Humint Events Online: August 2006

Thursday, August 31, 2006

One Last Visit to the Flight 93 Crash Site?

Here is the basic layout of the flight 93 crash site (all based on official accounts and sources):
A) an impact crater in a open field, about 10 feet deep, 30 feet by 10 feet in dimensions, with what looks like wing marks out to each side.
B) badly burnt trees, about 200 feet from the impact crater, at the edge of a small forest. Curiously, this damage was not in line with the official flight path.
C) No large recognizable plane debris was anywhere around the impact crater. Officially, one engine was found 800-1000 feet away, in line with the plane path, and officially, the burned forest had plane debris, including fuselage parts. Also, officially, one engine was found lodged in or near the impact crater and the cockpit data recorder (normally located in the tail section) was found very deep down in the impact crater (25 feet). There are no clear reports that I am aware of finding any main landing gear, wing pieces, tail sections or intact seats. A significant amount of small debris was found up to eight miles from the official crash site. Reports on how much of the total plane was recovered are conflicted. Officially, only very small amounts of passenger remains were found.

For further reading, I highly recommend this page, which has a very excellent and extensive analysis of the flight 93 crash scene, with links to only mainstream news articles.

SO, how do we explain this crash site?

The most extended official explanation for the flight 93 crash comes from Jere Longman's "Among the Heroes" (as far as I know, there is no NTSB report on the crash). In that book, he posits that before crashing, the plane was flying upside down (based on eyewitness reports and the crater alignment). The plane then hit at a 45 degree angle and the front third of the plane shattered completely on the ground, spewing debris all around. The rear two thirds of the plane rammed deep into the soft earth, and crumpled in an accordion-like fashion. This would explain the black boxes being deep in the ground. The front fuselage apparently shattered into very small fragments. Longman does not explain what happened to the tail section and wings. He says the passengers and crew were completely torn apart, and that the main remains were small fragments of skin. It is not clear what happened to the skeletal remains or teeth of the passengers.

This explanation is of course absurd, as this story defies physics. Basically it is impossible that the front of the plane disintegrate while the rear part of the plane enter the ground as an intact piece. This is akin to ramming a pretzel stick into an orange, where the front one third of the pencil smashes into crumbs right before the rear two-thirds penetrate the skin and drive deep into the fruit. One could see the whole pretzel stick penetrating the orange, or the front of the pretzel breaking off before the rest goes in-- but in this case the front piece would not turn into tiny crumbs. Basically, any material that is strong enough to cause the front of a projectile to smash apart is not going to allow the rear part of the projectile to slide completely in.

It is also absurd to think that the huge tail section went into the ground completely, yet how else to explain the black boxes being so deep underground, since the black boxes are kept in the tail section? The idea ANY sort of projectile could drive itself 25' deep under the soil is absurd.

So the official story is a lie. There is no doubt.

But clearly the shoot-down story that many people persist in believing is a lie as well. No shot down plane will crash like this either.

Frankly, the easiest explanation for the whole crash scene is that it was a staged hoax-- where there were planted explosives along with some junk debris that went off to coincide with a plane flying over. Then plane parts and body parts were planted, and debris was strewn over a wide area to be misleading. It is curious to note how the 9/11 commission says flight 93 officially crashed at 10:03 am, but the explosion by many accounts wasn't until 10:06am. This could be explained by a discrepency in whatever the plane was doing that was mimicking flight 93 versus the actual explosion. Finally, of course, the many phone calls from flight 93 are highly suspicious due to a number of abnormalities, and were likely another layer of deception.

Nonetheless, I welcome any other explanation for the flight 93 crash site that takes into account the facts as I outlined above. You can contact me by email (
Bookmark and Share

Some Neglected History that Followed 9/11

The Taliban asked for proof that Osama bin Laden was behind 9/11 before they handed him over to the Bush administration. The Bush administration never gave the proof and went ahead and invaded Afghanistan anyway, killing hundreds if not thousands of innocent civilians.

The anthrax attacks in October of 2001, which involved US military anthrax targetting Democratic leadership in the Senate as well as a few media outlets.

The Battle of Tora Bora in December 2001, in which the US military apparently had Osama bin Laden surrounded, but then let him escape.

The Downing Street memo in July 2002, which said the Bush administration was clearly committed to going to war with Iraq no matter what weapons inspectors found.

March 2003, UN weapons inspectors find no evidence of WMD in Iraq, but Bush pulls the inspectors out and invades Iraq anyway. Later Bush lies about this sequence of events a few times by claiming Saddam Hussein wouldn't allow the weapons insepctors into Iraq.

July 2003, Bush dares the Iraqi insurgency to "bring it on". Over 2000 US trops have died since then (Bush was re-elected in spite of this and other horrible gaffes).

2003-2004, the Bush administration does little while ("Axis of Evil" member) North Korea re-processes plutonium and says it will start producing nuclear weapons.

Early 2004, the Abu Ghraib Iraq prisonor abuse scandal broke and was swept under the rug even by presidential candidate John Kerry, even though the abuse was immoral, apparently violated the Geneva conventions and clearly inflamed Iraqi opinion against the US.

Abundant voting irregularities in the November 2004 election were covered up by the national media and strangely underplayed by losing candidate John Kerry.

Meanwhile, the media and politicians miss no chance to promote the official 9/11 story, promote every new ridiculous terror plot and of course refuse to seriously address the evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

The fact is that there is enough evidence now to impeach Bush and Cheney for 9/11, if someone had the balls to do it.
Bookmark and Share

Evidence of the Secret US-Iran Alliance

1) The secret deal that guaranteed that the Iranian Embassy hostages would not be released until after the 1980 election of Ronald Reagan.

2) The Iran-Contra Scandal, in which the Reagan Administration in collaboration with Israel, struck a deal with Iran, trading arms to Iran in exchange for hostages and cash.

3) The Iraq invasion clearly strengthened Iranian influence in the middle east, and interestingly Ahmad Chalabi, who vehemently pushed for the US to invade Iraq, has ties to Iran and appears to have given Iran US intelligence (signal codes).

4) The apparent willingness of the US to allow Iran to enrich uranium in violation of UN resolutions, but at the same time the ease at which the GOP tries to frighten the public about Iran for political points.

Bottom line: Is the Bush administration serious about stopping Iran from making nuclear material or are they going to make a lot of noise then look the other way like they did with North Korea?

My guess is the latter.

Note-- I am not advocating an attack on Iran by any means. But I strongly sense that games are being played by the Bush administration in dealing with Iran-- and I think it indicates some secret deal. The history is there.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, August 30, 2006

Truth Versus Bullshit on Iran

Methinks the current propaganda campaign against Iran is merely a ploy to help the GOP cling to power.

My prediction: The US won't do ANYTHING against Iran in the near future, but the GOP will play up the threat massively before the election.

My suspicion: The US and Iran (and Israel) are covert allies, and all the talk about Iran is a weird game.
Bookmark and Share

Not Understanding that 9/11 Was an Inside Job

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."
--Upton Sinclair
Bookmark and Share

Pilots for the Truth

Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

9/11 Explained?

Remember the case of the "phantom" flight 11 described by the 9/11 commission?

The idea that flight 11 never hit the North tower fits perfectly with the fly-by theory and with this analysis showing a much smaller than predicted plane hitting the North tower.

Flight 11 was a fly-by and never hit the tower!

Flight 175 was a fly-by and never hit the tower!

Flight 77 was a fly-by and never hit the Pentagon.

And finally, since it is clear no large plane crashed in the ground near Shanksville, Flight 93 was also a fly-by and never crashed into the ground.

A fascinating explanation for how these hoaxes were pulled off is that in each "crash", the plane suddenly turned on electronic optical camoflage and became hidden from view.

