Were mini nukes used on 911?

[W*GS]

I'm actually able to say comfortably - that i don't know - and i'm fine with that. Just that when anyside tries to present the 'truth' it falls short.

Depends on how definitive you want the truth to be.

[alkemical]

Depends on how definitive you want the truth to be.


Well wags, there are probably a good 6 theories i can "buy" - and neither can sway me either way really.

[W*GS]

Well wags, there are probably a good 6 theories i can "buy" - and neither can sway me either way really.

So you're an agnostic on the al-Qaeda "theory"...

[alkemical]

So you're an agnostic on the al-Qaeda "theory"...

More or less. I mean can you tell me if OBL is really alive for starters.

I don't think it's a bad thing Wags. I have questions - just sometimes the answers don't jive.

[mhgaffney]

Unfortunately, all you've supplied is the uncorrected totality of the snippets you've posted here.

I've shown time and again how your facts are wrong, your data suspect, and your conclusions absurd, yet you neglected to make any changes from what you posted here and what you posted at rense.

That's a shame.

For one small specific example:

The WTC's support columns did not exist in isolation. This was no laboratory furnace. The columns in each tower were part of an interconnected steel framework that weighed at least 100,000 tons; and because steel is known to be an excellent conductor of heat this massive steel superstructure functioned on 9/11 as an enormous energy sink. The total volume of the steel framework was vast compared with the relatively small area of exposed steel, and would have wicked away the fire-caused heat almost as quickly as it was generated.

I showed you were wrong in this here:

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1371508&postcount=388

It's clear that none of the corrections I made to your beliefs were incorporated in your report.

.


You merely pointed out that copper is more heat conductive than steel. That's an interesting detail -- but it does not invalidate my point that the 100,000 tons of steel in each tower behaved as a heat sink on 9/11. In fact steel is an excellent conductor of heat -- and this is probably one of the reasons why no steel frame structure had ever collasped before 9/11 --- nor since.

The objection that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is well taken. In fact we should apply this in the case of the official conspiracy theory and collapse model -- since there are no historical precedents before 9/11. The burden to show evidence is thus on the NIST -- and as I show in my paper they failed miserably on this score.

You never even read the NIST report -- yet carp in the shallowest manner, which is your nature.

[mhgaffney]

As for the mini nuke hypothesis -- I regard it as that. At times I feel it is the only theory that covers all of the anomalies. Yet, on the other hand, of course, at times I have doubts.

The seismic spike issue has not yet been resolved. Experts in the field are still debating it. Large explosions at the surface of the earth or just below ground cause a sudden large spike, whereas an impact or falling debris -- if it registers at all -- gives a spike of lower amplitude, longer duration and a different frequency.

There is powerful evidence that explosions began on WTC 1 even before the first impact on 9/11.

[W*GS]

More or less. I mean can you tell me if OBL is really alive for starters.

I don't know if OBL is alive or not - I assume he is.

[W*GS]

You merely pointed out that copper is more heat conductive than steel. That's an interesting detail -- but it does not invalidate my point that the 100,000 tons of steel in each tower behaved as a heat sink on 9/11.

You still don't get it.

Your copper analogy is precisely wrong because steel, relative to copper, is a very poor conductor of heat. I provided the numbers, too. You should drop the analogy entirely.

In fact steel is an excellent conductor of heat -- and this is probably one of the reasons why no steel frame structure had ever collasped before 9/11 --- nor since.

Steel, especially the steel in the WTC, is not an "excellent conductor of heat". Why do you think fireplace tools are made of iron, which is a better conductor than steel? Consider that before you keep making such factually incorrect statements:

...and would have wicked away the fire-caused heat almost as quickly as it was generated.

The above is utter baloney.

The objection that "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" is well taken. In fact we should apply this in the case of the official conspiracy theory and collapse model -- since there are no historical precedents before 9/11. The burden to show evidence is thus on the NIST -- and as I show in my paper they failed miserably on this score.

You proved nothing.

It's quite clear you know precious little about structural engineering, metallurgy, and a whole host of other topics relevant to critiquing the NIST report. Reading pieces of it, and verifying some numbers, does not a good approach make.

You're gonna have to do waaaaay better - and dropping all the factually wrong parts and the misleading analogies would be a good start.

[The Lone Bolt]

W*GS, I guess it's only fair to ask the same question of you that I asked of Gaffney:

Out of curiosity, what academic and/or professional background do you have in physics, engineering, or other relevant fields?

[mhgaffney]

You still don't get it.

Your copper analogy is precisely wrong because steel, relative to copper, is a very poor conductor of heat. I provided the numbers, too. You should drop the analogy entirely.



Relative to copper means nothing.

You are a good example of the old adage: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

The burden of proof is on you since there are no historical precedents for a global collapse of a steel frame bulding. Yet we have 3 in one day...

The people who cooked up this cockamamie theory must have utter contempt for the American people. It's so wacko it takes the breath away

Just the same, you have to admire them for fooling most of the people. What a brilliant job of propaganda. In fact, it's the greatest con job in history.

[W*GS]

The seismic spike issue has not yet been resolved. Experts in the field are still debating it.

Wrong.

http://911myths.com/html/seismic_record.html

[alkemical]

I don't know if OBL is alive or not - I assume he is.

I have enough doubt due to the way some things are handled with OBL - that makes me question it. I also firmly believe that to the "war on terror" OBL being 'alive' is much more desirable to what intentions and purposes it seems the "war on terror's" agenda seems to cover.

There are times when i look at the "news" and can't tell if it's real news, or some psyops program of being told what 'they' want me to hear.

Also, if you don't know if he's alive or not - why decide that he's alive? Why not just leave it open and explore both sides?

[W*GS]

Out of curiosity, what academic and/or professional background do you have in physics, engineering, or other relevant fields?

I have a BS degree in physics and computer science, and 20+ years as a software engineer at a scientific research center.

[W*GS]

Relative to copper means nothing.

So drop the wholly-bogus copper analogy from your analysis.

The burden of proof is on you since there are no historical precedents for a global collapse of a steel frame bulding. Yet we have 3 in one day...

There's also no precedent for jetliners smashing into skyscrapers, the impacts of which caused acres of fire, nor for two very tall buildings collapsing and badly damaging a third.

The people who cooked up this cockamamie theory must have utter contempt for the American people. It's so wacko it takes the breath away

This from the red-mercury-powered-pure-fusion-mini-nuke advocate.

[MO<1>]

Icke: our salvation from Reptilian Humanoids

http://www.oddpeak.com/_media/imgs/oddpeak/articles/a50_icke.jpg David Icke, is a former professional football player, BBC television sports presenter, and British Green Party national spokesperson. Since 1990, he has been what he calls a "full-time investigator into who and what is really controlling the world.": reptilians.

He dresses only in turquoise and sustains that the world was ruled by a secret group called "The Elite": a race of reptilian humanoids, known in ancient times as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent people are descended from them, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, and Kris Kristofferson. He believes that descendants of the reptiles engage in child molestation and Satanism. He is the author of 15 books explaining his views. After a five-hour speech to students, he received a standing ovation at the University of Toronto in 1999.
from Oddpeak

[alkemical]

Olmert's Connection to 9/11 (http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber.com/node/302)


Olmert's Connection to 9/11

Christopher Bollyn is one of the few independent journalists and researchers who uncovers new information and adds to the evidence of false flag terror, instead of just continuously rehashing news and other people's work.

I would like to bring to attention his two newest works building on his research of evidence of Israeli involvement in the 911 attacks:

The Likud Criminal Gang Behind 9/11 and the War on Terror and The Israeli Prime Minister's Connection to 9/11

In these articles you'll get a biography of Olmert, his Jabotinsky ideological roots, his corruption, and some anecdotes about his recent tours in Europe. Significantly, you'll also read about his connections to the security firms responsible for security in the airports the 911 hijacked planes flew from:

"The Likud fundraising scandal culminated in the March 1996 conviction of three Likudniks, including Menahem Atzmon, Olmert's co-treasurer. As the party treasurer, Olmert was indicted in the Likud crimes but received special treatment and was acquitted.

During the 1970s Olmert had worked in the law firm owned by another Atzmon, Uzi Atzmon.

Menahem J. Atzmon, Olmert's co-defendant and ally, was convicted in Israel but went on to become the founder and head of International Consultants on Targeted Security (ICTS). This Israeli-run company is the owner of Huntleigh USA, the airport security firm that ran passenger screening operations at the airports of Boston and Newark on 9/11.

Huntleigh USA is a wholly owned subsidiary of ICTS, a Netherlands-based aviation and transportation security firm headed by “former [Israeli] military commanding officers and veterans of government intelligence and security agencies.”

Atzmon, convicted in Israel in 1996 for crimes committed with Likud party fund raising schemes, and his business partner Ezra Harel, took over passenger screening and security at the Boston and Newark airports when ICTS acquired Huntleigh USA in 1999.

United Flight 175 and American Flight 11, which allegedly struck the twin towers, both originated from Boston's Logan Airport, while United Flight 93, which purportedly crashed in Pennsylvania, departed from the Newark airport. Atzmon, a convicted Israeli criminal, is the CEO who also controls and operates the German port of Rostock on the Baltic Sea. The bus that blew up at Tavistock exploded outside the London office of ICTS.

Some 9/11 victims’ families brought lawsuits against Huntleigh USA claiming the security firm had been grossly negligent on 9-11. While these relatives have the right to know what the Israeli security company did or did not do to protect their loved ones on 9-11, Huntleigh, along with two other foreign security companies, was granted congressional protection in 2002 and will not be called to account for its actions in any U.S. court.

Atzmon, a convicted criminal, political ally and co-defendant of Israel's Prime Minister Ehud Olmert, was directly responsible for passenger and airline security at Boston's Logan Airport, whence the two airliners which struck the World Trade Center originated. His airport security firm is a prime suspect in the false flag terror attacks of 9/11.

Olmert's relationship with Atzmon and his responsibility for Boston's airport security on 9/11 is a conspicuous tip – completely ignored by the controlled press – of the Israeli and Zionist criminal network involved in the terror attacks that started the so-called "War on Terror." "

These airport security firms are protected from examination when they allowed alleged terrorist hijackers to pass through them. Why? Shouldn't they be investigated to see how and what went wrong? Also, they never produced any CCTV video evidence showing any of the 'hijackers' getting on the planes. Why are they being protected? Shouldn't they at least have been approached to see where they went wrong to improve security? This is only one item connecting Zionist elites to 911. It may be a coincidence, but given all the other connections, there's a strong case to follow on these leads and see just how much deeper these connections go.

[W*GS]

I expect this sort of nonsense from gaffney, not from you. It's beneath you.

[mhgaffney]

There is no doubt that Israelis who worked in the WTC were warned to stay home on 9/11. This was reported by that viciously anti semitic newspaper Ha'aretz

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=77744&contrassID=/has%5C

We also know that Netanyahu was warned at the time of the London bombings to stay clear. He was scheduled for a meeting just a block from the site of the bomb. The Israeli givernment denied this -- but it was later confirmed by the chief of the Mossad in an interview with a German paper.

And there are other cases. Israelis were warned to vacate a hotel in Amman Jordan just before a huge bomb exploded there. It does make you wonder.

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=CHO20051113&articleId=1238

[alkemical]

I expect this sort of nonsense from gaffney, not from you. It's beneath you.



Oh please wags. I found it on whatreallyhappened.com - and posted it.

I didn't realize that by posting a blog-spot i am endorsing that particular article as speaking for my point of view.

That blanket accusation applied to me is evidently not beneath you.

Merry ****ing Christmas douche bag.

[W*GS]

There is no doubt that Israelis who worked in the WTC were warned to stay home on 9/11.

That's a blatant lie.

http://911myths.com/html/odigo.html

Thanks for biting on the Jew-hating trap. You've revealed yourself, and where you stand is now quite clear to all, gaffney.

[W*GS]

Oh please wags. I found it on whatreallyhappened.com - and posted it.

I didn't realize that by posting a blog-spot i am endorsing that particular article as speaking for my point of view.

That blanket accusation applied to me is evidently not beneath you.

Merry ****ing Christmas douche bag.

Nice.

But when you post stuff, without comment, that comes from a rather obviously Jew-hating perspective, expect some of us to criticize you.

PS - Happy Holidays to you too.

[alkemical]

Nice.

But when you post stuff, without comment, that comes from a rather obviously Jew-hating perspective, expect some of us to criticize you.

PS - Happy Holidays to you too.

I'm part jewish you jackass - so i can say whatever i want. HAHAHAHA!

**** YOU WAGS

[The Lone Bolt]

Icke: our salvation from Reptilian Humanoids

http://www.oddpeak.com/_media/imgs/oddpeak/articles/a50_icke.jpg David Icke, is a former professional football player, BBC television sports presenter, and British Green Party national spokesperson. Since 1990, he has been what he calls a "full-time investigator into who and what is really controlling the world.": reptilians.

He dresses only in turquoise and sustains that the world was ruled by a secret group called "The Elite": a race of reptilian humanoids, known in ancient times as the Babylonian Brotherhood, and that many prominent people are descended from them, including George W. Bush, Queen Elizabeth II, and Kris Kristofferson. He believes that descendants of the reptiles engage in child molestation and Satanism. He is the author of 15 books explaining his views. After a five-hour speech to students, he received a standing ovation at the University of Toronto in 1999.
from Oddpeak


Well I'm an agnostic on the humanoid lizard theory. Sure you can find endless "expert" opinions that contradict this theory but this guy's opinion (and perhaps the opinions of a few of his followers) is just as credible and offsets the millions of "expert" opinions that say otherwise.

;D


Oh and MERRY CHRISTMAS ALL!

[mhgaffney]

The Ha'aretz page has been removed from the internet. But the story was archived. Here it is - below. Somone had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attack and you can be sure it wasn't a jihadist.

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/odigo_9-11_warning.html

Odigo Workers Received
Warning of 9/11 Attacks

http://www.haaretzdaily.com/hasen/pages/ShArt.jhtml?itemNo=77744&contrassID=/has%5C

Odigo, the instant messaging service, says that two of its workers received messages two hours before the Twin Towers attack on September 11 predicting the attack would happen, and the company has been cooperating with Israeli and American law enforcement, including the FBI, in trying to find the original sender of the message predicting the attack.

Micha Macover, CEO of the company, said the two workers received the messages and immediately after the terror attack informed the company's management, which immediately contacted the Israeli security services, which brought in the FBI.

"I have no idea why the message was sent to these two workers, who don't know the sender. It may just have been someone who was joking and turned out they accidentally got it right. And I don't know if our information was useful in any of the arrests the FBI has made," said Macover. Odigo is a U.S.-based company whose headquarters are in New York, with offices in Herzliya.

As an instant messaging service, Odigo users are not limited to sending messages only to people on their "buddy" list, as is the case with ICQ, the other well-known Israeli instant messaging application.

Odigo usually zealously protects the privacy of its registered users, said Macover, but in this case the company took the initiative to provide the law enforcement services with the originating Internet Presence address of the message, so the FBI could track down the Internet Service Provider, and the actual sender of the original message.

[W*GS]

gaffney, re-read

http://www.orangemane.com/BB/showpost.php?p=1415861&postcount=520

Thanks!

[mhgaffney]

Notice, this was reported in the israeli press.

I agree with the douche bag assessment of W*gs.

[W*GS]

Notice, this was reported in the israeli press.

As if an Israeli newspaper report makes an assertion truthful or unassailable. And no, it's not gone from Haaretz' website - you just need to know where to look.

That recent Holocaust denial conference in Iran had a few rabbis in attendance; I guess that means Holocaust deniers have some degree of truth in their beliefs, eh?

I agree with the douche bag assessment of W*gs.

Try reading the link in my original article before you keep making an ass of yourself.

But that's OK - you're just another delusional freakazoid whacko.

[MO<1>]

In support of mhgaffney, the world needs freakazoid whackos. But I would not really label mhgaffney a freakazoid whacko.
Listen to the terror thread that he spreads. He is anti-semitic, anti conservative, and anti liberal. All his thoughts are repressive. He blathers comments from true freakazoid whackos in order to stir terror in the hearts of the weak.
It is apparent, that he is an Iranian.
PROOF: I saw em all lickem.

[mhgaffney]

Here is the original AP story about Netanyahu being warned at the time of the London bombings. As I noted, the Israelis first denied it -- then later confirmed it.

So how did Scotland Yard know bombings were imminent? Well, probably because the bombing was planned by British intelligence.

Netanyahu Changed Plans Due to Warning

By AMY TEIBEL, Associated Press Writer
Thu Jul 7, 7:14 AM ET

JERUSALEM - British police told the Israeli Embassy in London minutes before Thursday's explosions that they had received warnings of possible terror attacks in the city, a senior Israeli official said.

Israeli Finance Minister had planned to attend an economic conference in a hotel over the subway stop where one of the blasts occurred, and the warning prompted him to stay in his hotel room instead, government officials said.

Foreign Minister Silvan Shalom said he wasn't aware of any Israeli casualties. Just before the blasts, Scotland Yard called the security officer at the Israeli Embassy to say they had received warnings of possible attacks, the official said. He did not say whether British police made any link to the economic conference. The official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the nature of his position.

The Israeli Embassy was in a state of emergency after the explosions in London, with no one allowed to enter or leave, said the Israeli ambassador to London, Zvi Hefet. All phone lines to the embassy were down, said Danny Biran, an Israeli Foreign Ministry official.

The ministry set up a situation room to deal with hundreds of phone calls from concerned relatives. Thousands of Israelis are living in London or visiting the city at this time, Biran said. Amir Gilad, a Netanyahu aide, told

Radio that Netanyahu's entourage was receiving updates all morning from British security officials, and "we have also asked to change our plans." Netanyahu had been scheduled to stay in London until Sunday, but that could change, Gilad said.

[mhgaffney]

W*gs's DUMB, DUMBER, DUMBEREST by-line says a lot about his political naivete. Whether libertarian or not is irrelevant.

The suggestion here is that all of this has come to pass because our prez is a simpleton. Challenged. Low IQ. Oh if Bush only had a bit more on the ball..etc etc

But the facts don't support this -- and point to an entirely different explanation. What if Bush is merely a puppet on a string? Controlled by the people really in power, the bankers, financiers, insurance tycoons, industrialists and militarists who run America behind the scenes.

These are the scumbags Ike was referring to when he gave his final speech - and warned the nation about the military- industrial complex

This is why 2 trillion dollars of pentagon money goes missing. And why Haliburton gets no bid contracts in Iraq -- for work that's never done.

This isn't happening because Bush is dumb -- or because of mere incompetence. It isn't some accident.

This is the agenda of the scumbags who went off shore a long time ago and don't give a rat's ass about America.

It's why we are going down. And too many on this board are clueless.

[MO<1>]

mhgaffney stills offers accusation and speculation with a large amount of belligerence and namecalling. What does his ranting have to do with mini nukes?
Iranians have penis envy.

[W*GS]

W*gs's DUMB, DUMBER, DUMBEREST by-line says a lot about his political naivete.

It's my avatar (remember, Bush looking stupid) tag, not mine personally. Geezus, you're so desperate, you're clinging to just about anything to attack me.

But the facts don't support this -- and point to an entirely different explanation. What if Bush is merely a puppet on a string? Controlled by the people really in power, the bankers, financiers, insurance tycoons, industrialists and militarists who run America behind the scenes.

And behind all that are the Jews, eh?

It always cracks me up when I see the phrase "really in power". As if the machinations, schemes and evil of this cabal can be figured out by the likes of you...

It's why we are going down. And too many on this board are clueless.

Hardly. I'm an ordained minister in the Church of the Subgenius, and I can tell you that you've got it all wrong - you're truly clueless. Get some slack!

[W*GS]

What if Bush is merely a puppet on a string? Controlled by the people really in power, the bankers, financiers, insurance tycoons, industrialists and militarists who run America behind the scenes.

These are the scumbags Ike was referring to when he gave his final speech - and warned the nation about the military- industrial complex

This is why 2 trillion dollars of pentagon money goes missing. And why Haliburton gets no bid contracts in Iraq -- for work that's never done.

As usual, gaffney's offhand remark is a very partial truth:

http://911myths.com/html/rumsfeld__9_11_and__2_3_trilli.html

That $2.3 trillion isn't "missing", akin to being stolen. It's more complicated than that.

[alkemical]

I"ve been reading that 9/11 myths site and it's just as rediculous as the most outlandish 'alternate 9/11' sites.

It only really deals with the most absurd stories, but not so much of the meat and details of the questions that are important IMO.

Also one note on this flinging of being an anti-semite

You want to call peopel an anti-semite - because they critisize a country that is tied to a religion - whom influences our foriegn policy and gets TONS of monies from the USA.

I think every option of critism is allowed. There are problems of when it becomes "all the jews fault" - but considering the mossad has been found guilty of bombing a boat, running a spyring in the USA, using a powerful lobby to exert influence via the USA's political elite with bribary (re: donations) etc.

I think that any statement of anti-semitism is as blanketed as anyone calling anyone a racist for more or less nothing more than to condemn them pubically. If indeed someone does exert anti-semite positions will be dealt with by being banned here - or by being turned in by some of the rats on this board.

So i will kindly offer you a STFU if you ever fling an anti-semite charge at me.

Sorry back to your run-re-run -

[W*GS]

I"ve been reading that 9/11 myths site and it's just as rediculous as the most outlandish 'alternate 9/11' sites.

Uh-hunh. Whatever you say.

It only really deals with the most absurd stories, but not so much of the meat and details of the questions that are important IMO.

Such as?

Also one note on this flinging of being an anti-semite

gaffney has a real problem with Zionism first, Israel second, and Jews third. Everything wrong in the Middle East is their fault - the Arabs/Palestinians are wholly innocent victims of Zionist/Israeli/Jewish schemes and plans. He dances right up to the edge of being a wholehearted Jew-hater.

It's one thing to criticize some aspect of Israel, it's another to refuse to see any other means of analyzing the issues than to circle back and blame everything on Israel/Zionists/Jews. It's ridiculously unfair, biased, and reveals far more about gaffney's prejudices and bigotry than it does the truth.

[alkemical]

Uh-hunh. Whatever you say.



Such as?



gaffney has a real problem with Zionism first, Israel second, and Jews third. Everything wrong in the Middle East is their fault - the Arabs/Palestinians are wholly innocent victims of Zionist/Israeli/Jewish schemes and plans. He dances right up to the edge of being a wholehearted Jew-hater.

It's one thing to criticize some aspect of Israel, it's another to refuse to see any other means of analyzing the issues than to circle back and blame everything on Israel/Zionists/Jews. It's ridiculously unfair, biased, and reveals far more about gaffney's prejudices and bigotry than it does the truth.



Uh, yeah Wagsocrite - i do read from a lot of sources to get a well rounded POV on things - i don't limit it to just one source......

Wagsy - what to you would be 'absurd' to me the 4k israeli's getting the 'secret memo' - or the thermite, etc -

It doesn't cover some of the more pressing questions - and holes in the story.


I think the jews are equally vile when it comes to the situation in the ME. They are no different than anyone over there.

[W*GS]

It doesn't cover some of the more pressing questions - and holes in the story.

Can you be more specific?

I think the jews are equally vile when it comes to the situation in the ME. They are no different than anyone over there.

I see.

[alkemical]

Can you be more specific?



I see.



I've already gone over it - before -


Whats the difference if group A) blows up a car in the middle of an intersection and kills 30 additional people or group B) that blows up a cafe and kills 30 additional people?

No different wags - no different.

[W*GS]

I've already gone over it - before -

All the Flight 93 stuff. Some of what you claimed was shown to be incorrect.

[alkemical]

All the Flight 93 stuff. Some of what you claimed was shown to be incorrect.

Some... but as you've just stated - not all ;)

[W*GS]

Some... but as you've just stated - not all ;)

The main assertions you made were proven incorrect - namely the engine distance and the alleged debris found in the lake some 6 miles away. That was pretty much the bulk of what you claimed.

http://911myths.com/html/flight_93.html

and the links it provides can settle pretty much any question you have.

[alkemical]

Of course, that link does.... ;)

[Willynowei]

I'm slipping into mental retardation as i read the crap on this thread. Who thinks of this stuff? Gaf you need to lay off the movies, games and horribly hopeless websites out there... for your own sake. But i hope you're just screwing around.

[mhgaffney]

Here is the order that went into effect 3 months before 9/11 -- rescinding the former policy on hijacked planes. Previously the US military had the responsibility for making decisions case by case. This order meant that approval was now in the hands of Sec of defense Rumsfeld, essentially putting the White House in the loop.

Why does it matter? See my next post...

BTW the original can be downloaded at
www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/cjcsd/cjcsi/3610_01a.pdf

CHAIRMAN OF THE JOINT
CHIEFS OF STAFF INSTRUCTION

J-3 CJCSI 3610.01A DISTRIBUTION: A, B, C, J, S 1 June 2001

AIRCRAFT PIRACY (HIJACKING) AND DESTRUCTION OF DERELICT AIRBORNE OBJECTS

References: See Enclosure D.

1. Purpose. This instruction provides guidance to the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for destruction of derelict airborne objects.

2. Cancellation. CJCSI 3610.01, 31 July 1997.

3. Applicability. This instruction applies to the Joint Staff, Services, unified commands, and the US Element, North American Aerospace Defense Command (USELEMNORAD).

4. Policy.

a. Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) of Civil and Military Aircraft. Pursuant to references a and b, the Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), has exclusive responsibility to direct law enforcement activity related to actual or attempted aircraft piracy (hijacking) in the “special aircraft jurisdiction” of the United States. When requested by the Administrator, Department of Defense will provide assistance to these law enforcement efforts. Pursuant to reference c, the NMCC is the focal point within Department of Defense for providing assistance. In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval. DOD assistance to the FAA will be provided in accordance with reference d. Additional guidance is provided in Enclosure A.

b. Aircraft Piracy (Hijacking) Preventive Measures for Military and Military Contract Aircraft. Reference c outlines general policy and authority of military commanders to protect and secure property under their command. References f and g provide policy and guidance for commanders on dealing with terrorism, and information for reducing vulnerability of DOD personnel, their family members, facilities, and materiel to acts of terrorism. Additional guidance is provided in Enclosure B.

(1) A concerted effort will be made to prevent piracy (hijacking) of military or military contract aircraft by initiating security measures designed to minimize vulnerabilities and by stopping potential hijackers before they board the aircraft.

(2) If preventive measures fail, any attempt to hijack a military aircraft will, if practicable, be resisted.

(3) Assistance to hijacked aircraft will be rendered, as requested, by the aircraft commander, and as approved by the authority exercising operational control of the counter hijacking effort.

c. Destruction of Derelict Airborne Objects. Derelict airborne objects (for example, unmanned free balloons, moored balloons or kites, unmanned non-nuclear rockets or missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) or remotely operated vehicles (ROV)) are a potential threat to public safety. Military personnel may, upon request, be required to track and destroy such objects. The NMCC is the focal point for any requests for DOD assistance in tracking and destroying derelict airborne objects. With the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, the NMCC will forward all requests for such assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval. Enclosure D provides additional guidance.

5. Definitions. Terms used in this instruction are in the Glossary.

6. Responsibilities. The DDO, NMCC, is designated as the DOD coordinating authority between the FAA and operational commanders. As such, the DDO will forward all requests or proposals for DOD military assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval, with the exception of immediate responses as defined by reference d. The Services, unified commands, and USELEMNORAD are responsible for compliance with this instruction and any other directives, laws, or international agreements involving aircraft piracy (hijacking) or derelict airborne object incidents. Records and logs for aircraft piracy (hijacking) and destruction of derelict airborne object situations will be maintained for a minimum of 90 days to permit later reconstruction of the sequence of events. Records and logs requiring longer retention by other directives will be retained accordingly.

7. Summary of Changes

a. Unmanned vehicles (UAV, ROV) added to the description of possible derelict airborne objects.

b. Statutory Authority for Responding to Aircraft Piracy enclosure removed and added to reference list.

c. In various places throughout the document, “USELEMNORAD” was replaced with “NORAD.”

d. FAA Order 7610.4J, 3 November 1998, “Special Military Operations,” was added as a reference.

8. Releasability. This instruction is approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. DOD components (to include the combatant commands), other Federal agencies, and the public may obtain copies of this instruction through the Internet from the CJCS Directives Home Page--http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine. Copies are also available through the Government Printing Office on the Joint Electronic Library CD-ROM.

9. Effective Date. This instruction is effective upon receipt.

S. A. FRY
Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy
Director, Joint Staff

[mhgaffney]

Here is a portion of the testimony given to the 9/11 Commission by Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, who just happened to be standing beside Dick Cheney in the command bunker under the White House on 9/11.

Mineta describes the stand down as the command radar tracked the plane or object -- allegedly Flight 77 -- in its approach to the pentagon. This stand down was treason -- and here is the hard evidence. Remember, the US military has the most advanced radar in the world, capable of tracking many different planes at once. Also rememer, the pentagon is the most heavily defended building on the planet -- ringed by missile batteries capable of knocking any plane out of the sky. There was no need for fighter planes to intercept Flight 77.

The original can be downloaded here.

http://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm

Oh by the way, this testimony was deleted from the final 9/11 Commission report. I wonder why...

Mineta:
When I got to the White House, it was being evacuated. I met briefly with Richard Clark, a National Security Council staff member, who had no new information. Then the Secret Service escorted me down to the Presidential Emergency Operations Center, otherwise known as the PEOC. I established contact on two lines, one with my chief of staff at the Department of Transportation, and the second with Monty Belger, the acting deputy administrator of the FAA, and Jane Garvey, both of whom were in the FAA operations center.


The FAA began to restrict air travel in the Northeast United States by a combination of actions which included sterilizing air space in certain regions and at various airports, and ultimately a nationwide ground stop of all aircraft for all locations, regardless of destination.

Within a few minutes, American Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon. At this time, as we discussed the situation with the North American Aerospace Defense commander and his staff, we considered implementing an emergency system of coordinated air traffic management to allow maximum use for defensive activities.

It was clear that we had to clear the air space as soon as possible to stop any further attacks and ensure domestic air space was available for emergency and defensive use. And so at approximately 9:45 a.m., less than one hour after I had first been notified of an airplane crash in New York, I gave the FAA the final order for all civil aircraft to land at the nearest airport as soon as possible. It was the first shutdown of civil aviation in the history of the United States.

Within minutes, air traffic controllers throughout the nation had directed 700 domestic and international flights to emergency but safe landings. Within another 50 minutes, air traffic controllers, working with skilled flight crews, made sure another 2800 airplanes returned safely to the ground.

By shortly after noon, less than four hours after the first attack, U.S. air space was empty of all aircraft except military and medical traffic. A total of approximately 4500 aircraft were landed without incident in highly stressful conditions. Additionally, all international inbound flights were diverted from U.S. air space and U.S. airports.

