Archive for Friday, September 11, 2009
Freiberger: Remembering 9/11
Advertisement
Steamboat Springs — Should we remember or try to forget? Eight years have closed over much of the physical rubble that terrorists left behind. The salve of forgetting has soothed our scars, dried our tears, quieted our fears. Why restart the pain?
And yet that concrete cavern in south Manhattan where two towers once stood, the grass-covered Pennsylvania meadow where brave men crashed their plane, those 184 smooth and silent benches in Virginia draw us like magnets, pull us backward in time to remember.
That day's wound went deep, not the clean cut of a surgeon's scalpel, easily stitched and easily healed, but rather like the tearing of flesh by a rusted saw, ragged, gaping and dirty.
Those who have experienced the death of someone loved and cherished know about the importance of what is left behind. Even in the easiest of passings into whatever lies beyond, the one who remains suffers from the absence of what had been before, with a friend, a partner, a parent or a child. Death brought on by unexpected trauma can bring despair that far exceeds the worst of physical pain. Worse, however, than such anguish as that would be the emptiness that remains when memory no longer exists, that blank spot which erases a person's presence, as when Alzheimer's takes over the body.
Living beings grow and develop together. One individual's reaction touches the other, building as time passes into an encrusted seam between them. The older and more layered the connection, the greater the pain upon separation. The more abrupt the wrenching apart, the stronger is the need for some kind of salve. Remembrance can bring solace but only when, and not until, the wound is cleansed of ugliness.
Remember or forget?
Reshaping memories into something that is clean and good becomes the task at hand. Holding onto what is left will honor the men, the women and the children who died on Sept. 11, 2001. For most of us, there was little or no personal relationship with the people who rode elevators to their offices that morning or with the firemen who answered their call to duty and climbed the steps to help evacuate the workers. We didn't know the 3-year-old girl whose name is the first we come to as we step across a line etched into the stone of the Pentagon Memorial. Nor had we met the man who quietly spoke the words aboard a plan, "Let's roll."
Nevertheless, to the terrorists who killed them, they represented all the rest of us, the Americans who love and enjoy freedom every day. We are what haters of that freedom sought to kill. We are part of what is left of them. We join their parents, childre, friends and the relations of relations, in an increasingly widening circle as reverberations of their absence spread from family to family, state to state, country to country. They are ours.
We keep them by sustaining the memory of who and what they were. We deflect the evil that caused their deaths by using it to bring about a renewal of the common bond that unites all Americans in something very, very good - the idea of a government that accepts majority rule while respecting the right of every individual within its jurisdiction to be the person he or she chooses to be. The monument we can build is the continuance of that idea.
We are the link to the future that would have been theirs. We owe them a future that will guarantee the freedom they enjoyed to descendants of the world they knew. Sept. 11, 2001. We must remember.
Comments
sun (kathy foos) says...
Band mama,or my shrink?I guess you are a little slow so I will point out that (Diddy is definatly not a word).I may misspell but at least my words are real ,you are so funny.
October 16, 2009 at 7:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jk (anonymous) says...
Sun, put the shovel away from this hole you are digging yourself, spell it right " ditty" and try looking it up again.
October 16, 2009 at 9:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
See also this - http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/...
September 26, 2009 at 6:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
O.K. JLM, you just believe whatever you want to believe, the sensible ones here can see the truth of the matter. All of your questions are answered in the new pentagon investigation videos I posted above, please watch them before you continue your wild rantings.
No-one is saying that there wasn't a commercial airliner flying by. It's in the videos, please check them out and get back to me, if you like. pay attention and listen to what the videos tell you. You may learn something.
September 13, 2009 at 12:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
The truth hurts, doesn't it, Sep?
We still don't know who murdered all of those wonderful people.
September 11, 2009 at 11:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Interview with Lloyd England, the taxi driver.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kzq38f...
September 12, 2009 at 11:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Kevin_Nerney (Kevin Nerney) says...
Harriet, You've done it again. You always seem to find the handle to the faucet. Thanks for all you do. See you and all the others at the Botanical Gardens later this afternoon.
September 11, 2009 at 9:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
This is an excerpt of Charlie Sheen's "20 minutes with the president"
Please keep in mind Mr. President everything I'm about to say is documented as fact and part of the public record. The information you are holding in your hands chronicles and verifies each and every point.
Okay, first; On the FBI's most wanted list Osama Bin Laden is not charged with the crimes of 911. When I called the FBI to ask them why this was the case, they replied: "There's not enough evidence to link Bin Laden to the crime scene," I later discovered he had never even been indicted by the D.O.J.
CS Number 2; FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, was dismissed and gagged by the D.O.J. after she revealed that the government had foreknowledge of plans to attack American cities using planes as bombs as early as April 2001. In July of '09, Mrs. Edmonds broke the Federal gag order and went public to reveal that Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda and the Taliban were all working for and with the C.I.A. up until the day of 9/11.
CS Number 3; The following is a quote from Mayor Giuliani during an interview on 9/11 with Peter Jennings for ABC News. "I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us."
WHO TOLD HIM THIS??? To this day, the answer to this question remains unanswered, completely ignored and emphatically DENIED by Mayor Giuliani on several public occasions.
CS Number 4; In April 2004, USA Today reported, "In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties." One of the targets was the World Trade Center.
CS Number 5; On September 12th 2007, CNN's 'Anderson Cooper 360', reported that the mysterious "white plane" spotted and videotaped by multiple media outlets, flying in restricted airspace over the White House shortly before 10am on the morning of 9/11, was in fact the Air Force's E-4B, a specially modified Boeing 747 with a communications pod behind the cockpit; otherwise known as "The Doomsday Plane".
Though fully aware of the event, the 9/11 Commission did not deem the appearance of the military plane to be of any interest and did not include it in the final 9/11 Commission report.
September 11, 2009 at 11:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
Nice piece Harriet, thank you for the positive vibes on this day of remembrance.
The fight against the anti US forces who post here will resume tomorrow.
September 11, 2009 at 10:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
RobDouglas (Rob Douglas) says...
Harriet:
Thank you for a beautifully written piece that illuminates exactly how most Americans feel.
For many of us, the wounds are indeed still deep and the memories fresh - and they always will be.
We will never forget.
Thank you again.
September 11, 2009 at 10:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
wyprof (anonymous) says...
Thanks again to Harriet for keeping the torch burning, and keeping the focus on what this is all about: the people. The people who paid the ultimate sacrifice that day. The families and friends who are left behind to honor their memories. The former community gatherings, office pools, coworkers, etc.
And - the rest of us, who are left behind to ensure our support, respect and honor, in our own ways.
September 11, 2009 at 11:05 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
CS Number 6; Three F-16s assigned to Andrews Air Force Base, ten miles from Washington, DC, are conducting training exercises in North Carolina 207 miles away as the first plane crashes into the WTC. Even at significantly less than their top speed of 1500 mph, they could still have defended the skies over Washington well before 9am, more than 37 minutes before Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon, however, they did not return until after 9:55am.
Andrews AFB had no armed fighters on alert and ready to take off on the morning of 9/11.
CS Number 7; WTC Building 7. Watch the video of its collapse.
CS Number 8; Flight 93 is fourth plane to crash on 9/11 at 10:03am. V.P. Cheney only gives shoot down order at 10:10-10:20am and this is not communicated to NORAD until 28 minutes after Flight 93 has crashed.
Fueling further suspicion on this front is the fact that three months before the attacks of 9/11, Dick Cheney usurped control of NORAD, and therefore he, and no one else on planet Earth, had the power to call for military sorties on the hijacked airliners on 9/11. He did not exercise that power. Three months after 9/11, he relinquished command of NORAD and returned it to military operation.
CS Number 9; Scores of main stream news outlets reported that the F.B.I. conducted an investigation of at least FIVE of the 9/11 hijackers being trained at U.S. military flight schools. Those investigations are now sealed and need to be declassified.
CS Number 10; In 2004, New York firefighters Mike Bellone and Nicholas DeMasi went public to say they had found the black boxes at the World Trade Center, but were told to keep their mouths shut by FBI agents. Nicholas DeMasi said that he escorted federal agents on an all-terrain vehicle in October 2001 and helped them locate the devices, a story backed up by rescue volunteer Mike Bellone.
As the Philadelphia Daily News reported at the time, "Their story raises the question of whether there was a some type of cover-up at Ground Zero."
CS Number 11 Hundreds of eye witnesses including first responders, fire captains, news reporters, and police, all described multiple explosions in both towers before and during the collapse.
CS Number 12; An astounding video uncovered from the archives shows BBC News correspondent Jane Standley reporting on the collapse of WTC Building 7 over twenty minutes before it fell at 5:20pm on the afternoon of 9/11. Tapes from earlier BBC broadcasts show news anchors discussing the collapse of WTC 7 a full 26 minutes in advance. The BBC at first claimed that their tapes from 9/11 had been "lost" before admitting that they made the "error" of reporting the collapse of WTC 7 before it happened without adequately explaining how they could have obtained advance knowledge of the event.
In addition, over an hour before the collapse of WTC 7, at 4:10pm, CNN's Aaron Brown reported that the building "has either collapsed, or is collapsing."
September 11, 2009 at noon ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
CS Number 13; Solicitor General Ted Olson's claim that his wife Barbara Olsen called him twice from Flight 77, describing hijackers with box cutters, was a central plank of the official 9/11 story.
However, the credibility of the story was completely undermined after Olsen kept changing his story about whether his wife used her cell phone or the airplane phone. The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004. American Airlines confirmed that Flight 77 was a Boeing 757 and that this plane did not have airplane phones on board.
According to the FBI, Barbara Olsen attempted to call her husband only once and the call failed to connect, therefore Olsen must have been lying when he claimed he had spoken to his wife from Flight 77.
CS Number 14; The size of a Boeing 757 is approximately 125ft in width and yet images of the impact zone at the Pentagon supposedly caused by the crash merely show a hole no more than 16ft in diameter. The engines of the 757 would have punctured a hole bigger than this, never mind the whole plane. Images before the partial collapse of the impact zone show little real impact damage and a sparse debris field completely inconsistent with the crash of a large jetliner, especially when contrasted with other images showing airplane crashes into buildings.
CS Number 15; What is the meaning behind the following quote attributed to Dick Cheney which came to light during the 9/11 Commission hearings? The passage is taken from testimony given by then Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta.
During the time that the airplane was coming in to the Pentagon, there was a young man who would come in and say 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?"
As the plane was not shot down, in addition to the fact that armed fighter jets were nowhere near the plane and the Pentagon defensive system was not activated, are we to take it that the orders were to let the plane find its target?
CS Number 16; In May 2003, the Miami Herald reported how the Bush administration was refusing to release a 900-page congressional report on 9/11 because it wanted to "avoid enshrining embarrassing details in the report," particularly regarding pre-9/11 warnings as well as the fact that the hijackers were trained at U.S. flight schools.
CS Number 17; Top Pentagon officials cancelled their scheduled flights for September 11th on September 10th. San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown, following a security warning, cancelled a flight into New York that was scheduled for the morning of 9/11.
September 11, 2009 at 12:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
CS Number 18; The technology to enable cell phone calls from high-altitude airline flights was not created until 2004, and even by that point it was only in the trial phase. Calls from cell phones which formed an integral part of the official government version of events were technologically impossible at the time.
CS Number 19: On April 29, 2004, President Bush and V.P. Cheney would only meet with the commission under specific clandestine conditions. They insisted on testifying together and not under oath. They also demanded that their testimony be treated as a matter of "state secret." To date, nothing they spoke of that day exists in the public domain.
CS And finally Mr. President Number 20; A few days after the attack, several newspapers as well as the FBI reported that a paper passport had been found in the ruins of the WTC. In August 2004, CNN reported that 9/11 hijacker Ziad Jarrah's visa was found in the remains of Flight 93 which went down in Shanksville, Pennsylvania.
At least a third of the WTC victim's bodies were vaporized and many of the victims of the Pentagon incident were burned beyond recognition. And yet visas and paper passports which identify the perpetrators and back up the official version of events miraculously survive explosions and fires that we are told melted steel buildings.
(The Senior aide appears again beside the President whispering in his ear. He then quickly moves off).
PBO Well Charlie I can't say this hasn't been interesting. As I said earlier you've showed up today focused and organized. Regardless how I feel about the material you've presented, I must commend your dedication and zeal. However, our time here is up.
(the President rises from his chair , I do the same).
CS Mr. President! One more second!
(The President starts towards the door I follow him quickly step for step).
CS Mr. President, I implore you based on the evidence you now possess, to use your Executive Power. Prove to us all Sir, that you do, in fact, care. Create a truly comprehensive and open Congressional investigation of 9/11 and its aftermath. The families deserve the truth, the American people and the rest of the free world deserve the truth. Mr. President -
please disregard these facts as fantasy and ignore the truth for as long as you can.
September 11, 2009 at 12:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Senator Max Cleland, who resigned from the 9/11 Commission after calling it a "national scandal", stated in a 2003 PBS interview,
"I'm saying that's deliberate. I am saying that the delay in relating this information to the American public out of a hearing: series of hearings, that several members of Congress knew eight or ten months ago, including Bob Graham and others, that was deliberately slow walked: the 9/11 Commission was deliberately slow walked, because the Administration's policy was, and its priority was, we're gonna take Saddam Hussein out."
Cleland, speaking with Democracy Now, said,
"One of these days we will have to get the full story because the 9-11 issue is so important to America. But this White House wants to cover it up".
In 2006 the Washington Post reported that several members of the 9/11 Commission suspected deception on part of the Pentagon. As reported,
"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."
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerry also has unanswered questions. As reported by Salon, he believes that there are legitimate reasons to believe an alternative version to the official story.
"There are ample reasons to suspect that there may be some alternative to what we outlined in our version," Kerrey said. The commission had limited time and limited resources to pursue its investigation, and its access to key documents and witnesses was fettered by the administration.
Commissioner Tim Roemer, speaking to CNN, stated that Commission members were considering a criminal probe of false statements. As quoted,
"We were extremely frustrated with the false statements we were getting," Roemer told CNN. "We were not sure of the intent, whether it was to deceive the commission or merely part of the fumbling bureaucracy."
September 11, 2009 at 4:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Here is an article by James Corbett of Corbettreport.com
Mr. Corbett does a live radio show every sunday for an hour, it is a very good show. He also has an abundance of archived information there.
9/11 Truth cannot be stopped.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911-truth...
September 11, 2009 at 4:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sep (Sep (Brian Kotowski) says...
StopTheBrutalChemtrails:
It's not too late, but time is running out - get yours now!!!!
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/
September 11, 2009 at 5:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lrubidoux (Lisa Rubidoux) says...
Harriett,
Thank you for all your efforts to bring us together on 9/11.
Never forget Captain Chic Burlingame/Flight 77
Lisa Rubidoux
Retired American Airlines
September 11, 2009 at 6:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mavis (anonymous) says...
SO if every student is watching the speech next week where is the outcry and demand for some 9/11 education and exposure into the curriculum?
Parents should be outraged at the ignoring factor that has surrounded today. Why are children not being explained the signifacance of today? What was done in Steamboat schools to teach the respect and gratitude service members and others deserve?
NOTHING -- and that is why the youth of today are ignoring the problems of yesterday
September 11, 2009 at 10:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
See if you can figure out who Lloyde England's wife is.
September 12, 2009 at 11:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
For the mentally challenged that follow the prostitute chasing actors on drugs, here is a well done in depth video to help bring you back from your hyperspace lunar voyages.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...
WARNING! Limited use of popcorn during viewing is suggested due to possibility of simultaneous combustion which could lead to further ridiculously stupid conspiracy theories from other planets.
Beware of chemicals from the sky as they also may increase ones vulnerability to crazy people spreading proven lies about who perpetrated the 9/11 attacks.
September 12, 2009 at 8:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
Just in case anyone has any doubts about the 9/12 Tea Party movement today here is the live cameras from the DC Capitol Hill area.
http://www.trafficland.com/city/WAS/c...
September 12, 2009 at 8:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
You certainly can't attack the facts, so you attack the messenger, classic.
I used to think like most of the folks on here, too. I would see those 911 videos on youtube and go the other direction, then one day I was very bored and decided that I would watch one of those treasonous 911 videos to see what kind of garbage those nutty conspiracy theorists were latching onto. After I watched the first video, I had to watch another because it was so well done and full of facts. Then I spent the next three years thoroughly researching the topic. You decide, watch some of the videos about the towers and the pentagon and the pennsylvania crash site, but don't watch them because you believe in them, watch them to see just what they are saying, if you don't like what you see, you don't have to believe it, you can just use that information to further debunk it if that's what you feel. But please at least watch some of these videos, because if the conspiracy theorists are correct, then there is a problem in this country, a big problem.
Don't watch this video, it will make you into a foil hat wearing fool, haha,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYwGac...
September 12, 2009 at 10:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
I was on the scene of the Pentagon attack, I lived in Arlington,VA on 9/11.
I saw the damage to the Building, a friend of mine was dropping his wife off at work and was on 395 on the edge of the Pentagon parking lot and witnessed the plane fly over the cars ahead of him and into the Pentagon. He described to me the light pole that he saw hit the cab in front of him.
My cousin had a lifelong schoolmate that was on flight 77 who perished and left a young wife and kids.
I was looking at new jeeps several days later at the dealer on Columbia Pike in Arlington and the salesman described the huge noise and vibration of the aircraft as it flew down that corridor towards the Pentagon at low altitude and high speed.
You are asking me to ignore all that and more in order to join a group of Bush haters who started this load of propaganda which has been debunked by so many people so many times that it is now a waste of time.
I feel sorry for you in that you have been manipulated to believe this pile of $#it.
Again, I am an eyewitness to the scene just hours after the attack and know others who saw the plane go into the Pentagon so party on bro.
September 12, 2009 at 11:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
NamVet (anonymous) says...
What I have not understood about the events leading up to the 9/11 attack was when Pres. Bush received the intelligence briefing on 8/9/2001 that said "BinLaden planning major attack using hyjacked aircraft". What did he do about it? He went on vacation. Two weeks later the FBI sent the Texas White House a memo stating Arabs where taking flying lessons but were not interested in takeoffs and landings. What did he do? Stay on vacation. I truly doubt that if John McCain had not been character assasinated by Rove, Limbaugh, Hannity etc. in the Republican primary in 2000 and had become President instead of Bush he would have gone on vacation. I believe he would have not slept until he found out when and where this was going to happen and just maybe it would have been stopped. When you add in the fact that Pearl, Wolfowitz and Cheney where planning the invasion of Iraq even before they took office and 9/11 was used as a justification to invade it makes you wonder what could have been different and where our country would be today had McCain not Bush had been elected. I doubt that our country would be in the mess it is today and Obama would not be in the White House.
September 12, 2009 at 11:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Architects and engineers for 9/11 truth.
KBDI TV Denver - 9/11: Blueprint for Truth World Premiere TV Broadcast
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/82
September 12, 2009 at 11:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Lies are easy to debunk, try debunking the truth, you will not be able to do it.
September 12, 2009 at 11:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Seeuski, did you see the hole in the side of the pentagon? Did you see that it was only 16 feet wide? How wide is a commercial airliner?
September 12, 2009 at 12:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
This little beauty is about the right size to fit in the hole at the pentagon.
Ever heard of a global hawk?
Looks just like a commercial airliner, doesn't it?
http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploa...
September 12, 2009 at 12:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
The only hole that I see here is the hole in your head.
Losers!!!
I was there and that is that.
Debunk that liars.
September 12, 2009 at 12:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
Mr. Namvet,
The plans to attack Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein were put in motion under the Presidency of Bill Clinton.
Have a nice day.
September 12, 2009 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
Just to remind those least they forget who our enemy was while Clinton was President.
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
September 12, 2009 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Building 7 didn't just blow itself up.
A spherical fruit that is orange in color is called a banana, right?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zv7BIm...
September 12, 2009 at 12:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
The people that are connected with the attacks in one way or another are emotionally attached to the incident. You can only be objective about the evidence if you are not emotionally attached to the incident.
September 12, 2009 at 12:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
If you can't win an argument you should turn to personal insults as quickly as possible, that will help your case.
September 12, 2009 at 12:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLM (anonymous) says...
How about just a smidgen of thoughtful reasoning about that 16' wide Pentagon airplane hole?
First, the Pentagon is the largest office building in the world and it has one hell of a parking lot. It operates 24/7 and is home to the US Freakin' Air Force.
When the plane which flew over the parking lots, it was positively identified by tail number by Air Force officers, non-coms and enlisted men who were perfectly knowledgeable about aircraft types.
The plane's tail number is unique and is assigned to a single plane in the entire US fleet.
There is absolutely no controversy that the plane which flew into the Pentagon was not the plane which bore that tail number and was the commercial airliner it is reported to be.
Come on, crazies. Get real!
Four planes came up missing and four crashes were identified. It is not a conspiracy. Have a nice damn day!
Maybe there is a 16' hole in your head?
September 12, 2009 at 12:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
charliecigar (anonymous) says...
You say you were there?
YOU LIE!!
Above you stated your friend was dropping off his wife at work and witnessed the plane fly over. This sounds like "hearsay". Hearsay is information gathered by Person A from Person B concerning some event, condition, or thing of which Person A had no direct experience.
I have a friend that says he has seen alien aircraft before so I must inform you that all UFO sightings are for real.
September 12, 2009 at 12:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
I lived in Steamboat Springs when the Bad News Building blew up, in fact a friend of mine was walking by when it happened and witnessed the explosion, but I am not going to claim that I know what caused the gas to leak into the building.
September 12, 2009 at 12:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
The jet engines on the commercial airliner that supposedly hit the pentagon are made from a single titanium crystal, they do not vaporize, why was the only engine found on the scene the exact type that is used in a global hawk?
September 12, 2009 at 1:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
"When the plane which flew over the parking lots, it was positively identified by tail number by Air Force officers, non-coms and enlisted men who were perfectly knowledgeable about aircraft types."
Can you give me the name of at least one of these officers?
Did anybody find out who Loyde England's wife is, yet? LOL
September 12, 2009 at 1:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Four planes attack the U.S. and you think it is not a conspiracy???
You may want to look up the definition of the word 'conspiracy'.
September 12, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
I erased what I was about to send in response to the above stupid posts in place of the faces of those who perished on flight 77.
I believe the continuance of this rather ugly path of discussion can only lead to something that we in Steamboat should avoid, physical conflict.
So in memory of the real victims of 9/11 I will start with the man my cousin new from childhood.
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/91...
The rest of the souls who perished on flight 77.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2...
May they rest in peace free from the sins of human weakness and fault that remain.
September 12, 2009 at 1:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
That's a great way to avoid losing an argument.
September 12, 2009 at 1:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
That's right, if you can't prove your point, resort to physical conflict. LOL
September 12, 2009 at 1:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
physical conflict won't change the facts at all.
September 12, 2009 at 1:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
You don't even know the name of the town you live in, it's called Steamboat Springs, but feel free to go back to where you came from any time now.
September 12, 2009 at 1:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
NamVet (anonymous) says...
Pearle, Wolfowitz, Cheney and the rest of the Neocons did not work for Bill Clinton. They all worked for Bush and were pressuring him to take out Sadam from day one. Clinton had no intention whatsoever to invade Iraq because he was totally contained. Sadam was an evil man and the world is full of them but no threat at all to the USA. There are numerous books out there that will tell you in detail why Bush invaded and 9/11 was not the reason only the excuse. Re-read Bush's 2003 State of the Union address which is full of falsehoods about Sadam buying nuclear materials from Africa that the CIA told him not to use in his speech because it was not true. The same is true of Cheney who finally admitted Sadam had nothing to do with 9/11 this year. This goes along with the other whoppers from him like the Iraqi oil revenues would pay for the war, he is just $1 trillion short of that estimate. I truly doubt this country will ever fully recover from your idol, Mr. Bush in our lifetime.
September 12, 2009 at 3:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
knee_dropper (anonymous) says...
There's nothing as entertaining as a tiff between two competing 9/11 conspiracy theorists. Reminds me of 3rd grade school yard arguments; I'd bet no matter what kind of evidence was presented to either of you it wouldn't make a damn difference either way. You two ought to start a thread in the forums to duke it out until you figure it out.
September 12, 2009 at 3:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
The New 9/11 Pentagon Investigation
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list...
September 12, 2009 at 3:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
I'm open to reviewing evidence in an objective manner. I haven't seen any evidence that opposes the "conspiracy theorists" on here yet, but If I ever do it would certainly make a difference. I, on the other hand, have linked to quite a bit of evidence for you to objectively review.
September 12, 2009 at 3:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Ever heard of Barry Jennings?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRaKHq...
September 12, 2009 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
911 Commission Report Objective Review (Part 1 of 3)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGzP_Z...
September 12, 2009 at 6:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes
How did the U.S. Air Force respond on 9/11?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/...
September 12, 2009 at 6:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Lt. Col. Bob Bowman: "Who Were the [9/11] Conspirators?"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6Ls6s...
September 12, 2009 at 7:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLM (anonymous) says...
Brutal Chems ---
Give it a rest, the lobotomy scars are starting to show. Pure utter nonsense and you are embarassing all the other conspiracy loons. You're sucking up all their oxygen. Be fair, you had a good run and well, you showed them that crazy is OK.
Really, dude, you are getting a bit scary now.
The Pentagon parking lot is not like the Safeway parking lot late at night where stuff jumps out of the shadows. This is a place w/ armed guards and guys who know stuff about airplanes and such. It was broad, freakin' daylight. It was clear outside. They were tracking the airplane on radar and knew where it was going. There is no surprise here.
American Airlines knew it was missing a few airplanes. American Airlines later called in and said four planes did not make it home that day. A real tragedy and you should respect the seriousness and reverence of that situation. Real people lost their lives. Have some respect.
Gotta go, have to check with Charlie Freakin' Sheen about the Fed. LOL
Really, get some help. You deserve it. Everybody likes you. You're OK. This stuff --- pretty damn wacky, my friend.
September 12, 2009 at 7:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Eye witness Identifies a Global Hawk
"Christopher Bollyn, American Free Press, reports:
Samuel Danner (electrical engineer for AmTrak), was involved in the clean-up at the Pentagon crash site and inspected the debris at the site. He said, "It was not a Boeing 757 that hit the Pentagon. The plane looked like a hump-back whale." He thinks a Global Hawk hit the Pentagon. (There were only seven made as of 9/11/01 and two were missing at the time.)
Danner is a former pilot. He said the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was very quiet with one engine near the back. He also saw a second plane overhead and wonders if it was controlling the plane that hit the Pentagon. He walked the lawn and picked up small pieces of debris with others. He did not see any bodies from the aircraft.
Danner is very ill now with lymphoma, which may be the result of DU exposure at the Pentagon on 9/11. He wants to talk now (after seeing "Loose Change") because "it's been bugging me."
The Global Hawk fired a DU missile that penetrated the thick concrete wall of the Pentagon. DU was detected at the time and workers on the sYep, this 53-yr old Sam Danner, a pilot since the age of 16, was a first-hand observer of the crash. He pulled his car over to the south of the pentagon on the right side of 395 when he saw the approach of the plane that hit the pentagon.
He also observed a bunch of guys outside the pentagon standing there looking through binoculars.
He got a good view of the plane's approach, for a duration of at least three seconds. He says that the plane was not a 757, no way. "It was like a humpback whale" he says. Size of a gulfstream 300, about 100 ft wingspan, one engine on the backside with a "V" tail and no windows he could see. And it was very quiet. Going about 400mph. Overhead, at an estimated 15,000 feet he saw another plane.
As an EMT, he ran over to help at the pentagon, but found no bodies, no wreckage from a boeing aircraft on the scene. He smelled cordite and he saw a 3-foot single engine on the ground there. He picked up graphite pieces similar to the composite wings on a global hawk.
This engine matches the description of the single engine of a globalhawk. The globalhawk is a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle) but could not have caused the damage if it wasn't containing a bunker-busting missle deployed on impact. The plane observed overhead might have been the plane controlling the remotely-controlled mission.
If a 757 had crashed into the pentagon, then there would have been aluminum all over the grass and two 9-foot diameter engines.
September 12, 2009 at 8:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLM (anonymous) says...
Chems ---
You're embarasssssing yourself, dude. Let's try a pinch of reality.
Global Hawk (RQ4A/B version) --- 9200 lb empty weight, 2000 lb payload capacity, 14,500 lb fuel --- 162' wingspan, composite contruction, only carries 2 1000 lb hard attachment points. This is primarily an electronics and photo plane designed to glide along for 24 hours at 65,000' and take pictures.
The GH is a thin wing section glider type aircraft --- think thin, delicate and light --- which would not dent a marshmallow on impact. It weighs less than most light twin engine prop planes. It does not and it could not carry the kind of armament you have imagined and the type of armament you have described is simply way too heavy to be carried by the GH. This is just simple basic info.
Boeing 757 --- this sucker is 179' long, 45' tall and has a wing span of 125'. It has a max weight of 272,500 lb. It is a very big plane.
You are talking about the difference between an ant hill and Mr Werner.
You are being silly. Too many folks saw the actual plane to "mistake" a little 25,000 lb plane (giving full credit for the enormous fuel load) for a 272,500 lb plane. We are talking about a huge, huge, huge difference.
Try some makeup over the lobotomy scars next time. You are getting desperately scary with your fictionalized existence and manufactured "facts". Didn't happen. Couldn't have happened. Go to bed and sleep it off.
BTW, even a Gulfstream is bigger than a GH.
September 12, 2009 at 10:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
One easy question for the deficient minded,
Where did flight 77 terminate and where are the passengers, terrorists and crew that were on board?
September 13, 2009 at 9:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
That flight most likely terminated at Reagan National, which is one mile from the pentagon. Your guess is as good as mine as to what happened to the passengers after they landed, but they were never heard from again.
September 13, 2009 at 9:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
That concludes my argument folks.
September 13, 2009 at 9:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
One last point and I will say adios amigo,
Reagan National's runway is along side the Potomac River and the hike and bike path that trails along side the river and runs along the edges of the airport is a popular tourist spot and on a Monday morning would have had hundreds of bicycle commuters and small boaters entering and leaving the inlet to Columbia Island Marina which is directly adjacent to the Pentagon.
With all flights having been grounded that 757 landing would have been witnessed by everyone and would have come across as odd giving the circumstances of the morning.
So with that my friend you have hit the end of your fairy tale conspiracy.
Maybe you can come up with the answers to Elvis, Morrison and Kennedy for us.
Happy trails.
September 13, 2009 at 10:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
It is a common sight to see planes land at that airport, not many people would think it odd. There are a lot of odd things about this whole deception.
Scientific Analysis Proves Towers Brought Down By Incendiaries
Jun 20, 2006 ... Scientific analysis on WTC steel debris undertaken by BYU Professor Steven Jones proves that the twin towers were demolished by means of ...
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/june200...
Physicist Stephen Jones gives his presentation "Whats New in 9/11 Research" at the 9/11 Symposium in Weats Hartford CT. 11/03/07
Dr. Jones is a founding member of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice and The Journal of 9/11 Studies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMhl-S...
September 13, 2009 at 10:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Well, that was easy, anybody else want to play?
September 13, 2009 at 10:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLM (anonymous) says...
Just when one thought it safe to come out in the sunlight again, we get the latest missive from the Brute.
Of course, your wacky ranting overlooks the obvious tidbit of information that every plane in America has a transponder which provides a query and response radar signature which is used by air traffic control to identify its whereabouts. All this information is in the public domain and is easily trackable by anybody with a PC.
Hmmmm, I doubt anybody was looking for those pesky little transponder signatures on say, 9-11??? Huh?
You are one silly goose but I have to give you credit for your steadfast goofiness in the face of incontrovertible evidence.
Sure that little Volkswagen is an 18-wheeler.
Sure that little GH is a 757.
Sure, Brute. Heck, we all like you personally but your rant is just wacky. Get back on the meds, babe. LOL
Thanks for some real low level entertainment, dude.
September 13, 2009 at 10:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
Just one of many debunking's of the deranged America hating nuts.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...
September 13, 2009 at 11:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
fluoride is one of the most toxic substances on earth, on par with arsenic and lead.
It has no proven biological use inside the human body (teeth included).
There is no minimum daily requirement for fluoride. And second, it is a cumulative poison.
Only about half of what we consume is excreted. The other half collects in the teeth and bones, making them dense, but brittle.
Those little white spots visible on the teeth of many children are called dental fluorosis, a condition which not only predisposes them to decay, but also provides a sign that systemic fluoride poisoning is taking place.
Dental fluorosis appears to serve as a red flag for future bone fractures as well.
Fluoride was crucial to the H-bomb makers. It was needed to help process uranium; tons of it were needed.
During the mid-1940s the DuPont Corporation supplied the U. S. military's Manhattan Project with the fluoride it required.
There was a big problem, however. The area in New Jersey surrounding the DuPont plant was being contaminated by toxic fluoride emissions.
People were made ill, cattle and horses were crippled, and crops were either contaminated or completely wiped out.
In preparation for an impending court battle the Manhattan Project authorized the military to conduct its own fluoride studies.
Not only did they want information which would help diffuse the farmer's anger, but they also needed to know to what extent the fluoride workers were being damaged from fluoride exposure.
Some of the lab studies were performed at Strong Memorial Hospital, the same facility which injected toxic, radioactive plutonium into unsuspecting human guinea pigs.
Research from that time showed that fluoride had a negative impact on the central nervous system. This corroborates recent research showing the same thing--to the extent that the IQ's of children in fluoridated areas are lower than normal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MhYSKA...
September 13, 2009 at 3:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
A photo of flight 77 immediately after the pentagon strike.
http://how911wasdone.com/images/flyov...
September 13, 2009 at 4:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
The New York City medical examiner's office, using DNA analysis, has managed to identify slightly more than half of the 2,792 people killed in the attack on the WTC towers, and it is feared that the remains of as many as 1,000 victims may never be identified. Given the fire and collapse of the two towers, this is not surprising. What is surprising is the contrast between the DNA identification process in New York and the DNA identification process that took place with respect to the victims of the Pentagon crash. Again, there was an horrific crash and a terrible fire, but authorities report that they identified remains of 184 (or here) people who were aboard Flight 77 or inside the Pentagon, including those of the five hijackers, but could not match the other remains with any of five people who were also known to be on the flight. In fact, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology claims to have identified the remains of all but one of the passengers on Flight 77. If they achieve their goals, the New York investigators hope to achieve a 65% rate of identification. That is in a situation where many bodies were found intact as many of the victims died due to the collapse of the buildings and not due to fire. Identifying 184 out of 189 Pentagon victims is a 97% success rate in a case where we are to believe that heat was sufficient to vaporize the fuselage and engines of the plane, a vaporization needed to explain the almost complete absence of wreckage left behind of the plane, but not degrade the DNA of the passengers inside the plane. How do we reconcile a 50% rate of identification in New York, or 65% if they achieve their goals, with a 97% identification rate in Washington, especially where much of the DNA obtained in Washington had to be obtained from the area where the fuselage surrounding the passengers was before it was vaporized by the heat?
September 13, 2009 at 4:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLM (anonymous) says...
NYC --- 110 story building was demolished and collapsed creating a significantly larger pile of stuff to sift through. Hmmm???
Of course, it could be the flouride in their teeth.
September 13, 2009 at 8:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Remember, the 757 must fit into a hole the width of three windows, not the gaping hole from the later activities of the firemen. Note also that no damage to the building occurred at the points where the wings would have struck the outer wall....at over 400 mph. (A 737 would fit the damage profile better.) The fuel tanks would have increased the momentum of the wings creating a hammer-like blow to the facade. No evidence of that. Then how did all that aircraft squeeze into the relatively small hole in the Pentagon? Some hypothesize that the wings became crushed against the side of the fuselage and followed it into the hole. That still doesn't explain why no damage to the exterior of the Pentagon at the point of hypothetical wing impact. Besides, the fuel tanks inside the wings should have burst and most of the fuel exploded outside the building as the plane was extruded through that small hole. Once the tanks are ruptured in the extrusion, the fuel would be squeezed out. But no problem...Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld said, "...and the missile to damage this building..."
But let's hang in there for a bit and examine some of the other "evidence." There were a few bits of debris on the lawn that looked like they might be part of the skin of an American Airlines plane. One piece was quite near to a pickup truck which can be used for a comparison of dimensions. The letters on the debris would correspond with those on an American airliner except for one little detail. It is 1/2 to 1/3 the size. No match. Nice try.
The "something" that hit the Pentagon slammed through six walls before it left an exit hole approximately twelve feet across. Can you imagine something in an aluminum aircraft that could remain intact through six walls, multiple pillars and leave an exit wound so small. It can't be one of the engines because there is only one hole and the exit hole is consistent with the trajectory of the fuselage, not an outboard turbine. Besides, this is too near the opening and an engine would not have burned up in a fire in the open courtyard. The nose cone of the 757 is made of a very hard carbon compound that could not be expected to survive crashing through all that structure and still have enough momentum to blast a twelve foot hole in the heavy wall in the Pentagon. It's starting to seem as though Secretary Rumsfeld might be right!
September 13, 2009 at 8:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
"BROACH technology is innovative in that rather than simply using mass and speed to penetrate targets, as with conventional warheads, approximately 1/3 of the mass of the warhead is used for a large shaped charge. This "Augmenting Charge" detonates first, cleaving the target with a high speed plasma jet. A "Follow Through Bomb" then penetrates and detonates inside the target structure." See http://defence-data.com/paris99/pagep...
The AGM-86D Block II program is the Precision Strike variant of CALCM. It incorporates a penetrating warhead, updated state of the art, near-precision, GPS guidance, and a modified terminal area flight profile to maximize the effectiveness of the warhead. The penetrating warhead is augmented with two forward shape charges. To maximize the warheads effectiveness against hardened targets, the Block II will maneuver and dive onto its target in a near vertical orientation. The updated guidance system will increase the systems lethality by obtaining a less than 5 meter CEP. The Precision Strike variant of CALCM was successfully demonstrated in December 1996. A CALCM modified with a new precision GPS implementation flew for 4.5 hours, performed a newly developed steep terminal dive, and impacted the target within 2.5 meters of the aim point. The demonstration clearly showed that CALCM is capable of delivering it's warhead with precision accuracy from extremely long standoff ranges.
The BROACH multi-warhead system, also under evaluation for the the Joint Stand-off Weapon (JSOW), achieves its results by combining an initial penetrator charge (warhead) with a secondary follow-through bomb, supported by multi-event hard target fuzing. The outcome is a warhead and fuse combination that provides for the defeat of hardened targets more than twice that achievable for equivalent single penetrating warhead types, at an equivalent weight and velocity. See http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/usa/bom... Other facts indicate the presence of a hollow charge (or broach) bomb:
- plasma on photo of explosion
- white initial fireball
- punched out hole at 84 m from entry point in C ring wall
- a lady's body was found in the pentagon, sitting on her desk, her arms before her face as to protect. Seems to be a death provoked by an electrical shock like the one produced by strong plasma jets of hollow charges. (Thanks to JP Desmoulins communication.).
Another possible aircraft is an Global Hawk outfitted with a Broach hollow charge. At 350 kts it would be easy to confuse a missile laden Global Hawk with a passenger aircraft. The Mobile Microwave Landing System (MMLS), designated AN/TRN-45, is a portable, ground-based microwave transmitter that provides a mobile, precision approach and landing capability for MLS equipped aircraft.
September 13, 2009 at 9:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Listen to the Alex Jones Show here.
http://www.infowars.com/stream.pls
September 13, 2009 at 9:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
9/11 was a magic trick, an illusion. If you think the leaders of this country are incapable of perpetrating such a treasonous crime, you need to watch Terror Storm: Final Cut - Special Edition Re-Mixed + Re-Mastered This UPDATED AND EXPANDED edition has more than 17 minutes of explosive new documentation. This final cut of Terrorstorm is the definitive work exposing the history of government-sponsored terrorism.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CQ4oyV...
September 14, 2009 at 10:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
trafficman (anonymous) says...
On 9-11 I was on an 8:00 a.m. flight out of Boston Logan airport leaving out of Terminal B, same time and location as one of the planes hitting the WTC. While I was in the air, my wife, a colonel in the Air Force at the time, was working in the Pentagon, integrally involved with the highest levels of the Air Force. With the passengers unaware of what was occurring in NY, my flight landed at Regan National only minutes before the Pentagon was struck. As National airport was being evacuated I saw the plume of smoke rising from the Pentagon and heard from other passengers leaving the airport that the WTC had been hit. My wife was two sides removed from the impact area in the Pentagon so we were both extremely fortunate to have survived that day and we will NEVER forget what happened and who was responsible.
The factual errors that have been posted here supporting a conspiracy are too laughable and numerous to even comment upon. Where are all the passengers on Flight 77, hidden away in the desert along with the UFOs? Anyone who could actually believe a conspiracy of such magnitude could be executed involving so many different levels of government and could be kept secret this long must be totally deranged. You are in extreme need of mental help. To even consider that so many members of our military, who put their lives on the line each and every day to protect our freedom, including your ability to post absolute trash, would ever be involved in attacking and killing thousands of their countrymen is total lunacy.
Let us never forget those that perished that day, and those that have sacrificed their lives since then in fighting this global war on terror. While 9-11 brought it front and center we have been engaged in it long before and unfortunately we will need to stay engaged for the foreseeable future to protect our freedom.
September 14, 2009 at 11:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Former Airline Pilot Talks About The Doomsday Planes on 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RWOi1F...
September 14, 2009 at 12:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Kevin_Nerney (Kevin Nerney) says...
Let's just assume for a second (long enough) that Stop you're right. It will not bring back my 343 colleagues nor the 3000 others that perished that day. As Colin Powell used to say "Don't bring me problems bring me solutions." Now just stop and go fly a flag, and if the one you decide to fly doesn't have 50 stars and 13 stripes go get a one way ticket out. I hope that plane doesn't have an unfortunate run in with a tall building. As my mom used to say "If you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything".
September 14, 2009 at 12:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Flight 77 Passengers
We are told that there were 64 passengers were on board Flight 77. We count 59, including 6 crew members. We presume they mean 59 passengers and crew, plus 5 Hijackers Patsies. There is no Arab name on the list of victims as reported by the media
The odds against this being a random group of 53 American Airlines passengers are simply astronomical! There are more top secret security clearances here than in most medium-sized cities in America.
http://911review.org/Wiki/Flight77Pas...
September 14, 2009 at 12:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
You can't have a solution without first having a problem. Once we all figure out the problem, here, we can get on to searching for a solution.
September 14, 2009 at 12:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Hijackers Alive And Well
Shortly after the events of 9/11, the FBI released a list of the 19 hijackers. The [WWW] FBI press release of September 27th, 2001 contained names, photographs, aliases and other information. places of birth, date of birth and other personal details were presented in news media throughout the world.
Officials said they reached that conclusion after assembling information from the flights' passenger lists; pay telephone records; phoned reports from passengers aboard the hijacked flights and evidence taken from the rental car found at Logan Airport. [WWW] NYT
However as soon as the list of "hijackers" was published, doubts began to arise. Saudi Arabia's Foreign Minister Prince Saud Al-Faisal told the Arabic Press after meeting with President George W. Bush on Sept. 20th, "It was proved that five of the names included in the FBI list had nothing to do with what happened."
Despite this, the FBI subsequently were adamant that they were clear on hijackers' identities: ( [WWW] AP,11/03/2001)
FBI Director Robert Mueller said Friday investigators have established the true identities of all 19 of the Sept. 11 hijackers and have found places outside the United States where the plot was hatched. ...
We at this point definitely know the 19 hijackers who were responsible, Mueller said.
The FBI has confirmed that the hijackers' names released in late September are the true identities of all 19 men, said a law enforcement source, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The names were those listed on the planes' passenger manifests and investigators were certain that those were the names the hijackers used when they entered the United States. But questions remained about whether they were the hijackers' true identities, partly because some of their names are common in the Arab world and some of the hijackers fraudulently obtained State identification cards before the hijackings.
Investigators now believe the names released on Sept. 28 are the hijackers' real names.
Subsequently at least seven or eight of the WTC Hijackers have been found alive to be alive, including at least 2 of the alleged Flight77 hijackers.
http://911review.org/Wiki/HijackersAl...
September 14, 2009 at 1:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Would anyone like to actually debate the facts or are we just going to call each other names?
September 14, 2009 at 1:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Despite the protests of the victims' families as well as many scientists and engineers, Rudy Giuliani's administration worked hand in hand with the Bush Administration to immediately ship the 200 thousand tons of twisted, melted, demolished World Trade Center steel off to India and China to be recycled as scrap before anyone had a chance to do a forensic examination of it. This is not what normally happens to evidence in a crime scene, and is a clear indication of the Giuliani Administration and the Bush Administration's involvement in the crimes of 9/11
911 Truth: Rudy Giuliani & the Feds Destroyed WTC Evidence
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GxycV4...
September 15, 2009 at 2:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
An Appeal to Firefighters, Present and Past
Fellow Firefighters, A great tragedy befell our community on September 11, 2001, an unprecedented 343 deaths in the line of duty. As horrible as that toll is, if there were a rational explanation for it, we could accept it and mourn. We all understood the risk we accepted when we took the oath of office, that chance might cut short our lives when we placed ourselves in harm's way in the public's service. This is what we are paid for and it is our honor. However, in short, the official explanation of the events of that day are not only insufficient, they are fantastic and cannot bear rational examination. We are asked to believe that on that day three structural steel buildings, which have never before in history collapsed because of fire, fell neatly into their basements at the speed of gravity, their concrete reduced to dust. We are asked to believe that jet fuel (kerosene) can melt steel. We are asked to believe that the most sophisticated air defense system in the world, that responded to sixty-eight emergencies in the year prior to 9-11 in less than twenty minutes allowed aircraft to wander about for up to an hour and a half. We are asked to believe that the steel and titanium components of an aircraft that supposedly hit the Pentagon "evaporated". There is much, much more if anyone cares to look into it. Trade Tower #7 by itself is the "smoking gun". Not hit by an aircraft, with only a few relatively small fires, it came down in a classic crimp and implosion, going straight into its basement, something only very precise demolition can accomplish, which takes days if not weeks to prepare. The 9-11 Commission actually stated the they DIDN'T KNOW WHY IT COLLAPSED AND LEFT IT AT THAT. Brothers, I know that the implications of the above are hard, almost unthinkable, but the official explanation is utter nonsense, and three hundred and forty three murdered brothers are crying out for justice. Demand a genuine investigation into the events of September 11!
-Anton Vodvarka, Lt. FDNY (ret)
Lt. Vodvarka served on FDNY Ladder Co 26, Rescue Co. 3, Rescue Co. 1, Engine Co. 92, Ladder 82 and Ladder 101. He was awarded the Merit Class 1 award, the Prentice Medal.
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/
September 14, 2009 at 1:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Kevin, My mother says that you should have listened to your mother.
September 14, 2009 at 1:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lrubidoux (Lisa Rubidoux) says...
Captain Chic Burlingame was in command of flight 77 on 9/11.
He was my coworker.
These terrorists took 2 American Airlines jets and used them as weapons that horrific day.
September 14, 2009 at 4:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
If you're still not convinced there's more to it than we're being told, then ask yourself: if Tower 7 did come down due to fire, why didn't Tower 5? Tower 5 was much closer, had devastating structural damage from the Twin Tower collapses, and much more severe fires burning. But, it remained standing. So, did Tower 3,4, and 6. Look below. Do your own size-up. Our lives depend on the ability to guage when a building will collapse - test your skills.
http://www.youtube.com/v/41OCQvu7ULQ
September 15, 2009 at 2:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
trafficman (anonymous) says...
You can believe your sources I will believe the credible scientific and engineering experts such as this one from MIT http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/... and others from the American Society of Civil Engineers. The National Institute of Standards and Technology information also provides a fully peer reviewed logical explanation for the collapse of Towers 1 & 2 in this link. http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/f.... The final report for building 7 which evaluated the demolition theory also provides the credible and peer reviewed analysis of what actually caused the failure. http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTA.... There were definitely firsts with the collapse of Building 7 that not been witnessed before, however the scientific evidence still defeats any argument that it was a result of planted explosives and determines that heat related stress and differential failure ultimately brought the building down. All credible scientific and engineering organizations have supported these conclusions, regarding both the WTC collapse, and the impact on the Pentagon.
While hearsay, I will also believe the first hand accounts of clients I have known for years who work at the Virginia DOT Traffic Operations Center located on Columbia Pike 0.6 miles from the impact area of the Pentagon who happened to be standing in the parking lot when the American flight flew overhead at extremely low altitude heading towards the Pentagon. No flights into National airport ever follow this path or travel at this low of an altitude. I will also believe the photos of aircraft engine parts, landing gear, wheel drums, damage to facilities outside the Pentagon from impact of the wings and engines, DNA evidence of the victims of the crash, and the portion of the airplane fuselage strewn on the ground outside. But if the conspiracy theorists still want to believe in pure fiction, dream on keep and enjoying whatever substance brings you to this delusional state of mind.
September 14, 2009 at 6:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
LMAO - Keep dreaming, sucker.
Click here to see the summary of evidence that proves conclusively that 3 World Trade Center buildings should have been tested for "exotic accelerants." It also establishes the most probable cause of collapse on 9/11/2001 to be the result of controlled demolitions. It makes no attempt to determine why, or to imply by whom.
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/wp...
September 14, 2009 at 8:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
The people that are connected with the attacks in one way or another are emotionally attached to the incident. You can only be objective about the evidence if you detach yourself from the incident.
September 14, 2009 at 8:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
"Did investigators consider the possibility that an explosion caused or contributed to the collapse of WTC 7?
Yes, this possibility was investigated carefully. NIST concluded that blast events inside the building did not occur and found no evidence supporting the existence of a blast event.
In addition, no blast sounds were heard on the audio tracks of video recordings during the collapse of WTC 7 or reported by witnesses. According to calculations by the investigation team, the smallest blast capable of failing the building's critical column would have resulted in a sound level of 130 decibels (dB) to 140 dB at a distance of at least half a mile, if unobstructed by surrounding buildings. This sound level is consistent with a gunshot blast, standing next to a jet plane engine, and more than 10 times louder than being in front of the speakers at a rock concert."
