Humint Events Online: September 2006

Saturday, September 30, 2006

Covert Deviancy

Bookmark and Share

Five Basic Possibilities for What Happened at the South Tower

1) A non-conventional plane or missile, either similar looking to a Boeing 767 or with cloaking similar to a Boeing 767 hit the tower, and the videos that show the plane melting into the tower are mostly legitimate. Some videos were probably altered to make the plane look more like a United 767 and also to confuse investigators. Rather than shearing off upon impact, the wingtips and tail of this plane were apparently some special material or energy form that was able to disintegrate/dissipate upon contact and also leave a ghost-like imprint in heavy steel columns.

2) A Boeing 767 flew close by the tower right before it exploded, then turned invisible by cloaking technology. Some videos that don't show the plane directly going into the tower could therefore be legitimate, while videos showing the plane melting into the tower needed to be faked. The damage to the tower was caused by either pre-planted bombs or by an invisible missile.

3) No visible plane hit the tower and all videos showing the plane hitting the tower were faked. The damage to the tower was caused by either pre-planted bombs or by an invisible missile. A 767-like plane may have flown by the tower around the time of the strike to confound witnesses, but this plane did not appear in any 2nd hit video.

4) Some missile or plane looking very dissimilar to a 767 hit the south tower and all videos showing a large Boeing jet hitting the tower were faked. A 767-like plane may have flown by the tower around the time of the strike to confound witnesses.

5) The official story, except that some videos were manipulated or were faked after the fact, to confuse investigators, for fame or for commercial purposes (or any combination of these).

The problem with #5 (the official story plus faked videos) of course is that the plane defies physics as it enters the tower.

The problem with #4 is it assumes every video from close-up was faked, and idea I also find unlikely.

The problem with #3 is it assumes every video was faked, and idea I find unlikely.

The problems with #2 are that it assumes a) every video of the plane "buttering" into the tower is fake, b) that no one happened to get a video of the plane going off to the side then invisible before the tower exploded, and c) something else happened to the tower (an invisible missile or pre-planted bombs). The benefit of #2 is that it explains why the two "live" videos of the south tower hit showed a smaller plane than expected.

The main problem with #1 is that it assumes a some flying bomb technology that is top secret. The great benefits of this explanation are that it explains EVERYTHING: the witnesses, the weird videos, the videos showing a blinking wing, and the plane-shaped hole. The main problem of this explanation is that we don't know what it was that hit the tower.

Overall, I think #1 is the most likely explanation, and it has the least amount of risk if we go on the reasonable assumption that the south tower attack was rigged.

Thus right now, I think #1 is most likely, and #2 and #3 are alternative possibilities in that order.


The perpetrators would obviously prefer to have the plane completely enter the tower, to provide an excuse for the eventual collapse of the tower. Using a normal 767 is far too risky in terms of hitting the tower and for the plane breaking apart as it entered the tower, thus spilling easily identified plane parts on the ground.

A side-benefit of #1 is the psy-op-fake-out effect of having the plane act like "a bad special effect", as Evan Fairbanks described it.

Having a plane behave so "otherworldly" solidified the unreality of that day.
Bookmark and Share

Flight Simulator Modeling: What I've Learned So Far

What I learned from the previous post is that no one has a concrete reason or specific example of why Flight Simulator is not accurate at modeling planes in flight.

No one has been able to suggest a better program or better software to use.

What I have found in extensive tests with Flight Simulator is that it actually is extremely accurate in recreating scenes from several 2nd hit videos, and that for several of these videos, flight simulator shows a near perfect 767 on track to hit the south tower. So the software clearly can be accurate at modeling planes in flight-- which is what you might reasonably expect.

Whether you want to believe it or not, Flight Simulator shows there are a few funny things about the first and second WTC attacks:

1) the plane that hit the north tower is too small and doesn't look much like a 767

2) the two known videos of the south tower hit that were televised "live" (the ABC video that was shown on ABC, CNN and Fox, and the WNYW video (for some reason both "live" videos were both taken from helicopters that were quite some distance from the WTC) show a plane that is too small for a 767.

3) many of the planes in the 2nd hit photos and videos are flawed, deformed versions of 767's.

4) some 2nd hit videos show approach paths that conflict with other videos.
Bookmark and Share

Friday, September 29, 2006

Indisputable Evidence the Official 9/11 Story Is Wrong, Part II: The Flight 93 Plume Is In the Wrong Place

Analysis here.
Bookmark and Share

Flight Simulator Modeling Critique Thread

Okay, have at it.

Please tell me why Microsoft Flight Simulator 2004 is not an accurate system to view planes in flight from different angles. Please give substantive reasons and if possible, specific examples. Calling FlightSim a video game is not a substantive critique.

Also, if anyone knows of a better system to model aircraft in flight, please let me know.
Bookmark and Share

Mourning in America

This pretty much sums up how I feel.

No matter who the terrorists are, they should not be allowed to rip apart the foundations of basic justice, freedom and human decency for this country.
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, September 28, 2006

The Death of Constitutional Democracy in the US

The United States, as we've known it, exists no longer.

We are now essentially a dictatorship, where the president can detain anyone--even a US citizen-- without even habeas corpus rights, by declaring them an "enemy combatant".

And TORTURE has been sanctified by the state.

What a DISGRACE for everyone in a leadership position in this country, though clearly the Bush administration and the GOP deserve the lion's share of the blame. These people are beyond redemption, they are just soulless husks of human beings. To think that they consider themselves good Christians makes me sick.

What a sad sad state to which we have come.

UPDATE: it's official. This is probably the most depressing day I've had since 9/11 and the day the US invaded Iraq. Greenwald has appropriate remarks here.

On the one hand, this is depressing. On the other hand, this is still our country and I am not going to give into these assholes. The sad people who wrote and voted for (and who will eventually sign) this bill are just scared little children who deserve our pity. Mostly, though, these people need to be voted out of office and prosecuted for war crimes wherever possible.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, September 27, 2006

Indisputable Evidence the Official 9/11 Story Is Wrong, Part I: Something Other Than a 767 Hit the North Tower

All the Naudet video frames relevant to the plane that hit the North tower can be seen here.

The flying object in the Naudets' video is both out of focus and has been subjected to some degree of motion blur. Nonetheless, the object has the rough outlines of a plane, a large plane in fact. But is it a Boeing 767, as AA flight 11 was?

Keep in mind that motion blur and general lack of focus will make the object look even bigger than it really is, as well as distort its overall appearance.

Here I 've done flight simulator comparisons with either a Boeing 767 or a Boeing 737 (a smaller similar shaped plane), with the plane juxtaposed next to the North WTC tower in a very similar position to the image on the left side, which is a frame from the Naudet "firemen's" video.

The black bar is the same in both frames, and shows the tower sizes are essentially identical. Click on pictures to enlarge.

Here is a 767 on the right, compared to the Naudet frame:

The 767 is clearly much bigger than the object in the video.

Here is a 737 on the right, compared to the Naudet frame:

The Naudet object is much more similarly sized to a 737.

