Getting Planes Out of the Sky on 9/11

To some extent, it makes sense that all aircraft were ordered to land at about 9:30 on 9/11.

The logic would seem to be to shoot down all the ones that didn't land, as they were the hijacked ones.

Except-- there are problems with this logic.

First, it was a huge job to land so many planes, it would take some time, and the "terrorists" had struck quickly before-- it doesn't seem like other hijackers would wait too long to strike. By the official parameters of the story, it seems quite possible that any new hijacked planes would have hit their target, easily, by the time all the planes were landed.

Second, the Air Force had clearly been ineffective in responding to ANY hijacked flight up to that time, so why would they able to get other hijacked planes in time? (Within the official parameters of the story, of course)

Third, at the time the order was given to land, there weren't even official shoot-down orders!

All in all, the order to land all the planes seems well-intentioned perhaps, but rather DUBIOUS in terms of practicality.

For instance, why didn't the FAA let the Air Force do it's normal job of intercepting rogue flights?

Even more strange was the fact that-- military, and law enforcement flights were ordered TO LAND FROM 9:26 a.m. TO 10:31am!

Getting military flights out of the sky makes little sense. Surely, the Air Force can track their own planes!!!!

Gee, why would ALL flights be ordered out of the sky at the same time the WTC was being demolished????


Hmmmmm......

The "War on Terror" Is a Political Ploy

as if you needed any more evidence.

Pinch's World

From "Navy Times":

Walter Reed patients told to keep quiet

By Kelly Kennedy - Staff writer
Posted : Tuesday Feb 27, 2007 22:09:20 EST
Soldiers at Walter Reed Army Medical Center’s Medical Hold Unit say they have been told they will wake up at 6 a.m. every morning and have their rooms ready for inspection at 7 a.m., and that they must not speak to the media.

“Some soldiers believe this is a form of punishment for the trouble soldiers caused by talking to the media,” one Medical Hold Unit soldier said, speaking on the condition of anonymity.

It is unusual for soldiers to have daily inspections after Basic Training.

Soldiers say their sergeant major gathered troops at 6 p.m. Monday to tell them they must follow their chain of command when asking for help with their medical evaluation paperwork, or when they spot mold, mice or other problems in their quarters.

Soldiers convalescing from wounds suffered in battle have to wake up at 6 am and have their rooms cleaned by 7 am?

Fucking insanity.

Here's more from Pinch's world:

Abdul Tawala Ibn Ali Alishtari, indicted two weeks ago for financing terrorists in Afghanistan among other charges, gave more than $35,000 to Republican campaign committees

A Mega-Smoking Gun

More here, here and here.

One POSSIBLE explanation is that the timing of the footage was wrong AND that the reporter was standing in front of a blue-screen projecting slightly old footage of WTC7 as she talks about it having collapsed... but, it seems less and less likely this was the case as more people look into this. Certainly the lighting on the reporter, Jane Stanley looks like natural sunlight, not like she's in a studio. So it is probably not bluescreen. Moreover, the link with Stanley dies suddenly at the end of the clip, perhaps the producers saw the goof or saw that Building 7 was about come down.

Remember, many people were told ahead of time WTC7 was coming down, for instance here and here. This BBC footage seems to be a stark example of this foreknowledge-- where they actually jumped the gun and said it collapsed before it was taken down.

(And thanks to "DEMOCRAT" for pointing me to this footage initially.)

The Northwest 710 Crash Versus the Official United 93 Crash

The crash of NW flight 710 into an Indiana field in 1960 has been held as a precedent for the strange crash of UA93. They were both big planes going close to 600 mph when they hit the ground. "William Seger", my pal at DU who has been arguing about my flight 93 crash proof, says the NW 710 crashes debunks the idea that there is anything unusual about the UA93 crash.

The NW 710 plane was an Electra, which was a shorter plane (about 100 long) than the Boeing 757 (150 feet long). The Electra plummeted to the ground after both its wings broke off in flight, and it went straight down from 18,000 feet. It impacted the ground at a 90 degree angle and made a huge crater. The fuselage telescoped and burrowed into the ground and little large plane debris was visible around the crater.

That part is similar to the UA93 official story.

The big difference is that UA93 officially hit the ground at a 40 degree angle and belly up-- according to the official flight data recorder reading.

Thus, once again, it makes NO SENSE that UA93 disappeared into the ground when it hit at this 40 degree oblique angle.

At a 40 degree angle, the plane should have crashed and bounced, and large sections should have scraped along the ground, making an extended crater-- and produced large debris.

The plane-shaped crater that UA93 officially produced and the lack of any large debris defies logic-- over and over.



The real question is, why anyone would believe the official story?

The answer must be is that this is just more kool-aid for the 9/11 psy-op.

There Can No Longer Be Any Doubt

that "Al Qaeda" (al-CIA-duh) works in service of the US.

Holy mother of god, they are just flaunting it in our faces now.

Still Waiting for a Non-Weird Explanation

for how part of the west wall of WTC1 twisted as it fell, so as to fall northwards and avoid hitting the WFC towers.

Cheney Visits Pakistan

The US Vice President held talks with Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf during which he urged him to do more to tackle extremism.

They are understood to have discussed the renewed Taliban offensive in Afghanistan and increasing al Qaeda activity in the region.

A Pakistani official said Mr Cheney had requested that Pakistan "do more", while appreciating the efforts it had already made to combat terror.

Uh, sure.

I wonder what they REALLY talked about.

UPDATE: "General Musharraf-- you've managed to allow Al Qaeda to rebuild itself and combined with Iraq it will require my government to to spend untold billions, if not trillions on military contracts into the indefinite future...

...EXCELLENT"

Sounds about right.

UPDATE 2: Check out the way the NY Times frames the story: "WASHINGTON, Feb. 25 — Vice President Dick Cheney made an unannounced trip to Pakistan on Monday to deliver what officials in Washington described as an unusually tough message Gen. Pervez Musharraf of Pakistan, warning him that the newly Democratic Congress could cut aid to his country unless his forces become far more aggressive in hunting down operatives with Al Qaeda."
(emphasis added)

Tee hee! Cheney is happy with the status quo! It's just those pesky Democrats that want to get "Al Qaeda".

Crater Perspective

This top picture seems to show the official flight 93 crash crater is larger than what is seen in the lower picture, though the perspective is tricky:


(click to enlarge)

If the top picture is accurate, with a full-size person standing there, I think I have underestimated the crater size somewhat in my previous measurements.

However, my "proof" that the official crater is a lie doesn't rely on the crater being an exact size-- it relies on the position of the wing marks in relation to rest of the crater.

You should be able to clearly see in the top picture that if the plane was coming in upside-down from the lower part of the photo, then the wing marks are in the wrong place. The lower edge of the crater lines up with the wing marks, when the crater should be extended downwards where the fuselage went, if the official story is correct.