Still don't believe there's ANY evidence of BLAST SOUND?
How about radio transmissions and testimony from FDNY members themselves.
YOU BE THE JUDGE.
9/11 firemen - New York's bravest
http://www.youtube.com/v/SXD3bAbZCow
September 15, 2009 at 2:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
LMAO @ the nutters who still believe the official conspiracy theory.
September 15, 2009 at 9:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
kielyj (anonymous) says...
Chemist
You are crazy as a bed bug but you are one typing maniac.
September 15, 2009 at 9:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
If the truth is crazy, then I am more than happy to take on that title.
www.prisonplanet.com/yes-conspiracy-t...
www.prisonplanet.com/articles/novembe...
September 15, 2009 at 9:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Welcome to Firefighters for 9/11 Truth. My name is Erik Lawyer, and I am the founding member.
A great friend of mine with a Business degree from West Point, as conservative and non-conspiratorial as they get, came over one night to talk about what he saw happening in the economy. He provided some disconcerting evidence that we as a nation are at risk of entering into another depression; he pointed out historical parallels where other countries, such as Germany, suffered economic collapse. THAT was my eye opener. I became obsessed researching things such as economies, who is in control of currencies, what causes depressions, who profits during war, etc. So many things kept pointing to 9/11. Another one of my dad's favorite quotes was, "believe half of what you see and none of what you hear." So, I looked at both sides and quickly noticed a pattern. On one side, the general media ignores some of the most compelling evidence that contradicts the "official" story. On the other side, science based conspiracy sites such as Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth and Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice, along with the experience based sites such as Patriots Question 911 and Pilots for 911 Truth, fully explore the evidence. Their research points out numerous inconsistencies and raised serious questions about the "official" story. To be fair, I looked at the debunking sites again. On Popular Mechanics (the source often quoted for confirmation of the "official" story), as well as most debunking sites I usually found name calling and smear tactics. In my own personal experience, as soon as someone needs to resort to name calling and smearing during a debate, they're not very secure in their "facts" or the "truth." I found that many of these debunking sites also failed to tackle some of the most compelling evidence. They would often bring up the most ludicrous of conspiracy claims, debunk those, offer far reaching explanations, or never fully explain the "how." They often made you really have to stretch to believe that so many catastrophic failures - which had never happened before - could all occur separately, on one day, and multiple times (e.g. failure to intercept aircraft x 4 for the first time in history; complete collapses x 3 for the first time; no obvious plane wreckage x 2+ for first time, etc.). Even the NIST report only describes the EVENTS that led to the moment of collapse of Towers 1 & 2, not the SCIENCE behind the instantaneous collapse of the cold steel below the impact zone:because it is that obvious? How does that teach us how to improve building safety?
September 15, 2009 at 11:23 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
The clincher for me was when I learned that the lead investigators on the crime - the FBI - do not even have the 9/11 attacks mentioned on the Bin Laden page of the FBI's Most Wanted website list due to LACK OF EVIDENCE. How can it be that we were led to believe Osama bin Laden was responsible for the 9/11 attacks, yet the FBI doesn't publicly accuse him? Remind me again why we are at war and have given up so many rights our Founding Fathers gave us???
When I voiced my new opinion and concerns most of my friends listened. I think because they were shocked that a staunch Conservative could have such a major shift, or because they thought I had lost my mind and wanted to diagnose the cause. Curiously, some became angry at my new questions and actually thought I was supporting Terrorists with my concerns. Being a part of that same mindset myself only a few weeks ago, and then having a major shift in consciousness, really shook me to the core. What has happened to our collective consciousness that we believe anyone who doubts the "official" story or what the government tells us is an enemy? Anyone who asks for the Truth is labeled a "Wacko" or "Terrorist Sympathizer?" What has happened to us? Are we not founded on Freedom of Speech and taught to check our Government?
Through my research I learned that many mainstream people, government officials, pilots and regular "Joes" actually doubt the "official" story. Yet the media still treats "Truth" seekers like they have a mental disorder, are few and far between, and even dangerous. I've since learned there are major news stories concerning 9/11 that the media won't cover. Do you know about Tower 7? And, did you know that Japan, who lost 24 of their citizens in the 9/11 attacks, has held hearings this year on the possibility that the "official" story isn't the truth? Why hasn't the media covered THIS? I've since learned about the whistleblowers that have been silenced. There are many top pilots (including pilots who have flown those specific aircraft) who say they could not have performed the maneuvers at those speeds while physically encountering the G-Loads and overcoming control issues associated with high speeds. Now, I've been a private pilot for over 20 years and have competed in spot landing, aerobatic and maneuver contests. I know how difficult it is to perform precision maneuvers at moderate speeds, let alone full speed, and I would never dream I could do the same in a jumbo jet.
September 15, 2009 at 11:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
To be honest, I was asleep at the wheel, and relied on what I was being told by mainstream media. The same media, whose parent corporations, are some of the largest suppliers of weapons in this war. Before this "awakening" I had no idea the extent of our civil liberties that had been eroded in the name of Terrorism. I had never really wrapped my brain around what legalized torture means. I had always claimed America was noble. Just look at how we treated POW's during WWII and Vietnam compared to our enemies. That separated us. We were setting the example of Human Rights to the rest of the world. Sure, you'll always have individuals that will take things too far, but Government sponsored torture? What has happened to our country? What kind of example are we setting for our children, and the world? You would be interested to learn how many of our own rights have been stripped away recently. Look up the Military Commissions Act of 2006, the John Warner Defense Authorization Act, Homegrown Terrorism Act and Presidential Directive 51. It is amazing the rights we have all lost in the past couple of years and very little is covered by the U.S. media.
After discovering this, I applied the "common sense" test that my Grandfather always said wasn't so common. Why would a government so aggressively suppress truth and blatantly destroy evidence if there was nothing to hide? Why has every testimony from sworn government and military officials that points to "prior knowledge" been stricken from the 9/11 Commission Report? How did paper business cards, cloth bandanas, and plastic ID's that implicate the terrorists survive so neatly through jet fueled fireballs hot enough to destroy titanium and steel? I've seen bodies burned beyond recognition, yet I have never found one that was wearing unburned clothing. These questions alone are enough to make me risk everything for a real investigation and accounting. Sadly, there are many more questions! This has nothing to do with party politics for me anymore. This is about saving our Country and pledging allegiance to our Flag not the Government, to protecting the principles America was founded on, not the beliefs of a few people in power. I have the utmost respect of our Soldiers and the sacrifices they have made, and continue to make. This is about defending what these countless men and women have died for. This is about defending the freedoms they gave us- about defending the Constitution, and about protecting the future for our children.
September 15, 2009 at 11:26 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Lisa Rubidoux
September 14, 2009 at 4:18 p.m.
"Captain Chic Burlingame was in command of flight 77 on 9/11.
He was my coworker.
These terrorists took 2 American Airlines jets and used them as weapons that horrific day."
The whole tragedy of "9/11," when it occurred, struck most Americans with a terrible impact, emotionally and mentally. For some of us, however, that impact was heightened when we received reports of personal friends, relatives, acquaintances, etc. being involved in the death tolls.I was horrified when I began to read reports immediately following "9/11" (while researching the NWO agenda in Oahu, Hawaii, at the time it occurred.)I couldn't believe it at first when I read that the PILOT OF THE PLANE THAT ALLEGEDLY HIT THE PENTAGON was none other than "Chip" Burlingame.
Wendy Burlingame, 32, was the daughter of Charles F. Burlingame III, who was the pilot of American Airlines Flight 77 on Sept. 11, 2001.....She was found dead in her apartment, apparently of smoke inhalation, after a fire started inside her bedroom sometime Monday night. Fire officials said Burlingame and her boyfriend attempted to douse the fire using water from a sink, but it quickly spread out of control. The boyfriend made it out of the apartment, but the door closed and locked behind him and he couldn't get back inside. Burlingame and her two dogs -- identified by the Humane Society as a 4-year-old female pitbull and a 3-month-old pitbull puppy -- were found dead inside..."
***********************************
Wendy knew that something strange and suspicious had happened to her father Chip, and wanted to KNOW THE TRUTH. She refused to remain silent and became quite outspoken.
http://americanholocaustcoming.blogsp...
September 15, 2009 at 12:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Charlie Sheen has blasted the cowardly corporate media response to his "20 Minutes With The President" letter, slamming the press as "hopeless lap-dogs" for failing to address a single one of his 20 bullet points on 9/11 while ignoring completely his challenge to publicly debate 9/11 truth debunkers.
Sheen's open letter to the President, which took the form of a fictionalized account of a meeting between the two in which Sheen grills Obama about the unanswered questions surrounding 9/11, received widespread media coverage and was featured in thousands of newspaper stories, online articles and TV segments. Awareness of the subject only increased after the subsequent release of a You Tube video in which Sheen personally appeals to the President to answer the questions.
However, not one single mainstream media report adequately covered even one of Sheen's 20 bullet points that were listed in the article and backed up by a substantial online bibliography, found here.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/20_minute...
September 15, 2009 at 2:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
lrubidoux (Lisa Rubidoux) says...
StopTheBrutalChemtrails -you moron
His name is CHIC Burlingame
ANd yes his daughter died tragically in a fire.
That has nothing to do with your tirade.
September 15, 2009 at 4:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
Lisa it is best to leave this soul to his own devices and ignore the stuff.
Proving a negative is a waste of time here.
Sorry for the salt that has been inflicted on you here.
September 15, 2009 at 4:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
The guy that wrote that article was not aware of the correct spelling of Mr. Burlingame's nick name, did you really think that I wrote that article? LOL
September 15, 2009 at 5:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Did you read this part?
"Wendy knew that something strange and suspicious had happened to her father, and wanted to know the truth. She refused to remain silent and became quite outspoken."
September 15, 2009 at 5:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLM (anonymous) says...
Chem ---
Babe, you are getting a bit scary with your nonsensical rant.
West Point does not grant a degree in Business and never has.
The failure mechanism for the World Trade Center Towers is not even remotely controversial amongst civil engineers and/or structural engineers. This is very simple engineering analysis given the behavior of steel framed structures subjected to intense heat over an extended time period.
This fundamental recitation of simple engineering analysis was peer reviewed with no contentious debate amongst the engineers. It is simple engineering and nothing more.
The normal design criteria for a composite structure (steel cloaked in concrete as in the World Trade Center Towers) does not anticipate an impact loading of an airliner making impact at a high floor however the WTC did, in fact, anticipate in part such an extraordinary load. Even in that occurrence, the actual impact loading was judged to be greater than any level anticipated. Not too many 110 story buildings have been built in this country.
Chem, your comments are beginning to betray what may be a real pathological and clinically significant level of delusion and denial. Please, get some help.
Say hello to Charlie for all the non-crazy folks. Have a nice day.
September 15, 2009 at 10:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MrTaiChi (anonymous) says...
Psychiatrists and witch doctors have in common their purpose in life as being to determine what makes people tick. I am neither. It is an interesting study to ask what makes any person such fertile ground for conspiratorial belief systems to take root. It seems enough for rational minds that four planes disintegrated into fragments and that three thousand people, more or less, did not survive to tell any tales. How can the conspiratorial belief system believe that the government perpetrated a mass murder event to support the war on terror against Osama Bin Laden's organization and at the same time disregard his boast that his group was responsible for the atrocities? In a recent Nat. Geo. channel special, the main contentions of the "truthers" were subjected to scientific analysis. Just focusing on the aspect of the collapse of the towers as a demolition, the show convincingly demonstrated that it would have taken hundreds of men weeks to cut steel and place explosives to accomplish the result claimed. This recitation of fact is only viewed as a challenge to the "truthers" to assert that it would have taken, e.g., 'only two weeks', and that therefore the macro logic is flawed. The experts on the show called this mind-set, "whack-a-mole." When pressed, the authors of truther books readily admit that they don't have answers for many of the macro-logic points, but the fact that there are micro-logical "inconsistencies" is enough for them to sustain an elaborate alternative reality. How a government that can't keep any secrets kept a lid on the hundreds of people who would have been involved in this 'conspiracy' is a matter of no valid inquiry to the truthers.
This is not new. The Arab cultural mind-set seems largely disposed to believe any conspiracy theory. There are other examples: AIDS was invented by the government as genocide against African Americans; Oswald didn't kill JFK by himself; Christ survived crucifixion to perpetrate a cult hoax; Roosevelt knew about but did not prevent the attack on Pearl Harbor; fluoridation is being perpetrated on us to drain our vital life forces, (General Jack Ripper). How popular and lucrative for its author was the Da Vinci Code. People love a good conspiracy theory. It makes them feel like insider gossipers.
It's a waste of time to engage with people of conspiratorial belief systems, because, for whatever reason, they are as invested in them as others are in religion. JLM was closest to the mark. When reality is never what it seems, it is a mental health problem.
September 16, 2009 at 12:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Steven John Hibbs / The Tonka Report September 1, 2009
After watching the National Geographic Channel's two hour propaganda hit piece, 9/11: Science And Conspiracy, I'm really quite amazed at how slick they put it all together. Without taking notes while watching it, I'll just hit on a few random points from memory right off the bat:
Once again, there was no explanation for the 6.5 second freefall collapse of WTC 7 that was not hit by an airliner, just like there was no mention of its remarkable collapse in NIST's 9/11 Commission Report...
http://stevenjohnhibbs.wordpress.com/...
Jason Rips into National Geographic's 9/11 hit piece and takes on the "no planes" theory, that is designed to make the real 9/11 Truth movement look foolish ...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/jason-ber...
If you know that there is treason being committed and you fail to do anything about it, you can be held accountable for treason, yourself.
September 16, 2009 at 6:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Maybe Mr. Tea would like to tell us how a entire 757-200 fuselage that is 45 feet in diameter fits through a 16 foot diameter hole. please don't mention the wings that were never found, which make the aircraft 125 feet wide at it's widest point. Also, please don't mention the 9 foot diameter titanium engines that magically vaporized, the passenger's bodies that were nowhere to be found, or the miles of wiring required to make an airliner like that fly. Don't mention the seats, either, about 240 of them that disappeared. The official explanation is a outrageous conspiracy theory. wake up, people, we're all in this together. The sooner we figure out what happened that day, the sooner we can prosecute the perpetrators. Remember, the FBI claims that it has "No hard evidence connecting Bin Laden to 9/11"
http://www.informationclearinghouse.i...
September 16, 2009 at 7:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Engineers Are Baffled Over The Collapse Of 7 WTC
"Steel Members Have Been Partly Evaporated"
http://www.geocities.com/streakingobj...
September 16, 2009 at 8:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
News to the nut, no one is listening.
September 16, 2009 at 8:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLM (anonymous) says...
Chem ---
Now I am beyond scared. Don't do anything dangerous to yourself or others. You are beyond a loon.
Give it a rest and get some help.
September 17, 2009 at 6:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Alright.....
For the deluded amongst us.......
heh heh...... some fruity chump who calls him/her self something about Chemicals [surprised?]
The mighty Hunterdog [speaking here - using the name of a much smarter person than the 'ol dog] has deemed this person worthy of a minutes debunking.............
Let's start from the top, friend.........[or foe, I doubt you have the reasoning skills to discern the difference.]
You say:
This is an excerpt of Charlie Sheen's "20 minutes with the president"
Are you kidding me ? Charlie Sheen ? Do I even NEED to go any farther with that silliness ?
It's the worst argument from authority I can imagine.
Not a fan of Socrates, or his method of logical discernment ?
figures.
you say:
"Okay, first; On the FBI's most wanted list Osama Bin Laden is not charged with the crimes of 911. When I called the FBI to ask them why this was the case, they replied: "There's not enough evidence to link Bin Laden to the crime scene," I later discovered he had never even been indicted by the D.O.J."
OOOh....Imagine the highest law emforcement agency in the country daring to not follow the law and arresting someone on unfounded claims........There's no doubt these RELIGIOUS fundamentalists perpertrated this crime, but without sufficient evidence, it's ILLEGAL in the land of the free to indict someone on what we think they did.
your point fails, ChemConsumer...........just the first, keep score......
September 17, 2009 at 8:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
and on, Chemsniffer
you say:
"Sibel Edmonds, was dismissed and gagged by the D.O.J. after she revealed that the government had foreknowledge of plans to attack American cities using planes as bombs as early as April 2001."
Ms. Edmonds never claimed anything more than "chatter" was intercepted by the FBI, and that she inferred her own interpetations, AND this dog might add, AFTER the attacks.
Hindsight, right ?
You're not going to get any sympathy for the Bush administration's incompetencies from me, though......
September 17, 2009 at 8:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Picture this:
Government: We want to cause a tragedy so great the American people will blindly follow us into war... What do you think gentlemen...
Accomplice #1: Well, the Towers are a perfect choice.. It's been bombed before. We can just blame Osama again. We've been priming the American people by having him blow up our warships and our buildings in other countries.
Government: Yeah, good idea! How will we do that?
Accomplice #1: We can hire Osama to get some of his friends to fly planes into it!
Accomplice #2: Wait... I have a better idea, We can BOMB the buildings!
Accomplice #1: Well, that means placing enough bombs into two 110 story buildings. That's going to take a lot of man power and risk us being uncovered...
Accomplice #2: Yeah, but that way, you're sure to knock them down. Besides, maybe the hijackers won't make it to the target. Maybe they'll be uncovered!
Accomplice #1: But you don't need to knock them down, all you need is the horrific sight of the planes hitting the buildings. People will get the message. It's an attack on American soil. We'll also have people like the blind sheik to cover for us. We'll even put a guy on a train with evidence.
Your plan isn't perfect either, you know. Do I have to remind you of Operation Towel Pop? We already tried to embarrass Clinton by knocking it down and failed.
Accomplice #2: Yeah, our Bay of Pigs, but I say the only way they can get the message is if we knock them down.
Accomplice #1: Do not
Accomplice #2: Do too
Accomplice #1: Do not
Accomplice #2: Do too
Accomplice #1: Do not
Accomplice #2: Do too
Government: Gentlemen, gentlemen... Please... What the hell, we'll just do both! :blink: How do we do that? I mean, how do you keep explosions from showing up on TV? We're going to have to investigate this at some point. How do we cover up the scene?
Accomplice #2: But why not just knock it dow...
Government: I've made my decision. Continue...
September 17, 2009 at 8:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
Love it.
September 18, 2009 at 7:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Accomplice #2: OK.. We install charges on every floor so that after the planes hit, we blow each floor under the crash floor one by one, very fast to simulate pancaking. We'll let the building burn a while just for effect. This will also give time for the trusses to sag making it LOOK like a fire caused the building to fall.
Accomplice #1: Nice touch...
Accomplice #2: Why, thank you. :) ...We'll set a charge off in the middle of the building AFTER the top is on its way down so everyone thinks the puffs of debris coming from the windows are from the tremendous hypodermic needle like pressure blowing debris from the weakest point in the building.
Government: What about the sound of explosions? Isn't that a dead giveaway?
Accomplice #2: No problem, We'll just let them think it's normal electrical explosions like transformers blowing up or the initial concrete and steel and floors hitting the floors below.
Accomplice #1: Yeah, it could also be the steel columns snapping like twigs from the tremendous weight of the floors above... Don't worry, we have disinformation specialists in key internet forums.
Government: WOW, You guys think of everything.. What about Building 7? Can we take that out at the same time?
Accomplice #1: We won't be able to fly planes into it, that's for sure...
Accomplice #2: Leave it to me. If we set off the explosions just right, we can have one of the towers hit Building 7, missing the two next to it. After that, we can set fires on the bottom floors and let it burn for a while, you know, to make it look possible for a normal collapse. I'll call my agent in the fire department to get everyone out before we blow it. I'll figure a way to make the floors look buckled for effect as well.
September 17, 2009 at 8:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Government: Amazing ... I also want to take out the Pentagon. Any suggestions?
Accomplice #1: What we'll do is hijack a plane just for effect, then fire a missile at the Pentagon. A bunker buster.
Government: But what about the people on the plane?
Accomplice #1: We'll land the plane in area 51, then shoot them all.
Government: Why not use the plane instead of the missile? That way, you take care of all the evidence at the same time... People on the highway can also see the planes hit. If you use a missile, there's going to be a lot of witnesses who saw a missile and not a plane.
Accomplice #1: Err... ah, don't worry about these small details. I have an undercover op in the DC police department who will take the names down and shot them all.
Government: How are you going to get all the people involved in this? Bush isn't exactly loved you know..
Accomplice #1: Don't worry, psych-ops will take care of the brainwashing of the American people. As for the media, we control the left and the right!
Government: GREAT! Nice work all! Let's make the target date Sept 11, 2001.
Shall the Hunterdog continue to embarass you, ChemPerson ?
September 17, 2009 at 8:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Ahhh...the sound of stunned silence.
September 18, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Brilliant!. LMAO @ bandmommy's stoned reasoning. The sensible amongst us can see through your silly fantasies, hon, Still waiting for someone to explain how a 45 foot wide airliner fits through as 16 foot hole. Any takers?
September 19, 2009 at 3:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
9/11 Commission 'played with fire'
Wayne Madsen
Prisonplanet.com
Saturday, Sept 19th, 2009
Lebanese student pilot Ziad Jarrah, according to the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, also known as the "911 Commission," was said to have been the pilot of the United Airlines Boeing 757-200 that crashed into the ground near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, on the morning of September 11, 2001.
WMR has previously reported that based on numerous sources within the National Security Agency, Defense Intelligence Agency, and the U.S. Air Force, United 93 was shot down by the Air Force over Pennsylvania by two F-16s. A Global Hawk unmanned aerial vehicle was also in the vicinity of the doomed Boeing 757 and crashed where the large passenger plane was reported to have crashed.
In a compendium to the 9/11 Commission report titled, "Terrorist Travel," which contains travel documents allegedly used by the hijackers, a photograph of the U.S. visa of Ziad Jarreh is shown. The visa is said to have survived the crash of the Boeing 757 but miraculously, the fireball from the exploding aircraft managed to save that part of the visa that shows Jarrah's headshot photograph and part of his visa number.
Jarrah was born in Lebanon to Sunni Muslim parents but volunteered much of his time working with disabled and orphaned children at a Catholic school and church. There has been much speculation about whether Jarrah was ever a member of Mohamed Atta's "Hamburg cell" and whether he even boarded United flight 93 on 9/11. His background was remarkably secular.
However, based on videos of questionable origin and the visa from the crash site in Pennsylvania, spared from total obliteration by what can only be described as an "intelligent fire," is all the FBI had to conclude that Jarrah was the hijack team pilot of Flight 93. German authorities never obtained any evidence linking Jarrah to the Hamburg cell of Atta and the other accused hijackers.
The fire from the explosion of United 93 apparently "stopped on a dime" and left Jarrah's photo and U.S. visa number largely intact, largely proving to the FBI that he was the pilot of the hijacked airliner. All that. of course, if the 9/11 Commission is to be believed. Six out of the nine members of the commission believe that they were lied to and sandbagged by the Bush administration and top government officials...
There's more, LMAO @ the nutters.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/911-commi...
September 19, 2009 at 3:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Well, bandmommy, After a weak initial personal attack on Mr. Sheen you attempted to debunk his first two points with your twisted reason and failed, If you would like to continue with the next few, we'd all love to see your pitiful attempts. Thanks for playing, though, it was fun ny. LOL
September 19, 2009 at 3:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Obviously, reading comprehension is not your strong point, Chemmy........As stated early in my initial post, this is the mighty Hunterdog replying to your silliness.
BTW, your "hon" comment is deprecating to the female of our species. I don't really [given the obnoxiousness of your previous posts] expect much better behavior from you, but attempting to "talk down" to the "silly little woman" shows the weakness of your arguments.
Now, are you saying that Flight 77 only gouged a 16 ft. hole in the side of the Pentagon?
September 20, 2009 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Also, your method of "debate", which consists of little more than cutting and pasting from that goofball Alex Jones' website, shows that you are being extremely gullible, and quite willing to accept a conspiracy theory that flies in the face of of extensive physical evidence, including eyewitness accounts.
You accuse me of an ad hom attack on the redoubtable MR. Sheen.
Let me ask this, was Mr. Sheen witness to any of the 4 crashes ?
His version of twenty minutes with the president seems believeable to you ? If so, I have a ski mountain to sell you.
September 20, 2009 at 8:55 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
In my first post, I pointed out a very good reason why bin Laden had not been indicted.
You claim that I exhibited failed reasoning.
Understanding US law is failed reasoning ?
Anyhow, back to 77, a simple yes or no will suffice, are you claiming that the plane only made a 16 foot hole in the Pentagon?
September 20, 2009 at 9:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
As an aside, I was perusing Alex Jones' website, looking at some of the claims you were making in your multitude of posts and ran across one of his featured "stories", about this woman.
http://www.youtube.com/v/1qQ4iFI5Np8&
Essentially, after mentioning she had to ask the "Lord" if she should make this video, she claims to be a military reservist blowing the whistle on the preparations for martial law forcing everyone to take the Swine Flu vaccine. As part of this, she claims, military units are planning to set up checkpoints, and mark people who have received the vaccine, and then cart off the rest to concentration camps. She is, of course, revealing this at great risk to her own life, and warns that she may never be heard from again if this video "falls into the wrong hands", which I suppose is pretty hard to prevent, since it is on YouTube.
In any case, as proof of this nefarious plot, she posts the documentation at the end of the video from the miniaturized "brand new" "RFID tracking device" that they are going to use to track the movements of the people as part of this martial law crackdown. A quick examination of this paperwork shows it is a "Phoenix Jr" from Cejay Systems, which can be easily found at their website with the description.
September 20, 2009 at 9:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
The fact that this woman might actually be in the military, is scary.
I suppose I should add, for people who aren't familiar with the technology. That little device that she shows, is basically just a couple of LEDs which operate in the infrared spectrum. The reason it is so little is that it is just the top, and it clips on a 9 volt battery. Aside from the fact that it is not RFID, and is essentially nothing more than a tiny flashlight only visible through night vision goggles, it would be a silly way of tracking people against their will.
Gee, I don't know, how would you defeat such nefarious technology? Maybe you could... unplug the battery?
Understand why arguments made by Alex Jones and parroted by you, may be a just a little suspect ?
September 20, 2009 at 9:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
OK, I see now [after holding my nose and reading your posts more carefully], you ARE claiming Flight 77 only made a 16 foot hole in the Pentagon.
There are so many factual inaccuracies in that particular part of your ravings, I don't even know where to start, but here's a good spot:
First, you claim the width of the body of a 757 is 45 feet, when in fact, it is around 12 to 13 feet.
Second, you claim that the size of the hole is only 16 feet when in fact, it has been measured to have been about 30.6 feet.
I would ask, if you include the plane's engines, you're talking about roughly 18 feet of width, how do you only get a hole 16 feet wide ?
September 20, 2009 at 9:56 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
And just for "fun", a list of all the people who would have to be involved in order to pull this massive conspiracy off...
--The NYC Fire fighters
-The NYC Police department
-The NYC port Authority
-The more than 1,600 widows and widowers of 9/11
-The media (This one I almost believe) who doesn't follow up on the biggest mass murder and conspiracy in American history.
-The photographers from around the world who took pictures of the towers which clearly show bowing of the perimeter columns.
-Everyone in the NIST who covers up the largest mass murder in US history.
-EVERY STRUCTURAL ENGINEER IN THE WORLD
-The liberals who don't believe the towers were brought down. They're helping a neo-con cover-up the largest mass murder in this nation's history. Why? No clue...
-The CIA
-The FBI
-FEMA
-The American Society of Civil Engineers who have produced peer reviewed papers showing how what conspiracy theorists say is impossible is possible.
-NORAD
September 20, 2009 at 10:07 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jk (anonymous) says...
bandmama "Mighty Hunterdog", you were doing good until you started breaking out your measurements. Maybe you better go find a new tape measure, and try again.
September 20, 2009 at 10:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Con't...
-The FAA who saw planes which conspiracy theorists say never existed.
-The Silverstein Group
-Silverstein's Insurance Company who didn't question the collapse and paid out over 2 billion to Silverstein.
-American Airlines (Pentagon)
-United Airlines (Pentagon)
-Logan, Newark and Dulles Airport for losing the planes
-Scientists and engineers who developed the remote control plane technology.
-Installers of the remote control devices in the planes (Pentagon)
-Remote controllers of the planes (Pentagon)
-Scientists and engineers who developed the new demolition technology and carried out practical tests and computer models to make sure it would work.
-Installers of the demolitions devices in the three buildings
-People who worked at the company(s) the installers used as cover
-Airphone etc employees who said they got calls from passengers (Pentagon)
-Faux friends and relatives of the faux passengers or just the faux relatives who claim to have been called by their loved ones or just the psyops who fooled relatives into thinking they really were their loved ones. (Pentagon)
-People who detonated the buildings......
Wow, seems really likely, especially when your brainwaves are "enhanced" by a tin foil hat......
Ever hear of the razor of Occam ?
September 20, 2009 at 10:11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
jk,
From Boeing's website [I actually research as opposed to another poster here]
"Body Exterior width for the 757 200-300 series"
12 feet 4 inches
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/757f...
September 20, 2009 at 10:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
If you look, what Chemmy claims as 45 feet is actually the height of the tail of the plane. See the disengeniousness ?
September 20, 2009 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
Good work bandmama.
September 20, 2009 at 10:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jk (anonymous) says...
my apologies bandmama
September 20, 2009 at 10:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
no worries jk....I suspect you're not the one who is going to posit that it was a magic missile that did the damage......
[waits for Chemmy to posit that it was a magic missile that did the damage]
September 20, 2009 at 10:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Rebutting "Pentagon 9/11: Getting the Facts Straight"
Richard Stanley and Jerry Russell | August 17 2004
Original article at http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/...
"Pentagon 9/11: Getting the Facts Straight", by Dennis Behreandt, represents a full-scale frontal attack on the work of 9/11 researcher Thierry Meyssan (who is pressed into service as an exemplar of the many others who have also maintained that no jetliner struck the Pentagon on 9/11/2001. ) And we do not wish to defend everything that Meyssan has written; in fact we agree he has made many errors. But the core of Meyssan's work is not so easy to dismiss. This is the complete lack of tangible physical evidence (beyond that which could easily be planted) that a 757 was responsible for causing the damage to the Pentagon. In fact, we believe that a careful examination of the photographic record provides quite compelling evidence that this "757 attack" was a fraud. Behreandt's analysis relies heavily eyewitness testimony (which we will critique in more detail) -- but for something as substantial as a 100-ton airliner, we have every right to expect more than just hearsay doing overtime as conclusive proof, especially considering Behreandt's appeal to proper scientific practices. The rubble from Flight 77 should be on display in a museum (if indeed it exists), to put an end to the international controversy.
As documented by Meyssan in his books "9/11:The Big Lie" and "Pentagate" -- on the morning of September 11, the earliest reports from the Pentagon disaster indicated that a helicopter explosion or some other indeterminate "attack" took place. The national news media, the White House and the military were unable to ascertain that it was an airliner that struck the Pentagon, until this was (curiously) personally attested to by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who walked from his office to the disaster on a fact-finding mission. ("Big Lie", pp. 13-14; "Pentagate", pp. 94-95).
On Sept. 12, the Arlington County Fire Chief Ed Plaugher said "there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing... we have... what we believe is to be the nose of the aircraft." Reporters speculated that perhaps most of the plane had been consumed by fire...
September 20, 2009 at 11:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
...As Meyssan and others began to raise questions on an international basis, more contradictions emerged, and the "official story" began to mutate. A few highly debatable debris photographs began to emerge, and Ed Plaugher completely reversed his earlier remarks, stating that beginning 35 to 40 minutes after the attack, he saw: "pieces of the fuselage, the wings, the landing gear, pieces of the engine, seats. I can swear to you, it was a plane." Finally, the French agency Digipress stated that FBI authorities had told them (in Meyssan's words) that FBI agents "have recovered a large part of the debris, making possible a nearly complete reconstitution of the wreck of the Boeing", and FBI spokesman Chris Murray told the French paper Liberation that "The pieces of the plane are stocked in a warehouse and they are marked with the serial numbers of flight 77." Thus, to the international press, the FBI has effectively acknowledged that early reports that the plane was destroyed by fire, are impossible -- yet none of this "nearly complete reconstitution" has ever been seen anywhere in the American press, nor in any of the semi-official reports of the incident. ("Pentagate", p. 20).
If anyone is still claiming that the bulk of the plane was destroyed by fire, this can be refuted as follows: using simple measurement from the available drawings and the approach trajectory claims of the official story, one has to acknowledge that the complete upper half or third of the fuselage aluminum had to end up on the expanse of the second floor where the vast bulk of this material would be effectively shielded from the resulting fireball, concrete being an excellent insulator to fire. So ....... where is it?
Following David Hackett Fischer, Behreandt accuses Meyssan of "the fallacy of the negative proof," noting that it would be a logical fallacy to assert that simply because no one has produced any tangible remains of the aircraft, therefore the aircraft did not exist. Although it seems absurd, we must agree that Behreandt is logically correct, and furthermore, perhaps our ever security-conscious government has carefully hidden all the evidence. But we also have the problem of the missing wings and tail. As Behreandt points out, the photographic images of the facade of the Pentagon make it quite clear that the wings and tail of the airplane did not penetrate into the building. So where did they go? The photographs show quite clearly that there are no wings, there is no tail, there is not even a significant amount of shrapnel or aluminum confetti. It is as if eyewitnesses claim to have seen a pink elephant in the living room, but photographs clearly show nothing but thin air. This is not an absence of evidence, this is clear evidence of absence...
September 20, 2009 at 11:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
In view of all these facts, Behreandt's only recourse is his appeal to Occam's razor, with his argument that the simplest explanation is still the best -- that Flight 77 must have hit the Pentagon, because there was extensive damage to the building, and because eyewitnesses saw Flight 77 on an approach to the Pentagon. Normally this would be very sensible, but Behreandt is forgetting the context. There is a broad spectrum of evidence indicating that 9/11 was an inside job, carried out to provide a pretext for an agenda of (arguably self-destructive) imperialist conquest of the Middle East, along with accelerated erosion of American civil liberties. It was a "black intelligence op," in other words, a scam implemented by a highly sophisticated team of magicians and liars. Their goal was to create an international media extravaganza, using the most economical means available. And our argument (which is perfectly harmonious with Occam's razor) holds that the perpetrators' simplest and most foolproof means to implement the hoax was to use inexpensive shaped charge explosives planted within the Pentagon, along with an over-flight of the Pentagon with a 757 jetliner, to create the illusion of a crash. This hypothesis is explored in more detail in our article "The Five-Sided Fantasy Island", available on the Internet at www.911-strike.com/pentagon.htm .
If our account of the events of 9/11 is correct, we need to explain the phenomenon of the eyewitness testimony. In this case, the author of "Getting the Facts Straight" has first chosen to pull out of the hat, a recently ordained Opus Dei priest (formerly an attorney) whose credibility surely no one of good character can question. (See http://www.catholicherald.com/priests... ) But, instead of accepting the good priest's story on mere faith, let's be a little more... scientific, and analyze his account more closely.
http://www.mdw.army.mil/news/.....
"I was in the left hand lane with my windows closed. I did not hear anything at all until the plane was just right above our cars." McGraw estimates that the plane passed about 20 feet over his car, as he waited in the left hand lane of the road, on the side closest to the Pentagon.
Hmmm, I guess Flight 77 was moving faster than the speed of sound. Also, no description of any 500 mph induced wake turbulence, so maybe he is attempting to bolster Frank Probst's account. After all, have you ever stood 20 feet underneath a speeding airliner? Maybe it's not all that big a deal.
September 20, 2009 at 11:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Father McGraw, parochial vicar of St. Anthony of Padua Parish in Falls Church, who was ordained three months ago, was heading to a graveside service at Arlington Cemetery when he took the Pentagon exit by mistake. Father McGraw said he was sitting in slow-moving traffic in the left lane of Rt. 27 around 9:35 a.m. when "without warning a plane passed 20 feet over the cars, clipping a light pole," before plowing into the Pentagon.
So one wonders just how the 'secular' Opus Dei father happened to determine exactly what it was that was flying over his head and whether it was this indeed that impacted the building, or whether it was a diversion plane (as suggested initially by researcher Dick Eastman.) I don't know about him, but having an airliner screaming 20 feet over my head would be somewhat disorienting to say the least. And what would be the time period that he would have to make an identification of the plane and be sure that it actually hit the building, even if he can be trusted to tell the truth of what he saw? The government claims the plane was moving about 400 (or 500) mph, and of course, we are told (according to some accounts) that the plane was diving and pulled out just at the last moment as well.
But perhaps only "conspiracy theorists" would seriously question Father McGraw's testimony. After all, even the FBI didn't suspect good Opus Dei operative Robert Hanssen of spying for years, most likely because he was such good friends and parish members with fellow Opus Dei member Louis Freeh, the then Director of the FBI.
Another witness in Behreandt's case is Frank Probst. His account is corroborated by Don Mason's testimony http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03... (ASCE report - see page 13). It all seems quite plausible, excluding of course Probst's astounding maintenance of his visual acuity not to mention his life from the wind vortex necessarily generated by the alleged high speed airliner (did you say 500 mph?). In this case, Probst claims that the plane just missed him by a few feet and yet he was able to dive to the ground after seeing it approach him, turn and be able to precisely view both engines strike objects in front of the building. Wow, this is the kind of guy the NFL needs for referees. No tossing and turning from the wake turbulence, no problems with wind and debris in his eyes, what a guy!!!!
Again, only real "conspiracy theorists" would notice or care about the fact that Probst and Mason were both government employees, working for the crew that was "renovating" the Pentagon. That couldn't possibly have had any effect on their testimony. Even though that testimony mutated substantially as time went on, as we document at our web page (http://www.911-strike.com/missing-con... ).
September 20, 2009 at 11:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Scientific Poll: 84% Reject Official 9/11 Story
Only 16% now believe official fable according to New York Times/CBS News poll
Truth Movement has the huge majority of opinion
How will the Bush Cabal react?
Steve Watson & Alex Jones / Prisonplanet.com | October 14 2006
A monumental new scientific opinion poll has emerged which declares that only 16% of people in America now believe the official government explanation of the September 11th 2001 terror attacks.
According to the new New York Times/CBS News poll, only 16% of Americans think the government is telling the truth about 9/11 and the intelligence prior to the attacks:
"Do you think members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth, are mostly telling the truth but hiding something, or are they mostly lying?
Telling the truth 16%
Hiding something 53%
Mostly lying 28%
Not sure 3%"
The 84% figure mirrors other recent polls on the same issue. A Canadian Poll put the figure at 85%. A CNN poll had the figure at 89%. Over 80% supported the stance of Charlie Sheen when he went public with his opinions on 9/11 as an inside job.
A recent CNN poll found that the percentage of Americans who blame the Bush administration for the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington rose from almost a third to almost half over the past four years. This latest poll shows that that figure has again risen exponentially and now stands at well over three quarters of the population.
It took 35 plus years for the majority of Americans to wake up to the fact that the assassination of JFK was a government operation. It has only take five years for MORE Americans to wake up to the fact that 9/11 was an inside job on behalf of the Neoconservative crime syndicate within the US.
Reference to past polls show that in the last five years there has been an explosion in numbers of those who do not buy the official line.
In 2004 a Zogby Poll showed that just over half of New Yorkers believed there was a cover up.
In May of this year another Zogby poll indicated that around half of ALL Americans did not buy the official story.
The latest poll also shows a massive awakening has occurred recently given that previous estimates indicated that around 34% still believed the official story and around 30% were oblivious altogether.
September 20, 2009 at 12:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
This is typical, again, of someone with no argument to make.
When one aspect of it is disproven, the next thing is to ignore the evidence and jump to something else.
I believe that your original challenge, and a cornerstone of your argument, was based on your misunderstanding [misrepresentation] of the readily available evidence concerning the sizes of the impact holes compared to the size of a 757. Correct ?
I'll assume you'll surrender that point.
Ummm....regarding wreckage, there are many photos available of obviously 757 parts,including parts from a Rolls Royce engine of the exact make in that particular plane.
That claim has been proven to not be true so long ago I can't believe anyone still brings it up.
September 20, 2009 at 12:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
As it becomes clearer that more and more Americans KNOW that their government is lying to them on the most fundamental issue of their lifetimes, we must consider what kind of reaction the government will undertake.
Remember that the majority of American voters now believe the Sept. 11 terrorist attack was a more significant historical event than the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.
In July 2001 Alex jones issued an emergency warning that there was going to be a massive false flag terrorist attack in New York to be blamed on Osama Bin Laden. At that time there was not enough activism among the population to prevent it going ahead.
In August of 2006 Alex Jones issued a second emergency warning that all the factors pointed towards an imminent attack. The activism that occurred in the wake of this warning and that of others was exponential and may indeed have helped stave off another attack.
Our next warning is this, desperate times call for desperate measures. The criminal elements of the government now know that they have been totally exposed and are reviled by the majority of free thinking Americans. Will their response be to vamp up the crack down on that free thinking itself?
In essence Americans have outright REJECTED giving up their liberty for security in the wake of 9/11. The only security IS liberty itself, and the only way to stay secure is to constantly defend liberty.
September 20, 2009 at 12:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Do you have an original thought, or do you just cut and paste from other's websites ?
September 20, 2009 at 12:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
That wasn't nice....
OK, Chemmy...Tell us all what REALLY happened.
September 20, 2009 at 12:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
So, an airplane that is 45 feet tall and 125 feet wide fits through a, let's call it a 40 foot hole, lol, how does this happen? How do we find one little rolls royce engine inside the building, but neither of the two 9 foot diameter titanium crystal turbines that should be laying outside the building since there are no holes punched in the building's facade where the engines would have been located?
9 foot diameter titanium engines don't vaporize, no matter how badly you want them to.
September 20, 2009 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
We have breaking news America:
Someone in the mountain ski resort of Steamboat Springs Colorado using the anonymous name of stopTheBrutalChemtrails has uncovered the mystery of the fantasy world of Alex Jones.By cutting and pasting a compilation of crap that people like former Green jobs CZAR Van Jones, loony comedienne Janine Gorafalo, kooky actor and prostitute chaser Charlie Sheen and other similar fools also including Rosie O'Donnell and Dictator Hugo Chavez have signed onto known as the 9/11 truthers.
We'll have further updates by the chemicalman as the clipping and pasting certainly continues.
September 20, 2009 at 12:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
In the 2008 Edition of this stunning multimedia presentation, filmed professionally in a studio before a live audience, San Francisco Bay Area architect, Richard Gage, AIA, provides the myth-shattering scientific forensic evidence of the explosive controlled demolition of all 3 WTC high-rise buildings on September 11, 2001. For details see http://www.ae911truth.org/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b74nae...
September 20, 2009 at 12:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jk (anonymous) says...
seeuski, with the cutting and pasting you do maybe you should go sit down and let the debate continue.
September 20, 2009 at 1:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Did you expect there to be an airplane-shaped hole, like a Roadrunner cartoon ?
September 20, 2009 at 1:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Obvious what happened:
A large hollow tube, with a belly full of luggage, a passenger bay with 60 people, and wings full of fuel smashed into the side of an almost solid object while moving at a tremendous speed (somewhere around 350-400mph). When the 225,000lb+ plane hit, it smashed apart with such force from the crash that it became like one massive column of liquid (no, the plane didn't melt or turn into liquid, it just acted like one physically - mountainslides act the same way, a million tons of rock acts like a large field of liquid during a landslide even if no water is present). All the small parts, luggage, people, seats, and all the tens of thousands of pounds of fuel acting like a massive river came crashing into the wall of the Pentagon. This force burst through the outside wall and flowed through the inside to the next wall, and momentum carried this mass until it finally ran out of inertia at the 3rd ring.
September 20, 2009 at 1:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Then there's the unfortunate [for your argument] eyewitness accounts....[showing that I can cut and paste with the best, or worst, of them.......
"Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe it.'"
"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."
September 20, 2009 at 1:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane. I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"
"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"
September 20, 2009 at 1:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
"We were the only people, we think, who saw it live," Dan Creed said. He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive down and level off. "It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said. "I can still see the plane. I can still see it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up,"
September 20, 2009 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
and lastly.....
"The only way you could tell that an aircraft was inside was that we saw pieces of the nose gear. The devastation was horrific. It was obvious that some of the victims we found had no time to react. The distance the firefighters had to travel down corridors to reach the fires was a problem. With only a good 25 minutes of air in their SCBA bottles, to save air they left off their face pieces as they walked and took in a lot of smoke," Captain Defina said. Captain Defina was the shift commander [of an aircraft rescue firefighters crew.]
September 20, 2009 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
So the engines didn't want to go through the wall where they hit it so they scooted over and decided to go through the hole that the fuselage made because they didn't feel like breaking their own hole that day. Brilliant.
September 20, 2009 at 1:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
The distance between the 2 engines was app. 24 feet, which, especially since the plane caame in at an angle [because it had hit a generator and several lamp posts first], fits perfectly into a 30 foot hole..
What part of that do you not get ?
September 20, 2009 at 1:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Oh wait
September 20, 2009 at 1:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
There were airplane shaped holes in the towers, see, that's how it works, when an object goes through another object, there will be a hole shaped like the object that made the hole, geez.
September 20, 2009 at 1:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
watch that last youtube video I posted and get back to me, hon.
September 20, 2009 at 2 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Ha ha ha, you DO think it should have made an airplane-shaped hole, just like in the cartoons !
September 20, 2009 at 2:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
*facepalm*
September 20, 2009 at 2:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Still waiting for you to explain what really happened, Chemmy.....
September 20, 2009 at 2:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
News update:
chemicalsabiman has a new fan, it is reported that jk is enjoying the koolaid that is being served.
Eyeball News is waiting for an update from chemicalderanged after hearing of reports that new actual photos of a martian missile hitting the Pentagon have been uncovered by a medicated maryjane user in the Bahama's.
Our reporter on the scene,Charlie Sheen, will have an update as soon as he is done with his massage.
September 20, 2009 at 3:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
I don't claim to know what really happened, I am only saying that there are enough holes in the official story that we obviously need a new investigation into the events surrounding 9/11/01.
September 20, 2009 at 4:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jk (anonymous) says...
I always love koolaid seeuski , it often makes for an interesting read, everyone knows we have been served a bunch (maybe too much) of yours throughout many of these threads. I see your creative writing ability now, it shines through when you are not discussing politics.
September 20, 2009 at 5:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
80,000 New Yorkers demand a new investigation into 9/11
NYC CAN News Bulletin
Thursday, Sept 10th, 2009
On Friday, September 4, the New York City Coalition for Accountability Now (NYC CAN) submitted 28,000 petition signatures as a supplement to the 52,000 signatures submitted on June 24 calling for a citywide referendum on the creation of a local, independent commission to investigate 9/11.
Over the last 25 years, every ballot initiative in New York City has been blocked on grounds of legal technicality, with the exception of the 1993 initiative to establish term limits for NYC elected officials, whose supporters also had to go to court to prove the initiative legal. With 80,000 New Yorkers having signed this petition, the City's ongoing attempt to stop this referendum from going on the ballot is yet another blatant affront to the democratic ideals upon which this great nation was founded.
On July 24, the NYC City Clerk reported to the City Council that only 26,003 signatures from the submission of 52,000 signatures were valid. In response, NYC CAN filed suit and on Thursday, August 27 submitted a Bill of Particulars cataloguing 7,166 additional signatures that NYC CAN contends should be deemed valid.
The court-appointed referee will begin a line-by-line review of the disputed signatures on Wednesday, September 9, and is scheduled to complete the review by Friday, September 18. If the referee and court accept at least 3,996 of the disputed signatures as valid meeting the requisite number of 30,000 signatures and if 15,000 of the 28,000 signatures from the September 4 submission are deemed valid, the only remaining hurdle to getting the referendum on the ballot will be the ongoing court case over the legality of the petition.
The timetable for addressing the petition's legality will be set in a meeting on Thursday September 10. The schedule should allow time for an appeal from either side in order to guarantee a final determination by the end of the month.
Once the schedule for the court case is set, NYC CAN will announce one or more rallies and events in the second half of September to demonstrate the tremendous public support that exists for a new, impartial investigation. NYC CAN calls upon all those who can be in lower Manhattan to join in solidarity with the 9/11 families, first responders, survivors and 80,000 New Yorkers to say loud and clear: no longer will we tolerate a government that ignores the will of its people. For the 3,000 who died on that day, the hundreds who have died since, and those still suffering today, 9/11 must be properly investigated.
The Bill of Particulars was assembled with the help of 50+ volunteers who gave more than 1,000 hours over a two-week period. On behalf of the petition's 80,000 signatories, NYC CAN offers its deepest thanks to these volunteers who worked long and hard to prevent the voters New York City from being silenced by their government.
September 20, 2009 at 11:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
"Obvious what happened:
A large hollow tube, with a belly full of luggage, a passenger bay with 60 people, and wings full of fuel smashed into the side of an almost solid object while moving at a tremendous speed (somewhere around 350-400mph). When the 225,000lb+ plane hit, it smashed apart with such force from the crash that it became like one massive column of liquid (no, the plane didn't melt or turn into liquid, it just acted like one physically - mountainslides act the same way, a million tons of rock acts like a large field of liquid during a landslide even if no water is present). All the small parts, luggage, people, seats, and all the tens of thousands of pounds of fuel acting like a massive river came crashing into the wall of the Pentagon. This force burst through the outside wall and flowed through the inside to the next wall, and momentum carried this mass until it finally ran out of inertia at the 3rd ring."
LMAO @ BandBiotch's above asinine statement. OMG, I really hope you are not a teacher.
September 20, 2009 at 11:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Oh, I see.You DON'T KNOW what happened.
So after all this effort on your part to cut and paste anything you think helps your argument, you were just SPECULATING ?
Well, why didn't you just say so ?
Since you offer no alternate theory, and since the contents of your cutting and pasting offers none as well, I'm guessing the mountains of forensic and structural evidence that supports the fact that a plane is what hit the Pentagon is correct.
