2006: A Year of Many Critical Breakthroughs for 9/11 Research

In my view, this year the evidence has become overwhelming for:

-- No conventional planes at the WTC

-- Live 2nd hit TV fakery

-- Video fakery for 2nd hit

-- Beam weapons used for WTC demolition


It has been a big year for me. For the first time, I personally feel as though I have some understanding of how the hoax was carried out.

According to My Calculations...

See UPDATE below.

According to my calculations, my WTC model was significantly weaker than a WTC tower, proportionally.

And I could not induce ANY COLLAPSE in the model-- even when the bulk of the columns on one floor were severed.

Does anyone find any errors in my calculations?

If not, I submit my model as proof that the WTC could not have collapsed under its own weight and pulled only by gravity.

Calling me a moron, an idiot, a fool, pathetic, sad does not count as finding an error in my calculations.

So-- does anyone find any problems with my calculations?

I am open to admitting mistakes and that I may be wrong. But someone needs to raise a reasonable criticism.

OOPS-- UPDATE-- this section "b) the outer wall columns in my model had over 100 times less steel per cross-section than an individual WTC outer column (0.9 mm round) at floor 80 (180 sq. mm proportionally versus roughly 18320 sq. mm)" was wrong and thus my overall conclusions were very wrong.

I made a major error in calculations-- actually my model columns were roughly 32400 sq. mm in proportional cross-section-- making them 1.8-fold stronger than WTC columns. This obviously changes the overall equation of relative strength and means my model was roughly 34 times stronger proportionally than the WTC. This explains why I could not induce collapse and means I need to redesign the model.

UPDATE 2-- 1/1/07-- OOPS again. Realized I factored in the scale of the columns twice, and the first time going the wrong way-- so I need to take away a factor of 1.9. Also found another mistake, meaning I need to redo the overall calculations.

So, my model columns were 200X stronger than the WTC columns due to scale.

They were 1.8x stronger proportionally, in terms of cross-section of steel.
I had 2.6x fewer columns per wall and 5x few floors meaning the effective strength of the model columns was 5x weaker. Except my model columns had similar cross-bracing to the WTC, meaning we need to lower the 5x figure. Let's be generous and cut this in half to 2.5x.

Thus we have 200 times 1.8 divided by 2.6 divided by 2.5 = 55.

Meaning that VERY ROUGHLY the model columns were 55 times stronger proportionally than the WTC columns. In reality the model is probably less than this-- due to weaker steel and inferior column shape. But the bottom line is the model is far too strong proportionally, and needs to be redesigned.

The simplest way would be to redo the model design with even smaller wires than what I used.

Thick Blockish Wings

Look at this video of a REAL Boeing 767:


Look how chunky those wings are-- even out to the tips. And just check out any "planespotting" video from YouTube to see what real wings look like. Also-- extended flaps are usually very noticeable.

Compare the wings here:


The wings appear paltry by comparison-- particularly notice how the wingtips taper off so dramatically.

Same goes for other similar head-on shots of "UA175".

In fact, all the videos of "UA175" depict a plane with very skinny wings.

A History of Mind Control and Intelligence Agencies

Very interesting stuff from Nico Haupt.

Censorship?

Curious how the two YouTube videos in this article that make Steven Jones look bad have been pulled from public viewing.

Scaling, Euler's Formula and My WTC Model

IMPORTANT UPDATES-- see below

I described and took pictures of my 1:200 scale WTC tower model here.

I found that my model was extremely resistant to any sort of collapse.

If (admittedly a large "if") my model was an accurate representation of a WTC tower, my findings would strongly imply that the towers were blown up by demolition.

There were already many reasons to think the WTC was blown, but I built the model with hopes of creating a convincing physical case for demolition.

Importantly, I built the model in good faith. I didn't know what to expect, and if it had collapsed in a heap, I would have reported that. One reason to do experiments, after all, is TO LEARN.

The tower was built out of steel wire and was a 1/200th scale version of a WTC tower-- in terms of basic proportions. I knew it was not a perfect model and I never claimed it was a perfect representation of a WTC tower. I built it because I was interested in the collapse mechanics. In terms of scaling down, I tried to make things roughly proportional, such as weight and column strength.

I was in fact worried about scaling issues-- that idea that although the structural elements were proportionally smaller, that there would be a different degree of strength. But I wasn't sure how to control for that, and some limited research I did on scale models failed to reveal what I should be worried about.

So I proceeded with the model and you can see the results here.

Predictably, revealing my model here on my blog induced cries of derision from the usual suspects. What an idiot I was, what a moron I was, how sad I was, how pathetic I was, how sad if I passed my idiocy to my children, etc etc.

Unfortunately, there was very little in the way of productive criticism as to what was wrong with my model-- and in fact that was what I was looking for.

Yesterday, I noticed a new comment saying how dumb I was, how I should have taken an engineering course, then mentioning the strength of an ant relative to a man.

Putting aside the gratuitous insults, the ant strength idea was something I could grab onto, and I did a little bit of reading on the strength of ants versus men. According to one site (that I can't locate right now), the apparent strength of ants has mostly do with the relationship between strength and the cross-sectional area of muscles.

So that wasn't very useful. But the same site also noted how a man scaled up to 100 feet would not be able to stand, because his bones could not stand the weight-- even if they were proportionally bigger.

Now that sounded like something relevant to my model.

So I did some reading on column load versus length, and found Euler's formula. Most relevant to my model:

Another bit of information that may be gleaned from this equation is the effect of length upon critical load. For a given size column, doubling the unsupported length quarters the allowable load.

What this would mean in simple terms is a column gets progressively weaker as its length increases, even if it is proportionally stronger.

Thus, let us say you have a two inch column of thickness 1 (Column A). It can support load X without buckling.

Now, let us say you have an eight inch column (Column B) of thickness 4.

What load can it take? According to Euler's formula, very approximately, F = K/L^2
Where F = load force, K is a constant and L is length. Basically load is proportional to the inverse of the length squared.

For the two columns, the constants should basically cancel out. For column A, F= K/1 and for column B, F= K/16-- simply in terms of length. A column 4 times longer than another column of the same thickness would hold only 1/16th the weight or load.

But column B is 4 times thicker, making it in essence 4 times stronger. So it could roughly hold 1/4th the weight or load. Thus, VERY SIMPLY, a column that increases in size proportionally in terms of thickness and length will hold less weight by the factor that it increases in length.

Getting to my model now. It was a 1/200 scale, meaning the columns were 200 times stronger to the analogous WTC columns if they were perfectly proportional in terms of size and strength.

And this would then explain the scaling effect quite well-- why my model was so resistant to collapse.

But were my columns proportional?

In fact, my columns were not perfectly proportional. They were 1.9 times smaller proportionally than a WTC outer column, in terms of cross-section. And I used less of them per outer wall (24) than the WTC (62). So that lowers their effective strength by 2.6 fold. Another important consideration was that I had only 1/5th the floors of the WTC (22 versus 110), thus making my columns proportionally 5 times longer than WTC columns (though this is somewhat counter-balanced by the about same degree of horizontal cross-bracing as the WTC outer columns. So we can lower this length factor somewhat-- say 2-fold. This means my shorter model columns were approximately 20-fold stronger than the WTC columns (200/(1.9 x 2.6 x 2)) taking these factors into consideration.

Other factors are that:
a) the WTC columns were box columns whereas my model columns were solid thin wires (and a larger cross-sectional area hollow column is significantly stronger than a solid column with a smaller cross-sectional area)
b) the outer wall columns in my model had over 100 times less steel per cross-section than an individual WTC outer column (0.9 mm round) at floor 80 (180 sq. mm proportionally versus roughly 18320 sq. mm)
c) the galvanized steel wire in my model was undoubtedly poorer quality than the steel used to make WTC columns.

I will factor in that 100-fold cross-section and calculate that my individual model columns were at least 5-fold weaker than the WTC columns!

SO-- in fact, my model WAS indeed significantly weaker than the WTC and STILL DIDN'T COLLAPSE.

