Humint Events Online: March 2007

Saturday, March 31, 2007

How Did Wings Going INWARD, Bend Columns OUTWARD?

From government video P200015, clip2:

For some reason, I don't remember NIST explaining this, either.

UPDATE: I think it is the aluminum "cladding" that covered the columns, rather than the steel columns that are knocked outwards, as can be seen better here. That being said, the idea that the ends of the aluminum wings could cut through the steel columns and at the same time knock the cladding outwards, seems rather far-fetched.
Bookmark and Share

Only Nine Months in Jail for the "Terr'ist"?

Bookmark and Share

Friday, March 30, 2007

It Wasn't Just Toilets That Disappeared

Previously, I somewhat jokingly wondered what happened to the thousands of toilets from the WTC.

But really, it isn't just the toilets.

Think of all of the large bulky items that must have been in the towers-- there must have been tens of thousands of chairs and desks and computers in each tower, not to mention thousands of bookcases, filing cabinets, interior walls, cubicle walls, office doors, elevator doors.

Sure, a lot of this would be smashed by the weight of the tower structural elements, and it is of course hard to know exactly what was found in the rubble.

Nonetheless, given what we know about the WTC debris pile, it is hard not to get the sense that a lot of this inner office material simply disintegrated or disappeared.

Of course, besides the people and office contents that disappeared, there were the huge concrete slabs on each floor that were rendered into powder, and a significant amount of structural steel that remains unaccounted for.

The only thing that can account for all these phenomena, in the tremendous scale and very short time frames that were seen, is nuclear explosions-- most likely small clean (i.e. fission-less) fusion nuclear bombs.

A hydrogen bomb test blast (Storax sedan):

For the skeptics (and disinfo agents/shills/brainwashed dupes)-- yes, there was a great deal of potential energy built up in the WTC towers. But the simple fact is in any REAL "collapse", all of this potential energy would be used up by breaking apart the steel structure holding up the towers-- and there simply wouldn't be enough left to pulverize all of the concrete and building contents and turn them into powder.

Remember, a tower is stronger at the bottom and gets weaker and lighter as you go up. It simply is not the case that the top of the towers were precariously suspended on a fragile latticework of toothpicks waiting for something to cause the weight of the top to crush down through the lower structure!

To make the towers go POOF the way they did, you need to add in a LOT of energy-- such as can be derived from nuclear bombs.
Bookmark and Share


The video clips linked here are very cool-- relatively speaking for mainstream TV.

Basically, big exposure on WTC7 demolition, raising the idea of the "war on terror" being propaganda, talking about Bushco Iraq lies and raising the idea of the US government manufacturing an event to start a war.

Couldn't believe the blond woman who seemed convinced that Iraq was connected to 9/11.


But ultimately, did Rosie say too much?

Looks like she has been placed on leave.
Bookmark and Share

Bad Rudy

A blistering critique in this article--
``If Rudolph Giuliani was running on anything but 9/11, I would not speak out,'' said Sally Regenhard, whose firefighter son was among the 343 FDNY members killed in the terrorist attack. ``If he ran on cleaning up Times Square, getting rid of squeegee men, lowering crime - that's indisputable.

``But when he runs on 9/11, I want the American people to know he was part of the problem.''
More damning stuff in that piece. There's no doubt Rudy screwed over the NYFD.

Then there is this:
Rudolph W. Giuliani told a grand jury that his former chief investigator remembered having briefed him on some aspects of Bernard B. Kerik’s relationship with a company suspected of ties to organized crime before Mr. Kerik’s appointment as New York City police commissioner, according to court records.

That is just what is out there in the news right now.

Of course, it has long been rumored that Rudy had a lot of inside knowledge about 9/11, and I'm fairly sure he knew something about the towers being blown up.
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, March 29, 2007

Get "Michael Hezarkhani" on the Witness Stand, Under Oath

That is probably the only way to figure out the story of the CNN "Ghostplane" video and what is going on with the "pod".

As I've indicated in various posts, this video is clearly a forgery of some kind.

But of course this strategy assumes Michael Hezarkhani is a real person and not an alias for a group of hoaxers.
Bookmark and Share

The Number One Rule for the Media in Covering Political Scandals

Bookmark and Share

I Have a Confession to Make

I have NEVER watched "Loose Change".
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, March 28, 2007

The Port Chicago Explosion

What an amazing and tragic story.

In 1944, in the San Francisco Bay, a 7000 ton ship was completely annihilated along with hundreds of men-- most likely by a nuclear explosion.
Bookmark and Share


From scans of the original WTC architect's drawings, we can now see how many toilets were in typical floors of the WTC-- 16 commodes and 5 urinals spread over three bathrooms each with four sinks.

Not every floor had toilets, but we can make the calculation that for one tower (100 floors with toilets), there were 1600 commodes, 500 urinals and 1200 sinks.


Where did it all go?

I don't remember seeing ONE TOILET or even one toilet fragment in the WTC rubble!!!

This is PROOF of DEMOLITION!!!!!

(Okay, yes, I am being somewhat sarcastic here, but the point still remains-- that is a lot of porcelain. What happened to it?)
Bookmark and Share

The Amazingly Straight WTC7 Gash

Here's a good picture of it.

The gash is down the front of the facade

As I said before, it is hard to think how falling debris from WTC1 could do this. If anything, it looks more like a huge laser fried the facade straight down from above.

The gash doesn't correspond to an elevator shaft.

The facade also has a strange mottled whitish discoloration, I have no idea what made that.

If you think it is a trick of light, you should know that even NIST admitted there was a large scar down the front of WTC7.

Here's a discussion of it on the LooseChange forum.
Bookmark and Share

Use of Nuclear Weapons Against Human Beings

The point of the post about Japan offering to surrender well before Hiroshima and Nagasaki was to point out that the US had no apparent compunction about using the most horrible weapons known to man against innocent civilians when they didn't even need to do it.

In fact, the US went OUT OF ITS WAY to use nuclear weapons against Japan-- an outrageous fact that has been completely suppressed by mainstream historians.

And if the US military command showed no compunction about using nukes against civilians in 1945, it is likely the US would have little compunction about doing this again -- that is, using nukes or related weaponry against civilians.

They might even do it against their own civilians-- in order to spark a new war and a new political order.
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, March 27, 2007

UA93: 44 People "Instantly Cremated", 2 Bibles Survive

Bookmark and Share

What Made This Hole Next to WTC2?

It sure doesn't look like a simple cave-in:

(click to enlarge; pic from here)

What is more likely to have caused this-- a directed energy beam weapon or a very small nuke or something else?

Steel beams falling can't have made this hole, as there's nothing in the bottom of the hole that corresponds to the huge size of this hole.

If nothing else, it's worth noting the lack of hot molten metal.

