top
East Bay
East Bay
Newswire
Calendar
Features
From the Open-Publishing Calendar
From the Open-Publishing Newswire
Indybay Feature
Related Categories: East Bay | Anti-War
No, Robert Fisk, there were not 19 Saudi hijackers.
by CA
Sunday Nov 20th, 2005 10:11 AM
Robert Fisk spoke at filled auditorium last night at Martin Luther King Middle School, but unfortunately still reiterated the official lies about 9/11.
Sadly, I sat in dismay at Martin Luther King Middle School last night as one of the best journalists in the world today, Robert Fisk, reiterated the “Big Lie” that 19 Saudi Hijackers took over 4 commercial airliners and used them as weapons on 9/11. Once again, I heard that well-worn premise by many in the progressive left that 9/11 was the result of barbaric U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East, and it was inevitable that Muslims would wish to do the U.S. or British harm in the form of blowback. Though that is a sound premise, it, however, still had nothing to do with 9/11, except as misleading rational for the “War on Terror.”

Case in point, it has already been reported by many sources, including the BBC, the UK Guardian and the FBI, that many of the alleged hijackers are still alive. Reports run from various sources that at least five, but as many as nine were still alive after 9/11. (see http://www.welfarestate.com/911/). This has been out for a long time, so why Mr. Fisk didn’t know about this story and chooses to reiterate the official White House lies verbatim baffles me. Perhaps it has something to do with his disdain for the Internet, and reliance on those old fashioned organs of “truth” -- the mainstream newspapers and TV news; however, as stated above, even they have reported on this story.

When asked if he ever looked into 9/11 for veracity of the official story, Fisk said that he just doesn’t have the time. Though one could argue that this is understandable as he is a full time correspondent in the Middle East, however, ultimately, in the long run he is responsible for telling an accurate story using journalism’s cardinal rules of Who, What, Why, When and How, especially if it figures so prominently in his premise. It is his responsibility to get to the truth of the story and not keep reiterating the official “Big Lie”.

If he really is concerned about the future of Middle East, and I believe he is, than it really is incumbent on him to research what really happened on 9/11. That would be the best way to stop all of this “War on Terrorism” false flag nonsense.
by reality check
Sunday Nov 20th, 2005 12:09 PM
OK, then who did commandeer the airlplanes?

Where is the airplane that supposedly didn't hit the pentagon and where are the passengers that wre onboard?

Even if it is not true that 19 suicidal Saudis flew the airplanes, exposing who did won't stop the war of terror. It's out of control and can only be stopped by jailing its architects. If there is proof the Bush cabal was involved in 9/11/01, where is it? It's been 4 years and is time to show some proof that would incriminate someone other than the 19 saudis.

by CA
Sunday Nov 20th, 2005 1:27 PM
First of all, the administration has never giving us the proof that the Saudis or Osama actually committed 9/11. All we have heard is propaganda, no evidence. Go ahead and try and find it.

Second of all, there are plenty of books written today that put out in detail the evidentuary material that would prove this had to be an inside job. Some of the best books are "Crossing the Rubicon", by Michael Ruppert, "The 9/11 Commission--Omissions and Distortions", and "The New Pearl Harbor" by David Ray Griffin, and "The War on Freedom" by Nafeez Ahmed. And there are plenty of web resources like http://www.911truth.org, wtc7.net, whatreallyhappened.com (one of my favorites) and globalresearch.ca.

However, It's up to you to read them if you want proof the 9/11 is an inside job. If you want to live in another reality, albeit a false one, that is ultimately your decision. But, keep this in mind, we have been mislead into wars before and there is ample proof of this. From the Tonkin Gulf incident that never happened, which got us deeply into the Vietnam fiasco, to the lie of Kuwaiti babies being thrown out of the incubators by Iraqi soldiers in the first Gulf War which outraged American into supporting that war (that was a Bush administration Hill and Knowland PR creation), you have been deceived before.
by reader
Sunday Nov 20th, 2005 4:28 PM
He said that those questioning 9.11 were 'nuts.'

But when we spoke to him for awhile, he actually backed down and was sort of sheepish.

The left intelligensia is the hardest to convince because they have excellent tools of rationalization, honed to perfection. So they can rationalize everything that doesn't fit and happily trot along behind anyone with the correct grouping of letters following their name.

Sometimes if you shake them they awaken, but you need to do it with a gentle but firm hand, speaking with a very intelligent view and pulling in history, dropping names, etc., not anger or yelling.
by well
Sunday Nov 20th, 2005 6:30 PM
"questioning 9.11 "

What does questioning 9/11 mean. I think everyone is open to questions about what the US knew about Al Qaeda before 9/11 and what the US had done in earlier years to aid it. There is probably also room for doubt as to whether Al Qaeda really carried out 9/11 to the same extent as there is room for doubt about the London bombings; Al Qaeda never really existed as a centralized organization with a clear hierarchy of command and control even in the official version of things so asking whether Al Qaeda did something doesnt even have a clear yes/no answer. There is also clear room for doubt about USA motives behind Afghanistan since Bin Laden was never caught and the US still dropped troup levels and started to focus on Iraq (which everyone knows had no links to 9/11). If you bring up questions like these you will get an unverwhelmingly positive response from most on the left and not get dismissed.

There are other questions that seem legitimate but probably wont get clear responses since the technical nature of concern makes them sound conspiratorial even though everyone knows they are open questions. What was the names of all those who carried out the 9/11 attacks? Did all the hijackers know it was a suicide mission? How exactly did they take over a plane with box cutters? How did cellphones work from within one of the airplanes? How did the WTC towers fall? how much was due to fire and how much to the impact? The problem with these questions is that they are usually thrown out without any desire for a real answer and in some cases they can be answered simply. Cellphones can work from within airplanes since the service extends miles away from towers but if you randomly try to use one in an airpplane you most likely wont find that it works since you have to be near a tower. The collapse of the buildings makes sense but was very particular to the WTC buildings and the way they were supported (and even then its hard to model since to truely test the stresses one would need a scale model). The names of the people on the planes is up in the air and not as definitive as one would hope because the people involved were secretive about their lives and had fake identities. etc... Perhaps some questions cant have solid answer ever since we will never know exactly what happened on the flights but that doesnt mean that the lack of answer proves conspiracy which is why the questions that seem to have difficult answers (like the physics of the stresses thatcaused the building to fall) are usually ignored.

Finally there are questions that just sound carzy and are ignored for that reason. Talk about no planes hitting the WTC or the Pentagon woudl fit in this category. To most people hearing someone ask that question would be comparible to having someone ask you if the whole Katrina thing was staged and perhaps no hurricane really hit.

As time goes by I think one additional factor figures into the dismissal of 9/11 conpiracy theories and that's a confusion as to why people are so obsessed with the one event. 9/11 helped lead to Iraq but if you look at things today the US has less power than it did before 9/11 and the US civil rights violations that 9/11 allowed (like Guantanamo) will likely be overturned in the next few years and mainly act to limit the ability for US leaders to sound quite as self righteous when they lecture other countries.
Terrorism may provide an excuse for rights abuses and US expansionism but considering the size of the coverup that would be needed if the US had been behind it, it would have been a lot of work with no real outcome. Iraq will soon become like Iran and the US wont get to control its oil (in fact they had more control when they could use the oil for food program to get oil). With things one can point to and have proof of government misaction like Katrina, Iraq, Gitmo, ... focusing on 9/11 seems a bit counterproductive even if you are convinced of a conspiracy. Focusing on it seems to doom one to being part of a small group that exchanges information about details of the attack with few others listening (or even caring when they hear the information) and little ability to use the information to force change or precent future abuses of power. As with those who focus on Kennedy's asasination the only real effect of the conspiracy theory crowd is to cause the general public to dismiss other things that people bring up where he abuses of power have more solid evidence. Perhaps someone else helped with the killing of Kennedy.... with no real chance of ever getting solid evidence those who obsess about that are just wasting time that could be used for actually changing things and building movements. Perhaps some of the official version of 9/11 is wrong... unless new evidence comes up that changes the story in a major way. focusing on it as a political cause just seems like a waste of time.
by David Kubiak
Sunday Nov 20th, 2005 6:55 PM
The 9/11 Key to Political Transformation

-- A belated strategic initiative to turn the world around
by W. David Kubiak

Given the momentum and added troop strength of the corporate forces now in power, citizens will face unending appeals this year to help combat firestorms on many different fronts.

Already we are struggling to prioritize our efforts to stop war atrocities, torturers' appointments, escalating Pentagon appropriations, horrific new weapons, the resurrection of Star Wars, and the imminent draft, not to mention environmental assaults, our ballooning debt, attacks on our rights, the slashing of the social safety net, and a dozen other centrifugal symptoms of the sickness at the top.

Alternatively we could step back a pace or two and see where all this carnage connects and focus on a strategy that might stop it all at once.

We need what social analyst George Lakoff calls a "strategic initiative" - a plan in which a change in one critical area has automatic reverberating effects in many, many, many other realms.

THE SOURCE OF DARK FORCE
Looking at the onslaughts we face, it's obvious that this administration's primary source of war-making, rights-taking, vote-raking power is still and always has been the "official 9/11 story." The exquisitely timed "surprise attack" it portrays instantly justified what we now know was a long planned agenda to take us into endless war, crippling debt and constitutional twilight.

There is now an enormous amount of scholarly evidence and expert testimony that a) clearly demonstrates the official 9/11 story is a sham, and b) supports the millions of New Yorkers who, according to a recent Zogby poll, believe that top US officials "consciously" allowed the attacks to happen and that we desperately need a new investigation now.

This is no longer a fringe position. Identical calls have been made by fifty victim families and over one hundred prominent Americans including three 2004 presidential candidates [Nader (Ind), Cobb (Green), Badnarik (Libertarian)], respected rabbis and imams, historians and legislators, military officials and diplomats, as well as celebrated leaders from the environmental, alternative economics and "peace & justice" communities. Examining these eminent names on the 9/11 Truth Statement at 911truth.org will quickly show that with regard to 9/11 at least, today's so-called "conspiracy theorists" are not who they used to be.

Indeed one of America's greatest theologians, Dr. David Ray Griffin, methodically demolished the credibility of the Kean Commission cover-up in his latest book, "The 9/11 Commission Report - Omissions and Distortions."

As this extraordinary breadth of skepticism clearly signifies, the demand for 9/11 truth is not about to go away. It is not simply a matter of belated justice for the tragedy's immediate victims. The attacks have since been relentlessly exploited to keep generating new victims for many years on many fronts both here at home and in places far away.

UNPLUGGING THE NEOCON POWER SUPPLY
The fabricated "official 9/11 story" has in fact empowered so many subsequent offenses that 9/11 truth has become the mother of all issues and remains the key to widespread redress. If anyone is really looking for a "strategic initiative" to unplug the entire neocon power supply, consider the impact that full disclosure of 9/11 deceit would have upon the following range of concerns.

Uncovering the truth of 9/11 is simultaneously:

* A peace issue: the public's ongoing ignorance of official 9/11 lies will continue to feed the fear and hostility the "War on Terror" depends upon. Once the truth is known, "Remember 9/11!" will take on a whole new significance and foster a vital "fool me twice" mistrust of our military-industrial complex and most aggressive leaders.

* A national security issue: as long as 9/11 lies are exploited to mount support for brutal resource wars, the more the Muslim world will rightfully despise us and threaten our kids for generations to come. (Some indeed argue that creating this durable new defense budget-sustaining threat was a more important motive for the phony 9/11-to-Iraq war segue than seizing oil or shoring up Sharon.)

* A children's issue: the social programs sacrificed for "War on Terror" boondoggles and profiteering overwhelmingly victimize the young, especially those with disabilities.

* An environmental issue: post-9/11 calls for "energy independence" have been seized and twisted by Bush's corporate sponsors to justify more wilderness oil drilling, abusive environmental practices, and a rebirth of nuclear power, not to mention a lengthening list of corporate takings from the ecological commons.

* A public health issue: in New York, official lies about post-attack air quality promise to kill more residents from toxic WTC pollution than those who died from the attacks themselves; nationally, the cost of the 9/11-fueled War on Terror is gutting public health budgets across the land.

* A women's issue: the ongoing costs of 9/11-related warfare, job loss and social program austerity fall far more heavily upon women and children nationwide; and 9/11 fear has politically empowered the far right to launch a war here at home on women's basic rights.

* A human rights issue: the official 9/11 story has spawned such bigoted and vengeful fear that a recent Cornell University poll found that 44% of Americans are now ready to slash US Muslims' civil rights, while a nearly equal number now accept the "need" to torture prisoners.

* A social justice issue: poor and minority Americans are deeply scarred by "War on Terror"-related cutbacks in social programs at the same time that their youth are the most heavily recruited by the military and sacrificed in battle as the conflict proceeds

* An electoral issue: although "god, gays & guns" are often characterized as "family values" election ploys, their common denominator is fear. Fear that we are beyond self-help as a people, fear our children will not think or act like us, fear that without our firearms we are helpless in a sick and scary world. The higher the national fear quotient (and custom color-coded threat level), the more these constituencies will flock to bellowing "tough guy" leaders who peddle dread, feign infallibility, and seem happy to wield deadly force to protect them from all harm. (See Erich Fromm's "Fear of Freedom" for the classic study of how fear fuels authoritarianism and acceptance of fascist societies.)

* A Constitutional liberty issue: the official 9/11 story (and deftly timed anthrax attacks) generated instant blind assent to the Constitution-shredding Patriot Act as well as scores of other presidential and Department of Justice directives that further threaten accountability and our shrinking Bill of Rights.

* A national solvency issue: the "national 9/11 emergency" has allowed the Bush team to abandon any pretense of fiscal restraint, flood corporate backers with exorbitant profits, plunge the nation into an abyss of debt, and hasten arch-privatizer Grover Norquist's dream of "a government small enough to drown in a bathtub."

* A media reform issue: the consistent, breathtaking refusal of mainstream media to investigate official deception since 9/11 (up through Iraq and 2004 electoral fraud) has openly exposed the industry as cowardly and/or corrupt. Thus far only the independent and second-tier media have shown any journalistic integrity regarding these questions and will benefit enormously when public outrage over the cover-up finally forces the breakup of conglomerates and across the board reform.

And so on...

REVERSING THE ARTS OF ROVE
In sum, the official 9/11 myth's emotional and political power will continue to drive the country in a dozen different destructive directions until we confront and deconstruct it with 9/11 truth.

This cynical fable has indeed become the corporatists' essential power supply upon which all their military crimes, legislative overreach, and electoral success depend. (See how incessantly they invoke it to justify every brutality, theft and assault upon our rights.)

It is, however, also their gravest vulnerability since it is only sustained by a tissue of lies, corrupt media and public ignorance.

One of Karl Rove's most useful axioms is "attack your opponent's greatest strengths." He thus focused on Kerry's war record and Gore's intellect, and systematically savaged them with loud and clever lies. We can likewise devastate support for the current administration, but honestly and honorably using 9/11 truth.

We can also use it to forge a wider, more diverse coalition with many others equally afflicted by this government's abuse of its misbegotten power. In fact, there are few groups fighting for social justice, the environment, or basic human rights in the world today who would not profit immensely from a fearless indictment of our top officials for their 9/11 lies and crimes.

THE OTHER 9/11 FEAR FACTOR
For many of us that truth may prove more disturbing than the countless lies we've recognized, but the threat will no longer be invisible, mysterious or misunderstood. It will also be within our power to deal with as a democratic people, using the force of law instead of black ops, torture or high tech brutality. Yes, it will take a lot of anachronistic courage, but recently the Ukrainians, Serbs, Venezuelans and Filipinos have all been kind enough to show us the way. Closer to home but long ago in 1775, Patrick Henry also challenged us with words that ring today.

"We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth - and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those, who having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it might cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it now."