So the Official 9/11 Story Is a Huge Lie

Now what?

Victory in Iraq!

Or something...

Feb. 23, 2007 - The White House is staging a high-level exercise Saturday to test responses to the prospect of a massive domestic terrorist attack involving IEDs (improvised explosive devices)—the same deadly roadside bombs that have been used by insurgents against the U.S. military in Iraq.

White House homeland security adviser Fran Townsend will preside over a group of senior officials—including Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, FBI Director Robert Mueller and Director of National Intelligence John (Mike) McConnell—as they attempt to deal with the latest nightmarish scenario cooked up by government counterterrorism planners.

As part of the exercise, the officials will be handed a thick binder which lays out a scenario involving simultaneous terror attacks by “sleeper cells” of 20 to 25 individuals each dispersed in five cities across the country: New York, Washington, Chicago, Houston and Los Angeles. (snip)

While planning for domestic terror attacks is not new, the focus on IEDs in this weekend’s exercise seems at least tacit recognition that the wave of such attacks that have been killing soldiers and civilians in Iraq and to a lesser extent Afghanistan could spread to the United States.

Most likely this is just a psy-op of sorts to promote the meme that IF WE LEAVE IRAQ, THE TERRORISTS WILL COME OVER TO THE US!!!!!!!!

Aiieeeeeee!!!!!!

UPDATE: Wow, check out this scathing piece by Patrick Cockburn on Britain's/Tony Blair's failure in southern Iraq. It helps to bring us back to reality.

Official Story Supporters at DU Bail on My Flight 93 Proof

It looks like no one at DU was able to refute my proof that the official flight 93 crash story was impossible.

The one guy, "William Seger", who argued with me the most seems to have given up, after claiming that a Boeing 757 could smash into the ground at 600 mph and only produce a 1 foot deep crater.

The Demolition Sequence for the WTC Twin Towers

Before we can understand what was done to the towers, we must define what happened to the towers.

Phase 1: Each tower was attacked by "aircraft" of some sort-- plane shaped holes were made in the facade-- outer columns were blown generally inwards, large fireballs consistent with large amounts of liquid fuel erupted, office contents started burning

Phase 2: Fire stage-- Pre-planted explosives/incendiaries went off in each tower accordingly to videos/photos/eyewitnesses, this includes reports of fuel fires going down the elevators

Phase 3: Large explosions occur right before each tower came down, producing sounds heard in "9/11 Eyewitness", some videos show ground shaking, smoke clouds at ground level

Phase 4: Core columns at level of "aircraft" impact are cut or severely weakened, such that a complete upper section of building appears to break loose from the lower structure (upper 30 floors for the south tower, upper 15 floors for the north tower). Phase 4 may coincide with Phase 3.

Phase 5: The concrete of each floor starts exploding into dust, along with inner office contents, in a top-downwards fashion, about 10 floors blow up per second

Phase 6, Phase 5 continues: The broken-off upper section of each tower starts breaking up

Phase 7, Phase 5 continues: several large explosive-type squibs are seen jutting from the facade, ahead of the concrete explosion

Phase 8, Phase 5 continues: the outer facade columns start peeling away and falling downwards, disappearing into dust clouds, the core columns of the upper 60 floors seem to disappear into massive dust clouds; all in all, huge amounts of steel seem to disappear along with almost all office contents and be turned into dust

Phase 9, Phase 5 finishing: a 50 story section of the core is left standing for a few seconds, some columns peel off laterally, then the rest starts falling straight downwards and disappearing into dust

Phase 10: a lower section of the outer facade wall is maneuvered to fall in the street, thus preventing large scale damage to the World Financial Center to the west

END RESULT: Large amounts of structural steel are strewn around the base of each tower, but massive amounts of structural steel are missing. There is almost no evidence for pancaked floors at the base of each tower.

If we assume each 12 foot floor of the tower could be compressed by realistic forces into 1 foot of solid material (likely may be even higher), 110 floors x 1 foot by 208 feet per side = 4.8 million square feet of solid debris. Note, this is NOT the debris what you would expect if everything was melted down to remove ALL the air, but rather if everything in each floor was put in a trash compacter and compacted with reasonably strong force.

NOW--

How much debris was left?

The debris in the footprint of each tower was about 25 feet high-- this gives 1.1 million square feet of debris.

Clearly, there was debris strewn around the footprint of each tower. I am going to estimate a debris field of 12 x 100 foot x 100 foot squares immediately around the perimeter of each tower, where there was 10 feet of debris. This adds up to 1.2 million square feet of debris. I will also estimate another debris field beyond this first perimeter of squares, which is made up of 20 x 100 feet x 100 feet squares, each with 5 feet of debris. This adds up to 1 million square feet more debris.

To be generous, let's say there was 25 feet of compacted debris in the footprint below each tower-- giving 1.1 million square feet more of debris in the basement area (though this is more of an assumption than something based on what we can see).

These numbers are rough, and definitely under-estimate the extent of the debris field, since the debris field was very uneven and I am assuming even distribution all around the tower-- not to mention that I assuming a lot of debris went below ground.

Nonetheless, this debris added up gives us 4.4 million square feet of debris. So there appears to be some debris unaccounted for -- at least 400,000 square feet of material -- this is presumably what went into the massive dust clouds.

Certainly, large numbers of core columns appear to be missing, as well as much of the north wall of WTC1.

Conceptually, it makes sense that a demolition method would be used that minimized the amount of material that fell to the ground-- in order to minimize damage to surrounding lower Manhattan.

But importantly, what is the technology that can account for the various phases of demolition I outline above?

I think a directed energy weapon that could tear apart and even "dustify" steel, along with a directed energy beam that can blow up concrete makes the most sense-- when coupled with some conventional pre-planted explosives. Phase 10 can only be accounted for by extremely precise positioning of explosives or by some sort of electromagnetic beam that can maneuver huge pieces of steel around. This sounds crazy of course, but this reality is crazy.

Please let me know if you think any of my "Phases" are wrong or my debris calculations are off in some way!!!

Molten Steel at Ground Zero?

I'm agnostic on this issue.

I've no doubt that Ground Zero was very hot, but I sure would love to see some pictures of this flowing molten steel, or pictures of the solidified pools of steel they should have found.

One reason to DISTRUST the molten steel finding, is that it is pushed strongly by Steven Jones, who uses it to push his thermite findings. And Jones isn't exactly the most trustworthy person on evidence for molten steel and on 9/11 in general.

A Very Brief History of Bush and Bin Laden

-- GWB and OBL -- both scions of oil-wealth families

-- 8/8/01, President's Daily Briefing-- Bush is warned bin Laden will attack US. Not clear how much Bush has heard of bin Laden prior to this

-- 9/11/01, bin Laden is immediately named as mastermind of the terror attacks, Bush's presidency receives a tremendous boost

-- 9/13/01, "The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him."

