Saturday, June 14, 2008

The Blood on Bush's hands

Bush's Official Conspiracy Theory of 911 Defies the Laws of Physics. If an airliner of some 100 tons had crashed into the Pentagon, some 100 tons of debris would have been recovered. It wasn't recovered because it wasn't there! Not even Bush's kiss ups have dared make such a claim!

The question then is not 'where is the airliner', but 'where is the debris'? Until Bush can come up with a better cover story, his 'theories' are not credible. Stories inconsistent with demonstrable physics are --bluntly --bald-faced lies. Odds are good that whomever is most motivated to lie about 911 is guilty of it!

The 'official conspiracy theory' of 911 is just such a lie. Bush's official conspiracy theory requires a complete rewrite of the laws of physics going back to Galileo, Newton, and perhaps even Aristotle. It is more reasonable to conclude that Bush is a part of a murderous plot to seize dictatorial powers than to conclude that Galileo, Newton and Einstein were just wrong about matter, motion, and the conservation of both matter and energy. I don't they were wrong. Rather --I think Bush is a goddamn liar!

Certainly, Einsteinian physics proposed an equation that describes the conversion of matter into energy: E = mc2. But E = mc2 cannot explain what happened at the Pentagon unless one is willing to posit that a nuclear device was exploded there. Had that happened, the Pentagon and perhaps much of DC would not have been left standing. That we are expected to believe that a 100 ton airliner simply vanished is the most absurd violation of Occam's Razor that I've encountered in my lifetime. It's stupid! Needless to say --no one exploded a thermonuclear device; neither did an airliner exceed the speed of light and thus pop into another dimension.

Absurd theories by Bush partisans and paid liars simply create more problems for themselves than they can explain scientifically. If Bush had been innocent he would have insisted upon a thorough and complete investigation. Instead, he tried to cover it up and interfered with the 911 commission which he opposed.

Let's re-examine the physics that proves Bush a liar.
When a piece of copper metal is heated in air, it comes together with oxygen in the air. Then if it is weighed, it is found to have a greater mass that the original piece of metal. If however the mass of the oxygen of the air that combines with the metal is taken into consideration, it can be shown that the mass of the product is within the limits of accuracy of any weighing instrument, equal to the sum of the masses of the copper and oxygen that combine. This behavior of matter is in accord with what is called the Law of Conservation of Matter: During an ordinary chemical change, there is no detectable increase or decrease in the quantity of matter.

Conversion of one type of matter into another are always accompanied by the conversion of one form of energy into another. Usually heat is leveled or absorbed, but sometimes the conversion involves light or electrical energy instead of, or in addition to heat. Many transformations of energy, of course, do not involve chemical changes. Electrical energy can be changed into either mechanical, light, heat or potential energy without chemical changes. Mechanical energy is converted into electrical energy in a generator. Potential and kinetic energy can be converted into one another. Many other conversions are possible, but all of the energy involved in any change always appears in some form after the change is completed.

The Law of Conservation of Energy states that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can change its form.

The total quantity of matter and energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or less.

-- Science > Chemistry > General Chemistry > Energy > Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy
And from another source:
Our very stoichiometry depends upon conservation of mass (indeed atoms!), and our thermal and spectral toys are predicated upon the conservation of energy in its many forms. But that image above is a niggling reminder that Einstein would have us conserve matter+energy instead of either alone. The picture is of the Comanche Peak Nuclear Power Reactor near Glen Rose, Texas, southwest of Fort Worth. [Click on it and your browser will get you an enlargement, but don't forget to click your "BACK" button to return here to the notes.]

In the reactor, unstable nuclei radiodecay into their fission products the mass of which falls short of the starting nucleus. We're not disturbed that mass isn't conserved; indeed, TU Electric (the donor of the image) is ecstatic with the failure of mass conservation since they make a profit off the resulting failure of energy conservation! And we're comfortable since we recall that Einstein found the conversion factor between mass and energy, namely, the square of the speed of light!

Surely the world's most recognized scientific equation isn't Newton's F=ma but rather Einstein's
E=moc2.

