Second Hit Revisited

First, take a gander at the shots of the second plane hitting the WTC, and in particular this particularly clear CNN video.

So, here are some more thoughts on the second hit, following up on my earlier observations.

First, what happens to the tail, and especially the massive vertical stabilizer of the 767? It seems to gointo the building without bending or breaking, yet there is no hole for it.

Second, as shown by the FEMA/NIST diagram, the plane hit at least seven concrete floors from the side, since it was going at an angle. Most noteworthy is the fact that the freaking fuselage hits a floor smack dab in the middle, such that the floor either had to give way or the fuselage would have been ripped into two halves. When the concrete floor ripped into the center fuel tanks, you would expect an immediate explosion. Wouldn't you?

Granted, the whole thing is happening very fast, there is a lot of momentum, but I can't figure how when the fuel bursts out as the plane impacts the building, the fireball bursts out the other side.

What I have yet to see, and I think would be informative, is map out exactly what parts of the plane went into different floors, then coorelate this with the debris that comes shooting out the other side. Does it match what went in?

As I see it, here are the major possibilities for the second hit:

1) it all happened as we saw on TV

2) it was a hologram-cloaked special military plane

3) a flying craft that wasn't UA175 hit the tower, but the media overdubbed other footage in order to:

--a) sanitize it (perhaps it was too gruesome to show on TV, bodies could be seen)

--b) to cover up that the plane broke up AS IT HIT and thus to justify the shooting fireball out the other side

--c) to cover up that it was a different plane than UA175

4) there was no plane hit at all and the media/911 controllers faked all the footage (the classic "no plane" theory).

While the no-plane argument has some appeal, I think it most likely thatprobably some fairly large flying craft hit the south tower. In general, it would be too hard to fake and cover up that there was no plane, although it is still possible.

One novel idea for what happened is that the media aired some fake footage of the second plane going into the tower (particularly the CNN footage from the south), for one of the reasons listed above (3a - 3c). Remember, there were not too many high detail shots of the plane going into the building. So they only needed to fake a couple of videos this way.

But I am open to the other ideas as well, except I doubt it was really UA175 that hit the tower.

I'll do more analysis on this.

Alito

Just a lovely fellow.

The thing is, Roe is the glue holding together the right-wing kooks that have kept Bush and other similar rethuglicans in power. Thus, Rove and other rethuglican strategists have to know that if Roe v Wade is overturned, their days in power are numbered. So why would they actually let it be overturned by appointing someone like Alito? Conceivably, they really WANT to ban abortions because they think it is the moral thing to do, but... naaah, nevermind.

The more likely scenario is Rove and company really don't care if Alito is confirmed or not (though they probably would prefer is he wasn't), this is just red meat to the right-wing and the shitstorm be will a conveient distraction from the Plame case and Iraq war lies.

Plane Parts All Around the WTC

were reported by lots of firemen.

So, I think, whatever happened at the WTC, involved planes of some sort.

The question is: what kind of planes?

Libby Indictment

I have not covered this because it is so thoroughly covered by other sites.

To me, the best part of the whole deal is that it FINALLY SHOWS EVERYONE WHAT A BUNCH OF CRIMINALS ARE IN THE BUSH WHITE HOUSE.

I don't know where the investigation is going, but I suspect we haven't seen the end of the investigation. I think real justice will only be done, however, when Bush and Cheney are removed, by whatever means, from the White House.

The Hole Again

WTC2 hole   (click on picture to enlarge)

I can't believe I never saw this before until last night-- but wow.

How did a 767 pass through this occluded hole?

Remember-- this is the second hit, where the jet melted into the wall then the explosion shot out the other side.

How could a 767 pass into this wall so neatly? There is major debris blocking the path (where I put in the circle).

It honestly makes no sense.

But this destroys the official second hit story, I think.

WTC "Entry" Holes

Here is what I was referring to in this post:
wtc1 "entry" hole 
Click on the picture for a larger version.

There are two large chunks of wall that are in the way of the fuselage entry point. One is a large section on the left hanging down a bit (above the woman in gray pants)-- that piece of debris could have swung in as the plane went in, then swung back out, perhaps.

But below that debris piece are lots of large jagged pieces of wall that really seem to block where the fuselage would have gone in. In particular, there is no clear path where the wing between the engine and the fuselage to go in. But if that was blocked, it is hard to see how the whole plane disappeared in that hole.

But if that isn't weird enough-- look at the WTC2 entry hole! This is more rarely seen, and I didn't even look at it closely until just now -- but look at it!


wtc2 entry hole 
Click on picture to enlarge.

There is no freaking place where a 767 fuselage could have gone in! The entry hole is simply blocked! And this isn't stuff that swung in and swung out. This is large pieces of wall broken off stuffed in the hole where a 767 is supposed to have gone through!

This really smells rotten to me. Were the WTC hits faked with bombs too?

Miers Was with Bush on the Morning of 9/11

9/11 blogger has the catch.

I guess this kind of explains why Bush has kept her around, and tried to put her on the SCOTUS. She is his trusted confidant and must know something deep about 9/11.

Interesting Interview with Morgan Reynolds

I agree with his overall take on 9/11.

First Hit Oddities

Here is a link to the CNN clip of the Naudet film showing the first hit.

It's hard to analyze much there, but what you should be able to see is that when the plane hits and the fireball grows, there are squibs of smoke at the very top edge of the tower.

What on earth would cause that? Vents? Or secondary explosions? They come up very quickly. What also seems odd, but maybe this is my ignorance is that before the fireball occurs, there are huge clouds of smoke that come out of the building. Is this just the frontal wave of the fireball explosion? Or something else? Is the smoke from debris getting blown out or smoke from burnt fuel?

In any case, what is really odd is Webfairy's blow-up of the first hit. Personally, I think the video is way too small and out of focus to make out if it is a 767 or not. But what I find odd is when you look at the flying object go INTO the building, you can clearly see that the end of the flying object goes in significantly more towards the left hand side of the building. But if you look at the hole on WTC1, you can see the plane profile is centered almost perfectly in the middle of the building. So that doesn't add up.

The other oddity is if you look at the hole in WTC1 from a different shot, there is a HUGE chunk of wall right in the center of the hole, where the fuselage is supposed to have passed through. I'm really not clear how the huge fuselage got past that chunk of steel wall.

One possibility is the wall section was broken off at the bottom and broken but not disconnected at the top, and it folded in when the plane went in and then the wall section fell down blocking the entrance hole. This is feasible but I wonder:
a) if the plane went in with apparently massive force, how did this section of wall not get pushed completely into the building?
b) how come we can see this section of wall in the hole but no part of the plane (such as the tail)?
c) did the explosion blow out any large parts of the plane from the hole?
d) how did the explosion affect this section of wall?

WOO HOO! I've put up one thousand posts here!

One thousand pearls of wisdom or one thousand turds, depending on your point of view.

Probably a mixture of both.

Plane or No Plane?

Definitely a contentious issue for 9/11.

