Dan Wallace RIP

Really sad:

One of our most prominent, courageous and dedicated young members of NY911Truth and CHANGE, Dan Wallace is no longer with us.

Dan's father Robert Wallace* gave his life on 9/11/01, leaving Dan with many unanswered questions about 9/11.

Dan was an ardent activist who showed no fear when confronted by police at street actions at WTC Building 7 and at the New York Stock Exchange. Dan was an eloquent speaker, both on videos of the street actions and at St. Mark's Church, where he gave a moving oration before a packed crowd in a recent Sunday night presentation.

Dan Wallace, 23, was found dead early Monday morning in his bed. The exact cause of death is yet to be determined.

Here is Dan talking about his dad and 9/11.

Really sad.

*A fireman

Another suspicious death of a young person involved in 9/11 truth was Michael Zebuhr.

Waco in Iraq?

"US 'victory' against cult leader was 'massacre'"

What a goddamn mess.

Weird "ILLUMINATI" Eyes in the "World Trade Center" Subway Station

Pictures here.

Engine Trouble

See IMPORTANT UPDATE BELOW!



This is officially one of the engines from flight 93, apparently freshly unearthed.

However, there are a few problems with this scene:

1) why did this engine go in the ground but the other one went flying away?

2) how exactly was it, that this heavy engine impacting the ground at 600 mph, only went ONE FOOT underground-- when the black boxes in the TAIL of the plane went at least 15 feet underground?

3) are they really using an excavator to dig out a hole that is in theory packed with human remains? Shouldn't they be doing this excavation a little more delicately?

4) as best as I can tell, this is the rear half of a crumpled up turbofan engine. Where is the front half?

5) most interestingly, the engine looks as though it went into the ground at a 90 degree angle. How can this be the case, when officially flight 93 hit the ground at a 45 degree angle?


I see someone else has serious doubts about this engine.


UPDATE: Although the engine is clearly not at a 45 degree angle (as the official account would hold), I realized the engine is not at a perfect 90 degree angle.

The engine is actually at about a 70 degree angle, where 90 degrees is straight vertical.

This picture nonetheless deviates drastically from the official story.

You should be able to see in the picture that there are trees in the background. The only foliage near the crash site was straight to the west. This means the picture was taken to the east of the crater looking west. (See here for a high-res version of the photo.)

This means the topmost part of the engine is leaning TOWARDS THE SOUTH.

Officially, the plane came from the north, heading south, and if the plane went into the ground at some angle (most sources say 45 degrees), the engine should be positioned with the topmost part tipping significantly to the north. In other words, the engine debris should be leaning northwards. In this picture, the engine is tilted completely the wrong direction!

It is extremely unlikely the engine was tilted the opposite way during the digging process, since removal of dirt on the northern side if anything should have made the engine tilt more in that direction, which would have supported the official story more. Further, if the engine was moved significantly prior to the picture being taken, it invalidates this official evidence.

I think the engine was moved from its original location before the picture was taken -- and most likely was planted to bolster the case for a 757 crash at this site.

Nuke Plants Safe from Airplane Attacks?

The NRC says they are.

Damn-- now how can that be, when a Boeing 767 can cut into steel and concrete like a hot knife through butter????

On a related note, the NRC said "Monday that nuclear power plant operators should not be expected to stop terrorists from crashing an airliner into a reactor, saying that responsibility lies elsewhere."

WHAT???? Meaning the air force should be able to stop hijacked planes? Is that possible????


(this ends another edition of "Snark Headline News")

"9/11 Researchers"

Here is a plug for "911researchers.com"

They are a better, more open-minded, less controlled version of 9/11 blogger.

It seems to be a reasonably active site, with several interesting pieces.

Dimensions of the Flight 93 Official Crash Crater: Proof No Boeing 757 Crashed There

Using the pictures here, I finally decided to get a solid estimate for the flight 93 official crash crater. I used the men on the ground next to the crater in the various pictures to estimate the crater size, and assumed each man was 6 feet tall.

UA93 officially was a Boeing 757. A Boeing 757 (the plane UA93 was officially) has a 125 foot wingspan, and the engines are 43 feet apart (measuring from the middle of each engine looking at the front of the plane).

The problem is that the 93 crash crater shows only 30 feet-- at MOST-- between engine scars:

Note-- diagram is for illustrative purposes and is not drawn perfectly to scale.

Considering that the a plane HAD to have come down with both engines hitting roughly the same time on the ground to produce the observed crash scar, I submit the 30 foot distance between engines as proof no Boeing 757 crashed to make this crater.

Yet Another Perspective on Aluminum Wing Impacting Steel Column

In this post, I compared the cross-sectional size of a wing versus one column and decided that it was possible that a wing could smash through a column because of its larger area at the angle of attack.

Today I was thinking about this some more and realized I didn't properly take into account the materials involved.

Thus-- imagine a thin steel wire (e.g. from a paperclip) is an outer WTC column and a wing is represented by several folds of aluminum foil (go ahead and try it, just make sure the wire is anchored at top and bottom as if it were a load-bearing column in a building; if you think this is hilarious, please see my TROLL INOCULATION at the end of the post).

Even if the "wing" is a 80 times the cross-section of the steel wire (40 mm versus 0.5 mm), the aluminum is never going to cut through the steel of the wire (even if it is filled with jet fuel). The aluminum either crumples or shreds on the steel.

Thus, an aluminum wing might damage a steel column somewhat, but could it cut through it?


Once again, I can say: I don't think so!


Furthermore, I can say with good confidence that this:

and this:

are BOGUS-- the first fraud covered up homicide, the second fraud covered-up the first fraud.

TROLL INOCULATION--Yes, I know am: stupid, really stupid, incredibly stupid, stoopid, silly, very silly, inane, obtuse, senseless, dumb, dumber, dumberer, loony, loony-tunes, bananas, cuckoo, cuckoo bananas, lame, an escaped mental patient, insane, crazy, a traitor, an America-hater, a Bush-hating moonbat, unworthy of passing my genes to offspring, a moron, a loser, a wanker, mentally retarded, a retard, a fucktard, shit-for-brains, fucked up, an idiot, certainly mentally deficient and an all-around bad person for questioning whether muslims did 9/11.

Iran Trying to Provoke Israel Into an Attack

Iran's uranium enrichment program is mostly bluster.

The Old Jet Fuel Down the Express Elevator Trick

Seatnineb does some analysis of the WTC1 elevators.

The Sound of the 2nd Hit

This video is one of the few I trust to have the actual sound of the attack:


Where is roaring noise from huge jet engines? Where is the gigantic bang or explosion one would expect for a huge Boeing 767 slamming into a building and tearing apart?

What did that guy SEE when he looked up????

For Aficionados of Toasted Cars

Here are some more pics courtesy of Judy Wood.

These cars, close to WTC7 (before it came down), clearly were not moved and were burned in situ.

It's very odd how the handles are gone (fried off?) on some of the cars. VERY odd.

Yet Another Nugget of Truth Buried in the NIST Report

A Boeing 707 travelling at 600 mph 'would result only in local damage which would not cause collapse'

Boeing 707's were one of the largest jets at the time of the WTC construction and were roughly the same size as a Boeing 767-- except that they had four wing-mounted engines instead of two.

More Evidence the Plane Wheel Was Planted in the Columns

Here is the picture of the tire that miraculously knocked out a section of columns from the WTC and stayed embedded in them during the crash of the 6 ton section of column 1000 feet to the ground:

Here is what the column section looked like as it was being put in the building:

The columns span 2 complete floors and parts of 2 other floors. The tire was embedded in the lower of the complete floor sections of the columns.

