Second Hit Quiz

Specially designed for "PINCH", but other people can respond too.

Please submit your answers in the comments section.

Thanks.

First, review the material. Watch
this video from CNN offically showing flight 175 attacking the South WTC tower.

Notice how the video plane disappears into the south tower without any trace of distortion of the plane or any sign of immediate explosion-- even though the wall hit by the plane was constructed of multiple huge steel beams. Once the plane got through these beams, the plane should have hit several cement floor slabs at a perpendicular angle. Yet the plane melts completely into the building without any trouble, without any distortion, without anything breaking off, without even slowing speed.

The questions (please answer yes or no):
1) wasn't this video, and other videos showing this same event, that were played over and over on 9/11?

2) wasn't it videos of this event that were the main basis for saying airplanes were used to attack the US on 9/11?

3) did we see any clear pictures of the other officially hijacked 9/11 airplanes (flights 11, 77, 93) on 9/11?

4) shouldn't a huge jet slow somewhat upon impacting such a huge steel structure?

5) shouldn't a huge jet show some distortion upon impacting such a huge steel structure?

6) if the plane is going to break apart and explode, shouldn't it do this upon the very initial impact?

7) if the plane is strong enough to slice through the outer wall and proximal floor slabs, shouldn't it slice all the way through the entire building?

8) isn't it possible that this video could have been faked using Hollywood-type special effects/computer animation?

9) do you think the things that happen in Roadrunner cartoons are realistic?

10) Essay question: let's assume the plane was strong enough to completely slice into the building, intact. What destroyed the plane when it got inside?

Finally, PINCH, you never answered the questions I asked here. Could you, please?

Is Global Warming a Psy-Ops Like "Peak Oil"?

Great new piece from Dave McGowan.

DISASTER

The Alito confirmation is the final brutal piece in the Bush regime coup.

Emperor Bush can now get away with almost anything.

Fucking worthless Democrats.

Fucking Vichy Democrats.

Fucking worthless opposition Democrats.

Gerard Holmgren, Blues Musician

Clip of him playing guitar here.

Examples of Collisions

1) Egg going 500 mph into a stiff piece of cardboard.

Will the egg smash through the cardboard intact, leaving an egg-shaped hole? Or will it splatter completely on the outside, just denting the cardboard? Or will it be a mixture of these two outcomes?

I'm guessing the latter.

2) Wineglass going sideways 500 mph into a pane of glass.

Will the wineglass smash through the pane intact, leaving a glass-shaped hole? Or will the glass shatter completely upon hitting the pane? Or will it be cross between these two outcomes?

I'm guessing a cross outcome.

3) A large model airplane going 500 mph into a chain-link fence, where the fence has sheets of plywood behind it perpendicular to the fence (these mimic floor slabs in a building).

Will the plane smash into pieces against the fence, barely penetrating it? Will the plane slice through the fence and the plywood and disappear into darkness? Or will it be a combination of these two outcomes?

I'm guessing the plane will smash into pieces against the fence, barely penetrating it.

A real-life test of a high speed collision was done by NASA, where a piece of hard foam/plastic was shot at 500 mph into part of the wing of the space shuttle. A movie of the event can be seen here.

Basically, the foam bounced off the wing and started disintegrating. Interestingly, on this two foot piece of foam, a significant distortion could be seen immediately in the foam piece upon impact, when the film is analyzed by slow motion. This distortion must have occurred within milliseconds, and shows that a flexible object can alter its shape extremely quickly.

On Plane-Shaped Holes in the WTC and Cartoons

and why it is so unlikely a 767 crashed into either WTC tower.

I'm just going to paste the whole damn thing in here because it is so good.

WTC Forensics

November 11 2005
Gerard Holmgren

Observe that we have a hole in the tower which is approximately the size and shape of a 767, indicating that the alleged large passenger jet punched decisively through the building. Also observe that we have no wreckage significant enough to be identifiable.

The combination of these two factors is a forensic proof that it can not have been a plane of that size, as I shall explain shortly.

Before that comes another forensic proof. Note that the shape of the hole indicates that the wings punched through the building, making more or less a shape of themselves.

When you sit in a passenger jet and look out the window to the wings, what do you see? A light aluminium structure which is segmented into panels and movable flaps. Hardly a cutting blade or battering ram, except against light materials.

The WTC was constructed of heavy construction steel, built to withstand hurricanes. We are asked to believe that such flimsy aluminium wings sliced through this structure decisively enough to make a cartoon type shape of themselves. Steel cutting blades are generally made from cobalt or tungsten and are either sharpened to precision or toothed.

If unsharpened, untoothed aluminium wings, with moveable panels could slice through construction steel like this, then blades for cutting steel would be a whole lot cheaper and less demanding of precision manufacture than what they are. This alone is enough to show that the 767 type shape in the wall, including an almost exact fit for the wings is an absurdity.

But lets just suppose that this was possible. That a plane could decisively punch through a building in this way. If so, then the wreckage can't just disappear into effectively nothing. Its simple conservation of energy. When a stronger object strikes a weaker object or vice versa, there are three possible outcomes.

The struck object is completely destroyed or moved out of the way, leaving the striking object with no damage and only loss of velocity to show for the collision. The striking object is completely destroyed or bounces off, leaving the struck object unmoved and undamaged. The destructive energy of the collision is shared in some balance between the struck object and the striking object. Most collisions will give this result although the destruction may well be much more heavily weighted towards one or the other, leaving one object with the majority of the damage.

What you can't have is a striking object destroying itself against the same object that its decisively punching through.

Here's some every day examples.

1a. Striking object negligibly damaged, struck object destroyed.

An arrow shot through a piece of carboad. The impacted part of the carboard is decisively destroyed making a hole roughly the shape of the arrow, and the arrow passes through, losing velocity and comes to rest undamaged.

1b. Striking object negligibly damaged, struck object moved.

A bowling ball hitting a bowling pin. The pin is knocked clear and the bowling ball slows a little as a result.

2a. Striking object destroyed, struck object unmoved and undamaged.

A glass thrown against a wall. The glass smashes, the wall is unmoved and undamaged.

2b. Striking object bounces off, struck object undamaged

A tennis ball thrown against a wall and bouncing off.

Now note what happens if the tennis ball breaks as it hits the wall. Instead of bouncing, it will now flop pretty much where it is. It cant break *and* bounce off as it did before. If you add energy to one part of the process, you have to subtract it from somewhere else. Conservation of energy.

Which brings us to:

3 Destruction shared between both objects.

A car colliding with a brick garden fence. Both objects suffer some damage and the car pretty much stops. The possible graduations of how the damage is shared are infinite, but what you cannot have is the car decisively punching through the fence leaving a cartoon type shape of itself, complety going through and *then* suddenly disintegrating beyond recognition.

If the car disintegrates itself to almost nothing, it will be because it hits a stronger surface which pushes most of the energy of the collision back into the car. So you might get a car reduced to confetti, but the surface it struck will be negligibly damaged/moved.

Or you might get a car bursting through a barrier of stretched cardboard, easily punching a shape of itself, but in this case you won't get a confetti car. It will emerge the other side negligibly damaged. Or you might get a wall of roughly equal strength to the car, in which case, you get a damaged but still basically intact car, coming to rest, probably part way through a wall which has been significantly damaged but doesn't have a cartoon type shape of the car punched neatly through it.

Think of the cartoon scene, where the cat chases the mouse through a mincer. The cat emerges from the other side still running, not realizing that its now made of a jigsaw type shapes. It keeps running for a while, and then with a look of resignation realizes that its been cut up, stops and collapses into a pile of little jigsaw type pieces.

Why do small children find this funny? Because even at that age, they know that what they've seen is impossible.

In real life, the cat either:

Gets immediately cut into pieces and ceases all co-ordinated movement as a single object, and doesn't damage the blades or Bursts through the mincer blades, breaking them or Mangles itself, stopping almost immediately and also causing significant damage to the blades.

So what we asked to believe at the WTC is a Tom and Jerry cartoon.

What would happen in real life is:

the plane would smash itself to pieces against the building, doing little damage to the building and the wreckage falling mostly to the street-- or the plane would pass through the wall making a cartoon type shape of itself (heh! Those sturdy aluminium cutting blades slicing through the flimsy construction steel of the building!) and come to rest, relatively intact-- or you'd have a smashed up and scattered plane, still in large identifiable pieces some of it inside the building, some falling to the street below, and damage to the wall of some unpredictable configuration.

The latter option is what happened when the plane hit the Empire State building in 1945. Large pieces of the plane broke off and fell to the streets below, and the bulk of it stuck pretty much in the side of the building.

In the Sandia video (shows a fighter jet smashing into a concrete wall at high speed and disintegrating-- ed.), you see option 1 - the plane being reduced to almost nothing and the struck surface negligibly affected.