Against the no-plane argument: Eric Salter.

For the no-plane argument: Gerard Holmgren.

I think both sides have points, and I think it is just as silly to say there were no planes involved at all in 9/11 as is to say that the four planes on 9/11 were the official flights 11, 77, 93 and 175. I think there were real flying things used on 9/11, but not flights 11, 77, 93 and 175. What exactly was used isn't clear.


Just a simple example: in the figure Eric Slater shows the front-on profile of a 767 lined up with the hole in the WTC facade (north tower). The problem is the 767 profile never seems to line up quite right with the hole in the buildings.

The imprint in the building is very close to the profile, but where is the hole from the massive starboard engine? There is intact facade there. Even the hole for the port engine is small. And where did the tail go? The plane went into the building all the way but the huge tail seems not to have left an imprint on the facade, unlike the thin wingtips.

This evidence, which is very official, strongly casts doubt that a 767 hit the North tower. And we can't just dismiss this an anomaly. There HAS to be an explanation.

The best explanation is that something other than a 767 hit the North tower.

The 9/11 Disinfo Movement

A long article by Eric Hufschmid where he takes on 9/11 disinfo, and eventually nails 9/11truth.org.

A pretty good piece, even though Hufschmid has to sneak in his doubts about the Apollo moon landing, thus casting doubt upon HIS credibility.

It kind of makes who wonder who DOES have credibility.

Besides me, of course. :)

Iraq Lies

I'm glad the Plame CIA leak case is doing some measure of exposing the lies the Bush administration made to seel the Iraq war.

But for me and many others, the critical lies weren't about Iraq's WMD. The critical lies that embarked us on the past four years of war were 9/11.

9/11 is the big lie.

This essay at DU says much the same thing, but more eloquently and in more detail.

Worst Vice-President Ever

Even the uber-establishment WashPost has harsh words to say about Cheney and his pro-torture policy.

It's certainly good that the WashPost finally spoke out against these evil and inexcusable actions by the Bush administration.

But what about Bush? The WashPost seem to act as if Bush has no say in what Cheney is doing. Doesn't Bush bear ultimate responsibility for the torture policy?



Once again, Bush gets away with murder. Literally.

Weakened Bush

It's rather ugly right now:

1) CIA leak case will almost certainly result in prosecution of top administration officials, and if nothing else has exposed Iraq war lies and eroded the administration's credibility
2) Miers withdraws as supreme court nominee
3) Iraq is a true quagmire with US soldiers dying constantly and no end in sight
4) WashPost unloads on Cheney for his torture policy (about fucking time)
5) large deficits and record federal debt
6) the stock market is going nowhere,
7) gas prices are still relatively high and the economy is mediocre
8) Bush's approval ratings are below 40%, a clear danger sign

How much worse can things get?

I don't really know-- impeachment seems unlikely, but I don't know how Bush can turn things around either. Even a new terror attack is unlikely to help him.

But in any case, I just have one thing to say to conservatives/Republicans and anyone else who voted for this loser:

WE TOLD YOU BUSH WOULD BE A DISASTER!!!!!!!!!

Unfortunately, the joke is on all of us.

Was the USS Cole Bombing LIHOP?

Seems that way:

the intelligence team also tried to warn the Pentagon not to allow the USS Cole to make a refueling stop in Yemen five years ago, Weldon said.

On Oct. 12, 2000, a small boat loaded with explosives rammed into the side of the USS Cole as the ship refueled in port at Aden, killing the 17 Navy personnel.

"(Able Danger members) also identified the threat to the USS Cole two weeks before the attack, and two days before the attack were screaming not to let the (ship) come into the harbor at Yemen, because they knew something was going to happen," he said.

It could be argued that the military was "cruisin' for a bruisin'" around that time, and wanted some sort of spark to ignite military action in the middle east. When the politicans and didn't bite for military action following the USS Cole bombing, the military gave 9/11 the green light.

Osama bin Laden: Still Dead

Or is it dead again?

Comparing the Flight 93 Crash with the Recent Nigerian 737 Crash

Links for the Nigerian crash here, here and here.

This story is very recent and has the most pictures.

Detail of the Nigerian crash:

Dismembered and burned body parts, fuselage fragments and engine parts were strewn over an area the size of a football field.

A wig, human intestines, clothes, foam seats and a hand were seen wedged in the sodden earth. A check for 948,000 naira ($7200) from the evangelical Deeper Life church was one of a number of personal papers found in the smoldering wreckage.

Similarities:
1) a medium size Boeing jet (757 for UA93, 737 for Nigeria jet) crashes at high speed in soft ground (filled in mine for UA93, swamp for Nigeria jet).
2) the plane disintegrates upon crashing, leaving a large crater (some pictures n the links).
3) passengers are all killed, bodies are mostly torn apart.
4) the crash was very violent, in both cases "small bits of fuselage, human flesh and clothing were strewn in nearby trees."
5) the debris fields are similar sizes

Differences:
1) the Nigerian crash was on fire for over a day, unlike UA93
2) the Nigerian jet does NOT disappear into the ground, unlike UA93 supposedly did
3) most importantly, large easily-recognizable body parts and large plane pieces were strewn around the crash site and were easily found, unlike UA93 where no plane parts were near the crater and human remains were in very small pieces-- mostly pieces of skin.

So-- why so many similarities yet so many major differences?

Why does the flight 93 crash defy logic, unless it is faked?

Does any one know the original source for this image?

767 Debris 

It looks like a newspaper graphic of some sort.

It's not from the Popular Mechanics article "debunking" 9/11 conspiracies, I checked that.

The reason I ask is because if you look here, the same tire is being used as evidence of debris from the south and north tower hits. The background is the same. The tire has just been moved over and one picture is probably from before the WTC collapse and the other after, because of the dust.

I don't think it is the fault of the nineeleven2001.t35.com site, as they promote alternative 9/11 theories. I'm sure they got these pictures and the graphic from some "official" source. I'm curious what official source made such a silly mistake.

Note-- this mirrored and rebutted FEMA report says: "Part of the landing gear from this aircraft was found at the corner of West and Rector Streets, some five blocks south of the WTC complex (Figure 2-18)" and gives a picture of the same tire as in the pictures in the above links.

This tire thus was south of the world trade center and was not from the second hit. In fact, this wheel was almost certainly planted, probably just quickly pushed off the back of a truck as people were busily watching the WTC crashes and fires.

For this wheel/tire assembly to land on the street, we have to imagine this scenario:
1) the plane crashes through the outer WTC wall made of heavy steel beams-- the plane should start to break up as it crashes here.
2) the plane hits the thick steel beams supporting one side of the WTC core and the plane breaks up. The landing gear assembly could break away from the plane at this point.
3) the landing gear wheel has to break away from the rest of the strong landing gear, then travel through the core, containing stairwells and elevators, then get past the steel beams on other side of the core.
4) the landing gear wheel then has to break through the strong steel beams of the outer far wall of the WTC, and have enough momentum to travel several hundred feet in the air.

