Tuesday, August 12, 2008

Why the BBC and FOX Can No Longer be Believed

by Len Hart, The Existentialist Cowboy

Like a cornered dog, the BBC has lashed out at a growing movement of organized critics of Bush 'conspiracy theories' of 911. How credible is this offensive? BBC reporting of 911 is at the very least 'questionable', at worst, 'dishonest'. I suggest that the BBC is trying to save face, having blown almost every opportunity to report honestly with regard to the events of 911.

The BBC's coverage of Building 7 is the part that contains the whole! It's a sorry 'incredible' mess! Anyone watching the BBC report of the collapse of WTC Building 7 when the building is seen still standing behind the reporter should question BBC motives, sources, ethics, and operations. Where did the BBC get the information that a standing building had collapsed before it could have or did? Why did the BBC report as fact the collapse of a building that would not collapse for another 23 minutes? How did the BBC know?
Another video of the BBC's Screw Up
The BBC might have known had Larry Silverstein or 'agent' tipped them off! Silverstein, the building owner, is on video tape 'confessing' that the building had been 'pulled'. That being the case, the BBC is open to charges of 'omitting' the fact that Building 7 was 'pulled'. BBC cannot have it both ways!

Perhaps the venerable BBC is perversely comforted by the fact that it was not alone; other media also reported the collapse of Building 7 before it, in fact, collapsed. The swamis at Fox were obviously consulting the same oracle:
The video footage speaks for itself. Fox-5 anchor Tracey Neale says that a 47-story building had collapsed in downtown Manhattan which is an obvious reference to WTC-7 because it too was a 47-story building in downtown Manhattan. Then just seconds after Neale reports on the building collapse, they witness WTC-7 collapse at free fall speed in their own video footage.
Following the collapse both news anchors state that the building must have come down due to structural failure which has of course been the official cover story for the WTC-7 collapse. Neale appears visibly flustered after she realizes that she reported on a building collapse in advance of the collapse actually happening. After the collapse, Neale’s co-anchor states the following which is incredibly surreal considering all the information that has now come out about the events of 9/11.

--Fox Reports Building 7 Collapse before it happened. (click the link; there is VIDEO of the Fox swamis caught in the act!)
Prior to 9/11, no steel framed building had ever collapsed as a result of fire damage. Building 7 is a threat not only to Bush's absurd cover story which defies the laws of physics, it is a threat to the 'bend over and take it' school of journalism which regurgitates official stories and covers its ass with an attribution. The 'news reader' in the above video states --as if it were fact --that Building 7 collapsed because 'it had been weakened' though it was never struck by aircraft of any sort!  In fact, Building 7 would not have collapsed from the existing fires even if it had not been "intentionally designed to allow large portions of floors to be permanently removed without weakening" the structural integrity of the building.

It was the venerable New York Times which reported that fact. Their source was Larry Silverstein the man who later admitted --on broadcast TV --that WTC 7 had, in fact, been 'pulled'. "Pulled" is industry jargon for "controlled demolition".
BEFORE it moves into a new office tower in downtown Manhattan, Salomon Brothers, the brokerage firm, intends to spend nearly two years and more than $200 million cutting out floors, adding elevators, reinforcing steel girders, upgrading power supplies and making other improvements in its million square feet of space...
In some office buildings, that alteration would be impossible, but Silverstein Properties tried to second-guess the needs of potential tenants when it designed Seven World Trade Center as a speculative project. 
''We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity, on the assumption that someone might need double-height floors,'' said Larry Silverstein, president of the company. ''Sure enough, Salomon had that need... 
MORE than 375 tons of steel - requiring 12 miles of welding - will be installed to reinforce floors for Salomon's extra equipment. Sections of the existing stone facade and steel bracing will be temporarily removed so that workers using a roof crane can hoist nine diesel generators onto the tower's fifth floor, where they will become the core of a back-up power station. ...
--New York Times, The Salomon Solution; A Building Within a Building, at a Cost of $200 Million
Since that date, the BBC has tried to paper over the incident with many ex post facto versions. Likewise, the BBC has offered up an apologia for having reported a fact: when it was still honest, the BBC had tracked down and interviewed several alleged Arab 911 hijackers after they were said to have died in the 911 attacks.

Now a cornered BBC, it's credibility on the line, blames its critics, just as the U.S. GOP always blames its victims though they are the victims incompetent and often criminal policies. Why is the BBC lashing out? Its very survival as a network was at stake. My theory --for what 'theories' are worth --is that the BBC had a stake in promoting the Bush/Blair orthodoxy.
In a recently broadcast documentary, The Conspiracy Files: 9/11 - The Third Tower, the BBC presents the second of two programs confronting claims made by a growing activist movement comprised of people who doubt the official story of 9/11. This time the BBC looks into one of the most compelling areas of 9/11 research, the theory that WTC 7 was brought down by controlled demolition. [my note: Larry Silverstein is heard on video tape broadcast on TV and cable that WTC 7 was, in fact, 'pulled'! ]
The perfect vertical implosion of this enormous building—the last of seven WTC buildings to be completely destroyed on 9/11—was filmed from several excellent angles and is further supported by aerial photos (fig. 1). Those theorists who claim that the Twin Towers as well were brought down with explosives have enjoyed an exponential boost in credence from strong evidence supporting the intentional demolition of WTC 7.
--911 Blooger.com, The BBC’s Demolition of 9/11 Truth
As building owner Larry Silverstein had said, WTC 7 was 'pulled', raising the question: when was the building prepped for demolition? One does not merely decide to 'pull' and building to watch it happen a few hours or less later. The process of rigging a building of some 47 stories for a perfect and symmetrical, controlled demolition may take weeks. Often, the plans and engineering specifications must be examined. 911 was planned well in advance.

I have a nit to pick with 911 Blogger's title. BBC cannot 'demolish' 911 truth. They can only lie about the events as it tries to rewrite its own history. The BBC has tried to do this with several issues. First --the fact that the BBC interviewed several of the alleged 911 hijackers at a time when the Bush administration and then Prime Minister Tony Blair were telling the world that they had perished in the attacks. So --who's lying? The BBC story is still available with a change that the BBC has tried to gloss over so:
In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.
--Steve Herrmann, 9/11 conspiracy theory
Here's my note to Steve: first of all, your headline itself pure propaganda, intended to imply that critics of Bush/Blair have posited some kind of 'conspiracy' about 911. Some of the them may have --but criticism of the Bush/Blair theory is not a theory. It was, rather, Bush and Blair who put forward the most asinine, stupid, fallacious, and outlandish 'theory' to have ever come down the pike.

Critiques of the 'official theory' which would have you believe that a team of rag-tag Islamic radicals, who most certainly could not fly Cessnas, managed to co--ordinate an attack that resulted in the complete and utter destruction of two of the world's largest, tallest structures and a third building in New York that was not even struck by ANY aircraft at any time. Sorry, Herrmann, critics of this theory are not 'theorists'; they are realists and true skeptics. The 'official theory' is, however, a theory. It is also pure bunkum which even the co-chairs of the 911 commission now disown! They don't believe it. Why should you?