AGAIN, I CHALLENGE ANYONE TO BUILD A SCALE WTC MODEL THAT COLLAPSES UNDER ITS OWN WEIGHT.

P.S. Made a mistake in calculating cross-section of steel in the model columns and significantly revised the conclusions to this post a couple of hours after posting.

UPDATE-- this section "b) the outer wall columns in my model had over 100 times less steel per cross-section than an individual WTC outer column (0.9 mm round) at floor 80 (180 sq. mm proportionally versus roughly 18320 sq. mm)" was wrong and thus my overall conclusions were very wrong.

I made a major error in calculations-- actually my model columns were 32400 sq. mm in proportional cross-section-- making them 1.8-fold stronger than WTC columns. This obviously changes the overall equation and means my model was roughly 34 times stronger proportionally than the WTC. Thus my model is not a good system for studying collapse mechanics.

UPDATE 2-- 1/1/07-- OOPS again. Realized I factored in the scale of the columns twice, and the first time going the wrong way-- so I need to take away a factor of 1.9. Also found another mistake, meaning I need to redo the overall calculations.

So, my model columns were 200X stronger than the WTC columns due to scale.

They were 1.8x stronger proportionally, in terms of cross-section of steel.
I had 2.6x fewer columns per wall and 5x few floors meaning the effective strength of the model columns was 5x weaker. Except my model columns had similar cross-bracing to the WTC, meaning we need to lower the 5x figure. Let's be generous and cut this in half to 2.5x.

Thus we have 200 times 1.8 divided by 2.6 divided by 2.5 = 55.

Meaning that VERY ROUGHLY the model columns were 55 times stronger proportionally than the WTC columns. In reality the model is probably less than this-- due to weaker steel and inferior column shape. But the bottom line is the model is far too strong proportionally, and needs to be redesigned.

The simplest way would be to redo the model design with even smaller wires than what I used.

Possible Explanations for Demolition of the WTC

There's really NO DOUBT the WTC twin towers were blown up by some powerful form of demolition.

The big question is: HOW was it done?

There are really five major possibilities for how they did it:

1. the towers were pre-built with demolitions embedded in them for future re-activation

2. the towers were loaded up internally with essentially conventional explosives

3. the towers were taken out by a few extremely powerful bombs, such as mini-nukes

4. the towers were demolished by some external force, such as a directed energy beam

5. the towers were demolished by a combination of the above

#1 is an interesting idea that is hard to rule out completely, but overall seems unlikely in that the explosives would probably decay in the 30+ years since the towers were built

#2 is the easiest to propose, but the major problem is it is not clear how the towers could have been loaded with so much explosive without people not in on the plot seeing it

#3 is easy enough to propose, and it also gets around the problem of needing to lace the towers with explosive as presumably only a few devices would be needed. I made the part of the case against mini-nukes here. I tend to think a small number of mini-nukes don't quite explain the demolition sequence of the towers-- how they were blasted apart into dust in a progressive manner.

#4 is the least obvious but the most interesting and I think most likely explanation. A directed energy beam weapon from above is the best way to explain the top-down demolition sequence and the apparent melting and dustification of the steel. The technology is no doubt out there for this energy beam, but the problem is that it is top-secret and we don't know exactly what it is.

#5 is a reasonable position, and it seems quite possible beam weapons plus conventional explosives were used. Maybe if there were built-in explosives, they activated those as well. A mini-nuke or two may have been added into the mix as a back-up.

The "Lenticular Reentry Vehicle"

Wild stuff:

The official designation for America’s nuclear flying saucer was the Lenticular Reentry Vehicle (LRV). It was designed by engineers at the Los Angeles Division of North American Aviation, under a contract with the U.S. Air Force. The project was managed out of Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, in Dayton, Ohio, where German engineers who had worked on rocket plane and flying disc technology had been resettled.

The LRV escaped public scrutiny because it was hidden away as one of the Pentagon’s so-called “black budget” items -- that is, a secret project that is incorporated into some piece of nonclassified work.

Saddam Conspiracy Theories

I will note the reports that Saddam Hussein has been hanged to death by saying, they are making a big mistake by not showing the video.

Lots of people are going to wonder if he is really dead.

Personally I don't care one way or the other-- I am not a supporter of the death penalty, but Saddam was clearly an evil dude so I am not going to get too upset about it.

I'm just saying the conspiracy theories will flourish unless extremely good quality video of the execution is shown.

UPDATE: As has been pointed out by others, executing Saddam is a very effective cover-up for the alliance between the US and Saddam in the 80's-- a time when Saddam was clearly established as a brutal, evil dictator-- and the US looked the other way.

It's also a bit strange that Saddam was killed for one relatively small atrocity-- just a fraction of what he is supposed to have done. And this is a shame in the sense that many many of his crimes have therefore been unpunished and probably will be swept under the rug.

Red Herring?

I would say these squibs were a sign of controlled demolition of the towers if there were dozens more of them, perhaps at every other floor:


On the other hand, these sorts of precisely located explosive squibs can't be explained by a progressive collapse mechanism (the official story) either.

I have to wonder if a small packet of explosives was planted to cause this-- on purpose, as a red herring for conventional demolition.

9/11 Children's Easter Egg Hunts

"Oooh Mommy, look what I found!"

The demolition of WTC7.

The explosive squibs coming out of WTC1 and WTC2 as they were demolished.

The sounds of explosions before WTC1 and WTC2 came down.

The "pod" on the belly of "UA175" in some videos.

The NORAD hijacking drills that ran on the morning of 9/11.

YES-- I spent some time on these issues myself, if you look back through my archives.

I suspect these are all "red herrings".

What are they covering up?

1) No hijacked planes

2) No planes hitting the towers

3) Non-conventional demolition of the WTC twin towers by directed energy beam weapons

On the Fake Flight 93 Shoot-down Story and the Fake Todd Beamer Call

Dave McGowan continues his analysis of Flight 93.

He's found one new important fact-- Lisa Jefferson, the GE operator that Todd Beamer supposedly talked to, has links to a CIA-front operation.

The other info in the article isn't new, but McGowan puts it together probably better than anyone else has before.

Hunt the Rubble

Basically a Ground Zero version of "Hunt the Boeing", put together by "Ace Baker".

Can you find any WTC floor assemblies in the rubble?

When you're done with that, you should also try to figure out what happened to the North wall of WTC1 as well as what happened to all the core columns and beams of WTC1.

Various Items of Interest

Juan Cole's "Top Ten myths about Iraq 2006" is worth a look-see. He rightfully plays down any significance for "Al Qaeda in Iraq".

The most amazing example of "the bad news is good for Bush" I've ever seen.

Another example of brain-dead soulless punditry-- here with George Will.

Matthew Yglesias makes some important points on how Ford's pardoning of Nixon was a great injustice to the country-- in fact, we needed the complete truth about Nixon to come out. Much like we need the truth about Bush to come out today, I might add.

Squeaky Fromme and Sara Jane Moore: I had forgotten about the two assassination attempts on Ford in 1975 (though I was but a lad at the time).

9/11 and the Bastardization of Science

Besides the direct and indirect deaths from 9/11, besides the huge horrible lies, besides the tremendous waste of taxpayers' money, besides the development of the police-state apparatus, besides the torture and the injustice, there is one tragic cost of 9/11 that has been little discussed-- what 9/11 has done to the public's perception of scientific reality.

Thanks to 9/11 and the NIST white-wash, the public now thinks that, contrary to the laws of physics and the science of engineering:

Jet fuel fires and gravity can make massive skyscrapers break apart and turn into dust in mid-air-- all in a matter of a few seconds.

Aluminum planes can puncture heavy steel and concrete buildings like a bullet entering flesh and without any parts breaking off.

Airplanes leave cartoon-like cut-out shapes of themselves when they crash in skyscrapers and in the ground and at the same time completely disintegrate leaving only tiny unrecognizable pieces that constitute only a small fraction of the plane's original structure.

Boeing 757s can be flown at over 500 mph only one or two inches off the ground.