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

W. David Kubiak is a Project Censored Award-winning journalist, executive director of 911truth.org, and founder of Big Medicine, a Maine-based research & education institute focused on the corporate takeover over our country, culture and consciousness. Email: kubiak(at)nancho.net
by well
Sunday Nov 20th, 2005 7:07 PM
9/11 provided the fear that allowed to US to do some pretty crazy things that killed a lot of poeple and atcually reduced US power. Th fera from 9/11 is still used by Bush to rally support although its becoming less and less effective a thing for him to bring up mainly due to time passing and it becoming more obvious to poeple that little if anythingb Bush is doing really relates to even the "oficial" version of 9/11

You say this is a reason to focus on 9/11 since its such an important tool in Bush's PR eforts. I would say the opposite. The more focus one puts on 9/11 (even through claims that there was a government conspiracy behind it) the more one brings 9/11 into public discourse and the more one helps to make it so Bush's use of 9/11 looks less opportunistic. You are never going to find enough facts to convince a sizable segment of the population to believe in the conspiracy theorys (just as you dont find a lot of poeple who care about the Kennedy assasination today) so the end result of the focus on lies surrounding 9/11 is just to remind people of that horrible day, add to the fear and give Bush more power. The "no plane hit the WTC" claims reduce anyone associated with them to ridicule and undermines ones credibility on other issues but even legitimate concerns about 9/11 (like what the 9/11 families brought up during the hearings) just added to calls for more security checks and resrictions on civil liberties.
by CA
Sunday Nov 20th, 2005 9:46 PM
Above writes:

"Finally there are questions that just sound carzy and are ignored for that reason. Talk about no planes hitting the WTC or the Pentagon woudl fit in this category. To most people hearing someone ask that question would be comparible to having someone ask you if the whole Katrina thing was staged and perhaps no hurricane really hit.

As time goes by I think one additional factor figures into the dismissal of 9/11 conpiracy theories and that's a confusion as to why people are so obsessed with the one event."

First of all, no legitimate person in the 9/11 movement says that no planes hit the WTC buildings. This is pure disinformation put out by someone or group who wants to discredit the 9/11 movement. Are you one of them? As far as the pentagon, that is a contentious issue that isn't resolved for a number of reasons, but beliefs tend to go that something hit the building, whether it be a 757, or a smaller craft with a missle.

As far as our obsessing on 911, there is a very good reason for this as 9/11 is the administration's all-purpose rational for the war and the taking away of American's civil liberties and turning us into a police state. They and their neocon handlers constantly refer to 9/11 in their speeches and papers as the reason for such draconian, criminal measures.

If the American people were to wake up, like so much of the rest of the world already has to who the REAL perpetrators of 9/11, than it is very unlikely we would march in lock step with the to slaughter innocent Iraqis, Afghanis, Iranians, Syrians, etc, etc.
by well
Sunday Nov 20th, 2005 10:14 PM
"Are you one of them? "

You got me. Now I guess I better spill the beans and tell you what really happened that September morning.....
by ANGEL
Monday Nov 21st, 2005 2:08 AM
“O.K., O.K.”, we are going a little too far.
After all these were scheduled flights.
The People in these scheduled flights are dead. They were alive the day before 9-11 and dead on the day of 9-11. This can be checked out. Flight schedules, etc, etc.
One of the Planes crashed in a field. Some was caught on film, there was wreckage, etc.
16 OF THE 19 WERE SAUDI’S NOT 19, ANYWAY:
Osama Bin Ladan and company claimed the act, and claimed to do more of the same.
But as far as Saudi Arabia goes, they are not to blame.
16 of the 19 Hijackers may have been Saudis, but 16 people is an extremely low per-cent when you consider the Saudi total Population.
Osama Bin Ladan hates the Saudi Government.
Say that he has 1000 hard core terrorists on that date. Of course these numbers are not accurate, but just an example.
Say that 100 are Saudi’s, That would be 10%
Say he purposely chose 16 Saudi’s (less then 20% of the total Saudi’s and less then .20% of 1000) just to cause damage to the U.S., Saudi Relation….Get the Picture?
by Roland
Monday Nov 21st, 2005 3:25 AM
Is it or is it not a fact that at least 5 of the alleged hijackers turned up alive and well after 911, vehemently proclaiming that their identities had been stolen? If this is true, at least 5 of the hijackers could have been Lilliputins, for all we know.

Does anyone have evidence to the contrary?
by (
Monday Nov 21st, 2005 6:44 AM
Thanks for blowing the whistle on Robert Fisk, and keep blowing it on everyone who claims to be for peace and promotes the government's warmongering lie of some non-existent hijackers, its Reichstag Fire, the 9/11 Inside Job.

No air defense means that it was an inside job. There were no hijackers on those planes; they were on automatic pilot guided by the reactionary US Air Force. The Air Force is now a bastion of anti-women Christian evengelical fascism, activel promoted at its publicly-funded Air Force Academy. The Jewish students have filed lawsuits about the religious promotion and many women cadets have filed complaints about the terrorism perpetrated against them by and at the school.

At least 9 of the so-called "hijackers" are alive. There are no Arab names on the passenger lists; the government admits that the names are all phony and they have no evidence to connect any of them to the 9/11 Inside Job.

The Twin Towers and Building 7 were brought down by construction explosives. Building 7, which was not hit by any plane, was leased by Larry Silverstein, who admitted on TV that Building 7 was brought down by construction explosives. The security of the World Trade Center, which includes all these buildings, was run by Pres Bush's brother, Marvin Bush, and cousin, Wirt Walker, III, who many times shut down the WTC before 9/11, including the weekend before 9/11, supposedly for security drills and cable rewiring, and that is when the explosives were set.

The Pentagon was hit by a US missile; the plane over Pennsylvania was shot down by the US Air Force.

VP Dick Cheney was the coordinator of the whole show from his White House bunker, in constant communication with Mayor Guiliani in his bunker in Building 7, until he evacuated in time because as he stated, he knew the building would be demolished. Then national security advisor, now Secretary of State, Condolezza Rice, stated on TV that she told then mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown 8 hours before he was supposed to board a plane to stay off the plane, demonstrating her foreknowledge and active participation in the 9/11 Inside Job.

Robert Fisk and everyone else who considers themselves to be well-informed on the issues of war and peace should be able to rattle off these facts and much more. If they cannot, they should be told everytime they appear in public that 9/11 was an inside job and it is mandatory that all pro-peace lecturers state that and understand that. It is outrageous that any pro-peace journalist can get up before an audience and admit that he has not done his homework.

It was obvious as it happened when there was no air defense that this was an inside job. As we soon learned afterward, there were 4 war games taking place making it impossible to distinguish between the real and the fake, thus paralzying our air defense. That can only be deliberate, making Defense Secretary Rumsfeld another perpetrator of the 9/11 Inside Job.

Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice are the primary perpetrators of the 9/11 Inside Job, the American Reichstag Fire, carried out for the same reason the Nazis burned their government building: To perpetrate fascism at home and war abroad so as to maximize the profits of the capitalist class.

This was Operation Northwoods realized, a plan approved by the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff in 1962 to carry out all kinds of agent provocateur actions, including blowing up a US airplane, so as to have an excuse to invade Cuba, which had been liberated in 1959.

A pretext for war is nothing new: The Gulf of Tonkin incident was the phony excuse for the war against Vietnam. This incident never happened. The bombing of Pearl Harbor was another pretext as FDR had the information to prevent the disaster.

The following books are required reading, and they contain references to the many websites on this.
1. Crossing the Rubicon by Michael Ruppert
2. The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions by David Griffin
3. The Pearl Harbor by David Griffin
4. Painful Questions by Eric Hufschmid
5. 9/11 Revealed: The Unanswered Questions by Rowland Morgan and Ian Henshall
6. Waking Up From Our Nightmare by Don Paul and Jim Hoffman
7. 9/11 Facing Our Fascist State by Don Paul
8. 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA by Webster Tarpley
9. Body of Secrets by James Bamford
10. The War on Truth by Nafeez Mossadez Ahmed
11. Inside Job by Jim Marrs
by the problem
Monday Nov 21st, 2005 7:32 AM
" It was obvious as it happened when there was no air defense that this was an inside job."

I think a lot of conspiracy theories are based around a false view about how the world works that is given to people by television. When a murder occurs you expect the CSI team to show up to take fingerprints and DNA and use weird lights to look for blood evidence.... but they rarely if ever do and even when they do that its very rare for there to be convincing evidence. The US military has high-tech soliders with advanced body armor who can call in air strikes to drop precision guided bombs.... but when war starts most bombs never hit the intended targets, most who die are still civlians and every day the resistance can pick off around 3 more US soldiers. If "they can land a man on the moon" as the saying goes they should be able to ..... but when you think back they were using computers slower than 486s to run that mission and if you added up the power of all the computers used by NASA during the moon landing they would still be slower than your desktop PC. The dot com bust was partially about the overselling of technological change to a public that wants to believe. Government incompetence is a given at a local level but people want to think of omniponent forces controlling the world for reasons rather than people acting as people and doing things for reasons that are often hard to define and never 100% clearcut.
by The Jews did it
Monday Nov 21st, 2005 8:31 AM
This website was custom made for "progressive" liberals.
Enter the information you desire. In the "conspirators" section, you are requuired by the left to enter ; Jews, Mossad, Israelis, Likud, Jews, or you may also enter Jews.
When you are finished entering the required info, click on Generate, and you will have your conspiracy theory
by buff
Monday Nov 21st, 2005 9:28 AM
The campaign to distract us from uncovering the truth of 9/11 is far more sophisticated and insidious. It directly parallels the near identical campaign waged to distract us from uncovering the truth of 11/22, and so is quite familiar to any parapolitics buff.

The campaign is two pronged. The prongs are integrated and support each other. People who question the highly dubious official conspiracy theory are ridiculed as "conspiracy theorists" and "paranoid." They are accused of being "unpatriotic" and "helping the terrorists." Like all ad hominems, these are not rebuttals, but ways to change the subject. Among the politically unsophisticated and historically illiterate, this tactic is relatively successful.

The politically sophisticated and historically literate are harder to distract. Rather than relying on primitive and puerile personal attacks, the sinister tricksters instead attempt to hide their crime by drowning us in data, almost all of it bogus. In spookspeak, this is called "flooding the channels." It works like this. So many competing alternative explanations to this mystery are presented that the serious researcher is hard put not to bog down.

These alternative explanations range from the patently absurd, i.e., that the planes that hit the towers were holograms, to the totally plausible, but unproven and often unprovable, i.e., al Queda still works for the CIA. Those in between, i.e., the great majority, are a mixture of fact and fiction. Sorting them out could take decades. We're still not sure who shot JFK. As one independent 11/22 investigator famously put it, even the shooters themselves didn't know who it was who had paid them.

The patently absurd alternative explanations serve a dual purpose. Not only do they waste precious investigation time, they also provide an excuse for the sinister trickster to employ more ad hominems. Their reason goes like this. The hologram (and similar) explanations are patently absurd. The hologram (and similar) explanations are conspiracy theories. Ergo, all conspiracy theories are patently absurd. The obvious flaw in this defense of the real killers is that the official version of what happened that day is itself a conspiracy theory. Alas, this logical fallacy is not all that obvious to a great many people, particularly here in America, because typical Americans possess few if any critical reasoning skills.
by CA
Monday Nov 21st, 2005 7:36 PM
Thank you Buff, well said.
by Quigly
Monday Nov 21st, 2005 9:41 PM
This commenter gives a good summary of why the official story is full of holes (and why it is the ultimate conspiracy theory).
An additional hole is forwarded on whatreallyhappened.com - if America was under attack, why did the Secret Service allow the pResident to sit in an unguarded (but well-publicized) location instead of whisking him away to safety? Because they knew he was not a target? not part of the plan?
Additionally, when the pResident was told of the attack, he did not look shocked as one would when told of unexpected and disastrous news.
by Masher1
Monday Nov 21st, 2005 10:01 PM
look at this photo and see for your self.It is easy to see the proof.
The proof the "cold steel" in this woman's hand's.
it proves that EVERYTHING your gov. had has and will have to say is
nothing but lies. you can force your head into jello up to your waist and it won't change the fact that This Woman was left here to jump to her Death. Cleanout your HeadGear America QUICK!
by squid
Monday Nov 21st, 2005 10:05 PM
Here is what it's like to be a "normal" American -- not "conspiracy buff," not "paranoid," -- just a person who from the beginning found the official explanations of 9/11 implausible and deeply troubling.

The lack of air defenses -- the box cutters -- the near overnight identification of the perpetrators, photos included -- the neatly found evidence -- the missing black boxes -- the collapse of 7 -- the collapses of 1 & 2 -- the carted away steel -- the pinpoint flying skills of amateur pilots -- the heroic folk tale of 93 -- one could go on and on. A reasonably thoughtful person can come up with these things ON ONE'S OWN, as I did, and then find his way to the websites and the books -- and of course end up with the fear of being a pariah.

Do you think I would ever share my grave doubts with even my loved ones? No. Does this make me some kind of sadist with no sympathy for 9/11? I was closer to the events than you think. I am no less affected by 9/11 than millions of other people.

What does the truth matter? I ask myself, how is it possible to live with the utter conviction that what we have been told is a well-constructed lie? Is it really so surprising when the lies are becoming almost comically mundane? Is there anyone who believes the fiction of WMD anymore? Or that Valerlie Plame was not deliberately outed?

And it's not just 9/11. You start to see a pattern in other, similar events. The London bombings are already forgotten. Yet the how and why of the perpetrators being identified was eerily similar. Somehow in the rubble we knew all about the "radical Islamists" within days. Then came the strange "non-bombing," which it is almost impossible not to view as conveniently confirming the insta-identification. And in between the now-buried execution-style hit on an innocent commuter, still inadequately explained as a case of mistaken identity. Yet many have pointed out that if the fear was this person was a bomber, why let him get on the train?

Do we just turn our back on these things? True: Our chances of penetrating the shield, of getting conclusive evidence, are infinitessimal. Life does immitate the X-Files sometimes. We are going against the weight of public opinion, inertia, and official malfeasance. It may be an impossible task. And yet, as with the London story for a brief moment at least, it seems as if the uncomfortable truth is going to poke through at last, and something is going to happen -- before it quickly gets tamped down again, or forgotten in the next day's news.

It's not about saying why or even positing a "vast government conspiracy." It's simply about asking the question -- how can that possibly BE? Too much of it makes no SENSE. How can anyone just ignore that?
by Bruce Hayden
(brucehayden51 [at] hotmail.com) Monday Nov 21st, 2005 11:30 PM
You really are breathing my air?. I fel sorry for your dumb ass!
by Keith Smith
(hothand [at] yahoo.com) Monday Nov 21st, 2005 11:50 PM
If 911 was allowed to make it's mark in history then the men who wanted it to happen should explain why the sacrifice?


Why the death of thousands to please a few?

Bush plays a few chords and Condi shops for shoes as if the floods were some kind of an illusion. From goat books to guitars he's one class act and a hammer choking killer of a war president.

Can you not read between the lines people?

How long can you go on living the lie when living under of synthetic freedom.
by Lymphora
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 2:16 AM
I did a bit of checking regarding the "passengers" on board the supposed flights.

There were NO flights according to ths BTS database - ergo there were no passengers.

If you care to run their names through the SSA or SSDI databases, only 7% of the pasenger NAMES exist and only 1% of those names died Sept 11 2001, and that 1% are all elderly people in their seventies and eighties.

I dont have to point you to the Northwoods Documents do I?

See my Flight 11 data here.

http://lymphora.blogspot.com/2005/10/ghost-passengers-of-flight-11.html



by Tom Murphy
(reformmedia [at] aol.com) Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 5:38 AM
"Once the FBI released their official list of hijackers, complete with photographs (on the 27th September), these stories about "still avlive hijackers" disappeared. This suggests to us they were only ever a mixup over names, and once the photos appeared as well these individuals realised they weren’t wanted men after all. And in fact if you look at the details, you’ll find this seems the most likely explanation. Read more in our analyses of the most common “still alive” stories: 9/11 Hijackers"
by hopeful
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 5:57 AM
Stanford University Professor of Physics Steve Jones has shifted the September 11 truth debate on to another level with his recent presentation linked below.

Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?

By Steven E. Jones

Department of Physics and Astronomy

http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html


His paper, which was accepted by 60 of his peers, demolished the NIST report on the collapse of the WTC buildings by showing it was not compatible with a number of the laws of physics. His paper, which has been accepted for peer review, marks a turning point in exposing the mass murder on September 11 and the mass murders in Afghanistan and Iraq which it was designed to facilitate.

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed, second it is violently opposed, and third, it is accepted as self-evident." - Arthur Schopenhauer

Profeesor Jones has decisively moved this truth from Schopenhauer's first stage and, as anyone who has looked at the enormous cumulative evidence knows, it is self evident that the perpatrators were not who we have been told.
by TW
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 6:37 AM
"What does the truth matter?"

I get this counterargument a lot from sophists who just don't want to think about this stuff, and I'm guessing you've run up against this reaction as well.

