Sunday, July 30, 2006
Saturday, July 29, 2006
Why It Is So Critical To Understand That No Planes Were Used in the WTC Attacks:
No planes-- no plane damage, no jet fuel fires-- no possible explanation for why the towers collapsed except for demolition.
Friday, July 28, 2006
Al Qaeda's New TV Studio
As Atta J. Turk says-- it looks more like "the set of 'Iron Chef'".
Flight Simulator Modeling, Part 2: Someone Faked The Fucking Videos
I then tried to match the "CNN wide shot" using Flight Simulator and the tower view feature. This time the match is quite close:
Then, keeping the plane in the same exact place, I moved the Flight Simulator "tower view camera" to the angle in this shot:
Now the plane position is NOT EVEN CLOSE:
This is the video clip from which the 2nd video screen shot was taken:
The plane stays close to the towers and is NEVER that far out in this "blue" clip.
The clip of the "CNN wide shot" can be seen here.
Note: Post updated later in the evening with better views of "blue" video.
Flight Simulator Modeling
Tried to match the CNN wide shot using Flight Simulator. It's not perfect but it is close:
However, then keeping the plane in the same exact place, I moved the Flight Simulator "camera" to the angle in this shot:
But the plane position is not even close:
This is the video:
The plane is never that far out from the tower.
In the CNN simulation at top, the plane is somewhat too large compared to the towers-- meaning I had it too close to the towers. It seems to me that moving the plane farther out would most likely result in the plane being even farther away from the tower in the second angle. Nonetheless, I will try the simulation to see what happens.
Thursday, July 27, 2006
Professor of Fire Safety Engineering Never Expected WTC to Collapse
Jose Torero, professor of fire safety engineering at the University of Edinburgh, conducted the experiment on a 24-storey tower block in Dalmarnock.
He also hopes it will shed light on why the Twin Towers collapsed on 9/11.
Prof Torero said he believed the World Trade Centre in New York should have "withstood burnout" after it was hit.
The collapse of the towers in September 2001, after they were hit by hijacked aircraft, resulted in the deaths of almost 2,800 workers and 350 firefighters and emergency workers.
Prof Torero said: "It didn't even cross my mind the buildings would collapse.
"From my perspective, those buildings were designed to last structurally for between three to four hours, enough time to get everyone out who had survived.
via "9/11 truthlings watch", who has more background on Professor Torero.
As far as the damage from the "airplane" attacks-- it is hard to see how something that completely disintegrates inside the building (according to NIST even) could have done that much structural damage to the tower. Thus, the key question is how the FIRE could have brought down the towers the way they came down.
Of course, mere fires couldn't have done it.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
Bush Administration War Criminals
The Hamdan decision, while not explicitly addressed to the question of interrogation, should resolve this debate. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which the Court has now authoritatively declared applies to the conflict with al-Qaeda, requires that all detainees be "treated humanely," and protects them against "outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment." Moreover, the federal War Crimes Act makes it a felony, punishable in some instances by death, to violate Common Article 3 in any way. Thus, CIA and military interrogators are now on notice that any inhumane treatment of a detainee subjects them to prosecution as a war criminal. While they might be confident that the Bush administration would not prosecute them, they cannot be sure that a future administration would overlook such war crimes. And it is quite possible that government officials might actually decide not to commit war crimes — now that they know they are war crimes — even if prosecution is unlikely. (snip) In fact, the Court's decision further suggests that President Bush has already committed a war crime, simply by establishing the military tribunals and subjecting detainees to them. As noted above, the Court found that the tribunals violate Common Article 3, and under the War Crimes Act, any violation of Common Article 3 is a war crime. Military defense lawyers responded to the Hamdan decision by requesting a stay of all tribunal proceedings, on the ground that their own continuing participation in those proceedings might constitute a war crime. But according to the logic of the Supreme Court, the President has already committed a war crime. He won't be prosecuted, of course, and probably should not be, since his interpretation of the Conventions was at least arguable. But now that his interpretation has been conclusively rejected, if he or Congress seeks to go forward with tribunals or interrogation rules that fail Article 3's test, they, too, would be war criminals.
For extensive examples of foreknowledge, just look at Paul Thompson's book, "The Terror Timeline", or look at his 9/11 timeline website.
Or look at this site, for instance. It has a great summary of 9/11 foreknowledge, and the information is all backed up with very credible links.
This one little segment of the list basically blows away the idea that there was no foreknowledge:
2000 – 2001: The military conducts exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties. One imagined target is the World Trade Center. [USA Today, 4/19/04]
In case you missed that-- ONE YEAR PRIOR TO 9/11, THE MILITARY RAN DRILLS IN WHICH HIJACKED AIRPLANES WERE CRASHED INTO BUILDINGS, INCLUDING THE WORLD TRADE CENTER.