Here is a 767 on the right, compared to the Naudet frame, where I've subjected the Flight Simulator frame to blurring and motion blur using Adobe photoshop. Clearly the 767 is still bigger, much bigger:

Here is a 737 on the right, compared to the Naudet frame, where I've subjected the Flight Simulator frame to blurring and motion blur using Adobe photoshop. The 737 is VERY similar in size to the plane in the Naudet video:

Here I analyze the frame of the Naudet video right before contact, right before the "flash" appears. Here is a blurred 767:

Here is a blurred 737:

In the last frame before contact, the plane in the Naudet video definitely looks smaller than a 767 but perhaps slightly bigger than a 737. Interestingly however, the large wings on the 767 remain quite visible, whereas the smaller wings on the 737 are fading away, very similar to what is seen with the plane in the Naudet video.

To summarize, the general features of the plane in the Naudet video are:
1) a shorter fuselage than a 767
2) shorter wings than a 767
3) a tail that is similar in size to a 767
4) less fuselage in front of the wings
5) what appears to be a different wing angle (less swept back) than a Boeing 767 or 737.
6) no signs of large wing-mounted engines

In other words, quite a different plane than the official story holds.

Pre-Emptive Response to Likely Criticisms
1) Criticism: the angle of the building is wrong. Overall the viewpoint of the flight simulator "camera" is very similar to the Naudet camera view. Part of the reason the flight simulator tower looks more angled is due to a fish-eye-lens-type distortion in the flight simulator "camera". This however, does not affect the relative perspective, and the plane in the Naudet video is clearly too small for a 767 when modeled in multiple different angles using flight simulator.

2) Criticism: the angle of the plane is wrong. The plane in the Naudet video is clearly too small for a 767 when the 767 is modeled in multiple different angles using flight simulator. I have not shown all my other simulations in order to save space.

3) Criticism: flight simulator is just a video game. Actually, flight simulator is a very sophisticated flight modeling progam, and is not a game in any traditional sense. Microsoft flight simulator is very precise at recreating realistic planes and objects from different perspectives.

4) Criticism: flight simulator does not precisely model planes and the WTC towers. In fact, the simulations one can do with flight simulator are quite remarkable in clarity, precision and detail. A 767 positioned next to the WTC in flight simulator shows the exact proportions one would expect from a real Boeing 767 and the 208 foot square 1250 foot high WTC. The only flaw I've seen with flight simulator is the fish-eye distortion seen with some camera angles in the Manhattan scenery, but as I've discussed, this does not affect my findings.

Ultimately, even if one wants to discount the flight simulator results, one must confront the simple math that shows the plane in the Naudet video is too short and has too narrow of a wingspan for a 767.
Bookmark and Share

What Kind of Plane Hit the North Tower?

(all photos can be enlarged by clicking on them)

Stills from the 1st hit video shot by the Naudets--
1) right before impact and 2) the plane nearing the tower:

Flight Simulator modeling*--

A Boeing 767-200 (same plane as AA11) is too big:

A Boeing 737 (a better fit):

A DC3 (too small):

The important comparisons here are the wingspan, fuselage length and the tower width. I have tried to line up the position of the plane with the Naudet clips as closely as possible.

The Naudet video is clearly blurry, and the plane image is small. Nonetheless, we can use the footage to make out the relative proportions of the plane with respect to the North tower. The plane in the Naudet footage doesn't appear to be a normal Boeing, as the front fuselage is quite truncated, and there are no apparent indications of wing-mounted engines. But overall, the size is smaller than a Boeing 767 and more in line with a Boeing 737. While the basic "scar" in the face of the North tower was very similar in size to the front profile of a Boeing 767, the actual hole (in terms of broken columns) did not accomodate a Boeing 767's wings or tail. I have to wonder if a smaller (than a 767) specially-designed plane loaded with explosives is what hit the North tower and created the hole and the scar. This could be somewhat in line with what hit the South tower.

Previously, I found evidence that the plane that was in the "live" videos of the 2nd hit was too small for a Boeing 767. It looks as though the plane that hit the North tower was also somewhat smaller.

The plane that hit the South tower clearly had unusual and special properties, but was also very similar to a Boeing 767 in shape. The plane that hit the North tower appears to be less like a Boeing 767. If we assume the same type of plane was used for both the North and South tower hits, this is because either because the 1st hit video wasn't mucked with like the 2nd hit videos were, or because the plane that hit the South tower was cloaked in some way to look more like a Boeing 767. Alternatively, different types of planes were used for both attacks, though it is not clear why this would be done.

*I tried very hard to match the camera angle to the Naudet clip here better than in my earlier attempt. Caveats: the FS camera gives a fish-eye type distortion to the images, there is nothing I can do about this, though I know it is distracting. The overall proportions should not change, however.
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, September 26, 2006

Olbermann Lays Into Bush About His Inaction Pre-9/11 and His Post-9/11 Blaming of Clinton

Now this is what I call SHRILL:

I think this is by far the closest I've seen a TV newscaster blame Bush for 9/11.
Bookmark and Share

Monday, September 25, 2006

9/11 Wargame Whistle-Blower

Sgt. Chavez's story (excerpt):
From 1995 till 2002 I was a Sergeant in the United States Army. Not only this, but I was stationed at United States Central Command, which is located at MacDill AFB in Tampa Florida. I was on active duty when 9-11 happened. In the days prior to the tragedies, we were involved in many exercises. Some of these exercises included the scenarios of hijacked planes crashing into, our building the world trade center, the White House, Sears Tower, and the Pentagon. These drills or exercises as we called them, where classified Top Secret. Having a Top Secret rated clearance I was dumbfounded that they would ever push a training exercise above the level of Secret. Over my 8 years in the Army, I had participated in many exercises around the world, none of which were ever classified over the Secret level.

I'll start by saying a few months prior it was announced by President Bush that Dick Cheney would be heading up operations over NORAD our North American Aerospace Defense Command. Along with many of my peers, we were shocked. Over the years, if you research NORAD, it has always been under the command of a Military officer. It was done this way because the defense of this country has always been in the hands of such. Prior to the months before 9-11 this was all of the sudden changed. Like I said, if you research NORAD and the command structure you will find that it was imposed long ago that the military should be in control of the order to scramble planes in the defense of American air space. For some strange reason, Bush changed this and gave that power to a civilian person on his Staff team yes I know, very interesting.

Back to the morning of 9-11; the command was busy with this training exercise. We were instructed to bring all our gear in to prep for a mock (staged) deployment to the Middle East. On the morning of 9-11 I had been on base prepped and ready to go since about 0400am. During my time at the base that morning, they were setting up barriers around the command and placing gun posts on the roofs. When I questioned one of the security officers about the machine gun and shoulder fired rockets on the roof I was given the answer its a precaution for a plane attempting to crash into this building.

So, I was standing in the SCIF (Secure Compartmented Information Facility), which is basically this underground bunker command post for USCENTCOM, when the first plane hit. We were watching the fly patterns of all the planes on the aerospace grid. This contained not only all commercial flights at the time, but all military flights, and fake enemy planes that were supposedly put on there for the exercise. Many of the planes sent to intercept the fake blips were scrambled from Andrews which is an air defense AFB for the East Coast. They were sent across the US and left very few planes to defend the capital. After the first plane hit the tower we were all in disbelief. After the initial shock was over, our questions were what are the odds this could happen for real, during a training exercise thats covering the same scenario? We were all at wits end. Then to top all of this off, Cheney gave NORAD the order to stand down scrambling jets to intercept. A few moments later tower 2 was hit. Only after the Pentagon was hit, did he give the orders to scramble the jets to intercept the plane bound for the White House.
(via 911blogger)

Interestingly, the last part of this guy's story DOES fit with Norman Mineta's story I just posted earlier today.

