The Guardian, 09/12/07"...There are many, many more strange unexplained facts concerning the events of 9/11. You don't have to be a conspiracy theorist to be puzzled and want an explanation, or to be sceptical concerning the official version of events.
Six years on from those terrible events, the survivors, and the friends and families of those who died, deserve to know the truth. Is honesty and transparency concerning 9/11 too much to ask of the president and Congress?
What is needed is a new and truly independent commission of inquiry to sort coincidence and conjecture from fact, and to provide answers to the unsolved anomalies in the evidence available concerning the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Unlike the often-stymied first investigation, this new commission should be granted wide-ranging subpoena powers and unfettered access to government files and officials. George Bush should be called to testify, without his minders at hand to brief and prompt him. America - and the world - has a right to know the truth."
UPDATE: 9/25/07The resilient myth that Saddam Hussain plotted 9/11 is proof that Mark Twain was right when he said, “A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.” Even today, long after this 9/11 myth has been officially and repeatedly discredited, roughly 40% of Americans still insist that Saddam conspired with Al Qaeda to bring down the Twin Towers. And it’s a fair bet that this myth will remain in mass circulation as long as proponents of the Iraq war persist in believing that it is savvy politics to prey on people’s ignorance.
105 comments:
"What is needed is a new and truly independent commission of inquiry"
$1 says it never happens...wanna' cover that bet?
Yeah, back on topic!
I'm sure everybody in Congress is dirty on some level, thus hindering these types of "investigations," but come on. There's dirt and then there's genocide and mass murder, including all those countless (how many think we may be in the millions already?) Iraqi's that probably have been sold up the river by their own leaders and that we have yet to hear about but all wonder about -- I suspect a lot like the way it was with the holocaust.
Anyway, that said, I sadly will not take your bet, Life.
That doesn't mean we just quit, though. Here might be one of many other approaches in addition to trying to get Congress to cooperate...
"CITIZENS PUSH NEW 9-11 PROBE IN NYC"
http://americanfreepress.net/html/new_9-11_probe.html
$1.00!!! We are impressed by the strength of your convictions.
Would that be US or Canadian currency? http://tinyurl.com/24ftwc
Thanks a lot, GWB.
LOL -- and yet, did you notice I did not take the bet, Shoes, in Canadian or US! It's the "truly independent" part that's the killer.
Then again, Life, I might just take the bet and the money on the spot because the "truly independent" investigations are already completed -- by the American people. The "ROC-USA Commission Report" (which presents only some of the most hard-core evidence that implicates government involvement -- and at the very least deserves a rebuttal) was sent as a FAX to Congress on September 20, 2007.
Check or money order will do, Life. Thanks...
What's the ROC USA Commission report, nicole? Is it available online? I've never heard of it, but sounds very interesting!
Money -- LOL!
I guess this calls for a reposting in a more appropriate thread (it is currently posted in the smoking thread)...
H Nicole said...
Fax sent to all 100 members of the US Senate:
September 20, 2007
RE: Your Oath of Office and Possible Acts of Treason
Dear United States Senator and Fellow Citizen:
This is an update and summary of some of the strongest publicly available evidence that implicates top officials in the US government for carrying out heinous crimes against humanity in a false flag attack against innocent US civilians on 9/11/01.
Despite any proclamations of "not knowing" or "ignorance of the facts" that may be presented as a defense at a future trial, any US Senator who continues to support this administration and its various illegal activities and occupations after having knowledge of the evidence presented in this letter today is tantamount to nothing short of treason and a violation of an oath to protect the US Constitution from enemies from within.
1. The planes were probably not hijacked on 9/11/01. If they were, it would have been the first successful hijackings of 757’s and 767’s in the history of the aircraft . Effective anti-hijacking capabilities were available long before 2001 and may have been installed in all 757’s and 767’s at the time of the purported hijackings.
Sources:
- http://www.airsafe.com/events/hijack.htm
- http://www.911-strike.com/remote_bb.htm
2. The plane that hit WTC2 may not have been a regular commercial airliner, and/or the facades of WTC2 where the plane hit may have somehow been modified, because the plane apparently pierced right through the building with its nose mostly still in tact as it came out the other side.
Sources:
- http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929 (see time marker 21:20)
- http://tinyurl.com/ysscje (see time markers 6:30, 5:25, and 4:55)
- http://www.archive.org/details/abc200109110912-0954 (see time markers 0:58-1:04 and 1:56-2:06 for what appears to be a piece of the plane on fire hanging outside WTC2)
3. It is highly improbable for each of the world trade center towers to be so completely dustified, and in such a short time span (10-15 seconds), without some input of energy other than gravity.
Sources:
- http://www.drjudywood.com (see the billiard ball example).
- Any physics textbook discussion on conservation of mass, energy, and momentum.
4. There are countless observations that are consistent with the idea that a chemical breakdown of materials occurred (or continued to occur) after the world trade center towers had been destroyed.
Sources:
- http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110954-1036 (see time markers 4:45-5:05 and 7:14-7:20 and beyond for what appears to be the beginning and the continuation, respectively, of a possible chemical breakdown or "fuming" of the leeward facade of WTC1 just after a seemingly reactive dust cloud from the destruction of WTC2 came in contact with the facade).
- http://www.drjudywood.com (see photo evidence and discussions of "lathering", "fuming", and especially "toasty cars")
5. As one of many alternative explanations, technology exists that would allow the inconspicuous coating of much of the steel frame interior of the WTC towers with explosive material (say instead of the purported fire protective coating that was continuously being "re-applied" throughout the lives of the buildings), a material that may later have been triggered with a laser from a remote location.
Sources:
- http://tinyurl.com/2jy58b (nanoparticle-sized thermite is one possible laser-triggered explosive material)
- http://tinyurl.com/yqzf99 (a recent advance in laser technology called "ultrashort laser pulsing" might allow for much faster, more explosive chemical reaction times for laser induced chemical reactions).
- http://tinyurl.com/3bmlod (directed energy laser guns developed by Raytheon is a technology that may have been used to trigger chemical explosions in the WTC towers on 9/11/01).
6. It is evident just from the video footage alone that WTC 7 was purposely and skillfully destroyed by a different mechanism from the WTC towers because, unlike the WTC towers which were turned to dust from the top down, WTC 7 was destroyed from the bottom up and a relatively large amount of the building survived as a heap pile. The destruction of WTC 7 is not counted here as evidence of crimes against humanity, however, because nobody was killed in its purposeful destruction.
Source:
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc7.html
This is only a partial list and does not include additional evidence that can and should be obtained through the investigative powers of the US Senate.
Sincerely,
H. Nicole Young, Ph.D., Representative of the Citizens of the United States of America (ROC-USA)
hn_young@yahoo.com
This letter also posted at: http://shoes4industry.blogspot.com
America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter, and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves.
~Abraham Lincoln
9/20/07 5:58 AM
One of the links embeddeded in the body of this post is to a story about Morgan Reynolds:
http://tinyurl.com/dpebu
I was glad to see this article excluded the "no planes hit the buildings" argument that Morgan is most known for, since I do not believe there is strong evidence in support of no planes.
I thought the article made many good points, but just a quick note about what Morgan says about "steel being shipped to China or destroyed."
As with a lot of purposeful false leads in the 9/11 Truth Movement, I think the "steel being shipped to China" story may be a bit of a red herring, too. I don't think very much steel was shipped to China, if any at all, simply because there was no steel to ship. With the possible exception of WTC7, which was destroyed in a different manner from WTC1 and WTC2, most of the steel on 9/11 was turned to dust and maybe flew to China -- but it didn't get there by ship.
Oh, sorry, of course I saw your excellent letter, just didn't recognize the name. Will check out the Morgan Reynolds article now. Thanks!
:) That was all very informative for me nonetheless, Money. It was a half-joke to refer to myself as ROC-USA, to make it look official and important (and as if I am a part of a large, national organization -- which I am in a way, considering quite a few US citizens may share my views for all I know), but now I see it really DOES sound official and important. The organization name is a keeper for sure then, especially if I actually start the PAC I really want to start -- Get Women In Congress At All Costs! (Somehow GWICAAC sounds more like a cat spitting up a fur ball than an organization name).