This presents a problem though, in terms of the mechanism for how this tire knocked the column section out. In the diagram below, the left side depicts what is supposed to have happened: the tire and whatever else was behind it knocked the set of columns straight out with the top of the columns tipping over as it fell, so the columns fell inner face UP. This assumes relatively symmetric force pushing the columns out.

However the tire-- and presumably this is where most of the force originated from-- was pushing on the lower part of the columns-- resulting in asymmetric force. This would have caused the columns to tip and fall inner face down (see right-hand diagram).



Furthermore, there was a series of pipes that were attached to the top part of the columns (see top image). The would have decreased the outward force on the top part of the columns-- resulting in even more asymmetric force and more tipping in a way such that the columns would fall inner face down.


Thus, the fact that the columns fell inner face UP suggest strongly the wheel was planted in the columns. This is assuming the columns weren't somehow planted as well.

Note-- due to the shape of columns and their weight, I find it extremely unlikely that they would have rolled, bounced or flipped over once they hit the ground.

Someone Took Up My WTC Model Challenge

Described here.

This part is cool-- he loads it with charcoal and burns his tower.


Here he uses a blowtorch on it.

What Happened to the Landing Gear Struts at the WTC?

The landing gear struts are supposed to be the strongest, densest and heaviest parts of a plane.

Supporters of the official 9/11 story argue that the landing gear of flight 77 punched through multiple concrete walls at the Pentagon and even made the round "exit hole".

Here is a picture showing a landing gear strut supposedly in the Pentagon wreckage:


Given that landing gear wheels allegedly passed through the WTC and were found in the streets below, e.g.

shouldn't the LANDING GEAR STRUTS (three per plane) have punched through the buildings and made it out the other side of the towers?

If ANYTHING passed through the towers, it should have been those strong heavy landing gear struts.

Even if they didn't make it out of the towers, shouldn't they have been found at Ground Zero?

Where are the six landing gear struts from the WTC planes?

In Defense of Wing Damage?

I was originally going to write something very different about wing impacts, but after doing some further examination of the topic, I realized I needed to rethink things.

This diagram shows a simulation of a Boeing 767 (in AA colors) going into the WTC North tower about where AA11 is alleged to have hit and at a similar angle as how AA11 is alleged to have hit (the flight simulator program allows you to fly through many large buildings with any impedence):


(click to enlarge)

Here, the wings are just starting to go into the tower. I've marked several things in the image, but what is most striking is the relative size of the columns at this angle compared to the wings. Note-- the column cross-sections (the little yellow squares) may not be perfectly scaled, but the relative proportion of the columns to the wings is very close.

When I made this diagram, what struck me was the huge width (horizontal surface) of the wings in relation to the cross-section (horizontal cross-section) of the outer columns.

Now, as indicated by the fact that a bird can smash through the outer aluminum skin of the wing, I've no doubt that the leading surface of the wings would be crushed on impact with the heavy steel of the WTC columns.

However, there is so much wing material that impacts the columns because of the horizontal surface of the wings (roughly 20 feet wide near the fuselage, 10 feet wide in the middle, and about 5 feet wide at the tip), that it changes this equation, I think. In particular, the inner wings, the parts of the wings bearing the landing gear and engines, have a great deal of mass.

Thus, it is conceivable to me that the overall mass of the wings-- the large horizontal mass of aluminum piling up at high-speed at a concentrated section on an individual column-- could lead to column severing to the extent that was seen here:



Of course, it is NOT clear what would have happened to these wing sections once they got inside. If they were strong enough to get through the steel columns, it is not clear what would have destroyed them once inside. Yet we have not seen one picture of a wing section recovered from Ground Zero. (Of course, the black boxes officially were not even recovered from Ground Zero.)

Furthermore-- my tendency is STILL to think that the wingtips would have shorn off by the diagonal force exerted by the columns along the length of the wings (see arrows in top image). This force should have driven the wings backwards such that the very outer tips would never make contact with the columns and left an imprint. We know the outer 20 feet of the port wing could not have entered the tower intact, and thus some part of the wing HAD to shred upon impact.

Still unresolved for the official story is what happened to the wings where the columns were not severed and were just "impacted"-- for instance, the last 7 columns columns of the facade scar on the North tower as shown above. Did the outer wings shred and pass completely between the columns in the windows? Or did the wings shred and most of the material was deflected backwards? Either way, that is a lot of aluminum to shred and it is far from clear what happened to all this material.

Furthermore, the effect of the wings on individual columns is quite different than the phenomenon of the wings apparently penetrating concrete and metal floor slabs, as seen here in a video of the south tower attack:



Whereas individual columns present only 14 inches of horizontal material for the wing to penetrate, floor slabs obviously present a much larger horizontal obstacle. Thus, this image of the 2nd hit (for many reasons actually), still seems patently bogus to me.

There is also the issue of how the aluminum shredding and penetration of columns should have slowed the plane down as it went in. If the wings stayed attached to the fuselage (i.e. didn't break off) as the wings shredded against the outer columns, this would seemingly slow the plane significantly (which of course was not seen in the South tower videos).

Ultimately, all this does not prove that Boeing 767's hit the towers-- I still think there is a great deal of evidence against that-- but rather that the severed columns by themselves are not proof against the official story.

The wing scars MAY be evidence against Boeing 767 impacts, although the argument is more complicated.

My general impression is that "someone" was trying REAL HARD, by making the building gashes the exact wingspan of a Boeing 767, to make it look like Boeing 767s hit the towers.

Another factor is that the tower scars defy physics in general, since objects that can crash through another object and leave a cut-out shape of themselves shouldn't be destroyed at the same time they are making the cut-out shape.

Ultimately, I am still convinced that a Boeing 767 did NOT hit the South tower, and therefore it is not clear why they would lie about the South tower and not the North tower.

Grassroots Impeachment of Bush

New Mexico is in.

A Plane Digitally Inserted Into a WTC Photo?

Who would've thunk it?

Ironically, this thing looks MUCH better than the supposedly REAL crap they showed us on 9/11.

War Will Continue As Long As the Perpetrators of 9/11 Are At Large

This certainly can be read in different ways:

The evil that inspired and rejoiced in 9/11 is still at work in the world. And so long as that is the case, America is still a nation at war. (Bush SOTU, 1/23/07)

UPDATE: The WaPo actually deconstructs some of the descriptions Bush used to describe "the enemy":

In his State of the Union address last night, President Bush presented an arguably misleading and often flawed description of "the enemy" that the United States faces overseas, lumping together disparate groups with opposing ideologies to suggest that they have a single-minded focus in attacking the United States.

All in all, a good smack-down of the fantasy world that Bush paints, though of course it doesn't really touch on the ultimate fantasy that is 9/11.

Why Don't They Use Birds to Saw Through Steel?

Since aluminum wings can cut steel, and birds can cut right through aluminum wings, birds must be AWESOME at cutting through steel!


(Picture can be enlarged by clicking on it. Picture shows a 767 wing struck by a bird found via here.)

Hey! Maybe the WTC was brought down by a whole flock of birds ramming the building!


TROLL INOCULATION: Yes, I know am stupid, really stupid, a moron, a loser, a fucktard, an idiot and certainly mentally deficient.

