destruction
* Squibs, or " mis-timed " explosions, 60 floors below the main zone of destruction - seen in all the videos
* Complete mid-air pulverization of the 90,000 tons of concrete
* Symmetrical collapse through the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall speed
* Blast waves blowing out all windows within 400 feet
* Lateral ejection of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet at 55 mph
* Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements
* Tons of molten metal found by the FDNY " flowing like lava " under all three high-rises – persisting for months
* The chemical signature of Thermate, a high-tech incendiary that melts steel like a hot knife through butter, found in the slag at the beam ends, the solidified molten metal, and in dust samples
It is because of these considerations that over 220 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth.org) are calling for the evaluation of the evidence and are educating building professionals and the public.
We are deeply concerned for the future as well. We note the steady drumbeat of threats against Iran being made by US political leaders. Former national security adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski has warned the Senate that a future terrorist attack could be engineered and falsely blamed on Iran to trigger war against that country. Such an attack might well be worse than the 9/11 attack.
Also, settling for half-answers and evasions certainly does not honor the victims, their families, nor the hundreds of thousands more who have died under the rationale of the official story. Please join us in demanding answers that make sense and that will lead to justice for each of them and a safer world for all. We need to know what really happened on 9/11, and we need to know it now.
Richard Gage is a member of the American Institute of Architects, has been a practicing architect for 20 years, and is employed by a San Francisco Bay Area architecture firm. He is currently working on the construction documents for a large mixed-use urban project with 1.2 million square feet of retail and 320,000 square feet of high-rise office space that will use about 1,200 tons of steel framing. He will be speaking at KSC's Alumni Recital Hall on Thursday, December 13th at 7pm.
Quote from: jaqeboy on December 05, 2007, 10:02 AM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on May 27, 2007, 08:37 AM NHFT...That's why you don't see hordes of structural engineers calling for a new investigation. If there were all these inconsistencies that were legitimate, don't you think some good percentage of the millions of engineers would be saying, "hey, what gives?" All I've heard from the conspiracy side on that issue is that there is an even larger conspiracy than the one they claim demolished the buildings, which is silencing all the engineers.
I guess your prayers have been answered! Op-Ed piece by Richard Gage, Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth:
Most of the listed folks are not structural engineers. "Software engineers" are included. Glorified interior designers are included. The actual number of folks on there who even claim to be structural engineers is small, and hardly constitutes "hordes."
Plus, the obvious propaganda is just sad. These folks would do good working for the Feds. Just for one example, since it's quick...
Quote from: jaqeboy on December 05, 2007, 10:02 AM NHFT* The chemical signature of Thermate, a high-tech incendiary that melts steel like a hot knife through butter, found in the slag at the beam ends, the solidified molten metal, and in dust samples
Thermate is a very basic compound, not anything high tech. It is easy to make, and it's basic components are common chemicals. You would find its "chemical signature" in many places. Thermate can be as simple as iron oxide (that's rust, folks), aluminum, and sulfur. Very rare chemicals, huh? After burning, it's going to contain aluminum oxides, some traces of iron oxide, and sulfur oxides. Nothing that you wouldn't find ordinarily, after the destruction of a building like that, with plenty of iron, aluminum, sulfur around (jet fuel, among others things, contains sulfur).
If they were being honest, looking for
truth, why would they include nonsense like that, which would do government propagandists proud?
Quote from: jaqeboy on December 05, 2007, 10:02 AM NHFTAlso, settling for half-answers and evasions certainly does not honor the victims, their families, nor the hundreds of thousands more who have died under the rationale of the official story.
Guess "half-answers and evasions" are okay when they support your preconceived notions, huh? Just like applauding the "conscience" of mass-murderers, when they speak out in support of your theories...
Joe
The tens of thousands of tons of drywall in the WTC towers also contained sulfur - CaSO4.½ H2O - semi-hydrous calcium sulphate. This decomposes when heated to release sulfur dioxide, and as we all should know, sulfur reacts strongly with metals, including iron (http://genchem.chem.wisc.edu/demonstrations/Gen_Chem_Pages/02atomsmolpage/atoms&molecules.htm).
Should probably start a separate thread for this, but 2 big 9/11 Truth events are coming up next week that are accessible to New-Hampshire folk:
Thursday, 13 December 2007, Richard Gage speaks at Keene State College (https://prod.campuscruiser.com/PageServlet?pg=home_annboard&tg=AnnBoard-detail&annId=277539&cx=22.160)
Boston Tea Party for 9/11 Truth and Conference (http://boston911truth.org)
Saturday, 15 December 2007 - day long conference (9AM - 6PM) featuring Architects, Engineeers, Scientists and Educators: Dr. Joel Hirschhorn, Dr. Steven Jones, Richard Gage, AIA and Kevin Ryan (former UL steel inspector) - I believe others have been added to the program. Conference flyer here (http://boston911truth.org/dnld/911conference-flyer.pdfl)
(mvpel, you will be able to pose your questions about the composition and analysis of building debris that led Dr. Stephen Jones to conclude the material was demolition by-product. He is very accessible at these events. You'll be able to compare your theory and analysis with his and you two scientists can settle who's got the better data and analysis and report it back to this list. That would help all of us who have questions about what happened then.)
Tickets: $35.00, $15.00 for students and seniors - available at most pro-freedom events up to the night before the conference.
evening session Saturday, 7 - 9 PM: 9/11 Sent Them to War: Testimonies and Solutions to end the War and Restore the Constitution (http://911sentthemtowar.eventbrite.com/)
Sunday, 16 December 2007 - rally and march across Boston to the Boston Tea Party site to hoist replicas of the 911 Commission Report and heave them into the harbor (actually just a channel now). Speakers at the Tea Party site.
After-party Sunday: A Brew and a Brainstorm (http://www.eventbrite.com/event/84345279), 4-9 PM upstairs at Hennessy's on Union Street, $10 donation requested, food and beverages, cash bar, open mic for the musically artistic.
Details of both events and carpooling opportunities are on the Merrimack Valley 911 Truth (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org) site. Tickets should be available at various pro-freedom events at Murphy's and elsewhere.
I guess one thing missing in the discussions on this thread for the scientific-minded is the peer-reviewed papers, such as Steven Jones' breakthrough "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf)." This paper should be digested for basic background on why scientists favor the demolition scenario.
There are a number of other papers available also at the Journal of 9/11 Studies (http://www.journalof911studies.com/). Instead of lamenting how sad it is that someone might believe such a thing, the curious and the sniping critics can find plenty of material there to learn from or snipe at!
Quote from: jaqeboy on December 07, 2007, 12:17 PM NHFTI guess one thing missing in the discussions on this thread for the scientific-minded is the peer-reviewed papers, such as Steven Jones' breakthrough "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf)." This paper should be digested for basic background on why scientists favor the demolition scenario.
"Scientists favor..." As if scientists are a monolithic block who are unanimous. Sounds like Global Warming nonsense about a mystical "consensus" which in no way exists.
A few loons who call themselves scientists, but who regularly admit that they decided what had happened before looking at the evidence (something a
scientist doesn't do), are hardly representative of "scientists" as a whole. I can't think of any legitimate scientists who "favor the demolition scenario."
Joe
For your copying and re-distribution, there are Boston Tea Party for 9/11 Truth flyers, banners, etc. at this page (http://www.boston911truth.org/banners.php).
OK, started a separate thread for the Boston 9/11 Tea Party and Conference: http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=12407.0
Quote from: MaineShark on December 07, 2007, 12:30 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on December 07, 2007, 12:17 PM NHFTI guess one thing missing in the discussions on this thread for the scientific-minded is the peer-reviewed papers, such as Steven Jones' breakthrough "Why Indeed Did the World Trade Center Buildings Completely Collapse (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf)." This paper should be digested for basic background on why scientists favor the demolition scenario.
"Scientists favor..." As if scientists are a monolithic block who are unanimous. Sounds like Global Warming nonsense about a mystical "consensus" which in no way exists.
A few loons who call themselves scientists, but who regularly admit that they decided what had happened before looking at the evidence (something a scientist doesn't do), are hardly representative of "scientists" as a whole. I can't think of any legitimate scientists who "favor the demolition scenario."
Joe
And I'd also like to note that being published in the "Journal of 9/11 Studies" doesn't count as "peer-reviewed". Faux-scientific-journals are a favorite trick of fraudulent pseudo-scientists.
There have been no peer-reviewed studies published in
respectable scientific journals supporting any theory about what happened at the World Trade Center other than those that state the obvious- that the two towers collapsed from the massive structural damage from the aircraft collisions, compounded by the subsequent fires. WTC7 collapsed from the massive structural damage and subsequent fire that resulted from being practically directly underneath the collapse of two of the largest buildings in the world.
Quote from: lawofattraction on December 08, 2007, 09:35 PM NHFT
Quote from: ThePug on December 08, 2007, 02:19 PM NHFTWTC7 collapsed from the massive structural damage and subsequent fire that resulted from being practically directly underneath the collapse of two of the largest buildings in the world.
Building 7 was almost a block away from the twin towers. A dozen other buildings were either closer, or roughly as close, to the twin towers. They did not collapse.
It was aprox. 100 meters from the base of the nearest tower. As has been pointed out, the towers were aprox. 450 meters tall. The entire complex was built on a single basement.
As for the other WTC buildings- none of them were tall towers. They were relatively low, squat buildings so they didn't so much "collapse" as much as they were just buried.
Quote from: ThePug on December 08, 2007, 10:29 PM NHFT
Quote from: lawofattraction on December 08, 2007, 09:35 PM NHFT
Quote from: ThePug on December 08, 2007, 02:19 PM NHFTWTC7 collapsed from the massive structural damage and subsequent fire that resulted from being practically directly underneath the collapse of two of the largest buildings in the world.
Building 7 was almost a block away from the twin towers. A dozen other buildings were either closer, or roughly as close, to the twin towers. They did not collapse.
It was aprox. 100 meters from the base of the nearest tower. As has been pointed out, the towers were aprox. 450 meters tall. The entire complex was built on a single basement.
As for the other WTC buildings- none of them were tall towers. They were relatively low, squat buildings so they didn't so much "collapse" as much as they were just buried.
You're right. The others didn't collapse. Sorta weird
(http://www.infowars.net/pictures/mar07/200307WTC6and7aerial.jpg)
(http://img398.imageshack.us/img398/87/wtc7wtc6aerial3rf.jpg)
Alohamonkey, your second photo is incorrect when it says WTC7 sustained "minor fires". It burned for hours, with visible and obvious buckling and sagging to the roof and walls, before collapsing.
Quote from: KBCraig on December 09, 2007, 10:48 PM NHFT
Alohamonkey, your second photo is incorrect when it says WTC7 sustained "minor fires". It burned for hours, with visible and obvious buckling and sagging to the roof and walls, before collapsing.
It's one I pulled off the web. I actually wish I could take the descriptions off the second photo. I didn't add the descriptions and I don't necessarily think the photo needs misleading phrasing (or typos). I think the photo speaks for itself. Just look at WTC 6 versus photos of WTC 7 before it collapsed. 6 was in much worse shape and remained standing. 6 had worse fires and worse structural damage than WTC 7 but didn't collapse. WTC 7 definitely had fires but keep in mind that this was the first time in history that a steel structure collapsed due to fire damage . . . I don't think WTC 7's fires were sufficient to create complete structural failure.
I disagree with you though . . . I haven't seen anything that shows visible and obvious buckling and sagging in WTC 7 except for the 2-3 seconds immediately before collapse. If you have something that shows the contrary, please provide it.
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 10, 2007, 10:30 AM NHFTWTC 7 definitely had fires but keep in mind that this was the first time in history that a steel structure collapsed due to fire damage . . . I don't think WTC 7's fires were sufficient to create complete structural failure.
Examples of steel structures failing due to fire have been posted previously in this very thread.
Combine severe weakening due to fire with a judicious helping of "seismic" damage due to being on the same basement as two huge buildings that collapse, and the results aren't surprising...
Joe
[youtube=425,350]WqVdESOo6D4[/youtube]
;D
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 10, 2007, 10:30 AM NHFT
I haven't seen anything that shows visible and obvious buckling and sagging in WTC 7 except for the 2-3 seconds immediately before collapse. If you have something that shows the contrary, please provide it.
How about the words of the firefighters who were there (there's a photo, too)?
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html#Collapses
Quote from: MaineShark on December 10, 2007, 11:00 AM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 10, 2007, 10:30 AM NHFTWTC 7 definitely had fires but keep in mind that this was the first time in history that a steel structure collapsed due to fire damage . . . I don't think WTC 7's fires were sufficient to create complete structural failure.
Examples of steel structures failing due to fire have been posted previously in this very thread.
Combine severe weakening due to fire with a judicious helping of "seismic" damage due to being on the same basement as two huge buildings that collapse, and the results aren't surprising...
Joe
Then why didn't WTC 5 and 6 fall?
I've read through this whole thread in the past and I can't recall anyone posting examples of other steel structures that have collapsed at free-fall speed due to fire damage. I'll look again but if you have proof of that, please provide.
KB, I think Stephen Barret of Quackwatch has some more "good evidence. LOL
Kola
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 10, 2007, 01:08 PM NHFTThen why didn't WTC 5 and 6 fall?
Why do some buildings in an earthquake fall down, and others stay standing? The simple answer is that they obviously had less structural damage.
The needlessly-complex answer would be that certain buildings were wired with explosives, and others were not, just to take down buildings that were going to be damaged/destroyed by the plane crashes, anyway. Framing the guilty?
The question I always ask is: why? Why would they use demolitions to bring down the Towers, etc, when the damage from the plane crash was sufficient? Any competent engineer can tell you that it was. I posted the failure mode earlier in this thread. And if you had asked me on September 10, 2001, what would happen in those circumstances, I would have told you that the buildings were coming down.
As soon as I turned on the TV and saw the images of the buildings and the damage, I knew they were coming down. This was not rocket science. And there is simply no reason to invent a massive conspiracy to do the job. If agents of the government were responsible (a question which, if you're sane, you realize we will never have a definitive answer to), it would have been worlds easier to just convince some kamikazes to fly planes into the buildings (which they had to do anyway, in that hypothetical). Convincing them to crash the planes, and also having a
massive conspiracy to "mine" the buildings for no reason at all, would just be silly.
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 10, 2007, 01:08 PM NHFTI've read through this whole thread in the past and I can't recall anyone posting examples of other steel structures that have collapsed at free-fall speed due to fire damage. I'll look again but if you have proof of that, please provide.
I expect Kevin will find that easier. He seems to have a slew of things, ready to go. I have to do a heating system design and get some cleaning done, so I'll be busy for the rest of the day, at least.
Joe
keep the good info and events coming .... it is fun to see how many times the subject of 9/11 is talked about in Keene.
That Tea Party should be good.
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 10, 2007, 01:08 PM NHFT
Then why didn't WTC 5 and 6 fall?
Are you really comparing 5- and 7-story buildings with the 47-story WTC7, which was a completely different design?
Buildings 4, 5, and 6 were essentially crushed and buried by the towers collapsing. There wasn't much left to "fall".
Quote from: KBCraig on December 10, 2007, 12:11 PM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 10, 2007, 10:30 AM NHFT
I haven't seen anything that shows visible and obvious buckling and sagging in WTC 7 except for the 2-3 seconds immediately before collapse. If you have something that shows the contrary, please provide it.
How about the words of the firefighters who were there (there's a photo, too)?
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html#Collapses
The only relevant pictures that I saw at this link were the one showing the roof of WTC 7 sag about 1-2 seconds before collapse and the one showing a view of WTC 7 from the southwest with a lot of smoke in the foreground.
#1 - The picture showing the roof sag could prove your point of view or my point of view. Most controlled demolitions exhibit a similar kink or crease as support columns are destroyed.
Exhibit A - http://youtube.com/watch?v=cRaNwPGcQcM
Exhibit B - http://youtube.com/watch?v=zmZJc68zyAA
I'll provide more if you like.
#2 - The picture that seemingly shows smoke billowing out of WTC 7 is, IMO, a little deceiving. I think that picture is taken with WTC 6 in the foreground and WTC 7 in the background. Although it looks like smoke is billowing out of WTC 7, I believe most of the smoke is coming from WTC 6 - which didn't collapse and is closer to the photographer. And if you're going to listen to firefighter's testimony about WTC 7, then this one is worth a gander too:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=jNGN9jWBnXA
Quote from: KBCraig on December 10, 2007, 01:56 PM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 10, 2007, 01:08 PM NHFT
Then why didn't WTC 5 and 6 fall?
Are you really comparing 5- and 7-story buildings with the 47-story WTC7, which was a completely different design?
Buildings 4, 5, and 6 were essentially crushed and buried by the towers collapsing. There wasn't much left to "fall".
Yes, I am. You're right . . . there wasn't much left of those buildings but what remained of them was still standing after the dust settled. WTC 5 and 6 suffered
much more damage and had the Twin Towers collapse on top of them . . . but they didn't fall. I understand that WTC 7 was much bigger than the other two but the damage to WTC 7 was minimal compared to the damage to WTC 5 and 6.
I bet the guys from controlled demolitions were complaining about that ... or charged the government more for the trouble.
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 10, 2007, 02:15 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on December 10, 2007, 01:56 PM NHFT
Buildings 4, 5, and 6 were essentially crushed and buried by the towers collapsing. There wasn't much left to "fall".
WTC 5 and 6 suffered much more damage and had the Twin Towers collapse on top of them . . . but they didn't fall.
WTC 5
did collapse from fire damage.
Quote from: MaineShark on December 10, 2007, 01:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 10, 2007, 01:08 PM NHFTThen why didn't WTC 5 and 6 fall?
Why do some buildings in an earthquake fall down, and others stay standing? The simple answer is that they obviously had less structural damage.
Once again, I go back to this picture:
(http://www.freewebs.com/911reopen/wtc7wtc6.JPG)
Compare that picture of WTC 6 with this picture of WTC 7 shortly before it collapsed:
(http://www.september11links.com/library/wtc7.jpg)
or this one:
(http://www.rense.com/general65/WTC7_sw_after_1.jpg)
I think it's apparent which one suffered more structural damage.
Quote from: KBCraig on December 10, 2007, 02:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 10, 2007, 02:15 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on December 10, 2007, 01:56 PM NHFT
Buildings 4, 5, and 6 were essentially crushed and buried by the towers collapsing. There wasn't much left to "fall".
WTC 5 and 6 suffered much more damage and had the Twin Towers collapse on top of them . . . but they didn't fall.
WTC 5 did collapse from fire damage.
If I'm not mistaken, part of WTC 5 collapsed. The rest was demolished in 2002. FEMA has a picture on page 28 here:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
If the same thing happened to WTC 7, I wouldn't be having this discussion with you. The way WTC 7 fell was way too suspicious for me. A building with minimal damage does not collapse into it's own footprint at free-fall speed. It just doesn't.
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 10, 2007, 02:15 PM NHFTI understand that WTC 7 was much bigger than the other two but the damage to WTC 7 was minimal compared to the damage to WTC 5 and 6.
How much weight was on top of the damage?
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on December 10, 2007, 02:46 PM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 10, 2007, 02:15 PM NHFTI understand that WTC 7 was much bigger than the other two but the damage to WTC 7 was minimal compared to the damage to WTC 5 and 6.
How much weight was on top of the damage?
Joe
How many trusses would have had to fail at EXACTLY the same time for WTC 7 to collapse uniformly at free-fall speed?
Greg
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 10, 2007, 02:50 PM NHFTHow many trusses would have had to fail at EXACTLY the same time for WTC 7 to collapse uniformly at free-fall speed?
The direct damage and further "seismic" damage shears a lot of the trusses, leaving a few to do all the work. The fire softens them, reducing their yield strength. More trusses fail. The remainder are under more load. Even more trusses fail. The remainder are under even more load. By the time the straw breaks the camel's back, there aren't many left to fail, and they are severely weakened, while at the same time being under tremendous load. The will domino rather quickly.
The reason it looks like the video of a demolition is because any building collapse of that magnitude will happen similarly, just like any massive release of energy at ground level will create a "mushroom cloud," whether or not a nuclear reaction is involved. As I said, there's a very good reason you don't hear the scientific community calling this a demolition. All this "obvious evidence of a demolition" is anything but, when looked-at in regard to physics.
Joe
There are a lot of red herrings in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I believe that government agitators have deliberately disseminated them to cast doubt on the numerous legitimate concerns. The Air Force used the same technique back in the '40's and '50's. When someone spotted one of their secret aircraft, the Air Force would say it was a UFO. That took the heat off of them and made the witnesses look like wackos. Don't waste your time chasing smoke, go for the good stuff like the military exercises. That is way beyond coincidence, and can be argued on facts, not opinions.
Quote from: erisian on December 10, 2007, 03:58 PM NHFTThere are a lot of red herrings in the 9/11 conspiracy theories. I believe that government agitators have deliberately disseminated them to cast doubt on the numerous legitimate concerns. The Air Force used the same technique back in the '40's and '50's. When someone spotted one of their secret aircraft, the Air Force would say it was a UFO. That took the heat off of them and made the witnesses look like wackos. Don't waste your time chasing smoke, go for the good stuff like the military exercises. That is way beyond coincidence, and can be argued on facts, not opinions.
Indeed. Plus, if the planes weren't the weapons used to bring down the buildings, then armed passengers couldn't possibly have prevented the attack, so there's no need to debate removing those draconian restrictions...
The only purpose of the government-planted stories that the planes weren't the cause, are to oppose liberty.
Joe
Why not read the governments OFFICIAL report entitled The Commisission Report?
Then ask yourself what was not addressed and then ask yourself why these very important aspects were not mentioned and/or avoided.
Kola
Quote from: kola on December 10, 2007, 08:29 PM NHFTWhy not read the governments OFFICIAL report entitled The Commisission Report?
'Cause I'm not inclined to care what government officials have to say...
Quote from: kola on December 10, 2007, 08:29 PM NHFTThen ask yourself what was not addressed and then ask yourself why these very important aspects were not mentioned and/or avoided.
For the purposes erisian and I just mentioned: to foster conspiracy theories that discredit the conspiracy theorists and distract the public from the real causes by sending them off on wild goose chases after non-existent demolitions charges, rather than considering how simple it is for terrorists (government-sponsored or otherwise) to hijack planes and use them as weapons, all because the passengers have been forcibly disarmed. Wouldn't want folks debating the merits of armed vs disarmed passengers, would we? They might imagine that they could take responsibility for their own safety, if they thought about that...
Joe
Rather than getting side-tracked on these arguments, I would encourage interested parties to consider and argue against hard evidence presented in this book:
http://www.amazon.com/crossing-rubicon-decline-american-empire/dp/0865715408/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/104-1699780-7931955?ie=utf8&s=books&qid=1181355909&sr=8-1
This is a detective story that gets to the innermost core of the 9/11 attacks. It places 9/11 at the center of a desperate new America, created by specific, named individuals in preparation for Peak Oil: an economic crisis like nothing the world has ever seen. The attacks of September 11th, 2001 were accomplished through an amazing orchestration of logistics and personnel. Crossing the Rubicon discovers and identifies the key suspects and persons of interest - finding some of them in the highest echelons of American government - by showing how they acted in concert to guarantee that the attacks occurred and produced the desired result.
Crossing the Rubicon is unique not only for its case-breaking examination of 9/11, but for the breadth and depth of its world picture-an interdisciplinary analysis of petroleum, geopolitics, narcotraffic, intelligence and militarism-without which 9/11 cannot be understood. The US manufacturing sector has been mostly replaced by speculation on financial data whose underlying economic reality is a dark secret. Hundreds of billions of dollars in laundered drug money flow through Wall Street each year from opium and coca fields maintained by CIA-sponsored warlords and US-backed covert paramilitary violence.
America's global dominance depends on a continually turning mill of guns, drugs, oil and money. Oil and natural gas-the fuels that make economic growth possible-are subsidized by American military force and foreign lending. In reality, 9/11 and the resulting "war on terror" are parts of a massive authoritarian response to an emerging economic crisis of unprecedented scale.
Peak Oil-the beginning of the end for our industrial civilization-is driving the elites of American power to implement unthinkably draconian measures of repression, warfare and population control. Crossing the Rubicon is more than a story. It is a map of the perilous terrain through which, together and alone, we are all now making our way.
"In this book the author makes several key points:
1. I name Vice President Richard Cheney as the prime suspect in the mass murders of 9/11 and will establish that, not only was he a planner in the attacks, but also that on the day of the attacks he was running a completely separate Command, Control and Communications system which was superceding any orders being issued by the FAA, the Pentagon, or the White House Situation Room;
2. I establish conclusively that in May of 2001, by presidential order, Richard Cheney was put in direct command and control of all wargame and field exercise training and scheduling through several agencies, especially FEMA. This also extended to all of the conflicting and overlapping NORAD drills -- some involving hijack simulations -- taking place on that day.
3. I demonstrate that the TRIPOD II exercise being set up on Sept. 10th in Manhattan was directly connected to Cheney's role in the above.
4. I also prove conclusively that a number of public officials, at the national and New York City levels, including then-Mayor Rudolph Giuliani, were aware that flight 175 was en route to lower Manhattan for 20 minutes and did nothing to order the evacuation of, or warn the occupants of the South Tower. One military officer was forced to leave his post in the middle of the attacks and place a private call to his brother - who worked at the WTC - warning him to get out. That was because no other part of the system was taking action.
5. I also show that the Israeli and British governments acted as partners with the highest levels of the American government to help in the preparation and, very possibly, the actual execution of the attacks."
"There is more reason to be afraid of not facing the evidence in this book than of facing what is in it."
"Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil" written by Michael C Ruppert
More original articles and timelines at www.FromTheWilderness.com
Comparing WTC 7 to the other buildings is a bit disingenuous- WTC 7 had 5x the weight on top of the damage.
As for why it fell so fast once the collapse started- that's how collapses work. The initial failing puts more load on the remaining supports, which are close to the breaking point already. They go, and put even more weight on the remaining supports, etc., etc., The whole process only takes a second or two. In fact, most modern buildings are specifically designed to collapse on their footprint if they collapse. That's what happened with the main towers.
Also, I'd like to point out that finding a flaw in the "official" explanation does not prove a conspiracy. There's a lot of false duality thinking going on here, either the government's explanation was 100% accurate in every last structural detail, or the whole thing was a conspiracy. That's not a rational thought process. The supposed conspiracies "exposed" by these supposed "flaws" are all so convoluted and illogical that even if the supposed flaw is correct, government incompetence is still a thousand times more likely an explanation than a conspiracy.
For example- why would they rig the buildings to explode and then fly planes into the buildings? Wouldn't it have been so much easier to just hit it with massive truck bombs? No need for complicated demolitions, no complicated plots to fake the deaths of four airplanes' loads of passengers. No need to "hide" the wreckage in Pennsylvania (which did nothing to further any supposed government conspiracy anyway). Also seems to me like the power-grabbers would be a lot happier to clamp down on the roads than the airports, which they already had de facto unlimited control over.
Pointing out flaws in the "official" explanation proves nothing more than, at most, what we already know- that the government is a bunch of incompetent boobs who shouldn't have been trusted to analyze the structural details of what happened to the World Trade Center.
Quote from: ThePug on December 10, 2007, 10:56 PM NHFT
Comparing WTC 7 to the other buildings is a bit disingenuous- WTC 7 had 5x the weight on top of the damage.
As for why it fell so fast once the collapse started- that's how collapses work.
If you have proof and/or examples of other steel buildings that have collapsed in this manner due to fire damage, please provide. I would love to see it and it would help settle this dispute.
Also, I never said anything about 9/11 being a conspiracy orchestrated by the government. All I know is that there are alot of unanswered questions and I would like to see a new, independent investigation. Just this morning, NPR was interviewing a guy (I'm sorry but I forget his name, I'll try to find it) from the Congressional Oversight Committee. The Congressional Oversight Committee will be interviewing Michael Hayden (Director of the C.I.A.) today about the videotapes of interrogations at Guantanamo that the C.I.A. destroyed. The individual that NPR was interviewing said that it is very difficult to oversee the intelligence agencies and referred to the 9/11 Commission that he participated in . . . he said they were stonewalled left and right from getting the information that they needed to in order to discern what occurred on 9/11. In one instance, he said they were trying to subpoena a witness to testify before the 9/11 Commission but the FBI refused to serve the subpoena - they were stonewalled because the witness was in FBI custody. They were the only ones who could serve the subpoena and they refused to. I also saw this article yesterday:
http://www.depauw.edu/news/index.asp?id=20521
When you see individuals or groups acting cagey like this (especially in relation to something as tragic to our country as 9/11), it makes me want to find out what they are hiding. I'm not naive enough to think that I will ever know all the answers but at least I can be more informed than the general populace.
In the meantime, I'm done with this argument. It's too easy to get stuck arguing about the intricacies of trusses and beams and, unless I'm wrong, none of us are structural engineers that have built a steel building similar to WTC 7. So, it comes down to which experts you want to believe. I appreciate your points of views. I think some of us will have to agree to disagree though.
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 11, 2007, 08:29 AM NHFTIn the meantime, I'm done with this argument. It's too easy to get stuck arguing about the intricacies of trusses and beams and, unless I'm wrong, none of us are structural engineers that have built a steel building similar to WTC 7. So, it comes down to which experts you want to believe. I appreciate your points of views. I think some of us will have to agree to disagree though.
There's nothing intricate about it. Shear a bunch of support members, putting the others under more load, then heat them to soften teh steel, and the building collapses. Pretty basic.
I haven't seen any experts claiming that anything was amiss with the collapses. Lots of conspiracy loons, but no experts.
I mean, even if the building fell faster than it theoretically should, given its structure (not something I'm actually suggesting), wouldn't incompetent construction be a more reasonable explanation than a massive conspiracy to place demolitions charges?
If you insist on a conspiracy, wouldn't one to hijack planes and crash them be more reasonable than one involving many thousands of people? Y'all can include Cheney or whomever else you like as the orchestrator, if that pleases you...
Joe
Quote from: ThePug on December 08, 2007, 10:29 PM NHFT
Quote from: lawofattraction on December 08, 2007, 09:35 PM NHFT
Quote from: ThePug on December 08, 2007, 02:19 PM NHFTWTC7 collapsed from the massive structural damage and subsequent fire that resulted from being practically directly underneath the collapse of two of the largest buildings in the world.
Building 7 was almost a block away from the twin towers. A dozen other buildings were either closer, or roughly as close, to the twin towers. They did not collapse.
It was aprox. 100 meters from the base of the nearest tower. As has been pointed out, the towers were aprox. 450 meters tall. The entire complex was built on a single basement.
...
WTC 7 was outside the "bathtub" (common basement), I believe, but I can check. I don't think it is relevant to the collapse mechanism, though.
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 11, 2007, 08:29 AM NHFT
Quote from: ThePug on December 10, 2007, 10:56 PM NHFT
Comparing WTC 7 to the other buildings is a bit disingenuous- WTC 7 had 5x the weight on top of the damage.
As for why it fell so fast once the collapse started- that's how collapses work.
If you have proof and/or examples of other steel buildings that have collapsed in this manner due to fire damage, please provide. I would love to see it and it would help settle this dispute.
Show me an example of any other building of similar design (not just any ol' "steel building", that's a pretty wide category) that suffered a roughly equivalent amount of simultaneous structural and fire damage.
The fact is that the scenario was so unique that comparisons are of little value, and the lack of a valid comparison proves nothing.
QuoteAlso, I never said anything about 9/11 being a conspiracy orchestrated by the government.
Fair enough. That's usually how the argument goes, though. "I found X,Y, and Z alleged flaws in the government's explanation, therefore the whole thing was a government conspiracy!"
QuoteWhen you see individuals or groups acting cagey like this (especially in relation to something as tragic to our country as 9/11), it makes me want to find out what they are hiding.
They're hiding the obvious- the details of their own failure, their own incompetence. Any organization that's as naturally secretive as the CIA and FBI is going to resist having a spotlight put on their internal operations, particularly if that spotlight focuses on the detail of their most massive failure in recent history, if not ever. I wouldn't be surprised to find if there were some other sleazy things (sleazy as in corruption, fraud, etc., not secretive conspiracies) that they were worried about having made public, too.
In other words, their reaction was perfectly predictable given what we already know about the nature of government bureaucracies, without the government being behind 9/11.
QuoteIn the meantime, I'm done with this argument. It's too easy to get stuck arguing about the intricacies of trusses and beams and, unless I'm wrong, none of us are structural engineers that have built a steel building similar to WTC 7. So, it comes down to which experts you want to believe. I appreciate your points of views. I think some of us will have to agree to disagree though.
Sounds remarkably similar to the creationist apologists. They have plenty of "experts", too. Doesn't mean there's any serious contention on the subject amongst actual, non ideologically driven experts.
Quote
WTC 7 was outside the "bathtub" (common basement), I believe, but I can check. I don't think it is relevant to the collapse mechanism, though.
Ah, it's possible. But as far as I know you're right that it had little to do with the collapse. That had more to do with having several hundred thousand tons of burning skyscraper bits crashing into the broad side of the building.
Quote from: jaqeboy on December 11, 2007, 11:02 AM NHFT
Quote from: ThePug on December 08, 2007, 10:29 PM NHFT
Quote from: lawofattraction on December 08, 2007, 09:35 PM NHFT
Quote from: ThePug on December 08, 2007, 02:19 PM NHFTWTC7 collapsed from the massive structural damage and subsequent fire that resulted from being practically directly underneath the collapse of two of the largest buildings in the world.
Building 7 was almost a block away from the twin towers. A dozen other buildings were either closer, or roughly as close, to the twin towers. They did not collapse.
It was aprox. 100 meters from the base of the nearest tower. As has been pointed out, the towers were aprox. 450 meters tall. The entire complex was built on a single basement.
...
WTC 7 was outside the "bathtub" (common basement), I believe, but I can check. I don't think it is relevant to the collapse mechanism, though.
OK, verified.
WTC7 was outside the bathtub, across Vesey Street. It was built later (1984) than the main part of the complex (first occupied: 1970-1972), which was over "the bathtub" common basement.
See this article with illustrations in
The Bridge (p.11), by George J. Tamaro (the engineer who oversaw the construction of the bathtub), "World Trade Center Bathtub; From Genesis to Armageddon" (http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/NAEW-63AS9S/$FILE/Bridge-v32n1.pdf?OpenElement).
There is also an article in the same issue on p.5 by Leslie Robertson, the lead structural engineer on the towers in which he mentions some details about the considerations of aircraft collisions.
I've got to read all the articles in that issue - it's published by the NAE, National Academy of Engineers (I had never heard of them), a sister group to the National Academy of Sciences, both missioned to advise the U.S.
Quote from: KBCraig on December 10, 2007, 02:32 PM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 10, 2007, 02:15 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on December 10, 2007, 01:56 PM NHFT
Buildings 4, 5, and 6 were essentially crushed and buried by the towers collapsing. There wasn't much left to "fall".
WTC 5 and 6 suffered much more damage and had the Twin Towers collapse on top of them . . . but they didn't fall.
WTC 5 did collapse from fire damage.
This doesn't seem to be verified by other sources. No one else claims this building "completely" (not your words, just implied) collapsed from fire damage - there were portions of the building that were found (by FEMA) to have had failure due to fire damage. The building had to be demolished later to bring it down.
Wikipedia article on the World Trade Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_Towers) as a quick first read: "4 World Trade Center (4 WTC), 5 World Trade Center (5 WTC), and 6 World Trade Center (6 WTC) were damaged beyond repair and later demolished."
Wikipedia article on 5 World Trade Center (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5_World_Trade_Center):
QuoteDamage resulting from 2001 attack
Floors 4 through 9 suffered partial collapse and/or fire damage. Floors 1-3 were undamaged. Some of the collapse was due to impact from steel and debris from World Trade Center 1 (North Tower). Other collapsed sections were due to fire damage. Portions of internal collapse and burnout were found on upper floors, mainly floors 6-8. The exterior facade suffered severe fire damage. The upper floors (5-9) were on fire after the second tower collapse.
The last standing section of 5 WTC was removed by January 2002.
[edit] Structural analysis
The FEMA/ASCE Building Performance Study Team team found that some connections between the structural steel beams failed in the fire. This was most apparent in the collapse of World Trade Center Building 5, where the fireproofing did not protect the connections, causing the structure to fail.[1]
This IS where the controversy lies, however. The agencies
and their findings ARE in question, and by architects and engineers, such as Richard Gage's group ae911truth.org, among many others - they are suspected by many of acting politically and being part of "creating the public myth", as Phillip Zelikow says is his job. Hence the need for independent researchers to get to the truth, such as guys like Richard Gage. And, btw, he is coming to Keene State College on Thursday, and no, I haven't read the whole FEMA report or the whole NIST report, but I believe Richard Gage has, since he mentions the specific flaws in each in his presentation. Well worth the trip over to Keene, or if you aren't local, you can find presentations that are scheduled at the ae911truth.org site.
Gage explains that
partial damage (such as in WTC5) due to fire is consistent with the expected damage pattern from fires - asymmetrical damage and the fire zone travels as the fuel is consumed. Richard's presentation fills in a lot of information about comparative damage profiles, ie, the difference in damage and visual evidence that occurs in earthquakes, fires and controlled demolitions - it's a very compelling presentation.
Quote from: lawofattraction on December 11, 2007, 05:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: ThePug on December 11, 2007, 04:20 PM NHFTThat had more to do with having several hundred thousand tons of burning skyscraper bits crashing into the broad side of the building.
Where did you come up with that figure of "several hundred thousand tons" of burning skyscraper crashing into WTC7? Every picture I have seen of it shows minimal damage (a few broken windows) to that side and no huge pile of debris in front of it.
Given that the owner of the building publicly stated the building was demolished, I think that is a much more plausible explanation. ;)
I'm with loa on this one. I haven't yet seen clear evidence of this massive damage you claim occurred there, though mvpel claims to have clear pictures of it and I have heard there are pictures that show no evidence of it - haven't seen either of these, but would love to see either. The things we have all seen are the aerial shots from above after the collapse and the towers' debris fields seem to stop short of significant impact on WTC7. I'll dig up a couple of good ones for ya, but the straight-on clear shots of damage (or none) to the south face (Vesey Street) are not out there (please post them if I'm wrong).
NIST is supposed to have bought up every still and video shot they can find for their report, which is due to be published any day - hope to see them come up with something that clarifies things a bit.
I can't recommend highly enough that you go see Richard Gage, though - ask him pointed questions in person, hang out with him later and really dig deep into what he knows and why he concludes demo was the mode of collapse for WTC7 - he's accessible.
Here's a link to a hi-res pic of the rubble pile taken from 3300 ft., but I don't think this is what we want because it was taken 12 days later and they appear to have cleared some rubble out of Vesey street already.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/wtc7pile3.html
I know the pic is out there taken probly on the 12th - I think the ones I'm thinking of are from NOAA.
This is a link to an overall shot, again from NOAA, on 23 September, probably the same shot as the previous. I thought there were some good ones from the 12th, but I don't find them quickly:
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/photos/gzaerial3.html
Quote from: ThePug on December 11, 2007, 04:20 PM NHFT
Show me an example of any other building of similar design (not just any ol' "steel building", that's a pretty wide category) that suffered a roughly equivalent amount of simultaneous structural and fire damage.
The fact is that the scenario was so unique that comparisons are of little value, and the lack of a valid comparison proves nothing.
I've already shown you two buildings that suffered worse damage and didn't collapse - WTC 5 and WTC 6.
How about this one?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=th2bnG_7UyY
Here's some additional footage showing the extent of the damage done to WTC 5:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=qnGt7Bd5sNo
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 12, 2007, 08:46 AM NHFT
I've already shown you two buildings that suffered worse damage and didn't collapse - WTC 5 and WTC 6.
Neither of which was even vaguely similar to WTC 7, so your "example" is meaningless.
Quote from: KBCraig on December 12, 2007, 11:38 AM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 12, 2007, 08:46 AM NHFT
I've already shown you two buildings that suffered worse damage and didn't collapse - WTC 5 and WTC 6.
Neither of which was even vaguely similar to WTC 7, so your "example" is meaningless.
meaning what? they didn't have rubble from the twin towers fall on them? they didn't catch on fire and burn all day on 9/11?
or . . . they don't fit into your idea of what happened so you just choose to ignore them?
I feel that the burden of proof is on you guys. You are, after all, hanging out and posting on a "9-11 was an inside job" topic. I've provided examples which you choose to ignore and call "meaningless." Don't just tell me I'm wrong . . . PROVE IT!!! You are very quick to condemn and criticize yet you don't provide facts. I have yet to see any of you post anything substantial that contributes to this discussion.
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 12, 2007, 12:29 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on December 12, 2007, 11:38 AM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 12, 2007, 08:46 AM NHFT
I've already shown you two buildings that suffered worse damage and didn't collapse - WTC 5 and WTC 6.
Neither of which was even vaguely similar to WTC 7, so your "example" is meaningless.
meaning what? they didn't have rubble from the twin towers fall on them? they didn't catch on fire and burn all day on 9/11?
or . . . they don't fit into your idea of what happened so you just choose to ignore them?
and . . . you ignored the 3rd example of the Windsor building that I posted
monkey,
save your energy and time and put in someplace useful.
Kb and "the likes" are not worth the effort.
kola
Yeah, and there is room on this forum for a thread called "9/11 was NOT an Inside Job", eh? Maybe they could post on the appropriate thread to kind of un-clutter this one.
Quote from: kola on December 12, 2007, 12:57 PM NHFT
monkey,
save your energy and time and put in someplace useful.
Kb and "the likes" are not worth the effort.
kola
Yeah . . . you're right. I just deleted a post where I sort of lost my shit. It's not worth the effort. It just makes me mad when someone criticizes research that you've done without providing any facts of their own.
Quote from: jaqeboy on December 12, 2007, 01:02 PM NHFT
Yeah, and there is room on this forum for a thread called "9/11 was NOT an Inside Job", eh? Maybe they could post on the appropriate thread to kind of un-clutter this one.
I agree Jaq..and you clearly have topnotch stats and research to back your claims. Nice work.
Kola
Quote from: jaqeboy on December 12, 2007, 01:02 PM NHFT
Yeah, and there is room on this forum for a thread called "9/11 was NOT an Inside Job", eh? Maybe they could post on the appropriate thread to kind of un-clutter this one.
lol . . . I actually almost started one right before you posted this. My first postings were going to be:
"The government never lies or covers anything up."
"I make claims about what happened without providing any facts."
"Steel buildings routinely collapse at free-fall speed - physics be damned!!"
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 12, 2007, 01:05 PM NHFT
Quote from: kola on December 12, 2007, 12:57 PM NHFT
monkey,
save your energy and time and put in someplace useful.
Kb and "the likes" are not worth the effort.
kola
Yeah . . . you're right. I just deleted a post where I sort of lost my shit. It's not worth the effort. It just makes me mad when someone criticizes research that you've done without providing any facts of their own.
I use to "head-bang" with the pro-vaccine critics. Some I really enjoyed debating and discussing ideas and sharing research..and then there wre the others who really didn't want to discuss anything but only make me jump through their flaming hoops for their idiotic pleasures. I FINALLY learned to pick my battles wisely and it is now quite easy to sniff these folks out early on and just avoid it.
This is ultimate wisdom, something I never knew as a younger man.
Kola
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 12, 2007, 12:29 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on December 12, 2007, 11:38 AM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 12, 2007, 08:46 AM NHFT
I've already shown you two buildings that suffered worse damage and didn't collapse - WTC 5 and WTC 6.
Neither of which was even vaguely similar to WTC 7, so your "example" is meaningless.
meaning what? they didn't have rubble from the twin towers fall on them? they didn't catch on fire and burn all day on 9/11?
Meaning that you're trying to compare two low, squat buildings (5 and 6 stories tall) to a 47 story skyscraper of a completely different design and method of construction. Not to mention that a big portion of WTC 5
did collapse from fire (even though it didn't have 20 stories above the fire, bearing weight down onto the fire-weakened section).
Quoteor . . . they don't fit into your idea of what happened so you just choose to ignore them?
Oh, the irony...
..and wasn't it KB who refused to read The Commisiion Report???
LOL
Thanks bro's for your clarity, strength and perseverance.
Yeah, a mind is like a parachute in that it only works when opened. The open and curious mind and concerned and involved man can and does look at all the facts and evidence - the building demolition evidence is just the first opening, the first crack in the Matrix. Working down in the trenches here of getting people to look at the demolition evidence is the entry-level.
Merrimack Valley 911 Truth hopes to provide the resources to our local folk here in a way that all will have an opportunity to have a look at the evidence. When we get all systems cranked up we'll have video showings every Thursday night somewhere in the MV area (that's the plan so far). Scheduled showings will be on the MV911T site (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org). If someone who is curious about the events of September 11th knows of the opportunities and doesn't avail themselves of them, then that is their choice and it's regrettable, but for their own sake only. If someone chooses even to speculate on imagined info or personal theories, rather than on real evidence, and expresses that choice by sniping at or belittling others who do research, that is only an indication of their character and value as a cooperative community member.
We'll keep showing the entry level stuff interspersed with some of the more advanced findings, such as the Michael Ruppert stuff and even more recent material as it becomes available, so check it out when you have the chance.
Quote from: KBCraig on December 12, 2007, 01:15 PM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 12, 2007, 12:29 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on December 12, 2007, 11:38 AM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 12, 2007, 08:46 AM NHFT
I've already shown you two buildings that suffered worse damage and didn't collapse - WTC 5 and WTC 6.
Neither of which was even vaguely similar to WTC 7, so your "example" is meaningless.
meaning what? they didn't have rubble from the twin towers fall on them? they didn't catch on fire and burn all day on 9/11?
Meaning that you're trying to compare two low, squat buildings (5 and 6 stories tall) to a 47 story skyscraper of a completely different design and method of construction. Not to mention that a big portion of WTC 5 did collapse from fire (even though it didn't have 20 stories above the fire, bearing weight down onto the fire-weakened section).
Once again . . . unsubstantiated facts:
WTC 5 - 9 stories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC_5
WTC 6 - 7 stories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC_6
I know these aren't big differences. Just another example of you and others throwing out information without doing research. I'll take what you say with a grain of salt from now on.
I agree with you guys. This seems like a good thread to mention the stuff that shows that 9/11 was an inside job. I don't answer most questions either .... mostly because I don't have the answer. The government was in charge of the "protection" and the "investigation" and had all the info. They chose not to give out much info, so many of us assume they are holding stuff back since what we have doesn't add up.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on December 12, 2007, 04:48 PM NHFT
I agree with you guys. This seems like a good thread to mention the stuff that shows that 9/11 was an inside job. I don't answer most questions either .... mostly because I don't have the answer. The government was in charge of the "protection" and the "investigation" and had all the info. They chose not to give out much info, so many of us assume they are holding stuff back since what we have doesn't add up.
That is why I like to suggest to people that they read The Commsision Report. It is the "offical" investigation of 911.
Read it, comprehend it and then play detective and seek out the truth.
Some of the most important aspects of 911 were not even addressed in the reports.
Kola
bumpkins like me can't get through that big of a book .... especially from liars
:) heres a really good summary:
http://911research.wtc7.net/post911/commission/report.html
kola
http://911review.com/articles/griffin/commissionlies.html
Quote from: jaqeboy on December 12, 2007, 01:29 PM NHFT
Thanks bro's for your clarity, strength and perseverance.
Yeah, a mind is like a parachute in that it only works when opened. The open and curious mind and concerned and involved man can and does look at all the facts and evidence - the building demolition evidence is just the first opening, the first crack in the Matrix. Working down in the trenches here of getting people to look at the demolition evidence is the entry-level.
Merrimack Valley 911 Truth hopes to provide the resources to our local folk here in a way that all will have an opportunity to have a look at the evidence. When we get all systems cranked up we'll have video showings every Thursday night somewhere in the MV area (that's the plan so far). Scheduled showings will be on the MV911T site (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org). If someone who is curious about the events of September 11th knows of the opportunities and doesn't avail themselves of them, then that is their choice and it's regrettable, but for their own sake only. If someone chooses even to speculate on imagined info or personal theories, rather than on real evidence, and expresses that choice by sniping at or belittling others who do research, that is only an indication of their character and value as a cooperative community member.
We'll keep showing the entry level stuff interspersed with some of the more advanced findings, such as the Michael Ruppert stuff and even more recent material as it becomes available, so check it out when you have the chance.
Thoughtful post, and good points jaqeboy. Words to live by taking in to consideration any discussion, and not just limited to this thread.
Speaking of Mike Ruppert's research, I have an extra copy of "Crossing the Rubicon: The Decline of the American Empire at the End of the Age of Oil" which I am willing to loan out.
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 12, 2007, 01:29 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on December 12, 2007, 01:15 PM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 12, 2007, 12:29 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on December 12, 2007, 11:38 AM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 12, 2007, 08:46 AM NHFT
I've already shown you two buildings that suffered worse damage and didn't collapse - WTC 5 and WTC 6.
Neither of which was even vaguely similar to WTC 7, so your "example" is meaningless.
meaning what? they didn't have rubble from the twin towers fall on them? they didn't catch on fire and burn all day on 9/11?
Meaning that you're trying to compare two low, squat buildings (5 and 6 stories tall) to a 47 story skyscraper of a completely different design and method of construction. Not to mention that a big portion of WTC 5 did collapse from fire (even though it didn't have 20 stories above the fire, bearing weight down onto the fire-weakened section).
Once again . . . unsubstantiated facts:
WTC 5 - 9 stories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC_5
WTC 6 - 7 stories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC_6
I know these aren't big differences. Just another example of you and others throwing out information without doing research. I'll take what you say with a grain of salt from now on.
You completely ignored the point he was making which is that two squat buildings, 9 and 7 stories tall, aren't comparable to a 47 story tower with a completely different method of construction.
As for Windsor Tower, it
did partially collapse.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/TorreWindsor1.JPG
There wasn't nearly as much weight over the most weakened areas, which is why the collapse was contained by the structure. Also, the damage (and construction of the tower) aren't exactly analogous to the WTC, but the fact is that if anything, Windsor Tower proves that fire
can cause structural failure in a steel-frame building.
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 12, 2007, 12:29 PM NHFT
I feel that the burden of proof is on you guys.
We're not the ones trying to "prove" anything, we're merely pointing out some flaws in the Truther arguments.
QuoteYou are, after all, hanging out and posting on a "9-11 was an inside job" topic. I've provided examples which you choose to ignore and call "meaningless." Don't just tell me I'm wrong . . . PROVE IT!!!
We are offering rebuttals to your examples, but you don't seem to be addressing any of the objections raised. For example, how you ignored the point that WTC7 wasn't comparable to WTC 5 and 6. You're also committing several logical fallacies such as challenging us to prove a negative, assuming that all steel-frame buildings are analogous, and the implicit false duality that any flaw in the government's explanation is somehow "proof" of a conspiracy.
QuoteYou are very quick to condemn and criticize yet you don't provide facts.
Sure we do. WTC7 was 47 stories tall. WTC5 and 6 were 7 and 9 stories tall. Therefore, the buildings aren't analogous. That's a fact.
QuoteI have yet to see any of you post anything substantial that contributes to this discussion.
That's a ridiculous ad hominem that you post in place of an actual rebuttal to the objections raised to your posts.
And, just to lighten the mood...
(http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/conspiracy_theories.png)
Quote from: ThePug on December 13, 2007, 12:23 AM NHFT
You completely ignored the point he was making which is that two squat buildings, 9 and 7 stories tall, aren't comparable to a 47 story tower with a completely different method of construction.
As for Windsor Tower, it did partially collapse.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a2/TorreWindsor1.JPG
There wasn't nearly as much weight over the most weakened areas, which is why the collapse was contained by the structure. Also, the damage (and construction of the tower) aren't exactly analogous to the WTC, but the fact is that if anything, Windsor Tower proves that fire can cause structural failure in a steel-frame building.
I didn't ignore what he said . . . I chose not to respond. I am done arguing with people who don't take the time to get their facts straight.
I am completely OK with the fact that the Windsor Tower and WTC 5 partially collapsed. In fact, that is what I would expect to happen. But if you look at the picture of the Windsor building that you provided . . .
all of the central core support beams are still intact. That is where my issue lies with what happened on 9/11. The central support beams would have all had to fail SIMULTANEOUSLY for the building to collapse at free-fall speed into it's own footprint. If they didn't all fail simultaneously, the building would have tilted to its side and we would have seen a partial collapse. I have yet to see one other example of a steel structure collapse like WTC 7 did. In fact, I haven't actually seen any structure collapse like that with minor structural damage and fire damage. If you can show me an example that contradicts what I said, go ahead. Also, keep in mind that the Windsor building burned for 24 hours . . . WTC 7 burned for roughly 8.
Actually Pug, you did it again. You claimed that the fire in the Windsor building proves that fire can cause structural damage. I would like proof of your claim. In the photo, I see damage to the exterior of the building. The exterior was most likely made of concrete and rebar. I do not see any damage done to the central core steel beams of the building (i.e. the beams that support the structure). I do not see anything that shows that this building's structural integrity was compromised and in danger of collapse. If you have evidence showing I'm wrong, please provide.
And, don't forget, de-bunkers and debunker debunkers, Richard Gage is at Keene State College tonight to present a collection of pics and videos of building failures of various kinds and compare the visual differences. He's got the best presentation going for this type of analysis. After the presentation tonight, we should resume the discussion, while being informed of much more than has even been discussed here before. He also talks about the flaws in the official reports. And, I'm sure you can get in Q & A at the end and maybe a discussion with him over pizza after the talk.
Details on tonight are at MerrimackValley911Truth.org (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org).
Quote from: jaqeboy on December 13, 2007, 10:07 AM NHFT
And, don't forget, de-bunkers and debunker debunkers, Richard Gage is at Keene State College tonight to present a collection of pics and videos of building failures of various kinds and compare the visual differences. He's got the best presentation going for this type of analysis. After the presentation tonight, we should resume the discussion, while being informed of much more than has even been discussed here before. He also talks about the flaws in the official reports. And, I'm sure you can get in Q & A at the end and maybe a discussion with him over pizza after the talk.
Details on tonight are at MerrimackValley911Truth.org (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org).
I wish I could make that tonight. I've got my company's holiday party though. Let me know how it is.
Attending tonight's talk by Richard Gage ought to be the ticket to continue discussing the collapses. An older version of this talk is on DVD (he's added new info since then), and is probably viewable on his site: ae911truth.org or on YouTube. MV911T posts an interview with him and possibly a link to the presentation (I forget) in the "About Us" section of the site (http://9-11.meetup.com/307/about/). The MV911T MySpace page (http://myspace.com/merrimackvalley911truth) has other vids and links to other sites.
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 13, 2007, 08:50 AM NHFT
Actually Pug, you did it again. You claimed that the fire in the Windsor building proves that fire can cause structural damage. I would like proof of your claim. In the photo, I see damage to the exterior of the building. The exterior was most likely made of concrete and rebar. I do not see any damage done to the central core steel beams of the building (i.e. the beams that support the structure). I do not see anything that shows that this building's structural integrity was compromised and in danger of collapse. If you have evidence showing I'm wrong, please provide.
Quote
That is where my issue lies with what happened on 9/11. The central support beams would have all had to fail SIMULTANEOUSLY for the building to collapse at free-fall speed into it's own footprint. If they didn't all fail simultaneously, the building would have tilted to its side and we would have seen a partial collapse.
If you have ten central supports, all bearing 98% of their total load capacity, and one weakened support collapses- the load on all the others instantly increases to 108% of their max load. Another support goes, and the load on the remaining 8 increases to 120%. It's a chain reaction. That's very simplified, but that's the basic process. That's why those sorts of buildings almost never fall to the side. The fraction of a second's difference between one side of the building's supports going and the rest of the supports going makes little difference to which way the building falls, which is, in accordance with gravity, typically straight down.
As for Windsor Tower, there was a partial collapse. The top floors of the lower "block" thingy totally collapsed, and they were steel, too. Not just concrete and rebar. The central core didn't collapse, but the fact is that fire weakened steel structural supports to the point where they failed, something many truthers adamantly insist is impossible.
Quote
I didn't ignore what he said . . . I chose not to respond.
Neener, neener, you're wrong and I'm just not going to respond!
That's not how debate/intelligent conversation works.
QuoteI am done arguing with people who don't take the time to get their facts straight.
You haven't so much "argued" as just moved from factoid to factoid without really answering any objections raised.
Quote
But if you look at the picture of the Windsor building that you provided . . . all of the central core support beams are still intact.
Maybe the building design was stronger. Maybe the fire wasn't as intense. Maybe the design of the building didn't lend itself to a "chimney" effect. Who knows. The two examples aren't exactly the same. The only thing that Windsor Tower "proves" is what's objectively true- that fire alone caused structural steel to fail, resulting in a partial collapse.
Quote
I have yet to see one other example of a steel structure collapse like WTC 7 did.
Well, modern steel structures are pretty safe things. Assuming that the "official" explanation for WTC7 is completely true, it still wouldn't be unexpected that it would be a completely unique occurrence. Most engineering disasters tend to be unique occurrences, as a matter of fact. Prior to the British Comet jetliner, no aircraft had ever crashed due to cracks formed around the windows due to metal fatigue caused by repeated compression/decompression of the cabin. Doesn't mean that's not what happened.
QuoteIn fact, I haven't actually seen any structure collapse like that with minor structural damage and fire damage.
For obvious reasons, the damaged face of WTC7 wasn't really accessible to photography. What pictures we do have shows a bunch of smoke pouring out of that side of the building, and the SW corner of the building essentially carved off. So, engaging a slight bit of false duality myself, that leaves us with two choices. A)The collapse of not one, but two of the largest buildings in the world right next door caused significant structural damage and ignited fires which weakened the steel supports of the building until it collapsed. or B)Unknown nefarious forces for unknown reasons set complicated demolitions explosives in the building in the days/weeks/months before the attack, without any one noticing. Very complicated and precisely calibrated explosives which were completely unaffected by what must be acknowledged to be at least some fire and structural damage. These unknown nefarious forces then chose to demolish the building several hours after the most opportune time to hide the evidence, allowing its collapse to be fairly well-documented, rather than allowing the building to simply disappear in the cloud of dust and debris that resulted in the collapse of the two main towers.
Occam's Razor acknowledges no confirmation bias.
QuoteIf you can show me an example that contradicts what I said, go ahead.
With some of your assertions, it's not so much that they're factually incorrect as it is that they're irrelevant. For example, the point that Windsor Tower didn't collapse completely. There are an infinite number of reasons what that might be, but you leap to the one explanation that confirms your pre-existing belief. Namely, that fire can't cause structural failure in steel-frame buildings. The confirmation bias is so extreme that you ignore facts that point to your explanation being incorrect- namely, that the fire at Windsor Tower did cause structural steel supports to fail, causing a partial collapse.
There's no need to be nasty. Instead of instantly assuming any one who disagrees with you has some ulterior motives, or assuming that the fact that they disagree with you somehow proves that they're not willing to engage in intelligent conversation, why not simply engage in the give-and-take of logical debate? Instead of getting all huffy and pissy when someone refutes (or attempts to refute) a point you make- answer it in a calm, dispassionate manner. That's how it works.
all 3 buildings fell inwards AND at free fall speed .
there is only one way this can happen.
magic beans. ::)
kola
kola, is that you in your new avatar? :D
..umm...yeah... Kat... :blush:
I took down that last one (of the good looking guy) and decided to post my real picture. :-\
umm..i ain't too handsome.. but i have a nice personality..
oh wait..i don't even have that.
anyway, thats me. ;D
now if i can just break this habit of sticking lightbulbs in my mouth maybe i can get a date for christmas eve.
sincerely,
Kola ( real name Uncle Fester Adams)
Oh, I see. I've heard of you before.
This weekend is a big one for the 911 Truth movement - the Boston Tea Party for 911 Truth
Conference on destruction of the buildings Saturday (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=12407.0)
evening session: "911 Took Them to War" (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=12480.new#new)
Tea Party on Sunday, featuring Cindy Sheehan (http://newhampshireunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=12408.0)
after-party at Hennessey's
It's very encouraging to see the mass movement of truth, peace and freedom activists joining together and building at the grassroots. The Boston group is great and you'll get a chance to meet all of them, as well as others from all over the country.
Further details are on the MV911T (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org) site and the Boston 911 Truth site (http://boston911truth.org).
Quote from: ThePug on December 13, 2007, 04:42 PM NHFT
Maybe the design of the building didn't lend itself to a "chimney" effect.
Please explain this "chimney" effect in more detail and, if you can, please provide any supporting documentation that you have. The "chimney" effect seems to be common knowledge on this board and I have requested verification/proof of it from KB and others in the past . . . but I have never received anything. I'm curious b/c this is the first place I've ever heard of it.
KB also mentioned a "chimney effect" regarding building 7 a dozen pages back, but did not provide any verification. There was no visual or no other claims of a chimney effect in WTC 7 that I have seen.
Should we start a document listing the wacky claims debunkers and snipers on this thread make that have themselves already been debunked, so we can just point someone who raises them again to that list? There's a pretty good sized list of these wacky claims that have been laid to rest. It'd be good not to have to address them again. Thanks Aloha for your patience with them - it's not necessarily meanness on their part, just lack of studiousness.
PS, I think it's easier to do the research than it is to get into the interminable speculations and counter-arguments to speculations, such as "chimney effects." You could probably word-search the Commission Report, the FEMA report and the NIST report (the 3 official documents) on chimney effect faster than you could make a speculative argument for it and then argue back and forth about it. You could google chimney effect WTC7, etc., etc. - lots of ways to get to that. I don't think anyone has to question or de-bunk chimney effect re the fires in WTC1, 2 or 7. It's not even one of the issues suggested (except on this thread ;D )
Fact: Any competent engineer can tell you that the structural damage and fire was enough to bring those buildings down.
That does not prove it was the cause, but that it could be the cause.
Fact: To mine the buildings with demolition charges would require a conspiracy of unaccountable magnitude.
Fact: To convince some nutcases to pull off the visible attacks, exactly as the looked, would require only a small conspiracy.
Fact: That conspiracy would have to exist, anyway, in order to carry out the visible attacks, regardless of the addition of demolitions.
Query: If you insist on believing that there was a conspiracy to carry out the attacks, and they had to conspire to to hijack the planes, anyway, why do you imagine they would also use demolitions?
It's just nonsensical. The size of conspiracy necessary could never remain a secret. Not even close. Someone would blab long before the actual attack.
Why insist on a far-more-complicated explanation than is necessary?
Joe
BTW, car-pooling details for Saturday and Sunday events are down to the wire with more people wanting to go and with weather making the whole thing more challenging. Will try to update carpool info on the MV911T site by 8 or 9 PM tonight, but to confirm plans, it'd be best to call Jack at 233-1058 or Jeremy at 828-8306. All will most likely have their questions answered at the Boston Tea Party for 911 Truth.
The Sunday Tea Party rally schedule has been shortened due to weather concerns. See MV911T site for latest schedule, or the thread over in Outside the Shire.
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 14, 2007, 08:34 AM NHFT
Quote from: ThePug on December 13, 2007, 04:42 PM NHFT
Maybe the design of the building didn't lend itself to a "chimney" effect.
Please explain this "chimney" effect in more detail and, if you can, please provide any supporting documentation that you have. The "chimney" effect seems to be common knowledge on this board and I have requested verification/proof of it from KB and others in the past . . . but I have never received anything. I'm curious b/c this is the first place I've ever heard of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_effect
Took less than a second with Google.
Now that you've picked your random factoid to harp on, do you care to actually address any of the relevant points I made?
wackypedia: sponsored by BushCo and Thugs.
look that one up!
Kola
Quote from: kola on December 14, 2007, 06:53 PM NHFT
wackypedia: sponsored by BushCo and Thugs.
look that one up!
Kola
So? Even my original mention of the "chimney effect" was nothing more than an incidental mention as an example of the infinite number of possible differences between Windsor Tower and WTC7, and as far as I know there are no 9/11 truther claims based around it.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8797525979024486145&q=truth+and+lies+of+9%2F11&total=703&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
Quote from: ThePug on December 14, 2007, 06:19 PM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 14, 2007, 08:34 AM NHFT
Quote from: ThePug on December 13, 2007, 04:42 PM NHFT
Maybe the design of the building didn't lend itself to a "chimney" effect.
Please explain this "chimney" effect in more detail and, if you can, please provide any supporting documentation that you have. The "chimney" effect seems to be common knowledge on this board and I have requested verification/proof of it from KB and others in the past . . . but I have never received anything. I'm curious b/c this is the first place I've ever heard of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_effect
Took less than a second with Google.
Now that you've picked your random factoid to harp on, do you care to actually address any of the relevant points I made?
OK. Thanks. Now that you've told me how a chimney works . . . can you tell me what relevance that has to this discussion?
Quote from: ThePug on December 14, 2007, 06:19 PM NHFT
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_effect
Took less than a second with Google.
Now that you've picked your random factoid to harp on, do you care to actually address any of the relevant points I made?
"Stack effect is the movement of air into and out of buildings, chimneys, flue gas stacks, or other containers, and is driven by buoyancy."
Very in-depth research Pug. I appreciate your enthralling insight into this complex issue.
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 15, 2007, 09:43 PM NHFT
Quote from: ThePug on December 14, 2007, 06:19 PM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 14, 2007, 08:34 AM NHFT
Quote from: ThePug on December 13, 2007, 04:42 PM NHFT
Maybe the design of the building didn't lend itself to a "chimney" effect.
Please explain this "chimney" effect in more detail and, if you can, please provide any supporting documentation that you have. The "chimney" effect seems to be common knowledge on this board and I have requested verification/proof of it from KB and others in the past . . . but I have never received anything. I'm curious b/c this is the first place I've ever heard of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_effect
Took less than a second with Google.
Now that you've picked your random factoid to harp on, do you care to actually address any of the relevant points I made?
OK. Thanks. Now that you've told me how a chimney works . . . can you tell me what relevance that has to this discussion?
I merely mentioned it in passing as a possible difference between WTC7 and Windsor Tower. Seeing as how you chose to focus on it and ignore the rest of my post, you're the last person to be lecturing any one on sticking to the relevant issues.
Quote from: ThePug on December 15, 2007, 11:15 PM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 15, 2007, 09:43 PM NHFT
Quote from: ThePug on December 14, 2007, 06:19 PM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 14, 2007, 08:34 AM NHFT
Quote from: ThePug on December 13, 2007, 04:42 PM NHFT
Maybe the design of the building didn't lend itself to a "chimney" effect.
Please explain this "chimney" effect in more detail and, if you can, please provide any supporting documentation that you have. The "chimney" effect seems to be common knowledge on this board and I have requested verification/proof of it from KB and others in the past . . . but I have never received anything. I'm curious b/c this is the first place I've ever heard of it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stack_effect
Took less than a second with Google.
Now that you've picked your random factoid to harp on, do you care to actually address any of the relevant points I made?
OK. Thanks. Now that you've told me how a chimney works . . . can you tell me what relevance that has to this discussion?
I merely mentioned it in passing as a possible difference between WTC7 and Windsor Tower. Seeing as how you chose to focus on it and ignore the rest of my post, you're the last person to be lecturing any one on sticking to the relevant issues.
The "chimney effect" is something that pops up on this thread quite frequently and it is the main reason that I'm not going to waste any more of my time discussing this topic with you. I have yet to see anything describing how this theory applies to 9/11. You and others throw out ideas that you assume to be true or relevant without doing any background research. I respect your opinion but I would respect it more if you provided documentation or proof of some of your assertions. Until then, I'm done with this argument . . . it is not very productive.
QuoteThe "chimney effect" is something that pops up on this thread quite frequently
I never mentioned it except in passing as a possible difference between WTC7 and Windsor Tower. I never made any claim about the supposed nature of the chimney effect, or what effect it might have had at WTC7 and/or Windsor Tower, nor did I ever state that the chimney effect had anything to do with WTC7's collapse. Yet you focus on the chimney effect and demand I prove some claim that exists only in your head, rather than actually answering any of the objections I raised to your questionable logic.
QuoteI'm not going to waste any more of my time discussing this topic with you.
Yes, I supposed it would be a waste of time to "discuss" something with somebody while totally ignoring anything you don't want to have to respond to.
Quote
You and others throw out ideas that you assume to be true or relevant without doing any background research.
You're the one putting words in my mouth and relying on "research" that would never pass as such in the scientific community. Truthers do their own share of assuming about what is or isn't relevant, including yourself.
Quote
I respect your opinion but I would respect it more if you provided documentation or proof of some of your assertions
You've yet to ask about any assertion I've made that I haven't backed up. You've rather made up assertions that you claim I made and demand that I prove them before you answer any of my actual assertions.
QuoteUntil then, I'm done with this argument . . . it is not very productive.
Discussions that don't follow the rules of logic and intelligent debate don't tend to be.
QuoteI respect your opinion
I don't respect
opinions. I do respect people, though, and that cartoon I posted earlier did pretty accurately reflected my feelings on the matter. I'm not angry at truthers, I'm frustrated that bright, intelligent, liberty-loving people become obsessed with such madness. If I fell for some scam, I'd expect my friends to tell me. If I became obsessed with a line of thought that had same rather glaring errors, I'd expect my friends to try and show me my blind spots. I certainly hope that I wouldn't become so combative that I'd look for any excuse I could to refuse to discuss the matter.
people sure get prickly with all the holiday stress stuff happening.
i notice it every year.
odd.
I am always me,
Kola
you really think this thread is effected by the holidays? .... it just keeps going like this all the time
There was a pretty thorough review of the NIST report re fires in the towers and the subsequent collapse initiation by Kevin Ryan, formerly of Underwriters Laboratories yesterday at the Boston conference. There was no mention of any chimney effect or stack effect phenomena, and there is no visual or other evidence reported by anyone, so I presume this is one of the debunking attempts we can concur should be put to rest.
What was new and interesting yesterday was Stephen Jones' analysis of the most freshly-gathered dust samples (from the towers' collapse) to date - gathered just 10 minutes after the collapse by a guy who had come up from the subway just minutes before the first collapse. He scooped up a handful of the dust once he picked himself up and saved it in a zip-lock bag. The x-ray spectrograph of the iron-containing samples showed a nearly identical profile to those of commercially-available and home-made Thermate. I'm sure Jones will be publishing his results.
The conference yesterday was excellent, and it was inspiring for it to take place in the historic hall http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faneuil_Hall
Several hundred people were in attendance, including many engineers and scientists from the area community. Architect Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth gave his presentation, and beforehand asked for a show of hands how many people were either unsure about 9/11 or believed the official story. Over thirty people raised their hands, but afterwards only about five people still were unsure.
As mentioned before, Physicist Steven Jones brought forward some new material to his presentation. I was particularly inspired by Dr Joel S. Hirshhorn's speech who reminded the audience that the 9/11 lie is not a partisan issue and that electing democrats is not going to solve the issue. He also pointed out that "the events of 9/11 are less important than the reasons for and the consequences of 9/11". I couldn't agree more.
As you can imagine, the Tea Party planned for today is probably going to be a bust. It didn't make sense to get out in this snow to trek down there - even though I hate to miss the party at Hennessey's upstairs afterwards. We walked by the place after the end of the conference and it was rockin'! That's where we saw the Chick of Steel !
Conference attenders also learned from both Stephen Jones and Kevin Ryan of their jointly filed (with others) Request for Correction (Information Quality Request #07-06) to the NIST report, due to errors in the report. RFC here (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/RFCtoNISTbyMcIlvaineDoyleJonesRyanGageSTJ.pdf).
NIST responded with a letter here (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/NISTresponseToRequestForCorrectionGourleyEtal2.pdf). Notably, NIST did agree to make one correction, but denied all other requests.
An appeal of the NIST response has been filed - appeal here (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/2007/NISTresponseToRequestForCorrectionGourleyEtal2.pdf).
There is a correction process described in Section 515 of Public Law 106-554, the Data Quality Act, which is being followed.
All this info (on the request for correction) is over at the Journal of 911 Studies (http://journalof911studies.org), along with a lot of other interesting papers.
Also learned that NIST has posted a FAQ page regarding their report (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm) on the towers' collapses, and that they have added a supplement to the FAQ (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_12_2007.htm) just days ago.
Also regarding the NIST report, we learned of a critique of the report, Building a Better Mirage, by physicist Jim Hoffman (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/).
There, that ought to complete your reading assignment for this term ;)
Jaqeboy and Insurgent . . . thanks for the links and info. Looks like I'll be busy with some homework for the next few days ;)
Quote from: ThePug on December 16, 2007, 01:16 AM NHFT
You've yet to ask about any assertion I've made that I haven't backed up. You've rather made up assertions that you claim I made and demand that I prove them before you answer any of my actual assertions.
Pug, this is my last post directed at you. You have made many assertions without backing them up. I'm not going to waste my time looking them up but one I remember off the top of my head is when you said "
hundreds of thousands of tons of debris crashed down onto WTC 7." Those might not have been your exact words but it's another example of you just egging me on in this discussion without any documentation for your assertions. A few people asked you to verify this and you ignored us. Combining that with your "chimney effect" idea proves to me that you're not serious about discussing this. Like I said, I'm done discussing this with you . . . I don't have time for this. Happy holidays!
QuoteYou have made many assertions without backing them up. I'm not going to waste my time looking them up but one I remember off the top of my head is when you said "hundreds of thousands of tons of debris crashed down onto WTC 7."
Yes, because I obviously intended that to be a precise figure. It couldn't just be a number used figuratively to make the point that a bunch of debris fell on the building, or anything like that... ::)
Quote
Those might not have been your exact words but it's another example of you just egging me on in this discussion without any documentation for your assertions.
"Egging you on"? You're the one who, rather than actually respond to the substance of my posts, harped on the irrelevant minutiae. I'm surprised you didn't start pointing out grammatical errors as an excuse to not respond.
QuoteA few people asked you to verify this and you ignored us.
As opposed to yourself, who ignored entire posts.
QuoteCombining that with your "chimney effect" idea proves to me that you're not serious about discussing this.
This idea that I even
have a "chimney effect idea" proves that you did little more than scan my posts for buzzwords that you could attack rather than actually think about the point I was making, much less respond to it.
Quote
Like I said, I'm done discussing this with you . . . I don't have time for this.
Fine, take your ball and go home. In light of the fact that you failed to contradict any of my points, I'll consider that a victory. :P
QuoteHappy holidays!
Merry Christmas!
Just to add to your reading assignment alohamonkey, a guy named Ryan Mackey responded to critics of the NIST report (http://911guide.googlepages.com/ryanmackey) (esp. David Ray Griffin's book Debunking 9/11 Debunking) and Kevin Ryan responds to Mackey in a Dec 4, 07 letter in the Journal of 911 Studies (http://www.journalof911studies.com/letters/b/MackeyLetter.pdf).
Interesting repartee.
I've found that if you want to find a conspiracy, don't dwell on small, technical details. Look for the cover up. Government cover ups are sloppy, and this seems to be another example of one. Politically motivated studies have predetermined conclusions and tend to accept only those facts that support the conclusion, twisting facts to suit theories, rather than vice versa.
There is another issue that is typically dismissed by those enamored with official explanations: It's not MY fucking job--nor anyone else's--to convince you of anything. Why the fuck would you think that it is? It's YOUR job to find the truth for yourself. Irrational fear of a conclusion seems to lend more credibility to that conclusion, since a great number of its opponents are employing emotional reasoning to avoid such a conclusion.
So what's so scary about an idea? That the world might be round? That a man named Jesus really lived? That there could be a Bigfoot? That our government carried out another false flag black op right in front of us? It is not my job either as a merchant mariner nor as a porcupine to convince you of anything. You pay me nothing to beat the facts into your timid mind, and would more likely offer something never to hear scary facts in the first place.
A libertarian is not simply someone who can score well on the World's Smallest Political Quiz, but someone who can question authority with such vigor and reason that one deserves the title.
Another mention of the Cossiga statements (this one from a blogger named Phillip Marlowe - reveals that Cossiga is dying of cancer, hence he has nothing to lose):
QuoteCossiga, the man who set up Operation Gladio tells Italy's largest newspaper attacks were run by the USA's CIA and the Israeli Mossad.
Exploding across the Internet in one of the biggest bombshells to date, is the thoughts from a man who has had inside knowledge of these kinds of things since the get-go. He's also dying from cancer and has nothing left to lose. Hes been an insider to the intelligence community for decades and well-respected in Italy. He says, along with himself, that it's now a common belief among current intelligence people that 9/11 was, indeed, an inside job!
He's one of the people who revealed the existence of a top-secret CIA plan in Europe during the cold war that used "false-flag" operations designed to paint any pro-Soviet groups in Europe as terrorists. This was a careful scheme to plant double agents within the lefty ranks and also to use bombing and assassination to make those commies look evil to the general population (somethings never change). The plan was called Operation Gladio (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Gladio).
Cossiga revealed all of this to the Italian Parliament in the year 2000. His honesty and integrity over the entire matter made him beloved by his people and yet the powers that be, used his revelations to force him out of office for exposing the real deal. Now, he's saying that the attack on the US was an obvious false flag event staged by the CIA along with the Israeli Mossad to give them an excuse to do what they will in the Mideast:
QuoteFormer Italian President and the man who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, Francesco Cossiga, has gone public on 9/11, telling Italy's most respected newspaper that the attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad and that this was common knowledge amongst global intelligence agencies.
Ex-Italian President: Intel Agencies Know 9/11 An Inside Job (http://newsfromthewest.blogspot.com/2007/12/ex-italian-president-intel-agencies.html)
If you can read Italian, here's the source newspaper: Corriere della Sera (http://www.corriere.it/politica/07_novembre_30/osama_berlusconi_cossiga_27f4ccee-9f55-11dc-8807-0003ba99c53b.shtml), it's supposed to be Italy's oldest and most widely respected Newspaper.
I don't read Italian well, but this sure is an interesting story - wondering what follow-up there will be...
Maybe they'll start a group called "Former heads of State for 9/11 Truth" ;D
Quote from: maxxoccupancy on December 24, 2007, 09:15 PM NHFTA libertarian is not simply someone who can score well on the World's Smallest Political Quiz, but someone who can question authority with such vigor and reason that one deserves the title.
The blind belief "Truthers" have for their "official" pet theory really demonstrates critical thinking...
A rational person examines all possibilities and weighs the likelihood of each. A rational person does not decide that one way was the only way it could have happened, and then proceed to ignore any evidence to the contrary. That is not rational behavior.
If "Truthers" were rational, they would be able to answer the very basic question I keep asking: why would anyone bother demolishing a doomed building? What possible gain would there be in engaging in a conspiracy of epic proportions, when convincing a few suicidal terrorists to crash some planes would be more than sufficient? It simple fails the common sense test, and no "Truther" has been able to demonstrate any reason for the more-complex route which they claim (despite all evidence) is what happened.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on December 28, 2007, 04:53 PM NHFT
Quote from: maxxoccupancy on December 24, 2007, 09:15 PM NHFTA libertarian is not simply someone who can score well on the World's Smallest Political Quiz, but someone who can question authority with such vigor and reason that one deserves the title.
The blind belief "Truthers" have for their "official" pet theory really demonstrates critical thinking...
A rational person examines all possibilities and weighs the likelihood of each. A rational person does not decide that one way was the only way it could have happened, and then proceed to ignore any evidence to the contrary. That is not rational behavior.
If "Truthers" were rational, they would be able to answer the very basic question I keep asking: why would anyone bother demolishing a doomed building? What possible gain would there be in engaging in a conspiracy of epic proportions, when convincing a few suicidal terrorists to crash some planes would be more than sufficient? It simple fails the common sense test, and no "Truther" has been able to demonstrate any reason for the more-complex route which they claim (despite all evidence) is what happened.
Joe
You seem to have a lot of misconceptions about the movement of independent investigators trying to solve a crime. If you want to query some 911 Truth folks and do a head count of how many are libertarians and advocate arming pilots and passengers, come on down to the Conspiracy Cafe in Cambridge when they resume in the new year - we'll be carpooling down. That way you can do more than just be a master at baiting people. You might even enjoy yourself!
Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth have started a newsletter called the Blueprint at http://www.ae911truth.org/newsletter/. That's a first issue - might have to join to get subsequent issues, not sure.
Quote from: jaqeboy on December 29, 2007, 12:34 AM NHFTYou seem to have a lot of misconceptions about the movement of independent investigators trying to solve a crime. If you want to query some 911 Truth folks and do a head count of how many are libertarians and advocate arming pilots and passengers, come on down to the Conspiracy Cafe in Cambridge when they resume in the new year - we'll be carpooling down. That way you can do more than just be a master at baiting people. You might even enjoy yourself!
Yeah, I always go to Cambridge to find gun lovers! :o ::)
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on December 28, 2007, 04:53 PM NHFT
A rational person examines all possibilities and weighs the likelihood of each. A rational person does not decide that one way was the only way it could have happened, and then proceed to ignore any evidence to the contrary. That is not rational behavior.
You talkin' bout yourself there, chief?
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 29, 2007, 10:40 AM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on December 28, 2007, 04:53 PM NHFTA rational person examines all possibilities and weighs the likelihood of each. A rational person does not decide that one way was the only way it could have happened, and then proceed to ignore any evidence to the contrary. That is not rational behavior.
You talkin' bout yourself there, chief?
About being a rational person? Absolutely. I'm a strictly rational person. There's not anything I would ever take on faith.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on December 29, 2007, 10:44 AM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 29, 2007, 10:40 AM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on December 28, 2007, 04:53 PM NHFTA rational person examines all possibilities and weighs the likelihood of each. A rational person does not decide that one way was the only way it could have happened, and then proceed to ignore any evidence to the contrary. That is not rational behavior.
You talkin' bout yourself there, chief?
About being a rational person? Absolutely. I'm a strictly rational person. There's not anything I would ever take on faith.
Joe
It seems to me that you take the "official" story of 9/11 on faith. I don't understand how you can't even entertain the idea that WTC 7 was possibly brought down by explosives. Like Jaqeboy said, even NIST and other government agencies aren't sure how it collapsed, but you seem to faithfully believe the "official" story. The way it collapsed looks very similar to some of these examples:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/12/29/year.ender.explosions.wivb
As for your question before, I think explosives might have been used to ensure
total destruction of 3 buildings. WTC 1 and WTC 2 for the dramatic effect necessary to propel us into an illegal war (for the record, I'm not entirely convinced explosives were used in these buildings). WTC 7 to destroy any remaining evidence of the conspiracy. There were a lot of offices with sensitive information housed in WTC 7 in addition to Giuliani's "bunker" including:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WTC_7#Tenants
"At the time of the September 11, 2001 attacks, Salomon Smith Barney was by far the largest tenant in 7 World Trade Center, occupying 1,202,900 sq ft (111,750 m²) (64 percent of the building) which included floors 28–45.[24][6] Other major tenants included ITT Hartford Insurance Group (122,590 sq ft/11,400 m²), American Express Bank International (106,117 sq ft/9,900 m²), Standard Chartered Bank (111,398 sq ft/10,350 m²), and the Securities and Exchange Commission (106,117 sq ft/9,850 m²).[24] Smaller tenants included the Internal Revenue Service Regional Council (90,430 sq ft/8,400 m²) and the United States Secret Service (85,343 sq ft/7,900 m²).[24] The smallest tenants included the New York City Office of Emergency Management, NAIC Securities, Federal Home Loan Bank, First State Management Group Inc., Provident Financial Management, and the Immigration and Naturalization Service.[24] The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS.[6] Floors 46–47 were mechanical floors, as were the bottom six floors and part of the seventh floor.[6][25]"
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 29, 2007, 12:32 PM NHFTIt seems to me that you take the "official" story of 9/11 on faith.
It seems to me that you don't even bother reading people's posts to determine what they think, before lumping them into categories...
Just for one example...
Quote from: MaineShark on December 17, 2007, 11:24 AM NHFTIf you'd been around for a while, you would know that I have no issue with the notion that certain agents within the government might have convinced hijackers to carry out these attacks. There's no way to obtain evidence to prove or disprove that claim, at this point in time, so it wouldn't be rational to claim that I know it happened that way, or that I know it didn't happen that way. I'd say I'm 50/50 on that possibility, based on the shreds of evidence that are available and knowledge of the psychology of government-types. After all, governments are, by definition, parasitical creatures, and would be perfectly willing to just wait for a convenient attack and then capitalize on it. On the other hand, governments are demonstrably willing to hurt and kill their own citizens for political purposes, even more so than they are to attack outsiders. So, as I said, it ends up being roughly 50/50.
That certain elements within the government knew the attacks were in the works, and did nothing, I'd say is bordering on certainty.
However, to say that the buildings were brought down by explosives rather than the aircraft is ludicrous. The conspiracy necessary to plant that amount of explosives in those buildings could never be kept secret. And there would simply be no purpose in "framing the guilty." From a standpoint of physics, the planes were sufficient to cause the observed damage.
The only group that benefits from the claim that the buildings were mined with explosives is the government. I'd say it borders on certainty that a good number of the major, visible "Truthers" out there are government agents. No one else benefits from the "9/11 Truth" movement, except the government (politically speaking - lots of those chanting about wanting the truth are really chanting about wanting money from book deals).
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 29, 2007, 12:32 PM NHFTI don't understand how you can't even entertain the idea that WTC 7 was possibly brought down by explosives. Like Jaqeboy said, even NIST and other government agencies aren't sure how it collapsed, but you seem to faithfully believe the "official" story. The way it collapsed looks very similar to some of these examples:
http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2007/12/29/year.ender.explosions.wivb
I can entertain any idea. The size of the conspiracy necessary to mine those buildings with explosives, however, puts that idea at an extraordinarily-low probability.