Just another point won for my side.
You obviously have no researching skills.
You obviously have no debating skills.
You obviously have no reasoning skills.
You are simply "trolling", trying to start arguments you are ill-prepared to engage in.
You obviously have some deep-seated female issues, judging from your repeated attempts to use female-specific derogatory insults. Didn't mommy hug you enough, or were you taken from the teat too early?
If you'd like, I'll give you one common sense reason that there's no conspirarcy.
It comes in the form of two words..."Dylan Avery".
September 21, 2009 at 7:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Very well done video.
I would also recommend "Screw Loose Change - The Not Freakin' Again Edition", easily found on YouTube and Google video.
I suspect that this Chem person only reads things that support his twisted theory, or at least he thinks they do.
September 21, 2009 at 9:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
For those of you reading this who may not know who that steaming pile of uselessness is, he's the college student who, along with a couple of his loser college buddies, created an internet movie called "loose Change". Don't waste your time watching, unless you're either a sadist or in need of a good laugh.
Just the simple fact that a moron like Avery is still alive is proof enough of the lack of a conspiracy. If the government would fake a terrorist attack on it's own soil, horribly killing nearly 3000 of it's own citizens, why am I to believe that they wouldn't eliminate Avery as well ?
Another point for my side, I think.
Would you care to offer an alternative hypothoesis, Chem, or are you going to just continue to "speculate"?
Remember, you must show scientific [empirical] evidence that supports your claim.
You remind me of the misguided folks who want "intelligent design" taught in our schools. When challenged to provide a different theory, supported by facts, they can't do it.
I think, at this point, in leiu of some astounding empirical evidence from you and your side that supports your claims, this debate has been won by me.
And you have been made to look foolish.
Have a nice day.
September 21, 2009 at 7:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
bandmama I think the legalization of drugs is in part to blame for this hurtful thread because anyone blathering this garbage is in a different mental zone from reality.
The fact that I know someone who witnessed the plane hit the Pentagon means nothing to this troll or that my Cousin had a childhood friend who perished on board the flight carries no weight and the fantasy is what is important.
It just fits in with the deranged hate Bush syndrome.
I posted an in depth study that exposes the lies being proffered by this loon.
Here it is.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...
September 21, 2009 at 9:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
And here's the link, maybe chemmy will put down the paint thinner long enough for a little education from the reality-based community.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...
September 21, 2009 at 10:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
As difficult as it was I watched this video.
Thanks.
You can see the motivating forces by who is behind it.
September 21, 2009 at 2:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Just one last funny [yet sad] observation.
Alex Jones, whose lunatic rantings have helped to fuel Chem's paranoid delusions, has a PUBLIC ACCESS show where he posits his racist, anti - US beliefs, which is funded by......are you ready ?.........by the US government.....
September 21, 2009 at 7 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Questions Abound About "9/11 Hoax"
Blog imposter turns out to be fraudulent
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet
Wednesday, March 14, 2007: Updated 1:43PM CST
UPDATE: The question why a "9/11 truther" would choose to act as an imposter for somebody else and deliberately bring negative attention to themselves and others is puzzling. Though this story is now confirmed to be a hoax, the reasons behind it remain suspect.
For people accusing us of falling for and proliferating a hoax, remember that the mainstream media reported on the San Francisco beheading as genuine within minutes of them receiving the video, and that too turned out to be a hoax. We're all trying to get to the truth here and we will issue retractions when we are led astray.
Our original article is posted below in full.
September 21, 2009 at 7:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
A prominent debunker of skeptics of the official 9/11 story has broken ranks and confessed that he used underhand tactics, including fallacious attribution of holocaust denial, to smear the credibility of the 9/11 truth movement.
Screw Loose Change was initially a venture undertaken by two individuals to debunk what they considered to be a number of flaws contained in Dylan Avery's film. However, one of those individuals now states that the focus soon shifted from Loose Change and became a campaign to attack, "any 911 truther for any reason whatsoever."
So claims an individual that some now finger as an imposter because he has two different blog identities.
On a new blog website called Screw Loose Change Exposed, the dissenting individual, known as Pat, describes why he and his former debunker-in-chief James decided to go their separate ways.
Though the original Screw Loose Change blog contains no denial of the individual's claims, if he is engaging in a hoax then it's either a silly effort to draw attention to himself or a deliberate attempt to make 9/11 truthers look gullible.
"Pat" relates how James pushed him to to "All but invent the crisis of Holocaust denial" and apply it to the truth movement, "Though in fact, it is no more prevalent there than anywhere else," admits Pat.
Citing his refusal to "condone the underhanded methods we've tolerated," Pat writes that there is "no honesty to debunking 911 truth."
Pat writes that he is now keen to expose how his efforts were "hijacked by other entities" and promises to divulge "what REALLY happened behind the scenes at Screw Loose Change over the last year," warning that "it is only a matter of time before the shadiest methods of debunking become known."
This admission, if it turns out to be genuine, validates in part our continued efforts to rebut 9/11 debunkers and their ad hominem attacks and baseless hit pieces, from within both the mainstream and other media avenues.
It is also a damning indictment of how the holocaust card is continually played, most recently in the context of the global warming argument, in an attempt to silence debate and attack the messenger while refusing to evaluate the evidence.
Should this turn out to be accurate, we look forward to Pat's future posts and any further light they shed on the duplicitous tactics that are being employed to smear the 9/11 truth movement which, for all its shortcomings, is an genuine attempt to get questions answered and find out the full truth of what happened on that fateful day.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/...
September 21, 2009 at 7:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Hunterdog rests his case......biotch
September 21, 2009 at 7:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha....
How's that colloquial language working for you ?
Address my points directly, without cutting and pasting from the musch-discredited Alex jones website, or sit over there in the corner and mumble to yourself about the illuminati...and stuff....
My Troofer brother.....
heh heh
September 21, 2009 at 7:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Letter From a New Jersey Emergency Medical Technician
9/11 Blogger
Thursday, February 8, 2007
Dylan Avery posted the following letter which he and Mark of "Screw Loose Change" received. Well worth the read.
I don't know what to say, I'm not sure where I stand, and I don't know what to think anymore... not about 9/11, but society in general.
I was a NJ EMT for 6 years. I was in NY at the WTC before, during, and after the collapse. I ran from the falling towers. I hid behind a plexi-glass bus stop panel, as if that would have helped me if anything large came hurtling in that direction. My lungs are full of dust and I can barely breathe without holding back a cough and the ever-present faint taste of blood in the back of my throat. I wake up gasping for air. Those towers fell, and I was there. I don't know why the "official story" of what happened isn't questioned more than it is. Nobody listens to the people who KNOW. The 9/11 commission was made up of puppeteers, and the tesimony was given by the puppets. It's so obvious. It was a failure. If the things I, and hundreds of other people saw, felt, and heard didn't make it into that attrocious failure called the 9/11 Commission Report, then there is no other con clusion than accepting the fact that the whole thing was a whitewash.
September 21, 2009 at 7:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Mark... listen to me. 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. We were in the basement, helping a man who had been struck by pieces of flying concrete and rebar, and there was one of the huge steel and concrete support pillars with an 8 foot section blown out of the center of it. We looked around and there were other support columns that were the same. We spoke about it right then and there... we were discussing as we were carrying this man, saying "how could someone have rigged all these explosives?". That sort of thing does not happen from an airplane hitting the building 70, 80 stories up. We stood outside listening to the explosions. 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 exlploded 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 BUILDINGS WERE RIGGED. There is no question about it. Hundreds of people know this, Mark. People were told, the crowds of people were TOLD over bullhorns, that building 7 was going to be pulled (and YES that is the term they used). There was a 20 second countdown over the radios, 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! There was no question about it until a day or so later when the news was reporting that it had collapsed due to fire. We kept wondering when they were going to correct the news reports. Eventually, it became "official story".
September 21, 2009 at 7:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
I tried to explain that wasn't what happened. I kept telling people there were explosions. I kept explaining what I saw, and wrote to the newspapers, the networks, and the government about what I saw. I called to speak to the FDNY, and NYPD. I told them what I knew and wanted know why the news reports were wrong. I wasn't told I was wrong. I wasn't even given a different explaination. I was just told to "shut up", "forget about it", or "let it go, for my own good". I told my EMT Coordinator In Charge what we saw. The four of us from my squad who went were first congratulated for responding and doing such a good job, and later, two of us (the two that refused to "let it go") were brought up on charges of disorderly conduct, fired, and fined for the uniforms and equipment we used on 9/11 because they were ruined. The other two (who are women, one a mother of two, the other a mother of 3) now ref use to admit they were even there, even to us! They just won't speak about it. The four of us were heroes. Two of us were harrassed and fired, and the other two have to deny ever being there.
There is no doubt in my mind what happened in New York on 9/11. Yes, some of the conspiracy theories are far fetched. A few are even rediculous. But MOST of them, hold much more validity than the "official story". The government has one theory, and it is very weak, at best. Loose Change may be questionable, but that's what it is doing... providing theories and asking questions. Some of those questions get answered, others come up. THAT is why there is a 2nd Edition and a future final cut. Yes, the truth must be updated, of course it does. To say it doesn't is silly. What do you think an investigation is? You formulate a theory, ask questions, and get answers. When you come across new information or rule out false information, you update your theory. Why do you ridicule that concept? Why do you take so much pride in claiming "I didn't know the truth needed a 2n d Edition"? That's like your main motto and it's the weakest thing I've ever heard. Would it make more sense to you to write a story, or make a documentary, and NOT update it if you found new information? Would you want today's school children learning out of a 1977 1st Edition History textbook? Would you criticize an updated edition for them to learn out of? What about following editions? Of course not. My point is this: Loose Change may not be 100% accurate or complete, but it offers more plausible explanations, no matter how diabolical, than the 9/11 commission report fiasco.
September 21, 2009 at 7:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
In case you are wondering, no. I'm not going to give you my full name or what city I worked for. I had enough trouble having it dragged through local newspapers for two years. I don't want to lose another job. I don't want you unfoundedly slandering my name all over the net like you do with Dylan, Jason, and whoever else offers a point of view other than yours. I'm not giving you my name, so do as you wish with what I've told you. Just remember something. It's very easy to deny something, and even easier to "debunk" it with a simpler story, and simpler still to present that information to millions of people who not only have heard it as truth before, but WANT to believe it. It is much harder to piece together a series of events that makes much more sense, provides a motive, a means, and more capable suspects, and harder yet to present that information to millions of people who not only DON'T want it to be true, but have already heard a much happier story that they would rather believe.
Trust me, I'd much rather believe the official story. I'd also rather believe that Columbus discovered America and DIDN'T torture and murder the natives he encountered on the way here. But history had a 2nd Edition to that story. I can't wait for the Final Cut.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/...
September 21, 2009 at 7:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Well, this is just getting fun, since you've, by the grace of whatever imaginary being you belive in [and I'm sure there's one at least lurking in the shadows] managed to make each and every misunderstood [misrepresented] statement common to the troofer nutballs..
Don't you people read ANYTHING that's could perhaps be contrary to what you think you already know ?
September 21, 2009 at 7:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
oh wait.....yeah, I forgot
September 21, 2009 at 7:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Beijing Skyscraper Fire: The Silence Is Deafening
Debunkers' only response is to claim that no comparison to WTC 7 can be made, yet they feverishly compared completely dissimilar bridge collapses to twin towers in 2007
Beijing Skyscraper Fire: The Silence Is Deafening 120209top
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Three days after a towering inferno engulfed a 500 foot skyscraper in Beijing, debunkers have failed to come up with any answers as to why the building remained standing in comparison with WTC 7, which suffered a uniform 7 second implosion as a result of limited fires spread across just 8 floors on 9/11.
Beijing's Mandarin Oriental hotel defied all known physics on Monday when it was consumed by fires but did not collapse, a modern day miracle in light of the commonly accepted premise that since 9/11, all steel buildings that suffer even limited fire damage implode in on their own footprint within seconds.
All joking aside, any credibility that remained behind NIST's "thermal expansion" theory, which was apparently only evident on one day in history and not in the case of hundreds of other high rise buildings that have caught fire and remained standing, metaphorically went up in the flames that consumed but did not collapse one of Beijing's most prominent buildings.
The silence of debunkers with regard to the hotel fire is both deafening and highly hypocritical. Proponents of the government's version of events are usually feverish to seize upon anything, no matter how inane and off tangent, in order to try and prop up the official fairy tale.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/beijing-s...
September 21, 2009 at 8:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
My point proven, and again, the debate......
September 21, 2009 at 8:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
....was about the Pentagon.....scroll back up and attempt to read proper english, then respond......in your own words, if possible........
September 21, 2009 at 8:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
bandmama,
Look at the postings at the Alex Jones site that this nut keeps pasting from.
It is a Jew hating pro Muslim site.
Who are we at war with? Islam.
Throughout history crimes have been committed by bastards and then blamed on the Jews.
This is propaganda promoted by our enemies and it becomes obvious that this chemical ali is one of them.
Just look at who Alex Jones is and what he is propagandizing.
Chemical boy, I think I saw you drive through town last year, you the one with the swastikas on your back window?
September 21, 2009 at 8:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
If anyone would actually like to listen to Alex a bit before they rush to adopt the point of view of the more adamant and slanderous of the official conspiracy theory believers, you can listen to the Alex Jones Show at the following link. He does a four hour show Monday through Friday and a 2 hour show on Sunday, after church.
Alex does not hate Jews and he is not pro Muslim, but you can be the judge of that, yourselves.
September 21, 2009 at 9:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
The Alex Jones Show -
http://www.infowars.com/stream.pls
September 21, 2009 at 10:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
9/11 Commission Counsel: Government Agreed to Lie About 9/11
New book from man tasked by government to help investigate attacks unveils how "official story is almost entirely untrue"
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
The senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission John Farmer says that the government agreed not to tell the truth about 9/11, echoing the assertions of fellow 9/11 Commission members who concluded that the Pentagon were engaged in deliberate deception about their response to the attack.
Farmer served as Senior Counsel to the 9/11 Commission (officially known as the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States), and is also a former New Jersey Attorney General.
Farmer's book about his experiences working for the Commission is entitled The Ground Truth: The Story Behind America's Defense on 9/11, and is set to be released in September.
The book unveils how "the public had been seriously misled about what occurred during the morning of the attacks," and Farmer himself states that "at some level of the government, at some point in time:there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened."
Only the very naive would dispute that an agreement not to tell the truth is an agreement to lie. Farmer's contention is that the government agreed to create a phony official version of events to cover-up the real story behind 9/11.
The publisher of the book, Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, states that, "Farmer builds the inescapably convincing case that the official version not only is almost entirely untrue but serves to create a false impression of order and security."
September 21, 2009 at 11:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
In August 2006, the Washington Post reported, "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."
The report revealed how the 10-member commission deeply suspected deception to the point where they considered referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.
"We to this day don't know why NORAD [the North American Aerospace Command] told us what they told us," said Thomas H. Kean, the former New Jersey Republican governor who led the commission. "It was just so far from the truth. . . . It's one of those loose ends that never got tied."
Farmer himself is quoted in the Post article, stating, "I was shocked at how different the truth was from the way it was described :. The [Norad air defense] tapes told a radically different story from what had been told to us and the public for two years:. This is not spin. This is not true."
As we also reported in August 2006, released portions of NORAD tapes from 9/11, which were featured in a Vanity Fair article, do little to answer skeptic's questions about the impotence of U.S. air defenses on 9/11 and if anything only increase focus on the incompatibility of the official version of events with what is actually known to have taken place on that day.
Make no mistake, Farmer is not saying that 9/11 was an inside job, however, Farmer's testimony, along with that of his fellow 9/11 Commission members, conclusively demonstrates that, whatever really happened on 9/11, the official story as told to the public on the day and that which remains the authorities' version of events today, is a lie according to the very people who were tasked by the government to investigate it. This is a fact that no debunker or government apologist can ever legitimately deny.
September 21, 2009 at 11:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
The above article can be found here.
www.prisonplanet.com/911-commission-c...
September 22, 2009 at 2:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Memo: 9/11 Commission Witnesses Were Intimidated By Government "Minders"
More evidence of whitewash emerges
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Memo: 9/11 Commission Witnesses Were Intimidated By Government Minders 290409CommissionSomewhat lost within the flu pandemic media hype this week is an important new revelation concerning the cover up of the events of 9/11.
A recently uncovered 9/11 Commission memo dating from October 2003, half way through the panel's investigation, addresses concerns that government "minders" were intimidating witnesses and shaping their testimonies.
The document was drafted by Kevin Scheid, a senior staffer who led the commission's Team 2, which was responsible for reviewing the overarching structure of the US intelligence community.
Names also appearing on the memo are those of staffers Lorry Fenner, an air force intelligence officer, and lawyer Gordon Lederman.
The memo, entitled "Executive Branch Minders' Intimidation of Witnesses," states the following:
* Minders "answer[ed] questions directed at witnesses;"
* Minders acted as "monitors, reporting to their respective agencies on Commission staffs lines of inquiry and witnesses' verbatim responses." The staff thought this "conveys to witnesses that their superiors will review their statements and may engage in retribution;"
* Minders' notetaking "facilitates agencies in alerting future witnesses to the Commission's lines of inquiry and permits agencies to prepare future witnesses either explicitly or implicitly."
* Minders "positioned themselves physically and have conducted themselves in a manner that we believe intimidates witnesses from giving full and candid responses to our questions."
September 22, 2009 at 10:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
Sun,
Any attempt to reason with people that are afflicted with Bush derangement syndrome is futile.
These 9/11 truthers are motivated by hate pure and simple. The truth gets lost and that is evident in the rantings of the above cut and paste which spends the whole page attacking FOX news,the messenger, in the show segment of the 9/11 debunker.
Also when you see buzz words like neo-con used, as was the case in reference to John McCain, you know you are dealing with anti-semites who's next move is to attach blame on Jews and Israel.
This loser, chemboy, has all of the symptoms of those that proffer this hurtful lie and that is hate in the heart.
September 23, 2009 at 7:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
The staffers make it clear that intimidation by minders was widespread and had not only occurred with their team's witnesses.
The memo was discovered by an independent researcher in the National Archives, to which it was added earlier this year.
The revelations come in the wake of an admission by the senior counsel to the 9/11 Commission John Farmer who said that the government agreed not to tell the truth about the events of 9/11.
Farmer's book about his experiences working for the Commission, set to be released in September, unveils how "the public had been seriously misled about what occurred during the morning of the attacks," and Farmer himself states that "at some level of the government, at some point in time:there was an agreement not to tell the truth about what happened."
Farmer's statements dovetail with those highlighted in an August 2006 Washington Post report, which stated that "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."
The report revealed how the 10-member commission deeply suspected deception to the point where they considered referring the matter to the Justice Department for criminal investigation.
These statements and testimonies, combined with the swathes of still unanswered questions surrounding the attacks, confirm that the 9/11 Commission was a complete whitewash and intensify the need to establish a new independent investigation.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/memo-911-...
September 22, 2009 at 10:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
wow, you really are a nutball !
And quite incapable of rational debate.
I think, until you can put together an original thought of your own, and communicate it in your own words, I'll just leave you here to play with yourself.
[imagines Chemmy hunkered down in his mom's basement, probably sweating a lot, feverishly cutting and pasting from prisonplanet, thinking that he's offering some evidence that supports his nutty theory.....wait, there can't be a theory, 'cause he doesn't know what happened !!]
heh heh heh
September 22, 2009 at 2:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
In August 2005 Jim Hoffman and Don Paul recorded presentations for the second convening of the Los Angeles Citizens' Grand Jury on the Crimes of September 11, 2001. Later they spent many hours with videographer Celestine Star adding photographs, footage, and other graphics to document their assertions. The result is 58 minutes of compelling evidence and analysis.
9/11 Guilt: The Proof Is In Your Hands
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0yk2B...
September 22, 2009 at 3:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
[basement door opens...."Chemmy, what are you doing down there ? why does it smell like........shame?"]
LOL
September 22, 2009 at 3:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Sep (Sep (Brian Kotowski) says...
Popular Mechanics did a nice job debunking most of the 9-11 conspiracy claptrap: http://www.popularmechanics.com/techn...
September 22, 2009 at 4:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Sep, You have to understand, Chemmy didn't read that one.
Apparently, reading's not one of his strong points.
Or logic.
September 22, 2009 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
It is a cut and paste contest people and we have already lost cause chemical ali has much more posted here.
Hey chemical ali, we all looked at the stuff and we have determined that it is false witness and you have broken the lords ninth commandment.
I am praying for your soul brother.
September 22, 2009 at 5:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Lost ? the mighty Hunterdog has lost nothing.
In fact, he has [without trying very hard] smoked Chemmy's sorry behind in this debate.
Seeuski,
Have you seen George Carlin's paring down of the 10 commandments ?
fun stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pkRYaM...
September 22, 2009 at 6:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
George Carlin is an Icon, it was good.
I am sure the atheists laughed a little harder than most.\
As far as Chemical ali, I really do feel sorry for him if he is innocently falling for the garbage, but if he has malice in his heart then I am an adversary for life.
September 22, 2009 at 7:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Debunking Popular Mechanics' 9/11 Lies
Nepotism, bias, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | August 10 2006
Popular Mechanics has re-entered the media circus in an attempt to continue its 9/11 debunking campaign that began in March of last year. A new book claims to expose the myths of the 9/11 truth movement, yet it is Popular Mechanics who have been exposed as promulgating falsehoods while engaging in nepotism, shoddy research and agenda-driven politics.
It comes as no surprise that Popular Mechanics is owned by Hearst Corporation. As fictionalized in Orson Welles' acclaimed film Citizen Kane, William Randolph Hearst wrote the book on cronyism and yellow journalism and Popular Mechanics hasn't bucked that tradition.
The magazine is a cheerleader for the sophistication of advanced weaponry and new technology used by police in areas such as crowd control and 'anti-terror' operation. A hefty chunk of its advertising revenue relies on the military and defense contractors. Since the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and in the future Iran all cite 9/11 as a pretext, what motivation does the magazine have to conduct a balanced investigation and risk upsetting its most coveted clientele?
Popular Mechanics' March 2005 front cover story was entitled 'Debunking 9/11 Lies' and has since become the bellwether reference point for all proponents of the official 9/11 fairytale.
Following the publication of the article and its exaltation by the mainstream media as the final nail in the coffin for 9/11 conspiracy theories, it was revealed that senior researcher on the piece Benjamin Chertoff is the cousin of Michael Chertoff, Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security.
This means that Benjamin Chertoff was hired to write an article that would receive nationwide attention, about the veracity of the government's explanation of an event that led directly to the creation of Homeland Security, a body that his own cousin now heads.
This is unparalleled nepotism and completely dissolves the credibility of the article before one has even turned the first page...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/...
September 22, 2009 at 8:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
George Carlin comments on 9/11 Truth and the NWO
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pow5_U...
September 22, 2009 at 8:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Chertoff's Cousin Penned Popular Mechanics 9/11 Hit Piece
Chistopher Bollyn for American Free Press | March 7 2005
Dictators like Saddam Hussein have always used nepotism to protect their secrets and maintain control. Like a dictatorship, the inner cabal that directs the actions of the Bush administration uses the same tactics to confuse the public and conceal the truth of 9/11.
Dictators have always employed nepotism, the placing of family members in key positions, for one simple reason: only loyal family members can be trusted with the secrets that keep them in power. For this reason the shameless nepotism of the Bush administration should alarm Americans because it indicates that a dictatorship is encroaching upon the United States.
The Defense Department defines nepotism as the situation when relatives are in the same chain-of-command.
An egregious example of dictatorial-style nepotism occurred when George W. Bush won the White House ? twice ? thanks to the key "swing state" of Florida, where the presidential candidate's younger brother is governor. In 2000 and 2004, against all odds, Florida swung decisively, the Bush way.
With high federal offices being given to the wives, sons and daughters of senior members of the Bush administration, the Hearst Corporation executives that publish Popular Mechanics magazine probably didn't worry about the ethical considerations of hiring a cousin of Michael Chertoff, a former Assistant Attorney General and the new Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as senior researcher.
But the March 2005 issue of Popular Mechanics (PM) plumbs new depths of nepotism and Hearst-style "yellow journalism" with its cover story about 9/11. PM's senior researcher, 25-year-old Benjamin Chertoff, authored a propagandistic cover story entitled "Debunking 9/11 Lies" which seeks to discredit all independent 9/11 research that challenges the official version of events.
"Conspiracy theories can't stand up to the hard facts," the cover reads. "After an in-depth investigation, PM answers with the truth," it says. But the article fails to provide evidence to support its claims and doesn't answer the key question: What caused the collapses of the twin towers and the 47-story World Trade Center 7?
Article continues here
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/...
September 22, 2009 at 8:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
See if you can figure out who owns Popular Mechanics.
September 22, 2009 at 8:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Meigs & Fox News Attempt To Rescue Flagging Official Story On 9/11 Anniversary
Former editor of Video Review and Entertainment Weekly recycles debunked theories to attack 9/11 truth and whore his book
Paul Joseph Watson
PrisonPlanet.com
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Fox News introduced their 9/11 anniversary coverage today by promising science would reveal the truth behind 9/11 myths peddled by conspiracy theorists, so their choice to have James Meigs, whose scientific credentials include being a former editor of Entertainment Weekly and Video Review, attempt to debunk those myths was odd to say the least.
Meigs appeared on Fox and Friends to whore his "non-partisan" book, Debunking 9/11 Myths, the foreword to which is penned by Neo-Con ideologue John McCain.
Meigs is now whitewasher-in-chief at the military-industrial complex rag Popular Mechanics, which is owned by Hearst Publishing, the progenitor of the term yellow journalism.
Unsurprisingly, Meigs recycled the usual debunked fallacies in an attempt to revive the flagging official story and was not called on any of his lies by the nodding Fox presstitutes.
"What we've done in three years at Popular Mechanics of looking into these theories is try to find the facts that the conspiracy theorists themselves site as evidence of their claims," said Meigs. "In this case they say that because steel melts at about 2,700 degrees and jet fuel only burns at about 1,500 degrees...but when you talk to engineers, what you see is that steel doesn't have to melt to fail."
What Meigs fails to acknowledge is the fact that NIST's own analysis of the WTC steel concluded that temperatures in the impact zone reached no hotter than 600 degrees, according to the Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers.
September 22, 2009 at 8:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
In addition, NIST reported that, "Only three of the recovered samples of exterior panels reached temperatures in excess of 250 C (482 F) during the fires or after the collapse."
If 250 C was enough heat to weaken most of the steel in the twin towers on 9/11, then our home ovens and fireplaces would be in danger of collapse as soon as we turned them on for the first time.
Photographs taken before the collapse of the towers show people standing in the impact zones where the planes hit.
Meigs then recycles the pancake theory in an attempt to dismiss the rapid collapse of the twin towers. The pancake theory was debunked by NIST itself after their study found that, "This type of assembly (the WTC steel) was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."
It also violates the fundamental law of physics and the Law of Conservation of Momentum, as Professor Steven Jones outlines in his research paper.
Meigs goes on to claim that falling debris from the towers was enough to topple Building 7, a high rise that stood a hefty 355 feet away from the north tower. Meigs fails to explain why the building collapsed in seven seconds into its own footprint, why first responders were told to evacuate the area because the building was going to be intentionally brought down, why police officers heard bombs tearing down the building and why a top security official who was stationed in WTC 7 witnessed bombs take out the lobby of the building before either WTC tower had collapsed.
Perhaps Fox News should give Meigs his own show, since both Fox and Popular Mechanics pose as "fair and balanced" yet do their level best to lie, smear, obfuscate and bury the truth to please their corporate and war-machine bosses.
They compliment each other perfectly.
September 22, 2009 at 9 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
wow, you really are a nutball !
And quite incapable of rational debate.
I think, until you can put together an original thought of your own, and communicate it in your own words, I'll just leave you here to play with yourself.
[imagines Chemmy hunkered down in his mom's basement, probably sweating a lot, feverishly cutting and pasting from prisonplanet, thinking that he's offering some evidence that supports his nutty theory:..wait, there can't be a theory, 'cause he doesn't know what happened !!]
heh heh heh
September 22, 2009 at 9:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
lol@chemmy
September 22, 2009 at 9:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Former CBS anchorman warns of corporate influence over news
Wayne Madsen
Online Journal
Tuesday, Sept 22nd, 2009
On September 16, Dan Rather, the former anchor of the CBS Evening News, warned that today's news is shaped by very powerful corporate network owners who "are in bed with powerful political interests" that are influenced by government regulatory interests.
Rather spoke at a National Press Club remembrance of his colleague Walter Cronkite, his predecessor in the CBS Evening News anchor chair, and Don Hewitt, the late producer of 60 Minutes.
Rather revealed that in his conversations with Cronkite, the late anchor also believed that corporate interests were shaping the news to the detriment of objective journalism.
Rather also said that corporations were determining "war coverage of the lack of coverage." He also warned that there are "too few owners of networks and stations."
Rather was joined on the stage by fellow former CBS newsmen Daniel Schorr and Marvin Kalb. Bob Schieffer, host of Face the Nation, also participated in remembering Cronkite and Hewitt.
All the participants criticized a recent piece written by Michael Kinsley who charged that Cronkite was merely a person who could read from a teleprompter. All Cronkite's former colleagues recalled stories about Cronkite editing stories based on new information he and his news team received in as little as seven minutes before the CBS Evening News went on the air nationwide. All the participants said that Cronkite had a unique ability to ad lib during hours-long live special events coverage, including political conventions and national elections, as well as space missions.
September 22, 2009 at 9:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
9/11 Debunkers Hide From Slam Dunk Evidence Of Controlled Demolition
Electron microscope analysis of steel spheres from WTC site proves thermate, proves collapse of twin towers was an act of deliberate arson
Paul Joseph Watson
PrisonPlanet.com
Tuesday, May 22, 2007
Professor Steven Jones presented brand new and compelling evidence for the controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 recently, but the 9/11 debunkers and the corporate media are loathe to tackle it because it represents a slam dunk on proving the collapse of the buildings was a deliberate act of arson.
During a talk at the Rebuilding America's Senses event at the University of Texas last month, Jones laid out facts about steel samples recovered from the WTC site that Popular Mechanics dare not even attempt to debate. Debunkers are scared to even get near this information because the science behind it fundamentally contradicts the official story of what happened on 9/11.
Jones detailed his lab experiments in which he attempted to replicate NIST's conclusion that the lava like orange material flowing out of the south tower is aluminum from Flight 175, the plane that hit the building. Jones clearly documents the fact that liquid aluminum is silver and not orange as is seen in the video of the south tower, therefore the material cannot be aluminum. Jones then explains that the material is in fact a compound that can cut through steel like a hot knife through butter, thermite with sulphur added to make thermate.
September 22, 2009 at 10:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
The crux of the fresh evidence revolves around newly uncovered globules or spheres that were discovered at the WTC site that Professor Jones was able to obtain and run a electron microscope analysis on.
The spheres contained iron and aluminum, which would be expected in any steel sample, but also sulphur which is a by-product of a thermate reaction.
So having moved from a hypothesis that thermate was used to bring down the towers from using video footage and debunking the aluminum explanation of NIST, Jones now has empirical scientific proof, undertaken under laboratory conditions, that thermate was indeed used as an artificial explosive at the World Trade Center.
It has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7 was an act of deliberate arson and not as a result of fires from crashing planes.
Jones' evidence offers no other conclusion that insiders planted thermite devices within the buildings to literally pulverize the supporting columns and cause the collapse of the towers and also WTC 7. Debunkers have uniformly failed to address the existence of thermite and also molten metal at the ground zero site because they cannot dismiss the scientific proof, and are forced to resort to ad hominem insults and smears.
We are issuing a challenge to Popular Mechanics to rebut Professor Jones' analysis of the sphere samples and the clear evidence of thermate at the World Trade Center. Address the focused scientific proof without resorting to ad hominem attacks or straying off topic.
We don't expect the progenitors of yellow journalism to have any answers for what constitutes the smoking gun of controlled demolition.
September 22, 2009 at 10:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
chemtrails,I agree with bandmama when she declared her self victor,it happens!Tell me this,how could the planes not have caused the problem?Why isnt that proven that the buildings should have withstood the crash.I was working with a construction engineer that awfull day and he explained to us exactly how the thing behaved predictably because of the iron getting so hot,etc.It was so horrible that its time consuming to sort,but the details are done,Dont just be in denial and by the way ,there is not perfect or even very good justice in the world,it shouldnt be that way ,but that is the reality.
September 22, 2009 at 10:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Bush on the Constitution: 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper'
Capital Hill Blue/DOUG THOMPSON | December 9 2005
Last month, Republican Congressional leaders filed into the Oval Office to meet with President George W. Bush and talk about renewing the controversial USA Patriot Act.
Several provisions of the act, passed in the shell shocked period immediately following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, caused enough anger that liberal groups like the American Civil Liberties Union had joined forces with prominent conservatives like Phyllis Schlafly and Bob Barr to oppose renewal.
GOP leaders told Bush that his hardcore push to renew the more onerous provisions of the act could further alienate conservatives still mad at the President from his botched attempt to nominate White House Counsel Harriet Miers to the Supreme Court.
"I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said. "There is a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
I've talked to three people present for the meeting that day and they all confirm that the President of the United States called the Constitution "a goddamned piece of paper."
And, to the Bush Administration, the Constitution of the United States is little more than toilet paper stained from all the [crap] that this group of power-mad despots have dumped on the freedoms that "goddamned piece of paper" used to guarantee.
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, while still White House counsel, wrote that the "Constitution is an outdated document."
Put aside, for a moment, political affiliation or personal beliefs. It doesn't matter if you are a Democrat, Republican or Independent. It doesn't matter if you support the invasion or Iraq or not. Despite our differences, the Constitution has stood for two centuries as the defining document of our government, the final source to determine in the end if something is legal or right.
Every federal official including the President who takes an oath of office swears to "uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States."
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a "living document."
""Oh, how I hate the phrase we have-a 'living document,'" Scalia says. "We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake."
As a judge, Scalia says, "I don't have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else."
September 24, 2009 at 12:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
[cont.]
President Bush has proposed seven amendments to the Constitution over the last five years, including a controversial amendment to define marriage as a "union between a man and woman." Members of Congress have proposed some 11,000 amendments over the last decade, ranging from repeal of the right to bear arms to a Constitutional ban on abortion.
Scalia says the danger of tinkering with the Constitution comes from a loss of rights.
"We can take away rights just as we can grant new ones," Scalia warns. "Don't think that it's a one-way street."
And don't buy the White House hype that the USA Patriot Act is a necessary tool to fight terrorism. It is a dangerous law that infringes on the rights of every American citizen and, as one brave aide told President Bush, something that undermines the Constitution of the United States.
But why should Bush care? After all, the Constitution is just "a goddamned piece of paper."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/...
September 24, 2009 at 1:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLM (anonymous) says...
Don't ya just love it when one nut vouches for another. Kinda like safety in numbers. Y'all are both nuts!
September 24, 2009 at 2:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
This video should be watched by everyone interested in evidence at the Pentagon. The very fact there are credible witnesses showing discrepancies in the official story regarding the flight path of the plane means there is a viable avenue for investigation. No matter who is lying - the south side 'witnesses', those who quoted the south side witnesses in the media - or the North Side witnesses themselves - someone is lying - and considering we've not been allowed to see clear footage of what actually happened at the pentagon, it does not bode well for the official story of the 757's supposed south of citgo approach.
The witnesses who are adamant of the North side approach CANNOT be discarded without consideration - they are extremely credible and DEMAND more attention.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5FhQc...
September 23, 2009 at 11:19 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
It,s almost like listening to a robot,Chem,I dont think people will listen to you untill you listen to them.You seem really devoted in your cause and very able,Please do humanity some good and get rid of the fear that consumes you on this one,I also was in an explosion and think that you are like shell shocked or something ,like a Veitnam vet.That is just one more to add to the list of atrosities,Non-injured people who will never be the same.We have to go on and make it better,and yeah its hard to believe that a handfull of turds could cause so much pain,but that is what happens when people that hate get together and go for the evil.Cant we stop the cycle?
September 23, 2009 at 12:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
trafficman (anonymous) says...
Amazing that someone who was originally claiming it was a guided missile that took out the Pentagon is now posting eyewitness accounts of an airplane flying overhead and into the Pentagon to support his conspiracy theory. All of the witness say it was an airplane. Are there minor differences in eyewitness accounts of the flight path, yes but that is typical for almost any event. Ask 20 people and you are likely to get 20 different versions of what they saw. Particularly when the plane is flying overhead at approximately 750 feet per second.
Previous posts by Chemical Ali that the damage to the exterior of the Pentagon from an airplane should look the same as the WTC show a total lack of understanding of basic physics. The exterior of the WTC consisting of glass and a thin metal shell is going to react completely different than the concrete walls faced with limestone of the Pentagon. Trying to compare airline wreckage photos from other crash scenes when the planes were on approach traveling at less than 200 mph, pilots are trying to save the plane and the energy is dissipated over an expansive area, with one being flown with accelerating speed into a massive concrete structure at anywhere from 300 - 450 mph is going to be completely different. Again shear ignorance to think they should look the same.
It is apparent a village is missing its idiot and unfortunately he has landed on the Pilot blog.
September 23, 2009 at 1:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
Excellent points trafficman,
Was it a missile? Was it a bird? Was it a drone? NO!!!!!! It was a plane............
Get ready for the next 5 cut and paste fantasy posts.
One of the claims is that no one would have had cellphone coverage in that plane at flight altitude.
That plane was way below flight altitude for many miles and the fact that Mrs. Olson's connection cut out several times shows the connections were fragile.
Here are a bunch of eyewitness accounts.
""USAToday.com Editor Joel Sucherman saw it all: an American Airlines jetliner fly left to right across his field of vision as he commuted to work Tuesday morning. It was highly unusual. The large plane was 20 feet off the ground and a mere 50 to 75 yards from his windshield. Two seconds later and before he could see if the landing gear was down or any of the horror-struck faces inside, the plane slammed into the west wall of the Pentagon 100 yards away. 'My first thought was he's not going to make it across the river to [Reagan] National Airport. But whoever was flying the plane made no attempt to change direction,' Sucherman said. 'It was coming in at a high rate of speed, but not at a steep angle-almost like a heat-seeking missile was locked onto its target and staying dead on course.'"
- "Journalist Witnesses Pentagon Crash." eWeek.com, 13 Sep 2001 "
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library...
A couple of the eyewitness accounts were most likely used to some degree for the trolls that "want" to believe this hoax as they describe the plane as on a path like a missile. But all of those accounts describe the plane.
September 23, 2009 at 2:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Trafficman, you obviously did not watch the video, also, where on earth do you get the 300 to 450 mph figure? The official story claims closer to 540mph. Making up your own set of circumstances like mama saying the plane flew sideways into the pentagon with both engines going into the same little hole as the fuselage, I see, hilarious.
September 23, 2009 at 4:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
"eyewitness accounts of an airplane flying overhead and into the Pentagon"
If you pay close attention you will see that none of the witnesses in that video actually saw the plane hit the pentagon.
September 23, 2009 at 5:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
Oh, I guess it stopped just in time.
So many liars huh chemical ali.
September 23, 2009 at 6:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
I never said the plane "flew sideways."
I showed you empirical facts that supported my arguement, which you have yet to do.
So, now you have shown yourself to be lying as well as ignorant and misinformed.
It's a trademark of the "Troofer" movement, and I shouldn't have expected more from you.
Your arguement fails, as do you, and again....unless you can provide evidence that supports your theory...real evidence, not a speculation cut and pasted from a conspiracy nut's website, I win this debate.
I had no doubt it would be any different.
Heh heh
September 23, 2009 at 10:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Kevin_Nerney (Kevin Nerney) says...
I told myself I wouldn't appease s.t.b.c.t. but here goes nothing. Let's say you're right. It was the Govt.,whatever level doesn't matter. Numerous people were involved and they all have come forward or been found out. They have all been sentenced to die on primetime TV. Now what? Do we scrape the whole constitution, fire the entire Congress executive branch and all the Judges on the bench and start over or should we just conquer a new continent and displace the inhabitants and resurrect the founding fathers?
September 23, 2009 at 11:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
"Do we scrape the whole constitution" We don't have to scrap our constitution, it's already being done for us.
"fire the entire Congress executive branch and all the Judges on the bench" lol, Most of them, anyway.
"should we just conquer a new continent and displace the inhabitants"
I don't have all of the answers, Kevin, and neither does Anton Vodvarka, but it does seem to appear that we need to take THIS country back, at least. And when I say "we" I mean all righteous, freedom-loving Americans.
September 24, 2009 at 12:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
McCain booed for saying Obama respects the Constitution
David Edwards and Stephen C. Webster
Raw Story
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Speaking to a town hall in Sun City Arizona on Tuesday, Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) drew choruses of loud boos from the audience by saying that President Barack Obama respects the Constitution of the United States.
On the town hall, Arizona Central reports:
An overflow crowd of mostly seniors, totaling about 1,250, applauded McCain as he laid out a plan to slash medical malpractice costs for doctors, create a $5,000 tax rebate for families to use on private insurance and offer rewards for people who take steps like quitting smoking to stay healthy.
He also said insurance companies should not be allowed to use pre-existing conditions to deny Americans coverage.
"I want to reform health care. The costs are out of control," McCain said. "But let's not forget the quality of health care is what must be preserved as well."
And it seemed to be going well for McCain until an older woman stood up and asked, "I would like to know how the President is getting by with all of this money : It's against the Constitution. Doesn't he know that we still live under a Constitution?"
The audience erupted in cheers and applause. McCain just smiled.
"I'm sure : I'm sure that he does," he said.
The audience laughed, as if the Senator were joking.
McCain booed for saying Obama respects the Constitution 290509banner
"No, no, I'm serious," McCain said. "I'm sure that he does and I'm sure that he respects the Constitution of the United States."
"No, no, no, no :" he trailed as a roar of boos cascaded through the crowd. "Now wait, I really do. I'm absolutely convinced of it. I just believe, my friends, that there is a fundamental difference in philosophy about the role of government. That's why we have competition for public office and competition amongst parties and competition about different ideas and visions for the future of America."
He concluded: "I am convinced the President is absolutely sincere in his beliefs." The crowd booed again. "Wait a min : Wait a minute! I'm saying he's sincere in his beliefs. We just happen to disagree and he is the President of the United States and let's be respectful."
The episode seems like an echo of a McCain campaign rally in 2008 when an audience erupted in jeers after a man, playing off Sarah Palin's "palling around with terrorists" rhetoric, was told by McCain that Obama is "a decent man that you don't have to be scared [of] as President of the United States." (Watch that video below.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vlUYKs...
September 24, 2009 at 1:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Outspoken Arizona Senator Questions 9/11 Official Version Of Events
Republican attacked for expressing opinion on September 11th cover-up
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Friday, April 25, 2008
State Sen. Karen Johnson, R-Mesa, has come under fierce criticism for going on record with her doubts over the government's version of events surrounding the 9/11 attacks.
Following a vote in the Senate Appropriations Committee on Arizona's 9/11 Memorial, Johnson told Capitol reporters "There are many of us that believe there's been a cover-up."
Details of Johnson's comments come in an vicious hit piece article in the Arizona Republic entitled Drinking the 9/11 Kool-Aid:
The senator gave details about her theories. The World Trade Center buildings could have been rigged with thermite to melt girders. The aircraft could have been drones rather than the commercial airliners most of us thought we saw crashing into the Twin Towers. As to what became of the missing passengers in the aircraft that (theoretically) did not explode against the towers: "That's what I would like to know," she said.
Citing no research whatsoever on such theories, and without referring to the hundreds of engineers, scientists, professors, former government and intelligence officials and prominent public figures who have voiced similar concerns over the official version of the attacks, which is about as water tight as a paper bag, the Arizona Republic continues the attack:
Now, we take no issue with private citizens believing whatever fever-swamp nonsense, however outlandish, they wish about their government.
We do take serious issue, however, with a public official affecting public policy on such grounds.
September 24, 2009 at 1:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
[cont.]
The conservative Republican senator, who has represented Mesa's District 18 for nearly two decades, is renowned for her outspoken politics and devotion to the US constitution.
In the past she has chastised big government initiatives and social programs such as No Child Left Behind, saying they infringe on state's rights.
She has previously come under attack, as "nutty" for voicing concerns on the secretive Security and Prosperity Partnership, which she, like many others, has warned represents a bureaucratic undermining of national sovereignty.
"It's all because it's going to be open," Johnson has previously told Capitol Media Services. "It's all going to be a 'North American community,' just like the European Union," complete with the creation of a single currency just like the Euro.
"We will have no sovereignty, we will have no Constitution left... we are going to be ruled by unelected tribunals, bureaucrats that are unelected," she said.
In February 2007 Johnson introduced Senate Concurrent Memorial 1002, a bill urging U.S. withdrawal from the SPP, and a North American Union. The text of the legislation is similar to other resolutions offered in South Carolina, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.
Johnson has also worked hard to introduce bills to overturn legislature outlawing carry concealed weapons on community college and public university campuses, a move that would give students, teachers and administrators a chance to protect themselves during a mass shooting.
She has also introduced a bill prohibiting schools from collecting fingerprints, hand geometry, voice recognition, facial recognition, iris scans and retinal scans
from students. Bill 1216 passed the Senate earlier this year. Johnson has also fought against REAL ID and the biometrically enhanced driver's license.
Johnson has also been criticized in the past for holding a position on the board of the Church of Scientology's Citizens Commission on Human Rights. The sum of her work here has consisted of sponsoring bills on its behalf to limit use of psychotropic drugs on children and to oppose mandatory mental health screenings for children.
A senator that actually cares about constitution law and US sovereignty, questions big corporate infested government and promotes freedom? Karen Johnson is undoubtedly kooky and most possibly evil.
September 24, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Personal attacks on other community members do nothing for your weak argument.
September 24, 2009 at 2:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
I actually find it a bit telling that Chem spent at LEAST one hour (late at night in the basement smelling of shame I am sure) on this rant..............
September 24, 2009 at 3:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
Cut and paste, cut and paste.
The hate Bush derangement syndrome I spoke of earlier is the underlying motivating factor behind this truther nutball movement.
"The weak argument" is using hate Bush 3rd party quotes that don't fit with the mans persona over the last eight years.
You want people to buy into the notion that Bush cursed the Constitution?
Count me out.
The Patriot Act is lawful, it worked, and is still working to this day as is evidenced by the capture of several Muslim terrorists in NY and here in Denver.
And Obama uses it to this day. By the way, where is the anger over the White House snitch line that still exists and the use of sites like facebook and twitter that the White House is gathering emails from?
Must be part of that "change" thing I've heard about.
I am sure the usual suspects will jump all over me for this but who cares the whole country was behind Bush after 9/11 and the tactics we used were endorsed by the very people in Congress that are now yelling for investigations and trials.
A bunch of hypocrites, and so the 9/11 truther movement was started when Hillary Clinton stated several months after 9/11 "what did he know and when did he know it" referring to the rumors that had been started by the enemies of the US that George W. Bush and the CIA were behind the attacks along with the Mosad and Israel.
Every lousy accusation has been systematically debunked by experts and non experts and eyewitness accounts like people I know and my own two eyes.
The whole front of that building was demolished along with huge damage through the parking lot and people we know were killed and DNA has proven such.
But at least chemical ali has shown his true colors, he is a Bush hater and is a receptacle for the trash he is collecting and spreading.
September 24, 2009 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Ah, another cut and paste comment from Alex Jones' buttboy....
Have you no original thoughts of your own ?
Are you incapable of finding a thread of thought within yourself ?
Apparently so.
So, to counteract your lunacy, I'think I'll just cut and paste for a while, ala the ChemIdiot...........
Yet, in just under four years, the 9/11 "truth movement" has ground to a halt. Apart from the fundamental incoherence of their theories, the downfall of the 9/11 denier juggernaut was good old-fashioned skepticism at its finest, the kind that conjures visions of James Randi challenging psychics and faith healers on their home turfs and winning. Skeptics are better at their jobs than they think, and its important to give credit where credit is due.
Staking their fortunes almost solely on Internet-based content may have been the 9/11 deniers' biggest mistake. What seems like a perfect place for pseudoscience - the Internet is un-edited, without fact-checkers or minimum publishing standards of any kind - also became a perfect place for a rapid-response system of blogs and forums to fight back. Drawing on the freely available technical information from the NIST, FEMA, and academic journals which most colleges let their students access for free, skeptical sites like ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com and debunking911.com are able to defuse 9/11 denier claims as they arise...
September 24, 2009 at 5:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
"Alternative" theories claiming that no hijacked aircraft struck the World Trade Center and the Pentagon have recently resurfaced. In the case of the WTC attacks, the sheer number of eyewitnesses and the abundance of evidence are sufficient to show clearly the absurdity of these "no-plane" theories. However, the matter is quite different for the Pentagon strike and therefore deserves further discussion.
If we assume that no plane hit the Pentagon, then we are invariably faced with the alternative suggestion of a missile. A truck bomb is absolutely out of the question because of the utter lack of evidence for this kind of attack.
It should be noted that some alternative theories suggest that the Pentagon was indeed hit by an aircraft, but not by Flight 77. Such theories consider a drone or a smaller aircraft. Either way, they imply the impact of an aircraft and as such cannot be considered "no-plane" theories and are beyond the scope of this article.
The missile theory had been sidelined because many, in the US 9/11 truth movement, felt strongly that the lack of clear audiovisual evidence of the impact of AA77 was a sinister booby-trap prepared by US authorities to ridicule once and for all the entire truth movement at the appropriate time (for example, by releasing new footage or pictures, or by showing the debris of AA77 set up in a hangar). However, a 2007 speech by the late Cuban leader Fidel Castro, in which he accused the US government of orchestrating a colossal criminal operation with vast media coverage to conceal what he believes was a coup, has given new life to the missile theory.
Castro in fact claimed that "only a projectile could have created the geometrically round orifice created by the alleged airplane". He is certain that no plane hit the Pentagon and that one of the many missiles in the US arsenal was used instead.