The truth of such things, by which I mean their metaphysics -- WHY they happen -- is all-important. When we lose this thread, we don't really know anything any more. We become hideous back-broken wretches instead of whole existential beings. Truth is sanity itself

Consider the Kennedy assassination again. Americans have always been rather delusional about the nature of their society and government, but in the years since the ruling mafia whacked Kennedy I think it's gotten much worse. It's like we crossed into Mordor. What makes this most true is simply that Joe Average doesn't have the guts to face the full significance, i.e. the Truth, of that event. It's too horrible. It's full significance is that we live in a frank class dictatorship -- an oligarchy -- and that all this talk of the constitution and democracy and freedom is an epic fraud, to the truthful mind a really flimsy one.

This was not as absolutely true before Kennedy got taken down. His killing was a daring experiment by which the oligarchs proved to themselves that their fascist psychological methods had been honed to the point where they could subvert any political formulation and get away with anything. The rebellious streak in American culture, historically an exceedingly dangerous towering beast that had to be respected, had now been securely caged and they could proceed with confidence toward an eventual totalitarian state, that which they always crave.

Truthfulness in the face of significances this paradigm-smashing and grave requires a hero's courage.

We are now paying the piper for Joe Average's lack of that strength, i.e. are being ushered into a much more explicit phase of their totalitarian design. Since we are this broken now, no American politician will dare to side with us against them. If we had stood strong before the truth 42 years ago and reacted to it appropriately, we would have shown them the Beast was still King, but we did not, and since we did not everything real about America's special promise is now becoming a memory.

THAT is why the truth matters

But with 9-11 we have an opportunity to redeem that promise, to show them they've miscalculated this time and have broken the Beast's trance

THAT is why the truth of 9-11 matters enormously
by Archers
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 6:37 AM
Another obtuse poster---Get this idiot---nothing was left of the planes, bodies-and you trust the FBI!-another Amerikaka Fool
by vc
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 7:02 AM
Sunday, 23 September, 2001, 12:30 GMT 13:30 UK
Hijack 'suspects' alive and well

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm


So much for the official fable.
by vc
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 7:47 AM
Take a listen, she says flight 12 twice. Never sat right with me.

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911-ong-tape.htm

http://www.thememoryhole.org/911/911_ong.mp3

by Not So Easily Fooled
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 8:12 AM
Mike Williams, who created the "911myths" website, cherry picks his information to suit his agenda, which is to support the US government's "official" 911 story. Regarding the hijackers who were still alive, he points out that the "official" manifest for Flight 11 does include the names of two suspected hijackers. But, he ignores the alleged fact that there were supposed to have been five hijackers on that flight and that this "official" manifest does not include the other three. Why weren't their names included on this "official" manifest and why does Williams ignore this oversight?
by AWTD
(ericvaughn [at] sympatico.ca) Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 8:24 AM
9/11 was not a government conspiracy. Neither was the JFK assassination. It was aided by people with government jobs, but the government was clearly one of the obstacles both sets of plotters had to get by.

Some two weeks before 9/11, there was a jet full of Portuguese-Canadians making a voyage across the Atlantic Ocean. Somehow the plane was out of fuel. Everybody would've died if not for the fact that the pilot was a former drug smuggler and his experience and his daring managed a miracle landing in the Azores Islands. Somebody wanted to make sure that all the long distance flights would be amply loaded with fuel for the next little while.

On the weekend of 9/11, Canadian law enforcement would be on their way to Harlem to arrest an old 1960's terrorist. That was the front page news the day of the attack. One investigator later commented that he always checked the guy's name on an Internet search and they just got lucky that time. They also got their best people tied up in that cold case legal matter as well.

Also, in the Summer of 2001, there was a nut in the Toronto "Don" jail who gave a letter to his guards containing many details of the forthcoming terrorism. His lawyer later claimed that the nut was abducted upon release and that a voice on his answering machine intimidating him on an immigration case was recognizable from the letter guy's case.

If a nut tells you the truth in advance about a historical event, would you believe him? Or would you believe that his "opinion" must be nuts as well?

As we approach the anniversary of the JFK assassination, if you can, treat yourself to a peek at Toronto's newspaper headlines from a week before and after JFK's death. 5 people, including a Canadian Senator, are killed in a large traffic accident caused by a jockey days before the Dallas killing. (A jockey would later kill RFK.)

Two days before JFK's demise, Toronto's young mayor suddenly dies after playing goaltender in a house league. (Not a lot of skating involved in that.) He was well liked and the headline of the Toronto Telegram read A CITY IN MOURNING. TV specials on his life were announced in the papers as well. People were being conditioned for the mass cold war paranoia to come.

The weekend after the JFK assassination, Canada has its worst airline disaster in history. A plane carrying passengers from Montreal to Toronto crashed killing all aboard.

Somebody wanted nuclear war by the way they killed JFK. Thank God we were spared that insanity.

by hehe
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 8:26 AM
"Stanford University Professor of Physics Steve Jones"
hes from BYU not Stanford altholugh he did work at SLAC as a postdoc briefly.

His being a physics professor seems to have little relation to what he writes since his area of physics (as one can see from his research papers) is mainly nuclear and his papers on 9/11 contain almost no calculations or references to things one would expect from someone trying to understand a buildings collapse using things one would learn in undergraduate physics classes and engineering classes. That doesnt mean his paper is bad, but if you look at it its mainly pointing to studies done by others and not any studies actually done by Steve Jones himself (so its really disenginguous to promote him as an expert when he himself is just pointing at the words of real experts in his papers).
Even something like "How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings? " that at least mentions momentum is a quote from soemone else.

Looking at his paper I think it woudl be somewhat convincing as an argument before 9/11 as to why someone wouldnt think the buildings should collapse. But as an argument after 9/11 its not convincing. It relys on questioning official compter models but doesnt provide alternative models or any real evidence for the alternative explanations that are hinted at. It jumps to a refutation of what most people who have studied the events think without going through logical inbetween steps (a conrrolled explosion is mentioned but with official version of the event talking about materials in the building burning a logical inbetween step would be to unerstand what was in those floors of the building and perhaps there were things that were explosive there for nonsinister reasons)

Someothing like
"We observe that approximately 34 upper floors begin to rotate as a block, to the south and east. They begin to topple over, as favored by the Second Law of Thermodynamics. The torque due to gravity on this block is enormous, as is its angular momentum. But then – and this I’m still puzzling over – this block turned mostly to powder in mid-air!"
Note that in statements like this, no attempt this made to report what people who dont believe in a conspiracy (but are experts in material sciences) think; maybe the supports had collapsed and what turned to powder was just the nonmetal portion of the building and the thing that turned it into powder was the stress cause by the enormous torque?

" Reports of explosions, heard and seen, are not discussed."
I find this a little strange as a statement. It could be a real fault with a FEMA report but if almost any house I know of catchs on fire there will be at least small explosions as cans of flamable liquid, or gas leaks ignite. If your neighbors house caught on fire and there was a huge explosion, listing commoin things in houses wouldnt be a good argument that it wasa controlled explosion as part of a conspiracy. The first thing you would do would be to look into what they may have had in there that could have exploded and there are many things that can burn hot or explode thatare not malicious.

I could argue against Steve Jones by making refernces to studies and making convincing sounding arguments one what might have been on certain floors and what stresses on certains types of materials might do (although I really dont care enough to try to look up all that stuff). But like him, I'm not an expert on this type of thing and there are peopel out there would coudl provide real answers. As an argument that certain government reports leave things in doubt Steve Jones' paper isnt bad but as an argument that there was a coverup and the towers didnt collapse according to what most engineers have agreed upon, its not very convincing.
by SourDove
(SourDove [at] SourDove.com) Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 8:49 AM

This is a lie. That's why you can't cite the channel or the time of
this fictitious broadcast:

"Then national security advisor, now Secretary of State, Condolezza Rice, stated on TV that she told then mayor of San Francisco Willie Brown 8 hours before he was supposed to board a plane to stay off the plane"

Stick to what you can back up; there's plenty.

No need to call in The Rendon Group or TBR to manipulate
intelligence; Condi did not say this on TV, nor on the radio.
Somebody may have, but you do not even know what name
they used, let alone who they were, just what they said, or
when they said it.


by hopeful
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 9:10 AM
Given that Professor Jones IS a PROFESSOR of PHYSICS we can safely assume he is familiar with the basic laws of physics he refers to in his paper eh?

Given that he made the presentation to 60 of his peers who unanimously accepted its validity and agreed an independent scientific inquiry (preferably internatonal) was called for, we can safely assume it WAS CONVINCING can we not?

As for the drivel regarding explosions, the cumulative evidence is indeed overwhelming, take a look -

Powerhouse Collection of 9-11 Controlled Demolition Quotes

http://revereradionetwork.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=2336

Further evidence -

http://www.mediumrecords.com/wtc/audio01.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/tower-explosions.htm
by Jack Straw
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 9:57 AM
FWIW, Prof Jones is at BYU, not Stanford, he got his advanced degrees there. But that doesn't take away what he says about the WTC, as the previous post points out he's hardly the first person to do so. I would add
http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm
The writer, who has degees in physics and architecture, notes what i've come to call the "resistance paradox". Even a casual obesrvation of collapse videos shows the debris from the upper parts falling through lower sections of the structures as fast as it's falling through the adjacent air, while the upper portions themselves are turning to DUST. IF you accept the official story, of collapse caused by plane impacts and fires, you'd have to say the lower portions offered virtually zero resistance to account for the rapid rate of fall. Yet at the SAME TIME you'd have to say the lower portions offered high resistance to account for the upper parts being turned to dust, surely that didn't happen simply from falling. A material can offer low resistance, or high, or in between, but not high and low at the SAME TIME. Only demolition can solve such a blatant contradiction, explaining why the entire building was being turned to dust while STILL FALLING.
by Alamaine
(fratliff [at] gra.midco.net) Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 11:36 AM
Despite the fact that Fisk is presumed to -- but cannot -- know all about the Middle East, he's done a pretty darned good job of informing the majority of us about the realities on the ground. I have just finished the epic *Great War for Civilisation* and would recommend it to anyone who wants to have a good feeling for what's really happening in the region. While there are several issues with which I would disagree, the hijackers one of them, this is a minor point compared to many of the other points he makes that will create more controversy and raise more hackles. While the hijackers might be priority number one for many people, Fisk writes about the events in his chapter heading "Why?" and "Why?" is the question that needs answering before any of the others. This is something he feels quite strongly about and something that continues to remain unaddressed.

Granted, some of the particulars are debatable but they also offer the opportunity to do just that, raise issues that will have some increased priority and visibility. The greatest concern should be "Middle East-isation" of the United States and until the powers that be solve that one over there, this one over here ain't gonna go nowhere! Read his book (the only way I have been personally affiliated with him).
by not funny
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 12:34 PM
Yes, he he, it was just the unfortunate choice of high explosives as an insulating material on the support columns that lead to the twin towers collapsing and also explains why the upper part of the south tower disintegrated on the way done. After all, who would have thought that a building could catch fire?

Obviously the Spanish did because the steel skelton of the Windsor buiding in Madrid remained standing after an all day and night fire burned off everything else.


Why do you defenders of the "Official Explanation" avoid talking about WTC building #7?

Yes, I've heard about Guilianni's bunker full of diesel fuel, but the photos of building #7 that I've seen showed the fires to be very small and there was no impact from any plane.

Also, there is Larry Silverstein's statement about him and the NY Fire Department deciding to "pull" the building. This was aired on TV and is available at:
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2002/america.remembers/

by hehe
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 1:21 PM
"Even a casual obesrvation of collapse videos shows the debris from the upper parts falling through lower sections of the structures as fast as it's falling through the adjacent air, while the upper portions themselves are turning to DUST. IF you accept the official story, of collapse caused by plane impacts and fires, you'd have to say the lower portions offered virtually zero resistance to account for the rapid rate of fall."

It is strange I guess but there are a lot of other possible explanations. If "controlled explosives" could cause this type of behavior one would think other things could cause the exact same behavior including many things that dont involve conspiracys and overups. If you were investigating cars that explode when rear-ended due to bad design you wouldnt jump to the conclusion manufacturers were hiding bombs in the cars.... In this case there isnt even strong evidence there was an explosion. If there really is proof that parts of the building fell faster than they would in free fall there could be other explanations like the forces comming from the bending of the building itself ... but I dont think thats even being claimed... if the lack of resistance felt by the top portions of the building falling is what is being talked about there is no need for an explanation to involve any additonal downward force.... Since the building collapsed the way it did, it was obviously physically possible for it to collapse the way it did. What exactly could an explosion have done that would make the things you are talking about more possible than other factors. Since a plane hit the building and caused a fire as well as damage from the impact and the building probably contained flamable material there seem like there would be a lot of possibilities.

"Given that Professor Jones IS a PROFESSOR of PHYSICS we can safely assume he is familiar with the basic laws of physics"

Several comments such as this one seem to use Jones' job (which mainly involves writing papers about nuclear Phsycis) as some sort of proof of legitmacy. For someone with a background in Physics or engineering the way he is presented makes the overall claim less credible rather than more credible (just as most people who went to college would find a company the advertises that they use "real mathmaticians" to do your taxes as a claim that lowers credibility). His paper does quote other people who are experts and he doesnt seem to be putting himself forth as some kind of expert so I wouldnt say his being a physicist makes him less credible (just those who point to him as being an expert where his being a physicist makes his claims somehow more legitimate).

Its interesting to point out that the structural engineering community isnt hiding from 9/11. I noticed the following on Wikipedia:
----
The collapse of the towers set off intense debates within the structural engineering and architectural professions, with no clear end in sight. The largest camp appears to be those who feel the towers did well under the circumstances by standing long enough for the majority of occupants to escape. A large and apparently growing minority takes exception to that view.
Their criticisms of the WTC design feature five main points:

1. Longspan floors supported by external columns are inherently weaker than the traditional box frame column/girder arrangement with internal walls.
2. The bunching of all internal columns in a relatively narrow center shaft in a building is an "all your eggs in one basket" configuration-- if that region on any floor is catastrophically damaged (as it certainly was by the fire in the north tower), the entire building is doomed. This stands in stark contrast to earlier generations of skyscrapers which utilize full skeletons of stepped columns, usually one row approximately every 25 feet (7.6 m) from the center to the perimeter.
3. The World Trade Center exclusively used lightweight materials, especially in the facade. Had the WTC facade contained even minimal masonry elements and/or traditional heavy steel outermost column rows, it is unlikely the aircraft would have cleanly penetrated to the core of each tower— a significant portion of debris and jet fuel would have remained outside, a much different scenario.
4. Single-bolt connections binding the longspan floorplates with the load-bearing external columns were extremely lightweight for their assigned task. One study group from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has concluded the proximal cause of the south tower collapse was failure of these bolts in the southeast corner of the building. Double-bolts should have been used.
5. The use of gypsum cladding instead of reinforced concrete to shield stairwells. Almost all skyscrapers, including those built since the WTC, shield stairwells in reinforced concrete. On September 11th, it was the collapse of all stairways above the impact level that consigned all people above the impact zone in Tower One to death. Tower Two had two of its three stairwells taken out above the impact area by the plane. Some people above the impact zone survived, as they used the third stairwell. Computer models have shown that most of the stairwells in both towers would likely have remained usable until the general collapse had they been shielded in concrete.

Some see the WTC as an irresponsible experiment in lightweight, rent-space-maximized construction and place particular opprobrium on Leslie E. Robertson, its Chief Structural Engineer. Others see it as a landmark in structural engineering simply in need of refinement due to unforeseen, and probably unforeseeable, variables.

One of those variables was the size and kinetic energy of aircraft that might accidentally strike the WTC. Mr. Robertson and others involved in design and construction of the WTC have stated that back in the 1960s they could not have planned for the jetliners of 2001. Specifically, they modeled the effects of a hit by the largest aircraft of the day, the Boeing 707-320, and presumably calibrated their design to withstand it. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, WTC towers 1 and 2 were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 lost in fog, looking to land. The modeled aircraft was a 707 weighing 263,000 lb (119,000 kg) with a flight speed of only 180 mph (290 km/h), as would be used in approach and landing situations ([2], page 17). The 767s that actually hit the towers had a kinetic energy more than seven times greater than the specifically modeled 707 impact. (The Boeing 747, with an empty weight more than twice that of the 767, was in the final design phase when WTC drafting began and the first 747s were constructed simultaneously with the WTC towers; however the known attributes of the 747 were apparently not modeled in designing the towers).