That brings up the topic of Building 7. Bush/Blair gullibles have always included Building 7 as a part of the terrorist attack. By putting itself in the position of defending the outlandish, official conspiracy theory of them all, the BBC has, perhaps unwittingly, assumed the burden of proof! If the BBC wishes to 'demolish' critics of the 'official conspiracy theory', it must then PROVE the 'official conspiracy'. BBC is sticking its neck out, perhaps pinning it own future on proving an 'official conspiracy theory' for which there is not a shred of evidence. Making minor changes to its story about surviving hijackers is a band-aid. Unless the BBC can rescue Bush/Blair, it may be finished. It is not wise for a news organization to pin its credibility, indeed, its hope for survival upon the word of two known liars: Bush and Blair.

Here's what the BBC must do to prove the Bush/Blair Official Conspiracy Theory of 911:
  • The BBC must explain why steel melted and collapsed in a relatively cool kerosene fire when, in fact, no other building in the world had ever so collapsed! In fact, the fires at WTC --including Building 7 --were NEVER hot enough at any time to have melted steel! Moreover, by the time the Twin Towers collapsed, the billowing smoke was black. Any firefighter, any veteran reporter will tell you that 'black smoke means a cooling fire'. The fires were spent and the steel was never hot enough even for a second to have melted steel! Again --the burden of proof is upon BBC, Bush and Blair to PROVE the most stupid and outlandish conspiracy theory ever perpetrated upon a gullible pubic!
  • The BBC must offer a credible explanation for the precise maneuver that is attributed to Flight 77 said to have hit the Pentagon. Bluntly --Hani Hanjour couldn't even fly a Cessna. He could not have banked a 757 90 degrees without crashing it, let alone execute a maneuver that many experienced pilots say is absolutely impossible in a 757.
  • The BBC must PROVE, with photographs if it can get them, that it was a 757 that struck the Pentagon. Surely, Bush, eager to assist BBCs efforts on his behalf will will turn over every one of hundreds, possibly thousands of photos that were taken of the Pentagon and whatever it was that crashed into the Pentagon that fateful day! Surely, Bush will want to help the BBC out! Won't he?
  • The BBC must PROVE that Flight 77 Flight Data is consistent with its crashing into the Pentagon. I am confident that the Flight Data from Flight 77 will prove conclusively that Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon at an altitude of about 200 feet or slightly higher. Let's open up the Black Box and see who is correct! Me? Or the BBC/Bush? I'm not sweatin' it!
Now let's talk about what is perhaps the BBC's biggest gaffe --more egregious even than its various after-the-fact circumlocutions in the wake of its report that Building 7 had collapsed when, in fact, it was still standing. That is: the BBC censored only that portion of David Frost's interview with Benazir Bhutto in which she stated that Omar Sheikh had murdered Bin Laden years ago. Why did the BBC censor this portion and this portion only? Did the BBC feel obliged to keep alive the myth that Osama Bin Laden --a CIA asset --was still alive? Why?

The Bush administration, it seems, has kept Bin Laden alive for about seven years. Bhutto's remarks confirmed numerous reports including those by Fox and the New York Times that bin Laden had been dead for several years. The BBC was not alone in "censoring" Bhutto's references to the death of bin Laden.
On November 2nd, 2007 two weeks after the first attempt on her life resulted in the deaths of 158 people, former Pakistani President Benazir Bhutto spoke with British interviewer David Frost about her plans for Pakistan, the botched assassination and her feelings about working with current President Pervez Musharraf. (In light of her death, this is a difficult video to watch.) In the course of the past few days, however, FOX News has aired short clips from this interview on Special Report. No one - including Frost - seems to have picked up on an astounding claim made by Mrs. Bhutto, namely, that Osama bin Laden is dead. Mme. Bhutto claimed that a man named Ahmed Omar Saeed Sheikh is "the man who murdered Osama bin Laden." With video.
FOX News & Other Media Outlets Ignore Benazir Bhutto's Claim That Osama bin Laden Is Dead
Fox News had a stake in keeping bin Laden alive --but it was trapped. Fox had already reported him dead! Thus Benazir Bhutto was confirmed. It was on December 26, 2001, that the Fox network reported that Osama bin Laden died of "serious lung complications" in mid-December of that year. The original Fox report is as follows:

Fox News: "Bin Laden Already Dead"

Wednesday, December 26, 2001

Usama bin Laden has died a peaceful death due to an untreated lung complication, the Pakistan Observer reported, citing a Taliban leader who allegedly attended the funeral of the Al Qaeda leader.

"The Coalition troops are engaged in a mad search operation but they would never be able to fulfill their cherished goal of getting Usama alive or dead," the source said.

Bin Laden, according to the source, was suffering from a serious lung complication and succumbed to the disease in mid-December, in the vicinity of the Tora Bora mountains. The source claimed that bin Laden was laid to rest honorably in his last abode and his grave was made as per his Wahabi belief.

About 30 close associates of bin Laden in Al Qaeda, including his most trusted and personal bodyguards, his family members and some "Taliban friends," attended the funeral rites. A volley of bullets was also fired to pay final tribute to the "great leader."

The Taliban source who claims to have seen bin Laden's face before burial said "he looked pale ... but calm, relaxed and confident."

Asked whether bin Laden had any feelings of remorse before death, the source vehemently said "no." Instead, he said, bin Laden was proud that he succeeded in his mission of igniting awareness amongst Muslims about hegemonistic designs and conspiracies of "pagans" against Islam. Bin Laden, he said, held the view that the sacrifice of a few hundred people in Afghanistan was nothing, as those who laid their lives in creating an atmosphere of resistance will be adequately rewarded by Almighty Allah.

When asked where bin Laden was buried, the source said, "I am sure that like other places in Tora Bora, that particular place too must have vanished."
Bin Laden, therefore, could not have issued a video tape on October 29, 2004 --just two days before the US election. This is the famous tape that many pundits believe "swung" the election from John Kerry to George Bush.
On October 29, 2004, two days before the US elections, the Arab television network al-Jazeera sprung an October Surprise by broadcasting a videotape of a healthy looking bin Laden addressing the people of the United States in which he took responsibility for the September 11, 2001 attacks. He also condemned the Bush government's response to the attacks, and presented the attacks as part of a campaign of revenge and deterrence begun after personally seeing the destruction of the Lebanese Civil War in 1982. See 2004 Osama bin Laden video.
President Bush opened up a six-point lead over John Kerry in the first opinion poll to include sampling taken after the videotape was broadcast. [21] Walter Cronkite found the video very convenient for the Bush administration, and said of it “I'm a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, he probably set up bin Laden to this thing.” [22]
--Colin Bett, A 'Conspiracy Theory' Too Far?
Not only Fox, but the New York Times also reported the death of Bin Laden.
Osama bin Laden is dead. The news first came from sources in Afghanistan and Pakistan almost six months ago: the fugitive died in December [2001] and was buried in the mountains of southeast Afghanistan. Pakistan's president, Pervez Musharraf, echoed the information. The remnants of Osama's gang, however, have mostly stayed silent, either to keep Osama's ghost alive or because they have no means of communication. With an ego the size of Mount Everest, Osama bin Laden would not have, could not have, remained silent for so long if he were still alive. He always liked to take credit even for things he had nothing to do with. Would he remain silent for nine months and not trumpet his own survival?
--New York Times. July 11, 2002
NYT has apparently re-published the story. The original publication date was: July 11, 2002. Fox, it would appear, scooped the NYT but, apparently forgot what they had reported. Professional journalists?

The issue of bin Laden's pulse surfaced more recently when the venerable BBC clearly censored remarks by Benazir Bhutto to the effect that bin Laden had been murdered. Why would the BBC have deleted only that portion of the interview? Following is the original, unedited version in which Bhutto states that Bin Laden had been murdered.