What is impossible is for the plane to punch neatly through the building leaving a cartoon type shape of itself and *then* disintegrate into nothing. If this were possible we'd find the following examples in everyday life.

You saw through a piece of wood. When you've finished you've got a neat cut, and the saw blade has completely disintegrated.

You swing a sledge hammer through a plasterboard wall. The wall is decisively punched through, and when the hammer emerges the other side, the head has disintegrated.

A tennis ball hits a racquet. The ball smashes through the strings, leaving a neat round hole, passes through and then disintegrates into tiny pieces after its passed through.

One last thing to look at. Suppose that we forget about the aluminum cutting blades problem, and suppose that the plane passed through decisively, relatively undamaged, thus obeying conservation of energy laws and then, being packed with explosives, blew up into pretty much nothing after passing through.

In this case, how does an explosion massive enough to disappear a 70 ton plane, have a negligible effect on the building inside which the explosion is taking place, leaving no damage other than that apparently caused by the entry of the plane?

This problem is heightened by the following observation. If the plane passed decisively through the wall, then the plane is by definition the more robust of the two objects, having easily smashed aside the wall. But when the explosion goes off it totally disintegrates the stronger plane and yet somehow doesn't damage the comparatively flimsy building. Not possible.

Since the WTC was about 210 ft each side and the alleged plane about 160 ft, then with the plane completely inside the building, the extremities of the plane are less than a stones throw from the edges of the building. So any secondary explosion, powerful enough to disappear the plane should have also exacerbated the damage to the wall, where the plane passed through. If there had been, for a brief moment, a plane shaped hole, that should have been blasted bigger and differently shaped by the explosion which blew up the plane.

In fact it was this observation which finally laid to rest any lingering doubts I had about the South tower plane being a fake, after I looked at WF's (Webfairy's-- ed.) site, way back.

As if that's not enough, there isn't room for a 767 to completely disappear inside the WTC. The total size of the building only allows about 50 ft to spare, and there's the problem of the core of the building. Nearly half of the plane would have still been hanging out when the nose hit the core and the plane started smashing itself up. Or if you want to make the absurd suggestion that it also easily smashed through the core, without even enough damage to the plane to disturb it's direction enough to mess the cartoon type shape of itself, then why doesn't it also pass through the other side of the building in a similar manner?

Lets see now... the plane effortlessly punches through the wall, the wings making a shape of themselves, effortlessly punches through the core, and then, with a few feet to spare, once its completely inside the building, puts the brakes on and then blows up into nothing, with the explosion miraculously causing no extra damage to the building.

This would also mean that those razor sharp aluminium wings which sliced so easily through the flimsy construction steel would have been merrily slicing away for about 100 ft into the building, slicing the building like a loaf of bread before the plane blew up. The slice then healed itself. Perhaps the explosion put it all back into place...

This kind of thing might happen in cartoons and in the "minds" of people like Eastman (Pentagon researcher Dick Eastman-- ed.), but it's notably absent from real life.

The alternative is to come to the shocking conclusion that CNN and the govt lied to us, by showing us an animation and passing it off as real. The idea that CNN and the govt might have lied (gasp!) is so shocking to the "minds" of people like Eastman, so offensive to their deep sense of patriotism that they prefer to believe that cartoons are real.

(My emphases were added in bold and I altered/added some punctuation slightly for clarity.)

Overall, I propose that no ordinary plane hit the WTC on 9/11.

I also propose that the videos showing a plane melting into the South WTC tower are fake.

I also propose the plane-shaped holes were made by pre-planted explosives in the building, and the flying objects that struck the WTC the were military missiles.

How Do Bush Supporters/Official 9/11 Story Believers Rationalize Condi Rice's Post-911 Statements?

These ones:

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile," said national security adviser Condoleeza Rice on May 16, 2002.

"I don't think anyone could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and smash it into the World Trade Centre," said by Condoleezza Rice on May 19, 2002.

Given that she was the NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR BEFORE 9/11 AND WHAT SHE SAID WAS SIMPLY WRONG (that the US Military had drilled this exact scenario before 9/11, there were pre-9/11 warnings of such a thing happening and someone had in fact crashed a plane into the White House in 1994), there are only two choices here:

a) she was lying

b) she was clueless

These are your only two options, considering she was NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISOR.

If you think she was LYING, WHY was she lying about this?

If you think she was clueless, why wasn't she fired immediately after 9/11? Why was she promoted to Secretary of State and remained very close to Bush?

I'd really like to hear someone's explanation for this.

Crazed Christain Zionists and 9/11

was 9/11 part of a plan to clear the way for the second coming of Jesus?

This idea definitely seems to fit into the overall 9/11 equation.

"Scholars for 9/11 Truth"

(PRWEB) January 27, 2006 -- An influential group of prominent experts and scholars have joined together alleging that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11. The members of this new non-partisan association, "Scholars for 9/11 Truth" (S9/11T), are convinced their research proves the current administration has been dishonest with the nation about events in New York and Washington, D.C.

These experts contend that books and articles by members and associates have established that the World Trade Center was almost certainly brought down by controlled demolitions and that the available relevant evidence casts grave doubt on the official story about the attack on the Pentagon. They believe that the government not only permitted 9/11 to occur but may even have orchestrated these events to facilitate its political agenda.

The article has contact information at the bottom if anyone is interested in joining.

"Fighting the Net"

Why do I feel as though the new Pentagon plan to control internet security is more about controlling information and spreading propaganda than about fighting a real enemy?


I guess because the article pretty much says so.

Were There Two Planes Posing as Flight 93?

Plane Swap Over Pennsylvania; Flight 93 and his Doppelganger - by Woody Box

9/11 researcher Woody Box has a new piece out on flight 93, and finds fairly convincing evidence that flight 93 was a twin-flight, which underwent a plane swap towards the end.

Since he thinks one of these planes landed near Pittsburgh and one at National Airport near DC, this two-plane scenario is still consistent with the idea that the flight 93 crash crater is a hoax. The plane swap idea might also support the idea of flight 93 being involved in the Air Force hijacking drill wargames that day.

Of course the big mystery is WHY was flight 93 set-up to run like this, with a faked crash site along with a plane swap?

This needs more thinkin'.

Was the Recent Osama Tape Bogus?

Larry Chin sure thinks so:

This latest production may be the clumsiest and most transparent fakery of them all. Today, with the Bush administration cornered and bleeding from scandals, in need of a distraction and cover for an atrocity in Pakistan, more justification for a future conquest of Iran, and facing Peak Oil and Gas-related collapse, it is a fine time for another wag, another attempt at the same old trick. But it is a trick that is losing its power.(snip)

"One of the main objectives of war propaganda is to ‘fabricate an enemy’. As anti-war sentiment grows and the political legitimacy the Bush Administration falters, doubts regarding the existence of this illusive ‘outside enemy’ must be dispelled.

"Propaganda purports not only to drown the truth but also to ‘kill the evidence’ on how this ‘outside enemy’, namely Osama bin Laden’s Al Qaeda was fabricated and transformed into ‘Enemy Number One’. The entire National Security doctrine centers on the existence of an ‘outside enemy’ which is threatening the Homeland."

Even if he were real, "Osama", "Al-Qaeda" and the "war on terrorism" has exclusively served the political purposes of the Anglo-American empire, every moment that the Bush administration has needed a fabricated straw enemy. The irrefutable fact that Osama bin Laden, and Al-Qaeda, and all fabricated propaganda featuring their images, are creations of Anglo-American intelligence, and continue to serve faithfully as intelligence assets.(snip)

..."if the case can be made that the tapes are, in fact, manufactured by US intelligence agencies, it stands to reason that the words out of the mouth of the Osama image have also been conceived, written and planted by these same agencies. It is therefore foolish to ‘read’ the tapes without this likely framework in mind...It is not a stretch to expect future bin Laden tapes to issue more specific planted facts about a variety of issues that the Bush administration wants American citizens to oppose. "

Recall that the goal of the last round of "Osama" transmissions sought to ridicule 9/11 "conspiracy theories", and the concept that oil was behind the Anglo-American war of conquest. In this followup, the Bush administration wants Americans, and the entire world, to oppose the anti-war movement. If "Osama" the arch-fiend is talking peace, then peace, of course, is unacceptable.

A good, fairly even-handed analysis here from Al Jazeera.

On the other hand, we have this piece of rubbish from CIA agent Larry Johnson, who caters strongly to both the liberal viewpoint and the official bin Laden legend: "Why We Can't Nab Bin Laden"

My rule of thumb is: don't trust ANYTHING that CIA agents say about 9/11, al Qaeda or bin Laden.

Cut to the Chase or Risk Irrelevance: The Plain and Simple Truth of 9/11

Good piece from Les Jamieson.

This Ain't Good

Impending Nuclear 9/11?