When a Boeing 757 hits the outside of the Pentagon, the plane disappears inside but leaves logo-painted pieces of the fuselage skin on the lawn.

9/11 furthered the dumbing-down of America-- in many ways really-- but certainly in terms of science.


It's a damn shame.

WTC Demolition: Atomic Weapons Versus Beam Weapons

This piece tries to make the case for a 4th generation hydrogen bomb for the demolition of the WTC.

The article makes several good points, but I think the case for a space-based microwave beam used to take down the WTC towers is better in terms of the overall evidence:

Here are the principal data that must be explained:

1. The Twin Towers were destroyed faster than physics can explain (free fall speed "collapse")
2. The protective bathtub was not significantly damaged by the destruction of the Twin Towers
3. The rail lines, rail cars and tunnels had only light damage
4. The WTC mall survived well, witnessed by Warner Bros. Road Runner and friends
5. The seismic impact was minimal, far too small based on our comparison with the Kingdome controlled demolition
6. The Twin Towers were destroyed from the top down, not bottom up, unlike WTC7
7. The upper 80 percent, approximately, of each tower was turned into fine dust and did not crash to the earth
8. File cabinet with folder dividers survive
9. Office paper was densly spread throughout lower Manhattan, unburned, often along side burning cars.
10. Vertical round holes were cut into buildings 4, 5 and 6, plus a cylindrical arc into Bankers Trust and into Liberty street in front of Bankers Trust
11. All planes but top secret missions were ordered down until 10:31 a.m. (when only military flights were allowed to resume), after both towers were destroyed, and only two minutes after WTC 1 had been destroyed
12. Approximately 1,400 motor vehicles were towed away, toasted in strange ways during the destruction of the Twin Towers
13. The order and method of destruction of each tower minimized damage to the bathtub.
14. Twin Tower control without damaging neighboring buildings, in fact all seriously damaged or destroyed buildings had a WTC prefix, and no others.
15. The north wing of WTC 4 was left standing, neatly sliced from the main body which virtually disappeared
16. The WTC1 and WTC2 rubble pile was far too small to account for the mass, unlike that of WTC7
17. Eyewitness testimony about toasted cars, instant disappearance of people by "unexplained" waves, a plane turning into a mid-air fireball and electrical power cut off moments before WTC 2 destruction, the sound of explosions
18. The possibility that a technology exists. Since invention of the microwave for cooking in 1945 and laser beam in 1955*, commercial and military development of beam technology has proceeded apace, so use of high-energy beams are likely

What theories are available to explain these phenomena?
We can identify seven theories:

1. Natural causes such as earthquakes and hurricanes
2. Arson
3. The official theory of airplane impact, fires and weakened steel collapsing
4. Conventional demolition with explosives such as RDX, dynamite, etc.
5. Demolition via thermite or its variants


6. Fission or fusion nukes (and clean bombs)

7. Beam weapons

No one proposes that an earthquake destroyed the Twin Towers from the top down. The theory is contradicted by nearly all the data above. For example, no earthquake can toast cars in inexplicable patterns.

In fact, the data refute theories a to e –- natural, arson, official, conventional and thermite demolition -– in particular the intact bathtub, minimal seismic impact, and "dustification" prove nothing close to 1 million tons of material slammed down on the WTC foundation and its sub-basements. The debris stacks left where the Twin Towers once stood hardly covered the ground. The rescue dogs and workers did not climb up a tall pile but had to repel down to search for survivors. The arson and thermite theories fail to explain every data point, but all the unburned paper in particular refute any high-temperature base hypothesis.

The nuclear theory fails because an explosion powerful enough to turn most of each tower to dust would have seriously damaged the bathtub, probably flooded lower Manhattan, and spiked a high Richter reading. It violates a number of data points, including the observed top-down disintegration. And if a nuke were at the top, it could not progressively destroy lower floors and there were only a few steel beams tossed onto adjacent buildings and none above the 20th floor. Lots of aluminum cladding was tossed onto neighboring buildings’ roofs but no steel beams. How could a nuke be so selective? It could not. Nor can a nuke explain the toasted cars.

All the data are consistent with a beam weapon. Take the round holes in buildings 5 and 6. A high-energy weapon by definition could cut into buildings, destroy material and leave discreet boundaries in the buildings. We have know of no other explanation that has been offered for these peculiar holes. Similarly, some 1,400 cars were toasted in inexplicable patterns, and no alternative explanation to energy wave reflections has been offered. As Sherlock Holmes declared,

"When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."

(emphasis added)

Caught In The Act

This picture is about as close proof of demolition as anything I've seen (be sure to click on the picture to see the enlarged version!):

Moreover, the smoke pattern is consistent with high energy forces (i.e. exotic weaponry/Star Wars beams) attacking the tower from above.

Picture from here.

Updated 911 Octopus Stealth Media Perps Video

Well done!


This related video, on exotic weaponry, is really good too.

Is This What A Future 9/11 Investigation Will Look Like?

By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer Mon Dec 25, 4:36 AM ET

WASHINGTON - A two-year congressional inquiry into the Oklahoma City bombing concludes that the FBI didn't fully investigate whether other suspects may have helped Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols with the deadly 1995 attack, allowing questions to linger a decade later.

The House International Relations investigative subcommittee will release the findings of its two-year review as early as Wednesday, declaring there is no conclusive evidence of a foreign connection to the attack, but that far too many unanswered questions remain.

Just substitute 9/11 for Oklahoma City bombing, the hijackers for Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, 2001 for 1995 and domestic connection for "foreign connection".

By the way, did a large fertilizer bomb really do this?

It's a strange damage pattern, with those highly vertical cuts in one side of the structure.

Merry Christmas

Here's hoping for peace and good will-- and new understanding.

What Hit WTC2? Major Flaws for both the FEMA and NIST 767 Alignments

FEMA:


NIST:


Not that the facade damage for the starboard wing is unknown as there are no clear photos of that region of the wall after the attack.




The engines line up perfectly with the holes for the NIST alignment, but there are still major problems-- most notably the port wing does not line up at all, and the whole angle of the plane is different:

The Rudder Clue

Videos of "UA175" showed it making a hard turn portwards right before it struck the South tower. Turns on an airplane are executed in part by extending the rudder to the side to which you want to turn. For the last-second high-speed turn that UA175 made, one would expect the rudder to be fully extended port-wards.

Here is an image of UA175 extracted from the "CNN Best Angle" footage. Most videos agree that the plane was still banking as it hit the tower, and this video shows the last one or two seconds before impact. Thus the rudder should be extended in this video.

In this image taken from the beginning of the video, the tail section is very clear but I see no sign of the rudder being extended:


UPDATE: Marcus Icke tells me that at high-speed, the rudder would not need to be extended far to execute a turn. But he also says at the estimated speeds for UA175 (540 mph), the control flaps would likely have ripped off the plane.

Part of my thinking here was that in the last frenzied seconds of a suicide mission, a real-life suicide pilot making a desperate last-second turn would turn the controls maximally to avoid missing the tower-- thus fully extending the rudder.

If such a thing did happen in real-life, it does seems likely that the rudder would be ripped off.

It seems very unlikely to me that the last second banking turn made by "UA175" would be a gentle, controlled maneuver.

Impact Hole Analysis

In considering what exactly happened to the North tower versus the South tower, it is important to look at what happened immediately after the impact-- since the plane images cannot be trusted. The explosion however, can be considered more-or-less authentic.

And there are in fact very different things that happen at the "entry" hole for both the North and South tower.

The screen shots here have been taken from clips in the video compilation P200015 offered as evidence at the Moussaoui trial in August 2006.

Here are the flames coming out of the North tower, about 7 seconds after impact:


Here are the flames coming out of the North tower, about 10 seconds after impact, note how the complete entry hole is flaming-- from edge to edge:


Here is a fireball coming out of the South tower, about 3 seconds after impact:


Here is the South tower, about 8 seconds after impact-- the flames are gone at the entry hole, there is only lots of smoke:


Here is the South tower entry hole, shortly later (not clear exactly when from the video):


At this point, the main smoke seems to be coming from a strange blackened area quite a way off from the entry hole:


CLEARLY, there are huge differences in the behaviour of the entry holes between the North and South tower hits, even though the planes were officially the same type.

