Sign In
Register
Help
Official Website: http://www.911revisited.com/index.html
Google video: Click Me!
So, if explosives were really used, who planted them?
9/11 revisited
Who were the real terrorists?
Rate Topic:
#1
yunir 
- Group: Members
- Posts: 92
- Joined: 21-November 06
Posted 02 January 2007 - 03:18 PM
A full featured film on the possibility of explosives being used to demolish the symbolic buildings on 9/11.
Official Website: http://www.911revisited.com/index.html
Google video: Click Me!
So, if explosives were really used, who planted them?
Official Website: http://www.911revisited.com/index.html
Google video: Click Me!
So, if explosives were really used, who planted them?
MultiQuote
#2
RareBear
- Group: Members
- Posts: 543
- Joined: 05-July 06
Posted 02 January 2007 - 06:51 PM
yunir, on Jan 2 2007, 10:18 AM, said:
...So, if explosives were really used, who planted them?
Answer: the same secret axis of evil war profiteers who assasinated President Kennedy to pump up the Cold War and envigorate the VietNam War. Just as the Roman Empire never fell but only morphed into a more insidious world power, the Roman Ctholic Church, the Third Reich spawned the true axis of evil--white christian war profiteers who don't lose sleep over other persons' death for their wealth and power. Fascism is alive an well and posing as something benign dressed in stars and stripes. Wish I were wrong.
#3
- Group: Guests
Posted 02 January 2007 - 09:30 PM
Hmmm, Maybe you have something there. Lets take this one step further. 
9/11 was a hoax.
The war in Iraq is a hoax. No one really died there.
There is no International Space Station, the Mir is still up there with a large cardboard picture covering it.
Man never went to the moon, it was just fake videos.
Elvis never died, however, he did kill Kennedy and then escaped back to the iron curitan. President Carter is just a peanut farmer. He was never really elected as President.
EVERYTHING in prepared foods is bad for you.
Raw vegtables and fruits are covered in toxic chemicals that you cannot wash off.
Exercise is bad for you, its just a sales technique for exercise equipment makers.
Cigerettes are not really bad for you. Its the chemicals in canned food that causes lung cancer.
EVERYTHING you read in the newspapers is fake, except for magazines like the National Enquirer.
Hitler is still alive and heads the Democratic or the Republican party, I forget which. Maybe its the Libertines.
See, you were right after all. Its all a hoax. All of it. There is nothing in print or video that you can believe unless it makes absolutely no sense what so ever. LOL
Happy Crazy New Year.
Elder (you can't take it with you) Norm
9/11 was a hoax.
The war in Iraq is a hoax. No one really died there.
There is no International Space Station, the Mir is still up there with a large cardboard picture covering it.
Man never went to the moon, it was just fake videos.
Elvis never died, however, he did kill Kennedy and then escaped back to the iron curitan. President Carter is just a peanut farmer. He was never really elected as President.
EVERYTHING in prepared foods is bad for you.
Raw vegtables and fruits are covered in toxic chemicals that you cannot wash off.
Exercise is bad for you, its just a sales technique for exercise equipment makers.
Cigerettes are not really bad for you. Its the chemicals in canned food that causes lung cancer.
EVERYTHING you read in the newspapers is fake, except for magazines like the National Enquirer.
Hitler is still alive and heads the Democratic or the Republican party, I forget which. Maybe its the Libertines.
See, you were right after all. Its all a hoax. All of it. There is nothing in print or video that you can believe unless it makes absolutely no sense what so ever. LOL
Happy Crazy New Year.
Elder (you can't take it with you) Norm
#4
- Group: Guests
Posted 02 January 2007 - 10:34 PM
Elder Norm, on Jan 2 2007, 04:30 PM, said:
Hmmm, Maybe you have something there. Lets take this one step further.
9/11 was a hoax.
The war in Iraq is a hoax. No one really died there.
There is no International Space Station, the Mir is still up there with a large cardboard picture covering it.
Man never went to the moon, it was just fake videos.
Elvis never died, however, he did kill Kennedy and then escaped back to the iron curitan. President Carter is just a peanut farmer. He was never really elected as President.
EVERYTHING in prepared foods is bad for you.
Raw vegtables and fruits are covered in toxic chemicals that you cannot wash off.
Exercise is bad for you, its just a sales technique for exercise equipment makers.