Seriously: I know there is an argument to be made about how bird flesh is softer than aluminum and if the birds penetrate the aluminum of the wing, could the aluminum wings penetrate steel?

And yes, there is a mass times momentum argument how something fragile but heavy going fast can penetrate something apparently very strong and sturdy.

BUT-- clearly you have to look at what happens to the 767 wing when it is impacted at several hundred miles per hour by something soft and relatively light (the bird)-- and then imagine what happens to the 767 wing when it is impacted at several hundred miles per hour by something hard and heavy (a WTC outer column).

Now I do not claim that a 767 wing cannot damage a heavy steel column in an impact. However, I do not think it is possible for a 767 wing to shear through a steel column even if it is filled with jet fuel and has greater mass than "normal". I think the heavy mass of a fuel-filled wing might knock some columns INWARDS in a high velocity collision. But cleanly shear the steel as was shown in the previous post?

I just don't think so.

NIST Admits Aluminum Wings Can Make Precision Cuts in Steel

(click to enlarge)

Red is where those giant aluminum saws went to work.

I also love how they had to distort the 767 model to get a proper fit!

Impeach Cheney!

Though I think the Plame affair was clearly one of the sillier things Cheney was involved in, it sounds as though there may be enough evidence in that case to cook Cheney's goose pretty well.

It also makes more sense to impeach Cheney first and get rid of him, before trying to remove Bush. There's not much point in impeaching Bush if Cheney's going to become prez.

Will They Have Better Videos This Time?

WASHINGTON, Jan. 22, 2007 — Mimicking the hijackers who executed the Sept. 11 attacks, insurgents reportedly tied to al Qaeda in Iraq considered using student visas to slip terrorists into the United States to orchestrate a new attack on American soil.

Lt. Gen. Michael D. Maples, head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, recently testified that documents captured by coalition forces during a raid of a safe house believed to house Iraqi members of al Qaeda six months ago "revealed [AQI] was planning terrorist operations in the U.S."

At the time, Maples offered little additional insight into the possible terror plot. ABC News, however, has learned new details of what remains a classified incident that has been dealt with at the highest levels of government.

(snip)

Sources tell ABC News that the plot may have involved moving between 10 and 20 suspects believed to be affiliated with al Qaeda in Iraq into the United States with student visas — the same method used by the 19 al Qaeda terrorists who struck American targets on Sept. 11.

Although more likely, this is just pathetic propaganda intended to try to link Iraq to 9/11.

Fun game! Count how many times is "Al Qaeda" and "Iraq" mentioned in the same sentence in this article.

Why Didn't A Lot More Plane Debris Come Out Into the Street Here?

Why only this wheel?


Why didn't the rest of the landing gear to which this wheel was attached come flying out?

Are we honestly to believe that only this wheel knocked a 12,000 pound set of columns out of their fastenings and then propelled it to 40 mph?

But if there was more plane debris, why wasn't it lying near these columns?

If there was plane debris elsewhere, why wasn't it photographed?

If it WAS photographed, why haven't we seen the photos?

It's not exactly like we've been saturated with pictures of WTC plane debris!

How can it be possible that no other major plane debris came out of the hole besides this wheel?

Indict Bush?

Interesting approach: United States v. George W. Bush et al.

More here.

How Sad Is It?

According to "Conspiracy Smasher", "Sword of Truth", "reno" and of course "Pinch", I am stupid, I am a moron, I am a loser, I am a fool, I am a retard-- I am your basic idiot. This is by no means an exhaustive list of the names they have called me.

These people seem to think I am some sort of mental defective, possibly born with mental retardation, possibly an escaped mental patient. Yet what do they do? They come here day after day, sometimes scrambling to be the first to comment on a post and certainly they are rushing to call me more names.

If they really think I am mentally retarded, how sad is it that they feel they have to come here and heap abuse on me? What kind of person enjoys mocking someone stupid?

On the other hand, maybe they don't really think I am mentally retarded, but the only real rebuttal they can mount to what I write here is that I am stupid.

How sad is that?

Pretty damn sad, I say.

Bogus Eyewitnesses

It's 8:46am and let's say you just happened to see a plane crash into the WTC.

Is your first thought really going to be to try to find the number for CNN or ABC or FOX and then try to call and get through?

And what are the odds of getting over the initial shock, then thinking you should call the news, then FINDING the number and then getting hold of a producer or someone who will put you on air-- all within 15 minutes (giving you two minutes to talk on air), the time before the 2nd hit?

It's not like cable networks are call-in shows like they have on C-SPAN with the number on the bottom of the screen.

So how else would these networks get eye-witnesses to the 1st plane early on?


It stands to reason that any eyewitnesses to the 1st and 2nd planes who spoke early on live network TV are plants. Pure and simple.

And then, the plane footage is shown -- and EVERYONE "SEES" the "PLANE".

UPDATE: Marcus Icke has compiled some WTC1 eyewitness reports here.

National Sanctity of Human Life Day, 2007

Can't you just FEEL the deep respect for human life oozing from the White House?

"The Progressive Collapse Challenge"

I like this!

This is similar to what I was trying to do with my WTC model. My model was probably a few fold stronger relatively than the WTC because I didn't take scaling factors properly into account.*



*Basically, column strength doesn't scale linearly.

Star Wars Weapon and the Destruction of the WTC?

Conceptually, the hypothesis that space-based/sky-based directed energy weapons (beam weapons) were used to take down the WTC towers is very novel and very compelling: the hypothesis is consistent with much of the physical evidence, the mechanism is conceivable given current technology and the idea of using Star Wars technology also fits with the political environment of the Bush administration.

However, while I think the hypothesis is probably the best one out there, it is far from proven. And I think it is quite possible several mechanisms were used to bring down the towers besides beam weapons.

What would help prove the beam weapon hypothesis:

1) a more precise description of the device (or devices) that was (were) used

2) a calculation of the energy requirements for the devices/devices and some description of what the energy source was

3) a better description of the technology that can evaporate (cause molecular dissociation of) steel and concrete

In the absence of these, this hypothesis is not going to gain traction. If Wood and Reynolds have this info, they should disclose it. My two cents, and spoken as someone who admires their work.

On a more general note, I really wish Wood and Reynolds would finish their article. It has been three months since the first draft was put up, and it is starting to look bad that they haven't finished it.

Analyze 2nd Hit Footage Yourself!

Veronica Chapman very helpfully gives step-by-step instructions for down-loading video and analyzing it.

The Easiest Prediction In the World To Make

Sending more US troops to Iraq is just going to cause the deaths of more US troops.

On Any Other Day But 9/11...

On any other day but 9/11... most people would find it odd that the video that is supposed to show a Boeing 767 attacking the WTC doesn't really show an object that looks like a Boeing 767 or something that is even the size of a Boeing 767:


On any other day but 9/11... most people would find the damage pattern to the steel columns of the outer WTC wall supposedly made by a swept back plane wing very odd:


On any other day but 9/11... most people would find it odd that key videos of the 2nd WTC attack have an unusual cyan tint:


On any other day but 9/11... most people might be surprised that there is no exit hole in the north face of WTC2, after videos were shown where the nose of the plane passed through the building:


On any other day but 9/11... most people might think it very strange how a plane could glide into a building across several floor slabs and not explode on point of impact:


On any other day but 9/11... most people might find it odd how a large plane could COMPLETELY disappear into this hole, when there was so much debris in the way:


On any other day but 9/11... most people might be surprised that the plane that passed into the building on video without anything breaking off didn't really make hole large enough to go through:


On any other day but 9/11... most people would be surprised to see two of the largest buildings in the world turn into dust and fall down at near free-fall speeds, and completely disappearing into a curiously small pile of rubble-- and most people would also demand a thorough explanation for what happened:


On any other day but 9/11... most people would wonder what on earth happened to this building to make these holes and expect some answer from the authorities:


On any other day but 9/11... most people would think it VERY ODD that a 150 foot long, 125 foot wingspan airplane could crash into the ground and leave only this small crater and minimal debris:


On any other day but 9/11... most people would expect that a 6 ton section of columns crashing to the ground from 1000 feet would cause more damage to the street and sidewalk-- and would also wonder how a loosely embedded plane tire stayed in the columns during the impact:


This would happen any other day but 9/11.