-- 9/17/01, "I want justice...There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'"

-- Sept. '01, the bin Laden family is allowed to leave the US without much trouble, apparently on orders from the Bush White House

-- Early Dec. 2001, Bush vows to get bin Laden, "dead or alive"

-- Late Dec. 2001, bin Laden apparently escapes from Tora Bora, after ineffective deployment of US troops

-- 3/13/02, Bush when asked about bin Laden, says "And I wouldn't necessarily say he's at the center of any command structure. And, again, I don't know where he is. I -- I'll repeat what I said. I truly am not that concerned about him."

2002 - 2004, Bush almost never mentions bin Laden as the focus becomes Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

October 2004, after John Kerry brings up the failure to capture bin Laden, Bush says: "BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.

Of course we're worried about Osama bin Laden. We're on the hunt after Osama bin Laden. We're using every asset at our disposal to get Osama bin Laden."

2005 - present, Bush starts mentioning bin Laden regularly again, after Saddam captured, in order to prop up support for the Iraq war, and the larger war on terror.

It is not clear when Bush promised to do this to bin Laden if he caught him: “I will screw him in the ass!”

Amazing WTC Collapse Photos

from Amanzafar.com

A few notes:

1) there is a large burn spot* of the west face of WTC2 that is QUITE a way off and upwards from the "plane" impact area-- what on earth caused that?

2) WTC is barely on fire from this angle-- there are hardly any flames visible anywhere-- in great contrast to WTC1

3) there are a couple excellent shots of the "spire" of WTC1, left after the main collapse, as well as the large core structure that was left of WTC2 after the floors collapsed.

4) for the first time, I can see the south face of WTC1 after the collapse of WTC2, and amazingly, it is relatively unscathed

*the guy says the pics are in order, but the burn spot of the west face of WTC2 comes and goes for no apparent reason (although it may be just one or two pictures that are out of sequence)

The Big Picture: Conspiracies, Clandestine Operations and Covert Operations Are Scams-- Meant to Enrich the Powerful Few at the Expense of the Many

Clandestine, conspiratorial crimes are the way of the world.

By definition, they are carried out in secret.

And it is natural that the powerful elites are going to use the government-- including the military and military technology-- as part of their conspiracies.

Uncovering conspiracies is therefore a POPULIST ISSUE, relating to basic democratic principles-- something that EVERYONE should be concerned about (unless you're one of the powerful elite, that is).


It's foolish to think that 9/11 wasn't another scam.

In fact, the idea that 9/11 WAS a scam should be the basic assumption, the basic starting principle, about what happened-- NOT the official story.

An Amazing Picture of Ground Zero

(click to enlarge)

This apparently is part of the west wall of WTC1, although it fell at a truly bizarre angle away from the building.


from here.

The core column stabbed in the street may be one of the ones that peeled away like a banana peel in this video:

Nichols: McVeigh Had Help from the FBI

That allegation certainly is not surprising, as the FBI has a history of dealing with patsies.

But I also suspect the OKC bombing was a covert operation involving more than just the bombers and the FBI.

This Debunking Is An "Inside Job"

This fellow goes through a lot of trouble using fancy graphics to make the simple point that the plane COULD have been going faster at the beginning and then slowed down at the end-- in order to miss being included in the footage at the beginning.

Well, yes. But he could have just explained that with words in about 2 seconds. How long would it take someone to show that by making those graphics? Much much longer even by a professional (and we are led to believe this is some amateur doing this ("jasonw100" from Sweden).

The PROBLEM is that this person assumes the plane was coming in on a straight path-- when IN FACT, the videos show the plane coming in from the west-southwest (heading east-northeast) and then banking northwards at the last second.

Thus, the "plane" in this video SHOULD have been seen in the early frames, since we are viewing from the west and the plane was coming from the west! Moreover, the plane should have been relatively larger, as it would be closer to the camera early on.

Thus, I think this "debunking" was a professional attempt to mislead.

Little Terrorists?

On my recent trip, I saw a little boy, perhaps five years old, standing in line at the airport screening counter-- being told to take his shoes off by his mother.

You could see the dismay on his face. "Why am I being searched?" you could see him thinking.

Indeed, it was absurd.

Isn't it pathetic, that as a society, we are making our children feel like suspects?

I read in the newspaper about a girl who got in trouble at the airline screening counter because she didn't put her mascara tube in the little plastic zip-lock bag. The screener was worried about 1/4 ounce or less of mascara? It's pure craziness!!!

Security people are so focused on trivial little objects and regulations that they probably wouldn't even know what a real terrorist was if one walked right up to them.


What kind of bullshit society are we creating where EVERYONE is suspect when they board a plane-- even our little children?

Of course, this is ALL THE MORE MADDENING knowing 9/11 was a total scam.

What is this kind of society doing to our kids? At minimum, it is breaking their spirits and making them more easily subjugated.

Everyone should check out the passenger's bill of rights. While it is not the ultimate solution, it is a start.

Oh Mr. Bush....

you might want to read Riverbend today.

Be sure to read to the end.

I wonder if that will wipe that fucking smirk off your face.

Governmental Clandestine Operations-- Economic Scams and the Political Elite

A primer.

Hot Bush on bin Laden Action!!!

And here is what the leader of the Western world, valiant warrior in the battle of cultures, promised to do to bin Laden if he caught him: “I will screw him in the ass!”

I AM rather curious if Bush thought this was punishment or a reward for bin Laden.

UPDATE: Wonder if this headline is somehow related:

Officials tell Times 'mounting evidence' indicates Osama bin Laden and his Qaeda deputy are building an operations hub in Pakistan.

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Boogeyman Rising

The NY Times propaganda machine continues to churn out product:

WASHINGTON, Feb. 18 — Senior leaders of Al Qaeda operating from Pakistan have re-established significant control over their once-battered worldwide terror network and over the past year have set up a band of training camps in the tribal regions near the Afghan border, according to American intelligence and counterterrorism officials.

The Top of WTC1 Tips the Wrong Way!

Pause this video of the collapse of WTC1 about two seconds in. We're looking at WTC1 from the northeast, and thus seeing the Northeast sides of the tower. Now-- note how the antenna CLEARLY tilts to the South before it disappears in a cloud of dust.



The structural damage to the tower from the "plane" impact was on the NORTH side, which means if the tower started to collapse from fire-induced weakening, this weakening and collapse should occur on the North side, and the antenna should tilt or lean to the North as the tower collapsed!


This antenna tilt to the South is simple proof that the tower didn't collapse simply from structural damage and fire weakening.

