Nothing said by Bush about 911 is true. Bush put forward a crazy conspiracy theory about a world wide conspiracy of radical Arabs and incompetent pilots. Not a word of it can be believed! Three indisputable, verifiable facts utterly disprove everything said by Bush and apologists about 911.
Bush kicked up a lot of dust and hoped to hide out in the smokescreen. It hasn't worked. Three irrefutable facts lay waste to the official lies.
- No 757 crashed into the Pentagon! The wings and tail are huge surfaces areas --certainly bigger than the tiny hole said by official conspiracy theorists to have been the impact point! The hole would not have accommodated the fuselage, let alone the wings and tail which might have broken off to be found on the lawn but no such wreckage was eve found. Nor was there significant damage that might have been attributed to either wings or tail section or both. Neither was there evidence of wings or tail section! Even if the plane had "shredded" --as some have claimed --"80 tons of plane is still 80 tons of debris". That is due to the "conservation of matter and energy",i.e, matter is neither created nor destroyed. An airliner weight "X pounds" (without fuel) will leave that amount in wreckage when it crashes. Airliners do not pop into other dimensions via a "wormhole" and no one has dared claim that the Pentagon was anything other than a "money hole".
"Wings that should have been sheared off by the impact are entirely absent.
There is also substantial evidence of debris from a much smaller jet-powered aircraft inside the building. We conclude with a high degree of certainty that no Boeing 757 struck the building. We also conclude with a substantial degree of certainty that a smaller, single-engined aircraft, roughly the size and shape of an F-16, did, in fact, strike the building."
(Source)
Detailed analysis of the debris field, physical damage, and other factors in the alleged impact of a Boeing 757 on the Pentagon building on the morning of September 11, 2001 reveals an almost complete absence of debris expected from such an event. (Elliott 2003) The initial (pre-collapse) hole made by the alleged impact on the ground floor of Wedge One of the building is too small to admit an entire Boeing 757. In order to decide whether or not a Boeing 757 (or aircraft of comparable size) struck the Pentagon on the morning in question, a comprehensive review of all the debris and other physical evidence is hardly necessary. It turns out that a study of the wings alone suffices for the purpose.
...
The analysis presented here is based entirely on standard and/or official sources, such as the engineering report issued under the auspices of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), as directed by an army engineering officer as chair. (ASCE 2003)
--The Missing Wings, A Comparison of actual and expected wing debris resulting from the impact of a Boeing 757 on the Pentagon building (revised Dec 19, 2004), A. K. Dewdney, G. W. Longspaugh
We are lead to believe that not only did the 757 penetrate the outer wall, but continued on to penetrate separate internal walls totaling 9 feet of reinforced concrete. The final breach of concrete was a nearly perfectly cut circular hole (see left) in a reinforced concrete wall, with no subsequent damage to the rest of the wall. (If we are to believe that somehow this aluminum aircraft did in fact reach this sixth final wall.)
--A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon, Michael Meyer, Mechanical Engineer
Airliners could not and did not bring down the towers of the WTC!
Fires, presumably caused by airliner crashes at the Twin Towers of WTC did not melt the steel core and could not have caused the towers' collapse let alone a symetrical collapse into the building footprint ala a controlled demolition. The fires simply were not hot enough even to have weakened steel.
The temperatures generated by a hydrocarbon-fuelled office compartment fire are not capable of melting steel. A stoichiometric combustion of kerosene, generally regarded as dodecane, for example...
C12H26 + 18.5O2 +69.595N2 ===> 12CO2 + 13H2O + 69.595N2 + 7518 kJ
...would have at best the above 7,518 kJ locked into 2.712 kg of combustion products to yield an adiabatic flame temperature (AFT) of some 2,398 K or 2,125 C (it is about 130 K less after including the inevitable endothermic dissociation reactions at these temperatures in order to reach an equilibrium state). At standard temperature and pressure, one mole of an ideal gas occupies 22.4 liters; at 2,398 K the volume would have expanded by a factor of 2398/273, i.e. nearly 9 times, to 196.8 liters/mol. The 7.518 MJ is spread amongst 94.595 moles or 18.62 cubic meters of hot gaseous products. At some 0.146 kg/m^3, these are much lighter than air at STP. In order to melt a mere 1 kg of steel that would take up a volume of only 0.127 liters, at least 1 MJ would be required. If 1/7.518 of the enthalpy (heat) in the products was directed at the kilogram of steel, the temperature rise would be reduced from 2,105 K to a little above 1,825 K which would result in a temperature of a little over 1,845 C and still potentially hot enough to melt some steel. But in real-world conditions, flame and upper layer hot gas temperatures are well below the AFT, typically barely reaching 1,000 C and certainly well below the melting point of steel.
--WTC Molten Steel: The 911 Smoking GunAlso see: Muslims Suspend Laws of Physics
There were NO Arabs on Flight 77.
If there were no Arabs on Flight 77, then the official theory must be completely discarded.
At last, some 184 un-identified remains were buried at Arlington National Cemetery.
A five-sided granite marker bearing the 184 names will be placed over a shared grave at Arlington National Cemetery — the nation's most prestigious burial ground — holding the unidentified remains. [emphasis mine, LH]Of the 184, sixty-four were said to have been passengers of Flight 77, the flight which is said to have crashed into the Pentagon.
--Arlington National Cemetery
A list of names on a piece of paper is not evidence, but an autopsy by a pathologist, is. I undertook by FOIA request, to obtain that autopsy list and you are invited to view it below. Guess what? Still no Arabs on the list. In my opinion the monsters who planned this crime made a mistake by not including Arabic names on the original list to make the ruse seem more believable.
When airline disasters occur, airlines will routinely provide a manifest list for anxious families. You may have noticed that even before Sep 11th, airlines are pretty meticulous about getting an accurate headcount before takeoff. It seems very unlikely to me, that five Arabs sneaked onto a flight with weapons. This is the list provided by American of the 56 passengers. On September 27th, the FBI published photos of the “hijackers” of Flight 77.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch, the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology (AFIP), does a miraculous job and identifies nearly all the bodies on November 16th 2001.
The AFIP suggest these numbers; 189 killed, 125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were “passengers” on the plane. The AA list only had 56 and the list just obtained has 58. They did not explain how they were able to tell “victims” bodies from “hijacker” bodies. In fact, from the beginning NO explanation has been given for the extra five suggested in news reports except that the FBI showed us the pictures to make up the difference, and that makes it so.
--Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D, Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77The numbers will never add up. Arlington National Cemetary says it interred 184. But AFIP says there were a total of 189 bodies --125 worked at the Pentagon and 64 were “passengers” on flight 77. Arlington claims that the unidentified remains of 184 victims share a grave at Arlington National Cemetery.
A five-sided granite marker bearing the 184 names will be placed over a shared grave at Arlington National Cemetery — the nation's most prestigious burial ground — holding the unidentified remains.
--Arlington National CemetaryI interpret that to mean that this "shared grave" is the final resting place for unidentified victims from both the Pentagon and Flight 77.
Five are unaccounted for --presumably the "terrorist" hijackers. But that does not account for the discrepancy for several reasons. Both Arlington and AFIP claim that there were 64 Pentagon workers. AFIP provided a list of 56 passengers of Flight 77. That''s only 120! If you exclude 5 terrorists from the AFIP's total of 189, you are still left with 64 "people" completely unaccounted for. Who the hell are they?
No Arabs wound up on the morgue slab; however, three ADDITIONAL people not listed by American Airlines sneaked in. I have seen no explanation for these extras. I did American [Airlines] the opportunity to “revise” their original list, but they have not responded. The new names are: Robert Ploger, Zandra Ploger, and Sandra Teague. The AFIP claims that the only “passenger” body that they were not able to identify is the toddler, Dana Falkenberg, whose parents and young sister are on the list of those identified.
--Thomas R. Olmsted, M.D, Autopsy: No Arabs on Flight 77These are just a tiny few of the myriad of facts that Bush loyalists cannot explain away or rationalize with the official conspiracy theory. The silver bullet is this: there were no arabs on the flight manifests when "officialdom" maintains that all the said hijackers were Arab.
Johnny Cochran won a famous murder trial with a single phrase which summed up his defense: "If it does not fit, you must acquit!" I rather think that a guilty party might be indicted just as simply: "No arabs on flight! You must indict!"These are fatal discrepancies in Bush's official conspiracy theory of 911. Any one of these glaring faults is enough to collapse the official 'theory', the official bald-faced lie.
But all are true. Therefore, nothing said by Bush about 911 can possibly be true. However, these are but a few of the fatal flaws and/or inconsistencies, impossibilities, outrages and absurdities to have issued from the Bush propaganda matrix. The tiny ditch and lack of wreckage in Pennsylvania, for example, support Donald Rumsfeld's 'misstatement' about the 'missile that shot down Flight 93'.The obvious and admitted 'pulling' i.e, the 'controlled demolition' of Building 7, is enough in itself to dispense with critics who charge that there was not enough time to rig the buildings for demolition. The admitted controlled demolition of Bldg 7 is proof enough that wiring a building for demolition is not a problem if you own the building! Silverstein owned WTC and had access to every part of it. Method, motive, opportunity. Silverstein got $billions$ in insurance! $Billions$ would be considered motive in any criminal court at any time in any country. Except Bush's 'America'.
It is improbably coincidental that on the very day of the 911 attacks, Rudi Giuliani , who had set up an Office of Emergency Management and emergency command center on the 23rd floor of WTC7, abandoned that special bunker that had been designed precisely for such an event. Why? A real investigation of 911 would have asked that question. We, the people, are entitled to an answer. What are the odds that Rudi and crew would choose that very day to get the hell out of dodge? 3
Then there are Bush's 'odd' remarks about having seen the first plane crash the north tower on live TV. Only a pre-arranged, closed circuit set up delivering a signal to his improvised command central at a school house in Florida could make a truth of Bush's idiotic remark, a statement delivered in almost the same words on two occasions. Both can be found on the White House website. What can be done? I urge everyone who reads this to practice 'networking'. If you don't know a Federal Judge, perhaps you know someone who does. A Federal Judge can convene a Federal Grand Jury upon his own motion. A Federal Grand Jury can subpoena Bush himself as well as his cast of characters for which there is probable cause now to indict for numerous felonies and capital crimes, not the least of which is high treason, the waging of war against the people of the United States.Addendum:
Bush's official conspiracy theory was put forward in various statements by members of the Bush administration. Colin Powell, as I recall, may have been the first to name Al Qaeda specifically. The official theory is consistent only with regard to three basic components. Let's collapse them like a controlled demolition.
Al Qaeda, itself a 'terrorist conspiracy' said to have been led by Bin Laden, directed the attacks.
Nineteen Arab Hijackers, working for al Qaeda, hijacked three airliners.
This is the weakest part of the official conspiracy theory. Those 'hijackers' who were said to have piloted 757s into WTC and the Pentagon were not even competent to fly Cessnas, let alone 757s. See: The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training and Hijack 'suspects' alive and well; At Least 7 of the 9/11 Hijackers are Still Alive. At last, Mohammed Atta, whom official theorists call the boss of the operation, called his father on September 12, presumably to assure him that he was still alive and well!
The airliners were crashed into the Pentagon and the Twin Towers of the WTC causing the collapse of the 'Twin Towers'.
As stated in the body of the article: no airliner ever crashed into the Pentagon. We might learn what, in fact, struck the Pentagon, if Bush would simply order the release of hundreds, perhaps, thousands of photos that were made of whatever it was that struck the Pentagon. A single, blurry, indistinct animated GIF raises more questions than it answers. It is most certainly not a picture of a 757, leaving in its wake a 'white plume' not normally associated with airliners of any size at any speed or altitude. Unlike other famous crashes --Lockerbie, the Space Shuttle Columbia --whatever might have been recovered from whatever it was that struck the Pentagon was never investigated, reconstructed, or examined by experts who might have identified its origin. Airliners do not vaporize at any speed less than that of light itself. If an 80 ton airliner had struck the Pentagon, 80 tons of debris, however mangled, could have been located, gathered, and accounted for. That did not happen. Not much needs to be said about the WTC. There are, however, two glaring deficiencies in the official theory.
- Kerosene fires could not possibly have melted or weakened the steel sufficiently to collapse any building in the WTC, certainly not the perfectly controlled demolitions that are seen in hundreds, possibly thousands of videos. [See: Why the Official Account Cannot Be True]
- Rarely mentioned is the fact that Airliner bodies are made of aluminum, a metal softer than steel. Yet, on 911, airliners of this soft metal are seen penetrating hard steel. Like at the Pentagon, not a single wing broke off upon impact. The WTC tower 'cores' are made of steel girders in a dense mesh framework. Official theorists have imagined 757s penetrating the steel framework, 'slicing' steel girders with soft aluminum wings. It could not have happened and didn't!
In summary: nothing said by Bush about anything has been true --EVER! How can Americans believe that Bush, having lied about everything else, would or could tell the truth about 911. He didn't. 911 is a bigger hoax than that perpetrated to begin the mass murder of over million Iraqi civilians. Bush is a threat to the entire world and must be stopped.
Additional resources.
- Principal Electrical Engineer for WTC: "Fuel and Planes Alone Did NOT Bring the Towers Down"
- 911 Lies
- Pentagon Standdown
- A Boeing 757 did not hit the Pentagon
- Scholars for 911 Truth and Justice
- 911 Truth Europe
- A Genius, A Saint, and SCOTUS Agree: Conspiracies Exist!
