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.

More War

This morning on CBS’s Face the Nation, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) announced that Congress may refuse to authorize funding for an escalation of U.S. forces to Iraq if President Bush cannot justify the strategy.

Pelosi stated clearly that Congress will fully support all U.S. forces currently in Iraq. “But if the president wants to add to this mission, he is going to have to justify it,” Pelosi said.

I can just see it now.

Bush: "We need 30,000 more troops in Iraq because we need to stop the terr'ists once and for all-- because if we fail in Iraq, the terr'ists are going to come over here and attack innocent Americans like they did on 9/11."

Pelosi-- "Well, okay then. If you put it that way."

The Hustler

Steven Jones gets written up in "Hustler".

Perp Whistleblowers?

Let's say we have up to one hundred people who directly helped perpetrate 9/11.

Given that--

1) since they were involved in the attacks, they probably have very little conscience
2) if they blow the whistle they will most likely be killed
3) the media is perfectly happy to sweep 9/11 conspiracies under the rug

What is the incentive for them to speak out?

Question

Is there anyone who reads this site who thinks that 9/11 was an inside job but who also thinks that flight 93 really did crash in that crater near Shanksville?

World Trade Center, from the Empire State Building

I found this nice picture the other day in a photo album, from when I visited NYC in 1994.


(click to enlarge)

What's noteworthy besides what a pretty day it was and what a gorgeous view it was, is how from the Empire State Building, you had a straight-on view of the WTC. They were aligned directly facing the Empire State Building.

Which means this video of the 2nd hit was probably taken from the Empire State Building:


Why the video is tilted is beyond me. It's interesting to think what kind of camera would have been taking this shot from the Empire State Building. The camera seems to be on a tripod and has a pretty good zoom.

Soft Earth and Flight 93

Officially, the rear two-thirds of UA93 were buried in the ground under this crater:



We're talking about a rather large airplane here -- 155 feet long, 124 foot wingspan, 30 foot high tail, over 100 tons, officially going almost 600 mph.

So here's the conundrum which basically proves that no 757 crashed here: if the ground was soft enough to allow 2/3 of the plane (100 feet of plane and 100 feet of wings) to enter completely -- shouldn't the ground have been gouged out MUCH MORE extensively than what we see here?

122 Comments

On my flight 93 post with the cartoon diagrams.

The commentators were mostly Pinch's allies, I assume, from the tone of the comments. The common theme was that I was completely nuts for questioning the flight 93 crash and for drawing diagrams explaining the official story.


Unfortunately, in 122 comments, no one was able to explain the strange way in which flight 93 crashed. Here are some overhead views of the crash crater.


Overhead video of crater--


The closest anyone came to explaining the flight 93 crash site was comparing flight 93 to a fragmenting bullet-- where the tip shattered upon impact and then the rear of the bullet entered the target. At least they made an effort to understand it.

I have thought about the physics of fragmenting bullets myself, but I can't find any evidence that the tip of a fragmenting bullet can break apart without entering the target while the rear part of the bullet penetrates. Rather as described here--

The much demonized fragmenting bullets are plastic tipped and frangible, and as such their penetration is minimized, and the bullet's energy is transferred to the target very rapidly. The plastic tip is wedge (cone) shaped, and when it impacts the target it is driven rapidly rearward into the body of the bullet, causing it to expand and fragment. They are typically used on very small varmints such as ground hogs and prairie dogs. The rapid energy transfer from these bullets causes small varmint targets to appear to explode when hit. On larger animals the penetration is often not sufficient to cause an immediate fatal wound, and a superficial (shallow) wound is created over a relatively wide area.

-- the tip doesn't shatter but pushes back into the bullet causing it to expand as it enters. This has the effect of slowing down the bullet so there is less penetration, but also causing more tissue damage since a wider area of tissue is shredded. So I think the fragmenting bullet analogy doesn't hold up.

Here I will make a very precise challenge-- can anyone find another example of a large airplane crash where the plane left a near perfect imprint of itself in the ground and at the same time both totally fragmented and buried itself in the ground-- such that no large debris was found anywhere?

Any crash involving water, such as the Florida Everglades crash doesn't count, since the water will obviously hide the debris. But there have been LOTS of large jet crashes over the years. Has there been ANY crash where the plane disappeared so dramatically but also left a plane-shaped hole in the ground?

If, in the scores of known jet crashes, there is not one example similar to flight 93, I think it is perfectly justified to question whether the crash was faked or not. And as far as I know, there is no other similar crash-- though I am happy to be proven wrong.

