Wednesday, May 31, 2006
DEMS Covered Up The Deep Complicity In The 9/11/01Attack
No Freedom of Speech for 9/11 Whistle-Blowers0 comments
Tuesday, May 30, 2006
It Fits!!!!! (NOT)
The final NIST diagram superimposing a 767 over the WTC2 hole, where NOW the plane fits perfectly:
Wow, those NIST guys are GOOOOD!
So, the question of course is: has NIST changed the hole shape and dimensions fairly significantly from the FEMA hole?
Here are two photos of the hole:
My inspection of the photos says that...er... it's really hard to tell what diagram is more accurate, in terms of the hole.
However, what clearly seems to be the case is that somehow, NIST got the engines to align with the holes better. So let's look at the engines more carefully.
Interestingly, the FEMA diagram has the engines spaced just about 5 sets of columns (3 columns per set) apart, whereas the NIST diagram has the engines only 4.5 sets of columns apart.
Now, we know how big these column sets are (9.9 feet wide per group of three), and we also know how far apart the engines on a 767 are (I calculate 51 feet)-- so we can readily check which diagram is more accurate.
As it turns out the NIST engine spacing is better, as the ratio of five sets of columns to the NIST engine spacing is 1.1 (should be 1.0), whereas it is a larger ratio for the FEMA model (1.2).
So this explains why the NIST engines fit better. NIST also has a higher bank angle than the FEMA diagram, for reasons that are not entirely clear. NIST also doesn't line up the port wing with the gash very well, and you can see why: if they moved the port wing up to line up with the gash, then the fuselage would be blocked significantly. I suppose official story supporters could argue the port wing was flexed upwards from the turn, although I have not seen any photos of the plane right before it hit that show such a strong wing flexing.
The bottom line is, there are still significant problems with even the NIST alignment:
1) the port wing doesn't line up with the gash in the wall
2) there is no way the port horizontal stabilizer could have gone into the building without breaking off (it's completely blocked by columns)-- but no such thing is shown in any video of the plane hitting
3) it is not clear what happened to the tips of the wings, since they do not break off in the videos, but the columns where the wingtips hit are not severed.
4) the entry hole is blocked by a large amount of debris that would appear to block the path of the plane. It's very hard to believe the plane would push this debris aside upon entry, then this debris would get pushed back into the hole after disintegration of the plane, without any part of the plane also getting pushed back into the hole.
This is on top of other problems with the second hit:
1) the plane in the videos does not slow upon impacting,
2) the various videos of the second plane have a large number of serious anomalies,
3) no black boxes were found,
4) very few if any plane parts were found in the WTC wreckage.
So, apart from the videos of the plane, this strange hole in the building and a few plane parts that may well have been planted on the streets, what IS the evidence that a plane hit the South tower?
NOTE: my initial calculations on the NIST engine fit were flawed and have been removed.
Monday, May 29, 2006
"War Is a Racket"
WAR is a racket. It always has been.
It is possibly the oldest, easily the most profitable, surely the most vicious. It is the only one international in scope. It is the only one in which the profits are reckoned in dollars and the losses in lives.
A racket is best described, I believe, as something that is not what it seems to the majority of the people. Only a small "inside" group knows what it is about. It is conducted for the benefit of the very few, at the expense of the very many. Out of war a few people make huge fortunes.
In the World War [I] a mere handful garnered the profits of the conflict. At least 21,000 new millionaires and billionaires were made in the United States during the World War. That many admitted their huge blood gains in their income tax returns. How many other war millionaires falsified their tax returns no one knows.
How many of these war millionaires shouldered a rifle? How many of them dug a trench? How many of them knew what it meant to go hungry in a rat-infested dug-out? How many of them spent sleepless, frightened nights, ducking shells and shrapnel and machine gun bullets? How many of them parried a bayonet thrust of an enemy? How many of them were wounded or killed in battle?
Out of war nations acquire additional territory, if they are victorious. They just take it. This newly acquired territory promptly is exploited by the few -- the selfsame few who wrung dollars out of blood in the war. The general public shoulders the bill.
And what is this bill?
This bill renders a horrible accounting. Newly placed gravestones. Mangled bodies. Shattered minds. Broken hearts and homes. Economic instability. Depression and all its attendant miseries. Back-breaking taxation for generations and generations.
For a great many years, as a soldier, I had a suspicion that war was a racket; not until I retired to civil life did I fully realize it. Now that I see the international war clouds gathering, as they are today, I must face it and speak out.
Again they are choosing sides. France and Russia met and agreed to stand side by side. Italy and Austria hurried to make a similar agreement. Poland and Germany cast sheep's eyes at each other, forgetting for the nonce, their dispute over the Polish Corridor.
The assassination of King Alexander of Jugoslavia complicated matters. Jugoslavia and Hungary, long bitter enemies, were almost at each other's throats. Italy was ready to jump in. But France was waiting. So was Czechoslovakia. All of them are looking ahead to war. Not the people -- not those who fight and pay and die -- only those who foment wars and remain safely at home to profit.
There are 40,000,000 men under arms in the world today, and our statesmen and diplomats have the temerity to say that war is not in the making.
Hell's bells! Are these 40,000,000 men being trained to be dancers?
Not in Italy, to be sure. Premier Mussolini knows what they are being trained for. He, at least, is frank enough to speak out. Only the other day, Il Duce in "International Conciliation," the publication of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, said:
"And above all, Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace... War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the people who have the courage to meet it."
Undoubtedly Mussolini means exactly what he says. His well-trained army, his great fleet of planes, and even his navy are ready for war -- anxious for it, apparently. His recent stand at the side of Hungary in the latter's dispute with Jugoslavia showed that. And the hurried mobilization of his troops on the Austrian border after the assassination of Dollfuss showed it too. There are others in Europe too whose sabre rattling presages war, sooner or later.
Herr Hitler, with his rearming Germany and his constant demands for more and more arms, is an equal if not greater menace to peace. France only recently increased the term of military service for its youth from a year to eighteen months.
Yes, all over, nations are camping in their arms. The mad dogs of Europe are on the loose. In the Orient the maneuvering is more adroit. Back in 1904, when Russia and Japan fought, we kicked out our old friends the Russians and backed Japan. Then our very generous international bankers were financing Japan. Now the trend is to poison us against the Japanese. What does the "open door" policy to China mean to us? Our trade with China is about $90,000,000 a year. Or the Philippine Islands? We have spent about $600,000,000 in the Philippines in thirty-five years and we (our bankers and industrialists and speculators) have private investments there of less than $200,000,000.