Okay, listening to him on Alex Jones (via the link above), he sounds very reasonable. He is basically a 9/11 truth guy who has a lot of questions based on his military experience on 9/11. Says wargame inserts were on FAA computers and were ID'ed properly.

Sounds like he doesn't have any direct knowledge of Cheney's stand down order, he is only surmising it from what he knows. Though he SAYS there WAS a stand-down order-- he heard a colonel pass on the order from higher up. Says he can't remember the guy's name, though.

Says he has a military friend who does demolitions and says the towers were clearly blown (WTC7 was a beautiful job).

Overall, this sounds legit but I tend to wonder about the stand-down order story.
Bookmark and Share

TV News Psy-Ops on 9/11

The guy at the end of this video reminds me of this guy, though the guy in the first video is a slightly better actor.
Bookmark and Share

They Lied About Anthrax

Did they sex up how nasty the anthrax was back then, or are they down-playing the US-military-as-the-source angle now? Or a little of both?

But clearly, they are either lying now or were lying then.

Will anyone ever be prosecuted for all the lies?
Bookmark and Share

Fake bin Laden Video?

Frankly, I always thought the guy in the December 2001 "confession" video looked quite a bit like Osama. Particularly it looks like bin Laden in the very beginning of the video (not shown in the YouTube clip).

This article gives a compelling reason why bin Laden looks a little chubbier in the video than in later photos of him: the video wasn't made when the US was bombing Afghanistan in November and December 2001 and bin Laden was on the run-- it was made in late September 2001, when bin Laden was still rested and well-fed. The video was also likely taken during a CIA sting operation, and was not found simply in an abandoned house.
Bookmark and Share

Mineta Tale of Cheney and the Incoming Plane on 9/11

The story makes little sense from any perspective. For instance, if the orders were to shoot the plane down, why wasn't it shot down? If the orders were for a stand-down or not to shoot, wouldn't this be an incredible admission? Can anyone believe that Cheney would give such public orders to this effect?

Why exactly did Mineta resign the DAY AFTER this strange story was relayed on national TV, on Fox News by Jim Fetzer? Another strange coincidence?

Or is the story possibly just disinfo?

Interestingly, Mineta served as a military intelligence officer before being elected to public office.
Bookmark and Share

"Always Look on the Bright Side of Life"

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, September 24, 2006

NORAD's Three Different Explanations for What Happened on 9/11

A fairly devastating dissection by David Ray Griffin.

Initially NORAD claimed they had plenty of warning by the FAA to get the four hijacked planes, but just failed (for unclear reasons).

Then they claimed that the FAA didn't give them enough warning, even though there was still enough time for interception.

NORAD's last claim is the FAA totally screwed up and they never had enough time to get the planes. In support of this, they allow the release of audio tapes from the NORAD command center supposedly from 9/11, showing the level of confusion due to the FAA.

Griffin thinks the tapes were faked by voice morphing technology-- a not unreasonable possibility given the strange evolution of the NORAD alibi.

The big question is why on earth did NORAD initially cover for the FAA? Does this make any sense?

And how can we trust ANYTHING NORAD (i.e. the Pentagon) says at this point?
Bookmark and Share

Because It Can't Be Said Enough

Bush lied and lots of people died.

Not that he cares. Tens of thousands of dead people and ruined lives are just a "comma".

And oh yeah, the Iraq war only made Islamic extremism and the risk of terrorism worse. This is no surprise to any one who was paying attnetion, but what the fuck was the Bush administration thinking they were doing?

Really, does anyone know?
Bookmark and Share

Silliest and Weakest Argument Against WTC Demolition

NIST, but many others use a similar formulation:
NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that: (bullet) the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else

Well, DUH!

Let's put it this way, if we assume the towers were wired for demolition and the planes were essentially an excuse to blow up the towers, but that the perpetrators didn't want people to know it was demolition (for obvious reasons)-- WOULDN'T IT BE AWFULLY STUPID TO START THE DEMOLITION SEQUENCE AT A POINT AWAY FROM THE PLANE IMPACT REGION?

By the way, I just noticed a fairly blatant lie/distortion by NIST:
The massive damage was caused by the large mass of the aircraft, their high speed and momentum, which severed the relatively light steel of the exterior columns on the impact floors.
The columns at the impact area of the south tower had two sides of 13/16 inch steel and two sides of 1/4 inch steel. The columns were 14 inches square. 14 inches of over 2 inches thick steel for the cross-section of each column. That doesn't seem "relatively light" to me. That seems pretty damn strong.
Bookmark and Share

The Media Have Forgotten, But I Haven't

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, September 23, 2006

Torture Is a Disease

Bookmark and Share

Modeling AA11

I think it's pretty clear the thing in the Naudet 1st hit clip* doesn't look much like a 767-- it's clearly too short. Surprisingly the "wings" and tail aren't too bad for a 767 but the body is much too short and thin for a 767-200 -- it's not even close:

(the white thing on the right corner of the building is part of the tower)

Flight Sim model of an American Airlines 767 in a similar spot from a similar viewing position:

This is the frame right before the "flash"

Here is a reasonably similar view using FlightSim:

View from the top to see how close the plane is:


Various different views:

*Frame-by-frame breakdown here.
Bookmark and Share

"Conspiracy Theories are Comforting"


Michael D. Morrissey addresses that issue regarding 9/11, as well as the incompetence theory-- and also gets into JFK and information control: part I, part II, part III.

Note- Morrissey links to this David Ray Griffin article rebutting the Bronner "Vanity Fair" NORAD article, which is an excellent read. Much of the material in the Griffin article can be seen in this speech by Griffin on google video. Griffin REALLY skewers the military.
Bookmark and Share

Comparing the JFK Assassination and 9/11

A very interesting interview of Jim Marrs by Morgan Reynolds. Definitely there are some important parallels, not only in the events themselves, but how the public and researchers responded.
Bookmark and Share

Friday, September 22, 2006

The Iran Chessgame

Billmon has some worthy thoughts on the topic with which I largely agree. The two things I would add are:
1) the possibility of a falseflag nuclear attack on the US that can be used as jusitifcation for all out war on Iran. I view this as remote.
2) the possibility that the tensions with Iran are largely a game being played between two overt enemies but covert allies. In other words, all the talk of hitting Iran, all the hints being bandied about are merely for domestic right-wing consumption, and that nothing will be done. I still view this as most likely, and this is what I actually hope this is the case, as a real war with Iran would be a horrible world-wide disaster.
Bookmark and Share

Time for Another Edition of...

Fake Opposition Democrats!

In which, again, the people supposed to keep the Republicans in check don't do much at all, really.

Now, watch this drive!
Bookmark and Share

MISSING: Four Top Secret Planes

Last seen: 9/11/01

General Appearance: similar to a Boeing 757/767 series aircraft; wings sometimes flash off and on; color, variable

-- can pass easily without slowing into large sturdy buildings or into the ground, leaving a perfect silhouette shape of the Boeing 7X7
-- wingtips and tail look real, but disintegrate upon contact into fine powder, and only leave a mild indentation on solid surfaces
-- the rest of the plane has the unique ability to break into very small pieces upon impact, leaving a deep indentation in solid surfaces
-- can carry specially designed ordnance, either a fuel bomb or a penetrating warhead

Cost: priceless
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Bush Administration War Criminals

Bookmark and Share

Smoking Gun for WTC2 Demolition

In two different videos of the fall of WTC2, there is a flash in the undamaged upper northeast corner --right as the corner breaks (the upper undamaged section of WTC2 tilted then broke apart (disintegrated), with the NE corner breaking during the sequence).


