link to post ==> click here
Outstanding!
That pressure finally bore fruit
"The collapse of the World Trade Centre (WTC) towers on 11 September 2001 was a devastating, catastrophic event."
No it wasn't, it was an ordinary, everyday occurence. Dr. Seffen told us so, didn't he?
Winter Patriot, this 'paper', emanating from a source we know not where, is garbage. Thrown together in a hurry by we know not whom, its turgid language, its truculent illogicality, its opaque premises and unproven conclusion are without merit or credibility; infamous, fatuous and wrong.
Consider me a lifelong sceptic. If it comes to any new consensus of 'expert' opinion, to be brought about by this specious academic propaganda, include me in with Bertrand Russell:
"When experts agree, the opposite opinion cannot be held to be certain".
Not being an Engineer, please offer us your thoughts at a later date. I know every time I saw it right after it happened and now it sure looks like it's controled. That just me I'm sure.
jo6pac
Hey, thanks for finally finding this. I was put your way via a link from the persistence of vision messageboard (link where it says homepage although its not my homepage) where theres been a thread discussing this for days.
So it just popped like a party balloon - Brilliant!
.
for pete's sake, that paper is pathetic. it ignores physical principles and rips off on a mathematical theory tangent, choosing to obfuscate/amaze/delight/distract (choose your word) with "elegant formulae".
I guess when the evidence is patently obvious, the only route is to conjure "elegant formulae" and fabricate some justification for those "elegant formulae" to be relevant to what caused the collapse.
Seffen's paper is the sort of tripe that is mustered by the modern PhD candidate in the hard sciences. it fabricates theories, it fabricates situations against which to test them, and it fabricates conclusions that supposedly bear some fabricated relevance to a fabricated "reality."
If this what passes for realistic analysis at Ye Olde Cambridge, I submit that place is ripping lots of people off, and disinforming a whole mass of students.
Well - I 've seen enough - the proof is they say is in the pudding. Dr. Seffen nails the phenonom with granularity and precision - 'nuff said.
Now can we get on with our lives - the jury is in and the President and all his men were rite!
I just discovered Winter Patriot yesterday and have not checked out the archive yet but I am looking forward to seeing how both sides respond to this paper. I think it is bunk though I am only a color pencil artist. Griffin makes the point (or is it fetzer?) we all at some point may serve on a jury and be asked to judge based on expert testimony on a matter we know nothing of.....yet we must be able to discern truth. Perhaps I misstated the quote but the point remains that in spite of what we do not know we still are called to form opinions and decide guilt or innocence. In this topic I cannot get past Dr. Judy Wood's presentations or Griffin's research. The more I watch the building's disintegrate the more I am convinced we do not have truth in this matter. thanks
"The subsequent near free-falling of these upper parts over the height of just one storey...."
Oh. Silly me. All 47 core columns and 200+ perimeter columns disappeared in a "poof" to allow the upper parts to free fall. And I had thought that overloaded steel failed in plastic deformation. Now, what could have caused that "poof", I wonder......
Essentially Seffen argues that the entire sections above the collapse zones came down all at once because the weight-bearing strength of the core columns was compromised by the heat from the fires. The weight of the top sections overwhelmed the load bearing capacity of the lower floors by a factor of thirty to one, and the steel beams in the lower sections exhibited plastic behavior. The weaknesses are several. He does not deal with Building Seven. He does not explain how it is that the top section of the South Tower was toppling over and then disintegrated in mid-air, while the lower portion of the building was already coming down at free-fall speed. The mass of the top section of the South Tower was not available to crush the lower floors, as it was not even in contact with the rest of the building. He does not deal with the oral histories of the police and firemen or other witnesses like William Rodriquez who experienced secondary explosions in the sublevels and other parts of the buildings. He does not explain molten metal in the basements weeks after, or the squibs or steel beams weighing hundreds of tons being ejected with such force that they were impaled in surrounding buildings hundreds of yards away. FEMA I believe did analysis of structural steel (recovered from a landfill before it could be put on a boat to China) and concluded that the steel had not been above 450 degrees centigrade, far below any temperature which would cause catastrophic failure. It is I believe an attempt to impress with many pretty equations and thereby to obscure the obvious, which is that fllors do not fall through other floors as fast as through air.
This paper is obviously an elaborate joke - in very bad taste.
directingenergy | 11.09.07 - 9:04 pm | #
Well said. The reference to jury duty and testimony-weighing is a very legitimate observation. I once presented a Continuing Legal Education seminar on the ethics of using scientific evidence in litigation, and in that seminar I offered competing theories by Popper and Kuhn on the nature and status of scientific evidence, the scientific method, and the philosophies underlying the method. Seffen tries to use the Thomas Kuhn approach here, with bamboozling "elegant formulae" of the type that would most definitely buffalo the average juror, who would be loath to admit a total lack of comprehension.
Our judiciary is supposed to serve as a gatekeeper against admission of junk science but most judges themselves are scientific ignorami and they suffer the same loathing of appearing as ignorant as they actually are.
When fancy formulae are all it takes to gull the public, we are in deep shinola.
It's called A Simple Analysis. Well, I can certainly agree with that. It's so simple it's obviously just an attempt to throw together a bunch of details that APPEAR to be from a knowledgeable individual. But it's NOT!
It looks much like any episode of the TV show NUMB3RS. Lots of formulas and fancy words are flung together in an effort to overwhelm the reader.
And, the article may very well succeed in baffling someone with less than a full high school education.
There is no value in this document whatsoever. It is nothing more than a very poorly crafted smoke screen.
Who is this K. A. Seffen?
Does anyone know for certain?
I see no letters behind his name.Isn't that odd?
What gives him the right to try to publish this rubbish?
Who is really behind this trashy piece of work work?
I would argue that the overall dynamics of excretive overloading precludes serious discussion of Mr. Seffen’s procto-encephalatic theory. Instead of a top-down analysis, Mr. Seffen has treated us to a classic head-up-associative exposition.
Anyone with an IQ over 70 knows that three buildings can't fall at or near free fall speed through the path of greatest resistance. Two of them fell because of Jet Fuel ignition and the intense heat it creates. Thus, degraded the supporting steel structure below. Oh really? How about WTC 7? Anyone with an IQ over 70 knows that 911 was planned and very controlled!
ummmm, excuse me Dr. Seffen, but HOW did the fires compromise the structural integrity of the buildings' cores ?
if the buildings had not had strong central cores, then the analysis would be valid. But then the buildings would have been unsafe without needing the attacks.
(by the way, those well-known conspiracy theorists, insurance companies, have stated that WTC7 was not brought down by terrorist activity.)
Well done WinterPatriot and your anonymous 'contact'. This paper seems to rely very much on the findings of Zdenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou, findings which have, in my opinion, been long discredited.
The start of the Bazant & Zhou paper, I understand, states "The 110-story towers of the World Trade Center were designed to withstand as a whole the forces caused by a horizontal impact of a large commercial aircraft (Appendix I). So why did a total collapse occur? The cause was the dynamic consequence of the prolonged heating of the steel columns to very high temperature. The heating lowered the yield strength and caused viscoplastic (creep) buckling of the columns of the framed tube along the perimeter of the tower and of the columns in the building core. The likely scenario of failure is approximately as follows.
In stage 1 (Fig. 1), the conflagration caused by the aircraft fuel spilled into the structure causes the steel of the columns to be exposed to sustained temperatures apparently exceeding 800°C".
800 degrees Centigrade?? Now forgive me if I'm wrong here, but there is now a great deal of evidence to show that the levels of heat around the impact areas just could not have reached these levels, such as the person who was photographed standing in the impact hole waving for help. So it seems that Seffen's paper may have fallen at the first hurdle here, reliant as it seems on Bazant & Zhou.
Perhaps those scientific and engineering brains in the 911 movement can now analyse this fully and spot the errors.
Also please let us know, if tall buildings like this can be so easily 'doomed to collapse', just why are the millions of people around the world who live, sleep and work in such buildings not being ordered to leave immediately on safety grounds, and why this sort of building is still being built.
It beggars belief.
Sorry Mr Seffen you will have to explain this and much much more before I even consider your theory.
http://
www.whatreallyhappened.co...tc_charges.html
Please view the photos at the link above and explain to us how these piles came to look like they had shaped charges used on them.
I believe it would be near impossible for most of us to have any real hope of assessing your theory. I guess having a Cambridge stamp on you gives your assertions some sort of [fake] credibility.
Explain please the pictures from post 911 footage taken from the movie 911 Mysteries "Demolitions". Note the melted steel around the edges. The steel column structure was obviously cut with shaped charges as demonstrated in the movie by demolition experts. Why would demolition experts make this up.
To me these pictures are enough evidence that someone demolished WTC.
Thank you all, Seffen debunkers, I am glad I am not alone.
Whence cometh this god-damn piece of paper? Who decided to plant this on Winter Patriot? Seffen's name, fax number and email are on it, for authenticity's sake. Must be from him, obviously. No need to enquire further into its provenance, or murky origins: of course not. Now that the 'paper' is planted, and published, there's also no requirement for the Journal of Engineering Mechanics to publish. Sighs of relief all round, I expect. No necessity for peer review, and rigorous academic analysis. Saved JEM's bacon, just in time. The American Society of Civil Engineers can continue on its way, reputation unsullied and untarnished. Any bridges falling down today, boys? Any half-million ton skyscrapers disintegrating into dust and ashes, in ten seconds?
[Correction: The Wendigo's contribution, and many others is rigorous, scientific analysis.]
Big Dan is silent so far. Loading barrels of gunpowder into the cart, I expect, just like Guy Fawkes. And coming our way. Have you seen the TV prog, where they built a replica of the old House of Lords on a firing range, and blew it up with a ton of black powder, just like Guido tried to do? Beautiful, big, bang. Reduced it to rubble and simulated (plastic) body parts. Gave certain people the wrong ideas, I expect.
Baffling BS tricks a lot of people who just want to believe. It's important to know that many theories pop like a balloon once a simulation has been performed. A valid simulation based on all knowns, valid assumptions and mathematics, not a cartoon physics video simulation. Why, six years later are we still waiting for a real simulation?
I'll bet all Lombard Street to a china orange that Anonymous, three above, is Mr. Michael Rivero himself.
August company indeed, Winter Patriot. (Or, as the old joke goes, January company indeed...
I think I'll run out right now and buy some party balloons..... I want to see how the waves propagate. Or perhaps I will use them to build my new garage in lieu of concrete and steel......
I'm not saying Seffen's paper isn't baloney, but I do look forward to a careful, serious deconstruction by someone like Kevin Ryan at Journal of 9/11 Studies.
Here's a question I have: Was each of the 47 core columns everyone talks about composed of a single piece of steel 110 stories high? Or were they smaller pieces joined together, which could have come apart at their joints?
It seems to me you could devise an experiment to test Seffen's theory. You take a vertical piece of some kind of material, heat it slightly, and apply a sudden force 30x its estimated load-bearing capacity over a distance of 1/110th of its total length, sort of like striking it suddenly with a hammer. Observe what happens to the material -- does it shatter, buckle, disintegrate? They key is that you can't continue to apply the strong force to it, because the theory says that it's what happens to the material that allows the upper part to continue to fall throught it at near free-fall speed -- to propogate the "crush front."
Have I got that right?
This paper seems to be an amalgam of the pancake theory and Manny Garcia's "shattering" hypothesis.
Sea Dreamer:
I understand your concerns about where this paper came from ... and I don't want to do anything that might endanger my source, so I can't say too much ... but I am quite confident about its authenticity.
Having read the entire paper (yes I'm an engineer) it would appear that mr Seffen assumes that the uppermost portion of the tower remains intact during the fall, and that cannot be true. The upper portion erodes as quickly as the lower portion. Assuming the building was of uniform strength then x amount of fall destroys x amount of lower portion but also x amount of upper portion. At a given moment the entire top portion has collapsed into powder. So what is continuing to destroy the remaining lower portion of the building?
Furthermore, the lower portion of the building gets tougher and tougher as we go down towards street level. This suggests that the required destructive pressure increases with the descent of the upper portion implying that the top portion would erode faster than the lower portion during the collapse. This would have a dampening effect, all be it small.
It's a nice analysis, but not, by any means conclusive, as the BBC implied.
There is no doubt this paper is bunk, since there is no doubt the WTC towers were blown to smithereens.
I think we can all agree that mathematical models fudged can be far too easily.
What I want to see is someone produce a physical model of a tower that can survive a 767 impact THEN undergo complete top-down collapse following damage to one or two floors-- resulting in complete pulverization of all tower contents and leaving a steaming debris pile with molten steel underneath and loss of multiple core columns and outer wall columns.
Grimblebee,..
the core columns of the WTC towers were a very elaborate array of interlocking vertical and horizontal "I" beams.
Photo of core during construction phase,..
(Note if you click the link and then click the photo, you can see an expanded view.)
http://thumbsnap.com/v/0X3CNaBI.jpg
Close up of center steel core of WTC,..
http://thumbsnap.com/v/TIGo00KN.jpg
Source for photos, scroll about 2/3 of the way down.
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/
...ones19mar06.htm
The WTC center steel core,.. did you have an Erector set when you were a kid ?
http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/
...ones19mar06.htm
The Sea Dreamer --
Gravatar I'll bet all Lombard Street to a china orange that Anonymous, three above, is Mr. Michael Rivero himself.
I doubt it. Three factors were missing:
1) Utter ignorance of global climate change and paranoia about it being a ruse for some interest or other.
2) Gratuitous "vote Ron Paul" comment that further demonstrates ignorance.
3) Gratuitous blaming of "the Jews" which again shows ignorance.
Mike Rivero serves a good role in the blogosphere, it's just a deep and wide shame that he's so mistaken and/or duped on those 3 issues.
spooked | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 8:51 am | #
With all the elegance of true scientific integrity, spooked points the way. Well done, spooked.
Hello Wendigo:
That's three hares you've set running, and I'd better not chase any of them, as each one carries its own load of dynamite. I come neither to praise MR, nor to bury him...
Winter Patriot:
Point taken: I never intended to impugn the reliability or integrity of your source: rhetorcal flourishes only, I assure you.
I'm rather warming to Keith-baby. This is the first pro-party line/anti-9/11 truth outburst from a British academic that I can recall. It makes the cover-up a much more satisactorily Anglo-American affair. Why should all the blinkered idiots be on your side of the water?
Mike Rivero has linked to three of my Seffen-related articles in the past week and his readers have done more to advance this story than I ever could have done myself.
That doesn't mean I agree with him about every little thing, but I don't see any reason to insult him here.
And considering how many of his readers have been around lately, I would assume that one of them left the comment linking to his site.
Reactions on this forum such as "Gravatar There is no doubt this paper is bunk, since there is no doubt the WTC towers were blown to smithereens." are worthless tripe. If you have nothing serious to say other than "it's obvious...." then just surf somewhere else!!!
WP, what you see as an "insult" I see as speaking the truth about 3 areas of glaring problem with Mike Rivero's personally stated thoughts. I make NO COMMENT on what he links to -- in fact, I have a link to his WRH website at my own blog! I don't think ANYONE is beyond criticism, and I would imagine that even though you are exemplary in your diplomacy, you don't think anyone is beyond criticism either.
In any event, I apologize for offending anyone with the way I characterize what I see as Rivero's 3 areas of glaringly mistaken PERSONAL views.
Now onto more relevant and important matters.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Fellow commenters, if I may be so bold as to distract for a brief moment...
If you appreciate and value the work WP does here, would you please take a moment to read a proposal I'm making, and comment on it if it moves you to do so? Go here when you have a free moment --
http://cbfz.blogspot.com/2007/11...t-
proposal.html
Reactions on this forum such as "There is no doubt this paper is bunk, since there is no doubt the WTC towers were blown to smithereens." are worthless tripe. If you have nothing serious to say other than "it's obvious...." then just surf somewhere else!!!
Really? So, you think it unfair to simply state that the method of controlled demolition is obvious, and that Seffen's paper is bunk because it fails even to consider, much less address that issue -- that such is not worthy of posting? Then I submit that you, Mr Adams, are the one who ought to self-edit. Propagandists have no place in honest discussion.
d
@The Wendigo. Try it in court then, see how far "it's obvious" gets you.
One cannot dismiss the paper with just "it's obvious" It's is far from obvious that the buildings were blown up. It is a mystery. Fact is that you and anyone else cannot claim to be in possession of the answers because you simply do not know.
Your problem is that you will dismiss any claim which contradicts your view as bunk, no matter how strong that evidence is. You have lost your objectiveness. Even if you stare the facts in the face you will dismiss anything and anyone who claims the towers fell because you want it to be so.
I am inclined to suspect the towers vertical columns were melted with thermite, but I don't know.
As I said... Having read the entire paper (yes I'm an engineer) it would appear that mr Seffen assumes that the uppermost portion of the tower remains intact during the fall, and that cannot be true. The upper portion erodes as quickly as the lower portion. Assuming the building was of uniform strength then x amount of fall destroys x amount of lower portion but also x amount of upper portion. At a given moment the entire top portion has collapsed into powder. So what is continuing to destroy the remaining lower portion of the building?
Furthermore, the lower portion of the building gets tougher and tougher as we go down towards street level. This suggests that the required destructive pressure increases with the descent of the upper portion implying that the top portion would erode faster than the lower portion during the collapse. This would have a dampening effect, all be it small.
It's a nice analysis, but not, by any means conclusive, as the BBC implied.
Dr. Seffen: How did all the jets vaporize?
2. How did the heat melt the core of the WTC...but not Mohammed Atta's VISA?
3. Why didn't Oklahoma City building do this?
None of these jokers does any "overall" analysis...because they CAN'T!!! They pick one little thing, and even THAT is a bunch of horseshit!
As I said... Having read the entire paper (yes I'm an engineer) it would appear that mr Seffen assumes that the uppermost portion of the tower remains intact during the fall, and that cannot be true. The upper portion erodes as quickly as the lower portion. Assuming the building was of uniform strength then x amount of fall destroys x amount of lower portion but also x amount of upper portion. At a given moment the entire top portion has collapsed into powder. So what is continuing to destroy the remaining lower portion of the building?
Furthermore, the lower portion of the building gets tougher and tougher as we go down towards street level. This suggests that the required destructive pressure increases with the descent of the upper portion implying that the top portion would erode faster than the lower portion during the collapse. This would have a dampening effect, all be it small.
It's a nice analysis, but not, by any means conclusive, as the BBC implied.
Martin Adams | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 12:01 pm |
Marting, this is very good level-headed analysis. One thing you may have missed though - if Dr Seffen makes assumptions that can be easily found not to be true by just cursorily viewing the collapse videos, coudl we disregard the rest of what he has to say? I mean, if he makes mistakes so grievous, isn't that alone grounds fro dismissal of his theory?
Oh for pete's sake, Martin Adams. Really.
"My problem"? You don't even know me, you don't know my views, yet you project what you believe to be "my problem."
This is NOT a court of law, and Mr Seffen's fictional piece is not evidence. Because if it were, I could dismantle it with a simple comparative bit of film footage, and then ask why THE OBVIOUS was not even addressed.
So if you want to talk about evidence, Martin Adams, then I suggest you learn a bit more about what is done with evidence in a courtroom.
If you think I or any other half-capable lawyer couldn't dismantle Keith Seffen's fiction, you're just not well-informed enough on how evidence is presented and handled.
And you need to try to keep in mind that this is NOT a court of law here, not even close. If it were, most of the comments in every single thread would be written differently, subjected to a more rigorous pre-publication standard, and perhaps even rejected.
Including your own.
I have to say that I agree with Martin Adams here. It is not credible to dismiss Dr Seffen's paper on the grounds of "It's obvious". In my own opinion, it is obviously wrong, but what is needed is the argument proving it to be wrong.
Although I have not, as yet, studied the paper completely, nor checked and 'climbed into' the mathematics in the paper, nevertheless the weaknesses I feel at present involve the lack of initiation of the collapse, other than his reliance upon the rather odd hypothesis of 'Bazant & Zhou' (steel columns reached 800oC and started to plasticise) and on page 21 he openly states that "Many simplifications have been made in this analysis for the sake of transparency. For example, the constructional properties of original WTC towers are not homogenous over the entire height, but only over discrete portions and differently so. The collapse mode is highly idealised: none of the falling mass moves laterally; any impulsive action between successive floor impacts is neglected"
I thought I saw loads of mass move laterally!!
In addition I was intrigued by his remark on page 22 "The author is extremely grateful to two anonymous referees for insightful and supporting comments." I thought this was supposed to be a peer reviewed paper?
One thing you may have missed though - if Dr Seffen makes assumptions that can be easily found not to be true by just cursorily viewing the collapse videos, coudl we disregard the rest of what he has to say? I mean, if he makes mistakes so grievous, isn't that alone grounds fro dismissal of his theory?
Yes, exactly, Boris. Which leads me to believe that Martin Adams either is egregiously mistaken about evidenciary principles, or is simply shilling for Keith Seffen and/or Seffen's backers.
spiv,
The primary problem with Seffen's fiction is that he addresses non-issues.
He makes the proverbial distinction without a difference, and in that capacity his whole fictional theory could be destroyed by any half-capable lawyer in any half-capable courtroom.
In simplest terms, Keith Seffen is engaged in the scarecrow tactic. He builds and destroys a scarecrow, and then concludes that the scarecrow represents the WTC towers -- without EVER proving there is a connection between the scarecrow and the towers.
The Wendigo, the problem here, in my own small humble opinion, is that we are not in a courtroom trying to persuade 12 peers of the falsity of an argument.
We are trying to persuade the World. And I don't know how you find it, but when I talk to many ordinary people I meet about the many questions regarding 911, including just why the three towers could not have collapsed at free-fall speeds, they look at me as if I've lost my marbles. Now in Dr Seffen we have a very highly qualified educated scientist/engineer explaining just how they could collapse at free-fall speeds, we have a very much respected University here in the UK seeming to back this research, and we have the main terrestrial television network in the UK who prints this, presenting it pretty much as "fact". And that is the nub of the problem, who are many brainwashed people going to believe?
We will, no doubt, take this up with Cambridge University, once we in the UK have all digested this paper, asking them just why they seem willing to put their name to it.
If the heat was so intense to melt the steel, then how were people still able to stand in the opening of the building's exo-skeleton waving their hands for help???
Explain the 45 degree cuts in the steel core beams in the basement area?
Explain why it is national security not to let independent investigators to identify the part number/serial numbers on the few aircraft parts that were found near the WTC site?? If this was allowed, then we could know exactly which "planes" hit WTC 1 and 2. This would debunk a lot of theories and myths...but they refuse to let us see these parts!! Why??
Sorry guys, it doesn't take a PH.D in Physics and Engineering to easily figure out that the 911 Commision Report and their theories on why THREE Buildings fell on Sept. 11 is total and complete BS.
Yes, it is a hard pill to swallow! It is very hard to believe that our own Goverment is complicit in such a tragic event against the American People, but they refuse to allow an truly independent investigation under the guise of National Security? Why?
To me, 911 was simply a "False Flag" event to drag the American Public into a war on terror. Moreover, this so called War on Terror has drawn us into Iraq and now threatening to bomb Iran. Why? We are doing Isreal's dirty work for them at our expense! Why? Let's read Ariel Sharon's quote below:
"Every time we do something, you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel . We, the Jewish people, control America , and the Americans know it." - Ariel Sharon , October 3, 2001
The Wendigo said:
"simply shilling for Keith Seffen and/or Seffen's backers."
That's exactly it. How did this obscure, ill-considered, half-baked 'paper' come to be used as propaganda in the 9/11 wars? Who first looked at it, and said "Hmm, potential here", and put in a call to the trolls at the BBC, and commenced the process of polishing the you-know-what into a shiny, guided missile, to burst upon the world, as "proof" positive that "they" are right, and everyone else is wrong? Good forensics, Wendigo. Res ipsa loquitur.
Big Dan:
You forgot to mention, or perhaps you had the reticence not to mention, the poor young lady standing by the big hole left by one of the aircraft which hit the towers, I forget which one. There she stood, hair and clothes unsinged, while just behind her, so we are told, raged an inferno at white heat, busily melting (oh, sorry, Keith, plasticising) thick, very, very thick, columns of steel.
Murder most foul, as in the best it is;
But this most foul, strange, and unnatural.
Winter Patriot:
Don't worry about MR's feelings - he has a tough hide. Anyway, The Wendigo is quite possibly wrong about (1) and (3), but we won't go into that now. As for (2), Ron Paul, it's not for me to express an opinion, is it?
I have experience as a Civil Engineering Manager, together with an MScME and PhDEE.
"Listen: It's a lot like blowing up a balloon -- a long, thin one. It takes a lot of pressure to get it started, but once it gets going, the rest is easy."
**The rest is easy.** So, the good Dr thought about the balloon, and the rest - applying it to the WTC - was easy. Just sprinkle in a bunch of buzz.
"Despite localised and substantial horizontal impacts by fuel-laden aircraft, both towers survived until the intense fire compromised the ability of the remaining, in-tact columns close to the aircraft impact zones to sustain the weight of the buildings above them."
**Intense fire?** Tell that to two of Bush's murder victims standing right there in the middle of where the plane hit, just before the WTC collapsed "due to intense fire".
http://
www.whatreallyhappened.co..._zoom_small.jpg
http://
www.whatreallyhappened.co...hance_small.jpg
http://www.whatreallyhappened.co...ES/
wtc1_man.jpg
spiv:
I don't see any mention of the University of Cambridge putting their name to this rag; not on the 'paper' itself, as published by Winter Patriot.
The spin by the 'backers' certainly put the University's name to it, in the pre-release hysteria, but I expect this paper, like all failures, is an orphan.
A misbegotten bastard, if you'll forgive the political incorrectedness.
An obvious fallacy with theories of this type is that column strength and heat conductivity were NOT segmented by the vertical spacing of the office floors. Load-bearing strength was vertically continuous over many "floors" for any given region of the building.
The columns in the core structure were specially fabricated to be multiple stories in height and were joined together by welded connections. Dense cross-bracing between columns created a monolithic entity that was structurally independent of the office floor attachment locations.
Heat produced by burning material on a particular office floor would also be vertically dissipated over a multi-story region of the building by the vertically continuous steel column structures.
It really makes no sense to talk about about column behavior on a "given floor". The columns didn't have "floors".
spiv wrote:
"The collapse mode is highly idealised: none of the falling mass moves laterally; any impulsive action between successive floor impacts is neglected"
"I thought I saw loads of mass move laterally!!"
It did! You see debris not only moving laterally but upward at about a forty-five degree angle. then descending in a banana peel configuration. There is no collapse scanario which explains pulverized material moving upward. The pulverization of virtaully all the concrete into dust means we are not talking about floors collapsing onto floors here. We are talking about dust clouds which have been described as resembling pyroclastic flows comparable to what we see in volcanic eruptions. Richard Siegel's camera caught pyroclastic flows of dust chasing boats across the Hudson to the New Jersey shore, while chasing terrified pedestrians down the streets of Manhattan. The mass of the concrete is not available to act as a pile driver on the floors below because it is ejected as dust in a mushroom cloud. The process of pulverization uses up much of the potential kinetic energy of the collape and the law of conservation of momentum says it must slow the collapse. And the top section of the South Tower was detached from the lower portion of the building, starting to tople over and then disintegrating in mid-air. A good scientific hypothesis adddresses the observed facts, the collapse that happened. Seffen speaks of some other collapse, the collapse that did not happen.
As oversight wrote, it has been six years, and there has been no simulation. Yes, the NIST did a computer simulation, but adjusted the parameters by reducing resistance to zero and has refused to release the algorithm. This is a black box computer analysis, proof by computer animation.
Vote for Ron Paul wrote: Anyone with an IQ over 70 knows that 911 was planned and very controlled!
My IQ is more than twice as much as 70, and it's not obvious to me that that the demolition of those buildings was planned and very controlled.
I asked Winter Patriot what he thinks really happened, but he didn't answer.
Vote for Ron Paul: Who do you think demolished those buildings if not two huge, heavy airliners smashing into them with all their weight at hundreds of miles per hour? And wouldn't people have noticed dozens of workers planting explosives throughout the buildings in the weeks before September 11, 2001? And how could such a crime be kept silent? Many people would have to be involved in such an operation, and word would get out sooner or later.
I hate, detest and despise George W. Bush, but he does everything in his power, including torture and gutting the Constitution, to keep the "homeland" safe from "terrist" attacks.
Let me ask one final time: Who do you all think demolished those buildings?
Winter Patriot: This is not a personal attack on you. I read your blog because I like it and admire you. But if there is a conspiracy, who are you and the others alleging are the conspirators in 9/11 if not the terrorists? Or is it that you just don't know?
The paper concludes with a graph of a newtonian model compared to the author's model of continuous deformation. His model assumes that the building is homogenous and the weight of new floors joining to the falling mass happens in a continous way. The newtonian model adds them one by one. Neither model considers the energy required to detach the floors from the columns or to pulverize the materials or to throw debris sideways. If the floors were floating in space and gravity accelerated the top floors down, picking up floors as they went, then the total slowdown from freefall would, I think, be about what he says it is--a matter of a few seconds. The kinetic energy of all the floors at the time of impact with the ground would be equal to the potential energy of the 110 floors. That would be the sum of each floor times its height, or about 55 times one floor-weight.
The observation that the buildings exploded, and the question about how a cloud of dust could push down and accelerate structurally sound floors (like most of the floors under where the plane hit), are not at all frivolous questions. They are really the heart of the matter.
Mark Miller:
Glad to hear that your IQ is 140+!
To answer a few of your questions:
1. People did notice dozens of workers installing cables in the WTC before 911. People also notices very loud noises coming from floors above and below months prior to 911. These noises were creating an enormous amount of dust on the adjacent floors. The weekend prior to 911 the entire power was cutoff, all explosive sniffing dogs were removed, and all security cameras were not operable.
2. Yes, many people were involved and the word is finally starting to get out...or should I say the truth is finally starting to get out!Did you know the George Bush's brother (not Jeb) was head of WTC security in the years, weeks, and days prior to Sept 11, 2001?
3. I think that explosives were used to take down all THREE buildings! I think something along the lines of Thermite was used to cut the 45 degree angles in the basement core beams...allowing the building to walk to the side just before the controlled demolition above. This enabled the entire building to remain within the confinds of the basement area. This is just how demolition experts demolish tall structures and how they keep them from causing collateral damage to adjacent structures.
Mark Miller, you and I both despise GW Bush, but I see his actions very differently than you. I think he is following orders from above...ie the Bilderbergers, CFR, and Tri Lateral Committee. These global elite are determined to bring USA into a North American Union and to destroy the American Dollar, the Constitution, all of our civil rights.
Google: Bilderberger, Kissinger NSSM 2000, and Rothschild. This will get you on the right path to understanding 911...in my opinion!
Mark Miller wrote:
Vote for Ron Paul: Who do you think demolished those buildings if not two huge, heavy airliners smashing into them with all their weight at hundreds of miles per hour? And wouldn't people have noticed dozens of workers planting explosives throughout the buildings in the weeks before September 11, 2001? And how could such a crime be kept silent? Many people would have to be involved in such an operation, and word would get out sooner or later.
Larry Silverstein acquired a 99 year lease on the Twin Towers in July of 2001, and after that there were power-downs and evacuations of the buildings, including the last weekend before September 11th. Men with coils of wire were there, ostensibly upgrading the internet connection on all the floors above floor fifty. People returned to work to find concrete dust in their offices, just as if someone had been doing some drilling. There was heavy (very noisy) construction going on even when the buildings were not evacuated. And after the last weekend, the bomb-sniffing dogs were inexplicably pulled out. There was plenty of means, motive, and opportunity. Larry Silverstein had a clause written into the insurance contract specifically covering acts of terrorism, for several billion dollars, and later sued to collect twice alleging there were two separate acts of terrorism. Larry Silverstein owned Building Seven. Several other buildings, like WTC 4, 5,and 6 and the Deutsche Bank building were closer to the towers and were hit with more debris and Building Seven. Somehow only Lucky Larry's buildings collapsed, making him seven billion dollars.
People HAVE come forward. The amazing thing is that it has made little to no difference.
What brought the buildings down at free fall speed? Thermate and explosives, shaped cutter charges, precision timed by computer control.
There are no collapses of buildings which have all the characteristics of controlled demolitions which are not controlled demolitions.
In case anyone's interested, BrotherBush's name is Marvin. Marvin owned a company that specialized in . . . oh, plenty of things involving structures, alarm systems,etc. Company lit indicated it was involved in covert ops, though the company used different language to describe it.
Right after 9/11 the company changed its name. Let me see if I may dig up the particulars . . .
James Gawthrop post above is 100% correct! He has obviously listen to a few of the thousands of different eyewitnesses and experts that have come forward to say what they have seen and think about events leading up to and on 911.
I would love for someone to explain to me why WTC building #7 fell? I would love for someone to tell me how the BBC was reporting its collaspe before it actually happened. In fact, they were reporting this and showing live video of the NY Skyline with WTC 7 still erect and standing in the background! How is this possible?
Do not only focus on WTC 1&2, but instead, using the same logic, tell us how WTC7 fell without a plane full of fuel crashing into it?
"In a stunning and belated development concerning the attacks of 9/11 Larry Silverstein, the controller of the destroyed WTC complex, stated plainly in a PBS documentary that he and the FDNY decided jointly to demolish the Solomon Bros. building, or WTC 7, late in the afternoon of Tuesday, Sept. 11, 2001."
In the documentary Silverstein makes the following statement;
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
[This can be heard in the audio file http://VestigialConscience.com/P....com/
PullIt.mp3.
Mr. Silverstein's comments imply that he and the FDNY threw together an expert demolition job in the space of a few short hours on the afternoon of 9/11. This revelation is staggering enough considering its blatant contradiction to what has been, all along, the official cause of the "collapse." But the fact that the building was buried under tons of debris and consumed in flames at the time makes his comments all the more baffling.
http://www.rense.com/general47/p...al47/
pulled.htm
Well! That was easy, here ya go:
http://www.historycommons.org/
co...#a1096stratesec
Any thinking person who reads this will come away smelling a rat.
The people who did this - - certain shadowy elements of US, UK and Israeli intelligence - - are psychopathic monsters unable to empathize with humanity, period. To the Bush family and men like Cheney, politics is about pest control, money, and power. We're the pests. As soon as this sinks in - - that we are vermin to the elites of this world - - it all starts to make sense.
The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker:
Yes we are the pest or "useless eaters" according to Henry Kissinger. See NSSM 2000.
I smell a rat...a dirty stinky rat!
I don't give a goddamn," Bush retorted. "I'm the President and the Commander-in-Chief. Do it my way."
"Mr. President," one aide in the meeting said, "There's a valid case that the provisions in this law undermine the Constitution."
"Stop throwing the Constitution in my face," Bush screamed back. "It's just a goddamned piece of paper!"
(-Reported by Doug Thompson re: an 11/05 meeting with congressional leaders on the Patriot Act.)
THAT PESKY 4TH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION!!!!
"If the people knew what we had done, they would chase us down the street and lynch us.” George H.W. Bush to journalist Sarah McClendon, December 1992
The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." ~ William Colby, Former Director, CIA
Is it unbelievable to think we have not been told the truth via the media??
And the most telling quote of all:
"The public more readily falls victim to the big lie than the small lie. Since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods." --Adolph Hitler
One giant and obvious hole in all of these collapse theories is the failure to conform to Newton's third law: action and reaction.
The intact building top that they presume is falling onto the rest of the building is having how much force applied to it? The exact same amount of force that it is applying.
So, the "intact building top" should be experiencing roughly the same amount of damage that the building beneath it is experiencing.
Except: there's a whole lot more building below the crash zone then above.. ergo if this were a gravity driven collapse, the collapse front would chew through the top of the building before it chewed through the bottom.
Markov:
Another giant obvious hole(s) is the failure to conform to Newton's law of Conservation of Momentum.
Can you enter a room just as quickly with the door closed vs. opened??
"Momentum has the special property that, in a closed system, it is always conserved, even in collisions and separations caused by explosive forces." Wikipedia.
Not to mention the Laws of Thermodynamics!!
Not to mention the Laws of Thermodynamics!!
Vote Ron Paul | 11.10.07 - 5:28 pm |
100%. Not to mention enthropy to boot laws to boot - how likely is it that a collapse caused by an obviously assymetric phenomena (an aircraft strike) would be so symmetrical and complete?
Amen! Boris Epstein Amen!
So symmetrical and complete (times
(x)3)...WTC 1,2, and 7!
WTC7 wasn't even struck by an airplane! Only by some falling debris from the other two towers. Talk about an assymetric phenomena!!
Links? URLs? Citations?
Nature, and Nature's laws lay hid in night:
God said, Let Seffen be! and all was light.
after the epitaph intended for Sir Isaac Newton,
by Alexander Pope.
If you wanting link, URLs, and citations from MSM (Main Stream Media) sources, I can't quickly give you any. However, if you are willing to have an open mind and watch a few videos from an alternative website, watch this one:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/fo...hread311271/
pg1
Correct me if I'm mistaken, but the issues of the molten steel in the basement levels and the traces of thermite in the building remains are not resolved by this orgy of teh math... are they?
Mark Miller, this isn't the first time you have come in to WP's comments to advance a "skeptical" perspective that smells around the edges like apology for some interest or another. Maybe it's just your writing style, maybe it's the way you argue your points, but from where I'm sitting, you are deflecting. You are distracting. And you are indirectly trying to make WP's position look doubtful just because he won't say what YOU WANT HIM TO SAY.
Mark, nobody owes you a bold statement of outright conspiracy. By your insistence that such must be offered, you distract from the focus of the Seffen paper's fictional qualities. This thread is not about whether WP believes in what you would consider "a conspiracy." It's about Keith Seffen's fictional "analysis" of some structure that exists somewhere in Keith Seffen's mind... but not the structures of WTC 1&2 and not structures that fell in the manner WTC 1&2 fell.