I say, NO WAY.

But why plant a 767 wheel if a 767 really hit the WTC?

I think the 767 wheel was planted specifically because the WTC wasn't hit with a 767.

The American Taliban

Right-wing nuts, one and all.

Griffin Still Turning Them On

This time in Vermont.

Worth a read-- the article talking about Griffin is a well-written and thoughtful piece on 9/11 being an inside job.

767 Debris Spewed from the WTC?

767 Debris 

Here are pictures of the individual debris pieces.

At this time, I am not going to argue about the debris ejected from the south tower (the three pieces)-- we saw stuff come out of the tower with the explosion. Plus a large part of the plane missed hitting the core section of the WTC, and thus could relatively easily come out the other side.

What I will take issue with, is the landing gear ejected from the north tower.

The plane hit almost in the center of the building, and the way the building was oriented, the plane hit the wide part of the interior core structure (in the south tower, the plane hit the skinny side of the core).

So, for this landing gear wheel to come out of the tower, it has to go through the first outer wall (okay, no huge problem there), but then go through three more sets of steel cages: the two sides of the core, then the far outer wall of the tower. Fine, maybe MAYBE the wheel got lucky. But the wheel, after slamming against multiple steel beams as it travels through the tower, still had enough momentum to go another quarter mile (at least) through the air?

What are the odds of this?

And why just this wheel? Why not another wheel or the landing gear shaft?

Plus, there is the matter of the relatively good condition the tire is in.


I don't buy it.


Lastly, it also seems odd to me that all these large pieces of debris landed on the sidewalk and not in the middle of the street. If they are flying through the air, how would they be able to land so close to these building seen in the pictures?

There's something fishy here.

Still Amazes Me That I Can Find Weird New Stuff About 9/11

Like this.

It looks a bit like an unmanned surveillance vehicle.

And if you want to get really weird, check this UFO/orbwar site out, which has pictures of related objects which have cloaking ability (if you take their word for it).

What Kind of Psychopath Refers to 9/11 as "an interesting day"?

You know-- the day when three THOUSAND civilians are slaughtered by terrorists?











Oh, it's our president.



Why was it interesting to him and not, say, HORRIBLE?

Perhaps because he knew it was synthetic terror and there was a form of military coup underway?

I'm just asking.

This Looks Like A Great Book

Fooled Again
by Mark Crispin Miller

For Republicans, the 2004 presidential election was little short of miraculous: Behind in the Electoral College tally in the days leading up to the election, behind even on the very afternoon of the vote, the Bush ticket staged a stunning comeback. The exit polls, usually so reliable, turned out to be wrong by an unprecedented 5 percent in the swing states. Conservatives argued-and the media agreed-that "moral values" had made the difference.

In his new book renowned critic and political commentator Mark Crispin Miller argues that it wasn't moral values that swung the election-it was theft. While the greatest body of evidence comes from the key state of Ohio-where the Democratic staff of the House Judiciary Committee found an extraordinary onslaught of Republican-engineered vote suppression, election-day irregularities, old-fashioned intimidation tactics, and illegal counting procedures-similar practices (and occasionally worse ones) were applied in Florida, Oregon, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, Nevada, Arizona, and even New York. A huge array of anomalies, improper practices, and blatant violations of the law all, by a truly remarkable coincidence, happened to swing in the Bush ticket's favor.

This pattern-not one overwhelming fraud but thousands of little ones-is, in Miller's view, the new Republican electoral strategy. This incendiary new book presents massive documentation that the election was stolen and describes the mind-set, among both the major parties and the media, that could permit it to happen again.

Un-fucking-believable

This isn't incompetence, it is evil:

Marty Bahamonde, a FEMA regional director, told a Senate panel investigating the government's response to the disaster that he gave regular updates to people in contact with then-FEMA Director Michael Brown as early as Aug. 28, one day before Katrina made landfall.

In most cases, he was met with silence. In an Aug. 29 phone call to Brown informing him that the first levee had broke, Bahamonde said he received a polite thank you from Brown, who said he would check with the White House.

''I think there was a systematic failure at all levels of government to understand the magnitude of the situation,'' Bahamonde said.

The testimony before the Senate Homeland Security Committee contradicted Brown, who has said he wasn't fully aware of the dire conditions until days later and that local officials were most responsible for the sluggish response.

...

In e-mails to various FEMA officials, including one to Brown, Bahamonde described a chaotic situation at the Superdome, where many of the evacuees were sheltered. Bahamonde e-mailed FEMA officials and noted also that local officials were asking for toilet paper, a sign that supplies were lacking at the shelter.

''Issues developing at the Superdome. The medical staff at the dome says they will run out of oxygen in about two hours and are looking for alternative oxygen,'' Bahamonde wrote in an e-mail to regional director David Passey in a call at 4:46 p.m. CDT on Aug. 28.

Less than an hour later, Bahamonde wrote: ''Everyone is soaked. This is going to get ugly real fast.''

Bahamonde said he was stunned that FEMA officials responded by continuing to send truckloads of evacuees to the Superdome for two more days even though they knew supplies were in short supply.

''I thought it amazing,'' he said. ''I believed at the time and still do today, that I was confirming the worst-case scenario that everyone had always talked about regarding New Orleans.''

Later, on Aug. 31, Bahamonde frantically e-mailed Brown to tell him that thousands are evacuees were gathering in the streets with no food or water and that ''estimates are many will die within hours.''

''Sir, I know that you know the situation is past critical,'' Bahamonde wrote.

Less than three hours later, however, Brown's press secretary wrote colleagues to complain that the FEMA director needed more time to eat dinner at a Baton Rouge restaurant that evening. ''He needs much more that (sic) 20 or 30 minutes,'' wrote Brown aide Sharon Worthy.

People were suffering horribly and dying and Brown was worried about how much time he had to eat? This is beyond appalling, it is simply evil.

Justin Raimondo Actually Reports Some News

(instead of rambling on tediously about neocons and the war party as he usually does).


CIA agents forged the Niger documents!

The whole piece is excellent and a must read.

Oddly, Josh Marshall, who has shown great interest in the past in who forged the documents, and who supposedly was working on a article about this topic, has so far ignored Raimondo's revelations.

757 Landing Gear in the Pentagon?

The evidence of this landing gear is, in my opinion, the best evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon.