What I just realized, is that in each of the 9/11 crashes, the actual crash could have been done by a separate specially-designed optically camoflaged aircraft-- a device that could produce a 767- or 757-like scar wherever it impacted. This aircraft would never show up in videos but would produce the building damage and explosions.

UPDATE: perhaps more likely is the facade scars were produced by precisely positioned explosives-- since optically camoflaged missiles or aircraft might be too valuable to blow up in this event.

Overall this fly-by and disappearing plane scenario seems plausible and explains the evidence. Why they would have set it up this way, I have no idea. There must be some logic to it that we don't fully understand yet.

Also, note: this is sort of a hybrid-planes-noplanes theory. It's saying planes were there but they weren't used for the actual strikes-- something else hit the towers and Pentagon.
Bookmark and Share

Monday, August 28, 2006

Why Hasn't bin Laden Been Indicted for 9/11?

East African Embassy bombings, 1998.

Osama bin Laden indicted for these crimes, 1999.

9/11 attacks, 2001.

Osama bin Laden still not indicted 5 years later.

Explanation A-- Osama bin Laden wasn't behind 9/11.

Explanation B-- evidence linking Osama bin Laden to 9/11 was obtained by torture and thus not admissable in US courts.

Explanation C-- both A and B are true
Bookmark and Share

Disappearing Planes on 9/11

Morgan Reynolds has a good idea how the trick was done.

Note that this dovetails nicely with my "fly-by" theory-- though Reynolds' diappearing plane theory allows a fly-by at the exact moment of the 2nd hit, rather than much earlier than the tower exploded as I posited.

As Reynolds' points out, an electronically diappearing plane could account for plane sightings at all four 9/11 fake plane crashes.

I would also point out that just ONE PLANE could have appeared at all four 9/11 crash sites, due to the timing of the events (the hits were staggered to allow enough time for plane travel between the different spots). I could also theorize that a disappearing plane could just as easily have "electronic livery" that could be switched between American Airlines and United Airlines colors as the need arose.

UPDATE: although Reynolds' explanation makes sense, I still have a few problems with it:
1) some videos definitely show a plane path discrepency with other videos, so clearly some videos were faked
2) many videos show an abnormal plane, not a conventional 767-200
3) a few eyewitnesses maintain they never saw a plane before the south tower exploded
4) this high-tech plane adds another layer of complexity to the whole operation

So, I still like the idea of an "early" (not simultaneous) fly-by that was used to construct some 2nd hit videos, whereas other videos were pure CGI fakes. And the "big lie" psy-ops effect would be more powerful if there were no plane at all. But clearly I can't rule out the invisible plane theory either, as this scenario could still allow room for faked videos. Eyewitnesses who never saw a plane could have simply missed the plane somehow.

Of course the biggest unresolved issue is that we still don't know WHAT hit the south tower-- though I am quite confident it wasn't UA175.

UPDATE 2: If this video of the final flight 77 path (obtained from the NTSB by a FOIA request), shows that the plane did NOT hit the light poles and probably didn't plow into the Pentagon either. This government recreation of the flight 77 path supports the disappearing plane idea if we assume that there was a Boeing 7X7 plane that flew over as the building exploded which then disappeared!

UPDATE 3: The long loop the plane takes before it hits the Pentagon takes on a new significance in light of this theory. Was the plane delaying the fly-over due to some problem in timing of the explosions? Also, what DID take out the light poles if not the plane?
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, August 27, 2006

Absolutely Outrageous

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, August 26, 2006

Strange Coincidence

Bookmark and Share

Awesome Interview!

Bookmark and Share

The Shilling for the Official Story NEVER ENDS

Bookmark and Share

Friday, August 25, 2006

Yet Another Plane Crash Leaves Recognizable Debris and Bodies


Even bodies that could be put in body bags.

This was a large plane that fell from the sky at over 30,000 feet. It was going fast.

Postman Patel has more, with some good links.
Bookmark and Share

New Blog for My Pentagon Pics

I'm putting it on a special page because mainly because the recent released DOD videos have some weird color scheme that some computers can't handle and therefore won't load the page.

I'm going to try to model the security camera shot of the weird purple and white flying object with Flight Simulator. Meanwhile check out the newest Pentagon disinfo flick.
Bookmark and Share

Fake Wings and Tails

The last couple of days I have been looking (yet again) at the "wing" scars left on the north and south towers of the WTC by whatever it was that attacked the buildings.

Whatever DID attack the buildings made damn good impressions of 767s. First rate impressions-- literally!

But perhaps they were too good!

What is clear is that the wingtips, particularly for the south tower, did not penetrate the columns.

A priori, I would imagine that the wingtips, especially where the wings were slanted back about 35 degrees, would have snapped off in a collision of a 767 with a building having heavy steel columns on its exterior.

As you can see from the frame above, of the CNN "best view" (aka Ghostplane) video, the wings do not snap off.

The same goes for the huge tail of the 767. One would think it would snap off, but the videos show no such thing. And just like the wingtips, the tails of the two planes clearly do not slice through the columns they hit. But there are indeed little indentations made in the facade where the tail hit. Remarkable really, how that happened. But more remarkable is how the wingtips and tails apparently disappear into the building rather than breaking off.

So there are really only two things that can explain the building scars from where the wings and tails hit:

1) the wingtips and tails shredded on the columns into fragments that passed through and then left no debris behind on the facade

2) the scars were made by something other than plane (767) wings and tails

But logically, the shredding mechanism makes no sense. If the wingtips and tails were going to break, they should have broken off en masse, as a chunk.

But the videos show no such thing.

So we must conclude the scars were made by something other than plane (767) wings and tails.

Which of course fits better with the evidence that the videos of the plane were fakes and forgeries.

But the building scars were really cleverly done, I must say!
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, August 24, 2006

Curious, Curious Damage Caused by a Wing

(as always, click to enlarge image)

From the NIST report:

Amazing, the different patterns of damage done to the columns here.

But most odd, I think is what I circled. How is it that a wing can totally smash INWARDS one column, and the the next column over, merely fray the edges of the column off? Moreover, what caused the column edges to get knocked OUTWARDS?

Here's a different view of the same thing:

In this view, note the two columns just to the right of the bashed in column-- look how amazingly cleanly they've been cut. Did an aluminum plane wing do that?
Bookmark and Share

By the Norms of Conventional Discourse, I Am Quite Sure That I Am Considered "A Kook"

But at least I don't advocate nuclear genocide.

Even scarier, nuking the Islamic world that appears to be warmly embraced by many commenters to the column.

Now in the interest of fairness, I am sure that Walter E. Williams (and his many admirers) and me all have the same goal in mind: to stop terrorism.

But that is where the similarity ends. The main problem is that Walter E. Williams and people like him have gone off the deep end in believing the government propaganda about terrorism. Thus, they are absolutely petrified of fanatical muslims who they think are out to destroy us.

Apart from the fact that 9/11 was an inside job, everyone should realize that:
1) Islamic extremism and Islamic terror are complicated problems with deep roots, and the Anglo world is intertwined in those roots
2) Islamic extremism and Islamic terror can and should be solved by non-violent means
3) not all Islamic extremists are after the same thing, only a fraction of them are out to kill Americans, and likely only a tiny fraction truly want to destroy the US
4) terrorism can be stopped by appropriate security measures; terrorism can be stopped by promoting political reform in the US as well as truly promoting democracy in the middle east
5) most terrorists are rather incompetent
6) most successful terrorism is state-sponsored
7) much terrorism is false-flag, and the western world has used terrorism as a political tool
8) Islamic extremists have been used and are still nurtured by the US as a counter-weight to Russia
9) the threat from true Islamic terrorism is relatively minor in the grand scheme of things-- particularly for Americans
10) the analogy used frequently by conservatives comparing what is happening today to pre-WWII days is severely flawed and horribly over-played
11) nuking a country that has not attacked the US is terrorism in itself, is insanity and pure evil and will not stop terrorism
Bookmark and Share

Taking Down Steven E. Jones

from his position of prominence in the 9/11 "truth" movement.