Apparent differences in the hits:

1) speed-- the South tower plane hit faster (about 540 mph) than the North tower plane hit (about 450 mph), if you believe the videos.

2) impact on core area-- the South tower plane officially hit the core to one side, with the port wing and fuselage hitting the core, whereas the North tower plane officially hit the core in the middle, with both wings and the fuselage hitting the core.

3) thickness of outer wall columns at entry holes-- for the South tower entry hole (floors 79-82), the columns were officially 13/16th inch steel on two sides (the lateral sides) and 1/4 inch steel thick on two sides (the outer and inner sides), whereas for the for the North tower entry hole (floors 94-96), the columns were officially 3/8th inch steel on two sides (the lateral sides) and 1/4 inch steel thick on two sides (the outer and inner sides).

The significantly greater thickness of the South tower entry hole columns should negate the effect of the extra speed (officially) carried by the South tower plane, in terms of penetration of the wings.

What appears to have happened (officially) at the North tower is the wings burst open upon impact, spraying fuel out of the wing tanks, causing huge flames to burst out of the entry hole.

This CLEARLY didn't happen at the South tower, and there is no apparent reason why.

Logically, the thicker steel columns at the South tower impact region should have also caused the wings to burst open upon impact, spraying fuel out of the wing tanks, again causing huge flames to burst out of the entry hole.

Instead, the sequence at the South tower shows a fireball emanating from the center of the tower, well after the plane has completely entered in the videos. There is also the issue, that I have touched on before, that the port wing of the South tower plane never seems to produce any significant fireball, whereas the majority of the South tower fireball emanates from the end of the starboard wing.

This makes little sense in terms of the official story, but does make sense if the South tower attack was a hoax of some sort, involving the explosion of an internal fuel-bomb that is set to explode coincidentally with the production of the outer plane-shaped hole.

Curiously, the North tower hit and fireball pattern makes more sense for a real plane crash than what happened at the South tower.

Seven Basic Possibilities for What Happened at the South Tower

Six possibilities are described here.

The seventh possibility is that there was a more-or-less conventional plane that was able to shoot something ahead of itself to create the opening in the tower wall. One possibility is that there were pre-planted explosives in the building along the wall, and there was a trigger (electrical charge?) that sensed the plane (this could explain the entry flash seen in some videos) and helped blow the wall inwards as the plane went in-- even along the wings. Another possibility is the plane shot a beam or missile to create the entry hole (again explaining the entry flash). Either way, this conventional plane would have had to be destroyed completely by the floor slabs and columns once inside. This entry mechanism would have to be combined with video fakery to account for the discrepencies between the videos.

I tend not to like this explanation, though I can't really rule it out either. The biggest problem with the pre-planted explosives-trigger idea is that it seems like a cumbersome way of setting up the attack, and there is the technical problem of getting the right explosives along the inner walls without people not involved in the plot knowing about it. The problem with the plane shooting something ahead of itself (beam or missile) is that it is hard to see how this accounts for the wing holes or what happened to the tail. Another problem is this theory doesn't really explain why so many of the videos of the 2nd plane are fake-looking with a cartoonish plane.

The bottom line is that this explanation doesn't seem more likely than my top two possibilities (non-conventional plane + video fakery or pure video fakery).

Blast from the Past: The Odigo Warnings

via Haaretz:

Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

So what ever happened with that, anyway?

Don't Shoot

French soldiers in Afghanistan had Al-Qaeda chief Osama bin Laden in their crosshairs -- twice -- but did not receive the order from their US commander to open fire, a French documentary reported.

Yeah, I know: "However the French defence ministry said the story was "pure fabrication". "There is absolutely no basis of truth in what is being said," said spokesman Jean-Francois Bureau."

Funny how much shit gets made up about OBL and 9/11.

Pardoning a Bunch of Druggies

WTF???

More on Bush's pardons here.

The Worst Secretary of State Ever

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice told The Associated Press on Thursday that Iraq is "worth the investment" in American lives and dollars and said the U.S. can still win a conflict that has been more difficult than she expected.

I guess "The Worst Secretary of State Ever" prize goes well with her previous award for "Worst National Security Advisor Ever".

Six Basic Possibilities for What Happened at the South WTC Tower

IN MY OPINION, These are the six basic POSSIBLE explanations for what might have happened at the South WTC Tower on 9/11/01:

1) A top-secret non-conventional plane, a drone or possibly even carrying passengers, similar looking to a Boeing 767 or with "cloaking" similar to a Boeing 767, hit the tower. The videos that show the plane melting into the tower are mostly legitimate. Some videos were probably altered to make the plane look more like a United 767 and also to confuse investigators. Rather than shearing off upon impact, the wingtips and tail of this plane were some special material or energy form that was able to disintegrate/dissipate upon contact and also leave a ghost-like imprint in heavy steel columns. The plane body was constructed of a special material with the ability to penetrate heavy steel and concrete but this material also completely disintegrated after the initial penetration.

2) A Boeing 767 flew close by the tower right before it exploded, then turned invisible by cloaking technology. Some videos that don't show the plane directly going into the tower could therefore be legitimate, while videos showing the plane melting into the tower needed to be faked. No physical, mechanical plane hit the tower and the damage to the tower was caused by an invisible beam weapon of some sort, by pre-planted bombs or by an invisible/cloaked missile.

3) No physical, mechanical plane hit the tower and all videos showing the plane hitting the tower were faked. The damage to the tower was caused by either pre-planted bombs, by a "cloaked" missile or by an invisible beam weapon of some sort. A 767-like plane may have flown by the tower around the time of the strike to confound witnesses, but this plane did not appear as the attack plane in any 2nd hit video.

4) No physical, mechanical plane hit the tower but a plane image (and possibly sound) was projected over a short distance by holography (or related means) to fly into the tower in order to fool witnesses. Most videos showing the plane hitting the tower show the hologram plane. Videos showing the plane coming from a longer distance were faked (possibly explaining some of the conflicting approach paths). The damage to the tower was caused by either pre-planted bombs, by a "cloaked" missile or by an invisible beam weapon of some sort. One interesting permutation of this possibility is that the beam weapon that produced the building damage also projected the plane image.

5) Some missile or plane looking very dissimilar to a 767 hit the south tower and all videos showing a large Boeing jet hitting the tower were faked. A 767-like plane may have flown by the tower around the time of the strike to confound witnesses.

6) The official story, except that some videos were manipulated or faked after the fact-- for any of the following reasons: to specifically confuse investigators, to attain fame, for commercial purposes, or a combination of these motives.

#6 (the official story plus faked videos) can be completely ruled out since the plane defies physics-- it enters the tower indestructably than disintegrates inside the tower leaving a cut-out shape of itself in the steel facade. Moreover, aluminum wings and tail should have never penetrated the thick steel columns of the facade. Additionally, there is no explosion at the point of impact, rather the explosion initiates much farther into the building.

The problems with #5 are that it assumes every video shot from close-up was altered after the fact, a difficult proposition, and that it doesn't explain the plane-shaped hole. Having a missile or smaller plane coincide with some other device that produced a larger 767-shaped hole seems overly cumbersome.

The big problem with #4 is that it is far from clear any holography could be so good to look real on video (even as poor as the plane looks in many videos) or to eyewitnesses, and it is not obvious why this approach would be attractive to the perpetrators, since it needs to be combined with other effects. The possibility that a beam energy weapon both projected the plane and produced the building damage cannot be ruled out, but this pre-supposes a technology that is top-secret. However, this explanation does work on a few levels.

The main problem with #3 is it assumes every available video of the second hit was faked (at least 33 videos), an idea that seems unlikely but cannot be ruled out. Though of course, if there was no plane at all, few people would bother to film empty sky to the south of the WTC. This theory possibly supposes the perpetrators have essentially complete control over what is posted on the internet and is shown on TV (the latter seems more likely than the former).