However, I think the evidence that a 757 did NOT hit the Pentagon is very strong. In particular:
1) the small entry hole, only 80 feet wide (compared to the 120 foot-wide wingspan of a 757) and 25 feet high (compared to the 40-plus feet of a 757 tail).
2) the absence of a broken-off tail or broken-off wing tips on the Pentagon lawn
3) the unlikely approach path-- only inches off the ground, as must the only possible way to explain the entry hole.
4) the 6 foot high cable spools that would have been knocked over by a 757 flying inches off the ground, but were not.
5) the ground-level hole in the construction fence and the accompanying damage to the generator do not fit with a 757 engine-- plus there is the unlikelyhood that an engine hitting the heavy generator truck would NOT cause the engine to snap off.
6) the "exit hole" seems suspiciously "mocked up", particularly that the fragile 757 nose cone was apparently found inside this hole (when it should have been destroyed upon the first impact 300 feet away).
7) the several light poles supposedly knocked-down by the jet on the highway are fishy, as normally several impacts on a flying jet like that would seriously damage the plane and cause a fire, if not cause the plane to crash immediately.
8) the general dearth of plane debris in and around the Pentagon (as observed by first responders).
9) the astounding lack of any air defense around Washington DC and the Pentagon from a hijacked jet supposedly coming from hundreds of miles away-- and this is 30 minutes AFTER two hijacked jets slammed into the WTC. But if there was no 757 heading towards the Pentagon, then there was no need for air defenses.

These are some of the biggest reasons to doubt that flight 77, a Boeing 757, hit the Pentagon, although there are others as well.

Yet still we have this photo of a messed-up 757 landing gear covered with debris in a burned out room.

How to explain it?

1) a 757 really DID hit the Pentagon (in defiance of all the facts mentioned above) and one landing gear ended up in this room and was photgraphed. (One wonders if this is true, why more parts of the plane inside the Pentagon were not photographed.)

2) this photo is fake.

3) this photo is of a 757 landing gear crashed somewhere else, not at the Pentagon.

4) the landing gear was planted, next to explosives, as part of the overall frame-up to make it seem as though a 757 hit the Pentagon.

Unfortunately, like so much of 9/11, none of these explanations are entirely satisfying. For instance, a 757 landing gear is huge and would not be easily planted in the Pentagon.

But I guess if I had to pick one of these options, I would go with...

#4 (it was planted)

Although this may seem crazy, the fact is that there was clearly some airplane debris planted as part of the ruse. This famous piece of fuselage on the Pentagon lawn is a prime example.

I DON'T think this stuff was planted after the bombing, rather the plane parts were likely packaged in different areas of the Pentagon, along with explosives. When the explosives went off, the debris was blown around. In front of the Pentagon, almost exactly where the plane hit, was a construction contractors trailer. This trailer would be a prime place to plant some of the plane parts along with explosives. Other aspects of the ruse may be a heat-seeking missile or a low fly-over by an American Airlines jet (the second flight 11?) coincident with the planted explosions, and some sort of high-tech device (or small planted explosives) that knocked down the lamp poles.

Cars Stolen in the US Used as Car Bombs in Iraq

Nothing to see here folks, move along.


Seriously though, this isn't a brand-new story, I remember reading about the SUV from Texas being found in a car-bomb factory a few months back. But it seems as though they have found several such cases now, which really makes one wonder what sort of pipeline steals cars from the US to ship them to the middle east where they wind up in Iraqi insurgents' hands. This is clearly a big operation and can't be that hard to crack apart. Unless, the powers-that-be don't WANT it cracked apart.

Obviously, this story should be big news in the US, but it isn't-- apparently because it draws out too many uncomfortable questions about who the terrorists are and who they are connected to.

Judy Miller Is an Intelligence Operative

CIA, DIA, Mosad, I dunno, but that is the only way to explain this:

Muhammad Salah claims that Israel forcibly coerced a confession from him in 1993, and because Miller witnessed part of that interrogation.

And I would bet a good amount of money that Miller is in deep with the neocon mafia that set up 9/11.

Does Al Qaeda Exist?

Does Al-Qaeda exist or not?- Several analysts tried to answer this question- But a previously published editorial on Pravda Website suggests that there’s no such thing as Al Qaeda- it doesn’t exist and never has.

The conclusion:

"Al Qaeda", if it really existed to anywhere near the extent that we have been told then there would have been another attack on the U.S. But unfortunately, the information we receive comes from two sides that both have great benefit in exaggerating Al Qaeda threat: tapes by the group’s members and the military and intelligence agencies that have great interest in maintaining the facade of an extremely dangerous terror cell.

This is basically my conclusion as well.

Great article overall!

Why Fake the Flight 93 Crash Site?

Because they didn't want any incriminating evidence at the crash site. The plane that witnesses around Shanksville saw flying crazily was probably a drone without passengers. If they crashed that, then they would have obvious plane debris and no dead bodies. This is particularly a problem in the rural area where the plane crashed, because local people might get to the site first and take pictures of plane parts that didn't match UA93. They would also wonder why there were no bodies around.

BUT-- if they create a crash site where it looks like the plane both disintegrated and disappeared into the ground, people aren't going to wonder too much about the lack of passengers because the plane is gone too. In the awfulness of the moment, people will simply accept the official story that the plane both disintegrated and disappeared into the ground.

Private Detectives

This is just a reminder to me for than anything else, but I wonder if a private detective would be useful for tracking down some of the 9/11 issues that are hard to verify simply by the internet.

Obviously this would be expensive, and only useful for very specialized questions, but I have little time to try to track down some of these issues.

Obviously, the media is best suited to try to do this kind of investigative work, but the few "reporters" (Tom Flocco, Mike Ruppert) who are willing to question 9/11 are not particularly trustworthy.

A couple of questions that (off the top of my head) a private detective might be useful for:

1) is Jim Woolsey really threatening NYFD with termination or severance of pensions if they discuss bombs in the WTCs?

2) what exactly do the airlines know about the four 9/11 flights and where are the original flight manifests?

3) talk to the county coroner who dealt with the flight 93 crash. Does he have any suspicions? Did the FBI threaten him at all?

I Wonder

if Raytheon employees had been on flight 93, would that plane have hit its target?

In any case, it is worth pointing that the Ratyheon people on flights 11, 77 and 175 were not low-level office workers, but rather they were all top people working on issues related to remote control.

What are the odds?

In Real Plane Crashes

wings break off, the plane changes course upon contact and explosions happen immediately -- unlike the hit on the south tower, where the plane glides completely through huge steel beams without one part of the plane breaking off.

Now, I have no feasible idea for how they could have faked the second tower hit-- and in particular, how they could have created a plane-shaped scar in the building in the absence of a plane.

I think some sort of flying machine hit the south tower. But that was no ordinary passenger plane, that is for sure.

I Really Dare Them

to overturn Roe v Wade. After all, what would then be the driving force behind modern conservatism? All overturning Roe v Wade would accomplish would be to energize liberals-- and also lead to the deaths of several thousand women who would have to seek back-alley abortions because they really don't want to carry an unwanted child.

I don't think overturning Roe v wade would significantly reduce the number of women who want to get abortions.

Trying to Break the U.S. Record for Futility Set in Vietnam

"WASHINGTON -- President Bush vowed yesterday that the United States "will not run" from Iraq as it did from Vietnam."

When you've killed a few thousand troops, what's another fifty thousand?


After all, it's not his kids that are out there fighting.

By the way, here's an idea-- rather than "running" from Iraq, how about if we just kind of slowly and carefully walk away, with, like, some sort of plan?

