Saturday, November 28, 2009

Pager Messages and the Distorted Tilt.

While the Climatologists are studying their leaked archive of goodies, we 9/11 researchers have some of our own leaked goodies - half a million pager intercepts. I've had a look through most of the messages between 08:00 and 13:00. There isn't really anything as obviously damning as the ClimateGate emails but I've noticed a few things of interest.

Server crashes, messages relating to drills and reports of bombs/explosions all over the place are the most interesting. There were reports of bomb scares and car bomb attacks at the State Department Building, Hotel Washington, a treasury building, a school, an army recruiting office, a music production company, an energy company, even the Washington Monument! There were also reports of secondary explosions at the world trade center - yet more to add to the long list.

See this thread on the Prison Planet Forum for more:
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=145873.40

I've just watched part three of the recent Hardfire debate. Much attention was spent debating the significance of the tilt. Mackey uses these graphics to demonstrate what the tilt would have done to the lower floors and explain the lack of a jolt...



My problem with this analysis is that it assumes that the top portion of the building rotated about a fixed point, reached an angle of eight degrees and THEN started falling. I've seen similar analyses of the South Tower's collapse by debunkers. They assume it rotated approximately 20 degrees about a fulcrum and then the fulcrum gave way and the upper block just fell (completely ignoring the conservation of angular momentum). In the case of both towers, these models are incorrect. The tilts did not happen before the falls, the tilts happened during the falls.



As we see in the above video, there was a tilt, and the tilting may have started immediately. However, it did not reach eight degrees until the upper section had already fallen several floors. So even if an eight degree tilt could explain the lack of a jolt (which I don't believe it could), it's completely irrelevant in this case.

I've seen several videos of buildings being demolished using hydraulics where they literally drop the top half of the building onto the bottom half and there's always a noticeable deceleration when the top half impacts the bottom half. A number of them are in my video Fires, Explosions, Demolitions, Collapses, Crushdowns and the World Trade Center.

Of course this is completely pointless anyway. Anyone with more than two brain cells and an open mind can see that building didn't just fall down. In the same way anyone looking at the Zapruder film can see Kennedy was shot from the front. And the forensic evidence of reactants, products and by-products of various classes of thermite reactions proves demolition.

Related Info:

Distorted Tilt Confirmed

Friday, November 27, 2009

Put a Nut Bar in Your Pie Hole!

I popped over to the Screw Loose Change blog to see what they had to say regarding the Wikileaks 9/11 transcripts and found this short statement from Pat Curley, "Fascinating stuff. Although I have no doubt the kooks will be incorporating some of the information into their nutbar theories, I applaud the release."

Well there are a few of the Wikileaks text messages concerning secondary devices in the towers:

9:31:51 AM
N.Y.C. TKT#191100488 - WTC HAS BEEN HIT BY AN AIRPLANE AND A BOMB. CURRENTLY B6 IS BEING EVACUATED. NCC HAS RECEIVED MULTIPLE ALARMS OPTICAL / ENVIORNMENTAL. UPDATES WILL FOLLOW. RYAN P/L NCC 800-824-8049

Bomb detonated in World Trade Ctr. Pls get back to Mike Brady w/a quick assessment of your areas and contact us if anything is needed
But we won't be incorporating them into any theories. We will however add them to the long list of supporting eyewitness accounts for the unrefuted peer-reviewed science published by members of the 9/11 truth movement regarding bombs in the Towers.

Related Info:

Pentagon Shooter Fits Nutbar Profile :D

Pager Messages and the Distorted Tilt.

Firefighter reports regarding the 9/11 WTC collapse

Thursday, November 26, 2009

Website Wikileaks publishes '9/11 messages'












The messages were said to have been sent on 11 September 2001

news.bbc.co.uk
Thursday, 26 November 2009
Page last updated at 00:39 GMT

A website has published what it says are 573,000 intercepted pager messages sent during the 9/11 attacks in the United States.

Wikileaks says it will not reveal who gave it the messages - some of which are from federal agencies as well as ordinary citizens.

Internet analysts say they believe the messages are genuine but federal authorities have refused to comment.

The attacks on 11 September 2001 left nearly 3,000 people dead.

The messages are being published over a 24-hour period, ending at 0800GMT on Thursday. They are being released simultaneously on Wikileaks and social networking site Twitter.

'Live' broadcast

The website is broadcasting each message at the time it was sent originally in 2001.

The first message was from 0300 local time (0800 GMT), five hours before the first attack in New York and the last 24 hours later.

The messages are not all about the attacks. Some are mundane questions about what people are having for lunch.

However, many are about the deadly plane attacks and range from people trying to find out if their loved ones are safe, to government messages, to computer server errors.

They include messages such as

This is Myrna, I will not rest until you get home, the second tower is down, I don't want to have to keep calling you after every event. Pls just go home

President has been rerouted won't be returning to Washington but not sure where he will go

Bomb detonated in World Trade Ctr. Pls get back to Mike Brady w/a quick assessment of your areas and contact us if anything is needed

New York's fire and police departments said they could not comment on whether messages purportedly sent from them were genuine while the US Secret Service refused to comment.

Pager company USA Mobility said it was troubled by the alleged interceptions, the Associated Press news agency reported.

Wikileaks allows people to anonymously post documents on the web, saying its aim is to promote transparency.

It was created in 2006 by dissidents, journalists, mathematicians and technologists from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa.

Wikileaks spokesman Daniel Schmitt said the messages were submitted anonymously to the site several weeks ago.

He told Associated Press: "From the context information that the source provided we have strong reasons to believe that this is valid data."