So what are you aiming at, Mark? Would you be so kind as to be blunt and honest, or is that not possible?
re spiv @ 12:45 pm --
spiv, my point about evidence and what would happen in a court of law was in response to Martin Adams' bizarre and oblique reference to litigation evidence. I think it's absurd to talk about Seffen's paper or any comments on that paper as if it's litigation evidence. It is no such thing. It is not even competent to be considered such a thing.
As to the substance of your comment, I think I understand what you're saying -- but do you really think that the goal of this thread is to convert the eye-glazed naive and/or ignorant person?
Winter Patriot: This is not a personal attack on you. I read your blog because I like it and admire you. But if there is a conspiracy, who are you and the others alleging are the conspirators in 9/11 if not the terrorists? Or is it that you just don't know?
Hi Mark. I tried to reply to this question earlier but I couldn't find the right thread ... probably you didn't find my answer either.
In short, what I believe is immaterial. What matters is what we know, and what we can prove.
I don't know who all the conspirators were. I do have suspicions about certain people but I do not wish to speculate.
I will link back to my previous comment on this matter if I can find it.
Dr Seffen is Senior Lecturer at Cambridge University Engineering Department (CUED). He is a member of the Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering Division (Division D). He is also an Official Fellow of Corpus Christi College.
I don't see anyone here with anything approaching his education or qualifications - let us form a circle of shame and point at each other with morbid chagrin. Get jobs and support the President in his duty!!
You got that right Boris - these traitors say they know so much - call the Prof and have him put you straight!!
Dr Seffen is Senior Lecturer at Cambridge University Engineering Department (CUED). He is a member of the Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering Division (Division D). He is also an Official Fellow of Corpus Christi College.
Dr Seffen's research considers reconfigurability in structures, for realising novel expeditious properties and functionality; please consult his personal WWW pages for more detail. Dr Seffen is a member of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) and the Institute of Maths and its Applications (IMA). He is also a Chartered Mathematician (CMath).
• BA (First Class) Engineering Tripos, University of Cambridge (1993)
• MA, University of Cambridge (1997)
• PhD, University of Cambridge (1997)
• E-mail: kas14@cam.ac.uk
• Department Address: University of Cambridge, Department of Engineering, Trumpington Street, Cambridge CB2 1PZ
• Telephone: +44 1223 7 64137
• Fax: +44 1223 3 32662
So what are you aiming at, Mark? Would you be so kind as to be blunt and honest, or is that not possible?
The Wendigo | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 8:34 pm | #
--------------------------------------
Well that was very diplomatic,.. somebody send Wendigo away to finishing school in Switzerland ?
Wendigo: don't worry about Mark. I think he's just curious.
There are lots of people around in all sorts of positions, along the not-quite-continuum of beliefs about 9/11 and indeed about all sorts of other things.
I don't think Mark's questions are intended to do any harm or anything like that, so please relax on that front. There are plenty of other things to keep you occupied!
There are a lot of kind words for the host on this thread and they are all appreciated. Thanks very much, folks.
That's pretty funny, Johny on the spot.
"Call the prof and have him put you straight?" Yeah, sure. He's been ducking his email for two months.
http://winterpatriot.blogspot.co...bridge-
don.html
Seriously, Johnny ...
By presenting the results of his research to the media before it was published, and by representing it as having been published when it wasn't, Keith Seffen threw away any credibility his degrees might otherwise have conferred on him, in my opinion.
When he refused to answer simple questions like "Has the paper been published or not?" he would have damaged his credibility even further, if that had been possible.
So I think you should go ahead and defend him all you like; we need a good laugh!
I love the spin, you gotta love the spin. It was the extraordinary impact of a SPEEDING, FUEL-LOADED AIRPLANE that did it! The towers were only made to withstand the impact of a SLOW, EMPTY AIRPLANE!
I mean, who knew?
Links? URLs? Citations?
Mark Miller | Homepage | 11.10.07 - 7:14 pm | #
3. For every force acting on an object, the object will exert an equal, yet opposite, force on its cause.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
New..._laws_of_motion
Johnny on the Spot:
Traitors? Who are the traitors here?
Just because we don't all line up behind Bush and his cronies, just because we have a brain and think for ourselves, doesn't mean we are traitors!
I would love to be wrong in my opinion of the events and causes of 911. I would love to beleive the Official 911 Commission Report. However, there is just many problems with that report.
I've served my country for 10 years in the Air Force and I supported Bush for the longest time. However, my opinion of him has drastically changed over the recent years!!
I know support the US Constitution over any president.
/Despite localised and substantial horizontal impacts by fuel-laden aircraft, both towers survived until the intense fire compromised the ability of the remaining, in-tact columns close to the aircraft impact zones to sustain the weight of the buildings above them./
and conclusion is:"...until the intense fire compromised the ability of the remaining,..."
Well I've seen some scientific explanations that in order to melt these steel bems it required to reach surrounding and time-constricted temperature at somewhat 1700 in Fahrenheit but kerosin fuel of these 767's may produce as much as (around) 600 Fahrenheit at their peak.
So, if those scientists were right, then it was controlled demolition.
Secondly, "hammer punch" effect is not usefull (as one of our fellow readers depicted for a test), bc there were no vertical impact that will (or may) incrementally re-inforce the pressure and produce demolition and dismemberment of IMMEDIATE lower level steel beam structure, which was not heated, nor horizontally striked.
So, where is the science?
And I don't really think that structure of these Boings was sturdy enough to "cut" these hardcore steel beams. Yes, fuel explosion, and horizontal impact was in charge, but it's not the same effect as if one will throw a rock into bear bottle.
It's more like "bullit through a window", so the vector of incoming(directed) force will quickly loose it's momentum due to padding of easy distructable building's "exterior" elements (windows, rooms, corridors), like a "pillow", till it reaches the "spinal sceleton" of the building.
I am not an engineer but I figure that incoming force will decrease in rapid progression and the only devastating charge will remain is fire. But kerosin's burning temperature is not enough to melt these beams that quick.
Sorry for imperfections in my English.
I'd like to defend The Wendigo, who takes a lot of heat here about Mike Rivero.
What has most concerned me is the pervasive anti-semitism on his website, which as TW says, has a lot of virtues, too. It's one thing to be critical of Israel, its government, the influence of the Israeli lobby on American politics, and even the fact that many (though by no means all) American Jews (of which I am one) support the aims of the Israeli lobby. It's quite another to support the expression of what I call "Throw the Jew down the well" anti-semitism (thank you, Borat) on one's website, and believe me, I have seen examples of that on WRH. Interestingly, I have written several letters to the WRH website objecting to specific examples of this, and none have ever been published on the website.
As for Ron Paul, although anyone is of course entitled to support whoever they wish, I happen to agree with The Wendigo that Paul is a dangerous candidate. People are seduced by his streak of outspoken gunslinger act, but if one bothers to examine his policies and political beliefs, one will find them to be no salve for what ails this country. "Libertarianism" equals let everyone have their way and screw the public good. It is really Reaganism redux. It holds no more promise for addressing the deep inequalities and injustices of our current state of affairs than any other candidate.
Now, I do agree with those who say that we are better off taking the Seffen "paper" seriously, even though like others here I believe it is probably slipshod scholarship or worse, but I don't have the engineering chops to say for sure. We do need to present our evidence of what really happened in a systematic, reasonable fashion if we are ever going to avoid the "tinfoil hat" designation -- though there's no guarantee we will ever succeed in breaking through that barrier.
Has anyone checked Dr. Seffen's credentials? Just askin'......what if his credentials are ok, but his peers think he's an idiot? Just wonderin'... Who said this guy has any credibility to begin with, to be quoted like this? He may or he may not...I'm just wonderin'...you know, like one of Bush's "scientists" redacting REAL scientists' findings...
The Grimblebee:
Gunslinger? That is about the last word I would choose to call Ron Paul.
He strongly follows the US Constitution and he is a Non-Interventionist.
No one person will ever be a "salve for what ails this country"! It will take a collective effort to wake us up from our collective stupor.
I would suggest that you look into his policies and political beliefs if you choose to really know what he is about.
Nonetheless, these replies aren't about Ron Paul and I am sorry if my sign-on name confused the topic and meaning of my posts.
Simply put, the official 911 theory is full of serious holes and the above article doesn't answer or prove that airplanes caused the three towers to crumble through the path of most resistance.
/I think he is following orders from above...ie the Bilderbergers, CFR, and Tri Lateral Committee. These global elite are determined to bring USA into a North American Union and to destroy the American Dollar, the Constitution, all of our civil rights./
100% true and not just for America.
Another question: anyone can share link to legally released Pentagon's 24/7 CCATV security cameras footage on the "Hit Day"? Oh, that's going to breach the National Security Protocol and 16th Ammendment, of course.
Another question: How did they write, edit, and have congress pass the Patriot Act in 45 days after Sept 11, 2001??
To me, one of the smoking guns of 9/11 is actually the Partiot Act itself due to it's size and complexity. It's so big and so complex that a dream team of lawyers would need to work at least 6 months, 24/7, to put anything remotely similar together.
The only logical answer: It was written well before that tragic day in September!
Lets just forget about the explosions firefighters heard. Lets just forget that they fell 10 stories a second 110 stories in 10 seconds. Lets just forget about WTC 7. Lets just forget Bush said he saw the first plane hit at the school that morning. Lets just forget about the lack of planes at the Pentagon and in Pa. And lets just forget on Sept 10th 2001 Donald Rumsfailed announced they have misplaced 2.3 TRILLION dollars. Goggle that if you don't believe me. Just forget everything and be good little Germans shall we.
In answer to The Sea Dreamer's posting of 1:40pm, if you follow this link to Cambridge University's website, they certainly appear to be linking their own name and reputation to this paper, see http://www.admin.cam.ac.uk/news/.../dpp/
2007091001.
It came to me in the night - yup, we guys here in the UK are five hours ahead of many of you , that one fundamental reason why Dr Seffen's paper is flawed is that, as I have mentioned before, although he is dealing with the mathematics of the collapse, he has ignored the initiation of the collapse. Using his party balloon analogue, he has used more and more force with his lungs, until eventually that force (and corresponding air pressure) overcame the resistance of the balloon rubber. Putting this analogue into context of the WTCs (all of them, including WTC7 which he has ignored), this would be like a huge hand descending from the sky and pressing down on the roof of the building, exerting more and more force, limitless force if need be, until the steel gave way (plasticized). We have all seen a similar scenario in the Monty Python sketch, but with a huge foot stamping down. But there was only a limited force available before collapse, which was due to the mass of the top part of the building(s) pressing down under gravitation pull. So I believe that Dr Seffen has done his calculations looking at this from the wrong side. He should have looked at resistance of the steel support columns, and how these would have been compromised by any energy, such as heat from the so called 800oC fire, which, of course, we know couldn’t have been that hot due to the survival of fire-fighters and others from the building, and also those trapped waving for help from the gash caused by the crashing plane. Thus he is unable to use his “Maxwell Construction”, as it is unlikely that his building would collapse, unless he can demonstrate that the steel supports were sufficiently weakened. Looking at his figure 1 of his party balloon, on age 26, his graph is in error, as he should be plotting resistance against time, with the initial force of the top of the building a constant horizontal line drawn somewhere below the resistance (otherwise the building would have collapsed as soon s it was built), and the line of resistance dipping below the horizontal line denoting force.
Putting Dr Seffen's analogue a different way, imagine how much breath he would need to blow up a copper or steel pipe, which was sealed at one end. He would not have enough force in his lungs.
So no wonder he thinks it would be an everyday occurrence that these massive buildings simply collapse at free-fall speeds, this is true, providing you have an unlimited force pressing down on the roof, a great hand descending from the sky!!
I believe his paper is flawed, and we shall be pointing this out to Cambridge University.
So far on this blog I've been accused of being a racist without having said anything racist and of being unable to be blunt and honest after I've been very straightforward in my questions. I guess you all don't countenance dissent here. I fell as though I've walked into a country bar and the biggest guy in there says, "You ain't from around here, are ye, boy?" while everyone stares with hostility.
The Wendigo: The most logical and likely question for someone positing a conspiracy is "who do you believe the conspirators are, and what was their motive?"
Mark Miller asks "But if there is a conspiracy, who are you and the others alleging are the conspirators in 9/11 if not the terrorists? Or is it that you just don't know?"
A good question, to which I would answer "I don't know". But herein lies the crux of the matter. Just because I don't know, that does not mean to say that I have to agree with Bush's and the so called 911 commission's explanations, any more than fly to the moon.
I have used this analogy before, if I learn that someone is imprisoned for murder, yet I can demonstrate that the evidence to put him behind bars is false, does that mean that I have to really prove who the murder was before that innocent man gets released, or does that mean that the police would have to open their files and start their investigation again?
What many of us, those who completely disbelieve the so called 'official' explanations, are calling for is a new thorough, non-political and complete investigation into the events of 911, using all legal investigative powers to interview witnesses, call for documents and so forth. The 911 Commission failed on all points.
And any good policeman will first of all ask the question of any crime "Who benefits?"
There has been two illegal invasions and occupations by American and British forces of other countries, there has been the wholesale mass slaughter of over 1 million innocent Iraqis, there has been a creation of a fictional "war on terror" which has been used to justify and steal the rights and freedoms of any people around the world, including my own, and there has been a huge increase and surge of monies into ',mercenary' companies like Haliburton and Blackwater, all paid for by the hard pressed US taxpayer, a justification in the use of torture.
So who has benefited, a man thousands of miles away in a cave?
According to Seffen, "progressive collapse" is the usual thing that happens to tall buildings.
If anyone could have made progressive collapse work nist would have, and if they had made it work everyone would know it. Therefore, the report is meaningless.
Sure, if you arrange to drop the top of a large building on the bottom, you will do a lot of damage.
In the progressive collapse theory, however, the collapse never starts. In the progressive collapse the only explosive, sudden catastrophic events are the original plane crashes. The buildings survived the plane crashes admirably, for some time. then, SOMEHOW, the top breaks loose and begins to fall on the stuff below. even NIST eventually tells you that nothing broke loose and fell ( I saw it on Nova). Some floors slowly sagged, they did not break loose. In progressive collapse the buildings are still standing because there was no sudden explosive catastrophe to initiate it.
The reason those buildings fell was that the cores were blown to bits and the outer walls could not carry the load without the cores. The cores would not have spontaneously failed, and most likely could have carried the entire load, indefinitely.
It would still be possible to figure out what really happened, but you would first need a president who wanted to make it public. that would require a president who, if sane, believed he could hold the country together while the most amazing things were laundered in public. Not real likely, too many things could go wrong. Face it, the people who felled the towers have won.
And considering that the party controlling the WMD's is facing a unique election in 2008, it might be reasonable to suggest that you ain't seen nothing yet.
Not being an engineer, I have trouble understanding the collapses of the WTC towers.
I have seen pictures of the construction of these towers in which the central steel columns are constructed first and then the floor trusses are attached to the central columns. Obviously, the central columns were holding up the floors and not vice-versa.
How could the collapse of the floors bring down the central columns? Well, I suppose they could, if the joint between the floor trusses and the central columns was so strong that it would surpass the strength of the steel central columns themselves. But, I've also seen diagrams of the attachment of the floor trusses to the steel columns, and it only consisted of a few bolts.
Maybe the attachments were very strong, but then why wouldn't the floor trusses themselves shear. Was the shear strength of the floor trusses greater than the compression strength of the central steel columns. Having seen steel piles being driven into the ground, I don't think so.
So, ....... why didn't the floors collapse like donuts, leaving the central columns standing?
Dear Marc Miller,
I can't find where you were called a "racist," but there are too many messages here to scroll through.
As for an open forum, I don't know any blog more welcoming of comments from all comers than Winter Patriot.
If anything, I can understand that commenters would be critical of you, for the simple reason that the words "conspiracy theory" have been overwhelming used as a label to SHUT OFF all debate on the subject of 9/11. It is the easiest way to marginalize those who criticize the official story, instead of engaging in a serious discussion of the evidence.
The way those of us who are 9/11 skeptics see it, there are really two -- or multiple -- 9/11 "conspiracy theories." The one that has held sway is the official 9/11 conspiracy theory: that a conspiracy of 19 Arab fanatics commandeered four airliners with boxcutters, steered three of them expertly into buildings, miraculously paralyzed the American defense system for over two hours, even more miraculously brought down three (yes, three) buildings, one of which they didn't even crash an airplane into, and left a self-incriminating trail such that authorities who 24 hours earlier had no clue that such a thing could ever happen (or so they said) were able less than 24 hours (actually about 3 hours later) later to pin the thing on Osama Bin-Laden, a possibly now-deceased former CIA collaborator, and publish mug shots of all 19 hijackers, some of whom have claimed to be still alive....
And that's just a fraction of the official conspiracy theory (OCT).
We who question the OCT do not claim to have all the answers as to who did it? How could we? Our charge, as others have said here, is to look at the evidence, point out the holes in the OCT, and try to construct what we believe to be a better explanation.
In the Jewish tradition, there is a song called "Dayenu," sung at Passover. "Dayenu" means "It would have been enough." For example, it goes "If God had only brought us forth from Egypt, it would have been enough."
I think of "Dayenu" when I think of 9/11, because if only ONE of these things about the OTC is not true, it would be enough to hold the entire theory in question. Perhaps WTC7 is the best example: if this building was not brought down without controlled demolition (and in the case of WTC7, no even remotely plausible explanation has ever been offered) -- in other words, if it was imploded, then why, how, and by whom? It is difficult to see how it could NOT point to some sort of conspiracy by our own government, or forces within our own government.
WTC7 is just one clear example, but there are many others. Take your pick. The Seffen paper has all the hallmarks of being a baldfaced attempt to propagate the OTC. If people out there feel the need to publish papers of dubious merit and, moreover, leak them to the press to create a story that this is "gospel" when the paper has not even been published -- well then, why,
I just did a google and came upon this blog
http://laura-knight-jadczyk.blog...-folly-
not.html
"Not even wrong"
Oops, well I guess not 100% welcoming of long-winded types like me 
But I think I've said enough for now!
Wendigo:
Yes, I agree with you that M.R. seems to have a blind spot regarding global warming. I do not know whether it is a natural occurrence we are now undergoing, cyclical, or a man-made one, but certainly M.R. refuses to even logically discuss it. And seems to gain enjoyment for dissing Mr. Gore. I suppose M.R. thinks Bush makes a better president?
You give no reason for dissing his favoring Ron Paul (although I have never seen him endorse anyone for the 2008 election) or for dissing Paul's candidacy itself, have you one you care to share with us?
Lastly, I think you are mistaken when you claim M.R. "blames the Jews" on his blog. He posts articles from msm sources and the internet regarding Zionist activities. If certain "Jews" act with Zionist intentions to influence my country, the USA, negatively for another, foreign county's benefit, I salute M.R. for posting those articles. I also salute those posting articles about "Christian Zionists", Neocons, or on any government institutions, like the US Air Force Academy Evangelical Takeover.
Explain why you do not think "the Jews" involved in the above groups and their activities should be publicized, please.
Or perhaps you'd rather explain to me, the grandson of a survivor of the Turkish Genocide of 3.9 million Armenians, why the Jewish ADL opposes recognizing officially the Turkish atrocities, and sides with those wishing to cover it up?
THAT I'll be waiting to hear.
Regards.
Okay, WP. If I'm over-reacting to Mark Miller, I apologize. To you, to Mark, to the rest of those who are reading and commenting.
But I'm still confused as to why he insists that you have to offer a statement that satisfies his peculiar desires, and that you have to come out and say precisely what you think happened on 9/11/2001. What makes his requests reasonable? I don't see any plausible cause for finding them reasonable. If he's been reading your essays he should know you're not engaged in constructing an elaborate theory of what exactly happened. You are examining and dissecting flaws in the "official story" and now, in recent posts, the flaws in the fictions of Keith Seffen.
I'm also a little exasperated that he thinks you owe him something. I see the same stuff at Chris Floyd's blog. I don't think any blog essayist owes any reader a conclusion to be followed. Writers like you and Chris Floyd who point out problems but don't tell readers what to think or do are doing readers a great service. You respect the reader's ability to draw his/her own conclusions.
And I would say to Mark, it's not that you're a city slicker who just walked into a country bar. It's more like you're in the movie Caddyshack and you are Al Czervik, who just came onto the Bushwood Country Club golf course and turned on his golf bag stereo and started playing Journey songs. But your posts are made without Rodney Dangerfield's humor!
I don't understand how he can assume the heat from the fires was enough to weaken the columns. Never has been before. To cut metal with a cutting torch you need a proper mix of oxygen and gas. To melt metal in a foundry the temperature has to be raised by some agent. You can't weaken thick steel columns with an open air fire. Especially over such a short time frame. If you could, wouldn't the stoves we use start to bend when we broiled a steak? It takes alot to weaken steel. Random fires shouldn't be able to do it. If they can then don't all major cities need to revisit building codes in lue of what went down on 9/11? If steel can so easily be weakened by fires now, should all new construction on all major high rises be suspended in order to protect the public from another 9/11? Under these new 911 Laws of Physics, I would think so.
When I look at the video's of the collapses the mass seems to be turning to powder as the collapse cloud moves downward. I don't see the top mass plowing through the underlying structure, rather I see the mass being changed to dust clouds in systematic symetrical timed downward fashion.
I watched the 9/11 special the History channel had on recently and I couldn't believe that they could show the video and then try to tell me what I was seeing was actually something else. This guy here, and the History Channel are like people trying to show you an Orange and telling you its blue. They do it with total sincerity, even though every word they say makes no sense at all.
farang -- as The Sea Dreamer indicated above, the observations I made on MR don't really bear on this thread's topic. I'd be interested in discussing it more fully and if I've been mistaken then I'd be pleased to change my view to the correct one. Why don't you check my blog this evening for a post on the subject, and we can discuss it there. There's plenty about Keith Seffen and the WTC 1&2 towers to discuss here without distracting the flow of rhetoric.
(Perhaps obvious FYI: My blog can be found by clicking on Homepage) directly below.
Spiv wrote:
What many of us, those who completely disbelieve the so called 'official' explanations, are calling for is a new thorough, non-political and complete investigation into the events of 911, using all legal investigative powers to interview witnesses, call for documents and so forth. The 911 Commission failed on all points.
I would support this.
Grimblebee, Winter Patriot has always been kind to me. But some of the posters have not. Two or three said I'm racist a couple of months back, and The Wendigo accused me of being incapable of honesty. Just for asking a few innocent questions. Dissent is not tolerated here. Not that I dissented much this time, I just asked a couple of questions that beg to be asked: Who did it if not the hijackers, and why?
As for those of you shy of the word "conspiracy," it is the exact correct word for the plot to demolish those buildings.
Boris Bush and Johnny on the Spot are curious. Are they being funny, or are they shilling for Keith Seffen? If they're trying to be funny, well they're not even remotely funny. So that leaves shilling. Fellow chavs on the shill. Chav away, boys. Chav away.
Mark, now you're just being paranoid. Look, I'm sorry if you don't have much human interaction in your life. Your posts indicate you don't know how to communicate without a robotic restriction to your own perspective and none other outside your mental world. Stop derailing the thread's topic. Get on topic.
kolyan --
Well I've seen some scientific explanations that in order to melt these steel bems it required to reach surrounding and time-constricted temperature at somewhat 1700 in Fahrenheit but kerosin fuel of these 767's may produce as much as (around) 600 Fahrenheit at their peak.
Actually, to melt structural steel you need about 2400 deg F. Deformity starts happening in the low 2000s deg F. Jet fuel burns at about 600-700 deg f, I believe. There is a huge disparity between the heat capacity of a jet airplane and building materials fueled fire, and the heat needed to at least deform structural steel. The disparity is at least 700-800 deg F and perhaps as much as 1200 deg F.
Seffen's theory is a fiction. It ignores metallurgy, it ignores chemistry, it ignores physics.
It is a manipulation of mathematics in a theoretical construct that has no relation to reality.
"Conspiracy" also describes the "official 9/11 theory."
If you are willing to consider evidence, then fine.
If you use "conspiracy" to marginalize those who do not buy into the official theory, then not so fine. That would be the pot calling the kettle black, i.e., not tolerating "dissent."
The Grimblebee -- thanks for that post in defense of my thoughts on MR. I will have a post at my blog this evening related to the 3 points I make on MR's stated posts at his blog. We can discus the subject fully there, and leave this thread to the Seffen paper and the WTC 1&2 towers.
I promise I will follow The Wendigo over to his blog to discuss this more fully, but I would like to finally offer one example of the anti-semitism on WRH. If this isn't pure anti-semitism, I don't know what is, and there are other examples I can provide. As I said, this has nothing to do with Israel, Zionism, etc.
WRH Reader: "On another note, my 8 year old daughter is being taught two Jewish dances (allegedly Israel dances) at her public school in South Texas. There isn't a Jew within 40 miles of where we live, yet such is when and where the propaganda begins. I'm sending her to school tomorrow with a note asking if they'll follow the JEW DANCE [emphasis added] with a Palestinian dance."
WRH: I hope this reader does so, and follows up with a report on what happened.
The post about Rivero is up at my blog. Let's take Rivero out of this discussion and leave it to the subjects discussed in WP's essay on Seffen's paper.
confused --
How could the collapse of the floors bring down the central columns? Well, I suppose they could, if the joint between the floor trusses and the central columns was so strong that it would surpass the strength of the steel central columns themselves. But, I've also seen diagrams of the attachment of the floor trusses to the steel columns, and it only consisted of a few bolts.
Simply put, they could not.
The floors are built with concrete. The skeletal infrastructure tower is structural steel. The concrete is more easily deformed and destroyed, it will fail well before the steel.
It's really very logical. Because the steel is stronger it is the skeleton. At certain dimensions, buildings made primarily of concrete will fail unless they have steel support. Sometimes the steel support is basic, like rebar within the concrete casting. But even rebar reinforcement cannot make concrete strong enough at a certain set of dimensions, so some sort of infrastructure is required. That's where the steel tower center comes into utility.
There are analogies to living organisms. Vertebrates have a rigid or semi-rigid internal skeleton that supports the rest of their body, primarily soft-tissue composition. Some invertebrates lack any skeletal structure, while others --like certain insects-- have their skeleton on the inside and the softer tissues on the inside of that skeleton.
Mark, now you're just being paranoid. Look, I'm sorry if you don't have much human interaction in your life. Your posts indicate you don't know how to communicate without a robotic restriction to your own perspective and none other outside your mental world. Stop derailing the thread's topic. Get on topic.
The Wendigo | Homepage | 11.11.07 - 10:33 am | #
What I hear you saying here is, "Mark, quit asking inconvenient questions. Agree with us and write about what we want you to write about or we will accuse you of all kinds of stuff, including dishonesty, paranoia, being friendless, an inability to think and being robotic."
The most obvious questions for a thread like this are: "Who do you think demolished those buildings if not the terrorists, and why? What does anyone have to gain from this terrorism?"
All of this sturm und drang about how the buildings collapsed, whether the airplane or explosives did it, is futile if you don't try to find out who did it. It would be like the police finding a body that was shot to death and asking whether the gun really killed the victim but not asking who wielded the gun. It's ludicrous.
I'm a journalist. We are taught to ask who, what, when, where, why and how. If you don't answer all those questions and more, you don't have the full story. And your nasty insults merely prove your inability to answer them, or at least honestly admit you don't know. Your insulting replies to me make you look exactly like what you fear being called the most: a nutty, paranoid conspiracy theorist.
I am definitely on topic.
Mark I have been reluctant to tell you who I think took down the towers because I really have no idea.
On the other hand I do have some ideas about who the conspirators were, and you might be interested in a piece I wrote about one of these people:
Meet Jerome Hauer, 9/11 Suspect Awaiting Indictment
I read that post and watched the video.
You may want to change the headline. You are implying or even stating that Hauer was behind the attacks, and if he or someone in his family read that posting, he may very well sue you for libel. If he was involved, your defense would be that he was in fact a part of the conspiracy.
I see why you guys are concerned about this. But I just doubt government agents or anyone else could plants tons of explosives without people noticing. And even if they could do that, how would they keep such a conspiracy secret? Also, those airplanes flying at hundreds of miles an hour weighed many tons and must surely have wiped out many support columns, weakening the structures.
I'm skeptical of you skeptics. Bin Laden admitted his role. How could the government have timed the detonations so precisely as to coincide with the hijackers?
MM, you state the following:
"All of this sturm und drang about how the buildings collapsed, whether the airplane or explosives did it, is futile if you don't try to find out who did it. It would be like the police finding a body that was shot to death and asking whether the gun really killed the victim but not asking who wielded the gun. It's ludicrous."
Do you not see the problem with this comparison? You state from the get-go that the body "was shot to death", as if it is a known fact. Of course the prudent question then would be who did the shooting. That's not where we're at with the collapses. Although some people believe they were controlled demolitions, it most certainly isn't a known fact. If it were, then yes, the next question to ask is who is responsible. And it will be the next question asked if/when it is proven they were brought down by controlled demolition.
Bin Laden did not admit ANYTHING, and besides:
1) he is/was a CIA asset
2) he is/was a Bush family friend
3) his family are in business with the Bush family in several ventures
4) his family has been awarded contracts by the US Govt and has arranged work through the Bush family business, Carlyle Group.
Mark Miller is no skeptic. He is a liar.
Who pays your bills, Mark Miller?
no no no, Wendigo ... Please don't go after Mark. He's asking exactly the sorts of questions I would expect a reporter to ask. We've talked about this before.
I'm not sure what you're trying to do. If you're trying to protect me, there's no need. If there's something else, spill ... or else chill ... ok?
Mark: Thanks for the questions. I will try to answer them and others will too, no doubt.
Wendigo is right about bin Laden. The videotape in which he "admitted" his role was fabricated. There are all sorts of reasons for saying this, including the provenance. Really shady.
The FBI doesn't list 9/11 on their "WANTED: OBL" page, because they don't have any hard evidence against him. The only authentic videotape that we ever got from OBL had him saying attacks against innocent women and children were against Islam.
That got suppressed, as did a lot of other stuff. Welcome to the rabbit hole.
For a journalist MM, you sure don't seem to know much about that which you'd choose to pretend otherwise.
Are you suggesting that never in history has a government or governments been able to keep a secret from the general public? It's only been a little over 6 years. Haven't they managed to keep other secrets for much longer?
How many people in the general public knew about Operation Northwoods and when did they finally learn about it?
That is just one example of many. What exactly do you write about, fashion?
"no no no, Wendigo ... Please don't go after Mark. He's asking exactly the sorts of questions I would expect a reporter to ask. We've talked about this before."-WP
He's also ignoring many things people have said in response to his questions. He's been told how it might be possible to plant the explosives. Has he 'researched' that information? If so, I don't believe I've seen his response to that information, other than for him to repeat the questions, or doubts without acknowledging any of the information previously given to him.
And seriously, what kind of question is "How could the government have timed the detonations so precisely as to coincide with the hijackers?"
Coincide? Does he mean on the same day or what? LOL.
I don't see anything wrong with asking for explanations.
I have been teaching for many years; sometimes my students ask the same questions more than once; that doesn't mean their motives are hostile.
Some of us have been thinking "inside job" for years and we know a lot about what happened that day. Others are just starting to question the official story and sometimes the questions they ask seem impossibly stupid but in the long run it's far better to answer the question than to sneer at it.
To answer the current question:
How could the government have timed the detonations so precisely as to coincide with the hijackers?First of all, I have never said "the government" did it. I have said "the government" didn't do it. We are talking about individuals here not massive organizations.
Secondly, if you have the explosives in place to demolish a building, you can knock it down any time you want to.
I am definitely not interested in changing the headline on the Jerome Hauer piece. He was a suspect awaiting indictment even before that video surfaced.
I agree that the evidence against him is circumstantial but it is enormous. If I were running an investigation he would be one of the first people I would want to question and I would definitely not be interested in treating him as a "witness".
how would they keep such a conspiracy secret?
That's easy. First of all, look at the Manhattan project. How many people were involved? How many of them talked? They kept that secret because they were told to, and because they believed it was for the good of the country.
Here we are looking at a great deal fewer people and they are guilty of enormous crimes. Why would anyone confess to something like that?
Witnesses have been intimidated into silence in various ways, and for the most part the intimidation has worked. Very few of them will talk ... and those who do talk find their stories suppressed by the mainstream media.
Imagine how much more intimidated the perpetrators feel. Those on the fringe must have thought many times:
If the people who planned this were willing to kill three thousand people to advance their political agenda, would they think twice about killing me?
I have no trouble imagining how the conspiracy could have been kept quiet.
How many people in the general public knew about Operation Northwoods and when did they finally learn about it?
Most of them still don't know about it, especially the journalists.
Some of you guys give journalism WAY too much credit.
The paper can't explain this !!
http://video.google.com/
videopla...604978641682920
http://video.google.com/
videopla...460757734339444
http://video.google.com/
videopla...087335913993078
No formula can explain the sound of the bombs going off.
All of this sturm und drang about how the buildings collapsed, whether the airplane or explosives did it, is futile if you don't try to find out who did it.This is quite true, but on the other hand, in order to begin to find out WHO did it, you need to understand HOW it was done.
It would be like the police finding a body that was shot to death and asking whether the gun really killed the victim but not asking who wielded the gun.No, not really. It's more like the police find a body in a pool of blood. The first thing they need to figure out was whether the victim was shot or stabbed or what happened. Then they will determine what the murder weapon was.
And only after they do this can they start trying to find out who wielded the weapon. Otherwise they don't even know what sort of a weapon to look for.
"I am definitely not interested in changing the headline on the Jerome Hauer piece." - WP
What about in correcting a few typos?
before before
covered covered
the the
Sorry, couldn't resist...guess I must suffer from some OCD or something.
Great piece though and wouldn't it be interesting to see him or his family try to open up that can of worms in a court of law?
Thanks, Ron. Keep the corrections coming. I'd rather get it right.
And Yeah, Really!!!
The last thing the Hauer family wants is to go to court and talk about Jerry's involvement in 9/11.
To pull this fraud off all you have to do is the following:
1. Own the Buildings. (Silverstien)
2. Own and run the Security Company in charge of WTC security (Marvin Bush and Co.)
3. Control the Media (Done)
4. Make sure the USAF stands down and doesn't shoot down the Aircraft (Done)
5. Control the investigation team and deny everyone access to the evidence under the guise of National Security (Done)
6. Then quickly have someone available to lay the blame on (Done-Bin Laden)
You see, that wasn't so hard to accomplish!!
I like the reference to Greenwood and Lagrange with regard to a building collapse. Is this a new application for Lagrange's equation? I wonder if Hamilton's Principle might be more applicable here.
Page 11: He says application of Lagrange's equation "remains valid provided the mass is an explicit function of time whose variation stems from entrainment, or expulsion, of mass at a relative velocity of zero." How can this be the case based on many of the video clips available?
Page 13: The Newtonian and Lagrangian approached both gave the same answers and the reader is directed to an earlier study by Seffen and Pellegrino "for a wider discussion of the subtle but important issue". I can't figure out what the issue is.
The whole article has a vibe of flakiness, IMO.
Cambridge University is part of the British establishment, so there's no surprise here. Half the lecturers have probably been recruited by MI5/6, if they weren't already affiliated with the intelligence networks before they were hired.
Even in Australia, every department has a number of staff who work with ASIO and ASIS, the top Australian intelligence organisations.
I can't remember who asked this: "What exactly do you write about, fashion?" It made me laugh. I am now writing at a sports magazine. But I used to be a newspaper reporter. I covered local government for a while, and later, cops and courts.
Even if one concedes you made some good points, I still don't see an obvious motive. What benefit would there be in demolishing those buildings and killing 2,700 people?
What benefit would there be in demolishing those buildings and killing 2,700 people?There were plenty of benefits to go around.
It made Larry Silverstein a ton of money.
It made George Bush into a virtual dictator. He had already said it would be a lot easier that way.
It allowed a huge increase in military and security spending. Who got all that money?
It provided a pretext for two wars. Some corporations make a lot of money whenever there's a war. They make even more money when there are two of them.
There are some other aspects to consider too. But first you should probably read this:
http://empireburlesquenow.blogsp...eprint- for.html
I will forward the link to this "scholar's" paper to some other scholars who are seeking 9-11 truth.
We are coming up on the remembrance of the JFK assassination. Many people participated in that conspiracy from many branches of government. No one was ever caught. It was just a big lie supported by hundreds of other lies, lies that involved murder of many people who knew too much. The Washington Post is still putting out articles touting the offiical lie.
I had hoped that we could have a big powerful lawsuit launched by this time as the official story has thouroughly been disproven. But the truth of 9-11 is going the way of the truth of the JFK assassination -- into oblivion.
I personally see the potential for moving forward on 9-11 truth toward a meaningful powerful lawsuit diminishing more rapidly every day.
As for my beloved U.S.A., it is all over with. The globalist moneyed elites destroyed our republic and they are well on their way to taking over the world. Israel is run by the same cabal that owns and operates the USA and who perpetrated 9-11.
This pathetic "scientific" paper is scientific only in the sense of the new purchased and politicized science that has destroyed all top universities of the world.
9-11 was an inside job
Troops Home NOW !
/The most logical and likely question for someone positing a conspiracy is "who do you believe the conspirators are, and what was their motive?"/
Well, I'll listen or read ftom http://www.mime11.com to get an idea when and by whom it was started.
Then just to support that "inconvenient" accusation will take a quick scroll over this list of players: http://www.rense.com/general47/p...al47/
pulled.htm and :http://globalfire.tv/nj/07en/jews/control_us.htm and this: http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-occu...-
influence.html and some more: http://wsi.matriots.com/FDRcabal.html
Well this is something to consider, and if there anyone who may claim that these materials are rasist's plots, please wake-up!
THAT I'll be waiting to hear.
Regards.
farang | 11.11.07 - 10:18 am | #
--------------------------------------
Inch-bess-ess,..
About the ADL and Mr. Foxman he eventually conceded that the Turks did exterminate, ethnic cleanse, massacre Armenians during the time of WW I. This admission was forthcoming after every tooth was pulled from Mr. Foxman mouth without the use of any Novocaine what so ever. Incidentally during this full mouth tooth extraction no wisdom teeth were ever found.