Then, to save that China trade of about $90,000,000, or to protect these private investments of less than $200,000,000 in the Philippines, we would be all stirred up to hate Japan and go to war -- a war that might well cost us tens of billions of dollars, hundreds of thousands of lives of Americans, and many more hundreds of thousands of physically maimed and mentally unbalanced men.
Of course, for this loss, there would be a compensating profit � fortunes would be made. Millions and billions of dollars would be piled up. By a few. Munitions makers. Bankers. Ship builders. Manufacturers. Meat packers. Speculators. They would fare well.
Yes, they are getting ready for another war. Why shouldn't they? It pays high dividends.
But what does it profit the men who are killed? What does it profit their mothers and sisters, their wives and their sweethearts? What does it profit their children?
What does it profit anyone except the very few to whom war means huge profits?
Yes, and what does it profit the nation?
Take our own case. Until 1898 we didn't own a bit of territory outside the mainland of North America. At that time our national debt was a little more than $1,000,000,000. Then we became "internationally minded." We forgot, or shunted aside, the advice of the Father of our country. We forgot George Washington's warning about "entangling alliances." We went to war. We acquired outside territory. At the end of the World War period, as a direct result of our fiddling in international affairs, our national debt had jumped to over $25,000,000,000. Our total favorable trade balance during the twenty-five-year period was about $24,000,000,000. Therefore, on a purely bookkeeping basis, we ran a little behind year for year, and that foreign trade might well have been ours without the wars.
It would have been far cheaper (not to say safer) for the average American who pays the bills to stay out of foreign entanglements. For a very few this racket, like bootlegging and other underworld rackets, brings fancy profits, but the cost of operations is always transferred to the people -- who do not profit.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
The National 9/11 Debate
Our Soldiers Died for This?
Are Bush, Cheney, Rice and Rumsfeld even aware of what they have done?
It Is Not Only the 9/11 Physical Evidence that is Bizarre
These are all hard facts that simply destroy the official story. For instance, in many cases, we simply do not know who the actual hijacker was! For such an important event, how can the government possibly justify this?
Here's the overview compilation for each hijacker.
Saturday, May 27, 2006
The Media Defines All
The defining issue of our time is not the Iraq war. It is not the "global war on terror." It is not our inability (or unwillingness) to ensure that all Americans have access to affordable health care. Nor is it immigration, outsourcing, or growing income inequity. It is not education, it is not global warming, and it is not Social Security.
The defining issue of our time is the media.
The dominant political force of our time is not Karl Rove or the Christian Right or Bill Clinton. It is not the ruthlessness or the tactical and strategic superiority of the Republicans, and it is not your favorite theory about what is wrong with the Democrats.
The dominant political force of our time is the media.
Although this piece was written about how the media covers conventional politics, I think this idea of the media being central to everything is just as important for 9/11.
Mainstream media coverage defines EVERYTHING, though clearly the internet changes the equation somewhat. But the media could have blown 9/11 apart LONG AGO, if they wished. Instead they have become complicit in 9/11, and there is even reason to think that they were part of the hoax from day one.
Keep that in mind when you read this piece of crap from the Wash. Post.
Friday, May 26, 2006
"I got the sense that part of the reason that I was being told of what was going on was that the people in counter-terrorism were trying to get the word to the president or the senior officials through the press, because they were not able to get listened to themselves," she explained.Sounds like Richard Clarke.
While it's hard to know the whole backstory here, what is clear is that there were LOTS and LOTS and LOTS and LOTS of warnings (just read some of Paul Thompson's research or his book) about a big attack prior to 9/11, and the Bush administration steadfastly, amazingly, shockingly and criminally refused to do anything of substance.
The only explanation is they knew something was going to happen and did not want to stop it because it suited their own ends (or they even planned something happening).
Incompetence simply doesn't explain what happened.
Neither does the rationale that they tried to do everything they could. Anyone who pulls that one should be laughed out of the room.
"F.U.B.A.R." is a military acronym that means FUCKED UP BEYOND ALL RECOGNITION. It is the authors' contention that the country has been fucked up. But more than just the general "boy, things are really fucked up" feeling that most Americans have when watching the news or rolling their eyes at the "more- 'partisan-bickering' -by- those- Washington- politicians" tone the media takes with any story about politics. This is a different kind of fucked up--one that's making America unrecognizable as the America most Americans feel they know.
Top Ten Signs of the Impending U.S. Police State
2) "The Long War"
3) The USA Patriot Act
4) Prison Camps being built
5) Touchscreen Voting Machines
6) Bush's signing statements
7) Warrantless wiretapping
8) "Free Speech Zones"
9) High-ranking whistleblowers denouncing the Bush administration
10) the CIA shake-up
From here, with more explanation.
I am honestly an optimist by nature. I highly doubt there will be a full-blown police-state in the near future. But these are clearly worrisome developments, and it is better to be aware of the possibilities here. I think what can be said with some certainty is that the authorities are setting the stage for a police state, to deploy it if need be in the future.
"The Long War" meme is one that personally bothers me a great deal, particularly since the enemy is so clearly bogus.
P.S. the FBI raid on a Congressman's office, something that has never happened before in our nations' history, is a rather disturbing addition to this trend, and hints at serious executive over-reach. And I am in no way defending the crimes the Congressman appears to have committed. Some interesting thoughts on the FBI's hsitory and actions here.
Thursday, May 25, 2006
The ABC/CNN/FOX Second Hit "Live Shot": Scene Sequence
View of the burning North tower from a helicopter:
Zooming in on North tower, the copter also moves north, South tower starts to get hidden by North tower:
Now a close-up on the North tower:
Now, the South tower is completely hidden by the North tower. Was this intentional positioning?
Oh my god! A plane veers into view!
(in actuality, the chopper should have seen the plane coming from a way off, yet the camera never moves, the plane just pops into the field)
Oh, that's boring, let's cut back to the North tower burning:
D'oh! There's an explosion, let's cut back!
A little strange, overall. The biggest tip-off to weirdness is how we never see the plane hit the tower, but only a plane come into view, then a cut away, then apparently the South tower explodes.
Keep in mind this was the only "live" shot of the event, and the feed was carried by the three networks, ABC/CNN/FOX.
Given that at least 30 videos cameras (supposedly) caught the plane hitting the South tower-- what are the odds the one "live shot" would not really show this at all?
Bizarre Video of the South Tower, Right After the Hit
The intense repeated bursts of smoke seem fairly real.
New Pentagon Video Analysis!
New Pentagon Video Analysis!
Actually, it's quite a nice piece, with some good info on video processing...
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
About Those Government-Run Prison Camps
A Better Comparison
1) why is this thing so dark when the sun should be shining right on it?
2) assuming the white stuff is exhaust or jet-trail, why would a 757 flying a ground level produce such dense exhaust?