He said the messages would help provide a fuller picture of what happened that day.

Related Info:

9/11 tragedy pager intercepts

Put a Nut Bar in Your Pie Hole!

Tuesday, November 24, 2009

The Truth Hurts

Pat Curley of the Screw Loose Change blog recently let his readers know why he doesn't have have Google ads on his blog:

If you want to know why we don't have Google Ads around here, this is one major reason why. I opened up my G-mailbox this morning and saw this:
Photobucket
Yep, good old Russia Today, with an article extolling the virtues of that piece of Italian dreck, Zero.
Good old Russia Today indeed:

RT (TV network)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Achievements

In 2007, RT's share of monthly audience among NTV Plus viewers in Moscow exceeded those of CNN and Bloomberg.[4]

In December 2007, RT programmes were displayed in New York on America's main information video walls, NASDAQ and Reuters. On New Year's Eve, RT's New Year's programme from Moscow and St. Petersburg was displayed live on the NASDAQ and Reuters screens for the thousands of people celebrating in Times Square.[4]

In August 2007, RT had television's first ever live report from the North Pole, which lasted 5 minutes 41 seconds. An RT crew participated in the Arktika 2007 Russian polar expedition, led by Artur Chilingarov on the Akademik Fyodorov icebreaker.[5]

In June 2007, RT was one of the first Russian TV channels to have its own channel on YouTube, the leading video hosting site on the Internet. In January 2008, the total number of views for RT videos on YouTube was over 3 million, and RT was sixth in YouTube's Most Viewed Partners rating, leaving behind CBS, BBC World, Al Jazeera English, and France 24.[4]

Professional awards


In January 2009 Silver World Medal for Best News Documentary “A city of desolate mothers” from the New York Festivals

In November 2008 Special Jury Award in the Best Creative Feature category for a Russian Glamour feature story at Media Excellence Awards in London.

In September 2008 Russia's most prestigious broadcasting award TEFI in Best News Anchor category.

In November 2007, RT's report on the anniversary of the Chernobyl catastrophe received a special prize from the international 2007 AIB Media Excellence Awards[6] in the News Coverage category. Other nominees included major international broadcasters such as BBC, France 24, Deutsche Welle, CBS, Al Arabiya, and others. There was only one story by CBS News which rated higher than RT and it received the Grand Prix.

In September 2007, the Eurasian Academy of Television and Radio[7] awarded RT with the Prize for Professional Skillfulness.

In June 2007, the 11th "Save and Preserve" International Environmental Television Festival[8] awarded its Grand Prix to RT's Meeting with Nature series. There were 284 entries competing in 10 categories, including a work by German TV channel Deutsche Welle.

In September 2006, the 10th "Golden Tambourine" International Festival for Television programmes and films[9] awarded RT's documentary People of the Bering Strait in the Ethnography and Travel category.
And the article doesn't exactly "extol the virtues" of the film, while it does state in the headline that the film "reveals shocking facts," it does not claim that these facts mean 9/11 was an inside job. All in all it reports objectively on the premise of the film and the material contained within, using the phrases "the makers of the documentary claim," and "the film claims."

In essence the article does what the American media should be doing; reporting on the political reality of the 9/11 truth movement without relying on propagandist ad hominem attacks.

Another fine example of the foreign press doing the job of real journalism took place earlier this year when a 9/11 media breakthrough took place on Denmark television.



As an article by Bill Douglas, who is co-founder of the National911Visibility.org pointed out, the 9/11 truth movement has been exploding in the worldwide press, making it the U.S. media's dirty little secret.

And contrary to what Pat Curley would have you believe the Hard Evidence Down Under Tour that has just wrapped up is reported to have been an amazing success.

I was going to publish this blog at this point, but upon doing some more research I have switched my position. I'm sure this will come at the dismay of my readers, but I am now officially changing camps, sorry folks, I was wrong, 9/11 happened exactly as advertised.

The foreign press obviously just reports on the 9/11 twoof movement as it does because all of the world hates America. If only these top military leaders who question the official 9/11 story had not read articles in the foreign press! I bet this anti-American propaganda also caused those members of the 9/11 Commission who have decried their own report to turn to such kookery as well. The nearly 1,000 members of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth have certainly also been victimized by the likes of Russia Today. Good thing they don't have any structural engineers among their ranks, or I would really be worried for this great nation of ours. I could go on, but you get the point. The foreign press is a scourge that must be purged!

I hope and pray that you all can forgive me for leading you astray. I'm very ashamed of myself. A good American should never trust the foreign press or question their government. All this time I claimed to be the true patriot, but I was just a hypocrite.

Related Info:

911 BREAKTHROUGH: Richard Gage AIA on New Zealand National Television

Saturday, November 21, 2009

Supreme Pawn to be Executed

So according to Der Fuhrer, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, who was obviously nothing more than a single pawn in the grand compartmentalized chess game that was the 9/11 operation, is going to be sentanced to death. Once again it seems they are going to kill their patsy, just like with Oswald and many others.

It doesn't matter what happens. They can kill him, they can have him confess, they can show a HD video of him with Bin Laden and the 19 hijackers planning their operation... it still doesn't change anything.

It still doesn't explain how Hani Hanjour was able to execute a 330 degree downward turn, decend six thousand feet in 2 and a half minutes, then enter a steep dive and descend a futher two thousand feet in 40 seconds, then pull up out of the dive at 500 miles per hour and overcome the enormous G-Forces that would have created and then knock down 5 light poles in less than a second while maintaining the perfect trajectory required to hit the ground floor of the Pentagon a second later without touching the lawn... all without attracting the attention of the US Air Defence.