Overall, it's an excellent must-read article that deals with the many important issues that Jones seems to not want to address about 9/11.

Yes, I'm biased, as they reference my research. But still, the part that deals with the WTC demolition is very important, as it touches on evidence that is rarely discussed.

On the same note-- 911-Blimp has a good parody of Jones:
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

South Tower Column and Floor Damage

From the final NIST report:

(click to enlarge)

(click to enlarge)

Please focus on the left side of the hole, where the port wing allegedly went into the building.

Here's the really freaky thing: the hole for where the engine went in is much SMALLER than the two large holes where the wing just distal to the engine went in. It's a little hard to understand that. Moreover, it is hard to understand why the engine hole is clogged with debris but at least one wing hole is clear.

An important point to consider here is that the vertical columns of the south tower wall where the plane officially struck were large and very strong load-bearing columns. They were square box columns, 14 inches on each side, with two sides of 1/4 inch steel and two sides 13/16 inch steel. To break a column would require shearing the equivalent of one column 2 inches thick by one foot deep of solid steel. That is massively strong steel. There is NO WAY any part of an aluminum plane wing is going to cut through or even break this column. It simply ain't gonna happen, no matter how fast the wing is going, because thick steel will beat thin, light-weight aluminum wing sections every time. Think of a 2 inch by 12 inch thick steel rod going 500 mph and impacting a plane wing. Is there ANY DOUBT the wing will be torn in pieces?

Now, please note in the top diagram where the outer section of wing (distal to the engine) allegedly pushed aside and broke off sections of the columns. This can be observed for columns 429-434 as labeled in the figure. Allegedly, the wing pushing against the column sections could have caused the columns to bend and snap off in the middle and also break at the base, where they were held by bolts to the next column section.

Here's another freaky thing-- this outer wing section pushed aside the columns and the floor spandrel plate AS WELL AS DEMOLISHED THE CONCRETE SLAB BEHIND IT, as you can see from the dark space where the floor slab should be (in the photo).

THAT makes no sense.

I don't know what hit the tower. Certainly, whatever hit the tower produced an outline very similar to a 767 profile, and if we assume the hole was faked somehow, they did a damn good job in this regard. However, I am highly skeptical that the outer section of a jet wing, even a wing as large as from a 767, is capable of breaking down HEAVY steel columns and PULVERIZING concrete. Aluminum wings should have broken off. Bombs on the other hand can break down heavy steel columns and pulverize concrete.

Yes, NIST claims that the wing fuel tanks gave the wings extra penetrating power. However, I am skeptical of their modeling. Significantly, the wing impact modeling that NIST performed does not represent a case of pushing aside of sections of columns as I describe above, does not address impacting the concrete floor slab, and thus appears irrelevant the the actual damage that was seen with the south tower.
Bookmark and Share

WTC5 Suffered Horrendous Damage from the Twin Tower Collapses and Had Severe Raging Fires

Bookmark and Share

Debunking the Debunkers of the Debunkers of the Official Collapse Story

Regarding this page:

About the "hanging floor slab" shown in the picture at the top--
1) what is the evidence that this is actually a floor slab as opposed to some pipes that fell from the ceiling?
2) how exactly does a stiff concrete floor slab bow and bend and sag in the middle from heat?

I don't think concrete can BEND, so that explanation of the floor sagging is simply crap.

Then they write about NIST:
They look at the evidence and create a hypothesis, test the hypothesis against the evidence and if new information comes out they change the hypothesis accordingly. You would think if the NIST was going to lie they would just build the lie around the first hypothesis. That they changed it only shows independence.
Um, couldn't the explanation also be that their first hypothesis was a total joke and was laughed at by so-called conspiracy theorists? Does any one think that people who bought and steadfastly supported the official story worried about the NIST model? It was the conspiracy theorists and real scientists who made them change their model.

Ironically, Professor Jones has changed his paper yet the conspiracy theorist [sic] don't cast doubt on whether his paper is correct.
That is simply not true, plenty of conspiracy theorists have problems with Jones' theories, particularly the thermite theory.

Proof of the pancaking effect is the core columns which can be seen collapsing seconds after the perimeter columns hit the ground.
The few core columns that survive then miraculously turn to dust at the end of the WTC1 collapse is hardly proof of pancaking, and actually suggests some strange unofficial event occurred.

If the building didn't pancake what happened to the trusses? Assuming they didn't just fly away it's obvious they fell straight down.
This is a total non-sequitor that proves nothing.

More evidence of pancaking is on ground zero. [a picture of a debris pile is shown]
A pile of debris is NOT proof of pancaking. A huge pile of debris could also occur from demolition, obviously.

Jeez. This is like shooting fish in a barrel.

2. Fire insulation was stripped during aircraft impact by flying debris (without that, the towers would likely have survived).
What is the hard evidence that insulation was stripped off of intact columns by plane debris? There is none!* It's a completely ad hoc argument. Yet their whole collapse theory rests on it! In all honesty, what is a more unsupported theory: that the towers were brought down by demolition or that fires brought down the buildings because the insulation was "stripped" off the columns?

For a detailed account of the collapse, do yourself a favor and READ ALL the NIST FINAL reports. Any conspiracy site which gives you the old preliminary reports are being dishonest. There is incredible detailed which support each of the reports below.
I've looked over those reports. There are LOTS and LOTS of pretty pictures and models-- but VERY LITTLE hard data or calculations or analysis. I guess it makes people who want to believe the official story feel good, like NIST did some work. But in temrs of science, the NIST reports are sorely lacking.

The worse part is NIST does not even bother to model how the buildings completely collapsed! Nor do they explain the near free-fall collapse times.

Now it is possible that the towers had a very severe flaw in their construction (that is still unknown) that made them completely disintegrate at near free-fall speed. But why isn't there more urgency to figure out the flaw?

Of course the most likely explanation is that the towers were demolished by pre-planted explosives. Demolition is the only theory that easily explains the features of the collapses.

* Fireproofing stripped off columns that are already broken doesn't count-- for what should be obvious reasons.
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, August 22, 2006

Army Sergeant Doubts Official Flight 77 and Flight 93 Stories

He wrote:
The issue is 911 was filled with errors in the ‘official report’ and ‘official story’ of that day, and, what happened that day. We all know and saw 2 planes hitting the WTC buildings, we didn’t see the 757 hit the Pentagon, nor did we see the plane crash in Shanksville PA. Both the PA and Pentagon ‘crashes’ don’t have clues and tell-tale signs of a jumbo-jet impacting those zones!

The Pentagon would have huge wing impacts in the side of the building; it didn’t. Shanksville PA would have had debris, and a large debris field; it didn’t. (snip)

I say Occums razor is the best way to deduce this ‘day of infamy’; if you weigh all options, do some simple studying you will see 911 was clearly not executed by some arabs in caves with cell phones and 3 day old newspapers! I mean how are Arabs benefiting from pulling off 911? They have more war, more death and dismal conditions, so, how did 911 benefit them? Answer: It didn’t. So, who benefited from 9-11? The answer is sad, but simple; The Military Industial [sic] Complex.

It’s not a paranoid conspiracy to think there are conspiracies out there...and, it’s not Liberal Lunacy either, nor is it Conservative Kookiness! People, fellow citizens we’ve been had! We must demand a new independent investigation into 911 and look at all options of that day, and all plausabilities [sic], even the most incredulous theories must be examined.
SFC Buswell is in serious trouble now-- he may be dishonorably discharged, court marshaled, or worse.
Bookmark and Share

Why I Like the Fly-By Explanation

I discuss the "fly-by explanation" for the WTC hits here.