The problems with #2 are that it assumes a) every video of the plane passing into the tower like a ghost is fake, b) that no one happened to get a video of the plane turning invisible before the tower exploded, c) an amazingly precise timing between the cloaking and the explosion and d) that something else happened to the tower (an invisible missile, beam weapon or pre-planted bombs). The benefit of this theory is that it explains why the two "live" videos of the south tower hit showed a smaller plane than expected. However, I don't think this benefit outweighs the serious other problems with this explanation.

The main problem with #1 is that it assumes a technology that is not well-known (i.e. it is top secret). The great benefits of this explanation are that it explains the most: the witnesses, the weird videos, the videos showing a blinking wing, and the plane-shaped hole. The main problem of this theory is that it doesn't explain some of the real oddities of the live TV coverage that imply video fakery (see the ABC/FOX/CNN live video and the Salter WNYW live video). This theory also doesn't explain why some videos show conflicting approach paths for the plane, unless we assume the perpetrators made some clearly bogus videos with altered plane paths to throw investigators off the track.


Overall, I think #1 is the most explanatory theory, and this scheme using a high tech plane might have the least amount of risk for the perpetrators, assuming such a plane is available.


However, explanation #2-- pure video fakery with a beam weapon used to create the plane-shaped hole-- is my intuitive choice. In large part, because so many of the second hit videos have serious anomalies implying some fakery.


#4 (holography/beam weapon projection) is hard to completely rule out but does not seem very likely to me. It is very intriguing on a technology level.

-------------------------------------------------

The perpetrators would obviously prefer to have the plane completely enter the tower, to provide an excuse for the eventual collapse of the tower (jet fuel fires and severe damage to the structure). Using a normal 767 is far too risky in terms of hitting the tower and for the plane breaking apart as it entered the tower, thus spilling easily identified plane parts and bodies on the ground.

A side-benefit of #1 is the psy-op-fake-out effect for witnesses of having the plane act like "a bad special effect", as Evan Fairbanks described it.

Having a plane behave so "otherworldly" solidified the unreality of that day.

On the other hand, video fakery (theory #3) could have as much of a psy-op effect as the non-conventional plane.

------------
At least one helicopter was traveling north towards the south face of the south tower when the tower exploded. Thus, this helicopter was also in a similar position as the 2nd plane.

For instance, see here.

Questions:

1) did any eyewitnesses mention seeing this helicopter?

2) could any people have mistaken this helicopter for the 2nd plane?

3) this helicopter was in a prime location to see the plane hit the tower (assuming a plane was even there). Are there any accounts from the pilot of what he/she saw?

4) could this helicopter have been directly involved in the attack?

Of Course It's Escalation

and it's why Iraq is only going to get worse and worse and bloodier and bloodier with no end in sight.

DANGEROUS PROPAGANDA

This article, using pure logic and physical principles, argues that a Boeing 767 cannot have hit the WTC. The argument also seems to hold for any conventional plane.

I have yet to see a refutation of the important points the article makes.

A New 2nd Hit Video!

#34:


The first clip is similar to #s 5 and 6 on this page, but clearly is unique.

The second clip is #9 on the page.

Coffinman, who put up the Youtube video, has a new site which is worth a look-see.

Fred's Video

It's excellent!.

I love the first part showing the discussion between Rumsfled and Russert on Osama's hidden fortress. Military-Industrial Complex propaganda at its best!

Some small critiques:
1) try to remove the "unregistered WinMPG Video Convert" message-- very distracting.
2) make it shorter
3) condense the text

The Myth of Jesus, the Myth of the Hijacked Planes*

Reading this amusing article on how a holy artifact that was supposedly Jesus' ancient preserved foreskin was "stolen", made me think of the absurdity that anyone would believe that some shriveled piece of skin was in fact the tip of Jesus Christ's penis.

That absurdity made me especially remember this book ("The Jesus Puzzle", by Earl Doherty), which makes a fairly convincing case that there simply was no historical Jesus. There was no living Jesus person, period.

Rather, it appears that Jesus was a larger-than-life mythical creation brought alive by the writers of the first four chapters of the new testament: Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The myth was then propagated and buffed up through the centuries by Christians. And frankly this makes more sense to me than the actual New Testament itself. The book is an excellent read if you're interested in religion.

Thinking of Jesus as a myth made me think of the how the hijacked planes on 9/11 appear to be similarly mythical, and were brought to life by the perpetrators and media scribes of 9/11. Many bogus artifacts are associated with Jesus (e.g. the foreskin, the shroud of Turin, the Holy Grail) in perhaps the same way as bogus planes debris is associated with the hijacked planes.

As well, both Jesus and the hijacked planes had their miracles. Jesus walked on water and turned water into wine. Flight 175 sliced into the steel and concrete of WTC2 like a knife into butter, and flight 93 disappeared into a small plane-shaped hole in the ground.

The analogy is not perfect-- but the general idea is the same. Jesus and the hijacked planes both appear to be Big Lies sold to the world at large, and lies that most people accept and dare not question due to the sanctity of the myth.

Indeed, to someone who is a devout Christian, questioning the existence of Jesus is tantamount to admitting you are Satan.

In fact, 9/11 is much like a religion to many-- particularly hard-core Republicans. To these people, simply questioning 9/11 is evidence of severe derangement-- and god forbid you actually find the official story is wrong in any significant way! But even among many 9/11 skeptics-- god forbid you question the existence of the hijacked planes!

Nonetheless, the accumulated evidence strongly indicates the 9/11 hijacked planes and the damage they caused were a giant hoax-- a big lie.


*In other words, how many people can I piss off with one post?



Merry Christmas!!!

I Would Understand the Iraq War Better

if I knew why exactly and when exactly it was that the Bush administration took Henry Kissinger as their guru and decided Iraq was their chance to re-fight Vietnam.

Specifically, was this their plan from the very beginning?

Or did they screw up the initial stages of the war due to poor planning/short-sightedness and then decide the resulting quagmire was a chance to exorcise their personal Vietnam demons?

The problem is that neither of these explanations make perfect sense-- which is why I am confused about their game-plan.

A 9/11 Activist Lawyer

Kudos to Jerry Leaphart!

More on Leaphart here.

Was WTC7 the "Cover-Story" for Unconventional Demolition of WTC1 and WTC2?

WTC7 serves as a beautiful official cover-story. Thus, at the official propaganda level, gov't officials could point to WTC7 and say "see-- another large steel-framed skyscraper completely collapsed from structural damage and fire."

WTC7 also serves as a perfect limited hang-out for covering-up the unconventional demolition of WTC1 and WTC2. Thus, at the limited hangout propaganda level, gov't moles/disinfo agents could point to WTC7 and say "see-- this building was clearly brought down by standard controlled demolition-- that must be what happened for WTC1 and WTC2."

I think the evidence strongly supports the idea that WTC1 and WTC2 were brought down by high-tech unconventional weapons (e.g. Star Wars-type beam weapon devices), and that a major goal of the 9/11 perpetrators and their disinfo agents is to keep this covered up at all costs.

Moreover, I think it is likely that WTC7 was brought down in a more standard controlled demolition fashion-- and in a manner for EVERYONE to see-- precisely to serve as a cover-story for the WTC towers.

Bush Administration War Criminals

If this is what they do to American prisoners in Iraq, I shudder to think what they do to Iraqis.

The bizarre back story to Vance's incarceration and harsh treatment is that he worked for a shady Iraqi security firm that he learned was apparently selling weapons bought from Americans to Iraqi insurgents/death squads. Vance tried to blow the whistle on the firm to the FBI, but instead was imprisoned for working for the firm. Normally you would think Vance had done a GOOD THING for the American military, but he got treated like a terrorist.

I have to wonder if Vance was imprisoned precisely because he DID blow the whistle on a shady collaboration between the US military and death squads. After all, it was reported some time back that the US military was strongly considering the "Salvador option" of using death squads to counter the insurgency. And who really believes the military never did this after all?