It still doesn't shed any more light on the war games or the doomsday planes.

It still doesn't explain how jet fuel can cause volcanic explosions and hot fires that rage for several months.

It still doesn't explain how a skyscraper can fall at freefall.

Etc.

On another note, it seems some hackers have leaked some interesting emails from a british Climate Research Unit. Some of the emails prove there's a deception going on with regards to climate change, which raises serious doubts about the legitimacy of so-called "independent" research. Just imagine if we ever got to see emails exchanged between NIST investigators. I bet one would read something like this:

Shyam,

I have milked this computer model as much as I can. I've tweaked the parameters to the limit and the best time I can get is 5.4 seconds. I think we're just going to have to pick an arbitrarily early start time.

John

Now I can see why Jay Rockefeller is so paranoid about cyber security.

Speaking of scientific frauds, here's my latest video:

The 911 Commission Report: A Letter to Booksellers who Recommend this Trash

Steve Weathers
http://911debunkers.blogspot.com
November 21, 2009

Here is an email I sent to Borders Australia:

I don't expect any action, but I have done what I have to!

http://www.borders.com.au/contact-us

Why does Borders Books (Knox) include in its recommended books section The 911 Commission Report?

Do you realise that several of the 911 Commission heads now consider their report to be seriously flawed? Do you realise that the two Chairs, Kean and Hamilton, also have huge misgivings about their report; that the US Air Force lied to them and they don't know why, that the CIA withheld information from them? Do you realise that the majority of victims family members are VERY unhappy about this report considering it did not answer most of the questions they put to the commission?

Moreover, do you realise that for an investigation that was supposed to be a full accounting of the event, there are more than 100 documented lies, distortions and omissions within its pages?

If the investigation was so thorough why did it completely omit mention of the collapse of the 47 storey World Trade Center 7 Building? Why was evidence that contradicted the Government version of events, like Norman Mineta's testimony that completely contradicts Dick Cheney's account, left out? Why was FBI translator, Sibel Edmond's 3 hours of testimony, indicating that US intelligence services had worked with Bin Laden right up until the attacks, left out?

Why did the report refuse to address Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center Tower was going to collapse and that he never relayed this information to the police or fire departments at the time?

There are so many problems with the report that it is not funny. The book is like a fairy story and should not be in the non-fiction section since it makes so many claims that are not supported by fact and/or only supported by hearsay evidence.

You need to think about restocking your sections dealing with the 911 murders with more appropriate material.

Friday, November 13, 2009

Annoying Religions and Torture



So I have recently had a number of conversations with some old friends of mine who are atheists and I've come to the conclusion that atheists are really difficult to wake up. Due to my simple, comedic way of highlighting the absurdities in the norms of modern day society, most of the people I talk to about things like 9/11, central banking, climate change, vaccines, the new world order etc tend to agree with me. But my atheist friends always seem to disagree. Must be the "skeptic" influence. Most so-called skeptics are atheists, and most atheists are skeptics. They practically read from the same playbook - they both use ad-hominem, they both take scientific authority and questionable computer simulations as gospel, they both have that same dislikable, condescending arrogance and they both have no concept of probability.

I’ve always enjoyed probability. When I was only thirteen, I figured out that I could use that exclamation mark button on my calculator to calculate the probability of winning the lottery. And the main reason I know there’s more to 9/11 than what the official story tells us, aside from all the hard evidence, is because of all the improbable coincidences. While I'm no fan of religion, and I somewhat agree with Part 1 of Zeitgeist, I do, like many great minds, including Albert Einstein and Stephen Hawking, acknowledge the physical improbability of life without a creator. My views on atheism, like my views on most things (even 9/11 truth to some extent), can basically be summed up in an episode of South Park. Atheists tend to sit on their high horse and claim not to follow any religion, when in reality, atheism is a religion. There are numerous points in the evolutionary timeline which have not, as of yet, been satisfactorily explained by science and currently require huge leaps of FAITH to fully support without question. And with numerous unexplained mysteries in this world such as crop circles (the atheist explanation for such phenomena amounts to little more than a baseless conspiracy theory involving thousands of artistic pranksters creeping around at night with sticks!), how anyone can flat out say that there is no chance of a higher power is beyond me!



If you want to believe in enormous improbabilities go ahead. It’s your right to believe whatever you want. But for the love of Dawkins, at least admit that it’s a religion!

I think it was summed up best by Ryan Mackey in the recently uploaded Hardfire debate when he was accusing truthers of having an "irreducible delusion". His exact words can be thrown right back at him.

Speaking of 9/11 truth and annoying religions... no-planers! It seems UK's Channel 4 plans to smash a plane into the desert. The Pentagon no-planers seem pretty confident it will prove the Pentagon was hit by something other than a 757. They're going to crash it into the desert sand at an unspecified angle ... hardly a concrete wall! It may however, assuming it crashes at an angle perpendicular to the ground, shed some light on what happened to Flight 93. I look forward to watching the engines roll half a kilometer!

Why are we still asking questions? ... As CNN said today, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed is "the confessed organizer of the September 11, 2001, attacks". That's right, after being waterboarded a mere 183 times, KSM confessed! ... Well I'm convinced! ... He's going to be defending himself in court. I'd be amazed if he has any free thought left. Talk about trauma-based mind control.