I entirely disagree with this theory, because not only there is no evidence to support it, but there is, in my opinion, considerable evidence that allows to rule it out. Let's examine this evidence in detail.
I will not focus on the individual types of ordnance available in the US military arsenal or on the acronyms that identify the various missile types and flight profiles. Specialist websites already cover these in excellent detail. Rather, I will deal with the main evidence at the crime scene which allows to exclude the possibility of a missile attack at the Pentagon.
September 24, 2009 at 5:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
First of all, let's consider the only characteristic of a missile attack that I think is worth examining in detail: the angle of the attack profile. Here are some frames of special high-speed footage taken during test firings in US proving grounds, which I think speak more clearly than many words.
September 24, 2009 at 5:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
By the way, all this other info is readily availible at
http://11-settembre.blogspot.com/2008...
The pictures show clearly that the missile is not designed to explode upon impact against the target (in this test, a reinforced-concrete structure). It must penetrate the structure, piercing its hardened outer shell, and then detonate inside it, producing a pressure and thermal gradient whose effect is actually enhanced by the resistance provided by the structure.
In practice, penetration is achieved thanks to the kinetic energy of the missile and to the use of penetrators made of steel and, more recently, titanium, which enclose the explosive charge.
When detonation occurs, the entire structure is subjected to extremely intense stresses from the inside outward, due to the detonation of the explosive charge carried by the missile body and of any ammunition stored inside the target.
This is clearly visibile in the picture below, which shows that the entire structure is affected simultaneously and in all directions with the same intensity.
September 24, 2009 at 5:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
When detonation occurs, the entire structure is subjected to extremely intense stresses from the inside outward, due to the detonation of the explosive charge carried by the missile body and of any ammunition stored inside the target.
This is clearly visibile in the picture below, which shows that the entire structure is affected simultaneously and in all directions with the same intensity.
September 24, 2009 at 5:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Obviously, the effects of the explosion are greater if the volume inside the target is small and if there are few pathways for venting the overpressure. An explosion in an open space is less destructive than the same explosion in an enclosed space.
Therefore, the asymmetries of the various observable macroeffects are not linked to the directionality of the stresses but to the different resistance provided by the materials and the design of the interior cavity in which the explosion occurs.
The explosion of a conventional demolition charge occurs in any case according to a rough symmetry, linked mostly to the shape of the charge and the resistance of the container, but in large spaces these effects in practice do not have a clearly identifiable role with respect to the extent of the resulting destruction.
In theory, the detonation speeds of high explosives allow us to model, as a first approximation, the explosion of a charge of this type as a static point-like charge which develops its effects spatially with a spherical geometry.
For particular applications, such as the interception of rapidly approaching airborne targets, missile charges have been developed which have a directional distribution of the effects of the explosion (shrapnel distribution and pressure wave). The purpose of these charges, which take advantage of particular geometries of the explosive and employ multiple-trigger electronic systems, is to maximize the destructive effects in the chosen direction, reducing the spatial dispersion of the pressure gradient and especially of the shrapnel formed by the charge container.
This requirement arises from the need to minimize the weight of the charge, accordingly reducing the total weight of the missile: this allows to increase its agility in performing course corrections and its maximum speed, and also allows to reduce the flight time to engage the threat.
September 24, 2009 at 5:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Directional charges, therefore, are conceived to be used with point-like targets (to concentrate the effects of the explosion on a small surface, to overcome the resistance of the target and destroy it, as in the typical case of armor piercing), or to create walls of shrapnel and high-pressure regions in specific portions of space, in a direction which is not aligned with the missile axis (a typical example is the use of directional charges that explode at right angles to the trajectory in order to strike a target as the missile flies alongside).
The presence of a directional charge does not imply at all that the effects of the explosion, especially within an enclosed space, are nonexistent in the other spatial directions. An explosion is in practice an instantaneous phenomenon, which triggers subsequent mechanical phenomena related to the repeated impacts of secondary projectiles which draw their kinetic energy from the force impulse received during the explosion.
The trajectories of these secondary projectiles are a bundle of straight lines which converge at the point where the charge is located.
Of course, the first-approximation model stops when the pressure waves strike the resisting structure, because at that point the reaction of the target is tied to the actual characteristics of the medium and of the structures that are hit (pressure and thermal gradient, resistance and resilience of the materials, type and uniformity of the materials, presence or absence of discontinuities between the resisting elements, impulsive resistance of the materials to the impact).
September 24, 2009 at 5:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Models for studying impulsive phenomena are very complex, indeed because they cannot be approximated by derivable functions. By definition, a function, in order to be derivable, must be continuous, but this makes it impossible to use such functions to approximate impulsive phenomena, which by definition are not continuous. It is necessary to resort to advanced computational systems, which are in any case approximate and are normally presented in higher-level courses on mathematical analysis or in the teaching of mathematical methods for engineering.
Certainly it is not appropriate, here, to delve into such models, because the challenge would be truly difficult and would require a solid experimental stage. However, for the purpose of this discussion it is sufficient to bear in mind that the detonation of a main charge is substantially omnidirectional and is intended to shatter the resisting structure from the inside, generating the maximum possible number of secondary projectiles (shrapnel, impacted objects which in turn strike other objects) having an extremely high kinetic energy, in addition to pressure and thermal peaks capable of disabling personnel and equipment.
Also, we must not forget that wave phenomena, essentially of the pressure-related type, are affected strongly by reflection and refraction. The direction of the motion of the missile, instead, does not have a substantial effect on the mode of detonation, because the time frame after initial impact is extremely small.
September 24, 2009 at 5:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
you've been owned, fool, now try to debate me without cutting and pasting from your wannabe lover's website.......
ha ha ha....
September 24, 2009 at 5:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Yo, chem, you're a horrible debater....Why do you even waste your time, coming unprepared ?
September 24, 2009 at 6:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
And the mighty Hunterdog takes a bite out of yet another butt.....
heh heh
September 24, 2009 at 6:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Sorry, too agressive, Mrs. Hunterdog will beat me up....
[she's the only one who would dare try]
So...chemmy, care to debate [just for fun, 'cause you know it will be] your earlier statement [cut and paste quote, really] confirming your belief [I think, it's hard to tell with all the plagarism] that the WTC's were taken down by controlled demolition ?
September 24, 2009 at 7:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
exactly.
September 26, 2009 at 9:35 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jk (anonymous) says...
Kevin, hit the end button on your keyboard
September 25, 2009 at 11:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Wow, that was a lot of hot air from a big, fat BM.
September 25, 2009 at 6:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
hot air ?...
wow, there's some irony for you...
but i bet you don't , considering your ignorance, get the irony...
wait, i see, you're like 14...i've been misssing it....sorry
care to debate your "controlled demolition theory", teenage troofer ?
you can't, obviously.
September 25, 2009 at 6:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
your argument fails....
prove me different, if you can....."troofer"
September 25, 2009 at 6:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Kevin_Nerney (Kevin Nerney) says...
I wish the newest comments were on top so that one doesn't have to scroll so far in order to continue reading where one left off.
September 25, 2009 at 11:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
Oh My Gosh,I need to go back to college again to keep reading this inferno.Im trying to keep up but,please give up Chem. my brain could explode.Hunter dog when does the bite and chew end?Too bad the paper is to lame to have a new story to comment on,Maybe next week,Wouldnt want to tarnish the shiney Ski town image with real current issues that actually relate to our area or nation at present.Cant there be a paper site for discussion of our choosng with out dragging one article on for a month?.THE PAPER WILL PULL A STORY DISCUSSION WHEN THEY CHOOSE,WHAT IS UP WITH THIS LAME ASS TOPIC, PILOT EDITORS? I THINK YOU ARE SICK.
September 26, 2009 at 7:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Sun,
Sorry, but for me it's a moral issue. I just can't stand by and let these sort of twisted lies and theories get spouted without fighting back.
And if someone can get educated in the meantime, that's a bonus.
September 26, 2009 at 8:31 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
LOL@JLM......
No expertise on my part, I just research....Quite unlike another poster here.
As an engineer and demolitions person, JLM, i would welcome your thoughts on whether the towers appear to have been brought down by a "controlled demolition" ?
September 26, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLM (anonymous) says...
Hell, as an engineer and a demo man I am just overwhelmed with the body of engineering and explosives knowledge possessed by bandmama! That is one damn tough band, mama! LOL
I am also overwhelmed by what folks are willing to consider, believe and repeat --- pretty damn scary stuff mistaking a 250,000 lbs aircraft for a 24,000 lbs GH?
Maybe that's why the stock market works or maybe not?
Houston, we got some crazies down here!
September 26, 2009 at 9:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
After google searching these so called scientists and engineers that chemical ali keeps pasting from it becomes obvious that a bunch of San Francisco radical punks have targeted the minds of the weak among us.
Someone couldn't help himself.
On the other hand, great match Hunterdog you left blood all over the ring.
September 27, 2009 at 6:37 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
So glad you have a chance to use your genius abitity to prove a completely,stupid point that is obvious without your private research.I do amire your intellect and again you are correct and I would never ever be able to keep up with your mind except as I do to listen in .You are truly a debator of the most amazing quality,The only really stupid thing that I have heard you say "mama',is to ask some one who is qualified if its a controlled demolition,does that mean you talked so long about it that you believe it now?Im still with you,but please tell me if there is a Santa,I know you can get to the bottom of this.
September 26, 2009 at 3:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
I was actually hoping to hear from someone with real-world experience with [perhaps] structural engineering and demolitions, since I only know what I read, from experts in the field.
I was hoping JLM could enlighten the chemicalsniffer in a way that I can't, or at least his arguement would carry more weight.
You see, unlike another poster here, I value the opinion of people who know what they're talking about. I'm certainly not so arrogant as to think I know more than someone who has spent more time than I on a particular subject.
Question, though....
After a rash of minue-by-minute posts, chemmy seems to have taken some time off ?
What's the guess here ? Aliens ? Illuminati ? Black helicopters on his front lawn to "eliminate the problem" ? The folks with the white dinner jacket came to take him away ?
Is he now in a padded romper room ? Or in a spaceship with aliens probing his nether regions ?
Inquiring minds want to know, LOL.
September 26, 2009 at 5:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Prominent Structural Engineers Say Official Version of 9/11 "Impossible" "Defies Common Logic" "Violates the Law of Physics"
George Washington's Blog
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Numerous structural engineers now publicly challenge the government's account of the destruction of the Trade Centers on 9/11, including:
A prominent engineer with 55 years experience, in charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects including high rise offices, former member of the California Seismic Safety Commission and former member of the National Institute of Sciences Building Safety Council (Marx Ayres) believes that the World Trade Centers were brought down by controlled demolition (see also this)
Two professors of structural engineering at a prestigious Swiss university (Dr. Joerg Schneider and Dr. Hugo Bachmann) said that, on 9/11, World Trade Center 7 was brought down by controlled demolition (translation here)
Kamal S. Obeid, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Berkeley, of Fremont, California, says:
"Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well planned and controlled demolition"
Ronald H. Brookman, structural engineer, with a masters degree in Engineering from UC Davis, of Novato California, writes:
"Why would all 110 stories drop straight down to the ground in about 10 seconds, pulverizing the contents into dust and ash - twice. Why would all 47 stories of WTC 7 fall straight down to the ground in about seven seconds the same day? It was not struck by any aircraft or engulfed in any fire. An independent investigation is justified for all three collapses including the surviving steel samples and the composition of the dust."
Graham John Inman, structural engineer, of London, England, points out:
"WTC 7 Building could not have collapsed as a result of internal fire and external debris. NO plane hit this building. This is the only case of a steel frame building collapsing through fire in the world. The fire on this building was small & localized therefore what is the cause?"
Paul W. Mason, structural engineer, of Melbourne, Australia, argues:
"In my view, the chances of the three buildings collapsing symmetrically into their own footprint, at freefall speed, by any other means than by controlled demolition, are so remote that there is no other plausible explanation!"
Mills M. Kay Mackey, structural engineer, of Denver, Colorado, points out:
"The force from the jets and the burning fuel could not have been sufficient to make the building collapse. Why doesn't the media mention that the 11th floor was completely immolated on February 13th, 1975? It had the weight of nearly 100 stories on top of it but it did not collapse?"
September 26, 2009 at 6:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
David Scott, Structural Engineer, of Scotland, argues:
"Near-freefall collapse violates laws of physics. Fire induced collapse is not consistent with observed collapse mode . . . ."
Nathan Lomba, Structural Engineer, of Eureka, California, states
"I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. "If" you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and "if" you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.
Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames-just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.
September 26, 2009 at 6:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, "if" the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side-much like the topping of a tall redwood tree-not a concentric, vertical collapse.
For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the causes for the structural failures."
Edward E. Knesl, civil and structural engineer, of Phoenix, Arizona, writes:
"We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.
We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.
The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from ?"
David Topete, civil and structural engineer, San Francisco, California
Charles Pegelow, structural engineer, of Houston, Texas (and see this)
Dennis Kollar, structural engineer, of West Bend, Wisconsin
Doyle Winterton, structural engineer (retired)
Michael T. Donly, P.E., structural engineer
William Rice, P.E., structural engineer, former professor of Vermont Technical College
See this website and this website for further additions.
There are many other structural engineers who have questioned the government's account in private. We support them and wish them courage to discuss these vital issues publicly.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/...
September 26, 2009 at 6:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Hmmmm..
Well, now that your orifaces are clear,
1. " Well documented explosions" did not occur. Columbia University was running sensitive seismic recorders at the time & they picked up nothing. When conspiracy theorists talk about "well documented explosions, " they are simply referring to the puffs of air that demolition experts have stated are not explosions. See http://www.implosionworld.com/Article...
Somehow, puffs of air are now "explosions."
2. Lists of so-called experts who doubt the official explanation of 9/11 are worthless for one big reason:
The doubting scientists in this list have published nothing at all. Not one article on their 9/11 beliefs. There are no articles on thermite, none on free fall, nothing.
On the contrary, the real experts have printed dozens of real articles, in peer-reviewed journals, technical journals, and trade journals explaining how the jets caused the Towers to collapse. This is the way real science is done. You publish it in a science journal, sign your name. People know your credentials and they review the article & then publish IF it's good.
Since there is not one single article published in the technical literature by the doubting scientists, that means their ideas are worthless, no-one will accept them, they are all rejected. To any intelligent person, that ends this argument completely.
3. Professor Steven E. Jones, from BYU (Brigham Young University) may have published 40 papers, but none of them are on the 9-11 collapse. He's wholly unqualified in civil engineering. Jones' department is physics and his research is in "cold fusion."
The correct department for analysis of the twin-tower collapse is engineering, not physics.
The engineering dept at Jones own University (BYU) has heavily criticized Jones. D. Allan Firmage, Professor Emeritus, Civil Engineering, BYU, called Jones' statements "very disturbing." Also, "The structural engineering faculty in the Fulton College of Engineering and Technology [at BYU] do not support the hypotheses of Professor Jones."
See http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm to see how Jones was ripped apart by his own University.
Jones made so many false statements about thermite being used in 9/11 that finally the editors at "Implosion World" contacted him. They cornered him with the facts. He admitted that his theories had many unexplained holes. He also admitted that none of the steel showed thermite's "degenerative fingerprint." See page 7, section 4 of http://www.implosionworld.com/Article...
September 26, 2009 at 8:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Brilliant!
September 26, 2009 at 8:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Conspiracy theory or hidden truth? The 9/11 enigmas...
Richard Gage, AIA, Gregg Roberts, and David Chandler
Richard Gage, AIA has been a practicing San Francisco Bay Area architect for more than 20 years, and is a registered member of the American Institute of Architects. Most recently he worked on a $400M mixed-use facility in Las Vegas NV. But he is also the founder and CEO of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth, now numbering over 800 A/E's, calling for a new investigation into the destruction of all 3 WTC high-rises on 9/11. Gage has spoken at over 100 events, reaching 20 U.S. states and 8 countries. He has been invited to present in 14 cities Australia, New Zealand, and Japan before the end of this year. As the anniversary of the events approaches, Gage tells WAN why he thinks there are hidden depths to the destruction of the World Trade Centre...
http://www.worldarchitecturenews.com/...
September 26, 2009 at 9:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Just to show you're incapable of an original thought of your own....
You simply cut and pasted from ....
http://www.slate.com/discuss/forums/t...
Have you no ability to debate a point given the information you have access to ?
Apparently not....
As a debater, you are simply a charlatan, and cannot stand with one like the mighty Hunterdog.
September 26, 2009 at 9:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Good night.
September 26, 2009 at 9:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLM (anonymous) says...
This pseudo-engineering discussion of the failure mechanism of the 9-11 buildings is just so much nonsense and a fraud perpetrated by folks pretending to have academic credentials which simply do not exist.
The hamhanded, inaccurate and overuse of "engineering" terms to substantiate the bogus credibility of the con man authors of this inanity is solely for the benefit of laymen who may be impressed by the use of such terms as "ductile" and "tensile or shear capacity". This is frankly not the language of structural engineering as it relates to this type of analysis.
To argue that chopping down a red wood would be an exemplar for how a composite structure (concrete and steel) would behave in failure is nonsense that any layman can easily spot. A red wood is chopped down to fall in a specific direction by the very technique of chopping it down.
At the end of the day, there are only really two types of explosives --- fast or cutting explosives like C4 and slow or heaving explosives like ammonium nitrate of Oklahoma City fame.
The conspiracy theorists have to assume that a fast explosive was used as they argue for something to in effect "cut" the building down. The Murrah Building in shows the classic effect of a slow explosion which shattered everything but did so in a fairly limited manner.
If the building were rigged with C4 --- no small feat given the necessity to apply the C4 directly to virtually all of the structural members which would have been encased behind drywall or cementitious fireproofing --- it would also have required blasting caps or either electric or non-electric trigger which would have required a network of electrical wires or detonating cord or fuses (very unlikely application).
Perhaps the more illogical challenge is where to put everything? What floor? After all, clowns were going to fly airplanes into the building and if you rigged the wrong floor for demolition how were you going to make it coordinate with the crash sites of the planes?
All shear utter nonsense!
September 26, 2009 at 10:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Kevin_Nerney (Kevin Nerney) says...
JK- thanks it pays to get up in the morning if you can learn something new every day.
September 26, 2009 at 11:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Wow JLM, you real smart.
September 27, 2009 at 3:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Yes, Chemmy, JLM is smart, smarter than you, in that he understands what it takes to take down structures with the size and scope of the WTC towers.
When 30-40 story buildings are wired for demolition, it generally takes 3-4 months to get them wired up.
How long do you think it would take to wire 2 110 story buildings ?
Without thousands of people noticing ?
Not to mention the fact that no traces of C4, or thermite, [or whatever the goofy theory of the day may claim], have been found in the rubble of the towers.
Not to mention that the way the towers fell shows no signs of controlled demolition.
Your cutting and pasting from a Slate discussion forum does nothing to strenghten your argument. In fact, it's a point against your side, and I'll draw an analogy to show it.
If I had tumor, and 99.9% of the doctors in the world think the best way to deal with it is to remove it, do I take their advice, or the .01% that think leeches, or prayer, or a special herbal concoction is the way to go ?
Remember when I mentioned the razor of Occam ?
Again, your point fails.
September 27, 2009 at 9:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
I think this book reveals the truth and creates issues with the theories of the Bush haters.
It was well before Bush was President that we had our first encounter with the group that attacked us on 9/11.
http://jaynadavis.com/highlights.html
September 27, 2009 at 9:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
"Put together, the documents offer an A to Z look into al Qaeda's quest for murderous expertise, training manuals for virtually any kind of explosive, a chemical shopping list and where to find them: Hexamine, used in the preparation of medicines; sulfuric acid, simply auto battery acid; ammonium nitrate, an economical mixture it says, the ingredients for which are found in burned wood, metal paint and farm fertilizer. It was used to build the Oklahoma City bomb. And the list goes on, 64 different chemicals."
http://www.isis-online.org/publicatio...
No coincidence.
September 27, 2009 at 10:04 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Anyone interested in the events of 9/11 should watch this documentary in an objective manner. It is about an hour and a half in length.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=56qnNm...
September 27, 2009 at 2:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Heh heh, "Loose Change" Vol. III !
Funny how the "troof" keeps needing to be revised.
Wasn't the last version called 'The Final Cut"?...heh heh
Funny thing is, just like Dylan Avery's other two steaming piles of pigs*@t, he never tells you....what really happened....
I took one for team this time, rolled my pants legs up and waded into this festering, horrible-smelling cesspool of a 'documentary", and here we go.....
This time the "truth" is, we're told, not that the Bush administration knew the attacks were going to happen, and-intentionally or not-failed to act, but that the Bush administration actually caused the attacks.
According to Mr. Avery, the hijacking bit was was simply an act, and at least two of the planes either didn't exist at all or didn't really crash.
What happened to the people on these planes?
The video doesn't say.
Makes me wonder, as I've pointed out before, how, in our information-rich world, was the Bush administration able to coordinate and ensure the silence of the tens of thousands of people necessary to pull this off, dupe the mainstream media-never a fan of Bush-and fool everyone..... except the knuckleheads who made this video?
Surprisingly, the video doesn't go explain that, either.
September 27, 2009 at 3:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
This "movie" is purely the usual conspiracy theory nonsense:
rumors, insinuations, strained connections, blurry photos, grainy archival footage, out-of-context comments, ironic-sounding narrator, expert opinions by people who aren't experts-'evidence' so lame Judge Judy would call you an idiot for trying to use it in her courtroom.
Virtually every theory presented has been refuted elsewhere by credible sources.
The game plan is obvious here...... make a statement or accusation.... introduce anything, however pathetic, that will support it [any random soundbite will do]..... and ignore everything that counters it.
It's the usual shoddily researched nonsense made reprehensible and immoral by cashing in on a national tragedy.
I thought about going through and pointing out a few of the many inaccuracies, examples of sloppy research, asinine conclusions, wretched writing, and so on, but frankly, this piece of crap's not worth any more time than I've already sacrificed.
Yo Chemmy, how come you've not gotten around to answering any of my direct questions to you?
September 27, 2009 at 3:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
And now I'm perturbed, as you've put me in the unenviable position of defending GW Bush.
September 27, 2009 at 4:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
Thanks for putting on those wading boots and rollng up those sleeves bandmama,Your a real warrior to wade through all of that video.JLM you made it all better Chem,Stop.there has to be a better cause for you,sorry that they couldnt prove you right,I think they tried to see it.You vainly tried to prove the controlled demolition theory,but I still didnt hear the theory about how the building should have held up from the planes hitting it.
September 27, 2009 at 5:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
windle,
I would simply say this, and I think any rational person would agree....
Religious extremists, because of their inherently idiotic beliefs that pronounce death to any supporter of their enemies...Jews, apostates, Christians, Athiests [coupled with our misguided support for at least of those groups], pulled off one of the biggest terrorist attacks in history, resulting in countless effected lives,
Or....
Thousands of people conspired to drag the US into a perhaps unneeded war for someone's profit , to somehow usher in the time of the 'new world order", whatever that means ?
I would again cite the razor of Occam, and reply "No thanks, but I have an awesome ski mountain to sell you".
September 27, 2009 at 5:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
windle,
Why shouldn't I cite Occam ? His line of thought applies
virtually all the time. Are you claiming that Occam's Razor has "much controversy attatched [sic] to the exact translation of this theory" ?
hmmmm....
the rest of your post is fairly nonsensical to me, so would you please word it a little more succinctly ?
[dumb it down for me, please]
September 27, 2009 at 6:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLM (anonymous) says...
You do a huge disservice to thousands of American patriots who work for the government many times in thankless jobs --- the military of all branches, the Corps of Engineers, the FAA, the Border Patrol, the DEA, the CIA, the FBI, the Forest Service, the NCAA (just checking to see if you're paying attentioni) etc. --- to make us free, safe and secure.
Sure, there is much to dislike about the IRS and more than a few left charm school a semester early but by and large the government is peopled by folks whose attitude and efficiency is held hostage to the quality of the leadership. They mirror their leaders.
When our leaders are calling names, acting illogically and wasting opportunities to make meaningful progress in the name of our people, it is difficult to get their followers to do otherwise.
It would be good to remember that we are the "United States" of America and not the Federal Republic of America. The States have any and all powers not specifically delegated --- yes, delegated --- to the Federal government in the Constitution. We forget that it is the States which grant any and all governmental power in the US and not the Feds. It would be worth remembering that today.
We are way overdue to have a Constitutional Convention if only to remind the Federal government that the Constitution is the handiwork of the States rather than the Feds.
September 27, 2009 at 6:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
windle,
Scoll back up through my previous posts. Please tell me where I've said "the end justifies the means"....
Apparently, you haven't a clue what the Occam's Razor method of discernment means...Allow me to give you one...clue
Occam's razor or Ockham's razor, attributed to 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar, William of Ockham is the principle that "entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily" or, popularly applied, "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."
The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.
When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question.
It is in this sense that Occam's razor is usually understood.
To quote Isaac Newton: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. Therefore, to the same natural effects we must, so far as possible, assign the same causes."
To summarize the common understanding of the principle, "Of several acceptable explanations [for a phenomenon], the most accurate and well-ordered theory of explanation is preferable, provided that it does not contradict the observed facts."
So tell me, what have I sacrificed by my adhering to that line of thought ?
Then you accuse me of a superiority complex, which is perhaps likely, but what is an old Hunterdog to do when confronted with ignorance ?
September 27, 2009 at 7:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
So Chemmy, how 'bout those questions ?
September 27, 2009 at 8:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Rebutting "Pentagon 9/11: Getting the Facts Straight"
Richard Stanley and Jerry Russell | August 17 2004
Original article at http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/...
"Pentagon 9/11: Getting the Facts Straight", by Dennis Behreandt, represents a full-scale frontal attack on the work of 9/11 researcher Thierry Meyssan (who is pressed into service as an exemplar of the many others who have also maintained that no jetliner struck the Pentagon on 9/11/2001. ) And we do not wish to defend everything that Meyssan has written; in fact we agree he has made many errors. But the core of Meyssan's work is not so easy to dismiss. This is the complete lack of tangible physical evidence (beyond that which could easily be planted) that a 757 was responsible for causing the damage to the Pentagon. In fact, we believe that a careful examination of the photographic record provides quite compelling evidence that this "757 attack" was a fraud. Behreandt's analysis relies heavily eyewitness testimony (which we will critique in more detail) -- but for something as substantial as a 100-ton airliner, we have every right to expect more than just hearsay doing overtime as conclusive proof, especially considering Behreandt's appeal to proper scientific practices. The rubble from Flight 77 should be on display in a museum (if indeed it exists), to put an end to the international controversy.,,
...In view of all these facts, Behreandt's only recourse is his appeal to Occam's razor, with his argument that the simplest explanation is still the best -- that Flight 77 must have hit the Pentagon, because there was extensive damage to the building, and because eyewitnesses saw Flight 77 on an approach to the Pentagon. Normally this would be very sensible, but Behreandt is forgetting the context. There is a broad spectrum of evidence indicating that 9/11 was an inside job, carried out to provide a pretext for an agenda of (arguably self-destructive) imperialist conquest of the Middle East, along with accelerated erosion of American civil liberties. It was a "black intelligence op," in other words, a scam implemented by a highly sophisticated team of magicians and liars. Their goal was to create an international media extravaganza, using the most economical means available. And our argument (which is perfectly harmonious with Occam's razor) holds that the perpetrators' simplest and most foolproof means to implement the hoax was to use inexpensive shaped charge explosives planted within the Pentagon, along with an over-flight of the Pentagon with a 757 jetliner, to create the illusion of a crash. This hypothesis is explored in more detail in our article "The Five-Sided Fantasy Island", available on the Internet at www.911-strike.com/pentagon.htm .
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/...
September 27, 2009 at 8:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLM (anonymous) says...
If I were trying to trick some folks, I might not do it in broad daylight with an airplane flying into the freakin' home of the US Air Force cause they might know something about airplanes, doncha think? And maybe not in a huge parking lot with lots of witnesses. And, of course, there is the problem with the damn missing airplanes to say nothing of all the victims and the FAA tracking the transponder signatures of the planes.
Other than that old Occam got a pretty close shave, no? LOL
Do you even know what a "shaped charge" is?
In fact, it is not a type of explosive but rather a methodology for using explosives to in effect "shape" the resultant shock wave to create initially greater penetration and, usually, more typically heaving effect like in the blowing of road craters.
It can also be used to create initial penetration of a hard surface (like a tank) by a projectile and then to inject molten materials (e.g. depleted uranium) into the interstices behind the barrier layer. Inside the the tank the remaining projectile bounces around amongst all those soft skinned folks and those tank rounds until something goes boom!
You may note that our tanks have explosive charges arrayed on the outside skin of the turret to detonate upon contact and to break up the focus of projectiles which detonate creating a shaped charge thereby misdirecting the "shaped" charge and preventing penetration.
Until just a few years ago, this was a highly, highly classified defensive measure. But you really can't hide a tank, now can you?
September 27, 2009 at 9 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLM (anonymous) says...
Continued, sorry ---
A shock wave can be shaped with either slow explosives such as in the cratering of a road using a heaving charge which injects the explosive shock wave into the earth before the heaving force takes effect thereby blowing a big triangular hole in the earth; or, in the case of the infamous Iranian copper plasma IEDs it creates a flux of molten copper which rips through a lightly skinned vehicle like a Hummvee and creates horrific wounds on the occupants.
A person bent on destroying a building would be using either simple, basic cutting charges for steel structures or equally simple "ear muff" charges for concrete, masonry or composite structures --- small balanced charges of a high speed explosive which are located on opposite sides of a structural member (typicall concrete) and which cut through the concrete and reinforcing steel in compression (push), impact each other and then rebound out at 90 degrees destroying the balance of the structural member now in tension (pull).
When the shock is at its most powerful right after detonation, it cuts through concrete in compression and steel in tension and then reverses itself and cuts through concrete in tension and steel in compression. Power against structural strength and then diminished power against structural weakness.
Throwing around jargon like "shaped charges" is just another example of how the wackoes try to blow smoke up the skirts of the general populace pretending to know something whcih is simply not pertinent or relevant to the reality of the situation.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing!
September 27, 2009 at 9:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLM (anonymous) says...
The part I like the best is that old Boeing 757 "on approach" to the Pentagon which apparently did not actually hit the Pentagon and then executed a "normal" missed approach, cleaned up its gear, raised it flaps, gunned its engines and simply flew away without anybody noticing it.
And where did it land? And with not another plane in the sky, the FAA never took note of it on radar and ignored its transponder reply completely. Of course they did!
I am sure that happens all the time! LOL
Of course this was all done by a bunch of clowns who could not get a Private Pilots license flying a Cessna 172 but apparently could fly a Boeing 757 in close proximity to the ground at 400 knots --- according to the crazies who routinely overlook that a missed approach or balked or rejected landing is a complex maneuver which requires expert coordination amongst the engine throttles, the landing gear, the flaps, the speed brakes and the aircraft attitude.
September 27, 2009 at 9:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
If you haven't listened to the Alex Jones Show yet, you should really give him a chance, he's doing what he can to keep your Freedom and Liberty intact. He can be annoying, at times, but he knows his stuff.
http://www.infowars.com/stream.plsa
While you're listening, you might want to check out some headline news from many of the same popular, reliable sources that the Corporate Media uses.
http://www.infowars.com
"It is easy to take liberty for granted, when you have never had it taken from you." ~Author unknown, sometimes attributed to M. Grundler
September 27, 2009 at 10:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
So, no answers to my direct questions, eh ?
September 28, 2009 at 6:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
There are three basic ways to talk to complete idiots.
The first is to assail them with facts, truths, scientific data, the commonsensical obviousness of it all. You do this in the very reasonable expectation that it will nudge them away from the ledge of their more ridiculous and paranoid misconceptions because, well, they're facts, after all, and who can dispute those?
Why, idiots can, that's who. It is exactly this sort of logical, levelheaded appeal to reason and mental acuity that's doomed to fail, simply because in the idiotosphere, facts are lies and truth is always dubious, whereas hysteria and alarmism resulting in mysterious undercarriage rashes are the only things to be relied upon.
Examples? Endless. You may, for instance, attempt to explain evolution to an extreme fundamentalist Christian. You may offer up carbon dating, the fossil record, glaciers, any one of 10,000 irrefutable proofs. You may even dare to talk about the Bible as the clever, completely manufactured, man-made piece of heavily politicized, massively edited, literary myth-making it so very much is, using all sorts of sound academic evidence and historical record.
You are, of course, insane beyond belief to try this, but sometimes you just can't help it. To the educated mind, it seems inconceivable that millions of people will choose rabid ignorance and childish fantasy over, say, a polar bear. Permafrost. Rocks. Nag Hammadi. But they will, and they do. Faced with this mountain of factual obviousness, the bewildered fundamentalist will merely leap back as if you just jabbed him with a flaming homosexual cattle prod, and then fall into a swoon about how neat it is that angels can fly.
Option two is to try to speak their language, dumb yourself down, engage on the idiot's level as you try to figure out how their minds work -- or more accurately, don't work -- so you can better empathize and find a shred of common ground and maybe, just maybe, inch the human experiment forward.
This is, as you already sense, a dangerous trap, pure intellectual quicksand. It almost never works, and just makes you feel gross and slimy.
And now we come to option three, easily the finest and most successful approach of all. Alas, it also remains the most difficult to pull off. No one is exactly sure why.
The absolute best way to speak to complete idiots is, of course, not to speak to them at all.
That is, you work around them, ignore them completely, disregard the rants and the spittle and the misspelled protest signs and the fervent prayers for apocalypse on Fox News. Complete refusal to take the fringe nutballs even the slightest bit seriously is the only way to make true progress.
September 28, 2009 at 7:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
As someone who has studied the bible ,is christian,and does believe in evolution,I believe you are making assumptions about the group that arent true.Have you ever read the whole bible?There are many things that are strange to believe in it but mostly just common sense about truth as applied to living and getting along together on this planet.If you do read it , the most obscure parts are the creation,when ,where,how?It doesnt matter,there is so much historical proof of so much of the bible that I am very suprised that as a logical person ,you can in good conscience,dismiss all of it.Maybe this is a subject you should stay away from because you are not your usual objective self,I dont think anyone is a total idiot that reads this forum please try not to hate christions because information about creation in the bible is strange and at least 3000 years old.I happen to think that there is truth in alot of the bible{most}and you will never see it if you dont look at it objectivaly,
September 28, 2009 at 8:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLM (anonymous) says...
It is no great leap of faith for people of faith to believe that the Bible is allegorical and instructive rather than rigid and doctrinaire and that evolution --- in all its many forms and well grounded scientific explanations --- is simply God's plan at work.
The Bible is one hell of a read if you put your mind to it. But so is Harry Potter. Wisdom is found everywhere, you just have to be paying a bit of attention.
It is very difficult to believe that the mystery of life and the enormity of the Universe are not the work of some supreme being. To say nothing of profiterolls? Or profiteroles?
Somebody has given us free will, intelligence and critical thinking. Why not put them to good use?
On the other hand, the notion that Nancy Pelosi evolved directly from pond scum is somehow very comforting, but that could just be me, no?
September 28, 2009 at 3:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC). Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions.
* Video interview 9/11 Ripple Effect 8/07: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it." http://americanbuddhist.net
* Article 7/17/05: "The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." : Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn.":
"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying." http://www.arcticbeacon.com
* Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won't go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. : To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous...
It's roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. : The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile." http://911underground.com
September 29, 2009 at 1:14 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blue_spruce (anonymous) says...
I have to admit that StopTheBrutalChemtrails has made sense on a few issues in the past. But really!
Just think about HOW MANY people would have to be involved in a conspiracy of this scope and size! Impossible. This is the 800 lb. gorilla in the room! We are talking many, many thousands of people. Really!?!
Sorry, StopTheBrutalChemtrails, but you obviously WANT DESPERATELY to believe in this particular conspiracy (along with a sizable group of conspiracy nuts).
September 29, 2009 at 8:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
LJM, and sun....if you dare to turn this into a religious debate......don't.....this happens to be my area of expertise, and you WILL be embarrassed....
Back to the Chemicalsniffer...
Are you scared of my questions ? Are you not able to debate your specific points ?
Bring it on, son......
September 28, 2009 at 6:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
sorry, keystroke error [that's what she said]....JLM
September 28, 2009 at 6:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFpbZ-...
September 28, 2009 at 8:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
On Monday, July 20, 2009, BGM followed Richard Gage, AIA, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth, on the final day of his visit to Washington, D.C.
The final stop was the White House where Gage, with Slesinger, laid an AE911Truth banner on the sidewalk and addressed the tourists gathered there. Gage got into a heated but cordial debate with a man who identified himself as Kevin, a "reformed truther" and the former "debunking director" on the JREF Forum.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFiGf...
September 28, 2009 at 8:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
This is the first of 3 segments on the new AE911Truth Companion Edition to Blueprint for Truth. In just 10 minutes Richard Gage, AIA of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth takes you through most of the scientific forensic evidence proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the destruction of WTC 7 was accomplished with explosive controlled demolition. This DVD is available at the AE911Truth online store, http://www.ae911truth.net/store/produ... packaged together along with the 30 and 60 minute versions of 9/11: Blueprint for Truth. See the extended 2 hour Research Edition for the complete array of evidence and background information! Visit http://www.ae911truth.org/ for further details.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lESol8...
September 28, 2009 at 8:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
H Geeze Im So Scared,mama, and by the way you are the one who set up the different topic.
September 28, 2009 at 9:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLM (anonymous) says...
bandmama, calm down, nobody should ever be afraid of the truth or learning something new or being exposed to a new idea or way of looking at things
the truth --- i love the truth whether it agrees with my views or not
i would love the opportunity to be educated and tap into your expertise and i have never been embarassed to learn something in my life
when ideas wrestle their are no losers, just stronger ideas
i am not afraid of ideas even when espoused by a boor --- not saying you are a boor, mind you
get over yourself
September 28, 2009 at 10:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLM (anonymous) says...
BTW, I have never heard a credible argument which has refuted the notion that profiteroles are evidence of Divine intervention. Bring it, babe! LOL
September 28, 2009 at 11:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
CREDIBLE CRITICS OF THE OFFICIAL ACCOUNT OF 9/11
41 U.S. Counter-Terrorism and Intelligence Agency Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11 Official Account of 9/11: "Terribly Flawed," "Laced with Contradictions," "a Joke," "a Cover-up"
May 18, 2009 English PDF English HTML Danish PDF
French PDF German PDF Greek PDF Norwegian PDF
Polish PDF Swedish PDF
29 Structural & Civil Engineers Cite Evidence for Controlled Explosive Demolition in Collapses of All 3 WTC High-Rises on 9/11 More than 800 Architects and Engineers have joined call for new investigation, faulting official collapse reports
June 17, 2009 PDF
Respected Medical Professionals Launch New 9/11 Truth Group Announces Online Petition Calling for New Investigation
Feb. 24, 2009 MS Word Article on OpEdNews
Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11 Official Account of 9/11 "Impossible", "A Bunch of Hogwash", "Total B.S.", "Ludicrous", "A Well-Organized Cover-up", "A White-Washed Farce"
Jan. 14, 2008 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews
Eight U.S. State Department Veterans Challenge the Official Account of 9/11 Official Account of 9/11 "Flawed", "Absurd", "Totally Inadequate", "a Cover-up"
Jan. 5, 2008 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews
Seven Senior Federal Engineers and Scientists Call for New 9/11 Investigation Official Account of 9/11 "Impossible", "Hogwash", "Fatally Flawed"
Dec. 13, 2007 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews
Eight Senior Republican Administration Appointees Challenge Official Account of 9/11 "Not Possible", "a Whitewash", "False"
Dec. 4, 2007 PDF Version Article on OpEdNews
Pilots and Aviation Professionals
Question the 9/11 Commission Report
Many pilots and aviation professionals have expressed significant criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report. Several even allege government complicity in the terrible acts of 9/11. This page of the website is a collection of their statements. The website does not represent any organization and it should be made clear that none of these individuals are affiliated with this website.
Listed below are statements by more than 200 pilots and aviation professionals that contradict or are critical of the 9/11 Commission Report. Their collective voices give credibility to the claim that the 9/11 Commission Report is tragically flawed.
These individuals cannot be simply dismissed as irresponsible believers in some 9/11 conspiracy theory. Their sincere concern, backed by their professional responsibility for air traffic safety demonstrate that criticism of the Commission Report is not inherently irresponsible or illogical, and that, in fact, it can be just the opposite.
http://patriotsquestion911.com/pilots...
September 29, 2009 at 12:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Rob Balsamo Commercial airline pilot. Co-founder, Pilots for 9/11 Truth. 4,000+ total hours flown.
* Statement to this website 7/23/07: "In May 2006, I was watching Glenn Beck's show on CNN. The Department of Defense had just released the infamous "5 frames" of stop-action video of the pentagon attack. Beck showed the frames and commented, "You can see a 757 in 10 seconds flat! Either that or a naked Michael Moore heading for the buffet! This should put all those conspiracy theories to rest". While watching it, I'm thinking to myself, "I can't see any 757." And I'm asking myself, "Are there still unresolved questions regarding 9/11?"
So I started poking around on the Internet trying to find anything I can to back up the government's story because I didn't want to believe our government might have had something to do with 9/11.
Early on, I came across Operation Northwoods. It blew me away that elements of our government had seriously planned acts of terrorism inside the United States to justify invading Cuba. Consider that 9/11 Commission Chairman Thomas Kean had said, "The greatest failure of 9/11 was lack of imagination", yet just under 40 years prior, elements of our own government imagined perpetrating such an event!
In late summer of 2006, I co-founded the group Pilots for 9/11 Truth, to more formally conduct research on the aviation-related aspects of 9/11. In August 2006, Pilots for 9/11 Truth received from the National Transportation and Safety Board (NTSB) a copy of the Flight Data Recorder data of Flight 77, which, according to the official account, hit the Pentagon.
We analyzed the data and announced our conclusion on 3/26/07 that "The information provided by the NTSB does not support the 9/11 Commission Report of American Airlines Flight 77 impact with the Pentagon." Much more information about this can be found in our video documentary and our press release.
So now, a year after I began looking into the events of 9/11 and having devoted a lot of time and effort researching those events, I'm frustrated because we haven't been able to find anything to confirm the government's story. And what's worse is that the FBI and NTSB refuse to even discuss with us the many obvious problems we found in the Flight 77 Flight Data Recorder.
I continue to work with my colleagues at Pilots for 9/11 Truth, to grow the organization and to continue our research into the aviation-related aspects of 9/11, looking for confirmation of the government's story."
September 29, 2009 at 1:06 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Glen Stanish Commercial airline pilot for American Airlines, ATA, TWA, and Continental. 15,000+ total hours flown. Aircraft flown: Boeing 737, McDonnell Douglas MD-80. Co-founder, Pilots for 9/11 Truth.
* Essay Where is the Wreckage of UAL 93? 2/15/06: "I most certainly and honestly believe, that sometime in the near future, it will become common knowledge that the events of 9/11 were an "inside job" designed, engineered and committed by a very large and "in control" rogue element within our United States federal government, used as a false cause, a pretext, a lie, to invade two natural resource rich foreign countries, to further pursue and expand an empire, to change the borders of the Middle East countries, and as part of the war on terror, or more appropriately, the war on freedom, was used to frighten the American people so they would allow the infringement of their civil liberties and constitutional rights, to allow for closer monitoring and further oppression." http://www.rumormillnews.com
* Letter to the Air Line Pilots Association 10/3/06: "I have been a proud member of the Air Line Pilots Association for almost 16 years ... Throughout my piloting career, I have tried to uphold the published ALPA Canons of professional airmanship, safety and comfort of passengers and crew ...
Because of the abundant resources available within ALPA, including the ALPA Accident Investigation and Engineering and Air Safety Committees, on behalf of Professor Jim Fetzer, PhD., Scholars for 911 Truth co-founder, I as an ALPA member and Associate member of Scholars for 911Truth, am writing to you, the ALPA National Officers and Executive Vice-Presidents to encourage your participation and partnership with Scholars, an organization of which I am also very proud to be a member. This is an open letter and invitation to join Scholars for 911 Truth. I firmly believe that with the resources within ALPA, its participation in the work of Scholars would help in the establishment and documentation of a more accurate account and correct historical record of September the 11th, and the corrective political measures required to be taken to restore our republic and beloved country and help to heal her deep wounds associated with 911."
Link to full letter
http://patriotsquestion911.com/Statem...
September 29, 2009 at 1:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
John Lear Retired commercial airline pilot with over 19,000+ total hours flown in over 100 different types of planes for 10 different airlines in 60 different countries around the world. Flew for over 40 years. Holds every certificate ever offered by the FAA and has 23 different FAA type ratings. Held 17 world records including speed around the world in a Lear Jet Model 24, set in 1966. He was presented with the PATCO award for outstanding airmanship in 1968, and the Symons Wave memorial. Flight experience includes Boeing 707 and 727, McDonnell Douglas DC-8, Lockheed L-1011 and many others. Son of Bill Lear, founder of Lear Jet Corp.
* Audio interview with Rob Balsamo 3/9/07: Regarding the Flight Data Recorder information for Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon, released by the NTSB
John Lear: There's a lot things in that tape that came up, that if you're a pilot, you say, "Hey, wait a minute. That's bull****. That could never happen in a million years." ...
Rob Balsamo: What did you think about 9/11 after you saw it?
John Lear: Well, you know, five minutes after it happened, I knew that it was a scam. ... No Boeing 757 ever crashed into the Pentagon. No Boeing 757 ever crashed at Shanksville. ... And no Arab hijacker, ever in a million years, ever flew into the World Trade Center. And if you got 30 minutes I'll tell you exactly why he couldn't do it the first time. Now, I'd have trouble doing it the first time.
Rob Balsamo: Yeah, same here.
John Lear: Maybe if I had a couple tries to line up a few building, I could have done it. But certainly not the first time and certainly not at 500 or 600 miles an hour.
Rob Balsamo: Yeah, as a matter of fact, one of our members, he was a 737 Check Airman. He was in the sim at the time on September 11 and right after it happened they tried to duplicate it in the simulator and they said they couldn't do it. They were trying to hit the Towers and they couldn't do it. ...
John Lear: Yeah, it would be an amazing feat of airmanship. ...
John Lear: People ask, you know, why do I think that 9/11 was a scam. They say, "Why would the government do that?" And I said, there's three basic reasons. Number 1; they wanted to take away all our liberties and they had to pose a threat to do that. Number 2; they wanted a reason to go into Afghanistan. ... Then the third thing was we had to have a pretext for going into Iraq.
September 29, 2009 at 1:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret) Retired commercial airline captain with 27 years experience. Aircraft flown: Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100. Retired fighter pilot. Former Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School (Topgun). 20-year Navy career. Aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom, Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, and Grumman F-14 Tomcat. 23,000+ total hours flown.
* Statement to this website 8/20/07: "I started questioning the Sept 11, 2001 "story" only days after the event. It just didn't make any sense to me. How could a steel and concrete building collapse after being hit by a Boeing 767? Didn't the engineers design it to withstand a direct hit from a Boeing 707, approximately the same size and weight of the 767? The evidence just didn't add up. ...
At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757's and 767's and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.
I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!
Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings? Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft? Where are the steel engine parts? Where is the steel landing gear? Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces?
I also personally knew American Airlines Captain "Chick" Burlingame, who was the captain of Flight 77 which allegedly hit the Pentagon, and I know he would not have given up his airplane to crazies!
And at the Shanksville Pennsylvania impact site, where is any of the wreckage?!!! Of all the pictures I have seen, there is only a hole! Where is any piece of a crashed airplane? Why was the area cordoned off, and no inspection allowed by the normal accident personnel? Where is any evidence at all?
When one starts using his own mind, and not what one was told, there is very little to believe in the official "story". ...
Every question leads to another question that has not been answered by anyone in authority. This is just the beginning as to why I don't believe the official "story" and why I want the truth to be told." Link to full statement
http://patriotsquestion911.com/Statem...
September 29, 2009 at 1:15 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Ha ha...Awesome
October 2, 2009 at 10:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Joel M. Skousen Commercial pilot. Former U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot. Aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom, Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, Grumman F-9 Cougar, North American T-2C Buckeye, various civilian planes. Member, Experimental Aircraft Association. Member, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association. Former Chairman of the Conservative National Committee in Washington DC and Executive Editor of Conservative Digest. Author of Essential Principles for the Conservation of Liberty (1984), The Secure Home--Architectural Design, Construction and Remodeling of Self-Sufficient Residences and Retreats (1982, 1999), How to Implement a High Security Shelter in the Home (1996), Strategic Relocation--North American Guide to Safe Places (1998), Foundations of the Ideal State (2007).
* Essay Debunking the Debunkers 2/14/05: "For over a decade now, the PTB [Powers That Be] have used an odd vehicle to do their debunking on a variety of issues - Popular Mechanics Magazine (a Hearst publication). I suppose they are targeting the back-yard mechanic and auto-enthusiast crowd, who are often prone to accepting conspiracy facts and theories.
In the March 2005 issue, PM magazine singled out 16 issues or claims of the 9/11 skeptics that point to government collusion and systematically attempted to debunk each one. Of the 16, most missed the mark and almost half were straw men arguments - either ridiculous arguments that few conspiracists believed or restatements of the arguments that were highly distorted so as to make them look weaker than they really were. ...
I am one of those who claim there are factual arguments pointing to conspiracy, and that truth is not served by taking cheap shots at those who see gaping flaws in the government story ...
There is significant evidence that the aircraft impacts did not cause the collapse [of the Twin Towers] ...