A fallacious rationalization has surfaced. It is said --as if scripted --that Bhutto misspoke, that she had meant to say "Daniel Perle". There is absolutely no reason to suppose or speculate that Bhutto misspoke. She did not pause. She did not struggle to find a name. Secondly, only an idiot would mistake Bin Laden for Perle. Bhutto was not an idiot.

Even if Bin Laden were alive, it would not prove that Bhutto misspoke, only that she was wrong. Not the same thing. Theories that Bhutto 'misspoke' are baseless, pure supposition for which there is not a shred of evidence in support.

An essential resource: Can someone with no flight training safely land an airliner? Plus: Pilotless planes, overpaid pilots and other aviation myths.

Perhaps the BBC is trying to make amends for having told the truth about 911 and the events leading up to it when it was not yet 'treasonous' to tell the truth. The best BBC reporting was done before 911, before the axis of Bush and Blair would deceive the world and intimidate the media. All would not go smoothly; Pakistan and Ahmed Shah Massoud's government in Afghanistan, meanwhile, had already signed a pipeline deal with an Argentinean company.
BBC - American government told other governments about Afghan invasion IN JULY 2001. 
The wider objective was to oust the Taleban
By the BBC's George Arney
A former Pakistani diplomat has told the BBC that the US was planning military action against Osama Bin Laden and the Taleban even before last week's attacks. Niaz Naik, a former Pakistani Foreign Secretary, was told by senior American officials in mid-July that military action against Afghanistan would go ahead by the middle of October.
Mr Naik said US officials told him of the plan at a UN-sponsored international contact group on Afghanistan which took place in Berlin. Mr Naik told the BBC that at the meeting the US representatives told him that unless Bin Laden was handed over swiftly America would take military action to kill or capture both Bin Laden and the Taleban leader, Mullah Omar.The wider objective, according to Mr Naik, would be to topple the Taleban regime and install a transitional government of moderate Afghans in its place - possibly under the leadership of the former Afghan King Zahir Shah. Mr Naik was told that Washington would launch its operation from bases in Tajikistan, where American advisers were already in place.
He was told that Uzbekistan would also participate in the operation and that 17,000 Russian troops were on standby. Mr Naik was told that if the military action went ahead it would take place before the snows started falling in Afghanistan, by the middle of October at the latest.
He said that he was in no doubt that after the World Trade Center bombings this pre-existing US plan had been built upon and would be implemented within two or three weeks. And he said it was doubtful that Washington would drop its plan even if Bin Laden were to be surrendered immediately by the Taleban.
--US 'planned attack on Taleban', BBC
By July, 2001, the US State Department was reported to have been threatening the Taliban with carpet bombs.
U.S. Policy Towards Taliban Influenced by Oil
By Julio Godoy, Inter Press Service
PARIS, Nov 15 (IPS) - Under the influence of U.S. oil companies, the government of George W. Bush initially blocked U.S. secret service investigations on terrorism, while it bargained with the Taliban the delivery of Osama bin Laden in exchange for political recognition and economic aid, two French intelligence analysts claim.
In the book ''Bin Laden, la verité interdite'' (''Bin Laden, the forbidden truth''), that appeared in Paris on Wednesday, the authors, Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie, reveal that the Federal Bureau of Investigation's deputy director John O'Neill resigned in July in protest over the obstruction.
Brisard claim O'Neill told them that ''the main obstacles to investigate Islamic terrorism were U.S. oil corporate interests and the role played by Saudi Arabia in it''. [emphasis mine, EC]

The two claim the U.S. government's main objective in Afghanistan was to consolidate the position of the Taliban regime to obtain access to the oil and gas reserves in Central Asia.
They affirm that until August, the U.S. government saw the Taliban regime ''as a source of stability in Central Asia that would enable the construction of an oil pipeline across Central Asia'', from the rich oilfields in Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan, through Afghanistan and Pakistan, to the Indian Ocean.
Until now, says the book, ''the oil and gas reserves of Central Asia have been controlled by Russia. The Bush government wanted to change all that''.
But, confronted with Taliban's refusal to accept U.S. conditions, ''this rationale of energy security changed into a military one'', the authors claim.
''At one moment during the negotiations, the U.S. representatives told the Taliban, 'either you accept our offer of a carpet of gold, or we bury you under a carpet of bombs','' Brisard said in an interview in Paris.
According to the book, the government of Bush began to negotiate with the Taliban immediately after coming into power in February. U.S. and Taliban diplomatic representatives met several times in Washington, Berlin and Islamabad.
To polish their image in the United States, the Taliban even employed a U.S. expert on public relations, Laila Helms. The authors claim that Helms is also an expert in the works of U.S. secret services, for her uncle, Richard Helms, is a former director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).
--US Policy Towards Taliban Influenced by Oil
The negotiations with the Taliban broke down. In that summer of 2001, the American people were distracted by the American media noise machine. See: All Condit All The Time. The US Government was informing other governments that the US would be at war in Afghanistan no later than October. The US timetable for war was set before 911 would conveniently provide the pretext. Pure luck? I don't think so.

67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7

Kansas City, MO (Zogby International) September 6, 2007 - As America nears the sixth anniversary of the world-churning events of September 11, 2001, a new Zogby International poll finds a majority of Americans still await a Congressional investigation of President Bush' and Vice President Cheney's actions before, during and after the 9/11 attacks. Over 30% also believe Bush and/or Cheney should be immediately impeached by the House of Representatives.

The 911truth.org–sponsored poll also found that over two-thirds of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the still unexplained collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001. ...

39 comments:

Greg Bacon said...

Excellent article that I enjoyed reading, but i will have to disagree with this portion:

"Any firefighter, any veteran reporter will tell you that 'black smoke means a cooling fire'.

The reason i disagree is that i spent over 20 years as a firefighter with a Central Missouri career fire department and i'm here to tell you that in the large majority of fires, when black smoke is still being emitted, that means the fire is "racking on," due to the hydocarbons being burnt.

When you see white smoke being emitted, that usually means that the fire has been doused with enough water to cool off and suppress the fire.

Along with the white smoke, there will be large amounts of steam being emitted, which is also white.

Granted, when it comes to firefighting, each fire is usually unique, due to the combustible materials being consumed by the flames.

But to say that black smoke means the fire is being extinguished is misleading.

With that being said, the fires in the WTC had been contained and the NYFD was on top of things, as their radio traffic--published by the New York Times several years ago showed.

I've read thru some of the radio traffic and from their accounts, in one of the towers, they not only had the fire extinguished, they were going to start providing medical care to the victims.

i believe the published radio accounts, not only due to the authentic sounding radio traffic, but the fact that they acted like fire fighters; that is, you make a decision at the beginning of the operation as to whether or not you are going to fight fire or rescue victims.

Since most FD's are usually understaffed and cannot provide both services, you usually elect to fight the fire, while ventilating the building to push out the toxic gases and smoke so the victims can at least get fresh air.

If the on scene fire crews had not only extinguished the fire(s) and determined that the building was safe enough to conduct medical care and rescue, then there is something terribly amiss and wrong with the so called "official" 9/11 version.

greg

Len Hart said...

Greg Bacon said...

But to say that black smoke means the fire is being extinguished is misleading.

In the case of WTC, the real time videos clearly show a bright orange fireball, turning red, accompanied by white smoke. Withing seconds, the smoke was billowing black.

