Humint Events Online: November 2005

Wednesday, November 30, 2005

"9.11 Revealed"

I just finished reading the new book, 9.11 Revealed, by Ian Henshall and Rowland Morgan, that examines the skeptic case for why the official 9/11 story is wrong.

Overall, the book is very well-done and I strongly recommend it. I think it is probably the most concise and clearest book on 9/11 so far, and even though I've read several other 9/11 books, it still contained some new information for me. I will be posting about some of the more inrteresting bits from the book over the next few days. The book was not perfect, but it did an excellent job of putting the story together very concisely. I particularly liked that they harped on the bizarre fact that not one of the eight 9/11 pilots was able to send out a hijack signal to the ground, when the hijackers were officially only armed with knives. They also talk about how the hijackers could have taken over the plane and why the pilots weren't alerted when there was supposedly violent scuffles in the passenger compartment. These are points that many of the other 9/11 books I have read have not mentioned much, if at all, yet I regard these points as highly suspicious.

Ranking the 9/11 books that I have read (on a scale of 1-10, 10 being best):
"9.11 Revealed" gets a 9

"9/11 Synthetic Terror, Made in USA" by Webster G. Tarpley, gets an 8

"The New Pearl Harbor, Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11" by David Ray Griffin, gets a 7

"The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions" by David Ray Griffin, gets a 7

"Crossing the Rubicon" by Michael C. Ruppert, gets a 6

"The Terror Timeline" by Paul Thompson, gets a 6

"Welcome to Terrorland" by Daniel Hopsicker, gets a 5

My score is based on a combination of overall readibility, important information, credibility, and clarity.

"9.11 Revealed" does well on all these points.

"Crossing the Rubicon" has important information but is low on clarity and readibility. The credibility of Ruppert is in some doubt, but I think most of the information in this book is accurate.

"The Terror Timeline" is filled with important information, but is very difficult (if not impossible) to read as a book.

"Welcome to Terrorland" was very readable and had good information, but lacked clarity and credibility.

The three top reads for me are: "9.11 Revealed", "9/11 Synthetic Terror, Made in USA" and "The New Pearl Harbor, Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11".
Bookmark and Share

How Should the 9/11 Crimes Be Prosecuted?

A brand-new site examines that question: 9/11 Affadavit

It will be interesting to see how the site progresses.
Bookmark and Share

Woo-Hoo! Victory in Iraq! Woo-yah! Boo-yah!

We've won!

Oh, wait. What's that real small print above "Victory in Iraq" say? Err, it's hard to see, let me get out my magnifying glass here. Okay... it ....says....:

“National Strategy for VICTORY IN IRAQ"

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, November 29, 2005

Torture "Worked" on John McCain

Every time you think the right-wing has sunk to a new low, they go out and surprise you with something new.
Bookmark and Share

Salvadorean-Style Death Squads in Iraq

God help us, what monster have we created in that tragic mess of a country?

Really, GOD HELP US. It's just horrible.
Bookmark and Share

War on Suckers

--an interesting blog I just found. Takes on the Naudet brothers and more 9/11-type stuff.
Bookmark and Share

A New 9/11 Smoking Gun

The WTC was fortified for aerial attack before 911!
"Security guard Hermina Jones said officials had recently taken steps to secure the towers against aerial attacks by installing bulletproof windows and fireproof doors in the 22nd-floor computer command center."
Now why on earth would they start securing the towers against aerial attacks?
Bookmark and Share

Monday, November 28, 2005

Patsies-- Assassinations and Terror

The major political assassinations in the US that took place between 1963 and 1980 (JFK, RFK, MLK, Wallace (failed), Reagan (failed)) all had strong indications that they were covert operation that used a designated "patsy". In these cases, the patsy was someone who plausibly could have committed the crime, had some motive for the crime, and was typically at the scene of the crime with a gun (i.e. Oswald, Sirhan, Ray, Bremer, Hinckley). Importantly, the real killing bullets come from nearby professional hitmen (professional killers). The patsies take the blame and the real killers escape unnoticed.

Thus, the use of a patsy is the perfect way to control the operation and deflect blame at the same time.

Interestingly, recent major terror attacks (9/11/01, the Bali bombings, the London 7/7 bombings and the recent Jordanian bombings) almost certainly involve the use of patsies. The pattern for these operations seems to be that the patsy is a plausible Muslim suicide bomber, but that the bomb attack has been pre-set by intelligence agents-- for instance, in London, the bombs were pre-set on the trains and bus, and in Jordan the bombs were pre-set in the ceilings of the hotel rooms. The bomber is made to go to the location (probably without a bomb and unknowingly) and the pre-set bomb is detonated, and it seems as though the patsy set off the bomb. I think this pattern is quite clear and I am quite sure 9/11 was set-up similarly. The question then is, how exactly were the 9/11 patsies set-up? Were they put on planes that went somewhere else (so the patsies)? Were they on planes piloted by remote-control? Were they on the planes at all (and perhaps the whole ruse was to make it seem as if they were on the planes?)? What did the 9/11 patsies think they were doing? Did they want to do a hijack but NOT neccessarily commit suicide (for instance, did they want to take hostages and make demands?)?

The bottom line is that I think understanding how patsies are used in these various operations will give us important clues as to exactly how 9/11 was set-up.

Note: the Wellstone assassination in 2002 was a different form of take-down, involving another classic technique-- a sabotaged plane, and did not involve a patsy.
Bookmark and Share

The 9/11 Blogging Conundrum

For me, getting to the truth of 9/11 is THE ISSUE. Almost every other political issue pales in comparison, and yet-- there is scant recognition in the mainstream media and in all the popular blogs of the fact that the truth of 9/11 is still very much being covered up. This causes me to turn away from these news sources in disgust.

Yet at the same time, constantly thinking about 9/11 is draining. So many days, it is just too hard, too depressing to go back and revisit 9/11. It is still a raw wound, and even more painful due to the fact that I know that the official story is a huge lie.

Thus, there are some days where I simply have no desire to confront 9/11 OR mainstream news. This makes it hard to blog on 9/11!

The good thing, I suppose, I that this condition is usually short-lived-- often a day or two at most.
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 27, 2005

The "Hey, that was our idea first!" Plan for Leaving Iraq

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, November 26, 2005

A Conspiracy Theory

The Bush administration lied about Iraq's possession of WMD in oder to start a war.

Two years ago this WAS thought to be a wacky conspiracy theory by the mainstream media.

Now it is practically conventional wisdom.

What is the lesson here?
Bookmark and Share

Four Pentagon Questions

(click for larger version of picture)

1) Does this impact area look more like it was made by a Boeing 757 or by a bomb? (Note: the plane is supposed to have gone into the building here)

(click for larger version of picture)

2) What made the hole in the fence?
3) What caused the damage to the generator?
4) If it was a 757 engine that made the ground-level hole in the fence, would it have been able to smash just the top of the generator?
Bookmark and Share

Friday, November 25, 2005

If Much of the Official 9/11 Story Is Based on What Khalid Sheikh Mohammed Has to Say....

and anything KSM has confessed to is inadmissable in a court of law, this would seem to be a serious blow to the official 9/11 story (which of course is already staggering on its feet as it is).