The issues of the penetration hole [at the Pentagon] and the lack of large pieces of debris simply do not jive with the official story, but they are explainable if you include the parking lot video evidence that shows a huge white explosion at impact. This cannot happen with an aircraft laden only with fuel. It can only happen in the presence of high explosives." http://www.rense.com
September 29, 2009 at 1:29 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
Chem,you are very persistant and at times convincing,and amazing , The show you put on here,and thank you for answering my question about the planes and the towers.The bottom line on that I understand to be that the towers would be too hard to aim at,and the fuel would not be sufficient to burn out the floors,Fires can burn just about any thing.If those people that lost their lives that day could speak,Ill bet they would beg to differ with you, Im not saying there could be no conspiricies,maybe yall are so hung up on this angle that you are missing the real conspiracies,George W. was bad but what you make him out to be is so horrible that its unbelievable that he could even do something like this ,after all he wasnt very competant and more like a follower type president ,incapable of pulling off anything like this,and he didnt give a crap.You have to care about people one way or another to be extreme ,he is not that.Do you consider how hurtfull it is to surviving familys to go through what they didand then to wonder if their own government did that to them?They pay taxes for the torture, just like us.If its true thats one thing ,but if you are screwing around with their heads ,shame on youi. If any of your theorys are correct I do believe it would have been brought to light sooner,lots of energy spent on finding out the truth.Now then who would want to perpetuate this theory?The same group that did it ,to breed mistrust and anarchy,why ?to further the damage to this countrys heart and soul.Please be sure you are on the right side here and that no one is using you to do just that.
September 29, 2009 at 9:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLM (anonymous) says...
Chem, babe, you are one diligent conspiracy dude. My hat is off to you.
One very small point --- a cruise missile is a point charge and it requires several miles of travel to arm as part of its "fail safe" mechanism. One of the beauties of the cruise missile is that it is a standoff weapon able to be fired literally hundreds of miles away.
Plus of course you have the problem of obtaining a cruise missile, setting up its targetting and getting a plane to deliver it --- maybe WalMart is running a sale on cruise missiles?
So in your world, somewhere out there is a pilot and a plane and a computer geek who collectively obtained a cruise missile, a plane, flew it through crowded Class Bravo airspace transponder signalling away, entered the targetting information for the Pentagon into it and sent it crashing into the Pentagon? Where are these guys right now?
C'mon, babe, that is way, way, way out there! It would require a vaaaaaaaaaast right wing conspiracy! LOL
You are grasping at straws, little teeny straws which collectively amount to nothing. You are on the dark side of the grassy knoll and sliding down hill.
But, hey, you are one persistent SOB --- kinda like Freddie or Jason refusing to die even with a stake driven through your heart. And I, for one, admire a truly dedicated zealot.
September 29, 2009 at 9:38 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
blue_spruce (anonymous) says...
Conspiracy Theory : Psychological Origins
According to some psychologists, a person who believes in one conspiracy theory tends to believe in others; a person who does not believe in one conspiracy theory tends not to believe another. This may be caused by differences in the information upon which parties rely in formulating their conclusions.
Psychologists believe that the search for meaning is common in conspiracism and the development of conspiracy theories, and may be powerful enough alone to lead to the first formulating of the idea. Once cognized, confirmation bias and avoidance of cognitive dissonance may reinforce the belief. In a context where a conspiracy theory has become popular within a social group, communal reinforcement may equally play a part. Some research carried out at the University of Kent, UK suggests people may be influenced by conspiracy theories without being aware that their attitudes have changed. After reading popular conspiracy theories about the death of Diana, Princess of Wales, participants in this study correctly estimated how much their peers' attitudes had changed, but significantly underestimated how much their own attitudes had changed to become more in favour of the conspiracy theories. The authors conclude that conspiracy theories may therefore have a 'hidden power' to influence people's beliefs.
Projection
Some historians have argued that there is an element of psychological projection in conspiracism. This projection, according to the argument, is manifested in the form of attribution of undesirable characteristics of the self to the conspirators.
Clinical psychology
For relatively rare individuals, an obsessive compulsion to believe, prove or re-tell a conspiracy theory may indicate one or more of several well-understood psychological conditions, and other hypothetical ones: paranoia, denial, schizophrenia, mean world syndrome.
September 29, 2009 at 10:50 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLM (anonymous) says...
See I knew it was all about RACISM, well OK, conspiRACISM! LOL
Nice insights. Can we pass the hat to get Chem some help?
September 29, 2009 at 11:09 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Major General Albert Stubblebine, U.S. Army (ret) Former Commanding General of U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command, 1981 - 1984. Also commanded the U.S. Army's Electronic Research and Development Command and the U.S. Army's Intelligence School and Center. Former head of Imagery Interpretation for Scientific and Technical Intelligence. 32-year Army career. Member, Military Intelligence Hall of Fame.
* Video interview 6/28/09:
General Stubblebine: I am Major General Albert Stubblebine. I am retired Army Major-General. In my last assignment -- my last command -- I was responsible for all of the Army's strategic intelligence forces around the world. I had responsibility for the Signals Intelligence, Photo Intelligence, Counter Intelligence, Human Intelligence. They all belonged to me, in my last assignment. :
I was supposed to find out what the enemy was doing, before the enemy did it so that we could take action against the enemy. That's Intelligence, OK, before the fact. So, we always -- always -- rely not on a single piece of data, before we make a statement, but on multiple and the more pieces of data that you have that correlate, the better you know exactly what is going on. :
So I have had a lot of experience looking at photographs. I have looked at many, many different kinds of photographs, from many, many different platforms on many, many different countries, around the world.
Interviewer: OK. So on September the 11th, in 2001, what hit the Pentagon?
General Stubblebine: I don't know exactly what hit it, but I do know, from the photographs that I have analyzed and looked at very, very carefully, it was not an airplane.
Interviewer: What made you believe that?...
September 29, 2009 at 1:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
...General Stubblebine: Well, for one thing, if you look at the hole that was made in the Pentagon, the nose penetrated far enough so that there should have been wing marks on the walls of the Pentagon. I have been unable to find those wing marks. So where were they? Did this vessel -- vehicle, or whatever it was -- have wings? Apparently not, because if it had had wings, they would have made marks on the side of the Pentagon.
One person counteracted my theory, and said, "Oh, you've got it all wrong. And the reason that it's wrong is that as the airplane came across, one wing tipped down and hit the ground and broke off." I said, "Fine, that's possible, one wing could have broken off." But if I understand airplanes correctly, most airplanes have two wings. I haven't met an airplane with only one wing. So where was the mark for the second wing? OK, one broke off -- there should have been a mark for the second wing. I could not find that in any of the photographs that I've analyzed. Now I've been very careful to not say what went in there. Why? Because you don't have that evidence. :
I did -- I've never believed that it was an airplane since I've looked at the photographs. Up until the time I looked at the photographs, I accepted what was being said. After I looked at it -- NO WAY! :
We pride ourselves with the "free press." I do not believe the "free press" is free any more. It's very expensive. It's very expensive. And the press is saying what they have been told to say about this.
Now, do I have proof of that? No. But I believe that what is being -- what certainly the -- the stories that were told -- all about 9/11 were false. I mean, you take a look at the buildings falling down. They didn't fall down because airplanes hit them. They fell down because of explosives went off inside. Demolition. Look at Building 7, for God's sake. It didn't fall down to its side. It didn't fall to this direction or that direction; just like the two Towers. :
When you look at the temperatures that you can create with fuel in a gas tank or a fuel tank of an airplane, and then you investigate the amount of heat that would be required to melt -- to melt -- the superstructure of the buildings that came tumbling down, when you put all of that together, the one thing that shows; It does not match the facts. What is it they do not want the public to know? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daNr_T...
September 29, 2009 at 1:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
General Wesley Clark, U.S. Army (ret) Former Commanding General of U.S. European Command, which included all American military activities in the 89 countries and territories of Europe, Africa, and the Middle East. Additionally, Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), which granted him overall command of NATO military forces in Europe 1997 - 2001. Awarded Bronze Star, Silver Star, and Purple Heart for his service in Viet Nam and numerous subsequent medals and citations. Graduated valedictorian of his class at West Point.
* Video interview ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos 3/5/06: "I think when you look at this country, right now, we need a 2-party system that works. We need Congress to do its job. We need real investigation of some of the abuses of authority that are apparently going on at the Executive branch. ... We've never finished the investigation of 9/11 and whether the administration actually misused the intelligence information it had. The evidence seems pretty clear to me. I've seen that for a long time." http://securingamerica.com/node/692
* Bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wesley_C...
September 29, 2009 at 1:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
Bandmama or whom ever posts under that name(Isnt it wierd to be afraid to post a user name ,fearless hunter dog?)What are you afraid the pilot is going to come and take you away?),Im almost sure that I would be considered ignorant by you people. You speak smutty,crass,and very rudely,(did you learn the non word "diddy"at Harvard?)What makes me sick is smart people speaking stupid because they are such Rude people .I would rather speak with serfs and slaves.
October 4, 2009 at 7:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Col. Ronald D. Ray, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense during the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran (two Silver Stars, a Bronze Star and a Purple Heart). Appointed by President George H.W. Bush to serve on the American Battle Monuments Commission (1990 - 1994), and on the 1992 Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces. Military Historian and Deputy Director of Field Operations for the U.S. Marine Corps Historical Center, Washington, D.C. 1990 - 1994.
* Article 7/1/06: "The former Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense under the Reagan Administration and a highly decorated Vietnam veteran and Colonel has gone on the record to voice his doubts about the official story of 9/11 - calling it 'the dog that doesn't hunt.' 'I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that's accurate,' he said." http://www.propagandamatrix.com
The specific quote follows. A subscription is required to access the audio recording.
Alex Jones: Colonel, is it safe to say or is the statement accurate that you smell something rotten in the state of Denmark when it comes to 9/11?
Col. Ray: I'm astounded that the conspiracy theory advanced by the administration could in fact be true and the evidence does not seem to suggest that that's accurate. That's true.
* Bio: http://www.firstprinciplespress.org
September 29, 2009 at 1:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Capt. Edgar Mitchell, U.S. Navy (ret), BS Industrial Management, BS Aeronautical Engineering, Doctor of Science, Aeronautics and Astronautics from MIT Pilot and Astronaut. Sixth man to walk on the moon (Apollo 14 mission). Patrol bomber and attack plane pilot, U.S. Navy. Test Pilot, Air Test and Evaluation Squadron 5 (VX-5). Chief of Project Management Division, Navy Field Office for the Manned Orbiting Laboratory Project. Graduated first in his class from the Aerospace Research Pilot School, and served as an instructor there. Recipient of many awards and honors including the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the USN Distinguished Medal and three NASA Group Achievement Awards. Inducted to the Space Hall of Fame in 1979 and the Astronaut Hall of Fame in 1998. Recipient of honorary doctorates in engineering from New Mexico State University, the University of Akron, Carnegie Mellon University, and a ScD from Embry-Riddle University. Founder of the Institute of Noetic Sciences.
* Endorser of and proposed Commissioner of a New Investigation into 9/11 as described in the New York City Ballot Initiative 11/08: "Petition to Create a NYC Independent Commission with Subpoena Power to Conduct a Comprehensive and Fact-Driven Investigation of All Relevant Aspects of the Tragic Events of September 11, 2001 and Issue a Report.
WHEREAS, many New York City voters believe that there remain many unanswered questions critical to establishing the truth about all relevant events leading up to, during and subsequent to the tragic attacks occurring on September 11, 2001 ("9/11"), and
WHEREAS, no prior investigation by any New York City agency or any other governmental entity has resulted in the citizens being provided with those critical answers or information necessary to establish the truth about those tragic events, ...
An independent, temporary New York City commission (the "Commission") is hereby created to conduct a comprehensive, factdriven investigation into the events that took place on 9/11, as well as to thoroughly examine related events before and after the attacks, including any activities attempting to hide, cover up, impede or obstruct any investigation into these 9/11 events, following wherever the facts may lead. The Commission shall publish one or more reports of their findings."
* Website: http://www.edmitchellapollo14.com
September 29, 2009 at 1:20 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Lt. Col. Robert Bowman, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) Director of Advanced Space Programs Development under Presidents Ford and Carter. U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions. (PhD in Aeronautics and Nuclear Engineering, Cal Tech). Former Head of the Department of Aeronautical Engineering and Assistant Dean at the U.S. Air Force Institute of Technology. 22-year Air Force career. Also taught Mathematics and English at the University of Southern California, the University of Maryland, and Phillips University.
* Member: Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth Association Statement:
"Scholars and professionals with various kinds of expertise---including architects, engineers, firefighters, intelligence officers, lawyers, medical professionals, military officers, philosophers, religious leaders, physical scientists, and pilots---have spoken out about radical discrepancies between the official account of the 9/11 attacks and what they, as independent researchers, have learned.
They have established beyond any reasonable doubt that the official account of 9/11 is false and that, therefore, the official "investigations" have really been cover-up operations.
Thus far, however, there has been no response from political leaders in Washington or, for that matter, in other capitals around the world. Our organization, Political Leaders for 9/11 Truth, has been formed to help bring about such a response.
We believe that the truth about 9/11 needs to be exposed now---not in 50 years as a footnote in the history books---so the policies that have been based on the Bush-Cheney administration's interpretation of the 9/11 attacks can be changed.
We are, therefore, calling for a new, independent investigation of 9/11 that takes account of evidence that has been documented by independent researchers but thus far ignored by governments and the mainstream media."
* Video 9/11/04: "A lot of these pieces of information, taken together, prove that the official story, the official conspiracy theory of 9/11 is a bunch of hogwash. It's impossible. : There's a second group of facts having to do with the cover up. : Taken together these things prove that high levels of our government don't want us to know what happened and who's responsible.:
http://video.go
September 29, 2009 at 1:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College. 34-year Air Force career. Licensed commercial pilot. Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic.
* Essay: "In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft -- and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. ...
The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. :
With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon as alleged. Similarly, with all the evidence available at the Pennsylvania crash site, it was most doubtful that a passenger airliner caused the obvious hole in the ground and certainly not the Boeing 757 as alleged. :
As painful and heartbreaking as was the loss of innocent lives and the lingering health problems of thousands more, a most troublesome and nightmarish probability remains that so many Americans appear to be involved in the most heinous conspiracy in our country's history." http://www.physics911.net
September 29, 2009 at 1:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Col. Ann Wright, U.S. Army (ret) Retired Army officer and former U.S. Diplomat. Served 13 years on active duty with the U.S. Army and 16 years in the U.S. Army Reserves. She was a member of the International law team in Operation Urgent Fury in Grenada and served in Panama and Somalia. She joined the Foreign Service in 1987 and served as Deputy Chief of Mission of U.S. Embassies in Sierra Leone, Micronesia and Afghanistan. She helped reopen the US Embassy in Kabul in December, 2001. One of three U.S. State Department officials to publicly resign in direct protest of the invasion of Iraq in March, 2003.
* Interview with Laurie Van Auken, conducted by Richard Greene on Air America Radio 9/11/07: "It's incredible some of these things that still are unanswered. The 9/11 Report; that was totally inadequate. I mean the questions that anybody has after reading that. You know, like -- One of the questions, "Why would people even get in planes and come after us?" That question was not at all addressed, much less all of these very, very interesting events that were going on that day, like Laurie was talking about.
How could our national intelligence and defense operations be so inept that they could not communicate; that they could not scramble jets; that they could not take defensive action? And I totally agree. I always thought the Pentagon had all sorts of air defense sort of equipment around it; that they could take out anything that was coming at it. And for a plane to be able to just fly low right over Washington and slam into that thing is just -- I mean, you still just shake your head. How in the world could that happen? ...
There's a very specific glide path that comes in for planes to land at [Reagan] National Airport [one mile from the Pentagon]. And you know whether it's somebody using a different transponder but even a plane any plane, a military plane with a transponder going -- that was flying that low into Washington, a big plane like that should have set off alarm bells." Occurs at about the 60% point of the two-hour recording. Audio at http://www.911truth.org
* Bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Wright
September 29, 2009 at 1:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Col. Donn de Grand-Pre, U.S. Army (ret) (1926 - 2009) Former Director, Ground Weapons Systems, Office of International Logistics Negotiations serving as chief Pentagon arms negotiator for the Middle East. Former Civilian Deputy Chief of the International Division, Office of the Chief of Research and Development. Also served as Commander of Special Troops for the U.S. Army Reserves. Served as radio operator in World War II. Became commissioned officer in 1950. Infantry troop leader and paratrooper, as well as a combat troop commander and intelligence officer with the 27th Infantry "Wolfhound" Regiment in Korea 1950 - 1953. Sustained major injuries in Korea 1953. FAA certified private pilot. Author of Confessions of an Arms Peddler (1979), Barbarians Inside the Gates Book 1 (2000), The Viper's Venom: Barbarians Inside the Gates (Book III) (2002), Look Homeward Cowboy: A Saga of World War II (2002), The Rattler's Revenge: Barbarians Inside the Gates (Book III) (2003), The Boys from Bent Willow: A Saga of World War II (2003).
* Article September 11 - U.S. Government Accused by the Portugal News 3/8/02:
"A group of military and civilian US pilots, under the chairmanship of Colonel Donn de Grand [sic], after deliberating non-stop for 72 hours, has concluded that the flight crews of the four passenger airliners, involved in the September 11th tragedy, had no control over their aircraft.
In a detailed press communique the inquiry stated: "The so-called terrorist attack was in fact a superbly executed military operation carried out against the USA, requiring the utmost professional military skill in command, communications and control. It was flawless in timing, in the choice of selected aircraft to be used as guided missiles and in the coordinated delivery of those missiles to their pre-selected targets."
The report seriously questions whether or not the suspect hijackers, supposedly trained on Cessna light aircraft, could have located a target dead-on 200 miles from take off point. It further throws into doubt their ability to master the intricacies of the instrument flight rules (IFR) in the 45 minutes from take off to the point of impact. Colonel de Grand said that it would be impossible for novices to have taken control of the four aircraft and orchestrated such a terrible act requiring military precision of the highest order." http://www.amfirstbooks.com
* Member: Veterans For 9/11 Truth Association statement:
"Our mission, simply put, is to save the United States of America and to defend it from all enemies, foreign and domestic. To that end, we seek to restore true values, integrity, honesty, and leadership in government at the local, state and national level. We are opposed to tyranny and corruption. We seek to move this Nation from a state of perpetual warfare to a state of prolonged peace and prosperity."
http://www.v911t.org
September 29, 2009 at 1:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Lt. Col. Shelton F. Lankford, U.S. Marine Corps (ret) Retired U.S. Marine Corps fighter pilot with over 300 combat missions flown. Decorations include the Distinguished Flying Cross and 32 awards of the Air Medal. Aircraft flown: Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, Lockheed C-130H Hercules. 10,000+ total hours flown. 20-year Marine Corps career.
* Article Twenty-five U.S. Military Officers Challenge Official Account of 9/11 1/14/08:
"September 11, 2001 seems destined to be the watershed event of our lives and the greatest test for our democracy in our lifetimes. The evidence of government complicity in the lead-up to the events, the failure to respond during the event, and the astounding lack of any meaningful investigation afterwards, as well as the ignoring of evidence turned up by others that renders the official explanation impossible, may signal the end of the American experiment. It has been used to justify all manners of measures to legalize repression at home and as a pretext for behaving as an aggressive empire abroad. Until we demand an independent, honest, and thorough investigation and accountability for those whose action and inaction led to those events and the cover-up, our republic and our Constitution remain in the gravest danger." http://www.opednews.com
* Statement to this website 2/20/07:
"This isn't about party, it isn't about Bush Bashing. It's about our country, our constitution, and our future. ...
Your countrymen have been murdered and the more you delve into it the more it looks as though they were murdered by our government, who used it as an excuse to murder other people thousands of miles away.
If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or ... to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you? Scholars for 9/11 truth have developed reams of scientific data. Michael Ruppert published an exhaustive account of the case from the viewpoint of a trained investigator. David Ray Griffin provides a context for the unanswered or badly answered questions that should nag at anyone who pretends to love this country.
Are you afraid that you will learn the truth and you can't handle it? ...
Do a little research. Google is a wonderful tool.
What does it all add up to? The Commission was, as was the Warren Commission before it, a dog and pony show ... " Link to full statement
September 29, 2009 at 1:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwiatkowski, PhD, U.S. Air Force (ret) Former Political-Military Affairs Officer in the Office of the Secretary of Defense. Also served on the staff of the Director of the National Security Agency. 20-year Air Force career. Member adjunct faculty, Political Science Department, James Madison University. Instructor, University of Maryland University College and American Public University System. Author of African Crisis Response Initiative: Past Present and Future (2000) and Expeditionary Air Operations in Africa: Challenges and Solutions (2001).
* Contributor to 9/11 and American Empire: Intellectuals Speak Out 8/23/06: Account of Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski, Pentagon employee and eyewitness to the events at the Pentagon on 9/11. "I believe the Commission failed to deeply examine the topic at hand, failed to apply scientific rigor to its assessment of events leading up to and including 9/11, failed to produce a believable and unbiased summary of what happened, failed to fully examine why it happened, and even failed to include a set of unanswered questions for future research. ...
It is as a scientist that I have the most trouble with the official government conspiracy theory, mainly because it does not satisfy the rules of probability or physics. The collapses of the World Trade Center buildings clearly violate the laws of probability and physics. ...
There was a dearth of visible debris on the relatively unmarked [Pentagon] lawn, where I stood only minutes after the impact. Beyond this strange absence of airliner debris, there was no sign of the kind of damage to the Pentagon structure one would expect from the impact of a large airliner. This visible evidence or lack thereof may also have been apparent to the secretary of defense [Donald Rumsfeld], who in an unfortunate slip of the tongue referred to the aircraft that slammed into the Pentagon as a "missile". ...
I saw nothing of significance at the point of impact - no airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn in front of the damaged building as smoke billowed from within the Pentagon. ... all of us staring at the Pentagon that morning were indeed looking for such debris, but what we expected to see was not evident.
The same is true with regard to the kind of damage we expected. ... But I did not see this kind of damage. Rather, the facade had a rather small hole, no larger than 20 feet in diameter. Although this facade later collapsed, it remained standing for 30 or 40 minutes, with the roof line remaining relatively straight.
The scene, in short, was not what I would have expected from a strike by a large jetliner. It was, however, exactly what one would expect if a missile had struck the Pentagon. ...
More information is certainly needed regarding the events of 9/11 and the events leading up to that terrible day."
September 29, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Lt. Col. Guy S. Razer, MS Aeronautical Science, U.S. Air Force (ret) Retired U.S. Air Force command fighter pilot. Former instructor; U.S. Air Force Fighter Weapons School and NATO's Tactical Leadership Program. As an Air Force weapons effects expert was responsible for wartime tasking of most appropriate aircraft/munition for target destruction to include steel and concrete superstructures. Former aeronautical structures flight test engineer with McDonnell Douglas, working on advanced DC-9 autopilot systems and DC-10 flight envelope expansion stress and flutter analysis. Tactical aircraft flown: General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark fighter/bomber, McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle, General Dynamics / Lockheed Martin F-16 Fighting Falcon, McDonnell Douglas F-18 Hornet, Boeing B-1 Bomber, MiG-29 (Russian fighter), and Su-22 (Russian fighter/bomber). 3,000+ fighter hours. Combat time over Iraq. 20-year Air Force career.
* Statement to this website 3/25/07: "After 4+ years of research since retirement in 2002, I am 100% convinced that the attacks of September 11, 2001 were planned, organized, and committed by treasonous perpetrators that have infiltrated the highest levels of our government. It is now time to take our country back.
The "collapse" of WTC Building 7 shows beyond any doubt that the demolitions were pre-planned. There is simply no way to demolish a 47-story building (on fire) over a coffee break. It is also impossible to report the building's collapse before it happened, as BBC News did, unless it was pre-planned. Further damning evidence is Larry Silverstein's video taped confession in which he states "they made that decision to pull [WTC 7] and we watched the building collapse." [Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." Watch the collapse video here. And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.]
We cannot let the pursuit of justice fail. Those of us in the military took an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Just because we have retired does not make that oath invalid, so it is not just our responsibility, it is our duty to expose the real perpetrators of 9/11 and bring them to justice, no matter how hard it is, how long it takes, or how much we have to suffer to do it.
September 29, 2009 at 1:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
blue,
I must break the mold here.
I do believe that Kennedy was shot by more than one shooter and not by one crackpot with a bolt action in a window but I know from my own presence on the scene and through my own eyes that 9/11 was committed by who took credit for it and it was done using hijacked airplanes flown by Muslim killers.
All of this drab being cut and pasted and begged upon everyone here by chemlawn is mostly the product of a very heated political climate after 2003 and the hate Bush syndrome.
It is all conjecture and force of opinion and takes those who want to believe the worst about Bush to fall for or use this garbage to influence others.
September 29, 2009 at 1:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Lt. Col. Jeff Latas, U.S. Air Force (ret) Former combat fighter pilot. Aerospace engineer. Currently Captain at a major airline. Combat experience includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch. Aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle and General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark fighter/bomber. Former President, U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board. Also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review. Awarded Distinguish Flying Cross for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals. 20-year Air Force career.
* Audio interview with Rob Balsamo 6/25/07: Regarding the 9/11 Commission's account of the impact of Flight 77 at the Pentagon and discrepancies with the actual Flight Data Recorder information:
"After I did my own analysis of it, it's obvious that there's discrepancies between the two stories; between the 9/11 Commission and the flight data recorder information. And I think that's where we really need to focus a lot of our attention to get the help that we need in order to put pressure on government agencies to actually do a real investigation of 9/11. And not just from a security standpoint, but from even an aviation standpoint, like any accident investigation would actually help the aviators out by finding reasons for things happening. ...
The things that really got my attention were the amount of descent rate that you had to have at the end of the flight, of Flight 77, that would have made it practically impossible to hit the light poles. [Editor's note: Destruction of the light poles near the Pentagon by Flight 77 was stated in the 9/11 Commission Report.] Essentially it would have been too high at that point to the point of impact where the main body of the airplane was hitting between the first and second floor of the Pentagon. ...
You know, I'd ride my bike to the Pentagon. So, you know I'm a little bit familiar with that area. [Editor's note: Lt. Col. Latas served as a Weapons Requirement Officer at the Pentagon.] But, you know, that kind of descent rate it would have been impossible essentially for the results that we see physically from what the flight data recorder was recording. Like I say, that's an area that I think deserves explanation. ...
The ground track [the path of the airplane] is off from the 9/11 Commission. There are several things that can be brought up but it's been a while since I've seen the film and looked at the flight data recorder. And I can't think of all the discrepancies I saw, but there are several there. [The film he refers to is Pandora's Black Box, Chapter 2, Flight of American 77.] ...
http://video.google.com
September 29, 2009 at 1:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
The truth is crazy.
September 29, 2009 at 1:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Commander Ted Muga, U.S. Navy (ret) Retired Naval aviator (Grumman E-1 and E-2). Retired Pan-Am commercial airline pilot (Boeing 707 and 727).
* Interview Alex Jones Show 4/11/07:
Alex Jones: Recap Hani Hanjour's maneuver, what they claim -- go through the maneuver they claim he did and then what supposedly happened there at the Pentagon ...
Commander Muga: The maneuver at the Pentagon was just a tight spiral coming down out of 7,000 feet. And a commercial aircraft, while they can in fact structurally somewhat handle that maneuver, they are very, very, very difficult. And it would take considerable training. In other words, commercial aircraft are designed for a particular purpose and that is for comfort and for passengers and it's not for military maneuvers. And while they are structurally capable of doing them, it takes some very, very talented pilots to do that. ...
When a commercial airplane gets that high, it gets very, very close to getting into what you refer to as a speed high-speed stall. And a high-speed stall can be very, very violent on a commercial-type aircraft and you never want to get into that situation. I just can't imagine an amateur even being able to come close to performing a maneuver of that nature.
And as far as hijacking the airplanes, once again getting back to the nature of pilots and airplanes, there is no way that a pilot would give up an airplane to hijackers. ...
I mean, hell, a guy doesn't give up a TV remote control much less a complicated 757. And so to think that pilots would allow a plane to be taken over by a couple of 5 foot 7, 150 pound guys with a one-inch blade boxcutter is ridiculous.
And also in all four planes, if you remember, none of the planes ever switched on their transponder to the hijack code. There's a very, very simple code that you put in if you suspect that your plane is being hijacked. It takes literally just a split-second for you to put your hand down on the center console and flip it over. And not one of the four planes ever transponded a hijack code, which is most, most unusual. ...
Commercial airplanes are very, very complex pieces of machinery. And they're designed for two pilots up there, not just two amateur pilots, but two qualified commercial pilots up there. And to think that you're going to get an amateur up into the cockpit and fly, much less navigate, it to a designated target, the probability is so low, that it's bordering on impossible." Appears half way through the second hour segment at http://www.realradioarchives.com
September 29, 2009 at 1:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
If you ridicule others who have sincere doubts and who know factual information that directly contradicts the official report and who want explanations from those who hold the keys to our government, and have motive, means, and opportunity to pull off a 9/11, but you are too lazy or fearful, or : to check into the facts yourself, what does that make you?
September 29, 2009 at 1:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
William Rodriguez WTC survivor. An American Building Maintenance employee for twenty years, responsible for inspection and maintenance at the World Trade Center, who held the master key for the stairs. He was the last person to leave the building on September 11 and has been credited with saving many lives. For his efforts, he received the National Hero Award from the Senate of Puerto Rico. Founder, Hispanic Victims Group.
* Article 6/24/05: Regarding an explosion in the sub-basement of the World Trade Center North Tower on 9/11, prior to any airplane impact. "When I heard the sound of the explosion, the floor beneath my feet vibrated, the walls started cracking and it everything started shaking," said Rodriguez, who was huddled together with at least 14 other people in the office. ... [Editor's note: At this point, Mr. Rodriguez was in sub-basement B1 of the North Tower, approximately 1,100 feet below the airplane's impact point at floors 93 to 98.]
"Seconds after the first massive explosion below in the basement still rattled the floor, I hear another explosion from way above," said Rodriguez. "Although I was unaware at the time, this was the airplane hitting the tower, it occurred moments after the first explosion."
But before Rodriguez had time to think, co-worker Felipe David stormed into the basement office with severe burns on his face and arms, screaming for help and yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"
David had been in front of a nearby freight elevator on sub-level 1 about 400 feet from the office when fire burst out of the elevator shaft, causing his injuries.
"He was burned terribly," said Rodriguez. "The skin was hanging off his hands and arms. His injuries couldn't have come from the airplane above, but only from a massive explosion below. I don't care what the government says, what scientists say. I saw a man burned terribly from a fire that was caused from an explosion below.
"I know there were explosives placed below the trade center. I helped a man to safety who is living proof, living proof the government story is a lie and a cover-up. ...
"I disagree 100%with the government story," said Rodriguez. "I met with the 9/11 Commission behind closed doors and they essentially discounted everything I said regarding the use of explosives to bring down the north tower.
"And I contacted NIST previously four times without a response. Finally, this week I asked them before they came up with their conclusion that jet fuel brought down the towers, if they ever considered my statements or the statements of any of the other survivors who heard the explosions. They just stared at me with blank faces and didn't have any answers." http://www.arcticbeacon
September 29, 2009 at 2:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Anthony Saltalamacchia WTC Survivor. Maintenance Supervisor at the World Trade Center, overseeing over 100 American Building Maintenance employees.
* Video interview by William Rodriguez 9/07: "On the morning of September 11th, I was in my office. I was just getting the work handed out to all the employees. ... [Editor's note: At this point, Mr. Saltalamacchia was in sub-basement B1 of the North Tower, approximately 1,100 feet below the airplane's impact point at floors 93 to 98.]
We heard a massive explosion that was in the World Trade Center about 8:46 a.m. in the morning. The explosion came from -- I believe at first we believed that it came from the Mechanical Room. [Editor's note: The Mechanical Room was below them in a lower sub-basement .]
Then we heard a series of other explosions that sounded up on the above levels of the building. We then realized that there was something wrong and there was a major problem. And about, I'd say, 14 to 15 people came running and screaming into our office. ...
Then right after that the floor started shaking. The tile from above, which was above us, started coming down, falling on us. And we knew that there was something seriously wrong happening.
A man came into the office. He was a black man, very shaky, like in shock. He had multiple wounds. His arms were bleeding. Skin was peeling off. You could see basically his flesh. It was a very tough thing to see. ... [Editor's note: Mr. Saltalamacchia is referring to Felipe David.]
And as we're standing there, more explosions were happening. A lot of screaming confusion. ...
It was very smoky, very cloudy. It just looked very serious. We knew we had to get out of the building. ...
The amount of explosions I've heard from 8:46 until the time we got out was so many, at least ten. It was just like multiple explosions to where I felt like there were different grenades. That's what it sounded like, it was different grenades being set off in the building. It was like -- There was one major explosion, and then there was different explosions throughout that period of time until we got out.
Do I believe six years after 9/11? I don't know the truth. I don't believe a word that they say. I just don't believe Everything they say is a cover up. ... No, definitely don't leave it alone. I think that we should get documents to know the truth of what was really going on that we didn't know that we should know now." http://www.youtube.com
September 29, 2009 at 2:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Phillip Morelli WTC survivor. Construction worker at the World Trade Center for seven years .
* Video interview: "At 8:30 he says he was headed for level B-4 in Tower One [North Tower], four stories below ground.
"... As I'm walking by the main freight car of the building, in the corridor, that's when I got blown. I mean the impact of the explosion, from whatever happened, it threw me to the floor. And that's when everything started happening. It knocked me right to the floor. You didn't know what it was. Of course, you're assuming something fell over on the loading dock, something very heavy, something very big. You don't know what happened. And all of a sudden you just felt the floor moving. ... [Editor's note: At this point, Mr. Morelli was in the sub-basement of the North Tower, approximately 1,100 feet below the airplane's point of impact at floors 93 to 98.]
I was racing -- I was going towards the bathroom. All of a sudden. I opened the door. I didn't know it was a bathroom And all of a sudden a big impact happened again. And all the ceiling tiles were falling down. The light fixtures were falling, swinging out of the ceiling. And I come running out the door and everything, the walls were down. And I now started running towards the parking lots."
Nearly 100 floors below where the first plane hit Phil felt the devastating impact. ...
"As I ran to the parking lots, you know, I mean, everybody screaming ... There was a lot of smoke down there. ... You gotta go clear across the whole -- from One to Two World Trade Center. That's the way you gotta run.
And then all of a sudden it happened all over again. Building Two got hit. I don't know that. I just know something else hit us to the floor. Right in the basement you felt it. The walls were caving in. Everything that was going on. I know of people that got killed in the basement. I know of people that got broken legs in the basement. People got reconstructive surgery because the walls hit them in the face." http://real.ny1.com
* Editor's note: Despite hundreds of eyewitness reports of explosions throughout the Twin Towers by doomed victims, survivors, emergency service personnel, reporters, and bystanders, the 9/11 Commission Report contains virtually no mention of them and entirely ignores them in its conclusions. Graeme MacQueen's analysis of oral histories of 9/11 taken from 503 FDNY survivors reveals more than 100 FDNY personnel reported explosions in the Twin Towers.
September 29, 2009 at 2:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Marlene Cruz WTC survivor. Carpenter employed at the World Trade Center for 15 years.
* ABC 9/12/01: Peter Jennings interviewed Marlene Cruz the day after 9/11. Ms. Cruz, a WTC carpenter, was injured in the basement of WTC North Tower on 9/11. She was the first casualty from the WTC to arrive at Bellevue Hospital.
Peter Jennings: So tell me how you're feeling. How did you get there? What happened to you?
Marlene Cruz: I work for the Trade Center. I'm one of the carpenters. And I was gonna go do a job. And I got on the elevator, the freight elevator. And I heard the first explosion. And the elevator blew up. The doors blew up. And it dropped. I was lucky that the elevator got caught between two floors.
Peter Jennings: Which floors?
Marlene Cruz: The B Levels. The basement levels. ... [Editor's note: At this point, Ms. Cruz was in the basement of the North Tower, approximately 1,100 feet below the airplane's point of impact at floors 93 to 98.]
After the first explosion I was laying on the floor about 40 minutes.
Peter Jennings: And how well do you know that subterranean part of the World Trade Center?
Marlene Cruz: Well, I worked for the building for 15 years. I think I know it from the back of my hand. Really I didn't expect this bombing to occur after the first one, since I was in the first one, also. But when I heard that explosion that's the first thing I thought was; here we go again, another bomb. http://youtube.com/watch?v=TSGZYP--wz0
September 29, 2009 at 2:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Mike Pecoraro WTC survivor. Stationary Engineer who performed services in all of the buildings at the World Trade Center.
* Article Chief Engineer 2002: Mike Pecoraro and a co-worker were working in the sub-basement of the North Tower when the first airplane hit. "They had been told to stay where they were and "sit tight" until the Assistant Chief got back to them. By this time, however, the room they were working in began to fill with a white smoke. "We smelled kerosene," Mike recalled, "I was thinking maybe a car fire was upstairs", referring to the parking garage located below grade in the tower but above the deep space where they were working. [Editor's note: At this point, Mr. Pecoraro was in the sub-basement of the North Tower, approximately 1,100 feet below the airplane's impact point at floors 93 to 98.]
The two decided to ascend the stairs to the C level, to a small machine shop where Vito Deleo and David Williams were supposed to be working. When the two arrived at the C level, they found the machine shop gone.
"There was nothing there but rubble, " Mike said. "We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press? gone!" The two began yelling for their co-workers, but there was no answer. They saw a perfect line of smoke streaming through the air. "You could stand here," he said, "and two inches over you couldn't breathe. We couldn't see through the smoke so we started screaming." But there was still no answer.
The two made their way to the parking garage, but found that it, too, was gone. "There were no walls, there was rubble on the floor, and you can't see anything" he said. [Editor's note: At this point, Mr. Pecoraro was in the basement of the North Tower, approximately 1,100 feet below the airplane's point of impact at floors 93 to 98.]
They decided to ascend two more levels to the building's lobby. As they ascended to the B Level, one floor above, they were astonished to see a steel and concrete fire door that weighed about 300 pounds, wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil" and lying on the floor. "They got us again," Mike told his co-worker, referring to the terrorist attack at the center in 1993. Having been through that bombing, Mike recalled seeing similar things happen to the building's structure. He was convinced a bomb had gone off in the building. Mike walked through the open doorway and found two people lying on the floor. One was a female Carpenter and the other an Elevator Operator. They were both badly burned and injured." http://www.chiefengineer.org
September 29, 2009 at 2:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Have you got it yet!??!!??
September 29, 2009 at 2:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
...So I was well aware of the strength of the core with its steel columns, surrounding the elevators, and stairwells. I should also mention that with a degree in architecture and instruction in steel design (my Yale professor had worked on the Empire State Building) I was and am no novice in structural design.
When I saw the rapid collapse of the towers, I knew that they could not come down the way they did without explosives and the severing of core columns at the base. The spewing of debris from the towers where the planes entered also could not have occurred simply with just a structural collapse. Something else was happening to make this occur.
Moreover, the symmetrical collapse is strong evidence of a controlled demolition. A building falling from asymmetrical structural failure would not collapse so neatly, nor so rapidly, as you have pointed out.
What we are faced with is a lie of such proportions that even to suggest it makes one subject to ridicule and scorn. Who could have done such a terrible thing? Certainly not our government or military. Rogue elements in the intelligence agencies? I have no idea.
But I do know that the official explanation doesn't hold water. An open, honest re-opening of the case is in order. A near majority of Americans agrees with this view. Let us keep pressing for an honest investigation." http://www.ae911truth.org
September 29, 2009 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
David A. Johnson, B.Arch, MCP (City Planning), PhD (Regional Planning), F.AICP Internationally recognized architect and city and regional planner. Professor Emeritus, Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Tennessee. Former Professor and Chair of the Planning Departments at Syracuse University and Ball State University. Elected Fellow, American Institute of Certified Planners (2004). Past President of the Fulbright Association of the United States. Recipient of five Fulbright Scholarships for continued education in Cyprus, India, Thailand, and the Soviet Union. Directed educational projects in Brazil and Portugal. Active in reconstruction efforts in Bosnia and bicommunal peace-making in Cyprus. Former professional planner on the staffs of the Washington National Capital Planning Commission and the Regional Plan Association of New York. Former editorial board member of the Journal of the American Planning Association. Author of numerous journal articles on urban and regional planning theory and history. Author of Planning the Great Metropolis (1996). Co-author of The TVA Regional Planning and Development Program (2005). Contributing author to Two Centuries of American Planning (1988).
* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"I was dubious of the official explanations from the outset. You see, as a professional city planner in New York, I knew those buildings and their design. I attended and participated in the hearings at the New York City Hall when the buildings were first proposed. I argued for the buildings on the basis that the interior core represented a way of internalizing the cost of mass transit, which in our system is almost impossible to finance through public bond issues....
September 29, 2009 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Those last two are reversed, glitch in the system.
September 29, 2009 at 2:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
H. Theodore Elden, Jr., B.Arch, AIA Practicing licensed architect in West Virginia for over 25 years. Now retired. Graduate of Carnegie Mellon University. Member, American Institute of Architects, West Virginia Chapter. Appointed Member of West Virginia State Board of Architects. Former Member, National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB), and Member, National Committee, Intern Development Program for Architects (IDP). Professional photographer.
* Letter to American Institute of Architects 11/26/06:
"The primary duty of registered professionals is to protect the public safety. Professionals' intelligence, knowledge and experience provide a delicate connection between science and fact. ...
9-11 was a tragic event for our country, quickly "solved" by our government and propagated by our media, leading our country into fear, anguish, anger, war and unrestrained spending.
Have we, as building professionals, been hoodwinked? Who should better understand the collapse of the World Trade Towers than those in our profession, possibly with the consultation of demolition experts?
As I and millions have reviewed the events of that day, it seems much of the cover story is not true and impossible. As the nation is confused on the reality of that day, have we been making bad decisions ever since?
My web site collects salient information that isolates the demise of the World Trade Towers linking many experienced, dedicated and articulate technical analysis that show clearly that the World Trade Towers were destroyed by internal explosives and not "fires from the airlines". ...
After hundreds of hours of research, and thousands of dollars purchasing materials and information, this letter outlines my most salient, articulate examples of things that architects should investigate. If I err slightly in any single item, that does not discount this letter. On the contrary, even if only part of these accusations are true, they should be investigated." http://www.abodia.com/911
September 29, 2009 at 3 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Scott C. Grainger, BS CE, PE Licensed Professional Civil Engineer and/or Fire Protection Engineer in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Utah, Virginia, Washington, and Wyoming. Owner of Grainger Consulting, Inc., a fire protection engineering firm (23 years). Former Chairman, Arizona State Fire Code Committee. Former President of the Arizona Chapter of the Society of Fire Protection Engineers. Current Member of the Forensic Sciences Committee and the Fire Standards Committee of ASTM International (formerly American Society for Testing and Materials ). Senior Member, National Academy of Forensic Engineers.
* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"Approximately 50% of my work is forensic. I am licensed in 9 States. In addition to my forensic work, a good portion of my work is in the design of structural fireproofing systems.
All three [WTC] collapses were very uniform in nature. Natural collapses due to unplanned events are not uniform." http://www.ae911truth.org
* Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11, signed by more than 800 Architects and Engineers:
"On Behalf of the People of the United States of America, the undersigned Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth and affiliates hereby petition for, and demand, a truly independent investigation with subpoena power in order to uncover the full truth surrounding the events of 9/11/01 - specifically the collapse of the World Trade Center Towers and Building 7. We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the official story and therefore that the 9/11 investigation must be re-opened and must include a full inquiry into the possible use of explosives that may have been the actual cause behind the destruction of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7." http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php
September 29, 2009 at 3:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
canyonwind (1984) says...
9-11 is nothing but a joke for alot of people, there are fools that think that we attacked ourselfs or the planes were not real or better yet fire can not melt steel any welder will tell you that. Or maybe Obama and his Jew hating friends pulled off the job many think he is a muslim and that alone would make you guilty of such a crime. Then you have guys like Stop the brutal Chemist who may even think 9-11 was all done in a old movie studio out in Holllywood Calif. But who knows? many still think the moon landing was a joke. Or maybe someone imploaded those buildings by mistake. 9-11 could have been a plan to try out some new bombs in the desert. Or maybe it was all done on a computer, and the town it happened in could have made up a bunch of phoney death tags with phoney dead people, the whole nine yards. But some day the truth will come out. Anyway the 9-11 truthers and other kooks seem to have all the answers, but what is the big deal ? most of the people that were victims were just greedy bankers like Berny Maidoff just ask the great Michael More he will set you straight about all those greedy New Yorkers that robbed your 401 k. Looking back I can't believe this nation went to war for crooks that worked at AIG and the rest of WALL ST. Worst yet we may have went to war over a joke that just went too far, the 9-11 truthers would never lie.
September 29, 2009 at 3:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Kevin A. Kelly, FAIA Fellow, American Institute of Architects. Co-author of the groundbreaking book "Problem Seeking: An Architectural Programming Primer," which is a standard college textbook in the USA. He brings more than 28 years of experience in the programming field including such projects as the Chrysler Technology Center, Microsoft's recent headquarters expansion, all sports venues for the Atlanta Olympics, and the 1.8 million square foot 3M Research & Development Austin Center.
* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"The Presentation made by Architects and Engineers for 911 Truth at the AIA Convention in San Francisco [May 2009] made a sufficient case that a new investigation into the collapses of the 3 high rise buildings on 9/11/01 would be worthwhile." http://www.ae911truth.org
September 29, 2009 at 3:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Hugo Bachmann, PhD Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Author and co-author of Erdbebenbemessung von Stahlbetonhochbauten (Seismic Analysis of Concrete Reinforced Structures) (1990), Vibration Problems in Structures: Practical Guidelines (1995), Biege- und Schubversuche an teilweise vorgespannten Leichtbetonbalken (Structural Analysis of Linked Concrete Beams) (1998), Hochbau für Ingenieure. Eine Einführung (Structural Construction for Engineers. An introduction) (2001), Erdbebensicherung von Bauwerken (Earthquake-proofing Buildings) (2002).
* Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: "In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology] - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jrg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."
English translation: http://www.danieleganser.ch
Original in German: http://www.danieleganser.ch
* Editor's note: WTC Building 7 was 610 feet tall, 47 stories. It would have been the tallest building in 33 states. Although it was not hit by an airplane, it completely collapsed into a pile of rubble in less than 7 seconds at 5:20 p.m. on 9/11, seven hours after the collapses of the Twin Towers. However, no mention of its collapse appears in the 9/11 Commission's "full and complete account of the circumstances surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks." Watch the collapse video here. And six years after 9/11, the Federal government has yet to publish its promised final report that explains the cause of its collapse.
* Book 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA: "As Bachmann told the Neue Züricher Zeitung Online on September 13, 2001, at first glance there seemed to be two possibilities in the fall of the towers. The first was the fire and its effect on the steel supports. But Bachmann had an alternative: "In the second scenario, an additional terrorist action would have caused the collapse of the buildings. In this way, according to Bachmann, buildings like the World Trade center can be destroyed without great logistical exertion." The article went on to say that "Bachmann could imagine that the perpetrators had installed explosives on key supports in a lower floor before the attack." If the perpetrators had rented office space, then these "explosive tenants" could have calmly placed explosive charges on the vulnerable parts of the building "without having anyone notice." http://www.reopen911.org/Tarpley_ch_6...
September 29, 2009 at 3:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Jrg Schneider, Dr hc Professor Emeritus, Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Former President, Joint Committee on Structural Safety, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Elected member of the Swiss Academy of Engineering Sciences. Former Vice President and honorary lifetime member of the International Association for Bridge and Structural Engineering.
* Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: " In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology] - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jrg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."
September 29, 2009 at 3:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
James R. Carr, PhD, PE Professor, Department of Geological Sciences and Engineering, University of Nevada. Licensed Geological Engineer, State of Nevada. Author of 60 peer-reviewed journal articles on geological sciences. Author of Numerical Analysis for the Geological Sciences (1995) and Data Visualization in the Geosciences (2002). Contributing author to Advances in Remote Sensing and GIS Analysis (1999).
* Letter to the editor, Reno Gazette-Journal 8/23/07:
"Terrorism supplants communism as the enemy our government uses to justify military intervention abroad.
Former Carter National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, advocated in a 1997 book for America's domination of the world through military intimidation. He audaciously stated that America's democracy at home was in opposition to this goal and what was needed was "a truly massive and widely perceived direct external threat."
Cut to September 11, 2001.
Our democracy, if not by then, was afterward an exoskeleton behind which lurked secret agendas. We were told that terrorists hiding in Afghanistan perpetrated the attack and few questioned our subsequent military response. There are, however, troubling questions about 9/11 that are as yet unanswered by our government. For one, why did our military fail to intercept any of the airplanes on 9/11? Was this failure the result of gross incompetence, or was a stand down order in place?
Many have come forward to sign petitions to Congress to reopen the investigation of the 9/11 attacks, especially the reason(s) for the collapse of WTC7. Please visit PatriotsQuestion911.com to learn more. Together, we have a lot of work ahead to restore American democracy." http://news.rgj.com
September 29, 2009 at 3:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Frank A. DeMartini WTC victim. Architect and WTC Construction Manager, North Tower, 88th floor. Demartini first worked at the World Trade Center when Leslie E. Robertson Associates hired him to assess damage from the terrorist truck bombing in 1993.
* Video interview 1/25/01: "The [Twin Tower] building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. This intense grid and the jet-plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting." http://video.google.com
* Editor's note: The Boeing 767-200s that impacted the Twin Towers on 9/11 were only slightly larger than 707s and DC 8s, the types of jetliners whose impacts the World Trade Center's designers anticipated. The maximum takeoff weight of the 707 is 15% less than the 767.
* Bio: http://www.legacy.com
September 29, 2009 at 3:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
Chem Stop,so the discovery involved in the investigation has not been available for review by the public?Why then dont all the people {or someone?] file a law suit against the government or authorities in control of them to have them released?I dont believe thatgeneral or whoever is so suprised that the plane fire could have made the towers fall straight down.That is really lame.What makes him so sure that it should have fallen to the side?He doesnt expound on why,but since this is something unique,people can say what they want to about the cause,and unless you have a penchant for forums,most people wouldnt know what to believe from to generally avaiable information.Its this ignorance void in people that even perpetuated this theory,Sometimes there arent any answers available for explosions
September 29, 2009 at 4:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Those towers took the path of MOST resistance when they fell. that is not natural, they should have taken the path of LEAST resistance, which is to fall over. The damage to the buildings was asymmetrical, yet the buildings collapses were symmetrical, this goes against the laws of physics, but many of the laws of physics were changed that day so I guess it all makes perfect sense.