Dustification

WHATEVER happened here, it was an amazing process:

Selling the Official 9/11 Story Was the Job of the Media from the Very Beginning

Note the first "witness" (infomercial announcer) in the clip, who talks about seeing the 2nd plane hit and then both towers "collapse" from the "structural failure"* due the "intense" fires. He was OBVIOUSLY AN ACTOR.

WHO IS HE???

Also, note, his story about witnessing the 2nd plane should be treated with just as much cynicism as his story about seeing the towers collapse. Again, he was selling the official story!

But who WAS that guy?

He must be in deep with the perps.

*exacts words were "mostly due to structural failure". Wonder what he meant by "mostly"?

"Ghostplane" Video Poll at DU

for those interested.

66% said it was real.

19% said they were unsure.

16% said it was a computer animation.

Only 32 votes, and this was on the 9/11 baord, which is crawling with official story supporters. But there is some discussion of why people think it is real, anyway.

The Explosion Noises in "9/11 Eyewitness"

Did anyone every figure out what they could have been?

How many people believe they are authentic?

If real, the sounds certainly were not conventional demolition, nor simple collapsing noises. A "Star Wars" directed energy weapon would not be expected to make such noises.

What were the noises?

Air Travel

It's a damned pain-in-the-ass-- especially this time of year.

I got selected for special screening both coming and going.

I'm sure it was just bad luck.

By the way, I saw this plane, a 757-222, at Washington Reagan yesterday.

It's the same type as Flight 77 and Flight 93 -- and it's a freaking huge plane.

I was in a 737-400 coming home. There's a big difference between a 737 and a 757 in terms of overall size. I could almost see a 737 making that hole in Shanksville-- almost. But a 757? No way.

False Flag News

A paid FBI informant was the man behind a neo-Nazi march through the streets of Parramore that stirred up anxiety in Orlando's black community and fears of racial unrest that triggered a major police mobilization.

Three Every Day

US soldiers being killed in Iraq.

And, that's just the tip of the iceberg in terms of human suffering in Iraq .

"The Incredible Fakeness of Being"

What Is More Depressing?

That 9/11 was an inside job?

Or that Anna Nicole Smith is still being talked about on TV?

The US Hearts al-Qaida on Valentine's Day

TEHRAN, Iran (AP) -- A car loaded with explosives blew up near a bus carrying members of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards in southeastern Iran on Wednesday, killing 11 of them and wounding 31. An al-Qaida-linked Sunni militant group reportedly claimed responsibility.

Isn't it shocking? US and Al-Qaida have common interests!!!

WTC Plane Witnesses and Plane Parts All Around the WTC Complex

If people want to argue that no planes hit the WTC, they need to confront the testimony of many firemen who say they saw plane parts around the WTC. The testimonies are one reason I have not completely ruled out that a plane or planes hit the towers. These reports were culled from testimonies published by the NY Times in August 2004. (The NYTimes needed to go to court to get these published, though in retrospect, it's not entirely clear why. One reason people thought these were being censored was that they had testimonies about bombs going off. Some testimonies still have parts blacked out for unclear reasons.)

Again, I think there are serious anomalies with the official WTC plane story-- particularly in the video record. And one reasonable conclusion from careful study of the videos is that no real plane hit the towers at all, that the videos were all faked, and that the plane-shaped holes were made by some other mechanism than a plane strike.

On the other hand, we have these firemen who say they saw plane parts all over.

For one, I wonder why we haven't seen more pictures of these plane parts. Surely if they were there, such as the plane engine that supposedly crushed the trunk of a car, a picture would have been taken. I understand that photos of body parts would be withheld, assuming these were taken. But it's less clear why all these plane parts wouldn't be photographed.

The basic explanations for these witness reports are:

1) there were plane parts all around the WTC as described, from the real planes that crashed into both WTC towers

2) there were plane parts all around the WTC as described, only from the real plane that crashed into the north WTC tower

3) there were plane parts all around the WTC as described, that were planted there

4) there were plane parts all around the WTC as described, that were planted in the tower and blown out by explosives

5) the firemen are mistaken about the debris due to general confusion, trauma and media reports of the planes

6) the firemen are exaggerating or fabricating the presence of plane debris in their reports due to pressure from hire-ups (wo have been told to support the official plane story)

7) the witness reports have been tampered with to exaggerate the presence of plane parts

8) the firemen were brainwashed to thinking they saw plane parts

9) if we assume there were no plane struck the towers, the witness reports describing plane parts could be from a combination of explanations 2-8.

10) non-conventional planes/aircraft hit the towers (the videos had a CGI overlay over this aircraft), and the debris seen on the ground was from these aircraft.

11) some combination of the above.

I'm happy to hear opinions on this.

Lost Terror Drills

Ewing2001's oldie but goodie piece on terror drills has some interesting info on flight 93 and where it supposedly crashed.

Probably the most interesting thing there, however, is how a hobby plane spotter said he flew in a Boeing 757-222 with the same tail number (N591UA) as UA93 -- in 2003!!!

Republicans: Iraq Is All About Wiping Out Radical Islam

The problem is that, even on those terms, Iraq is a miserable failure.

You know, I might be able to take the "war on terror" a little more seriously if the arguments in it favor weren't so incoherent. (/snark)

Even if radical Islam was a huge threat to the US, which I obviously don't think it is, it is simply NOT something you are going to deal with effectively by blowing people up-- unless you want to make things worse.

Aside from a Lack of ANY Official Analysis of the Flight 93 Crash--

what have we had?

An emotional story about passengers fighting back-- memorialized in TWO (count 'em), TWO full-length movies.

A heavily promoted and totally bogus story that flight 93 was shot down-- a story no doubt promoted by government spooks.

Iran Is a Distraction

A clear and logical analysis here.

Crash Simulations

Interesting how the flight 93 crash has never been subject to any scientific scrutiny and video simulation in the way the WTC and Pentagon crashes were.

I wonder if that is because the flight 93 crash is so patently bogus.

The New 9/11 Hijackers

Hijacking the truth about 9/11, that is.

The Easiest Way to Tell this Video Is a Fake

The plane should have been coming right up behind them, the cameraman and the people around him should have seen it coming for many seconds before it went over them. Yet the cameraman (Michael Hezarkhani according to NIST) is focused on the tower until the plane is right OVER HIM, then he pans up very quickly TO PERFECTLY CATCH THE PLANE RIGHT BEFORE IT HITS???

NO WAY any cameraman is going to be able to pan UP and have the plane perfectly centered and then track it perfectly.

It is IMPOSSIBLE.

It must have all been set up.

UPDATE: To clarify, I think the scene with the camera movements was rigged up. I think the plane was inserted as a CGI into the footage. The plane is clearly fake, I think the explosion is real and the surroundings are real. What concerned me here was the incredible camera movements from a supposedly unsuspecting cameraman. It screams fake-- and I suppose they don't even care that people can see it!