And I really wish they'd stop saying it "simulates drowning". It isn't simulated drowning, it IS drowning! ... At least from your brains point of view... People think it's just having your head submerged in water and you can hold your breathe and whatever ... No ... It doesnt trick ur brain into thinking you're submersed in water, it tricks your brain into thinking you are at the point when you run out of air and you actually are drowning. Your body's reflexes kick in and your heart goes nuts exactly as it would if you actually are drowning. It's drowning without the relief of death. No living thing should have to go through that, I wouldn't even wish it on Henry Kissinger.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

What the lack of 9/11 Truth has done

YouTuber
TheParadigmShift



I watched this vid with tears falling quietly at the horror of what my eyes were seeing.
Rage flowed through me, then a deep sadness at what has been done because of 9/11 and our war on terrorism.
Rage at the abomination of what has been done in "We the Peoples" name.

Rage at the fact that Obama is not interested in another investigation into 9/11.
Rage at the death toll of Iraq and Afghanistan civilians and America's sons and daughters that continues to rise daily.
Rage at the fact that our solders are dying from radiation sickness from depleted Uranium exposure and so are the Iraq children.
Rage at the apathy, the denial and sick pathetic attempts to justify why we are there.
Sadness at how easy it was and is to manipulate the American people with propaganda,disinfo, and egregious lies, into believing that we are morally correct in this illegal (by UN treaty that America signed and our Constitution) war of aggression on two fronts.
Sadness at the knowledge that after I post this there will indeed be those who will find some way to justify and/or defend this evil perpetuated against humanity and all life on this planet by our government in our name.
Sad with the knowledge that once again our government has ignored our Constitution and once again made and broke treaties when it was convenient and profitable. Sad that there will be those that will come and see this Vid, say so? and then support those in charge that advocate and publicly support more death. Sadness at the realization that ALL of this could have been avoided if we had just known the truth of 9/11.
Sadness at the fact that the more things change the more they stay the same.

When the rage and sadness subsided and thoughts became clear once again I began to write. I felt a deep re-commitment, a strong reaffirmation, and total gratitude to all of those who have the courage to speak out and tell the truth.

I support our troops. I honor our nations veterans.. I just do not support illegal wars.
I won't forget those who died to give this country freedom.

Our Veterans who VOLENTEERED to do service and fight for their country.Those veterans that honor the Oaths they took.
Our battlefield tested Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans who saw these things,knew it was illegal and immoral, whose first hand experence, thoughts and opinions on these matters should be beyond reproach or dispute.
Our veterans who would stand and answer the call to service again.
It is a shame that the government of the country they were/are willing to defend will let them die.
I honor their courage, their heart,and their commitment to our country.

We has a nation have the right to pursue those who conspired to take down the World Trade Centers.
We do not have the right to invade a country because of a few handfuls of terrorists.
Especially since much evidence points to the fact that 9/11 was a inside job.

To all those debunkers out there.. in the words of ChangeDaChannel:
DEBUNK THIS!
In the words of President Obama:
These are not opinions to be debated, these are facts to be dealt with!

Scootle's "Twenty Minutes With The President" Contest Entry

Horray for puppet Obama, technical difficulties and barely making an effort to hide the fact that we are British! Scootle's Twenty Minutes With The President Contest entry...

PART ONE


PART DEUX


Related Info:

Charlie Sheen and Some Facts About 9/11 for President Obama to "Deal With"

Scootle's "Twenty Minutes With The President" Contest Entry

Debunking dsglop's ridiculous answers to Charlie Sheen's 20 points to Obama

Charlie Sheen Faces Down "Debunkers" on Larry King Live

The Sheen comments that matter

More About That Exploding Paint

Thinking Clearly about The 911 Forensic Evidence - when you have Eliminated the Impossible, whatever Remains Must be the Truth.

People who are unfamiliar with the scientific evidence, that proves the World Trade Centre buildings were destroyed using explosives on 911, commonly make the mistake of ASSUMING that it would be "impossible" to rig these structures for demolition.

This is not true: it would be difficult, but NOT impossible.

However, it is IMPOSSIBLE to find Molten Steel, Thermite traces, plus actual fragments of high tech explosives in the rubble pile, and to have the freefall collapses of these buildings, WITHOUT the presence of chemical incendiaries/explosives of the sort commonly used by the military and demolition companies.

The bottom line is that the forensic evidence proving the inside job is unimpeachable.

Moreover, we also know that the building security was compromised before the attacks, and that workmen had access to the core of the Twin Towers during the months leading up to the attacks- whilst an "elevator modernisation" program was undertaken. There was plenty of time to thoroughly rig the buildings.We have both the physical proof of foul play AND a clear opportunity in which to prepare the buildings for destruction.There is no mistake, 911 WAS an Inside Job. To conclude otherwise is not logical.

By Spookypunkos

[Posted at the SpookyWeather blog, November 11th, 2009.]

Saturday, November 7, 2009

The BBC Ripple Effect: Exposing the Lies and Distortions of "The Conspiracy Files-7/7"

CitizenFor911Truth1
YouTube.com
November 07, 2009

A detailed critique of the BBC's take on the 7/7 London Bombings. (8 video playlist)



Related Info:

7/7 Crash Course.

London Bombings Data Page

BBC 7/7 "Documentary": Just a hitpiece, or something more sinister?

More Brits Think Government Behind 7/7 London Bombings

Charlie Sheen Faces Down "Debunkers" on Larry King Live

In other news, Charlie Sheen's fake interview with President Obama about 9/11 has earned him a fake debate on Larry King Live. Despite the fictitious nature of these non-events they are based on an untrue story.