LMAO!! Made me think of the Antonio Banderas character in Shrek2 spitting up a furball....ROTFLMAO
oh..and Shoes...that'd be Confederate dollars...>;}
Back on topic!
h nicole,
I've been doing 9/11 research since '04. I'm concerned that due to infiltration there has been a lot of in-fighting and name-calling and alienation among the various 9/11 Truth groups.
I, personally, want to hear ALL the theories. The destruction of the towers & bldg. 7 have broken almost all the rules of physics & normal CD. We [the 9/11 Truth Movement] need to be open to hearing all sides.
This quote, from Morgan Reynold's site is one I hold dear:
"Whatever may be the limitations which trammel inquiry elsewhere, we believe that the great state University of Wisconsin should ever encourage that continual and fearless sifting and winnowing by which alone the truth can be found."
Maybe we can substitute "The 9/11 Truth Movement" for "state University of Wisconsin" and take it for our motto.
Anyway, you've tossed your teevee out the window so you don't have the opportunity to watch Free Speech TV - Here's a link to watch Lenny Charles of INN World Report interview with Richard Gage. http://www.innworldreport.net/archives.html# click on Video icon for September 18, 2007. The interview starts about halfway through [it's a 30 minute show.]
Towards the end, Gage talks about the talcum powder-like dust and the possibility of thermobaric hydrogen bombs. I'd be interested to know if you've looked into that theory & if so, your thoughts.
I forgot this to add this -
Has anyone been able to query individuals who actually worked the cranes in the areas where the molten metal was reported according to some sources?
So many people have been gagged so they can't talk about the event.
Ain't that a red flag.
"We [the 9/11 Truth Movement] need to be open to hearing all sides."
..as long as it doesn't include any facts and implicates GWB. Preferably, the wackier the theory, the happier we are.
"Now, Back To Our Regularly Scheduled Programing" The Cartoon Channel.
"The Republicans, in order to not talk about the war--any excuse to not discuss the actual war," says Rushdie, "means that you attack people who talk about the war in ways they don't like."
"So you talk about 'talking about the war,' instead of talking about the war."
The same tactic they use when "talking about" 9/11...
The main purpose of red herrings are to give the general public "9/11 Truth fatigue" and to embarrass the hell out of anybody strongly tauting one particular theory once that theory is exposed as a sham.
It is the number one weapon being used right now by those who want exposure of the truth to be delayed (remember, the cover up doesn't have to work forever -- only for as long as it takes to turn the country into a police state).
One example I have posted here involves WTC7, where the goal is to get the Truth Movement to base a new inquiry almost entirely on the fact that WTC7 was an obvious controlled demolition.
The general public jumps on board with this idea, since it is so obvious that this is what happened, then the big news comes out that, yes, the government admits it was a controlled demolition. So what?
WTC7 was demolished late in the day on 9/11 because it was deemed a condemned building (and of course it will come out that WTC7 had pre-planted demolition devices, as all such sensitive government buildings of this height do), it was kept under wraps for "national security" reasons, nobody was killed in its destruction, end of story.
The Truth Movement is ridiculed beyond belief, especially all those of the general public that had been arguing the importance of WTC7 to all their disbelieving friends, and the real truth goes down the drain (or is at least delayed indefinitely), exactly as planned.
Some of the biggest red herrings of the Truth Movement are:
1) There was molten steel found at ground zero
2) No planes hit the buildings
3) We need to focus our efforts on WTC7
I find it interesting that these are the three things you, Kira, are now sort of pushing as representing the strongest evidence behind the Truth Movement. Not interesting in that I think you are a bad person, but interesting in that I think you represent a big portion of how the general public views the Truth Movement.
That said, I will look into all the evidence you have presented here for sure and get back to you on it, as questioning the evidence and questioning the truth is the most important thing one can do, and that is exactly what you are doing!
Also, why won't they release the various "surveillance tapes" from the Pentagon impact site??
Other than the five frames which show nothing! What are they hiding???
I have a crazy idea (I know, I know -- what's new about that?). I'm going to write to all the presidential candidates and ask "What is your position on conducting a truly independent 9/11 commission?" The letter will be short and include a few highlights -- maybe the A&Efor9/11 truth site, pilots for 9/11 truth, etc., and that famous list of questions that families of 9/11 victims submitted to the former 9/11 commission, only to have it completely ignored.
Anyone have any other suggestions for inclusion that would be short and still get their attention? The canceled flights by Pentagon employees the night before? The short selling of airline stocks or the millions of dollars in credit charges just before the strike? Why Sibel Edmonds has had more gag orders against her than anyone in history?
If I get any responses, I'll post them here. (Don't hold your breath.) But since Congress seems to be brain dead, maybe there's someone else out there who'll at least consider the issue.
As for the Pentagon "five frames"...
There seem to be two different video releases from two slightly different angles, but I think frame 2 on both may show the plane being dustified in mid-air. The frame has been bleached and modified just enough to make it look like a big white explosion when it is actually a big white dust cloud:
http://tinyurl.com/3bwezg
Also, it is clear (to me anyway) in frame 1 of one of the two videos that there is an airplane there hiding behind that kiosk thing. At least you can see the tail section poking up. Some guy did an analysis showing it more clearly, and I'm convinced it's there -- at least more convinced, along with eyewitness testimonies, than the idea that it's not there.
See time marker starting at around 2:15 in the following video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8
Here is one of the two video releases that allows you to look at each frame more carefully because you can pause it and replay it. "Frame 1" begins at around time marker 0:24 in the following video:
http://tinyurl.com/2raz5x
Thanks, h nicole! I won't mention those three things. I'm mainly just interested in seeing if any of the Presidential candidates will respond to the letter. More to come!
As for what to say to political leaders, especially Congress, about 9/11... I would suggest it is more important what you don't say to them.
For example, I can imagine the entire Congress, possibly immediately after 9/11, may have been briefed about WTC7 coming down by controlled demolition and was told that it was high security information not to be disclosed to the public (i.e., we don't want to cause panic in the public with the knowledge that all government buildings are pre-wired for destruction, or some such thing, etc...)
I suspect Congress has been briefed on similar evidence concerning planes hitting the WTC towers and the Pentagon.
Now here comes this army of "Truthers" banging down congressional doors and demanding a new investigation based on what -- the controlled demolition of WTC7 and the fact that no planes were involved on 9/11?
Gee, I wonder why Congress is not reacting to the Truth Movement?
Therefore, Money, it's just a suggestion, but I say tell Congress and political leaders anything you want except:
1) There was molten steel found at ground zero
2) No planes hit the buildings
3) WTC7 was destroyed by controlled demolition.
As a final note, I want to point out that it was probably no accident that Bill Maher completely ignored WTC7 on his hit piece for 9/11. It's obvious that he was either told about the "top secret" news about WTC7 and the planes, or worse, he was specifically instructed (and followed the orders) to attack the Truth Movement specifically on the WTC towers alone, because the truth about the towers is gaining momentum right now while pursuing WTC7 may already be a done deal (I hope).
Sorry for deleting and reposting my last post, Money, so that it looks like you are responding to nothing... I really should run all my pieces through spell check BEFORE posting.
I am the worst speller in the world, yet I can be one of the most prejudiced people if I find misspellings in other's writings (secretly). What the hay is that all about?
(And that's a rhetorical question -- no psychoanalysis requested, thank you).
(yawn)...same old same old.
There was no CD, no DEW's, lathering, or any "Inside Job". Arab hijackers flew planes into the buildings and killed 3000 American citizens. Instead there is a deeper underlying problem....
"Very briefly stated, conspiracy theories offer their practitioners at least these several advantages:
1. The safety of knowing that your idea can never be disproven. How can anyone prove that "the hidden hand" didn't do such-and-such? When you appeal to unknowable forces, you're safe.
2. A neat, tidy explanation. You can impute any powers you want to "the hidden hand," and no one can prove that you're wrong. You can tailor the conspiracy any way you have to in order to fit your evidence. The bigger and more complex the conspiracy is, the more important it must be.
3. The simple way out. Life's numerous complexities, which even distinguished scholars may never totally plumb, can be brushed aside when returning to a simpler age where "they" can be the cause.
4. The easy way out. Appealing to conspiracy saves you having to struggle with the difficulties, contradictions, and uncertainties of real evidence.
5. The security of knowing that you will never have to fix the situation. You can't contend with any forces you can't get to, right?"
That sounds more like the administration's advantage/tactic rather than any "conspiracy theorist's."