Unfortunately, during this time we also learned that United Flight 93 crashed in Stony Creek Township, Pennsylvania. As America knows, but it is important to keep repeating, that aircraft never reached the terrorists' target due to the heroic actions taken by the passengers and crew on United Flight 93.

A question has been asked whether or not there is evidence that other hijackings and attacks were prevented by the actions that were taken that day. There are classified reports, media reports and investigative documents that indicate that other attacks may have been planned. But the evidence on this question is speculative at best, and I do not believe anyone can assert that other attacks were thwarted on that day unless he or she is the one who either planned the attack or planned to carry it out.

I also want to tell the Commission that although the focus of this commission's interest is on the airplane crashes on September 11th, as secretary of the United States Coast Guard, I was involved that day in the mass evacuation of more than 350,000 people from Manhattan. In addition to the largest maritime evacuation conducted in the history of the United States, our department's agencies were working with the various New York authorities on the devastating infrastructure damage suffered there.

Over the next few days, our department spent hours working with various state, local and federal agencies to reopen roads, tunnels, bridges, harbors and railroads while getting essential relief supplies into the area. I have talked about the staff at the Department of Transportation and how proud I am of how they responded on September 11th and in the days and the months afterward.

Thank you very much.

...

MR. HAMILTON: We thank you for that. I wanted to focus just a moment on the Presidential Emergency Operating Center. You were there for a good part of the day. I think you were there with the vice president. And when you had that order given, I think it was by the president, that authorized the shooting down of commercial aircraft that were suspected to be controlled by terrorists, were you there when that order was given?

MR. MINETA: No, I was not. I was made aware of it during the time that the airplane coming into the Pentagon. There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, "The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out." And when it got down to, "The plane is 10 miles out," the young man also said to the vice president, "Do the orders still stand?" And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, "Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?" Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant. And --

MR. HAMILTON: The flight you're referring to is the --

MR. MINETA: The flight that came into the Pentagon.

MR. HAMILTON: The Pentagon, yeah.

[W*GS]

Here is the order that went into effect 3 months before 9/11 -- rescinding the former policy on hijacked planes. Previously the US military had the responsibility for making decisions case by case. This order meant that approval was now in the hands of Sec of defense Rumsfeld, essentially putting the White House in the loop.

Well no, the prior policy wasn't "rescinded", in the sense of being completely rewritten. A more-reasonable view of the change in policy is at

http://911myths.com/html/hijack_assistance_approval.html

[W*GS]

Mineta describes the stand down as the command radar tracked the plane or object -- allegedly Flight 77 -- in its approach to the pentagon.

What's the "command radar"? And why the "allegedly"? Please continue making a fool of yourself if you wish to call it a "missile"...

This stand down was treason -- and here is the hard evidence. Remember, the US military has the most advanced radar in the world, capable of tracking many different planes at once. Also rememer, the pentagon is the most heavily defended building on the planet -- ringed by missile batteries capable of knocking any plane out of the sky. There was no need for fighter planes to intercept Flight 77.

Provide proof for the assertions you've made above, namely:

"the US military has the most advanced radar in the world, capable of tracking many different planes at once"

and

"the pentagon is the most heavily defended building on the planet -- ringed by missile batteries"

The original can be downloaded here.[...]Oh by the way, this testimony was deleted from the final 9/11 Commission report. I wonder why...

Since Mineta's testimony is available from the 9/11 Commission website, it wasn't "deleted" from the final report, it simply wasn't included, as was much of the testimony of others and lots of information besides.

Do you even bother to check the many sites that disprove your 9/11 theories before you post them here? If you did, you wouldn't be so easily pulverized.

BTW, what does Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon have to do with red-mercury-powered-pure-fusion-mini-nukes at the WTC?

[alkemical]

Well no, the prior policy wasn't "rescinded", in the sense of being completely rewritten. A more-reasonable view of the change in policy is at

http://911myths.com/html/hijack_assistance_approval.html



Yes but it doesn't define what the clarification or difference is between a proposal and a request. If it was re-written and changed - there also has to be a re-classification of what those terms relate to with-in the red-tape world.

Also Wags, did you read the Gov't issued PDF's of the original and the re-written? Cuz if you did you'd see how some of the procedures and policies WERE re-written and not just streamlined (they did 'streamline' some of it) -

But when it comes to the handling of hijacked planes, the policies did change and some were re-written.

Just an FYI

[alkemical]

What's the "command radar"? And why the "allegedly"? Please continue making a fool of yourself if you wish to call it a "missile"...



Provide proof for the assertions you've made above, namely:

"the US military has the most advanced radar in the world, capable of tracking many different planes at once"

and

"the pentagon is the most heavily defended building on the planet -- ringed by missile batteries"



Since Mineta's testimony is available from the 9/11 Commission website, it wasn't "deleted" from the final report, it simply wasn't included, as was much of the testimony of others and lots of information besides.

Do you even bother to check the many sites that disprove your 9/11 theories before you post them here? If you did, you wouldn't be so easily pulverized.

BTW, what does Flight 77 crashing into the Pentagon have to do with red-mercury-powered-pure-fusion-mini-nukes at the WTC?



From what i've read the reference to "command radar" had/has to do with the command centre's radar console/system.

For the claim of the US_Mil having the most advanced radar in the world:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=most+advanced+radar+system+in+the+world

NorthropGrunnman, etc - seem to stake those claims and well - we seem to use their equipment......


the rest of it - i got no comment.

[mhgaffney]

W*gs can quibble over a word all he wants.

The above documents are prima facie evidence of Bush White House complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

Of course I believe they are guilty of even worse crimes -- of having planned the entire event. There is a lot of evidence for explosives in the WTC, for example. That would rule out foreign jihadiists, who could not possibly have gained access to plant bombs.

We also know that Bush's younger brother Marvin was a principle in the company, Securacom, with the security contract for the WTC, Dulles airport, and also United airlines. Bush's cousin was the CEO of Securacom. So they definitely had access to the towers. Few Americans know this.

All the same, the above evidence should be enough to indict the central figures in the Bush adminiatration for high crimes. Complicity in a crime is a crime. They must be brought to justice for this despicable attack against the US Constitution.

No doubt a real investigation could turn up a mountain of additional evidence.

Call Congressmen Kucinich and Wellburn and demand an investigation in the House. Call Leahy's office and demand one in the Senate.

The switchboard number is 202 -224 - 2121

[alkemical]

W*gs can quibble over a word all he wants.

The above documents are prima facie evidence of Bush White House complicity in the 9/11 attacks.

Of course I believe they are guilty of even worse crimes -- of having planned the entire event. There is a lot of evidence for explosives in the WTC, for example. That would rule out foreign jihadiists, who could not possibly have gained access to plant bombs.

We also know that Bush's younger brother Marvin was a principle in the company, Securacom, with the security contract for the WTC, Dulles airport, and also United airlines. Bush's cousin was the CEO of Securacom. So they definitely had access to the towers. Few Americans know this.

All the same, the above evidence should be enough to indict the central figures in the Bush adminiatration for high crimes. Complicity in a crime is a crime. They must be brought to justice for this despicable attack against the US Constitution.

No doubt a real investigation could turn up a mountain of additional evidence.

Call Congressmen Kucinich and Wellburn and demand an investigation in the House. Call Leahy's office and demand one in the Senate.

The switchboard number is 202 -224 - 2121



A few quick points:

A) I really have no comment on "Foriegn jihadists" or "explosives" - because i believe neither were involved in 9/11. (Oh i believe there were terrorists, but not nec. of a radical muslim kind).

B) Do a search on Niel Bush - he seemed to have a job heading an insurance company that covered some interesting properties......

[mhgaffney]

A quick google search turned up this article about a military drill in the Washington DC area -- involving "a multilayered air defense" -- i.e., both planes and missiles.

This article is consistent with other reports I have seen of stinger missile placements on the roof of the pentagon.

No doubt a more thorough search could turn up lots more evidence. It's no surprise that Washington should be so heavily defended. It's the seat of government and the military. Anyone familiar with Washingon knows that the pentagon is the hub -- at the center of it all.

Exercise Tests D.C. Air Defense Capabilities

By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Sept. 10, 2002 -- Exercise Clear Skies II kicks off here today to test air defense systems in the region, DoD officials said.

Pentagon officials emphasized Clear Skies II is an exercise and not an operation. The troops involved will not man live weapons. North American Aerospace Defense Command officials have planned the exercise for many weeks. The exercise ends Sept. 14.

Clear Skies II tests how NORAD, in conjunction with U.S. federal agencies, can put up and command a multilayered air defense system. Both ground and air assets are being used.

Pentagon officials said aircraft participating in the exercise include F-16s, Airborne Warning and Control System aircraft and other support aircraft.

Ground-based systems include Sentinel radars and Stinger and Avenger missile systems. These systems will be based at metro Washington area military installations.

Officials said around 300 people from NORAD, the armed services, the U.S. Customs Service, the Federal Aviation Administration and the U.S. Secret Service are taking part in the exercise.

Exercise Clear Skies I was held in early July, officials said. Around 30 people participated in the three-day exercise.

Clear Skies II is an expanded version of the exercise and will validate the procedures NORAD will use to defend the United States from an airborne attack.

NORAD officials said that other, possibly larger exercises would be held in the future.

The Washington area historically has had air defense capabilities. During World War II, the Army set up an anti- aircraft battery atop the Treasury Building. It was dismantled in 1944. Anti-aircraft missile batteries ringed the area from the early 1950s to the mid-1970s.

[mhgaffney]

here's the link
http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Sep2002/n09102002_200209101.html

[alkemical]

MHG,

I find the instances of war-games & FEMA excersizes planned in two of the 9/11 targets more telling than not IMO of complicity.

When is a coincidence a coincidence, or is the only coincidence the illusion of coincidence?

[mhgaffney]

I grew up as a military brat -- my father was a USAF officer -- so I am familiar with some of the terminology.

Operational command

In the US military someone is always in command i.e., 24 X 7. On a base he's called the duty officer - the one who is on duty even when the base commander is at home in bed with his wife.

Same way with NORAD. These people never sleep. There is always an operational commander. Probably at least a Colonel or Lt Colonel, with a higher grade supervisor available if needed.

These were the people under the former policy who had the day to day responsibility for making case by case decisions about hijackings. There was a step by step protocol in such cases. Shooting down planes is the very last resort -- and is almost unknown.

The order above changed this policy and put the decisions squarely in the hands of Rumsfeld. So on 9/11 NORAD had to contact Rummy (meaning: the White House). From Mineta's testimony it's obvious a decision was made to allow the attack on the pentagon to proceed. The testimony clearly shows that the plane (or whatever) was being tracked. The White House command bunker obviously had a direct feed to the NORAD radar system.

The incoming bogie could have been taken out with the push of a button.

[mhgaffney]

I agree Clavicula -- there were at least 4 different drills underway on 9/11 -- some involving hijackings and even suicide attacks onthe WTC.

We saw the same coincidental situation with the London bombings.

It's an obvious way to disable the nation's defenses.

[alkemical]

Well again - i can't say that i think the gov't planned and executed 9/11 -

BUT - i find it odd that these events just 'happen' to be setup for these dates.

[W*GS]

The above documents are prima facie evidence of Bush White House complicity in the 9/11 attacks

Big time :bs:

Of course I believe they are guilty of even worse crimes -- of having planned the entire event. There is a lot of evidence for explosives in the WTC, for example.

Even bigger :bs:

We also know that Bush's younger brother Marvin was a principle in the company, Securacom, with the security contract for the WTC, Dulles airport, and also United airlines. Bush's cousin was the CEO of Securacom.

Prove the above assertions. Provide URLs.

No doubt a real investigation could turn up a mountain of additional evidence.

Nowhere near as big as the stinking piles you've dropped here.

[W*GS]

[...]there were at least 4 different drills underway on 9/11 -- some involving hijackings and even suicide attacks onthe WTC.

Prove the above two assertions.

Especially the "suicide attacks onthe [sic] WTC" part.

[W*GS]

The order above changed this policy and put the decisions squarely in the hands of Rumsfeld.

That's not clear.

So on 9/11 NORAD had to contact Rummy (meaning: the White House). From Mineta's testimony it's obvious a decision was made to allow the attack on the pentagon to proceed.

How so?

The incoming bogie could have been taken out with the push of a button.

Puhleeze.

You've been watching "War Games" too often, or some other such nonsense.

[W*GS]

[...]WASHINGTON, Sept. 10, 2002[...]

Ground-based systems include Sentinel radars and Stinger and Avenger missile systems. These systems will be based at metro Washington area military installations.

Note that 10 Sep 2002 is after 9/11/2001.

And the "will be" means even later than that.

What "missile batteries" (your words) were protecting the Pentagon on 9/11/2001?

Otherwise, you're, as usual, just full of :bs:

[alkemical]

Well according to time mag:

Context of '1991'
This page shows all events that either reference, or are referenced by, the event '1991'.


1991: White House Is Protected From Airplane Attack During Gulf War Time magazine reports in 1994, “During the Gulf War, uniformed air-defense teams could be seen patrolling the top floor [of the White House] with automatic rifles or shoulder-mounted ground-to-air missiles.” [Time, 9/26/1994] While a battery of surface-to-air-missiles remains permanently on the roof of the White House, the rest of these defenses are apparently removed after the war is over. [Daily Telegraph, 9/16/2001] Yet even though counterterrorism officials later call the alerts in the summer of 2001 “the most urgent in decades,” similar defensive measures will apparently not be taken. [US Congress, 9/18/2002]

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?before_9/11=militaryExercises&timeline=complete_911_timeline

[alkemical]

and from 1996-2001 there were FEMA saged excersizes in NYC:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?before_9/11=militaryExercises&timeline=complete_911_timeline

[W*GS]

Note that 10 Sep 2002 is after 9/11/2001.

And the "will be" means even later than that.

What "missile batteries" (your words) were protecting the Pentagon on 9/11/2001?

Otherwise, you're, as usual, just full of :bs:

I've even done some research for you:

http://911myths.com/html/pentagon_missile_batteries.html

[alkemical]

Big time :bs:



Even bigger :bs:



Prove the above assertions. Provide URLs.



Nowhere near as big as the stinking piles you've dropped here.



Marvin Bush:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Bush

[The Lone Bolt]

The order above changed this policy and put the decisions squarely in the hands of Rumsfeld. So on 9/11 NORAD had to contact Rummy (meaning: the White House). From Mineta's testimony it's obvious a decision was made to allow the attack on the pentagon to proceed. The testimony clearly shows that the plane (or whatever) was being tracked. The White House command bunker obviously had a direct feed to the NORAD radar system.

The incoming bogie could have been taken out with the push of a button.

I also don't see how this "proves" that the WH intentionally allowed the Pentagon to be attacked.

How was Rummy supposed to know that the plane was heading for a crash into the Pentagon? What if it wasn't? Would you take the decision to shoot down a plane full of helpless passengers lightly?

How would you explain your decision to their families?

How would the US media portray it? "Reckless"? "Cold"? Perhaps even "murder"?

There are other reasons why Rummy wouldn't want to have the plane shot down other than it was all part of a government plot to fake a terrorist attack on the US. I really don't think you've proven anything here.

[W*GS]

A) I really have no comment on "Foriegn jihadists" or "explosives" - because i believe neither were involved in 9/11. (Oh i believe there were terrorists, but not nec. of a radical muslim kind).

Who piloted the planes, then?

[alkemical]

For the record:

i'd have no problem with a plane being shot down - esp in circumstances like 9/11 - i just expect full disclosure.

[alkemical]

Who piloted the planes, then?



Wags,

If i knew the actual answer(s), i wouldn't have so many questions about it - now would I?

[W*GS]

If i knew the actual answer(s), i wouldn't have so many questions about it - now would I?

Make a wild guess, then.

[alkemical]

Make a wild guess, then.

Well if i were to take a *wild* guess -

I'd say that they had military background or their training had some military influencing. Esp with how low key it was overall (box cutters, use of #'s, not nec. force to take over the plane, etc).

They had M.E. roots - but islamic fundamentalists not nec.

I'm thinking maybe some hired guns by the haus of saud or china - maybe used OBL's contacts to round up a crew.

9/11 was more than a terrorist attack - it was larger than that - it attacked symbols and symbols hold power. It was as much a large scale psy-ops as it was a brilliant plan IMO.

That's one side i can buy into.

There's a few that hold enough merit to make me consider them.

[mhgaffney]

I also don't see how this "proves" that the WH intentionally allowed the Pentagon to be attacked.


Scroll back up and read the Mineta testimony. Cheney was in the White House bunker getting radar reports about the incoming bogie. Obviously it was being tracked.

I say bogie because though we don't know what it was - it was obviously not a 757. The small hole in the pentagon before it collapsed showed no evidence of damage by two 6 ton jet engines or the 40+ foot tail.

One signal from Cheney and the bogie would have been history. The young man asked "Do the orders stand?" This and Cheney's answer indicates that a stand down order was in effect. That's the only way to read it.

How much evidence do you need?

What is astonishing is the level to which people in America and on this board have been dumbed down. Take the 9/11 Commission for example. They failed to follow up on Mineta's testimony. If you look at the full text this is apparent. It's as if they had already reached a verdict (it's those insane jihadists!) and were simply going through the motions of an investigation. Mineta's incriminating testimony should have been in the final report -- but of course as we know the report was the work of a Bush clone who carefully screened out everything that did not support the official false reality.

Bolt you are another example. For Chrissake use that mysterious space between your ears. God gave it to you to put to use.

[mhgaffney]

Well if i were to take a *wild* guess -

I'd say that they had military background or their training had some military influencing. Esp with how low key it was overall (box cutters, use of #'s, not nec. force to take over the plane, etc).

They had M.E. roots - but islamic fundamentalists not nec.

I'm thinking maybe some hired guns by the haus of saud or china - maybe used OBL's contacts to round up a crew.

9/11 was more than a terrorist attack - it was larger than that - it attacked symbols and symbols hold power. It was as much a large scale psy-ops as it was a brilliant plan IMO.

That's one side i can buy into.

There's a few that hold enough merit to make me consider them.

There's no hard evidence the alleged 19 hijackers ever boarded the planes. Their names do not appear on the passenger manifests. And there are no videos of them boarding -- which is strange since airports routinely do this.

Nine of them have since turned up alive and well in the Arab world --as reported by the BBC and other international news agencies. An obvious case of identity theft. But would Al Qaeda have resorted to identity theft? Of course not.

And why were the alleged hijackers out partying and carousing to all hours -- drinking and womanizing -- if they were devout Muslim radicals?

No, the evidence does not fit -- the official thread is a porous lie.

The bin Laden video in which OBL suposedly takes credit for the attack is an obvious fake -- as 24 year old Dylan Avery showed very convincingly in his film LOOSE CHANGE. He also exposed the cell phone calls as fakes. Obvious.

You guys need to put on your thinking caps. You are sooo naive -- how can you not be aware of the vast resources for disinformation and misinformation currently at the disposal of our intelligence agencies? They can track every phone call, every e mail, they can fake voices, stage phony ID cards, whatever is needed. They are experts at misdirection and deception.

And there's plenty of evidence of similar staged events in the past.

[W*GS]

I say bogie because though we don't know what it was - it was obviously not a 757. The small hole in the pentagon before it collapsed showed no evidence of damage by two 6 ton jet engines or the 40+ foot tail.

:bs:

It's obvious you've been smacked down so thoroughly on the "Were mini nukes used on 911" aspect of the thread that you've given up and are now repeating the other nonsense the 9/11 whackos have spread far and wide.

Do me a favor and read everything on the two 9/11 sites I've referenced, debunking911.com and 911myths.com, just to keep yourself from being easily dismissed as a crank time and again.

Thanks.

[The Lone Bolt]

Scroll back up and read the Mineta testimony. Cheney was in the White House bunker getting radar reports about the incoming bogie. Obviously it was being tracked.

I say bogie because though we don't know what it was - it was obviously not a 757. The small hole in the pentagon before it collapsed showed no evidence of damage by two 6 ton jet engines or the 40+ foot tail.

One signal from Cheney and the bogie would have been history. The young man asked "Do the orders stand?" This and Cheney's answer indicates that a stand down order was in effect. That's the only way to read it.

How much evidence do you need?

What is astonishing is the level to which people in America and on this board have been dumbed down. Take the 9/11 Commission for example. They failed to follow up on Mineta's testimony. If you look at the full text this is apparent. It's as if they had already reached a verdict (it's those insane jihadists!) and were simply going through the motions of an investigation. Mineta's incriminating testimony should have been in the final report -- but of course as we know the report was the work of a Bush clone who carefully screened out everything that did not support the official false reality.

Bolt you are another example. For Chrissake use that mysterious space between your ears. God gave it to you to put to use.

So how to you explain the multitude of eyewitness accounts posted elsewhere on this forum which report a passenger plane hitting the Pentagon? (Here's a link in case you forgot: http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm) How do you suppose a drone or missile could fly over the heads of thousands of eyewitnesses in broad daylight without anyone noticing or taking pictures? Why would the US Gov't be dumb enough to try this in broad daylight and risk thousands of eyewitnesses seeing a missile or a drone when they could have done it at night just as easily?

And your claim that the "small hole" in the pentagon proves that there was no plane is a popular and highly desputed claim by the conspiracy theory crowd. Long before 911 I saw a video of a fighter jet driven into a cement wall at full throttle (as part of a test) and in slow motion. The jet literally turned into dust at that speed as it impacted the wall. I find it very easy to believe that a plane could impact a wall and not leave a conveniently plane-shaped outline.

For more debunking here is a website that discusses the wreckage: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

Here is one that discusses the hole in the pentagon: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1 Here is a very relevant quote from that site:

Here is the hole in the building - it's been reported by at least a dozen different sources (including conspiracy theory sites) to be a 16 to 20 foot hole. That is really interesting when you take into account the fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high. (Here is where I was mistaken in the past, like so very many others I was led astray by the HEIGHT of the aircraft, which is actually the measurement from the wheels-down to the tip of the tail. That measurement is for aircraft hangar clearance, not the SIZE of the aircraft.) The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feet across. It then should not be surprising that it would create something around a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building.

There's a lot more where that came from. Try reading it and use that "mysterious space" between your ears.;)

[W*GS]

There's no hard evidence the alleged 19 hijackers ever boarded the planes.

Wrong.

Their names do not appear on the passenger manifests.

Wrong.

And there are no videos of them boarding -- which is strange since airports routinely do this.

Did "airports" "routinely do this" pre-9/11?

Nine of them have since turned up alive and well in the Arab world --as reported by the BBC and other international news agencies.

Wrong.

And why were the alleged hijackers out partying and carousing to all hours -- drinking and womanizing -- if they were devout Muslim radicals?

Ever hear of "fitting in" and not being obvious?

No, the evidence does not fit -- the official thread is a porous lie.

The lies are all yours. You can barely make a statement that isn't factually untrue.

The bin Laden video in which OBL suposedly takes credit for the attack is an obvious fake -- as 24 year old Dylan Avery showed very convincingly in his film LOOSE CHANGE. He also exposed the cell phone calls as fakes. Obvious.

Wrong.

You guys need to put on your thinking caps. You are sooo naive -- how can you not be aware of the vast resources for disinformation and misinformation currently at the disposal of our intelligence agencies? They can track every phone call, every e mail, they can fake voices, stage phony ID cards, whatever is needed. They are experts at misdirection and deception.

Amazingly, this same near-omniscient near-omnipotent machine of evil didn't manage to conjure up WMD in Iraq, and it left so many bits of evidence of its activities on 9/11 (and beforehand) that a bunch of whacky "sleuths" somehow figured out the Real Story.

Uh-hunh. Ya sure ya betcha.

And there's plenty of evidence of similar staged events in the past.

Especially on 20 July 1969, right?

[alkemical]

Well - check this out:

Hijack 'suspects' alive and well (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm)

Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.

The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.

Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.

His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.

Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco.


From same article:

"FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt. "

[alkemical]

In doing research on the 9/11 hijackers i found this:

http://archives.cnn.com/2002/WORLD/meast/09/09/binladen.tape/index.html

September 9, 2002 Posted: 7:38 PM EDT (2338 GMT)


While bin Laden spoke, faces of the hijackers were superimposed on the screen.

U.S. authorities have said they are unsure whether bin Laden is dead or alive.

Sources have told CNN that bin Laden suffered a shrapnel wound in the U.S. bombardment of Afghanistan but is alive in the frontier region of Pakistan near the Afghan border.

[W*GS]

Well - check this out:

Hijack 'suspects' alive and well (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm)

Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.

Now check these out:

http://911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

http://911myths.com/html/waleed_al-shehri_still_alive.html

http://911myths.com/html/doubts_over_hijackers_identity.html

Check "911myths.com" before you rehash old, incorrect, information.

[alkemical]

Now check these out:

http://911myths.com/html/still_alive.html

http://911myths.com/html/waleed_al-shehri_still_alive.html

http://911myths.com/html/doubts_over_hijackers_identity.html

Check "911myths.com" before you rehash old, incorrect, information.

Nah, your links don't trump the information from this link, and the supported links that are carried into it - not to mention i proved you wrong citing the BBC news story (where you asked MHG for links)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/hijackers.html

that trumps your links - so HA! - infact double HA!

Not until i have a reason that 911myths.com is some end-all - be-all authority that has all the answers for 9/11 - other than your misguided inflated ego attatchment that what you say is fact is fact (which it isn't). You have not presented anything new or original, and you only rehash information from authority that does nothing more than regurgitate the same old propaganda over and over again. The same thing you want to call people on, you do the very same.

Now since i've been able to refute your simple claims with proof (and i have, and since i have been able to give you news stories that refute what you want to believe - you still call them false only because you find an alternative source that matches up to what you believe - and that's the whole crux of the matter -

[W*GS]

Nah, your links don't trump the information from this link, and the supported links that are carried into it - not to mention i proved you wrong citing the BBC news story (where you asked MHG for links)

The links from 911myths I provided contain the reference to the BBC story, and show it to be incorrect.

The 19 hijackers are all dead. Period.

You have not presented anything new or original, and you only rehash information from authority that does nothing more than regurgitate the same old propaganda over and over again.

The sites I use provide full references and proof of their assertions; the ones you and gaffney provide are little more than assertions without evidence and deliberate misstatements of fact. Period.

Now since i've been able to refute your simple claims with proof

Wrong.

[alkemical]

The links from 911myths I provided contain the reference to the BBC story, and show it to be incorrect.

The 19 hijackers are all dead. Period.



The sites I use provide full references and proof of their assertions; the ones you and gaffney provide are little more than assertions without evidence and deliberate misstatements of fact. Period.



Wrong.



A) Not according to my sources that i have read. Not to mention 911myths doesn't really provide much in ways of their own assertations with nothing more than gov't sponsored evidence.

B) - No, you are. Considering i was (and to a lesser extent MHG) - correct on the Gov't documentation on the policies for intercepting a hijacked plane. Parts of the report from 97 were streamlined for the 2k1 release - HOWEVER - portions of the polcies were re-written. If you would have read them - you would have seen that yourself - instead of - well - taking the *word* of your source. I've noticed that a few different times from ya as well wags - which is why i call bull**** on 911myths.org - it's just the mirror image of wtc7.net -


(PS - what really happened - has links to all the news stories you can investigate yourself - so then again i can tell you don't really put any effort into substantiating your claims beyond what you think you can pin someone down with) - ;)

[W*GS]

A) Not according to my sources that i have read. Not to mention 911myths doesn't really provide much in ways of their own assertations with nothing more than gov't sponsored evidence.

"whatreallyhappened" uses sources that 911myths has researched and found incorrect. Blurbs from the immediate aftermath aren't as factual as those later in time - when more work has been done. The BBC story is a perfect example.

As for "gov't sponsored evidence", well, what do you suggest instead? Rantings from whackos?

B) - No, you are. Considering i was (and to a lesser extent MHG) - correct on the Gov't documentation on the policies for intercepting a hijacked plane. Parts of the report from 97 were streamlined for the 2k1 release - HOWEVER - portions of the polcies were re-written. If you would have read them - you would have seen that yourself - instead of - well - taking the *word* of your source.

Even if true (and it's not) that's still (at extreme best) incredibly indirect evidence for the whackitude that Flight 77 was "allowed" to hit the Pentagon. Never mind the fact that if Rumsfeld had the final authority, what was Cheney doing prattling on about "the order still stands"?

Besides, since Rumsfeld was in the Pentagon, don't you think it the least bit odd that he would put his own life in danger? Assuming he knows Flight 77 is going to hit the Pentagon, and the (fictitious) "missile batteries" won't get it, why would he stay there and be at risk?

Lastly, doesn't the whacked claim that Cheney/Rumsfeld/et.al. prevented Flight 77 from being destroyed seriously conflict with the other claim that it never hit the Pentagon, it was hit by some sort of missile or a different plane?

The 9/11 whack-jobs are splintering all over the place - they can't even keep their whackitude straight.

[alkemical]

"whatreallyhappened" uses sources that 911myths has researched and found incorrect. Blurbs from the immediate aftermath aren't as factual as those later in time - when more work has been done. The BBC story is a perfect example.

As for "gov't sponsored evidence", well, what do you suggest instead? Rantings from whackos?



Even if true (and it's not) that's still (at extreme best) incredibly indirect evidence for the whackitude that Flight 77 was "allowed" to hit the Pentagon. Never mind the fact that if Rumsfeld had the final authority, what was Cheney doing prattling on about "the order still stands"?

Besides, since Rumsfeld was in the Pentagon, don't you think it the least bit odd that he would put his own life in danger? Assuming he knows Flight 77 is going to hit the Pentagon, and the (fictitious) "missile batteries" won't get it, why would he stay there and be at risk?

Lastly, doesn't the whacked claim that Cheney/Rumsfeld/et.al. prevented Flight 77 from being destroyed seriously conflict with the other claim that it never hit the Pentagon, it was hit by some sort of missile or a different plane?

The 9/11 whack-jobs are splintering all over the place - they can't even keep their whackitude straight.



Wags you claim to be a smart guy - so i know you understand this:

The more claims you make to be possible, the more you have to accept that the number of improbable increases correct?

So by narrowing the scope, you narrow the scope of what is not only probable, but improbable. Which in light of the 9/11 commision's report (even you've made small admissions that even you don't think it's 100% correct) - which by that admission alone - means that you have doubts over certain aspects of the 9/11 commision report/investigation.

Now if you want to cite "readings from whackos" - i can easily point out that I think the economist and mises are whacko's, as is what the gov't tells me. I mean come on and be consistant wags. You don't like the fact that the gov't can read your mail - but you want to stand and acquiesce the fact that at the same time i should "accept" what the gov't wants to distribute as truth? To me that is fatuous, and irresponsible.


next point -

You are projecting all the 9/11 conspiracists onto me - when i've made several sonorous admissions about where i stand and what i believe. Yet you continue to keep making false accusations, and very merrily toss around slanderous labels in order to try to prove your point.