Please refer to the details of these events of Mr. Foxman and the ADL a "civil rights defense group" adamant denial of world recognized genocide. The ADL at Foxman's behest, became a tool for the diplomatic interests of the state of Israel and Zionist who stood to lose financially by the admission/recognition of the facts of this genocide by Turkey. After the blatant hypocrisy of Mr. Foxman and the ADL was pointed out - he eventually relented to curtail the hemorrhaging of his and the ADL's credibility.
....
For too many years, Abraham Foxman and ADL's leaders have gone far beyond their organization's noble mandate of stopping "the defamation of the Jewish people," by meddling in international politics. The ADL had apparently appointed itself the guardian of Israel's strategic interests and the well being of Jews everywhere, particularly those in Turkey. Ironically, while constantly singing the praises of Turkish tolerance towards minorities, the ADL kept expressing serious concerns over the safety of the few Jews remaining in that country.
Foxman and his group would not have become involved in last week's controversy on the recognition of the Armenian Genocide, had they simply stuck to their mission of fighting anti-Semitism. As Herb Keinon pointed out in his August 24 column in the Jerusalem Post, the ADL, besides being unhelpful to Israel, is getting "in the way" of Israeli diplomacy by creating unnecessary and unwelcome complications.
ADL officials were acting as if they were in charge of Israel's security rather than heading a U.S. civil rights organization, forgetting that the duly elected leaders of Israel were fully capable of protecting not only the interests of their country, but those of their kinsmen residing in Turkey. In the process of recklessly delving into foreign politics, the ADL had no qualms about
collaborating with Turkish denialists and even lobbying on their behalf to block the passage of a congressional resolution affirming the facts of the Armenian Genocide.
After persistent calls for Foxman's resignation from the American-Jewish community, the ADL issued a statement acknowledging for the first time that the mass killings of Armenians were "tantamount to genocide." While many welcomed the reversal of ADL's long-standing policy of referring to the genocide as a massacre, this statement itself generated a new controversy. Many Armenians and Jews were not fully satisfied becaus
(cut off, cont.)
After persistent calls for Foxman's resignation from the American-Jewish community, the ADL issued a statement acknowledging for the first time that the mass killings of Armenians were "tantamount to genocide." While many welcomed the reversal of ADL's long-standing policy of referring to the genocide as a massacre, this statement itself generated a new controversy. Many Armenians and Jews were not fully satisfied because Foxman's acknowledgment was not forceful
enough. They were even more upset by Foxman's declaration that the congressional resolution on the Armenian Genocide was "a counterproductive diversion and will not foster reconciliation between Turks and Armenians and may put at risk the Turkish Jewish community and the important multilateral relationship between Turkey, Israel and the United States." Some viewed Foxman's morally ambiguous statement as a continuation of his unwise efforts to play politics with
the genocide issue: an attempt to appease the Turks while accommodating his Armenian and Jewish critics.
More at link,..
http://setasarmenian.blogspot.co...-
including.html
I can't remember who asked this: "What exactly do you write about, fashion?" It made me laugh. I am now writing at a sports magazine. But I used to be a newspaper reporter. I covered local government for a while, and later, cops and courts. -MM
It was I, and believe it or not, I was going to say sports at first, but I thought fashion would get a bigger laugh.
Even if one concedes you made some good points, I still don't see an obvious motive. What benefit would there be in demolishing those buildings and killing 2,700 people?
I have to ask, how long have you been 'interested' in this topic? Have you ever read the PNAC document? It's a blueprint for what has happened and will continue to happen, as the link provided by WP explains.
Buildings? Insured. I believe it was also reported that at least one of them contained a lot of information pertaining to some pending investigations that I'm sure those under investigation didn't mind seeing go up in a big puff of smoke.
2,700 people? IF this indeed was an 'inside job', which was used as a catalyst to launch us into what it is we're involved in now and what is soon to come, do you honestly think the people responsible give a shit about 2,700 lives lost? And don't think the fact that the majority were American makes one bit of difference. These people don't think in terms of nationality. It's all about your blood. You're either 'elite' like them, or you're nothing.
And listen what is the major point of invading Iran? Nuclear techs? For US it's not that critical - u'll need make a delivery first, and that is under constant control from Red Sea's US Navy installment. Anybody imposing any fear from surrounding countries, perhaps other then "our" great-old friend Israel? Apperently no one, just Israel complaining. They just using US military forces as a big guy to fight for them and make sure not so many going to support their opponent.
Someone ask for facts of conspiracy? How about total BS about Caribbean conflict? Why Soviets were accused as a starters of the conflict, not US, when they planted "Pershings" in Turkey back in 1958? So when Soviets adequately replied it was an aggression. About Tonkin Bay incident? WHo shot and sunked that Vietnam CoasGuard ship and call that "covardly horrific act of aggression towards USA" and released into official news that Viets attacked US flagship in Tonkin for no reason? Does anyone feel how rediculos that sound?
A bit later, in Egypt-Israel conflict in 60's, I saw that on History Channel a week ago. US Navy warship has been attacked by squad of "Fantoms" without any signatures on them. In presents of US flag and open radio exchange "Fantoms" bomb down that thing, and when central commander in Red Sea recieved code for help/ support he immediately phone for permission to fight/protect, and he recieved clear command from the White House that that American ship "must go down". Later information leaks that US just supplied Israelies with "Fantoms" without any signs on them.
There was some additional sad details on human losses, I just did not get them on tape, was not prepare. It was aired somehow in 2300 or later that night.
So how is that to conspire from whole country? Or History Channel had lie to us?
Jews. Insurance money to rebuild design flawed, aging buildings. Geopolitical excuse to pit Christians vs Muslims.
/...In fact between 40% and 45% of concentration camp victims were Jews. The 55% to 60% majority were not Jews but rather Christians with the largest portion being Slavs. Hitler called Slavs "the ultimate subhumans". Why don't we give Slavic people the same James Bond style "license to kill" we have given Jews? The answer is that Slavs do not dominate the American media or control our sold out Congress. .../
Btw, anybody willing to share an idea with average Ukrainian guy on how and where to apply for "...$12 million "humanitarian relief" ..." for his 3 uncles killed in WW2. No they weren't slaved, sorry, they were just burned alive in their tank, during some battle in 1942. Would that be adequate point to apply along with those people: http://www.jewishsf.com/content/
...splaystory.html
Anyone to join a petition?
"Every time we do something, you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel . We, the Jewish people, control America , and the Americans know it." - Ariel Sharon , October 3, 2001
It is indeed. Look in every "key" Government Chair - all jews.
Co-incidentally, I dialed "jew" into Google today and what I've got: http://www.google.com/explanation.html
So Google comes with apology. Then out of curiocity I dial "germans", "nazi", "french" or "russians", "dushman" and surely - no excuses.
???
Kolyan,..
The last bit in your comment referred to the Israeli air force attack on the communications ship the USS Liberty in international waters just off the coast of Egypt.
::::
Rather than gain,.. salvage something than might otherwise be lost. Preservation of the ability to become despot/dictator.
Another motivating factor to rush into the Middle East endless war on terror was to buttress the frat-boys failing poll numbers. This new cheney/bu$h administration had big plans to revamp America to the exclusive benefit of moneyed elite at the expense of the middle class and the poor. If America was allowed to focus upon the fact that a shallow/racist/elitist/idiot was now in the White House the polling numbers would continue to drastically plummet. The magic of "responding" to the "terrorist act of 9/11" quickly put Bu$$h back in the drivers seat, boosted his poll numbers, and immediately silenced those readily eager to proclaim the pRESIDENT the half wit people had come to painfully discover.
After proclaiming himself the war pResident his rising poll numbers made it much easier to enact the draconian "unitary executive" measures they had planned all along. Rabid nationalism, militarism, privatized capitalism, fascist corporatism, and blind compliance by both Houses of Congress was handed to Bu$$hCo on a silver platter.
(Now the secret government could go about the business of revamping America to the benefit of the robber baron classes, having arranged for the idiot boy king - ventriloquist's lap doll having been fraudulently enthroned)
With this plan his polling numbers sky rocketed accordingly. The rest is our sad history, revamping of America they joyously brought about.
Initially when monkey shit for brains polling numbers plunged - they just pulled another rabbit out of the top hat. Now it seems they no longer give a sweet fuck.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/EEFqiyHP.png
I'm sorry,..
The second part above was in response to this previously posted question.
....
What benefit would there be in demolishing those buildings and killing 2,700 people?
Okay, WP. I won't lay into him so hard. I'll just dissect his posts in the manner I would if I actually respected his posts... which I do not.
But I'd wonder if you recall his racism in the discussions of the Jena Six. And I'd wonder if you, like me, went to check out his blog back at that time, and found he called himself a widely published journalist.
I don't know many widely published "journalists" who refuse to fully investigate matters they pretend to be "skeptical" about. "Skepticism" requires some erudition as a foundation for the questioning perspective. I can't seem to find that base of knowledge anywhere in Mark Miller's posts.
Mark Miller -
What I hear you saying here is, "Mark, quit asking inconvenient questions. Agree with us and write about what we want you to write about or we will accuse you of all kinds of stuff, including dishonesty, paranoia, being friendless, an inability to think and being robotic."
No, Mark.
What you "heard me saying" was a voice in your head, a voice of delusional paranoia. The kind that is experienced by shut-ins who refuse to consider the fact that their mental machinations are not the whole of reality and in fact are no more than a nearly invisible sliver of it.
My text speaks for itself. Try reading it verbatim, Mark.
Jews. Insurance money to rebuild design flawed, aging buildings. Geopolitical excuse to pit Christians vs Muslims.
Oh great. BLAME THE JOOOS.
For Pete's sake, don't you bigots ever get tired of being so paranoid about THE JOOOOOOS?
So you're saying that only THE JOOOOOS ever seek insurance money. Do I read that correctly?
And you're saying that THE JOOOOOS would foment Christian vs Muslim warring so that THE JOOOOOOS can take over the world?
Did I read you correctly, sir/madam?
"Every time we do something, you tell me America will do this and will do that . . . I want to tell you something very clear: Don't worry about American pressure on Israel . We, the Jewish people, control America , and the Americans know it." - Ariel Sharon , October 3, 2001
One doesn't need to know much history at all to realize that this statement by Sharon is the sort of self-aggrandizing crap designed to lull more Jewish folks into becoming Israeli citizens, which creates an even bigger human shield for the evil businesses that currently run the Israeli government. More galley slaves for the galleon run by a cruel gang of greedy plutocrats.
How would Sharon's claim be true? The USA predated Israel by 170 years. The USA helped create Israel, not vice-versa.
Sharon was a freakin' monster, an immoral hell-hound who salivated at the thought of being able to torture, maim and kill Palestinians.
But that doesn't make his grandiose arrogant claim true.
Seffen may have a PHd in engineering but common sense i gotta give him a F.
The Ultimate Con
http://video.google.co.uk/
videop...298171535560228
9/11 press for truth
http://video.google.co.uk/
videop...099104255077250
911 and the British Broadcasting Conspiracy
http://video.google.co.uk/
videop...365905982811133
Zeitgeist : Complete
http://video.google.co.uk/
videop...481422995115331
Open Complicity
This is a 9/11 doc for the advanced class. It starts off with the defeat of the official story as point of departure.
http://video.google.co.uk/
videop...655064407137426
Dear WP,
I fear that what I decried on WRH is taking place here -- an outpouring of disgusting antisemitism. Please, please...I beg you to speak out against these kinds of expressions on your blog. I would like to be able to read your comments without feeling personally threatened and attacked.
This is a vast and complex issue, but let me be as clear as I can: Being Jewish does not have to mean supporting Israel in all its machinations. I was outspoken, for example, in my criticsm of the criminal and barbaric bombing of Lebanon last summer.
Saying that Jewish people were persecuted and exterminated in the Holocaust does not mean that every Jewish person denies the reality of the Holocaust for other ethnic groups, nor does the fact that others were persecuted throughout history (and still are today) negate the fact that Jews have been targeted as a group, caricatured, and blamed for vast conspiracies.
I personally believe that 9/11 was perpetrated by our government, or rogue elements within our government, and may well have involved the Israeli government, or rogue elements within the Israeli government. You may all jump on me for being a conspiracist, but that's not my point here. My point is that it's a far cry from saying "JEWS were responsible for 9/11."
I am not responsible for 9/11! I deeply resent this kind of discourse appearing on a blog that I respect, and where I feel safe expressing my skepticism of 9/11. I certainly do not even feel safe in my own community about expressing such opinions.
The very fact that there is a link to something called "JewWatch" is sickening. It is unfortunately a slippery slope from legitimate criticism of Israel and Zionism to plain antisemitism.
Please. Resist it.
Amen, The Grimblebee.
Amen.
I appreciate your concerns Grimblebee but I disagree about the solution. I prefer to let people speak freely; if their comments are stupid or hateful or whatever, we can all see that, and it doesn't take much to discredit them.
You and everybody else are free to refute anything you see here that strikes you as wrong, for whatever reason. In my view that's the best way of dealing with racism and ignorance.
Wendigo wrote: "But I'd wonder if you recall his racism in the discussions of the Jena Six. And I'd wonder if you, like me, went to check out his blog back at that time, and found he called himself a widely published journalist."
Go look at my Web site again. It never said I am a widely published journalist. I have written and edited at newspapers with at most 150,000 circulation, and that for less than a year, and that as an editor, not a writer. Most of the publications I have worked for have low circulations. The magazine I work at now has just 5,000 subscribers. You could at least get your facts straight.
I was not being a racist in the thread about the Jena Six. I said then that they committed aggravated battery, which is a felony, and they should be punished for it. Charging them with attempted murder was wrong, though. My black fiancee would be happy to tell you that I love her dearly and blacks in general as much as I love anyone. I am not a racist, and I said nothing in that thread that was hateful to black people.
You did accuse me of being friendless, robotic and unable to think, Wendigo. And now, again, racist. I am not paranoid. Rather, you are a hostile and unpleasant person.
In my hypothetical analogy about the murdered body, I forgot to say that the pistol was found next to it.
And just for the record, those buildings obviously were demolished by the airplanes, not by explosives planted there.
I guess I will mosey on down the line if you all want only people who agree with you posting here.
In what way is it "obvious" that the buildings were "demolished by the airplanes"? That doesn't even make sense. The airplanes directly "demolished" a few floors in each building. What happened afterwards is what's up for debate.
And how do you explain Building 7, which wasn't even struck by an airplane, yet collapsed downward instantaneously into its own footprint?
WP, I thank you for your comments, and I'm with you -- I am a true believer in free speech. I'm not advocating that intolerant and racist comments be removed or censored. I wouldn't mind if you, as host of this blog, made a counterargument against such views, but I would respect your choice in the matter.
I can't honestly say that it doesn't make me feel threatened and unwelcomed to see such views. Mark Miller has it easy by comparison. I think I'd rather be the subject of ad hominem attacks than to be implicated for my membership in a group. But...onward.
By the way, your point by point responses to Miller's questions were spot-on. Thank you!!
We all know that the Jewish people as a whole aren't responsible for 9/11. We all know that it would be impossible for the US Govt to be completely innocent. Factions of both goverments were, more than likely, involved.
The problem: The Jewish controlled US Media (don't say it is not Jewish controlled)is 100% complicit in the 9/11 cover-up! Then you have this infamous quote by Ariel Sharron one month after 9/11, and you can see how people start pointing fingers.
Even though some of the comments on this board are totally antisemitic, the Jewish people are more safe here in America than anywhere else I have traveled. I was blown away by the antisemetic feeling by the Europeans.
The Jewish people, the same as us Americans, need to stand up and change our goverment representatives.
We now know what they are up to!!
We need to eliminate the Big Federal Govt and we need to vote new representatives in office. We need to realize that we are not the policeman of the world!
Can any of you "Official 911 Commission Report believers" logicaly answer these three question below?:
How can two planes bring down three buildings so symetrically and completely??
How can three buildings fall at or near free fall speed through the path of most resistance??
Why does the goverment still feel that any and all evidence (aircraft parts, etc) need to be locked up under the guise of National Security? I mean come on, they told us what happened! 19 Middle Eastern Highjackers flew airplanes into buildings. Ok, let us look at the evidence found!!
Until you can answer these questions, stop calling the people who believe that 911 was an inside job...lunatics! I am willing to join your side once these question can be logically answered!!
10 to 1...you can't!!!
Thank you, Luxor, for exemplifying my point about slippery-slope antisemitism.
Even if Jewish people did "control the media" (a sweeping generalization if there ever was one), so what? The official 9/11 story has many contributors. Focusing on the fact that the MSM has helped cover up 9/11 is just one small piece of the puzzle.
The 9/11 Commission also covered up 9/11. Tom Kean is not Jewish, and neither were most, if not all, of the panel's members.
George Bush and Dick Cheney covered up 9/11. Are they Jewish, too?
And what are we to make of your comment about the relative antisemitism of Europe vs. America? Am I supposed to feel grateful and just swallow the antisemitic comments? How would you know what it means to feel safe -- or not safe?
"The Jewish people, the same as us Americans, need to stand up and change our goverment representatives." Which un-American Jewish people are you talking about? The ones with horns?
Perhaps you'd like to start your own House Committee on Un-American Activities, and start by rounding up the Jews.
At least you have a cool name, or avatar. I've been to the Valley of Kings. Nice place.
No don't swallow any pill! Not my point. My point was that antisemitism is much worse than I ever imagined; to include Europe.
Not just this board or America...as some have hinted at in previous posts.
The Jewish people need to change the Jewish Govt. Reps!!
The American People need to changed the American Govt. Reps!!
Factions of both Govts were complicit in 911. I said this in my last post. Don't bring up Cheney, Bush, and Kean. I am agreeing with you!
It is not a sweeping generalization about the MSM! It is fact!!
I don't want to round up any groups! I think everybody is an individual and all Jewish people aren't bad. Same as, all American people aren't good! There are always a few bad apples in every group.
Oh, by the way, I have been to Israel and I think it is a fantastic place. I had work to do at the Intel Semiconductor Plant there.
Wow The Grimblee, is my written English that bad??
Mark Miller,
So I'm unpleasant and hostile. I make no bones about either accusation, both are true. I don't spend my time equivocating about technical details that are irrelevant. For example, "widely published journalist" wasn't stated in quotation marks, was it? I didn't say that was the precise term you used, did I? So you quarrel with the terminology, rather than the statement that you are a published reporter in several venues. You're not denying that you have made that assertion about being published in several venues, are you?
As to the racism, I called you on it in the Jena Six discussions and I stand by what I said. You may not be able to see your flaw. It was quite apparent to me.
I'd suggest you drop the pretense of skepticism, Mark. You're not skeptical. You're a technocrat who wants to confirm his existing thoughts, and your "skepticism" has been presented in ways that reflect not an inquisitive mind, but an attempt to trap the person your asking, or to confine the discussion to your precepts. Neither technique has much to do with skepticism; both are well-grounded in confirmation bias and that's the technique used by axe-grinders and agenda shills. If I'm wrong, then show me how. With some substance. Not with equivocation or technical distinctions that obscure the substance. If I'm wrong I'll admit it.
The problem: The Jewish controlled US Media (don't say it is not Jewish controlled)
Sorry, but I'll say it.
The US Media is NOT Jewish-controlled. It is too large, too sprawling, too many levels of subsidiary editorial control filled by people of ALL religions and cultural identities.
Sorry, Luxor. You make statements that obscure reality, and you make them with too much conviction and you treat them as irrefutable fact. You're wrong!
The Grimblebee --
Don't you know that all those Goys are just willing puppets for their Evil Jew Masters?
Sheesh.
PS -- Yes, the best method to counter these fools is to show how they're wrong, and I didn't read your post above (to which I replied "Amen") as calling for WP to edit posts. WP is thorough and diplomatic though, and I can understand why he responded as he did.
OK -- I'll cut you some slack.
I think your use of the term "Jewish government" is problematic. You are talking about the Israeli government, right? True, Israel portrays itself as a Jewish state, but the word "Jewish" encompasses all Jews. My government (barfing noise optional) is the American government, same as yours. I hope you can see the disctinction.
And that's why I took exception to your saying "The Jewish people, same as us Americans...." I am Jewish, and I am an American. So I assume you were talking about the Israeli population. I hope so.
Even if the owners of the mainstream media are mainly Jewish, it does NOT mean they are a cabal or a conspiracy, so I'm going to argue with you there. It does NOT even signify anything, in my opinion.
The people who "control" most of the institutions in America are most definitely NOT Jewish. Should we then assume that they are a Christian conspiracy?
"You did accuse me of..." - Mark Miller
Can you quote exactly where he ACCUSED you of what you claim?
I may have gotten it wrong, but I seem to recall QUESTIONS being asked. Are questions the same thing as accusations in your mind?
To me, an accusation leaves no room for doubt in the mind of the accuser, however small.
Instead of focusing on the 'accusations', why not answer the questions with something giving credence to your position or claims.
I think your latest comment about the buildings 'obviously' being demolished by the planes lays bare your real motives for being here. You aren't intersted in even considering the information given you that you've requested. You are wasting everyone's time and trying to incite something you really aren't worthy of. I'll let WP and perhaps TW be the diplomats here, that's not my style. You are a fraud and you never had any intentions whatsoever of discussing this with an open mind. You're as transparent as they come.
BTW, remember, the mind is like a parachute in that neither one works very well unless they're open.
Ron -- I did indeed accuse him that way, back in the Jena Six discussions. It wasn't in recent threads. It was several months ago. And I think that if something strikes me as being racist, then it's likely to be that. Most racists don't think they are one, of course. They wouldn't likely utter the bigoted statements if they did think so. Most racists seem to be fairly naive about the extent to which they offer improperly bigoted or prejudicial comments. They're not all like David Duke or Joseph Goebbels, in fact most are not. In America we've had a lot of time since the Emancipation Proclamation to find subtle ways to deride and denigrate Black folks. The 1965 Civil Rights Act didn't help as much as some would claim. The fact that Rosa Parks had to defy the "bus passenger rules" and that Black folks had to dare to use "Whites only" drinking fountains shows the terrible legacies. As I see it, the only way to counter the subtler forms of bigotry is to call them out when they're uttered.
"Even if Jewish people did "control the media" (a sweeping generalization if there ever was one), so what? The official 9/11 story has many contributors. Focusing on the fact that the MSM has helped cover up 9/11 is just one small piece of the puzzle."
While not getting into who controls the media, I would think the MSM is a bit more than 'one small piece of the puzzle'. After all, the rest of the puzzle wouldn't be able to get away with their parts IF the MSM reported on them accurately and substantively.
Excuse my poor choice of words:
When I say Jewish People, I meant the Israeli population.
When I say American People, I meant all USA Population...to include Jewish-Americans, African-Americans, Asian-Americans, Native-Americans, and European-Americans. All LEGAL US Citizens.
The vast majority of the individuals (note I use the word individuals) that control the US Media are Jewish Individuals.
I think, to pull off the 9/11 fraud the way it has been accomplished, these individuals were complicit. This is the way I feel!
What's a "Jewish individual" and how do you identify them as such?
Hey Wendigo...Surname and then some.
If a males last name is Lee, Park, Kim...his family is typically of Korean decent.
Should I be wrong to assume that?
On the flip side, let's take for instance, Rupert Murdoch (Head of News Corp). Rupert (actually Keith Rupert) Murdochs father was Keith Murdoch (died 1952), his mother Elisabeth Joy (nee Greene) and yes her mother, Marie Grace de Lancey Forth was born from a jewish mother.
Ruperts paternal grandfather, Patrick John, was the REV., the maternal grandmother was Marie Grace de Lancey Forth, who was born in Warnambool VIC (Australia), HER mother Caroline Jemima (nee Sherson) was born to a jewish family.
And that, as I am sure you know, makes him Jewish according to the law of the Talmud, and indeed according to the present laws of Israel.
"If a males last name is Lee, Park, Kim...his family is typically of Korean decent.
Should I be wrong to assume that?"
Huh??
Korea is a country.
Judaism is a religion.
Are you saying that individuals of Jewish faith control the media?
Apart from the tiresome nature of having to demonstrate the bigoted assumptions used by those who hamfistedly blame everything on "the JOOOOOOS" I tend to wonder what any of the last 15 or so posts has to do with Seffen's "research."
Nothing whatsoever, of course. Although undoubtedly Seffen is Jewish (sounds "Jewy" enough to me!)...er, of Irish descent
Seriously, the last thing I want to do is get sidetracked by this kind of thing, but I feel I cannot let casual antisemitism stand.
That said, let's move on. Yes, the media is complicit, wittingly or not, like the BBC has been in this case. Let's focus on addressing that problem by keeping the pressure on.
Predictably, conspiracy liars are reduced to parading their ignorance of science and their crude anti-Semitism to rail against an authoritative paper that explodes their pernicious and baseless fantasies. As the alternative to spewing more mindless venom is to acknowledge that their evil movement is dead, the dunces must be excused for a redundant demonstration of their intellectual bankruptcy.
The Grimblebee -- I think you know I stand with and agree with you on the need to properly deal with bigotry in general, and anti-Semitism in the specific. I'd love to discuss the situation more fully with these "skeptics" and identifiers of "Jewish individuals," but I'm afraid that here, it's distracting from the point of the thread and worse, it may be that such distraction was the aim of the "skeptics." But in any case, Slainte!
http://www.jewwatch.com/jew-cont...-all-
media.html
Thanks Jew-You!
Thanks for showing me the error in my recollections. It is the World's media that is controlled by the Jews.
You see, my infinitesimal "non-jewish" brain that is "Intellectually Bankrupted", thought that they only control the USA Media.
You know what is really sad? It is that I used to not be able to understand why the world was very anti-semitic, but after a few hours on this board and having small exchanges with The Grimblebee, Wendingo, pomeroo, and others, I can now see how large groups of people may have a very different opinion!!
Look at the bright side. I'd be even tougher on anti-Semitic idiots if I were Jewish.
Pomeroo:
So you are saying there is a chance that you could be even more obnoxious?
Folks, there is overwhelming evidence that Mossad had a part in the execution of the 9/11 attacks. The CIA and the UK's M15 are implicated, but not as much as Mossad.
You'd need to dig around to find this information since you'll NEVER see it in the mainstream media. The mainstream media IS dominated by Ashkenazi Jews and Christian Zionists. Sorry but it's just a fact: I took the time to look it up, and nearly all the Executives are radical, or near-radical, Zionists.
Does acknowledging these basic facts mean we hate Jews? NO. There are major differences between the meanings of "Jewish" and "Zionist" and "radical Zionist."
1. Judaism is a religion. The religious denominations range from the near-secular to the ultra observant, just like Christianity.
2. "Jewish" may refer to genetics or religion.
3. Zionism is a political movement based upon Jewish scriptures that focus on the promise of a Jewish homeland. Your run-of-the mill Zionist accepts this need/promise of this Jewish homeland, but does not condone violence, racism, or extremism.
4. Zionist EXTREMISTS are white European Jewish (Ashkenazi) supremacists. Meaning, they really do think they are the elites of this world and that the rest of us are vermin.
5. Some regions in Israel are not Zionist at ALL. In fact they're anti-Zionist. These ultra-observant Jews think they need to EARN the Promised Land, not take it by force. They want to live in peace with the Palestinians and don't care much for the Israeli government.
6. American Christian Zionists comprise almost 70%of the US support for Israel, which means there are more Christian Zionists than Jewish Zionists here in the US. Consequently, anti-Zionist talk MAY be interpreted as anti-semitic, but not always or even most of the time.
7. European Jews aren't Semitic anyway. It's actually the oppressed Sephardics and Palestinians who are the Semites. European Jews are Russian Polish, German. Sorry, but this just drives me BATTY because illogical stances give me headaches. When my friend calls me anti-Semitic for criticizing the (European) Israeli government I just want to bang my head against the wall and scream.
This anti-Zionist likes Jews just fine; I just don't care for Zionist supremacist hypocrites, the ones who cling to their martyrdom yet refuse to admit to, or even see, the Holocaust of Semitic peoples taking place right in front of their eyes. It makes a girl wonder: Who are the REAL Anti-Semites?
Chabad, Lubavitch, and Hasidic Jews do not believe in rabid Zionism. Some think Palestine should remain with the Arabs, and Israel should curtail the quest to steal Arab lands.
The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker:
Thanks for taking the time to write your last post above!
However and firstly, you will probally be labeled anti-semitic (just like me) because you stated that the MSM is dominated by the Jews. Yes, even though this is fact...it is taboo to mention it here on this board.
Secondly, be ready to be called a person of little intelligence because you see things somewhat different than a few Jews on this board.
Lastly, after they label you "anti-semitic" and declare that you are "intellectually bankrupt", they like to say that you are a "conspiracy liar" and you are reduced to "parading your ignorance of science"!
Again, thanks for taking the time to write your last post!
Luxor.
The Hedonistic Peasureseeker did not state "that the MSM in dominated by "the Jews"
She stated that "the mainstream media IS dominated by Ashkenazi Jews and Christian Zionists."
I don't know if that statement is true but it is not a confirmation of your beliefs.
Who, in your mind, are "the Jews"?
What are the facts that "the Jews" dominate the MSM?
Methinks there may be some head banging and screamin going on somewhere...
Luxor is a distracter. If Luxor sought the truth, Luxor would demonstrate truth-seeking rather than confirmation of his own biases. Luxor is no different from pseudo-reporter Mark Miller. He casts everything in HIS TERMS and insists that everyone agree with HIS TERMS. I wouldn't be surprised to see Mark Miller and Luxor in the same room, but then I'd also not be surprised to learn they're the same person. Their tactics are nearly identical.
The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker overstates the case by several million miles, he/she merely recasts the issue as "Zionists" and "Ashkenazi Jews". He/she cannot prove this assertion. In fact, I defy him/her to do so.
But not here.
On his/her own blog, with his/her own set of "proofs."
Note also, "Luxor" and "Jew You" claim the same Homepage. Sock puppetry was something I thought was limited to idiots, trolls, "liberals," "progressives," and "conservatives," the gangs of ideologically stunted and fettered fools who are asocial Poindexters and agoraphobic Myrons.
2. "Jewish" may refer to genetics or religion.
Nope.
Genetics don't care about such things as "Jewish." Genes don't even know a Jew from a Muslim. Genes never will know that.
Genes are codes for transcription of RNA. They do not determine one's religious or cultural beliefs.
"Jewish" is a term ACCURATELY used ONLY by people who identify THEMSELVES as either following Judaism or identifying themselves as connected through their forebears to that religion, however watered down may be the faith in that religion's trustworthiness. A "cultural Jew" would usually identify him/herself as such because he/she doesn't follow any religious principles as a matter of course, but is connected through familial ties to those who did at one time, and maintains some of the cultural practices that were connected to those who followed that religion.
Genetics has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with it.
NOTHING.
"Listen: It's a lot like blowing up a balloon -- a long, thin one. It takes a lot of pressure to get it started, but once it gets going, the rest is easy."
Whenever someone says something like that, you KNOW they're bullshitting you! Yeah! It's like a balloon!
Wendigo: You are correct, of course, and I really should have said "culture" instead. And the self-identification part is important too.
As to the genetics of Jewishness, I've read conflicting statements. On the one hand, some accounts say Israeli Jews and Palestinians cannot be differentiated by looking at their DNA. However, I also read a few research papers written by Israeli geneticists, who say Jews really ARE genetically distinct. Who to believe? Since I'm not emotionally invested in the answer I suppose I'll just wait and watch while the geneticists duke it out. Since I'm a "shiksa" I can only assert so much.
As for the mainstream media in the US, OY GEVALD. (bangs head against wall). The whole industry - radio, tv, movies, etc. - concentrated in the hands of about six people, so believe me it's not a stretch. Rupert Murdoch is the only CEO/owner I am aware of who isn't Jewish. He's a hardcore Zionist, though.
As for the middle-ranked media moguls, I spent about a year back and forth from "Hollyweird" dating an Israeli man (I'm Jewish from the waist down)and not only were most of the people in the business Jewish, they were Israeli Jews, and the primary language spoken backstage by the producers was Hebrew.
"Note also, "Luxor" and "Jew You" claim the same Homepage."
Hm-m-m
I get an Error 404 - File Not found when I try to link to either homepage today.
Is it just me?
HPS, you are The Hedonistic Pleasureseeker?
Just checking.
Either way, who are those six people, what is the flow chart that demonstrates their ownership, and is the ownership active or passive?
Large financial stakes commonly result in economic pressure to slant the media product to keep the stakeholder happy, but I am not prepared to automatically assume that every large stakeholder insists on such things. I have known of many investors in many ventures who care only about the profit margin, and not about the method to achieve that margin.
But in any case, what the F does any of this have to do with Keith Seffen? Can you draw some connections for us, that will bring the discussion back around to the subject of the thread and its original essay? If not, then no matter how interesting or provocative the question of who owns "the media" it really is a massive distraction from the propriety or legitimacy of Seffen's puff piece.
A scientific illiterate labels an academic paper a "puff piece" because it is inconvenient to his mindless fantasies.
Hopeless fools.
An intellectual snob postulates "mindless fantasies".
Rupert Murdoch's Jewish Roots
Murdoch "became an American citizen for business reasons," according to Richard H. Curtiss, editor of the Washington Report on Middle East Affairs. Keith Rupert was born in Melbourne, Australia, on March 11, 1931. "Rupert's father, Sir Keith Murdoch, was a newspaper publisher, and his mother an Orthodox Jew," Curtiss wrote, "although Murdoch never offers that information in his biographies."
Murdoch's father married Elisabeth Joy Greene, daughter of Rupert Greene in 1928. They had one son, Keith Rupert and three daughters. Later in life, Keith Rupert chose to use Rupert, the first name of his Jewish maternal grandfather.
The young Keith Rupert was educated at Australia's fashionable Geelong private school, and went on to the elitist and aristocratic Oxford University in England, according to Candour (UK) magazine.
"Rupert's father Sir Keith Murdoch attained his prominent position in Australian society through a fortuitous marriage to the daughter of a wealthy Jewish family, Elisabeth Joy Greene. Through his wife's connections, Keith Murdoch was subsequently promoted from reporter to chairman of the British-owned newspaper where he worked. There was enough money to buy himself a knighthood of the British realm, two newspapers in Adelaide, South Australia, and a radio station in a faraway mining town," Candour wrote in 1984. "For some reason, Murdoch has always tried to hide the fact that his pious mother brought him up as a Jew."
While Murdoch may have "tried to hide" his Jewish roots, he has been quite forthright about his support for extreme right-wing Zionists, such as Benjamin Netanyahu and Ariel Sharon.
Netanyahu, who wrote a book entitled The War on Terror: How the West Can Win in 1986, is a frequent commentator on Murdoch's Fox News.
Murdoch's support for Zionism extremists is well known and a matter of record. As New York Governor George Pataki said, "There is no newspaper in the U.S. more supportive of Israel than the [Murdoch's] New York Post."
It is through a network of Zionist organizations, in which Murdoch plays a central role, that Murdoch is connected to the individuals who arranged the privatization -- and obtained control of the World Trade Center -- shortly before its destruction.
These key individuals are: Larry Silverstein and the former Israeli commando Frank Lowy, the lease holders of dubious repute who gained control of the WTC property six weeks before 9/11, and Port Authority Chairman Lewis M. Eisenberg, who authorised the transfer of the leases.
Murdoch belongs to, and has been honored by, a number of leading Zionist organizations in which Silverstein, Lowy, and Eisenberg all hold senior positions. These organizations include the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), the United Jewish Appeal (UJA), and the New York-based Museum of Jewish Heritage - A Living Memorial to the Holocaust.
Fifty days before 9/11, Silverstein Propert
(continue,.. cutoff above)
Fifty days before 9/11, Silverstein Properties and Lowy's Westfield America secured 99-year leases on the WTC. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey turned control of the World Trade Center over to the private hands of Silverstein and Lowy on July 24, 2001.
Silverstein and Lowy then took control of the 10.6 million-square-foot complex, which included the twin towers office buildings and two nine-story office buildings. Silvestein and the former Israeli commando Lowy then controlled all access to the World Trade Center.
Lowy leased the shopping concourse called the Mall at the World Trade Center, which comprised about 427,000 square feet of retail space.
"Six weeks before the WTC towers were destroyed, the Port Authority completed the process of leasing them for 99 years to Larry Silverstein, the developer who had built 7 World Trade Center [which mysteriously self-demolished at 5:25 p.m. on 9/11].
"Simultaneously, the retail space underneath the complex was leased to Westfield America, the US division of an Australian company that is one of the world's largest operators of shopping malls." Paul Goldberger wrote in New Yorker, May 20, 2002.
"Silverstein and Westfield were given the right to rebuild the structures if they were destroyed, and Westfield has the right to expand the retail space by 30 percent," Goldberger wrote.
Silverstein is suing for some $7.2 billion in insurance money for the loss of the destroyed World Trade Center -- and his expected earnings -- for property he had leased with a down payment of $100 million -- of borrowed funds.
Murdoch the Zionist
"Murdoch is a close friend of Ariel Sharon," Sam Kiley, The Times (UK) veteran journalist on the Middle East wrote about the man who took over the once famous British paper. Kiley said Murdoch's friendship with the Israeli prime minister had caused senior staff at the paper to rewrite important copy.
"Murdoch's executives were so afraid of irritating him that, when I pulled off a little scoop of tracking down and photographing the unit in the Israeli army which killed Mohammed al-Durrah, the 12-year-old boy whose death was captured on film and became the iconic image of the conflict, I was asked to file the piece 'without mentioning the dead kid.' " Kiley wrote. "After that conversation, I was left wordless, so I quit."
Sharon and Murdoch are old friends. On Oct. 15, 1982, a month after the massacres of thousands of Palestinian refugees in the Sabra and Shatila camps of Beirut, war crimes which occurred under Sharon's direct command, the Israeli defense minister held meetings with Rupert Murdoch and others, reportedly in order to advance his "West Bank real estate grab."
The visit with Sharon included a trip for Murdoch and his editors from New York and London that "took them on a bird's-eye tour of Israel aboard a helicopter gunship, flying over the Golan Heights, West Bank and set
pomeroo may reach "amusing" status one day.