- Newly Released FBI Timeline Reveals New Information about 9/11 Hijackers that Was Ignored by 9/11 Commission
- Official Conspiracy Theorists Suckered a Gullible Michael Shermer
- Patriots Question 911
- BBC Reported Building 7 Had Collapsed 20 Minutes Before It Fell
- At Least 7 of the Alleged Hijackers are Still Alive
94 comments:
The too-small Pentagon hole and the collapse of WTC7 are powerful arguments against the official lies. Note also the molten metal they found at the base of WTC1,2,and 7. (This includes an I-beam folded in two; and a 'meteorite' of metal and concrete six feet across!)
Alas, the lack of Arab names on the flight roll is not as convincing; presumably they would have bought ticket under false names. Nor, alas, is Bush's weird memory of seeing the impacts himself. He is weak-minded enough to conflate the events of 9/11 with a video he saw the next day.
To believe the official story you have to believe in weird physics. Please note that the same applies to the Kennedy assassination. The Magic Bullet; his head jerking towards Oswald; etc.
It seems that our oligarchs feel free to violate any moral law whatsoever; yet even they cannot violate the laws of physics.
atf shut down the wtc for four months following the first "attack" on it during the Clinton administration.
I say the place was sired for destruction then.
9/11 was obviously the result of a conspiracy between several business interests, the military industrial complex and their cronys in washington, to dispose of a white elephant for profit (the WTC/insurance); to loot the national treasury in order to bail out then-failing airlines to the tune of 13 BILLION of our dollars; and of course, most importantly, to furnish an excuse to launch endless war.
Heaven help us all.
"sired"= wired
There's also the interesting case of Dr. David Graham who allegedly became aware of three of the 9/11 hijackers ten months before 9/11 in his home town of Shreveport. He allegedly provided a report to FBI investigators before 9/11 and the FBI denies this. Dr Graham died on Sept 17, 2006 in what appears to be a case of poisoning.
The claim is that at least two of these 9/11 hijackers were high level Saudi Intelligence agents who were the actual leaders of the 9/11 attacks, not Mohammed Atta, and that they were protected by the US Defense Dept.
Graham's death corroborates other publicly available evidence that these same key 9/11 hijackers, Nawaf Al-Hazmi, and Khalid Al-Mihdhar, enjoyed protection from entities inside the US military/intelligence network, while in the US before 9/11....
January 2000 : The CIA photographs and tracks 9/11 hijacker ringleaders, Nawaf Al-Hazmi, and Khalid Al-Mihdhar, at the Malaysian terrorism summit, in Kuala Lumpur. For some reason, the CIA does not to put them on the terrorist watch list. As a result, these terrorists, one of whom had helped bomb the USS Cole, are free to travel in and out of the USA, until 9/11.
September 2000 : According to Michael Isikoff at Newsweek, both Al Hazmi and Al Mihdhar lived with an FBI informant in San Diego, in early Fall, 2000, before heading to Shreveport. An interview I did in San Diego last July revealed the FBI's handler's name was Abdussattar Shaikh, a shady character with bogus academic credentials. Bush White House friend Saudi Princess Haifa was later "investigated" by the FBI for wiring the San Diego terrorist handlers Princess between $51,000 and $73,000 at this time.
August, 2001 : The CIA deports a Mossad operation out of south Florida in late August, 2001, when Israeli intelligence gets close to busting key 9/11 terrorists, including Mohamed Atta. Mossad publishes a list of potential terrorists, in order to embarrass CIA. Only then, 18 months after the Malaysian summit, does CIA put Nawaf Al-Hazmi, and Khalid Al-Mihdhar on the terrorism watch list.
February 2006 : Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer's 48 pages of Congressional testimony in the Able Danger hearings on Capitol Hill reveals that one of his superiors at Pentagon protected the identity of Mohamed Atta, Nawaf Al-Hazmi, and Khalid Al-Mihdhar, from Schaffer and his elite Defense Intelligence operation "Able Danger", in February, 2000. See pp. 22-23, of Schaffer's testimony to House Armed Services Committee, US Congress .
(Also 1 2 3)
Nathaniel said...
Alas, the lack of Arab names on the flight roll is not as convincing; presumably they would have bought ticket under false names.
Except for the fact that in any case, the numbers don't add up. I recall reading the flight manifest for Flight 93. All of those folk had traceable backgrounds. No Arabs. Secondly, the BBC interviewed several alleged "hijackers" AFTER the attacks. As I recall, at least two of them were said to have been on board Flight 77 said to have been piloted so expertly by Hani Hanjour. If they had been on board, they would have been dead --but were not.
To believe the official story you have to believe in weird physics. Please note that the same applies to the Kennedy assassination. The Magic Bullet; his head jerking towards Oswald; etc.
Indeed! Years after the fact, I interviewed "the little girl in the Red Dress" --Rosemary Willis. She showed me original photographs (slides) that her father had taken that day. The FBI confiscated those photos, 'doctored them, and returned them. Rosemary showed me the absolute proof that the FBI had doctored her father's photos while they were in FBI possession. But --that's another article.
Anonymous said...
atf shut down the wtc for four months following the first "attack" on it during the Clinton administration. I say the place was sired for destruction then.
That's possible. In fact, there were numerous opportunities to "wire" those bldgs. Residents tell of mysterious commings and goings and noise on "vacant floors". And they were largely vacant --one of the reasons Silverstein wanted to dump them and collect billions in insurance dollars. That's motive and opportunity. But Silverstein could not have pulled it all off on his own. He would have needed the resources of a sovereign nation, a treasonous administration.
Heaven help us all.
The government of the US no longers belongs to the people. It has been taken over by a kooky, cultism gang of venal, blood thirty crooks, liars, war mongers, and cultists. These people are most certainly more ruthless than even Stalin or Hitler. They are utterly without empathy; they believe claptrap, and will not hesitate to wage war on US citizens in our own country. In fact, they have done so.
Damien, thanks for the great resources. It will take me awhile ...but am checking them all out.
Here's another resource that has come to my attention:
9/11: No Arabs Were on Flight 77
I wouldn't lose too much sleep over this one, Len. It's not the holy grail of 9/11 but it's interesting. David Graham did have a bit of muslim paranoia. The key issue is whether he sighted some boxes with the names of three of the 9/11 terrorists on them at the home of terror suspect Mohammed Jamal Khan ten months before 9/11. There is circumstantial evidence that he may have done so. What is far more certain is that he communicated some concerns to the FBI before 9/11.
Graham's Report is a lengthy (and somewhat tedious) account of Graham's alleged dealings with Mohammed Jamal Khan and a medical associate Dr. Mohammed Habeeb Ahmed. I wouldn't get too lost in the details largely because we know the CIA was concealing information from the FBI about Nawaf Al-Hazmi and Khalid Al-Mihdhar, two players whose role has been grossly underplayed in the media. Graham claims these two were the real leaders of the 9/11 terrorist cell.
Graham was also allegedly concerned prior to 9/11 about terrorist attacks at Barksdale Air Force base and this is fascinating because:
1. It's the place Bush first stopped at after leaving Florida on 9/11.
2. It was the site of the recent nuclear weapons scare (there's still a nuke missing)
3. Graham reports Dr Habeeb Ahmed as visiting Barksdale base and dating women there.
4. There are various other links (I need to recall) alleging visits by some of the 9/11 terrorists to Barksdale.
Lots of details for very little evidentiary return but interesting none the less.
184 bodies at an average weight of 80kg is about 15 tonnes. Since the Pentagon fires were put out in seven minutes and we know it takes several hours to cremate human remains the there should be 15 tonnes of bodies buried at Arlington. I don't think so...
damien said...
184 bodies at an average weight of 80kg is about 15 tonnes. Since the Pentagon fires were put out in seven minutes and we know it takes several hours to cremate human remains the there should be 15 tonnes of bodies buried at Arlington. I don't think so...
Thanks, damien...that is a BIG hole in Bush's "official" bullshit theory.
Have you visited the Arlington National Cemetary website?
Nothing about it makes sense. Would love to get some of those folk who were supposed to have supervised all that on the witness stand under cross examination.
Slightly off topic: Dick Cheney was supervising "exercises" that gamed the very scenario that was said to have happened.
What are the odds?
The better explanation: Cheney was not supervising the scenario, he was supervising the attacks themselves!
I haven't been to the Arlington website -- or to Arlington itself. My last visit to the US was 30 years ago to Florida and LA (man, I really need to get out more).
There's a whole "chain of custody" issue with the remains from the Pentagon. Local medical service teams were turned away, the FBI controlled everything. While there were official autopsies we have no proof that the bodies were brought from the Pentagon. It's probably true but you couldn't sell this argument in a court of law. And that's what we are talking about here: evidence, proof, not hearsay.
So did they cremate the Pentagon remains after the autopsies? Did they invite the families to attend? Because if they didn't then there should be 15 tonnes buried at Arlington!
Cheney was not supervising the scenario, he was supervising the attacks themselves!
Yep, the 911 Commission has Cheney arriving at the Presidential Emergency Operating Centre (PEOC) at about 9:58. Unfortunately both Richard Clarke and Transport Secretary Norman Mineta clearly place Cheney in the PEOC from 9:20 onwards. It was Mineta, of course, who reported to the Commission that Cheney was monitoring the approach of Flight 77 to the Pentagon and appeared to give orders to allow it to come through unimpeded.
Now THIS is an important article about the Saudis and two of the key 9/11 hijackers referred to above.
When 9/11 hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almidhar arrived at Los Angeles International Airport on New Years of 2000, it was [Omar] al-Bayoumi who greeted them and then drove the two to a welcoming party in San Diego ("The Saudi Money Trail"). Omar al-Bayoumi provided the two men with everything they required. He set them up with an apartment next to his own, paying for their first two months' rent. He helped them open a bank account and hooked them up with someone who could get them Social Security cards. The most ominous thing Omar al-Bayoumi did for the two was help arrange for them to received flying lessons. Then, two months before the 9/11 attacks, al-Bayoumi relocated to England . Omar al-Bayoumi is certainly someone investigators would love to talk to. The only problem is they can't. Several months after moving to England, al-Bayoumi disappeared altogether.
The picture of al-Bayoumi painted by the evidence was one of an Al-Qaeda operative acting as an advance man for the hijackers . But al-Bayoumi was not just connected to Al-Qaeda.
He had also worked for Dallah Avco, the aviation services company owned by Prince Bandar bin Sultan's father, Prince Sultan. Two weeks after al-Bayoumi began assisting the two 9/11 hijackers, monthly cashier's checks totaling ten of thousands of dollars started coming to al-Bayoumi's wife. The checks were from Princess Haifa bint Faisal, the wife of Prince Bandar.
Princess Haifa bint Faisal claimed she had no idea that the money was going to al-Bayoumi. The Princess' alibi was enough to satisfy the farcical 9/11 Commission and tug on the heartstrings of the gullible. According to her, the intended recipient of the cashier checks was Majeda Ibrahin Dweikat, a woman seeking monetary help to treat her thyroid condition . Majeda would receive the checks and then sign them over to al-Bayoumi's wife. So Majeda was the terrorist financier, not the poor, unsuspecting Princess Haifa or Prince Bandar.
The only problem is that Majeda's husband, Osama Basnan, was known to be a "vocal Al-Qaeda sympathizer". According to a law enforcement official, shortly after the 9/11 attacks, Basnan "celebrated the heroes of September 11" and referred to September 11 as a "wonderful, glorious day". Basnan is also known to have "met with a high Saudi prince who has responsibilities for intelligence matters and is known to bring suitcases full of cash into the United States".
This all makes Princess Haifa and Prince Bandar's actions look less like charity and more like the financing of terror.
And all of which makes Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almidhar very interesting indeed.
Instead of giving people a reading list -- and your conceit -- b.j.edwards, why don't you answer some questions of fact (seeing as how you know so much):
1. How many 9/11 victims are buried at Arlington?
2. Were cremations carried out on the remains before burial there?
3. Since -- as your referred site claims -- whole bodies were recovered at the Pentagon and that they were all identified by DNA, can you explain why the remains were not returned to the families for burial?
4. Since al Qaeda carried out 9/11 how do you explain the payments (close to $100,000) paid by Princess Haifa to Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almidhar? Are you seriously expecting people to believe $100,000 was being paid to solve a woman's thyroid problem?
Hey, it's your theory. If you don't want to defend it why should anyone believe you? Or do you intend to do your "insult and run" routine so characteristic of the 911 Truth Detractors?
B. j., you are the one who is desparate. I would have said that you have yet to make a point in support of your case but, in fact, you haven't made a case. You have, rather, engaged in a tactic typical of the mentally impaired: the ad hominem. The next time you do it, I will not hesitate to delete your sorry ass. You have shown absolute no regard for fact, logic, or the truth.
Can you tell us one significant claim that the truth movement gets demonstrably correct?
1. Four of the 9/11 hijackers attended a drug trafficking flight school that could almost certainly not have been run without the tacit approval of one or more US regulatory agencies.
2. James Quintiere, PhD, former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), has rejected the assesment standards used by NIST as neither traditional nor adequate and has called for a new inquiry: "I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable."
3. The government has failed to provide adequate public explanations in regard to the air defense failures on 9/11.
4. The government has failed to provide adequate public explanations in regard to Intelligence failures on 9/11.
5. Sibel Edmonds has provided documented evidence to Congress that the Bush administration allowed persons with terrorist links to al Qaeda to leave the country unchallenged after 9/11.
These are all "demonstrably correct" claims about the inadequacy of the 9/11 investigation and findings. There are others.
... yeah, it's all a bit of a waste of time, Len. It's just "dump and run" with these cowards. They have nothing to say.
damien said...
You have an appalling understanding of the law and logic b.j. Edwards.