Asshole.

America's Shame

New warcrimes in Iraq.

And, as WRH points out,inhumanity to man is nothing new for the "land of liberty".

Oh who cares? USC is playing Notre Dame!

Where's the beer?

Woo Hoo!!! We got Al Qaeda's barber!

U.S. forces in Iraq said on Saturday that they were holding a man suspected of acting as a barber to senior al Qaeda militants and helping them change their appearance to evade capture.

The man, named as Walid Muhammad Farhan Juwar al-Zubaydi -- "aka 'The Barber,"' the U.S. military statement said -- was arrested in Baghdad on September 24

The war on terror must be almost over!

Either that, or the administration has finally realized that people aren't falling for the "Al Qaeda number 2" line anymore.

The Times Finally Publishes Their Judy Miller Story

Somehow I can't get too excited about the trivia in the Plame CIA agent-outing case, even though most liberal bloggers seem to be latching onto this like Freepers on the Monica Lewinsky saga.

Why Were Raytheon Employees on Every 9/11 Flight that Officially Hit a Building?

Fascinating findings.

Flight 11:
Peter Gay was Raytheon’s Vice President of Operations for Electronic Systems and had been on special assignment to a company office in El Segundo, Calif.

This division is one of two divisions making the Global Hawk.

Kenneth Waldie was a senior quality control engineer for Raytheon’s electronic systems.

David Kovalcin was a senior mechanical engineer for Raytheon’s electronic systems.

Flight 175:
Herbert Homer was a corporate executive working with the Department of Defense.

And for some very strange reasons he was listed for several days as having died in the while working in the Pentagon.

Flight 77:
Stanley Hall was director of program management for Raytheon Electronics Warfare. One Raytheon colleague calls him "our dean of electronic warfare."

Charles S. Falkenberg: He worked on "EOS Webster" a mapping system which provides Landsat Images, which are part of the mapping system for the Global Hawk technology.

Raytheon is working on Global Hawk piloltless aircraft program.

Now, if this is not coincidental enough for you:

What are the odds that Raytheon also had one office in the WTC2?

It was located in 91st floor in WTC2.

Raytheon shared the floor with Washington Group and Gibbs&Hill.

While 13 employees of Washington Group died.

None died of Raytheon and Gibbs&Hill.

This is rather surprising as after the hit of the second plane only four person survived who were above the 78th floor where the plane hit.

And the 91st might be significant in another way:
"every person believed to be above the 91st floor died: 1,344."

The 91st floor was the line between life and death in the WTC tower opposite to Raytheon's office. Or in other words: The first plane hit the WTC1 in the 91st floor.

(please see linked article for citations)

One has to wonder if these Raytheon employees were knowingly taking part in some sort of drill on 9/11-- and then were killed because of their knowledge.

On 9/11, even US Marshals said there were bombs in the buildings

NY Times, 9/11 oral history archive; see Hoppey, Timothy-- firefighter, page 13:

"But a cop started screaming, "The north tower is leaning." We again started running. That came down a couple minutes after that. As I said, I think we were on Vesey Street at that point, but I’m not really sure.

After that it was kind of pandemonium. The U.S. marshals were saying a third plane was coming in. They said there were bombs in all the buildings around there."


This takes place shortly after the south tower collapsed.

A Good Essay Exposing the Naudet Film as a Farce

It's long but very detailed and well-written. The piece basically fits with what I have thought for a while now-- the people who filmed the first hit, the Naudets and Pavel Hlava, had foreknowledge of some kind.

2002 Bali Bombing was false-flag terror by the Indonesians

Most likely it was done by the army and intelligence services (sound familiar?)-- according to the former Indonesian Prime Minister.

Indonesia's former president Abdurrahman Wahid has said his nation's police or military officers may have been involved in the 2002 Bali bombings which killed 202 people.

As Australia marked the third anniversary of the nightclub attacks in which 88 Australians died, Wahid told SBS television's Dateline that he fears there are links between Indonesian authorities and terror groups.

On the program, which is due to air later today, he said that while terrorists were responsible for the first bomb which went off on Oct 12, 2002, the second blast may have been organised by the authorities.

Asked who had planted the second bomb, he said: "Maybe the police... or the armed forces."

Related article: "There Are No Moslem Terrorist Organizations In Indonesia"

How the Bush Administration Fucked Up the Media In Two Easy Steps

1) They staged a massive false-flag terrorist attack on US citizens and started a war on false-pretexts: thus they forced the media to choose between "patriotism" and the truth.

"Patriotism" wins every time.

2) They blew a CIA agent's cover by leaking it to the press: thus they forced the media to choose between reporting a crime and their much-cherished "right" to protect sources.

This conflict basically ties the media up in complete knots.

Fortunately, most of the people can see through the lies eventually.

When will most of the media?

Fake Al Qaeda Writes a Fake Letter

Stop, don't tell me-- I know this one.

A Very Obscure and Very Interesting Story from September 11

-- the fire at the Old Executive Office Building next to the White House, causing it to be evacuated. (Note on the link: scroll down the page for mainstream links to the story. In the interview at the top, Meyssan was right about the building being ugly and about it being on fire, but wrong about it being destroyed.)

Clearly the chances of this being an accidental fire that morning are very slight. So it was another attack on a major governmental office.

Washington DC was in turmoil that morning. The White House and OEB were evacuated, Congress was also evacuated, the Pentagon was bombed and evacuated, some sort of bomb went off near the State Department, and the National Reconnaissance Office building outside of DC was also evacuated because of a plane into building drill.

So-- who would sabotage the OEB and why?

Since this building is where the VP office is, were they going after Cheney too?

I wonder if this is why Cheney got so freaked out after 9/11, and why he went into hiding so much.

A Third Experiment

with a similar strucutral set-up as described here, but with several modifications:

1) wrapped aluminum foil around the outside, then punched several holes in it including a big one where the "plane went in".

2) put more newspaper all around the inside and soaked it heavily with kerosene.

3) put two paving stones on top--more weight.

Result: the fire burned very strongly for ten minutes then turned smoky and died after about twenty more minutes. The structure showed no signs of collapsing had minimal buckling and held up surprisingly well.

Once again, I wasn't sure what to expect. I wasn't rigging this to hold up at all-- I actually tried to maximize the fire. Before doing this, I thought the structure might collapse-- but it didn't.

So, my challenge remains. Can someone build a model of the WTC, damage it and set a fire such that even one floor collapses?

On a similar note, this story fits with my results:

I am a Boilermaker, Shipbuilder, Blacksmith Forger and helper. Union. Now a contractor on military facilities. I build steel storage tanks for jet fuel. A few years ago, a typhoon blew through, and I got to watch a Mobil AST, with @ 1,000,000 gallons of diesel in it, get hit with lightning, the grounding failed, and the million gallons BLEW!!