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 29, 2007, 12:32 PM NHFTAs for your question before, I think explosives might have been used to ensure total destruction of 3 buildings. WTC 1 and WTC 2 for the dramatic effect necessary to propel us into an illegal war (for the record, I'm not entirely convinced explosives were used in these buildings). WTC 7 to destroy any remaining evidence of the conspiracy. There were a lot of offices with sensitive information housed in WTC 7 in addition to Giuliani's "bunker" including:
Fire bombs would be more than sufficient to destroy sensitive data. Anything truly sensitive is pre-mined with small charges, just in case.
The buildings were going to collapse based upon the structural damage and fire due to the aircraft impacts. If they only 98% collapsed instead of 100%, would that change things with regard to Bush going to war? Hardly.
And explosives wouldn't ensure anything, as the blasting controls could easily be destroyed prior to detonation by the fire and the impacts, themselves. Imploding buildings is a precision thing, not something you whip up over a weekend and hope it survives hours of fire before setting it off.
The risk/benefit ratio just doesn't make sense. The risk of getting caught installing the explosives, or having someone blab, or them not actually going off and, therefore, being found intact (among many other risks) just doesn't balance out with the supposed small benefit of ensuring that the collapse was slightly more total than it otherwise might be.
Any coverup regarding the structure is more likely to hide shoddy construction or somesuch. Shoddy construction on government projects is pretty common, and would put them at risk of major lawsuits. Let's imagine that they didn't use proper fireproofing on the structure, so it failed even more easily than it should have. That's entirely within the realm of common things that are done by the government (or allowed by the government to be done by subcontractors). And it would certainly explain the hasty movement of evidence.
And wouldn't require a preposterously-massive conspiracy created for the purpose of ensuring that something inevitable would happen.
Much more sensible.
I have little doubt that certain members of the government
at very least knew the attacks were coming, and sat on the intel. But these particular claims about the structural failure being the result of explosives and missiles and such are just nutty.
Joe
I haven't read much of anything here, but, I don't see Joe accepting the government's version of 911
Let me rephrase that . . . to me, it seems that Joe believes the "official" story of the collapse of the buildings on faith.
Here are Peggy Brewster's (of Northern New England 911 Truth (http://9-11.meetup.com/284/)) pics of the Boston Tea Party event of 2 weeks ago: http://www.flickr.com/photos/86749204@N00/collections/72157603573502176/
Worth a look:
http://www.cairnsblog.net/2007/12/tale-of-three-broadcasters.html
QuoteI am one of growing number of people around the world who believes the western mass media is deeply dishonest about some very important topics...
He brings up salient points. I totally forgot about the BBC's Jane Standley's precog skills. ;D
Simon Moore calls Jane Standley about WTC-7.
[youtube=425,350]P3B1dRN2xvg&NR=1[/youtube]
Quote from: alohamonkey on December 29, 2007, 09:18 PM NHFTLet me rephrase that . . . to me, it seems that Joe believes the "official" story of the collapse of the buildings on faith.
Clearly. That's why I've discussed the collapse from an engineering and physics standpoint. Because I take it on faith. Yeah, that makes a lot of sense! ::)
Joe
Quote from: coffeeseven on December 30, 2007, 07:33 AM NHFT
I totally forgot about the BBC's Jane Standley's precog skills. ;D
Yeah, and also Aaron Brown, reporting a full hour before 7 collapsed. Only he was hip enough about the NYC skyline to just look back and see it was still there, so he mentions something about "the confusion", etc.
I just want to know who wrote the news stories for them to read...
We know that US Army psychological operations had placed people in CNN sometime back... I wonder if anyone is putting the pieces of that story together. Oops, I'll go read your link...
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on December 29, 2007, 02:10 PM NHFT
I haven't read much of anything here, but, I don't see Joe accepting the government's version of 911
well .... then you should read it .... or not comment ;)
I used to think that a smaller coverup seemed more reasonable ... I guess I still do ... a smaller coverup would have been easier ... but that is not how they did it. The government guys had many involved for whatever reason.
As Jack says ... if you want to know more ... you could investigate the facts and not just reason from a distance. If you want to not get into the details ... then leave others alone who do. This thread is a huge pile of information. If all you want to do is question the participants intelligence, maybe you can do that on your own forum and stop bugging us. :)
Quote from: Russell Kanning on December 31, 2007, 08:01 AM NHFT
Quote from: Lloyd Danforth on December 29, 2007, 02:10 PM NHFT
I haven't read much of anything here, but, I don't see Joe accepting the government's version of 911
well .... then you should read it .... or not comment ;)
Why? I know the guy. I know he is rational and intelligent. I don't see him accepting the government's story or every claim the truthers make. No rational person could. Perhaps it is you that should not make comments.
Well you can't accept the government story or all the other ones ... since they are inconsistent.
But Joe has swallowed the government koolaid.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on December 31, 2007, 11:22 PM NHFTWell you can't accept the government story or all the other ones ... since they are inconsistent.
But Joe has swallowed the government koolaid.
Yeah, that must be why I was discussing the collapse before the government issued their report.
Russell, you claim that you didn't even start thinking about this until well after it happened.
Some of us were thinking about this exact sort of attack, among many other possibilities, long before they happened. If you asked me on September 10th, 2001, what would happen if a jetliner crashed into one of those towers, my response would be the same as it has been here.
Some of us actually understand what is going on here. Others are just parroting the government's propaganda about demolitions and missiles and all that other nonsense. That was all produced by the government to discredit those working for liberty. Anyone passing along this sort of mis-information is working for the government, either through malice or through negligence/gullibility.
Joe
Quote from: coffeeseven on December 30, 2007, 07:37 AM NHFT
Simon Moore calls Jane Standley about WTC-7.
She says she has been harrased about this incident? It must be a bummer when the viewers try to find out the truth.
Since this is the only topic (on this forum) that Joe posts about regularly, at least we see where the karma haters hang out.
Quote from: KBCraig on January 01, 2008, 06:01 PM NHFTSince this is the only topic (on this forum) that Joe posts about regularly, at least we see where the karma haters hang out.
Yeah. Not that I particularly care. I bet I could come up with a very short list of names that would almost certainly include the ones who like doing it. None on that list are folks whose opinion of me I care about, so what should it matter to me?
I've noticed yours drop occasionally, too. I'm sure you're just crushed!
Oddly enough, I tend to know what others have for karma numbers, but I don't even look at mine until someone mentions it.
Joe
Why hang around people you don't care about? Why not leave?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on January 01, 2008, 07:17 PM NHFTWhy hang around people you don't care about? Why not leave?
There are plenty of people around here that I care about. Whomever gets a kick out of dinging my karma is not among that list.
Joe
besides me, who else do you care about, Joe? ;D
Kola
Quote from: kola on January 01, 2008, 07:26 PM NHFTbesides me, who else do you care about, Joe? ;D
I don't care about you. Must crush you, since you certainly seem to care about me. But you're not unlike thousands of other children posting online, so I really don't particularly give a hoot...
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on January 01, 2008, 07:30 PM NHFT
Quote from: kola on January 01, 2008, 07:26 PM NHFTbesides me, who else do you care about, Joe? ;D
I don't care about you. Must crush you, since you certainly seem to care about me. But you're not unlike thousands of other children posting online, so I really don't particularly give a hoot...
Joe
Translation:
I have nothing to add to this conversation so attacking everyone to keep them on the defensive is the best I can come up with.TROLL
Quote from: coffeeseven on January 01, 2008, 08:40 PM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on January 01, 2008, 07:30 PM NHFTQuote from: kola on January 01, 2008, 07:26 PM NHFTbesides me, who else do you care about, Joe? ;D
I don't care about you. Must crush you, since you certainly seem to care about me. But you're not unlike thousands of other children posting online, so I really don't particularly give a hoot...
Translation: I have nothing to add to this conversation so attacking everyone to keep them on the defensive is the best I can come up with.
TROLL
This is about the level of "intellect" I've come to expect from "Truthers." Kola decides to snipe at me (has he done anything
but troll in the entire time he's been here?), and the nuts call me a troll. Amusing, but nonsensical.
Any y'all wonder why I think "Truthers" are immature children...
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on January 01, 2008, 07:30 PM NHFT
Quote from: kola on January 01, 2008, 07:26 PM NHFTbesides me, who else do you care about, Joe? ;D
I don't care about you. Must crush you, since you certainly seem to care about me. But you're not unlike thousands of other children posting online, so I really don't particularly give a hoot...
Joe
You underestimate me Joe. I really do like you...even tho we disagree on everything. I say black you say white. I say merry christmas to you and you call me a child. If we ever met, I would reach to shake your hand and offer you a rootbeer. Now back to the topic of this thread. You have done little (if anything) to support your stance. As I always say about debate-type discussions, when people run out of facts they resort to name calling and personal attacks. It is the signal of surrender.
Kola
Quote from: kola on January 01, 2008, 10:33 PM NHFTYou underestimate me Joe.
No, I don't. You're quite transparent.
Quote from: kola on January 01, 2008, 10:33 PM NHFTIf we ever met, I would reach to shake your hand and offer you a rootbeer.
What's your point? The thugs who arrested Russell for not paying his yearly tribute to the US talked about how they wanted him to consider them as friends.
I'd no sooner shake your hand than I would George Bush's.
Quote from: kola on January 01, 2008, 10:33 PM NHFTNow back to the topic of this thread. You have done little (if anything) to support your stance.
Yeah, all the detailed engineering information is "little (if anything)"!
Quote from: kola on January 01, 2008, 10:33 PM NHFTAs I always say about debate-type discussions, when people run out of facts they resort to name calling and personal attacks. It is the signal of surrender.
What should I call you? You
are a child. It's the correct label.
Hey, think of it this way... it's not possible for a child to anger me. Children are, by definition, irrational and incapable of taking responsibility for their own actions. So you can be guaranteed that you can't make me angry.
Joe
I forgot.
You are disciplined.
Kola ;D
Quote from: MaineShark on January 01, 2008, 08:47 PM NHFT
Any y'all wonder why I think "Truthers" are immature children...
Joe
Not really.
Quote from: coffeeseven on January 01, 2008, 10:46 PM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on January 01, 2008, 08:47 PM NHFTAny y'all wonder why I think "Truthers" are immature children...
Not really.
Good. Because it would be silly to wonder about that, when the reasons are so blatant.
I thought you were ignoring me?
Joe
In an interview with David Frost of the BBC a couple of weeks before her assassination, Benazir Bhutto makes a statement about who KILLED Osama bin Laden. BBC then censors that part of the interview and plays the rest.
This YouTube video shows the before and after versions:
[youtube=425,350]ZMiuFx6rQbE[/youtube]
Why that matters, of course, is that UBL is still trotted out from time to time via videotape and audiotape.
Interesting.
Quote from: jaqeboy on January 01, 2008, 11:29 PM NHFT
In an interview with David Frost of the BBC a couple of weeks before her assassination, Benazir Bhutto makes a statement about who KILLED Osama bin Laden.
Why do you think Bhutto would have knowledge of it, even if true?
Since one of the harshest condemnations of Bush is that he's been chasing everyone
except bin Laden, and that he's propping up a puppet military dictator in Musharref (and that ObL is likely hiding in Pakistan), don't you think BushCo would be blasting news of ObL's death far and wide?
Quote from: KBCraig on January 02, 2008, 05:21 PM NHFT
Why do you think Bhutto would have knowledge of it, even if true?
Since one of the harshest condemnations of Bush is that he's been chasing everyone except bin Laden, and that he's propping up a puppet military dictator in Musharref (and that ObL is likely hiding in Pakistan), don't you think BushCo would be blasting news of ObL's death far and wide?
BushCo need OBL alive to get away with their gross violations of liberty and pre-emptive wars. Without him, who are we fighting?
This forwarded to me - I don't have info on where the op-ed was published.
===============================================
Op-Ed Contributors
*Stonewalled by the C.I.A.*
By THOMAS H. KEAN and LEE H. HAMILTON
Published: January 2, 2008
Washington
Related
Blogrunner: Reactions From Around the Web
<http://www.blogrunner.com/snapshot/D/5/0/stonewalled_by_the_cia/>
MORE than five years ago, Congress and President Bush created the 9/11
commission. The goal was to provide the American people with the fullest
possible account of the "facts and circumstances relating to the
terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001" --- and to offer recommendations to
prevent future attacks. Soon after its creation, the president's chief
of staff directed all executive branch agencies to cooperate with the
commission.
The commission's mandate was sweeping and it explicitly included the
intelligence agencies. But the recent revelations that the C.I.A.
destroyed videotaped interrogations of Qaeda operatives leads us to
conclude that the agency failed to respond to our lawful requests for
information about the 9/11 plot. Those who knew about those videotapes
--- and did not tell us about them --- obstructed our investigation.
There could have been absolutely no doubt in the mind of anyone at the
C.I.A. --- or the White House --- of the commission's interest in any
and all information related to Qaeda detainees involved in the 9/11
plot. Yet no one in the administration ever told the commission of the
existence of videotapes of detainee interrogations.
When the press reported that, in 2002 and maybe at other times, the
C.I.A. had recorded hundreds of hours of interrogations of at least two
Qaeda detainees, we went back to check our records. We found that we did
ask, repeatedly, for the kind of information that would have been
contained in such videotapes.
The commission did not have a mandate to investigate how detainees were
treated; our role was to investigate the history and evolution of Al
Qaeda and the 9/11 plot. Beginning in June 2003, we requested all
reports of intelligence information on these broad topics that had been
gleaned from the interrogations of 118 named individuals, including both
Abu Zubaydah and Abd al Rahim al-Nashiri, two senior Qaeda operatives,
portions of whose interrogations were apparently recorded and then
destroyed.
The C.I.A. gave us many reports summarizing information gained in the
interrogations. But the reports raised almost as many questions as they
answered. Agency officials assured us that, if we posed specific
questions, they would do all they could to answer them.
So, in October 2003, we sent another wave of questions to the C.I.A.'s
general counsel. One set posed dozens of specific questions about the
reports, including those about Abu Zubaydah. A second set, even more
important in our view, asked for details about the translation process
in the interrogations; the background of the interrogators; the way the
interrogators handled inconsistencies in the detainees' stories; the
particular questions that had been asked to elicit reported information;
the way interrogators had followed up on certain lines of questioning;
the context of the interrogations so we could assess the credibility and
demeanor of the detainees when they made the reported statements; and
the views or assessments of the interrogators themselves.
The general counsel responded in writing with non-specific replies. The
agency did not disclose that any interrogations had ever been recorded
or that it had held any further relevant information, in any form. Not
satisfied with this response, we decided that we needed to question the
detainees directly, including Abu Zubaydah and a few other key captives.
In a lunch meeting on Dec. 23, 2003, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director,
told us point blank that we would have no such access. During the
meeting, we emphasized to him that the C.I.A. should provide any
documents responsive to our requests, even if the commission had not
specifically asked for them. Mr. Tenet replied by alluding to several
documents he thought would be helpful to us, but neither he, nor anyone
else in the meeting, mentioned videotapes.
A meeting on Jan. 21, 2004, with Mr. Tenet, the White House counsel, the
secretary of defense and a representative from the Justice Department
also resulted in the denial of commission access to the detainees. Once
again, videotapes were not mentioned.
As a result of this January meeting, the C.I.A. agreed to pose some of
our questions to detainees and report back to us. The commission
concluded this was all the administration could give us. But the
commission never felt that its earlier questions had been satisfactorily
answered. So the public would be aware of our concerns, we highlighted
our caveats on page 146 in the commission report.
As a legal matter, it is not up to us to examine the C.I.A.'s failure to
disclose the existence of these tapes. That is for others. What we do
know is that government officials decided not to inform a lawfully
constituted body, created by Congress and the president, to investigate
one the greatest tragedies to confront this country. We call that
obstruction.
Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton served as chairman and vice chairman,
respectively, of the 9/11 commission.
and thus..better named " The Omission Report"
Quote from: jaqeboy on January 03, 2008, 11:46 PM NHFT
This forwarded to me - I don't have info on where the op-ed was published.
NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/02/opinion/02kean.html?ref=opinion
Bush needs Osama bin Laden alive to continue the threat of al-Qaeda. Which is why the administration has done everything in their power to push bin Laden out of the public consciousness. Makes perfect sense.
Just like how they haven't caught Saddam. After all, if they got him, Bush would have to leave Iraq, right? Of course! Everyone knows that. That's why we'll never catch Saddam.
Pug, glad to see you have your health back. While you were away a new thread was created that should help you find a forum for your beliefs, called 911 was NOT an inside job. Hope you enjoy it.
Welcome back.
Quote from: jaqeboy on January 04, 2008, 09:15 PM NHFT
Pug, glad to see you have your health back. While you were away a new thread was created that should help you find a forum for your beliefs, called 911 was NOT an inside job. Hope you enjoy it.
Welcome back.
Thanks, though there seems to be a more active discussion going on in this thread.
9/11 Truth in MSM - Denmark
[youtube=425,350]jze33vZCpwo[/youtube]
discussed on 911blogger (http://www.911blogger.com/node/13235).
nice vid Jaq.
it is good to see other countries speaking out about the truth...and it is good they know that miillions of americans do not buy the "official" story.
like the one guy says...just use your common sense.
kola
Quote from: coffeeseven on January 01, 2008, 08:40 PM NHFT
Quote from: MaineShark on January 01, 2008, 07:30 PM NHFT
Quote from: kola on January 01, 2008, 07:26 PM NHFTbesides me, who else do you care about, Joe? ;D
I don't care about you. Must crush you, since you certainly seem to care about me. But you're not unlike thousands of other children posting online, so I really don't particularly give a hoot...
Joe
Translation: I have nothing to add to this conversation so attacking everyone to keep them on the defensive is the best I can come up with.
TROLL
hahaha ok, maineshark, I've "researched" you in this thread now and wow, to my shock and utter surprise you're doing nothing but insulting people! I just adore the fact that people feel so safe hurling insults over the internet when you know damn well you wouldn't be saying anything like that to people's faces. or if you do talk this way to people, you must not have very many teeth left, maybe a couple in the back, and perhaps that explains this seemingly rattled brain you wield like a wooden sword facing a nuclear arsenal...
Quote from: ThePug on January 04, 2008, 05:12 PM NHFT
Bush needs Osama bin Laden alive to continue the threat of al-Qaeda. Which is why the administration has done everything in their power to push bin Laden out of the public consciousness. Makes perfect sense.
Just like how they haven't caught Saddam. After all, if they got him, Bush would have to leave Iraq, right? Of course! Everyone knows that. That's why we'll never catch Saddam.
You didn't answer my question. Who does the media say we're fighting in Iraq? Answer - "Al Quaeda in Iraq". Do you think it was just coincidence that after Saddam was captured the media quit referring to Sunnis and Shiites as insurgents and started calling them "al Quaeda in Iraq"? If so, you're naive.
Empire building requires an external threat. In years past, it was Communism that justified our empire building. Now, it's terrorism. If OBL was dead or captured, support for continuing and expanding the "war on terror" would waver.
man . . . somebody's been really busy dinging my karma . . . i don't even usually pay attention to it but i just noticed i'm in double digits. oh well, hope you feel some sort of satisfaction and power . . . ciao
Quote from: alohamonkey on January 05, 2008, 04:47 PM NHFT
man . . . somebody's been really busy dinging my karma . . . i don't even usually pay attention to it but i just noticed i'm in double digits. oh well, hope you feel some sort of satisfaction and power . . . ciao
I notice an awful lot of people losing karma in here.
You know, even if MaineShark's assertion is false—that the government is secretly
promoting these theories in order to encourage people to waste all their time debating this stuff instead of doing useful things—the thugs are probably still awful happy everyone
is spending so much time debating this stuff instead of doing useful things.
It was a conspiracy .... I just heard it from conspiracy brother in the movie I was watching.
Quote from: brandon dean on January 05, 2008, 11:20 AM NHFThahaha ok, maineshark, I've "researched" you in this thread now and wow, to my shock and utter surprise you're doing nothing but insulting people! I just adore the fact that people feel so safe hurling insults over the internet when you know damn well you wouldn't be saying anything like that to people's faces. or if you do talk this way to people, you must not have very many teeth left, maybe a couple in the back, and perhaps that explains this seemingly rattled brain you wield like a wooden sword facing a nuclear arsenal...
Uh, unlike you, I'm not an anonymous Internet troll.
See, I actually live here in NH, and actually know many of the people posting here, in person.
And I talk exactly the same in person as I do online. You can verify with folks here that I'm not missing any teeth.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on January 05, 2008, 09:15 PM NHFT
Quote from: brandon dean on January 05, 2008, 11:20 AM NHFThahaha ok, maineshark, I've "researched" you in this thread now and wow, to my shock and utter surprise you're doing nothing but insulting people! I just adore the fact that people feel so safe hurling insults over the internet when you know damn well you wouldn't be saying anything like that to people's faces. or if you do talk this way to people, you must not have very many teeth left, maybe a couple in the back, and perhaps that explains this seemingly rattled brain you wield like a wooden sword facing a nuclear arsenal...
Uh, unlike you, I'm not an anonymous Internet troll.
See, I actually live here in NH, and actually know many of the people posting here, in person.
And I talk exactly the same in person as I do online. You can verify with folks here that I'm not missing any teeth.
Open-carrying two firearms at a time might have something to do with that. :)
Quote from: MaineShark on January 05, 2008, 09:15 PM NHFT
Quote from: brandon dean on January 05, 2008, 11:20 AM NHFThahaha ok, maineshark, I've "researched" you in this thread now and wow, to my shock and utter surprise you're doing nothing but insulting people! I just adore the fact that people feel so safe hurling insults over the internet when you know damn well you wouldn't be saying anything like that to people's faces. or if you do talk this way to people, you must not have very many teeth left, maybe a couple in the back, and perhaps that explains this seemingly rattled brain you wield like a wooden sword facing a nuclear arsenal...
Uh, unlike you, I'm not an anonymous Internet troll.
See, I actually live here in NH, and actually know many of the people posting here, in person.
And I talk exactly the same in person as I do online. You can verify with folks here that I'm not missing any teeth.
Joe
well excuse me for presuming something about you and then mocking and insulting you... just playing on a level field. yeah, no one knows me here, being that I've posted about 30 times and I live on the other side of the country. great sleuth work... again, excuse me for finding this site during the ed and elaine brown debacle and finding it a great site. but until the last couple days I haven't been repeatedly insulted by anyone else here for no reason beside you, so no one else should expect me to talk to them like I do to you... as far as open carrying, I only wish one could exercise that right in los angeles without being arrested. but in any case, I certainly wouldn't need a weapon to defend myself just because someone punched me in the mouth for being a prick, if that was the implication from j'raxis.
and seriously, if you talk to everyone who disagrees with your lordly opinion this way, then you must have alot of close friends. terrific!
Quote from: brandon dean on January 05, 2008, 09:59 PM NHFTas far as open carrying, I only wish one could exercise that right in los angeles without being arrested.
Some of us actually value freedom, and choose to live where we have the maximum of it.
Quote from: brandon dean on January 05, 2008, 09:59 PM NHFTbut in any case, I certainly wouldn't need a weapon to defend myself just because someone punched me in the mouth for being a prick, if that was the implication from j'raxis.
J'raxis was implying that someone would be pretty stupid to attack me in the first place, given the guns. I'm usually carrying concealed, so they wouldn't
actually be a deterrent in most cases.
Of course, punks like you are cowards, and would never actually try to take a swing in real life. Unless you were trying to jump someone from a dark alley.
Quote from: brandon dean on January 05, 2008, 09:59 PM NHFTand seriously, if you talk to everyone who disagrees with your lordly opinion this way, then you must have alot of close friends. terrific!
My manner of speech is dependent upon whom I'm talking to. There are plenty of folks who have managed to disagree with me and behave in a civil manner. I respond in a civil manner to them. Punks like you, get treated exactly as I've treated you.
Joe
Quote from: Russell Kanning on January 05, 2008, 08:19 PM NHFT
It was a conspiracy .... I just heard it from conspiracy brother in the movie I was watching.
I love that movie, just watched it again the other day. ;D
Dada on Trolls:
QuoteThe important thing is generally to not give them what they want. Don't respond to them, don't leave the forum because of them and (in the case of moderators) don't delete their posts unless it's really necessary and deletion appears to be supported by the other participants.
Take trolls for what they are: A sign of success and a test of your will. Pass the test by sticking with us and giving the bad guys no aid and comfort.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on January 05, 2008, 07:12 PM NHFT
You know, even if MaineShark's assertion is false—that the government is secretly promoting these theories in order to encourage people to waste all their time debating this stuff instead of doing useful things—the thugs are probably still awful happy everyone is spending so much time debating this stuff instead of doing useful things.
"useful" is a subjective word
Quote from: Becky Thatcher on January 06, 2008, 07:57 AM NHFT
Quote from: Russell Kanning on January 05, 2008, 08:19 PM NHFT
It was a conspiracy .... I just heard it from conspiracy brother in the movie I was watching.
I love that movie, just watched it again the other day. ;D
The Man is just trying to keep us down.
I have noticed that sometimes people defend the Man .... because he can be quite abusive.
Interesting conference for independent media types (Russell, J'raxis, others?):
Publicizing Truths with Consequences -- Independent Media Power vs. the Corporate Coup Media Summit, 1/25-27/08, Santa Cruz, CA (http://www.911blogger.com/node/13270)
PURPOSE
A collaborative gathering of media veterans, scholars, activists & whistleblowers to assess and marshal our most powerful messages to rectify history, awaken a critical mass, and effectively expose the accelerating corporate coup d'état.
VISION
Truth movements that arise after pivotal events like electoral fraud, 9/11, key assassinations, false flag ops and casus belli fabrications can/should become more than forensic inquiries into a single heinous crime. They can also strive to expose wider patterns of illicit control, deception and propaganda, and use their revelations to rouse entire societies to reject a malignant status quo.
Quote from: J'raxis 270145 on January 05, 2008, 09:28 PM NHFT
Quote from: MaineShark on January 05, 2008, 09:15 PM NHFT
Quote from: brandon dean on January 05, 2008, 11:20 AM NHFThahaha ok, maineshark, I've "researched" you in this thread now and wow, to my shock and utter surprise you're doing nothing but insulting people!...if you do talk this way to people, you must not have very many teeth left, maybe a couple in the back...
And I talk exactly the same in person as I do online. You can verify with folks here that I'm not missing any teeth.
Open-carrying two firearms at a time might have something to do with that. :)
Good dental plan, Shark.
Another amazing coincidence related to the WTC
by Kevin Ryan - a must read! - it just gets curiouser and curiouser....
"There appears to be a remarkable correlation between the floors upgraded for fireproofing in the WTC towers, in the years preceding 9/11/01, and the floors of impact, fire and failure. The fireproofing upgrades would have allowed for shutdown of the affected floors, and the exposure of the floor assemblies and the columns for a significant period of time. Exactly what work was done during that time?
"In some sections of the NIST WTC report, the exact floors upgraded are listed. Other sections of the report suggest even more floors were upgraded, a total of 18 floors in WTC 1 and 13 floors in WTC 2, but the additional floors involved are not specified.[1]
(http://www.911blogger.com/files/Correlation2-thumb.jpg) "
read entire article (http://www.911blogger.com/node/13272) for more...
aloha - a good and thoroughly documented review of the NIST report. Warning: long - took me a few days to finally finish it:
The NIST Report on the World Trade Center Collapse one year later: Still Dead On ArrivalBy Mark H. Gaffney A note to the reader: In December 2006 Mark H. Gaffney posted a scathing critique of the US government's official report about the WTC collapse on 9/11. One year later, the case is stronger than ever. * *
Some excerpts:
Quote
When NIST released its final report in September 2005, critics charged that the agency had ignored evidence of explosions in the towers. The agency responded by asserting its scientific laurels. NIST insisted that its "200 technical experts" had conducted "an extremely thorough investigation." NIST boasted that its staff "reviewed tens of thousands of documents, interviewed more than 1,000 people, reviewed 7,000 segments of video footage and 7,000 photographs, analyzed 236 pieces of steel from the wreckage, performed laboratory tests and sophisticated computer simulations," yet, found "no corroborating evidence for a controlled demolition." NIST also claimed that it had considered "a number of hypotheses for the collapse of the towers."[3]
No doubt, many Americans were persuaded by this snow-job. Sad to say, few of our countrymen (or women) bother to read official reports, especially when they run to 10,000 pages. The persistent individuals who do, however, know that there are sound reasons to question all of the above; because a close reading of the NIST report shows that the agency assumed from the beginning that the Boeing 767 impacts and subsequent fires were responsible for the collapse of the twin towers. The report gives no consideration whatsoever to alternative hypotheses, including the possible use of explosives, the leading candidate. Far from exploring other scenarios, NIST simply took it for granted that the impacts set in motion a chain of events leading to a catastrophic structural failure. Working backwards, NIST scientists searched for evidence that supported their predetermined conclusion. Everything else was ignored or excluded. If it is not already evident to the reader, this is no way to conduct a scientific investigation. NIST then had the audacity to imply that it arrived at its favored collapse model through an exhaustive process of elimination. Most readers who merely browsed NIST's 2005 Executive Summary probably were not aware that NIST's stated conclusion was really an assumption. Consider this passage, for example:
Quote"The tragic consequences of the September 11, 2001 attacks were directly attributable to the fact that terrorists flew large jet-fuel laden commercial airliners into the WTC towers. Buildings for use by the general population are not designed to withstand attacks of such severity; building codes do not require building designs to consider aircraft impact."[4]
The above comment about building codes is deceptive–––NIST readily concedes in its report that the towers survived the initial impacts. In fact, John Skilling, the structural engineer who designed the WTC, always claimed that they would. The towers survived, despite serious damage, because they were hugely overbuilt, redundant by design. Although the WTC's soaring lines gave the impression of a relatively light frame, in fact, the twin towers were extremely rugged buildings, engineered to withstand hurricane-force winds and even a direct hit by a Boeing 707, the largest commercial jetliner of the day. Some have argued that the newer Boeing 767s caused much more damage because of their larger size, but in fact, the two Boeings are comparable. Although slightly smaller, the 707 has a greater cruise speed of 600 mph (as compared with 530 mph for a Boeing 767). Assuming both were to crash at this speed, the 707 would actually have greater kinetic energy.[5]
After the Boeing 767 impacts on 9/11 the severed steel columns simply transferred the weight of the building to other undamaged columns. The NIST report even states that the towers would probably have stood indefinitely, if the impacts had not dislodged the fireproofing material that protected the steel from fire-generated heat.[6]
Which is the rub... guess I shouldn't quote the entire article. You should read it to see what the evidence for dislodged fireproofing was and what the evidence for temperatures reached in the column steel was.
Quote from: jaqeboy on December 28, 2007, 04:12 PM NHFT
Maybe they'll start a group called "Former heads of State for 9/11 Truth" ;D
Hmm, not far off :
Article:
We are all prisoners now (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=72331)
by: Paul Craig Roberts
excerpt:
"Many Europeans regard 9/11 itself as an orchestrated event.
Former cabinet members of the British, Canadian and German governments and the Chief of Staff of the Russian Army have publicly expressed their doubts about the official 9/11 story. Recently, a former president of Italy, Francesco Cossiga, said in an interview with the newspaper, Corriere della Sera (November 30, 2007), that "democratic elements in America and Europe, with the Italian center-left in the forefront, now know that the 9/11 attack was planned and executed by the American CIA and Mossad in order to blame the Arab countries, and to persuade the Western powers to undertake military action both in Iraq and Afghanistan."
"It is unclear whether Cossiga was being sarcastic about the opinion of skeptics or merely reporting what people think. I have written to him asking for clarification and will report any reply that I receive. Apparently, the Italian media has not offered a clarification.
"Cossiga's statement has not been reported by a single U.S. newspaper or TV channel, raising doubts among Americans that the government is not a strong point of the corporate media. Americans live in a world of propaganda designed to secure their acquiescence to war crimes, torture, searches and police state measures, military aggression, hegemony and oppression, while portraying Americans (and Israelis) as the salt of the earth who are threatened by Muslims who hate their 'freedom and democracy.' "
Quote from: Nick Danger on December 01, 2007, 10:21 AM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on November 30, 2007, 08:09 AM NHFT
Show me one (just one) other example of another steel structure collapsing due to fire damage (WTC 7). If you can, I won't put you on ignore. ;)
...
In any case, the official NIST report did not assign the primary cause to fire damage, but to structural damage caused by the collapse of the twin towers, which took out a good bit of the south face of the building.
Nick, here's the latest on the NIST report you seem to be referring to above. Are you inadvertantly referring to some other report? Please give us a link, OK? I think everyone would like to read whatever you are referring to.
Quote
WTC 7 report set for summer 2008 release (http://www.bloggernews.net/112871)
The delayed National Institute of Standards and Technology report on the collapse of the World Trade Center 7 following the 9/11 terrorist attack in 2001 will be released for public comment this July. A final version will be published a month later, in August 2008.
NIST's investigation of the WTC 7 collapse was supposed to have been completed by the end of 2006, but more complex, and time-consuming, computer simulations, along with a consideration of some additional evidence (mainly architectural and construction documents and plans), has stretched out the process, according to Michael E. Newman of NIST.
Sorry dudes - was mining a vein - I'll put down the pickaxe now to give you a rest. ;)
Jaqeboy . . . thanks for getting this thread back on track. Good stuff. I'm still a few pages back in my readings but I love having links/reports available when I have free time.
Quote from: jaqeboy on January 06, 2008, 09:52 PM NHFT
Sorry dudes - was mining a vein - I'll put down the pickaxe now to give you a rest. ;)
;D
Thom Hartmann Show, November 8, 2007:
Kevin Ryan and Michael Shermer Debate What Really Happened on 9/11 (http://911research.wtc7.net/debates/ryan_v_shermer/index.html)
This radio show sounds remarkably like the back and forth on this thread! (but thankfully without the vituperation and gratuitous vitriol, discourtesy and name-calling)
Michael Shermer is "the founding publisher of Skeptic Magazine, the executive director of the Skeptics Society – their website, http://www.Skeptic.com (http://www.skeptic.com)"
Kevin Ryan is "the co-editor of the Journal of 9/11 Studies (http://www.journalof911studies.com/), the former site manager for Underwriters Laboratories in South Bend..."
A good read, but, like I warned... if you've been following this thread, you've probably heard both sides. Worth a read, nevertheless.
Good stuff. I'm listening to it now. I never knew Thom Hartman directly confronted this issue. I used to listen to him on Sirius radio and he always danced around the issue but never attacked it head-on. I had to disable Sirius at the end of last summer and just got it set up again about a week ago. Looking forward to hearing this discussion.
Do you by any chance have a link to the interview between the radio announcer from ND (I think) with the Popular Mechanics guy? It was the interview where the PM guy claimed that they were able to identify the terrorists that were in the plane that crashed into the Pentagon because they found their DNA in the wreckage? My computer died about 2 weeks ago and I lost everything . . . slowly piecing it together again.
Quote from: alohamonkey on January 08, 2008, 06:48 PM NHFT
...
Do you by any chance have a link to the interview between the radio announcer from ND (I think) with the Popular Mechanics guy? It was the interview where the PM guy claimed that they were able to identify the terrorists that were in the plane that crashed into the Pentagon because they found their DNA in the wreckage? My computer died about 2 weeks ago and I lost everything . . . slowly piecing it together again.
Wow, sorry to hear about the computer, but I'm in the same boat, too - having major issues. (They're :glasses7: out to get us!!! ::) )
No, I don't have any link handy on that interview. I bet it can be found with a quick search. I remember hearing that, too, but I don't remember where I heard it.
Aha. Found it. This is an old interview between Charles Goyette (radio host in AZ) and Davin Coburn (editor/researcher of Popular Mechanics story on 9/11). I had forgotten about this interview until I was discussing the Popular Mechanics book with a friend the other day. Keep in mind that, at the time of the interview, Goyette did not classify himself as a "truther" by any means. He was just a skeptic asking questions and asking for evidence. I'm not sure where he stands today.
Listen to the podcast if possible (sorry about the audio quality) . . . the "unofficial transcript" typed out below is missing alot of parts. I think the most important part of the interview is from 17:00 minutes on. Gavin from Popular Mechanics was asked by a caller about the 5-7 hijackers that turned up after 9/11 alive. Gavin asserted that the BBC report on these men was false. When pressed on what makes him believe this, Gavin says that it's because they tested DNA from "all over the place" on 9/11 and found DNA from the hijackers. Goyette grills him for a while and it's blatantly obvious that Gavin is either a) completely lying or b) doesn't know what the hell he's talking about.
The podcast can be found here - http://www.911podcasts.com/files/audio/A003I060823-am-c3.MP3
From:
http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20060826165457842
Saturday, August 26 2006 - In the Media
AZ Radio Host Deconstructs Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Disinfo Researcher
9/11 Facts and Myths: Charles Goyette interviews Davin Coburn, editor / researcher of PM's original 9/11 conspiracy slam
Charles Goyette Show
KFNX Radio
August 23, 2006
Ever wonder why prominent "official story" apologists always shun 9/11 truth debates? Here perhaps is the nightmare that they dread. Show host Goyette is not an overt 9/11 skeptic, just a fearless interrogator with a very logical mind. One guesses the battered Mr. Coburn will be picking his interview venues with much more care next time. A podcast of this powerful show is available here. - Ed.
UNOFFICIAL TRANSCRIPT
PM - Popular Mechanics: Davin Coburn "researcher, editor, reporter on the original 9/11 article"
CG - Charles Goyette, Radio Show Host
CG: Is there information that has not been given to the public?
PM: Very little... there is very little that has been held back as far as the basic facts of what happened that morning in terms of the material we looked into.
CG: I was under the impression that there were a lot of facts that were withheld. I mean, the surveillance videos, for example, around the Pentagon we were told about: a hotel video, a convenience store video, we haven't seen those. Apparently they were swooped up very quickly or so the report goes.
PM: That is the case, those have been taken for larger criminal investigations those are now being disclosed to the public, you know with the Judicial Watch material...
CG: I've talked with the guys at Judicial Watch, and they're not very happy about it, they released like four frames that don't really show much of anything.
PM: They don't show very much considering that the frame rate was one frame per second and the plane Flight 77 was moving about 780 feet per second, from that distance it's not surprising that there was not a whole lot caught on that video.
CG: Are you telling me that's the only video?
PM: No, I suspect there are other videos, I suspect they're still being used for various investigations.
CG: What the hell is there to investigate? They told us who the guys were, they held onto some of that stuff for the Moussaoui trial for the love of God, like it was really relevant to his trial (sarcastic), it's five years later, when are the American people entitled to the evidence?
PM: I think there's plenty of evidence out there...
CG: It's not the evidence we've seen that we're concerned about, it's the evidence we haven't seen. Does that make any sense?
PM: Oh sure it makes sense.... The evidence is abundant...
CG: It's the dog that didn't bark... We know the evidence we've seen, that doesn't cause any suspicion so much as the evidence that we don't see. It's not helpful in this country with a very secretive government when a big, powerful magazine like you guys, who owns Popular Mechanics?
PM: "Hearst."
CG: Ok, with Hearst Corporation, with all of your might, instead of joining the people in their natural curiosity to see all the evidence, you try to say, "Oh shut up, you peons don't know what you're talking about, everything's fine, keep on moving, there's nothing to see here." Hearst should be using their influence to get all the evidence released and that will end all the conspiracy talk! Wouldn't it?
PM: (does not answer this question)
CG: ...I want to come back to the unseen evidence - the dog that didn't bark. Hearst has a lot of muscle - where are you in lobbying for the release of all the evidence to put an end to all this madness, speculation and distrust?..
PM: It's not up to us...
CG: I said use your influence.. Look, is there something we don't know about this that they have to hide from us? No, or so I presume. We're told who did it, we've invaded two countries in response to it, we've spent billions of dollars, I mean, what could be possibly secretive right now?
PM: How can I answer the question?
CG: Because you don't know, we just want to see the evidence. If the plane flew into the building, show us the damn pictures. What could that possibly hurt?
PM: (Cannot answer question)
CG: ...Building 7 is the first piece of evidence that I turn to. Popular Mechanics...say that a third of the face, approximately 25% of the depth of the building that was scooped out beforehand.
PM: When the North Tower collapsed... there was damage to Building 7.... What we found out was...about 25% of the building's south face had been carved away from it... Each column that you remove that was destroyed by the wreckage from the North Tower...
CG: That would be very persuasive to me if it were true. And it may or may not be true... I go, oh that's interesting...if that's true that would go a long way towards explaining what happened to Building 7. So I turn to the pictures in your book about Building 7 you've got a picture of Building 7, but it doesn't show that. So I'm going, OK, instead of just somebody asserting that a third of the building was scooped away, show me the picture. But you don't show me the picture.
PM: ...We have seen pictures that are property of the NY Police Department and various other governmental agencies that we were not given permission to disseminate....
CG: Popular Mechanics got to see them, but the average American citizen can't see them.
PM: Correct.
CG: Well, that's a fine kettle of fish, isn't it? ....What did you see there that I can't see?
PM: Just what was described.
CG: Well it must be something that's dangerous for me as an American citizen or a voter to see. You're publishers, if anybody is concerned about evidence in a criminal case or something, they've done the worst possible thing, they've shown it to a damn magazine publisher!
PM: That was done for the purposes of our background research.
CG: What about my background research? Do you see the source of my frustration here? I didn't know we had different classes of citizens. You can't tell me it's because it's a criminal case because they've shown it to a damn magazine publisher.
PM: ....I can't answer that question.
CG: I know you can't.
PM: (is speechless)....
...Caller (Mike): What about the 7 to 9 hijackers that were reported in the British press who came forward and said, "We're alive, what are we doing on the FBI list of so-called hijackers? We're alive and well." How do you explain that one?
PM: It was one BBC report - I am saying that is false.
Caller: How did you verify that the British story was false?
PM: The remains of the hijackers who have been widely understood to have been on those planes...
Caller: What remains?
PM: There was DNA evidence collected all over the place.
Caller: The building was incinerated; the concrete was turned into powder, there were molten pools of steel in the bottom of the building that were still hot weeks after, and they were able do autopsies on bodies? Are you insane? Where are the autopsy reports you were referring to, on the hijackers, where are those reports? I haven't heard anything about autopsy reports.
CG: I want to know, even if we presume you're correct that they recovered the DNA of the 19 hijackers from the rubble, where did they get their original DNA with which to match it? Where did they get the original DNA of a bunch of middle-eastern Islamic madmen? Where did they get the DNA? Had they submitted DNA before they, uh...I mean, where the hell did they get it? You're not even talking sensibly with me.
PM: Off the top of my head, I don't know the answer to that.
CG: Of course you don't.
PM: I'll get back to you with it.
CG: Is that a promise?
PM: I will do my best.
CG: People all across the state of Arizona now are hearing Davin Coburn say on the show that he's gonna find out how they got that DNA checked against those Islamic terrorists who had...hijacked those planes. Good, I'd like to hear it. Now do you understand why people scratch their head when these kinds of representations are made?
PM: No, actually I don't...
CG: You don't understand why when you tell us that they found the hijackers' DNA remains amongst the molten steel, and I ask you where did they get the original DNA from the hijackers to match it against - Do you think that's bizarre to ask a question like that, do you think it's conspiratorial just to want to know?...You told me that they have DNA evidence that matches the hijackers...
PM: I think the entire question is baseless. I think that it is not even a question that's worth answering....
CG: ...You've told me that they checked their DNA, where did they get their original DNA to check it against? You're the one with the answers, I'm not. I just ask questions.
PM: ...A seven year old can ask why, over and over and over....
CG: No, this is the worst attack on America in the history of this country, we've invaded two countries, maybe a third because of it, we're gonna spend trillions of dollars. It's not a seven year old asking why, I want to know where they got the evidence that they matched it against. What's so hard about that?
PM: The way that you're framing it is intentionally...
CG: Of course it is, 'cause it's five years later and we haven't heard the answer. And you haven't given it to us in Popular Mechanics. I swear to God, that's it. You see, it's the way I'm framing it makes it an illegitimate question? Well tell me how to reframe it, tell me how to ask it differently.
PM: I would start entirely over with the question that that gentleman asked.
CG: I want the question I asked. All right, that's it. Hey Davin, thanks...the Charles Goyette Show.
END
Quote from: jaqeboy on January 06, 2008, 09:08 PM NHFT
The NIST report even states that the towers would probably have stood indefinitely, if the impacts had not dislodged the fireproofing material that protected the steel from fire-generated heat.[6]
You know what's interesting? Per an article I read the other day, the Windsor Building in Madrid had little to no fireproofing in place as well.
I didn't read the article on this site but it verifies the fact - http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html
Reminds me of the question after Saddam's son was killed by the U.S. military. They bombed the place down to bedrock and after the fact the question came up "how did you know Saddam's son was among the dead?"
"DNA"
Harry Potter's magic wand is not nearly as cool as saying "DNA". It's like a get out of jail free card.
Ummm Saddam's sons were easily identified. DNA was just to be sure but the bodies were not mutilated quite that badly. They were largely quite intact.
But don't believe me. See them for yourself (graphic images follow): http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/nationworld/iraq/bal-husseinsons-photogallery,0,360538.photogallery?coll=bal-iraq-storyutil
I know, don't believe everything you read, but here is one possible explanation from when Saddam was captured:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4481-fasttrack-dna-tests-confirm-saddams-identity.html
QuoteKobilinsky says that the military appear to already have Hussein's genetic profile stored away for comparison. US forces claimed to have samples from the dictator in April 2003. This could be from personal items such as a toothbrush or cup he drank from, Kobilinsky told New Scientist.
"They certainly had access to the two sons, Uday and Qusay, who were killed," he says. A "very quick way" of identifying Saddam Hussein would be to compare the new sample with variable regions called short tandem repeats on the sons' Y-chromosomes. As this male sex chromosome is passed directly from father to son, it should match.
Kobilinsky suspects both Y-chromosome DNA and other DNA from the nucleus's of Hussein's cells would have been tested.
I'm wondering how the govt got the DNA, why they collected it, and when (regarding the 9/11 terrorists - not saddam)
Quote from: alohamonkey on January 08, 2008, 10:23 PM NHFT
I'm wondering how the govt got the DNA, why they collected it, and when (regarding the 9/11 terrorists - not saddam)
Jesus, he used to be on the payroll. There were myriad opportunities.
If you like the cloak & daggar theories, back when old Rummy was buddy-buddy with the dictator, the CIA was probably sending him call girls. That's a good way to get a voluntary sample straight from the source. His sons were also carousers so I wouldn't be surprised if they gave up some good samples to the CIA as well.
And you don't even really need
his DNA to rule out a doppleganger; the DNA of a close relative will do. Like one of his three daughters, perhaps, who aren't nearly as well guarded as the dictator and his sons were. His daughter Rana defected to Jordan back in the 90's. Her DNA should be good enough to positively ID the corpses of her brothers. The other daughter, Raghad, also defected to Jordan. They would probably be quite complicit in any Jordanian efforts to catalog Hussein family DNA (which is just a back channel to the CIA DNA database)
Quote from: yonder on January 08, 2008, 10:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on January 08, 2008, 10:23 PM NHFT
I'm wondering how the govt got the DNA, why they collected it, and when (regarding the 9/11 terrorists - not saddam)
Jesus, he used to be on the payroll. There were myriad opportunities.
If you like the cloak & daggar theories, back when old Rummy was buddy-buddy with the dictator, the CIA was probably sending him call girls. That's a good way to get a voluntary sample straight from the source. His sons were also carousers so I wouldn't be surprised if they gave up some good samples to the CIA as well.
And you don't even really need his DNA to rule out a doppleganger; the DNA of a close relative will do. Like one of his three daughters, perhaps, who aren't nearly as well guarded as the dictator and his sons were. His daughter Rana defected to Jordan back in the 90's. Her DNA should be good enough to positively ID the corpses of her brothers. The other daughter, Raghad, also defected to Jordan. They would probably be quite complicit in any Jordanian efforts to catalog Hussein family DNA (which is just a back channel to the CIA DNA database)
Speculation on the source DNA, inconclusiveness of comparison to familial DNA. We've been having these same discussions ever since he was murdered.
Quote from: yonder on January 08, 2008, 10:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on January 08, 2008, 10:23 PM NHFT
I'm wondering how the govt got the DNA, why they collected it, and when (regarding the 9/11 terrorists - not saddam)
Jesus, he used to be on the payroll. There were myriad opportunities.
If you like the cloak & daggar theories, back when old Rummy was buddy-buddy with the dictator, the CIA was probably sending him call girls. That's a good way to get a voluntary sample straight from the source. His sons were also carousers so I wouldn't be surprised if they gave up some good samples to the CIA as well.
And you don't even really need his DNA to rule out a doppleganger; the DNA of a close relative will do. Like one of his three daughters, perhaps, who aren't nearly as well guarded as the dictator and his sons were. His daughter Rana defected to Jordan back in the 90's. Her DNA should be good enough to positively ID the corpses of her brothers. The other daughter, Raghad, also defected to Jordan. They would probably be quite complicit in any Jordanian efforts to catalog Hussein family DNA (which is just a back channel to the CIA DNA database)
Oh yeah. It wouldn't have been a problem at all to collect the Hussein family DNA. I posted a link a few posts back with an interview about how the editor/researcher of Popular Mechanics said the govt positively identified the 9/11 hijackers through DNA. I'm wondering how they collected the DNA samples from them.
Quote from: alohamonkey on January 09, 2008, 07:50 AM NHFT
Quote from: yonder on January 08, 2008, 10:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: alohamonkey on January 08, 2008, 10:23 PM NHFT
I'm wondering how the govt got the DNA, why they collected it, and when (regarding the 9/11 terrorists - not saddam)
Jesus, he used to be on the payroll. There were myriad opportunities.
If you like the cloak & daggar theories, back when old Rummy was buddy-buddy with the dictator, the CIA was probably sending him call girls. That's a good way to get a voluntary sample straight from the source. His sons were also carousers so I wouldn't be surprised if they gave up some good samples to the CIA as well.
And you don't even really need his DNA to rule out a doppleganger; the DNA of a close relative will do. Like one of his three daughters, perhaps, who aren't nearly as well guarded as the dictator and his sons were. His daughter Rana defected to Jordan back in the 90's. Her DNA should be good enough to positively ID the corpses of her brothers. The other daughter, Raghad, also defected to Jordan. They would probably be quite complicit in any Jordanian efforts to catalog Hussein family DNA (which is just a back channel to the CIA DNA database)
Oh yeah. It wouldn't have been a problem at all to collect the Hussein family DNA. I posted a link a few posts back with an interview about how the editor/researcher of Popular Mechanics said the govt positively identified the 9/11 hijackers through DNA. I'm wondering how they collected the DNA samples from them.
Wingardium Leviosa ;D
Quote from: jaqeboy on December 14, 2007, 08:50 AM NHFT
PS, I think it's easier to do the research than it is to get into the interminable speculations and counter-arguments to speculations, such as "chimney effects." You could probably word-search the Commission Report, the FEMA report and the NIST report (the 3 official documents) on chimney effect faster than you could make a speculative argument for it and then argue back and forth about it. You could google chimney effect WTC7, etc., etc. - lots of ways to get to that. I don't think anyone has to question or de-bunk chimney effect re the fires in WTC1, 2 or 7. It's not even one of the issues suggested (except on this thread ;D )
Just to further flog a hopefully dead horse: the "chimney effect" or "stack effect" in the WTC towers... This YouTube video of MIT engineer Jeff King touches on the design of the buildings, and specifically mentions:
at 5:17 - ..."specifically designed to prevent "chimney effect", and
at 5:34 - ... "hermetically sealed system", and "fire shutters that apparently worked"...
This was recorded at the L.A. conference of May, 2006
[youtube=425,350]q8XToX7aSdg[/youtube]
The Shell Game (http://www.theshellgame.net/index.html), by Steve Alten
(http://www.theshellgame.net/picts/home-background.jpg)
This is a new fictional work that interweaves 9/11 Truth questions into the story. Many in the 9/11 Truth movement were not happy that a book would conflate truth and fiction, but it sounds like many in the movement are coming around. The website for the book has numerous links to truth movement sites.
Fight 93 TV news footage
http://www.evtv1.com/player.aspx?itemnum=7652&aid=
not much there
Quote from: jaqeboy on January 09, 2008, 03:11 PM NHFT
Many in the 9/11 Truth movement were not happy that a book would conflate truth and fiction, ...
:biglaugh:
Quote from: Russell Kanning on January 09, 2008, 06:29 PM NHFT
not much there
Sooooper passsport. ;)
Took me a minute to find this one. How to create an angry American:
[youtube=425,350]OgfzqulvhlQ[/youtube]
Isn't puppetgov great!
We have a lot of videos captured at Merrimack Valley 911 Truth's site: http://9-11.meetup.com/307/pages/Videos/
Quote from: jaqeboy on January 09, 2008, 03:11 PM NHFT
The Shell Game (http://www.theshellgame.net/index.html), by Steve Alten
PRESS RELEASE -- N.Y. Times Best Selling author releases cautionary
tale exposing deceptions of Bush Admin.
Why were there no jet-fighters dispatched on 9/11? Why was NORAD
engaged in upwards of five separate military exercises in Canadian
air space on the day of the worst attack in U.S. history? Why were
false blips allowed to be projected onto FAA screens, confusing air
flight controllers? Why was Cheney in-charge of NORAD on 9/11? Did
the Vice President order a stand-down so that the attacks would
succeed?
These probing questions, ignored by the 9/11 commission, have been
posed over and again by frustrated 9/11 Truth organizations who have
demanded answers yet receive scant media attention. That could all
change with the release of a new book: The SHELL GAME, by NY times
best-selling author Steve Alten. Written in the guise of a fictional
thriller, this cautionary tale exposes the deceptions of the Bush
Administration to a mainstream audience while detailing the next
9/11 event, already in the planning stages, that will make the case
for an invasion of Iran...all part of the neo-conservative agenda.
Two revealing 90-second book trailers were released on YouTube at
http://youtube.com/theshellgame
The trailers lead viewers to a new website:
http://www.TheShellGame.net featuring links to Peak Oil and 9/11
Truth websites and videos.
The author, who has had several novels appear on best-seller lists,
believes the topic is timely, and that most Americans want to be
informed about the real motives behind the 9/11 attacks. "I first
began researching The SHELL GAME in 2003 because I was interested in
Peak Oil and the implications of what happens when we run out.
Everything the Bush Administration has done, from secret energy
meetings to their quashing of 9/11 investigations by the FBI, to the
invasion of Iraq and now the threats surrounding Iran have to do
with society running out of oil. What the SHELL GAME does is
disseminate the information in an entertaining, often shocking
storyline. The hero of the novel goes on an odyssey into the dark
heart of where America has been headed for the last half decade.
The Patriot Act, false flag terrorism, the politics of oil control,
the lies that lead nations to wars . . . all the things activists
have begged people to look at for these long years . . . will be
exposed to a mass public that enjoys reading page-turning action
thrillers."
The book, which officially debuts on January 22, has garnered strong
reviews and has nearly pre-sold its 40,000 first edition printing.
To interview Steve Alten, contact Lissy Peace at Blanco & Peace: 312-
573-2070.
--------------------------------
Maybe the New Hampshire Underground book editor could land an interview with the author...
The Shell Game Book Trailer:
[youtube=425,350]OioYWUmRcuw&rel[/youtube]
The author is already being harrassed, even though the book is not to be released til the 22nd:
What Do a Renowned 9/11 Physicist and a N.Y. Times Best Selling Novelist Have in Common? Harassment by Dis-Information? (http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_bill_dou_080110_what_do_a_renowned_9.htm)
Thanks Jaq. I look forward to reading it. Kola
Quote from: Russell Kanning on January 09, 2008, 06:29 PM NHFT
not much there
There's supposedly a satellite photo of the Shanksville crash site in the days before the "crash" that shows the same gash in the ground, but I haven't seen it.
Local meeting:
Sunday
January 13, 2008
7:00 PM
Seacoast 9-11 Questions Group planning meeting at Dave Diamond's apartment, 4 High Ridge Dr. in Dover.
Please park in UNNUMBERED spots only.
For more information about the location contact Dave at ddiam@ttlc.netor phone (603) 749-9159.
For information about the agenda contact Peggy Brewster at brewstout@roadrunner.com, phone 973-1555.
Please join us for planning and discussion.
**UPDATE!**
We'll be showing a short movie at the meeting with time for discussion afterwards.
Flight Of American 77
Chapter Two of the Pandora's Black Box Series
produced and supported by Professional Pilots.
This feature film follows the flight as it happens in real time throughout the Air Traffic Control System on September 11, 2001. Analysis includes The Flight Data Recorder, The money and cover-up, Air Traffic Control and Radar, NORAD response and the shocking conflicts/possibilities based on information provided by the US Government.
...
Quote from: jaqeboy on January 06, 2008, 09:23 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on December 28, 2007, 04:12 PM NHFT
Maybe they'll start a group called "Former heads of State for 9/11 Truth" ;D
Hmm, not far off :
Article: We are all prisoners now (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=72331)
How about former cabinet ministers:
See: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13340
Fujita Yukihisa,DPJ, asked the question regarding the truth of 9.11 to the current Prime Minister Fukuda. With the panel,he explained the conspiracy theory and made the pants of prime minister sweaty because he was the Chief Cabinet Secretary under Koizumi cabinet in 2001. He pointed out the fact that the 7th tower collapsed even though air plane did not hit it and there was the suspect of insider dealing that people benefit by using the Put Option.
If the attack was not done by Al-Qaeda,then the Iraq war cannnot be justified, so the decision of sending the Japanese self-defense force to Iraq cannot be justified as well. Thefore, the self-defense force does not need to provide the oil to the American military in order to support the operation in Iraq. It is China and Japan buying the large share of American Treasury bond,so if China and Japan stop buying the bond, America cannnot finance the war in Iraq anymore whoever become the President after Bush.
Hopefully, Ron Paul will become the President and bring peace to the world.
"How could terrorists attacked the Pentagon?" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5LHUInaZ9M
Revisiting the Pentagon...
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm
Quote from: jaqeboy on January 12, 2008, 05:09 PM NHFT
...Quote from: jaqeboy on January 06, 2008, 09:23 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on December 28, 2007, 04:12 PM NHFT
Maybe they'll start a group called "Former heads of State for 9/11 Truth" ;D
Hmm, not far off :
Article: We are all prisoners now (http://www.aljazeera.com/news/newsfull.php?newid=72331)
How about former cabinet ministers:
See: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13340
...
"How could terrorists attacked the Pentagon?" : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5LHUInaZ9M
Here is a translation of his full comments:
http://www.truthnews.us/?p=1705
Quote from: jaqeboy on January 09, 2008, 03:11 PM NHFT
The Shell Game (http://www.theshellgame.net/index.html), by Steve Alten
(http://www.theshellgame.net/picts/home-background.jpg)
This is a new fictional work that interweaves 9/11 Truth questions into the story. Many in the 9/11 Truth movement were not happy that a book would conflate truth and fiction, but it sounds like many in the movement are coming around. The website for the book has numerous links to truth movement sites.
EXPLOSIVE book "The Shell Game" author interviewed on Visibility
9/11 Radio – Jan. 20, 2008 Steve Alten has interviewed and will
interview on many programs including Pacifica radio including, KPFA
San Francisco, KKFI Kansas City, etc.
LEARN WHY THIS BOOK IS IMPORTANT TO ALL 9/11 TRUTH, ANTI-WAR,
ENVIRONMENTAL, AND HUMAN CIVIL RIGHTS ACTIVISTS !!
You can hear the interview at the below link:
http://cdn.libsyn.com/visibility911/visibility911_steve_alten.mp3
http://www.visibility911.com/
Just started watching a new 911T video: 9-11 New World Rising (http://www.newworldrisingmovie.com/). This might be worth a watching by anyone curious about the WTC collapses.
Video trailer on YouTube - full-length video viewable as a Google Video from the home site above.
Good video and great music. Thanks!
Michael Badnarik, 911 Truther!
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2074711241947120603&hl=en
New Hampshire's own Student Scholars for 911 Truth at work... they're everywhere, interviewing everyone.
Off topic kind of:
I thought this thread was in the 100's for as long as it's been going on. I'm surprised it's only 88 pages! :D
I have a question.
Has any of the material either pro/con 911 being an inside job or whatever changed anybody's mind since the beginning of this thread?
good question.
Like Kat said once, though, she started this thread as a repository for research information, so I've been using it that way. I'm not sure I could convince anyone of anything, but if someone is curious, the could view the material posted and make up their own mind.
Then, with the scheduled events and news posted at Merrimack Valley 911 Truth (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org), the curious could get more information to assist in their decision-making.
Willie Nelson is a "9-11 Truther"!
http://www.infowars.com/?p=74
Amy Goodman interviews NYT reporter Phillip Shenon on his new book: The Commission: The Uncensored History of the 9/11 Investigation
New Book Alleges 9/11 Commissioner Philip Zelikow Minimized Scrutiny of Bush Admin Failure to Prevent al-Qaeda Attack (http://www.democracynow.org/2008/2/5/new_book_alleges_9_11_commissioner)
Quote from: jaqeboy on February 05, 2008, 02:15 PM NHFT
Willie Nelson is a "9-11 Truther"!
http://www.infowars.com/?p=74
The audio on the ABC News site: http://abcnews.go.com/Video/playerIndex?id=4244526
Hadn't seen this one. Kat cover your ears. Rough language.
Found on Free-Stater Brian Wright's movie review pages:
Overcoming People's Psychological Resistance to 9/11 Truth (http://brianrwright.com/Coffee_Coaster/02_Movie_Reviews/2008/080125_911_Truth_Resistance.htm)
Important understanding of the human factor in the spread of uncomfortable verities
Written and Directed by Ken Jenkins
This is something I have always wondered about and Ken Jenkins seems to address it (haven't seen the video yet) pretty well.
Another engineer for 9/11 truth:
Principal Electrical Engineer for WTC: "Fuel and Planes Alone Did NOT
Bring the Towers Down"
911 Blogger
February 12, 2008
Richard F. Humenn, PE was the Senior Project Design Engineer for
electrical systems for the entire World Trade Center, and he had 60
people working under him. In other words, he was the guy in charge of
all electrical at the WTC. A retired licensed professional engineer,
he was certified by the States of New York, New Jersey, Connecticut
and Washington, D.C.
Humenn stated to Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth:
On September 11, I watched the live TV broadcast of the progressive
collapse of the World Trade Towers with disbelief, as the mass and
strength of the structure should have survived the localized damage
caused by the planes and burning jet fuel.
I viewed the presentation of Richard Gage and other related material,
which compels me to believe that the fuel and planes alone did not
bring the Towers down. I, therefore, support the proposal to form an
international group of professionals to investigate all plausible
causes for the virtual freefall and the almost total destruction of
the WTC structures.
Humenn also recently gave a two-hour recorded interview to an
attorney and former law school professor (a transcript of the
interview will soon be posted to AE911Truth.org). In that interview,
Humenn expressed his opinion that the Twin Towers were intentionally
demolished. (He stated that he could not believe the U.S. government
could have done such a thing; however, he was not asked about rogue
elements within the government).
Few engineers have as much first-hand knowledge of the Twin Towers as
Humenn, so his opinion carries some weight. As he explains, "Though
an electrical engineer by trade, I was also very familiar with the
structures and their conceptual design parameters."
Quote from: jaqeboy on February 12, 2008, 11:05 PM NHFT
Principal Electrical Engineer for WTC: "Fuel and Planes Alone Did NOT
Bring the Towers Down"
911 Blogger
February 12, 2008
Richard F. Humenn, PE was the Senior Project Design Engineer for
electrical systems ...
Let us know when the principal
structural engineer issues his opinion.
the 9/11 talk at Keene was pretty good ... Kat will be putting up an article
I guess we can link to the latest engineer to join that group :)
Quote from: KBCraig on February 15, 2008, 01:22 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on February 12, 2008, 11:05 PM NHFT
Principal Electrical Engineer for WTC: "Fuel and Planes Alone Did NOT
Bring the Towers Down"
911 Blogger
February 12, 2008
Richard F. Humenn, PE was the Senior Project Design Engineer for
electrical systems ...
Let us know when the principal structural engineer issues his opinion.
Heck, you can just join ae911truth.org as a non-A/E and get the breaking news there! ;)
Structural Engineer Leslie Robertson opined many pages back in this thread (dated around Christmastime) in an article .
boomboom boom boom boom booom
yeahs thats how melting buildings collapse huh ::)
bastards.
Kola
- - 9/11 Truth Debate at European Parliament, February 26
Posted 911truth.org on February 15 2008
Film & debate in the European Parliament about 9/11.
Brussels 26 February 2008 7pm, PHS 3C50 (this is where the debate will be held) – this event is NOT open to the public, only to journalists and the politicians. (Nevertheless, Belgian & French Truthers have their contacts and will make sure this debate is videotaped and put online afterwards).
Organised by the Italian Europarlementarian Giulietto Chiesa.
EUROPE FOR AN INDEPENDENT COMMISSION OF INQUIRY
The documentary will be followed by a debate
lead by Andreas von Bulow, Giulietto Chiesa,
David Ray Griffin, Yukihisa Fujita, et al.
Read more: www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20080215144019801
"it is NOT open to the public."
Kola
Yeah, what do you expect? Free and open government? What are you, some kinda nut?
Oh, yeah, you're on this forum.... ;D
Kucinich to Investigate 9/11 Insider Trading
"I'm not afraid to ask questions about 9/11"
Aaron Dykes / JonesReport.com | February 20, 2008
http://www.jonesreport.com/article/02_08/200208_kucinich_trading.html
Congressman Dennis Kucinich revealed that he is initiating an investigation into the insider trading that took place leading up to 9/11, particularly in regards to put options placed on American Airlines and United Airlines stock.
Kucinich said that he had personal questions about the implications insider trading had.
"I've indicated a long-standing interest in gathering information and trying to get to the bottom of exactly what happened with respect to all the stock activity that took place preceding 9/11." Kucinich said.
...
WILLIE NELSON ON DEMOCRACY NOW
As most of you may know, Willie Nelson was interviewed by Alex Jones recently and stated his disbelief about the official account of 9/11, especially regarding the tower demolitions. Willie was in NYC this week to perform for the 12th anniversary of Democracy Now. A few of us attended and were able to get a media packet on the Ballot Initiative to a member of his band, as well as several other notables in attendance. On Thurs. morning he also appeared on the show. Juan Gonzalez asked Willie Nelson iabout 9/11, this is how it went:
JUAN GONZALEZ: The FCC is watching, yes. I'd like to ask you about one of your views or perspectives that?s raised a lot of controversy, obviously, your sense of?or your reaction to what happened on 9/11 and your queestions that you have about the events of that terrible day.
WILLIE NELSON: Well, I have a lot of questions. I think a lot of people have a lot of questions. I think 85 or 90 percent of the people in this country say, ?What?? I mean, a plane hit this building, and it fell kind of like that. And another plane hit that building, and it fell kind of like that. About the same time it fell, this one fell the same way. It looked like an implosion somewhere, you know? And then, all of a sudden, the third building fell, and no plane hit it. So, naturally, I?ve got questions.
Alleged Hijacker Booked On Post-9/11 Flights (http://www.infowars.com/?p=509)
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, February 28th, 2008
Astounding newly released FBI documents obtained via the Freedom Of Information Act show that alleged 9/11 hijacker Hamza Al-Ghamdi had booked future flights to San Francisco and Riyadh, suggesting that he was unaware of his eventual fate aboard United Airlines Flight 175, the plane that hit the World Trade Center's south tower.
The papers consist of a 300 page Federal Bureau of Investigation timeline (PDF link) that was used by the 9/11 Commission but not made public until now.
The 9/11 Commission failed to mention in its final report that Al-Ghamdi was booked onto several flights scheduled to take place after 9/11, including another flight on the very day of the attacks.
...
You find it shocking that the hijackers had backup plans?
The real question is: Is it possible not all the hijackers knew it was a suicide mission?
By the way, the answer is YES.
Quote from: KBCraig on March 04, 2008, 02:46 AM NHFT
You find it shocking that the hijackers had backup plans?
I don't find much shocking anymore after 3 WTC buildings collapsed and the Pentagon was undefended on September 11th!
I think independent investigative researchers do find it interesting that a guy like Al-Ghamdi had a several leg journey planned for the following days, yes. Also, pretty interesting that the Commission would fail to mention that finding, yes. That info could lead one to several possible conclusions. More reasons some call for performing a proper investigation with more complete reporting of findings by impartial commissioners and executives, ie, a non-politically motivated investigation and report. That would be good, no?
Quote from: ReverendRyan on March 04, 2008, 03:55 AM NHFT
The real question is: Is it possible not all the hijackers knew it was a suicide mission? ...
That is one of the possible questions. Others include: was Al Ghamdi a hijacker? ... was he on one of the 4 planes in question? etc. The earlier in the chain of structured events you accept in the official conspiracy story, the more you'll tend to accept the rest - conversely, the more you see flaws in the official conspiracy story in the earlier stages of the chain of events, the less you'll accept the following structure of the offical conspiracy story.
Quote from: jaqeboy on March 04, 2008, 11:13 AM NHFT
Quote from: ReverendRyan on March 04, 2008, 03:55 AM NHFT
The real question is: Is it possible not all the hijackers knew it was a suicide mission? ...
That is one of the possible questions. Others include: was Al Ghamdi a hijacker? ... was he on one of the 4 planes in question? etc. The earlier in the chain of structured events you accept in the official conspiracy story, the more you'll tend to accept the rest - conversely, the more you see flaws in the official conspiracy story in the earlier stages of the chain of events, the less you'll accept the following structure of the offical conspiracy story.
I'm acknowledging that. All I'm saying is that the fact the guy had future plans is irrelevant as it can't confirm nor deny any theory.
The official conspiracy theory seems to be falling apart, one little chink in the brickwork after the other little chink. One big smoking gun? All are still looking for that...
A good pic from NOAA that shows the remarkable selective destruction of the WTC building v. the relatively intact neighboring buildings:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2003/2225488552_48c7aee383.jpg?v=0)
Another:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2296/2225488444_3ef70c4f57.jpg?v=0)
Quote from: jaqeboy on March 07, 2008, 09:46 PM NHFT
A good pic from NOAA that shows the remarkable selective destruction of the WTC building v. the relatively intact neighboring buildings:
(http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2003/2225488552_48c7aee383.jpg?v=0)
how many stories were left of 3,4,5,and 6? I can't tell very well.
email from Monadnock 9/11 Truth Alliance:
-----------------------------------------------------------
Many people may be aware that The Monadnock 9/11 Truth Alliance will be co-sponsoring a significant event on Saturday, May 17th: "The New England Symposium on 9/11: Family Members and Researchers Speak Out". I'll paste and attach our initial flyer for the event below.
Cheshire TV, our local public access station which has played a ton of material on 9/11 Truth issues, is co-sponsoring the event. Not only will they be filming it, their official non-profit status affords us a non-profit rate in renting the Keene High School Auditorium - a cost that nevertheless will be upwards of $1200.
As you might imagine, as a public access station, Cheshire TV gets kicked pretty hard, and is of a bare bones budget. Somewhat understandably, they are unwilling to sign the contract with the high school until they get the money for the auditorium up front - a real Catch 22 for us as organizers.
Anyways, I'm writing to you, the larger regional community, to see if you might make a small donation toward this event. Truly, a contribution of $10-$25 would be a huge support. The Monadnock 9/11 Truth Alliance is doing everything we can to make this a purposeful gathering, and are pushing on many doors that have been closed or fearfully ajar. The time certainly feels right. Heck, even the former Mayor of Keene, Mike Blastos, is so supportive what we're doing, he's going to cater lunch for the event at a mere $5/head - that's the kind of love that makes ripples!
You can write and mail checks to:
The Monadnock 9/11 Truth Alliance
PO Box 1848
Keene, NH 03431
Here's our initial flyer - it's going to be a hot event, and we'd like all of you to bring the heat!
** George Corrette**
(603) 446-3561
Top Comedian Believes In 9/11 Conspiracy
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, March 27, 2008
http://www.infowars.com/?p=1116
Good Analysis by Air Traffic Controller, Robin Hordon
The First Fifteen Minutes of September 11th
Former Air Traffic Controller Robin Hordon speaks out
on 9/11, NORAD and what should have happened on 9/11.
By Jeremy Baker
http://www.communitycurrency.org/robin.html
A couple of quotes from the article:
"What the 9/11 movement should do is band together and develop safe lives for whistleblowers." Legal counsel, moral support, even physical protection could do much to inspire those who are considering stepping forward with potentially explosive insider testimony about the attacks.
...
Many 9/11 activists believe that their work on issues related to the attacks has greater potential for true social transformation than any other single issue, and Hordon emphatically agrees.
"I think that this 9/11 thing is the quintessential opportunity to expose all of the infecting poisons; more than Iran Contra weapons for hostages, more than rampant militarism, more than Watergate, more than Enron, more than the dark side of the world's financial institutions, more than any other similar kind of thing. I think that this is pretty much their last gasp, and the reason is very simple; the internet. We're going to catch'em."
Top Ranking CIA Operatives Admit Al-qaeda Is a Complete Fabrication
BBC's killer documentary called "The Power of Nightmares". Top CIA officials openly admit, Al-qaeda is a total and complete fabrication, never having existed at any time. The Bush administration needed a reason that complied with the Laws so they could go after "the bad guy of their choice" namely laws that had been set in place to protect us from mobs and "criminal organizations" such as the Mafia. They paid Jamal al Fadl, hundreds of thousands of dollars to back the U.S. Government's story of Al-qaeda, a "group" or criminal organization they could "legally" go after. This video documentary is off the hook...
http://polidics.com/cia/top-ranking-cia-operatives-admit-al-qaeda-is-a-complete-fabrication.html
Video: http://polidics.com/cia/how-to-scare-the-shit-out-of-america-and-make-them-do-anything.html#comments
Hey, C-7, are you going to be at PorcFest this year? We gotta talk ... about coffee, among other things.
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 01, 2008, 01:59 PM NHFT
Hey, C-7, are you going to be at PorcFest this year? We gotta talk ... about coffee, among other things.
I'd love to but it's too early to say.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/04/03/mukasey/index.html
Wow, interestng story, telo. Just goes to show you that 9/11 is the "one size fits all" fulcrum for levering fascism into place. Mukasey is just another willing puppet in the scheme.
Glenn Greenwald is good! His techniques, suggested in this article, are just what we need in order to use our people power to catch them in the act and correct/bust them in the act of jumping on the lever!
- Week of Truth -
The First Major Nationally Coordinated 9/11 Truth
Effort to BREAK THE CORPORATE MEDIA BLOCKADE!!
(http://www.weekoftruth.org/images/shellgamefinal_sm.jpg)
New York Best Selling Author, Steve Alten, is appearing on national
corporate media educating millions of the importance of the
9/11 TRUTH MOVEMENT. We can get him on more and
more media, and perhaps stop a false flag attack that will
launch war with Iran. Seymor Hirsch has urgently warned
of a building attack on Iran, and Scott Ritter has predicted
the neocons will launch an event in April.
TIME IS OF THE ESSENCE.
NOTE: DO NOT BUY YOUR BOOKS UNTIL
THE WEEK OF APRIL 16-22nd, so that all sales
will go to the New York Times Best Seller List.
Celebrities I know say that most people in Hollywood now
know that 9/11 was an inside job. Some have come out,
Margaret Cho, Willie Nelson, Jeanine Garofalo, Charlie
Sheen, etc. IMAGINE HOW ENCOURAGED MORE
WILL BE TO COME OUT ON 9/11 TRUTH, WHEN
THEY SEE "THE SHELL GAME" HIT THE NY TIMES
"TOP 10" OF THE BEST SELLER LIST. Again,
wait to buy copies of this 9/11 truth telling book,
during April 16-22nd Buy-In for Truth.
Everyone can contact local bookstores and ORDER
multiple copies of "The Shell Game" now, BUT. do
not purchase them until April 16 thru 22nd.
SEE VIDEO INTERVIEW:
http://www.weekoftruth.org/
All books purchased,
from above web-link
will benefit the
Feal Good Foundation (http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/)
Also
Steve Alten will donate $5,000 to
the FealGood Foundation each
week the The Shell Game
reaches the top 10 of the
NY Times best seller list
plus
provide all commissions
from sales linked from
www.WeekOfTruth.org
SPREAD THE WORD,
WIDE FAR AND FAST!!
Week of Truth Buy-In - April 16-22nd
THE NEW YORK SUN REPORTS:
U.N. Official Urged Commission to Study Neocon Role in 9/11
By ELI LAKE, STAFF REPORTER OF THE SUN | April 9, 2008
WASHINGTON — A new U.N. Human Rights Council official assigned to monitor Israel is calling for an official commission to study the role neoconservatives may have played in the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks.
On March 26, Richard Falk, Milbank professor of international law emeritus at Princeton University, was named by unanimous vote to a newly created position to report on human rights in the conflict between Israel and the Palestinian Arabs. While Mr. Falk's specialty is human rights and international law, since the attacks in 2001, he has devoted some of his time to challenging what he calls the "9-11 official version."
On March 24 in an interview with a radio host and former University of Wisconsin instructor, Kevin Barrett, Mr. Falk said, "It is possibly true that especially the neoconservatives thought there was a situation in the country and in the world where something had to happen to wake up the American people. Whether they are innocent about the contention that they made that something happen or not, I don't think we can answer definitively at this point. All we can say is there is a lot of grounds for suspicion, there should be an official investigation of the sort the 9/11 commission did not engage in and that the failure to do these things is cheating the American people and in some sense the people of the world of a greater confidence in what really happened than they presently possess."
From George Washington's blog (http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/04/us-air-force-shot-down-flight-93.html):
Friday, April 11, 2008
"The US Air Force Shot Down Flight 93"
The following comment was posted to my blog today (I do not know who the author is -- he posted semi-anonymously; so decide for yourself whether or not you believe him):
"I am an Air Force veteran. I was serving at Langley AFB, Virginia on Sept. 11. (not to be confused with CIA headquarters at Langley, VA). The "Alert Squadron" of 4 F-16 Falcons also stationed at Langley AFB was scrambled AFTER the "plane" crashed into the Pentagon. Because of my position as a ground equipment mechanic, I had access to the flightline operations that day. My friends were Crew Cheifs and Weapons Loaders, among other professions on the flightline that day. One of my [unusual] duties that day was to drive a Loader (personal friend) along with a rack of live missiles (AIM-9's and AIM-120's) across the active runway to the Alert Squadron and drop them off. I was towing equipment to the flightline, so when it was time to go back and pick up the Loader (and our missile trailer) I was unable to do so, but another member of my Flight (a good friend, and later roommate) did go. According to my roommate (and I later confirmed with the Loader) the Loader was completely silent most of the trip back to our side of the base, after they crossed the active, he spoke. "They shot one down." JJ replied "WHAT?" Loader:"One of those 16's came back with one less missile than it left with" That was all. As they pulled back in to the squadron area, The loader was whisked away by his commanders for debriefing. I didn't see him for a few days, but when I did, he said he couldn't talk about it, but he confirmed that what my roommate had told me was true.
The US Air Force shot down Flight 93. I haven't told this to many people. I told my parents and other family members shortly after I left the military. They didn't believe it. I figured no one else would either. I kept my mouth shut. Everyone was dedicated to the president and the country (not really) And anything that went against the Official, media delivered story was viewed as unpatriotic. I knew that I loved this country, so I kept my mouth shut. I just can't do that anymore. I know that I don't have any documents to prove it, and I have no way of knowing where the others involved are now days, so I can't prove anything. All I have is my word. and with God as my witness that is the truth."
Bond Girl BUSTS out about 911 Truth:
Lloyd was nice enough to loan me a copy of The Shell Game. :)
I haven't read it yet, but we ought to see if both Liberty Books in Concord and Just Read Books in Milford would carry it, especiall for the Week of Truth.
Apparently that starts tomorrow.
Week of Truth
April 16th - 22nd
A Nationally Coordinated 9/11 Truth Effort to
BREAK THE CORPORATE MEDIA BLOCKADE!
http://www.weekoftruth.org/
(http://www.weekoftruth.org/images/shellgamefinal_sm.jpg)
Third NSA Source Confirms: Flight 93 Shot Down By Air Force Jet (http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_wayne_ma_080419_third_nsa_source_con.htm)
"WMR has received another confirmation, bringing the total number to three, that United Flight 93, hijacked on the morning of September 11, 2001, was shot down over rural Pennsylvania by U.S. Air Force jets scrambled from Andrews Air Force Base in Maryland. There are also reports that one F-16 scrambled from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia returned to base minus one air-to-air missile but the National Security Agency CRITIC report specified the interceptors that downed United 93 took off from Andrews...
Published in The Open Civil Engineering Journal
Volume 2 Issue 1
ISSN NO: 1874-1495:
Fourteen Points of Agreement with Official Government Reports on the World Trade Center Destruction (http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCIEJ/2008/00000002/00000001/35TOCIEJ.SGM)
pp.35-40 (6) Authors: Steven E. Jones, Frank M. Legge, Kevin R. Ryan, Anthony F. Szamboti, James R. Gourley
doi: 10.2174/1874149500802010035
Abstract
Reports by FEMA and NIST lay out the official account of the destruction of the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001. In this Letter, we wish to set a foundation for productive discussion and understanding by focusing on those areas where we find common ground with FEMA and NIST, while at the same time countering several popular myths about the WTC collapses.
Another Air Traffic Controller Supports 9/11 Truth
Andrew Kornkven, an Air Traffic Controller from Minnesota for over 15 years, will come out of the woodwork tonight, and announce his support for 9/11 Truth on Dr. Kevin Barrett's radio show. Although Kornkven has written before on 9/11, he has never revealed to the public that he is an ATC.
Dr. Barrett's radio show is tonight from 8 P.M. to 10 P.M. central time, April 22.
Listen live here, or look for archives:
http://www.wtprn.com/
Kornkven has already written several excellent essays regarding 9/11:
andrewkornkven's blog
http://www.911blogger.com/blog/253
"Mayday! Mayday!"-- What Really Happened in the Cockpit of United 93?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/13376
David Ray Griffin Burrows Further Down the Rabbit Hole of No-Phone-Calls-From-the-Planes
http://www.911blogger.com/node/11860
Are the Hijackers-- the Real Ones-- Still Alive and With Us Today?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/8961
Sex, Lies, and Phone Calls: The Ted and Barbara Story
http://www.911blogger.com/node/5679
Phone Calls From the Planes: Surprising New Evidence
http://www.911blogger.com/node/5583
Poll: Do you think the thirty or so calls made from the planes on 9/11 are real or faked?
http://www.911blogger.com/node/5431
Phone Calls Analysis
http://www.911blogger.com/node/4190
The Elephant in the Room
http://www.911blogger.com/node/3355
My book review for "Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11"-- rejected by Amazon.com!
http://www.911blogger.com/node/2479
Its interesting to note, that on September 11, 2001, Kornkven was not scheduled to work that day.
Sex, Lies, and Phone Calls: The Ted and Barbara Story (http://www.911blogger.com/node/5679)
(Read why Ted Olson's story is clever disinformation)
...
Ted Olson came forward a few days after 9/11 and reported conflicting accounts of the phone call made by his wife:
A few days later, he says "She told me that she had been herded to the back of the plane. She mentioned that they had used knives and box cutters to hijack the plane. ...
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=box+cutters&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go
This alleged phone call is the only report in which box cutters are mentioned as weapons being used by the hijackers.
...Olson's fabricated account has worked too well as disinformation to have been solely the work of one troubled man. First, his lie was what introduced the idea of box cutters into the official account. The official story wanted us to believe in a primitive attack, carried out by fanatics with little or no connections at the airports or in the system at large. The use of box cutters seemed to reinforce that the hijackers fit that description, especially since it was believed at the time that box cutters were legal to bring on to airplanes. Later, it was revealed that while the government's rules never did ban box cutters, the airlines' own rules did. The government ultimately dropped its contention that box cutters were used at all, changing the weapon to short knives. But by then the disinformation had done its job.
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 22, 2008, 08:22 PM NHFT
Sex, Lies, and Phone Calls: The Ted and Barbara Story (http://www.911blogger.com/node/5679)
Ted Olson came forward a few days after 9/11 and reported conflicting accounts of the phone call made by his wife:
A few days later, he says "She told me that she had been herded to the back of the plane. She mentioned that they had used knives and box cutters to hijack the plane. ...
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/searchResults.jsp?searchtext=box+cutters&events=on&entities=on&articles=on&topics=on&timelines=on&projects=on&titles=on&descriptions=on&dosearch=on&search=Go
This alleged phone call is the only report in which box cutters are mentioned as weapons being used by the hijackers.
...Olson's fabricated account has worked too well as disinformation to have been solely the work of one troubled man. First, his lie was what introduced the idea of box cutters into the official account. The official story wanted us to believe in a primitive attack, carried out by fanatics with little or no connections at the airports or in the system at large. The use of box cutters seemed to reinforce that the hijackers fit that description, especially since it was believed at the time that box cutters were legal to bring on to airplanes. Later, it was revealed that while the government's rules never did ban box cutters, the airlines' own rules did.
Here is an example of "inference as evidence" that is so troubling in much of the Truther movement.
