Whistleblowers Call for a New 9/11 Investigation

61 posts / 0 new

Fri, 2010-12-10 22:22

Fidel

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22360][size=14]Pen... Papers Whistleblowers Call for a New 9/11 Investigation[/size][/url]

Quote:
The main players in releasing the Pentagon Papers were Daniel Ellsberg and Senator Mike Gravel.

Ellsberg is, of course, the former military analyst and famed whistleblower who smuggled the Pentagon Papers out of the Rand Corporation.

Senator Gravel is the person who read the Pentagon Papers into the Congressional Record. This act made the papers public record, so that they could not be censored by the government.

Ellsberg and Gravel are receiving a lot of media attention right now for their support of Wikileaks.

But little attention has been paid to Ellsberg and Gravel's support for a new 9/11 investigation.

[url=http://washingtonsblog.com/][color=blue]EXPLOSIVE![/color][/url] Former Chairman of US Joint Chiefs of Staff speaks openly of false flag planning for war under Bush and Clinton

Fri, 2010-12-10 23:06

jrootham

Of course, everything they say is predicated on the towers getting knocked down by aircraft hijacked by Al Qaeda members.

Fri, 2010-12-10 23:15

siamdave

jrootham wrote:

Of course, everything they say is predicated on the towers getting knocked down by aircraft hijacked by Al Qaeda members.

- which by now everyone with a normally functioning brain understands to be of the same order of probablility as dinosaurs walking the earth with Adam and Eve 5,787 years ago .... you're on the wrong side of history here jr, time to admit you picked a loser and join the demand of intelligent people for a *real* investigation into what actually happened that day .....

Fri, 2010-12-10 23:35

jrootham

So Daniel Ellsberg doesn't have a normally functioning brain

I am quite comfortable with my position with respect to history. You and Fidel, on the other hand, are trapped in a view of physics that says zippers are impossible.

NIST did have an explanation for WTC-7, ultimately they said it was a design error (failure to cope with large objects (nose wheel) falling through the roof and subsequent fires).

Fri, 2010-12-10 23:35

Fidel

jrootham wrote:

Of course, everything they say is predicated on the towers getting knocked down by aircraft hijacked by Al Qaeda members.

There is a lot more to it than just the NIST's unscientific and lack of detailed explanation for collapse initiation of WTC-7. US law says they must do their jobs.

Al-Qa'eda isn't real. The FBI still has photos of 19 alleged hijackers on its web site, and at least six or seven of them are alive and well. Then by 2006 they abandoned Ted Olson's testimony about two airphone calls he allegedly received from his wife originating from AA Flight 77. How anyone can take the FBI and 9/11 Commission report seriously is something else.

Fri, 2010-12-10 23:43

autoworker autoworker's picture

siamdave wrote:

jrootham wrote:

Of course, everything they say is predicated on the towers getting knocked down by aircraft hijacked by Al Qaeda members.

- which by now everyone with a normally functioning brain understands to be of the same order of probablility as dinosaurs walking the earth with Adam and Eve 5,787 years ago .... you're on the wrong side of history here jr, time to admit you picked a loser and join the demand of intelligent people for a *real* investigation into what actually happened that day .....

Adam and Eve didn't walk with dinosaurs?!...did you get that from Wikileaks?

Fri, 2010-12-10 23:50

siamdave

jrootham wrote:

So Daniel Ellsberg doesn't have a normally functioning brain

I am quite comfortable with my position with respect to history. You and Fidel, on the other hand, are trapped in a view of physics that says zippers are impossible.

NIST did have an explanation for WTC-7, ultimately they said it was a design error (failure to cope with large objects (nose wheel) falling through the roof and subsequent fires).

That's part of your problem, an inability to distinguish between what others say and what you pretend they said, or believe, in order to justfy your tinhat conspiracy theory impossibiilties. (note point #4 in 25 Rules of Disinformation - Straw Dogs http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050116064744556 ) I've never said zippers are impossible - I've simply pointed out that the failure of the WTC towers had nothing to do with zippers or pancaking or or the top twenty floors of buildings having the weight and force to demolish the bottom 80 floors of said buildings as if they had no residual strength whatsoever, or any of the other desperately crazy ideas put forth to pretend obvious controlled demolitions were something else. You're going to find yourself pretty red-faced when you're actually required to defend these impossible ideas someday. You really believed that gramps? chuckle chuckle. Too much mainstream media, huh? heh heh.

Fri, 2010-12-10 23:59

Fidel

That may satisfy the curiosities of people who have nothing to do with architecture and engineering safety issues and are without professional duty of care owed to the general public. But for 900 independent engineers it's not adequate. They could sell the official baloney on 9/11 to Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin perhaps. It works for people like them but not for hundreds of people trained in architectural, scientific and engineering methods.

1. There wasn't enough total potential energy in WTC1 to cause "global collapse"

2. One fifth of a steel frame building simply does not annihilate the other 80% of itself by gravity alone according to Newtonian laws of physics.

3. Fires don't melt steel, and fire has never weakened steel frame buildings enough to collapse them.

4. The evidence for military grade nanothermite found in dust samples taken from all around lower Manhattan. Neither FEMA nor NIST even looked for evidence of incendiary materials. Iron spheres and aluminum particles found in the samples indicate there must have been very many tons of the stuff.

Sat, 2010-12-11 00:26

siamdave

autoworker wrote:

siamdave wrote:

jrootham wrote:

Of course, everything they say is predicated on the towers getting knocked down by aircraft hijacked by Al Qaeda members.

- which by now everyone with a normally functioning brain understands to be of the same order of probablility as dinosaurs walking the earth with Adam and Eve 5,787 years ago .... you're on the wrong side of history here jr, time to admit you picked a loser and join the demand of intelligent people for a *real* investigation into what actually happened that day .....

Adam and Eve didn't walk with dinosaurs?!...did you get that from Wikileaks?

