Sunday, July 16, 2017

9/11 - The Truth Hurts (Part Seven, Conclusion)

We now conclude with WTC 7 and the Epilogue (starting at 4:27:49):

Part Seven: Building 7 (4:30:48)

The Official Explanation (4:32:08)

I must agree with the narrator completely. NIST says WTC 7 collapsed due to office fires (thermal expansion), "for the first time", yet did not think it prudent to examine this new-found phenomenon? I should think anyone who has reason to enter a multi-storied building would be clamoring to find out how it happened and how to prevent this anomaly from being repeated in the future! Instead, a supposed laboratory is content to cross its fingers and pray something like this never happens again? Whatever happened to their mission statement to:

"Promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve our quality of life"?!

The Collapse Computer Model (4:35:05)

Once again we have computer models that directly contradict the official version of events (see my article of March 28th entitled Time to Revisit 9/11, linked below):

The Fire Computer Model (4:36:28)

What does NIST want us to believe? Their computer model, or our lying eyes?

"Building 7 weaker than regular skyscrapers" (4:37:53

This time "Popular Mechanics" floated a theory that was discounted by NIST itself (4:38:38):

"The transfer elements such as trusses, girders, and cantilever overhangs that were used to support the office building over the Con Edison substation did not play a significant role in the collapse of WTC 7." NIST NCSTAR 1A xxxvii 
In the words of Larry Silverstein himself:

"We built in enough redundancy to allow entire portions of floors to be removed without affecting the building's structural integrity." (4:39:19)

Evidence to the Contrary (4:39:46)

Preknowledge (4:39:55)

Even though, as the narrator emphasizes, the idea that the media were forewarned about WTC 7's collapse is insane, we are left to wonder how it is that so many different sources predicted its collapse up to five hours before the event occurred. 

QUESTION (4:44:06):

Given that the collapse of a steel skyscraper due to fire would have been an unprecedented event, how could so many people have known about it so many hours in advance?
If the police clearing the area expected a structural failure due to fire, why would they use such an expression as "the building is about to blow up"?
Can you explain how an unprecedented, totally unexpected collapse due to fire could be predicted with absolute precision by an actual countdown?

Symmetry (4:44:34)

QUESTION (4:45:23):

Can you explain how the almost simultaneous removal of all of the columns, which was necessary for Building 7 to collapse in the way it did, can be caused by fire alone?

Freefall (4:45:35)

QUESTION (4:47:53):

Can you explain how freefall, which requires the almost simultaneous removal of the supporting structure, can be achieved without a controlled demolition?

Epilogue (4:48:04)

I think the narrator could have stopped at "John McCain said", but on a personal note I find it highly offensive that a man who served in the same Navy as my father, who was responsible for the USS Forrestal fire which killed 134 sailors (he "hot-started" his jet), who points fingers at Israel every chance he gets blaming them for the incident with USS Liberty (never mind the facts of the matter and the rules of maritime law, with which he supposedly is familiar), yet feigns ignorance after writing the foreword for the book "Popular Mechanics" wrote to discredit those people who are demanding truthful answers to legitimate questions.

QUESTION (4:48:04)

If you were aware of solid evidence disproving the official version and suggesting the involvement of some rogue elements of the government in the terrorist attacks, would it be more unpatriotic and anti-American to ask for a new investigation, or to turn a blind eye to it and pretend such evidence doesn't exist?
Given that the people's trust in institutions is of paramount importance for a nation's well-being, would that trust be better served by denying the evidence of a conspiracy, or by bringing those suspected to accountability in a court of law?

The Last Word (4:50:05)

If there is nothing to hide, why is such a concerted effort being made to quash any and all lines of inquiry into an event that murdered 2,997 Americans? Why are investigators being labeled "conspiracy theorists" and/or having their sanity questioned? Why is the scientific community, which prides itself on its ability to draw unbiased conclusions based solely upon the evidence it observes, suddenly allergic to questioning its data? 

What is the fear?

"What's past is prologue." William Shakespeare

Saturday, July 8, 2017

9/11 - The Truth Hurts (Part Six)

Continuing with "Part Six: The Twin Towers" at 3:25:47 (remember to open video in a separate window):

The Hypothesis of Controlled Demolitions 

"Impossible to place explosives under everyone's eyes" (3:26:44)

Readers will recall I suggested an explanation in Part One of this series on 9/11:

The documentary adds the following, disturbing information:

Interesting Facts (3:27:15):
1) Major elevators' renovations 
2) Heavy equipment moved on empty floors 
3) Bomb-sniffing dogs removed (September 6th)
4) Unprecedented power down (South Tower, September 8th and 9th, for 36 hours)

"Controlled demolitions always begin at the bottom" (3:32:09)

Explosions in the Twin Towers

"Witnesses confused. Not real explosions." (3:33:44)

Preliminary Explosions in Controlled Demolitions (3:35:38)

Pay careful attention to this segment. The evidence here is so compelling I found myself shaking.