Your argument wrongly supposes that because airline rules prohibited boxcutters, there were no boxcutters on the plane, then builds on that to proclaim Ted Olson's anecdote to be part of a larger government cover-up.
Before 9/11, knives on airplanes were something of a crapshoot. Federal law clearly allowed knives with blades under 2.5", but some airlines were more restrictive. Enforcement was highly variable from one airport to the next, and even from one security screener to the next. Magazines like
Blade and
Knives Illustrated carried (and still do) articles and columns about traveling with knives. There were many letters and stories about knives that were both legal and kosher per airline regulations, being confiscated at security checkpoints, plus others about being allowed through with knives with 3-5" blades.
My favorite story was by a fellow who was told by the screener that his expensive --and perfectly legal-- Böker ceramic folder would have to be confiscated. Not willing to give his knife up to the screener's personal collection, he stuck the open knife in a crack in the table and snapped the blade off, then tossed the handle to the screener. >:D
QuoteThe government ultimately dropped its contention that box cutters were used at all, changing the weapon to short knives. But by then the disinformation had done its job.
Another distinction without a difference. A boxcutter, a utility knife, a Swiss Army "classic" pen knife... all are short knives. Building "proof" of a disinformation campaign, thus a larger conspiracy, on such meager distinctions is why so many open-minded people dismiss the Truther movement.
Quote from: KBCraig on April 22, 2008, 10:05 PM NHFT
Another distinction without a difference. A boxcutter, a utility knife, a Swiss Army "classic" pen knife... all are short knives. Building "proof" of a disinformation campaign, thus a larger conspiracy, on such meager distinctions is why so many open-minded people dismiss the Truther movement.
Forensic pathology depends on "meager distinctions". The fact remains it was years of boxcutter, boxcutter, boxcutter and then suddenly ooops not boxcutter. Not enough by itself to tip the scale, just one more item to add to the pile of things that don't add up.
This is interesting - Barry Jennings talking about WTC 7. You've probably seen the first few minutes before but the interview with Barry Jennings, a City Housing Worker, who was in WTC 7 on 9/11 is pretty interesting.
http://i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=28795
Yeah, the hyper-focus on boxcutters, short knives, etc. misses the point of the story entirely, that of the impossibility of the phone calls, the fact that Ted Olson, the Solicitor General of the United States, appears to have been willingly used as a shill and a planter of a key article of the mythical conspiracy construct story of the events of 9/11. I believe the alleged "Barbara Olson phone call" is also the only one that claimed that Arabic men were the hijackers. What happens to the structure of the myth if Ted and Barbara's part of the story goes away - that is the point of the story
Quote
...Olson's fabricated account has worked too well as disinformation to have been solely the work of one troubled man. First, his lie was what introduced the idea of box cutters into the official account. The official story wanted us to believe in a primitive attack, carried out by fanatics with little or no connections at the airports or in the system at large. The use of box cutters seemed to reinforce that the hijackers fit that description, especially since it was believed at the time that box cutters were legal to bring on to airplanes. Later, it was revealed that while the government's rules never did ban box cutters, the airlines' own rules did.
Quote from: KBCraig on April 22, 2008, 10:05 PM NHFT
...
Your argument wrongly supposes...
You'll have to pick your bone with the author of the story, friend. I only post them as I find them.
QuoteThe government ultimately dropped its contention that box cutters were used at all, changing the weapon to short knives. But by then the disinformation had done its job.
I'm presuming this is because they couldn't get a "stickable" story out of Olson, the shill, ie, his credibility had worn out.
The story is not about knives... it's about lying and disinformation and how the myth of 9/11 was created and how supporters of the myth have to keep side-stepping and jumping to another justification, rather that ferreting out truth by investigation and research, taking leads to the ground to determine beyond doubt what really happened. Remember, and this is the lesson to take away from this one, if what this article (and others on the subject) say is true, THERE ARE NOT BOXCUTTERS! Now, back to the main whodunnit, not "how long was the blade of their mythical, fictitious, short knife?" ;D
Good find, aloha - I had seen part of this before, but not all of this clips strung together. I wonder if this has been added to the timeline?
Quote from: alohamonkey on April 23, 2008, 08:31 PM NHFT
This is interesting - Barry Jennings talking about WTC 7. You've probably seen the first few minutes before but the interview with Barry Jennings, a City Housing Worker, who was in WTC 7 on 9/11 is pretty interesting.
http://i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=28795
It sure looks like it was an inside job to me.
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 24, 2008, 09:14 AM NHFT
Good find, aloha - I had seen part of this before, but not all of this clips strung together. I wonder if this has been added to the timeline?
Quote from: alohamonkey on April 23, 2008, 08:31 PM NHFT
This is interesting - Barry Jennings talking about WTC 7. You've probably seen the first few minutes before but the interview with Barry Jennings, a City Housing Worker, who was in WTC 7 on 9/11 is pretty interesting.
http://i-am-bored.com/bored_link.cfm?link_id=28795
I'd not seen that sutff about bombs in Bldg 7 early in the day sept . 11th.
I had heard that there was a witness from inside WTC 7 and I had seen a little bit of the interview with Barry Jennings in the past. I hadn't seen the whole thing pieced together until my friend sent it over the other day though. It's pretty crazy how this stuff doesn't make the main stream news. I guess people are more interested in Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears.
My friend is working on a web site with a lot of 9/11 info. He has been compiling "provable" info for the past few years and is finally consolidating it all onto a web site. I'll post the link here as soon as it's done.
Cool :)
Quote from: alohamonkey on April 25, 2008, 03:50 PM NHFT
It's pretty crazy how this stuff doesn't make the main stream news. I guess people are more interested in Lindsay Lohan and Britney Spears.
what we are interested is not what determines which stories make the main stream news
Outspoken Arizona Senator Questions 9/11 Official Version Of Events (http://infowars.net/articles/april2008/250408Senator.htm)
Republican attacked for expressing opinion on September 11th cover-up
Interesting video interview of BBC news reader, Phil Hayton, who reported the collapse of WTC7 "Salomon Brothers Building" 23 minutes before it actually did collapse, referring to reporter Jane Standley on the scene. He doesn't explain how the news gets to him to read - that would be an interesting chain of information to follow:
article: http://www.infowars.com/?p=1732 and YouTube video:
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 28, 2008, 02:39 PM NHFT
Interesting video interview of BBC news reader, Phil Hayton, who reported the collapse of WTC7 "Salomon Brothers Building" 23 minutes before it actually did collapse, referring to reporter Jane Standley on the scene. He doesn't explain how the news gets to him to read - that would be an interesting chain of information to follow:
article: http://www.infowars.com/?p=1732 and YouTube video:
I find it extremely odd that A) he doesn't remember what he reported on one of the most important days of his career and B) doesn't remember the glaring discrepancy when he and Jane reported that WTC 7 had collapsed when you can plainly see the building in the background of the shot. I find this especially odd since the BBC even came out and issued a statement to this criticism: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html
As far as this statement issued by the BBC goes, it is extremely suspicious that the BBC lost their original tapes of 9/11. One of the most important days of modern day history and one of the most "reputable" news outlets in the world happens to lose their original tapes of the events. hmmm. This in now way proves that there was a conspiracy but these are just some more interesting tidbits of information that just don't seem to add up. Good find jaqeboy.
Yeah, I know - who doesn't remember exactly where they were and what they were doing when they heard the news?? Especially someone who was actually reporting on it....
Libertarians for Justice write Why EVERY Libertarian should want to investigate 9/11 (http://www.libertariansforjustice.org/?q=node/19)
He is a liar.
Watch his blinking patterns.
And watch his phoney smiles. If someone (especially a reporter) was hearing this for the first time, I hardly think they would find it amusing or funny and produce a smile.
and him stating that he doesnt remember if he was working or not is so fricken unmbeleivable it makes me wanna puke.
hes is nothing but a corporate media whore.
kola
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 28, 2008, 09:30 PM NHFT
Yeah, I know - who doesn't remember exactly where they were and what they were doing when they heard the news?? Especially someone who was actually reporting on it....
We remember where we were when we heard
the news, but not necessarily when we heard specific details of an ongoing breaking story.
I remember the exact details of when I heard Elvis had died. I remember the exact details of hearing about the OKC bombing. I remember the exact details of learning the WTC towers had been hit by airplanes.
What I
don't recall with clarity are the details of the ongoing developments in those cases. I haven't the vaguest notion of when I heard the details of Elvis's death, nor when we learned McVeigh had been arrested, nor the sequence of building collapses at the WTC complex.
This is my personal anecdote, and nothing more. Even anecdotes serve as data to refute the idea that everyone automatically remembers every detail of ongoing breaking news.
Reporters frequently get things wrong. Just this week a Chicago newspaper reported on new patrol carbines for the Chicago PD, and used the term "
semi fully-automatic assault weapons". Especially in TV news, there's a rush to report things first, which quite often means on-the-spot reports are horribly wrong.
WTC-7 had been pending collapse for hours before it fell. NYPD had pulled back from the area early in the afternoon. Some TV talking head reporting that someone else had told him that WTC-7 had collapsed simply isn't reliable for the timeline.
I'll repost what I said elsewhere, but if you believe 9/11 "was an inside job," you give the government FAR more credit than it deserves. Anyway, here goes:
Quote from: MeTo my mind, the desire to believe there was a conspiracy, in the "Truther" sense, is a psychological defense mechanism that wants to believe that there is some overarching, all powerful entity in charge of everything, even if it's an evil government, rather than accept how truly vulnerable we are to the actions of angry individuals or small groups.
Because if a dozen and a half angry dudes can hijack a few planes any day they want, despite the huge, intrusive, expensive and violent gang of thugs we let trample out freedoms daily, who promise, in exchange for all their abuses, to at least keep us safe from that... well, we're in really deep shit now, aren't we?
If, on the other hand, that gang was in control the whole time, then the system itself, the "government" CAN keep us safe, it DOES control everything, and what went wrong was, evil people used it against us. They would never let some scruffy rag-heads do this! Never! HA! That's rich... no way! Of course it's Bush! Clinton would never do that! And so on.
The conspiracy theory actually brings faith in the competence and power of government to an all time high. The number of voices silenced, the number of witnesses paid off, the precision, skill and luck that'd be required to pull some of these theories off just boggles the mind! The CT narrative just changes this omnipotent power's ends to evil instead of good. It remains the same story, though, and I think that's why "Truthers" want to see "justice done." Because ultimately, they still trust the system to right itself, or at the very least, they see no other means to achieve those ends.
...
And, in the end, it really doesn't matter. I don't need that story to know that the State is EVIL. I don't need that conspiracy to see through their many other lies. It wont change a single thing for me even if incontrovertible evidence one way or the other comes to light tomorrow. It would be just one more stain on the very long and filthy record of vile crimes perpetrated by the state. Besides, even if everyone agreed it was "an inside job," what would you do about it?
So, no, it wasn't an "inside job." It was the kind of incompetence that only government can exploit for their profit and benefit.
Quote from: Dylboz on April 29, 2008, 01:17 AM NHFT
I'll repost what I said elsewhere, but if you believe 9/11 "was an inside job," you give the government FAR more credit than it deserves. ...
"9/11 Was An Inside Job" is an expression someone came up with in an attempt to create a usable sound bite. Some use that expression, others do not. If you are using the term "government" in the sense of referring to the surface/known agencies, ie, Presidency, Exec. Agencies, Military, Congress, etc. and limiting your purview to that level, you may have missed some of the discussion...
Quote from: Dylboz on April 29, 2008, 01:17 AM NHFT
Quote from: MeTo my mind, the desire to believe there was a conspiracy, in the "Truther" sense, is a psychological defense mechanism that wants to believe that there is some overarching, all powerful entity in charge of everything, even if it's an evil government, rather than accept how truly vulnerable we are to the actions of angry individuals or small groups.
Because if a dozen and a half angry dudes can hijack a few planes any day they want, despite the huge, intrusive, expensive and violent gang of thugs we let trample out freedoms daily, who promise, in exchange for all their abuses, to at least keep us safe from that... well, we're in really deep shit now, aren't we?
If, on the other hand, that gang was in control the whole time, then the system itself, the "government" CAN keep us safe, it DOES control everything, and what went wrong was, evil people used it against us. They would never let some scruffy rag-heads do this! Never! HA! That's rich... no way! Of course it's Bush! Clinton would never do that! And so on.
The conspiracy theory actually brings faith in the competence and power of government to an all time high. The number of voices silenced, the number of witnesses paid off, the precision, skill and luck that'd be required to pull some of these theories off just boggles the mind! The CT narrative just changes this omnipotent power's ends to evil instead of good. It remains the same story, though, and I think that's why "Truthers" want to see "justice done." Because ultimately, they still trust the system to right itself, or at the very least, they see no other means to achieve those ends.
Actually, there is a gross and probably intentional mis-labelling of the 2 disparate movements. The Bushies/PNAC group (one movement) propound a conspiracy theory of how the crimes took place and independent investigators/doubters/truth seekers (the other movement) have found gaping holes in the Bush/PNAC Conspiracy Theory, hence they propose a proper, thorough investigation to determine what really did happen (ie, Truth). So in a sense, you are right when you say "The conspiracy theory actually brings faith in the competence and power of government to an all time high." - When "the crime was solved" so quickly, Americans were willing to accept a call to war and a clampdown of civil liberties almost overnight. Independent investigators and libertarians say "Wait just a minute - you didn't solve the crime... you can't therefore justify these wars and the crackdowns of our freedoms..."
Quote from: Dylboz on April 29, 2008, 01:17 AM NHFT
Quote from: Me
...
And, in the end, it really doesn't matter. I don't need that story to know that the State is EVIL. I don't need that conspiracy to see through their many other lies. It wont change a single thing for me even if incontrovertible evidence one way or the other comes to light tomorrow. It would be just one more stain on the very long and filthy record of vile crimes perpetrated by the state. Besides, even if everyone agreed it was "an inside job," what would you do about it?
So, no, it wasn't an "inside job." It was the kind of incompetence that only government can exploit for their profit and benefit.
This is the "the government is incompetent, therefore it couldn't be an inside job" theory. What this theory serves to do is create a fog of cynicism over historical inquiry and factual investigation and encourages hopelessness. Personally, I'm not a follower of that theory, nor do I conclude that cynicism is my best path to knowledge, nor do I accept hopelessness. I just don't like that path. I find the theory you propound to be anti-reasonable and I think people can continue along the path of the Age of Reason and, by using those techniques, approach more nearly "the Truth". I believe we have choices and consciousness that we can use to aid our knowledge and create a better society. I choose that path.
after a while there might not be any original footage left from the major media ... there will only be the copies that people have made over time.
Then the msm and the thugs will act like it is fabricated.
They don't have any decent footage of the moon stuff. They even went through a lot of trouble of making it in the first place ... and now it is gone.
Oh no. If we're gonna start in on "NASA never went to the moon" stuff, I'm outta here.
Call me a cynic if you like, but I've spent weeks looking at the "evidence" that the "Truthers" regard as ground breaking, and I have gone through the various theories they propound, each more complicated, improbable and divergent from my personal recollection of events that day, and come to a different conclusion than you. I spent a lot of time debunking these theories both online and with people in my personal life. I wrote quite a bit, and did a lot of research into original documents and witness testimony, and I think it was pretty thorough and persuasive, if you're not already invested in the "Truther" position. I found that psychological investment to be the most compelling factor for these folks, because it never mattered how well I managed to address their unfounded concerns about "controlled demolition" or the gold reserves supposedly spirited out of the WTC like it was a remake of Die Hard With a Vengance, or whichever particular 9/11 CT they had latched onto. They want to believe. I looked at the evidence, evaluated the sources, and came to the conclusion that while I can't know all the facts, and that it's likely the authorities are lying to cover their asses in a lot of places, things happened pretty much as I remember them and as the 9/11 commission reported they did. If I were looking for stuff to hold them accountable for, it would be their willful disregard of the evidence that such an event was in the offing, including reports from agents at multiple field offices that terrorists were training to fly but not land, and worst of all, their cynical exploitation of these tragic events in the immediate aftermath to pursue their own bloody agendas in the middle east.
Anyway, you guys got my .02, and I'm not gonna go any further down the rabbit hole with ya. If anyone wants to look at the stuff I put together years back, I'm assembling it for a friend on another forum, and if you PM me, I'll hook you up too. Meanwhile, I don't think I'll be back in this thread anytime soon.
Cheers!
PS - I don't think I'm being hopeless at all. I'm saying we're more powerful than we thought we were, and the forces arrayed against us aren't as powerful or capable or in control as we thought before. That's good news, especially for the kind of anti-political activism that is going on in the FSP. They have their grip firmly on "the system," but they can't control what goes on outside it. Now, hijacking planes for murderous purposes is not the most ideal inspirational act, in fact, it's pretty despicable, but it shows that small groups of determined individuals can thwart the best efforts of Leviathan to control them. I'm no fan of Islamic jihadis, nor their terrorist methods, but they exposed the inherent weakness of this country's government, and they have frightened it into destroying itself at a faster rate than ever before. Now is the time to get out, as the fist tightens, grains of sand pass between the fingers, and soon it is clutching nothing.
Quote from: Dylboz on April 29, 2008, 10:39 AM NHFT
Oh no. If we're gonna start in on "NASA never went to the moon" stuff, I'm outta here.
... and I'm not gonna go any further down the rabbit hole with ya. If anyone wants to look at the stuff I put together years back, I'm assembling it for a friend on another forum, and if you PM me, I'll hook you up too. Meanwhile, I don't think I'll be back in this thread anytime soon.
the moon stuff is in a different thread :)
there is also a nice long thread
9/11 was not an inside job
but it didn't have the staying power .... or the endless evidence that Jack posts :)
Quote from: Dylboz on April 29, 2008, 10:39 AM NHFT
...
Call me a cynic if you like...
K
Quote from: Dylboz on April 29, 2008, 10:39 AM NHFT
...my personal recollection of events that day...
For most, these recollections come from the reporting from MSM sources - some have come to question their fairness and objectivity. Upon examination of the ownership of the media giants and their interlocking directorates with MI complex companies, one is left even more suspicious of their objectivity (See, for example, http://theyrule.net/ for finding the linkage between the major corporations involved. Also, see previous analyses by people like Domhoff, Who Rules America (http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/), or even earlier analysis by Smoot, The Invisible Government (http://www.constitutionpartypa.com/e-books/The_Invisible_Government.pdf), and others)
Quote from: Dylboz on April 29, 2008, 10:39 AM NHFT
...I looked at the evidence, evaluated the sources, and came to the conclusion that while I can't know all the facts, and that it's likely the authorities are lying to cover their asses in a lot of places,
well, we're definitely on the same page here.
Quote from: Dylboz on April 29, 2008, 10:39 AM NHFT
... things happened pretty much as I remember them and as the 9/11 commission reported they did.
It is to be remembered that in creating a psyop, like the 9/11 events may have been, it is important for the perpetrators to create a workable Conspiracy Theory, or Public Myth, as Phillip Zelikow calls it. David Ray Griffin speaks eloquently on the power of myth in public motivation, as well as does Robert Bly (not, of course, referring to the events surrounding 9/11, but with more ancient peoples). When Phillip Zelikow (Mr. Creating Public Myth) was selected as executive director of the 9/11 Commission (after Henry Kissinger was forced out by the Jersey Girls' tough challenges), he went to great lengths to insure that the same consistent public perception was supported, damn the evidence. The family members reject that report (see: 9/11; Press for Truth (http://www.911pressfortruth.com/) and the sequel In Their Own Words (http://911pft.com/pft/catalog/In-Their-Own-Words-p-10.html)) and the congressional leaders of the commission, Kean and Hamilton, have come to question it as well (see: Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_9/11_Commission)). Some will find it to be consistent with previous notions or perceptions, as you have, but all should consider the sources and the countervailing evidence to get a better picture of what did (and did not) happen. IE, the media reports and the commission report were created by people with a political purpose, not a historical truth purpose.
It's worth noting that "Truthers", people who seek truth, are
anti-Conspiracy Theory, since that construct serves political state purposes, not the truth. There seems to be some confusion on this, which, of course the Bushies exploit to the max - they have inverted reality to promote the desired perception (that their Conspiracy Theory is reasonable).
Quote from: Dylboz on April 29, 2008, 10:39 AM NHFT
If I were looking for stuff to hold them accountable for, it would be their willful disregard of the evidence that such an event was in the offing, including reports from agents at multiple field offices that terrorists were training to fly but not land
One should wonder about that, shouldn't one?
Quote from: Dylboz on April 29, 2008, 10:39 AM NHFT
, and worst of all, their cynical exploitation of these tragic events in the immediate aftermath to pursue their own bloody agendas in the middle east.
Some are lead to the question "Cui bono?" and others onward to "was it mere 'cynical exploitation' or was it part of a plan?", a la the PNAC "Rebuilding America's Defenses (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3249.htm)."
Quote from: Dylboz on April 29, 2008, 10:39 AM NHFT
Anyway, you guys got my .02, and I'm not gonna go any further down the rabbit hole with ya. If anyone wants to look at the stuff I put together years back, I'm assembling it for a friend on another forum, and if you PM me, I'll hook you up too. Meanwhile, I don't think I'll be back in this thread anytime soon.
You'll always be welcome among friends who treat each other in a friendly manner.
Quote from: Dylboz on April 29, 2008, 10:39 AM NHFT
PS - I don't think I'm being hopeless at all. I'm saying we're more powerful than we thought we were, and the forces arrayed against us aren't as powerful or capable or in control as we thought before. That's good news, especially for the kind of anti-political activism that is going on in the FSP. They have their grip firmly on "the system," but they can't control what goes on outside it. Now, hijacking planes for murderous purposes is not the most ideal inspirational act, in fact, it's pretty despicable, but it shows that small groups of determined individuals can thwart the best efforts of Leviathan to control them. I'm no fan of Islamic jihadis, nor their terrorist methods, but they exposed the inherent weakness of this country's government, and they have frightened it into destroying itself at a faster rate than ever before.
Good on your recognition of the power of people who become engaged (which kinda requires unplugging from the MSM propaganda machine, among other things.)
"They (who"exposed the inherent weakness of this country's government")"... - who "they" are seems to be one of the open questions, though, don't you agree? The "Islamic jihadis" of the public myth are ever-more in doubt as primary players in this one, though "they" are essential for the public myth that results in the desired "War Between Civilizations (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1064285/posts)" scenario that some want to foster.
Quote from: Dylboz on April 29, 2008, 10:39 AM NHFT
Now is the time to get out, as the fist tightens, grains of sand pass between the fingers, and soon it is clutching nothing.
To your hopefulness, brother. Cynicism's a killa'
a note from Les Jamieson of NY911Truth:
--- A N N O U N C I N G ----
RALLY FOR THE NYC 9/11 BALLOT INITIATIVE
When: Wednesday April 30, 7:30 pm
Where: St. Mark's Church, 2nd Avenue @ 10th Street
The New York City 9/11 Ballot Initiative Campaign, a non-profit, citizens based organization, whose goal is the creation of an independent commission to lead a new investigation into the tragedy of 9/11, will be holding a rally on Wednesday, April 30th at 7:30 PM at St. Mark's Church in the Bowery. The campaign hopes to put the issue of a new investigation of 9/11 on the November 2008 NYC ballot as a public referendum. Come and learn about this historic effort! Press packets will be available. Visit www.nyc911initiative.org for full campaign details.
Featured guest speakers include:
Dr. William Pepper, international human rights attorney
John Feal, Director of the Feal Good Foundation, dedicated to meeting the health needs of thousands of sick first responders
Bob McIlvaine, 9/11 victim family member
Ralph Schoenman & Mya Shone, hosts of Taking Aim on WBAI-FM
Lynne Stewart, the people's lawyer
and other guests to be announced.
The event will be moderated by the Reverend Frank Morales.
The rally will be an opportunity for the press and public to learn about the 9/11 Ballot Initiative Campaign and to fill out petitions. Upon reaching 30,000 valid signatures which are lawfully required to put the Initiative on the ballot, NYC voters will be enabled to create a fact-driven investigation of 9/11, which will be distinct from the former Kean-Hamilton Commission because this will go beyond political agendas by exploring all possible scenarios, following the evidence wherever it may lead.
Our goal can be reached with just 300-400 volunteers getting just a few hundred signatures each! This can be done in 15 hours of your spare time! Join the campaign for a new, honest and authentic investigation of 9/11! We owe it to the victims, the first responders, ourselves, and future generations.
Suggested donation: $15, sliding scale accepted
Towards truth,
Les Jamieson
NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative Steering Committee
Was 10:45 the time WTC7 was supposed to come down? Listen to this CNN reporting:
Article at: http://www.911blogger.com/node/15318
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 30, 2008, 11:49 PM NHFT
Was 10:45 the time WTC7 was supposed to come down? Listen to this CNN reporting:
How incredibly vague. "Another collapse or explosion" (there's quite a difference!), 15 minutes after the second tower fell. The source was "a firefighter rushed passed us saying another 50 stories went down".
Do you have any indication, other than presupposition, that this was anything other than a hasty report by a TV reporter who didn't have anything factual to report, and who was desperate to reporting
anything to get on the air? Has there ever been a major breaking story where we
don't see dozens of inaccurate reports in the early hours, by news sources trying to scoop the competition?
Maybe we should ask President Dewey....
Quote from: KBCraig on May 01, 2008, 11:02 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 30, 2008, 11:49 PM NHFT
Was 10:45 the time WTC7 was supposed to come down? Listen to this CNN reporting:
...
Do you have any indication, other than presupposition, that this was anything other than a hasty report by a TV reporter who didn't have anything factual to report, and who was desperate to reporting anything to get on the air?...
...
You can probably find the CNN contact info somewhere and dig further than just this video, which is no more than what it is. As far as I know, though, this is the earliest reporting of all the suspicious reporting of the collapse of WTC7 before it actually collapsed. Please let us know what you find out, OK?
KB, I listened again and the anchor is Aaron Brown (who was on air all day for CNN), and it sounds like the reporter in the street is Allan Dodds Frank. Sounds like Frank would be the one you'd want to ask where he got his info from. If it was truly an advance-written release, that would be something to see. I do doubt there is remaining documentation, but if you found that, that would truly be a coup. Good luck on your research and please let us know what you come up with.
KB, there's a more thorough discussion at http://911blogger.com/node/15318 where shoestring lays out his speculation and there are some interesting further comments. I haven't read them all, but perhaps someone on that thread has contacted Frank (to save you the trouble). I'm sure there will be follow up on one of the WTC7 research sites. Good to see your interest anyway and again, please let us know what your research reveals. Thanks.
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 01, 2008, 12:29 PM NHFT
You can probably find the CNN contact info ...
I'm not the one purporting this to be evidence of anything other than the confusion of the moment.
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 01, 2008, 12:46 PM NHFT
KB, there's a more thorough discussion at http://911blogger.com/node/15318 where shoestring lays out his speculation and there are some interesting further comments.
I read the speculation and the comments. Zero objective analysis. Everyone commenting there presumes it was pre-planned controlled demolition, thus they look at all data as if they support that conclusion.
This is why the truther movement is laughed at.
Quote from: KBCraig on May 01, 2008, 04:40 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 01, 2008, 12:29 PM NHFT
You can probably find the CNN contact info ...
I'm not the one purporting this to be evidence of anything other than the confusion of the moment.
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 01, 2008, 12:46 PM NHFT
KB, there's a more thorough discussion at http://911blogger.com/node/15318 where shoestring lays out his speculation and there are some interesting further comments.
I read the speculation and the comments. Zero objective analysis. Everyone commenting there presumes it was pre-planned controlled demolition, thus they look at all data as if they support that conclusion.
You may want to help them out and share your wisdom on the subject on that blog. I know you've studied the issue thoroughly and can make it clear which things should be considered and which should not. This might help clear up things for them, since you have a better handle on it than they do.
Wow, that was one hell of a vitriolic ad hominem.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Doctor Pope Sir Ryan on May 01, 2008, 11:48 PM NHFT
Wow, that was one hell of a vitriolic ad hominem.
Yeah, I think I tried to encourage him (or maybe it was his son) that that type of approach might fit better over on the 9/11 Was NOT an Inside Job thread - sort of like in The Great Explosion, where there was a planet just for the people filled with hatred and violence - they all "got along" on that planet, because that was what they wanted to do!
Since he seemed to have a renewed interest in WTC7 and this news footage that was just uncovered, I've tried to encourage his pursuit of knowledge at the proper place - in this case, the CNN news reporter on the street. He's probably still alive and working and whichever independent researcher contacts him and gets an interview might glean one more nugget of the total story - wishing KB good luck in his research!
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 02, 2008, 09:33 AM NHFT
Yeah, I think I tried to encourage him (or maybe it was his son) that that type of approach might fit better over on the 9/11 Was NOT an Inside Job thread -
Yes, Jack. It's apparent the entire Truther movement would prefer to be left alone to believe that everything "proves" something, whether it does or not.
Quote from: KBCraig on May 01, 2008, 04:40 PM NHFT
I read the speculation and the comments. Zero objective analysis. Everyone commenting there presumes it was pre-planned controlled demolition, thus they look at all data as if they support that conclusion.
This is why the truther movement is laughed at.
Does anyone else see the irony in this statement? KB, you definitely have your mind made up that the sequence of events on 9/11 occurred exactly like the official story says they did. You presume that the official story is accurate. I don't see you displaying any objective analysis whatsoever. Jaqeboy, on the other hand, seems to do a good job of simply presenting and posting information and letting the reader determine what he/she thinks about it.
Where did that "9/11 Was Not an Inside Job" thread go anyways? . . . hmm, seems to have disappeared. Maybe there's not enough facts/info to keep it alive.
Quote from: alohamonkey on May 02, 2008, 11:50 AM NHFT
Where did that "9/11 Was Not an Inside Job" thread go anyways? . . . hmm, seems to have disappeared. Maybe there's not enough facts/info to keep it alive.
Still seems to be there:—
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=12497.0
Quote from: alohamonkey on May 02, 2008, 11:50 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on May 01, 2008, 04:40 PM NHFT
I read the speculation and the comments. Zero objective analysis. Everyone commenting there presumes it was pre-planned controlled demolition, thus they look at all data as if they support that conclusion.
This is why the truther movement is laughed at.
Does anyone else see the irony in this statement? KB, you definitely have your mind made up that the sequence of events on 9/11 occurred exactly like the official story says they did.
I don't know what the "official story" says. I believe the sequence of events was exactly what I saw happen: two planes hit two towers, they suffered major structural damage and uncontrolled fire, then collapsed, causing catastrophic damage to other buildings.
That requires no belief in either the "official story", nor the conspiracy theories. It is simply what it is.
Quote from: alohamonkey on May 02, 2008, 11:50 AM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on May 01, 2008, 04:40 PM NHFT
I read the speculation and the comments. Zero objective analysis. Everyone commenting there presumes it was pre-planned controlled demolition, thus they look at all data as if they support that conclusion.
This is why the truther movement is laughed at.
Does anyone else see the irony in this statement? KB, you definitely have your mind made up that the sequence of events on 9/11 occurred exactly like the official story says they did. You presume that the official story is accurate. I don't see you displaying any objective analysis whatsoever...
Thanks for noting that Aloha
Quote from: alohamonkey on May 02, 2008, 11:50 AM NHFT
... Jaqeboy, on the other hand, seems to do a good job of simply presenting and posting information and letting the reader determine what he/she thinks about it.
Yeah, that's the intention. When we get enough pieces, we might be able to put this puzzle together. Seems that Congress, et. al. are content with the Bushies assembly of flawed pieces into a puzzle solution of their choice - the fact that there are huge gaps in their assembly doesn't seem to matter because it fits a political goal-driven agenda, a la the PNAC doctrines.
Anywho, the investigation continues - I'm hoping someone will be putting these new pieces of the WTC7 timeline up on some site.
Enough of the collectivist rhetoric and the mind-control mockery, eh, KB? That finds a better home on the Jr. High School playground, or maybe that other planet (thread). It's not really needed or heeded here and only makes you look like a fuming red-faced bully. We don't care about that here - we'd rather live and let live, eh?
From George Washington's blog: http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2008/05/governement-apologists-keep-moving-goal.html
Government apologists keep moving the goalposts
Folks who are trying to defend the government's version of 9/11 have continuously moved the goal posts:
* Initially, the government apologists pretended that everyone believed the "official story" of 9/11
* Then, when the family members of the victims and every day Americans started publicly question the government's story, they said "but, all of the experts confirm the government"
* Then, when hundreds of top experts in relevant fields - military officials, intelligence officers, physicists, chemists, mathematicians, etc. - publicly questioned the government's story, they said "well, no structural engineers question 9/11"
* Then, when numerous structural engineers decided to risk their careers to question the official version of events, they said "yeah, but no criticism of the government's claims has been published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal"
* Then, when papers began to be published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, they scrambled with new arguments . . .
By the way, 2 weeks from tomorrow, there's a big event in Keene. Be sure to check on http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org for final details. We've started a carpooling group on eRideShare.com. It's the biggest online ridesharing service in the country. Go to http://mv911t.erideshare.com and use "truth" as the password. You can enter if you are driving over there and can take riders and you can enter that you're looking for a ride.
New England 9/11 Symposium - Reminder - May 17
http://www.911blogger.com/node/15339 on 911 Blogger, and I know that one of the prime sponsors of the event Monadnock 911 Truth Alliance has finally started a website - I've got it written down on a note somewhere...
Monadnock 911 Truth Alliance:
http://www.monadnock911truthalliance.blogspot.com/
Boston 9/11 Truth has posted a google video of Stephen Jones' talk at the Boston Tea Party for 911 Truth on their site: http://boston911truth.org/site/ . In this talk, he spoke of some new analysis conducted on some of the debris - very interesting analysis.
or here's the direct link: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1957490867030316250&hl=en
the new filters on the forum really clear up some of the posts in this thread
They shoulda used some filters on who they accused of the 9/11 attacks, eh?
Charges against the "20th Hijacker" in September 11th attacks dropped (http://www.911blogger.com/node/15561)
SAN JUAN, Puerto Rico - The Pentagon has dropped charges against a Saudi at Guantanamo who was alleged to have been the so-called "20th hijacker" in the Sept. 11 attacks, his U.S. military defense lawyer said Monday.
Mohammed al-Qahtani was one of six men charged by the military in February with murder and war crimes for their alleged roles in the 2001 attacks. Authorities say al-Qahtani missed out on taking part in the attacks because he was denied entry to the U.S. by an immigration agent.
But in reviewing the case, the convening authority for military commissions, Susan Crawford, decided to dismiss the charges against al-Qahtani and proceed with the arraignment for the other five, said Army Lt. Col. Bryan Broyles, the Saudi's military lawyer.
Archived news from the 5 majors starting 5 minutes before the first attack on 9/11. I did watch the CNN repeat of their coverage and noted that they began mentioning bin Laden about 45 minutes after the first attack.
http://belowgroundsurface.org/belowgroundsurface/framespage.htm?loc=http://belowgroundsurface.org/belowgroundsurface/Living911Part1.html
Michael Rivero notes:
"These are archive clips of the first moments that 9-11 broke into the TV news. In looking back at them there are a couple obvious points. EVERYONE makes a point of bringing up the 1993 bombing attack on the World Trade Towers, and dropping hints about terrorism even as they claim there are no facts yet.
"Second, the stories all break into the TV feeds at most 5 minutes after the impact on the tower by the first jet, YET BBC HAS THEIR OWN CAMERA SET UP WATCHING THE BUILDING, EVERY NETWORK HAS A CAMERA UP ON TOP OF A HIGH BUILDING, AND ABC NEWS EVEN HAS A HELICOPTER IN THE AIR!
"This is morning rush hour in New York. Doesn't it seem like the network cameras are in position just a bit fast?"
Rep. Karen Johnson of Phoenix, Arizona questions mafia's conspiracy theory on 9/11:
Backing my claims about 9/11 questions (http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/115376)
[correction: Karen Johnson is a state Senator]
The Destruction of the World Trade Center:
Why the Official Account Cannot Be True (http://911review.com/articles/griffin/nyc1.html)
David Ray Griffin
Authorized Version (with references & notes)
Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth comes to MIT, just an hour south. Here's the announcement from Rich Aucoin of Boston 911 Truth:
All, ....................Please consider attending this event @ MIT Friday May 16th @ 7pm. Richard Gage, AIA, Architect, a San Francisco area architect, is in town for the AIA National Convention and will make his very compelling, subject presentation . When he addresses architects and engineers his conversion rate is nearly 100% to seekers of 911truth.
.............Best, Rich
ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
www.ae911truth.org
rgage@ae911truth.org
May 12, 2008
Dear Honored Citizen:
You are invited to attend a forum at MIT concerning the Collapse of the 3 World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11.
I am the founder of the organization Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth which is a fast-growing collaboration of more than 350 architectural and engineering professionals. The last few years have witnessed the emergence of mounting scientific evidence that the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 were not adequately explained by the official theories outlined in the 2002 FEMA and 2005 NIST reports. The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth call for a new, fully funded unimpeachable Congressional investigation with subpoena power.
We are dedicated to presenting the evidence that supports our call in this comprehensive presentation.
Evening Forum (Open to the Public)
9/11: Blueprint for Truth / The Architecture of Destruction
Friday May 16, 7:00 pm No RSVP for this.
MIT, Room 54-100 Map at http://whereis.mit.edu/map-jpg?mapterms=54-100&mapsearch=go
More info on Gage's talk on the Boston 911 Truth Meetup site:
http://9-11.meetup.com/290/calendar/7931061/
that is just great media coverage on 9/11 .... they know their stuff .... except when they say wtc7 is already down .... oops
Russell, If you've got some time on your hands, here is a Massive 9/11 TV Archive (http://911blogger.com/node/6391).
There are 2 big events this weekend for people curious about the events of 9/11 and the subsequent effects:
Friday: Richard Gage talks at MIT
Saturday: All day symposium at Keene High School.
You can find details about both events at Merrimack Valley 911 Truth's site (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org).
There is info on carpooling on the Keene announcement, but, basically it's this: I'm encouraging people to try eRideShare.com, which is an online carpooling site. You can set up groups on there to just show carpooling to some of the events of the group. Here's how you use it: click on the special url for the group: http://mv911t.erideshare.com. Then enter the password for the group: "truth". If you are driving to the event and would welcome riders, click "Post a ride offer". If you want to ride with someone else who's driving, click on "Find a ride offer". In either case, then you enter your info. Try it out. Not many folks use it yet, but I think with a little promotion it could become a handy tool.
Saturday in Keene - a HUGE 9/11 event - final press release:
9/11 Victim Family Members Raise Questions Media Still Fail to Ask
Hundreds of victim family members have been demanding answers to questions about the deaths of loved ones ever since the horrific events of September 11, 2001 - to no avail. Dozens of witnesses who offered to testify to the 9/11 Commission were ignored; many others found their testimony omitted. According to a group of Keene State College students, without a clear accounting of the facts, no reform can be effective in protecting national security. The students have organized a one-day symposium, on Saturday, May 17 -- "This symposium has been put together by undergraduate student scholars -- a group of young people committed to the pursuit of truth in a country that so often substitutes the comfortable life and easy paths over the rocky roads of ethical personhood," states Donna Marsh O'Connor, mother of Vanessa Lang Langer, who died escaping the South Tower.
Keene, NH May 12, 2008 -- New Hampshire College students and local activists have organized a one-day symposium, entitled, "Family Members, Researchers and Whistleblowers Speak Out", to be held at Keene High School on Saturday, May 17 from 9:30 a.m. to 6 p.m. "This symposium has been put together by undergraduate student scholars -- a group of young people committed to the pursuit of truth in a country that so often substitutes the comfortable life and easy paths over the rocky roads of ethical personhood," says O'Connor, who along with Bob McIlvaine, who lost his son Bobby, and Michele Little, who lost her firefighter brother David, will be making presentations at the symposium.
"This government has made me the victim of conspiracy theories, because they haven't answered fully or allowed anyone to ask the true questions of September 11th," stated Donna Marsh O'Connor, mother of Vanessa Lang Langer, who died escaping the South Tower on Sept. 11, 2001, speaking at the National Press Club on Sept. 11. 2006
O'Connor and hundreds of victim family members have been demanding answers to questions about the deaths of loved ones ever since the horrific events of September 11, 2001 - to no avail. Dozens of witnesses who offered to testify were ignored; many others found their testimony omitted. In their book, "Without Precedent", Commission co-chairs Kean and Hamilton wrote, "Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11, but it could not explain why all the after-action reports, accident investigation, and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue."
According to the students, without a clear accounting of the facts, no reform can be effective in protecting national security. As Peter Jennings said on 9/11/01, "The terrorist wins when he or she manages to alter the behavior of a people or infringes on the way of life in a country--that a democratic country particularly--alters its way of life. It raises the whole question of civil liberties and access and freedom of movement."
Presentations will also be made by several investigative journalists and filmmakers, including:
Daniel Hopsicker, investigative journalist, author and documentary filmmaker, whose seminal work, "Welcome to Terrorland: Mohamed Atta and the 9/11 Cover Up in Florida," revolves around activities of the alleged hijackers and their connection to Huffman Aviation in Florida.
Sander Hicks, Brooklyn-based author and investigative journalist, who has extensively researched the Pakistani connection to 9/11 and published "The Big Wedding,"detailing the whistle-blowers and conflicts of interest within the 9/11 Commission.
Barrie Zwicker, award-winning Canadian journalist, documentary producer and political activist, will examine what he calls the "media blackout" of alternative 9/11 views. He has written, "Towers of Deception" and produced three documentary films about September 11.
Korey Rowe, documentary filmmaker and activist, will discuss his internet blockbuster film, "Loose Change," which continues to draw worldwide attention to the anomalies and questions surrounding 9/11. In addition, Michael Springmann, former head of consular services at the US Consulate in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia from 1987-1989, will explain how he was forced by his superiors and the CIA to issue visas for individuals traveling to the US who he suspected may have had terrorist connections.
Springmann reveals that these individuals were being trained in the US and sent back to Afghanistan to fight the Russians. Eleven of the nineteen alleged 9/11 hijackers obtained visas from this same consulate in Saudi Arabia. For Springmann, this begs the question: "Just how involved was the CIA in the creation of what became 'Al-Qaeda'; and who might have had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks; and what, if any attempts were made to warn the American public?"
The New England 9/11 Symposium: Family Members, Researchers and Whistleblowers Speak Out
Saturday, May 17, 9:30 am - 6:00 pm
Keene High School, Keene, NH
Contact: Mike Jackman at 603-899-2783 or Justin Martell at 860-575-4293
New video from Italy:
ZERO; an investigation into 9/11
http://zero911movie.com/site/
Tunga wonders what happened to them.
Is there no evidence of thier even being?
These are questions to everyone's answers.
26 posts.
Add that to 640 and you get 666.
Thats right.
Tungas back.
And boy are you eva gonna be sorry.
Saturday in Keene - a HUGE 9/11 event:
9/11 Victim Family Members Raise Questions Media Still Fail to Ask
$15 door, I'm leaving Deerfield at 7AM, can pick up one passenger along the way. Anybody want to jump on board for the day? Call me at 233-1058 anytime from now until then.
Kat will be covering part of the event in Keene today.
Quote from: Tunga on May 16, 2008, 08:57 PM NHFT
Tunga wonders what happened to them.
Is there no evidence of thier even being?
These are questions to everyone's answers.
26 posts.
Add that to 640 and you get 666.
Thats right.
Tungas back.
And boy are you eva gonna be sorry.
I deleted the political boards. Your lost posts were probably there.
I just came across this in Mises Anarchy in the Skies (http://mises.org/story/2970) article:
QuoteSince 1961, American pilots were allowed to bring firearms in to the cockpit of their airplanes, but just two months before the 9/11 attacks, the FAA banned this practice. As a result, the hijackers knew for sure that arming themselves with knives and box cutters was sufficient to overpower four entire passenger jetliners, as none of the pilots onboard would be armed. This gun ban was then lifted in November of 2001, hopefully never to return again.
Can Varrin confirm this?
I've been ignoring the 9/11 talks for a long time because - if our gov't can do this to its own people then we have already lost the war. But I guess this little tidbit was the "straw" on the proverbial "camel's back." Sometimes all it takes is one small thing, ya know? I will be following the claims more closely from now on.
This article says it was 2002.
http://members.fortunecity.com/helgy2000/NoGunsInCockpit.html
This also says it happened after 9/11
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Try=No&Page=/Nation/archive/200109/NAT20010920e.html
that makes sense .... it was probably after 9/11 after people brought it up .... that they let them have guns
Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 17, 2008, 07:32 PM NHFT
This also says it happened after 9/11
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Try=No&Page=/Nation/archive/200109/NAT20010920e.html
This article also states that the pilots have only been allowed to be armed "for the past 20 years" so that would make it 1981 not 1961 as in the Mises article.
Thank you Kat.
No problemo. I think there are other reasons to question 9/11 though.
Yes, I've read many of the reasons and, like I said, put my head in the sand cause I didn't want to think our gov't could do that to its own citizens.
Well, my head is out in the open now - even though the straw that broke the camel's back may be non-existent.
Yeah, I heard about that opening in your head :o
Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 17, 2008, 08:23 PM NHFT
Yeah, I heard about that opening in your head :o
:o ;D
Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 17, 2008, 07:14 AM NHFT
Quote from: Tunga on May 16, 2008, 08:57 PM NHFT
I deleted the political boards. Your lost posts were probably there.
How very democratic.
The meaning of the entire universe trivialized via the interpretation of a single moderator who is so tired of listening to the whining of the Cabel of politically correct shit shovelers that she bends to polite interface in light of her exposer as an agent of the Homeland Security Apparatus.
You know what we are talkn' bout don't cha ms. Kitty?
Your minion is danger close to pullin the plug on the Tunga.
Pour whittel minion can't even throw a hatchet. The mighty electron will save him. Sha.
For me it was one of the books by Griffin
Tunga, let me refer you to our complaints department:
http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=14049.0
The symposium Saturday was really good. Sander Hicks was certainly a ball of fire (I think he must have had too much coffee). I think I've got him convinced to come up from Brooklyn to the AltExpo at PorcFest and present on a topic of interest to him. He has a 3 year old son who loves the outdoors, so camping for them would be a cool deal.
Sander has written 3 books (I think), started a rag in NYC called the New York Megaphone (http://www.nymegaphone.com/), opened an all-activism coffeehouse in Brooklyn called VoxPop (http://www.voxpopnet.net/) and a publishing on demand business called Publish Yourself! (http://video.wnbc.com/player/?id=245677) that is run out of the back of the coffeehouse. Now, there's a man of action!
It was good. My favorite speaker was the FL guy who'd done the investigations on the flight schools. The guy from the State Department was interesting too. The people who'd lost family members on 9/11 were heart-wrenching.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 19, 2008, 08:37 AM NHFT
It was good. My favorite speaker was the FL guy who'd done the investigations on the flight schools.
Yeah, that was Daniel Hopsicker. I haven't read his book, Barry and the Boys about Barry Seal and the CIA drug-smuggling operation to Mena, Arkansas, but I've seen his video about it all - quality was iffy, but the information was AMAZING!
We'll have to show that at the Merrimack Valley 911 Truth meetings when they start up - a lot of people don't know about the way the drug biz really works behind the scenes and how that money goes into play.
Richard Greene is doing a series of interviews on his Air America show, Clout, about the Pentagon 9/11 "crash" for his 3rd show during his Month of Truth. He is doing a "truth" show every Thursday this month. Show #3, was on the air last Thursday, 15 May.
http://airamerica.com/content/clout-week-truth-31
Interviewed during this show were:
Barbara Honegger, author of "The Pentagon Attack Papers"
Survivor April Gallop's story will be featured...
Rob Balsamo, co-founder of Pilots for 9/11 Truth re the Black Box data,
Craig Ranke of a Citizen Investigation Team re videotaped interviews with eyewitnesses at the nearby Citgo gas station,
Prof. David Ray Griffin, re evidence from the FBI that Barbara Olson's famous calls from doomed Flight 77 never occurred,
Dr. Kevin Barrett, a most powerful 9/11 Truth advocate now running for Congress on the Libertarian Party ticket,
Col.George Nelson, aviation expert,
Ronald Weick, host of Hardfire TV.
Daniel Hopsicker.
His website is called
Madcowmorningnews.com or somthing similar.
I've got http://madcowprod.com/ from my notes. Then it's called the Mad Cow Morning News.
His new book is Welcome to Terrorland
the forum word filter changed the words in one of the press releases in this thread .... I had to change it back to put it in the paper :)
Thanks, Russell. That was a little freaky. It didn't feel safe to post any information here for a while for fear it would come out saying something different.
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 22, 2008, 10:39 AM NHFT
Thanks, Russell. That was a little freaky. It didn't feel safe to post any information here for a while for fear it would come out saying something different.
actually it is still in effect for the forum, but I switched it in my copy so it would turn out like they originally said.
Maybe it will be time to switch it back on the forum .... but it seems to be driving some debate-atarians away from our site, which is wonderful. :)
Alright, I'll wait 'til you are no longer altering posts before I post again. Thanks.
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 22, 2008, 05:08 PM NHFT
Alright, I'll wait 'til you are no longer altering posts before I post again. Thanks.
I guess someone turned the filtering off again. I guess the danger is over now. :)
New 9/11 video: USA premiere at Brooklyn International Film Festival (http://www.gowanus.com/MORE?listingid=100153), Brooklyn, NY in a week:
Able Danger
"Able Danger the movie takes the real-life mystery of
the intelligence operation and uses it as the basis for
a spirited and blackly comic neo-noir set all over
Manhattan and Brooklyn . . . the author and the
book featured in the movie really exists,
Able Danger program really existed,
all the 'conspiracies' mentioned
in the movie are true.."
-- Scott Macaulay
Details Date: Friday, May 30, 2008
Time: 8PM (come at 7:30 for opening ceremonies)
Charges: $25 cover, includes party afterwards
Location: Brooklyn Lyceum (http://brooklynlyceum.com/)
Crash space in NYC: working on it
Trailer: http://abledangerthemovie.com/
Carpooling details will be on Merrimack Valley 911 Truth site (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org)
Wow, you guys driving down to NY?
This is one of the reasons why we need to know who was responsible for 9/11 - it's being used for justifications for all sorts of criminal acts.
Rice defends post 9/11 interrogation techniques
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer
Fri May 23, 1:47 AM ET
MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Thursday defended tough interrogation techniques for terrorism suspects approved by the Bush administration in the wake of 9/11, saying they were necessary to protect America from new attacks. ADVERTISEMENT
In her most extensive public comments about how the administration dealt with detainee interrogations in the aftermath of Sept. 11, 2001, and the anthrax attacks that followed, Rice insisted the methods of questioning complied with both U.S. law and treaty obligations.
But she acknowledged that those rules had since changed and that the United States was a "different place" then, adding that the administration's top priority at the time had been preventing new attacks and not necessarily observing fine legal points.
"The fact is that after Sept. 11, whatever was legal in the face of not just the attacks of Sept. 11, but the anthrax attacks that happened, we were in an environment in which saving America from the next attack was paramount," Rice said.
"But even in that environment, President Bush made clear that we were going to live up to our obligations at home and to our treaty obligations abroad," she told an audience at the headquarters of Google Inc.
Rice noted that legal restrictions on the treatment of detainees had evolved significantly between 2002 and 2003, when administration officials had allowed harsh techniques, including one that some believe to be torture, and the passage in 2005 of the Detainee Treatment Act that prohibits cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment.
"Now, there has been a long evolution in American policy about detainees and about interrogations," she said. "We now have in place a law that was not there in 2002 and 2003."
"So the ground is different now," she said.
Rice refused to specify what specific techniques might have been discussed or approved, but said America was safer because of interrogation conducted on al-Qaida detainees captured in the first months and year after the 9/11 attacks.
"We now know a great deal more about how al-Qaida operates thanks to what we were able to learn from those early detainees," she said. "We now have networks that give us information much better than in 2002 and 2003 and these issues have evolved.
"They have evolved in the context of democracy, they have evolved in the context of the constant debate about our values and ... I think that we are now in a different place now then we were," Rice said.
At the same time, she maintained that Bush's top aides had been scrupulous in making sure the early interrogations conformed to existing rules.
"I don't want anyone to believe that even when we were in that different place that we failed to ask the question: 'Are we living up to our laws and to our treaty obligations?' We asked the questions even then, but it is a different America now than what has been and gone."
Her comments came in response to a question from a Google employee who asked at a town hall meeting about the simulated drowning interrogation technique known as waterboarding that many consider to be a form of torture.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080523/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/rice_waterboarding
Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 23, 2008, 07:52 AM NHFT
Wow, you guys driving down to NY?
Yeah, mebbe. Wanna go? Lodging is the big hold-up right now, unless you want to depart NYC at 2-3 AM after partying.
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 18, 2008, 09:06 PM NHFT
The symposium Saturday was really good. ...
Here's Justin Martell's (Student Scholars for 911 Truth) review of the event, posted on 911blogger.com:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/15740
Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 23, 2008, 07:57 AM NHFT
"The fact is that after Sept. 11, whatever was legal in the face of not just the attacks of Sept. 11, but the anthrax attacks that happened, we were in an environment in which saving America from the next attack was paramount," Rice said.
everything is different now
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 23, 2008, 09:21 AM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 23, 2008, 07:52 AM NHFT
Wow, you guys driving down to NY?
Yeah, mebbe. Wanna go? Lodging is the big hold-up right now, unless you want to depart NYC at 2-3 AM after partying.
K, looks like we have lodging - just asked if they have room for one more couch-surfer ;)
Oh, didn't see the 'wanna go' part before. Had other plans :-\ Hope you guys have fun!
http://www.newhampshirefreepress.com/NHFreePress/?q=node/135
Here's my writeup on the New England 9/11 Truth Symposium, with a few pics. That poem makes me cry every time I read it.
Wow, you must have taken good notes. I had forgotten some of that. I can suggest a couple of minor corrections, tho. Where should I send those?
Post em here or email me, whichever you prefer :) Thanks!
Would need your changes tonight, Jack. I'll post my edited article on the website now, though.
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 24, 2008, 02:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on May 23, 2008, 09:21 AM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on May 23, 2008, 07:52 AM NHFT
Wow, you guys driving down to NY?
Yeah, mebbe. Wanna go? Lodging is the big hold-up right now, unless you want to depart NYC at 2-3 AM after partying.
K, looks like we have lodging - just asked if they have room for one more couch-surfer ;)
Looks like the plan that may work is:
Thurs PM to Western Mass, stay at friend's house,
leave early Friday, arriving Brooklyn 1PMish
Meet NY911Truth leadership at 3 to assist with petitioning for a New York 911 Truth investigative commission,
6:30ish box office opens for Brooklyn International Film Festival at the Lyceum,
Movie showing: Able Danger, with intro by the filmmaker,
Reception and party afterwards,
overnight at NY friends,
maybe more petitioning assistance Saturday AM,
definitely a visit to VoxPop, Sander Hicks' activism cafe,
return to N.H. Saturday afternoon/evening.
As of now, we have room for one more.
I was driving past a church near my house and saw this sign. Had to stop and snap a picture.
(http://i86.photobucket.com/albums/k116/coffeeseven/0528082112a.jpg)
Air America's "Clout" with Richard Greene
Thursday 5.29.2008
Debate: Was the 9/11 Commission a legitimate Investigation, and do we need a
new one?
SPECIAL ANNOUNCEMENT: Joining John and Kyle tomorrow will be 9/11 Family
Member, and "Jersey Girl", Lorie Van Auken who lost her husband Kenneth Van
Auken.
http://911blogger.com/node/15805
This week's debate on Air America's "Clout" ( http://airamerica.com/clout )
with Richard Greene is destined to be a special one. As it stands right now,
the two confirmed "pro-Truth" guests to appear are Kyle Hence, and John
Judge, the founders of 9/11 CitizensWatch. Citizenswatch was a watchdog
group of the 9/11 Commission that worked alongside the 9/11 Family Steering
Committee. Along with the families, they called for the resignation of
Executive Director Philip Zelikow, and at one point, they started an
advertising campaign "demanding that Bush, Cheney, Clinton, Gore and Rice
testify publicly, and under oath before the commission." They ran "billboard
advertisements in the Washington metro rail system for four weeks, as well
as quarter-page ads in The Washington Post." Thus far the one confirmed
guest who does NOT agree that we need another investigation is Daniel
Pinchbeck, the author of 2012: The Return of Quetzalcoatl, Tarcher, 2006 and
editorial director of the web magazine, Reality Sandwich. Daniel's position
is that we need to move forward, not back.
Kyle Hence is the Executive Producer of "9/11: Press For Truth", and "In
Their Own Words: The Untold Stories Of the 9/11 Families". John Judge has
worked as the Special Projects Assistant to Rep. Cynthia McKinney of
Georgia, has been a member of COPA for years, and is writing a critique of
the 9/11 Commission Final Report for the 9/11 Research Center.
There are very few people in the world today that understand the problems
with the 9/11 Commission as John and Kyle do. Please tell your friends, and
family to listen in. As I said, this show is destined to be a special one.
http://www.blick.ch/news/ausland/9-11/artikel45057
By Elie Peter - Sept 15, 2006, BLICK newspaper, Zurich, Switzerland
(translated from German into English, but not yet published online in English)
2,973 humans died with the attacks of 9/11. "Bin Laden" and "Al Qaeda", the Bush clan cried. The world believed themm. In the meantime even scientists doubt the Bush version. Now, Swiss university professors Albert A. Stahel and Daniele Ganser raise new questions.
"Something is not correct", says strategy expert Stahel in "World Week", and here he refers to the "incomplete" official US Government 9/11 Report of 2004.
The university professor confirms his criticism in BLICK: "Osama Bin Laden cannot be 'the large godfather' behind the attacks. He did not have enough means of communication".
Dr. Stahel doubts that a passenger airliner crashed into the Pentagon: "For trainee pilots it is actually impossible to crash into the building so exactly. Seven hours after the Twin Towers collapsed, the World Trade Center Building 7 next to it also collapsed. The official version: It burned for a long time. Nothing at all is clear."
Raising questions along with Stahel is historian Dr. Daniele Ganser, his colleague at the University of Zurich. Dr. Ganser also calls the official US version "a conspiracy theory".
"There are three theories, which we should treat equally":
1. "Surprise theory" - Bin Laden and Al Qaeda implemented the attacks.
2. "Let it happen on purpose" - The US Government knew the Al Qaeda plans and did not react in order to legitimize a series of wars.
3. "Made it happen on purpose" - The attacks were actually planned and orchestrated by the Pentagon and/or US secret services.
Ganser: "3,000 humans were sacrificed for strategic interests. The more we research, the more we doubt the Bush version. It is conceivable that the Bush government was responsible. Bush has lied so much already! And we already know that the US government planned an operation in 1962 [Operation Northwood] that was approved by the Pentagon that would have sacrificed innocent US citizens for the government's own interests."
As for Ganser and Stahel: "We only ask questions."
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/article3750417.ece
Corrs guitarist: 9/11 was an inside job
Friday, May 30, 2008
Corrs guitarist Jim Corr has claimed that there was overwhelming evidence that the 9/11 attacks in America were carried out by "rogue elements" of US President George Bush's "neo-con administration".
In a rare intervention into the political arena, the male singer with The Corrs band also came out against the Lisbon Treaty claiming that it is " tip-toe totalitarianism in the West".
In an interview with Matt Cooper on Ireland's Today FM's 'Last Word', Corr made the case for voting 'No' to Lisbon, claiming it could introduce the death penalty to Ireland and contribute to a "new world order".
Corr's opposition is based on his three years "studying the New World Order which the European Union is a part of".
He said "the EU is a stepping stone towards a world government, they will merge it with the Asia Pacific Union, the African Union and the North American Union". The Lisbon Treaty itself will introduce "a scientific technocracy" to Europe which will erode national sovereignty.
Corr claimed that The Charter of Fundamental Rights allows for the introduction of the death penalty.
"It makes provision for the introduction to law for the death penalty in times of war or imminent threat of war.
"What we are seeing is tip-toe totalitarianism in the West with 9/11 the key to understanding this.
"When you study 9/11 it becomes very apparent... it was a staged terrorist attack, what they call a false flag operation."
Corr said overwhelming evidence suggests 9/11 "was carried out by rogue elements in the Bush neo-con administration".
Wow, coffee - good finds!
btw, I didn't make it to the NYC movie premiere, but I expect a report back from Jonathan of Flyby News (http://www.flybynews.com/).
David Ray Griffin's note to New Yorkers who are petitioning for a NYC investigative commission:
====================================
STATEMENT OF SUPPORT FOR THE NYC BALLOT INITIATIVE
David Ray Griffin
Although I was not able to be present at the rally either in person or by telephone, I wanted to express my strong support for the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative.
There has never been a better time to get such an initiative on the ballot, because the 9/11 Truth Movement's case against the official account of 9/11 is now extremely strong---much stronger than it was just two years ago.
For example, new evidence has been brought forth to show that the official account of the destruction of the Twin Towers and WTC 7 cannot possibly be true. The NIST Report has been shown to be completely inadequate, and a former employee of NIST has spoken out to verify what we already suspected---that NIST has become totally politicized, so that its scientists are little more than "hired guns."
Besides the fact that the NIST Report has been discredited, so has The 9/11 Commission Report. Philip Shenon's book has made public what we in the movement have long known, that the 9/11 Commission was controlled by a man, Philip Zelikow, who represented the Bush-Cheney White House. Shenon even shows that Zelikow had outlined the whole report before the Commission's staff had begun its work.
Moreover, some central pillars of the official account have been demolished by the FBI. It has said it has no hard evidence that Osama bin Laden was responsible for the attacks, that there were no cell phone calls from passengers to relatives from any of the planes, and that Barbara Olson's famous phone call from Flight 77 to her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, never happened.
Equally important, there has been a tremendous influx of professionals with relevant kinds of expertise in the movement---military officers, pilots, CIA and other intelligence officials, architects, and engineers. A few years ago, critics ridiculed our claims about the World Trade Center by saying that these claims were not supported by any architects and engineers. But in the past year, some 400 architects and engineers have signed Richard Gage's petition for a new investigation.
Accordingly, if there IS a new investigation, and if it is this time a GENUINE investigation, there can be little doubt what the outcome will be. As I argued in Debunking 9/11 Debunking, the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job is overwhelming. The only task is to get people to look at the evidence.
I hope, therefore, that many dozens of people make the commitment to go out in the next few weeks to gather signatures. We know from polls that close to 50% of residents of NYC were already suspicious of the official story several years ago. There are, accordingly, more than enough people out there willing to sign the petition. All that is necessary is enough people to commit themselves to work enough hours to gather those signatures.
If you help get this initiative on the ballot, your name will surely be included in the universe's list of heroes.
Best wishes,
David Griffin
A note from Les Jamieson of NY911Truth:
=============================
Flash Bulletin To All 9/11 Truthers - from NYC
9/11 Ballot Initiative Campaign Headquarters
The New York City 911 Ballot Initiative has presented us with a historic opportunity to affect significant change in America and the world. In order to get the creation of a new 911 independent, locally controlled Commission to re-investigate the 9/11 attacks,we must get 30,000 signatures by June 30, 2008, to place this issue on the November 4th ballot here in New York City. We need many committed and dedicated 9/11 truth seekers to help us petition on the streets and in the parks of New York City. Anyone who is willing to come to New York City to help will be provided with free lodging. Please call Les Jamieson, local coordinator, at [718]492-2192 to make arrangements and check us out at ww.nyc911initiative.org
Peace to all!
=================================
If one want to put some effort towards a new investigation, the best time spent might be going to NYC for the weekend to help them gather signatures for their ballot initiative petition. If anyone wants to consider organizing a trip down there, please write us at merrimackvalley911truth.org and maybe one or 2 trips can be arranged during June.
A report from the showing of Able Danger in New York. We will try to get a copy to show when it goes into release. There is a possibility that the subject of this film, Sander Hicks, will speak at the Alternatives Expo (http://altexpo.org) to be held at the Porcupine Freedom Festival (http://porcfest.com) in Gilford, New-Hampshire the week of 9-15 June, 2008. Watch the AltExpo site for details.
===========================================
ABLE DANGER opened the Brooklyn International Film Festival last
Friday night to a raucous sell out crowd.
There is one remaining showtime: 8:00 pm | Friday June 6 | Brooklyn Lyceum
(located on 4th Avenue between Union & President)
Tickets are $10 at the Brooklyn Film Festival LInk
http://brooklynfilmfestival.org/films/detail.asp?fid=866
Able Danger is the story of a Brooklyn 9/11 truther (played by Adam
Nee) who falls into a noir pastiche when a mysterious Eastern European
(played by Elina Lowensohn) arrives at his caf?/bookstore (based on
the very real Brooklyn caf? VoxPop (http://voxpopnet.net) with the irrefutable proof of American secret intelligence involvement in the planning and execution of 9/11;
Able Danger (based on the real secret government program Able Danger).
trailer
http://www.abledangerthemovie.com/
For you Flatbush locals, Able Danger was written, directed and
produced by a Flatbush Local. It was shot at VoxPop, The Farm, Club 7
and houses and streets of Victorian Flatbush. Please come out and help
us sell out the 2nd and final show at the Brooklyn Festival.
Village Voice Friday Night Pick:
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/jaqeboy/SEoP7iZxSiI/AAAAAAAAAOw/4iJxEWmIj10/Village_Voice_Picks_ABLE_DANGER.png)
This pretty much wraps it up.
Can't seem to make it embed so here's the link
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aNzS2OGa8fs&NR=1
Thank you Kat.
Former Senator Mike Gravel Calls for Independent 9/11 Investigation and Prosecution of President Bush and Vice President Cheney
http://www.democracynow.org/2008/6/17/former_senator_mike_gravel_calls_for
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1
Really. You can go wherever you want with the rest of it, but the "no plane at the Pentagon" thing is absolutely retarded. This is a hit and run post, so I wont respond in this thread. I'm putting this together for someone else, but the opening post of this thread asks "where's the plane?" Uh, it broke up on the lawn. There were bodies, there was luggage, there were witnesses. There was even one of those big old drink carts the stewardesses push around. Enjoy!
PS - Ancient history from FTL BBS:
http://bbs.freetalklive.com/index.php?topic=7923.msg129961#msg129961 - WARNING GRAPHIC IMAGES!
FTL link doesn't work.
Hmmm, did for me, just tried again... must be an "indiscrepancy," (sic) eh?
You were there the first time, though.
Quote from: Dylboz on June 18, 2008, 10:05 AM NHFT
Hmmm, did for me, just tried again... must be an "indiscrepancy," (sic) eh?
You were there the first time, though.
Got it thanks. Yes I remember now.
Video of part of the Mike Gravel appearance on Democracy Now, posted on InfoWars:
http://www.infowars.com/?p=2742
The sooner we put a president or a vice-president or a secretary in jail for crimes they commit against humanity the sooner leaders will shape up.
Where do I sign?
Yeah, I love Mike Gravel for saying that! He's right!
Emergency Official Witnessed Dead Bodies In WTC 7
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Monday, June 23, 2008
Exclusive video of emergency official Barry Jennings discussing explosions inside WTC 7 before either of the twin towers had collapsed and having to step over dead bodies of victims as he attempted to vacate the building has been released for the first time.
The clip, which was originally intended to feature in Loose Change Final Cut but had to be withdrawn according to Jennings' wishes after he had received threats, has now been made public in anticipation of a BBC documentary about Building 7 which is expected to skew Jennings' account in an attempt to reinforce the official story.
In reality, what Jennings witnessed completely contradicts the official story of what happened to Building 7.
On the morning of 9/11 in his capacity as Deputy Director, Emergency Services Department, New York City Housing Authority, Jennings and Michael Hess, who is a founding Partner and Senior Managing Director of Giuliani Partners LLC, visited the Office of Emergency Management inside Building 7 only to find it had been abandoned.
"Upon arriving into the OEM EOC, we noticed that everybody was gone," said Jennings. "I saw coffee that was on the desk, the smoke was still coming off the coffee, I saw half-eaten sandwiches," he stated, adding that he and Hess were told to leave the building right away.
Jennings and Hess found a stairwell and descended the stairs.
"When we reached the 6th floor the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way, I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and walk back up to the 8th floor," said Jennings.
"The explosion was beneath me....so when the explosion happened it blew us back....both buildings (the twin towers) were still standing," he added.
"I was trapped in there for several hours, I was trapped in there when both buildings came down - all this time I'm hearing all kinds of explosions, all this time I'm hearing explosions, said Jennings, adding that when firefighters took them down to the lobby it was in "total ruins".
Barry Jennings
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq2dfCI
"For me to see what I saw was unbelievable," said Jennings.
The firefighters kept saying to Jennings "do not look down" because, according to Jennings, "we were stepping over people and you can tell when you're stepping over people."
A police officer then told Jennings, "you will have to run because we have reports of more explosions."
"I'm just confused about one thing....why World Trade Center 7 went down in the first place - I'm very confused about that - I know what I heard I heard explosions," said Jennings, adding that the explanation that the explosions were as a result of fuel oil tanks in the building did not add up.
"I'm an old boiler guy, if it was a fuel oil tank it would have been one side of the building," he stated.
Footage inside the Millennium Hilton building lobby, which was closer to the WTC twin towers than Building 7, shows minimal damage after both towers had collapsed in comparison with devastating damage in the lobby of WTC 7, as reported by Jennings, before either tower had even collapsed.
Jennings' eyewitness report of explosions inside WTC 7 before the towers had collapsed as well as dead bodies inside the building completely contradicts the official story, which maintains that there were no fatalities inside Building 7.
If WTC 7 collapsed as a result of damage it sustained from the fall of the twin towers, as the official version claims, then why were explosions taking place inside the building before either tower had collapsed?
The BBC hit piece documentary, which airs on July 6th, features an interview with Jennings but according to Loose Change's Jason Bermas, the program will distort Jennings' comments in an attempt to sideline the shocking nature of what he witnessed and the blatant manner in which his experiences contradict the official story.
According to Bermas, during their interview with members of Loose Change, the BBC denied that Jennings had stepped over dead bodies when he left the building, a claim disproved by Jennings' own statements in the video below.
http://www.infowars.com/?p=2808
This is very interesting.
There's a CD release/autograph signing party in Boston at Uggh.com (Underground Hip Hop) for an artist who did a 9/11 Truth tune.
Here's the Boston 911 Truth announcement:
=================
What:
Immortal Technique Autograph Signing
When:
Friday, June 27, 2008 6:00 PM
Where:
Ughh.com:
234 Huntington Ave
Boston MA 02115
617 262 0200
Meetup Description:
You guys may know Immortal Technique from the 'Revolutionary Hip Hop cd' & other classics such as "Cause of Death" (about 9/11). If you're unfamiliar with this tune, check it out on youtube here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u3JSEqNtlg (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u3JSEqNtlg) Here's your chance to meet this awesome awesome artist who actually has something to say. Hope to see you there!
This from the Libertarians for 9/11 Truth email list ( Libertariansfor911Truth@yahoogroups.com ) - slightly old news, but worth posting here.
==============================
9/11 Family Member Patty Casazza: Government Knew Exact Date and Exact Targets
'Jersey Girl' Patty Casazza spoke this weekend [back in November, 2007] at the 9/11 symposium held in Hartford, CT. 911Truth.org will post video and transcript of her comments as soon as they become available.
11/5 update: Video of Patty's presentation, with Bob McIlvaine, now available at youtube.com (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rukxI_GLc3w)
– Ed
9/11 family member and "Jersey Girl" Patty Casazza has just revealed that whistleblowers told her that -- before 9/11 -- the government knew the day, the type of attack, and the targets.
Why is this important? Because, previously, whistleblowers such as Sibel Edmonds had given more vague information on the government's foreknowledge. For example, Ms. Edmonds had hinted that the government only knew of a general timeframe for the attacks, and that they had a list of potential targets, on which the World Trade Center was just one of many potential targets.
Casazza further stated that these whistleblowers saw how Sibel Edmonds was being harrassed and gagged, and were fearful that the same thing would happen to them. So they approached the Jersey Girls to ask them to demand the 9/11 Commission subpoena the whistleblowers. The Jersey Girls tried to bring the whistleblowers before the 9/11 Commission, and the Commissioners agreed, but then never let the whistleblowers testify, let alone subpoena them.
Why is this important? Because defenders of the official government story have argued that 9/11 couldn't have been an inside job or else whistleblowers would have come forward.
Ms. Casaza confirms what many have said: there are a lot of 9/11 whistleblowers who are afraid to come forward -- especially without a supboena -- for fear of being attacked and harassed.
Ms. Casaza's statements were made at the 9/11: Families, First Responders & Experts Speak conference.
Source URL: http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2007/11/911-family-member-patty-casazza.html
http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20071105142935412
Hit piece on 911T movement / attack on Kevin Barrett, LP candidate for Congress in Madison, Wisconsin. Talker is host, Vicki McKenna (http://www.newstalk1130.com/pages/vicki_mckenna.html) on News/Talk WISN 1130AM (http://www.newstalk1130.com/main.html) in Milwaukee (weekdays 10AM - Noon). Not surprisingly, it's a ClearChannel station.
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/18227/podcast/MILWAUKEE-WI/WISN-AM/vm%206-24%20hour%202%20part%201.mp3?CPROG=PCAST&MARKET=MILWAUKEE-WI&NG_FORMAT=newstalk&SITE_ID=1176&STATION_ID=WISN-AM&PCAST_AUTHOR=WISN,_Milwaukee&PCAST_CAT=Talk&PCAST_TITLE=The_Vicki_McKenna_Show
Quote from: coffeeseven on June 24, 2008, 04:57 PM NHFT
This is very interesting.
This is good. Coffee, did you ever see Iraq for Sale (http://iraqforsale.org/)? That's got a lot of info on the waste, too.
Not sure, but I've heard it said that the wing of the Pentagon hit on 9/11 was doing the accounting to see what happened to those trillions!
Quote from: jaqeboy on June 26, 2008, 03:21 PM NHFT
Not sure, but I've heard it said that the wing of the Pentagon hit on 9/11 was doing the accounting to see what happened to those trillions!
They have been losing trillions for years ... and after 9/11 lost all count.
I think that wing was mostly under construction. It seems hard to believe that basically that was also the part that help accountants who cared.
QuoteCoffee, did you ever see Iraq for Sale? That's got a lot of info on the waste, too.
Have not seen it. Thanks for the heads up.
Some pre-release stuff from the NIST investigation of WTC7 collapse from the Jones Report:
The report states, "At 4:38 p.m. all of the windows between 13-44A and 13-47C were open, and the fires responsible for opening the windows had died down to the point where they could no longer be observed."
"Just prior to the collapse of the building at 5:20:52 p.m. a jet of flames was pushed from windows in the same area. The event that caused this unusual behavior has not been identified."
ref: http://www.jonesreport.com/article/06_08/25unusual_event.html
This from Les Jamieson, a leader of NY911Truth and a leader of their petition drive for an independent NYC investigative commission:
============================
Hello all,
The radio station for the Gary Null Show is 91.5FM, NOT 99.1FM. I'll be on
the show Monday between noon & 1pm to discuss the NYC 9/11 Ballot
Initiative.
SPECIAL EVENT WED. JULY 2nd
"Celebrating Real Independence - Manifesting Real Democracy"
Wed. July 2nd at 7pm, St. Marks Church, 2nd. Ave. & 10th Street, Manhattan
What better way to declare our independence than to participate in the
creation of a citizen-based campaign that will establish an impartial,
legally empowered Commission to conduct an authentic investigation of
9/11? This evening NYC residents will have an opportunity to do just that.
Bring friends, family, and anyone you know who is committed to progressive
change. They can sign the petition for the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative, and
learn how they can help create history by making the petition drive a
success. More details coming soon...
Truth will prevail,
NY 911 Truth
*************************************************
Support the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative
www.nyc911initiative.org.
*************************************************
Quote from: jaqeboy on June 29, 2008, 11:17 PM NHFT
This from Les Jamieson, a leader of NY911Truth and a leader of their petition drive for an independent NYC investigative commission:
============================
...The radio station for the Gary Null Show is 91.5FM.... I'll be on the show Monday between noon & 1pm to discuss the NYC 9/11 Ballot Initiative.
Gary Null Show online: http://www.prncomm.net/PRNhostbio.php?thishost=gary
Maybe we should just show The Reflecting Pool (http://www.reflectingpoolfilm.com/) at the Next Merrimack Valley 911 Truth meetings. Also, maybe we can get the filmmakers to stop in New-Hampshire on their tour.... hmmm....
============================================
ON NEW YORK RADIO - Listen Monday 6/30/08 at 8AM on WBAI 95.5 FM - "Wake-Up Call" with Esther Armah - Live discussion with filmmakers Joseph Culp and Jarek Kupsc about the upcoming New York premiere of THE REFLECTING POOL - The first investigative drama to challenge the official version of 9/11. Listen to Wake-Up Call LIVE http://stream.wbai.org/
MORE INFO ON THE REFLECTING POOL SUMMER TOUR:
Dear Friends,
We are proud to announce the much anticipated World Theatrical Premiere of the groundbreaking investigative drama THE REFLECTING POOL at the Pioneer Theater in New York City on July 11, 2008. This is a historic event. The first time a film challenging the official version of 9/11 has been given a theatrical run in The United States. Please join us for these landmark shows from 7/11-7/18 and pass this message to all your New York friends.
We will be doing Q&A after every show.
Read about the New York 9/11 Ballot Initiative in The Village Voice.
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/06/frmr_senator_gr.php
THE REFLECTING POOL supports this important action to establish a new independent investigation of the most controversial tragedy of our time.
We will follow the New York run with a series of screenings on the North-East and North-West coasts, culminating with Colorado.
In late August and early September, we will be screening in New Zealand and Poland.
Press Release:
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2100/1/prweb1000914.htm
Thank you for your continued support!
Joseph Culp, Jarek Kupsc, Jodie Baltazar
www.reflectingpoolfilm.com
The Reflecting Pool Summer 2008 Tour Schedule
July 11-18
(except 17)
7PM, 9PM
Pioneer Theatre
155 East 3rd Street
New York, NY
(212) 591-0434
July 19
9:30pm
Maine Int'l Film Festival
Railroad Square Cinema
17 Railroad Square,
Waterville, ME
(207) 861-8138
July 21
Time TBA
Railroad Square Cinema
17 Railroad Square,
Waterville, ME
shadow@prexar.com
July 23
Show 7pm
Meeting 6pm
Media Education Foundation
(Community Meeting Space)
60 Masonic Street
Northampton, MA
www.Valley911truth.org
4th OF JULY TRUTH ACTION
Friday July 4, 2008
Charles River Esplanade, Boston
9 am to 5 pm
Truth activists will be gathering at Boston's 4th of July
Celebration on the Esplanade this year to distribute new
Patriots Question 9/11 postcards along with We Are Change info
handouts and maybe some DVDs. A core group of organizers will
be setting up Camp on the lawn adjacent to the Stone Man
Playground near the Harvard (Mass Ave) Bridge. (see map on link
below). From there, we?ll break off into groups and canvas the
entire area, from and including the Longfellow Bridge to the
Harvard Bridge. Even if you can come only for a couple of
hours, there will be someone at the Camp at all times beginning
at 9 am, who will be able to connect you with groups already
out working the crowd.
The best access to the home Camp is via the pedestrian entrance
to the esplanade at the Mass. Ave Bridge. From there it?s just
a short 100 ft. walk to a fork in the sidewalk that surrounds a
strip of lawn where we?re setting up camp. Look for the flag of
New England we?ll be flying ? a red flag with a green Pine tree.
We have a total of 10,000 pieces of literature we want to
distribute among the 500,000-plus people in attendance. We hope
you can join us in this huge distribution effort and for some
celebration after the fireworks.
FYI This is a great vantage point to watch the fireworks, so
come help us hog our space.
Hope to see you there.
For more info and updates, visit
http://9-11.meetup.com/290/calendar/8228910/
Flag:
http://boston911truth.org/site/4th/newengflag3.gif <http:
//boston911truth.org/4th/newengflag3.gif>
Map
http://boston911truth.org/site/4th/map.gif
Card
http://boston911truth.org/site/4th/Patriot911card.pdf
Announcement Doc
http://boston911truth.org/site/4th/4th.doc
WAC Flyer
http://boston911truth.org/site/4th/WAC-Flyer.pdf
Merrimack Valley 911 Truth is pleased to announce our long-awaited series of video showings in the Merrimack Valley of New-Hampshire.
Every Tuesday night, somewhere in the Merrimack Valley, we'll be meeting and showing videos about what really has been going on in America, not the fluff news from the mainstream media, but the hard, wrenching truth. Some of this information will be hard to watch, some hard-to-believe, some will make you squirm and feel worse than when you walked in, but we're banking on "the Truth will set you free!" and we're dedicated to that truth and that freedom.
Join us on the first Tuesday (starting tonight, July 1st) in Nashua, the 2nd Tuesday in Manchester, the 3rd Tuesday in Concord and the 4th Tuesday up north (final location t.b.d.) - you can get all the details at the meetup group: http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org.
If you're just curious and not convinced, this is your opportunity to view some of the latest efforts of the independent investigators who are trying to get to the bottom of the events of September 11th and the justice seekers who are attempting to right the wrongs being done to Americans in pursuit of the 9/11 wars. We hope you'll join us for dinner at 6:30PM (most venues) or snacks, drinks, videos and discussion. We will have free DVDs that you can take home and view later, as well as a selection of DVDs, books and other materials for sale.
To truth -- to FREEDOM
Merrimack Valley 911 Truth (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org)
write us with suggestions for future showings at: MerrimackValley911Truth@gmail.com
Tonight the videos will be at the 603 Lounge at 14 West Hollis Street, Nashua, next door to Chicken 'N Chips and across from the side of Nashua City Hall.
The owner is totally into what we're doing and has offered a 10% discount on all food and drinks to the MV911T crowd. His circle of friends will be younger and eager to absorb ideas, so great prospects for "this movement of ours."
We may show The Reflecting Pool (http://www.reflectingpoolfilm.com/), which is due to have a theatrical tour soon and the filmmakers could probably be convinced to stop in one of our Merrimack Valley towns, if we can draw a crowd.
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 01, 2008, 07:22 AM NHFT
Merrimack Valley 911 Truth is pleased to announce our long-awaited series of video showings in the Merrimack Valley of New-Hampshire.
...the first Tuesday (starting tonight, July 1st) in Nashua ... all the details at the meetup group: http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org.
... join us for dinner at 6:30PM ... We will have free DVDs that you can take home and view later, as well as a selection of DVDs, books and other materials for sale.
This was in the BBC today... http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/ (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/)
I thought their video was interesting... plus reporting that the building had fallen before it did.
that is great reporting .... maybe they could feel the building weakening
We had 9 people attending with a couple of others in and out from the front of the 603. Attenders included a former member of the Nashua Board of Aldermen and a couple of younger folk. We did show The Reflecting Pool, after watching a little of Charlie Chaplin's The Great Dictator. The filmmakers are touring around with a first showing in NYC on 11July. Later, on 14 July they'll be at the Maine Film Festival at the Railroad Square Cinema in Waterville (cool theater - I saw The World's Fastest Indian there). One of our guys will contact them to see if they can stop in New-Hampshire if we can get them a decent-sized venue, like the Wilton Town Hall, the Colonial in Keene or the Red River in Concord. Can anyone else jump in to help support the effort to bring them here?
Be sure to register at the MV911T Meetup site (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org) to get announcements.
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 01, 2008, 04:11 PM NHFT
Tonight the videos will be at the 603 Lounge at 14 West Hollis Street, Nashua, next door to Chicken 'N Chips and across from the side of Nashua City Hall.
The owner is totally into what we're doing and has offered a 10% discount on all food and drinks to the MV911T crowd. His circle of friends will be younger and eager to absorb ideas, so great prospects for "this movement of ours."
We may show The Reflecting Pool (http://www.reflectingpoolfilm.com/), which is due to have a theatrical tour soon and the filmmakers could probably be convinced to stop in one of our Merrimack Valley towns, if we can draw a crowd.
the college kids can sometimes get the nice theater at Keene State
First part of Alex Jones' new movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLh4-XTnXq8&feature=related
The 9/11 Chronicles
The other 10 parts are in the related videos.
Just found on the BBC News Controversy and conspiracies III (http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html) blog thread - link to Unraveling the destruction of WTC 7: the descent curve and a mathematical model of the "crush-up" mode of the building's progressive collapse (http://arxiv.org/abs/0806.4792)
Authors: Charles M. Beck
(Submitted on 29 Jun 2008)
Haven't read it yet - any comments on this?
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 04, 2008, 08:24 PM NHFT
First part of Alex Jones' new movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLh4-XTnXq8&feature=related
The 9/11 Chronicles
The other 10 parts are in the related videos.
Good find, Kat. Are you going to buy the DVD? If not, I'll see if someone at the MV911T meeting in Manchester on Tuesday will purchase it. We can put that in the queue for viewing at our upcoming meetings.
Reminder:
1st Tuesday of every month: Nashua video viewing at the 603 Lounge
2nd Tuesday: Manchester at the Great Buffet
3rd Tuesday: Concord at Liberty Books
4th Tuesday: up north, location T.B.D.
see http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org for details and carpooling info.
Kat, btw, video viewing up at Burning Porcupine? Electricity? - I have a generator.
I'll transfer the infrastructure question over to one of the Burning Porc lists.