3) if this is a plane, shouldn't it be damaged from hitting the light-poles and therefore be trailing flames?
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
A New Pentagon Mystery
See the plane? It's that white thing, right?
Let's look a little more closely at that area:
Here's the analogous crop and blow-up from a frame before the "plane" arrives:
What is this purple and white thing? It is sort of plane-like, and the white stuff could be smoke coming from it-- but the relation between the two doesn't fit a plane trailing smoke:
Is this purple and white object just Pentagon artwork?
Or is this the attack plane/flight 77 that no one else is seeing?
Whatever it is, it is just "plane" bizarre.
One Last Point Regarding "Pinch"
What IS THE DEAL with right-wingers and their fascist fantasies about jailing reporters and rounding up and detaining dissenters?
Why does this give them the jollies so much?
All I have ever wanted from the government is the truth. I have never advocated ANY violence or extreme measures (though I contemplated a hunger strike at one point).
What is more American:
Wanting the truth?
Or covering up the truth and jailing dissenters?
The Schizophrenia of "Pinch"
There is just so much bullshit to unpack here. But I find "Pinch"'s schizophrenia most amusing.
First off, I am completely convinced of your gullibility - *anything* that even remotely resembles your agenda is embraced and championed. The fact that the confusion and uncertainty and simple fog of events on Sept 11, 2001 resulted in myriad false alarms across the country and even in countries around the world means nothing to your warped little conspiracy-laced mind - bomb in the building? Yeah!
I spend so much time here writing cute comments and trying you with my witticisms because you are such a classic - a veritable caricature of the lefty-wacko-moonbat web page. That and if I said the things I say here on DU I'd get tombstoned in a heartbeat. I fully expect one day you may block me, which will speak volumes about the wacked-out left and their inability to handle dissent, but we'll deal with that when it happens.
Speaking of dissent, without getting *too* much into my trip to Fort Worth, suffice it to say that the base there has one of the facilities listed in a number of web sites that could (*could*, mind you - still working out details) be used by FEMA and other organizations.
I'm sure you are familiar with it, but if you look at http://utah.indymedia.org/news/2003/07/5561.php
you'll have a better idea at what we are doing/working on.
I am authorized to speak in a limited manner about this program in an outreach attempt to try and minimize the overall numbers of potential incarcerations should that eventuality become necessary. We all want to avoid such drastic measures, but the welfare of the nation must be taken into account and we simply cannot allow spurious and /or coordinated resistance to our plans to be implemented.
*rubs hands together.....*
Our plans are coming to fruition!
And for the Rob-bot, our Joint Executive Order with the new Harper government regarding a secret open-borders enforcement program will allow us to make sure you enjoy the hospitality of our facilities, as well.
Ha, James....I comment on specific posts when the moonbat-o-meter reaches a certain percentage. True, that is just about every one, but some of us have a life and I cannot spend every waking moment commenting on moonbat buffoonery.
See, on the one hand, I am wacked-out AND gullible (bad combination there, apparently) to think that there was any sort of government conspiracy about 9/11. But on the other hand, Pinch really IS involved in the conspiracy that I am so gullible to believe in-- or something like that. (Or Pinch likes to draw out really elaborate fantasies)
Keep in mind that I drew absolutely NO CONCLUSIONS about the video in the original post with a fireman saying there was a bomb-- I merely pointed out the video's existence. Yet somehow the fact that I even linked to the video shows I am gullible and wacked out.
In Pinch's world, apparently, all wacked out people who believe 9/11 was a government conspiracy should be locked away in government detention camps, because of course the official 9/11 story is completely true and George W. Bush is the greatest and most honorable president this country has ever had. They HAVE to lock up crazed lefty moonbats for the good of the country, because these crazy moonbats have all these wild crazy stories that no one believes, but they are still so DANGEROUS!!!!!!*
You know what? In my world, I live in a nice suburban neighborhood with my family. I have been married 15 years to my wife. We have two cars and we have to drive around too much, but we have no choice. I have a vegetable garden. I worry about how green my lawn is. I practice baseball with my son who plays in little league. I do laundry on the weekends, while my wife goes shopping, because we both work during the week and there is no time to do these things during the week. I constantly have to fix things around the house. I like to watch sports on TV. I worry about my weight. Et cetera. The bottom line is that I live a fairly normal middle-class life, one that is relatively pleasant but also hard work. HOWEVER, I also worry about my country and about politics, because it is my duty as an American citizen to pay attention to these things. And I especially worry what happened on 9/11, because the whole day was just too strange and horrible, and it the day was used to justify too many things I think are wrong.
So all this goes to say: Pinch, whatever your real story is, you are one sorry motherfucker.
*Of course Pinch will say he's just joking. Isn't he hilarious? I love jokes about locking non-violent citizens in concentration camps!
P.S. Why does Pinch think Rob is Canadian?
Monday, May 22, 2006
While I Do Think It Is Silly to Draw Absolute Conclusions from Much of the 9/11 Physical Evidence
Why WOULDN'T an investigator want to look at ALL the evidence?
To top it off, the people who say to avoid the physical evidence are almost always the people who accuse researchers like me of being "disinfo agents"!
Can you say, "projection"?
And brother, does this guy try just a bit too hard to disprove the no-plane theory, or what?
CNN's Jamie McIntyre:
Interestingly, he says, there are 80 other videotapes of the Pentagon attack, and though most probably are not very informative, one videotape from the roof a hotel may have captured the plane. CNN is trying to get them, he says.
P.S. I love how he shows a picture of a large piece of cracked glass on the Pentagon lawn, and claims it is part of the glass from the cockpit of the plane. Do these guys ever even think about what they are saying?
Sunday, May 21, 2006
The 2nd View That CNN Showed of the 2nd Hit
Saturday, May 20, 2006
Journalists Have Amazing Powers of Observation
Mike Adams has more on this phenomenon.
It is worth pointing out, that if you watch the CNN footage from the morning of 9/11, there was a great deal of confusion about what happened at the Pentagon. The story that an airplane hit the building wasn't reported for more than half an hour after when the Pentagon was officially to have been attacked. Interestingly, the first reports from the Pentagon were just of fire then there was a report of a helicopter crash.
Thursday, May 18, 2006
The Incredible Shrinking Plane
I thought initially the video showed the second plane coming from the west, or possibly from the west-southwest (WSW).
I took three screen captures from this video, and also noted how the plane never appeared to change size as it approached the WTC.
In order to quantitate this observation more carefully, I counted the pixels that made up the plane and counted the pixels that made up the WTC North tower.
What I found, was somewhat surprising.