On 9/11, however, we all know that muslims suspended the laws of physics.

To the Person Who Is Hung Up On the Motive For Planting a Plane Wheel and Columns in the Street

The anonymous person who said this:

I'm sorry that your lack of common sense fails to show you how having a reason for faking a 6-ton section of columns laying in the street when it's not necessary to keep up the appearance of an "conspiracy" might be helpful.

Why in God's name would the government/media spend time and money to fake something that not only doesn't have the slightest impact on the "official version" of the events of that day, but would also risk exposing the inside job????

You can't give an answer. And you ignore the question so you can go about believing the photos are nefarious and praising yourself and others like you for being "the only ones who can see the truth".

It's pathetic.

First of all, the key point is that we are being presented with evidence that doesn't make sense by itself.

But if we posit that the evidence is planted, then it could make more sense.

If you think the evidence by itself makes sense, then say so.

If the evidence doesn't make sense to you, then what is wrong with hypothesizing that it was planted?

Second, why are you trying to second guess the people who may have done the planting? There could be any number of reasons for why they did what they did. How can you know what they are thinking?

The key question is: does the evidence conform to logic and normal laws of physics?

"Why in God's name would the government/media spend time and money to fake something that not only doesn't have the slightest impact on the "official version" of the events of that day, but would also risk exposing the inside job????"

First, I strongly disagree that this "doesn't have the slightest impact on the "official version" of the events of that day". It obviously supports the official story that a large plane hit WTC1.

Second, if they were afraid of easily exposing themselves, why would they create such an obviously fake crash site as the Shanksville crater?

I think they WEREN'T OVERLY WORRIED ABOUT EXPOSING THE INSIDE JOB BECAUSE THE MEDIA WOULD COVER FOR THEM and therefore left a lot of damning and incriminating details (for various reasons).

"And you ignore the question so you can go about believing the photos are nefarious and praising yourself and others like you for being "the only ones who can see the truth""

I haven't ignored the question. I specifically put up a post about how the perps were shoving this sort of nonsense in our faces, which addresses this same issue. And while I don't think "praise" is the right word, I can certainly respect someone who can look at this evidence and call foul.

Let's agree that the evidence is fishy, and then we can discuss what it means.

Is that so much to ask?

NY Times: U.S. May Cut Troops in Iraq by Summer, General Says

Does anybody really fall for this shit?



Oh yeah, maybe Pinch and the gang do. Forgot.

An Unusual Osama bin Laden-Related Killing

the case of Suzanne Jovin.

Ningen's 9/11 Research

Lots and lots of good stuff over at his place.

Among other things, he finds that NIST concludes that "UA175" did not slow as it entered the tower! That page is found in this post.

(This reminds me of the fact that every time I look at the NIST reports myself, I find some amazing information that raise suspicions about 9/11. I could probably devote a whole blog to pulling out interesting tidbits from the NIST report. An interesting and important issue is whether there is some subtle whistleblowing going on in the NIST reports.)

Fetzer and Jones Show MP3

The proper link was kindly sent to me.

Star Wars: An Escalation In Hostilities

The Chinese have the technology to destroy satellites apparently using ground-based missiles.

More here.

Summary Post: Reasons to Think the Wheel and Columns Are Not Legitimate Evidence of an Airplane Crash at WTC1

This wheel putatively embedded in these columns:




The biggest and most conclusive reasons to think this is fake are:

1) the amazing lack of damage to the street and curb by these extremely heavy steel (estimated 6 tons) columns falling from over 1000 feet and impacting the concrete and asphalt. The very long extended shape of these columns would prevent any significant sliding or tumbling following their descent and impact.

2) the wheel stayed in the columns despite the impact of the fall from over 100 feet-- and despite that the wheel does not look particularly tightly wedged in there (notice it is tilting to one side as if it loosely in there).

3) a huge amount of force had to be applied to the columns to get them dislodged from their multiple anchoring bolts in the building (spanning at least two floors) and then moving 40 mph (see two posts back), yet the columns do not seem bent or significantly distorted from this force.

Other reasons to think this scene is fake:

1) the photos have an odd coloring and one photo is admitted to be enhanced

2) the right hand part of the columns in the top two pictures look out of the proper plane of view and this may be a sign of photo manipulation

3) the columns are next to an oddly empty and open parking lot

4) the extent of the piping that supposedly came with the columns-- and the incredibly amount of curling it has undergone

5) just one wheel is present, stripped perfectly clean of its axle and strut and no other sign of landing gear-- it is impossible that this one wheel could have popped the column section out of its moorings


6) unlike other pictures of WTC plane debris, this evidence has received very little attention, indicating limited to no exposure of this evidence to the public prior to the NIST report

7) even NIST modeling suggests that the landing gear should not have penetrated the core of WTC1

8) Other WTC plane debris found on the street is also suspicious-- such as the engine part found upright under a construction canopy and the surprisingly undamaged wheel that also landed under a construction canopy.


POSSIBILITIES TO EXPLAIN HOW THEY FAKED THE EVIDENCE:

1) the columns were photoshopped into the pictures

2) the columns wewre detached by the WTC attack and landed closer to the WTC-- and were moved here and the wheel inserted (seems unlikely because heavy construction machinery-- a crane or a front loader-- would be needed to move this large and heavy object; also not clear why they would move the columns here).

3) the columns were prepared prior to the WTC attack and unloaded from a moving van onto the street here along with the plane wheel to provide evidence of a plane crash (this would suggest that the pictures apparently showing a missing section of columns from the south face of WTC1 was manipulated)

4) high-tech devices (magnetic weaponry?) were used to detach the columns from the South face of the WTC1, bring the columns down "softly", and then the plane tire was inserted once the columnns were down

I tend to favor possibilities 1 and 3.

Worst Attorney General EVER!

Jesus, it just takes my breath away:

Specter: Now wait a minute, wait a minute. The Constitution says you can't take it away except in the case of invasion or rebellion. Doesn't that mean you have the right of habeas corpus?

Gonzales: I meant by that comment that the Constitution doesn't say that every individual in the United States or every citizen has or is assured the right of habeas corpus. It doesn't say that. It simply says that the right of habeas corpus shall not be suspended.

Speed Calculations for the Immaculate Wheel

This guy:


Using some simple formulas from this page, at the "Horizontal Launch" section, we can calculate the exit velocity from the building and the velocity at time of impact, if we put in the height this set of columns were "launched" from and the distance they traveled.

Using 500 feet as distance traveled (R) and 1162 feet as the height (h = the height of the 94th floor), I got 40 mph as the exit velocity and 186 mph as the impact velocity.

40 mph tends to favor the official story and shows that because of the extreme height, relatively modest velocities can propel the columns quite some ways (independent of their weight, by the way*).

