Humint Events Online: February 2006

Tuesday, February 28, 2006

A 767 Impact on the South Tower Would Have Impacted the Core

I put this diagram together of a 767 impacting the south WTC tower (as we all saw on TeeVee many times):

The plane alignment is based on this FEMA/NIST diagram (click to enlarge; sorry, don't know what's going on with the picture formatting):

Note: THE FUSELAGE IMPACTS BETWEEN TWO FLOORS, meaning the fuselage directly impacted a floor slab.

This picture shows how massive the core columns were (click to enlarge; sorry, don't know what's going on with the picture formatting):

The tall beam on the right-hand corner of the core area shows a core beam quite well. These were HUGE, THICK and STRONG construction-grade steel columns. A plane wouldn't have much of a chance against a couple of these. Certainly, they would have ripped the starbaord wing from the fuselage.

So, even saying that a huge 767 could have caved in one or two of these beams, how likely is it that a 767 would smash through the outer wall, smash into these core beams and NOT EVEN SLOW OR EXPLODE AT THE POINT OF CONTACT??????

If you look at the link, the plane should be contacting the core at frame 6, and slowing by frame 7, and exploding by frame 9. If you click through, there is no explosion until frame 35, and this is on the other side of the building!


There are several other interesting questions that arise from this finding:
1) the plane hits essentially straight on in the video (wings are parallel to the wall), and so should have emerged directly out the opposite side as it entered. Why does the main fireball come out ONLY on the northeast corner of the building (i.e. nothing shoots out from the direct opposite side of where the plane goes in)?
2) what happens to the rest of the plane if only the starboard wing and engine smash through to the northeast corner (if we assume the core columns prevent the fuselage from breaking off to the southeast)?
3) how could the starboard wing and engine produce all the explosion and pieces of debris seen coming out of the building?
4) why do so many people think the fuselage missed the core? Is this simply because it is the only way to explain all the debris that comes out the northeast corner?
5) what exactly caused the first little dimply explosions that appeared on the east wall after the "plane" entered? The wing-tip is the only thing close, and seems unlikely to produce so much damage.

Doesn't the fact that the plane didn't slow or explode upon impacting the core PROVE something very STRANGE happened here-- such as perhaps there was no plane at all?

Some good pictures of the aftermath of the South tower and North tower hits are here. Curious how much of the aluminum "cladding" around the outer wall of the south tower is bent OUTWARDS.

Update: I noticed southeast should be northeast corner, and this was corrected in the original post.
Bookmark and Share

Jim Fetzer on the Electric Politics Show

Really really good interview here. Some excellent points raised about controlled demolition, about the amorphous nature of the "war on terror", about Katrina, the militarization of America, about vote fraud, about the loser Democrats, about what has happened to conservatives, etc etc.

I like the fact that Fetzer is actually outraged about the state of the country!!!!!
Bookmark and Share

Monday, February 27, 2006

A Brilliant Video

"9/11 Revisited". Please spread this far and wide. Note: this is a viewing portal for the video.

The video relates to the demolition of the WTC. Has some amazing local TV coverage from the morning of 9/11 I hadn't seen before.

Here's the website for the video, which can be purchased for only the cost of shipping here. It can be watched online at from the homesite here.

And here is yet a different link for the video.

One of the highlights for me: watching Lee Hamilton squirm on C-SPAN when asked about the idea of government complicity in 9/11. Interestingly, he said it was an extraordinary claim, said it needed proof, it was bin Laden's plot, said the commission found no evidence for it-- but NEVER DENIED IT!
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, February 26, 2006

File Under "Synthetic Terror"

The bombing of the Golden Mosque in Iraq-- who benefits?
British Prime Minister Tony Blair stated that those who committed the attack on the Golden Mosque “have only one motive: to create a violent sedition between the Sunnis and the Shiites in order to derail the Iraqi rising democracy from its path.”

Well said Mr. Blair, particularly when we keep in mind the fact that less than a year ago in Basra, two undercover British SAS soldiers were detained by Iraqi security forces whilst traveling in a car full of bombs and remote detonators.

Jailed and accused by Muqtada al-Sadr and others of attempting to generate sectarian conflict by planting bombs in mosques, they were broken out of the Iraqi jail by the British military before they could be tried.
The bombing came shortly after the Abu Ghraib scandal popped up again. The Abu Ghraib crimes helped solidify sentiment against the US. An Iraq united against its American and British occupiers is trouble. A divided, bloody Iraq, while ugly and a PR problem, nevertheless helps the occupiers stay entrenched. This of course is the old British divide-and-conquer strategy.

Could it be any more obvious what is going on here?
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, February 25, 2006

9/11 Hoax Site

Many interesting pieces relating to the 9/11 media hoax and the no plane theory.

I don't follow or agree with everything Scott Loughrey has here, but he raises many important points.

By the way, this is the best page for viewing the Ghost Plane footage (I always have had trouble finding this, but I see it is linked on Scott's site).
Bookmark and Share

Morgan Reynolds Has A Website

Some good articles here.
Bookmark and Share

What He Says

Bookmark and Share

No Planes Hit the WTC Towers?

A summary of the evidence for no planes:

1) flight 11 never took off, and the flight that was labelled flight 11 by air traffic control was 10 miles from manhattan at 8:46am

2) for a few reasons, the footage of flight 175 hitting the south tower is clearly fake

3) in the footage of both strikes, the planes slide into the towers without slowing-- this is impossible according to laws of physics

4) No black boxes were found at ground zero (officially). It's not that boxes were found where the data was destroyed-- NO BOXES WERE FOUND AT ALL. These devices are meant to withstand incredibly extreme conditions.

5) plane wings shouldn't slice through the steel beams of the WTC and leave a perfect imprint

6) almost no plane parts were found in the WTC rubble that was SIFTED for human remains

7) witnesses exist who saw the south tower explode but didn't see a plane

8) plane parts, such as the too small engine found in the streets of lower Manhattan, look planted. Why would they need to plant plane parts if real planes were used?

9) a good case for no planes can be made at the Pentagon or Shanksville; why would planes be used to strike the WTC and not these other sites?

10) unlikely the terrorists could have piloted planes so effectively; logistically, using missiles/pre-planted bombs easier to control than real commercial planes

Summary of the evidence for planes:

1) the gov't told us there were planes; the news media repeated this as fact

2) a plane was shown hitting the South WTC tower on TV, many times, from many angles

3) the Naudet movie of first hit appears real and appears to show a plane hitting the North tower

4) witnesses claim to have seen planes

5) some plane parts were found
Bookmark and Share

Friday, February 24, 2006

The First Hit, Reconsidered

I really got to wondering exactly what the shadows of 767 wings would look like on the WTC, and so last night I did an experiment with a small model plane, a small model tower and a light source that mimicked the early morning sun on 9/11.

I'll post the pictures at some point, but the bottom line is this, if the picture is out of focus, the actual wings don't show up well-- much like in the naudet video. Moreover, due to the angle of the light source and the length of the front fuselage, the wings don't make a shadow on the building until the wings MEET the building (or slightly before). In fact, the shadows seen in frames 54 and 55 here, are not inconsistent with large wings. In particular, the weird shadows in frame 55 actually look quite a bit like the distorted shadows cast by the wings of my small model 767.

This certainly doesn't prove a 767 hit the tower, of course-- all I'm saying is the video is not inconsistent with a 767.

But there are still some oddities here, and I am going to run through them without sourcing anything. I just want to get all these facts down in order to better think.