The ratio of the plane to WTC1 in the first capture is 1:4.0
The ratio of the plane to WTC1 in the second capture is 1:4.0
The ratio of the plane to WTC1 in the third capture is 1:4.8
In other words, the plane appears to be getting SMALLER as it approaches the WTC.
This would mean the plane is flyng to the WTC in a southeast direction, and must make a 90 degree last minute turn to hit the south face of the south tower. This path for the 2nd plane clearly conflicts with several other videos of the 2nd plane flying to the south tower!
Basically, this video is a fake. Plain and simple.
But here is the real kicker:
IF THE PLANE THEY SHOW HERE IS FAKE, WHERE IS THE REAL PLANE??? They show the building explode. What causes it? Where is the real plane coming from?
WHERE IS UA175???
Finally, if some videos showed the real plane, why would they need to fake this video?
The Object in the New Pentagon Video Is Coming In at the Wrong Angle
The object in the video needs to go in a straight path to hit where it is supposed to hit:
But here's the path the object appears to be taking (which goes to the wrong place):
I've marked where the object should come from according to the official flight path (and we should see more of the plane, I think):
Wednesday, May 17, 2006
What exactly ARE right-wing Republicans upset about?
That people are coming here and performing cheap unskilled labor?
Are conservatives really threatened by that?
Or are they upset that illegal immigrants pay taxes but don't get as many services as citizens?
I don't get it.
A Murder Every Hour in Basra
Dear god, what have we done?
Instead they have released these crappy videos which show nothing.
Who the heck knows what this white protrusion is seen in one frame. Cruise missile? Photoshop art? Strangely malformed nose of a Boeing 757? Who can tell?
The Pentagon/DOJ/USG HAD to know that this video release would spark more questions than it answered. So why did they do it?
Was this really the BEST evidence they had?
Did they really want to perpetuate the honey pot myth to keep conspiracy theorists going and then later show the REAL evidence for flight 77??
Or is this some sort of weird official admission that the Pentagon hit was fishy??
I guess I prefer the latter explanation, since I can't see how a flight that never took off on 9/11 (and maybe never even existed) could hit the Pentagon. Plus, the fact that the approach path the huge Boeing took is almost certainly physically impossible at 500+ mph.
Could I Be One of These People?
9/11 on YouTube
This one is kind of good (though nothing new).
There are other interesting ones on the sidebar.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
The "New" Pentagon Video
The thing shown in the second video looks nothing like the front of a Boeing 757 (though I'm sure some will maintain this is the front of a Boeing 757):
But mostly, somehow I think that us conspiracy theorists are not going to be proven wrong here.
This evidence is lame.
Videos can be seen here.
Question of the Day
In other words, FORGET about New York City, forget about hijackers, forget about "eyewitnesses" and just think about the "crash" scenes at the Pentagon and at Shanksville. Are either of these crash sites believable on their own?
Monday, May 15, 2006
Using the US Military4 comments
Bogdan Dzakovic1 comments
Sunday, May 14, 2006
I know many in the 9/11 "truth movement" just wish the no-planers would go away, as we give a bad, crazy association to "real" 9/11 truth. And even more, many in the 9/11 "truth movement" believe the no-planers are active disinfo artists, paid government shills, meant to disrupt true 9/11 activists.
In fact, I am a private citizen who just wants to know the truth about 9/11. I want to know exactly what happened that day, and specifically I want to know: if 9/11 was an inside job-- how was it set up? It simply is not enough for me to say, "oh, they used patsies for the hijackers, remote control planes and distracted the air defenses with war games". I have been down that road. If you read my archives from when I started this blog, you can see it for yourself. Early on, I bought into the whole "let's ignore all 9/11 physical evidence" meme-- big time. I even wrote a couple of posts early on saying how 9/11 activists shouldn't talk about no-plane hitting the Pentagon, because that makes us look bad.
But you know what? I started looking at the physical evidence. The towers looked like they were blown up. And the Pentagon hit started looking very strange. Then I started looking at the flight 93 crash site-- and that was even stranger. And then it looked to me like no planes crashed at the Pentagon or at Shanksville, though someone tried to make it look like planes did crash. But they could only fake so much. Then the question arose: if there were no planes at the Pentagon or at Shanksville, is it possible they didn't use planes for the WTC either? Then I started looking at the footage of "UA175" melting into the south tower, and it really didn't seem quite right to me.
Finally, I also began to wonder why so many 9/11 "truth" people were telling me NOT to look at the physical evidence when it was so compelling and clearly bizarre!
So-- my nagging feeling is that there is something VERY important about the no-plane theory that deserves attention. I don't want to force it down anyone's throat, but I think it also should be looked at by all 9/11 activists with an open mind.
The evidence for there being no planes is a cumulative argument, without any one 100% infallible piece of evidence. This is much like the whole idea of 9/11 being an "inside job"-- it doesn't rest on one rock-solid piece of evidence, but rather it rests on many official parts of the 9/11 story being improbable, and that these add up to a highly unbelievable official story. 9/11 being an "inside job" is a bit of a gestalt, really. If one can handle the 9/11 "inside job" gestalt, than handling the no-plane theory should not be a big problem.
In any case, it is worth periodically going over the reasons for the no-plane theory, if nothing else than for my own sanity.
9/11 facts that support the no-plane theory*:
1) the one "live" shot of "UA175" flying to the South tower, shown from the same feed by three different networks (ABC, CNN, Fox), was discontinuous with the explosion. Moreover, the south tower was not even seen directly as it was blocked by the north tower. All in all, very suspicious footage
2) the second shot of the south tower hit shown by CNN showed only an explosion, no plane. The area on the screen where the plane should have been was blocked by the CNN news "crawl". Also very suspicious footage.
3) several eye-witnesses saw the south tower explode, and were in a location where they could have seen the plane, but didn't see a plane.
4) several eye-witnesses spoke of missiles or a missile hitting the south tower instead of a plane.
5) the plane-shaped holes in the WTC towers (and in Shanksville and to a lesser degree the Pentagon) are not physically plausible for real plane crashes-- the holes look as though the perpetrators were simply trying to make it APPEAR as though planes crashed in the buildings and on the ground.
6) several videos of the south tower hit show the plane sliding into the tower without slowing, without exploding upon contact, without any part breaking off-- with even the freaking wingtips gliding through thick steel columns!
7) there are many video anomalies in the videos of the second hit-- the plane is deformed, there are obvious "pods", there are conflicting plane paths between videos, the videos have anomalous, often dark, coloration, etc. This all casts doubt on a real plane being in the videos.
8) evidence for planes at the Pentagon and Shanksville is weak; people initially at both scenes said there was no evidence of a plane crash, etc.