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 05, 2008, 10:19 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 04, 2008, 08:24 PM NHFT
First part of Alex Jones' new movie:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XLh4-XTnXq8&feature=related
The 9/11 Chronicles
The other 10 parts are in the related videos.
Good find, Kat. Are you going to buy the DVD? If not, I'll see if someone at the MV911T meeting in Manchester on Tuesday will purchase it. We can put that in the queue for viewing at our upcoming meetings.
Good Introduction speech by Alex Jones here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PeYv9eis618&feature=related (Part 1 of 3 parts).
Very inspiring!
Had no plans to buy the DVD.
Electricity: kind of minimalist, but it's there. You could show it in the house.
An LP-New York sponsored Hardfire interview with Richard Gage and a supporter of the government's conspiracy theory:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3685846057748316809&q=hardfire+gage&ei=gCFuSNebBJCKrwKH1aCKDw
9/11 third tower mystery 'solved' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7485331.stm)
Guess what the solution is.
Still left guessing ::)
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 06, 2008, 07:48 PM NHFT
Still left guessing ::)
In short, the NIST report expected to come out shortly will say that fires combined with structural damage on one side of the building which almost nobody filmed or photographed caused WTC 7 to collapse. Supposedly they have pictures of this structural damage which they're going to release as well.
Typical of the news media to always be filming where the action isn't.
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 05, 2008, 10:19 PM NHFT
Good find, Kat. Are you going to buy the DVD? If not, I'll see if someone at the MV911T meeting in Manchester on Tuesday will purchase it. We can put that in the queue for viewing at our upcoming meetings.
this one had a lot of handheld shots that were tiring after a while
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 05, 2008, 10:20 PM NHFT
Kat, btw, video viewing up at Burning Porcupine? Electricity? - I have a generator.
I'll transfer the infrastructure question over to one of the Burning Porc lists.
inside would probably be best
Quote from: error on July 06, 2008, 08:08 PM NHFT
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 06, 2008, 07:48 PM NHFT
Still left guessing ::)
In short, the NIST report expected to come out shortly will say that fires combined with structural damage on one side of the building which almost nobody filmed or photographed caused WTC 7 to collapse. Supposedly they have pictures of this structural damage which they're going to release as well.
Yeah, supposedly they scoured the territory for all the availble photographic and video images, so they should have some that may not have been seen on the net. Pics of the south face (Vesey Street side) of WTC7 are rare because that area had already been cleared of people for safety reasons hours before. Also, the shots I have seen have been obscured by smoke - apparently the wind was coming from the north, so any smoke from the building went to that side. The amount of damage to that face is in controversy and I have heard everything from very little to the whole face was raked over. Anxiously awaiting their images.
Unfortunately, them snarfing up all available images may leave them with control of the long-term disposition of those, ie, if they got exclusive rights to them. They will certainly have the option to be selective about what they publish. NIST seems to err on the side of publishing a lot, though, given what they produced for a report on the towers - thousands of pages long. I think it was a stack of volumes about 4 feet high. Can be seen on NIST site, link somewhere in this pile of posts.
This was interesting.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=rMfHxoM07YM
Boston 9/11 Truth did a Truth Action at the Esplanade on the 4th:
Video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xiwZtNf8FOg
Photos:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28297075@N02
Slideshow:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/28297075@N02/show/
I thought this was interesting.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/americas/07/07/colombia.crash.ap/index.html
A 747 crashed in Colombia today. Isn't this what it's supposed to look like when planes crash into fields?
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/WORLD/americas/07/07/colombia.crash.ap/art.colombia.crash.afp.gi.jpg)
(http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2008/WORLD/americas/07/07/colombia.crash.ap/art.kalitta.crash.afp.gi.jpg)
Not this.
(http://bp3.blogger.com/_LYmohCjnTj0/RcpFzt35b4I/AAAAAAAAADI/vp8nRS4mG48/s1600/crater_pl3.jpg)
if they would have sent out a bunch of suits ... they could have cleaned that up in a few minutes and started replanting grass
Video tonight in Manchester!
Merrimack Valley 911 Truth is pleased to announce:(Please forward this message to your friends)
Every Tuesday night, somewhere in the Merrimack Valley, we'll be
meeting and showing videos about what really has been going on in
America, not the fluff news from the mainstream media, but the hard,
wrenching truth. Some of this information will be hard to watch, some
hard-to-believe, some will make you squirm and feel worse than when
you walked in, but we're banking on "the Truth will set you free!" and
we're dedicated to that truth and that freedom.
Join us on the first Tuesday in Nashua, the
2nd Tuesday in Manchester,
the 3rd Tuesday in Concord and the 4th Tuesday up north (final
location t.b.d.) - you can get all the details at the meetup group
site: http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org.
Our video showings in Manchester will be at
The Great Buffet (http://www.gogreatbuffet.com/), across
from the Mall of New Hampshire (1525 South Willow Street). We'll
gather at 6:30 for food and beverages from Tom's fine buffet, sushi
bar and stir-fry station. We meet in the party room off to the left of
the lobby ( a great room for meetings). At 7, we'll have a brief
business meeting and start the video at 7:15ish.
-------------------
Video tonight in Manchester!
This month, we're showing 911: Dust and Deceit to emphasize that there
are continuing victims of 9/11.
This disturbing film by
Penny Little, 911: Dust and Deceit at the WTC (http://www.911dust.org/),
exposes the environmental disaster of 9/11 through interviews with
scientists, waste management specialists, governmvent workers,
volunteers, the heros and victims of the dust which permeated the air
after 911.
Background
EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman announced to New Yorkers,
shortly after the 911 attacks on the World Trade Towers that ". .I am
glad to reassure the people of New York and Washington DC that their
air safe to breathe" and that we " . .need not be concerned about
environmental issues as [we] return to [our] homes and workplaces" At
that time, she didn't have the information to support those assurances
or make recommendations.
The White House itself, through its Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), actually manipulated the statements being released by the EPA
so as to soft-pedal health concerns. Because of these misleading
statements, and because the EPA bucked its legal responsibility and
left the problem to the City, the public was put at risk. This is true
even though the EPA reversed course in May of 2002 and initiated an
extremely limited and flawed voluntary cleanup. There is evidence of a
coverup, and a media blackout.
Thousands of people are ill.
-------------------
Video tonight in Manchester!
Now, we realize that this is not a happy, fun-time subject, but
neither is the plight of the first-responders and clean-up workers. We
encourage donations to the Feal Good Foundation, organized by John
Feal, one of the firemen who survived 9/11, but lost most of one of
his feet to a falling beam. John organized the foundation to help and
support the workers who bravely got down to business on 9/11 and
afterwards, but are now suffering without much support from government
agencies that, in fact, deceived them.
http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/
-------------------
If you're just curious and not convinced, this is your opportunity to
view some of the latest efforts of the independent investigators who
are trying to get to the bottom of the events of September 11th and
the justice seekers who are attempting to right the wrongs being done
to Americans in pursuit of the 9/11 wars. We hope you'll join us for
dinner and a movie (and discussion). We will have free DVDs that you
can take home and view later, as well as a selection of DVDs, books
and other materials for sale.
To truth -- to FREEDOM
Merrimack Valley 911 Truth - http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org, and
myspace.com/merrimackvalley911truth
write us with suggestions for future showings at:
MerrimackValley911Truth@gmail.com
Video tonight in Manchester!
Alex Jones and Jason Bermas dish on the new BBC hit piece:
Audio: http://www.radiodujour.com/people/bermas_jason/mp3/20080707_alexjones_jasonbermas.mp3
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 09, 2008, 09:52 AM NHFT
Alex Jones and Jason Bermas dish on the new BBC hit piece:
Audio: http://www.radiodujour.com/people/bermas_jason/mp3/20080707_alexjones_jasonbermas.mp3
Here's the 911 Blogger post on this:
BBC keeps digging, the hole gets bigger (http://911blogger.com/node/16540)
Here's a 3 minute trailer on Google Video of BBC Two Conspiracy Files - 9/11 The Third Tower: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8577967979083861234&q=Third+Tower+Conspiracy+Files&ei=WOB0SPz0N4LS-AG2vfGYCw&hl=en
Looks like some other good footage linked to on the left side of the page.
Here's the 911 Blogger page with the 1 hour show on there of BBC's "The Third Tower" as a G-video:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/16541
The producer of The Reflecting Pool (http://www.reflectingpoolfilm.com) writes to announce the NYC premiere. Remeber, you saw the sneak preview first at Merrimack Valley 911 Truth's Nashua showing on July 1st! We scooped the big city cinemas!!!
================
Hello Friends,
First, let me apologize if you've already received notice of the New York Premiere of THE REFLECTING POOL, running Friday July 11 - Friday July 18 in New York City at the Pioneer Theater. We are simply doing all we can to get people to come out and see the film. Please spread the word to those you know in the New York area!
THE REFLECTING POOL is the first investigative drama (feature narrative film) to take a personal look at what happens when someone questions the official story of 9/11. The film expands the discourse on 9/11 to include broader issues such as the state of media, journalism, and government in the United States today.
THE REFLECTING POOL
FRI JULY 11- FRI JULY 18 at 7PM & 9PM
Pioneer Theater
155 E 3rd Street
New York, NY
212-591-0434
Filmmakers Jarek Kupsc, Jodie Baltazar, and Joseph Culp will be present for a Q&A at all screenings. Note there will be no shows on Thursday July 17. Call 800-595-4849 for tickets.
SYNOPSIS:
ALEX, a Russian-American journalist and son of a Soviet-era propaganda minister, agrees to fact-check the 9/11 Commission report with COOPER, father of a 9/11 victim, as his guide. They interview key witnesses and examine evidence, but as the official story begins to crumble Alex struggles to maintain faith in his profession and newly adopted country.
OTHER SCREENINGS
(http://www.reflectingpoolfilm.com/reflectingpoolscreening.htm)
July 19 WATERVILLE, MAINE Maine International Film Festival
July 21-24 WATERVILLE, MAINE Railroad Square Cinema
July 23 NORTHAMPTON, MA Media Education Foundation
Aug 04 BERKELEY, CA. Pacific Film Archive
Aug 07 PORTLAND, OR Hollywood Theater
Aug 08 SEATTLE, WA Trinity United Methodist Church
Aug 09 BELLINGHAM, WA Pickford Cinema
Aug 17 CLEARLAKE, CA TBA
Sincerely,
Jodie Baltazar, producer
jodie@baltazarworks.com
213-500-8756
www.reflectingpoolfilm.com
Tuesday in Concord - ZEITGEIST
Merrimack Valley 911 Truth is pleased to announce:Every Tuesday night, somewhere in the Merrimack Valley, we'll be
meeting and showing videos about what really has been going on in
America, not the fluff news from the mainstream media, but the hard,
wrenching truth. Some of this information will be hard to watch, some
hard-to-believe, some will make you squirm and feel worse than when
you walked in, but we're banking on "the Truth will set you free!" and
we're dedicated to that truth and that freedom.
Join us on the first Tuesday in Nashua, the 2nd Tuesday in Manchester,
the
3rd Tuesday in Concord and the 4th Tuesday up north (final
location t.b.d.) - details at the meetup site: http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org.
Our
video showings in Concord are at Liberty Books (http://www.libertybooksnh.net/), 75 Allison
Street. We'll gather at 6:30 for setup and snacks. At 7, we'll have a brief business meeting and start the video at 7:15ish.
-------------------
This month, we're showing Zeitgeist (http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/) .
[from German: : the general intellectual, moral, and cultural climate of an era]
Zeitgeist took the internet by storm a little over a year ago - it caused quite a sensation and considerable controversy - WARNING: it is critical of modern religion (Christianity & others), so if that would offend you, proceed with caution - but, we do encourage you to proceed. With the sequel coming up in the Fall, we thought it would be a good time to review the original, or see it for the first time if you haven't already.
From the website http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/ :
Zeitgeist, produced by Peter Joseph, was created as a nonprofit expression to inspire people to start looking at the world from a more critical perspective and to understand that very often things are not what the population at large think they are. The information in Zeitgeist was established over a year long period of research and the current Source page on this site lists the basic sources used / referenced and the developing Interactive Transcript includes exact source references and further information. A Q & A page is also being developed.
Now, it's important to point out that there is a tendency to simply disbelieve things that are counter to our erstanding, without the necessary research performed. For example, some information contained in Part 1 and Part 3, specifically, is not obtained by simple keyword searches on the Internet. You have to dig deeper. For instance, very often people who look up "Horus" or "The Federal Reserve" on the Internet draw their conclusions from very general or biased sources. Online encyclopedias or text book Encyclopedias often do not contain the information contained in Zeitgeist. However, if one takes the time to read the sources provided, they will find that what is being presented is based on documented evidence. Non-Profit DVDs / Free Video Downloads are available through the Downloads page.
Furthermore, in October 2008 the sequel to Zeitgeist will be presented for free online. This feature length work will address the solutions to the problems presented in the original work. This work is entitled: "Zeitgeist - Addendum"-- That being said, It is my hope that people will not take what is said in the film as the truth, but find out for themselves, for truth is not told, it is realized.
-------------------
We realize that 9/11is not a happy, fun-time subject, but neither is the plight of the first-responders and clean-up workers. We encourage donations to the Feal Good Foundation (http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/), organized by John Feal, one of the firemen who survived 9/11, but lost most of one of his feet to a falling beam. John organized the foundation to help and support the workers who bravely got down to business on 9/11 and afterwards, but are now suffering without much support from government agencies that, in fact, deceived them.
http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/
-------------------
If you're just curious and not convinced, this is an excellent opportunity to view some of the latest efforts of the independent investigators who are trying to get to the bottom of the events of September 11th and the justice seekers who are attempting to right the wrongs being done to Americans in pursuit of the 9/11 wars. We hope you'll join us for snacks, a movie and discussion. We will have free DVDs that you can take home and view later, as well as a selection of DVDs, books and other materials for sale.
To truth -- to FREEDOMMerrimack Valley 911 Truth - http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org, and
http://myspace.com/merrimackvalley911truth
write us with suggestions for future showings at:
MerrimackValley911Truth@gmail.com
John Lear thinks the planes were holographs (holograms?). He has a long interview on Youtube. John Lear, Project Camelot.
Yeah, I had heard of those theories - I'll watch this interview, but with a very critical eye.
NEWS from NY911Truth:
Petitioning to establish a NYC 911 Commission (http://www.nyc911initiative.org/) is proceeding apace. They get about 700 signatures per day and they have over 23,000 signatures so far. The goal is to get 30,000 signatures turned in to the City Clerk on August 1st to get an item on the November 4th city election ballot.
If people here want to help, call 718-492-2192 - NYC911T will arrange lodging (couch-surfing) for you.
There will be a big push on the last weekend and they encourage everyone to come help then. Here's the schedule:
arrive NYC: Friday, 25 July and check in - lodging arranged, talk over process for Saturday
start petitioning: Saturday, 26 July, 10 AM
Party: Saturday, 26 July in the PM to celebrate reaching the 30,000 goal.
This is absolutely the most important action for truth in the country. New Yorkers have standing to investigate a crime committed in their city and can establish a commission by petition and vote (the lawyers have reviewed it all and helped design the ballot issue). In order to prevent anyone from messing with the commission members, I believe the ballot issue names the commissioners already.
All the details on how to join in and volunteer to help out in NYC, including carpooling info, will be posted over at Merrimack Valley 911 Truth's meetup site (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org).
There will be a big publicity stunt in NYC at the premiere of the new Batman movie. Hint: it involves this device:
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/jaqeboy/SH9qEKSvf0I/AAAAAAAAARY/n68f3iwHv-s/batmobileFILE0057.jpg)
http://lh3.ggpht.com/jaqeboy/SH9qEKSvf0I/AAAAAAAAARY/n68f3iwHv-s/batmobileFILE0057.jpg
Batmobile arrives in Brooklyn:
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/jaqeboy/SIVLIkasahI/AAAAAAAAASE/SWtB6b8dtcs/Batmobile%20in%20Brooklyn.jpg)
http://lh4.ggpht.com/jaqeboy/SIVLIkasahI/AAAAAAAAASE/SWtB6b8dtcs/Batmobile%20in%20Brooklyn.jpg
Batman and Robin on board:
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/jaqeboy/SIVLIgSESII/AAAAAAAAAR8/w3aqwpn9PQE/batmobilenyc1.jpg)
http://lh4.ggpht.com/jaqeboy/SIVLIgSESII/AAAAAAAAAR8/w3aqwpn9PQE/batmobilenyc1.jpg
Tuesday in Plymouth - In Their Own Words
Merrimack Valley 911 Truth is pleased to announce:Every Tuesday night, somewhere in the Merrimack Valley, we'll be
meeting and showing videos about what really has been going on in
America, not the fluff news from the mainstream media, but the hard,
wrenching truth. Some of this information will be hard to watch, some
hard-to-believe, some will make you squirm and feel worse than when
you walked in, but we're banking on "the Truth will set you free!" and
we're dedicated to that truth and that freedom.
Join us on the first Tuesday in Nashua, the 2nd Tuesday in Manchester,
the 3rd Tuesday in Concord and the
4th Tuesday in Plymouth - details at the meetup site: http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org.
Our
video showings in Plymouth are at The Common Man Inn at 231 Main Street. We'll gather at 6:30 for drinks and dinner. At 7, we'll have a brief business meeting and start the video 7:15ish. We'll be in the Abenaki Dining Room off of Foster's Boiler Room.
-------------------
This month, we're showing :
IN THEIR OWN WORDS; Untold Stories of the 9/11 FamilesIn late 2006, the movie 9/11: Press For Truth became a worldwide underground hit. It exposed the story of the "Jersey Girls" and their allies -- the 9/11 families who had fought for the Commission but ultimately failed in seeing 70% of their questions answered.
IN THEIR OWN WORDS: THE UNTOLD STORIES OF THE 9/11 FAMILIES is the new, official companion DVD to 9/11 Press For Truth. Over 2 hours of unseen families' interviews and rare news clips originally intended for inclusion in the movie ended up on the cutting room floor -- until now.
A unique, balanced look at a diverse group of topics includes:* Top officials' whereabouts and changing stories on the day of 9/11
* Insider trading before the attacks
* War games coinciding with Sept. 11th
* A confrontation between the families and FBI Director Mueller
* British reports that some of the hijackers named by the FBI are simply wrong
* Government whistleblowers' calls for accountability
* The FBI informant who lived with 2 of the hijackers
* A Defense Department program that identified 4 hijackers in 2000
* The families' push to receive the Pentagon crash tapes
* Bin Laden extradition negotiations after 9/11
* The Project For the New American Century
* And much more...
------------------------------------------------
Directions to the Common Man Inn can be found at: http://www.thecmaninn.com/html/Location.html
------------------------------------------------
Please arrive at 6:30 if you can, in order to get your dinner and beverage orders in. We'll start a brief business meeting at 7 and then on to the video showings. Books and other materials will be available for purchase at the event.
------------------------------------------------
Merrimack Valley 911 Truth has set up a "carpooling group" online at eRideShare.com. Carpooling arrangements can now be made by clicking on http://mv911t.erideshare.com to go to the online ridesharing group. Now that gas has gone over $4.00/gal, carpooling is starting to get a lot more interesting.
What you will have to do is set up an individual username & password on eRideShare.com. Then, our group nickname is "mv911t" and our password is "truth". Once you've figured out how the system works, just bookmark http://mv911t.erideshare.com and remember the password is "truth". Then you can post if you are driving to one of our events and have extra seats - or if you're looking for a ride to an event just logon and post that you're seeking a ride.
As always, donations for the ride-sharing are always appreciated to cover gas costs.
-------------------
We realize that 9/11 is not a happy, fun-time subject, but neither is the plight of the first-responders and clean-up workers. We
encourage donations to the
Feal Good Foundation (http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/), organized by John Feal, one of the firemen who survived 9/11, but lost most of one of his feet to a falling beam. John organized the foundation to help and support the workers who bravely got down to business on 9/11 and afterwards, but are now suffering without much support from government agencies that, in fact, deceived them.
http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/
-------------------
If you're just curious and not convinced, this is an excellent opportunity to view some of the latest efforts of the independent investigators who are trying to get to the bottom of the events of September 11th and the justice seekers who are attempting to right the wrongs being done to Americans in pursuit of the 9/11 wars. We hope you'll join us for dinner, a movie and discussion. We will have free DVDs that you can take home and view later, as well as a selection of DVDs, books and other materials for sale.
To truth -- to FREEDOMMerrimack Valley 911 Truth - http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org, and
http://myspace.com/merrimackvalley911truth
write us with suggestions for future showings at:
MerrimackValley911Truth@gmail.com
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 21, 2008, 09:56 PM NHFT
Batman and Robin on board:
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/jaqeboy/SIVLIgSESII/AAAAAAAAAR8/w3aqwpn9PQE/batmobilenyc1.jpg)
http://lh4.ggpht.com/jaqeboy/SIVLIgSESII/AAAAAAAAAR8/w3aqwpn9PQE/batmobilenyc1.jpg
No can see images.
maybe we could hit the tuesday meeting in Plymouth from Burning Porcupine
Quote from: Kat Kanning on July 22, 2008, 02:06 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 21, 2008, 09:56 PM NHFT
Batman and Robin on board:
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/jaqeboy/SIVLIgSESII/AAAAAAAAAR8/w3aqwpn9PQE/batmobilenyc1.jpg)
http://lh4.ggpht.com/jaqeboy/SIVLIgSESII/AAAAAAAAAR8/w3aqwpn9PQE/batmobilenyc1.jpg
No can see images.
That's so weird, because on my browser, I can see the image fine now.
[now I can't]
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 22, 2008, 04:00 AM NHFT
maybe we could hit the tuesday meeting in Plymouth from Burning Porcupine
That'd be cool - If you have a laptop with wi-fi, we could check out this viewing problem there - the restaurant has wi-fi.
Google route from BP to theCMan: http://maps.google.com/maps?f=d&hl=en&geocode=&saddr=Hoyt+Rd,+Grafton,+NH+03240&daddr=231+Main+Street,+Plymouth,+New+Hampshire&sll=37.0625,-95.677068&sspn=67.724291,108.984375&ie=UTF8&z=10
Basically Rt. 4 to Rt. 104 all the way over to 93 and then up. Exit 26 to Rt. 3A/Rt. 25, Tenney Mountain Highway, then, almost immediately, first exit to take Main Street south into town just a block or so.
Their directions: http://www.thecmaninn.com/html/Location.html
1,000 Architects & Engineers by this September!
Help us!!!
Fellow AE911Truth Petition Signers & Friends:
Congratulations!! We now have over 400 Architects & Engineers demanding a real investigation of the 3 WTC high-rise towers — including 20 structural engineers and 3 high-rise architects! We have about 2000 other petition signers, as well, including metallurgists, physicists, scientists, explosives experts and demolition contractors.
Here is our goal: 1,000 A&E petition signers by this September 11th. We will be a massive voice of credibility and conscience — a force to be reckoned with! The petition will be submitted to Congress and we will not stop until there is a real, unimpeachable investigation with subpoena power.
[info on how to help on AE911Truth site]
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 22, 2008, 01:09 AM NHFT
Tuesday in Plymouth - In Their Own Words
4th Tuesday in Plymouth - details at the meetup site: http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org.
Our video showings in Plymouth are at The Common Man Inn at 231 Main Street. We'll gather at 6:30 for drinks and dinner. At 7, we'll have a brief business meeting and start the video 7:15ish. We'll be in the Abenaki Dining Room off of Foster's Boiler Room.
This venue was great! It was very cool-looking - built around the boiler room of an old shoe peg factory. Service was great as Tuesday is a slow night for them. They provided TV/DVD player comp this time, usually $25 extra. Highly recommend this place for all kinds of meetings.
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 22, 2008, 01:09 AM NHFT
This month, we're showing : IN THEIR OWN WORDS; Untold Stories of the 9/11 Familes
This video was good, showing first of all how a small group of people can "be the management" - the Jersey Girls essentially forced the administration to have a commission at all, but also showing how such commissions can be manipulated and controlled - hence how far we have yet to go in taking our country back.
To truth -- to FREEDOMMerrimack Valley 911 Truth - http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org, and
http://myspace.com/merrimackvalley911truth
write us with suggestions for future showings at:
MerrimackValley911Truth@gmail.com
Will you be doing this in Plymouth again soon?
Quote from: Jan on July 23, 2008, 08:00 AM NHFT
Will you be doing this in Plymouth again soon?
Yes, on the 4th Tuesday of every month. Go to the meetup group: http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org to sign up on the email list to get announcements sent to you. We did make contact with some students at the meeting and will follow up with them re working with existing student groups and possibly using PSU facilities in the future for events. If you want a local person to contact, PM me and I'll give you the name, email and number. (Maybe the 2 of you could work together on having more frequent showings).
I loved that restaurant/inn. :)
Quote from: Russell Kanning on July 26, 2008, 09:46 PM NHFT
I loved that restaurant/inn. :)
Yeah, that was a great room, wasn't it? I bet it would hold 30 or so comfortably and the dinner was great, too. Mmmm, sweet potato fries...
we tested some pancake theories on the burning porcupine .... it became soft and deformed under heat and pressure, but we couldn't make it fall at freefall speeds
Tuesday in Nashua - Loose Change: Final Cut
Merrimack Valley 911 Truth is pleased to announce:Every Tuesday night, somewhere in the Merrimack Valley, we'll be meeting and showing videos about what really has been going on in America, not the fluff news from the mainstream media, but the hard, wrenching truth. Some of this information will be hard to watch, some hard-to-believe, some will make you squirm and feel worse than when you walked in, but we're banking on "the Truth will set you free!" and we're dedicated to that truth and that freedom.
Join us on the
first Tuesday in Nashua, the 2nd Tuesday in Manchester, the 3rd Tuesday in Concord and the 4th Tuesday in Plymouth - details at the meetup site: http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org.
Our
video showings in Nashua are at The Balanced Health Center at 155 Main Dunstable Road, Suite 135. We'll gather at 7 - we'll have a brief business meeting and start the video promptly at 7:30.
-------------------
This month, 5 August 2008, we're showing :
Loose Change: Final Cut (http://lc911finalcut.com/)This video by Dylan Avery, Corey Rowe and Jason Bermas is the final version of their runaway internet sensation. This version, though, contains all new material and is not just an edit of their "2nd Edition." Each of the Loose Change videos stands on its own.
We'll also go over how each attender can become more involved and spread the workload of running a meetup like this.
We'll have free DVD's and DVD's and books for sale. Everyone should bring their collection for trading, viewing, copying, etc. Bring your favorite books, too. We've developed a collection of books for sale at these various meetings.
A donation of $5 will help us build a fund for new materials, but if you can't afford that, please come anyway.
------------------------------------------------
Merrimack Valley 911 Truth has set up a "carpooling group" online at eRideShare.com. Carpooling arrangements can now be made by clicking on http://mv911t.erideshare.com to go to the online ridesharing group. Now that gas has gone up to around $4.00/gal, carpooling is starting to get a lot more interesting.
What you have to do is set up an individual username & password on eRideShare.com. Then, our group nickname is "mv911t" and our password is "truth". Once you've figured out how the system works, just bookmark http://mv911t.erideshare.com and remember the password is "truth". Then you can post if you are driving to one of our events and have extra seats - or if you're looking for a ride to an event just logon and post that you're seeking a ride.
As always, donations for the ride-sharing are always appreciated by the driver to cover gas costs.
-------------------
We realize that 9/11 is not a happy, fun-time subject, but neither is the plight of the first-responders and clean-up workers. We encourage donations to the
Feal Good Foundation (http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/), organized by John Feal, one of the firemen who survived 9/11, but lost most of one of his feet to a falling beam. John organized the foundation to help and support the workers who bravely got down to business on 9/11 and afterwards, but are now suffering without much support from government agencies that, in fact, deceived them.
http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/
-------------------
If you're just curious and not convinced, this is an excellent opportunity to view some of the latest efforts of the independent investigators who are trying to get to the bottom of the events of September 11th and the justice seekers who are attempting to right the wrongs being done to Americans in pursuit of the 9/11 wars. We hope you'll join us for snacks and beverages (bring something to share), a movie and discussion. We will have free DVDs that you can take home and view later, as well as a selection of DVDs, books and other materials for sale.
To truth -- to FREEDOMMerrimack Valley 911 Truth - http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org, and
http://myspace.com/merrimackvalley911truth
write us with suggestions for future showings at:
MerrimackValley911Truth@gmail.com
Tuesday in Manchester - Improbable Collapse; The Demolition of our Republic
Merrimack Valley 911 Truth is pleased to announce:Every Tuesday night, somewhere in the Merrimack Valley, we'll be meeting and showing videos about what really has been going on in America, not the fluff news from the mainstream media, but the hard, wrenching truth. Some of this information will be hard to watch, some hard-to-believe, some will make you squirm and feel worse than when you walked in, but we're banking on "the Truth will set you free!" and we're dedicated to that truth and that freedom.
Join us on the first Tuesday in Nashua, the
2nd Tuesday in Manchester, the 3rd Tuesday in Concord and the 4th Tuesday in Plymouth - details at the meetup site: http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org.
Our
video showings in Manchester are at The Great Buffet in the plaza across the street from the Mall of New Hampshire on South Willow Street. We'll gather at 6:30 for dinner and drinks - we'll have a brief business meeting at 7:00 and start the video soon thereafter.
-------------------
This month, 12 August 2008, we're showing :
Improbable Collapse; The Demolition of Our Republic (http://improbablecollapse.com/).
"Improbable Collapse: The Demolition of Our Republic" is the first film to look at the events of September 11, 2001 from a scientific perspective.
On September 11, 2001 the World Trade Center Twin Towers disintegrated in a manner that scientists say resembled deliberately calculated implosions. The facts open for discussion include: at 5:20 p.m. that same day another building, the 47 story WTC 7, completely collapsed within 70 feet of its footprint in 6.6 seconds. These three buildings became the first such structures to ever suffer complete collapse due to fire and damage.
The film closely examines one of the world's worst catastrophes from a civil engineering perspective. Using photo and video footage as well as expert scientific testimony, the film thoroughly examines the official reports, offering varied criticisms of the official findings, while raising a more plausible hypothesis. The findings from these scientific experts have been quietly ignored by both government investigations and the mainstream media.
----------
We'll also go over how each attender can become more involved and spread the workload of running a meetup like this.
We'll have free DVD's and DVD's and books for sale. Everyone should bring their collection for trading, viewing, copying, etc. Bring your favorite books, too. We've developed a collection of books for sale at these various meetings.
A donation of $5 will help us build a fund for new materials, but if you can't afford that, please come anyway.
------------------------------------------------
Merrimack Valley 911 Truth has set up a "carpooling group" online at eRideShare.com. Carpooling arrangements can now be made by clicking on http://mv911t.erideshare.com to go to the online ridesharing group. Now that gas has gone up to around $4.00/gal, carpooling is starting to get a lot more interesting.
What you have to do is set up an individual username & password on eRideShare.com. Then, our group nickname is "mv911t" and our password is "truth". Once you've figured out how the system works, just bookmark http://mv911t.erideshare.com and remember the password is "truth". Then you can post if you are driving to one of our events and have extra seats - or if you're looking for a ride to an event just logon and post that you're seeking a ride.
As always, donations for the ride-sharing are always appreciated by the driver to cover gas costs.
-------------------
We realize that 9/11 is not a happy, fun-time subject, but neither is the plight of the first-responders and clean-up workers. We encourage donations to the
Feal Good Foundation (http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/), organized by John Feal, one of the firemen who survived 9/11, but lost most of one of his feet to a falling beam. John organized the foundation to help and support the workers who bravely got down to business on 9/11 and afterwards, but are now suffering without much support from government agencies that, in fact, deceived them.
http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/
-------------------
If you're just curious and not convinced, this is an excellent opportunity to view some of the latest efforts of the independent investigators who are trying to get to the bottom of the events of September 11th and the justice seekers who are attempting to right the wrongs being done to Americans in pursuit of the 9/11 wars. We hope you'll join us for snacks and beverages (bring something to share), a movie and discussion. We will have free DVDs that you can take home and view later, as well as a selection of DVDs, books and other materials for sale.
To truth -- to FREEDOMMerrimack Valley 911 Truth - http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org, and
http://myspace.com/merrimackvalley911truth
write us with suggestions for future showings at:
MerrimackValley911Truth@gmail.com
Tuesday in Concord - The Secret Government, by Bill Moyers
Merrimack Valley 911 Truth is pleased to announce:Every Tuesday night, somewhere in the Merrimack Valley, we'll be meeting and showing videos about what really has been going on in America - "the Truth will set you free!" and we're dedicated to that truth and that freedom.
Join us on the first Tuesday in Nashua, the 2nd Tuesday in Manchester, the
3rd Tuesday in Concord and the 4th Tuesday in Plymouth - details at the meetup site: http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org.
Our
video showings in Concord are at Liberty Books. We'll gather at 6:30 for snacks and beverages - we'll have a brief business meeting at 7:00 and start the video soon thereafter.
-------------------
This month, 19 August 2008, we're showing :
The Secret Government, by Bill Moyers (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17720.htm).
This 1987 PBS documentary features the Iran-Contra scandal, but goes much deeper. Host Bill Moyers exposes the inner workings of the secret government. Though originally broadcast in 1987, it is even more relevant today. Interviews with respected, top military, intelligence, and government insiders reveal both the history and secret objectives.
We'll show a couple of short subjects after the main video.
----------
In our business meeting, we'll go over how each attender can become more involved and spread the workload of running a meetup like this.
We'll have free DVD's and DVD's and books for sale - Jim is pleased to stock several titles in the store for your review and purchases during the rest of the month. Everyone should bring their own collection for trading, viewing, copying, etc.
A donation of $5 will help us build a fund for new materials, but if you can't afford that, please come anyway, and, please bring your friends.
------------------------------------------------
Merrimack Valley 911 Truth has set up a "carpooling group" online at eRideShare.com. Carpooling arrangements can now be made by clicking on http://mv911t.erideshare.com to go to the online ridesharing group. Now that gas has gone up to near $4.00/gal, carpooling is starting to get a lot more interesting.
Our group nickname is "mv911t" and our password is "truth". Once you've figured out how the system works, just bookmark http://mv911t.erideshare.com and remember the password is "truth". Then you can post if you are driving to one of our events and have extra seats - or if you're looking for a ride to an event just logon and post that you're seeking a ride.
As always, donations for the ride-sharing are always appreciated by the driver to cover gas costs.
-------------------
We realize that 9/11 is not a happy, fun-time subject, but neither is the plight of the first-responders and clean-up workers. We encourage donations to the
Feal Good Foundation (http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/), organized by John Feal, one of the firemen who survived 9/11, but lost most of one of his feet to a falling beam. John organized the foundation to help and support the workers who bravely got down to business on 9/11 and afterwards, but are now suffering without much support from government agencies that, in fact, deceived them.
http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/
-------------------
If you're just curious and not convinced, this is an excellent opportunity to view some of the latest efforts of the independent investigators who are trying to get to the bottom of the events of September 11th and the justice seekers who are attempting to right the wrongs being done to Americans in pursuit of the 9/11 wars. We hope you'll join us for snacks and beverages (bring something to share), a movie and discussion. We will have free DVDs that you can take home and view later, as well as a selection of DVDs, books and other materials for sale.
To truth -- to FREEDOMMerrimack Valley 911 Truth - http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org, and
http://myspace.com/merrimackvalley911truth
write us with suggestions for future showings at:
MerrimackValley911Truth@gmail.com
4th Tuesday in Plymouth - details at the meetup site: http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org.
Our video showings in Plymouth are at The Common Man Inn at 231 Main Street. We'll gather at 6:30 for drinks and dinner. At 7, we'll have a brief business meeting and start the video 7:15ish. We'll be in the Abenaki Dining Room off of Foster's Boiler Room.
This month, 26, August 2008, we're showing : The Secret Government, by Bill Moyers.
This 1987 PBS documentary features the Iran-Contra scandal, but goes much deeper. Host Bill Moyers exposes the inner workings of the secret government. Though originally broadcast in 1987, it is even more relevant today. Interviews with respected, top military, intelligence, and government insiders reveal both the history and secret objectives.
We'll show a couple of short subjects after the main video.
----------
In our business meeting, we'll go over how each attender can become more involved and spread the workload of running a meetup like this.
We'll have free DVD's and DVD's and books for sale - Jim is pleased to stock several titles in the store for your review and purchases during the rest of the month. Everyone should bring their own collection for trading, viewing, copying, etc.
A donation of $5 will help us build a fund for new materials, but if you can't afford that, please come anyway, and, please bring your friends.
Quote from: mvpel on June 26, 2007, 12:52 PM NHFT
Quote"We subsequently went to the stairwell and were going down the stairs, when we reached the sixth floor, the landing that we were standing on gave way, there was an explosion and the landing gave way. I was left there hanging, I had to climb back up and now had to walk back up to the eighth floor. After getting to the eighth floor everything was dark."
I've posted the video of electrical transformers exploding before, but I suppose I'll do it again.
http://www.collegeafterhours.com/content/media/movie_1270.wmv
The WTC blueprints posted earlier indicate that the seventh floor was a mechanical area, and the floor plans show a huge electrical substation in the bottom center of the diagrams.
There were undoubtedly many, many explosions during the demise of the towers, of various things. Here's a video of an aircraft oxygen generator burning, for instance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6i_l_ux3R-4
Just because there was an explosion, and someone heard it and survived, doesn't mean it was a demolition or an "inside job."
With the passage of time and the tireless efforts of independent researchers and media and the release of the NIST report on WTC7 this past week, several things come out (admittedly, I haven't read it and have only listened to early review reports):
1) the quote above is from Barry Jenkins, a city official who was proceeding down the stairs from the Emergency Operations Center. He was interviewed by NIST re his eyewitness evidence of explosions and death and devastation in the lobby of WTC7 BEFORE the towers collapsed, but was not reported on. Note the timing of the explosions that Jenkins witnessed. His testimony to independent researchers is on YouTube and there is an accompanying witness that was with him on the stairway at the time of the reported explosions (I forget his name).
2) The report doesn't find or report of devastating damage from electrical transformers exploding. That seems to be speculation, which is not helpful to this investigation.
3) I don't believe anyone alleges the explosion of an aircraft oxygen generator.
Quote from: mvpel on May 04, 2007, 09:24 AM NHFT
Quote...
QuoteBuilding 7 was not hit by anything save a small amount of debris from the towers and suffered limited fires across just eight floors.
A "small" amount of debris? Are they witholding evidence and photographs?
Oblique view of WTC7 involvement in WTC1 collapse. (http://photos1.blogger.com/photoInclude/blogger/2116/144/1600/WTC7AerialObliqueWTC1Collapse.jpg)
WTC southwest corner damage:
(http://www.rense.com/general65/WTC7_sw_after_1.jpg)
The collapse of WTC-1 generated a 0.6 magnitude earthquake, and sent thousands of tons of steel flying through the air, and nobody has any photos of the side facing the site of the collapse, and the buildings were only 300 feet apart, and they're definitively claiming a "small amount of debris?"
Limited fires?
(http://www.911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7_Smoke.jpg)
The NIST report on WTC 7 doesn't claim that debris from the collapse of the towers caused the collapse of the building. They back-pedalled on the planted story that Popular Mechanics put out as a propaganda hit that the south side of the building was "scooped out", though it sure scooped up a herd of true believers.
Quote from: mvpel on May 04, 2007, 09:24 AM NHFT
QuoteIn addition, explosions were being reported by occupants within WTC 7 before the towers had even collapsed.
This is the Barry Jenkins testimony, among others. NIST did not report it out, apparently.
Quote from: mvpel on May 04, 2007, 09:24 AM NHFT
Video of electrical transformers exploding. (http://media1.break.com/dnet/media/content/transblow.wmv)
This is wholly irrelevant and not alleged by any researchers that I know of.
Quote from: mvpel on May 04, 2007, 09:24 AM NHFT
The steel was only five inches thick near the bottom of the structure, where it had to withstand the most force, it tapered down to perhaps 2" thick near the middle of the building, down to perhaps as little as a quarter inch thick near the top.
That 1/4 inch number of yours is exaggeration for effect - the thicknesses are out there.
I was trying to keep this to WTC7 and the NIST report, but couldn't let that one through.
Tuesday in Nashua - Truth Rising
Videos every Tuesday night, somewhere in the Merrimack Valley:
1st Tuesday-Nashua, 2nd Tuesday-Manchester, 3rd Tuesday-Concord, 4th Tuesday-Plymouth - details at the meetup site: http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org.
Our
video showings in Nashua are at The Balanced Health Center at 155 Main Dunstable Road, Suite 135. We'll gather at 7 - we'll have a brief business meeting and start the video promptly at 7:30.
-------------------
This month in Nashua we will see Truth Rising, by Alex Jones (http://www.infowars.com/?p=2986).
9/11 Chronicles: Part One, Truth Rising is a testament to free speech, an endangered commodity in post September 11, 2001 America. Alex Jones' latest documentary is a vivid testament standing in complete and defiant opposition to former White House press secretary Ari Fleischer's admonishment that "nowadays you have to be careful what you say and do," as if the orchestrated events of that horrible day have nullified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. In Jones' latest documentary, filmed in cinéma-vérité style — an appropriate technique, as the phrase translates from the French as "cinema of truth" — we witness repeated instances of police insisting the First Amendment is a dead letter and citizens no longer have the right to speak their minds in public, especially citizens going up against the imposed political orthodoxy and Fleischer's counsel.
Truth Rising also reveals that it is not only New York City's militarized police who believe the First Amendment is moribund, but many citizens do as well. "You ain't American," insists one such fine specimen at Ground Zero, angry over the possibility that somebody would actually dare contest the official version of events and ask questions and demand answers. Others fling mindless and obscene epithets and swipe at the camera, as if incapable of tolerating, let alone understanding and respecting the First Amendment, an absolute freedom that occupies a preferred position in the pantheon of our liberties. In post-9/11 America, the exercise of free speech is relegated to government mandated "free speech zones" and to insist the whole of the country is a free speech zone casts one in dark suspicion along with the likes Osama and the manufactured enemies of America.
-------------------
We'll also go over how each attender can become more involved and spread the workload of running a meetup like this.
We'll have free DVD's and DVD's and books for sale. Everyone should bring their collection for trading, viewing, copying, etc. Bring your favorite books, too. We've developed a collection of books for sale at these various meetings.
-------------------
A donation of $5 will help us build a fund for new materials, but if you can't afford that, please come anyway.
-------------------
Merrimack Valley 911 Truth has set up a "carpooling group" online at eRideShare.com. Carpooling arrangements can now be made by clicking on http://mv911t.erideshare.com to go to the online ridesharing group. Now that gas has gone up to around $4.00/gal, carpooling is starting to get a lot more interesting.
What you'll have to do is set up an individual username & password on eRideShare.com. Then, our group nickname is "mv911t" and our password is "truth". You can post if you are driving to one of our events and have extra seats - or if you're looking for a ride to an event just logon and post that you're seeking a ride.
As always, donations to the driver for the ride-sharing are always appreciated to cover gas costs.
-------------------
We encourage donations to the
Feal Good Foundation (http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/), organized by John Feal, one of the firemen who survived 9/11, but lost most of one of his feet to a falling beam. John organized the foundation to help and support the workers who bravely got down to business on 9/11 and afterwards, but are now suffering without much support from government agencies that, in fact, deceived them.
http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/
-------------------
We hope you'll join us for snacks and beverages (bring something to share), a movie and discussion. We will have free DVDs that you can take home and view later, as well as a selection of DVDs, books and other materials for sale.
To truth -- to FREEDOMMerrimack Valley 911 Truth - http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org, and
http://myspace.com/merrimackvalley911truth
write us with suggestions for future showings at:
MerrimackValley911Truth@gmail.com
21 August 2008 Press Release from National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland:
NIST WTC 7 Investigation Finds Building Fires Caused Collapse (http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc082108.html)
NIST's video: http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/releases/wtc_videos/wtc_videos.html , or
on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZGASzUFO-v8:
Jason Bermas discusses the latest greatest NIST explanation for the free fall speed collapse of World Trade Center Building 7 with Kevin Ryan:
http://www.radiodujour.com/people/ryan_kevin/mp3/20080825_jasonbermas_kevinryan.mp3
The 7th anniversary of the attacks is coming up - anyone want to ride-share down to the City for the events in the Big Apple?
Here's a listing of 2008 - Now or Never events and speakers: http://2008nowornever.com/
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 30, 2008, 10:27 PM NHFT
The 7th anniversary of the attacks is coming up - anyone want to ride-share down to the City for the events in the Big Apple?
Here's a listing of 2008 - Now or Never events and speakers: http://2008nowornever.com/
To post interest in ride-sharing to NYC, go to http://mv911t.erideshare.com, password is "truth"
MV911T got its copy of Zero: an investigation into 9/11 (http://zero911movie.com/site/) - we'll need to work that into the schedule soon.
Some discussion of the NIST report on WTC7 coming up in Keene:
This Thursday at 9am, WKNH's "Empire Watch" will feature guest Mike Berger. Berger is the filmaker who produced "Improbable Collapse", a documentary fully exploring the collapse of the World Trade Centers. Berger also serves as 911truth.org's Media Coordinator, and has appeared frequently on network television and other media.
On Thursday's show, hosts George Corrette and Patriot will focus with Berger on the recently released NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7, and consider what this and other factors might mean to the larger 9/11 Truth movement.
WKNH (91.3FM) can be live streamed at http://wknh.org.
Warning .... we will be printing musings about 9/11 in our next edition of the NH Free Press ... look away if it bothers you ....
oh btw ... even worse ... it is one of our fellow freestaters Brian Wright.
Looking for other folks who would like to go to NYC on a shoestring for events on September 11th and network.
One event:
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/jaqeboy/SMCVqNfD4CI/AAAAAAAAAUQ/FF5gcOWo0r0/s640/AbleDanger-NYC911%20premiere%20poster.jpg)
For posting ride-sharing possibilities to NYC, go to http://mv911t.erideshare.com, use password: truth
Another movie poster:
(http://lh4.ggpht.com/jaqeboy/SMCVp8po4OI/AAAAAAAAAUI/pExLSEv0xWc/s400/AbleDanger-poster2.jpg)
NYC?!?
they blow up buildings and collapse them on people there ... don't they?
Key 9/11 eye witness "commits suicide" (http://www.brasschecktv.com/page/424.html)
Berlin, September 6, 2008
In Berlin, Germany a 9/11 event took place on Thursday and Friday this week.
Speakers were:
Giulietto Chiesa, an italian member of the EU Parliament
Jürgen Elsässer, journalist and author - Link
Andreas von Bülow, former Minister of Research and Technology in Germany
Jochen Scholz, former Lt Col Airforce
Mathias Bröckers, Journalist
Ekkehard Sieker, TV-Journalist
Eckart Spoo Editor of the magazine "Ossietzky"
The Italian documentary "Zero" was screened at the conference.
On Friday a press conference was held at the Government Press Conference
building in Berlin.
Subject was the push for a new international investigation of the 9/11
attacks. Mr.Giulietto Chiesa announced that the documentary "Zero" will be
aired on Russia´s main TV-channel on September 11, followed by an discussion
with two US-journalists and two journalists from Russia.
A new Italian movie, which was the talk of European film festivals, will premier in Keene at Keene State's Night Owl Cafe
this fall: ZERO, An Investigation of 9/11. We [Monadnock 9/11 Truth Alliance] will let you know the date as soon as we know.
Tuesday in Manchester - Loose Change: Final Cut
Every Tuesday night, somewhere in the Merrimack Valley, videos about what really has been going on in America - the hard, wrenching truth. We're banking on: "the Truth will make you free!"
first Tuesday in Nashua
2nd Tuesday in Manchester3rd Tuesday in Concord
4th Tuesday in Plymouth
details at the meetup site: http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org.
Manchester - The Great Buffet: plaza across the street from Mall of New Hampshire on South Willow Street.
We gather at 6:30: dinner and drinks
brief business meeting at 7:00
video soon thereafter.
-------------------
This month, 9 September 2008, we're showing :
Loose Change: Final Cut (http://lc911finalcut.com/).
This video by Dylan Avery, Corey Rowe and Jason Bermas is the final version of their runaway internet sensation. This version, though, contains all new material and is not just an edit of their "2nd Edition." Each of the Loose Change videos stands on its own.
Like previous versions, this third installment in the evolution of the Loose Change series continues to ask the tough questions about the 9/11 attacks and related events. It presents over 2 hours of new, undeniable evidence challenging the official story that will leave you speechless.
Loose Change Final Cut is substantially different from Loose Change and Loose Change: 2nd Edition in the way it presents the information surrounding 9/11. However, it remains true to the spirit that has made Loose Change what it is today.
With the intention of presenting the most balanced documentary possible, dozens of professionals who both agree and disagree with the official version of events of that day were interviewed.
The information in this film will hopefully be a catalyst for a new independent investigation, in which the family members receive answers to their questions, and the TRUE PERPETRATORS of this horrendous crime are PROSECUTED and PUNISHED.
Loose Change Final Cut will leave no doubt that the actual events of 9/11 were far different from what the public has been told. Come learn what the government and corporate media want kept secret. This is the knowledge that will provide a foundation for understanding our wider political reality we face today.
----------
Free DVD's - DVD's and books for sale. Everyone should bring their collection for trading, viewing, copying, etc. Bring your favorite books, too. We've developed a collection of books for sale at these various meetings. A donation of $5 will help us build a fund for new materials, but if you can't afford that, please come anyway.
------------------------------------------------
Carpooling group online at http://mv911t.eRideShare.com. Our group nickname is "mv911t" and our password is "truth".
-------------------
If you want to do something to help the first responders, we encourage donations to the
Feal Good Foundation (http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/).
-------------------
To truth -- to FREEDOMMerrimack Valley 911 Truth - http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org, and
http://myspace.com/merrimackvalley911truth
write us with suggestions for future showings at:
MerrimackValley911Truth@gmail.com
Anyone want to share a ride to NYC for the 11th - I'm having too car issues right now, but could chip in for gas and I probly can get us cheap or free lodging in Brooklyn. There will be memorials, seminars, film premieres and lots of networking amongst the freedom movement folk there. It's well worth the trip. I suggest leaving Wed afternoon and returning Friday sometime.
Also, more locally, from George of the Monadnock 911 Truth Alliance:
Some great events are planned for 9/11 this Thursday, the primary effort
being the rally in the Square in Keene from 11:30am - 1:00pm. I wanted
to let the group know of other opportunities in Keene as well.
Fair and I are going to do a banner drop from the Court Street bridge
over the Bypass (this is right near the hospital) at 7:30am. We're
gonna use the inspired slogan, "If the Truth about 9/11 doesn't
matter... what does?" Would others like to join us, with a banner of
their own? Please do!
On WKNH (91.3FM), Caz, Mark and myself - as WKNH DJ's who will be on the
radio all that morning - want to open up the studio to you as community
members to be on the radio. This opportunity will go from 9:00am to
roughly 11:00am, and we would like to invite everyone who would like to
come to the studio (or call in) and seriously give your input about why
the truth about 9/11 matters, what you really think and feel about the
situation. The studio is on the 3rd floor of the KSC Student Union.
The call-in number is 358-8863. Let me know if you'd like to do this,
but you are unconditionally welcome to participate in this community
opportunity to speak your mind on the airwaves.
Can't wait to see everyone *** George and Fair *** 446-3561
Filmmaker Urges International Tribunal to Probe 9/11 (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,2144,3626100,00.html), Deutsche Welle
(http://lh6.ggpht.com/jaqeboy/SMaFH1-AJtI/AAAAAAAAAUw/eIf_3Hv9VVA/red%20NYC%20profile.jpg)
Italian film-maker Giulietto Chiesa, who was in Berlin for a screening of his documentary ("ZERO")
which questions the official US version of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, has called for an international tribunal
to probe events.
Chiesa was in Berlin at the weekend for a screening of his film which
features, among others, novelist Gore Vidal and playwright Dario Fo as
well as retired American professor of philosophy David Ray Griffin who
advances conspiracy theories that contradict mainstream accounts of events
of 11 September, 2001....
We'll show Zero soon! - Tonight in Manchester, though, it's Loose Change: Final Cut
details at http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org
The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the Exposé (http://www.amazon.com/New-Pearl-Harbor-Revisited-Cover-Up/dp/1566567297/ref=sr_1_6?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220620840&sr=1-6)
David Ray Griffin
(http://lh5.ggpht.com/jaqeboy/SMabvwsPuWI/AAAAAAAAAU4/timTHW-JVdw/New%20Pearl%20Harbor%20Revisited%20-%20DRG%20cover.jpg)
"Citizens in many countries are waging a war on the cover-up of the basis for the so-called war on terror---this basis being the official interpretation of the 9/11 attacks. Along with the Internet, which has equipped both public figures and ordinary citizens to wage this war on the cover-up, David Ray Griffin has revealed dozens of omissions, distortions, and contradictions in the official story in a way that provides undeniable evidence of its falsity. The New Pearl Harbor Revisited presents a powerful exposé of the false narrative that has been driving the mainstream political agenda since 9/11. It is now up to politicians and journalists around the world to expose this truth to our peoples."---Yukihisa Fujita, member of the House of Councilors, the Diet of Japan
"With this work, Dr. Griffin cements his place as the preeminent spokesperson for the growing number of people who demand answers to an expanding list of questions about 9/11. . . . Even those members of the 9/11 Truth Movement who have immersed themselves thoroughly in the subject will find new information here, presented in the precise and very readable style Dr. Griffin has brought to each of his books. . . . Absent a revival of investigative journalism---a dim prospect at best, in view of the media ownership concentration---books like this one, arming the informed citizen with solid information and providing a basis for demanding direct action, appear to be our best hope."---Shelton F. Lankford, Lt. Col. US Marine Corps (Ret.)....
---------------
Looks like an interesting new book - gotta see if we can get our supportive booksellers to carry it, like Liberty Books, and maybe Richard will put it on the "red pill" shelf at Just Read Books in Milford.
In the Boston area:
Thursday, Sept. 11, at 7:00 pm: Boston911Truth.Org proudly and respectfully presents the Boston Premiere of "Zero - An Investigation Into 9-11" with shocking new evidence exposing 9-11-01 crimes, at the Regent Theatre, 7 Medford St., Arlington Center, MA. A sensation at the 2007 Rome Film Festival last fall, new Italian-directed documentary stars Gore Vidal and Nobel Prize winner Dario Fo. "What results is a sequence of contradictions, gaps and omissions of stunning gravity" (Italian daily newspaper Il Corriere de la Sera).
Seacoast area:
Friday, Sept. 12, at 5 pm (Portsmouth) & 5:30 pm (Rochester) & Saturday, Sept. 13, at 11 am (Dover) peace vigils: There will be the opportunity to remind the public that there are questions that many of us feel are not fully answered about the world trade center. Because the group will not be large and there will be others with different messages concerning peace, please make the 9-11 messages clear and cover the general openness of concerns. See below for exact locations of peace vigils. For more information contact Wes Flierl at <WesFlierl1@netzero.net>.
Cindy Sheehan's moving commentary on 9/11:
Reflections on 9-11
Cindy Sheehan
The 7th anniversary of September 11, 2001 is approaching and it seems like a good time to reflect on what our nation has lost since that tragic day and what we can do to go forward.
I do not think that anyone alive on that day will forget the shock that struck our nation when the symbols of US capitalism and militarism were struck out of the clear blue sky. I was in panic mode for a few days, because I did not hear from Casey who was stationed at Ft. Hood on that day and his base went into lock-down and he was too busy to call. Even though we mourn with our fellow Americans, the loss of over 3000 innocent people and the pain their families have had to deal with, the attacks of 9-11 have touched every American.
There are several ways to look at 9-11:
• 9-11 was planned and executed by the US government.
• BushCo did not plan 9-11, but they knew it was going to happen and did nothing to prevent it and, in fact, may have allowed it to
happen.
• 9-11 was planned and executed by a group of 17 terrorists (14 of them from Saudi Arabia) without the fore knowledge of the US
government and we were attacked because the terrorists "hated our freedoms and democracy."
Whichever of the theories is true, one thing is for sure: the Bush regime's response to 9-11 was woefully inept and criminal and many people have been killed, wounded, displaced or destroyed because of the Bush regimes' exploitation of the tragedy to use ultra-violence against the innocent people of two nations in response to a criminal act perpetrated by a few. Watching the recent RNC was a reminder of 9-11 hysteria used to justify implementing the Project for a New American Century and excusing BushCo for the crimes they have committed on the non-existent graves of our brothers and sisters who perished that day and whose remains were never recovered.
Instead of taking a hard and critical look at the corporate-imperialistic policies of our government and trying to objectively figure out why we were attacked, we set off on a nationalistic flag waving fervor of mass fear that was only to be cured by shopping, traveling and allowing George and Dick to make a demented response to it. After 9-11 our country lost a real opportunity to search our souls and make amends to the world for our greed and violence. An apt response would have been to punish the perpetrators of the crime in a court of law and not by rabidly seeking the first country to destroy. Attacking Afghanistan was like bombing Sicily to oblivion for the crimes of the Mafia. Attacking Iraq was just for neocon kicks.
George Bush was handed a Presidential Daily Briefing in Crawford, Texas on August 6th, 2001, that read: "Osama bin Laden determined to strike in the United States." According to journalist Ron Susskind, Bush told the agent who delivered the message: "Okay, you've covered your ass." Instead, our collective asses are twisting in the wind of the abuses and excesses of the last 7 years.
Our economy is being destroyed by 7 years of seemingly endless occupations that have made Dick and his cronies wealthy, but have harmed the rest of us. The price of gas has almost tripled since 9-11, thus causing all other consumer goods to skyrocket. People are losing their jobs and homes because this war economy cannot be sustained with Monopoly money printed and devalued to cover our rising deficits. We have become the worlds' worst debtor nation and our treasury is trillions in debt.
Our famous "freedoms" that the terrorists "hated" have been eroded due to the PATRIOT ACT, the Military Commissions Act and the violent response to protest from our robo-clad police state. We can be guaranteed that any call, email or text message that we send or receive is being read and if we dare protest we will be pepper-sprayed, maced, tear gassed, tasered, or beaten with a Billy club by our employees: law enforcement; authorized by our other employees: government.
My opponent, Nancy Pelosi, has cooperated and collaborated with the Bush regime to allow torture and incarceration without due process and NSA spying on Americans without warrants. She opens her Gucci bag and doles out billions for his War OF Terror while sitting in her mansion, children and grandchildren out of harms way, while our country implodes and Iraq and Afghanistan burn. She has legitimized BushCo's crimes and refuses to hold them accountable for the destruction they have unleashed upon our world.
It's not only time for new leadership in our government, but it's time for a new 9-11 Commission that has subpoena power and is not facilitated by the crooks who either perpetrated the crime and/or collaborated with it. Government abuses cannot be credibly investigated by government commissions: A citizen's investigation that is independent from the federal government and where people like George and Dick will actually have to give their testimony in the light of day, under oath and not holding hands, must be empowered and empanelled.
If you agree with me that a new 9-11 investigation is warranted, please contribute to my campaign to unseat Vichy-Pelosi who would never agree to investigate her buddy Bush for any crimes, much less the crime of our new century.
But most importantly, Cindy for Congress sends our deepest condolences to those who lost family member on 9-11 and anyone else on this planet who have lost their jobs, homes, or lives due to George's tragic response to the tragedy of 9-11.
My son is one of the ones whose life was ended prematurely. I mourn deeply for him each day, but the way forward is towards healing, peace, accountability, environmental sustainability, and economic equality and away from the violence and greed that has colored every aspect of our lives since that sad day.
www.CindyforCongress.org
c
Jason Bermas' 'Fabled Enemies' is online (http://www.911blogger.com/node/17456)
Key 9/11 witness dead:
http://www.infowars.com/?p=4602
Tuesday in Manchester - Zero - An Investigation Into 9/11
Every Tuesday night, somewhere in the Merrimack Valley, videos about what really has been going on in America - the hard, wrenching truth. We're banking on: "the Truth will make you free!"
first Tuesday in Nashua
2nd Tuesday in Manchester3rd Tuesday in Concord
4th Tuesday in Plymouth
details at the meetup site: http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org.
Manchester - The Great Buffet: plaza across the street from Mall of New Hampshire on South Willow Street.
We gather at 6:30: dinner and drinks
brief business meeting at 7:00
video soon thereafter.
-------------------
This month, 14 October 2008, we're showing :
Zero - An Investigation Into 9/11 (http://zero911movie.com/site/), by Telemaco Pictures.
This film was produced by an Italian company and was recently shown on Russian state television, so it's been seen by millions of people. It seems that only the Americans are in the dark!
On Tuesday 26th February, 2008, Europarlementarian Guilietto Chiesa invited his colleagues and the press to attend the screening and debate of the Italian-produced documentary named 'ZERO, an investigation into the events of 9/11'. Object of the screening was to create political awareness of the faulty official investigation into the events by the 9/11 Commission.
Besides Mr Chiesa, the panel consisted of Japanese parlementarian Fujita, Dr David Ray Griffin, film distributor Tim Sparke & the director and producers of the film.
After his opening statements, Mr Chiesa welcomed his guest speakers, including the producers, director and distributor of the documentary. Mr Chiesa pointed out that he was unable to find any distributor in his native country of Italy and was happy to find a company in the UK, led by Mr Tim Sparke, to handle worldwide distribution of this important film. 'It is important to realize,' he emphasized 'that the movie was made thanks to contribution and donations of hundreds of citizens who feel a new investigation is more than warranted.' No less than 450 people worked on this documentary on a voluntary basis. They never received any kind of payment. Their reward is the movie itself, which they feel is an instrument to create awareness and a means to provoke a political debate in Europe.
-------------------
Free DVD's - DVD's and books for sale. Everyone should bring their collection for trading, viewing, copying, etc. Bring your favorite books, too. We've developed a collection of books for sale at these various meetings. A donation of $5 will help us build a fund for new materials, but if you can't afford that, please come anyway.
-------------------
Carpooling group online at http://mv911t.eRideShare.com. Our group nickname is "mv911t" and our password is "truth".
-------------------
If you want to do something to help the first responders, we encourage donations to the
Feal Good Foundation (http://www.fealgoodfoundation.com/).
-------------------
To truth -- to FREEDOMMerrimack Valley 911 Truth - http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org, and
http://myspace.com/merrimackvalley911truth
write us with suggestions for future showings at:
MerrimackValley911Truth@gmail.com
New previously-unreleased video of WTC7, showing tell-tale puffs of smoke:
http://www.veoh.com/videos/v16415017FADebtjf
Don't know how to embed videos from this source... forummistress?
I have a simple question, I hope it care be answered simple, I am I simple man is all.
If We have some much proof, well I seen alot 911 stuff and I being a simple man can figure out its a set up.
Why is this not being seeked out upon?
Why is Bush not in jail?
I remember Clinton getting head and getting the I word dropped... but why not Bush?
I cant believe there is nothing we can do!?
I looked into bush's brothers...WOW!
Its so clear but not a thing has been done or will???
Peace
Quote from: Toadstool on November 14, 2008, 05:20 PM NHFT
Why is this not being seeked out upon?
Why is Bush not in jail?
Bush himself is just a figurehead after all. When the truthers get to close to the real "button pushers" the figurehead will take the fall.
I've seen two good movies lately. "W" that touches on some of Bush's buffoonery. (I loved Thandie Newton as Condoleeza Rice, more ticks than a crack ho)
And Astronaut Farmer. The panel of inquiry asked Farmer how they could be assured that the rocket he was building in his barn was not a WMD. His reply was priceless. "Because if I was building a WMD you wouldn't be able to find it".
Quote from: coffeeseven on November 18, 2008, 11:38 AM NHFT
Quote from: Toadstool on November 14, 2008, 05:20 PM NHFT
Why is this not being seeked out upon?
Why is Bush not in jail?
Bush himself is just a figurehead after all. When the truthers get to close to the real "button pushers" the figurehead will take the fall.
I've seen two good movies lately. "W" that touches on some of Bush's buffoonery. (I loved Thandie Newton as Condoleeza Rice, more ticks than a crack ho)
And Astronaut Farmer. The panel of inquiry asked Farmer how they could be assured that the rocket he was building in his barn was not a WMD. His reply was priceless. "Because if I was building a WMD you wouldn't be able to find it".
Astronaut Farmer was a real hoot. About a man and his dream!
Good short vid:
The Red Pill (http://www.redpillmovie.com/)
Comments on 911 Blogger (http://911blogger.com/node/17669):
The movie focuses on the history of the secret government and its illegal covert activities throughout the world. It then shows how all of this history led up to the greatest covert-op of all time, 9/11, and encourages viewers to push for a new investigation into 9/11.
Quote from: Toadstool on November 14, 2008, 05:20 PM NHFT
I have a simple question, I hope it care be answered simple, I am I simple man is all.
If We have some much proof, well I seen alot 911 stuff and I being a simple man can figure out its a set up.
Why is this not being seeked out upon?
Why is Bush not in jail?
I remember Clinton getting head and getting the I word dropped... but why not Bush?
I cant believe there is nothing we can do!?
I looked into bush's brothers...WOW!
Its so clear but not a thing has been done or will???
Peace
Some are trying to bring the perpetrators to justice...
For example, Alfred Webre, J.D., who proposes an international war crimes tribunal:
http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docid=-8538648703985516438&hl=en&fs=true
Another great movie is the Dixie Chicks "Shut Up and Sing". Natalie Mains had the guts to speak out against Bush when his popularity was at it's peak. Great story.
Way cool of the Chicks: http://www.myspace.com/shutupandsing
Theatrical release soon (or is this an old promo?)
Quote from: jaqeboy on November 19, 2008, 08:14 AM NHFT
Way cool of the Chicks: http://www.myspace.com/shutupandsing
Theatrical release soon (or is this an old promo?)
Blockbuster has it. This is one of the very few movies that I'm actually going to buy AFTER I rent it.
I'll see if those folks over at Merrimack Valley 911 Truth (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org) can show it! Maybe work with the Red River Cinema in downtown Concord.
FEMA report: World Trade Center Building Performance Study, Chapter 5 (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf) (World Trade Center 7) for you researchers:
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf
This study is old and is disputed by NIST reports on the towers and now on WTC7.
This link will be filed with all the other reseach material catalogued on the Merrimack Valley 911 Truth site (http://9-11.meetup.com/307/about/).
Able Danger - New trailer - hope a decent-sized theater here will pick it up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HhZsBrnydo4
Loosely based on Sander Hicks or Brooklyn, owner of VoxPop (http://www.voxpopnet.net/), an activist café, and publisher of the New York Megaphone (http://nymegaphone.com/). Sander was to be a presenter at the last Alternatives Expo, but got called away 2 days before.
Mark Cuban is getting hassled by the feds for helping support Loose Change
http://freedominourtime.blogspot.com/2008/11/free-mark-cuban.html
Thanks for that link, Russell. Just shows how the thumbscrews can be applied, eh? Many whistleblowers have come forward and been fired from their jobs, etc. Many more have reported what they know to various people in the Truth movement (The Jersey Girls report dozens have called them) and have asked to remain anonymous, so they could keep their jobs, pensions, etc. When they come home to being brave, we may come closer to being the land of the free again.
Well, we have one more report of the collapse of WTC7 before it happened.
So far it's a "man on the street fleeing collapse" at 10:45 AM
CNN (Aaron Brown) at approx. 4:20 PM
BBC (Jane Standley & anchorman) at approx 4:57 PM
BBC 24 at approx: ?
and now this Fox 5 (DC) report has surfaced - don't have time stamp on this one
Building collapsed at 5:20 PM
Things that make you go hmmmm...
We know that BBC reported the collapse of WTC Building Seven 23
minutes before it happened. (When questioned later, BBC claimed that
it "lost the tapes" of this footage :)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejjySUVOGKA
[edited to add other occurences)
Hit TV Series To Feature 9/11 Conspiracy Plot (http://www.infowars.com/?p=6315)
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Bill Woodward's article in the local paper:
http://www.seacoastonline.com/articles/20081207-OPINION-812070320
9/11: 'the new Pearl Harbor'
December 07, 2008 6:00 AM
Editor's note: The author is a UNH professor who sparked a controversy in September 2006 when he was quoted in a newspaper story as saying "government elites orchestrated 9/11" while summarizing literature on the subject. The university defended his academic freedom and he chose to let the firestorm subside. Now, he breaks the silence with his first opinion piece on the topic.
By William R. Woodward
On Dec. 7, 1941, our country was attacked by Japan. What do our children know of the economic and political reasons for this tragic event?
Robert Stinnet's book "Day of Deceit. The Truth about FDR and Pearl Harbor" reveals that Franklin Roosevelt not only let the attack on Pearl Harbor happen, but provoked it over a period of 14 months. At the time, the public was only 17 percent in favor of intervention against Germany. Roosevelt secretly had an eight-point plan drawn up to lure Japan into an act of war. The fleet was left exposed, and Japan's oil supplies were cut off. Roosevelt even conspired to prevent the available intelligence from reaching the admiral in charge. In historical hindsight, it turns out to have been a PsyOp, a psychological operation to turn the public into support of a World War against the Axis powers Germany, Japan, and Italy. Two days after Pearl Harbor, the U.S. Congress declared war.
This book flies in the face of a complacent ideology that the U.S. leaders occupy the moral high ground. In fact, false flag operations, have repeatedly used staged attacks to justify our invasions. This occurred with Operation Northwoods in 1962 (not executed by Kennedy), and the Gulf of Tonkin incident in 1964.
Theologian David Ray Griffin has suggested that we view Sept. 11, 2001, as "the new Pearl Harbor." The Sept. 11, 2001, false flag attack preceded our entry into a pre-emptive war with two nations and led to a vast shift in public opinion, from isolationism to war fever, and to restrictions in civil liberties (The New Pearl Harbor, 2004; The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, 2008).
...
isn't it funny how he can spark "controversy" by saying something that goes against the system? Don't professors do that every day?
Former ISI Chief: Mumbai And 9/11 Both "Inside Jobs" (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21410.htm)
An exclusive interview with General Hamid Gul, the former head of Pakistan's intelligence service (ISI)
CNN - Aired December 7, 2008 - 13:00 ET
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7hwVoY4Ft5I&eurl=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article21410.htm&feature=player_embedded
Recent news will reveal that 9/11 conspirators will confess to the attacks after years of torture in Gitmo. Like, Srsly 4 Realzzzz!
(http://blog.pharmalive.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/o_rly.jpg)
Bishop Richard Williamson speaks out against the official theory of the events of 9/11
WHOA! Good one. Sounds like he delivered this in church. We have a Bishop here that speaks his mind. I should ask him how he feels about 9/11/2001. I won't go to confession though because I can't clear an entire week.
Quote from: coffeeseven on December 12, 2008, 02:18 AM NHFT
WHOA! Good one. Sounds like he delivered this in church. We have a Bishop here that speaks his mind. I should ask him how he feels about 9/11/2001. I won't go to confession though because I can't clear an entire week.
Yes, my son, something on your mind?
...
Whoa, whoa, my son, I've got a line waiting behind you - enough!
Quote from: jaqeboy on December 12, 2008, 06:30 PM NHFT
Quote from: coffeeseven on December 12, 2008, 02:18 AM NHFT
WHOA! Good one. Sounds like he delivered this in church. We have a Bishop here that speaks his mind. I should ask him how he feels about 9/11/2001. I won't go to confession though because I can't clear an entire week.
Yes, my son, something on your mind?
...
Whoa, whoa, my son, I've got a line waiting behind you - enough!
;D
10 false flag operations that shaped our world. This essay contains a good discussion of 9-11 as well as historical false flag ops
http://kennysideshow.blogspot.com/2008/12/10-false-flags-operations-that-shaped.html
Great one, wolf!
Hey, here's another one, from Mike Rivero of WhatReallyHappened.com:
THE LIE OF THE CENTURY (http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/lieofthecentury.html)
Re Bishop Williamson's sermon on 9/11:
Please note this correction, supplied by Tom Finnell:
...Williamson is not a Catholic in the normal sense of the word. He is a follower of the late Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre who founded a schismatic Traditionalist Catholic Church after being excommunicated by John Paul II. I believe Lefebvre consecrated Williamson Bishop and this act was what got both of them excommunicated.
Quote from: jaqeboy on December 10, 2008, 01:03 AM NHFT
Bishop Richard Williamson speaks out against the official theory of the events of 9/11
Al Qaeda -- the Database (http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=BUN20051120&articleId=1291)
by Pierre-Henri Bunel
Shortly before his untimely death, former British Foreign Secretary Robin Cook told the House of Commons that "Al Qaeda" is not really a terrorist group but a database of international mujaheddin and arms smugglers used by the CIA and Saudis to funnel guerrillas, arms, and money into Soviet-occupied Afghanistan. Courtesy of World Affairs, a journal based in New Delhi, WMR can bring you an important excerpt from an Apr.-Jun. 2004 article by Pierre-Henry Bunel, a former agent for French military intelligence.
Wayne Madsen Report
"I first heard about Al-Qaida while I was attending the Command and Staff course in Jordan. I was a French officer at that time and the French Armed Forces had close contacts and cooperation with Jordan . . .
"Two of my Jordanian colleagues were experts in computers. They were air defense officers. Using computer science slang, they introduced a series of jokes about students' punishment.
"For example, when one of us was late at the bus stop to leave the Staff College, the two officers used to tell us: 'You'll be noted in 'Q eidat il-Maaloomaat' which meant 'You'll be logged in the information database.' Meaning 'You will receive a warning . . .' If the case was more severe, they would used to talk about 'Q eidat i-Taaleemaat.' Meaning 'the decision database.' It meant 'you will be punished.' For the worst cases they used to speak of logging in 'Al Qaida.'
"In the early 1980s the Islamic Bank for Development, which is located in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, like the Permanent Secretariat of the Islamic Conference Organization, bought a new computerized system to cope with its accounting and communication requirements. At the time the system was more sophisticated than necessary for their actual needs.
"It was decided to use a part of the system's memory to host the Islamic Conference's database. It was possible for the countries attending to access the database by telephone: an Intranet, in modern language. The governments of the member-countries as well as some of their embassies in the world were connected to that network.
"[According to a Pakistani major] the database was divided into two parts, the information file where the participants in the meetings could pick up and send information they needed, and the decision file where the decisions made during the previous sessions were recorded and stored. In Arabic, the files were called, 'Q eidat il-Maaloomaat' and 'Q eidat i-Taaleemaat.' Those two files were kept in one file called in Arabic 'Q eidat ilmu'ti'aat' which is the exact translation of the English word database. But the Arabs commonly used the short word Al Qaida which is the Arabic word for "base." The military air base of Riyadh, Saudi Arabia is called 'q eidat 'riyadh al 'askariya.' Q eida means "a base" and "Al Qaida" means "the base."
"In the mid-1980s, Al Qaida was a database located in computer and dedicated to the communications of the Islamic Conference's secretariat.
...
from The Raw Story:
Career Army Specialist sues Rumsfeld, Cheney, saying no evacuation order given on 9/11 (http://rawstory.com/news/2008/911_survivor_blasts_Rumsfeld_Cheney_No_1217.html)
Stephen C. Webster
Published: Wednesday December 17, 2008
A career Army specialist who survived the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, claims that no evacuation was ordered inside the Pentagon, despite flight controllers calling in warnings of approaching hijacked aircraft nearly 20 minutes before the building was struck.
According to a time-line of the attacks, the Federal Aviation Administration notified NORAD that American Airlines Flight 77 had been hijacked at 9:24 a.m. The Pentagon was not struck until 9:43 a.m.
On behalf of Spc. April Gallop, who served in the Network Infrastructure Services Agency as an administrative specialist, California attorney William Veale has filed a civil suit against former Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, Vice President Dick Cheney and former US Air Force General Richard Myers, who was acting chairman of the joint chiefs on 9/11. It alleges they engaged in conspiracy to facilitate the terrorist attacks and purposefully failed to warn those inside the Pentagon, contributing to injuries she and her two-month-old son incurred.
...
Boston Herald article:
3 victims' kin demand 9/11 justice (http://www.bostonherald.com/news/regional/view.bg?articleid=1139049)
By Joe Dwinell
Monday, December 15, 2008 - Added 3d 4h ago
Joe Dwinell is an online and print editor assigned to the Herald's City Desk.
Three families whose loved ones died in the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks learn today if their years of refusing to quit will finally pay off in a trial date so they can expose airline security failures that allowed mass murderers to bring a nation to its knees.
"I would like some truth and accountability, and I want the public to hear it," said Mike Low, father of Sara Low, a flight attendant on American Airlines [AMR] Flight 11, the first jet to hit the twin towers.
The families of the late Mark Bavis, 31, Barbara Keating, 72, and Low, 28, will plead with Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein in Federal District Court in Manhattan today to allow an open trial against Massport, the airlines and security companies in Boston.
...
Officer 911 comes out!Jersey City Detective John Carroll on the Alex Jones radio show (23 Dec 08 - no link avail. yet) reports what he and his XO (commanding officer) witnessed on 9/11. His XO was called into a federal meeting on Liberty Island (Statue of Liberty) where the Army Corps of Engineers had an area prepared for 20,000 bodies and had a map of UXO's at the site (unexploded ordinance)! -- all on the afternoon of 9/11!
Carroll is "calling all angels" to come out - energizing the police to come out and tell what they know, but have been holding in on.
Also:
FDNY Lieutenant Admitted Plan To 'Take Down' WTC 7 (http://www.prisonplanet.com/fdny-lieutenant-admitted-plan-to-take-down-wtc-7.html)
Newly uncovered video from 9/11 featuring an interview with FDNY lieutenant David Rastuccio on MSNBC confirms that there was a plan to deliberately demolish WTC Building 7...
In the clip, Rastuccio responds to the host's statement that "You guys knew this was coming all day," by stating, "We had first reports that the building was unstable and that it was best for it to come down on its own or it would be taken down, I would imagine that it came down on its own."
Though Rastuccio expresses his opinion that the building had collapsed without the aid of explosives, he admits that a plan had been in place to deliberately demolish the structure.
The research into old reportage reveals some interesting tidbits:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/18934
===============
Interestingly, columnist Robert Novak was among the first to use the phrase "inside job" in connection with the events of 9-11.
New York Post, Sept. 13, page 59
"Beyond Pearl Harbor"
by Robert D. Novak
Novak's first sentence:
Security experts and airline officials agree privately that the simultaneous hijacking of four jetliners was an "inside job," probably indicating complicity beyond malfeasance.
He continues further down:
In the rage and mourning following Tuesday's disaster, few officials wanted to dwell on how a 10-year hiatus of airline hijackings in this country could be followed by four in one hour. At a minimum, the blame can be put on ill-trained, incompetent personnel performing the screening of passengers. At the worst, security experts fear collusion with terrorists, possibly even extending to the cockpit. This is a subject that the airlines are loathe to discuss.
another tidbit from the same 911blogger article:
==========
The New York Times, Sept. 20, 2001, pgs. B1, B8
Engineers Say Buildings Near Trade Center Held Up Well
by Eric Lipton and James Glanz
...the twin towers had collapsed almost straight downward, a circumstance that the engineers said might have reduced the death toll from the terrorist attack.
"It's like controlled demolition," said Matthys Levy, a founding partner at Weidlinger Associates, a structural engineering firm in New York. Mr. Levy, the co-author of "Why Buildings Fall Down" (Norton, 1992), said the collapse of the towers was "an uncontrolled demolition project but it acted like a controlled demolition project."
WTC7: NIST Finally Admits Freefall (Part II) (http://www.911blogger.com/node/18951)
...
What I found is that there is no motion of the roofline for at least 20-30 video frames after the point identified by John Gross. In other words, the measurement is a complete fabrication with the goal of producing a "measurement" to agree with the result predicted by NIST's collapse model.
...
6 January 2009 - First Tuesday of the month: Nashua screening:
Severe Visibility (http://www.severevisibility.com/)
a film by Paul Cross
The Unthinkable
The Unimaginable
The Unexplained
A drama about the mental anguish of a military man in the Pentagon having to come to the realization that he may have been lied to and "programmed" to believe he saw something that he didn't.
United States Army Major Stanley Kruter (Paul Cross) is forced to face the demons of his past when he discovers compelling information contradicting the American government's official version that a commercial 757 jet airliner crashed into the Pentagon on September 11, 2001. Major Kruter's discovery ignites an inner struggle between moral indignation and patriotism catapulting him into a labyrinth of intrigue, madness and suspense, ultimately setting him on a collision course with his destiny in which he will find no return.
-----------------------------------
We may also have time for some short subjects, possibly including the latest version of a local filmmakers developing work, now entitled: "9-11 Cinema Before The Fact." We'll see what other shorts we have time to view.
-----------------------------------
We have screenings every Tuesday somewhere in the Merrimack Valley: 1st Tuesday-Nashua; 2nd Tuesday-Manchester; 3rd Tuesday-Concord; 4th Tuesday- Bristol (our new northern location). If there's a 5th Tuesday in a month, maybe we'll have a Truth Party somewhere!
-----------------------------------
Location:
Balanced Health Center - Suite 135
155 Main Dunstable Road
Nashua, NH 03060
-----------------------------------
Please arrive by 7:00 PM, since this meeting is on a tight schedule. We'll start a brief business meeting at 7 and the video will begin promptly at 7:30.
-----------------------------------
Please bring healthy snacks and/or drinks for sharing, since some may have come to our meeting directly from work.
-----------------------------------
Parking is in the lot in front of the building. Please enter the right entry doorway and suite 135 will be directly ahead of you. After entering the office, turn left to go to the video viewing room.
-----------------------------------
Newspaper - For an interesting paper which covers 9/11 Truth issues and other topics of concern, visit the Rock Creek Free Press (http://www.rockcreekfreepress.com/) out of Washington, D.C.
-----------------------------------
We have set up a "carpooling group" online at eRideShare.com. Ride-sharing arrangements can now be made by clicking on http://mv911T.erideshare.com to go to the online ridesharing group. Our group nickname is "mv911t" and our password is "truth". You can post if you are driving to one of our events and have extra seats - if you're looking for a ride to an event just logon and post that you're seeking a ride.
As always, donations to the driver for the ride-sharing are appreciated to cover gas costs.
-----------------------------------
Bring your friends! - remember to forward our email announcements to others you think will be interested in this important topic.
Please write to us at MerrimackValley911Truth@gmail.com with your video suggestions for the next month.
Interesting new photo-essay regarding visuals recorded photographically at the WTC site that are similar to thermite visuals:
What Destroyed The WTC? (http://www.explosive911analysis.com/)
Aidan Monaghan
Associate Member, Scholars For 9/11 Truth
We have an aromatic president coming into office!! Sounds like he may have trained under Rumsfeld for his ability to blather nonsensically.
I heard a sound bite from a Katie Couric / Barack Obama the interview on the way home on the radio. Sure enough CBS has it on it's website.
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4722131n&tag=topHome;topStory (http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=4722131n&tag=topHome;topStory)
I had to listen to it three times to make sure I got the full aroma. Here's the text.
Couric: How important do you think it is Mr. President-elect to apprehend Osama Bin Laden?
Obama: I think that we have to so weaken his infrastructure that whether he is technically, ah, alive or not he is so pinned down that he cannot function. Ah, my preference obviously would be to capture or kill him. Ah, but if we have, ah, so tightened the noose that he's in a cave somewhere and can't even communicate with his operatives, ah, then, ah, we will meet our goal of protecting, ah. America.
So Whether he is alive or dead we pin him down??? He prefers to capture or kill him but the third option is to keep him in a cave with a metaphoric noose around his neck??? THIS is meeting the goal of protecting America??? I'm calling stinker! This is really bad theater and he's not even in office yet.
STINKER!
Boy, do I want to see the other 22 (or however many other CCTV's there were) video tracks....
Quote from: jaqeboy on January 16, 2009, 10:18 PM NHFT
Boy, do I want to see the other 22 (or however many other CCTV's there were) video tracks....
Makes you wonder just WHY the videotape records were "confiscated". Black Ops got something to hide?????
Quote from: coffeeseven on January 17, 2009, 06:58 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on January 16, 2009, 10:18 PM NHFT
Boy, do I want to see the other 22 (or however many other CCTV's there were) video tracks....
Makes you wonder just WHY the videotape records were "confiscated". Black Ops got something to hide?????
D'uh!
I somehow missed this from last summer (I think):
Officer Jack McLamb confirms 911 conspiracy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oiHr2Mz70A&NR=1). McLamb is the founder of Police against the New World Order:
I love the Sam Adams quote he refers to:
"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquillity of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, — go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!"
Here's a really great brochure pdf that anyone can print out:
President Obama - Help America Learn the Truth About 9/11 (http://dc911truth.org/flyers/Obama%20911%20Brochure.pdf)
Movie, snacks, discussion tonight at Liberty Books in Concord!
75 Allison Street, Concord, tel: 223-0335
This month in Concord, we'll be showing Clear and Present Danger, by Michael Ruppert. Ruppert is the former Los Angeles drug enforcement detective who discovered the CIA connection to drug-running in LA and exposed it to the PD, the Congress, and the world. He has since formed the From The Wilderness web site and research operation. He very early on revealed, in his articles and videos, the connections between the drug business, the financial/banking interests and the war machine's intent to start another oil/resource/drug war in Afganistan/Middle East. Given the difficulty of pursuing this course, Mike has had some difficulties, but is now getting back into action and the From the Wilderness operation is back and running.