Ah, another desperate defender of the untenable speaks, through tactics thoroughly discredited by the 25 Rules of Disinformation http://www.911truth.org/article.php?story=20050116064744556 - when you realise you have picked the wrong dog in a big issue, desperately defend your untenable position through any means possible to avoid admitting you know you're starting to sound a bit hysterical with your Defender of the Truth ASK NO QUESTIONS position. By by god you will NOT admit you are wrong!

Repeat after me, for posterity:

I do, I do I DO!! believe that these small fires

- are about to bring these massive buildings down. You bet. (actually, of course, these 500,000 ton buildings were hit by 100 ton planes, and the massive damage to the structure, combined with these super hot fires, weakened the steel through all 100 floors to the point of total, global collapse. Only stupid conspiracy theorists would ever believe anything else. I believe! I do!!

Come children, don't laugh! We really DID believe it!!

(and yes, we know G Bush and his buds lied about everything important during their criminal adminstration, but they DID tell the truth about this! We believed it, we really did!!)

Sat, 2010-12-11 00:28

#10

Cueball

There will be no "real" investigation of the 9/11 event.

Sat, 2010-12-11 00:33

#11

jrootham

You know, there's this thing called logical inference. The mechanics of the WTC collapse is is exactly the same as zipper operation. If it is physically impossible for the WTC collapse to happen, it's physically impossible for zippers to work.

Sat, 2010-12-11 00:53

#12

siamdave

siamdave wrote:

jrootham wrote:

You know, there's this thing called logical inference. The mechanics of the WTC collapse is is exactly the same as zipper operation. If it is physically impossible for the WTC collapse to happen, it's physically impossible for zippers to work.

geez where do you buy your clothes? My zippers are not welded and bolted together from top to bottom in a steel-reinforced concrete matrix!!!!!

Sat, 2010-12-11 00:55

#13

siamdave

(double-posted somehow.. some kind of unfathomable conspiracy theory of some Defender of the Faith no doubt ..)

Sat, 2010-12-11 01:19

#14

Pope Teddywang Pope Teddywang's picture

Yeah, Rooty, that is sounding pretty desperate.

Sat, 2010-12-11 01:50

#15

autoworker autoworker's picture

Hey, I'm all for re-opening the 9/11 investigation...if only to get to the heart of the monumental intelligence failure that surrounded it...perhaps they should also examine how, purportedly, hundreds of thousands of sensitive (but, not to my knowledge, classified) documents found their way to Wikileaks...perhaps they should just let Wikileaks relaease them, so at least they can find them. This may be more about incompetence than conspiricy...and the true embarassment that authorities hope to conceal.

Sat, 2010-12-11 01:54

#16

jrootham

Desparate? In what way?

In trying to find an explanation simple enough for people to understand?

My understanding of the claims made in these threads is that it is impossible for a building to fall down by breaking one floor at a time. If it is impossible for a building to fail that way, then it is impossible for a zipper to come apart by separating one link at a time. The actions are identical, only vastly different in scale.

This whole thread started with a citation of people who assert that the collapse was caused by the aircraft, and are calling for an investigation into why the aircraft were not prevented from doing that.

The other quote is also evidence against the false flag theory. It describes the existence and proposals for false flag operations. One of the notable things about those operations is the minimization of damage caused by the operation. Besides, I am not arguing vociferously against false flag, just that if it is false flag, it consists of flying the aircraft into the towers and the Pentagon, not blowing up the towers with magically installed magic explosives.

Sat, 2010-12-11 03:20

#17

siamdave

autoworker wrote:

Hey, I'm all for re-opening the 9/11 investigation...if only to get to the heart of the monumental intelligence failure that surrounded it...perhaps they should also examine how, purportedly, hundreds of thousands of sensitive (but, not to my knowledge, classified) documents found their way to Wikileaks...perhaps they should just let Wikileaks relaease them, so at least they can find them. This may be more about incompetence than conspiricy...and the true embarassment that authorities hope to conceal.

The neocons have taken over the world over the last 30 years. They're currently engaged in the most massive transfer of wealth from the lower classes into their own bank accounts - all of it fraudulent. Few people understand what they are doing, opposition is entirely minimal, and totally impotent.

You have an odd idea of 'incompetence'.

Sat, 2010-12-11 03:47

#18

siamdave

jrootham wrote:

.....

This whole thread started with a citation of people who assert that the collapse was caused by the aircraft, and are calling for an investigation into why the aircraft were not prevented from doing that.

.....

You seem to be getting into some Red Queen "I create reality!!' frame of mind - Neither of the opening refs have *anything* to do with your statement "..This whole thread started with a citation of people who assert that the collapse was caused by the aircraft, and are calling for an investigation into why the aircraft were not prevented from doing that..."

The opening refs have nothing to do with this at all - the OP article refers directly to the Global Research piece here http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22360 , which is based on a Washington's blog post (specifically here - http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2010/12/both-of-main-players-in-pentagon-... ) - and everything therein is along these lines:

"..Ellsberg says that the case of a certain 9/11 whistleblower is "far more explosive than the Pentagon Papers". ... He also said that the government is ordering the media to cover up her allegations about 9/11.

And he said that some of the claims concerning government involvement in 9/11 are credible, that "very serious questions have been raised about what they [U.S. government officials] knew beforehand and how much involvement there might have been", that engineering 9/11 would not be humanly or psychologically beyond the scope of those in office, and that there's enough evidence to justify a new, "hard-hitting" investigation into 9/11 with subpoenas and testimony taken under oath ....

Senator Gravel has long supported a new 9/11 investigation. Gravel told the Daily Caller this week: Individuals in and out of government may certainly have participated with the obviously known perpetrators of this dastardly act. Suspicions abound over the analysis presented by government. Obviously an act that has triggered three wars, Afghan, Iraqi and the continuing War on Terror, should be extensively investigated which was not done and which the government avoids addressing..."