The flash:

I've circled the flash:


Second video, pre-flash:

The flash:

Flash is circled:


Videos are here and here.

There are actually other flashes in the videos that seem to be part of the demolition sequence, though some of the tiny flashes may be video artifacts.
Bookmark and Share

Was There a Mascal Exercise Scheduled at the Pentagon on 9/11?

Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, September 20, 2006

Patriots Question 9/11

I agree.

Though clearly there is a very wide difference of opinion about 9/11 on this page.

The list of people who question 9/11 is impressive, nonetheless.
Bookmark and Share

Scientists and Engineers Simulate Jet Colliding with World Trade Center

So-- who believes this is really an honest and completely open-minded investigation-- as opposed to an government-sponsored exercise in propping up the official story?

I'm not saying these guys are maliciously covering anything up (though that is possible as well), but rather that these guys are getting a US government (NSF) grant, and naturally they are going to manipulate their computer models to buttress the official story of 9/11. Not to mention as engineers, they are naturally not prone to question the official story, as I've discussed.

Finally, I would bet a good chunk of change that they are STILL not going to model the global free-fall collapses of the WTC towers.
Bookmark and Share

9/11: Circumstantial vs Physical Evidence

Jeff Wells is very much in the Mike Ruppert school of 9/11 skepticism, where physical evidence is eschewed and circumstantial evidence and coincidences are supposedly sufficient to convince anyone 9/11 was an inside job:
it also has to do with the nature of the assessment of physical evidence, which rests largely upon the judgement of experts who themselves often come to such contentious cases with biases and agendas. So, as with JFK and the obsession over ballistics, physical evidence becomes a battlefield of expert opinion that never resolves itself into legal fact, while less readily contested evidence goes ignored.
I will admit in all the talk about demolitions and what hit the WTC and Pentagon and blew up in Shanksville, that a lot of good circumstantial evidence gets put aside.

The problem with Well's viewpoint is that non-physical evidence can be just as unconvincing and contentious as physical evidence.

Take for example the wargames and the hijacking exercises that were being run on 9/11. Highly suspicious? Yes. Convincing that 9/11 was an inside job? No. And every circumstantial piece of evidence can be treated the same way by someone who isn't inclined to believe the overall idea that the US govt was behind 9/11: there are hundreds of suspicious facts about 9/11, and together they make a good case that all is not right. But none of them are a smoking gun that will convince someone who doesn't buy the whole notion in the first place.

On the other hand, there is abundant incredible physical evidence that does constitute a smoking gun! The clear evidence of demolition at the WTC, the impossible Pentagon crash, the lack of plane wreckage at Shanksville, the clear fact that the original shots of the first and second hits showed planes that were too small, and the idea that plane wings can smash into heavy steel columns and bust through without the wings tearing off.

These are REAL smoking guns and it is madness to ignore them. Sure, the Conspiracy Smashers and the Pinches and the 9/11 Mythers and the Screw Loose Changers and the Internet Detectives will try to cloud the issue. And what they can't cloud they will simply ignore or call you a loony for mentioning. But shit man, THAT IS THEIR JOB!

The fact is, it is simply foolish to not study the 9/11 physical evidence and only a fool would say that the physical evidence is not just as suspicious (if not more) as the circumstantial evidence.
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, September 19, 2006

The Bush Administration Kept an Innocent Man in a Coffin-Sized Dungeon for 10 Months

This is just so unbelievably wrong:
Arar, now 36, was detained by U.S. authorities as he changed planes in New York on Sept. 26, 2002. He was held for questioning for 12 days, then flown by jet to Jordan and driven to Syria. He was beaten, forced to confess to having trained in Afghanistan -- where he never has been -- and then kept in a coffin-size dungeon for 10 months before he was released, the Canadian inquiry commission found.

O'Connor concluded that "categorically there is no evidence" that Arar did anything wrong or was a security threat.
Since Sept. 11, the CIA, working with other intelligence agencies, has captured an estimated 3,000 people in its effort to dismantle terrorist networks. Many of them have been secretly taken by "extraordinary rendition" to other countries, hidden from U.S. legal requirements and often subject to torture.

We know this is the modus operandi of the Bush crew. They loves their torture. They gots to have their torture.

You know what TORTURE does more than anything?

It forces people to confess to things they NEVER DID, which is, I suspect, the main point.

What I want to know is-- what the HELL has happened to this country?

When exactly was it that the CIA turned into the gestapo?

I'm angry about this, and I'm also angry that more people aren't angry about this. There is a real sickness that pervades the people running this country. And it's not just Bush and Cheney and the neocons and enablers like John Yoo. It's all the underlings who are carrying out the incredibly immoral policies of the Bush administration. The sad thing is the problem runs DEEP.

(via Glenn Greenwald)

UPDATE: The related issue of how this insanity plays out for domestic politics is discussed here by Digby, with the bottom line is that Republicans are putting on a show acting as if they are disagreeing with the Bush administration whereas in reality they are only weakly watering down the immorality. And still, almost nothing is heard from the democrats.
Bookmark and Share


Bookmark and Share

Cheney: the Man the Myth, the Evil Cyborg

An excellent essay on this strangely secretive and incredibly dishonest man by Joan Didion

The piece takes a fairly conventional and pedestrian view of politics-- there's nothing in the way of geopolitics and grand scheming here. Still it's a very good overview on Cheney and his political background.

One informative tidbit from the article-- Cheney's office won't even release information about who works in Cheney's office.

Cheney is one sick dude, who never should be holding public office.
Bookmark and Share

Updated Ghost Gun


It's got new stuff on the "Nose Dive" video and the "Cheney hit" video.
Bookmark and Share

Monday, September 18, 2006

9/11: Possible Versus Impossible

Whenever you read some mainstream article trying to debunk 9/11 conspiracy theories (for instance this), it is always important to pay attention the details. Typically, the debunker simplifies the conspiracy case so much that the alternative sounds reasonable if not highly plausible.

Thus, let's go over some common over-simplifications of 9/11 conspiracy theories.

1) Yes, it is possible that a plane crashing into one of the WTC towers could cause enough damage between the impact and fires for the building to undergo some degree of collapse.

However, it is impossible that a plane crashing into one of the WTC towers could cause enough damage between the impact and fires for the building to undergo a complete collapse in near free fall time-- as was seen.

Why haven't more engineers spoken out about this?

I've discussed this issue

It should also be mentioned that no engineer has fully explained the COMPLETE collapses of the WTC towers, nor has NIST modeled the collapses in anyway. I suspect this is the official "smokesceen" for how engineers supporting the official story can try to be somewhat honest: they think they only need to explain the collapse of the first floor and then they assume the whole thing falls apart from there.

2) Yes, it is possible that a 757 could have crashed into the Pentagon and left the small exterior hole that was seen.

However, if the plane did crash in this manner, much more large pieces of plane wreckage should have been outside. Furthermore, it is impossible that a Boeing 757 going 500 mph could have flown into the Pentagon on an almost level path only inches off the ground. It is also impossible that the engine of the plane would hit a large generator truck at ground level (note where the hole in the fence is) and not break off. Finally, it is impossible for a 757 only inches off the ground to avoid the six foot high cable spools sitting in front of the Pentagon.