With that being said, the fires in the WTC had been contained and the NYFD was on top of things, as their radio traffic--published by the New York Times several years ago showed.

Indeed! I've often heard it said by those who subscribe to the official conspiracy theory that the fires 'got hotter'! I can't subscribe to that theory. I've seen fires get hotter but ONLY when fresh fuel was put on the fire. If the fires never got hot enough to melt steel, a long burn at declining temperatures is not going to bring down a steel structure.

i believe the published radio accounts, not only due to the authentic sounding radio traffic, but the fact that they acted like fire fighters; that is, you make a decision at the beginning of the operation as to whether or not you are going to fight fire or rescue victims.

Not enough has been said about the professionalism displayed by 'responders' in New York. I also recall the famous video tape in which the fire fighters said they heard a loud series of rapid explosions "...a controlled demolition."

I have come to the conclusion that ONLY a 'controlled demolition' could have brought the towers down within their own footprints. After all, that's what 'controlled demolitions' are designed to do!

Deputy Director, Emergency Services Barry Jennings is on video tape describing how he stepped over bodies getting out of Building 7 before it collapsed as seen on the video tapes.

Building 7 is important because, like the twin towers, it fell neatly into its own footprint. Yet --it was NOT struck by an airliner. The official theory cannot explain the falls of the Twin Towers nor can it explain the fall of WTC. But the chances are excellent that whatever caused the WTC 7 to fall also caused the fall of the Twin Towers.

SpookyPunkos said...

If the official accounts were true, that aircraft and fires brought down the twin towers + WTC7-and that this happened unexpectedly- then we would not have the mountain of contradictory evidence we do.

As you pointed out Mr Hart, there is damning physical evidence that proves, beyond any doubt that explosives were used to bring down the buildings. No one can escape facts like the Molten Steel, the Thermate traces, the freefall collapses, the pulverised concrete, the multiple eyewitnesses to powerful explosions etc etc.

The people pulling the strings at BBC and various other media outlets will always have to resort to blatant lies in order to maintain the official take verse the obvious truth. Because their lies are so easily dismantled, they cannot possibly "win". Keeping this in mind our object should be to continue to push the "forensic evidence" in order to undermine the existing censorship. When everyone knows the truth, when judges and police and military chiefs and politicians all know, then those responsible for the 911 crime will have no place to hide.

Greg Bacon said...

I agree that once a fire gets to burning out of control, it won't keep getting hotter, unless something has been added to the fire from an outside source.

The type of fires left burning after the jet fuel flamed off are what we call "contents fires". They involve the burning of the contents of the rooms/building, such as furniture, carpets and the like.
Contents and building material that was designed not to burn or to retard the fire, thanks to buildings codes enacted over the years, that reduced the amount of flammable contents on purpose to avoid out of control fires in high rises.
Initially, these fires are hot, but either burn out quickly or suffocate themselves due to the fire needing a large amount of oxygen and not being able to receive the proper amount of oxygen due to the large amount of smoke generated or no fresh sources of oxygen.

These types of fires will make an unholy mess of the place, due to an immense amount of smoke damage, but don't cause an untoward amount of physical damage to the building's construction.

Anyone who was a budding pyromaniac in their younger days and played with gasoline to light fires, realized quick that it was all boom and not much fire, since the gasoline burned off quickly and usually didn't get a good fire going.

And that's what happened to the WTC buildings.

The initial crashes and explosions burned off way too much of the jet fuel for the fuel to be a factor in the building's collapse.

Anyone who doesn't realize and understand that is either clueless or works for FUXD News.... or both.

Greg Bacon said...

Damn it, you've got me wound up:

In 20+ years of service, i was on the scene of more than a few structure fires. Fires in various types of buildings, including residential, commercial and industrial. Even high rises. Most times, we were able to fight the fire successfully, extinguish the flames and return a sizable portion of the building and contents back to the owner.

However, some of the times, we lost the fight--and as the post fire investigation by the Fire Marshal's office would find, those fires involved arson--and were forced to go from an offensive mode, in which we would conduct interior fire fighting, to a defensive mode, in which we would "surround and drown" the building with immense amounts of water from the exterior.

When that happened, some of the times the building would collapse, due to interior fire damage and the immense amounts of water applied in fire suppression. The structure would collapse in a random, haphazard, piecemeal manner. Not once did i personally witness one of those structures collapsing in the rather controlled and somewhat neat pancake fashion as the WTC towers and Building 7.

i might be able to believe that one of the towers could fall that way, but all three? On the same day, within hours of one another?

Think that would be physically impossible.

Len Hart said...

greg said..

Not once did i personally witness one of those structures collapsing in the rather controlled and somewhat neat pancake fashion as the WTC towers and Building 7.

Greg --I gotta hand it to you! In the news biz, you are what we would call a GREAT SOURCE. A less correct term would be 'great tape', meaning you, on tape, describing the event!

Indeed, having covered some fire, I never saw anything resembling such a 'neat pancake'.

It's instructive that it was the 'pancaking' was the FIRST official theory to bite the dust. It was rolled out by PBS seemingly within weeks of the event.

Here's the kicker that killed that beast off: THE ANIMATIONS LEFT OUT THE CORE!

I dunno --maybe the towers might have 'pancaked' if there had not been a core! But there WAS a core and mighty study one at that. Elsewhere on this blog, I have a picture of that core while the twin towers were still under contruction. Talk about redundancy --those STEEL cores would have required NUKES to bring down.

I am also informed that the outside 'classing' is STEEL --not aluminum. I find it difficult to believe that a SOFT, ALUMINUM bodied airliner of any sort could penetrate the steel cladding, literally slicing it as it would appear SOMETHING did on 911.

None of it adds up. The contradictions and anomalies may yet bring the official conspiracy theory crashing to the ground. Poetic justice!

SpookyPunkos said...

No one can escape facts like the Molten Steel, the Thermate traces, the freefall collapses, the pulverised concrete, the multiple eyewitnesses to powerful explosions etc etc.

You're right, spunky! They tried to bullshit us! But whoever is actively covering up 911 is most probably the arch villain who signed off on it! We know who that is.

I haven't checked Findlaw on this point as yet, but I believe that there is no statute of limitations on the crime of mass murder!

I think the time has come to DEMAND a Grand Jury investigation of Bush's continuing cover up, the crime itself! Bush, Rice, Rumsfeld, Cheney, various Brass --all should be subpoenaed to testify.

This kind of investigation carries weight. It could bring this entire administration to its knees, indeed, the leadership of the GOP!

Anonymous said...

What is or can be done, as we have seen a great deal of evidence - no, proof that their is a conspiracy - that excludes Muslim participation and includes players of Western leaders and intelligence parties?

5-Pillar Scribe

5pillar.wordpress.com

timking said...

Hey Len, another great article and thanks. It looks like the Fox News video clip has been yanked (although you can see the entire news segment from the Internet Archive link just above the video box) because it appears (even in the context of the whole report, at least to me) that they were just showing recorded video.

However that does NOT explain the BBC video at all. And I think it's just way too coincidental that the lady reporting is cut off in that way, before the building actually fell.

It's great hearing input from a firefighter as well, thanks Greg.

timking said...

Also, with the availability of these eye-witness accounts and other video footage, as well as expert opinions on the manner in which the buildings fell, couldn't we by now safely say that the word 'conspiracy' just doesn't cut it anymore?