September 29, 2009 at 4:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
David Leifer, BSc, B.Arch, M.Ed, PhD, IEng, ACIBSE Coordinator, Graduate Programme in Facilities Management, University of Sydney. Formerly taught at University of Auckland (1993 - 2001), University of Queensland (1986 - 1993), Mackintosh School of Architecture (1984 - 1986). Registered Architect. Incorporated Engineer.
* Statement 7/1/07: "The frequently repeated TV images of the aircraft slamming into the World Trade Centre overwhelmed any thoughtful response. Naturally, the collapse of the buildings was attributable to this traumatic event.
It was only later when pictures emerged showing the inappropriate damage to the Pentagon reported to have been caused by a large aircraft crashing through several layers of external wall that professional doubt was aroused in my mind. Thereafter, The fall of the World Trade Center video showed the side of one tower 'unzipping' along one side of a damaged floor. My knowledge of structure and dynamics told me that unless the other sides simultaneously 'unzipped' there was no way that the tower would have 'pancaked' onto it's own footprint: it should surely have toppled outwards. That both towers did the same was just too improbable to be plausible.
Hence I am anxious to learn what really happened." http://www.911blogger.com/node/9736
September 29, 2009 at 4:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Eric Douglas Registered Architect in New York and California.
* Essay 12/06: "The NIST investigation of the WTC building failures was extensive, but NIST did not substantiate its conclusions experimentally. On the contrary, many of NIST's tests contradicted its conclusions. Furthermore, there are several examples in which NIST chose to manipulate input data, and then certify its findings based upon the inevitable conclusions that derive from the manipulated input. One finds little acknowledgement on the part of NIST that uncertainties in its simulations translate into uncertainties in its findings.
NIST's physical tests were inadequate. Their ASTM E119 tests and their workstation burn tests were improperly modeled. Further, the former produced results that contradicted NIST's conclusions and the latter fell far short of testing the performance of realistic steel members in the actual fire conditions. The workstation burn tests showed that the temperatures were generally too low, especially in the ventilation-controlled WTC environments. The ASTM E119 tests showed that the WTC floor trusses should have easily withstood the fires they experienced on 9/11.
There were also flaws in NIST's computer simulations, including its impact simulation, its fire loading simulation, its temperature mapping simulation, its thermal/structural component simulations, and its global simulation. The LS-DYNA simulation showed that the aircraft would have done much less damage than NIST assumes, and NIST's subsequent "scenario pruning" was confused and unsubstantiated. The decision to exclude the hat truss from the structural/thermal response simulations was a significant omission. The sequence of failed truss seats leading to pull-in forces on the exterior columns is central to NIST's theory but not explained or supported by simulation.
This paper will conclude that the findings of the NIST investigation, although not necessarily incorrect, are not inherently linked to the reality of the failure mechanisms that took place in WTC buildings 1 and 2. The author calls on NIST to explain the discrepancies in its reports, admit the level of uncertainty in its findings, broaden the scope of its investigation, and make its raw data available to other researchers." http://www.journalof911studies.com
September 29, 2009 at 4:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Hey Chemmy,
How many of your above "sources" [cut and pasted again, from Alex Jones' website- jeez, you have no imagination, on the other hand perhaps too much]...published their "papers" in a peer reviewed journal ?
See if you can actually put together a coherent sentence or two, and answer me directly....
All you're doing right now is spinning your wheels.
I would expect more from an electrician, who supposedly deals with reality every day.
Of course, your wiring is probably as shoddy as your reasoning skills.
[waits for another cut and paste from Alex Jones]
Are actually capable of a debate, or is this the best you can do ?
September 29, 2009 at 5:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
JLM and sun,,
Sorry if I've offended your personal beliefs, at least in this discussion, however, if you would ever want to, I could show you how I think the belief in a supernatural entity, a supervising power, is not only incorrect, but the wishful thinking of a slave, or a serf.
September 29, 2009 at 5:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
bandmama,
What we all should stride for in that realm is to live and let live.
Until we die we know not the truth especially the truth that others see.
I found this youtube video to be appropriate in this discussion. Here is someone with what appears to be the atheist view as you have expressed yourself in a few posts here.
I agree exactly with this woman when she says "you can worship stones if you want as long as you don't throw them at me".
I also am turned way off by proselytizers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uutt53...
September 29, 2009 at 6:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
What makes you think this is coming from Alex Jones' website??
September 29, 2009 at 6:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Bandmama, why don't you do a little research and answer your own question??
September 29, 2009 at 6:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility. I welcome it. - John F. Kennedy, Inaugural Address Jan. 20, 1961
September 29, 2009 at 7:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
http://patriotsquestion911.com/
September 29, 2009 at 7:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
No amount of evidence will dissuade a conspiracy theorist, but when they appeal to scientific evidence, they're fair game. And the 9-11 conspiracy sites have some very strange science.
9-11 conspirators seem to be a mix of liberals still smarting over 2000 and ultra-conservatives angry that George Bush Jr. hasn't opened the national parks to a land rush. But if Dubya orchestrated a massive conspiracy to bring down the World Trade Center as a pretext for launching a Mideast War, why didn't he pull off the far simpler trick of faking the discovery of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Think of it - his biggest political liability could have been avoided with a piddling investment in special effects, Bush would be seen as America's savior, his strategy would be completely vindicated, and he'd be politically unassailable. All it would take would be spritzing an empty factory with the ingredients for nerve gas, with just enough cross-contamination to create a whiff of the real thing. Yet for some strange reason he didn't do it.
September 30, 2009 at 7:20 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Joe Shearin WTC survivor. Assistant Chief Engineer at the World Trade Center.
* Article Chief Engineer 2002: "That morning a note had been left for Joe by the Chief Engineer of the midnight to 8 a.m. shift telling him that a tenant on the 38th floor wanted to see him as early as possible. So after distributing the work orders to his staff, he entered one of the tower's elevator cars and headed up into the building.
On the 38th floor, Joe Shearin exited the elevator and began his walk down the hallway to meet with the tenant who had requested to see him. About 50 feet down the hallway, he heard a loud explosion and was lifted into the air. "I can't even tell you how far I traveled," he recalled. When he landed, people were already coming out of their offices into the hallway. "They were screaming, hollering," he said. "They were asking what they should do and where they should go". Joe directed them down the stairwells and out of the building. [Editor's note: At this point, Mr. Shearin was on the 38th floor of the North Tower, approximately 650 feet below the airplane's point of impact at floors 93 to 98.]
What Joe first believed was that an equipment room on the 43rd floor, which had an electrical substation, had blown up. He proceeded up the 5 floors to that level. Upon reaching the 43rd floor, "there were patches of ceiling that was just down on the floor, water pipes were broken, water was gushing like a brook or river that was just running down the corridor of the machine room." [Editor's note: At this point, Mr. Shearin was on the 43rd floor of the North Tower, approximately 600 feet below the airplane's point of impact at floors 93 to 98.]
http://www.chiefengineer.org
September 29, 2009 at 7:15 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Arthur DelBianco WTC Survivor. An American Building Maintenance employee. Worked 15 years at the World Trade Center.
* Video interview 9/11/01: "...and then all of a sudden it started like -- It sounded like gunfire. You know, bang, bang, bang, bang, bang. And then all of a sudden three big explosions." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IqSsT...
* NBC Today Show Video interview with Arthur DelBianco, Marlene Cruz, and Hursley Lever 9/12/01: At time of the first plane impact, Arthur DelBianco was in WTC 1 (North Tower).
"I was heading up to the 106th or 7th floor in an elevator. And around the 70th floor I heard -- the lights flicked in the elevator and a rumble and then I heard people screaming on the radio, "I'm trapped. Get me out. Get us out. Get us out. Fire! Fire!" I told the elevator operator to open the door and get the people wherever we were on. And we took them down to the ground level. ...
I went downstairs looking for my fellow workers, because at that time I didn't know the extent of the explosion. I thought it was just an explosion, not that it was two planes that ran into the building. So we're looking subgrade for fellow workers. And I got out of the building at one point and saw the two planes and the building burning. ...
I went looking for my friend, Hursley Lever, over here, and couldn't find him. Myself and Mike Pecoraro were back in the building looking for him and we couldn't find him. We helped the paramedics to work their way down and the firemen to work their way down because Marlene [Cruz] was hurt on the second level below ground.
At that point, we got out because the smoke and the water was getting too heavy. And when I got up to the concourse level it was just like gunfire and then and then, just three big explosions. And the elevator banks came down and the windows and glass and the stainless steel and the marble just started pushing us. We started running to get out of there. And it pushed us through the rubble like 25 to 50 feet.
I wound up handing by an elevator pit with my hand on a turnstyle. When I awoke, when it stopped, I felt someone walk over to me and it was a firefighter. ... And as we went along trying to find our way out to Liberty Street, we just grabbed people along the way. ... When I got outside, the building come down. ... We'd just stepped across the street by the financial center and the building started coming down." http://www.youtube.com
September 29, 2009 at 7:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
Keep trying it's working less every time.
September 29, 2009 at 8:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Is Occam's Razor the thin piece of metal that a magician uses to cut his assistant in half with?
September 29, 2009 at 8:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Sharon Stone Golden Globe and Emmy Award-winning and Academy Award-nominated actress, producer, and writer. She has appeared in more than 40 feature films, including Total Recall (1990), Basic Instinct (1992), Sliver (1993), Intersection (1994), The Specialist (1994), The Quick and the Dead (1995), Casino (1995), Diabolique (1996), Last Dance (1996), The Mighty (1998), The Muse (1999), Beautiful Joe (2000), Cold Creek Manor (2003), Catwoman (2004), Basic Instinct 2 (2006), Alpha Dog (2007), When a Man Falls in the Forest (2008).
* Interview Laha Magazine 2/08:
"I have never believed the story of the destruction of the Twin Towers on 9/11. I do not think the wars launched by the United States in Afghanistan and Iraq were the inevitable result of the 9/11 incident. War is not the appropriate reaction to what happened on 9/11. That reaction was made under the influence of anger and hatred." http://pdf.lahamag.com
* CNN ShowBiz Tonight 3/27/06:
A.J. Hammer: Well, it`s a story that SHOWBIZ TONIGHT first broke last week. Charlie Sheen`s controversial comments and statements that the government is covering up what really happened on 9/11. Tonight we have an update for you, reaction from Hollywood and from all over the country.
Over the weekend I had the opportunity to sit down with Sharon stone. She`s always been very outspoken about her own beliefs. She commended Charlie Sheen for having the guts to speak his mind on this.
Sharon Stone: I think if that`s what he thinks then he has every right to say that. I think people should say whatever it is that they feel in their heart, and I think it`s those who stand up and say their beliefs and challenge them in the face of authority that allows people to investigate and look for -- look at what`s happening. I think you have to be brave enough to say how you feel and stand in the face of authority and say it. That`s why we have freedom of speech." http://transcripts.cnn.com
* Bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharon_S...
September 29, 2009 at 8:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Ed Asner Seven-time Emmy Award-winning actor. Mary Tyler Moore Show, Lou Grant, Roots, Rich Man, Poor Man.
* Open letter 4/26/04: " I would like to suggest to you emphatically that the 9-11 truth movement is the most pressing issue of the peace & justice movement today. ...
There are many disturbing issues around 9-11 that have yet to be examined in any meaningful way by our media, Congress, and even by the 9-11 Commission. These include accountability for the massive breakdown of air defense and plane intercept procedures as described in FAA and DOD regulations, which were violated on 9-11.
This breakdown and astounding unpreparedness by U.S. domestic defense agencies is puzzling to say the least, given the detailed reports our government had of the coming attacks, that were bizarrely suppressed by key officials. ...
I urge all to read The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11 by David Ray Griffin, and endorsed by Howard Zinn, and to view "The Great Deception" documentary by acclaimed Canadian television journalist Barrie Zwicker. ...
We must look deeply at the events leading up to, on and since 9-11. We must demand full 9-11 truth." http://www.septembereleventh.org
* Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11:
"We want truthful answers to question. : As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:
o An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
o Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
o Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
o The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry." http://www.911truth.org/article
* Bio: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_A...
September 29, 2009 at 8:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Lou Dobbs Peabody Award-winning television journalist. Recipient of a Lifetime Achievement Emmy Award. Anchor and managing editor of CNN's hour-long weeknight program Lou Dobbs Tonight, which attracts CNN's largest audience, of about 800,000. Host of a syndicated radio show and a regular columnist in Money magazine, U.S. News & World Report and the New York Daily News. Formerly host of the business news program CBS News Sunday Morning. Author of Exporting America: Why Corporate Greed Is Shipping American Jobs Overseas (2004), Space: The Next Business Frontier (2005), The War on the Middle Class (2006).
* CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight on-air comments 8/19/06:
Lou Dobbs: Tonight, we're one month away from the fifth anniversary of September 11th. A shocking new book by the 9/11 Commission co- chairmen, Thomas Kean and Lee Hamilton, says Americans still don't know the whole truth about their government's initial response to those terrorist attacks that day. Christine Romans has the report.
Christine Romans: Two hours of chaos and confusion on September 11th, and months of government ineptitude at incorrect testimony. A new book by 9/11 commission co-chairmen Tom Kean and Lee Hamilton outlines repeated misstatements by the Pentagon and Federal Aviation Administration.
They write, "Fog of war could explain why some people were confused on the day of 9/11. But it could not explain why all of the after-action reports, accident investigations and public testimony by FAA and NORAD officials advanced an account of 9/11 that was untrue." ...
Now, Kean and Hamilton say all the inaccuracies have fueled conspiracy theorists, they've stymied the investigation, and Lou, damaged the credibility of this government.
Lou Dobbs: Well, this government doesn't deserve much credibility, does it? In point of fact, if all of the after-action reports are untrue, for whatever reason, that's a lie, because they were asserted as the truth by people who knew better or should have. ...
Incompetence and ineptitude on the part of this government on September 11th and in the weeks and months leading up to it are established. The fact that the government would permit deception after a deception, whether honestly, if you can call it that, honestly intended or not. But the fact that they continue and perpetuate the lie, suggests that we need a full investigation of what is going on and what is demonstrably an incompetent and at worst deceitful federal government. Christine Romans, thank you very much. Incredible. http://transcripts.cnn.com
* Website: http://www.cnn.com/CNN/Programs/lou.d...
September 29, 2009 at 8:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Ace Baker Gold record-winning composer, recording artist and performer. Composer for several feature films, television shows, CD's, and commercials. Former touring keyboardist and musical director for Mary Wilson and the Supremes. Also touring keyboardist for REO Speedwagon and Mother's Finest.
*
Song: Blown to Kingdom Come
Have you forgotten
What we saw as one?
Oh those towers turned to dust
They were blown to kingdom come
Have you forgotten
Just how fast they fell?
Office fires can't do that
No there ain't no way in hell
http://www.acebaker.com/KingdomCome
September 29, 2009 at 8:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Jack Keller, BS CE, MS Irrigation Eng, PhD Agricultural and Irrigation Eng, PE, F.ASCE Professor Emeritus, Agricultural and Irrigation Engineering, Utah State University. Member, National Academy of Engineering. Elected Fellow of the American Society of Civil Engineers. Selected by Scientific American magazine as one of the world's 50 leading contributors to science and technology benefiting society (2004). Through his public and private activities, Dr. Keller has provided advisory services in irrigated agricultural development and water management in more than 60 countries. Serves as an advisor to the CALFED Water Use Efficiency Program and former member CALFED Independent Science Board. Serves on the US and International Boards of International Development Enterprises, an NGO that focuses on rural poverty alleviation. Licensed and practicing Professional Engineer, State of Utah. Awarded State of Utah Governor's Medal for Science and Technology (1988). 2006 Recipient of the American Society of Civil Engineers - Environmental & Water Resources Institute Royce J. Tipton National Career Achievement Award. Author of more than 90 technical papers, 50 major consulting reports, 9 handbooks and 2 textbooks in the areas of agricultural water resources planning and engineering.
* Endorsement of 9/11 Contradictions: An Open Letter to Congress and the Press by David Ray Griffin: "This book describes in very straightforward and non-technical terms some major inconsistencies in the government's official story about the events on September 11, 2001. It points out many attempts in the 9/11 Commission's report to cover up evidence. ... As an engineer, I am especially troubled by the cover-up of evidence relevant to the collapse of the three major World Trade Center buildings. I hope that Congress and the public will heed this call for a full and impartial investigation to determine what really did happen on that fateful day." http://www.interlinkbooks.com
* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"Without any serious study I had simply accepted that the events of 9/11 were as commonly perceived, although I was not happy with the way the disaster was being used to promote what I felt were illegal and self defeating imperialistic policies in the guise of the War on Terrorism.
It was not until early 2006 that I stumbled upon sufficient information to become suspicious of the "official" and generally accepted 9/11 storyline. This led me to do my own investigation during which I discovered the demise of WTC 7, which I was heretofore unaware of. Obviously it was the result of controlled demolition and scheduled to take place during the confusion surrounding the day's events.
I now feel morally obligated to deal with and expose the "politically unthinkable" issues surrounding the 9/11 phenomena by participating in such undertakings as signing this petition." http://www.ae911truth.org
September 29, 2009 at 8:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Hugo Bachmann, PhD Professor Emeritus and former Chairman of the Department of Structural Dynamics and Earthquake Engineering, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Author and co-author of Erdbebenbemessung von Stahlbetonhochbauten (Seismic Analysis of Concrete Reinforced Structures) (1990), Vibration Problems in Structures: Practical Guidelines (1995), Biege- und Schubversuche an teilweise vorgespannten Leichtbetonbalken (Structural Analysis of Linked Concrete Beams) (1998), Hochbau für Ingenieure. Eine Einführung (Structural Construction for Engineers. An introduction) (2001), Erdbebensicherung von Bauwerken (Earthquake-proofing Buildings) (2002).
* Tages Anzeiger Article 9/9/06: "In my opinion the building WTC 7 was, with great probability, professionally demolished," says Hugo Bachmann, Emeritus ETH [Swiss Federal Institute of Technology] - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction. And also Jrg Schneider, likewise emeritus ETH - Professor of Structural Analysis and Construction, interprets the few available video recordings as evidence that "the building WTC 7 was with great probability demolished."
September 29, 2009 at 8:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLM (anonymous) says...
@ bandmama ---
I have not been able to stop smiling, laughing and chuckling for the last ten minutes reading your comment about showing me how my belief in a supreme being (for me that would be God) is the "...wishful thinking of a slave or a serf."
Hahahahahaha, I love you. You are the best!
If only you really knew me, you would enjoy the humor yourself.
Thank you, thank you, thank you for one of the greatest chuckles I have had in years.
I can't stop smiling typing this. I may send a case of your favorite beverage around to celebrate. If I set you up with a case at Central Park Liquors would you go by and drink it for me? Really? How about a nice bottle of Dom Perignon? It is the very least I can do given how you have tickled my funnybone.
Thanks! And, remember God loves us all including you, bandmama!
Your new best pal, The Serf!
I just can't stop laughing, please forgive me, my friend! I have tears in my eyes. Hahahahahahaha!
September 29, 2009 at 9:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
by Dr. David Ray Griffin
9/11 Visibility Project
Sunday, May 22, 2005
Link to Original
In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been "a 571-page lie." (Actually, I was saying "a 567-page lie," because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.
Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique's subtitle, "Omissions and Distortions." It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated "distortions" can be considered lies.
It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention "to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11." They are also lies insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least most instances.
Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know. But, deciding to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had identified over 100 of them. Once I had made the list, it occurred to me that others might find this summary helpful. Hence this article....
September 29, 2009 at 10:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
...One caveat: Although in some of the cases it is obvious that the Commission has lied, in other cases I would say, as I make clear in the book, that it appears that the Commission has lied. However, in the interests of simply giving a brief listing of claims that I consider to be lies, I will ignore this distinction between obvious and probable lies, leaving it to readers, if they wish, to look up the discussion in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. For ease in doing this, I have parenthetically indicated the pages of the book on which the various issues are discussed.
Given this clarification, I now list the omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:
1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers---including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC---are still alive (19-20).
2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta---such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances---that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).
3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).
4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).
5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed---an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).
10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"---a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28)...
September 29, 2009 at 10:04 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
We live in a universe of patterns. Once a pattern is established, the burden of proof is on people who claim the pattern does not hold. When some philosopher of science points out that we cannot prove that the sun will rise tomorrow, I say he's absolutely right. There is no way to prove axiomatically that the sun will rise tomorrow, and nobody in science cares in the slightest. When the sun doesn't rise as scheduled, call me. Until then I absolutely refuse to waste time worrying about it. When Immanuel Velikovsky claimed the planets underwent wild disturbances in their orbits, the burden of proof was on him to show that it happened. The burden was not on scientists to show it didn't.
In the case of 9-11, we have planes hitting the World Trade Center and the buildings failing at precisely the level of impact. The observational evidence clearly shows a cause and effect relationship.
September 30, 2009 at 7:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).
12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).
13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel---that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel---made no sense in this case (30).
14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).
15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).
16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).
17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).
18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's façade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).
19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).
20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner---even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).
21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras---including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike---could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).
22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).
23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).
24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).
25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).
September 29, 2009 at 10:06 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).
27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).
28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).
29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).
30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).
31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America's "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).
32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).
33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).
34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family---all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period---were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).
35. The Commission's denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).
36. The Commission's denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).
37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).
38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).
39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).
40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).
September 29, 2009 at 10:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).
47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).
48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).
49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).
50. The omission of Gerald Posner's report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).
51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be "coming down" (114).
52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as "opportunities" (116-17).
53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that "a new Pearl Harbor" would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).
54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).
55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks--Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart---were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).
September 29, 2009 at 10:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).
57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).
58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).
59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).
60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld's conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).
61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (133-34).
62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).
63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD's Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).
64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).
65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).
66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane's transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military's radar to track that plane (166-67).
67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).
68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).
69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).
September 29, 2009 at 10:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD's earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).
71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).
72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175's hijacking (183-84, 186).
73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).
74. The omission, in the Commission's claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).
75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI's counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).
76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar (191-92).
77. The failure to explain, if NORAD's earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was "incorrect," how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).
78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).
79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).
80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke's videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).
81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department"---although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).
82. The Commission's claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke's videoconference---although Clarke's book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).
September 29, 2009 at 10:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
83. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke's contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke's videoconference (213-17).
84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke's account of Rumsfeld's whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld's own accounts (217-19).
85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).
86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36---in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).
87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon---one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a "high-speed dive") and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).
88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from "Phantom Flight 11," were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).
89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).
90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93's hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).
91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).
92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).
93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).
94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC's Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).
95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).
September 29, 2009 at 10:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).
97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).
98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).
99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).
100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).
101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).
102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).
103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).
104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).
105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).
106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).
107. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).
108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).
109. The failure to probe the issue of how the "war games" scheduled for that day were related to the military's failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).
110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).
September 29, 2009 at 10:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
111. The claim---made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them---that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).
112. The failure to point out that the Commission's claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).
113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).
114. The failure to point out that the Commission's chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).
115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report "without dissent," to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of "looking at information only partially," had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).
I will close by pointing out that I concluded my study of what I came to call "the Kean-Zelikow Report" by writing that it, "far from lessening my suspicions about official complicity, has served to confirm them. Why would the minds in charge of this final report engage in such deception if they were not trying to cover up very high crimes?" (291)
http://www.septembereleventh.org/news...
September 29, 2009 at 10:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
What was the intent? If it was to bring down the Towers, why demolish from the top down? That's not how any other controlled demolitions are done. Why not strike low, maximizing the number of casualties and more fully galvanizing the country for war?
If the intent was to collapse only part of the Towers, keeping casualties limited but providing a pretext for war, then the total collapse was unanticipated. Or maybe the intent was simply to crash planes into the Towers and produce casualties but not cause building collapse at all. In either case, if the building collapses were unexpected, they happened through structural weakening and gravitational collapse and all the alleged "evidence" for sequential explosive charges and so on becomes worthless.
Why use planes at all? Why not simply stage a bigger and better remake of the 1993 attack? Why not claim the terrorists detonated a large truck load of explosives at the central core of the building, or smuggled explosives into the core? Instead of passenger planes, why not have the terrorists steal a FedEx or UPS cargo plane and fill it with explosives?
Why have a time gap between the plane crashes and building collapse, and why did the South Tower, which was hit later, fall first? That makes perfect sense in the conventional scenario, because the South Tower was hit lower and thus the load on the damaged structural members was greater. It makes no sense at all from the standpoint of a conspiracy.
Like all conspiracy theories, the 9-11 conspiracy idea suffers from the fatal flaw of having the conspirators engage in a complicated Rube Goldberg process to do something a rational person could do more effectively in a much simpler way.
September 30, 2009 at 7:25 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Since a lot of people have begun to catch on to conspiracy theories, 9-11 theorists have begun putting their own spin on the term. Just like creationists have begun using the word "pseudoscience" to brand evolution and blur the distinction between their own ideas and those of science, 9-11 conspiracy theorists have begun using the term "conspiracy theory" to label the conventional view of 9-11. So you get 19 guys, give some of them rudimentary flight training, they board airliners, hijack them, and fly them into buildings. Yup, that's a conspiracy all right. So the term "conspiracy theory" is entirely accurate.
On the other hand, government operatives spent days planting explosive charges in the towers, then crashed the airliners or flew them to a secret location, brainwashed, imprisoned, or killed the passengers and crew, and that's not a conspiracy theory? Or the videos of the airliner crashes are all fake and some exotic particle beam or energy weapon disintegrated the towers into dust and that's not a conspiracy theory, either?
Well, they're both conspiracy theories, so they're both on the same plane, so you get to pick whichever one you like. This is the classic relativism of the pseudoscientist.
Fortunately, there's a way to sort through the conflicting claims. Which of the two is more consistent with well known facts? Do Middle Eastern terrorists hijack airplanes? Check. Do Middle Eastern terrorists target civilians? Check. Do Middle Eastern terrorists deliberately cause mass casualties? Check. There's absolutely nothing in the standard picture of 9-11 that conflicts with these facts. Number of previous cases where U.S. government operatives have hijacked airliners? None known. Number of previous cases where the U.S. government has collapsed a building full of innocent people? None known (apart from artillery or bombing in war). Number of previous cases where the U.S. government has collapsed a building full of its own citizens? None known. So one conspiracy theory has a host of historical precedents, and the other has none at all.
Fascinating, isn't it, that the fact that no steel frame skyscraper had ever collapsed due to fire is touted as ironclad proof that planes couldn't have brought down the World Trade Center, but the total absence of historical precedent for the government doing it counts for nothing?
September 30, 2009 at 7:27 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLM (anonymous) says...
Maybe I should have said only the love of God for the serfs but the nectar of the gods for the non-believers?
I still cannot stop chuckling. LOL
JLM --- The Surf
October 1, 2009 at 7:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Bamdmama, you weren't paying attention, if you actually read the witness interviews above you will notice that the buildings began to disintegrate, not at the point of impact, as you claim, but much lower, in the basement at the core and at other strategic locations throughout the buildings. A building demolition can begin anywhere the demolition company wants it to, they can bring the shell of the building down from the bottom, the middle or the top or anywhere else they want. The three buldings of the WTC were controlled demolitions according to many, many engineers.
Governments have a long history of false-flag terrorism, including the Reichstag fire that gave Hitler a reason to invade poland, the Gulf of Tonkin incident that got us into the Vietnam war, the USS Liberty incident etc. etc. etc.
To fully understand the level of goverment involvement in these and other false-flag terrorism incidents watch the movie Terrorstorm here- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NKxUx...
September 30, 2009 at 1:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Danny Jowenko Proprietor, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie B.V., a European demolition and construction company, with offices in the Netherlands. Founded 1980, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie is certified and holds permits to comply with the Dutch Explosives for Civil Use Act and the German Explosives Act. Jowenko's explosives engineers also hold the German Certificate of Qualifications and the European Certificate for Shotfiring issued by The European Federation of Explosive Engineers.
* Telephone interview with Jeff Hill 2/22/07:
Jeff Hill: I was just wondering real quickly, I know you had commented on World Trade Center Building 7 before.
Danny Jowenko: Yes, that's right.
Jeff Hill: And I've come to my conclusions, too, that it couldn't have came down by fire.
Danny Jowenko: No, it -- absolutely not.
Jeff Hill: Are you still sticking by your comments where you say it must have been a controlled demolition?
Danny Jowenko: Absolutely.
Jeff Hill: Yes? So, you as being a controlled demolitions expert, you've looked at the building, you've looked at the video and you've determined with your expertise that --
Danny Jowenko: I looked at the drawings, the construction and it couldn't be done by fire. So, no, absolutely not.
Jeff Hill: OK, 'cause I was reading on the Internet, people were asking about you and they said, I wonder -- I heard something that Danny Jowenko retracted his statement of what he said earlier about World Trade Center 7 now saying that it came down by fire. I said, "There's no way that's true."
Danny Jowenko: No, no, no, absolutely not.
Jeff Hill: 'Cause if anybody was -- Like when I called Controlled Demolition here in North America, they tell me that , "Oh, it's possible it came down from fire" and this and that and stuff like that --.
Danny Jowenko: When the FEMA makes a report that it came down by fire, and you have to earn your money in the States as a controlled demolition company and you say, "No, it was a controlled demolition", you're gone. You know?
Jeff Hill: Yeah, exactly, you'll be in a lot of trouble if you say that, right?
Danny Jowenko: Of course, of course. That's the end of your -- the end of the story.
Jeff Hill: Yeah, 'cause I was calling demolitions companies just to ask them if they used the term, "Pull it" in demolition terms and even Controlled Demolitions, Incorporated said they did. But the other people wouldn't -- didn't want to talk to me about Building 7 really because obviously 'cause they knew what happened and they didn't want to say it.
Danny Jowenko: Exactly . http://www.pumpitout.com
September 30, 2009 at 1:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Thomas Spellman, B.Arch Member, City Council, Lake Geneva, WI.
* Blog comment 8/20/05: "There is a lie that rots the very essence of our Government and that is the lie of 9-11-01. I close my eyes and see the lies in the 9-11 Commission Report and I see the lies in the official story but it is as if you and the rest of the media are bound by some invisible force to silence. Knowing what I know and seeing the lies does make for an interesting perspective but it is also very depressing. It is like watching two trains speeding towards each other and being helpless in stopping them. Only when the lie of 9-11 is exposed to the light of day, will we begin the slow process of being at least what we were. It may give us the opportunity to change as well but the lie must be exposed.
A simple matter. Your newspaper reported shortly after the 9-11-01 that Mr. Cheney was taken by the Secret Service to the basement of the White House shortly after 9:00 am. This was confirmed by a photographer who was there. Mr. Mineta said that Mr. Cheney was in the basement when he got there at 9:20 am. Mr. Clark in his book supports this conclusion as well. The 9-11 Commission Report says that Mr. Cheney is not taken to the "basement" until almost 10:00 am. In an article after the 9-11 Commission Report was published your newspaper reported that Cheney was taken to the basement at 10:00 am without comment on the previously reported events that stand in total contradiction to the truth.
I will gladly show you a few of the lies in the 9-11 Commission Report and even show you how your own paper lied to cover up the truth. I will do anything I can to help you see what I see." http://www.huffingtonpost.com
* Letter to the editor 5-25-07: Regarding the collapse of the WTC Towers "One of the Smoking Guns The POWDER (most people call it "dust") was produced from the light weight concrete floors and the dry wall all in 10 seconds. How is that possible without explosives??? If you can not prove that the falling building parts could produce the POWDER in 10 seconds by mechanical means then EXPLOSIVES had to be used because we all saw the POWDER and we still see the POWDER whenever we watch one of the videos. This proves without a doubt that it has to be an inside job." http://www.dailytidings.com
September 30, 2009 at 1:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Kamal S. Obeid, BS CE, MS CE, SE, PE Licensed Professional Structural and Civil Engineer, State of California.
* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"Only recently have I begun to examine the structural collapse of the buildings. Photos of the steel, evidence about how the buildings collapsed, the unexplainable collapse of WTC 7, evidence of thermite in the debris as well as several other red flags, are quite troubling indications of well-planned and controlled demolition." http://www.ae911truth.org
September 30, 2009 at 1:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Charles N. Pegelow, BS CE Licensed Civil Engineer (Structural), State of California. Over 25 years experience in structural design and analysis and project management of major construction projects, including large steel structures.
* Essay 9/25/06: "The FEMA / Kean Commission Report was a flawed investigation. ...
In addition to the firemen calling the Commission a cover up, there are the victim's family organizations that are saying the same thing.
The commission did gather many experts but did not provide them with the full information they needed. FEMA hampered and distorted the investigation of the professionals they hired.
In conclusion, FEMA / Kean Commission Report was a flawed investigation and it needs to be reopened.
An open, independent of the Federal Government, public inquiry into the attacks should be set up under an independent judicial body with power to subpoena evidence." http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org
September 30, 2009 at 1:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Media Pundits Back Away From 9/11 Debate With Sheen
Initial interest waned after Sheen insisted discussion must be moderated fairly
Media Pundits Back Away From 9/11 Debate With Sheen 300909top
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Charlie Sheen's challenge to media pundits to debate him on the issues brought up in his "20 Minutes With The President" letter has not been met after several news outlets expressed interest in taking part but later backed off when it became clear that the discussion would have to be fairly moderated.
Bill O'Reilly was the only pundit to express an interest in debating Sheen but all has gone quiet on that front following Sheen's request that the debate be properly presented with each side having equal time.
Earlier this month, appearing on The Alex Jones Show, Sheen responded to personal attacks by Meghan McCain, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly, by challenging them all to a debate on neutral ground regarding the unanswered questions surrounding 9/11.
Initially, CNN's Larry King Live show was eager to host the debate but was shocked that it could find no one who would agree to go toe to toe with Sheen and his 20 bullet points on 9/11.
E mails forwarded to us by Sheen indicate that Bill O'Reilly was initially interested and that ABC's Good Morning America was keen to broadcast the debate.
However, as soon as Sheen outlined rules that would ensure a fair environment to discuss the issues, O'Reilly and his representatives went cold and backed away from the challenge, according to Sheen.
(ARTICLE CONTINUES BELOW)
Media Pundits Back Away From 9/11 Debate With Sheen 260909banner
But at least O'Reilly had the courage to respond, unlike every other debunker who attacked Sheen yet skulked away in a cowardly fashion when they were challenged.
"We're not naked shouting from the top of a building 'come debate us', we're just issuing a very calm and reasonable offer to just sit down in an open and fair debate forum and hash this thing out," Sheen told The Alex Jones Show yesterday.
Sheen characterized O'Reilly's brief interest in the debate as a "nibble" and added that an agreement has not been reached on the terms that were presented to the Fox News host's representatives.
Sheen said that the reaction to his challenge was, "Inkeeping with how this very deceptive and dangerous machine operates."
"As long as they've got the media under their control then this is the mountain that we must continue to climb," he added.
Watch Sheen's appearance on The Alex Jones Show yesterday below. E mails exchanged between Sheen, his representative, and Bill O'Reilly's representative are reprinted at the end.
September 30, 2009 at 2:10 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Bandmama, if you want so desperately to debate someone, why don't you continue debating Charlie Sheen's bullet points? You had very weak arguments against the first two, why not continue with your weak debating?
September 30, 2009 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
You can't debate against a fantasy. Proving a negative has always been a losing fight. In your wasted hours of cut and paste you have proved that there is a fable and allot of leftist loons are using made up theories to capture the intrigue of the weak in their hope to gain support and cause further chaos against the USA.
Our enemies and groups like the neo-nazis, white supremacists, nation of Islam and newly released convicted criminal Democrat James Traficant are who you should be targeting this silliness at.
They all have motive to enjoy this crap.
And hopefully your 3 week long pasty series will end as it began, with your admiration for prostitute chasing drug abusing B- actor Charlie, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree, Sheen. A family nutbag.
Oh yea, bandmama kicked your a$$.
September 30, 2009 at 2:37 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Carl Cameron Supports Questioning 9/11
Nate Clark
We Are Change Minnesota
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Fox News Channel's chief political correspondent Carl Cameron shared his thoughts on a variety of issues including the attacks of 9/11/2001 with We Are Change Minnesota on September 14th, 2009 in the U.S. Senate office building. Citing warnings by numerous foreign intelligence agencies, pre-9/11 warnings from Arizona FBI agent Kenneth Williams and stating quite plainly that, "It's really hard to make the case that the buildings just imploded without some sort of an accelerant," Cameron said we're, "right to bang the drum because we don't know," what really transpired on 9/11 and that, "The unanswered questions are reasons to be skeptical."
Sharing thoughts on how his reporting on the Israeli art student spy ring and executive assassination squads (subsequently revealed by Sy Hersh) have gone nowhere, he explained, "There are bad guys in the government. Black Ops and stuff does happen." He went on to share some insight into the inner workings of the news industry. Despite repeated acknowledgment of the unanswered questions concerning the events of September 11th, 2001, he declined to go on the record in support of a new investigation of 9/11 with the excuse that, "every single thing I say has to go though media relations"-referring to media relations as a, "meat grinder." An astute observer might wonder if media relations was involved or if he personally felt it appropriate as debate moderator to outright insult Ron Paul's electability-asking, "Do you have any, sir?" during the 2008 Republican presidential debates.
Cameron, a notorious John "Skull and Bones" Kerry basher, seemed to revel in sharing an account of Nancy Pelosi calling Kerry a "liar" for having supported the trumped up claims that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Considering how Cameron was also the source of the allegation that Sarah Palin thought that Africa is a country rather than a continent, it seems that character assassination may be the name of the game...
September 30, 2009 at 2:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
...Ironically, the conversation concluded with a reference to his encounter with We Are Change New York last year when he listened to their concerns at length but offered little to none of his own thoughts on the matter. He did, however, tip off the group to the nearby Phil Gramm. "Come on guys, that's Phil Gramm: why aren't you busting his ass?" He offered the following advice on confrontation:
Yeah, and I mean seriously, simply you guys help your own cause, and I'm not saying you need to be rude to the people who are on your team, but if they tamp it down a little bit, I mean: I got jumped in downtown New York by a bunch of 9/11 truthers and I talked with them for an hour and it's still out there on the web and the thing is if we'd had a quiet conversation, they might've actually gotten something out of me that would've been better than me just telling them, "I'm not going to talk to you."
Let's hope more workers in the news industry do what they can to help expose the unanswered questions about 9/11-if even to tip off the real reporters to opportunities to report on the "real questions."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJk0I1...
September 30, 2009 at 2:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
JLM-
I am glad that I made you laugh! Would love to take you up on the Dom Perignon! The wifes birthday is coming up and it will help me make it up to her for posting some of my comments under her name
The Dog
September 30, 2009 at 5:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
How about it, Dog?
CS Number 3; The following is a quote from Mayor Giuliani during an interview on 9/11 with Peter Jennings for ABC News. "I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us."
who told him this??? To this day, the answer to this question remains unanswered, completely ignored and emphatically DENIED by Mayor Giuliani on several public occasions.
September 30, 2009 at 5:45 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
I can see where you can't really debate that one, how about number 4?
CS Number 4; In April 2004, USA Today reported, "In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties." One of the targets was the World Trade Center.
September 30, 2009 at 5:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Maybe you should stay from from that one, too, since it is easily verifiable as documented fact. Want to try number 5?
CS Number 5; On September 12th 2007, CNN's 'Anderson Cooper 360', reported that the mysterious "white plane" spotted and videotaped by multiple media outlets, flying in restricted airspace over the White House shortly before 10am on the morning of 9/11, was in fact the Air Force's E-4B, a specially modified Boeing 747 with a communications pod behind the cockpit; otherwise known as "The Doomsday Plane".
Though fully aware of the event, the 9/11 Commission did not deem the appearance of the military plane to be of any interest and did not include it in the final 9/11 Commission report.
I bet you don't.
September 30, 2009 at 5:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Valerie Lucznikowska Executive Director, Congress of International Modern Architects. Aunt of Adam P. Arias, Vice President, Euro Brokers, WTC, South Tower, 84th floor.
* Article World Socialist Web Site 9/8/05:
"My nephew was told that people in the South Tower didn't have to evacuate because the collapse of the North Tower was an accident. I believe that NORAD [North American Aerospace Defense Command] knew that the South Tower was going to be attacked before it went down. Think of what this means. Able Danger was not the first revelation. There were lots and lots of clues about the fact that the government had prior knowledge. ...
"I'm just beginning to read all the exposes of 9/11. Even though Able Danger identified four of the hijackers before the bombing, I would still like to know how the government knew so quickly after the attacks who the hijackers were. The 9/11 commission definitely did not get to the full truth." http://www.wsws.org
September 30, 2009 at 7:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Dennis Holloway, B.Arch, M.Arch (Urban Design) Former Associate Professor of Environmental Design at the University of Colorado. Former Associate Professor of Architecture, University of Minnesota School of Architecture and Landscape Architecture. Member, National Council of Architectural Registration Boards (NCARB). Registered Architect in Colorado, New Mexico, and Wyoming. Former Licensed/Registered Architect in Michigan and Minnesota. Recipient of the Environmental Quality Award in Science and Technology from the United States Environmental Protection Agency. Co-author The Owner Builder Experience, How to Design and Build Your Own Home (1986). Contributing author to Resettling America; Energy, Ecology and Community (1980) and Virtual Reality in Archaeology (2000).
* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"It was the discovery of molten steel in the Tub that made me realize there was something really wrong about the MSM coverage of the Towers. The discovery of intergranular melting has so far not been explained, officially. Building 7 collapse looks like a demolition to me, and if nothing else happens, this should be intensively re-investigated by an independent team of architects and engineers." http://www.ae911truth.org
September 30, 2009 at 7:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
"leftist loons" good one. You may want to check the credentials of all of these "leftist loons" that are calling for a new independent investigation.
September 30, 2009 at 8:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
Bandmama,I too got a laugh{not as long as JLM)Maybe the subject will come up again(GOD) and we can talk more,at this rate we will be discussing this topic for another year if Stop the brutal chemicals keeps it up,Im kinda bored already,All you have here is yourself chem from the sounds of it,does that tell you something you really need to know?YOU ARE WRONG.....I guess I can twiddle my thumbs in boredom rather th listen to you anymore.Your shooting at nothing and I for one hate totally wasting my time,even though everyone else is O.K. by me to listen to,You can just play by yourself now,OH dont forget to keep posting the site yourself to keep the number one slot.
September 30, 2009 at 9:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
Oh,just for fun can you leave me some holy water at City Market JLM?Im not sure but I think that I am both serf and slave!
September 30, 2009 at 9:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
James Martin Tomlin, B.Arch Licensed Architect, State of California. Member, American Institute of Architects.
* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:
"For the past 6 years since 9/11, my belief in the official media accounts of what happened to the WTC that day has been gradually but increasingly eroding down to disbelief. Yet, I have been willfully disregarding any 'conspiracy theories' that loudly and obnoxiously point fingers at the Presidency with more hatred than evidence (Bush has some power, but he is not omnipotent!). But, after stumbling upon this site, I find some of my colleagues have been quietly and steadfastly giving this issue a fair and rational assessment that I now think deserves my attention and support. There are many serious questions that have yet to be answered about 9/11, and I am looking forward to being part of the movement towards uncovering the truth, whatever it may be, wherever it may lead us." http://www.ae911truth.org
September 30, 2009 at 9:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
The Truth whatever it may be,where ever it may lead us?There is a big difference between truth and inuendo.Really its slander,good thing no one cares enough to sue people like you for putting out unprovable slop,
September 30, 2009 at 10:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
Oh,I know I get punished with another paste and cut for that one,
September 30, 2009 at 10:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
Not to stomp on any toes by changing the subject,but how about those"Obama Songs" that they are teaching in the schools now?
September 30, 2009 at 10:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
JLM (anonymous) says...
No champagne for serfs, sorry, sun. LOL
bandmama, when is the anniversary?
JLM --- The Surf
October 1, 2009 at 7:52 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
JLM-
LOL! the REAL bandmama here, not the Hunterdog it is my birthday, not an anniversary...thanks but I think I will let the Dog think of something all on his own. Although it is a great idea! Right HunterDog?????
All of you keep up the good work to STOP thebrutalchemtrails.
alot of repeating going on, it is getting a bit boring.
Sun-I suppose I have competely missed the Obama songs, any lyrics available?
October 1, 2009 at 3:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
charliecigar (anonymous) says...
Chemical Brother,
Please give me your review of "Zeitgeist The Movie". I'm sure you have watched it on the internet. Thank You
October 1, 2009 at 3:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Hmmm...stupid bandmama, putting me on the spot in front of everyone........a beating is coming, and it won't be the mighty Hunterdog escaping the beating....
However,
I would suggest that the belief in an ever-vigilant being, that cares about what you do, and would punish you forever for transgressions you are incapable of comprehending, is an immoral belief, and should be removed from modern thinking....
oh, and,..............the word I used was serf, but if surf works for you.....mmmmmm....surfing......
H-dog
October 1, 2009 at 6:08 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
It was a news clip I saw part of on Fox,the kids were performing for school assembly,it was a sorta rap song and Im not good at catching many words,I was cleaning house or something at the time.The Fox channel was upset about it because a majority of the teachers are Democrats and they think that it is an unfair political influence.Ive been busy but will try to find out more in awhile.
October 1, 2009 at 6:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
Under Fox News :Obama Song,It says at Bernice Young Elementary,Burlington ,New Jersey a class singing a song ,:Obama your number one,Were proud of you,Equal work for equal pay,The school refused to comment and the Druge report,and HAPPY BIRTHDAY!My bithday was last week,A couple of Libras.
October 1, 2009 at 7:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MrTaiChi (anonymous) says...
@ bandmama
I'm so confused.
1) bandmama is a woman with a husband who posts under her name?
2) Hunterdog is who, the husband?
3) If husband is posting, why doesn't he just get his own avatar?
4) bandmama is a married lesbian with a partner named hunterdog?
I'm not confused that bandmama is very bright and articulate, and as all who have repeatedly posted on this thread, must be stinking rich with a lot of time on their hands, retired .... hands, unemployed .... hands, obsessive compulsives or narcissists. I'm still working out where I fit in that.
I gave up reading chemical ali (good one to whom credit is due) after the first couple of days and just skimmed the rejoinders before having to get back to earning a living. JLM love your stuff. Windle and other puerile haters, your comments are inconsequential.
October 2, 2009 at 7 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
Not to detract from you guys victory party,Im the one who last spoke to Chem and there for am the victor if you need to name one.I do miss Chem at least he isnt stupid.
October 4, 2009 at 8:10 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Understandable to be confused, with all BS that's been flying around this thread.
Here's some clarification for MrTaiChi......
1] Yes.
2] Yes.
3] Hunterdog told himself that he wouldn't frequent these forums any more when the Pilot decided they wanted personal information from posters.
Obviously, that didn't deter bandmama, who didn't seem to mind the new rule.
When the Chemloon decided to argue the merits of his wacky and totally false theory, I couldn't sit by and him go unchallenged.
4] No lesbians here, but I've often wondered if I had a woman's spirit trapped inside my body, and I didn't know it because she was a lesbian. LOL.
I mean, I like some girl's things.
I feel safer on a girl's bike, for instance.
Not stinking rich either, my job requires I spend a lot of mindnumbing time in front of a computer, though.
Does that help make things a little clearer ?
October 2, 2009 at 9:45 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MrTaiChi (anonymous) says...
@ bandmama
Thanks. Like to meet you and your man some day.
There is a joke about a cowboy who meets a woman in a bar. When he tries to get friendly, she cuts him off telling him that she's a lesbian, that she loves everything about women, going into lascivious detail about what arouses her passions. This goes on for a while until the cowboy begins to squirm, at which point the lesbian asks him what he is. He responded, "Up until now I thought I was a cowboy, but I guess I'm a lesbian."
October 2, 2009 at 9:54 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
the REAL bandmama here......
Mr TaiChi.....if you think YOU are confused......LOL!
Try living with the Hdog..... (and coincidently, I do have a real Hunter Dog, much easier to get along with than Hdog)
To the Hdog....you put yourself on the spot on this one dear..you are all on your own love! Beatings? lesbians?....Hell it is Friday Sweetheart, but dont get your hopes up. See you at home.
October 2, 2009 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
and what about the Obama Song?Sorry have to go back to work now ,Even though no one asked I do work 10 hours a day, My mind is very thirsty,what is your excuse for reading this Mr.tai che?A least I dont accuse some one who has the right to say anything they want ,of being a lesbian,and I am weird enough to enjoy this for my fun.Sick isnt it?
October 2, 2009 at 4:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
sun,
no one accused anyone of anything.
Tai was attempting to interject some humor into the conversation.
Sorry if you didn't get it.
Since this appears to be important to you....What about that Obama song?
A New Jersey grade school teacher decided, that since we have our first black president, to honor him by composing a little ditty in honor of BLACK APPRECIATION MONTH.....
doesn't surprise me....But perhaps it does you ?
Perhaps I'm missing your whole "obama song" premise....
Please enlighten me.....
October 2, 2009 at 4:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
the mama here..... I wan't in any way offended by the lesbain comment... it is stupidity that offends me......Mama is leaving now, continue your little game now.........
October 2, 2009 at 5:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
And, uh, Chemmy....don't think your argument has escaped logical scrutiny, I'm just having fun with nice people....
....care to continue ?
Say to me, if you can, that the WTC's were brought down by a 'controlled demolition" [no matter, for now, how shoddy your understanding of the concept is], and tell me, without cutting and pasting, the points you perceive support that argument.
Simply, if you can't [at least] do that, your point is lost, I move ahead in the debate, you should maybe rethink your position.....or your delivery of said position...