The impact velocity on the other hand, 186 mph, still raises the questions of how these 12,0000 pound columns didn't damage the pavement and also how the wheel managed to survive that impact without getting dislodged.

*The amount of force required to dislodge these columns AND propel them to 40 mph is another issue. It's certainly not an insignificant force, but not out of the realm of comprehension for a major explosive event.

In Your Face, Suckers!

Ningen raises a very important point:

An answer I got at 911 Blogger about this fake debris in general is that if looks faked it can't be fake because if they faked it they would do it so it didn't seem faked.*

Crazy, but it raises the question why all this is so obvious. One theory is that the perps made it obvious for those who question, to fuck with our heads, and to show that the non-questioning will believe anything.

This is something I have thought about a lot and I totally agree with the mind-fuck aspect.

Think about just SOME of what we've been presented with:
a) the bizarre fake Pentagon crash
b) the blatantly obvious faked flight 93 crash site
c) several fairly clearly fake 2nd hit videos

They are shoving it right in our faces and just daring us to question it-- because they know they can get away with it.

Not to mention the IN YOUR FACE aspect of the WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 demolitions.

It's the psy-op aspect of this all at play.

*this logic is of course completely circular and designed to reinforce the idea that the 9/11 perps couldn't have faked anything: if it looks fake, it can't be fake because they would have done a better job. But of course if evidence DOESN'T look fake, then of course they didn't fake it because it doesn't look fake.

What I Love About This Picture

There is so much to love:


(see previous post for source of picture)

1) Note how the picture has admittedly been "enhanced".
Hokay... sure would be nice if they told us HOW it was "enhanced". This picture and others of this incident all have some odd coloring, sort of sepia toned. Is this a sign of manipulation?

2) Note that crazy piping that supposedly came down with the columns-- it's like some kind of giant spring. Did all WTC column panels have so much piping attached to them? The piping must be 100 feet long! How did the pipe get bent into multiple coils, anyway? Why didn't it break into a shorter section? Is it indestructible pipe?

3) Note that the piping supposedly bashed in the rear of the pick-up truck (circled). So-- some falling springy pipe can demolish the back of a pick-up truck, but a 12,000 pound set of columns doesn't even dent the concrete curb (square outline)?

Another View of "The Miracle on Cedar Street"

(click to enlarge)
from a preliminary NIST report: NISTNCSTAR1-5A_chap_1-8 pdf, page 173.

This 12,000 pound set of columns fell 1,00 feet and didn't even break the curb?

Gimme a break!

The picture above and this one below, didn't make it into the final version of the NIST report.


Perhaps these weren't shown because they clearly show how little damage was done to the street and curb.

Also, the right hand part of the columns looks quite fake in both of these pictures.

Photoshop job? Was the NYPD in on it?

MP3 of the Fetzer-Jones Radio Show from Today

(sorry link is bad, I will fix if I can find the right link)

I only listened to some of it. I thought Jones came off okay in the parts I heard-- though he got really mad at Fetzer at one point. But Jones is a slick operator and a smooth talker, for sure.

9/11 Blogger

9/11 is a fascinating topic, and blogs are much more engaging and lively than traditional news media.

So how did 9/11 Blogger get to be so damn dull?



Of course, given the obvious gate-keeping that goes on over there, I have to wonder if that was their plan all along...

Then again, who am I to criticize when they get 20 times the traffic I do?

Liberals Did 9/11!

Colbert does a good job of making Dinesh D'Souza look silly.

Cheney

This speaks for itself:

Things Like This Disturb My Sleep

This is just so absurd:


Are we really expected to believe a
a) 12,000 pound (at minimum) set of columns came crashing down from 1,000 feet up and it didn't even crack the street?
b) a wheel was embedded so tightly in the columns it wasn't even dislodged by the impact?
c) this 12,000 pound set of columns traveled at least 500 feet from WTC1 after being dislodged from the tower?

Jesus, it's crazy.

I could see the falling columns impaling and getting stuck in the street like we see here:



But falling perfectly flat without any sign of significant impact?

I don't think so.

There are a couple of other things to note.

1) take a look at the item below that looks a bit like a carry-on bag with a long thin square handle-like protrusion that is right next to the columns (it is black on the right side in the picture below). It has clearly been moved between the picture above (where the object is much further from the columns) and this picture below.

Were these pictures staged? It sure looks like it. And if they moved the bag around, it seems likely they could have also moved the wheel.

2) If this set of columns came from the SE corner of WTC1, there is a trajectory problem, in that the columns would have had to come off the building on a SSW trajectory, which doesn't fit with how plane debris originating from the center of the building would have impacted the SE corner.

UPDATE-- I'm wrong, as the picture was misleading. The missing chunk of WTC1 came from the center of the South face, not from the SE corner.

3) note the columns are right next to a large, unenclosed and empty parking lot. What are the odds that this parking lot would be so empty on a workday (Tuesday) morning-- even if we assume that many people left work after the tower attacks? This empty parking lot could have held a large moving truck, that dropped off this set of columns and then fled the scene.

But that is just crazy conspiracy theory talk, right?

In fact, this explanation makes more sense to me than the nearly impossible official story we have been presented with.

Muslims Suspended the Laws of Physics, Part 279

Ningen discusses the story of the immaculate embedded tire.

That is, the "airplane tire" that was embedded in the 12,000 pound set of columns that flew 500 feet from WTC1.

Here's my previous post on "the miracle on Cedar Street".

"The Worst President Ever"

He's still giving the blog lots of material.

Watched Oliver Stone's "World Trade Center" Last Night

I liked it more than I expected.

Actually, the movie very scrupulously avoided any controversy and any conspiracy talk. There wasn't much in the way of politics at all. The most pleasant surprise was there was almost NOTHING about planes. The movie followed two Port Authority cops, and they never saw any plane before they got trapped by the "collapse" of the South tower. They apparently were in the basement complex near WTC5. The only hint of a plane was the shadow of a Boeing on a building early on, but it was very subtle. There was mention of planes when they showed news coverage, but that was to be expected.

The most surprising thing was the treatment of the 2nd hit. It was never clear when it happened. The showed the towers at a time when ostensibly both should have been hit (when they first arrived at the WTC*) but only the north tower was burning. Then once they were inside, it was just pure confusion. There was no footage of a fireball.

All in all, the movie mostly seemed to be about "moving on" from 9/11-- a prospect that often seems very appealing, I must admit.

*on the ride to the WTC, one guy mentions his wife was listening to the radio and heard the south tower was hit by a plane.

Flight 93 Crater Thread at DU

Here.

I've been trying for about a week to convince the resident skeptics (and likely operatives) that it is very unlikely that a Boeing 757 crashed in this crater:


Feel free to chime in at DU. I could use some help fighting the skeptics.

Some of My Most Favorite Music

Glenn Gould, Goldberg Variations 8-14:


One of my futile goals in life is to practice enough to be able to play these pieces this well. Actually, I can play the slower pieces reasonably well, but still not close to this well for the faster ones like #14 (the last one).

These are kind of fun to play because there is some crazy cross-hands playing in some of them.

Expanding Executive Power for the Sake of Expanded Executive Power

WaPo Op-Ed:

But it has finally become clear that the goal of these efforts isn't to win the war against terrorism; indeed, nothing about Padilla, Guantanamo Bay or signing statements moves the country an inch closer to eradicating terrorism. The object is a larger one: expanding executive power, for its own sake.