YIKES!!!

Strangest Plane Crash EVER

Flight 93:

Strong Criminal Elements Within All Three Branches of Government

says Sibel Edmonds.

Think You Know What Happened on 9/11?

Think again.

International Terrorism a Hoax

says a Russian General.

Oh For God's Sake

Bush to Visit NSA for Pep Talk
From Associated Press
January 25, 2006 9:04 AM EST

WASHINGTON - President Bush will try to boost the morale Wednesday of the people carrying out his controversial domestic surveillance program.

Oh, those poor beleaguered souls! Thank god we have such a fine president to buck up the spirits of the people protecting our freedoms by taking away our freedoms.

Bush and key members of his administration have recently stepped up public appearances to respond to an outcry from many congressional Democrats and civil liberties groups concerned about warrantless spying on calls and other communications between people in the United States and overseas.

Yep, don't you just LOVE IT when a president mounts a PR campaign to sell the public on his illegal actions?

File Under "It Couldn't Happen Here, Could It?"

How re-authorizing the Patriot act heralds a police state.

Seriously, I'd like to think this talk of a police state is all just silly exaggeration, but at this point, I am getting worried.

Article of Interest

Though one of the ads next to the article is of just as much interest.

(Hint-- the ad is for 911truestory.com.)

Think About It

While we are on the topic of the North tower, think about what happened about one and a half hours after the "plane" hit--

the top of the building suddenly collapsed, then the whole building crumbled underneath it, resulting in a massive complete collapse of the whole tower, all in a matter of about ten seconds!

Videos of this event can be found here.

The "plane" impacted at about the 97th floor. In a 110 story building, if the weight was divided equally, about 10% of the building's weight was about the impact area. Since towers are built to be stronger at the base, there should be somewhat less weight at the top, so we can safely say the top 12 floors were less than 10% of the total building mass.

Now there is simply no feasible way that the total upper 12 floors will suddenly break off and drop down from fire and damage. If anything, there should be a slow drooping as the fire slowly weakens the steel columns supporting the upper floors (and even then, the drooping should be asymmetric).

Here is the question--

How can a slow moving mass of less than 10% of a structure COMPLETELY AND RAPIDLY break apart the intact remaining 90% of the structure (remember only the top 15 floors were affected by fire, and not all were burning at the same time)???

Can anyone explain this phenomenon, or model it or even give a good analogy for the collapse????

I eagerly await your answer.

What Hit the WTC North Tower on 9/11?

An excellent analysis is here. Whatever hit the WTC North tower, it sure doesn't look like a Boeing 767, i.e. Flight 11.

Moreover, I defy anyone to explain the impact sequence (link to video), in terms of:
a) where the flying object enters the building and where the final hole appears
b) the pattern of the explosion and the shadows that appear on the building and how they fit with a 767 impact
c) what the large "flash" is that occurs as the flying object meets the building.

"Missilegate" has a frame by frame break-down of the entire sequence.

Does this look like a large plane about to hit the WTC?


The bottom line is that there is no evidence that flight 11 hit the WTC north tower on 9/11, and the official story is a lie.

P.S. The entire Naudet clip of the first hit can be seen here as a flash movie, or here from CNN, if you'd like a mainstream source. A commentator on a message board makes this interesting point:

One of the things I noticed about the Naudet video was the casualness of the fireman as he glanced up at the incoming object. I lived Queens and worked in New York City (Manhattan) for over 25 years. Low flying planes were common in Queens, as I lived between JFK and LaGuardia airports. Planes coming in and out of these two airports fly the same patterns over and over. .... Low flying aircraft in Manhattan is another story. For obvious reasons, none of the flight paths come anywhere near Manhattan. The only aircraft you see over Manhattan are helicopters. They belong to the police or the TV stations that do traffic reports. A low flying 767 flying below 1000 feet directly over Manhattan is something I never saw in 25 years as no other New yorker has either. Yet, this fireman, a person who you would think was trained to recognize dangerous situations, casually looks up and glances away at a site that never took place in his lifetime. .... only reasons I can think of as to why the fireman didn't react, was that it was a small craft and it wasn't making the deafening noise that usually comes from the 767's. Even watching the video I am not struck by the noise. It didn't appear to his reaction that what he was seeing was out of place. I know if were me and a 767 came in that low over Manhattan, I'd be running for cover. I know it is possible to subject the audio portion of the video to analysis which should quickly prove whether it was a 767 or something a lot smaller.

Debating 9/11 at the Oxford Union

From the "Crisis Newsletter":

Today one of the world's most famous debating forums will consider the taboo question at the heart of the war on terror. Is the official Washington story of the 911 attacks correct, or is 911 a myth created by Washington's military industrial complex to justify a generation of lucrative wars?

The Oxford Union has invited 911 sceptics David Shayler and Annie Machon, both ex-MI5 officers, Ian Henshall co-author of non-fiction best-seller 911 Revealed, and risk analyst Bill Durodié to discuss whether the attacks occurred in anything like the way the mainstream Washington news organisations claim.

Ian Henshall said today:

After the WMD fiasco, newsrooms have so far been unwilling to ask whether they were duped by their intelligence sources over 911 as well. So much evidence has been seized by the US authorities and never made public that it is impossible to say for sure how the 911 attacks happened. There are now several versions of the official story which stand in open conflict with each other. Many believe the attacks were manipulated or allowed to succeed and quite a lot of evidence has leaked out to support this.


Notes: for more details of this evening's forum and the Oxford Union contact
details see here.

Ian Henshall can be contacted on 01273 326862 daytime. His book 911 revealed co-authored with Rowland Morgan was given favourable reviews in the Daily Mail and the Sunday Times, but although it is a non-fiction best-seller it has so far been ignored by the mainstream broadcast media, despite their legal obligation to due impartiality.

The official 911 story has never been tested in a court of law, while crucial evidence has been seized by the FBI and ferociously withheld from the media, and even from the families of the victims. The official 911 Commission whas been denounced even by pro-war Republican Senators after it emerged last year that alleged 911 ringleader Mohammed Atta had been known to the US authorities prior to 911, contrary to the assertions of the Commission's final report. Recently Senator Barbara Boxer stated that the truth of the 911 attacks must be pursued wherever it leads.

Since the 911 attacks internet sites, books and alternative news media have criticised the official conspiracy theory which holds that the attacks were carried out by a highly skilled terrist cell acting on the under the orders of mastermind Osama Bin Laden. Some hold that the attacks were a Pentagon organised hoax along the lines of the documented Pentagon 1960's plan Operation Northwoods. This which would have used a drone aircraft to fake a shootdown of a passenger airliner over Cuba and create the pretext for a US invasion.

Most 911 sceptics however hold that elements in the US government took over one of Osama Bin Laden's many half-baked plans, made sure it worked and possibly embellished it by a fake attack on the Pentagon's only unoccupied section or controlled demolitions of the three World Trade Centre buildings. They cite the anthrax attacks purporting to be from Al Qaeda which heightened the war panic in 2001. The anthrax terror, aimed at Senators who were questioning the 911 war plans, was quickly forgotten after being traced to US biowarfare laboratories.

911 sceptics say it is absolutely predictable that with war looming against Iran and the Republicans facing meltdown in the midterms another fuzzy audiotape should have emerged last week with new threats from Osama Bin Laden, the man who US troops allowed to escape from Afghanistan. Even on CNN commentators recently agreed that the language purporting to come from Bin Laden is now quite different from his original statements. Software exists which, given a sample of a voice, can generate new speech apparently spoken by the same person.

Here is the official announcement:

Was 9/11 a myth?

A variety of speakers and commentators will discuss the validity of various consipracy theories regarding the September 11th terrorist attacks.

David Shayler
Former MI5 officer and whistleblower, he shot to fame after being arrested for breach of the Official Secrets Act having spent two years in exile.

Bill Durodié
Senior Lecturer in Risk and Corporate Security at Cranfield University and analyses the effect of perception of risk by thepublic,

Ian Henshall
Author of '9/11 Revealed' -- a book seeking to uncover the truth amongst the disinformation and glaring factual errors that have been reported.

Annie Machon
Writer of 'Spies, Lies & Whistleblowers', Annie Machon worked for MI5 in Paris before writing her exposé shown before this event.

Can You Find the Pentagon?

"The picture below is a GoogleEarth image of the environs of the Pentagon from an altitude of 5024 feet as it might have appeared from the airplane cockpit. Can you spot the Pentagon?"



Yet this is a similar view as officially seen by the amateur pilot* of flight 77, Hani Hanjour, who made a rapid spiraling descent to hit the Pentagon precisely where it had recently undergone reinforcement. Not only that, but officially he approached the building so low that he hit at the lowest possible level on the first floor, without even touching the ground in front of the Pentagon.