Although the two major government reports largely avoided faulting the WTC design, the construction industry has already made changes that show an implicit acknowledgement of the critics' arguments. For example, the plans for the main tower that is to replace 1 and 2 WTC have been revised a number of times to include heavier materials and more traditional column/girder internals. Additionally, extensive retrofittings of `60s/`70s era skyscrapers that share the WTC's main features, such as Chicago's Sears Tower and John Hancock Center, are underway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
Popular Science has the following (I know you disgaree with this but you did say nobody was talking about building 7)

----

WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.


http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y
by kit
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 1:37 PM
>> The Pentagon was hit by a US missile

False claim. There is no evidence for a missile, and all the evidence against it.

Missiles are on the level of "holograms" - they just seem 'cool' to a lot of people who have never seen or heard a missile, and think they would MISTAKE one for a commercial jet flying over their car.

-----------

The debate over what hit the Pentagon has thrived due to the apparent contradiction between the eyewitness and physical evidence. Whereas a large body of reports of eyewitness accounts strongly supports that a twin-enginer jetliner swooped in at a very low altitude and exploded at or in front of the Pentagon; photographs of the damaged facade and lawn show an apparent near-absence of aircraft debris and a pattern of damage to the Pentagon's facade showing unbroken windows in the paths of the outer wings and the vertical tail section.

Numerous points based on the physical evidence of the crash site seem to make an overwhelming cumulative case against a 757 having crashed there, provided one ignores the eyewitness evidence. However, most of these points involve some error in evaluating the evidence. Those errors include the following.

* A Boeing 757 could not have executed the attack maneuver.
* Eyewitnesses saw a small plane.
* The Pentagon attack left no aircraft debris.
* Aircraft crashes always leave large debris.
* The Pentagon attack left only a small impact hole.
* The wings of a 757 should have been visible outside the Pentagon.
* Engine parts from the Pentagon crash don't match a 757.
* Standing columns in the Petagon impact hole preclude the crash of a 757.
* The C-ring punch-out hole was made by a warhead.
* Flight-path obstacles can't be reconciled with the crash of a 757.
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html
by here we go again
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 2:45 PM
NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out."


I'd like to see a photo of that. There wasn't one in the Popular Mehanics story you liknked to.

I'd also like to hear what you make of Silverstein's statement about pulling #7.

by David Rubinson
(rubinson [at] kab.com) Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 5:52 PM
I was there, and I totally agree. His talk was about the responsibility of journalism, and then he went and also spieled the Al Qaeda and Zarkawi propaganda. Very sad and very disappointing.
DR
by squid
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 5:59 PM
That sure beats the ad hominem attack of someone who doesn't want me to "breathe his air."

I can only add that even people closest to me have said, "How can that be possible? Why would our government do those things? Even if it did, what difference would it make?" People just don't want to go there.

But the other point I was trying to make was (like that physics prof), I don't claim to make such charges as "the government did it," though I don't rule out the possibility. I just want to know what happened.

About the government: 9/11 and all the rest besides, why is it such a radical notion to think that the government exists mainly to perpetuate the status quo for the haves, and not for the have nots? Few would disagree that such is the nature of many corrupt governments in the developing world. What makes us think our government is so noble and above the fray.

We watch people year in and year out get indicted, convicted, and sentenced for various levels of corruption, yet somehow the chief executive is immune? The current admin isn't even subtle. Tax cuts and all the rest for the wealthy, contracts in Iraq, etc. Katrina, FEMA, and food stamp elimination for the poor. This is plain as daylight.

Meanwhile, back in the salt mines of 9/11, there's something rotten. Is it too much to hope that those two ends of the spectrum will somehow join in the middle, and a lightbulb will go off? Maybe so, but here's hoping.
by Eric Vaughan
(ericvaughn [at] sympatico.ca) Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 6:11 PM
Hehe, thank you for the avails of your expensive education. I knew all along the WTC towers had to be made out of green cheese, but as far as eloquently proving it, like the towers themselves, that just wasn't in me.

Hehe, tell me something if it's available yet. The Army Corps of Engineers recently fixed that levee in New Orleans that broke before the flood. How'd they get screwed? Was it cronies supplying materials, fraudulently low bids for maintence, or both or worse? I know that Judah Hertz will take a bath on his New Orleans investments because that place HAS to be the new Love Canal.
by CA
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 6:35 PM
Alamaine writes:

"While there are several issues with which I would disagree, the hijackers one of them, this is a minor point compared to many of the other points he makes that will create more controversy and raise more hackles. While the hijackers might be priority number one for many people, Fisk writes about the events in his chapter heading "Why?"

This point is Fisk has already answered the "why" question in his talk on Saturday night in Berkeley, and, I basically I agree with him, i.e., the Anglo/Israeli/American axis powers have done terrible things to people in the Middle East because they want the oil in the Middle East and they need to strategically place themselves in that crucial part of the world to act as the world's policemen. I am not disagreeing with that premise.

What I am disagreeing with is the thesis that Muslims committed 9/11, and that the hijacker story is just a minor part of the whole, sordid collection of evidence that tells us that 9/11 was a major false flag operation. Until we come to collective understanding and acknowledgement that 9/11 was an inside job, we cannot effectively argue against the goverment's sick rational into going to war and taking our right's away. It is the only way to end their permanent war strategy.
by Re:
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 7:40 PM
"What I am disagreeing with is the thesis that Muslims committed 9/11, and that the hijacker story is just a minor part of the whole, sordid collection of evidence that tells us that 9/11 was a major false flag operation."

When Ward Churchill came to town someone stoof up and asked hu about 9/11 conspiracy issues and his response was that the idea that only the US could have carried out such attacks is racist.

I wouldnt go quite that far but instead think that the American myth that is believed by the US right is also accepted by the 9/11 conspiracy crowd. The myth is that the government knows more than we do, has spys that keep track of most things around the world and functions effectively as a monolithic organization (weirdly the right aknowledges that the government is incomptent in everything else it does). Thinking about the type of right-wingers I've meet who might have eventually gone into government, I wouldnt put it past some of them to want to have planned a 9/11 conspiracy but none would have had the originality or the intelligence. The whole concept of special ops forces engaged in secretive torture to gain information as in a spy movie is part of the mainstream mythology of how the world works (and seems to have been accepted by some on the radical left) but none of it is true. Ask any marine who has come back from Iraq about all the equipment CNN touted in the first few weeks of the war (the cameras in the lightweight bulletproof helmets, inpenteratable vests that wouldnt cause soliders to overheat.....)

For those who believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy, what do you think about Iraq today? Is the US losing part of some secret plan or did the PNAC crowd just turn out to be stupid as well as power hungry? The government did conspire to start the Iraq war but there were plenty of leaks about how untrue the WMD claims were before the war and since then we have gotten officals at all levels revealing the lies (including transcripts of Bush telling Blair he wanted to bomb Al Jazeera's headquarets and Blair telling him that was a stupid idea) If all this stuff about Iraq is being leaked (and we even have photos or torture) wouldnt there be some leak from a 9/11 conspiracy if it had been taking place within the US government (I mean even Cheney was being guarded by a soldier working for the rightwing in the Phillipines....)
by TW
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 8:18 PM
You said: "People just don't want to go there."
Here, bro, take a long luxurious bath in a like-minded view

http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/PHA311A.html

"Our reluctance to question official doctrine on this matter is a symptom of the societal role most of us have been bred and trained for: to be ever-faithful hounds, tails thumping the floor as we contentedly slorp the hand of class authority. Such credulity also becomes inevitable when the alternative is so unbearable: if someone in Bush's position is capable of lying to us about something as huge, as gut-wrenchingly horrible as 9-11, then everything we believe about this country -- about the nature of civilization itself -- might just be childish nonsense...

Most people simply don't have the guts to go there."

You should read it too, re. You could obviously use a good kick in the ass
re said: "For those who believe that 9/11 was a conspiracy, what do you think about Iraq today?"

I think the imperialist billionaire mindset takes daring chances that amount to experiments to see how far they can push it. As the saying goes, nothing ventured, nothing gained, and they ARE high-stakes gambling addicts, you know. Your bumbling incompetence theory is itself a fatuous myth. For one thing it's not just -- or even primarily -- the government that's doing this stuff. The whole economic order is complicit in the ways and means of empire, and yeah that IS a monolith. Government is just an appendage of this deeper ruling order. With resources like that, they don't have to be infallible supergeniuses to get away with almost anything, and they know it. For one thing, they have the "Mighty Wurlitzer" of major media providing a safety net. The American people are so severely brainwashed now they can be made to believe almost anything. That Saddam was behind 9-11, for example.

You can go ahead and "rebutt" this, Re, but I won't read it. I've seen enough of your antics now. You don't really respond to points raised, you just switch off to some new fatuous "I'm smarter than anybody" ego jack-off game. You remind me of someone else A LOT. You mind if I start calling you Ed? Are you Ed?
by Jack Straw
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 8:50 PM
Hehe has packed more disinformation into two posts than i've seen anywhere on the Internet.
>
"Even a casual obesrvation of collapse videos shows the debris from the upper parts falling through lower sections of the structures as fast as it's falling through the adjacent air, while the upper portions themselves are turning to DUST. IF you accept the official story, of collapse caused by plane impacts and fires, you'd have to say the lower portions offered virtually zero resistance to account for the rapid rate of fall."
It is strange I guess but there are a lot of other possible explanations. If "controlled explosives" could cause this type of behavior one would think other things could cause the exact same behavior including many things that dont involve conspiracys and overups. If you were investigating cars that explode when rear-ended due to bad design you wouldnt jump to the conclusion manufacturers were hiding bombs in the cars.... In this case there isnt even strong evidence there was an explosion. If there really is proof that parts of the building fell faster than they would in free fall there could be other explanations like the forces comming from the bending of the building itself ... but I dont think thats even being claimed... if the lack of resistance felt by the top portions of the building falling is what is being talked about there is no need for an explanation to involve any additonal downward force.... Since the building collapsed the way it did, it was obviously physically possible for it to collapse the way it did. What exactly could an explosion have done that would make the things you are talking about more possible than other factors. Since a plane hit the building and caused a fire as well as damage from the impact and the building probably contained flamable material there seem like there would be a lot of possibilities. <
No one is arguing that the building couldn't collapse the way it did, but that it couldn't do so *per the official story*. And nothing can fall faster than free-fall. You seem to have zero knowledge of physics, and are just spouting rabbish. The point is that the lower portions seem to provide no more resistance than air, yet the upper portion is being shredded by the collapse. What is doing that? The lower portion which is providing no resistance? Explosions would explain both.
>
"Given that Professor Jones IS a PROFESSOR of PHYSICS we can safely assume he is familiar with the basic laws of physics"
Several comments such as this one seem to use Jones' job (which mainly involves writing papers about nuclear Phsycis) as some sort of proof of legitmacy. For someone with a background in Physics or engineering the way he is presented makes the overall claim less credible rather than more credible (just as most people who went to college would find a company the advertises that they use "real mathmaticians" to do your taxes as a claim that lowers credibility). His paper does quote other people who are experts and he doesnt seem to be putting himself forth as some kind of expert so I wouldnt say his being a physicist makes him less credible (just those who point to him as being an expert where his being a physicist makes his claims somehow more legitimate).
Its interesting to point out that the structural engineering community isnt hiding from 9/11. I noticed the following on Wikipedia:
----
The collapse of the towers set off intense debates within the structural engineering and architectural professions, with no clear end in sight. The largest camp appears to be those who feel the towers did well under the circumstances by standing long enough for the majority of occupants to escape. A large and apparently growing minority takes exception to that view.
Their criticisms of the WTC design feature five main points:
1. Longspan floors supported by external columns are inherently weaker than the traditional box frame column/girder arrangement with internal walls.
2. The bunching of all internal columns in a relatively narrow center shaft in a building is an "all your eggs in one basket" configuration-- if that region on any floor is catastrophically damaged (as it certainly was by the fire in the north tower), the entire building is doomed. This stands in stark contrast to earlier generations of skyscrapers which utilize full skeletons of stepped columns, usually one row approximately every 25 feet (7.6 m) from the center to the perimeter. <
total BS. The center core was not a narrow "shaft", it was made of 47 thick steel beams, with cross supports. And the perimeter columns were likewise also linked. The WTC 2 core wasn't even hit, since the plane barely hit a corner (ps WTC 2 was hit second, much less directly, suffered less serious fire, yet fell first by a lot, stood only 56 minutes vs 102 minutes for WTC1)
>
3. The World Trade Center exclusively used lightweight materials, especially in the facade. Had the WTC facade contained even minimal masonry elements and/or traditional heavy steel outermost column rows, it is unlikely the aircraft would have cleanly penetrated to the core of each tower— a significant portion of debris and jet fuel would have remained outside, a much different scenario. <
Like i said, the WTC2 hit didn't penetrate the core, which used very think material. see http://911research.wtc7.net for graphics
>
4. Single-bolt connections binding the longspan floorplates with the load-bearing external columns were extremely lightweight for their assigned task. One study group from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology has concluded the proximal cause of the south tower collapse was failure of these bolts in the southeast corner of the building. Double-bolts should have been used. <
Again, BS. There was a network of cross-trusses supported by floor plates, attached with much more than "single-bolt connections". Again see 911research.
>
5. The use of gypsum cladding instead of reinforced concrete to shield stairwells. Almost all skyscrapers, including those built since the WTC, shield stairwells in reinforced concrete. On September 11th, it was the collapse of all stairways above the impact level that consigned all people above the impact zone in Tower One to death. Tower Two had two of its three stairwells taken out above the impact area by the plane. Some people above the impact zone survived, as they used the third stairwell. Computer models have shown that most of the stairwells in both towers would likely have remained usable until the general collapse had they been shielded in concrete.
Some see the WTC as an irresponsible experiment in lightweight, rent-space-maximized construction and place particular opprobrium on Leslie E. Robertson, its Chief Structural Engineer. Others see it as a landmark in structural engineering simply in need of refinement due to unforeseen, and probably unforeseeable, variables.
One of those variables was the size and kinetic energy of aircraft that might accidentally strike the WTC. Mr. Robertson and others involved in design and construction of the WTC have stated that back in the 1960s they could not have planned for the jetliners of 2001. Specifically, they modeled the effects of a hit by the largest aircraft of the day, the Boeing 707-320, and presumably calibrated their design to withstand it. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency, WTC towers 1 and 2 were designed to withstand the impact of a 707 lost in fog, looking to land. The modeled aircraft was a 707 weighing 263,000 lb (119,000 kg) with a flight speed of only 180 mph (290 km/h), as would be used in approach and landing situations ([2], page 17). The 767s that actually hit the towers had a kinetic energy more than seven times greater than the specifically modeled 707 impact. (The Boeing 747, with an empty weight more than twice that of the 767, was in the final design phase when WTC drafting began and the first 747s were constructed simultaneously with the WTC towers; however the known attributes of the 747 were apparently not modeled in designing the towers). <
RUBBISH. Weight of 767 is 395,000 lbs, vs 335,000 for 707. More than twice is crap. And the weight would include fuel, without which a plane doesn't fly. At cruise speed, a 707 actually has more kinetic energy than a 767. The notion that a 767 has 7 times as much KE as a 707 is sci-fi for gullible fools. And Prof Astaneh Asl modled a 747 hitting the towers "*after* the fact, the buildings survived in the model.

>
Although the two major government reports largely avoided faulting the WTC design, the construction industry has already made changes that show an implicit acknowledgement of the critics' arguments. For example, the plans for the main tower that is to replace 1 and 2 WTC have been revised a number of times to include heavier materials and more traditional column/girder internals. Additionally, extensive retrofittings of `60s/`70s era skyscrapers that share the WTC's main features, such as Chicago's Sears Tower and John Hancock Center, are underway.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center
<
This is how official rubbish gets spread.



>
Popular Science has the following (I know you disgaree with this but you did say nobody was talking about building 7)
----
WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."
FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner. <
Show us photos of such damage, hehe. WTC 5 and 6 got hit much harder by debris, suffered major fires, and never fell. Likewise the Madrid building, same size as WTC7, withstood fire for 24 hours, real hot fire, and never fell.
>
NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. <
Zero evidence of a serious fire in WTC7. Show us the photos, hehe.