I think the gold color on part of the debris is from sunlight streaming in irregularly through other debris.
Bookmark and Share


It ain't much but it's a start:
He also said that as chairman of a House subcommittee on domestic policy, he plans to launch an investigation of "a narrow portion" of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. He offered few details, but said his subcommittee would be looking at "a few, specific discrepancies in the public record." The 9/11 Commission that published its final report in 2004 never resolved some conflicting facts, Kucinich said. He announced his own look at 9/11 in answer to a question from an audience member. The man complained that the 9/11 Commission was too tied to the Bush administration to offer an unbiased report, and Kucinich agreed.

If he ever gets a chance to start an investigation, it should be real interesting to see what what happens to him.
Bookmark and Share

Monday, March 26, 2007

Japan Offered to Completely Surrender Long Before the US Nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki

Some ugly US history.

Seems the US wanted to show off their nukes in the most cruel way possible.

Supposedly, the US even wanted to nuke the moon back in the 50s as a show of force!

UPDATE: I knew nothing of the Barnes review before I found that story; I don't necessarily endorse anything else in that publication. HOWEVER, that doesn't mean that the story I linked to is false. Trohan's story is found widely on the internet, curiously mostly by right-wing websites. But here is a relatively non-controversial source.

Further, even if the Japanese didn't offer complete unconditional surrender (though their surrender offer was very close to unconditional), this in no way JUSTIFIED the nuking of a HUNDRED THOUSAND INNOCENT CIVILIANS.
Bookmark and Share

The Far Side of the Moon

While I guess I learned this a long time back, the significance never really struck me before: the moon's rotation is such that one side of the moon can never be seen from earth?*

Here is a picture of the "far side of the moon" (which is different from the "dark side of the moon"):

What's the deal with that striped, almost grid-like, pattern?

Is that mind-blowing or what?

Here's a different pic of the far-side from NASA which doesn't show that lined pattern:

*This phenomenon is apparently explained by the process of "tidal locking".

And here is some really strange stuff about the moon.
Bookmark and Share


Bookmark and Share

Sunday, March 25, 2007

Freak Plane

In this post, I pointed out that the plane we all saw hit WTC2 "live" on TV wasn't a true 767-200-- it has a much stubbier nose than a bona fide 767-200. This stubbier nose makes the starboard engine protrude more obviously (compares diagonal purple lines at the front of the plane):

All lines are the same length in each of the two images in order to allow easy comparison. Click to enlarge image.

One possible explanation I gave for the stubby nose and the starboard (rear) engine protruding more frontward in the "live UA175" is that the plane in the video is actually pointing at a slightly different angle, more towards the camera, such that we are seeing a slightly more frontal view of the plane. This would bring the starboard engine out more and explain the overall foreshortening of the fuselage. However, this still presents a problem with the "live UA175" since this rotation of the plane more frontwards completely throws the angles of the wings off from what we see in this "live" image.

One argument AGAINST this rotation explanation is that if you look at the smaller yellow line, which corresponds to the length of the fuselage from the wings to the tail, it is exactly the same between the flight sim CGI model (top) and the video (CGI model; bottom) plane.

This indicates there actually is not much foreshortening going on at least in the rear part of the plane, and thus argues against the overall foreshortening explanation for the difference in the plane's appearance.

Basically, what we were shown live on TV was a FREAK PLANE.
Bookmark and Share

Bush Admin-- Guilty As Sin

Recent WH press conference:
Q You used the word “avoid.” There is an avoidance, it seems, of this administration to sit down and talk on the record, under oath, about critical issues.

MR. SNOW: What you’re saying is that every time somebody wants to try to mount a charge you ought to be able to get hauled up and testify under oath, with a presumption of criminality, rather than a presumption of goodwill. I’m not going to buy that.

Q Was it criminal, 9/11 — was that criminal?

MR. SNOW: No. What I’m saying is that the 9/11 Commission, we participated fully.

via Ningen.

...which reminds me of this Golden Moment:

The expression on his face at the end is just SO revealing.
Bookmark and Share

Judy Wood Puts Out a Press Release


Perhaps not so cool, she was linked to by Rense.
Bookmark and Share

Amazingly Straight Vertical Large Black Scar Down the Middle of WTC7

see here.

It is hard to think how falling debris from WTC1 could do this. If anything, it looks more like a huge laser fried the facade straight down from above.
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, March 24, 2007

All Roads Lead to "MIHOP" (Made It Happen On Purpose)

Putting aside physical evidence for a moment, let's think about the political explanations for 9/11. The top six theories here are standard mainstream explanations for 9/11 and why there have been no attacks since then:

1) "Wily terrorist theory": The idea here is that the Bush administration/US government was competently and actively trying to stop 9/11 from happening and just failed because the terrorists were so smart/tricky/wily.

This can be ruled out by the fact that if the terrorists were THAT smart and wily, they would have struck again in the US by now.

2) "Caught Off Guard Theory" (related to the Competence theory): the Bush administration/US government WAS actively and competently trying to stop 9/11 from happening, but were simply caught off guard because of government SNAFUS and bureaucracy. After 9/11, the Bush administration competently fixed all these problems.

The major problem with this thoery is there WERE high-level warnings, making it hard to argue the Bush administration was truly caught off gaurd. Further, it is highly improbable that the Bush administration could have fixed so many bureaucratic problems in time to prevent another attack.

3) "Al Qaeda shot their wad" theory: this goes that Al Qaeda put everything they had into 9/11 to make it successful, but had nothing left to follow up with, and then they didn't figure that the US was destroy their bases in Afghanistan and so they were ultimately defeated by poor planning.

The problem with this theory is that a terrorist organization has to have some grand strategy, and it was incredibly idiotic if they did not "plan ahead". If they could plan 9/11, they could plan what would happen afterwards.

4) "Al Qaeda just got very lucky" theory: this goes that Al Qaeda put together 9/11 but didn't know if it would work-- then it worked spectacularly on every possible level but they had nothing planned to follow up with, and then they didn't figure that the US was destroy their bases in Afghanistan and so they were ultimately defeated by their tremendous success.

The problem with this argument is that Al Qaeda was FAR too lucky on 9/11 (even by the official story) to have succeeded by random chance. Further, it is absurd to imagine they didn't have a follow up plan should the attacks succeed.

5) "Al Qaeda set a trap" theory: this is the idea that Al Qaeda mainly did 9/11 to lure the US into a attacking a middle east country, such as Iraq, and then Al Qaeda would be able to mount a world-wide Jihad.

The problem with this argument is that how would Al Qaeda KNOW if they could truly lure the US into attacking some country like Iraq, but more importantly, and more importantly why would the Bush administration fall so easily into this trap since it was such an obvious trap? Further, the "trap" theory clearly goes against the idea that Al Qaeda didn't predict a devastating reply on their bases in Afghanistan.

6) "The Bush administration was incompetent" theory: this is a favorite of Democrats and mainstream liberals, as it feeds into their meme that the Bush administration is simply incredibly lame and stupid, topped with a dash of evil.

The big problem with this theory is that it simply can't explain how the incompetent Bush administration has prevented another 9/11 from occurring. Further, it is hard to believe anyone could be so incompetent as the Bush administration has seemed-- incompetence has always seemed to me to be a lazy attempt to rationalize what the the Bush administration has done. Additionally, it is clear that the Bush administration is NOT incompetent in many things, so it makes little sense why they would be incompetent on such a major thing as "national security".