Basement Explosion Before Plane Impact (3:37:28)

"Fuel in elevator shafts" theory (3:41:10)

1) No regular elevators from top to bottom
2) Personnel not cremated by "fireball"
3) Volumes not considered

The Big Lobby Explosion in the North Tower (3:43:45)

Explosions Just Before the Collapses (3:47:00)

Explosions During the Collapses (3:47:39)

"Explosions not recorded in video" (3:48:59)

Explosions WERE Recorded by Video Cameras (3:50:04)

Explosions Recorded After the Collapses (3:51:23)

Someone DID See Explosions (3:53:44)

QUESTION (3:54:43)

Given that after the initial explosion and the ensuing fires there wouldn't have been enough jet fuel left to pour down the elevator shafts in substantial quantities, can you explain the at least three separate explosions reported by multiple witnesses at the time of the first impact in the North Tower?
In particular, can you explain the huge explosion reported by multiple witnesses in the basement of the North Tower moments before the impact of the plane?
Can you explain what caused the huge explosion that literally devastated the lobby of the North Tower, according to multiple witnesses, about one hour after the impact of the plane, and before the collapse of Tower Two?
Can you explain what caused the big explosion reported by Mr. Jennings and Mr. Hess on the eighth floor of Building 7, before either tower had collapsed?
Can you explain what caused the multiple explosions recorded by different camera crews, including the BBC and CNN, after the Towers had collapsed and before the collapse of Building 7?
Can you explain how more than one hundred witnesses, most of them firefighters and policemen, could have all "been mistaken" in reporting explosions of the Twin Towers on September 11?

Squibs (3:55:55)

"Air pressure caused windows to explode" (3:56:25)

QUESTION (3:58:16)

Given that what we see is clearly not glass from a broken window but concrete and other debris, can you explain what caused the squibs observed 30 or 40 floors below the level of collapse?

Explosive Force (3:58:27)

Ejecta (4:00:36)

"Just aluminum, not steel structure" (4:01:20)

QUESTION (4:03:10)

Given that the following, upper sections of the Towers had no additional energy to destroy the healthy structure below, where did the energy to hurdle these large chunks of structure at such a distance from the Towers come from?

Diagonal Cuts (4:03:38)

QUESTION (4:05:35)

Can you suggest a good reason why iron workers would need to perform "V" cuts and a 45 degree cut on this piece of structure just to remove it from the rubble?

What Happened to the Hat Trusses? (4:05:45)

Extreme Temperatures (4:06:50)

"Gasoline from cars, generator fuel tank" (4:11:03)

Exactly how many automobiles do these people think were parked at the World Trade Center, how large do they think those tanks were, and how hot would such fires be that gasoline and generator fuel burned for over three months?!

Bent and Mangled Beams (4:12:13)

Molten Steel (4:13:10)

"No proof of molten steel" (4:13:33)

QUESTION (4:18:40)

Given that most of the jet fuel was burned after the impacts, given that only office fires were burning at the time of the collapses, and given that no major source of combustible seems to have been available underground, can you offer a comprehensive explanation for the temperatures up to 2,800 degrees reported at Ground Zero, for the long lasting fires underground, for the incandescent beams repeatedly extracted from the rubble, for the massive steel beams "bent like a pretzel", for the molten steel and the molten concrete observed and found at Ground Zero, as caused by the office fires and the gravitational collapses only?

Pulverization (4:19:17)

43,600 windows
600,000 square feet of glass
200,000 tons of structural steel
5 million square feet of gypsum
6 acres of marble (one acre = 43,560 square feet)
425,000 cubic yards of concrete

Victims Vaporized (4:23:09)

2,749 Victims (<300 whole bodies)
20,000 body parts
6,000 body parts <5 inches
200 pieces = one person
1,630 identified (800 by DNA only)
1,119 not identified (41%)

In 2006, over 700 bone fragments were found on the roof of the Deutsche Bank building (4:26:35)

QUESTION (4:27:19)

Can you explain how a simple, gravitational collapse, where the bodies remain trapped between pancaking floors, could have produced more than 20,000 body parts out of 2,700 victims, while more than 1,100 bodies left no fragments large enough to extract a DNA sample?
Can you explain how a simple, gravitational collapse could have produced the bone fragments and body parts from civilians and firefighters that were recovered from the roof of the Deutsche Bank building?

Part Seven will cover the conclusion of this video.

Sunday, July 2, 2017

9/11 - The Truth Hurts (Part Five)

[AUTHOR'S NOTE: My deepest apologies for the long break between Part Four and this one. Due to a personal emergency I was away from home longer than I expected and did not think to pack my electronics. Here is the long-awaited portion on the Twin Towers.]

Once again, here is the link, along with my suggestion that readers open it in a separate window so they can follow the notes as they go along. We left off at 2:40:20:

Part Six: The Twin Towers

Beginning at 2:41:00, several calls from the WTC are replayed. Oddly enough, it was going through them in preparation for this article that caused me to catch something that I never realized before. The female who is on the telephone with 911 talks about how hot it is, the floor being "completely engulfed", and seeing nothing but smoke. What (finally!) struck me on this umpteenth time of listening to it is:


I have no idea what it means nor what explanation to propose at this point; I will leave the reader to come up with his or her own conclusion(s).

The Towers' Dirty Little Secret (2:42:55)

Larry Silverstein (2:48:20)

NIST vs. Architects and Engineers (2:51:30)

Robust or Fragile Buildings? (2:53:08)

Peter Jennings interviewed an architect on 9/11 whose firm built the World Trade Center. Jon Magnusson, while believing the initial theories being circulated on that day, explained just how sturdy the Towers were (beginning at 1:40):

Most Americans are unaware of how the WTC was constructed, but this segment of the video gives a far different picture than what we were led to believe on that day. 244 steel columns, spaced 39 inches apart, supporting 40% of the Towers' weight; 47 steel columns, spaced 39 inches apart, supporting the other 60% of the weight, and a structural redundancy of three to five times the weight they were intended to support. This description is a far cry from the paper machet impression we got from the "talking heads" and our government. By the way, how many people knew about the so-called "Hat Trusses"? And the quote from Roth & Son bears no resemblance to that of the pundits trying to push the government's narrative:

"The Vierendeel trusses would be so effective, according to the engineers' calculations, that all the columns on one side of the tower could be cut, as well as the two corners and several columns on the adjacent sides, and the tower would still be strong enough to withstand a 100 mph wind."