1. Hide the evidence.
2. Ridicule anyone who questions the "official story."
3. Keep the explanation as simple as possible, so even a moron can understand (and believe) it.
4. Use 9/11 to start a conflict with a country that had NOTHING to do with that event.
I know. For a second there I thought you were finally seeing the light here, Life, and were describing the government's official "conspiracy theory" about the hijackers!
Back to Kira... before I comment on the Richard Gage interview, I want to comment a little on INN news...
I find INN to have interesting leads, but to be sporadically accurate at best. They do report what "the other news doesn't report," but the other news may not report it simply because it is not accurate -- or at least undercooked or under investigated.
For instance, on my way to the Richard Gage interview, I was interested in a story reported about 6 airmen from Minot AFB (the base where that bomber that accidentally carried nukes over the US came from) who all died in the "last seven days" by questionable means.
Well, INN apparently just lifted this news story from off a website called Citizens for Legitimate Government and didn't really bother to check it out. One guy did and posted his critique here:
http://tinyurl.com/ypvtog
Contrary to what INN reports, only three of the six men came from Minot AFB, and only one of the three died recently -- the other two died earlier in the summer. There is no evidence presented that any of them had anything to do with loading or flying weapons around the country, again contrary to what INN reports.
Mind you, I still find the deaths of even these three men (plus the death of another airman from the bomber's destination, Barksdale AFB in Louisiana) to be of minimal interest, and there may be something to it for all I know, but it's just the inaccurate, sloppy reporting by INN that I don't appreciate.
As for the Gage interview, I find it interesting that he is still spewing the molten steel story. At least he seems a lot more nervous and uncomfortable with it now than before, which leads me to believe he may just be a MCT (male chauvinist troll) instead of an full scale op like his friend Steven Jones (who seems to be fading away from the Truth Movement lately, no?)
As for molten steel: unlike airplanes and sounds of explosions, I don't think witness testimony in seeing "molten steel" is very reliable at all, considering not many people know what the heck molten steel really looks like and may not know what the heck they really saw.
For example, if they saw something "steaming," it may not have been steam at all, but perhaps instead the continuation of a chemical breakdown of materials into finer and finer dust particles until the particles finally float off surfaces or the ground in a phenomenon that Dr. Judy Wood describes as "fuming." This explains why the "steam" that everybody thought they saw after the destruction of the towers is not hot - you see pictures of people walking right through it or standing in it, for instance, without getting burned.
Anyway, there doesn't seem to be much evidence for molten steel other than witness testimony, and even that seems shady given the strongest witness is apparently "Leslie Robertson" the architect who designed the WTC towers and somebody who may very well be in on the entire scheme and cover up.
As for the H-bomb-like devices that Gage proposes, I am glad that Gage is, in a somewhat confusing manner, at least finally coming around to the idea that the method of destruction for WTC1 and WTC2 is distinctly different from that of WTC7 and does not involve "traditional" controlled demolition.
Also, not that "thermite that cuts steel like butter" was ever used in traditional controlled demolition in the first place, but I am also glad to see that Gage is finally coming around to the idea that "something that cuts steel like butter" is not what was used to dustify WTC1 and WTC2 in mid air.
What nobody seems to point out (possibly because they are not chemists, as described below) is that not all thermite behaves the same and not all thermite "cuts steel like butter." I myself propose that "thermite that explodes like a bandit and continues the destruction of materials by chain reaction" (i.e., possibly newly developed nanoparticle thermite, triggered by newly developed laser technologies) is what did it, but
I am open to other methods as well, including the types of nukes that Gage proposes.
The problem is that the fallout of a nuclear weapon, including molten steel and radiation type burns or cancers in people, is not what was observed. What was observed in the aftermath is more in line with a chemical reaction, not a nuclear one, but I may be wrong here.
Just for the record, I don't feel that an architect like Gage would have any special insights or expertise in elucidating what happened on 9/11. An architect is an artist, mostly, and may know a little about physics and engineering, but not much -- and certainly not enough to teach college classes on the subject, like Dr. Judy Wood.
As for the "engineers" in "Architects and Engineers," I also don't feel that an engineer is what is needed to elucidate what really happened on 9/11 either -- beyond say the billiard ball example already laid out by Dr. Judy Wood, where it is shown that it is highly unlikely for the WTC towers to have been so completely dustified, and in such a short amount of time, without input of energy other than gravity -- like explosives or more exotic weaponry.
Funny that when we get to the real nitty gritty of what happened, everybody -- Dr. Judy Wood, Richard Gage, Dr. Steven Jones -- all end up talking about chemistry, but none of them are chemists! Richard Gage in particular spews out all these chemical names and terms (flat out stolen from the Steven Jones book of thermite BS) like he knows much about any of it. I especially had to laugh when he came out with what is basically and old Steven Jones mantra "thermite cuts steel like butter."
Yes, H. Nicole Young, Ph.D. in chemistry, is saying that chemists are what is needed in the 9/11 Truth Movement, not a bunch of architects, engineers, and physicists! I think we have more than enough of those right now.
As a final note, my esteem for Richard Gage did rise considerably when his name was taken down from the list of important participants on the "9/11 Truth Movement" page on Wikipedia. I suspect he was taken down when he began to break away from Steven Jones a little and started thinking on his own about what really happened. Whether he gets taken off my troll list, however, depends entirely on how soon he finally drops the molten steel BS -- unless something happens and strong evidence comes forth in favor of the presence of molten steel at ground zero.
H Nicole,
I must admit I'm confused as to your comment:
"I find it interesting that these are the three things you, Kira, are now sort of pushing as representing the strongest evidence behind the Truth Movement. Not interesting in that I think you are a bad person, but interesting in that I think you represent a big portion of how the general public views the Truth Movement."
First of all, I understand you don't have a clue who I am. I'm simply a concerned citizen & not a member of any organization. And, I'm not "pushing" any theory and certainly didn't mean to give the impression that I thought any of the theories were the "strongest evidence behind the Truth Movement.' At this point, I haven't made up my mind as to which evidence is the strongest.
I was genuinely asking questions, not trying to convince anyone of anything.
I'm further confused because you actually included a link [in your letter to members of Congress] to the video of September Clues which seems to me supportive of a "no-plane" theory.
I will continue to examine all the evidence I can find for my own self-edification and hope everyone will feel free to do the same.
I'm very disappointed that there is a trend in the 9/11 truth community to stifle what I consider to be legitimate debate. I hope that will change. And just to be clear, I’m not accusing you of this.
"Gee, I wonder why Congress is not reacting to the Truth Movement?"
Because Congress doesn't care and 99% of the American public doesn't care or believe it. Out of 300,000,000 peeps in the country, the "Truth Movement" doesn't consist of more than a few thousand people who "honestly" believe there was a "conspiracy", and maybe several thousand more "hangers on" who are just morons and go with the latest "trend" to be anti GWB.
One of my best friends (and his wife) for over 35 years HATES GWB, still has the Kerry and Gore stickers on all his/her vehicles, and when we get together, he/she just rolls on the floor laughing at this website and all the other "Truther" sites. They are Hard Core Dems, but even they don't buy this hoohaw. And I could tell about a whole bunch of other people/friends I know who are hard core Dems, but don't buy into this crap.
And, as I have said before, there WERE lapses in security against terrorism, starting with Clinton and continuing up to GWB. But to think that GWB/Cheney/Rove/Halliburton, whoever, were having late night conference calls with Osama figuring out how to fly fake airliners into the WTC's, "coat" them with whatever, DEW weapons, CD charges, yadayada, is ludicrous.
"4. The easy way out. Appealing to conspiracy saves you having to struggle with the difficulties, contradictions, and uncertainties of real evidence."
Sorry, we're not buying your "empirical" evidence. This is not about Democrats or Republicans, Bush or Clinton, it's about an honest, believable, truthful and complete accounting of what REALLY happened on Sept 11, 2001. No more, no LESS.
Furthermore...
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's 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. 67% also fault 9/11 Commission for not investigating the anomalous collapse of World Trade Center 7
mmmm...Zogby...a truly reliable source.
..And, polls don't mean dick. Zogby, Fox, ABC, CNN, none of them. Pollsters get paid, come up with the results their clients want, or they're out of business, or "find" the results they need to get paid. They've taken polls on polls and people don't believe polls unless it fits their beliefs. Just like "voluntary" vote/polls/surveys mean nothing. FOX polls show one thing and MSNBC shows a complete opposite.