Cigerettes are not really bad for you. Its the chemicals in canned food that causes lung cancer.
EVERYTHING you read in the newspapers is fake, except for magazines like the National Enquirer.
Hitler is still alive and heads the Democratic or the Republican party, I forget which. Maybe its the Libertines.
See, you were right after all. Its all a hoax. All of it. There is nothing in print or video that you can believe unless it makes absolutely no sense what so ever. LOL
Happy Crazy New Year.
Elder (you can't take it with you) Norm
9/11 was a hoax.
The war in Iraq is a hoax. No one really died there.
There is no International Space Station, the Mir is still up there with a large cardboard picture covering it.
Man never went to the moon, it was just fake videos.
Elvis never died, however, he did kill Kennedy and then escaped back to the iron curitan. President Carter is just a peanut farmer. He was never really elected as President.
EVERYTHING in prepared foods is bad for you.
Raw vegtables and fruits are covered in toxic chemicals that you cannot wash off.
Exercise is bad for you, its just a sales technique for exercise equipment makers.
Cigerettes are not really bad for you. Its the chemicals in canned food that causes lung cancer.
EVERYTHING you read in the newspapers is fake, except for magazines like the National Enquirer.
Hitler is still alive and heads the Democratic or the Republican party, I forget which. Maybe its the Libertines.
See, you were right after all. Its all a hoax. All of it. There is nothing in print or video that you can believe unless it makes absolutely no sense what so ever. LOL
Happy Crazy New Year.
Elder (you can't take it with you) Norm
Ahhh, the all or nothing belief system.
The truth is beyond the control of rhetoric. The truth does not stop being the truth because we ignore it.
BTW, no one here is saying that 9/11 was a hoax. We can all agree that 9/11 occured, but some of us question the how, what and why of the situation.
Check your programming.
A-
#6
Queen Qaab
- Group: Members
- Posts: 537
- Joined: 14-August 06
Posted 03 January 2007 - 02:37 AM
Me? In "real time," I saw the jet liners crash into the buildings that fell. Then, months later, I "saw" a believable documentary that 'splained how the girders melted, deformed and allowed the buildings to fall straight down.
However, I wouldn't be shocked to see proof that Bush's behind it. He's got such a crazy sense of humor, he'd do anything for an insider laugh. I could prove this claim by presenting video tapes of Bush at a podium laughing at some "joke" he just made while the audience cringes and turns red with embarassment on his presidential behalf.
... I apologize; my hat's affecting my thinking.
However, I wouldn't be shocked to see proof that Bush's behind it. He's got such a crazy sense of humor, he'd do anything for an insider laugh. I could prove this claim by presenting video tapes of Bush at a podium laughing at some "joke" he just made while the audience cringes and turns red with embarassment on his presidential behalf.
... I apologize; my hat's affecting my thinking.
"The truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it."
~Flannery O'Connor
~Flannery O'Connor
#7 Guest_Truth Warrior_*
Posted 03 January 2007 - 08:54 AM
Quote
The 9/11 Commission Report: A 571-Page Lie
by Dr. David Ray Griffin
9/11 Visibility Project
Sunday, May 22, 2005
In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been "a 571-page lie." (Actually, I was saying "a 567-page lie," because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.
Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique's subtitle, "Omissions and Distortions." It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated "distortions" can be considered lies.
It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention "to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11." They are also lies insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least most instances.
Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know. But, deciding to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had identified over 100 of them. Once I had made the list, it occurred to me that others might find this summary helpful. Hence this article.
One caveat: Although in some of the cases it is obvious that the Commission has lied, in other cases I would say, as I make clear in the book, that it appears that the Commission has lied. However, in the interests of simply giving a brief listing of claims that I consider to be lies, I will ignore this distinction between obvious and probable lies, leaving it to readers, if they wish, to look up the discussion in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. For ease in doing this, I have parenthetically indicated the pages of the book on which the various issues are discussed.
Given this clarification, I now list the omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:
1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers--including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC--are still alive (19-20).
2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta--such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances--that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).
3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).
4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).
5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed--an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).
10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"--a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).
11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).
12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).
13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel--that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel--made no sense in this case (30).
14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).
15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).
16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).
17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).
18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's facade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).
19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).
20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner--even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).
21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras--including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike--could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).
22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).
23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).
24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).
25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).
26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).