But WAIT! There's more! For instance:
January 2001 (A): An Arizona flight school alerts the FAA that hijacker Hani Hanjour lacks the English and flying skills necessary for the commercial pilot's license he has. The flight school manager: "I couldn't believe he had a commercial license of any kind with the skills that he had." An FAA official actually sits next to Hanjour in class to observe his skills. This official offers a translator to help Hanjour pass, but the flight school points out "that went against the rules that require a pilot to be able to write and speak English fluently before they even get their license." [AP, 5/10/02, New York Times, 6/19/02] FAA "records show [Hanjour] obtained a commercial pilot's license in April 1999, but how and where he did so remains a lingering question that FAA officials refuse to discuss." [Cape Cod Times, 10/21/01]
October 24-26, 2000: Pentagon officials carry out a "detailed" emergency drill based upon the crashing of a hijacked airliner into the Pentagon. [Military District of Washington News Service, 11/3/00, Mirror, 5/24/02] The Pentagon is such an obvious target that, "For years, staff at the Pentagon joked that they worked at ‘Ground Zero’, the spot at which an incoming nuclear missile aimed at America's defenses would explode. There is even a snack bar of that name in the central courtyard of the five-sided building, America's most obvious military bulls eye." [Telegraph, 9/16/01] After 9/11, a Pentagon spokesman will claim: "The Pentagon was simply not aware that this aircraft was coming our way, and I doubt prior to Tuesday's event, anyone would have expected anything like that here." [Newsday, 9/23/01]
April 2000: Spruce Whited, director of security for the Portland Public Library, later says Atta and possibly a second hijacker are regulars at the library and frequently use public Internet terminals at this time. He says four other employees recognize Atta as a library patron. "I remember seeing (Atta) in the spring of 2000,'' he says. Whited also says federal authorities have not inquired about the library sightings. [Boston Herald, 10/5/01, Portland Press Herald, 10/5/01] According to the official story, Atta doesn't arrive in the US until June 3, 2000. [Miami Herald, 9/22/01, Australian Broadcasting Corp. 11/12/01] Why does the FBI appear uninterested in these early sightings of Atta?
Late July 2001 (B): David Schippers, noted conservative Chicago lawyer and the House Judiciary Committee's chief investigator in the Clinton impeachment trial, later claims that FBI agents in Chicago and Minnesota contact him around this time and tell him that a terrorist attack is going to occur in lower Manhattan. According to Schippers, the agents had been developing extensive information on the planned attack for many months. However, the FBI soon pulls them off the terrorist investigation and threatens them with prosecution under the National Security Act if they go public with the information. As a result, they contact Schippers hoping he can persuade the government to take action. Schippers tries to pass the information on to high government officials, but apparently his efforts are ignored. Partly in conjunction with Judicial Watch, the public interest law firm, Schippers is now representing at least ten FBI agents in a suit against the US government in an attempt to have their testimony subpoenaed, which would enable them to legally tell what they know without going to jail. [Judicial Watch, 11/14/01, World Net Daily, 10/21/01, Alex Jones Show, 10/10/01, note the sources are partisan, Schipper's claims are being reported nowhere else]
And much much MUCH more.
For god's sake-- NORAD was running a hijacking drill on 9/11 itself!!!!!!!
The issue is NOT whether there was foreknowledge-- it is beyond any doubt that people in the government (the FBI for example) had ample foreknowledge of 9/11-- the issue, THE GREAT QUESTION OF 9/11, is: WHAT DOES THE FOREKNOWLEDGE MEAN?
Note: the foreknowledge goes FAR beyond saying there was incompetence and bueaucratic bungling and officials just had no clue what to do about the foreknowledge. There is too much active, high-level foreknowledge to be explained away by incompetence.
So, did THE FOREKNOWLEDGE MEAN they knew an "Al Qaeda" attack was coming and just LET IT HAPPEN because it suited their geopolitical agenda?
Or did THE FOREKNOWLEDGE MEAN they knew an "Al Qaeda" attack was coming and ACTIVELY FACILITATED IT because it suited their geopolitical agenda?
Or did THE FOREKNOWLEDGE MEAN that the government was giving off signs to itself that there was a false-flag terror operation in the works?
I imagine you can guess what my answer is.
Of course, the foreknowledge angle is far from the only evidence that 9/11 was an inside job, but it does complement other suspicious 9/11 evidence.
***As far as I can tell, the goal of the site is either to try to debunk all stories that 9/11 was "an inside job", or to only debunk stories that are clearly false about 9/11. If the former, then the site has a LONG way to go (and basically an impossible job) to debunk that there was foreknowledge. If the latter, then it would seem that there are abundant CREDIBLE stories pointing to foreknowledge of 9/11, which they have not debunked, thus supporting the overall contention that 9/11 was "an inside job".
Who Honestly Believes Anymore
BEIRUT, Lebanon (CNN) -- An Israeli airstrike hit a United Nations post in southern Lebanon late Tuesday, killing at least two of the agency's observers, according to the U.N. Interim Force in Lebanon.
I am NOT saying Hezbollah are the good guys either-- it's just that increasingly, it's harder and harder to justify Israel's actions. And given the history of the UN and Israel, it's hard to believe this was a mere accident.
But the larger problem is that the overall strategy of Israel here is rather unclear, and while Israel might achieve some limited objectives, it's getting harder to see how they win the war.
Tuesday, July 25, 2006
The Mis-Aligned CBS Video
Here are Flight Simulator simulations of a similar view, with the plane on a flat course for the 80th floor:
The circle shows where the explosion should be:
You can see the plane comes IN at about the right spot in the video, but in order to hit the right spot, the plane must ascend. Yet in the video, the plane goes downward.
Bad CGI work is what I conclude.
Monday, July 24, 2006
Pre-Saging 9/11 on TV
I'm Curious-- Who Really Thinks This Picture of the 2nd Plane Is a Legitimate (i.e. Not Faked) Photo?4 comments
Sunday, July 23, 2006
Has A 30 Story Building EVER Disintegrated As Quickly as the Top 30 Stories of WTC2 Did?
The corrupt Egyptians, the weak feckless Saudis, and the weak, feckless Jordanians are going to influence Syria? To help Israel?
What the fuck are these people thinking?
Syria has a bottom line demand, the Golan Heights. No Heights, no deal.
What the fuck is Rice thinking, everyone is as stupid as Bush?
All I can think is we are slowly but surely careening to disaster in the middle east.
That's no surprise I guess, when Bush's base is actively wishing for the End-Times to come.
UPDATE: Ugh. It seems Condi Rice is giving out subtle hints to the Rapture crowd.
Saturday, July 22, 2006
What Is This Large White Object and Why Isn't It Seen in Other 2nd Hit Videos?