7) I haven't seen this point put forward, but you could propose some combination of the above-- for instance, the Bush administration WAS incompetent to allow 9/11 and Al Qaeda did get very lucky and had no follow-up plan-- or the Bush administration WAS incompetent to allow 9/11 and fell into Al Qaeda's trap to attack Iraq.

A combination theory makes somewhat more sense, though ultimately these theories fall short, I think, for the same reasons we can rule out the individual theories.

8) "Let It Happen on Purpose"-- basically the idea of the official 9/11 story except that elements of the Bush administration/military/government just allowed the attack to happen and did not actively stop any attack-- as the attacks would further their goals of starting wards in the middle east. This is 9/11 conspiracy theory "lite", and many people seem to fall onto this idea after doing some basic research into 9/11.

The problem with this theory is that it is simply impossible to imagine that people in power who would allow a major attack on US soil would let it go without some sort of control on the attackers, and controls on the attackers mean that you are making the attacks happen the way you want-- which is MIHOP.

All this is putting aside LOTS of evidence and LOTS of very compelling physical evidence, and just looking at the mainstream 9/11 political picture from a strategic point of view.

Ultimately, all the theories fail on basic logic grounds, and point to MIHOP.
Bookmark and Share

What the F#@!%$#@!!?

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Debris that may have contained bits of bone from victims of the World Trade Center attacks was used to fill potholes and pave city roads, according to court papers filed on Friday.
Beck said he saw sanitation workers removing small pieces of debris containing possible bone fragments and loading them "onto tractors, and using it to pave roads and fill in potholes, dips and ruts."

This makes no sense whatsoever, unless it was all some sort of cruel joke.
Bookmark and Share

Friday, March 23, 2007

Baby Steps

Democrats make a couple of baby steps toward correcting the wrongs of the past six years:

-- House approves end date for Iraq war

-- Plans to investigate the Bush administration torturers.

Don't get me wrong, I doubt much will happen from these initiatives. But it's a start, nonetheless.
Bookmark and Share

Global Warming

I have to say that I might be more receptive to the idea that Global Warming is a hoax if it didn't put me in the same company as a bunch of people I loathe: oil company PR men, proponents of unregulated capitalism and backwards mouth-breathing right-wing ideologues like James Inhofe (R, Senator OK).

I've written more about global warming here and here.

Basically, it is amusing that conservatives can so strongly think there is a great global warming conspiracy but then deride the idea that 9/11 was a great conspiracy.

I think that while 9/11 was a great conspiracy, I am unconvinced about the idea that Global Warming is a great conspiracy. But as I said, I don't care for the company of those who push the idea that Global Warming is a hoax-- and I see no reason to trust them.
Bookmark and Share

The "Trolls"

One thing I was thinking about, but failed to express when I was bitching about "trolls" last night, was the DU 9/11 trolls.

These are the "entities" such as LARED, Boloboffin, greyl, salvorhardin, William Seger, Mervin Ferd-- clear AGENTS, as they have unlimited time and patience to try to knock down any "conspiracy theory" about 9/11 on the 9/11 board there. The "entities" keep going long after any normal person would get tired of the scene. Curiously, several of these people appear to be Jewish/Israeli partisans, and hang out a place called ProSemiteUndercover.

There is no doubt "LARED" is a "daisy chain" operation-- a group posting operation. If there weren't intense management of public opinion on 9/11, why would something like "LARED" exist?

Then there is someone like Lithos, the "moderator" for the 9/11 board, who along with the other DU moderators, carefully keep any important 9/11 info relegated to an obscure part of DU.

The bottom line is that these people are all part of the 9/11 cover-up. Exactly what motivates them, I cannot say-- but they make me sick. They are disgusting little shits. They are on par with the people who carried out 9/11 and are complicit in war-crimes.

And yes, the same goes for our resident trolls here-- you know who you are-- who find it oh so "amusing" to monitor and mock what is posted here. Their "participation" here goes far beyond what any normal person would do. A normal person would QUICKLY tire of something they found silly or something they with which disagreed.

The important thing is that the trolls in fact help prove that 9/11 was an inside job! Why else would there be such an orchestrated and active opposition to this very notion about 9/11?

Remember we are not talking about someone who simply disagrees with the notion that 9/11 was an inside job and randomly expresses this opinion. We are talking about a large set of people that actively and aggressively deride, limit, sidetrack and skew any discussion of the idea that 9/11 was an inside job. These people SEEK OUT hostile forums to promote their view, which is truly not a normal behaviour.
Bookmark and Share

No, I Wasn't Drunk Last Night

I was just very tired.
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, March 22, 2007

"Can't You Hear Me Knockin'"

I recommend playing it full-blast.
Bookmark and Share

Tired of the Bullshit

I am especially tired of the fucking trolls and their games. I'm so tired of people who simply cannot make any sort of logical argument and can't seem to make any sort of reasonable assessment of anything.

Goddamn I am tired of them.
Bookmark and Share

Windows VISTA

I just got a new computer with this system loaded on it.

So far, it is more annoying than anything else.

Sound is not working and I don't have time to call tech support. The printer worked last night and now I can't print.

Bookmark and Share

"Buckle on Your Balls Like Men and Impeach the President"


Neil Young, on that theme.

I'm still betting this US Attorney scandal is going to serve as a proxy for all the other shit Bush has done.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, March 21, 2007

A Curious lack of Interest in the "Live" 2nd Hit Plane

...the one that was shown "live" on three major networks at 9:03am on 9/11: CNN, FOX and ABC.

This shot:

Clearly, if ANY 2nd hit plane image was untampered with, it would be this one, as the footage was shown LIVE.

So what does this plane look like?

Basically, it is not a normal 767-200-- though like most images of "UA175", it is close.

In the diagram below, I took a flight simulator comparison Marcus Icke made between a Boeing 767-200 and the "live" "UA175" image, and I added the colored lines to highlight similarities and differences.

The "UA175" image we were shown on TV has a much stubbier nose than a bona fide 767-200, which makes the starboard engine protrude in a more obviously (compares diagonal purple lines at the front of the plane):

All lines are the same length in each of the two images in order to allow easy comparison. Click to enlarge image.

One possible explanation for the starboard (rear) engine protruding more frontward in the "live UA175" is that the plane is actually pointing at a slightly different angle, more towards the camera, such that we are seeing a slightly more frontal view of the plane. This would bring the starboard engine out more and explain the overall foreshortening of the fuselage. However, this still presents a problem with the "live UA175" since this rotation of the plane more frontwards completely throws the angles of the wings off from what we see in this "live" image.

In other words, in terms of the airframe itself, what we are seeing with the "live UA175" plane is either a Boeing 767-200-like plane that has too short of a fuselage or a Boeing 767-200-like plane with wings at completely abnormal angles.