If you believe this-- I have some great stock I'd like to sell you!

*Thought to be completely incompetent by his flight instructors.

This Sums It Up Rather Well...

(click to enlarge)

(Via Atrios)

So Why Do You Believe in the Official 9/11 Story?

Do you not accept the idea that the Bush administration would lie about and cover up governmental wrong-doing?

Do you not accept the idea that the US media will go along with whatever the government says as long as it is in the name of "national security"?

Do you not accept the idea that the Democrats will go along with whatever the Bush administration says, in the name of "national security", because they don't want to be seen as "weak"?

Do you not accept that the Bush administration would allow the deaths of innocent Americans?

Do you not accept the idea that the US military could kill innocent civilians?

Do you not accept the idea that the US military would create a pretext for war?

Do you not accept the idea that the US military-industrial complex has the strong need to create an enemy even when there is none?

Do you not accept the idea that US intelligence agencies routinely lie about terrorism, particularly about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda?

Do you not accept the idea that the US national security apparatus routinely engages in covert operations, and these often utilize patsies, dupes, and useful idiots?

Do you not accept the idea that US intelligence agencies could use terrorists as patsies in a covert operation?

Really?

So what exactly is it about the official 9/11 story that makes you believe in it?

Katrina Truth Site

http://www.katrinatruth.info/

Looks like a good resource.

Chimpeachment

Is there really any doubt there are grounds for it?

Note, this is for the NSA spying case, this is not even bringing in WMD lies or 9/11!

More details from John Conyers blog here.

Bin Laden Message Written in English and Translated into Arabic

According to a commentator on the PBS Newshour.

Also, this was the first bin Laden message without a verse from the Koran.

So, considering bin Laden is dead three times over, this message was probably written by some CIA operative and the content of the message is obvious propaganda: is there any reason to take this tape seriously?

The Nine Circles of Soul Sucking, War Loving Ghouls

The Inner Circle: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice

The Second Circle: Senior Bush Administration Officials, Senior Pentagon/NSA/CIA Officials

The Third Circle: Congressional Republicans; pro-war Democratic Senators and Representatives

The Fourth Circle: Media Bosses, Newspaper Editors, Influential Pundits (e.g. Brooks, Friedman, Hoagland, Krauthammer, Will)

The Fifth Circle: Cable TV Talking Heads and Right-Wing Radio Freaks (Sean Hannity, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Bill O' Riley, Rush Limbaugh, etc)

The Sixth Circle: The National Republican Party; DLC Democrats; Democrats who think they need to be "tough" on national Security (i.e. they need to endorse the slaughter of foreigners)

The Seventh Circle: News Anchors, Mainstream Reporters and Media Figures who casually go along with the madness

The Eight Circle: Right-wing bloggers, Bush bloggers and warbloggers

The Ninth Circle: All Bush supporters

(ranked in order of their power)


May the soul of every dead US soldier and dead Iraqi torment these people.

Mass Insanity, Collective Insanity

Hearing people on the radio calming discussing body armor for the troops in Iraq today, seeing the matter of fact acceptance of the ridiculous bin Laden tape by the media, I can only come to one conclusion.

We are fucking insane and we love war.

The only way this madness will end, I think, is when homeless amputee Iraq (Iran?) war veterans are seen on every corner of every town and city, or everyone knows a family who has lost a family member to the "war on terror".

The only other way it will end is if there is some horrible exchange of nuclear weapons.

Either way, lots more people are going to die before the guardians of our media and politics finally gain some sense of morality.

God help us.

Squibs

That is, the little isolated jets of debris shooting out the side of the WTC ahead of the collapsing portion:


Multiple squibs were seen to accompany the collapses of both the south and north WTC towers.

A researcher named Aidan Monaghan has made some important points about the squibs:

Several theories have been advanced in order to explain the presence (of) these "squibs", including:

- Theory A: That collapsing or "pancaking" floors of each tower were responsible for creating these "squibs".

- Theory B: That collapse debris was compressed down elevator shafts by each tower collapse's demolition wave and that some of this debris escaped these elevator shafts at various points and burst through various upper floor windows, in the form of "squibs".

- Theory C: That these "squibs" were evidence of preset explosive devices that were used to deliberately collapse each tower.

Given that a nearly simultaneous, internal collapse or "pancaking" of floors would likely create more visibly significant and widespread damage to each towers structure beyond the small and isolated "squibs" that were evident at certain locations (and that were often well below each visible demolition wave), it seems that Theory A can not realistically account for these "squibs".

Indeed, what could be the most remarkable detail that refutes Theory B is that certain "squibs" were present at lower floors well before even outer free fallingdebris descending to the ground was, during at least WTC 2's collapse.

Theory B would therefore imply that likely massive amounts of collapse debris was descending down WTC 2's narrow elevator shafts at a faster rate than free fall speed, in order for the afore mentioned "squibs" to be present at lower floors, well before free falling debris outside of the collapsing building was. This would seem to be a very unlikely outcome.

In addition, these "squibs" were often white in color, very unlike the grey and black colors of the pulverized concrete and smoke that the observed demolition waves were comprised of. For Theory B to be correct, one would expect dark grey or even black colored debris bursts or "squibs", not white.

Based on the seeming unreliability of Theories A and B as explanations for the afore mentioned "squib" phenomena, Theory C (the use of preset explosive devices) ought to be subject to greater consideration and scrutiny, regardless of it's implications.

Additionally, ... WTC tower elevator transportation was divided into 3 segments.

... the passage of any compressed debris through elevator shafts during each tower's collapse (originating well above each 78th floor) would have been obstructed at the 78th floors of each tower and thus one would have expected to see the afore mentioned "squib" debris at the 78th floors of each tower, instead of floors much further below.

He has more pictures that illustrate his points.

I think the squibs are strongly indicative of explosive demolition, and importantly, similar squibs are seen with known cases of controlled demolition.

The Iran Ruse

Good stuff from the Cunning Realist.

So What Was the Final Death Toll for Katrina?

Three thousand are still missing.

Remember THAT Bush disaster?

It was only a few months back, though it seems like a year.

But Michael Ledeen Said Bin Laden Just Died a Couple of Weeks Ago!

By my count, this is at least the third account of bin Laden's death over the past five years!

Man, both bin Laden and Zarqawi must be like the Energizer bunny--- they just keep going and going and going...

And the great thing about terrorists who never die is that you can just make them pop up whenever you think it is convenient...

My bet is today was yet another appearance by bin Laden's Al-CIA-duh ringer, probably to distract from the unwelcome attention Gore's speech brought, to remind us how important it is for Bush to break the law by spying on us and to tell us how good a job Bush is doing protecting us.

File Under "Give Me a Fucking Break"

Could the propaganda be any more obvious here?*

Geez. This is insulting.

*Message: Yes, Bush is protecting America from us, but you still need to be scared. And oh yeah, you're doing badly in Iraq.

This Winter I Hear the Drumming, Vote Fraud in Ohio

The Gun is Smoking - 2004 Ohio Precinct-Level Exit Poll Data Show Virtually Irrefutable Evidence of Vote Miscount

The National Election Data Archive (NEDA) is the first mathematical team to release a valid scientific analysis of the precinct-level 2004 Ohio presidential exit poll data. NEDA's analysis provides virtually irrefutable evidence of vote miscount.

(PRWEB) January 17, 2006 -- There is significant controversy about whether the 2004 presidential election was conducted fairly and its votes counted correctly. According to results of the major national election exit poll conducted for the National Election Pool by Edison/Mitofsky (E/M), Kerry won Ohio's pivotal vote, though the official tally gave the state, and thus the presidency, to Bush. The conduct of Ohio's election was formally debated by Congress in January 2005.

The National Election Data Archive (NEDA) is the first mathematical team to release a valid scientific analysis of the precinct-level 2004 Ohio presidential exit poll data "The Gun is Smoking: 2004 Ohio Precinct-level Exit Poll Data Show Virtually Irrefutable Evidence of Vote Miscount" available at http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/OH/Ohio-Exit-Polls-2004.pdf. NEDA's analysis provides significant evidence of an outcome-altering vote miscount.

The analysis is based on the most accurate statistical method yet devised for determining whether exit poll error, random variations, or vote count manipulation cause the discrepancies between exit polls and official vote tallies. This analysis method was made public recently by NEDA in "Vote Miscounts or Exit Poll Error? New Mathematical Function for Analyzing Exit Poll Discrepancy" available at http://electionarchive.org/ucvAnalysis/US/Exit-Poll-Analysis.pdf

Exit Polls were conducted in 49 of Ohio's 11,360 precincts. At least 40% of Ohio's polled precincts show statistically significant differences between Kerry's exit poll percent and official vote count percent. 35% of these exit polls overestimated the Kerry official vote share. This is five times the number expected. Three of the most glaring examples are:

1. In E/M precinct 27, with an estimated 100 respondents, Kerry's official vote count was 29% less than his exit poll share, creating a 58% difference between Kerry and Bush exit poll and official vote margins. There is less than a one in 867,205,500 chance of this occurring due to chance.