Flight 11 (a Boeing 767):
1) apparently was a twin flight
2) the only 9/11 flight with no passenger calls
3) officially piloted by Mohamed Atta
4) officially hit the north tower at 8:46am
5) was several miles from Manhattan at 8:46am (according to air traffic control data)
6) never took off according to the BTS database

The Naudet video of the first hit:
1) out of focus
2) shows a plane like object hitting the WTC north tower
3) at first impact, there is a bizarre bright flash--is it an explosion?
4) the object goes into the building but is overwhelmed by large explosions
5) very complicated shadows play on the wall as the object goes in, these may come from the wings that aren't seen
6) the plane-object enters the building at the same speed as it was flying beofre it hit (judging by frame numbers)
6) the explosion starts immediately upon impact, near where the fuselage would go in
7) the explosion shifts and secondary explosions develop along where wings would have impacted the building
7) a huge explosion eventually develops where the plane went in, then other explosions come out other parts of the building (side and top)

After the first hit:
1) there is a hole roughly with the same proportions as a front profile as a 767
2) long gashes in the wall correspond to winglength of a 767

Comparing the first and second hits
1) both planes go in very fast, at the same speed as what they were flying before they impacted
2) there is a large explosion as soon as the first plane hits while there is no explosion in the second hit until the plane has gone in
3) for the first hit, the main explosion seems to be out the side the plane went in, whereas for the second hit, the the main explosion comes from opposite the side the plane went in
4) for the second hit, parts of the plane seem to come out the other side; we don't know about the first hit
5) the first hit plane most likely struck the strong WTC core head-on, whereas the the fuselage of the second plane probably missed the core (assuming there was a real plane)
6) offcially, no black boxes were found for either plane
7) Webfairy says the second hit is a cartoon (the plane image is fake) whereas the first hit is real, shows a real object-- I tend to believe this

1) the evidence we have for the first hit is consistent with a real 767 crash, although we don't know for sure if it was a 767, and other possibilities exist, such as some sort of large Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (or a group of them mimicking a large plane)

2) holograms would probably cast shadows, and so the hologram idea for the first hit is not very strong

3) I still have a lot of trouble with the idea of plane wings cutting through the steel beams of the WTC walls so precisely and throughout their length. This is why I speculated about pre-planted charges that mimicked the wing impacts. And in the Naudet video of the first hit, one can see seemingly independent explosions going off where the plane wings would have impacted. But on the other hand, if there were wings (because of the shadows), that means a tremendous amount of (and unlikely) coordination to get a plane to crash at the perfect spot where there were pre-planted charges. In fac, the biggest problem I have with real planes hitting the WTCs is the cartoonish hole they left behind. It simply looks faked (the idea being that the wing-shaped holes were pre-planned to make it LOOK as though a large plane hit).

4) So the first hit is a bit of a mystery all around-- the plane (flight 11) never took off, there was a double flight 11, flight 11 wasn't near Manhattan at 8:46am; yet much more than the second hit, it looked like a real crash (except for the wing-imprints)

5) flight 175 officially DID take off and its official path took it to NYC at the right time-- yet the videos of this plane clearly are faked at some fundamental level. Moreover, there was some confusion throughout the day of 9/11 about flight 175-- it took the authorities a LONG time to announce that flight 175 was what hit the tower.

6) Possibilities for the second hit:
---a) that a real plane was used in the second hit, but it wasn't captured on video, and so networks pasted a plane in for "dramatic effect"
---b) that a real plane was used in the second hit, but it wasn't the right kind of plane, and so networks pasted a United 767 as part of the cover-up (but this wouldn't explain why network footage of the plane varies)
---c) that there was no real plane involved in the second hit, it was all an elaborate hoax involving fake video and pre-planted bombs
---d) the second hit was carried out with a hologram-cloaked missile (but this wouldn't explain why network footage of the plane varies)

For some reason, my gut has told me for a while that the first hit was with a real plane and the second hit was some sort of elaborate fake-- though why the plotters would do it this way is hard to imagine. I wonder if there was a mix-up somewhere and flight 175 was what hit the north tower? The second hit is clearly a cartoon and fits with a fake plane (flight 11) that never took off. There is still the problem of the wing imprints for both strikes on the towers.

I still can't figure the damn thing out.
Bookmark and Share

Planes Hitting Buildings

Some lesser known examples:

Bookmark and Share

Planes are Funny Things

They can slice through steel columns, yet are amazingly vulnerable to small birds.

Those birds must be like kryptonite:
22 February 1999. A Boeing-757 departing Cincinnati/Northern Kentucky International Airport (KY) had to return and make emergency landing after hitting large flock of starlings. Both engines and 1 wing received extensive damage. About 400 dead starlings were found on runway area.

Then there is this:
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, February 23, 2006

Best Hijacker Compilation, EVER!

Really awesome work here from John Doe II.

Every thing ever written about the hijackers in the mainstream media has been summarized here, essentially. An awesome resource, and something that deserves some serious attention.

By the way, I am putting this in the links on the right, in the 9/11 specialty sites section: "the ultimate hijacker compilation"-- for easy access.
Bookmark and Share

A Cure for Your 9/11 Blues

Bookmark and Share

The 9/11 Media Hoax

I finally figured out why the mainstream media refuses to touch 9/11.

They were in on the whole damn plot.

This also explains why they have been so protective of Bush over 9/11 as well. The sorry fact is, the mainstream media essentially lionized Bush after 9/11-- when he fucking presided over the worst national security failure in the history of the US.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, February 22, 2006

The Videos of the Second Hit Were Faked

There simply is NO DOUBT anymore. There are too many discrepencies at too many different angles.

So what does this tell us about what we all saw on TV?

I don't know about you, but this massive fraud makes me angry.
Bookmark and Share

Bush Threatens to Veto Block of UAE Port Deal

Look, a lot of people are saying-- how could Bush do this? This is playing into the hands of terrorists, blah blah blah.


If you use this premise to look at what the Bush administration does, suddenly a lot of things make a lot more sense.

Cripes, what will it take for the fucking media to wake up? Because they are the ones keeping the vast majority of the public in the dark.
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, February 21, 2006

At Least One of These Videos Must Be Fake

This one or this one.

Here is my analysis showing that there is a major discrepency in the flight paths between these videos of the second hit. Thus, at least one of the videos is wrong, if not both. And if ONE video was faked, why was it done and what does it say about other second hit videos?

The grey squares represent the south tower of the WTC. The dotted line represents where the plane went behind the building and is a surmised path.

Note-- even if you don't believe the differences in angle to the WTC, there is absolutely no denying that one video shows the plane coming in flat ("Big Fake") while the other shows the plane descending considerably right before impact ("Blue Plane").
Bookmark and Share

Monday, February 20, 2006

Plane Crash Results

Bookmark and Share


No, not the old McCartney band.

The wings on a 767-200ER, the type of plane flight 11 was:

They are fairly large structures in comparison to the plane. Also, they didn't jut straight out-- they sweep back at an angle.

So why do the wings in this plane cast such a small, straight shadow?

In fact, if you look at the whole impact sequence, the wings never cast ANY significant shadow on the wall!

Very odd.
Bookmark and Share

If Bush's Illegal NSA Spying Really Shows How Tough the Administration Is On Terror

why are they running away from congressional investigations?

Couldn't they use the investigations to show how the spying is saving lives?

Really, what are they afraid of?
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, February 19, 2006

Plane Crashes

I found a couple of interesting plane crash videos on

This one, which used to be on the Sandia website but was taken off, shows a how a jet going 500 mph completely disintegrates when it smashes into a concrete wall. It was supposed to be a test of the shell of a nuclear reactor-- to make sure a plane couldn't penetrate. The concrete wall is about three feet thick and the plane almost atomizes.