You know-- just in case we need ANOTHER reason to doubt the official 9/11 story.
Bookmark and Share

Getting in Some Early Jabs at John McCain

Since he does seem to be quite popular among the vast populace AND THE PRESS, it is good to remind ourselves just how loathsome he really is.
Bookmark and Share

Action Alert!

This poll needs more votes, though the current results are encouraging!

Daily Poll for November 23, 2005

Do we have the full story of what happened to the WTC?

The physics of 9/11 - including how fast and symmetrically one of the World Trade Center buildings fell - prove that official explanations of the collapses are wrong, says a Brigham Young University physics professor. In fact, it's likely that there were "pre-positioned explosives" in all three buildings at ground zero, says Steven E. Jones. Jones, who conducts research in fusion and solar energy at BYU, is calling for an independent, international scientific investigation "guided not by politicized notions and constraints but rather by observations and calculations. It is quite plausible that explosives were pre-planted in all three buildings and set off after the two plane crashes - which were actually a diversion tactic," he writes. "Muslims are (probably) not to blame for bringing down the WTC buildings after all," Jones writes. As for speculation about who might have planted the explosives, Jones said, "I don't usually go there. There's no point in doing that until we do the scientific investigation." Jones acknowledges that there have been "junk science" conspiracy theories about what happened on 9/11, but "the explosive demolition hypothesis better satisfies tests of repeatability and parsimony and therefore is not 'junk science'." Do you think we have the whole story about what happened on 9/11?

yes 30%
no 54%
comments 16%

Total Votes: 37
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 24, 2005

Update on Scott Forbes and WTC Power-Down Right Before 9/11

George Washington has the scoop. Assuming Forbe's story is true, it obviously gives a perfect mechanism for how the explosives were planted in the WTC right before 9/11.
Bookmark and Share

Interesting Discrepency with Passenger Phone Calls and AA versus United Flights

In a previous post, I discussed differences between the AA and UA hijacked planes on 9/11.

A key point is that the two AA flights were not listed in the BTS database as taking off whereas the UA flights were.

I just realized something interesting related to this.

For the two AA flights (11 and 77), there was only ONE phone call from a passenger-- the famous Barbara Olson call from flight 77. This call is actually quite suspicious, and many people have wondered about its veracity.

More importantly though, for the two UA flights (175 and 93), multiple passengers made calls from each flight.

Why such a discrepency?

One interesting possibility is that flights 11 and 77 never really took off with passengers, and this is why they weren't listed in the BTS database and why there so few calls.

Anyway you look at it, the lack of passenger phone calls from the AA planes is very striking.

Note, flight 11 did have two prominent phone calls from flight attendants Ong and Sweeney. But they made little reference to the passengers, and no screams were heard in the background.

By the way, several months back, I analyzed one of the passenger phone calls from flight 175, from Peter Hanson. My thinking is this phone call is highly suspicious in its own right.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, November 23, 2005


NYTimes-- shills for an illegal war:
It was the summer the President and his allies were laying the groundwork for military action in Iraq, and the premium on high-level sourcing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue was perhaps at its apex. And for The Times’ Washington bureau, the pressure was on to deliver on the biggest story of this still-young administration.

But one senior Washington bureau staffer said that as the Bush administration edged closer to invasion, the editorial climate inside The Times shifted from questioning the rationale for military action to putting the paper on a proper war footing.

“Everyone could see the war coming. The Times wanted to be out front on the biggest story,” the staffer said. “It became the plan of attack.”
God this is nauseating.

The NYTimes reporters and editors should be indicted for warcrimes, along with every senior member of the Bush administration.
Bookmark and Share

Belatedly in Honor of the 42nd Anniversary of the JFK Assassination

The latest findings from the most recent JFK assassination conference.

I'm not going to get all poetic and emotional about this, because I was quite young when he died and I'm not much for fancy writing. But clearly, his death marked some sort of strange turning point in this country, and one can faintly make out a twisted path of covert operation after covert operation, connecting his death to the horror of 9/11.
Bookmark and Share

FAA Controllers Had To Be Part of the 9/11 Hijacking Exercise

Otherwise this exchange (from the 911CR) makes no sense:
This was the first notification received by the military-at any level-that American 11 had been hijacked:

FAA: Hi. Boston Center TMU [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.

NEADS: Is this real-world or exercise?

FAA: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.

If the controllers were NOT involved:
a) why does the military ask them if the hijacking was part of the exercise, and
b) why does the FAA they have to tell the military that the hijacking wasn't an exercise?

I suppose the commission put this passage in the report to illustrate the confusion going on that morning, but they oddly fail to explain the fact that there was a hijacking exercise going on that morning.

Note, the FAA is not taken aback by the odd question: "Is this real-world or exercise?" They responded immediately as if they knew what was going on.

But in any case, since the FAA was involved in the hijacking exercise that morning, are we really supposed to believe that the FAA wasn't confused by the real hijackings going on? Wouldn't this confusion have cost precious minutes in the response?

Another question: how did the FAA decide the hijacking was real and not part of the exercise, since at minimum, they knew there was a hijacking exercise going on?
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, November 22, 2005

You Want 9/11 Smoking Guns?

Bookmark and Share

The Pentahit

Killtown has the definitive rundown on why the location the Pentagon was hit is HIGHLY suspicious.
Bookmark and Share

Iraqi Leaders Think It Is Cool If the Insurgents Kill US Soldiers

Bookmark and Share


Bookmark and Share

"9/11 Myths"

Someone went to a lot of trouble to put together this site, which tries to debunk various 9/11 conspiracy "facts". The site seems to try a bit too hard to find holes in 9/11 "conspiracy theories" and may even be pure disinfo.

This sort of site is good to keep track of, if nothing else.

The good thing is the guy doesn't even address many of the 9/11 issues I find most compelling.

My philosophy for 9/11 is this: it is all in the details.

The planners WANTED everyone one to think that four hijacked planes crashed into various targets. But they didn't actually do this, for logistical reasons. Thus, they FAKED it. They did a good job, but the details give them away: such as the flight 93 crash site and the Pentagon crash site. They give the impression that a plane could have crashed there. But a careful analysis shows that the scenario for these two crashes doesn't add up.

And of course, there is simply no question that the WTC1, 2 and 7 buildings underwent controlled demolition. They simply could not cover this up.
Bookmark and Share

If You Have Any Extra Cash

Please throw some coinage at 911-blogger, who is raising money for advertising.

While I have thought about advertising this site, I think 911-blogger is a better site for newcomers than here. This site is more about 9/11 research than attracting "newbies". This may change, but for now, I want to keep this as more of an "advanced" 9/11 research site.