Charlie Sheen Faces Down "Debunkers" on Larry King Live

Photobucket
Larry King Watches The Media Mayhem Unfold

TheSpoof.com
Written by Fatima Guillermo Chen
Story written: 18 September 2009

Los Angeles-Actor Charlie Sheen stirred controversy Thursday night during an appearance on "Larry King Live". Dressed in nothing but a pair of briefs and a tin foil hat, Sheen lived up to his commitment to a panel of three "so-called" 9/11 "debunkers".

Early last September, Sheen challenged his detractors to appear with him live on the show but could find no takers. Desperate to get someone to take the bait Sheen announced during an appearance on the "Alex Jones Show" "If you're intimidated by me I can understand. But they say that you can overcome a fear of public debate by imagining your opponent in his underwear. Well, I'll tell you what. I'll make it easy for you."

The temptation proved to be too much for at least three of many dis-infotutes Charlie had been calling out over the last few weeks and when they took him up on the challenge they agreed with one additional condition: that he wear a tin foil hat. Sheen agreed and what transpired next made for some bizarre but never-the-less interesting television.

The panel consisted of three so-called experts on the 9/11 tragedy.

Not ready for prime time host of FOX's "Red Eye", "Gutless" Greg Gutfeld was among the panel.

"Gutless" (a nickname coined by fellow UC Berkley students who claim that campus police escorted him to his car from class each night for a week because he was scared of a bully) has an impressive resume of getting fired from a number of brain candy magazine's like STUFF and MAXIM (whose bulk of subscribers are incarcerated in jails and prisons because it's the closest thing to porn that they are allowed to get. seriously. I'm not kidding about this).

An expert at losing readership, Gutless now works his same magic on the viewership over at FOX NEWS.

With his trademark frat-boy name calling and spoiled rotten brat arrogance, "Gutless" never once (during his giggling tirade) criticized or addressed any of the bullet points from Sheen's letter to the president. Instead, he ripped into Sheen for being everything that magazines like STUFF and MAXIM say are cool: sex, drugs, Rock N-roll. Thus concluding that this alone debunks the theory that 911 was an inside job.

Also on the panel was Meghan McCain, the largest of Senator John McCain's daughters, who weighed in (no pun intended)with her knowledge on the subject.

An accomplished twitterer and text messager, McCain also recently criticized Sheen's past lifestyle and used that as the basis why she believes no further investigation into 9/11 should be conducted.

McCain made these remarks during an appearance on the women's program "The View" (which had to be modified to fit your screen) where she was promoting her "McCain/Palin 2010" celebrity mud wrestling tour.

Last, and certainly least, was James Meigs, editor of "Popular Mechanics" Magazine (proving that you don't have to be popular nor a mechanic to work for "Popular Mechanics"). Meigs, who has no scientific background at all, is one of the most highly regarded experts on 9/11 and actually has produced a remarkable film on the subject called "How to Make your own Music Video". James can talk fancy and memorize stuff really good and looks real smart in glasses.

The interview got off to a rocky start when Meghan McCain viciously attacked sheen saying "What makes you an expert on 9-11, Charlie? You're just an actor. And you wouldn't even be an actor if your dad wasn't famous".

Sheen quipped back with "Oh, really, Meghan. And if it wasn't for your dad, you'd be serving up plates of chicken wings and shots of Jagermeister at the Phoenix TGI Friday's."

King, playing umpire, got in the middle of the two and put the discussion back on course.

Charlie's first question to the panel was from the many bullet points contained in his "20 Minutes with the President". Charlie asked "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?"

To that question Meghan McCain quickly raised her hand and said "I'll take that one Larry". She then faced the camera and with the animation of a "Stepford Wife" stated "I personally believe the U.S. Americans are unable to do so because, uh, some, uh...people out there in our nation don't have maps, and, uh, I believe that our education like such as South Africa and, uh, the Iraq everywhere like, such as and...I believe that they should, our education over here in the U.S. should help the U.S., err, uh, should help South Africa and should help the Iraq and the Asian countries, so we will be able to build up our future for our..."

Before she could finish, the show went to break and when they returned, Charlie directed his next question to Gutfeld, asking "Mr. Gutfeld you claim that anyone who questions the official story of 911 is a whack-job! How do you take into account all the credible voices raiseing their concerns? People who actually sat on the 9-11 commission like Max Cleland and John Farmer, not to mention the dozens of senior military officials, 700 plus architects and engineers, over 200 pilots and aviation officials, hundreds of survivors and family members, even the Japanese Diet…"

Gutfeld interrupted Sheen and replied "Well, I never did like the Japanese Diet. All that raw fish and sticky white rice. I'm a meat and potatoes kind of guy. And what the hell is a soft shell crab anyway?"

At that point the camera cut back to Sheen who was holding his face in his hands and shaking his head.

The questioning continued along those lines and when Sheen finally got around to quizzing James Meigs on the free fall collapse of building 7 into it's own footprint, Miegs responded by saying "I'm sorry it's our policy not to debate the subject of 9-11".

This infuriated Sheen to the point of standing to his feet and starting towards Meigs but then stopped short when he produced a DVD of "Terminal Velocity" and asked Sheen "I'd really appreciate if I could get this autographed . Its not for me its for my wife. Its her favorite movie. She just loves you. Big fan. Always saying "why can't you have hair like that?"…bitch".

It was definitely compelling stuff and really should be seen with one's own two eyes to be fully appreciated. You might find a clip on You Tube.

In the end no questions were ever really answered though I suspect the panel will go back to their respective propaganda ministries and claim victory with countless stills of a naked tin capped Charlie looming large in the background.

Such is life in this big three ring circus we call the main-stream media.