I don't think you can. And your inability to rationally voice your viewpoint perhaps shows that you have no comprehension of what your viewpoint is.
An airchair psyhcologist would say that this exhibits the classic symptoms of rabid paranoia...........
My sixteen-year-old would say, colloquially, "You've been pwned"
October 2, 2009 at 5:53 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
One more:
If I were so self-centered as to attempt to lecture one on typing and grammar, while making typing and grammatical errors myself....
As I just did in my above post......[Oh no, my inferiority complex is beginning as well].
See, it's OK to laugh at yourself, as well.
H.
October 4, 2009 at 9:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
sun, you're funny [for a few reasons, the more recent just revealed].
Interestingly, I had not called you "ignorant". This appears to be a statement coming from a feeling of inferiority.
Of course, I might feel inferior if:
I had an inferior command of the english language;
If my writing and/or typing skills were such that I couldn't properly type my thoughts in a coherent manner [by the way, difference in distance between the period key and the comma key is roughly 3/16 of an inch, as is true for the space key];
If I not didn't know that the word "ditty" was actually a real word;
ditty /Ë dÉti/ noun
1. a poem intended to be sung.
2. a short, simple song.
If I were so illiterate that I not only didn't know is was a word, but misspelled it even after I had seen it 2-3 paragraphs before:
If I were ever so schizoprenic as to write a post accusing another of being " smutty, crass, and Rude [with a capital "R", I guess the supposed meaning is that I'm extra rude], while myself being crass and ending my posts by calling the same person "stupid":
If I were ever so sensitive as to still be smarting from having a point made regarding philosophy that I disagree with, then lashing out like a child instead of attempting to show why I disagree;
and finally,
If I declared myself winner of a debate that I offered no evidence in.
I think the old quote goes something like:
"Better to be quiet and have people think you're ignorant, than to open your mouth and prove it."
-Hunterdog
October 4, 2009 at 8:36 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
charliecigar (anonymous) says...
Nano-thermite dust????
October 5, 2009 at 5:50 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Ah, the old Dog just runs circles around ya'll, eh ?
October 5, 2009 at 7:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
What is a " Diddy "band mama ?(or who ever you are) ,and I am not really insecure just a smart ass.I hope my typing annoy"s you ,ha.
October 11, 2009 at 8:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
See my above post.
Read it slowly [it's OK to move your lips while doing so, as I'm sure you have to].
Attempt to comprehend what I wrote.
Your own previous post showed your insecurity, but you can deny it all you want, if it makes you feel better.
Your typing doesn't annoy me, I simply used it illustrate your illiteracy and lack of reading comprehension.
Lastly, I wouldn't say you're a "smart-ass", I would say you are quite the opposite.
-Hunterdog
October 11, 2009 at 11:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Colonel Nelson says it very well.
Col. George Nelson, MBA, U.S. Air Force (ret) Former U.S. Air Force aircraft accident investigator and airplane parts authority. Graduate, U.S. Air Force War College. 34-year Air Force career.
Licensed commercial pilot. Licensed airframe and powerplant mechanic.
Essay:
"In all my years of direct and indirect participation, I never witnessed nor even heard of an aircraft loss, where the wreckage was accessible, that prevented investigators from finding enough hard evidence to positively identify the make, model, and specific registration number of the aircraft - and in most cases the precise cause of the accident. :
The government alleges that four wide-body airliners crashed on the morning of September 11 2001, resulting in the deaths of more than 3,000 human beings, yet not one piece of hard aircraft evidence has been produced in an attempt to positively identify any of the four aircraft. On the contrary, it seems only that all potential evidence was deliberately kept hidden from public view. :
http://www.physics911.net/georgenelson
October 13, 2009 at 9:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Hmmm....
Apparently Col. Nelson is unaware the the black box from Flight 77 was recovered.
Apparently he is unaware that a piece of Flight 77's debris, found at the Pentagon site, specifically the power supply casing for the emergency lights [complete with serial number], was positively identified by AA mechanics as being from that particular plane.
Again, shoddy research on someone's part, Chemtrails.
There are numerous photos of debris from the crash, all you have to do is look online for them.
Took me about 30 seconds.
October 14, 2009 at 8:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
In addition, of the 136 people who saw the plane's approach to the Pentagon :
104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.
6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.
26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.
39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.
2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.
7 said it was a Boeing 757.
8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.
2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.
4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.
10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).
16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.
42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.
2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.
15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.
3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.
3 took photographs of the aftermath.
Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."
And of course,
0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.
0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.
-Hunterdog
October 14, 2009 at 8:24 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
United Airlines Flight 93
This flight was reported by the federal government to be a Boeing 757 aircraft, registration number N591UA, carrying 45 persons, including four Arab hijackers who had taken control of the aircraft, crashing the plane in a Pennsylvania farm field.
Aerial photos of the alleged crash site were made available to the general public. They show a significant hole in the ground, but private investigators were not allowed to come anywhere near the crash site. If an aircraft crash caused the hole in the ground, there would have literally hundreds of serially-controlled time-change parts within the hole that would have proved beyond any shadow of doubt the precise tail-number or identity of the aircraft. However, the government has not produced any hard evidence that would prove beyond a doubt that the specifically alleged aircraft crashed at that site. On the contrary, it has been reported that the aircraft, registry number N591UA, is still in operation.
American Airlines Flight 11
This flight was reported by the government to be a Boeing 767, registration number N334AA, carrying 92 people, including five Arabs who had hijacked the plane. This plane was reported to have crashed into the north tower of the WTC complex of buildings.
Again, the government would have no trouble proving its case if only a few of the hundreds of serially controlled parts had been collected to positively identify the aircraft. A Boeing 767 landing gear or just one engine would have been easy to find and identify.
United Airlines Flight 175
This flight was reported to be a Boeing 767, registration number N612UA, carrying 65 people, including the crew and five hijackers. It reportedly flew into the south tower of the WTC.
Once more, the government has yet to produce one serially controlled part from the crash site that would have dispelled any questions as to the identity of the specific airplane.
American Airlines Flight 77
This was reported to be a Boeing 757, registration number N644AA, carrying 64 people, including the flight crew and five hijackers. This aircraft, with a 125-foot wingspan, was reported to have crashed into the Pentagon, leaving an entry hole no more than 65 feet wide.
Following cool-down of the resulting fire, this crash site would have been very easy to collect enough time-change equipment within 15 minutes to positively identify the aircraft registry. There was apparently some aerospace type of equipment found at the site but no attempt was made to produce serial numbers or to identify the specific parts found. Some of the equipment removed from the building was actually hidden from public view.
October 14, 2009 at 10:39 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Frequently Asked Questions
Question 1. How could the attacks be faked in such a massive operation? Surely one of the hundreds of people involved would step forward and declare what they know to the media.
Answer: Three major elements in the operational security of the September 11 Black Op would not be guessed by the average citizen, this amounting to a fourth element.
First, most of the participants in the operation had no idea they were participating in it. Instead, they thought they were involved in a war game scheduled for that day (coincidence number 123). For example several fighter wings had been flown out of the area as part of the games, providing scant air cover in the event. Later, when 911 itself resulted in the call down of all commercial aircraft, this would have made it possible to land three of the hijacked flights in the confusion, while substitute aircraft took over. Thus, 911 acted as its own cover, in effect, as well.
Second, many of the key participants in the operation already belonged to intelligence agencies from one of the participating countries, principally (at a guess) the CIA, MI6, and Mossad. All three agencies are known to have black ops and Mossad, in particular, has a very long history in explosive ordnance disposal (EOD, as it is known in the trade. (This branch of special operations has little to do with "disposal" and much to do with "explosives.") No intelligence officer is likely to blow the cover on an operation to which he/she is fully committed. Even if an intel type decided to tell all, he or she would be scheduled for immediate "extreme prejudice" treatment, not to mention the barrier he or she would face in the next paragraph.
Third, as our own experience with the media suggests, stories that directly contradict the spin are unwelcome, to say the least, even from undercover agents. The extremely sensitive nature of the story would trigger a series of consultations up the chain of ownership to the top, from which a flat "no" would be issued. The mere possibility of Israel being involved in such a story would send owners into a panic. It is a matter of public record that all five principal owners are committed zionists for whom Israel can do no wrong. (See the MEDIA tab at the top of our index page for further information.)
http://physics911.net/faq
October 14, 2009 at 11:17 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
S.P.I.N.E. : The Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-Eleven
Members of the Scientific Panel Investigating Nine-eleven come from a variety of professional backgrounds. Some investigate aspects of the 9/11 attacks, others search the web for useful information, and some write up new material. We have tried to maintain professional standards in both the analysis and presentation of the evidence we have assembled, as well as in the scenarios we have constructed.
The investigative work of the Panel proceeds in the directions that head our list of articles: What Did Not Happen and What May Have Happened. By clicking on the titles of these sections, you may read a brief illustration of the differences required in the two approaches.
The background information section provides important documents and articles related to the attacks on September 11, 2001.
General Statement by the Panel:
"We have found solid scientific grounds on which to question the interpretation put upon the events of September 11, 2001 by the Office of the President of the United States of America and subsequently propagated by the major media of western nations. Our analysis of the detailed evidence implies a staged attack employing a variety of deceptive arrangements. Indeed, every element of the September 11 attacks, including cellphone calls from fast-moving aircraft, has an alternate means of creation."
Panel members are scientists, engineers, and other professionals. All contribute through search and research. Members of S.P.I.N.E. may be contacted by emailing akd@uwo.ca and entering the name of the member you'd like to contact, along with a brief message.
http://physics911.ca/members/
October 14, 2009 at 11:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Question 2. The mere possibility that the attacks were faked just sounds preposterous to me. Who could believe such a thing?
Answer: The true nature of 911 could be called "the secret that keeps itself." It had predecessors in both American and middle eastern history in which the true perpetrators of "terrorist" acts had already been painted as victims, in effect, by the media. From the Gulf of Tonkin incident which triggered the Vietnam War back to the bombing of the King David Hotel in 1945 which enabled the creation of the the state of Israel, the attack of 911 is hardly an isolated example. Moreover, the Operation Northwoods plan (now public under the FOIA) called for hijackings of passenger aircraft, blowing up a US ship, and orchestrated terrorism in American cities - all to be blamed on Fidel Castro.
October 14, 2009 at 11:42 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Question 3. What benefit would the perpetrators of the 911 attacks, the ones you claim are most probably behind them, get from such an operation?
Answer: In a nutshell, American and British Oil interests would benefit hugely from the resulting invasions of Afghanistan, namely in a pipeline corridor from the central Asian oil fields to the existing middle eastern pipeline network, including new terminal facilities at Haifa. The Iraqi oil fields are the main prize, however. They are likely to remain in American hands for the foreseeable future. The ultimate profits from such operations are enormous and swell the coffers of companies owned by the Bush (Carlyle Group and Zapata Oil) and Cheney (Halliburton) Families, not to mention Unocal and other oil giants. There would be additional benefits to the arms industry in the manufacture of arms and war materiel to accommodate the new conflict.
In addition, a global master plan for the conquest of the Middle East had already been worked out by the Project for a New American Century (PNAC) drawn up by the neocon element in Washington. The plan even called for a "new Pearl Harbor" as the trigger that would set it in motion.
Finally, Israel would get a green light for a new wave of oppression in Gaza and the West Bank. World opinion would not turn against draconian new projects such as "The Wall," if neighboring Islamic Countries (including Palestine) were viewed generally as a source of terrorism. There appears to be a long-term plan in effect, one that passes from government to government in Israel. The plan calls for a "divide and conquer" strategy by which all of Palestine will eventually become part of Israel.
October 14, 2009 at 11:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Question 4. If the attacks of September 11 were faked, what about the long string of terrorist attacks and suicide bombings attributed to Al Qaeda?
Answer: Al Qaeda is almost certainly a long-term black operation that began shortly after the end of close cooperation between Ousama Bin Laden and the Mujahadeen with the United States in Afghanistan during the 1990s. Bin Laden, who is known to have suffered from terminal kidney disease, was visited by the CIA section chief in a hospital in Dubai in mid-2001. He survived just long enough after 911 to issue a statement that the attacks were not his work or the work of any Muslim. The denial appeared in a Pakistani newspaper, but was ignored by western news sources. In the words of one of a Panel member from the intel community, "Al Qaeda is us."
In view of the fact that the same pattern of anomalous circumstances surrounds both previous and subsequent attacks attributed to Al Qaeda (see OTHER ATTACKS - this website), Al Qaeda appears to serve as a kind of universal boogeyman to herd frightened western legislators into a neo-fascist political program that will, in the long run, result in dictatorial powers concentrated in the hands of a small cadre in Washington.
October 14, 2009 at 11:46 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Question 5. If you people are right, why aren't you all dead by now?
Answer: If you're asking why we haven't been "taken care of" by the true perpetrators, the answer is twofold. a) There are far too many of us to be "taken care of" without raising more suspicion than the perpetrators could handle. There are now literally hundreds of 911-skeptical websites, thousands of people working on the issue, and millions of people who have reached the same degree of skepticism or suspicion. (b) We assume that the perpetrators have enough control/influence over the mainstream media to keep 911 issues off the page and off the screen. (See the answer to Question 1.) Thus, they may not be particularly worried about our efforts - so far.
If they are worried, they will launch (or already have launched) a disinformation campaign. This would consist of one or more elements in an internet setting of articles and websites: Limited Hangout (a partial analysis, along with blame placed on the military-industrial complex, for example); Well-poisoning (the appearance of an investigative effort accompanied by stories or ads that refer to UFOs, mental telepathy, or what have you); Blackballing (a mixture of name-calling and misdirected analysis that leaves the impression that legitimate websites are either run by "conspiracy nuts" or are themselves engaged in a disinformation campaign run by terrorists); Denial of Evidence (a specific piece of 9/11 evidence is analyzed with seeming care - but for the omission of one or two crucial elements. The analysis may conclude that a particular video or photo or document was faked, unreliable, or in some other way unacceptable as evidence.)
The fact that websites with some of these qualities already exist (not a large percentage) creates problems with interpretation; there would be no easy way to distinguish such a website mounted by a trained psyops professional from one designed by a well-meaning but off-track investigator.
October 14, 2009 at 11:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Question 6. Are you saying the Jews are behind 911?
Answer: Certainly not. Although Israel is ostensibly a Jewish state, its actions in the middle east are in direct conflict with Jewish Law, ethics and morality. The European (Khazarite) Jews may be described as double victims, suffering not only from centuries of persecution after the fall of Muslim Spain, but from the deceptive practices adopted by the Zionist planners responsible for Israel. Myths such as "a land without people for a people without land" (both questionable propositions) misled thousands of settlers in the Jewish proto-state, followed by millions later.
As a general rule, zionist organizations in the west have only one tool with which to counter revelations of the myth-building exercise. Whoever makes such claims is labeled an "anti-semite," a peculiarly ironic charge under the circumstances.
October 14, 2009 at 11:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Question 7 . What can the average citizen do about the situation revealed on your website, as well as the multitude of other sources?
Answer: Although some people may come up with more creative approaches to the publicity problem, we strongly suggest that you refer your friends and acquaintances to this and similar websites. As well, you could:
1. Place an inexpensive ad in your local paper suggesting that the reader visit the website of the (printed) URL.
2. Write a brief letter to your elected federal representative, urging him or her to think twice about 911 and to visit an appropriate website. (If you have printed material or a video on the subject, send it.)
3. Print up some cards outlining the problem and leave them in public places.
4. Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper, briefly stating the questions raised by the publicly available evidence left in the wake of 911, being sure to provide a URL.
5. Send financial support to the 911-oriented websites that request it. (See our list under LINKS, for example.)
Don't be shy!
http://physics911.net/resources
October 14, 2009 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1999 (anonymous) says...
hey lets talk about something REALLY fun like the chemicals the US military dumped on the innocent citizens of Fallujah.
lets talk about their skin burning off.
lets talk about how great and innocent the US military is.
lets talk about the lies.
lets talk about the dead kids.
lets talk about the chemical warfare on innocents.
lets talk about entire villages of people with their skin burned off.
NOW that would be fun right!!!
USA! USA! USA!
October 15, 2009 at 10:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Wow, so now it appears there are two out there who are off their meds.
Maybe we could talk about the systemic rape and murder of the Kurdish people.
Perhaps we could talk about delusional religious fanatics who would think they could achieve a level of non-exsistent martyrdom by their actions.
Perhaps we could talk about nearly 3k Americans dead because of said delusions.
Perhaps we could talk about delusional religious and political hustlers who would lie the US into an unneeded war.
Perhaps [Chemstains] we could actually talk about EVIDENCE, something you're obviously uncomfortable with.
How about we talk about about how the delusional among us constitutes a virus that needs to be eradaticated to insure the future health, mental and physical, of our children ?
Discuss.
-HunterfreakinDog
October 15, 2009 at 6:56 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Brilliant!!!
October 15, 2009 at 7:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
yes, thank you
HD
October 15, 2009 at 7:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
I can't believe I'm having a discussion with:
1] Someone who can't put a coherent arguement together with a hypothesis and support it by empirical evidence and sound reasoning,
And, 2] Someone who's first language is apparently not English and is capable of finding this forum on the internet but incapable of finding an online dictionary.
-Hunterdog
October 16, 2009 at 5:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
LMAO@ The Ditty Queen.
October 17, 2009 at 12:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
This video contains some important information about the collapse of World Trade Center Building Number Seven.. Very interesting stuff, watch it all the way through, making sure to listen to what Mr. Jowenko thought of the collapse.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?doc...
October 16, 2009 at 5:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
Ditty,You are lame band mama ,speak english,,Chem Im glad you are back,I do think you won the debate , the ditty queen looses.
October 17, 2009 at 8:34 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1999 (anonymous) says...
so bandmama...the US did not use chemical weapons on innocents in Iraq???
really?
you are the one who is delusional honey
October 17, 2009 at 9:12 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
Bandmama ,a ditty is a poem set to song,Im sorry for your trouble in this matter,Are you a teacher ? Im so glad I never had you for a class,Any way Im wrong on this and have said so,additionally I will say that I believe that the song ,ditty, is an effort to influence the kids at school and does not belong there.Also you are annoying anyway ,the way you talk is often mean and distracting from a topic,but I am so wrong on the ditty,what a fool am I.What punishment will you dole out?Please have mercy on me.
October 17, 2009 at 9:32 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
1999,
I'm sure they did. The evidence seems to point in that direction.
However, maybe you'd prefer we sent our soldiers in armed with crossbows ?
Things like this illustrate perfectly the need to avoid wars at all costs. Nasty things like that tend to happen.
I think regime change in Iraq was badly needed and a long time coming, but I don't like the way the Bush administration misrepresented bad evidence to accomplish this.
We should have been utilizing all of our resources to catch and/or kill the deluded fanatics who attacked us.
And a lack of reasoning skills on the part of the media and a large portion of the American people allowed the sleight of hand.
The same lack of reasoning skills exhibited so flamboyantly in this thread.
By the way, please don't call me honey. I didn't refer to you in a derogatory manner, although the temptation is certainly there now.
Hunterdog
October 17, 2009 at 9:57 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
"a ditty is a poem set to song,"
[Wow, that only took several days to figure out]
"Im sorry for your trouble in this matter,"
[It appears that you're the one who had the trouble, not me]
"Are you a teacher ?'"
[No, but I sometimes have to play one in dumb internet forums to get my point across]
"Im so glad I never had you for a class,"
[You should be]
"Any way Im wrong on this and have said so,"
[Fine]
"additionally I will say that I believe that the song ,ditty, is an effort to influence the kids at school and does not belong there."
[Hmm, indoctrination, I guess you're saying. Would you have been more comfortable with them singing songs about the sweet baby jesus? Just wondering]
"Also you are annoying anyway ,the way you talk is often mean and distracting from a topic"
[Awww.. sorry if you got you ittle fweewings hurt by proper dictation and use of the language we've all agreed on]
",but I am so wrong on the ditty,what a fool am I."
[We've already went over this.]
"What punishment will you dole out?"
[I think embarassment in a public forum is quite suffcient]
"Please have mercy on me."
[Don't beg, it's unbecoming]
Heh heh.
-Hunterdog
October 17, 2009 at 10:21 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
OK Chem,
Having watched the video, [i actually read things I disagree with]I'll simply reply;
"WTC 7 The Smoking Gun" makes the claim"
"EVERY OTHER OCCASION both before and since Sept 11 2001, when steel-framed tower buildings collapsed down at near free fall speed into their footprint, it has been due to a controlled demolition."
And? So what?
Did any of those have an airliner crash into them?
This statement has absolutely no connection to the WTC collapse.
This is a logical fallacy [Post-hoc ergo propter hoc] which makes this argument INVALID.
Here's definition, since I'm sure you'll not be interested in researching it ..
" Latin for "after this, therefore because (on account) of this", is a logical fallacy (of the questionable cause variety) which states, "Since that event followed this one, that event must have been caused by this one." It is often shortened to simply post hoc and is also sometimes referred to as false cause, coincidental correlation or correlation not causation. It is subtly different from the fallacy cum hoc ergo propter hoc, in which the chronological ordering of a correlation is insignificant.
The fallacy lies in coming to a conclusion based solely on the order of events, rather than taking into account other factors that might rule out the connection. Most familiarly, many superstitious religious beliefs and magical thinking arise from this fallacy."
As for Mr. Jowenko, he made those comments after seeing ONE video of the collapse. Experts who have examined much more evidence than that presented to Jowenko have concluded that WTC 7 fell due to damage to its unusual structure by thermal expansion of structural elements.
-Hunterdog
October 17, 2009 at 10:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1999 (anonymous) says...
honey is derogatory?????
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
so..seems to me you are all for the US killing innocents (by burning off their skin and bombing their counrty) but other countrys can not kill innocents (by burning off their skin and bombing their country?
and we're supposed to be the good guys right?
we don't stoop to such low terrorist type lows?
How DARE someone bomb our buildings and kill our innocents??
right?
October 17, 2009 at 11:22 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Hopefully I wasn't so poorly understood by everyone as I was by 1999.
Perhaps if you had read and comprehended my third statement, you would have understood.
And yes, the manner is which you used the word 'honey" was deliberately meant to be derogatory, and don't try to lie and say it wasn't.
By the way, if you had addressed the real bandmama in that tone of voice, she would have been a lot less forgiving than I.
-Hunterdog
October 17, 2009 at 11:49 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1999 (anonymous) says...
and your comment about "someone else off their meds" was clearly meant to be derogatory... clearly bandmama has a hypocritical side.
ooooooooooo a threat too.
BAHAHAHAHAH
OMG BAHAHAHAHAHA
HONEY!
October 17, 2009 at 11:53 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Bandmama here....
hunterdog, I only am offended when someone with intelligence uses "honey" in a derogatory way in reference to a female. I have to forgive those that dont have enough brain cells to recognize they are belittling someones gender. It is ok. Thanks.
October 17, 2009 at 11:58 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mmjPatient22 (another anonymous cannabis user) says...
Yo...bandmama,
In reference to your latest comment, you do know that the twin towers weren't the only two buildings that collapsed in lower Manhattan that day, right? They were the only two buildings in lower Manhattan that were hit by really big airplanes, but they were not alone in seeing their last day. WTC Tower #7 also collapsed. However, this building was never, I repeat NEVER, hit by an airplane. If I'm not mistaken, and I try not to be, I believe that what chemtrails was shooting for was to point out that the collapse of a building, that was never struck by an airplane, is, at the very least, worthy of scrutiny. We, as the people that pay the taxes which subsequently end up as paychecks to some, should demand nothing less than absolute clarity and 100% certainty regarding the facts that are presented to us by those that are paid to find out why, exactly, these things happened.
October 17, 2009 at 11:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
1999,
Yes, I absolutely was being derogatory, but on an intellectual level, and you responded with a gender-based slur. Big difference.
mmj,
Yes, I'm aware that WTC 7 was not struck by an aircraft. However, the building had sustained damage from debris falling into the building, and responders were not sure about the structural stability of the building.
The building had large fires burning on at least six floors [fires were visible on at least 16 floors].
You are correct that WTC 7 deserved scrutiny, and it got plenty of it. Read the NIST report here http://tinyurl.com/zemur
-Hunterdog
October 17, 2009 at 12:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
lMao@the Chemsniffer
If there ever was a case for "chemtrails", some of the reasoning and debating skills seen so far could certainly be put forth as evidence.
-Hunterdog [The Ditty King]
October 17, 2009 at 12:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
The reason "the responders were not sure about the structural stability of the building" is that there had been explosions going of inside the building since before the twin towers fell, pretty good reason if you ask me.
Listen closely to the words of Mr. Barry Jennings as he describes being inside of WTC 7 before towers 1 & 2 fell that fateful morning, pay close attention to the timeline.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQY-ks...
George Bush and Dick Cheney will tell you that the plane that crashed in pennsylvania was headed for the white house, where else could it have been headed?
Gee, we have a building that magically fell without getting hit by an airplane and we have an airplane that didn't hit it's target. How stupid are we?
Your Government loves you and would never do anything to harm you.
October 17, 2009 at 12:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1999 (anonymous) says...
bahahahahahaha
"gender based slur" bahahahahahahaha
'big difference" Bahahahahahahahahaha
"belittling someones gender" Bahahahahahahahahahaha
what a load of crap.
October 17, 2009 at 1:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Could transformers or other electrical equipment explain some of what was seen and heard?
What about an acre of concrete floor slamming into another? Would steel bolts snapping under tremendous tension make a pop or explosive sound?
Assuming the towers weren't in the vacuum of space, it's pretty safe to say the things just mentioned are good candidates to explain what the some people heard.
Considering there's no evidence that indicates anything else happened.
Certainly no evidence that it was a controlled demolition.
No explosive residue was found.
No seismographic evidence of explosions.
Occam's Razor prevails once again, I think.
-Hunterdog
October 17, 2009 at 1:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Occam's razor does not apply to magic tricks.
October 17, 2009 at 1:30 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
1999,
I simply was showing that when unable to make a decent point, you resorted to weak personal attacks.
I attacked your argument, you responded with what you thought was a cutsey little comment, not realizing you were going to [and continue to do so] make yourself look foolish, by arguing the wrong point with the wrong person.
Heh heh
-Hunterdog
October 17, 2009 at 1:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Like I said, Mr. Jennings was experiencing explosions in WTC 7, that's World Trade Center Building Number Seven, a building that was not hit by an airplane at all and only suffered minor damage from falling debris compared to the other WTC buildings nearby, and he was experiencing these explosions BEFORE the twin towers fell. Do you understand that? You may want to just go ahead and watch it again.
October 17, 2009 at 1:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
"Occam's razor does not apply to magic tricks."
Please explain what you mean by that non sequitor.
[Considering that Occam's Razor actually does apply to most magic tricks.]
-H
October 17, 2009 at 1:38 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
A 10 story hole in the corner of the building, damaging vital supports which held up millions of tons of floors above is "minor damage" ?
-H
October 17, 2009 at 1:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Don't forget to read the rest of the sentence.
"minor damage from falling debris compared to the other WTC buildings"
Listen to Larry Silverstein telling you what happened to Building Seven.
http://thewebfairy.com/911/pullit/pul...
October 17, 2009 at 2:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Ditty Queen, what makes you think that there was "No seismographic evidence of explosions." ???
Seismic Evidence Points to Underground
Explosions Causing WTC Collapse
By Christopher Bollyn
American Free Press
http://americanfreepress.net
August 28, 2002
Two unexplained "spikes" in the seismic record from September 11 indicate huge bursts of energy shook the ground beneath the World Trade Center's twin towers - just as the buildings began to collapse.
American Free Press has learned of pools of "molten steel" found at the base of the collapsed twin towers weeks after the collapse. Although the energy source for these incredibly hot areas has yet to be explained, New York seismometers recorded huge bursts of energy, which caused unexplained seismic "spikes" at the beginning of each collapse. These spikes suggest that massive underground explosions may have literally knocked the towers off their foundations causing them to collapse.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/bollyn2...
You may want to have your wife help you with your research, you don't seem to be doing very well on your own.
October 17, 2009 at 2:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Have You Got It Yet ?!?!?!?!
October 17, 2009 at 2:25 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
It is strange that you are so offended by the "Honey" comment,as you say some of the meanist things ,Ditty mama and papa.How about the the lesbian comment earlier on,how does that fit in with your sexist view?You are a hipocrite!Honey is really a generous word for you dear,maybe a bit sarcastic,you seem to bring out that in people,it is fun.You seem to be a hater and cannot stop your religous persecution,luckily people are free to believe in whatever they want and you cant do a darn thingt about it.
October 17, 2009 at 10:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1999 (anonymous) says...
right on sun.
bandmamas posts routinely insult someone for something but the "honey" gets her goat.
again...bahahahahahahaha
i love the hypocrits. they are fun to watch.
October 18, 2009 at 7:40 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
1999 (anonymous) says...
i like this part... "i was attacking your argument......."
really???by saying someone is off their meds.
you are an idiot.and a hypocritical one too.
Bahahahahahahahahaha
keep up the good work!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
October 18, 2009 at 7:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
sun and 1999,
Just keep going, all you have managed to do is make yourselves look foolish.
One of you has such poor reading comprehension that he thinks I made a disparaging comment about sexuality.
The other's posts seem to be the written version of the bleating of sheep.
You guys are right, this IS fun, making you look silly in a public forum.
Since you both seem incapable of contributing anything interesting to the original topic, maybe you should just sit over there in the corner and be quiet.
Unless you're some sort of sadists, that is.
[wheeew, who would have guessed that Chemmy would be the one of the three that seems better learned]
-Hunterdog
October 18, 2009 at 9:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Chemmy,
Here's a link that throughly debunks Mr. Bollyn's assumptions.
Read the page carefully.
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/de...
Have YOU got it yet ?
-Hunterdog
October 18, 2009 at 10:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sun (kathy foos) says...
Dont even talk to her or him,Chem,They are warpted out.
October 19, 2009 at 6:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
heh heh...
Another highly literate post from sun.
-HD
October 19, 2009 at 7:08 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Bandmama here- AGIAN, let me point out to Chem, Sun, 1999 and any others in doubt as to Bandmama's gender. I am female and sign my post in this forum as Bandmama.....My partner in crime...Hunterdog will use his initials or sign as Hunterdog while using the same log in name. So, that said, I dont see anyone pointing out the lack of support beams in tower 7's lower floors. What about the tons of debris that fell on the weaker building as the other BIG tower toppled? AND finally, what about the big tanks of diesel that were keep in the building to power the generators that had pipes running through out the structure? Hmmm....weaker construction, tons of falling debris, and lots-o-fuel that made a pretty hot fire that further weakend steel beams. Sure can see where it had to be a plot by the government.
Signed..BANDMAMA (no I am not getting into this one again. You all are providing enough to keep the rest of us entertained. You too Hunterdog....)
October 19, 2009 at 12:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
bandmama,
Bite Me.....
please ?
-HD
October 19, 2009 at 2:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
bandmama here.....
hunterdog-even though you said please, you wont like the bite unless you clarify for these poor people that it is YOU being such a wienie sometimes, and not bandmama.....
(but you DID say please....)
October 19, 2009 at 3:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
I'm not clarifying a darn thing, if their reading comprehension is so poor they haven't figured it out yet....
Oh wait.....
heh heh
-Hunterdog
October 19, 2009 at 4:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
bandmama here.....
Hunterdog, you shouldn't be so mean, we have discussed the whole flies with honey vs vinegar thing. You really need to clarify matters when we use the same name. It isn't fair when debating such a topic. It can confuse some as they try to sort through all the muck. And there certainly is a lot of muck above. And by the way......bite me.
October 19, 2009 at 4:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
charliecigar (anonymous) says...
Get over yourself "sugar britches".
October 19, 2009 at 4:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
bandmama here-
Charliecigar..... you win!!!!! "sugar britches" ???? Love it!
October 19, 2009 at 5:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
If "mean" means using proper dictation, reasoning skills and get-to-the-point debating style, then, yes, I must plead guilty.
However, those whose arguments cannot stand up to skeptical scrutiny shouldn't attempt to play with the big dogs.
It tends to get "mean". Just saying.
-Hunterdog
October 19, 2009 at 5:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Hit the showers, bandmama.
-H
October 19, 2009 at 5:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
bandmama here-
HA!
October 19, 2009 at 5:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
*chuckle*
October 19, 2009 at 5:55 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Remember this............
Why, again are you part of this discussion other than attempting to interject your personal belief on the progress of the conversation ?
I'm not trying to be "cute". If I'm cute, that's product of your perception. [You're not trying to pick up on me are you ? This could end in disappointment]
I've put forth stong rebuttals to the conspiracy theorists arguments.
All you whiners seem to focus on is my method of dictation.
Get over it, if you are incapable of reading and comprehending the language we've all agreed on, then you should absolve yourselves of this debate.
My points notwithstanding.
-Hunterdog
October 19, 2009 at 6:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Ha ha ha
We're certainly over YOU but what's your point ?
-H
October 19, 2009 at 6:42 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Yes sir....
October 19, 2009 at 7:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
MrTaiChi (anonymous) says...
I came back to this thread to discover that the principals are still fencing. I makes me wonder why people post, why I post? It is obvious that there is zero chance that someone's opinion will be changed by argument here, so what are we all doing? Is this some kind of intellectual self abuse? A lot of this seems to be electronic graffiti, notice me, acknowledge me. It's good to get back to childish whimsy once in a while, but an adult who can't escape childish status and social ranking games is a sad spectacle.
At the time that Mark Twain was fascinating the world with his wit, there was another, Ambrose Bierce, with an equally fine mind. Among his epigrams: "Politics is the means of livelihood affected by the more degraded portions of our criminal classes.", and more apropos to this discussion:
"An egoist is a person of low taste- more interested in himself than in me."
October 20, 2009 at 11:43 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Listen to the 10/20/2009 Alex Jones Show with guest Lindsey Williams.
http://www.infowars.com/stream.pls
October 20, 2009 at 3:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Tai,
Point taken, and it's a valid one.
However, it's not like just myself and Chemmy read these threads [or maybe it is, heh heh], so if even one person comes away with more information than they started with, perhaps it's worth it.
Besides, i can't help myself, I'm a bit of a contrarian.
-Hunterdog
October 20, 2009 at 3:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Chemmy,
You're talking about the Lindsey Williams of Gull island fame ?
We could chat about him, but I think "ordained Baptist minister" is probably enough to raise skeptical eyebrows.
-Hunterdog
October 20, 2009 at 3:43 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
The new Alex Jones movie 'Fall Of The Republic' is to be released today.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/pptvlaunc...
October 21, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Todays Alex Jones Show deals with the fact that there is Mercury in the Swine Flu Vaccine, among other topics. Mercury is not good for you.
http://www.infowars.com/stream.pls
October 21, 2009 at 12:59 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Watch Fall Of The Republic for free, here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJG-Ht...
October 21, 2009 at 7:07 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
Mixing fact with fiction and the spider web is set, who will the prey be?
Chemical Ali and...........
October 22, 2009 at 7:47 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Mixing fact with verifiable, documented fact.
jonesreport.com
October 22, 2009 at 12:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
Yup took a look and it is facts mixed with fiction.
Beware of the mind altering mixture it can cause one to accept the unacceptable.
October 22, 2009 at 4:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
So, we're off the Lindsey Wiliams point ?
Typical of poor debaters and those who really have no argument.
As I've pointed out before, it shows the weakness of of your points [which you don't even comprehend]. If no one takes you seriously, what are you accomplishing ?
C'mon, chemmy, do you REALLY think anyone could possibly take you seriously given your poor debating, reasoning, and presentation skills ?
If you REALLY believed in your point, you could do better [or maybe not, you could have been a "special' child].
Hell, when my high school debate teacher required that I take the opposing point and argue that, I did better than you.
Are you that unlearned ? [wait, you get your info from Alex Jones.]
Nuff said.
Owned.
Again.
Like shooting fish in a barrel.
-Hunterdog
October 22, 2009 at 7:16 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
heh, heh....let's play, windle...........
"You are smarter than Alex Jones ?"
[Well, obviously.
But -surprise- it's not just me.
It's the overwhelming weight of empirical evidence that refutes nutballs like Alex Jones , readily available to anyone who cares.]
"What kind of chemical wafting pillow do you sleep on? "
[Well, generally it smells like nice fabric softner - thanks to the mighty banadmama - and my shampoo. what, in your mind, does it smell like - hopefully not my pillow and shampoo. This could end badly.]
"You are on a level with Rush Limbaugh. "
[Wow.]
Anybody who does not agree w/ you is intellectually inferior.?
[Disagreeing is one thing. Being completely delusional is quite another.
And being unable to articulate your arguments do nothing to further your cause]
"You are either with us or you are the the enemy."
[Never said it.
Show where I did.
Why would you claim I made a point I never did ? I suspect because you can''t stand by your position.]
"Got it. "
[I don't think so.]
"Not a good debater? "Hang 'im."
[I'm going to assume you're referring to my focus on proper usage of the language and discerning skills rational folks have all agreed on.
Get bent...........
Either make your argument properly, or get lost...]
"Enjoy your selves, band and pup.'
[Thanks, I will.]
-Hunterdog
October 22, 2009 at 8:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Listen to The Alex Jones Show.
http://www.infowars.com/listen.html
October 24, 2009 at 5:47 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Again,
fish in a barrel.
October 26, 2009 at 6:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
US documentary depicts Obama as corporate puppet
Press TV
Monday, October 26, 2009
An American filmmaker examines how globalists 'installed Obama' and utilized the Obama Brand to destroy America's democratic values and economy, in a documentary.
The highly anticipated two-hour film, "Fall of the Republic: The Presidency of Barack Obama" shows how the US President serves as a puppet in the hands of powerful corporations and bankers in order to help them loot America and turn the US first status on the global arena into a hollow shell of tyranny.
In the documentary, by Alex Jones, who is also a radio talk-show host, Obama's image is well portrayed as a Trojan horse who intends to pacify the people and pave the way for the globalists to complete their master plan.
The film also questions Obama's slogan of change by depicting the US president as the one who says one thing, to make people buy into the Obama Brand, and then does another, as the real Obama would.
The documentary, a sequel to the talk-show hosts' "The Obama Deception," also portrays the American society as a state that is increasingly controlled by a burgeoning police, mired in warrantless wiretapping, secret arrests, indefinite detention of citizens, torture, and trapped in an endless war in Afghanistan and Pakistan, all expanded under 'Brand Obama' despite his promises to reverse them all.
Finally, the movie unveils the general contours of a new world order and what the elite and powerful globalists have in store for humanity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F8LPNR...
October 26, 2009 at 7:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
COURAGE
On September 11, 2001 hundreds of our Brothers had the courage to stand up to the actions of Terrorists, and enter those towers to help rescue people and extinguish fires. 343 firefighters and 60 police officers gave their lives standing up for what they believed in: helping others in their time of need. Well, my Brothers and Sisters, it is our turn to show some courage. We must have the courage to confront the horrors of that day, the humility to consider we don't know the "whole" story, the willingness to educate ourselves, and the responsibility to inform others. We must have the courage to stand up to those who are stopping a true investigation into who murdered more than 3,000 innocent civilians and over 400 of our Brothers.
We must demand answers and accountability for why hundreds of New York Firemen didn't hear evacuation orders, how 3 towers collapsed so quickly and so explosively, and why thousands of rescue workers and civilians alike were not warned of the extremely dangerous atmosphere that was known to exist.
If you think the media or our government has given us the answers, think again. If you think this can't happen again, think again. Seven years later most Americans haven't even heard of Tower 7. Seven years later, most Americans don't know thousands more of those rescue workers are sick, and many are dying from their exposures at Ground Zero. Seven years later, the FBI still hasn't listed Osama Bin Laden as "wanted" for the 9/11 attacks. This is incrediblethey are the lead investigators, and they don't have enough evidence to put him on the "most wanted" list for those attacks? So, why do so many Americans believe he was behind it? Why are we at war over it? Do you know what evidence there is? The destruction of evidence, obstruction of justice, incomplete answers, and abysmal accountability is disgusting and unacceptable.
We must all look at the evidence with an open mind and make rational unbiased judgments. Remember, you don't have to be an expert to sit on a jury, and you have the right to be critical of, and demand answers from the "experts". Take the time to gather facts, and have the courage to ask for more. If you come to the same conclusion as the FBI, and don't place him on your "most wanted" list, then have the courage to help find those responsible for the deaths of so many of our Brothers and Sisters. We all need to show some courage by demanding answers and justice!!
October 26, 2009 at 7:44 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
sledneck (anonymous) says...
One of you lunatics suggested watching "fall of the republic" on a web link provided. The reality is I am watching it here. The mere fact that you people can walk into a voting booth and cancel out a coherent vote proves the republic is falling as you speak.
I was headed down the conspiracy trail many years ago myself when I had an epiphany... if someone as inconsequential as you or me (and you are inconsequential) is privy to information it isn't worth the toilet paper it's written on.
One of the biggest reasons that conspiracy theorists persist is because of the feeling of being special by possesing some "truth" of which the dumb masses are blissfully unaware.
The reason I write this is to point out how utterly fruitless and upsetting it is to carry such a burden. The real trials of life are tough enough without willfully adding imaginary burdens to our shoulders. This article began as a tribute to those who died and you have turned it into a blame game like a bunch of jackasses. As such you ruin the whole idea of memorializing those who fell on that day. You should all be ashamed.
Whether these allegations are true or not ask yourself this... What the hell can you or I do about it? If I thought an operation of this magnitude could actually be pulled off by some entity (right or left) I would be terrified to posses knowledge of it. You are braging about possesing information that, were it true, would mean your CERTAIN death.
You are falling for the easiest con ever created when you take this information or mis-informatoin and run to the left or right with it. The problem is not democrats OR republicans. The problem is democrats AND republicans!
October 26, 2009 at 8:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Nothin' to see here, folks, bahahahahck to work.
October 26, 2009 at 11:18 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
sledneck -
You're right about one thing for sure. If there were ever a common-sense proof that there's no conspiracy, it's the continued existence of Alex Jones [ I would include Chem, but since all he does is cut and paste from Jones' website, it seems redundant].
I believe I made the same point many posts ago, but regarding Dylan Avery.
Also, we seem to have gotten off the subject of whether the 9/11 attacks were a conspiracy, and have moved on to another of Jones' pet theories, the "new world order".
And Chem wonders why no one takes him serious. He seems to be incapable of formulating his own arguments, or staying focused on a topic.
- Hunterdog
October 27, 2009 at 11:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Hey Dawg, you may want to go back to third grade, that's where you should have learned the definition of the word 'conspiracy',
October 27, 2009 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
As an addendum to the video, I'd like to point out that Borel's Law of (asymtotics) statistics defines 10 to the 50th, that's 10 with 50 zeros after it, as the cut off point. Anything that occurs beyond 10 to the 50th simply does not happen by chance, and is generally not calculated in statistics. The combined probability of Charlie Sheens 20 questions alone goes beyond the adopted cut off point in statistics, and I was generous to the critics in my estimated propabilities.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35Qqq_...
October 27, 2009 at 2:51 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
I would add, if you scroll up to how the conversation was going before I got involved, name-calling and derisiveness was prevalant in Chem's and charliecigar's posts.
I guess I fell prey to that type of debating style as well, obviously to great effect.
I'm certainly capable of a civil, fact-based debate, maybe others are too.
Let's see what happens.
-Hunterdog
October 29, 2009 at 8:41 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
jk,
I think there actually is a huge difference, but that's another [semantic] argument.
However, your point regarding name-calling is well taken.
So how about this.....We drop that sort of behavior, and since Chem seems to have some information that the rest of us are unaware of, we do this....
I ask a direct question, and he responds with an answer typed in his own words, supported by empirical evidence, and we have an actual debate ?
I'll do my best to play nice, since my method of delivery seems upsetting to others.
What say you, Chem, can you defend your position ?
-Hunterdog
October 29, 2009 at 8:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Pentagon 9/11: Getting the Facts Straight
The New American | August 23 2004 Issue
A growing number of people have been led to believe that an airliner did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11. However, in this case the "official version" of events is irrefutable.
Father Stephen McGraw had taken a wrong turn on his way to Arlington National Cemetery the morning of September 11, 2001. After taking the Pentagon exit onto Washington Boulevard, Fr. McGraw found himself mired in traffic, stewing impatiently over being late for a planned graveside service. Suddenly the priest heard a deafening roar as a large aircraft passed directly over the roof of his car. "It looked like a plane coming in for a landing : I mean, in the sense that it was controlled and sort of straight," recalled Fr. McGraw.
The priest "looked out just as the plane clipped an overhead sign and then toppled a light pole, injuring a taxi driver a few feet away," recounts investigative author James Bamford in his new book A Pretext for War. "A second later, American Flight 77 smashed into the gray concrete wall of the Pentagon. The jet hit with such force that it penetrated four of the five concentric rings of corridors and offices surrounding a gazebo in the center court, long nicknamed Ground Zero."
"I saw it crash into the building," testifies the priest. "There was an explosion and a loud noise, and I felt the impact. I remember seeing a fireball come out of two windows.... I saw an explosion of fire billowing through those two windows. I remember hearing a gasp or scream from one of the other cars near me. Almost a collective gasp, it seemed."
That "collective gasp" was wrenched from the throats of numerous witnesses who - like Father McGraw - saw the crash with their own eyes, heard the explosions with their own ears, and felt the percussive aftershock with their own bodies.
"Did you see that?" exclaimed Aydan Kizildrgli, a student from Turkey who had also been snarled in traffic. Notes Bamford: "Traffic along the highway came immediately to a halt as people jumped out of their cars and began putting their cell phones to their ears. Stunned and dazed, Kizildrgli left his car on the road and began walking aimlessly for half an hour."
Also among the eyewitnesses were Dan Creed and two colleagues from Oracle Software, who, seated in a car near the Naval Annex, watched in horrified wonder as the hijacked plane dived, leveled off and struck the Pentagon next door. Telling his story to the Phoenix, Arizona, Ahwatukee Foothills News, Creed recalled the dreadful events. "It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," said Creed...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/...
October 29, 2009 at 1:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
charliecigar (anonymous) says...
Great work Chemical Brother. You finally have rendered them all speechless, left only to retreat with their tails between their legs. I think that your persistence was the key to delivering the overwhelming victory. Do you have anything to add before moving on to your next conquest?
October 28, 2009 at 3:29 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
LOL, They must be out of town or otherwise occupied for now, I'm sure we'll hear from the disillusioned ones soon. Doggy Boy won't retire during the biggest 'debate win' of his life.
October 28, 2009 at 7:19 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
If either of you two dorks thinks this the "biggest debate of my life" , then you put too much stock in your delusions.
charliecigar, if you think simply cutting and pasting from another wacko's website constitutes the kind of persistence you admire, then you as well join the ranks of the nutballs.
I'm waiting for Chemsniffer to answer even one of my direct questions.
Ever since he was schooled on Flight 77, all he seems to do is cut and paste, cut and paste, no theories, simply mimicking what he's heard, like a sad, sorry parrot with brain damage and poor comprehensive skills.
Considering that he either won't [maybe] answer my direct questions - note - this is a direct challenge - or can't [probably], I see no reason to waste more than a minute or two a week on losers.
I'll just continue to pop in every now and then to make you all look foolish.
Fish in a barrel, children.
Grow a pair [or at least a brain ], before you attempt to play with the big boys.
LOL.
-Hunterdog
October 28, 2009 at 10:35 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jk (anonymous) says...
Hunterdog, chem cuts and pastes, you regurgitate, there is'nt a huge difference. Don't pat your own back too hard, that and the name calling only weakens your effort.
October 28, 2009 at 11:01 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Thank you Charlie, couldn't have said it better, myself.
October 31, 2009 at 12:48 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Why don't you continue with your ridiculous debate of Charlie Sheen's 20 points? You had a miserable time trying to counter the first two factual points and then you left off on number three.
CS Number 3; The following is a quote from Mayor Giuliani during an interview on 9/11 with Peter Jennings for ABC News. "I went down to the scene and we set up headquarters at 75 Barkley Street, which was right there with the Police Commissioner, the Fire Commissioner, the Head of Emergency Management, and we were operating out of there when we were told that the World Trade Center was going to collapse. And it did collapse before we could actually get out of the building, so we were trapped in the building for 10, 15 minutes, and finally found an exit and got out, walked north, and took a lot of people with us."
who told him this??? To this day, the answer to this question remains unanswered, completely ignored and emphatically DENIED by Mayor Giuliani on several public occasions.
CS Number 4; In April 2004, USA Today reported, "In the two years before the Sept. 11 attacks, the North American Aerospace Defense Command conducted exercises simulating what the White House says was unimaginable at the time: hijacked airliners used as weapons to crash into targets and cause mass casualties." One of the targets was the World Trade Center.
CS Number 5; On September 12th 2007, CNN's 'Anderson Cooper 360', reported that the mysterious "white plane" spotted and videotaped by multiple media outlets, flying in restricted airspace over the White House shortly before 10am on the morning of 9/11, was in fact the Air Force's E-4B, a specially modified Boeing 747 with a communications pod behind the cockpit; otherwise known as "The Doomsday Plane".
Though fully aware of the event, the 9/11 Commission did not deem the appearance of the military plane to be of any interest and did not include it in the final 9/11 Commission report.
October 29, 2009 at 12:32 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mmjPatient22 (another anonymous cannabis user) says...
So there's no way our armed forces, stationed at home, had enough time to respond to a hijacked jumbo-jet-airliner? That's what you're telling everyone here? Well, I wasn't there, but here's what somebody else thinks. This is an section from http://www.911timeline.net/.
10) 8:13:31 am: American Airlines Flight 11 last transmission from Boston Air Traffic Control: AAL11 turn 20 degrees right American Airlines Flight 11 responds: 20 right AAL11.
A few seconds later the Controller asks: AAL11 now climb maintain FL350 [35,000 feet] Controller: AAL11 climb maintain FL350 Controller: AAL11 Boston. There is no response from American Airlines Flight 11.
11) 8:14 to 8:20 am: American Airlines Flight 11 goes off course and is hijacked.