You are, of course, correct, Damien. Your post is excellent, as always. From your response to BJob:
3. Since -- as your referred site claims -- whole bodies were recovered at the Pentagon and that they were all identified by DNA, can you explain why the remains were not returned to the families for burial?
I think this is a key issue. Even BJs source eventually leads to this from the Washington Source:
"Bodies Were Too Badly Burned, Officials Say" referring to "5" bodies.
This leads to several inconsistencies. We are expected to believe that a raging inferno that was so hot that it vaporized an entire 757 but not the bodies of the people on board!
Arlington Natl Cemetery keeps changing its story. I recall reading an account long since dropped into the memory hole that the hijackers were identified as hijackers only by default. No one really knows who they are.
It is highly doubtful, therefore, that the five that are said (by default) to have been hijackers were hijackers as the BBC, in fact, interview two of them AFTER they were said by the US Govt to have perished in the Pentagon crash.
At last, I've posted the remaining inconsistencies with regard to Arlington's account. The fact is we don't know really know who is buried there and neither does Arlington. Both Arlington and AFIP claim that there were 64 Pentagon workers. AFIP provided a list of 56 passengers of Flight 77. That's only 120! Even if you exclude 5 terrorists from the AFIP's total of 189, you are still left with 64 "people" completely unaccounted for.
Wall Street Journal: Those who assert must prove
Bush asserted an "official conspiracy theory" involving "Arab Hijacker" who were in fact interviewed by the BBC after Bushco had alleged they died in the attacks of 911. Given that his "dead" culprits were, in fact, still alive proves conclusively that his "official conspiracy theory" is BULLSHIT! Pure BULLSHIT!
'Reason is the discovery of truth or falsehood' --David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature
The responsibility of a plaintiff in a lawsuit to provide evidence supporting the claim against a defendant; the burden of persuasion, which always begins with the plaintiff but may shift to the defendant for particular issues as the case proceeds. The term often means the standard of proof, or the quantity of evidence required to win the case. In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove each element of the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt" to establish the defendant's guilt. To prevail in a civil case, a party must demonstrate its claim by a "preponderance" of evidence, meaning that offered proof must have more credibility or weight or be more likely than the other party's. --Burden of Proof
In the trial of O.J. Simpson, one's opinion of O.J. doesn't matter. Johnny Cochran held the prosecution to a legal standard that the prosecution is always held to, i.e, the burden of proof. In law the burden of proof is always upon the prosecution to prove its case just as the burden of proof in debate is always with the "affirmative". In every case, the burden of proof is upon those who make a claim. THOSE WHO ASSERT MUST PROVE. Bushies, Bushco, Bush, Rumsfeld et al made claims amounting to what has become their official conspiracy of 911. The burden of proof is upon Bushco to prove their case. Bushco has not only failed to prove their case, they have yet to put forward a shred, a scintilla of verifiable evidence in support of it! NOT ONE SHRED! NOT ONE FACT! NOT ONE OUNCE OF EVIDENCE!
That is damning enough. But it gets worse. Bush has never told a single truth about 911. Not once!
Now --Bush could prove or disprove his case very simply. 1) he could order the release of every photograph taken from every camera that had been trained on the Pentagon that day. 2) he could have ordered that every scrap be examined by impartial experts as was, in fact, done at Lockerbie, Scotland. 3) Bush would not have insisted upon a fair and impartial investigation by a panel of experts --NOT POLITICIANS --at the outset. Instead, he tried to quash what became a 911 Cover up Commission!
There is also in law the concept of probable cause, a concept about which Gen. Michael Hayden who now heads the CIA got caught lying to reporters who had, in their possession at the time, a copy of the Fourth Amendment in which 'probable cause' is articulate as the standard that must be met before charges can be brought against an accused. Certainly, Bush has never been able to meet that standard with regard to any inmate at Guantanamo and most certainly not in the numerous cases in which this lawless, illegitimate administration has practiced torture throughout CIA gulags in Eastern Europe.
Those who swallow Bush's official conspiracy theory are like Bill and Jill:
Bill: "I think that a band of Arab terrorists brought down the WTC building, blew up the Pentagon and crashed in PA in hijacked airliners."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that they didn't do it!"
That reverses the "burden of proof".
In fact, the situation is even worse for Bush. Acknowledged experts in forensics, physics, chemistry, weaponry, former US military brass including Generals, scholars, legal experts, et al have PROVEN that Bush has not only failed prove or support the very foundations of his theory, those foundations are in fact false, most certainly deliberate lies.
Now --consider the various lies, especially the three key lies that are dealt with in this article. These lies, by Bush, do much more than point out Bush's failure to support his theory, they prove conclusively that they theory --as a whole --is bullshit!
Wall Street Journal: Those who assert must prove
Bush asserted an "official conspiracy theory" involving "Arab Hijacker" who were in fact interviewed by the BBC after Bushco had alleged they died in the attacks of 911. Given that his "dead" culprits were, in fact, still alive proves conclusively that his "official conspiracy theory" is pure bullshit! [See: BBC: Sunday, 23 September, 2001, 12:30 GMT 13:30 UK
Hijack 'suspects' alive and well] That --PLUS the fact that steel had never been melted by kerosene, that no airliner wreckage was ever recovered from the Pentagon, that no one knows who is buried at Arlington Nat'l Cemetery proves that Bush's official conspiracy is bullshit~ It is also evidence that Bush has deliberately lied to the American people and that he has deliberately obstructed justice in his efforts to quash legitimate inquiries into 911.
'Reason is the discovery of truth or falsehood' --David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature
>The responsibility of a plaintiff in a lawsuit to provide evidence supporting the claim against a defendant; the burden of persuasion, which always begins with the plaintiff but may shift to the defendant for particular issues as the case proceeds. The term often means the standard of proof, or the quantity of evidence required to win the case. In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove each element of the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt" to establish the defendant's guilt. To prevail in a civil case, a party must demonstrate its claim by a "preponderance" of evidence, meaning that offered proof must have more credibility or weight or be more likely than the other party's. --Burden of Proof
At the trial of O.J. Simpson, Johnny Cochran held the prosecution to a legal standard that the prosecution is always held to, i.e, the burden of proof. In law the burden of proof is always upon the prosecution to prove its case just as in debate the burden of proof is always with the "affirmative". In every case, the burden of proof is upon those who make a claim. THOSE WHO ASSERT MUST PROVE. So many lies, so little time to expose them all! Bushies, Bushco, Bush, Rumsfeld, Powell, Condo, et al made claims amounting to what has become their official conspiracy of 911. More recently, the "911 Commission Report" has, in addition to original statements by the principals, Bush's OFFICIAL CONSPIRACY THEORY OF 911. Therefore, the burden of proof is upon Bushco to prove their case. Bushco has not only failed to prove that case, they have yet to put forward a shred, a scintilla of verifiable evidence in support of it! NOT ONE SHRED! NOT ONE FACT! NOT ONE OUNCE OF EVIDENCE!
That is damning enough. But it gets worse. Bush has never told a single truth about 911. Not once! And that's not even the worst of it. Bush has actively tried to obstruct investigations of 911; he actively tried to cover it up; he has actively tried to shut up and/or demonize, marginalize and ridicule critics of his bullshit theory!
Now --Bush could prove or disprove his case very simply if he were truly interested in the truth. 1) he could order the release of every photograph taken from every camera that had been trained on the Pentagon that day. 2) he could have ordered that every scrap be examined by impartial experts as was, in fact, done at Lockerbie, Scotland. 3) Bush would not have insisted upon a fair and impartial investigation by a panel of experts --NOT POLITICIANS --at the outset. Instead, he tried to quash what became a 911 Cover up Commission! We are not suprised, however that a known and practiced liar would try to cover up and/or obstruct the truth.
There is also in law the concept of probable cause, a concept about which Gen. Michael Hayden who now heads the CIA got caught lying to reporters who had, in their possession at the time, a copy of the Fourth Amendment in which 'probable cause' is articulate as the standard that must be met before charges can be brought against an accused. Certainly, Bush has never been able to meet that standard with regard to any inmate at Guantanamo and most certainly not in the numerous cases in which this lawless, illegitimate administration has practiced torture throughout CIA gulags in Eastern Europe.
Those who swallow Bush's official conspiracy theory are like Bill and Jill:
Bill: "I think that a band of Arab terrorists brought down the WTC building, blew up the Pentagon and crashed in PA in hijacked airliners."
Jill: "What is your proof?"
Bill: "No one has been able to prove that they didn't do it!"
That reverses the "burden of proof".
In fact, the situation is even worse for Bush. Acknowledged experts in forensics, physics, chemistry, weaponry, former US military brass including Generals, scholars, legal experts, et al have PROVEN that Bush has not only failed prove or support the very foundations of his theory, those foundations are in fact false, most certainly deliberate lies.
Now --consider the various lies, especially the three key lies that are dealt with in this article. These lies, by Bush, do much more than point out Bush's failure to support his theory, they prove conclusively that they theory --as a whole --is bullshit!
Here's the BBC story that utterly destroys Bush's official conspiracy theory:
Sunday, 23 September, 2001, 12:30 GMT 13:30 UK
Hijack 'suspects' alive and well
Waleed Al Shehri
A man called Waleed Al Shehri says he left the US a year ago
Another of the men named by the FBI as a hijacker in the suicide attacks on Washington and New York has turned up alive and well.
The identities of four of the 19 suspects accused of having carried out the attacks are now in doubt.
Saudi Arabian pilot Waleed Al Shehri was one of five men that the FBI said had deliberately crashed American Airlines flight 11 into the World Trade Centre on 11 September.
His photograph was released, and has since appeared in newspapers and on television around the world.
Hijacking suspects
Flight 175: Marwan Al-Shehhi, Fayez Ahmed, Mohald Alshehri, Hamza Alghamdi and Ahmed Alghamdi
Flight 11: Waleed M Alshehri, Wail Alshehri, Mohamed Atta, Abdulaziz Alomari and Satam Al Suqami
Flight 77: Khalid Al-Midhar, Majed Moqed, Nawaq Alhamzi, Salem Alhamzi and Hani Hanjour
Flight 93: Ahmed Alhaznawi, Ahmed Alnami, Ziad Jarrahi and Saeed Alghamdi
Now he is protesting his innocence from Casablanca, Morocco.
He told journalists there that he had nothing to do with the attacks on New York and Washington, and had been in Morocco when they happened. He has contacted both the Saudi and American authorities, according to Saudi press reports.
He acknowledges that he attended flight training school at Daytona Beach in the United States, and is indeed the same Waleed Al Shehri to whom the FBI has been referring.
But, he says, he left the United States in September last year, became a pilot with Saudi Arabian airlines and is currently on a further training course in Morocco.
Mistaken identity
Abdulaziz Al Omari, another of the Flight 11 hijack suspects, has also been quoted in Arab news reports.
Abdelaziz Al Omari
Abdelaziz Al Omari 'lost his passport in Denver'
He says he is an engineer with Saudi Telecoms, and that he lost his passport while studying in Denver.
Another man with exactly the same name surfaced on the pages of the English-language Arab News.
The second Abdulaziz Al Omari is a pilot for Saudi Arabian Airlines, the report says.
Meanwhile, Asharq Al Awsat newspaper, a London-based Arabic daily, says it has interviewed Saeed Alghamdi.
Khalid Al-Midhar
Khalid Al-Midhar may also be alive
He was listed by the FBI as a hijacker in the United flight that crashed in Pennsylvania.
And there are suggestions that another suspect, Khalid Al Midhar, may also be alive.
FBI Director Robert Mueller acknowledged on Thursday that the identity of several of the suicide hijackers is in doubt.
Can't you understand the written word, Damien? The burden of proof is on YOU. PROVE YOUR CASE. Capiche?
So your solution is to completely ignore the evidence that ALL of the investigations, ALL of the documents, ALL of the physical evidence, ALL of forensic science, and ALL of the eyewitnesses that converge on the conclusion of what happened on 9/11.
I can see that logic is completely wasted on you. First, I don't ignore "ALL of the evidence" I just reject some claims and the findings that follow.
What part of "9/11 Commissioners seriously considered bringing perjury charges against witnesses, notably NORAD officials, for their false testimony" don't you understand?
Perjured testimony is junk testimony no matter how many thousands of pages go with it.
Testimony obtained under torture is junk testimony no matter how many thousands of pages go with it.
Testimony obtained from a President behind closed doors with the VP holding is hand is junk testimony.
Unsworn testimony is junk testimony no matter how many thousands of pages go with it.
Testimony obtained by irregular scientific analysis is junk testimony no matter how many thousands of pages go with it.
Hearsay evidence is junk testimony no matter how many thousands of pages go with it.
What, you belong to the "never mind the quality, feel the width school"?
And then we have...
Can you tell us one significant claim that the truth movement gets demonstrably correct?
You say...
Damien, your list provides no evidence. Try again.
The list IS evidence (since you have no idea what that term means), evidence that government findings do not meet the standards of public probity expected in this kind of investigation. You know "justice not only must be done, it must be seen to be done."
I know what a proof is, I have a degree in mathematics. I know what legal proof is, I've been in court proceedings. It is not now and never has been a plausible explanation which is all we have at the moment in the official explanation. And no, I am not required to bring in signed confessions from anyone I suspect of involvement in 9/11.
You need to understand that on the publicly available evidence the 9/11 terrorists could not be convicted of 9/11 in a real court of law!
Can you explain...
1. The drug trafficking at Huffman? Of course not.
2.The payments by Princess Haifa? No.