The reasons why I like it:

1) several videos show the same phenomenon, especially the critical early ones

2) it explains the eye-witnesses who insist they saw a plane but also explains people who never saw a plane* (because there was a plane flying nearby, but it never flew into the tower)

*yes, several people were in a position to see the plane but saw no plane before the tower exploded
Bookmark and Share

Wingnut Joe

Bookmark and Share

Oh My Gosh!

Another crazy no-planer who thinks the 2nd hit videos were faked!

These guys are the worst of the worst! (wink wink, nudge nudge)
Bookmark and Share

Monday, August 21, 2006

Thought of the Day

Before realizing 9/11 was an inside job, chop wood and carry water.

After realizing 9/11 was an inside job, chop wood and carry water.
Bookmark and Share

Another Reason Why the "Shampoo Plot" Was Bogus

Bookmark and Share

The Fly-By Sequences

Here and here I discussed the possibility that the first and second hit videos really showed large Boeing flying just PAST the towers, without hitting them-- and that this was part of the fakery.

My guess is that if they set it up this way, they actually timed the north tower fly-by very close to the actual hit, so people would see a plane flying low over Manhattan, see an explosion in the north WTC tower, and assume the plane crashed (which was them reinforced by the TV).

The south tower would have to be different, as so many people were looking at the towers after the first hit. They couldn't have the plane fly by right as the building exploded as that would be too obvious, and people would pick up on the scam too easily-- and honest cameramen might film the fly-by as well.

My guess is they had the plane fly by much earlier than 9:03am (when the building exploded)-- perhaps the fly-by occurred very early after the first tower was hit, before many cameras were going (maybe even by the same plane that did the north tower fly-by). Select cameraman filmed this fly-by, ready to splice this plane footage into footage of the south tower exploding, thus setting up the video hoax.

Many of the videos of the 2nd hit may therefore actually show a real plane, but a plane that never hit the tower. The "pod" may have been a by-product of the film-splicing/manipulation.

Other videos of the 2nd hit are likely complete forgeries using computer animation-- such as videos that show a markedly different plane path.

But the important fact is that no plane hit the south tower right before it exploded.
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, August 20, 2006

Did the Video of the North Tower Hit Actually Show a 767 Fly-By?

In the post here, I discussed how the videos of the second hit seem to show a plane flying PAST the tower-- and I speculate how video imagery of a plane flying past a tower could have been used to make the early footage of the 2nd hit.

Marcus Icke put together a nice figure comparing what a 767 would look like approaching the north tower with what the object in the first hit video actually looks like:

I think anyone can see that the flying object in the North tower (1st) hit, as filmed by one of the Naudet brothers, is quite a bit smaller than a 767.

Interestingly, this raises the possibility that a 767-like plane actually flew to the west of the north tower (thus accounting for the smaller size), and that this "fly-by" plane is what was filmed by the Naudets. The plane image would then have had to be morphed onto the tower to have the film show the plane fly into the tower.

But this makes some sense: it accounts for the small size of the plane in the video, it accounts for witnesses to a jet hitting the north tower, it would fit with the modus operandi for the south tower videos, and it is a plausible way for how the video scam could have been pulled off. Precision explosives could have produced the plane-shaped hole and the building damage.

The point is that it was far too risky for the planners to actually try to ram a jet airplane into the building and behave the way they wanted/needed it to.
Bookmark and Share

A Cheesy Tale

The official story of the north and south tower hits, as sanctified by NIST, appears to be that a 767 hitting a large steel framed tower is much like a plane-shaped piece of cheese hitting a cheese grater-- where the plane is shredded as it hits the grater-- but oddly enough, at the same time, the cheese destroys the grater!

(with apologies to Gerard Holmgren for creating the original analogy)
Bookmark and Share


Excellent 9/11 over-view by Stefan Grossman, with some discussion of why thermite was not a good way to take down the towers.
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, August 19, 2006

One of These Things Is Not Like the Other

Do any of these pictures have, say, an unusual coloring?

I think this one has a very unnatural blue tint to it-- certainly the coloration is different from the other three:

But there is something ELSE different about this shot.

It shows the east-face of the towers. The other three shots show the west-face of the towers.

Why is this significant?

I think it has to do with what I found here.

I found that in all four of these videos, the plane actually seemed to be flying to the east of the towers.

For the shots where we are looking at the west-face of the towers, it is no big deal to edit the plane footage such that the plane flies behind the towers, cut the part showing the plane fly past and then cut to the explosion.

For the shots where we are looking at the east-face of the towers, this can't be done. The footage needs to be altered more severely-- perhaps a the plane and tower videos were clipped on a line just to the left of the towers so that the plane "disappears" behind the tower and it appears that plane flies into the towers. The idea is that the blue tint was then used to cover-up the paste job.

This is not proof by any means, but I find this explanation highly plausible and certainly an interesting coincidence that the one early clip from the east has this weird tint suggesting that the footage was manipulated.

Definitely: the blue tint is not an artifact from being passed on the internet. I have original TV footage from the morning of 9/11, and this clip shows the same blue tint on the videotaped version.

UPDATE: I am shutting the comments down, because there are too many idiotic comments that are wasting my time. Nonetheless, feel free to email me with comments or suggestions.
Bookmark and Share

Friday, August 18, 2006

KIlltown Continues to Kick Ass

on the Val McClatchy photo. He's done really great work.

There are only two explanations, and both indicate funny business with the official flight 93 story--

1) the photo is real, meaning that there was a munitions explosion in the wrong place from the official crash site

2) the photo was fake, and the FBI was involved in the fakery

Pick your poison.
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, August 17, 2006

The Rule of Law

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

The Flight 93 Crash Site: Still Unexplained

How can a huge (Boeing 757) jet completely disintegrate and only leave a 10 foot wide by 50 foot long by 10 foot deep crater?

No one seriously believes the plane disappeared into the ground, do they?

I have yet to see anyone give a rational explanation for what happened to the plane according to the official story.

In my opinion, the flight 93 crater is one of the most obvious clues to the 9/11 hoax. Which is probably why flight 93 was shrouded in sentimental and patriotic mythology. And the obvious hoax of the flight 93 crash site is also why the government deliberately put out rumors that flight 93 was shot down.
Bookmark and Share

Well Knock Me Over with a Feather!

Bush Sees No End to War on Terrorism

By NEDRA PICKLER, Associated Press Writer

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

President Bush said Tuesday that the foiled plot to blow up flights between Britain and the United States is evidence the U.S. could be fighting terrorists for years to come.
Bookmark and Share

"Cheney Hit"

The Webfairy has an awesome page on this intriguing, late-appearing 2nd hit footage.

I had never seen the complete clip before, which is here as a flash movie.

The audio file is extremely interesting, with "jet" and explosion sounds unlike any other footage.
Bookmark and Share

Demoted the Book Section

I decided to move the book links down the side of the page quite a ways. While the books there are good introductions to 9/11 skepticism, I see no reason to promote books that have nothing about TV fakery and very little about the no-plane theory (some of the books cast doubt on the Pentagon hit and Tarpley's book talks about the lack of plane debris at the flight 93 crash site). But overall, there is way too much "plane-hugging" in the books.

What is really needed is a good book on 9/11 TV fakery and the no-plane theory.

Meanwhile, there are a bunch of free articles to read on 9/11 TV fakery and the no-plane theory, linked in the recommended/required reading section.
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, August 15, 2006

Where Are the Terrorists?

Everyone knows our airport security is porous.