- and etc. Not a single word about planes flying into buildings as a 'false flag' attack, etc.

It's clear enough why a gang of criminals facing exposure of their complicity in one of the greatest crimes in history should be anxious to keep such things from being investigated - it is somewhat less clear why 'average citizens' such as yourself and a handful of others on places like babble should be so anxious to stop people from asking questions about what happened that day, or spread blatantly nonsensical 'explanations' of what happened that day in an apparent attempt again to forestall such questions.

Sat, 2010-12-11 04:35

#19

autoworker autoworker's picture

siamdave wrote:

autoworker wrote:

Hey, I'm all for re-opening the 9/11 investigation...if only to get to the heart of the monumental intelligence failure that surrounded it...perhaps they should also examine how, purportedly, hundreds of thousands of sensitive (but, not to my knowledge, classified) documents found their way to Wikileaks...perhaps they should just let Wikileaks relaease them, so at least they can find them. This may be more about incompetence than conspiricy...and the true embarassment that authorities hope to conceal.

The neocons have taken over the world over the last 30 years. They're currently engaged in the most massive transfer of wealth from the lower classes into their own bank accounts - all of it fraudulent. Few people understand what they are doing, opposition is entirely minimal, and totally impotent.

You have an odd idea of 'incompetence'.

You seem to have a syllogistic obsession that conflates fact with fiction to forge a separate reality. If what you're saying were true, do you really believe that the plutocratic neocons (bondholders, if you will) would attack and destroy the very symbols of their own magnificence-- as brash and garish as they were?

BTW; Since we're trading in semiotics and conspiricy: Do you see a connection between the destruction of the WTC and the two Great Buddhas at Bamiyan, by the Taliban, six months earlier? (no need to reply-- it's rhetorical)

Sat, 2010-12-11 07:13

#20

siamdave

autoworker]</p> <p>[quote=siamdave]</p> <p>[quote=autoworker wrote:

Hey, I'm all for re-opening the 9/11 investigation...if only to get to the heart of the monumental intelligence failure that surrounded it...perhaps they should also examine how, purportedly, hundreds of thousands of sensitive (but, not to my knowledge, classified) documents found their way to Wikileaks...perhaps they should just let Wikileaks relaease them, so at least they can find them. This may be more about incompetence than conspiricy...and the true embarassment that authorities hope to conceal.

You have an odd idea of 'incompetence'.

Quote:

You seem to have a syllogistic obsession that conflates fact with fiction to forge a separate reality.

If what you're saying were true, do you really believe that the plutocratic neocons (bondholders, if you will) would attack and destroy the very symbols of their own magnificence-- as brash and garish as they were?

BTW; Since we're trading in semiotics and conspiricy: Do you see a connection between the destruction of the WTC and the two Great Buddhas at Bamiyan, by the Taliban, six months earlier? (no need to reply-- it's rhetorical)

A much more relevant connection is the fact that the neocons are taking over the world whilst the majority of Cdns remain naively clueless whilst their country is stolen right in front of them. Look in a mirror and think about it.

As for 'bondholders' destroying 'the symbol of their own magnificence' - you don't seem very aware of the way the world works. People with serious money don't form attachments to symbols of any kind - when something is no longer profitable, it is sacrificed with no tears in the name of maxing the bottom line. Buildings are no different - and the WTC was getting to the point where it needed major work and was thus much more of a liability than an asset (some interesting pbservations here - http://www.onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_611.shtml ). But any good gamester - and the capitalists are the best - will do their best to turn a liability into an asset, and they managed to kill several birds with one stone by the false-flag attack on the WTC. But that kind of realpolitik is evidently beyond your pay grade. Which is why they have been winning, and will continue to win.

Sat, 2010-12-11 10:42

#21

Fidel

jrootham wrote:
My understanding of the claims made in these threads is that it is impossible for a building to fall down by breaking one floor at a time. If it is impossible for a building to fail that way, then it is impossible for a zipper to come apart by separating one link at a time. The actions are identical, only vastly different in scale.

If an object falls from a height, it has potential energy due to gravity. If during the fall none of the energy is used for other things along the way, all of the energy is converted into kinetic energy or the energy of motion. It's referred to as free fall motion. If any of the energy is dissipated and absorbed in various possible ways, kinetic energy available to the building for destroying itself on the way down is reduced. In that case the fall should be slower according to Newton. Something to keep in mind.

Sat, 2010-12-11 11:20

#22

jrootham

Siamdave, you should try reading for comprehension. The errors discussed in the citations referenced all had to do with detecting the plot to crash the planes and stopping it.

Fidel, we have been around this mulberry bush before. The towers collapsed at slightly slower than free fall speed. Lots of energy available to break each floor as the upper part of the tower arrived at it.

Sat, 2010-12-11 11:54

#23

jrootham

Show me the quotes. I do not believe you are telling the truth.

Sat, 2010-12-11 11:56

#24

Fidel

jrootham wrote:
Fidel, we have been around this mulberry bush before. The towers collapsed at slightly slower than free fall speed. Lots of energy available to break each floor as the upper part of the tower arrived at it.

No one is saying the towers did not collapse. They did. The point of contention is what caused them to collapse? Certainly not the plane collisions - the buildings held up for more than an hour after impacts as they were designed to do.

And scientists like Manuel Garcia have tried unsuccessfully to account for as much downward velocity of the falling upper blocks as possible in order to create theoretical momentum for demolition that just wasn't there.

The NIST has since backpedaled somewhat and admitted that building 7 fell at free fall speed for 2.25 seconds over 8 stories during phase two of collapse. 1400+ independent engineers and architects with a combined 25,000 years of on the job experience say 2.5 seconds of free fall over 8 stories.