2. In E/M precinct 25, with an estimated 62 respondents, Kerry's official vote count was 28% less than his exit poll share, creating a 56% difference between Kerry and Bush exit poll and official vote margins. There is less than a one in 234,800 chance of this occurring due to chance.

3. In E/M precinct 48, with an estimated 100 respondents, Kerry's official vote was 16% less than his exit poll share, creating a 32% difference between Kerry and Bush exit poll and official vote margins. There is less than a one in 17,800 chance of this occurring due to chance.

There are also two precincts where the Bush official vote count is significantly less than the Bush exit poll share. The number of significant discrepancies and the pattern of Ohio's discrepancy shown in the NEDA report provide strong support for the conclusion that vote count errors converted a Kerry win to a Bush win.

New electronic voting equipment without voter verified paper ballots, implemented under the 2002 Help America Vote Act, makes it easier for a small number of people to manipulate vote counts and nearly impossible to independently audit vote count accuracy. Virtually every county in America today publicly reports its vote counts in a way that hides evidence of miscounts. This allows those with access (whether authorized or not) to manipulate or make mistakes in vote counting with negligible possibility of detection.

Without accurate elections, America is not a democracy. NEDA urges the media to publicize the results of this report and its recommendations, in order to return to the American people their right to determine the country's leaders.

This is a bombshell, and the silence from the media and most of the blogosphere, for that matter, is a national disgrace.

Gore on 9/11

My friend Jane is trying to convince me that Gore really knows the truth about 9/11.

I suspect he knows more than he's letting on, to be sure. But does he really think the Bush administration was complicit? He certainly accused them of incompetence. But that has been the standard line for more edgy Democrats.

I think probably the best indication that Gore knows more about 9/11 than he is letting on is here:

One of the other ways the Administration has tried to control the flow of information has been by consistently resorting to the language and politics of fear in order to short-circuit the debate and drive its agenda forward without regard to the evidence or the public interest. President Eisenhower said this: "Any who act as if freedom's defenses are to be found in suppression and suspicion and fear confess a doctrine that is alien to America."

Fear drives out reason. Fear suppresses the politics of discourse and opens the door to the politics of destruction. Justice Brandeis once wrote: "Men feared witches and burnt women."

The founders of our country faced dire threats. If they failed in their endeavors, they would have been hung as traitors. The very existence of our country was at risk.

Yet, in the teeth of those dangers, they insisted on establishing the full Bill of Rights.

Is our Congress today in more danger than were their predecessors when the British army was marching on the Capitol? Is the world more dangerous than when we faced an ideological enemy with tens of thousands of nuclear missiles ready to be launched on a moment's notice to completely annihilate the country? Is America really in more danger now than when we faced worldwide fascism on the march-- when the last generation had to fight and win two World Wars simultaneously?

It is simply an insult to those who came before us and sacrificed so much on our behalf to imply that we have more to be fearful of than they did. Yet they faithfully protected our freedoms, and now it's up to us to do the very same thing!

We have a duty as Americans to defend our citizens' right not only to life but also to liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It is therefore vital in our current circumstances that immediate steps be taken to safeguard our Constitution against the present danger posed by the intrusive overreaching on the part of the Executive branch and the President's apparent belief that he need not live under the rule of law.

So, clearly Gore is saying two important things here. One is that 9/11 and Al Qaeda were not such huge novel threats to this country. This is of course in stark contrast to the Bush administration and the neocons. The other thing is that the Bush administration is using fear of 9/11 as a political tool. So Gore is saying Bush is unreasonably using 9/11 and the fear of terror.

So perhaps you could read these lines as code words that the Bush administration is not only terribly manipulative about 9/11, but even complicit in that event.

Perhaps.

What is clear is that if Gore came out and announced now that 9/11 was an inside job, no matter how true it might be, he will get blasted and no one will listen to his other points.

So I hope this is a strategic calculation on his part. Because Gore is too smart not to know that something stinks about the official 9/11 story.


Update: the speech is really worth listening to, it is much better than reading it. The speech gets better and better as it goes along. Here is a streaming video from c-span. Gore really goes off on Congress, how pathetic they are now, even admonishes the Dems.

Key part of the speech here.

If Al Qaeda is Such a Determined Enemy

and the FBI wasted so much time after 9/11 with false leads, why is it that we haven't been attacked again?

Update: Atrios makes an interesting argument -- that the way the NSA wiretapping was set-up, it actually had the effect on concealing the real targets of the operation. This makes some sense, if we assume as I do, that 9/11 was an inside job. The large-scale wiretapping was probably a massive diversion away from the real perps.

The Latest from the "Opposition Party"

In a big speech yesterday, Al Gore blasted the Bush administration over illegal domestic spying. The speech was strong but it is bothersome that he still is strongly promoting the official 9/11 story and the idea of Al Qaeda as a significant threat.

Surprisingly, even Hillary showed some fire yesterday, calling the Bush administration one of the worst in history.

Funny, I thought Pelosi was better than this: she refused to call for Bush's impeachment. And she got some immediate feedback from her constituents-- she was loudly booed.

Nuclear Iran

A simple question-- if the Bush administration and the western world wasn't always making threatening noises about Iran, I wonder how serious Iran would be about pursuing a nuclear weapon.

It seems to me all Bush's and Blair's and the European's bluster about Iran is having the effect of radicalizing Iran more than would otherwise be the case.

Then you have to wonder: if this the desire of the Bush administration and the western world? A radicalized Iran?

Four more questions:

1) who poses more of a threat to the other country? The US to Iran or Iran to US?

2) what country has more of an ambition to remake the world in its image, US or Iran?

3) what country has the capability to remake the world in its image, US or Iran?

4) there is a worst-case scenario that Iran makes nuclear bombs and hands them to terrorists that use them to attack the US-- but how technically realistic is this scenario? Moreover, doesn't it make sense for the US to ease tensions with Iran to lessen the chance of hostilities?

Republican Vote Fraud

Excellent interview with Mark Crispin Miller on this topic here.

I recently read Miller's "Fooled Again", which reports on how right-wing fanatics committed vote fraud during the 2004 presidential election. I thought the first couple of chapters were outstanding, and overall the book documents a great deal of Republican malfeasance.

However, for me, the book fell down at the end, by not putting the big picture of the election together. There was no mathematical analysis of the final vote and how the various Republican schemes might have altered the outcome. More oddly, there was almost no discussion of stealing votes with electronic voting machines, and the religious right influence on the companies that make these machines (Diebold, ES&S). I suppose Miller just wanted to stay with hard facts regarding fraud, but I found his last chapter fairly disappointing. Nonetheless, the book is still an important read, albeit both maddening and depressing.

Martin Luther King

"A time comes when silence is betrayal."

"These are the times for real choices and not false ones. We are at the moment when our lives must be placed on the line if our nation is to survive its own folly. Every man of humane convictions must decide on the protest that best suits his convictions, but we must all protest."

From a great speech about the madness of the Vietnam war, but just as applicable to 9/11 and the bogus war on terror.

(tip to Jane Doe for the quotes)

"Ground Zero Republicans"

1) people of all political persuasions who have made George W. Bush's "war on terror" the central organizing point of their political lives

2) people of all political persuasions who believe, against all logic, that "islamofascism" represents a grave and existential threat to the US

3) people who have so thoroughly internalized and accepted the 9/11 myth that it has clouded their ability to think rationally about a) George W. Bush, b) the Bush administration and c) the "war on terror"/Iraq

What the Jason Leopold "Truthout" Story Says

since there seems to be some confusion over it, even in putatively friendly quarters.

To make it real simple:

1) after taking office, Bush loosened the rules on how NSA eavesdropping data could be handled, by not blacking out names and by allowing "senior" people in his administration access to the dat with the names attached:

What had long been understood to be protocol in the event that the NSA spied on average Americans was that the agency would black out the identities of those individuals or immediately destroy the information.

But according to people who worked at the NSA as encryption specialists during this time, that's not what happened. On orders from Defense Department officials and President Bush, the agency kept a running list of the names of Americans in its system and made it readily available to a number of senior officials in the Bush administration...

2) after 9/11, Bush loosened these rules even more, by allowing other government agencies access to the data WITH THE NAMES STILL ATTACHED:

The NSA's domestic surveillance activities that began in early 2001 reached a boiling point shortly after 9/11, when senior administration officials and top intelligence officials asked the NSA to share that data with other intelligence officials who worked for the FBI and the CIA to hunt down terrorists that might be in the United States.