But...at least he got this cool camouflage Bible for his troubles:

Still Amazes Me

that Hani Hanjour brought the 757 in just inches (millimeters?) off the ground without scraping the Pentagon lawn:

Still not sure how he hopped over the 6 foot high cable spools though:


And I really don't know how he managed to bust the fuselage of the plane though this set of windows and leave the window divider behind-- not to mention how he managed to crash the plane into the wall without the 25 foot tail breaking the windows above the hole.


Ah, well-- I guess the IMPORTANT thing is that Hani and his pals managed to trick the Bush administration into invading Iraq!

Flight 77 Victims' Remains Found Outside the Pentagon "Exit Hole"?

The official gov't Pentagon victims remains chart (double click to enlarge):
Notice almost half of the flight 77 victims remains were found outside the exit hole, in the A-E drive (the dense cluster of circles at the top of the diagram).

I know this will really piss off the folks at "Screw Loose Change"-- to question the sanctity of this diagram-- but here's a picture of the exit hole with apparent plane debris outlined in red:


I have to say that I am having trouble understanding:
a) how so many remains came out the exit hole when so little of the plane came out of the hole.
b) where exactly all these remains are in the small pile of rubble in the picture.

Now I suppose the official story is that the crash of the plane caused the passengers' bodies to fragment into very small pieces and many of these pieces were carried out of the exit hole by the pressure wave created by the crash and resulting fireball. And that the remains that were found were very just very small pieces in this pile of rubble.

The problem with this argument is that if the bodies fragmented into very small pieces, they should have been scattered much more INSIDE the Pentagon than they appear to have, according to the diagram.

On the other hand, the pile of rubble outside the exit hole would have been an easy place for an evil operative to plant remains of victims that were obtained from another place.

Or possibly, the diagram of the flight 77 victims remains is a complete fabrication-- just another part of the hoax.

All of this is by no means casting aspersions on the poor victims of flight 77 and those that died in the Pentagon attack. Questioning where exactly they died on that terrible day is how we seek justice for their deaths.

Homing In on the 9/11 Media Perps

Kai Simonsen looks like a prime suspect.

An excellent find by "Still Diggin'"!

Manipulation of the Media by the Military: Constructing a Fantasy World for the Viewer

An amazing piece put together by "Fred".

Suspecting a 9/11 Media Hoax

Taken from an excellent comment left by "Fred":

Knowing that the story of "hijackers with boxcutters" came from the President's lawyer, you should suspect a media hoax.

Knowing that the eyewitness interviewed on Bryant Gumbel was ANOTHER one of the president's lawyers, who also just happens to manage the Bush family fortune, you should suspect a media hoax.

Knowing that there were embedded PSYOP operatives working at the CNN newsroom in 2000, you should suspect a media hoax.

Knowing that plans to invade Iraq and Afghanistan had already been drawn up before 9/11, you should suspect a media hoax.

Knowing that PUBLISHED military research advocates planting fake videos in television news in order to gain public support for a war, you should suspect a media hoax.

Knowing that airplanes cannot fly through concrete and steel buildings as if those buildings offer no resistance at all, you should suspect a media hoax.

Knowing that the Bush adminstration has lied about everything else in order to justify a war, you should suspect a media hoax.

Knowing that gag orders have been placed on the FBI investigators, you should suspect a media hoax.

Knowing that the president declares "we will never tolerate outrageous conspiracy theories" you should suspect a media hoax.

Knowing that the only evidence of plane crashes at the Pentagon and Shanksville is FAKE, you should suspect a media hoax.

Knowing that Operation Northwoods advocated fake plane crashes you should suspect a media hoax.

Knowing that giant skyscrapers disintegrated, and the only file cabinet found was melted into a basketball-sized glob, yet the newspapers report finding rows of passengers strapped to their seats, and finding the cockpit intact along with someone not wearing a pilots uniform, you should suspect a media hoax.

Knowing that the "black boxes" were never recovered, you should suspect a media hoax.

Knowing that they lied and said the air at Ground Zero was safe to breathe, you should suspect a media hoax.

Knowing about Mockingbird and COINTELPRO, you should suspect a media hoax.

Knowing that terrorists would not leave cars full of "Arabic How-To-Fly Manuals" and put their last wills and testements into their checked baggage which mysteriously doesn't make it onto the plane, you should suspect a media hoax.

Knowing that the terror-alert level goes up when the president's support goes down, you should suspect a media hoax.

Knowing that the bin Laden family was escorted out of the USA right after 9/11, you should suspect a media hoax.

Knowing that Osama bin Laden, who ever he is, can't both be a tall skinny religious guy on dialysis who denies orchestrating 9/11 AND SIMULTANEOUSLY be a fat guy who wears gold jewelery and takes credit for 9/11, you should suspect a media hoax.

Knowing that the published passenger manifests for the airplanes, and the autopsy lists contain no Arab names, you should suspect a media hoax.

Knowing that the airplanes supposedly used in the attacks were not scheduled to fly on 9/11, you should suspect a media hoax.

And finally, knowing that the mass media ridicule every aspect of 9/11 Truth, you should suspect a media hoax.

and from jha: knowing that one of the eyewitlesses (recorded for posterity) to the "flight11" was none other than a CNN bigwig who said "it was definitely a 767 airliner", you should suspect a media hoax.

I would just add this-- A PRIORI, when a video is shown by the corporate news media OVER AND OVER AND OVER (i.e. the "2nd plane" hitting the tower), you should suspect that the video is fake and that THAT YOU ARE BEING SUBJECTED TO A MEDIA HOAX.

For the "Al-CIA-Duh Files"

The Pentagon called them "among the most dangerous, best-trained, vicious killers on the face of the Earth," sweeping them up after Sept. 11 and hauling them in chains to a U.S. military prison in southeastern Cuba.

Since then, hundreds of the men have been transferred from Guantanamo Bay to other countries, many of them for "continued detention."

And then set free.

Decisions by more than a dozen countries in the Middle East, Europe and South Asia to release the former detainees raise questions about whether they were really as dangerous as the United States claimed...

A Promising New 9/11 Portal

9/11 Researchers.com.

I like this post summarizing the Star Wars beam weapon hypothesis for destruction of the WTC.

Demolition of the WTC Twin Towers

Seeing upper sections of the towers crumble apart at the same time the lower sections of the structure are crumbling apart -- you should suspect demolition.

Seeing the 1/4 mile high towers fall at incredibly rapid, near free-fall speeds -- you should suspect demolition.

Seeing the towers form massive volcanic dust clouds as they fall -- you should suspect demolition.

Seeing the towers collapse straight down, through the path of most resistance -- you should suspect demolition.

Seeing explosive squibs jutting out from the towers preceding the collapse wave -- you should suspect demolition.

Seeing the incredible devastation at Ground Zero, where almost nothing is left of two huge 1/4 mile high towers -- you should suspect demolition.

Hearing witness after witness describe explosions at the WTC -- you should suspect demolition.

Knowing that the towers had a very expensive asbestos problem -- you should suspect demolition.

Knowing that the owner of the towers had a large insurance policy covering destruction of the towers by a terrorist attack -- you should suspect demolition.

Knowing the many the anomalies and irregularities of 9/11 -- you should suspect demolition.

Seeing that government and private-sector scientists have no explanation for the rapid and global collapses of the towers, and don't even bother to model the collapses -- you should suspect demolition.

SIMPLY THAT BOTH TOWERS CAME DOWN-- you should suspect demolition!

Putting these all together, the suspicion SHOULD turn into certainty beyond any reasonable doubt.

WTC Challenge-- Day 6

Last day of the challenge: I challenge anyone to build a PHYSICAL model of a steel tower with similar dimensions and structure to the WTC and show it undergoing complete collapse at near free-fall speed following limited structural damage and subsequent column damage (from fire or from physical severing).

You don't want to miss out on the FABULOUS prizes, do you?

Who Knew?

According to "Pinch" and "Conspiracy Smasher" and their associated minions, WTC-like towers that collapse easily and rapidly are extremely complicated to build, and can only be designed by highly-trained engineers with the aid of super-computers.