3. The payments by Pakistan Gen. Mamoud Ahmad? No
4. The failure of the US air defences to intercept ANY of the 9/11 aircraft? No.
5. Why NIST failed failed to include a standard timeline in its account of the building collapses? Of course not.
6. Which countries Sen. Bob Graham admits actively assisted the 9/11 terrorists? No.
If you can't provide reasonable evidentiary explanations in regard to pts (1)-(6) then your account of 9/11 is simply a selective examination of the evidence and as such is worthless.
In short, you're like a cop who goes down to a busy street corner containing every sort of low life. There's been a robbery and you look around for the nearest black man and sell a "story" to the court about how he did it. A superficial investigation and no questions asked. You're easily satisfied and -- following your "logic" -- I can see why. Answer pts (1)-(6) and stop wasting people's time.
I also wonder why Atta would have been paid 100,000 bucks and why he would have accepted it knowing that he was going to die before he could have spent a dime of it.
Just another absurdity from the Bush bullshit factory. Who writes that stuff?
Staid ol' BBC --hardly a 'conspiracy site' just utterly DESTROYS Bush's official conspiracy theory.
Imagine all those dead hijackers giving interviews when Bushies were saying that all died while bringing down the towers, while crashing into the Pentagon...yada, yada, yada.
If the hijackers give press, Bush's theory is a mess!
If there are no Arabs on flight, you must indict!
I also wonder about why we are expected to believe the fairy tale that there was no Flight 77 wreckage because the fire was so hot, it vaporized. Why did it not also vaporize the bodies that are said to have been buried at Arlington.
Damien earlier posted the time it would have taken to cremate the tons of remains that are said to have been buried. I am not sure there was time to have done all that before the burial took place.
By the way, regarding the Pentagon, the matter is quite straight forward. Each airplane part is uniquely coded and there are thousands of these codes in any plane. From the debris of what has been alleged to be Flight 77 it would be a relatively simple matter for the US government to release records of the numbered parts found at the Pentagon. They could also release the various videos -- from the freeway, the naval academy, the hotels along the way -- and the Pentagon -- so that neither you nor I, nor 300 million Americans, have to rely on the aircraft spotting skills of a few hundred people who had about two seconds to identify a speeding aircraft type.
Do you understand how f-ing stupid it sounds of you to demand people provide "proof" of what happened at the Pentagon when the US government could settle this matter with total scientific certainty in 24 hrs merely by releasing EVIDENCE!! How stupid are you?
If you are happy to have a bunch of war criminals and corporate crooks, guys who are taping your phone against your will, proven liars every which way from Sunday, telling you what you should believe about 9/11 then all I can see is eat it buddy and make sure you get second helpings. Anyone with those low standards deserves whatever they get.
Oh, btw, FAA officials were kept out of the Pentagon site for months. And all those other agencies you point to? Only small numbers were allowed in, only under FBI supervision, and their records are sealed as well. You're happy living in the dark? -- good for you.
I think there are more than enough unanswered questions to justify a grand jury investigation into 911. So is there a federal judge willing to risk his reputation to find the truth?
damien said...
By the way, regarding the Pentagon, the matter is quite straight forward. Each airplane part is uniquely coded and there are thousands of these codes in any plane.
Indeed, damien. That's why the concept of 'burden of proof' is important. Bush could have avoided all this had he insisted upon an investigation to begin with, an investigation that would have produced just the evidence you describe.
I can think of no reason why honest folk would NOT do this! On the other hand, I can think of many reasons why traitors would actively obstruct any investigation! If an airliner had crashed the Pentagon, it would have been very easy to have put this controversy to rest a long time ago.
The cover up continues even as we post here. Only guilty people have a stake in cover up a crime. In this case, the crime is mass murder and high treason!
ARMY MAJ. GENERAL STUBBLEBINE CLAIMS PLANE DID NOT HIT PENTAGON
And the video.
And another: NO 757 ever hit the Pentagon.
".....and the missile that hit this buildling" --Don Rumsfeld:
That was probably the only thing Rummie said that was true. As a journalist, I've covered lots of airliner and small plane crashes. None of them looked like the Pentagon. One of the most devastating crashes, I've ever seen was a jet fighter at very high speeds. Guess what? There was identifiable wreackage. And lumps of charcoal. Bodies! It left about as much wreckage as was found at the Pentagon and that is considerly less than the wreckage than left by any airliner crash.
Any theory must take into account the facts and explain them all. Positing that an airliner crashed into the Pentagon is bad theory. Ir raises many more questions than it answers. A 'missile' explains what was observed much better. Indeed, Rummie might have slipped up and told the truth.
Online Poll Result:
9-11 CONSPIRACY: WHAT HIT THE PENTAGON?
[+] Something else (see comment) 68%
[+] American Airlines Flight 77 31%
Scholars for 911 Truth
b. j. edwards said...
Damien, LOL! Your deceit and arrogance show. The burden of proof rests solely and entirely on your 9/11 Denial Movement to support ITS claims and assertions.
LOL LOL LOL You idiot! Saying that the 'burden of proof' rests with the '9/11 Denial Movement' is self-contradictory! LOL LOL LOL Thanks for the belly laugh! I needed that.
Secondly, you are certainly not smart enough to have done this deliberately: your 'challenge' asks one to prove a negative. 'Negatives' cannot be proven. That's why the burden of proof is always upon those who assert, in debate terms, the 'affirmative'. But as you have shown a complete ignorance of the principles of 'logic', I would not have expected you to have known that. That would have been unfair of me.
The issue demonstrates why the burden of proof is upon Bush to prove his assertions or, failing that, provide at least some evidence in support of what he claims in fact happened.
Secondly, you are completely un-original and not very clever. You pass off second-hand slogans as your own shit! The term '9/11 Denial Movement' is not original with you. You STOLE it. It is most certainly the work of a right wing consulting firm. It is a deliberate and calculated effort to dupe folk like you who --it is hoped --will spread it around like the fallacious virus that it is.
It's a SCAM! You can be sure that it was 'tested' like tobacco companies test brands; like the GOP tests lies. The objective of the 'label' is to connect the 9/11 truth movement with holocaust 'denial'. Get it! Fact is: THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO ANALOGY that can be made. The whole thing is fallacious --and, as such, a bald-faced lie.
Michael Shermer (no skeptic, though he falsely claims to be) was among the first to fall for the scam. Proving himself gullible, even naive, he was among the first to attempt to tar the movement with this highly studied but broad and fallacious brush. He absurdly and dishonestly compared the 911 truth movement with Holocaust denial, a fallacious smear that misstates the 911 position, a strawman fallacy. Holocaust deniers, in fact, have more in common with Bush and his defenders: both deny the nature and the scope of the crime of 911.
It's a dishonest tactic, in fact, a lie! But I would never have expected anything better from the slime that makes up the Bush admin and the various scumbags that form its cheering section.
My only regret is this: I have not yet found a vocabulary that comes close to conveying the utter depravity of the GOP, its leadership, the Bush administration , and the legion of sellouts who have compomised their integrity and their very souls in support of this unholy cult of claptrap, lies, mass murder, bullshit and bunkum.
I hate to labor the point, Len, but the official explanation is just so full of holes it's not funny. BJ Edwards goes all out speaking about the experts. What about these? A former top gun Naval instructor and a holder of 23 different FAA ratings both declare the Pentagon and WTC flight paths to be impossible, even for experts...
Commander Ralph Kolstad, U.S. Navy (ret) – Retired commercial airline captain with 27 years experience. Aircraft flown: Boeing 727, 757 and 767, McDonnell Douglas MD-80, and Fokker F-100. Retired fighter pilot. Former Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School (Topgun). 20-year Navy career. Aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F-4 Phantom, Douglas A-4 Skyhawk, and Grumman F-14 Tomcat. 23,000+ total hours flown.
At the Pentagon, the pilot of the Boeing 757 did quite a feat of flying. I have 6,000 hours of flight time in Boeing 757’s and 767’s and could not have flown it the way the flight path was described.
I was also a Navy fighter pilot and Air Combat Instructor, U.S. Navy Fighter Weapons School and have experience flying low altitude, high speed aircraft. I could not have done what these beginners did. Something stinks to high heaven!
Where is the damage to the wall of the Pentagon from the wings? Where are the big pieces that always break away in an accident? Where is all the luggage? Where are the miles and miles of wire, cable, and lines that are part and parcel of any large aircraft? Where are the steel engine parts? Where is the steel landing gear? Where is the tail section that would have broken into large pieces?
--------LINK--------------------
John Lear – Retired commercial airline pilot with over 19,000+ total hours flown in over 100 different types of planes for 10 different airlines in 60 different countries around the world. Flew for over 40 years. Holds every certificate ever offered by the FAA and has 23 different FAA type ratings. Held 17 world records including speed around the world in a Lear Jet Model 24, set in 1966. He was presented with the PATCO award for outstanding airmanship in 1968, and the Symons Wave memorial. Flight experience includes Boeing 707 and 727, McDonnell Douglas DC-8, Lockheed L-1011 and many others. Son of Bill Lear, founder of Lear Jet Corp.
Regarding the Flight Data Recorder information for Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon, released by the NTSB...
John Lear: There's a lot things in that tape that came up, that if you're a pilot, you say, "Hey, wait a minute. That's bull****. That could never happen in a million years." ...
Rob Balsamo: What did you think about 9/11 after you saw it?
John Lear: Well, you know, five minutes after it happened, I knew that it was a scam. ... No Boeing 757 ever crashed into the Pentagon. No Boeing 757 ever crashed at Shanksville. ... And no Arab hijacker, ever in a million years, ever flew into the World Trade Center. And if you got 30 minutes I'll tell you exactly why he couldn't do it the first time. Now, I'd have trouble doing it the first time.
Rob Balsamo: Yeah, same here.
John Lear: Maybe if I had a couple tries to line up a few building, I could have done it. But certainly not the first time and certainly not at 500 or 600 miles an hour.
Rob Balsamo: Yeah, as a matter of fact, one of our members, he was a 737 Check Airman. He was in the sim at the time on September 11 and right after it happened they tried to duplicate it in the simulator and they said they couldn't do it. They were trying to hit the Towers and they couldn't do it. ...
John Lear: Yeah, it would be an amazing feat of airmanship. ...
Hani Hanjour is supposed to have piloted Flight 77. He couldn't fly a Cessna.
Damien, 'belabor' all you like. This is GREAT stuff. The GOP has to buy its experts. Those who demand a real investigation of this crime of mass murder and treason have the real deal.
As I hope you know, I have always been impressed with the incredible amount of research you have done on this issue. And, despite a barb here and there, I have until recently kept my powder dry. Shermer's new offensive was simply a final straw.
Hani Hanjour is supposed to have piloted Flight 77. He couldn't fly a Cessna.
It is doubtful that any of the said 'hijackers' could pilot airliners at all. The downward spiral maneuver that Flight 77 is said to have pulled off may not even be possible in an airliner. I would be interested in a computer simulation of that maneuver, taking into account in the program, as many 'values' as might be required to fully simulate the limitations of the aircraft, weather and atmospherics, pilot competence. It's another reason to be suspicious of the airliner theory as an explanation for the damage known to have taken place at the Pentagon. Another big hole in the official conspiracy theory is the fact that Khalid Almihdhar and Salem Alhazmi are among several hijackers still alive. The BBC even interviewed several of them.
At last, Damien, this is an issue about which Bush still gets a 'pass'. The sanctified status accorded this pack of lies is irrational, possibly insane, definitely cult-like!Credibility counts. And it is insane to accept unquestioningly the word of known, proven liar like Bush. It's a recipe for disaster. Despite everything --too many Americans are TRUTH DENIERS!
I can only recommend to Damien that he repeat his schooling starting in Junior High -- the last time I was over at "9/11 Conspiracy Smasher" another debunker promised me a good spanking. One lives in hope, but these guys never come good on their promises.
I'll await your apologies to everyone here, Damien and Mr. Hart. You should be ashamed of yourselves for spreading such utter nonsense.
Are you a complete idiot? Do you really believe we write and say what we do out of dishonesty? God, you're a moron. There's nothing to apologize for. The US government refuses to provide explanations, evidence and public accountability in regard to 9/11.
For the others who might be teetering and actually ARE interested in the truth....
Then tell me again, how many 9/11 victims are buried at Arlington? Which "sovereign foreign government" assisted the 9/11 terrorists? What was Atta doing at a drug trafficking flight school?
No answers...I thought not.
Great post as usual Len. I get really upset reading all this and it takes me some time to digest. Sometimes my brain just can't cope with it all and I feel so sick inside. My brother-in-law died in the Pentagon but you know what, none of us got to see his body. His wife didn't and they told her she shouldn't because it would just upset her too much because of the burns, etc. So when I read this I gotta wonder about why no one in the family saw his body before burial. Anyway, I do sometimes feel overloaded with this stuff and feel like I just can't process it: does-not-compute. However, these lies and betrayals by the Bush administration still need to be brought out into the open and people need to hear the truth about this country and what its leaders are capable of and I apprieciate your efforts in that regard.
I'm sorry to hear about your brother-in-law Liberality. My sympathies. All the critics of the official account have been calling for are adequate standards of public accountability and the presentation of all the evidence so that whatever happened might be fully known and that the public can have complete confidence in those findings.
It appears to me that your resident troll is a script pusher. The troll cannot answer questions, as it is brainless. It can, however, insert names into its script. Its purpose is unknown, but it tries to spread the usual fear, uncertainty, and delay. It is a monster that needs to be banished in my opinion. This 'lectronic living room belongs to The Existentialist Cowboy. With respect to the first amendment, Cowboys don't have to allow abusive verbal spewage in their living rooms.
BTW, this blog rox.
Fuzzflash sez..
Wow, Len and Damien you make a tag-team as formidable as King Kong Bundy and Hulk Hogan in their hey-day.