The only "Poll" that counts is the Ballot Box. Ask Algore.
Hi, Kira...
I should not have said "pushing" so much as "questioning." Sorry about that...
Richard Gage and I have a bit of a history when he refused to accept the idea of "dustification by directed energy methods" as one possibility, as proposed by Dr. Judy Wood, when I first joined his group, so I resigned -- and this may have shown through in my attempts to remain open to his views.
Please keep in mind where I am coming from: I strongly believe Steven Jones is an operative who was involved in the murder of one of Prof. Judy Wood's students, Michael Zebuhr, just as Micheal had completed some laboratory work that was somewhat critical of Dr. Jones' "molten steel" hypothesis.
I am therefore highly suspect of anybody who so strongly supports Steven Jones and his molten steel story, including Richard Gage.
In my letter to Congress I try to cite the best evidence, not the best explanations of the evidence.
You may notice that my biggest hero in the 9/11 Truth Movement, Dr. Judy Wood, has herself espoused the idea TV fakery involved in 9/11 on her web site, and this has been a big point of contention with us in the past, but it does not prevent me from citing other evidence on her web site that I think is extremely strong. In fact, every single web site I site in my letter to Congress has areas in them that I disagree with.
For example, September Clues had the only footage I am aware of that showed the plane flying right through WTC2 w/o the view being blocked by the CNN footer. September Clues also shows a great close-up of the whole thing. I don't know how to do this myself, so I cited the September Clues video.
I don't agree with their conclusion that this was some kind of video fakery mistake (I say the plane, which was probably no ordinary commercial jetliner, simply flew right through the building), but that does not mean the evidence they present is bad or unreliable.
Polls don't matter? Okay, but it's hard to argue with fund-raising as a measure of who's ahead. So check it out:
DCCC
Total receipts, August 2007: $3.5 million
Total receipts, year to date: $44 million
Total disbursements, August 2007: $2.7 million
Total disbursements, year to date: $22.6 million
Cash-on-hand, August 31: $22.1 million
Debts, August 31: $3.1 million
NRCC
Total receipts, August 2007: $2.5 million
Total receipts, year to date: $34.6 million
Total disbursements, August 2007: $2.9 million
Total disbursements, year to date: $34.4 million
Cash-on-hand, August 31: $1.6 million
Debts, August 31: $4 million
Subtract debts from cash on hand, and you'll see that the Dems have $18M to spend. But the Repugs are in the HOLE (where they belong).
Imagine that! No one's giving the lying sacks of sh*t any money!! No wonder they don't want to provide health insurance to children. They want the money for themselves!!
For the record: Dr. Judy Wood and I have e-mail correspondences from over two months ago that predict:
1) Steven Jones would go underground once his fraud of "thermite cutting steel like butter" as a standard means of controlled demolition was exposed (since when in the history of controlled demolition has thermite EVER been used?)
2) Steven Jones, now discredited, would pass the "molten steel" red herring on to Richard Gage.
3) Richard Gage would begin to dump thermite and start tauting nukes -- because nukes also rely on "molten steel" being found at the WTC sites.
4) Any criticisms of the weak evidence of molten steel or of the people supporting this view would be called out as "ad hominem" attacks, in a Karl Rove type of media campaign...
Offhand, I say it would be a good rule of thumb to simply discredit anybody who uses the words "ad hominem", in either the Truth Movement or in politics. It just seems to be a tired, old psychological technique at this point. They need to come up with something new. Too many people are on to it now.
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 21:37:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: "H. Nicole Young" (hn_young at yahoo dot com) View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Subject: Dustification
To: rgage at ae911truth dot org
Dear Mr. Gage,
Please acknowledge that you have received this e-mail
and that this is the correct e-mail address to
communicate with you on matters concerning Architects
and Engineers for 911 Truth (ae911truth.org)
I recently applied to join A&E for 9/11 Truth, but now
I am seriously considering withdrawing my application
because, upon more careful review of the web site, I
believe I may have been misled.
It was my suspicion (on 9/11/01), and now my strong
opinion (after reviewing and weighing available data
and evidence as presented on the Internet alone) that
it is highly unlikely that the WTC buildings 1,2, and
7 collapsed the way they did as a result of plane
crashes and/or fires alone. It seems evident that
there was some input of energy from somewhere that not
only helped to dustify large portions of the buildings
in mid-air, but also helped the rest of what was left
of the buildings reach the ground at near free-fall
speeds.
I believe that this is the one and only fact that
nearly all 9/11 "Truth Movement" supporters can agree
on -- that something else in addition to, or other
than, planes and fires contributed to the destruction
of the towers.
There is by far no consensus, and in fact something
more like widespread dissent (thank goodness), in the
truth movement on anything beyond this one point, but
that is okay because this one point is all that is
needed (and all that should be put forth) in arguments
to open a new investigation.
I object to the leadership of this group defining the
mechanism of destruction so narrowly as "demolition by
thermite explosions" before a thorough investigation
is even opened. Seems to me like you are placing
everybody's eggs into one pretty shaky basket.
I, personally, am placing my bets on "dustification by
the mechanism of chemical fuming and lathering
followed by free energy laser ignition," but I
certainly know better than to walk around stating this
as absolute fact to the general public before a
thorough investigation is carried out.
Please consider removing the following words (placed
in brackets below) from your otherwise excellent
"statement to congress," and I will consider not
withdrawing my application...
We believe that there is sufficient doubt about the
official story and therefore that the 9/11
investigation must be re-opened and must include a
full inquiry into [the possible use of explosives that
may have been the actual cause behind] the destruction
of the World Trade Center Towers and WTC Building 7.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
H. Nicole Young, Ph.D.
hn_young at yahoo dot com
-----------------------------------
From: "Richard Gage" (rgage at ae911truth dot org) Add to Address Book Add Mobile Alert
To: "'H. Nicole Young'" (hn_young at yahoo dot com)
CC: "'William Donnelly'" (william at donnelly-house dot net), "'Gregg Roberts'" (groberts17 at gmail dot com), doug@etfacoustic.com, "Brian Good" (snug dot bug at hotmail dot com)
Subject: RE: Dustification
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 22:47:23 -0700
Mr. Young,
We will be happy to remove you from the membership! AE911Truth.org
has a
tight focus which is a primary reason for our success.
Richard
-----------------------------------
Date: Thu, 26 Jul 2007 23:13:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: "H. Nicole Young" (hn_young at yahoo dot com> View Contact Details Add Mobile Alert
Subject: RE: Dustification
To: "Richard Gage" (rgage at ae911truth dot org)
Why, thank you, Ms. Gage. Glad to know I am not going
to be a part of a group whose leader is so blind to
such an obvious and simple observation as somebody's
name. You must use those same glasses when you browse
through all those wonderful pictures of molten steel.
Sincerely,
Nicole Young, Ph.D., Proud Scientific GrandDAUGHTER of
Linus Pauling, Two-Time Nobel Laureate
--- Richard Gage (rgage at ae911truth dot org) wrote:
> Mr. Young,
>
> We will be happy to remove you from the membership!
> AE911Truth.org has a
> tight focus which is a primary reason for our
> success.
>
> Richard
>
>
>
We'll see who has the fattest wallet when the horse race starts. They aren't even close to the gate yet.
I am sure people must be getting 9/11 Truth Fatigue if they attempt to read even half of half of my posts here, but onward...
I believe the whole Steven Jones mission is/was to associate the word "thermite" tightly with the terms "cutting steel like butter" and "molten steel," even though a different kind of thermite, a newly developed, highly explosive form of thermite that does not "cut steel like butter" but instead "pulverizes steel into dust" -- and does not leave molten steel behind but instead causes things to "fume" -- may have been used on 9/11, as I pointed out in my letter to Congress on September 20.
I am the only person I know putting forth this hypothesis, actually, but then again, I am the only Ph.D. chemist I know working on 9/11 Truth.
Once it is finally realized that "cutting steel like butter" is so obviously not the mechanism of action that was used for the dustification of the towers, and once "molten steel" goes down the toilet as ever existed at ground zero, the term "thermite", just by association, will probably go out the window with these two other things so that people are automatically turned off by the sound of the word as it being fraudulent and as already being disproven as a mechanism on 9/11.