And yes, I gave some money myself to 911-blogger.
Bookmark and Share

Monday, November 21, 2005

Seems Kind of Quiet Today

I hope that's not a bad sign.
Bookmark and Share

Compare and Contrast: Flight 77 and Flight 93


1) Both planes were 757s

2) Both crashed at high speed on 9/11, killing all the passengers, crew and hijackers

3) Both planes disappeared into smallish holes, and leaving behind very little debris (and very little debris from both crashes was ever presented to the public)

4) Both planes exploded violently

5) Both planes spewed small pieces of plane debris from out of their crash holes several hundred feet

6) In the case of flight 93, which went into the ground, very very small pieces of passenger remains (mostly pieces of skin) were found sprinkled at a distance all around the crash site; no such human remains outside the crash site were ever reported for flight 77, which officially went into the Pentagon.

With all the similarities in the circumstances, why the difference in human remains between flight 77 and flight 93?
Bookmark and Share

The Amazing Disappearing Zarqawi

Escapes capture again!

We almost had him this time!

Drat! Foiled again!
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, November 19, 2005

The WTC towers did undergo a pancake collapse!

After they blew out the core structure with explosives, that is!

The floors then started progressively falling and piling on each other, in a progressive pancaking fashion, leading to the overall collapse.

Seriously, I think there is some basis to the pancake collapse model. This may be why so many scientists have been able to put the pancake collapse model out as an explanation for what happened on 9/11 and then not feel like they are totally lying.

But the key is that the pancake collapse just doesn't work unless the core is demolished.

Once you watch the 9/11 eyewitness DVD, you will see that all three WTC towers underwent essentially a conventional controlled demolition-- where there was an initial powerful explosion that took out the key support columns in the core. Afyter this, the structure started pancaking by natural gravity-- the outer walls couldn't hold the weight of the floors, and the whole thing gave way. The slowish early initial collapses of the top sections in the beginning of the WTC1 and WTC7 collapses was probably just the pancake collapse starting to gain momentum. Perhaps the first set of charges weakened the core, starting some downward movement, then the final set of charges took it out for good.

Conventional demolition is very similar-- there is an initial set of charges that weakens the structure and then the "killer" charges that cause the structure to collapse at near free-fall speed.

WTC2 was done a little differently-- maybe by mistake or maybe they were testing out the demolitions to see what they needed for WTC1, and thus only did some at a time. The 9/11 eyewitness DVD reveals there were eight or nine explosions right before the WTC2 collapse.
Bookmark and Share

Interesting Discrepency Between Family Members of 9/11 Victims at Ground Zero and on the Planes

Bookmark and Share

Another Letter to Tucker

by a person who shall remain anonymous:
Re: Prof.Steve Jones (BYU) interview on MSNBC

Memo to Tucker Carlson,

I was been born here in the USA, worked here all my life, own a house, paid taxes, have my life's efforts invested.

Why should I cut and run just because my society has been hijacked by gangsters, psychopaths and their obedient whores in the media ?

9/11 was America's "Reichstag Fire".

I'm not leaving anywhere, anytime.

We're going to organize the American people to deal with the bastards in our own government, military and private sector who engineered 9/11 as a false-flag psy-op, and a pretext for invading Afghanistan and Iraq and launching a phony "war on terror", forcing us to surrender our most basic Constitutional liberties.

We already know that most people in the Middle East suspect 9/11 was an inside job. Mainstream public opinion in Europe and Latin America is coming around to that point of view as well. The dramatic success of Ian Henshall's book in the UK is a pretty clear indicator of that. The rest of the civilized world is on OUR side.
It's only a matter of time. And, as David Ray Griffin (author of "9/11 - The New Pearl Harbor) has observed, time is on our side.

What Tucker Carlson is afraid of, is that once we've arrested and indicted the real perps of 9/11, then we'll move to deal with their facist collaborators in the controlled corporate media. It's understandable he would be looking to save his own sorry ass.

Carlson... you and the rest of the slime mold at CNN, Fox, MSNBC....etc., we'll deal with you just like the Nazi propagandists Alfred Rosenberg and Julius Streicher, were dealt justice at Nuremberg.

They were strung up. But first they got nice legitimate public trials. Which is what we'll give you before we string you up.
Bookmark and Share

Action Alert!

Nominate Professor Jones for a Wings of Freedom Award (via Buzzflash) for being brave enough to speak out on the WTC demolitions!
Bookmark and Share

Iraq-- Dems versus Repugs

The debate last night clearly showed that Rethuglicans don't give a shit about US troops dying, getting horribly wounded and generally having their lives ruined.

And they certainly, obviously could care less for any innocent Iraqis who have been killed in the war that WE STARTED.

So, I give props to the Dems for standing up for some decency here and trying to stop the killing.

However, the Dems do bother me in their recent complaints that the Iraq intelligence was distorted by the Bush administration.

Well, DUH!!!!!

But this was fucking obvious back before the war started! I find it lame the Dems are complaining about the intelligence now that the war has predictably gone bad, rather than calling the Bush administration on it back in Spring of 2003, when it might have made a difference.

Yes, there were many Dems who voted against giving Bush "authority" to use force. And I'm sure they knew the intelliegnce was bogus. But the point is the Dems didn't get their act together, they caved into Bush and gave him bipartisan support, and they let this catastrophe of Iraq happen.

While the Rethuglicans are nothing more than cold-blooded killers, the Dems look like week-kneed patsies.
Bookmark and Share

Friday, November 18, 2005

A Great Response to Tucker Carlson

I wish I had done this, but... I'm too nice. :)

From a friend of a friend:
(Carlson's words are italicized)
"[M]y first thought was: Stephen Jones is insane. And he may be. On the other hand, he does have a legitimate job and a responsible-sounding title. He's not living in the park, or writing me letters in crayon. How crazy could he really be?"

What disrespect and arrogance on your part!!

"In the interest of open-mindedness, we booked him."

Actions speak louder than words. Yours were not the actions of open-mindedness, but of the intentional spreading of disinformation and the dishonoring of an honorable man.

"That was probably a mistake."

The 'mistake' -- from the perspective of honest reporting -- was to rig the interview so that no legitimate information could be shared with your viewers.

"Talking about 9-11 is a lot like discussing someone else's religion: You can do it, but you've got to tread carefully. Most of the time, it's best to stick to platitudes and move on."

The events of 9/11 are not a matter of faith, but of EVIDENCE. When a crime has been committed, you look at the EVIDENCE; you don't stick to 'platitudes' and 'move on'.

"The subject is still too raw for debate, particularly here in the New York area."

Baloney. New Yorkers want more than anything to know what happened.

"Professor Jones wasn't up to the job. If you saw last night's show, you know what an uncomfortable six minutes it was. If not, I'll summarize: Jones was almost totally incapable of explaining his own ideas. By the end of the interview I understood no more about his hypothesis than when it began. He was an epically bad guest."

The problem with Prof. Jones was that he actually expected you to play fair and show the clip of WTC #7 coming down so he could easily demonstrate to the audience exactly why the building had to have been brought down by controlled demolition. What you -- the epically bad interviewer but very experienced disinfo artist -- did was to prevent that from happening. And now you're lying about it and dissing him, to boot-- disgusting!!

"Yet - and here's the interesting part - he seemed to connect with a huge number of viewers. The overwhelming majority wrote to thank me for my "courage" in putting him on, and to complain that we didn't give him more time to explain the conspiracy."