Of course, it is perfectly justified to question whether the crash was faked or not simply in light of the proposal to fake plane crashes in the Operation Northwoods plan and the fact that 9/11 was a huge pretext for war. Moreover, simply based on what else we know about 9/11 coupled with the strangeness of the flight 93 crash site, it is perfectly justified to question whether the crash was faked.

Blogger Acting Up

Seems to be a more general problem today, though not as severe as yesterday.

Engineering

You know, it's not really accurate to say that I have no engineering expertise.

In fact, I am a highly experienced genetic engineer.

$50 Trillion in Debt

The US is $50 trillion in debt.


The US can't account for $450 billion, just from 2006.

A couple of small factoids buried in the letters section of the WaPo.


Time for another terror attack?

Asymmetric Damage, Symmetric Collapse?

I often forget that one of the best proofs for WTC demolition is the way both towers underwent symmetric global collapse following localized asymmetric damage.

Earlier today I did a quick search for models of progressive collapse and got this paper as the top hit. I don't know what date the paper is, but the latest reference is from 2000. In any case, the article talks about computer models for progressive collapse, and interestingly the collapse diagram they show has asymmetric collapse resulting from asymmetric damage:



Imagine that!

Attack on this Site?

I had problems specifically loading up this page today.

Anyone else?

Weird Weather

The weather in the northeast US has been extremely warmer than usual the past month.

I guess there are three possible explanations:

1) it is just a freak fluctuation and has nothing to do with global warming

2) it is a direct manifestation of real global warming

3) someone powerful (e.g. the DoD) is trying to make Al Gore look good by creating fake global warming

I'm just saying...

Billiard Balls and Momentum

(Addendum 1/4/07 at bottom)

Judy Wood's "Billiard Ball Example" is a strong proof that the WTC towers were brought down by abnormal means and were not gravity-driven collapses.

Her basic point is that in a progressive collapse, it will take a fair amount of time for each floor to drop to the next and keep the collapse going.

Using an ideal model where each floor drops at free-fall speed to the next, but then pauses as it breaks the next floor, and then this floor falls at free-fall speed until it reaches the next floor, etc, she calculates a minimal collapse time of 97 seconds.

In reality, this model under-estimates the time, as each floor is NOT going to drop through the columns of the floor below at free-fall speed in a vacuum, but should go slower.

The big issue many people have, including me when I first saw her billiard ball piece, is MOMENTUM. Intuitively, it is natural to think that there should be some momentum transferred from floor to floor during a progressive collapse-- and that should speed up collapse time. The natural reaction is to think of a huge weight gaining so much speed that is smashes down through all lower floors, in a "pile-driver" type of reaction.

If you read down to the appendices of the Billiard Ball Example piece, Wood explains the logic of how momentum shouldn't be transferred during a floor collapse, and how floors coming down and bashing the lower floor will lead to the upper floors pausing as they knock loose the lower floor. These upper floors will then have to start falling again, which is what slows the collapse.

Is Wood wrong about momentum transfer? While there may be something out there refuting her, I can't see any high-profile clear refutation of Wood's analysis-- nothing turns up on Google, anyway. There are discussion board refutations of her model, such as here-- but this is hardly a rigorous debunking. It is more of an appeal to "common sense". Such as, 'come on, you KNOW momentum has to be transferred during a collision.'


So, I thought I would deal with the MOMENTUM issue.

I wondered if I could model the collapses where there was some degree of momentum transfer at each floor collision.

To do this, we need to use the following standard equations:

v = at and v(2) = v(1) + at

where v = velocity in feet per seconds, a = acceleration in feet (f) per second (s) per second, t = time in seconds, v(1) is initial velocity and v(2) is final velocity over a period of time t at acceleration rate a.

For these calculations, a is the force of gravity, 32 feet per second per second.

Thus,

v (f/s) = 32(f/s/s) t(s)

and

v(2) = v(1) + 32(f/s/s) t(s)

Also we need this equation
x = 1/2 at^2,
where x = distance travelled = 1/2 time t at acceleration a (squared).



Simply plugging in the height of one WTC tower, 1360 feet, and a as 32 f/s^2, we can easily solve for t and get a free-fall time of 9.2 seconds.

We will also need this equation:
x(2) = x(1) + v(1)t + 1/2 at^2
which tells us the distance x(2) travelled for a certain amount of time and certain acceleration, when there is an initial volecity v(1) starting at distance x(1).

So how do we work MOMENTUM into this system?

Momentum is mass times velocity. Here we will assume mass is constant for the mass falling at a certain velocity, meaning momentum is essentially velocity.