It's a funny sort of red herring that I believe is purposely meant to discredit a well-known thermite reaction in an attempt to cover the real thermite reaction that may have been used.
What about the Plastic Cup Theory?
Love the plastic cup theory, Shoes! Will always have a special place in my heart for the plastic cup theory and all the work I did with it. After all, it was what kept me here after Rosie guided me here.
DITTO!!...>;}
Shoes: Can you manage to say something besides the following:
What about the plastic cup theory? (Yes, what about it?)
Did you watch the video?
Did you see the movie?
Yes, on both counts and we STILL don't buy into the BS. Got it??
Then you're not thinking with an open mind.
Explain to us why they plastic cup theory is wrong, based on physics, logic and simple common sense, and we'll drop it.
BWT did you try it your self?
LMAO!! Plastic cup/Brick=Millions of pounds of concrete, steel, and more.
"4. The easy way out. Appealing to conspiracy saves you having to struggle with the difficulties, contradictions, and uncertainties of real evidence."
You conveniently overlook the fact that the official story is the biggest conspiracy theory of all. And that it's full of holes, discrepancies, unexplained occurrences and evidence that the public is not allowed to see or hear. Yet you have no trouble accepting that.
If you're so certain the official story is true, then why are you so threatened by the possibility of a new, independent investigation?
Not threatened at all.
The only holes are in the heads of the goof balls who buy into all the DEW, CD, nano coating, laser activated, no hijackers, cruise missile, bs conspiracy theories. The end of their 15 minutes of pseudo fame is fast approaching.
LMAO!! Plastic cup/Brick=Millions of pounds of concrete, steel, and more.
It's a matter of SCALE. In which case the brick is hundreds of times heavier than the upper stories of the WTC were, relative to the weight and tensile strength of the cup.
YOUR theory just doesn't 'hold up'.
Life, please -- just explain to me how the 757 flew right through WTC2 with its nose mostly still in tact. In all your arguments here, you always go all general and vague on me whenever I go specific in my presentation of evidence.
I am not saying it is absolutely impossible for a commercial airliner with an aluminum nose to fly straight through WTC2 and come out the other side with its nose apparently mostly still in tact, but I just want to see you take a stand and be clear what you think, even if just on this one itty bitty issue (i.e., do you think the video footage is fake or not showing what we think it is showing?).
Please don't come back with another psychological analysis -- this ploy is just as old and as stale as the "ad hominem" whining that seems so prevalent in the Truth Movement.
Nic, I've presented close to 50 different links to 9/11 sites that are counter to the mentality that is prevalent here. It does no good to repost them all over again when the replies are based on plastic cup/brick physics.
As far as Sept Clues goes, poppycock. How do you know whether or not they manipulated pixels to make their case? They are no different than all the other "Truthers". They want their 15 minutes of fame and that's it.
I watched TV for almost 3 days non stop as soon as the networks picked up the first plane crash. And while I actually have a life, I also devoted as much time as I could researching and reading everything I could find about 9/11.
There was NO "Conspiracy" or "Inside Job". PERIOD. There WERE lapses in security and a freak show of coincidences that led up to, and, happened that day. That's it, that's all there is to it.
I could very well make a 9/11 "Truth Tape" myself because I've done video editing/production/etc, and by taking statements out of context, and all the other propaganda techniques available, I could probably convince you there was a "Conspiracy". Doesn't mean it would be true though.
You're the only reasonable voice on here that can carry on a civilized conversation based on your convictions, which I do admire. But, sweetie, you're wrong. And I know ya' don't like to hear it, but, THINK about it...
"4. The easy way out. Appealing to conspiracy saves you having to struggle with the difficulties, contradictions, and uncertainties of real evidence."
Then explain how the buildings collapsed (at the speed of gravity) if there was no damage to the lower floors, ie no planes, no jet fuel, no fire...
Better yet get a plastic cup and a brick and see for yourself.
So if you're so sure, what's the problem in having a new INDEPENDENT re-investigation into the events of 9/11. Perhaps you'd be called as an "expert witness" based on three days of television viewing!
Why don't you get that plastic cup and continue to drink your kool-aid from it?
Okay, for the last (and umpteenth time, since some people either can't read or have comprehension problems), this site is not about "DEW, CD, nano coating, laser activated, no hijackers, cruise missile, bs conspiracy theories."
Yes, some people are speculating, but the main idea here -- and Shoes can correct me if I'm wrong -- is that there needs to be a new, serious, independent investigation. What part of that do you not understand, lb and lee?
If you're happy with the "official story," fine -- stfu and go elsewhere. Or better yet, get a "date." Surely, there are women willing to take out their dentures for a couple bucks, (although no doubt that party would be over in nanoseconds).
My, my, have we run out of Zoloft and Xanax? Getting a little touchy in our old age huh?
And for the umpteenth time, there will be no new independent investigation. It's over and done with.
You just don't like anybody who dares to disagree with your hoity toity attitude.
Waiting for your resumption of the Electoral College debate.
When you can't win, change the subject...
Life, you didn't answer my question fully about the plane seemingly piercing right through WTC2 -- again. And that's just one of the five main points I make in my letter to Congress.
What I gather you are saying is that the CNN footage, where the broadcaster says, "The plane went right through the building!" or the local news footage, where you can more clearly see what the newscaster saw -- the plane flying right through the building -- or the after-footage where all six major live newscasts that day (ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, CNN, and FOX) all show something that looks like what may be a piece of an airplane on fire hanging out the northeast corner of WTC2 -- is all faked in some way?
It's okay if this is your view, but please stay on topic and leave out the psychoanalysis. Please answer yes or no or you are not sure to the following question:
Did a plane fly into one side of WTC2 and emerge out the other side of the building just before being engulfed in explosions?
I say yes, based on the video evidence. September Clues says no and argues that the video evidence was faked.
It sounds like you are agreeing with September Clues on this one. Just want to be sure.
Here is a reposting of this point (my point #2 of 6) in my letter to Congress on September 20, 2007:
2. The plane that hit WTC2 may not have been a regular commercial airliner, and/or the facades of WTC2 where the plane hit may have somehow been modified, because the plane apparently pierced right through the building with its nose mostly still in tact as it came out the other side.
Sources:
- http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929 (see time marker 21:20)
- http://tinyurl.com/ysscje (see time markers 6:30, 5:25, and 4:55)
- http://www.archive.org/details/abc200109110912-0954 (see time markers 0:58-1:04 and 1:56-2:06 for what appears to be a piece of the plane on fire hanging outside WTC2)
http://www.lolinfowars.co.nr/
Okay, Life (and possibly Lee, who may just be Life as well), you have always been a troll in my book instead of an operative, but until you answer the above question concerning your stance on the plane flying through WTC2, you are a hostile witness on the stand in this 9/11 Truth trial and are officially listed as an operative in my book until further notice -- that is, somebody specifically paid or otherwise compensated to roam the Internet boards and try to squelch the Truth Movement through Karl Rove type dissemination of catchy emotional trigger points and psychological warfare.
You and all the other 9/11 Trolls and Operatives would not last five minutes on the witness stand in a 9/11 Truth trial -- at least not with me presenting the evidence and asking the simple yes or no questions.
I've already got point number one presented in front of the jury with no opposition to the facts by any witnesses so far:
1) We have not established what kind of plane it was that flew into WTC2. However, the plane that flew into WTC2 entered the building from the south, apparently missed the core of the building just to the right (east) side of it, and exited the northeast corner of WTC2, with the plane's nose still in tact, just before everything was engulfed in an explosion.
For Christ's sake Nic. I am no more a paid "Operative" or anything else than you are. Your paranoia concerns me. And I'm sure in the hell not Lee either. I've stated before, and I'll state again, I have nothing to hide, nor am I afraid or intimidated by anyone and have no reason to "hide". I WANT you to know who it is when I speak.
There was "debris" of some kind that exited the tower. The shafts for the engines are made of titanium. There are other heavy dense parts of an aircraft that could have made it through the building also. How do you know it wasn't a piece of equipment from the building itself that "appeared" to be a nose cone? I can think of a 100 possibilities to explain the "object" that "appears" to come through the building. Let alone the video anomalies that are apparent in any and all videos of that day. There are 1,000 factors that can be construed to "mean something" depending on the desired outcome of the observer.
And it's pretty obvious what kind of plane flew into #2. I saw it live. Along with about a bazillion other people. We have the video tapes to prove it.