On the other hand, according to "Pinch" and "Conspiracy Smasher", towers that DON'T COLLAPSE at all can apparently only be built by conspiracy-theorizing idiots who use chicken/rabbit wire as construction material.

But actually, it IS easy to build a tower that collapses easily and rapidly:


The problem seems to be that if one connects the parts together and constructs according to a similar structure as the WTC, the tower doesn't seem to want to collapse at all under its own weight.

My tower didn't even collapse when extra force was applied to the top section.

Funny how that works.

I guess it's because I didn't use a super-computer...

WTC Challenge-- Day 5

Once again-- I challenge anyone to build a PHYSICAL model of a steel tower with similar dimensions and structure to the WTC and show it undergoing complete collapse at near free-fall speed following limited structural damage and subsequent column damage (from fire or from physical severing).

It should be easy to do, right?

If the official story is true, that is.

All you have to do is build a rigid tower with similar dimensions to the WTC, then cause damage to 10% of the tower about one third of the way from the top-- then have the tower completely collapse into basic components.

Think of it as an engineering challenge.

It really shouldn't be that hard to do.

If the official story is true, that is. If towers can collapse into base components from limited damage on a few floors, it should be easy to model this right?

Come on-- don't you really want to prove the conspiracy nuts wrong!?!? Don't you really want to TRY this?

Of course, I think such a model is impossible to build because you simply cannot explain what happened to the WTC without demolition.

In reality, this challenge is all just an exercise to get people who believe in the official story to think about structural engineering -- and to realize that strong steel tower structures like the WTC simply don't undergo complete global collapse from gravity acting on their own weight-- when there is only limited damage to the structure.

I, and many others, hold that ONLY demolition can account for this:

and this:


Moreover, there is abundant evidence for some sort of exotic demolition at the WTC.



If the official collapse story is TRUE, why is it so hard to PROVE it (without resorting to unverifiable computer models)?

The WTC Challenge Is To Build a Physical Model

Not to rely on a computer simulation.

Computer simulations of 9/11 are invariably geared around obtaining the "correct" (i.e official) result, and therefore are inherently untrustworthy.

Further, computer programs can be tweaked and manipulated without a layman understanding what has been done.

What is wrong with building a physical model of a rigid tower similar to WTC1, then showing it undergoing RAPID, STRAIGHT-DOWN and COMPLETE collapse due to structural damage to a few floors one-sixth of the way down from the top?

Or if you prefer, build a physical model of a rigid tower similar to WTC2, then show it undergoing RAPID, STRAIGHT-DOWN and COMPLETE collapse following structural damage that causes the top third of the tower to tip about 20 degrees?

Is there something wrong with actually trying this???

Don't tell me you're afraid it won't work.

Don't towers undergo complete collapse all the time?

Heading for Regional War in the Middle East?

Juan Cole analyzes the underlying politics and the prospects for a conflagration between the Saudi-led Sunnis and the Iranian-led Shia-- and with Israel possibly allying with the Saudis.

WTC Challenge-- Day 4

Again-- I challenge anyone to build a model of a steel tower with similar dimensions and structure to the WTC and show it undergoing complete collapse at near free-fall speed following limited structural damage and subsequent column damage (from fire or from physical severing).

It should be easy to do, right?

If the official story is true, that is.

All you have to do is build a rigid tower with similar dimensions to the WTC, then cause damage to 10% of the tower about one third of the way from the top-- then have the tower completely collapse into basic components.

Think of it as an engineering challenge.

It really shouldn't be that hard to do.

If the official story is true, that is.

Come on-- don't you really want to prove the conspiracy nuts wrong!?!?

Making the Case for Demolition of the Twin Towers

Excellent video here:

WTC Challenge-- Day 3

Again-- I challenge anyone to build a model of a steel tower with similar dimensions and structure to the WTC and show it undergoing complete collapse at near free-fall speed following limited structural damage and subsequent column damage (from fire or from physical severing).

It should be easy to do, right? If the official story is true that is.

All you have to do is build a rigid tower with similar dimensions to the WTC, then cause damage to 10% of the tower about one third of the way from the top-- then have the tower completely collapse into basic components.

Think of it as an engineering challenge.

It really shouldn't be that hard to do.

Prove the conspiracy nuts wrong!!!!!!!!!

For those who are interested--here are some more details of what I did.

But mine was a failure. It didn't collapse at all!*

*Does anyone truly believe my tower was OVER-engineered?

Right-Wing Dictator Murders 3000 of His Own People But WashPost Says It Is Okay

Sorry, not Bush-- Pinochet.

Though I've not seen the Post come down on Bush for 9/11 either.

Now He Tells Us

He never liked the term "war on terror".

Jesus...

Deep Politics in the Middle East

Is the Bush administration veering toward a Shia alliance at the expense of our Saudi "friends"?

And what is the deal with Israeli Prime Minister Olmert "slipping" and admitting Israel has nukes? Who really thinks this was an honest mistake?

If Indeed Steel-Framed Towers Can Undergo Complete Devastating Collapse from Limited Damage, It Should Be Easy to Reproduce the Phenomenon--

RIGHT?


Should be easy to show, right? After all, it happened three times! (All on 9/11, but as they say, lightning can strike in the same place twice, even thrice!)

Wouldn't it be nice to put all these wacky conspiracy theories to rest for once and all???

So again, my challenge: I challenge anyone to build a model of a steel tower with similar dimensions and structure to the WTC and show it undergoing complete collapse at near free-fall speed following limited structural damage and subsequent column damage (from fire or from physical severing).

Put aside the name-calling and arguing for once and just show how a tower can collapse completely down through itself. It should be easy to do, right?

Put your money where your mouth is.

I tried it myself and couldn't do it. I actually built a steel WTC tower model-- and couldn't get it to collapse AT ALL. It wasn't even a particularly well-built or strong tower. But there is no way the upper 1/3 of my model tower could have crushed the lower part of my model tower, similar to what happened to the south WTC tower on 9/11.

How exactly does a professionally-built strongly-built steel-framed tower undergo complete collapse down to its base?

This is what happened on 9/11.

So again, I challenge anyone: can you model the remarkable WTC collapses???

Aren't you the least bit curious to see if you can do it?

I know NIST didn't even try to do it.

I wonder why.

Gravitational force is the same, no matter the scale.

Why Didn't NIST Model the Complete Utterly Devastating "Collapses" of the WTC Towers?

A) because strongly-built towers with limited structural damage and limited fires could NEVER undergo the volcanic type of collapse seen on 9/11 without some very powerful extra force-- and NIST knows it

B) because their goal was to perpetrate a monstrous cover-up of what really happened to the WTC towers on 9/11

C) because they are evil (or at least the WTC group is evil)

D) all of the above

I challenge anyone to build a model of a steel tower with similar dimensions and structure to the WTC and show it undergoing complete collapse at near free-fall speed.

Molecular Dissociation at Ground Zero?

A short tutorial from 911U.

A Disgraceful Democratic Performance

Not one Democrat asked a tough question during the confirmation process for Robert Gates for Secretary of Defense.

Fake opposition, indeed.

Enemy of the People

Steven Jones has a long history of working for the powers that be:

The Importance of the Bankers Trust Building

The destruction of the South Tower resulted in this gash in the facade of the Bankers Trust building, with a section of WTC outer wall caught at the bottom:


Here is a view of the gash from inside the building:


So how exactly did a falling section of columns cause the circled steel beam to frizzle up* like that????

This appears to be direct evidence for exotic weaponry being used to take down the WTC towers.

*This was first noted here.

IMPEACH!

Say what you will about Cynthia McKinney, she goes on record as the first Congressperson to enter impeachment charges against Bush, Cheney and Rice.

H.R.1106

Iraq

Here are some key questions:

1) why exactly did we invade Iraq (was it some reason that wasn't given or a combination of different reasons)?

2) why didn't we have a plan for nation building if indeed, we wanted to do nation building (or conversely, why did we say we were going to do nation-building if we clearly had no such intention?)? Did we truly to INTEND to create a failed state in Iraq?

