Friday, June 30, 2006
A Tip-Off to Suspect Video of the 2nd Hit
*press play to see; not the image the video loads up before playing
Also about this first video: what the heck IS that thing that looks like the front of the plane projecting out the other side and explodes? It casts quite a shadow. It certainly can't be the fuselage, that should have been torn up, and it is far too big to be an engine. Is it some sort of projectile-shaped bolus of jet fuel? But why would the fuel come out in this shape and not be more dispersed?
Another thing that has seemed odd to me for a while is how the cloud from where the plane went IN is primarily dust, like pulverized concrete. Granted this cloud does have some fiery nature in its center (seen in other videos), but this "entry" explosion/debris cloud is quite different from what occurs on the other side.
Thursday, June 29, 2006
Synthetic Terror: Made in Miami
Critics are voicing concern about the FBI’s use of informants, methodology, and alleged pattern of entrapment in relation to the arrests last week of seven Miami men for having allegedly plotted to blow up the Sears Tower in Chicago and federal buildings in other cities.
Zany Conspiracy Theories
“There may have been widespread election fraud in 2004, but what really gets me steamed is the zany conspiracy theory that it might have affected the election.”
The analogous logic for 9/11: "There may be many irregularities and indications of foul play in the official 9/11 history, but to suggest that anyone in the government wanted 9/11 to happen and facilitated its occurance, is simply ridiculous!".
Such is the level of denial so many people seem to be laboring under.
SCOTUS Rules Against the Bush Administration's Use of War Powers
Fun with CGI Planes and the WTC
Wingnuts Gone Wild!!!
According to this morning's San Francisco Chronicle, conservative talk show host Melanie Morgan of KSFO-FM said she'd have no problem if Bill Keller were executed for publishing the big Times piece on the U.S.'s secret financial surveillance program. From the Chronicle:
San Francisco talk show host Melanie Morgan believes that Times editor Bill Keller should be jailed for treason for approving the publication.
The maximum penalty for treason is death.
"If he were to be tried and convicted of treason, yes, I would have no problem with him being sent to the gas chamber," Morgan, whose show airs on KSFO-AM, told The Chronicle on Wednesday. "It is about revealing classified secrets in the time of war. And the media has got to take responsibility for revealing classified information that is putting American lives at risk." (Emphasis added.)
Wednesday, June 28, 2006
FOX vs CNN
I always knew this video, Video 1 (wide shot), was from CNN.
It turns out that Video 2 (the "blue plane video" where the plane swoops down dramatically from on high) was shown on FOX!
These videos of course show very dramatic differences in the approach of the 2nd plane, and I think is one of the clearest pieces of evidence for video fakery in 9/11.
Could competition between CNN and FOX have blown apart the 9/11 plane fakery?
Figures that FOX would come up with a more DRAMATIC (yet very unrealistic) approach of the 2nd plane than CNN. It is quite ironic that they would help blow apart 9/11 as well!
More 2nd hit madness here.
The Media Are Traitors
I actually agree, but for VERY different reasons.
The Bush administration is clearly using this shaemful and anti-American argument to escape scrutiny for their actions. The idea, in the most recent example, that disclosure of this financial transaction monitoring program somehow helps the "terrorists" is simply laughable. This line of argument is obvious propaganda meant to fire up wingnuts and distract from the crimes and failures of the Republicans in office.
I think the media are traitors for being complicit in 9/11 and for maintaining the pretence of the official story.
In my view, the media's crime is NOT telling the complete truth, whereas the Bush administration simply doesn't want any truth to come out.
Yesterday was particularly bad, as I had to walk a lot at work, and I was very uncomfortable. Last night I could hardly sleep as I couldn't find a comfortable position that didn't put strain on my hip.
Why am I relating this?
Because oddly, my pain correlated with a bad case of doubt about my 9/11 theories. I just didn't want to deal with any of it-- the official story was just so much (more or less) easier to believe*.
So I had to try to work through my positions again, starting from basic evidence.
The bottom line is I think pain must block clear and rational thought** and make people cling to easier, more emotional lines of thought.
I wonder if this is why most of the 9/11 families have not questioned the official story.
*the physical evidence that there were real planes with real hijackers and the towers fell from the impacts and the lack of air defense was just from massive confusion; not so much that it could have been LIHOP
**I'm sure some of my critics here would say it is the other way around: the pain brought clearer thought.
But honestly, who can think very well when they are in severe pain?
Further thought: if you really want to be generous, perhaps all people who can't see that 9/11 was a hoax, even after being exposed to the evidence, are in PAIN themselves.
No 767's at the WTC
Overall, "Loose Change" presents a story of 9/11 that some have labeled the "no-plane theory," because it argues that the aircraft crashing into buildings were essentially a pyrotechnic distraction from the main destructive acts, the missile at the Pentagon and the controlled demolition of the trade towers. "Loose Change" acknowledges that two planes did actually hit the trade towers -- this marks a variation from more outré versions of the no-plane theory, which propose that live videos of the crash were doctored to include the 767s or that some kind of highly classified holographic technology created the illusion of planes hitting the towers (both theories have obvious flaws).(tip to Nico)
Incredibly they point to Salter's Questions-Questions article to debunk the no-planes idea.
The piece isn't too snottily dismissive of the conspiracy stories; it's better than I expected. Most interestingly was the way Bob Kerrey, at the end of the piece, laid the groundwork for alternative 9/11 stories and revelations.