>
But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.
According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."
There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time." <
Once again: show us the fire. Even FEMA dismissed that possibility,
>
WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.



http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=5&c=y<
Written by Ben Chertoff, cousin of Fatherland Security Sec Michael Chertoff. See
http://911research.wtc7.net
and
http://www.serendipity.li
for demolitions of the Popular Mechanics propaganda hit piece.
by Jack Straw
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 8:54 PM
hehe's portions start with a > and a jump to the next line, and end with a < on the final line of the portion. What follows a < and precedes a > (which is always on a new line) is mine.
by vc
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 8:57 PM
southfacedamage.jpg
Got picts of south face damage? Post 'em.

from :ncstar1-8
by vc
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 9:01 PM
debrisfeild2.jpg
from: appedixL
by vc
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 9:06 PM
7before1-2coll.jpg
WTC 7 southface

from: ncstar1-8
by vc
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 9:22 PM
floor3.jpg
The illustrations used in nist documents do not seem accurate. Sizes and shapes of of the 11 floor plan published do not coincide.

from: appedixL
by vc
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 9:28 PM
transfertrusses5-7.jpg
This diagram is definately missing KEY structural components

from: appedixL
by CA
Tuesday Nov 22nd, 2005 10:32 PM
Gee VC, what are we supposed to be looking at with these photos? You need captions as well as what your thesis is with these diagrams and photos. For instance, what are we supposed to be looking at on the photo that says Building 7 looking south before towers 1 and 2 fall. Is there proof that something is burning, or some damage.

Thanks
by Lexica-l deconstrrucshun.
Wednesday Nov 23rd, 2005 2:42 AM
So work it out.
There are those who know...but have no power to challenge the government.

There are those who know, and have the power to challenge, but knowing that the u.s. is ruled by an extremely murderous but small cabal, collect their wages and pensions and remain schtumm/silent/silenciado.

There are those who "did it".

There are those, so wrapped up in eating burgers and drinking soda, that they don`t even uh...what was the topic?


Where does it go??? I guess the best thing would be to ask the Chinese, asians and europeans, who one can be sure, do know, and are quietly buying up most of America plc, as a retirement fund for senior communists and left-wing billionaires.
Capitalism might give bread and circus to the working masses, it sure as hell gives wealth and real power to the ruling classes.

by anti-stalinist
Wednesday Nov 23rd, 2005 7:29 AM
Diddo for Communism too. Those revolutions in China and Russia in the long run really did work out well for the global elite. It may have took a few years of brutal totalitarian dictatorship where the Soviets and the Chinise confiscated most of the middle and lower classes land and depopulated a good chuck of the society, under the banner of "A People's Revolution" but in the long run it's the same old people profitting from the misery of others.

Guess whose on the Board of China's National Oil board? Henry Kissinger. Guess who funding the restructuring of Russia? The central banks of the west. Guess who funded and supported North Korea's nuclear ambitions? ABB -- a Zurich based company that was headed by Donald Rumsfeld and some of the biggest power elite in Europe. (http://houston.indymedia.org/news/2003/04/11292.php).

Why? It's called the Hegelian Dialectic and it goes like this:
fund your enemies and your friends because your enemies and your friends well have to pay you back for your support, either through paying back, with interest, for the war/military build up and the dept associated with it, or through the restructuring agreements that come after a conflict (land confiscation, economic restructuring, draconian wage slave to pay of debt (the current state of America)) Whowever wins or loses the banks and their shareholders always profit. The end game is their Orwellian new world order where the banks control the world economy and it's slaves through police state measues.

This is the political context we need to be at people. Not the, if only we could get rid of the Bush regime, we could light one up and everything would be all right.
by Jack Straw
Wednesday Nov 23rd, 2005 9:37 AM
You still got nothing. That photo does NOT show a massive fire in WTC7. Nothing like the fire in the Windsor Building in Madrid earlier this year, a fire which lasted 24 hours, much hotter than anything seen in the WTC towers (made the steel glow in red and white, that's how hot), yet did NOT result in a collapse. Likewise the Caracas fire of October '04.
by buff
Wednesday Nov 23rd, 2005 9:43 AM
> It directly parallels the near identical campaign waged to distract us from uncovering the truth of 11/22

We can learn from history, or we can repeat it:

* * * * *

From: [redacted]
Subject: November 22, 1963 - the coup d'etat against Kennedy - beware the military industrial complex
Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 02:59:19 -0800

42 years ago, the United States of America had a military coup d'etat -- an event that most people chose not to see (a society of "not see's").

President Kennedy was removed after changing his mind on the Cold War. He refused to invade Cuba during the Bay of Pigs debacle, refusing to start nuclear war during the Cuban Missile Crisis (even though his military advisors were demanding it), stopped atmospheric nuclear testing and began the process to withdraw troops from Vietnam.

In his farewell address to the nation, President Eisenhower warned that we should beware the unchecked power of the military-industrial complex. This speech is one of the greatest in American history, and prescient in understanding what was coming. Now, in 2005, the future that Eisenhower warned about is the content of the daily news.

The removal of Kennedy (and later, of his brother on the threshold of his victory in the Presidential campaign) led to the escalation of the Vietnam war, Watergate, the 1980 "October Surprise," the Iran-Contra scandals, BCCI, the invasion of Panama, Desert Storm (1991 war on Iraq), allowing the 1993 attack on the World Trade Center, Oklahoma City, the stolen election in Florida in 2000, 9/11 and the anthrax attacks on the Democrats and the media, the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, and the stolen 2004 Presidential election (to cite a few of the many scandals since 1963).

If our society is going to shift course to use our resources for our survival -- instead of military dominance -- we will have to convert the military budget toward peaceful purposes. A key part of the understanding needed to shift course is an honest discussion of the events in Dallas 42 years ago today -- and how those events led to the permanent warfare national security state.



"This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience ... In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic process."
-- President Dwight Eisenhower, farewell speech to the nation, January 17, 1961

"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron."
-- Dwight Eisenhower, April 16, 1953

"I like to believe that people in the long run are going to do more to promote peace than our governments. Indeed, I think that people want peace so much that one of these days governments had better get out of the way and let them have it."
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower

"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
-- Dwight D. Eisenhower in a letter to his brother Edgar, November 8, 1954



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


http://www.oilempire.us/propaganda.html

JFK 11/22/1963

Official Story
The Warren Commission report claimed that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman who killed President Kennedy. This claim is predicated on the "single bullet theory" created by Commission attorney Arlen Specter (a theory that must be true for the official story to be correct).

Limited Hang Out
The fall-back story suggests that the mafia and/or anti-Castro Cubans were responsible. A variation on this theme is that the Warren Commission had to coverup the involvement of Castro's Cuba and the Soviet Union, and therefore the coverup prevented a nuclear war between the US and the USSR (since the American public would have demanded revenge).

Best Evidence

To explain the Kennedy assassination, one must ask: Who had the power to change the motorcade route (to bring it near the Texas Book Depository and the "grassy knoll")? Who had the power to cover up the crime? Who benefitted?
President Kennedy had changed his mind on the Cold War, had stopped nuclear testing in the atmosphere, and signed an order to start withdrawing troops from Vietnam. Kennedy promised to shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces, and the CIA shattered Kennedy into a thousand pieces.
The assassination was a coup d'etat against democracy.


Distracting Disinformation
"The 9/11 Truth Movement gives one insight why the term 'conspiracy theorist' came to be shorthand for 'discredited whacko' in the invisible guidebook of mainstream media. "Suddenly, it's not hard to understand why the obvious anomalies in the JFK assassination never received proper attention in accepted media channels.
"If you have just as many nutty theories about the driver of the limo turning around and shooting JFK as you have honest scientific inquiries about the real probability of multiple shooters, the wheat drowns in the chaff."
-- Sander Hicks, author of "The Big Wedding" http://www.sanderhicks.com


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


Recommended resources:

JFK Commencement Address at American University, June 10, 1963
the supporters of the Warren Commission who claim that there wasn't a conspiracy
ignore this speech, which called for an end to the Cold War
http://www.ratical.org/co-globalize/JFK061063.html


Jim Garrison's autobiography "On the trail of the Assassins"
Garrison conducted the only prosecution of a conspirator in the Kennedy assassination (which was ultimately unsuccessful). His autobiography is a fascinating expose of how the coup was conducted, who benefitted, who covered it up, and how the lone prosecution was sabotaged by covert interests and the media. Oliver Stone's famous film "JFK" is based on Garrison's story.


http://www.prouty.org
Col. Fletcher Prouty was the liaison from the Pentagon to the CIA when the assassination happened. He resigned from the military afterwards, and wrote two books and numerous articles -- which are archived at this website.

http://www.ratical.org/ratville/JFK/
TOPICS ON THE NATIONAL SECURITY STATES OF AMERICA
Understanding Special Operations
The Kennedy Assassination
The Clandestine Operations Business
several books, numerous articles (long out of print) about the JFK Assassination and how the secret government (military - intelligence complex) actually functions


http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/112404_kennedy_insult.shtml
ANOTHER INSULT FROM BUSH AND THE PENTAGON NEO-CONS
By Wayne Madsen

http://www.theassassinations.com

THE ASSASSINATIONS
Probe Magazine on JFK, MLK, RFK and Malcolm X
Edited by James DiEugenio and Lisa Pease


http://www.RealHistoryArchives.com

This site exists because we are not being told the truth about our history. Are you under the impression that Oswald killed Kennedy? That the Media is independent? That the CIA never operates without presidential authority? If so, you need to peruse these archives and find out what you've been missing.

This site is designed to provide researchers links and leads to finding solid information about our real history, as opposed to the convenient - if somewhat fake - history the "mainstream" corporate press feeds us.



http://www.rtis.com/reg/bcs/pol/touchstone/february97/worsham.htm

JFK CONSPIRACY: THE INTELLECTUAL DISHONESTY AND COWARDICE OF ALEXANDER COCKBURN AND NOAM CHOMSKY

by Michael Worsham



http://www.webcom.com/ctka/pr197-left.html

The Left and the Death of Kennedy

By Jim DiEugenio


http://www.webcom.com/ctka/index.html

Citizens for the Truth about the Kennedy Assassinations



Alexander Cockburn and Noam Chomsky vs. JFK: A Study in Misinformation (Citizens for the Truth About the Kennedy Assassination, May 1994) http://webcom.com/lpease/media/cockburn.htm



My Beef With Chomsky (Michael Morrissey, Sep 2000) http://www.geocities.com/mdmorrissey/chomcorr.htm
Concerning Chomsky's arrogant evasions of fact and truly bizarre double standards about trusting official sources, in regards to several critical conspiracy issues (including the JFK assassination). Also, he points out Chomsky's change of mind from his keen interest in the JFK assassination in the late 60s, something he doesn't seem to have anything to say about these days.



The History Channel -- movie
The Men Who Killed Kennedy DVD set (Episodes 1-6)
http://store.aetv.com/html/product/index.jhtml?id=70341


http://karws.gso.uri.edu/JFK/The_critics/Russell/Sixteen_questions_Russell.html
6 Questions on the Assassination

By Bertrand Russell

The Minority of One, 6 September 1964, pp. 6-8



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



http://www.namebase.org/news04.html
Sidebar from NameBase NewsLine, No. 4, January-March 1994:
The Man Who Wasn't There
by Daniel Brandt

About the time that my two colleagues plotted a trajectory toward the Dallas symposium, I was relieved that PIR's telephone had stopped ringing, and there was some light at the other end of the TV specials. Yet another media feeding frenzy during yet another assassination anniversary. "I hope I'm not around for the 50th," I told researcher Scott Malone when he called a few weeks earlier to check on something or other that I've since happily forgotten.
After Peter Dale Scott's exhausting "Deep Politics and the Death of JFK," I needed a rest before starting on the other worthwhile 1993 JFK book, Gaeton Fonzi's "The Last Investigation." By now I've only a vague idea of the number of JFK books in NameBase, but the notion that it's enough already is increasingly distinct. Fortunately Fonzi's book was easy reading, and early on a zinger perked me up. Fonzi describes a visit to Vince Salandria in 1975, the earliest assassination researcher who at one time was a mentor to many starting out in the field:
"I'm afraid we were misled," Salandria said sadly. "All the critics, myself included, were misled very early. I see that now. We spent too much time and effort microanalyzing the details of the assassination when all the time it was obvious, it was blatantly obvious that it was a conspiracy. Don't you think that the men who killed Kennedy had the means to do it in the most sophisticated and subtle way? They chose not to. Instead, they picked the shooting gallery that was Dealey Plaza and did it in the most barbarous and openly arrogant manner. The cover story was transparent and designed not to hold, to fall apart at the slightest scrutiny.... We must face that fact -- and not waste any more time microanalyzing the evidence. That's exactly what they want us to do.... They'll keep you very, very busy and, eventually, they'll wear you down." (p. 29)
The name Vince Salandria was not familiar to me; I knew only that he had assisted in the Garrison investigation. Fonzie mentions that Salandria has never written a book, never capitalized on his research, and by 1975 had faded into the background. I found an address for Salandria and wrote a letter explaining that I thought his perspective deserved a wider audience. He graciously sent 60 photocopied pages of articles he had written from 1964-1977, and mentioned in his cover letter that "I still feel that shifting the analysis from a micro to a macro approach is essential to freeing the bona fide critics from a quagmire."
Half of the copies were of articles he wrote from 1964-1966, by way of showing, as he described in his letter, that "I was perhaps the earliest person to attack the Warren Report microanalytically." This isn't a boast, it's a confession. By December 1971 he described himself as "among the earliest and GUILTIEST of the researchers in my protracted analyses of the shots, trajectories and wounds of the assassination.... While the researchers have involved themselves in consuming preoccupation with the microanalytic searching for facts of how the assassination was accomplished, there has been almost no systematic thinking on why President Kennedy was killed."
In this article and another written in 1977, Salandria looks at the assassination with a fresh set of assumptions. He borrows from his friend Professor Thomas Katen, who characterized the Warren Report as a "transparent conspiracy" rather than a cover-up. The deeper you look into the evidence, the clearer it becomes. The clues are buried, diffused, and time-released so that those who look hardest become the most fragmented and demoralized. And savvy political leaders, who might normally feel that something can be done, are the very ones who get the message most clearly: "The cryptocracy is in control, so go along if you expect to get along." Then there are those who need to deny, or refuse to see, or just enjoy grotesque minutiae -- for them, bread and circuses and murder mysteries are sufficiently harmless.
After talking with Salandria in 1975, Fonzi flew back to Miami. "I didn't quite grasp exactly what he was talking about, but I had the uneasy feeling he was advancing some awesomely frightening theories. Then it crossed my mind that, perhaps this time for sure, Salandria was crazy." By 1993, of course, Fonzi is much more concerned that his friend ISN'T crazy.
I instinctively refused when my colleagues urged me to attend the 30th anniversary symposium with them. But it wasn't until I heard from the Warren Commission's first micro-critic, the man who stopped being there sometime around the 8th anniversary, that I began to understand why.
by vc
Wednesday Nov 23rd, 2005 10:49 AM
That is exactly what I am saying!

THE NIST INVESTIGATION IS PHONEY BALONEY!

THE FIRST IMAGE I POSTED IN THIS THREAD DOES NOT (THAT'S N-O-T, NOT) MATCH THE DAMAGE DIAGRAMS THAT NIST PROVIDES. THE DEBRIS FEILDS DO NOT COINCIDE.

YES, THE BUILDING SUFFERED DAMAGE AND SOME FIRES, BUT THAT IS NOT WHAT BROUGHT DOWN BUILDING 7

NOW EVERYBODY REPEAT AFTER ME

CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!

Now is that clear enough for those of you out there who are obviously deaf and blind. geez
by vc
Wednesday Nov 23rd, 2005 11:07 AM
Blueprint for Terror (Guns and Butter)

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/10/1773349.php

AND

The Big Wedding: 911, The Whistleblowers and the Cover-Up, Part One


with Investigative Reporter and Author, Sander Hicks. Oct 05, 2005

http://157.22.130.4:80//data/20051005-Wed1300.mp3

 

The Big Wedding: 911, The Whistleblowers and the Cover-Up, Part Two

Oct 12, 2005

http://157.22.130.4:80//data/20051012-Wed1300.mp3
by Casual Observer
Wednesday Nov 23rd, 2005 9:42 PM
NEWS ALERT: Elvis faked the moon landings and assinated Kennedy in a CIA/Mossad plot to dominate the earth!! Now you know the truth!!
by What Steve Did on 911
Thursday Nov 24th, 2005 2:46 AM
Disaster Viewed From Arlington
Daily Press; Newport News; Sep 14, 2001; TERRY SCANLON Daily Press;
(Abstract):
[Pam Young's] brother, [Keith Wheelhouse], of Virginia Beach, spotted the planes first.