9) flight 11 and flight 77 officially did not take off according to the BTS database.
10) no black boxes were found at ground zero (officially).
11) almost no plane parts were found in the WTC rubble that was SIFTED for human remains.
9/11 concepts that are consistent with the no-plane theory:
1) the lack of air defense is best explained by a lack of any real planes to intercept-- this would have been the best way to insure no awkward air force interception of a hijacked plane.
2) the big lie that no planes were used would be a very effective tool for insuring the truth never came out, as it would sound too crazy.
3) if 9/11 was an inside set-up, not using planes is technically easier, in terms of not having to deal with moving large aircraft around and piloting them precisely and not having to deal with live hijacking situations-- they only needed to plant the plane meme and plant some parts.
4) some plane parts laying in the street or on the ground seem implausible and appear to be planted-- but parts would not need to be planted if real planes were used, would they?
5) there appear to be TOO many videos of the second hit. I have counted 30 of them and there may be more. This is of a highly transient event that could only be seen from certain angles and was completely UNEXPECTED (in principle that is!).
6) videos of the second hit were played over and over and over on TV, as if they were trying to reinforce the plane meme.
7) it is unlikely amateur pilot terrorists could have piloted planes so effectively, but remote control does not make sense for how UA175 behaved in the videos, with the last minute turn right before hitting.
8) the origin of most 2nd hit videos is very obscure-- but in some cases, they came from known computer animators.
*I am not going to list links but they are available upon request
I Would Love an Explanation for...
Or, put another way, the flight path indicates the plane is going due east (west to east), and that would fit with the fact the plane size never changes-- except that the plane profile appears to show that the plane is coming TOWARDS the camera (and also a due east path contradicts other "UA175" videos).
How can this be?
This site has broken down the first few frames of this particular video, the part where the plane suddenly appears.
The plane behaves a little more normally in this sequence-- starting as a small smudge and getting bigger... except once it finally emerges out of the blue, the freakin' plane NEVER GETS BIGGER!
Traitors in the White House
Ex-CIA Director Porter Goss should not be allowed to "escape into retirement unexamined," Rich argues, calling him "so inept that an overzealous witch hunter might mistake him for a Qaida double agent."
It was under General Hayden, a self-styled electronic surveillance whiz, that the N.S.A. intercepted actual Qaeda messages on Sept. 10, 2001 ("Tomorrow is zero hour" for one) and failed to translate them until Sept. 12. That same fateful summer, General Hayden's N.S.A. also failed to recognize that "some of the terrorists had set up shop literally under its nose," as the national-security authority James Bamford wrote in The Washington Post in 2002. The Qaeda cell that hijacked American Flight 77 and plowed into the Pentagon was based in the same town, Laurel, Md., as the N.S.A., and "for months, the terrorists and the N.S.A. employees exercised in some of the same local health clubs and shopped in the same grocery stores."
If Democrats (and, for that matter, Republicans) let a president with a Nixonesque approval rating install yet another second-rate sycophant at yet another security agency, even one as diminished as the C.I.A., someone should charge those senators with treason, too.
Sounds like someone is mad as hell and is not going to be taking it anymore!
By the way, isn't "zero hour" more of a military expression than a term jihadists would use?
Saturday, May 13, 2006
Reconciling Plane Paths
Here are screenshots of the two videos--
the Japanese video from the west:
the Detroit Public TV video from the north:
Notice in the Japanese video, how the plane doesn't really change in size from beginning to end, suggesting the camera is near perpendicular to the plane path. Moreover, the "plane" length (160ft) is close to the width of the WTC (208 ft), again suggesting the plane is being viewed from the side.
Notice, in the Detroit Public TV video, again, the plane size barely changes as it moves closer, suggesting the camera is near perpendicular to the plane path. Although, truly, this makes little sense, as the profile of the plane is about a 3/4 view, meaning the plane is coming in at a 45 degree angle, and SHOULD be getting bigger as it approaches. Even in the rest of the video, as the plane moves closer to the WTC, it never gets much bigger, which would seem to defy perspective:
(the reason this looks different from above is because it was from a different video capture; see original linked post for links to the videos)
Here is a map of Manhattan:
The Empire State Building is in green, the WTC is in the cluster of four red markers near the top. (sorry, the map is upside down but it is in the same orientation as the maps below)
I've done some more analysis on these videos, and still think the paths are different, though it is not as black-and-white as I originally thought...
Here are the maps I've produced of the two different paths:
Note, as of 5/18/06, this map has been revised. See updated version of this map here.
The plane path in the Japanese video cannot be absolutely determined, though I think since the plane size doesn't change at all from beginning to end, that the plane path is essentially perpendicular to the camera.
The plane in the Empire State Building video makes little sense, but as best I can determine, it is coming WSW (though possibly it is even coming straight from the West).
The Japanese plane appears to be coming either S, SSW or SW.
I have honestly tried to match the plane paths as well as possible. Still, my analysis shows there is a significant but subtle difference in the plane paths.
Moreover, the plane in the Empire State Building video appears to defy normal perspective. I think this video HAS to be fake, for the following reasons:
1) the plane suddenly appears, pops out of nowhere, in the video
2) the plane by its shape, would appear to be coming from the SW, but it never changes size as it travels closer to the camera
3) the plane path is essentially coming from the west, yet this does not fit with any known approach path or the aspect of the plane.
(note, this post was modified slightly on 5/14/06, am)
In All Honesty
Even if you believe there are Al Qaeda cells hiding out in the US that are waiting to attack-- who really believes the usefulness of this massive data trolling program in finding terrorists outweighs its potential for abuse?
What are the odds of finding ANYTHING useful with this program without a tremendous illegal invasion of privacy?
And WHO really trusts ANY political administration with this data?
If you're as outraged as I am about this, please contact your senators and representatives about it NOW.
Friday, May 12, 2006
It's beautiful aerial views of the WTC before 9/11.
Look how the buildings tower over lower Manhattan.
Think how strong those towers must have been.
Imagine what it would have taken to bring down those towers.
Would airplane crashes and some jet fuel really be enough?
Look at the video.
To your conspiracy theory, think about this: would Silverstein Properties have ever been awarded by the Federal and State governments the wonderful task of rebuilding the most important real estate project in New York City's history if we acted improper in ANY way? Think about it.
No, I guess not.
But what exactly does "if we acted improper" mean?
Does this mean telling the truth? :)
I also like how Roger says the steel from WTC7 "melted and buckle(d)" from the diesel fuel fires.
Melted AND buckled, eh?
That's quite a trick!
By the way, what happened to the insulation on the columns? It shouldn't have been knocked off in WTC7, as they claimed happened for WTC1 and 2.