3) do we intend to build permanent bases there?

4) what is exactly keeping us from declaring victory and going home?


Some balance sheets--

If we stay:
Iraqis will continue to kill each other
Iraqis will continue to kill Americans
Americans will continue shoveling money into a hole
Domestic politics will be pre-occupied with the war and what to do about it

If we leave:
Iraqis will kill each other for some time until stability is attained
The US will lose a major middle east military base
Americans lives will be saved
US taxpayer dollars will be saved
People will be forced to start looking at what we did in Iraq, why we went in there, and even start to look at 9/11 more carefully

Goodbye Bankers Trust

After 9/11:


(now the Deutshe Bank AG)

"It's been a real blight on the community. We obviously want to see it taken down and taken down safely," Menin said. "We will continue to be vigilant about this."

Maikish said the glass windows and metal column covers will be removed from the top four floors, followed by the steel and concrete skeleton of those floors. Material from the facade will be cut, wrapped in plastic and moved off the site, he said.

"The first thing that comes off is the skin," Maikish said.

DANG! I was hoping they'd use that awesome beam weapon thingy to take it down!

David Lynch Has Many Questions About 9/11

They Just Don't Build Them Like That Anymore: WTC6

(the top of the picture is west, the right hand side is north; the remains of WTC1 are to the left of WTC6-- to the south)

The amount of asymmetric damage this structure took without collapsing completely is astounding. Not to mention that this building must have suffered fire damage as well.

The footprint of WTC6 was somewhat larger than one of the WTC towers, but certainly not more than twice as large.

The building has been carved up so that the northern and southern sections are only 20-30 feet wide in spots. How did these sections stay upright when the whole building structure was being completely traumatized by huge falling chunks of WTC1 and fire (and the weapon that took down WTC1)?

I must have missed the official explanation for how the WTC towers completely collapsed from asymmetric column failure while the outer frame of WTC6 stayed perfectly upright after much more severe internal column failure.

Don't tell me NIST can't explain it!!!

Because that would suggest something WEIRD happened!

Yay

I hope they mean it:

By the 2008 presidential election, voters around the country are likely to see sweeping changes in how they cast their ballots and how those ballots are counted, including an end to the use of most electronic voting machines without a paper trail, federal voting officials and legislators say.

Meanwhile, how much damage was done to the country from rigged elections in the last six years?

"Inside Job"

Feingold on the Iraq Study Group:

The fact is this commission was composed apparently entirely of people who did not have the judgment to oppose this Iraq war in the first place, and did not have the judgment to realize it was not a wise move in the fight against terrorism. So that's who is doing this report. Then I looked at the list of who testified before them. There is virtually no one who opposed the war in the first place. Virtually no one who has been really calling for a different strategy that goes for a global approach to the war on terrorism. So this is really a Washington inside job and it shows not in the description of what's happened - that's fairly accurate - but it shows in the recommendations.

I still have to think an important reason for invading Iraq and then letting it deteriorate was the fact that a nasty drawn-out war was the perfect cover-up for 9/11.

It was such a brilliantly evil plan, and it is working to perfection-- if you don't mind lots and lots of dead people, that is. (And when did the architects of the Iraq war ever mind that, anyway?)

But to me, this cover-up strategy seems to be the only way to explain the absolute incoherence of the powers-that-be in promoting and then dealing with the Iraq war.

Note that NO-ONE yet knows why it was exactly that the Bush administration invaded Iraq. There are of course the obvious reasons that were given, but none of them make sense in retrospect (the only one that holds up at all is that the war has benefited military contractors, but I'm not sure even that is a sufficient rationale). So WHY did the Bush administraiton invade Iraq and why did the powers-that-be support it?

Duelling False-Flag Terror Operations?

One reason Russia, our once and future global antagonist who undoubtedly knows the truth about 9/11, may not spill the beans on 9/11 is because Russia has its own dirty secrets that the US knows about. Here is one example. (tip to Rob)

Moreover, I don't think Russia was too upset to see us get bogged down in Iraq...

Levels of Doubt for the Official WTC Collapse Story

HIGHLY DOUBTFUL-- that fires and structural damage were severe enough to cause a complete tower floor to fail, both core and outer columns, leading to the collapse of the floor

EXTREMELY DOUBTFUL-- that failure of this one floor would cause a progressive cascading collapse of the rest of the structure, leading to the complete destruction of the tower down to the very base

LAWS-OF-PHYSICS-SUPENDED DOUBTFUL-- that the progressive cascading collapse of the rest of the structure would proceed at close to free-fall speed, almost as if the lower undamaged portion of the tower presented no resistance to the fall

INCREDIBLY MIND-BOGGLINGLY DOUBTFUL -- that the upper portions of the collapsing buildings would disintegrate as they fell into volcanic, pyroclastic clouds of dust

ASTRONOMICAL-IMPROBABILITY DOUBTFUL-- that the progressive cascading collapse of a 1360 foot high tower would lead to a 20 foot pile of rubble with huge numbers of structural elements unaccounted for and with minimal damage to basement and foundation structures

ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT-- that airplane damage and hydrocarbon fires did not cause the complete and utter destruction of the WTC towers

Dave McGowan Takes on Flight 93

Several essays starting here.

He makes the important conclusion that no 757 crashed in Shanksville, though he's rather late coming to this critical finding. He does miss several things, most notably the discrepancies in the passenger phone calls.

He makes a big deal out of saying the passengers were indeed real-- and while this is certainly the simplest and least complicated explanation, that doesn't make it the right answer.

Unfortunately, he hasn't yet posted his scenario for what he thinks DID happen to flight 93, and I'll be rather curious what he's come up with. I don't have any great explanation that explains everything; the best I have come up with is that flight 93 had real people that were involved with a hijacking drill/terror drill, that the plane crashed elsewhere than Shanksville and that the Shanksville crash was faked in order to hide important evidence and also possibly to promote a bogus shoot-down story. Though even this is not thoroughly satisfying. Possibly there were even two flight 93's-- one real and one "doppleganger" with passengers on a terror drill, that might explain some of the conflicting phone calls and crash times.

Really, it is impossible to say what happened without more evidence, which the government surely is hiding (if it hasn't been destroyed). More pictures of the plane they supposedly dug up from the ground in Shanksville would be a good start.

I liked this part of the piece:

The patch of soil that purportedly swallowed United Airlines Flight 93 seems to have had some peculiar physical properties. The photo to the left purports to show one of the aircraft's engines being excavated from the alleged impact crater (other parts were allegedly dug out of the ridiculously small hole as well, including the flight recorder, which reportedly burrowed to a depth of about twenty-five feet). Curiously though, several published reports noted that a "section of engine weighing a ton was located 2,000 yards - over a mile - from the crash site." (Richard Wallace "What Did Happen to Flight 93?" Daily Mirror, September 12, 2002; some reports place the engine section at about a third that distance from the 'crash' site, or vaguely specify that it was found a "considerable distance" from the alleged impact crater.)

So what appears to have happened in Shanksville, as best I can determine, is that Flight 93 impacted what MSNBC referred to as "the loose, porous soil of a deserted strip mine" in such a way that the engine on one side of the aircraft burrowed deeply into the ground, while the engine on the other side of the plane, encountering the very same loose soil at the exact same moment in time, snapped off and bounced thousands of feet away! If this had happened on any other day, it would obviously beg for a rational explanation. But since it happened on September 11, 2001, and since we have already established that the physical properties of the world were in a strange state of flux that day, no further explanation is necessary.

Well put, and I will assume that McGowan thought of this discrepancy on his own. I had pointed out this funny aspect of the "flight 93" engines back in July of this year.

I guess my major beef with McGowan is that he doesn't really cite all the skeptics who have done good flight 93 research, and only cites other investigators in order to cast doubt on their ideas. The fact that McGowan has clearly looked some up other investigators' work on flight 93 would indicate that McGowan is familiar with many other 9/11 skeptics' flight 93 research and doesn't acknowledge it. This really is a bit lame at this stage in the game (in my book).