Everyone knows our port security is almost non-existent.

Everyone knows our border security is a joke.

Everyone knows how easy it is to get guns in this country-- even automatic weapons.

High explosives probably aren't too hard to get on the black market.

Radioactive material or even a nuclear bomb could probably be obtained from Pakistan, North Korea or Russia.

Everyone knows the US is a huge and essentially free country that is impossible to secure completely.

So where are the damn terrorists?

They can't all be in Iraq and Afghanistan-- surely some of the smarter terrorists must have realized there are easy pickings to be had in the US.

So where are they?

Look, I am glad we've had almost* no terror attacks in the US since 9/11-anthrax.

But doesn't it make you wonder what is going on?

Here are the possible explanations I can think of:

1) there are many Al Qaeda terror attacks that are being thwarted each week-- and we never hear about them on the news

2) Al Qaeda is laying in wait, hoping to catch us off guard befre their next big attack

3) Al Qaeda got what they want out of 9/11: the US to invade the middle-east, which would inspire world-wide jihad

4) Al Qaeda was always a minimal threat to the US and they simply got really really lucky on 9/11

5) the Al Qaeda threat to the US is, and always was, bogus

Explanation #1 definitely defies logic, given the way terror attacks and terror threats are over-played by both politicians and the media.

Explanation #2 is hard to completely rule out, but is hard to believe is a serious strategy for a terror group. An attack every five years is hardly a way to instill systematic fear and bring a country to its knees (although it was always a laughable proposition that Al Qaeda could bring down the US anyway). Moreover, waiting so long will make people think the terrorists have given up, given the ease at which some sort of major attack could be carried out on the US. If Al Qaeda only mounts some major attack every few years, it may be horrible-- but what is the point? What is the strategy? A large scale attack every few years serves western political interests more than anything else.

Explanation #3 is possible, though clearly that plan hasn't worked out with a war that was started three years ago. I would think Al Qaeda would move on to another strategy. Massive world-wide jihad was not inspired by the Iraq invasion but neither has Al Qaeda officially given up attacking western countries. Another problem with his explanation is that many high-level officials in the Bush administration wanted an excuse to invade Iraq, and thus there was a conflation of interests with the US and Al Qaeda. It seems somewhat improbable, from an official point of view, that US and Al Qaeda interests would be so similar without the two actively working together.

Explanation #4 is also officially possible, though it begs the question of whether they truly got lucky or were aided in some way. Truly, their scheme was rather hare-brained and by any stretch of imagination, they were phenomenally lucky.

The other problems with explanations 1-4 is that you have to ignore all the signs that something not quite right happened on 9/11: planes that melted into buildings, planes that disappeared into the ground, buildings that collapsed incredibly smoothly and rapidly, and an air force that was supremely ineffective at guarding even the US capital.

So really-- explanation #5 makes the most amount of sense, if you go on the proposition that in fact, 9/11 was an "inside job".

So seriously, if you believe in the official 9/11 story -- where are the terrorists????

*the Washington DC sniper back in 2003 was a type of terrorism.
Bookmark and Share

The Logic of No-Planes

An inside job by who? The Govt? That’s only part of the story. The TV fakery on the Sth tower hit proves that the media was just as big a player as the Govt.

Govts come and go, but if the media which was a major player in organizing the psy-op remains in power, then nothing has changed. Hanging out a few patsies who have outlived their usefulness- like Bush and Silverstein— may satisfy a primitive thirst for revenge but it leaves fully intact the criminal infrastructure which organized the deception. In fact it strengthens it by giving the misleading appearance that the truth has been exposed and that justice has been done, while actually leaving the high level perpetrators fully in control and ready to move on to the next chapter of their deception.

If the media gets away with showing us a cartoon and passing it off as news in such brazen fashion, and then gets Govt patsies to take the fall, do you think they’ll only do it once? And with continuing improvements in digital technology, the next one will be harder to pick if people have not been made aware that this sort of thing is happening.

Also, this is strongly relevant to my previous point—that bad information leads to bad decisions. There is an obsession within the movement with trying to use the mainstream media as the vehicle to tell the so called-truth about the event.

If it were the case that the Govt had organized the whole thing, and that the media had been simply swept along by the tide, not knowing how to deal with the situation, and fallen into line because it simply didn’t have the courage or the knowledge to resist the situation, then exposure of the truth through the mainstream media might be a plausible aim.

But the knowledge that the media was a full and willing partner in organizing the entire deception, should make it obvious that disclosure of the full truth through that same media an absurd and impractical aim. If they allow limited amounts of truth to leak into the media, this is only because it is part of their plan to continue the deception and move it forward to the next chapter.

Selective truth can be as deceptive as lies.

The media might hang out the Govt , but it wont hang out itself, and this means that it will never facilitate disclosure of the full truth.

It’s like knowing that the police are running the local drug gangs and yet still going to them with information, expecting them to genuinely act on it, and then cheering because eventually they bust one of the gangs, when in actual fact, they’ve done it only to make people think that they’re doing something, and all it represents is a change in alliances within the trade, and a change in the details of how they’re going to keep running the trade.
For example, demolition proves demolition, but does not prove stand down, or hijacker ID fakery. They remain as completely independent arguments.

By contrast, TV fakery solves all three questions in one hit. It proves demolition—no more arguments about jet fuel fires, no more arguments about whether there were any Arabs on the planes, and it solves the mystery of why we haven't found the stand down order and why no one in the Air Force has come forward—it’s because there wasn’t any stand down order, because there didn’t need to be, because there weren't any hijacked planes.

Every other piece of evidence, while useful in proving one specific point and in demonstrating in a general sense that we have been lied to, leaves many significant loose ends.

Let me give you an example. The demolition by itself enables the whole hijacker myth to stand. A criminal group within the business community simply knew what was going to happen and decided to take advantage of the situation by using it as a cover to demolish the buildings and then criminal elements within the govt covered up for them retrospectively.
Put yourself in the position of the hijackers. What kind of idiot would plan to crash two planes into the towers, and then expect to be able to attack the pentagon 3/4 of an hour later and then expect to be able to attack the White House another 1/2 hour after that?

The hijackers were seriously so stupid that never even considered the question of likely response from the air force? They made an incredibly stupid plan which had no hope whatsoever of succeeding, but by an amazing coincidence the Govt had found out about it, and decided to let it happen?

Not very plausible really. So to get around this, you have to conclude that the hijackers actually knew that the air force was going to be stood down for them.

Which means that hijackers and the Govt were actually working together. In which case why would Islamic fanatics commit suicide to help the US govt? Which means that they weren’t Islamic fanatics. They were USG agents.

In which case, is it normal for top USG operatives to do suicide missions?

So you try to solve this problem by considering remote controlled planes.

Which then creates the problem of why electronically hijack real flights with crew who might be able to ruin the plot, rather than use decoy drones? Which then leads you on to substitute drones to try to solve that problem. Etc, etc.

As long as there are planes in the story, then each layer which is peeled back creates as many new problems as it solves.

This of course, is inevitable with any story if its central core is fiction. The most efficient way to bust a fictitious story is to go straight for its fictitious core, rather than keep chasing the tangential lies which were spin offs to try to cover the main lie.
Bookmark and Share

Monday, August 14, 2006

Some Excellent Points on the Capabilities of the Bush Administration to Pull Off 9/11

...A common refrain heard from the left – less often from the right – in response to suspicions about the official 9/11 story goes something like: “The Bush administration has demonstrated such incompetence on so many fronts that it strains the imagination to think they could of have pulled off something so elaborate, and kept it a secret.” This argument ignores three key facts.