(Continue, cutoff above,..)
The visit with Sharon included a trip for Murdoch and his editors from New York and London that "took them on a bird's-eye tour of Israel aboard a helicopter gunship, flying over the Golan Heights, West Bank and settlements."
"I have always believed in the future of Israel and the goals of the international Jewish community," Murdoch said at a spring fund-raiser for the Museum of Jewish Heritage - A Living Memorial to the Holocaust on April 29, 2001.
From the beginning, News Corp., his global media company, "has been supportive of the Jewish national cause," Murdoch said.
Larry Silverstein, who had not yet acquired the lease on the World Trade Center, attended the fund-raiser with Murdoch and reportedly said about museum chairman Robert Morgenthau's plans to expand the museum: "I'll support you--as long as you keep it under 110 stories."
Murdoch and the ADL
"Henry Kissinger, Rupert Murdoch and Mortimer Zuckerman are on the [ADL] dinner committee," according to a recent New York Times report on the ADL's recent fund-raiser in which the controversial Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi received the ADL's Distinguished Statesman Award.
Silverstein and Eisenberg have both held senior leadership positions with the United Jewish Appeal (UJA), a billion dollar Zionist "charity" organization, to which Murdoch and Lowy generously contribute. In 1997, Henry Kissinger presented Murdoch with the UJA's award for "Humanitarian of the Year."
Silverstein is a former chairman of UJA. This organization raises hundreds of millions of dollars every year for a network of Zionist agencies in the United States and Israel. Eisenberg, who was instrumental in obtaining the lease for Silverstein, is on the Planning Board of UJA.
Eisenberg in his role with the Port Authority was the key person who negotiated the 99-year leases for Silverstein and Frank Lowy's Westfield America, who were in fact the low-bidders for the lease on the 110-story towers and the retail mall.
Murdoch and the Czechoslovakian-born Israeli commando Frank Lowy, a former fighter in Israel's Golani Brigade, who emigrated to Australia in the 1950s, have had a long friendship, which Murdoch recounted during an American Australian Association fund-raising dinner in honor of Frank's son, Peter S. Lowy, in New York on November 20, 2002. Larry Silverstein and his wife also attended the American Australian event.
Some reporters refer to the American Australian Association, whose membership includes James Wolfensohn, the president of the World Bank, who raised cash for Rupert Murdoch when he first expanded into the United States, as "the kangaroo mafia."
"Frank was a brave and determined fighter," Rafi Kocer, Lowy's former commander, said. Lowy has donated some $350,000 to build a memorial museum in Israel for his former brigade.
Today, Lowy and his three sons control Westfield Corporation, one of the
(Continuation - final)
Today, Lowy and his three sons control Westfield Corporation, one of the largest operators of shopping centers in the United States -- and the world.
Insured Against Terrorist Attacks
On September 12, 2001, The Jerusalem Post reported: "Frank Lowy, who emigrated to Australia from Israel in 1952, owns the 99-year lease for the 425,000 square foot retail portion of the destroyed World Trade Center--Westfield said today that it has insurance cover against terrorist attacks and its earnings will not be materially affected."
Lowy, is described by the Sydney Morning Herald as "a self-made man with a strong interest in the Holocaust and Israeli politics."
Another link to the above, again scroll down 1/4 of the way down the page.
Link to the above,.. scroll 1/4 of the way down the page,..
http://www.adelaideinstitute.org...rs/
toben12b.htm
....
http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi...ames;
read=92566
From above, (the twelve year old Palestinian boy and his father were pinned down and then shot by Israel forces. The event was captured on film and broadcast around the world.)
...
Paragraph from above,..
"Murdoch's executives were so afraid of irritating him that, when I pulled off a little scoop of tracking down and photographing the unit in the Israeli army which killed Mohammed al-Durrah, the 12-year-old boy whose death was captured on film and became the iconic image of the conflict, I was asked to file the piece 'without mentioning the dead kid.' " Kiley wrote. "After that conversation, I was left wordless, so I quit."
Link to video of above event,..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muh...ammad_al-
Durrah
The blotched inquiry by the Israeli government.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world...ast/
1043634.stm
pomeroo may reach "amusing" status one day.
The Wendigo | Homepage | 11.14.07 - 1:16 am | #
--------------------------------------
Please don't distract me with any viewpoints that could be construed as reality or expanding the knowledge base to widen understandings.
I have my blinders on, I am perfectly content, and I soon hope to be wallowing in the joys of total Fascism.
Don't impede upon or disrupt my nirvana.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/A0y7EtWn.jpg
Ah yes, z. Excellent photo choice!
Why would my rationalism ever amuse an agenda-driven ignoramus? Anti-Semites who are impervious to reason and evidence are ineducable.
I really do not know what you are talking about, pomeroo -- but more importantly, you haven't the slightest clue about or factual support regarding what you're alleging in my direction. Either way, I hope you enjoy your fantasies, because I'm sure they're more comforting than reality.
Gee, it's real tough to figure out what I'm talking about.
On September 11, 2001, nineteen well-trained, highly motivated jihadists hijacked four planes and flew three of them into buildings. Two buildings, the Twin Towers at the WTC complex, collapsed from the impact of the planes, which dislodged critical amounts of fireproofing, and the resultant fires. The science has been laid out in the NIST Report, the Purdue simulations, and Dr. Seffen's paper, as well as in papers by independent researchers.
The hijackers were identified by an extremely comprehensive investigation conducted by several agencies acting in concert.
The imaginary conspiracy posited by America-hating fantasists would necessarily involve the FBI, the CIA, NIST, FEMA, the police and fire departments of NYC and Washington, D.C., all branches of government and the military, the FAA, air traffic controllers, forensic examiners, the Boeing Corporation, the Port Authority of NY/NJ, American Airlines, United Airlines, Purdue University, the networks that shot videos of the plane crashes, the eyewitnesses to the crash of Flight 77, the survivors of the collapses at the WTC complex--the list goes on and the members of this preposterous cabal number in the thousands.
An average person has, let us say, a fifty percent chance of keeping a secret. Let's raise EVERYONE in our conspiracy to level of G. Gordon Liddy or James Bond and assign each of them a probability of ninety percent of never spilling the beans. Now, one hundred such types will leak the secret 99.97% of the time (use your calculator to raise .9 to the 100th power). The fantasists' conspiracy of thousands will crack 99.9999....% of the time (try raising .99 to the 1,000th power).
Numbers don't lie, but conspiracists do--ALL THE TIME.
As I said, pomeroo -- please DO enjoy your fantasy, it seems more comforting than reality. You're not really talking to me. You're making a speech. And it's falling on deaf ears and blind eyes, because it's neither novel, nor factual, nor accurate. But it apparently holds real value for you, so please cling strongly to it.
And the Mossad agents who were being photographed dancing while the towers collapsed in the background? Don't worry about them!
They hopped into a van that still contained traces of explosives and drove away. It was just an unfortunate coincidence that they got themselves arrested, so don't mention it!.
They were held for ten weeks and repeatedly failed polygraph tests before they were whisked back to Israel, for reasons we still aren't allowed to know. But please don't say a word about this, because anybody who mentions it is anti-Semitic.
Sorry, Winter Patriot, you're lying.
Yes, Wendigo, we all understand that you are crushed by the simple math. ALL conspiracy liars bow down to this incontrovertible truth: your imaginary conspiracy is mathematically impossible. In six years of deranged screaming, the 9/11 fantasy movement has produced bogus science, distorted, cherry-picked quotes, and a blizzard of outright falsehoods. It has not produced a shred of actual evidence for its pernicious and baseless myths. Your irrational hatreds are no substitute for intelligence.
pomeroo, I notice that you enjoy stating things with conviction as if they are factually supported conclusions.
I suggest that if you want to make assertions about me or my thoughts, you offer some proof to support them.
I wonder if you noticed, WP, how pomeroo's rabid mouth foaming posts seem triggered by any mention of Seffen's charade, or of any Mossad complicity.
And yet pomeroo posts with an air of arrogant fake-cleverness, bogus superiority... when all pomeroo really is displaying is knee-jerk responses that lack factual support and show some sort of angry Poindexter "revenge" perspective.
It really is amusing. I predicted that pomeroo was on the way to being such. Apparently he/she has arrived.
I'm "lying" about what, pomeroo?
They weren't photographed?
They weren't dancing?
They weren't Mossad?
They weren't arrested in a van?
The van didn't have traces of explosives?
They weren't held for 10 weeks?
They didn't fail repeated lie detector tests?
They weren't released?
They didn't go back to Israel?
The whole matter wasn't hushed up?
Or all of the above?
Three of the five dancing Israelis who returned to Israel after 9/11 were interviewed on Israeli television and asked what they were doing in New York - their response was "We were there to DOCUMENT the event".
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t...30407vans%
2Ehtm
::::
THE DANCING ISRAELIS
Like most Americans, I was gripped by senses of profound shock, horror, revulsion, sadness, and rage as I watched the horror of September 11, 2001 unfolding live on my television screen. Watching the mass murder of thousands of innocent people live on television was the most upsetting experience of my life. How could any person of sound moral character not be enraged at witnessing this horrific act of barbarism? To read about some faraway, long-ago genocide in a newspaper or a book is distressing enough. But to actually witness the mass murders of what was, at first, believed to have been tens of thousands of innocent people is truly heart stopping and traumatic. I barely slept for two nights afterwards and suffered nightmares. Polling data would later reveal that 65% of Americans actually shed tears on 9-11.1
But not all of the eye-witnesses to the 9-11 slaughter were so saddened. On September 11, five Israeli army veterans were arrested by the FBI after several witnesses saw them "dancing", "high-fiving", and "celebrating" as they took pictures of the World Trade Center disaster from across the river in New Jersey. Steven Gordon was the lawyer who volunteered to represent the five Israelis. He was asked by a Hebrew newspaper why the five men were being detained by the FBI. Here’s what Gordon told Yediot America:
"On the day of the disaster, three of the five boys went up on the roof of the building where the company office is located," said Gordon. "I'm not sure if they saw the twin towers collapse, but, in any event, they photographed the ruins right afterwards. One of the neighbors who saw them called the police and claimed they were posing, dancing and laughing, against the background of the burning towers….
"Anyhow, the three left the roof, took an Urban truck, and drove to a parking lot, located about a five-minute drive from the offices. They parked, stood on the roof of the truck to get a better view of the destroyed towers and took photographs. A woman who was in the building above the lot testified that she saw them smiling and exchanging high-fives. She and another neighbor called the police and reported on Middle-Eastern looking people dancing on the truck. They copied and reported the license plates. 2
When the photos were developed, they revealed that the dancing Israelis were smiling in the foreground of the New York massacre. 3 According to ABC’s 20/20 attempted whitewash of the incident, in addition to their outrageous and highly suspicious behavior, the five also had in their possession the following items; box-cutters,
(cont.)
When the photos were developed, they revealed that the dancing Israelis were smiling in the foreground of the New York massacre. 3 According to ABC’s 20/20 attempted whitewash of the incident, in addition to their outrageous and highly suspicious behavior, the five also had in their possession the following items; box-cutters, European passports, and $4700 cash hidden in a sock. 4 Why were these Israeli agents so happy about the horrible massacre that was unfolding right before their very eyes? What evil spirit could possess people who are supposed to be America's "allies", and who receive billions of dollars in financial and military aid from US taxpayers each year , to publicly rejoice as innocent people (including many American Jews) were burning to death and jumping out of 110 story buildings? Could it be that these happy Israeli army veterans were in some way linked to this monstrous attack? That’s what officials close to the investigation initially told The Bergen Record newspaper of New Jersey. 5
As incredible, as ridiculous, and as "paranoid" as that belief may appear to you at this point, the fact is that certain elements within the Israeli government, and Zionist movement in general, have a long history of attacking the USA and framing Arabs in order to gain support from the US. Before we begin to piece together what really transpired on 9-11, it is absolutely critical that we first review some historical precedents regarding Israel's and International Zionism's treacherous history of manipulating America (and other nations) for their own selfish purposes. Without a basic understanding of this history, it would be impossible to understand the truth as it is today. So put aside your preconceived notions, your psychological defense mechanisms, and your prejudices, and step into my time machine for a journey down the memory hole.
http://www.apfn.org/apfn/WTC_STF.htm
pomeroo ought to take a look at this:
http://georgewashington.blogspot...f-
credible.html
For a sober assessment of the Dancing Joooos:
http://911myths.com/html/
dancing...g_israelis.html
Well, the Wendigo is certainly a low-IQ screamer. My calm dissection of his mindless fantasies gets labeled "rabid" and "mouth-foaming." Hmmm. I think psychologists have a term for such behavior: it's called "projection."
I have demonstrated, using simple math, the near-impossibility of a gigantic, sprawling conspiracy remaining intact after six years. No conspiracy liar has ever come close to countering this devastating refutation of some truly absurd myths.
Stupidity and hatred are no substitutes for reason.
pomeroo | 11.15.07 - 5:08 pm | #
--------------------------------------
Get lost !!!!
:::
:::
Sure I'll get lost. Do you think I want to argue with fact-free anti-Semites? Live in your cocoons, but don't imagine that you're insulated from reality.
pomeroo | 11.15.07 - 6:17 pm | #
--------------------------------------
http://thumbsnap.com/v/hde383Gz.jpg
pomeroo has a mighty firm grip on an alternate reality, I'll give him that much. But nothing else -- and certainly not a concession that his baseless accusations can even approach reality.
You have to wonder about someone who thinks he knows another's IQ without ever meeting that person.
You have to wonder about someone who talks about others being "fact-free anti-Semites" when he cannot even demonstrate one single matter erroneously claimed to be fact, and cannot point to one single episode of anti-Semitism.
You have to wonder about someone who says he has "demonstrated, using simple math," anything at all -- mainly because he's never used any math in any of his posts, and he hasn't demonstrated anything either.
Speeches, baseless accusations, exaggerations and lies from someone who claims he is advancing the truth and "reality" -- this is what we are supposed to believe represents integrity?
I suppose one remaining possibility hasn't been examined, and that is the idea that pomeroo is playing at satire, imitating the mindless robotic false-pedants who support the Seffen approach to "proving" the Official Narrative is correct.
I am on the mailing list of the Columbus Chapter of NION, "Not In Our Name," which is an antiwar group loosely affiliated with The World Can't Wait. Columbus NION has a chairman named George Bohichik. George and his group are for the most part bluntly dismissive of any sort of conspiracy theory, and not on any grounds whatsoever other than claims of anti-semitism. No matter what the issue, George will write that the person who wrote it is an anti-semite and the writings of anti-semites should be dismissed out of hand even if the "anti-semite" in question is writing about, say, the law of gravity or the conservation of momentum. Ironically, this type of broad brush generalization - all persons who believe in conspiracy theories other than the official conspiracy theory offered by the government are rabid Hitler-worshipping neo-Nazis - is the whole basis of racism, like saying all black people are fools who climb trees and steal watermelons. After arguing with George for some weeks and months, it distresses me to see a thread which began as a discussion of Seffen's paper - which I think is a hoax like the Piltdown man - degenerate into some sort of referendum on the Jews. Why not the Eskimoes?
It is not the business of anyone not the moderator of this forum to tell pomeroo or anyone else to get lost. The poster may speak for himself but should not presume to speak for us all.
pomeroo's assertion that all doubts about the government's story are absurd nonsense are not persuasive because they contain no argument, just the assertion that such doubts are baseless - except the tired old argument that no conspiracy could be kept secret. There have been a lot of covert operations, going back to Operation Ajax in 1953, and there are whole books about them. As for 9/11, no coherent narrative of the events of that day even exists, why pretend that there is - or that all questions have been answered by the "investigations?"
Here's a question for you, pomeroo:
How is it that all three buildings came down at free-fall speed on the fateful day?
I think he has gulped down too much of this stuff,..
Click for NeoCon Fascist snake oil.
Too much Hannity, Limbaugh, and O'Reilly - makes mindless blind followers of Fuhrer Bu$$$h and their government propaganda.
JimGawthrop --
Bohichick sounds like Abe Foxman, seeing anti-Semitism in places where it isn't, for the purpose of discrediting the person who's uttering things that make him uncomfortable.
In discussions with friends regarding the drive behind and effect of knee-jerk "anti-Semite" claims, I've usually contended that such over-use of the phrase renders it meaningless, and in the long run has the potential to create true anti-Semitism where none exists.
You can only listen to or read someone making baseless negative allegations about you for so long, and eventually you will develop a dislike for the person uttering those false negatives, and for the interests that person pretends to be representing. What if a person's first interaction with a Jewish man or woman is an interaction of total innocence and the Jewish person out of the blue screams "anti-Semite! This man's an anti-Semite!" when you haven't uttered or written a single word regarding Jews, Judaism, the Torah, the Talmud, the Old Testament, Israel, or anything else that commonly can be a topic where anti-Semitism might rear its head.
Not every person can weather such a continual barrage of insult. Some will reflexively assume negative things, maybe even in a manner similar to the accusations used by his accuser. We're not all rational when we're angry.
But irrational or not, temporary or not, the seed is planted.
It's always more accurate and powerful to use an "anti-________" derogatory term when the situation warrants it. And it's always the opposite when the situation isn't even close to calling for it.
A misunderstanding has developed in this forum. It has do to with persons critical of this government and its policies being misrepresented as "America haters."
I would suggest opening your eyes to the reality that the America those of us born in the fifties and sixties knew and loved no longer exists, the Republic is on its knees and about to receive a bullet in the head from the neo-cons. We are one more false flag operation away from martial law and a much larger, even more disastrous war.
I am sure most people in this country are at least vaguely aware of the problem but feel hopeless and powerless, so their attitide is, just leave me alone and don't rock my little boat, I'll turn on the radio and listen to whomever it is that makes me feel comfortable. Franklin said the Constitutional Convention had produced "A republic, if you can keep it." Jefferson said. "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty."
PENTAGON INSIDER HAS DIRE WARNING
Daniel Ellsberg, the former Defense Department analyst who leaked the secret Pentagon Papers history of the Vietnam War, offered insights into the looming attack on Iran and the loss of liberty in the United States at a recent American University symposium.
http://
www.americanfreepress.net...on_insider.html
If a person mindlessly regurgitates government propaganda about the causation of 9/11 - that person is a mind numbing nuisance to have around.
But if that same individual launches an attack such as this,..
Well, the Wendigo is certainly a low-IQ screamer.
which I know without a doubt to be grossly incorrect and untrue - I really don't have a nano second to debate the issue with that type of NeoCon boneheaded thinking.
Many thoughtful people visit and contribute to this blog. The exchange of ideas and opinions offer encouragement that we may as a group working in unison solve the dilemmas of our times.
Infiltration of this blog by robotic mindless fascist trolls is a time consuming setback we can ill afford.
Consequently,.. even if it seems a bit rude,.. the first inclination when dealing with the dogmatic utterances of extreme right-wing trolls is to show them the door. Inflexibility to consider another viewpoint is one thing - calling the host of this blog a liar or regular visitors such as Wendigo an idiot are entirely something else. At that point it becomes painfully obvious that this person worships the status quo and will only adamanately defend things as they are without any further examination because they want no changes to come about. They will make a feeble attempt to defend the status quo in the hope that other people in the group will quickly jump on board to join them in defense of the status quo. If this result is not quickly realized they then act in frustration to introduce group dissension. Hence calling Winter a liar and Wendigo an idiot. This group dismantling/dismemberment is just a crafty ploy to weaken those who seek to bring change to the status quo.
Now Wendigo is not a perfect person, a reality of the human condition is that we all have our faults. But to call Wendigo an idiot or a shrill that lacks the ability to intelligently and thoughtfully communicate - is way out of line, untrue and uncalled for. If pomeroo stated he was acridly opinionated I might be inclined to agree.
But to call the man an idiot, I'm sorry I must vehemently disagree. The truth of the matter is - Wendigo even with all his human faults and sufferings - I would welcome the visitations of the Wendigos one thousand times - the fascist dogma of those who seek to blindly preserve and protect the status quo such as the pomeroos - one visit is quite enough. Thank you very much.
Those who embrace things the way they are should either quickly step to the back or get off the bus. At all costs they must be kept the hell away from the steering wheel. Maintaining the status quo of bu$h/cheney has us headed full speed ahead over the next cliff. It is not like we should change course,.. but more like we must change course. These madmen currently in Washington DC are ushering America toward her final destruction and total demise.
We have not one second to spare fiddling around with the boneheaded/brainwashed likeness of
(the last two words disappeared)
We have not one second to spare fiddling around with the boneheaded/brainwashed likeness of the pomeroos.
::
::
Warning this is a closed mind, who's only mission is to preserve, protect and defend the status quo and worship the directions bu$h/cheney have brought America.
...
Devoid of any hope for open dialog.
--------------------------------------
Sorry, Winter Patriot, you're lying.
Yes, Wendigo, we all understand that you are crushed by the simple math. ALL conspiracy liars bow down to this incontrovertible truth: your imaginary conspiracy is mathematically impossible. In six years of deranged screaming, the 9/11 fantasy movement has produced bogus science, distorted, cherry-picked quotes, and a blizzard of outright falsehoods. It has not produced a shred of actual evidence for its pernicious and baseless myths. Your irrational hatreds are no substitute for intelligence.
pomeroo | 11.14.07 - 5:46 pm | #
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
Hey guys, I think no matter how many articles will be posted on this board there is a tactic to argue-ignore-deny any, by certain individuals. Just like our Government now. When question is asked, there is "no precise re-collection of memory", or "an inclination of participating in that...". Unfortunately, all those people(Gov.officials) who were questioned in regards of 9/11 event will not going to speak-out soon. But hey, remember that USS "Libety"? How long ago was that?
Btw, someone ask about any descriptions of "World Government": http://www.zarubezhom.com/Images...Images/
zog2.gif
And some "tea-time break" for memory of "good old times": http://www.zarubezhom.com/Images...s/
SHLUCHIM3.jpg
z, thanks for the words of support.
Those who embrace things the way they are should either quickly step to the back or get off the bus. At all costs they must be kept the hell away from the steering wheel. Maintaining the status quo of bu$h/cheney has us headed full speed ahead over the next cliff. It is not like we should change course,.. but more like we must change course. These madmen currently in Washington DC are ushering America toward her final destruction and total demise.
We have not one second to spare fiddling around with the boneheaded/brainwashed likeness of the pomeroos.
I feel that way most of the time, but it's still WP's call since it's his place, don't ya think?
Well yes,..
that is an important perspective to keep in mind.
But these jackbooted brown-shirted know nothing wimps who yearn to be guided by incompetent authoritarian leadership, and think we should all become subjugated by the same - just frosts me to no end. I had to put a work in edge wise.
::
Regarding openness of blog comments: It's a difficult and recurring question and there are long lists of reasonable concerns on both sides of the scales. But the scales do tip in favor of open comments, time after time. And here's one of the reasons:
Sometimes we forget that there are a lot more readers who do not comment than readers who do. In other words, when you comment here, you're not just talking to the people whose names you see in these threads. There are many others around, some lurking, some ducking in from time to time, some coming once only ... whoever they are, surely they are hearing (and reading) the same sorts of fictions that annoy us, elsewhere. And quite often they are getting that fiction unopposed.
So rather than banning the purveyors of such fictions, and carrying on as if they didn't exist, it seems to me much more powerful to let them take their best shots, if only so that everyone can see how little sense they make.
If I were to say "This is an open blog but nobody can say the moon is made of green cheese and if you do, you'll get banned", it would be only natural for readers to see that happening and think "Maybe there's something to that green cheese story".
(I take space weapons more seriously now that truth action dot com has banned anyone who wants to talk about them. And so on.)
Banning the stupid-liars would lend credence to their stupid story and to them too. Maybe not in the eyes of the diehard regulars, but in a wider sense. I don't want to do that for them.
It would also make it look as if I were afraid of them and their stupid little story. But I'm not. They're stupid and their story is stupid, and I'm not afraid to say so.
And that's one of the reasons why I don't see any problem with letting the green cheesers have their say, as long as somebody's around to say "Don't be ridiculous! If the moon were made of green cheese, the little green mice would have eaten it a long time ago!"
You see what I mean?
I see that point, WP, and it makes more sense to me in the long run. The various Seffen threads have demonstrated that they can weather attacks from the stupid-liars, and that underscores your point.
No buildings came down at "free fall speed." But--you don't care!
If you did, you'd check out debunking911.com and 911myths.com for accurate information.
Has anyone noticed that Seffen wrote a scientific paper and nobody has any criticism of the science? Doesn't that tell you something? The NIST Report was produced by two hundred researchers employed by the agency and over eight hundred outside consultants. Are all of them part of your imaginary conspiracy? Why don't any physicists or structural engineers from other countries write papers refuting the science behind the NIST Report? Why do independent researchers all over the world agree that the Twin Towers collapsed from the impacts of the planes and the resultant fires?
Blah-blah-Blah-blah-Blah-blah-Blah
Blah-blah-Blah-blah-Blah-blah-Blah
Blah-blah-Blah-blah-Blah-blah-Blah
Blah-blah .......
Cricket chirping
oh no, pomeroo:
I have NEVER said the buildings DID fall at free-fall speed, but YOU don't care!
"How is it that all three buildings came down at free-fall speed on the fateful day?
JimGawthrop | 11.15.07 - 7:10 pm | # "
Do you read the posts that appear here?
Is it even slightly inconvenient to your fantasies that the most influential Joooos in America make movies that savage every aspect of Dubya's foreign policy? How about the Joooos that rip Dubya's lungs out 24/7 on the pages of the N.Y Times, the Washington Post, the L.A. Times, Time, Newsweek, etc.?
Let me guess: the people who hate Bush with a passion and have done everything possible to destroy his presidency are secretly on his side.
Psst! That peg you're trying to pound into the round hole--IT'S SQUARE!
"2. Yes, many people were involved and the word is finally starting to get out...or should I say the truth is finally starting to get out!Did you know the George Bush's brother (not Jeb) was head of WTC security in the years, weeks, and days prior to Sept 11, 2001?"
Note that the dunce who posted this nonsense actually believes it. Did you know that George Bush's brother didn't have a goddam thing to do with security at the WTc complex?
Pardon the intrusion. Perhaps Mike Whitney's 01-13-06 ICH article 'The Pentagon’s War on the Internet' may be germane.
........ "The Pentagon program is just one facet of a broader culture of deception; a pervasive ethos of dishonesty that envelopes all aspects of the Bush White House. The “Strategic Intelligence” Dept is a division of the Defense establishment that is entirely devoted to concealing, distorting, omitting and manipulating the truth.
In what way is “strategic intelligence” different from plain intelligence?
It is information that is shaped in a way that meets the needs of a particular group. In other words, it is not the truth at all, but a fabrication, a fiction, a lie.
Strategic intelligence is an oxymoron; a tidy bit of Orwellian doublespeak that reflects the deeply rooted cynicism of its authors.
The internet is a logical target for the Pentagon’s electronic warfare. Already the Downing Street memos, Bush’s bombing-threats against Al Jazeera, the fraudulent 2004 elections, and the leveling of Falluja, have disrupted the smooth execution of Bush’s wars. It is understandable that Rumsfeld and Co. would seek to transform this potential enemy into an ally, much as it has done with the MSM.
The Pentagon’s plans for engaging in “virtual warfare” are impressive. As BBC notes: “The operations described in the document include a surprising range of military activities: public affairs officers who brief journalists, psychological operations troops who try to manipulate the thoughts and beliefs of an enemy, computer network attack specialists who seek to destroy enemy networks.” (BBC)
The enemy, of course, is you, dear reader, or anyone who refuses to accept their role as a witless-cog in new world order. Seizing the internet is a prudent way of controlling every piece of information that one experiences from cradle to grave; all necessary for an orderly police-state.
The Information Operations Roadmap (IOR) recommends that psychological operations (Psyops) “should consider a range of technologies to disseminate propaganda in enemy territory: unmanned aerial vehicles, "miniaturized, scatterable public address systems", wireless devices, cellular phones and the internet.” No idea is too costly or too far-fetched that it escapes the serious consideration of the Pentagon chieftains.
The War Dept. is planning to insert itself into every area of the internet from blogs to chat rooms, from leftist web sites to editorial commentary. The objective is to challenge any tidbit of information that appears on the web that may counter the official narrative; the fairytale of benign American intervention to promote democracy and human rights across the planet....."
Yes, medicis, absolutely! and it's not an intrusion at all.
Gee, maybe I work for the Pentagon! Would somebody please figure out how I can get them to pay me.
You have to get a lot better at it if you want to get paid for it.
Here's an idea,..
hang around the men's bathrooms at the Pentagon,.. tap your foot a lot while you hang out in the stalls,.. maybe you will get lucky.
Be careful not to bite if your really want to command top dollar payment.
You would likely do just fine.
Good luck, hope you make next months rent.
Who's the dunce ?????
....
Note that the dunce who posted this nonsense actually believes it. Did you know that George Bush's brother didn't have a goddam thing to do with security at the WTc complex?
pomeroo | 11.16.07 - 7:05 pm | #
....
http://www.google.com/search?
sou...ld+trade+center
::
::
Pomeroo quoting someone else:
"2. Yes, many people were involved and the word is finally starting to get out...or should I say the truth is finally starting to get out!Did you know the George Bush's brother (not Jeb) was head of WTC security in the years, weeks, and days prior to Sept 11, 2001?"
pomeroo comments:
"Note that the dunce who posted this nonsense actually believes it. Did you know that George Bush's brother didn't have a goddam thing to do with security at the WTc complex?"
Ever hear of Securacom?
http://
www.whatreallyhappened.co...11security.html
http://www.utne.com/2003-02-01/
S...estigation.aspx
http://www.commondreams.org/view...s03/0204-
06.htm
But what is most important here are the powerdowns and evacuations in the buildings after Larry Silverstein got the lease on July 22nd.
pomeroo quoting me:
"How is it that all three buildings came down at free-fall speed on the fateful day?
JimGawthrop | 11.15.07 - 7:10 pm | # "
"Do you read the posts that appear here?"
"Is it even slightly inconvenient to your fantasies that the most influential Joooos in America make movies that savage every aspect of Dubya's foreign policy? How about the Joooos that rip Dubya's lungs out 24/7 on the pages of the N.Y Times, the Washington Post, the L.A. Times, Time, Newsweek, etc.?"
I saw a television documentary once about a sect of fundamentalist Christian separatists who lived off in the woods by themselves. One of the guys there attributed all the problems of the world to witchcraft and communism. My question, how is it that the World Trade Center Buildings came down at free fall speed? The reply was some sort of diatribe alleging the Jews have destroyed the Bush Presidency. I would suggest that this answer is inadequate. You should pay more attention to the activities of witches and communists, particularly those who have supernatural powers and can suspend the laws of physics, make the top section of the South Tower topple over and then disintegrate in the air, make clocks run backwards, etc.
"Psst! That peg you're trying to pound into the round hole--IT'S SQUARE!"
I think the 9/11 Commission report says the square peg fell through the round hole at free fall speed.
The myths about George Bush's brother were exposed long ago. But--once again, you don't care:
http://911myths.com/html/stratesec.html
Manifestly, you know nothing about the "laws of physics" and, like all fantasists, you have no interest in learning. The Towers did not fall at free fall speed, and nobody seriously thinks they did (hint: you can watch a video and time the collapses). There is abundant information available on the subject: the NIST
Report, Ryan Mackey's critique of Griffin's misinformation about the NIST Report (jod911.com), 11myths.com, debunking911.com ("the free fall myth"). No power on earth can persuade you to read any of it.
A number fell out of one of my references: 911myths.com
OK, explain building seven then. It wasn't even hit. All it had was a few broken windows and a small fire. The owner, Mr. Silverstein, basically admitted building 7 was "pulled" with his approval "because there was so much suffering" (the h*ll?)If you don't believe me I'll just go to YouTube and show the news clip where he said this. Within a few minutes the building went down.
Know how long it takes to wire a building for demolition? About a week of planning, and about two days to set up. Silverstein didn't have a permit, either.
Basically,what happened was Larry Silverstein approved the controlled demolition of the NY building that held the CIA records, FBI records, SEC files, etc. What was in those files? Information that could have put Enron managers away for a looonnnng time, plus other files for ongoing criminal investigations.
My god forget the laws of physics; how about basic math? If you're no good at math how about trying to connect the dots? Geezuz. My kid was able to figure it out.
Look in the NIST and 911commission report and tell me what they conclude about building seven. Too lazy? Well I'll tell you:
The 911 Whitewash report did not acknowledge the existence of building 7, though the families of the bereaved on that committee knew all about what went down. Maybe now you'll understand why these widows are so mad. Their husbands were murdered, and the terrorists are in the White House.
The NIST report comes right out and admits that they have "no explanation" for what happened to building 7.
Geez, I'm pretty sure they did, cause all three buildings were owned by Silverstein and he'd been talking about tearing the towers down.
That last part I just know because it was controversial at the time I was at the WTC a few months before the attacks, and I heard it from the tour guide what Silverstein wanted to do and why. But it would have cost him millions to do it. Tens of millions, probably.
So not only did he not have to pay a dime for the demolitions the city planners didn't want him to do, he got PAID for it with between 5 and 7 million dollars, I forget.
Pomeroo, is someone paying you to spout the party line over and over and over without any backup? I've run into a few, so I'm curious.
Hedonistic Pleasureseeker, you express yourself clearly, suggesting
that you're too intelligent to parrot these silly talking points. NIST never
said it couldn't account for the collapse of building 7. The agency issued a preliminary report, which explained that tons of falling debris caused extensive damage (you can see photos on debunking911.com). Large, uncontrollable fires raged for hours, fueled by thousands of gallons of fuel stored in storage tanks. NIST's final report has been delayed to test all sorts of alternate scenarios, including controlled demolition. But, so far, no evidence of explosives has been found.
I contacted fourteen demolition companies in four states (NY, NJ, PA, and CT) in preparation for my interview with Griffin (he ducked out after Ryan Mackey destroyed his chapter on the NIST Report). NOBODY in the demolition industry thinks that "pull it" means "blow up the building." To "pull" a small structure, such as a water tower, chains are attached and the structure is literally pulled off its center of gravity. A 47-story building cannot be "pulled."
Silverstein, as everybody understands by now, asked that a contingent of rescue-workers be pulled out the unstable building. Why hasn't it occurred to anyone in the fantasy movement that the FDNY is not in the business of blowing up buildings? Why would anyone make such a bizarre request of a fire chief?
The nonsensical fabrications invented by tinfoil-hatters about Larry Silverstein have no basis in reality. Nobody wanted to tear down the Twin Towers and no SEC investigations were hampered by the destruction of any documents in WTC 7. Good grief--if you wanted to destroy documents, why not burn them or shred them? If you blow up the building, you have no way of knowing what will survive and what won't.
There is no "party line" because there is no party. There are just many, many independent researchers whose conclusions dovetail because all the evidence points in the same direction: nineteen jihadists hijacked planes and flew three of them into buildings.
It is just POMEROO stopping by again hoping he can find a few sheep. The guy never gives up.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N...ssage464169/
pg2
why do so many people feel comfortable on their knees sucking the phallus(even a cambridge professor) of the most outrageous conspiracy theory of 9/11 "osama did it". you don't crash aircraft into buildings and survive as 4 people so obviously did. do not just believe what you are told its very embarrasing please take your mind back and stand up. building seven would have taken at least a weekend to prepare to collapse as it did. if you cannot see the "crimp" in the top of the building or the "squibs" running up the far right wall in the moment before collapse. or the decision to pull it. the countdown on the radios. you are obviously purpose blinded. the pancakes are so obviously clutching at straws they know the game is up. why else would they pay people to put on the armour of lies and suffer ridicule amongst their peers. im sure the9/11 architects+engineers for the truth laughed very hard at the latest attempt to "explain" the demolition. its so understandable that people have fiscal requirements that mean they have to look like they are agreeing with the political mainstream around them. why else would they get involved? not only do they suck up to the story but try and pleasure the criminals by creating more obfuscation and defence which is just plain dirty. you make me sick! i hope your family is not in the wrong place at the wrong time the next time a reason is needed.
by the way don't argue with an idiot they only get you down to their level and then beat you with experience.(apologies for the digression)
No, none of the hijackers "survived" their suicides. It is indicative of the total absence of critical thinking skills in the fantasy movement that you suppose that your imaginary conspiracy would identify an actual living person as a hijacker and then allow that person to remain alive. Duh!
Members of Gage's bogus group don't laugh at rationalists: they flee from them. Gage expressed interest in appearing as a guest on 'Hardfire,' asked for more information, and after I sent him links to Mark Roberts's controlled demolitions of Jim Fetzer and the Loose Change boys, he stopped responding. His debacle in a debate with Ron Craig the other night suggests that he made the right decision. Challenges to other frauds in the tiny architects and engineers group (there are very few real architects or engineers willing to betray the ethical principles of their professions) have met with initial interest followed, after they watch a few debates, by silence.
There is a reason why all demolition experts reject the snake oil about explosives in the Towers.
Lee, do you get the idea that NOBODY in the demolition industry thinks that "pull it" means "blow up the building"? Do you want to be last remaining tinfoil-hatter clinging to this thoroughly debunked canard?
The 9/11 fantasy movement has never been able to formulate a coherent narrative. Was it a conspiracy of Republicans whose purpose was to transfer control of both houses of Congress to the Democrats? Was it a vast shadow army that is afraid of the SEC? You people don't even try to invent plausible myths.
I love it how Pom continues to walk the government's walk beating his drum... ratta tat tat. An ad hominem here, a strawman there, falsehoods and slurs everywhere.
It is truly fortuitous that you are here, wasting your time and the government's dime, because here, you can cause no harm.
It's all in how one spends time. As long as you're blog-rolling away at this site (where your credibility is in negative territory), you actually have little time to actually influence anybody. Whereas in the time since I first saw your drivel a couple of days ago, I persuaded a few new folks to 9/11 truth through direct face-to-face action.
All in all, I figure your time here is well-spent. Keep up the good work. Mind now, don't go running off. We expect you to keep on 'working' here.