Although this in fact, is only part of the problem with this "live" plane image.

The larger problem is that the if the plane is anywhere close to the size of a normal 767-200, it is not on the right trajectory to hit the tower. This fact is shown in the following analysis I did using flight simulator:

Here is a top view of the flight simulator plane in the same position as shown above. Simply put, a Boeing 767-200 with the same proportions to the WTC as we were shown on "live" TV is on a trajectory to MISS the south tower!

(Click to enlarge)
This phenomenon arises because the plane is too small in relation to the towers, and thus flight simulator puts the plane further away from the camera when I try to match the "live UA175" image.

Here is what the ratio of the plane to the tower SHOULD look like if it is on line to hit the tower. The difference in ratio is small, but very significant:

Here is the top view showing the plane is on the right trajectory to hit the tower:

I also wrote about this issue before here. Interestingly, one another "live" shot shows too small of a plane for a Beoing 767-200.

So--- where is the interest in this video?

Where is the interest in the 9/11 "truth" community even?

Isn't this video footage one of the most CENTRAL ASPECTS of all of 9/11?

Shouldn't the abnormalities I've described been used in a court of law to charge the film-makers as being part of the 9/11 conspiracy by now?
Bookmark and Share

Time for Some Good Old-Fashioned...

Bush Bashing!:
One thing that is fascinating about George Bush is how little he has grown in office. No, that's not right. It's not that he hasn't grown, he has gotten smaller; less Presidential, more sad little man watching his paper boat circle the drain. After six years of playing The Decider he should at least have a thin candy shell of gravitas as opposed to coming across like one of those guys on Peoples Court who not only has an unshakable belief that people won't see through his bullshit, but that no one will notice his artful comb-over either.

As bad a president as George W. Bush has been (and lets face it, not only is he the worst ever, he's actively lobbying to be considered worse than at least the next five, possibly six presidents, and that includes President Patrick McHenry [warning: video] who will come to power following the Great Munchkin Uprising of 2021. You don't want to know...) he is a worse person and it shows whenever he is under pressure; he melts down into a greasy little puddle of glares and smirks and incipient panic. But tonight was special. Tonights performance lays to rest any notion other than the fact that he's not a very bright man who has nothing but contempt for a world that refuses to dumb down for him.
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, March 20, 2007

Fire and Steel

This is funny.

These "debunking 911" debunkers use this picture to show how heat can distort steel-- a fuel-carrying tanker truck overturned, thousands of gallons of fuel burned in one small area, and at least one of the steel beams of the overpass RIGHT ABOVE the fire shows serious heat-induced distortion:

Not really surprising, everyone should know that heat can soften and eventually melt steel.

So what's missing in this story that they use to support the official 9/11 WTC collapse fairy-tale???

Bookmark and Share

Monday, March 19, 2007

Truthiness! Get Your 9/11 Truthiness!

Bookmark and Share

Predatory Lending

Bookmark and Share

Four More Years?

I wouldn't be surprised.

The more important question is how many more people have to die in this god-forsaken war?
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, March 18, 2007

Mutant Boeing 767s in the 2nd Hit Photographic and Videographic Record

This is a key point and you don't even need Flight Simulator to see this. I invite everyone to simply go to a good hobby store, and pick up a scale 1:200 plastic model Boeing 767-200, and put it together (it's a simple kit, takes about 15 minutes). Then look at each of these "official" images of UA175 (a Boeing 767-200) and using the model:
1) match the basic trajectory with the plane in the image (the engine position with respect to the fuselage can be a useful guide for this)
2) try carefully match to the wing alignment, or bank angle -- use a protractor if possible

If you can do this, now see if the tail position matches and also see if the fuselage length (amount of fuselage in front of the wings versus rear of the wings) matches.

While all of the images below look roughly like Boeing 767s, as far as I can tell, none of them are bona fide Boeing 767's judging by the overall airframe proportions. The wings aren't right, or the tails aren't right, or the fuselages aren't right.

Simply put, these are all mutant planes-- and mostly likely digital fakes.

Bookmark and Share

TWPE Watch

Bookmark and Share


Bookmark and Share

Shorter Pinch

Bookmark and Share

Nick Kristoff

Bookmark and Share

Saturday, March 17, 2007

The Battle for the Baghdad Airport

Bookmark and Share

30 Year Sentence for Teenager Who Confessed to Shooting Zebuhr

Minneapolis Star-Tribune:
A year ago, Billy Rae Deshawn Johnson, then 17, pulled the trigger on the gun that killed 25-year-old Michael Zebuhr, who had just finished dining at an Uptown restaurant with his mother, sister and her boyfriend. The killing shook Minneapolis because of the random nature of the crime in a normally safe neighborhood.

On Thursday, Johnson placed both hands on the defense table, hung his head, lifted his eyes to Zebuhr's mother across the room and said in barely discernible words: "I apologize for the loss of your son. ... I hope you will forgive me for what happened to your son."

Hennepin County District Judge Francis Connolly sentenced Johnson, now 18, to 30 years in prison with the possibility of parole after 20 years. Johnson pleaded guilty a month ago to second-degree murder. He had been charged with first-degree murder, but the charge was reduced in exchange for his guilty plea.


Johnson's grandmother, Gloria Johnson, spoke to reporters after the sentencing as she pushed her walker with tears in her eyes. "He was my grandson and I raised him. He told me from Day One he didn't kill anyone," she said. "In my heart he didn't shoot anyone, but in my heart he was there."
Bookmark and Share

Friday, March 16, 2007

The 9/11 Operation

I don't agree with several things in this article (for instance the part about the planes), but they do have a reasonably good treatment of the idea that small hydrogen bombs were used to take out the WTC. There are also some good pictures that are definitely worth a look.
Bookmark and Share

Beam Weapons at the WTC: Truth, Psy-Op or Both?

There's no doubt that the theory that beam weapons were used to disintegrate the WTC twin towers seems far-fetched and even "kooky" at face-value.

Without getting into a discussion of the precise merits of beam weapons now (since I have done that in the past), I would like to explore how this "kookiness" factor might actually relate to manipulating people's opinions regarding beam weapons.

Now, either beam weapons were used on 9/11 or they were not.

A) Let's start by saying beam weapons were NOT used. What would be explanations or rationales for promoting the beam weapon theory? Now the theory may honestly seem like a good idea, or even the best explanation for the events, to certain proponents of the theory, despite the "kookiness factor". At the same time the beam weapon theory might actually be promoted by "agents" specifically to make 9/11 skeptics look kooky, and would be an effective distraction to keep people from looking at what really happened at the WTC on 9/11.

B) Now let's say beam weapons were used. In this case, the obvious reason to promote the beam weapon theory is that it is the truth. But how does the "kookiness" factor play out? Well, it keeps people from looking at the theory too closely-- as they come to it prejudiced and then worry it is too "far out" and "kooky". This "kookiness" factor can thus be exploited by agents in order to shield the truth from the public. Thus, someone like Judy Wood is lured into a trap where she is made to look "kooky" and she can therefore effectively turn people away from the truth.