E=moc2, however, wasn't satisfactory since it only accommodated matter at rest (that's the meaning of the subscript "o"). If matter is in motion, it has the property of motion called momentum, p=mv (mass times velocity), which, in the absence of forces, is itself a conserved quantity.

More to the point, one important component of the energy Einstein needs to conserve is kinetic energy given by the expression,
K = ½ mv2 = p2/2m.

So the expression Einstein actually used for this matter/energy conservation equation was one incorporating momentum appropriately. And it turned out to be something a bit more complex:

E = [ mo2c4 + p2c2 ] ½

Clearly, when p=0, we recover what we expect, but, when it's not, the rest may look foreign to chemists. It isn't. They may not know that they know it yet, but it draws together things chemists take for granted in an interesting way.

--Einstein's Conservation Law
Bush may believe himself to be a dictator! Even if he were, he cannot decree that the laws of physics be repealed. Anyone with a working brain cell knows by now that Bush lied through his teeth about 911. He actively quashed investigations and interfered with the 911 commission, the creation of which he opposed. Only someone with a 'stake' in our believing his lies would have gone to such extraordinary lengths!

Bush had such a 'stake'. Bush is up to his neck in 911. He either participated in planning 911 or he knew about it and assisted. Qui bono? Bush! Within days, Bush lied about 911 to the American people. We know that Bush has committed capital offenses abroad, violation of US Codes, Title 18, Section 2441. His bloodlust is demonstrable, a matter of public record.

Bush himself --his lies, his record, his obsession with death and destruction --is probable cause to arrest and charge George W. Bush for the mass murder of Americans in connection with the events now known collectively as '911'. Bush's record of lies with regard to 911 is probable cause to begin a real investigation --not a 911 Commission white wash! Let's put Bush in front of Federal Grand Jury under oath! There is a case to be made now that George W. Bush committed capital crimes --not just in Iraq against Iraqis but in America against Americans.
After watching the following two videos I thought it would be worth while reposting the information on why the conspirators who orchestrated 911 must be brought to trial and how it is possible that the governments of Italy and Japan can question 911 but our children are forbidden from doing so.

In the meantime --the most outlandish and idiotic conspiracy theory ever:
According to the ever truth-telling government of the US and the ever accurate US media, the 9/11 attacks were planned by a sickly man hiding in a cave who just so happened to be a "former" CIA employee.

The attacks were then carried out by 19 Arab hijackers who, just by chance, lived next door to the Israeli Mossad and magically some how at least 7 of them remained alive after crashing planes into buildings.

This is, of course, because each of the living hijackers had eaten those little green 1up mushrooms from Super Mario brothers and upon their death they just came back to life on earth as extra men. Claiming that these men could not possibly have carried out the attacks just because a few of them are alive is absurd. The magical 1up mushrooms explains everything perfectly

--The other 911 theory

Bush's cover up of 911 and related skullduggery by the war criminal in the Oval Office:

14 comments:

perspicio said...

As much as I appreciate your blog - and I do - this one isn't going to convince anybody who thinks critically.

Not that it couldn't be true. But it's a pretty bold assertion to make without offering evidence to back it up. Leaving aside the trivial matter of the mass of an airliner (I could probably look that up myself if it were the only thing missing, but you should have nevertheless included your source if you have one), how do you know how much debris was recovered at the Pentagon?

I guess my real issue is that you have offered no sources for the key data of your claim.

I had my first pang of real suspicion about the official 9/11 story when, during the cleanup, I learned that the steel girders that were recovered from Ground Zero were summarily shipped off to China and India, and melted down instead of being saved for forensic evidence, not necessarily of a crime, but for mode of failure. The information would have been immensely useful to engineers.

But even so, I can well imagine that in the mayhem the cleanup was just poorly managed.

I admit I haven't done my homework thoroughly on this matter, so many of my questions may have been satisfactorily answered already. Or, maybe there are many more questions I haven't thought of which are left hanging in the balance.

I don't know.

But I do know that, for the sake of your credibility, you should provide reputable sources your information.