Why hasn't the government shown more plane parts from the Pentagon and positively identified the parts as coming from Flight 77? Why has there been so much secrecy about the security camera videos? Why did the US government publish some of the first pictures showing plane debris in the Pentagon at Rense, a UFO site? And so forth, for there are many other quesitons about this incident.

3) Yes it is possible that Flight 93 could have crashed in a field near Shanksville and completely disintegrated, leaving a relatively small hole and few pieces of large debris.

However, it is impossible that the only the front end of the plane disintegrated while the rest of the plane (including the tail section) disappeared into the ground, as the official story would have us believe. Additionally, it is impossible that this crash would leave not leave any large remains of the passengers and crew; the official story holds that small one-inch pieces of skin were the primary human remains found.

Further, if the plane did crash in Shanksville, why has the public been shown only minimal debris from the plane? Why has the government shown only debris that is 1) a tiny fraction of the plane and 2) suspiciously clean and does not look like it came from flaming wreckage (the fuselage parts)? Also, how exactly did one engine end up just a few inches under the ground while another blew 1000 or more feet away from the main crash site? What happened to the rest of the human remains? How come no one at the scene of the crash reported smelling burned flesh? How come there are conflicting times as to when the plane crashed? How come passenger phone calls from flight 93 give conflicting accounts of the hijacking and passenger take-over? How come the picture of the smoke plume of the crash shows gray smoke like an ordinance blast and not black smoke as expected from burning jet fuel? Etc.

Thus, I need not go into how typically conpsiracy debunkers shoot down 9/11 as a pretext for the Iraq war and ignore the idea that 9/11 was a pretext for a wide global war on Islam as well as a MASSIVE financial scam on several different levels.

Finally, I need not even go into the strange aspects of the 1st and 2nd WTC hits, and how normal angled-back plane wings should have broken off upon impact and not slid into past massive steelsupport columns leaving a clear plane silhouette pattern of the plane across the face of the building.

The bottom line: 9/11 conspiracy theories are VERY MUCH ALIVE and alive for a good reason: the government has not presented a plausible official story!
Bookmark and Share

Excellent Videos on WTC Demolition

Here, here and here. 90 minutes total.

Part 3 is especially good, talking about the many known problem with the WTC towers.
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, September 17, 2006

Bush Hanging Out Demolition?

via RigInt, Bush said this at his recent press conference:
Khalid Sheikh Mohammed described the design of planned attacks of buildings inside the U.S. and how operatives were directed to carry them out. That is valuable information for those of us who have the responsibility to protect the American people. He told us the operatives had been instructed to ensure that the explosives went off at a high -- a point that was high enough to prevent people trapped above from escaping.


Okay, even assuming he meant "planes" instead of "explosives", this makes no sense!

What WAS Bush trying to say?
Bookmark and Share

Preparing Up the Lies

It seems as though the GOP is not playing the Iran card too hard before the upcoming election, perhaps because they don't want to scare voters with the prospect of another war. Not to mention prospect of war with Iran would wreak havoc with the lower oil prices that seem to be buttering people up to keep the current crop of criminals in power.

Nonetheless, it looks as if the propaganda machine is being ramped up to soften public opinion for yet another war.

Bookmark and Share

The War Criminal Tries to Cover His Ass

Sad, almost beyond description, to see the president argue so strenuously and contortedly for legalizing torture:
Bookmark and Share

Conspiracy in the Michael Zebuhr Murder?

Bookmark and Share

New Footage of 1st Hit?


Looks a bit fake though the fireball shot is plausible.
Bookmark and Share

Friday, September 15, 2006

Can Anyone Explain

How the column damage marked by the black box here:

(click twice to enlarge photo)

can be done by an angled wing sawing against one corner of the column?
Bookmark and Share

Wings Break Off

when a 747 was modeled impacting the WTC in a computer simulation.*

But a 767 is a smaller plane so I'm sure the wings would smash right through...right?

*A critique of the study can be read here.
Bookmark and Share

"Blown to Kingdom Come"

Bookmark and Share

Dumb Liberals Hate America!

Colin Powell and all the stupid panty-waisted liberals are wrong.

I think the president should be able to do whatever he wants to anyone, without restrictions-- as long as it is in the name of fighting terrorism.

Don't you???
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, September 14, 2006

The Wing Damage to the WTC Outer Wall


is particularly preplexing since the wings of a 767 are angled back:

This means a wing would have to saw through a column, starting at the column corner edge, before it can damage the next column over. And definitely, some of those columns above look sawn through.

I never knew aluminum could cut through steel.

As if that weren't unlikely enough, the outer sections of wings-- the wingtips (about the last 15-20 feet on the left-hand side above)-- didn't cut through the columns. So they must have broken off since they didn't penetrate the columns. And physics says the wingtip would have broken off and flown backwards. But if the wingtip broke off, how did it leave a mark out to the very end of where it would have contacted? The only way is if the wing suddenly started crumpling up on the column at the tip. But how was it exactly that part of the wing could saw perfectly through the 14 inch wide steel column, yet the outer part of the wing was completely ineffective at this and crumpled up?

Finally, check out the damage carefully to those 7 left most columns in the scar. Does that look like where a wingtip crumpled up against the columns? Or more like where something was knocked against them, such as an explosive force? Would wing crumpling cause the column edge to fray apart like is seen in the photo?

I think not.
Bookmark and Share


Bookmark and Share

Deconstructing Griffin

Bookmark and Share

What Hit the WTC Towers

I stipulate that:
1) the Naudet video of the 1st hit, the two live videos of the second hit and at least one amateur video of the 2nd hit all show a significantly smaller plane than a Boeing 767-200.
2) the Naudet video showing the first plane hit the north tower has a strangely disjointed entry and subsequent explosion
3) of the 32 or so videos of the second plane, several videos look strange and show planes that appear to defy physics-- in particular videos that show a Boeing jet passing smoothly without slowing into the WTC south tower (CNN "best angle" or "Ghostplane" video, the Jennifer Spell video, the Evan Fairbanks video, the NOVA video)
4) some videos show contradictory plane shading and coloration, as well as contradictory plane bank angles and approach paths
5) multiple witnesses saw an actual plane hit the tower
6) too many videos captured this event for them to all be faked; it was too hard to control every possible video that could have filmed the 2nd hit
7) even though scars made in the facades of the north and south towers were the same size as the profile of a Boeing 767, it is impossible for a normal, conventional plane to produce this cut-out entry pattern and then completely disintegrate inside the towers.

Here's what I think may have happened--

1) both the north and south towers were struck by Boeing-like airplanes that had smaller airframes than Boeing 767's. These were not conventional aircraft, and were specifically designed to leave a Boeing 767-like imprint and also to disintegrate once they (or as they) passed inside the towers. The exact nature of these craft is not clear at this point. For the eventual demolition of the towers, it was important to have the alibi of the plane going into the towers (along with its putative jet fuel) and disappearing. Additional charges were set off in the building to coincide with the plane attack.

2) the Naudet video, the two live 2nd hit shots and at least one amateur 2nd hit video (Jennifer Spell) captured this unusual smaller plane, which looked passably like a United Airlines Boeing jet. Videos taken from a great distance only showing a dark blur probably also captured this plane. The filmers of the Naudet video and the two live shots of the 2nd plane very likely expected the plane at a certain time. Importantly, there was a real plane that witnesses saw and that was filmed.