I've marked the object with a black circle. It is not a laser spot as some have claimed. It is a reflective/shiny object that maintains a consistent path over the span of the video. Whatever it is, it must be at least 5 feet in diameter, judging by its size relative to the plane. It's hard to see it being debris from the north tower...
The zoom-in is amazingly fortuitous to get the plane-- although it could be argued the person was zooming in on this object, and the plane happened to arrive.
But why is not this large shiny object in OTHER 2nd hit videos that show the south face of the tower?
It's fairly clearly not in the "Cheney hit" video or in the "Ghostplane" video or in the "NOVA/Spiegel TV" video, however, it might arguably be in the Pavel Hlava video.
Marcus Icke has analyzed the plane in the Jennifer Spell video (scroll way down) and judges it a fake.
UPDATE: Marcus Icke says his DVD version of the Jennifer Spell video does not have the white spot. So it would appear to be added in at some point? WHY?
UPDATE 2: as Rob points out in comments, the object may well have been REMOVED from other videos as well as the DVD version of the Spell video. A related possibility is that other 2nd hit videos were manipulated in such a way that the object was seen-- for instance if the plane image was added to earlier footage that did not contain the white object. Either way seems fairly likely to me.
What I can also say is that the audio part of the video rings more true to me in this one than the audio in other 2nd hit videos.
Also, it makes sense that the white object is what she was ZOOMING IN ON right before the hit. If there was no object there, it doesn't make sense why she was zooming on that part of the tower-- the only other explanations are:
1) she was extremely lucky to zoom in just as the plane arrives
2) she was in on the plane and knew exactly when to zoom in
I think it is most likely that the object was there and that is why she was zooming in on it.
How to Spot 9/11 Disinformation
Holmgren is a always a good read, and this piece is important.
I think if someone seriously gets into 9/11 research, they need a good bullshit detector. Ultimately, I think discriminating bullshit from something real all boils down to whether something makes sense, and how good the idea is. The bullshit will fall to the wayside. The good theories and the sound, serious analysis should stick around.
Marcus Icke's 9/11 Research
Icke has a very logical and scientific approach, and I find his work is very solid.
Icke was the first person to convincingly show systematic video fakery for the south tower hit. The Webfairy has longed claimed video fakery for the 2nd hit, but unfortunately doesn't explain her thesis very well on her site.
Not Simply an Optical Illusion
What I found is that the problem is NOT where the plane comes in, since at a viewpoint at some distance from the towers, with a lower elevation (as in the video), you would in fact see the plane come in at a lower angle than where it hits the tower. The problem is that in the video, the plane has a DOWNWARD path, where in reality, to hit the appropriate spot on the south tower, the plane needs to have a slight ASCENT as it approaches the tower.
In the screen capture below, I've marked where the plane enters on the right with a circle, designated the apparent path with a line and marked where the explosion occurs with a circle on the tower.
Here again is the video:
So, there is something farked with this video.
Now the fun will be to use the Flight Simulator software to model other 2nd hit videos, and in particular to compare paths in other videos.
One thing I have learned from looking at these videos, is that perspective can be a tricky thing, and that is why it is important to have the computer simulation that can over-ride brain-eye biases.
Friday, July 21, 2006
Who Cares About bin Laden???
Osama Bin Who? The name sounds slightly familiar…perhaps it is a “has been” that occupied a brief moment of my attention span. I question why so many are still obsessed with the capture and comments of this individual. Furthermore, is his existence still relevant? We have men and women in our armed services risking their lives everyday for us and all we care about is a so called “message” of one man? Get a grip…focus on the real issues…remember that welfare of the soldiers willing to lay down their lives for you is what the main concern should be!
Posted by: Matt | Jul 21, 2006 5:04:16 PM
Posted by: dave | Jul 21, 2006 12:27:24 PM
Who in the world cares what this murdering coward has to say? He hides in a cave while everyone else does his dirty work. That seems to be the trend with the so called "leaders" of islamic fascists groups.
Posted by: Uradumone | Jul 21, 2006 12:42:07 PM
Why would anyone wait for a message from a pathetic looser hiding in a cave? Bin Laden's day is over. He cowers, affraid (sic) of his own shadow. One day the cave will close and he will be forgotten like a childs nightmare.
Posted by: bob | Jul 21, 2006 12:46:38 PM
What is this logic? Because the Bush administration seems to have forgotten about bin Laden, now the capture and prosecution of an evil mass murderer (the 9/11 mastermind!!!*) isn't important?
On the bright side, many people seem to realize that in all probability, bin Laden is dead.
*officially, that is
"His Work Is Rubbish"
Definitely worth a look.
Oddly, one of things that almost by itself proves that 9/11 was an inside job is the way characters with strange connections get insinuated into leadership of the "9/11 truth movement"-- and then end-up forestalling critical breakthroughs from the public. Basically, what you would expect if the movement were co-opted by COINTELPRO operatves.
Given Their Track Record0 comments
Thursday, July 20, 2006
Note Where the Plane Is Headed, Then Note Where the Explosion Occurs
The only way to explain this video is if the plane suddenly made a rapid ascent after it went behind the tower.
The problem is that videos taken from the side show the plane either approaching in a flat path or in a descending path.
Yeah, it's just so fucking crazy to think that the plane in these videos is a CGI fake, isn't it?
9/11 is history, it doesn't affect their life in any meaningful way, and they don't want to waste their time thinking about it.
This is my wife's philosophy, for instance.
I could see that many people who are busy raising families and working for a living would have the same attitude. They have other priorities that are more important.
Other priorities, such as real life, they would likely say.
But for me, I can't think of any recent event that is more important than 9/11-- and more blatantly a lie.
And it BUGS me.
I think it is outrageous that this country has let this lie stand.
Is this just "reality" or apathy?