Len Hart said...

...this one isn't going to convince anybody who thinks critically.

That's not my audience on this one. 'anybody who thinks critically' is already convinced.

But it's a pretty bold assertion to make without offering evidence to back it up.

This is not the only article I've written. I cited tons. Moreover, the burden of proof is not on me. Bush has asserted a 'conspiracy theory' for which there is NO evidence in support. The dictum in law, logic and debate is this: 'those who assert must prove!. Not only has Bush NOT proven, he has actively sought to quash and cover up. That is, in itself, evidence of guilt! Those who are innocent of crimes have no valid reasons for actively covering them up!

I had my first pang of real suspicion about the official 9/11 story when, during the cleanup, I learned that the steel girders that were recovered from Ground Zero were summarily shipped off to China and India, and melted down instead of being saved for forensic evidence, not necessarily of a crime, but for mode of failure. The information would have been immensely useful to engineers.

Indeed! If Bush had been innocent, he would have INSISTED upon a complete and thorough examination of those girders. 911 was the scene of a crime and, by law, all of that wreckage was evidence. His order to 'destroy' or to dispose of that evidence in any way is in itself a crime for which he should have been impeached, removed and prosecuted in a Federal Court! His actions subsequent to 911 will be of great interest when a case against him goes to court.

I guess my real issue is that you have offered no sources for the key data of your claim.

The facts of the case are already established. I summarized a valid and logical conclusion. Regulars here know that I have made an exhaustive, researched case against Bush. This blog is a gestalt! I am quite frankly not in the mood to repost hundreds of pages and possibly thousands of links that can be found here with a search.

I admit I haven't done my homework thoroughly on this matter, so many of my questions may have been satisfactorily answered already.

But since you've raised no specific objection, I can't answer it here.

But I do know that, for the sake of your credibility, you should provide reputable sources your information.

I have done! And I've paid my dues! This is an opinion piece and I am entitled to summarize my conclusions. An 'indictment' of Bush is found in numerous other articles --all footnoted and cited. Moreover --my conclusions are correct and I would tell Bush that to his stupid face.

BTW --I've interviewed the Senior but equally stupid Bush on numerous occasions. He was always just a tad shy of intelligibility. He just faked it a little better than Jr.

In the meantime, the refutation of my article would consist of someone telling me what motivation other than guilt does Bush have to cover up the crime of mass murder? If there is an innocent explanation, I am sure we would have heard it. We haven't because there is none!

marain said...

Len, thank you for keeping this issue alive - for posting so frequently on this topic. Nearly seven years have gone by since 9/11. The truths of this terrible crime could so easily fade into obscurity if not for people like you who question the official conspiracy theory. Thank you for this. I hope that someday a proper investigate will be undertaken.

marain

damien said...

There's plenty of good links out there about the Pentagon discrepancies. Disappearing planes are an insult to anyone's intelligence and it's an interesting commentary on our society that patent falsehoods are so easily and widely accepted. Keep up the good work, Len.

Len Hart said...

marain said...

Len, thank you for keeping this issue alive - for posting so frequently on this topic. Nearly seven years have gone by since 9/11. The truths of this terrible crime could so easily fade into obscurity if not for people like you who question the official conspiracy theory. Thank you for this. I hope that someday a proper investigate will be undertaken.

Thanks marain! We simply must not let the truths fade into obscurity. In fact, we should be organizing now to arrest and prosecute him for this crime when he is no longer safe and above the law inside a stolen and heretofore illegally occupied White House. Two things are needed --a series of short articles (like this) punching specific holes in the official lie. At some point -- an EXHAUSTIVE study leaning upon all the great work done by damien and, of course, David Ray Griffin and others.

Damien sez...

There's plenty of good links out there about the Pentagon discrepancies. Disappearing planes are an insult to anyone's intelligence and it's an interesting commentary on our society that patent falsehoods are so easily and widely accepted. Keep up the good work, Len.