This is blatant, completely disregarding every principle that our country used to stand for. This is in your face and out in the open, daring the people to do something about it from a regime that clearly isn't afraid of what the average citizen thinks.

damien said...

Greg Bacon, Great to hear from you! Can you give me your expert views on a couple of fire issues from 911, please.

(1) An odd portion of the North WTC tower remained standing for about 15 seconds after the collapse of the rest of the building around it. It was about 60 - 70 floors in height. See here and here. Why would these central spires remain standing the way they do? More importantly, why would they then collapse in their entirety? The spire was, after all, part of the central core of 47 steel columns buried deeply in the foundations.

(2) There were melted cars recovered after 911 (also here). I can make no sense of the intense blistering and melting of cars at street level where no fires occurred. It is also worth noting that several witnesses reported running down streets with cars exploding around them. Any ideas?

(3) In one of the WTC tower collapses (I forget which one) photo records show the central core of the building collapsing ahead of the rest. The central TV tower on top of the building collapses about 40 feet before the rest of the building starts to fall. The suggestion by some is that this is evidence that the central core was blown at the base causing some central columns to drop and the building to lose structural integrity and fall.

Any help you can provide would be very much appreciated.

Len, I assume you've seen this on the BBC and 911. Great article as usual. Cheers.

Anonymous said...

When the BBC's informant , Kelly, got hit by the 'Suicide Squad' (as I would put it), and the BBC just "let it be" , to quote my favorite band, I knew right then that the BBC had been brought to heel and that anything further they might have to say would be rubbish.

Greg Bacon said...

I can only relate my experiences fighting fire and not what obviously appears to be fire(s) caused by explosions.

As for the seriously twisted and damaged vehicles, those alone should cause any thinking person to scratch their heads.

One of the excuses used for the vehicle's being so distorted is that some of the jet fuel managed to dribble down 80 stories and catch fire??

Don't buy it. For one, the fuel wouldn't have escaped the fire and explosion in the impact crater for another, where are the reports of people that were still in the buildings at the time of impact reporting that they smelled something like gasoline or kerosene?

Check out this site for info on the explosions in the towers that day:

Engineer Mike Pecoraro, who was working in the sixth sub-basement of the north tower, said that after an explosion he and a co-worker went up to the C level, where there was a small machine shop. "There was nothing there but rubble," said Pecoraro."We're talking about a 50 ton hydraulic press--gone!" They then went to the parking garage, but found that it was also gone. Then on the B level, they found that a steel-and-concrete fire door, which weighed about 300 pounds, was wrinkled up "like a piece of aluminum foil." Having seen similar things after the terrorist attack in 1993, Pecoraro was convinced that a bomb had gone off.8

Explosive Testimony: Revelations about the Twin Towers in the 9/11 Oral Histories

by David Ray Griffin

[T]here was just an explosion [in the south tower]. It seemed like on television [when] they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.--Firefighter Richard Banaciski

I saw a flash flash flash [at] the lower level of the building. You know like when they demolish a building?--Assistant Fire Commissioner Stephen Gregory

[I]t was [like a] professional demolition where they set the charges on certain floors and then you hear 'Pop, pop, pop, pop, pop'."--Paramedic Daniel Rivera


The above quotations come from a collection of 9/11 oral histories that, although recorded by the Fire Department of New York (FDNY) at the end of 2001, were publicly released only on August 12, 2005. Prior to that date, very few Americans knew the content of these accounts or even the fact that they existed.

Why have we not known about them until recently? Part of the answer is that the city of New York would not release them until it was forced to do so. Early in 2002, the New York Times requested copies under the freedom of information act, but Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration refused. So the Times, joined by several families of 9/11 victims, filed suit. After a long process, the city was finally ordered by the New York Court of Appeals to release the records (with some exceptions and redactions allowed). Included were oral histories, in interview form, provided by 503 firefighters and medical workers.1 (Emergency Medical Services had become a division within the Fire Department.2) The Times then made these oral histories publicly available.3

Once the content of these testimonies is examined, it is easy to see why persons concerned to protect the official story about 9/11 would try to keep them hidden. By suggesting that explosions were occurring in the World Trade Center's Twin Towers, they pose a challenge to the official account of 9/11, according to which the towers were caused to collapse solely by the impact of the airplanes and the resulting fires.

These reports, however, were not widely publicized by the mainstream press and, as a result, have for the most part been known only within the 9/11 truth movement, which has focused on evidence that seems inconsistent with the official story.

Previously Available Testimony Suggestive of Explosions in the Twin Towers

The day after 9/11, a story in the Los Angeles Times, referring to the south tower, said: "There were reports of an explosion right before the tower fell, then a strange sucking sound, and finally the sound of floors collapsing."4

A story in the Guardian said that police and fire officials were carrying out the first wave of evacuations when the first of the World Trade Centre towers collapsed. Some eyewitnesses reported hearing another explosion just before the structure crumbled. Police said that it looked almost like a "planned implosion."5

Planned implosion? is another term for controlled demolition, in which explosives are placed at crucial places throughout a building so that, when set off in the proper order, they will cause the building to come down in the desired way. When it is close to other buildings, the desired way will be straight down into, or at least close to, the building?s footprint, so that it does not damage the surrounding buildings. This type of controlled demolition is called an 'implosion.' To induce an implosion in steel-frame buildings, the explosives must be set so as to break the steel columns. Each of the Twin Towers had 47 massive steel columns in its core and 236 steel columns around the periphery.

To return now to testimonies about explosions: There were many reports about an explosion in the basement of the north tower. For example, janitor William Rodriguez reported that he and others felt an explosion below the first sub-level office at 9 AM, after which co-worker Felipe David, who had been in front of a nearby freight elevator, came into the office with severe burns on his face and arms yelling "explosion! explosion! explosion!"6

Rodriguez's account has been corroborated by Jos. Sanchez, who was in the workshop on the fourth sub-level. Sanchez said that he and a co-worker heard a big blast that "sounded like a bomb," after which "a huge ball of fire went through the freight elevator."7

Multiple Explosions

Some of the testimonies suggested that more than one explosion occurred in one tower or the other. FDNY Captain Dennis Tardio, speaking of the south tower, said: "I hear an explosion and I look up. It is as if the building is being imploded, from the top floor down, one after another, boom, boom, boom."10

In June of 2002, NBC television played segments from tapes recorded on 9/11. One segment contained the following exchange, which involved firefighters in the south tower:

Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've just had another explosion.

Official: Battalion 3 to dispatch, we've had additional explosion.

Dispatcher: Received battalion command. Additional explosion.11

Firefighter Louie Cacchioli, after entering the north tower lobby and seeing elevator doors completely blown out and people being hit with debris, asked himself, "how could this be happening so quickly if a plane hit way above?" After he reached the 24th floor, he and another fireman "heard this huge explosion that sounded like a bomb [and] knocked off the lights and stalled the elevator." After they pried themselves out of the elevator, "another huge explosion like the first one hits. This one hits about two minutes later . . . [and] I'm thinking, "Oh. My God, these bastards put bombs in here like they did in 1993!"12


Steve Evans, a New York-based correspondent for the BBC, said: "I was at the base of the second tower . . . that was hit. . . . There was an explosion. . . . The base of the building shook. . . . [T]hen there was a series of explosions."14

Sue Keane, an officer in the New Jersey Fire Police Department who was previously a sergeant in the U.S. Army, said in her account of the onset of the collapse of the south tower: "[I]t sounded like bombs going off. That's when the explosions happened. . . . I knew something was going to happen. . . . It started to get dark, then all of a sudden there was this massive explosion." Then, discussing her experiences during the collapse of the north tower, she said: "[There was] another explosion. That sent me and the two firefighters down the stairs. . . . I can't tell you how many times I got banged around. Each one of those explosions picked me up and threw me. . . . There was another explosion, and I got thrown with two firefighters out onto the street."15

The rest of this story, plus an extensive bibliography, can be found at 911Truth.org

SpookyPunkos said...

damien,

I am no fire expert, but there are reasonable answers to your questions based on the fact that explosive devices were used to bring down the buildings- and that one of these explosive devices must have used a derivative of Thermite (Thermate).