The Bizarre "Camera Planet" Video of the 2nd Hit
Longer version here (start at 3:00).
The longer version of the video inexplicably starts on the middle of WTC1 (north tower), which was not burning, than starts frantically panning around to the left, as if they knew something was there. But when they start panning, there is no plane visible. From the distance they were at, it is highly unlikely that they HEARD a plane. Then the plane appears as a small dark smudge, grows large extremely rapidly, and the camera focus goes in and out. Then the plane goes behind a building, there is a pan out, a brief view of the plane again before it hits the tower and the explosion.
Check out the plane sound, which HAD to be dubbed in, since at the distance the video was shot, there's no way a plane would have been heard like that-- and importantly, other closer videos do not have a similar sound.
In any case, there is something truly bizarre about this particular video-- such that I have to wonder if Camera Planet, the original source, was in on the 9/11 scam.
This video shows a similar NE angle, but from a different perspective so buildings are not blocking the plane view, FWIW.
The Power Grab
There is little exaggeration to say that 9/11 allowed the Bush administration to do whatever they wanted to do, without anyone complaining. This fact is obvious to anyone with eyes.
And these people simply lie at will. They have no shame.
At minimum, the Bush administration badly abused their power since 9/11, and in reality most likely did worse things than what is even in the public record.
But hubris has its costs, and the public usually catches on over time. The media, which was complicit in the crimes of the Bush administration, has decided to turn on Bush, probably because they finally realized how deeply unpopular Bush is.
And so, Bush is in free-fall.
How low can he go before resigning or doing something totally dangerous?
Clearly though, Bush is doing a good job of living up to the title of "the worst president ever".
Finally: does anyone truly put the idea that they would rig up 9/11 for their own purposes past these people, at this point?
Thursday, May 11, 2006
"A Wonderful Reminder"
Looks like rather a non-descript chunk of metal to me. Could be from anything...
From here (the entire Daily Show piece is well worth watching)
The National Security Agency has been secretly collecting the phone call records of tens of millions of Americans, using data provided by AT&T, Verizon and BellSouth, people with direct knowledge of the arrangement told USA TODAY.
The NSA program reaches into homes and businesses across the nation by amassing information about the calls of ordinary Americans — most of whom aren't suspected of any crime.
Wednesday, May 10, 2006
Why is Congress putting on this show?
Ahmadinejad’s Letter to Bush
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
Why "CIA, drugs and Israelis" Represent Limited Hangouts for 9/11
Gen. Michael V. Hayden, currently Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence, has also served as Commander of the Air Intelligence Agency and as Director of the Joint Command and Control Warfare Center.
But more important, he was also former head of the NSA (March 1999 - April 2005).
The role of the NSA regarding 9/11, and ironically also the 9/11 truth "community",
is consequently dismissed and ignored by many '9/11 truthseekers'.
Apparently because some particular "9/11 authors" and self appointed "9/11 activist leaders" distracted too much with "CIA, Cheney and the Pentagon".
It was always clear, why. To also delay or distract from all physical evidence, based on military operations, scripted by the NSA and their private contractors.
The NSA, but also the NASA had their eyes not only on the 9/11 "plotline" but also on the "military operation" of 9/11. More closely than any other U.S. Government Agency.
The National Security Agency (NSA) has traditionally influenced and been a very early and sophisticated user of the highest performance of commercial computer, storage, and networking systems.
That includes also the Internet and the internet "daisy committees" of the NSA.
These are unidentified online trolls, which nicknames share different I.P. addresses,
though only impostering 'one and the same user'.
However this "user", represented with a nickname is also able to post 24/7 on particular discussion boards, apparently without any sleep.
The NSA can also basically login and monitor all important databases of the U.S., especially aviation databases.
Among them the National Flight Database (NFD).
Current data elements included are:
Airports and Heliports,
Standard Terminal Arrival Procedures (STARs),
GPS and RNAV (GPS) or Runways for airports that have a SIAP coded in the NFD.
Would the NSA "log in" on the morning on Sep11th?
Sure they would.
That's why they also know, that the BTS database of the FAA already proves, that "AA77" and "AA11" did not exist on the morning of 9/11.
The NSA knew all alleged passengers on the morning of Sep11th. They know this faster than the FBI or CIA. They know which plane does exist and which doesn't.
They also know in real time, what really happened in NYC, Shanksville and at the Pentagon, because of less stress of "competence".
In other words, the NSA are important part of the perpetrators who 'did 9/11'.
"The CIA did 9/11" is instead distraction language of many "9/11 truthlings", based on a dried out old school meme of the 80s.
The "CIA distraction" also helps to stir a fight between the supporters of the "mossad distraction" and the "CIA-NWO" sensationalists, often also accused as "zionists", especially if you deny ANY complicity of the Mossad.
But what has "complicity" to do with the actual performance of the inside operation?
Basically the same complicity of the so called "9/11 cover-up" can also be easily constructed with the dutch-, german-, saudi- or pakistani intelligence.
The result is an endless debate on whether the one or other agency had more or less participation into 9/11.
What almost no-one realizes, all these "complicities" refer in the majority to the plotline, not the military operation.
Therefore it doesn't matter if either CIA, BND, MOSSAD, Dutch Intelligence or "Able Danger" "observed" or "impostered" the alleged hijackers.
It all represents just the "plotline" and distracts from the controlled demolition or the so called "controversial" TV fakery research. (snip)
The "CIA connection" was also designed to distract from the private military and intelligence contractors (PMCs), which already replaced and dominated U.S. Intelligence anyway.
Another "distraction", not less effective, is the "Bush did it" meme, which helps to distract with post 9/11 -"scandals" of the White House or Pentagon, to keep false hope campaigners or the complete "anti-war movement" busy.
The same "Bush did it" meme also automatically triggers other inane "activist drivel" on prior knowledge red herrings like Jeb or Marvin Bush.
That's why also so called leftgatekeepers are still clueless about the real players of many other new "setups" against their own citizens:
Among them In-Q-Tel, Titan Corp., BoozAllen Hamilton, CSC/DynCorp, SAIC and many others.
The NSA has their own satellite surveillance trackers, developed by SAIC and other private intelligence contractors. (* see also SAIC- power structure 9/11 and more
On the morning of Sep11th, the NSA did not follow any particular standard government-
and military procedure or any other logistics, therefore cannot be accused of "negligence".
There also was no "Rumsfeld around". Neither a silly "Rove influence", "Cheney" or "Joe Wilson", all carefully designed limited hangout puppets.
Truthlings and Gatekeepers apparently watched too many soap operas.If the name isn't known to them, it isn't 'cool' to talk about.