This one shows a jet crashing on the deck of an aircraft carrier as it tries to land and misses. The plane is going fairly fast but when it hits the edge of the aircraft carrier, the airframe lurches in the very next frame and the next frame after that, the plane breaks apart and the fuel ignites and explodes! This is quite unlike the "second hit" where the plane continues going into the building without seeming to realize that it has crashed at all! Moreover, with this aircraft carrier clip, the jet's body clearly lurches and changes direction in one frame. It is not as though the top part of the jet slices cleanly away from the rest of the plane and keeps going in the same path-- as some would have us believe would happen if a plane hit the steel beams of a building.

Bottom line: no real jet airplane hit the second WTC tower on 9/11. Videos that show the plane gliding smoothly into the tower are fakes.
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, February 18, 2006

Frame-by-Frame Analysis: Extreme Weirdness in the First Hit

This is an analysis of frames 50-58 from the Naudet capture of the first hit-- images taken from here.

Frame 50-- The object here looks roughly plane-like, there is a faint left-wing. Is the nose of the "plane" just penetrating the wall here?

Frame 51-- The object has become extremely distorted in this frame, with only the fainstest whispers of wings. Most importantly, there some sort of explosive flash here!

Frame 52-- The object looks extremely strange here. There is no trace of wings at all. There appears to be an explosion cloud developing UNDER where the "fuselage is entering the building". This is in large contrast to the second hit there was no explosion at the point of entry until the end. The "tail" has barely seemed to have moved in these three frames.

Frame 53-- Again, the "tail" still hasn't moved much, and there is only the faintest whisper of wings (shorter than before). The explosive cloud has shifted shape dramatically, producing a different, broader shadow.

Frame 54-- The tail has still barely moved, seemingly. Even more striking, the explosive cloud has developed a bizarre, very hard edge, leaving a very large dark shadow.

Frame 55-- The tail has still barely seemed to move. The shadow has grown even bigger and more strange-looking. Are new explosions developing next to the fuselage, about where the engines would be? Or have the wings suddenly reappeared?

Frame 56-- Has the tail gone in a little more now? Why has it lost shape? Why does it look like so far to the left now? The explosion on the left has moved somewhat. And suddenly a long wing-like shadow devleops on the right side. What is casting this shadow??? Are there new explosions on the right side? Any plane wing should have gone in or broken off by now. Is something large shooting out of the impact area-- the pointy, white object and creating that pointy shadow?

Frame 57-- Is the tail mostly gone now??? Is there any "plane" visible or is it all explosion? The right side shadow has faded some and become detached from the rest of the impact.

Frame 58-- The tail appears to be gone. Just an explosive cloud in the middle now, probably projecting out of the building a ways judging from the shadow. The right-side shadow is gone. Some stuff still happening on the left side, extending out quite far.

A close-up of the complete strike can be seen here.

CONCLUSION: Contrary to Webfairy and Holmgren, I do think the flying object looks like a plane when it is in the air. Like many people, I think it is clear that the plane is smaller than a 767. The real weirdness starts when the plane hits the building. The sequence is quite different from the second hit, where the plane glides in without any significant explosion.

I calculated the speed of this 1st hit plane, and it also doesn't slow much when it hits the building. It goes in in about 8 frames at most, and the plane in the air takes 12 frames to cross its length. The main problem is determining when the plane has gone all the way in as explosions greatly distort the view of the plane. What is strange is the way the tail never clearly enters the building, and seems to hang there for a time.

Overall, in contrast to the 2nd hit, the 1st hit looks somewhat more like you would expect a real plane to act when it crashes into a large steel frame building-- with large explosions developing immediately around where the plane goes in, and some distortion of the airplane's frame (the tail seems to jerk around a bit and slow down speed). Unfortunately we only have one low resolution video of this event, and so we cannot draw too many conclusions. The truly strange thing about this video is how the wings disappear, and this is why some people think the first hit was from a missile or a cluster of missile-like objects. I think it is possible this thing was a hologram-cloaked missile, where pre-planted bombs extended the wing damage.

The major conundrums are: why the plane looks small, what happens to the wings, and if it is a small plane, how does it leave a big imprint in the wall? There is also the bizarreness of the explosions (assuming that these are explosions)-- in terms of how quickly they change shape and cast large shadows.

Of course, this last question gets into the whole issue of whether plane wings could actually slice through the steel columns of the WTC wall (see here and here for instance). I think this is unlikely, as I have explained in previous posts. This is one more reason why I posit pre-planted explosives and a missile which has been "cloaked" to look like a plane.
Bookmark and Share

Friday, February 17, 2006

Even Assuming This Is A Real Airplane

I really can't figure out what is going on here* (although this is really only part of the weirdness):

*frames 50-55 from the Naudet capture of the first hit-- stolen from here.

A close-up of the complete strike can be seen here.
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, February 16, 2006

A Missile Cloaked With A Bad Hologram?

Basically, what the first hit looks like, now that I look at it yet again.

I would guess that the explosions along where the "wings" hit are pre-planted cutting charges.
Bookmark and Share


Bookmark and Share

Great Moments in Bullshitting

A comment by "Pinch":

The destruction of an airliner traveling over 400 knots as it hits, at a wing-down attitude of 25 degrees, the upper floors of a skyscraper is completely consistant [sic] with what is seen on the videos.

Oh yes, of course! It is completely consistent with something that has NEVER HAPPENED BEFORE and that NO ONE HAS ANY IDEA EXACTLY WHAT IT WOULD LOOK LIKE!

How the fuck would anyone know what a plane with "wing-down attitude of 25 degrees" hitting "the upper floors of a skyscraper" would look like?

This of course is opposed to a plane with "wing-down attitude of 32 degrees" hitting "the upper floors of a skyscraper".


The destruction of an airliner traveling over 400 knots as it hits, at a wing-down attitude of 25 degrees, the upper floors of a skyscraper is completely consistant [sic] with what is seen on the videos.

What a humongous load of bull-ploopy.

One thing that I DO know however is that an airplane traveling at 400 knots hitting a steel-framed skyscraper should SLOW DOWN as it hits.
Bookmark and Share

So, According to Several Video Clips, the Second Plane Plowed Into WTC Without Slowing and Without Any Piece Breaking Off

What does this mean?

Let us assume this was a real plane-- that because of its huge size, mass and speed, was able to easily break through the outer walls of the WTC tower and also through multiple floor slabs and various inner walls and filing cabinets, desks, etc.

Because the plane went in FULL SPEED, we can safely say that the plane entered the building completely and in completely intact condition. Because any destruction of the plane would have slowed it considerably. This is simple logic.

Now here is where it gets interesting.

The plane was a 767, which is 160 feet long.

The WTC tower was 208 feet thick.

So we saw the plane go in completely, full speed, then the plane disappeared inside the building and a fireball appeared out the other side with a few small chunks going out with plane-like momentum.

Where did the plane go?

Since the plane went in intact, how did it get completely destroyed by 48 feet remaining structure after plowing full speed through 160 feet?

This of course makes no sense.

If a 767 completely penetrated into the WTC tower full speed IT SHOULD HAVE FUCKING EMERGED OUT THE OTHER SIDE.

It is ridiculous to assume that it could penetrate 3/4 of the buildings thickness, and then get completely destroyed by the last 1/4.

So we have two main choices here:

1) there was a huge bomb on the plane that exactly as the plane was completely inside the structure and before it could come out the other side, and this huge bomb completely destroyed the plane. I think this is fairly unlikely. If you think the fuel should have acted as a bomb, the question is why the plane didn't slow down, break up and explode BEFORE it disappeared completely inside the building (which a normal plane should have).