More Dems votes Nay than Yea, to be sure, but overall a typically craven performance by the Senate.
Monday, June 26, 2006
9/11 in Court: Why the Truth About Planes Is Critical
Imagine that "Mr. 9/11 Truth"* is prosecuting in court. He is asked to provide evidence of the defendants guilt and he replies "The WHO and WHY behind a criminal conspiracy are much more important than the HOW -- the method used to enact the conspiracy. Whether a criminal murders someone with a knife or a gun is much less important than the fact that the crime has been committed, and much less important than the identity of the criminal and the motive for the crime."
The judge looks at him quizzically, and says ""Mr. 9/11 Truth", first we need to establish the facts of the event, in order to determine that the defendant is in fact guilty of the crime at all.
To which Mr. 9/11 Truth replies that this "is entirely peripheral to the core issues of the event, which are: 1. Who did it? 2. Why did they do it? 3. What do they intend to do next? 4. What is the endgame they have in mind? *HOW* they did it is relatively a minor detail"
To which the judge replies "Case dismissed".
There is also the matter of who "they " are.
"Mr. 9/11 Truth" presumably restricts "they" to the Govt – and of course Israel.
However, the fact that the media showed us cartoons of fictional planes flying into buildings means that the definition of "they" must extend to include the media in a generic sense.
"Mr. 9/11 Truth" suggests that this crucial piece of evidence should be ignored, thus allowing the media to get off free.
The only way to identify **all** of the perps is to present **all** of the facts about how it was done – to the extent that we able to, of course.
We have established as irrefutable fact that the media was instrumental in selling the psy op through the method of airing cartoons and passing them off as news – in a premeditated manner.
This of course still falls short of identifying the exact individuals who perpetrated the planes hoax, who in the media was genuinely fooled themselves, and who was complicit after the fact. But it does establish the media – in a generic sense – as being equal partners with the govt –- in a generic sense.
More importantly, the exposing of this hoax tells the ordinary person a lot about how the world actually works. The media is not just distortion. It is often total fiction, cartoons presented as reality. Jurassic Park, but just with a "news" label on it rather than a "movie" label on it.
"Mr. 9/11 Truth"'s attitude is equivalent to suggesting that as long as we manage to prosecute the guy who grabbed the cash from the vault, then who cares who placed the explosive to blow the door, and drove the getaway car?
Furthermore, "Mr. 9/11 Truth" suggests that we should deny the fact that there even was an explosion to blow the door or anyone driving a getaway car. We start and finish the story with the guy who grabbed the cash out of the vault, and angrily dismiss any notion of an explosion or a getaway car on the basis that it will distract from discussion about why the guy grabbed the cash, and what he will do next.
Is "Mr. 9/11 Truth" seriously suggesting that we could build an indictable case – legal proof of who organized four events (plane crashes) - when in fact these events never happened ?
We only need to look at the early emperor's clothes research to see how this strategy is doomed to failure from a legal perspective.
Working on the assumption that the plane crashes happened basically as per the official story, TENC produced a very tight **deductive** case that the air force was stood down to allow the planes to reach their targets.
At the time, many people, including me, thought that this had basically cracked the case from a public information POV, but knew that it did not present a legally admissible case.
Why? Because you can't convict in court a particular individual of standing down the airforce on the basis of deduction alone that somebody high up must have issued such an order. You actually have to produce the stand down order or overwhelming witness testimony from people in the military that they were ordered to stand down and who issued the order.
And so many of us , believing that a stand down had happened, thought that it was only a matter of time before somebody spilled the beans and started a trail which led to the order itself.
It never happened.
Why? Because you can't find an order which was never issued. And the reason that one was never issued is because there weren't any off course planes and therefore no need to issue a stand down order. TENC did a brilliant deduction job, but unfortunately, based it on a fundamentally flawed assumption to begin with.
So what use was their work ?
From a legal POV – absolutely zilch.
But from the POV of general public education, its value was immense, in that exposed the first layer of lies and inspired a lot of people to start looking deeper.
Which shows that something can be legally useless, but still valuable in terms of public education.
Then Gary North blew the hijacker story open. Which got us all thinking about remote controlled planes. Why was legal proof of a remote control program for the planes never brought to light?
Because that didn't happen either. Because there weren't any planes.
So what use was North's work from a legal POV ?
Just like TENC's – nothing. But from a public education POV, very valuable because it moved us one step closer.
And then Meyssun and WF discovered between them that there weren't any plane crashes.
This can be proven in court as we have the video and the forensic proof to show that it is irrefutable.
The problem is – you can't indict "the Govt" or "the media" in a generic sense. You have to charge specific individuals. So although we have now reached the stage of proving what happened and who was guilty in a generic sense, we are still short of evidence for specific indictments.
But we are a step closer at least now know why any attempted indictment of Myers or Cheney or Bush for standing down the air force would have been laughed out of court.
But more importantly , we have learned from a common sense POV that the corruption of the system is so massive that no one is ever going to be indicted for this in the traditional way.
Along the path of this discovery journey, there have been twin aims. One has been to indict the guilty. The other has been for public education, even if indictments are never achieved.
It is now apparent that the first aim will most likely never happen, because the depth of the conspiracy is greater than most of us could have imagined back in Nov 2001. The legal system is just as in on it as the media.