THE SECOND PLANE looked similar to a C-130 transport plane, [Keith Wheelhouse] said. He believes it flew DIRECTLY ABOVE THE AMERICAN AIRLINES JET, AS IF TO PREVENT TWO PLANES FROM APPEARING ON RADAR - WHILE AT THE SAME TIME - GUIDING THE JET TOWARD THE PENTAGON.
Wheelhouse's account of a second plane is unlike everything else that has been reported about the attack. Some initial reports on television said a second airliner might be headed for the Pentagon, but authorities later dismissed that. A Norfolk-based FBI agent interviewed Wheelhouse Wednesday evening.
A possible explanation for the second plane could be a plane landing at nearby Ronald Reagan National Airport. The Pentagon is between the cemetery and the airport. But Wheelhouse insists he was not confused by other air traffic.
Daily Press, September 14, 2001
http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2001/dailypress091401.html
=======================

Hampton Roads Woman Says She Too, Saw Plane Following Jet That Hit Pentagon
Daily Press; Newport News; Sep 15, 2001; TERRY SCANLON Daily Press;
[Abstract]:

Kelly Knowles, a First Colonial High School alumnus who now lives in an apartment a few miles from the Pentagon, said some sort of plane followed the doomed American Airlines jet toward the Pentagon, then veered away after the explosion.
Her account of the attack is similar to that of a Surry woman and her Virginia Beach brother, who were at Arlington National Cemetery at the time.
[...]
"Thank God somebody else saw that. THERE WAS MOST DEFINATELY A SECOND PLANE," Knowles said. "It's so frustrating because NOBODY KNOWS about the second plane, or IF THEY DO THEY'RE HIDING IT for some reason."
[...]
At the same time, [Keith Wheelhouse] and his sister, Pam Young, who lives in Surry, were preparing to leave a funeral at Arlington National Cemetery, which is less than a mile from the Pentagon, when they watched the jet approach and slam into the Pentagon. Both of them, as well as at least one other person at the funeral, insist that THERE WAS ANOTHER PLANE flying near the hijacked jet.

Daily Press, September 15, 2001
http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2001/dailypress091501.html
=============================

Northern Virginia resident John O'Keefe was one of the many commuters who witnessed the attack on the Pentagon. [...] "The first thing I did was pull over onto the shoulder, and when I got out of the car I saw another plane flying over my head, and it scared ...me, because I knew there had been two planes that hit the World Trade Center. And I started jogging up the ramp to get as far away as possible. "Then the plane -- it looked like a C-130 cargo plane -- started turning away from the Pentagon, it did a complete turnaround.
--New York Lawyer, September 12, 2001

USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning.
[...] Off to the west, Sucherman saw another plane climb steeply and make a sharp turn. "I thought, 'Is this thing coming around to make a second attack? If there is another explosion, we're toast.'"
--e-Week, September 13, 2001

[Scott P. Cook's] office is located on the fifth floor of the Portals building, at 1280 Maryland Avenue SW, Washington DC. It's the southernmost building at the end of 14th Street, right at the Tidal Basin and Maine Avenue.[...] As we watched the black plume gather strength, less than a minute after the explosion, we saw an odd sight that no one else has yet commented on. Directly in back of the plume, which would place it almost due west from our office, a four-engine propeller plane, which Ray later said resembled a C-130, started a steep decent [sic] towards the Pentagon.
--Cloth Monkey [last updated November 1, 2001]

Albert Hemphill: Within moments there was a very loud bang, which seemed to come from the direction of Henderson Hall. At least, all the heads turned towards Henderson. It is possible that this was a secondary explosion from the Pentagon or possibly an F-16 going supersonic. [...] The only large fixed wing aircraft to appear was a gray C-130, which appeared to be a Navy ELECTRONIC WARFARE aircraft, he seemed to survey the area and depart in on a westerly heading. - Our Net Family [undated]
http://www.ournetfamily.com/WarOnTerror/emails/pentagonwitness.html

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

Soon after the crash (Within 30 seconds of the crash) I witnessed a military cargo plane (Possibly a C-130) fly over the crash site and circle the mushroom cloud. My brother inlaw also witnessed the same plane following the jet while he was on the HOV lanes in Springfield. He said that he saw a jetliner flying low over the tree tops near Seminary RD in Springfield, VA. and soon afterwards a military plane was seen flying right behind it. I think this was also a reason for the false threat of another plane about to crash which caused rescuers to have to evacuate for a short time after the initial crash. I have done my research onthis and according to time magazine it took 24 minutes before Norad was supposedly notified about this particuliar jet and fighters were scrambling to intercept at that time. Isn't it odd how there is Not a single mention of this aircraft in ANY of the articles written about this crash? Also if you had not noticed... There is not a single picture or live footage of the actual jet prior to its crash at the Pentagon. Nor is there any of the one that crashed in Pennsylvania. But if Anyone who rides the metro-rail knows, there are plenty of Video cameras all around National airport at the parking Garages and the high level security buildings found all around Crystal city. (3 of which I have personally found pointed directly towards crystal city which would have given a great line of site shot of that jet prior to the crash as well as any other plane which might have been following it. I personally believe that the government new full well that this was about to happen and they are hiding something a lot bigger than they are willing to let out. I was interviewed at Washingtonpost.com and gave them my full story, but THEY DID NOT PRINT IT AS I HAVE TOLD YOU.
_______________________
On a Metro train to National Airport, Allen Cleveland looked out the window to see a jet heading down toward the Pentagon. "I thought, 'There's no landing strip on that side of the subway tracks,' " he said. Before he could process that thought, he saw "a huge mushroom cloud. The lady next to me was in absolute hysterics."
Washingtonpost.com, September 12, 2001
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A14365-2001Sep11?language=printer
_______________________

also find it interesting that one of the planes engines in the pennsylvania crash was supposedly found 5 miles prior to the crash site (This information I'm unsure of). The only thing that I'm aware of that might cause that would be a heat seeking missle. A weapon which I am pretty familiar with form Ord.training. I'm not saying that the government new exactly what was about to happen, but I do believe that they are definitely hiding something here. Many of my friends in intelligence have said the same. I work in a Gov. building in DC., but my heart is right there with you and your team. I hope you and those who served with you are doing well. Take care.
Allen Cleveland
http://eric-bart.net/iwpb/index.html
===============================


C-130 Crew Saw Pentagon Strike, Official Confirms
Daily Press; Newport News; Oct 17, 2001; TERRY SCANLON and DAVID LERMAN Daily Press;
[Abstract]:
[Keith Wheelhouse] and at least two other witnesses to the Pentagon attack were troubled that Pentagon spokesmen had until now said they were unaware of a C-130 being in the area at the time. In the days immediately following the Sept. 11 hijackings, the Pentagon had no knowledge of the C-130's encounter, because all reports were classified by the Air National Guard, [!] [Lt. Col. Kenneth McClellan] said.
--- Daily Press, October 17, 2001

At 9.36 the national airport [Dulles] instructs a military C130 (Golfer 06) that has just departed Andrews air force base to intercept the flight and identify it. At 9.38 AA77 crashes into the south-west side of the Pentagon.
--- The Guardian, Wednesday October 17, 2001

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

A personnel attorney at the Pentagon, [Gilah] Goldsmith was riding a shuttle bus to work on Tuesday, Sept. 11, when she learned of the attack on the World Trade Center. [...] "We saw a huge black cloud of smoke," she said, saying it smelled like cordite or gun smoke.
Jewish Bulletin News, September 21, 2001

WASHINGTON, D.C. --- The airliner crashed between two and three hundred feet from my office in the Pentagon, just around a corner from where I [Don Perkal] work.

I'm the deputy General Counsel, Washington Headquarters Services, Office of the Secretary of Defense. A slightly different calibration and I have no doubt I wouldn't be sending this to you. My colleagues felt the impact, which reminded them of an earthquake. People shouted in the corridor outside that a bomb had gone off upstairs on the main concourse in the building. No alarms sounded. I walked to my office, shut down my computer, and headed out. Even before stepping outside I could smell the cordite. THEN I KNEW EXPLOSIVES HAD BEEN SET OFF SOMEWHERE."
--- Timothy McSweeney's, September 19, 2001
http://www.mcsweeneys.net/2001/09/19perkal.html
==========================
At 9:25, [Jane] Garvey [FAA], in an historic and admirable step, and almost certainly after getting an okay from the White House, initiated A NATIONAL GROUND STOP, which forbids takeoffs and requires planes in the air to get down as soon as reasonable. THE ORDER...APLIED TO virtually every single kind of machine that can takeoff - civilian, MILITARY, [and] LAW ENFORCEMENT.
Time, September 14, 2001
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,174912,00.html
===========================

Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien started his day at the controls of a Minnesota [Air] National Guard C-130 cargo plane. He and his crew were heading back to the Twin Cities after moving military supplies around the Caribbean. About 9:30 a.m., O'Brien throttled the lumbering plane down a runway at Andrews Air Force Base, just southeast of the District of Columbia.

"When we took off, we headed north and west and had a beautiful view of the Mall," he said. "I noticed this airplane up and to the left of us, at 10 o'clock. He was descending to our altitude, four miles away or so. That's awful close, so I was surprised he wasn't calling out to us.

"It was like coming up to an intersection. When air traffic control asked me if we had him in sight, I told him that was an understatement - by then, he had pretty much filled our windscreen. Then he made a pretty aggressive turn so he was moving right in front of us, a mile and a half, two miles away. I said we had him in sight, then the controller asked me what kind of plane it was.

"That caught us up, because normally they have all that information. The controller didn't seem to know anything."

O'Brien reported that the plane was either a 757 or 767 and its silver fuselage meant it was probably an American Airlines jet. "They told us to turn and follow that aircraft - in 20-plus years of flying, I've never been asked to do something like that. With all of the East Coast haze, I had a hard time picking him out.

"The next thing I saw was the fireball. It was huge. I told Washington the airplane has impacted the ground. Shook everyone up pretty good. I told them the approximate location was close to the Potomac. I figured he'd had some in-flight emergency and was trying to get back on the ground to Washington National. Suddenly, I could see the outline of the Pentagon. It was horrible. I told Washington this thing has impacted the west side of THE PENTAGON."

O'Brien asked the controller whether he should set up a low orbit around the building but was told to get out of the area as quickly as possible. "I took the plane once through the plume of smoke and thought if this was a terrorist attack, it probably wasn't a good idea to be flying through that plume." [!!]

He flew west, not exactly sure where he was supposed to land. [!]
Somewhere over western PENNSYLVANIA, O'Brien looked down at a blackened, smoldering field. "I hoped it was just a tire fire or something, but when I checked with Cleveland center, he told me he'd just lost a guy off the scope pretty close to where we saw it. By then, we were able to patch in AM radio, so we heard about all the planes. It was like a domino effect - a really bad day for airplanes."

---Minnesota Star-Tribune, September 11, 2002
===================================

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/316862.shtml
by bunk logic
Thursday Nov 24th, 2005 5:51 AM
Not a rebuttal:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/appeal-to-ridicule.html
by kit
Thursday Nov 24th, 2005 2:40 PM
vc, your wtc7 photos aren't showing anything - the first one says it shows that South face, but it shows the East face of the building. The second photo doesn't even have wtc7 in it (wtc7 is off to the left nd behind).

See -

wtc7.net/damageclaims.html
by Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien on 911
Thursday Nov 24th, 2005 8:15 PM
For ALL those who accept and promote the official story - including Robert Fisk:

===============================
Where was Lt. Col. Steve O'Brien on 911?

What sort of planes does the US military use for electronic warfare operations?
===============================

frequently ignored facts:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/316862.shtml
by take it easy boys
Friday Nov 25th, 2005 8:23 AM
It looks like he he has run off and hid and there is no need to argue among ourselves.

The photo in vc's post does show a little bit of building #7 with no apparent damage. The building on fire is #6, which did not collapse and which had to be "pulled" at a later date. Building #5, which is to the left of the building on fire, also had to be "pulled" later on.

If you believe what NIST's Sunder tells PM -- that "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." -- you'd have to believe that a lot of debris from building #1 (the north tower) jumped over building #6 and crossed the street to do so.

NIST's Sunder must be a highly paid professional with a low level of conscience.


Personally, I think what happened at the Pentagon also needs closer examination. But with the wealth of evidence available -- from the Neo-Con's call for a new Pearl Harbour, the irregularities at the visa desk at the US embassy in Saudi Arabia, the ignored FBI agents' warnings through to the willingness and speed with which federal government cleaned up after 9/11, especially when compared to the response to Hurricane Katrina -- I'm willing to keep the Pentagon on the back burner.

by One Who Doubts
Friday Nov 25th, 2005 9:28 AM
The pentagon attack was "inspirational" in the sense that it provided that extra motivation to rally the troops behind the "War on Terror." The plane crash in Pennsylvania was also "inspirational" in that it provided the American people with a "citizen soldier" scenario which was, when you think about it, the first retaliatory strike in this "War on Terror."

Let's face it, it is still not settled as "fact" that the Roosevelt administration knew the attack on Pearl Harbor was coming and let it happen to provide the necessary pretext for entering the war against the Axis powers. But, there are plenty of coincidences that occurred then ("soft evidence") that can lead one to make that conclusion.

One of the most telling bits of soft evidence was the coincidence that the Pacific fleet carriers happened to have been at sea on maneuvers. This fact was either one of the greatest examples of luck in the annals of history or the result of some very careful planning.

Whether the American people will ever come to know exactly who was responsible for 911 is problematic, but that doesn't have to stop the doubters from speculating, based on a whole lot of soft evidence, that it was accomplished either by direct involvement of US government assets, or allowed to proceed, like Pearl Harbor, by a government looking for a pretext to launch a "War on/of Terror."
by kit
Friday Nov 25th, 2005 5:31 PM
>>The photo in vc's post does show a little bit of building #7 with no apparent damage.

But vc says it shows the South side when it is showing the East side. His title for the jpg is 'southfacedamage'
by Geo archers
Saturday Nov 26th, 2005 6:13 AM
The real clincher in fooling the obtuse Americans was the mailing of the anthrax envelopes. Now, why would the terrrrrorists have sent them to the demos and nothing from CIa or FBI investagations--4 years-zippo. To BUSH---BIG DEAL A FEW BLACK POSTIES GOT POISONED!
The Bush, Clinton clan was behand it fools-recall the ricin-caster beans crap?--Tape and plastic scam!
Fools abound in USA
In respect to 9/11--Marvin Bush-the man with the keys allowed-Mossad into the towers.I got to give credit to the Jews--they are a closed shop bunch-masters in crime and mums the word-all for IsraOil
by Americans need it
Saturday Nov 26th, 2005 7:53 AM
No, I'm serious, we really do
by Randy
(randy [at] randygraham.net) Saturday Nov 26th, 2005 11:52 AM
I was also at the Saturday evening Berkeley lecture by Robert Fisk and I find it disturbing that he's dismissed like he's some sort of CIA/Neo-con lackey (another Judy Miller or Bob Woodward perhaps) because his views on 9/11 are not kosher to certain holier than thou radicals.

Personally, I do not accept the 'official' 9/11 conspiracy scenario. I suspect, however, that bin Laden and his people played a key role although that is FAR from proven. For me the simplest explanation is that the Bush team knew it was coming and made sure bin Laden's folks were successful. Of course, they’ve hidden so much it’s difficult to be sure of anything except that the ‘official’ conspiracy scenario is nearly impossible. NORAD cannot change their time lines for that morning 3 times in the last couple of years and not be lying. The comments of General Myers and Rumsfeld accounting for their own actions that morning make absolutely no sense. The behavior of the Secret Service and the Bush team defy comprehension unless they knew for certain that he was in no danger from any of the planes. It’s apparent that the official accounts given by Bush, Cheney, Myers, etc. and the Philip Zelikow led 9/11 Commission are dishonest and fraudulent; however, it’s far less obvious to ascertain what really did happen. The problem is that if they planned the entire 9/11 attacks on their own, then why let Bush dawdle at the school? Why not give everyone a slick alibi and tie up all the loose ends? They acted like miscreants who had a general idea what was going to happen on 9/11 but were unsure on all the details. For me, the idea that they simply unlocked the gates for ‘the barbarians’ is the most plausible account but I remain open-minded.

I would prefer, naturally, to hear Robert Fisk challenging the official 9/11 conspiracy. He does clearly believe that 9/11, whatever its origins, was exploited for the current neo-colonial wars in the Middle East. He clearly establishes the links between the earlier Anglo-Franco projects in the rubble of the Ottoman Empire with the current Anglo-American invasions and empire building. He also honestly deals with the Israelis and Zionism, and how many mainstream journalists dare do that? I found the talk he gave brilliant and heartfelt, and I think it's foolish and petty to dismiss his invaluable work on the history and politics of the Middle East simply because he has not reached my tentative conclusions about 9/11. I think 9/11 skeptics need to adhere to a fair-minded, factually based, and carefully reasoned critique of the 'official' conspiracy. Researchers such as Nafeez Mosaddeq Ahmed, Paul Thompson, and David Ray Griffin have all taken this approach. We don't need to appear as small-minded fanatics peevishly excommunicating those who think differently on certain issues.