Get a grip girl.
Well, finally, a stance from Life on the WTC2 plane evidence! I'll be. You are officially taken off my operative list (which currently only includes one other person, BTW -- Prof. Steven Jones) and are demoted to troll.
As for "we don't know exactly what kind of plane flew into WTC2," you present yourself as an eyewitness to dispute this fact. Apparently, if you can survive my grilling in establishing whether you were actually even there that day and in a position to see what you are claiming to see, you will testisfy that the plane that flew into WTC2 was exactly as the government claims: an unmodified (i.e., nose made out of aluminum), Boeing 767-222 commerical airliner, United Airlines flight 175, to be exact -- and that you know all this just from seeing it.
I will then present to the jury that you are the only witness on file to date to ever mention 767. A vast majority of the eyewitnesses who ever mention plane type say 737. That is about as specific as any of the witnesses get, too -- the rest of the details, especially something so specific as exactly what airlines, like United Airlines, is missing from the current witness record.
None of the video footage is of high enough resolution to establish what kind of plane flew into WTC 2.
Therefore, unless you have some other evidence other than your own personal testimony, Life, or some high resolution footage of the plane you can show us (please provide the link), I say my statement that, "We are not sure exactly what kind of plane flew into WTC2" still stands to date.
As for the plane, whatever it was, flying right through WTC2:
It seems you are not supporting the September Clues idea that TV fakery was purposely used by the media in some big plot and cover-up. Good to hear that at least.
You seem to be claiming that what we are seeing piercing out the north face of WTC2 in the video, which we are agreeing for the time being was not faked, is not the nose of the airplane but something else.
Okay, that's a possibility, and I glad you brought it up as our cooperative expert witness.
September Clues did a high-resolution analysis (close up) of the video, and to me it clearly shows that the front part of what went into WTC2 is pretty much the same shape and dimensions as what came out of WTC2...
(see time marker 4:55-4:25 in the following video):
http://tinyurl.com/ysscje
I believe September Clues' "nose in, nose out" analysis clearly shows what is also evident, but to a lesser extent, in the regular video footage -- that it was the plane's nose that came out the north face of WTC2 and not some other piece of the airplane like an engine. I suspect a jury would believe this, too, in the absence of any hard-core facts or evidence to the contrary.
The next question for our expert witness is therefore:
Do you have a high resolution analysis of the video footage that differs from the analysis presented by September Clues?
Until you do, I think my point still stands in front of the jury.
Therefore, you have presented nothing so far to dispute the following statement, which is backed with sufficient evidence that I have presented (short of giving you all the citations to all the witnesses saying "737," which I have yet to compile).
1) We do not know what kind of plane flew into WTC2. However, the plane that flew into WTC2 entered the building from the south, its nose apparently missed the core of the building just to the right (east) side of it, and a mostly in-tact nose of the plane exited the northeast corner of WTC2 just before everything was engulfed in an explosion.
Unfortunately, or maybe fortunately as the case may be, you'd never make it as an attorney Nic.
Several points...If I were the opposing counsel...
1. I'd call every person who was a witness to the passengers boarding the plane. They'd be the first to establish that the plane being boarded was not a 737.
2. The eyewitless testimony of people who "thought" it "looked" like a 737 would be dead meat in about 2 minutes. 737/767 is not even close to the same plane for an expert in aviation. And those would be a dime a dozen.
3. Testimony from personnel and ATC center radar records would establish a continuous uninterrupted flight path from takeoff to impact. And I wouldn't be surprised that it could also be tracked by satellite imaging. Probably not accessible for nat'l sec reasons.
4. What pieces of A/C that were recovered were not from a 737. That's already been established by several means.
5.EXPERT video/technical testimony would establish beyond the shadow of a doubt that no video "analysis" could definitively prove that the "nose" was what pierced the far side of the building. And, the fact that "something" pierced the far wall means nothing anyway.
And about a dozen other points, but I have to go install an A/V system for a friend.
Case dismissed...
LOL... now this is more like it, Life. At least you are presenting the opposition's case with specific arguments, even though you are still short on evidence.
Keep in mind that in this mock trial, I am presenting data and evidence we have right now, that we can all look at and mull over, not "well, the evidence I present is going to exist some day because I say so and because I really like fantasizing about kicking your butt in court."
That said, as much as you seem to think you have presented evidence that refutes any of my factual statements, you really have presented nothing but some hopeful future evidence.
Until then:
1) We do not know what kind of plane flew into WTC2. However, the plane that flew into WTC2 entered the building from the south, its nose apparently missed the core of the building just to the right (east) side of it, and a mostly in-tact nose of the plane exited the northeast corner of WTC2 just before everything was engulfed in an explosion.
"We" know what kind of plane hit the towers and can prove beyond reasonable doubt what kind of plane it was by the aforementioned "procedure".
Just because you "think" it was not a 767 is not proof.
Sorry dear....appeal denied.
I don't recall ever stating that I knew the type of plane that flew into WTC7. Please try to focus here, Life, and stay on topic...
1) We don't know the type of plane that flew into WTC2.
The evidence seems to suggest it was probably a drone that was flown by remote control -- a specially modified airplane missile -- but an airplane nonetheless.
Whether the drone was a 767 or not and whether it had passengers or not and whether it is the same plane that passengers boarded at the gates indicated in the official story or not -- is all beside the point, to me anyway.
The strongest piece of this argument is that, whatever it was, it did not behave like an ordinary commercial airliner with an aluminum nose and instead flew right through the building with its nose still in tact.
Coincidentally, your refutation of this claim, that the plane flew through the building with its nose still in tact, is the weakest part of your pretend argument.
I'm on topic. WE know what type of plane and also WHICH plane flew into the tower. YOU don't believe or know what plane flew into the tower.
IF I were the opposing counsel for the gubmint in your imaginary case, I'd eat you alive.
1. I'd call every person who was a witness to the passengers boarding the plane. They'd be the first to establish that the plane being boarded was not a 737.
2. The eyewitless testimony of people who "thought" it "looked" like a 737 would be dead meat in about 2 minutes. 737/767 is not even close to the same plane for an expert in aviation. And those would be a dime a dozen.
3. Testimony from personnel and ATC center radar records would establish a continuous uninterrupted flight path from takeoff to impact. And I wouldn't be surprised that it could also be tracked by satellite imaging. Probably not accessible for nat'l sec reasons.
4. What pieces of A/C that were recovered were not from a 737. That's already been established by several means.
5.EXPERT video/technical testimony would establish beyond the shadow of a doubt that no video "analysis" could definitively prove that the "nose" was what pierced the far side of the building. And, the fact that "something" pierced the far wall means nothing anyway.
Where are your "operators of said drone"?
Where is the intact nosecone you claimed penetrated through the building?
Where is the picture of the intact nosecone laying on the ground?
Why does the record show a continuous flight path from takeoff to impact?
Where did the "switch" take place?
Where are the passengers?
Conjecture is one thing. Hard facts and empirical evidence take precedence over conjecture any day.
A+ for effort...but, Motion Denied.
Still pretty much off topic, Dear, which is the video footage of a plane flying through the WTC2 with its nose still in tact before the whole thing disintegrated in an explosion, and still not supplying any links or evidence for any of the arguments you do present, on or off topic.
The trial may be a mock, but my evidence, unlike your evidence, is real and available for anybody to go and view directly from this courtroom.
Note there is no mention of drones or remote control or type of aircraft (737/757/767) or any such thing in the evidence I presented in my letter to Congress. Only that the plane did not behave like an ordinary commercial airliner on impact:
2. The plane that hit WTC2 may not have been a regular commercial airliner, and/or the facades of WTC2 where the plane hit may have somehow been modified, because the plane apparently pierced right through the building with its nose mostly still in tact as it came out the other side.
Sources:
- http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109110848-0929 (see time marker 21:20)
- http://tinyurl.com/ysscje (see time markers 6:30, 5:25, and 4:55)
- http://www.archive.org/details/abc200109110912-0954 (see time markers 0:58-1:04 and 1:56-2:06 for what appears to be a piece of the plane on fire hanging outside WTC2)
Sorry kiddo, I work for the gubmint and I have all the evidence. Including the security video tapes showing the plane taking off time tracked to the radar profile and accounting for every second of flight time from takeoff till impact. (Which I don't of course, cause I don't work for the gubmint)
The point is, in this fictional case, IF I worked for the gubmint, I'd have more than ample evidence to blow your case out of the water.