Evidently the powers that be have very short memories, since after the first WTC bombing various engineers were interviewed who affirmed the Towers were built to withstand the impact of a jetliner going up to 600 mph, never mind the statements of the original architects we read in this segment of the film. In addition, how does the official version square with NIST's own report that the initial jet fuel fires burned out "in a few minutes"? 

The Technical Debate (2:59:30)

1) The Initial Failure
2) The Complete Collapse 

Official Explanation #1

"Fire softened and melted steel." (2:59:50)

I still find the PBS model to be hilarious. If the computer cannot replicate what you say happened, it is a safe bet that you are missing something. (3:00:40)

Official Explanation #2

"Fire weakened steel." (3:01:02)

The "Sagging Trusses" Theory (3:02:40)

1) No proof of insulation "widely dislodged"
    - Evidence to the contrary:
      Pictures didn't fall
2) No proof of temperatures above 250 degrees Celsius (480 degrees Fahrenheit).
    - Evidence to the contrary (see 3:06:05):
    A) 16 people descended through stairs
    B)  FLIR Thermographic Images
3) Why would trusses "pull inward"?

Amazingly, while arguing that fire brought down the Towers (and Building 7), NIST admits the evidence does not support their claim (3:05:04):

"Of the more than 170 areas examined on 16 perimeter column panels, only three columns had evidence that the steel reached temperatures above 250 [480 degrees Fahrenheit]." (NIST NCSTAR1 p. 90)
"Only two core columns specimens had sufficient paint remaining to make such an analysis and the temperatures did not reach 250 [480 degrees Fahrenheit]." (Ibid)
 "No conclusive evidence was found to indicate that the pre-collapse fires were severe enough to have a significant effect on the microstructure that would have resulted in weakening of the steel structure." (Ibid, 3C, p. 235)
Steel Properties (3:05:45):
Melting: 1,530 C (2,800 F)
Softening: 600 C (1,100 F)
NIST: Max. 250 C (480 F)

QUESTION (3:09:42)

Can you provide any evidence that the fireproofing from the steel trusses was "widely dislodged" by the impact of the planes, which NIST has made a necessary condition for the collapses to be caused by fire?
Can you provide any evidence that the temperatures in the Twin Towers were high enough, and lasted long enough, to seriously weaken the steel in the areas where the initial collapses occurred?
Can you explain how a sagging truss weakened by heat could pull and eventually break apart the structure it is attached to, with no external force being applied to it?

NIST's theory on what led to the Towers' collapsing is close to comical (3:10:35):

"The focus of the investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the 'probable collapse sequence', although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable." (NIST NCSTAR 1 p. 82)
"Independent studies explain collapses" (3:12:21)

Laws of Physics Violated (3:14:00)

Newton's Third Law of Motion: For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

The Law of Momentum Conservation: Momentum is conserved in isolated systems. (3:16:00)

The Twin Towers and Freefall (3:17:05)

"More than ten seconds" (3:20:20)

"Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance [...] the building section above came down essentially in freefall." (NIST NCSTAR 1 p. 146)
How does this even make any sense?!

QUESTION (3:22:30):

Given that "the building section above came down essentially in free fall"; given that for freefall to occur no supporting structure must be present; and given that the falling sections did not have any extra energy to destroy the structure below, can you suggest anything different from some kind of controlled demolition for the removal of the supporting structure, which was necessary for near free fall speed to be achieved?

Debunking 9/11 Myths (foreword by John McCain): "Not one of the leading conspiracy theorists has a background in engineering, construction, or related fields." Popular Mechanics 2006, 2011 (3:24:12)

I will continue with the Twin Towers in Part Six, which I promise will not take two months to post. 😸

Sunday, April 30, 2017

9/11 - The Truth Hurts (Part Four)

Before we continue with the documentary, I have been talking to some people and the information they gave me has caused me to come up with another, more plausible theory as to what may have happened to the passengers that day.

Consider the following scenario: We are all in XYZ terminal, when "This is the first boarding call for Flight A. All passengers please line up at Door 1, and have your tickets ready for the attendant" comes over the loudspeaker. We all line up. One-by-one, we proceed down an enclosed walkway, make a couple of turns, and enter the interior of an airplane.

Do we have any idea what plane we just boarded? No. We know what we were told. Do we have any idea who is flying the plane? No. 99% of us would never even think to ask the names of the crew, and even then we would have no idea what they are supposed to look like. Do we have any idea if the flight attendants are who they appear to be? No. We assume they are flight attendants because they are dressed in uniforms. Once we take off, do we have any idea where we are going? No. We know what we are told, "Welcome to XYZ Flight A, non-stop from Boston to Los Angeles." Because airplanes usually do not take off from one airport and head in a straight line to the other airport, we are accustomed to turning right after take-off so the pilot can get on whatever course he was given by air traffic controllers. 

In other words, we really have no idea where we are, in whose care we have put our lives, and no idea where we are headed. 

Once again, let me remind everyone of "Operation Northwoods":

To anyone who is not a pilot the scenario sounds outlandish. How on earth could they even get away with such a thing? Air traffic control would realize the planes disappeared, right? Well, I thought the same thing until someone educated me about transponders. I asked him about Flight 77 whose transponder was "turned off" and then "turned on", because I thought it was odd. As it turns out, a transponder is not unique to a given airplane. It is just a communication device that sends and receives radio waves. It is the transponder CODES that are important, as is the MODE or modes of the transponder:

As we can see, the codes are assigned by ATC at the beginning of each flight. Those codes are assigned in blocks to each ATC who then issues them as needed. In order for another aircraft to imitate the identity of another aircraft, all the pilot needs is the assigned code for the craft in question, and all someone needs in order to obtain the assigned code is a radio. As it was described to me, intercepting a communication between ATC and Aircraft A is no different than using a ham radio to intercept police communications. All the radio operator needs is the frequency being used. 