So to that, i wish you good day sir.

[W*GS]

The more claims you make to be possible, the more you have to accept that the number of improbable increases correct?

This is rather vague - are you trying to say that as a claim is shown to be more likely, a counterclaim is also more likely?

So by narrowing the scope, you narrow the scope of what is not only probable, but improbable. Which in light of the 9/11 commision's report (even you've made small admissions that even you don't think it's 100% correct) - which by that admission alone - means that you have doubts over certain aspects of the 9/11 commision report/investigation.

Is the 9/11 Commission report perfect, in the sense that what truly happened and what it reports as happened are completely identical? Certainly not. That doesn't mean, however, that a small error or omission in it means that the grand whackitude of the conspiracists is this supported. Do we know, for example, exactly how the core columns of WTC2 were impacted by the engines of Flight 175? No - but does that mean, therefore, that gaffney's red-mercury-powered-pure-fusion-mini-nukes were actually the cause of its collapse?

Now if you want to cite "readings from whackos" - i can easily point out that I think the economist and mises are whacko's, as is what the gov't tells me.

Calling something whacko and it actually being whacko are two different things. What matters is the correspondence to reality - but, if you're a thoroughgoing anti-empiricist, the conversation stops right there.

I mean come on and be consistant wags. You don't like the fact that the gov't can read your mail - but you want to stand and acquiesce the fact that at the same time i should "accept" what the gov't wants to distribute as truth? To me that is fatuous, and irresponsible.

It's more "irresponsible" to have such a degree of skepticism to believe that since Bush lies, NIST is full of liars too. At some point, you have to concede that not absolutely everything that comes from the government is a lie, or propaganda, or disinformation. Some is, sure - but not all.

The biggest, and most damaging, problem the "government did it" whackos have is that they demand that we believe the government is so powerful and far-reaching that it could pull off 9/11 and yet it made so many mistakes and errors that amateur sleuths could pick it apart. This government also somehow failed to plant WMDs in Iraq (a far far easier task), which would hugely help its credibility, yet it failed to do so.

What makes far more sense is that the government knew some pieces of what happened on 9/11 beforehand, but not enough was shared by the right people to put enough of the picture together before it took place. 20/20 hindsight and all that.

[alkemical]

This is rather vague - are you trying to say that as a claim is shown to be more likely, a counterclaim is also more likely?



Is the 9/11 Commission report perfect, in the sense that what truly happened and what it reports as happened are completely identical? Certainly not. That doesn't mean, however, that a small error or omission in it means that the grand whackitude of the conspiracists is this supported. Do we know, for example, exactly how the core columns of WTC2 were impacted by the engines of Flight 175? No - but does that mean, therefore, that gaffney's red-mercury-powered-pure-fusion-mini-nukes were actually the cause of its collapse?



Calling something whacko and it actually being whacko are two different things. What matters is the correspondence to reality - but, if you're a thoroughgoing anti-empiricist, the conversation stops right there.



It's more "irresponsible" to have such a degree of skepticism to believe that since Bush lies, NIST is full of liars too. At some point, you have to concede that not absolutely everything that comes from the government is a lie, or propaganda, or disinformation. Some is, sure - but not all.

The biggest, and most damaging, problem the "government did it" whackos have is that they demand that we believe the government is so powerful and far-reaching that it could pull off 9/11 and yet it made so many mistakes and errors that amateur sleuths could pick it apart. This government also somehow failed to plant WMDs in Iraq (a far far easier task), which would hugely help its credibility, yet it failed to do so.

What makes far more sense is that the government knew some pieces of what happened on 9/11 beforehand, but not enough was shared by the right people to put enough of the picture together before it took place. 20/20 hindsight and all that.



In order for say MHG to believe that Mini-Nukes with red-mercury tipped triggers used by the reptilians, whom control the british crown and the 'new-atlantis' - i'd have to believe that also - the gov't claims to 9/11 are correct to a "T". When you move the scope of a subject to include the greater plausiblity of a claim, the counter claim(s) do indeed become a larger pool. Thus - by accepting an 'official' report - the scope is indeed shrunk to a point that "Mini-Nukes with red-mercury tipped triggers used by the reptilians, whom control the british crown and the 'new-atlantis'" - is no longer valid. it doesn't mean the gov't report is INVALID - it just means that since the scope is ment to fit what is being presented as the one 'truth' - it removes the scope of others.

So for me - Since i'm more of the line that along the lines someone knew something and didn't share - either due to pure human stupidity, gov't red-tape, or malice to allow events to happen - all 3 are perfectly plausible and explainable. All 3 have merit. Thus, all 3 are true, as well as false. Just as the 9/11 commision's report. MHG is correct when he states that it's a conspiracy theory. It is, because like any conspiracy theory - there are holes and summations that can be bent and made to fit.

For instance - from what i read about the 9/11 hijackers whom are still alive - some of them had passports stolen. So if that's the case - then (suprise!) some terrorists used a valid passport (or got one made) to use the identity of some muslims that had no ties to it. Is that possible? Yes. Which means then we'd have less clarity on whom the terrorists were - thus proving any actual identity and ties to any real organization would be difficult.

However, that being said - i haven't found a verification on the dec. 13th OBL video - most of the sites i've found have FOIA's where it still hasn't been validated as OBL - either it was tied up in secret court trials, or other trials (Richard Reid) - etc -

It's those holes that make me very cynical of what the gov't tells me. I mean if the gov't is no longer about "for the people, by the people" and is "for the gov't by the gov't" - i'd have faaaaaar less vested interest in believing the gov't, wouldn't you say?

[W*GS]

In order for say MHG to believe that Mini-Nukes with red-mercury tipped triggers used by the reptilians, whom control the british crown and the 'new-atlantis' - i'd have to believe that also - the gov't claims to 9/11 are correct to a "T". When you move the scope of a subject to include the greater plausiblity of a claim, the counter claim(s) do indeed become a larger pool. Thus - by accepting an 'official' report - the scope is indeed shrunk to a point that "Mini-Nukes with red-mercury tipped triggers used by the reptilians, whom control the british crown and the 'new-atlantis'" - is no longer valid. it doesn't mean the gov't report is INVALID - it just means that since the scope is ment to fit what is being presented as the one 'truth' - it removes the scope of others.

This is confusing.

Accepting that the 9/11 Commission report is perfectly true demands that gaffney's whackitude is perfectly false. If I read you correctly, however, accepting that the 9/11 report is essentially true (not perfectly true) does not mean there's a crevice where gaffney's whackitude gains in credibility by definition. There's plenty of middle ground where one can find the 9/11 report lacking but easily dismiss gaffney's whackitude as just that.

So for me - Since i'm more of the line that along the lines someone knew something and didn't share - either due to pure human stupidity, gov't red-tape, or malice to allow events to happen - all 3 are perfectly plausible and explainable. All 3 have merit. Thus, all 3 are true, as well as false.

In your interest of being fair, you've gone too far. Would you say that since we don't have a scientific theory that perfectly explains everything, every pseudoscientific theory thus has some level of validity? Being specific, since we haven't a quantum theory of gravity, it's just possible that the earth is flat, or hollow, correct?

Honestly, the government isn't competent enough to pull off 9/11 and have it look so remarkably like another OBL-driven al-Qaeda attack.

Just as the 9/11 commision's report. MHG is correct when he states that it's a conspiracy theory. It is, because like any conspiracy theory - there are holes and summations that can be bent and made to fit.

Not all conspiracy theories are equal.

For instance - from what i read about the 9/11 hijackers whom are still alive - some of them had passports stolen.

None of the 19 hijackers are alive. Reports to the contrary are in error.

However, that being said - i haven't found a verification on the dec. 13th OBL video - most of the sites i've found have FOIA's where it still hasn't been validated as OBL - either it was tied up in secret court trials, or other trials (Richard Reid) - etc -

As if the 13 Dec video of OBL is the only link between him and 9/11.

[mhgaffney]

A very preliminary search shows that at least seven different exercises were underway on 9/11. Several involved hikacked planes. Here is the list -- below.

You'll notice that -- coincidentally -- a drill was in progress at every one of the locations where events happened on 9/11. In NYC FEMA was present for a drill. Another at Andrews AFB near Washington resulted in a wing being sent far away from the capitol -- to North Carolina. A drill was even underway near Dulles airport. At least two were happening in the northeast sector of NORAD. Meanwhile, many planes were sent to Alaska -- hence were not available. And the Canadians even had one to preoccupy them.

More searching will surely turn up more info on this.

Drills on 9/11


1. nation wide exercise - Vigilant Guardian involved hijacked planes

2. NORAD (Colorado) - Operation Northern Vigilance -- involved flying F-16s to Alaska and Northern canada

3. Global Guardian -- a Canadian exercise

4. NORAD Field Training Exercise (FTX) run by Gen Richard Myers involving hijacked planes in northeast sector (NEADS)

5. Andrews AFB base - DC Air National Guard (DCANG) was dispatched to North Carolina for an exercise

6. National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) -- one of the 13 US intel agencies located near Dulles airport -- was conducting a hijack exercise

7. Operation Tripod -- in NYC on 9/11 -- a bioterror exercise involving FEMA -- which is why they were already in NYC -- revealed by Rudy Giuliani

[mhgaffney]

I need to report I inadvertently made an error the other day -- when I stated that a new order announced on June 1 2001 by Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Instruction (3610.01A )

instituted a new policy whereby the Sec of Defense had to be notified in hijackings. I've been studying the former order issued on 31 July 1997 and have concluded that it also required notification. In fact, it's not clear exactly what the new order on Jun 1 2001 achieved. It's almost identical to the former.

The bottom line is that the military command center at the pentagon (NMCC) and NORAD had authority to make decisions about hijackings. However, the policy also required them to notify Rumsfeld. He was in the loop.

The fact that so many exercises were underway in 9/11 suggests that the stand down was in all likelihood not a simple blanket order -- but was implemented throughout much of the command structure indirectly -- through misdirection.

This stands to reason -- given that most people in the military are honest and patriotic - hence must be deceived.

Continuing research also has revealed why the 9/11 Commission excluded the Mineta testimony from its final report. Why? Because it directly contradicts the official narrative in several respects.

Mineta confirmed that Cheney was in the bunker almost from the beginning -- whereas the 9/11 Commission's official position is that Cheney didn't arrive til after 10 AM -- thereby distancing him from events. This shows that although the purpose of the Commission was to find the truth -- in reality it tried to shield Cheney.

Also, Mineta's transcript mentions the time of 9:24 AM -- which is consistent with a pentagon crash occurring at 9:32 -- whereas the 911 Commission states the pentagon was hit at 9:37. The military originally set the crash time at 9:42 -- but the Commission moved this up to 9:37

There is a serious discrepancy here -- which could well be an attempt to cover up other facts. I did not know this until today, but there were many reports of explosions from pentagon workers.

No doubt, the Mineta testimony contradicts the 9/11 Commission's official narrative on other points.

[mhgaffney]

We are told that Flight 77 dissappeared without a trace -- in a fireball when it hit the pentagon. 6 ton jet engines were atomized leaving not a clue -- not even a dent in the outer wall.

Meanwhile, we were also told that the coroner positively identified the passengers on board Flight 77 -- evidently by checking fingerprints -- or possibly teeth.

In other words, human flesh survived the firestorm -- but titanium alloy engines and the plane fuselage did not.

Believe this fantasy -- and I have some nice warm beachfront property on the Bering Sea I'd like to show ya..

[W*GS]

The fact that so many exercises were underway in 9/11 suggests that the stand down was in all likelihood not a simple blanket order -- but was implemented throughout much of the command structure indirectly -- through misdirection.

Does it make sense to have the armed services (parts of them, at least) geared up and more personnel on duty than otherwise, for the purpose of "misdirection"?

Seems to me that having the military in a low state of readiness (a la Pearl Harbor) is much more effective.

You're grasping at straws - there was no "stand down" - it was a "stand up".

[W*GS]

We are told that Flight 77 dissappeared without a trace -- in a fireball when it hit the pentagon. 6 ton jet engines were atomized leaving not a clue -- not even a dent in the outer wall.

Wrong. I guess you've never seen the pictures of the ~15 foot diameter hole, nor the wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon.

The plane didn't "atomize" in any sense at all.

In other words, human flesh survived the firestorm -- but titanium alloy engines and the plane fuselage did not.

Are you familiar with the process of cremation? Obviously not.

Also, since you proceed from a falsehood (the plane was completely obliterated to a vaporous nothingness), this comment is also wrong.

Believe this fantasy -- and I have some nice warm beachfront property on the Bering Sea I'd like to show ya..

So clever you are.

If you believe Velikovsky, you'd buy that property...

[alkemical]

This is confusing.

Accepting that the 9/11 Commission report is perfectly true demands that gaffney's whackitude is perfectly false. If I read you correctly, however, accepting that the 9/11 report is essentially true (not perfectly true) does not mean there's a crevice where gaffney's whackitude gains in credibility by definition. There's plenty of middle ground where one can find the 9/11 report lacking but easily dismiss gaffney's whackitude as just that.

The X that can equal Y is not the true X



In your interest of being fair, you've gone too far. Would you say that since we don't have a scientific theory that perfectly explains everything, every pseudoscientific theory thus has some level of validity? Being specific, since we haven't a quantum theory of gravity, it's just possible that the earth is flat, or hollow, correct?

Explain to me how when testing quantum theory how it more or less tests 'true'. I have never seen the earth from space, and i have never been to the centre of the earth. Until then, i'm still just using "authority" to tell me what i am to be told.

Honestly, the government isn't competent enough to pull off 9/11 and have it look so remarkably like another OBL-driven al-Qaeda attack.

That's why i don't believe "our" gov't commited 9/11 wags.



Not all conspiracy theories are equal.



None of the 19 hijackers are alive. Reports to the contrary are in error.



As if the 13 Dec video of OBL is the only link between him and 9/11.



Other than some authority that you use to prove that hijackers are dead - there is no proof is there.

Of course the tape, OBL, and 9/11 have many more links between them - like the haus of saud, the CIA and lots and lots of money.

[mhgaffney]

Does Global Hawk technology hold the answer to 9/11?

I've just answered my own question. If you go back and look closely at my recent post about the order from the Joint Chiefs (dated June 1 2001) that changed the policy on hijacked planes, you'll see it does include one difference over the previous policy. As we will see, this difference may be extremely significant ...

The order includes the following passage

c. Destruction of Derelict Airborne Objects. Derelict airborne objects (for example, unmanned free balloons, moored balloons or kites, unmanned non-nuclear rockets or missiles, unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV) or remotely operated vehicles (ROV)) are a potential threat to public safety.

The addition here of a line about unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) is the only change from the former order.

So why is this significant?

On April 23 2001 the unmanned drone aircraft, RQ-4A US Global Hawk made its maiden flight -- from Edwards AFB in California to Edinburgh AFB in south Australia. The trans Pacific passage was followed by a number of tests flights in Australia over the next 6 weeks.

The Global Hawk is completely controlled from the ground.

The unveiling of this new drone technology is thus reflected in the June 1 2001 change in US policy on hijacking -- which now includes unmanned and remote controlled aircraft as possible aviation threats.

In fact, after 9/11 pres Bush even mentioned this remote control technology as a way to prevent hijackings in the future. He was quoted in the NY Times to this effect on Sept 28 - 01.

Bush implied this will help in the future, but -- stupid as he is, Bush was probabaly not aware he had made a huge blunder -- by even mentioning this remote control technology in the same breath as 9/11.

No doubt his handlers were furious with him. Why?

Our dimwitted president -- like Mineta - may have given away the game. Because it so happens that the same technology so useful to foil hijackers can also be used to commit terrorism, i.e., to fly planes into buildings.

Others in the know have pointed this out -- but of course the sleepy press here in America hasn't even reported it.

Soon after 9/11 German defense minister Andreas von Bulow, who has a background as a flight engineer, as well the late Joe Vialls, an aeronautical engineer, pointed out that remote control aviation technology did not begin with the Global Hawk. In fact this technology has been around since the 1970s -- and was developed by the US military.

It's also known that AWACs planes can also serve as flying control platforms to guide drone aircraft.

Von Bulow thinks this technology was used on 9/11 -- He pointed out that the flight controls on Boeing 757s and 767s can be overridden in this way. He thinks this was done on 9/11.

This would explain how evil doers in the Bush administration could plan and execute a complex scheme to "take over" a hijack plot without worrying about things getting out of hand. Assuming the 19 Saudis actually boarded and did hijack the 4 planes on 9/11 -- there was no assurance these inept boob pilots who could barely fly a Cessna would even find New York City, let alone hit the WTC. They needed some help!

Indeed, armed with Global Hawk technology, the evil doers in the Bush administration plotted with a high probability of success -- to first turn off the transponders - and then simply guide the planes to their destinations. The pilots and hijackers alike had no further control and could do nothing. Very likely, to insure their passive cooperation, and also guard against anything untoward happening, a timed vial of nerve gas (planted on the planes) was set off -- and knocked out everyone on board. From that moment the passengers, pilots, crew, and hijackers were simply passive freight on doomed airliners.

This scenario would explain why none of the 4 allegedly hijacked planes set the routine electronic "I have been hijacked" signal via their transponders. The planes were probably "captured" just moments after the hijackings occurred.

This may not explain Flight 77. Even so, it's the best hypothesis I've seen yet. It also does account for the change in the Joint Chiefs order on June 1 2001.

[mhgaffney]

Here's how the evil doers faked the cell phone calls. Easy -- piece of cake.

When Seeing and Hearing Isn't Believing

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/dotmil/arkin020199.htm

By William M. Arkin
Special to washingtonpost.com
Monday, Feb. 1, 1999

"Gentlemen! We have called you together to inform you that we are going to overthrow the United States government." So begins a statement being delivered by Gen. Carl W. Steiner, former Commander-in-chief, U.S. Special Operations Command.

At least the voice sounds amazingly like him.

But it is not Steiner. It is the result of voice "morphing" technology developed at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico.

By taking just a 10-minute digital recording of Steiner's voice, scientist George Papcun is able, in near real time, to clone speech patterns and develop an accurate facsimile. Steiner was so impressed, he asked for a copy of the tape.

Steiner was hardly the first or last victim to be spoofed by Papcun's team members. To refine their method, they took various high quality recordings of generals and experimented with creating fake statements. One of the most memorable is Colin Powell stating "I am being treated well by my captors."

"They chose to have him say something he would never otherwise have said," chuckled one of Papcun's colleagues.

A Box of Chocolates is Like War

Most Americans were introduced to the tricks of the digital age in the movie Forrest Gump, when the character played by Tom Hanks appeared to shake hands with President Kennedy.
For Hollywood, it is special effects. For covert operators in the U.S. military and intelligence agencies, it is a weapon of the future.

"Once you can take any kind of information and reduce it into ones and zeros, you can do some pretty interesting things," says Daniel T. Kuehl, chairman of the Information Operations department of the National Defense University in Washington, the military's school for information warfare.

PSYOPS seeks to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations.

Digital morphing — voice, video, and photo — has come of age, available for use in psychological operations. PSYOPS, as the military calls it, seek to exploit human vulnerabilities in enemy governments, militaries and populations to pursue national and battlefield objectives.

To some, PSYOPS is a backwater military discipline of leaflet dropping and radio propaganda. To a growing group of information war technologists, it is the nexus of fantasy and reality. Being able to manufacture convincing audio or video, they say, might be the difference in a successful military operation or coup.

Allah on the Holodeck

Pentagon planners started to discuss digital morphing after Iraq's invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Covert operators kicked around the idea of creating a computer-faked videotape of Saddam Hussein crying or showing other such manly weaknesses, or in some sexually compromising situation. The nascent plan was for the tapes to be flooded into Iraq and the Arab world.
The tape war never proceeded, killed, participants say, by bureaucratic fights over jurisdiction, skepticism over the technology, and concerns raised by Arab coalition partners.

What if the U.S. projected a holographic image of Allah floating over Baghdad?

But the "strategic" PSYOPS scheming didn't die. What if the U.S. projected a holographic image of Allah floating over Baghdad urging the Iraqi people and Army to rise up against Saddam, a senior Air Force officer asked in 1990?

According to a military physicist given the task of looking into the hologram idea, the feasibility had been established of projecting large, three-dimensional objects that appeared to float in the air.

But doing so over the skies of Iraq? To project such a hologram over Baghdad on the order of several hundred feet, they calculated, would take a mirror more than a mile square in space, as well as huge projectors and power sources.

And besides, investigators came back, what does Allah look like?

The Gulf War hologram story might be dismissed were it not the case that washingtonpost.com has learned that a super secret program was established in 1994 to pursue the very technology for PSYOPS application. The "Holographic Projector" is described in a classified Air Force document as a system to "project information power from space ... for special operations deception missions."

War is Like a Box of Chocolates

Voice-morphing? Fake video? Holographic projection? They sound more like Mission Impossible and Star Trek gimmicks than weapons. Yet for each, there are corresponding and growing research efforts as the technologies improve and offensive information warfare expands.
Whereas early voice morphing required cutting and pasting speech to put letters or words together to make a composite, Papcun's software developed at Los Alamos can far more accurately replicate the way one actually speaks. Eliminated are the robotic intonations.

The irony is that after Papcun finished his speech cloning research, there were no takers in the military. Luckily for him, Hollywood is interested: The promise of creating a virtual Clark Gable is mightier than the sword.

Video and photo manipulation has already raised profound questions of authenticity for the journalistic world. With audio joining the mix, it is not only journalists but also privacy advocates and the conspiracy-minded who will no doubt ponder the worrisome mischief that lurks in the not too distant future.

"We already know that seeing isn't necessarily believing," says Dan Kuehl, "now I guess hearing isn't either."

William M. Arkin, author of "The U.S. Military Online," is a leading expert on national security and the Internet. He lectures and writes on nuclear weapons, military matters and information warfare. An Army intelligence analyst from 1974-1978, Arkin currently consults for Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, MSNBC and the Natural Resources Defense Council.

[mhgaffney]

Wrong. I guess you've never seen the pictures of the ~15 foot diameter hole, nor the wreckage inside and outside the Pentagon.

The plane didn't "atomize" in any sense at all.
.

I've seen the pictures and videos. There was no debris -- nothing but a few small scraps of aluminum. No hint of a fuselage. No jet engines. No tail.

You need to explain for all of us Bronco fans how a 757 with a wingspan of 124 feet (or thereabouts) squeezed into that 15 foot hole.

You have offered nothing on this board to explain this mystery. All you do is repeat the name of a certain disinfo web site -- your broken mantra.

Like the typical "yes man" shill you are.

[W*GS]

I've seen the pictures and videos. There was no debris -- nothing but a few small scraps of aluminum. No hint of a fuselage. No jet engines. No tail.

Wrong. See the pictures at

http://911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

especially the ones from pentagonresearch linked from there.

There were several largish pieces of jet engine and other parts from Flight 77.

You need to explain for all of us Bronco fans how a 757 with a wingspan of 124 feet (or thereabouts) squeezed into that 15 foot hole.

Outside of the fuselage and the engines, the bulk of the rest of a plane is about as effective as paper at penetrating a reinforced-concrete structure. The hole is just about as big as the fuselage - the wings and tail would have been torn off practically on impact, ergo, no 124' hole.

You have offered nothing on this board to explain this mystery.

There is no mystery - you don't even have the facts on hand.

Now, if you don't believe that Flight 77, a 757, hit the Pentagon, you're the one with many mysteries to address: How do you explain so many eyewitnesses who saw a AA 757? What happened to the "real" Flight 77? Where are the passengers and crew?

And many more.

All you do is repeat the name of a certain disinfo web site -- your broken mantra.

Anything that meets the facts and isn't whacky is "disinfo", eh?

:bs:

You've got such a weak command of the facts that any comments you make are highly suspect.

Like the typical "yes man" shill you are.

You're just another ignorant whack-job who thinks he knows the Real Story. You're full of BS, in so many ways.

[W*GS]

Here's how the evil doers faked the cell phone calls. Easy -- piece of cake.

Many of the calls from the hijacked planes were made from the Airfones - were those faked as well?

Besides:

http://911myths.com/html/mobiles_at_altitude.html

There's plenty of evidence to suggest that cells can and do work from planes in flight.

[W*GS]

Does Global Hawk technology hold the answer to 9/11?

You've just now stumbled on this nonsense?

It's amazing that the "evil doers" can rig all this stuff, and yet Bush, Mineta, and others unintentionally blurt things that reveal the men behind the curtain, isn't it? Isn't it also amazing that the entire scheme (involving hundreds of people, nevermind) was so clumsy that you've figured it out?

I just wonder why these "evil doers" so screwed the pooch in Iraq...

BTW, did you give up on your WTC whackitudes?

[W*GS]

The X that can equal Y is not the true X

Your typically-elliptical manner of writing may make some think you're clever, but to me, that just indicates a lack of clear thought and an inability to communicate clearly to others. Being deliberately vague does you no good.

Explain to me how when testing quantum theory how it more or less tests 'true'.

It explains the observations better than other theories.

I have never seen the earth from space, and i have never been to the centre of the earth. Until then, i'm still just using "authority" to tell me what i am to be told.

There's lots of other evidence for the earth being round - but since you didn't personally witness those things, they're just stories told by others that you take as true without real proof, eh? Total skepticism is an epistemological dead end.

What about events that took place "before" you were "born"? Are those mere appeals to authority as well? What about when you blink - does the universe cease to exist for those moments? Besides all that, how do you know that what you perceive is what truly exists? There are things like optical illusions and the like; perhaps all that we perceive is false...

That's why i don't believe "our" gov't commited 9/11 wags.

At least you concede that much.

Other than some authority that you use to prove that hijackers are dead - there is no proof is there.

Why would relatives of the hijackers make statements to support that the hijackers are dead? Payoffs?

Of course the tape, OBL, and 9/11 have many more links between them - like the haus of saud, the CIA and lots and lots of money.

If (as you're implicitly claiming here) OBL was some sort of CIA asset, why would he take money from us filthy Americans for his nefarious activities? He's got plenty of his own as well as from wealthy Muslim donors; why would he need tainted Crusader cash?

[alkemical]

Your typically-elliptical manner of writing may make some think you're clever, but to me, that just indicates a lack of clear thought and an inability to communicate clearly to others. Being deliberately vague does you no good.

Not trying to be vague - I was trying to simplify my earlier statement of why when you include a great number of probabilities, you also have to include what's not probably and that also increases. But we could be a bit dishonest and just hash enough information to try to pin somone one (Like you do with MHG, although he gives you permission to do so, it's like a little bump of cocaine, eh)


It explains the observations better than other theories.

Exactly my point wags.



There's lots of other evidence for the earth being round - but since you didn't personally witness those things, they're just stories told by others that you take as true without real proof, eh? Total skepticism is an epistemological dead end.

It's not total skepticism wagsy - i just live by the motto: "Nothing is true and everything is permissible"


What about events that took place "before" you were "born"? Are those mere appeals to authority as well? What about when you blink - does the universe cease to exist for those moments? Besides all that, how do you know that what you perceive is what truly exists? There are things like optical illusions and the like; perhaps all that we perceive is false...

How can i prove any sort of authority that what happened before i was born, happened the way i was told it did. I mean who wins the war, writes the history books, right?

When i blink the universe doesn't cease to exist for me, but then again i am the universe in extension. But for someone else, say Lenny from mice and men - the universe very well may cease to exist. Why would it be outrageous for it to be a possibility that all we percieve is false? I mean by nature we are all hypcrites in some form - (heh, back to the x that is y is not x - ;) )



At least you concede that much.


It's not about conceeding anything, you can check your ego at the door.



Why would relatives of the hijackers make statements to support that the hijackers are dead? Payoffs?

Well considering your sources are just as suspect of mine - i guess it's who wants to believe their links... eh?



If (as you're implicitly claiming here) OBL was some sort of CIA asset, why would he take money from us filthy Americans for his nefarious activities? He's got plenty of his own as well as from wealthy Muslim donors; why would he need tainted Crusader cash?


OBL was a cia asset at one point in time anyway - but considering i think he's been dead for a while - someone had to make those tapes -

Hey wags PSSSST - saddam was also a CIA asset....

[W*GS]

Not trying to be vague - I was trying to simplify my earlier statement of why when you include a great number of probabilities, you also have to include what's not probably and that also increases.

Does it? Suppose three related events are 90% certain to have occurred. For all three to have occurred, is the result (0.9*0.9*0.9) = 0.729, ergo, there's almost a 30% chance (not the 10% of each event individually) that all three occurred? Please find the flaw in the argument.

It's not total skepticism wagsy - i just live by the motto: "Nothing is true and everything is permissible"

Does your motto apply to itself?

How can i prove any sort of authority that what happened before i was born, happened the way i was told it did. I mean who wins the war, writes the history books, right?

There you go with your perfect skepticism again.

Why would it be outrageous for it to be a possibility that all we percieve is false?

Then you're at a metaphysical and epistemological dead end. How does one prove such a belief? Why not be a mere solipsist and leave it at that?

Well considering your sources are just as suspect of mine - i guess it's who wants to believe their links... eh?

That's a poor argument - "Your sources are as weak as mine", which concedes that your sources are indeed weak. Like I said, why would relatives of the hijackers play along with them being dead? What do they gain from such subterfuge?

OBL was a cia asset at one point in time anyway

Not directly, not by any stretch.

Besides, where's your vaunted skepticism toward that claim?

[alkemical]

Does it? Suppose three related events are 90% certain to have occurred. For all three to have occurred, is the result (0.9*0.9*0.9) = 0.729, ergo, there's almost a 30% chance (not the 10% of each event individually) that all three occurred? Please find the flaw in the argument.

You still have a % that it did not occur



Does your motto apply to itself?


Yes, it would have to, just as the x that = y is not the true X would have to be false - since even false things would be true.


There you go with your perfect skepticism again.


Would blind faith be any different?


Then you're at a metaphysical and epistemological dead end. How does one prove such a belief? Why not be a mere solipsist and leave it at that?


Why should i accept a label and a box to define myself, or even more so - why do you need definitions to apply to everything?


That's a poor argument - "Your sources are as weak as mine", which concedes that your sources are indeed weak. Like I said, why would relatives of the hijackers play along with them being dead? What do they gain from such subterfuge?


It wouldn't be a poor argument - since it applies to both our POV's now doesn't it?

Well i guess in the world of honor amongst terrorists - i would have to say maybe being dead is better than being alive (sorta like the asian sense of honor)


Not directly, not by any stretch.

Besides, where's your vaunted skepticism toward that claim?


Hey i know the video and documents i've read can be faked - but also admitting (which i have) that it was for the best at the time - i also would have to acknowledge that something like "operation northwoods" would also have to be a possibility that it would be carried out by the gov't.....

[W*GS]

You still have a % that it did not occur

Is it multiplicative or something else?