But even the NIST has said that their explanation for collapse initiation of building 7 is not very likely to have occurred. Small chance. 1400+ architects and engineers are demanding a more likely explanation than fire-induced collapse. The law requires it.

WTC-7 is the smoking gun proof that al-Qa'eda alone was not responsible. Afterall as so many non-truthers like to posit, how could al-CIA'da agents of doom demolish a building without using planes? How could they plant incendiaries in a high security building without someone noticing?

Sat, 2010-12-11 12:24

#25

Fidel

Yes all truthers are pathological liars not to be trusted.

[url=http://wtc.nist.gov/NCSTAR1/PDF/NCSTAR%201-9%20Vol%202.pdf]NCSTAR vol 2. p.606[/url] "Global Collapse" of WTC-7

2.25 seconds of free fall mentioned all over the place

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FuyZJl9YleY&feature=player_embedded#!]NIST collapse model for WTC-7 versus reality[/url] YouTube video

Notice how the NIST's model for collapse and what we see in actual video replays of the collapse are entirely different

Why won't the NIST release its modeling data for independent engineers to check and verify?

Why have independent engineers been excluded from this particular investigation of engineering failures unlike NASA's shuttle disaster investigations and other similar tragedies? These were the worst building collapses in history. Why the secrecy?

Sat, 2010-12-11 14:33

#26

prisonernumberone prisonernumberone's picture

Hi Fidel (keep up the good work) Perhaps the term collapse is less appropriate for the twin towers than for building 7 ? Anywhoo any terms being employed of course rely on the interlocutors having examined the same things. To me the twin towers are being turned to dust from the top down which (for myself) does not call up the description of collapse. Building 7 seems to have it's "legs cut from under it" and "collapses" as a single block (as a shorthand description of a small portion of available information of building 7's destruction).

Anywhoo here is Bob McIlvain who might be broadly described as a whistleblower.

Visibility 9-11

(just thought the link had a short life in the other thread)

Bob

Sat, 2010-12-11 15:09

#27

Fidel

Oh non-truthers have all the answers to those questions. None of the FBI or Bush's people did, but non-truthers do. There most certainly was a deliberate standdown of the trillion dollar air force on 9/11. And the CIA's friends in the ISI probably did finance at least some of the intelligence operation on 9/11. Non truthers and the cosmetic gov in Warshington are similarly uninterested in the nitty-gritty details of 9/11 terror though. Hi-ho, hi-ho. it's off to war they go without demanding any real answers to the hard questions.

Sat, 2010-12-11 15:54

#28

jrootham

You are adding slander to lies.

Lie: Stand down (screwup yes)

ISI: plausible

Asserting that the planes knocked down the buildings implies support for the war: slander.

Sat, 2010-12-11 17:57

#29

Fidel

jrootham wrote:
You are adding slander to lies.

I resent being called a liar and especially by someone who is so undiscerning of the facts. You can't prove the official lies and are now resorting to personal attack. It's a sign you've given up trying to understand the Bush Government's pseudo science they tried to slough off onto a relatively peaceful world at the time.

[url=http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/03/norad-stand-down-in-2-minut... Standdown in 2 minutes[/url]

jrootham wrote:
Asserting that the planes knocked down the buildings implies support for the war: slander.

There is no scientific evidence to support the political right with this claim. And it is just a claim not scientifically proven fact.

And I notice you are off of discussing building 7 in order to push the tower debate again. We've been over the tower collapses in quite a few threads already, and neither side has done much convincing of the other. There was a third building that collapsed even more mysteriously on 9/11.

Jack Keller wrote:
“Obviously it was the result of controlled demolition.” -- Jack Keller, emeritus professor of engineering Utah State University and cited by Scientific American as one of the world’s leaders in using science and technology to benefit society.

Danny Jowenko, Demolition Expert, Netherlands wrote:
“They simply blew up columns, and the rest caved in afterwards. . . . This is controlled demolition.” When asked if he was certain, he replied: “Absolutely, it’s been imploded. This was a hired job. A team of experts did this.”

Sat, 2010-12-11 18:58

#30

Fidel

[url=http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=22364][color=blue]The March to War: Was September 11 2001 the Start of[/color] World War III?[/url]

Robert Baer, former CIA officer wrote:
"We've got WW III to fight" - Glen Beck Show, 2006

Kagan and Kristol, 2001 wrote:
"[url=http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/000/384thh... this war will not end in Afghanistan.[/url] It is going to spread and engulf a number of countries in conflicts of varying intensity. It could well require the use of American military power in multiple places simultaneously. It is going to resemble the clash of civilizations that everyone has hoped to avoid. And it is going to put enormous and perhaps unbearable strain on parts of an international coalition that today basks in contented consensus."

World War. That's what 9/11 was about. Despite being attacked and occupied by foreign armies throughout history, Afghans have never retaliated against the invading enemies home countries by acts of terrorism. Not before or on 9/11/01 and probably not ever. This is a phony war on terror in Central Asia, Africa and the Middle East. There is no such thing as "al-Qa'eda"

[color=red]al-Qaeda = al-CIA'da[/color]

Mahdi Akef of the Muslim Brotherhood, in 2007 wrote:
"There is no such thing as Al-Qaeda. This is an American invention..."

Sun, 2010-12-12 00:28

#31

Fidel

[url=http://articles.cnn.com/2001-09-21/us/gen.president.speech_1_negotiation... vows bin Laden's capture[/url] September 2001

[url=http://canadawantsthetruth911.blogspot.com/2010/05/is-afghanistan-war-ju... The Afghanistan War Justified by 9/11?[/color][/url]

David Ray Griffin wrote:
"Whereas it is widely recognized that the US-led war in Afghanistan is illegal under international law, because it was never authorized by the UN Security Council, most Americans have believed that it was morally justified as a response to the 9/11 attacks, and many believe it is still justified as a necessary means to prevent another attack originating from that region. My lecture will present evidence showing that both of these beliefs are untrue, so that the 9/11 Truth Movement and more traditional Peace and Anti-War groups should be able to combine forces to oppose this illegal and immoral war."