Further, as we learned in earlier parts of this series, Mode A gives bearing (direction of the aircraft) and range (distance from a given point) information. The only thing that was ever disabled on 9/11 was Mode C: the altitude. Which makes Flight 77 all the more intriguing. Once Hani Hanjour allegedly "turned off" the transponder, why did he turn it back on? Going back to my proposed scenario, I would say it was "turned on" so that we would all have a "record" of what allegedly happened to Flight 77 in its final moments. Just look at the number of Internet trolls who use the alleged FDR information to "prove" what happened at the Pentagon. There is just one problem with that "evidence": The NTSB refuses to release the serial number of this supposed flight data recorder. 

Obviously, I cannot state conclusively this is what happened with certainty, but it definitely gives realistic possibilities with which to counter questions being posed by "debunkers".

Now that I have that out of the way, we will take a look at the Twin Towers in Part Five of "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" just as soon as I get the next article posted.

Saturday, April 29, 2017

9/11 - The Truth Hurts (Part Three)

Back to "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor". We left off at 1:55:25; for those who missed the first two hours please see Part One. I am re-posting the link, and I remind everyone to open it in a separate window so the notes are easier to follow as we go:

Before we continue, let me address one question that people probably have. IF the phone calls were staged, how did someone get the passengers to make these phone calls? I have come up with one possibility, and I invite other suggestions. Since we had "war games" going on that morning, is it possible they were convinced they were participating in a drill, told they would be compensated, and that the government appreciated their patriotism in the name of "national security"? Just a thought.

Part Four - The Pentagon

I have a question of my own concerning the "evidence" presented at 1:55:55. Are MODS numbers reassigned, even after a horrific, deadly incident? Because, on a lark, I looked it up and MODS537 is currently scheduled to depart from Los Cabos, Mexico, heading to Phoenix, Arizona. The data may be different when readers look it up for themselves, but here is the link to the tracker:

"Hundreds of people saw an American Airlines jet." (1:56:25)

Downed Light Poles (1:57:38)

The Missing Airplane (1:58:33)

"Loose Change":

The Official Version (1:59:37)

- Wingspan
Once again, can someone please point out the imprint of a 757 on this building facade?:

"The wings came off." (2:03:02)
- Stabilizers
- Tail

"Plane shattered in a thousand pieces." (2:04:14)

QUESTION (2:05:15)

How could the fuselage, which is the weakest part of the plane, penetrate the facade almost entirely, while part of the wings, the stabilizers, and the tail, which are relatively stronger, were unable to do so and were shattered in a thousand pieces instead?


QUESTION (2:08:04)

Can you explain what happened to the core of the two engines, which is built with components so strong and resistant to be considered practically indestructable?

The Mystery Hole (2:08:13)

This is exactly my same question. As we have learned, the nose cone is just about the weakest part of the airplane. While tails and wings disappeared, and engines passed through imaginary holes, the nose penetrated both sides of three rings and left an almost perfectly-symmetrical hole? And, where is the Miracle Nose Cone? Oh, wait. It disintegrated, right?

"Liquid mass/Fireball/Avalanche" (2:09:19)

The Pentagon Building Performance Report (2:10:05)

QUESTION (2:11:15)

Given that, according to the Pentagon Building Performance Report, "the aircraft frame most certainly was destroyed before it had traveled a distance that approximately equaled the length of the aircraft", and that, "it is highly unlikely that any significant portion of the fuselage could have retained structural integrity from that point on", can you explain what caused the almost perfectly round exit hole in the outer wall of the C-ring?

The Missing Tapes (2:12:07)

Security Video Analysis (2:13:35)

Stop at 2:16:00. This is the same spot I pointed out in Part Two from a different video. The sequences are exactly the same. In this film, I direct everyone's attention to the frame on top. Once again, we see a vehicle entering the picture at ground level...NOSE DOWN. In aviation parlance, this is known as "negative pitch", and I repeat that no pilot who ever lived could have pulled a 757 doing 586 mph out of that attitude (pitch) in one second. It is flat-out impossible.

An even better look (though blurry) occurs at 2:16:19. Again, the vehicle is pitched down. There just is no way to explain how this object recovered in one second, unless it was a missile.

Mr. Mazzucco makes a suggestion here that is in the realm of possibility, but I am not sure I agree. It appears that some parts of  the "plane" he describes are in the background in shots preceding the frames in question. Whether they are trees or some other object I am not certain, but if viewers rewind the documentary and go back through the dark shapes on the horizon they will see what I mean.

Another theory has been proposed which bears mentioning: The JSSAM. Take a good look at this thing. Pause it at various points, examining its appearance, and observing its ability to explode on impact or not:

QUESTION (2:18:24)

Given that the maximum fluctuation between the two cameras would translate in a difference of 25 feet in the position of the plane, can you provide a valid explanation for the large discrepancy between the two corresponding planes?
Absent a valid explanation for this discrepancy, we must conclude that at least one of the two frames is the result of intentional manipulation, or "photoshopping".

Part Five - Flight 93 (2:19:30)

"Plane penetrated the ground." (2:23:15)

Flight 93 went in "almost vertical", yet the NTSB says it hit at about a 45-degree angle? And, the FBI says 95% of the plane was recovered? So, where is it?