"In other words, a lot of people seem to think it's possible that the U.S. government had a hand in bringing down the World Trade Center buildings."

We don't THINK it's possible. We KNOW it's possible, and the REASON is that we looked carefully at the EVIDENCE!! (And I'm not speaking for Prof. Jones, who isn't willing to go as far as accusing the government, since he's sticking with the physics of the matter, which is something he, unlike yourself, is QUITE capable of understanding and explicating.)

"Ponder that for a second: The U.S. government killed more than 3,000 of its own citizens. For no obvious reason."

Actually, they did it for a VERY OBVIOUS reason -- one they NAMED in the PNAC document "Rebuilding America's Defense" over a year earlier -- namely to terrify Americans into accepting unjustified wars for oil and empire. That one's a no-brainer.

"Then lied about it. Then invaded two other countries, killing thousands of their citizens as punishment for a crime they didn't commit.

If you really thought this - or even considered it a possibility - how could you continue to live here? You couldn't. You'd leave the United States on the next available flight and not come back. You'd have no choice. Continuing to pay taxes to a government capable of something so evil would make you complicit in the crime."

Baloney! What outrageous, oversimplified gibberish! For starters, most people can't leave on the next available flight. But more importantly, knowledgeable Americans patriotically stay to try to educate their fellow citizens into seeing the light so that the crime can be uncovered and those perpetrating it removed from the government and the harm stopped.

"So of course most of the people who wrote to say they think the government might have been behind 9-11 don't really think the government might have been behind 9-11. For whatever reason, they just like to say so. Which as far as I'm concerned makes them phony and irresponsible."

Baloney again!! The reason we say so (and there's no 'like' about it) is because we prefer truth to lies.

"Incidentally, we still have an open mind here on the Situation, even after Professor Stephen Jones. So if evidence ever does arise that the government lied substantially about what happened on September 11th, we'll be on it immediately. I promise."

More lies. You weren't 'open-minded' to begin with, and there's NO sign of a change! But it's interesting to note that you might say something if the government 'lied substantially' about 9/11. Is this an admission on your part that they have indeed lied? And my question is -- why does the lie have to be 'substantial' to be considered? And what, in your view, constitutes 'substantial'.

And here's one final question: Would you be willing to take a lie detector test and swear under oath that ever word of what you wrote is absolutely true and all your actions surrounding Prof. Jones' appearance were absolutely above-board and honorable?
Bookmark and Share

Whatever Happened to Those Security Camera Videos Showing the 9/11 Hijackers Going Through Security?

They of course have never been seen. Was there a malfunction that day?

This article find some interesting aspects to that story, involving a Dutch company.

Curiously, the Dutch are also implicated in running the shadowy flight school that several of the hijackers went to in Florida.
Bookmark and Share

Diagnosis of the US Media: Terminal Cancer

Good piece here.

I think at this point, the left and the right, and even whacked-out conspiracy-theorists like me can agree on one thing: the mainstream media sucks.

Maybe this is what extremists of all stripes ALWAYS say, but it does seem as though the mainstream media is losing major credibility every day, and that can only mean lost money. The internet of course helps the polarization, and it seems to me the big losers are the big-name media outlets such as the NYTimes, the WaPo, CBS, NBC etc. More and more people I think will choose what news they want from specialized web-sites, and these will feed off news services, rather than big name papers and journalists. So perhaps this all will lead to an increased democratization of the media business, and that is a good thing. Some people will no doubt complain that the media will become less professional, but the fact is, the professionals are BLOWING IT.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, November 16, 2005

E-mail Tucker Carlson!

Let him know the why the government is complicit in 9/11.
This is from the little turds "blog":
We've never had an e-mail response like the one we got after Monday's segment with Stephen Jones, a professor in the department of physics and astronomy at Brigham Young University. Jones believes that the World Trade Center buildings were likely brought down by bombs, rather than by hijacked planes on 9-11. "Use of powerful, pre-positioned explosives in the WTC buildings would imply an 'inside job'," Jones writes in a paper available on the BYU website. "Clearly, we must find out what really caused the WTC skyscrapers to collapse as they did."

When one of my producers first told me about him, my first thought was: Stephen Jones is insane. And he may be. On the other hand, he does have a legitimate job and a responsible-sounding title. He's not living in the park, or writing me letters in crayon. How crazy could he really be? In the interest of open-mindedness, we booked him.

That was probably a mistake. Talking about 9-11 is a lot like discussing someone else's religion: You can do it, but you've got to tread carefully. Most of the time, it's best to stick to platitudes and move on. The subject is still too raw for debate, particularly here in the New York area. (The little town where I live lost six people on September 11th; the town next door lost more than 20.) Professor Jones wasn't up to the job. If you saw last night's show, you know what an uncomfortable six minutes it was. If not, I'll summarize: Jones was almost totally incapable of explaining his own ideas. By the end of the interview I understood no more about his hypothesis than when it began. He was an epically bad guest.

Yet - and here's the interesting part - he seemed to connect with a huge number of viewers. Some who e-mailed were offended that Jones would dare question the official version of 9-11. Some were confused by what he was trying to say. But the overwhelming majority wrote to thank me for my "courage" in putting him on, and to complain that we didn't give him more time to explain the conspiracy.

In other words, a lot of people seem to think it's possible that the U.S. government had a hand in bringing down the World Trade Center buildings.

Ponder that for a second: The U.S. government killed more than 3,000 of its own citizens. For no obvious reason. Then lied about it. Then invaded two other countries, killing thousands of their citizens as punishment for a crime they didn't commit.

If you really thought this - or even considered it a possibility - how could you continue to live here? You couldn't. You'd leave the United States on the next available flight and not come back. You'd have no choice. Continuing to pay taxes to a government capable of something so evil would make you complicit in the crime.

So of course most of the people who wrote to say they think the government might have been behind 9-11 don't really think the government might have been behind 9-11. For whatever reason, they just like to say so. Which as far as I'm concerned makes them phony and irresponsible.

Incidentally, we still have an open mind here on the Situation, even after Professor Stephen Jones. So if evidence ever does arise that the government lied substantially about what happened on September 11th, we'll be on it immediately. I promise.
GOTTA love that last bit: "if evidence ever does arise that the government lied substantially about what happened on September 11th, we'll be on it immediately."

LOL. What assholes.

E-mail is probably a waste of time-- these guys are not going to reveal the truth behind 9/11. BUT-- at least we can show them our numbers.
Bookmark and Share

The Horrible Aftermath of FEMA Incompetence with Katrina

I was wondering earlier today what the final death toll for katrina was. It was somewhere around 1100, but of course that was only the bodies they FOUND.

Turns out, a lot of bodies are STILL being found. Horrible, just horrible:
You know, it's hard to imagine anything worse than coming back to your home in New Orleans and finding it completely destroyed. But, tonight, as you're about to hear, there is something worse, much worse. Dozens of families have returned to what is left of their homes and found, lying amidst the mold and the wreckage, a body, forgotten, abandoned. Maybe it's their mother or their grandmother, sometimes even their missing child.