Having concluded that the US government and markets will be useless in preparing American citizens for the coming crisis, Mike's current focus is on individual and community preparedness for the coming challenges and the development of a reliable news service to quickly identify and track breaking developments around the world. These are in consonance with what a lot of New-Hampshire folks have seen as their interest.
--------------------
Short Subjects: We may also have time for some shorts, including the latest version of a local filmmakers developing work: "9-11 Cinema Before The Fact." Be sure to bring your favorite shorts and bring blank DVDs if you'd like copies of anything from our library.
--------------------
We have screenings every Tuesday somewhere in the Merrimack Valley: 1st Tuesday-Nashua; 2nd Tuesday-Manchester; 3rd Tuesday-Concord; 4th Tuesday- Bristol (our new northern location). If there's a 5th Tuesday in a month, maybe we'll have a Truth Party somewhere!
--------------------
Please arrive at 6:30 if you can, in order to help set up the healthy snacks and beverages (that you bring to share with others) and enjoy the pre-meeting networking. We'll start a brief business meeting at 7 and then on to the video showing right after that.
--------------------
Newspaper - For an interesting paper which covers 9/11 Truth issues and other topics of concern, visit the Rock Creek Free Press (http://rockcreekfreepress.com/) out of Washington, D.C.
--------------------
We have set up a "carpooling group" (http://mv911t.erideshare.com) online at eRideShare.com. Ride-sharing arrangements can now be made by clicking on the link above (or this: http://mv911t.erideshire.com) to go to the online ridesharing group. Our group nickname is "mv911t" and our password is "truth". You can post if you are driving to one of our events and have extra seats - if you're looking for a ride to an event just logon and post that you're seeking a ride. (Donations to the driver for the ride-sharing are appreciated.)
--------------------
Bring your friends! - Forward this invitation to everyone!
Write us at MerrimackValley911Truth@gmail.com with suggestions for next month.
Well, it was actually called Fear and Present Danger - no wonder I couldn't find the links to this. If you want to know more about the video: http://tvnewslies.org/donate/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=290 I can't seem to find info on the video on Ruppert's official site, From the Wilderness (http://www.fromthewilderness.com/). We learned that Mike Ruppert has a blog at: http://www.mikeruppert.blogspot.com/
The great lesson of this video was empowerment to take actions ourselves to protect our communities and survive. The example brought up by our host was how individuals were seeking to help the people of New Orleans after Katrina and the levee break. When FEMA tried to obstruct them, they eventually just found their way around FEMA and went to help the people anyway.
"...we must realize and honor those who have had the courage throughout history to make change so that we all can live in the hope of a better future. And we must remember that one day our lives will be considered 'history', and how important it is for us to also take some action to impact the future for the better, and not to rely solely on others to shape it for us."
It's time
Jimmy Carter a Truther?
Former President Jimmy Carter Supports Call For New 9/11 Investigation (http://www.propagandamatrix.com/articles/january2009/013009_carter_supports.htm)
I don't know, I think it's a little difficult to make conclusive statements about what Carter does or doesn't know or believe from a question that caught him completely by surprise.
Carter is a difficult egg to crack. In many ways he is clearly off their reservation and out of their loop. Yet he has to know certain stuff, and you wonder why he doesn't tell all that he knows.
Quote from: Caleb on January 31, 2009, 12:03 PM NHFT
I don't know, I think it's a little difficult to make conclusive statements about what Carter does or doesn't know or believe from a question that caught him completely by surprise.
Carter is a difficult egg to crack. In many ways he is clearly off their reservation and out of their loop. Yet he has to know certain stuff, and you wonder why he doesn't tell all that he knows.
That's exactly how I feel about Carter too. :-\
Quote from: Caleb on January 31, 2009, 12:03 PM NHFT
I don't know, I think it's a little difficult to make conclusive statements about what Carter does or doesn't know or believe from a question that caught him completely by surprise.
Carter is a difficult egg to crack. In many ways he is clearly off their reservation and out of their loop. Yet he has to know certain stuff, and you wonder why he doesn't tell all that he knows.
Yeah, I know it was weak and he wasn't very committal, but you gotta hand it to those We Are Change guys for trying.
Leading Counter-Terrorism Expert and Former High-Level Official Slams War on Terror and Questions 9/11 (http://georgewashington2.blogspot.com/2009/02/high-level-counter-terrorism-official.html)
Terrell (Terry) E. Arnold was the number 2 counter-terrorism official at the U.S. State Department, and is one of the world's leading experts on terror.
Arnold served as the Deputy Director, Office of Counter-Terrorism and Emergency Planning, at the U.S. State Department. He is also the former Chairman of the Department of International Studies at the National War College.
Arnold has worked as a crisis management consultant for several Federal agencies, including The State Department, the Department of Defense, the U.S. Customs Service and the Federal Emergency Management Agency. He is the author of numerous books on terror*. Arnold is a U.S. Navy veteran of World War II and the Korean war.
I spoke with Arnold by phone.
GW: Your essay It is Vital to Move Beyond 9/11 is insightful and hard-hitting, and I agree with virtually everything you say. I have previously written on many of the topics you touch on, such as false pretenses for war, torture and illegal spying.
Initially, you write:
"As an alleged post 9/11 defense, the War on Terrorism is a gigantic fraud."
...
DONN DE GRAND PRE, REQUIESCAT IN PACE!
Donn Rodney GrandPre', known to many APFN readers as Colonel Donn de Grand Pre, USA (retired), passed away at his residence in Reva, Virginia, on Saturday, 24 January 2009. Mr. De Grand Pre was born in Overly, North Dakota to Leo GrandPre' and Mae Arnesson GrandPre' on 20 February 1926. He served his country in the U. S. Army and, after retiring from the Defense Department, was active in real estate and authored seven books.
The first important steps in the quest for 9/11 truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, were taken by Donn de Grand Pre within days of the 9/11 attacks, when he convened a joint meeting of military, commercial and private aviators and other aviation professionals to analyze the alleged flights of 9/11. Their conclusions were unanimous: these flight paths, particularly those of the jets that hit WTC2 and the Pentagon, could not have been made by flight students on their maiden voyages in big jets, or even by seasoned pilots, but rather, only by remote control of the aerial vehicles.
Somehow, Philip Zelikow and the rest of the 9/11 Commission members and staff steered around this professional assessment offered by de Grand Pre. The Joint Chiefs of Staff were all apprised, but said nothing. Hopefully future investigations will sort this out.
Donn de Grand Pre knew many of the Happy Hooligans of the North Dakota Air National Guard that flew out of Langley Air Force Base in Virginia on 9/11. He knowingly pointed to an awards ceremony held for members of this 9/11 NORAD component by the Governor of North Dakota a year after 9/11. Citizens are not subject to the military. Somehow Judith Miller of the New York Times missed this story. No doubt she was chasing Curveball at the time!
An interesting interview that Donn de Grand Pre did with Alex Jones can be heard and read by clicking this link: http://www.show-the-house.com/id70.html.
The Big Picture, a doc someone put together that might be useful to see how the span of historical events of the last century fit together.
Another group:
Center for 9/11 Justice (http://www.centerfor911justice.org/)
Attorneys pursuing lawsuit of April Gallop v. Donald Rumsfeld & Dick Cheney
(http://freespeech.vo.llnwd.net/o25/pub/pp/images/february2009/090209top4.jpg)
Fire Consumes WTC 7-Size Skyscraper, Building Does Not Collapse
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Monday, February 9, 2009
A fierce fire consumed all 44 floors of a skyscraper in Beijing today, shooting 30 foot flames into the air, but unlike the similarly-sized 47-story WTC 7, which suffered limited fires across just eight floors, the building in China did not collapse.
"The fire was burning from the ground floor to the top floor of the large building, the flames reflecting in the glass facade of the main CCTV tower next to the hotel and cultural center," reports the New York Times.
...
Seems the Chinese were smart enough to stick with the steel skeleton method rather than go for a now debunked steel spine method.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on February 10, 2009, 07:11 AM NHFT
Seems the Chinese were smart enough to stick with the steel skeleton method rather than go for a now debunked steel spine method.
I hope you're not alleging that 7 World Trade Center, the building the Chinese torch of a building is compared to in size, etc. is constructed similarly to 1 & 2 WTC towers.
9/11 Activist Who Sued Government Killed In Buffalo Plane Crash
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, Feb 13th, 2009
Beverly Eckert, whose husband, Sean Rooney was killed in the attack on the World Trade Center, became co-chairperson of the group Voices of September 11th.
One of the passengers aboard the plane that crashed into a house 10 miles from Buffalo, New York, airport late on Thursday was a 9/11 widow who had questioned the official account of the attacks, sued the government and consistently lobbied for an Investigative Commission.
Beverly Eckert was flying to the city for a celebration of what would have been her husband Sean Rooney's 58th birthday, reports the Press Association. Mr Rooney died on the 98th floor of the World Trade Center's south tower.
She was among the 44 passengers and four crew on board the Continental Connection flight operated by Colgan Air when it crashed in the Buffalo suburb of Clarence Center.
After 9/11, Ms Eckert refused to accept a cash settlement as compensation and instead sued the government.
"I am suing because unlike other investigative avenues... my lawsuit requires all testimony be given under oath and fully uses powers to compel evidence." Eckert wrote in December 2003 in a statement entitled My Silence Cannot Be Bought.
"The victims' fund was not created in a spirit of compassion.... Lawmakers capped the liability of the airlines at the behest of lobbyists who descended on Washington while the September 11 fires still smoldered." she wrote.
Other September 11 relatives who accepted settlements forfeited their right to sue the airlines, airports, security companies, or other US organizations that could have been faulted for negligence and inadequate security measures. This ensured that very little detail of the attacks emerged outside of the government appointed 9/11 Commission.
A d v e r t i s e m e n t
In the same statement Ms Eckert also wrote:
"I want to know what went so wrong with our intelligence and security systems that a band of religious fanatics was able to turn four U.S. passenger jets into an enemy force, attack our cities and kill 3,000 civilians with terrifying ease. I want to know why two 110-story skyscrapers collapsed in less than two hours and why escape and rescue options were so limited."
As a co-founder of the steering committee group "Voices For Sept. 11" Ms Eckert joined other activists in pushing for an Investigative Commission.
Only because of the consistent efforts of the relatives groups were the deaths of more than 2800 Americans ever formally investigated by a government who would have rather kept the truth about 9/11 buried.
In 2004 the Ms Eckert also successfully lobbied Congress to pass a sweeping reform of the U.S. intelligence system.
Last week, Ms Eckert was at the White House to talk with President Barack Obama about how the new administration could deal with terror suspects.
According to reports, the Colgan Air flight was on final approach to Buffalo airport, 5 miles from the runway, when the control tower lost all contact. Weather was reported as light snow and fog and a 17 MPH wind. There was no radio message indicating a problem, so whatever happened happened in an instant. Only one house on the ground was destroyed, so the aircraft was on a nearly vertical path when it hit.
Quote from: Kat Kanning on February 13, 2009, 01:37 PM NHFT
9/11 Activist Who Sued Government Killed In Buffalo Plane Crash
...
Kinda makes ya wonder, eh? Was she Wellstoned?
The attached is a chart I found that emphasizes the importance of getting to the bottom of the 9/11 terror attacks. It shows how many things are in the downstream of 9/11, ie, justified by it.
Another professional group piles onto the list of those questioning the government's conspiracy theory:
Medical Professionals for 911 Truth (http://www.mp911truth.org/)
From their preliminary site info - press release to announce formal start due this month:
As medical professionals, we are dedicated to the service of humanity; to alleviating suffering, to improving health, and to preserving life. We are horrified by the terrorist acts of 9/11 and the senseless suffering and loss of life resulting from them.
The terrorist acts of 9/11 resulted in the immediate deaths of 3,000 emergency service workers and innocent citizens. The inhalation of toxic dust in the weeks following 9/11 will result in the premature deaths of additional thousands of rescue and construction workers and New York residents. The acts of 9/11 have been further used to justify the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, which have resulted in the deaths of thousands of military personnel and hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.
As medical professionals, we are trained in science and logical reasoning. We are appalled by the lack of scientific rigor and the substantial omissions and blatant distortions in the official account of 9/11 as embodied in the 9/11 Commission Report and related government documents.
...
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/travel/travelnews/4732424/Ryanair-mobile-phone-service-Hello-Im-on-the-plane.html
Ryanair mobile phone service: 'Hello, I'm on the plane'
Ryanair yesterday began allowing the use of mobile phones for calls during flights. Charles Starmer-Smith was on board
It was like any other flight as we rose above the countryside, leaving a dank, dreary Gatwick behind us. That was until we reached cruising altitude, when the red "Please turn off your mobile" sign turned green; mobiles were permitted.
A minute later came the words that will have many Telegraph readers still seeing red: "Hello, I'm on the plane."
On Thursday Ryanair became the first airline operating out of the British Isles to allow in-flight calls and phones at 26,000 feet in the air were going off all around me.
At the back of the plane on the morning flight to Dublin, there was a mixture of excitement and the odd groan as the first passengers tried out the new service.
Voices do not travel as far as many feared and, indeed, were hard to hear above the background noise in the cabin. That said, the technology is impressive – my call home connected within seconds (despite going via satellite into Monaco and back to London), there was no speech delay and the voice was clear enough.
Fiona Jenkins, a PA from Dublin, called her husband to let him know the flight was running late. Another passenger was waiting for her daughter to call her about an impending birth.
Stephan Egli, chief commercial operator for OnAir, which provides the technology, was alongside me during Thursday's flight. "In 10 years' time I think we will be talking about when we could not use phones on planes," he said.
Last year, a Telegraph Travel petition to keep the skies mobile-free attracted about 7,000 signatures, with readers expressing concerns over safety and security and unease at the prospect of listening to other passengers' conversations at 30,000 feet.
But despite such fears, the move to introduce the technology has seemed unstoppable. On a flight from Dubai to Casablanca in March last year, the Dubai-based airline Emirates became the first carrier to offer an in-flight mobile phone service. Closer to home, in December Bmi began testing a text messaging service in the air (though it stopped short of in-flight calls).
Ryanair has installed the new service on 20 of its aircraft but it plans to extend it to the whole of its fleet within the next 18 months.
At the moment the number of people able to make calls is six at one time, but this will rise to 12 next year. The service is also limited to O2 users although the airline believes the other major mobile providers will also sign up.
After the initial flurry of use on Thursday's flight, most people's phones remained in their pockets – not surprising considering the cost of the service: a phone call can cost up to £3 per minute, emails more than £1, and texts at least 40p. Almost 20 per cent of Ryanair's revenue comes from ancillary charges – something that this service will boost.
Michael O'Leary, Ryanair's chief executive, was characteristically bullish. "No one is flying Ryanair because it is a bastion of solitude or tranquillity." he said. "Anyone who likes to sleep, we will wake them up and sell them a sandwich or coffee."
Like it or not, the age of the in-flight mobile has dawned. And from now on when boarding flights, in addition to crying babies and the overweight, passengers wary of who they will be sitting next to will also be watching out for the verbose.
;) - I get why you posted this, coffee!
I knew you would. ;D
Here's a good article by David Ray Griffin:
Ted Olson's Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials (http://unansweredquestions.org/index.php/2008/04/08/ted-olson-report-of-phone-calls-on-911-undermined/)
by David Ray Griffin
Late in the day on 9/11, CNN put out a story
that began: "Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and
attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson,
that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday
morning, Ted Olson told CNN." According to this story, Olson
reported that his wife had "called him twice on a cell phone
from American Airlines Flight 77," saying that "all
passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were
herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers.
SAVE THE DATE:
David Ray Griffin, the foremost researcher and spokesperson for 9-11 Truth will be speaking at South Church, 292 State St., in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, on Thursday, April 9, at 7:30 pm, sponsored by the Seacoast 9-11 Questions Group.
Free and open to the public - donations will be requested to help cover expenses. Further information will be sent when available.
For more information contact
David Diamond at ddiam42@earthlink.net
Respected Medical Professionals Launch Petition Demanding New Investigation into the Events of 9/11
February 24, 2009 -
An alliance of doctors, dentists, nurses, therapists, researchers, and other medical professionals today announced the formation of Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth and its petition calling for a new investigation into the events of 9/11. The group's website is at http://MP911Truth.org.
"As medical professionals, we are dedicated to the service of humanity; to alleviating suffering, to improving health, preventing disease, and to preserving life," said co-founder Jonathan Weisbuch, MD, MPH. "We are horrified by the terrorist acts of 9/11 and the senseless suffering and loss of life resulting from them."
"However," he continued, "as medical professionals, we are trained in science and logical reasoning. We are appalled by the lack of scientific rigor and the substantial omissions and blatant distortions in the official account of 9/11 as embodied in the 9/11 Commission Report and related government documents."
Dr. Weisbuch is a prominent public health physician and administrator and previously served as the Chief Health Officer for the States of Wyoming and North Dakota, as well as Los Angeles County, CA, and Maricopa County, AZ (Phoenix, Mesa, Scottsdale).
Co-founder Barry Komisaruk, PhD, added, "The official account of the events of 9/11 is so riddled with contradiction and implausibility that an objective re-examination is necessary to set the record straight. We need to know who was really behind the events and bring them to justice to prevent them from striking again. We can no longer afford to allow our government to use deadly force in our name based on falsified information."
Dr. Komisaruk serves as Rutgers University Board of Governors Distinguished Service Professor of Psychology and Associate Dean of the Graduate School. He is also Adjunct Professor, Department of Radiology, New Jersey College of Medicine.
Numerous prominent doctors, dentists, nurses, therapists, researchers, and other medical professionals have signed the group's petition, including:
Mary Ellen Bradshaw, MD – Past President, American Association of Public Health Physicians and Former Chief, Bureau of School Health Services, Department of Public Health, Washington, DC.
John W. Travis, MD, MPH – Physician and author. A leading figure in the wellness movement.
Joanna Santa Barbara, MB BS, FRANZCP, FRCP(C) – Past President, Physicians for Global Survival, the Canadian affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), which as an organization received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985.
Michael D. Knox, PhD – Distinguished Professor of Medicine, University of South Florida. Recipient of the 2007 Anthony J. Marsella Prize for the Psychology of Peace and Social Justice at the 115th Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, an award presented annually by Psychologists for Social Responsibility, recognizing him for more than four decades of outstanding contributions to peace and humanitarian assistance.
Meridale Dewar, MD, CCFP, FCFP – Past President, Physicians for Global Survival, the Canadian affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), which as an organization received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985.
Carlos Vassaux, MD – Former cardiovascular researcher, Harvard Medical School. Former Fellow, Lown Cardiovascular Research Foundation. Founder and Past President of the Guatemalan affiliate of International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War (IPPNW), which as an organization received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1985.
Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth invites all medical professionals to join and sign its petition calling for a new investigation of the events of 9/11. More information can be found on the group's website at http://MP911Truth.org
Manchester meeting of Merrimack Valley 911 Truth Tuesday night, 6:30 at the Great Buffet on South Willow Street. Details at http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org.
Any comments on the terrorists who are openly admitting to their parts in the planning of 9-11?
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0310091gitmo1.html?link=rssfeed
People who have admittedly been tortured by our government? They're going to say whatever they're told to say.
These arguments didn't start coming out until over a year after 9/11.
Frankly once you can prove to me the first time the world trade center was hit by a plane (in the 80's or 90's) was an inside job, I'll believe the government somehow committed a conspiracy the second time and made sure there were Muslims with ties to extremist organizations on those planes. I have heard so many loons on this topic that I don't take it serious anymore. If fire fueled by jet fuel cannot melt steel, then I guess Rosie is thin as a twig.
Just give us all a break. You claimed bush was stupid. If he's that stupid he couldn't have pulled this kind of a conspiracy starting before he was president.
I think the fact that they took control of the planes and we have audio records from the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania, proves that the terrorists did it. It's just as easy if you want to believe in conspiracy theories to believe the holocaust never happened.
Honestly would you have preferred we had taken years to investigate something we knew at the time was perpetrated by Muslim extremists. The Criminals were dead so we could not try them. No reason to investigate to find out something we all ready know.
Really give the rest of us a break.
Sounds like you've got some reading to do if you're interested in this subject. There IS plenty of material out there, some of which you can find on the shelves at Liberty Books in Concord. You can find plenty of well-researched stuff online, as well. We gather only a tiny fraction of the links and videos together on the "About Us" page of the Merrimack Valley 911 Truth (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org) meetup group.
Speaking of attitudes towards new information, a video by Ken Jenkins has been recommended to us about the psychological impact of facing some of the difficult facts about the events of 9/11 and following events. We'll show that next week at the Concord meeting on Tuesday. You're welcome to join us - you might learn something new.
Short clip of Ken Jenkins at: http://www.archive.org/details/snowshoefilms_KenJenkins_PsychologicalAspectsOf911
New group: Political Leaders for 911 Truth (http://pl911truth.com/) - their press release follows:
===========================
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 6, 2009
POLITICAL LEADERS FOR 9/11 TRUTH LAUNCHED
Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth (pl911truth.com) is today being launched as the latest formal group calling for a new investigation into the events of September 11, 2001. The organization is headed by Councilor (Senator) Yukihisa Fujita of Japan and former Senator Karen Johnson of Arizona.
This initiative is formed around a petition asking President Obama "to authorize a new, truly independent, investigation to determine what happened on 9/11."
Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth thus joins other concerned citizens' groups calling for a new investigation, including Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, and Veterans for 9/11 Truth.
Independent researchers from these professions have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that the official investigations have been cover-up operations.
Senator Yukihisa Fujita explains the new initiative: "Thus far there has been no response from political leaders in Washington or in other capitals around the world. Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth has been formed to encourage such a response."
The organization is being launched with 20 charter members, including a former US governor, a former US senator, former US representatives, and former and present members of the British, German, Japanese, Norwegian, and European parliaments.
Charter member Robert Bowman, former head of the "Star Wars" program, explains the continuing relevance of the issue: "The 9/11 Tragedy has been used as the excuse for two deadly wars of aggression, for taking away our rights, and for committing war crimes that have undermined America's reputation. Only by exposing the truth about 9/11 can we end this madness."
Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth invites other people who hold, or have held, a political office---whether elected or appointed, whether municipal, state, provincial, national, or international--- to sign the petition at pl911truth.com.
Senator Johnson sums it up: "The organization believes that the truth about 9/11 needs to be exposed now---not in 50 years as a footnote in the history books---so the policies that have been based on the Bush-Cheney administration's interpretation of the 9/11 attacks can be changed."
Contact:
Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth
pl911truth.com
An announcement from George Corette - his program on WKNH 91.3FM in Keene ought to be of great interest, as well as the one that follows by Mike Casner.
===========================================================
On Thursday, March 12th, long time activist Emanuel Sferios will be the guest of Empire Watch with host George Corrette. Empire Watch can be heard every Thursday at 9:00am on 91.3FM, or can be live streamed at wknh.org.
Sferios was a founder of the 9/11 Visibility Project at the very beginning of the 9/11 Truth movement. He will be discussing how the media - specifically Left media - have rejected the many investigations and revelations that have developed concerning 9/11, and how that rejection affects our society today. Sferios has also been nationally involved in the Drug Reform and Peak Oil movements.
WKNH's host for the 9/11 Truth Hour, Mike Casner, will co-host the show. His show follows at 10:00am.
At the end of the show, we'll hear from "Dreamboat" Annie Holt, acting as our Drug of the Empire correspondent. She'll be calling in from Fort Myers, FL, direct from the Red Sox Spring Training Camp.
George Corrette
Thursday, April 9, at 7:30 pm: David Ray Griffin, the foremost researcher and spokesperson for 9-11 Truth will be speaking at South Church, 292 State St., in Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
The title of his talk will be "9/11: Time for a Second Look." He will be pointing out that many people---including politicians and journalists---formed their ideas about 9/11 and the 9/11 truth movement early on, when there seemed little reason to doubt the Bush administration's honesty and when the 9/11 truth movement could be caricatured, without too much exaggeration, as a bunch of kids on the Internet.
But now we have abundant evidence of the Bush-Cheney's administration's willingness to break the law and to tell lies that would lead to millions of deaths. And the 9/11 truth movement is now led intellectually by scientists and other professionals, as shown by the emergence of various organizations, including Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (which includes a lot of scientists), Veterans for 9/11 Truth, and the Scientific Panel to Investigate 9/11. The movement also includes several former intelligence officers.
Thanks to these professionals, the evidence that the official story is false is now overwhelming. The only problem is to get people to look at the evidence. Once they are willing to do this, they quickly see that the official story simply cannot be true.
Finally, the replacement of the Bush administration with the Obama administration is important in three respects. First, potential whistleblowers may become less afraid to come forward. Second, the media may become more willing to expose the dozens of contradictions and other problems in the official myth. And third, there is at least the chance for a real investigation. The petition for both Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth and Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, for example, ends by asking President Obama to authorize a new, truly independent, investigation.
Sponsored by the Seacoast 9-11 Questions Group. Free and open to the public - donations will be accepted to help cover expenses. Further information when available. For more information contact Bill Woodward at <swampgreenfrog@yahoo.com>, David Diamond at <ddiam42@earthlink.net>, Doug Bogen at <dbogen@cleanwater.org>, or Marika Wilde at <marka@metrocast.net>.
DRG will also speak in Boston on April 11th:
David Ray Griffin to speak on 9/11 at Boston University, April 11, 2009
Tonight's video screening at Liberty Books in Concord will be especially important. It's a talk by Ken Jenkins about the Psychological Aspects of 9/11.
Everything from it being a psy-op to the psychology of peoples' resistance to being able to (psychologically) accept the possibility of it being an inside job.
Details on the Merrimack Valley 911 Truth meetup site (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org).
Quote from: jaqeboy on March 17, 2009, 09:16 AM NHFT
Tonight's video screening at Liberty Books in Concord will be especially important. It's a talk by Ken Jenkins about the Psychological Aspects of 9/11.
Everything from it being a psy-op to the psychology of peoples' resistance to being able to (psychologically) accept the possibility of it being an inside job.
Details on the Merrimack Valley 911 Truth meetup site (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org).
Activist, psychologist, videographer and an organizer of the Intl. Inquiry into 9-11 (San Francisco, phase one, March 26-28, 2004), Jenkins discusses the importance of understanding 9-11, 9-11 as psychological warfare, counter-productive pessimism (panic vs. a sense of urgency), the silence of the left, a visit to the nightmare time, and finding a sense of hope. http://www.911inquiry.org
For the whistle-blower category - kind of a predictable outcome of the 9/11 op - the indiscriminate application of force at a diffuse and unfocused target.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/2009/03/some_truths_abo/?ref=fp2
Guest Post by Lawrence Wilkerson: Some Truths About Guantanamo Bay
Tuesday, Mar 17 2009, 7:27PM
Lawrence B. Wilkerson was chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell and is chairman of the New America Foundation/U.S.-Cuba 21st Century Policy Initiative.
...utter incompetence of the battlefield vetting in Afghanistan during the early stages of the U.S. operations there. Simply stated, no meaningful attempt at discrimination was made in-country by competent officials, civilian or military, as to who we were transporting to Cuba for detention and interrogation.
...incredible pressure coming down from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and others to "just get the bastards to the interrogators".
...U.S. policies such as bounty-hunting, ...utter disregard for the fundamentals of jurisprudence...
...several in the U.S. leadership became aware of this lack of proper vetting very early on and, thus, of the reality that many of the detainees were innocent of any substantial wrongdoing, had little intelligence value, and should be immediately released.
... to have admitted this reality would have been a black mark on their leadership from virtually day one of the so-called Global War on Terror... They were not about to admit to their further errors at Guantanamo Bay. Better to claim that everyone there was a hardcore terrorist, was of enduring intelligence value, and would return to jihad if released....
...Secretary of State Colin Powell and his deputy Richard Armitage labored to ameliorate the GITMO situation from almost day one.
...Standing resolutely in Ambassador Prosper's path was Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld who would have none of it. Rumsfeld was staunchly backed by the Vice President of the United States, Richard Cheney. Moreover, the fact that among the detainees was a 13 year-old boy and a man over 90, did not seem to faze either man, initially at least.
...ad hoc intelligence philosophy that was developed to justify keeping many of these people, called the mosaic philosophy. Simply stated, this philosophy held that it did not matter if a detainee were innocent[!]....
...The detainees' innocence was inconsequential.[!]
...sheer incompetence involved in cataloging and maintaining the pertinent factors surrounding the detainees that might be relevant in any eventual legal proceedings...
I know I am new...
I have seen all the videos and read the first 35 pages of this post.... I am trying to read more than type as I am new but I felt compelled to relate my experience. I once believed the Gov't Hype, I then believed the 9/11 Loose Change type videos and books, and then I woke up and realized the Fracking .gov does not even posess the efficiency and competence to guarantee a letter or other item of mail addressed to me at my address gets there. Here is what I call AnCapMan's Government Razor:
Measure the in-efficiency of Government = infiniti
How likely is it that the government can have 3 planned events/missions/things go right on one day = impossible
How likely is it that the Government was the purpotrator of 9/11 = inifinitely impossible....
Here is what would have happened if the Gov did plan 9/11
A man with an idea to Have a nuclear bomb or many nuclear bombs inside planes in order to destory the eastern seaboard comes up to the Administration (Clinton). They first spend about a billion in discussion and Research. During this time because the government can't do anything efficiently they hire a group of terror consultants (see old friends in Iraq/Afghanistan) these consultants will be the one who carry out the plan. The government then gets 8 commitees 17 sub committees, and a review board together to figure out the best way to plan this out.. they come to a plurality decision to have them fly on 09/11/01 and crash the nuke carry planes into NY and Washington DC.... Our great military leaders decide it should have back up redundancy in case one of the bombs or planes fail to reach target.....
morning of 9/11/01 the Govt guy who is supposed to load the nukes onto the plane is still waiting for Environmental Studies on blowing up entire metro area of NY and DC.... He is also on strike currently because they want more government pay for toe fungus disease... so the bombs never get loaded.
The guy in charge of naming the names of the hijackers is as usual with government agents an alcoholic but because he has tenure, they cant fire him and he is openly a member of (insert your favorite) minority group. He gets wasted the night before and forgets to write down 4 of the 19 hijacker names... he scribbles some arab sounding names to replace the 4 he forgot and gives them to the guy in charge of dissemnating to the people.... The hijackers who have been "highly trained" now only have a few things to do... leave their holy books and boeing manuals in their cars avoid the cameras in the airport and board the plane, then take over the planes turn off the airfones and transponders and then guide their payloads to NY..... During the Hijacking they all forget to turn off the airfones...
I could go on and on... but government officials cant even use turbotax... they cant even be bothered to read bills they vote on let alone actually read a plan and enact it....
I bet the government knew, they knew they knew but they had no idea who inside this huge beast should know and who should take charge or responsibility for it, since no one in gov wants to take responsibility the guys at CIA, FBI and NSA are all shouting hey look the frack out we are about to get torched.... but they did nothing in as much as they did much while doing nothing... studying the threat. Now they are pissed off that 19 privately trained, well lead people who decided to use an unconventional weapon in retaliation for 50+ years of continuing and escalating abuse of their people to strike at the heart of the american gov't The consent of the people to be governed by truly inept people... instead it did what politicians are good at... creating flag wavers (and I was one for about 1.5 years)....
Seriously if gov were that good.... that efficient.... that cost effective, we would all be statists... but unfortunately I still lose about 1 piece of mail per month....
That's the basic "incompetency theory", in a nutshell. It is pretty much referring to the civil service workers and bureaucratic processes. Probably a good path of reading/viewing for you would be to check out John Perkins, author of Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (http://www.amazon.com/Confessions-Economic-Hit-John-Perkins/dp/1576753018). You can find several google videos of him, and he appears at about 00:25:10 in Zeitgeist: Addendum (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912). The folks that carry out destructive extra-legal ops are called "jackals" in his lexicon. They foment revolutions, commit assassinations, etc. When someone says "9/11 Was an Inside Job", they aren't implying that your letter carrier did it. ;D
John Perkins on "The Secret History of the American Empire: Economic Hit Men, Jackals, and the Truth about Global Corruption" (http://www.democracynow.org/2007/6/5/john_perkins_on_the_secret_history)
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man: How the U.S. Uses Globalization to Cheat Poor Countries Out of Trillions (http://www.democracynow.org/2004/11/9/confessions_of_an_economic_hit_man)
These articles don't talk about 9/11 that I know of, but if you can accept that the jackals operate without the bureaucratic inefficiency of the civil service that you refer to, you may have moved out of the "incompetency theory" area, which essentially asserts that nothing happens in government operations outside of the inefficient path through Congress and the civil service. Hopefully, Perkins can disabuse you of that notion.
The Bristol meeting of the Merrimack Valley 911 Truth group went well last night and we had some folks come down from north of the notch. They're starting up a video night up there and we'll be supportive of that and will announce their screenings on our meetup site. May have to change the name away from "Merrimack Valley..." since we've expanded beyond that little ole' river valley.
For info on the video screenings, just see: http://MerrimackValley911Truth.org (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org) - if you sign up for the meetup group there, you'll get the automated announcements with which title will be shown where and when.
the government may be mostly incompetent, but they do seem to send and get back most of the guys they send into space.
The Bush admin was able to spend money on things they wanted to including themselves and their friends.
The Obama admin has convinced many that they will save them with checks, while giving it to their friends.
They often accomplish their missions.
If 9/11 was to be a new Pearl Harbor ... then it worked.
Quote from: Russell Kanning on March 25, 2009, 09:51 AM NHFT
...
If 9/11 was to be a new Pearl Harbor ... then it worked.
Bombs away!
Man, I tell you wut, the gubment is in on this here 911 fiasco man. The lizards are workin' overtime!
Quote from: AnCapMan on March 24, 2009, 11:02 PM NHFT
I know I am new...
Seriously if gov were that good.... that efficient.... that cost effective, we would all be statists... but unfortunately I still lose about 1 piece of mail per month....
AnCapMan,
you are ignorant to the extreme.
Operation Able Danger? The army lost it right?
Sibel Edmonds? Denny Hastert refuse to pay her for some sexual service?
How did a Global Hawk end up inside of Naval Intelligence at the Pentagon instead of a 757?
100 plus Israeli "artists" and "movers" are deported by the Israeli spy master Chertoff back to Israel before the traces of explosives and accelerants have been scrubbed from their cloths.
Tritium in the waste water from the WTC.
Thermite in the dust recovered from the scene.
No logical scientific explanation for the complete Collapse of four buildings in one day.
FYI the planing of the 9-11 attacks began more than 3 years before the ground was broken for the WTC.
Doctored Radar Data courtesy of the Israeli contractors subbed out by the US Air force. See NEADS and 84th RADES.
Fraudulent financial transactions instigated by GHW Bush and WJ Clinton due to reach maturity on 9-11 involving a certain Peruvian certificate of Bonus redeemable in GOLD. Information about which was contained in all four of the structures destroyed on 9-11.
On 9-11 eve Don Rumsfeld announces that the Pentagon can't account for more money than it has been budgeted by Congess for the past 40 years. See Dov Zakiem for Pentagon comptroller.
Co incidence? Guess again.
Grow a brain stem AnCapman.
There are enough morons pretending to be patriotic Americans already.
Quote from: Tunga on March 26, 2009, 10:03 PM NHFT
AnCapMan,
you are ignorant to the extreme.
Easy, Tunga - just give him some links so he can do some studyin'. He'll come around.
Quote from: Tunga on March 26, 2009, 10:03 PM NHFT
FYI the planing of the 9-11 attacks began more than 3 years before the ground was broken for the WTC.
I've heard a couple of different angles on this. It just came up the other day in a meeting. What's your best reference on this? There's mention by a classmate of Bush's at Yale of hearing about the planning of 9/11 way back then. Will look for the link to that.
So... it wasn't my letter carrier? Damn! I thought EVERYONE in the government is guilty.
[/quote]
What's your best reference on this?
[/quote]
JFK doodles 9-11 on his desk calendar. His CIA Dallas station chief is GHW Bush.
JFK currently dead.
GHW Bush (AKA German born Nazi George Schiff) is borrowing time at Nicola Teslas' expense. :icon_pirat:
http://www.hawkscafe.com/
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=144078
Can ya hear me now?
A great resource was lost when Christopher Bollyn lost his website.
He detailed the treasonous activities of PTEC and numerous other US contractors involved in the 9-11 caper.
Don't forget to check out Daniel Hopsickers site madcowproductions madcowmorningnews.
http://www.madcowprod.com/
Reasonable and rational are two words that are absent from any truthful telling of the trauma.
I heard a voice asking "What happens after the fire?"
"After the fire, the fire still burns." - The Who
>:(
Interesting is it not that the lawyer acting as Judge Hellerstiens attack dog maintains his office on Park Capital St. right here in downtown Concord, N.H.
Thats right folks. The chickens are roosting right on the doorstep.
Chicken pot pie anyone? :P
http://www.prisonplanet.com/judge-signals-unwillingness-to-release-secret-911-papers.html
Quote from: jaqeboy on March 25, 2009, 09:12 AM NHFT
... The folks that carry out destructive extra-legal ops are called "jackals" in his lexicon. They foment revolutions, commit assassinations, etc. When someone says "9/11 Was an Inside Job", they aren't implying that your letter carrier did it. ;D
Here's an example that should reveal the "tip of the iceberg" - article from The Creek (Rock Creek Free Press (http://rockcreekfreepress.com/)):
Cheney Directed Assassination Ring (http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post//cheney-directed-assassination-ring)
BY MATT SULLIVAN / RCFP
Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed during a talk at the University of Minnesota, March 10, that Dick Cheney orchestrated assassination squads directly out of the office of the vice president.
Here is what Hersh said: "After 9/11, I haven't written about this yet, but the Central Intelligence Agency was very deeply involved in domestic activities against people they thought to be enemies of the state. Without any legal authority for it. They haven't been called on it yet. That does happen.
"Right now, today, there was a story in The New York Times that if you read it carefully mentioned something known as the Joint Special Operations Command — JSOC it's called. It is a special wing of our special operations community that is set up independently. They do not report to anybody, except in the Bush-Cheney days, they reported directly to the Cheney office. They did not report to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or to Mr. [Robert] Gates, the secretary of defense. They reported directly to him [Cheney].
"Congress has no oversight of it. It's an executive assassination ring essentially, and it's been going on and on and on. Just today in the Times there was a story that its leader, a three star admiral named [William H.] McRaven, ordered a stop to it because there were so many collateral deaths.
...
Another good article from "the Creek"
=============================
Where Was NORAD on 9/11? (http://rockcreekfreepress.tumblr.com/post/47221431/where-was-norad-on-9-11)
By Dean M. Jackson - Washington, DC
Testifying before the 9/11 Commission General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the commission in response to a question on NORAD's failure to anticipate the 9/11 attacks, "I can't answer the hypothetical. It's more - it's the way that we were directed to posture, looking outward." As we will see below NORAD, since its inception in 1958, was tasked with more than merely "looking outward".
I found General Myers' testimony on the capabilities of NORAD on 9/11 to be surprising, since it was long assumed that NORAD's mission was more than "looking outward". However, the 9/11 Truth Movement has been negligent in producing any documents that would confirm their suspicion that NORAD was tasked with watching over and intercepting errant aircraft in American skies before 9/11; that NORAD's mission was more robust than "looking outward". The following pre-9/11 citations conclusively documents the true capabilities of NORAD on the morning of 9/11.
"The NORAD mission is threefold. NORAD's first responsibility is to provide surveillance and control of the airspace covering North America, specifically the airspace of Canada and the United States. This mission is based on agreements between the two governments....
The second part of NORAD's mission is to provide the NCAs [National Command Authorities] with tactical warning and attack assessment of an aerospace attack against North America. This information is essential to providing those in command with information to aid them in making decisions on how to respond to an attack against North America.
NORAD's third responsibility is to provide an appropriate response to any form of air attack. NORAD was created to provide a defense against the threat from air-breathing aircraft, specifically the threat from long-range bombers. However, over the years the threat has changed. Now NORAD must provide an appropriate response to a multitude of threats, to include the air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) and the sea-launched cruise missile (SLCM)."
— NORAD AIR DEFENSE OVERVIEW; Northeast Parallel Architectures Center, Syracuse University, pre-1995 (http://www.npac.syr.edu/projects/civ/vanguard/C2Demo/OPRef.html).
....
Quote from: jaqeboy on March 29, 2009, 05:16 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on March 25, 2009, 09:12 AM NHFT
... The folks that carry out destructive extra-legal ops are called "jackals" in his lexicon. They foment revolutions, commit assassinations, etc. When someone says "9/11 Was an Inside Job", they aren't implying that your letter carrier did it. ;D
...Dick Cheney orchestrated assassination squads directly out of the office of the vice president....Without any legal authority for it....a special wing of our special operations community...They do not report to anybody, except...directly to the Cheney office..."Congress has no oversight...an executive assassination ring...so many collateral deaths.
...
ie, not a bunch of lackadaisical letter sorters and carriers just working towards their federal retirement...
http://www.ntsb.gov/info/Rec_Radar_%20Data_%20Study_all%20_aircraft.pdf
On page 7 of 21 you can read how the radar data presented by the Air Force 84th RADES ignores the incoming information and replaces it with a TXT file.
The remainder of the flight data is prerecorded "drill" or faked for the simpletons reading this.
The techs working at 84 RADES probably had no idea they were part of the greatest deception of the 21st century.
Air traffic controllers from coast to coast see what RADES shows them as ALL radar data funnels through them.
This is not a drill people.
We have been duped. The evidence is right in front of your face. Open your eyes and see it.
:o
Thursday, April 9, at 7:30 pm:
David Ray Griffin
the foremost researcher and spokesperson for 9-11 Truth
will be speaking at South Church
292 State St.
Portsmouth, New Hampshire.
Sponsored by the Seacoast 9-11 Questions Group (http://9-11.meetup.com/284/).
Free and open to the public - donations will be accepted to help cover expenses.
For more information email us or call 603-749-9159.
The title of his talk will be "9/11: Time for a Second Look." He will be pointing out that many people---including politicians and journalists---formed their ideas about 9/11 and the 9/11 truth movement early on, when there seemed little reason to doubt the Bush administration's honesty and when the 9/11 truth movement could be caricatured, without too much exaggeration, as a bunch of kids on the Internet.
But now we have abundant evidence of the Bush-Cheney's administration's willingness to break the law and to tell lies that would lead to millions of deaths. And the 9/11 truth movement is now led intellectually by scientists and other professionals, as shown by the emergence of various organizations, including Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, Lawyers for 9/11 Truth, Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth, Pilots for 9/11 Truth, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth, Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice (which includes scientists), Veterans for 9/11 Truth, and the Scientific Panel to Investigate 9/11. The movement also includes several former intelligence officers.
Thanks to these professionals, the evidence that the official story is false is now overwhelming. The only problem is to get people to look at the evidence. Once they are willing to do this, they quickly see that the official story simply cannot be true.
Finally, the replacement of the Bush administration with the Obama administration is important in three respects. First, potential whistleblowers may become less afraid to come forward. Second, the media may become more willing to expose the dozens of contradictions and other problems in the official myth. And third, there is at least the chance for a real investigation. The petition for both Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth and Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, for example, ends by asking President Obama to authorize a new, truly independent, investigation.
Boston 911 Truth are adding the founder of VeteransFor911Truth.org (http://veteransfor911truth.org), Alfons Olszewski, to the speaking line-up at the David Ray Griffin appearance for a brief address. Details on that Saturday, 11 April event can be found at Boston 911 Truth's site (http://boston911truth.org).
They are contacting Vets for Peace to see if they can get them to come hear about 911Truth.
In addition to Veterans (V911T.org), there are Marines for 911 Truth (http://www.truthaction.org/USMC.html), as well.
MV911T lists many of the known groups on their "About" page (http://9-11.meetup.com/307/about/).
Here's the long-form press release for the Boston David Ray Griffin appearance. This looks like it'll be well worthwhile to travel down to. We do have a carpool site on eRideShare.com. Just click on http://mv911t.erideshare.com and use the password "truth". This oughta help people hook up cars with riders.
=================================
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
9/11: Time for a Second Look
"9/11 guru" David Ray Griffin to speak at Boston University, April 11, 2009
Matthew Rothschild of The Progressive calls David Ray Griffin "the guru of the 9/11 conspiracy movement." Howard Zinn, Professor Emeritus of Political Science at Boston University, says that "David Ray Griffin's provocative questions about 9/11 deserve to be investigated and addressed." No single proponent of alternative theories concerning the events of September 11, 2001 has received more attention than David Ray Griffin, who will be giving a public lecture at Boston University's Morse Auditorium on Saturday, April 11, 2009 at 7pm. Dr. Griffin's appearance at BU will be his first ever in Boston, after which he will embark on his second European tour, speaking about 9/11 in London, Brussels, Paris, Madrid, Lausanne, Lucerne, Hamburg, Stockholm, Trondheim, and Oslo. The BU event is co-sponsored by the Boston University School of Theology and the Boston 9/11 Truth Committee.
(see video trailer)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vb_MzN5DWQc
David Ray Griffin is Professor of Philosophy of Religion and Theology, Emeritus, at Claremont School of Theology and Claremont Graduate University in Claremont, CA, where he is a co-director of the Center for Process Studies.
Dr. Griffin has published (as author or editor) 34 books, primarily in theology, philosophy, and philosophy of religion, with special emphases on the problem of evil and the relation between science and religion.
Seven of his books deal with 9/11: The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11 (2004), The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2005), Christian Faith and the Truth about 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action (2006), 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out (2006, co-edited with Peter Dale Scott), Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (2007), 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press, and The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the Cover-Up, and the ExposÈ (2008). â€
In 2008 Griffin also made presentations on 9/11 at the European Parliament and the Japanese Diet.
In his latest book, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 911, the Cover -Up, and the Expose, Dr. Griffin once again invokes the tragic events of December 7, 1941, laying out further evidence for why he believes the attacks of September 11, 2001 were an "inside job" — a false flag attack — that can be traced to the highest levels of the US government. In defense of his thesis, Griffin:
–points out the continued failure of the mainstream press to investigate any of the serious questions and anomalies that contradict the official account of 9/11, and claims the media dishonestly uses the term "conspiracy theory" to preempt any criticism of the government's own conspiracy theory involving 19 "radical" Muslims. â€
–deconstructs, using expert testimony, the National Institute of Standards and Technology's (NIST) five "crucial claims" about the World Trade Center collapses, showing that NIST, in fact, provides no supporting evidence for any of its claims. He further points out that NIST and the 911 Commission ignored vast amounts of relevant evidence pointing to controlled demolition as the cause of all three WTC towers' (1, 2 & 7) collapses, among which were the sudden-onset, symmetrical collapses at near-freefall speeds, molten pools observed beneath all three debris piles even six weeks after 9-11, indicating temperatures considerably higher than jet fuel and/or office fires could possibly have generated, and residue of explosives found in Ground Zero's dust.
–presents plausible motives that high-level government officials clearly had for orchestrating the 9/11 attacks. Griffin shows that the 9/11 Commission actively suppressed any mention of these motives, as well as the fact that key members of the Bush Administration were signatories to a radical plan drawn up in 2000 by a neo-conservative think tank named Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which called for dramatically increased militarization and global dominance. The PNAC document suggested the necessity for a "New Pearl Harbor" event to trick the American public into backing its agenda, hence, the title of Griffin's first and latest exposÈ, The New Pearl Harbor (Revisited). â€
Dr. Griffin's 9/11 books have been endorsed by Michael Chossudovsky, William Sloane Coffin, Harvey Cox, Richard Falk, Catherine Austin Fitts, David Griscom, Jim Hightower, British MP Michael Meacher, Mark Crispin Miller, Rosemary Ruether, Marcus Raskin, Paul Craig Roberts, Peter Dale Scott, Gerry Spence, Lorie Van Auken, Howard Zinn, and former CIA officials Robert Baer, Bill Christison, and Ray McGovern.
Four of Griffin's books have been given special recognition: The New Pearl Harbor and The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortion received the 2006 Helios Foundation Award for 2006. Debunking 9/11 Debunking was a Bronze Medal Winner in the 2008 Independent Publisher Book Awards. The New Pearl Harbor Revisited was named a "Pick of the Week" in 2008 by Publishers Weekly.
His essays and interviews about 9/11 have appeared in such disparate publications as Zion's Herald1, Hustler Magazine2,†Global Outlook3, LA Times Magazine4, Conversations in Religion and Theology5, Penthouse Netherlands6, Whole Earth Times7, Tikkun8, and Le Monde Diplomatique9.
Dr. Griffin has been featured on "The Richard & Judy Show" (London)10, †C-Span (twice)11, †ABC News Radio12, "Tucker" on MSNBC13, †CBC (Canadian Broadcast Corporation)14, the BBC's "Heaven and Earth,"15 and in over 400 radio talk-shows16, †including Democracy Now!17. †Many videos of his talks and interviews are available on the Internet18. â€
During the week prior to his lecture in Boston, Dr. Griffin will also give lectures in Wayne, PA, Vassar College, Portsmouth and Keene, NH.
For more information or to arrange an interview, please contact:
Boston University School of Theology
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Boston 9/11 Truth Committee
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[1] "9/11: A Christian Theologian's Response: Deceptions of Empire and the Anti-Imperial Gospel of Jesus," Zion's Herald, July/August 2005: 5-6, 39-40 (available at http://www.anthonyflood.com/griffin911xntheologiansresponse.htm <http://www.anthonyflood.com/griffin911xntheologiansresponse.htm> ).
[2] †"What If Everything You Know about 9/11 Is Wrong?" Interview with Bruce David and Carolyn Sinclair, Hustler Magazine, August, 2005: 32-35, 108 (available at http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050604140153943 <http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050604140153943> †[text only] and http://911truth.org/docs/drgHfull.pdf (with graphics).
[3] "Truth and Politics of 9/11: Omissions and Distortions of The 9/11 Commission Report," Global Outlook (www.GlobalOutlook.ca <http://www.GlobalOutlook.ca/> ), Issue 10 (Spring-Summer 2005), 45-56.
[4] "Getting Agnostic about 9/11" (an interview conducted by Mark Ehrman), LA Times Magazine, August 28, 2005 (http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/la-tm-crgriffin35aug28,1,3835884.story?coll=la-headlines-magazine <http://www.latimes.com/features/printedition/magazine/la-tm-crgriffin35aug28,1,3835884.story?coll=la-headlines-magazine> ).
[5] †"Response to Ian Markham" (to Markham's review of The New Pearl Harbor), Conversations in Religion and Theology, 3/2 (November, 2005): 220-236.
[6] †"Rokende Pistolen Gezocht: De Echte Daders Achter 9/11" (Interview), Penthouse (Dutch), December, 2006: 088-091.
[7] †"9/11 Under Attack: David Ray Griffin: Why the Official Story Just Doesn't Make Sense." Interview by Abigail Lewis. Whole Life Times, September 2006: 53-54.
[8] †"The American Empire and 9/11," Tikkun, March-April 2007) †(http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/tik0703/frontpage/empire911 <http://www.tikkun.org/magazine/tik0703/frontpage/empire911> ).
[9] †"The Truly Distracting 9/11 Conspiracy Theory: A Reply to Alexander Cockburn," Le Monde Diplomatique Norway, English version, March 2007 (http://www.lmd.no/index.php?article=1408#fotnoter <http://www.lmd.no/index.php?article=1408#fotnoter> ).
[10] June 22, 2004.
[11] †(1) "9/11 and the American Empire: How Should Religious People Respond?", Lecture at the University of Wisconsin at Madison, April 18, 2005, broadcast on C-SPAN2 [BookTV], April 30, 2005 (available at http://www.911blogger.com/2005/04/proper-release-of-griffin-in-madison.html); BookTV, C-SPAN 2, November 24 & 25. (2) "9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out," September 24, 2006, Berkeley, CA, edited by Peter Dale Scott and David Ray Griffin. The event featured remarks by Griffin, Scott, Peter Phillips, Kevin Ryan and Ray McGovern, who served as host.
[12] ABC News Radio, September 11, 2005.
[13] †"Tucker," MSNBC, August 9, 2005 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxKW3EqbfRE).
â€
[14] < "9/11: Truth, Lies and Conspiracy: Interview: David Ray Griffin," CBC News, August 25, 2006 (http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911griffin.html <http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/911griffin.html> ).
[15] †"Heaven and Earth," BBC1, September 10, 2006 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9181676883393469552 <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9181676883393469552> ).
[16] ††For some of these, see http://www.radiodujour.com/guests/griffin_david_ray/index.html <http://www.radiodujour.com/guests/griffin_david_ray/index.html> .
[17] †"The New Pearl Harbor: A Debate On A New Book That Alleges The Bush Administration Was Behind The 9/11 Attacks," Democracy Now! May 26, 2004 (http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/26/150221 <http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=04/05/26/150221> ). Wednesday, May 26th.
[18] †See http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=david+ray+griffin&num=10&so=0&start=30 <http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=david+ray+griffin&num=10&so=0&start=30> .
[19] †Independent Publishers (http://www.independentpublisher.com/article.php?page=1157&urltitle=Announcing%202007%20Independent%20Publisher%20Book%20Awards%20Results <http://www.independentpublisher.com/article.php?page=1157&urltitle=Announcing%202007%20Independent%20Publisher%20Book%20Awards%20Results> ).
[20] Publishers Weekly, November 24, 2008 (http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6617001.html?industryid=47159 <http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6617001.html?industryid=47159> ).
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
pp.7-31 (25)
Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen
doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007
Abstract
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.
Keywords: JScanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, Differential scanning calorimetry, DSC analysis, World Trade Center, WTC dust, 9/11, Iron-rich microspheres, Thermite, Super-thermite, Energetic nanocomposites, Nano-thermite
Affiliation: Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.
http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
MORE DETAILS:
"Formally published in a peer-reviewed Chemical Physics journal, today:"
http://www.911blogger.com/node/19761
Dr. Jones wrote an article in the eighties that appeared in Scientific American on the subject of Cold Fusion. In it, he described the success of Pons and Fleishman as a fluke because the He3 (Helium 3 - a byproduct of fusion) that was generated couldn't be re-produced by other researchers.
The US Navy has since validated the claims of Pons and Fleishman. Dr. Jones may or may not be a friend of the 9-11 truth movement. Listen and read what he has to say with your eyes WIDE open. Spooks cast shadows when they are illuminated in the right light.
Micro Nukes at the WTC.
http://www.thepriceofliberty.org/07/03/05/ward.htm
Unexploded Nanothermite Found In WTC Dust
An excellent paper by David Ray Griffin, delivered in Denver recently:
Nationalistic Faith (see attached)
Also found at Rense.com.
Flight 93 was shot down.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/military-whistleblower-claims-she-witnessed-flight-93-shootdown-order.html
Exotic High Tech Explosives Positively Identified in World Trade Center Dust (http://www.ae911truth.org/info/51)
— Editor
A ground-breaking scientific paper confirmed this week that red-gray flakes found throughout multiple samples of WTC dust are actually unexploded fragments of nanothermite, an exotic high-tech explosive.
The samples were taken from far-separated locations in Manhattan, some as early as 10 minutes after the second tower (WTC 1) collapsed, ruling out any possible contamination from cleanup operations.
Authored by an international team of physicists, chemists, and others, the research paper was titled "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe." It was published in The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Vol. 2., and is available online for free download. The lead author is Niels H. Harrit of the Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen.
The paper ends with the statement, "Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material."
...
Quote from: Tunga on April 08, 2009, 05:36 PM NHFT
Also found at Rense.com.
Flight 93 was shot down.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/military-whistleblower-claims-she-witnessed-flight-93-shootdown-order.html
The whistleblowers are coming out! I wonder if she's for real?
QuoteNelson says that she was stationed at at Fort Meade under the Kimbrough Ambulatory Care Center Hospital and was training as a radiologic technologist having finished basic training three weeks prior. On 9/11, her rank was Private First Class.
Unless there's 9,000 people that fit that description she may just as well had given her real name. That's enough info even I could find out who she is. That's not to say I don't believe her it just seems a little odd.
QuoteOn Thursday April 9th at 9am (EST), Gregg Roberts will be the guest of WKNH's Empire Watch. Roberts is a co-author of the recently released peer-reviewed study, "Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe", published just last Saturday in "The Open Chemical Physics Journal".
This groundbreaking paper describes a finding of "red/gray bi-layered chips" in samples of dust taken from vicinity of the World Trade Center following its destruction. Using tools such as a scanning electron microscope (SEM) and x-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS) to analyze the material, the study authors concluded that, "the red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic."
This is a proof positive of the ubiquitous existence of engineered nanothemites - highly explosive and advanced accelerants - in the World Trade Centers' dust. Please join hosts George Corrette and Pat Riot as they discuss the important revelations of this paper with co-author Gregg Roberts. The paper can be found at:
http://www.bentham.org/open/tocpj/openaccess2.htm
WKNH can be heard at 91.3 FM, or can be live streamed at wknh.org.
Hope you get to listen!
George Corrette
Host of Empire Watch
David Ray Griffin spoke in Portsmouth earlier this evening and he was really great. This talk was well worth attending!
He's speaking Friday night at Keene State College - 9/11: Time for a Second Look - details are on the Merrimack Valley 911 Truth site (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org).
Also speaking in Boston Saturday night at BU... details on the Boston 911 Truth site or on mv911t's site above.
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 09, 2009, 11:54 PM NHFT
David Ray Griffin spoke in Portsmouth earlier this evening and he was really great. This talk was well worth attending!
He's speaking Friday night at Keene State College - 9/11: Time for a Second Look - details are on the Merrimack Valley 911 Truth site (http://merrimackvalley911truth.org).
Also speaking in Boston Saturday night at BU... details on the Boston 911 Truth site or on mv911t's site above.
We saw him at KSC Alumni Recital Hall.
He was amazing!
Yeah, he was good on the dance floor, too, shakin' it up to the Freebees:
Wow!!! Another whisle-blower steps forward. Methinks the dam is bursting...
============================================
9/11 Commission Counsel: Government Agreed to Lie About 9/11 (http://www.prisonplanet.com/911-commission-counsel-government-agreed-to-lie-about-911.html)
New book from man tasked by government to help investigate attacks unveils how "official story is almost entirely untrue"
9/11 Commission Counsel: Government Agreed to Lie About 9/11 140409top
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission - John Farmer - says that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11, echoing the assertions of fellow 9/11 Commission members who concluded that the Pentagon were engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack.
Farmer served as Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (officially known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States), and is also a former New Jersey Attorney General.
Farmer's book about his experiences working for the Commission is entitled The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America's Defense on 9/11, and is set to be released in September.
...
Hi everyone.
I'm too lazy to read the 111 pages of this thread, so advance apologies if this has already been covered.
Are there any plane-huggers here?
Quote from: mackler on April 15, 2009, 08:11 AM NHFT
Hi everyone.
I'm too lazy to read the 111 pages of this thread, so advance apologies if this has already been covered.
Are there any plane-huggers here?
You might have to explain what you mean.
I'm all ears to hear about any good evidence...
Ex-Italy Pres - 9-11 Was
CIA/Mossad Operation
By the Staff of American Free Press
4-15-09
Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, who revealed the existence of Operation Gladio, has told Italy's oldest and most widely read newspaper that the 9-11 terrorist attacks were run by the CIA and Mossad, and that this was common knowledge among global intelligence agencies. In what translates awkwardly into English, Cossiga told the newspaper Corriere della Sera:
"All the (intelligence services) of America and Europe know well that the disastrous attack has been planned and realized from the Mossad, with the aid of the Zionist world in order to put under accusation the Arabic countries and in order to induce the western powers to take part in Iraq and Afghanistan."
Cossiga was elected president of the Italian Senate in July 1983 before winning a landslide election to become president of the country in 1985, and he remained until 1992.
Cossiga's tendency to be outspoken upset the Italian political establishment, and he was forced to resign after revealing the existence of, and his part in setting up, Operation Gladio. This was a rogue intelligence network under NATO auspices that carried out bombings across Europe in the 1960s, 1970s and '80s. Gladio's specialty was to carry out what they termed "false flag" operations-terror attacks that were blamed on their domestic and geopolitical opposition.
In March 2001, Gladio agent Vincenzo Vinciguerra stated, in sworn testimony, "You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security."
Cossiga first expressed his doubts about 9-11 in 2001, and is quoted by 9-11 researcher Webster Tarpley saying "The mastermind of the attack must have been a sophisticated mind, provided with ample means not only to recruit fanatic kamikazes, but also highly specialized personnel. I add one thing: it could not be accomplished without infiltrations in the radar and flight security personnel."
Coming from a widely respected former head of state, Cossiga's assertion that the 9-11 attacks were an inside job and that this is common knowledge among global intelligence agencies is illuminating. It is one more eye-opening confirmation that has not been mentioned by America's propaganda machine in print or on TV. Nevertheless, because of his experience and status in the world, Cossiga cannot be discounted as a crackpot.
http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/9-11_solved118.html
Here's the audio for the David Ray Griffin event held at Boston University last weekend:
http://boston911truth.org/audio/DRG11apr09.mp3
(length is 74:30)
The Daily Paul reports:
Renovations were being done to the WTC the year prior to 911 now proven (http://www.dailypaul.com/node/90526)
Posted April 21st, 2009 by sentinel
All the pieces are falling together nicely .
Turner Construction, who supervised the 2000 demolition of the Seattle Kingdome, participated in the post-9/11 Ground Zero clean-up and performed extensive renovations within the World Trade Center towers just prior to 9/11, was in fact performing unspecified renovation work throughout the WTC complex until the very morning of September 11, 2001. The Port Authority of NY/NJ now claims that records describing such work or other projects were destroyed on September 11, 2001. A December 2000 WTC property assessment described required renovation work to be completed within one year, upon steel columns within elevator shafts of both WTC towers that was immediately pending or already underway.
Terror devastates A/E/C firms
12 employees of Turner Construction were located in an office in the third subbasement of Tower 1, the north tower. Turner had been performing renovation work in various parts of the center and had occupied various office spaces.
http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-79439506.html
In 1997 Turner Construction also constructed the new headquarters for the Naval Sea Systems Command (NAVSEA). The Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center, a laboratory managed by NAVSEA was described during the 1990s as the "National Center for Energetics", the "Pentagon's jargon to broadly describe explosive materials, propellants and pyrotechnics" and as the "only reliable source of aluminum nanopowders in the United States".
http://911blogger.com/blog/2074
...
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 17, 2009, 11:07 PM NHFT
Quote from: mackler on April 15, 2009, 08:11 AM NHFT
Hi everyone.
I'm too lazy to read the 111 pages of this thread, so advance apologies if this has already been covered.
Are there any plane-huggers here?
You might have to explain what you mean.
I'm all ears to hear about any good evidence...
I mean believers in the official story that airplanes hit the twin towers and/or the Pentagon and/or crashed in Shanksville.
9/11 conspiracies are truly idiotic. there are pictures and videos of the planes hitting the towers, and there are pictures of plane wreckage scattered all over the grass at the pentagon.
as well as literally thousands of first hand accounts of a plane hitting the pentagon.
as well as VIP people who died on the planes.
i hate the govt more than anyone else i do not believe any conspiracy about 9/11. we watched it happen on live tv. not much you can say about that
govt, especially at the federal level is completely and utterly incompetant. there is no possible way they could pull off 9/11 without anyone knowing.
IMPOSSIBLE.
people who come up with all these conspiracies are really just making themselves look stupid
(http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/hullpiece.jpg)
(http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/may06/27cj.jpg)
(http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/may06/89vb.jpg)
(http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/may06/62le.jpg)
(http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/photos/docs/debris_south1.jpg)
I haven't put much time into researching the 9/11 stuff nor have I read much of this thread, just the last few posts. I haven't formed a strong opinion on what "really happened." My apologies if the questions below have already been debated or discussed.
I'm under the impression a 3rd building collapsed but was not hit by a plane...akmisrmaadi how did that happen? I'm also under the impression this received scant attention in the 9/11 commission report. Somebody enlighten me what the "official" response has been to the collapse of the 3rd building and why it wasn't mentioned.
I think there is a whole spectrum of "conspiracy theories" and that most of the members on this forum subscribe to some conspiracy theory within that range. Ranging from no conspiracy to ultra-conspiracy:
fairy tale version: radical Islamic terrorists took down the towers because they hate freedom.
conspiracy of explanation (Ron Paul position): radical Islamic terrorists took down the towers because of bad U.S. foreign policy.
conspiracy of incompetance: radical Islamic terrorists took down the towers but the U.S. government could have prevented this and is covering up its incompetance.
weak complicity: a criminal element within the government either assisted radical Islamic terrorists or performed the job.
strong complicity: Dick Cheney took down the towers.
Any others?
Quote from: Free libertarian on April 22, 2009, 07:43 AM NHFT
I haven't put much time into researching the 9/11 stuff nor have I read much of this thread, just the last few posts. I haven't formed a strong opinion on what "really happened." My apologies if the questions below have already been debated or discussed.
I'm under the impression a 3rd building collapsed but was not hit by a plane...akmisrmaadi how did that happen? I'm also under the impression this received scant attention in the 9/11 commission report. Somebody enlighten me what the "official" response has been to the collapse of the 3rd building and why it wasn't mentioned.
try google.
its my understanding that the building was on fire, and was being pummeled by debris from the two gigantic skyscraper buildings that just fell near it.
i really don't see how its a stretch for a building to collapse that is near two skyscrapers that just folded onto themselves.
well, i guess dick cheney could've set the explosives himself. because thats the only way NO ONE ELSE would've found out about it.
Ockham's razor
so obviously george bush and dick cheney planted the explosives themselves and also flew the airplanes into the ground, pentagon, and towers using remote control.
You may have missed a post or 2 - I know there were
only 1661 before yours... :) You bring up a few things that have been fairly well-covered, both here and elsewhere.
Would you consider listening to a recording of David Ray Griffin's recent talk at Boston University? I think it's just over an hour long.
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 22, 2009, 02:34 AM NHFT
9/11 conspiracies are truly idiotic. there are pictures and videos of the planes hitting the towers, and there are pictures of plane wreckage scattered all over the grass at the pentagon.
as well as literally thousands of first hand accounts of a plane hitting the pentagon.
as well as VIP people who died on the planes.
i hate the govt more than anyone else i do not believe any conspiracy about 9/11. we watched it happen on live tv. not much you can say about that
govt, especially at the federal level is completely and utterly incompetant. there is no possible way they could pull off 9/11 without anyone knowing.
IMPOSSIBLE.
people who come up with all these conspiracies are really just making themselves look stupid
no, i have no interest in listening to it. because all the physical evidence is enough for me to believe it.
if 9/11 was "an inside job" it will come out eventually. but we all know it wasn't.
Quote from: Free libertarian on April 22, 2009, 07:43 AM NHFT
...
I'm under the impression a 3rd building collapsed but was not hit by a plane...akmisrmaadi how did that happen?
Correct - no plane hit. 7 WTC, also known as the Salomon Building in some news reporting, collapsed at approx. 5:20 PM. Explosions were reported in the building after the WTC plane hits and before the collapse of 1 or 2 WTC. The collapse of the building was reported by a fireman at 10:45 AM, by CNN at approx. 4:20 and by BBC at approx. 4:57 PM (I don't have the exact times handy). The impending collapse was reported by workers leaving the area and explosions were heard by firefighters and various others in the half hour preceding the collapse.
Quote from: Free libertarian on April 22, 2009, 07:43 AM NHFT
I'm also under the impression this received scant attention in the 9/11 commission report.
Though I haven't read the Commission report, I have heard that it was not mentioned at all.
Quote from: Free libertarian on April 22, 2009, 07:43 AM NHFT
Somebody enlighten me what the "official" response has been to the collapse of the 3rd building and why it wasn't mentioned.
NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, a Commerce Department agency) issued a report in the fall of 2008, stating that the collapse occurred due to fire and not due to damage to the building from debris from the tower's collapse. I'll dig you up a response to the NIST report - it was roundly ridiculed by the 911Truth community.
OK, that's all I wanted to know. The link is in a post somewhere previous, if you should have a change of heart.
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 22, 2009, 03:10 PM NHFT
no, i have no interest in listening to it. because all the physical evidence is enough for me to believe it.
if 9/11 was "an inside job" it will come out eventually. but we all know it wasn't.
You pretty much covered the range, though on your last one, I would say "black ops people" did the dirty-work in a well-organized, compartmentalized plot, which Dick Cheney probably knew about and played some role in. I would also say that they are all conspiracies, the question for the curious is "which conspiracy?"
The new video "Re-Thinking 9-11" by Ground Zero Minnesota gives a similar breakdown.
Quote from: Jacobus on April 22, 2009, 08:07 AM NHFT
I think there is a whole spectrum of "conspiracy theories" and that most of the members on this forum subscribe to some conspiracy theory within that range. Ranging from no conspiracy to ultra-conspiracy:
fairy tale version: radical Islamic terrorists took down the towers because they hate freedom.
conspiracy of explanation (Ron Paul position): radical Islamic terrorists took down the towers because of bad U.S. foreign policy.
conspiracy of incompetance: radical Islamic terrorists took down the towers but the U.S. government could have prevented this and is covering up its incompetance.
weak complicity: a criminal element within the government either assisted radical Islamic terrorists or performed the job.
strong complicity: Dick Cheney took down the towers.
Any others?
these ridiculous conspiracies really really make people in the "freedom movement" look like kooks.
if you're going to believe in a conspiracy at least believe in one that has a slight possibility of being true.
there are people who say planes never hit the buildings even though it happened on live tv and literally hundreds of video records of the same thing.
what would you say to someone whose loved one called them while on the plane telling them exactly what was happening...
what do you say to the literally thousands of people who watched the plane fly into the pentagon.
this is the reason these people are written off immediately.
i highly doubt there are CIA agents faithful enough to commit suicide so we could have a war in iraq.... if you want to believe it was an inside job.
i need a goddamn thesaurus so i don't keep repeating ridiculous and moronic
It used to be a long and expensive process to bring down a skyscraper in a manner and fashion that didn't damage surrounding buildings.
Weeks were spent drilling holes in columns and planting explosives in key areas of the building to be demolished. Structural engineers studied construction drawings of the target and made recommendations as to where to place charges, what to cut where and when in a precise manner.
Since 9-11 however, the cost of demolishing a building has been drastically reduced.
Now it is generally accepted that instead of wiring columns "deep in the infrastructure" as Peter Jennings once said, it is only necessary to partially damage a few vertical members high up in the structure to be destroyed. Then with the addition of a few hundred gallons of kerosene poured down an elevator shaft some office furniture thrown in for black smoke effects and then just wait an hour or so and presto!
The entire building collapses into it's own footprint.
Turner Construction has realized a huge savings from this evolutionary revolution.
They are the go too guys in the field. Unfortunately all the research and development gleaned from this new formula for success was destroyed on 9-11.
Oh well maybe history will repeat itself with the Sears Tower in Chicago. We see Larry Silverstein recently bought that property too.
lmao :)
Turner Construction is world renowned. >:D
The Israeli movers and artists not so much. Spot lights up!!!
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=145451
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 22, 2009, 02:34 AM NHFT
as well as literally thousands of first hand accounts of a plane hitting the pentagon.
When you say "thousands" I take it you mean two thousand or more. I would be interested in seeing these accounts. Where can I find them?
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 22, 2009, 02:34 AM NHFT
there are people who say planes never hit the buildings even though it happened on live tv and literally hundreds of video records of the same thing.
When you say hundreds, you mean like 200 or more, right?
I would love to have a look at these 200+ video records you're referring to. Perhaps you could tell us where one can view these.
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 22, 2009, 02:34 AM NHFT
govt, especially at the federal level is completely and utterly incompetent. there is no possible way they could pull off 9/11 without anyone knowing.
Incompetent? May I remind you the federal government put men on the moon 1969--a dozen actually and not one died on the way. You call that incompetent?
Quote from: mackler on April 22, 2009, 06:53 PM NHFT
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 22, 2009, 02:34 AM NHFT
as well as literally thousands of first hand accounts of a plane hitting the pentagon.
When you say "thousands" I take it you mean two thousand or more. I would be interested in seeing these accounts. Where can I find them?
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 22, 2009, 02:34 AM NHFT
there are people who say planes never hit the buildings even though it happened on live tv and literally hundreds of video records of the same thing.
When you say hundreds, you mean like 200 or more, right?
I would love to have a look at these 200+ video records you're referring to. Perhaps you could tell us where one can view these.
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 22, 2009, 02:34 AM NHFT
govt, especially at the federal level is completely and utterly incompetent. there is no possible way they could pull off 9/11 without anyone knowing.
Incompetent? May I remind you the federal government put men on the moon 1969--a dozen actually and not one died on the way. You call that incompetent?
use google
and for your third point, the "government" did not "put men on the moon" they simply paid for it.
almost everything is contracted out
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 22, 2009, 03:18 PM NHFT
...
Quote from: Free libertarian on April 22, 2009, 07:43 AM NHFT
Somebody enlighten me what the "official" response has been to the collapse of the 3rd building and why it wasn't mentioned.
NIST (the National Institutes of Standards and Technology, a Commerce Department agency) issued a report in the fall of 2008 [correction: 21 August 2008], stating that the collapse occurred due to fire and not due to damage to the building from debris from the tower's collapse. I'll dig you up a response to the NIST report - it was roundly ridiculed by the 911Truth community.
Here is a charitable account in
OpEd News (24 August 08) of the
NIST report on 7 WTC: http://www.opednews.com/articles/1/NIST-Releases-Long-Awaited-by-Jeremy-R-Hammond-080824-967.html
Here is Dr. Frank Greening's 29 August 2008 Withering critique of the new WTC7 report (http://www.911blogger.com/node/17429) on 911Blogger.
Here is Kevin Ryan's scathing critique of 10 September 2008, The NIST WTC 7 Report: Bush Science reaches its peak (http://911truth.org/article.php?story=20080911073516447), on 911Truth.org's site.
Here is the report itself on NIST's site: http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf
FEMA issued a "Building Performance Study" report in 2002, which the NIST report rebuts, in part: http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/mat/wtcstudy.shtm.
An excerpt from Ryan's critique:
QuoteIn a famous book by Antoine de Saint Exupery, a little prince from another planet asks the narrator to draw a sheep. After several unsatisfactory attempts, the narrator simply draws a box and tells the little prince that the sheep is in the box. The little prince then exclaims — "That is exactly the way I wanted it!"1
Just so, the Bush Administration asked its scientists at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for an explanation as to what happened at the World Trade Center (WTC) on 9/11. In response to this request, NIST drew up a series of fanciful stories over a period of years, each story differing from the previous one. Finally, after seven long years, NIST published its last story for WTC 7 by simply saying, in effect: "The explanation is in our computer."2
As expected, however, this explanation in a box leaves much to be desired for those of us who prefer to live in reality, instead of in a fictional world. On the other hand, we are learning something from NIST with this new report, and that is that when government scientists begin working for a political agenda above all else, there is no limit to the extent of deception that they will engage in. We also know that those who have produced the NIST WTC reports must now assume personal responsibility for the ongoing 9/11 Wars, and the millions of deaths that will result from those wars.
NIST begins with a few little white lies, and never looks back
NIST unveiled its WTC 7 report by making a new diversionary claim that it worked only three years on the investigation. But, to the contrary, we know that NIST began its work in August 2002 and decoupled its WTC 7 report in June 2004, after creating hundreds of pages of detailed reports for WTC 7.3 The investigation ostensibly began anew in September 2005, after the report for the towers was sputtered out. Since then — other than for several "responses to FAQs" on the report for the towers — NIST has focused entirely on WTC 7. This means that, in full, NIST worked on its final explanation for the destruction of WTC 7 for at least five years, not three.
However, as the reader will see, NIST did learn from its experience in deceiving the public about the towers. One way in which NIST learned to avoid criticism was to pretend that it had considered alternative theories. In its presentation on the draft WTC 7 report, NIST claimed, "We were very open to alternative theories." But that claim could be seen as true only if one turned a blind eye to many facts indicating the exact opposite was true, including the following:
...
Quote from: mackler on April 22, 2009, 06:53 PM NHFT
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 22, 2009, 02:34 AM NHFT
as well as literally thousands of first hand accounts of a plane hitting the pentagon.
...
I would love to have a look at these 200+ video records you're referring to. Perhaps you could tell us where one can view these.
...
There is a site that has all the known videos on it. I'll see if I can find that.
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 22, 2009, 11:36 PM NHFT
Quote from: mackler on April 22, 2009, 06:53 PM NHFT
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 22, 2009, 02:34 AM NHFT
as well as literally thousands of first hand accounts of a plane hitting the pentagon.
...
I would love to have a look at these 200+ video records you're referring to. Perhaps you could tell us where one can view these.
...
There is a site that has all the known videos on it. I'll see if I can find that.
Here's killtown's site cataloging all the known videos: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/2nd-hit.html#CBS_Live_1
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 22, 2009, 04:16 PM NHFT
what would you say to someone whose loved one called them while on the plane telling them exactly what was happening...
If you're referring to Solicitor General Ted Olson and the call allegedly made by his wife Barbara, Tunga would call him a bald faced liar.
You know he changed his story about the call twice before the FBI showed that the call never happened.
It was bullshit.
Just like you and your phony skepticism akmisrmaadi.
That razor fellow, Occam or Ockham, developed his theory in the 14th century, long before the development of computers, software (like PROmis, Main Core et al, with their back door capabilities), or the development of the OODA loop and its application to IT warfare, or the well-honed concept of compartmentalization, or the NSA surveillance capabilities that run on massed banks of Cray supercomputers.
The Occam's razor defense of the 9/11 process no longer cuts it, including even the most-lathered of whiskers, because the blade has been dull for hundreds of years.
"Is this real-world or exercise?":
Cyber-PsyOps Warfare & 9/11
Part I (of 7): 9/11, Simulation and "Red Teaming"
"Is this real-world or exercise?":
Cyber-PsyOps Warfare & 9/11
Part II: TADMUS and Situation Awareness
"Is this real-world or exercise?":
Cyber-PsyOps Warfare & 9/11
Part III: Wired?!
"Is this real-world or exercise?":
Cyber-PsyOps Warfare & 9/11
Part IV: Ptech, the OODA Loop and SAIC
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?automodule=blog&blogid=57&&st=120#
"Is this real-world or exercise?":
Cyber-PsyOps Warfare & 9/11
Part V: Powell, Armitage and the Secret Service
"Is this real-world or exercise?":
Cyber-PsyOps Warfare & 9/11
Part VI: Reporting for Duty, Sir!
"Is this real-world or exercise?":
Cyber-PsyOps Warfare & 9/11
Part VII: Creating Reality
http://www.commongroundcommonsense.org/forums/index.php?automodule=blog&blogid=57&&st=110#
Quote from: Tunga on April 23, 2009, 08:52 PM NHFT
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 22, 2009, 04:16 PM NHFT
what would you say to someone whose loved one called them while on the plane telling them exactly what was happening...
If you're referring to Solicitor General Ted Olson and the call allegedly made by his wife Barbara, Tunga would call him a bald faced liar.
You know he changed his story about the call twice before the FBI showed that the call never happened.
It was bullshit.
Just like you and your phony skepticism akmisrmaadi.
prove what you say. probe the fbi said it didn't happen
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 24, 2009, 09:27 PM NHFT
Quote from: Tunga on April 23, 2009, 08:52 PM NHFT
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 22, 2009, 04:16 PM NHFT
what would you say to someone whose loved one called them while on the plane telling them exactly what was happening...
If you're referring to Solicitor General Ted Olson and the call allegedly made by his wife Barbara, Tunga would call him a bald faced liar.
You know he changed his story about the call twice before the FBI showed that the call never happened.
It was bullshit.
Just like you and your phony skepticism akmisrmaadi.
prove what you say. probe the fbi said it didn't happen
The FBI produced records of all the calls for the 2006 Zacharias Moussaoui trial. Records show 1 call from Barbara Olson attempted, unsuccessful, duration: 0 seconds. It's in the audio of the David Ray Griffin talk. His talk is called 9/11: Time for a Second Look - he calls it that because so much evidence has come out now, that it's only reasonable that people take a second look. The link is below, or I could send it to you. It's a good introduction to those who don't want to go back through the 1600 posts on this thread.
Either Ted Olson, the Solicitor General of the United States lied, or the calls to him were spoofed.
As DRG likes to say this should have been screaming front page headlines 3" high - Solicitor General Ted Olson's story about phone calls NOT TRUE!
See this article for a summary of the issues with Ted's excellent phone-calling adventure:
Ted Olson's Report of Phone Calls from Barbara Olson on 9/11: Three Official Denials (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8514)
i read the fbi interview and it says the same thing ted has said.
why would ted lie?
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 25, 2009, 04:14 AM NHFT
why would ted lie?
Only Ted knows that, but Ted Olson is not non-political, being described as a "forceful conservative litigator". Why would Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld lie about Saddam Hussein's purported WMD's? (Just to remind that monstrous lies with horrific consequences are possible and commonplace among a certain crowd!). You're beginning to scratch the surface of "deep politics" - take a step further down the rabbit hole.
Ted Olson is the lawyer for G.W. Bush that argued to stop the re-count that might have gotten Al Gore elected as president of the U.S. - he's not a choirboy. He was later selected to be Solicitor General of the U.S. and he was considered for the AG position (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0907/5758.html) when Gonzales left.
Not to beat a dead horse, but here's an excerpt from an article by Devvy Kidd (http://www.newswithviews.com/Devvy/kidd319.htm) (which was on the first page of my google search results), quoting DRG on the TO/BO phone calls and mentioning the critical nature of the purported calls to the official story. If the Ted Olson calls did not occur, what then???.... If that part of the official story is not true, then what parts of it are???
==========Following from D. Kidd article=======================
1. How can any of us forget the heart wrenching phone calls from passengers who perished that day? Phone calls to loved ones. The pain, anguish, fear and courage -- all conveyed via cell phones from these hijacked planes. Or were they? David Ray Griffin has authored several books on 911; a must read by Griffin is Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory. In an October 12, 2007, article Griffin drops a bomb shell:
"The most famous of the reported calls from the flights supposedly came from Barbara Olson, the well-known commentator on CNN who was married to Ted Olson, who was then the US solicitor general. Olson reported that his wife had called him twice from American Airlines Flight 77, stating that hijackers with knives and boxcutters had taken over the plane. Besides providing evidence of hijackers, this call also provided the only evidence that Flight 77 was still aloft (it had disappeared from radar and there had been reports of an airliner crash nearby). Although Olson went back and forth on the question of whether his wife had used a cell phone or an onboard phone, he finally settled on the latter.
"In the first edition, I challenged this claim on the basis of evidence from American Airlines that their Boeing 757 (which is what Flight 77 was) had no onboard phones. After publishing the book, however, I became worried, because of some new evidence, that the statement from American Airlines, made in 2004, had referred only to their 757s at that time - that their 757s in 2001 may well have had onboard phones. So I published a retraction, saying that the claim was uncertain.
"That retraction, however, evoked new evidence, including a statement made by American Airlines in 2006 that their 757s in 2001 had had no onboard phones, so that anyone calling out from Flight 77 had needed to use a cell phone. Barbara Olson, therefore, could not have used a passenger-seat phone. That left open, of course, the possibility that Ted Olson was correct when he said that his wife had used her cell phone.
"However, the evidence from the Moussaoui trial ruled out this possibility. In its report on AA 77, it listed one attempted call from Barbara Olson, which was "unconnected" and hence lasted "0 seconds." This was an astounding discovery. The FBI is part of the Department of Justice. And yet it had undercut the testimony of the DOJ's former solicitor general, saying in effect that the two calls that he reported had never happened. The implication is that unless Ted Olson had, like Deena Burnett, been duped, he had lied. Although this should have produced front-page headlines, it has thus far not been reported by any mainstream publication. The Revised and Updated Edition of "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" provides the documentation for these reports from American Airlines and the FBI, which pretty thoroughly undermine the idea that any of the reported calls were genuine: If the cell phone calls were faked, why should we believe that the reported calls from onboard phones were genuine?" Griffin has much more to say on this; click here (http://www.rense.com/general78/newev.htm).
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 25, 2009, 11:54 AM NHFT
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 25, 2009, 04:14 AM NHFT
why would ted lie?
Only Ted knows that, but Ted Olson is not non-political, being described as a "forceful conservative litigator". Why would Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld lie about Saddam Hussein's purported WMD's? (Just to remind that monstrous lies with horrific consequences are possible and commonplace among a certain crowd!). You're beginning to scratch the surface of "deep politics" - take a step further down the rabbit hole.
why would the world lie in that case? because the rest of the world said the same thing. as well as saddam himself...
so what happened to barbara? did ted sacrifice his wife so we could have a war in iraq?
everything you say is completely ridiculous.
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 25, 2009, 05:29 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 25, 2009, 11:54 AM NHFT
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 25, 2009, 04:14 AM NHFT
why would ted lie?
Only Ted knows that, but Ted Olson is not non-political, being described as a "forceful conservative litigator". Why would Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld lie about Saddam Hussein's purported WMD's? (Just to remind that monstrous lies with horrific consequences are possible and commonplace among a certain crowd!). You're beginning to scratch the surface of "deep politics" - take a step further down the rabbit hole.
why would the world lie in that case? because the rest of the world said the same thing. as well as saddam himself...
Au contraire, the weapons inspectors in Iraq said they found no WMD's. Remember, they were the ones that were selected for their qualifications for such work (Hans Blix and Scott Ritter were particularly vocal on this). Bush pulled them out before their findings could be complete and conclusive, and when you refer to "the rest of the world", I assume you mean the main stream media, right? I'd say you have a little more digging to do to determine why, eh?