To make it more simple:

1) Prior to 9-11, Bush asked the NSA to retain information that that they normally wouldn't (the US names connected to the data), and this was done without first obtaining FISA approval, probably in violation of the law (and therefore probably "illegal spying").

2) This action was NOT done by the Clinton administration, it was a step uniquely taken by the Bush administration.

3) After 9/11, senior Bush administration officials wanted to share this information with outside agencies such as FBI, CIA and DIA, clearly in violation of FISA and thus clearly against the law.


As far as I can tell, the confusion is whether the first step taken by Bush, allowing names of Americans to remain with intercepts and then distributing this amongst his senior people, was clearly in violation of FISA.

Sadly, rather than see what happened for what it was-- illegal spying-- Bushbots are going after the whistleblowers in a sad attempt to discredit them.

To their credit, at least a few Republicans are taking this overall NSA spying story seriously.

It seems as though every patriotic American should care about major executive branch over-reach, particularly when the rationale for the over-reach is based on lies (i.e. the war on terror is bogus).

And I can guarantee that there is much more to this story than trying to intercept terrorist communications.

By the way, officially, why exactly is it that they couldn't stop 9/11?

When Was the Pentagon Hit?

Some evidence suggests as early as 9:20am.

On a related note, this picture is rather interesting. The fact that at 10:21am eastern time, CNN still didn't know what hit the Pentagon is VERY odd (they reported a helicopter crash).

Housebroken Democrats

Fuck the entire lot of them.


More on this sentiment at Americablog.

I agree, we need Democratic heads to roll, because they are blowing it, HUGE.

Just Wondering...

who exactly are the terrorists here?

We Missed al-Zawahiri

Why am I not surprised?

Instead we killed eight men, five women and five children. And pissed off Pakistan.

Lamest War on Terror, EVER.

New Theory on What Happened with Flight 93

A new book from WingTV:

Flight 93 Hoax: SOLVED

Phantom Flight 93: The Shanksville-Flight 93 Hoax puts forth an extremely convincing argument that Flight 93 did not meet its demise in Shanksville, Pa. on the morning of September 11, 2001, but was instead shot down by U.S. military forces and subsequently crash landed in the rural hamlet of New Baltimore, Pa., 6-8 miles away from where the government alleges this event took place. Furthermore, to create a massive diversionary site to draw attention away from the actual wreckage in New Baltimore, a missile was fired into an abandoned strip mine in Shanksville, Pa. – the result of this ordnance blast being a 200-foot mushroom cloud and an 8-10 foot deep crater, but absolutely no airplane wreckage whatsoever. In other words, while the media’s attention was focused on Shanksville, the actual debris from Flight 93 was clandestinely being scuttled away from New Baltimore, Pa., which had been immediately cordoned-off by the FBI and local State Police.

As someone who has studied flight 93 extensively, I think this theory sounds plausible, though I am not convinced this is the whole story. I guess I will have to buy the book to completely evaluate their case.

Was AMEC Involved in the Demolition of WTC7?

A lot of interesting info here.

AMEC, a contracting/construction firm, has several intriguing connections to 9/11: they helped clean up at ground zero and they renovated the Pentagon (the area that was attacked). AMEC also has a contract for Iraq reconstruction.

Other pertinent info: Controlled Demolition, Inc. did a demolition of huge twin storage tanks near Manhattan in July 2001. Was it a test run for the twin towers? Also, Westfield Corproation, Silverstein's company, had contracts with all three airports where 9/11 hijackings took off (officially).

"Total 911 Info" has more on AMEC and WTC7.

I Truly Do Not Perceive a Nuclear Iran as a Threat

But I think this timeline by Atrios is about right.

The Iran scare is most likely a way for the Republicans to win voters in the upcoming 2006 elections.

Funny-- we haven't heard much about the massive threat posed by a nuclear North Korea lately. Maybe because they've already gone nuclear and there is nothing we can do about it?

The War on Terror Is Bogus, Part 2,301

The case of the disposable cell phones.

Bush Lies Again

NSA spying started on Americans by Bush's order-- PRIOR TO 9/11!!!!

The spying had NOTHING to do with catching terrorists-- exactly as I predicted.

Whistle-Blowing

If Bushco can do something like this to someone who speaks out about a polluting company, imagine what they would do to someone who really* blows the whistle on 9/11.

Which is why no one has really blown the whistle yet.


*As opposed to some fake limited hangout for 9/11.

Selling 9/11 as an "Inside Job"

Some tips and guidelines from 9/11 blogger.

It's hard to argue too much with the idea of staying away from some of the more controversial 9/11 theories if you're approaching someone for the first time.

As a practical matter though, I'm not sure you're going to sell the idea of a 9/11 conspiracy to a total stranger, so this all may be somewhat moot. The fact is, people will only accept the idea of 9/11 being an inside job when they are ready emotionally and intellectually. I don't think you can force it on anyone.

I agree that it is important to stay away from truly weird topics like UFOs, aliens, the Illuminati and so forth; they are an extraneous distraction, and I don't bring up these subjects on this blog.

9/11 OZ

An Australian 9/11 site.

The site links to this cool Pentagon analysis I haven't seen before. This needs some study.

Alito: Another Bork

God help us.

Fascism here we come.

Addendum-- you know, what really puzzles me is, why do the Republicans want to support judges who will give so much power and deference to the executive branch? Is that really what they want, even when a Democrat* is elected president? Or is Alito all about Roe v Wade for them? I just wonder what their rationalization is for his fascistic tendencies?


*Yes, it will happen again, likely soon.

Gerard Holmgren on 9/11 "Truth"

I was going to write up something along these lines, but I like the way Holmgren puts it here:

I'm starting to think that S11 was an even more audacious psy-op than any of us imagined. That the ultimate purpose was not so much to get people to believe the official story as such, but to plunge them into intellectual senility in the process of dealing with it. Of course, the middle ranking perps like Bush desperately need to people to believe the official story and he'll fight tooth an nail for that, but he's just a pawn in the game too. The people pulling his strings have just let him loose in the lions cage and they don't really care whether he wins or not. It's the trauma of the fight that's important.

I think it works this way. When I first got into S11 activism, I had a theory that there would be about 10% of the population who would automatically assume that the govt did it, even if they didn't have any evidence and about 10% who would never believe it, no matter how much evidence they got. That leaves 80% which are open to persuasion. About half of these would be easy to convince if they got good evidence. The other half would range from difficult to extremely stubborn, but not hopeless.

So I figured that if the 40% of the population who would be easy to convince got targeted with good info, that would give you 50% and from there, the weight of majority pressure would start wearing down the other 40% who were difficult but not completely closed.

I was dead wrong. It may have seemed like a sensible analysis in the pre-S11 world, but the event itself changed that. It gave people stark choices. The official story required either that one descended into total intellectual senility in order to still believe it (perhaps deliberately made ridiculous for that very purpose) or else that one keep ones intellect alive but destroy almost everything that one had previously believed about how society works.

If the real story had just been a kind of hover between LIHOP and criminal negligence as promoted by Ruppert, then people probably would have been able to fit that into their existing social models. So it wouldn't have had the destructive effect.

But the cartoon like nature of the script left no middle ground. Destroy all your social paradigms or destroy your intellect in defending them.

I naively expected that most people would choose to keep their intellect alive and shift their social paradigm in accordance with what the evidence told them. But the perps knew better. They were so confident that most people would rather trash their intellect in order to hang on to the basics of their political beliefs, that they deliberately gave them a story which required lunacy in the true sense of the word to believe.

It was a plot to drive the entire world insane, and completely destroy intellectual standards. Once this crack has been opened in the collective intellect, once people have openly and brazenly endorsed complete intellectual insanity for the purpose of hanging on to old paradigms, then the gate is open is to promote total insanity across the board.

So the official story challenges everyone. Those who can come to terms with LIHOP, then face the challenge of believing that no plane hit the pentagon and that the towers were demolished. Those who get past that face the challenge of remote controlled planes and non existent flights and faked passenger lists. Those who get past that face the challenge of it all just being a snuff movie-- no planes and the Naudet foreknowledge. Gradually, people fall away as it gets too much for them. Thus we see people like Brian Salter who were spot on through LIHOP and MIHOP-lite and then suddenly went completely insane, when pushed past his limit. Likewise Hufschmidt. Other people fell away earlier. But at whatever stage they fall away, there still remains a cartoon to believe in, one which they have to go insane to believe.

Once the insanity has been embraced, then the world can be flooded with any insanity they want and people have no intellectual capacity intact to deal with it.

So S11 itself is just a social and intellectual primer to set people up for whatever is next. Guilty govts are expendable in the process if the insanity takes the form of some kind of limited hangout 911-truth religion-- just as long as people can't think any more.