But that does not invalidate the second aim.
Would anyone here argue that the high level of awareness that JFK was an inside job has been an utterly worthless exercise ? Just because no-one was actually indicted for it? That we might as well have everyone believing the official story ? That it's indictment or nothing ?
That if no one is going to be indicted for TWA 800, then we might as well let everyone believe the official story ?
So the no planes proof raises the level of public awareness – a valuable result in its own right, plus it brings us closer to indictments, should such a thing ever be possible, something which I very much doubt.
In some ways the opening up of an obvious schism between what people know to be true and what is officially acknowledged and acted upon is extremely valuable.
JFK is a good example of this. Everyone knows or at least suspects that it was an inside job. And everyone knows that everyone else knows. But pressure from above forces everyone to pretend that they don't know and to pretend that they believe that no one else knows either.
So everyone carries on a charade, while the truth simmers under the surface. People know that they are acting out BS. This helps people to be on the look out for more BS, even if such awareness id for the most part kept private.
Even if indictments never happen, the knowledge that the plane was a cartoon will have the same effect as the JFK simmer but many times greater.
Any suggestion that it simply doesn't matter is absurd.
It is a desperate tactical retreat by "Mr. 9/11 Truth" who has been so comprehensively whipped every time he tried to argue in favour of planes that he has sunk to tacitly admitting that there were none, but that the truth is irrelevant to the truth movement.
*the real name is being kept hidden here
Sunday, June 25, 2006
1) the commentators sound totally phony, almost as if they were reading a script after the fact
2) this video came from one (suspect) source and has not been verified as legitimate footage by other sources; it is not found in other 9/11 compilations of network footage
3) the series of zoom-ins that are inexplicably oblivious to this plane supposedly racing up to the WTC-- the helicopter cameraman MUST have seen the plane long before it came into view in the camera (assuming the plane was real), but there was NO attempt to track the plane. Why isn't a second plane flying towards the south tower, after the north tower has been hit by a plane, interesting? (Ironically, this is EXACTLY the same behaviour shown by the helicopter cameraman who captured the other "live" footage of the 2nd hit, which was shown on CNN, ABC and FOX-- and it makes no sense that both "live" cameraman would act this way)
4) after the building explodes, something can be seen flying behind the building-- VERY FAST-- and then the camera quickly cuts away. What WAS that?
5) upon "impact", the plane's fuselage initially pokes through as if the plane passed through the building intact:
then the video feed goes dark:
then the fuselage is gone and there is just explosion:
Post-script: I should point out that Webfairy has a slow motion version of this video here, and also that this "Saltergate" video is one I tagged earlier as suspicious because there is an abnormal lag between when the plane goes "into" the building and when the nose comes out-- particularly in comparison to other 2nd hit videos. This suggests they didn't have timing quite right for insertion of the digital plane into the live footage.
View of the 2nd Hit from the West
What I must point out is that six seconds before the hit in the "Japanese" video, the "plane" is a bit hard to see as it gets blurry in the smoke cloud. Thus, I was right that the plane should be in the frame I showed at six seconds before the hit in the "Saltergate" video-- because it was there at the analogous point in the "Japanese video. A skeptic of MY argument that the "Saltergate" video is a cheap fake could say-- the reason you don't see the plane in the frame capture from the "Saltergate" video at five seconds is simply because the plane is lost in the smoke cloud!
However, there I have two rebuttals to this:
1) the "Japanese" one is poorer quality than the "Saltergate" video, and thus whereas the "plane" gets somewhat lost in the smoke cloud six seconds before impact in the "Japanese" video, a plane should be more visible in the "Saltergate" video.
2) in the "Japanese" video, the plane can still be seen moving in the smoke cloud, as a dark smudge, even though in a frame capture you might not see the plane clearly. However, in the "Saltergate" video, there is NO movement in the smoke cloud.
Although this is not as much of a slam dunk as I had hoped-- I think the case can still be made that the "Saltergate" video is a cheap fake, and there is no real plane shown in it.
Saturday, June 24, 2006
Where'd It Come From?
See a plane here?
Hey, where did that plane come from?!?!
This last picture is 8 seconds from the first frame, and 6 seconds from the second frame.
The plane fuckin' appeared out of NOWHERE.
The only real explanation is insertion of a digital image in the close-up shot.
In the second frame, there is 1.1 miles from the south tower to the right hand side of the screen. Officially, the plane was going 540 mph-- or 9 miles per minute, which equals 0.9 miles per 6 seconds.
The plane should have appeared in the second frame.
To start with the commentary is very odd, almost braindead ("oh my goodness, there's another one, oh my goodness, there's another one"). But the most telling thing about the clip is the consecutive series of zoom-ins (four zoom-ins total) right before the plane comes in-- the very wide opening shot shows no plane but when they finally zoom in very tight on the towers, all of a sudden the plane appears!!!!
I think this is yet more proof that the second plane was a digital fake. The plane SHOULD have been seen in the wide shot-- it only magically appears in the last zoom-in.
Many other second hit fakes here.
I'm Quite Curious
Friday, June 23, 2006
2nd Plane "Eyewitnesses"
Unfortunately, these people never stick around to give any details to what they saw.
There is sort of an odd flatness, a lack of any emotion or personality to these comments, though. They seem rather generic.