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 25, 2009, 05:29 PM NHFT
so what happened to barbara? did ted sacrifice his wife so we could have a war in iraq?
That's the $64,000 question, hence the need for further investigation.
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 25, 2009, 05:29 PM NHFT
everything you say is completely ridiculous.
The references I gave you were from FBI, Federal Court testimony, Devvy Kidd and David Ray Griffin - your beef is with them. You can find their contact information on the sites referenced.
P.S. I'm presuming you now accept the FBI's evidence re the phone calls - ie, that the Barbara Olson calls didn't happen? What does that do to your understanding of what really happened?
Now, we've had major wars, defense contractors rolling in the bucks, U.S. control of the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, establishment of a western-style central bank in Iraq, the spread of the front all the way into Pakistan and establishment of military bases surrounding Iran, the destruction of privacy and civil liberties at home -- and all of that hinges on things like the B. Olson phone calls that didn't happen, and, by the way, hers were the only phone calls that referred to "box-cutters", so we all get frisked by TSA at the airport because of that call that didn't happen. Does the truth of her purported calls matter?
I'd like to know what happened to her, too, and I'd like to see Ted Olson get skewered for his role in this mess!
i dont know what happened. but i don't believe it was staged.
wierd shit happens in this world if you didn't notice.
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 26, 2009, 12:51 AM NHFT
i dont know what happened. but i don't believe it was staged.
wierd shit happens in this world if you didn't notice.
I noticed. I just don't think it's random.
A Modern Myth
Did we create a modern myth
Did we imagine half of it
Would happen in a thought from now
Save yourself
Save yourself
The secret is out
To buy the truth
And sell a lie
The last mistake before you die
So don't forget to breathe tonight
Tonight's the last so say good-bye
The secret is out
Good-bye
A Modern Myth - A Beautiful Lie
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 26, 2009, 12:09 AM NHFT
P.S. I'm presuming you now accept the FBI's evidence re the phone calls - ie, that the Barbara Olson calls didn't happen? What does that do to your understanding of what really happened?
Now, we've had major wars, defense contractors rolling in the bucks, U.S. control of the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world, establishment of a western-style central bank in Iraq, the spread of the front all the way into Pakistan and establishment of military bases surrounding Iran, the destruction of privacy and civil liberties at home -- and all of that hinges on things like the B. Olson phone calls that didn't happen, and, by the way, hers were the only phone calls that referred to "box-cutters", so we all get frisked by TSA at the airport because of that call that didn't happen. Does the truth of her purported calls matter?
I'd like to know what happened to her, too, and I'd like to see Ted Olson get skewered for his role in this mess!
The ties between 9/11 and Iraq were never truly made.
And Iraq doesn't have the 2nd largest oil reserves... that honor would go to Canada, with Iran being third... and Iraq fourth.
I believe you'll find the attack on Iraq had more to do with circumstancial political cover and tactics.
Both Iran and Iraq have over the years presented a public oration that the price of crude oil is too low. It takes just a moment looking at a map of the area to realize that either of these two countries possess the military capacity to control the strait through which a lot of oil shipments must occur. As the world neared 100% utilization of the then capacity, any small incidence within those waters would result in a dramatic increase in crude pricing (hence all the speculation of last summer).
The Bush/Cheney Administration used the UN Security Resolutions, and what we now have confirmed to be false intelligence reporting, to launch a policing action that would secure the strait.
As for the western-style bank... I would hypothesize that the US is taunting OBL et al.
What are people's opinions on what was used to destroy the buildings? Nanothermite? Directed energy beams? Both? Something else?
Nanothermite?
Whatever that is it would explain how the vertical columns could vaporize like the one in the "Spire" video.
The hollow box columns lent themselves to being filled with some type of catalyst. The dust recovered from the aftermath confirms it.
Micro nukes (the evidence of their existence destroyed @ OKC bombing) were apparently used also. Tritium recovered from the scene and the extremely odd melting of isolated car parts confirms that also.
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 27, 2009, 02:02 AM NHFT
As for the western-style bank... I would hypothesize that the US is taunting OBL et al.
Why do you think that Pakistani chick got assassinated a couple of days after she told David Frost OBL was dead?
what a load of shit. unbelievable. you guys give put the ook in kook
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 28, 2009, 01:57 AM NHFT
what a load of shit. unbelievable. you guys give put the ook in kook
Brilliant retort akmisrmaadi. The way you dissected that information and exposed all it's flaws. Do you work for Popular Science?
OBL dead?
Who'd a thunk it?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/5232505/Pakistans-President-says-Osama-bin-Laden-could-be-dead.html
Mr Zardari's comments came as he sought to reassure the international community that it need not worry over the security of Pakistan's nuclear weapons.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/pakistan/5235030/Military-offensive-displaces-30000-in-north-west-Pakistan.html
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 27, 2009, 02:02 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 26, 2009, 12:09 AM NHFT
... U.S. control of the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world...
...
And Iraq doesn't have the 2nd largest oil reserves...
Oops, my bad. Was shooting from the hip on that one. :) Didn't have time to go look it up. I knew it was up there. You sure they aren't 3rd largest?
Quote from: akmisrmaadi on April 28, 2009, 01:57 AM NHFT
what a load of shit. unbelievable. you guys give put the ook in kook
Your issue seems to be with reported facts. There is plenty of info out there for those who care to get the facts, which is why David Ray Griffin's talk was called "Time for a Second Look", since many people seem to be relying on info available back in 2002, much of which was propaganda or disinformation. The actual evidence is stacking up. So, anyway, my suggestion for the curious is to do some reading of material that has come out since then, and a good first step is the recent DRG presentation, posted previously, but, I repeat myself.
Quote from: Tunga on April 28, 2009, 06:15 PM NHFT
OBL dead?
Who'd a thunk it?
...
Not to sound like a one-note, but DRG's next book is on bin Laden - he'll review all the known info of UBL and his conclusion is that he died around or shortly after 13-14 December 2001. Not sure when the book will be out, but soon.
OBL et al. is a reference to Fundamentalists.
Islam has a tenet against money lending and money lenders... the same as Christianity.
Western-style banks would be in opposition to this tenet.
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 29, 2009, 10:20 AM NHFT
Quote from: John Edward Mercier on April 27, 2009, 02:02 AM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on April 26, 2009, 12:09 AM NHFT
... U.S. control of the 2nd largest oil reserves in the world...
...
And Iraq doesn't have the 2nd largest oil reserves...
Oops, my bad. Was shooting from the hip on that one. :) Didn't have time to go look it up. I knew it was up there. You sure they aren't 3rd largest?
Saudi Arabia, Canada, Iran, then Iraq. But the Strait, controls much of the crude shipments in that region... and could upon tight utilization of crude supplies control the global price.
I haven't taken the time to read this entire thread, so if this has already been mentioned, then I apologize.
One of the very few positive things to come out of to come to light after the 911 attacks, whether an inside job or not, is that there is a growing number of people inside and outside of the liberty movement who wouldn't put it past the government to commit such attrocities.
It took 9/11?
There are document cases of previous acts.
Quote from: Goble on April 30, 2009, 09:01 AM NHFT
I haven't taken the time to read this entire thread, so if this has already been mentioned, then I apologize.
One of the very few positive things to come out of to come to light after the 911 attacks, whether an inside job or not, is that there is a growing number of people inside and outside of the liberty movement who wouldn't put it past the government to commit such attrocities.
Yep, that one was an eye-opener for sure, since it was so public. It was the nexus for all the wars and losses of civil liberties to follow, and, since some glaring lies and venality by the Neocons and Bushies have been exposed, people are willing to question more... When they work it back to the source (9/11) and before (documents like the PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses"), then the picture of how it all really works becomes more clear.
lots of good stuph guys ... thanks for posting
757/767 jet engines for sale.
Used in the largest propaganda op ever imagined.
Never before seen in public.
Never to be seen.
Cheep.
Only 3000 PLus lives in exchange.
And an occasional roadside bomb.
Fuct?
Not just yet thank you.
:P
There is a new
Loose Change film coming out. So I guess "Final Cut" wasn't really. See:
http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/microcinema-international-acquires-loose-change/story.aspx?guid={4430E22C-22E0-4F72-863E-B82DAFF2D5AF}&dist=msr_9
http://www.loosechange911.com/
There is good video taken on 9-11 of this man describing explosions in WTC 7 and bodies in WTC 7 that did not get there because of what was going on in WTC 1 and WTC2.
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/forum.cgi?read=146502
When they made it to the lobby, Mr. Jennings found it destroyed and littered with dead bodies. He said it looked like, "King Kong had came through it and stepped on it, (it was) so destroyed, I didn't know where I was. So destroyed that they had to take me out through a hole in the wall, that I believe the fire department made to get me out." Shortly after he made it out, he was seen on several news channels telling his story.
Mr. Jennings was admittedly confused as to why Building 7 had to come down at all, and does not accept the official reason that the noises he heard were from a fuel oil tank, "I know what I heard, I heard explosions".
I heard that about Barry Jennings. His interview is in Loose Change, Final Cut, I believe. Pretty spooky. There was another early eyewitness to explostions who worked in maintenance in the Towers. He did an on-the-street media interview from a couple of blocks away, before the collapses. He was found "suicided" - there's a link to the YouTube of the media interview a few dozen pages back in this thread. Pretty creepy for sure.
New professional group for 911 Truth that David Ray Griffin mentioned when he was here:
http://rl911truth.org/ - Religious Leaders for 911 Truth - tell your minister, or pastor, or Friends meeting committees of concern, or pagan, um, what do you call a pagan group leader??
A danish scientist Niels Harrit, on nano-thermite in the WTC dust
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8_tf25lx_3o
Wow! Very good video! He gives a good explanation of the technical side in easy-to-understand terms for the public.
Here's the 911blogger.com article on it: http://911blogger.com/node/19761
Here's the article, itself: http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM
Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe
pp.7-31 (25) Authors: Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, Frank M. Legge, Daniel Farnsworth, Gregg Roberts, James R. Gourley, Bradley R. Larsen
doi: 10.2174/1874412500902010007
Abstract
We have discovered distinctive red/gray chips in all the samples we have studied of the dust produced by the destruction of the World Trade Center. Examination of four of these samples, collected from separate sites, is reported in this paper. These red/gray chips show marked similarities in all four samples. One sample was collected by a Manhattan resident about ten minutes after the collapse of the second WTC Tower, two the next day, and a fourth about a week later. The properties of these chips were analyzed using optical microscopy, scanning electron microscopy (SEM), X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy (XEDS), and differential scanning calorimetry (DSC). The red material contains grains approximately 100 nm across which are largely iron oxide, while aluminum is contained in tiny plate-like structures. Separation of components using methyl ethyl ketone demonstrated that elemental aluminum is present. The iron oxide and aluminum are intimately mixed in the red material. When ignited in a DSC device the chips exhibit large but narrow exotherms occurring at approximately 430 °C, far below the normal ignition temperature for conventional thermite. Numerous iron-rich spheres are clearly observed in the residue following the ignition of these peculiar red/gray chips. The red portion of these chips is found to be an unreacted thermitic material and highly energetic.
Keywords: JScanning electron microscopy, X-ray energy dispersive spectroscopy, Differential scanning calorimetry, DSC analysis, World Trade Center, WTC dust, 9/11, Iron-rich microspheres, Thermite, Super-thermite, Energetic nanocomposites, Nano-thermite
Affiliation: Department of Chemistry, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, DK-2100, Denmark.
I service satellite television reception and distribution systems in the Washington, DC metro region. Beginning about two months before 9-11, the reception antenna at one hotel I service, which is located about one mile due northeast of National Airport, started getting absolutely PUMMELED by microwave signals, at an intensity level like I have never seen before. This was not commonplace AWACs radar. It was so bad it would knock all the HBOs off the hotel's DirecTV based system. The DirecTV core programming satellite is to the southwest, meaning this dish was pointing right at the airport, and there is a CIA building near it as well.
I tried moving the reception antenna around the "mechanical room" on the roof That is the brick room that houses the elevator motors. But no matter where I put the reception antenna in hopes of using that brick building as a natural shield, I saw no discernible difference in the intensity of the interference.
I was so desperate that I dropped a 100 foot coax cable down the side of the building, such that the dish would be shielded by nearby buildings. I was able to get away with this because the building to the immediate southwest was only three stories tall and the target satellite was at about 40 degrees elevation. The interference was only slightly mitigated with the antenna placed down at ground level in a locality where most buildings are ten stories tall
About a year later, the interference mysteriouly went away and I never learned its source. I am inclined to think that either it came from from overhead aircraft, or it was just so incredibly powerful that it was penetrating everything.
I suspect that this was intense radar that was being used in response to some very serious threat that the government knew about, and so it is entirely possible that it was being used because they had some credible information regarding an imminent or pending ariel threat.
The best way to get to the bottom of what happened on 9/11 at this point seems to be the NYC CAN petition drive. People anywhere can help by making donations to the org so they can hire professional petition gatherers to put the issue in non-vetoable territory:
Here's the plea of an eyewitness and survivor of the 9/11 NYC attacks to join in the efforts to petition for a ballot initiative for an independent investigation into the 9/11 crimes:
Here's a very good informational/educational site put together by Joe L of Massachusetts:
http://911insidejob.net
Looks like David Ray Griffin's next book is out. He mentioned it on his speaking tour and I started a separate thread for the book. Here's an excerpt of the blurb for the book:
===================================
David Ray Griffin, Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive?
The US's political discourse and foreign policy in recent years has been based on the assumption that Osama bin Laden is still alive. George W. Bush promised as president that he would get Osama bin Laden "dead or alive" and has been widely criticized for failing to do so. The US's present military escalation in Afghanistan is said to be necessary to "get Osama bin Laden." The news media regularly announce the appearance of new "messages from bin Laden." But what if Osama bin Laden died in December 2001—which is the last time a message to or from him was intercepted?
In this book, David Ray Griffin examines the evidence for the claim—made by everyone from former CIA agent Robert Baer to Oliver North—that bin Laden is surely no longer with us. He analyzes the purported messages from bin Laden and finds that, as many have suspected, they do not provide evidence of bin Laden's existence after 2001. This leads naturally to the question: if Osama bin Laden did indeed die in 2001, how and why have dozens of "messages from bin Laden" appeared since then?
Griffin's meticulous analysis supports above all one simple and urgent conclusion: if Osama bin Laden is dead, the US should not be using its troops and treasure to hunt him down.
"This book is part of a growing body of non-fiction that illuminates the cataclysmic gap between those with power, who do as they please, and those with knowledge, who are not heard. At least 80% of what is done 'in our name' with our tax dollars is wasteful, lacks intellectual integrity, and does great harm to humanity both at home and abroad. Unless President Obama breaks out of the closed circle of power to connect with the kind of independent knowledge found in this book, he will remain a captive 'front' for the Empire Enterprise."--Robert David Steele Vivas, recovering spy, founder of the USMC Intelligence Center, CEO of OSS.Net, and CEO of Earth Intelligence Network
David Ray Griffin, Osama bin Laden: Dead or Alive? (Northampton: Olive Branch [Interlink Books], 2009 (http://www.interlinkbooks.com/product_info.php?products_id=2129&osCsid=a125ba0a1f5979a79f4f37796b0d8fd7&osCsid=a125ba0a1f5979a79f4f37796b0d8fd7#reviews), $15. Available at Amazon.com for $11.70 (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1566567831/ref=pe_5050_12192230_snp_dp).
I don't often bother with this stuff, but this interesting letter was on the Keene Sentinel's website today:
http://www.keenesentinel.com/articles/2009/05/22/opinion/letters_editor/free/id_356616.txt
Quote
Another group of scientists has found evidence of explosives in the dust at ground zero, 9/11.
Big news?
Actually it isn't news at all. Hasn't been covered. One might expect calls far and wide for a public investigation by qualified scientists to examine whether the findings are accurate. Yawn.
There is a lot of interest on the Internet, among people who don't take a paycheck from corporate media. There is interest among ex-CIA, military, pilots, architects, engineers, physicists, demolition experts, metallurgists, academics and so on.
But not a peep from corporate media. We know corporate media are obtuse propagandists for corporate interests like the treasonous illegal invasion and occupation of Iraq. They love that shock and awe. It's good TV.
They are enemies of democracy and friends of wealth. Does The Sentinel know that the work of these scientists is "cartoonish"? How do you know?
I say, prove it.
Prove the scientists are wrong, or that there is ambiguity.
Recognize the gravity of the implications. Respect the sincerity of the scientists. Report the news.
TOM ROGERS
651 Park Ave., No. 56
Keene
Here's a 50 second video produced by NYCCAN:
An appeal from a group of 9/11 Truth activists:
Dear 9/11 Truth Activists,
Greetings! We are writing you this joint communique in order to urge your
immediate response to the call from our fellow truthers in New York City.
The time has come for our 9/11 Truth Community to come together in order
to bring about an authentic and independent investigation of the events
of September 11, 2001.
Nearly eight years have passed. Over the course of that time, thousands
of us have sacrificed mightily to help shed light on the truth of that
tragic day. A shining movement of honest individuals and determined
researchers has sprung up to raise questions, to demand answers and to
seek accountability. Our efforts have and continue to carry the world
towards truth. Now we are approaching a watershed moment in our quest for
the truth of 9/11.
In the very city within which this horrible tragedy took place, a campaign
for a real investigation is gaining strength. The campaign, the New York
City Coalition for Accountability Now or NYC CAN has thus far collected
45,000 signatures towards placing of the issue of a new investigation
before the voters of New York City. In order to achieve this goal and to
overcome potential obstructions of the referendum by the NYC Council and
others, NYC CAN has set a goal of 75,000 signatures before the first of
July.
In order to insure the NYC CAN effort, it is incumbent upon us to help
this happen. The petitioners, out there on the streets of NYC every day,
need funds in order to continue. They are well trained, they're
professional, gathering between 500-1000 signatures a day, at a cost of
about a dollar a signature! We, the Coalition for 9/11 Truth Leaders, urge
you, our fellow truth seekers, to join the New York City Coalition for
Accountability Now, TODAY. RIGHT NOW! If only 3,000 of us each give the
membership amount of $25, NYC CAN will raise enough to see through the
rest of its petitioning effort and guarantee the referendum will be on the
ballot on November 3, 2009. And that, fellow truth seekers, will most
certainly provide the kind of lawful venue we have been working for.
With our help, NYC finally CAN. With our help, digging deep and reaching
out far and wide, we can make this happen. Let us stand together, and in
doing so, make history!
Sincerely,
The Coalition of 9/11 Truth Leaders
Here's the audio from David Ray Griffin's recent Boston talk. This is a good one and is an important talk for a lot of skeptics to hear:
http://boston911truth.org/audio/DRG11apr09.mp3
Here's the latest newsletter from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, the AE911Truth Blueprint. It seems Richard Gage was very successful in getting architects at the AIA convention to sign his petition for a new investigation:
http://www.ae911truth.org/newsletter/2009/06-1/index.php
Be sure to watch the 7 min. video clip of Architect Richard Gage's TV interview on a Fresno Fox affiliate station.
Here's another one of those good videos about the collapse of Building 7, focusing on the collapse of the East Penthouse:
Major 9/11 Truth Breakthrough!!! KBDI Denver Airs 9/11 Press for Truth
Radio show interviewing DRG re bin Laden
===================================
David Ray Griffin and Rolf Lindgren
Griffin on OSAMA BIN LADEN; Lindgren on Pentagon research
http://radiofetzer.blogspot.com/2009/06/david-ray-griffin-and-rolf-lindgren.html
Classic show now available!
it looks like building 7 melted on the inside
How'd Osama do that?
People who were there describe the scene as it contradicts the official story.
Video of real people folks. Not actors pretending to know what happened.
http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/
Fema photog goes wild.
Exile in Argentina.
What was South Carolinas governor doing there anyway?
http://www.voltairenet.org/article160636.html
another witness unavailable to testify in a real investigation commission:
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aGu5lX16VTk8#
D.C. Crash Kills General Who Scrambled Jets on 9/11
By Ryan Flinn and Todd Shields
June 24 (Bloomberg) -- David F. Wherley Jr., the head of the Washington National Guard who scrambled jets over the city during the 9/11 terrorist attacks, was among those killed in the worst commuter train crash in the city's history, officials said.
News from NYC CAN - the petition to put an independent NYC investigation commission on the ballot.
===============================================================
Dear Friends!
On Wednesday, June 24, 2009, we filed the petition with 52,000 signatures! [of 30,000 required.]
9/11 Family Members Maureen Hunt and Manny Badillo, and First Responders Charlie Giles of the Feal Good Foundation and Bill Gleason of the World Trade Center Rescuers Foundation, arrived at the City Clerk's office to deliver the petition and speak in behalf of all the proud and concerned citizens who deserve an unbiased, nonpolitical investigation of the tragedy that has affected us so deeply.
Thank you for getting us this far! City Council now has until August 24 to approve the placement of the referendum on the November 3 ballot. As hundreds more family members, first responders and survivors join our campaign and lobby their council members to support the petition, our chances grow.
In the unlikely event City Council does not approve the placement of the referendum on the ballot, we will be prepared to deliver an additional 30,000 signatures on August 24 to guarantee it gets on the ballot. Already we have 8,000 of the additional 30,000!
Now more than ever is the moment to stand up for what we believe in and convert to reality what we have been working towards for so long. This is how you can help:
DONATE IF YOU CAN. We need money to pay our amazing petitioners who are now collecting 4,000 to 5,000 signatures per week. We need money to pay a legal team. We need money to launch a full-scale PR campaign once the referendum is on the ballot. Go to http://NYCCAN.org/donate.php right now!
TELL FAMILY MEMBERS, FIRST RESPONDERS and SURVIVORS. We have a Statement of Support at NYCCAN.ORG that every family member, first responder, and survivor is welcome to sign. We have already accumulated over 60 signatories in the last week - THANK YOU to those of you who joined us in calling for a new, impartial investigation. Now our goal is to reach 1,000 signatories by September 11, 2009. If you know someone who was directly affected and wants accountability, send them to NYCCAN.ORG. The more New York-based family members, first responders and survivors who sign on, the more City Council will hear from the constituents it simply can't ignore.
TELL YOUR FRIENDS. Nothing works like word of mouth. Forward this email far and wide.
While there is little room for celebration, we deserve to be proud of how far we have gotten and where we are going. Over eighteen months of hard work and selfless dedication from hundreds of individuals, and the generosity and faith shown by thousands of you across the globe, have gotten us here. And now it comes down to the next four months. Thank you for standing with us.
Sincerely,
Ted Walter
9/11 FEMA VIDEOGRAPHER AT GROUND ZERO GOES PUBLIC (http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/fraud/911_attack/news.php?q=1245889621)
June 22, 2009
As official videographer for the U.S. government, Kurt Sonnenfeld was detailed to Ground Zero on September 11, 2001, where he spent one month filming 29 tapes: "What I saw at certain moments and in certain places ... is very disturbing!" He never handed them over to the authorities and has been persecuted ever since. Kurt Sonnenfeld lives in exile in Argentina, where he wrote "El Perseguido" (the persecuted). His recently-published book tells the story of his unending nightmare and drives another nail into the coffin of the government's account of the 9/11 events. Below is an exclusive interview by The Voltaire Network.
Kurt Sonnenfeld graduated from the University of Colorado (USA) with studies in International Affairs and Economics, as well as in Literature and Philosophy. He worked for the United States government as official videographer and served as Director of Broadcast Operations for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)'s National Emergency Response Team. Additionally, Kurt Sonnenfeld was contracted by several other governmental agencies and programs for classified and "sensitive" operations at military and scientific installations throughout the United States.
On September 11, 2001, the area known as "Ground Zero" was sealed from the public eye. Sonnenfeld, however, was given unrestricted access enabling him to document for the investigation (that never took place) and provide some "sanitized" pool video to virtually every news network in the world. The tapes that reveal some of the anomalies which he discovered at Ground Zero are still in his possession.
...
[continues]...
I didn't read it all. Does Sonnenfeld give a reason for not showing these tapes publicly?
I haven't read the whole article - he's hiding out in Argentina because of the harrassment he's been getting. I hope he's made many multiple copies of what he has and has mailed them around to different people.
General for American Intelligence says 911 was a fraud!
SEE VIDEO LINK BELOW:
Excerpt from Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Stubblebine
Major General Albert "Bert" N. Stubblebine III was the commanding general of the United States Army Intelligence and Security Command from 1981 to 1984, when he retired from the Army. He is known for his interest in parapsychology and was a supporter of the Stargate Project.
Stubblebine appeared in the 2006 documentary "One Nation Under Siege"[1] where he states that a Boeing 757airplane could not have crashed into The Pentagon on September 11, 2001.
Stubblebine and his wife, psychiatrist Rima E. Laibow, M.D., founded the Natural Solutions Foundation (NSF), "a non-profit corporation devoted to protecting and promoting health freedom". They claim to expose dangerous prescription drugs and vaccines etc. promoted by large pharmaceutical companies, along with food contaminated by drugs. NSF lobbies against Codex Alimentarius and in favour of DSHEA.
Osama bin Laden Dead or Alive? — David Ray Griffin _ on Guns & Butter (http://noliesradio.org/archives/3230)
This ought to be good - haven't listened to it yet, but DRG's next book was to be on ObL... Anyone read it yet?
QuoteQuote from: akmisrmaadi on April 22, 2009, 02:34 AM NHFT
as well as literally thousands of first hand accounts of a plane hitting the pentagon.
Well apparently only 138 accounts were documented, I find your statement strange. Also "Or how about the highest ranking member of the US Army, a Major General asserting that a plane didnt hit the pentagon and explosives were used to bring down the towers."
After reading the majority of this thread all the way back from 2005 I feel like inconsistencies between forum members are a big part of the problem.. not like we will ever had enough "evidence" to come to an agreement anyway, one can just hope all answers will be accounted for some day.
________________________________
Furthermore WTC 7 fell in 6.6 seconds, the major problem I have with this is that the 48 or so floors had to basically disappear to achieve this speed. Demolition specialist have identified the "crinkle" effect (in videos of wtc7)that must be achieved from the middle of a building in order to successfully implode it, coincidentally, there are pictures of WTC7 floating around with with every window near the center of the building vertically busted out. (As if someone busted out every window on one floor and turned it pointing straight up) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVnUahzfF2k The demo specialist does not start talking until near the end of the video, there is a higher quality version on there somewhere, just cant find it atm.
In addition BBC reported LIVE that WTC 7 had collapsed 23 minutes before it actually happened, this reporter stood live in front of a smoking city line where WTC 7 could clearly be seen in tact. After being questioned about it BBC denies the claim, and reports they do not have such footage. Since then the video has emerged on youtube and is available, here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7NefExHDu3s
_________________________________
George mother fucking BUSH sticks to his story that he watched on live TV outside an elementary school classroom the first plane hit the WTC tower, and this is how he first discovered the event. Although video of the first plane did not surface until 9/12/01 and to this day has been the only video of the first plane to emerge.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PJlkn9Dams
In the below video, George Bush slips and says "explosives", ponders for a moment, immediately restructures the words after "explosives" and decides it may not be the best idea to correct his sentence. You can SMELL his nervousness.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USnxe7hxP4I&feature=PlayList&p=D8978E3FC7D88581&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=57
_________________________________
I find it amazing that a thread has been actively posted in since 2005, goodluck with the real pursuit of justice.
I have read now many reports of chemical elements and compositions discovered in the WTC dust, I have read reports of scientist around the world who put their names and credibility on the line, and I have heard a 52 year old terrorist response official say he heard explosions inside of world trade center 7, a man who was there. I have heard firefighters, literally first on the scene within minutes say they heard explosions, some even claim to have heard demolition countdowns on radios. The first Firefighters on the scene met people rushing out of burning elevators ON THE GROUND FLOOR, literally minutes after the attack hit the 96th(???) or so story, the same firefighter said he found a body in a closet before the second plane ever hit.. while we still thought it was an "accident".
I have heard enough.
"lol....well lets see, how about a PHD in chemistry and 8 colleagues spending 18 month putting together a peer reviewed paper describing the nano thermates in the dust of 911.
Or a group of Architects describing how these building were brought down by? explosives as in a CD."
If you havnt decided on a documentary to watch yet, I suggest this one : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t-yscpNIxjI&feature=channel_page
This, along with the FSP, are two movements I am willing to stand for.
Just for reference, the things that originally got the wheels churning for me was the three buildings all falling symmetrically, BBC supposedly reporting the collapse of WTC 7 23 minutes before it actually happened, and the 5 FPS video the pentagon released from their 100 FPS camera.
Tell me, as we stand in the face of martial law, how many whistle blowers are going to have to come forward before you doubt the story of your government? Or start wondering about the 23 omitted pages of the official 9/11 report.
There is a war going on for your mind.« Last Edit: Thursday July 23rd at 07:03 AM by UOGSammich »
Quote from: UOGSammich on July 22, 2009, 04:17 AM NHFT
QuoteQuote from: akmisrmaadi on April 22, 2009, 02:34 AM NHFT
as well as literally thousands of first hand accounts of a plane hitting the pentagon.
Well apparently only 138 accounts were documented...
Yeah, this is typical of some of the uninformed commentary here.
Quote from: UOGSammich on July 22, 2009, 04:17 AM NHFT
After reading the majority of this thread all the way back from 2005... trying to comment on over 100 pages of post.
Good on you for reading it all. :o Your eyes must have been buggin out like this guy by the time you were done. :o
You might consider joining the Meetup group for Merrimack Valley 911 Truth at http://mv911t.org (we shortened our domain name from a longer MerrimackValley911Truth.org when that registration expired.
Quote from: UOGSammich on July 22, 2009, 04:17 AM NHFT
This, along with the FSP, are two movements I am willing to stand for.
Welcome aboard - it's the truth part of "truth, justice and the American way!" ;D
Quote from: jaqeboy on July 22, 2009, 11:56 AM NHFT
Quote from: UOGSammich on July 22, 2009, 04:17 AM NHFT
QuoteQuote from: akmisrmaadi on April 22, 2009, 02:34 AM NHFT
as well as literally thousands of first hand accounts of a plane hitting the pentagon.
Well apparently only 138 accounts were documented...
Yeah, this is typical of some of the uninformed commentary here.
Quote from: UOGSammich on July 22, 2009, 04:17 AM NHFT
After reading the majority of this thread all the way back from 2005... trying to comment on over 100 pages of post.
Good on you for reading it all. :o Your eyes must have been buggin out like this guy by the time you were done. :o
You might consider joining the Meetup group for Merrimack Valley 911 Truth at http://mv911t.org (we shortened our domain name from a longer MerrimackValley911Truth.org when that registration expired.
Thanks for the info, the only unfortunate part was not all the links have made it from 05. :/
After staying up nearly all night and reading the thread I can't remember if this was posted or not, but its the eye witness accounts of 13 people who saw the plane heading for the pentagon, all 13 accounts are completely different than the pentagon's official story, and most of them are 100% sure. It seems like documentary has taken more of a "serious" approach, whether its been posted or not the people who didnt bother to read the whole thread should at least see this :
Just learned of another 911 Truth group forming in New-Hampshire from this email from George Corette of Empire Watch:
===========================
On Thursday, July 23rd, Shelby Grantham and Lynn Rosenbloom of the Upper Valley 9/11 Truth Alliance will be guests on WKNH's Empire Watch. This recently formed organization is boldly moving forward in actions and education, and is currently offering a 6 week film series in the upper valley of NH and Vermont.
Grantham and Rosenbloom will discuss their experiences in forming their regional group, the response of the public, and future efforts that are on the horizon.
Empire Watch can be heard every Thursday at 9:00am (EST) on WKNH (91.3), and can be live streamed at wknh.org.
NOTE: Empire Watch is now putting up archives of its shows at the website below: http://radio4all.net/index.php/series/Empire+Watch
My initial post has been updated, I provided many links.. I am quite proud of the post as a whole.
Quote from: UOGSammich on July 22, 2009, 04:17 AM NHFT
...BBC supposedly reporting the collapse of WTC 7 23 minutes before it actually happened...
CNN reported the collapse a full hour before, but Aaron Brown fluffs it off as confusion of the day, since he turns around and sees it still standing. Jane Standley of BBC is not familiar with the NYC skyline, so she doesn't know that she's reporting on a building that is still standing behind her left shoulder.
CNN reporting of collapse by Aaron Brown: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N1LetB0z8_o
Remarkably, CNN reporter Allan Dodds Frank also reports the collapse at 10:45 AM, just 15 minutes after the collapse of the 2nd tower: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_E6RhuEQu4
9/11 in New York City - 8th anniversary memorial and conference.
There is a conference in NYC this year on 9/11 called "Change and Transparency"
link: http://changeandtransparency.blogspot.com/
I think Sander Hicks is the lead organizer.
There is talk of putting together a charter bus ride down to NYC with possibly a budget accomodation arrangement included. I'll post details as I find out about them.
Former FBI Translator: Bin Laden Worked for U.S. Right Up Until 9/11
from Washington's blog:
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2009/07/former-fbi-translator-bin-laden-worked.html
Before you hear what she has to say, you should know a little about Sibel Edmonds' background.
Edmonds is a former FBI translator, who the Department of Justice's Inspector General and several senators have called extremely credible (free subscription required).
Some of Edmonds allegations' have been confirmed in the British press.
Now, Edmonds is saying that Osama Bin Laden worked for the U.S. right up until 9/11, and that that fact is being covered up because the US outsourced terror operations to al Qaeda and the Taliban for many years.
Is there are confirmation of Edmonds' claim?
Yes.
According to one of the most reputable French papers, CIA agents met with Bin Laden two months before 9/11, when he was already supposedly wanted for the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole.
Two days before 9/11, Bin Laden called his stepmother and told her "In two days, you're going to hear big news and you're not going to hear from me for a while." US officials later told CNN that "in recent years they've been able to monitor some of bin Laden's telephone communications with his [step]mother. Bin Laden at the time was using a satellite telephone, and the signals were intercepted and sometimes recorded." Indeed, before 9/11, to impress important visitors, NSA analysts would occasionally play audio tapes of bin Laden talking to his stepmother.
...
US poet Jerry Mazza: 9/11 was an inside job (http://dandelionsalad.wordpress.com/2009/08/05/us-poet-jerry-mazza-911-was-an-inside-job/)
New York journalist and poet Jerry Mazza speaks with RT's [Russia Today] Anastasia Churkina about 9/11, Iraq and Afghanistan – and the effects they have had on the American psyche.
New Ground Zero Photos from FEMA Photographer Kurt Sonnenfeld (http://www.911blogger.com/node/20835)
FEMA photographer Kurt Sonnenfeld (recently interviewed by Voltairenet) has released a new set of World Trade Center disaster site images. Some were previously available, but the majority are new and high quality.
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 10, 2009, 01:58 PM NHFT
New Ground Zero Photos from FEMA Photographer Kurt Sonnenfeld (http://www.911blogger.com/node/20835)
FEMA photographer Kurt Sonnenfeld (recently interviewed by Voltairenet) has released a new set of World Trade Center disaster site images. Some were previously available, but the majority are new and high quality.
Downloading the whole imageset from bittorrent now, thank you!
good to grab them while you can!
Have you checked out the local video screening meetup, http://mv911t.org?
Yes I checked it out, I am still living in Alabama at the time though. Probably until I complete my college education, but thank you. :D
QuoteProbably until I complete my college education, but thank you.
If you still believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, you might want to hit the books a little harder until you graduate.
Can this thread (like the Ed & Elaine Brown thread) PLEASE DIE!?!?
Quote from: Little Owl on August 10, 2009, 07:59 PM NHFT
QuoteProbably until I complete my college education, but thank you.
If you still believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, you might want to hit the books a little harder until you graduate.
Can this thread (like the Ed & Elaine Brown thread) PLEASE DIE!?!?
If you still believe the official line, there's probably not much hope for you.
Quote from: Little Owl on August 10, 2009, 07:59 PM NHFT
QuoteProbably until I complete my college education, but thank you.
If you still believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, you might want to hit the books a little harder until you graduate.
Can this thread (like the Ed & Elaine Brown thread) PLEASE DIE!?!?
Can you please define the term 'conspiracy theory'? As far as I can tell, it's nothing more than a buzzword concocted by the propagandists to discredit anyone who dares think rather than swallow the 'official story'.
Perhaps instead of focusing on this issue, we focus on the blowback aspect. Its easier for a non-technical person to discuss with some knowledge. Frankly, I don't involve myself in these things anymore because there's just too much to look into and I'm already swamped with reading material. Its best, occasionally, to just admit you are ignorant of a subject and leave it at that.
It should also be noted that conspiracy theories can't be rejected or accepted by virtue of being a conspiracy theory. Each one has to be investigated individually. To do otherwise, is a logical fallacy.
Here's an interesting article by a local ally regarding the militarization of space aspect of 9/11 politics:
Space for Peace and September 11
A flyby perspective
By Jonathan Mark
One of the stranger events that happened near the end of the 20th Century was when NASA conducted two "flybys" around Venus on a journey towards Saturn. A flyby is a maneuver in frictionless space using gravity from a planet for a slingshot-acceleration effect. The strange part regarding "Cassini" was that it had 72.3 pounds of radioactive plutonium on board, and was scheduled for an Earth-flyby on August 17/18, 1999, while traveling at around 10 miles per second. Fortunately there was no inadvertent collision with Earth's atmosphere, but why would NASA risk life on Earth while exploring the solar system?
Karl Grossman, author of "The Wrong Stuff: The US Space Program's Nuclear Threat To Our Planet," answered my question. He pointed to the U.S. Air Force report, "New World Vistas: Air and Space Power for The 2lst Century" where it stated "In the next two decades, new technologies will allow the fielding of space-based weapons of devastating effectiveness to be used to deliver energy and mass as force projection in tactical and strategic conflict.
...
Within months after 9/11 crimes, with Congress in his palm, Bush terminated the ABM Treaty.
...
Word doc of entire article here: http://files.meetup.com/300645/Space%20for%20Peace%20and%20September%2011.doc
Quote from: EthanLeeVita on August 11, 2009, 03:45 AM NHFT
...It should also be noted that conspiracy theories can't be rejected or accepted by virtue of being a conspiracy theory. Each one has to be investigated individually. To do otherwise, is a logical fallacy.
An interesting point and maybe a clarification regarding the 9/11 Truth movement is in order.
Many have rejected the Official Conspiracy Theory about the events of September 11, 2001 (and the anthrax letters scare following) and suspect something other than the official conspiracy theory has been afoot.
The 9/11 Truth movement is, then, a conspiracy theory de-bunking movement.
Independent investigators, whistle-blowers, scientists and news-followers piece together scraps of observations and evidence and begin to detect a pattern that is far different than the official conspiracy theory. Residents of New York City, for example, are now rallying to establish a city-based criminal investigative commission to investigate the crime (which has not been done to date by NYC authorities, since the feds swooped down and "established what happened" in 48 hours time with the pretty full statement of the Official Conspiracy Theory). The designers of the NYC petition for an investigative commission have tried to create a commission that could not be subverted by agenda-driven establishment hacks and to enlist people power to create the political pressure to make it succeed. (See other thread on the NYC 9/11 petition)
Tuesday, September 1, 2009
Merrimack Valley 911 Truth (http://mv911t.org) presents:
This month in Nashua:
The Obama Deception, a film by Alex Jones
(http://lh3.ggpht.com/_TufT5UxJYSQ/SpvcX6ycNEI/AAAAAAAAAvM/x0xQqk7W_O0/s800/ObamaDeception.jpg)
Tyrrany gets a facelift!
The Obama Deception is a hard-hitting film that completely destroys the myth that Barack Obama is working for the best interests of the American people.
The Obama phenomenon is a hoax carefully crafted by the captains of the New World Order. He is being pushed as savior in an attempt to con the American people into accepting global slavery.
We have reached a critical juncture in the New World Order's plans. It's not about Left or Right: it's about a One World Government. The international banks plan to loot the people of the United States and turn them into slaves on a Global Plantation.
Covered in this film: who Obama works for, what lies he has told, and his real agenda. If you want to know the facts and cut through all the hype, this is the film for you.
Watch the Obama Deception and learn how:
- Obama is continuing the process of transforming America into something that resembles Nazi Germany, with forced National Service, domestic civilian spies, warrantless wiretaps, the destruction of the Second Amendment, FEMA camps and Martial Law.
- Obama's handlers are openly announcing the creation of a new Bank of the World that will dominate every nation on earth through carbon taxes and military force.
- International bankers purposefully engineered the worldwide financial meltdown to bankrupt the nations of the planet and bring in World Government.
- Obama plans to loot the middle class, destroy pensions and federalize the states so that the population is completely dependent on the Central Government.
- The Elite are using Obama to pacify the public so they can usher in the North American Union by stealth, launch a new Cold War and continue the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.
The information contained in this film is vital to the future of the Republic and to freedom worldwide. President Barack Obama is only the tool of a larger agenda. Until all are made aware, humanity will remain captive to the masters of the New World Order.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Short subjects - bring what you think others should see - we'll see what shorts we have time to view. We also have the capability to show You Tube and Google videos, so bring your links.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We have screenings every Tuesday somewhere in the Merrimack Valley: 1st Tuesday-Nashua; 2nd Tuesday-Manchester; 3rd Tuesday-Concord; 4th Tuesdays are now OPEN. If there's a 5th Tuesday in a month, we'll have a special organizing meeting.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Location: Balanced Health Center, 9 Simon Street, Nashua, map here (http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?msa=0&msid=104627627601510443029.000472726729ebbdb8191&hl=en&ie=UTF8&ll=42.751424,-71.48881&spn=0.010888,0.019205&z=16).
Please arrive by 7:00 PM, since this meeting is on a tight schedule. We'll start a brief business meeting at 7 and the video will begin promptly at 7:30.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please bring healthy snacks and/or drinks for sharing, since some may have come to our meeting directly from work.
Contributing a box of your favorite tea is always a good idea to build an inventory of available beverages at Balanced Health!
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Parking is in the lot in right in front of the building and Balanced Health is the last office bay on the right. You'll see the Sunset Restaurant at the far left end.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Newspaper - For an interesting paper which covers 9/11 Truth issues and other topics of concern, visit the Rock Creek Free Press out of Washington, D.C. (http://rockcreekfreepress.com) and see our meetup page for others (http://9-11.meetup.com/307/pages/Newspapers_and_Journals/).
--------------------------------------------------------------------
We have set up a "carpooling group" online at eRideShare.com. Ride-sharing arrangements can now be made by clicking on the link above (http://mv911t.erideshare.com) to go to the online ridesharing group. Our group nickname is "mv911t" and our password is "truth". You can post if you are driving to one of our events and have extra seats - if you're looking for a ride to an event just logon and post that you're seeking a ride. ( Donations to the driver for gas are always appreciated.)
Charlie Sheen spends...
Twenty Minutes With The President (http://www.prisonplanet.com/twenty-minutes-with-the-president.html)
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
I recently had the pleasure of sitting down with our 44th President of the United States of America, Barack Hussein Obama, while he was out promoting his health care reform initiative. I requested 30 minutes given the scope and detail of my inquiry; they said I could have 20. Twenty minutes, 1200 seconds, not a lot of time to question the President about one of the most important events in our nation's history. The following is a transcript of our remarkable discussion.
...
QuoteCharlie Sheen – I really wish that were the case, sir. Are you aware, Mr. President, of the recent stunning revelations that sixty percent of the 9/11 commissioners have publicly stated that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11 and that the Pentagon was engaged in deliberate deception (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html) about their response to the attack?
Good article about Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://ae911truth.org) in a Silicon Valley paper, MetroActive:
Explosive Theory (http://www.metroactive.com/metro/09.09.09/cover-0936.html)
Eight years after 9/11, a growing organization of building trades professionals suspect that there was more to the event than the government will admit
By Jay Levin and Tom McKenzie
JUST A FEW YEARS ago Ed Munyak, a fire protection engineer for the city of San Jose, seemed like a lonely, out-there figure, a sometimes-target because of his outspoken position on the events of Sept. 11, 2001. These days, hundreds of other building trade professionals have joined him in challenging the official narrative about the collapse of three buildings at New York's World Trade Center (WTC) on that fateful, traumatic day.
Munyak, of Los Altos Hills, is a mechanical and fire engineer whose job is to review building plans to ensure they comply with the California Building and Fire Code. In 2007, after speaking out on his own for a few years, Munyak signed on with a then-fledging organization called Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (AE911 Truth), founded by Bay Area architect Richard Gage.
Today, far from being isolated, Munyak now counts as allies 804 professional architects and building engineers from around the country. Collectively, they have joined Munyak's call for an independent technical investigation of the causes of the WTC buildings collapse. In doing so, they reject the federal government's conclusions that two airplanes alone brought the buildings down—without the aid of pre-planted explosives.
...
Here's a key technical section from the article about the architect/engineer's analysis:
QuoteLike Munyak, Gage cites the fact that steel framing serves as a heat conductor, actually cooling fires and equalizing the burden on any one steel section. "The steel doesn't get to the temperature that would cause it to weaken," he says. "No steel-framed high rise has ever collapsed due to fire, and we have almost 100 examples."
As for NIST's theory that once the towers' impact-area beams gave way, the mass above them would rapidly crush the lower stories, Gage argues that the premise ignores the laws of physics.
"No force can crush that kind of a structure at near freefall speed. It's ludicrous," he says. "Not only that, the videos show that 95 percent of the south tower is being blown outside, indicating explosions. And the top of the north tower is being reduced from 15 stories to seven stories before it even starts to drop. Half of its mass is destroyed in the first two seconds.
"The remaining mass cannot fall at near freefall speed and crush 80,000 tons of steel and pulverize to powder 90,000 tons of concrete and create tons of molten metal by some unknowable process."
Quote from: Little Owl on August 10, 2009, 07:59 PM NHFT
QuoteProbably until I complete my college education, but thank you.
If you still believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories, you might want to hit the books a little harder until you graduate.
Can this thread (like the Ed & Elaine Brown thread) PLEASE DIE!?!?
Hmm. After reading several of your comments here on the forum, your position is quite clear now. I will skip over your posts from now on. Thank you, Owl O'Reilly.
Littlehawk
"Media for 9/11 Truth (http://mediafor911truth.org/)", or
Journalists & Other Media Professionals for 9/11 Truth (http://jomp911t.org/)
Yet another professional group has formed "for 9/11 Truth". Over the weekend, Cheryl Curtiss advised that the site for Media for 9/11 Truth has started up. As the word gets out, others will undoubtedly be joining the organization. It's anticipated that most members of this group will be independent media, since the major media are "owned" by the rulers.
Maybe the New Hampshire Free Press would like to join!
A really good article by Paul Craig Roberts: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article23498.htm
Excerpts:
An article in the journal, Sociological Inquiry, casts light on the effectiveness of propaganda. Researchers examined why big lies succeed where little lies fail. Governments can get away with mass deceptions, but politicians cannot get away with sexual affairs.
The staying power of the Big Lie is the barrier through which the 9/11 Truth Movement is finding it difficult to break. The assertion that the 9/11 Truth Movement consists of conspiracy theorists and crackpots is obviously untrue. The leaders of the movement are highly qualified professionals, such as demolition experts, physicists, structural architects, engineers, pilots, and former high officials in the government. Unlike their critics parroting the government's line, they know what they are talking about.
People don't even notice the contradictions. Recently, an international team of scientists, who studied for 18 months dust samples produced by the twin towers' destruction collected from three separate sources, reported their finding of nano-thermite in the dust. The US government had scientists dependent on the US government to debunk the finding on the grounds that the authenticity of custody of the samples could not be verified. In other words, someone had tampered with the samples and added the nano-thermite. This is all it took to discredit the finding, despite the obvious fact that access to thermite is strictly controlled and NO ONE except the US military and possibly Israel has access to nano-thermite.
What I find puzzling is the people I know who do not believe a word the government says about anything except 9/11. For reasons that escape me, they believe that the government that lies to them about everything else tells them the truth about 9/11. How can this be, I ask them. Did the government slip up once and tell the truth? My question does not cause them to rethink their belief in the government's 9/11 story. Instead, they get angry with me for doubting their intelligence or their integrity or some such hallowed trait.
Quote from: Little Owl on August 10, 2009, 07:59 PM NHFT
If you still believe the 9/11 conspiracy theories...
Can this thread (like the Ed & Elaine Brown thread) PLEASE DIE!?!?
I don't believe the 9/11 conspiracy theory
until the government proves otherwise i will think that they blew up those buildings
good threads don't die
BTW, the conference in NYC over the weekend (http://nhunderground.com/forum/index.php?topic=18845.0) was great - I could post some details over on the thread for that.
The head writer for Murder She Wrote is a truther and has written a novel incorporating 9/11 elements, No Place to Run (http://sterlingandross.com/NoPlace%20to%20Run.html). He spoke after Steve Alten (http://www.stevealten.com/shell_game.htm), author of Shell Game. Alten re-wrote parts of Shell Game for paperback release changing anything that presumed McCain was the president over to Obama.
An interesting parallel.... Hmmm, Death Star Truth?
Hey Mikey!
http://www.prisonplanet.com/chertoff-911-truth-is-akin-to-holocaust-denial.html
Good going by the Monadnock 911 Truth Alliance and Keene State College!:
College Hosts Whistleblower (http://monadnock911truthalliance.blogspot.com/2009/09/keene-state-college-newspaper-covers.html)
Kevin Ryan, formerly of Underwriters Laboratories spoke last Saturday, 12 Sept.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september112009/911_truth_9-11-09.php
(CINCINNATI, Ohio) - In John Farmer's book: "The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America's Defense on 9/11?, the author builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version... is almost entirely untrue...
The 9/11 Commission now tells us that the official version of 9/11 was based on false testimony and documents and is almost entirely untrue. The details of this massive cover-up are carefully outlined in a book by John Farmer, who was the Senior Counsel for the 9/11 Commission....
===========
When are the government apologists gonna face reality and say 'uncle'?
Rich
Good find, MT!
These statements hit me:
QuoteFarmer states..."at some level of the government, at some point in time...there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened... I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described .... The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years. This is not spin."
QuoteNow that we know that intelligence given the 9/11 Commission wasn't just lies from our own government but based on testimony coerced through torture from informants forced to back up a cover story now proven false, a pattern emerges.
Quote...any failure to call to account the systematic perjury committed by dozens of top government officials, now exposed as a certainty is an offense to every American.
Quote...we know we were lied to, not in a minor way, but systematically as part of a plot covering up government involvement at nearly every level, perhaps gross negligence, perhaps something with darker intent.
QuoteCan anyone call themselves an American if they don't demand, even with the last drop of their blood, that the truth be found?
For local video screenings, go to http://mv911t.org
"I was given direct orders to shoot down an airliner,"... (http://www.dcdave.com/article5/090924.htm)
also:
QuoteNEADS (North East Air Defense Sector) Commander Robert Marr reported that around 9:36, when it changed direction, while it is still flying west, United 93 was being monitored. NORAD Commander Major General Larry Arnold agreed, saying, "We watched the 93 track as it meandered around the Ohio-Pennsylvania area."
contradicting:
QuoteThe official timeline has FAA headquarters knowing that United 93 was hijacked by 9:34, but not telling NEADS of the hijacking until 10:07, after the plane had crashed at 10:03 in Pennsylvania.
Folks, in response to the last message that I posted and which I sent to my e-mail list, a friend of mine who happens to be a scientist sent me a presentation that shocked even me. It includes footage I've never seen of steel beams disintegrating and turning into dust in mid-air. Here is Albert's message as he sent it to me:
==========
Rich:
Dr Judy Wood
Madison 9/11 Conference
Organized by Jim Fetzer, Aug 3rd-5th, 2007
Dr Wood's important degrees:
Civil Engineering – Structures
Engineering Mechanics – Applied Physics
PhD – Materials Engineering Science
Former Professor – Mechanical Engineering, Clemson University
Watch and listen to Part 1, thoughtfully, and with an open mind, and you will watch the rest with an even more open mind. This is not a "conspiracy theory." This is scientific analysis. And if you give your brain a chance to "get it," to see what it does not want to see, you will be amazed. Notice the steel I-beams peeling away from the top of one of the Twin Towers as it begins to go down. Instead of falling to the street below, they dissipate in mid-air into a cloud of white powder! The structure of the Twin Towers was mostly steel – not concrete. Much of the powder all over NYC was from the steel – not just from concrete! Automobiles along the streets blocks away were sitting there with their steel engine blocks gone! I am shocked, stunned, and nearly clueless as to the technology that must have been used to do this. And I have a degree in physics. It wasn't heat, because paper still littered the streets all around the cars. And I am disgusted with our controlled national news media that failed to tell the truth, and with the politicians who lied and covered up. Watch with an inquisitive, open mind. Replay it if you can't believe it, and think about it some more. See for yourself and form your own opinion, as Dr. Wood did. This may be a painful exercise, and a painful habit to form, but it is necessary if we are to "get it" in life. I am still in shock about what I have realized about 911 by viewing Dr. Wood's presentation. One of the most important things to pursue in life is truth. I started out in life by saying, "Why, Daddy?" I still ask, "Why, Father."
9/11: The New Hiroshima pt.1/14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M1JFCpFd6CA
9/11: The New Hiroshima pt.2/14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAammapHZGk&feature=related
9/11: The New Hiroshima pt.3/14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=709opQ7tyFM&feature=related
9/11: The New Hiroshima pt.4/14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LA8NGCvmLwM&feature=related
9/11: The New Hiroshima pt.5/14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YA1DAAvlfJU&feature=related
9/11: The New Hiroshima pt.6/14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X7l_hT3b8w8&feature=related
9/11: The New Hiroshima pt.7/14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mI3p1hvBK-E&feature=related
9/11: The New Hiroshima pt.8/14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UzDnbbqsJw&feature=related
9/11: The New Hiroshima pt.9/14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PcB_gqv77So&feature=related
9/11: The New Hiroshima pt.10/14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ayWPY5K2OTs&feature=related
9/11: The New Hiroshima pt.11/14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXVSc3Ma71o&feature=related
9/11: The New Hiroshima pt.12/14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WR0lGfU7s0&feature=related
9/11: The New Hiroshima pt.13/14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfdpZ9OIOOI&feature=related
9/11: The New Hiroshima pt.14/14
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdtnOr1xRZM&feature=related
I know this is an old event, but just ran across this video of Joe Scarborough urging police to "taser him" (from his comfortable studio chair) - the victim's sin: stating "9-11 was an Inside Job" to a politician.
American Patriot Movement - Media Threat to 911 Truth
amazing info Rich ... where did all that stuff go ... it wasn't even filling up the basement floors.
I thought it was carted off, but it wasn't there on the first day
jaqe .... that is sad how they want to hurt that man and take care of poor bill clinton
The 9/11 Commission Rejects Own Report As Based On Government Lies!!
...
"Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission..."
There's another professional group for 9/11 truth that's just been announced:
Actors and Artists for 911 Truth
http://aa911truth.com/
Their membership will go on the site soon. There's a petition that artists and actors can sign.
Pretty sure Charlie Sheen is in on this...
Mark Crispin Miller speaks about the 9/11 statement that Van Jones signed and other things. This was just last weekend at the NYC CAN March for Answers.
One of the scientists who has examined the WTC dust presented several things last night at the Merrimack Valley 911 Truth Nashua meeting.
He calls our attention to the following 2 short videos and commentary by David Chandler for Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth. You'll have to draw your own conclusions on these 2 amazing videos and his analysis:
South Tower Smoking GunsSouth Tower Smoking Guns (Follow-up)
What Happened in New York on 9 11 2009 This Year? I Don't Think You Knew About This, Did You?
David Ray Griffin has a new book out, The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False (Paperback)
The book: http://www.amazon.com/Mysterious-Collapse-World-Trade-Center/dp/1566567866/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top
The reviews: http://www.amazon.com/Mysterious-Collapse-World-Trade-Center/product-reviews/1566567866/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?ie=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
Here's the email announcement from David Ray Griffin about his new book:
The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False (Olive Branch Press, 2009), by David Ray Griffin
At 5:20 in the afternoon on 9/11, Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed, even though it had not been struck by a plane and had fires on only a few floors. The reason for its collapse was considered a mystery. In August 2008, NIST (the National Institute of Standards and Technology) issued its report on WTC 7, declaring that "the reason for the collapse of World Trade Center 7 is no longer a mystery" and that "science is really behind what we have said." Showing that neither of these claims is true, David Ray Griffin demonstrates that NIST is guilty of the most serious types of scientific fraud: fabricating, falsifying, and ignoring evidence. He also shows that NIST's report left intact the central mystery: How could a building damaged by fire—not explosives—have come down in free fall?
"A definitive study of what happens when political concerns are permitted to override science and the scientific method. With intellectual finesse worthy of a scientist, Griffin shows that NIST's WTC 7 report has no scientific credibility. A must read for all concerned with the restoration of science to its 'rightful place' in our democracy."—John D. Wyndham, Ph.D., Physics, Cambridge University; former Research Fellow at the California Institute of Technology
"David Ray Griffin has written a powerful book that asks disturbing questions and seeks to debunk myths about September 11. It is provocative, well-researched, and beyond convincing."—Rosie O'Donnell
"David Ray Griffin has provided a comprehensive dismantling of NIST's theory about WTC 7, according to which it suffered global collapse because of ordinary building fires. Besides showing that NIST committed massive scientific fraud, Griffin also points out that NIST was able to complete its theory only by affirming a miracle: a steel-framed high-rise building coming down in free fall even though explosives had not been used to remove its columns."—Richard Gage, member of American Institute of Architects; founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth
"During my 33 years as a research physicist at the Naval Research Laboratory, it was my great joy to be able to contribute to the advancement of science without the slightest interference by NRL officials. So I was sickened to read in David Ray Griffin's assiduously researched book of unequivocal evidence for massive scientific fraud committed by a politicized NIST. I implore President Obama to end the subversion of science at NIST and open a new, unfettered, investigation of the 9/11 attacks." —David L. Griscom, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of the American Physical Society
"If you consider it important that the US government's science agencies provide truthful information to the public, this book by David Ray Griffin is a must read. It shows beyond a shadow of doubt that NIST's report on the 'collapse' of WTC 7 did not tell us the truth."—Dwain Deets, former Director for Research Engineering at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
"Once again, David Ray Griffin has taken on a complicated piece of the 9/11 story and made it understandable. Whether you are a novice about 9/11 or have been following the inconsistencies of the government's story closely, you will find Griffin's new book enlightening." —Lorie Van Auken, widow of Kenneth Van Auken, who was killed at WTC 1 on 9/11, and member of the Family Steering Committee for the 9/11 Commission
"Based on my engineering knowledge and experience, I fully agree with Dr. Griffin's conclusion that NIST's report on the collapse of WTC 7 is pseudo-science, containing claims that are misleading and even outright false. Numerous contradictions exposed by outside experts during the public review process were completely ignored, because they did not fit NIST's contrived explanation." —Jack Keller, Fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers; member of the National Academy of Engineering
"In 2004, over 15,000 scientists charged that the Bush administration had engaged in persistent 'distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends.' In this book, David Ray Griffin shows that NIST's report on the destruction of WTC 7 is plagued throughout with various forms of scientific fraud, all of which point to a deliberate effort to avoid the extensive evidence that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition."—Earl Staelin, attorney in Denver, Colorado
"Professor Griffin's meticulous dissection of NIST's WTC 7 report shows just why its theory of fire-induced progressive collapse is wholly inadequate and essentially fraudulent, and why the actual demise of this huge building could have been brought about only by intentional demolition, which could have been set up and carried out only by domestic forces."—Tony Szamboti, mechanical engineer and former member of the US Navy
David Ray Griffin has published 35 books in philosophy (including philosophy of science), religion, and politics. His previous book about 9/11, The New Pearl Harbor Revisited, was a Publishers Weekly "Pick of the Week" in November 2008.
The Mysterious Collapse of World Trade Center 7: Why the Final Official Report About 9/11 Is Unscientific and False is available at Interlink Books (http://www.interlinkbooks.com) and at local bookstores for $20.
It is also available at Amazon.com (http://www.amazon.com/Mysterious-Collapse-World-Trade-Center/dp/1566567866/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1250003848&sr=1-7) for $13.60.
Reviews
"David Ray Griffin has written a powerful book that asks disturbing questions and seeks to debunk myths about September 11. It is provocative, well-researched, and beyond convincing."—Rosie O'Donnell
"During my 33 years as a research physicist at the Naval Research Laboratory, it was my great joy to be able to contribute to the advancement of science without the slightest interference by NRL officials. So I was sickened to read in David Ray Griffin's assiduously researched book of unequivocal evidence for massive scientific fraud committed by a politicized NIST. I implore President Obama to end the subversion of science at NIST and open a new, unfettered, investigation of the 9/11 attacks." —David L. Griscom, Fellow of the American Association for the Advancement of Science and of the American Physical Society
"If you consider it important that the US government's science agencies provide truthful information to the public, this book by David Ray Griffin is a must read. It shows beyond a shadow of doubt that NIST's report on the 'collapse' of WTC 7 did not tell us the truth."—Dwain Deets, former Director for Research Engineering at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center
This ought to cover just about everybody else:
World 9/11 Truth (http://world911truth.org/)
They post:
Historic 9/11 Debate with Bigard, Laurent, Kassovitz and Harrit on French TV (http://world911truth.org/historic-911-debate-with-bigard-laurent-kassovitz-and-harrit-on-french-tv/)
World for 9/11 Truth Mission
World for 9/11 Truth (W9T.org), which started on May 12th, 2009, is a grassroots campaign to unify the world behind one single idea: a new independent investigation for 9/11.
Millions of people around the world doubt the official version of the Bush administration and the 9/11 Commission, and this number is growing every day. Our goal is clear: we want all these people to sign our petition.
We are also calling on all 9/11 Truth Movement local groups to support this initiative. We hope to work with all of you very soon. Here you will find fliers and other documents to distribute in your area in support of our petition.
Let's all unite behind a new independent 9/11 investigation and let's show the world how big this movement really is.
What's in the WTC dust? Stephen Jones began analyzing it a couple of years ago, and now a local scientist has followed up on Jones' work and he's coming to Concord to give his report!
Be sure to forward this announcement around to friends who are interested.
Join our Facebook group: Merrimack Valley 911 Truth, and
follow us on Twitter: mv911truth
This month in Concord:
Merrimack Valley 911 Truth (http://mv911t.org) presents:
Loose Change: Final Cut (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3719259008768610598#)
AND... a local scientist examines the WTC dust (http://9-11.meetup.com/307/calendar/11644541/?action=cancelchange)! A slide presentation and Q & A session. We welcome Mark Basile who has examined the dust under a scanning electron microscope and devised apparati to determine the ignition temperature of some special pieces found in the dust. This will OPEN your eyes!
Mark met Dr. Steven Jones, who wrote one of the first scholarly papers asking "Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Completely Collapse?" (http://www.journalof911studies.com/volume/200609/WhyIndeedDidtheWorldTradeCenterBuildingsCompletelyCollapse.pdf), at a Boston Tea Party for 9/11 event in December 0f 2007 and joined him in the independent research of some of the remaining forensic evidence of the 9/11 tragedy - the dust that covered everything for blocks around the WTC site in Lower Manhattan.
Mark has examined the samples to determine the exact composition of certain iron-containing particles and confirmed Dr. Jones' findings. There are iron micro-spheres in the dust and also red-gray particles containing unignited thermite! The question becomes then "Since these materials don't appear in normal building materials, why are they in the WTC collapse dust?" Come see the report of Mark's findings and draw your own conclusions.
Mark Basile will present his report first, followed by a question and answer session. (In the coming days, we'll post a copy of Mark's presentation in our files area of our site mv911t.org.)
Then, make the popcorn and stay for Loose Change - Final Cut.
The Loose Change series is a good introduction to the public. The first Loose Change swept the internet and was responsible for thousands of internet-savvy people becoming aware of the 9/11 issue.
See the official website to purchase a copy on DVD: http://loosechange911.com.
Bring your blank DVDs to the meeting and be sure to get a copy of each video we screen.
We won't have time for other short videos this time, but bring your favorites for us to choose from for viewing in the future.
We have screenings every Tuesday somewhere in the Merrimack Valley: 1st Tuesday-Nashua; 2nd Tuesday-Manchester; 3rd Tuesday-Concord; the 4th Tuesday is open for a more northern meeting.
Please arrive at 6:30 if you can, in order to help set up the healthy snacks and beverages (that you bring to share with others - a box of tea for Jim's inventory would be appreciated) and enjoy the pre-meeting networking. We'll start a brief business meeting at 7 and then on to the video showing right after that.
Newspaper - For an interesting paper which covers 9/11 Truth issues and other topics of concern, visit the Rock Creek Free Press (http://rockcreekfreepress.com) out of Washington, D.C.
Bring your friends! - Forward this invitation to everyone!
Write us at MerrimackValley911Truth@gmail.com with suggestions for next month.
Quote from: KBCraig on September 06, 2005, 09:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: katdillon on September 06, 2005, 09:05 PM NHFT
What about the numerous experts who say there's no way kerosene can melt steel?
There's about 1,500-2,000F difference (depending on composition) between "melt" and "soft as putty".
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel)
Structural steel increases in strength as it's temperature rises to just above 400 deg. F and then starts to weaken.
Structural steel does not go below it's design strength until around 700 deg. F.
The open air burn temperature of Jet A fuel is only 549.5 °F.
If these two sources are correct there is not enough heat available in an aircraft to collapse any steel reinforced structure.
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 23, 2009, 11:16 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on September 06, 2005, 09:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: katdillon on September 06, 2005, 09:05 PM NHFT
What about the numerous experts who say there's no way kerosene can melt steel?
There's about 1,500-2,000F difference (depending on composition) between "melt" and "soft as putty".
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel)
Structural steel increases in strength as it's temperature rises to just above 400 deg. F and then starts to weaken.
Structural steel does not go below it's design strength until around 700 deg. F.
The open air burn temperature of Jet A fuel is only 549.5 °F.
If these two sources are correct there is not enough heat available in an aircraft to collapse any steel reinforced structure.
"Open air burn temperature" is what happens if you pour a puddle on a flat surface and light it. That doesn't seem to apply when a 110 story chimney is involved. Is the temperature in your wood stove running wide open with a properly drawing stack the same as a match after ignition? No.
You, being a man well versed in the metallurgical arts, understand the difference between a dull sooty acetylene flame, and one with oxygen added: it's the difference between a miner's lamp, and a cutting torch.
The difference between open air burn for kerosene (in the Jet A formulation) and a forced air situation (in a jet engine) is a sixfold increase: ~550F in open air, and ~3500F inside a jet engine with normal atmospheric air added.
Obviously, the WTC didn't produce optimum conditions for maximum burn temperatures, but there was enough draft involved that the temps involved would have been well above open air burn temps. Even a small amount of air can make a difference: when lighting a wood fire, have you ever given a few gentle puffs that make it spring to life?
I'm not a scientist. I have no formal training in organic chemistry or physics. But I was a bit of a pyro as a kid, fascinated with blacksmithing, and I built my own forges. Blame Alex W. Bealer: my first forge was a hole in the ground and a bit of scrap metal tubing attached to a foot bellows intended for inflating pool floaties. With a fire built of wood scraps, I quickly discovered (to my dismay, at the time) that it's quite easy to take a piece of mild steel from "too cold to hammer", to "sparkling molten mess" with the addition of some ordinary air. And that was with a wood fire that, absent the forced air, might have burned happily along at about 500-600F.
KB beat me to the post ;D
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 23, 2009, 11:16 PM NHFT
Structural steel increases in strength as it's temperature rises to just above 400 deg. F and then starts to weaken.
Structural steel does not go below it's design strength until around 700 deg. F.
The open air burn temperature of Jet A fuel is only 549.5 °F.
If these two sources are correct there is not enough heat available in an aircraft to collapse any steel reinforced structure.
I think the factor you have overlooked is the chimney effect... the elevator shafts, with burning fuel in them, are equivalent to a chimney fire. A chimney fire from creosote reaches 2100 degrees.
http://www.mastersweep.com/IMP.HTM
I have read in the past that steel can deform due to uneven heating and that large cross section wood beams behave better during a fire because of this property.
I new I could get this thread going again... ;D
I'm betting at least two pages by this time tomorrow.
Hey Jimmy here is a k for your post... ;D
Insomniac Forum Posters Unite!
Besides the chimney affect does not explain the collapse.
also when my woodstove and chimney are working great .... they don't produce lots of black and white smoke or explosions that send bricks flying and put thermite in the dust across the street :)
mark's talk in concord was really interesting .... especially since we were only talking dust ... and really cool equipment to look at it
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 24, 2009, 03:30 AM NHFT
Besides the chimney affect does not explain the collapse.
Jimmy Jam... I don't know what happened, just addressing your post regarding the heat that the jet fuel might be able to create.
Russ baby... I've found nanothermite to be the perfect fire starter... of course they don't carry it at Walmart. :D
Black smoke is not indicitive of high temperture fire.
Quote from: Tunga on November 27, 2009, 04:25 PM NHFT
Black smoke is not indicitive of high temperture fire.
Not everything burns at the same temperature. If I have a roaring hot wood fire in the yard, it will give almost no smoke. If I add wet leaves, they will smolder and dump off a thick white smoke, while the temperature of the wood fire remains unchanged.
Just because secondary ignitions (things like furniture, carpet, curtains, paperwork, etc.) are ignited and give off thick smoke, is no evidence at all about what other temperatures may have been at play.
Appreciate the discussion on this, as a skeptic of the 911 inside job view, this camp appeared to jump to conclusion way to quick that the govt. did it; vs. US has pissed off much of the Muslim world for a long time and it is easy to believe a small group of younger guys would take retribution this far. As I study this it appears I need to keep an open mind as so much evidence has apparently been with held or destroyed. The early news accounts were all over the place. It just seems too improbable that insiders would work that well together to keep a conspiracy together of this magnitude without big disclosures eventually. Also not to disrespect Truthers but "bandwagoning" does easily occur. Testing, verification and skeptical inquiry should continue. Along with many events such as Kennedy assassination many people won't really be able to draw firm conclusions with what is left. Thanks Kat for the points brought up, I will study this work some more. Maybe I have to change my mind....
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 23, 2009, 11:16 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on September 06, 2005, 09:09 PM NHFT
Quote from: katdillon on September 06, 2005, 09:05 PM NHFT
What about the numerous experts who say there's no way kerosene can melt steel?
There's about 1,500-2,000F difference (depending on composition) between "melt" and "soft as putty".
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html (http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/metal-temperature-strength-d_1353.html)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel)
Structural steel increases in strength as it's temperature rises to just above 400 deg. F and then starts to weaken.
Structural steel does not go below it's design strength until around 700 deg. F.
The open air burn temperature of Jet A fuel is only 549.5 °F.
If these two sources are correct there is not enough heat available in an aircraft to collapse any steel reinforced structure.
There are a couple of additional factors that keep the steel temp from becoming as elevated as the air/gases around them - the heat has to get transferred from the gasses (low density, low heat content) into the steel (high density, much higher specific heat):
1) The steel is coated with several inches of fire-resistant material (asbestos in the old days). Its purpose is to prevent the heat from getting transferred into the steel for a couple of hours, by which time it is hoped that the office materials will have been fully combusted and not available as a heat source any longer. Some DO claim that the heat-resistant coating was blown off, but we are all at a loss as to how to actually determine that.
2) The steel is a good conductor of heat, so carries any heat transferred into it away from the site into the whole structure, so the site near the hot gas is hard pressed to get anywhere near the temperature of the hot gasses since all it's heat gets conducted away instantly.
[Observations were made of the discoloration of the paint on the structural steel and they determined what temp those pieces did get to (forget which agency did the report on this) and it wasn't hot enough to substantially weaken the steel.
This is pretty old stuff and Kevin Ryan's reports, videos, etc. are probably the best source on this.
Quote from: KBCraig on November 24, 2009, 02:07 AM NHFT
(much deleted for brevity)
"Open air burn temperature" is what happens if you pour a puddle on a flat surface and light it. That doesn't seem to apply when a 110 story chimney is involved....
The "110 story chimney" has been thoroughly and repeatedly refuted here and elsewhere, one time, I believe, with your son making that allegation. There was no chimney effect, as that is one of the known fire issues that the architects assure cannot happen with their designs (various firestop measures - won't repeat that here). There was an oxygen-starved fire(s) in WTC 1, 2 and 7 because the openings that would let oxygen in were relatively small. The smoke color indicates that.
I'd like to invite you to consider continually developing new evidence and join the current investigations, rather than re-live and re-hash arguments settled years ago.
Quote from: jaqeboy on November 27, 2009, 10:14 PM NHFT
I'd like to invite you to consider continually developing new evidence and join the current investigations, rather than re-live and re-hash arguments settled years ago.
No, I'm certain that people should start with an obvious problem that bothers them.
Once that problem is not sufficiently answerable, that is when they should join the current investigations.
People have to live and hash out problems for themselves.
I believe it is good to go back and seed with simpler questions to challenge the minds of people who were not ready in years past, but maybe ready now.
You did a great job with your last two posts, giving people things to continue to think about without being over bearing or condescending. :tiphat:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories
I reviewed points from this (for what time I could invest) from this board and think that some of the above link objectively addresses your concerns. Appreciate that opinions can be expressed here do not cause shunning. I will continue to study but I am skeptical and want to keep focused on reason, liberty and respect for those effected by the tragedy of 9/11. Hope that you visit this site and read w open mind. OK?
PattyLee, I'd like to ask you to consider this re-framing of the situation:
On September 13th, John Ashcroft (then Attorney General of the US) states his (the govt's) conspiracy theory, that 19 middle eastern terrorists, pictured on TV, hijacked and flew 4 airliners into 3 targets and a field in Pennsylvania. Their theory develops further to include that middle easterners are observed with boxcutters (observed by Barbara Olson and reported by phone from the plane - Flight 77), that American passengers wrestle with terrorists on flight 93, causing it to crash in Penna. (reported by phone from the plane). The theory develops to include various, changing explanations of how the WTC towers would collapse from the heat of the fires. Other details evolve and are incorporated into the Official Conspiracy Theory (OCT). This theory is repeated by the various government officials and main stream media.
The Bush administration didn't want an investigative commission, but was forced by the negative publicity generated by the Jersey Girls (Family Steering Committee). They initially appoint Henry Kissinger to be the exec. director of it, but the Jersey Girls inquire about his client list (which includes Saudis), so he bows out to be replaced by another, less well-known, insider, Phillip Zelikow. The 9/11 commission does a study which is plugged to presume the above theory is true, and to only determine how the govt failed to detect the plot. The 9/11 commission report is greivously flawed, and is seen an effort to establish the official myth (a Zelikow term). The commission omits the testimony of key eyewitnesses (Rodriquez and Minetta) and whistleblowers (Edmonds), and ignores the collapse of the 47 story WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, yet collapses at 5:20 PM on 9/11, eight hours after the towers were brought down. During the testimony before the commission, NORAD changes its story, so that they have testified by the end to 3 different versions, for which the commissioners even considered a criminal referral for perjury by high officials. At this point, years later, 6 of 10 of the commissioners are not now in agreement with the conclusions in the report (edited by Zelikow), nor is the legal counsel for the commission who has written a book about it.
Independent reviewers of the 9/11 Commission report, especially David Ray Griffin, rip it to bits and report out flaw after flaw with that report. In addition, reports by the ASCE, FEMA and NIST are found to be contradictory, and flawed in numerous major ways. Several suspicious things emerge from their reporting, such as several of the same key authors being involved in each report. These reports all serve to butress the (changing and developing) Official Conspiracy Theory.
Outside the government, independent folks piece together what they can from any remaining evidence: photographic, video, atmospheric and dust samples, eyewitness testimony and seismographic data. It becomes a detective story of near-epic scope, with professors, whistle-blowers, amateur and professional photo/video analyzers, lab scientists and many others piecing together bits of the real story from the outside with the scraps of evidence that remains (recall that most of the WTC building residue is carted off under high security).
Some jump in with conspiracy theories that are all over the map. Government and media agents eagerly rise to tar independent researchers with the same brush by dismissively calling them something derogatory (a propaganda technique: name-calling), "conspiracy theorists". Many take that bait, and surprisingly, even libertarians who should know better, begin opposing independent investigation of obvious lies.
Now we're in a position, as people who are in favor of a free society, of either seeking truth (and libertarians know that much of government's actions can only be supported by lies, crafted through advanced propaganda techniques and broadcast over establishment media channels), or being mindless drones, swallowing the pablum fed to them, and joining into the establishment chorus of name-calling anyone who has the intelligence and courage to ask questions.
If there is any particular area of questioning that I can assist in steering you to answers in, I'd be willing to try to be of assistance.
[PS: the reputed phone calls were found to not be technically possible, so we start with questions at the very root of the "eyewitness" reporting that is the foundation of the OCT.]
9/11: PENTAGON AIRCRAFT HIJACK IMPOSSIBLE (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=18405)
FLIGHT DECK DOOR CLOSED FOR ENTIRE FLIGHT
PilotsFor911Truth.org) - Newly decoded data provided by an independent researcher and computer programmer from Australia exposes alarming evidence that the reported hijacking aboard American Airlines Flight 77 was impossible to have existed. A data parameter labeled "FLT DECK DOOR", cross checks with previously decoded data obtained by Pilots For 9/11 Truth from the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) through the Freedom Of Information Act.
On the morning of September 11, 2001, American Airlines Flight 77 departed Dulles International Airport bound for Los Angeles at 8:20 am Eastern Time. According to reports and data, a hijacking took place between 08:50:54 and 08:54:11[1] in which the hijackers allegedly crashed the aircraft into the Pentagon at 09:37:45. Reported by CNN, according to Ted Olson, wife Barbara Olson had called him from the reported flight stating, "...all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers..."[2]. However, according to Flight Data provided by the NTSB, the Flight Deck Door was never opened in flight. How were the hijackers able to gain access to the cockpit, remove the pilots, and navigate the aircraft to the Pentagon if the Flight Deck Door remained closed?[3]
...
WOW stuff like this keeps coming out...
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 27, 2009, 11:01 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on November 27, 2009, 10:14 PM NHFT
I'd like to invite you to consider continually developing new evidence and join the current investigations, rather than re-live and re-hash arguments settled years ago.
No, I'm certain that people should start with an obvious problem that bothers them.
Once that problem is not sufficiently answerable, that is when they should join the current investigations.
People have to live and hash out problems for themselves.
OK, Jim, I guess you're right. I forget sometimes that not everyone has read all 121 pages of this thread. ;)
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 27, 2009, 11:01 PM NHFT
I believe it is good to go back and seed with simpler questions to challenge the minds of people who were not ready in years past, but maybe ready now.
OK, you are right again. I call this "working down in the trenches"
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 27, 2009, 11:01 PM NHFT
You did a great job with your last two posts, giving people things to continue to think about without being over bearing or condescending. :tiphat:
Thanks for the acknowledgement. I try hard at that.
Jaqeboy, that's an excellent summary of where we are now. I don't "support" the OCT, except where it is supported by independent evidence (I am aware that the OCT changed several times). My point is that the OCT can only be opposed by superior facts and forensic work, not just by making wild claims (and thus strengthening the OCT). We have to be a lot MORE careful and better documented than those putting together the OCT; after all, our story has to hold together longer than one news cycle. (Unlike the stories about the U2, the Bay of Pigs, the Gulf of Tonkin, the Cambodian bombing [and later US foreign aid to Pol Pot], Operation Northwood, the attack on the Liberty, Clinton's attack on the aspirin factory in the Sudan, etc. etc. etc. Government can lie and succeed, we cannot.)
Let's not forget that the OCT claims that the US government backed and armed a terrorist group which then turned on us. It further claims that the Trade Towers fell because the US government had ordered the builders to stop using asbestos to fireproof the columns above a certain floor.
The OCT also claims that the anthrax attacks were launched using weaponized anthrax from the US Army lab. The current version of the OCT is that no one knows who mailed the anthrax, only that they had access to US army bioweapons. And even conventional wisdom now agrees that we were lied into the Iraq war, and into the insane Afghan occupation. The excuses for the wars now are that somehow the US military will provide better homes and lives for the people we are bombing, not that the US has any security interest in the occupations.
Taking a bigger-picture look, even conventional wisdom admits that crashing airplanes into buildings isn't a serious terrorist technique. Real anonymous warfare would blow up dams, refineries, and other undefended targets, not lose valuable soldiers in suicide attacks. Even more serious, they could get jobs in university biology labs and make biological agents. As the US kills more and more civilians with bombs and drones, the number of potential revenge-seekers grows.
There is nothing in the OCT or current conventional wisdom to support the proposition that "government is an effective defense against terrorism". We are left with the reality that only private civil-defense efforts and forensics are likely to help against future anonymous or false-flag attacks, and the uncomfortable truth is that hardly any resources have gone into anything that might actually defend against future attacks. How many of the self-proclaimed "truthers" actually DO anything to prepare to survive NBC attacks? Maybe more than the average person, but still. Where's your gas mask? Do you have your duct tape, HEPA filter, and plastic sheeting ready (funny that Ridge was mocked for the one true thing he ever said)?
While it's fun to "bicker and argue over who killed who", even the most rabid "anti-Truther" debunking web sites agree there was and is a conspiracy to keep us in a Forever War in the Middle East:
http://www.debunking911.com/conspiracy.htm (http://www.debunking911.com/conspiracy.htm)
Getting us out of the new "Crusades" (and surviving the inevitable blowback from what we've already done) is more important than figuring out exactly how Building 7 fell down. Although it would be nice to know... if it really fell down just because it was hit by a little debris and the drapes were on fire (I can't rule that out given my limited reading), we need even more civil defense resources than I thought
:Leaving_in_a_jet_plane____by_ :Leaving_in_a_jet_plane____by_ :Leaving_in_a_jet_plane____by_
Patty Lee,
You damn the lies yet cling to them. You arm yourself but fear your own might. What part of fuck the fucking fucker before he fucks you do you not get?
There is no fucking way in hell that the government story is true. None. The list of implausibilities and improbabilities grows longer each day.
Do you think tomorrow you might wake up to find JFK alive, the WTC complex still standing, the moon and Mars devoid of water and gas at 23 cents a gallon?
Get real or go home.
P.U.
Might need the gas mask sooner than I thought!
Hope we can move on to more constructive defense... :_hamsterball__by_Ugghhzilla: :_hamsterball__by_Ugghhzilla: Hows Coutu?
Quote from: PattyLee loves dogs on November 29, 2009, 03:26 PM NHFT
Jaqeboy, that's an excellent summary of where we are now. I don't "support" the OCT, except where it is supported by independent evidence (I am aware that the OCT changed several times). My point is that the OCT can only be opposed by superior facts and forensic work, not just by making wild claims (and thus strengthening the OCT). We have to be a lot MORE careful and better documented than those putting together the OCT; after all, our story has to hold together longer than one news cycle.
...
Thanks. Agreed. The reason for this re-framing is that the 911 Truth movement is people are seeking the truth - they know they don't have it from official sources. The smear of calling people who are investigators "conspiracy theorists" is an attempt to neutralize them or turn people off to them, or at least to get them to ignore them. Especially to keep them from getting funded or having their questions treated seriously.
Everybody's got a pet theory of what happened - My big thrust is to see where these independent investigations go and to see what evidence does turn up and to listen to what the whistleblowers say to see if it leads to a cogent theory of the crime.
For Example, what do we do with the info in the post a few down from this where Pilots for 911 Truth turn up a data tape that says the cabin door to the plane was never opened?... How does that affect the theory of the crime, eh?
It's like a big detective story, with an 800 pound gorilla in the room creating a smokescreen and threatening to kill you if you get too close to the truth. The real detectives are the little independent researchers risking their lives and careers to analyze the little tidbits that weren't effectively walled off from them.
Patty lee has charged the Tunga with defending the truth. So what does that make you? Your here to attack the truth.
Like they say on the cop shows "Ignorance is no defense."
QuoteYour here to attack the truth.
Which of the many "truths"? Dr. Judy Woods' truth? She says the Towers were destroyed by a beam weapon. Others claim they were cut down by thousands of pounds of secretly installed shaped charges. More recently, large amounts of pre-planted thermite have been claimed. These can't all be the truth, so yes, anyone who investigates 9-11 has to attack someone's "truth".
And of course there are many, many people who think that jet fuel from blowback from a CIA-backed mujahedeen operation brought down the buildings.... and yet still oppose the unConstitutional undeclared wars. Some of them even do something to convince their neighbors to oppose the wars... and the best way to do that is not to have to convince them of your own religion, UFO abduction, or pet 9-11 conspiracy theory first.
QuotePilots for 911 Truth turn up a data tape that says the cabin door to the plane was never opened?
Yeah, I saw that on another web site. Veeery interesting, kudos to the people who dug that up!
Tunga saved this from Fox news back in Feb. of aught two.