3) several 2nd hit videos were "enhanced" to show a more realistic-sized United Airlines Boeing 767, and this is where the pod and other abnormalities in the plane images were added. Some 2nd hit videos were a CGI image over-laid over the original plane-- such as the CNN "best angle" or "Ghostplane" video. Some videos cut out the original plane completely and then altered the approach path and bank angles.

5) some videographers were specifically in place to film the 2nd hit and were in on the plot. These people most likely modified their footage of the plane.

6) most if not all photos of the 2nd plane were faked or were modified from videos.

The important points are that:
1) there was a real "Boeing-like" plane that people saw and it was filmed passing into the towers
2) this was not a conventional plane-- it was designed to pass smoothly into the towers and to disinegrate inside.
3) this unconventional plane also was designed to leave a 767-like profile (except for the tail section).
4) many videos of the 2nd plane were later altered, for various reasons, but primarily to make the plane look the right size.
5) this theory does tend to let the media off the hook somewhat, but also strongly implicates a high-tech military operation was used.
6) this is neither a "no plane" theory nor a fly-by theory-- it is more of a "special plane" theory.
7) this special plane may have also been used for the Pentagon and Shanskville events.

I think this explanation fits the facts the best of anything I have come up with so far. The huge question now is: what WAS the nature of the planes that hit the buildings?
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, September 13, 2006

Regarding The Many Flavors of 9/11 Conspiracy Theorists

A particularly odd one is Xymphora, who thinks WTC7 was controlled demolition and a missile hit the Pentagon, but thinks it is absurd that the WTC towers were brought down by controlled demolition.

If you don't believe me, read the post prior to that post where Xymphora heaps praise on the NIST FAQ page (gag me).

For what it is worth, Xymphora is one of those people who spends a lot of time blaming Israel for a lot of things.
Bookmark and Share

NIST Director Wlliam Jeffrey

Bookmark and Share

Marketing 9/11 and Terror: The Role of the Media and What May Come Next

Bookmark and Share


The bottom line, which an odd member of the punditburo might even reach one of these days, is that this is an administration that no longer makes any sense at all -- not even on the most formal, semiotic level. Shrub's speechwriters have literally been reduced to babbling, a relentlessly on-message babbling that shows just how ill suited the tools of domestic politics are for conducting a half-way serious foreign policy, much less an extremely serious war.

The sonic results are equally strange: Bush keeps belting the stuff out with his usual gospel fervor, even though it has degenerated into near gibberish. At times it starts to sound almost like accidental poetry, like listening to an old recording of Allen Ginsberg reciting Howl -- "I saw the best minds of my generation, destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked, etc." Except Ginsberg had a better sense of meter and wasn't a war criminal.
Bookmark and Share

Still Waiting

for a rebuttal or critique to this piece.


It's charming that the Conspiracy Smasher posse thinks this thread was so funny, though in the actual Conspiracy Smasher post, I didn't see much in the way of rebuttal or even in the way of laughing (not even in the comments).

So in all honesty, I would love to see a well-reasoned rebuttal to Holmgren's piece. Because if he's right, it basically proves no plane hit the WTC.

And if someone CAN rebut this, I'd also like them to rebut this post on how the wing and tail marks on the WTC towers cannot have been made by a Boeing 767.
Bookmark and Share

Monday, September 11, 2006

Faking the Planes

I'm wondering.

Has anyone yet been able to refute this piece on how 767's shouldn't leave plane-shaped holes in steel towers and then completely disintegrate once inside?

The logic seems very sound to me-- and the logic is EXTREMELY damaging to the official story.

I know Wood and Reynolds also find the plane-shaped holes suspicious.

The logic in Holmgren's article, coupled with proofs of fake videos, basically destroy the official 9/11 story.

The funny thing is part of me says, YES, they must have lied. The planes were all a giant hoax.

But I still keep resisting this conclusion, because its implications are so amazing and hard to believe.

Nonetheless, science implies that planes were not used for the WTC attacks.
Bookmark and Share

We Best Honor Those Who Died Five Years Ago by Making Sure the Right People Are Brought to Justice

And the fact is, once you start looking carefully, little about the official 9/11 story seems right. For instance, just starting with the attack on the north tower--

what really happened?


Everything gets stranger and stranger from that point on.
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, September 10, 2006

The WTC Contradiction

Does anyone else find these two official facts just a little bit contradictory?

1) each WTC tower was a massive, strong structure that swallowed and chewed up a very large jet airplane without any distortion in its overall form except for holes where the planes went in.

2) each WTC tower was so flimsy that each tower completely disintegrated in a matter of seconds when significantly less than half of the supporting columns of one upper floor were weakened by plane damage and fire.



Which is it?

UPDATE: There is also a major contradiction in the collapse of the towers:

1) the top section that collapsed first for each tower, essentially disintegrated and turned into dust, suggesting that the lower part of the building is offering strong resistance to the collapse.

2) the lower section of the towers fell apart at nearly free-fall speed, suggesting there was almost no resistance to the collapse downwards of the upper sections.

High resistance.

No resistance.

Which is it?

Note-- both of these examples are REAL and SERIOUS contradictions that cannot be explained by the official collapse explanations. However, both of these contradictions can be resolved by the explanation that explosives were used to bring down the towers.
Bookmark and Share


I have written about this in the past, but if you observe the first one to two seconds of the collapse of the North tower, basically the whole upper ten stories of the building seems to melt down without any discernable distortion of the outer frame.

It is extremely odd:

There is no clear floor failure, the whole top just COMPACTS down without any crumpling. It is not unlike the way the 2nd plane melts into the south tower.

While the official NIST story doesn't explain this phenomenon, I don't even know how explosives can explain it.

Pause the video at the one second mark, an dnote the building has gone down at least three floors in height. Wouldn't you expect to see some serious distortion in the northwest (the shiny line on the right-hand) corner?
Bookmark and Share


Bookmark and Share

Ever and Ever More Specialized Blogs

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, September 09, 2006

Stanley Prainmath's Amazing Desk!

Yeah, I believe his story, don't you?
Bookmark and Share

ABC's "Path to 9/11"

I think the Dems and Repubs had a little deal on 9/11. The Repubs wouldn't overtly blame 9/11 on Clinton and the Dems wouldn't overtly blame 9/11 on Bush. By that standard, this ABC video clearly crossed the line.

In reality, both presidents clearly were complicit at some level in 9/11.
Bookmark and Share


I have found a problem with the analysis in this post, and therefore I am taking away the fly-by theory as an explanation for the four early second hit videos.

There is still something odd with the first two "live" videos, but I am now leaning towards pure CGI and not to a fly-by plane.
Bookmark and Share

Friday, September 08, 2006

A Reasonable Person Should Have Serious Doubts About 9/11

In almost every aspect of 9/11, there is ample room for suspicion. A prime example is the demolition of the WTC towers. A reasonable person who is not familiar with every detail of the collapses will leave open the possibility that the towers were demolished-- and also the possibility that there was no demolition. At minimum, there is a large amount of uncertainty about whether the official story holds up.

A government shill is someone who has no doubt at all that the official 9/11 story is true and will not allow any contrary idea to this to penetrate their head.

As I've seen in the past, and as I will continue to show here, the 9/11 government shills can be very selective in how they present their "proofs". But the pure proof of their shilliness is their steadfast uncertainty about 9/11.