Gee, I wonder if any organization ever pays people to leave comments on blogs espousing a certain idea.
Federal prosecutors said today that seven Miami men who wanted to blow up the Sears tower in Chicago sought help from a man they believed to be an al Qaeda representative, but who in fact was an informant.
How much do you want to bet that this "informant" was actually an instigator?
And they seemed brainwashed, eh?
Kind of gives new meaning to the term "home-grown terrorism".
Thursday, June 22, 2006
2nd Hit Video Anomalies: Sloppiness, Miscommunication or Intentional?
In any case, the big question is-- why are there so many "mistakes" in the videos? After all, if they had done a better job aligning plane paths and conforming to a standard model of the plane, then people like me might never have completely caught on to their scam.
There are three basic explanations for the "mistakes":
1) the animators were just sloppy in their animation, perhaps from rushing to get the videos on air
2) the animators worked in different groups (after all, they had a LOT of videos to make from many different angles) and didn't coordinate very well about the exact plane path and what the plane should look like
3) the animators left these "mistakes" as purposeful clues to what they had done-- as a tip off to people willing to look carefully at the evidence or as deliberate misinfo (i.e. the pod).
I suspect the answer is a combination of all three. The "pod" is too obvious to be a simple mistake and was meant to be probably deliberate misinfo, but other anomalies are probably real mistakes, either from sloppiness or miscommunication.
A More In-Depth Plane Path Analysis
(double click to enlarge image)
The bottom line for me, is that when the camera angles are precisely positioned, the plane paths are still different-- both in terms of overall descent and in terms of angle of approach. The angle of approach difference is not huge, about 10-15 degrees, but if you have a model of a Boeing 767 and look at it head-on, a 10 degree angle difference makes a huge change in the appearance of the profile.
So I am still convinced. Unfortunately though, I doubt I will be able to convince someone who believes in the official plane fairy tale.
Importantly though, I think science is on the side of there being no plane.
Wednesday, June 21, 2006
Armageddon-- the Movie
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
The Bogus "War on Terror" is Even More Bogus Than I Thought
...the story of the capture of Abu Zubaydah in Pakistan in March 2002. Described as al-Qaeda's chief of operations, he turned out to be mentally ill and nothing like the pivotal figure he was alleged to be.
Writes Gelman: "Abu Zubaydah also appeared to know nothing about terrorist operations; rather, he was al-Qaeda's go-to guy for minor logistics -- travel for wives and children and the like. That judgment was 'echoed at the top of CIA and was, of course, briefed to the President and Vice President,' Suskind writes. And yet somehow, in a speech delivered two weeks later, President Bush portrayed Abu Zubaydah as 'one of the top operatives plotting and planning death and destruction on the United States.' And over the months to come, under White House and Justice Department direction, the CIA would make him its first test subject for harsh interrogation techniques. . . .
" 'I said he was important,' Bush reportedly told [then-CIA director George] Tenet at one of their daily meetings. 'You're not going to let me lose face on this, are you?' 'No sir, Mr. President,' Tenet replied. Bush 'was fixated on how to get Zubaydah to tell us the truth,' Suskind writes, and he asked one briefer, 'Do some of these harsh methods really work?' Interrogators did their best to find out, Suskind reports. They strapped Abu Zubaydah to a water-board, which reproduces the agony of drowning. They threatened him with certain death. They withheld medication. They bombarded him with deafening noise and harsh lights, depriving him of sleep. Under that duress, he began to speak of plots of every variety -- against shopping malls, banks, supermarkets, water systems, nuclear plants, apartment buildings, the Brooklyn Bridge, the Statue of Liberty. With each new tale, 'thousands of uniformed men and women raced in a panic to each . . . target.' And so, Suskind writes, 'the United States would torture a mentally disturbed man and then leap, screaming, at every word he uttered.' "
This is interesting:
"The book's opening anecdote tells of an unnamed CIA briefer who flew to Bush's Texas ranch during the scary summer of 2001, amid a flurry of reports of a pending al-Qaeda attack, to call the president's attention personally to the now-famous Aug. 6, 2001, memo titled 'Bin Ladin Determined to Strike in US.' Bush reportedly heard the briefer out and replied: 'All right. You've covered your ass, now.' "
"It is one of Suskind's provocative conclusions that the terrorists called off this attack for reasons of their own and that the Bush administration's election year claim to have prevented any attack on U.S. soil since 9/11 was delivered in the knowledge that this was so."
Monday, June 19, 2006
Three Videos, Three Plane Paths
Video 2-- a rapid 200 foot descent and turn and approach from the south:
Video 3-- a flat ascending approach to the south tower from the south.
As far as I am concerned, this is PROOF that all the 2nd plane videos were faked.
If one video disagreed with two other videos that agreed with each other, there is a chance that the one anamalous video was just an isolated fake. But if three videos don't agree on the plane path IN A VERY OBVIOUS WAY (this is not subtle folks), it is clear that all three are fakes. In fact, every known 2nd hit video has something fake about it, and an extremely careful study of all of these 30 videos would reveal scores of anomalies, I am sure.
Perhaps MOST significant is that video 1 and video 2 are from early network footage the morning of 9/11, from "news" helicopters. Yet they are FAKED videos of planes (NOT holograms, but computer animations) that must have been PLANNED IN ADVANCE. So it is clear the networks were in on the 9/11 plot at some level (probably one or more networks were infiltrated by military intelligence; this is known to be true for CNN).