[url=http://uslaboragainstwar.org/article.php?id=16622][color=purple]Afghanis... The Other Illegal War[/color][/url] Law Professor Marjorie Cohn 2008

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/sep/21/afghanistan.september1111][c... rejects Bin Laden deal[/color][/url] US rejects Bin Laden deal for the first time September 2001

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/14/afghanistan.terrorism5]Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over[/url] October 2001

The Guardian wrote:
Taliban 'ready to discuss' Bin Laden handover if bombing halts
The Taliban would be ready to discuss handing over Osama bin Laden to a neutral country if the US halted the bombing of Afghanistan, a senior Taliban official said today.

Afghanistan's deputy prime minister, Haji Abdul Kabir, told reporters that the Taliban would require evidence that Bin Laden was behind the September 11 terrorist attacks in the US.

"If the Taliban is given evidence that Osama bin Laden is involved" and the bombing campaign stopped, "we would be ready to hand him over to a third country", Mr Kabir added.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2001/oct/17/afghanistan.terrorism11]New offer on Bin Laden[/url] Minister makes secret trip to offer trial in third country (3rd time offer refused)

[url=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article13664.htm][color=#990000... bin Laden Nay Wanted by FBI for 9 11[/color][/url] Osama who?

[url=http://www.judicialwatch.org/story/2004/jun/fbi-protects-osama-bin-laden... Flight-207[/color][/url] Judicial Watch operation airlift [THE REDACTED] family from USA

[url=http://www.rankmagic.com/blog/2006/09/12/bush-vows-to-google-bin-laden/]...Bush Vows to Google Bin Laden[/color][/url]

http://www.alqaedadoesntexist.com/

[url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mztfFdpd1Rk][color=blue]al-Qaeda is fiction[/color][/url] BBC

Sun, 2010-12-12 17:17

#32

Fidel

[url=http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/editorials/the_un_insult_9rjkaIjzDs... UN's 9/11 insult[/url] Next year, as New Yorkers observe the 10th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks, the United Nations is planning a celebration.

It's nothing less than crass counter opportunism by the UN. Don't they know that US and Canadian Hawks will be celebrating the 10th anniversary of a false flag extravaganza on 9/11/01 that has reaped windfall profits for an economy largely based on war and national security paranoia?

Tue, 2010-12-14 11:02

#33

Fidel

This WikiLeak might interest some 9/11 sleuths and interested babblers:

[url=http://antifascist-calling.blogspot.com/]U.S. Threatens "War on Terror" Allies Over CIA Kidnapping and Torture Programs[/url] Tom Burghardt for Antifascist Calling...

Quote:
A CIA Kidnapping Gone Awry

Amongst the treasure-trove of files released last week, we learned that the U.S. Embassy in Berlin was angered over the issuance of arrest warrants for 13 CIA officers for the kidnapping and torture of Lebanese-born German citizen Khaled el-Masri; one of the more infamous cases to have emerged from Washington's secret vaults.

In 2007, after a public outcry in Germany over media revelations, senior Bavarian state public prosecutor Christian Schmidt-Sommerfeld issued warrants for CIA officers on suspicion of kidnapping el-Masri.

Prosecutors charged that that the Agency had wrongfully imprisoned the German citizen and caused him grievous bodily harm during his illegal detention. ...

Tue, 2010-12-14 16:15

#34

Policywonk

Fidel wrote:

jrootham wrote:
My understanding of the claims made in these threads is that it is impossible for a building to fall down by breaking one floor at a time. If it is impossible for a building to fail that way, then it is impossible for a zipper to come apart by separating one link at a time. The actions are identical, only vastly different in scale.

If an object falls from a height, it has potential energy due to gravity. If during the fall none of the energy is used for other things along the way, all of the energy is converted into kinetic energy or the energy of motion. It's referred to as free fall motion. If any of the energy is dissipated and absorbed in various possible ways, kinetic energy available to the building for destroying itself on the way down is reduced. In that case the fall should be slower according to Newton. Something to keep in mind.

Potential energy is the energy stored in an object due to its position or configuration in a force field. An object resting at a height has gravitational potential energy. As the object falls the potential energy is gradually converted to kinetic energy and other forms of energy, including sound and heat. Once terminal velocity is reached, the remaining gravitational potential energy is converted to the other forms of energy as the fall continues. Sideways motion (spreading of debris) would also involve kinetic energy. Technically, free fall is in the absence of aerodynamic or other forces in addition to gravity.

The conspiracy theory claims can be tested as well. Which does not mean that all of the claims are wrong or that the "official" version is correct, but if the official version can be shown to be inconsistent or unlikely, so can some of the wilder conspiracy claims. My personal view is that probably all that was required was to ignore the intelligence that did get through the system, but there are unsettling questions that haven't been answered by the official version.

http://www.debunking911.com/firsttime.htm

Tue, 2010-12-14 20:47

#35

Fidel

debunking911.com wrote:
Below are calculations from a physics blogger...

When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,

Not so fast, Sparky. 9.23s might be possible in a vacuum but not in the real world where energy sinks and air resistance are in play. The site is full of bad physics and bogus information. I don't like the information on bin Laden where it describes the box cutter wielding terrierists either. Because since the FBI abandoned Ted Olson's testimony concerning his claim his wife phoned him twice by airphone from AA flight 77, the box cutter wielding Arabs terrorizing American citizens in mid air propaganda was left wanting, too.

<a href="http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf wrote:
">http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf] "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. [u]Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."[/u]

What FEMA states above is that they don't know what caused WTC-7 to collapse, and that their own theory for fire-induced collapse isn't very likely to have occurred. They did not consider investigating for incendiaries or explosives. And since then most of the steel from the rubble was carted away for offshore "processing" and scrapping. IOWs when they got rid of the evidence not long after, federal crime scene laws were violated. Why?