The state called off searching house to house in New Orleans well over a month ago. They said they completed the job.
There was no joy for Paul Murphy (ph) in this homecoming. When he walked into his house in New Orleans' Ninth Ward last month for the first time since Katrina, it was shock and anger.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: So, I'm thinking that, OK, I was going to come and salvage a few pictures or something. And I walk in here. I found my grandma on the floor dead.

DORNIN: Since November 1, 10 bodies have been found in the ruins of the Ninth Ward. The last area, known as the Lower Ninth, will open to residents December 1. Coroner Frank Minyard worries about what people will find.

(on camera): You're fully expecting that more bodies will come in once they open the Ninth Ward?

FRANK MINYARD, ORLEANS PARISH CORONER: Yes. And I think it's -- it's going to come in for a good while. There's so much rubbish around that they might find people in the rubbish. DORNIN (voice-over): They already have. And there are still many bodies left unidentified and unclaimed.
(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE) COOPER: You warned us October 3. When the state stopped house- to-house searching for -- for -- for the deceased, you said, it was a bad idea, that there were more people out there. Now the death toll, it turns out, has jumped by 104. And -- and families are returning to find the bodies of their loved ones still in their homes. How does -- it's got to infuriate you.

JACK STEPHENS, SAINT BERNARD PARISH SHERIFF: Well, you know, you just wonder what provoked that decision.

A month ago, we were still very much in the midst of a -- of a crisis. And the National Guard was conducting the house-to-house searches. And if you go through, Anderson, the neighborhoods right now that were searched then, a lot of them bear the mark of "N.E.," which means no entry.

I was always under the impression that there would be a hard- target search at some point following that to determine whether or not there were any casualties left in those dwellings. As of right now -- in fact, the day before yesterday, in my own jurisdiction, a family came home to discover a family member who had been reported missing.

COOPER: Oh, my God.

STEPHENS: It was a horrible -- it was a gruesome sight. Very -- and again, people don't deserve any more grief and pain than they're going through right now. I mean, this whole process has been so excruciatingly screwed up and slow that, I mean, you're starting to feel a real sense of anger and hostility on the part of people locally and, my God, it's well-deserved.

It is a disgrace that this is happening in America. This is the country that took great pains to recover every little bit of human remains at Ground Zero after 9/11. Now we won't even bother to search homes in which we know bodies remain. This is not a matter of time or resources. The authorities simply chose not to take the time or allocate the resources to Do the Right Thing.
And more disgraceful is they are getting away with it. I have seen no reports of this other than 2 on CNN. Yet given the dozens of links and comments from my previous post I know people do care and were shocked to learn of this.
It is time to DEMAND of your representatives that the government fulfill the most basic of duties and search the lower 9th Ward before December. No more families should have to go through the horror of finding their loved ones abandoned and decomposing in their homes.
Bookmark and Share

Dave McGowan Emerges From His Hole to Speak About Plane Holes

While McGowan has written some fine essays on 9/11, this one left much to be desired.

You know, I think I've gotten to the point where I know more about this stuff than he does.

Scary. :)
Bookmark and Share

A Good Straight-Forward Case for Fake Video of the WTC Crashes


While this analysis certainly doesn't prove that no plane hit the WTC, it certainly calls into question the public video and why it is highly suspicious.

Assuming they DID, fake the video, WHY would they want to do it?
Bookmark and Share

Professor Jones on the Tucker Carlson Show

9/11 blogger is the place to go for the latest.
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, November 15, 2005

Synthetic Terror: Made in Jordan

You know, it is a little hard to figure exactly how Iraqi suicide bombers placed bombs in hotel ceilings!

Interestingly, Reuters initially reported that the bombs were placed in a false ceiling, but now the suicide bomber story seems to have taken hold.

Curiously, even the NYTimes reports that a witness reported a blast coming from the ceiling and the lights going off right before the bombs:
A security official, meanwhile, said lights in sections of both the Radisson and Hyatt hotels went out just before the near-simultaneous blasts in apparently coordinated fashion.

A DJ at the Radisson, where a Jordanian-Palestinian wedding reception was bombed, also recalled how the ballroom where the party was being held mysteriously went dark.

"The lights at the wedding hall went off seconds, maybe just one second, before the blast, although there was electricity outside the room in the corridor, the nearby lobby area and the reception," Fadi al-Kessi told AP.

"For some reason, I looked to my right in the darkness and saw what looked liked lightning, then there was a loud boom. It felt like the explosion came from the ceiling, then people started running out."

Xymphora picks apart other aspects of the official story.

It is funny, how the more "they" pull this crap (synthetic terror attacks), the more it exposes the holes in the official stories and importantly for me, calls into question what happened with 9/11.

I will give Jordan credit for one thing though: at least their many of their officials took responsibility for the attacks and resigned (including the Jordanian National Security Advisor)-- unlike the horrendously lame-ass US security/defense establishment following 9/11.
Bookmark and Share


"Global War Against Violent Islamic Extremists Who Hate Us For Our Freedoms"

or "Gwavee-hoofof"

I don't why, I had this in my head much of the night. Rolls off the tongue, don't it?

Meanwhile, the Bush administration contines to blame Democrats for the war in Iraq. (joke, sort of)

Although I did hear House Republicans on NPR yesterday blame the Democrats for the Republicans not being able to reform social security-- despite the fact that the Repubs are in the majority and don't need the Democrats for anything except political cover. The show was funny (the Diane Rehm show)-- all about the disarray the Republicans are in now in Congress. Man, did they sound like a bunch of fucking losers. Frankly, I'd like to kick EVERY elected official out of the government right now and start with a clean slate.
Bookmark and Share

Monday, November 14, 2005

What a Coincidence

One of the Jordanian bombers was probably held in US prison in Iraq.

Now, why would he have bombed Jordanians after being held in US prison????

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, November 13, 2005

Curious How Few Pictures of Plane Debris There are for the WTC Hits

Considering how much media was there, how much debris was apparently seen by firemen and how much debris can be seen shooting out of WTC2-- there is actually a fairly meager collection of plane debris photos for the two WTC "crashes".

We have one 767 wheel hub and tire, one piece of engine, one section of fuselage and one bracket-thingy that says Boeing on it with a serial number. This is what I've seen.

Oddly, there are more pictures of plane debris photos for the Pentagon hit than for the two WTC hits-- and that hit was clearly not from a 757!
Bookmark and Share

What Happened at the Woolworth Building on 9/11?

Looks like some weird stuff, in this very comprehensive and fascinating analysis.

The Woolworth building was one of the tallest buildings near the WTC towers.
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, November 12, 2005

Proof of Video Fakery for the Second Hit!!!!!

I think I have found something that pretty convincingly shows the second hit was a video forgery.

Look at these three videos:

Now, measure the time from when the "plane" goes in and when the explosion comes out, using the speed of the plane as a guidepost.

I think you will see that the explosion comes out at slightly different times for all three videos!

The first one is timed pretty well-- the explosion follows the path of the plane. But in the second one, there is a bit of a delay between the plane going in and the explosion. In the third, there is a huge delay between the plane going in and the explosion.