We will assume that there is free-fall between floors (this fast falling time, that assumes no impedances, greatly favors the official story) and that each floor is 12 feet in height. Also, we will assume that when one floor reaches the lower floor, it's velocity is decreased by a set amount each time-- but that some velocity (essentially "momentum") is transmitted between floors to speed up the subsequent fall time between floors.

We will assume in this model that the only energy cost for destroying a floor is the loss of some degree of velocity at each floor collision.

The first set of calculations will be assuming that 50% of velocity is transferred at each collision of floors.

For the first floor, we need to calculate how long it took to fall to calculate its final velocity.

This can be done easily for the first floor using
x = 1/2 at^2
where x = 12 f
giving 0.87 s

Plugging 0.87 s into v (f/s) = 32(f/s/s) t(s), we see that the velocity after falling one floor is 27.8 f/s.

Now it gets more complicated for the second floor.

First, we assume that after bashing against the lower floor, that the two floors are going 50% of the original velocity -- in this case 13.9 f/s.

Now we need to solve for time it takes to fall the next twelve floors, and we need this equation which takes into account the velocity the floors are already going:

x(2) = x(1) + v(1)t + 1/2 at^2

In our situation, x(1) = 0 and x(2) = 12 f, v(1) = 13.9 f/s and 1/2 at^2 = 16 (f/s/s) times t squared.

In other words--
12 = 0 + 13.9t + 16t^2

Now how on earth do we solve that?

Actaully if we re-arrange it into 16t^2 + 13.9t - 12 = 0, it is a quadratic equation-- and we can solve for t easily with a quadratic equation calculator.

Now we get a time of 0.53 s for the 2nd floor collapse at free-fall speed and 50% loss of momentum. Now we can calculate the final velocity after this floor falls 12 f ---> 30.9 f/s.

For the next floor collapse, the floor will start moving at 50% of this speed, at 15.5 f/s.

Going through the iterations for each floor, what happens is that after a few floors, a sort of terminal velocity is reached, where there is 0.5 seconds for each floor to drop.

If we assume that there is free-fall between floors and a 50% loss of velocity (momentum) used up by each floor/structural column collapse, the minimal time for collapse is 55 seconds. This is FAR longer than the maximal observed collapse time of 15 seconds per tower.

We can extend these calculations and test what happens if there is free-fall between floors and each floor/structural column collapse only slows velocity (momentum) by 25%. The calculated time is 36 seconds. This still is FAR longer than the maximal observed collapse time of 15 seconds per tower.

Lastly, we can extend these calculations and test what happens if there is free-fall between floors and each floor/structural column collapse slows velocity (momentum) by a mere 10%. This means again, there is pure free-fall speed between floors (which is highly unlikely) and only a tiny loss of velocity (momentum) when a floor is destroyed by the mass falling from above (extremely unlikely).

In this case, the calculated time is 23 seconds. This time still is significantly longer than the maximal observed collapse time of 15 seconds per tower, even though it assumes the lower structure offered very little resistance to the falling mass.

One could go on, but it gets even more ridiculous. One could say the structure only slowed the falling mass by 1% at each floor collapse, and get close to the observed collapse times, but this defies physics and is an insult to engineers who design strong buildings.

The bottom line is that even IF you take momentum transfer into account, the observed collapse times are far too short.

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

A somewhat different issue someone might raise is that a progressive collapse could gain momentum (mass times velocity) with time-- as the upper floors pile up, producing more mass to fall on lower floors.

The answer to that is two-fold.

First, the lower framework of any tower is always much stronger at the bottom than at the top, as the lower structure needs to support the upper weight. Thus, accumulating mass should be balanced out by the increased strength of the lower floors.

Second, what we saw on 9/11 was the upper floors disintegrating and turning to dust, with concrete being pulverized at each floor-- such that there really was relatively little of a "piledriver" effect.

Lastly, one reason I built a model of the WTC, was to try to see if I could induce any sort of progressive collapse and try to observe how it proceeded. Unfortunately, because of scaling issues, the model was too strong to undergo ANY collapse. But I still would love to see a physical model of a stable structure (i.e. not a tower of blocks) that undergoes a progressive collapse!

Addendums 1/4/07--

1) If my calculations are incorrect, someone please tell me. The calculations aren't hard but I still may have made a mistake somewhere.

2) The method I used for calculating times gives a very different result than if you assume that there is constant acceleration during the progressive collapse, but that the acceleration is lower due to the resistance of the building. For instance if you assume that gravity can only pull down at 16 f/s/s (rather than 32 f/s/s) because the lower building structure offers even resistance, you get a fall time of 13 seconds for 1360 feet. But in real life, there would never be such even resistance-- rather there would be a significant slowing at each floor.