I'll let everyone make up their minds about what makes the most sense.
Bookmark and Share

I Think I'm In Love

How DARE those dastardly Bush administration villains besmirch the honor of this fair Princess!!!!
Bookmark and Share

The Zebuhr Conspiracy

Interesting write-up in the St. Paul Pioneer Press.

What is clear is that the circumstances of Zebuhr's shooting are fishy-- he was singled out from a group to be shot, and there was no reason or motive for the official suspect to shoot Zebuhr. The security camera videos that supposedly caught the shooting have never been released, and I do worry that the official shooter was framed in some way. The shooter's confession means little, as people can be forced to confess. I think it is likely that Zebuhr's killing was orchestrated in order to send a message to Judy Wood. Exactly what message Judy Wood got from the killing is hard to know, and it is hard to know exactly how Zebuhr's killing has affected her work on 9/11.
Bookmark and Share

Thursday, March 15, 2007

KSM Transcript

Boy, that guy tends to ramble. A lot of what he's trying to say is difficult to comprehend, due to his limited English.

The list of operations he supposedly headed is ridiculous. There's no WAY anyone could have done all that, even the most brilliant terrorist mastermind. It's just a joke.

There's also some redacted stuff, that you gotta wonder about.
Bookmark and Share

Too Much Truth?

I just noticed that I was taken off the "911 blogger" blogroll. I wonder what pushed them over the edge.
Bookmark and Share


(circus music plays)

WASHINGTON - Khalid Sheikh Mohammed cemented his position as al-Qaida's most ambitious operational planner when he confessed in a U.S. military tribunal to planning and supporting 31 terrorist attacks, topped by 9/11, that killed thousands of innocent victims since the early 1990s.

Hot damn!!! Not only do those military tribunls work GREAT, but al-CIA-duh (oops, al-Qaida) was even more active than we ever knew-- and we got their main planning guy! USA! USA! USA!

(cue "Proud to be an American" by Lee Greenwood)

SERIOUSLY though-- this confession is clearly worthless. Even if this NEW confession was not elicited by overt torture, there's no doubt this guy's mind was seriously fucked with during his captivity.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, March 14, 2007

The WTC Tritium Study

This study was presented in April 2002, at the American Chemical Society National Meeting, by a group of scientists from the New York State Department of Health; School of Public Health, University at Albany, State University of New York, Albany; Fission Energy and Systems Safety Program, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, Livermore, Nuclear Science Division, E.O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory; Tritium Engineering Department, Westinghouse Savannah River Company; Physical Biosciences Division, E.O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory.

The first or lead author (Thomas M. Semkow) is from the New York State Department of Health. He traditionally would be the one who started the project and did a lot of the work. The senior author (Philip G. Williams) is from Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, and he would be the one who oversaw the whole work.

Now all they really did in this study was to measure tritium levels in a few samples from Ground Zero and around Manhattan, which is pretty trivial. I can do this in my lab. It's not clear why they needed the heavy hitters at Lawrence Livermore for this work, and it is not clear who did what in this study. Certainly the New York State guys would be the ones who got the samples and did the preliminary tests.

One key question is, why did they do this study in the first place? They say "We became interested in the subject of tritium at WTC because of the possibility that tritium RL (radioluminescent) devices could have been present and destroyed at WTC."

This rationale seems kind of dubious to me. In the short months after 9/11, I doubt checking tritium levels released from radioluminescent signs and rifle scopes is a big priority. In general, tritium is not a big health concern, the radiation from tritium is very low beta energy (tritium is a radioactive isotope of hydrogen). So, I have to wonder if the scientists were looking for tritium for another reason. For instance, tritium is used in and is produced as a by-product from nuclear fusion.

Or perhaps, the local guys were curious if radiation was released at Ground Zero because of the intense nature of what happened on 9/11, then they found tritium, made some calls, and the Lawrence Livermore guys hooked up with them to try to manage their findings.

Here is the abstract for the study, which basically says they found tritium around ground zero at levels that were far above the local background:
Traces of tritiated water (HTO) were detected at the World Trade Center (WTC) ground zero after the 9/11/01 terrorist attack. A water sample from the WTC sewer, collected on 9/13/01, contained 0.164±0.074 (2 σ) nCi/L of HTO. A split water sample, collected on 9/21/01 from the basement of WTC Building 6, contained 3.53±0.17 and 2.83±0.15 nCi/L, respectively. These results are well below the levels of concern to human exposure. Several water and vegetation samples were analyzed from sites outside ground zero, located in Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, and the Kensico and Croton Reservoirs. No HTO above the background was found in those samples. Tritium radioluminescent (RL) devices were investigated as possible sources of the traces of tritium at ground zero. It was determined that the two Boeing 767 aircraft that hit the Twin Towers contained a combined 34 Ci of tritium at the time of impact in their emergency exit signs. There is also evidence that many weapons from law enforcement were present and destroyed at WTC. Such weaponry contains by design tritium sights. The fate and removal of tritium from ground zero were investigated, taking into consideration tritium chemistry and water flow originating from the fire fighting, rain, as well as leaks from the Hudson River and broken mains. A box model was developed to describe the above scenario. The model is consistent with instantaneous oxidation of the airplane tritium in the jet-fuel explosion, deposition of a small fraction of HTO at ground zero, and water-flow controlled removal of HTO from the debris. The model also suggests that tritium from the weapons would be released and oxidized to HTO at a much slower rate in the lingering fires at ground zero.

What they don't put in their abstract is their actual conclusions that the tritium found at ground zero can't be accounted for by known sources:
34 Ci of tritium were released from the emergency tritium RL signs onboard the two Boeing 767s, on impact with the Twin Towers at the WTC. The measurements and modeling are consistent with a prompt creation of HTO in the jet-fuel explosion and fire deposition of a small fraction of HTO at ground zero, and water-flow controlled removal from the site. The modeling implies that the contribution from the aircraft alone would yield the HTO deposition fraction of 2.5%. This value is too high by a comparison with other incidents involving fire and tritium. Therefore, the source term from the airplanes alone is too small to explain the measured concentrations, and another missing source is needed. There is evidence that weapons belonging to federal and law-enforcement agencies were present and destroyed at the WTC. Such weapons contain tritium sights by design. The exact activity of tritium from the weapons was not determined. The data and modeling are consistent with the tritium source from the weapon sights (plus possibly tritium watches) in the debris, from which tritium was slowly released in the lingering fires, followed by an oxidation and removal with the water flow. Our modeling suggests that such a scenario would require a minimum of 120 equipped weapons destroyed and a quantitative capturing of tritium, which is too high, since many weapons were found with only minor damage and tritium sights are shielded in a metal. Therefore, such a mechanism alone is not sufficient to account for the measured HTO concentrations. This indicates that the weapons/watches are consistent with the missing source, which would have complemented the airplane source.

Some important points about this study--

1) they analyzed tritiated water (T2O), not tritium gas (T2). Tritium gas is the main component used in RL. T2 is converted to T2O at a very low rate. They did factor this into their study, but we have to assume their calculations are correct about how much T2O to expect.