12) 8:14 am: United Airlines Flight 175 a Boeing 767-222 with a maximum capacity of 181 passengers and 23,980 gallons of fuel, lifts off from Logan International Airport in Boston, Massachusetts, bound for Los Angeles International Airport in Los Angeles, California. Take-off was scheduled for 7:58. There are supposed to be 65 victims on board, yet when you add up the official death manifest list that was published on CNN.com, there are only 56 victims.
14) 8:20 am: American Airlines Flight 11 transponder signal stops transmitting Identification, Friend or Foe (IFF) beacon signal.
CS#6 might not be 100% accurate. For instance, the top speed of the jets he was referring to is off by over 300mph. Sir, as former military myself, I find it unbelievable that my brothers and sisters in arms would/could be inept enough to miss their mark on this specific task. Another blurb from http://www.911timeline.net/.....
25) 8:36 am: A NORAD spokesman, Major Mike Snyder, has been reported to have said, that the FAA notified NORAD of a hijacked aircraft, American Airlines Flight 11, about 10 minutes before it impacted into the World Trade Center.
Even at 10 minutes prior to first impact, there would have been ample time for any modern militant aviation unit to mount some semblance of an air defense against possible further attack. There's this little thing called "redundancy" that our military relies on everyday. For the lay, it means that if GI Joe screws up, GI Bob will be there to finish the job. The Air National Guard exclusively performs the air sovereignty mission in the continental United States, and those units fall under the control of the 1st Air Force based at Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB) in Panama City, FL. The Air National Guard maintains seven alert sites with 14 fully armed fighters and pilots on call around the clock. The idea that this nation does not employ hot/ready/lethal fighter jets to guard itself is absurd. Besides Tyndall AFB, alert birds also sit armed and ready at; Homestead Air Reserve Base (ARB), Homestead, FL; Langley AFB, Hampton, VA; Otis Air National Guard (ANG), Falmouth, Massachusetts; OR ANG, Portland, OR; March ARB, Riverside, CA; and Ellington ANG, Houston, TX.
October 30, 2009 at 9:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
CS Number 6; Three F-16s assigned to Andrews Air Force Base, ten miles from Washington, DC, are conducting training exercises in North Carolina 207 miles away as the first plane crashes into the WTC. Even at significantly less than their top speed of 1500 mph, they could still have defended the skies over Washington well before 9am, more than 37 minutes before Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon, however, they did not return until after 9:55am.
Andrews AFB had no armed fighters on alert and ready to take off on the morning of 9/11.
CS Number 7; WTC Building 7. Watch the video of its collapse.
CS Number 8; Flight 93 is fourth plane to crash on 9/11 at 10:03am. V.P. Cheney only gives shoot down order at 10:10-10:20am and this is not communicated to NORAD until 28 minutes after Flight 93 has crashed.
Fueling further suspicion on this front is the fact that three months before the attacks of 9/11, Dick Cheney usurped control of NORAD, and therefore he, and no one else on planet Earth, had the power to call for military sorties on the hijacked airliners on 9/11. He did not exercise that power. Three months after 9/11, he relinquished command of NORAD and returned it to military operation.
CS Number 9; Scores of main stream news outlets reported that the F.B.I. conducted an investigation of at least FIVE of the 9/11 hijackers being trained at U.S. military flight schools. Those investigations are now sealed and need to be declassified.
October 29, 2009 at 12:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
HD, you discredited yourself for the entire debate by claiming that you are a "contrarian", which means that you will take the contrary view of any argument, whether you agree with it or not, just for the sake arguing. Sorry HD, but you have eliminated yourself from this debate.
I will continue to post facts about the terrorist acts of 9/11, if you want to debate them you can go to the original articles and debate the authors of them. Or you can just continue to spout nonsense, which would be fine with everyone here, I assume, I am sure everyone else is getting as big of a chuckle as I am about your desperate rantings. Why are you so desperately defending the liars that killed almost 3000 fellow human beings that fateful day instead of looking into it? Oh, I guess it would be for the "contrarian" reason, wouldn't it? Not a very good reason.
I will continue to post information that I find about those terrorist attacks and I urge you to do the same. I'm not real interested in hearing anything that is in your own words, really, I am interested in factual evidence. Have a nice day, Mr. Contrarian.
October 29, 2009 at 1:02 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
9/11 Live: The NORAD Tapes
How did the U.S. Air Force respond on 9/11?
Could it have shot down United 93, as conspiracy theorists claim? Obtaining 30 hours of never-before-released tapes from the control room of NORAD's Northeast headquarters, the author reconstructs the chaotic military history of that day-and the Pentagon's apparent attempt to cover it up. VF.com exclusive: Hear excerpts from the September 11 NORAD tapes. Click PLAY after each transcript to listen (go to Vanity Fair website to hear clips)
Vanity Fair/MICHAEL BRONNER | August 2 2006
Tucked in a piney notch in the gentle folds of the Adirondacks' southern skirts-just up from a derelict Mohawk, Adirondack & Northern rail spur-is a 22-year-old aluminum bunker tricked out with antennae tilted skyward. It could pass for the Jetsons' garage or, in the estimation of one of the higher-ranking U.S. Air Force officers stationed there, a big, sideways, half-buried beer keg.
As Major Kevin Nasypany, the facility's mission-crew commander, drove up the hill to work on the morning of 9/11, he was dressed in his flight suit and prepared for battle. Not a real one. The Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS), where Nasypany had been stationed since 1994, is the regional headquarters for the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD), the Cold Warera military organization charged with protecting North American airspace. As he poured his first coffee on that sunny September morning, the odds that he would have to defend against Russian "Bear Bombers," one of NORAD's traditional simulated missions, were slim. Rather, Nasypany (pronounced Nah-sip-a-nee), an amiable commander with a thick mini-mustache and a hockey player's build, was headed in early to get ready for the NORAD-wide training exercise he'd helped design. The battle commander, Colonel Bob Marr, had promised to bring in fritters.
NEADS is a desolate place, the sole orphan left behind after the dismantling of what was once one of the country's busiest bomber bases-Griffiss Air Force Base, in Rome, New York, which was otherwise mothballed in the mid-90s. NEADS's mission remained in place and continues today: its officers, air-traffic controllers, and air-surveillance and communications technicians-mostly American, with a handful of Canadian troops-are responsible for protecting a half-million-square-mile chunk of American airspace stretching from the East Coast to Tennessee, up through the Dakotas to the Canadian border, including Boston, New York, Washington, D.C., and Chicago.
It was into this airspace that violence descended on 9/11, and from the NEADS operations floor that what turned out to be the sum total of America's military response during those critical 100-some minutes of the attack-scrambling four armed fighter jets and one unarmed training plane-emanated...
Read the rest of it, here -
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/...
October 30, 2009 at 11:44 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jk (anonymous) says...
Hunter, please tell me where the huge difference lies?? You ask for responses in chems own words backed by emperical evidence. He responds by pasting the sources he "believes" support his point. You respond in your own words from sources you have read that you "believe" in, yet your sources are not in question because you regurgitate their content??. Chem is only skipping a step by listing his sources up front.
I was just wondering where the difference comes in?
Happy Debating LOL
October 29, 2009 at 5:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
jk,
The difference is that Chem just simply cuts and pastes, and I am able to capsulate my arguments.
If you would just read and research the arguments being made, you would realize they have been rendered obsolete long ago.
And, my friend, there is no "belief", it is simply facts known to anyone who cares to look.
Why do you think I entered into this debate to begin with ?
I'll tell you, in case you missed it........I can't let what I believe to be delusional thinking that could be potentially harmful to the rest of us go unchallenged.
Call it morals, or whatever fits your mindset.
-Hunterdog
[Chem's points to follow, providing I get dinner from bandmama, LOL]
October 29, 2009 at 5:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
trafficman,
Proving their dumb theory is like proving that Mark Furman set up OJ, Furman would have had to of been the murderer.
They want reasonable people to ignore all the evidence and just agree with what ifs.
Anyway, is Carpool still there?
I lived in the High rise next to it.
October 30, 2009 at 8:33 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Chemmy,
I thought I had mentioned that I was prepared to have a civil discourse on this topic.
You, apparently, are not capable of it without slurs and baiting.
What's an old Dog to do ?
Tell you what, I'll dismiss your childish retort . [there, there's my childish retort to conteract yours]
Here's my question....
Were any of Mr. Sheen's observations verified by another than Mr. Sheen himself ?
October 29, 2009 at 6:05 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
jk (anonymous) says...
Hunter, I will break this down like you do:
The difference is that Chem just simply cuts and pastes, and I am able to capsulate my arguments. (personal belief)
If you would just read and research the arguments being made, you would realize they have been rendered obsolete long ago. (personal belief)
If you would just read and research the arguments being made, you would realize they have been rendered obsolete long ago. (personal belief)
Why do you think I entered into this debate to begin with?( well you answered your own question, does that make it correct??)
What fits my mindset is that you should not be so arrogant in your beliefs, at one time everyone thought the earth was flat!
October 29, 2009 at 6:12 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
jk,
Yes, everyone thought the world was flat.
Then, science and rational thought proved that to be unbelieveable.
Just as rational thought has proven the typical conspiracy theories regarding the 9/11 attacks to be unbelieveable.
You say that it is a "personal belief" that I capsulize my arguments. I'll give you that one, and throw myself at the mercy of those reading this thread. Do I, or don't I ?
You say that it is a "personal belief" that the arguments being made by my opponent's side have been rendered obsolete.
I would invite you to to look deeper into the evidence.
You say that I've answered my own question, not realizing that I'm simply explaining why I'm wasting my time with this argument.
Arrogance ? Ha.....
If simply daring to challenge those that I think are incorrect is arrogance, then maybe you should find a nice knitting forum to participate in.
-Hunterdog
October 29, 2009 at 6:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Chem,
Were any of Mr. Sheen's observations verified by another than Mr. Sheen himself ?
-HD
October 29, 2009 at 6:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
The scary part of this whole thing is that there are that many dumbos out there who want to believe this heap of garbage and are susceptible to these made up theories.
Great job Hunterdog and Bandmama.
P.S. Reading this from Chemical Ali just shows that this sheep only wants his own facts and not the actual true facts.
"Why are you so desperately defending the liars that killed almost 3000 fellow human beings that fateful day instead of looking into it? Oh, I guess it would be for the "contrarian" reason, wouldn't it? Not a very good reason.
I will continue to post information that I find about those terrorist attacks and I urge you to do the same. I'm not real interested in hearing anything that is in your own words, really, I am interested in factual evidence. Have a nice day,"
I can't speak for bandmama and Hunterdog but I did look into the theory long ago and it is bull. I will repeat, I was in Arlington, Va that day and saw the Pentagon and a lifelong friend of my cousins was on flight 77 and a business associate of mine was on 395 and saw the plane fly into the Pentagon.
Have a nice day.
October 29, 2009 at 6:54 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
seeuski,
I wasn't as personally effected as you, and I feel for you.
However, it WAS my birthday [and Mickey Hart's and countless others] , and I got to see the second plane hit the towers.
I didn't like it.
-HD
October 29, 2009 at 7:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
Throat clearing aside,
Were any of Mr. Sheen's observations verified by another than Mr. Sheen himself ?
-Hunterdog
October 29, 2009 at 7:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
My B-day is 9/10.
I lived in a highrise in Balston which is about 2 miles from the Pentagon and I could see the smoke from there for several days.
The next several days were very eerie as there were no planes in the air, the Potomac river was void of watercraft and no cars were allowed on the GW Parkway. A thought that ran through my mind that the last time this place was this quiet was when George Washington threw a coin across the river.
We unfortunately must keep up the fight against the enemies who perpetuate such large fabrications against the USA.
I am always seeking information and truth and I did in this case after 9/11. I read so many different books and painfully watched the videos that Chemical Ali has come to follow like a bible. I gave this theory a look but it would take facts to cancel out what I saw, what my friend saw and the friend my cousin lost on flight 77.
I looked into the information about the WTC towers and building 7 but I also payed attention to what I saw with my own eyes and what the true experts that have debunked the myths have had to say.
It freaks me out that some 30% of Americans believe that the Government had some involvement in the attacks.
What ever happened to the war for oil theory? It was not true so they then turned to the Haliburton business theory.
I have proven to myself that it was a long worked out plan by Muslim terrorists who call themselves Al Quieda along with the state sponsorship of Saddam Hussein and the comfort of the Taliban hospitality that were responsible.
There is evidence to prove that but none to prove the others.
It is just pure hate for the last President that fuels these nuts.
October 29, 2009 at 8 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mmjPatient22 (another anonymous cannabis user) says...
In regards to our most recent former Commander in Chief, arguably, he was THE worst "leader" that has ever been "elected" to that position. The s#!+-sandwich that he, Cheney, Rove, Rumsfeld and all the other cronies cooked up for the rest of us will take us years, at least, to clear from our plates. So to hold any American in ill regard, or to deem them "nuts" for hating George W. Bush would be like shouting "long live the King" in some old Colonial tavern on July 5th, 1776. In fact, it would stand to reason that most Bush supporters might be over-due on their psychiatric evaluations.
October 29, 2009 at 8:40 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
We won't have years as the current POTUS is "fundamentally transforming" this country from a capitalistic society with a constitution and bill of rights to a fascist communistic hierarchy.
If you got off of your moveon .org talking points and focused on what is being done you would either 1. be appalled and moved to stand up or 2. cheer it on because you are one of the progressive radicals that hates what this country was based upon.
I bet I can guess which one you are smokey.
October 29, 2009 at 9 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mmjPatient22 (another anonymous cannabis user) says...
I don't know who told you that I'm getting talking points from somewhere, but you should probably cease communications with this person because they are a liar. My posts are nothing more than the result of logical, reason-based analysis of everyday life in comparison with historical data. Most people know these as "opinions" and I don't need anyone else to give me mine. Secondly, it's asinine of you to assume that you know anything about me or my political views. Just because I possess a card that allows me to grow, smoke, and distribute(to other legal cardholders only) marijuana, doesn't mean I'm some crazed progressive radical. As a matter of fact, me and my choice of medicine are far from radical, at least in the sense you use "radical." The use of cannabis for medicinal purposes, among thousands of other uses, is historically documented to have began as early as 10,000 years ago. That is, of coarse, unless you're one of those "bible-beater" nut jobs that's convinced that world was made in 6 days. The truth about our government is much more frightening than most of the general public would care to know. The lies inherent in governing a body of people are critical to sustaining the livelihood of the government. The lies perpetrated on us by our government are fed to us to keep us calm. They just don't want to startle the herd. After all, you wouldn't want a bunch of spooked cattle stampeding in your direction, would you?
October 29, 2009 at 9:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
HD, to answer your silly question, yes, I verified the first one, myself.
Is there a particular point that you think may not be verified?
October 29, 2009 at 11:33 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
trafficman (anonymous) says...
Like seeuski I lived in Arlington on 9/11 and still do, and my wife worked for the Air Force and was in the Pentagon that day. I have read the official reports as well as many of the conspiracy items and it is clear there is nothing to support the conspiracy.
Chemical Ali post so many items as being facts, but where have they been verified by any peer reviewed or credible source? A sample of one of his most recent posts: "CS Number 6; Three F-16s assigned to Andrews Air Force Base, ten miles from Washington, DC, are conducting training exercises in North Carolina 207 miles away as the first plane crashes into the WTC. Even at significantly less than their top speed of 1500 mph, they could still have defended the skies over Washington well before 9am, more than 37 minutes before Flight 77 crashes into the Pentagon, however, they did not return until after 9:55am.
Andrews AFB had no armed fighters on alert and ready to take off on the morning of 9/11."
While presented as fact, the truth is there are no fighter jets assigned to Andrews Air Force base. Transport aircraft and Air Force One are the types of aircraft at this facility. The nearest fighter base is Langley Air Force base in Hampton, VA nearly 200 miles away. The days of fighter jets at multiple bases on alert and ready to go at a moments notice went away with the end of the cold war. My source for this, my wife, a retired colonel from the Air Force who coordinated maintenance on fighters through out her career.
The post states that the fighters could have been in Washington well before 9 a.m. to defend the skies over DC. You need to check your facts Chemical Ali. The first plane hit the WTC at 8:45 and the second plane did not hit the WTC until 9:03. Until the second plane hit the assumption was it was a tragic accident, not a terrorist attack. So how would it be reasonable to make a decision and get planes to DC"well before 9 am" when there was no idea of an attack until after 9:03 when the second plane hit the WTC?
This is just one example of something that Chemical Ali has posted as being fact of a conspiracy because no fighters were scrambled within minutes of the WTC being hit. The reality is it takes time to obtain information, process the information, and then decide what is the response. Second the supposed fighters available at Andrews AFB didn't exist. The closest fighters were not in a hot standby mode of operation so therefore it takes time to assemble a crew and ready an aircraft.
So the conspiracy folks keep believing anything written rather than looking into the facts. A simple check of the timeline of events destroys CS Number 6.
October 30, 2009 at 6:28 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
trafficman (anonymous) says...
Carpool is still there and in business plus they opened another restaurant on Washington Blvd. a few blocks away.
October 30, 2009 at 9:02 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
See, I knew that smoking weed was mind boggling.
This may be too heavy for some people to admit.
We were attacked by Muslims who planned the events all during the 1990's. There is evidence and there are admissions.
The junk you truthers are cutting and pasting is a load of what ifs.
You should hook up with Chemical Ali and get juiced up together while theorizing all the what ifs.
Enjoy each other.
October 30, 2009 at 11 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
NORAD Tapes Expose Lax Military Attitude On 9/11 Air Defense
"We'll get back to you on that," Navy ATC told ground ops as they pleaded for fighter support
Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | August 4 2006
NORAD tapes released this week which shed light on the negligence of the U.S. military in providing adequate air defense on 9/11 contain a conversation with a Navy air traffic control operator that provides another smoking gun for the assertion of a deliberate stand down policy on the morning of the attacks.
It's 09:34 on September 11, 2001.
At this point in the timeline, NORAD commanders were becoming increasingly frustrated at their impotence and inability to successfully intercept any of the stray aircraft. Erroneous reports of hijacked aircraft that never were and a report that a Cessna, not American Airlines Flight 11, has hit the WTC north tower, are adding to the confusion.
However, the NORAD ground ops know that something is headed towards Washington and they are chomping at the bit to turn around fighters that have been meandering in a stand-by position and send them in the direction of Baltimore.
From the Vanity Fair piece,
"At NEADS, a 28-year-old staff sergeant named William Huckabone, staring at his Green Eye, is the first to notice that the Langley jets are off course. His voice is a mix of stress and dread as he and the controller next to him, Master Sergeant Steve Citino, order a navy air-traffic controller who's handling the fighters to get them turned around toward Baltimore to try to cut off the phantom American 11. The navy air-traffic controller seems not to understand the urgency of the situation."
The conversation with Navy ATC takes place four minutes before Flight 77 hits the Pentagon.
9:34:12
NAVY A.T.C.: You've got [the fighters] moving east in airspace. Now you want 'em to go to Baltimore?
HUCKABONE: Yes, sir. We're not gonna take 'em in Whiskey 386 [military training airspace over the ocean].
NAVY A.T.C.: O.K., once he goes to Baltimore, what are we supposed to do?
HUCKABONE: Have him contact us on auxiliary frequency 2-3-4 decimal 6. Instead of taking handoffs to us and us handing 'em back, just tell Center they've got to go to Baltimore.
NAVY A.T.C.: All right, man. Stand by. We'll get back to you.
CITINO: What do you mean, "We'll get back to you"? Just do it!
HUCKABONE: I'm gonna choke that guy!
CITINO: Be very professional, Huck.
HUCKABONE: O.K.
CITINO: All right, Huck. Let's get our act together here.
The fighters never arrive, Flight 77 ploughs into the Pentagon.
Click here for the audio file. http://prisonplanet.com/audio/040806n...
From the tape, you can hear that the NORAD ground ops are furious with the attitude of the Navy air traffic controller at his listless, placid response to their plea for support. ...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/...
October 30, 2009 at 11:51 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
NORAD Tapes Only Intensify Implausibility Of 9/11 Official Story
"These guys are smart," statement completely inconsistent with flight instructors description of hijacker's skills
Paul Joseph Watson/ PrisonPlanet.com | August 2 2006
Newly released portions of NORAD tapes from 9/11 featured in a Vanity Fair article do little to answer skeptic's questions about the impotence of U.S. air defenses on 9/11 and if anything only increase focus on the incompatibility of the official version of events with what is actually known to have taken place on that day.
It is clear that the exercises revolving around hijacked airliners scheduled for that morning created so much noise in the system that controllers could not pinpoint the positions of any of the real airliners to orchestrate any kind of intercept.
Errant 'ghost' aircraft such as 'Delta 89' and American Airlines 11 which controllers weren't aware had already crashed into the World Trade Center north tower continually confuse NORAD officials and at one point after Flight 77 has hit the Pentagon, they even intercept their own aircraft.
Several exchanges between NORAD personnel outline the confusion that the drills caused and delayed the response of air defense procedures.
08:37:52
BOSTON CENTER: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U. [Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.
POWELL: Is this real-world or exercise?
BOSTON CENTER: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.
8:37:56
WATSON: What?
DOOLEY: Whoa!
WATSON: What was that?
ROUNTREE: Is that real-world?
DOOLEY: Real-world hijack.
WATSON: Cool!
"When they told me there was a hijack, my first reaction was 'Somebody started the exercise early,'" said mission-crew commander Major Kevin Nasypany.
The exercise of running numerous war games where planes would be mock-hijacked and crashed into high-profile targets is dismissed as a coincidence by the writer Michael Bronner, with no discussion of the astronomical improbability of the two scenarios colliding, in alliance with similar same target, same time drills which took place during the London bombings.
The tapes betray the fact that NORAD's attention to the fact that Flight 77 was heading towards Washington are virtually non-existent as they struggle to gain authorization to shoot down stray aircraft.
Despite the lies of Cheney in his subsequent TV interviews and statements given under oath to the 9/11 Commission, those shoot down orders never arrived, even after United 93 had crashed in Pennsylvania.
While NORAD struggled to comprehend what exactly was heading towards Washington, in Dick Cheney's PEOC bunker things were apparently a lot clearer...
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/...
October 30, 2009 at 11:59 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Trafficman, please familiarize yourself with the timeline, especially this part...
08:37:52
boston center: Hi. Boston Center T.M.U.[Traffic Management Unit], we have a problem here. We have a hijacked aircraft headed towards New York, and we need you guys to, we need someone to scramble some F-16s or something up there, help us out.
powell: Is this real-world or exercise?
boston center: No, this is not an exercise, not a test.
When you read that, can you see that they knew there was a problem well before you did, you didn't know until after the second plane hit, our military knew well before that, I'm not concerned with when you figured it out, because you have nothing to do with our country's defense.
How do you spell DUH?
October 30, 2009 at 12:14 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Have You Got It Yet !?!?!?
October 30, 2009 at 12:58 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mmjPatient22 (another anonymous cannabis user) says...
seeuski- Whatever your stance is on the whole 9/11 thing, it's irrelevant to everything. The fact of the matter is that our government has provided fantasy tales, wrought with "facts&findings" that are a far cry from reality, to a people that were/are starving for answers. I would like to see the number of 9/11 victims you can find that are 100% satisfied with the answers that their government has given them to explain away the events of that day. I would be interested to hear your justification for the current mess in the Middle East. Let me guess, we're there for freedom and democracy right? I would also love to hear your explanation of why it's OK that Bin Laden's head hasn't appeared on a silver platter on CNN. And if you buy the BS that we haven't been able to find him yet, close to 3000 days after the fact, I've got a bridge I'd like to show to you.
October 30, 2009 at 1:24 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
The Truth About September 11th
From 23 Informative Websites
Don't You Want To Know The Real Truth
About What Happened On September 11th?
Lovearth.net Has Put Together 23 Informative Websites
To Help You Educate Yourself About This "War On Terror"
1) Exposing The NORAD Wag The 911 Window Dressing Tale
Using NORAD's Own Press Release And Fifth Grade Math
Published January 8, 2003
http://www.StandDown.net
2) The Most Comprehensive Minute By Minute Timeline On 911
Published September 9, 2002
http://www.911Timeline.net
3) My Country Right Or Wrong - Questioning September 11th
Published October 22, 2001
http://www.MyCountryRightOrWrong.net
4) More Than 500 Great Articles About 911 From Around The World
Online since September 13, 2001
http://www.AttackOnAmerica.net
5) Tuesday, September 11, 2001, And The Three Top Sins Of The Universe
Published February 9, 2002
http://www.September112001.net
6) Audios, Videos, Photographs, Polls, Petition And News Archive
http://www.9112001.net
7) Bin Laden Family Money & Bush 41 & 43 Conflict Of War Profit Interest http://www.CarlyleGroup.net
8) The History Of Oil And War - The U. S. And British Oil Imperialism http://www.OilCompanies.net
9) The Unelected Commander In Thief - Articles, Photos, Books And Polls
http://www.GeorgeWalkerBush.net
10) How The USA PATRIOT Act Subverts 6 Amendments Of The Bill Of Rights
http://www.BillOfRights.net
11) The USA PATRIOT Act Search Law Will Provoke 4th Amendment Challenge
http://www.SneakAndPeek.net
12) Preserving Freedom By Wholesale Abrogation Of Our Civil Liberties?
http://www.Police-State.net
13) How The Fourth Estate Have Become Corporate Lap Dog Stenographers
http://www.FreedomOfThePress.net
14) Book Banning In United States Is Alive And Well In The 21st Century
http://www.Freedom-Of-Speech.net
15) The U.S. Is Unilaterally Violating Numerous International Treaties
http://www.UnitedStatesGovernment.net
16) eMail Addresses Of All 535 Congress Members Plus The V.P. And Bush
http://www.eMailCongress.net
17) Articles On The Perversity Of War And How To Bring Peace On Earth
http://www.PeaceOnEarth.net
18) Ashcroft Covers Up The Spirit Of Justice And Majesty Of Law Statues
http://www.Fascistic.net
19) Why Bush Is Addicted To Perpetual War - Lessons Learned From Daddy
http://www.Orwellian.net
20) Bush's Bay Of Piglets - Many Articles On The Failed Venezuelan Coup
http://www.Imperialist.net
21) Latest EcoHumanePolitical News - Thousands Of Archived Articles
http://www.Earths.net
22) An Extensive Archive Of The Top EcoHumanePolitical Articles
http://www.EarthsNews.net
23) Connecting Through 1000+ EcoHumanePolitical Top Level Websites
With Our New Search Engine You Can Find Thousands Of Archived Articles
http://www.Lovearth.net
October 30, 2009 at 1:57 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
http://www.globalclimatescam.com/?p=572
October 31, 2009 at 6:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
mmjpatient said:"I would be interested to hear your justification for the current mess in the Middle East. "
I am obviously a little older than you and have been acutely aware of the problems in the middle east since the 1960's.
I visited the middle east in 1970.
This trouble did not happen because of George Bush or Dick Chaney as you would have it.
The attacks of 9/11 are well documented and the evidence of who, what, where and when is available.
It all depends on your goals. If you begin your search with a desired outcome such as, the US Government lies and therefore they are behind the attacks, then you will seek out the ideas and philosophers to back that scheme.
If you start from a point of I want to find the evidence wherever it leads well, you might believe the truth and not the theories as presented by the cut and paste artists.
Because I have been through this discussion on previous posts over the last 2 years I am including links of books and article of sources that I have read and trust. You may choose to continue to denigrate these investigators of fact but I only believe conspiracy theories that make sense to me like.
1. Kennedy was not shot by a lone gunman from a window with a bolt action rifle.
2. Marylin Monroe did not take an OD of pills but was silenced.
3. OJ did it.
If you want company on those theories I'm in.
but 9/11 was not an inside job. period!
http://www.husseinandterror.com/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia...
http://www.weeklystandard.com/content...
http://www.americanthinker.com/2006/0...
http://www.camera.org/index.asp?x_art...
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi...
http://books.google.com/books?id=oDH7...
http://jaynadavis.com/
http://lauriemylroie.com/
October 30, 2009 at 2:39 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
charliecigar (anonymous) says...
Okay good. I was hoping to re-stoke the discussion board that would never die. I am really impressed with the superior intellect of people who address others that have differing opinions as nut jobs, dumbos, or whackos.
When somebody can tell me why there was nano-thermite dust (hi-tech explosives) found in samples taken from the WTC wreckage within 24 hours of the buildings going down I may be able to rethink my position. Im not saying that I am certain that the US government was involved. Im just saying that with building 7 not suffering any structural damage and perfectly imploding from the center leads me to believe all 3 buildings were the victims of a controlled demolition.
Jet fuel burns at about a maximum of 1500 degrees and the fuel from each jet would have burned out in about a half an hour. Here is the problem. The steel in the twin towers won't begin to melt until it reaches 2800 degrees, almost twice the temperature that jet fuel can reach. This is where the nano-thermite explosives come in. Upon ignition it reaches temperatures exceeding 3000 degrees reducing steel to liquid immediately. This is why there were huge clumps of molten steel found at ground zero that were left unacknowledged in the 911 investigation report.
Would our wonderful government have anything to do with this? It is documented fact that in 1941 the Australian naval fleet notified President Roosevelt of the Japanese Fleets proximity and heading towards Hawaii the day before the Pearl Harbor attack. What did he do with this information? Nothing. The reason being that the American people were not yet totally behind the allies and were against the United States becoming fully involved in WW2. As a result of Roosevelt neglecting to notifiy the command at Pearl Harbor of the impending attack, the outrage of the "surprise attack" by the Japenese changed the sentiment of the US citizens and the United States was abruptly brought into the Second World War as a full combatant. The cost of Roosevelts decesion to enter war. 2400 dead at Pearl Harbor.
2752. Would the United States government forsake the lives of almost 3000 innocent people at WTC in exchange for the people of our country getting behind the big U.S. war machines entry into Iraq, to the tune of $195,000,000 per day since the start of the Iraq invasion? That is the question you need to ask yourself.
October 30, 2009 at 4:36 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mmjPatient22 (another anonymous cannabis user) says...
Regardless of whatever individual opinions are held on the matter, the plain truth is that our country is fairly divided on the issue of exactly who is to blame for what happened. Believing or trusting any one source over the other is a mute point if the facts that are presented were derived from twisting data to say what its presenters would like it to say. This is along the same lines as pointed research. It'd be like googling "best president of all time" and expecting a picture of George W to pop up in the search results instead of Lincoln or Washington. The quality of "best" can only be applied to W in a sarcastic light, at best.
I digress....anyway, until there is a mostly unanimous conclusion as to who exactly needs to be held accountable for the enormous loss of life on that day, I will be hard-pressed to accept most opinion-based "fact" but open to reasonable debate over the issue. Whatever the result may be, the fact that we, as Americans in our small community, can spur a line of comments and discussion that brings everyone's patriotism to the table, is flat out inspiring. If there are this many people in this valley that are this adamant about this topic, one can only hope that there are exponentially more Americans across this nation that care enough to keep it from going over the edge. Only a cursory glance at American history will reveal the importance of the decisions that are being made by our current leaders. There could be big trouble for everyone if the interests of corporations are allowed to out-weigh the rights of our citizenry.
October 30, 2009 at 6:28 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
The country is not fairly divided you are among the minority who are engrossed with crazy theories.
Do we now have to argue the WWII bologna?
I have seen this one also.
Over reaching does no one any good in these discussions.
October 30, 2009 at 7:27 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mmjPatient22 (another anonymous cannabis user) says...
I'd like to see the source of the numbers that you're looking at that apparently makes me part of the minority.
I'd like to know how bringing up WWII is far reaching? Yeah sure it was a while back, but the points presented were in direct reference to our nation's ability to doop it's people. Rounding up Japanese-Americans to put them in camps? That's some Nazi-s#!+ right there. How can you justify that kind of action? It's probably the same logic that condones torture at Gitmo or any number of secret sites that the US subsidizes. "Well, it gets results." So does sticking a fork in an outlet but it's not in the interest of the general public.
The point that I see made, more often than not, is that there are some fundamental flaws in our system that are residual from times of old. There are plenty of people that see how jacked up our country is in certain areas. We might be the best nation on earth but we are far, way far, from perfect. The history that has been written about our country during the past decade wouldn't exactly be travel brochure material.
October 31, 2009 at 11:13 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
mmj,
You drift in and out of reality, you start to get real and then you float back to the hate America rant. I agree with you on the internment camps that was a product of the Presidential leadership at the time.In times of crisis, some are good leaders some are great leaders and some are something else altogether. Here is the wiki info on that President, Oh by the way, Obama continually swears by this particular President and claims he leads in his mold.
And as far as the rest of history as you claim it, beware of historical fallacies and rewrites, it is a pattern of the progressive left these days.
"President Franklin Delano Roosevelt authorized the internment with Executive Order 9066 on February 19, 1942, which allowed local military commanders to designate "military areas" as "exclusion zones,"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese...
Check out the 80,000 man army being trained in Georgia intended to deal with any social chaos that may result from the economic and legislative disaster that is underway here.
That may be up your alley while on this subject.
Stay away from those terrible Tea Parties like Nancy Pelosi warned. "They could be violent", but to date not one arrest among the millions of protesters.
Maybe we'll see you at the next one.
October 31, 2009 at 4:46 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mmjPatient22 (another anonymous cannabis user) says...
First of all, allow me to clear something up for you. I can assure you that there is no hatred in me towards my country. I fear for my country, my government and all of the people that have the right to call themselves an American. I am a veteran of our armed forces and I'll be the first one put a bullet in some foreign a-hole that thinks he's about to be a part of a military invasion into my country. So, spare me the jab at my patriotism. The founding fathers of this nation knew the value of dissent and our nation would be a better place if more people would voice their rage about the current injustices being perpetrated by our government.
There is a reasonably large difference between hating one's own country and being saddened/enraged about some of the things that have taken place under the watch of some of our recent presidents. I encourage you to contemplate someone's motivations before you criticize what they are saying. The only thing that I could ever hope for is that the majority of the lazy, shiftless, careless, thoughtless idiots that roam our country will someday wake up and take their government back. For an organization that claims to consist of, be elected by and who's benefits are for the people it serves, there sure are a lot of special interests influencing the way things are done.
The bottom line that I would stress is that our country is a far cry from what the founding forefathers had in mind, as far as governing goes at least. Even though some of those men were slave owners, they still had enough mental capacity to form the greatest nation the world had known. My biggest fear is that the era of America's reign at #1 might be coming to an irreversible close, for whatever number of reasons that can be listed, and that pisses me off. I think we can do better, that's all.
October 31, 2009 at 6 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
I can only agree 100% with what you have said in this post.
I too echo your fear and anger and I will add powerless to it, at what this current administration has done, is doing and is getting ready to do to this great nation.
We are about to lose our sovereignty in Copenhagen over the hoax of climate change.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dO...
We are draining the economic future of this country because of the "fundamental change" of the Obama administration from Capitalism to Marxism.
Those who have joined in the Tea Party movement have recognized the dangers early enough to make a difference.
October 31, 2009 at 6:21 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mmjPatient22 (another anonymous cannabis user) says...
Those that involve themselves in such activities should be prepared to bear the full brunt of what our military/police forces have to offer. One needs only to google for videos of the recent G20 summit in Pittsburgh to understand how easy it is for those that have the power to slip into the role of abusing the power. The unwarranted violence, tear gas, rubber bullets and high-frequency "sound weapons" that were dispatched and used to control the people of Pittsburgh, innocent college kids that weren't even part of the protest, provides more than sufficient data to support the claim that there is something terribly awry with the way things are being done right now. I say we need to revolt against such an oppressive system if want to hold-on to any hopes of having an America where we're truly free. Lord knows where we need to start, but I suppose any place would do.
October 31, 2009 at 6:48 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
mmj,
Why would you think that I would see similarities with the political resistance to the current Administration and an organized Anarchist movement that is about a one union group think against all authority and is supported by the likes of:
Students for Justice in Palestine (Pittsburgh)
Harrisburg Area Anarchist Collective (Harrisburg, PA)
Workers Solidarity Alliance (North America)
Friendly Fire Collective (SF)
Ricanstruction Netwerk (NYC)
Unconventional Action (Frederick, MD)
Dirty Hands Collective (Durango, CO)
Silent City Distro (Ithaca, NY)
Unconventional Action In The Bay (Oakland/San Fran, CA)
Armchair Revolutionaries (West Chester, PA)
Wooden Shoe Books (Philadelphia, PA)
Self-described Anarchist Collective (Washington, DC)
Syracuse Solidarity Network (Syracuse, NY)
Their site: http://www.organizepittsburgh.org/
No, I am involved with the growing 9/12 and Tea Party movements which seek to return our Government to a Constitutionally adherent group of leaders.
I also would disagree with the assertion that the Anarchists were exercising their legal rights, they acted in violent manners and if need be I can seek the youtube evidence of it.
These groups follow the world summits from country to country instigating violence.
I would say the average age of the groups I am involved with is about 60 and the Anarchists are hopped up teens and 20 somethings.
They'll grow up, some of them anyway.
November 1, 2009 at 10:01 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
mmjPatient22 (another anonymous cannabis user) says...
You can also find youtube evidence of innocent bystanders at a college, who's only crime was to come see what the ruckus in the street was all about, being assaulted by police officers. The point I was trying to make is that, at least in this day and age, you should never underestimate your government's ability to handle something the wrong way. You have nothing but support from me in your quest to remove the stain from our government. All I'm saying is that you should be cautious when going up against such a corrupt, resourceful and well-funded adversary.
November 1, 2009 at 10:16 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
seeuski (anonymous) says...
I agree with you that it is a challenge especially when our leaders refer to those of us who are assembling to voice our opinions names like Mob, Astroturf, Right wingers or that we are bussed in and part of a corporate funded scam.
But it seems we are looking for the same things, honest representation and limited Gov't.
November 1, 2009 at 2:13 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
"Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance"- A. Einstein
November 8, 2009 at 10:30 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Swedish Member Of Parliament: Leading Politicians Support 9/11 Truth Movement
Political leaders for 9/11 Truth growing in numbers
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Monday, Nov 9, 2009
A Swedish Member of Parliament has pledged support for a new investigation into the events of 9/11, adding that prominent political figures support the view that elements of the U.S. government were involved in staging the attacks.
An article headlined “The U.S. was part of the attack” in the Swedish newspaper Aftonbladet, highlights comments made by MP Egon Frid of the country’s “Left Party”.
“The U.S. administration knew of the terrorist attack before and was a part of it,” Frid said in an interview with Swedish TV network TV4 on it’s “Kalla Facts” (Hard Facts) programme.
“My curiosity has once again led me in new ways and to top it all, I have new theories about what really happened 9/11″ Frid writes on his blog.
Frid, who was elected to parliament as a full member in 2006, also stated that he knows there are several leading politicians in Sweden who are interested in the Truth Movement’s message, but they will not go public with their views “because it is an impossible debate.”
Frid also revealed that he has joined the “Political Leaders For 9/11 Truth” group, to which other notables have pledged support, such as Andreas von Bülow, former German State Secretary in the Federal Ministry of Defense, Yukihisa Fujita, Japanese Member of Parliament, Michael Meacher, Minister of the British Parliament, Cynthia McKinney, Jesse Ventura, and many other political luminaries from all corners of the globe.
The group was founded earlier this year, joining the growing ranks of professionals calling for a new independent investigation into 9/11, including the groups:
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth http://ae911truth.org/
Firefighters for 9/11 Truth http://firefightersfor911truth.org/
Journalists and Other Media Professionals for 9/11 Truth http://mediafor911truth.org/
Lawyers for 9/11 Truth http://l911t.com/
Medical Professionals for 9/11 Truth http://mp911truth.org/
Pilots for 9/11 Truth http://pilotsfor911truth.org/
Religious Leaders for 9/11 Truth http://rl911truth.org/
Scholars for 9/11 Truth & Justice http://stj911.org/
Veterans for 9/11 Truth http://v911t.org/
November 9, 2009 at 12:17 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
November 9, 2009
9/11 Commission Passed on NEADS Tapes Month before Issuing Subpoena for Them
Documents newly found at the National Archives show that in the weeks before the 9/11 Commission issued a subpoena for tapes of events at the Northeast Air Defense Sector (NEADS) on the day of the attacks, it told the military not to send some or all of them to the commission. The documents are internal commission e-mails and a memo, as well as communications between the commission and the military. They were found at the National Archives by History Commons contributor Erik Larson (a.k.a. paxvector) and posted to the 9/11 Document Archive at Scribd.
The tapes became one of the cornerstones of the commission’s account of the day of 9/11, which differed significantly from previous statements by the military and FAA. Although the military had previously claimed it had launched fighters from Langley Air Force Base in response to the hijacking of Flight 77, which hit the Pentagon, and to have been tracking Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania, the commission found otherwise. It said the Langley fighters were launched for another reason, and failed to find any mention of Flight 93 in military records until around 10:00 a.m., shortly before it crashed
If the commission’s version is correct, it is unclear why the military gave the public and then the commission such a misleading account. Did the Pentagon knowingly lie to overstate its readiness to intercept errant airliners, was it just a SNAFU in the Pentagon investigation, or was there some other reason? The concealment of the tapes from the commission would have indicated a deliberate lie by the military, but the newly found documents show the military repeatedly referred to them in communications and made an apparent offer to provide some or all of them to the commission five weeks before the commission issued its subpoena.
The newly found documents show that the commission received a partial transcript of the tapes on 2 June. However, this transcript was incomplete and, according to a commission memo dated 29 October 2003, only reflected 5 or 6 tapes. Some of the tapes were first released to the public by the makers of the documentary Loose Change, and a fuller set was later obtained by Government Attic, which received a total of 21 tapes. This means the initial transcript reflected at most about one quarter of what NEADS had.
The memo indicates the commission thought the 2 June transcript was a full transcript of all the tapes. However, it ended at 10:15 a.m., just a few minutes after the last airliner crashed, and the commission wanted it to be supplemented to continue after this time. According to the memo, the commission made repeated requests for supplementation, on 8 September, 20 October and 24 October...
http://hcgroups.wordpress.com/2009/11...
November 10, 2009 at 12:49 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
World Trade Center ‘Cross Finder’ Calls for 9/11 Truth
Frank Silecchia has many questions regarding the attacks
Steve Watson
Infowars.net
Wednesday, Nov 11, 2009
New video from We are Change New York features an interview with first responder Frank Silecchia, who discovered the famous steel cross recovered from Ground Zero. Silecchia reveals that he has questions over the attacks and pledges support for the 9/11 truth movement.
Silecchia worked at Ground Zero for ten months and on the third day he discovered the broken steam beam in the shape of a cross that still stands in the vicinity of the World Trade Center today.
Silecchia found the twenty foot cross amongst the debris of 6 World Trade Center and it quickly became an icon for the first responders who left messages on it and prayed before it.
Many of the families of the victims of 9/11 asked for the cross to be preserved as part of the permanent memorial.
When asked by We are Change members if he had any remarks on the eighth anniversary of 9/11, Silecchia responded “See the shirt you’re wearing? I believe it” referring to an “Investigate 9/11″ t-shirt.
“See the shirt he wears, the shirt he wears,” Silecchia said pointing to two other members of we are change with the same shirts, “I believe it because it is true. They cannot prove otherwise”
“There’s no reason why they can’t explain why there’s so many flashes along side the building” Silecchia said, referring to sounds of explosives in the towers that were also witnessed by firefighters on 9/11.
“7 took to long to come down.” Silecchia added.
“That was full of technology that couldn’t be seen by human eyes so it had to be destroyed. They took it down.”
“They think we are idiots. We the People, by the People, put them into office and they think we’re morons.” Silecchia said.
“As long as the old man is alive, Bush, you’re not going catch Bin Laden. Because that’s the deal they have got.” he added, referring to the fact that before 9/11 George H.W. Bush and Osama Bin Laden were business partners with the Carlyle Group.
“9/11 needs a tombstone,”Silecchia says of his efforts to preserve the WTC Cross. “It’s a sign of healing, it’s not a sign of religion, it’s a sign of faith. Faith is love and hope.”
Watch the interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9tPOI...
November 11, 2009 at 4 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
300 Seat Airliner Crash Test will Prove Official 9/11 Story False
Hawk
TruthAlliance.net
Friday, Nov 13th, 2009
We learned today that Channel 4 plans to smash a 300 seat passenger jet into the desert filled with data collection sensors and video cameras as a scientific experiment as reported in the Guardian.
“Two pilots will parachute from the 300-seat airliner after setting it on autopilot to crash at high speed into the desert. The plane will be loaded with cameras and sensors recording the impact of the crash, which Channel 4 said would provide invaluable information about how planes react in potentially fatal accidents.
The time and location of the crash are being kept under wraps by the broadcaster, which will air the documentary, Plane Crash, next year.”
Those of us who have studied one of the most horrendous and controversial events in history, the 9/11 attacks know that the history and study of airplane crashes have always proved to leave massive holes, fire, bodies and a twisted plane smashed across a large debris field. All of the plane can typically be reconstructed for forensic analysis, yet on 9/11 the laws of physics were suspend that day.
Here is photos of what is typically found at the scene of large airplane crashes.
http://truthalliance.net/Portals/0/Ga...
According to the U.S. government official version of the events on 9/11 and also the photographic evidence of the scene 2 planes completely disintegrated that day upon impact.
Flight 77
The Pentagon
Many people have speculated that a plane did not hit the Pentagon due to the photographic evidence of the scene of the time. Looking at this picture one would expect to see the traditional twisted wreckage and titanium engines strewn about the scene.
http://truthalliance.net/DesktopModul...
A comprehensive report and interviews with the eyewitnesses on that fateful day can be found here courtesy of the hard work of Craig Ranke at the citizen investigation team. http://www.citizeninvestigationteam.com/
November 13, 2009 at 4:09 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Flight 93 Impact site
Shanksville, PA
This photo below shows what the official 9/11 report would have us believe happens when a large passenger jet crashes into the ground.
http://truthalliance.net/DesktopModul...
View archive of Shanksville impact site
http://killtown.911review.org/flight9...
As dramatic as this photo is there is obviously no sign of a plane just a large smoking crater, but increadiously in the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui they presented evidence from the flight 93 crash http://www.vaed.uscourts.gov/notablec... like burnt passports, paper documents and clothing articles when not even the most indestructible components of the plane did not survive.
Millions of people all over the world who believe the official version of events on 9/11 to be another fabrication by government will be validated in their suspicion when this experiment is complete and the parts of the test plane will be recovered and studied unlike the flights on 9/11.
November 13, 2009 at 4:11 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
ha ha....funny stuff.....What a piece of work......
No discerning skills, gullible to what idiotic theories are posited to them......could easily be a christian....lol
just cracks me up.....
You, Chem, are truly delusional.
there's my once a week ridiculing of your sorry behind.
stroke yourself for another week....[chem, what's going on down there? nothin' ma, go back upstairs !]......lol lol lol lol
-Hunterdog
November 13, 2009 at 5:31 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
hey chem,
what does "increadiously" mean ? i'm not sure i've ever seen it used in the english language before.....lol lol lol lol
November 13, 2009 at 5:34 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
9/11 Debunkers Hide From Slam Dunk Evidence Of Controlled Demolition
Paul Watson
PrisonPlanet
5 22 07
Professor Steven Jones presented brand new and compelling evidence for the controlled demolition of the twin towers and WTC 7 recently, but the 9/11 debunkers and the corporate media are loathe to tackle it because it represents a slam dunk on proving the collapse of the buildings was a deliberate act of arson.
During a talk at the Rebuilding America's Senses event at the University of Texas last month, Jones laid out facts about steel samples recovered from the WTC site that Popular Mechanics dare not even attempt to debate. Debunkers are scared to even get near this information because the science behind it fundamentally contradicts the official story of what happened on 9/11.
Jones detailed his lab experiments in which he attempted to replicate NIST's conclusion that the lava like orange material flowing out of the south tower is aluminum from Flight 175, the plane that hit the building. Jones clearly documents the fact that liquid aluminum is silver and not orange as is seen in the video of the south tower, therefore the material cannot be aluminum. Jones then explains that the material is in fact a compound that can cut through steel like a hot knife through butter, thermite with sulphur added to make thermate.
The crux of the fresh evidence revolves around newly uncovered globules or spheres that were discovered at the WTC site that Professor Jones was able to obtain and run a electron microscope analysis on.
The spheres contained iron and aluminum, which would be expected in any steel sample, but also sulphur which is a by-product of a thermate reaction.
So having moved from a hypothesis that thermate was used to bring down the towers from using video footage and debunking the aluminum explanation of NIST, Jones now has empirical scientific proof, undertaken under laboratory conditions, that thermate was indeed used as an artificial explosive at the World Trade Center.
It has now been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the collapse of the twin towers and WTC 7 was an act of deliberate arson and not as a result of fires from crashing planes.
Jones' evidence offers no other conclusion that insiders planted thermite devices within the buildings to literally pulverize the supporting columns and cause the collapse of the towers and also WTC 7. Debunkers have uniformly failed to address the existence of thermite and also molten metal at the ground zero site because they cannot dismiss the scientific proof, and are forced to resort to ad hominem insults and smears.
We are issuing a challenge to Popular Mechanics to rebut Professor Jones' analysis of the sphere samples and the clear evidence of thermate at the World Trade Center. Address the focused scientific proof without resorting to ad hominem attacks or straying off topic.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/...
December 1, 2009 at 3:03 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
StopTheBrutalChemtrails (anonymous) says...
Engineer fires torpedos at the 9/11 lie
Youtube
Monday, Dec 14th, 2009
Mechanical Engineer Derek Johnson gives his “Engineering Destruction” talk for Architects and Engineers for 9/11Truth
http://www.prisonplanet.com/engineer-...
11 parts
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=142Ati...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUiQcr...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFmw71...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5aPdW...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JqmJs8...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyXTiq...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UhRO0Q...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DleAQg...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYgzYb...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_rKjK...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UQ05j-...
December 14, 2009 at 10:41 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
bandmama (anonymous) says...
lol !
December 21, 2009 at 9:26 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Post a comment (Requires free registration)
Posting comments requires a free account and verification.