What I was going to write was how I am sure that 99% of this country believes the full truth hasn't come out about 9/11. But the vast majority think whatever is being hidden is being hidden to protect "national security"-- to not let the terrorists know what we know, or something ridiculous like that-- which never makes complete sense.

Certainly, most people have accepted there is something not quite right about the 9/11 story, but can't really deal with the implications or have conditioned themselves to simply accept some low-level of governmental complicity, no matter how monstrous even that prospect is. Most people just can't deal with the idea that the goverment is covering up it's own complicity in 9/11 (even though the US government and Bush administration in particular has so obviously benefited from 9/11).

For people who can question the government's involvement, then they have to deal with the outrageously ridiculous official story and decide how much of it they can jettison. As Holmgren points out, most people, even those who consider themselves 9/11 truth activists, want to cling to some aspect of the official story-- and can't seem to accept the idea that everything about that day was fake. Specifically, people can't seem to handle the idea that 9/11 was probably done without real planes, and the planes were all an illusion, video fakery and planted plane parts.

Personally, I have jumped the various hurdles of the official story, and I think it is most likely 9/11 was done without real planes: the crashes were an illusion, part of the massive psy-ops done on 9/11.

If you think about it, the easiest way to set-up a story about hijackers crashing planes into buildings is to only pretend there were hijackings and planes. All you need is one good set of videos showing a plane crashing into the WTC south tower, plant some bombs and plane parts, use some fake phone calls from terror drills, and you've saved yourself a lot of operational trouble. No need to worry about guiding planes to their targets, no need to worry about the Air Force intercepting the hijacked planes. No need to worry about plane debris too much if the "planes" all DISAPPEAR into their targets.

Is this really what happened?

I don't know, but after studying 9/11 for a year and a half, it is my best guess.

However exactly the "military operation" of 9/11 was carried out, the stunning thing is how so few public intellectuals even try to question the official 9/11 physical story.

This is what Holmgren refers to by "intellectual senility" and "intellectual insanity".

Matt Drudge Promoting 9/11 Conspiracies?

I heard a report that Drudge linked to 911 True Story.

I can't confirm, can anyone else?

Snake in the Grass

Alito, that is.

Everyone who cares about the future of democracy in this country should reject the Alito nomination.

Why LIHOP Equals MIHOP

"LIHOP" = "Let It Happen On Purpose"

"MIHOP" = "Make It Happen On Purpose"

If you read Paul Thompson's 9/11 timeline and the evidence presented by Mike Ruppert in "Crossing the Rubicon"*, the evidence is quite overwhelming that governmental authorities at some level knew "9/11 was coming".

The evidence for "LIHOP" is strong.

The important question that follows from this conclusion is this: if intelligence agencies knew a major attack was coming, but wanted an attack to succeed for political/geopolitical reasons, would they really let the attack proceed in an uncontrolled manner?

To me, it seems logical that the people in the US who wanted an attack to occur would really want to target it to suit their own purposes. Thus, they needed to be able to control the attacks. They wanted to be sure the WTC towers were destroyed, but they may not have wanted something like the Capitol building hit or the White House hit. They may not have wanted to take the chance that a nuclear plant or a chemical plant would be hit. They didn't want the part of the Pentagon where the top brass worked to be hit. However, they may have wanted to specifically take out the part of the Pentagon containing the Army accounting office, to cover-up financial misdeeds. They may have wanted to limit casualties to some extent (if the towers were attacked later in the day, when they were more full, thousands more could have died).

This is where "MIHOP" comes in.

This is where the 9/11 LIHOPers needed to control the attacks.

How would they control the attacks?

One way would be to fake the hijackings and fake the plane crashes. Lace the WTC towers with enough bombs to bring them down completely. The 19 hijackers could be mere patsies who met a nasty end somewhere. The 9/11 plane passengers could be a mixture of fake indentities, a la Operation Northwoods, with a few real people mixed in. The attacks could be done other ways, but you get the idea.

The point is LIHOP leads naturally to MIHOP.

Interestingly, if there is MIHOP, there will be telltale signs from the physical evidence of MIHOP. For instance, the odd nature of the hijackings and phone calls, the lack of air defenses, the general lack of plane parts at any crash site, and the rapid collapses of WTC1, 2 and 7. These are important pieces of physical evidence that support MIHOP.

Indeed, the it seems quite likely that even the '93 WTC attack was "MIHOP".

The Oklahoma City bombing in 1995 was also very likely MIHOP, but used white terrorist patsies instead of Islamic patsies.


Welcome to the sick and bizarre world of fake terror.

*Note, I do not endorse all of Ruppert's conclusions in the book, but the book is still a valuable source for pre-9/11 warnings.

The Dulles Security Video

I'm reposting because of its general weirdness and interest.

Moral Relativism

Lately I have had this sickening feeling in my stomach, where I feel like there is just no justice, like this world cannot even tell right and wrong anymore.

Most of the fault is the media and the so-called opposition party in this country.

Where is the outrage at the sheer bloody fascism of the Bush administration?

Where is the outrage at the lies, the murders, the killing of innocents? Are the people in power in this country simple at ease to let Bushco get away with it?

The so-called moral relativism of the "liberal" Clinton era is a pathetic joke in comparison to what has happened in the last five years.

And frankly, it nauseates me and many other millions in this country.

How have we lost our way so badly?

How can these extremists have hijacked our country like this?

These sick extremsits have taken the name of Christ to invade other countries and kill people.

What is so Christian about killing people?

After 9/11, wouldn't Christ have simply turned the other cheek?

Honestly, I wonder if this country knows what Christian values are, if this country knows right from wrong anymore.

This topsy-turvy moral relativism is making me nauseous.

9/11 Reality Scam

Cool flash show here.

A Must-See Video!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A clip from "The Lone-Gunman" show.

This pilot episode for a FOX TV series depicts a U.S. government plot to crash a hijacked Boeing into the WTC six months before 9/11.

More about the Lone Gunman show here.

Consider that shows like this use real FBI agents and Intelligence agents as consultants-- and try to tell me no one in the government anticipated 9/11.

The Proof That the Official 9/11 Story is a Gargantuan Lie

Gerard Holmgren does it best.

Of course, on the other end of the spectrum, are idiots like this:

A former Army Infantryman, I am a political junkie and passionate George W. Bush Supporter. I have reached the end of my tolerance for the absolutely criminal behavior of the Hysterical Left in this country. What the Left seems unwilling to grasp is this simple fact. No amount of money, peace vigals or encouter groups are going to keep them safe from people who are convinced their god wants all Americans dead. There are no ground for "peaceful coexistence" with the Islamic Terrorists. We have three choices, kill them, convert to Islam or die. Since I have no desire for the last two, the first is my choice.

Although, really, you only need one very simple "proof" that the official 9/11 story is a lie: the complete and utter failure of the Bush administration to go after and capture Osama bin Laden.

How to Spot COINTELPRO Agents

Long but worthwhile piece from Laura Knight Jadczyk. This is just a small part of it:

How To Spot a Spy

One way to neutralize a potential activist is to get them to be in a group that does all the wrong things. Why?

1) The message doesn't get out. 2) A lot of time is wasted 3) The activist is frustrated and discouraged 4) Nothing good is accomplished.

FBI and Police Informers and Infiltrators will infest any group and they have phoney activist organizations established.

Their purpose is to prevent any real movement for justice or eco-peace from developing in this country.

Agents come in small, medium or large. They can be of any ethnic background. They can be male or female.

The actual size of the group or movement being infiltrated is irrelevant. It is the potential the movement has for becoming large which brings on the spies and saboteurs.

This booklet lists tactics agents use to slow things down, foul things up, destroy the movement and keep tabs on activists.

It is the agent's job to keep the activist from quitting such a group, thus keeping him/her under control.

In some situations, to get control, the agent will tell the activist:

"You're dividing the movement."

[Here, I have added the psychological reasons as to WHY this maneuver works to control people]

This invites guilty feelings. Many people can be controlled by guilt. The agents begin relationships with activists behind a well-developed mask of "dedication to the cause." Because of their often declared dedication, (and actions designed to prove this), when they criticize the activist, he or she - being truly dedicated to the movement - becomes convinced that somehow, any issues are THEIR fault. This is because a truly dedicated person tends to believe that everyone has a conscience and that nobody would dissimulate and lie like that "on purpose." It's amazing how far agents can go in manipulating an activist because the activist will constantly make excuses for the agent who regularly declares their dedication to the cause. Even if they do, occasionally, suspect the agent, they will pull the wool over their own eyes by rationalizing: "they did that unconsciously... they didn't really mean it... I can help them by being forgiving and accepting " and so on and so forth.

The agent will tell the activist:

"You're a leader!"

This is designed to enhance the activist's self-esteem. His or her narcissistic admiration of his/her own activist/altruistic intentions increase as he or she identifies with and consciously admires the altruistic declarations of the agent which are deliberately set up to mirror those of the activist.