[url=http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/constructionact.cfm]NIST's Responsibilities Under the National Construction Safety Team Act[/url]

Quote:
What responsibility does the NCST give to NIST?

The act gives the teams a clear mandate to:
- [color=red][u]establish the likely technical cause of building failures;[/u][/color]

And they have not done that. The law is on the side of 1300+ independent professional architects and engineers for 9/11 truth.

Wed, 2010-12-15 01:23

#36

Policywonk

Fidel wrote:

debunking911.com wrote:
Below are calculations from a physics blogger...

When I did the calculations, what I got for a thousand feet was about nine seconds- let's see,
d = 1/2at^2
so
t = (2d/a)^1/2
a is 9.8m/s^2 (acceleration of gravity at Earth's surface, according to Wikipedia), [He gives this reference so you can double check him.]
d is 417m (height of the World Trade Center towers, same source)
so
t = (834m/9.8m/s^2)^1/2 = 9.23s
OK, so how fast was it going? Easy enough,

Not so fast, Sparky. 9.23s might be possible in a vacuum but not in the real world where energy sinks and air resistance are in play. The site is full of bad physics and bogus information. I don't like the information on bin Laden where it describes the box cutter wielding terrierists either. Because since the FBI abandoned Ted Olson's testimony concerning his claim his wife phoned him twice by airphone from AA flight 77, the box cutter wielding Arabs terrorizing American citizens in mid air propaganda was left wanting, too.

<a href="http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf wrote:
">http://www.fema.gov/pdf/library/fema403_ch5.pdf] "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapse remain unknown at this time. Although the total diesel fuel on the premises contained massive potential energy, the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. [u]Further research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."[/u]

What FEMA states above is that they don't know what caused WTC-7 to collapse, and that their own theory for fire-induced collapse isn't very likely to have occurred. They did not consider investigating for incendiaries or explosives. And since then most of the steel from the rubble was carted away for offshore "processing" and scrapping. IOWs when they got rid of the evidence not long after, federal crime scene laws were violated. Why?

[url=http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/constructionact.cfm]NIST's Responsibilities Under the National Construction Safety Team Act[/url]

Quote:
What responsibility does the NCST give to NIST?

The act gives the teams a clear mandate to:
- [color=red][u]establish the likely technical cause of building failures;[/u][/color]

And they have not done that. The law is on the side of 1300+ independent professional architects and engineers for 9/11 truth.

So calculate the terminal velocity. All I said was that at least some claims can be tested and refuted, and that parts of the official explanation are wanting but so are some of the conspiracy theories.

Wed, 2010-12-15 02:43

#37

siamdave

Policywonk wrote:

......

So calculate the terminal velocity. All I said was that at least some claims can be tested and refuted, and that parts of the official explanation are wanting but so are some of the conspiracy theories.

- you should watch your terminology a bit closer - it's well enough understood that whoever controls the language controls the thought and the debate etc - and you have fallen into this trap. I, for example, am not a 'conspiracy theorist' - I am a person who thinks the whole 911 offocial explanation is just a pack of lies - given this belief, certain alternative explanations suggest themselves, but all I have ever done is say I want a new investigation that comes up with some at least plausible explanations for the various things that happened that day, and who was responsible. The official story itself is kind of the granddaddy of all conspiracy theories, really - a gang of radical muslim, Arabian insurgents, based in some caves in Afghanistan, hatch a plan to hijack a number of passenger jets and fly them into important buildings in the heartland of the Great Satan - they plan to use box cutters to control a jet full of Americans, many of whom see themselves as Big Tall Strong Cowboys but for some reason allow themselves to be herded en masse by 3-4 guys with small knives and etc - and then they somehow manage to get the US Air Defence System - which they spend hundreds of billions on every year and have been perfecting for at least 50 years - to stand down while they fly these hijacked planes around - and then small fires bring down huge modern high rise buildings, the like of which have NEVER before (or since) collapsed due to fires, but on this magical day THREE of them do!!! - and then we have four major airline crashes, and not a single frigging tail assembly or engine to be seen - well, really, I don't know what kind of mind could believe such a fantastical tale, and even be so bold as to defend it in public - and in the course of such defence have the unmitigaged gall to label those who question this amazing conspiracy theory as the 'conspiracy theorists' themselves - but that's capitalism, master of the big lie and deception ...

Wed, 2010-12-15 04:29

#38

Fidel

The problem with WTC1 is that the upper block accelerated at about 2/3s of gravitational force during the first few seconds(free fall) of collapse. But there was no noticeable deceleration of the upper block on impact with the lower.

A structure with significant reserve strength can only continue collapsing if the static load to be amplified undergoes dynamic loading. Dynamic loading occurs when the falling object decelerates. ie. If during an impact a falling object slows at twice the rate of gravity, it distributes a load on the impacted object below with three times its own static load. It creates an additional force with an acceleration that is twice that of gravity being added to the static load. I had to look it up, but that is dynamic loading in a nutshell.

So the issue isn't that the upper block accelerated constantly throughout the collapse time - it did. The issue is that it did not decelerate upon impacting a massive steel structure below that was designed to withstand 3-5 times the static weight of the upper block of the tower.

And that all 250 steel columns failed instantly in this way is just one part of the official story which 1300+ independent engineers and architects have a difficult time swallowing. One scientist estimates the odds against it happening are astronomical. Newtonian laws of nature tell us that the momentum of the tilting upper blocks was mysteriously canceled by sudden loss of strength of the massive steel support structures below.

And keep in mind that it is not up to truthers to explain what did happen only that the official explanation is not credible. So, in fact, it is FEMA and the NIST who are dealing in conspiracy theories and are the source of conspiracy theories not A&Es for truth.

Wed, 2010-12-15 05:18

#39

siamdave

Policywonk wrote:

.......