This discrepency makes perfect sense if the videos were faked: the key to the fakery is to get the timing right for when the "plane" goes in and the explosion starts.

But these three videos all show different times before the explosion starts-- thus showing almost beyond a reasonable doubt that the plane footage was spliced in separately.
Bookmark and Share

Friday, November 11, 2005

Jones Goes Public

Bookmark and Share

Must-See DVD

9/11 Eyewitness.

It has some really interesting analyses that point to demolition of WTC1, 2 and 7. Most striking are the series of explosions that can be heard right before the south tower and the north tower come down.

Also, right before the south tower goes down, a chopper flies over the north tower and flashes light: it is totally bizarre.
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 10, 2005

White Phosphorous and the Tragedy of Iraq

So, White Phosphorous was used intentionally by the USA Army as a weapon against insurgents in Fallujah.

I'm not surprised.

The sad fact of Iraq is that for every sane, decent, rational soldier in the US Army in Iraq, there are several stupid, angry and irrational Americans who think they are avenging 9/11 by attacking Iraqis.

This is the tragedy of Iraq, in my view, and has led to repeated war-crimes. Fallujah being one particularly bad example, Abu Ghraib being another.

But this tragedy can be laid directly at the feet of Bush and Cheney-- for it was they who brain-washed US soldiers into thinking Iraq was resposnible for 9/11.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, November 09, 2005

No Difference?

This talk about there being little difference between Bush and Kerry quite bothers me (also here).

I have problems with Kerry, no doubt. But he would be, and would have been, miles better for Americans as a whole than Bush. Kerry is a liberal and progressive, in the best sense. He is an environmentalist! He would try to create national health insurance for chrissakes!

So there is no difference between Kerry and Bush? We're all doomed no matter what?

I don't buy it.

Okay, in terms of 9/11, Kerry is unlikely to push for the truth. But let's face it, even though there is a small truth resurgence right now, no politician is ready to come out and talk about 9/11 truth. I can't blame Kerry for this, right now. In an ideal world, Democrats would be pushing for new 9/11 hearings. But it just ain't gonna happen like that.

If globalization is your big worry, I suppose Kerry and Bush are not very different. But I'm not worried about globalization, particularly. Kerry would likely not withdraw immediately from Iraq, but he would definitely start some withdrawal, as he has proposed this already.

My point is, I really hate this doom and gloom talk about no difference between Democrats and Republicans. It is cynical and depressing, and it induces apathy-- and this is NOT what we need. There IS a clear difference between Republicans and Democrats on many issues. Democrats leave a lot to be desired, but at LEAST they are not complete nutjobs who support torture, endless war, race-baiting and insane fiscal policies. Republicans also derive their strongest support from fundamentalist Christian end-times wackos-- and that should really tell you all you need to know.

The bottom line is, in terms of big abstractions like globalization, maybe there is little difference btween Kerry and Bush, between Democrats and Republicans. But in the REAL WORLD of people's day-to-day jobs and family life, there is no doubt that Democratic policies are better. Even Iraq would be better off with a Democrat in power, in my opinion.

Bookmark and Share

Ear Candy

I've been listening to Genesis' "The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway" pretty much non-stop for the past two weeks. It's just amazingly rich and wonderful music. I can't recommend it enough.

In between listening to "Lamb", I've been listening to Genesis' "Selling England by the Pound" a lot, and that has many wonderful moments as well.
Bookmark and Share

Waste of Two Hours?

I listened to Eric Hufschmid be interviewed by Daryl Bradford Smith here.

Maybe it was not a WASTE, but the show had only about ten minutes of interesting material (as far as I am concerned).

Basically, there was a lot of bluster, a lot of commercials, a lot of blaming 9/11 on zionists and a lot of trashing people*.

The most interesting new info was that Israeli moving company vans supposedly visited the WTC regularly, and these vans later tested positive for explosives. There was an allusion to asbestos clean-up being used as an excuse to plant bombs in the WTC-- and while this makes sense, there were no sources given-- nor were any surces given during the whole interview. These are quite important claims-- if they can be verified!

*Some of the people deserved trashing, such as Tom Flocco, Stew Web and Karl Schwarz, but others such as Webster Tarpley, didn't. The trashing of Scott Ritter I am ambivalent about.

NOTE: this post was somewhat altered on Nov. 10.
Bookmark and Share

Amazing and Frightening Video

Of the Fallujah "Massacre" here. But actually, what was the most amazing part was the opening video of napalm bombing in Vietnam.
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, November 08, 2005


LIHOP = "Let It Happen On Purpose"

MIHOP = "Make It Happen On Purpose"

If you read Paul Thompson's 9/11 timeline and the evidence presented by Mike Ruppert in "Crossing the Rubicon", the evidence is really overwhelming that governmental authorities at some level knew "9/11 was coming".

The important question that follows from this finding is: if intelligence agencies knew a major attack was coming, but wanted an attack to succeed for geopolitcal reasons, would they really let the attack proceed in an uncontrolled manner?

To me, it seems logical that the people in the US who wanted an attack to occur would also really wanted to limit its scope, and also to target it to suit their own purposes. Thus, they needed to be able to control the attacks. They didn't mind if some aging skyscrapers were knocked down, particularly if it covered up financial fraud and the owner collected an insurance windfall. They probably didn't want something like the Capitol building hit or the Whitehouse hit. They probably didn't want to take the chance that a nuclear plant or a chemical plant would be hit. They didn't want the part of the Pentagon where the top brass worked to be hit. Although they may have wanted to specifically take out the Army accounting office to cover-up more financial misdeeds.

This is where MIHOP comes in.

This is where the 9/11 LIHOPers needed to control the attacks.

How would they control the attacks?

One way would be to have incompetent patsies as the hijackers and have the planes piloted by remote control. Or have staged hijackings and swap the real planes with remote control drones. There are other ways they could have controlled the attacks, of course, but the point remains:

LIHOP leads naturally to MIHOP.

Furthermore-- if there is MIHOP, there should be telltale signs from the physical evidence of MIHOP. For instance, the fact that no 9/11 hijacked plane warned ground control that they were hijacked, the fact that the transponders were all turned off, the rapid collapses of WTC1, 2 and 7, the strange flight path of the plane that hit the Pentagon and the strange fate of flight 93. These are important pieces of physical evidence that support MIHOP.
Bookmark and Share


There was quite a bit of speculation when Italian journalist Giuliana Sgrena's car was shot up by American soldiers as she left Iraq earlier this year, that it was because she had evidence that the US used chemical weapons in Fallujah.

Well, lo and behold, that speculation seems to have been well-founded.

War-crimes. Again.

The Bush administration are all war-criminals.

Everyone needs to realize this.
Bookmark and Share

US Lied About the Rationale for War

The Vietnam war, that is-- and covered it up for, oh, about forty years.

Deja vu, all over again.
Bookmark and Share


Larry Johnson, a "former" CIA officer, berates Cheney for his support of torture.

Yes, torture is bad, and Cheney sucks. But I find it appalling to see a CIA man talking about morality and seeing lefties eating it up.