My Personal 9/11 "Smoking Guns"
The majority of these points are generally accepted by the 9/11 skeptic community and I think each of these topics is solid evidence. Everyone, of course, is free to believe what they want about 9/11. However, I think it is extremely naive to think that the official 9/11 story is the ultimate truth. How naive is to think that the huge US government never engages in any dirty tricks? How naive is it to think that the neocons in the Bush administration merely "took advantage of the opportunity" of the 9/11 attacks but did NOTHING active to facilitate what happened?
Debunk all you want, but the question still remains: how confident are you that the government is telling the complete truth about 9/11?
My personal 9/11 smoking guns:
1) the fact that governments throughout history have used false flag terror to manipulate public opinion, and the Operation Northwoods scenario, which contemplated the use of false-flag terror by the US
2) abundant pre-warnings of 9/11, including NORAD drills of hijacked airliners crashing into buildings, terror drills simulating hijacked planes, plane crashing into building drills, warnings from other governments, FBI warnings, 50+ FAA warnings and evidence of insider trading
3) Condoleeza Rice's blatant lie that no one could have anticipated the 9/11 attacks
4) the clear evidence of CIA-Pakistani ISI-Al Qaeda connections, including the wiring of money to Mohamed Atta by the ISI chief before 9/11; the evidence that Al Qaeda (or al-CIA-duh) is not a real organization but rather a propaganda tool.
5) the blatant drug use and generally non-Islamic behaviour of the hijackers in Florida, documented by the media and most extensively by Dan Hopsicker; shady CIA-drug smuggling connections of the flight schools
6) the evidence that many hijackers had doubles; the odd story of the Portland, Maine trip on 9/10; rental car oddities
7) the general improbability of the hijackings being carried out in the manner they were officially carried out with small weapons and fake bombs; the lack of hijack alarms being set-off by any of the eight pilots
8) the lack of Boeing jet piloting skills by the hijackers
9) the lack of any meaningful air defense on 9/11, in clear violation of normal protocol, and the eventual scape-goating of the hapless FAA for the lack of response
10) the complete lack of response by Bush at Booker Elementary when told America was under attack
11) the strangely rapid and smooth collapses of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7; the opinion of scientists that the official story of the collapses did not make sense; the opinion of my wife, who thinks it odd that the WTC towers collapsed completely to the ground after being hit near the top (I consider her an impartial source: she hates that I spend time on this stuff and has not been briefed on the demolition theories).
12) the inability of NIST or anyone else to model the total global collapses of WTC1, WTC2 or WTC7
13) the fact that the collapse of WTC7 looks exactly like a perfectly executed controlled demolition
14) the abundant anomalies and irregularities of the visual record of the 2nd hit, suggesting that some or all of the "UA175" imagery is fake-- as documented by Marcus Icke, this blog and other websites
15) the fact that a large jet flew around lower Manhattan between the first and second hits was completely swept under the rug by the media and government; the author of an article on this topic received death threats
16) the fact that the four hijacked HUGE Boeing jets left remarkably little debris, including no black boxes in the case of the WTC1 and WTC2 hits, and the fact that not one picture of a seat or piece of the tail section from any of the crashed jets has been presented to the public
17) the fact that the three planes that officially hit their targets entered the buildings completely, without any significant pieces breaking off (particularly clear in the case of the south tower attack)-- even though planes are fragile and these were substantial buildings built of either thick steel columns or brick, cement and stone.
18) the extreme improbability of the UA93 crash site-- a small hole with almost no plane debris visible, little evidence of fire near the impact site, and very few human remains; the official story that the nose and the wings of the plane smashed apart into tiny bits upon impact, but that 2/3 of the fuselage burrowed 15-30 feet underground, defies physics.
19) the improbable Pentagon approach path and the fact that the attack occurred at a recently fortified and relatively empty part of the Pentagon (that also housed the Army accounting office who had recently reported a huge loss of money)
20) the many oddities/incongruities of the various phone calls from the hijacked flights
21) the presence of apparently planted plane parts at the various 9/11 attack sites, such as the engine part UNDER a construction canopy
22) the anthrax attacks, which used US military anthrax and only targeted the media and the opposition party (Democrats)
23) the invasion of Iraq, which inflamed the Islamic world, clearly should not have been conducted if Al Qaeda was a serious threat
24) the mistreatment and torture of prisoners at Gunatanamo and Abu Ghraib, which inflamed the Islamic world, clearly should not have been conducted if Al Qaeda was an serious threat
25) the complete lack of interest (or utter failure) by the Bush administration in capturing Osama bin Laden or Ayman al Zawahiri
26) the lack of another terrorist attack on US soil despite the apparent incompetence and corruption of the Department of Homeland Security
27) the inability of the government or media to ever present official flight manifests for the hijacked flights
28) the lack of interest of the FBI in determining who the hijackers were, if many of them had stolen identities
29) the fact that on 9/11, several military drills were being run, including a live-fly NORAD hijacking drill
30) the complete lack of any mainstream media questioning of the government's account of 9/11, and the complete lack of any "pundit" seriously connecting the dots regarding 9/11 or even showing any interest in what happened on 9/11-- suggesting censorship at the highest levels.
31) the almost complete lack of any Democrat questioning the government's account of 9/11 or even questioning the Bush administration's actions on 9/11.
32) the clear desire of the Bush administration, prior to 9/11, to effect regime change in Iraq; and the desire of the Project for a New American Century neocons to have a new "Pearl Harbor"-type catalyzing event.
33) the apparent infiltration of various 9/11 groups by saboteurs, COINTELPRO operatives and disinfo artists; the activities of daisy committees who monitor 9/11 discussion on the internet; the strange killing of Michael Zebuhr, a student ST911.org member
(expanded somewhat 7/20 am, intro added)
(modified and expanded 7/20 pm)
Wednesday, July 19, 2006
More Fake 9/11 Imagery?