I am now convinced that no real plane hit the south tower on 9/11.
160 foot long planes don't slide into 200 foot buildings without slowing and without showing signs of breakup but then completely disinegrate once inside.
The physics is this-- either the plane slows and breaks up as it hits the building, or it hits intact without slowing and then emerges roughly intact out the other side.
That is simple physics.
I think the reason they did video fakery is because the perps:
1) did not want to use the real UA175 for the attack (for various reasons)
2) knew there were a lot of random cameras pointed at the WTC that would capture a strange plane
3) knew that if the building exploded without a plane flying into it, most cameramen would be taken by surprise and would therefore not film the fact that there was no plane
4) knew they could saturate TV and the internet with videos showing a plane hitting the tower, which would convince most people there was a real plane involved in the attack
I think most people who say they saw the second hit, really only saw the building explode and never saw a plane. Several thousand people probably saw the tower explode with their own eyes. Interestingly, I know of at least four witnesses who specifically say they saw the building explode and never saw a plane (but were in a position to see it). Many witnesses whave been completely corrupted by repititious TV imagery of the plane, and are completely unreliable at this point about what they saw.
If you have a serious critique with this scenario, let me know. Calling me crazy is not a serious critique.
Sunday, June 18, 2006
Once More: We Were Lied To About The Planes
and this video:
If you watch the videos, it is painfully obvious the plane paths are completely different.
Both videos show the trajectory of the plane before it turns (banks) more to the north. In the first video, there is only a slight descent before the plane turns and hits the building. In the second video, there is a huge descent before the turn.
In other words, this massive discrepency was apparent from the very beginning-- from the very first footage they showed us, which came from some mysterious helicopters hovering north of the WTC on 9/11.
The discrepency in plane paths means the footage cannot show a real plane, but rather most likely shows a computer animation. And they put the evidence in our face from the get-go.
UPDATE: the discrepency is also in the approach direction. Video 1 shows the plane coming from the SW, whereas video 2 shows an approach from the SSW.
And to people who don't seem to understand what I am talking about-- the plane path contradiction is clear if you look and use your brain. I have explained what the contradiction means and how they probably did it in many previous posts. If you wish to cast aspersions, please explain what basis you are making the claim. Thanks.
Thanks to Rob
First the " blue plane" video that I have talked about a lot here is not some obscure video from some documentary. This video was one of the very early clips of the second plane, shown by CNN and CBS. The very striking deviation of the plane approach to the tower from other videos is therefore all the MORE striking.
I remember on the day of 9/11, watching CNN, and they played a clip of the 2nd hit over and over, and I was never quite sure which clip it was. But now I am fairly sure it was the "blue plane" clip. It IS very captivating video, showing the incoming plane very dramatically, with a great view of the ensuing explosion.
The blue plane video must have been taken from a helicopter from the angle, and this brings up another interesting point. ALL the early news footage of the second plane is from helicopters; I think there are four major 2nd hit clips that were shot from helicopters. Somewhat oddly though, none of these helicopters were got footage from the south of the WTC, and thus none of them got footage showing the plane directly stirke the building. The clips of the plane going into the building only showed up later-- such as Evan Fairbanks' video.
Interestingly, the clip of the guy in the street saying no plane hit the building, it was a bomb, was in this first 30 minutes. Actually, that makes sense as there was so much chaos early on, and the news wasn't as tightly controlled as it was later, no doubt.
Most amusing was the segment from the Pentagon, where they were saying "there's three different versions of what happened at the Pentagon-- a plane crash, a helicopter crash and both a plane and helicopter crash", then they go on to say "military counter-intelligence is now confirming it was a plane that crashed".
Gotta love it.
Killtown's 2nd Hit Video List
Here is the You Tube link for the anomalous "Blue Plane" video, which contradicts many other videos.
This one always strikes me as strange, because just looking up at the explosion, you would never think it was a plane crash...
This one is interesting for the audio reaction. I can't help but think the first part sounds badly faked ("what's this other jet doing", "what the hell is that" [why are they so excited/nervous-sounding?]), but the screaming reaction to the explosion seems very real (though could be good acting). Definitely the plane looks VERY fake in this clip-- and comes in at a very straight angle in contradiction to the Blue Plane clip.
The Working Relationship
June 17, 2006 - U.S. authorities had intelligence that a team of Al Qaeda-linked terrorists had infiltrated the United States and planned a 2003 attack on the New York City subway system with homemade cyanide bombs, federal and local counter-terrorism officials have acknowledged to NEWSWEEK. But the officials say the plot was called off at the last minute by Al Qaeda’s Ayman al-Zawahiri -- for reasons that remain unclear.
If you read the article, the planned attack had strong potential for being extremely deadly.
Now why would a deadly terrorist group not carry out an attack like this, particularly when they have been inactive in the US since 9/11 (assuming of course that Al Qaeda WAS behind 9/11)? Did these evil terrorists get a case of nerves? Just have a change of heart amd decide killing was bad? Or that the attack wasn't spectacular enough?
But the point of a terrorist group is to TERRORIZE. Thus, they should attack with some frequency so as to keep their targets off balance.
I think the only explanation for this story is that "Al Qaeda" ("al-CIA-duh") is not completely independent from their alleged targets (Americans).