Why should i accept a label and a box to define myself, or even more so - why do you need definitions to apply to everything?

Why are we conversing in English? Why communicate at all?

It wouldn't be a poor argument - since it applies to both our POV's now doesn't it?

Well, no.

Hey i know the video and documents i've read can be faked - but also admitting (which i have) that it was for the best at the time - i also would have to acknowledge that something like "operation northwoods" would also have to be a possibility that it would be carried out by the gov't.....

That's an awful lot of weight to be placing on an obscure 40-year-old idea that very few (if anyone) had ever heard of.

One thing about limitless skepticism - to suppose falsehood presumes knowledge of what's true, i.e., it's self-contradictory.

[alkemical]

Is it multiplicative or something else?



Why are we conversing in English? Why communicate at all?



Well, no.



That's an awful lot of weight to be placing on an obscure 40-year-old idea that very few (if anyone) had ever heard of.

One thing about limitless skepticism - to suppose falsehood presumes knowledge of what's true, i.e., it's self-contradictory.



Wags,

here ya go:

"The thinker thinks, and the prover proves" - R.A.W

[W*GS]

"Damned if you, damned if you don't".

[alkemical]

"I'd rather regret things I've done, than regret for what i haven't" - C.S

[mhgaffney]

Does it make sense to have the armed services (parts of them, at least) geared up and more personnel on duty than otherwise, for the purpose of "misdirection"?

Seems to me that having the military in a low state of readiness (a la Pearl Harbor) is much more effective.

You're grasping at straws - there was no "stand down" - it was a "stand up".

The fact you would make this argument shows you have zero credibility.

If this were true then the "geared up" US military would have defeated the alleged 19 terrorists -- or prevented them from achieving their goals.

The facts themselves, i.e., the dark outcome, proves my point.

You are man on a string, W*gs. Just like your hero GW -- Dancing to the tune of the faceless puppeteers who now seek to impose their New World Order upon us.

Soon it will be a national ID card, then mandatory chips in our ears to monitor every transaction and in fact our every movement.

The ultimate nightmare -- now within reach of the leaders, such as they are.

And you are helping them!

[mhgaffney]

Clavicula,

LA Bronco Fan pegged our illustrious W*gs months ago on this board. W*gs kneels at the feet of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead etc

It's a philosophy NOT of compassion but of contempt -- a philosophy that sets the individual against society. If it elevated the individual within the context of a pluralistic society I could sympathize with it. But it is wholly driven by ego -- me me me me -- and **** everyone else.

Ayn Rand's twisted world reflects the same epistomological errors made by the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, Maoists, Stalinists, Zionists and neo cons.

It is akin to these other nihilistic value systems. It is their mirror image, because its elevation of the individual really amounts to the same thing. Why? Ayn Rand denied the spiritual connection between the individual and everyone else. That connection is our true foundation, and generates true values, i.e. compassion. This is the perspective of the Buddha, Krishna, and Jesus.

But it's wholly unknown within W*gs's twisted Randian world, which is why he dances like Bush to a false tune -- an unwitting tool of the puppeteers... the globalists whom he secretly idolizes.

[W*GS]

The fact you would make this argument shows you have zero credibility.

I'll take the source into account when judging this remark.

If this were true then the "geared up" US military would have defeated the alleged 19 terrorists -- or prevented them from achieving their goals.

It's a no-lose argument for you - drills allegedly in progress means misdirection, no drills means the military is caught off guard. It's actually pretty much irrelevant.

The facts themselves, i.e., the dark outcome, proves my point.

Whatever you say. Strange, however, that you accept a government (or rogue elements, or reptilians or whatever) powerful enough, dark enough, and sophisticated enough to pull off 9/11 and that you also accept that what we "saw" was real. An agent that made 9/11 happen, in the manner you describe, would also be able to make us "see" what it wanted us to "see". In your world, it's possible the WTC towers are still standing, given the abilities you ascribe to Lord Voldemort and his minions, or whomever was in charge.

You are man on a string, W*gs. Just like your hero GW -- Dancing to the tune of the faceless puppeteers who now seek to impose their New World Order upon us.

Uh-hunh. That you say "your hero GW" shows the world you're a buffoon.

You're just a tired old crank whose support of most every whacky idea that's come down the pike (Roswell and Velikovsky to cite two examples) and who has latched onto the 9/11 whack-jobs' nonsense is just par for the course.

Soon it will be a national ID card, then mandatory chips in our ears to monitor every transaction and in fact our every movement.

Get your aluminum foil hat on right away!

And you are helping them!

By smacking you around? That's child's play.

[W*GS]

LA Bronco Fan pegged our illustrious W*gs months ago on this board. W*gs kneels at the feet of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead etc

Actually, I don't, but keep whacking that strawman:

It's a philosophy NOT of compassion but of contempt -- a philosophy that sets the individual against society. If it elevated the individual within the context of a pluralistic society I could sympathize with it. But it is wholly driven by ego -- me me me me -- and **** everyone else.

Actually, no. Putting the individual's rights as inalienable despite what society wants is hardly "contempt" - the Constitution makes reference to the same concepts.

And besides, it's the collectivists who "**** everyone", as history has shown us numerous times. Do you count yourself in their illustrious company? Seems so to me based on your comments.

Ayn Rand's twisted world reflects the same epistomological errors made by the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, Maoists, Stalinists, Zionists and neo cons.

That's an interesting collection of groups there. Nice tossing in of "Zionists", which gives your game away.

That said, Rand's "Objectivism" is the polar opposite of those ideologies - they are all collectivist, whereas Rand was an over-the-top individualist. That you lump them together shows me that your woefully ignorant of either Rand or those other ideologies, or both.

It is akin to these other nihilistic value systems. It is their mirror image, because its elevation of the individual really amounts to the same thing.

A is not-A.

Now that we've got your self-contradictory ideology in hand...

Why? Ayn Rand denied the spiritual connection between the individual and everyone else. That connection is our true foundation, and generates true values, i.e. compassion. This is the perspective of the Buddha, Krishna, and Jesus.

Where's your compassion for me? Or do you talk the talk but don't walk the walk.

One need not posit an anti-individualist philosophy (as you seem to be doing), wherein the individual is subsumed to the perceived needs of others to be a moral individual. That's one of the more galling arrogances of you and your ilk - that unless one believes in the mysticism and irrationality of the "Eastern" philosophies or some interpretation of Jesus' teachings, one cannot be moral.

But we're wandering far from the topic of the thread. Did you give up?

But it's wholly unknown within W*gs's twisted Randian world, which is why he dances like Bush to a false tune -- an unwitting tool of the puppeteers... the globalists whom he secretly idolizes.

Actually, I secretly idolize Jessica Alba's tushy. Yum yum.

That's about how seriously I take your nonsense. You should have stuck to errors in fact about the various issues surrounding 9/11 - now you're just being a goofball.

[alkemical]

Clavicula,

LA Bronco Fan pegged our illustrious W*gs months ago on this board. W*gs kneels at the feet of Ayn Rand, author of Atlas Shrugged, the Fountainhead etc

It's a philosophy NOT of compassion but of contempt -- a philosophy that sets the individual against society. If it elevated the individual within the context of a pluralistic society I could sympathize with it. But it is wholly driven by ego -- me me me me -- and **** everyone else.

Ayn Rand's twisted world reflects the same epistomological errors made by the Bolsheviks, the Nazis, Maoists, Stalinists, Zionists and neo cons.

It is akin to these other nihilistic value systems. It is their mirror image, because its elevation of the individual really amounts to the same thing. Why? Ayn Rand denied the spiritual connection between the individual and everyone else. That connection is our true foundation, and generates true values, i.e. compassion. This is the perspective of the Buddha, Krishna, and Jesus.

But it's wholly unknown within W*gs's twisted Randian world, which is why he dances like Bush to a false tune -- an unwitting tool of the puppeteers... the globalists whom he secretly idolizes.



Actually Wags isn't a "Randian" by any means. I will disagree w/ya there MHG. I've sort of been around wags for a # of years now. He's a smart guy that's 100% for damn sure, but like everyone he's human and has his triggers. He just toys with you and labf though.

He posts to me because he likes ****ing with me cuz i'm about.... 15-20 years younger than him - I think he can be a crotchety bastard at times. That being said i know he's good at his job due to the way his logic and analysis of items works - but as with all humans - there is always a flaw.

So while by no means will i stick up for wags, at least he's fair with his piss and vinegar.

[mhgaffney]

List of 9/11 exercises climbs to 10!

The list has grown to 10 drills. A few of these however may have been part of the same exercise. No way to be sure until we get more information.

You'll notice that planes from Langley Virginia were sent to Iceland. That conveniently took them far away. I've also learned that it's standard procedure that these planes are NOT armed. Only a small number are kept armed.

Michael Ruppert claimed in Crossing the Rubicon that in May 2001 Cheney was put in charge of all such exercises. Rupport now says he has hard evidence of this. A new book by him on this said to be in the offing.

These drills were only mentioned one time in the 9/11 Commission final report. Incredible but true. One of the commissioners asked NORAD chief Ralph Eberhart if the drills helped or hurt on 9/11. Eberhart gave W*gs's answer -- that they helped. Incredibly, there was no follow up. Yet another case of a disconnect, showing that the 9/11 "investigatoon" was just for show, not a real investigation.

Additions or corrections are encouraged!

Drills on 9/11

1. Vigilant Guardian - a nation wide exercise - involved hijacked planes. Keyword: Lt Col Dawne Deskins, NORAD warning/control officer

2. Operation Northern Vigilance NORAD (Colorado) - -- involved flying F-16s to Alaska and Northern Canada. Source; Toronto Star, Dec 9, 01

3. Global Guardian -- involved Canada (?) Originally scheduled for October 2001 -- but rescheduled for 9/11

4. Vigilant Warrior -- NORAD Field Training Exercise (FTX) run by Gen Richard Myers involving hijacked planes in northeast sector (NEADS) - reported by Michael Ruppert in Crossing the Rubicon and also by Richard Clark in Against All Enemies

5. Andrews AFB base - DC Air National Guard (DCANG) was dispatched to North Carolina for an exercise

6. National Reconnaissance Office (NRO) -- one of the 13 US intel agencies located at Chantilly, VA, near Dulles airport -- Involved the simulation of a plane crash -- an accident. NRO manages US spy satellites

7. Operation Tripod -- in NYC on 9/11 -- a bioterror exercise involving FEMA -- which is why they were already in NYC ; also involved the NYC Dept of Justice. This was revealed by Rudy Giuliani in his testimony to the 9/11 Commisison (but was not mentioned in the final report), and by Michael Ruppert in Crossing the Rubicon. Ruppert claims it was run by Cheney. In fact, Ruppert says Cheney was in charge of iniatiating, planning, and over seeing all of the 9/11 drills.

8. Northern Guardian - May have been part of Vigilant Guardian. Involved deployment of planes from Langley AFB (Virginia) to Iceland.

9. Timely Alert II - a force protection exercise

10. Amalgam Virgo -- NORAD. A US/Canadian exercise that has become an annual event. The premier was on 9/11. reported by Webster Tarpley in 9/11: Synthetic Terror (Made in the USA) Tarpley asks: Did this war game exercise provide cover for the preparations of the real attack?

[mhgaffney]

911 Timeline

I only recently learned about this important resource, put together by Paul Thompson. There is also a book -- but why bother since it's posted on line at

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

A review of the timeline shows some interesting things. Most significantly, the dispariity between flight 93 and the other 3 flights is apparent. Flight 93's flight recorder was not turned off until late -- and returned a lot of info that confirms a genuine hijacking was in progress. The plane's erratic movements -- and changes in elevation support this.

No similar evidence in the other 3 flights.

What most impresses me is that no one has succeeded in shooting down the theory that as many as 3 of the planes were captured by remote control technology. Joe Vialls first proposed this in October 2001. The theory has been posted on the internet ever since. It's amazing that no one has been able to debunk it successfully. As I noted in a recent post, this technology had long been in development. The new order by the Chiefs of Staff in June 01 confirms that it came of age in the months before 9/11.

Vialls is no longer with us. But his theory was archived and is posted here.

http://geocities.com/mknemesis/homerun.html

[W*GS]

These drills were only mentioned one time in the 9/11 Commission final report. Incredible but true.

What makes it "incredible"?

One of the commissioners asked NORAD chief Ralph Eberhart if the drills helped or hurt on 9/11. Eberhart gave W*gs's answer -- that they helped.

There you go. General Ralph Eberhart agrees with me. Who you gonna trust to give an accurate summation of the military's preparedness level on 9/11, the general in charge at NORAD or gaffney?

Incredibly, there was no follow up.

There's another "incredible" in there - why?

Yet another case of a disconnect, showing that the 9/11 "investigatoon" was just for show, not a real investigation.

What would a "real investigation" be, in your view? One that provides proof for all your (almost always) factually untrue assertions? If so, how could that be?

[W*GS]

What most impresses me is that no one has succeeded in shooting down the theory that as many as 3 of the planes were captured by remote control technology. Joe Vialls first proposed this in October 2001. The theory has been posted on the internet ever since. It's amazing that no one has been able to debunk it successfully.

http://911myths.com/html/remote_control.html

and

http://911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf

[mhgaffney]

There you go. General Ralph Eberhart agrees with me. Who you gonna trust to give an accurate summation of the military's preparedness level on 9/11, the general in charge at NORAD or gaffney?



Well, we know that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen Richard Myers lied about the military's failure to respond on 9/11. The military changed its tune several times. The first story was probably the closest to the truth: on 9/11 they admitted they simply had failed to put fighters in the air for nearly an hour and a half.

But this was too damaging to the military's image. The second story -- to effect damage control -- was announced about 5 days after 9/11. Here, they blamed the FAA -- claiming they were not notified in time to get the planes aloft. What a crock of BS -- especially since calculations showed that even with late notification they had enough time to intercept the hijacked planes.

Moreover, the FAA responded with evidence it was all untrue -- NORAD had in fact been notified early. Myers lied -- and so did Eberhart.

Richard Myers also gave another phony story -- so outrageous that the US press should have been all over him. Myers told Canadian journalists that NORAD was "blind" on 9/11 -- since NORAD's mission is limited to protecting the US from foreign planes entering US airspace. Not domestic hijackings.

This was a brazen lie, and he repeated it to the 9/11 commission. One of the more plucky members of the commission actually showed him up on this point in the hearings. One of them correctly explained that NORAD's mission documents say no such thing. In fact, as I've pointed out NORAD's radar is unequaled -- it sees everything -- and is capable of tracking hundreds of separate bogies simultaneously -- no surprise since NORAD was designed to defend against a Soviet attack involving hundreds of missiles/bombers.

But again, strangely enough, Myers' lie became the official position of the 911 Commission. The fact this went down without one member of the US press even noticing shows just how far down the road to a police state we have gone.

Check the record and you will learn that during the Clinton years Gen Ralph Eberhart argued for the weaponization of space. He was the head of the US Space Command (whose motto BTW is: IN YOUR FACE FROM OUTER SPACE) Eberhart's views were not in step with the neo liberal Clinton administration - but when Bush entered office Eberhart's extremism fit rght in with the neo con agenda. Rummy, recall, also headed up a space commission.

I have no doubt that Eberhart and Myers were persuaded to go along with the 9/11 conspiracy. They got their pay off in the form of full funding for the space command -- and oodles of $$$ for their military fantasies about "full spectrum dominance."

On Sept 10 2001 Rumsfeld made the astonishing admission that 2.2 trillion of pentagon appropriations were unaccounted for. Yet the very next day, on the evening of 9/11, he went before Congress and berated Senator Carl Levin on the matter of funding. Talk about chutzpah.

Sooon after this the democraps caved and went along with a $40 billion increase for the US space command. (No doubt the anthrax attacks had something to do with this.) Bush also got democratic approval for every appropriation request for the war on terror. Bush and Congress have since added 2 trillion or more of borrowed $ to the national debt.

Few seem to care, least of all W*gs, who is just another insincere jerk -- full of derision and ridicule for those seeking to expose the painful truth.

Even as I write the US forges ahead with plans to weaponize space -- a mad policy that fagrantly violates all past treaties about space - and a policy that has set us on a collision course with Russia, China, and probably other nations.

This is the world now upon us -- and all because of 9/11.

[W*GS]

Well, we know that Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Gen Richard Myers lied about the military's failure to respond on 9/11. The military changed its tune several times. The first story was probably the closest to the truth: on 9/11 they admitted they simply had failed to put fighters in the air for nearly an hour and a half.

The military didn't lie to cover up their role in your whackitude; they dissembled at first to disguise their incompetence.

What a crock of BS -- especially since calculations showed that even with late notification they had enough time to intercept the hijacked planes.

What calculations?

Richard Myers also gave another phony story -- so outrageous that the US press should have been all over him. Myers told Canadian journalists that NORAD was "blind" on 9/11 -- since NORAD's mission is limited to protecting the US from foreign planes entering US airspace. Not domestic hijackings.

Quite true.

But again, strangely enough, Myers' lie became the official position of the 911 Commission.

Whatever you say.

I have no doubt that Eberhart and Myers were persuaded to go along with the 9/11 conspiracy.

How many hundreds of people is that, now?

Why don't you compile a list of the minimum necessary number of individuals (names too) to keep what you alleged "really" happened on 9/11. It would be interesting to see if you can come up with such a list.

Few seem to care, least of all W*gs, who is just another insincere jerk -- full of derision and ridicule for those seeking to expose the painful truth.

If you can't even get the simplest and most basic facts right, and repeat the same nonsense as truth when it was disproven long ago, yeah, you get ridiculed.

Have you given up on your "mini-nuke" whackitude? Or are you going to go off on more tangents using the old discredited bilge from the whack-jobs' 9/11 canon?

[mhgaffney]

http://911myths.com/html/remote_control.html

and

http://911myths.com/Remote_Takeover.pdf

Thank you W*gs for the link to this interesting rebuttal to Joe Vialls case for remote control on 9/11.

Most of the arguments they raise are bogus -- since the military had many years to overcome any technical obstacles -- as they themselves admit.

The only serious argument they raise is the "latency period" implicit in remote controlled aircraft.

The argument is false, however, because if you will check the Global Hawk specs you'll see there are two ways to remotely control a craft, only one of which involves a latency delay.

1. via a communications satellite link -- which indeed does involve a latency period. and

2. direct line of sight.

Assuming a plot by evil doers within the Bush administration, they easily overcame the latency issue by setting up a control center in WTC 7-- no doubt in one of the command bunkers -- with a camera on the roof. This allowed line of sight hence real time control of the final approach - the only place it mattered.

Same for the pentagon strike -- There were multiple reports of a military C-130 transport high overhead at the time of the attack. This may well have been an AWACs plane fitted with cameras and control center -- to guide the bogie in (whether plane or missile) in the final approach. Again, the only place it mattered.

Notice, this also explains why WTC 7 had to be demolished -- to destroy the control center. No doubt, a fair amount of hardware was involved.

Of course, the C-130 control center simply returned to its base -- no one the wiser.

[W*GS]

The only serious argument they raise is the "latency period" implicit in remote controlled aircraft.

Well, no. There's the issue of all the plane modifications necessary to make a 757 or 767 remote-controlled, that somehow needed to get done without anyone from AA or UAL noticing. An impossible task - unless the AA and UAL mechanics and many others were in on your whackitude as well.

Notice, this also explains why WTC 7 had to be demolished -- to destroy the control center. No doubt, a fair amount of hardware was involved.

WTC7 wasn't demolished by controlled demolition anyway, so no need to posit it as the "control center" for the remote-controlled planes.

As it is, by adding the (entirely false) "remote-controlled planes" angle to your whackitude, you're increasing your list of conspirators exponentially.

[W*GS]

Vialls' web site is most interesting. Lots of use of the word "Zionists" - no wonder gaffney likes it.

One interesting Vialls-ian theory - New York (i.e., Wall Street interests) were responsible for the Dec 2004 tsunami in the Indian Ocean.

Quite bizarre, really.

[Spider]

so was Mini nukes used or not ? I am not reading this entire thread from when I last posted ................

[mhgaffney]

This also explains the many reports that the doors to the WTC roof were locked. At the time of the 1993 attack dozens of people fled to the roof and were airlifted to safety by helicopters.

But not on 9/11.

People fleeing for their lives found the doors to the roof barred -- locked.

Why? Well, obviously, the evil doers installed a camera on the roof of each tower to track each of the 767s as they made their approach.

And they could NOT take a chance that someone might discover something rotten -- and I don't mean in Denmark

Catch my drift?

[mhgaffney]

so was Mini nukes used or not ? I am not reading this entire thread from when I last posted ................

The mini nuke theory has not been refuted. The jury is still out. Research continues.

I will be posting an article soon about the anomalous evidence for explosives. Stay tuned.

[W*GS]

This also explains the many reports that the doors to the WTC roof were locked. At the time of the 1993 attack dozens of people fled to the roof and were airlifted to safety by helicopters.

But not on 9/11.

People fleeing for their lives found the doors to the roof barred -- locked.

Why? Well, obviously, the evil doers installed a camera on the roof of each tower to track each of the 767s as they made their approach.

"Obviously", eh?

Hardly. As it was, the odds of an airlift succeeding from the rooftop pads was very small on 9/11, because of the fires.

Never mind my earlier comments or the "Remote Takeover" PDF I pointed you to.

The evidence for the 4 planes on 9/11 being remotely controlled is extremely paltry, at the very best.

[W*GS]

The mini nuke theory has not been refuted.

Only in your universe.

But as we've seen many times, your "reality" and reality have a tenuous connection.

[mhgaffney]

Here are the manifests for United flights 175 and 93.

Do you see any of the 19 names? I don't.

If they were going to commit suicide -- why use a different name?

As late as February 3, 2002, United Airlines displayed on its website a copy of its September 12, 2001 press release, issued days before the alleged hijackers were "identified." The press release listed all the passengers on Flights 175 and 93 on September, 11, 2001. The names of the alleged hijackers did not appear -- and United Airlines could not have removed them, for the "hijackers" had not yet been "identified." Yet, clearly, according to these lists, none of the "highjackers" were aboard those two flights.

On February 3, 2002, the United press release was located at this URL:

http://www.ual.com/site/primaryPR/0,10026,1534_885,00html

It was cached here:

http://www.Public-Action.com/911/uapassngerlist

[W*GS]

Sigh.

http://911myths.com/html/no_hijackers_on_the_manifests.html

even

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/OG00010.html

[mhgaffney]

whistleblower from Lawrence Livermore lab says:

"I am certain they have a fusion bomb."

I just received this email from Leuren Moret, a geologist who formerly worked at the Lawerence Livermore national laboratory. Following the email is a link to an lecture Moret gave recently in Los Altos California. Moret is an atmospheric scientist and has studied the effects of depleted uranium in great detail.

Dear Mark,

I am certain they have a fusion bomb. I know
scientists who have succeeded in demonstrating fusion
because I am involved with them; and the Mossad spends
a lot of time following them around in their country
and me in the US when they are with me. There has
been no admission of fusion in this country.

Leuren

FAIR WARNING: What you are about to read is extremely shocking. Get a grip. I thought I knew how bad this stuff is, i.e., DU. I was wrong. It's much worse than I had imagined.

Here, Moret presents hard evidence that leading US nuclear scientists knew even as early as 1943 how deadly depleted uranium is. I am talking about famous scientists like James Conant, Harold Urey, a physicist who won the Nobel prize, and also A.H. Comptom, discoverer of the Compton effect, i.e., EMP.

After you weep for our troops and the millions of doomed people in Afghanistan, Iraq and Kosovo - I suggest you get angry and do something about it!

MHG

http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/2003/DU-Leuren-Moret21apr03.htm

[alkemical]

MHG,

can they leak those documents to wikileak.org?

[W*GS]

I just received this email from Leuren Moret, a geologist who formerly worked at the Lawerence Livermore national laboratory. Following the email is a link to an lecture Moret gave recently in Los Altos California. Moret is an atmospheric scientist and has studied the effects of depleted uranium in great detail.

Well, she's either a geologist or an atmospheric scientist - it's unlikely that one person has Ph.D.-level credentials in both.

Also, "recently" is relative - the lecture (more like a rant) was in April of 2003.

Lastly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leuren_Moret

Given that her expertise in DU is very highly suspect, take her comments on DU (and her "confirmation" that LLNL developed a "fusion bomb") with that in mind.

You're just firing blindly, gaffney, hoping to hit something. You're batting pretty darned close to .000 so far.

[Spider]

A fusion bomb .......... lets pretend for a second that I dont understand the difference in a fusion bomb vs a Nuke bomb .......... explain it so others might understand ;D
I am all for more powerfull weapons , just as long as we use them on real enemys , not trumped up little gremlins inside a certian presidents head .........

[The Lone Bolt]

A fusion bomb .......... lets pretend for a second that I dont understand the difference in a fusion bomb vs a Nuke bomb .......... explain it so others might understand ;D
I am all for more powerfull weapons , just as long as we use them on real enemys , not trumped up little gremlins inside a certian presidents head .........

Nuclear energy is created by two processes: fission and fusion.

Nuclear fission involves breaking atoms up, fusion involves fusing nuclei together to form atoms. Although counterintuitive, both processes create energy. Fusion however tends to create more energy and is cleaner in terms of fallout.

[mhgaffney]

Thanks Lone Bolt. That's an excellent short summary.

Here are few further points:

The first generation of nukes we dropped on Japan were fission weapons. No fusion. However, our weapons experts quickly learned there is an upper limit to the size of a fission bomb. Also, as Bolt stated, they are very dirty -- i.e., produce lots of fallout.

The logical next step in the bomb's evolution was to piggyback a small fission bomb on the back of a larger fusion design. This was the thermo nuclear bomb or H bomb. Credit goes to Edward Teller that true prince of darkness. May he rot in hell forever. This is the second generation.

With H bombs there is no known upper limit to size. The Soviets did some huge tests -- up to what? Maybe 100 megatons. I think the largest US test was around 50 megatons. Someone correct me if I am wrong, here.

Research continued in the weapons labs -- to minimize the size of the fission trigger. To further reduce fallout -- and also to reduce the size of the bombs -- for tactical use.

This line of development led to the neutron bomb -- fathered by Sam Cohen -- the third generation -- which further minimizes fallout and also reduces blast. Most of the energy is released in a quick burst of neutrons -- to kill enemy troops on the battlefield. It was designed for use in Europe to stop a Soviet tank attack -- to offset the vast Soviet advantage in the numbers of tanks. The neutron bomb causes minimum damage to infrastructure.

The ultiimate goal of nuclear weapons research, however -- some call it the nuclear grail -- the ultimate dream -- or nightmare -- was always to eliminate the fission trigger entirely and achieve a pure fusion design. This is the fourth generation of nuclear weapon.

The question is: Have we arrived? Which is what this thread is about -- in the context of 9/11 of course.

Why a pure fusion bomb?

Because it would achieve a further hundred fold reduction in radioactive fallout. Furthermore, it would also make possible miniaturization to a degree not possible with any other design. We are talking here about designer weapons, small enough to fire from a howitzer, small enough to fit in a lady's handbag. As small as you want.

As you may have noticed -- with the 3rd and 4th generations we are moving away from Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD). A 4th generation weapon will be used -- make no mistake. Indeed, a pure fusion bomb will be a terrorist's dream come true.

And since this design uses only heavy hydrogen for fuel (deuterium and tritium) as opposed to uranium/plutonium, there are no existing arms control treaties that apply. We are on virgin turf.

No doubt, for these reasons development has been kept very secret. At least 3 nations may already have them, Russia, South Africa, and the US.

[pocahontas4me]

The use of nukes as described would have collapsed the building as described, from the ground up. The collapse was caused due to the intense heat from the jet fuel that was spewed inside the buildings when the fully fueled jets crashed. There are far too many ways to test for radiation, and at 1/100 the yeild of a regular nuke the people that are within 10 miles of ground zero would be dying left and right from radiation posioning. Not to mention the radiation that would have been sent down wind when the dust clouds were blown around town.

The conspiracy nuts will stop at nothing to attempt to prove their point just as the other nuts did after some doctored moon pictures were published.

Some people just seem to have a problem believing anything they don't have the intellectual intelligence to understand.

This guy needs to study the building civil engineering drawings and then study metalurgy to get a feel for what the materials were going through and then talk to any of the countries best forensic mechanical and civil engineers to get an understanding from experts regarding the construction of the towers and what the effects of intense fire might be.

I'd say that in most likelyhood trying to convince someone that has been sold a bill of goods will be like talking to a brick wall.

[cbs1177]

I haven't read the entire thread lazy or drunk I dunno. I just watch the History channel grounded 9-11. An hour long episode where FAA was trying to land all 4500 planes in three hours. I work at the Memphis Country Club maybe 20 miles from the Mem International Airport. Home to Fed Ex and the largest volume of the US in cargo traffic for five years. Any How my thoughts are it was eerie quiet those days. I am used to hearing the train across the street as only one of three 5-line track system in the USA and Planes in landing mode. I remember crying on the couch and immobile until a friend came over on 9-11. it was sad for me b/c just 7 months earlier I had been at the World Trade Center. I just can't buy into this mini nuke story. As I have said before having been thru a house fire; fire does crazy stuff let alone jet gas. I dunno just my thoughts after watching the depressing history channel episode I gotta quit dvring them.

[mhgaffney]

I haven't read the entire thread lazy or drunk I dunno. I just watch the History channel grounded 9-11. An hour long episode where FAA was trying to land all 4500 planes in three hours. I work at the Memphis Country Club maybe 20 miles from the Mem International Airport. Home to Fed Ex and the largest volume of the US in cargo traffic for five years. Any How my thoughts are it was eerie quiet those days. I am used to hearing the train across the street as only one of three 5-line track system in the USA and Planes in landing mode. I remember crying on the couch and immobile until a friend came over on 9-11. it was sad for me b/c just 7 months earlier I had been at the World Trade Center. I just can't buy into this mini nuke story. As I have said before having been thru a house fire; fire does crazy stuff let alone jet gas. I dunno just my thoughts after watching the depressing history channel episode I gotta quit dvring them.


You raise an interesting point. Sec of Transportation Norman Mineta was in the White House bunker on 9/11 overseeing this unprecedented shut down of US air space. As you say they landed 4500 planes in less than three hours -- without one crash or incident. I'd call that an impressive display of the FAA's competence -- yet according to General Myers and Eberhart the incompetent FAA controllers are responsiible for the military's failure to intercept on 9/11.

Don't you find something strange here?

Obviously the generals lied through their teeth to Congress and also to the 911 Commission. Check out the follow on post.

[mhgaffney]

Now what have I been saying???

We have an old tradition of generals stonewalling Congress on certain issues. But 9/11 is different. We needed full disclosure here for the sake of the nation -- yet the generals lied. They lied about the FAA. They lied about NORAD's mission. They lied about almost everything.