2) there was no real plane shown in the video.

The answer would seem to be (2).

This gives us further options:

a) there was no plane at all, and the videos showed only a digital plane; the explosion was recreated by pre-planted explosives; this implicates the media in the hoax

b) a large missile struck the building, penetrated it, then exploded inside. This missile:
i) was cloaked in a holographic shield that recreated the image of a plane
ii) digitally camoflaged by a plane image over the missile to cover up the clear indication of government involvment; this also implicates the media in the hoax

Frankly, I have no idea WHAT happened on 9/11. But I do know that the WTC towers were not hit by a 767*.

I also think the idea of a missile that could cloak itself in a hologram is technically feasible, and it also is the simplest explanation for ALL of 9/11. That is, all the very odd "plane" crashes of 9/11: the WTC, the Pentagon, Shanksville, can be explained by the use of hologram-cloaked missiles, presumably which originated from the US military.

However, there is still some evidence for clear video manipulation in the case of the second tower strike, and I think the media was guilty in this regard. Whether they were in on the plot is unclear. Possibly they altered videos of the second hit, inserted planes they never saw, simply to make the images more dramatic.

*remember, they never officially recovered black boxes from ground zero.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, February 15, 2006

The Second Hit Plane Did Not Slow At All Upon Impact

If you look at the footage Webfairy has broken down here, you can see how the plane moves frame by frame.

The plane takes ten frames to enter the building.

Webfairy explains here how she formatted the videos, and says the videos were taken at 30 frames per second. This is consistent with other sources on the frame rate of video.

Okay, so we know the length of a 767 is 160 feet.

This means it takes 1 second to show 480 feet traveled by the plane (160 times 3 = 30 frames per second). So the plane is traveling 480 feet per second, which works out to 28,800 feet per minute and 5.45 miles per minute, which works out to 327 mile per hour-- AS IT ENTERS THE BUILDING.

So how fast was the plane moving before it entered the building?

The top left clip here shows the plane moving before it hits the building. Since the plane is moving against a column of smoke, we can use this as reference and see that the camera is not moving significantly.

Before it hits the building, the plane takes 12 frames to cross its own length, or 160 feet.

This means it takes 1 second to show 400 feet traveled by the plane (30 frames per second divided by 12 frames = 2.5/sec; 160 times 2.5/sec = 400 feet/sec). So the plane is traveling 400 feet per second, which works out to 24,000 feet per minute and 4.5 miles per minute, which works out to 272 miles per hour-- BEFORE IT ENTERS THE BUILDING.

Right before the impact
, the plane takes about 12 frames to cross its length, though this is trickier to measure as the camera is moving. Nonehteless, it seems extremely unlikely in the few seconds before the plane hits that it accelerated significantly -- so we can assume the plane did not slow upon impact. If anything the plane accelerated upon impact, but this may be due to the limitation in these types of measurements. What is clear, however, is that the plane does NOT SLOW UPON IMPACT.



1) the plane met no resistance upon impacting the steel building (which is impossible)

2) the plane disintegrated sequentially as it entered the wall, and this disintegration had no effect on the non-disintegrated part of the plane (which seems impossible)

3) the plane was not real, it was a digital image inserted in the footage of the building exploding.

Anyone want to pick a choice?

p.s. Oddly, the speed of the second hit varies widely from video clip to video clip. The official speed was almost 600 mph, but I don't believe this. I think it was probably going a more reasonable 300 mph-- although if the plane only existed on a computer, it is not clear how meaningful this is!

Update: One other point One other point, which I forgot to put in the post is that if you measure the lengths of plane per frame as it goes in, it is fairly even. Thus the speed does not even appear to change as the plane enters the building. So,
even if you make the unlikely assumption the pilot accelerated maximally exactly as he hit (which given the turn he was supposedly making is really difficult I think), it is not like the plane goes in faster and then slows down as it goes in, giving an overall average speed that is the same as the pre-impact speed.

FINAL CONCLUSION: the plane does not slow upon or during the impact.
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, February 14, 2006

New Second Hit Video

Here (scroll down to bottom).

Weird-- the approach path the plane takes to the building is VERY DIFFERENT from other videos.

I suspect this yet another fake.

UPDATE: The reason I think this is a fake is because of the extreme angle the plane takes to approach the tower. Basically, it is coming at the tower from a southwest approach, to hit a target facing straight south-- which meant the plane would have:

a) hit the tower at about a 45 degree angle-- whereas shots of the plane hitting the south face have it coming in essentially straight, with both wings hitting at the same time. There simply is not enough time for the plane to turn flush to the building in the Body Atomic/CNN clip.

b) if you track the plane's path outward from where it was going, the plane should have smashed out the east wall of the south tower. Certainly from the approach the plane takes, and the speed it is going at, it does not seem possible for it to hit the southeast corner of the tower (where the hole was) yet come straight out the northeast corner. Just not possible.

Interestingly, this camera angle is identical to the shot CNN uses in one clip with Aaron Brown-- the "actual-crash.avi" footage you can find pretty easily through Google. Tip to PerpetualYnquisitve for this pick-up.

UPDATE 2: Note, this video manipulation doesn't necessarily mean there was no plane there. For instance, CNN may just have wanted dramatic footage of the plane they could show from Aaron Brown's "rooftop" vantage point, so they made footage showing the plane coming into the WTC at an extreme angle. I suspect the BodyAtomic video was some version of the CNN footage.
Bookmark and Share

Sister of Flight 77 Pilot Burlinghame: Shill for Government Spying

Bookmark and Share

Weather Control

As I predicted after Katrina, it is coming out in the open, since I (along with many people) suspect they already had this technology going.
Bookmark and Share


A cool video here, and a bunch here.

(sorry, Windows format only)
Bookmark and Share


Weird, I would have thought Raw Story's scoop yesterday that Plame was working on Iran's WMD program would have been picked up by some major news organization.

Considering how Iran is being waved around as the next big threat, doesn't the Plame outing take on a new significance, and give the treason charge a little more zing?

Of course, I always thought the story that a male prostitute posing as a reporter stayed overnight in the Bush White House multiple times would be of major national interest.

Certainly the Monica Lewinsky story took on a great deal of life, and another White House sex scandal would seem just as juicy.


Even the definition of treason.

Funny how that worked out for the Bushies.
Bookmark and Share

Hunting Humans

Initially, I thought the Cheney hunting story was just silly, much ado made about a mere accident by an overly impulsive VP.

But-- Cheney is one weird dude, and this story may fit the pattern of high weirdness that is associated with Cheney.
Bookmark and Share

Monday, February 13, 2006

Was Plame Outed SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE She Might Tell The Truth About Iranian WMD?

That's my guess.
According to current and former intelligence officials, Plame Wilson, who worked on the clandestine side of the CIA in the Directorate of Operations as a non-official cover (NOC) officer, was part of an operation tracking distribution and acquisition of weapons of mass destruction technology to and from Iran.

Speaking under strict confidentiality, intelligence officials revealed heretofore unreported elements of Plame's work. Their accounts suggest that Plame's outing was more serious than has previously been reported and carries grave implications for U.S. national security and its ability to monitor Iran's burgeoning nuclear program.
I think this was exactly the point. With the presumably honest Plame out of the way, the Cheney-ites could stove-pipe whatever bad intelligence they wanted in order to sell an Iran invasion to an unsuspecting US population.
Bookmark and Share

The Case for Controlled Demolition of the WTC Towers

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, February 12, 2006

Reason #1054 Why the Official 9/11 Story Makes No Sense

According to Jere Longman's "Among the Heroes", which is the most protracted version available for the official version of flight 93, when flight 93 crashed, the cockpit and the front third of the plane shattered on the ground, yet the ground was so soft that the rest of the plane was completely swallowed up leaving only a smoking crater with various pieces of debris scattered around. Officially, the cockpit broke into millions of tiny pieces, including the people in the cockpit, and it was only the people in the front of the plane (hijackers and the people attacking the hijackers) whose remains were found outside the crater. Officially, the rest of the passengers' remains were located in the crater.