That has been one of the more unfortunate problems with the Bush administration, 9/11 and the Plame affair-- too many liberals and Democrats have fallen for the idea that the CIA really are "good guys" trying to protect us from terrorists and WMD and have seemingly forgotten all the truly rotten things the CIA has done and undoubtedly still does.
Bookmark and Share

Monday, November 07, 2005

Back to Basics About 9/11

All the stuff I've been doing lately on 9/11 has been research into weird physical aspects of 9/11 being an inside job. Some of the stuff I've found may mean nothing, or it may be something important. It's hard to know for sure with the limited data we have in the public domain. Basically, I have been trying to develop a new working model for the attacks, and while I think I have a good idea for certain things, other aspects are less clear-- like what hit exactly the WTC towers.

But I want to go back and refresh everyone, including myself, of WHY I think 9/11 was an inside job.

1) there were many, many of warnings of the attacks before they happened, and some apparently were very specific.
2) there is the fact that the Pakistani ISI is friendly with both Al Qaeda AND the CIA, and thus the CIA HAD to know what was coming (the wiring of money from ISI chief Ahmed to Atta shortly before the attacks is one aspect of this).
3) there were the unusual put options on American and United stocks before the attacks.
4) there was a GODDAMNED LIVE-FLY HIJACKING DRILL BEING RUN ON 9/11 BY NORAD. If that doesn't make you think something strange happened that day, nothing will.
5) there was the complete lack of air defenses on 9/11.
6) there was the lack of warnings to pilots and FAA controllers about hijackings.
7) there were the terror hijacking drills run before 9/11.
8) there were the plane-into building drills run by the Pentagon and also by NORAD before 9/11.
9) there was the GODDAMNED PLANE INTO BUILDING DRILL BEING RUN ON 9/11 BY THE NRO. Again, if that doesn't make you suspcious about 9/11, nothing will.
10) there was the horribly blatant Condi Rice LIE about not imagining terrorists using planes as missiles. She knows and was covering up the truth.
11) there is the fact that intelligence agencies and the defense department were tracking and most likely protecting the hijackers.
12) there was the Operation Northwoods plot, which showed the lengths the Pentagon would go to start a war.
13) there is the history of state-sponsored synthetic terrorism throughout the ages.
14) there was the quick clean up of ground zero and the sham of the NIST collapse analysis.
15) there is the suppression of NYFD witness testimony to bombs in the WTC.
16) there is the strong evidence that the WTC towers were brought down by explosives.
17) there is the unlikelihood of the hijackings themselves-- surprise attacks with knives and boxcutters
18) there is the extreme unlikelihood that the terrorists could pilot the planes as effectively as they were supposed to have.
19) there is the absolutely bizarre nature of the flight 93 crash and the mystery of the many phone calls from that flight.
20) there was the complete white-wash that was the US government's 9/11 commission.

And I could go on and on.

The point is, there are many many reasons to think 9/11 was an inside job.

NOW-- I am looking for physical signs and indications that would help me figure out exactly what happened. Perhaps I can even find a new "smoking gun".

So, that is what I am up to. I hope I haven't wandered too far into la-la land.

I don't think I have, yet.
Bookmark and Share


Is this really just all about propping up the 9/11 terror myth?

Or are Bush and Cheney simply giant assholes?
Bookmark and Share

How Many Reasons Are There for the Iraq War?

There are the offficial and essentially bogus reasons:
1) WMD
2) connections of Iraq to terrorism
3) liberation of the Iraqi people

Then there are the unofficial yet more plausible reasons:
1) oil
2) neocon agenda of remaking middle east, helping Israel
3) Bush finishing "family business"
4) Bush doing what dad didn't do (showing him up)
5) Bush getting revenge for Iraq assassination attempt on dad
6) help conservative domestic agenda-- helping Bush get re-elected and helping Republican take-over of congress
7) Bush wanting to "make history" by being a famous war president
8) old-fashioned imperialism, the West meddling in Muslim affairs
9) to prevent Iraq from trading oil in Euros, which would be a blow to US
10) Pentagon wanted a war for selfish reasons (training, sense of purpose, inflating their budget)
11) an excuse to run up debt; helping prop up Western currencies

I think this is all the ones I know. Isn't it amazing how many plausible reasons there are?????
Bookmark and Share

Details of the First Hit

All right, so maybe the strange shadows that appear on the face of the WTC (in particular see frames 56 and 57) are simply from the complex play of sunlight on the wings and body of the plane as it approaches and enters the tower.

But what accounts for the odd pimple that appears to the left of where the left wingtip hits?

Moreover, does the plane ever entirely go in the building, or does the tail turn into a explosive cloud?

What a striking difference between the first and second hits-- where with the first hit, an explosion forms immediately at the site of impact whereas with the second hit, the explosion comes out the other side of the building first. Granted, part of this difference is that the first plane is hitting the core dead-on, whereas the second plane avoids the core. However, the second plane STILL rams into multiple concrete and steel floor slabs at a perpendicular angle, and these should present a significant obstacle.

UPDATE: there is also a suspicious explosive "pimple" that develops on the right side of the plane-- see frames 73 and 74 here. The reason these "pimples" are suspicious is because they devleop at the ends of the wings, away from where the explosion should be. These pimples are sort of like independent explosions, almost as if someone was trying to enlarge the hole the plane's wings made.
Bookmark and Share

Excellent Article on Evolution Versus Intelligent Design

by Richard Dawkins and Jerry Coyne.

I also find the push to teach ID in schools alongside evolution very pernicious.
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, November 05, 2005

National Security Letters

Creeping Big Brother:
A national security letter cannot be used to authorize eavesdropping or to read the contents of e-mail. But it does permit investigators to trace revealing paths through the private affairs of a modern digital citizen. The records it gathers describe where a person makes and spends money, with whom he lives and lived before, how much he gambles, what he buys online, what he pawns and borrows, where he travels, how he invests, what he searches for and reads on the Web, and who telephones or e-mails him at home and at work.

This really sounds like a system ripe for abuse. I have to wonder if these have been used to help cover-up terrorism, as opposed to uncovering terrorism. For instance, this info could be used by the FBI to blackmail someone whom they want to keep quiet. Like say, someone who saw something they weren't supposed to-- the FBI checks out their online habits and sees they go to a particularly embarrassing porn site. Well, you get the picture...
Bookmark and Share

A Grim, Horrible Business

Writing about flight 93, that is. The crash of flight 93 is depressing as hell, just like 9/11 itself.

And I'm sure I sound like a complete wacko for saying the flight 93 crash was faked.

Yet, I have thought long and hard about the official story, and I have decided it cannot be true. The flight 93 crash site defies logic.

If you want to know more about the crash of flight 93, please check out my spin-off blog: Flight 93 Hoax.

Finally, check out this comparison of the craters left by the Nigerian crash versus flgiht 93.
Bookmark and Share

The Smell of Death

A hand and leg lay on the ground. No identifiable bodies could be seen but the smell of death hung close.
-- a description of the recent airliner crash scene in Nigeria.