27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).
28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).
29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).
30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).
31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America's "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).
32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).
33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).
34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family--all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period--were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).
35. The Commission's denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).
36. The Commission's denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).
37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).
38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).
39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).
40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).
41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright's charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).
42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer (91-94).
43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds--testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).
44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).
45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).
46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).
47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).
48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).
49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).
50. The omission of Gerald Posner's report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).
51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be "coming down" (114).
52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as "opportunities" (116-17).
53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that "a new Pearl Harbor" would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).
54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).
55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks--Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart--were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).
56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).
57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).
58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).
59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).
60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld's conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).
61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (133-34).
62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).
63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD's Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).
64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).
65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).
66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane's transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military's radar to track that plane (166-67).
67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).
68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).
69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).
70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD's earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).
71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).
72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175's hijacking (183-84, 186).
73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).
74. The omission, in the Commission's claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).
75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI's counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).
76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar (191-92).
77. The failure to explain, if NORAD's earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was "incorrect," how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).
78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).
79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).
80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke's videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).
81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department"--although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).
82. The Commission's claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke's videoconference--although Clarke's book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).
83. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke's contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke's videoconference (213-17).
84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke's account of Rumsfeld's whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld's own accounts (217-19).
85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).
86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36--in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).
87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon--one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a "high-speed dive") and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).
88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from "Phantom Flight 11," were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).
89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).
90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93's hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).
91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).
92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).
93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).
94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC's Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).
95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).
96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).
97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).
98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).
99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).
100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).
101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).
102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).
103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).
104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).
105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).
106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).
107. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).
108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).
109. The failure to probe the issue of how the "war games" scheduled for that day were related to the military's failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).
110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).
111. The claim--made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them--that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).
112. The failure to point out that the Commission's claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).
113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).
114. The failure to point out that the Commission's chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).
115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report "without dissent," to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of "looking at information only partially," had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).
I will close by pointing out that I concluded my study of what I came to call "the Kean-Zelikow Report" by writing that it, "far from lessening my suspicions about official complicity, has served to confirm them. Why would the minds in charge of this final report engage in such deception if they were not trying to cover up very high crimes?" (291)
by Dr. David Ray Griffin
9/11 Visibility Project
Sunday, May 22, 2005
In discussing my second 9/11 book, The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, I have often said, only half in jest, that a better title might have been "a 571-page lie." (Actually, I was saying "a 567-page lie," because I was forgetting to count the four pages of the Preface.) In making this statement, one of my points has been that the entire Report is constructed in support of one big lie: that the official story about 9/11 is true.
Another point, however, is that in the process of telling this overall lie, The 9/11 Commission Report tells many lies about particular issues. This point is implied by my critique's subtitle, "Omissions and Distortions." It might be thought, to be sure, that of the two types of problems signaled by those two terms, only those designated "distortions" can be considered lies.
It is better, however, to understand the two terms as referring to two types of lies: implicit and explicit. We have an explicit lie when the Report claims that the core of each of the Twin Towers consisted of a hollow steel shaft or when it claims that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down order until after 10:10 that morning. But we have an implicit lie when the Commission, in its discussion of the 19 alleged suicide hijackers, omits the fact that at least six of them have credibly been reported to be still alive, or when it fails to mention the fact that Building 7 of the World Trade Center collapsed. Such omissions are implicit lies partly because they show that the Commission did not honor its stated intention "to provide the fullest possible account of the events surrounding 9/11." They are also lies insofar as the Commission could avoid telling an explicit lie about the issue in question only by not mentioning it, which, I believe, was the case in at least most instances.
Given these two types of lies, it might be wondered how many lies are contained in The 9/11 Commission Report. I do not know. But, deciding to see how many lies I had discussed in my book, I found that I had identified over 100 of them. Once I had made the list, it occurred to me that others might find this summary helpful. Hence this article.
One caveat: Although in some of the cases it is obvious that the Commission has lied, in other cases I would say, as I make clear in the book, that it appears that the Commission has lied. However, in the interests of simply giving a brief listing of claims that I consider to be lies, I will ignore this distinction between obvious and probable lies, leaving it to readers, if they wish, to look up the discussion in The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions. For ease in doing this, I have parenthetically indicated the pages of the book on which the various issues are discussed.