3) In real life, if we assume a progressive collapse occurred for the towers, it would probably affect the calculations this way:
a) fall time between floors would be slower than free-fall speed due to column resistance and walls and various building components
b) the first collision would probably consume all or most of whatever momentum there was from the dropping floor-- it is not clear at all that the first floor collapse would even break down the next floor to continue the collapse-- but let's say the collision consumes 90% of the momentum of the top block of floors. If the next floor could then break away from the collision, then one might retain somewhat more momentum from the added weight, so there might be less and less momentum consumed at each floor collision. Thus one could try to model the timings with increasing momentum at each collapse. But overall, the timing would certainly well above the observed collapse times.

4) As far as I can tell from NIST, their explanation for the rapid collapse times is:
BUILDING HEAVY, GRAVITY STRONG. They have NOT offered any other explanation for the rapid collapses.

5) If we assume, by the official story, that a 15 story top chunk of tower (for WTC1) broke away from the lower structure due to a combination of plane damage, fire weakening and subsequent column stress, it is almost impossible that this chunk of building would gain significant momentum to break through the undamaged lower structure. The upper section of building is not going to suddenly break away and drop all at once at free-fall speed. Rather, it would start by the fire causing sagging on one side and the undamaged columns should take up the stress and eventually buckle and fail completely. But this process is not going to cause the upper section of building to plop down at free-fall speed-- which is really what is needed to gain enough momentum for a progressive collapse.

6) In reality, for asymmetric damage there should have been more of an asymmetric collapse. Witness, what happened to WTC5 and WTC6, which underwent severe asymmetric collapse without undergoing global collapse. For WTC1 or WTC2, there should have been more of a local evidence of collapse before the global collapse was initiated.

7) In terms of 9/11 reality, of course the towers exploded into dense clouds of dust, the bulk of the concrete was pulverized, the whole structure fell apart at near free-fall speeds, and the debris pile was remarkably small-- all signs of high-energy demolition.

8) In terms of academic analysis, the huge height of a WTC tower with 110 floors really makes it very attractive for mathematical modeling, and there are a lot of different approaches one could try. While mathematical models are nice to have, physical models are in fact the most useful and informative if done properly.

"Down the Rabbit Hole"

Check out minutes 13-18 of the new "9/11 Octopus" video. Man, can I relate to that section. Awesome stuff.

"The First 100 Hours"-- Fake Opposition Democrats Or Not?

Really doesn't look promising on the really pressing issues such as the Iraq war and Bush administration crimes.

The Greatest Single Crime of the Bush Administration?

Clearly there is a long list of evils that the Bush administration has perpetrated, but it still boggles my mind that they brainwashed the US troops who invaded Iraq to think that they were avenging 9/11. 90% of the troops who invaded Iraq thought that they were going into Iraq to kill the terrorists who hit us on 9/11.

Think of the audacity and pure evil it took for the Bush administration and Pentagon to drum the fictitious Iraq-9/11 connection into soldiers minds-- and then the pure havoc this brainwashing led to, as the US slaughtered and tortured innocent Iraqis -- crimes that were deeply immoral in themselves but also acts that completely counter-productive to the stated goal of establishment of order and the building of a democracy.

Of course, at this point, it is almost easy to forget the audacity and pure evil it took for the Bush administration to promote the fake threat of Iraq's WMD and thus to start an unprovoked war.

Clearly, if they were going to lie about something so big, what can we put past them?

UPDATE: I realize this post may sound somewhat naive, and possibly incongruous, coming from someone like me who promotes hard-core alternative views of 9/11. But sometimes I like to write posts from a more neutral perspective regarding 9/11, and then use that idea as a new lever on 9/11. Here the idea was to take the mainstream (and I believe true) view that Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11, and show how badly the Bush administration manipulated soldier's minds and to what devastating effect.

Part of the reason I do this, and this is perhaps a foolish reason, is to try to reach out to people like Pinch, Sword of Truth, Conspiracy Smasher and their brethren, and try to reach some common ground. But I guess there are a few problems with this approach:
1) these people are probably not going to rationally listen to anything I say
2) these people are completely set in their ideas and I am not going to change their mind on anything even if they listen to me rationally
3) these people are on such an opposite end of the spectrum that they probably think Saddam Hussein WAS behind 9/11 somehow and that he DID have hidden WMD.

Still, it is a challenge I can't resist-- to try to alter their thinking a little bit. And it also raises the fascinating question of how people get so set in their views and what can possibly get them to change their mind.