Provoking Iran

At least one former White House official contends that some Bush advisers secretly want an excuse to attack Iran. "They intend to be as provocative as possible and make the Iranians do something [America] would be forced to retaliate for," says Hillary Mann, the administration’s former National Security Council director for Iran and Persian Gulf Affairs.

Maybe. I'll believe it when I see it. I still tend to think Iran is a sideshow or a distraction from some bigger game-plan.

Obama Strikes back

This is about as excellent a retort as you will see in politics.

Double-Think on Iraq

William Odom:

Too many lawmakers have fallen for the myths that are invoked to try to sell the president's new war aims. Let us consider the most pernicious of them.

1) We must continue the war to prevent the terrible aftermath that will occur if our forces are withdrawn soon. Reflect on the double-think of this formulation. We are now fighting to prevent what our invasion made inevitable! Undoubtedly we will leave a mess -- the mess we created, which has become worse each year we have remained. Lawmakers gravely proclaim their opposition to the war, but in the next breath express fear that quitting it will leave a blood bath, a civil war, a terrorist haven, a "failed state," or some other horror. But this "aftermath" is already upon us; a prolonged U.S. occupation cannot prevent what already exists.

A good piece... except for perpetuating the al Qaeda myth, that is.

Cheney's To-Do List

This is an interesting insight.

Simple PROOF That the Official 9/11 Story Is Very Wrong

Simple proof that the official 9/11 story is very wrong: HERE.

Public opinion polls support the idea that there are many people on the fence about 9/11 being an inside job. These people have heard things that make them suspicious or even very suspicious about the official story-- but haven't seen evidence that CLEARLY shows that the official 9/11 story is wrong. They lack clear and convincing PROOF.

At the link above, I present simple "PROOF" that 9/11 was an inside job. Here I define "PROOF that 9/11 was an inside job" as "evidence that shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the official story about the planes is very wrong".

I personally rule out much of the non-physical circumstantial evidence as strict proof of an inside job. This is evidence such as suspicious statements by government officials, lack of air defenses on 9/11, the NORAD wargames on 9/11, forewarnings of the attacks, knowledge about the hijackers and miscellaneous other pieces of evidence relating to the planes, the passengers and the hijackings. Put together, this evidence DOES point to the idea that the official story is very wrong, but does not PROVE it. Moreover, much of this non-physical evidence can be too easily explained by either pure incompetence on the part of the Bush administration, or by the extreme limited hangout explanation of "let it happen on purpose" (that the Bush administration knew the attacks were coming and did nothing to stop them in order to use them as an excuse for war -- and simply didn't know how bad the attacks would be).

There actually is a great deal of evidence that "proves" 9/11 was an inside job-- but most of this evidence requires a somewhat complicated argument that is too easily muddled by disinfo agents and thus unfortunately not completely conclusive to many people. This includes physical evidence such as: the demolition of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7; the plane-shaped holes in the WTC towers; the Pentagon attack.

Here I present simple PROOF that the official 9/11 story is VERY wrong: HERE.

The Final Nail In The Coffin: Irrefutable Proof the Flight 93 Crash Scene Is a Lie

As I have discussed previously (for instance, here and here and here and here), there are many reasons to think the official flight 93 crash story is a lie.

Here I offer rock-solid proof that the official flight 93 crash story is a lie.

Here is an aerial view of the crater, from the southwest, looking northeast. The plane officially came from the north, and thus would have come from the top of the picture. Notice the wing scars are towards the top, northern side of the crater-- this is important. Also, notice the apparent tail imprint made on the north side of the crater. This mark was described as a tail imprint in the book "Among the Heroes", written about flight 93.


Now, the issue is, what attitude was the plane before impact to make this crater, officially?

According the the official NTSB report, the plane impacted the ground in an inverted position, at a 40 degree angle nose down. The upside-down or inverted attitude of the plane is also noted by wikipedia and by "Among the Heroes" (Jere Longman, Harper-Collins 2002, p215).

Thus, the government is telling a story where the plane was inverted before it impacted-- that the plane was upside-down or belly up as it hit the earth.

The tail-mark at the north part of the crater in the aerial picture above supports the upside-down story as well. A tail mark made by a plane going southwards can ONLY be produced at the north side of the crater if the plane was going upside-down when it impacts.

So what does it look like when the plane is going upside-down when it impacts? How would the plane FIT in the crater?

I'm going to use this picture, where the camera is looking down one of the wing scars, to the west. North is to the right and south is to the left. Thus, the plane would come from the right.


Here is a diagram, with a plane superimposed onto the crater, using the picture above. (The tail end of the plane is cut off in this diagram because of size.)
(click to enlarge image)



Immediately, you should see there is a problem.

Even if the fuselage impacts at the very north part of the crater, THERE IS NO WAY THE WINGS CAN IMPACT THE GROUND TO PRODUCE THE WING SCARS.

The wings simply do not line up in the right place.

If you move the fuselage so that it impacts the ground further to the left (further southwards), the wing alignment problem is even worse.

Further, it is impossible for the plane to flip backwards as it impacts, to have the wings produce the side scars, particularly when the plane (officially) is going 563 mph.

If anything, the wings are going to slide further southwards as the plane breaks up, and make marks further south of the crater.

I submit this wing alignment problem as rock-solid proof that the official flight 93 crash story is a lie.
-------------------------------------------------------

Curiously, the wings DO LINE UP with the side scars, if the plane is right side up, as shown below--


However, if the plane was in fact right-side up as it impacted, why a) is the government lying about it, and b) what made the "tail" scar on the northern edge of the crater???

I don't know exactly what happened at this crash scene.

I strongly suspect the crater was made artificially, to make it LOOK as though an airplane crashed there, and then plane debris was strewn around the site. Perhaps a bomb or projectile of some sort was used to create the damage.

In any case, the important point is that: THE OFFICIAL FLIGHT 93 CRASH STORY IS A LIE, BEYOND ANY REASONABLE DOUBT.

Open Thread

Whoo-hoo!

The Official Flight 93 Crash Story Violates Laws of Momentum

Below is an official government photo of the flight 93 crash scene supposedly from 9/12/01. Northwards is to the top of the photo. "Wing" gashes are black marks in the middle of the photo; the central crater is not readily discerned but is between the two wing gashes. Burnt grass and burnt forest is to the south of the crater.


Government photo of the crater looking west along the length of the "wing" gashes. Note the unburnt grass on the right (on the northwards side of the crater).

Another view from a similar angle as in the photo above but further out near the tips of the "wing" gashes. Note the unburnt grass out here.


This aerial photo shows the "tail" scar on the left (northwards) side of the crater:


Diagram of the official crash scene (the top of the diagram is northwards) froma similar view as in the top photo:


Everyone should be able to agree about what I presented above. It is just a description of the crash scene using official photos as evidence.