First, while George W. Bush may be intellectually challenged across the board, and while neoconservatives may have a gravely naïve, overreaching geopolitical agenda, Bush officials in key national security positions have superlative experience in managing clandestine operations, and have repeatedly demonstrated ruthless, systematic, detailed-oriented control over sensitive programs and information. The historical preoccupation of key officials across the Bush administration with clandestine operations – both legal and illegal – is well known to historians of the field.

Second, vastly larger programs have remained secret for decades. A few examples: the National Security Agency has a larger budget and more employees than the CIA. It was organized in 1949. This entire agency of the federal government remained completely hidden from the public until the 1980s, over three decades later. One of the programs run by NSA, believed to have started in the 1940s, was Project Shamrock, through which all major transatlantic telegraph cables were tapped with the cooperation of AT&T and other communications carriers. This vast program – involving people building, installing and running equipment all over the world, and yet numerous others watching and translating conversations – was kept entirely secret until the 1990s. Most American citizens have never heard of this program to this day. Serious students of the U.S. national security apparatus know how effective its systems can be in controlling information and people, and compartmenting information and tasks into a startlingly small number of hands.

Third, the official 9/11 story asks us to believe that only a couple of dozen poorly trained Islamic radicals deftly maneuvered through the world’s most powerful intelligence gathering and military machine. How much easier might it have been for a similar number of people to do so, employing many unknowing others for secondary, compartmented tasks, if those handful with full knowledge of the plan also knew every aspect of the U.S. intelligence and military machine, and were in key positions governing its activities and responses?

The historical association between Bush officials, government and private intelligence networks and clandestine operations argues against the notion that incompetence allowed 9/11 to occur, and therefore this fact must raise suspicion...
(via 9/11 Blogger.) The rest of the article at "The Journal of 9/11 Studies" is highly worth reading.
Bookmark and Share

Some New 9/11 Sites

Bookmark and Share

"Target: USA"

I try to avoid CNN normally, but tuned in for kicks this morning and happened to see their new fear slogan.

"Target: USA"

Mmmmmmmmmmm, I just love the smell of propaganda in the morning.

Now here's a question: does anyone think that a media that pulls off this kind of bullshit (and this kind of bullshit) is going to tell us the truth about 9/11???????

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, August 13, 2006

A Prime Example of How Bogus the Terrorism Threat Is

-- is shown by the incredible porosity of airline security to certain kinds of threats.

Real terrorists
would have long ago exploited these holes to devastating effect.
Bookmark and Share

Too Small of a Plane in Both "Live" 2nd Hit Videos

Here is the famous ABC "live" shot, that I have discussed in the past.

I modeled this shot as carefully as I could using Flight Simulator-- in particular I tried to get the right angle of the building and the right size of the plane:

Interestingly, though, this plane is also quite a ways off from the towers as judged by the "blue plane" video angle:

And way off, according to the "CNN wide" video angle (note, the plane should be on the other, west, side of the building)

And looking from above, the plane is not so far from the south tower, but clearly is not on the right trajectory for the tower.

Keep in mind, that for the simulations above, I have not changed the plane position AT ALL, merely changed the camera angle.

So this finding suggests that the plane is actually MISSING the towers, and flying to the east of the towers.

Now, let's look at the other video of the 2nd hit that was shown live, the so-called Salter video (named for who it came from):

Here's the plane coming into this video:

As you can see, the towers are in near profile, as is the plane.

We know the width of the towers: 208 feet.
And a Boeing 767-200 is 160 feet long.

Since the plane came in at almost a perpendicular angle to the tower, there should be little foreshortening of the plane, and the ratio of the plane to the towers should be about 0.77.

The ratio of the plane to the towers here is 0.69, when only the west wall is measured (the towers show a little bit of northern wall in the photo). This suggests the plane is in fact a bit further away than it should be to hit the towers, and thus is smaller.

I did some modeling of this shot, but going about it a different way than above:

Here is the camera view-- very far away to the west as in the video:

Here is a zoom-in, showing the plane close to the towers, similar to the shot from the video:

You can see the trajectory is just right to hit the south tower in this modeling:

Now, what is the ratio of the plane length to the tower width in this simulation?
Keep in mind we are measuring just the west wall width, not the complete width of the towers.
The ratio is 0.8-- close to the 0.77 ideal ratio.

This indicates that the smaller ratio in the ACTUAL video indicates that the plane was either farther away than it had to be to hit the building-- or the wrong plane was used, or the video was faked somehow.

What is we keep the plane where it is and compare it to the ABC live shot I analyzed above:

It looks very similar! But what about the plane size?
The ratio of the plane to the overall building width here in this model is: 0.37
The ratio of the plane to the overall building width here in the actual video is: 0.34 (in other words, smaller).

In the ABC "live" model from above, the ratio of the plane to the overall building width here in the actual video is: 0.33-- fairly close to the video shot.

Taken together, we have four videos of the 2nd hit now, that were shown early on the morning of 9/11, that show the plane missing the towers and going off to the east.

This suggests either:
1) the plane that hit the towers was not a Boeing 767-200, but a smaller plane, or
2) the videos filmed a Boeing 767-200 flying past the towers then manipulated the video to make it seem as though the plane hit (i.e. cut out the plane continuing on past the towers), or
3) the videos show a computer generated image that is too small for a Boeing 767-200.

A major problem with the official story is that other videos show a plane the size of a 767 hitting the south tower. So at minimum the later 2nd hit videos were edited.

It is not clear why the plane size would be so wrong for the "live" shots if it was CGI-- unless they did it quickly and sloppily.

Another hypothesis is that a plane did fly past the towers at some point, and this was spliced into footage of the towers exploding. This would be somewhat easier than completeley generating plane video from scratch. If so, the question is WHEN did the plane fly past?

NOTE: post modified to remove outdated links on 10/7/06
Bookmark and Share

More Work on the Val McClatchey Photo

Bookmark and Share

The Tip-Off

A few days back, I discussed an article entitled "A critical analysis of the collapses of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7 from an explosives and conventional demolition industry viewpoint".

I think really the biggest tip-off that these guys know something is up with the WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7 collapses is right in the title: "conventional demolition industry".

Isn't this basically a tacit admission that there is another type of demolition that could account for the the collapses of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7? A type of "unconventional" demolition.

Why else would they say "conventional demolition industry"?
Bookmark and Share



This stinks:
LONDON - NBC News has learned that U.S. and British authorities had a significant disagreement over when to move in on the suspects in the alleged plot to bring down trans-Atlantic airliners bound for the United States.

A senior British official knowledgeable about the case said British police were planning to continue to run surveillance for at least another week to try to obtain more evidence, while American officials pressured them to arrest the suspects sooner. The official spoke on condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of the case.

In contrast to previous reports, the official suggested an attack was not imminent, saying the suspects had not yet purchased any airline tickets. In fact, some did not even have passports.
The official shed light on other aspects of the case, saying that while the investigation into the bombing plot began "months ago," some suspects were known to the security services even before the London subway bombings last year.
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Is Anybody Really This Stupid?

In hour 2 of the Fetzer interview of Prof. Jones, both Fetzer and Morgan Reynolds called Jones to task, claiming that they have seen pictures of molten aluminum where it was glowing hot, just like - you guessed it: the molten metal pouring out of the south tower minutes before it's collapse. All this time I was under the impression that the video of the molten metal was definintely [sic] thermite, because molten aluninum [sic] is silvery, now I hear this. I have told numerous people about the video showing thermite, now it may turn out that the government was correct about it being aluminum after all. If this turns out to be the case, I don't know what to believe anymore. Could it be that we are all wrong about 911 being an inside job? We would certainly look foolish if that were the case. Jesus.
windex | 08.11.06 - 8:06 pm | #

This person needs to get a clue.