I'm sure the perfect excuse for an executive power grab was in fact an important reason for staging 9/11 in the first place.

First There Was "The Lone Gunman"

and now this?

XXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX SUN JAN 14, 2007 18:17:05 ET XXXXX

IS FOX SET TO BLOW THE NUKES ON '24'?
Sun Jan 14 2007 18:14:34 ET

As Washington continues to raise concerns about terror threats on The Homeland -- a recent CIA report outlined a scenerio of possible "series of explosions using 'low charge' nuclear weapons" -- Hollywood and FOX-TV are set to up the ante with the new season of 24!

Few outside of the 24 set know the exact details of the new season unfolding, but studio sources claim producers are pushing hard to take it radioactive this time -- and keep it there.

"Time to wake the country up!" a top FOX source told the DRUDGE REPORT over the weekend. "I do not think there has ever been TV done like this, the viewer is going to be completely riveted."

The source claims executives are prepared for any fallout from local municipalities that may be on the receiving end of plot turns and twists. How many cities 24 puts on 'nuke alert' is unclear.

A clip from "The Lone Gunman" can be seen here. The show basically pre-saged a limited hang-out government conspiracy version of 9/11, where remote-controlled commercial planes attack the WTC.

In Honor of Martin Luther King, Jr.

"A time comes when silence is betrayal."

"The Simpsons" Presage (Acknowledge?) Military Control of the Weather

In last night's episode, the army showed a recruiting video to Springfield Elementary in which someone flying an aircraft was able to chase down and ZAP various "bad guys" in this order: Hitler, another Nazi, Osama bin Laden, "Freddy" from "Friday the 13th" and then a hurricane. The last target was labled "deadly hurricane".*

Of course, this isn't the first time "The Simpsons" have given clues about what the secret government is planning or is up to.

*I hope to get a clip up of this on YouTube later.

The Simple Reason Why the War on Terror, the Iraq War and Warmongering with Iran Are Mostly About Politics and Defense Contracts

There is NO serious push either for a national military draft or to put the nation on a war-footing.

In other words, despite all the talk, I will still be very surpised if there is any attack on Iran.

UNLESS-- there is some new horrible attack within the US that can be blamed on Iranians/middle easterners. Heaven forbid.

I can't rule out the Bush administration would try to goad Iran into war, though I'm still having trouble seeing it. I really don't think they WANT war with Iran, rather they just enjoy talking about it.

Cheney's Stomach

"This is an existential conflict," Cheney said. "It is the kind of conflict that's going to drive our policy and our government for the next 20 or 30 or 40 years. We have to prevail and we have to have the stomach for the fight long term."

Yeah.

Of course, tough talk is very cheap when you or your family are not the ones being killed and maimed, and when you can simply pass on the huge cost of the war to future taxpayers.

Existential conflict.

Sounds like deep bullshit to me.

More Domestic Spying

and by the military as well!

Lovely, just lovely.

Burnt Ground

The flight 93 crash crater:


Check out the absurdity of how part of the crater is badly charred (by what?)-- yet the ground right next to it is pristine:


No freaking way that a crashing jumbojet made such a precisely demarcated burn pattern.

No freaking way!

Best I can figure is the burnt holes in the crater were produced by a beam weapon of some kind.

CBS Live News Coverage of the 2nd Hit

Some real fishy stuff here:

RAW

Robert Anton Wilson, who just died a couple days back, seemed like a very cool guy.

What's very odd is seeing his blog post about his awareness of his imminent death.

The next post, apparently by someone else, announcing his death has over 900 comments.

Pentagon Plane Debris

I think it is very clear that the most airplane debris we have seen from any of the 9/11 crashes is from the Pentagon incident. (A collection of this debris is seen here.)

The question is why?

Part of the answer is clearly that the government has been trying to prove that an aircraft (specifically Flight 77) crashed at the Pentagon.

But in many cases, "they" are trying too hard. For instance, in this famous Rense article showing airplane debris at the Pentagon (why is the government making its case at Rense.com anyway?), the author points to a large piece of sheet metal and random bits of shredded metal as evidence of a plane-- when in fact, these items could be anything inside the building and almost certainly weren't even plane parts. Another instance of this was a photo of brown chunky debris piled outside the pentagon, and Mike Rivero of WhatReallyHappened.com pointed the pile of random stuff and said -- "See the pieces of luggage there? That proves a plane hit the Pentagon"-- (from an old article where Rivero tried to show a plane really hit the Pentagon). Russel Pickering of pentagonresearch.com falls into this trap as well, when he points to this picture (warning: very gruesome image of a body), and says there is a piece of fuselage behind him. Does anyone else see fuselage behind the body? I sure don't. I don't even see anything that MIGHT be fuselage.


So clearly, lots of people want to SHOW that there was plane debris at the Pentagon-- even if they think 9/11 was an inside job, apparently because saying that Flight 77 didn't crash there is simply too kooky and far-out. Sometimes these same people make an appeal that questioning the official story dishonors the victims on Flight 77).

I should at this time point out that it IS clear that we haven't been shown ENOUGH debris for a large plane like a 757-- and the debris we have been shown could easily have been pre-planted as part of the overall psy-op. For instance, much of the obvious debris is painted fuselage debris seen on the Pentagon lawn. This could have been put in some sort of package that was blown up along with whatever happened at the pentagon on 9/11, or even dropped from the sky by a top-secret plane.

BUT-- even early on there WERE pictures of plane debris at the Pentagon lawn, and again the question is WHY?

There are two basic formal answers:

1) there really was a plane crash at the Pentagon, and since it occurred low to the ground, there was much debris spilled out on the Pentagon lawn that was accessible to witnesses.

2) there was only a FAKED plane crash at the Pentagon, and since it occurred low to the ground, debris was arrayed out on the Pentagon lawn specifically to be accessible to witnesses in order to propagate the plane crash myth.

Not surprisingly, I tend to think the latter.

I don't know what really happened at the Pentagon on 9/11. I am sure the official story is very wrong, but I can't completely rule out any plane hitting the building.

I wouldn't be surprised if the attack were carried out with beam weapons to mimic plane damage, and further parts of the plan involved planted explosives and plane parts.

Obviously the biggest problem, assuming anything close to the official story, is we've never seen the complete collection of plane parts that the government has and none of the parts have been verified to have come from the flight 77 plane. Until we have that evidence (which I doubt we will EVER get), the government's case is simply not proven and too many questions remain.

Top Ten Absurdities of 9/11

10) Four large planes can be hijacked with boxcutters/ small knives and not one stewardess is able to warn the cockpit to guard against intrusion-- and not one of eight pilots is able to alert ground control of a hijacking

9) the same military C-130 just happens to fly over both the Pentagon and Shanksville crash scenes very shortly after they occurred/Satam al-Suqami's intact passport is found at the WTC after the "plane crashes"/no black boxes are found at ground zero (officially)

8) NORAD never locates the hijacked flight 93 (this was their final version of events put in the 9/11 commission report) even though according to Jere Longman's "Among the Heroes", United Airlines tracks the flight on their own board at headquarters

7) NORAD completely unable to defend Washington DC from air attack 30 minutes after it is obvious a major air attack involving hijacked planes is occurring

6) Amateur pilots can fly jets over 500 mph near sea level with pinpoint accuracy

5) WTC7 collapses at free-fall speed from the bottom up into its footprint because of exterior damage and internal fires

4) WTC1 and WTC2 turn into dust at near free-fall speed from the top down because of jet fuel fires

3) an aluminum plane can cut a silhouette shape of itself in steel and concrete and then disintegrate while colliding with the same material

2) that the president sat in an elementary school classroom for almost half an hour participating in a reading lesson in full knowledge that a major terror attack was still occurring

1) That the rear two-thirds of a 155 foot long 30 foot tall Boeing 757 were buried in the ground under this crater:




Interestingly, with the exception of the demolition of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7, every other absurdity can be explained if we theorize no real planes were used on 9/11.