1) From the documentary "911 Mysteries" it was suggested that THERMATE (or similar) was used in large quantities in order to undermine the steel cores at the base of the towers. Comprising of many columns, it is possible that damage to the core was not fully completed when the upper portions of the building in question were blown- hence some columns remained upright for a few seconds (a testimony to the strength of the structural steel).

2) Thermite/thermate reactions are very corrosive. It is possible that nearby cars were subject to some of this reactive material when the buildings were literally blown apart. High explosive charges would have thrown out some of this material thus melting various objects nearby(?). I don't know about exploding cars. Perhaps some fuel tanks were set alight by hot elements thrown out during the collapse. All I know is that the signature of Thermate was detected at ground zero, and that this is what I am basing this speculation upon.

3) I think it's logical to assume that any plan to demolish the Twin Towers would centre on undermining the core sections first. If you blew the outer columns first then people may see the core being obviously smashed or melted by explosive/incendiary devices. However, it is difficult to know if the North Tower Antenna drop was due to a "failure" of the core high in the towers or from a catastrophic "failure" occurring at the base. I suspect the former. One thing is obvious; the core section of the building, at some point, did fall first which fits perfectly with what one would expect of the explosive demolition hypothesis.

Anyway, like I said, I am no expert, but from the evidence I have seen I think those three explanations are reasonable- certainly more reasonable than any offered by a gravity collapse model.

Len Hart said...

5-Pillar Scribe said...

What is or can be done, as we have seen a great deal of evidence - no, proof that their is a conspiracy - that excludes Muslim participation and includes players of Western leaders and intelligence parties?

To be precise there is no proof to support the 'official conspiracy theory'. There most certainly is not a shred of evidence to support it. Nor is there a shred of evidence to support the absolutely BASELESS allegation that "Muslims" of any nation were involved in any way.

Wake up Americans! Bush sold you a load of BULLSHIT! He lied about IRaq but ealier he lied his sorry, murderous ass off with regard to 911. With regard to 911: who benefited? BUSH --and, by Bush, I mean his entire crooked administration, everyone with guilty foreknowledge, everyone who knowingly acquiseced to his plans. If that describes anyone reading this, I have a message for you: if you consented to Bush knowing ANY PART OF HIS PLAN, then you, too, are guilty and should be tried for your part is MASS MURDER! Think about it! Are you will go to the gallows with Bush! If so --FOR WHAT? A pack of lies?

timking said...

it's just way too coincidental that the lady reporting is cut off in that way, before the building actually fell.

There is at least probable cause to conclude that BBC was given information in advance. There is then probable cause to bring BBC execs to testify in front of Federal Grand Jury under oath. What did they know and when did they know it? Their answers --under oath --will go a long way toward determining the degree of their guilt.

It is quite possible that BBC BRASS could be indicted as ACCESSORIES BEFORE THE FACT OF MASS MURDER!

Len Hart said...

damien sez...

I assume you've seen this on the BBC and 911. Great article as usual. Cheers.

Indeed, I had intended to link to it...if I did not, it was an oversight on my part. Thanks for the mention and, as always, your great comments on this topic.

The time has come to lobby Federal Judges. A Federal Judge can convene a Federal Grand jury upon his own motion.

A fed judge can pretty much investigate whatever the fuck he wants. And he has at his disposal a Federal Grand Jury to issue subpoenas, and 'interview' folk.

This is WAY beyond mere 'probable cause'. There is admissible evidence right now to bring charges in connection with 911. Once before a grand jury, the various murderers will begin pointing fingers, covering their own asses, singing like canaries.

Colin Powell should be the first to testify. He knows where the bodies are buried. He knows 911 was an inside job. He was, of course, appointed to deliver Bush's lies about Iraq to the UN.

Condoleeza should testify about what she told the mayor of San Francisco. He should, likewise, testify about what he was told by Condo!

The Flight Data from Flight 77 has been 'cracked', by the way. Flight 77 flew over the Pentagon at about 200 feet or better. The 'rotor' found on the lawn will, I am sure, be traced to a Global Hawk. But --Bush has ordered all that evidence destroyed. An expert will be able to identify it from photos.

Everyone hauling off 'evidence' of the crime should be interviewed. Where did the orders come from? Whoever ordered that evidence destroyed obstructed justice --a felony!

A Federal Grand Jury has the raw legal power and authority to subpoena Bush, Cheney, Rummie, Powell, Condo Sleazy, the entire gang of miscreants. In the process, it should subpoena BBC brass to the highest levels (Fox brass, as well)

Who tipped who off and when? It might serve as a warning if BBC brass should wind up indicted as ACCESSORIES after the fact, accessories to the crime of mass muder!

I wish Bugliosi would jump on this. He likes to prosecute murderers. Then let him begin a TRIAL of Bushco right now, in the media, in public, until Bush is compelled by public opinion to testify UNDER OATH to a Federal Grand Jury.

Should that happen, this house of cards will collapse faster than the WTC.

WindHarps said...

Directly related video response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0VaYMld1f80

Greg Bacon said...

Just think, all of that twisted scrap metal, all of those thousands of tons of steel from the WTC, that was hurriedly carted off and shipped to China, just think, some of that recycled metal was used by China to build some of the venues for the Olympic Games.

9/11 was pulled off with military precision.

The logistics alone must of reached a hellish level, yet we're led to believe that someone sitting in a cave, 12,000 miles away, was the one pulling the strings?

And why, if Bin Laden was behind this heinous crime, why doesn't the FBI list that on Bin Laden's page on their Most Wanted Terrorists List?

The world's two top terrorists are easy to find: One lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue and the other on the ground of the Naval Observatory in Washington, DC.

tiago said...

Len,
I note most of the comments are about 9.11 and few on the topic.
As I have commented before, BBC was destroyed as an un-biased news source around the 30th of January 2004 by Alastair Campbell, communications director, read Karl Rove, for Tony Blair. Before that time, I think BBC could have been called 'Venerable'. But, I cannot agree with your description of the NYT as being 'Venerablel'. I believe the Times to have become a CIA asset in the late sixties or early seventies, much like Pravda on the Ptomac, Wapo.
I see your link to Russia Georgia War - Washington risks nuclear war by miscalculation is to the orignal document. Thank you.
tiago

Len Hart said...

Sorry, Tiago, I should have explained. As I venerate very, very few things worth venerating my use of 'venerable' to describe the DESPICABLE is either 'ironic' or sarcastic.

Len Hart said...

I am losing patience with this nation!

I have just learned that the Democratic party chairman in Arkansas has just been assassinated!

When was the last time a REPUBLICAN was assassinated?

I am FED UP with the evil, murderous war that the GOP in cahoots with various right wing nuts and PSYCHOPATHS have declared on decent and good human beings!