Well, for a diesel fire that is. it simply caught fire, burned itself out after 4 days, blackened the steel. Catch that? One million gallons of diesel fuel, burned for 4 days, didn't melt squat. Tank, 1/4" steel, never melted.

(Check out the amusing comment from the NIST shill in that article as well.)

Bogus Plots

A good article in the LA Times giving details about the new Al Qaeda "plots" mentioned by Bush in his speech last week.

WASHINGTON — In the spring of 2003, Los Angeles police officials were summoned to a briefing with the FBI-led Joint Terrorism Task Force and told that the 73-story Library Tower might have been the target of a terrorist plot similar to that of the Sept. 11 suicide hijackings.

When the plot was disclosed last year, authorities said publicly that they had viewed the claims by captured Al Qaeda chieftain Khalid Shaikh Mohammed with skepticism. They said that, at best, the alleged plot was something that had been discussed but never put into action.
By the time anybody knew about it, the threat — if there had been one — had passed, federal counter-terrorism officials said Friday.

Still, the broader idea for attacks on West Coast buildings that included the Library Tower was one of the cases President Bush was referring to when he said that three potential terrorist plots within the United States had been "disrupted" since Sept. 11, 2001. In his policy address Thursday, Bush spoke at length about terrorists and their organizations, saying that at least 10 plots had been foiled worldwide by the U.S. and its allies, including plots in the U.S.

White House spokesman Scott McClellan had said a day earlier that Bush's speech would provide "unprecedented" detail about terrorist threats, some of them never before disclosed.

However, Bush did not detail the foiled plans, and hours later, the White House released a sketchy list of "plots, casings and infiltrations" that had been disrupted or stopped by the United States and its allies since the Sept. 11 attacks. It did not explain whether any of the incidents were new or disclose how advanced the plots were, although most experts said they did not represent plans that had been put into operation.

Sounds about what you might expect at this point from the Bush administration-- exaggerate every possible threat.

A Good Start

Poll: Americans Favor Bush's Impeachment If He Lied about Iraq.

By a margin of 50% to 44%, Americans want Congress to consider impeaching President Bush if he lied about the war in Iraq, according to a new poll commissioned by AfterDowningStreet.org, a grassroots coalition that supports a Congressional investigation of President Bush's decision to invade Iraq in 2003.

The poll was conducted by Ipsos Public Affairs, the highly-regarded non-partisan polling company. The poll interviewed 1,001 U.S. adults on October 6-9.

The poll found that 50% agreed with the statement:

"If President Bush did not tell the truth about his reasons for going to war with Iraq, Congress should consider holding him accountable by impeaching him."

Now, if they can only do a similar poll but ask about Bush's complicity in 9/11.

The Coming Economic Meltdown

from a Wall Street analyst:

It’s dawning on wall street that George W. Bush may be the first president since Lyndon B. Johnson who believes that we can have a guns-and-butter federal spending policy without creating a serious inflation spiral, if not outright government bankruptcy. At least LBJ, to his credit, believed that there were limits to profligacy and that taxes had to be raised. Not President Bush. He’s making Johnson look like a fiscal conservative, what with his insistence on waging a war in Iraq that’s costing $177 million a day and rebuilding New Orleans by taking on a monstrous load of federal debt.

For the longest time, because Bush is a Republican, we on Wall Street simply didn’t believe that he could be a reckless spender. We knew only two paradigms: You either spent less and cut taxes or you spent more and raised taxes. Both courses at least presumed some sacrifice at some time. Not Bush’s plan. He’s gone on both the biggest spending binge and the lowest taxation course in U.S. history, which, alas, will produce gigantic liabilities down the road. Of course, he’ll be back on the ranch by the time his successor will have to deal with his inflation and currency debasement. Our only hope that financial disaster won’t strike sooner lies with the Chinese, who actually fund our deficit by buying our Treasuries—$242 billion worth, or 12 percent of all foreign holdings. If the Chinese decide to be good communists and stop buying our bonds, the Feds will have to raise rates to attract new investors and the reaper will be at our doorstep with interest rates more akin to those of South than North America. Right now, it’s not a problem. But in a year or two or maybe less, I perceive that the government will throw a bond auction and nobody will show, including the Chinese, until rates shoot up dramatically.


What if that happens? What if our fiscally clueless president really does keep spending at a rate that far exceeds what our government can take in at these low tax rates? What happens if the president’s acolytes and the Pollyannas in Treasury keep believing that we can grow our way, fairy-tale-like, out of this jam? You can bet that when you cash out your nest egg of nice U.S.-based mutual funds and solid common stocks, your dollars will fit nicely into a wheelbarrow designed specifically to cart worthless currency to the bank.

He then goes on to recommend some foreign stocks, if you're interested.

By the way, it looks like the Bush administration may meltdown well before the economy-- one can only hope, anyway!

Coming Out of the Closet

Matthew Tartaglia, a ground zero rescue worker, was interviewed by Alex Jones last March. He had some fascinating and frightening stories, including confirming that black boxes were found at ground zero, but didn't say much in terms of 9/11 being an inside job or anything about the collapse of the WTC being controlled demolition.

He now says he believes the towers were brought down by controlled demolition (listen to the 2005-09-23 interview).

He says he was interested in controlled demolition as a profession earlier in his life and has witnessed twenty or so demolitions. He strongly thinks the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition. He says "everyone knows" that WTC7 was controlled demolition.

I only wish that were the case!

Bombing the Smurfs

to illustrate the horrors of war:

BRUSSELS - The people of Belgium have been left reeling by a public service commercial featuring the Smurfs, in which the blue-skinned cartoon characters' village is annihilated by warplanes.

You just can't make this stuff up!

Important Aspects of 9/11 That Deserve More Attention

Here are two aspects of 9/11 that I think are very important and are a bit of a mystery:

1) The very early stages of the collapse of WTC1. The top of the building sinks down by a good forty or fifty feet without any noticeable distortion of the outside walls. What on earth causes this? The best explanation is probably that the core has been taken out, causing the top to sink, by some sort of demolition-- but where exactly is the core being severed, and what type of explosive does this without producing obvious explosives discharges?

Conceivably, the core is taken out at the base, and this might account for the ground shaking that is observed in one movie shortly before WTC1 collapses. Then once the core starts falling, there is a more traditional demolition, with explosive jets clearly observed coming out the sides of the tower as it collapses.

But in any case, there is still the question of how the top of the building can "melt" down without disturbing the sides of the structure. It is rather odd. Are the walls folding in on themselves somewhere?

2) The story of the twin flight 11's. Basically, it appears that there were two planes known as flight 11 at Boston Logan airport on the morning of 9/11. One of these planes was likely stolen in some manner by the hijackers, and was used on 9/11 to act like it was hijacked and send fake transmissions mimicking a hijacking. This plane PROBABLY did not crash into the WTC, but may have flown to Washington DC and participated in the Pentagon hit in some way (low-level fly over?).