QUESTION (2:26:55)

Can you explain how most of an airplane weighing 100 tons could end up buried deep underground, in a hole that closed itself up before the first responders arrived?

Plane Crash or Bomb Explosion? (2:28:09)

QUESTION (2:29:50)

Since the plane was carrying 8 to 10,000 gallons of fuel at the time of impact, can you explain why there is no plume of black smoke rising from the ground after the initial explosion?

Debris Field (2:30:01)

New Baltimore is eight miles away?!

QUESTION (2:32:21)

Since the plane is supposed to have hit the ground in one piece, can you explain how it was possible for debris to be found six to eight miles from the crash site, on a day when only a light breeze was blowing?

The Shootdown Hypothesis (2:32:32)

The Small White Plane (2:33:56)

A "small white plane", or a JSSAM? Take another look at this missile being dropped from an airplane in the very first scene:

"Let's Roll" (2:36:44)

The 9/11 Commission Report says the Hollywood version of Flight 93 is a lie? Bizarre, and what a shame; I enjoyed the movie. More importantly, what a travesty for the families of the victims. Pathetic.

QUESTION (2:38:25)

Since they were only twenty minutes away from Washington, and for almost six minutes the passengers had been unable to enter the cockpit, why didn't the hijackers continue flying towards the capital?
And even if they thought they couldn't make it to Washington, why didn't they try to crash the plane onto a small town nearby? Why crash the plane in an empty field, where they knew they could not kill any more victims than those who were already on the plane with them?

The comments by Vernon Grose, former NTSB investigator. Are you serious? The government makes up stories to make us feel better because, in Jack Nicholson's immortal words, we "can't handle the truth"?!


* * * * *

NOTE: This article is shorter than the Parts One and Two because I want to isolate it from the next, far more detailed section on the debate between Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth vs. NIST.

Part Four will be posted ASAP.

Wednesday, April 26, 2017

9/11 - The Truth Hurts (Part Two)

I am just dumbstruck. I am in total, complete, and utter shock. Someone referred me to a video related to the one I am writing about, and in researching its claims I found the following document. The Council on Foreign Relations itself says there is no proof Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11:

We will get back to "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" in just a moment, but first let me link readers to the video in question. While I do not agree with every claim it makes, the video makes many excellent points, starting with the quote from Goebbels in the introduction:

While the claim of weapons of mass destruction seemed to be proven true in a 2014 article by the New York Times, there remains the question as to whether or not these weapons were remnants of Saddam Hussein's chemical weapons program from the first Persian Gulf War or were a new program. Regardless, we do know Donald Rumsfeld said "Iran" and "Iraq" in virtually the same breath after the 9/11 attacks. It also revives the question as to why Valerie Plame was "outed" by Dick Cheney. 

"The politics of fear." How strange that we did not see it at the time. We did cling to photographs of George Bush in full flight gear, carrying rifles, carrying axes...all the while listening to messages of how "dangerous" the world is and how the government would take care of us. While I fell for it like the majority of people, I also recall looking at a bazillion "terror alerts" and thinking, "These people have no clue what they are doing. I guarantee Israel does not scare its citizens with hourly 'alerts', painting mental pictures of every conceivable thing a terrorist can do or use to kill them, and then send everyone back to their regular television programming". It really was insane, and it is a shame I did not put everything together back then.

Yet another Internet "friend" sent me the following link, so I will continue with "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor" in Part Three (I may even need a Part Four, the way things are going). I will notate this documentary the same way I am doing the original video, but I want everyone to focus on the Pentagon footage when it appears. The instant the video shows just the two Pentagon stills, stop the tape, and go frame-by-frame, paying particular attention to the images in the bottom tape. I will explain why when we get to that part:

[NOTE: Please disregard the theatrics. I have no idea why some producers do that; I agree it is distracting. Also, there are a handful of factual errors (which knowledgeable viewers will recognize immediately). Nevertheless, the substance of this documentary is of great importance. As before, I suggest opening this link in a separate window to follow my comments more easily.]

Osama bin Laden was never charged with 9/11?! (0:01:29)

"Well, I'm afraid that we just don't have the evidence." (0:01:55)

"I wondered, after those images from New York last week, whether bin Laden was not as astonished as I myself to see them. Always supposing he watched television. Or listened to the radio. Or read a newspaper." Robert Fisk, The Independent (0:02:00)

"We designed the buildings to resist to the impact of one or more jetliners." Frank De Martini, WTC Construction Manager (0:06:24)

The Towers were built like a tree, so they would give and then sway back?

"...this, took about eight-to-ten seconds, for the whole [South Tower] just to go straight down and to dissolve into its own ash." (0:07:30)

"It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the causes of the collapse of the Twin Towers." Morgan Reynolds, U. S. Department of Labor, under George W. Bush (0:09:09)

According to NIST, the collapse was caused by the simultaneous effect of the impact of the airplanes and the fires. (0:09:30)

"The building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners." Frank De Martini, WTC Construction Manager (0:09:53)

In 2005, a skyscraper fire (still under construction) in Madrid, Spain, burned for twenty hours but did not collapse. (0:10:35)

Note the information about the colors of smoke and what they signify with relation to how the fire is burning. (0:11:15)

The information starting at 0:12:45 is of vital importance. People who were never in the World Trade Center do not understand its layout. There were no elevators nor staircases that went straight up and down the buildings. Banks of elevators went to certain floors, then people had to exit and go to a different set if they wished to go further up or down. The same with the staircases.