What I never can fathom is why an ordinary person would give complete credence to the government about something as vital as 9/11-- particularly when there is abundant evidence that ALL government officials (both Democrats and Republicans) lie.

Thus, people who refuse to question the governments' account of 9/11 must be one or more of the following:
1) a partisan shill
2) a paid shill
3) in psychological or physical pain and in deep denial about 9/11
Bookmark and Share

Absolutely Undeniable Evil by the Bush Administration--Part 2

Bookmark and Share

Heavens to Betsy!

Not "irresponsible theories" about 9/11!


(Does irresponsible mean they are wrong?)
Bookmark and Share

Modeling the Pentagon Security Camera Video Capture of the "Plane"

I did it at long last.

I have it on another site because the graphics colors in the Pentagon video don't load on some browsers (as a forewarning).

Bottom line: the object seen in the video is not completely unlike an AA Boeing 757 but also doesn't match one either.
Bookmark and Share

Mainstream Media Can't Get Enough of the 9/11 Conpspiracy Theories Now

Bookmark and Share

Bush Administration War Criminals

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, September 07, 2006

Absolutely Undeniable Evil by the Bush Administration--

The cover-up of toxic dust at Ground Zero.

One of the more toxic elements in the dust was ASBESTOS.

The same asbestos that were the reason the WTC was slated for a multi-billion dollar asbestos cleaning project.

I just have to wonder, by covering up how toxic the dust was, were they covering up the simple reminder of the asbestos?

Or was there something else in the dust they didn't want people to know about?

Like what may have been used to bring down the towers?

Or did they just simply not care if people suffered?

Or all of the above?
Bookmark and Share

White House: Conspiracy Theories Help the Terrorists

Bookmark and Share

The Pimping Never Ends

New tape shows Qaeda leaders planning 9/11 attacks with Osama bin Laden
According to a report written in Arabic at al Jazeera's Website, the television station has obtained a video which shows al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden meeting with the planner and two of the hijackers before the 9/11 attacks five year ago.

The tape reportedly shows Ramzi bin al-Shibh and Bin Laden making preparations for the operations.

Only yesterday, Ramzi bin al-Shibh was tranferred by President Bush to the prison in Guantanamo.

Well, isn't that a coincidence?

An incredibly incriminating videotape just surfaces now?

Dammit, I am SO sick of this shit.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, September 06, 2006

Loopy Plane Paths at the Pentagon

Here's the original path "flight 77" was supposed to have taken as it neared the Pentagon:

The plane flew down from the north, passing over the National Mall and the Pentagon than, looping around and descending to hit the Pentagon on its northwest side.

This is the final loop taken by "flight 77" before it approached the Pentagon, according to the flight data recorder data documented by the NTSB:

It's just a LITTLE bit different. So, what the fuck? Why the huge difference?

This new path is totally bizarre. Although I'm sure people who cling to the official story would say the NTSB is the true path and that Hani Hanjour was just lost.


If we assume this new NTSB path is real, if ANYTHING, it looks like the pilot is wasting time before getting to the Pentagon. Which would actually make sense if this plane was a diversion and was supposed to fly OVER the Pentagon at the same time the pre-planted bombs went off.

Regardless of why the loop was made, there is no good explanation for why the original "flight 77" path is so different from the NTSB path!

NOTE: Many news sources described the original flight 77 path shown on top. Here:
Radar data shows Flight 77 crossing the Capitol Beltway and headed toward the Pentagon. However, the plane, flying more than 400 mph, is too high when it nears the Pentagon at 9:35 a.m., crossing the Pentagon at about 7,000 feet up.

Interestingly this source has a description that fits the NTSB path better, but note the time of the attack (much too early!):
The sources said Dulles controllers noticed a fast-moving primary target in their airspace east-southeast of the airport, where it shouldn't be, headed directly toward the restricted airspace around the White House.

But as they watched, the plane began turning to the right away from the White House, circling a full 270 degrees to the right and approaching the Pentagon from the southwest. It then dropped below radar level, disappearing from the controllers' screens, shortly before hitting the Pentagon about 9:30 am...
Bookmark and Share


Though their reasons why the towers couldn't have been taken down by demolition are crap, if one takes time to look over the body of work NIST has put together, it is very impressive and sobering.

Sobering in the sense that a lot of apparently smart people have done what appears to be a lot of hard work to support a big lie-- both in terms of the "planes" and in terms of the tower "collapses". How they were misled is not clear. I have to wonder how many of the actual scientists had doubts about their conclusions. Were all of them duped or brainwashed somehow? Or were they all in on the cover-up? Or were some scientists suspicious but were over-ridden by evil superiors?

They clearly did fairly high-tech modeling of planes and the buildings, but they never show how much they had to tweak the models to get the "official results". Certainly their worst-case scenarios are the only ones that seem to come close to cuasing collapses but they never bother to model the complete collapses of the structures themselves.

All in all, it is hard to have great confidence in their work.

Still, it is very sobering to see SO MUCH work put into this.
Bookmark and Share

Photos of 2nd Hit

Nice compilation here (scroll down).

Though too bad the famous Carmen Taylor shot isn't there.

Funny how every photo of the plane is perfectly focused! Given that this was such a fleeting event to capture, it is quite amazing!

I wonder if someone somewhere where has some blurry photos of the second plane we've never seen?

Nah, I doubt it.

But who knows?
Bookmark and Share

Terror blah blah blah 9/11 blah blah blah terrorist blah blah blah 9/11 blah blah blah terror blah blah terrorist blah 9/11 blah blah 9/11 blah blah

Yet another Bush speech.

Some days, you can't escape 9/11, even if you WANT to.

And if you're skeptical of the official story, it is even MORE annoying.
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, September 05, 2006

Teh Stupid

Paul Joseph Watson, in a piece titled: "Fringe Theories Harming 9/11 Truth Movement".
There is one video that soundly debunks the blue screen theories and should be used to put this deception to bed for good. Japanese news footage of Flight 175 striking the south tower shows the fuselage of the aircraft briefly exiting the opposite face of the building before the entire plane is engulfed in flames from the exploding jet fuel (located well behind the nosecone).

Where exactly was it that the fuselage popped out of the opposite face of the tower shown here?

There is no hole larger than the 2 foot gap between columns.

This is the killer evidence against video fakery?


Worst argument against video fakery ever-- and it shows that Mr. Watson knows nothing about which he speaks. (The rest of the article is just as ill-informed and is clearly heavily biased against "no-planers".)
Bookmark and Share

I'm Turning Comments Back On

It was kind of fun not having comments, and it was certainly a lot easier for me, since I always feel oligated to read and respond to comments that were left.

But, clearly in the absence of comments there is no free exchange of ideas, no immediate feedback, no discussion and in general a blog seems to lack a certain spirit without comments.

So I am turning the comments back on.

I reserve the right to delete comments I don't like. My general rule will be to delete comments that are mere ad hominem attacks and/or insults.

I may not respond to comments as much as I used to. If someone wants to ask me something specific, they are welcome to email me.
Bookmark and Share

Contradiction in Wings

At the Pentagon, Boeing 757 wings officially struck the outer wall of the building and broke off, exploded and disappeared. The outer wall of the Pentagon was stone, cement and brick, but was not a major load-bearing structure (the building had inner load-bearing columns), and the Pentagon was only five stories tall.