Here you can see a close-up of the crater:

Here is the crater from a distance. There were no large plane parts anywhere close to the crater:

So, got that?

The front of the flight 93 Boeing 757 smashed apart ON SOFT GROUND as the plane impacted nose first.

What about the other planes on 9/11?

The fronts of those planes were virtually made of titanium, as ALL three penetrated completely into building walls that were constructed of either steel (WTC) or thick stone and concrete (Pentagon).

One of the most amazing contradictions in all of 9/11.
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, February 11, 2006

Here's the Thing I Have Never Understood If the Official 9/11 Story is True:

why did the Bush administration do such an incredibly piss-poor job of bringing democracy to Iraq?

There was almost no planning for the aftermath of the invasion, and what has emerged is hardly a secular democracy that is clearly friendly to US/western interests.

Let's say the Bush administration version of the 9/11 story is true-- the 9/11 attacks were carried out solely by crazed Islamists who bubbled up from the sick depths of Islamofascism (which made them into the fucked-up twisted creatures they were), and so they hated us and attacked us. They were fundamentalist Muslims who hated us for our western freedoms and for our support of Israel.

That's about it, right?

Okay, so the Bush administration said, let's not simply kill the terrorists-- let's fuckin' drain the swamp from which they arose. Let's make the Middle East more democratic (and I honestly have no problem with that, in principle). And Iraq is as goood a place as any to start, because they have this nasty dictator who might have had nasty weapons he could attack us with (somehow, maybe).

Anyway, the important thing is to drain the swamp. Because the sure way to prevent Islamic terrorism in the future is to make the Middle East democratic and make all the Muslims like us.

So, the real goal of invading Iraq was ultimately to prevent another 9/11, right?

And the ultimate way we could do that was by really promoting democracy and by doing nice things so Muslims would like us.

So what did we do in Iraq?

We turned it into fucking hell.

We tortured innocent Iraqis.

We bombed and shot and killed innocent Iraqis.

We did not have enough forces to secure the country and so terrorists took over that blew up innocent Iraqis.

One way or another, we killed thousands and thousands of Iraqis by invading Iraq, thus pissing off thousands and thousands of Iraqis.

Finally, instead of the secular society under Saddam Hussein, we established a Islamic fundamentalist government that is aligned with Iran.

So again, if the official 9/11 story is true, and we wanted to prevent another 9/11 by establishing a western-style democracy in Iraq, because it was a life and death matter--

why the hell didn't the Bush administration take more care and do it right???

Honestly, what they did in Iraq really makes no sense, unless:

a) 9/11 was all a lie and the Bush administration has always had complete control over any major terrorist attack

b) the Bush administration really wants to create more terrorists.

c) both of the above

the option (c) was added in response to a comment.

Further note-- I know the mainstream explanation for the difficulties in Iraq are incompetence on the part of the Bush administration, but this simply doesn't hold water. Incompetence doesn't make you torture people or throw out an extensive post-invasion plan crafted by the State Department. Iraq was a HUGE UNDERTAKING, hugely expensive, with the lives of millions at stake. If we buy the Bush administration line, the future of the US was at stake. This was not some trivial deal that they could do a rush job on. A good analogy to what the Bush administration did in Iraq would be a heart surgeon doing a quadruple bypass then forgetting to sew the arteries up and just pushing the chest together without staples or stitches. Even the worst surgeon wouldn't do that. Yes, I know war is unpredictable and all that. But the Bush administration clearly threw out any reasonable approach and took an incredibly haphazard, essentially deleterious approach to the whole post-invasion period.

In the Iraq war, the future of the Middle East was at stake and the future of the US was at stake-- heck, according to the Bush administration's logic, the fate of the world was at stake, since the US is such an "indispensible player".

Yet they did a BOTCH JOB.

This makes NO sense by any official mainstream logic.

But it DOES make sense if 9/11 was a sham!
Bookmark and Share

This Video can Be Filed Under "Outtakes from the 9/11 TV Movie"

This one here.

Update 2/12/06: the original source of the video is here.

Clearly the video is bad fake.

The question is: how many other videos of the second hit are BETTER fakes?
Bookmark and Share

Did Someone Say the Second Hit Videos Were Faked?

Just a freaking smoking gun here.

Whoops, someone got the timing a bit off, it seems.

This first video stands in contrast to this video. Seems they merged the plane in too early in this second video, rather than too late as in the first video.
Bookmark and Share

Friday, February 10, 2006

9/11: The Harebrained Scheme

Brian DeFord's take.

My take is here (it's shorter).
Bookmark and Share

Considering How Easily the Plot Was "Foiled",

I vote for "idle daydream":
The intelligence officials, who declined to be identified because they did not want to criticize the White House publicly, said there is deep disagreement within the intelligence community over the seriousness of the scheme to attack the 73-story building and whether it was ever much more than talk.

Bruce Hoffman, a terrorism specialist with the Rand Corp., said Bush's account still leaves key questions unanswered.

"It doesn't really give us any more indication of whether this was a plot that was derailed or pre-empted, or a plot that was more in the realm of an idle daydream," Hoffman said.
Bookmark and Share


The mother-fuckers KNEW and let it happen on purpose:
WASHINGTON, Feb. 9 — In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Bush administration officials said they had been caught by surprise when they were told on Tuesday, Aug. 30, that a levee had broken, allowing floodwaters to engulf New Orleans.

But Congressional investigators have now learned that an eyewitness account of the flooding from a federal emergency official reached the Homeland Security Department's headquarters starting at 9:27 p.m. the day before, and the White House itself at midnight.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency official, Marty Bahamonde, first heard of a major levee breach Monday morning. By late Monday afternoon, Mr. Bahamonde had hitched a ride on a Coast Guard helicopter over the breach at the 17th Street Canal to confirm the extensive flooding. He then telephoned his report to FEMA headquarters in Washington, which notified the Homeland Security Department.
What will it take for Bush supporters to see how evil this administration is?

I don't even think it is possible anymore to use hyperbole to describe what this administration does.
Bookmark and Share

Threatening Congress

I really can't decide if congress-critters are just dumb, or if if they are truly scared for their lives:
Just hours after sensors in a U.S. Senate office building detected a nerve agent, a number of key Senators announced a capitulation to the White House's demands on the renewal and expansion of the police-state USA PATRIOT Act.


The agreement Monday no changes to the very flimsy evidentiary standard required to connect someone to a so-called "terrorist" before searching places and records. The Senators only agreed to three minor cosmetic changes, with a focus on library records, with no regard to the broad categories of commercial transactions searched in the wake of the law's passage in 2001.

It should be noted the original PATRIOT Act was passed in the wake of 9/11 while all of the Senate office buildings were shut down after receiving military-grade anthrax in the mail.
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, February 09, 2006

Keystone Kops Kartoon Kontroversy

Are you sick of stories of the cartoon riots yet?

I am.

It would be funny, if it weren't so pathetically tragic and obvious.

Were muslims deliberately provoked to set the stage for an upcoming clash?

Damn straight they were.

However, there is also evidence that muslim leaders are trying to milk this clash for their own ends, in effect saying "bring it on" to the western world.