Also-- I am sure there are many other absurdities. These are just the biggest and most blatant, IMO.

Bullshit Alert/False Flag Terror Alert!!!

US frustration over al-Qaeda 'resurgence'
By Gordon Corera
Security correspondent, BBC News

John Negroponte's assertion that al-Qaeda is able to cultivate stronger operational relationships "from their leaders' secure hide-out in Pakistan" represents an unusually frank and direct assessment of al Qaeda's strength and position.

And this:

US intel chief: Al Qaeda active, strong in Pakistani hideout.

Pakistan rejects Negroponte comments, which reflect continued US concern of 'grave' threat from terror group.

By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com
US National Intelligence Director (NID) John Negroponte says that Al Qaeda has found "a secure hideout in Pakistan, from which it is rebuilding its strength."

Was "Flight 93" an Homage to the '93 WTC Bombing?

If you assume there was symbolism in the events of 9/11, I find it a bit of a coincidence that the passengers of "flight 93" would learn of the demolition of one of the WTC towers before the flight "ended".

Also, there is a strange symmetry and weird symbology in the names of the two American Airlines flights (the same ones that weren't listed in the BTS database): AA11, AA77.

Obviously, 11 is symbolic of the twin towers.

Ironically, the Pentagon is 77 feet tall and 77 million cubic feet in volume.

I still don't know what 175 stands for, except that added together the numbers make (unlucky) 13.

Bad Terrorists

I mean, it's like I FELT it, but what's the point?

Explosive Concrete and Microwaves?

Plausible.

Though I don't think it explains everything-- such as, what happened to all the steel?

US Attacks Iran!

An Iranian diplomatic office in Iraq, that is.

Another brilliant move by the Bush administration.

Sic Semper Tyrannis

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- President Bush was upset after watching the video of Saddam Hussein's execution....Bush found the taunting of Hussein as he stood on the gallows with a noose around his neck disturbing, the officials said. Bush had a similar reaction when he saw the photos of U.S. military personnel abusing naked and restrained prisoners at the Abu Ghraib prison outside of Baghdad in 2003.

Does anyone really believe this?

Unless, as Digby points out:

there's always the possibility that he really was upset at the sight of a former head of state essentially being lynched by his people. You can certainly understand why he'd find that a little bit unnerving.

More Death

The Worst Presidential Administration Ever fans out to sell The Worst President Ever's Iraq plan.*


It is depressing as hell.

Exposing the 9/11 fraud is the only way to cut through this madness.


*Not surprisingly, there is no real plan-- except perhaps to broaden the war to Syria and Iran and kill more brown people.

UPDATE: KO gives an excellent 2 minute run-down on all the Bush Iraq missteps up to now.

And... if you're interested in a critique of Bush's "plan", Juan Cole has a good over-view.

Simplest Proof Yet for WTC Demolition

If the top 15 stories of WTC1 were strong enough to drive through the lower 95 stories of the tower and induce its total collapse, we should see these top 15 stories sitting intact atop the rubble of WTC1.

By the same token, if the top 30 stories of WTC2 were strong enough to drive through the lower 80 stories of the tower and induce its total collapse, we should see these top 30 stories sitting intact atop the rubble of WTC2.

This is not unlike the proof for no plane hitting the WTC: if the plane was strong enough to punch out a silhouette shape of itself in the side of the WTC, it can't be completely destroyed by the same structure.

An object simply CAN'T completely destroy something and be completely destroyed itself.

And an explosive device is a completely different situation than a solid object colliding with another solid object.

UPDATE: One might argue that the upper floors of the WTC did drive the collapse of the tower staying intact and then only broke apart once it reached the ground. However, this notion is belied by the fact that all videos of the WTC "collapses" show the upper stories collapsing in on themselves (and off the side) at the same time the lower portions of the towers were giving way.

The fact that the videos showed these upper stories breaking apart during the tower "collapses" also shows that either the lower floors were putting up incredible resistance or that both the upper and lower sections were being blown apart as the whole thing went down. Since it is impossible* that the lower sections can both offer high resistance and fall at the same time, this also proves demolition.

One might also argue that the upper floors merely had to start to fall to initiate a chain-reaction collapsing event, and then once that occurred, it didn't matter what happened to the upper floors. The problem with this argument is that it assumes that the floors of the towers were like a line of dominoes just waiting to be knocked over and that nothing needed to drive the total collapse except a couple of upper floors.

*In the case of a vehicle collision, it would be like a small car smashing into the rear of a dump truck and then getting flattened at the same time it flattens the dump truck from the rear to the front. It is hard to imagine, isn't it? Even if you assume another small car was smashing into the small car from behind at the same time (i.e. to mimic gravity), this is hard to imagine.

Al Qaeda in the News Ahead of Bush's New Iraq Escalation Plans

Just a coincidence I'm sure.

The Somalia story is all over the place, but I even heard on NPR about an attack on an Al Qaeda-linked group in the Philippines. Best I can tell, NPR was referring this story, which is two weeks old. I can't find a Philippines story on NPR's web-site.

I DID find on the NPR news site this story: "Pentagon: 'Credible Evidence' for Attack on Somalia".

Yeah, I'm sure.

Wasting More Money to Cover-Up 9/11

Last night:

A House bill (H. Res. 1) to implement recommendations suggested by the September 11th Commission passed by a vote of 299 to 128, with eight members of Congress not voting.

Just after 7:15 PM Eastern, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the bill had passed, and gaveled the end of the vote. Joining 231 Democrats were 68 Republican members of Congress.

As seen here, the bill is a huge and costly collection of security measures that will probably make life in the US more difficult.

Ningen on the Planted WTC Landing Gear

The little wheel that could not.

The big picture is that if it can be shown that plane debris couldn't have come from the WTC, then it must have been planted-- and it most likely would only have been planted if in fact no planes hit the WTC.

Marcus Icke on Holograms

from an email he sent to me and I quote with his permission:

Holograms come from Webfairy and then to Dr Grossmann and then to me when he hosted my my Ghost Gun site.

Dr Grossmann did the serious research into it and showed it was a possibiltiy.

At the present time I see that the only evidensce [sic] regarding the WTC2 strike is to do with the media hoax.

Because the videos are fakes it would cover any potential hologram, so we can take holgrams no furter [sic] than theory and are left with media fakery evidence.

As time goes on it appear that the witnesses are liars and in fact did not witness anything - or so it seem [sic].


Unitil [sic] the majortity [sic] of the witnesses are de-bunked I would still consider a small plane or hologram at WTC2, and it looks like its [sic] heading that way.

I have recenty changed the title of the GGUA175 article to "The WTC2 Media Hoax" and left the hologram stuff at the end as a theory.

M. I.

While sloppily typed, his basic point is reasonable. Unless we can show that all witnesses to the 2nd plane are bogus (even though it is quite likely they are bogus), we can't rule out a small (unconventional) plane or hologram.