1) it is a real photo, but of something else, such as perhaps a missile that took out one engine of the plane (or more of the plane that we've never seen)
2) it is a photoshop job meant to inspire conspiracy theories
3) it is a photoshop job done to profit off the tragedy
4) it is a photoshop job meant to reflect what Val McClatchey saw but missed originally with her camera
#1 and #3 are obviously the most benign from the POV of Val McClatchey-- but these also point to a deep problem with the official flight 93 story.
How sad that Bush is vowing to use his first veto ever to block medical progress. (Update: what an ass.)
Meanwhile, the middle east literally is in flames, and the Bush administration seems unwilling to do anything serious about it. On the other hand, I'm fairly sure if it weren't for the fact that oil prices would skyrocket and wreck the US economy, the Bush administration would happily start WWIII (or IV or whatever the fuck it supposed to be).* (Some interesting analysis of how the current hostilities fit into the big picture can be read here.)
As far as the massage incident with the female German chancellor, I'm not saying this is a big deal, but is sure is immature, and the weirdest pafrt is the zombie-like expression on Bush's face. WTF is the deal with this guy?
*FWIW, I have nothing against Israel trying to take out the hezbollah rocket launchers-- that only seems fair. But I don't think it is right for Israel to attack clearly civilian targets in Lebanon, such as the Beirut airport. The more Israel strays from bombing pure military targets, the worse they look, and the more like the Islamic extremsists they look-- I don't care "who started it".
Monday, July 17, 2006
2) Learn to fly a Cessna 172 prop plane (if you already are a pilot, you can skip this).
3) Download and install the Boeing 767 plug-in, and take-off from Boston Logan airport.
4) Navigate to Manhattan as fast and efficiently as possible, then accelerate to 540 mph-- and on your FIRST ATTEMPT, fly perfectly through the middle of lower Manhattan, where the WTC used to be.
5) Let me know if you succeed.
If you DO succeed, also try a run taking off from Washington Dulles with a Boeing 757, going west for an hour, then turn around, and navigate to the Pentagon and try the "Hani Hanjour maneuver" (a 270 degree turn at 500 mph, then level off and approach the Pentagon on a flat approach, only a few feet off the ground.
Sunday, July 16, 2006
Gingrich: I'm a War-Mongering Ghoul
Should you attempt to read the article, a barf-bag is recommended.
Update: be sure to read the first comment, for a very interesting perspective on Newt. I'd be quite happy if this fellow was right.
Totally Bizarre Plane Path for the Naudet 2nd Hit Clip
Taken from here, it looks as though the "plane" is crawling up the side of the building-- or at minimum coming from a much different angle than the commonly accepted 2nd hit proximal approach path.
The "plane" arrives:
Circle shows "plane", line denotes "standard" proximal approach path for the 2nd plane:
UPDATE: Marcus Icke, of Ghost Gun fame, says the apparent approach path discrepency of the Naudet clip here is an optical illusion. He has analyzed these images somewhat more than me, and therefore his judgment must given some weight.
UPDATE 2: Further analyses show Icke is essentially right. The approach clearly looks odd, but this is explained by the very odd perspective. The diagram below shows the path is basically on target for the entry spot. Two black lines represent a 3D continuation of the tower, and clearly the south wall is quite a bit lower than the east and north walls.
Definitely a cautionary note for some of the plane path claims I have been making here. I will have to go back and re-analyze some of them. However I am quite confident that the other videos I have been analyzing do not have such an extreme perspective.
UPDATE 3 (12/28/08): Looking at this again, I think while my 2 updated analysis still basically holds, there is still a problem with the actual trajectory of the plane: it is coming in at an ascending angle rather than flat or slightly descending angle (with respect to the tower), as most videos show. Note the plane path line is not parallel to the line on the tower from the mechanical floors-- the plane is on an ascent with respect to the hitting the right spot on the tower.
Saturday, July 15, 2006
In Case You Missed It
As I posted a few months back, there are many reasons why most engineers haven't spoken on the WTC demolition.
Dr. Wood is a courageous whistle-blower who has put her career on the line-- for the truth.
I Think This Is 2nd Hit Video #31
How Many Plane Contradictions Can You Spot Here?
Friday, July 14, 2006
The Dangerous Truth of the "Elephant Plane" Story
The story is very striking and I had posted on this a while back-- the existence of a plane flying near the WTC after tower one was hit and shortly before tower two was hit.
What I didn't know before, according to the ST911 article, is that this plane was apparently circling back-and-forth around the WTC, and even more amazingly, can be seen in this video to be near the WTC during the 2nd hit*!
It now seems EXTREMELY likely that this plane was in fact what many witnesses saw right before the south tower was hit, and my thinking is that the south tower was never hit by an actual plane. This plane was a distraction from the lack of a plane at the south tower, and helped imprint the "plane meme" in eyewitnesses' minds.
Nico has some more thoughts on this topic.
*my rough guess is about half a mile west-northwest of the north tower at the time of the second hit
Excellent Interview with Pentagon Attack Survivor April Gallop
Yes, her story is consistent with something other than a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon.
Stories of Election Fraud Getting More Play?
The Worst President Ever, Part CCCLXVII1 comments
Middle East Going Up in Flames
Depends on who you talk to--
Conservative: Bush is doing the best he can under extremely difficult circumstances brought on by the incompetence and perfidy of previous administrations, especially the Democratic ones.
Liberal: the Bush administration is showing once again how completely incompetent they are and are letting the situation get out of hand again, as they did with 9/11, Iraq and Katrina.
Libertarian: Israel sucks and the Bush administration should stay out of the fray, although they are being pressured by the omnipotent Israel lobby.
Conspiracy Theorist: the neoconservatives in the Bush administration are letting things spiral out of control in order to provoke a widespread Western-Islamic conflict that draws in Iran.