That's why more important players of the 9/11 perps never arrived on any '9/11 truth flyer', among them:
Douglas Feith, Stephen Cambone, Jay C Davis (ANSER), James Woolsey, Ruth David, James R. Clapper, Duane (Dewey) Clarridge, Andrew W. "Yoda" Marshall, Scott Myers, Eliot Cohen, Christopher Demut, Thomas S. Foley, Charles Holland, David Jeremiah, Michael Ledeen, Norman Podhoretz, Bruce P. Jackson, the Naudet Brothers, the Club of Rome, Raytheon and many others.
That's why also the role of the NSA is underrepresented in this "truth movement", because much closer to the truth than anyone else.
That's why cointel-pro still succesfully runs or deceives the biggest "activist" groups in the 9/11 truth movement.
Anyone knows, that the Heritage Foundation runs meetup.com, where most of the "activists" met in the first time?
Obviously the majority doesn't.
"Profile producers" are less important than "profile paranoia".
When 'Civil Right activists' try to distract with "controversial surveillance facts" on the NSA, they follow a clear script from their leadership groups, itself also infiltrated by government agents or sponsored by right wing think tanks, ironically also often close to the CIA.
The same or similar pattern can be also seen in the 'alternative media'. Often cited in this connection: DemocracyNow!, FAIR, Nation, PBS or truthout.org.
It not only helps as a gatekeeper distraction from 9/11, it also helps to increase the limited hangout agenda for the political theatre.
However the role of the NSA for both 9/11 "plotline" and "military operation", but also "disinformation front" and "surveillance industry" regarding 9/11 "activists"
is much more important.
It wasn't the CIA, but apparently the NSA with their most advanced high tech, which really was in charge of the so called "9/11 plotline".
However the official "plotline" of 9/11 had nothing to do with the military operation. The "plotline" of 9/11 helped as most important distraction, even still in 2006.
While the 9/11 perpetrators used the CIA as helpful distraction idiots, the NSA knew exactly who observed whom in the "plotline" and when the "military operation" would take place:
"Tomorrow is Zero hour" (September 10th, 2001) (snip)
There is much much more at the link. Really good stuff.
Note: the 9/11 "plotline" is the official story of the hijackers and the four planes. The 9/11 "military operation" is what actually happened: the bombs, missiles, plane illusions and demolitions.
I Still Find It Rather Remarkable
Though, I guess they needed someone to draw all those CGI planes...
Monday, May 08, 2006
Highly Intriguing Info From Morgan Reynolds
Reynolds stated that everyone in the worldwide intelligence community knew that 9/11 was an inside job as soon as it happened, with the obvious stand-down of US air defenses, controlled demolition of the World Trade Center, and non-protection of the President in Florida being the biggest tip-offs. The head of the Russian equivalent of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the former head of the German intelligence service Andreas Von Bulow, former National Security Agency official Wayne Madsen, and former MI-6 agent David Schayler have all openly called 9/11 an inside job, while former CIA official Ray McGovern has confirmed this directly in private, and indirectly in public by way of his ringing endorsement of David Ray Griffin’s work on 9/11.
Reynolds, who served as George W. Bush’s Labor Department Chief Economist in 2001-2002, believes that a 9/11 truth victory is looming on the near-term horizon. He predicted that one or more of the 9/11 insiders will soon “give it up” and come forward with what they know, saying “Remember, you heard it here first.” He said that most of those complicit in the attacks did not realize how over-the-top the plot was, due to the need-to-know compartmentalization of such covert operations, and that some semi-complicit individuals will probably be coming forward. Reynolds said that most of his email acquaintances are now worried that the 9/11 truth movement is going to win, triggering the greatest Constitutional crisis in U.S. history. For Reynolds, this is less a cause for worry than for rejoicing: “We need a Constitutional crisis!”
Reynolds argued that 9/11 truth is a matter of extreme urgency, since the perpetrators seem to be preparing another 9/11-style terror hoax as a pretext for attacking Iran with nuclear weapons. He said that exposing the 9/11 fraud is the best way to stop Cheney’s plan to stage an unprovoked nuclear attack on Iran, and the military draft and Pinochet-style prison camps and death squads for dissenters that might accompany it.
PLEASE Tell Me This Is Some Kind of Joke Or Misdirection
Two London papers have speculated this weekend that complaints by President George W. Bush forced a British minister from his post because of his opposition to the use of nuclear force against Iran.Is this is real, this is PURE-MADNESS.
The Independent suggests that a phone call from the U.S. president to British Prime Minister Tony Blair led to the removal of Foreign Secretary Jack Straw Friday.
The newspaper reports that friends of Straw believe Mr. Bush was extremely upset when Straw pronounced any use of nuclear weapons against Iran "nuts."
Both The Independent and the Guardian write that Straw's "fate was sealed" after a White House phone call to Blair.
Sunday, May 07, 2006
So Let's Say You Have Two Huge Aging Skyscrapers That Have An Asbestos Problem....
Wouldn't it be great to blow them up and start over? But blowing up these huge structures and building new ones would take BILLIONS as well.
Perhaps the buildings could have an accident, and you could collect the insurance money!
Wait a minute-- previously, terrorists tried to blow up the buildings. Maybe you can take advantage of that!
So you get the buildings wired-up for demolition, hoping to blow them up and blame it on the terrorists.
But there's another problem. How are you going to explain terrorists being able to wire up the towers for complete demolition? You can't just say they drove a massive truck bomb under each tower, can you? That just won't fly.
Fly, fly... wait a minute... that's it! Airplanes!
Terrorists these days are always talking about crashing airplanes into buildings. You'll get some terrorists to fly airplanes into each tower. That will be JUST the excuse you need for blowing up the buildings. Even better, the terrorist act will be the perfect event the Bush administration has been looking for to invade the middle east, so they'll help you and cover for you. Moreover, you can destroy a LOT of shady financial transactions when you take down the towers, so other people will be happy about that.
But how exactly will your friends set this up? It's not so easy getting planes with terrorists on them, and making them fly precisely where you want. And even if you did get the planes to hit the towers, is there any guarantee the planes will crash in such a way as to make the subsequent demolition believable?
Hmmm. It's a problem.
Here's an idea though. The buildings ALREADY have bombs in them. Why don't you just set off some of the bombs in such a way as to make it look like a plane crashed into the towers! And then you can simply have some VIDEOS made that show planes crashing into the towers. You know your friends in the media will go a long with it, because they always love a new war, and many of them are secretly in the government anyway. All you have to do is make sure that LOTS of videos get made and that they get shown over and OVER on TV. The Bush administration will set up an attack on the military, to make sure the armed services are motivated, and then they will cap it off with a heroic feel-good story about passengers fighting off the terrorists (or that the plane is shot down by the heroic military; some kinks need to be worked out still). In any case, the people will eat it up! The people LOVE big tragedies, and the country needs something to bring them together after that nasty impeachment business and after that election fiasco in Florida.