While the average "muslim on the street" has every reason to be upset, they are being used-- by both sides.

Meanwhile, Americans are being treated to nice doses of propaganda from right-wing blowhards such as Bill Bennett.

Gag me.

On the lighter side, and on a completely unrelated note, this is the funniest thing I've seen in a while.
Bookmark and Share


Most harebrained plot EVER!:
He said that Khalid Sheik Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks who was captured in 2003, had already begun planning the West Coast operation in October, just after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. One of Mohammed's key planners was Hambali, the alleged operations chief of the al-Qaida related terrorist group Jemaah Islamiyah. Instead of recruiting Arab hijackers, Hambali found Southeast Asian men who would be less likely to arouse suspicion and who were sent to meet with Osama bin Laden, Bush said.

Under the plot, the hijackers were to use shoe bombs to blow open the cockpit door of a commercial jetliner, take control of the plane and crash it into the Library Tower in Los Angeles, since renamed the US Bank Tower, Bush said.

How stupid can you get? Even the White House press picked up on how stupid this is:
Q Scott, I wanted to just ask a follow-up about the LA plot. Is there something missing from this story, a practical application, a few facts? Because if you want to commandeer a plane and fly it into a tower, if you used shoe bombs, wouldn't you blow off the cockpit? Or is there something missing from this story?

MR. McCLELLAN: I don't know what you're referring to about missing. I mean, I think we provided you a detailed briefing earlier today about the plot. And Fran Townsend, our Homeland Security Advisor, talked about it. So I'm not sure what you're suggesting it.

Q Think about it, if you're wearing shoe bombs, you either blow off your feet or you blow off the front of the airplane.

MR. McCLELLAN: There was a briefing for you earlier today. I think that's one way to look at it. There are a lot of ways to look at it, and she explained it earlier today, Alexis, so I would refer you very much back to what she said, what she said earlier today.
Most idiotic White House ever, as well.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, February 08, 2006

The Truthlings

Holmgren nails it again:
The official story of Sept 11 contains so many different lies, that it creates endless potential for unscrupulous disinformationists like Jones and Hoffman to make up new lies which are sold with the attractive veneer of admitting carefully selected parts of the truth. The original story as told by the Bush regime and the media was never going to stand up for very long. It has too many holes. But it doesn't need to. As the original story crumbles, it is creating intense competition amongst the different varieties of spin off lies for the title of “truth”. One which is gaining increasing popularity amongst the “truthlings” - the self styled “truth movement” - is to admit the demolition of WTC 1,2 and 7 while keeping most of the rest of the story intact.

The most crucial elements of the rest of the story are that

· Four commercial flights were supposedly hijacked.

· Three planes hit buildings and one crashed in PA.

Both claims are false. Within these false claims, we have every conceivable possible spin off being put forward.

· Hijackings by Arab terrorists as claimed by the Bush regime or electronic hijacking by the regime itself.

· The actual flights claimed by the Bush regime hitting the various targets or substitute planes of some kind.

Any of these lies can be successfully worked into a limited hangout which still protects most of the main architects of the original event and cover up.

What all of these scenarios avoid is the full involvement of the media in showing a cartoon of a fake plane hitting the WTC and passing it off as a real event. Because this cannot be incorporated into any replacement lie which protects the essential infrastructure of the criminal elite which planned and carried out and covered up the attacks, then it is the main target for attack by those are attempting to use partial Sept 11 truth as the platform from which to spin new lies. Limited hangouts are analogous to cheering a revolution because a new bloodthirsty dictator has overthrown the old one.

Any new lie which maintains that the plane we saw on TV was real will be cheered because the exposing of such a monstrous crime as the demolition and deliberately allowing the attacks to happen, or even facilitating them with substitute flights and remote control technology, will understandably seem to many like a breath of fresh air after years of stupid stories about mythical Arab hijackers and intelligence “failures”.

But the apparent breath of fresh air is an illusion. Maintain the central illusion—- that a real plane flew into the Sth tower and we know it’s a real plane because we saw it on TV -- and nothing really changes. The same media which showed us the cartoon plane to begin with, and then lied and covered up for the original official story for years will then suddenly assume an heroic role of exposing the “truth” of Sept 11, joining forces with scientists who looked the other way for years —like Jones — who will suddenly emerge as fearless heroes to give us a new set of lies to cheer. These lies will be disguised as truth because they will bust carefully selected aspects of the old lie. Politicians who looked the other way for years will suddenly make heroes of themselves, thundering imperiously about impeachment and “investigations” to find out the “truth”.

Expose that it was a “war of the worlds” con job —- a movie, passed off as news -- and people will never again believe anything on their TV sets. Thus you destroy not only the lie, but the main infrastructure for selling whatever replacement lie becomes convenient in the wake of the limited hangout. Expose how long this information has been available in the public domain, and the would-be new dictators will have no tools with which to spin their new lies and nowhere to hide from their involvement in the original lie.

The truthlings want to keep the infrastructure of the lie machine intact. They want to remove the more obvious perpetrators of the original lie, such as Bush, who have now outlived their usefulness. The “truth movement” is analogous to the revolution which seeks not to end the injustices of the old regime but merely take possession of the power and its benefits and give them a different appearance.
(emphases added)
Great stuff.
Bookmark and Share

The End of the US?

Looks like "War on Suckers" has it figured out.

(a bunch of other good stuff over there as well)
Bookmark and Share


I'd like to take a little poll.

I would appreciate responses-- just pick a choice (A-D) and put in the the comments box.


Question 1: The Bush Administration and WMD and 9/11

A) I think they told the truth what they believed about WMD and that they told the truth about 9/11

B) I think they told the truth what they believed about WMD and that they lied about 9/11

C) I think they knowingly lied about WMD but told the truth about 9/11

D) I think they knowingly lied about WMD and are lying about 9/11

Question 2: When did you come to this conclusion?

A) I knew immediately for each incident

B) I knew about 9/11 right away, it took more time for me to realize about WMD

C) I knew about WMD right away, it took more time for me to realize about 9/11

D) it took me a while to realize what was going on with WMD and 9/11-- I am just waking up now

Thanks-- and feel free to post your responses anonymously.
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, February 07, 2006

A "Concrete" Reason Why the Official Story of the WTC Collapse Jeopardizes Our Safety

"Post 9/11 Steel-Bashing Called Unfounded and Unfair"
In the group's marketing brochure, Gerosa says, "Concrete is the best material to use for safety, blast resistance, durability, flexibility....A cast-in-place, reinforced concrete structure is safer than any other commercial building type." He adds: "Structural steel is fine. We don't object to a steel structure if it is fireproofed properly," with cast-in-place concrete.

But the alliance lacks any scientific evidence, research or statistics to substantiate its claims that concrete is safer than steel. "It's our educated opinion, based on over 50 years of experience," says Gerosa.

Structural engineers say alliance claims are not only without merit, they are out of bounds. "Their assertion that concrete structures are safer than steel is based not on facts but on their greed to build concrete structures...," says Clifford Schwinger, quality assurance manager with Cagley Harman & Associates Inc., King of Prussia, Pa. "That they are trying to profit from the 9/11 tragedy by claiming concrete construction is safer is worse than obscene."

The alliance now is pushing concrete office towers, a building type long dominated in New York City by structural steel. "Before 9/11, we pretty much felt concrete itself was not practical for commercial highrises...," says Gerosa.