Deep Conspiracy Theorist: this is all just a game being played out by the elites who control the money supply; what happens ultimately depends on what is most beneficial to these people.
I suspect there are actually elements of truth to ALL of these arguments-- being the fair-minded person that I am. :)
By having the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court conduct the review instead of a regular federal court, the Bush administration would ensure the secrecy of details of the highly classified program. The administration has argued that making details of the program public would compromise national security.
However, such details could include politically explosive disclosures that the government has kept tabs on people it shouldn't have been monitoring.
Thursday, July 13, 2006
Is It Just Me-- Or Is There A Strange, Disjointed Aspect to the 1st Hit Impact?
It is as if the explosion is a separate entity from the "plane".
Moreover, while the flying object in the movie appears to be a smaller plane than a 767, how could a smaller plane make a hole the size of 767 (particularly with regard to the wing marks)?
All this tends to argue to me that we are not seeing a real plane in this video.
Enlarged frames were captured from the Naudet movie by Webfairy.
Full Naudet clip of the first hit:
Update-- a highly relevant and important article from Marcus Icke here.
Main Suspects for "7/11" Deny Involvement
MUMBAI (Reuters) - India pointed the finger at Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba on Thursday as the prime suspect for coordinated bombings in the country's largest city, as police said they had detained about 20 people.
Investigators have also prepared sketches of three suspects seen at the sites of the bomb attacks, which killed 186 people and wounded more than 700.
"So far it looks like there was a substantial involvement of Lashkar-e-Taiba with local support," D.K. Shankaran, the most senior bureaucrat in Maharashtra state government, told Reuters.
Lashkar, or LeT, has long operated in Indian-ruled
Kashmir, but is believed to have expanded its area of operations recently.
It was blamed for bomb attacks on markets in New Delhi in October that killed more than 60 people, as well as bombs in the holy Hindu city of Varanasi in March that killed 15 people.
Lashkar was also held partly responsible for a 2001 attack on the parliament in New Delhi that brought India and Pakistan to the brink of war.
"We cannot put the blame on any particular group right now, but we have some indication because this attack looks similar to LeT's earlier attacks," said K.P. Raghuvanshi, anti-terrorism squad chief.
Lashkar has denied any role in what it called "inhuman and barbaric acts."
The bombs were left on luggage racks in the crowded compartments, officials said. Shankaran said it appeared that RDX, a highly powerful plastic explosive, had been used to cause at least two of the seven blasts. Police said electrical timers could have been used to set off the explosions.
Wednesday, July 12, 2006
Read It and Weep
The plight of the people who have had limbs amputated is among the saddest of the conditions of this ugly camp. I have twice been housed next to prisoners with prosthetic limbs. It was one of the most depressing experiences I have endured. The prisoners were effectively blackmailed by their interrogators who said that they had to cooperate in order to get their prosthetic devices back. They are denied the toilet chairs, the sticks they need to walk and even the cream they
need to ensure that the wound will not become infected and inflamed. The pain is apparently particularly great when they are denied the necessary prosthetic socks, so that the wounds are exposed to the extreme cold of the cells.
Most of the people in Guantanamo were innocent bystanders.
And we fucked them up good.
Doesn't it make you feel proud to be an American?
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
Excellent Job by Kevin Barrett on H&C
Though this isn't the first time for this sort of attack in India.
Coming right before the G8, like 7/7, the timing is peculiar.
Some interesting 7/11 related stories here.
I haven't seen anyone in the media mention this, but an Indian friend of mine pointed me to this story about a Hindu Shive Sena extremist named Bal Thackeray who was plotting some violence in Bombay in retribution for an attack on his dead wife's bust.
It's About Time
Conflicting Plane Path-- Critique and Reply
“You are attempting to determine the slope of a line in 3 dimensions using 2 dimensional pictures. A line which is perfectly horizontal in reality, like the roof line of building, will appear slanted if viewed from any angle other than perpendicular to the face of the wall, and at the same altitude as the line.
Notice how in your top picture, the roof line of the South Tower appears slanted. The roof lines and floor lines from the buildings you have chosen as reference would not necessarily be level in a 2D picture.”
Marcus Icke, who did the original analysis, responds in an email to me:
A geometric analysis of the Foreman video shows that the aircrafts flight path is perpendicular to the net optical axis of the camera just prior to aircraft impact. Thus rotating the frame using the WTC2 tower as a vertical reference when it is more or less in the center of the screen will allow us to effective identify the vertical and horizontal reference axes at the time of impact.
The east top side of WTC2 is not in the same spatial axis the flight path of the Foreman UA175 aircraft which is why that visible top of the tower and the flight path of the aircraft do not align. This mismatch is by about 15 degrees and is ACCENTUATED further by the surface being HIGHER than the camera.
These are technical points which were considered in the conception of the Ghost Gun article.
In both cases for the “Unknown” Video and the Park Foreman video simply extending the horizontal plane of the Mechanical section of the WTC2 tower at the impact point will be sufficient enough to gauge the flight path of any nearby approaching object as long as that geometric axis does not extend so far out from the tower that it falls under the influence of spatial and optical distortions introduced by the video recording and/or video replay/transmission technology.
Both the “Unknown” video and the Park Foreman video (in particular)
satisfy these criteria to make them reliable enough to detect flight path discrepancies.
Readers should take note that in the “Unknown” video the UA175 aircraft is actually in a slight ASCENT. Both videos also show different speed and different lighting properties and different airframe pitch angles at the time of impact thus the aircraft from each respective video is different in many ways with no rational explanation for the measured discrepancies under discussion.
None of these points in any way infer a Hologram was used at WTC2 on 911.
They only confirm the fraudulent nature of some or all of the WTC2 videos.
I would not have used this example in the Ghost Gun article if it were not technically sound and my ethos applies to all my work at:
My thanks to Truthseeker1234 for raising this anticipated point. It is in the minds of intelligent and analytical people like this that articles like “Ghost Gun UA175” are built.