This second flight 11 is undoubtedly an important key to how the hijacking ruse was created on 9/11. Men with semi-official cover get control of an American Airlines jet, perhaps they load it with pilots and flight attendants in order to particpate in the hijacking/terror drill run on 9/11. This jet is the official flight 11 but reports mechanical problems and doesn't load passengers. So a new flight 11 is set-up, at a different gate, and this one takes passengers. It is not known what happened to this plane.

Interestingly, something similar to this seems to have happened with flight 93, although there were not two flight 93's. But most of the people on flight 93 were originally supposed ot be on flight 91, which was cancelled due to mechanical problems. I wonder if the original flight 91 was also taken over by people with semi-ofifical cover and used in the hijacking drill? I have speculated here a lot about flight 93 being involved in the hijacking drill, but perhaps it was really flight 91-- the plane that sent out amazingly timed radio transmissions.


The bottom line here is that first, I am convinced the 9/11 hijackings were faked somehow, and two, I am extremely curious to know how it was done. I think this twin flight 11 is one of the best clues out there for telling us what really happened with the hijackings on 9/11.

I Did Another Experiment

to test how hydrocarbon/kerosene fires affect steel structures.

You can read about it here.

Obviously, the conclusions one can draw are limited from this experiment using a simple model system, but I think it is clear that even weakened/flimsy steel structures do not collapse when exposed to hydrocarbon/kerosene fire.

In general, it supports the idea that the WTC towers had "help" to make them collapse. (wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

Is Al Qaeda That Stupid, or Do They Really Think We Are That Stupid-- Or What the Heck Is Going On Here???

Earlier I quoted a NY Times article on foiled terror plots:

Mr. Mohammed envisioned carrying out a new plot on targets in the West Coast in 2002, after the Sept. 11 attacks.

The article earlier says this was a hijacked airplane plot:

a failed effort in 2002 to use hijacked airplanes to attack "targets on the West Coast,"

and apparently there was

a similar plot on the East Coast in 2003.

Okay. What does this really mean? What is going on here?

First, I will make one key assumption-- after 9/11, a true plot by terrorists to hijack airplanes and take them over simply would not work. First, security was heightened and passengers were screened better. Second, other passengers on an aircraft would not sit passively if a few poorly armed Arabs tried to take over a plane. Third, we have to assume that the FAA and the US Air Force would get their act together, and would intercept a hijacked airplane in a timely manner. This is all according to the official story, of course.

In reality, of course, Al Qaeda terrorists did not hijack planes and pilot them into the targets on 9/11. It was carefully rigged up to seem that way-- it was an illusion.

In any case, what do these other hijacking plots after 9/11 tell us?

There are only two real possibilities:
1) Al Qaeda (represented by KSM here) is simply stupid and delusional to think they pulled off 9/11 and to think they could "pull off" another attack, or
2) Al Qaeda is simply a fake organization whose job is to dream up "terror plots" that can then be co-opted by Western intelligence agencies for their own ends.

Of course, these are not mutually exclusive and it is likely that Al Qeada has both delusional and fake elements.

What this story says about the US media and the US public-- that they fall for this garbage-- is another question entirely.

The Fact That An Army Virology Lab

has re-created a highly deadly strain of virus is hardly comforting when there are warnings of a new highly deadly bird flu coming and Bush is suggesting the use of troops to reinforce quarantines.

So Much for Creating Their Own Reality

What good is it, if almost everyone thinks you suck?


CBS Poll: Bush Ratings Hit New Low, 37%

Ten Terror Plots Foiled Since 9/11?

Hard to know what to make of this:

The Sept. 11 commission had said in its report last year that Khalid Shaikh Mohammed had originally envisioned a broader operation in which as many as 10 aircraft would be hijacked and crashed into targets on both coasts. That report said Mr. Mohammed had described such a plot to his American interrogators.

But it had not previously been disclosed publicly that Mr. Mohammed envisioned carrying out a new plot on targets in the West Coast in 2002, after the Sept. 11 attacks. Some other plots listed by the White House have been known, including a thwarted attack in Britain in 2004.

The list also included other plots to bomb several sites in Britain in 2004; to attack Heathrow Airport in London using hijacked commercial airliners in 2003; to attack Westerners at several places in Karachi, Pakistan, in spring 2003; to attack ships in the Persian Gulf in late 2002 and 2003; to attack ships in the Strait of Hormuz, a narrow part of the gulf where it opens into the Arabian Sea, in 2002; and to attack a tourist site outside the United States in 2003.

Is it really plausible that these were real terror plots broken up, particularly the 2002 airplane one, and that we are just hearing about it now for the first time?

Isn't it clear that this is an increasingly desperate White House.

It sure doesn't help that (earlier in the article):

A senior White House official said Thursday evening that the president's 40-minute speech arose from Mr. Bush's desire to remind Americans, after "a lot of distractions" in recent months, that the country was still under threat...

"Distractions", I assume means bad news for Bush. And once again we see the utter shamelessness of this White House, playing the terror card whenever they need some relief from current events.

In other words, they are playing the "It's not my fault" card, that whatever problems we have are a result of terrorists, and not the ineptness of this president.

Because It Might Hurt Their Feelings?

CNN Quick Poll as of 9am EST, Oct. 6:

Should CIA agents identified as having made mistakes in the lead up to 9/11 be reprimanded?

Yes 70% 32993 votes

No 30% 13854 votes

Total: 46847 votes

WHO THE FUCK IN THEIR RIGHT MIND THINKS A CIA OFFICER SHOULDN'T BE REPRIMANDED IF THEY MADE A MISTAKE LEADING TO THE WORST TERRORIST ATTACK IN THE HISTORY OF THE WORLD?

But 30% of Americans apparently think that they shouldn't!!!!

What the fuck???

Some Encouraging News from Washington

WaPo:

The Senate defied the White House yesterday and voted to set new limits on interrogating detainees in Iraq and elsewhere, underscoring Congress's growing concerns about reports of abuse of suspected terrorists and others in military custody.

Forty-six Republicans joined 43 Democrats and one independent in voting to define and limit interrogation techniques that U.S. troops may use against terrorism suspects, the latest sign that alarm over treatment of prisoners in the Middle East and at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, is widespread in both parties. The White House had fought to prevent the restrictions, with Vice President Cheney visiting key Republicans in July and a spokesman yesterday repeating President Bush's threat to veto the larger bill that the language is now attached to -- a $440 billion military spending measure.

Thwarted Suicide Bombing at Oklahoma University Football Game?