Given this clarification, I now list the omissions and claims of The 9/11 Commission Report that I, in my critique of that report, portrayed as lies:
1. The omission of evidence that at least six of the alleged hijackers--including Waleed al-Shehri, said by the Commission probably to have stabbed a flight attendant on Flight 11 before it crashed into the North Tower of the WTC--are still alive (19-20).
2. The omission of evidence about Mohamed Atta--such as his reported fondness for alcohol, pork, and lap dances--that is in tension with the Commission's claim that he had become fanatically religious (20-21).
3. The obfuscation of the evidence that Hani Hanjour was too poor a pilot to have flown an airliner into the Pentagon (21-22).
4. The omission of the fact that the publicly released flight manifests contain no Arab names (23).
5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
8. The omission of the fact that WTC 7 (which was not hit by an airplane and which had only small, localized fires) also collapsed--an occurrence that FEMA admitted it could not explain (26).
9. The omission of the fact that the collapse of the Twin Towers (like that of Building 7) exemplified at least 10 features suggestive of controlled demolition (26-27).
10. The claim that the core of each of the Twin Towers was "a hollow steel shaft"--a claim that denied the existence of the 47 massive steel columns that in reality constituted the core of each tower and that, given the "pancake theory" of the collapses, should have still been sticking up many hundreds of feet in the air (27-28).
11. The omission of Larry Silverstein's statement that he and the fire department commander decided to "pull" Building 7 (28).
12. The omission of the fact that the steel from the WTC buildings was quickly removed from the crime scene and shipped overseas before it could be analyzed for evidence of explosives (30).
13. The omission of the fact that because Building 7 had been evacuated before it collapsed, the official reason for the rapid removal of the steel--that some people might still be alive in the rubble under the steel--made no sense in this case (30).
14. The omission of Mayor Giuliani's statement that he had received word that the World Trade Center was going to collapse (30-31).
15. The omission of the fact that President Bush's brother Marvin and his cousin Wirt Walker III were both principals in the company in charge of security for the WTC (31-32).
16. The omission of the fact that the west wing of the Pentagon would have been the least likely spot to be targeted by al-Qaeda terrorists, for several reasons (33-34).
17. The omission of any discussion of whether the damage done to the Pentagon was consistent with the impact of a Boeing 757 going several hundred miles per hour (34).
18. The omission of the fact that there are photos showing that the west wing's facade did not collapse until 30 minutes after the strike and also that the entrance hole appears too small for a Boeing 757 to have entered (34).
19. The omission of all testimony that has been used to cast doubt on whether remains of a Boeing 757 were visible either inside or outside the Pentagon (34-36).
20. The omission of any discussion of whether the Pentagon has a anti-missile defense system that would have brought down a commercial airliner--even though the Commission suggested that the al-Qaeda terrorists did not attack a nuclear power plant because they assumed that it would be thus defended (36).
21. The omission of the fact that pictures from various security cameras--including the camera at the gas station across from the Pentagon, the film from which was reportedly confiscated by the FBI immediately after the strike--could presumably answer the question of what really hit the Pentagon (37-38).
22. The omission of Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld's reference to "the missile [used] to damage [the Pentagon]" (39).
23. The apparent endorsement of a wholly unsatisfactory answer to the question of why the Secret Service agents allowed President Bush to remain at the Sarasota school at a time when, given the official story, they should have assumed that a hijacked airliner might be about to crash into the school (41-44).
24. The failure to explore why the Secret Service did not summon fighter jets to provide air cover for Air Force One (43-46).
25. The claims that when the presidential party arrived at the school, no one in the party knew that several planes had been hijacked (47-48).
26. The omission of the report that Attorney General Ashcroft was warned to stop using commercial airlines prior to 9/11 (50).
27. The omission of David Schippers' claim that he had, on the basis of information provided by FBI agents about upcoming attacks in lower Manhattan, tried unsuccessfully to convey this information to Attorney General Ashcroft during the six weeks prior to 9/11 (51).
28. The omission of any mention of the FBI agents who reportedly claimed to have known the targets and dates of the attacks well in advance (51-52).
29. The claim, by means of a circular, question-begging rebuttal, that the unusual purchases of put options prior to 9/11 did not imply advance knowledge of the attacks on the part of the buyers (52-57).
30. The omission of reports that both Mayor Willie Brown and some Pentagon officials received warnings about flying on 9/11 (57).