IT'S TIME TO FIGHT BACK!

REVOLUTION!

Anonymous said...

Yeah, Len. Fuck these people! Count me in. Fuzz.

Anonymous said...

I am FED UP with the evil, murderous war that the GOP in cahoots with various right wing nuts and PSYCHOPATHS have declared on decent and good human beings! - LH




I agree...not sure what the story is on this latest incident, but does it really matter when the general public is barraged on a daily basis with the kind of rhetoric listed below? This short list is just the tip of the iceberg…there is much more of it, and there are many lesser known right-wing gas- bags that rant similar, if not even more direct and violent diatribes. The clear IRONY here, is that the nut-jobs or even general population that snap during stressful times are going after the WRONG people…It is in fact their dirt bag leadership that have caused much of our current grief, and whose surrogate’s point the finger elsewhere, where the mindless rank and file are directed. It is all totally amazing, almost inconceivable...but not in George Bush’s Amerika.

There is a freedom of speech issue here, so on the legal/constitutional front it is a slippery slope, but direct violent threats to individuals, (officials or not) even if veiled, is not acceptable dialog, on any level. Of course the right-wing say “it is all in jest” and “do you really think I meant that” and how liberals “have lost their sense of humor”. That is the typical side-stepping of the core debate, along with a total abandonment of accountability that the right wing has been known for. Clearly these people have no sense of moral direction, and border on a level of sociopatic consciousness that should shock the likes of clinical psychologists. This level of discourse has been circulating for some time, and it may be that the social impacts and implications of this kind of violent discourse are just beginning to surface, even if the MS continue to view this kind of hate talk as “harmless”…time will tell, and they all had better be careful of the fucking re-coil.

benmerc



I copped this list from another poster, but I have read these quotes many times at several locations over the years, so I feel the quotes have been around long enough to be vetted as authentic...Also, this is just a small sample.



1. Rush Limbaugh: "I tell people don't kill all the liberals. Leave enough so we can have two on every campus " living fossils " so we will never forget what these people stood for."

2. GOP Senator Phil Gramm: "We're going to keep building the party until we're hunting Democrats with dogs."

3. GOP Rep. James Hansen on Bill Clinton: Get rid of the guy. Impeach him, censure him, assassinate him."

4. John Derbyshire intimated in the National Review that because Chelsea Clinton had "the taint," she should "be killed."

5. Ann Coulter: "We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals, by making them realize that they can be killed, too."

6. Ann Coulter: "My only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building."

7. Bill O'Reilly: "all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the FBI and just put them in chains."

8. Clear Channel radio host Glenn Beck said he was "thinking about killing Michael Moore" and pondered whether "I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it," before concluding: "No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong?"

Len Hart said...

Re Fuzz and benmerc...

I am still criticized for urging 'revolution'! In fact, there is no other choice left us. The right wing has already declared war on everyone else, the Bush administration is lawless and illegitimate, and the rule of law means nothing!

The left had better toughen up and toughen up quick! The US is headed for anarchy and oblivion.

Greg Bacon said...

Three Weeks in September

There’s a guy named Aidan Monaghan who has been attempting to get the records from the NTSB that show how they determined what flights hit what buildings on Sept 11th 2001.

It should be a pretty straight forward request actually, considering that the NTSB does analysis of the parts that are recovered from every plane crash, verifies that they came from the plane in question, then they tie the ownership of those parts to that flight number of that airline.

In hijacking situations that result in crashes, they typically, like with flight 800, take all the parts and reconstruct the plane as best they can in order to determine what happened in those last few minutes. You would think that might be useful in the case of Flight 93, that apparently crashed, on it’s own accord, and disappeared into a hole in the ground (first time I ever saw that on dry land).

But, as Mr. Monaghan has discovered thru his pains taking work of filing FOIA requests over and over again, the NTSB DID NOT in fact verify the part numbers on these planes and they did not verify the flight numbers with the airlines.

So, as it turns out, there is NOTHING BUT THE FBI’s SAYSO that connects ANY of the flight numbers to the wreckage found.
I do believe this is the first time in our history that the normal process of the NTSB was NOT followed to the letter.

Who says the NTSBdidn’t verify the part numbers on the wreckage and that the FBI provided THEM with that information? Why, the NTSB says so. That’s who.

“The Safety Board does not have any records that “[reveal] the process by which wreckage was recovered from the aircraft used during the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001.” As you probably know, the Safety Board assisted the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as the FBI investigated the circumstances under which the four aircraft crashed,…”

“ As such, the Safety Board did not ensure that the owners of the aircraft completed wreckage release forms, as the Board typically does in investigations in which the Board has priority. See 49 C.F.R. § 831. 12(b). Overall, the Safety Board does not have any records that describe the “process” by which the Board or the FBI identified wreckage.” NTSB below.

Special thanks to Aidan Monaghanfor all his hard work and diligence staying with this effort. (follow that link for the full transcript of the NTSB letter.)

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2008/08/15/three-weeks-in-september/#more-1230

Len Hart said...

Greg Bacon said...

So, as it turns out, there is NOTHING BUT THE FBI’s SAYSO that connects ANY of the flight numbers to the wreckage found.

I have suspected as much. BTW --GREAT RESOURCE| Thanks for the link.

I have some other sources with regard to Flight 77 specifically. I want to digest all this, match it up with what is 'known' (or, more precisely, what CANNOT be known) about Flight 77.

This whole thing could fall apart very quickly if we just keep the laser beams focused on the holes! This could fall apart even faster than have the black-hearted lies that the Warren Commission, Gerald Ford, Arlen Specter et al told about the US government's murder of JFK!

I've often said that the US government became illegitimate when SCOTUS handed down Bush v Gore. It was, rather, ealier: November 22, 1963 --the year the the government of the United States participated in and subsequently covered up the murder of John F. Kennedy.

damien said...

I had to laugh. Good Morning America was showing a piece recently on the new workplace innovation: the 10 hour day, 4-day week. Spruiked as a cost saving measure that provides greater leisure time it missed the main point: businesses are opening for fewer hours and making do with fewer staff who work longer. How long before the three day week becomes the norm? Do people think full pay will survive then? These are the facts: the US economy is contracting and since domestic consumption accounts for 70% of all economic activity expect that contraction to be severe. The Frat Boy and his Right Wing jokers will not look too appealing to people sleeping in cars and wondering what happened to their job. Of course, Boy Wonder might stick his foot even further in the doo by taking on Russia over Georgia. No matter, the economic downturn should be sufficient to clarify people's thinking on the "benefits" of the Republican thug-ocracy. People will tolerate lies from their leaders, even wars, but not gross economic mismanagement. They belong behind bars, all of them.

Greg Bacon, the NTSB stuff does not in any way surprise. As Len notes, the flight data recorder for Flight 77 records the plane as 200 feet above the Pentagon immediately prior to impact. It's a joke, and it's the same story for Flight 93. That fdr has that plane impacting upside down at 40 degrees to the horizontal. You can search all day but you will never find any impact images showing where the tail hit the ground. It's all nonsense. Keep in mind that Flight 77 was 128 feet wide yet the crash site is at most 75 feet wide and the photos prove it! That's what you get, I suppose, with "vaporising" airplanes. It's all crap. The people who supervised the autopsies at Shankesville were the same fraudsters who assessed the Oklahoma City bombing, and the engineers who wrote the NIST report on the building collapses also provided official commentary at Oklahoma City. 911 was a Right wing exercise using al Qaeda patsies who had been monitored by US and Israeli Intelligence; Right wing drug traffickers in Florida with ties to the Republican Party also helped.