This is "malignant pseudoidentification." It is the process by which the agent consciously imitates or simulates a certain behavior to foster the activist's identification with him/her, thus increasing the activist's vulnerability to exploitation. The agent will simulate the more subtle self-concepts of the activist.

Activists and those who have altruistic self-concepts are most vulnerable to malignant pseudoidentification especially during work with the agent when the interaction includes matter relating to their competency, autonomy, or knowledge.

The goal of the agent is to increase the activist's general empathy for the agent through pseudo-identification with the activist's self-concepts.

The most common example of this is the agent who will compliment the activist for his competency or knowledge or value to the movement. On a more subtle level, the agent will simulate affects and mannerisms of the activist which promotes identification via mirroring and feelings of "twinship". It is not unheard of for activists, enamored by the perceived helpfulness and competence of a good agent, to find themselves considering ethical violations and perhaps, even illegal behavior, in the service of their agent/handler.

(snip)

The fact is, the movement doesn't need leaders, it needs MOVERS. "Follow the leader" is a waste of time.

A good agent will want to meet as often as possible. He or she will talk a lot and say little. One can expect an onslaught of long, unresolved discussions.

Some agents take on a pushy, arrogant, or defensive manner:

1) To disrupt the agenda 2) To side-track the discussion 3) To interrupt repeatedly 4) To feign ignorance 5) To make an unfounded accusation against a person.

Calling someone a racist, for example. This tactic is used to discredit a person in the eyes of all other group members.

Saboteurs

Some saboteurs pretend to be activists. She or he will ....

1) Write encyclopedic flyers (in the present day, websites) 2) Print flyers in English only. 3) Have demonstrations in places where no one cares. 4) Solicit funding from rich people instead of grass roots support 5) Display banners with too many words that are confusing. 6) Confuse issues. 7) Make the wrong demands. 8) Compromise the goal. 9) Have endless discussions that waste everyone's time. The agent may accompany the endless discussions with drinking, pot smoking or other amusement to slow down the activist's work.

Provocateurs

1) Want to establish "leaders" to set them up for a fall in order to stop the movement. 2) Suggest doing foolish, illegal things to get the activists in trouble. 3) Encourage militancy. 4) Want to taunt the authorities. 5) Attempt to make the activist compromise their values. 6) Attempt to instigate violence. Activisim ought to always be non-violent. 7) Attempt to provoke revolt among people who are ill-prepared to deal with the reaction of the authorities to such violence.

Informants

1) Want everyone to sign up and sing in and sign everything. 2) Ask a lot of questions (gathering data). 3) Want to know what events the activist is planning to attend. 4) Attempt to make the activist defend him or herself to identify his or her beliefs, goals, and level of committment.

Recruiting

Legitimate activists do not subject people to hours of persuasive dialog. Their actions, beliefs, and goals speak for themselves.

Groups that DO recruit are missionaries, military, and fake political parties or movements set up by agents.

Surveillance

ALWAYS assume that you are under surveillance.

At this point, if you are NOT under surveillance, you are not a very good activist!

Bringin' Freedom

American troops in Baghdad yesterday blasted their way into the home of an Iraqi journalist working for the London daily, The Guardian, and TV's Channel 4, firing bullets into the bedroom where he was sleeping with his wife and children.

Ali Fadhil, who two months ago won the Foreign Press Association young journalist of the year award, was hooded and taken for questioning, the newspaper reports. He was released hours later.

Fadhil is working with and the newspaper and Guardian Films "on an investigation for Channel 4's Dispatches programme into claims that tens of millions of dollars worth of Iraqi funds held by the Americans and British have been misused or misappropriated," the paper reports.

I'm sure what he was working on is just a coincidence, right?

Like We Should Really Trust Anything This Guy Says

The head of the National Security Agency told employees last month that NSA officials had not violated U.S. law by participating in an agency program that eavesdrops on U.S. citizens without judicial oversight, newly released documents show.

"Media coverage surmises that administration and agency officials may have acted unlawfully -- notions I reject, categorically!" NSA Director Lt. Gen. Keith Alexander assured agency employees in a December 22 message.

By the way, General Alexander, if you're reading this-- HI!

New 9/11 Sites

Jane Doe's site-- a new site just getting going; some good videos there.

Hybrideb on the WTC demolition, an extremely good resource for 9/11 demolition info and other aspects of 9/11. The rest of the site is cool too.

An Icelandic 9/11 site!

Juscogens.org on 9/11-- I don't know much about this site, but it looks interesting.

These are all put into the side links as well.

The Hare-Brained Scheme

If you are a terrorist ring-leader, you have about 19 men at your disposal, and you want to kill a lot of Americans and inflict heavy damage to America, what do you do?

Wouldn't you choose a plan that was most likely to succeed, and not overly dependent upon luck?

Would you really choose something like the 9/11 attacks?

Think how many things could have gone wrong (if we accept the official story):

1) your cell is infiltrated and busted up while you are still learning to fly airplanes, or some of you are arrested for some immigration violation (remember these guys were in the country for a while and didn't exactly keep a low profile!).

2) you miss you flight or some of your men miss their flights (and why exactly did Mohamed Atta risk missing flight 11 by flying into Boston from Portland, Maine just a few minutes before flight 11 was supposed to take off?).

3) you or some of your men get caught by security at the airport (keep in mind, several Arab men buying one-way tickets with cash for first class seats should have set off alarm bells).

4) you fail to take over the plane armed with only small knives and boxcutters (considering this hadn't been done before EVER, how would you know it would work at all?)

5) you can't pilot the plane well enough to hit the target (piloting a plane you've never flown before is not trivial!).

6) the hijacked plane gets intercepted by the Air Force (certainly this should have happened in principle).

7) you reach the target but don't hit the building properly and the plane crashes outside the building.

8) you hit the building, but the impact and fires do not cause collapse of the structures (after all, there was NO GUARANTEE that the plane crashes would take down the twin towers).

9) would you really take over a plane with only one-third of the normal number of passengers? Wouldn't you want to have more full planes to kill more people?

10) wouldn't you try to hit the world trade center later in the day when many thousands more people were at work? Yet this is not what happened.

11) wouldn't you try to take more direct paths to your targets and also flights from closer airports to the targets?

12) if you are hijacking flight 93, and the plane takes off 40 minutes late, wouldn't you try to hijack as soon as possible rather than wait another 30 minutes to start the hijacking?

13) wouldn't you try to hit the most occupied part of the Pentagon, with the most high-ranking generals (instead of a recently renovated and sparsely occupied wing of the Pentagon)?

The fact is, there were far too many uncertainties in the 9/11 plan for it to be a viable terror attack. What terror mastermind with any brain would try to carry out such an unlikely plan?

Realistically, you would only be killing a few hundred people and destroying four aircraft-- because there is no WAY you would count on the airplanes taking down the twin towers (which is where most people on 9/11 died). But with 19 men, aren't there OTHER MUCH MORE sure-fire ways to kill hundreds of unsuspecting civilians?

The fact is, the only way 9/11 makes sense is as a completely rigged up job meant as a distraction or diversion from the actual bombing of the WTC towers. And the Pentagon attack really makes little sense except as a way to rile up the military (and perhaps to take out the Army accounting office).

One of the More Interesting Blog Posts I've Ever Encountered

You should probably read the whole thing to get the full context, but here is the juicy part:

It seems that it is common knowledge in these circles that Russian satellites photographed a ship-launched craft (seems to have been a drone type plane rather than a missle) that ended up impacting the Pentagon on Sept 11, 2001, and that, for various reasons this information has been withheld from the public.

I was naturally startled to hear this even though I have long held the opinion that it was NOT a commercial jetliner that hit the Pentagon. I think the thing that startled me was the fact that, if Russia (and perhaps other countries with satellites?) had proof that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon, why weren't they revealing this?

It was explained to me that during part of the time George Bush was "incommunicado" on September 11, 2001, he was on the phone to Putin "negotiating." That was a polite way of saying "blackmailing." Apparently, Bush, by way of MOSSAD and/or the CIA had enough goods on Vlad to keep him silent.

Now THAT explains why Putin has not responded publicly to the rather obnoxious criticisms of Russia made by Bush and Condi Rice.

In any event, it was explained to me further that these satellite photos HAD been revealed to Thierry Meyssan who was asked by either French or Russian intell to write his book "Pentagate" to "leak" the info that Flight 77 did not hit the Pentagon. His instructions were, apparently, that he had to "make the case" without recourse to official backing; he couldn't refer to the satellite photos.

Well, suddenly, a LOT of things began to make sense.

The Pentagon. Yes, I must say I have long been suspicious of what happened there, and wondered how a 757 fuselage produced this hole and also completely passed through it:


Killtown has more on the unusual damage done to the Pentagon on 9/11.