What could go wrong?
Good Overview on Demolition of the WTC
This section discussing how bombs might have been planted in the WTC is especially good.
The article is a good overview on 9/11 in general. I don't know how long it will last in it's current form, though, given the format of the Demopedia and DU's attitude to 9/11.
In terms of demolition, the big question the official story simply can't address is: how did the central cores of the towers collapse so easily?
The Reason the Bush Administration Has Failed Is Because They Were Sabotaged by Liberal Moles0 comments
Is This Guy Creepy-Looking Or What?
Even creepier, the guy doesn't even know what the 4th amendment says, which is the key amendement in cases of government spying on citizens. The "reasonableness" standard Hayden claims is particularly worrying, since "reasonable" is extremely ambiguous and open to abuse (and his agency clearly abused their powers by illegally spying on American citizens-- under the auspices of Bush).
(tip to Rob for the link)
Saturday, May 06, 2006
Bad to Worse
I guess Bush really wants to shove his illegal spying activities in American's faces again, as this HAS to come up in confirmation hearings.
I only hope someone will ask Hayden about this:
Gen. Michael Hayden refused to answer question about spying on political enemies at National Press Club. At a public appearance, Bush's pointman in the Office of National Intelligence was asked if the NSA was wiretapping Bush's political enemies. When Hayden dodged the question, the questioner repeated, "No, I asked, are you targeting us and people who politically oppose the Bush government, the Bush administration? Not a fishing net, but are you targeting specifically political opponents of the Bush administration?" Hayden looked at the questioner, and after a silence called on a different questioner. (Hayden National Press Club remarks, 1/23/06)
UPDATE: This story is the clearest one yet saying that Goss was tossed because of "hooker-gate".
Friday, May 05, 2006
542 +/- 24 mph?
This speed is coincidentally, right in the middle for previous speed estimates-- of a high of 590 mph by FEMA to a low of 503 mph by MIT.
What is amusing is reading how NIST initially tried a fancy complex analysis of the speeds using several different videos, but they couldn't get it to work (to give reliable speeds). So they resorted to a simple "displacement" technique for estimating the plane speed (how many frames it takes the plane to cross its length)-- much very much like I did some time back.
Except I found that "UA175" was going far slower than 542 mph. I calculated a speed of 327 mph as the plane hits the building, and 272 mph right before it hit the building.
My calculations were extremely straight-forward and I can't see how my calculations are wrong. (If you see a flaw in my calculations, let me know)
What I can say is that looking at the videos of the second hit, as I have many many times, the "plane" simply does not seem to be going super fast, i.e. 540 mph.
The plane looks like it is going fast, but only slightly faster than planes coming in for a landing-- and I see large jets slowly descending for landing multiple times every day. I say there is no way that "UA175" is going 540 mph.
Even if you look at the ground the plane covers in videos where the plane is seen longer, the plane covers about a mile in 8-10 seconds. That works out to 450 to 360 mph-- quite a bit slower than the NIST calculations (where they simply present their results, they never show any actual measurements, of course)-- but in line with my earlier calculations from the Ghostplane video.
Why would NIST (and other groups such as FEMA and the FBI) exaggerate the speed of UA175?
I think the reason is clear. They need an extreme speed to sell the idea that the plane was going so fast that it went straight into the building without breaking up and that the fast speed of the plane also caused major building damage. The official story REQUIRES a high speed for the building damage (even though it raises a separate issue of whether amateur hijacker pilots could fly the planes effectively at that speed).
IMO, this speed of 542 mph is yet another 9/11 lie.
Yet Another Nine Eleven Lie.
Hats Off to the People at NIST
It is fun seeing them rationalize how a 160 foot-long plane can enter a steel frame building without slowing and then disintegrate within 200 feet.
The main problem I think they have is that they seem to think the videos show a real plane.
(There is a lot of interesting info in the report that I'll be discussing in the future...)
Found the Boeing Yet?
But more rational open-minded people might wonder where the heck the Boeing 757 went.
If nothing else, Conspiracy Smasher and Pinch might want to figure out why the 9/11 Commission Report is wrong on the date when most of the alleged 9/11 hijackers actually entered the US. In fact, 14 of 19 alleged hijackers entered the US before official entrance date.
Thursday, May 04, 2006
30th Second Hit Video
This is from a several miles (5-7) to the northeast. Plane is barely visible as a brief blur.
One thought that struck me is how there seem to be more videos of the 2nd hit than videos of either tower collapsing...
Moussaoui Jury Metes Out A Fair Punishment
So what about justice for:
Khalid Sheikh Mohamed
Ramzi bin al Shibh
Osama bin laden
The lack of prosecution of these people is especially stunning, if you believe they were truly involved in 9/11...
"Sadly, No!" Explains How the Republican Party Works
And if you're not interested in that, watch this weird video of the South Tower collapse, and try to figure out what the large white debris is that suddenly appears and flies away.
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Marcus Icke's "Ghost Gun" Is Updated Again
I like this finding the best, as it goes well with my findings on conflicting plane paths between videos:
This is more irrefutable evidence that the second hit videos were faked.
Just How Stupid Is "Instapundit"?
Even worse (and perhaps not surprisingly), this guy is a right-wing icon.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Excellent Flight 93 Documentary
Most of the interviews are in English though.
It's real short and hits some of the more interesting parts of the crash.
Must Be Another Planted Part
Really-- does anyone truly believe this tire alone magically popped out of AA11 as it crashed into the top of WTC1, got wedged between these two columns, the whole thing broke off somehow, and then fell at least 900 feet (900 feet!!!)-- and the tire stayed stuck?
Does anyone really believe this bullshit?
But here is a more interesting question.
If a real plane crashed into WTC1, why did they need to plant a plane tire?
Monday, May 01, 2006
From here, page 172 (warning, LARGE PDF file).
Yes, I believe (!) this section of steel columns fell 1000 feet to the street with an airplane wheel firmly wedged in it.
Note, this was from apparently from WTC1 before the collapse of either tower-- though they don't know exactly where this section came from, as there was no corresponding hole visible in the south face of WTC1. Truly bizarre.
No Second Plane?
That is EXACTLY what I would expect how a normal person would film the second attack. Start filming on the first tower burning, get bored, stop filming, then see the second tower blow up and start filming again.
Even better, listen to the guys talking. They have NO IDEA what happened to the tower, no mention of a plane, they can only guess it was a terrorist attack.