They were persuaded to go along with the conspiracy and in return they received full funding for all of their pet programs. $40 billion for the space command. Unlimited $$$$ for the so called war on terror.

We are truly a nation of sheep.

9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A03

Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

[cbs1177]

As an American I have always believed in the average guy. We pulled off the berlin airlift without computers or FAA. We won WWi and WWII. Both Politcal wars we lost. Any other one we have won hands down. i won't comment further until I read entire thread b/c I feel I might be making a point already stated.

[mhgaffney]

The use of nukes as described would have collapsed the building as described, from the ground up. The collapse was caused due to the intense heat from the jet fuel that was spewed inside the buildings when the fully fueled jets crashed. There are far too many ways to test for radiation, and at 1/100 the yeild of a regular nuke the people that are within 10 miles of ground zero would be dying left and right from radiation posioning. Not to mention the radiation that would have been sent down wind when the dust clouds were blown around town.

This guy needs to study the building civil engineering drawings and then study metalurgy to get a feel for what the materials were going through and then talk to any of the countries best forensic mechanical and civil engineers to get an understanding from experts regarding the construction of the towers and what the effects of intense fire might be.
.

1/100 the yield of a regular nuke? What's this mean?

As I've said this is a designer weapon. A mini nuke of .01 kilotons would be difficult to distinguish from a conventional bomb. No dirty uranium by products. If you didn't know what to look for you'd miss it.

Some tritium was indeed found -- seven or so days after the event. Very low levels -- not surprising when you consider that tritium is just hydrogen - the lightest element. It's lighter than air and dissipates with extreme ease. Isnt this the problem with the hydrogen fuel economy?

The firefighters helped by dumping 3 million gallons of water on the ruin in the days after 9/11. It also rained hard on Sept 14-15. The Hudson river also breached the bathtub wall and washed through the WTC site. Lots of water to wash away most of the tritium. Nor did they even bother to look for the other fusion by products.

As for the civil engineering drawings, do you mean the blueprints that the government refused to make available to the scientists doing the FEMA study? Don't believe me? Check it out.


As for the mettalurgy and the rest I did check it out. Go here
http://informationclearinghouse.info/article15970.htm

[cbs1177]

Here in Memphis we had a downtown fire about three months ago and it took three to four days to completely say the fire was out and that was from paper in a old old church basement not jet fuel and yadda yadda. I gotta ask have you ever had your house catch a fire or witness natures wrath thru tornadoes or Hurricanes or any other events? And what is your background I assume you are retired or close to it b/c of the year of birth on your profile. Just wondering

[mhgaffney]

One last point -
W*gs doesn't get it -- but any one with military experience should know that you don't get to be a four star general because you are incompetent.

The generals were not incompetent on 9/11. No, they were traitors to what this country stands for, by which I mean, of course, the US Constitution.

[cbs1177]

Plus I don't get why extreme muslims don't hate us (Western Civic). Several holy wars were faught in the Middle Ages. They kill each other Shi'itks and other sects can't stand each other and kill each other. And then they go crazy over a politcal cartoon and mob the cities in Europe. I will say this publicly Saddam was good for one thing and one thing only keeping Iran in check b/c they were scared to death over his crazy reign and feared chemical and biological death on Iran populations and military.

[pocahontas4me]

1/100 the yield of a regular nuke? What's this mean?

As I've said this is a designer weapon. A mini nuke of .01 kilotons would be difficult to distinguish from a conventional bomb. No dirty uranium by products. If you didn't know what to look for you'd miss it.

Some tritium was indeed found -- seven or so days after the event. Very low levels -- not surprising when you consider that tritium is just hydrogen - the lightest element. It's lighter than air and dissipates with extreme ease. Isnt this the problem with the hydrogen fuel economy?

The firefighters helped by dumping 3 million gallons of water on the ruin in the days after 9/11. It also rained hard on Sept 14-15. The Hudson river also breached the bathtub wall and washed through the WTC site. Lots of water to wash away most of the tritium. Nor did they even bother to look for the other fusion by products.

As for the civil engineering drawings, do you mean the blueprints that the government refused to make available to the scientists doing the FEMA study? Don't believe me? Check it out.


As for the mettalurgy and the rest I did check it out. Go here


What is your degree in? Put up your resume of applicable experience that makes you an expert!

You have bought a story by a conspiracy theorist. I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I've had for sale for some time. How about neogotiating a price?

[pocahontas4me]

One last point -
W*gs doesn't get it -- but any one with military experience should know that you don't get to be a four star general because you are incompetent.

The generals were not incompetent on 9/11. No, they were traitors to what this country stands for, by which I mean, of course, the US Constitution.

It's obvious that you have never been in the military. The military does not find all of the incompetent people. You can take a sad sack and if his fitness reports are written properly he can look like a star and not be able to do anything. The Peter Principle lives even in the military.

I think you are grasping at all commentary that will back your false theory.

[W*GS]

The first generation of nukes we dropped on Japan were fission weapons. No fusion.

What were the differences between Little Boy and Fat Man?

The logical next step in the bomb's evolution was to piggyback a small fission bomb on the back of a larger fusion design.

Well, no. The energy necessary to fuse isotopes of hydrogen requires a fission "trigger". One cannot create the pressures and temperatures for fusion without one. Period.

The Soviets did some huge tests -- up to what? Maybe 100 megatons.

"Tsar Bomba", 57 MT, over Novaya Zemlya, October 30, 1961.

I think the largest US test was around 50 megatons.

Shot Castle-Bravo, 15 MT, Bikini Atoll, March 1, 1954.

Someone correct me if I am wrong, here.

Done.

We are talking here about designer weapons, small enough to fire from a howitzer,

That was done on May 25, 1953, NTS, shot "Upshot-Knothole Grable", in which a 15 kT weapon was fired from a 280mm artillery piece. No, it was not a fusion weapon.

small enough to fit in a lady's handbag. As small as you want.

Now you're in fantasy land.

No doubt, for these reasons development has been kept very secret. At least 3 nations may already have them, Russia, South Africa, and the US.

And still in fantasy land.

The only reason you propose your red-mercury-powered-pure-fusion-mini-nuke is because the controlled demolition of the WTC whack-job runs into insurmountable zeroth-order problems when using conventional explosives. Problem is, your RMPPFMN whack-job has even more problems. For one, such a device does not exist.

[W*GS]

W*gs doesn't get it -- but any one with military experience should know that you don't get to be a four star general because you are incompetent.

The generals were not incompetent on 9/11. No, they were traitors to what this country stands for, by which I mean, of course, the US Constitution.

So how long is that list of 9/11 conspirators now?

[pocahontas4me]

One last point -
W*gs doesn't get it -- but any one with military experience should know that you don't get to be a four star general because you are incompetent.

The generals were not incompetent on 9/11. No, they were traitors to what this country stands for, by which I mean, of course, the US Constitution.

I corrected gaffney's ID here. Maybe one of the mods needs to make it permanent!

[Rohirrim]

Wow! This thread is still going. Got to admire the persistence. :thumbsup:

[The Lone Bolt]

They were persuaded to go along with the conspiracy and in return they received full funding for all of their pet programs. $40 billion for the space command. Unlimited $$$$ for the so called war on terror.

Can you prove this? It seems your evidence for this theory is strictly circumstantial which proves nothing.


9/11 Panel Suspected Deception by Pentagon
Allegations Brought to Inspectors General

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/01/AR2006080101300.html

By Dan Eggen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, August 2, 2006; Page A03

Some staff members and commissioners of the Sept. 11 panel concluded that the Pentagon's initial story of how it reacted to the 2001 terrorist attacks may have been part of a deliberate effort to mislead the commission and the public rather than a reflection of the fog of events on that day, according to sources involved in the debate.

Suspicion of wrongdoing ran so deep that the 10-member commission, in a secret meeting at the end of its tenure in summer 2004, debated referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation, according to several commission sources. Staff members and some commissioners thought that e-mails and other evidence provided enough probable cause to believe that military and aviation officials violated the law by making false statements to Congress and to the commission, hoping to hide the bungled response to the hijackings, these sources said.

"May have been." And it may not have been. And that some evidence suggests intentional deception does not prove a vast government 9/11 conspiracy. That is a radical extrapolation. Note that in the story the "staff members and some commissioners" suspected that "military and aviation officials" made "false statements to Congress" in order to "hide the bungled response to the hijackings" not to hide a vast 9/11 conspiracy. Your own article undermines your argument.

[mhgaffney]

Can you prove this? It seems your evidence for this theory is strictly circumstantial which proves nothing.
.

Yes! It has been proven!

Thanks to photos of the wreckage at the pentagon taken by FEMA shortly after the attack, 9/11 researcher Karl B. Schwarz was able to identify at least three different components of a jet airplane. From the parts Schwarz was able to make a positive identification of the plane. This job should have been accompished by FEMA scientists, but as we’ve learned through hard experience, when something needs doing, best not rely on an agency of your own government–––no, better do it yourself.

One of the parts was the central shaft from a turbo-jet engine. As Schwarz explains in an article posted on the internet, there is no mistaking the part. The FEMA photo clearly shows the rotor hub and the cleats where the fan blades attach. Judging from comparative photos, side by side, even a novice can see that the assembly did not come from a Boeing 757. The shaft and hub are much too small for a 757, whose engines are nine feet across. No, the shaft in the wreckage came from a much smaller jet engine, and according to Schwarz it's a match for an A-3 Skywarrior, a smaller plane.

The difference is not only in size, but also type. The 757 has never used this kind of engine.

He also ID a part known as a diffuser case -- as well as a wheel casing. The FEMA photos provide more than enough detail to conclusively show that these did not come from a 757 -- but from the Skywarrior.

Check it out for yourself. By the way, Schwarz is a former Republican -- who has turned against Bush and his criminal cohorts.

The complete file with photos and analysis can be downloaded in a jiffy from
http://www.physics911.net/

Scroll down to: A-3 Skywarrior: The Probable Pentagon Attack Aircraft?
by Karl W Schwarz

Flight 77 never hit the pentagon. The whole 9/11 narrative is false -- a lie.

[mhgaffney]

Sigh.

http://911myths.com/html/no_hijackers_on_the_manifests.html

even

http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablecases/moussaoui/exhibits/prosecution/OG00010.html

This pertains to the passenger manifests -- which show no evidence that any terrorist ever boarded the planes.

The burden of proof is on W*gs to show otherwise.

Where's the evidence, W*gs?

Put up or shut up.

[mhgaffney]

I'm posting Schwarz's article -- an easy download.

Let's hope I did it right.

[mhgaffney]

The file size exceeds what this board can handle -- you'll have to visit the site address I gave above. sorry.

[pocahontas4me]

This pertains to the passenger manifests -- which show no evidence that any terrorist ever boarded the planes.

The burden of proof is on W*gs to show otherwise.

Where's the evidence, W*gs?

Put up or shut up.

I suppose that eye witnesses are lying about the plane that hit the Pentagon?

Many people saw the plane hit, it was not a fighter plane. Just in case you have mistaken the population and employment figures for the DC area, most of them are either military or work for the military and can distinguish the difference between an A-3, or what ever type of warplane you claim it was, very readily.

You are stepping closer and closer to being stunned by the fact that the sun does rise in the east and set in the west. The conspiracy theorists are claiming the west is where the sun rises at this very moment.

As for your proof, you have no proof, only opinions based on other peoples opinions that you have bought in to.

[W*GS]

Yes! It has been proven!

Nope.

Flight 77 never hit the pentagon.

So what happened to Flight 77, and, how were the passengers identified from their remains located at the Pentagon?

Lemme guess - something other than Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon, and before anyone noticed, the real Flight 77 passengers were murdered and their bodies burned and ripped apart elsewhere, then brought to the Pentagon and put into the wreckage and debris, along with seats, luggage, documents, and all that other stuff.

Right?

Oh - and what happened to the "real" 757? Where is it?

The whole 9/11 narrative is false -- a lie.

Based on your opinion? Pshaw.

[W*GS]

This pertains to the passenger manifests -- which show no evidence that any terrorist ever boarded the planes.

The reports from the passengers and flight attendants, including seats and names, is obviously something you haven't considered.

Where's the evidence, W*gs?

As above.

Put up or shut up.

Hush yourself.

[The Lone Bolt]

Yes! It has been proven!

Thanks to photos of the wreckage at the pentagon taken by FEMA shortly after the attack, 9/11 researcher Karl B. Schwarz was able to identify at least three different components of a jet airplane. From the parts Schwarz was able to make a positive identification of the plane. This job should have been accompished by FEMA scientists, but as we’ve learned through hard experience, when something needs doing, best not rely on an agency of your own government–––no, better do it yourself.

One of the parts was the central shaft from a turbo-jet engine. As Schwarz explains in an article posted on the internet, there is no mistaking the part. The FEMA photo clearly shows the rotor hub and the cleats where the fan blades attach. Judging from comparative photos, side by side, even a novice can see that the assembly did not come from a Boeing 757. The shaft and hub are much too small for a 757, whose engines are nine feet across. No, the shaft in the wreckage came from a much smaller jet engine, and according to Schwarz it's a match for an A-3 Skywarrior, a smaller plane.

The difference is not only in size, but also type. The 757 has never used this kind of engine.

He also ID a part known as a diffuser case -- as well as a wheel casing. The FEMA photos provide more than enough detail to conclusively show that these did not come from a 757 -- but from the Skywarrior.

Check it out for yourself. By the way, Schwarz is a former Republican -- who has turned against Bush and his criminal cohorts.

The complete file with photos and analysis can be downloaded in a jiffy from
http://www.physics911.net/

Scroll down to: A-3 Skywarrior: The Probable Pentagon Attack Aircraft?
by Karl W Schwarz

Flight 77 never hit the pentagon. The whole 9/11 narrative is false -- a lie.

Well all this fails to explain why there were numerous eyewitnesses who saw a commercial jetliner crash into the Pentagon and how, even in broad daylight over a heavily populated area, there are no eyewitnesses who saw a fighter jet instead collide with the Pentagon. In broad daylight over such an area there should have been hundreds if not thousands of eyewitnesses who saw a fighter jet and not a commercial airliner. Have they all been "silenced"?

And you have yet to explain why the "evildoers" in the U.S. government would stupidly try this stunt (i.e. colliding a military jet into the Pentagon and then trying to cover it up) in broad daylight when they could have easily done it at night and therefore avoided the messy and inconvenient thousands of potential eyewitnesses who would easily be able to see the fighter jet in daylight.

As for the report you cited, there is a credible counterargument in a link I already provided: http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

I suggest you read it instead of dismissing it all as "disinformation" simply because it conflicts with your conspiracy theory views.

For example, Mr. Shwarz claims that the compessor hub assembly pictured at the Pentagon . . .

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/pentagon-engine2.jpg

. . . must have come from a "turbojet" used in the A-3 Skywarrior. However:

For some reason, most of the conspiratorial sites instead make extensive reference to the A-3 being powered by a Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine. Moreover, these sites claim that the JT8D is a turbojet. The JT8D is actually a low-bypass turbofan that was developed for use aboard commercial aircraft like the 727 and 737. We have not found any source that indicates the JT8D was ever used on the A-3 Skywarrior, so it is unclear why the originators of the A-3 theory are so infatuated with this particular powerplant. Nevertheless, we will include it in our investigation for completeness.

And . . .

Using photos and cut-away drawings of these three engines, we can estimate the diameters of the compressor and turbine rotors just as we did for the RB211. The results of these comparisons are summarized in the following table.

The table image here for some reason will not transfer to this forum, so check the website.

This analysis indicates that all three of these engines are too small to match the engine component photographed at the Pentagon. Some sites also suggest the part might be from the aircraft's auxiliary power unit (APU). An APU is essentially a small jet engine mounted in the tail of an aircraft that provides additional power, particularly during an emergency. However, APUs tend to be much smaller than jet engines, and the component pictured at the Pentagon is too large to match any found in an APU.

The site goes on to point out that the Rolls-Royce RB211 turbofan engine (used in the Boeing 757) has many compressors, one of which could easily be the one pictured at the Pentagon.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/rb211-spools.jpg


Shwarz insists that the piece is claimed to be part of the front compressor, but ignores the other compressors that are part of the engine. "I can assure you all that what you are looking at is not the front fan of a 757 jet engine" he says, and he's probably right. More likely it's from one of the smaller compressors, but for some reason he does not mention that possibility. I wonder why? ???

[The Lone Bolt]

Here's another piece of wreckage that Schwarz claims couldn't possibly be from a 757 engine:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/pentagon-engine3.jpg

Yet it bears a strong resemblance to this part which is in fact from a 757 engine:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/rb211-535_4.jpg

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/rb211_overview.jpg


In fact it's a perfect match. Hhhmmmmmm . . . .

[W*GS]

Yes! It has been proven!

Even a fellow whack-job doesn't believe you:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html

And no, making your text big and bold doesn't make your "arguments" better.

[The Lone Bolt]

So to sum it up:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/rb211-pentagon.jpg

[orangeatheist]

My brother's one of these nuts. You should also hear him go on about Roswell.

[W*GS]

gaffney believes in the Roswell nonsense too.

[pocahontas4me]

It's great to see someone with the patience to invalidate this nut job's rantings and ravings. Apparently he didn't look far enough into the story to be able to see that it was untrue.

for those of you that did the research, the beer's on "Gaffney the Nutjob"

[W*GS]

I wonder why no-one has associated the crash of EgyptAir flight 990 into the Atlantic on 31 October 1999 with 9/11.

I can see several threads from the whack-job angle on it.

[The Lone Bolt]

It's great to see someone with the patience to invalidate this nut job's rantings and ravings. Apparently he didn't look far enough into the story to be able to see that it was untrue.

:thanku:

for those of you that did the research, the beer's on "Gaffney the Nutjob"

Wooo Hoooo!! http://forum.signonsandiego.com/upload/images/smilies/beer.gif

[mhgaffney]

This troubling report came out of Ft Collins in 2005. It's consistent with the above analysis of wreckage from the pentagon.

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/27-May-2005.html

A-3 Military Jet Secretly Re-Fitted With Missiles Just Prior to 9/11; Places More Doubt On Official Story That A Boeing 757 Hit The Pentagon

Former Republican Washington insider speaks with employees who worked on secret jet project and who now fear for their lives since others who worked on the project have mysteriously turned up dead
27 May 2005

By Greg Szymanski

A one time Republican insider, now turned party rebel, said he has uncovered more damaging evidence, proving the government's official story about 9/11 is "nothing but a pack of lies."

Karl Schwarz of Georgia, who was one of the main architects of the Republican takeover of Congress during the Clinton Presidency, has made finding the truth about the WTC attacks his passion and his new mission.

Recently he uncovered an obscure piece of video footage, clearly showing a 757 jetliner did not strike the WTC as reported by the government.

Now Schwarz said he has uncovered explosive evidence that will eventually prove "something other than a 757 jetliner hit the Pentagon" also contrary to government reports.

"I have been told by two civilian defense contractors employees that they and others retro-fitted missiles and remote control systems onto A-3 jets at a Colorado public airport just prior to September 11 in a highly secretive government operation carried out under the cover of darkness," said Schwarz, who added the employees asked to remain anonymous in order to protect their lives.

The men told Schwarz that recently several suspicious suicides and fatal car wrecks, involving others who worked on the A-3 project at the Fort Collins-Loveland Municipal Airport, have made them uneasy and fearful about "going public" with their story.

"What makes this testimony important is previously A-3 parts were uncovered in the Pentagon wreckage, parts that are much smaller than those of a Boeing 757," said Schwarz, who has been extremely critical of the Bush administration's handling of 9/11.

Recently, over his distrust of Bush and the general neo-con takeover of America, Schwarz has decided to throw his own hat in the Presidential ring in 2008 under the banner of new independent party yet to be named.

Regarding the Pentagon crash, when Schwarz refers to the A-3 parts found at the 9/11 crash site, he is referring to the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA) photographs taken immediately after the attacks. The photographs clearly indicated that the few aircraft parts found at the Pentagon did not fit the description of Boeing 757 parts but rather fit the description of a small jet, very similar to an A-3 Sky Warrior

The Pentagon crash has always been an 'Achilles Heel' in the government's 9/11 official story as independent investigators have compiled strong evidence revealing the improbability if not impossibility of a large Boeing 757 causing the strike.

The 16-foot entry hole left from the Pentagon impact has been the subject of much debate with investigators, who have been denied access to most of the remaining evidence, including aircraft parts and surveillance photos immediately confiscated by agents after the crash. Investigators nonetheless speculate that an air-to-ground missile (AGM) possibly fired from a small military jet caused the hole.

Besides the several parts recovered after the crash resembling parts from a A-3 Sky Warrior jet, investigators call attention to the fact FBI agents within minutes after impact confiscated surveillance tapes and even a tape from a gas station across the street from the Pentagon, which had a clear view of the incoming object.

Further, they cite initial reports made by air traffic controllers, who reported the incoming object headed towards the Pentagon was a small military jet instead of a commercial Boeing 757. Since the initial report, controllers, however, have been silenced by official gag orders and subpoena or even have not sought their testimony by the recent 9/11 Commission.

"It's all very suspicious," said Schwarz, who also said the government agents quickly removed most of the wreckage evidence from the scene, obstructed justice and basically tampered with a murder scene investigation. "To date none of this evidence has been inspected or used to determine what hit the Pentagon."

Highly suspicious over the obvious government cover-up, Schwarz said his personal investigation led him to the Ft.Collins Municipal Airport and his discussions with the employees who re-fitted the A-3 Sky Warrior with AGM missiles just prior to 9/11.

"The two witnesses say that separate military contractor teams working independently at different times refitted the military jets with updated missiles, Raytheon's Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) remote control systems, fire control systems, engines, transponders, and radio-radar-navigation systems--a total makeover, seemingly for an operation more important than just a simple missile testing platform for defense contractor Hughes-Raytheon," said Schwarz, who interviewed the employees in February.

"It is very interesting that the Hughes division manufactures the AGMs while the Raytheon division maintains the last few A-3 Sky Warriors in operation and also manufactures the Global Hawk UAV remote control systems."

Schwarz said he began researching Raytheon records for any connections to 9/11, finding out that only Raytheon executives and the Air Force would have known any inside information on the A-3 systems as well as who was involved in the re-fitting operations.

Coincidentally, five key Raytheon executives died onboard three of the four doomed 9/11 flights, a mystery that Schwarz claims is more than just a coincidence. The executives who perished on 9/11 include: Stanley Hall, director of the Electronic Warfare Program (American 77); David Kovalcin, senior mechanical engineer for Electronic Systems (American 11); Peter Gay, vice president of Electronic Systems on special assignment at the El Segundo, CA division office where the Global Hawk UAV remote control system is made (American 11); Kenneth Waldie, senior quality control engineer for Electronic Systems (American 11); and Herbert Homer, a corporate executive working with the Department of Defense (United 175).

"Why were they all on these planes? Nobody's ever bothered to find out," asked Schwarz. "They all died without a grand jury investigation into their records, visits or calls to Ft. Collins-Loveland airport or testimony related to other related matter involving the re-fitting of the A-3's prior to 9/11"

Schwarz said the men were unaware of the A-3 jets destinations after the work was completed, but said each was placed in a small, separate hanger just big enough for a work crew and one A-3 Sky Warrior.

"The men told me specifically they were instructed and under strict orders not to discuss what the military teams were doing or what they saw," said Schwarz.

According to available government records, the Air Force has at least four A-3s in current operation and Hughes-Raytheon has 12-14 Sky Warriors operating, according to available records.

"The plane used at the Pentagon on 9/11 may have been brought in from Tucson, Arizona from Davis-Monthan Air Force Base, which has numerous decommissioned planes taken out of service and stored there in an arid environment," said Schwarz, adding that using an out-of-service plane would erase any paper trail identifying the actual jet.

"Whoever did this had about a billion dollars to work with, according to my intelligence sources who have come forward. One crew came in to fit the jet for remote-UAV systems, another crew put in the fire control systems and another installed the new jet engines, another the AGMs, etc., and all at different times to spread out the information flow on who did what."

Schwarz said the military's likely response to the whole story is that the A-3's were being fitted with system platforms to test-fire missiles. However, he added the timeline for the re-fittings and the recovery of A-3 parts at the Pentagon crash site makes the government possible response highly speculative if not totally unbelievable.

[W*GS]

This troubling report came out of Ft Collins in 2005. It's consistent with the above analysis of wreckage from the pentagon.

Do you even read the sources I and others provide you?

Flight 77, a Boeing 757, hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Period.

[...]Recently he uncovered an obscure piece of video footage, clearly showing a 757 jetliner did not strike the WTC as reported by the government.[...]

So let's see it.

[mhgaffney]

It's very disingenuous of you to cite eyewitnesses in support of a 757 -- when it suits you -- yet to discount other eyewitnesses who saw a smalller plane or a missile. In truth, the eyewitneses do not agree.

Therefore we must draw our conclusions from the wreckage and other available evidence.

Here's a photo of the pentagon wreckage -- taken after the roof collapsed. It proves there truly WAS wreckage -- though the pile is modest. It's not nearly big enough to explain a 757 hit.

The photo shows that the plane never penetrated the outer wall of the pentagon. An A-3 weighs 40,000 lbs, yet crumpled up like an accordion. This shows just how thick the outer pentagon wall was -- after being hardened. The windows in this part of the pentagon were 2 inch thick blast resistant glass, which explains why they didn't all break.

So what caused the hole in the pentagon? The deep penetration is consistent with a hit by a cruise missile, no doubt tipped with depleted uranium (DU). The A-3 Skywarrior can carry a payload of 12,000 pounds -- A cruise missile weighs about 3,000 pounds. So an A-3 could easily carry this weapon.

Also, according to DU expert Leuren Moret, elevated levels of DU were detected in nearby Alexandria VA just after 9/11 -- and also at the pentagon site by the EPA.

This explains all of the evidence. It now seems clear that the plane was an A-3 Skywarrior. It was carrying a cruise missile under its belly, which it fired on the way in. The DU tipped missile penetrated 6 walls of the pentagon. The plane hit the outer wall in a different place and crumpled into a small pile.

[Old Dude]

...
Flight 77, a Boeing 757, hit the Pentagon on 9/11. Period.
...


Yeah, yeah, yeah. And I suppose you think Oswald shot JFK, that we really landed on the Moon and that the Titanic hit an iceberg.

[alkemical]

The titantic was sunk by the kraken.

[mhgaffney]

True believers in the official 9/11 conspiracy theory are unwilling to deal with some bare facts. According to our government Hani Hanjour piloted Flight 77 -- which completed a banking 300 degree turn in the final minutes that professonal Boeing pilots say would have pushed the 757's specifications to the limit -- or even exceeded them.

The plane's last maneuver before it hit the pentagon was what one might expect of a top gun.

Yet, just one month before 9/11 Hani Hanjour showed up at Freeway Airport at Bowie, MD and tried to rent a Cessna. He showed a pilots license -- but due to liability issues the airport required Hanjour to first pass a test flight with one of its instructors. Hanjour flunked the test. The airport refused to rent hima plane without further instruction. This was reported by the Washington Post and Newsday.

How did this flunkee who could barely fly a Cessna pilot Flight 77 on 9/11?????

I'm also still waiting for the evidence, W*gs that Hani boarded the plane. You have not posted a scintilla of evidence to this effect.

[Bronco_Beerslug]

So to sum it up:

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/rb211-pentagon.jpg

Anyone can post some pictures.

My brother's one of these nuts. You should also hear him go on about Roswell.
Roswell happened too, there is no doubt!

It's just too bad there are so many lemmings in this country that follow the U.S. government blindly!!! :pity:



























http://www.exigomusic.org/pic/smilies/haha.gif

http://www.exigomusic.org/pic/smilies/mbounce.gif
Hilarious! ROFL!

[pocahontas4me]

It's very disingenuous of you to cite eyewitnesses in support of a 757 -- when it suits you -- yet to discount other eyewitnesses who saw a smalller plane or a missile. In truth, the eyewitneses do not agree.

Therefore we must draw our conclusions from the wreckage and other available evidence.

Here's a photo of the pentagon wreckage -- taken after the roof collapsed. It proves there truly WAS wreckage -- though the pile is modest. It's not nearly big enough to explain a 757 hit.

The photo shows that the plane never penetrated the outer wall of the pentagon. An A-3 weighs 40,000 lbs, yet crumpled up like an accordion. This shows just how thick the outer pentagon wall was -- after being hardened. The windows in this part of the pentagon were 2 inch thick blast resistant glass, which explains why they didn't all break.

So what caused the hole in the pentagon? The deep penetration is consistent with a hit by a cruise missile, no doubt tipped with depleted uranium (DU). The A-3 Skywarrior can carry a payload of 12,000 pounds -- A cruise missile weighs about 3,000 pounds. So an A-3 could easily carry this weapon.

Also, according to DU expert Leuren Moret, elevated levels of DU were detected in nearby Alexandria VA just after 9/11 -- and also at the pentagon site by the EPA.

This explains all of the evidence. It now seems clear that the plane was an A-3 Skywarrior. It was carrying a cruise missile under its belly, which it fired on the way in. The DU tipped missile penetrated 6 walls of the pentagon. The plane hit the outer wall in a different place and crumpled into a small pile.

I have never heard such a crock of s#!t in my life. First, show me any A3 carrying anything but the smallest of A-A missiles and conventional bomb racks.

Tell me what the level of the radiation from DU might be measured "In the area". Your rants are so ludicrious that it isn't funny. I still have the bridge in Brooklyn that is for sale and I'm needing to unload it quick so I've lowered the price.

Once again I question your disregard for the eye witnesses that saw the plane hit the Pentagon. Were they all bought off, were they all on drugs, was not one of them capable of looking at pictures of planes and determining what they saw that day?

Do you also dispute the 757's hitting the WTC? We saw live footage of the second hit and it could have been a cruise missile too. It was loaded with the highly secret JP-15 jet fuel that causes a giant conflagaration when exposed to air and fire. The missile itself probably had a high yield nuclear warhead and that is why your friends are finding the radiation.

I'm just amazed that more raidiation poisioning isn't rampant in NYC and that the other buildings in the area are not glowing in the dark.

Seriously, with the photoshop editing and the ability to edit most any video to show what you want to see I'm surprised that they haven't found a "video with audio feed" that shows GWB firing the missiles himself from the Vietnam era warplane he flew when he was in thh ANG.

You people claim some of the most preposterous things and then expect people with more common sense than you will ever see in your life to believe what crap you are throwing out.

The forensic evidence from the WTC indicates that they were both hit with 757's.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/05/16/pentagon.video/

And this link will give you a report that shows just how some of the conspiracy theorists have mangled the truth. One eye witness identified an airliner, not by plane type but an American Airlines passenger plane.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,195702,00.html

Just a little more for you to read.