Journalists of Fisk's caliber and courage are a dying species. He does a tremendous job covering the Middle East and he may just not have spent a lot of time delving into the peculiar behavior of the Bush team before, during, and after 9/11. Fisk risks his life as a journalist in Iraq and yet he is one of the few who still goes out on the streets of Baghdad and into the morgues to give us an honest account of the occupation and violence. As a strategy perhaps we should hand Fisk gift copies of Ahmed’s The War on Freedom or Griffin’s The New Pearl Harbor and ask him to read them with an open mind. In the meantime, we should appreciate his engaged and thoughtful journalism from the Middle East on its own merits without the 9/11 litmus tests.
by For Randy
Saturday Nov 26th, 2005 2:18 PM
Even though the left is virtually of one mind about the Bush regime deceptions that led to the Iraq invasion and occupation, there are some who are still of the opinion that there was justification for the Afghanistan invasion. This justification is based on their presumption that OBL et al was responsible for 911. But, what if this presumption is also based on lies and deceptions perpetrated by the Bush regime? The "War on Terror," then, becomes a construct of the Bush regime in its entirety.
My motto on this is "don't assume shit."

Well actually there is one safe category of assumption: if the lying sewer-worms in the White House had motive, means, and/or opportunity to lie about anything whatsoever -- or hell just a frivolous whim to do so -- then you can bet your gonads they did
by reader
Saturday Nov 26th, 2005 10:59 PM
>>For me, the idea that they simply unlocked the gates for ‘the barbarians’ is the most plausible account but I remain open-minded.

Then take a look here, Randy:

http://wtc7.net/videos.html

These are the videos of WTC7 collapsing. This was a 47 story steel framed skyscraper. This was never hit by a plane. This 'collapsed' after 5pm that day, straight into its footprint.

Guess how much Silverstein made off this?

Guess what FEMA and NIST said happened?

If FEMA and NIST are lying (filling in the blanks to make sense of a senseless collapse never recorded before in history) about Building 7, what do you think they're doing about the Twin Towers?
Randy said: "I find it disturbing that [Fisk is] dismissed like he's some sort of CIA/Neo-con lackey..."

I know how you feel Randy. One-issue ponies like Kit and VC give me a stabbing pain in the ass. You didn't dismiss their positions at all, your own opinion is completely reasonable in an Occam's Razor sense, and yet here they are leaping to dismiss you just like they did Fisk. You've given them an opening, you see

The 9-11 Truth movement has unfortunately attracted a lotta fuckin dolts like this: nerdy "NO **I'M** THE GENIUS" momma's boys for whom every such exchange is another opportunity to demonstrate their undisputed mastery of some measly fuckin crumb of 9-11 trivia. To this end, no amount of sneering unprovoked abuse is deemed inappropriate. The real issue for them is not revealing the truth of 9-11, but finally proving to the world that they really are momma's little Einstein. What it is they think they'll accomplish collectively -- if they think about this at all -- is a deep mystery

I tried to get active for a while with the local momma's boys -- I'm a very radical skeptic -- but it just felt pointless. You see what they're like. You can't get these dipshits to suspend their picayune dogmas and discuss permutations open-mindedly, or strategy of presentation, or to develop a nuanced collective position. When they get together it's like a buncha fuckin incubator babies talking to themselves, with the true bastards manipulating the others to help them get famous. No matter how you approach them, you always end up pitted against their nasty little egos. It's what the movement is really about for them. I wish they could be banned, but then there'd be like three people left
by Kit
Sunday Nov 27th, 2005 1:07 PM
>>One-issue ponies like Kit and VC give me a stabbing pain in the ass

Look at your own post - the purpose is to attack us personally in order to disrupt the thread, turn people against us, and get everyone off the topic at hand.

Those who focus on one issue, whatever it may be, keep those issues at the forefront. That's how the truth gets exposed, bit by bit. Others focus on a series of issues, or whatever it is that moves them.

Sorry to hear you can't control everyone so they only discuss what you decide they should discuss.

Fisk does important work and needs to be more informed. Attacking him in a post like this doesn't actually serve Fisk, but it draws people's attention to the situation and can lead to a solution.
by TW
Sunday Nov 27th, 2005 6:52 PM
"Look at your own post - the purpose is to attack us personally in order to disrupt the thread"

But I tried to engage you constructively in another thread, where you personified everything I just said, even after I pointed out you were preaching to the choir. I don't have to "try" to smear you obsessive jerks, you do it yourselves with your obnoxiousness everywhere you go, the same way you did when you alienated me. I tried to come on board and contribute once, remember? You don't want any such thing, you just want to hang out in your little geek microverse and listen only to yourselves. You're not talking "truth" with controlled demolition, you're talking CONJECTURE that has most of your potential audience rolling their eyes and walking away from you, and if you think you're ever going to "wear them down" you're fucking kidding yourselves. Your fixation on this is the ultimate fuel for your enemies' "too many would have to know" fire. And they have a point. Conjectures involving less exposure have more integrity in inverse proportion, get it? In this way, your obsessive commitment to controlled demolition has been very destructive to your credibility, so much so it strongly resembles something the enemy's PR minions would have cooked up, just like that "hologram plane" bullshit that also made "perfect sense" to some of your co-geeks. Extremely destructive. Are YOU the enemy?

Never mind all that, you just go ahead and keep counting spooks on the head of a pin. I'll see you around
by Tony Cosmo
Monday Nov 28th, 2005 6:29 AM
you go to a ATM machine and videoed from the head to toe down. At the USA airports-same thing is done. Now how is it that NO FKN ARAB WAS CAUGHT ON VIDEO OR LISTED ON THE DOOMED FLIGHTS. & to 9 are ALIVE. How about the airport geek,who scattered and trashed all the evidence---seems he worked for Marvin Bush. How about Jiffy Bush and the hords of State troopers,who raided the flight school and planted or I say took all the computor files away--without a FKN warrent.
Anyone that can't see--MADE IN USA-is a dolt!
by Greg Szymanski
Monday Nov 28th, 2005 6:43 AM
Two 9/11 Airliners, Flight 93 and 175, Were Only Just
Recently Taken Off The FAA
'Active' List Are Both Jetliners Still
Flying in United's 'Friendly Skies'?
http://www.rense.com/general68/911h.htm

FAA records for four years listed both 9/11 United jetliners as still on the 'active' list. Now planes only 'deregistered' in September after snoopy researchers questioned FAA officials a month earlier.

By Greg Szymanski
11-26-5

Two of the 9/11 airliners were never 'deregistered' and remained on the 'active' flight list until Sept. 28. 2005, the classification officially changing only a month after two inquisitive flight researchers made repeated calls to the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), inquiring about the strange irregularity.

The two planes in question were Flight 93 and Flight 175, both owned and operated by United Airlines and, according to the official story, both destroyed on 9/11, one in Shanksville, Penn., and the other crashing into the South Tower of the WTC.

Usually a normal procedure after an airliner is destroyed, why it took United more than four years to 'deregister' the airplanes and fill out the official FAA paperwork remains a mystery and never has been fully explained by the FAA, United or the government.

In fact, in stark contrast, a check of FAA records shows the two other American Airline flights, Flight 11 and 77, both were 'deregistered' and classified as 'destroyed' only months after 9/11 on Jan. 14, 2002.

Why the late filing by United?

"My brother and I both wrote the FAA in August about this situation and asked why the planes were not deregistered. The FAA said that an owner does not need to deregister an aircraft," said one of the researchers named Roger, who preferred only to use his first name. "Ironically, a couple of months after I wrote the FAA, the planes were deregistered. What's up with that?

"Although the planes are deregistered, they are not listed as cause destroyed but rather as cause cancelled. The American airplanes are clearly listed as cause destroyed but not so the United planes.

"There is a guy who was saying on a web posting that he knew one of the United planes was still in service in Chicago. I know nothing of how he would know this or who he was but I think he was the same guy who brought this stuff to our attention and he's clearly right about the planes still being registered.

"Two planes destroyed and two planes still flying? Are you familiar with the Cleveland airport mystery? So did Flight 93 land at Cleveland with 200 passengers on board?"

A recent check of FAA records proves the flight researcher's statements correct as Flight 93 identified as N591UA and Flight 175 as N612UA, both were taken off the active FAA list in September with a reason given as 'cancelled' not 'destroyed.'

The FAA again was contacted this week, giving the same answers given to the two researchers back in August regarding the late deregistration. And in regards to listing both United flights as 'cancelled not destroyed,' FAA officials also gave no further explanation.

Besides the FAA deregistration issue, solid evidence has also come forward that two of the 9/11 flights, Flight 11 and 77, never even existed at all, according to Bureau of Traffic Safety (BTS) records.

According to BTS statistics, both 11 and 77 officially never took-off on 9/11. The meticulous data kept on every airliner taking-off at every airport in the country also showed no elapsed run-way time, wheels-off time and taxi-out time, not to mention several other categories left blank on 9/11 concerning the two flights.

Although Flights 11 and 77 have the above data meticulously logged on 9/10, it was suspiciously absent on 9/11, even when every other plane that took of that day had been recorded and logged by the BTS.

Why the discrepancy? No one has ever given an official explanation for the BTS missing flight data, even though it is well known that airports are extremely concerned about recording accurate BTS data for each and every flight in and out of its airport for liability purposes.

More importantly critics contend this is another clear indication Flight 11 and 77 were only 'phantom flights," adding even further doubt to the credibility of the official government story concerning 9/11.

Besides the FAA and BTS irregularities, the official flight lists from all four flights have been a serious bone of contention for 9/11 critics, who call attention to the glaring errors and conflicting passenger numbers on many of the flight lists released, many coming from unverified sources.

On Flight 11, for example, American Airlines released two different lists containing 77 and 75 names the day after 9/11, but the Washington Post published 89 names the same day while the Boston Daily published 89 names with conflicting names, however. Remember, complicating matters worse, Fox News all along was still claiming that only 81 names were confirmed a week later.

Through out the years, not only have the numbers conflicted but so have the names on the lists. Gerald Holmgren, a 9/11 researcher who has spent much time and effort researching the flight irregularities found one of the most glaring errors never explained by the airlines or the government.

Holmgren, whose compilation of 9/11 flight data can be found at
http://indymedia.all2all.org/news/2004/05/84711.php, uncovered that four of the alleged passengers on American Airlines Flight 11 with the last names of Ward, Weems, Roux and Jalbert also mysteriously and unexplainable were also listed as passengers on Flight 175 that struck the South Tower.

Holmgren in his 2004 article had this to say:

"What a mess! This crime - the murder of approximately 3000 people, and the excuse for two wars and alarming attacks on civil liberties - and presumably more to come - is supposed to have been properly investigated and documented? Why should we be expected to believe who the hijackers were, when the spin doctors can't even do a credible fabrication job of a list of innocent victims?

"It's previously been demanded by many skeptics that we need to see a verifiable official passenger list which actually contains the names of the alleged hijackers. We can now take the implications of that further and point to the absence of any passenger list documentation for AA11 which stands up to scrutiny as a credible document. We have nothing which could support the existence of any of the alleged passengers on the alleged flight."


For more Greg Szymanski articles, please visit
http://www.arcticbeacon.com/arcticbeacon.html

by Jerry
Monday Nov 28th, 2005 7:45 AM
Now if only Fisk could come up with this!
Real Joker Jerry Ghinelli tells us http://www.jerryghinelli.com
When we last left them, our heroes, Bush Wayne and his trusted companion, Dick Grayson-Cheney, were heading east to Iran to hunt for weapons of mass destruction, free the Iranian people from the axis of evil and bring American-style democracy to all the good people of the Middle East.

But tired and weary from fighting their divinely inspired wars for truth, justice, freedom and the American way, the boys took a detour and headed back to their ranch in Crawford, Texas, for a well-deserved break from their international crime-fighting spree.

Now fresh and well-rested after their year-long vacation, our valiant crusaders—oil executives by day, freedom fighters by night—return to the world stage once again as:

Batman and Robin: The Caped Crusaders in a Comic Book War

... Last seen driving north to an undisclosed location in Washington, DC, our caped crusaders stopped along the Interstate to fill up the Batmobile.

”Good grief, Batman, did you get a look at the price of gas?”

“Yes, Robin, my trusted CEO, but higher oil prices are a necessary evil in fighting wars on evil.”

“Holy Halliburton, Batman, greed is good!”

“No, Robin, greed works. Remember oil executives are a generous lot who reinvest the profits we earn to defeat those evildoers who despise the freedoms we enjoy.”

“Like the freedoms we enjoy to earn enormous profits and get tax breaks as well, Batman?”

“Precisely, Robin. We invest the windfall, which stimulates the economy, which creates more jobs and helps us build better, more sophisticated weapons that ‘shock and awe’ fiendish villains like Saddam the Joker and his coterie of evildoers, Dr Germ, Chemical Ali and the Comical Baghdad Bob—those dastardly, diabolical rogues in our deck of 52 cards.”

“Holy one-eyed Jack, Batman, you dealt the Joker a ‘Royal Flush’ and swoosh! flushed him right down the toilet!”

“I'll say, Robin, a Joker's Poker you might add, but let's not be too harsh, my friend; remember our Judeo-Christian values.”

“You’re right, Batman, we are good Christians... but holy Christ, $75 to fill up the Batmobile... can we write this off?”

“No, Robin. You see, all good Americans must share in the sacrifices necessary to succeed in this war on terror. Attendant, may I also have a ‘Freedom Isn't Free’ magnet for the bumper of my new Batmobile? The red, white and blue one is preferred, thank you. Hmm… Made in China? Oh, well. But thank you, sir, and please remember to tell all the good Americans to show off their sacrifices to other drivers, by proudly displaying these magnets on their SUVs as well. Keep the change…”

Vroom, screech, whoosh...

“Jeepers, Batman! Sorry, but I almost forgot to tell you: while we were on vacation, the wicked witch of the south, the evil diabolical daughter of the Kat Women, that princess of darkness, the fiendish—Kategory 5—Katrina, the Kat Girl, returned with fury and gave the ‘Big Easy’ quite a rough time. That femme fatale spared no one; she soaked the rich and drowned the poor, a real equal opportunity villainess.”

“No need to apologize, Robin; remember, as I always say, better late than never. Let's get ‘Brownie’ on the Bat phone and offer our assistance.”

Ring, Ring...

“Hello, this is Michael Brown. I am relaxing at the moment; please leave a brief message after the tone.”

Beep...

“Brownie, Batman and Robin here. Just got the news that New Orleans is underwater. Not to worry, though; help is on the way. The Bat Sub should arrive in about a week with some scuba gear and snorkeling masks. You’re doing a heck of a job, Brownie. Stay dry!”

Batman, you’re truly a “bleeding heart” conservative, helping all those poor people down south, without… shall we say…a ‘fair complexion’.”

“Yes, but as you know, Robin, I can relate to all the people of color. Ever notice that when I don my mask, I’m black?”

“Right on, Batman.”

“And did you realize our popularity with African Americans has just doubled? From 1% to 2%!”

“A landslide! I love the new fuzzy math, Batman.”

“Precisely. I learned it at Florida State, class of 2000.”

“Holy hanging chads.”

“Holy Masquerade, my friend. But we mustn't waste any more time here in the US on domestic issues, Robin; there is work to be done abroad. We must head to the Middle East and fight the evildoers over there so we don't have to fight them over here. Hurry!”

Whiz, roar, vroom, lift-off

“Should we return to the Middle East disguised as just plain American oil executives Bush Wayne and Dick Grayson-Cheney, so we could blend in more easily, Batman?”

“No, Dick—I mean, Robin; our mission is not about oil this time, it's about disarming the villains who want to turn smoking guns into mushroom clouds. You see, Robin, the people there are brainwashed by these villains, then reprogrammed and taught to hate America because we’re good and they’re not. We need to liberate these unfortunate people from the negative influences of dastardly villains like Osama the Riddler.”

“But the Riddler hasn’t been seen since the 2004 election, when his video helped us defeat the Flip Flopper, his Ketchup Widow and their video producer, the Fat Man Mr. Freeze Fahrenheit -32.”

“Yes, Robin. Just in the nick of time, the Riddler’s last video, on election eve, doomed the Flip Flopper and his running mate, the Breck Girl.”