The fact is, a good case for 9/11 being an inside job exists, without getting into demolition, cell phone calls or no-planes (the so-called physical evidence people avoided for so long). The stories of the hijackers alone, are HIGHLY suspicious. The hijackers are, in fact, greatly neglected by everyone on both sides of the 9/11 issue, and it is extremely clear the official story is simply wrong regarding the hijackers.

It is really only in the last year or so, that demolition of the WTC towers has become a generally accepted fact among 9/11 skeptics. This was probably because early high profile 9/11 skeptics specifically avoided any physical evidence issues, for reasons that are not entirely clear (either they honestly thought it was too controversial or they were promoting a form of disinformation), and thus it took a while for people to learn about the demolition issue.
Bookmark and Share


Bookmark and Share

Friday, August 11, 2006

Why the Recent Airline Bombing Plot Was Most Likely Bogus

Small amounts of liquid explosive smuggled on board via carry-on luggage?


It is no secret that checked luggage is barely scrutinized at all.

Wouldn't serious terrorists utilize this fact?

As someone pointed out on the Diane Rehm radio show this morning, it is amazing no one has repeated a Pan Am 103 style bombing in the 18 years since that attack occurred.

My guess was that this recent plot was had real suspects but was partially staged-- and was done primarily to show that the authorities are doing their job.

Another reason to doubt the veracity of the plot is the fact that the airport shutdown and change in carry-on luggage screening occurred only after the plot was supposedly broken up and suspects were arrested. If the terrorists had been under surveillance for months, and the authorities knew this was going to happen, wouldn't they have started checking carry-on liquids earlier?
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, August 10, 2006

Jeff Strahl, Mechanical Engineer

Believes the WTC was brought down by demolition.

He brings up the interesting concept of the "resistance paradox":
Interesting that you note the towers disintegrating, but do not note, or pretend to not note, the contradiction between the lower portions offering no resistance to the falling debris if you wish to explain the short collapse time, vs the top portions disintegrating as if encountering massive resistance. So, which is it, Mr Partridge? Did the lower portions offer zero resistance to explain the short collapse time (videos show the lower portions offering no more resistance than the nearby air), or did they offer high resistance, to account for the upper portions disintegrating ABOVE THE COLLAPSE ZONE, IN MID-AIR?

The fact that the towers collapsed top to bottom, where the only thing that appears to drive the collapse is a huge cloud of dust, is by itself strong proof that the collapses were not simple pancaking events.
Bookmark and Share

"War Crimes Act Changes Would Reduce Threat Of Prosecution"

Bookmark and Share

"The War on Terror": Dumbest War EVER

You simply can't stop terrorism by dropping bombs.

You're only going to make new terrorists.
Bookmark and Share

Liquid-Based Explosives?

Reports suggested the plot revolved around liquid-based explosives, and all passengers from the UK and the US were being told they could not carry liquid or lotions onto flights. Heathrow officials said all milk for babies would have to be tasted by an "accompanying passenger".

Sources said those arrested were British-born; Mr Reid would not comment on the background of the detainees.

Most of the suspects detained overnight were arrested in London; two people were also arrested in Birmingham and Mr Stephenson said there had also been an operation in the Thames Valley. There were reports of anti-terror officers being deployed in High Wycombe, Buckinghamshire. Mr Stephenson said a number of addresses were being searched and it is believed some explosive materials have been found, though this has not been confirmed.

Peter Clarke, the head of the Met's anti-terror branch, said the operation had involved an "unprecedented level of surveillance" and had reached a "critical point" last night when officers move to "protect the public".

The focus of the long investigation had been on the "meetings, movement, travel, pending and the aspirations of a large group of people" and the alleged plot had "global dimensions", he said.

US officials are taking the developments extremely seriously and passengers in the US have also been prohibited from carrying liquids or lotions on flights. Michael Chertoff, the US homeland security secretary, said: "We believe that these arrests have significantly disrupted the threat, but we cannot be sure that the threat has been entirely eliminated or the plot completely thwarted."

Update: Ah THESE liquid explosives:
Plot Echoes One Planned by 9/11 Mastermind in ‘94

JAKARTA, Aug. 10 — The plot to blow up several airliners over the Atlantic, uncovered by British authorities, bears a striking resemblance to a plot hatched by Al Qaeda operatives 12 years ago to simultaneously blow up airliners over the Pacific.

That plot was hatched in Manila by Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was starting his climb to be a top lieutenant to Osama bin Laden, and by Ramzi Yousef, who was the mastermind of the first bomb attack on the World Trade Center in 1993. It was financed by bin Laden.

Mr. Mohammed gave the operation the codename “Bojinka,” which was widely reported to have been adopted from Serbo-Croatian, and to mean “big bang.” But Mr. Mohammed has told Central Intelligence Agency interrogators that it was just a “nonsense word” he chose after hearing it on the front lines in Afghanistan, where he was fighting with Muslim rebels against Russia, according to “The 9/11 Commission Report.” Mr. Mohammed was seized in Pakistan in 2003, and is now being held by the C.I.A. at an undisclosed location.

The Bojinka plot was anything but nonsense. At an apartment in Manila, Mr. Mohammed and Mr. Yousef began mixing chemicals, which they planned to put into containers that would be carried on board the airliners, as the London plotters are said to have been planning to do.

In those days, it would have been relatively easy to get liquid explosives past a checkpoint.

Mr. Mohammed and Mr. Yousef studied airline schedules and planned to sneak the liquid onto a dozen planes headed to Seoul and Hong Kong, and then on to the United States.

The plot was foiled in early 1995, when a fire broke out in the apartment where some of the plotters were working. Among the things found when the police investigated was Mr. Yousef’s laptop computer, containing a file called Bojinka. The police also found dolls wearing clothes containing nitrocellulose, according to the 9/11 report.

Mr. Yousef also was later captured in Pakistan, turned over to the United States, tried, convicted and sentenced to life in prison without parole.

Mr. Mohammed has told interrogators that after the 1993 World Trade Center bombing, which involved explosives in a truck and which failed to bring down the building, he “needed to graduate to a more novel form of attack,” according to the 9/11 report. That led to Bojinka, and the first thoughts about using planes to bomb the World Trade Center.
The question is: WHY are they recycling this old plot now???
Bookmark and Share


It will be interesting to see follow-up stories on this. I'm putting in much of the story here because details often change.
Aircraft Bomb Plot Thwarted in Britain
International Herald Tribune

LONDON - British authorities said Thursday that they had thwarted a terrorist plot to blow up multiple airliners traveling between Britain and the United States, creating "mass murder on an unimaginable scale."

The police said they had arrested 21 people in connection with the plot, which apparently involved plans to smuggle explosives onto aircraft in hand luggage. In response, flights into London Heathrow Airport were canceled and airlines banned hand luggage on departing planes, causing chaos and long delays.

The police did not identify the suspects or their origin, though Paul Stephenson, the deputy metropolitan police commissioner for London, said "community leaders" had been alerted about the police action, using a code word for the British Muslim community.

The authorities did not say how many aircraft had been identified for attack. Sky News put the number at six, while other reports said between three and 10.

"We think this was an extraordinarily serious plot and we are confident that we have stopped an attempt to create mass murder on an unimaginable scale," Stephenson told reporters at Scotland Yard.

He said the people had been arrested in and near London and Birmingham, and added that the searches would continue.

"We have been very successful in arresting those we were targeting but this is a lengthy operation, and no doubt there will be further developments," he told reporters.

News of the foiled plot comes little more than a year after terrorists killed 52 people in an attack on the London Underground, and nearly five years after the attacks of Sept. 11.

As heightened security measures went into effect at Heathrow, travelers were sometimes given little explanation, amid chaotic scenes.

Officials were requiring passengers to check everything except personal items like keys, wallets, and passports, which they had to carry in plastic bags. Drinks and other liquid items were banned.