31. The omission of the report that Osama bin Laden, who already was America's "most wanted" criminal, was treated in July 2001 by an American doctor in the American Hospital in Dubai and visited by the local CIA agent (59).
32. The omission of news stories suggesting that after 9/11 the US military in Afghanistan deliberately allowed Osama bin Laden to escape (60).
33. The omission of reports, including the report of a visit to Osama bin Laden at the hospital in Dubai by the head of Saudi intelligence, that were in tension with the official portrayal of Osama as disowned by his family and his country (60-61).
34. The omission of Gerald Posner's account of Abu Zubaydah's testimony, according to which three members of the Saudi royal family--all of whom later died mysteriously within an eight-day period--were funding al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (61-65).
35. The Commission's denial that it found any evidence of Saudi funding of al-Qaeda (65-68).
36. The Commission's denial in particular that it found any evidence that money from Prince Bandar's wife, Princess Haifa, went to al-Qaeda operatives (69-70).
37. The denial, by means of simply ignoring the distinction between private and commercial flights, that the private flight carrying Saudis from Tampa to Lexington on September 13 violated the rules for US airspace in effect at the time (71-76).
38. The denial that any Saudis were allowed to leave the United States shortly after 9/11 without being adequately investigated (76-82).
39. The omission of evidence that Prince Bandar obtained special permission from the White House for the Saudi flights (82-86).
40. The omission of Coleen Rowley's claim that some officials at FBI headquarters did see the memo from Phoenix agent Kenneth Williams (89-90).
41. The omission of Chicago FBI agent Robert Wright's charge that FBI headquarters closed his case on a terrorist cell, then used intimidation to prevent him from publishing a book reporting his experiences (91).
42. The omission of evidence that FBI headquarters sabotaged the attempt by Coleen Rowley and other Minneapolis agents to obtain a warrant to search Zacarias Moussaoui's computer (91-94).
43. The omission of the 3.5 hours of testimony to the Commission by former FBI translator Sibel Edmonds--testimony that, according to her later public letter to Chairman Kean, revealed serious 9/11-related cover-ups by officials at FBI headquarters (94-101).
44. The omission of the fact that General Mahmoud Ahmad, the head of Pakistan's intelligence agency (the ISI), was in Washington the week prior to 9/11, meeting with CIA chief George Tenet and other US officials (103-04).
45. The omission of evidence that ISI chief Ahmad had ordered $100,000 to be sent to Mohamed Atta prior to 9/11 (104-07).
46. The Commission's claim that it found no evidence that any foreign government, including Pakistan, had provided funding for the al-Qaeda operatives (106).
47. The omission of the report that the Bush administration pressured Pakistan to dismiss Ahmad as ISI chief after the appearance of the story that he had ordered ISI money sent to Atta (107-09).
48. The omission of evidence that the ISI (and not merely al-Qaeda) was behind the assassination of Ahmad Shah Masood (the leader of Afghanistan's Northern Alliance), which occurred just after the week-long meeting between the heads of the CIA and the ISI (110-112).
49. The omission of evidence of ISI involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Wall Street Reporter Daniel Pearl (113).
50. The omission of Gerald Posner's report that Abu Zubaydah claimed that a Pakistani military officer, Mushaf Ali Mir, was closely connected to both the ISI and al-Qaeda and had advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks (114).
51. The omission of the 1999 prediction by ISI agent Rajaa Gulum Abbas that the Twin Towers would be "coming down" (114).
52. The omission of the fact that President Bush and other members of his administration repeatedly spoke of the 9/11 attacks as "opportunities" (116-17).
53. The omission of the fact that The Project for the New American Century, many members of which became key figures in the Bush administration, published a document in 2000 saying that "a new Pearl Harbor" would aid its goal of obtaining funding for a rapid technological transformation of the US military (117-18).
54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the US Space Command had recommended increased funding for it, used the attacks of 9/11 on that very evening to secure such funding (119-22).
55. The failure to mention the fact that three of the men who presided over the failure to prevent the 9/11 attacks--Secretary Rumsfeld, General Richard Myers, and General Ralph Eberhart--were also three of the strongest advocates for the US Space Command (122).
56. The omission of the fact that Unocal had declared that the Taliban could not provide adequate security for it to go ahead with its oil-and-gas pipeline from the Caspian region through Afghanistan and Pakistan (122-25).