While in reality, "Al Qaeda" is probably not a wholly owned subsidiary of the US intelligence agencies, it IS fair to say that "Al Qaeda" and US intelligence are working partners more than sworn enemies.
The "deal" between the CIA and al-CIA-duh might go something like this: "we'll let you take responsibility for 9/11, leave your key leaders alone, allow you to plan future attacks and give you fertile recruiting ground in Iraq and Afghanistan in exchange for capture, torture and killing of your operatives whenever we want and ultimate control over any planned attacks on US soil."
The deal seems to have worked so far rather well.
Finally, there are, of course, geopolitical reasons why the US and Islamic Extremists would have a working relationship.
Saturday, June 17, 2006
"Everybody's Gotta Learn Sometime"
I didn't watch the whole thing, I zoomed around a bit as a lot of the stuf was familiar to me. Basically, it goes over the 9/11 "inside job" evidence.
If you don't want to watch the whole thing, I definitely recommend fast forwarding to the 1 hour mark-- they show Bush in the classroom on the morning of 9/11, flashing "America is under attack" in red letters for 7-8 minutes and posing various questions about what is going on. The scene is excellent, very well done, with the perfect soundtrack*.
What I didn't like is the opening and closing scenes, with the rapid montage of images. That sort of thing always gives me a headache, particularly when it goes on for any length of time-- as it does in this film.
*one of my favorites, something I listen to regularly: Peter Gabriel's soundtrack to "Birdy"
The Last Second Change of Course
If we assume a real plane hit the South tower, who or what was controlling it?
Here are all the theoretically possible options:
1) the official UA175 pilot under duress by a hijackers (with a last minute course change to hit the South tower by the hijacker taking over)
2) the hijacker pilot controlling UA175
3) UA175 electronically hijacked and piloted remotely by computer
4) UA175 piloting controls over-ridden by remote manual control system and piloted by human
5) a drone aircraft piloted remotely by computer
6) a drone aircraft with the controls over-ridden by remote manual control system and piloted by human
7) another aircraft (not UA175) piloted by a human pilot (either under mind-control or knowingly a kamiakze).
Finally, let's take into account that several videos of the South tower hit show the plane making a last second bank to the left (to the west), such that the plane hit the tower at a sharp banked angle. Presumably, in the absence of this bank, the plane would miss the tower or only hit the corner of it.
So, using logic, let's try to narrow down who was controlling the plane.
Since there was a last-minute course change, we can basically rule out the possibility that the plane was guided simply by a computer picking a bee-line course for the WTC. That leaves 1, 2, 4, 6 and 7.
Possibility 1 -- the official UA175 pilot controlling the plane most of the way with a last minute course change to hit the South tower by the hijacker taking over seems extremely unlikely and too risky for the hijacker. So we can essentially rule that out.
Possibility 2 -- that the hijacker was controlling the plane can be ruled out by the fact that a) the hijackers simply did not have the skills to pilot a large 767 effectively, and b) the inside job scenario would not let unpredictable hijacker pilots in control of the plane
Possibility 7-- that there was another non-UA175 aircraft piloted by a human can essentially be discarded as very unlikely.
This leaves possibilities 4 and 6-- with a human piloting the plane remotely, for instance with a joystick video game-type system. We can fairly easily rule this out for UA175, as it seems highly unlikely such a video-manual over-ride system would be set-up on a commercial jet, even assuming such a system is feasible for a 767.
Possibility 6, while hard to rule out completely, is also doubtful because of the human error factor and the fact of what person would actually be willing to guide the plane in this way?
The bottom line is-- for an "inside job" scenario, computer guidance of the plane would clearly be the best way to conduct the attack.
Yet we have evidence of a last-second course change-- which doesn't fit with the computer guidance scenario. While it is surely possible that the computer guidance system could have been specifically programmed to show a last-minute course change (perhaps in order to make people think the plane was under human control), in my mind, this seems unlikely.
Interestingly though, the last second course change is not a problem if we assume the plane was only a computer image inserted into video, and that something besides a plane produced the damage to the building.
BOTTOM LINE: while not conclusive of any particular piloting scenario, the last second course change does need to be taken into account of what hit the South WTC tower on 9/11.
New Meme Used to Knock 9/11 Video Research
the perpetrators of 9/11 purposefully planted FAKE videos of the second hit in order to sow doubts about all 9/11 videos and start the spurious "no plane" theory.
So, doesn't that still sort of prove that the perpetrators weren't 19 Arab hijackers?
In any case, either the videos of the second plane were faked because there was no second plane because it was all a hoax-- or videos of the second plane were faked because there WAS a second plane that the perpetrators want to cast doubt on.
The latter is plausible, and might even be a good explanation-- if the no plane theory only rested on fake videos. However, the no plane theory rests on other pieces of evidence, such as the lack of air force interception to any 9/11 flight, the lack of black boxes at the WTC, the improbability of wings cutting through steel columns and clearly planted plane parts that are used to bolster lack of evidence of a crashed plane at crash sites such as Shanksville.
Friday, June 16, 2006
TIA Still Alive
As National Journal revealed in February, the NSA’s Advanced Research and Development Activity took over TIA and carried on the experimental network in late 2003. ARDA continued vetting new tools and even kept the aggressive experiment schedule. . . documents show.