The alliance has infuriated steel interests. The American Institute of Steel Construction Inc., Chicago, calls the group's "steel-bashing" tactics, "negative and unprofessional." AISC maintains that concrete does not offer better fire resistance, blast resistance or structural robustness.
The straw that broke the camel's back for AISC was the alliance's marketing blitz after a recent highrise fire in Madrid. The campaign included a full-page magazine ad. It began: "A demonstration of cast-in-place reinforced concrete over steel construction was the recent fire at Madrid's Windsor Tower."

Scott Melnick, AISC's vice president of communications and editor and publisher of AISC's Modern Steel Construction, shot back with an editorial: "Their latest fairy tale tells the story of the Windsor Tower in Madrid and how it was consumed by a fire that raged for 36 hours. In their story, they report how the building had a concrete frame below the 21st floor and it remained intact, while the building's steel frame from floors 22 to 30 collapsed. There are just a few problems with this story, however. The steel in the building was simply an unprotected steel perimeter framing system primarily supporting the cladding. Second, both the unprotected perimeter framing system and the concrete beams and columns experienced a similar collapse...."To further dispel such stories, AISC's Carter notes a survey of fire-induced collapses in buildings worldwide, performed for the National Institute of Standards and Technology. "The majority of buildings that suffered fire-induced collapse were in fact reinforced concrete," he says.
Bookmark and Share

Imagine That

An al-Qaida operative sentenced to death for plotting the
USS Cole bombing that killed 17 sailors in 2000 was among a group of convicts who escaped from a Yemen prison last week, Interpol said Sunday in issuing a global security alert.


The convicts escaped via a 140-yard-long tunnel "dug by the prisoners and coconspirators outside," Interpol said. The Yemeni official said the prison was at the central headquarters of the country's military intelligence services in a building in the center of the capital.

That sure is some "intelligence service" they have there in Yemen.

Unless... nah, it couldn't be... I don't suppose they WANTED these guys to escape, did they?
Bookmark and Share

Monday, February 06, 2006

Cutting Charges

Here's part of the hole in WTC, putatively made by a 767:

Now focus on the left part of this picture:

I don't know about anyone else out there, but it sure seems odd to me that the wing of a plane, mostly made of aluminum, can cut so precisely through the steel columns of the WTC outer wall. It's not as though the wing of the plane KNOCKED IN a bunch of columns that were in its way-- the wing discretely CUT through the metal (and other pictures of course show this cutting for a good thirty feet on either side of the main hole).

Are we really to believe the wing of a plane SLICED THROUGH the metal like this?

Or is this some sort of illusion that was produced to make people think a large plane went in the building?

What seems even more odd, is how the aluminum cladding, the lighter metal pieces that cover the steel beams of the WTC, are blown away so extensively from the same region where the wing ostensibly cut inward right through thick steel beams. This pattern of blown away cladding is clear all along the length of the wing-shaped holes in the WTC. But WHY didn't the wing simply SLICE through the aluminum like it did through the steel?

On the other hand, if some sort of cutting charges or "det cord" were used to sever the steel columns in the shape of a plane's wing, the explosion WOULD BE expected to knock away the aluminum cladding-- OUTWARD.

Moreover, if you look at two of the top right-hand columns in the enlarged frame, the columns look to be bent slightly outward. How would a plane wing smashing inward cause this?

Of course, pre-planted explosives could blow the columns outward. And they explain the blown away cladding pattern as well.
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, February 05, 2006


( FEBRUARY 4, 2006 -- In wake of this website's call for a BURNT ORANGE alert for synthetic terror at Super Bowl XL, we received this note from the author of 9/11 Synthetic Terror, Webster Griffin Tarpley.

Tarpley calls for a RED ALERT for synthetic terror in the following terms:

"The intense international intelligence warfare pattern mandates a move to red alert -- the highest vigilance -- for the upcoming superbowl Sunday in the USA and the Turin winter Olympics, and perhaps all the way to the March 20 opening of the Iranian oil bourse, which spells the beginning of the end for six decades of world dollar hegemony.

The Iranian oil bourse opens March 20 -- this is the strategic key. The Cheneyacs want war to stop the bourse from deflating the sick US dollar.

The crumbling of European resistance has given new strength to Condi's nuclear lynch mob against Iran, with that country about to be hauled before the UN Security Council. At that point, a wider Middle East war will be immediately in sight.

The Mohammed cartoons are a transparent provocation by NATO intelligence through a Danish right wing newspaper of limited circulation. This classic US-UK provocation has had an enormous effect. Islamic circles need to realize that this is a cynical ploy designed to lead to an attack on Iran and thence to general war, and treat it that way.

We had the latest British terror bombing in Achwaz, Iran last week (Jan. 24), killing several people.

The trial of British-backed terrorists in Iran starts in about 2 weeks.

The situation of the British invaders in southern Iraq is becoming critical.

Afghanistan is about to boil over.

The US and North Korea are trading nuclear war threats across the 38th parallel.

Russia has accused the British of flagrant spying, and there is every reason to believe this charge.

Venezuela has expelled a US military attache as an obvious agent provocateur; now the US expels top Venezuelan diplomat.

Now the fake provocation of an alleged IED bomb near a school in Gaiithersburg, Maryland in the Washington DC suburbs, impacting the personnel of the Bush administration and the federal government in general; many top officials live within a few miles of this school. There was real hysteria in the corridors of the US government this afternoon.
See here for more details.

I have to wonder if this is part of the developing plot as well:
In the latest twist in the debate over presidential powers, a Justice Department official suggested that in certain circumstances, the president might have the power to order the killing of terrorist suspects inside the United States.
Bookmark and Share

Reason #1053 Why the Official 9/11 Story Makes No Sense

Remember flight 93, which was officially supposed to attack a major target in Washington DC, officially departed very late from Newark, NJ. Thus, the flight 93 attack on DC officially was thwarted by brave passengers who figured out the plot.

The 1053rd reason why the official 9/11 story makes no sense is:



Or was this some kind of inside joke?
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, February 04, 2006

Excellent Article Covering the Major Points for Why the Collapses of the WTC1, 2 and 7 Towers Were Almost Certainly Demolition


Key points:
1) the fires weren't that hot or that widespread in the three towers
2) the towers fell far too fast for a weight-driven collapse

The article also goes over other general 9/11 issues and why the event needs further investigation.
Bookmark and Share

"Scholars for Truth" Makes "Yahoo! News"

Bookmark and Share

Friday, February 03, 2006

A Simple Proof That No 767 Hit the WTC

Let's say instead of hitting the WTC straight on at 500 mph, a 767 flew right next to the tower at 500 mph. The plane flies close enough that one wing hits the building, say the outer half of the wing, on a 767 that is roughly 30 feet of wing.

Does this wing:

a) break off, causing the plane to lose control and crash?

b) slice through all the exterior steel columns in its path allowing the plane to continue flying?

If you believe the official 9/11 story, it should be (b), right?

Yet obviously the answer is (a), right? No WAY can the end of a wing slice through multiple steel columns under that situation.

SO---- on 9/11 how did the wing of a 767 slice through multiple columns and floor slabs, especially considering the plane and its wings were already slowed by the impact of the fuselage?
Bookmark and Share

How 9/11 Was Done-- the Hijackings Were Fake

Reasons to think the hijackings were fake:

1) there was no air defense on 9/11 -- because an air force interceptor can't find a plane that isn't there!

2) the radio transmissions from the plane by the supposed hijackers make more sense with someone who was creating the impression of a hijacking rather than that a hijacker doesn't know what is the right button for the intercom.

3) flights 11 and 77 never took off on 9/11.

4) it is extremely unlikely four planes could be taken over by men armed with boxcutters/small knives-- without even one pilot signaling a hijack was occurring.