Well, to start somewhere ....
pomeroo writes:
"I contacted fourteen demolition companies in four states (NY, NJ, PA, and CT) in preparation for my interview with Griffin (he ducked out after Ryan Mackey destroyed his chapter on the NIST Report). NOBODY in the demolition industry thinks that 'pull it' means "blow up the building." To 'pull' a small structure, such as a water tower, chains are attached and the structure is literally pulled off its center of gravity. A 47-story building cannot be 'pulled.'"
We would be talking about a demolition where, after weeks of planning, RDX, cutter charges, and thermite (thermate) are placed at strategic points. The building is wired and the charges are detonated and precision-timed by computer. In this way, a steel-framed high-rise can be brought straight-down, symmetrically, within its own footprint. The building is literally deposited in its own basement. It is not a business for amatuers with sticks of dynamite, as the most likely outcome in such a case, or in any random collapse, is that large sections of the building will topple over onto surrounding buildings. This is of course because the straight-down collapse must follow the course of greatest, not least, resistance.
I myself worked for a demolition company, D&D Enterprises, which was owned and operated by Walt Babics of Athens, Ohio. His contracts were mainly for condemned brick structures in Pomeroy, Ohio. Hooks and chains would be attached to the building at carefully chosen strategic points. The chains were attached to the rear bumper of a pick-up truck. Amazingly, the truck was able to pull the structure over. (The prep work was about using sledge hammers, axes and saws to get access to the strategic points, and huffing and puffing all day.)
We used the expression "pull" to refer to this process. Just as you say, chains are attached to a small structure, like a watertower, and the structure is literally pulled off its center of gravity. We did not use the term "pull" to refer to explosive demolitions because we did not do explosive demolitions.
There are only a handful of companies in the world which do computer-controlled, precision-timed demolitions of large steel-framed high-rises, Controlled Demolitions, Inc. being chief among them. There are not fourteen demolition companies in four states (NY, NJ, PA, and CT) which do controlled demolitions of steel-framed high-rises. You spoke to fourteen companies who, like D&D Enterprises, say "pull" to refer to what they do, which is to demolish buildings.
pomeroo continues:
"NOBODY in the demolition industry thinks that 'pull it' means 'blow up the building.'"
I am sure that nobody in the demolition industry thinks "pull it" means "blow-up the building."
But what of the companies who do computer-controlled, precision-timed demolitions of steel high rises?
They apparently use the same term for taking down a building as the r
But what of the companies who do computer-controlled, precision-timed demolitions of steel high rises?
They apparently use the same term for taking down a building as the rest of the demolition industry.
One of the videos on my shelf - I believe it is "9/11 Mysteries: Controlled Demolitions," - contains
video from a newscast taken right before Building 4, or 5, or both of them, were demolished. Buildings 4, 5, and 6 were lesser structures which stood much closer to the towers than Building Seven. They were pelted with more debris and had more severe fires than Building Seven, but did not collapse. A demolition worker is on camera being interviewed and says, "We're getting ready to pull Building Five."
Larry Silverstein's oft-quoted remark, taped while he was being interviewed for a PBS documentary which was subsequently "pulled," is:
"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, "We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
There were no fire fighters in the building after ten-thirty or eleven in the morning.
As you are no doubt aware, the BBC announced on the air and with banner headlines that "the Saloman Brothers Building (WTC7) has also collapsed" twenty-seven minutes before it did. You can see the building over the shoulder of the reporter standing as solidly as the day it was built.
http://
www.whatreallyhappened.co...tc7_videos.html
This would be like NBC announcing the assassination of John Kennedy at noon, followed by the actual shooting at twelve-thirty. It strongly suggests we are witnessing scripted events. Flights 11 and 175 hitting the Twin Towers provided an apparently plausible scenario for the collapse of those buildings (what we all thought we saw), while no plausible scenario existed to explain the collapse of Building Seven. Something evidently went wrong with the script. Seven came down, but it came down late ... perhaps flight 93 was supposed to hit it?
The firemen were not pulled out of Building Seven as a result of some decision taken during a conversation between Larry Silverstein and the fire chief before the building collapsed, because there were no firemen in the building.
Larry is telling us a cock-and-bull story.
As you rightly point out, the FDNY does not pull buildings, and even if they were, a structure of that size could not have been wired up in a day.
Nevertheless, we have the remarkabe statement:
"They made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse," which implies that the building came down as a direct consequence of the decision to pull it."
While not a specialist in what is in the mind of people who tell cock-and-bull stories, it appears that Lucky Larry is filling in the gap between cause (no plane as
While I am not a specialist in what is in the mind of people who tell cock-and-bull stories, it appears that Lucky Larry is filling in the gap between cause (no plane as in the case of the towers) and effect (collapse in 6.5 or 6.6 seconds) by conceding that it was a controlled demolition, which he is claiming was done to save lives.
Jim, As you know, demolition companies do not "pull" buildings. The technique is suitable only for smaller, lighter structures such as water towers. According to Stacey Loizeaux, wiring two skyscrapers as enormous as the Towers would be a herculean logistical feat, one that would require months of preparations. The notion that THOUSANDS of charges could be hidden in buildings that were in constant use is beyond preposterous. Let's not forget that the buildings collapsed from the impact floors, not from the bottom. This minor detail is overlooked by every fantasist.
It's funny. Fantasists think they have accomplished something if they can trick an ignoramus into swallowing their snake oil. So, if 60% of Americans believe that Adam and Eve were real people, that means it's true?! There is a reason why you can't find scientists and engineers to support this moonshine. There is a reason why no one has pointed out any errors in Mackey's whitepaper.
Golly Pom, I'm glad you took my advice and are still about, pontificating....
Here's a task for you. Please list the names of all the scientists and engineers who have gone on record publicly in support of the Official Government Conspiracy Theory.
Remember now, no cheating.
pomeroo please get off your knees its not working. four hi-jackers were in FACT no-jackers argue with the BBC and one of them is now flying for kingdom of saud airlines. tell him he's dead and if he agrees so will i. im going to get the phone number for you.
Some 9/11 Terrorists Still Alive? And Other Troubling Inaccuracies
By Chris Kyle
In the 9/11 Commission Report, the original list of hijackers is repeated, and their pictures are presented. However, at least six of the named hijackers are confirmed to be alive. Waleed al-Shehri is reported to have been on American Airlines Flight 11, which hit the North Tower. Yet he was interviewed by a London based Arab-language daily, Al-Quds al Arabi, after September 11, 2001...
http://www.projectcensored.org/
n...stions_911.html
If the BBC News according to its September 23, 2001 report (which it has not retracted as being wholly inaccurate) has information of the whereabouts of any of the depicted, it is injustice to all who died on September 11, 2001 to suppress such information five years, ten years, later.
BBC Editorial 5 years later 9/11 Conspiracy theory by Steve Herrmann http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/
theed...y_theory_1.html
Don't miss this article: Excerpt: Saturday, 22 September, 2001, 20:41 GMT 21:41 UK Hijack 'suspect' alive in Morocco By David Bamford in Rabat
A Saudi-Arabian aircraft pilot who was named as one of five suspects on board one of the planes that crashed into the World Trade Centre, has turned up alive and well in Morocco. The man, Waleed Al-Shehri, has told Saudi journalists in Casablanca that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco at the time...
continued...
One of those five names was Waleed Al-Shehri, a Saudi pilot who had trained in the United States. His photograph was released by the FBI, and has been shown in newspapers and on television around the world.
That same Mr Al-Shehri has turned up in Morocco, proving clearly that he was not a member of the suicide attack. He told Saudi journalists in Casablanca that he has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities to advise them that he had nothing to do with the attack.
He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Dayton Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al-Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring. Confusion But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, and became a pilot with Saudi Arabian Airlines, and is currently on a further training course in Morocco. He says he was in Marrekesh when the attack took place.
City Jeddah
Address "Terminal ""C"" Old Airport , Prince Fahad Street, Sharafiyah District"
Reservation Tel 9200-22222
Reservation Fax 6864064
Cargo Tel 6842221
Cargo Fax 6842357
Airport Services 6841701
best i can do for now but please get off your arse and do your own research and stop spouting rubbish.
so which is it do we believe the government line which is the commission report which maintains that these people were hi-jackers or you who say that they were not. they cannot be hi-jackers and still alive by your admission.i bet you could slap those damn commisioners giving you such shoddy story-work to defend. which you cannot without looking like you need a tin-foil hat to stop all that puffing and blowin'. it's probably an exegesis of E.M from multiple Error functions of the mind. i mean it probably can't believe what your saying but doesn't know how to stop your hulk like ego when its rampaging. i think human dynamics explains a lot about you and that you are doing this for money as an organised attempt to alter opinion (you won't) because of your lack of real passion and verve. where is it? im going to defend what i believe with blood (yours) IF I HAVE TO but somehow i get the feeling your afraid of turning people against you. that says something Very loudly.
coup d' etat information for you at hawks cafe in case you missed it.
The myth of the "living" hijackers is very old:
http://911myths.com/html/
still_a...till_alive.html
The Official 9/11 Commission Report is a myth that is very old too!
Pomeroo, if you actually believe the official story...you are simply proving your ignorance in Physics and Thermodynamics!
I am amazed that people still try to defend the joke that is called: 9/11 Commission Report.
The impact of the planes cannot have caused enough damage to bring the buildings down, since the buildings were designed to withstand them (as Frank DeMartini, the project manager, has observed), the planes that hit were very similar to those they were designed to withstand, and they continued to stand after those impacts with negligible effects.
The melting point of steel at 2,800*F is about 1,000*F higher than the maximum burning temperature of jet-fuel-based fires, which do not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, so the fires cannot have caused the steel to melt, which means that melting steel did not bring the buildings down.
UL certified the steel in the buildings up to 2,000*F for three or four hours before it would even significantly weaken, where these fires burned too low and too briefly at an average temperature of around 500*F--about one hour in the South Tower and one and a half in the North--to have even caused the steel to weaken, much less melt.
If the steel had melted or weakened, the affected floors would have displayed completely different behavior, with some asymmetrical sagging and tilting, which would have been gradual and slow, not the complete, abrupt, and total demolition that was observed.
William Rodriguez, the senior custodian in the North Tower and the last man to leave the building, has reported massive explosions in the subbasements that effected extensive destruction, including the demolition of a 50-ton hydraulic press and ripping the skin off a fellow worker, a report corroborated by the testimony of around three dozen other custodians.
Willie reported that the explosion occurred prior to the airplane's impact, a claim that has now been substantiated in a new study by Craig Furlong and Gordon Ross, "Seismic Proof: 9/11 was an Inside Job", which demonstrates that these explosions actually took place as much as 14 and 17 seconds prior to the airplanes impacts.
Heavy steel construction buildings like the Twin Towers, built with more than 100,000 tons of steel, are not even capable of "pancake collapse", which normally only occurs with concrete structures of "lift slab" construction and could not occur in "redundant" welded-steel buildings, such as the towers, unless every supporting column were removed at the same time, as Charles Pegelow has pointed out to me.
The destruction of the Twin Towers in approximately 10 seconds apiece is even faster than free fall with only air resistance, which would have taken at least 12 seconds, which, as Judy Wood has emphasized, is an astounding result that would have been impossible without extremely powerful explosives.
The towers are exploding from the t
Cont.
The towers are exploding from the top, not collapsing to the ground, where the floors do not move, a phenomenon that Judy Wood has likened to two gigantic trees turning to sawdust from the top down, which, like the pulverization of the concrete, the official account cannot possibly explain.
WTC-7 came down in a classic controlled demolition at 5:20 PM/ET after Larry Silverstein suggested the best thing to do might be to "pull it", displaying all the characteristics of classic controlled demolitions, including a complete, abrupt, and total collapse into its own footprint, where the floors are all falling at the same time, and so forth, an event so embarrassing to the official account that it is not even mentioned in THE 9/11 COMMISSION REPORT.
The hit point at the Pentagon was too small to accommodate a 100-ton airliner with a 125-foot wingspan and a tail that stands 44 feet above the ground; the kind and quantity of debris was wrong for a Boeing 757: no wings, no fuselage, no seats, no bodies, no luggage, no tail! Which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
The Pentagon's own videotape does not show a Boeing 757 hitting the building, as even Bill O'Reilly admitted when it was shown on "The Factor"; but at 155 feet, the plane was more than twice as long as the 71-foot Pentagon is high and should have been present and visible; it was not, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
Pilots for 9/11 Truth have analyzed black box data allegedly from the Pentagon plane and discovered that it contradicts the official account in direction, approach, and altitude: it was 300 feet too high to have taken out the lampposts and 100 feet too high to have hit the building itself.
The aerodynamics of flight would have made the official trajectory--flying at high speed barely above ground level--physically impossible; and if it had come it at an angle instead, it would have created a massive crater; but there is no crater and the government has no way out, which means that the building was not hit by a Boeing 757!
If Flight 93 had come down as advertised, then there would have been a debris field of about a city block in size, but in fact the debris is distributed over an area of about eight square miles, which would be explainable if the plane had been shot down in the air but not if it had crashed as required by the government's official scenario.
There are more, especially about the alleged hijackers, including that they were not competent to fly the planes; their names were not on any passenger manifest; they were not subject to any autopsy; several have turned up alive and well; the cell phone calls appear to have been impossible; on and on. The evidence may be found at 911Scholars.org.
James H. Fetzer, Ph.D.
Founder and Co-Chair
Scholars for 9/11 Truth
Biography
James H. Fetzer was born in Pasadena, California in 1940, and attended South Pasadena High School where he received The Carver Award for leadership. After completing high school, he went on to study philosophy at Princeton University and graduated magna cum laude in 1962. After four years as a commissioned officer in the Marine Corps, he resigned his commission as a Captain to begin graduate work at Indiana University. In 1970 he completed his Ph.D. in the history and philosophy of science.
Fetzer taught at various schools including the University of Kentucky, the University of Virginia (twice) and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill before he received tenure at the University of Minnesota Duluth, where he taught from 1987 until his retirement in June 2006.[3]
[edit] Works
Fetzer has published more than 100 articles and 20 books[4] on philosophy of science, computer science, artificial intelligence and cognitive science. He also founded the international journal, Minds and Machines, which he edited for eleven years, and the professional library, Studies in Cognitive Systems, which includes thirty volumes.
Source/link,..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Jam...James_H._Fetzer
Author of,..
http://unjobs.org/authors/james-...james-h.-
fetzer
Would POMEROO like another quenching and refreshing sip ?????
http://thumbsnap.com/v/y5ybl4oL.jpg
Is that it some lame link to a web-site that does not CONFIRM what you are saying and then crawl back under your rock. it is a FACT that waleed al-shehri is alive. and is stated as being dead in the ommision report.
the simplest truth is HE IS ALIVE which means all that you hold dear is a fallacy. reliance on people to take the administrations word without checking is a tenet of the plan, fortunately we know you lie like a cheap japanese watch and have to source educate as many people as possible to this. and its refreshing to see an educated man come and call you an idiot! why are the administrations lies so important to you......mr cheney?.
Maybe POMEROO would find this very heplful,..
http://www.risperdal.com/risperd...1nGd!-
644338678
Where's my explanation for bldg. 7? I'm still waiting . . .
"fires raged" (snicker)
Jim, are you really spending time on a tiny anti-Semitic blog? How sad. My excuse is that I was directed here to read comments about the Seffen paper which, needless to say, nobody here was capable of reading.
Amazing that you're still trying to peddle Ross and Furlong's thoroughly debunked rubbish. Ryan Mackey exposed their errors in several threads on the JREF:
(From the thread, “Greening Speaks on Fetzer’s Show,” April 10,2007
Originally Posted by T.A.M.
Anyone have any idea if Fetzer is correct about the columbia university seismology data. Did they get a spike 14-17 seconds prior to impact?
R. Mackey wrote:
Just to nail this point thoroughly -- and this is worth doing, because this is perhaps the single most airtight example of the Idiot Movement being exposed for what they are -- the answer is "no."
We had a whole thread discussing this issue here, with the tipping point occuring here. Paper co-author Craig Furlong appears in the thread as quicknthedead, an unimpressive showing to say the least.
Here's what happened: The Columbia Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory likes to release seismic records in 40-second chunks, with the seismic event centered. This gives the reader a way to visualize approximately what the background noise was before the event, and how quickly the event decays into noise afterwards.
The two WTC impact signatures were approximately 12 and 6 seconds in duration on the seismic traces, respectively. If you center these events within a 40-second window, they start at (40 - 12) / 2 = 28 / 2 = 14 seconds and (40 - 6) / 2 = 34 / 2 = 17 seconds into the 40-second window.
Craig Furlong and co-author Gordon Ross, in their zeal to discover "anomalies," read the wrong time off the plots. They plugged in the time at the start of the window, not the start of the event. Thus, they show "errors" of 14 and 17 seconds. However, even though we pointed their mistake out to Mr. Furlong in person, they still stand by their interpretation that bombs must have gone off 14 and 17 seconds prior to aircraft impact.
I stand by my assessment that the above is, perhaps, the worst scientific investigation of all time.
Sorry, lee j, but you're all wet.
http://911myths.com/html/
waleed_...till_alive.html
It's long past time we put the myths about Larry Silverstein to rest:
http://911myths.com/html/
wtc7_pu...tc7_pulled.html
Jim Fetzer is an entertaining crank, but it's hard to believe that the person who posted the farrago of nonsense under Fetzer's name has spent any time at all researching the jihadist attacks of 9/11/01.
The hijackers' names most assuredly appear on the passenger manifests. That is the reason several major dailies were able to print the names and seating positions of everyone on board. Conspiracy liars have tried to pretend that various lists of VICTIMS, such as CNN's, were passenger manifests. This deception was exposed long ago.
David Ray Griffin, PhD – Professor Emeritus of Philosophy of Religion and Theology and Co-director of the Center for Process Studies at the Claremont School of Theology. One of the founding thinkers of Process Theology. Recent books include; God, Power, and Evil: A Process Theodicy (2004), Two Great Truths: A New Synthesis of Scientific Naturalism and Christian Faith (2004), Religion and Scientific Naturalism (2000), and Reenchantment without Supernaturalism (2000), Unsnarling the World-Knot: Consciousness, Freedom, and the Mind-Body Problem (199, Parapsychology, Philosophy, and Spirituality (1997). Editor of the SUNY series in Constructive Postmodern Thought. Author and editor of several books that question the official account of 9/11, including; The New Pearl Harbor (2004), The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions (2004), 9/11 and American Empire (Vol I) – Intellectuals Speak Out (2006), Christian Faith and the Truth Behind 9/11: A Call to Reflection and Action (2006), The American Empire and the Commonwealth of God (2006), Debunking 9/11 Debunking: An Answer to Popular Mechanics and Other Defenders of the Official Conspiracy Theory (2007).
Video of Speech 9/14/06: "The official story is false. ... Now why is the official theory an outrageous conspiracy theory? Because every one of the major elements in it can easily be shown to be false." http://youtube.com/watch?v=-y6OSkDH4nk
Essay: "The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique's subtitle, 'Omissions and Distortions.' ... Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know. But, deciding to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had identified over 100 of them. Once I had made the list, it occurred to me that others might find this summary helpful. Hence this article." [List of 115 lies follows.] http://www.serend
Member: Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice Association Statement: "Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice is a non-partisan organization consisting of independent researchers and activists engaged in uncovering the true nature of the September 11, 2001 attacks."
Signatory: Petition requesting a reinvestigation of 9/11:
"We want truthful answers to question. … As Americans of conscience, we ask for four things:
An immediate investigation by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer
Immediate investigation in Congressional Hearings.
Media attention to scrutinize and investigate the evidence.
The formation of a truly independent citizens-based inquiry." http://www.911truth.org/article
Bio:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Ray_Griffin
CV: http://www.ctr4process.org/about...tors/
drg_cv.pdf
--------------------------------------
Graeme MacQueen, PhD – Associate Professor of Religious Studies and founding Director, Centre for Peace Studies, McMaster
You want more read this:
http://patriotsquestion911.com:
8...professors.html
AND THIS:
http://www.wanttoknow.info/
offic...ommissionreport
Stop defending The Official 9/11 Commission Report and start demanding a NEW IMPARTIAL INVESTIGATION!!
Senator Max Cleland – Former member of the 9/11 Commission, ....
Boston Globe Article 11/13/03: "If this decision stands [to limit 9/11 Commission access to White House documents], I, as a member of the commission, cannot look any American in the eye, especially family members of victims, and say the commission had full access. This investigation is now compromised."
http://www.boston.com/... - Link to Boston Globe article
http://wanttoknow.info/
officials...ommissionreport
Har Har Har Har Har an insult i must be getting under your skin! now take of the armour of lies and put on the armour of a truther it fits a lot better and does not mark you out as a complete idiot. where are your credentials, if jim is a crank then you have to be the nut that holds the wheel. don't you ever get scared that when you fail you might be indicted along with the other criminals because what you are doing is perverting the course of justice. your myths site is i think the most lame attempt to maintain the lie in a tsunami of focused evidence from people who are far more educated and erudite than you will ever be. id love to stand you in front of the jersey girls. would you do that actually lie to the faces of the wives of husbands who were murdered by skum (with a k they are killers first not criminals) and then enabled by fools like yourself. if the answer is no then shut up and lets be honest im sure they'd pull you apart intellectually and figuratively given half a chance. and who can blame them.
a forensic psychologist friend of mine is looking over your posts. he's interested in whether you are a lunatic or employed to do this.
as an addendum why are all of the commissioners now at scholars for 9/11 truth if it's all done and dusted. oh yea and don't forget to answer the question about building 7 im dying to see that on your mythical site.
You want an answer for WTC 7? I have a guess that is as good as any! Though many on this board will say I am intellectually bankrupt...oh well here it goes:
UA Flight 93 that supposedly crashed in PA was actually heading for WTC 7. However, for some unknown reason it was called off, shot down, or whatever. Yes many will say that it was heading for DC, but it has also been stated that it was actually heading North East before it was lost.
They had to know that something terrible needed to happen to WTC 7 to explain it's controlled demo (same as WTC 1&2), but their plan, for whatever reasons, was slightly foiled by the loss of UA Flight 93.
David Griffin agreed to a telephone interview on 'Hardfire,' then ran away following the publication of Ryan Mackey's devastating critique of the chapter on the NIST Report in Griffin's latest book (jod911.com).
No former 9/11 Commission members, including the most rabidly anti-Bush Democrats, are conspiracists.
If your "forensic psychologist" friend exists (probability of zero to less than one percent), he should turn in his license. There is a reason that the bogus science, distorted quotes, and outright lies of the fantasy movement are rejected by serious researchers.
I frequently ask a question of 9/11 fantasists without ever getting a straight answer: If I thought that members of the U.S. government had committed treason and mass murder, why would I want them to get away with their crimes? Stop. Don't give me canned gibberish as a response. Tell me why I would want this unprecedented crime to go unpunished. I can't think of a single reason.
You babble about 911myths.com without taking the trouble to visit it and read any of the articles. If you are as interested in WTC 7 as you claim to be, why not read about it: start with Mark Roberts's paper (available on jod911.com) and the material on debunking911.com and 911myths.com.
Now, we have someone trying to pretend that Flight 93 was headed for WTC 7.
No.
Flight 93 was headed for Washington, D.C. to hit either the Capitol or the White House. You don't seem capable of grasping the fact that WTC 7 does not fit into any coherent inside-job theory. Your imaginary conspiracy behaves like drunken frat boys, pointlessly strewing clues all over the landscape
Pomeroo:
You should want a new 9/11 Investigation with full disclosure of all evidence.
You should want the commission panel to be as impartial as possible.
You should stop defending the "official" story until all of the available evidence is unlocked and out from under the guise of National Security.
This is what you should be demanding! This will dispell all of the anamolies on both sides.
You must realize that you are just as much of a conspiracy theorist as anyone on this board.
You see, you simply support the theory of a different conspiracy!!!
You know that, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that UA flight 93 was heading towards DC because???
Let me guess, the MSM told you this as fact!
Were you in the ATC tower? No.
You see, anyone can claim anything until they actually do an impartial investigation and release ALL THE EVIDENCE!
Thanks for taking the BAIT!
"pointlessly strewing clues all over the landscape" (Writes Pomeroo)
Yes, the clues were strewed over 8 miles of PA landscape (UA Flight 93) and the official report says it crashed in a single location!
Does this make any sense to anyone except Pomeroo?
Come on Pomeroo...Wake Up!!
Former Transportation Secretary Disputes 9/11 Commission Report:
Norman Mineta Confirms That Dick Cheney Ordered Stand Down on 9/11
http://www.jonesreport.com/
artic...607_mineta.html
As Pomeroo would have us think, this is just more "drunken frat boy's imaginative conspiracies."
All we want is the TRUTH!!!
Hey Pomeroo,
Are you the first witness in this video wearing the Harley T-Shit and Cap??
http://video.google.com/videopla...earch&
plindex=6
Where is the Boeing 757 ?
http://video.google.com/videopla...earch&
plindex=6
Watch this video. This lady actually saw what made the hole in the above video:
http://video.google.com/videopla...earch&
plindex=6
Let's Roll.....Tell us the Damn Truth!!
Good grief, you think can resurrect the Norman Mineta nonsense? Mineta's erroneous timeline was off by a half-hour. It was contradicted by the timelines established by everyone else AND the phone logs. You want to pretend that Dick Cheney did not confirm to the military aide that the shootdown orders he had just received from Bush stood? You think he was confessing publicly to treason and mass murder? He was saying that a hijacked commercial airliner would be ALLOWED to crash into a government building? And no reporter found a story in this incident? Really? The biggest story in the history of journalism and no news outlet in America or anywhere else noticed???
Really??
So, when Mineta gave his testimony to the 9/11 Commission, they forgot to ask, "Secretary Mineta, are you suggesting that the Vice President announced in earshot of several witnesses that the plane headed toward government building would be permitted to hit them?"?
Do you ever wonder why Mineta himself doesn't understand that he plays a role in a bogus internet "controversy"?
No pomerooooo, what we are saying is we need to have an impartial investigation with all of the evidence to quash all the conspiracies!
This includes your conspiracy theory that believes the 9/11 Commission Report is accurate and factual.
Surely you understand this?
POMEROO,..
Take another gulp,..
Click link.
The problem is, who do you think should conduct the next investigation? Necessarily you must rule out structural engineers, physicists, seismologists, demolition experts, air traffic controllers, forensic specialists, avionics techs, members of police and fire departments, military personnel--you get the idea. To find people who will take your fantasy seriously, you're left with theology professors, Marxist literary critics, and professional cranks. Why would a rationalist be satisifed with an investigation that amounts to nothing more than a lynch mob?
Remember, the jihadists are REAL.
Permit to add that quashing conspiracy theories is impossible. The beliefs of people who believe only what they want to believe are unfalsifiable.
To the contrary Pomeroo, you must include structural engineers, physicists, demo experts etc. If I understand you correctly, you are saying that none of these types of qualified experts agree with an alternative theory of 9/11. If so, where have you been? There are many who feel that this is no fantasy...as you classify it.
Simply put pomeroo, there is the truth and then there is not the truth. The truth can be substaniated with real evidence and right now, it is hidden under the guise of National Security!
The 9/11 truth movement isn't about wanting to believe US Govt complicity and needing this to be true! We simply want to see all of the evidence that makes The 9/11 Commission Report factual and true...If such evidence actually exists??
The only basis for the denial of all credible evidence is that they are covering-up something. This is called Guilty Demeanor.
In a sense, you are mostly correct about quashing this conspiracy. You are obviously going to believe what you want to believe even though you haven't seen all the evidence.
Plane hits building...building falls.
Plane hits building...building falls.
Plane hits building...building falls.
Plane hits building...building falls.
There is simply no current credible evidence thats supports this cause and effect other than you saw it and they told you this on CNN, FOX, and etc.!!
why is it at your site which you have gone out of your way to make it look like a wikipedia page (quite naff) when you view erich hufshcmidts video of the so called second plane you cannot freeze frame it and go frame by frame for the first 50% of the video. every other time i have come across this video you can freeze frame it after the plane has entered leaving no damage on the face and then the explosion follows a very poorly timed 0.13 of a second later.
glass fronted buildings are a fantastic medium for shockwave propagation! so why when the plane enters the building are there no propagation waves from the point of impact. but at the moment the left face of the building erupts supposedly from the plane exploding INSIDE (looks like squibs and gasolene very hollywood)if you freeze frame it as it explodes the propagation wave can be seen. Quad Erat Demonstratum argue with god they are his physics. dont go removing the EVIDENCE now. you obviously know it is because of the tampering with the player. looking forward to an answer from any one of a number of people writing as pomeroo...moorope yes please enough to hang you with....J.T.T are assholes!!
For all of those who want to know why 9/11 happened and all of the agencies/companies that were involved, one way or the other, in the events leading up Sept 11, 2001, please take the time to watch:
http://stage6.divx.com/Liberty/v...led-John-O'
Neil
The video is hard to follow at first and I do not much care for the style of delivery (acting), but the content is more than worth the time to watch it to its entirety. Also, there are people on the web who have been offering a REWARD to anyone who can debunk this video! This offer has been there for over 6 months and no takers!!
So pomeroo, give it a try and see what BS you can come up with to prove it false!
http://www.communitycurrency.org....org/
robin.html
Within three hours of the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon, Robin Hordon knew it was an inside job. He had been an Air Traffic Controller (ATC) for eleven years before Reagan fired him and hundreds of his colleagues after they went on strike in the eighties. Having handled in-flight emergencies and two actual hijackings in his career, he is well qualified to comment on what NORAD should have been able to achieve in its response to the near simultaneous hijacking of four domestic passenger carriers on the morning of September 11th, 2001.
“There had to be something huge to explain why those aircraft weren’t shot down out of the sky. We have fighters on the ready to handle these situations twenty-four-seven. We have NORAD (North American Aerospace Defense Command) monitors monitoring our skies twenty-four-seven. We have a lot of human beings, civilian and military, who care about doing their jobs.”
I spoke to Mr. Hordon one afternoon at a coffee shop in Bremerton, Washington.
“You have to understand the emotions, the duty, the job of an ATC. We are paid to watch aircraft go across the country.”
It’s clear that Hordon is passionate about the subject. A lot of people are. The dark questions that the attacks have left lingering in the national psyche have been recorded. 49% of New Yorkers believe that the government had something to do with 9/11. Following an interview with Charlie Sheen, a CNN poll revealed that 82% of respondents believed that there was “a government cover-up of 9/11.” Jay Leno asked Bill Maher on The Tonight Show about the fact that 37% of Americans (according to Scribbs-Howard) believe that the government was involved in some way with the attacks (Maher was definitely not one of them).
As far as the “emotions, the duty, the job” of an ATC is concerned, Hordon puts it this way:
“Imagine yourself at a circus, a fair, a crowded sports event. You have in your hand your little child of five or six, you’re amongst hundreds of people and you turn around and see that your child is gone. How do you feel at that moment? You feel panicked. You feel that this is the worst thing possible, so what you do is you engage. When ATCs lose an aircraft, all hell breaks loose. They flip right into motion. We take action and do not wait for other things to happen.”
http://www.communitycurrency.org....org/
robin.html
As a former member of the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and PATCO (Professional Air Traffic Controllers Organization), Hordon’s years as an ATC are particularly relevent to 9/11 researchers.
“I was a certified ATC in Boston west-bound departures, the routing that AA11 and UA175 followed on 9/11. I know it like the back of my hand.”
He even received a letter of commendation for his role in dealing with an actual hijacking. When it became clear that there hadn’t been a systems failure of any kind on the morning of September 11th, Hordon was certain that something had gone terribly wrong within the upper echelons of authority. A pilot (third level air carrier) as well as an ATC, he is well versed on in-flight emergency protocol. He is also adamant that if these procedures had been followed on 9/11 not one of the hijacked planes would have reached their targets.
“I’m sorry but American 11 should have been intercepted over southwest Connecticut—bang, done deal.”
According to Hordon, air emergencies requiring scrambles, or “flushes,” from fighter jets occur 50 to 150 times a year.
“It’s routine. At Otis AFB we would have practice exercises two or three times a year. We’d flush aircraft, get the B-52’s up, get the tankers up, get the fighters up. Just out of Otis there’d be twenty, thirty fighter jets. And on 9/11 there were plenty of fighters as well. They were just diverted over the ocean, tied up in drills, etc.”
The vast majority of air incidents are simple communications or routing failures, common mishaps that are easily remedied. Nonetheless, when a problem does arise, it is treated as an emergency and interceptors are scrambled.
“This is exactly what’s written in our manuals. We alert our immediate supervisors, we get another set of eyes on the scope. We have, two feet away from us, a little button that says ADC, Air Defense Command [nowadays NEADS (Northeast Air Defense Sector)]. Bing, hit the button. ‘Hey, this is me at the Boston Center air space. I just lost a target or I have an erratic target. He is twenty-five miles west of Keene, last reported at such-and-such location.’”
Pilots use similar checklists when responding to problems with their airplanes:
“If I lose an engine in a multi-engine aircraft I know exactly what to do. I start to control the aircraft to fly with one engine, I’ll shut the ailing engine down, I’ll get the aircraft trimmed up. It’s check, check, check.”
Hordon is not persuaded by those who make excuses for the lack of military response on 9/11. U.S. air defenses have been on hair-trigger alert to defend the nation from attack since the early sixties. The idea that, on the morning of 9/11, there was an inexplicable wave of incompetence on the part of his former FAA “brothers in arms” offends him deeply.
http://www.communitycurrency.org....org/
robin.html
“The pilots are in their ready rooms, the planes are in open-ended hangars. You have frontline players, pilots and controllers. I’m there, I’m watching. The pilot is there, he’s flying. We have direct air defense command communications. That’s the way it’s been for fifty years.”
The unfathomable delays seen in military action on 9/11 are inconceivable to those who have painstakingly investigated the matter—and for a man who worked for years keeping air travel over the U.S. safe.
“Military pilots would have their asses off the ground faster than you could imagine. I know how quickly our systems can respond. Why would you design a system that responds slowly to an emergency?”
Claims by authorities that, once a hijacked aircraft’s transponders have been turned off, the plane becomes virtually invisible to radar, is another sore point for Hordon.
“Bottom line, these aircraft were always radar monitored, we were always in communication with them, even if they were hijacked. The only way you can lose an aircraft these days is for the plane to flat out blow up.”
Since any genuine air attack would not likely announce itself as such, NORAD radar has to be able to detect anything. But there’s nothing stealthy about an enormous Boeing passenger liner, whether its transponder is operating properly or not.
“That aircraft is represented on their radar scope from the time it takes off to the time it lands. Even little puddle-jumpers out of our local airports. NORAD tracks all these aircraft. They have the world’s most sophisticated radar.”
After eleven eventful years as an ATC, Hordon naturally reacted with shock when he first heard that fifty years of tried and true in-flight emergency protocol was abruptly altered in June of 2001, just two months before the attacks.
“Rumsfeld put a third party in between the ATC and the Air Defense Controller responsible for scrambling interceptors —the Pentagon.”
He speculates that “the phone calls went from the FAA to the Pentagon and were not answered. Therefore the Pentagon never reached down to the ADC base to release the aircraft. The Boston Center’s ATCs got so frustrated with the non-answer from the military that they finally said, ‘get these guys going anyways.’ That’s the way it’s been for fifty years. We scramble aircraft. We don’t wait for OK’s from third or fourth parties.”
http://www.communitycurrency.org....org/
robin.html
The no-show status of the U.S. military on the morning of September 11th, 2001, has understandably become the single most compelling point that 9/11 researchers, writers and activists use to support their claims of complicity on the part of the U.S government (and its military and intelligence apparatus) in the attacks. When even those who condemn “conspiracy theory” in regard to 9/11 have questioned the military’s conduct that morning, it’s clear that this anomaly is worthy of intense concern and diligent investigation. Whatever the case may be, there are no doubts that history’s largest and most technologically advanced military was apparently caught completely off guard by four huge hijacked passenger jets that were in the air for almost two hours on the crystal clear morning of 9/11.
9/11 researchers have spent years speculating about what exactly did happen in the cockpits of the hijacked jets on 9/11. Theories run the gamut, from duplicate aircraft taking over the flight plans of the hijacked planes to passenger jets being remotely commandeered in mid-air. Naturally, the technical complexities involved in operating a huge commercial passenger jet can only be fully conveyed by someone with extensive aviation training and experience.
“For years, they have been improving what the common person will call an autopilot. The modern term is a flight director. You can program a flight director basically for your entire flight, before and after you take off.”
Flight directors—high-tech navigational computers—are used in commercial aircraft because they are always sensing every factor that affects an aircraft’s flight (wind speed and direction, fuel weight, atmospheric conditions, etc.) and instantly make the adjustments necessary to sustain the most efficient and economic operation of the plane.
“The Boeing 707 Series, I believe, were the last series of aircraft built where you actually controlled the plane using wires or cables. There are no cables anymore. What we have now are electronic or hydraulic sensors that transmit information to servos and other control devices that apply pressure to the control surfaces.”
The fact that the operation of modern aircraft is primarily computerized essentially makes the controls hackable, either from onboard or, if the proper receivers are installed in the plane, from a remote location.
“Internally the aircraft had to have a separate receiver unit built into it; separate windows of access into the flight director and an ability to disengage the manual controls in the aircraft and take it over with all of the pre-determined information.”
POMEROOOO,..
This will help get you going. Watch the video, have some refreshments,
http://www.thegreenhead.com/imgs...corn-bowl-
2.jpg
http://www.gessford.com/work/ima...d-Man-
03416.JPG
and then come up with a laundry list of proof and hard evidence why the government's off the wall "conspiracy theory" is the only correct explanation for the events of 9/11.
http://www.communitycurrency.org....org/
robin.html
A common notion to which many defenders of the official account cling (including such notables as Noam Chomsky) is the idea that any conspiracy as vast as 9/11 would have had to involve hundreds, perhaps thousands of people, all in-the-know and willing to go to the grave with their secrets. But well researched claims—that many sizable covert operations have indeed been kept from the public in the past; that state of the art technology can drastically reduce the number of people required for any given “op,” and that systemic “compartmentalization” of duties can effectively exploit many people’s involvement without their knowledge—have convincingly refuted this assertion. In addition, the ability of higher-ups to intimidate and silence potential whistleblowers after the fact is formidable. Naturally, Mr. Hordon has a thing or two to say on the subject.