But it discontinued some programs, most notably a multimillion-dollar effort to build privacy-protection technologies. ARDA also abandoned the effort to build audit trails in TIA, which would have permanently recorded any abuse by users.
The National Journal reports the program is now accessed by, among others: the NSA, the CIA, DIA, CENTCOM, the National Counterterorrism Center, the Guantanamo prison, and Special Operations Command (SOCOM).
Thursday, June 15, 2006
What the FUCK????
All I Ask of Anyone Who Comes Here
Unless you saw the tower being hit by a plane, or someone you completely trust claims to have seen a plane hit the tower (and if this is the case, I'd love to hear from you), you HAVE NO IDEA what caused the south WTC tower to explode on 9/11.
The new "Al-CIA-duh" leader in Iraq.
I'm sure it's a coincidence he looks much more like one of the 9/11 hijackers than Zarqawi...
More propaganda: Al-CIA-duh in Iraq was trying to foment a war between the US and Iran. (like we really needed al-CIA-duh for that!)
Oh, and did you know, the insurgency is in its last throes?
WE WERE LIED TO: Follow-up
In case there was any doubt that the two videos show different plane paths, note the wing angle as the plane banks:
In video 1, the wings only rotate significantly after the plane has leveled off somewhat-- AFTER most of the descent has occurred.
In video 2, there is no change in descent before and after wing rotation.
The videos clearly show two very different approaches.
Video 1 is high quality with an excellent view of the oncoming plane before the explosion. Why would they need to fake the plane if they taped a plane there?
Video 2 is lower quality, ostensibly, amateur footage-- but is not a simple fake job as the plane goes in and out of focus and there is a zoom-out.
I welcome any explanaion for the discrepency in plane paths and for why the plane in one or both videos would be faked.
If you don't see a difference in plane paths in the videos linked in the previous post, please see an optometrist.
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
WE WERE LIED TO
Video 1-- a sharply descending approach to the south tower:
Video 2-- an apparent ascending approach to the south tower:
Note the light colored band of floors (floors 75-76) on the north (burning) tower-- these floors are obscured on the south tower, but you can see the plane is BELOW this level in the second frame-- meaning the plane has to ASCEND to hit floor 79-82. Moreover, the plane is clearly ascending if you look at its position relaitve to the Woolworth building (the ornate tower) between frame 1 and frame 2. The cameraman has zoomed out between the first and second frames here, making the analysis a little trickier. Nonetheless, the cameraman has not changed position, meaning that the plane has definitely ascended.
There is no way to reconcile these plane paths.
This is PROOF for video forgery of the south tower plane.
There are also the oddities of the Camera Planet footage-- with two different cuts. The first cut is above, here is the second cut. In the first cut, it is as though someone is alerting the cameraman to the plane when he is filming down in the street. In the other cut, the cameraman is first filming the north tower-- someone falling-- then for no apparent reason (we don't hear anyone alerting him to pan over as in the first cut) he pans over to shakily find the plane-- as though he KNOWS something is there. It's VERY odd. Then the audible response to the explosion: a whispered "go foul" (or something like that). What the hell is that? Who would say that? It's totally weird. Finally, I have discussed this footage somewhat in a post earlier.
The Forgotten War
I have to say, I never really bought the whole pipeline argument for Afghanistan. It never quite added up for me.
Anyway, the bottom line of the article is that the invasion of Afghanistan went hand-in-hand with the invasion of Iraq (which strenghtened Iran), in order to build up an alliance of Islamic extremists in central Asia-- Islamic extremists that will threaten Russia and China.
In other words, it's still classic superpower geopolitics.
More on this idea here, including the fascinating concept that the US and Islamic extremists are actually secret allies.
This of course, throws 9/11 in a whole new light. Jared israel has also done some early ground-breaking work on 9/11, many articles are here.
Monday, June 12, 2006
Blowing Away the "Official Government Conspiracy Theory" for the Destruction of the WTC Twin Towers
What can you prove with simple models of an enormously complex situation?
Let's say you tell me that you ran, by foot, to a store 10 miles away, then to the bank (5 more miles), then to the dog track (7 more miles), then to your friend's house (21 more miles), then home ...all in 2 minutes.
To disprove your story, I would present to you a simple case. I would present to you that the world's record for running just one mile is 3 minutes and 43.13 seconds. So, it does not seem possible that you could have run over 40 miles in 2 minutes. i.e. It does not seem possible for you to have run 43 miles in half the time it would take the holder of the world's record to run just one mile. Even if I gave you the benefit of having run all 43 miles at world record pace, it would not have been possible for you to have done so in two minutes.
Remember, the proof need not be complicated. I don't need to prove exactly how long it should have taken you to run that distance. Nor do I need to prove how much longer it would have taken if you stopped to place a bet at the dog track. To disprove your story, I only need to show that the story you gave me is not physically possible.
Now, let us consider if any of those collapse times provided to us seem possible with the story we were given.
The bottom line is that there simply is NO DOUBT that the WTC towers were demolished intentionally by a mechanism that had nothing to do with airplane crashes (most likely they were taken down by some form of controlled demolition).
There is NO DOUBT.
If you don't want to face this reality, you are the one living in a fantasy world.