This is quite different from the flight 93 "crash scene", where almost no human remains were apparent near the crash site and NO ONE reported any death smell.

The official story is that the human remains were not visible because the bodies were almost completely burned upon impact of the plane and the subsequent explosion:
As coroner, responsible for returning human remains, Miller has been forced to share with the families information that is unimaginable. As he clinically recounts to them, holding back very few details, the 33 passengers, seven crew and four hijackers together weighed roughly 7,000 pounds. They were essentially cremated together upon impact. Hundreds of searchers who climbed the hemlocks and combed the woods for weeks were able to find about 1,500 mostly scorched samples of human tissue totaling less than 600 pounds, or about 8 percent of the total.
But if 6000 pounds of human flesh burned, WOULDN'T IT SMELL ABSOLUTELY HORRIBLE at the crash site?

But instead, people who arrived at the scene very shortly after the crash only spoke of the smell of jet fuel and the smell of burning rubber from a burning tire. No one spoke of the smell of burnt flesh-- which is a very distinct and horrible smell.

Very very odd-- and along with the fact that the coroner never saw any blood anywhere, supports the idea that the human remains were planted, and the flight 93 crash site faked.
Bookmark and Share

Friday, November 04, 2005

Cheney is a Piece of Shit

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, November 03, 2005

The Case of the Suddenly Appearing Plane

I have seen videos here and there of "flight 175" suddenly popping into view. But I just found (courtesy of "Rob"), the best video yet showing this phenomenon.

Strikingly, the plane coming suddenly into view is fairly clearly not from:
1) an effect of perspective, where the plane is suddenly close enough to see
2) an effect of splicing in plane flying footage suddenly on still footage, as one can see a faint blur before the plane appears
3) the plane emerging from behing clouds or haze.

It is very ODD, as the plane simply POPS into view.

There are only two explanations:
1) this was some sort of stealth plane suddenly turning on UA flight 175 "camouflage" before it approaches Manhattan and strikes the WTC.
2) the footage was faked by having a plane digitally inserted into it.
Bookmark and Share

UA versus AA

Yet another 9/11 curiosity is how flights 11 and 77, both American Airlines flights, were not listed in the BTS database following 9/11, whereas flight 175 and 93, both United Airlines flights, were listed.

There has been a lot of speculation about what this means, with Gerard Holmgren and others saying that flight 11 and flight 77 didn't exist. I tend to think that these were real flights that loaded passengers, but that the flights never took off. The planes probably taxied to some remote part of the airport, the passengers loaded onto another plane or vehicle, and then were taken away and killed. The reason the flights didn't show up in the BTS database is because they never took off.

A related point is that for the three flights that officially hit targets: 11, 175 and 77, there was a LOT of initial confusion over what flight was what and what flight hit where. But for flight 93, which was also hijacked and "lost", there was NEVER any doubt about where it was and what it was doing (officially). The oddest aspect of this was that flight 175 wasn't officially recognized as being lost until 12 noon on 9/11-- three hours AFTER it supposedly hit the WTC. How could UNITED be so confused over where their own plane went and what plane was missing? Most likely flight 175 took off with its passengers, and then was diverted somehow to a place were it landed in secret and the passengers also takne away for disposal. A similar thing most likely happened to flight 93.

In any case, the four official plane crashes on 9/11 most likely were either total fakes (flights 77 and 93), or involved other aircraft than the official story (flights 11 and 175). Here, it is one of each for both airlines.

Flight 11, of course, is the twin flight, and I think it likely that one or both of the flight 11's that took off actually played the role of pretending to be hijacked.

Another possibility is that the four flights were part of a terror drill or part of the live-fly-hijacking drill that was being run on 9/11. As I have discussed before, this makes some sense for flight 93, for a number of reasons.
Bookmark and Share

Bush at 35%

I'm mostly citing this because of its historical interest.

There hasn't been a second term president with this low of an approval rating since Nixon.

The question is: how low can Bush go?

If nothing else, this sort of thing restores my faith in the American people. It's remarkable that Bush is at 35% despite a generally very deferential and non-confrontational press-- a press that obviously has let Bush get away with a hell of a lot in the past five years. But by and large, the American people aren't fooled.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, November 02, 2005

"Second" Thoughts

More thoughts on the second hit.

a) if by some chance the second hit was staged completely with planted explosives, it was an amazing job, and you almost want to say "bravo". Overall because of the way the explosives coincide with the "plane" impact and move at the speed of the plane, it is almost impossible to imagine this being staged. Thus, I still think it most likely there was some flying device involved.

b) this video of the second plane is very odd. When the plane approaches, there is a very odd lack of perspective.

c) One reason why the second hit is so strange is the way videos of the plane going into the building show it going in very cleanly and smoothly, without any explosion at the site of impact. In fact, the plane goes ALL the way in, then explosions appear, culminating with the big spetacular fireball out the other side. My thought on this is-- if the plane could go in so easily one side, why didn't it come out more intact the other side? Inside there was little in terms of structure-- certainly nothing like the steel walls and concrete floors where the plane impacted. I wonder if we should expect to see some very large pieces of the plane coming out the other side. I know there are some pieces that go shooting out with the fireball, but what about very large chunks of fuselage and the huge engines? There should be large metal pieces that don't get burned in the fireball. The only explanation is that the initial impact tore the plane up into small pieces, and this is what we would expect. The PROBLEM is the video shows the plane going in completely intact, even where it should be impacting concrete floors! So, this is a conundrum, I think. Either the plane was incredibly penetrating and thus should have come out more intact on the other side, or the plane should have been been more visibly broken up as it hit the building on first impact.

d) In terms of what happened to the tail, this picture shows more of a mark for the tail than an earlier one I had. Though it is still not clear if the tail went all the way in.

e) One reason I have long thought that something was fishy with the second hit is the spetacular, "cinematic" fireball that comes bursting out the other side of the hit. While it is plausible (and this is why most people don't question it), that the fireball is a simple consequence of the plane breaking up, the fuel releasing, mixing with air and then continuing outside by sheer momentum to blow up in a firework-like manner, there are still three points to seriously consider:
--was the huge volume of the explosion consistent with the amount of fuel that would be carried outside by the crash?
--does kerosene (which is not nearly as volatile as, for instance, gasoline) explode
like that, even when mixed optimally with air?
-- what was the missile-like object that appeared right before the fireball blossomed?

f) Were ANY plane SEATS reported as being found outside any 9/11 crash? I know there were pieces of seats found a couple of miles from the official flight 93 crash site, and supposedly there were plane seats inside the pentagon (no pictures though)-- but wouldn't you expect some plane seats to come flying out the WTC?

g) I would never doubt that 767's were involved in the WTC hits if it were not for the fact that the case that the flight 77 and flight 93 crashes were faked is fairly strong.

h) The "no plane" theory does overcome that pesky issue of what happened to the air defenses on 9/11! Also, there is evidence that flights 11 and 77 never took off. And once again, I'll point out that Gerard Holmgren makes a good, logical case for not using planes on 9/11.
Bookmark and Share

Powered by Blogger