Tuesday, February 12, 2002 MEMPHIS, Tenn. - A driver's license examiner charged in a scheme with some Middle Eastern men to sell fraudulent licenses died the day before her first court appearance in a fiery car wreck prosecutors called "most unusual and suspicious." Forensics tests were being performed on Katherine Smith's car to determine what caused the fire, FBI spokesman George Bolds said Tuesday. "We're looking at everything ... whether it was an accident, whether it was a suicide or whether it was something else," said Bolds, who would not specifically discuss the possibility of explosives. The FBI also said it is investigating whether Smith's five co-defendants have connections to the Sept. 11 attacks or other terrorist ties. Smith, 49, was killed early Sunday. The 1992 Acura Legend she was driving ran off the road and struck a utility pole just north of the Mississippi state line, Highway Patrol Lt. Col. Mark Fagan said. Smith's car "was immediately engulfed in flames," but authorities do not know whether the fire started before or after the crash, Fagan said. The body was so badly burned it took authorities until Tuesday to confirm Smith's identity. The cause of death remains under investigation. FBI agent J. Suzanne Nash said the gas tank did not explode and the car was only slightly dented from the crash. Prosecutor Tim DiScenza called the crash "most unusual and suspicious." Smith was one of six people charged last week by federal officials with conspiracy to get Tennessee driver's licenses under false pretenses. She had been scheduled for arraignment on Monday. Also charged were Khaled Odtllah, 31, Sakhera Hammad, 24, Mohammed Fares, Mostafa Said Abou-Shahin and Abdelmuhsen Mahmid Hammad. Authorities did not give ages for the last three and said they admitted being in the country illegally. The case broke last week when authorities staked out the driver's license office where Smith worked on a tip from the FBI in New York that several illegal immigrants from the Middle East were traveling to Memphis to illegally obtain state IDs, Nash said. Smith, an examiner for nine years, told authorities that Odtllah was a friend who had asked her to help him obtain driver's licenses six or seven times, Nash said. Nash said that when Sakhera Hammad was arrested, investigators found a visitor's pass for the World Trade Center, dated Sept. 5, 2001, in his wallet. He told authorities he was a plumber who worked on the center's sprinkler system. He said Abdelmuhsen Mahmid Hammad was a cousin who worked with him, Nash said. Federal authorities learned that Odtllah drove to Memphis from New York City on Sept. 11, Nash said. Anthony Helm, attorney for Odtllah, asked Nash in court: "You certainly don't have any indication any of these fellows is a terrorist, do you?" "Not at this time, no sir," Nash said. A hearing for Abou-Shahin, Abdelmuhsen Mahmid Hammad and Fares is scheduled for Wednesday. Odtllah and Sakhera Hammad remain held without bond until their trial.
Patty lee knows more about the tunga than even the tunga!
We were trying to find am old post which references the same FOIA release as the cockpit door story you thought so interesting. Like two years ago the tunga showed how transcripts released by the government appeared to indicate flight 77 was part of the drills running that day. The air force has complete control of all radar data coast to coast and can manipulate it any way they like. See the capabilities of the 84th RADES.
Becaise the head of homeland security deported the sprinkler sabotures back to Israel.
Two significant events ignores by the truth movement. Tunga has no patience for researchers looking to make a buck.
The levels of tritium on the scene indicates nukes were used. Woods observations collaborate that.
QuoteThe levels of tritium on the scene indicates nukes were used.
Actually, if nuclear weapons are used it's usually possible to determine that fact without looking for residues of tritium (nukes are, after all, a little noisy). Who exactly found this tritium, and how did all the world's university labs miss the fallout from this "secret nuclear attack"? And if "nukes were used" what would be the need for beam weapons, explosives, thermite, and voodoo?
This thread is starting to sound like the Oliver Stone version of the Kennedy assassination, where everyone in the Plaza crowd was an assassin for a different faction... there can be conspiracies, but they can only blow up one building one time. (Well, unless they're the FBI and don't buy enough explosive the first time).
Quote from: PattyLee loves dogs on December 03, 2009, 09:46 PM NHFT
Quote
This thread is starting to sound like the Oliver Stone version of the Kennedy assassination, where everyone in the Plaza crowd was an assassin for a different faction... there can be conspiracies, but they can only blow up one building one time. (Well, unless they're the FBI and don't buy enough explosive the first time).
It's not this thread... it's just Tunga.
Don't feed the trolls here... that's a paddl'n.
Quote from: PattyLee loves dogs on December 01, 2009, 07:05 PM NHFT
Dr. Judy Wood
Greg Jenkins opined shortly after he interviewed her that she is deliberately spreading disinformation.
. (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-558096240694803017&ei=J7AYS6L4DOm5lQeT5qDXBw&q=greg+jenkins&hl=en&view=2#)
Ted Walter of NYC CAN visited earlier (Thursday evening) in Keene to report on the big petitioning drive in New York City, and to relay to us some petitioning ideas for New Hampshire.
There may be some town warrant articles for a new 9/11 investigation, if the Keene area folks have their way.
Yeah, I've always wondered about Dr. Judy Wood. I saw the Jenkins interview she considers it to be an ambush. She was walking down the hall in a hotel at a conference when he asked her to do an interview.
She sure doesn't present well and I'm always waiting to see if she's going to say something that I can believe is a proof of her theory and don't see it. I'm open-minded, but just don't see it yet.
Patty sure is ignorant for such a curious seeker of the truth.
Let's us just google "tritium at the WTC" and see what comes up. K?
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/141 (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EdWard-MD/message/141)
Poor patty. Admiral poindexter can't pay you enough to shut up the Tunga.
It's the sound of 3000 lost souls screaming bloody murder.
....can still remember how Al Gore was placed in charge of aviation safety after TWA 800 was blown out of the sky after a tube of tooth paste exploded in the cargo hold.
Patty must be conferring with big AL about the best way to deal with the Tunga. How inconvenient.
Can't you stooges find someone with working brain to stop the Tunga?
Sorry, stupid question.
Tunga, I have been doing some constructive activism while you have been posting. Protesting expansion of war, holding sign "Bring Troops Home". I think this to be more important than argument w Tunga, who is not open to thinking now. PL
Anti matter is real. They have been making the stuff in particle accelerators for the better part of goin on 20 years now. Yup. Anti electrons. Anti protons. Storing up on big electromagnetic rail roads at 90 percent of the speed of light and smashing em together to observe the effects over femto seconds.
Particle beams if you will. It's limited in scope as the apparatus is typically big and bulky. However one can short circuit the storage rings and go directly to annihilation using a small nuke.
There are several different styles of nuke that we know of. That is to say there is a difference between an atomic bomb a hydrogen bomb a neutron bomb etc etc etc.
The bomb builders didn't stop in the early sixties when most of the worlds nuke powers agreed that open air detonation was bad for all the living things here on earth. No the bomb builders collaborated with computer builders to figure out new and better ways to wipe us all out. They built bombs in cyberspace and practiced with them in virtual environs until they felt they had a workable model. Now; there is a perceived need among peoples of the world to covet. To that end; the bomb builders ran into the small world syndrome (SWS), more commonly known as MAD or mutually assured destruction. Smaller nukes! Thats the ticket!
Tritium was common in the earths atmosphere all the while we were blowing these matter anti matter annihilators up. Tritium is also naturally produced in interactions between the earths upper atmosphere and incoming solar energies. The level of tritium in the atmosphere is monitored as a way of verifying test ban treaties. China was the last to join the open air ban. People like to say Americans are arrogant. Tunga case in point. China takes the cake.
North Korea is still in the dark ages with its program so to be fair, the Chinese were really stupid to give the North Koreans all the technology that Billy Blowjob Clinton gave them. Thats a story thats already been told so Tunga will now come to the point.
Sort of.
Nuclear blasts propagate through space at light speed. Time and space are connected to each other in such a way that when one annihilates matter, that is when causes stuff that is to become stuff that isn't weird things happen. What happens to the time that is generated by the stuff that suddenly ceases to exist? That is a problem. Not that you should care except that certain effects on the material world in proximity to said detonation is effected in strange ways.
On 9-11 cars parked some distance from the trade center burned and melted in certain areas but not others. Some type of selective field effect ran through them.
Dr. Wood documented electromagnetic anomalies at the exact same time the basement of WTC 1 ceased to exist.
Dr. Ward documented that tritium levels were 55 times over normal in the water that washed over the WTC remains.
Most of the WTC recovery workers ( who were repeatedly told the air was safe to breath by the EPA) are sick or dead.
So you go right ahead and carry your CFC free sign of protest. The World Bank is real scared of you and your cardboard cutouts.
The beings that want you to believe resistance is futile love it when you freeze your ass off out there on the street. They only respect one thing and that is force. Maybe your mind is up to the task. Maybe you need a gun to help give you courage.
They are not going away until we as a people wake up and realize in a collective kind of way that these god damned murderous motherfuckers need to be exterminated in a really bad way.
Just sayin. Word up. :)
peep the style and the kids checking for it
The number one question is
How could you ignore it?
We drop right back in the cut
Over basement tracks
With raps that got you backing this up like
(rewind that)
Were just rolling with the rhythm
Rise from the ashes of the stylistic division
With these non-stop lyrics of life living
Not to be forgotten
But still unforgivin'
But in the meantime there are those who wanna
Talk this and that
So I suppose it gets to a point
Feelings gotta get hurt
And get dirty with the people spreading the dirt
(it goes)
Try to give you warning
But everyone ignores me
(Told you everything loud and clear)
But nobody's listening
Linkin Park - Nobody's listening
QuoteAnti matter is real. They have been making the stuff in particle accelerators for the better part of goin on 20 years now.
The positron was first created and identified in the lab by Anderson in 1932, so that's a bit more than 20 years. Not that antimatter has any relevance to the WTC attack, since antimatter-matter reactions release gamma rays, which would have caused lots of radiation-poisoning cases. And of course a rather loud nuclear-explosion "bang", which was not heard... only Boris and Natasha have hushaboom, the silent explosive.
So Tunga (who named himself after a flea genus that carries anti-human diseases) knows that Admiral Poindexter was brought back after his Iran-contra conviction to run the TIA; an interesting fact known to few humans. Yet Tunga speaks English of no historically known dialect, and spends all his time posting mutually contradictory conspiracy theories on Internet forums.
Conclusion (using Tunga's methods of non sequitur and conclusion-leaping): Tunga is not in fact human, but is one of David Ickes' reptilian aliens. In fact, he's probably having tea with the Queen of England right now, on her antimatter-powered samovar.
But let's not stoop to anti-Reptilian-Alien bigotry... Tunga has every right to conquer and enslave the Earth and its Internet forums, as long as he does it without violating the non-aggression principle, the Prime Directive, and the Codicil of Centauri IV.
Except, what does "how's Coutu" mean?
Plus underground explosions can be muted. And as we pointed out there are many different types of nuke with different fallout. The EPA lied about the air and who knows if they even checked for radiation?
Do you think the tritium results were faked?
How is it that you know so much about the Tunga ( with exception of his true earthly origins) and nukes, but you won't explain why there was only one small jet engine at the pentagon and none in shanksville?
Tunga was born in the year of the dog and he is really starting to like you too.
Let's go shooting? Not at each other of course. That would be a violation of the prime directive.
PS; trust me, the queen is a lousy lay.
Quoteyou won't explain why there was only one small jet engine at the pentagon and none in shanksville?
How would we even know
that for sure? As long as government agencies control all the forensic evidence, there's no way to sort out what happened. Look at the Waco episode, where all the evidence was bulldozed and burned (except for the critical door, which disappeared entirely). I agree with David Friedman that the only workable solution is private competing protection agencies. I was at Waco protesting before the final attack, BTW.
But none of this has anything to do with getting the existing humans with their existing memes to stop the Afghan and Iraq crusades, or Aid To Dependent Dictators in general. And all the information necessary to argue against foreign intervention is right in the standard histories; there's nothing secret about US aid to Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Castro, Bin Laden, etc. etc.
Throwing out wild claims about nuclear bombs at the WTC does no one any good. Digging for evidence is good, but just making wild unprovable assertions only helps Admiral Poindexter. And simultaneously making mutually contradictory unprovable assertions for conventional shaped charges, thermite, beam weapons, nuclear bombs, and jet fuel helped along by sabotage of the sprinkler system (I know I missed a few people's hypotheses, sorry) falls squarely into the herpetological extraterrestrial area.
Heres how serve reptiles;
http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/ (http://www.boilingfrogspost.com/)
Patty, the wild claims you are so desperate to discredit are sourced from the governments official documentaion.
So you were at Waco? Your a fan of the fifty caliber? Sorry but there's no place around here big enough to soot the freakin thing. We were thinking more allong the lines of Smith & Wesson or Kalishnikof. Seriously let's go shoot together.
None of the agencies under homeland security have any business changing the toilet paper in this country let alone protecting us. You want to rearrange the deck chairs on the titanic? Whatever blows your dress up.
You are way to smart to believe intelligence agencies could police each other without completely annilhalating themselves. Talk about contradiction.
Coutu? What is that?
Tunga, Jean Coutu posts on these boards. He is organizing an event in August for support of free speech. He works against creepy politicians. I have never met him or anything but it broke by heart when I heard he was in jail with a felony conviction for attempting Good Samaritan work during a NH ice storm. He came to the aid of ladies without electricity, using a generator and for this, apparently now is selectively prosecuted. Can you send money to him to help his legal defense? I can't.
I am flattered about the offer to shoot but I will decline. I am much more interested in 2nd amendment defense and am not actually interested in shooting guns anymore. I can refer you to the group Second Amendment Sisters who could use support.
For now I am focused on this criminal expansion of war. I will be concluding my posts on this 9/11 thread but carry on.
I am just wanting to focus on antiwar stuff.
I invite you and all who might be reading this to protest at warmongering, flipper Congresswoman Shea Porter's office:
Friday, 12/11 at
11:00 AM
33 Lowell Street
Manchester, NH 03101
Thanks a lot. ;)
http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/?p=7417 (http://www.peopleofwalmart.com/?p=7417)
(http://media.peopleofwalmart.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/644.jpg)
Good CBC programme:
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4vFunDyMaE#)
This note accompanied the forward that had the You Tube link to the CBC programme previously posted.
QuoteThe following You Tube links provide a copy of this documentary,
(recently shown on Canadian TV, November 27th, 2009).
This video is currently being blocked at the CBC's official
website from being viewed by US citizens. However, someone has posted
this video on YouTube, (and it is currently available, as of
12/06/09). Watch them while you can. They could be removed.
Please read this editorial from Antiwar.com and I hope this convinces some thinkers that we need help on the antiwar protests now. PL:
Trutherism and the future of the antiwar movement.
Razumov
One of the more politically disastrous outcomes of the modern anti-war movement and the disposable left is the rise of trutherism as a popular pseudo-ideology. While trutherism isn't any more toxic or retarded than the stalinoid bullshit from communist cargo-cults like International ANSWER, it is far more popular and widespread. Most "workers" party members are geriatric at this point, and it is clear that communism is at long last a dead horse, dangerous only to those dumb enough to try and ride it. Trutherism however, is young, vital, seductive and viral to a younger generation too illiterate of history and afraid of reality to resist the siren song of a conspiracy theory worldview.
It is so deeply embarrassing to any intelligent member of the anti-war movement that trutherism has become our de-facto ideology that we tend to just dismiss or ignore it. Trutherism is such complete bullshit that the desire to ignore it is certainly understandable, but it isn't going to go away of its own accord. As of right now truthers seem incapable of organizing anything more complex than a movie night, but the links between thruthers and holocaust deniers are not accidental. We have enough of an image problem in the anti-war movement without the white supremacist fringe being invited in. Are we not marginal enough already? Do we need to make it that much easier for our enemies to ridicule and discredit us? Do we need to make it that much harder for normal people to listen to us? Is this a political movement or collection of crackpots?
Trutherism needs to be taken seriously, not as a set of ideas or a political position, but as an endemic disorder of the disposable left that has spread throughout the anti-war movement like syphilis in a cheap whore house. Unchecked it will produce the same result: incurable dementia. Fighting it begins with a clinical examination of trutherism.
Like Nazism, trutherism is a strange mix of the extreme left, the extreme right and the whack-job fringe. Like Nazism it has a powerful appeal to the socially and emotionally retarded, the half educated, the deeply paranoid, the complete loser, and the failed joiner. The basic worldview of trutherism, its pseudo-epistemology, its standards of evidence, logic and argument are those of ufology. In a sense trutherism is ufology as politics, the half-baked worldview of coast to coast AM applied to the atrocity of 9/11 and the crisis of empire it provoked. In this culture a blurry photograph, an unverifiable source, and an internet rumor are all believed without question while any normal standards of evidence and logic are treated with the bitterest skepticism. Any challenge to truther bullshit is usually seen as part of the CONSPIRACY, and debunking truther arguments is as pointless as debunking big foot sightings or UFO abduction reports. Like religious fanatics, the more truthers are challenged, the more they cling to their beliefs, and like ufologists, more fabricated evidence will always be produced to replace that which has been completely debunked.
Like ufologists, truthers see themselves as possessing a magical "truth" that elevates them above the common masses of "sheep", having discovered the secret key that unlocks the secret meaning of human history. Here their own metaphor of "taking the red pill" is very apt. Like a crack addict who instead of seeking to understand or deal with his personal problems, solves them with a crack pipe, truthers ignore the profound political problems facing the anti-war movement in favor of a simplistic video game narrative that casts them as persecuted dissidents fighting a world dominating conspiracy. Just as Adolf Hitler discovered a world wide conspiracy of Jews and Masons against the German nation and the Aryan race, truthers have discovered an evil conspiracy (which just happens to have so many Jewish members) against freedom and liberty, a conspiracy so strange and stupid that it blew itself up in order to launch wars it could have launched anyway. Why this conspiracy, one apparently powerful enough to fabricate 9/11 and murder thousands of members of the financial and military elites, and get away with it, doesn't just round up the truthers and shoot them, is never explained.
What trutherism takes from the extreme left is the long and stupid tradition of taking absurd political positions instead of actually doing something radical. This is how we get environmentalists who argue for the extermination of their own species (you first, brother) and vulgar feminists who declare that all sex is rape (does that apply to your own parents and children?). This is one of the core traditions of disposable leftism. It replaces the hard work and danger of actually fighting for the exploited and oppressed with a meaningless verbal activity. Real radicalism asks a lot of you, but becoming a political crank requires nothing more than stupidity. Here trutherism , like so much of the disposable left, is a Saturday-morning-cartoon ideology for a Saturday-morning-cartoon resistance, a pretend movement for people too stupid to know the difference between real dissent and resistance and the cargo-cult rituals of the protest ghetto to nowhere. When "revolution" is just another vapid form of consumerism, trutherism sells and reality doesn't.
What trutherism takes from the extreme right is an intense political paranoia and a belief in conspiracies and secret societies as the only engines of human history, a deep ignorance of how societies actually work and how people in power actually behave. This paranoid conspiracy culture flourished on the far right during the Clinton years in stories of black helicopters, secret UN plots to take over the country, shadow governments in waiting and concentration camps being prepared for patriots and Christians. This is the culture that motivated Timothy McVeigh, and then refused to believe that he had anything to do with his act of terrorism. Like an opportunistic parasite this culture switched hosts after the 2000 election debacle and 9/11, but it maintains its roots on the extreme right, which is why if you click enough 911truth links you will find yourself reading the Protocols of The Elders of Zion.
Trutherism also builds on a tradition of the isolationist and paleoconservative right, that of rewriting the history of the second world war. Some of these projects are perfectly reasonable attempts to examine allied mistakes, debunk war propaganda and shed light on the record of allied war atrocities. Others are much less reasonable attempts to portray the axis powers as having been forced into their wars of genocide and world conquest by Churchill and FDR. At the extreme end it is claimed that the British attacked pearl harbor (or some other nonsense), and it is in these fantastic pseudo-histories that we find a direct parallel with trutherist claims that the attack on 9/11 was a giant hologram. These attempts are sometimes motivated by a deep hatred of America or a strange sympathy with Adolf Hitler (to which Buchanan has actually admitted), but they are mostly an attempt to reverse the political death blow that the second world war dealt to American Isolationism. Here there is another direct parallel with trutherism in the attempt to solve the problem of how to avoid war when you have enemies determined to wage it, enemies that will give you the choice of fighting or being herded into a concentration camp, with conspiracy theory and false history. This is, of course, the most profound problem facing the anti-war movement, and it will not be solved by pseudo-history or self-delusion. As Saul Alinsky said, the price of victory is a better idea.
With all these parallels on the far right it can certainly be argued that trutherism isn't leftism at all. So what is trutherism doing all over the left? Why are so many leftists and progressives who should know better either tolerant or even sympathetic with trutherism? The answer is that while trutherism isn't leftism, it is a form of disposable leftism, because diposable leftism is leftism hollowed out of any meaning or purpose, detached from political reality and turned into a form of vapid consumerism. In this universe trutherism is more viable than Marxism, because Marxism requires a lot of reading and hard work to master, while becoming a truther is like watching an episode of the X-files. For all its many defects and historical crimes, Marxism has produced real radicals and viable movements. All trutherism produces is noise and nonsense, and the further marginalization of the anti-war movement. The price the anti-war movement is paying right now for the rise of trutherism can be seen in the Obama administration, where we are utterly ignored because we have no political credibility. Obama was happy to use us a tools in his primary fight with Hillary, but once that was over with he looked at us a political albatross and moved quickly to outflank McCain on the right. Now the war in Afghanistan is being escalated while there is no real evidence that we are leaving Iraq, and we are left to complain like crybabies as we are sold down the river. Squandering your own political credibility by harboring conspiracy theory cranks has real consequences, and now we are facing them. Stop complaining and pick a mirror, bro. We deserve exactly what we have gotten.
It is long past time for every responsible member of the anti-war movement, the real left (and the small part of the libertarian movement that is actually opposed to war) to make a clear stand against trutherism and to do everything in their power to deny it any platform or voice. When we fail, people die. Right now the body count from the bush wars in somewhere near 100,000 dead human beings. I understand that for most of you these are just numbers, just images on a screen, and that your activist vanity prevents you from processing the fact that we are part of the reason these people are dead, as we failed in our historical mission to stop these wars. Their blood is on our hands too. When we tolerate truther bullshit, when we do anything less than everything we can do to drive it out, we are setting ourselves up for even more failures in the future, and the failures of the anti-war movement mean victories for the war party: bombed out cities, slaughtered children, abu-ghraibs, and a world moving towards nuclear war. The large coastal cities most of you live in will be targets in a nuclear war. It is time to grow up. Long past time.
Hi, PL, I found the link to that piece here: http://antiwar-talk.com/topic.php?id=59 (http://antiwar-talk.com/topic.php?id=59)
What's interesting about this piece is its use of one propaganda technique after another. See: http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm (http://library.thinkquest.org/C0111500/proptech.htm)
One should wonder what is so appealing about:
Quoteto make a clear stand against... to do everything in their power to deny it any platform or voice.
If you did want to keep people from finding out the truth about some historical event, wouldn't it be helpful if you could deny truth seekers a platform or voice.
There is actually a countervailing view that the antiwar movement will never get anywhere without acknowledging the truth about the 9/11 attacks. I'll look for one of the good articles about that for you.
Thank you for being concerned and actively speaking out (and standing with signs in the cold weather).
Here's an article by Webster Tarpley from '07 in the Creek (Rock Creek Free Press (http://rockcreekfreepress.com/)), reposted on the Democratic Underground:
PEACE MOVEMENT MUST MAKE 9/11 TRUTH THE LEADING EDGE OF FIGHT AGAINST IRAQ-IRAN-SYRIA WAR (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x137013)
Quote...Peace activists often ask why the 9/11 truth movement insists on making the truth about terrorism a central component of anti-war agitation. One answer is that we bring up 9/11 frequently because Bush and Cheney [now Obama] do – they incessantly parrot slogans about the "global war on terror" and "the lessons of 9/11." Bush claims that he is fighting terrorists in Iraq so that the US will not have to fight them over here. He raves that, if US forces pull out of Iraq, the terrorists will follow them back home and launch attacks on US territory. There can be no doubt that 9/11 is the foundation of Bush's castle of warmonger lying – the fountainhead, motivation, and legitimation of the entire policy of unilateral aggression.
Another from '07 in OpEd News:
Letter to the Authentic Peace Movement (http://www.opednews.com/articles/opedne_sherry_c_070702_letter_to_the_authen.htm)
QuoteThe most powerful weapon for peace, is the truth! You have tried "everything else" so why not give the truth a try? Willful ignorance will not help our country. Your side is much less authentic than pathetic and has produced nothing but escalation!
...
QuoteThe peace movement had better grow up and develop a hairy set of cajones...because until the so called "peace movement" is willing to talk about the truth, instead of what corner you're going to march on, or what petition you're going to sign...I laugh at your arrogance and your "authenticity"...and so does this administration.
Obviously, there are some heated opinions going back and forth between the 2 sides of this argument. Some in the side in favor of addressing/finding the truth about the 9/11 attacks as the path to peace feel that the peace movement, as presently constituted, ie, avoiding the truth about 9/11, is "controlled opposition."
although you don't have to know that 9/11 was an inside job, to be against a war
it does help to know what got this all started
QuoteThere is actually a countervailing view that the antiwar movement will never get anywhere without acknowledging the truth about the 9/11 attacks.
Well, that would be great, if the "truth" were something you could buy at Wal-Mart. Unfortunately there are hundreds of mutually contradictory "truths" about 9-11, not even counting the several different versions told by the government.
Which of the many "truths" is true? Dr. Judy Woods' truth? She says the Towers were destroyed by a beam weapon of an unknown high technology. Others claim they were cut down by thousands of pounds of secretly installed shaped charges. More recently, large amounts of pre-planted thermite have been claimed. These can't all be the truth.
On the other hand, the government's current story is that the US government backed and armed a terrorist group which then turned on us because of several of our foreign interventions and alliances with totalitarian regimes (e.g., Saudi Arabia). It further claims that the Trade Towers fell because the US government had ordered the builders to stop using asbestos to fireproof the columns above a certain floor.
The current conventional wisdom is also that the anthrax attacks were launched using weaponized anthrax from the US Army lab. The current version of the OCT is that no one knows who mailed the anthrax, only that they had access to US army bioweapons. And even conventional wisdom now agrees that we were lied into the Iraq war, and into the insane Afghan occupation.
Is it useful trying to convince people that 9-11 wasn't caused by our foreign interventions, but by aliens with particle beams? (Would that mean that we can go on supporting war once we get the aliens under control?) Isn't it more important just to talk about how much money has been spent by the US building up foreign dictators? The regimes that are supposedly the most frightening are all former aid recipients. North Korea was GIVEN its nuclear reactors and reactor fuel by the US. Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Castro, North Vietnam, the Taliban, all received large amounts of US foreign aid.
These facts are not argued by anyone; the government simply claims that Obama will do a better job of managing our foreign wars (while borrowing the money for them from the Chinese).
There's nothing wrong with digging up evidence, when you can. Sometimes evidence gets destroyed, though: I mentioned the famous door at Waco. Until we have Friedman's private, transparent protection agencies instead of "secret societies" like the CIA and NSA, we simply aren't going to be able to know everything about every event.
But the official story completely implicates the US government and its pet banks as the cause of most of the world's problems. People can support a return to Thomas Jefferson's foreign policy even if they think that the trade towers weren't destroyed by Tunga's "micronuclear weapons".
November 28, 2006
We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist
The Physics of 9/11
By MANUEL GARCIA, Jr.
Five years after the events of September 11, 2001, conspiracy theories abound as an anxious public seeks to find a comprehensible story for that day and more broadly for their socio-political world. People need reliable foundations upon which to base the many assumptions and conventions they use to carry on their lives.
Half a century ago, public anxiety about the danger of atomic energy and the terror of thermonuclear war exhibited itself in sightings of flying saucers, and a fad of monster movies. C. G. Jung wrote about flying saucer sightings as an instance of "mass psychosis": a "psychological infection" that spreads among people who lack sufficient understanding to rationalize fearsome political forces and unstable social conditions (Flying Saucers: A Modern Myth, 1958). Jung was sensitive to any indication that another "psychological epidemic" might erupt, as Nazism did, among a population whose government possessed awesome military power. Mass psychosis is a myth held in common, which releases the population from the "normal" restraints of rationality and international social conventions, so they can pursue their mythical vision. The ignorance -- and the fears that spring from it as prejudices -- of the entranced population is "projected" onto "enemies" whose destruction is sought in the irrational effort to eliminate the actual problem of psychological tensions, (1)
A more entertaining expression of popular anxiety is the monster movie. "Godzilla," "Rodan," "Them," "The Thing" and many others safely frightened viewers with stories of monsters whose introductions into human society were caused by atomic bomb testing, or were accompanied by radioactivity. For most Americansthe major source of any knowledge of physics is probably this type of motion picture.
The myths we construct to express our understanding of the realities we are immersed in are limited by the range of our knowledge. When the myths are meant to cover over fears about forces beyond our control, they can be conspiracy theories. Consider these pairings of fears and rationalizations:
fear of political power --> conspiracy theories;
metaphysical fear (fear of death) --> religion, a theological conspiracy ;
fear of personal inadequacy-->racism,
fear of strange cultures--> ultra-nationalism
Certainly, so long as there are more than two people on Earth, conspiracies will occur. But too often we invoke a conspiracy in constructing our story of the world because we lack specific information about the sciences, economics, history and other relevant fields of specialized knowledge. Experience has shown that if the evidence allows for several explanations to a given problem then the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions is most probably correct. This principle is called Occam's Razor and is attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Occam (c. 1295Â1349) (2).
The events of September 11, 2001, were unsettling for many Americans because their existing myths were shattered; these myths had provided comfort and lain undisturbed in consciousness since indoctrination had lodged them there. The increasing power of communications technology --global telephone networks, the Internet --and the accelerating disregard of subtlety by the elite in its management of public perceptions about government policies has eroded the myths --or illusions --of many Americans. So, trust in government has been broken, fear of its power is vivid, and understanding of the physical mechanisms of Nature is limited. This psychology will naturally sprout conspiracy theories about 9/11.
The aim of this article is to supply some understanding of physics as it relates to several of the features of the 9/11 events, so that readers can expand their range of rationality and hence their political maturity.
The reports on the investigations of the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings conducted by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (originally the National Bureau of Standards) are to be found at a special NIST website ("NIST & The World Trade Center, Final Report (Sept. 2005),"
This multi-volume Final Report, issued in September 2005, is the "official word." There is a vast amount of dry text, much data, descriptive summaries of detailed calculations of the impact ruptures, fires and heating, subsequent deformation, load-shifting, buckling and ultimate failure of the buildings. NIST addressed the sequence of events and shifting of loads leading up to the failure that allowed the upper blocks to drop; it did not proceed to a detailed simulation of the collapses to the ground. NIST justified this on the grounds that there was sufficient energy in the descending blocks to crush the lower structures, once failures had occurred.
The controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center buildings is described at length in a Wikipedia article ("Controlled demolition hypothesis for the collapse of the World Trade Center,"
The popularity of 9/11 conspiracy theories (also outlined in a useful Wikipedia entry) has prompted NIST to present a very nice webpage addressing the usual questions of the conspiracy viewpoint, and providing clear descriptions in non-technical English of the physics and engineering explanations embodied in the NIST WTC Towers Final Report .
Summary of NIST Findings
The World Trade Center Towers (WTC 1, WTC 2) were tall square buildings with supporting columns grouped along the vertical axis (center) and closely spaced along the perimeter (building faces). A "hat truss," at the top of each building, tied the outer walls to the central columns; and this truss had a height equal to that of five stories.
A hijacked airliner was crashed into each building about 10 or 20 stories down from the top. The columns along one face of the building were sheared for a height of several floors, as were many of the columns at the core. The exploding fuel from the airliner ignited fires throughout the levels within the impact zone, as well as dropping fire down the stairwells and elevator shafts at the building's core, and billowing up to higher levels. The shocks of impact and detonation loosened the "fire protection" thermal insulation on steel beams in the impact zone.
The damaged core columns in the impact zone could no longer hold up all the weight they were meant to carry. The core columns in the upper block now found it necessary to partially hang from the hat truss. The hat truss pressed down much more forcefully on the perimeter columns, transferring the load of the hanging weight. The added compression of the perimeter columns could only be distributed to the three undamaged faces, and because of the irregularity of the damage one face assumed a much higher load than the other two.
The fuel fire burned up to 1,100 degrees C (2,000 degrees F) for perhaps 10 minutes. It ignited the many plastic furnishing (carpets, curtains, furniture, equipment cases, clothing, fixtures, office ceilings and partitions), paper items (paper supplies, books, pressed wood), and some structural elements (gypsum wall boards, plastic plumbing), which then continued the fire. The exposed steel beams in the impact zone heated to between 700 C to 1,000 C. Steel at 700 C has 50 per cent to 70 per cent of its strength at habitable temperatures; and steel at 1,000 C has between 10 per cent to 30 per cent.
The floors in the impact zone sagged because of broken joints to central columns, heat causing their metal framing to soften, weaken and expand; also because of the weight of debris fallen from above . The sagging floors twisted their joints to the perimeter columns (on the three intact faces); the length of column above a floor joint being twisted inward. For one face of the building, the combined stress of the original weight above it, the added compression from the hat truss, and the torque from the sagging floors were too much. Its perimeter beams were bent inward to the point of failure, and they buckled.
The NIST investigation was an extremely detailed analysis by 200 engineers and building professionals, describing the conditions of the buildings from the instant an airplane collided to the moment a collapse began. The next section of this CounterPunch report carries the story downward from the point where NIST leaves off. NIST concentrated its resources on the greatest uncertainty: what initiated the collapse? It was understood that once an upper block of the building was in motion the structure below would be unable to counter the dynamic forces, and collapse would proceed to the ground.
Physics Problem Number 1 -- Free Fall of the WTC Towers
"How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2), speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from a similar height in vacuum (with no air resistance)?" (NIST FAQ #6)
The suspicion behind this question is that the Towers were weakened by surreptitious, controlled demolitions. In this view, the structure below the impact zone (where airplanes collided, exploded, and fires burned) "should have" provided resistance to the descent of the block above the impact zone, slowing or even stopping the collapse.
The NIST response is that the lower structure was only designed to hold up the weight above any given floor statically, not dynamically. The force imparted by the collision of the upper block was beyond the limits of the lower structure to resist. The lower structure was essentially crumbled by a "hammer" of descending material, and the mass of this hammer increased during the course of the collapse.
Let's explore further.
¦ Problem 1, Force Balance
Once the framing in the impact zone has failed, the upper block is accelerated by gravity until it crashes into the lower structure below the impact zone. Labeling the mass of the upper block m, and its speed v, the block would have a momentum m*v and an energy of (1/2)*m*v^2. Its weight would be m*g, where g is the constant of gravitational acceleration (9.81 meters/second^2).
The balance of forces on the upper block as it impacts the lower structure is presented here as the impulse momentum form of Newton's 2nd Law:
The time rate of change of momentum = The sum of the forces,
[m*v(final) - m*v(initial)]/dt = F - m*g.
Here, positive direction, velocity and force are taken to be vertically upward; dt is a label for "delta t", a very brief time interval during which the impact occurs and the momentum changes from m*v(initial) to m*v(final); and F is the force of resistance by the lower structure. If A is the net horizontal cross-sectional area of the load-bearing columns of the lower structure, then F/A is the average compressive stress across that area.
This type of force balance is applied to the impact at each floor, sequentially, by redefining m as the mass above it, v(initial) as the outcome of the alternating floor impacts and free falls during prior compaction, and v(final) as the outcome of the latest impact.
We can regroup the terms of the force balance as follows:
F = m*g + m*[v(final) - v(initial)]/dt,
F = m*g*[1 + {v(final) - v(initial)}/(g*dt)],
F/(m*g) = 1 + {v(final) - v(initial)}/(g*dt).
Before each building was perturbed, the upper block did not have any motion, v(initial) = v(final) = 0, and the magnitude of the upward-directed, resisting force of any part of the structure was equal to the weight of material above it; F/(m*g) = 1.
When an upper block drops through an impact zone that has lost structural strength, and crashes into the rigid lower structure, it imparts a dynamic force in addition to its weight. The dynamic force is the second term in the last expression for F. The total force, F, acts during the time interval dt during which the momentum of the upper block is reduced (in magnitude) from m*v(initial) to m*v(final). Clearly, the lower structure will crumble when F is greater than the maximum force it can support, or when F/A is greater than the maximum stress it can withstand.
¦ Problem 1, Numerical Example of Progressive Collapse
Free fall without air resistance from a height H takes time T, given by
T = square root [(2*H)/g].
At any time 0 < t < T during the free fall, the velocity is given by
v(t) = -g*t, (negative sign for downward direction),
and position is given by
h(t) = H - (1/2)*g*t^2.
So, for H = 440 m (=1443 feet) the free fall time is T = 9.5 s, and the velocity slamming into the ground is -92.9 m/s = -208 mph.
What actually happened in the buildings? We consider a suggestive numerical example.
With the onset of failure, the upper block drops through a space of L = 3 meters, taken to be the distance between floors. Starting from rest at time t = 0, the block reaches a velocity of v = -7.7 m/s at t = 0.78 s. The descending block makes contact with the topmost stationary floor of the lower structure.
We will assume these floor structures to be dL = 1 meter thick (1 meter = 3.28 feet). Each floor structure is a framework of steel below and within a layer of concrete. The floors spanned a distance of between 10 m and 20 m between the outer square perimeter (63.4 m a side) and the core support along the axis of the building, which housed elevator shafts, stairwells and support columns, within a rectangular area of [42 m x 27 m].
Impact is a very brief process whose duration is dt = 1/100 s. During the impact, energy ripples through the floor structure as elastic waves in the steel and concrete; the velocity of these stress waves is V(steel) = 1900 m/s and V(concrete) = 930 m/s; the wave speed is a property of the material (P-waves). The waves traverse the thickness of the floor structure in a time dL/V = 5/10,000 s for steel and 1/1000 s for concrete, so they can bounce between 10 to 20 times across the 1 m thickness; and they can run along the span of the floor within 0.005 to 0.01 s.
The waves alert the volume of the floor structure to the imposition of a new load, and infuse that volume with much higher stress. The floor structure is deflected downward a distance d = -0.077 meters (3 inches) during impact. In becoming stressed, the floor structure absorbs some of the energy of the descending block, slowing it by dv = 0.5 m/s (in this example). Within dt = 1/100 s, the floor structure has transmitted the force of the new load to its joints with the building's core and periphery.
Recalling the last form of the force balance, and inserting the numbers from this example, we find the magnitude of the total reaction force to be
F/(m*g) = 1 + dv/(g*dt) = 1 + 0.5/(9.81*0.01) = 6.1,
a load of six times the weight of the upper block.
I continued this particular calculation, floor by floor, as a sequence starting from rest: free fall for 3 m, impact delays transit for 0.01 s and decreases descent velocity by 0.5 m/s, free fall for 3 m, transit delay and velocity decrement as before, and so on. The block reaches the ground in 10 s with a total of 87 floor impacts. The collapse of 344 m (1128 feet) accelerates from -7.2 m/s (-16 mph) after the initial impact, to -46 m/s (-104 mph) at the ground.
Now, a little bit more about waves.
¦ Problem 1, Wave Trains and Stress Concentration
Elastic waves are launched from the collapse front (the leading edge of descending material, like "weather front") at the moment of first impact. Within 0.01 s, a stress wave has traveled through the metal framework to five levels below the collapse front, a distance of 20 m. These lower levels experience a rapid --dare I say explosive? --increase in the stress within their frames. Bolts and rivets may be sheared, and joints ruptured by the resulting impulsive forces.
For example, assume a carbon steel (HR 0.45C) bolt or rivet of 1 inch diameter is used to support a force of 8,000 kilograms, equivalent to a stress of 22,500 pounds-per-square-inch (psi). This stress is only one quarter of that material's tensile strength of 90,000 psi; an apparently conservative design. However, an unexpected increase in load by a factor of five, to a total of 48,000 kg, or 135,000 psi, would probably rupture the joint.
The stress wave from the initial impact races down the lower structure, arriving at ground level in 0.18 s (we continue with the numerical example). During that time, the collapse front has descended another 1.3 m. The stress wave is like a messenger telling the material it passes to "move down and compress" in response to the advancing collapse front. On reaching the ground, the wave could transmit some of its energy past the building's foundation to radiate as a seismic wave through the earth, and another portion of its energy would reflect back up (the major effect, especially if the foundation is more rigid than the building it supports). The message of the upward running wave is "compress even more, dead-end down below."
Elastic waves launched by an impulsive load on a structure that remains intact --like a bell being struck --will ripple back and forth, spreading out the initially concentrated stress of the strike. If the load is suddenly imposed and then remains constant, as with a book being dropped on a sturdy table, then the elastic waves die out into a fairly uniform distribution of stress throughout the volume. If the load is a short pulse, like striking a bell, then the waves will eventually die out as a fairly uniform heating of the material.
Just as there are ripples on wavelets, and wavelets on big rollers across the surface of the ocean, so will each elastic wave launched by the collapse be a jumble of waves of different size grouped together. The many individual collisions of material that make up the global impact of the upper block into a floor structure will each send off their own ripples, which all build up into a composite for the elastic wave.
A new elastic wave is launched with each impact between the collapse front and a stationary floor structure. As the collapse front accelerates, the time interval between wave launchings decreases. The building below the collapse front experiences an increasing level of stress and becomes filled with intersecting wave trains moving up and down by the time of the second impact at 1.13 s. Elastic waves that pass through each other will produce a heightened stress where they coincide, just like crossing water waves that mound noticeably.
This agitated lacework of stresses ahead of the collapse front will probably cause many fractures and break many joints prior to the arrival of the front. The sudden shifts in the volume of rooms and office spaces being compressed and twisted by the elastic wave trains can easily expel jets of air and dust out of windows, perhaps giving the impression of smoke from a gun barrel. The collapse front will push a blast of air down before it and also produce lateral jets of air from the building below it. These air streams are analogous to the water expelled sideways and into vortexes alongside a paddle pushing a canoe through still water.
All these wave effects occur in the upper block as well, from the moment of first impact. The upper block will quickly fill with elastic waves, which will rupture internal joints; the block shatters, as is vividly seen in the video recordings of the WTC collapses. The shorter length of the upper block, and its lack of firm connection (like a foundation), will contribute to the speed of its disintegration. In a very real sense the upper block was "blown up," but naturally by elastic waves rippling a destructive compression through it rather than artificially by intentional controlled demolition.
Pancaking, Buckling and Hyping (Red Herring #1)
Two days after the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers, Zdenek P. Bazant, a civil engineering professor at Northwestern University, publicized his theory of the collapse initiation. His conjectures about loosened fire insulation and heated steel losing strength survived the subsequent scrutiny by NIST. However, NIST rejected Bazant's proposed mechanism for the initiation of the collapse, referred to subsequently as the "pancake model" or "pancaking." Because of its early appearance on the scene, Bazant's model was widely circulated. Critics of NIST and the "official" story will point to the divergence of NIST's conclusions from Bazant's, four years earlier, as an indication of ignorance, confusion --or worse --complicity and cover-up on the part of the "government" people.
Bazant's pancake model is shown in Figure 1 of his report . Bazant assumed that interior columns within the impact zone would weaken from heating, buckle, and then the upper block would fall through the impact zone onto the lower structure. This impact would cause the columns in the immediate levels below ("3 to 10 seems likely") to bow, or in Bazant's words:
"This causes failure of an underlying multi-floor segment of the tower, in which the failure of the connections of the floor-carrying trusses to the columns is either accompanied or quickly followed by buckling of the core columns and overall buckling of the framed tube, with the buckles probably spanning the height of many floors, and the upper part possibly getting wedged inside an emptied lower part of the framed tube."
In other words, the upper block falls within the perimeter columns onto a lower floor, and that shock pops the floor joints around the perimeter and at the core for 3 to 10 floors below. Once in motion, this process would crush all beneath it.
NIST concludes:
"NIST's findings do not support the pancake theory of collapse[The] investigation showed conclusively that the failure of the inwardly bowed perimeter columns initiated collapse and that the occurrence of this inward bowing required the sagging floors to remain connected to the columns to pull the columns inwards. Thus, the floors did not fail progressively to cause a pancaking phenomenon."
For a shot from the hip two days after the collapse, Bazant did pretty well. But, after the NIST legion did all the necessary homework, we now have an accurate result. NIST shows pictures of the inward buckle of the perimeter wall, taken from a police helicopter. Pancaking versus NIST is a nonexistent technical argument only to be found in the imagination of some conspiracy-minded people. The technical community migrated from early hypotheses of the initiation, like pancaking, to the NIST conclusions as a consequence of doing the hard work required. And, there was always unanimity on what drove the collapse once it was initiated: excess dynamic force produced from the gravitational potential energy contained within even one level spacing. Once the top began to fall, it was going to crush the building below it, regardless.
The Absurdity of "Controlled Demolition" (Red Herring #2), by Pierre Sprey
Pierre Sprey is CounterPunch's technical reviewer of this report. His comments about the controlled demolition hypothesis are so cogent that I include them here.
Sprey:
There is not the slightest need to postulate pre-placed explosive charges to explain why the towers collapsed at near free fall speeds. Let me note a few practical aspects of explosive demolitions that make the explosive charge hypothesis improbable to the point of absurdity:
1. Any demolitions expert concocting a plan to hit a tall building with an airplane and then use pre-placed explosives to UNDETECTABLY ensure the collapse of the building would never place the explosives 20, 30 and 60 floors below the impact point. Obviously, he would put the explosives on one or more floors as close as possible to the planned impact level.
2. It is inconceivable that our demolitions expert would time his surreptitious explosions to occur HOURS after the aircraft impact. He couldn't possibly be absolutely certain that the impact fires would even last an hour. Quite the opposite: to mask the booster explosions, he'd time them to follow right on the heels of the impact.
3. To ensure collapse of a major building requires very sizable demolition charges, charges that are large enough to do a lot more than emit the "puffs of smoke" cited as evidence for the explosives hypothesis. I've seen both live and filmed explosive building demolitions. Each explosion is accompanied by a very visible shower of heavy rubble and a dense cloud of smoke and dust. Just that fact alone makes the explosives hypothesis untenable; no demolitions expert in the world would be willing to promise his client that he could bring down a tall building with explosions guaranteed to be indistinguishable from the effects of an aircraft impact.
My Conclusions
The WTC towers collapsed at speeds approaching that of free fall because:
1. The dynamic force created out of the gravitational potential energy within the space of just one level spacing was far in excess of the static force the framing was designed to support, and
2. Elastic waves launched from the collapse front quickly filled the building --both lower structure and upper block --with large dynamic stresses, which weakened and ruptured joints well in advance of that material entering the collapse front.
The towers shattered, and the pieces fell to the ground.
In part 2 of this report I address the topic of heat, a prominent feature of many conspiracy theories about the collapse of the WTC buildings. In part 3 I address the collapse of WTC 7
Manuel Garcia a native New Yorker who works as a physicist at the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory in California with a PhD Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering, from Princeton His technical interests are generally in fluid flow and energy, specifically in gas dynamics and plasma physics; and his working experience includes measurements on nuclear bomb tests, devising mathematical models of energetic physical effects, and trying to enlarge a union of weapons scientists. He can be reached at mango@idiom.com
CounterPunch Special Report: Debunking the Myths of 9/11
Alexander Cockburn here assembles his two prime commentaries in a final, expanded essay, "The 9/11 Conspiracists and the Decline of the Left."
Manuel Garcia Jr, physicist and engineer, presents his three separate reports, undertaken for CounterPunch.
Part One is his report on the Physics of 9/11.
Part Two (published here for the first time) is his report on the Thermodynamics of 9/11.
Part Three, "Dark Fire", is his report on the collapse of the World Trade Center's Building 7.
JoAnn Wypijewski wrote her essay "Conversations at Ground Zero" after a day spent with people at the site on 9/11/2006.
that was lame
Quote from: PattyLee loves dogs on December 15, 2009, 01:27 PM NHFT
November 28, 2006
We See Conspiracies That Don't Exist
The Physics of 9/11
.....
tl;dr plus it's 3 year old info. *Yawn*
Quotethat was lame
Physics often is "lame" compared to fantasy, that's why you don't see much physics in the movies.
...and I will admit that Garcia doesn't seem to think that US foreign policy qualifies as a "conspiracy", I guess because it isn't hidden (except from those who get their news from the TV). To me, a group of politicians and Halliburton types spending hundreds of billions of dollars over 6 decades to build up every dictatorship and most of the terrorist groups on the planet does qualify as a conspiracy, even if most of what it does is on the front pages every day.
Our problem isn't that people don't have esoteric knowledge of space aliens and their evil particle beams. Our problem is that most people don't read our government's own reports; most people have no idea that our taxes funded the North Korean nuclear reactors, the Sudanese goverment that massacred the population of Darfur, the Indonesian Army atrocities on Timur, etc. etc. etc.
Guess reality is just too lame for most people.
Quote from: PattyLee loves dogs on December 15, 2009, 05:40 PM NHFT
Quotethat was lame
Physics often is "lame" compared to fantasy, that's why you don't see much physics in the movies.
Our problem is that most people don't read our government's own reports
the buildings attaining freefall speeds through formulas is lame
reading the federal government's reports is a waste of time for most people ... even those that consider it "their" government
i have never read a single one of their reports
As we last left the anti hero PattyLee loves dogs he/she was claiming ignorance and feigning fatigue at the key strokes of the nefarious and dreaded "TUNGA"
Rejuvinated now plld returns to bury us with spam diligently retrieved by his/her denialist parsiminies and thier gigantic search engines of deceit.
Plld one thing you should know ;(and the 12000 victims of the 9/11 attacks want you to breath deeply of the death you trivialize) the sword of deceit is pointed at both ends.
You sir/mam are a fraud. Disingenuous false fake phoney liar and stupid to boot if you think your puny excuse for reason will convince anyone here that you are not disinformation disemination designed to confuse and confound.
Go away and take your smelly dogs with you. Please and thank you.
New group: New Hampshire 9/11 Truth: http://nhtruth.blogspot.com/ (http://nhtruth.blogspot.com/)
Cool :)
Another stunning and clear find by David Chandler of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Given that the video evidence is one of the only types of evidence remaining, DC is doing some great investigative work in those trenches.
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T1ZlAiVwZ1c&feature=player_embedded#)
Video revised with additional detail added:
Cutter charges in the North Tower of the World Trade Center
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O36ReZixfiY#)
Posted on WhatReallyHappened.com (http://whatreallyhappened.com), this BBC story squares with the Aaron Russo interview mentioning Nicholas Rockefeller's statement that "they'll be looking for people in caves..." where he describes how they will be inventing the "War on Terror" (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5420753830426590918#)...
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r-hYorNi0nA#)
You'll never get the truth from your government. I think it's funny that people still try to the the truth from them.
Have they told the truth about JFK yet? I have not been paying attention.
Quote from: thinkliberty on December 28, 2009, 09:01 PM NHFT
You'll never get the truth from your government. I think it's funny that people still try to the the truth from them.
Have they told the truth about JFK yet? I have not been paying attention.
You may not have analyzed the dynamic or motivation of the movement, but let me explain how it appears to me.
Government hasn't told the truth about the JFK assassination (RFK, MLKJr, etc.) because, as even Ron Paul has said (Radio interview on Wake Up America with Pat Gorman 6/21/07):
QuoteGovernment investigations, as a general rule, aren't very good because when the government does it, they generally protect the government. And whether it's investigating 9/11, or, you know, Ruby Ridge, or Waco, they tend more to be coverups than anything else.
So, you inherently recognize this, I can tell. As do I and many others, esp. in the 9/11 Truth movement.
The dynamic of the movement for truth about JFK back in 1963 was such that it was considered beyond the pale to question governmental authority about "the official truth" (What are you, a communist?). It has taken decades and tireless efforts of many independent researchers (not government commissions, of course) and partial deathbed confessions (E. Howard Hunt to his son Saint John (http://www.saintjohnhunt.com/)) to reach a level of certainty that it was an "inside job."
And yet, Americans seemed to take a "ho-hum, I guess the CIA might have done it. OK, well, I've got to get back to the latest episode of Survivor (NFL, NBA, NHL game)" attitude. This has puzzled many who have a moral sense, like those in the libertarian movement, and a concern about the direction of our country and world.
E. Martin Schotz, a Boston psychiatrist (and JFK truther), addresses this in
History Will Not Absolve Us (http://www.brianrwright.com/Coffee_Coaster/03_Book_Reviews/2008/080304_History_Absolve_Us.htm), his book that addresses the JFK assassination in a completely new way. It's subtitled: "Orwellian control, public denial and the murder of President Kennedy."
I believe he nails it with this quote from Gaeton Fonzi, author of The Last Investigation (http://www.amazon.com/Last-Investigation-Gaeton-Fonzi/dp/1560250798):
QuoteToday most Americans believe there was a conspiracy to kill President Kennedy, but they don't know it. They don't want to know it -- and our government doesn't want to know it and our elected representatives don't want to know it, because knowing it would mean having to do something about it. That is an awesome thought.
Schotz quotes Orwell from 1984, On "Crimestop":
QuoteThe first and simplest stage of discipline, which can be taught even to young children, is called in Newspeak, Crimestop. Crimestop means the faculty of stopping short, as though by instinct, at the threshold of any dangerous thought. It includes the power of not grasping analogies, of failing to percieve logical errors, of misunderstanding the simplest arguments if they are inimical to Ingsoc, and of being bored or repelled by any train of thought which is capable of leading in a heretical direction. Crimestop, in short, means protective stupidity.
Then Schotz' statement to Vincent J. Salandria, May 14, 1992 letter, rounds it up:
QuoteIt is so important to understand that one of the primary means of immobilizing the American people politically today is to hold them in a state of confusion in which anything can be believed but nothing can be known, nothing of significance, that is.
And the American people are more than willing to be held in this state because to know the truth -- as opposed to only believe the truth -- is to face an awful terror and to be no longer able to evade responsibility. It is precisely in moving from belief to knowledge that the citizen moves from irresponsibility to responsibility, from helplessness and hopelessness to action, with the ultimate aim of being empowered and confident in one's rational powers.
What does this have to do with 9/11 truth, you ask? Since you mentioned JFK, I thought I'd intro by reviewing that, as a mature movement.
The Martin Luther King, Junior murder was proved to be an inside job in the civil case, brought by the King family and represented by William Pepper (see: Orders to Kill (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Orders-to-Kill/William-F-Pepper/e/9780446673945) and An act of state: the execution of Martin Luther King (http://books.google.com/books?id=8Bk9he6d1j8C&dq=william+pepper+video+about+Martin+Luther+King,+Junior+murder&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=9Og8S7a_EsHClAe-ydGYBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11&ved=0CCsQ6AEwCg#v=onepage&q=&f=false))
These movements to get at the truth of important events in history have taken extraordinary efforts of the people. Something similar will have to happen to get to the bottom of the events of September 11, 2001.
Looks like it's going to be a big snow, so after a trip to the grocery store, it looks like you and I may have time for more of a chat on the point.
Well, the snow has passed - the balance of the observations about the Truth movement will have to wait til tomorrow or so.
Don't forget to check out NHTruth.blogspot.com (http://nhtruth.blogspot.com).
A good video about "how it really works" is The Secret Government; The Constitution in Crisis (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3505348655137118430&ei=2zM9S9a4H9mHlAfF-Mz0Ag&q=the+secret+government+constitution+in+crisis#), by Bill Moyers (90 minutes), a PBS program aired in July of 1987 (about the Iran-Contra scandal and how the CIA and National Security Agency work as a lawless secret government).
Especially telling is the saying of a woman observing the process, who comments at 1:19:41 (about the psychological habit of remaining blissfully ignorant) "I wish my eyes hadn't been opened, because if they've been opened, I'd have to DO something about it."
Long but good four part analysis.
http://rt.com/Top_News/2009-09-09/911-attack-job.html (http://rt.com/Top_News/2009-09-09/911-attack-job.html)
Quote from: Silent_Bob on January 03, 2010, 03:05 PM NHFT
Long but good four part analysis.
http://rt.com/Top_News/2009-09-09/911-attack-job.html (http://rt.com/Top_News/2009-09-09/911-attack-job.html)
Good find, and, yeah, long, but worth it.
Hitler knows what Nano-Thermite in the WTC dust means
YouTube - Broadcast Yourself. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EbRc1BhXjvA&#)
Conspiracy theories, online government spooks, and Cass Sunstein (http://www.opinion250.com/blog/view/15238/7/conspiracy+theories,+online+government+spooks,+and+cass+sunstein+%96+part+1)
...
"such [conspiracy] theories can...have pernicious effects from the government's point of view, either by inducing unjustifiably widespread public skepticism about the government's assertions, or by dampening public mobilization and participation in government-led efforts, or both."
It is not effective, Sunstein says, for government to simply provide "credible public information" to dispel "false conspiracy theories." That technique, he says, does not work.
Thus, in an academic paper published in 2009 Sunstein advocates "breaking up the hard core of extremists who supply conspiracy theories" by having undercover government agents infiltrate chat rooms, online social networks, and even "real-space groups" "to undermine percolating conspiracy theories" by planting doubts about "their factual premises, causal logic, or implications for action, political or otherwise." They could also "sow uncertainty and distrust" within these groups.
He also advocates that the government should enlist so-called "independent experts" to challenge "conspiracy theories," although "the price of credibility is that the government cannot be seen to control these independent experts." That being said, the government can "supply the independent experts" with information and "prod them into action" from "behind the scenes."
What is a "conspiracy theory"? According to Sunstein's definition in his paper, it is "an effort to explain some event or practice by reference to the machinations of powerful people, who attempt to conceal their role (at least until their aims are accomplished)."
By this definition, of course, any group of citizens who criticize or mount opposition to government policy, or the activities of big business, or any other powerful force in society can be claimed to be following a "conspiracy theory." It would, of course, be up to high government officials like Sunstein to judge as to which fit the category of being "false" and "harmful".
Indeed, what are some examples of "false" ones? According to Sunstein, these include the claim that "9/11 was the work of the U.S. or Israeli governments" or that these governments at least knew of the attacks but "consciously failed to act", that "the Central Intelligence Agency was responsible for the assassination of President John F. Kennedy", that that "the Trilateral Commission is responsible for important movements of the international economy," and so on.
...
There now, anytime anyone says that the government didn't do 9-11, we'll know they're a spook. ;)
Quote from: jaqeboy on December 31, 2009, 05:38 PM NHFT
A good video about "how it really works" is
(http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3505348655137118430&ei=2zM9S9a4H9mHlAfF-Mz0Ag&q=the+secret+government+constitution+in+crisis#)
The deadpan delivery of, "This president was not telling the truth, either" really cracked me up. Do they ever?
You got their number right that time.
Except the part 3 section that confuses Attas departure from Boston with Dulles.
And there are photos of landing gear inside the pentagon. As well as a small turbofan and a wing section all from a Global Hawk.
There was an excellent regional 911 Truth gathering over the weekend at Encuentro Cinco in Chinatown, Boston. Looks like some kind of common calendar and regional comm network is going to be set up. I think there'll be some other notes to come from the meeting, but not sure on that one.
Barrie Zwicker was there, author of Towers of Deception (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_ss_i_1_13?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=towers+of+deception+the+media+cover-up+of+9+11&sprefix=Towers+of+Dec), and Paul Zarembka was there, editor of The Hidden History of 9-11 (http://www.amazon.com/Hidden-History-9-11-Paul-Zarembka/dp/158322825X).
We're all hoping a lot of synergy happens by networking the whole Northeast from Toronto down to DC.
There's a plan afoot to have a large presence at the March 20th anti-war, bring the troops home protest in D.C.
NH group cites need for new 9/11 probe
http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=NH+group+cites+need+for+new+9%2f11+probe&articleId=c2822a9b-f0c3-4f03-b8c3-09c3e0765b2f (http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=NH+group+cites+need+for+new+9%2f11+probe&articleId=c2822a9b-f0c3-4f03-b8c3-09c3e0765b2f)
We need public hangings. >:(
Digitally reproduced world wide. With intent to dispel fear with fear. :o
The tables are being turned. >:D
Be on the right side. 8)
http://www.rense.com/general70/3o.htm (http://www.rense.com/general70/3o.htm)
After the north tower collapsed, the south facade of WTC 7 was largely undamaged. :o
The new photos show it conclusively! :)
Then again Tunga could be lying. ;D
Probably he is. :(
Most assuredly he is. >:(
Still no shots of the south face of building seven after the collapse of the north tower. :'(
Oh well. Good theory though right? ::)
i was saddened thee other day when i noticed that for many people their world changed after 9/11 ... and not for the betterr
the government is still bombing and shooting people in afghanistan both on purpose and by accident ... and many people support them
Hmmm, some New Hampshire folks want to know what really happened:
http://voteforanswersnh.com/ (http://voteforanswersnh.com/)
Was faced with the "conspiracy theory" label again last night by a libertarian. Here's some good stuff from Washington's blog (http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/02/leading-austrian-economist-some.html) - thanks to KaBoom Bloom for linking to it on Facebook:
Quote[usual conspiracy theory allegations..., then]
But in fact, leading Austrian school economist Professor Murray N. Rothbard wrote in 1965:
QuoteIt is also important for the State to inculcate in its subjects an aversion to any "conspiracy theory of history"; for a search for "conspiracies" means a search for motives and an attribution of responsibility for historical misdeeds. If, however, any tyranny imposed by the State, or venality, or aggressive war, was caused not by the State rulers but by mysterious and arcane "social forces," or by the imperfect state of the world or, if in some way, everyone was responsible ("We Are All Murderers," proclaims one slogan), then there is no point to the people becoming indignant or rising up against such misdeeds. Furthermore, an attack on "conspiracy theories" means that the subjects will become more gullible in believing the "general welfare" reasons that are always put forth by the State for engaging in any of its despotic actions. A "conspiracy theory" can unsettle the system by causing the public to doubt the State's ideological propaganda.
And in 1977, Rothbard wrote:
QuoteAnytime that a hard-nosed analysis is put forth of who our rulers are, of how their political and economic interests interlock, it is invariably denounced by Establishment liberals and conservatives (and even by many libertarians) as a "conspiracy theory of history," "paranoid," "economic determinist," and even "Marxist." These smear labels are applied across the board, even though such realistic analyses can be, and have been, made from any and all parts of the economic spectrum, from the John Birch Society to the Communist Party. The most common label is "conspiracy theorist," almost always leveled as a hostile epithet rather than adopted by the "conspiracy theorist" himself.
It is no wonder that usually these realistic analyses are spelled out by various "extremists" who are outside the Establishment consensus. For it is vital to the continued rule of the State apparatus that it have legitimacy and even sanctity in the eyes of the public, and it is vital to that sanctity that our politicians and bureaucrats be deemed to be disembodied spirits solely devoted to the "public good." Once let the cat out of the bag that these spirits are all too often grounded in the solid earth of advancing a set of economic interests through use of the State, and the basic mystique of government begins to collapse.
Let us take an easy example. Suppose we find that Congress has passed a law raising the steel tariff or imposing import quotas on steel? Surely only a moron will fail to realize that the tariff or quota was passed at the behest of lobbyists from the domestic steel industry, anxious to keep out efficient foreign competitors. No one would level a charge of "conspiracy theorist" against such a conclusion. But what the conspiracy theorist is doing is simply to extend his analysis to more complex measures of government: say, to public works projects, the establishment of the ICC, the creation of the Federal Reserve System, or the entry of the United States into a war. In each of these cases, the conspiracy theorist asks himself the question cui bono? Who benefits from this measure? If he finds that Measure A benefits X and Y, his next step is to investigate the hypothesis: did X and Y in fact lobby or exert pressure for the passage of Measure A? In short, did X and Y realize that they would benefit and act accordingly?
Far from being a paranoid or a determinist, the conspiracy analyst is a praxeologist; that is, he believes that people act purposively, that they make conscious choices to employ means in order to arrive at goals. Hence, if a steel tariff is passed, he assumes that the steel industry lobbied for it; if a public works project is created, he hypothesizes that it was promoted by an alliance of construction firms and unions who enjoyed public works contracts, and bureaucrats who expanded their jobs and incomes. It is the opponents of "conspiracy" analysis who profess to believe that all events — at least in government —are random and unplanned, and that therefore people do not engage in purposive choice and planning.
There are, of course, good conspiracy analysts and bad conspiracy analysts, just as there are good and bad historians or practitioners of any discipline. The bad conspiracy analyst tends to make two kinds of mistakes, which indeed leave him open to the Establishment charge of "paranoia." First, he stops with the cui bono; if measure A benefits X and Y, he simply concludes that therefore X and Y were responsible. He fails to realize that this is just a hypothesis, and must be verified by finding out whether or not X and Y really did so. (Perhaps the wackiest example of this was the British journalist Douglas Reed who, seeing that the result of Hitler's policies was the destruction of Germany, concluded, without further evidence, that therefore Hitler was a conscious agent of external forces who deliberately set out to ruin Germany.) Secondly, the bad conspiracy analyst seems to have a compulsion to wrap up all the conspiracies, all the bad guy power blocs, into one giant conspiracy. Instead of seeing that there are several power blocs trying to gain control of government, sometimes in conflict and sometimes in alliance, he has to assume — again without evidence — that a small group of men controls them all, and only seems to send them into conflict...
Rothbard's points are well-taken: there are in fact conspiracies involving powerful people. But people that go off half-cocked with baseless allegations unsupported by the evidence do a disservice to everyone, and do nothing but muddy the waters.
We must treat conspiracy theories like judges are trained to do: as claims to be proven or disproven based on the evidence.
So, hey, I'm a praxeologist, not a conspiracy theorist! ;D
Interesting.
Tunga just received his brand spankey new US Passport and it's a doozey! It not only has a chip embedded in it that has recorded every fart the Tunga has ever prefetated in his entire life, it's also impervious to destruction by fire or flame to 3000 degrees F. Plus too also it can withstand the crushing of 5 billion pounds of melting steel and still be legible on the evening news! Same day coverage no less!
Thanks Hillary! You're freaking awesome! >:D
Here's one guy's theory:
How 9/11 was done (http://how911wasdone.blogspot.com/)
Loaded with links, and followed with this comment:
QuoteOk, I admit. Some elements in this story are speculative. ... the story is an coherent educated speculation. It is an attempt to reconstruct the events of 9/11. Myriads of web sites exist that expose the inconsistencies in the official story, that obviously is a fraud. This story offers an integral explanation of what could have happened and in all likelihood more or less did happen at 9/11
He does take the "Israelis done it" stance, or as the author states: an "Israeli Conspiracy Theory that replaces the official Arab Conspiracy Theory"
I recently thought of a way to respond to the next person, especially a cool-aid drinker type, who asks you: "Are you a 9-11 truther?":
"Oh, I'm a truth seeker/skeptic. Aren't you?"
Quote from: MTPorcupine3 on February 16, 2010, 01:18 PM NHFT
I recently thought of a way to respond to the next person, especially a cool-aid drinker type, who asks you: "Are you a 9-11 truther?":
"Oh, I'm a truth seeker/skeptic. Aren't you?"
How about "Why yes, I'm for the truth. Do you favor lies?"
At least according to this article they do.
You're not allowed to see them though.
Only the BBC because they knew it was going to collapse 20 minuets before it did.
Because ya know paper and carpets can burn really hot and there was a subway station and diesel fuel and substandard construction and explosives oops. No explosives. Were sure about that. The rest were pretty sure of though. Almost positive in fact.
9/11 third tower mystery 'solved' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7485331.stm#id7480000/7481400/7481413)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7485331.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7485331.stm)
(http://voteforanswersnh.com/images/nhvotelogo-banner.jpg)
More on the campaign Vote for Answers at New Hampshire town meetings. It's confirmed that there'll be an item on 10 towns' warrant and maybe 2 more that haven't had deadlines yet. There's a new poster and I think there's a download link for the poster in this 911blogger article:
http://www.911blogger.com/node/22600 (http://www.911blogger.com/node/22600)
Gotta see the News Nuggets advert that Monadnock 9/11 is running... attached below
The Keene event last weekend was very good. Got to meet some folks that had come up from NYC, including Bill Gleason, the director of the World Trade Center Rescuers Foundation (http://www.wtcrescuers.org/) - that looks like a worthwhile group to support. He had a lot of stories to tell, some of them kinda gruesome.
In keeping with tradition, the local news media ignored the event, but, here's a good one: it WAS covered by Russia Today (http://rt.com/Politics/2010-03-04/twelve-new-england-towns.html#), who is covering a lot of interesting stuff in the good old U S of A. [I had my 1/2 second of fame in a panning shot!]
Their reporter Marina Portnaya has interviewed several key people in the 9/11 Truth movement, like Daniel Sunjata (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB3gwgBVUyw#).
BIG conference this weekend in Penna:
March 6 & 7, 2010, Valley Forge Convention Center
"Treason in America: 911, the Wars & Our Broken Constitution" Conference (http://www.treasoninamericaconference.com/)
Huge list of speakers and musical artists on the site.
Wish I could go, but I've got other commitments here.
There are a couple of cars going from the Seacoast if anyone wants to ride-share down to the event.
Proof that 9/11 Truthers Are Dangerous (http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18006)
Global Research
by George Washington's blog
Most Americans don't know what kind of people 9/11 truthers really are. So they can't figure out whether or not they are dangerous.
Below is a list of people who question what our Government has said about 9/11.
The list proves - once and for all - that people who question 9/11 are dangerous.
Email this list to everyone you know, to prove to them that 9/11 truthers are all dangerous nut cases.
Senior intelligence officers:
Former military analyst and famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg said that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11. And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of the current administration, and that there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath (see this and this).
A 27-year CIA veteran, who chaired National Intelligence Estimates and personally delivered intelligence briefings to Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush, their Vice Presidents, Secretaries of State, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and many other senior government officials (Raymond McGovern) said "I think at simplest terms, there's a cover-up. The 9/11 Report is a joke", and is open to the possibility that 9/11 was an inside job.
...
The truth movement makes Nightline:
Inside a 9/11 'Truther' Convention (http://blogs.abcnews.com/nightlinedailyline/2010/03/inside-a-911-truther-convention-.html)
Sander Hicks reports: "9/11 Truth Media Breakthrough: We Got on Nightline. Sure, the reporters here show malice, and make claims with no substantiation. (E.g. they claim that our assertions have been "discredited.") Still, this is a victory, and should be counted as one. I'm in the piece as well...."
See if you can spot any New-Hampshire brethren in the mix (there are a few there)
Uncut interview of Sander by Chris Bury of ABC. The sound's not very good, but Sander gets into the misprision of treason approach.
1st Part ABC inerview Journalist Sander Hicks and ABC Nightline 911 truth meeting (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_9urzRxUl4#ws)
The related videos down the right side of the You Tube page make for some interesting viewing, too.
Alex Jones exposes attempt to demonize 9/11 Truth on Geraldo following Pentagon incident
Alex Jones exposes attempt to demonize 9/11 Truth on Geraldo following Pentagon incident (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-XjX00UHkk&feature=related#ws)
Go Alex!
Another good one from RT. I wonder why Russia Today is delving into this so much?
9/11 - 8 Of The 19 Highjackers Still Alive After The Attack - Inside Job
9/11 - 8 Of The 19 Highjackers Still Alive After The Attack - Inside Job (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pjW7qU_YIaA#)
once you declare the right to first use of nukes it's all the defense you'll ever need.
Let Me Know When You See Fire
LET ME KNOW WHEN YOU SEE FIRE - the flaming inferno is mind control (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hT-po-tmJRc&feature=player_embedded#ws)
The last recorded words of the firefighters in the South Tower, WTC
Suggest donations to the WTC Rescuers Foundation (http://www.wtcrescuers.org/) for the surviving rescuers.
LISTEN by Jordan Page (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_M_IO25xHg#) :_fire__by_zacthetoad:
Richmond Passes Resolution! (http://voteforanswersnh.com/richmondpassesresolution.php)
On March 9, 2010 voters in the town of Richmond, New Hampshire became the second town in the United States to pass a resolution calling upon Congress to open a new investigation into the events of September 11, 2001 ( click here to read article in the Keene Sentinel (http://www.keenesentinel.com/articles/2010/03/10/news/special_reports/town_meeting_2010/id_393311.txt)). The first resolution of this kind was passed by the voters of Lincoln, Vermont in 2007 (http://www.americanbuddhist.net/node/4868).
The Vote For Answers resolution instructing New Hampshire's congressional delegation "to pursue a new and independent investigation to address thoroughly all of the evidence and unanswered questions related to the events of September 11, 2001" passed 48 to 45 in Richmond (52% in favor).
...
Wow, Patty Lee! That was good. I'm gonna save that video.
9-11 Truth makes HUGE appearance at Los Angeles Anti-War March
9-11 Truth makes HUGE appearance at Los Angeles Anti-War March (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMiqPQdWvo4#ws)
BTW - follow Merrimack Valley 9/11 Truth on Twitter: http://twitter.com/mv911truth (http://twitter.com/mv911truth)
Ed Asner for 9/11 Truth:
Ed Asner for 9/11 Truth (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QGX6gh5cDc#ws)
TONIGHT! in Nashua: http://9-11.meetup.com/307/calendar/13248283/ (http://9-11.meetup.com/307/calendar/13248283/)
Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup (http://www.loosechange911.com/)
With the departure of the Bush Administration and the arrival of an "era of transparency," opportunities are arising for the disclosure of new information that may shed more light on the events that took place before and after 9/11/2001.
Dramatically narrated by Daniel Sunjata of FX's Rescue Me, and an outspoken advocate for the First Responders, Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup first examines mysterious and infamous events that reshaped world history – from the Reichstag Fire in 1933 that catapulted Hitler to dictatorship – to the Gulf of Tonkin Incident in 1964 that led to the Vietnam War, and then takes viewers on a turbulent journey through several pivotal moments in history before delving into the most significant catastrophe in recent memory, 9/11.
Loaded with powerful, new footage and in-depth interviews with the likes of Steven Earl Jones, an American physicist who has discovered undetonated explosive material in multiple samples of dust from the World Trade Center collapses, this documentary presents a wide array of evidence both known and unknown...until now. Eight years later, the American people continue to live in the aftermath of 9/11 and deal with its ongoing repercussions. Is this just another machination of power on the timeline of history? If so, the real question is what happens next? Or better yet, what can we do to prevent another 9/11?
The film serves as a fundamental call to action which is fueled by hope that those affected by 9/11 will soon receive the answers that they have sought after for nearly a decade.
----------------
Also at this MV911T meeting:
Report on Peterborough 9/11 Film Festival
Also, a report on the Vote for Answers NH campaign to put 9/11 on the town meeting agenda in New Hampshire towns.
Also, a report on the NYC CAN "Building What?" campaign in NYC.
This'll be a great meeting!
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/mv911truth (http://twitter.com/mv911truth)
Other NH interest 9/11 stuff: http://nhtruth.blogspot.com/ (http://nhtruth.blogspot.com/)
Senior BBC Mideast Correspondent: "Here's what may have REALLY happened on 9/11"!
http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2010/05/senior-bbc-mideast-correspondent-heres.html (http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2010/05/senior-bbc-mideast-correspondent-heres.html)
McFarland, WI 5/26/2010
Breaking his self-imposed rule against talking about 9/11, former Senior BBC Mideast Correspondent and author Alan Hart described what he thinks may have really happened on that fateful day on yesterday's Kevin Barrett show.
Hart, who got to know Yasser Arafat and Golda Meir while serving as a Security Council-briefed Mideast peace negotiator, said that he has been assured by a top-level demolitions/ engineering expert who wishes to remain anonymous that the three World Trade Center skyscrapers were destroyed by controlled demolitions, not plane crashes and fires. (For the names of more than 1000 experts willing to go on the record with the same opinion, see http://www.ae911truth.org/ (http://www.ae911truth.org/)).
During the hour-long interview, Hart discussed Israel's record of engaging in outrageous attacks on friend and foe alike, and spreading even more outrageous lies to cover them up. (Around the midpoint of the show he explained the real reason Israel attacked the U.S.S. Liberty in 1967.)
Regarding 9/11, Hart suggested that while there may have been some original terrorist plot conceived by fellow-travelers of Osama Bin Laden, the Israeli Mossad, with its near-total penetration of Middle Eastern governments and terrorist groups alike, would have quickly detected and hijacked the operation to its own ends, orchestrating a spectacularly successful attack on America designed to be blamed on its Arab and Muslim enemies. Hart added that the Mossad operation that became 9/11 would have been aided and abetted by certain corrupt American leaders.
...
Infowars' Paul Watson's take on the Alan Hart interview:
Top Construction Firm: WTC Destroyed By Controlled Demolition (http://www.infowars.com/top-construction-firm-wtc-destroyed-by-controlled-demolition/)
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Top Construction Firm: WTC Destroyed By Controlled Demolition 260510top2
Respected Middle East expert and former BBC presenter Alan Hart has broken his silence on 9/11, by revealing that the world's most prominent civil engineering company told him directly that the collapse of the twin towers was a controlled demolition.
Speaking on the Kevin Barrett show yesterday, Hart said he thought the 9/11 attack probably started as a Muslim operation headed up by Osama Bin Laden but that the plot was subsequently hijacked and carried out by Mossad agents in collusion with elements of the CIA, adding that since its formation, Israel has penetrated every Arab government and terrorist organization.
...
Gov. Walter Peterson – 81st Governor of New Hampshire 1969 - 1973. Former Member of the New Hampshire House of Representatives, serving as Majority Leader 1963 - 1964 and as Speaker 1965 - 1968. After government experience served as President, Franklin Pierce College (20 years) and as Trustee of the University System of New Hampshire (12 years). U.S. Navy Veteran, World War II.
* Article "9/11 Effort to Go On in Peterborough NH (//http://)" Monadnock Ledger-Transcript 5/13/10:
"Their petition article failed at the polls Tuesday, but the eight Peterborough members of the Monadnock 9/11 Truth Alliance say they are not backing down.
"We are delighted that about a third of the people think this was something worth looking into," Karin Wells said. "We will continue to educate and tell people. ... It's swimming upstream. It's so hard."
The petition article on Tuesday's Town Meeting ballot asked voters to send a message to the government by asking the town to instruct the state Congressional Delegation to pursue a new and independent investigation to address thoroughly all of the evidence and unanswered questions related to the events of Sept. 11 2001. ...
"We're pleased that Gov. [Walter] Peterson is among our ranks. We think that it's an indicator of how more and more politicians are realizing the weight of this issue," Jay Iselin said.
Peterson, who signed the petition, told the Monadnock Ledger-Transcript yesterday that he did not expect the petition article to pass, but that asking questions when you have doubts is always the right thing to do.
"You should question some things if they don't make sense," he said. "I don't think it's unpatriotic."
Peterson said both he and his wife, Dorothy, decided to support the petition article after watching one of the videos of the collapse of the Twin Towers, which he said looks like a controlled demolition to them. "That raised questions because that's not how a building would fall if it was attacked," Peterson said. "Both Dorothy and I had viewed the video and there were certainly a lot of serious questions raised about what happened there."
"Most people don't want to bother. But I think if you raise a question, if you really have a doubt, you should say it," Peterson said." http://nhtruth.blogspot.com (http://nhtruth.blogspot.com)
* Bio: http://www.nh.gov (http://www.nh.gov)
Not sure why thats important. Sort of common knowledge around these parts. :blush:
http://mikephilbin.blogspot.com/2010/06/david-cameron-twin-towers-were-blown-up.html (http://mikephilbin.blogspot.com/2010/06/david-cameron-twin-towers-were-blown-up.html)
We're over there so we can be over there. Cause we need the stuff they have. :o
Former CIA Officials Admit To Faking Bin Laden Video (http://www.infowars.com/former-cia-officials-admit-to-faking-bin-laden-video/)
Steve Watson
Prisonplanet.com
Tuesday, May 25th, 2010
Former CIA Officials Admit To Faking Bin Laden Video 250510LadenTwo former CIA officials have admitted to creating a fake video in which intelligence officers dressed up as Osama Bin Laden and his cronies in an effort to defame the terrorist leader throughout the middle east.
The details are outlined in a Washington Post article by investigative reporter and former Army Intelligence case officer Jeff Stein.
...
Do you still believe a bin Laden confession, just because you saw it on TV?
just yesterday I ran into a guy who didn't believe the government could cover up something this big
i guess he was right
:)
Yeah, too many leaks in the system. The propaganda media just won't blare this stuff on the front page like they should, though, so it's up to you and me, brother.
So, where are the leaks among the thousands of individuals who it would have taken to do a controlled demolition on all those buildings and cover it up? Not one of them has come forward?
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on June 20, 2010, 06:16 PM NHFT
So, where are the leaks among the thousands of individuals who it would have taken to do a controlled demolition on all those buildings and cover it up? Not one of them has come forward?
Joe
Joe the leakers as you call them worked for a private contractor based in Israel that employed artists and movers.
The artists constructed sound deadening walls on unoccupied floors of the WTC while they rigged each floor for demo.
Windows were removed and a high speed winch brought explosives up in the middle of the night.
After the attacks several of them were arrested driving explosive laden vans. All 100 of them were rounded up and deported back to Israel by DHS director Chertoff.
Several of those deported Artists/Movers admitted to having rigged the buildings on an Israeli talk show.
Yeah, artists are pretty good at setting demolitions charges.
In a normal situation, most demolitions companies wouldn't touch the WTC towers. Imagining that it can be done clandestinely, and deal with plane impacts without causing any demolition failures, is just beyond compare.
Joe
Why wouldn't demolition companies take down the towers? Take out a few (of the 47 high strength core columns) high up in the structure and pour a few thousand gallons of kerosene down an elevator shaft and just wait an hour or so and the whole thing comes down in it's own foot print.
Sounds pretty easy really. How come more buildings aren't destroyed like this? Oh, Ya. Cause its a fucking joke!
Nothing that large has ever been dropped. And, regardless of the cause of the collapse, the damage to surrounding structures is (as happened) quite substantial.
Most of the large skyscrapers have been built with no thought to how they will eventually be taken down. Even assuming someone had the audacity to attempt it, it would require controlled conditions, not installing explosives in some magical way that prevents anyone from noticing, crashing a jetliner into the building, and then just hoping against hope that the explosives are still where they need to be, with no way of checking.
Buildings don't come down by magic. The "controlled demolition" fantasy requires that one assumes too many things which exceed the current state of the art, as well as ignoring a simpler option (ie, find some gullible terrorists and convince them to fly planes into the buildings).
Joe
Joe, Joe, Joe... :deadhorse: :BangHead:
Joe the steel core columns? Where did they go?
Your cluelessness is showing.
Do you have any idea how much weight a box column 3 inches thick by 4 feet long by 2 feet wide can carry?
Ya no. YOu just repeat the NWO talking points. Hate the Muslims. You got it down Joe.
Quote from: KBCraig on June 22, 2010, 02:15 AM NHFTJoe, Joe, Joe... :deadhorse: :BangHead:
It's a good workout.
Quote from: Tunga on June 22, 2010, 05:42 AM NHFTJoe the steel core columns? Where did they go?
I wasn't aware that they left. Maybe Hawaii?
Quote from: Tunga on June 22, 2010, 05:42 AM NHFTYour cluelessness is showing.
It's odd that no actual, competent engineer says anything else, eh?
Quote from: Tunga on June 22, 2010, 05:42 AM NHFTDo you have any idea how much weight a box column 3 inches thick by 4 feet long by 2 feet wide can carry?
Yup. I also have a fairly good idea of how its bearing capacity goes down as temperature increases (here's a hint: you don't need to even get particularly close to the melting point to soften it such that it's like large taffy).
Quote from: Tunga on June 22, 2010, 05:42 AM NHFTYa no. YOu just repeat the NWO talking points. Hate the Muslims. You got it down Joe.
Who hates Muslims?
Anyway, the only folks who benefit from the nonsense story about controlled demolition are the Feds and other Statists. Right after the attack, there was a large demand that passengers be allowed to be armed, so any future hijackings could be prevented. The Feds didn't like that, so they concocted the silly story that planes didn't actually cause the collapse, so their anti-self-defense policies wouldn't be blamed; after all, if it was done with explosives, armed passengers would not have stopped it.
Plus, it wastes folks' time, that they could be doing something useful with, rather than attending conspiracy conventions. And it sidelines the liberty movement by association in the minds of most of the population. We would have been able to prevent much of the evil done in the last decade, with more man-hours and less "I heard a Truther say the same thing that you're saying, so I'll just ignore you."
Anyone spreading that story is just helping the government.
Joe
So a building built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 is made of Taffy? Popular Science doing your calculations for you Joe?
They build a lot of buildings right Joe? What do they recommend? Carbon Carbon stiffeners laminated to 2X12's? That's what you'd use right Joe?
Quote from: MaineShark on June 22, 2010, 08:03 AM NHFT
It's odd that no actual, competent engineer says anything else, eh?
Yup. I also have a fairly good idea of how its bearing capacity goes down as temperature increases (here's a hint: you don't need to even get particularly close to the melting point to soften it such that it's like large taffy).
Plus, it wastes folks' time, ....
Anyone spreading that story is just helping the government.
Joe
There are lots of competent engineers that can explain why what we all saw on the TV that day was a controlled demolition.
Tunga is wasting his time talking to you. No big whoop.
Anyone defending the governments official story is accessory to murder.
Your ok with that though?
A kerosene fire 1000' up in the air can melt a steel column in the basement. Again I ask you: why don't more demolition companies employ this technique? It not only saved Mr. Silverman billions; it actually
made him money.
Quote from: Tunga on June 22, 2010, 08:18 PM NHFTSo a building built to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707 is made of Taffy? Popular Science doing your calculations for you Joe?
Nope. I ran the numbers on that, well back in the 1990's. It's not like the idea of flying a jet into a building as an act of terrorism is a new concept. Someone asked me if it would just cause a lot of damage, or collapse the building. The numbers said it would collapse the building.