Related Info:

Charlie Sheen and Some Facts About 9/11 for President Obama to "Deal With"

Larry Silverstein, WTC 7, and the "Pull it" comment

CitizenFor911Truth1
YouTube.com
November 01, 2009



Related Info:

Owner's Admission? - Silverstein's Apparent Admission that Building 7 was Demolished

Possible Confirmation of "Pull It" - In A Hitpiece!

I am well aware of Mr. Silverstein's statement, but to the best of my recollection, I did not speak to him on that day and I do not recall anyone telling me that they did either. That doesn't mean he could not have spoken to someone from FDNY, it just means that I am not aware of it. - FDNY Chief of Operations Daniel Nigro (fire department commander) on 9/11
WeAreCHANGE confronts Larry Silverstein

Thursday, November 5, 2009

Reply: Northwest Airlines was an Inside Job!

I saw this one coming from a 150 miles away, below the article I will again point out why this, and other such comparisons, are anything but relevant.

James B.
ScrewLooseChange.blogspot.com
November 05, 2009

David Ray Griffin, and other truthers have been insisting for years that any plane which is off course will be intercepted by the Air Force in a matter of minutes.

In the first few days, military officials said that no fighter jets were sent up by NORAD until after the strike on the Pentagon at 9:38, even though signs that Flight 11 was in trouble had been observed at 8:15. That would mean that although interceptions usually occur within 15 minutes, in this case over 80 minutes had elapsed before any fighters were even airborne. This story suggested that a “stand-down” order had been issued.
Well, unfortunately they aren't always this efficient, even 8 years later.

The Northwest Airlines plane that flew 150 miles past the Minneapolis airport was out of contact with air traffic control for longer than the hour-plus originally reported, military sources told Fox News.

But the Federal Aviation Administration denies that was the case, standing by earlier reports that the wayward jet was out of contact for about 77 minutes.

Military sources confirmed to Fox that there were three "non-contacts" — or NORDOs — when air traffic controllers tried to call Flight 188, the first when it reached its cruising altitude after taking off from San Diego.

The military wasn't notified about the out-of-touch plane until after the third non-contact incident, which occurred as the jet approached Minneapolis, the sources said.
Reply:

BIG DIFFERENCE!

Flight 77: The impact was 83 minutes after Flight 11 first went off course, and 58 minutes after the North Tower impact, and 40 minutes after the South Tower impact, yet the jet was not intercepted as it flew over the (normally) most heavily protected airspace in the United States, and in the world. - Source: http://911research.wtc7.net/planes/attack/flight77.html
The magnitude of the situation on 9/11 was infinitely more severe, the US was obviously under attack, requiring the highest of alerts, and don't forget about those coincidental war games either.

"Please Fire Away" You Say?

A month ago I received the following comment on YouTube:

faasprabbit

"to all you 9/11 debunkers, i have only one question. Why is it that no one will rise to the defense of the government's story to debate charlie sheen live on TV. rush limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Cindy mccain, all refused to engage in a live debate, Why?? Is it because they know they dont have any hope of debating someone, or are they cowards, I hope one of you debunkers can explain this one too me. If 9/11 are truthers are so stoupid, why not send the debate to the grave?"
To which another YouTuber replied
:fengineer08
To faasprabbit,

I along with many other people would gladly debate anybody who believes 9/11 was a 'controlled demolition' or that their was 'no plane at the pentagon.' Charlie Sheen doesn't scare anybody, unless you're measuring his lack of intelligence on the matter. It would just be an annoyance, kind of like trying to debate psycology with Tom Cruse, or Rosie Odonnell about structural engineering.

Please fire away!
I informed fengineer08 that I would debate them through email and post it on this blog if they could remain civil, they accepted. I failed to tell them that the issue being brought up about Sheen is not that nobody will debate him, it's that his prominent detractors won't, but I digress.

Before beginning the debate I let them know that there would be no need to debate the Pentagon issue seeing as how I agree with their statement in that regard. To this they jokingly replied, "ahh ok then, I see you are not hard core crazy, this is good." But joking aside, this again demonstrates that the Pentagon no-jetliner theory works against us. Anyway, here is the debate...

fengineer08:

The claim that bombs brought down the Twin Towers + Building 7 is something I do not believe for many reasons.

First off, the scale of actually rigging the nessicary ammount of explosives needed to bring down two of the largest buildings on earth and another 50 story building all within close proximity of each other is not possible.

I have never been part of a professional demolition team before, but I've witnessed them, and I've witnessed the kind of prep work that goes into taking down a structure (much smaller than the twin towers and building 7).

You need to access a building's core structure on almost every floor. This intails;
-Tearing walls down.
-Hammering away at concrete barriers and concrete surrounding columns.
-Pre-cutting each and every structural column with a cutting torch.

Their is no way that out of the thousands of people who set foot in each of those buildings daily, that this activity would have not been noticed.

Next, you have to rig the buildings with explosives. I am not the right person to talk to as far as the exact quanity you would need to pull off a job like this, but I do know it would be several thousand tons at the very least, and again, how would this not be noticed?

I witnessed a 6 story building (approximately 240,000 square feet) get professionally demolished with an actual controlled demolition from a half mile away. Just the noise from the demolition waves was painful. We had a decibel meter set up and we hit 120-130 db, from a half mile away.

If bombs were used at the WTC, why couldn't you hear or see them? Their were probably a hundred cameras pointed at ground zero after the planes had crashed into the towers, yet not a single one picked up the noise that would have certianly been there if bombs were set off in those buildings.

Another reason I do not believe this theory is because conspiracy theorists completely dismiss the idea that flying a commerical airliner into a building can cause structural failure. And their is also no hard evidence that bombs were used, it's pure speculation.