Greg, I found this and this helpful on the Pentagon attack.

damien said...

Flight 77 WAS 128 feet wide but I had intended to refer to Flight 93. Apologies.

Len Hart said...

damien sez...

No matter, the economic downturn should be sufficient to clarify people's thinking on the "benefits" of the Republican thug-ocracy. People will tolerate lies from their leaders, even wars, but not gross economic mismanagement. They belong behind bars, all of them.

Oddly enough, the last time 'just plain folk' had any stroke was just after the plagues. The population had been so reduced that the gentry often capitulated to the demands of folks! Work --tilling fields, shoeing horses, etc --had to get done.

Now the new feudal bosses --the corporations --have marginalized people themselves and, in many cases, replaced 'us' with robots. We live in a new dark age which threatens to be worse that the last one.

Anonymous said...

Here is an interesting link to the pieces of the Russian encounter...It appears Putin may have out foxed the neo-cons on a superficial level, but then again long term geo-politics of "re-starting" the "cold war"....may also come into play here...The original concept was always a good control factor and money maker for the militarists and their cohorts...(CC link is another INDY news out let...I have not vetted them all that well, but they seem legit)

benmerc





http://www.countercurrents.org/whitney120808.htm

Len Hart said...

benmerc sez...

.It appears Putin may have out foxed the neo-cons on a superficial level, but then again long term geo-politics of "re-starting" the "cold war"....may also come into play here.

The GOP should have done its homework. Hypnotic suggestions wear off. The 'war on terrorism' is not eliciting the kind of Pavlovian reactions it used to. Georgia was not a good choice and some folk down south thought they were under attack. Times have changed. It may be impossible to whip up the kind of 'anti-communism' hysteria that made characterized political 'debate' in the fifties.

Anonymous said...

"It may be impossible to whip up the kind of 'anti-communism' hysteria that made characterized political 'debate' in the fifties." -LH



I do not disagree with that statement, but the cons do not mind whipping a dead horse, nor does failure seem to phase them...as long as they have the American people funding their movement, they could care less. They are rat fucking bastards, every damn one of them. It will be no "revolution" getting these assholes out in the open, it will be justice served...

benmerc

Len Hart said...

benmerc said...

They are rat fucking bastards, every damn one of them. It will be no "revolution" getting these assholes out in the open, it will be justice served...

Indeed, they are! One of the things that make 'liberals' liberal was their inherent ability to see the good in other people. 'Liberality' flows from that capacity. But --there are exceptions to every rule. The American right wing is characterized by an utter lack of empathy said by Dr. Gustave Gilbert to be the psychological source of evil itself. Carl Jung and Hanah Arendt are certainly on the same side.

It's fine and admirable to be 'liberal'. But we must also be realists. Millions of people in the US alone would murder us all because of what 'we' believe.

Anonymous said...

" . . . no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

The Constitution of the United States
Article VI


Somewhat off topic, but not to far...here is yet another recently "trashed" US Constitutional main stay (and it did not even require an act of congress)...There isn't even a smidgen of irony left as we enter this current election cycle with the first gathering of the presidential hopefuls...To be grilled on prime time by some hocus-pocus TV snake-oil shyster...that he resolve for the American public the depth and breadth of "christian values" and level of religiosity our current candidates may reside.

The evangelical movement has been a scourge on this country and a key factor in the degradation of our constitution. The ruling class has embraced this movement and have used it readily in their policies and politics, of course to their own advantage, all the while they regress society back into the dark ages. We are at the mercy of those who roll their eyes back and wave their hands up to the pie-in-the-sky mythologies of so many wandering tribes of north African antiquity. Shame on the charlatans, as there is no social or political ideological debate that may compete with the religious zealot, as all logic is discarded by the latter.

benmerc

Ingrid said...

Len, I'd be honoured if you'd mosy over and pick up your award..not that you need to get any more traffic, but just for the sake of deserving it..

thank you,

Ingrid

Len Hart said...

Ingrid said...

Len, I'd be honoured if you'd mosy over and pick up your award..not that you need to get any more traffic, but just for the sake of deserving it..

I am honored, Ingrid! Kickin' ass is not something than can be done subtly. Anyone getting his/her ass kicked is supposed to know it, feel it, and be sorry! Getting recognized by fellow ass-kickers is always an honor.

benmerc sez...

The evangelical movement has been a scourge on this country and a key factor in the degradation of our constitution. The ruling class has embraced this movement and have used it readily in their policies and politics, of course to their own advantage, all the while they regress society back into the dark ages.

Ironically, it was a Faustian bargain. 'Fundies' ought to to be told in impolite language that they have been used, screwed, exploited, and, in secret, they have been ridiculed and scorned. The powers that 'be' are probably Satanists, Skull and Bones cultists, sexual perverts and, as we reviewed recently, some of the same PERVS who ran a child prostitution ring out of the Reagan White House are exploiting beliefs in "God" and telling talk show hosts how much they believe in "Jay-sus"! Many fundies are simply hypocrites themselves and in on the racket, primarily the 'tele-evangelists' --snake oil salesmen. It was these folk, hypnotized and enthalled by R. Reagan's smarmy 'charm', who said said of him: "He made us feel good about ourselves"! Well --my job is is to make this ILK feel bad about themselves because they are, in fact, rotten to the core!

damien said...

It's now official: US officials are above the law

(...and don't believe that Georgia baloney either).

Congrats on your award, Len.

Len Hart said...

damien said...

It's now official: US officials are above the law...

Unless the Constitution was amended by a two-thirds majority vote in both houses of Congress, or unless two-thirds of the legislatures of the various states have called a Constitutional convention, that decision is just as bogus as is Bush v Gore.

Now --unless there is any doubt about the fact NO US OFFIFCIAL is ever above the law at any time, I propose a revolution to round up all the fuckin' bastards who THINK themselves above the law (as did Nazi brass) and prosecute their sorry asses for capital crimes under US Codes, prosecuting them for war crimes under Geneva et al.

I haven't read the decision --but I will wager that its typical GOP bullshit and probabaly doesn't even address the fact that the US (and all these so-called Nazi bastard officials) is bound to the terms of Geneva and by various treaties the principles established BY the US and allies at Nuremberg.

Moreover, Bush is guilty of capital crimes and I am hopeful that the federal grand jury in White Plains New York will return an indictment against Bush himself.

If not, we need to organize an international 'corporation', perhaps headquartered in Geneva, to raise the funds necessary to track these MASS MURDERERS down and bring them to trial for their very lives!

Anonymous said...

This is the latest and hottest ghd styler ever. If you need a ghd hair straighteners, this is a must buyghd hair straighteners,cheap ghd hair straighteners,pink ghd hair straightenersghd straightenerspink ghd hair straightenersComme vous pouvez le voir, il s'agit d'une paire de chaussures shox classique . Si vous souhaitez poursuivre la mode, nike shox NZ sont votre meilleu…nike tnCette paire de Nike Shox Torch est chaud en maintenant la demande.nike chaussures
tn chaussures

Anonymous said...

網頁設計

A片,色情A片,免費A片,成人影片,色情影片,a片免費看,情色貼圖,情色文學,情色小說,色情小說
AV,AV女優,視訊ukiss