2) they did NOT check tritium levels in the actual ground zero debris, and certainly not in the main debris pile for WTC1 and 2, where the most tritium would have been deposited either by plane or by mini-hydrogen bomb. They merely checked tritium in ground zero sewer water-- and this is after millions of gallons of water have been sprayed on the debris pile!

3) even if we assume Boeing 767's crashed into the WTC (which I don't think is what happened), the vast majority of RL tritium would end up vaporized out into the atmosphere and a fraction would remain in the building. Much of this remaining material would get aerosolized again as the buildings went down-- and then only a very small fraction of this tritium would get converted into water, and only a very small fraction of this would be detected in the sewer after ground zero was hosed down. Granted, they only found a very very small fraction of what was allegedly in the exit signs in the aircraft, nonehteless, the amount recovered is higher than even THEY predicted, and so they resort to the idea that a great many RL watches were destroyed in the WTC-- a somewhat dubious proposition.

4) the highest levels of tritium they observed were found in water from the basement of WTC6. This is where some debris from WTC1 fell, and could be the source for the tritium. The idea that weapons and watches in WTC1 and WTC6 accounted for the tritium in the basement of WTC6 seems a bit far-fetched to me.

5) if no Boeing 767's crashed into the WTC, they have ABSOLUTELY NO good excuse for the levels of tritium seen at ground zero-- so again, a key question is WHAT HIT THE WTC?

6) tritium is a signature of nuclear fusion (it is commonly used in fusion devices), and thus we have some evidence that small fusion (hydrogen) bombs were used at the WTC. Again, nuclear fusion leaves far fewer radioactive traces compared to fission, and so tritium would be one of the main markers for fusion one could check for.
Bookmark and Share

DU's "William Seger" Helps Me Prove My Flight 93 Case


Here, "William Seger" shows he is deeply confused about what happened in Shanksville, and can't seem to understand the plane was going south.
Bookmark and Share

Israeli Lobby Keeps Democrats from Reining in Bush on Iran

Bookmark and Share

The US Attorney Purge

The firing of Carol Lam, who was investigating the corrupt Congressman Republican Randy Cunningham, was a sign of something very amiss:
Lam's investigation (and allied ones her probe spawned) were uncovering a) serious criminal wrongdoing by major Republican power players on Capitol Hill, b) corruption at the CIA -- which reached back to the Hill, c) and as yet still largely hidden corrupt dealings at the heart of the intelligence operations in the Rumsfeld Pentagon.
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, March 13, 2007

9/11 Was an Excuse to ... ATTACK THE WORLD!!!

Bookmark and Share

Stardust Memories

All that's left.

The demolition was just another Vegas show, with fireworks and flashing lights.

Funny: if you watch the video, they couldn't get it to go down as perfectly as WTC7-- one side caved inwards as it the structure imploded -- and it was only a 32-story tower!

Bookmark and Share

The Iron Mountain Report

Bookmark and Share

Jeff Wells: I'm Not a Disinfo Artist

Bookmark and Share

Monday, March 12, 2007

Evidence of Advanced Fusion Devices at the WTC

The evidence is quite compelling, as abhorrent as the idea may be.

More explanation and responses to criticisms can be obtained here.
Bookmark and Share

"Hoodwinked at Shanksville"

Bookmark and Share

Bush Impeached?

Assuming no horrendous crises in the next two years, if Bush IS impeached, my guess it will be over something like this:
Several high-ranking Democratic senators have called for the resignation of US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales in the wake of revelations in an official audit that the FBI broke and misused laws in the process of obtaining personal information from telephone companies, Internet service providers, banks, and credit bureaus under the terms of the Patriot Act. Prior to Friday's release of the Department of Justice Inspector General's report Gonzales was already under pressure in connection with publicized dismissals of several US Attorneys that may have been politically motivated.

While there may be a "slam-dunk" case for impeachment based on manipulation of intelligence prior to the Iraq invasion, I doubt impeachment would be brought for that. Impeachment for anything related to 9/11 simply ain't gonna happen in the absence of a miracle.

And this presumes there will be no horrendous crises in the next two years-- something very hard to guarantee at this stage of the grand game being played out by the elites.
Bookmark and Share

Brainwashed, In Deep Denial, A Government Shill, Or Some Combination of the Three--

if you see these images and have absolutely no doubts about the official 9/11 story:

Bookmark and Share

Sunday, March 11, 2007

A "Booming Economy" and "50 Million Freed Muslims"

I guess it is only appropriate that conservatives have such a warped view of reality, considering that they also tend to believe most strongly in the official 9/11 fairy tale.

I suppose this "happy days" bullshit could be just spin from people who know better.

It's really hard to tell the difference anymore.

(Quotes in title taken from comments section)
Bookmark and Share

Boycott YouTube?

Seems like a good idea.

Anyway, that site was like SO 2006.

Note 3/12/07: I have had no problems with YouTube myself, and I think it is a great site in many ways. Further, it is hard to complain too much about a free site that lets you share videos. However, I think they should give better reasons for why they suspend accounts.
Bookmark and Share

"Towering Inferno"

I just watched this 1974 movie on AMC.

A 140 story skyscraper has raging fires throughout the structure for at least two hours until the fire is put out by blowing up giant water tanks on the top floor with explosives.

By the logic of 9/11, shouldn't there have been a top-down global collapse after the explosives ripped apart the top floor and debris and millions of gallons of water fell onto the fire-weakened floors below?

Memorable quote at the end, when someone says the "body count" was only 200, the hero fireman Steve McQueen says something like "one of these days, we're going to lose 10,000 people in one of these".

The fireman hero meme is promulgated in this film-- countering the no-nonsense firemen with the greedy impractical architects.
Bookmark and Share

Creepy and Ominous

The line between real humans acting and computer animation in movies seems to get blurrier every day; video games are looking more and more realistic.

This seems to be a disturbing trend that seems to portend people not knowing what is real and what is digital.

Of course, we already had digital planes on 9/11. Will we get digital human terrorists next?
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, March 10, 2007

Giuliani for President!!!

Just kidding!

But I REALLY hope he gets the GOP nomination-- because it will be a way to get some airtime for 9/11 issues such as the nuking of the WTC.
Bookmark and Share

The Freedom Tower

By Vaclav Havel, Translated from the Czech by Paul Wilson

Gov. Eliot Spitzer announced yesterday that he supported going ahead with construction of the Freedom Tower at ground zero, making official his change of mind about a project that he once called a white elephant.
—The New York Times, February 21, 2007

May 19, 2005

I have to admit to something I don't know whether I can actually say here: I absolutely hated those two skyscrapers at the World Trade Center. They were a typical kind of architecture that has no ideas behind it. Moreover, they disrupted the skyline of the city; they towered absurdly over the beautiful crystalline topography of Manhattan. They were two monuments to the cult of profit at any cost: regardless of what they looked like, they had to have the greatest imaginable number of square meters of office space. I was once on the top floor of one of those buildings for dinner, and I discovered that the entire edifice was constantly swaying slightly. I took it as a sign that something was not right and that something was going on here that was, in a sense, against nature. A boat may sway, but a building should not. The view down was dull; it was no longer the view from a skyscraper and it wasn't yet the view from an aircraft.