That in short is why I don't believe the claim.

John-Michael P. Talboo:

In regard to the first couple of points that you have raised, I am going to defer to already published resources from myself and 9/11 researcher Jim Hoffman. This will allow me to focus my retort on the most pertinent issue you raised: that there is "no hard evidence that bombs were used." Please do give these initial resources, and all of the information I make reference to, a good look.

In regard to the "the scale of actually rigging the nessicary ammount of explosives," and "how this "would not be noticed.":

Demolition Technology

Covert Demolition

"I asked demolition experts about setting off charges with radio signals. They said it was very feasible." - Robert Erickson, Source: Exchange of emails (March 2009) with Robert Erickson, producer of the National Geographic special on 9/11

How Could They Plant Bombs in the World Trade Center, and Why?

"If bombs were used at the WTC, why couldn't you hear or see them?":

Reply: Richard Gage Explains the Lack of Explosive Sounds

Un-debunking the WTC Demolition Squibs

"Conspiracy theorists completely dismiss the idea that flying a commerical airliner into a building can cause structural failure.":

Twin Towers' Designers Anticipated Jet Impacts Like September 11th's

OK, so now we can get the hard evidence, let's start with Building 7. In NIST's 2008 final report on WTC 7 they admitted that the diesel fuel on the premises "played no role in the destruction of WTC 7," that "the damage from the debris from WTC 1 had little effect on initiating the collapse," and that the building fell "almost uniformly as a single unit." These are all points that truthers have been making for years, and that "debunkers" vehemently refuted.

But most importantly they admitted that the building experienced a "freefall drop for approximately 8 stories." Previous to this admission in their final Nov '08 report, their Aug '08 draft report attempted to demonstrate that "there was no freefall."

When lead NIST investigator Dr. Shyam Sunder was fielded a question by high school physics teacher David Chandler regarding the issue at a NIST press conference subsequent to the release of the draft report, Sunder stated that "freefall time would be an object that has no structural components below it." In essence, Sunder admitted that this is impossible absent some external force, i.e., explosives. I submit to you this is why NIST failed to mention their admission of freefall in their list of changes made in the final report.

The fact that WTC 7's facade plunged at a nearly fee-fall rate is also something that we 9/11 truthers have been right about for years, perhaps we are also right about its implications.

It's either that, or as NIST says, fires "similar" to those "experienced in other tall buildings," caused "the first known instance of fire causing the total collapse of a tall building." Again, we truth seekers have often been criticised for saying that fires have never caused skyscrapers to collapse, but the NIST report vindicates us.

Other hard evidence in regard to Building 7 centers around the unexplained phenomenon documented in Appendic C of FEMA's WTC Building Performance Study, which found "intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese."

Appendix C states, "The severe corrosion and subsequent erosion of Samples 1 and 2 are a very unusual event. No clear explanation for the source of the sulfur has been identified."

NIST never even attempted to explain the melting of this steel or the source of the sulfur, however independent scientists did. What they found was that iron-rich spheres discovered in the WTC dust contained the chemical signature of the incendiary thermate, which is thermite with sulfur added to lower the steel's melting point. Critics of their findings have argued that a thermate chemical signature would contain barium nitrate, however this is only true if the form thermate-TH-3 was used. This should have been clear since the scientists were comparing the chemical signature of the spheres to a known sample of thermate which did not contain barium nitrate. All that being said, thermate TH-3 may have been in use as WTC dust samples have shown high traces of barium.

In fact the iron-rich spheres are themselves hard evidence of the use of thermate which produces such spheres as a by-product. Thermate also produces molten iron as a by-product, and lo and behold molten metal was found under WTC 7 as well as the Towers and seen flowing from the South Tower's crash zone. NIST tried to deny the existence of the molten metal underneath the buildings and explain away the flowing metal in the South Tower as molten aluminum. Here is a video I made demonstrating that these claims are beyond dubious.

Combine these evidences with audio of explosions, reports of explosions both from people inside and outside of the building, reports of plans to "take down" the building, and close examination of WTC 7 collapse warnings in the FDNY oral histories and in the press, and I think the case for explosive demolition is very strong.

But the bottom line is that NIST didn't test the steel for explosives or thermite residues. Their excuses for failing to do so included saying that thermite could not have been coupled to the beams sufficiently to inflict the intended damage, however this ignores methods such as shaped charges, sol-gels, and linear thermite cutting devices. They also stated that, "The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC towers, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard that was prevalent in the interior partitions."

But just because the chemical elements are there does not mean they would be there in the correct proportions. As mechanical engineer Gordon Ross stated, "If I leave margarine, flour, sugar and fruit in a cupboard, when I next open the cupboard I will not find a fruit crumble. Some mechanism is required to convert the ingredients. Similarly, if I take these same ingredients, set them alight and throw them out the window, I still will not get my fruit crumble."

Furthermore, physicist Steven Jones has pointed out that, "Wallboard has calcium and sulfur and they're very tightly bound with oxygen as well as calcium sulfate."

Now chemical signatures are one thing, but unignited explosive residues is quite another, and that is exactly what a team of scientists report to have found in WTC dust in April of this year. Specifically, they claim to have found a nano-engineered variant of thermite, that when heated exerted an energy/volume yield exceeding that of explosives commonly used in demolitions. There has been debate as to how energetic this material was, and exactly how it would have been used for a building demolition, but during these discussions no argument was presented that the material was anything but nano-thermite.