“I think we all have to agree that, one way or another, the U.S. military was involved in the attacks. The advantage that Rumsfeld had is that he can classify, reshape, make available, make unavailable any information that he wants, at any time and deny that information to the public for any reason, especially national security.”
Hordon believes that one facet of the plan that the conspirators could not control was the individual integrity of the civilians in the FAA—dedicated professionals who would not likely remain silent if they had witnessed something unusual during the attacks. Number one on Hordon’s list are the air traffic controllers: “What part of this whole thing is missing? Is it not the voice tapes from the civilian ATC’s? They had to devise a way to take the loose lips group, the civilian guys, and disengage them. If they are allowed to testify exactly as to their normal protocol behavior, they’re going to prove that the military were the culpable ones.” When he was in the FAA, Hordon was certified as the operator in his facility tasked to secure relevant data after an air emergency; if not entirely because of public safety concerns, certainly for liability reasons. “Whenever we had an incident, an emergency, on-air trouble, some type of a near ‘mid-air’ or a breakdown in aviation rules, we would immediately take the voice tapes and secure them. We would immediately take the radar data on that controller’s scope that day and secure them. Whenever there was an incident, all of the information, all of it was secured. Period.”
Despite this rigid protocol, there have been shocking accounts of ATC records being seized shortly after the attacks and kept far from public scrutiny. Hordon believes that these ATC recordings have either been destroyed or mutilated.
“The reason that they’re not giving us this early-on information is because they want to paint a picture of confusion, and they had to somehow get the civilian eye-witnesses out of it.”
http://www.communitycurrency.org....org/
robin.html
Although the 9/11 Commission, desperate to deflect the public’s attention away from official quarters, scapegoated the FAA for incompetence in regard to the attacks, Hordon believes that the real confusion originated in the Pentagon, a theory that jibes well with the timely and suspicious change in air defense protocol mentioned above.
“The FAA has given us the computerized information about the aircraft being tracked. What the FAA has not given us is the internal tapes from the sectors in the Boston Center who were controlling this aircraft.”
If there were one point Robin Hordon would like to impress most upon 9/11 Truth researchers and activists it would be that the truth about the non-performance of U.S. air defenses on 9/11 lies in a careful examination of the first few minutes after the planes were known to have been hijacked.
“The first fifteen minutes are the key. I have done the math. If we had scrambled some aircraft five or six minutes after we saw this huge deviation, the fighters from Otis would have intercepted American 11 over southwestern Connecticut or just south of Albany, NY. The federal government and the military, for extremely serious reasons, are keeping the public focused on after American 11 hits the tower. But the real focus for 9/11 researchers should be what NORAD was doing five minutes after American 11 lost its transponder and went off course.”
Whatever criticism Hordon may have for NORAD and the Pentagon, it certainly doesn’t extend to the individuals on the frontlines of our nation’s civil defense:
“These are military fighter pilots. These are good guys. They figure stuff out. What do you think the pilots are doing? Ordering coffee and donuts? No. They are up there, their blood is pumping, they are thinking one thing: ‘My country is being invaded. This is why I stand on the ready in the waiting room down at Otis AFB; so that I can get up and defend my country.’ Do you think they’re going to get on the tail of American 11 when it was heading straight for the WTC and let it hit? No. What they’re going to do is say ‘OK, there’s going to be some bodies and shrapnel…boom.’ They’re going to take that risk.”
One of Hordon’s more ambitious proposals for the 9/11 Truth movement is that a support network be developed for the aid and protection of its single most important resource, whistleblowers.
“What the 9/11 movement should do is band together and develop safe lives for whistleblowers.” Legal counsel, moral support, even physical protection could do much to inspire those who are considering stepping forward with potentially explosive insider testimony about the attacks....
Many 9/11 activists believe that their work on issues related to the attacks has greater potential for true social transformation than any other single issue, and Hordon emphatically agrees.
“I think that this 9/11 thing is the quintessential opportunity to expose all of the infecting poisons; more than Iran Contra weapons for hostages, more than rampant militarism, more than Watergate, more than Enron, more than the dark side of the world’s financial institutions, more than any other similar kind of thing. I think that this is pretty much their last gasp, and the reason is very simple; the internet. We’re going to catch’em.”
Activists with a sense of humor are always a breath of fresh air. After his stint as an ATC, Hordon worked for years at the comedy club Catch a Rising Star in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Something must have rubbed off:
“We have two parties in this country; we have republicans and we have republicans dressed up in blue drag. And when we get the blue outer clothing off of the fake democrats, they stand there in their red Armani underwear.”
Hordon respects humor as a formidable weapon for activists. As an artistic coordinator for up and coming comedians, he once worked with some of the most talented and successful comics of our time including Jerry Seinfeld and Larry David. Some of the political comics he once coached are regulars on Air America Radio. Of the reigning powers-that-be, he has this to say:
“They know they’re done with 9/11. They know they’re cooked. They’re just throwing boxes of nails in the road behind their car as it speeds away and they’re hoping that all our tires get flattened. But it’s not happening. They know they’re pretty much done.”
Hordon is a crank with a grudge. He hasn't worked as an air traffic controller for decades and has no insider information to contribute. Dozens of real air traffic controllers have described the chaos on the morning of 9/11/01. Naturally, to keep your imaginary conspiracy afloat, you must disregard everything they say. Again, your beliefs are unfalsifiable and no amount of real evidence can make a dent.
Jim, You keep acting as though the 9/11 fantasy movement is making progress in deceiving people. It isn't. All of its false claims have been thoroughly debunked and its bogus science has been exposed by serious researchers. Your imaginary conspiracy has achieved none of the various and often contradictory goals ascribed to it by agenda-driven cranks. Unless Bush's plan was to create a fascist state in order to hand it over to Hillary and retire to his ranch, it's time to bring the curtain down on a really rotten show. I can make an effort to understand your deep emotional investment in this farfetched speculation, but in the end the truth can't be suppressed. Hatred of America and its government just isn't sufficient to stand reality on its head. However much you recoil at the fact that America was the victim of an unprovoked attack, you're going to have to live with it. The jihadists, who fantasists disingenuously manage to leave out of the equation, remain very proud of their victory and confident of repeating it. For them, 9/11 was merely the most spectacular in a series of attacks extending back for a decade. Isn't it curious that you're willing to waste vast amounts of time on tinfoil-hat sites where crackpots make up preposterous nonsense, but you wouldn't dream of reading a book like Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, or Gerald Posner's Why America Slept, or Mary Habeck's Knowing the Enemy?
"I frequently ask a question of 9/11 fantasists without ever getting a straight answer: If I thought that members of the U.S. government had committed treason and mass murder, why would I want them to get away with their crimes? Stop. Don't give me canned gibberish as a response. Tell me why I would want this unprecedented crime to go unpunished. I can't think of a single reason."
You can't think of a single reason? Sorry, but I'm calling BULLSHIT on that one. There are many possible reasons, but I'm guessing you've already filed them under 'canned gibberish'. In the end, they all boil down to seeing it as a means to an end.
Now, I'd like to ask you a few simple questions, and please, no 'canned gibberish'. Really.
Why would two completely innocent people under, or involved in, an investigation request/demand that they be questioned together and not under oath?
Bigger question. Why would the investigators allow it?
Or is that a myth too?
If all of these debunking theories are so well grounded, perhaps you could tell me how many demolition companies are now using their methods to obtain permits for the purposes of controlled demolition or are they all still going through the trouble of rigging the entire building with explosives when all it would really take are a few randomly placed explosives and a few small fires?
BTW, the jod911 site claims the papers there are all 'peer-reviewed'. Might I ask by whom?
pomeroo writes:
"Unless Bush's plan was to create a fascist state in order to hand it over to Hillary and retire to his ranch ..."
True, we are well on the way to a fascist state, but I do not believe George W. Bush is a prime mover. Bush is scenery, sage brush viewed from the window of an express train, an openly drug abusing alcoholic who has ascended to the Presidency because he can be trusted to do what he is told.
"...It's time to bring the curtain down on a really rotten show."
It is! You and I just disagree on which one.
"... you wouldn't dream of reading a book like Lawrence Wright's The Looming Tower: Al Qaeda and the Road to 9/11, or Gerald Posner's Why America Slept, or Mary Habeck's Knowing the Enemy?"
You do assign a good bit of homework. I wonder how much would ever be enough. At one of the sites you recommend
http://debunking911.com/jones.htm
the argument is made that Professor Jones
http://www.physics.byu.edu/resea...ic/
jones_cv.htm
is not a civil engineer, and therefore is unqualified to write a paper about the collapse of the World Trade Center Buildings. So, even if I were to get a Ph.D. in physics, that would not be enough.
The author goes on to attack Jones' Mormanism, the sort of ad hominem which so often accompanies a bankrupt argument like the smell of decay betrays a carcass, as with Hordon. Hordon is a crank, and Brutus is an honorable man.
If I were a disgruntled person and decided to hi-jack a commercial jet liner in 2001 with a plastic knife and fork or a box cutter (nevermind that I cannot fly a plane) and hit the Pentagon about fifty minutes after everyone in the world knew both towers were hit, how much chance would I have?
You do mention one book that I probably will be unable to find the time to read. I once spent quite some time studying Gerald Posner's "Case Closed." He is simply a briefcase for hire to defend whichever official explanation is most in need of rescue. I do not know how a man like that can sleep.
pomeroo writes:
"According to Stacey Loizeaux, wiring two skyscrapers as enormous as the Towers would be a herculean logistical feat, one that would require months of preparations. The notion that THOUSANDS of charges could be hidden in buildings that were in constant use is beyond preposterous."
As I understand the matter, the official explanation is that the impact of the planes and subsequent fires were sufficient to bring the towers (and even Building Seven which was 300 yards away) straight down, completely, in mere seconds.
Do you now wish to argue that thousands of demolition charges would be necessary to bring the buildings down the way they came down? If no explosives were necessary, wouldn't hundreds be enough?
I have corresponded with Gerald Posner. He strikes me as an honorable man as well as a thorough researcher. I used to believe that JFK was murdered by the mob. Nobody who reads Posner's incredibly detailed portrait of Lee Harvey Oswald, however, can ever doubt that the violent, emotionally distrubed Marxist was the shooter. Bugliosi's new book is the final nail in the coffin for JFK conspiracists, but I now understand why a cottage industry sprung up around the assassination: the left requires a more appropriate assassin. Oswald's communism is terribly inconvenient for the mythmakers. The destroyer of Camelot just has to be one of those awful rightwingers.
You'll notice that once again I have failed to get an answer to my question about why I would want mass murderers in the U.S. government to go unpunished. It is my contention that 9/11 fantasists lack critical thinking skills. Their imaginary conspiracy makes no sense whatever, so they keep shifting their ground, like an interminable shaggy dog story stumbling in search of a punchline.
The conspiracy's goal was to build a natural gas pipeline in Central Asia. Okay, we won't pause to wonder why this is supposed to be a terrible thing. We'll pretend that it is. Now, the proposed Unocal pipeline was a Clinton-era project that was dead before Bush took office. No one is building a gas pipeline.
Another supposed goal was to secure access to Iraq's oil. But, before the war we were importing only 4% of our oil from Iraq and that percentage has dropped in recent years. Russian and Chinese oil companies, in the meantime, have signed lucrative contracts with the new Iraqi government.
What cannot be denied is that the Iraq War transferred control of both houses of Congress from the Republicans to the Democrats. Bush's war against radical Islam has suffered from poor planning and failure to adjust to unexpected events. A Democratic war, however, would be indistinguishable from no war at all.
One aspect of the fantasist position that I find particularly hard to understand is the absurd claim that the fires in the Towers were small. Why argue when you can simply look at the videos?
Steven Jones refuses to debate or submit any of his work for peer review. He ignores all the more plausible explanations for the traces of thermite in the dust sample that was sent to him. His book on Jesus' visit to the Americas does not disprove his thermite speculations, but it surely indicates a bizarre mindset for a scientist.
Does anyone have a nickel’s worth of common sense to give to Pomeroo? He seems to be very deficient.
"Why argue when you can simply look at the videos". (pomeroo)
Exactly pomeroo, just look at the videos and stop defending the Official 9/11 Commission Report, because the official story doesn't make any sense!!
It never has and never will!!!
biggest fires were outside the towers and please answer the post about erich hufschmidts video on your debunked myth's site. why has the player been tampered with to stop you going frame by frame through it.why do they try and make it look like a wikipedia site? why haven't you been to scholars for 9/11 truth to see how many commissioners are signed up there. they themselves say that they're belief with 9/11 lasted 4and a half years before realizing they were not given all the facts. i know this comes as a shock but im sure we can buddy you through it. it's not your fault you have been so decieved for so long. look at the hufschmidt video on your myth's site. WHY IS IT TAMPERED WITH to not play frame by frame.why is there no reaction from the building as the plane hits it. do you have a seeing eye dog look at video for you. is he on strike because you have no money for cookies for him....im sure we could have a fund raiser for you if it will help bring you into the light.
pomeroo writes:
"What cannot be denied is that the Iraq War transferred control of both houses of Congress from the Republicans to the Democrats."
The 2006 election was a voter referendum on the war, yet the war goes on just the same. It will go on just the same if any of the "main stream" Presidential candidates from either party are elected.
The Tweedle-dee Tweedle-dum battle between the Republicans and Democrats is a staged farce, a Punch-and-Judy show which has drug on much too long and become vexing to the spirit - all the more so because it pretends to offer a choice. It is difficult to imagine anyone still falls for it. We are living under a one-party system like the old Soviet Union.
Have a look at the deformed babies being born in Iraq, the result of depleted uranium munitions.
Why do you hear nothing about this on the news in the U.S.? Have you heard any of the presidential candidates talk about it? Have you heard any questions about it in the debates?
Now, what were you saying about bringing mass murderers to justice?
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m3838...&hd=&size=1&
l=e
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=37167
http://thecedarsoflebanonweep.com/
Was this the result of poor planning?
Our troops in the region are breathing the same stuff, like the air at Ground Zero which this government certified as safe to breathe.
9/11 was staged not to bring about a Democratic majority in Congress in 2006, but to provide the New Pearl Harbor to bring about the militarist expansionism called for in PNAC documents like "Debuilding America's Defences." The result has been a disater because the neocons' premises are flawed and their worldview is distorted.
Pauwells and Bergier wrote in "The Morning of the Magicians" that Hitler believed that wherever his flame-bearing legions advanced, the world would be transformed into a paradise. Hitler personally was in contact with the forces of Eternal Fire, and was leading a cosmic struggle against the Jews, who were children on the moon, which is made of Eternal Ice. He told his generals not to worry about the winter in Moscow. "Don't worry about the cold. I have already taken care of the cold."
Any war which proceeds from such faulty premises is bound to end in disaster.
The war has not gone very well, true, but is the idea that U.S. occupiers would be greeted as liberators and that democracy would flow like water from a spring from Iraq and transform the entire middle east any less crazy than the idea that German soldiers would not need winter uniforms in Moscow in 1941?
these videos show just how poorly educated some people are and how do we know pomeroo is a guy?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uNi087bVVMY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8...h?
v=8XwZsXL0pe4
watch these it's enough to make you cry.
American news = Dr. Goebbells on the radio
http://ostroyreport.blogspot.com...mes-no-
one.html
Former White House Press Secretary Scott McLellan caused quite a ruckus Tuesday with the startling (but certainly not surprising) revelation that his former bosses instructed him to outright lie to the American public over the Valerie Plame CIA leak case.
But where the hell is the NY Times on this story? Nowhere. Incredibly, not one solitary word in Wednesday's newspaper. This is a huge bombshell with monumental ramifications--criminal behavior on the part of Bush, Cheney, Rove, Libby, Card-- which could and should finally take down this corrupt, disgraceful administration. Could be the biggest political scandal since Watergate. And how is it covered by the Times? It's not.
Comment by Mike Rivero:
"Folks, the mainstream media stood by Bush while he told his lies to start a war. And now they are stuck. They cannot report on those lies now without condemning themselves as liars, because NOBODY is going to believe that news media corporations with budgets in the hundred-millions and staffs in the thousands all missed the obvious signs of deceptions that the spare-change-budget blogs all pointed out.
And this is why the New York Times won't report on anything negative about Bush (or Clinton). They can't. They cannot tell the truth now after so many lies because it will make the lies even more obvious.
Cancel your NY Times subscriptions. Avoid it at the news-stand. We learned only a few days ago that the New York Times doesn't print anything without White House permission."
http://www.politico.com/news/sto.../1107/
6989.html
pomeroo says just watch the videos.....over and over again until the hypno-toad can make you see it our way....i have been to the site watched the videos scrutinously thats why i want you to play nice and give me an answer about the Hufscmhidt film.
This very good short clip illustrates the complicity of the American media:
http://www.rys2sense.com/anti-ne...opic.php?
t=9974
Isn't it silly to pretend to pretend that the virulently anti-Bush N.Y.Times does ANYTHING to curry favor with the Bush administration? I mean, get real. The Times has bashed Bush non-stop for years. All good news from Iraq, until yesterday, was buried deep in the paper, while bad news was trumpeted from the rooftops.
Instead of accepting what agenda-driven loons say about the PNAC, why not simply read the documents for yourself?
"biggest fires were outside the towers"
?
?
?
duh with no plane in the second tower and that woman being able to stand there looking out without flashing over and burning up where she stood. id say they were out and also the fire chief "two fires small enough to be knocked out with two lines" where is my answer about the hufschmidt film....or is to difficult to explain.
why don't you get another job?
""biggest fires were outside the towers"
I didn't post this, but I believe he must be referring to the enormous fireballs of flaming jet fuel which outside the towers. Is it not the case that the buildings withstood the impact quite well, as they were designed to? Is it not the case that FEMA and NIST concluded that the jet fuel burned up within the first ten or twenty minutes? And after that, the fires were ordinary office fires? And the buildings stood about another hour, with black smoke indicating that the dampers in the elevator shafts were working and the fire was waning and going out? And then there were tremendous explosions and the buildings suddenly collapsed. When the towers collapsed, there were no infernos in the towers at all. Most of the jet fuel burned up outside the buildings. Most of the people in the towers would have been rescued, but the neo-cons had other plans.
pomeroo writes:
"Bugliosi's new book is the final nail in the coffin for JFK conspiracists..."
Poor Mr. Bugliosi had to write so long a book, when anybody with fifteen minutes of free time can prove government complicity in the assassination of John F. Kennedy.
http://rawstory.com/news/2007/
Pr...l_JFK_1121.html
pomeroo writes:
"Steven E. Jones' book on Jesus' visit to the Americas does not disprove his thermite speculations, but it surely indicates a bizarre mindset for a scientist."
This type of scurilous attack on a man's faith is beneath contempt.
Christianity holds that a man was crucified and rose from the dead. This certainly contradicts natural law and therefore indicates a bizarre mindset for a scientist.
James, I prize civility very highly and you have shown yourself to be a gentleman. I sincerely appreciate that. I am not attacking Steven Jones's religious beliefs, although MIT professor of metallurgy Thomas Eagar, who regards Jones's thermite theories as a bad joke, also accused me of doing so. To state that Jesus visited the Americas, in the absence of any evidence whatever, IS a curious mindset for a scientist.
NIST concluded that the Twin Towers did not display structural defects and would have withstood the impacts of the planes and the resultant fires IF critical amounts of fireproofing had not been dislodged.
I was once interested in the JFK assassination, but the case against Lee Harvey Oswald is simply overwhelming.
I wish you a Happy Thanksgiving.
Pom is a fraud. His incessant ignoring of real questions while repeatedly asking unanswerable questions like "Why would I...." illustrate that. Who in the hell knows why he would do anything? Does anyone have a psychological profile on Pom? I sure as hell don't so how is anyone supposed to answer that question?
To answer your question Pom, take it and turn it around. Ask why would we want to see innocent people accused of mass murder? When you have your answers (i.e. anti-Bush, anti-American, etc.) just take the opposite of those answers and apply them to your question (i.e. Bush sycophant, blind 'patriot', etc.) and that should do it.
Pom, are you one of those folks who can't bring themself to admit that Bush is a criminal?
Thank you james for elucidating on my hurried poor quality post, it's what i mean exactly. pomeroo stop swerving the question of the Hufscmidt video or are you one of these people,
"i saw it on t.v it must be real".
Please go and watch it yourself its incredible the way the plane enters the building causing NO damage until the explosion 0.13 seconds later. stop avoiding the question Why do YOU think they have tampered with the player? you can go through by frame for the first 10% after that point between 10%-50% the player is tampered with to not give slo mo or frame by frame you can go frame by frame through the explosion but not the plane entering the building. WHY?
you have to trust your OWN eyes it's planely visible.who said to you "it's very important that we make people believe the official story" be honest in your research have you communicated with someone who has said this to you, someone maybe you have respect for....they have manipulated you?. monday 9/10 rumsfeld announces 3trillion missing from pentagon, 9/11 missile smashes into west wing where naval intelligence are conducting an investigation and doing an audit. killing nearly all involved. looking for a reason theres three trillion reasons right there. or are we all confused and they found it on 60 large pallets hidden in plane sight. this is why it was not a plane that hit the pentagon it was a first strike to keep them out of prison. the new york attacks were to give credibility to the pentagon strike. this act of "terrurrism" also gave the requisite tools that will eventually bring fortress america to the people.there are many reasons for what happened that day and all the lies you tell and your masters tell are not going to assuage us one little bit in fact it is fuel for each of our individual fires that make us un-belivers to your truth and believers to the facts. cheney gave the stand down in the bunker. (minneta did say this and on c-span at the hearings, with refernce to cheney.)can you imagine the revulsion from the people for the theft of three Trillion dollars, when a criminal gets into trouble they are most likely to commit another crime in the hope it will enable them to get away with both. happy holiday and don't forget the Hufschmidt video if you don't answer this any remaining credibility you have with me due to your energy will be gone.
apologies for posting again but it appears that you avoid tough questions in fact any question not covered by the omission report. do you have that as a guide and defence information for it on the myths site. is this why you hardly ever go off topic in respect to the report. of course you can't answer these questions because there is no mention of them. this brings to mind the test for ARTIFICIAL intelligence. you know ask questions then decide if you are talking to a computer and the measure of it's CAPABILITY is it's ability to fool you into thinking you are really talking to another person. the term ARTIFICIAL can be applied here to your behaviour. your incapability and soucience for avoiding questions says that i am talking to a human machine incapable of independent rational thought within the 9/11 framework because it is a JOB to you.
Things happen and things which happen are "reported" by mainstream media....
Protestors turned out for a Bush visit to Portland Oregon. See how the protestors were portrayed by television media, versus what really happened. (The television media aren't the only people with cameras.) This is a microcosm, a case in point which should make anyone think twice about accepting anything presented on television as "news" as truthful or factual. They seem to be in the business of obscuring all of that, evidently in order to protect corporate profit margins. Excellent clip, stick with it 'til the end.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3...h?
v=36A8DV3dk24
Propaganda has been indispensible to keeping the teeming masses hypnotized.
OpEdNews
Original Content at http://www.opednews.com/
articles...elites_and_.htm
--------------------------------------------------
------------------------------
November 21, 2007
American elites and their fascist terrorists are beginning to realize that the internet is their ultimate enemy.
By W. Christopher Epler (Bill)
A liberal American, PhD mathematician, bipedal Earthling.
Over the centuries and millennia, the "Have's" controlled and enslaved the "Have Not's", not only with police terrorism, but also by keeping the peasants, peons, serfs, etc. (i.e., US!) propagandized into impotent stupor. And how absurd to call this a Class War. This is like saying a class war exists between cattle and the factories that butcher them.
This point is infinitely important! Elite terrorism has NEVER been enough to permit the 1% to enslave the 99%. This has always been the paradox of history. How can Greek God like elites (the 1%) so abjectly subjugate all the rest of the human race (the 99%)?
The answer is obvious. The pig, pig rich have always been masters of propaganda. They have contrived thousands of different ways to convince the rest of the human planet that “being a slave” is not only normal but pathologically moral.
Please let's drop the absurd canard about the "missing" $3 trillion. This nonsense is a hopelessly (and deliberately) garbled interpretation of a speech by Rumsfeld in which he complained that data storage systems at the Pentagon were so antiquated that it was difficult to keep track of $3 trillion in transactions over the years. No money is "missing"--certainly not an amount that exceeds the entire Defense budget by a factor of ten.
pomeroo writes:
"the case against Lee Harvey Oswald is simply overwhelming."
Lee Oswald could not have fired two shots a half-second apart from the Mannlicher-Carcano bolt-action carbine. Neither could anyone else.
The House Select Commitee on Assassinations concluded that John F. Kennedy was the victim of a conspiracy based on the recording of the gunshots fired in Dealey Plaza, captured over a police radio. A total of 7 impulses were caught on the tape, but citing budgetary constraints, the HSCA only had 4 of them analysed. The analysis concluded that all 4 were gunshots, two of them occuring within 1/2 a second of each other, too close to be fired by one man. Comparisons of the echoes with test shots fired in Deakel Plaza confirmed that at least one of the recorded shots had indeed been fired from the Grassy Knoll. Needless to say, the existance of 5, rather than just 3, gunshots destroyed the Oswald as lone gunman cover-up. Warren supporters quickly tried to dismiss the audio record of the gunshots by claiming that the recording was actually of gunshots in another part of the city, and confused for Dealey Plaza shots because of a timing error. Without explaining just where the other shots had occured, or why the echo patterns matched matched the test shots fired in Dealey Plaza, the Warren supporters declared victory. New research has shown that the report that dismissed the audio recording of the gunshots was itself deeply flawed, and ignored evidence that confirmed both the locatrion and time of the recording as being in Dealey Plaza at the time of the JFK assassination. This means that the original House Select Committee on Assassinations conclusion is the correct one. There were at least four gunshots in Dealey Plaza, two of them within 1/2 second of each other, and at least one of the shots came from the Grassy Knoll.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.co...K/
bbcgrassy.htm
Had Oswald carried the rifle up to the sixth floor in a paper sack, as the Commission says, he would have had to carry it broken down and then reassemble it. There would have been no opportunity to sight in the scope. He would need to fire about ten rounds to sight-in the scope accurately.
And what happened to that sack?
http://www.geocities.com/whiskey...a/
bagpaper.html
You write as if you know nothing about the Kennedy assassination. Of course Oswald didn't fire two shots a half-second apart. Nobody in the world thinks he did. Why not read Posner's book and, at the very least, learn the basics.
Do you understand that it's 2007 and you're citing a 1978 finding that was discredited by modern acoustic tests?
Only three shots were fired. Again, you might want to check Posner or Bugliosi to learn how the dictabelt analysis was screwed up almost thirty years ago.
pomeroo:
At autopsy, Dr. J. J. Humes found that JFK's corpus colossum was cut, his vomer was crushed, and his cerebral peduncles were torn. In addition there was a parasaggital laceration very nearly as long as the brain itself.
The vomer is a small bone behind the nose, at the base of the front of brain.
The corpus colossum is a heavy membrane that divides the two sides of the brain.
The cerebral peduncles are located behind and above the eyes.
A laceration is a cut. Parasaggital means parallel to the line running from the front of the brain to the back.
These injuries could not possibly have been caused by any number of gunshot wounds.
Even if you are correct that only three shots were fired that day, it doesn't matter. Oswald couldn't have done all that damage to the President with a rifle ... he would have needed a scalpel and a hammer.
You write as if you know nothing about the Kennedy assassination.
http://winterpatriot.blogspot.co...age-in-
jfk.html
Sorry, Winter Patriot, sell it to someone else.
In an October 1991 interview with JAMA editor George D. Lundberg, J.J. Hume said:
"In 1963, we proved at the autopsy table that President Kennedy was struck from above and behind by the fatal shot. The pattern of the entrance and exit wounds in the skull proves it, and if we stayed here until hell freezes over, nothing will change this proof. It happens 100 times out of 100, and I will defend it until I die. This is the essence of our autopsy, and it is supreme ignorance to to argue any other scenario. This is a law of physics [referring to the fact that with a through-and-through wound of the cranium it is 'always the pattern,' he said, that 'the beveling or crater effect appears on the inside of the skull at the entrance wound and on the outside of the skull at the exit wound'] and it is foolproof--absolutely, unequivocally, and without question. The conspiracy buffs have totally ignored this central scientific fact, and everything else is hogwash."
Vincent Bugliosi provides comprehensive analysis of the autopsy and discusses criticisms of the procedure.
pomeroo writes:
"You write as if you know nothing about the Kennedy assassination. Of course Oswald didn't fire two shots a half-second apart. Nobody in the world thinks he did."
The House Select Committee on Assassinations concluded that four impulses on the dictabelt tape were
gunshots, timed as follows:
Channel time Zapruder frame
Impulse I 12:30:47.0 157-161
Impulse II 12:30:48.6 188-191
Impulse III 12:30:54.6 295-296
Impulse IV 12:30:55.3 312
The HSCA concluded that the first, second, and fourth shots originated from the School Book Depository, while the third originated from the grassy knoll. The HSCA concluded two shots were fired 0.7 seconds apart, so the timing as well as the supposed origin of the shots indicates more than one shooter.
pomeroo continues:
"Do you understand that it's 2007 and you're citing a 1978 finding that was discredited by modern acoustic tests?"
Actually, it is confirmed by modern acoustic tests.
The Washington Post
Monday, March 26, 2001; Page A03
http://www.whatreallyhappened.co...K/
bbcgrassy.htm
The House Assassinations Committee may have been right after all: There was a shot from the grassy knoll.
That was the key finding of the congressional investigation that concluded 22 years ago that President John F. Kennedy's murder in Dallas in 1963 was "probably . . . the result of a conspiracy." A shot from the grassy knoll meant that two gunmen must have fired at the president within a split-second sequence. Lee Harvey Oswald, accused of firing three shots at Kennedy from a perch at the Texas School Book Depository, could not have been in two places at once.
A special panel of the National Academy of Sciences subsequently disputed the evidence of a fourth shot, contained on a police dictabelt of the sounds in Dealey Plaza that day. The panel insisted it was simply random noise, perhaps static, recorded about a minute after the shooting while Kennedy's motorcade was en route to Parkland Hospital.
A new, peer-reviewed article in Science and Justice, a quarterly publication of Britain's Forensic Science Society, says the NAS panel's study was seriously flawed. It says the panel failed to take into account the words of a Dallas patrolman that show the gunshot-like noises occurred "at the exact instant that John F. Kennedy was assassinated."
In fact, the author of the article, D.B. Thomas, a government scientist and JFK assassination researcher, said it was more than 96 percent certain that there was a shot from the grassy knoll to the right of the president's limousine, in addition to the three shots from a book depository window above and behind the president's limousine.
cont.
G. Robert Blakey, former chief counsel to the House Assassinations Committee, said the NAS panel's study always bothered him because it dismissed all four putative shots as random noise -- even though the three soundbursts from the book depository matched up precisely with film of the assassination and other evidence such as the echo patterns in Dealey Plaza and the speed of Kennedy's motorcade.
This is an honest, careful scientific examination of everything we did, with all the appropriate statistical checks," Blakey said of Thomas's work....
The NAS panel, assigned to conduct further studies after the committee closed down, said in 1982 that the noises on the tape previously identified as gunshots "were recorded about one minute after the president was shot."
The NAS experts, headed by physicist Norman F. Ramsey of Harvard, reached that conclusion after studying the sounds on the two radio channels Dallas police were using that day. Routine transmissions were made on Channel One and recorded on a dictabelt at police headquarters. An auxiliary frequency, Channel Two, was dedicated to the president's motorcade and used primarily by Dallas Police Chief Jesse Curry; its transmissions were recorded on a separate Gray Audograph disc machine.
The shooting took place within an 18-second interval that began with Curry in the lead car announcing on Channel Two that the motorcade was approaching a triple underpass and ended with the chief stating urgently: "Go to the hospital." What seemed to be the gunshots were picked up on Channel One during that interval.
The NAS panel pointed out that Dallas County Sheriff Bill Decker could be heard on both channels saying, ". . . Hold everything secure . . ." seemingly about a half-second after the last gunshot on Channel One. Curry had already told everyone on Channel Two a minute earlier to go to the hospital. As a result, the Ramsey panel concluded that the supposed gunshot noises came "too late to be attributed to assassination shots."
What actually happened was that Curry issued his "go to the hospital" order right after the first shots were fired, wounding Kennedy and Texas Gov. John Connally. The final bullet was fired in almost the same instant that Curry uttered his command. A minute later, Decker, riding in the same car with Curry, grabbed the mike and issued his orders to "hold everything secure."
cont.
The NAS experts made several errors, Thomas said, but their biggest mistake was in using Decker's words to line up the two channels. They ignored a much clearer instance of cross talk when Dallas police Sgt. S. Q. Bellah can be heard on both channels, asking: "You want me to hold this traffic on Stemmons until we find out something, or let it go?"
Those remarks come 179 seconds after the last gunshot on Channel One and 180 seconds after Curry's order to "go to the hospital" on Channel Two. When Bellah's words are used to line up the two channels, Thomas found, the gunshot sounds "occur at the exact instant that John F. Kennedy was assassinated."
How is it, then, that Decker's remarks on Channel One come a full minute after Curry's on Channel Two and yet a half-second after the last gunshot on Channel One?
"It's a misplaced bit of speech," Thomas said in an interview. "An overdub. The recording needle for Channel One probably jumped. You can hear Decker giving a whole set of instructions on Channel Two, but on Channel One, you get only a fragment, '. . . hold everything secure. . . .' "
According to Thomas, the NAS panel made other mistakes: in calculating the position of the grassy knoll shooter, in fixing the time of that shot and in stating the Channel Two recorder had stopped when it hadn't. In all, Thomas said, the chances of the NAS panel having been right were 1 in 100,000.
House committee experts James Barger, Mark Weiss and Eric Aschkenasy, have always held firm to their findings of a shot from the knoll. Similarly, Ramsey, as chairman of the NAS panel, said last weekend that he was "still fairly confident" of his group's work, but he said he wanted to study the Science and Justice article before making further comment. He said he did not recall the Bellah cross talk.
Checkmate in one move for Warren Commission Report defenders:
Warren Commission Exhibit No. 391
12/06/1963
Supplementary Report of Autopsy Number A63-272
President John F. Kennedy
Pathological Examination Report
No. A63-272 Page 1
"Following formalin fixation the brain weighs 1500 grams...."
Following that is a detailed description of lacerations and injuries consistent with a shot from behind.
The average weight of an INTACT adult male brain is 1300 - 1400 grams.
http://faculty.washington.edu/ch...dler/
facts.html
1500 grams is above average.
The brain which was autopsied could not possibly have been the brain of John F. Kennedy.
JFK's brain matter was liberally distributed in chunks about the size of the end of your little finger over Dealey Plaza, motorcycle cops, the limosine, Mrs. Kennedy's dress, and the ER floor at Parkland. It is not in dispute that at least a third of the President's brain was missing. Therefore, either Kennedy had a 2250 gram brain, or another brain was substituted for Kennedy's brain. If the autopsy was phonied, then a massive conspiracy was in place, which could only have been orchestrated from the top, i.e.,
LBJ.
Amusingly, the report goes on to state: "In the interest of preserving the specimen coronal sections are not made."
Where is Kennedy's brain?
This nonsense about Kennedy's brain is very old.
Jim: Kennedy's brain was so badly cut up, they couldn't possibly allow anyone to see it.
pomeroo: in 1993 JAMA was backpedaling furiously, trying to reverse some of the damage the official story had suffered at the hands of Oliver Stone (whose film was badly flawed, BTW) and JAMA printed some really fanciful stuff disguised as science and thereby hurt their own credibility very significantly, as well as that of the AMA itself.
And by then Commander Humes had had 30 years to realize the implications of what he had seen on that bizarre Friday night in Bethesda, he had talked to Lifton on the phone, he had clearly recognized what David was saying, and he refused to go there.
Fine. Completely understandable. However ...
Nothing Humes told JAMA in 1993 invalidates what he wrote in 1963 when he was standing there looking at the body of the suddenly former President.
Legally and objectively, some evidence is better than others. What James Humes wrote on a bloody piece of paper in 1963, and what he told the Warren Commission the following year constitute much better evidence than what he told an establishment magazine in full coverup mode 30 years later.
Sorry about that.
Here's a thought experiment to help you understand the position in which Cmdr JJ Humes found himself on November 22, 1963:
Say you're at work one day and your boss calls you in for a meeting, and his boss is there too and so is his boss's boss.
They've got this rectangular blue block and they say "We want you to figure out what the blue block is made of."
You say "The first thing we should do is cut it open. Then we can see whether it's hollow or solid, and if it's solid, we can see whether the material at the center is the same as the material near the surface."
And somebody says, "No, you can't cut it open."
And you look around and your boss is nodding and your boss's boss is nodding and you say, "Ok then, what CAN I do with it?"
And they say "You can see whether it floats on water." ...
So you fill a sink with water and you drop the blue block in the water and it floats. And somebody says "If it floats, it must be made of granite."
And you look up and your boss is nodding and his boss is nodding and you say "Well maybe we should try another test."
And they say "Oil is lighter than water. See if it floats on oil." And you fill a bowl with oil and sure enough the blue block still floats and your boss's boss says, "Well that proves it. The blue thing must be granite!"
And they send you home to write the report. And you like your job. And you don't see too much harm in going along with them, especially seeing as how there are so many really big bigshots there and how enthusiastic they were about the blue thing being granite ...
So you write your report and it says
The blue thing floats on water.Thirty years later you do an interview. In the interim people have been saying "That blue thing couldn't have been granite" but for one reason or another you can't see changing your boss's boss's boss's call.
The blue thing floats on oil.
The blue thing must be granite.
So in the interview you're asked about whether the blue thing really WAS granite.