And again, just because "something" appears to "go through" the building, means nothing. The fact is "we" know what happened because we have access to all the pertinent data and you don't, other than some fuzzy video stuff that proves nothing other than "something" came through the building. So...what's your point?
LOL! I'm going to have to get out my Life-to-English dictionary again for this one.
I guess what you are saying is that the most likely perpetrators of this crime apparently have all the evidence they need for just about anything they want to claim, and they don't have to show the jury any of it. How convenient.
I was going to say that this kind of legal argument, where one side can claim whatever the hell it wants w/o presenting any evidence, and we all just have to take it as fact despite real evidence presented to the contrary, would not hold up in any US court. However, since I am currently in the middle of a four-year long custody battle from hell (in a US court, of course) which follows this scenario precisely, I know better than to make such naive claims.
If people think getting justice for heinous crimes against humanity and crimes against the US constitution in this country is tough business, they outta try giving the San Francisco Unified Family Court (SF U-FuC) a whirl for their money, that is, if they have any money left by the time the commissioners and lawyers are done bleeding them dry. Talk about people who should be hung for heinous acts of treason against constitutional and human rights, especially in regards to the treatment of children.
But I digress...
Let's get off the topic of a plane flying through WTC2 since it is clear we are just going in circles now (and we all wait with 'bated breath for all the evidence you are going to present at some future date that refutes my statements of fact).
Let's instead get onto some evidence I forgot to mention in my September 20, 2007, letter to Congress. It is my favorite evidence in support of my point number 4 in the letter, though I forgot to list it. Here is point number 4:
4. There are countless observations that are consistent with the idea that a chemical breakdown of materials occurred (or continued to occur) after the world trade center towers had been destroyed.
Sources:
- http://www.archive.org/details/nbc200109110954-1036 (see time markers 4:45-5:05 and 7:14-7:20 and beyond for what appears to be the beginning and the continuation, respectively, of a possible chemical breakdown or "fuming" of the leeward facade of WTC1 just after a seemingly reactive dust cloud from the destruction of WTC2 came in contact with the facade).
- http://www.drjudywood.com (see photo evidence and discussions of "lathering", "fuming", and especially "toasty cars")
And here is the evidence I forgot to highlight specifically, though it can be found on Dr. Judy Wood's web site, as well as several other sites... it is called the Tower 1 Spire shot...
At about time marker 17:15 - 17:30 in the following live video from CNN:
http://www.archive.org/details/cnn200109111011-1053
you can see a spire left over from the collapse of WTC1 stand alone for a while then suddenly turn to dust.
Here is a close-up of the same video:
http://tinyurl.com/2c2aep
Okay, Life, I present evidence of "a continuation of a chemical breakdown of materials" right before our eyes. What says you about what is observed in this video? Or, since you are on the stand, let me rephrase this as a yes or no question:
Does this video show a steel spire turning into dust? Yes? No? You are not sure?
Here is Operative Steven Jones' explanation of the WTC spire:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uO9Iv_4ZfNI
At least he didn't say, "Death rays from space didn't do it," or some such thing, though I am sure I can get him on video saying that several times in other interviews. I should make a short "death ray, molten steel, thermite cuts steel like butter" video of Steven Jones similar to the clips from Zeitgeist where they had Bush, Cheney, and Giuliani repeatedly saying "terrorists."
Gotta' go do some stuff, but I'll get back to ya'. But one tickler. Judy Woods is nuttier than a fruit cake..
http://tinyurl.com/275uwl
http://tinyurl.com/226qq3
http://tinyurl.com/ysjww6
http://tinyurl.com/jrj8h
http://tinyurl.com/2yumtd
http://tinyurl.com/mp5pq
http://tinyurl.com/obu8e
http://tinyurl.com/ftmmw
http://tinyurl.com/rjjpt
http://tinyurl.com/2ewwf2
http://tinyurl.com/cc7tu
http://tinyurl.com/3e3sga
http://tinyurl.com/yrd2al
http://tinyurl.com/z97d6
http://tinyurl.com/32zq4p
http://tinyurl.com/34whqm
http://tinyurl.com/evn87
http://tinyurl.com/zn5r3
http://tinyurl.com/35t8vl
I could come up with about a hundred more, but I have better things to do. The "analysis" of videos which "prove" dustification, lathering, chemically activated mojo juice, or whatever, are meaningless. I don't have the time, nor is there even close to enough space on this server to relate 40 years of experience in video, film, electronics, computers, graphics, and more.
I can "prove" a helicopter can fly without its' rotors turning. Watch this...
http://tinyurl.com/2zrwbk
...now, do you "believe" a helicopter can fly without its' rotors turning? I just "proved" it. Don't you "believe" what you just saw? I hope not, or you are the most gullible person alive. There's a technical explanation for what you just saw that explains it perfectly. It'd take about an hour to do the tech talk to make it understandable to the average citizen, and, I ain't got the time.
The spire that "disappeared" didn't. I know why it appears that way because I know how video works and more, but you wouldn't believe me anyway, so what's the point?
Just like Dr. Fruitys DEW "holes" in the other WTC buildings that "prove" there was a DEW used...BS. Again, I could spend hours talking about Geosynchronous Orbits, beam collimation, lasing artifacts, and much, much more, but you wouldn't believe it, so what's the point? I KNOW there were no DEWs, CD, or any other malarky involved...it's that simple.
Your conjecture on what happened that day is just that, conjecture...not hard cold facts based on real and empirical evidence...Sorry
Case Dismissed for Lack of Evidence.
Once again, more distractions from the real issue, which is that there needs to be a new, truly independent investigation. The Repugs spent more than $40M of tax-payer money investigating Clinton and found what? A blow job? Wow! Now there's some money well spent!!
The 9/11 commission was financed by donations amounting to less than $600K. We couldn't find sufficient funds in the budget to conduct a real investigation? The administration officials wouldn't testify under oath. No one ever answered any of the dozens of questions put forth by the families of 9/11 victims, by architects and engineers, by professional pilots. Sibel Edmonds, who worked as a CIA/FBI translator, is now one of the most gagged individuals in history because she knows something about the event and can't speak about it. We still don't know who profited from the short-selling of airline stocks prior to 9/11 or who told Pentagon officials to cancel flights on that date?
Maybe you don't give a flying fish but some of us do. And I think it's pretty safe to say that you'll never convince any of us that the official story is true and complete, no matter how many links you put up or techno-babble you spew. But go ahead and waste your time. Obviously, you've got nothing better to do.
You make it all worthwhile MS.
Just trying to tell you why there won't be another 9/11 investigation...
Everybody else knows what happened that day...and just hating GWB is not enough reason to re-investigate something that is already established fact.
And you were the one whining about me not putting up links to back up my statements. Facts and techno babble got ya' confused?
Hating GWB is a completely separate issue. Just because you feel you need to defend him makes us wonder what you are afraid of finding out?
Why do you always bring up irrelevant, off-topic issues, loserboy? Are you congenitally incapable of discussing the topic at hand? A new investigation is not synonymous with hating georgie. There are plenty of Repugs and conservatives who want a new investigation, too. As Shoes says, it's a separate issue.
And no, I am not confused by your links. They're idiotic. "Journal of Debunking 9/11 Conspiracy Theories" and Elmer Fudd/Kooks 9/11? That's what you call reputable sources? Please.
(click)...x2
Geez, Life. I take that as an "I don't know" for the answer to my simple question?
Did the steel spire in that video turn to dust?
Please stay on topic and answer the question, and contrary to what you think, I'd like to hear your explanation for what is observed. Thanks.
You've got to be kidding me with that helicopter video. I guess you think that makes you a physics professor qualified to teach all those physics and engineering classes that Prof. Judy Wood taught? Some bar trick?
Please focus and explain the spire turning into dust. Thanks.
BTW: The general rule is that if you can't explain it so that a five year old can understand it, you yourself don't understand it or it is a phenomenon that is generally not well understood, period (in case you think I'm impressed with men who throw the alphabet soup at me as some sort of sign of technological superiority).
Been there. Done that. It is so overwith.
BTW, you apparently haven't noticed -- Dr. Judy Wood presents only photo evidence of dustification, from multiple sources that are all cited -- no video evidence.