And here's what I fear: that for reasons of prestige they will build something even higher on the same spot, something that will spoil New York even more, that they will enter into some kind of absurd competition with the terrorists; and who will win in the end, the suicidal fanatics or an even higher Tower of Babel? You have to fight against terrorists with armies, the police, the intelligence services; their sympathizers have to be dealt with by politicians, political scientists, sociologists, and psychologists. Buildings, however, should be erected to enrich human settlements, not to make them duller. Why couldn't new buildings be put up on that spot proportional to the buildings already there, and that would simply blend into the existing skyline? Likewise, I don't think that some bombastic monument should be erected at Ground Zero. What happened there must be commemorated, but tastefully, as the fallen from the Vietnam or the Korean wars are commemorated in Washington, or simply with a single large space or room that would evoke the catastrophe and its context.

Interesting comments, particularly about the swaying of the towers-- for those who thought the core could not stand lateral forces.

It is still remarkable and ridiculous that people can hold in their minds that the towers withstood the impacts of two large jetliners, where the towers clearly maintained their basic integrity-- no significant distortion of the frames were seen, no buckling or bending-- and then after 60 and 100 minutes of fire, both structures could completely disintegrate WITHOUT thinking the towers were blown.

Though actually, most people don't even think of the WTC this way, most people don't even think about the WTC -- it is just government shills/war criminals who can hold this contradiction in their heads.
Bookmark and Share

Unbelievably Depressing

--how completely the braindead the US media is about Iraq.

I mean there is simply NO DOUBT THE WAR IS BASED ON LIES, it's not even close to a crazy "conspiracy theory"-- and the media simply cannot go there.

Also unbelievably depressing is the fact that Bush and Cheney are almost certainly going to get away with everything.
Bookmark and Share

Friday, March 09, 2007

Under the Weather

I have some sort of flu-like illness that is making me too depressed to write much.

Just a few thoughts about nukes at the WTC:
-- there is no doubt that the US has highly advanced nuclear technology, such as small tactical nuclear weapons, that are not public knowledge
-- it is likely fusion bomb technology has become very advanced and that micronukes and possibly nanonukes exist
-- the advantage of using nukes at the WTC is that they are obviously more powerful and thus fewer of these are needed-- making it easier to plant these without people knowing
-- I think it is possible that very small nukes can account for everything at the WTC, if they were used in a very controlled and precise manner
-- Fusion bombs do not produce the same type of highly radioactive fallout as fission bombs, which can explain why no one recorded high levels of radiation at ground zero (as far as we know)
-- Fusion bombs do however produce tritium, which was found at abnormal levels at ground zero (I will post more on this later)

An excellent summary of evidence for nukes at the WTC is here.
Bookmark and Share

Wednesday, March 07, 2007

Nukes AND Beam Weapons?

It has been brought to my attention that a viable explanation for what happened to the WTC towers that fits what Wood and Reynolds describe is micro-fission nukes or nano-fusion nukes.

In fact, very small nuclear devices would be a better alternative explanation for the dustification/vaporization of the WTC steel than a directed energy beam weapon, particularly in terms of energy requirements. Nuclear fusion produces the most extreme temperatures imaginable, literally as hot as the sun, which is easily hot enough to vaporize steel that is in the vicinity of the reaction.

Thus, nuclear fusion can explain many of the oddities observed with the destruction of the twin towers-- the vaporization of steel and internal office components, the twisted steel debris seen in the rubble, the extreme heat of the Ground Zero debris pile, and the high rate of cancers seen with Ground Zero rescue workers. Small nuclear devices could explain the explosions heard in "911 Eyewitness" before the towers fell, which the beam weapon hypothesis can't. The fusion micro- or nano-nukes could also explain the abnormal levels of tritium that were found around Ground Zero after 9/11, since tritium is a by-product of the fusion reaction.

These small nuclear devices would have been planted above ground-- again, with the idea to minimize the damage to the foundations of the WTC and the "bathtub" from tons of steel falling 1000 feet by vaporizing much of the steel from the upper portions of the towers.

I have also always thought the term "Ground Zero" was some sort of ironic hint at the use of nuclear weapons. Indeed, early mainstream reports said that the energy released from the fall of the towers was similar to a small nuclear device, another possible hint.

Interestingly, as an expert on fusion technology, Steven Jones has probably has more to cover-up about fusion micro-nukes/nano-nukes than he would for Wood and Reynolds' beam weapon explanation.

Nonetheless, there still is evidence for directed energy weapon usage (electro-magnetic energy pulses?) at the WTC that doesn't fit with small fusion nukes.

The evidence that most favors the use of some sort of directed energy "beam" weapon and can't be easily explained by small fusion nukes is:

1) the grounding of military flights during the time the towers were destroyed

2) the explosion of an aircraft in the sky at the time the south tower was being brought down (according to EMT Patricia Ondrovic)

3) the vast numbers of strangely roasted and toasted cars in lower Manhattan that can't be explained simply by falling debris or a chain reaction series of explosions.

4) the directed movement of a large section of WTC1 outer wall such that it twisted in mid-air as it fell to avoid the WFC.

Thus, it seems quite possible to me that both small fusion nukes AND beam weapons were used.

The nukes may have done the primary destruction, whereas an electromagnetic beam weapon may have been used to move large pieces of debris in a way to minimize damage to the buildings surrounding the WTC.

One fact that may argue against nukes is that the aluminum cladding of the WTC for the most part was left unscathed by whatever brought down the towers. However, the aluminum cladding was also relatively light and lightly anchored to the structure, such that the pieces of cladding were blown off the building and ahead of the main destructive force.
Bookmark and Share

Tuesday, March 06, 2007

The Very Strange Circumstances of the Greg Jenkins Interview with Judy Wood

Important story here.

There is also a very brief rebuttal of Greg Jenkins recent piece in Jones' "Journal of 9/11 Studies"-- something I've been meaning to do but haven't had time.

To clarify here:

1) I am not getting into "personalities" so much as pointing out that it is interesting that there was this orchestrated "attack" on Judy Wood, clearly intended to make her look bad. They obviously went out of their way to do this. Why?

2) I didn't read Jenkins paper carefully, but I skimmed it. While it is well put together, I think it is flawed from the title to the conclusions. He makes too many assumptions for him to be able to definitively say Wood is wrong.
Bookmark and Share


Bookmark and Share

Monday, March 05, 2007

Melting Top

I still cannot get over this:

There is no specific start to the destruction-- the complete top of the tower just starts dropping down and the region between floors 90 and 100 just starts compacting.

Check out all the weird jets of smoke/dust at the end.