"It is a non controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false." Paul Craig Roberts, Assistant Secretary of the U. S. Treasury, under Ronald Reagan. (0:13:35)

NOTE: Underwriters Labs, while listed as an independent non-profit organization, falls under OSHA. I wonder if government funds played a role in their decision to falsify data? (0:13:45)

"The temperatures were very low."
"Not hot enough even to soften steel." (0:15:20)

The "Inward Bowing Theory". (0:16:05)

Free fall time from 400 meters: Nine seconds. (0:17:52)

Falling time (South Tower, almost 400 meters tall): Ten seconds. (0:17:55)

The curious incident of Building 7. (0:18:35)

Thermate (0:21:35):

"All the characteristics of these collapses show that they must have been controlled demolitions." William Christison, 29 years in the CIA. (0:23:10)

Barium nitrate (0:24:30):

"The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total bullshit, plain and simple. To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ridiculous." Captain Russ Wittemberg, U. S. Air Force, Pan Am, and United Airlines pilot for 30 years (0:29:15)

I just cannot get over this photo. No matter how many times I look at it. I just cannot see where a plane is supposed to have entered this almost intact facade:

"With all the evidence readily available at the Pentagon crash site, any unbiased rational investigator could only conclude that a Boeing 757 did not fly into the Pentagon." Col. George Nelson, Aircraft Accident Investigator, U. S. Air Force (0:36:10).

"No airplane metal or cargo debris was blowing on the lawn...what we expected to see was not evident." Lt. Col. Karen U. Kwaitkowski, Survivor (0:36:57).

"It only seemed like a small hole in the building. No tails. No wings. No nothing." Steve De Chario, Survivor awarded the Medal of Valor (0:37:05).

Eighty-six cameras, eighty-six videos confiscated by the FBI, huh?

Beginning at 0:38:00, pay close attention.

If readers did not see anything unusual about the vehicle, go back to 00:38:13 and go over it again. Stare at the right-hand side of the bottom image, just above ground level. Does everyone see it at 00:38:14? The vehicle is pitch down. The nose is pointed at a downward angle. If Hani Hanjour was flying a 757 going 586 mph nose down, he would have hit the ground. He could never have pulled up straight in that short of a distance, and neither could any pilot on Planet Earth. We are looking at a missile. No doubt about it.

"The speed, the maneuverability, the way that it turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane." Danielle O'Brien, Air Traffic Controller from Dulles Airport (0:41:08).

"I challenge any pilot, any pilot anywhere: Give him a Boeing 757 and tell him to do 400 knots 20 feet above the ground for half a mile. CAN'T DO. It's aerodynamically impossible." Nila Sagadevan, pilot and aeronautical engineer.

For the rules on P-56 airspace, please see Part One.

I am unable to verify independently the existence of anti-aircraft batteries at the Pentagon, although the credentials of the people making this claim appear to speak for themselves.

The questions raised in this part of the film were answered in Part One in "September 11 - The New Pearl Harbor". We know only four fighters were available in the Northeast due to the war games being conducted that morning, and that the two scrambled out of Langley were sent out to sea by "Giant Killer" for some inexplicable reason. We are left to speculate whether this was due to confusing exercises with real life or out of some sinister intention.

9/11 Official Report: Air defense had been notified late by the FAA (0:52:09).

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction dated June 1, 2001 (0:54:49):

9/11 Official Report: Rumsfeld untraceable until 10:30 a.m. (0:56:15).

The passport allegedly found on Vesey Street reportedly belonged to Satam al-Suqami, and it is indeed miraculous to have survived in almost pristine condition. (1:00:00)

Salafism (1:01:10);

In 2003, I traveled from Kansas to the National Archives and stayed at a Super 8 motel in College Park, Maryland, for one week. I went to the restaurant next door (which appears to have changed ownership as I cannot find it online now), and was astonished to find out it had been shut down for "weeks" after 9/11 because the FBI discovered some of the "hijackers" had visited the business. According to staff, reports of their behavior are true: They were loud, heavy drinkers, heavy smokers, and womanizers.

See Part One for the link to "9/11 Synthetic Terror" by Webster Griffin Tarpley (1:07:15).

A brief summary of the "hijackers" (1:07:37):

More on this from David Ray Griffin:

Osama bin Laden was wearing gold in his "confession" to 9/11? Yes, he was. And yes, Islamic law forbids men to wear gold (1:10:45):

The bin Laden "Confession" Controversy:

You have got to be kidding me. The two are not even close. (1:14:18)

I'll be damned. "Al-Qaeda" does translate as "The Base", but the meaning is open to interpretation (1:15:27):

More the "Visas for Terrorists" program from Michael Springmann (1:16:55):

Military Professional Resources, Inc. (1:19:00):

To review the flying abilities of the "hijackers", please see Part One.

This next part (starting at 1:32:20) is absolutely infuriating. How in hell did George W. Bush pass Pakistan off as our "ally in the War on Terror"?! Pakistani ISI General Mahmoud Ahmed paid Mohammad Atta $100,000? For what?! And rumors swirl that General Ahmed met with Paul Wolfowitz the week before 9/11 during his "mysterious" trip to Washington D.C.:

CONCLUSION: I wonder, as those in our government watched the tearful scenes at the end of this video, were they celebrating?

Part Three will pick up where Part One left off.


Monday, April 24, 2017

9/11 - The Truth Hurts

One of the main questions "debunkers" ask in total ridicule is, "How could people plant explosives in the World Trade Center without anyone noticing?!" I guess it is not that difficult if the company doing the "renovations" also specializes in controlled demolitions:

It gets worse for those of us who held out hope that some people in the administration were duped by others with nefarious motives. What about all of the put and call options preceding 9/11? One man in particular sure knew when to cash out:

When "speculating" on stock futures, I suppose it is helpful if your brother is the President of the United States. 