Now keep in mind, NO LARGE PLANE DEBRIS was found on the ground around the Flight 93 crash site. By large, I mean no intact engines, tail sections, wing sections, no landing gear struts, no intact seats, no pieces of fuselage larger than a few feet across (and only two of these). None of the large debris seen in almost every other plane crash since 9/11.

OFFICIALLY, most of the plane went into the ground in the crater. The black boxes were supposedly found 15 or more feet below ground, along with most of the fuselage. Many people bought this story because there was no significant plane debris outside of the crater.

Again, this is the official story.

Now.. .we've never seen photos of the excavated crater showing the buried fuselage. The FBI says 95% of the plane was recovered, but we've never seen pictures of this recovered debris.

We've seen 3 pictures of "large" debris, two chunks of fuselage maybe 4 x 4 feet each, and a hunk of engine about 2 x 3 feet supposedly thrust into the ground by the crash. Two of these pieces of debris have signs of being planted, as I have noted before.

Nonetheless, let's try to understand what happened with this crash.

UA93 officially impacted the ground flying inverted at a 40 degree nose-down angle.


If the plane crashes into the ground such that it explodes and burrows into the ground, there should be a significant deflection of debris BACKWARDS (as well as other directions). Remember the video of the F4 crashing into the concrete wall. Much of the plane debris was deflected backwards. But for the flight 93 crash site, the grass wasn't even BURNT on the edge of the north side of the crater!


On the other hand, if the plane crashes and at the same time bounces off the ground, then debris would be flung mainly forward. But then there should be much more big debris.


An analogy here might be useful. Imagine a hose shooting a high-pressure stream of water on a hard flat surface, at a 40 degree angle. You can see the water primarily splashes forward. This is analogous to the plane crashing and the debris bouncing off the ground and spraying forward.

Now, imagine a hose shooting a high-pressure stream of water at a 40 degree angle into a shallow 40 degree divet in the ground, angled the same direction as the water. Now you should see that a lot of water is going to spray (deflect) backwards, back towards the hose. This is analogous to the plane crashing and burrowing into the ground and spraying debris backwards.

Physics, simple physics, says the official flight 93 crash story is just WRONG.

Something can't BOUNCE and BURROW at the same time.

Dry Grass Is Resistant to Being Burnt by Exploding Boeing 757 Wings Full of Jet Fuel

If this is true, I guess I really DON'T know much about plane crashes:

“Hand Waving” the Physics of 9/11

This is EXCELLENT.

This part is very important:

However, Dr. Garcia grossly overrates Occam’s Razor in the matter of what experience actually shows. In my 40 years of doing experimental physics I found that the phenomena I studied in the greatest depth usually turned out to be vastly more complex than my initial hypotheses anticipated. Indeed, the one time I can remember actually using Occam’s Razor to justify a hypothesis in a published paper, I lived to see it disproved 19 years later by a research group in Palermo, Italy.

Score: Physics 1, William of Occam 0.

What I love about doing physics of the material world is that the correct explanation of each and every physical phenomenon eventually emerges, even if it takes many years. Physicists worldwide read each other’s work, gather more and more evidence, and commonly falsify one another’s earlier hypotheses in the process of getting to the core truth.

But leaving behind the physical world for the world human conniving, all bets are off.

Human conspirators may well choose to deliberately violate Occam’s Razor simply to throw off forensic investigators sophisticated enough to be aware of the concept.

Measuring the Flight 93 Crater Again: It's Still Too Small for a Boeing 757

Following up on the post here, this official government image also supports my previous measurements and significantly, the idea that the distance between the engine craters (or engine "scars") is too small:

(click to enlarge images)

Measuring the Flight 93 Crater: It's Still Too Small for a Boeing 757

(click to enlarge images)









Here, A and C denote the "engine" marks, which should be 44 feet apart (center to center) for a Boeing 757. B denotes the central crater presumably made by a the fuselage. We can assume the legs of the person are 3 feet. The orange line denotes the top three feet of a six foot person, and a torso and head are sketched into the image.


Using the measurements from above, we can assign distances to this overheard view of the crater. Now we can clearly see the engine marks are too close together (only 31 feet or so from A to C):


This photo confirms that the engine spacing is too close together (about 33 feet, close to what was measured above):


Here is a Boeing 757 super-imposed on the picture above at proper scale-- the engines don't line up:

Iraqtric Boogaloo

Nothing to see here, move along, move along:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- The Federal Reserve sent record payouts of more than $4 billion in cash to Baghdad on giant pallets aboard military planes shortly before the United States gave control back to Iraqis, lawmakers said Tuesday.

The money, which had been held by the United States, came from Iraqi oil exports, surplus dollars from the U.N.-run oil-for-food program and frozen assets belonging to the ousted Saddam Hussein regime.

Bills weighing a total of 363 tons were loaded onto military aircraft in the largest cash shipments ever made by the Federal Reserve, said Rep. Henry Waxman, chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

So, what could that cash be used for? A little false-flag terror, perhaps? Perhaps funding some of the opposition? 363 tons of cash dropped into Iraq is up to no good, I can tell you that.

Of course, the killing continues apace, though it is noteworthy that the insurgents are getting better at shooting down US helicopters.

Failed Building Demolitions

Even using explosives, it isn't that easy to bring down large buildings:



Note in the last, the building FALLS ON ITSELF! By the logic of the official WTC7 story, at least, this building just should have crushed itself from the bottom up!

Joe Lieberman

Oy, I can't believe I voted for this guy in 2000!

The Excuse of Last Resort for Supporters of the Official 9/11 Story, Part 2

Well, no one has ever seen a Boeing 767 going 500 gazillion miles per hour hitting a 110-story building before, so who knows what it should look like!!!

The Excuse of Last Resort for Supporters of the Official 9/11 Story

Well, no one has ever seen a 110-story building collapse before, so who knows what it should look like!

Ugly Times

These are ugly times for a number of reasons, of course, but it seems the Super Bowl commercials were geared to setting a violent tone for popular culture.

(Although I have to say I got a good chuckle out of a few of these ads --in particular a couple of the Bud Light ones and the Career Builder.com ones).

Overall, it is clear there was an ugly tone to the ads.

And we all know how critical Super Bowl ads are for popular culture!

Onto Tehran

This is old but still striking-- Michael Ledeen from August 2004:

The war in the Middle East — for it is a regional war, not merely a battle for Iraq — cannot be analyzed at the level of the individual terrorist groups, because the terrorists are part of a larger context. The organizing center is, as Spanish Magistrate Balthazar Garzon publicly put it, a "directorate" located in Iran, that works closely with Iranian intelligence organizations, including the Revolutinary Guards. Those organizations, in turn, work with their counterparts in other friendly countries.

Isn't that some beautiful propaganda?