57. The omission of the report that at a meeting in July 2001, US representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a US proposal that would allow the pipeline project to go forward, a war against them would begin by October (125-26).
58. The omission of the fact that Zbigniew Brzezinski in his 1997 book had said that for the United States to maintain global primacy, it needed to gain control of Central Asia, with its vast petroleum reserves, and that a new Pearl Harbor would be helpful in getting the US public to support this imperial effort (127-28).
59. The omission of evidence that some key members of the Bush administration, including Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy Paul Wolfowitz, had been agitating for a war with Iraq for many years (129-33).
60. The omission of notes of Rumsfeld's conversations on 9/11 showing that he was determined to use the attacks as a pretext for a war with Iraq (131-32).
61. The omission of the statement by the Project for the New American Century that "the need for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein" (133-34).
62. The claim that FAA protocol on 9/11 required the time-consuming process of going through several steps in the chain of command--even though the Report cites evidence to the contrary (158).
63. The claim that in those days there were only two air force bases in NORAD's Northeast sector that kept fighters on alert and that, in particular, there were no fighters on alert at either McGuire or Andrews (159-162).
64. The omission of evidence that Andrews Air Force Base did keep several fighters on alert at all times (162-64).
65. The acceptance of the twofold claim that Colonel Marr of NEADS had to telephone a superior to get permission to have fighters scrambled from Otis and that this call required eight minutes (165-66).
66. The endorsement of the claim that the loss of an airplane's transponder signal makes it virtually impossible for the US military's radar to track that plane (166-67).
67. The claim that the Payne Stewart interception did not show NORAD's response time to Flight 11 to be extraordinarily slow (167-69).
68. The claim that the Otis fighters were not airborne until seven minutes after they received the scramble order because they did not know where to go (174-75).
69. The claim that the US military did not know about the hijacking of Flight 175 until 9:03, when it was crashing into the South Tower (181-82).
70. The omission of any explanation of (a) why NORAD's earlier report, according to which the FAA had notified the military about the hijacking of Flight 175 at 8:43, was now to be considered false and (b) how this report, if it was false, could have been published and then left uncorrected for almost three years (182).
71. The claim that the FAA did not set up a teleconference until 9:20 that morning (183).
72. The omission of the fact that a memo by Laura Brown of the FAA says that its teleconference was established at about 8:50 and that it included discussion of Flight 175's hijacking (183-84, 186).
73. The claim that the NMCC teleconference did not begin until 9:29 (186-88).
74. The omission, in the Commission's claim that Flight 77 did not deviate from its course until 8:54, of the fact that earlier reports had said 8:46 (189-90).
75. The failure to mention that the report that a large jet had crashed in Kentucky, at about the time Flight 77 disappeared from FAA radar, was taken seriously enough by the heads of the FAA and the FBI's counterterrorism unit to be relayed to the White House (190).
76. The claim that Flight 77 flew almost 40 minutes through American airspace towards Washington without being detected by the military's radar (191-92).
77. The failure to explain, if NORAD's earlier report that it was notified about Flight 77 at 9:24 was "incorrect," how this erroneous report could have arisen, i.e., whether NORAD officials had been lying or simply confused for almost three years (192-93).
78. The claim that the Langley fighter jets, which NORAD had previously said were scrambled to intercept Flight 77, were actually scrambled in response to an erroneous report from an (unidentified) FAA controller at 9:21 that Flight 11 was still up and was headed towards Washington (193-99).
79. The claim that the military did not hear from the FAA about the probable hijacking of Flight 77 before the Pentagon was struck (204-12).
80. The claim that Jane Garvey did not join Richard Clarke's videoconference until 9:40, after the Pentagon was struck (210).
81. The claim that none of the teleconferences succeeded in coordinating the FAA and military responses to the hijackings because "none of [them] included the right officials from both the FAA and the Defense Department"--although Richard Clarke says that his videoconference included FAA head Jane Garvey as well as Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and General Richard Myers, the acting chair of the joint chiefs of staff (211).
82. The Commission's claim that it did not know who from the Defense Department participated in Clarke's videoconference--although Clarke's book said that it was Donald Rumsfeld and General Myers (211-212).
83. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that he was on Capitol Hill during the attacks, without mentioning Richard Clarke's contradictory account, according to which Myers was in the Pentagon participating in Clarke's videoconference (213-17).