I've been trying to get a good pal of mine to read about the 9/11 grand malfeasance but he won't bite. I sent him the link about the temperature that steel melts and he responded as below. Can you chaps give me an idea or two about how to argue a response?
--------------------------------
(begins)
Aeroplanes such as Boeing 767 are made of aviation duralumin (about 80,000 kg in each) - an alloy of aluminium and magnesium. Duraluminium melts at 750 degrees C creating an explosive powder as a by-product. it is used in fireworks and explosives. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_powder
The powdered duralumina can be seen quite clearly emanating from the towers in some of the footage.
This in turn super-heats the oxygen which rushes in through the towers creating a venturi effect like a thermal lance. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_lance
This is more than enough to soften (but not melt) the supporting girders, and enough to upset the building's structural integrity. The towers collapse as a result. The girders remain as girders per se but are twisted and malformed like wet spag bol and can be seen in that very state lying at ground zero.
During the Falklands War, the superstructures on RAN ships, constructed of aluminium, melted as a result of diesel fires started by Argy missiles. The resulting flash fires then melted and weakened the steel hull.
(ends)
Physics is not my forte. Would appreciate any pointers you can provide, comrades. Cheers, Fuzz.
I warned B.J. that if persisted in personal attacks I would delete him. Failing to refute a single verifiable fact posted here, he persisted only with personal attacks and 'characterizations' of me and other contributors. He had been warned. I might have enabled 'comment moderation' but that is unfair to every other persons commenting here.
Liberality said...
Great post as usual Len. I get really upset reading all this and it takes me some time to digest. Sometimes my brain just can't cope with it all and I feel so sick inside. My brother-in-law died in the Pentagon but you know what, none of us got to see his body.
I can't truthfully say that I 'know' how you feel. No one can say that. But I can assure you that it is this callous disregard so evident throughout this administration that absolutely enrages me. People are mere fodder for this regime's evil ambitions. Every American should be outraged and demanding this administration step down immediately.
Monkeymind said...
It appears to me that your resident troll is a script pusher.
You're right. It's the 'official conspiracy theory' at odds with even the very first media reports from New York, PA, and the Pentagon. He is reduced to his 'real self' --a miserable, teeth gnashing denier of truth. Golam! He is a frightened little troll, threatened not only by specific truths but by truth itself.
Fuzzflahs sez...
I've been trying to get a good pal of mine to read about the 9/11 grand malfeasance but he won't bite. I sent him the link about the temperature that steel melts and he responded as below. Can you chaps give me an idea or two about how to argue a response?
As follows:
Aeroplanes such as Boeing 767 are made of aviation duralumin (about 80,000 kg in each) - an alloy of aluminium and magnesium. Duraluminium melts at 750 degrees C creating an explosive powder as a by-product. it is used in fireworks and explosives. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flash_powder
The powdered duralumina can be seen quite clearly emanating from the towers in some of the footage. ...
Honestly, I haven't timed the fireballs but I can tell you that the smoke turned black very quickly. Which means that the hottest fires were already 'out'.
This in turn super-heats the oxygen which rushes in through the towers creating a venturi effect like a thermal lance. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_lance
I did a some quick searches --but can only post an 'at first blush response'. It would seem to me that the actual conditions would militate against a 'venturi effect' rather than create one. More about that later. Secondly, I wonder why 'venturi effects' did not collapse other high rise buildlings that have burned. Only WTC have fallen. And, I can only rely upon the videos I've seen, but it has always appeared to me that the fireballs blew out of the buildings very quickly and, having done so, the smoke from inside the building turned black seemingly within minutes.
The girders remain as girders per se but are twisted and malformed like wet spag bol and can be seen in that very state lying at ground zero.
This comment seems at odds with the picture perfect (into the footprint) collapses that were observed by the world. Secondly, the uneven nature of such a fire seems to me to be inconsistent with a perfect fall into footprint. Such a symetrical 'demolition' requires the 'simultaneous' removal by carefully placed explosives. How Building Implosions Work I can't believe that girders so twisted could fall so perfectly.
At last, I cannot recall seeing girders fitting that description in any of the photos of the aftermath of 911. I recall seeing straight girders, many of which appeared to have been machine 'cut' at the ends.
Physics is not my forte. Would appreciate any pointers you can provide, comrades. Cheers, Fuzz.
That's just my first blush response --but it certainly deserves a better, longer rebutal. Thanks for posting, Fuzz. It is a pleasure to respond to a 'significant' critique as opposed to the fusillade of personal attacks, ad hominems and teeth gnashing to which Damien and I were subjected. LOL Bushies are their own worst enemies.
Question: How is it that our government can now spy on us from the sky with such powerful equipment as to recognize faces and the best video we get of the plane hitting the pentagon - which one would suspect is one of the more secure and camera heavy buildings in the world - can't compete with my local 7/11?
Fuzz, just some extra bits here to add to Len's ideas --
Re the Falklands War and the sinking of the Sheffield:
The sinking of the Sheffield is sometimes blamed on a superstructure made wholly or partially from aluminium, the melting point and ignition temperature of which are significantly lower than those of steel. However, this is incorrect as the Sheffield's superstructure was made entirely of steel. The confusion is related to the US and British Navies abandoning aluminium after several fires in the 1970s involving ships that had aluminium superstructures.
The sinking of the Type 21 frigates HMS Antelope and Ardent, both of which had aluminium superstructures, probably also had an effect on this belief though these cases are again incorrect and the presence of aluminium had nothing to do with their loss.
In both cases, it is likely the ships would have been lost in any event, due to amount of explosives involved in such small ships, though aluminium fires did break out. Ardent in particular took a severe pounding, suffering eleven bomb hits, five of which exploded; no ship of her type of any era would have been able to survive such an attack.
In the case of the earlier Amazon class frigate it was the aluminium superstructure that was distorted. There is no mention of damge to the underlying steel:
The Type 21 frigate or Amazon class frigate was a Royal Navy general-purpose escort designed in the late 1960s, built in the 1970s and that served throughout the 1980s into the 1990s....The design made use of large amounts of aluminium alloy in the superstructure to lower top weight but worries later surfaced about resilience to fire, particularly following a major fire on Amazon in 1977 during which aluminium ladders distorted preventing fire-fighting teams from reaching the blaze. Later warships reverted to using steel again.
The fires in the WTC were oxygen starved and the temperatures (according to NIST) got little over 350C in small pockets. Moreover, the fires burned briefly (the WTC south tower burned intensely for only 20 minutes) and were oxygen starved and "low temperature"; insufficient to bring on Duraluminium burning. There is no reason to believe such fires occurred. NIST made no mention of Duraluminium, thermal lances or flash powder. I would have thought they would have been very keen to identify any such chemical process in the building collapses.
If Duraluminium fires were such a problem you would expect to see them in many aircraft crashes which you don't. Essentially, you need fairly high temperatures to get this process going.
Here's the top 10 reasons why the NIST Report is absurd.
It's another good question and another reason to discount Bush's official cover story. In fact, the Pentagon might have been the most 'surveilled' building in the world. There must have been hundreds of camera trained on the Pentagon that day and there might be thousands of images. Bushies released ONE frickin' frame which THEY CLAIMED depicted an airliner.
It did NOT depict an airliner. Whatever it was left a long white plume that was bigger than whatever it was that left it.
I don't know about you --but I have NEVER, EVER seen an airliner leave a puffy white 'plume'.
Debris was, indeed, found inside the Pentagon. But there was not very much of it and it was NOT airliner debris. 'turbine' was found outside on the lawn ---but it might have been one tenth the size of an airliner 'turbine'.
Apparently there are over 80 videos that show some part of Flight 77 in the Washington area (I've lost the link). No success on the FOI.
I found the following at Chemtrails VS. Contrails:
A contrail is the plume of white that follows behind a commercial airliner, is usually quite short, and disappears as the airliner progresses across the sky.
My two cents worth: whatever is shown in the ONLY footage released of the Pentagon strike is much too small to have been a 757. The "plume" has always troubled me. I've seen hundreds, perhaps thousands of aircraft from commuters to airliners landing and taking off from airports from Houston's Inter-Continental to Chicago's O'Hare, from LAX and San Francisco, from Heathrow to Newark, From Gatwick to Atlanta! I NEVER EVER saw a white plume on either landing or take off.
Here's a pic of a better candidate here!
Now --if Bushies want to prove conclusively that it was an airliner (not a Global Hawk) that crashed into the Pentagon, then all Bush need do is RELEASE EVERY PHOTO that, in fact, photographed the crash.
It has also been my experience that the only people who cover up crimes have something to hide --most certainly their own complicity.
Is that why Bush's crooked administration will NOT release the evidence that, in fact, BELONGS TO US! We are the sovereign, we are the government. Not Bush! A mere hired hand who has done a lousy job and should be fired summarily.
It has been said that the "757 vaporized on impact" leaving no wreckage, that it penetrated three rings. Apologists for the official cover up stop at that point. They are loathe to mention the 'punchout hole" at the inner ring, a 'hole' that disproves the crazy theory that the airliner somehow vaporized.
Besides---what the hell could have vaporized it? Talk about whatcked out! The official theorists have apparently never taken a high school physics course.
I haven't been able to find a single instance in which airliners completely vanished.
At last, the wreckage found was NOT that of an airliner.
Damien, apparently you posted your comment as I was drafting mine. That is an interesting number. Michael Moore was on video stating that he might "seek" those photos. Whaddya wanna bet that they have long been dropped into a memory hole?
There's a few things to say but I'm pressed for time. I'll post later.
btw - that's a standard bj edwards performance that he practices on many 911 sites. He has NO intention EVER of responding to 911 critics. He's a conceited **#@$!!
cheers.
Fuzzflash sez...
Len and Damien, many thanks for your considered responses. Will put them together in an email to my mate in the morning and keep you abreast of any positive reaction. This guy is a warrior of blogdom like no other, the full enchilada. Brilliant and stubborn, but when onside, he's a Jet all the way. Thanks again.
Fuzz, you friend's thesis also violates Occam's Razor, raising more issues than it satisfies.
Excellent discussion, The ability of the buildings to withstand fire was well illustrated in 1975
Additionally, on February 14, 1975 a major fire occurred, the result of arson, which began on the 11th floor of the North Tower during the middle of the night. Spreading through floor openings in the utility closets, it caused damage from the 10th to 19th floors, though this was generally confined to the utility closets. However, on the 11th floor about 9,000 square feet was damaged. This was about 21 percent of the floor’s total area (43,200 square feet) and took weeks to repair. Some parts of the steel trusses (floor supports) buckled due to the heat. 132 firefighters were called to the tower in response, and because the fire was so hot, many got their necks and ears burned. Fire Department Captain Harold Kull described the three-hour effort to extinguish it as “like fighting a blowtorch.”
You guys are hilarious.
You're not
Only EJ seems to resemble urban75's side splitting caricature.
Considering urban75 booted nafeez ahmed one the most impressive researchers around, off their site and are generally rather keen on censorship, they are not best qualified to criticise others.
Sorry I meant BJ, not EJ
At last, even the co-chairs of the 911 commission admit that their work was interfered with by Bush proxies and is fatally flawed.
Anyone continuing to believe it is, therefore, insane or stupid or both! I repeat having never been refuted: there is not a shred of convincing, verifiable or admissible evidence in support of Bush's conspiracy theory. If so, cite it and stop taking up my bandwidth with stolen shit and/or unoriginal, unimpressive tripe that might have been ripped off from the faux skeptic: Michael Shermer.
b. j. edwards said...
Damien, your list provides no evidence. Try again.
No, B.J. Damien has volumes of evidence. You have only bullshit! And you are a liar.
nathaniel wrote:
Alas, the lack of Arab names on the flight roll is not as convincing; presumably they would have bought ticket under false names.
Every passenger on all four passenger manifests were accounted for, none being the alleged hijackers.
In summary:
1) There is NO admissible or verifiable evidence that a 757 hit the Pentagon.
2) Steel has NEVER and will NEVER melt from a dinky Kerosene fire.
3) There is no documentation, no admissible or verifiable evidence of any sort anywhere at any time that proves or supports the idea that there were Arabs on board Flight 77, or, indeed any of the airliners associated with 911.
At last, for all the smokescreens that were thrown up by the wing nuts and other nuts jobs (most posting under one name: B.J. Edwards) nothing that I had stated has been --in any way --refuted. Not even close.
THOSE WHO ASSERT MUST PROVE. The burden of proof remains on Bush who has put forward a ludicrous theory for which --I repeat --there is NO evidence whatsoever.
Finally, those who would refute should learn what constitutes a refutation. What's really sad is that the people who support Bush are either stupid or liars or both. To be expected of an educational system that has been dumbed down over since 1980.
Here's an excerpt from Paul's link about earlier fires at WTC:
"November 10, 1999: North WTC Tower Suffers Last ‘Significant’ Fire Prior to 9/11; Bigger Fire Occurred in 1975
Edit event
The North Tower of the WTC suffers a fire on its 104th floor. This is the 15th and last of what the National Institute of Standards and Technology later describes as “significant fires,” which occurred in the Twin Towers from 1975 onwards, and prior to 9/11. These fires each activate up to three sprinklers but are confined to just one floor. [Kuligowski, Evans, and Peacock, 9/2005, pp. 7-11] Additionally, on February 14, 1975 a major fire occurred, the result of arson, which began on the 11th floor of the North Tower during the middle of the night. Spreading through floor openings in the utility closets, it caused damage from the 10th to 19th floors, though this was generally confined to the utility closets. However, on the 11th floor about 9,000 square feet was damaged. This was about 21 percent of the floor’s total area (43,200 square feet) and took weeks to repair. Some parts of the steel trusses (floor supports) buckled due to the heat. 132 firefighters were called to the tower in response, and because the fire was so hot, many got their necks and ears burned. Fire Department Captain Harold Kull described the three-hour effort to extinguish it as “like fighting a blowtorch.” [WTC Environmental Assessment Working Group, 9/2002, pp. 10 pdf file; New York Times, 5/8/2003; Glanz and Lipton, 2004, pp. 213, 214, 324; Kuligowski, Evans, and Peacock, 9/2005, pp. 1] An article in Fire Engineering magazine will later summarize, “[A]lmost all large buildings will be the location for a major fire in their useful life. No major high-rise building has ever collapsed from fire. The WTC was the location for such a fire in 1975; however, the building survived with minor damage and was repaired and returned to service.” [Fire Engineering, 10/2002] Building 7 of the WTC, which completely collapses late in the afternoon on 9/11, has also suffered a ‘significant’ fire in 1988, occurring on its third floor, with multiple sprinklers being activated."