The thing is, I simply cannot imagine what is going on inside the structure in this building. It is almost as if the huge steel core has disappeared-- melted away somehow. There are no signs of any step-wise progressive collapse. The building just starts caving in and belching clouds of dust.
Bookmark and Share

If They Had Put This Much Effort Into the 9/11 CGI Planes

we might never have caught on.

But perhaps they had time constraints. In fact, I'm sure they did.
Bookmark and Share

Sunday, March 04, 2007

Crappy CGI?

Now the first thing that must be said about this 2nd hit footage is that it has a truly miraculous zoom: the camera operator rapidly zooms out and stops his zoom JUST IN TIME to catch the "plane" coming in. Really, people had the most AMAZING LUCK with their cameras on 9/11.

But more relevant to this post, note how crappy the "plane" image is here. The question is-- if someone is going to go through the trouble of adding a CGI "plane" to a 2nd hit video-- why make it so crappy?

This thing is clearly missing one wing and a tail section -- this is not a simple matter of resolution-- and it is too short for a Boeing 767 (roughly 137 feet as opposed to 159-- so about 14% too short).

Was this the real object that hit the tower whose appearance was "fixed up" in other 2nd hit videos? Or a CGI plane-like image designed to look bogus?

What is most confusing is the planes in the "live" videos (e.g. #1 here)-- if they were CGI, they were clearly better quality, but how could they cover-up a real object with CGI so quickly in real-time? But if the planes in the "live" videos were real, how come they have normal starboard wings and tail sections? Although for whatever reason, the live planes ALSO seem too short for a Boeing 767.
Bookmark and Share

Saturday, March 03, 2007

Helicopters Didn't Explode: Thoughts on Star Wars Weaponry

3/4/07: SEE UPDATES at bottom.

Magnus made a good point here that I thought about independently then forgot about posting.

Helicopters were clearly flying around the trade center just prior to and during the collapse, and they didn't explode. This kind of wrecks the argument that aircraft could not be around the trade center if it was attacked by directed energy weapons because the aircraft might explode. It's an important argument.

HOWEVER-- we still have to deal with the fact that military aircraft were ordered out of the sky from 9:45am to 10:31am.

This order was probably for "non-essential" military craft (which makes you wonder about that C-130 that just happened to witness the Pentagon hit and the Shanskville crash scene a few minutes after they occurred) -- since there were supposedly scrambled intercept jets in the air at this time.

Still, what possible reason could there be for most military flights to be grounded until right after the WTC was demolished? Wouldn't making these flights land create more confusion when there was already plenty of confusion? And surely the military could recognize its own aircraft and not shoot them down, so it's not like they needed to get down to avoid being shot.

One explanation for all the military craft being ordered down is that a beam weapon was fired from the upper atmosphere and or space, and spill-over effects ONLY affected the upper atmosphere-- where high-altitide jets were. This could explain why helicopters were not affected-- once the beam reached the lower atmosphere it was highly directed a there was little spill-over (until it hit the ground).

One thought is: could this beam weapon technology have actually harnessed the energy in the ionosphere or magnetosphere?

This is all very speculative of course. But I tend to prefer a aircraft- or space-based weapon, rather than land-based. One reason, is that the WTC was blown top-down, not bottom up-- and this is easier to achieve from the sky. Another reason to believe the weapon was sky-based is those holes in the top of WTC5 and WTC6. Another reason is the weapon could be more easily hidden in the sky, then on the ground (I'm not crazy about the argument that the weapon was hidden in WTC7). Lastly, beam weapon technology has clearly been designed for use in air and space, and likely has exisiting platforms in the sky/space.

As far as energy requirements, I don't think they used a laser to vaporize things. That is far too energy intensive. But microwave beams could be produced with far less power than lasers and I favor the idea that microwave beams were used to blow up the concrete in the towers. Microwave beams could have weakened the steel enough to make to facilitate the collapse.

Perhaps simply blowing up the concrete in the towers-- turning it into to dust-- was enough to lower the overall impact of the building as it fell to the ground.

As to whether steel was "dustified" is an open question. I think it is possible but hasn't been proven conclusively.

Finally, there is quesiton of what technology was used to make the huge section of WTC1 west wall do a pirouette so that it fell north instead of hitting the WFC*. Such a technique would be more feasible from the air, in my view.

*This still amazes me. They even maneuvered the upper part of the wall section to go between two of the WFC towers. Thus, instead of falling straight west, the wall piece did a turn in mid-air en masse so it went north, and the top part of the wall section was twisted to head west in between WFC towers. This is really a smoking gun for high-tech demolition.

Two thoughts worth adding here---

1) could the towers have been constructed with highly stable explosives built-in AND then satellite-based microwave weaponry were used to help detonate the explosives?

2) there is in fact some evidence that a plane exploded in the air within view of the WTC-- from the eyewitness account of EMT Patricia Ondrovic:
“I was looking for another plane. I saw something in the sky, it was a plane, but it was way out. It looked like it was over Jersey or something, then it wasn't there anymore. I saw a small fireball, and it was gone. I saw two other planes. One came in one way, and the other came in the other way, and there was a plane in the middle that was way far off in the distance. Then the plane in the middle just disappeared into a little fire ball. It looked like the size of a golf ball from where I could see it. And the other two planes veered off into opposite directions.”
Bookmark and Share

Friday, March 02, 2007

Jeff Wells' 9/11 Disconnect

There's something very strange about Jeff Wells, the guy who writes the "Rigorous Intuition" blog.

Fully half of his posts deal with incredibly vague accounts of UFOs and various strange metaphysical occurrences.

Yet for some reason, when he writes about 9/11, he repeatedly and condescendingly dismisses that anything unusual happened on 9/11. Basically, he seems to strongly support the official hijacker story, except that he pushes the idea that the hijackers were patsies and that the NORAD wargames threw off the air defenses. But he can't even wrap his mind around DEMOLITION, for gods sake.

Yet he thinks the US military is using/hiding alien spacecraft/technology?

What the fuck?
Bookmark and Share

Hey Pinch

Bookmark and Share

Thursday, March 01, 2007

See Anything Wrong With This Picture?

Bookmark and Share

In Case It Wasn't Clear In the Last Post

and it probably wasn't...

the idea is that planes had to get out of the sky so the WTC demolition crew could fire high energy beam weapons from the sky/space and not fry random planes flying nearby.

One interesting possibility is that the whole hijacked planes story was cooked up JUST IN ORDER TO HAVE AN EXCUSE TO GROUND ALL THE PLANES flying near Manhattan (and to make the story believable, they needed to ground all planes flying in the US, not just those flying near NYC).

But they tipped their hand by even grounding MILITARY and LAW ENFORCEMENT aircraft!

Yes, this is a "kooky" idea.

But on the other hand, it makes no sense that the FAA would ground MILITARY and LAW ENFORCEMENT aircraft in order to counter the hijackings of commercial jets!

Not to mention that they also tipped their hand by letting military aircraft back in the sky RIGHT AFTER the twin towers were destroyed.
Bookmark and Share

Powered by Blogger