No mention whatsoever of Ptech in the 9/11 Commission Report. Amazing. 

As is System Planning Corporation. Its Radar Physics Laboratory created (among other things) a "remote control system for airborne vehicles"? 

"Conspiracy theories" I dismissed out-of-hand for years are starting to look not-so-theoretical.

And let us not even get into the Project for the New American Century's "White Paper" talking about using biological warfare to target genomes for political purposes.

Now that I have shared my migraine with everyone reading this post, let me get to the body of my article. It will be a long one.

The following video is five hours long, but I implore readers to take the time to watch it. I will walk everyone through it as we go, making occasional comments and posting the questions asked in the documentary (editing only for the handful of typographical errors it contains). All times in parentheses refer to the documentary, not any links I have added as references:

Introduction: 12 Parallels Between Pearl Harbor and September 11 (0:1:25)

1) The Ultimate Goal
In the case of 9/11, according to Paul O'Neill the goal was Saddam Hussein (0:2:15).
2) The Propaganda Machine
3) Someone Knew
4) Information Withheld
5) Congressmen Denounce
Operation Able Danger:
6) Honest Officials Ignored
7) Top Military Unavailable
8) Defense Weakened
9) Stand-Down Orders
10) Indignation to Justify War
11) The Official Commissions
12) The Debunkers
NOTE: "Popular Mechanics" is owned by the Hearst Corporation, of "yellow journalism" fame:

The Debate: Main Issues (0:14:05)

Four Hijackings:
- Air Defense
- Hijackers
- Airplanes

Three Locations:
- The Pentagon
- Shanksville
- The World Trade Center

Part One - Air Defense (0:14:55)

Where are the Interceptors?
The "Incompetence Theory" (0:16:15)
"Military radars pointing out" (0:16:28)
The fact is, internal threats were always the responsibility of the FAA, not the military. (0:17:15)
"Without transponders, the planes were hard to find" (0:18:25)
The fact is, when the transponder is turned off controllers lose the altitude, but the plane is still visible on radar. (0:19:00)

The Military Drills (0:22:02)
"9/11 Synthetic Terrorism" Webster Griffin Tarpley (0:22:18)
Due to the war games, most of the northeastern interceptors were in Canada and Alaska, and exercises vs. "real life" were confused on radar.
NORAD/FAA Radio Communications:
Despite fighters being scrambled from Langley to Washington, "Giant Killer" sent them out over the Atlantic Ocean. (0:24:55)
The war games were not suspended until 10:11 EDT. By then, Flight 93 was also down. (0:27:23)

Specific Warnings (0:29:37)
"Joint Inquiry into Intelligence Community Activities Before and After the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001" (0:30:45):
The "August 6 Memo" (0:31:50):

QUESTION (0:32:40)

Knowing that the attacks were imminent, knowing that they might involve hijacked airliners, but not knowing where and when they could happen, would that have been a good reason to beef up the defense and keep even more jets than usual on alert all across the country? 
Why instead schedule so many exercises in one day, while leaving only four jets on alert to defend the very sector of the country that was most likely to be attacked?

The Chain-of-Command (0:33:08)
The most appalling thing about the cluster-fuck in our defense system that day was the Secretary of Defense going AWOL.

QUESTION (0:37:48)

After having realized that the country was being attacked by hijacked airplanes, at 9:03, why didn't Eberhart immediately suspend all of the war games and recall all of the available jets to their bases?
Why didn't Myers order him to do so, after having been briefed by Eberhart on the ongoing attack? 
And why hasn't the 9/11 Commission ever asked either general these most fundamental questions?

Promotions, not Punishment (0:38:12)

The Mineta Case (0:39:55)
The NORAD Tapes (0:40:07):
Mineta's testimony - the only portion still available online - (0:42:00):
"Mineta was mistaken" (0:47:38)
The exact footnote #209 reads as follows (the second half of the entry referenced): "On the time of entering the tunnel, see USSS report 'Executive Summary: U.S. Secret Service Timeline of Events, September 11 - October , 2001,' Oct. 3, 2001, p. 2 Secret Service personnel told us that the 9:37 entry time in their timeline was based on alarm data which is no longer available. USSS briefing (Jan. 29, 2004)." 

The Mineta Case: A Summary (0:53:20)
1) Washington D.C. is "Bravo" P-56 Air Space (0:53:25)
Admittance only allowed under FAA Regulation 91.131:
- Clearance from ATC
- Two-way radio communications
- Mode C transponder
2) Emergency lock-down
3) White House had missiles (0:54:10)
4) "Unknown" is a perfect candidate (for shoot-down)
5) Secret Service knew about Flight 77 for at least 30 minutes


The Secret Service knew about the incoming plane for the last 30 minutes, was following it on radar, had the means to shoot it down, and should have done so in order to protect the Capital. But they didn't. Why?
In regards to the exchange between Cheney and the "young man", can you suggest anything different from an order not to shoot down the plane, as it was approaching Washington's protected airspace?

Part Two - The Hijackers (0:57:14)

"Piss-Poor Student Pilots"
"Hijackers trained in flight simulators" (0:58:35)
"Just set autopilot" (0:59:08)


Marwan al-Sheikki has never flown a jet before in his life, let alone a huge airliner. How was he able to perform ascents of 3,000 ft./min. and plunges of 10,000 ft./min. while keeping full control of the plane, and why would he want to take unnecessary risks, including collisions with other airliners, instead of flying safely with the autopilot towards the intended target?