Thanks, Paul. Another nail in the coffin of the official conspiracy bullshit!
LMAO at gullible Bush kiss-ups and phony skeptics and sell-outs like Shermer.
Thanks, Paul.
My pleasure, I linked to your article here, as anonymous's cut and paste has a special resonance for us. We've got more writers than readers, so don't expect a flood of traffic.
If you want to get a better understanding of the mentality of people like B.J. Edwards, you will find ample highly informative descriptions and material here.
I think the aptly initialled BJ is further down the food chain. Bob Altermeyer's theories of conformism seem to match pretty well
Authoritarian submission -- a high degree of submission to the authorities who are perceived to be established and legitimate in the society in which one lives;
Authoritarian aggression -- a general aggressiveness, directed against various persons, which is perceived to be sanctioned by established authorities; and
Conventionalism -- a high degree of adherence to the social conventions which are perceived to be endorsed by society and its established authorities.
full book here
Good interview (along with many others) here
Blogger Vierotchka said...
If you want to get a better understanding of the mentality of people like B.J. Edwards, you will find ample highly informative descriptions and material here.
An excerpt from your link:
The term, "ponerology" is an obscure theological term that means the study of evil. Andrzej knew this, and decided to reclaim and rehabilitate this word for scientific use since, as it happens, our science really doesn't have a word for the study of "evil," per se. We need one.
I wonder if interest in the 'scientific' study of evil may have been re-kindled by Dr. Gustav Gilbert, the American psychologist who was tasked with interviewing the Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg.
Someone should conduct a study of the evil that Bush has loosed in the US --the evil epidemic of needless and unlawful tasering, the 'deputies' who assaulted and stripped naked an innocent woman who had merely called the department for help, the 'deputies' who brutally threw a paralyzed man from his wheelchair and laughed about it.
American 'law enforcement' may have always been endemically crooked, appealing to incipient psychos in any case. Now, in Bush's America, where every evil impulse is rewarded and somehow passes into a 'mainstream' itself corrupt and rotten, evil is winked at, encouraged by 'those in power', practiced by unqualified sociopaths, sadists, and perverts with badges. SCUM!
Len, Thank you for keeping this subject alive. Marain
Thanks for your comment, marain. We have won this debate --BTW. Truth deniers and other Bush kiss ups are gnashing their teeth. These people are full of hate but hating truth is the source of every real evil.
Bush and those who support him are wrong. Being wrong is forgiveable. But being wrong, knowing that you're wrong and lying about it, is not. It is the source of every modern evil.
And that is what Bush and his crooked party --worse than Nazis --have unleashed upon American.
Be sure to check out my latest article: Tasers, Torture and Terror Tactics: America Becomes a Police State
Gee ....TWO comments (soon to be three) on a completely unknown blog!!!! BJOB must be ecstatic!
But fame is fleeting! BJOB might get more traffic if he were not a horse's ass!
I think I might not have made myself clear when I posted the link to your piece. When I said this was our 'founding document' it was a wry reference to the '10 things about conspiraloons' piece of shit that prompted us to start that site, which is basically to embrace the insult of conspiraloonery that we, collectively, have received over the years, mainly from the smug, square left in our country.
(the originators of the piece 10 characteristics..., urban 75, are a bunch of dreadlocked, mid forties skater boys who are far too sophisticated to believe in 'conspiracy theories')
The team members, in my opinion, are some of the best commentators in the UK, stef, the antagonist (and the brilliant J7 group he is part of) and one, shahid/suspectpaki who is already on your blogroll.
The conspiraloon alliance is where we let our hair down and take the crap out of the wilder and woolier stuff that serves only to muddy the waters of conspiratorial thought.
I admit it must seem a little odd at first glance, but there is a (slightly) serious side to it.
I posted the link because the people who do read and get it, will a) appreciate your piece
b) enjoy your controlled demolition of the '10 characteristics...' shit
I am not anonymous or BJ, but I have seen that shit so often, it hardly even registers. I know where it comes from and I hold them and BJ's callow type in complete contempt.
There's no need to publish this, I just don't want you thinking I'm taking the piss.
Ps if you wondering about the alex jones reference, we were having a discussion about him here
A couple more nails in the coffin, Len--
Here is what CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre, reported LIVE from the Pentagon just minutes after the plane supposedly hit the Pentagon (check out the video):
From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.
The only site, is the actual side of the building that's crashed in. And as I said, the only pieces left that you can see are small enough that you pick up in your hand. There are no large tail sections, wing sections, fuselage, nothing like that anywhere around which would indicate that the entire plane crashed into the side of the Pentagon and then caused the side to collapse.
Mohammed Atta almost certainly had a double:
The ‘mohammed atta’ at the Florida flight school was a totally opposite character to the Egyptian Mohammed Atta, the serious-minded and quiet architecture student who lived in Hamburg: the former was described as 'tall' while the latter was 5'7"; the former loved partying, strip-clubs, casinos and snorting cocaine while the latter was remote, holding highly austere Muslim principles and showing little interest in women; the former wore jeans and sneakers, owned a red Pontiac and seems to have kept a big wad of 100-dollar notes in a pack around his waist, while the latter had no interest in cars or planes. The owner of the Florida school once tried talking to ‘atta’ in German, and was surprised that he backed away in silence. The Atta who lived in Hamburg had to be given special medicine by his sister when he flew by plane, because he disliked flying so much.
Lawyer Stanley Hilton tracked down an ex-wife of one of the 'hijackers'. and has claimed they were double agents not Muslim fundamentalists. (see also)
There's plenty more discrepancies, as you know.
Paul, sorry about the misunderstanding on this end! Am I forgiven?
damien said...
A couple more nails in the coffin, Len ... 'From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.'
That's a good one! Indeed, some of the early reports I heard said the same thing. I wish I had recorded them. In New York, Peter Jennings stated flat out that the airliners did not cause the collapse. And, I seem to recall Dan Rather saying pretty much the same thing.
Peter Jennings is dead and Dan Rather might as well be! Sad!
Several reporters whose names I wished I remembered stated that the tower collapses looked like "controlled demolitions". Whatever happened to those folk?
Is there a way to contact you via e-mail? I have a question which I prefer not to ask publicly lest I reveal my total lack of understanding/knowledge.
Yep! I created a temp email at:
viva_vaquero@excite.com
Email me there.
Paul, sorry about the misunderstanding on this end! Am I forgiven?
No problemo. These things happen.
A final and irrefutable observation in response to the following absurdity which was posted on this blog:
LOL! Your deceit and arrogance show. The burden of proof rests solely and entirely on your 9/11 Denial Movement to support ITS claims and assertions.
That's not how it works. It was the Bush administraion who came forward when everyone, it is safe to say, was in a state of shock. No one put forward ANY THEORY of any sort until Bush and the minions of his administration came forward and, in effect, asked the people of America and the world to believe a STUPID THEORY which he and the various members of his administration proceeded to outline. Everyone has heard it ---it had to do with the mythical proportions attributed to al Qaeda, neophyte pilots etc ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
I repeat: in both law, debate and, in the scientific method the dictum is: THOSE WHO ASSERT MUST PROVE!
That means that the burden of proof is upon Bush to prove his stupid theory.
But he has failed to do that. There is not a shred, a scintilla of admissible evidence of any sort in support of it. To their credit, Americans are awakening to that simple fact. The man who lied to them about everything else has lied to them about 911.
CREDIBILITY COUNTS!
And Bush has none!
anonymous, read the earlier posts. You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Rather that I be forced to repeat truths that you people seem congenitally incapable of understanding or are too lazy to read let me provide an analogy.
Imagine the government came under the sway of food production companies and passed legislation getting rid of the FDA and other regulatory bodies insisting, instead, that food production companies could monitor the ingredients and quality of their own food products. Now imagine that some consumers come down sick after eating XYZ Sausages. To paraphrase your illogical reasoning:
"When do you expect to file charges against XYZ Sausages?"
Clearly, ordinary citizens are not resourced to undertake scientific product testing to bring on expensive legal actions. This is why we have governments to regulate food product standards. Moreover, it is not a good social practice to accept even small breaches in food safety. If the government is prepared to let it's business buddies XYZ Sausages put "meat substitutes" (flour) in their products and not tell anyone it may do little harm. But it's only a small step from there to more serious abuses (eg.using contaminated meat). That's why we insist on government, not private, regulation of food quality, and demand high standards be maintained.
Security against terrorist actions is at least as important as food safety. We'd demand a full accounting of an outbreak of botulism that killed 3,000 people. We'd want to know everything about it. Why would we not expect of our government to follow the same high standards of accountability in regard to terrorist actions? And why would we not insist that the government, not private individuals, carry out such investigations at an appropriate professional, scientific and legal standard? Just in case you've forgotten( I suspect you neither know nor care):
* The 911 Commission was refused permission to question any al Qaeda terrorist suspects or their interviewers.
* They were obliged to rely on NORAD officials who provided them with perjured testimony.
* The Bush administration concealed information and forced the Commission to issues subpoenas for witnesses and documents.
If you are prepared to accept that kind of crap then you are like a consumer who sees no harm in XYZ Sausages putting "meat substitutes" in their products, who sees no danger of more serious abuses, a consumer who accepts no government oversight of food safety.
You demand that the government exercise high standards over what you put in your gut yet you don't care what they put in your mind. You clearly have been eating XYZ sausages all your life and can no longer tell the difference.
Anonymous said...
This is not so. You are the ones making the claims and those claims must be demonstrated by you. That you think you have proven them is immaterial and irrelevant in the eyes of the law.
That is not so and you know it is not so! THOSE WHO ASSERT MUST PROVE! No 'conspiracy theorist' even existed until the Bush administration, Bush himself and his various proxies, put forward what is now the most outrageous, cacamamie and unbelievable theory of them all. Had his theory been 'credible' or, in any way, truthful there might not ever have been a movement to DEMAND that Bush investigate the crime that he, in fact, covered up!
Secondly --THAT BUSH COVERED UP THE CRIME OF 911 IS A VERIFIABLE FACT --NOT A THEORY. A first year law student could make the case before a grand jury that Bush be indicted for obstruction of justice! The actual crime that he covered up is another matter for which there is probable cause now to induct Dick Cheney.
To demonstrate simply, unless the 9/11 conspiracy movement takes any action against those it perceives to be responsible for 9/11, nothing will happen at all.
You haven't been following developements. A INDICTMENT against Bush has already been prepared. And Federal Judges may, upon their own motion, convene a Federal Grand Jury. I have been urging knowlegeable folk --lawyers et al --to urge a courageaous Federal Judge to convene a Grand Jury. Federal grand juries can subpoena whomever they wish. They could subpoena Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeled ---anyone who has evidence about 911. They would be under oath if if they lie, the get sent to jail and do not pass go.
You can see this for yourselves by simply answering this question: When do you expect to file charges against the Bush Administration?
When enough people like yourself get your stupid out of your ass long enough to comprehend elementary logic and the civics you slept through in school.
Damien said:
"Why would we not expect of our government to follow the same high standards of accountability in regard to terrorist actions? And why would we not insist that the government, not private individuals, carry out such investigations at an appropriate professional, scientific and legal standard?"
It is up to you to demonstrate that the FEMA, NIST, and ASCE investigations were not conducted "at an appropriate professional, scientific and legal standard." The conclusions of those investigations, the methodologies, and the evidence have never been refuted.
So unless you take action, come with irrefutable evidence, on what basis do you possibly think their is a need for yet another investigation?
You demand that the government exercise high standards over what you put in your gut yet you don't care what they put in your mind.
Your false analogy is duly noted. I am capable of discerning the difference between the preponderance of evidence from thousands of sources, and what you imagine is the capability of the government to make people believe the evidence doesn't exist.
In the imaginary world of the 9/11 conspiracy "truthers", anything is thinkable, anything is possible, correct? All 9/11 "truthers" have to do is imagine it - evidence is irrelevant.
You're going nowhere with that.
It is up to you to demonstrate that the FEMA, NIST, and ASCE investigations were not conducted "at an appropriate professional, scientific and legal standard." The conclusions of those investigations, the methodologies, and the evidence have never been refuted.
Pigs arse! I don't like being rude but I'm ready to join Len on this one and tell you where to get off. Your scientific and legal credentials are simply bullshit!
Those "investigations, the methodologies, and the evidence" HAVE been refuted -- at least to the point where the fundamental integrity of their processes has been rebutted.