Monday, July 10, 2006
Welcome New Visitors!
Worth Another Look
Mob Violence Erupts in Baghdad0 comments
Top Ten Reasons Why the 9/11 Hijackers Were Fake
Sunday, July 09, 2006
The Flight 93 Engines: WTF???
Now, already this is odd, because officially the rear three-quarters of the 150 foot long flight 93 fuselage "accordioned" and disappeared into the hole completely, 30 feet below the earth's surface.* The two black boxes were found 15 and 25 feet underground!* Yet here we have the massive jet engine-- with all it's weight and thrust--that barely managed to penetrate the surface of the ground!
But beyond that, a Boeing 757 of course has TWO engines. What happened to the other one?
Many of you may recall that the fate of one of the flight 93 engines was already famously described in the press very early on. According to mainstream media accounts, the other engine landed over a thousand feet from the crash site, as shown in this diagram from Popular Mechanics:
This story of one of the engines being found so far from the crash crater led to the theory** that flight 93 was actually shot down by a heat-seeng missile that targeted one engine, blowing it off and causing it to land far from the rest of the plane.
The supporters of the official 9/11 story, such as Popular Mechanics, said there was no shootdown, that the engine merely ricocheted off the ground as the plane impacted and was flung over a thousand feet by the force of the crash.
And now we seem to know what happened to both of the flight 93 engines. One broke off as the plane crashed and bounced over a thousand feet away by the force of the crash, and the other was deposited in the crash crater.
No problem then, right?
Err, well, um, I have a wee problem with this scenario.
Officially, when the plane crashed, it went more or less straight into the ground:
Leaving aside the many other oddities of the flight 93 crash site, there is this question: if flight 93 simply crashed into the ground as the official story holds, how could the two engines suffer such completely different fates? How is it possible that one engine burrowed into the ground right next to the plane while the other engine broke off and flew a quarter of a mile away? What accounts for this huge discrepency? Even if the plane hit at an angle such that one engine hit first, it is not at all clear to me how this explains the discrepency. Remember, the BULK of the plane officially burrowed into the soft ground (which was mostly topsoil covering an old stripmine). What would have caused one engine to break off and bounce so far away? And why did the second engine not burrow into the ground as deeply as the huge fuselage?
This is part of the reason why I think the flight 93 crash is most likely a massive hoax.
*Jere Longman's "Among the Heroes" Harper Collins, 2002
**e.g. David Ray Griffin "The New Pearl Harbor, Dsiturbing Questions about the Bush Administration and 9/11", Olive brnach Press, 2004
Saturday, July 08, 2006
Terror Threats as Intelligence Tests
Could these terror threats really be some weird intelligence test for the American populace, to see who is dumb enough to fall for this crap?
I wouldn't be surprised if this was the case.
Unfortunately, so far, Americans as a whole seem to be failing the test-- the ultimate test being whether they throw out the whole rotten crew in Washington in the next election (yeah, I mean Dems as well as Repubs). There is only so much they can do to rig the election. Over-turning an overwhelming popular mandate would be hard even for this current crew of thugs.
Smokin' Em Out
QUESTION: We suspected as much, sir. But the question I have -- the question I have is, it appears that the CIA has disbanded the unit that was hunting him down. Is it no longer important to track him down?
BUSH: I -- you know, it's just an incorrect story. I mean, we got a -- we're -- we got a lot of assets looking for Osama bin Laden. So whatever you want to read in that story, it's just not true, period.
QUESTION: So you're still looking?
BUSH: Absolutely. No ands, ifs or buts. And in my judgment, it's just a matter of time, unless we stop looking. And we're not going to stop looking so long as I'm the president, not only for Osama bin Laden, but anybody else who plots and plans attacks against the United States of America. We're going to stay on the offense so long as I'm your president. And my judgment is, if we let up the pressure on him, the world's more dangerous.
In the short run, we will bring these people to justice. We'll use good intelligence, we'll share information with our allies, we will work with friends, we'll bring people to justice. In the long run, the way you defeat this enemy is the spread of liberty. And that's what you're seeing unfold.
Of course, it's only been 4 years and 10 months since 9/11.
Dead or alive.
What a joke.
Friday, July 07, 2006
Synthetic Terror: Made in Britain
Of course, FOXNews was loving it. Also, they loved this weird story about a plot to bomb the Holland tunnel and flood lower Manhattan.
Thursday, July 06, 2006
The Global Warming Theory versus the Official WTC Collapse Theory
--supported by the work of thousands of scientists
--debated in an open manner, with scientists open to all explanations
--research on this theory has appeared in hundreds of peer-reviewed science articles
--highly plausible based on known principles
-- eschewed by conservatives/Republicans
-- presented generally as a strong theory by the media but contrary views are routinely presented in the news
-- conservatives deny that human-produced CO2 affects Global Warming
-- large energy corporations, oil companies clearly have an interest in down-playing CO2-induced global warming
The Official WTC Collapse Theory
--supported officially by the work of only a few named scientists
--research has not been done in an open or transparent manner, in particular this the case for the NIST study
--scientists supporting the official collapse theory (plane damage and fires for WTC1, 2; fire for WTC7) do not even consider the possibility of demolition, and thus are not open to all explanations
--research on this theory has appeared in only a handful of peer-reviewed science articles, most work has appeared in official government documents with only minimal data shown
--hampered by the inaccessibility of the WTC materials to outside scientists
--only marginally plausible in the case of WTC1 and 2, and not at all plausible for WTC7
-- favored by conservatives, particularly Bushevics
-- exclusively presented as the cause of the collapses by the mainstream media, contrary views never presented fairly in the news
-- conservatives/Bushevics deny that anything besides the airplanes could have caused the collapses
-- all who support the official 9/11 story have a strong incentive to downplay the idea that the WTC was blown up by demolition
P.S. the recent comparison between Bush administration analysis involving Iraq's putative WMD and human-induced global warming is a scary one.