“I guess there’s good in all people, even Osama the Riddler—right, Batman?”

“No, Robin, not quite. The Riddler crafts his riddles in mysterious ways. Helping us defeat the Flip Flopper and get us elected helps him to recruit more fiends who hate our freedoms, like—”

“No! You don't mean the mythical, magical, manipulator of mayhem—The Invisible Man, aBoo Zarqawi, do you?”

“Yes, Robin, I’m afraid so. That dastardly, diabolical, elusive, foreign-born phantom villain who escapes more often than Harry Houdini, has more lives than a cat, and has been wounded more times than Flip Flopper, has returned once again as the diabolical mastermind behind the evil Iraqi insurgency.

“While Osama the Riddler produces videos and Saddam the Joker writes romance novels, The Invisible Man, Zarqawi, has become an Internet wizard—and part-time spammer—who communicates to his army of insurgents without electricity, phone lines or even a cable modem.

“His wizardry is so technologically sophisticated that his network cannot be traced or detected, even by our vast resources.

“Now if we could only locate his Internet Service Provider or his website...

“I got it! Robin, quick, boot up the Bat Computer! Go to Google and type in ‘The Invisible Man Zarqawi’... Click on ‘I'm Feeling Lucky’.”

“Got it, Batman! His website is called jihadists-R-us.com.”

“Great, Robin! Now go there and click ‘About Us’.”

“Bingo! We got him! It says ‘Insurgents needed, send resume (in confidence) to: Spider Hole 2, Fallujah, Iraq. Allah Akbar!’”

“Let's head to the ‘Liberated and Pacified’ Fallujah, Robin, and bring The Invisible Man to justice.”

“Should we then ‘detain’ him at Abu Ghraib, Batman?”

“No, that would be too harsh, my friend. Remember, we are compassionate conservatives. He’ll be more comfortable in a spider hole in the tropical confines of Guantanamo Bay.”

“You are truly a man of conscience, Batman.”

“Yes, Robin. There we can play tricks and harmless pranks on all these villains to gain the necessary information needed to thwart their evil intentions in our divinely inspired war on terror. This is the new American Way, and the righteous thing to do. Then, as a reward for their cooperation, we’ll send them off with a one-way first class ticket to paradise, where they can meet their seventy-two virgins.”

“Holy Geneva Conventions, Batman, does it work?”

“Of course it works, Robin, and when we eventfully capture Osama the Riddler and send him off to Paradise as well, the War on Terror will be won and our Mission Accomplished.”

“But won't other evildoers follow, Batman?”

“No, Robin. American democracy will transform the region and our Muslim brothers and sisters will shower us and our Israeli friends with candy and flowers... then we all can live happily ever after in this comic book world.

“And as for our brave soldiers fighting in this War on Terror—somewhere over the rainbow—they too can then return home, simply by tapping the heels of their combat boots together three times and saying: ‘There's

by Lt. Col. O'Briens 911 Good Time
Monday Nov 28th, 2005 4:20 PM
quote:
=============
"I'm willing to keep the Pentagon on the back burner."
=============

unfortunately, the evidence supporting a remote-controlled and explosives-packed Boeing hypothesis is rather strong...
and concordant with all known facts....and.....

there is a smoking gunMAN:

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/316862.shtml

In fact, this thesis is so strong that NOT ONE PERSON has made ANY ATTEMPT
TO PROVIDE AN ALTERNATIVE
EXPLANATION
FOR THE
EVIDENCE.

For some reason - who knows? - most 911 "truth seekers" have an AVERSION to the C-130 THAT WAS AT THE PENTAGON on 911
...the same C-130 that was present at FLIGHT 93 !!

A C-130 was present at BOTH CRIME SCENES - and NOBODY WANTS TO KNOW!

So for supporters of the official narrative and "truthseekers" alike:

PLEASE EXLAIN:
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/05/316862.shtml

PLEASE?
by Kit
Wednesday Nov 30th, 2005 9:39 AM
Published on Tuesday, November 29, 2005 by the Toronto Star (Canada)
Author Doesn't Give a Flying Fisk About Fisking
by Antonia Zerbisias
http://www.commondreams.org/views05/1129-27.htm

The controversial British foreign correspondent whose name birthed the ugliest phrase in the blogosphere — "being fisked" — doesn't know what it means.

"I have to be honest: I don't use the Internet. I've never seen a blog in my life. I don't even use email," says the Independent's Robert Fisk. "I don't waste my time with this. I am not interested. I couldn't care less. I think the Internet has become a hate machine for a lot of people and I want nothing to do with it."

Oh-kay.

We are sitting in the boardroom of publisher HarperColllins's offices, a couple of hours before Fisk is to speak to a rapt standing-room-only crowd of about 800 at the University of Toronto last Wednesday.

He's here promoting his 1,328- page memoir/history/cry for justice, The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East. It's part of a worldwide whirlwind tour that has him asking me what date it is. He also asks me what "being fisked" means. I explain that it's a term coined by right-wing bloggers to describe the point-by-point deconstruction of a column or piece of reportage.
by reader
Wednesday Nov 30th, 2005 9:41 AM
If you're into UFOs, go read his Artic Beacon site that is likely full of no-plane and radiation propaganda about 9/11.
by AWTD
(ericvaughn [at] sympatico.ca) Saturday Dec 3rd, 2005 3:21 AM
This was such an excellent thread that I just hate to see it go. Let's give it the send-off it deserves. The next time you watch Oliver Stone's JFK, keep in mind one thing. Jim Garrison was an ex-FBI man. He wasn't as insane as many might think. His approach was nonsensical but it did achieve one thing; everyone who was a sore spot to the powers that carried out the JFK assassination was a must-kill once his light shined on them. It's more than probable that this is what he was paid to do.

The real problem with Jim Garrison's crazy theories is that it doesn't take much to assemble them into the plausible plot. Once that occurs, the last thing anyone involved would want would be to have the testamony and cross-examination of David Ferrie, et al. made a part of the public record via the legal system.

Shortly after the death spree and New Orleans trial, Martin Luther King Jr. was killed in one of the most convoluted plots in American history. One would have to believe that something was trying to jam the system with so much paperwork that another schizophrenic flare operation would never again tear into their terrified nests.

Jim Garrison: An American Hero.

by Steve O'Brien's 911 Good Time
Sunday Dec 4th, 2005 2:26 PM
Dear Eric,

Thank you for spraying strawmen on the page and ignoring the body of facts.

AGAIN, please tell us what Steve O'Brien and his mates were doing on 911....

Please?

AND ROBERT FISK:
============
While covorting with Willie Brown, why didn't you ask him about those "SECURITY PEOPLE AT THE AIRPORT" who warned him to AVOID FLYING 911. - ?

ROBERT?
________________________
On live television in San Francisco, I could continue my critique of America's folly in Iraq uninterrupted. Ex-Mayor Willie Brown - who allowed me to have my picture taken in his brand new pale blue Stetson - exuded warmth towards this pesky Brit
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article11204.htm
_________________________
==========================

Please Robert....
by almost invisible aircraft inc.
Sunday Dec 4th, 2005 10:25 PM
NOTHING TO SEE HERE FOLKS:

Steve Thompson: - quote:

================
A C-130 transport plane that has been sent to follow Flight 77 is trailing only a short distance behind the plane as it crashes. This curious C-130, originally bound for Minnesota, is THE SAME C-130 that will be 17 miles from Flight 93 when it later crashes into the Pennsylvania countryside. [Pittsburgh Channel, 9/15/01; Minneapolis Star-Tribune, 9/11/02]

A number of people see this plane fly REMARKABLY CLOSE to Flight 77:

Kelly Knowles says that seconds after seeing Flight 77 pass, she sees a “second plane that seemed to be chasing the first [pass] over at a slightly different angle.”

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/entity.jsp?entity=kelly_knowles
====================

MOVE ALONG - PAY NO ATTENSHUN.

=====================
Hampton Roads Woman Says She, Too, Saw Plane Following Jet That Hit Pentagon

by Terry Scanlon
The Daily Press
September 15, 2001

Another Hampton Roads native says she saw a second plane in the air over the Pentagon as a hijacked jet plunged into the five-sided military fortress Tuesday.

Kelly Knowles, a First Colonial High School alumnus who now lives in an apartment a few miles from the Pentagon, said some sort of plane followed the doomed American Airlines jet toward the Pentagon, then veered away after the explosion.

Her account of the attack is similar to that of a Surry woman and her Virginia Beach brother, who were at Arlington National Cemetery at the time.

"THANK GOD SOMEBODY ELSE SAW THAT.

THERE WAS MOST DEFINATELY A SECOND PLANE,"
Knowles said.

"IT'S SO FRUSTRATING BECAUSE NOBODY KNOWS
ABOUT THE SECOND PLANE,
OR
IF THEY DO THEY'RE HIDING IT
FOR SOME REASON."

http://billstclair.com/911timeline/2001/dailypress091501.html
==============

NOTHING TO SEE HERE FOLKS - MOVE ALONG......

by TW
Monday Dec 5th, 2005 1:35 AM
Cuz this cute little stereo component here, made by System Planning Corporation of Arlington VA, lets you do gee-whiz neato things like take control of a second plane from the plane in which it's installed. Here, check out the company blurb

http://www.sysplan.com/Radar/CTS

"The system is mounted in two standard 60"-high racks for easy installation in MOBILE PLATFORMS"

The part I just LUV is that SysPlan's International Division CEO, a certain Dov Zakheim, is one of the neocon co-authors of "Rebuilding America's Defenses." Back when Bush was still Gov of Texas, Zakheim hired on as his "Middle East security consultant" and became one of his closest advisers. Who knows what they really talked about. After the year 2000 selection, Zakheim was appointed Undersecretary of Defense -- Comptroller. In other words, he had control of the Pentagon's accounts.

http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=1927

There's been waaaay too little attention to this guy.

A remote-control scenario using SysPlan's Command Transmitter is dicey, since the plane under control has to be set up for the purpose (at minimum, a transciever -- a physical box -- would have to interface with its flight computer). While not impossible, a technology capable of true remote circumvention would be more plausible.

HOWEVER: I found out about the CTS via a frikkin **WEB_PAGE**.

What's the top-secret shit like? If you think your cell phone, digital camera, or MP3 player are astonishing, wo-ho Buck-O you aint seen NUTHIN!!

Remote control seems well within reach of the current technological state of the art. It's also a very elegant scenario that resolves a lot of the big pooh-pooh issues, like "too many would have to know." In this scenario, only the people on the control plane and a very few others would in fact have to know, and most of THEM could catch a bullet in the brain right afterward.
by TW
Monday Dec 5th, 2005 1:37 AM
ctsrack.gif
by Elias Davidsson
(edavid [at] simnet.is) Wednesday Dec 28th, 2005 4:14 PM
The flight manifests of 9/11 have never been released to the public. The FBI and the airlines have consistently refused to publish the original passenger lists, which would show the names of all passengers and alleged hijackers who boarded the four aircraft on 9/11. In fact, no one has seen any hard evidence that the people who were supposed to die in the "hijacked planes" had at all boarded those planes. Airline personnel who apparently saw off the passengers to the aircraft were not allowed to testify in public whom they saw boarding the planes, at which gate the boarding took place and other such information. Questions still remain from which gate AA11 left at Boston Airport and whether AA11 was at scheduled to fly on that date. As of this day, over 4 years after 9/11, there exists not a shred of hard evidence proving that any Muslim boarded any of the four aircraft which were allegedly hijacked on 9/11. This are hard facts. I challenge any person to disprove these facts.
by Elias Davidsson
(edavid [at] simnet.is) Wednesday Dec 28th, 2005 4:25 PM
Numerous persons testified to have heard, felt, seen or smelled explosions/explosives in the Twin Towers before their collapse. Some have even seen melted steel at the basement of one of the towers, suggesting the use of powerful explosives at the basement. I urge those who doubt the explosives account to read the many testimonies on explosives available on various web sites. Many include the identities of the witnesses. No explanation has been given by officials why they failed to consider the testimonies of these numerous witnesses and refused to consider at all the explosives hypothesis. This failure is particularly glaring regarding WTC-7, a 47-floor building, which collapsed in a few seconds without being hit by an aircraft.
by Elias Davidsson
(edavid [at] simnet.is) Wednesday Dec 28th, 2005 4:51 PM
Among those who suspect US government complicity in 9/11, there are two schools: (1) Those who accept this possibility/probability but consider that focussing on 9/11 deflects from more urgent political issues, such as the current occupation of Iraq, etc. (2) Those who consider the resolution of the 9/11 issue as a crucial political issue, involving all other current issues.

In my opinion, there exists a third reason why tackling 9/11 is an urgent issue. What happened on 9/11 was the largest mass murder on US soil in recent history. Almost 3000 people were killed in cold blood in one day. As such, both victims and the American people are entitled to see the authors of the crime positively identified, arrested, and convicted. For, if the authors of the crime have not been detained yet, and are still on free foot, they can continue to commit atrocities. According to John Ashcroft, the alleged hijackers had at least 50 conspirators who did not die in the attacks. Yet not one has been identified, charged and tried. This means that the authors are still on free footing. Is it stupid to fear that they will commit further crimes? Should we believe Ari Fleischer, the White House's spokesman, who on the morning of Sept. 12th, 2001, said that the terrorists had finished their job and the danger has receded ? How did he know this? And how come none of the masterminds has been charged ? Aren't we entitled to the truth ?
by D. Douglas
Thursday Feb 16th, 2006 2:47 PM
Some interesting denials... I mean anti-conspiracy posts here. : )

In case anyone here hasn't posted it up yet, here's a good place for the 9/11-uninitiated to start:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2023320890224991194&q=loose+change

And here' some schoolin' for those who doubt the government's possible motives in such a scam (particularly the defense industry):

http://www.indybay.org/uploads/why_we_fight.ram

"It's all about the weapons sales, stupid!"


by J. Connolly
Thursday Feb 16th, 2006 11:55 PM
Let's take a proper gander, folks. Americans are notoriously deficient in the study of history and our history is so short when compared to our EU neighbors that we seem not to have learned enough lessons from our past mistakes -- why does the fly fly? Because the spider spied her. An interesting sidebar to covert government activities is the fact that the live-in nurse/housekeeper of Marilyn Monroe was placed on a private jet and flown to the Hyannis Port (Kennedy) compound for "debriefing." In America, only those with money and property have any influence. If you are a renter vs. a property owner, police will treat you completely differently. We've been living in a Police State ever since J. Edgar Hoover, FBI Director for Life, snatched up enough dirty laundry on a lot of pols, both democrats, republicans, libertarians, etc. The media is manipulated and cooperates because the govt gives them photo ops and insider information, etc. The money thing (the $20 bills have become virtual codexes for explaining the Unified Field Theory if that's how you wish to see all those yellow tiny $20 printed a couple hundred times. When we stopped backing our dollars with precious metals and stopped minting coins in silver and gold (except those they make for collectors and investors). The gold market, sadly, is artificially manipulated by capitalist interests, though most economists recommend investing up to 20% of their sheckels to gold (and keep it where you can get to it FAST, baby). Meanwhile, the Bush dynasty still has untapped president material in the Gov. of Florida. He seems like a good ol' guy to me!
by AP
Monday May 15th, 2006 10:55 PM
moltencloseup1.jpg


Have you seen the cascade?

Have you publicized the cascade?

Have you told your friends?
by v
Sunday Sep 24th, 2006 7:35 AM
roofdam.jpg
by v
Sunday Sep 24th, 2006 7:37 AM
swcdam.jpg
by v
Sunday Sep 24th, 2006 7:41 AM
swcdam2.jpg
by v
Sunday Sep 24th, 2006 7:44 AM
vessystsam.jpg
by v
Sunday Sep 24th, 2006 7:47 AM
vessystdam2.jpg
by v
Sunday Sep 24th, 2006 7:51 AM
aerialview.jpg
by v
Sunday Sep 24th, 2006 7:54 AM
640_debdamdiag.jpg
by v
Sunday Sep 24th, 2006 7:57 AM
640_transfertrusses5-7.jpg
by v
Sunday Sep 24th, 2006 8:09 AM
floor-plan.gif
by v
Sunday Sep 24th, 2006 8:11 AM
fig-2-2b.gif
by v
Sunday Sep 24th, 2006 8:14 AM
framed-tube.jpg

We are 100% volunteer and depend on your participation to sustain our efforts!

Donate

donate now

$ 157.00 donated
in the past month

Get Involved

If you'd like to help with maintaining or developing the website, contact us.

Publish

Publish your stories and upcoming events on Indybay.

IMC Network