So calculate the terminal velocity. All I said was that at least some claims can be tested and refuted, and that parts of the official explanation are wanting but so are some of the conspiracy theories.

"...And on this question of the top portion crushing down and through all of the undamaged lower structure...I had earlier suggested that even a young child can see through some of this:

When I asked my 10-year-old daughter which of the two 20-story sections (in the illustration above) would reach the ground first, if they were to be dropped--the one hanging from the left crane or the right crane...she took one look at the depiction and pointed to the right crane without any hesitation. Imagine that-- a child unraveling the "mysteries" of 9/11.

Astoundingly, government apologists have insisted the building section of the left was somehow able to push down through those 90 stories of full strength steel core structuring at virtual 'freefall' speed...reaching the ground almost at the same moment as the building section hanging from the right crane. Can anyone looking at this depiction fail to see the utter absurdity of such a claim? Only placed explosives could have allowed the tops of the buildings to fall through the entire structure virtually unimpeded.

(and the rest of a very well done deconstruction of the Official Conspiracy Theory here - http://themurkynews.blogspot.com/2008/04/chapter-three-closer-look-at-91...

Wed, 2010-12-15 05:58

#40

Fidel

[url=http://guardian.150m.com/september-eleven/hijackers-alive.htm]Many of the Hijackers are still alive[/url]. Some of their photos and personal info, though, are still [url=http://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/the-fbi-releases-19-phot... here on the FBI's website![/color][/url]

[url=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17659.htm][color=green]B... Olson’s Alleged Call from AA 77: A Correction About Onboard Phones[/color][/url] David Ray Griffin

Not only did she not make two phone calls to Solicitor General Ted Olson, Barbara Olson did not make even one phone call according to the FBIs evidence as of 2006. Is Ted Olson a well known Bush-Cheney supporter of the 2000s? Yes, he is.

Wed, 2010-12-15 14:40

#41

Policywonk

siamdave wrote:

Policywonk wrote:

......

So calculate the terminal velocity. All I said was that at least some claims can be tested and refuted, and that parts of the official explanation are wanting but so are some of the conspiracy theories.

- you should watch your terminology a bit closer - it's well enough understood that whoever controls the language controls the thought and the debate etc - and you have fallen into this trap. I, for example, am not a 'conspiracy theorist' - I am a person who thinks the whole 911 offocial explanation is just a pack of lies - given this belief, certain alternative explanations suggest themselves, but all I have ever done is say I want a new investigation that comes up with some at least plausible explanations for the various things that happened that day, and who was responsible. The official story itself is kind of the granddaddy of all conspiracy theories, really - a gang of radical muslim, Arabian insurgents, based in some caves in Afghanistan, hatch a plan to hijack a number of passenger jets and fly them into important buildings in the heartland of the Great Satan - they plan to use box cutters to control a jet full of Americans, many of whom see themselves as Big Tall Strong Cowboys but for some reason allow themselves to be herded en masse by 3-4 guys with small knives and etc - and then they somehow manage to get the US Air Defence System - which they spend hundreds of billions on every year and have been perfecting for at least 50 years - to stand down while they fly these hijacked planes around - and then small fires bring down huge modern high rise buildings, the like of which have NEVER before (or since) collapsed due to fires, but on this magical day THREE of them do!!! - and then we have four major airline crashes, and not a single frigging tail assembly or engine to be seen - well, really, I don't know what kind of mind could believe such a fantastical tale, and even be so bold as to defend it in public - and in the course of such defence have the unmitigaged gall to label those who question this amazing conspiracy theory as the 'conspiracy theorists' themselves - but that's capitalism, master of the big lie and deception ...

But that's the problem, some of these claims can be checked out and are false, particularly the idea that modern steel-framed office buildings have never collapsed due to fires, and that steel cannot weaken before it melts. You have to look at all of the firsts. Four major airline crashes and one at least was seen by thousands live and millions more on TV, so no tail assembly or engine is ridiculous in that case. The emphasis on the more implausible theories takes attention away from the very real deception and cover-up that occurred.

Wed, 2010-12-15 14:51

#42

jas

Policywonk wrote:

But that's the problem, some of these claims can be checked out and are false, particularly the idea that modern steel-framed office buildings have never collapsed due to fires,

1) they haven't.

Quote:
and that steel cannot weaken before it melts.

2) no one has made this claim.

Quote:
The emphasis on the more implausible theories takes attention away from the very real deception and cover-up that occurred.

The main objective in the push for truth is to show the implausibility of the official story. Point no. 1 above is a good example of this very first fallacy. No steel-framed buildings of any kind have ever collapsed completely from fire prior to or since 9/11. That is a fact.

Wed, 2010-12-15 17:20

#43

Fidel

[size=12]

Policywonk wrote:
So calculate the terminal velocity.

If a falling body accelerates uniformly, then the apparent weight is less than when it was at rest.

If the apparent weight is less, then the downward force is less.(Newton's 2nd law)

If the downward force is less, then the supporting upward force is less.(Newton's 3rd law)

And if upward force is less, then something must have weakened the support columns of the WTC buildings.

That weakening force could not have come from the falling body, or the upper block of floors, or part C(Bazant&Greening) because an impact would cause the falling body to decelerate, or IOW, not allowing it to accelerate uniformly.(Newton's 2nd law of motion)

The NIST/Bazant&Greening's argument during dubya's terrible reign is not with 1300+ independent A&Es for 9/11 Truth.

The NIST/Bazant&Greening's argument is with Isaac Newton.[/size]

Tue, 2010-12-21 08:34

#44

Fidel

[url=http://visibility911.com/jongold/?p=158][color=blue]Omar Saeed Sheikh:[/color][/url] the al-SIS'da agent who wired $100,000 to Mohammed Atta on ISI General's orders and later murdered Wall Street Journalist Daniel Pearl

<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh wrote:
">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ahmed_Omar_Saeed_Sheikh] "Former Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, in his book In the Line of Fire, stated that Sheikh was originally recruited by British intelligence agency, MI6, while studying at the London School of Economics. He alleges Omar Sheikh was sent to the Balkans by MI6 to engage in jihadi operations. Musharraf later went on to state, "At some point, he probably became a rogue or double agent" [...]