And now the forensic, sort of, statistics with pictures to indicate what actually hit the Pentagon.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

What I'm saying is that the forensic evidence points out that it was a 757 that hit the Pentagon and not an A3 warbird carrying a missile. Besides, if the missile was fired at or near impact it would have had very little more velocity and penetrating power than the aircraft.

MYTHBUSTED DUDE!!!

[pocahontas4me]

True believers in the official 9/11 conspiracy theory are unwilling to deal with some bare facts. According to our government Hani Hanjour piloted Flight 77 -- which completed a banking 300 degree turn in the final minutes that professonal Boeing pilots say would have pushed the 757's specifications to the limit -- or even exceeded them.

The plane's last maneuver before it hit the pentagon was what one might expect of a top gun.

Yet, just one month before 9/11 Hani Hanjour showed up at Freeway Airport at Bowie, MD and tried to rent a Cessna. He showed a pilots license -- but due to liability issues the airport required Hanjour to first pass a test flight with one of its instructors. Hanjour flunked the test. The airport refused to rent hima plane without further instruction. This was reported by the Washington Post and Newsday.

How did this flunkee who could barely fly a Cessna pilot Flight 77 on 9/11?????

I'm also still waiting for the evidence, W*gs that Hani boarded the plane. You have not posted a scintilla of evidence to this effect.


:oyvey: ::) :homer: :spamattac :bs: :thumbsdow

[W*GS]

It's very disingenuous of you to cite eyewitnesses in support of a 757 -- when it suits you -- yet to discount other eyewitnesses who saw a smalller plane or a missile. In truth, the eyewitneses do not agree.

The overwhelming number of eyewitnesses reported seeing a 757 - some specifically mentioning an American Airlines 757.

Therefore we must draw our conclusions from the wreckage and other available evidence.

Well, no. Just because one guy says that a comet became Venus after dropping manna from heaven doesn't mean he's right.

The vast majority of all the evidence (eyewitnesses, wreckage, identification of the victims, etc.) says that AA Flight 77, a B-757, crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11.

Since you assert otherwise, you need to show what happened to the "real" Flight 77, its passengers, and crew.

Care to try?

Also, according to DU expert Leuren Moret, elevated levels of DU were detected in nearby Alexandria VA just after 9/11 -- and also at the pentagon site by the EPA.

I've already shown that Moret's credibility is suspect.

But that won't stop you. Facts that directly and incontrovertibly count against you are completely ignored.

[W*GS]

True believers in the official 9/11 conspiracy theory are unwilling to deal with some bare facts. According to our government Hani Hanjour piloted Flight 77 -- which completed a banking 300 degree turn in the final minutes that professonal Boeing pilots say would have pushed the 757's specifications to the limit -- or even exceeded them.

What "professonal Boeing pilots"? Provide URLs, please.

See:

http://911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

I'm also still waiting for the evidence, W*gs that Hani boarded the plane. You have not posted a scintilla of evidence to this effect.

I'll wait until you can show me where the "real" Flight 77 is.

[mhgaffney]

Supporters of the official 9/11 conspiracy theory cite the following page as purported evidence that the lack of wreckage at the pentagon was not unusual. There are many photos of other plane crashes on this page.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/compare/jetcrashdebris.html

I looked it over and I beg to differ. While some of the photos are inconclusive for various reasons, at least 3 of them show very clearly that entire tail sections often survive crashes intact. There is good reason for this. The tail is the furthest part of the plane from impact, thus is subjected to least blast effects.

Several other shots do show very extensive wreckage.

[W*GS]

While some of the photos are inconclusive for various reasons, at least 3 of them show very clearly that entire tail sections often survive crashes intact. There is good reason for this. The tail is the furthest part of the plane from impact, thus is subjected to least blast effects.

Apples and oranges. I'll let you figure out why.

[mhgaffney]

Even a fellow whack-job doesn't believe you:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagontrap.html

And no, making your text big and bold doesn't make your "arguments" better.

Sure. I read Hoffman's analysis.

He claims the 757 hit the pentagon at a height of 8 feet from the ground. If so -- then the 757's jet engines would have been dragging in the lawn - which obviously did not happen.

He also says the photos show evidence of impact damage across a 96 foot wide front of the pentagon. Sorry, the photos don't show this. The extent of damage across this front should have been much greater. The impact profile points to that of a smaller plane.

[mhgaffney]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney
I'm also still waiting for the evidence, W*gs that Hani boarded the plane. You have not posted a scintilla of evidence to this effect.

W*gs responded:
I'll wait until you can show me where the "real" Flight 77 is.

Sorry, this is a bull**** answer.

The burden is on you to show the hijackers boarded the planes. So far, all of the "evidence" I have seen is suspect.

[mhgaffney]

“It is a truth that a terrorist can attack any time, any place, using any technique and it’s physically impossible to defend at every time and every place against every conceivable technique. Here we’re talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center. The only way to deal with this problem is by taking the battle to the terrorists, wherever they are, and dealing with them.”

— Donald Rumsfeld answering Parade Magazine reporter
Lyric Wallwork Winik in
Pentagon Press Conference. October 12, 2001

[pocahontas4me]

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney
I'm also still waiting for the evidence, W*gs that Hani boarded the plane. You have not posted a scintilla of evidence to this effect.

W*gs responded:
I'll wait until you can show me where the "real" Flight 77 is.

Sorry, this is a bull**** answer.

The burden is on you to show the hijackers boarded the planes. So far, all of the "evidence" I have seen is suspect.

So if they can't prove that one of the known hijackers boarded the plane what you are saying is that the pilot himself flew the plane into the Pentagon?

I see there is no repsonse to my post regarding one of your own comparing size of hole in the Pentagon with a Boeing 757. Not to mention any of the informaton from the other links.

OOPS that's right, you don't want to read anyting that will pop your bubble or point out that you theory is totally debunked!

[W*GS]

He claims the 757 hit the pentagon at a height of 8 feet from the ground. If so -- then the 757's jet engines would have been dragging in the lawn - which obviously did not happen.

How "obviously"?

He also says the photos show evidence of impact damage across a 96 foot wide front of the pentagon. Sorry, the photos don't show this.

Which "the photos"?

Try

http://rense.com/general32/phot.htm

[The Lone Bolt]

So Gaff, where are all these eyewitnesses who saw an A-3? It was in broad daylilght over a heavily populated urban area, so you should have at least 50 such eyewitnesses, no?

And you still haven't answered the question of why the geniuses at the WH decided to try to fly a missile or remote-controlled A-3 into the Pentagon in broad daylight directly over the heads of thousand of people in downtown Washington D.C.? You would think these rocket scientists would expect maybe a few thousand people to notice their clever plot, no?

And how about the evidence I presented above? Seems pretty clear that the parts found at the site are in fact from a 757. Unless it's all "lies" -- for no reason other than it doesn't confirm your own beliefs?

You are a peculiar little fellah!:hitself:

[Bronco_Beerslug]

The burden is on you to show the hijackers boarded the planes. So far, all of the "evidence" I have seen is suspect.
This is why it's pointless to debate further in this thread.

[mhgaffney]

This story presents a compelling case that something other than a 757 hit the pentagon on 911.

Boeing insists it never used depleted uranium as ballast in 757s. Therefore the detection of elevated levels of DU at the pentagon after 9/11 and in surrounding communities indicates the source had to be something other than a 757. A cruise missile tipped with DU would explain this.

Depleted Uranium Released During Canadian Plane Crash
Little-Known Use of DU in Commercial Jets Exposed

The recent crash of a Boeing 747 in Halifax, Canada, raises a number of questions about the use of depleted uranium (DU) in airplanes, public health concerns and the 9-11 attacks. When a Boeing 747 crashed and burned on takeoff at Halifax International Airport in Nova Scotia, Canada, on Oct. 14, an official accident investigator said the aircraft probably contained radioactive depleted uranium.


October 26, 2004

By Christopher Bollyn

Bill Fowler, an investigator with the Transportation Safety Board of Canada, said the plane was likely equipped with DU as counterweights in its wings and rudder.

"A 747 may contain as much as 1,500 kilograms [3,300 lbs.] of the material," the Canadian Press reported. It took 60 firefighters and 20 trucks about three hours to control the fire.

Fowler said: "there is no threat or concern" about DU exposure to those working on the wreckage.

"That's baloney," Marion Fulk, a retired staff scientist from Lawrence Livermore National Lab, told American Free Press. Fulk, 83, is currently researching how low-level ionizing radiation causes cancer, birth defects and a host of other health problems. Burning depleted uranium creates a "whole mess of oxides," Fulk said, "which is what makes it so wicked biologically."

In 1988, American physicist Robert L. Parker wrote that in the worst-case scenario, the crash of a Boeing 747 could affect the health of 250,000 people through exposure to uranium oxide particles. "Extended tests by the Navy and NASA showed that the temperature of the fireball in a plane crash can reach 1,200 degrees Celsius. Such temperatures are high enough to cause very rapid oxidation of depleted uranium," he wrote.

"Large pieces of uranium will oxidize rapidly and will sustain slow combustion when heated in air to temperatures of about 500 degrees Celsius," Paul Lowenstein, technical director and vice-president of Nuclear Metals Inc., the company that has supplied DU to Boeing, wrote in a 1993 article.

Now, some researchers are turning to the large number of sick firefighters and workers from the World Trade Center site and reports of elevated radiation levels around the Pentagon after 9-11. They contend that the Boeing 757 and 767 aircraft involved in the attacks may have also contained depleted uranium counterweights.

PENTAGON RADIATION LEVELS

Around the Pentagon there were reports of high radiation levels after 9-11. American Free Press has documentation that radiation levels in Alexandria and Leesburg, Va., were much higher than usual on 9-11 and persisted for at least one week afterward.

In Alexandria, seven miles south of the burning Pentagon, a doctor with years of experience working with radiation issues found elevated radiation levels on 9-11 of 35 to 52 counts per minute (cpm) using a "Radalert 50" Geiger counter.

One week after 9-11, in Leesburg, 33 miles northwest of the Pentagon, soil readings taken in a residential neighborhood showed even higher readings of 75 to 83 cpm.

"That's pretty high," Cindy Folkers of the Washing ton-based Nuclear Information and Resource Service (NIRS) told AFP. Folkers said 7 to 12 cpm is normal background radiation inside the NIRS building, and that outdoor readings of between 12 to 20 cpm are normal in Chevy Chase, Md., outside Washington.

The Radalert 50, Folkers said, is primarily a gamma ray detector and "detects only 7 percent of the beta radiation and even less of the alpha." This suggests that actual radiation levels may have been significantly higher than those detected by the doctor's Geiger counter.

"The question is, why?" Folkers said.

If the radiation came from the explosion and fire at the Pentagon, it most likely did not come from a Boeing 757, which is the type of aircraft that allegedly hit the building.

"Boeing has never used DU on either the 757 or the 767, and we no longer use it on the 747," Leslie M. Nichols, product spokesperson for Boeing's 767, told AFP. "Sometime ago, we switched to tungsten, because it is heavier, more readily available and more cost effective."

The cost effectiveness argument is debatable. A waste product of U.S. nuclear weapons and energy facilities, DU is reportedly provided by the Department of Energy to national and foreign armament companies free of charge.

DU is used in a wide variety of missiles in the U.S. arsenal as an armor penetrator. It is also used in the bunker-buster bombs and cruise missiles. Because no photographic evidence of a Boeing 757 hitting the Pentagon is available to the public, 9-11 skeptics and independent researchers claim something else, such as a missile, struck the Pentagon.

A white flash, not unlike those seen in videos of the planes as they struck the twin towers, occurs when a DU penetrator hits a target.

Photographs from the Pentagon reveal that large round holes were punched through six walls in the three outer rings. The outside wall is 24 inches thick with a six-inch limestone exterior, eight inches of brick and 10 inches of steel reinforced concrete; the other walls are 18 inches thick.

The object that hit the Pentagon on 9-11 penetrated several feet of reinforced concrete, leaving holes with diameters between 11 and 16 feet.

Bill Bellinger, then head of the EPAs Radiation Program for Region III, which includes Virginia, told AFP that he had received information of elevated radiation levels and contacted EPA officials at the Pentagon.

"I was concerned about that," Bellinger said. "I didn't disregard it at all."

Bellinger told AFP that he thought the radiation was from DU in the aircraft.

Bellinger, who was based in Philadelphia, did not personally visit the Pentagon site and said that EPA personnel at the site had not reported high levels of radioactivity. However, the EPA official who Bellinger said had worked at the Pentagon, Craig Conklin, now at FEMA, told AFP that he had not been involved at the site, "directly or indirectly."

Workers and FEMA officials at the Pentagon were seen wearing special protective outfits and respirators. FEMA photos show the workers going through decontamination procedures.

Bellinger told AFP that the Department of Defense was responsible for on-site safety procedures at the Pentagon.

© American Free Press 2004

Source: http://www.americanfreepress.net/html/depleted_uranium.html

[mhgaffney]

This is why it's pointless to debate further in this thread.

High crimes like 9/11 call for detailed examination of evidence. If you can't cut the mustard then yes mybe it's better that you drop out.

My critique of the NIST report (that you accepted uncritically) shows that the 3 year report isn't worth the 10,000 pages it's written on.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article15970.htm

[Bronco_Beerslug]

High crimes like 9/11 call for detailed examination of evidence. If you can't cut the mustard then yes mybe it's better that you drop out.

My critique of the NIST report (that you accepted uncritically) shows that the 3 year report isn't worth the 10,000 pages it's written on.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article15970.htm

Unfortunately for you, your "critique" of anything related to 9-11 is dubious at best.

[mhgaffney]

So Gaff, where are all these eyewitnesses who saw an A-3? It was in broad daylilght over a heavily populated urban area, so you should have at least 50 such eyewitnesses, no?

And you still haven't answered the question of why the geniuses at the WH decided to try to fly a missile or remote-controlled A-3 into the Pentagon in broad daylight directly over the heads of thousand of people in downtown Washington D.C.? You would think these rocket scientists would expect maybe a few thousand people to notice their clever plot, no?

And how about the evidence I presented above? Seems pretty clear that the parts found at the site are in fact from a 757. Unless it's all "lies" -- for no reason other than it doesn't confirm your own beliefs?

You are a peculiar little fellah!:hitself:


Earlier I presented some of these accounts by eyewitnesses who say they saw a smaller plane -- but of course you or someone countered by posting other eyewitness accounts supporting the official view.

There is no consensus of eyewitness accounts, here. People saw different things. Maybe that's what they counted on.

But if the official story is true, why did FBI agents arrive within 5-10 minutes to confiscate the security videos at the nearby gas station and Marriot hotel?

Think about this. We are expected to believe that the FAA, NORAD and the pentagon high command was incompetent on 9/11 -- yet intelligence agents showed up within minutes to confiscate crucial evidence? Use the brain that God gave you. It doesn't hold up -- indeed it stinks to heaven.

All they have to do is release the video footage of the 757 and I will happily admit I was wrong.

BTW here is Karl Schwarz's response to your above post. I admit I am not knowledgeable enough about jet engines to be able to answer this myself.

Here's my email to Karl -- and his response.

Dear Karl,

Today I have been engaged in a lively debate with supporters of the
official 9/11 narrative. They just sent me this page -- see the link
below. Which presents evidence that the parts in the pentagon wreckage
did in fact come from a 757. I need to respond to this but am not well
versed enough in jet engine design to do so. You went deeper into
this. Your thoughts about this page would be most helpful.

Sincerely, Mark

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

Hello Mark,

Their theory completely collapses on one key point. The FEMA photo shows a ROTOR HUT and the end shaft cover that has the wheel bearing and lubricant for the main shaft.

This is a disinfo group that is part of the OFFICIAL story.

Karl

[mhgaffney]

Unfortunately for you, your "critique" of anything related to 9-11 is dubious at best.

I suggest you read it before you dis it.

[mhgaffney]

So if they can't prove that one of the known hijackers boarded the plane what you are saying is that the pilot himself flew the plane into the Pentagon?

I see there is no repsonse to my post regarding one of your own comparing size of hole in the Pentagon with a Boeing 757. Not to mention any of the informaton from the other links.

OOPS that's right, you don't want to read anyting that will pop your bubble or point out that you theory is totally debunked!

I'm trying to be responsive on this thread -- but I only answer intelligent questions. Think before you post.

If the government can't prove the hijackers boarded the planes then they have no case. Period. End of story. FBI chief Meuller actually admitted to the press that he had no case that would stand up in a court of law. Don't believe me? Do a google.

The size of the hole was about 15 feet across. I believe a 757 is around 12-13 feet in diameter. A Boeing also has two 12,000 lb engines that should have left an impression in the wall -- but didn't.

If you'll do some homework you will find that the neat hole through at least 6 layers of reinforced concrete matches the kind of damage done by a DU tipped cruise missile. DU is very very heavy -- goes through anything -- will penetrate the hardest steel like a hot knife through butter. Nothing can withstand it. It took something like this to penerate so deep into the pentagon.

I believe the elevated DU is decisive evidence -- unless of course the US military had DU stored inside the west wing. That's possible -- but very unlikely. And even if they had, do you think they would admit this? Never.

[mhgaffney]

Dear Pocahantas,

I never said a 767 did not hit the WTC. We've been talking about the pentagon. If the hole in the wall is only 8 feet from the ground --as Jim Hoffman argues --- then where are the ruts in the lawn caused by the 6 ton jet engines? They would have been dragging in the ground. Yet the photos show no ruts.

As for evidence you'll have to do a lot better than FOX news -- the most rabid and biased news channel on the air.

Maybe you're biggest problem is that you can't wrap your mind around this 9/11 issue. It's so big. In fact this is the greatest crime in the history of our nation. You WANT to believe your president is telling the truth. You WANT to believe it was a foreign enemy.

But there is abundant evidence your president has lied continoulsy about everything. Not only Iraq. The general also blatantly lied to Congress and to the 9/11 Commission. This doesn't matter to you?

Moreover, 19 rag tag Arabs with box cutters could not have done 9/11. This was a very complex crime - very well organized. The 9/11 attack required a lot of resources that rag tag jihadists simply don't have. Who has these resources?

Elements within your own government.

[pocahontas4me]

I'm trying to be responsive on this thread -- but I only answer intelligent questions. Think before you post.

If the government can't prove the hijackers boarded the planes then they have no case. Period. End of story. FBI chief Meuller actually admitted to the press that he had no case that would stand up in a court of law. Don't believe me? Do a google.

The size of the hole was about 15 feet across. I believe a 757 is around 12-13 feet in diameter. A Boeing also has two 12,000 lb engines that should have left an impression in the wall -- but didn't.

If you'll do some homework you will find that the neat hole through at least 6 layers of reinforced concrete matches the kind of damage done by a DU tipped cruise missile. DU is very very heavy -- goes through anything -- will penetrate the hardest steel like a hot knife through butter. Nothing can withstand it. It took something like this to penerate so deep into the pentagon.

I believe the elevated DU is decisive evidence -- unless of course the US military had DU stored inside the west wing. That's possible -- but very unlikely. And even if they had, do you think they would admit this? Never.

I'm a retired military person that specialized in weapons systems along with other things. The "facts" as you present them goes against every design of weapon I've ever seen or dealt with, especially cruise missiles. To penetrate the reinforced concrete you would have to use hardened tipped, so to speak, and that is not present in cruise missiles. If you've ever watched the videos of the cruise missiles we use you would know how they impact hardened concrete.

A cruise missile would not be built of DU, the weight alone would keep the missile from flying any great distance. Have you ever seen DU 20mm rounds fired from a Vulcan Phanlyx? If you had you wouldn't be making the absurd comments you have been making.

Even with evidence the contrary you continue to attempt to pass on other people's ideas of a conspiracy. You have no proof, no knowledge, and no way out!

Your myth has been busted, over and over and over. Quit while you are behind!

[mhgaffney]

I'm a retired military person that specialized in weapons systems along with other things. The "facts" as you present them goes against every design of weapon I've ever seen or dealt with, especially cruise missiles. To penetrate the reinforced concrete you would have to use hardened tipped, so to speak, and that is not present in cruise missiles. If you've ever watched the videos of the cruise missiles we use you would know how they impact hardened concrete.

A cruise missile would not be built of DU, the weight alone would keep the missile from flying any great distance. Have you ever seen DU 20mm rounds fired from a Vulcan Phanlyx? If you had you wouldn't be making the absurd comments you have been making.

Even with evidence the contrary you continue to attempt to pass on other people's ideas of a conspiracy. You have no proof, no knowledge, and no way out!

Your myth has been busted, over and over and over. Quit while you are behind!

That is some very interesting information. Thanks for posting it.

You need to stop using ridicule. And start pooling what you know in a spirit iof cooperation to try and find out the truth.

You are no less a conspiracy theorist than me. The official 9/11 narrative is also a conspiracy theory. Why will you not admit this? I merely disagree about who was responsible.

Last month I posted a detailed critique of the NIST report on the WTC collapse. In deconstructing the official report I showed that it fails to explain how planes and fires caused the WTC to collapse. This is my own analysis -- not a copy of some one else's work. If you didn't read it I suggest you do so.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article15970.htm

One you understand that neither the planes or fires caused the collapse -- there is only one other explanation: explosives.

Which rules out the 19 members of Al Qaeda, since there is no way they could have gained access to the WTC. Therefore, it had to be an inside job.

In 2002 the Boston Globe posted the passenger lists for all of the flights on 911. At the link below if you look to the left you will see them listed. I checked and found no hikacker names on the list. Why are they not on the manifests? If you can't show the "hijackers" got on the planes then your conspiracy theory is a bust -- while mine is still viable.

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm

[epicSocialism4tw]

The thread that wont die.

This is hall-of-fame material.

Gaffer, you're one hard-headed dude.

[pocahontas4me]

That is some very interesting information. Thanks for posting it.

You need to stop using ridicule. And start pooling what you know in a spirit iof cooperation to try and find out the truth.

You are no less a conspiracy theorist than me. The official 9/11 narrative is also a conspiracy theory. Why will you not admit this? I merely disagree about who was responsible.

Last month I posted a detailed critique of the NIST report on the WTC collapse. In deconstructing the official report I showed that it fails to explain how planes and fires caused the WTC to collapse. This is my own analysis -- not a copy of some one else's work. If you didn't read it I suggest you do so.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article15970.htm

One you understand that neither the planes or fires caused the collapse -- there is only one other explanation: explosives.

Which rules out the 19 members of Al Qaeda, since there is no way they could have gained access to the WTC. Therefore, it had to be an inside job.

In 2002 the Boston Globe posted the passenger lists for all of the flights on 911. At the link below if you look to the left you will see them listed. I checked and found no hikacker names on the list. Why are they not on the manifests? If you can't show the "hijackers" got on the planes then your conspiracy theory is a bust -- while mine is still viable.

http://www.boston.com/news/packages/sept11/anniversary/wire_stories/0903_plane_exercise.htm

To quote a movie line: YOU WANT THE TRUTH? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!"

The reason being that you can't handle the truth is that you live in the world of suspision and inuendo. Ridicule is the only thing you understand and the only way to get your head out of your 6.

As for the use of explosives to bring down the WTC, you are totally out of the game when you are talking about that. First, the collapse started in each of the towers at the level of the crash and fire. The odds for someone to set charges on the exact floor that a plane hit is astronomical to say the least.

Once you understand that there is no earthly way that anyone could have made an exact explosives plant in the building you might realize how stupid you sound agreeing with teh other wacko's that are attempting to make this a conspiracy. Hell, even OBL admitted that they were responsible for the attack BEFORE the people were identified that hijacked the planes.

You my friend are so far out there it is not describable.

[W*GS]

My critique of the NIST report (that you accepted uncritically) shows that the 3 year report isn't worth the 10,000 pages it's written on.

Your few pages (at most) of a "critique" isn't worth the disk space it's taking.

You cherry-picked facts, amply illustrated a gross misunderstanding of some of the most basic facts relating to metallurgy and thermodynamics, and implied that the NIST teams either supported your views or were complicit in your whackitude (actually, both).

Your "critique" is about as meaningful for understanding what happened at the WTC on 9/11 as Velikovsky is for understanding the solar system and the history of the Middle East.

[W*GS]

One you understand that neither the planes or fires caused the collapse -- there is only one other explanation: explosives.

Your "critique" of the NIST report shows nothing of the sort - in fact, it cannot, since it hardly refutes the NIST report in any way.

You constantly accept as proven the flimsiest assertions, mostly your own. You're just an ignorant whack-job.

In 2002 the Boston Globe posted the passenger lists for all of the flights on 911. At the link below if you look to the left you will see them listed. I checked and found no hikacker names on the list. Why are they not on the manifests?

I've already provided several URLs to manifests that show the hijackers on the planes - and you're failing to take into account the information provided by the flight attendants and others on the planes as to the identities and presence of the hijackers. Were these flight attendants and others part of your whackitude?

[W*GS]

One thing about gaffney - he seems to think absence of evidence means evidence of absence.

Yet another reason he's neither correct nor rational in his thought processes.

[pocahontas4me]

One thing about gaffney - he seems to think absence of evidence means evidence of absence.

Yet another reason he's neither correct nor rational in his thought processes.

I"ve noticed that. He is one of the few that will believe what Bubba on the street tells him but will ignore the evidence as provided by men and women that have their doctorates and specialize on forensic engineering and investigation.

I am amazed that so many people will fall for the flimsiest of tales just because they think that GWB is not a good president. FTR, He isn't the best we've ever had, but he is far from the worst.

[mhgaffney]

And how about the evidence I presented above? Seems pretty clear that the parts found at the site are in fact from a 757. Unless it's all "lies" -- for no reason other than it doesn't confirm your own beliefs?

You are a peculiar little fellah!:hitself:

I want to thank Bolt for posting the information on this page
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

Which I have to say was persuasive and ID the parts on those photos from the crash scene. I found Schwarz's response to this information weak to the point of being lame.

So, I have changed my position on this point. It has happened before. I have admitted errors on this thread in the past and that will continue. I am interested in finding the truth in this matter and am persuaded by evidence -- not by the sort of ridicule that anyone faces who begs to differ from the official conspiracy theory. This is a huge noxious problem in our nation, at present.

The biggest objection to a 757 was the small hole in the wall. That and the detected DU remain anomalies, however, the positive ID of the engine casing, the landing gear and the tire hub leave no room for doubt that this was a 757. Of course this assumes evidence was not planted -- but I think the chances of that are remote.

Notice, this does not alter by an iota my overall position that 9/11 was an inside job. Pocahantas and others need to examine the evidence from the start of this thread I have posted -- and there is much other evidence not on this thread -- in the clear light of reason, which he has not done. Ditto for others.

Hani Hanjour would have been lost in the cockpit of a 757. Nor is there any credible evidence he ever boarded the plane.

[W*GS]

Moreover, 19 rag tag Arabs with box cutters could not have done 9/11. This was a very complex crime - very well organized. The 9/11 attack required a lot of resources that rag tag jihadists simply don't have.

Such as? al-Qaeda has pulled off many other terrorist acts, around the world. The planes-as-weapons plan had been around for some time before 9/11. Given 20/20 hindsight, the planning and carrying out of 9/11 was not that incredibly difficult.

There are far far more holes in your "al-Qaeda had nothing to do with 9/11, the US government did it" whackitude.

[W*GS]

The biggest objection to a 757 was the small hole in the wall. That and the detected DU remain anomalies, however, the positive ID of the engine casing, the landing gear and the tire hub leave no room for doubt that this was a 757.

Amazing. You concede reality, for a change. Not necessarily for the right reasons (the hole in the outermost wall is just about the diameter of 757 fuselage), but at least you've made that critical first step.

Hani Hanjour would have been lost in the cockpit of a 757. Nor is there any credible evidence he ever boarded the plane.

Try this:

http://911myths.com/html/hanjour_video.html

[mhgaffney]

As for the use of explosives to bring down the WTC, you are totally out of the game when you are talking about that. First, the collapse started in each of the towers at the level of the crash and fire. The odds for someone to set charges on the exact floor that a plane hit is astronomical to say the least.

Once you understand that there is no earthly way that anyone could have made an exact explosives plant in the building you might realize how stupid you sound agreeing with teh other wacko's that are attempting to make this a conspiracy. Hell, even OBL admitted that they were responsible for the attack BEFORE the people were identified that hijacked the planes.
.

It's true of course, there is no way bin Laden or the 19 could have gotten access to the WTC to plant explosives.

This is not true, however, for the Bush administration. George W's brother Marvin was a principle with Securacom the company with the security contract for the WTC. Moreover, Bush's cousin was the CEO. They had access. Moreover, there were security breaches at the WTC in the months and weeks before 9/11.

It was a carefully planned demolition. Many people heard and saw the explosions. They were even captured on audio-video by a man filming 9/11 from Hoboken -- across the river -- two miles away. A least ten large blasts preceded the collapse of WTC 2. Another series preceded the collapse of WTC 1. In fact, the explosions began in the basement even before the initial plane impact.

The WTC had enormous reserve strength. The fires were relatively minor and brief. The NIST report fails to explain how these minor fires weakened the core and pertimeter columns. They never even tried to explain WTC 7 -- an even more obvious demolition.

It was Carl Sagan who said "extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence."

Since no steel frame building ever collapsed due to fire either before or since 9/11 -- yet supposedly 3 did on a single day -- the claim that fire did this is extraordinary.

Extraordinary evidence is thus required to show how this happened. You haven't presented it. Nor has the NIST, even though they put 200 men to work on the problem for 3 years. They failed because there is no plausible evidence for their case.

Shrill language and personal attacks are no substitute for evidence.

[pocahontas4me]

It's true of course, there is no way bin Laden or the 19 could have gotten access to the WTC to plant explosives.

This is not true, however, for the Bush administration. George W's brother Marvin was a principle with Securacom the company with the security contract for the WTC. Moreover, Bush's cousin was the CEO. They had access. Moreover, there were security breaches at the WTC in the months and weeks before 9/11.

It was a carefully planned demolition. Many people heard and saw the explosions. They were even captured on audio-video by a man filming 9/11 from Hoboken -- across the river -- two miles away. A least ten large blasts preceded the collapse of WTC 2. Another series preceded the collapse of WTC 1. In fact, the explosions began in the basement even before the initial plane impact.

The WTC had enormous reserve strength. The fires were relatively minor and brief. The NIST report fails to explain how these minor fires weakened the core and pertimeter columns. They never even tried to explain WTC 7 -- an even more obvious demolition.

It was Carl Sagan who said "extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence."

Since no steel frame building ever collapsed due to fire either before or since 9/11 -- yet supposedly 3 did on a single day -- the claim that fire did this is extraordinary.

Extraordinary evidence is thus required to show how this happened. You haven't presented it. Nor has the NIST, even though they put 200 men to work on the problem for 3 years. They failed because there is no plausible evidence for their case.

Shrill language and personal attacks are no substitute for evidence.