The spire phenomenon was independently documented by still photographs as well, possibly from more than one photographer, but I'll have to track that down. I didn't pull them out yet because it sort of surprised me that you would take the video fakery/artifacts route on this one.
Please explain the video artifact route for sure, though. I am not be sarcastic. I am truly interested...
A five year old is able to understand the cup and brick demonstration...
What? You're telling me that helicopter wasn't flying without its' rotors turning? Didn't you WATCH the video? The video plainly showed that the helicopter was moving up and down and to and fro without the main rotors turning. Don't you believe what you saw with your own eyes? Do you think the video was faked? It was on video and there are also photographs showing it with the rotors not moving. Therefore it must be true. Correct?
And I'm not going to waste my time and the space here to explain what are elementary video operating principles.
The point is that videos/photos leave their final interpretation to the desired goal of the "interpretor". Based on my "desired" outcome, the helicopter flies without rotors turning. The video "proves" my point. However, anyone with half a brain knows that is impossible for it to fly without the rotor turning.
The spire did not "turn to dust". Simple answer to a simple question.
There are videos of it collapsing. You just choose to believe the one that shows it "appearing" to turn to dust. And I know why it "appears" that way and you obviously do not.
And Dr Fruity is just that. She'd make a great snake oil salesman. Letters behind names mean nothing except to those whose wish to swallow the bile spewed forth by them.
EVERY point made by the Loony Truthers is countered and explained in the links I have provided here. I even included some of the goofier ones to show just how obvious it is that anyone that believes there was an "inside job" is goofy.
AND, for the record, I never said I didn't want "an independent, fresh investigation" of what happened. I said it'll never happen because anybody with a brain already knows what happened.
This is getting boring. Running around and around in circles is pointless. I put this to you.
Where are the passengers from that day that were on the airplanes that "didn't" hit the towers and Pentagon and the field?
Where are the airplanes themselves?
Where are the "insiders" that rigged the towers for a CD?
Where are the operators of the DEWs that "dustified" the towers?
Where are the people who "coated" the towers with magic mojo juice?
And about 100 other points that I could make that blows your theory all to hell.
The bottom line is very simple...
4. The easy way out. Appealing to conspiracy saves you having to struggle with the difficulties, contradictions, and uncertainties of real evidence.
4. The easy way out. Appealing to conspiracy saves you having to struggle with the difficulties, contradictions, and uncertainties of real evidence.
Real evidence that has all been destroyed or covered up.
You're going to have to do better than this to convince us.
Your questions are all ones that never got asked and need to be answered.
Lame rebuttals are beyond boring.
Any body with HALF a brain can see that what we've been told is less than the truth.
Finally, a yes or no answer to a yes or no question.
Question: Did the spire turn to dust?
Life's answer: The spire did not "turn to dust".
And a great bonus here: a follow up question and answer...
Question: How do you know this?
Life answer:
"There are videos of it collapsing. You just choose to believe the one that shows it "appearing" to turn to dust.
Next question:
Where are the videos showing the spire collapsing other than the one I present? That is something I think our jury would like to see for sure. That, or even any photos for that matter.
Again, my dear passionate, yet all-over-the-map witness... please focus, stay on topic, and provide the information requested, and no more and no less.
And on the off chance you do not produce any other videos of the spire collapsing (I'm being facetious here), please go on with your argument nonetheless and, as I have patiently requested several times already, let me know what you think we are observing:
Life comment about the Spire turning to dust: "And I know why it 'appears' that way and you obviously do not."
Pray tell...
BTW: As for the "impossibility due to the number of people that would have to be in on the cover-up," my educated guess at what really happened could probably take less people than the conspiracy story presented by the gov. -- and I've already found the source of plenty of loons crazy enough to do this with full knowledge of the "big picture" -- it's called Blackwater.
What makes you think a bunch of outsiders can achieve such a huge undertaking so much more easily, and with less people, than insiders?
Also, if you apply the same questions you ask to the gov story, the gov. story holds up much worse under the same kind of scrutiny. So what's your point? Lose a fact-based argument on lack of evidence then cry, "Oh, I'm bored now?" Well, I second that motion for sure if you continue on in this vein...
Doesn't seem odd, if not downright unbelievable, that 3 different buildings would "collapse" (I'm using that term advisedly) in the same manner, on the same day, within hours of one another, in a way that defies logic, physics and common sense?
http://tinyurl.com/275uwl
http://tinyurl.com/226qq3
http://tinyurl.com/ysjww6
http://tinyurl.com/jrj8h
http://tinyurl.com/2yumtd
http://tinyurl.com/mp5pq
http://tinyurl.com/obu8e
http://tinyurl.com/ftmmw
http://tinyurl.com/rjjpt
http://tinyurl.com/2ewwf2
http://tinyurl.com/cc7tu
http://tinyurl.com/3e3sga
http://tinyurl.com/yrd2al
http://tinyurl.com/z97d6
http://tinyurl.com/32zq4p
http://tinyurl.com/34whqm
http://tinyurl.com/evn87
http://tinyurl.com/zn5r3
http://tinyurl.com/35t8vl
Read EACH and EVERY word on EVERY link. I'm not your understudy, do your own research.
And where are the answers (straight and simple) to MY questions?
Where are the passengers of said airplanes that didn't hit any buildings that day?
Where are the airplanes that didn't hit anything that day?
Where are the people who "coated" the towers?
Who built and launched the DEWs into orbit?
Where were the ground based DEWs located at? And where are the operators?
Where and who are the people who rigged the buildings for CD?
Where are the records of cell phone calls between GWB and Osama sitting it all up?
Where and when have any other 100+ story buildings been struck by 200+ ton airliners flying at full speed?
Where is your "proof"? Other than half baked wildass theories by fame seeking nutcases?
We already have fame, what we'll looking for it the truth.
Here's another video of the spire turning to dust, along with a lot of photos...
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/
I think "plaguepuppy" is an MIT engineer named Jeff King. In fact, in addition to this excellent presentation of "The Strange Collapse of the Spire," I think Jeff King gives one of the best, most no-nonsense 10-minute video synopsis of many of the biggest problems with the official government story...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8XToX7aSdg
Your links are a waste of time, Life. You have no videos showing collapse of the spire w/o it turning to dust, and you can't throw a bunch of links at the jury and say: there, go find the video yourself...
Here is what my expert witness, Jeff King, MIT Engineer, states after your pathtetic testimony and after showing at least two videos and countless photos of the spire turning to dust:
"There can be no doubt that the cluster of steel box columns comprising the spire, after surviving the violence of the collapse itself, did in fact disintegrate almost at the moment that it began to fall. I cannot begin to speculate on the kind of technology needed to make this happen, but can say with some certainty that even conventional explosives would not create such a disintegration, and nothing that could happen in a gravitational collapse would resemble this."
(Found at the very bottom of the aforementioned web site:
http://st12.startlogic.com/~xenonpup/New_Spire/
)
You lose point #2. Onward...
I can't believe you just listed the same list of lame anti 9/11 Truth proganda web sites you listed earlier, Life. The very first one is the biggest joke of all -- good friend of Steven Jones, Jim Hoffman, 9/11 Troll, is "debunked." That is like presenting evidence that Steven Jones' molten steel is debunked and then claiming you don't have to produce any evidence because you just showed the entire truth movement is a sham!
You are the one who is the sham, Life. I am really disappointed with you, even as my graduate student (in real life I would not allow the likes of you within 100 feet of my laboratory -- who needs such risk of falisification of data?)
Until you produce the videos and/or photos you just claimed you have on hand that show the spire collapsing w/o it turning to dust and/or you produce your big "top secret" mechanism by which all videos and photos of the spire turning to dust have some hair-ball video/photo fakery/artifact element to them, good riddance.
As Rosie says, it's flush time...
Well, since nothing I present fits your criteria since you "know it all" already, I'll go back to the simpler method of presenting my evidence...
ANYBODY that thinks there were DEWs, CD, lasers, coated buildings, inside job, dustification, thermite, conspiracy, guided missiles, remote controlled airplanes, or anything other than what actually happened that day...is an IDIOT!
Flush...
Next witness please.
..Flush...which is where the loony truthers "theories" belong.
Maybe we need Roto-Rooter. I agree it's time for a good flushing, h nicole, but it doesn't seem to be working.
that's why most plumbers are men...
Post a Comment