My theory is many people who thought they saw the 2nd plane actually saw the helicopter that was going in the same direction as "UA175". People who actually saw a large jet hit the WTC are either lying or saw the fly-by "elephant" plane and got confused.

The Sexy 9/11 Octopus Video

Here.

I think it works in terms of concept art, and in terms of turning people on, but probably not so well in terms of turning people onto 9/11 truth.

Some 9/11 Truth History

Jeff Strahl (new).

Rabbi Philo (older).

Bush Sr. Lied About Early CIA Connections; Ford Aided the JFK Cover-Up

Interesting article.

"Jonesing" for Some Crash Physics

If Steven Jones were really interested in the truth about 9/11, you would think he would be willing to clarify whether, as a Ph.D. physicist, he thinks the WTC "plane crashes" violated physics.

Coffinman explains more here.

Everyone Loves a Good Conspiracy Theory

At least when it comes to predicting whether Iran is going to be attacked:

"Officials believe White House chose new Intelligence chief in effort to darken Iran Intelligence Estimate"


"George W. Bush has purged senior military and intelligence officials who were obstacles to a wider war in the Middle East, broadening his options for both escalating the conflict inside Iraq and expanding the fighting to Iran and Syria with Israel’s help."

"Israel Considers Nuking Iran"

When it comes to 9/11, not so much.

Questions About the Media

Has ANY reporter even seen this footage and thought that there was something funny about it?



Will any reporter EVER question the validity of this footage?

How many reporters KNOW that the images of the 2nd plane were bogus?

"Collapse" Is Disinfo

In fact, the WTC was blown to smithereens.







"Collapse" simply doesn't do justice to describe what happened.

Just thought I'd get that out of the way.

Gas Attacks?

AUSTIN, Texas - Police shut down 10 blocks of businesses in the heart of downtown early Monday after dozens of birds were found dead in the streets, but officials said preliminary tests showed no dangerous chemicals in the air.

NEW YORK - Authorities were investigating the source of a mysterious gas-like odor Monday that wafted over a large part of Manhattan, from Rockefeller Center through Greenwich Village.

The Fire Department began getting calls about the odor around 9 a.m. Monday, said spokesman Tim Hinchey. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey temporarily suspended some of its PATH commuter train service between New Jersey and Manhattan as a precaution.

Oh, nothing to worry about...and never mind the abnormally warm weather either.

Los Alamos 9/11 Truth

Cool site-- I love the background pics and attitude.

And this comment at the site explains Steven Jones perfectly:

The whole "thermate" deal is a set-up.

Of course there's residue of conventional explosives at the WTC site. Because that's what was used AFTER THE FACT, to complete the clean-up and haul-away what was left after 9/11.

Which will make it easier for other government certified "experts" to discredit the "thermate did 9/11 argument". It's been deliberately set up to fail that way.

"Thermate" was always intended as a poison pill.

Which would make Jones a Trojan Horse.

If Jones had any intellectuall integrity at all, he would be pointing to the VIDEO EVIDENCE OF DESTRUCTION AND SPONTANEOUS COLLAPSE as the key, basic and primary evidence for an engineered destsruction of the Towers.

And closer, detailed examination of photograhphic evidence from around the site that morning (toasted cars, craters in some areas but not in others, the survival of the "bathtub" underlying the foundation of the complex); all this would tend to lend greater weight to the likelihood that unconventional weapons were employed at Ground Zero. Perhaps IN CONJUNCTION with more conventional explosives like thermite .... or even mini-nukes.

Limiting the evidence of "demolition" at Ground Zero on 9/11, to a "materials analysis proving thermate" is easily discredited bullshit .... It raises all kinds of red-herrings in relation to sourcing the material evidence, chain-of-custody, "expert interpretation" of complicated lab tests ... The whole "thermate" limited hangout scam would crumble in court and in the media, precisely because it is so easily discredited. That's why Jones is advancing it.

Raising the evidence of unconventional weapons use, on the other hand, points the finger directly and unambiguously at the government and military-industrial complex.
It also links the use of these weapons here, to their current ongoing use in Iraq, Afghanistan and Lebanon .. .... of which we already have abundant photographic evidence...

But it is easier to play the bumbler, using sloppy and flimsy "research" along with dubious credentials as a "pre-Colombian Jesus" expert to sabotage and hamstring any authentic research into the truth.

Another Flight Path Discrepency Implying a CGI Plane

Still Diggin' does some analysis, and makes a good case.

Reminds of the pen and pencil stuff I used to do to analyze flight paths back in Spring of 2006*-- except he's doing it better and more precisely. It's not simple to do this sort of analysis, and because it involves relatively complicated and serious calculations, I think probably not very convincing to anyone who isn't ready to be convinced. People can find some little flaw and write it off too easily. Same goes for all the "proofs" Still Diggin' says he has made for a CGI plane. It is just not a simple task to prove this idea to people.

And I need to respond to this bit:

Something has always bothered me about the work of Marcus Icke and Stephan Grossman. Here we have a case of individuals having the wherewithal to not only model the exact layout of the towers, but also overlay accurate plane models on top of the inserted plane CGI’s.

I’ve often wished that I had that model at my disposal so that I could use it properly. Instead of using it to try to sell hologram disinfo, the first thing I would do with that model is to flip to a plan [sic] view (view from directly above). From there, I would be able to demonstrate how vastly different all the flight paths of these cartoon planes are.

Well, rather than waiting for Icke and Grossman to retract their hologram disinformation (snip)

First of all, Flight Siumulator is NOT that easy to use to show plane path discrepencies. It is hard and tedious work lining up the plane angles and camera positions. Second, Grossman doesn't do Flight Simulator analysis, only Icke does. Third and importantly, while Grossman and Icke promoted some form of hologram theory two years ago**, that is not their theory now, so Still Diggin' needs to back off on the disinfo accusations a bit. Icke has shown probably more than anyone that the 1st and 2nd hits were pure video fakery, and this is his theory now for the 2nd hit.

*before I started using Flight Simulator.

**I believe primarily because of the Ghostplane footage that showed the second plane gliding into the tower , and other physical evidence involving the South tower, they proposed a hologram hoax. That was before Icke started looking extensively at the 2nd hit videos.

SHOCKING!!!

Iraq's massive oil reserves, the third-largest in the world, are about to be thrown open for large-scale exploitation by Western oil companies under a controversial law which is expected to come before the Iraqi parliament within days.

The US government has been involved in drawing up the law, a draft of which has been seen by The Independent on Sunday. It would give big oil companies such as BP, Shell and Exxon 30-year contracts to extract Iraqi crude and allow the first large-scale operation of foreign oil interests in the country since the industry was nationalised in 1972.

The huge potential prizes for Western firms will give ammunition to critics who say the Iraq war was fought for oil. They point to statements such as one from Vice-President Dick Cheney, who said in 1999, while he was still chief executive of the oil services company Halliburton, that the world would need an additional 50 million barrels of oil a day by 2010. "So where is the oil going to come from?... The Middle East, with two-thirds of the world's oil and the lowest cost, is still where the prize ultimately lies," he said.

Oil industry executives and analysts say the law, which would permit Western companies to pocket up to three-quarters of profits in the early years, is the only way to get Iraq's oil industry back on its feet after years of sanctions, war and loss of expertise. But it will operate through "production-sharing agreements" (or PSAs) which are highly unusual in the Middle East, where the oil industry in Saudi Arabia and Iran, the world's two largest producers, is state controlled.

Note: link fixed.