Ziad Jarrah had never flown a jet before in his life, let alone a large airliner, and even his experience with small airplanes was rather poor. How could he perform a descent "so fast that the computer can't keep up with it", while maintaining full control of the plane, and why would he need to take such an unnecessary risk, including collisions with other airplanes, instead of safely flying with the autopilot towards the intended target?

"Amateurs drive planes like trucks" (1:03:56)
What the narrator calls "the feat of the century" is my personal favorite. Hani Hanjour, who was repeatedly denied the ability to rent Cessna 152s because pilots did not think he was fit to fly, somehow manages to pull off a 330-degree turn (pulling between five and six g's), goes into a steep descent (pulling around nine g's), levels off somewhere around twenty-to-thirty feet "off the deck", and slams into the first floor of the Pentagon doing 500 knots (approximately 200 mph over VMO - Maximum Operational Velocity). In the following video, a pilot explains the miracle of Hanjour's alleged stunts:
"Hanjour had a pilot's license" (1:10:30)


How could an amateur who was deemed unable to fly solo in a Cessna 150, had "a poor understanding of the basic principles of aviation", and had never once sat in the cockpit of a 757, suddenly become able to control such a large airliner flying at top speeds?
And even assuming he was able to reach Washington with the autopilot, why would he want to disconnect it and hand-fly the plane for another eight long minutes, performing a totally unnecessary descending maneuver that a) would have drastically increased his chances of an unwanted crash; b) would have increased the danger of being intercepted; c) would have made him lose sight of the target again; d) would have forced him to a much more difficult approach near the ground; e) would have shrunk the target to a tiny strip of cement; f) would have limited the possible damage to the external rings only, when he could have maximized the damage and ensured the most spectacular outcome of the mission by plunging the plane onto the Pentagon's roofs from above?

Someone Knew? (1:13:10)
This question is not outlandish, especially given the "coincidence" that not only the Pentagon but World Trade Center 7 had both undergone "renovations" just prior to September 11. And, why the September 10 deadline (see AMEC video posted at the beginning of this article).
Jim Miklaszewski's account (1:15:28) is quite chilling as well. Perhaps it was simple logic to be concerned about the Pentagon as a potential target, but to specify the E-ring and use the declarative statement "We're next" is disturbing, to say the least.


Even if someone could predict that the Pentagon would become a target, one would imagine a plane to plunge from the skies onto the roofs of the building.
Why would anyone suggest "stay away from the external ring" in particular, unless he knew in advance what was going to happen?

Airport Security Cameras (1:16:37)


Why were we never shown a single image of the 19 alleged hijackers moving through the different areas of the three airports on the morning of September 11?
Since Washington Dulles did have security cameras at the checkpoints, why were we never shown the properly time-stamped images of the five terrorists boarding Flight 77 on the morning of September 11?

The Missing Black Boxes (1:20:18)
The oddity here is the missing voice recorders from Flights 93 and 77 despite the flight data recorders being found. That seems to be rather convenient, and becomes even more puzzling when the NTSB has refused to release the serial numbers to the FDRs. 

Part Three - The Airplanes (1:26:47)

Passenger Jets, or Military Drones? 
The documentary makes excellent points, but let us not forget the possibility of remote control I suggested at the beginning of this post. However, the idea of drones replacing aircraft in mid-air is not new. In fact, "Operation Northwoods" not only suggested such a scenario but also discussed using "clandestine radio" to support the ruse(s). As for destroying aircraft via radio signal, I wonder if that explains what happened to Flight 93?:
VMO for a 767 is 414 mph.
VMO for a 757 is 402 mph.
Flight 11 (767) crashed at 490 mph.
Flight 175 (767) crashed at 510 knots (586 mph).
Flight 77 (757) also crashed at 510 knots (586 mph).
Flight 93 (757) crashed at 580 mph.
I love Leslie Hazzard's reaction (Boeing spokesperson) when asked (at 1:36:20) if a Boeing 767 could be going 500 mph at 700 ft. altitude: Laughter.


Can you produce any evidence that a Boeing 767 equipped with regular engines can fly for almost two minutes beyond 500 mph. in the lower strata of the atmosphere without suffering any visible structural damage?
Can you explain how amateur pilots who had never flown a jet before in their lives could maintain full control of an airliner that has exceeded the VMO by almost 200 mph?
And why would some terrorists who have been lucky enough to get within reach of their target want to risk the entire operation by imposing such a stress on the airplane that it would almost certainly cause them to crash before they complete their mission?

What Happened to the Passengers? (1:37:30)
The "plan" described here comes from "Operation Northwoods", which I linked in the last section.

The Cellphone Calls (1:38:34)
The information here is startling, and not something anyone questioned at the time.
"Only two cellphone calls made" (1:45:40)
An eighteen-minute, uninterrupted cellphone call from an airplane?


Given the known limitations of the cellular phone system in 2001, can you provide any evidence that the cellphone calls made by the passengers reported by the FBI could have been made from the altitudes, at the speeds, and for the durations indicated for each of them?

If Not from the Planes, from Where?
The Todd Beamer Call (1:51:04)


How could Beamer be describing events that are supposed to be happening in front of his eyes, when in fact they had already happened half an hour before? 
How could the terrorists be "preparing to take control of the flight" at 9:45, when they had already been in the cockpit for more than fifteen minutes?

The call lasted for more than an hour, and the line was left open after the crash?


Since airphones are powered by the same airplane's electrical system, how could the line have remained open for another 45 minutes, after the phone had literally disintegrated to the ground in a thousand pieces?

* * * * * 

NOTE: Due to the length of both the video and this article, I have decided to break it into two parts. The continuation will be posted ASAP.