Indeed there is! It was you, in fact, who made the point so effectively that 100 tons of debris is still 100 tons of debris. My response (as I recall) was that what wreckage was found was 1) NOT from an airliner and 2) could have been carried off in a two or three wheelbarrows. That hardly makes up an complete airliner.

What is still so amazing about this entire topic is the shocking, deplorable and widespread ignorance of basic science that is found among the US population. With regard to education in America, Bush might have gotten one thing right: 'wings took dream'! In my more cynical moods, I often doubt that as many as one in ten "educated" adults 'escaped' a four year college level education with an ability to define 'syllogism' --let alone follow one or posit one of their own.

Conspiracies aside --Bush should have been prosecuted, convicted and jailed for the cover up if not the crime. And I have yet to find ANY case of ANY time in which someone actively covering up a crime was not also guilty of it! Bush's cover up of 911 was conducted, in Hitler's words, 'in full view of the world!"

WindHarps said...

Video Response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0k4B6C60an0

tiago said...

One question I have always wanted to ask you; Is the Armstrong Ranch the best biggest whore house in Texas?
Concerning your comments as to 9/11 Commision Report to being a 'white wash'. How? With out the portion concerning the Saud's, (Prince Bandar, his wife, the bin Ladens, etc), the report is incomplete. It isn't very good white wash.

Len Hart said...

The biggest whorehouse is Texas is most probably the State Legislature.

The Saudis are crooked and were up to their sorry asses in the BCCI scandal.

Khalid bin Mahfouz liked Houston so much that he built himself a billion dollar home in River Oaks, flying in marble from Cararra.

perspicio said...

I want to be clear that my comment wasn't intended to draw conclusions or advocate a specific position about 9/11. It was only about the presentation. I still would have preferred sourcing to reputable articles and evidence, since it would help cut through the weak and irresponsible cases being touted by believers in 9/11 conspiracy. But I'm not as familiar with your body of writings as perhaps the majority of your readers are, so it didn't occur to me to search your archives.

But your point is taken, Len, and you'll hear no agitating from me.

Len Hart said...

perspicio said...

But your point is taken, Len, and you'll hear no agitating from me.

Perspicio, see my new article at Indict George Bush, Marvin Bush, Dick Cheney, Larry Silverstein for Mass Murder

I support agitation and indulge it.

perspicio said...

Aargh...I meant to say, "...the weak and irresponsible cases being touted by some believers in 9/11 conspiracy."

My deal is, I'm very suspicious of government and in the past I've been biased toward seeing intentional malfeasance whether or not it existed, so I have learned to keep myself on a short leash, to check the details, and to make as few assumptions as possible. I'm a "black hat" kind of guy. Five years of engineering school didn't hurt, either.

That's why you'll hear more skepticism from me than you're probably comfortable with. I can't bring myself to believe many things, even more trivial ones, without examining the facts and logical framework myself.

Len Hart said...

Skepticism misplaced is not skepticism. Since Bush assumed the office, 'skepticism' is applied ONLY to critics of Bush. That is NOT skepticism. That's gullibility!

perspicio said...

Hmmm...you seem to be blocking my comments now.

If so, that's pretty sad. I only tried to point out that we need to apply higher standards than those that got us into the mess we're in. The Bush administration let belief trump fact; you seem to advocate doing the same to them in retaliation. Calling skepticism gullibility doesn't make it so, but it does reveal your bias.

As Nietzsche said, "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."

And by censoring comments from those who offer alternate points of view, you've effectively truncated meaningful discussion in favor of a clique of head-nodders.

The people who you allow to post may have worthwhile things to say, but by disallowing intelligent dissent and skepticism, you've cheapened them and yourself.

I hope you'll reconsider your decision, and post my previous comment.

perspicio said...

"Hmmmm" again! Now it appears that, far from being censored, my comments aren't even being held for review before posting, as they were previously. So it seems you've actually loosened constraints on posting.

One of my comments still disappeared down a rabbit-hole, but all things considered I guess I have to issue a retraction, eh?

I can say in this instance that is sure is nice to be proven wrong.

I hope I gave no offense.

Thanks, Len.