5) the maneuvers of the putative hijacked planes to get to the targets at high speed were too professional for amateur pilots.

6) air force hijacking exercises and ground-based terror drills involving hijackings were run prior to 9/11, 9/11 could have been another such drill gone "live".

7) there was a NORAD hijacking drill being run on 9/11, it created a diversion for the attacks, possibly supported the idea of real hijackings.

8) if an evil government cabal wanted to manufacture an air attack, it is easier to fake hijackings and use drones/missiles for the attacks than it is to try to control a real live hijacking situation.

9) there was a severe dearth of plane parts at every 9/11 plane crash site, suggesting the crashes were faked.

10) there is no reliable evidence the hijackers were on any planes; the nineteen official hijackers were certainly patsies.

11) the 9/11 passenger lists presented to the media have many conflicts and other oddities; the official 9/11 plane passengers were a mix of real people, fake passengers and spooks with aliases, the real people were killed at an unknown location.

12) real planes don't melt into buildings the way "flight 175" glided into the south WTC tower; a real plane did not crash into the south tower.
Bookmark and Share


The party I'd like to see in power.

A party who actually gets shrill and outraged about the insanity of today's politics.

Russ Feingold comes close:
I've seen some strange things in my life, but I cannot describe the feeling I had, sitting on the House floor during Tuesday's State of the Union speech, listening to the President assert that his executive power is, basically, absolute, and watching several members of Congress stand up and cheer him on. It was surreal and disrespectful to our system of government and to the oath that as elected officials we have all sworn to uphold. Cheering? Clapping? Applause? All for violating the law?

The President and his administration continue their spin and media blitz in attempts to defend the fact that they broke, and continue to break, the law. Their weak and shifting justifications for doing so continue. The latest from the President seems to be that basically the FISA law, passed in 1978, is out of date. His decision that he can apparently disregard "old law" fits the pattern with the President and his administration. He's decided to disregard a statute (FISA) and the Constitution (the 4th Amendment) by continuing to wiretap Americans' phone calls and emails without the required warrant, while at the same time claiming powers of the presidency that do not exist. (Perhaps he feels the Constitution is too "old," as well.) This administration reacts to any questions about spying on American citizens by saying that those of us who stand up for our rights and freedoms are somehow living in a "pre-September 11th, 2001 world."

In fact, the President is living in a pre-1776 world.
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, February 02, 2006

More on the Absurdity of the Plane-Shaped Holes

To recap, the official story would have us believe that when a 767 hit the steel columned wall of the WTC:

a) it smashed right through the wall, leaving a plane profile-shaped imprint in the wall (much like the Roadrunner smashing through a piece of steel held by Wil E. Coyote)

b) the plane went smoothly inside, not showing any slowing, distortion, breakage or explosion until the plane had disappeared into the building

c) the plane tore apart once inside but some small pieces broke off and continued full speed out the other side of the building

d) the plane went in far enough and was destroyed enough such that no signs of the plane could be seen from the entry hole.

Here are some examples of this phenomenon in other situations:

1) You push four medium-sized medium thickness metal pipes (which are firmly anchored to a strong base) into a rapidly rotating airplane propellor. (Think of the pipes as the WTC and the propellor blades as the plane.) The blade slices cleanly through the first three pipes it encounters, it doesn't slow, then the propellor blade hits the fourth pipe and the blade breaks apart, with the top part of the blade flying away at full speed.

Does this sound feasible?

Isn't it more realistic for either the blade break off at first impact, OR for the blade to slice through all four pipes, OR for the blade to slice through two pipes, slow down and stop, OR for the blade to simply hit the pipes and stop?

2) You get a sportscar going 200 mph, then you lose control and run off the road into a forest of young trees, each tree about three inches in diameter, each about one foot apart. (Think of the car as the plane and the forest as the WTC.) The car cleanly slices through ten rows of trees without slowing, then the car hits another row of trees and starts breaking apart and exploding-- such that the car is shredded into pieces, and some of these pieces continue going at 200 mph.

Does this sound feasible?

Isn't it more realistic for the car to cut through a few rows of trees and eventually slow to a stop with minimal damage OR for the car to smash up against the first couple of rows of trees and stop?

Simple common sense would dictate that an object that tears effortlessly through an struck object is not going to be suddenly itself shredded by the struck object.

So-- I'm STILL having trouble imagining what happened with the hit on the south tower, if indeed a real airplane was involved.
Bookmark and Share

Words Cannot Describe How Horribly Fucked Up This Is

DAMMIT. Reading this hurts. This war is beyond FUBAR:
Last week, Col. Janis Karpinski told a panel of judges at the Commission of Inquiry for Crimes against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration in New York that several women had died of dehydration because they refused to drink liquids late in the day. They were afraid of being assaulted or even raped by male soldiers if they had to use the women's latrine after dark.

The latrine for female soldiers at Camp Victory wasn't located near their barracks, so they had to go outside if they needed to use the bathroom. "There were no lights near any of their facilities, so women were doubly easy targets in the dark of the night," Karpinski told retired U.S. Army Col. David Hackworth in a September 2004 interview.

It was there that male soldiers assaulted and raped women soldiers. So the women took matters into their own hands. They didn't drink in the late afternoon so they wouldn't have to urinate at night. They didn't get raped. But some died of dehydration in the desert heat, Karpinski said.

Karpinski testified that a surgeon for the coalition's joint task force said in a briefing that "women in fear of getting up in the hours of darkness to go out to the port-a-lets or the latrines were not drinking liquids after 3 or 4 in the afternoon, and in 120 degree heat or warmer, because there was no air-conditioning at most of the facilities, they were dying from dehydration in their sleep."

"And rather than make everybody aware of that -- because that's shocking, and as a leader if that's not shocking to you, then you're not much of a leader -- what they told the surgeon to do is don't brief those details anymore. And don't say specifically that they're women. You can provide that in a written report, but don't brief it in the open anymore."

For example, Maj. Gen. Walter Wojdakowski, Sanchez's top deputy in Iraq, saw "dehydration" listed as the cause of death on the death certificate of a female master sergeant in September 2003. Under orders from Sanchez, he directed that the cause of death no longer be listed, Karpinski stated. The official explanation for this was to protect the women's privacy rights.
Bookmark and Share

Neat New 9/11 Site

9/11 photo analysis.

I haven't looked over the whole site yet, but there is some bizarre stuff here with the Pentagon.

I'm not sure I buy all his findings. Nonetheless-- I think he has irrefutable evidence that some photos of the Pentagon post-attack scene were faked. Probably the point was to enhance the drama, but it certainly is disturbing someone went at the Pentagon through all the trouble to do this fakery.
Bookmark and Share

Professor Jones

Bookmark and Share


I got the following picture from this video found by Webfairy:

Is it just me or does this image scream "fake!"?
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, February 01, 2006

Kamikaze Attack Planes Could Not Penetrate Metal Decks

Finally it was discovered that the British carriers with their metal flight deck withstood a Kamikaze attack much better then the US that used wood. The Kamikaze couldn't penetrate the metal deck - while it would crash right through the wooden deck.
I think we can safely assume the kamikaze planes came in at a very high speed-- and they couldn't penetrate a metal deck. Moreover, kamikaze planes usually carried bombs, which would have increased the penetration power.

Good summary of kamikaze attacks here. Clearly in some cases, kamikazes hit the deck of the ship and slid off the side, whereas in other cases there was some deck penetration. Not clear which were steel versus wooden decks.
Bookmark and Share

Does a Plane Impacting Multiple Floor Slabs Really Have No Effect on Its Speed?

Bookmark and Share

Powered by Blogger