I have said for a while that I don't think Bush would attack or even invade Iran-- I have tended to think the threats were all bluster.

But sadly, stupidly, I thought similarly while Bush was building up troops in Kuwait prior to the Iraq invasion. One reason, ironically I thought Bush wouldn't go into Iraq, is because politically he was afraid of the casualties. Why did I think this? Because he failed to send enough troops to go after and capture bin Laden in Afghanistan!

This was in 2003-- a LONG time ago in terms of my political maturation and awakening.

Nonetheless I have tended to down-play the idea that the US would attack Iran-- in the absence of a new terror attack. A purely pre-emptive attack on Iran would be too radical, too disruptive to the world. Too crazy even for Bush. But this Robert Parry piece in Consortium News is very grim, and suggests war-plans for Iran are in the making. And sadly, I think Brzezinski's outline for war with Iran, is all too prescient.

But the worst part of all this, is absent some truly radical mass movement that is unlikely to form, there really is nothing WE can do about it.

For Some Reason, I Don't Remember Seeing These Pictures in the NIST Report

The NIST reports on the WTC can be seen here.

Seriously-- if NIST is going to study the WTC collapses, shouldn't they look at, like, the collapses?

And even more seriously-- does anyone SERIOUSLY THINK that a gravitational collapse would peel the building apart like this and turn the insides into dust?

Again, what is nuttier? The official story-- or the idea that unconventional devices were used to bring down the buildings??????????????

The Towers Collapsed...

if by "collapsed", you mean much of them turned into thick dust or even "liquified":





I just found YouTube has a ton of demolition videos (e.g.) -- and clearly what happened at the WTC was no conventional demolition.

But honestly, if conventional controlled demolition can't turn a building into thick dust in mid-air, how on earth could a gravity-driven collapse do this?

A NEW 2nd Hit Video

UPDATE: Realized after looking at it again, it is in slow motion, that is why the voices and sound are weird. Unfortunately, the video format does not allow speeding up to see what it looks like in normal speed. The camera movements look normal at this speed though-- if speeded up, would the camera movement look more artificial?

Another point: I believe this is the 1st available footage of the 2nd hit from the SW. Previously I had noted the paucity of videos shot from this direction.

Does anyone want to email this guy and ask him about the video?

Further UPDATE: the plane seems to be on much more of a down-wards glide-slope than in most videos; in most 2nd hit videos the plane comes in level (though still banking). The plane does bank here somewhat, though it's hard to see exactly how much. The speed is clearly mucked up here, and it is hard not to wonder if some games are being played in this video. Right before we see the plane, we see a super fast back thing go left to right across the screen-- presumably a bird-- but going very fast, and especially fast for a slowed down video! For whatever reason, many 2nd hit videos have these super-fast birds.

And I can't get over the guy closest to the camera who turns and walks away as the 2nd tower explodes! Who would do that?

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

High quality for a flash movie, annoying overlying graphic, plane seems slow. Can hear a jet noise but no explosion. This would be 2nd hit video #34 or so. I wonder why this came to light so late (Jan. 2007)?

(found via here).
Full screen version can be seen here.

A few other thoughts:
1) the videographer surprisingly says nothing as the plane hits, while the crowd makes weird muffled noises.
2) the plane looks real at first, with the sun glinting off it, then very fake as it goes in the building.
3) there is no sign of helicopters or other planes seen in other 2nd hit videos.

Oh My Goodness

Seemed to be the phrase of the day.

What Is More Nutty?

(click to enlarge)

I know-- it's just NUTTY to say this piece of fuselage was planted at the flight 93 crash site.

But is it really more nutty than the fact that this chunk of fuselage supposedly was flung from flaming wreckage completely stripped of all insulation, interior lining, window glass, window plastic AND the rubber window seals?

Is it really more nutty than the fact that this chunk of fuselage supposedly was ejected from flaming wreckage-- it even appears fire singed-- but the foliage underneath is completely green and un-singed?

Is it really more nutty than the fact that this chunk of fuselage supposedly was ejected hundreds of feet from flaming wreckage but it didn't even crush the fern it landed on?

What is really more nutty here?

The official story?

Or saying this is planted evidence?

Dean Warwick Interview

WTC towers were brought down by ultrasonic sound waves.

I should note that Wood and Reynolds do not rule out this type of mechanism in their discussion of what brought down the towers.

Oddly, Dean Warwick died on stage giving a talk recently.

Fake Plane Crashes

As regular readers of this site know, one of the best explanations for what happened on 9/11 is that all four of the plane crashes were "faked". The fake plane crash theory basically holds that the four official flights of 9/11: AA11, AA77, UA93 and UA175 didn't truly crash at the WTC, at the Pentagon, or in the crater near Shanksville, PA.

The reason this theory exists is because none of the official 9/11 crash scenes hold up to detailed scrutiny-- for a variety of reasons that I have written about over and over again.

What happened at the crash scenes?

There are three basic possibilities:

1) a specially-equipped look-alike remote control drone plane was used instead of the official aircraft

2) a specially-equipped smaller remote control drone plane/missile was used instead of the official aircraft

3) there were no aircraft/missiles used and the plane crashes were faked purely with explosives and planted debris, perhaps in conjunction with high-tech gadgetry. The 2nd hit videos were all faked.

Regular readers of this site will know that I have increasingly gravitated to the last possibility-- although early on I quite liked possibility #1.

NOW, what we all have to admit is that, assuming the plane crashes were faked (and I think there is abundant evidence this is the case), that the perpetrators did a pretty good job of faking it and of covering up the fakery.

This is why so many people believe in the official story. While some people really (desperately) WANT to believe in the official story, probably most people just haven't looked at the evidence carefully (they are too busy or haven't had exposure to it).

Now let's take a look at the flight 93 crash site. Let's ignore all those rumors that the plane was shot down. Let's just look at the evidence.