Maybe They Called It "Ground Zero" for a Reason
While completely convincing evidence that nuclear devices were used to bring down the towers is still lacking, it is VERY clear that something highly unusual happened that facilitated the collapse of the towers-- something that pulverized concrete and vaporized and melted large amounts of steel. Molten steel in the basement area of the towers cannot be explained by jet fuel fires or by office fires or by the energy of the collapses. However, molten steel can be explained by massive thermite bombs or mini-nukes.
Sunday, June 11, 2006
I Need to Update My Links Section
9/11 Eyewitness Segments on Google Video
All the other linked 9/11 Eyewitness videos are worth looking at as well (although I personally find the narrator's voice a bit annoying, I don't know about anyone else).
Also, Hybrideb has many long segments of "9/11 Eyewitness" in the AVI video format.
David Ray Griffin Tackles Some 9/11 "Myths"
Myth Number 2: Our political and military leaders would have had no motive for orchestrating the 9/11 attacks.
Myth Number 3: Such a big operation, involving so many people, could not have been kept a secret, because someone involved in it would have talked by now.
Myth Number 4: The 9/11 Commission, which has endorsed the official account, was an independent, impartial commission and hence can be believed.
Myth Number 5: The Bush administration provided proof that the attacks were carried out by al-Qaeda terrorists under the direction of Osama bin Laden.
Myth Number 6: The 9/11 attacks came as a surprise to the Bush administration.
Myth Number 7: US officials have explained why the hijacked airliners were not intercepted.
Myth Number 8: Official Reports have explained why the Twin Towers and Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed.
Myth Number 9: There is no doubt that Flight 77, under the control of al-Qaeda hijacker Hani Hanjour, struck the Pentagon.
Saturday, June 10, 2006
Plane Huggers: Time to Put Up or Shut Up
Frames from here, which is a frame by frame break-down of one of the second hit videos shown on CNN.
If you think that footage has been altered or tricked in some way, look at the Evan Fairbanks footage, which shows the same behaviour.
Friday, June 09, 2006
The Zarqawi Story Starts to Stink
How convenient his face was relatively undamaged!
He had enough strength to try to roll off the stretcher, but then almost immediately died?
He was the only one of six to survive the bombing?
Iraqi police were the first at the scene?
But most importantly, WHERE was he killed?
This is the house the military said he was in:
This is supposed rubble from the bomb strike:
What the HELL???? What did they do-- MOVE THE RUBBLE???
What do they mean "Zarqawi was killed in a rural house in the village"?
This picture looks a bit more like the bombed house, but what is the deal with the rubble above?
UPDATE: was "Zarqawi" beaten to death by US forces?
BAGHDAD, Iraq -- An Iraqi man who was one of the first people on the scene of the U.S. airstrike targeting Abu Musab al-Zarqawi said he saw American troops beating a man who had a beard like the al-Qaida leader.
The witness, who lives near the house where al-Zarqawi spent his last days, said he saw the man lying on the ground near an irrigation canal. He was badly wounded but still alive, the man told Associated Press Television News.
U.S. troops arriving on the scene wrapped the man's head in an Arab robe and began beating him, said the local man, who refused to give his name or show his face to the camera. His account could not be independently verified.
The U.S. military made no mention of any physical contact between U.S. troops and al-Zarqawi other than an attempt to provide him with medical attention.
UPDATE 2: Unless the NYTimes wrote an article just to placate ME, I'm not the only one who has questions about the Zarqawi killing:
Along with the scraps, it was mostly questions that remained.At minimum, it seems likely "Zarqawi" heard the jets or was warned of the strike, and was outside when the bombs hit... and so innocent women and a child were killed for no reason-- which is why aerial bombs are not a good way to go after individual "bad guys". Finally, the reason to doubt the official Zarqawi death story is because Zarqawi was always more propaganda than reality-- and it is likely his death is the same.
Chief among them was how Mr. Zarqawi, the terrorist leader killed Wednesday in the airstrike, could have survived for even a few minutes after the attack, as American officers say he did, when everything else around him was obliterated. Concrete blocks, walls, a fence, tin cans, palm trees, a washing machine: everything at the Hibhib scene was shredded, blown to pieces.
It seemed puzzling, too, given the destruction and the condition of the other bodies, how Mr. Zarqawi's head and upper body — shown on televisions across the world — could have remained largely intact.
With rumors circulating in the Iraqi news media that Mr. Zarqawi had begun to run from the house as the first bomb struck, American officials said Saturday that two military pathologists had arrived in Iraq to perform an autopsy on Mr. Zarqawi's body to determine the precise cause of his death.
Thursday, June 08, 2006
Wednesday, June 07, 2006
I Call Bullshit
Frames from here, which is a frame by frame break-down of one of the second hit videos shown on CNN.
I almost got into a car accident today. A guy in a truck ahead of me braked suddenly, I was a little distracted by something, and I had to brake fast and swerve to avoid a collision.
I drive a medium-sized sedan, and the guy in front of me was driving a large pick-up truck.
I could not help but imagine what the collision would have been like if I hadn't stopped and swerved: my car would have slammed into the back of the truck and crumpled up, probably causing minimal damage to the back of the truck, and the truck would have been pushed forward a bit.
Even if I were going 500 mph, my car STILL would have crumpled into the back of the truck-- though I would have caused more damage to the truck and pushed it forward more. However, there is NO WAY that my car would bust THROUGH the truck without slowing or crumpling.
Now think about a situation where my car is the airplane shown above and the truck is the south tower, and remember airplanes are much more lightly constructed than cars.