Connection with 9/11 hijackers

On October 6, 2001, a senior-level U.S. government official, told CNN that U.S. investigators had discovered Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh (Sheik Syed), using the alias "Mustafa Muhammad Ahmad" had sent about $100,000 from the United Arab Emirates to Mohamed Atta. "Investigators said Atta then distributed the funds to conspirators in Florida in the weeks before the deadliest acts of terrorism on U.S. soil that destroyed the World Trade Center, heavily damaged the Pentagon and left thousands dead. In addition, sources have said Atta sent thousands of dollars—believed to be excess funds from the operation—back to Saeed in the United Arab Emirates in the days before September 11. CNN later confirmed this.[15]

The 9/11 Commission's Final Report states that the source of the funds "remains unknown."

"Unknown", and that discovering who the source of 9/11 financing is unimportant. However, the [url=http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report_Ch5.htm]9/11 Commission Cover-up[/url] makes no mention of their British assocates' "double agent" Sheik Saeed

When arrested, Sheihk Saeed boasted that he'd be in and out of Pakistani prison in a few years time. He has not been hanged and is still alive and well and having nearly started a war between Pakistan and India from his jail cell.

If any of these revelations had been made about Iraqi intel agents before 2003, the criminal Bush regime would have been all over it like flies on cow patties, we can be sure.

It's interesting to note, too, that Benazir Bhutto named the former London School of Economics student, Omar Saeed Sheikh as the person who murdered Osama bin Laden. She stated this in her last interview with David Frost before she was assassinated. It is speculated that Saeed Sheihk's execution is delayed because of his connection to the British foreign intel agency MI6.

Wed, 2011-01-05 22:44

#45

jrootham

I caught the BBC programme that did a number on the truthers on BBC and CBC around New Years.

Nailed a lot of the claims surrounding thermite, basically the evidence for that was created by the cutting torches and grinders that were used to disassemble the wreckage. Also pointed out how much more damage was done to Tower 7.

One statement from the truthers is likely true, but not how they intended it. Tower 7 was built over existing structures and required long spans on the lower floors. This should cause building codes to be updated to disallow this construction.

I have no expectation that this will do anything for the local truthers squad.

Thu, 2011-01-06 03:19

#46

Fidel

And we viewed at least three more BBC videos that were even more convincing than that one.

Do you have any idea of just how corrupt the cosmetic government in Warshington really is? They make our stoogeaucracy in Ottawa appear to be somewhat transparent and accountable to the public. They've been playing with loaded dice for a long time. When conjuring up your visions of democratic govmint in the imperial master nation, think Godfather and executive death squads, rogue nuclear uberpower and even right wing corporatocracy run amok etc. It's like a three ring circus down there except with a lot more clowns in expensive suits falling out of tiny cars fueled by a lot of 1992 screaming eagle vino, or something pretty close to it.

Thu, 2011-01-06 18:50

#47

jas

Not a new video, I guess it's a companion to 9/11: Press for Truth, but someone's posted it on 9/11 Blogger:

In Their Own Words: The Untold Stories of the 9/11 Families

Thu, 2011-01-06 22:36

#48

Fidel

Thanks jas. I see from your link that David Chandler has put together a new DVD on the physics of the worst building collapses in history, which were glossed over by what is probably the most secretive and most corrupt government in recent history.

[url=http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article27191.htm][color=blue]Wi...' Most Terrifying Revelation: Just How Much Our Government Lies to Us[/color][/url]

Fred Branfman wrote:
The chilling fact is this: whether you believe that September 11, 2001 was due to incomprehensible fanaticism or genuine grievances, it seems likely that U.S. leaders’ murder of countless Muslims since 2001 will cause the next 9/11 should, God forbid, it occur, The recent suicide-bomber in Sweden who came perilously close to succeeding taped a message saying "so will your children, daughters, brothers, and sisters die, like our brothers, sisters, and children die." Similar sentiments were voiced by the Times Square bomber, and it is likely that those responsible for future American deaths will also be motivated by revenge for the hundreds of thousands of Muslims for whose deaths U.S. leaders are responsible since 2001.

The truth is that the world's most unsustainable economy based largely on war needs restructuring for peaceful purposes.

[url=http://extremeprejudiceusa.wordpress.com/]Book: Extreme Prejudice[/url] CIA insider Susan Lindauer speaks out on the 9/11 Cover-up and more.

Sat, 2011-01-08 19:53

#49

Fidel

Three new truth groups:

[url=http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/][color=blue]Scientists for 9/11 truth[/color][/url]

[url=http://www.aaa911truth.com/]Actors, Artists, & Athletes for 9/11 Truth[/url]

[url=http://www.militaryofficersfor911truth.org/][color=green]Military Officers for 9/11 Truth[/color][/url]

[url=http://afghanistan.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/03/cnn-poll-u-s-opposition-to-a... of Americans oppose the war in Afghanistan[/url]

Keep up the good work, truthers.

Sat, 2011-01-08 20:12

#50

jas

Fidel wrote:

[url=http://www.scientistsfor911truth.org/][color=blue]Scientists for 9/11 truth[/color][/url]

Fun!

Sat, 2011-01-08 20:18

#51

jas

Actors for 911 truth...

Woo hoo! Margaret Cho! Sharon Stone! Juliette Binoche! Janeane Garofalo! Marion Cotillard! Oh, and some dudes... ;)

Would like to see Meryl Streep, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, among others...

Whistleblowers Call for a New 9/11 Investigation

Pages