What do you say?
YOU SAY:
We proved the blue thing was granite.... but it doesn't change the fact that the blue thing floated on both water and oil.
This is the essence of our findings and it is supreme ignorance to argue any other scenario.
Humes could measure?
Humes could write things down?
Humes knew what a vomer is?
Humes knew what "crushed" means?
Humes said the hole in the President's back was 4 inches down from the shoulder. The wound was so shallow he could feel the end of the hole with his finger. He concluded that this was the "entrance" for the shot that "exited" the front of the President's throat. The President was sitting upright when he was hit. How could someone "behind and above" him hit him 4 inches below the shoulder with a bullet that exited near his Adam's apple? It's absolutely not possible.
In a normal autopsy the surgeons dissect the path of the wound -- to show exactly where the bullet went and what damage it did. Dr. Humes and his colleagues were not allowed to do that in this case. He was simply told "Three shots were fired from above and behind the President. Here's the body. Determine the cause of death. You may not use the standard autopsy procedures. Begin now."
And the room was full of brass. Big brass. And this wasn't about granite, it was about murder. What else could Humes have done?
All this business about beveling is a crock. I mean, it IS scientifically accurate a hundred percent of the time. But it doesn't apply in this case.
Kennedy's skull was so badly shattered when Humes got it, he couldn't even figure out where the pieces of the skull fit together.
Humes' testimony to the Warren Commission is fascinating when he gets talking about the "defects" (holes or breaks) in the skull and the damage to the brain.
In the Warren Commission Hearings, Volume II, page 355 and 356, he talks about one aspect of the damage.
This is from rhe last paragraph on p. 355
We found that the right cerebral hemisphere was markedly disrupted. There was a longitudinal laceration of the right hemisphere which was parasagittal in position. By the saggital plane, as you may know, is a plane in the midline which would divide the brain into right and left halves.now from p. 356 starting at the top
This laceration was parasagittal. It was situated approximately 2.5 cm. to the right of the midline, and extended from the tip of the occipital lobe, which is the posterior portion of the brain, to the top of the frontal lobe which is the most anterior portion of the brain, and it extended from the top down to the substance of the brain a distance of approximately 5 to 6 cm.Here Humes is talking about a front-to-back (longitudinal) cut (laceration), about an inch (2.5 cm) to the right of the midline, at least 2 inches deep (5 to 6 cm), running from the tip of the (frontal lobe) front (anterior) of the brain to the tip of the (occipital lobe) back (posterior) of the brain.
You can not make that sort of damage with a bullet. No matter how much brass is in the room.
You got that, pomeroo? Humes was lying. A lot of people are lying. You got that yet?
Here's some more. This is from p. 354 and this time he's talking about the skull. There was so much of the skull missing that they spent several hours trying to figure out where the wound was. The autopsy had started at 8:00, and Humes says
To make my presentation of this wound of the skull more logical to the Commission, I would like to go forward in time that evening to at a later hour. I apologize -- time and what happened exactly at what moment escapes me at this time.They tried for several hours to figure out what was going on and eventually around midnight or even later somebody brought in three more pieces of bone and these could be put together to occupy about three quarters of the hole in the President's skull and they never did get the other piece(s) ... the best they could do to identify a wound of entrance or exit was to guess. And that's why Humes continues (still on 354)
I mentioned previously that there was a large bony defect. Some time later on that evening or very early the next morning while we were all still engaged in continuing our examination, I was presented with three portions of bone which had been brought to Washington from Dallas ... It seems to me they felt it had been recovered either in the street or in the automobile, I don't recall specifically.
We were most interested in these fragments of bone and found that the three pieces could be roughly put together to account for a portion of this defect.
Arlen Specter: How much remained unaccounted for, Dr. Humes?
Commander Humes: I would estimate that approximately one-quarter of that defect was unaccounted for by adding these three fragments together and seeing what was left.
This is somewhat difficult, because as back to when we were actually looking for the fragments of metal, as we moved the scalp about, fragments of various sizes would fall to the table, and so forth, so it was difficult to put that exact figures in words.
However, the thing which we considered of importance about these fragments of bone was that at the margins of one of them which was roughly pyramidal in shape, there was a portion of the circumference of what we interpreted as a missile wound.They didn't even have a piece of bone with a hole in it. They had a piece that had "a portion of the circumference of what we interpreted as a missile wound."
Humes could (and did) say anything he wanted to JAMA in 1993. His testimony before the Warren Commission tells us what really happened.
pomeroo are you exercising "escape and evasion" tactics. i would like very much for you to reply to the Hufschmidt post. or is it that you.....CAN'T because im right?. now stop wriggling and start writing..otherwise i'll take that as a win.
want a better understanding of the all out authoritarian personality.
this is well worth a read.
http://members.shaw.ca/
jeanaltem...horitarians.pdf
Sorry pomeroo, but a 'civil' troll is still a troll.
It is impossible to persuade JFK conspiracists to accept reality. They are, after all, conspiracists. Their alternate reality is impervious to evidence, even the overwhelming, incontrovertible evidence available on the assassination. Yes, lots of people are lying: EVERYONE IN THE CONSPIRACY COMMUNITY.
UFO believers, moon-landing deniers, 9/11 fantasists--different symptoms; same disease.
Winter Patriot, note that if you had any real interest in the JFK autopsy, you could answer all of your questions by reading a few serious books. You prefer the comforting fables told by crackpots. Now, exactly why you find the utter nonsense fabricated by the likes of David Lifton comforting is another matter entirely.
pomeroo writes:
"Winter Patriot, note that if you had any real interest in the JFK autopsy, you could answer all of your questions by reading a few serious books. You prefer the comforting fables told by crackpots. Now, exactly why you find the utter nonsense fabricated by the likes of David Lifton comforting is another matter entirely."
Is the following a crackpot fable?
Warren Commission Exhibit No. 391
12/06/1963
Supplementary Report of Autopsy Number A63-272
President John F. Kennedy
Pathological Examination Report
No. A63-272 Page 1
"Following formalin fixation the brain weighs 1500 grams...."
pomeroo wrrites:
"This nonsense about Kennedy's brain is very old."
Actually, this document has only been available relatively recently. It was released by the Assassinations Records Review Board in the nineties.
Read this please!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp...jfk/
jfk1110.htm
poor little pomeroo, inciting division and sowing discord wherever he goes, in a vain (pun intended) attempt at getting attention -- ANY kind of attention, and apparently in the world of the pomeroo, the preference is for negative attention.
add this one to your list and pile, pomeroo. I think you're a fool, a stooge, a putz, and a bleeding chancre.
I'd take pomeroo more seriously if he demonstrated that he deserves such taking. I haven't yet seen evidence that such treatment is deserved. He is like the fake Christians who think it's fine to demean and belittle others as long as it's done politely... that it's acceptable to lie, as long as it's done with apparent sincerity.... that it's actually good conduct to pretend at skepticism when actually you are spreading falsity under the guise of "detached, concerned observer."
In the early days of e-fora, people like pomeroo were called "concern trolls." Most commonly they frequented what they thought were "liberal" blogs.
In coming here to ply his gambit of supercilious lie-mongering, it would appear that pomeroo believes WP a "liberal" and so pomeroo can't really (or doesn't want to) distinguish among the various perspectives and philosophies of those who disagree with Pomeroo's Party Line.
Unfortunately PPL isn't supported by facts, so all pomeroo can do is pretend to be concerned about the truth, while spreading lies.
No, Wendigo, pomeroo, as you know, has told no lies. He is wasting his time attempting to reason with those who cannot.
If I had any real interest in the JFK autopsy, I wouldn't be quoting the surgeon who did the autopsy where he testified about the damage he observed on the body. Interesting...
It's also interesting how I'm talking about specifics and details and facts and evidence and being called "impervious to evidence" by somebody who refuses to actually discuss any of it...
... and who doesn't even have enough class to slink away after he's had his ass handed to him.
It's amusing how all of you completely uninformed ignoramuses pretend to win "victories" against rationalists. Humes isn't lying. Ironically (but not surprisingly), ALL of the JFK evidence that has been proved fake turned out to have been
faked by conspiracists.
People who tell baseless lies and resort constantly to ad hominem attacks talk about "class"? Now, that's funny!
Yes pomeroo, you prove it once again: you simply state conclusions, you care nothing for facts, nor for assembling or marshaling those facts to a rationale justifying your conclusions. To cap the matter you write with a contrived pomposity that pretends at a down-nosed glare toward those of us you sorrily try to deride. Ultimately you are an amusing diversion for a word or two, and beyond that, are tiresome and bland, creeping slowly toward sadness. Your time in the "amusing" zone is well gone to the past.
I believe this is a rational argument:
The average weight of an INTACT adult male brain is 1300 - 1400 grams.
http://faculty.washington.edu/ch...dler/ facts.html
1500 grams is above average.
The brain which was autopsied could not possibly have been the brain of John F. Kennedy.
JFK's brain matter was liberally distributed in chunks about the size of the end of your little finger over Dealey Plaza, motorcycle cops, the limosine, Mrs. Kennedy's dress, and the ER floor at Parkland. It is not in dispute that at least a third of the President's brain was missing. Therefore, either Kennedy had a 2250 gram brain, or another brain was substituted for Kennedy's brain. If the autopsy was phonied, then a massive conspiracy was in place, which could only have been orchestrated from the top, i.e., LBJ.
I wonder how defenders of the government's conspiracy theory dismiss the testimony of William Rodriquez. I expect that the people on this board know who he is. He was a janitor in the North tower, whose job it was to clean the stairwells from top to bottom evey day. He was also the janitor for Governor Cuomo for the tem years that the state government leased offices in the North Tower. William Rodriquez was an agnostic janitor who discovered his faith and his purpose on 9/11.
His testimony is available on DVD here:
http://www.911keymaster.com/
Mr. Rodriquez was the only person on the scene who had a master key. He led the firefighters up the stair wells. Of the doors which opened to the stairwells, every third door was onlocked, two out of three were locked. Rodriquez escorted hundreds of people to safety, physically pushed fifty people out the door. He was the last non-emergency worker who got out of Building One alive. He dove into a hole in the street under a fire truck, just before that truck and the hole were buried by the dust and debris from the collapse. For twenty years he had been a magician, and had evidently studied Houdini. He knew how to conserve his respiration and make the oxygen last.
He was on hundreds of news programs and honored at the White House. He actually introduced legislation: tax relief and scholarships for victims and survivors, immigrant rights, and disaster management. While working in the governor's offices he had "through osmosis" learned how to set up press conference, introduce legislation, and deal with politicians. Now he travels all over the world speaking the truth about 9/11. I wonder, will a fine man like this be dismissed as a crank with a grudge or an anti-semite? In fact, he does have a bit of a grudge, that politicians would exploit the tragedy of 9/11 to enact the Patriot Act and initiate foreign wars.
Usually Mr. Rodriquez had breakfast in the restaurant at the top of the building. He knew the 76 people who were in the restaurant and died that morning. On 9/11 he arrived at work
half an hour late. That of course saved his life. He believes now that God had a mission for him.
Sub-level 1 was the first of seven sub-levels below Tower One. It housed all the support companies which had contracts with the World Trade Center. Rodriquez' compnay was American Building Management, and he was there, chit-chatting with a supervisor ...
cont.
"When all of a sudden we hears a very strong BOOM, an explosion so hard that it pushed us upwards (he jumps to illustrate the point), upwards. Now, I had 20 years in the building, and it (the explosion) came from the basement between the B2 level and the B3 level. And at that moment I thought it was the mechanical room, where they have all the pumps and generators for the building ... that maybe a generator just blew up in the basement. After twenty years in the building, you know the difference between something that comes from the bottom and something that comes from the top."
"At that moment, everybody started screaming. The explosion was so hard that walls cracked, the false ceiling fell on top of us, the sprinkler system was activated...."
"There were screams everywhere, the sprinkler system was activated, and when I went to verbalize that it was a generator, we hear BOOM, all the way on the top, the impact of the plane on top. Two different events, two different times...."
"A person came running into the office saying, 'Explosion! Explosion! Explosion!' HIs hands were extended, and his skin was pulled from under his arm pits al the way to the top of his fingertips, and it was hanging of both hands. And I didn't know what it was. I thought it was a piece of clothing. And then, I realized it was his skin, and I said, 'What happened!? What happened!?' And whe I looked at his face, clearly, he had missing pieces of his face. (He was) a black guy from Honduras who I didn;t know. He worked for Adamark, the company that put the soda in the soda machines and the candy in the candy machines. He was located at the B2 level when this explosion happened, and he placed his hands to cover his face because there was fire. That's how he got burned.
"At the moment I said, 'Don't move!' I was going to pick up the phone to call the emergency medical unit that was located in Building Two, the South Tower. Building 1 and Building 2 were connected through the basement and I wanted to pick up the phone and call when I heard ANOTHER explosion, and that was so hard and the building oscillated so much that the walls cracked again. And people thought it was an earthquake and were going under the door frames. And I said 'No! I think it's a bomb!' I said that I thought it was a bomb because I survived the 1993 bombing. I was stuck in an elevator for four hours. They had to break through a wall to get us out. So, automatically, I thought it was a bomb, and I said, 'We've got to get out!' So I took those fifteen people and led them out of the office, through the loading dock, outside the building, with Mr. Felipe David on my back until I saw an ambulance."
"Why would the sprinkler system be activated in the basement, when the plane hit on top? ...."
Now, what I want to know is, how is it that there was a tremendous explosion in the basement which PRECEDED the impact of the plane on top? Can we find the answer in one of Seffen's equation, or in NIST's computer animation of the collapse?
You can find your answers in Mark Roberts's paper on Willie Rodriguez. I have had extensive dealings with Rodriguez and regard him as a self-promoting phony. His story has changed several times.
Here is the link to the paper by Mark Roberts:
http://911stories.googlepages.com/home
You'll never know unless you read it.
pomeroo:
Mark Robert's argument depends on a weak premise, that Rodriquez could not have known the difference between before and after:
"Rodriguez believes he heard an explosion in the basement of the north tower an instant before American Airlines flight 11 slammed into its upper floors. However, since he was in the windowless B1 sublevel at the time, he had no way of knowing when the plane actually hit the building."
But Rodriquez has testified:
"I heard ANOTHER explosion, and that was so hard and the building oscillated so much that the walls cracked again. And people thought it was an earthquake and were going under the door frames...."
"...we hear BOOM, all the way on the top, the impact of the plane on top. Two different events, two different times...."
"After twenty years in the building, you know the difference between something that comes from the bottom and something that comes from the top."
And I believe that after twenty years in the stairwells, one would. There wasn't any doubt about when the plane hit, since it was audible, caused so much oscillation that people dived under door frames thinking it was an earthquake, and walls cracked.
Again, Mark Roberts:
"since he was in the windowless B1 sublevel at the time, he had no way of knowing when the plane actually hit the building."
You wouldn't need a window to know when the plane hit.
As for the timing of the events, there was sufficient time for people to scream, walls to crack, for Mr. Felipe David to run into the office
of American Building Management and cry out: "Explosion! Explosion! Explosion!" There was time for the sprinkler to come on (was it working upstairs, too?), for Rodriquez to surmise that a generator had exploded, and to think of calling the emergency medical center in the South Tower. That is enough time to distinguish one event from another and which came first. Fuel coming down the elevator shaft could not have caused an explosion in the sublevels BEFORE the plane hit.
Therefore Roberts has nowhere else to go except to attack Rodriquez' integrity. He does not like Bush, so he is going around telling lies.
Roberts:
"His distrust of the government began more than a year after the attacks when he learned that the 9/11 Commission wouldn't include any family members of victims...or did that distrust begin within days, or weeks?"
He was eligible for and declined victim compensation, as did the Jersey girls, and for the same reason. He fought for victims' right, raised millions on their behalf, and did not take a dime. To impugn the man's motives like this is tawdry. Note anyone who repudiates the government view is described here as a liar, an incompetant, or an anti-semite.
There are other witnesses who corroborate what Rodriquez said about what happened in the basement. That will have to wait for another time. I have to go to bed. Good night!
I have had extensive dealings with Rodriguez and regard him as a self-promoting phony. His story has changed several times.
Well I guess that settles it. pomeroo mistrusts Rodriguez so let's not bother examining further. In fact let's appoint pomeroo to be Ultimate Arbiter of Witness Reliability and do away with all other methods of discerning witness credibility... obviously, they're a huge waste of time and Emperor Pomeroo is all we need -- on that question, and on any other.
Unless you consider a few other ideas, if your brain isn't potted dog food like pomeroo's brain.
Such as, witnesses commonly have difficulty remembering their "story" in the exact same manner every time. In fact, it is much more a sign of concocted alibi or fable to see absolute replication of the story each telling.
But since pomeroo is an Emperor of the Absurd, and not a litigation attorney or a forensic investigations specialist, he wouldn't know this. So maybe we can forgive The Emperor on this little point.
Or maybe we'll just look at his history of posts and see where he's ever bothered to hew close to the truth, and then decide whether he really merits such deference.
I know where I come down on that issue.
http://www.mainetoday.com/pets/d...gslife/
alpo.jpg
The Emperor's Fork,.. Note: Reserved for POMEROO
http://papernapkins.org/images/
p...ins_250x251.jpg
Bon Appetite
http://
harpervalley.files.wordpr...iestdoglulu.jpg
::
::
z:
Objection! Counsel is badgering the witness.
JimGawthrop: If I were judge I'd rule this way...
"Mr Gawthrop, I recognize your objection as timely made, but you are over-ruled. I believe that Mr Z's evidenciary offer is more probative than prejudicial, and any inflammatory or prejudicial character is outweighed by the relevance and direct probative value of the images. Over-ruled. Do you need to preserve this issue for appeal?"
http://lauriekendrick.files.word.../09/
badger2.jpg
What is probative value? Is it something good to eat?
Without pomeroo, I would have no one to debate, and would suffer terribly.
Those badgers are fierce bastards!
Once I was deposed by a Seattle lawyer whose last name is very close to "badger." Also coincidentally he had a very badgering technique of deposition inquiry. On a few occasions he thought he caught me in an embarrassing statement only to find that I'd only answered narrowly and with the broader scope of information his "embarrassing detail" didn't apply.
The whole situation was funny -- but only for a while.
A lot like debates with pomeroo!
But if you've got the nerve and patience to battle him, Jim, please do so. I will sit back and watch!
Snicker.
Pomeroo is running out of evasive tactics:
1) Feign authority;
2) Feign disgust at being challenged;
3) Ignore valid questions when the answers would expose him as wrong, uninformed, or lying, or otherwise exposing something he doesn't want us to know;
4) Evade emphatic requests by talking around the subject (politicians do this all the time)
5) Denigrate the opponent's intelligence imply that his statements may be rejected out of hand
6) When all of the above are exhausted, reject the opponents sources.
I think he's run out of options but let's see.
Anyone with a brain (and without an agenda) knows that the government's explanation of what happened is the REAL conspiracy. Some of the truther challenges to the government's conspiracy are wacky, but that doesn't mean the government has the right not to address the valid questions/concerns of the people he is supposed to be representing. And there are a LOT of valid questions.
Speaking of which, Pomeroo never answered my question about building 7. I don't need to do any more research to know that it takes a long time to set up a controlled demolition, so it couldn't have possibly been done on 9/11, especially with all that chaos. Larry Silverstein said, ON CAMERA, that he had them pull the building. Meaning, operatives were able to determine the timing, meaning it HAD to have been set up during the weekend (sept 9 and 10). Which means it was planned, and that Silverstein knew it.
Smokin gun. Pomeroo hasn't offered anything of substance. I say we ignore him but hey it's not my blog . . .
Oh, and all sorts of stuff recently came out on JFK, obtained via a FOIA request under what I think was Clinton/Gore's "Sunshine Project" (at least that's what we called it in the Navy).
The recent evidence points to a conspiracy. I haven't read up on it because whoever can't figure out this was an inside job was probably dropped on his head one time too many.
JFK had just signed a bill to get rid of the Federal Reserve's greedy ponzi scheme (fiat money)and return to the gold standard. As they say: Just follow the money.
I'm probably the last one to bother noticing that pomeroo is Ron Wieck, and if you do a simple Google search, you can see that he's made it his job to 'debunk' 'twoofers', anywhere and everywhere. He is quite clearly a hypocritical liar though. He repeats the same old script wherever he goes. If he isn't getting paid for his 'work', he's in the wrong line of work.
Will you ever get the idea that buildings can't be "pulled"? And, does it occur to you that the FDNY does not blow up buildings? NOBODY in the demolition industry talks about "pulling" buildings. This nonsense was fabricated by conspiracy liars and has no basis in reality. But, then, what else is new?
You just discovered that pomeroo is, well, me? Gee, I'd better get up pretty early in the morning to put one over on you. I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but I thought that my "secret" was known to, uh, EVERYONE in the 9/11 fantasy movement.
Oh you're not the last one, Ron... I didn't even care enough to bother running a search on the handle "pomeroo," but once you said that, I did. And then I was reminded... the Amazing Randi's legacy is here to lecture us once again. All hail the disciple of Randi, our most esteemed Emperor of the Absurd... lord pomeroo ronwyk, master of debunking and professor of pedantic puffery.
pomeroo writes:
You just discovered that pomeroo is, well, me? Gee, I'd better get up pretty early in the morning to put one over on you. I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but I thought that my "secret" was known to, uh, EVERYONE in the 9/11 fantasy movement.
LOL. Funny which posts you decide to respond to, isn't it? You completely ignore questions asked of you, which you obviously can't answer without looking like the idiot you really are, but when you think you have an opportunity to take a jab at someone, you let it rip. I DIDN'T GIVE A SHIT ENOUGH to bother with looking any further into who in the hell you were. I honestly thought you were just another average troll, but as others have observed, you're too dedicated to be a simple troll. I don't visit any of the sites you choose to label. You make the claim that you value civility, but you clearly do not, as you have proven in so many ways. You are also a coward of the highest order. You asked why you would be defending murderers. Would you care to submit to a psych profile, as well as open up any personal records that might help answer that question, like your financial records? Of course you won't. You're a fraud too.
Why don't you try answering some of the questions myself and many others have asked of you? You certainly have no problem making the charge against others that they dance around your questions. Don't you think it quite hypocritical of yourself to be doing so while also demonstrating the greatest dance of all? NO ONE has dodged more questions than yourself here. You ARE the person you appear to hate.
I don't feel like following you around the internet, so would you care to explain what your background is with regards to education and employment?
pomeroo writes:
Will you ever get the idea that buildings can't be "pulled"? And, does it occur to you that the FDNY does not blow up buildings? NOBODY in the demolition industry talks about "pulling" buildings. This nonsense was fabricated by conspiracy liars and has no basis in reality. But, then, what else is new?
So, if they don't use the term 'pull', what term do they use? Or are you going to tell us that they are one of the professions which doesn't use any 'slang' terms of their own during the course of their work?
As for the FD not 'blowing up' buildings, you're right. But that doesn't mean that at demolitions there isn't a fire crew ready and standing by in case of a mishap. Or that they aren't the ones who give the final go ahead. Or does it?
Heck, I know, it's just TV, but anyone who's seen an episode of the MythBusters where they want to blow something up knows there is ALWAYS a fire department crew of some kind present when they do, even if they're out in the middle of the fucking desert. Your straw man arguments are pathetic at best.
And while I'm sure you'll seize on this opportunity to claim that this would mean the entire FDNY was 'in' on it, it most certainly does not, so save that straw man for yourself.
Ron,
Is Pomeroo this American thinker?
http://www.americanthinker.com/r...m/ronald_wieck/
The Madness of the Left
http://www.americanthinker.com/
2...f_the_left.html
...Always be suspicious of people who proclaim their love of peace: try finding someone who admits to liking war. Back in the most self—congratulatory period in our history, voices from the left clamored for peace, peace, peace at any cost.
...A symptom common to those seized by the Madness of the Left is the tendency to bizarre utterance, the compulsion to say things that the speaker cannot possibly believe.
Thank you upthread for the Fire Dept info. It's SOP for a whole fire crew to be present, trucks and all, and they have a role to play too.
In fact there is VIDEO FOOTAGE (hel-lo!) of a fireman on his walkie talkie (do they still call them that?) proving the "pull" part. A decision was made. Silverstein made the final call to pull it. Those were the words he used, on camera, talking to a reporter. Footage immortalized on YouTube despite mgmts efforts to remove it (YouTube is Murdoch owned).
The demolition was deliberately executed the minute everyone was out of the building. Again, television coverage proves this because the crew was filmed talking about it, and the cameras and mike were so close you could even hear the guy on the other end of the walkie talkie.
"Pull it" may or may not be used by smaller demolition companies, but there are only a handful (probably less than 5? guessing) companies who are able to bring down steel buildings this large and it's my understanding that they DO use the slang "pull it" for the big ones involving thermite. Maybe pulling something is involved for the thermite? If the demolition was accomplished by pushing buttons the slang would be "push it," not "pull it." Time for me to look this up, not to prove anything mind you, but just because I'm curious.
Yes, I used to write for the American Thinker. I have been losing interest in politics, as my disenchantment with the Republican Party grows by leaps and bounds and my contempt for the Democrats is total. It is certainly true that most of the people who comprised the "peace" movement back in the sixties would not have accepted any peace that did not entail a North Vietnamese victory.
You really have to give up on "pull it." Conspiracy liars have taken this silly canard as far as it can go. NOBODY in the demolition industry thinks the phrase means "blow up the building." It is NOT industry slang. Instead of making up nonsense to support your fantasies, why not try some old-fashioned research? Do what I did: call a dozen or so demolition companies all over the country and see if you can find one that regards "pull it" as slang for "blow up the building."
McJ writes:
Ron,
Is Pomeroo this American thinker?
Yes, that's the moron.
HPS, it is not your "understanding" that "big" demolition companies use "pull it" to mean "blow up the building": it is your DESIRE. NO demolition companies of any size use this term. You know absolutely nothing about the uses of thermite.
Fire departments speak of "pulling" a contingent of men from an unstable building. Reality is stubborn. Your fantasies may be important to you, but they mean nothing to a neutral universe.
I notice that although this thread concerns Dr. Seffen's paper, no one has attempted to read it. You may have noticed that I ignore no-plane insanity. Morgan Reynolds ran away from an e-mail debate with me with his tail between his legs. His lunatic bubble burst when he was forced to confront the incontrovertible fact that thousands of New Yorkers WATCHED a commercial airliner crash into the South Tower from the street and their office windows. He was reduced to babbling about "video fakery," but, again, the people who watched the incident LIVE weren't watching a video.
Pomeroo, did you also call all the fire departments around the country and ask them if they take their orders from the lease holder of a building with regards to their fire fighting duties?
Did you also ask them if the term used by fire departments to evacuate a building is 'pull it'?
Of course you didn't. As I said earlier, you are a fraud. You are the person you feign to hate and be disgusted with. Apparently you just haven't realized it yet.
I really love the straw man argument you presented over on the Amazon forums about conspiracies being impossible because someone wouldn't be able to keep a secret. That alone proves you are a fraud and there are countless examples of secrets that have been kept for far longer than the just over 6 years that the secrets of 9/11 have been kept. You're only too happy to commit the same acts you accuse others of doing with disgust.
Must suck being you.
Jim, You should have read Mark's paper more carefully. Rodriguez has not raised "millions" for anyone. You are swallowing the snake oil of a self-promoting phony. There is a reason why Willie refuses to answer questions about his changing stories. There is a reason why he only preaches to an extremely uncritical choir.
Ron, you will have to work a little harder to become the silliest, most poorly-informed conspiracy liar on the net. I suggest you visit the Conspiracy Smasher blog and watch Scrubs, PW, and Patrick in action.
What you call in desperation a "straw man argument" (you have no idea what the term means) is, in fact, a devastating refutation of your fantasy. Your imaginary conspiracy spans every branch of government and a wide range of private industries. In an earlier post, I gave a partial listing of the people who would necessarily be involved. I demonstrated why it is impossible for such an insanely bloated cabal to avoid leaking ANYTHING in six years. You were completely crushed by this simple, yet irrefutable argument. THREE people in Washington can't keep a secret, and you want thousands of conspirators to avoid spilling the beans. Good luck on that!
Yes, fire departments use the term "pulling."
pomeroo:
Your opinion of yourself and your devastating argument is baseless.
It was indeed a straw man argument.
And you have no idea whether Ron knows the meaning of that term or not.
If your "devastating refutation" had been worthy of demolition, I would have provided one a long time ago.
But it doesn't. And I have better things to do.
pomeroo continues in his drooling, slavering nonsensical screeds. Notice how he quarrels over the use of the phrase "pull it," and not over whether Larry Silverstein wanted WTC 7 demolished, or whether Silverstein was suggesting that it be so demolished?
That's because pomeroo wants to quarrel over irrelevancies, just like the other self-appointed "skeptic," Mark Miller. He wants to distract and deflect, to dissemble and deviate, to destroy and denigrate.
He cares not about truth or accuracy. He cares only about pomeroo's party line and the maintenance of the fantasy underlying that party line.
Emperor of Obfuscation, lord pomeroo ronwyk, pounded his keys thusly:
What you call in desperation a "straw man argument" (you have no idea what the term means) is, in fact, a devastating refutation of your fantasy.
It pains me to have to mention a few clarifying thoughts in response to the troglodytic postings of pomeroo.
"Devastating refutations" require (1) actual refutation; and (2) actual devastation.
Pomeroo hasn't refuted anything, and he's destroying only one thing: the truth.
The man who claims to have trained six of the 9/11 hijackers is a paid CIA informant according to Turkish intelligence specialists, who also assert that Al-Qaeda is merely the name of a secret service operation designed to foment a strategy of tension around the world.
http://www.wakeupfromyourslumber...r.com/node/
4791
http://
www.whatreallyhappened.co...akealqaeda.html
pomeroo spews:
Ron, you will have to work a little harder to become the silliest, most poorly-informed conspiracy liar on the net. I suggest you visit the Conspiracy Smasher blog and watch Scrubs, PW, and Patrick in action.
Actually, it doesn't even take a high school diploma to refute your 'impossible', i.e. 0% probability claim. In fact, you do it yourself with your own words, but once again, you're just too ignorant and/or arrogant to realize.
What you call in desperation a "straw man argument" (you have no idea what the term means) is, in fact, a devastating refutation of your fantasy. Your imaginary conspiracy spans every branch of government and a wide range of private industries. In an earlier post, I gave a partial listing of the people who would necessarily be involved. I demonstrated why it is impossible for such an insanely bloated cabal to avoid leaking ANYTHING in six years. You were completely crushed by this simple, yet irrefutable argument. THREE people in Washington can't keep a secret, and you want thousands of conspirators to avoid spilling the beans. Good luck on that!
As I said above, you refute your own argument. It doesn't take a college degree, or even a high school diploma, to know that nothing other than 0 equals 0. Not 1, not .01, not even .0000000000000000001. Regardless of how small the percentage were that you claimed were applicable, NONE of them were equal to 0. But that doesn't stop you from making that claim, does it? Liar.
Besides, your claim of 'thousands' is just ridiculous. Remember when the de Menezes story first came out? IT WAS A COMPLETE LIE, with 'eyewitness' accounts who all had the exact same lie to tell, yet it was reported that way by nearly every single MSM outlet. So, tell me, how many of all the hundreds if not thousands of people around the world who were involved in getting that bullshit story out to the masses actually knew they were feeding us bullshit? According to your logic, it would seem, all of them. Regardless of your answer, it just goes to prove that people can either be ordered not to tell the truth, paid off or are themselves ignorant of the truth. It certainly doesn't mean that every single person knows what's going on and is keeping it secret, as you would like to have everyone believe.
Yes, fire departments use the term "pulling."
So says you, which given the above, doesn't really mean shit.
Do they also take their marching orders from lease holders whom, one would assume, know absolutley NOTHING about fire fighting?
Care to answer the questions asked of you earlier, or did you determine that would be impossible without you having to resort to the same tactics you accuse others of?
If not too busy running to the dictionary to find out what "pull it"
means, have a look, please:
Iraq : Looking Back : 'Internationally Sponsored Genocide'.
Felicity Arbuthnot
http://www.uruknet.info/?p=m3864...&hd=&size=1&
l=e
This and 9/11 are of one sripe, part of the same thing, sponsored by the same people, have the same smell which never changes.
Well, we've noticed a few things:
A conspiracy that consists of hundreds, if not thousands, of people MUST unravel. The fantasy movement is wrecked on this reef. One extremely desperate tinfoil-hatter pointlessly observes that .0000001 is not quite zero. True, but trivial. The probability that the sun will burn out in the next hour is not precisely zero, but I'm not changing any plans.
Your imaginary conspiracy does not--indeed, CANNOT--exist.
The thousands of individual physicists, avionics techs, air traffic controllers, forensic examiners, demolition specialists, stuctural engineers, military personnel, reporters, editors, video technicians who regard your conspiracy fables as utter rubbish are not all fans of George Bush. There is no shadow army to knock all of these people into line. Incidentally, why don't any scientists from countries unfriendly to the U.S. point out errors in the NIST Report?
For reasons that defy comprehension, a few diehards can't bring themselves to abandon the "pull it" nonsense. It is not demolition industry slang for "blow up the building." And firefighters do speak of "pulling" a contingent from an unstable building. The important point here is that you can learn these facts by ASKING. Do what I do when I don't know something: obtain the information from someone who actually has it. Go on the net and jot down the phone numbers of a few demolition companies. Call them and ask if anyone has ever heard a demolition professional use the phrase "pull it" to mean "blow up the building." Okay, the first one you speak with is obviously part of the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy. But after you've contacted a dozen or so companies, you should seriously start to wonder how widespread this thing is.
There is nothing to suggest that Larry Silverstein wanted his building blown up and it is certainly true that FDNY is not in the demolition business.
There is nothing to suggest that Larry Silverstein wanted his building blown up
Sorry, but you're mistaken. Remediation expenses were REQUIRED because the WTC complex had asbestos problems that had to be fixed. Silverstein faced multiple millions of USD in asbestos remediation expenses for continuation of his leaseholds on the WTC buildings. Without that remediation his leases were worthless because nobody wants to be a tenant in a building that essentially is condemned, essentially is a ticking time bomb of mesothelioma and asbestosis.
As you can see, pomeroo uses a bold conclusory statement to obscure reality. The simple fact is that it was profitable for Larry Silverstein to say that his WTC 1,2 and 7 buildings were destroyed by terrorists so that he could collect insurance $$$ AND avoid asbestos remediation expenses AND get to build a newer set of buildings that could entice newer tenants at higher rates.
It's sad that pomeroo pretends that his conclusions are all that matters. Mainly it's pitiful because he pretends to be an "objective" person who is "skeptical" about "conspiracies." It seems that when Larry Silverstein conspires to destroy his buildings and get massive windfalls from that destruction, pomeroo doesn't want to be skeptical.
Why does pomeroo feel the need to protect Larry Silverstein?
and it is certainly true that FDNY is not in the demolition business.
Mistaken again. Demolition is part of fire fighting. So is planned explosion. How can pomeroo claim to be "informed" and "objective" when he doesn't even have half the necessary facts?
Last, the "NIST Report" was created by the US Department of Commerce. It is inherently flawed for that reason. So it doesn't matter if anyone takes the time to examine the fraudulent NIST report. It was prepared by a bunch of pseudo-scientists who are whores, who have lost their scientific integrity in pursuit of big dollars, McMansions, Audi SUVs, et cetera.
Pomeroo is nauseating. Almost like syrup of ipecac.
Sorry, but you're VERY mistaken. I thought all conspiracy liars had abandoned the myth of Silverstein's "windfall." Silverstein lost money--end of story.
Incidentally, nobody ever gets around to explaining where Larry fits into the Impossibly Vast Conspiracy's plan to conquer the world.
http://911myths.com/html/
losing_...t_the_wtc_.html
You're wrong about the fire department. They are not in the demolition business. When a structure needs to be demolished, demolition companies get the call.
I'm afraid your refusal to read the NIST Report does not invalidate the science behind it. Pointing out that NIST is a part of the Department of Commerce is insufficient to demonstrate that the agency is complicit in mass murder. You'll have to show specific errors in the report. If you find any, you'll be doing something no other fantasist has done.
pomeroo: What does the NIST report say about Building 7?
pomeroo spews:
A conspiracy that consists of hundreds, if not thousands, of people MUST unravel. The fantasy movement is wrecked on this reef. One extremely desperate tinfoil-hatter pointlessly observes that .0000001 is not quite zero. True, but trivial. The probability that the sun will burn out in the next hour is not precisely zero, but I'm not changing any plans.
Your imaginary conspiracy does not--indeed, CANNOT--exist.
You're contradicting yourself again...anything OTHER THAN ZERO indicates it CAN exist. You might get away with this sort of crap over on your "Gee, look what kind of response I provoked today!!!" forums, but it's not flying here. You're pathetic. Especially if you really do consider all of us nutters. But I don't really think that's the case, given the amount of time you spend here trying to defend the Official Version. You (and/or your masters) feel threatened.
You do nothing but distort and flat out lie.
Here, let me try it.
I called all of the thousands of demolition companies in my city alone and they ALL said they use the term "pull it" when demolishing anything over 5 stories although a few admitted to slipping up and using it for smaller buildings once or twice.
IT'S TWUUUU!!
Again, I ask, since when does the fire department take orders from a lease holder (with no knowledge of fighting fires at all) with regards to doing their job? The fire department had a duty to try and save that building until it was impossible to do so any longer. They sure as hell wouldn't need Silverstein to tell them when that time had come. Unless...