Travelers were required to remove spectacles or sunglasses from their cases, and those travelling with infants were required to taste any baby milk in front of security officials.

Britain's Department for Transport said it was requiring secondary searches of travelers headed for the United States, with a particular eye to removing any liquids they might have with them.

"We hope that these measures, which are being kept under review by the government, will need to be in place for a limited period only," the department said in a statement.

Despite the arrests, the police said other people connected with the plot might still be at large.

"We believe that these arrests have significantly disrupted the threat, but we cannot be sure that the threat has been entirely eliminated or the plot completely thwarted," Michael Chertoff, the U.S. homeland security secretary, told reporters.

The anti-terrorist action came at a time when Prime Minister Tony Blair is on vacation in the Caribbean. The government said he has spoken to President George W. Bush about the situation.

Disclosure of the plot came one day after John Reid, the British home secretary, gave a speech in which he warned that Britain faced "probably the most sustained period of severe threat since the end of the Second World War."

"This has involved close cooperation, not only between agencies and police forces in the United Kingdom, but also internationally," Reid said.

The British government has come under criticism for anti-terrorism measures imposed in the wake of the July 7 bombings last year.

Despite the extra security measures, flights were still taking off from Heathrow on Thursday morning. Other British airports also reportedly faced delays and crowding.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, August 09, 2006

Response to "A critical analysis of the collapses of WTC towers 1, 2 and 7 from an explosives and conventional demolition industry viewpoint", Part 1

The PDF document can be found here.

This letter was written by Brent Blanchard, an editor at "" and a director at Protec Documentation Services Inc., and is dated August 8th, 2006. He claims assistance from other employees of Protec. Protec Documentation Services Inc. is a company involved in documenting building implosions. Protec apparently was at Ground Zero following 9/11 and did some documentation.

A few preface remarks:

First, the title of the document is very interesting, referring to the "conventional demolition industry".

Is there an "unconventional demolition industry"?

Certainly, what happened at the WTC was unconventional demolition-- so maybe these guys aren't even the right people to talk about UNconventional demolition.

Second, the letter specifically declines to talk about any political or background motivations for what happened to the WTC. This is fine, if they simply want to refer to the appearances of the collapses, which is what they are most experienced with. Nonetheless, the financial and political motivations are a very important part of the story and shouldn't be dismissed. There ARE many reasons why people wanted the towers down besides the official 9/11 story-- such as that the towers had a very expensive asbestos clean-up slated for them.

Third, the article never considers the idea that the plane crashes were faked, and there is now compelling evidence for this. Taking away the idea that hijacked jets crashed into the towers completely alters the equation of what happened to the towers.

Fourth, the article never addresses three key issues that form the crux of why many people believe the towers were blown up:
-- the floor damage was not extensive enough and the fires were neither hot enough nor widespread enough to weaken the buildings such that a whole floor essentially broke free of all its supporting columns and collapsed down
-- one floor collapse was unlikely to have enough energy to bring the whole building down
-- the collapse occurred much too fast, almost at free-fall speed, as if there was almost no resistance from the intact structure

Now to the main assertions:
Assertion 1: the collapses looked exactly like controlled demolitions. The author says "no they didn't".

I agree they didn't look like controlled demolitions for WTC 1 and 2. Of course, they conveniently sidestep WTC7, which DOES look exactly like a controlled demolition.

They also claim that the only way the structures could have started collapsing exactly where the "planes struck" was either:
A) explosives were pre-planted and survived the initial impact and fires, or
B) explosives were planted after the plane crashes

I agree with them that scenario B is essentially impossible. But they also maintain that scenario A is impossible-- that no pre-planted explosives could survive the crashes and fires. I disagree, for three reasons:
-- it is quite possible that unconventional explosives were used that were resistant to fire.
-- many people, particularly firefighters, in the WTC towers reported explosions, and these explosions could certainly have been from pre-planted explosives going off ahead of time from the heat from the fires.
-- the plane crashes were faked and were mimicked by explosives and possibly missiles; thus there had to be explosives under tight control in the buildings

Assertion 2: the buildings fell straight down into their footprint. The author says "They did not. They followed the path of least resistance".

I agree the "footprint" description is misleading, and is not very apt for WTC1 and 2. Though again the author conveniently sidesteps WTC7, which was huge in its own right and DID fall nearly perfectly into its footprint. In any case, the WTC1 and 2 towers still fell in a remarkably small area given their incredible size. I also think the author is being a disingenuous by claiming that buildings tend to collapse straight down. If that was the case, there is surely no need for extensive preparations for controlled demolition and for actually "controlling" the explosive demolition.

The part about how the tops of the towers behaved normally after they broke off is also not right. The 30-story top of WTC2 tipped quite severely and had a significant amount of tipping momentum. Yet after starting to tip, the 30 story top is seen to suddenly turn into a cloud of dust in one or two seconds. There is no way to explain this by any conventional collapse. Only demolition of some type can explain what happened to this top. Stating that this section of building behaved normally is disingenuous at best.

Assertion 3: Explosive squibs can be seen shooting from several floors prior to collapse. Their response: this is just air and debris being discharged as a natural part of the collapse process.

This section is the weakest, as they are clearly hand-waving about how the squibs appeared.

Worse, they clearly lie when they say: "...neither building structurally failed at any location where plumes were visible... [their ellipses] nor did they fail at any place in advance of the single gravitational collapse sequence."

This is utter horseshit. The squibs appeared PRECISELY ahead of the collapse zone and precisely where the collapse would next occur. How they can say "...neither building structurally failed at any location where plumes were visible... [their ellipses] nor did they fail at any place in advance of the single gravitational collapse sequence" with a straight face escapes me. Their statement is a lie.

This right here, destroys the credibility of the author/authors as objective judges of the collapses of the buildings. There are also the other flaws I have pointed out.

This is where I will stop my rebuttal for now.
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, August 08, 2006


Bertrand Russell:
If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence.

I've no doubt that this quote can be applied to both sides of the 9/11 debate.

But there is one way out of this trap-- good science.

SCIENCE says there is something wrong with the official collapse story for the WTC buildings.

SCIENCE says the videos and images of the 2nd plane do not add up.

SCIENCE says the plane-shaped holes in the WTC violate basic physical laws.

SCIENCE (indeed basic logic) says that the tail of UA175 should have broken off as the plane went in, since the steel columns did not have a hole where the tail section went in-- yet the video shows the tail section smoothly gliding INTO the building.

SCIENCE says the official version of the flight 93 crash, how it both disintegrated and disappeared into the ground, violates basic physical laws.

SCIENCE says cell phones do not work well if at all from high altitude planes.
Bookmark and Share


The question really is NOT whether the government and the media are lying about 9/11. There is no doubt they are lying about it to some degree.

The question really is: HOW MUCH ARE THEY LYING?

In my opinion, they are lying A LOT.
Bookmark and Share

Monday, August 07, 2006

Conspiracy Theorists Gone Wild!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Conspiracy theorists blog that Flight 93 photo is fake"
--I especially like how the FBI agent compares Val McClatchey's photo to a photo of UA175, given what we know of the pictures of UA175. Importantly, the article never questions Killtown's analysis. So either the photo is fake, or something blew up quite a ways off from where UA93 officially crashed. Of course, the media could never be bothered with actually trying to find out the truth...

"9/11 conspiracy theorists energized"
--a piece on This article has quite a bit on Judy Wood, and not surprisingly has an obnoxious tone.

"Filmed For TV To Find Out Why World Trade Centre Collapsed"
--Professor of fire safety burns an apartment building to find out why the WTC collapsed, and the apartment building held up just fine.
Bookmark and Share

Powered by Blogger