Quote from: Tunga on June 22, 2010, 08:18 PM NHFTThere are lots of competent engineers that can explain why what we all saw on the TV that day was a controlled demolition.
Whom? I've not heard of a single one. And don't go bringing up the foolish group full of interior designers and electricians, who claim they understand structural engineering.
Quote from: Tunga on June 22, 2010, 08:18 PM NHFTAnyone defending the governments official story is accessory to murder.
Your ok with that though?
The only one here presenting a story released by the government are you, and the other Truthers. I think the government knew that terrorists were going to do this, and let it happen. I wouldn't blink if evidence that some elements provided material support to those terrorists came to light. They did it with the earlier bombing, so why not this time?
Government involvement is believable. Ghost explosives are not. But the explosive story provides substantial support to the government.
Quote from: Tunga on June 22, 2010, 08:18 PM NHFTA kerosene fire 1000' up in the air can melt a steel column in the basement. Again I ask you: why don't more demolition companies employ this technique? It not only saved Mr. Silverman billions; it actually made him money.
Because it makes a mess of the surroundings, as evidenced by the massive damage to other buildings in the area. Controlled demolitions are a heck of a lot cleaner than the WTC collapse.
Joe
Here's a recent piece (file attached) by Bill Woodward of UNH about the psychology of 9/11. I'll look for the YouTube video link and post that later.
partial quote:
Quote...
I would like to speak about the public perception of 9/11. Psychology has a lot to offer for understanding how the public reacted over the past eight or so years. I will apply the insights, drawn from experimental and clinical research, from the theories of psychoanalysis, social psychology, and cognitive-behavioral psychology.
The initial event caused a collective trauma. Like the Kennedy assassination, most in my generation can still remember what we were doing when we got the news. Similarly, for most of us, the images of planes flying into those tall World Trade Center buildings will never go away. It may haunt us when we sleep. We want to talk about it, or we don't want to talk about it. Either way, it is a cognition lodged in our minds.
This memory is what psychologists call a cognition. According to the social psychological theory of cognitive dissonance, we unconsciously try to harmonize our cognitions, or to make them consonant (Festinger, 1957). When we encounter a shock like 9/11, we naturally look for causes right away. Finding cause and effect helps to produce consonance between cognitions.
The cause was actually provided by our national media, rather surprisingly, within the first day or two of the attack. We experienced it with "shock and awe." We saw the faces of all 19 Arab hijackers on television. We saw the planes going into the buildings, over and over. We saw the hole in the Pentagon. That was it. And that is where many people remained -- with what I will call "the official theory" of 9/11. This official story helped many to reduce their cognitive dissonance, to reconcile the attack with a ready story of the perpetrators. Our president even provided a motive: they hate our freedoms. Others looked deeper and reasoned that they hated our bases on their sovereign lands.
Others, however, experienced a different cognitive dissonance. They saw this shocking event and became suspicious of the official story, either right away or gradually over a period of months and years. I am in the latter category. It was a local group who gave me the moral support to push on toward the truth. We began by reading Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert (2004). He suggested that this was a state crime motivated by diminishing resources.
...
That's funny. He started reading about it in 2004? And he magically became an expert on what the government does and doesn't do, and have the capability of doing?
Joe
Joe the A&E members posted the plans to the WTC on line at their website. Because the government has sequestered the plans the column schedule sheet is absent from the set.
Can you explain how you "ran the numbers" when you are obviously clueless to the structure? Did you have access to the missing column schedule or did you pull your numbers from your rectal cavity?
Quote from: MaineShark on June 23, 2010, 07:11 AM NHFT
That's funny. He started reading about it in 2004? And he magically became an expert on what the government does and doesn't do, and have the capability of doing?
Joe
... but stupid lasts forever
Quote from: Tunga on June 23, 2010, 11:01 AM NHFTJoe the A&E members posted the plans to the WTC on line at their website. Because the government has sequestered the plans the column schedule sheet is absent from the set.
Can you explain how you "ran the numbers" when you are obviously clueless to the structure? Did you have access to the missing column schedule or did you pull your numbers from your rectal cavity?
Oddly enough, the structure isn't actually secret, despite manufactured conspiracy theories.
Quote from: Tunga on June 23, 2010, 11:07 AM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on June 23, 2010, 07:11 AM NHFTThat's funny. He started reading about it in 2004? And he magically became an expert on what the government does and doesn't do, and have the capability of doing?
... but stupid lasts forever
Sounds like you'd have more experience with that than I.
Anyone with any level of understanding of science or even just basic reasoning skills examines evidence, then reaches a conclusion. Conspiracy theorists reach a conclusion, then search for any random bits of evidence that support it, and ignore anything that refutes it.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on June 23, 2010, 01:19 PM NHFT, and ignore anything that refutes it.
Joe
Hmm. Who does that sound like? Let's ponder that shall we?
"Nope. I ran the numbers on that, well back in the 1990's." - Joe the Maine shark
Joe is a regular guy who gets his "numbers" off a rectal thermometer.
Run those numbers Joe. Are you running a fever Joe? Maybe he means he has the runs? Running for office?
Maybe he's worried the IDF won't give him his bonus check this month.
Come on Joe. Shut the Tunga up why don't cha?
... only has to pretend a little to "not know anything about" what a "cutter" charge is.
Back Stop Failure.
Thats when the little left behind shill for the big important world powers realize that he's been ah, as we said, um, left behind.
:P
Aww, come on Joe! That should get the Tunga at least two negative Karma points! Because telling the truth makes the lying shills very mad and they might actually go out and take bad actions based on their petty little jealous insecurities.
Tunga is sorry if he aroused an actual emotion from these obviously brainless droids infesting this earth. They are fun to pick on though. So you gotta give' em that.
Yawn...
I realize that you wish you actually had a life, and think that hanging onto conspiracies is what you need to make yourself happy.
Obviously, it bothers you that you've supported this evil system, so it eases your burden if there was some secret cabal pulling the strings, and your actions didn't matter, because the Grand Conspirators would have achieved their ends, anyway.
Sorry, but your actions do matter. You supported this evil system. It's done what it's done because you, and millions like you, helped it do those things. No secret group is out there to take your blame for you.
There's a good reason why those of us who have never, from day one, ever supported the system... never fall into the conspiracy theory trap. I have no guilt I need to pawn off onto others. So I have no need to invent those others. Typically, those who jump onto conspiracy theories are those who had the rudest awakenings. What evils did you help the State achieve, that you have so much guilt about, Tunga?
Joe
The 14 year old Tunga signed a "Social Security" card after he was assured that he had too.
Swallowing the lie for next 30 years he tried to fit into the system. That didn't work out so well.
Now that research has exposed this lie for the Tunga he is only trying to enlighten others as to the nature of the slavery you appear to embrace.
Still waiting for a chance to rebut your "numbers" that your ran back in the '90's. You know the ones that showed how a 767 traveling at 20% over the maximum attainable speed for that plane could cause a building to fall down without resistance. Did they go to Hawaii or something?
Quote from: MaineShark on June 23, 2010, 09:30 PM NHFT
There's a good reason why those of us who have never, from day one, ever supported the system...
Joe
So you have never paid IRS or Social Security excises? Oh that's right! Citizens of Israel aren't liable to the Federal Reserve.
Quote from: Tunga on June 24, 2010, 07:51 AM NHFTThe 14 year old Tunga signed a "Social Security" card after he was assured that he had too.
Swallowing the lie for next 30 years he tried to fit into the system. That didn't work out so well.
Now that research has exposed this lie for the Tunga he is only trying to enlighten others as to the nature of the slavery you appear to embrace.
By "enlighten others," you mean "invent fantasies to avoid blame for his own actions," right?
Quote from: Tunga on June 24, 2010, 07:51 AM NHFTStill waiting for a chance to rebut your "numbers" that your ran back in the '90's. You know the ones that showed how a 767 traveling at 20% over the maximum attainable speed for that plane could cause a building to fall down without resistance. Did they go to Hawaii or something?
Since you clearly have zero grasp of engineering of physics ("no resistance" - what is that supposed to mean? the buildings fell in an instant, in your world?), I'm not sure how I would go about explaining the failure mode to you. Planes hit buildings. Go boom. Cut many columns. Fires soften other columns. Heavy building causes columns to fail. Remaining columns under more weight, and getting softer. Too many columns break, and building falls.
Quote from: Tunga on June 24, 2010, 07:57 AM NHFTSo you have never paid IRS or Social Security excises? Oh that's right! Citizens of Israel aren't liable to the Federal Reserve.
Victims of armed robbery aren't responsible for the robber's acts; they aren't "supporting" the robber. Those who
willingly donate their time, money, and consent to mass-murdering thugs, are. You chose, because you wanted to, to support thugs who commit horrible crimes against millions and millions of innocent people. And, rather than face the fact that you were a happy little supporter, goose-stepping along with their evil, you try and invent some scapegoat to blame.
Joe
This report was made in 1992. Is this the paper you were talking about?
http://www.aisc.org/store/p-842-a-novel-approach-for-k-factor-determination.aspx (http://www.aisc.org/store/p-842-a-novel-approach-for-k-factor-determination.aspx)
So Joe if you pay the IRS "unwillingly" you're not supporting the evil?
Joe a regular guy who thinks rebuttal using emotion instead of fact will get him the respect of those petty little karma strokers.
Say it, don't spray it.
Quote from: MaineShark on June 22, 2010, 09:34 PM NHFT
Nope. I ran the numbers on that, well back in the 1990's. ... Someone asked me if it would just cause a lot of damage, or collapse the building. The numbers said it would collapse the building.
Joe
Joe, a regular guy who always backs up everything he says with bullshit.
Maybe Maineshark got killed by the oil slick? :o
Oh. that's right! The gulf oil leak is actually just a figment of Tunga's huge imagination. Just another "theory" right Joe? ::)
Fact or theory?
We had a joyful coup at the AltExpo this past Saturday up at PorcFest!
We brought in Mark O'Connor of We Are Change Boston for our 4PM segment to talk about the WAC organization and how to form a New Hampshire Chapter. He informed us the night before that the We Are Change New York contingent was denied entry to Canada (where they were headed to oppose the G20/G8 meeting in Toronto). They were heading back to NYC, but Mark got them to divert and come to the AltExpo for a day first.
Luke Rudkowski, Matt Lepacek and Kelley McCarthy for WAC-NY were in the house! Luke showed us some video that'll go into his film due to be released this fall. We may even be able to arrange an opening night premier in New Hampshire. Big doings!
Here's Luke's blog post on Russia Today about the trip to PorcFest:
http://rt.com/About_Us/Blogs/armed-with-truth.html (http://rt.com/About_Us/Blogs/armed-with-truth.html)
also at the WeAreChange.org site:
http://www.wearechange.org/?p=2307&cpage=1#comment-1326 (http://www.wearechange.org/?p=2307&cpage=1#comment-1326)
NASA Flight Director Confirms 9/11 Aircraft Speed As The "Elephant In The Room" (http://pilotsfor911truth.org/911_Aircraft_Speed_Deets.html)
06/22/2010 - (PilotsFor911Truth.org) Recently Pilots For 9/11 Truth have analyzed the speeds reported for the aircraft utilized on 9/11. Numerous aviation experts have voiced their concerns regarding the extremely excessive speeds reported above Maximum Operating for the 757 and 767, particularly, United and American Airlines 757/767 Captains who have actual flight time in all 4 aircraft reportedly used on 9/11. These experts state the speeds are impossible to achieve near sea level in thick air if the aircraft were a standard 757/767 as reported. Combined with the fact the airplane which was reported to strike the south tower of the World Trade Center was also producing high G Loading while turning and pulling out from a dive, the whole issue becomes incomprehensible to fathom a standard 767 can perform such maneuvers at such intense speeds exceeding Maximum Operating limits of the aircraft. Especially for those who research the topic thoroughly and have expertise in aviation.
Co-Founder of Pilots For 9/11 Truth Rob Balsamo recently interviewed a former NASA Flight Director in charge of flight control systems at the NASA Dryden Flight Research facility who is also speaking out after viewing the latest presentation by Pilots For 9/11 Truth - "9/11: World Trade Center Attack".
Retired NASA Senior Executive Dwain Deets published his concerns on the matter at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) as follows:
...
balance of article at the link at the title above^
REMINDER:
Tonite - First Tuesday of the month - Merrimack Valley 911 Truth screening in Nashua. Go to the MV911t.org site (http://mv911t.org) for details.
showing tonight: Invisible EmpireInvisible Empire (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S3Fo1zEjCRw)by Jason Bermasthis is a MUST SEE video if you have ever questioned whether there is a plan for a New World Order!
See you there - please bring a box of tea and snacks.
There will be a lot of Manhattan activities this year on 9/11 weekend and I'll be arranging a bus tour down to the city, probably starting in Portsmouth, with stops in Manchester, Keene, Boston and Northampton, Mass, with the final route depending on where the interest and bookings are.
We Are Change has a full slate of events (http://www.wearechange.org/91110/) and I'd like to arrive there in time for the 4PM action to surround the CFR. Meetup site for announcements (http://www.meetup.com/wearechange/calendar/13986163/).
I hear there will be other events, possibly by NYC CAN (http://nyccan.org/), and will post details when I find them.
The New York City tour and others are all listed on this site for the Alternatives Organizations tour (http://altorgs.com).
We'll make it possible for you to get to all these events the very least expensive way possible and possibly to earn your way by operating an enterprise there! Check it out.
Merrimack Valley 9/11 Truth (http://www.meetup.com/9-11-307/) will be helping to arrange the bus tour to NYC this year for 9/11 weekend.
(http://www.virtourist.com/america/new-york/pictures/new-york-0000999.jpg)
MV911T will post details on their site here (http://www.meetup.com/9-11-307/calendar/14317342/).
This will be the most economical way to get to NYC, since arrangements are being made for lodging in a hostel. Meals on the bus will be included, but meals on your own in NYC.
There will be lots of local groups arranging activities, like We Are Change, NYC CAN, NY911T, etc. This will be a great weekend to get away, check out the Big Apple and participate in benefit activities for the 9/11 rescue workers - a great networking opportunity, all-in-all.
I just got the link to this new video:
Sibel Edmonds Documentary - Kill The Messenger
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6063340745569143497&hl=en# (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6063340745569143497&hl=en#)
I wonder if someone can get it on DVD for showing at mv911t (http://mv911t.org)?
Sander Hicks has organized another Truth event this year, but this one is before 9/11 weekend - in fact it's this weekend! ...and, he's not only organized the event, but will be playing in the band, and, he's offering some Truth home brew!
(http://www.sanderhicks.com/images/rebelMoon250image.jpg)
The AltOrgs tour (http://altorgs.com/2010-altorgs-tour/) has raised enough interest in this event that we'll be going to it - I'll start a separate thread with full details, but here are a couple of links to it:
AltOrgs blog post on our tour to the Catskills Truth Gathering (http://altorgs.com/2010/08/11/truth-in-the-catskills/),
AltOrgs Facebook event page on our tour to the CTG (http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=122271944487123&index=1),
Sander's event home site for the Catskills Truth Gathering (http://www.sanderhicks.com/truthgathering.html), and
Sander's Facebook page for the gig (http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=134835616549931).
As of right now, we have one open seat in the Alt-Wagon, but will upsize to the Alt-Van if there are more than 1 more that want to go. Just write us at tour@AltOrgs.com, if you're interested.
Radio Debate: Richard Gage v. Dave Thomas (http://nhtruth.blogspot.com/2010/08/radio-debate-richard-gage-vs-dave.html)
Part 1/11: Coast to Coast AM - 1 of 11 - 9/11 Debate (Aug 21, 2010) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzdSbjTEFcsOn#ws) Saturday August 21st, 2010, Richard Gage, AIA from Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth (http://ae911truth.org), and Dave Thomas a Physicist from New Mexicans for Science and Reason (http://www.nmsr.org/), joined Ian Punnett on Coast to Coast AM (http://www.coasttocoastam.com/) for the entire program of 4 hours to debate how the World Trade Center buildings collapsed on September 11, 2001.
Physicist Kim Johnson and Chemist Niels Harrit joined the discussion in hour three.
Note: this debate has been broken down into 11 YouTube videos. The video player posted here should play all videos in sequence, from video 1 to 11.
Great news about 9/11 weekend in New York! There will be a Shire Truth to Power tour there for Fri-Sat-Sun 9/11 weekend. We are bringing 1 or 2 vans and may scale up to Alt-bus, if we overflow the vans.
I'll post details on a separate thread after Live Free or Die weekend and a full tour details sheet will be posted to the Altrgs.com (http://altorgs.com) tour site. Bunch of new stuff has gone up there lately, so be sure to check it out.
http://BuildingWhat.org/ (http://buildingwhat.org/)
Good find, Tunga. I know there's going to be a big focus on getting the collapse of Building 7 out in front of people for the following year. It seems to be the Achilles heel - the thing that makes people take a second look.
Quote from: Tunga on August 28, 2010, 06:43 PM NHFT
http://BuildingWhat.org/ (http://buildingwhat.org/)
I'll tweet out the link, Tunga - http://twitter.com/mv911truth. (http://twitter.com/mv911truth) Be sure to follow us there!
EXCLUSIVE: New Video of World Trade Center 7 Released Showing Michael Hess Calling Down For Help While He is Stuck in the Building! (http://www.newworldorderreport.com/News/tabid/266/ID/5228/EXCLUSIVE-New-Video-of-World-Trade-Center-7-Released-Showing-Michael-Hess-Calling-Down-For-Help-While-He-is-Stuck-in-the-Building.aspx)
New World Order Report Exclusive!
After the first World Trade Center tower is hit, Barry Jennings, a City Housing Authority worker, and Michael Hess, New York's corporation counsel, head up to the emergency command center of the Mayor's Office of Emergency Management (OEM), which is on the 23rd floor of WTC 7. Testimony from Barry Jennings and Michael Hess has rarely been confirmed, until now. This video was just released via a FOIA (freedom of information act request) and New World Order Report has obtained and released it on the internet.
Take a look for yourself. Michael Hess, clearly visible, is stuck in the building. This corroborates the story they told that on the way down trying to evacuate the building, an explosion occurred inside of the building which trapped them. The stairway, where the explosion occurred, blew out the last floors in the stairwell. Barry Jennings gave an exclusive interview with Loose Change creator Dylan Avery where Barry stated that when he was finally found by firefighters, they stepped over dead bodies in the lobby on their way out. After the video publicly aired, Barry Jennings mysteriously died just before the BBC aired a piece about World Trade Center Building 7...
New footage just released:
New Footage World Trade Center Building 7 with Michael Hess Yelling While Trapped (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oArHZqyNewE#)
:glasses1:http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-31/international-center-911-studies-secures-release-thousands-photos-and-videos-nist (http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-31/international-center-911-studies-secures-release-thousands-photos-and-videos-nist)
Wow, Tunga. Looks like there's some gold in these videos!
Quote from: Tunga on September 02, 2010, 08:31 AM NHFT
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-31/international-center-911-studies-secures-release-thousands-photos-and-videos-nist (http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-31/international-center-911-studies-secures-release-thousands-photos-and-videos-nist)
Quote from: MaineShark on June 22, 2010, 09:34 PM NHFT
I ran the numbers on that, well back in the 1990's. It's not like the idea of flying a jet into a building as an act of terrorism is a new concept. Someone asked me if it would just cause a lot of damage, or collapse the building. The numbers said it would collapse the building.
Joe
How is someone these days? Did you ever find that paper MaineShark or are your gills a little to oil soaked to reply right now?
Quote from: PattyLee loves dogs on December 03, 2009, 09:46 PM NHFT
QuoteThe levels of tritium on the scene indicates nukes were used.
Actually, if nuclear weapons are used it's usually possible to determine that fact without looking for residues of tritium (nukes are, after all, a little noisy).
What? Can't hear you pattyleeeee! There's a micro nuke in my earrrrrr!
Did NIST Edit WTC 7 Footage To Hide Evidence Of Implosion? (http://www.prisonplanet.com/did-nist-edit-wtc-7-footage-to-hide-evidence-of-implosion.html)
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, September 2, 2010
After filing a lawsuit that prompted NIST to release more than 3 terabytes of photographs and videos from their investigation into the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7 on 9/11, the International Center for 9/11 Studies has obtained evidence that suggests NIST edited several videos of the collapse of Building 7 in order to hide evidence of a controlled implosion.
The Center filed a FOIA Request with NIST on January 26, 2009, seeking production of "all of the photographs and videos collected, reviewed, cited or in any other way used by NIST during its investigation of the World Trade Center building collapses." Following several unsuccessful attempts to get NIST to even acknowledge receipt of the Request, the Center was forced to file a lawsuit on May 28, 2009. Shortly after the lawsuit was filed, the Request was assigned a reference number, and NIST began periodically releasing batches of responsive records.
The Center has now begun posting some of those images and videos online, the first batch of which is from an external hard disk drive "NIST WTC Investigation Cumulus Video Clips."
In one of the clips, the video of which has been in the public domain for years, a loud, low-frequency boom can be heard just before the east penthouse of WTC 7 falls. Once the support columns that held up the penthouse are taken out, the rest of the building falls almost within its own footprint.
WTC 7 Explosion (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrnmbUDeHus#)
However, in subsequent clips released by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology), where the camera is located nearer to the building, the collapse of the penthouse is clearly edited out of the footage.
"Several clips from the Cumulus database show signs of editing. In the two video clips below, the collapse of the penthouse of World Trade Center 7 is cut out of the video. These videos happen to have been filmed from close to WTC 7, and have a high quality soundtrack that would have picked up explosion sounds from the charges that severed the columns supporting the penthouse, especially the explosion heard in the last video clip presented," comments the International Center for 9/11 Studies.
...
Quote from: Tunga on September 02, 2010, 08:37 PM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on June 22, 2010, 09:34 PM NHFTI ran the numbers on that, well back in the 1990's. It's not like the idea of flying a jet into a building as an act of terrorism is a new concept. Someone asked me if it would just cause a lot of damage, or collapse the building. The numbers said it would collapse the building.
How is someone these days? Did you ever find that paper MaineShark or are your gills a little to oil soaked to reply right now?
Not sure what in heck you mean, but that's unsurprising... one needs a functioning brain to form coherent sentences, and the Magic 8-Ball you've been using just won't cut it. It's amusing to watch you smash your head on the wall trying to get the float to move, though.
Joe
KEN O'KEEFE VIDEO: MARINE VET TALKS ABOUT 9/11 AND AMERICA'S ROLE IN THE WORLD (http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/09/01/ken-okeefe-video-marine-vet-talks-about-911-and-americas-role-in-the-world/)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8aGJlXuavk&feature=player_embedded# (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8aGJlXuavk&feature=player_embedded#)!
Quote from: jaqeboy on September 02, 2010, 08:58 AM NHFT
Wow, Tunga. Looks like there's some gold in these videos!
Quote from: Tunga on September 02, 2010, 08:31 AM NHFT
http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-31/international-center-911-studies-secures-release-thousands-photos-and-videos-nist (http://911blogger.com/news/2010-08-31/international-center-911-studies-secures-release-thousands-photos-and-videos-nist)
Because I'm always willing to look at actual evidence, I went and watched the videos at that link.
I found one thing very consistent: the videos don't actually show what the article claims they do.
The claims also consistently ignore things that are plainly evident on the videos, such as signs of extreme stress on the buildings (warping, flaking, spalling, distorting, etc.), while claiming invisible evidence in favor of controlled demolition.
The funny thing was the consistent claim that any loud noise was an explosion -- as if a huge building falling down doesn't make a lot of noise.
Quote from: KBCraig on September 03, 2010, 05:06 PM NHFTBecause I'm always willing to look at actual evidence, I went and watched the videos at that link.
I found one thing very consistent: the videos don't actually show what the article claims they do.
The claims also consistently ignore things that are plainly evident on the videos, such as signs of extreme stress on the buildings (warping, flaking, spalling, distorting, etc.), while claiming invisible evidence in favor of controlled demolition.
The funny thing was the consistent claim that any loud noise was an explosion -- as if a huge building falling down doesn't make a lot of noise.
Not to mention the fact that the evidence of a controlled demolition would be quite... evident. The sheer amount of explosives, even using the best in shaped charges, to bring down a building that size, amounts to a
lot of energy. Even "efficient" explosives aren't very efficient, so once you figure the bare minimum mechanical energy needed if everything went perfect (which they couldn't count on, so they'd need to use more for a safety factor, or else the buildings wouldn't fall, and the evidence of the demolitions charges would be right there to look at), you then have to account for a whole heck of a lot of waste energy going outward. Despite the use of shape charges, a lot of that would be concussive (shock wave and sound). Then you have heat and light energy, taking up a lot of it.
Where's all that energy? If it was a controlled demolition, there would have been some major energy release. Despite all the cameras trained on those buildings at that point, do any show the sequential flash pattern of a demolitions procedure? Do they show one tremendous flash orf a single large bomb?
Of course not. Because all the actual scientific evidence says that the buildings collapsed due to structural damage resulting from plane crashes and fires. There's a reason that no competent structural engineer has come forward to support the controlled demolition claims. Not only were the plane crashes sufficient to explain what happened (Occam's Razor), but the lack of evidence of demolitions charges does a pretty good job of putting the final nails in that coffin.
Joe
Quote from: MaineShark on September 03, 2010, 09:33 PM NHFT
Not to mention the fact that the evidence of a controlled demolition would be quite... evident. The sheer amount of explosives, even using the best in shaped charges, to bring down a building that size, amounts to a lot of energy.
You reminded me of another baffling moment in those videos: when a curtain or coat or some other obvious piece of fabric is blown out a window in a puff that looks like a backdraft or flashover, they claim it is a "solid object" blown out by an "explosion" ("major explosion", I think, but I'm not going to go back and look again).
This was further "evidence" of a controlled demolition, in a window
above the fire line.
I've watched controlled demolitions every time they show video of one. I find it fascinating, and blowing stuff up is fun. I've never seen a CD where a building is "collapsed in its own footprint" by explosions starting at the
top of the building.
these were different
Of course they were.
Quote from: MaineShark on September 03, 2010, 10:02 AM NHFT
Quote from: Tunga on September 02, 2010, 08:37 PM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on June 22, 2010, 09:34 PM NHFTI ran the numbers on that, well back in the 1990's. It's not like the idea of flying a jet into a building as an act of terrorism is a new concept. Someone asked me if it would just cause a lot of damage, or collapse the building. The numbers said it would collapse the building.
How is someone these days? Did you ever find that paper MaineShark or are your gills a little to oil soaked to reply right now?
Not sure what in heck you mean, but that's unsurprising... one needs a functioning brain to form coherent sentences, and the Magic 8-Ball you've been using just won't cut it. It's amusing to watch you smash your head on the wall trying to get the float to move, though.
Joe
LOL :)
3 new groups join the 9/11 Truth Movement (announced simultaneously last Thursday, 9 Sept 2010)
Actors and Artists for 9/11 Truth
Military Leaders for 9/11 Truth, and
Scientists for 9/11 Truth
3 new groups join the 9/11 Truth Movement (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xdwfm2DFIs#)
The
Shire Truth to Power tour to NYC for 9/11 weekend was a huge success, even though I didn't have the time to properly promote it.
We filled one vehicle, stayed in a newly-remodeled hostel uptown, and attended all the We Are Change (http://wearechange.org) events that happened from 1PM on on Friday. That included an enormous street action in Times Square Friday afternoon, Speakers at All Souls Church Friday night, Memorial vigils Saturday morning, a special WACNY memorial service for First Responders Saturday afternoon, a march through the streets to the New York Fed and panel discussions Saturday and Sunday at Walker Stage.
(http://www.wearechange.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/web.jpg)
The speakers and panelist were really all-star, including Dick Gregory, who moderated one panel discussion - it was great to hear him recount stories in the freedom struggle going back to 1960. I'll post a link to videos of the talks and panels as they become available.
Here's a slide show of some of the Saturday march/street action footage.
911 Truth New York City 2010 Protest Footage (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KecNt0ULl5o#)
(I think I only saw part of me in the slides - oh, re-watched and saw a couple of other short shots of me)
The rest of you can be there next year or just check out other stops on the AltOrgs tour (http://altorgs.com) and join in with us in influencing people and work on getting movers to the Shire.
Quote from: jaqeboy on August 27, 2010, 02:04 PM NHFT
Great news about 9/11 weekend in New York! There will be a Shire Truth to Power tour there for Fri-Sat-Sun 9/11 weekend. We are bringing 1 or 2 vans and may scale up to Alt-bus, if we overflow the vans.
I'll post details on a separate thread after Live Free or Die weekend and a full tour details sheet will be posted to the Altrgs.com (http://altorgs.com) tour site. Bunch of new stuff has gone up there lately, so be sure to check it out.
One more thing learned o the weekend:
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has printed a broadsheet newspaper which can be used as a handout or an insert. It's the 9/11 Investigator (http://www.ae911truth.net/store/product_info.php?cPath=27&products_id=122&osCsid=e4bc750e45bd0959ba0c75767fbe0821).
(http://www.ae911truth.net/store/images//products/Investigator_m.jpg) (http://www.ae911truth.net/store/product_info.php?cPath=27&products_id=122&osCsid=e4bc750e45bd0959ba0c75767fbe0821)
Not very expensive.
Here is the info on the panel discussions held at this past weekend's 9/11 weekend event in NYC (click on image to go to site):
(http://www.howtheworldchanged.org/images/Header.jpg) (http://www.howtheworldchanged.org/)
WTC victim, Jim Gartenberg, core blown out, WABC,09:32, 9/11
http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=12661&title=wtc-victim--jim-gartenberg--core-blown-out--wabc-09-32--9-11 (http://revolutionarypolitics.tv/video/viewVideo.php?video_id=12661&title=wtc-victim--jim-gartenberg--core-blown-out--wabc-09-32--9-11)
A plane hit the side walls and the core was "blown out?"
Video: 9/11 Firefighters Reveal Huge Explosions Before Towers Collapsed (http://www.infowars.com/video-911-firefighters-reveal-huge-explosions-before-towers-collapsed/)
http://www.infowars.com/video-911-firefighters-reveal-huge-explosions-before-towers-collapsed/ (http://www.infowars.com/video-911-firefighters-reveal-huge-explosions-before-towers-collapsed/)
Paul Joseph Watson
Infowars.com
October 6, 2010
Newly obtained video that was reluctantly released by NIST after a lawsuit by the International Center for 9/11 Studies shows two firefighters on 9/11 discussing how secondary explosions occurred immediately before the collapse of the twin towers, providing damning new evidence that explosive devices were used to bring down the buildings....
Firemen Explosion Testimony (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IO1ps1mzU8o#)
Good article!
Paranoid shift (http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_203.shtml)
By Michael Hasty
Online Journal Contributing Writer
Jan 10, 2004, 20:33
Just before his death, James Jesus Angleton, the legendary chief of counterintelligence at the Central Intelligence Agency, was a bitter man. He felt betrayed by the people he had worked for all his life. In the end, he had come to realize that they were never really interested in American ideals of "freedom" and "democracy." They really only wanted "absolute power."
...
Too Big to Allow: Some Unmentioned Ramifications of 911 Truth (http://redactednews.blogspot.com/2010/10/too-big-to-allow-some-unmentioned.html)
by Michael Everyman | 6/3/09
Does anyone ever think about a world where the unofficial story of 911 actually turns out to be true? What would happen if an alternative 911 theory was proven as fact? Well, maybe people have thought about it, but seems like nobody ever says anything. Why? Sadly, it is for the very reason of the resulting disturbing scenario that any 911 truth may never be told, as it involves a wrench thrown into the system beyond anything most anyone would ever want to imagine..
For several years I have followed the 911 Truth Movement. I read, watched, and learned more than my share, heard opinions and counter-opinions, and like many, have sorrowfully concluded that there was definitely some sort of official deception involved in those September 2001 events, be it a large scale cover-up or a diabolical inside job. Debatable though my 911 opinion may be, it is not the purpose of this article.
What I would like to consider is the still hypothetical scenario of what would happen next if it actually was undeniably illustrated that the US government was involved at some level in the events of 911. ...
The Judge looks like he's on board!
9/11 Report Is A Cover Up From Start To Finish!
9/11 Report Is A Cover Up From Start To Finish! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9DQ4EpgYzY#)
9/11. FLIR Infrared Camera proves NIST and 9 11 Commission Lies
9/11. FLIR Infrared Camera proves NIST and 9 11 Commission Lies (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vTIFmcE8ZjY#)
Noam Chomsky: No Evidence that Al-Qaeda Carried Out the 9/11 Attacks
http://www.bushstole04.com/index.html (http://www.bushstole04.com/index.html)
Little-Known 9/11 Truth Organization Strikes Gold in Court Action Against NIST, Unearths Striking Video/Photo WTC Evidence (http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articles/401-little-known-911-truth-organization-strikes-gold.html)
BuildingWhat? on Geraldo Nov 13 2010
BuildingWhat? on Geraldo Nov 13 2010 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFPobKeSzKQ#ws)
Here's the 911blogger.com article on the Geraldo interview: http://911blogger.com/news/2010-11-13/%E2%80%9Cbuildingwhat%E2%80%9D-appears-geraldo-large-fox-news (http://911blogger.com/news/2010-11-13/%E2%80%9Cbuildingwhat%E2%80%9D-appears-geraldo-large-fox-news)
Gerhard Schroeder accuses George W Bush of 'not telling truth' in memoirs (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/us-politics/8124170/Gerhard-Schroeder-accuses-George-W-Bush-of-not-telling-truth-in-memoirs.html)
Gerhard Schroeder has accused former President George W Bush of "not telling the truth" in his memoirs over claims that the former German chancellor had broken his word over support for the Iraq invasion.
In his book "Decision Points", published this week, Mr Bush writes that he told Mr Schroeder in an Oval Office meeting on 31st January 2002 that he was determined to make diplomacy work but he would invade Iraq if all else failed.
He quotes Mr Schroeder as saying: "What is true of Afghanistan is true of Iraq. Nations that sponsor terror must face consequences. If you make it fast and make it decisive, I will be with you."
Mr Bush writes that he put a "high premium on trust" and Mr Schroeder was guilty of betrayal. "Once that trust was violated, it was hard to have a constructive relationship again."
(article continues)...
In a statement, he confirmed that he had told Mr Bush he would "stand reliably on the side of the US" if it was confirmed that Iraq was sheltering those responsible for the September 11 terrorist attacks.
"But this link, as it became clear during 2002, was false and contrived. This goes for reasons [for the invasion] given by Bush and [then vice-president Dick] Cheney too.
"As we know today, the Bush administration's reasons for the Iraq war were based on lies."
...
911 - World Trade Center Eyewitness Paul Lemos NIST FOIA (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2HsUPK_LbSc#)
Whistle-blower Doug Rokke on thermite (and its use to demolish buildings), DU-tipped missiles and where and who could have procured and properly placed thermite in the WTC towers. He's on in the 2nd hour of this 12/11/2010 episode of Truth Jihad, with Kevin Barrett:
http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Truth-Jihad-32k-121110.mp3 (http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Truth-Jihad-32k-121110.mp3)
Archive of 2010 shows here: http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/Barrett_10.html (http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/Barrett_10.html)
AE911Truther & New Jersey WeAreChanger Michael Donly On Russia Today
AE911Truther & New Jersey WeAreChanger Michael Donly On Russia Today (Full Clip) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LfGJNBIp6Do#)
9/11 TRUTH: Kevin Ryan Exposes Access for Demolition Crews to WTC Buildings (http://www.infowars.com/911-truth-kevin-ryan-exposes-access-for-demolition-crews-to-wtc-buildings/)
9/11 TRUTH: Kevin Ryan Exposes Access for Demolition Crews to WTC Buildings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C_j3Kj0Tlec#ws)
Conversations About the Truth of 911 (http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/8203407/)
Ya gotta love Xtranormal (http://www.xtranormal.com/makemovies)!
you convinced me jack
i think it was an inside job
I think Karin Wells of Harrisville did that cartoon.
Quote from: jaqeboy on October 11, 2010, 10:09 AM NHFT
Too Big to Allow: Some Unmentioned Ramifications of 911 Truth (http://redactednews.blogspot.com/2010/10/too-big-to-allow-some-unmentioned.html)
by Michael Everyman | 6/3/09
Does anyone ever think about a world where the unofficial story actually turns out to be true? What would happen if an alternative theory was proven as fact? Well, maybe people have thought about it, but seems like nobody ever says anything. Why? . Sadly, it is for the very reason of the resulting alternative health scenario that any health forum (http://www.bartenblends.com/alternative-health-forum/phpBB3/) truth may never be told, as it involves oil thrown into the supplements beyond anything most would want to imagine..
For several years I have followed the health movement. I read, watched, and learned about alternative health and medicine. Supplements are my specialty.
What I would like to consider is the still hypothetical scenario of what would happen next if it actually was undeniably illustrated that the US government was involved at some level in the events. ...
I don't think anything would happen at all. If the people involved could be identified they would probably face criminal charges if caught, thats about it.
We already know for a fact US killed millions of civilians in the middle east to steal oil fields, and that is a far worse truth than the 911 conspiracy.
Quote from: WhatheWorld on December 31, 2010, 12:30 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on October 11, 2010, 10:09 AM NHFT
Too Big to Allow: Some Unmentioned Ramifications of 911 Truth (http://redactednews.blogspot.com/2010/10/too-big-to-allow-some-unmentioned.html)
by Michael Everyman | 6/3/09
Does anyone ever think about a world where the unofficial story of 911 actually turns out to be true? What would happen if an alternative 911 theory was proven as fact? Well, maybe people have thought about it, but seems like nobody ever says anything. Why? Sadly, it is for the very reason of the resulting disturbing scenario that any 911 truth may never be told, as it involves a wrench thrown into the system beyond anything most anyone would ever want to imagine..
For several years I have followed the 911 Truth Movement. I read, watched, and learned more than my share, heard opinions and counter-opinions, and like many, have sorrowfully concluded that there was definitely some sort of official deception involved in those September 2001 events, be it a large scale cover-up or a diabolical inside job. Debatable though my 911 opinion may be, it is not the purpose of this article.
What I would like to consider is the still hypothetical scenario of what would happen next if it actually was undeniably illustrated that the US government was involved at some level in the events of 911. ...
I don't think anything would happen at all. If the people involved could be identified they would probably face criminal charges if caught, thats about it.
We already know for a fact US killed millions of civilians in the middle east to steal oil fields, and that is a far worse truth than the 911 conspiracy.
Yeah, it's definitely larger in numbers, but the point is that arguably, that the 9/11 attacks were false-flag events created in order to enable/justify the other, so is the "proximate cause" in a way. I.e. the 9/11 crime encompasses/includes the other. Get what I'm saying?
The Tillman Story (http://www.rooftopfilms.com/2010/schedule/75-the-tillman-story) is out.
(http://www.rooftopfilms.com/images_2010/TillmanStory414x227.jpg)
I'll see if some of us can bring it to New-Hampshire.
BuildingWhat? New TV Spot To Be Unveiled at Hartford Event on March 26 (http://911blogger.com/news/2011-03-13/buildingwhat-new-tv-spot-be-unveiled-hartford-event-march-26?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+911Blogger+%289%2F11+Blogger%29&utm_content=Google+Feedfetcher)
The BuildingWhat? campaign is thrilled to announce that two weeks from now on Saturday March 26 we will be holding an event in West Hartford, CT to unveil our new TV spot and kick off a marathon six-month effort to create widespread awareness of the collapse of Building 7. With your support and the support of thousands of others, the TV spot will air in late April and be seen by millions of viewers in the New York Metropolitan Area, setting the stage for an even larger ad campaign during the week of the 10th Anniversary of 9/11....
(http://investigatebuilding7.org/images/ib7.jpg)
building what?
A donor has offered to buy 2 tickets to offer as a sort of scholarship for someone who would like to attend, but can't afford the tickets. There would still be a share of the car expense (and lodging, if one were to stay over Saturday night).
Thanks, donor!
Kevin Ryan presented this slide presentation at the Hartford Conference. He details the scientific deception of NIST in coming up with their theory that the building collapsed because of the failure of column 79.
http://www.slideshare.net/Dainin/evolution-of-the-firebased-theory-for-wtc-7 (http://www.slideshare.net/Dainin/evolution-of-the-firebased-theory-for-wtc-7)
"Evolution of the fire-based theory of World Trade Center building 7"
BTW, the campaign to raise public awareness about WTC Building 7 was called "Building What?", but has now changed it's name to Remember Building 7, with a web address of http://rememberbuilding7.org (http://rememberbuilding7.org).
They're raising money for a 2nd TV commercial to be aired in NYC, so be sure to chip in.
Help put this TV Ad on the Air -- Go to RememberBuilding7.org (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHo5hNCvLb4#ws)
Last Monday's Colin McEnroe show on WNPR in Hartford featured Organizers and speakers from the Hartford Remember Building 7 conference of a few weeks back.
http://cptv.vo.llnwd.net/o2/ypmwebcontent/Commodore%20Skahill/Colin%20McEnroe%20Show%2004-18-2011.mp3 (http://cptv.vo.llnwd.net/o2/ypmwebcontent/Commodore%20Skahill/Colin%20McEnroe%20Show%2004-18-2011.mp3)
It was almost laughable how the host and producer kept falling over themselves to call their guests quirky, conspiracy theorists, etc, but without presenting a single fact - while all the guests and 100% of the callers in to the show had facts and were reasonable.
quirky fact-based ideas
The videos of all the speakers at the Hartford conference, Investigate Building 7, are all on RadicalPragmatist's You Tube channel: Failure to Report : A Panel Discussion Among Journalists (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkbPSn68oGc#ws)
In the linked-to video above Mark Crispin Miller notes that the CIA created the "conspiracy theorist" slam in a April 1, 1967 memo to journalists - they did that to guide journalists on how to publicly ridicule JFK assassination researchers like Mark Lane. I found the memo online.
Quote from: Dionysus on April 28, 2011, 05:48 PM NHFTIf the regime in Washington DC was not directly responsibile for the 911 attacks, they certainly did everything in their power to allow them to happen. Either way, it was treason.
Yes, but the latter is realistic, and matches their past history, while the former ignores physics and makes those preaching it easy to write off. Intentionally going around sabotaging the message of liberty is not beneficial.
Remember, the Truthers almost singlehandedly destroyed any chance Ron Paul had of advancing. While he would not have been perfect, he would have been a good bit less evil than the current warmonger in chief. So far, the only lasting legacy of the "9/11 Truth" movement, is ensuring that the 2008 election was between Warmonger A and Warmonger B.
Joe
Quote from: Dionysus on April 28, 2011, 05:48 PM NHFT
When one considers that the 911 attacks bare all of the earmarks of a black ops mission, it's hard to imagine it being accomplished without a high degree of government complicity. Perhaps more damning than the by-the-numbers way this attack went down, is the way the government used it to spread fear and panic, manipulating U.S. Citizens out of more of their rights and freedoms. Now we stand in lines at airports, waiting for government agents to fumble around in our underwear... and like always... it's all for our own safety. Coincidence? I think not. If the regime in Washington DC was not directly responsibile for the 911 attacks, they certainly did everything in their power to allow them to happen. Either way, it was treason.
You got it! Being one of the most out-in-the-open-visible outrageous ops of all times, it makes it the most important thing for people to come to grips with. Now, with the technical analyses advancing into public view, it'll be more clear than ever to laymen that "this is the way they do it" (create wars, the police state, etc.). Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth (http://ae911truth.org) will be starting a New Hampshire action group soon to bring the technical proof home to people. You may want to join in with their efforts. In the meantime, there's Merrimack Valley 911 Truth (http://mv911t.org) that does an ongoing educational effort with video presentations. Are you in New Hampshire?
Tech presentations at the recent Hartford conference on Building 7:
Tony Zamboti:
Structural Aspects of Building 7's Collapse: Why the NIST Report is Non-explanatory by Tony Szamboti (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l183LaNay0A#ws)
Kevin Ryan:
The Evolution of the Fire-based Theory for Building 7 by Kevin Ryan (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_V8_qLuEI0#ws)
Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org
(featuring, among others, our own Mark Basile, who has spoken at AltExpo (#6) )
Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw#ws)
There'll be a screening of 9/11: Press For Truth Tuesday evening at Liberty Books in Concord - 6:30 PM.
Details are at the Merrimack Valley 9/11 Truth Meetup site: http://www.meetup.com/9-11-307/events/34117922/ (http://www.meetup.com/9-11-307/events/34117922/)
----------------------------------------
9/11: Press For Truth (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3979568779414136481)
Victims' Families Tell the Story the Media Won't
(http://photos1.meetupstatic.com/photos/event/9/0/0/8/event_57216872.jpeg)
An August 2006 film about how the family members of the victims of the 9/11 attacks had to press the White House to even have an investigation into the crimes of 9/11. Some may have forgotten that Henry Kissinger was chosen initially to be the executive director - this film shows how he was eliminated from that role.
Here's the site for the movie: http://www.911pressfortruth.com/ (http://www.911pressfortruth.com/) and the title above links to the Google Video copy of the film, should you care to watch it at home.
This film is especially important now, because the producers are under attack presently:
CIA Threatens "9/11:Press for Truth" (http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread752016/pg1)
CIA Goes After "9/11: Press for Truth" Producers (http://weeklyintercept.blogspot.com/2011/09/cia-goes-after-911-press-for-truth.html)
-----------
Please remember to bring snacks for sharing and a donation of beverages or a box of tea is appreciated. Shopping for your books at Liberty Books is always a great way to repay Jim for his hospitality in hosting our film nights.
Ahem.
Low-key major media coverage of this event.....
http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2011/09/kingcast-and-mortgage-movies-return-to.html (http://mortgagemovies.blogspot.com/2011/09/kingcast-and-mortgage-movies-return-to.html)
Occupy Wall Street: A Mortgage Movie retrospective from an industry professional. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0CRQ07AciQ#ws)
Occupy Building 7:
http://occupybuilding7.org/ (http://occupybuilding7.org/)
Bah, anything with the word "occupy" in it makes steam shoot outta my ears...
BTW, have I ever linked to my "Parables for 9/11 (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=122104)" thread on JREF? It explains my position on conspiracy agnosticism.
Quote from: Alex Libman on November 06, 2011, 10:15 PM NHFT
Bah, anything with the word "occupy" in it makes steam shoot outta my ears...
see look it is working
Psychologists Explain 911 Denial (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGbEJ3pXwWM#ws)
Telling people that their government is evil is like telling people that there is no God.
They are either stunned, angry or sitting on the fence saying, "I know, but...
Thanks for posting the video, Tom and that insight, Jim. The video is from Explosive Evidence, a full-length piece created by Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Would anyone like to work on the project of setting up a whole string of viewings in various different venues? Jim at Liberty Books is getting the final release DVD and several A & E's are working on showings throughout the state. Just need folks in local areas to get the venue, co-ordinate schedule for a state-wide tour, or, in the alternative, to have multiple showings all over without central co-ordination.
Wow, going on 10.5 years and I hadn't seen this news clip before:
9/11 Eyewitness: A Bomb Went Off In The Lobby Before The Plane Hit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4qNno25tlGA#)
Actors and Artists for 9/11 Truth announce they are making the movie they've wanted to make - you can even contribute to production costs and have your name listed as a contributor in the ending credits.
http://actorsandartistsfor911truth.com/confess.htm (http://actorsandartistsfor911truth.com/confess.htm)
good links ...
isn't amazing how many people experienced things that have been covered up because they don't match the official story
Another good vid:
9/11 Truth Versus The BBC
9/11 Truth Versus The BBC (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwcL-uQf1mk#ws)
It is so strange to see the debunkers of reality be so dismissive of evidence as it comes up over time
9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out (2012)
http://www.hulu.com/watch/412065
Well documented piece.
I've changed my position about the collapses. Especially building 7's collapse, the "official" explanation I call BS.
The trouble is that so many tin foil hatted conspiracy nuts muddied the waters to the point most reasonable people gave up listening. I don't care so much who, how or why as want the focus to be it didn't happen as we were told.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on October 29, 2012, 09:12 AM NHFT
9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out (2012)
http://www.hulu.com/watch/412065
Well documented piece.
I've changed my position about the collapses. Especially building 7's collapse, the "official" explanation I call BS.
The trouble is that so many tin foil hatted conspiracy nuts muddied the waters to the point most reasonable people gave up listening. I don't care so much who, how or why as want the focus to be it didn't happen as we were told.
Perhaps the "tin foil hatted conspiracy nuts" were well placed.
Quote from: Silent_Bob on October 29, 2012, 01:31 PM NHFT
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on October 29, 2012, 09:12 AM NHFT
9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out (2012)
http://www.hulu.com/watch/412065
Well documented piece.
I've changed my position about the collapses. Especially building 7's collapse, the "official" explanation I call BS.
The trouble is that so many tin foil hatted conspiracy nuts muddied the waters to the point most reasonable people gave up listening. I don't care so much who, how or why as want the focus to be it didn't happen as we were told.
Perhaps the "tin foil hatted conspiracy nuts" were well placed.
I would have to agree that at least some are spreading disinformation to confuse the issue, the intelligence agencies do that kind of thing for sure. Unfortunately, many, if not most are our potential allies who would rather talk about "the lizard people taking over the government" or whatever other out beyond the fringe topic that they enjoy blathering on about... Just wish folks could stay focused on the evils that are more substantiated.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on October 29, 2012, 04:23 PM NHFT
Unfortunately, many, if not most are our potential allies who would rather talk about "the lizard people taking over the government" or whatever other out beyond the fringe topic that they enjoy blathering on about... Just wish folks could stay focused on the evils that are more substantiated.
That's always been the problem I've encountered when trying to discuss the topic rationally: it's either/or. If you don't believe it was a massive government conspiracy with controlled demolition and invisible drones, then the truthers say you must believe the government is telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
Hold on thar, podnuh... I can disbelieve everything the government said, and still not believe it was aliens abducting an entire plane full of people. Most of the conspiracy theories (okay,
all of them, at least that I've heard) require more suspension of rational belief than the 9/11 commission's report.
I haven't seen your video yet, but I've read enough about WTC 7 to not find anything suspicious about how it collapsed. Most people compress the timeline, ignoring that it suffered serious damage from WTC 1 debris, then burned for hours.
Exactly
For me it started with a book that showed the first official version was not possible
Now of course I am ready for nukes and beams from space. But not lizards or drones:-)
Quote from: KBCraig on October 29, 2012, 04:55 PM NHFT
I haven't seen your video yet, but I've read enough about WTC 7 to not find anything suspicious about how it collapsed. Most people compress the timeline, ignoring that it suffered serious damage from WTC 1 debris, then burned for hours.
The symmetrical and complete collapse doesn't seem likely or even possible.
Quote from: KBCraig on October 29, 2012, 04:55 PM NHFT
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on October 29, 2012, 04:23 PM NHFT
Unfortunately, many, if not most are our potential allies who would rather talk about "the lizard people taking over the government" or whatever other out beyond the fringe topic that they enjoy blathering on about... Just wish folks could stay focused on the evils that are more substantiated.
I haven't seen your video yet, but I've read enough about WTC 7 to not find anything suspicious about how it collapsed. Most people compress the timeline, ignoring that it suffered serious damage from WTC 1 debris, then burned for hours.
You can go to you tube and watch videos of the symmetrical controlled destruction of buildings and then watch any video of WTC7 as it falls.
No building falls symmetrically during a fire; especially a steel frame building. It isn't possible. It can't happen.
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 01, 2012, 08:04 PM NHFT
No building falls symmetrically during a fire; especially a steel frame building. It isn't possible. It can't happen.
As I recall, WTC 7 didn't fall symmetrically. The center collapsed, and pulled the rest down with it.
However, if you want to say it fell symmetrically, I'll only point out that it was during a fire that had been burning for hours. Apparently it is possible, and can happen. QED
You're right that the center did appear to go first... of course that is also how a controlled demolition is done. But the timing of the center to the symmetrical failure of all the perimeter was remarkable, if it happened by chance.
Quote from: KBCraig on November 01, 2012, 08:34 PM NHFT
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 01, 2012, 08:04 PM NHFT
No building falls symmetrically during a fire; especially a steel frame building. It isn't possible. It can't happen.
As I recall, WTC 7 didn't fall symmetrically. The center collapsed, and pulled the rest down with it.
However, if you want to say it fell symmetrically, I'll only point out that it was during a fire that had been burning for hours. Apparently it is possible, and can happen. QED
I got a winch if it'll help pull your head out of your ass.
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 01, 2012, 10:20 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on November 01, 2012, 08:34 PM NHFT
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 01, 2012, 08:04 PM NHFT
No building falls symmetrically during a fire; especially a steel frame building. It isn't possible. It can't happen.
As I recall, WTC 7 didn't fall symmetrically. The center collapsed, and pulled the rest down with it.
However, if you want to say it fell symmetrically, I'll only point out that it was during a fire that had been burning for hours. Apparently it is possible, and can happen. QED
I got a winch if it'll help pull your head out of your ass.
I'd prefer to get into a wench's ass.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on October 29, 2012, 09:12 AM NHFT
9/11 Explosive Evidence: Experts Speak Out (2012)
http://www.hulu.com/watch/412065
I'm trying to watch this, to give it and your opinion a fair shake. Hulu and/or my internet connect is/are not cooperating, though.
I'll get back to the thread whenever I'm able to actually watch the video. Unless Jim keeps taunting me with notions of wenches and their asses, of course.
I have to agree that building seven is obvious.
What did you think of the infobabe that predicted the collapse and used the governments later wording to describe it?
Okay, I managed to watch the full video.
I would find myself getting irritated, then I would pause the video, clear my mind, and ask, "But what if they're right?" The problem was, I couldn't imagine any scenario in which Gage actually is right, even doing my best to be open-minded and give him a fair chance.
I'm only talking about factually correct, not whether the government could or would engage in such a massive scheme and coverup. I have no doubt that there are people evil enough at all levels of government to do this, if they could. (Remember, I work for the fuckers; I see the evil on a daily basis.)
After watching it, I could only conclude that the video was another set of strawman arguments, based on carefully cherry-picked snippets of video and factoids, then swatted down by people presented as "experts", whose education and qualifications don't actually qualify them as such.
I can't ignore that Richard Gage purports to be an experienced architect in "fire-proofed steel framed buildings", yet has never personally designed anything bigger than a school auditorium. Apply the same scrutiny to Gage's experience as you do to the government's official story, and it's obvious he's a fraud. He "worked on the papers for X building" actually means he was the flunky who applied for the building permits.
The entire video was a classic magic act: showing you one thing, while telling you something else and convincing you to believe the words rather than your own eyes. Watch it with the sound muted, and see if your eyes tell you what Gage claims is happening. It's not: the man is a liar (okay, I'll admit the possibility that he's a psychopath who believes he's telling he truth). In different segments, they will make totally opposite claims using the same data or videos or theories.
For me, the most desperate moment was when they turned to the mental health professionals in the end, implying that anyone who doesn't accept AE911's version of events, just must believe the government version because they're traumatized and damaged and can't deal with the reality of what happened.
It was a "You can't handle the truth!" moment, but the funny part is that one of the lady shrinks they presented could have been describing the truthers instead. When I get time I'll go back and transcribe her words, but the irony was thick.
Okay, that's my review of the video. Here's my take on the science, physics, and facts:
That entire board of "experts" could not recreate what they claim happened. No one could. Controlled Demolition, Inc. is not bashful: they brag openly about what they can do, and they hold the world records for tallest and biggest demolitions. The tallest building ever brought down through CD was slightly over half as tall as 7WTC, and just over a third the total square footage.
Controlled demolition requires months of study, preparation work, and removal of as many variables as possible. It's never been attempted on any large building with all office furnishings intact; it requires major demolition beforehand, with just a skeleton remaining. The idea that even Building 7 was prepped for demolition ahead of time while in use as a fully occupied office building, much less buildings 1 and 2, is simply implausible.
Tom, you can't doubt that the towers were imploded, yet think 7 may have been. How? To what end? And again, *how*, after being heavily damaged by the collapse of building 1, and uncontrolled fires burning for 8 hours?
The government lacks the competence to deliver food and water to the Jersey shore after a major storm. It defies belief that they could pull off such a major operation undetected, so perfectly, with so many variables introduced. If you secretly wire buildings with explosives to blow them up, then blow them up. Flying a plane into them guarantees destroying your plans for explosions.
I'll close with one thing: Richard Gage's presentation has improved, but his science has not. This is still his basic argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw
Or possibly...
You do realize that you work for one of the most evil divisions of one of the most evil organizations on the face of the earth.
They and you know who they are .... killed people in those buildings and they are killing and torturing people every day. And you are not doing everything in your power to stop it.
When you are an old man or when you face God, whichever comes first, don't regret what you have done for a living.
Quote from: KBCraig on November 02, 2012, 11:32 PM NHFT
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DFVoencqfZw
Simple physics demonstrated simply... I have no problem believing what is real.
Quote from: KBCraig on November 02, 2012, 11:32 PM NHFT
Controlled demolition requires months of study, preparation work, and removal of as many variables as possible. It's never been attempted on any large building with all office furnishings intact; it requires major demolition beforehand, with just a skeleton remaining. The idea that even Building 7 was prepped for demolition ahead of time while in use as a fully occupied office building, much less buildings 1 and 2, is simply implausible.
If buildings fall down like the towers did, no one would need demolition experts.
Well KB if you're going to do such a thorough job of analysis of the documentary... well I feel somewhat unprepared... how dare you make me feel insecure like that! ;D
Just from my experience of the dynamics of the real world I've experienced...
I can't see how the total, symmetrical failure of a building can happen as seen. Never happened before... and if the building did fail like that, it would seem that there would be considerable effort to analyze, study and rewrite building codes to prevent such failures in the future.
Johnson's right, why does it take such an effort to demolition a building.... making it fall down into it's on footprint. We watched some YouTube videos of demolitions gone wrong... ie buildings falling sideways, even rolling over.
I don't know how building 7 failed, but fires in random areas seems like it would lead to a much less tidy and complete failure of a structure.
"I don't know how it could have happened, so the government must have done it through controlled demolition" is not a valid argument. But, it's the only thing Gage even attempts to offer.
Quote from: KBCraig on November 03, 2012, 12:16 PM NHFT
"I don't know how it could have happened, so the government must have done it through controlled demolition" is not a valid argument. But, it's the only thing Gage even attempts to offer.
Wow, you didn't watch the same video I did. They are not asking for an indictment. They're only asking for a new investigation of the facts.
The governmental cover up is more than obvious, so I suppose some people would see it as an indictment of the government
Would the most honest and in-depth examination possible satisfy you, if it reached exactly the same conclusion?
Quote from: KBCraig on November 03, 2012, 03:43 PM NHFT
Would the most honest and in-depth examination possible satisfy you, if it reached exactly the same conclusion?
The most honest and in-depth examination possible would not reach the same conclusion, so your question is not answerable.
Can a jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse a steel structure? An experiment.
By forum contributor "spooked911", posted to the Democratic Underground (http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=56836&mesg_id=56836):
I set up the following experiment using steel rabbit fencing as the steel structure supporting a heavy cement block.
Note, this fencing is easily bendable, has no significant rigidity, and was not reinforced in any way. The fencing was bent into an outer square and an inner rectangle (the core):
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/spooked/1_column_structure.jpg)
Then I damaged the "columns" by cutting them with wire cutters:
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/spooked/2a_cut_outer_columns.jpg)
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/spooked/2b_cut_inner_columns.jpg)
Just inside where the gash was made in the outer wall, I placed a cup of kerosene (jet fuel), and there was newspaper around the bottom on the structure.
Then I put a heavy cement block on top, weighing about 15 pounds. I don't think the wire structure would hold more than three of these blocks, so the "safety factor" was not particularly high.
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/spooked/2_weight_on_columns15.jpg)
Then I tipped over the cup and lit the kerosene:
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/spooked/4_fire.jpg)
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/spooked/5_dying_fire.jpg)
Then fire burned for about twenty minutes, and toward the end, I put my foot on the structure to see if it would support extra weight. It still did:
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/spooked/6_structure_supportswt.jpg)
The structure held up fine after the fire died:
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/spooked/7_dead_fire.jpg)
After the fire was hot, the "columns" were not hot at all:
(http://i18.photobucket.com/albums/b108/janedoe444/spooked/8_cool_columns.jpg)
In a second experiment, I used the same wire fence and block set up, but increased the amount of "airplane damage", added in newspaper all around the inside of the structure, and soaked everything thoroughly with kerosene. In this expt, the fire was more intense and lasted significantly longer, but... the structure held up just fine. (Sorry no pictures of this one).
What I conclude is that a fairly flimsy steel structure does not distort and bend and collapse very easily from a simple hydrocarbon fire.
And thus, it is not clear why the much stronger steel columns in the WTC towers weakened so much from fires that the towers underwent global collapse.
If kerosene/jet fuel/hydrocarbon fires can indeed cause steel structures to collapse, it should be quite simple to show this in an experiment-- right?
Quote from: KBCraig on November 03, 2012, 12:16 PM NHFT
"I don't know how it could have happened, so the government must have done it through controlled demolition" is not a valid argument. But, it's the only thing Gage even attempts to offer.
Perhaps you are right and this man is lying, or foolish. I'd like to ignore that aspect. I'm not even going to claim that it was a controlled demolition. I just don't see that the total dramatic failure of all the load supports at virtually the same moment is possible. It would tip or partially fail... that thing drops like a curtain.
Again I could be wrong, but I would imagine that there would be considerable effort to rewrite the codes for these types of structures.
As a final aside, along the same lines as your disbelief of this guys credibility... The mainstream position seemed to be presented by Popular Mechanics... who I find also to be a suspect source of unbiased opinion... they are obviously a PR arm for the government... they present the glossiest versions of the latest Defense Department weapons systems.
In their "report" (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874) of what the NIST reported, they provide no real evidence other than NIST said so.
How does NIST know which elements failed? And their description of a "progressive" failure is kind of generous... ie. a matter of moments from the center collapse till the complete, symmetrical failure of the perimeter structure.
The 911 commission didn't have any explanation of seven either do i
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on November 03, 2012, 05:34 PM NHFT
I'm not even going to claim that it was a controlled demolition. I just don't see that the total dramatic failure of all the load supports at virtually the same moment is possible. It would tip or partially fail... that thing drops like a curtain.
If 7 were constructed conventionally, the way the outside appears, I would agree. But, look at the actual design for the foundation and underpinning, where they changed it to a much larger building than originally intended, and you see how it really couldn't have collapsed any other way.
I won't say it was poorly engineered, just less than optimal. All the weight of the mechanical penthouse was carried by a cantilevered beam, which failed. When that portion of the building fell down, it pulled the rest of the building inward and down with it.
Quote from: KBCraig on November 03, 2012, 05:59 PM NHFT
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on November 03, 2012, 05:34 PM NHFT
I'm not even going to claim that it was a controlled demolition. I just don't see that the total dramatic failure of all the load supports at virtually the same moment is possible. It would tip or partially fail... that thing drops like a curtain.
If 7 were constructed conventionally, the way the outside appears, I would agree. But, look at the actual design for the foundation and underpinning, where they changed it to a much larger building than originally intended, and you see how it really couldn't have collapsed any other way.
I won't say it was poorly engineered, just less than optimal. All the weight of the mechanical penthouse was carried by a cantilevered beam, which failed. When that portion of the building fell down, it pulled the rest of the building inward and down with it.
What you have described would have left the building roughly in the shape of a collapsed volcano; where the exterior walls would be left partial standing. As well, the collapse wouldn't have looked anything like what was recorded.
Just watched this video that attempts to explain Building 7's collapse.
Building 7 Explained
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
The video explains the "mechanical penthouse" interior collapse as 8 seconds before the complete collapse. The part that is difficult to understand is, considering the "mechanical penthouse" was off center, how all the exterior structure failed uniformly at the same moment. They show a computer model of the penthouse collapse but don't show the way the exterior failed. I'm imagining some way the walls could be pulled inward at the base, but again the symmetrical,coincidental part is difficult to accept.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on November 03, 2012, 05:34 PM NHFT
...How does NIST know which elements failed?...
Not sure exactly the detail, but NIST claims column 79 failed by buckling after thermal expansion pushed one floor beam off of it's bracket (on floor 12). Kevin Ryan's analysis refutes NIST's analysis very thoroughly, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArnYryJqCwU
Quote from: jaqeboy on November 03, 2012, 09:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on November 03, 2012, 05:34 PM NHFT
...How does NIST know which elements failed?...
Not sure exactly the detail, but NIST claims column 79 failed by buckling after thermal expansion pushed one floor beam off of it's bracket (on floor 12). Kevin Ryan's analysis refutes NIST's analysis very thoroughly, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArnYryJqCwU
Interesting info Jack.
I'm see that the Truthers aren't the only ones that can be accused of only telling the truth that helps their theory. The "7 hour fire" is one example... turns out that there were a series of fires over a 7 hour period. Any one area only had 20 minutes worth of fuel.
Quote from: jaqeboy on November 03, 2012, 09:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on November 03, 2012, 05:34 PM NHFT
...How does NIST know which elements failed?...
Not sure exactly the detail, but NIST claims column 79 failed by buckling after thermal expansion pushed one floor beam off of it's bracket (on floor 12). Kevin Ryan's analysis refutes NIST's analysis very thoroughly, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArnYryJqCwU
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/cutter.html
Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish WTC 7 late in the afternoon of 9/11. In the documentary "America Rebuilds", aired September 2002, Silverstein makes the following statement;
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." [wmv download]
In the same program a cleanup worker referred to the demolition of WTC 6: "... we're getting ready to pull the building six." [wmv download]
There can be little doubt as to how the word "pull" is being used in this context.
Exactly
This game is interesting. http://www.physicsgames.net/game/Demolition_City.html
You can discover why blowing one column can't flatten a building.
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 03, 2012, 08:19 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on November 03, 2012, 05:59 PM NHFT
If 7 were constructed conventionally, the way the outside appears, I would agree. But, look at the actual design for the foundation and underpinning, where they changed it to a much larger building than originally intended, and you see how it really couldn't have collapsed any other way.
I won't say it was poorly engineered, just less than optimal. All the weight of the mechanical penthouse was carried by a cantilevered beam, which failed. When that portion of the building fell down, it pulled the rest of the building inward and down with it.
What you have described would have left the building roughly in the shape of a collapsed volcano; where the exterior walls would be left partial standing. As well, the collapse wouldn't have looked anything like what was recorded.
A building is not a pile of unconnected material; there are extensive vertical
and horizontal ties. In order to look like a collapsed volcano, something would have to break those ties.
Otherwise, when one large section caves in, it pulls everything else in with it, which is exactly what we saw recorded.
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on November 03, 2012, 10:47 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on November 03, 2012, 09:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on November 03, 2012, 05:34 PM NHFT
...How does NIST know which elements failed?...
Not sure exactly the detail, but NIST claims column 79 failed by buckling after thermal expansion pushed one floor beam off of it's bracket (on floor 12). Kevin Ryan's analysis refutes NIST's analysis very thoroughly, though.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ArnYryJqCwU
Interesting info Jack.
I'm see that the Truthers aren't the only ones that can be accused of only telling the truth that helps their theory. The "7 hour fire" is one example... turns out that there were a series of fires over a 7 hour period. Any one area only had 20 minutes worth of fuel.
Yeah, Kevin Ryan is very good on actually reading the whole reports and finding the flaws/distortions in them. He has other longer and more detailed presentations. You should Google him. Most of these issues have all been brought up and hashed out and answered. There is extensive info and testing of how office fires work. They consume the flammable materials (carpet, paper, furniture) and move towards more fuel, so they sweep across a floor and don't stay in one spot long. There is a Firefighters for 9/11 Truth, led by Erik Lawyer - they might address those types of questions, as well.
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/
We have almost weekly screenings in the Shire of a lot of this investigative work, including in other "deep politics" areas. The schedule is posted at the meetup group (http://mv911t.org).
For example, on election night, we're screening Hacking Democracy, about the electronic voting machines. Details here: http://www.meetup.com/9-11-307/events/79917782/.
There's also a Facebook group with discussion and announcements: Merrimack Valley 9/11 Truth (https://www.facebook.com/groups/159949076301). There's an active Keene area group called the Monadnock 9/11 Truth Alliance - I'll find their web address and post it here later.
"None are more blind than those who will not see."
Hahaha
Have I posted this video on Bldg 7 yet?
It gives a quick review of the NIST report flaws and includes a demonstration of super-thermite in a paint-on preparation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2V0WQFztLyg&feature=em-subs_digest-newavtr-vrecs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=eem7d58gjno&feature=endscreen
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 03, 2012, 04:03 PM NHFTQuote from: KBCraig on November 03, 2012, 03:43 PM NHFTWould the most honest and in-depth examination possible satisfy you, if it reached exactly the same conclusion?
The most honest and in-depth examination possible would not reach the same conclusion, so your question is not answerable.
That demonstrates the problem, here: you're not engaging in science, because
all science is falsifiable.
Want to falsify gravity? Drop a weight and demonstrate that it falls at something other than 9.8 meters per second per second at sea level on this planet. We'd have to come up with a new theory.
If you cannot imagine a test which would disprove your theory, then you're not engaging in science.
So, what would it take to disprove your theory about the collapse of these various buildings? What evidence could be presented, which would prove to you that no demolition was involved?
Quote from: WithoutAPaddle on November 03, 2012, 04:06 PM NHFTCan a jet fuel/hydrocarbon fire collapse a steel structure? An experiment.
Um, that "experiment" has no basis in reality. That rabbit wire is under nowhere near the sort of stress that a steel building is under. Nor is it in any way structurally related to the design of such a building. Try building something that's even
vaguely similar to the structure used in the WTC towers.
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 01, 2012, 08:04 PM NHFTNo building falls symmetrically during a fire; especially a steel frame building. It isn't possible. It can't happen.
Actually, quite the contrary.
Any building of that size, under failure (regardless of the cause) will fall in a roughly-symmetrical manner. The force of gravity, which pulls symmetrically downward, is overwhelmingly stronger than any other force acting on the building. It
cannot "tip," because there are no side loads that come anywhere close to the load of gravity. A much-smaller building might fall over, because it does not mass anywhere near as much, but once you get past a certain point, gravity has such an advantage over other forces that the building
must fall in the manner seen. It would fall that way if controlled demolition was used, or if a plane caused the crash.
The only possible exception would be if it fell due to something enough stronger that it could induce a meaningful side load, like a major earthquake or an atomic blast. Anything less than that is not going to be able to put a dent in the force of gravity on a structure like that.
bullshit
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 05, 2012, 06:36 PM NHFTbullshit
Eloquent.
But the facts of physics remain the facts of physics. Masses act in certain ways under certain conditions, just like how a explosion will create a mushroom cloud, regardless of whether any nuclear bomb is involved or not - the cloud forms due to the way that a rising column of hot gas interacts with the surrounding cooler air. When the force of gravity is several orders of magnitude stronger than any other force, it dampens their effects - they're present, but their effects are too small for a human observer to detect, just as you cannot detect the influence of the moon's gravity on a thrown baseball, even though it
is present.
And the facts of science remain the facts of science, and all science is falsifiable - that's what makes it science. If you cannot come up with a test that would disprove your claim, then your claim is not a scientific claim. If not, you end up with nonsense like "anthropogenic global warming," where they will tell you that the shrinking arctic ice proves their claim that humans are warming the planet... and that the growing antarctic ice does the same. If you assert that your claim is automatically true, regardless of the evidence, then you are not engaging in science.
Maineshark, you didn't even watch this, http://www.hulu.com/watch/412065 did you?
I can tell because of your obtuse sciency statements.
All I want is an investigation of the facts, demonstrable evidence and repeatable conclusions.
None of those things are being provided by NIST.
I don't know why or how the buildings fell. And don't know why you and KB feel you need to defend the government in this matter.
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 05, 2012, 09:07 PM NHFTMaineshark, you didn't even watch this, http://www.hulu.com/watch/412065 did you?
I can tell because of your obtuse sciency statements.
No, I was speaking far more generally. If it's not falsifiable, it's not science. End of story.
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 05, 2012, 09:07 PM NHFTAll I want is an investigation of the facts, demonstrable evidence and repeatable conclusions.
None of those things are being provided by NIST.
Eh... scroll back through this thread. I posted a detailed failure analysis, years ago. Entirely on my own skill as an engineer, with no input from NIST.
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 05, 2012, 09:07 PM NHFTI don't know why or how the buildings fell. And don't know why you and KB feel you need to defend the government in this matter.
I'm defending science, not the government. As I've said, in this same thread. If someone wants to assert that some part of the government knew about the attacks and did nothing, so as to have an excuse to act, that's entirely believable. If someone wants to assert that some part of the government actually convinced the terrorists to carry out the attacks, that's also quite believable. Both are things this government has a long history of doing.
But to assert that a government that managed to fail at running a brothel could secretly have thousands of workers install demolition charges in buildings, and have those charges be so well-done that they survived plane impacts and still worked perfectly (controlled demolition is a perfectionist's wet dream - everything has to be "just so," or it doesn't work)... just makes no sense.
It's entirely believable that the government is fully responsible. But one does not need to bend over backwards and inside-out to make that work: postulate that someone in the government talked some terrorists into flying planes into buildings. Exactly like all these other terror plots they keep "discovering," where they quietly admit that they actually talked the guy into the act, and supplied all the materials. That's believable, and it puts the blame squarely with the government, while also adhering to science.
I'm rather well convinced that folks like Gage are actually working for the government, to cover up whatever involvement there was. They develop these red herrings and wave them around. That way, no one's asking questions like, "did someone know about these terrorists, or even finance them?," because they're too busy wasting time searching for non-existant demolition charges. If someone's standing out in public, loudly yelling at everyone, "look over here," it's good odds that he's trying to distract you from something that's happening, just a little bit to one side or the other. So, now, the folks who should be questioning what's happening, are instead looking where he's pointing, and are totally missing what's really going on.
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 05, 2012, 09:07 PM NHFT
And don't know why you and KB feel you need to defend the government in this matter.
Where have I defended the government?
I don't even know what the government said about it, other than the clips and snippets shown in Truther claims. I assume any government reports are full of BS. That doesn't make Truther claims valid just because the government lies about their involvement.
What's asked for is a new investigation. If you can't get behind that, you're defending the government.
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 05, 2012, 11:06 PM NHFTWhat's asked for is a new investigation. If you can't get behind that, you're defending the government.
A new investigation, performed by whom?
Quote from: MaineShark on November 06, 2012, 05:56 AM NHFT
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 05, 2012, 11:06 PM NHFTWhat's asked for is a new investigation. If you can't get behind that, you're defending the government.
A new investigation, performed by whom?
Yeah your right.
I can't get supposed friends to watch videos; there isn't going to be any convincing of the rest of the world.
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 06, 2012, 07:38 AM NHFT
Quote from: MaineShark on November 06, 2012, 05:56 AM NHFT
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 05, 2012, 11:06 PM NHFTWhat's asked for is a new investigation. If you can't get behind that, you're defending the government.
A new investigation, performed by whom?
Yeah your right.
I can't get supposed friends to watch videos; there isn't going to be any convincing of the rest of the world.
I've watched the videos. They don't constitute an investigation. They ignore physics and claim to show one thing when something else is happening. Some might call that "less than persuasive".
One of the types of evidence that was left behind was the dust spread all over lower Manhattan. One notion is that only non-governmental scientists are doing significant investigations. Here's New Hampshire's own Mark Basile on his investigations of the iron spheres and red/gray chips found in the dust:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43zBoRupcfM
He has presented this at PorcFest under the AltExpo tent, as well:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJ7hXrmMRPc&feature=plcp
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 06, 2012, 07:38 AM NHFTQuote from: MaineShark on November 06, 2012, 05:56 AM NHFTQuote from: Jim Johnson on November 05, 2012, 11:06 PM NHFTWhat's asked for is a new investigation. If you can't get behind that, you're defending the government.
A new investigation, performed by whom?
Yeah your right.
I can't get supposed friends to watch videos; there isn't going to be any convincing of the rest of the world.
I can't watch any videos, at the moment, since my computer is screwed up, so don't take it personally.
But I'm still curious who, exactly, you want to perform this new investigation. You want one, but who will do it? You? Me? The Feds, again? Who's going to run the show?
I have absolutely no problem with an open source investigation. The only problem is that the current movement has contributed so much noise and polluted the evidence pool, that I don't know what could be relied on.
Attacking truthers is funny:-)
Quote from: Russell Kanning on November 06, 2012, 08:03 PM NHFTAttacking truthers is funny:-)
Is that folks attacking Truthers?
Or the latest Fox special, "when Truthers attack!"?
I would turn it over to Scotland Yard, cause then Sherlock Holmes.
And if they came out with any indictments I'd want it tried in the Hague, cause it's fun to say Hague.
We could Try them in Absentia at your place but we busted up the piano (dang it).
There are lots of free pianos out there.
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 07, 2012, 09:54 AM NHFT
There are lots of free pianos out there.
Let the inquisitions begin!
(http://politicalgraffiti.com/nhfree/images/IMG_1492-The-Trial.jpg)
(http://politicalgraffiti.com/nhfree/images/IMG_1516_Russells.jpg)
(http://politicalgraffiti.com/nhfree/images/IMG_1448-The_Buffet.jpg)
(http://politicalgraffiti.com/nhfree/images/IMG_1418-The_Bailiff.jpg)
(http://politicalgraffiti.com/nhfree/images/IMG_1421-The_Sentence.jpg)
Who knew inquisitions could be so much fun! That picture with all the Russells cracks me up every time I see it. ;D
Quote from: KBCraig on November 06, 2012, 07:25 PM NHFT
...the current movement has...polluted the evidence pool...
How so? What evidence has been polluted?
Photo evidence?
Video evidence?
Seismological evidence?
Building material remaining?
Dust from the explosions/collapses?
Other evidence?
I'd like to hear more about this. Who do you think polluted the evidence (pool)?
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 06, 2012, 09:41 PM NHFTI would turn it over to Scotland Yard, cause then Sherlock Holmes.
And if they came out with any indictments I'd want it tried in the Hague, cause it's fun to say Hague.
A serious answer would be appreciated...
I don't know what you're asking for. Maybe I'd agree with whatever it is, but I'd need to know what sort of investigation you want.
Quote from: jaqeboy on November 07, 2012, 06:49 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on November 06, 2012, 07:25 PM NHFT
...the current movement has...polluted the evidence pool...
How so? What evidence has been polluted?
Photo evidence?
Video evidence?
Seismological evidence?
Building material remaining?
Dust from the explosions/collapses?
Other evidence?
I'd like to hear more about this. Who do you think polluted the evidence (pool)?
All we really have available is video and photos. The original video and photographic evidence remains, of course, but what's out there in public is mostly what has been marked up, annotated, and sometimes "enhanced".
Perhaps I chose my wording poorly. A better description would be that the jury pool has been polluted. The only people who've seen anything of the government reports have had to go digging for them. Almost everyone who's online has seen Truther claims and videos; they've been promoted much more heavily than any government version.
If that hasn't convinced the public, it's more likely that it's unconvincing, than that there's been a coverup.
Quote from: KBCraig on November 07, 2012, 08:07 PM NHFT
All we really have available is video and photos. The original video and photographic evidence remains, of course, but what's out there in public is mostly what has been marked up, annotated, and sometimes "enhanced". ...
I think killtown keeps an archive of all the known video - I'll see if I can find the link to that, and Eric Hufschmid bought the rights to a huge number of the photos. I'm imagining that both of those archives are untouched.
Quote from: jaqeboy on November 07, 2012, 08:27 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on November 07, 2012, 08:07 PM NHFT
All we really have available is video and photos. The original video and photographic evidence remains, of course, but what's out there in public is mostly what has been marked up, annotated, and sometimes "enhanced". ...
I think killtown keeps an archive of all the known video - I'll see if I can find the link to that, and Eric Hufschmid bought the rights to a huge number of the photos. I'm imagining that both of those archives are untouched.
Here's killtown's links page: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911links.html
Here's his video archive page (looks like he has an archive of the stills, too): http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html
Quote from: MaineShark on November 07, 2012, 08:07 PM NHFT
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 06, 2012, 09:41 PM NHFTI would turn it over to Scotland Yard, cause then Sherlock Holmes.
And if they came out with any indictments I'd want it tried in the Hague, cause it's fun to say Hague.
A serious answer would be appreciated...
I don't know what you're asking for. Maybe I'd agree with whatever it is, but I'd need to know what sort of investigation you want.
Seriously, if I had my druthers, I'd hand it to Scotland Yard; who should be given every access to any evidence of the crime scene. I would give them the power to chase any lead to it's end. Every detail of their investigation should be made public.
Then if any charges are brought, they should be tried in an open world court, like the Hague.
Quote from: jaqeboy on November 07, 2012, 08:37 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on November 07, 2012, 08:27 PM NHFT
I think killtown keeps an archive of all the known video - I'll see if I can find the link to that, and Eric Hufschmid bought the rights to a huge number of the photos. I'm imagining that both of those archives are untouched.
Here's killtown's links page: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911links.html
Here's his video archive page (looks like he has an archive of the stills, too): http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html
Thanks, I'll have a look.
I went looking for Physics Toolkit, a video analysis tool that is mentioned in some videos, and had to double take: the current file is dated 9 Sep 11.
Not the same, but lol.
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 07, 2012, 09:20 PM NHFT
Seriously, if I had my druthers, I'd hand it to Scotland Yard; who should be given every access to any evidence of the crime scene. I would give them the power to chase any lead to it's end. Every detail of their investigation should be made public.
Then if any charges are brought, they should be tried in an open world court, like the Hague.
Turn it over to the American government's strongest allies, to be settled by the EU internationalists?
Becky, what did you put in that pie???
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 07, 2012, 09:20 PM NHFT
Seriously, if I had my druthers, I'd hand it to Scotland Yard; who should be given every access to any evidence of the crime scene. I would give them the power to chase any lead to it's end. Every detail of their investigation should be made public.
Then if any charges are brought, they should be tried in an open world court, like the Hague.
Turn it over to the American government's strongest allies, to be settled by the EU internationalists?
Becky, what did you put in that pie???
[/quote]
There is always an excuse... a reason why or a reason why not.
I thought the most important part of that was that, "Every detail of their investigation should be made public."
The pie doesn't arrive until 2:00 pm and probably will not be eaten until 6:00. Friends are welcome to come over and share the goodies.
I don't know the true difference between an internationalist, a nationalist or an intranationalist. I let people from Vermont, New York and Connecticut come to my house. I had a Texan stay with us for 3 months. I stayed with people in Palau for a week and people in Australia let me stay 30 days. Of course it's our respective governments that are shit. And our loyalties to those governments is why we hate. You don't like the EU because they are not part of your us and the Yard can't be trusted because they are allied with your us. What to do... what to do?
It was a joke, Jim. Lighten up and enjoy your birthday all over again.
Quote from: KBCraig on November 07, 2012, 11:25 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on November 07, 2012, 08:37 PM NHFT
Quote from: jaqeboy on November 07, 2012, 08:27 PM NHFT
I think killtown keeps an archive of all the known video - I'll see if I can find the link to that, and Eric Hufschmid bought the rights to a huge number of the photos. I'm imagining that both of those archives are untouched.
Here's killtown's links page: http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/911links.html
Here's his video archive page (looks like he has an archive of the stills, too): http://killtown.911review.org/2nd-hit.html
Thanks, I'll have a look.
...
I went looking for Physics Toolkit, a video analysis tool that is mentioned in some videos, and had to double take: the current file is dated 9 Sep 11.\
Yikes, I can imagine the first reaction!
If you want to delve into the results of independent researchers further, there's the Journal of 9/11 Studies: http://www.journalof911studies.com/index.html.
Also, I forgot to mention that NIST spent a considerable sum of money acquiring all the stills and video they could get their hands on and those might all be viewable at their website.
Quote from: KBCraig on November 08, 2012, 12:52 PM NHFT
It was a joke, Jim. Lighten up and enjoy your birthday all over again.
Sorry, that was totally my fault, when MaineShark wanted me to be serious I forgot to shift back to pompous jackass.
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 08, 2012, 06:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on November 08, 2012, 12:52 PM NHFT
It was a joke, Jim. Lighten up and enjoy your birthday all over again.
Sorry, that was totally my fault, when MaineShark wanted me to be serious I forgot to shift back to pompous jackass.
Ah, now there's the Jim we know and love!
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 08, 2012, 06:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on November 08, 2012, 12:52 PM NHFT
It was a joke, Jim. Lighten up and enjoy your birthday all over again.
Sorry, that was totally my fault, when MaineShark wanted me to be serious I forgot to shift back to pompous jackass.
Not to be confused with my trademark, "The Braying Jackass of FREEDOM!"
Quote from: Tom Sawyer on November 08, 2012, 09:14 PM NHFT
Quote from: Jim Johnson on November 08, 2012, 06:45 PM NHFT
Quote from: KBCraig on November 08, 2012, 12:52 PM NHFT
It was a joke, Jim. Lighten up and enjoy your birthday all over again.
Sorry, that was totally my fault, when MaineShark wanted me to be serious I forgot to shift back to pompous jackass.
Not to be confused with my trademark, "The Braying Jackass of FREEDOM!"
I would want to dragged into that law suit.
I thought that was Don Gormans trade mark?
It is all so confusin'
You're right Don might be able to lay claim to that one. ;D
Johnson however is not even in my league!