Your insistance that GWB was involved is ludicrious. You also have not explained how anyone....ANYONE... could plane explosives on the 88th floor and then someone else just happen to fly a plane into that exact floor to cause the people to think that the plane did it.

First you need to check out the construction of the WTC, the main members and then find out what the effect of fire on those members would be as well as the effect of another 10-20 floors of dead weight above it might do. In my professional career I've seen smaller towers collapse at industrial sites with much less fire and no explosives involved.

Your need to attack the sitting President of the U.S. seems to be the bottom line of this whole thread and I feel that is libleous at the least.

Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking any particular law. You have displayed enough lack of knowledge about the engineering points brought up to make anyone believe that you are nothing more than a complete conspiracy whacko.

[quote=daphne]It was Carl Sagan who said "extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence." [/quote)

I haven't seen any hard extraordinary evidence either. Hard evidence is what is useful in a case of law, I don't believe that you have presented anything but inuendo and speculation by you and your expert links. Give up while you are behind.

Shrill language? Now that is the most ironic comment I've heard on this line this week!

[W*GS]

Moreover, there were security breaches at the WTC in the months and weeks before 9/11.

How were the necessary hundreds (if not thousands) of charges planted (and the det cord connecting them) not noticed by the tens of thousands of people who were in the WTC on a daily basis?

Many people heard and saw the explosions.

Many of these "explosions" may have been other sounds (gunfire often sounds like firecrackers) and that still doesn't prove your demolition theory. These explosions could have had any number of other sources than from demolition charges. Obviously.

In fact, the explosions began in the basement even before the initial plane impact.

URL, please.

The fires were relatively minor and brief.

:bs:

This is what gaffney calls "minor":

http://www.newsday.com/media/photo/2001-12/1381371.jpg

Remember, each WTC tower was over 1350' tall, and each floor was just about an acre in size. The fires were in no way "minor".

The NIST report fails to explain how these minor fires weakened the core and pertimeter columns.

Wrong. Re-read the summary, dope.

They never even tried to explain WTC 7 -- an even more obvious demolition.

The NIST is working on its report for WTC7 - don't insinuate that they haven't investigated it at all. And no, the case for demolition is not at all "obvious". The same problems with that whackitude apply as for WTC1 and WTC2.

Since no steel frame building ever collapsed due to fire either before or since 9/11 -- yet supposedly 3 did on a single day -- the claim that fire did this is extraordinary.

Fire plus plane impact for WTC1 and WTC2, fire plus damage from debris for WTC7.

No steel frame buildings of the design of WTC1 and WTC2 were ever hit by large jetliners moving at high speed, either.

Nor has the NIST, even though they put 200 men to work on the problem for 3 years. They failed because there is no plausible evidence for their case.

:bs:

For someone who has claimed to have read the NIST report, you must have memory problems, because your statements are entirely false - you must have forgotten what you read.

Shrill language and personal attacks are no substitute for evidence.

Advice you'd do well to follow.

[Florida_Bronco]

I cant believe this thread is still going on.

[alkemical]

9/11: The Video (http://www.forteantimes.com/articles/215_911videos_1.shtml)

Five years after the tragedy of the World Trade Center attacks, Jack Sargeant looks at a new genre of DIY film-making that harnesses the buzz of the Internet and distrust of central government in an attempt to uncover the conspiracies behind 9/11.

On 11 September 2001, the World Trade Center was struck by two hijacked planes and reduced to rubble, suffocating downtown Manhattan under a wall of dust, dirt, and death. Simultaneously, the Pentagon, the military command-centre of the World’s only remaining superpower, was hit by a third hijacked plane. Only one plane failed to reach its target, crashing into a field as the hijackers were overpowered by a handful of passengers.

While history is full of bloodbaths, there have been comparatively few witnesses; but with hundreds of cameras pointed at the Twin Towers and continual global broadcasting, the horrifying events of 9/11 were witnessed by millions. It is unsurprising that some people watching these events believed, or have come to believe, that behind them lurked a sinister conspiracy. Certainly, the belief in a conspiracy may help some shell-shocked witnesses to make sense of the chaos that unfolded that day.

Previously, the dissemination of conspiracy theories was a slow process: they circulated in self-published rant tracts, books and magazines, and occasionally on the radio. But the Internet enabled conspiracies to be spread immediately. Not only could information be posted on the ’net, but websites enabled small publishers and distributors to market directly to their readers. Simultaneously, the ready availability of video cameras, easy-to-use editing programmes, and computers with DVD burners has provided another way of disseminating alternative information: via the conspiracy DVD. What was once difficult to learn and expensive to do has now become an easily acquired computer skill, the necessary programmes freely available on most home computers. [1]

The events of 9/11 quickly entered the image reservoir – the footage of two passenger planes striking the South and North Towers in deadly fireballs and the ensuing collapse burned into the collective media unconscious. It is telling that one of the only other bits of footage viewed by so many, and so often, is that of the assassination of President Kennedy, a home ‘snuff movie’ that shocked the world and inspired a generation of conspiracy theorists. The first conspiracies around 9/11 emerged almost immediately after the events but, unlike previous conspiracies, there was an immediate glut of visual material for those who wanted to investigate events, whether to confirm the terrors they witnessed or to search for the evidence behind those horrors. While the Zapruder film was all there was of the Kennedy slaying, the events of 9/11 were more than thoroughly documented. Visual evidence for the JFK murder can only be found in one 8mm home movie that has been watched and re-watched by assassination theorists. By contrast, those searching for evidence of anomalies in the official 9/11 narrative have hours of footage of the events, shot from a variety of angles, in which to find evidence of conspiracy.

Told on film, the official version of events has primarily focused on United Airlines 93, with the TV documentary Let’s Roll: The Story of Flight 93 (2002) and United 93 (2006) both telling the official story of heroic passengers overpowering hijackers. Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 (2004) offered a general criticism of the political response to events and the rush to war in Iraq, but didn’t examine the charges levelled by the 9/11 conspiracy theorists.

cont.../ Page 1 2 3 4 5

[alkemical]

(From Page 4 of the above article i posted):

However, these videos represent a more profound change. It is not the web of alleged conspiracies that matters, or whether we believe them or not: these videos are important because they reveal something about their audience and wider socio-cultural responses to 9/11. With national and global media ownership dominated by a handful of powerful multinational companies, critical or dissenting voices are marginalised and rarely heard. 89 per cent of respondents to a 2004 CNN Poll believed that the US government was covering up information regarding 9/11, yet their concerns are only rarely reflected in the mainstream media, and demands that investigations be opened and evidence released are ignored. Clearly many viewers are profoundly dissatisfied by most broadcast news, and this means that they will turn to other sources for their information. 9/11 has emerged as a focus because it has been used politically by some governments to introduce potentially repressive legislation and to justify the increasingly unpopular War on Terror. With so many people feeling disenfranchised and distrust of such governments becoming more widespread, there is little chance of the voices that now find expression in 9/11 videos being silenced.


______________

This is my whole issue with media and why i try to be overly critical in a fair way to all media. IMO CNN is just as valid as Alex Jones.

[W*GS]

This is my whole issue with media and why i try to be overly critical in a fair way to all media. IMO CNN is just as valid as Alex Jones.

Yes, we know you're obsessed with the "concentration" of the MSM. The fact that nonsense such as "Loose Change" gets as widespread as it has should alleviate those concerns.

As for Alex Jones being as valid as CNN, that's a whole 'nother rat's nest. That he feeds your paranoia makes your judgment somewhat suspect.

[alkemical]

Yes, we know you're obsessed with the "concentration" of the MSM. The fact that nonsense such as "Loose Change" gets as widespread as it has should alleviate those concerns.

As for Alex Jones being as valid as CNN, that's a whole 'nother rat's nest. That he feeds your paranoia makes your judgment somewhat suspect.



Well we know Wagsy didn't read the article in full, so it's easy to see how much of his response is a projection - instead of any sort of conversation. Since the point of the article was more or less "why are these movies so popular, why are people turning to alternative press instead of mainstream sources" - for a sort of cultural-psychology on this sub-culture.


To be honest Wags, i'm not an alex jones fan for the most part. I think most of his research is good - but i think he gets the wrong answer to valid questions (or the wrong questions to the answer). I think Alex Jones is actually very very smart when it comes to marketing and packaging.

So please try again when you aren't so pissy, please.

[W*GS]

Well we know Wagsy didn't read the article in full, so it's easy to see how much of his response is a projection - instead of any sort of conversation. Since the point of the article was more or less "why are these movies so popular, why are people turning to alternative press instead of mainstream sources" - for a sort of cultural-psychology on this sub-culture.

If you want a pop-psychology response, the existence of the 'Net makes it possible for everyone to find someone else to validate their beliefs.

In short, the victims of disease and the paranoid whackos can both find another person with whom they can communicate, much more easily than in times past. That in itself is a Good Thing, and thus we can subvert the MSM and traditional information sources. I certainly think the 'Net has allowed more communication, for good and bad, but that the good definitely outweighs the bad.

As for me being "pissy", why should your pronouncements (or mine, or anyone else's) be taken at face value and not questioned, or automatically given the respect the author feels is deserved? I'm not going to apologize for being skeptical. Neither should you.

[alkemical]

If you want a pop-psychology response, the existence of the 'Net makes it possible for everyone to find someone else to validate their beliefs.

In short, the victims of disease and the paranoid whackos can both find another person with whom they can communicate, much more easily than in times past. That in itself is a Good Thing, and thus we can subvert the MSM and traditional information sources. I certainly think the 'Net has allowed more communication, for good and bad, but that the good definitely outweighs the bad.

As for me being "pissy", why should your pronouncements (or mine, or anyone else's) be taken at face value and not questioned, or automatically given the respect the author feels is deserved? I'm not going to apologize for being skeptical. Neither should you.



Wags,

It seemed that you were citing this as my "defense" for the 9/11 posts that happen in this thread. When in fact - i was trying to maybe show a different side of what and why.

Trust me - i have my questions on 9/11 - but it doesn't have anything to do with a phantom jet radio-controlled by a pod on the bottom, which then shot red-mercury fusion at WTC just moments before impact, neutralizing the aethyr that binds the molecules of steel together, creating an instant free-fall that surpasses the physics of gravity. This was all planned by the zionists who of course, were told by the reptilians of how to pull this off. With the borrowed technology, and magik used from the reptile people - the zionists - then were finally able to accomplish their task of pulling us into the wary to defeat the arabs. Of course, the reptilians are pushing the arabs v. israelis/zionists to a head - so we will be distracted and won't know the word to use to unmask the reptilians. Which if you wanted to know is ZINARU.

(if you didn't get a chuckle out of that - or at least a kudo's for tying that all together - i'm not doing my job right).

[W*GS]

You've managed to channel gaffney. Quite an accomplishment.

[alkemical]

You've managed to channel gaffney. Quite an accomplishment.



Scary, eh?



Anyway - i do agree with you on the larger the support group, the less of a freak you are.

But i also wanted to illustrate how - when we trust less sources that *should* or *would* have credibility (say major Media) - when they ruin their reputation by selling news-tainment/infotainment - people are going to go to other sources. A victory for the market would be blogs, alternative media.

So when i say Alex Jones is just as Credible as CNN (example) - At least alex jones is upfront on his message and content and not under a guise of using trickery to get me to *obey* his authority.

If i need to clarify abit, let me know - the mainframe just went down here and i had to type this up quick.

[mhgaffney]

Wrong. Re-read the summary, dope.
.

Summary?

I studied the FULL report -- not the summary. Many of the problems in the report are not visible in the summary. You have to go deeper into the supplementary documentation. Which you obviously didn't do.

In the 1970s the WTC suffered a fire much more intense and one that burned longer -- 4-5 hours -- than on 9/11, yet did zero structural damage. By comparison, the fires on 9/11 were indeed minor. As the NIST report concedes, at no time was an entire floor engulfed in flames.

The fuel loading was less than expected. The fires reached a peak intensity within 10-15 minutes, then subsided.

Moreover, the fuel loading in the core was negligible -- as the NIST admits in its report. How then did the fires weaken the core columns, which had a factor of safety of 2.1 , meaning the columns could support more than twice the anticipated load before incurring any structural damage.

As for the explosions -- you W*gs are a hypocrite. You insist upon your witnesses at the pentagon -- yet are in denial about witnesses at the WTC who saw and heard explosions. As I pointed out, the explosions started even before the first plane impact.

The truth about 9/11 will turn out to be more shocking than almost anyone can imagine. Unfortunately for our nation and the world, by the time people understand what happened it will probably be too late.

[W*GS]

I studied the FULL report -- not the summary. Many of the problems in the report are not visible in the summary. You have to go deeper into the supplementary documentation. Which you obviously didn't do.

I have grave doubts that you understood what you allegedly read. All your "critiques" are amply discussed (and dismissed) in the NIST report.

I don't take your views on the NIST report very seriously, since you understand nothing of metallurgy, thermodynamics, computer simulation, and a whole host of other topics.

As for the explosions -- you W*gs are a hypocrite. You insist upon your witnesses at the pentagon -- yet are in denial about witnesses at the WTC who saw and heard explosions.

I don't doubt people heard sounds they interpreted as explosions. Your problem is that you have to prove what they heard were explosions, then you have to prove that the sources of those explosions were the charges that you claim were used to demolish both buildings. You're a looooooong way on that path. I'll save you some time and remind you that you won't get anywhere.

As I pointed out, the explosions started even before the first plane impact.

Elucidate.

The truth about 9/11 will turn out to be more shocking than almost anyone can imagine. Unfortunately for our nation and the world, by the time people understand what happened it will probably be too late.

Uh-hunh. Prolly those aliens that landed in Roswell had something to do with it too.

[The Lone Bolt]

I want to thank Bolt for posting the information on this page
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml

Which I have to say was persuasive and ID the parts on those photos from the crash scene. I found Schwarz's response to this information weak to the point of being lame.

So, I have changed my position on this point. It has happened before. I have admitted errors on this thread in the past and that will continue. I am interested in finding the truth in this matter and am persuaded by evidence -- not by the sort of ridicule that anyone faces who begs to differ from the official conspiracy theory. This is a huge noxious problem in our nation, at present.

The biggest objection to a 757 was the small hole in the wall. That and the detected DU remain anomalies, however, the positive ID of the engine casing, the landing gear and the tire hub leave no room for doubt that this was a 757. Of course this assumes evidence was not planted -- but I think the chances of that are remote.

Notice, this does not alter by an iota my overall position that 9/11 was an inside job. Pocahantas and others need to examine the evidence from the start of this thread I have posted -- and there is much other evidence not on this thread -- in the clear light of reason, which he has not done. Ditto for others.

Hani Hanjour would have been lost in the cockpit of a 757. Nor is there any credible evidence he ever boarded the plane.


You're welcome!

It takes a big man to admit it when he's wrong. Kudos Gaff!

I really think you should also show a little more scepticism toward the other "evidence" of an inside job on 9-11. Consider how absurd it all sounds to begin with. The entire alleged plot is so ridiculously and unneccesarily complicated that any supporting evidence instantly deserves extreme scrutiny IMO.


You maintain that is also true for the "official" version, but I fail to understand why it's so impossible for a terrorist org planning for years in advance to orchestrate three highjackings. You insist that it could not be done, but nothing you have posted conclusively supports that view.

Sorry Gaff, the "inside job" theory still looks pretty weak to me, and "mini-nukes" even more so.

[The Lone Bolt]

Wags,
Trust me - i have my questions on 9/11 - but it doesn't have anything to do with a phantom jet radio-controlled by a pod on the bottom, which then shot red-mercury fusion at WTC just moments before impact, neutralizing the aethyr that binds the molecules of steel together, creating an instant free-fall that surpasses the physics of gravity. This was all planned by the zionists who of course, were told by the reptilians of how to pull this off. With the borrowed technology, and magik used from the reptile people - the zionists - then were finally able to accomplish their task of pulling us into the wary to defeat the arabs. Of course, the reptilians are pushing the arabs v. israelis/zionists to a head - so we will be distracted and won't know the word to use to unmask the reptilians. Which if you wanted to know is ZINARU.

Laugh of the day!!! Thanks C!:rofl: :giggle: :thumbs:

[mhgaffney]

The entire alleged plot is so ridiculously and unneccesarily complicated that any supporting evidence instantly deserves extreme scrutiny IMO.



Why are you not willing to scrutinize the official story? You are the one lacking skepticism.

The alleged hijackers supposedly bought tickets like anyone else. But their names -- even today -- are not on the passenger manifest. This was never explained.

To this day there is not one scintilla of hard evidence they got on the planes.

The most heavily guarded airspace on the planet was violated for 90 minutes -- while Dick Cheney sat in the White House bunker getting minute by minute updates. Yet, the 9/11 Commission said he wasn't there...

Ten drills "conveniently" deploy most US fighters to N Canada, Alaska, Iceland and N Carolina --- so that almost nopne are avaiilable on the day of the attack???? This doesn't seem too coincidental to be coincidence?

The head of NORAD and the Chairman of the joint chiefs lie brazenly to Congress -- then later also lie to the 9/11 Committee -- and no one even notices or cares? The US press dooesn't even flinch.

Don't believe me? Check out the second book -- by 9/11 Commission chiefs T Keane and L Hamilton. In their book they accuse the generals of lying -- but the nation doesn't even notice.

What is the matter with you?

Evidently, you WANT to believe the most preposterous of tales -- the official 9/11 narative -- because you just can't handle the implications of an inside job.

It's too big. Like Hitler said in Main Kampf: the bigger the lie the easier it is to sell.

[Meck77]

I cant believe this thread is still going on.

Me neither. I easily spent a few hundred hours researching the subject but moved on several years ago.

[orangeatheist]

Me neither. I easily spent a few hundred hours researching the subject but moved on several years ago.

I'm curious Meck, given the amount of time you spent, what were your conclusions?

In addition, to the larger audience, may I suggest:

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/images/magv12n04_cover.jpg

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/index.html

[The Lone Bolt]

Why are you not willing to scrutinize the official story? You are the one lacking skepticism.

And I would contend that you are fixated on believing it was an inside job to the point of dismissing (almost) all counterarguments to the 9-11 "truth" movement's theories. You apparently WANT to believe it's all a U.S. gov't plot, and won't accept any other conclusion.

The alleged hijackers supposedly bought tickets like anyone else. But their names -- even today -- are not on the passenger manifest. This was never explained.

Is it possible that they bought the tix under different names?

To this day there is not one scintilla of hard evidence they got on the planes.

Is there a scintilla of evidence that they did not get on the planes? Evidence that does not have plausible alternative explanations? Once again much of this "inside job" theory relies on desperately grasping at straws while dismissing alll plausible counterarguments.

The most heavily guarded airspace on the planet was violated for 90 minutes -- while Dick Cheney sat in the White House bunker getting minute by minute updates. Yet, the 9/11 Commission said he wasn't there...

As I've pointed out before, this discrepancy is not necessarily evidence of a coverup or an "inside job".

Ten drills "conveniently" deploy most US fighters to N Canada, Alaska, Iceland and N Carolina --- so that almost nopne are avaiilable on the day of the attack???? This doesn't seem too coincidental to be coincidence?

Circumstantial evidence even if it is true.

The head of NORAD and the Chairman of the joint chiefs lie brazenly to Congress -- then later also lie to the 9/11 Committee -- and no one even notices or cares? The US press dooesn't even flinch.

Don't believe me? Check out the second book -- by 9/11 Commission chiefs T Keane and L Hamilton. In their book they accuse the generals of lying -- but the nation doesn't even notice.

Also not proof of an "inside job". Even the article you yourself provided suggested that they were just trying to cover up their own incompetence.

What is the matter with you?

Evidently, you WANT to believe the most preposterous of tales -- the official 9/11 narative -- because you just can't handle the implications of an inside job.

It's too big. Like Hitler said in Main Kampf: the bigger the lie the easier it is to sell.

Not too big, just too absurd and unsupported with anything other than circumstantial and easily disputable evidence. I do keep an open mind to the possibility of an "inside job", but so far very little of what you have presented here does not easily lend itself to plausible alternative explanations. And circumstanial evidence proves nothing no matter how much of it you have.

But I'm ready to concede that an "inside job" is possible. Are you ready to concede that it's possible you are wrong and the 911 attacks were exactly what they appeared to be? Open your mind a little Gaff.

[defenseman]

Lone bolt,

And I would contend that you are fixated on believing it was an inside job to the point of dismissing (almost) all counterarguments to the 9-11 "truth" movement's theories. You apparently WANT to believe it's all a U.S. gov't plot, and won't accept any other conclusion.

Best ignore him. And, the thousands that routinely play the "government plot" card. They are freakin looney tunes and will not change...dman

[Elvis]

I read some of this thread. It seems like we have some people posting with common sense and some posting with common conspiracy theories. The active portion of my statement should be recognized, theories.

I've half heartedly searched for answers and all I can find other than support for the U.S. being attacked by terrorists are guesses that someone had to attack the U.S. from the inside.

I would think these guys would realize that nobody has a big enough organization, inside the U.S., to pull off such a conspiracy. There is an old Navy term that was used during WWII - Loose Lips Sink Ships, the conspiracy would have been sunk by someone involved far before now. What we have now are people that need something to keep them going and can find nothing real to do so.

Sorry people, that's just the way I feel.

The Real ELVIS left the building, he didn't go home!

[mhgaffney]

nobody has a big enough organization, inside the U.S., to pull off such a conspiracy. There is an old Navy term that was used during WWII - Loose Lips Sink Ships, the conspiracy would have been sunk by someone involved far before now.

This is laughable.

Nobody? In fact, your statement applies perfectly to the 19 rag tag jihadists -- who we are supposed to believe outwitted and outmaneuvered the stupid and incompetent US armed forces, NORAD, the FAA, etc

That is a pipe dream.

In fact, the only entity on this earth with the resources to accomplish 9/11 was precisely the US government, or, at least, a group within it.

As for keeping secrets, the US kept Operation Gladio secret for 40 years. And if you don't know what the term means, you prove my point.

Try Googling OPERATION GLADIO or go to Wikipedia and you'll learn more than you ever wanted to know about how the US ran a covert terror campaign in 14 European nations from WW II until the Cold war ended.

It came to light in 1990 -- when the EU condemned it. Yet, the free press here in the states still haven't reported it to the American people.

[mhgaffney]

And I would contend that you are fixated on believing it was an inside job to the point of dismissing (almost) all counterarguments to the 9-11 "truth" movement's theories. You apparently WANT to believe it's all a U.S. gov't plot, and won't accept any other conclusion.



I'm not fixated on anything. I entertain all possibilities. I am persuaded by evidence.

I took it upon myself to examine the NIST report on the WTC collapse. This was the official US government study on why the towers fell on 9/11. The NIST put 200 people to work on it -- over 3 years -- and the result was a 43 vol report.

Most people -- including W*gs -- are scared off by the size of the report. I wasn't, however. More than once in the past I have shown that a dedicated individual with a fast computer can outperform the largest government bureaucracy. (And thank heaven for it!)

So, I studied it in depth. I read all of the pertinent material. And I discovered that the NIST failed to show how the planes and fires caused the WTC to collapse. The NIST's own research failed to support the conclusion of the report.

But I'll go further. The NIST investigation was fixed -- neutered from the start and had no chance to find the truth. How did they do this? By limiting its scope --thus making the truth unobtainable. It's one way to kill an investigation.

The knee jerks on this board blow a lot of hot air -- but not a one of them will do the actual research. I suggest you read my critique now -- if you haven't done so.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article15970.htm

It was Sir Arthur Conan Doyle who put the following words into the mouth of Sherlock Holmes: "Once you rule out the impossible, then whatever remains must be the answer -- however improbable it may seem."

Exactly so. Since the planes and fiires could not have brought down the WTC the only other thing possible is explosives.

Cogitate on that and you'll understand it had to be an inside job. The rest is just details.

[W*GS]

The alleged hijackers supposedly bought tickets like anyone else. But their names -- even today -- are not on the passenger manifest. This was never explained.

False. You're using a manifest that was incomplete.

To this day there is not one scintilla of hard evidence they got on the planes.

Also wrong. The statements by a number of flight attendants as to the hijackings themselves and the identities of the hijackers are proof positive that the hijackers were on the planes. How come you keep overlooking this hard evidence? Because it conflicts with your theory?

The most heavily guarded airspace on the planet was violated for 90 minutes -- while Dick Cheney sat in the White House bunker getting minute by minute updates. Yet, the 9/11 Commission said he wasn't there...

Also a misstatement of the facts. Indeed - that's what you rely on - half-truths and misdirection.

Ten drills "conveniently" deploy most US fighters to N Canada, Alaska, Iceland and N Carolina --- so that almost nopne are avaiilable on the day of the attack???? This doesn't seem too coincidental to be coincidence?

There were very few fighters available anyway - a handful for the entire East Coast. Something to do with the ending of the Cold War, you know.

The head of NORAD and the Chairman of the joint chiefs lie brazenly to Congress -- then later also lie to the 9/11 Committee -- and no one even notices or cares? The US press dooesn't even flinch.

What did they lie about?

Evidently, you WANT to believe the most preposterous of tales -- the official 9/11 narative -- because you just can't handle the implications of an inside job.

You overlook the fatal complications with your "inside job" whackitude - there are no end of zeroth-order problems that you continually skip over and deny, yet you obsess over incredibly minor and technical matters (I've read quibbles over the exact time the second plane hit the WTC - debates over mere seconds, no less) with the genuine 9/11 story.

You bounce from one bizarre idea to another, in the vain hopes that one bit of whackitude will correct the grave errors with some previous whackitude, when in fact you're just blasting ever-bigger holes. You make statements that have been proven false, using data that has been shown to be incorrect, and stick to disproven "theories" long after they've been thoroughly dismantled.

Why? If anyone is desperately clinging to a whole slew of falsehoods, it's you.

[W*GS]

I'm not fixated on anything. I entertain all possibilities. I am persuaded by evidence.

:bs:

You can't even recognize the most fundamental flaws in your own arguments.

I took it upon myself to examine the NIST report on the WTC collapse. This was the official US government study on why the towers fell on 9/11. The NIST put 200 people to work on it -- over 3 years -- and the result was a 43 vol report.

Which you skimmed, most perfunctorily, and in your "critique", virtually plagiarized another person's views. Hardly a devastating or fatal blow to the NIST report.

Most people -- including W*gs -- are scared off by the size of the report. I wasn't, however. More than once in the past I have shown that a dedicated individual with a fast computer can outperform the largest government bureaucracy. (And thank heaven for it!)

I'm not "scared off" by anything. As for "outperform", even the most cursory examination of your "critique" revealed numerous misstatements, errors in fact, bogus analogies, and a near-total lack of understanding of even the simplest principles of a number of fields in engineering, computer science, and basic physics.

You can't hardly get "2 + 2 = 4" right, and you believe you've outsmarted NIST? How do you manage to get through doorways with that overinflated head of yours?

So, I studied it in depth. I read all of the pertinent material. And I discovered that the NIST failed to show how the planes and fires caused the WTC to collapse. The NIST's own research failed to support the conclusion of the report.

:bs:

As I mentioned, your "critique" was a piece of crap, to be truthful. Hell, you even implied that some NIST staff agreed with your interpretations - which is a vast misstatement of what they actually did. Mere confirmation of a few specific numbers is hardly proof of your whackitude, or your claims (such as the one below). It's rather sickening to see someone twist and manipulate the genuine hard work of others to fit their own bizarre ideas.

But I'll go further. The NIST investigation was fixed -- neutered from the start and had no chance to find the truth. How did they do this? By limiting its scope --thus making the truth unobtainable. It's one way to kill an investigation.

:bs:

Don't you ever get tired of being a blatantly obvious liar?

The knee jerks on this board blow a lot of hot air -- but not a one of them will do the actual research.

(How many :bs: have I used so far? I'll add another)

:bs:

If I was as conspiratorially-minded as you, gaffney, I'd just about believe you're one of the insiders, deliberately sent to damage the credibility of the 9/11 whack-jobs. With people like you, they don't need enemies.

Exactly so. Since the planes and fiires could not have brought down the WTC the only other thing possible is explosives.

The damage caused by the planes (impact and fire) did bring down WTC1 and WTC2, and also indirectly resulted in the collapse of WTC7. Period.

Got that?

Geezus.

[W*GS]

Try Googling OPERATION GLADIO or go to Wikipedia and you'll learn more than you ever wanted to know about how the US ran a covert terror campaign in 14 European nations from WW II until the Cold war ended

That interpretation "covert terror campaign" is questionable, insofar as the secret services of the various nations were part and parcel of it. I'll let others read about Gladio and form their own views, rather than rely on gaffney's rather breathless claims about it.

[Elvis]

This is laughable.

Nobody? In fact, your statement applies perfectly to the 19 rag tag jihadists -- who we are supposed to believe outwitted and outmaneuvered the stupid and incompetent US armed forces, NORAD, the FAA, etc

That is a pipe dream.

In fact, the only entity on this earth with the resources to accomplish 9/11 was precisely the US government, or, at least, a group within it.

As for keeping secrets, the US kept Operation Gladio secret for 40 years. And if you don't know what the term means, you prove my point.

Try Googling OPERATION GLADIO or go to Wikipedia and you'll learn more than you ever wanted to know about how the US ran a covert terror campaign in 14 European nations from WW II until the Cold war ended.

It came to light in 1990 -- when the EU condemned it. Yet, the free press here in the states still haven't reported it to the American people.

DUDE!!! Try Googling Loony or go to Wikipedia and search for it. Your Senior picture from HS shows up in both cases!

I'd get into the fray here but it is obvious that you have been eating the little popcorn balls that came shipped with your computer.

[Meck77]

I'm curious Meck, given the amount of time you spent, what were your conclusions?

In addition, to the larger audience, may I suggest:

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/images/magv12n04_cover.jpg

http://www.skeptic.com/the_magazine/index.html

That I've yet to see any conspiracy theories hold any water. The one portion of 9-11 I struggled with the most was what hit the pentagon. I spent alot of time on that. I was arguing that it may have been something other than a hijakced plane but couldn't prove it otherwise.

If there is one portion of 9-11 that still bugs me is the ownership/insurance portion of the towers. Weren't they recently purchased just before they were knocked down?

I forget the dudes name but didn't he make a few billion on the deal?

[alkemical]

ISRAELIS were 9-11 short sale stock buyers, betting on WTC terror strikes, story killed... (http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2005/04/315296.shtml)

author: Mossad watch
FYI. Makes sense to me. Particularly when the Mossad cells were watching the "Al-CIAda" cells the whole time from Virginia to the 9-11 day-of when they were filming the towers being hit and collapsing, celebrating all the while. Of course Rabbi Chertoff of the Homeland Security Department now (then, the second in command under Ashcroft at the DOJ) let the Mossad budding filmmakers out of the country, without explanation, without much media coverage.

trenchant quote: "Between August 26 and September 11, 2001, a group of speculators, identified by the American Securities and Exchange Commission as Israeli citizens, sold "short" a list of 38 stocks that could reasonably be expected to fall in value as a result of the pending attacks. These speculators operated out of the Toronto, Canada and Frankfurt, Germany, stock exchanges and their profits were specifically stated to be "in the millions of dollars.""