Personally, my thinking has certainly evolved over time, as I have looked at the evidence, and I still am open to new ideas.

Are people like Pinch, Sword of Truth, Conspiracy Smasher and their brethren open at ALL to new ideas about 9/11 and terrorism?

Or are they simply set in their views permanently-- maybe because of their brain chemistry or their upbringing?

There is also a temptation to write them off as paid shills. While I cannot rule this out, I tend not to think this is the case. Rather these people simply seem like die-hard fanatical believers of the official 9/11 story, and I insult their religion when I promote contrary ideas to the official story-- no matter how true these ideas may be.

"Disinformation by Proxy"?

Marcus Icke takes on Gerard Holmgren and The Webfairy.

While much of the article slams Holmgren and The Webfairy, there is some interesting info about video fakery in there.

Icke seems to think Holmgren and The Webfairy are disinfo agents -- an old charge, in fact, that many people have leveled. My personal feeling is that they are people who have had some good ideas and done some good 9/11 research but who also can be very sloppy, not to mention very cranky and crabby to people who disagree with them. But the fact is that it is always hard to tell about the legimitacy of people you only know through the internet -- what they are really all about and whether they are "ops" or not.

Certainly there is lots of suspicion about almost everyone who does 9/11 research-- that they are an operative or a disinfo agent. I'm sure some 9/11 people think I am a disinfo agent for promoting "no planes". For what it's worth, I will say for the record I have no contact with any intelligence or law enforcement agency, and I have never received any money from such agencies or their representatives. And I have NEVER intentionally tried to mislead anyone with anything I write.

In any case, the "Disinformation by Proxy" article is worth a look.

UPDATE 1/3/06: I realize this article is very much "inside baseball", since Icke, Holmgren and Webfairy have all done research on video fakery and promote the idea of video fakery on 9/11. Yet here we have Icke accusing Webfairy and Holmgren of disinformation on video fakery. As to that general idea-- that Webfairy and Holmgren are disinformation artists-- I don't think it is the case that they do sloppy work in order to discredit the field of 9/11 video fakery (although I can't rule that out either). I do know that generally Icke is much more careful in his analyses than Webfairy and I trust his work much more. But on the larger issue of video fakery, I still think Webfairy was key in breaking down the Ghostplane (CNN "Best Angle") footage and showing how unreal it was-- which has convinced many people of video fakery. I do not think it is the case that Webfairy and Holmgren are operatives who are promoting video fakery because it is a bogus idea (which is usually how Webfairy and Holmgren are portrayed by the "mainstream 9/11 truth movement". Rather, I think the problem with Webfairy and Holmgren is more in the details of what they say and how they go about doing it.

If Webfairy and Holmgren are operatives of some sort, I think their plan is to have such caustic and abusive personalities that they purposefully drive people away from video research-- people who might otherwise look into it and see the truth in it. And this is clearly the reason Webfairy and Holmgren are disliked by so many 9/11 skeptics. That you have to toe their line or you are a traitor or a sell-out or an idiot. I have long thought that Webfairy and Holmgren would be more effective in promoting video fakery if they stuck to the facts and didn't spew insults so easily. Personally, I still tend to think that Webfairy and Holmgren are just crabby people rather than disinfo operatives. And I don't mind saying that about Webfairy and Holmgren because I have been on the receiving end of their abuse.

Early Description of the Neocons?

from "They Came to Baghdad", by Agatha Christie, written in 1951.

The plot centers around a secret group of non-governmental elites who foment war between the superpowers.

Check out this quote:

"It's a new world, Victoria. A new world that will rise out of the muck and ashes of the old."

"Tell me."

He told her, and in spite of herself she was almost carried away, carried into the dream. The old bad things must destroy each other. There must be total war-- total destruction. And then-- the new heaven and the new Earth. The small chosen band of higher beings, the scientists, the agricultural experts, the administrators-- The young men like Edward-- the young Siegfrieds of the New World. All young, all believing in their destiny as Supermen. When destruction had run its course, they would step in and take over.

This is perhaps an old theme, but is familiar to the Straussian philosophy shared by many neocons.

Give the book a read, if you ever get a chance. It's rather different than other Christie novels and is great "grand conspiracy" reading.

If Done Right, Saddam Hussein's Trial and Execution Could Have Helped Heal Iraq

Instead, Saddam's execution appears to have been a ruthless, barbaric and lawless power-play.

It was bad enough that even the Bush administration is distancing themselves from it.

It's not too surprising, really, but it certainly is emblematic of the "democracy" that the US has brought to Iraq.