Their findings were published in a peer-reviewed journal and have yet to be refuted in any similar fashion. Attacks upon the journal they published in, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, published by Bentham.org, are unfounded. This is especially true considering that the NIST reports have not been independently peer-reviewed. Attacks upon the provenance of the samples are also unfounded.

So not only did the official investigators fail to do the proper forensic tests, but they also failed to independently verify the non-forensic tests that they did do.

fengineer08:

I have read some of the response, not finished yet, but I will say one thing so far.

Most of your "sources" come from pro-conspiracy web pages, they are not neutral.

Second, they say over and over again that "WTC 7 fell near free fall speed."
Not once do any of the articles discuss the collapse of the building's east penthouse which occured about 8 secounds before the full structure collapsed. The entire penthouse collapsed into the shell of the building, clearly indicating a progressive structural collapse. Why wasn't this addressed?

And about Richard Gage's explination as to why these "tremendous sounds" of explosives were not captured on a single video camera was because "they" edited the sounds out. I mean, really?? Come on man, you know that is bogus.

And last, they seem to contradict themselves an awful lot, especially regarding the Twin Towers.

They say that the only reason they produced so much dust during the collapse can only be from explosives. That's right, "can only be" from explosives.

When are these people actually going to take into account the massive level of energy that the upper floors generated when they slammed into the lower floors? They also didn't claim that the Twin Towers fell at free fall speed, atleast they realized they were wrong about something.

But in all seriousness, so far they do not rule out any other explanations (which are all very logical by the way) for what they bring up. They just push their ideas, and I'm sorry but that is not how you "investigate" anything.

I'm far from done reading it though, it is lengthy, I'll let you know when I get a chance to finish it.

John-Michael P. Talboo
:

I emailed "fengineer08" back twice after this partial response, once asking if I should wait until they gathered all of their thoughts before responding, and once asking if a further response was still coming. I have yet to hear back from them. So, until then, if there is a then, here is my response.

Regarding most of my sources being "pro-conspiracy," I agree. We are after all having a debate concerning whether there is evidence that points towards a government conspiracy or not. That being said, throughout my post I present the counter arguments to the information I am presenting, there are many links to the official reports and "debunking" sources so that the reader has everything they need at hand to compare and contrast. Furthermore, physics isn't biased, and our side of the debate has followed the scientifically accepted form of debate: peer-reviewed science. So when you state that we haven't ruled out any other explanations, I am astounded.

Regarding the objections to the freefall of WTC 7 argument, I suggest this blog:

http://www.infowars.com/clarifying-the-collapse-time-of-wtc-7/

And I suggest taking a look at this video which features a non-disputed progressive collapse, which is not only partial and non- symmetrical, but also takes 10 seconds for 13 stories to collapse.

If you look at the blog I posted regarding Richard Gage and the lack of explosive sounds, in it's totality, you will see that I wasn't agreeing with him.

I believe the vast volumes of dust produced on 9/11 are a good piece of supporting evidence, and suggest this page:

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/collapses/dust.html

I meant to mention the supporting evidence in regard to the Twin Towers, as I did with Building 7, but since you claimed there was no hard evidence I wanted to focus on what I believe is the rock solid material. One of the points raised in the link above is that the Twin Towers also fell at near the rate of free fall, the difference in regard to WTC 7 is that NIST admitted it as well as admitting that it was impossible!

As far as the upper floors slamming into the lower floors as an explanation for the destruction of the Twin Towers, I suggest these resources:

http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/08/fires-explosions-demolitions-collapses.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/nist/piledriver.html

Here is another debate where a master debator ran away.

Face off with the Debunkers, Part 2 - Ryan Owens


:)

I keed, I keed
.

Monday, November 2, 2009

Our government argues over money while 9/11 heroes die

9/11 heroes are still dying.
Congress has before it the James Zadroga 9/11 Health and Compensation Act.
This Bill was named after the first 9/11 rescuer to die from the "safe air" at Ground Zero. Our government continues to refuses to acknowledge they are responsible in any way for 9/11.
This includes their reluctance to act once again to assist those who are still giving their lives for their service to our country.
The James Zadroga Bill is controversial among members of the House. There are many lawsuits against the US government by rescue workers who believed the EPA's lie and were never told about the toxic air or given respirators. The Congress is trying to decide which action is least expensive. Pay out by court settlements or pay out by this bill.
Those that oppose the bill are worried about setting precedent in regards to damages for terrorist attacks. They cite the fact that Oklahoma bombing victims did not get damage payments.
Excuse me Congress but there is a huge difference between those cited instances and 9/11.

Lets take a look at a few basic facts shall we?
Four airplanes flew off course with out intercept and two crashed into the World Trade Centers. One plane flew into the Pentagon and one crashed in pieces in a field; so saith the official conspiracy story. All of those in charge of America that day failed to act in a timely manner to prevent it. I do not care that war games were going on that day or what your concept of reality was that day. I care that those in charge failed to act in a reasonable manner or follow their own protocol regarding planes off course. This failure to act in a reasonable manner by our President,our military, our Vice President,and the FAA after being informed that four airplanes were off course and one had crashed into the WTC already is proof positive of incompetence, negligence or foreknowledge. People have sued and won cases of negligence for far less cause with far less evidence. So in this writer's opinion they should pass the James Zadroga Bill if for no other reason than those in government are responsible for 9/11 in one way or another. Either by negligence or direct involvement those in charge that day allowed 9/11 to happen. Congress; pass the James Zadroga Bill! Our 9/11 rescue workers deserve it. Stop waiting for them to die off so you will not have to deal with them. It is simply the right thing to do and is the very least of what you should do.

related link
Three 9/11 heros dead from cancer in five days

The 2nd Responders