(rest cont'd on site)

PS - claviculasolomonis does not endorse this story - he just found it and decided the offseason was tooooo slow.

[mhgaffney]

Not surprised.

Don't expect the SEC to ever reveal what they learned in their probe. The agency itself is so deep into the corruption on wall street it's incapable of playing a positive role.

The confirmed count of only 3 dead Israelis on 9/11 tallies with the theory that the Mossad knew the date of the attack. So they got their people out.

As I noted on Beerslugger's Iran thread, I worry about blackmail. We must assume the Israelis know the truth: That it was an inside job.

They may use this dirt to leverage Bush insiders -- in the case of Iran. Should some people get "cold feet" about using nukes. Or if it looks like saner heads are about to prevail.

[mhgaffney]

If there is one portion of 9-11 that still bugs me is the ownership/insurance portion of the towers. Weren't they recently purchased just before they were knocked down?

I forget the dudes name but didn't he make a few billion on the deal?

Larry Silverstein owned WTC 7 and bought a lease on the rest of the WTC two months before the attack. I heard he put up no more than $200 million. He also took out an insurance policy that explicitly covered terorism.

He then sued claiming each plane was a separate attack -- and won a double settlement -- $7 billion. He also recovered $400-500 million from his policy on WTC 7. Not a bad day's work.

Of course he had to divvy up the earnings with the other 9/11 conspiractors -- people like David Rockefeller, and the other high rollers who run Amerika.

This terrorist gambit was a genuine example of American free enterprise: a collaboration of Wall St bankers, probably several CEOs of big insurance firms (who succeeded in savaging their competition), generals with an interest in acquiring vast increases in funding for their pet military projects (the weaponization of space), people in the intelligence community (all black black), and lastly, the neo cons.

Bush the moron probably didn't even know.

[mhgaffney]

That interpretation "covert terror campaign" is questionable, insofar as the secret services of the various nations were part and parcel of it. I'll let others read about Gladio and form their own views, rather than rely on gaffney's rather breathless claims about it.

Once again W*gs shows what a lazy slug you are. And a blow hard. You simply will not do the reading and research.

Here is all the poop you need to educate yourself. Sit your ass down in a library and read Daniele Ganser's book NATO'S SECRET ARMIES.


Nato's Secret Armies
by Daniele Ganser
Hardcover: 336 pages
Publisher: Frank Cass; 1 edition (December 22, 2004)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0714656070
ISBN-13: 978-0714656076
Product Dimensions: 9.2 x 6.2 x 0.9 inches
Shipping Weight: 1.59 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
Average Customer Review: five stars -- based on 3 reviews.

Here is a typical review posted at amazon.com

Brilliant study of state-sponsored terrorism,
October 25, 2006
Reviewer: William Podmore (London United Kingdom) - See all my reviews

This path-breaking work by Daniele Ganser, a Senior Researcher at the Center for Security Studies at Zurich's Federal Institute of Technology, exposes the secret anti-communist terrorist organisation set up across Europe by the US and British states after World War Two. They created the Gladio network in all 16 NATO member countries and in the neutral nations of Sweden, Finland, Austria and Switzerland. They recruited former SS members as part of Germany's network.

As Ganser writes, these networks "became activists in political causes as a rule and not as an exception." The US and British states used them "to manipulate and control the democracies of Western Europe from within, unknown to both European populations and parliaments. This strategy led to terror and fear, as well as to `humiliation and maltreatment of democratic institutions'." They created and manipulated a terrorist threat, developing a `strategy of tension' to strengthen Europe's ruling classes.

Ganser points out, "Sometimes these efforts involved violence, even terrorism, and sometimes the terrorists made use of the very equipment furnished to them for their Cold War function." He observes, "The secret armies ... were involved in a whole series of terrorist operations and human rights violations that they wrongly blamed on the Communists in order to discredit the left at the polls. The operations always aimed spreading maximum fear among the population and ranged from bomb massacres in trains and market squares (Italy), the use of systematic torture of opponents of the regime (Turkey), the support for right-wing coups d'etats (Greece and Turkey), to the smashing of opposition groups (Portugal and Spain)."

The Gladio terrorists massacred 38 people in Turkey in 1977, 491 people in Italy between 1969 and 1980, and 28 people in Belgium in 1983-85. They assisted coups in France in 1958 and 1961, in Greece in 1967 and in Turkey in 1960, 1971 and 1980. They carried out the assassinations of Eduardo Mondlane, the leader of Mozambique's national liberation movement, in 1969, and of Aldo Moro, who had been Prime Minister of Italy, in 1978.

The USA and Britain thus became state sponsors of terrorism. Ganser concludes, "Many of these state-sponsored terrorist operations, as the subsequent cover-ups and fake trials suggest, enjoyed the encouragement and protection of selected highly placed governmental and military officials in Europe and in the United States." As an Italian parliamentary commission reported in 2002, "Those massacres, those bombs, those military actions had been organised or promoted or supported by men inside Italian state institutions and, as has been discovered more recently, by men linked to the structures of United States intelligence."

The British state still uses the Gladio `strategy of tension', exploiting fundamentalist terrorists to increase state powers. For example, MI5 ran Abu Hamza: for ten years they let him recruit and train terrorists for use abroad. Inevitably, some, like the 7/7 London bombers, turned on their hosts. Even now the state protects Hamza, refusing to prosecute him on terrorism charges.

[mhgaffney]

Here is the point:

We in the US spend $40 billion a year on our intelligence agencies. None of them are accountable to democratic oversight.

Our intelligence community managed the secret armies of NATO for 45 years. And kept it secret! The truth only came out in Europe in 1990 -- nor has the US press even to this day informed Americans about what went on.

It's no wonder Americans are clueless. Babes in the woods. Sheep being led to slaughter.

This is obviously pertinent to 9/11. For half a century the CIA was organizing terrorism in Europe. They did assassinations, coup de tets, sleaze campaigns, bombings, engaged in disinformation to destroy people, intimidation, blackmail, bribery, street thuggery, on and on and on

All of which undermined the emerging democracies in Europe. And NATO kept it secret for 45 years.

To think they would not turn around and do this here at home is so naive as to laughable. Of course they did! Use the brain God gave you.

[Old Dude]

I cannot believe this thread is still going ...

[alkemical]

My bad.

[The Lone Bolt]

Misinformation about "Gladio/Stay Behind" Networks Resurfaces
Thirty Year-Old Soviet Forgery Cited by Researchers


In December 2005, misinformation resurfaced in Greece claiming, falsely, that a secret “stay behind” network, which the Greek government had set up with CIA assistance, had committed acts of terrorism. During the Cold War, West European countries set up clandestine “stay behind” networks, which were designed to form the nucleus of resistance movements if the Soviet Union invaded and occupied Western Europe.

The Greek writer making the claim – and a Swiss researcher who wrote a 2005 book on the “stay behind” networks – both give credence to a Soviet forgery from the 1970s, which has long been publicly identified as a phony document.

“Gladio,” which means “sword” in Italian, was the name the Italian government chose for the “stay behind” network it established in the early days of the Cold War. Other West European governments formed similar networks.

During World War II, anti-Nazi resistance movements had sprung up throughout Europe, but supplying them by airdrops and other risky measures had been difficult and uncertain. The “stay behind” networks sought to avoid such problems by stockpiling weapons in secret caches ahead of time, and recruiting volunteers who would form the core of resistance movements, if needed. The program remained one of the Cold War’s best-kept secrets until it was revealed in late 1990, first in Italy and then in other West European countries.

Soon after the “stay behind” networks were revealed, some media accounts accused them of misdeeds, including domestic acts of terrorism. In April 1992, some 18 months after Gladio’s disclosure, journalist Jonathan Kwitny wrote in The Nation that, “evidence so far hasn’t supported initial allegations that the secret armies used their hidden C.I.A.-supplied caches of weapons and explosives to carry out political violence that killed civilians.”

Nevertheless, such claims resurfaced on December 18, 2005, in To Proto Thema, Greece’s best-selling investigative/sensationalist Sunday newspaper, which ran a full two-page story by Kleanthis Grivas, headlined, “Terrorism in Post-War Europe.” Grivas accused Greece’s “stay behind” network of several assassinations and bombings.

Some of the claims are clearly absurd. Grivas accused Greece’s “stay behind” network, known as “Sheepskin” or “Red Sheepskin,” which he says was “organized by Greek special forces and the CIA,” of assassinating CIA station chief Richard Welch in Athens in 1975. Thus, Grivas bizarrely accuses the CIA of playing a role in the assassination of one of its own senior officials.

Grivas also accused “Sheepskin” of the assassination in Athens of British military attaché Stephen Saunders in 2000, despite the fact that the Greek government stated it dismantled the “stay behind” network in 1988. In reality, the Greek terrorist organization “17 November” was responsible for both assassinations.

Thirty Year-Old Soviet Forgery Cited by Researchers

Grivas and other prominent “stay behind” researchers appear to have been influenced by a bogus text that first surfaced in 1976, a Soviet forgery purporting to be Supplement B to the U.S. Army’s Field Manual 30-31.

The U.S. Army did have a Field Manual (FM) 30-31 in the 1970s, and a “Supplement A” to it existed, but not a “Supplement B.” The purported “Supplement B” was a forgery apparently concocted by the Soviet disinformation service.

Field Manual 30-31B, also known as the “Westmoreland Manual” because it was purportedly signed by General William Westmoreland, was exposed as a “total fabrication” in February 1980 hearings before the U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The Committee hearings state:

In February 1976, a photocopy of the bogus FM 30-31B was left on the bulletin board of the Embassy of the Philippines in Bangkok, Thailand with a cover note from an anonymous “concerned citizen.” This is a typical Soviet bloc practice. Surfacing attracted little attention. FM 30-31B reappeared in 1978 when it was reprinted in two Spanish publications, El Pais (18 September) and El Triunfo (23 September). This was the work of a Spanish communist and a Cuban intelligence officer. Since September 1978, the manual and/or articles concerning it have appeared in the world press in more than 20 countries, including the United States. [Source: Soviet Covert Action (The Forgery Offensive), Hearings before the Subcommittee on Oversight of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, House of Representatives, 96th Congress, Second Session, February 6, 19, 1980, p. 86.]

The hearings added that, “in summer 1979, the Soviets prepared Portuguese-language copies of the forgery and covertly circulated them among military officers in Lisbon.” (p. 87)

The forgery was written so that it appeared to offer “proof” that the United States was the secret sponsor of terrorist acts in foreign countries, stating, in a section on “Agents in Special Operations:”

There may be times when HC [Host Country] governments show passivity or indecision in the face of Communist or Communist-inspired subversion, and react with inadequate vigor to intelligence estimates transmitted by U.S. agencies. Such situations are particularly likely to arise when the insurgency seeks to achieve tactical advantage by temporarily refraining from violence, thus lulling HC authorities into a state of false security. In such cases, U.S. Army intelligence must have the means of launching special operations which will convince the HC governments and public opinion of the reality of the insurgent danger and of the necessity of counteraction.

To this end, U.S. Army intelligence should seek to penetrate the insurgency by means of agents on special assignment, with the task of forming special action groups among the more radical elements of the insurgency. When the kind of situation envisaged above arises, these groups, acting under U.S. Army intelligence control, should be used to launch violent or nonviolent actions according to the nature of the case. Such actions could include those described in FM 30-31 as characterizing Phase II and III of insurgency.

In cases where the infiltration of such agents into the insurgent leadership has not been effectively implemented, it may help towards the achievement of the above ends to utilize ultra-leftist organizations. [Source: Soviet Covert Action (The Forgery Offensive), p. 184.]

A poor quality copy of the forgery and a declassified cover note describing how it surfaced can be viewed on the Internet.

Grivas and other “stay behind” researchers have treated the Soviet forgery as if it were a real document.

In Grivas’ book, Terrorism: a Privileged Means of Policy Making, he reportedly treats FM 30-31B as if it were authentic. An August 4, 2002 article in the Greek communist weekly Rizospatsis, which stated that it obtained its information from Grivas’ book, saw FM 30-31B as evidence that the United States had been behind the upsurge of radical leftist terrorism in Western Europe in the mid-1970s. It stated:

It is worth noting that the implementation of the Manual coincided with a surge in terrorist activity, such as the RAF [Red Army Faction] in West Germany and the Red Brigades in Italy. It is also worth noting that the activities of 17N [17 November] in Greece began in 1975. It was a critical time that had all the characteristics included in the Manual.

Swiss researcher Daniele Ganser, who works at Zurich’s Center for Security Studies, has also been fooled by the forgery. Ganser treats the forgery as if it was a genuine document in his 2005 book on “stay behind” networks, Secret Armies: Operation Gladio and Terrorism in Western Europe and includes it as a key document on his Web site on the book. Ganser writes, “FM 30-31B is maybe the most important Pentagon document with regard to the stay-behind armies.” He goes on to speculate that the bogus document may provide the blueprint for terrorist acts that occurred during the Cold War in Western Europe.

Former CIA Director Describes Setting Up “Stay Behind” Networks

Former CIA director William Colby wrote about his role in setting up “stay behind” networks in Scandinavia in his 1978 memoir Honorable Men:

One of the main fields of the OPC's [Office of Policy Coordination, the unit in the CIA responsible for paramilitary activities] work then [in 1951] was planning for the not unlikely possibility of a Soviet invasion of Western Europe. And, in the event the Russians succeeded in taking over any or all of the countries of the Continent ... the OPC wanted to be in a position to activate well-armed and well-organized partisan uprisings against the occupiers. But this time, unlike ... similar OSS paramilitary teams that went in to help the French maquis and other resistance movements during World War II, the OPC didn't want to have to arm and organize those partisans after the occupation, using such dangerous and fallible operations as night flights, supply drops, and parachute infiltrations behind enemy lines. No, this time ... we intended to have that resistance capability in place before the occupation, indeed even before an invasion; we were determined to organize and supply it now, while we still had the time in which to do it right and at the minimum of risk. Thus, the OPC had undertaken a major program of building, throughout those Western European countries that seemed likely targets for Soviet attack, what in the parlance of the intelligence trade were known as “stay-behind nets,” clandestine infrastructures of leaders and equipment trained and ready to be called into action as sabotage and espionage forces when the time came. (pp. 81-82)

Colby makes it clear that the NATO allies with whom he worked in Scandinavia were full partners in such plans:

… the governments themselves would build their own stay-behind nets, counting on activating them from exile to carry on the struggle. These nets had to be coordinated with NATO’s plans, their radios had to be hooked to a future exile location, and the specialized equipment had to be secured from CIA and secretly cached in snowy hideouts for later use. (p. 82)

Conclusion

A thirty year-old Soviet forgery has been cited as one of the central pieces of “evidence” for the false notion that West European “stay-behind” networks engaged in terrorism, allegedly at U.S. instigation. This is not true, and those researching the “stay behind” networks need to be more discriminating in evaluating the trustworthiness of their source material.

[mhgaffney]

Sorry. It doesn't wash. The CIA and MI6 set up this terror network across Europe. Secret armies were created in 16 different countries.

One document more or less is one data point -- meaningless -- a piss in the wind. There is too much other evidence.

This horrible policy of subverting democracy happened. It went on for 45 years.

It's why de Gaulle pulled out of NATO -- when he discovered this secret army in France. Which is why the US tried to assassinate de Gaulle.

Are you going to face it? Or live in denial?

[mhgaffney]

Ground Zero EMT: We Were Told Building 7 Was to Be "Pulled"

"The buildings were rigged, there is no question about it."

New Jersey Emergency Medical Technician EMT describes what he saw

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, February 8, 2007

A New Jersey EMT has gone public on how emergency workers were told that Building 7 was going to be "pulled," before a 20 second demolition countdown broadcast over radio preceded its collapse. The ground zero rescue worker also blows the whistle on how he witnessed multiple underground support columns of the WTC towers that had been severed before the buildings imploded.

In a letter to Loose Change producer Dylan Avery, the individual who wishes to remain anonymous refering to himself only as Mike, 30, NJ, describes how he has repeatedly tried to alert numerous authorities to what he saw on 9/11 but was ignored or told to "shut up" on every occasion, and ultimately fired for disorderly conduct.

The EMT now dismisses the official government explanation of events and slams the 9/11 commission as a "whitewash."

Having been in his profession for six years, the individual states that he was at ground zero before, during and after the collapse. He was forced to flee from the falling towers and take cover under a bus shelter as debris rained down all around him, leaving his lungs poisoned today with the toxic dust that 9/11 heroes were exposed to as a result of a cover-up on behalf of Condoleezza Rice and the EPA that assured workers ground zero air was safe to breathe.

The EMT made the decision to make his claims public after becoming aggrieved at how 9/11 debunkers were viciously attacking the creators of Loose Change for questioning the events of 9/11 in their film, which has now aired on numerous international television stations and has been seen by millions on the Internet.

In his enthralling testimony, the EMT goes into graphic detail of how he and others personally witnessed a plethora of explosions at all points of the buildings before their collapse.

"There were explosions. There were flashes. There was molten metal running down the I-beams of the basement levels like lava flows. I've never seen anything like it. Yes, planes hit the buildings - anybody who says otherwise is a moron. But the explosions - the rapid, symmetrical, sequential explosions - they happened," states 'Mike'.

He explains how he and others were in the basement of one of the towers helping injured victims when he saw "One of the huge steel and concrete support pillars with an 8 foot section blown out of the center of it." Looking around, Mike saw other support columns that were in the same condition, prompting rescue personal to ask "how could someone have rigged all these explosives?"

"We stood outside listening to the explosions," states Mike, "One after the other, every minute or so. At one point, about 10 minutes before the first collapse, a 30 foot or so section of the courtyard exploded straight up into the air. Just before the collapses, a series of deep, below ground explosions, then numerous explosions in the buildings upper floors. Then we ran. We felt the same deep explosions before the second collapse. This was not just the planes."

The rescue worker concludes emphatically, "The buildings were rigged, there is no question about it."

Perhaps of even more interest, the EMT relates the fact that hundreds of emergency rescue personnel were told over bullhorns that Building 7, a 47 story skyscraper adjacent the twin towers that was not hit by a plane yet imploded symmetrically later in the afternoon on 9/11, was about to be "pulled" and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.

Following news reports in the days after the attack that Building 7 had collapsed due to fire damage, Mike fully expected this mistake to be corrected after the chaos had subsided, but was astonished when it became part of the official story.

Questions about Building 7 came to the fore in January 2004 when footage of WTC complex owner Larry Silverstein telling a September 2002 PBS documentary that after consultation with the FDNY the decision was made to "pull" the building surfaced on the Internet.

These issues were subsequently explored in Alex Jones' Martial Law and Terror Storm documentary films.

Since then, debunkers and Silverstein's office itself have tried to argue that Silverstein simply meant to "pull" or evacuate the firefighters out of the building, yet in the same documentary explosives experts are seen demolishing the remnants of other buildings in the ground zero area and repeatedly use the industry term "pull" to describe a controlled demolition.

In addition, there were no firefighters in WTC 7 to "pull" in the first place.

Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."

The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."

Photo and video evidence of the collapse of Building 7 shows classic indications of a controlled demolition. The standard 'crimp' in the center-left top of the building and the subsequent 'squibs' of smoke as it collapses clearly represent explosive demolition.

Even Dan Rather, commenting on the collapse for CBS News said that the collapse was, "reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”

The EMT worker agrees, stating, "There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows...and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled... they told us!"

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a profit of about $500 million.

Due to the many unanswered questions surrounding Building 7, The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was forced to include in its probe into Building 7 the theory of, "Whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse."

Following the attacks, Mike made a sustained effort to inform the relevant authorities of what he saw, including the FDNY, the NYPD, newspapers and television networks. In every case he was told to "shut up", "forget about it", or "let it go, for my own good."

Initially praised as heroes, when Mike and his colleague tried to to alert their EMT Coordinator In Charge of what they had witnessed, they were brought up on charges of disorderly conduct, fired, and fined for damaged uniforms and equipment they had used on 9/11. Two other colleagues who witnessed the same events now refuse to even acknowledge they were at ground zero for fear of reprisals.

The astounding testimony of this brave EMT only adds further credence to the already overwhelming case for controlled demolition of both the twin towers and Building 7. We implore this individual to go public with his full name in the interests of his own safety. It is far more secure to blow the whistle out in the light than to remain in the shadows and become another victim of those who wish to see 9/11 truth buried.

[mhgaffney]

heres the link
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2007/080207building7.htm

[The Lone Bolt]

Sorry. It doesn't wash. The CIA and MI6 set up this terror network across Europe. Secret armies were created in 16 different countries.

One document more or less is one data point -- meaningless -- a piss in the wind. There is too much other evidence.

This horrible policy of subverting democracy happened. It went on for 45 years.

It's why de Gaulle pulled out of NATO -- when he discovered this secret army in France. Which is why the US tried to assassinate de Gaulle.

Are you going to face it? Or live in denial?

Well, briefly, what other evidence exists?

[The Lone Bolt]

Ground Zero EMT: We Were Told Building 7 Was to Be "Pulled"

"The buildings were rigged, there is no question about it."

New Jersey Emergency Medical Technician EMT describes what he saw

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Thursday, February 8, 2007

A New Jersey EMT has gone public on how emergency workers were told that Building 7 was going to be "pulled," before a 20 second demolition countdown broadcast over radio preceded its collapse. The ground zero rescue worker also blows the whistle on how he witnessed multiple underground support columns of the WTC towers that had been severed before the buildings imploded.

In a letter to Loose Change producer Dylan Avery, the individual who wishes to remain anonymous refering to himself only as Mike, 30, NJ, describes how he has repeatedly tried to alert numerous authorities to what he saw on 9/11 but was ignored or told to "shut up" on every occasion, and ultimately fired for disorderly conduct.

The EMT now dismisses the official government explanation of events and slams the 9/11 commission as a "whitewash."

Having been in his profession for six years, the individual states that he was at ground zero before, during and after the collapse. He was forced to flee from the falling towers and take cover under a bus shelter as debris rained down all around him, leaving his lungs poisoned today with the toxic dust that 9/11 heroes were exposed to as a result of a cover-up on behalf of Condoleezza Rice and the EPA that assured workers ground zero air was safe to breathe.

The EMT made the decision to make his claims public after becoming aggrieved at how 9/11 debunkers were viciously attacking the creators of Loose Change for questioning the events of 9/11 in their film, which has now aired on numerous international television stations and has been seen by millions on the Internet.

In his enthralling testimony, the EMT goes into graphic detail of how he and others personally witnessed a plethora of explosions at all points of the buildings before their collapse.

"There were explosions. There were flashes. There was molten metal running down the I-beams of the basement levels like lava flows. I've never seen anything like it. Yes, planes hit the buildings - anybody who says otherwise is a moron. But the explosions - the rapid, symmetrical, sequential explosions - they happened," states 'Mike'.

He explains how he and others were in the basement of one of the towers helping injured victims when he saw "One of the huge steel and concrete support pillars with an 8 foot section blown out of the center of it." Looking around, Mike saw other support columns that were in the same condition, prompting rescue personal to ask "how could someone have rigged all these explosives?"

"We stood outside listening to the explosions," states Mike, "One after the other, every minute or so. At one point, about 10 minutes before the first collapse, a 30 foot or so section of the courtyard exploded straight up into the air. Just before the collapses, a series of deep, below ground explosions, then numerous explosions in the buildings upper floors. Then we ran. We felt the same deep explosions before the second collapse. This was not just the planes."

The rescue worker concludes emphatically, "The buildings were rigged, there is no question about it."

Perhaps of even more interest, the EMT relates the fact that hundreds of emergency rescue personnel were told over bullhorns that Building 7, a 47 story skyscraper adjacent the twin towers that was not hit by a plane yet imploded symmetrically later in the afternoon on 9/11, was about to be "pulled" and that a 20 second radio countdown preceded its collapse.

Following news reports in the days after the attack that Building 7 had collapsed due to fire damage, Mike fully expected this mistake to be corrected after the chaos had subsided, but was astonished when it became part of the official story.

Questions about Building 7 came to the fore in January 2004 when footage of WTC complex owner Larry Silverstein telling a September 2002 PBS documentary that after consultation with the FDNY the decision was made to "pull" the building surfaced on the Internet.

These issues were subsequently explored in Alex Jones' Martial Law and Terror Storm documentary films.

Since then, debunkers and Silverstein's office itself have tried to argue that Silverstein simply meant to "pull" or evacuate the firefighters out of the building, yet in the same documentary explosives experts are seen demolishing the remnants of other buildings in the ground zero area and repeatedly use the industry term "pull" to describe a controlled demolition.

In addition, there were no firefighters in WTC 7 to "pull" in the first place.

Dr. Shyam Sunder, of the National Institutes of Standards and Technology (NIST), which investigated the collapse of WTC 7, is quoted in Popular Mechanics (9/11: Debunking the Myths, March, 2005) as saying: "There was no firefighting in WTC 7."

The FEMA report on the collapses, from May, 2002, also says about the WTC 7 collapse: "no manual firefighting operations were taken by FDNY."

And an article by James Glanz in the New York Times on November 29, 2001 says about WTC 7: "By 11:30 a.m., the fire commander in charge of that area, Assistant Chief Frank Fellini, ordered firefighters away from it for safety reasons."

Photo and video evidence of the collapse of Building 7 shows classic indications of a controlled demolition. The standard 'crimp' in the center-left top of the building and the subsequent 'squibs' of smoke as it collapses clearly represent explosive demolition.

Even Dan Rather, commenting on the collapse for CBS News said that the collapse was, "reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”

The EMT worker agrees, stating, "There were bright flashes up and down the sides of Building 7, you could see them through the windows...and it collapsed. We all knew it was intentionally pulled... they told us!"

In February of 2002 Silverstein Properties won $861 million from Industrial Risk Insurers to rebuild on the site of WTC 7. Silverstein Properties' estimated investment in WTC 7 was $386 million. This building's collapse alone resulted in a profit of about $500 million.

Due to the many unanswered questions surrounding Building 7, The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) was forced to include in its probe into Building 7 the theory of, "Whether hypothetical blast events could have played a role in initiating the collapse."

Following the attacks, Mike made a sustained effort to inform the relevant authorities of what he saw, including the FDNY, the NYPD, newspapers and television networks. In every case he was told to "shut up", "forget about it", or "let it go, for my own good."

Initially praised as heroes, when Mike and his colleague tried to to alert their EMT Coordinator In Charge of what they had witnessed, they were brought up on charges of disorderly conduct, fired, and fined for damaged uniforms and equipment they had used on 9/11. Two other colleagues who witnessed the same events now refuse to even acknowledge they were at ground zero for fear of reprisals.

The astounding testimony of this brave EMT only adds further credence to the already overwhelming case for controlled demolition of both the twin towers and Building 7. We implore this individual to go public with his full name in the interests of his own safety. It is far more secure to blow the whistle out in the light than to remain in the shadows and become another victim of those who wish to see 9/11 truth buried.


I see. So one single anonymous eyewitness comes forward with this story, and implies that "numerous authorities" were in on the conspiracy (without naming anyone) and this seems credible to you? I'm sorry but this is remarkably weak "evidence".

[Bronco Bob]

In his enthralling testimony, the EMT goes into graphic detail of how he and others personally witnessed a plethora of explosions at all points of the buildings before their collapse.

"There were explosions. There were flashes. There was molten metal running down the I-beams of the basement levels like lava flows. I've never seen anything like it. Yes, planes hit the buildings - anybody who says otherwise is a moron. But the explosions - the rapid, symmetrical, sequential explosions - they happened," states 'Mike'.

He explains how he and others were in the basement of one of the towers helping injured victims when he saw "One of the huge steel and concrete support pillars with an 8 foot section blown out of the center of it." Looking around, Mike saw other support columns that were in the same condition, prompting rescue personal to ask "how could someone have rigged all these explosives?"




This makes no sense. If the support pillars in the basement
were exploded the building would collapse from the bottom up.
In other words the bottom of the building would blow out and
the rest of the building would collapse down onto the missing bottom.
But from all the pictures I have seen of the WTC collapse the bottom
remained intact as the top of the building collapsed downward.
Explain how an explosion big enough to destroy the pillars in the
basement would leave the bottom of the building intact until the
top of the building collapsed on it.

[mhgaffney]

This makes no sense. If the support pillars in the basement
were exploded the building would collapse from the bottom up.
In other words the bottom of the building would blow out and
the rest of the building would collapse down onto the missing bottom.
But from all the pictures I have seen of the WTC collapse the bottom
remained intact as the top of the building collapsed downward.
Explain how an explosion big enough to destroy the pillars in the
basement would leave the bottom of the building intact until the
top of the building collapsed on it.

No No.

The purpose of these explosions was not to bring the tower down but to weaken the building. This was very well planned. The explosions began in WTC 1 even before the first plane hit. The explosions went on and on -- set up in sequence -- to weaken the building.

These were very very tough strong well built towers. So you needed multiple explosions scattered all through the building -- to bring the building to the point of near collapse.

The eyewitnesss testimony of many EMTs, firemen, police, and others etc supports this scenario.

Then you set off the planted charges up top -- all at once -- in series --at the floor of your choice -- to initial the collapse.

This was a computer programmed sequence of explosions from start to end. A push of a button.

[mhgaffney]

Well, briefly, what other evidence exists?

Get Danser's book! I just finished reading it. It's a brilliant study. Full of evidence. On and on. Also very readable.

It's unconsionable that this scandal broke in 1990 -- 17 years ago -- yet has not been reported yet in the US press.

It shows we do not have a free press -- but a press that's owned by a very few corporations that don't give a damn about the truth.

The book is expensive. If it's too rich for your budget -- get it via interlibrary loan -- like I did. That might cost you a buck.

here's the poop.

NATO's Top Secret Stay-Behind Armies and Terrorism in Western Europe (Contemporary Security Studies (Paperback)
by Daniele Ganser

Paperback: 336 pages
Publisher: Frank Cass; 1 edition (April 8, 2005)
Language: English
ISBN-10: 0714685003
ISBN-13: 978-0714685007
Product Dimensions: 8.9 x 6.1 x 0.8 inches
Shipping Weight: 1.15 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
Average Customer Review: 5 stars -- based on 3 reviews.

[W*GS]

These were very very tough strong well built towers. So you needed multiple explosions scattered all through the building -- to bring the building to the point of near collapse.

Please explain how the necessary charges for "multiple explosions scattered all through the building" were never noticed by any of the tens of thousands of people who were in the towers daily.

You've given up your red-mercury-powered pure-fusion mini-nuke whackitude, eh?