When I saw this story initially, I just thought it was weird, then I did a google search on the story last night, and it seemed as if it was just some sick kid committing suicide. But then via WhatReallyHappened, I found this blog entry which is quite fascinating:

In a development that brought back tragic memories of the 1995 Murrah Building bombing, it was reported on OKC News 9 that Joel Henry Hinrichs III, the suicide "victim" who blew himself up less than 100 yards from Oklahoma University's Memorial Stadium while 84,000 people watched the football game between OU and Kansas State, tried to buy fertilizer from a Norman feed store just four days before killing himself. According to an employee of Ellison Feed & Seed, Hinrichs asked to buy fertilizer, and was very specific as to the type of fertilizer that he needed - ammonium nitrate fertilizer, the exact same fertilizer used by Murrah Building bomber Timothy McVeigh over ten years ago. He wouldn't respond to the employee's questions about how much fertilizer he needed, or why he needed it. The employee told Hinrichs that they didn't carry ammonium nitrate fertilizer, but Hinrichs wasn't interested in any other type of fertilizer - only ammonium nitrate. The employee also said that he became suspicious when he noticed that Hinrichs was "wearing a green vest that appeared to have wires in it."

News 9 also reported that four differnet sources confirmed that a Norman plain clothes officer was in the feed store at the same time as Hinrichs, and followed him into the parking lot and copied down his license plate number. Neither the store employee or Norman police would confirm that information, and the FBI's not talking either.

Here we go again. We still don't have all of the facts on the Murrah Building bombing, and already this latest incident is beginning to look like a flashback. While the official report is still that it was simply a suicide, why did Hinrichs use a bomb to do the deed? Why did he do it right outside of a crowded football stadium during the game? And why did he leave behind in his apartment enough explosives that it took "several trips" to remove them, if he only meant to kill himself? Where is his Pakistani roommate? And finally, the most telling question of all, why would anyone planning a simple suicide try to buy ammonium nitrate, the same material used in the tragic Murrah Building bombing?

Terrorist act? Who knows, but less than three days after the bombing, it is already obvious that this was much more than a suicide. This was a suicide bomber who, thankfully, blew up only himself, and not the thousands of fans who went to Memorial Stadium last Saturday, wanting only to cheer their team on to victory.

Quite bizarre and not surprsingly, this story has gotten little national attention. But if it had been the guy's PAKISTANI ROOMMATE who had blown himself up (yes, his roommate was Pakistani), then that would be an entirely different story, I'm sure.

Weather Control Cover-Up?

Remember the five reddish spots that coincided with Rita's turn away from Houston?

It seems as though somone is now scrubbing them out of the images.

Probably not coincidentally, the government is clamping down on what the weather service can say to the media:

the Department of Commerce has issued a blanket media policy to employees of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), requiring that all requests for contact from national media be first approved by the Department, RAW STORY has learned.

I smell a rat.

Large (Probably Shady) Financial Transactions

were a common feature of all four sites bombed on 9/11: WTC1 (brokerage houses), WTC2 (brokerage houses), WTC7 (brokerage house and SEC offices) and the Pentagon (specifically the Army Accounting Office was hit).

It is tempting to speculate this is the unifying feature of 9/11-- a massive cover-up of financial fraud.

Even the airlines, which of course took a large hit on 9/11, but which were in trouble before the attacks, ended up getting bailed out by Congress after 9/11.

Yet Another Triumph of Right-Wing Propaganda

The so-called "UN oil-for-food scandal".

Debunked..

Reasons to Suspect the US Military Planned and Executed 9/11

1) Operation Northwoods plan showed military leadership is capable of perpetrating false-flag attacks to start a war. Moreover, the military has a history of inventing pretexts to start wars.

2) Bush administration military leadership clearly wanted badly a new war prior to 9/11-- in particular Iraq was seen as an attractive target (PNAC).

3) The Able Danger program showed the military kept track of "terrorists" and also protected them.

4) Drone planes (and missiles with cloaking devices) as were used on 9/11 were most probably military in origin.

5) NORAD hijacking exercises on 9/11 were a cover for the attacks and were planned by the military.

6) DelMart Vreeland worked in the Office of Naval Intelligence and had foreknowledge of 9/11.

7) The Pentagon was almost certainly bombed as well as hit by an aircraft on 9/11-- only the military could have rigged bombs at the Pentagon.

8) The military has trained killers (ala Operation Gladio), who could carry out the attacks.

9) The military has easy access to explosives of the type that were used to demolish the WTC.

10) The military is capable of cruel and inhumane behaviour: bombing civilians, prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, etc.

Oddly, most of the high profile 9/11 skeptics tend NOT to blame the military, but rather blame the CIA-- e.g. Mike Ruppert, 9/11 truth.org.

While I am no big fan of the CIA, I think they really were not capable of carrying out 9/11. The CIA was certainly "in on" 9/11, but I think they had little to do with actually carrying out the attacks.

If 9/11 was the massive "inside job" as I now believe it to be, then it could only have been done by the US military (specifically, rogue elements of the military).

A Surprisingly Conspiratorial Piece on the NOLA Disaster from "The Nation"

"25 Questions About the Murder of New Orleans"

Cue The "Dragnet" Music

President Bush Directly Involved In Plame-Leak Scandal.

Baa da duh duh,

Baa da duh duh, daaaa!

Can Hydrocarbon Fires Weaken Steel Structures? An Experiment.

An experiment, modeled basically after what I described here.

A cast iron pot filled with water, weight about five pounds, was placed on a crude framework built from coat hanger wires:


the beginning 

Then I cut a few of the support "columns" on one side to mimic plane damage:


"columns" are severed 

Note, the pot started tipping after I severed these wires.

Underneath, I put a piece of wood, some newspaper, and then drenched the newspaper with gasoline.

Then I lit the newspaper and gasoline:


fire! 


more fire 

After a while, the fire died down:


fire dies down 

Then after about ten minutes, the fire died completely:


fire is dead 

And my flimsy little steel wire structure held, and the tipping pot stayed upright!

So, my contention is, hydrocarbon fires do NOT significantly weaken steeel structures to cause them to collapse.

If my flimsy bent-coat-hanger wires could support their load after a big fire, how is a strongly-built steel framed building supposed to collapse from fire?

Phase Two-- I will construct a better model and use kerosene instead of gasoline.

At This Point, There Really Is No Sense Trying to Reason with Someone Who Still Supports Bush

Seeing as how they are supporting A WAR CRIMINAL:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House on Friday threatened to veto a $440.2 billion defense spending bill in the Senate because it wasn't enough money for the Pentagon and also warned lawmakers not to add any amendments to regulate the treatment of detainees or set up a commission to probe abuse.

Template Change

In case you have noticed that this blog looks different-- I have spent a great deal of time today reformatting the blog so my sidebar shows up alongside my posts in Internet Explorer using the Windows XP operating system. I had been using Firefox as my main browser, but was bother that the blog didn't look right in Internet Explorer using the Windows XP operating system, although I know it looked okay with Internet Explorer on a Macintosh.

But I think my links are a good attraction here, and I want to make sure they show up normally on different operating systems.

Anyway, I had to change my blog template because I couldn't format the old template to work in Internet Explorer using the Windows XP operating system.

This template seems to work.

It is a nice change overall, I think.

Although I lost a couple of links from my old template, and need to figure out how to get them back.

Note: it only works for small and medium text sizes, not large and largest text sizes-- though in Firefox the blog looks fine with all text sizes. (Just one more reason Firefox is better.)