FEMA & NIST - the FEMA materials were passed to NIST who bear overall responsibility for the final result. NIST effectively ran a computer simulation of the WTC collapses and ceased their analysis after what they determined to be the start of the collapse sequence. In short, they conducted NO significant scientific analysis of the collapse of the lower floors or of the material residues consistent with alternative collapse theories (eg molten metals in the basement, reports of explosions, debris pieces the size of buses being thrown hundreds of metres etc). Anyone with half a brain can tell you that a computer simulation model is only as good as the data entered and that retrofitting data to obtain a desired outcome is relatively easy by tweaking the variables. As the primary means of explaining the collapse of the twin towers one would expect it to be buttressed by other, independent methods of analysis.
As James Quintiere (Ph.D), former Chief of the Fire Science Division of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) said:
"In every investigation I’ve taken part in, the key has been to establish a timeline. And the timeline is established by witness accounts, by information from alarm systems, by any video that you might have of the event, and then by calculations. And you try to put all of this together. And if your calculations are consistent with some of these hard facts, then perhaps you can have some comfort in the results of your calculations. I have not seen a timeline placed in the NIST report....
and...
"I wish that there would be a peer review of this," he said, referring to the NIST investigation. "I think all the records that NIST has assembled should be archived. I would really like to see someone else take a look at what they’ve done; both structurally and from a fire point of view."
Until fairly recently one could not even obtain building plans for the WTC towers. The (bullshit) arguments provided by the Bush administration through NIST was that this was commercially confidential information. Never mind that courts regularly subpoena and make public such information on a regular basis. Never mind that the American public are entitled to know exactly why 3,000 of the fellow citizens were brutally murdered on 9/11 (and that clowns like you are happy to keep them in the dark about the events of that day!) Never mind that the same Bush administration point blank lied to the 9/11 Commission telling them that NONE of the 4 flight data recorders had been recovered or were usable and hence would not be available to them -- only to have some honest recovery workers spill the beans about two of the recovered black boxes from the WTC.
But it's all grist for the mill for clowns like you who are so happy seeing the public actively lied to. Here's a question for you, clown? --
Where the hell is NIST's analysis of the collapse of WTC 7? -- you know, the building brought down as a result of terrorist attacks on 9/11 which the 9/11 Commission Report MENTIONS NOWHERE! The same WTC 7 that the BBC reported as have collapsed BEFORE the damn thing even fell.
Here are the top 10 reasons why the NIST Report is absurd. I'm quite sure the anonymous clowns will never read it, but that's to be expected.
You also accept with equanimity the nonsense provided by NORAD regarding the air defense failures on 9/11. They gave 3 different versions of their responses and in the end the Commission rejected all versions and wrote their own time line that corresponded with NONE of the versions given in evidence! (How's that for a horse's ass approach!) The Commissioners were so disturbed by the blatant falsehoods from NORAD that they seriously considered bring perjury charges against NORAD officials.
Planes do not fly around unattended for 2 hours over London, Tokyo or Frankfurt. Why we should accept this nonsense for the heavily trafficked NY-Washington air corridor is beyond me. You also have no explanation why standard NORAD interceptions -- used successfully on hundreds of previous occasions -- were not followed on 9/11. Instead we are asked to accept that fighter aircraft raced "flat out" (at 500 mph) and failed to catch up when their top speeds were nearly 1,500 mph. (In clown land anything is possible.)
Never mind also that the 9/11 Commissioners all had major conflicts of interest to start with. 9/11 Commissioner and former Secretary of the Navy John Lehman admitted: "We purposely put together a staff that had – in a way - conflicts of interest"
In case it got by you anonymous clown, in Western democracies worthy of the title those kinds of compromised inquiries are rejected out of hand not only because their findings may be flawed but because the dishonest methodology strikes at the very heart of a democratic society. (Obviously such nice distinctions are beyond the clown brigade.)
The Warren Commission on the death of one man ran to 26 volumes yet you toadying, slimy backers of all things Bush demand that the American public uncritically accept as the final word one deeply flawed and incomplete document addressing the murder of 3,000 US citizens. What a contemptible bunch of 3rd rate nothings you are.
Anonymous, you and your clown friends have idiotic ideas on legal and scientific analysis. It's not for you to tell the American people that they are bound to live by your stupidity. If you had the strength of your convictions you would be happy to meet any new, independent inquiry. But you are not up to it. So the rest of the world will ignore you and treat you with the contempt you so richly deserve. Get another hobby, sport.
A last word from James Quintiere:
I think the official conclusion that NIST arrived at is questionable.
Dr. Quintiere also criticized NIST’s repeated failures to formally respond to serious questions raised about its conclusions regarding the WTC building collapses and the process it employed to arrive at those conclusions.
"I sat through all of the NIST hearings. I went to all of their advisory board meetings, as an observer. I made comments at all."
Responding to a comment from a NIST representative in the audience, Dr. Quintiere said:
"I found that throughout your whole investigation it was very difficult to get a clear answer. And when anyone went to your advisory panel meetings or hearings, where they were given five minutes to make a statement; they could never ask any questions. And with all the commentary that I put in, and I spent many hours writing things, and it would bore people if I regurgitated all of that here, I never received one formal reply.
That's the former Chief of NIST's Fire Science Division, the very person who in the normal course of events would be called upon to analyze the collapse of the WTC towers. Even he can't get answers and he concludes that the NIST analysis is unsatisfactory.
The impact speed was almost certainly much less than the officially quoted 530 mph. Otherwise immediate witnesses at the Pentagon would have seen the plane for only one second before impact. Their detailed comments support a lower speed.
When Aluminum crashes into stone at over 500 mph the kinetic energy of the aluminum turns to heat which vaporizes the aluminum.
Aluminium burns at 3827C (6920F). It also melts at 660C (1220F) so unless the impact was at very high speed such explosive burning would not take place. There might be small amounts occurring with the nose cone but not the entire plane. Aluminum bullets have been shown to disintegrate into small pieces and explode as claimed but this only occurs at 3,000 fps (2043 mph). Other than some anecdotal media reports on 9/11 the Pentagon plane "vaporised" there appear to be no scientific studies to support such a claim.
We might also note that bodies, luggage and over 100 seats in a 767 would not "vaporize" without emitting a large amount of carbon smoke. There would also be a pungent smell of burnt bodies. Normally, bodies take 2-3 hours to cremate and the Pentagon fire was initially put out ino nly seven minutes! There is no reason to believe 50 people or more were vaporised at the Pentagon.
Aluminum is an EXTREMELY volitle explosive and is the primary fuel for the Space Shuttle boosters.
Not true. The propulsion only occurs in the presence of other chemicals:
The propellant mixture in each SRB motor consists of ammonium perchlorate (oxidizer, 69.6% by weight), aluminum (fuel [powdered spherical aluminum 5 to 60 mm in diameter], 16%), iron oxide (a catalyst, 0.4%), a polymer (such as PBAN or HTPB, a binder that holds the mixture together, also acting as secondary fuel, 12.04%), and an epoxy curing agent (1.96%). This propellant is commonly referred to as Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant, or simply APCP.
It is simply nonsense to talk about aluminium as being " an EXTREMELY volitle explosive". If it had the explosive and vaporizing forces you allege then the US military would be fitting it to all their armor piercing missiles. They're not.
The same kind of massive explosion of aluminum wings vaporized many feet of the massive steel columns on the exterior of the Twin Towers. The real wonder is that they survived as long as they did after the impacts.
There is no evidence such vaporizations took place and NIST does not argue that they did.
When an airplane crashes at 500 mph human bodies explode into finely ground mean and meat vapor. Then the bits are often instantly incenerated the fireball of exploding aluminum and fuel. Most of the passengers are never found, and no autopsey can be done. Bodies from the rear of the plane are more likely to still be bodies, but those in the front are GONE!...Human bodies explode into finely ground meat and meat vapor. What was left at the Pentagon and the field in Pennsylvania is exaclty what is expected from a high speed crash, a few small bits of aluminum that got blown clear by the very massive explosion, and that's all.
Autopsies were carried out at the Pentagon and for Flight 93 and allegedly identified all passengers and crew. Apparently the planes vaporised but passenger body parts remained.
The chief objection to your claim is that neither NIST nor the 9/11 Commission offer the explanation of vaporising or burning aluminium. This is not to say such instances of this did not occur. But there is no evidence that it did occur to any appreciable extent and the authorities are not claiming that it did.
Nonsense, Bob.
Matter DOES NOT vanish and planes don't vaporize.
Nor does your 'theory' account for the wreckage that was found but was most certainly NOT 757 wreckage! A COMPRESSOR ROTER was, in fact, found and photographed before Bush could order it disposed of. It was about 1/5th the size of a 757 roter or smaller.
Show me the wreckage!
And DON'T whine to me about Bush ordering it destroyed.
That order is a crime --obstruction of justice.
Only people who are guilty order evidence that might prove that guilt destroyed.
Show me the wreckage.
I will wager that I have covered more crashes, in persons, than you've seen on TV!!!
The Space Shuttle broke up in the stratosphere at some 24,000 MPH.
Guess what! It left IDENTIFIABLE wreckage and IDENTIFIABLE body parts strewn over three states.
It was INVESTIGATED! No one tried to cover it up. No one ordered the evidence hauled off and destroyed.
MATTER DOES NOT VANISH!
BTW --hitting the atmosphere at 24,000 MPH is much more catasophic than hitting a stone wall at 500 MPH for many reasons. Yet --the Space Shuttle disaster was investigated. 911 was covered up!
Why was that, Bob, unless someone was trying to hide the truth?
Get real!
Look up Lockerbie!
"In the subsequent investigation of the crash, forensic experts determined that about 1 lb (450 g) of plastic explosive had been detonated in the airplane's forward cargo hold, triggering a sequence of events that led to the rapid destruction of the aircraft. Winds of 100 knots (190 km/h) scattered victims and debris along a 130 km (80 mile) corridor over an area of 845 square miles"
Guess what! They gathered up all the pieces and reconstructed the plane.
If you google "aircraft" and "aluminum fires" you get 69 entries. This stuff simply doesn't happen. It's also worth remembering that "vaporisation" describes turning a solid or liquid into a gas. When was the last news story that you read like this:
"In a horrific accident yesterday a DC9 crashed on landing and turned into a gas...."
It's simply nonsense. 80 tonnes of aircraft means 80 tonnes of debris. Most of the Pentagon fire was put out in 7 minutes!
You say -- Flight 77 crashed in an open field in Pennsylvania. Video reports from the sceen show almost nothing recognizable as an airplane.
It was Flight 93 that crashed in Pennsylvania. I discussed it very briefly here.
You say -- There is no reason to expect that the plane which hit the Pentagon was going less than 500 mph, and it may have been going more like 600 mph. Those are normal operating speeds for commercial planes.
The official speed is 530mph and even that is unlikely. At that speed witnesses would seen the plane for one second only in 400 metres, yet most provided descriptions consistent with a lengthier viewing. BTW, the NTSB flight data recorder details have the plane at over a hundred feet immediately before impact. Yet we are expected to believe the planes wings clipped and knocked down street lamps. Whatever went on at the Pentagon or at Shanksville, the official explanations are just crap.
Thank you for your courtesy but I really think we need to go our own ways. Respectfully, the term "blessings" is somewhat out of place in terms of the content of your blog and I would hope that you are in a position to review some of the more questionable content there. I wish all persons well and I extend that same courtesy to you.
Bob,
Yes, Your article on flight 93 shows the "vanishing" almuminum. The aircraft mostly flashed into aluminum smoke and disappeared upon impact. That's what airplanes do.
What you have described is nothing less that a super-natural event. No one who had survived even high school physics believes that. The only person I know to have made an airplane disappear also made the Statue of Liberty disappear. His name was David Copperfield.
The heavy iron landing gear, engine parts, and a few bits are found buried in the ground but most of it is GONE.
There was a shallow ditch that had obviously been dug by the backhoe clearly seen in the early photographs. Get a warrant and go dig. There is NOTHING there! Even FOX news reported that before they got a memo from either Bush or the GOP.
The bodies are all gone too, of course. That is exactly what is expected from a full speed airplane crash. The kinetic energy turns into heat. Aluminum is the most active metal, and flashes into an explosive vapor which effectively explodes upon mixing with air.
Do you have any idea how much heat it would take to vaporize an entire airliner --complete with bodies? Apparently, you were not paying attention when I described to you the high speed crashes that I covered personally. I saw the charred bodies. I saw the wreckage and there was plenty of it.
You have simply tripped out.
What you describe did NOT happen and not even official conspiracy fans support it.
Human bodes become meat shreds and vapor, and are almost instantly consumed in the flames.
You've obviously never seen the bodies that are left behind when airliners crash and burn. I have!!!!!!!! I witnessed crashes at higher speeds that those involved in the crashes you describe. What you describe has NEVER happened. EVER!
The bare ground is what you expect to fine. A few buried engine parts is conclusive proof of the high speed airplane crash.
Show me the engine! Go dig 'em up and show me.
Show me the wreckage!
damien wrote...
It was Mineta, of course, who reported to the Commission that Cheney was monitoring the approach of Flight 77 to the Pentagon and appeared to give orders to allow it to come through unimpeded.
A good theory must explain all observable facts. The BEST theory of 911 is simply this: Dick Cheney was not merely 'gaming' a 911 scenario --HE WAS SUPERVISING IT!
Len, the issue of the "gassification" of aircraft has been adequately covered here. No amount of restatement of falsehoods about disappearing aircraft wreckage makes those statements any less false. I suggest we simply refer questioners to the earlier comments.
The 9/11 Commission never claimed that aircraft wreckage vaporized.
There is no record of planes disappearing in this way.
Google queries on this topic show up only miniscule commentary suggesting that it's a non-phenomenon.
Here's a list crash photos. As the author, a pilot of 22 years, says:
"As we can see from these photos, it can be positively concluded that these well constructed Boeing and other airliners do not vaporize, melt, oxidize, liquefy, or disintegrate to the molecular level. These types of accidents always leave a large debris field."