It is the nature of covert or "black" operations that the people who carry them out to not do a lot of talking to the press. Asa case in point, "Operation Gladio" conducted calse flag operations, "terrorist" bombing (blamed on communists), and coup d'etats internationally for decades until the existence of the operations were made known. Would you, pomeroo, be willijng to use your influence to try to establsih witness protection programs for persons willing to come forward about the 9/11 "terrorist" false flag operation?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Ope...peration_Gladio
The Italian NATO stay-behind organization, dubbed "Gladio", was set up under Minister of Defense (from 1953 to 1958 ) Paolo Taviani's (DC) supervision.[12] However, Gladio's existence came to public knowledge when Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti revealed it to the Chamber of Deputies on October 24, 1990, although far-right terrorist Vincenzo Vinciguerra had already revealed its existence during his 1984 trial. According to media analyst Edward S. Herman, "both the President of Italy, Francesco Cossiga, and Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti, had been involved in the Gladio organization and coverup..."[13]
Silverstein gained 4.5 million in insurance revenue within days of 9/11/2001 with litigation concerning the balance.
He didn't lose money.
Pomeroo, you're just a flat-out liar.
Fire departments demolish BURNING BUILDINGS all the time as part of their operations. Fire specialists use controlled explosion to rid a fire of its oxygen fuel VERY FREQUENTLY.
Again, Pomeroo is a rank liar.
What is pomeroo's point, anyway?
Is it so he can run back to the James Randi Forums, and post "Hey I really stirred up trouble at that Winter Patriot blog again!" and have all the Randiphiles go "goo goo goo, pomeroo! goo goo goo!" in cheering chorus?
Because really, he's not persuading anyone with his unsubstantiated flat lies about every subject he discusses. I haven't seen a single half-true statement, let alone a fully true one, from pomeroo.
He's basically a sad clown who has ceased in his entertainment and has started to become a bother.
He's the party lampshade guy who doesn't know when to remove the lampshade.
He's the guy who thinks it's funny to rip a huge smelly fart in a crowded elevator, and then when people are overcome by nausea since he's farted already 7 or 8 times (it's a long ride -- think WTC 1 or 2 before they were PULLED by Larry Silverstein) he starts cracking up in a solo universe style, laughing hysterically, cackling like a madman.
I think I see pomeroo's purpose, at least as he believes it himself. This is taken from the James Randi Fellators Forum:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost...25&
postcount=49
Look, pomeroo is a persona who is indeed extremely crass and rude at times to people who merit such treatment. I don't find him particularly arrogant, but, then, I'm prejudiced.
Ah, so pomeroo is just a "persona" who was created so that Ron Wieck can be the tough guy on the Internet that he can't dare be in public personal encounters. So he can say things that are lying, are obnoxious, and are divisive just so he can wring his hands in juvenile glee at the problems he is creating.
Pomeroo is a 12-year-old boy or girl, trapped in a middle-aged man's body.
Oh, the glee of juvenilia!
Pomeroo is a 12-year-old boy or girl, trapped in a middle-aged man's body.
You don't have kids, do you?
No, but I have taught and coached jr high schoolers and I know what they're like at that age, feeling their oats, tasting the first bite of nascent independence from their parents, looking down the road toward "adult" status and more than anything, testing their boundaries. Always testing their boundaries, waiting for an authority figure to show them where the boundaries are.
That's what I meant.
I also realize that children of that age can be brilliant, entertaining, funny, clever and generally a good addition to any gathering.
I'm talking about the more hellish features of new adolescence.
WP, I also remember what it was like to be 12 or 13 years old. I remember how much fun it was to tease and prank my teachers and any other adult who (in my view) stood in the way of my fun.
I'm with you on most of this, Wendigo, and I don't mean to imply (as some do) that you can't understand kids unless you have some of your own ...
But I was looking at a couple of 4-year-olds and thinking your estimate of 12 was exceedingly generous.
HAH HAH HAH! That's an excellent retort, and I think I may agree. We might even be able to ratchet it further downward to what my mother called "the terrible Two" age, where the child's singular attitude seems to be "NO" and perspective seems to be "I will destroy your patience!"
pomeroo does hold fast to his insistence that all persons in a position to know anything about 9/11 unanimously agree that we are all full of bunk.
Here is a ten minute video which splices together many reports of secondary explosions. Most of them aired on TV on the fateful day.
http://video.google.com/videopla...earch&
plindex=8
Richard Siegel, who was producing web TV for a living in 2001, heard commotion on the morning of 9/11 and set up his recording equipment on a couple of piers across the river in Hoboken, New Jersey. It is one thing to have someone tell you of numerous secondary explosions during the interval between the impact of the planes and the collapse, another to hear them for yourslef. I would love to have a "debunker" explain to me what these tremendous low frequency booms. Are they thunder? Earthquakes?
It is necessary to have a decent subwoofer. Thus equipped, you will hear them quite well indeed.
http://kunaki.com/Sales.asp?PID=...?
PID=PX00ZWW7WO
From http://screwloosechange.blogspot...-up-on-
emt.html [emphases mine]
At 11 February, 2007 19:49, pomeroo said...
Well, Ewing, if my explanation for posting on 9/11blogger.com, repeated four or five times, didn't satisfy you, repeating it another time probably won't do the trick. For the record, I wanted to hear the fantasists defend the mania that grips their minds. I wanted to find out if they were saying something that rational people ought to hear. I discovered I could not achieve anything by posting occasionally and restricting myself to recommending actually reading the NIST Report. Saturation bombing, so to speak, was essential to provoke the fantasists into revealing their inner selves.
Yes, I expended time and energy, but, in the end, I managed to amass a considerable body of material. I discovered that the twoofers have nothing--no coherent narrative accounting for the events of 9/11/01, and no evidence to support any of their specific claims. Unlike some rationalists who merely know OF the fantasists, I believe I can say that I now KNOW the fantasists.
Nearly ten months later and despite his claim of now 'knowing' the fantasists, he's still at it.
From the same thread...what we can expect from the great wonder that is pomeroo [again, emphasis mine]:
At 11 February, 2007 23:25, pomeroo said...
Ewing, you make certain assumptions that are unsupported by the evidence. I did keep a file of my posts on 911blogger.com. You sound as though I spent all my time calling names. I purposely escalated the level of ad hominem attack I'd permit myself very gradually.
The 'file' he kept might explain why he sounds like a broken record wherever he goes.
I guess he expects some to start running for the hills [emphases mine]...
At 12 February, 2007 05:13, pomeroo said...
...You seem to live in a dream world. I have no obsession with the pathetic souls at 911blogger.com., and my judgment is fine, thank you.
Perhaps you recall the technique I employed to send Andrew Lowe-Watson running for the hills? I simply pinned him down and demanded that he respond to specific questions. There is no way to expose an elusive fraud unless you're willing to sink your teeth into him and hang on, like a dog with a bone.
...
Why it took so long for the Stalinists in charge to ban me remains a mystery. Freedom of speech is not something ignorant fanatics respect. I had gathered all the material I needed and felt that I was repeating myself. Clearly, it was time to go. I finally had to push Gold's buttons to get myself banned, as leaving of my own accord wouldn't work. My detractors would have accused me of cowardice.
LOL. So, push buttons until he FINALLY gets the right combination, then throw around the accusations. BRILLIANT! :rollingmyfuckingeyeshere:
One user seems to have hit the nail on the head in de
Let's go through the drill once again:
We have noticed that 9/11 fantasists have no coherent narrative. There exists a vast conspiracy to do...something, and we know this because the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon were not shot down. This same conspiracy exists because the plane that was going to be flown into an unspecified government building WAS shot down. There is a conspiracy because we went to war to overthrow the Taliban in Afghanistan, which has no oil. We went to war to overthrow Saddam Hussein in Iraq, which has oil. There is a conspiracy because the conspiractors used an imaginary bogeyman, Osama bin Laden, to maintain control over both houses of Congress in 2002 and 2004. Faced with crippling election losses in 2006, the conspirators chose NOT to announce that they had killed the imaginary bin Laden, preferring to suffer a humiliating defeat that stripped them of most of their power. There is a conspiracy because NIST, an agency tasked with determining why structures fail, utilized the work of 200 researchers and 800 outside consultants to produce over 10,000 pages of graphs, diagrams, computer simulations, tables, photos, analysis, and commentary showing that the impact of the planes and the resultant fires, augmented by the loss of fireproofing, caused the Twin Towers to collapse. No scientists anywhere in the world have challenged NIST's findings.
Imagine how absurd you'd find this nonsense if you didn't have an emotional investment in it.
Damn...keep forgetting to check my posts. Continued from above...
One user seems to have hit the nail on the head in describing our illustrious pomeroo:
much of what you say sounds like trying to save face. you will not admit small simple mistakes no one would hold against you for admitting. you make people angry on purpose and try to show how this makes them fanatics, but anyone you did that to would be angry. and it is not normal to spend full work days posting with people you do not like. where do you find time? this can only be obsession.
Some things apparently never change.
He sure is good at backpedaling though. Comes with the job I suppose.
His own excuse for one of his faux pas pretty much sums up his entire 'defense'.
My opinion was based entirely on what other people said.
Yet there's nothing to stop good ol' pomeroo from stating his opinions as facts. If he gets called out, he simply attempts to place the blame squarely on the shoulders of anyone other than himself.
What a pathetic and egomaniacal POS. And just to solidify that FACT...
http://forums.randi.org/showthre...ead.php?
t=71107
Sorry, Wendigo, the fantasy movement's lies about Larry Silverstein have been exposed. The cost of rebuilding greatly exceeds the insurance settlement. I note that conspiracy liars never get around to explaining why their slanders of a man who did nothing wrong constitute acceptable behavior. But, then, lynch mobs usually progress from slandering innocents to hanging them.
pomeroo, you offer no proof. You merely make bald assertions.
Nobody has proved that Larry Silverstein didn't make a bundle on the destruction of the WTC towers.
Silverstein continues to sue his insurance companies to get even more than the $4.5 million originally given him by those companies.
Silverstein saved the cost of asbestos remediation -- another windfall.
Silverstein gets to arrange leaseholds on new structures that don't have an asbestos problem -- another windfall.
Sorry, pomeroo, but you're nothing but a rank liar and dissembler.
Thanks for the fantasies and lies. I'm sure that Larry Silverstein loves you for them.
Imagine how absurd you'd find this nonsense if you didn't have an emotional investment in it.
We don't have to imagine, pomeroo. We only need to look at your posts, which indicate an obsessive emotional investment in being a "skeptic" who offers nothing but inflammatory provocation and flat lies.
Curiously, you always imply that those you are "criticizing" or "debunking" are suffering from what most obviously are your own personality and psychological flaws.
Ron, you have a problem separating your desires from reality. Come to think of it, all conspiracy liars have the same problem. Let's see why it's correct to call something with an extremely small chance of occurring "impossible." We'll agree that a word that means "having a probability infinitesimally above zero" would be preferable to "impossible." With that in mind, we'll suppose that you're playing draw poker and are dealt a pat straight-flush to the king. Two other players are also dealt king-high straight-flushes. The three of you lose to a fourth player's pat royal flush. Now, you can spend time figuring out how many septillion-to-one the odds are of this hand occurring naturally, or you can proceed on the sane assumption that you were cheated.
Two normal humans, each with a fifty-percent probability of keeping a secret, will divulge a shared secret 1-(.5 x.5), or .75--three-quarters of the time. If we select G. Gordon Liddy-types, raise their probability of keeping a secret to .9, and we notice something interesting: SEVEN of these guys have a better-than-even chance of spilling the beans: .9 raised to the seventh power is roughly .4783. If we can find an advanced race from another planet and are able to determine that all of its members have a probability of .99 of keeping a secret, it requires sixty-nine of them before the probability of keeping the secret dips under fifty-percent. Of course, when we have five hundred of these remarkable beings sharing a secret, the probability that it gets out rises to .99935.
Your imaginary conspiracy does not consist of alien super-beings. It consists of ordinary earthlings whose probabilities of keeping a secret, when averaged, do not approach .99, or .9, or even .75. Your conspiracy, which numbers in the thousands, will spill the beans .99999999999.... of the time.
It is impossible* (*substitute the yet-to-be-invented word meaning "having a probability infinitesimally above zero") for your conspiracy to exist.
Jim, seismic data compiled by the Lamont-Doherty labs show no secondary explosions. We can, of course, add the Columbia University seismologists to the already bloated conspiracy.
Ron, to respond to another of your non-points: the fact is, you haven't called ANY demolition companies. To do so would be to engage in actual RESEARCH, something no fantasist would dream of--why work when you can make up stuff? There are NO demolition companies who refer to blowing up buildings, big or small, as "pulling them." And the Wendigo is talking through his hat, as usual. Fire departments do not blow up buildings. When a structure requires demolition, a company specializing in such procedures is brought in.
Incidentally, the reason I don't "dare" to insult my guests on 'Hardfire' is that such behavior is rude. Civility is a virtue.
Wendigo, obviously reading for comprehension is not one of your strengths:
http://911myths.com/html/windfall.html
Another baseless accusation and allegation from pomeroo.
pomeroo, whatever is "obvious" to you is not set forth in your post nor in the linked text. The fact that some other person has fabricated a "history" of Larry Silverstein and his acts means little to me. The litigation and settlement are on the books, pomeroo. The litigation continues. Whatever you and your fellow fabricators can concoct will not change that.
Basically, pomeroo, your lies and the lies of others are not reality. They are simply lies. Nothing more.
I wonder, pomeroo, how much time you have spent in insurance litigation over situations such as Larry Silverstein's leasehold on WTC 1, 2 and 7.
You really embarrass yourself when you argue with me over these things. Really. You have no substantive knowledge, and instead you just distort and lie to your merry ends of fabricated reality and fantasy perspective. While that probably is very satisfying to you at some juvenile level in your reptilian brain, I have to say that it means nothing to me, nor to anyone else who cares about facts, reality, and learning the truth.
Until you can demonstrate that you have experience in insurance coverage litigation to the point that you can understand your linked text that supposedly "debunks" the windfall of Silverstein, I will keep chuckling at your ineptness and your clueless lies. Because really, pomeroo, your linked text doesn't prove anything other than the fact that the insurers are denying coverage. Insurers ALWAYS deny coverage. That is their first line of defense. It doesn't prove that coverage didn't exist. It doesn't prove that coverage won't be offered later. And it doesn't have ANY bearing on what litigation outcomes may arise.
nd the Wendigo is talking through his hat, as usual. Fire departments do not blow up buildings. When a structure requires demolition, a company specializing in such procedures is brought in.
Amusingly false. Firemen routinely destroy structures on the way to fighting the fires therein. You know about the fireman's pulaski/axe, eh? Or maybe you don't! Maybe that's why you continue to be wrong, deluded, and lying!
Pomeroo, what exactly can you detail as your educational background and your work experience that would make us want to take serious notice of your statements?
What level of erudition underlies your bald-faced assertions of pseudo-fact?
What experience informs your many lies?
Wendigo, it's pretty comical that a totally uninformed tinfoil-hatter like yourself keeps prattling about my "lies." Your absurd fantasies are based on nothing. You are slandering a man who has done nothing wrong merely to lend a veneer of plausibility to a farrago of myths and falsehoods. I linked to a discussion of the issues involved in Silverstein's ongoing litigation. Nobody "fabricated" anything. You appear incapable of comprehending anything you read. That is your problem. When NIST releases its comprehensive report on building 7, you will reject it without reading it. Why do you suppose your evil movement is nearly dead?
Incidentally, Wendigo, conspiracy liars have an ugly habit of accusing the rationalists who expose them of lying. We never get to see any evidence for the false claim. Psychologists call such behavior "projection."
Those last two posts are sheer fabrication. They pretend to be responding to me, but instead they are making speeches comprised of irrelevant allegations, baseless lies, and intemperate mouth-foaming psychological rabidity.
Once again, pomeroo -- tell me what you know about insurance coverage and coverage litigation.
Please.
Wendigo, please just STOP. I posted a link to a discussion of the insurance aspects of the collapses of the Towers and building 7. Silverstein wanted to insure for a lesser amount than his associates felt comfortable with. The costs of rebuilding will exceed the total paid by the insurance companies. You're going nowhere with this crap.
Can you just answer a fucking question for once without relying on the bullshit that is 911myths.com?
FFS, the site you linked even admits the amount might go up or down. It isn't proof of anything you fucking moron.
Besides, stating that it's going to cost Silverstein more to rebuild than the 'total' (although it's still in litigation, according to your own bullshit site, so how you have determined this is beyond me) paid by the insurance companies is irrelevant, if not ultimately proven untrue. He ISN'T rebuilding the fucking buildings as they stood on 9/10, is he dumbfuck? They will be completley new buildings which I'm sure would generate rental income in line with that fact. You really are a pathetic piece of shit. Now go run back to your forums full of 'real' 'scientists' and 'engineers' and have another circlejerk.
But POMEROO buys the governments "Conspiracy Theory" of 19 Arab terrorists hook, line, and sinker.
Some of the overwhelming facts that they could not have done it:
• documented conspiracy plans since General Lemnitzer’s „Operation Northwoods”,
• long pre-existing Afghanistan and Iraq war plans for oil and oil pipelines,
• plan implementations since first WTC bombing and Oklahoma City bombing,
• the rigged 2000 presidential elections and election litigation Bush v. Gore,
• hypnotized freeze of the presidential nut-head in a grammar school,
• the Pentagon’s missile defence shield was turned off for maintenance,
• air force stand-down under cover of pre-scheduled war games,
• non-use of aircraft carrier fighter jets off Long Island,
• lack of sufficient piloting abilities by the Arabs,
• impossibility to bring the towers down by planes,
• media fakery of the videos shown on TV,
• no viable plane debris including at Shanksville,
• for the first time in aviation history, none of the black boxes were provably found,
• for the first time in building history, fires allegedly brought steel highrises down,
• evidence from a two-year private fire investigation that fires did not bring the towers down,
• evidence from a private two-year bomb investigation of pre-planted bombs and explosions,
• seismic and residue from nuclear devices at the WTC,
• impact holes at the WTC and Pentagon not from airliners,
• impact explosion smoke and flame colors from hightech explosives not kerosene,
• the continuous roaring sound of the WTC collapses disproves mere „pancaking”,
• dancing Israeli spies and their release by the FBI (the Weehawken five),
• huge financial and political benefit of ultra-Zionist circles,
• government destruction of crime scenes and other evidence,
• government and media cover-up including bogus government reports,
• further lies to cause the Iraq war (Niger yellowcake lies from fake intelligence),
• macro-economic motivation to save the U.S. dollar as the global reserve currency.
There is such vast and compelling physical and other evidence that its bottom line is: Osama bin Laden and the alleged 19 Arab hijackers could not have done it, nor could they have come anywhere near to being able to orchestrate it. The whole thing was a conspiracy, but a significantly more dangerous one than the government and the mendacious mainstream media would have us believe: 9-11 was an insiders attack on America, falsely blamed on Arab patsies to cover up the true perpetrators, both of the multi-trillion dollar insurance fraud and the treasonous overthrow of the American republic.
...
20 minute video of 9/11 discussing how the plane crashes could not have happened the way the government claims.
(Graphic at the very end of the WTC jumpers.)
http://video.google.com/
videopla...883610962556504
Pomeroo, I asked what is YOUR expertise and experience. I read your link and it was not persuasive on the points you say it made.
It didn't make those points.
Obviously you cannot understand what you post.
And obviously further, your modus operandi is to reverse the statements of another and put them back on the person who states them. In other words, if I say you are lying because your assertions haven't been proved and the proof is to the contrary, you turn around and say that what I say HAS been proven is a lie, and the proof is to the contrary.
You are a reflector who adds distortion and lies to the reflection. You're a poorly ground lens, a mirror that is polluted.
And a rank liar.
And you think you're going to get me angry, do you?
Please, that's the biggest joke of all.
Go away, pomeroo. You are a gnat. A black fly. A horse fly. A bluebottle fly.
pomeroo --
Silverstein wanted to insure for a lesser amount than his associates felt comfortable with.
How about some proof of the discussion with his non-existent associates. How about proving he has "associates." What can you prove to support your assertions, pomeroo? I bet you can't even prove Silverstein works in an "association" fashion. I bet he works alone with a secretary or two. I bet he didn't even discuss his insurance with "associates" and that he only told the broker what he wanted in coverage. Prove to me otherwise, pomeroo. Or don't. Your choice.
The costs of rebuilding will exceed the total paid by the insurance companies.
Prove this assertion. Prove that Silverstein AS LEASEHOLDER had to pay for building reconstruction. I don't know of any leaseholder who has obligations to the structure rebuilding. I've never seen that in a commercial lease. The only way Silverstein would commonly be liable to rebuild the buildings HE ONLY LEASES would be if HE destroyed them. Are you saying that contrary to your thread of lies on this point, Silverstein actually destroyed the buildings, or arranged for that destruction?
You're going nowhere with this crap.
If you say so. From where I sit it looks like you are doing nothing but making assertions without proof. You point to others' statements as your proof. You appear to know nothing yourself, because you always have to refer to someone else for your points. And then what you refer to isn't even proof -- it's always opinion layered on top of conjecture, with a smattering of lies and exaggeration for good measure. That's not proof, and it's not evidence that you know anything at all about these subjects.
In other words, your posts are nothing more than pure fabrication.
And the fact that you have to keep hammering away at this shows that it is YOU who has the immense emotional investment in a US Govt conspiracy theory that is so full of holes it may as well be a sieve.
Good luck with your mental problems, pomeroo. I hope you can find a qualified specialist. More than that, I hope you can muster the intellect and reasoning to be able to discern what is a qualified specialist, and I hope that your fragile ego lets you get to the point of admitting your problem. If you can't do that, you'll never get the mental health care you need.
Shoo fly,.. SHOO,..
http://www.geocities.com/brisban...mages/
wpe51.jpg
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/1...es/
figure33.jpg
http://www.ivyhall.district96.k1...bugpix/
hfly.jpg
http://cannabisculture.com/
libra...fungus_gnat.jpg
http://www.blizzardhockey.net/
im...rnet_killer.jpg
So, "Z" posts a laundry list that contains nothing but nonsense (literally NOTHING--everything on the list is demonstrably false) and uses it to explain why fantasists cling to their delusions. Imagine that someone exists who is so far removed from reality that he is willing to pretend that there was evidence of a NUCLEAR blast at the WTC complex, although the most extensive investigations in the history of law enforcement found ZERO evidence for such an event.
The Wendigo continues to babble. Larry Silverstein has done nothing wrong. If you have evidfence of an insurance scam, the companies involved would want to know about it.
Wendigo, you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about:
http://911myths.com/html/
losing_...t_the_wtc_.html
http://jc-schools.net/tutorials/.../
flyswatter.gif
Z, you can never hope to win the title of Dumbest and Most Uninformed Twoofer as long as PW and Scrubs, two regulars on the Conspiracy Smasher blog, are still alive. You can console yourself with the knowledge that you have inspired a thread on the JREF devoted entirely to your lunatic list:
http://forums.randi.org/showthre...ead.php?
t=99951
Now go run back to your forums full of 'real' 'scientists' and 'engineers' and have another circlejerk. -- Me!
You can console yourself with the knowledge that you have inspired a thread on the JREF devoted entirely to your lunatic list: -- pomeroo
Bravo pomeroo! So predictable...
Gee, Ron, maybe you'll try debating with some of the scientists and engineers on the JREF?
Why not?
pomeroo:
In regard to the discussion thread by the engineers and scientists at
http://forums.randi.org/showthre...ead.php?
t=99951
I see you posted:
Originally Posted by pomeroo
• the Pentagon’s missile defence shield was turned off for maintenance,
"Could someone please direct me to the point in which this idiotic idea was thought up? I mean really... Do people really think the Pentagon has missile defense systems? I just can't believe people are that stupid... Wait, no, yes I can..."
It may first have been published by Thierry Meyssan in "Pentagate" (2002), p.112, cited by Griffin in "The New Pearl Harbor," p.32:
"Although some news reports have said that the Pentagon, unlike the White House, has no (on-site) missiles, the Pentagon is in fact, Meyssan points out, protected by 'five extremely sophisticated antimissile batteries." And, although Pentagon officials claim that they had no ides that an aircraft was coming their way, an unidentified aircraft was ... reported at 9:25 to be speeding in that directon. Meyssan says:
'Contrary to the Pentagon's claims, the military knew perfectly well that an unidentified vehicle was headed straight for the capitol. Yes the military did not react and the Pentagon's anti-aircraft missiles did not function. Why? The close-range anti-aircraft defenses at the Pentagon are conceived to destroy missiles that attempt to approach. A missile should normally be unable to pass. As for a Boeing 757-200, it would have strictly no chance. Whether an airliner or amissile, an explanation needs to be found.'
Meyssan then suggests a hypothesis that could account for this anomaly:
'Each military aircraft in fact possesses a transponder which ... permits it to declare itself ... as friendly or hostile.... An antimissile battery will not ... react to the passage of a friendly missile. It is not impossible that was what happened at the Pentagon on 11 September 2001.'
Meyssan's hypothesis could also answer a question raised by reports that when the aircraft was making its circular approach to the Pentagon, it came very near to the White House - namely WHY THE WHITE HOUSE'S MISSILE SYSTEM DID NOT SHOOT IT DOWN."
cont'd:
How long have surface-to-air missiles been around? Joachim Fest writes in his biography "Hitler" that the Fuhrer failed to appreciate the potential of the sound-guided torpedo and heat-seeking missile. The Pentagon, however, long ago appreciated the potential of these devices, as did our adversaries in the Cold War era. Many a B-52 was shot down over North Vietnam by surface-to-air batteries. Since the Pentagon is a building which sits above ground, it is ludicrous to suggest that the Pentagon by 2001 might have had defenses comparable to what Hanoi had in the sixties? As you will recall, Ronald Reagan proposed the "Star Wars" initiative in the eighties, with the avowed goal of providing a missile shield for all of North America, and I read in the newpapers that some anti-missile missiles (ABM's) had been successfully tested. If the White House is provided with air defense missile batteries, it would be negligent in the extreme for the Pentagon not to be provided with air defense batteries.
We are asked to believe that about fifty minutes after the whole world knew both towers had been struck, Hani Hanjour (an incompetant pilot nervously flying a 757 for the first time) instead of diving into the building which was right in front of him, executed an incredible diving U-turn, going out of his way to hit the building where he would cause the least damage. Though the nerve center of our military was itself under attack, no one was able to scramble a single plane or fire a single shot. Did no one have a Mannlicher-Carcano?
And you think the idea that the Pentagon had SAM's or anti-missile batteries is a howler? Was Flight 77 not within range of the air defense missile batteries at the White House? How would the White House have such batteries and not the Pentagon? Of course, the Pentagon also apparently did not have surveillance cameras.
cont.
What is the missile defense system which Mr. Bush proposes to deploy in Eastern Europe, which has Mr. Putin so upset?
http://www.forbes.com/
afxnewslim...afx4377120.html
We can provide Eastern Europe with a missile shield, and yet it is ludicrous to think that the Pentagon would have a missile shield?
cont.
Remember the Patriot missile batteries with which the Isrealis reportedly shot down Iraqi Scud missiles during the First Gulf War? The Pentagon could have nothing like this, of course!
My understanding was that on 9/11 the Pentagon missile defense system was out of service that day because someone took the "D" batteries out to use them for a flashlight and neglected to return the batteries where they belonged. Because of the lack of two "D" batteries the Pentagon was left susceptible to in coming missiles on 9/11.
http://www.batterycompany.co.uk/...ry/
R20super.JPG
"Because of the lack of two "D" batteries the Pentagon was left susceptible to in coming missiles on 9/11."
Ridiculous! The Pentagon switched to AAA batteries years ago. And such a thing as a dead battery would not happen during Rumsfeld's tenure.
For want of a nail the shoe was lost.
For want of a shoe the horse was lost.
For want of a horse the rider was lost.
For want of a rider the battle was lost.
For want of a battle the kingdom was lost.
And all for the want of a horseshoe nail.
"Ridiculous! The Pentagon switched to AAA batteries years ago. And such a thing as a dead battery would not happen during Rumsfeld's tenure."
Ya, but were they NiMH or just plain old alkaline - cause those alkaline batteries wouldn't last long in a missile defense system.
Well I'm sorry,.. that is not what Pomeroo said. It was unquestionably because of two missing - standard "D" sized batteries.
Pomeroo should know,.. he knows everything about 9/11.
Gee, Ron, maybe you'll try debating with some of the scientists and engineers on the JREF?
Why not? -- pomeroo
Sorry pom, but I try to keep my distance from any and all circlejerkers, and from the looks of it, you guys are all seasoned professionals.
Pomer --- ooooooooo,..
http://badexample.mu.nu/archives...hives/
award.gif
Maybe they would at least have anti-aircraft guns at the Pentagon. The Germans had them in WWII, 88mm's, and search lights. Since that time, airplanes have been able to fly across the ocean, so the Pentagon needs something like that, too.
There were no missile batteries at the Pentagon:
http://911myths.com/html/
pentago..._batteries.html
There were no missile batteries at the Pentagon: -- pomeroo
My opinion was based entirely on what other people said. -- pomeroo
Explains it all really. He's simply a parrot. Will repeat anything he's heard more than once or twice.
He claims there were no missiles at the Pentagon and to support that, he points us to a site that does nothing but speculate and offer conjecture, not to mention twist words. And that's your 'proof'.
Many of the points made on that link are a joke. Why wouldn't anyone at the Pentagon talk about what could be classified information, 'even those whose friends were killed in the attack?' Gee, I fucking wonder. I guess it's just plain impossible that the military has any secrets, at least in the world according to pomeroo.
And they have the audacity to call us 'fantasists'. LOL.
"Plainly (the Pentagon) wouldn’t want to give away some details, but it makes little sense to keep (the missile batteries) entirely secret, because surely the whole point of such batteries would be to act as a deterrent?"
The hydrogen bomb is probably a better example of a weapon that is supposed to be a deterrent.
Certainly I never suspected that the Pentagon had no capability to shoot down airplanes, or that I could have got to it with an airline ticket and a box cutter. Did I need to read all about anti-missile missile batteries before I would think the Pentagon would have the resources to shoot down a jetliner?
"wouldn’t you have expected Pentagon employees to also have raised this question?"
Yes! I certainly think legitimate questions could be raised if the Pentagon were unable to shoot down airplanes - not by missile batteries, nor by fighters, nor by anti-aircraft guns, when any of these means would have been sufficient. If there were no missile batteries, that would not lead me to conclude that the Pentagon was indefensible or undefended. I would expect the Pentagon to be defended by other means. If Hani Hanjour can get to it with a box cutter, then I believe it would be appropriate for the people who work there to ask questions.
"The Pentagon is located very close to the approach for Washington's Ronald Reagan airport....
at what point would you make the shootdown decision? At an average of 400 mph, any plane approaching the Pentagon would cover the final mile in around 9 seconds. A plane could divert from a normal approach path to the airport in an even shorter period, a major problem because it takes time for missiles to launch, detect and move in on an attacker."
Admittedly, an air defense system would be useless against an attack originating from Reagan airport. There would not be time to activate the defenses, but neither would there be time for anyone to hijack and divert the plane. And if someone is able to hi-jack a 757 that is headed for Reagan, and make a normal approach without anyone knowing that it is a hi-jack (has this ever happened?), then an air defense system would be useless. None of this has anything to do with the situation which existed on September 11th.
cont.
"And fifth, the Pentagon did use armed missile batteries in Washington during September 2002, and reports at the time made it clear that this was an exceptional event. No mention of any earlier Pentagon missile batteries here."
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/US/...11.air.defense/
Quite so, but if you read the article, it is about a decision to arm Stinger missile batteries on trucks around Washington, evidently for show on the first anniversary of 9/11. A resolute show of force indeed! But we were not speaking of Stinger missiles on trucks. The Pentagon which gave Osama bin Laden and the Muhjahadeen Stinger missiles to shoot down Soviet helicopters nearly thirty years ago could no doubt afford something more lavish for its own defense. If a sophisticated anti-missile missile system exists, I expect it is classified, which is why you don't read about it in the papers or on CNN.
There were no missile batteries at the Pentagon on 9/11/01, the day of the jihadist attacks on America.
http://911myths.com/html/ pentago..._batteries.html
We know that "portable surface-to-air missile launchers," Stingers on trucks deployed around Washington were armed on 09/11/02 amid a heightened alert status on the eve of the one-year anniversary of the September 11 attacks.
We know that "in 1962, 82 Army National Guard units manned Nike Ajax air defense batteries in 15 states and the District of Columbia."
So, in 1962 Nike Ajax air defense batteries existed in Washington, D.C. and 15 states. This affords us no basis to conclude that air defense batteries did not exist in 2001.
Neither does the proximity of the Reagan Airport.
Thie missile issue is something of a red herring. We should be interested in how a man with a box cutter and an airplane ticket could put a hole in the Pentagon with a known hi-jack airliner the better part of an hour after both towers were hit.
This part of April Gallop's testimony is not refured by 9/11myths and remains a valid question:
AG: "I have thought about this very question numerous times. And then I realized I needed to rephrase the question. The real question is what is the probability or likelihood that no anti-aircraft defense, warning alarms or additional security mechanism functioned on that particular day?
And then we need to think how likely is it then there was a glitch in all the security mechanisms, anti-aircraft defense and warning alarms?
You know, it takes a while to get around that building. And I remember being so disgusted at the frequency of random drill exercises taking place for us to evacuate the building. It seemed as if they always happened when I had to take care of certain things.
Yet on September 11th, the day when our lives were threatened, not one alarm."
Italian media looks into the circumstances of the collapse of WTC # 7.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0
There were no missile defenses at the Pentagon on 9/11/01:
http://www.jod911.com/
There_Are_...he_Pentagon.pdf
Prove it.
This video shows the missile defenses at the Pentagon:
http://video.google.com/videopla...02108031&
q=bush
James Gawthrop | 12.02.07 - 9:32 am |
::::
It seems the wrong video got posted.
I'm really not interested in Alex Jones's lunacy. Thousands of people work at the Pentagon. None of them are aware of any missile defenses.
There were no missile defenses at the Pentagon on 9/11/01. Conspiracy liars who make the fantastic claim assume the responsibility of producing evidence. As always, they have none.
Sorry! Wrong video.
http://politicalhumor.about.com/...v%
3DwhhbPVrb5KM
Thousands of people work at the Pentagon. None of them would be allowed to speak of any missile defenses, or anything else that is possibly classified. FACT.
There were no missile defenses at the Pentagon on 9/11/01. FACT.
So,..........
Who really gives a sweet steaming pile of dog shit what you think and/or say ? Nobody cares !
http://laist.com/attachments/ton...y/
dogpoopin.jpg
If in fact there were no missile defenses at the Pentagon on 9/11/01 then is it not reasonable to ask: WHY NOT?
More questions - fewer answers,..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R...h?
v=R0b34msR6cI
Hey pom, a simple test.
Tell us the exact top speeds of all of our nuclear submarines.
You can't or won't for a few possible reasons.
1) You don't fucking know because it's classified information, despite your claim that Washington can't keep a secret between 3 people, let alone the literally thousands that must know this classified information.
2) If you do somehow know, you aren't telling because to do so would be in violation of the law and you aren't prepared to accept the consequences of breaking that law.
How many people aboard the Liberty came home and told the world of their story immediately afterwards? How many of them lost friends and co-workers (hint: probably most of them unless they were an extreme experiment in anti-social behavior).
All of the SPECULATIONS made on your favorite sites are just that. Nothing more. And many of them are just plain dumb given what we know.
Pom-Pom,..
poop,..
http://kristjana.klaki.net/archi...ephant-
poop.jpg
http://www.shadowprod.com/
alexsp...ephant_poop.jpg
OK Pom-Pom, the request was probably a little too much. How about just 1 or 2 subs? C'mon...do the math. There's got to be thousands of people out who have spilled the beans. Surely it's been reported somewhere! It just HAS to have been...remember? You try Jane's? LOL.
pommes frites, the deep fat fried idiot, said --
Wendigo, you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about:
Again, you make a bold assertion without sustaining any sort of support for that assertion.
Douchebag, if that's your best argument and your best evidence, I suggest you go back to cleaning your daddy's insurance office in Iowa.
Daddy's office,.. get right to it.
http://images.buycostumes.com/mg...diser/
20581.jpg
Let's go get something to eat.
http://www.healthline.com/blogs/...-cat-
712938.jpg
Could Gerald Posner be the man who lets the cat out of the bag about 9/11? It is the unlikeliest thing I could have thought of, but the unlikeliest thing is sometimes the thing that happens.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
ge...er_b_75850.html
The CIA's Destroyed Interrogation Tapes and the Saudi-Pakistani 9/11 Connection
Bush and Cheney can be seen planting the explosives HERE:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I...h?
v=IoXgRtDysLY
ZOMBIES,.. When was this news conference ? Yesterday ? I missed it. Wasn't it delightfully sunny. Must be a manifestation of the global warming problem.
happy new year all..will 2008 bring with it help for the truth retarded by 2009 will they see that denying the obvious for someone elses sensibilities and comfort only in turn makes them look stupid?....charge your glasses gentlemen....to alacrity, may fools fear to tread!.
But I never angry, instead I want to thank them, thank them let me find a sense of challenge. Let me also thank them for themselves to see the inadequacies of myself. Though I am always killed by them, they let me continue my efforts with the progress. I can earn much lastchaos money in the game when I finish one task. But I still want to they will happy and healthy in the daily life.
When my alone person paces back and forth Habbo nearby guesthouse time, I always like quietly visiting me the valuable friend; you can buy cheap Habbo credits when you needs, Each time looks that the treasures are brimming with warm and the sincere smiling face, I then as if hear nearby the ear to pass on the sound which good fortune Pouched opens.
If you thought that this is leisure game set platform merely. Have Habbo credits always as a manner of daily life that was completely mistaken.
At last, Atlantica online money always is very important with you!
Atlantica online Gold is not your entirety, you can get more and more equips!
I think I am very lucky, owing to I own shine, I own fiesta online money .
Rolex DateJust watches and replica Rolex DateJust watches made with swiss movement ! so cheap and high quality ! accept paypal ,and 14 days money back without reason !
If you have mabinogi money , buy mabinogi gold and mabinogi online gold...You will experience a better life of the game!what are you waiting for?
I am so with you,rolex watch
luxury watch Atlantica online Gold is not your entirety, you can get more and more equips!
Top3 general trading company in Yiwu, No.1 trusted and professional Yiwu Agent Provider.
Commenting by HaloScan