At first glance, the crash site is DAMN STRANGE for the crash of a very large jet. There is just a smallish hole, in the shape of a plane, smoking, with some small debris strewn around. Early on, all we see are pictures of very small debris found in the woods, and rumors of a large engine piece found quite a ways from the main crash site. Some accounts describe small pieces of debris and small pieces of human remains scattered for hundreds of feet. By all accounts, there is very little large debris laying on the ground. We are then presented with a story that most of the plane went into the ground and buried deep itself in the ground. Okay, that sounds weird. There is still the question of what angle UA93 went into the ground, and how the front part of the plane could have smashed apart at the same time the rear went into the ground. There was in fact a plane crash in 1960, NW flight 710, in a muddy field in Indiana, where much of the plane buried itself in the ground. The crash of NW710 was at a similar speed as the official UA93 speed but involved a plane going into the ground vertically after the wings broke off. Unfortunately we don't have pictures of the NW710 crash scene. But, there is some precedent for a plane crash where the plane almost completely disappears in the ground. On the other hand, the NW710 crater WAS bigger than the UA93 crater, even though UA93 was a bigger plane. The NW710 crater has significant tail pieces sticking out of the crater. Then there are the many other details that cast doubt on the official UA93 story. The coroner never sees any blood. Only very small human remains are found, only a small percentage of the total body masses. No one describes the smell of burnt flesh at the crime scene. There is unburnt grass right next to the crater. The smoke plume doesn't look right and isn't in the right place. There are conflicting stories about where various debris is found. It is not clear how the plane could have gone straight vertically in the crater if it was flying at a very low altitude. There is the question of whether the plane was really flying upside down when it crashed. There is Ed Felt's strange phone call from the bathroom that later gets removed from the official narrative. There are oddities in the Bingham and Beamer phone calls. There are the holes in the timing of the passenger revolt and there are holes in when the plane actually crashed. There is the question of how the plane was ever hijacked in the first place when the pilots were warned of hijackings and had been previously prepared for a hijacking. There is the question of why the hijackers waited so long to hijack the plane (30 minutes) when the plane was already so far behind schedule (45 minutes). There is the question of why the hijackers put on red bandanas in one account but in no other passenger account, and the miracle of the unscathed red bandana supposedly recovered from the crash site. There is the question of why no passenger described more than three hijackers. There are the various versions of the UA93 story that NORAD gave-- first that they identified it as hijacked at 9:13 am (before it was officially hijacked) but couldn't find the plane, then identified it as hijacked later but couldn't get to the plane in time though fighters were scrambled, then finally that NORAD never even had a chance to find the plane because they were notified too late-- all the while United Airlines was supposedly watching the plane move across their big screen at headquarters. There was the apparent UA93 debris from the plane that made it to New Baltimore, 8 miles from the crash scene, as well as significant debris that landed around Indian lake, over a mile away. And the list of anomalies goes on.

The most striking UA93 evidence to me is actually the evidence of the "UA93 crash" that was shown at the Moussaoui trial. For the first time we were shown real Boeing debris! And boy was it suspicious! This fuselage piece was clearly planted. This engine piece is clearly not consistent with the official story and was probably planted as well. Certainly no one has yet explained how these pieces could be bona fide debris from the official story. But WHY would anyone plant evidence of a Boeing 757 unless the crash was faked?

But the general fact is that the UA93 crash site DID have a lot of debris -- meaning that either SOMETHING crashed there, or that the planners did an EXTREMELY THOROUGH job of sprinkling debris all around. I honestly don't know WHAT made that crater in Pennsylvania, but I can say with certainty that the official UA93 story is simply false. There are simply too many improbabilities and inconsistencies for it to be completely true.

And all this is completely ignoring other evidence of 9/11 being an "inside job"-- which makes the fakery aspect more probable!!!

------------
By the way, this flight 93 whole sequence in fact is how much of 9/11 has unfolded to me: at a first cursory glance the evidence appears odd, then I learn more and the official story gets fleshed out and it starts to seem a little less odd-- but THEN, on even an closer examination, things become even MORE odd and improbable!

"What conspiracy theorists do, he says, is provide a simple view of an increasingly muddled, dangerous world."

What a cheap and bogus sentiment.

That ranks right up there with the idea that conspiracy theorists believe the US government carried out 9/11 because it is more "comforting".

This is funny though:

The rise of conspiracy theories has mirrored the expansion of the Internet, where the most fantastic theories zip through space and can reach millions of viewers in seconds. Without editors or filters, serious documentaries battle for hits and viewers with wacky entertainment.

For example, testaments claiming that Suri Cruise is an alien, or that the twin towers were brought down by space ships or that the U.S. military caused the Indian Ocean tsunamis using electromagnetic pulse technology.

That is right!!! The "Internet" is so WACKY!!!!!!

Well, at least I can write a complete sentence!

It's Called a "Cover Up"

This is how the hoaxes of September 11th have been kept hidden from the general public.

That means people involved in the crime scene are made to spout the official story (or disinformation, such as the idea that flight 93 was shot down).

I don't understand why this is so hard for some of the people who comment here to understand.


I think this cartoon sums it up pretty well:

(cartoon from here)

For people who need a clue-- most of the people involved in the cover-up were not involved in perpetrating the attacks, and most of the people in perpetrating the attacks did not know the extent of what they were doing. It is called compartmentalization. People who "go along" get rewarded; trouble-makers get harassed.

Zbigniew Brzezinski Predicts the Future

and it doesn't look good:

If the United States continues to be bogged down in a protracted bloody involvement in Iraq, the final destination on this downhill track is likely to be a head-on conflict with Iran and with much of the world of Islam at large. A plausible scenario for a military collision with Iran involves Iraqi failure to meet the benchmarks; followed by accusations of Iranian responsibility for the failure; then by some provocation in Iraq or a terrorist act in the U.S. blamed on Iran; culminating in a "defensive" U.S. military action against Iran that plunges a lonely America into a spreading and deepening quagmire eventually ranging across Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan.

A mythical historical narrative to justify the case for such a protracted and potentially expanding war is already being articulated. Initially justified by false claims about WMD's in Iraq, the war is now being redefined as the "decisive ideological struggle" of our time, reminiscent of the earlier collisions with Nazism and Stalinism. In that context, Islamist extremism and al Qaeda are presented as the equivalents of the threat posed by Nazi Germany and then Soviet Russia, and 9/11 as the equivalent of the Pearl Harbor attack which precipitated America's involvement in World War II.

This simplistic and demagogic narrative overlooks the fact that Nazism was based on the military power of the industrially most advanced European state; and that Stalinism was able to mobilize not only the resources of the victorious and militarily powerful Soviet Union but also had worldwide appeal through its Marxist doctrine. In contrast, most Muslims are not embracing Islamic fundamentalism; al Qaeda is an isolated fundamentalist Islamist aberration; most Iraqis are engaged in strife because the American occupation of Iraq destroyed the Iraqi state; while Iran -- though gaining in regional influence -- is itself politically divided, economically and militarily weak. To argue that America is already at war in the region with a wider Islamic threat, of which Iran is the epicenter, is to promote a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Deplorably, the Administration's foreign policy in the Middle East region has lately relied almost entirely on such sloganeering. Vague and inflammatory talk about "a new strategic context" which is based on "clarity" and which prompts "the birth pangs of a new Middle East" is breeding intensifying anti-Americanism and is increasing the danger of a long-term collision between the United States and the Islamic world. Those in charge of U.S. diplomacy have also adopted a posture of moralistic self-ostracism toward Iran strongly reminiscent of John Foster Dulles's attitude of the early 1950's toward Chinese Communist leaders (resulting among other things in the well-known episode of the refused handshake). It took some two decades and a half before another Republican president was finally able to undo that legacy.