------------------
The wreckage of AA77 was verified by thousands of people at the Pentagon and by hundreds of people who recovered the wreckage from Flight 93 in Pennsylvania.
Untrue. There were no "thousands" at the Pentagon verifying anything. Most of the identifiable wreckage was building material. Plane parts can only properly identified by experts and there were not "thousands" of those. The matter is quite straightforward. Each plane has unique imprinted coding on most of its parts. The US government can put all conjecture to rest by providing a listing of all recovered parts from "Flight 77" and their associated codes. At the moment, all we know is that a plane of some description crashed into the Pentagon.
As far as Pennsylvania and Flight 93 is concerned, the same parts identification procedure can be followed. We also have the problem that debris was spread out over six miles, including in an adjoining valley separated by hills and with no wind at the time. Some have argued that "Flight 93" (since we have no documentary proof that it actually was Flight 93) was shot down. There is considerable evidence for that. In which case the 911 Report is a lie. Are people happy with that?
I can't rule out that Flight 93 crashed at Shanksville (and it probably did) , just as I can't rule out that Flight 77 crashed at the Pentagon (and it probably didn't). But I see no point in accepting contradictory or missing evidence as some sort of "proof" of the events of that day.
We have four plane crashes on 9/11 and no FAA or recognizably independent inquiries.
We have three unprecedented skyscraper collapses and a questionable inquiry was held into only two of them.
We have a complete failure of FAA procedures for hijacked aircraft and no adequate explanation.
We have a complete failure of US defense procedures for intercepting hijacked aircraft that evidences a complete incapacity of the US to meet defense needs in a real time setting and we have no adequate explanation.
I don't give a damn what happened on 911. But we should expect REAL, MEANINGFUL explanations based on real EVIDENCE assessed by recognizably INDEPENDENT inquiries conducted in a PUBLIC setting.
Anonymous said...
This issue was resolved many years ago and is distracting of the real issues of LIHOP.
Why are there still arguments over these facts?
It might have been resolved in your mind...but it was never resolved in mine. What wreckage that was found simply raised more questions than it answered. Indeed! I saw a photo of A compressor roter --the only one found.
It was about one fifth the size of a the compressor rotor from a 757. The rotor of which I speak was intact. IT COULD HAVE BEEN IDENTIFIED BUT BECAUSE BUSH REFUSED TO INVESTIGATE, IT NEVER WAS IDENTIFIED.
Identifying that rotor --tracing it to its source --should have been the first order of business for the whitewash commission otherwise known as the 922 Commission.
The 911 crashes are notable by what was NOT done. In every OTHER crash, the debris field itself is evidence. At Lockerbie, wreckage was strewn over a huge debris field. Every 'bit' was retrieved and identified. The Space Shuttle broke up in the stratosphere at some 24,000 mph. The 'debris field' spanned three states. All was recovered and identified --including body parts.
NOT SO --911!
After 911 EVIDENCE WAS DESTROYED BEFORE THERE WAS A CHANCE TO INVESTIGATE ANY OF IT.
Bush's official conspiracy theory fails to explain other observed anomolies. Why didn't the wings break off?
The presumed 'entry hole' is much to small to accommodate a 757 fuselage. Nor is it logical to assume that the wings folded up like a fan only to vanish inside the Pentagon where nary a trace of wing was found.
Inexplicably ---there was not even damage to to those windows on either side, windows that might have sustained significant damage had the wings and engines struck them where 'officialists' and other gullible Bush worshipers say they did. Clue: they didn't!
I will repeat for those who still don't get it:
1) The Pentagon was a crime scene. Whoever ordered that wreckage destroyed is a felon, guilty of obstruction of justice.
2) Hundreds of photos were taken of whatever it was that crashed the Pentagon. If Bush were interested in getting out the truth, he would simply release EVERY photo that was taken of the Pentagon that day.
It is interesting that the idea that there is simply no reason to posit an airliner at all gained ground upon the release of the only photo ever released. Only someone brainwashed by Bush could possibly seen in those fuzzy few frames an airliner. I certainly didn't! I saw a tiny aircraft and a large white plume.
Now --as a reporter and as someone who has seen hundreds of airliners in almost as many airports --I have NEVER EVER seen an airliner leave a thick white plume.
3) Theories must explain all observed phenomena! The official conspiracy theory fails this elementary test.
And then there are the phone calls. The FBI --significantly --DOES NOT authentic or support the idea that Barbara Olson made a call to Ted from Flight 77.
There is, in fact, several good and verifiable reasons why she did not, could not. Ted, it seems, lied about the phone call.
If Ted lied about the phone call, then Bush is hard pressed to make any case at all.
The co-chairs of the 911 Commission now disown their own work amid complaints that their work was suppressed and interfered with.
So --why are you surprised to learn that it was all bullshit to begin with?
My theory is simply this: whenever the photos are released an examined by a entity --a Federal Grand Jury --empaneled to conduct a REAL investigation, the photos will reveal what Rumsfeld himself said struck the Pentagon: a missile.
A missile is consistent with the small punchout hole in the inner ring. If --as officialists say, the airliner 'vaporized' --what, then made the hole? The hole was photographed. It was much to small to have been made by a 757 which 'officialists' say had vaporized anyway. The hole IS consistent with Rumsfeld's remark: "...the missile that struck this building!"
If Bush would just release ALL the photos --undoctored --then we could all just shut up about this. Until the photos are released, I won't.
Damien said...
Len, the issue of the "gassification" of aircraft has been adequately covered here. No amount of restatement of falsehoods about disappearing aircraft wreckage makes those statements any less false. I suggest we simply refer questioners to the earlier comments.
You are correct, Damien. People simply MUST CONCOCT a theory --even a BOGUS one like 'vaporization' --in order to shoe horn their cherished theory!
It's an emotional issue with them. 'Vaporization' is the most absurd violation of Occam's Razor that I have ever heard or seen. Simply --Bush OFFICIALISTS have re-written the laws of physics to fit Bush's STUPID and impossible official theory.
Anyone still believing this horse shit should be horse laughed back into the dark ages they crawled out of .
Comments to the section are closed. As of this date:
1) NO ONE has ever, authoritatively and as a part of an official investigation not disowned by its own co-chairs, traced a single scrap of wreckage to either Flight 77 or Flight 93.
2) No one has ever demonstrated the bald faced lie that Aluminum turns into a gas in crashes of between 500 to 600 MPH. This assertion is just plain stupid and doesn't deserve any more comment.
3) No one has ever produced a photograph of the Pentagon that depicts airliner wreckage of any sort, let alone Flight 77.
4) Even those believing that Aluminum VAPORIZES i.e, turns into a GAS at crashes of about 500 MPH, cannot account for the photograhed PUNCH OUT hole in the inner ring of the Pentagon. Clue: GASES do not make punch out holes like the one photographed at the Pentagon.
5) There is NO credible defense of Bush's repeated and verifiable efforts to prevent the creation of the 911 Commission, his administration's orders to destroy evidence from EVERY 911 crime scene, his continued refusal to order the release of hundreds, perhaps thousands of photographs that were, in fact, taken of what Don Rumsfeld called "....the missile" that his the Pentagon.
6) No one has ever explained how Barbara Olson was able to make an impossible call.
These comments are closed. No more misstatements of the facts of physics will be tolerated, nor attempts to rewrite history, nor attempts to slander or malign the other posters to this board.
If you wish to believe fairy tales or indulge other forms of insanity, please take your bilge elsewhere.
I recently finished a research effort into "Plane Crash physics".
Feel free to take a peek and make a comment:
http://z15.invisionfree.com/911taboo/index.php?showtopic=177
Nearly every plane crash I uncovered ALWAYS had a tail fin section or piece of identifiable aircraft REGARDLESS of the extreme damage or amount of flames or hours burning on impact.
COMPLETE VAPORIZATION of an entire plane theory (@ Pentagon + Shanksville) belongs next to the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy stories.
Apart from finding a massive amount of interesting photos regarding comparable crash sites with similar and smaller planes, I uncovered a definite probability.
A Global Hawk in AA colors.
In fact on Sept 11 up to 4 UAV Global Hawk vehicles could not be accounted for.
If people saw that sucker whipping past at 900 MPH, ANY Joe Average would swear on his grandmommas life it was a passenger jet he saw.
Image:
[url=http://imgboot.com/images/nephilim70/aaglobalhawk.jpg][img]http://imgboot.com/thumbs/nephilim70/aaglobalhawk.jpg[/img][/url]
Great BLOG btw..
Nephy
Omar al-Bayoumi was said to have been arrested in 2001 in Birmingham, England. He was arrested under the alias 'Abu Imard'.
He was arrested on the same day as the far more well known Lofti Raissi. They were both in custody at Paddington Green Police station and intially shared court hearings together.
Omar was released from arrest by the end of September 2001.
Nearly every plane crash I uncovered ALWAYS had a tail fin section or piece of identifiable aircraft REGARDLESS of the extreme damage or amount of flames or hours burning on impact.
What matters is the speed, angle of the flight into the ground, and fire. You haven't seen all the plane crashes that have happened over the years where the identifiable remains were only the engines and landing gears. It also depends on the ground surface the plane hits. In winter, frozen ground won't give way like the earth did when Flight 93 crashed almost vertically at high rate of speed.
Those of us who have a far better knowledge of aircraft crashes know that there is nothing unusual about any of the crashes of the hijacked planes on 9/11 and we marvel at amateurs whose sum knowledge consists of looking for pictures on the Internet.
COMPLETE VAPORIZATION of an entire plane theory (@ Pentagon + Shanksville) belongs next to the Easter Bunny and Tooth Fairy stories.
Complete vaporization did not happen in either case which demonstrates that you do not know how to do proper research.
At the Pentagon, must of the aluminum skin burned up inside the Pentagon, but like other crashes, the hardened parts - engines, landing gear struts, wheels, and parts including seat frames - survived the crash and subsequent fire. Plus, one may not ignore inconvenient evidence, including those who saw the 757 hit, and the many hundreds who saw and recovered the wreckage.
Flight 93 disintegrated and dug deep into the earth, where one engine was found, the other having rolled down a hill. Despite that, the whole place was littered with small pieces of wreckage and personal effects carefully recovered and documented. Again, there is nothing at all unusual with that crash, with those of us educated in such matters able to tell that it hit nearly vertically at high speed.
It is only those wanting to believe conspiracy theories and/or uneducated in what they are seeing that make the kind of silly claims 9/11 Truthers do.
A Global Hawk in AA colors. My, methinks you you read too many comic books. Don't be silly.
My recommendation is you hit the library and check out a few books on logical and critical thinking. And try to stay away from Truther sites and blogs like this.
Keystone Cops 9/11: The Pentagon Target Wall Demolition http://home.att.net/~south.tower/911PentagonDemolition1.htm
The same man [George Bush] that asks you "do not believe in conspiracy theories", promulgates the most massive "theory" ever invented. The whole story of 911 is based on "theory".
Thank you, anonymous. I've actually heard people denounce vociferously "conspiracy theorists" and defend Bush' "conspiracy theory" in the same sentence.
MAN... ITS THE IGNORANT PEOPLE IN THIS CPUNTRY BOTH THE ONES THAT RUN IT AND THE ONES WHO BELIEVE THE ONES WHO RUN IT... SLAVERY HAPPENED N IM SURE THEY DENIED IT THEN AND EVERY1 SAID THE COUNTRY WAS FINE... PEOPLE DIED AND EVRY1 SAID FINE.... YEARS LATER SOME WERE CHARGED SOME WENT TO JAIL MOST GOT AWAY AND SOME COMPANIES STILL PROFIT AND HAVE THEIR BUSINESS SINCE SLAVERY .. STILL NO AMENDMENTS TO THOSE AND EVERYTHNG IS FINE...PRESIDENTS GOT KILLED N COVERED UP AND FINE... OTHER COUNTRY PRESIDENTS KILLED AND EVERTHN IS FINE... THEY TEACH U THE COUNTRY SONG AND UNDER GOD TOGETHER BUT SUPPORT RACISM AND CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND IF U DISSAGREE WITH UR COUNTRY UR A TERROSIST... MAN SOME OF THESE PEOPLE WERE BORN WITH HALF A BRAINS...IM SORRY FOR OUR KIDS IF WE CANT EVEN BE SORRY FOR THIS COUNTRY
LOL! AA77 didn't hit the Pentagon?
What are you smoking, young lad?
What are YOU smoking?
Just shut up and show me the fuckin' wreckage!
757s weight about 100 tons. ANY crash of a 757 at any time into anything for any reason will leave behind 100 tons of debris!
Are you trying to tell me that Flight 77 popped into a wormhole!
Get a brain or get fuckin' lost, dipwad!
Warning to script pushers, Bush shills, and GOP flacks!
I WILL DELETE YOUR SHIT!
Alas, the lack of Arab names on the flight roll is not as convincing; presumably they would have bought ticket under false names. Nor, alas, is Bush's weird memory of seeing the impacts himself. He is weak-minded enough to conflate the events of 9/11 with a video he saw the next day.
It is not only the lack of arab names on the 'flight roll'...it was the fact there were NO ARAB NAMES ON THE OFFICIAL AUTOPSY LIST that was released to Dr. Olmsted in response to his FOIA request.
Secondly, it was FIVE 'dead hijackers' who were interviewed by the BBC AFTER they were suppposed to have died in the attacks. MOREOVER --and this is the important point --THOSE INTERVIEWED had been listed 'separately' but did not appear on Olmsted's list of actual bodies that he actually autopsied.
Who typed up that list?
Post a Comment