Also, a good left versus right on global warming debate here.
Update 7/7: More comparisons added
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
The Patriotic Shot-in-the-Arm from 9/11 Has Worn Off
Let's hope not.
9/11, American Exceptionalism and Disbelief in Conspiracies0 comments
Tuesday, July 04, 2006
Happy Independence Day!
I declare freedom from the 9/11 cover-up and freedom from real terrorists, whatever their religion or nationality.
IF you still believe in Al Qaeda and the official 9/11 story-- isn't it amazing that there has not been another attack on the US since 9/11-- in an essentially free country, with essentially open borders, with a conniving, vicious, evil and determined enemy and with Osama still on the loose?
Does anyone seriously believe the US doesn't have control over major acts of terrorism such as 9/11?
Al Qaeda Missed Their Chance to Get Rumsfeld in the Pentagon on 9/11
The idiocy of wing-nuts really knows no bounds.
But what do you expect for people who have bought the official 9/11 story so totally and completely?
I guess any conservative who questions 9/11 becomes a liberal moonbat to them. Even this guy.
Monday, July 03, 2006
The "Global Warming Conspiracy"
1) seeing Al Gore on the Daily Show a few days back talk about "An Inconvenient Truth"
2) observing how conservatives have a visceral distaste for the subject of human-induced global warming.
I therefore picked up a book called "Global Warming: Opposing Viewpoints" published in 2002 and started reading it.
It's quite amazing.
On the one hand they have scientists telling of their findings on climate change due to the significant CO2 level increase in the past 100 years and the dire problems that a greater increase in CO2 would cause-- all in a very straight-forward and unemotional manner.
On the other hand, they have naysayers who claim that global warming is actually a HUGE CONSPIRACY being sold on the basis of bad science.
According to these people, the global warming conspiracy is actually run by Al Gore and goes something like this:
Gore wants to take away our way of life and restrict how much energy Americans use, restrict how much fossil fuels Americans can consume, because he and his fellow liberal politicians want to expand government control over everyone! And the scientists go along with this idea, putting out shoddy research to support global warming-- all for the grant money of course!
Now, as a matter of course, I have nothing against a good conspiracy theory.
But this one makes little sense to me, since there are a few problems with it:
1) I do not think that Gore wants to take away people's energy freedom (why would he, does this make any sense?)
2) I do not think it is true that liberals want big government to control everyone (that seems to be a conservative goal now, anyway).
3) Why would a politician propose something so patently unpopular unless they were truly serious about the issue?
4) Scientists, as a whole, simply do not operate this way (i.e. doing bad research to get grant money to support one point of view), and the vast majority of scientists are interested in the truth.
5) in fact, often going against the mainstream in science, helps you-- it is GOOD to buck the prevailing wisdom, as long as you have the data to back it up (granted there are always some scientists who go way beyond bucking conventional wisdom, and these people can get into trouble).
Basically, it seems to me-- the naysayers really come across more as partisan crankpots than as people who have serious scientific issues with global warming. And remember it is the big energy companies that are against the idea of global warming and they actively promote the copntrary view.
But big money is always on the side of good, right?
In any case, I think this brings up a good point: talking about a "conspiracy" should be secondary to real evidence of official conflicts, e.g. for 9/11. And I think this is generally the case for many good 9/11 researchers-- who focus on the evidence first without blaming the conspiracy on one person. The conspiracy should flow from the evidence not the other way around.
But ultimately, it is very amusing to see conservatives cook up and promote this huge conspiracy theory, but at the same time be comtemptuous of the idea that 9/11 was a conspiracy-- especially when the evidence for 9/11 being a conspiracy is so strong and the conspiracy makes more sense. It is an amazing double-standard.
By the way, my view on global warming is that I am still open to the idea that CO2 doesn't cause global warming-- I need to do more research. On the other hand, given the extreme and catastrophic changes that will happen to the planet if global warming continues, I think it is only sensible to put in place some reasonable CO2 emission control measures.
Osama Served His Purpose, Apparently
Saturday, July 01, 2006
Basic Justice, Basic Humanity
MATTHEWS: What about the charge made recently, just a couple minutes ago by Kate O'Beirne of the "National Review," that people who fight us who are not in uniform, who do not represent countries who are party to the Geneva Convention shouldn't be free riders? They shouldn't get Geneva Convention treatment. They should be treated like thugs.snip
SWIFT: Well, you know, if you're looking at it from that way, we have a lot of criminals here in this country. And to prejudge anyone that we capture outside the country as a thug, why are we having a trial in the first place? We've already decided they were guilty.
What the Supreme Court said is you have the trial first, you use the procedures that are set up under international law, and then you decide whether they're a thug. You don't make the thug determination going in.
MATTHEWS: I only have a minute here, sir, and I appreciate your position, and I'm being tough with you because there is another side to this argument. Let me ask you, do you believe that people who fight us as terrorists deserve Geneva Convention treatment?As Digby says, Swift is a true American hero.
SWIFT: It's not whether they deserve it or not. It's how we conduct ourselves. It has to do where if we say that our opponent can cause us not to follow the rules anymore, then we‘ve lost who we are. We're the good guys. We're the guys who follow the rule and the people we fight are the bad guys and we show that every day when we follow the rules, regardless of what they do. It's what sets us apart. It‘s what makes us great and in my mind, it's what makes us undefeatable, ultimately.
MATTHEWS: Well, Commander Swift, I‘m sure you‘re going to have a place in history and you deserve it. What a great job you did, I‘ve been tough on you, but somebody has to defend the law and you‘ve done it. Thank you very much Lieutenant Charles Swift of the U.S. Navy.