At the WTC South tower, Boeing 767 wings officially struck the outer wall of the building and slid right in according to the videos. In contrast to the Pentagon, the outer wall of the WTC South tower was a major load-bearing structure for a large 30-story building (the amount of tower above the impact zone), and was constructed of massive steel columns.

How can this be?
Bookmark and Share

32 Second Hit Videos

Catalogued here, along with (apparently fake) photos of the 2nd plane.

The videos are numbered for easy reference.

The new #3 "amateur" video appears to be a cropped and more detailed view identical to the #2 ("CNN wide") 2nd hit video I have discussed extensively here. #3 came from the webpage of Devin Clark, a video animator.
Bookmark and Share

How the Towers Were Demolished

Gordon Ross tries to sort it out.

It's an interesting piece that needs careful study.
Bookmark and Share

Monday, September 04, 2006


An important read on how the media lies to protect Bush's law-breaking.

And this passage in a different post sums up the Bush base rather well
The creepy spectacle of watching one warrior after the next insist that we must risk other people's lives and bomb more people so that we don't feel girlish and scared and submissive is repugnant enough, in itself, to have to witness on a daily basis. But the fact that these same people are the ones whose deep, irrational fears of The Terrorist override virtually all other considerations, and who demand that we change our nation and relinquish all of the values and liberties which have always defined it and which make it worth fighting for, all because they believe that doing so is necessary to allow them some marginally greater chance of avoiding death, renders their accusations and warrior dances -- on top of everything else -- an exercise in the grossest and most absurd hypocrisy.

Mark Steyn and his comrades think they are so courageous (as they make clear virtually every day). But a courageous act entails risk, and they never risk anything. Quite the contrary, they are desperate to eliminate all perceived risks to their "safety," regardless of the costs. Their entire world-view is based upon and driven by their deeply irrational fears, which lead to a never-ending desire to sacrifice liberty (theirs and ours) and a hysterical, risk-free insistence that the Bad Scary People (along with hundreds of thousands or even millions of others near them) be bombed, incinerated and killed -- all so that they aren't so scared any more, so that they can feel safe.
Bookmark and Share

A Great Man Has Died

Steve Irwin.

His incredible skill, knowledge, energy and enthusiasm was a sight to behold. A few years back when his "Croc Hunter" show was on "Animal Planet" regularly, I always tuned in if I could, and the show was always very uplifting if I was depressed. He was truly an amazing guy.
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, September 03, 2006

Incredibly Vulnerable

Until I saw the NIST "FAQ" response to the WTC demolition accusations, I never quite realized how incredibly vulnerable the US government is, in terms of the WTC official collapse story.

Granted, the govt is highly vulnerable on many points of the official 9/11 story (such as the flight 93 "crash"), but it is the WTC collapses which are best documented in terms of pictures and videos, plus there is much known about how the structures were built. Thus, the WTC collapses are most susceptible to rigorous analysis.

What is clear from the NIST analysis is they simply have no coherent explanation for the collapses of WTC1, WTC2 and WTC7.

Apart from my short critique of NIST's demolition rebuttal, there are several good critiques of the NIST page collected at 9/11 blogger. Jim Hoffman also has a good, very long, detailed critique.

I especially like Robert Rice's essay, where he calls the NIST theory the "foot of god" theory. He makes several critical points and effectively drives home how simply ridiculous the govt's explanation is.

For once, in a long time, I actually feel optimistic that the 9/11 hoax will finally be blown open for the world to see.
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, September 02, 2006

The FBI Played the Part of "Al Qaeda"

How patsies are made:
Standing in an empty Miami warehouse on May 24 with a man he believed had ties to Osama bin Laden, a dejected Narseal Batiste talked of the setbacks to their terrorist plot and then uttered the words that helped put him in a federal prison cell. "I want to fight some jihad," he allegedly said. "That's all I live for." What Batiste did not know was that the bin Laden representative was really an FBI informant.

By mid-November, the FBI decided to take a more active role. Agents introduced a more experienced Middle Eastern-born informant, CW2, to play the role of a potential financier to prevent Batiste from seeking money elsewhere. CW2, according to court papers, had worked for the FBI for six years and provided information that led to the arrests of two individuals on "terrorist-related charges."

But CW2 soon also took a key role in the plotting, suggesting targets and supplying videotaping equipment, according to the court papers. His reward was $17,000 the FBI paid for his services, and approval of his petition for political asylum in the United States.

When Batiste grew impatient for money early in March, CW2 placated him by formally swearing him into al-Qaeda. In a ceremony recorded by the FBI, the informant read an English translation of the al-Qaeda loyalty oath, "welcomed Batiste to al Qaeda and declared that al Qaeda and the Moors were officially united," according to court papers.
Bookmark and Share

The 9/11 Citizens Court

Bookmark and Share


Tom Paine:
Its creed is pure and sublimely simple. It believes in God and there it rests. It honours Reason [and] it avoids all presumptuous beliefs and rejects, as the fabulous inventions of men, all books pretending to revelation.
Sounds pretty good to me. I've never been entirely comfortable with atheism, but I can't stand structured religion either.

More on Paine and deism here.
Bookmark and Share

Friday, September 01, 2006

NIST Admits the South WTC Tower Collapsed at the Rate of Free-Fall in a Vacuum

6. How could the WTC towers collapse in only 11 seconds (WTC 1) and 9 seconds (WTC 2)—speeds that approximate that of a ball dropped from similar height in a vacuum (with no air resistance)?

NIST estimated the elapsed times for the first exterior panels to strike the ground after the collapse initiated in each of the towers to be approximately 11 seconds for WTC 1 and approximately 9 seconds for WTC 2.

Otherwise, this list of answers to "frequently asked questions" is a huge doughy load of crap.

For instance:
NIST’s findings also do not support the “controlled demolition” theory since there is conclusive evidence that:
--the collapse was initiated in the impact and fire floors of the WTC towers and nowhere else, and;
--the time it took for the collapse to initiate (56 minutes for WTC 2 and 102 minutes for WTC 1) was dictated by (1) the extent of damage caused by the aircraft impact, and (2) the time it took for the fires to reach critical locations and weaken the structure to the point that the towers could not resist the tremendous energy released by the downward movement of the massive top section of the building at and above the fire and impact floors.
Well, there's some logic for ya!

The extent of their evidence that it was not controlled demolition is that the collapses started where the initial impacts were AND by the timing of something they could only estimate (extent of damage and time of fires).

That's really weak.

Here is some lawyerly wording:

"there was no evidence (collected by NIST, or by the New York Police Department, the Port Authority Police Department or the Fire Department of New York) of any blast or explosions in the region below the impact and fire floors as the top building sections (including and above the 98th floor in WTC 1 and the 82nd floor in WTC 2) began their downward movement upon collapse initiation."

Got that? There was no evidence of explosions below the impact and fire floors AS the top building sections...began their downward movement ...

But was there evidence of explosions below the impact and fire floors RIGHT AFTER the top building sections began their downward movement???

Also, was there evidence of explosions RIGHT BEFORE the top building sections began their downward movement???

Why only "AS the top building sections...began their downward movement"???

(Well, you know the answer)

Not to mention that their lawyerly statement also leaves room for explosions at, or above, "the impact and fire floors as the top building sections ... began their downward movement upon collapse initiation."

But basically, NIST says that there was column damage and there were fires, and shit happened-- and it wasn't pancaking but they don't know WHAT happened except that things fell fast.
Bookmark and Share

Powered by Blogger