84. The failure to mention the contradiction between Clarke's account of Rumsfeld's whereabouts that morning and Rumsfeld's own accounts (217-19).
85. The omission of Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta's testimony, given to the Commission itself, that Vice-President Cheney and others in the underground shelter were aware by 9:26 that an aircraft was approaching the Pentagon (220).
86. The claim that Pentagon officials did not know about an aircraft approaching Pentagon until 9:32, 9:34, or 9:36--in any case, only a few minutes before the building was hit (223).
87. The endorsement of two contradictory stories about the aircraft that hit the Pentagon--one in which it executed a 330-degree downward spiral (a "high-speed dive") and another in which there is no mention of this maneuver (222-23).
88. The claim that the fighter jets from Langley, which were allegedly scrambled to protect Washington from "Phantom Flight 11," were nowhere near Washington because they were mistakenly sent out to sea (223-24).
89. The omission of all the evidence suggesting that the aircraft that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77 (224-25).
90. The claim that the military was not notified by the FAA about Flight 93's hijacking until after it crashed (227-29, 232, 253).
91. The twofold claim that the NMCC did not monitor the FAA-initiated conference and then was unable to get the FAA connected to the NMCC-initiated teleconference (230-31).
92. The omission of the fact that the Secret Service is able to know everything that the FAA knows (233).
93. The omission of any inquiry into why the NMCC initiated its own teleconference if, as Laura Brown of the FAA has said, this is not standard protocol (234).
94. The omission of any exploration of why General Montague Winfield not only had a rookie (Captain Leidig) take over his role as the NMCC's Director of Operations but also left him in charge after it was clear that the Pentagon was facing an unprecedented crisis (235-36).
95. The claim that the FAA (falsely) notified the Secret Service between 10:10 and 10:15 that Flight 93 was still up and headed towards Washington (237).
96. The claim that Vice President Cheney did not give the shoot-down authorization until after 10:10 (several minutes after Flight 93 had crashed) and that this authorization was not transmitted to the US military until 10:31 (237-41).
97. The omission of all the evidence indicating that Flight 93 was shot down by a military plane (238-39, 252-53).
98. The claim that Richard Clarke did not receive the requested shoot-down authorization until 10:25 (240).
99. The omission of Clarke's own testimony, which suggests that he received the shoot-down authorization by 9:50 (240).
100. The claim that Cheney did not reach the underground shelter (the PEOC [Presidential Emergency Operations Center]) until 9:58 (241-44).
101. The omission of multiple testimony, including that of Norman Mineta to the Commission itself, that Cheney was in the PEOC before 9:20 (241-44).
102. The claim that shoot-down authorization must be given by the president (245).
103. The omission of reports that Colonel Marr ordered a shoot-down of Flight 93 and that General Winfield indicated that he and others at the NMCC had expected a fighter jet to reach Flight 93 (252).
104. The omission of reports that there were two fighter jets in the air a few miles from NYC and three of them only 200 miles from Washington (251).
105. The omission of evidence that there were at least six bases with fighters on alert in the northeastern part of the United States (257-58).
106. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had defined its mission in terms of defending only against threats from abroad (258-62).
107. The endorsement of General Myers' claim that NORAD had not recognized the possibility that terrorists might use hijacked airliners as missiles (262-63).
108. The failure to highlight the significance of evidence presented in the Report itself, and to mention other evidence, showing that NORAD had indeed recognized the threat that hijacked airliners might be used as missiles (264-67).
109. The failure to probe the issue of how the "war games" scheduled for that day were related to the military's failure to intercept the hijacked airliners (268-69).
110. The failure to discuss the possible relevance of Operation Northwoods to the attacks of 9/11 (269-71).
111. The claim--made in explaining why the military did not get information about the hijackings in time to intercept them--that FAA personnel inexplicably failed to follow standard procedures some 16 times (155-56, 157, 179, 180, 181, 190, 191, 193, 194, 200, 202-03, 227, 237, 272-75).
112. The failure to point out that the Commission's claimed "independence" was fatally compromised by the fact that its executive director, Philip Zelikow, was virtually a member of the Bush administration (7-9, 11-12, 282-84).
113. The failure to point out that the White House first sought to prevent the creation of a 9/11 Commission, then placed many obstacles in its path, including giving it extremely meager funding (283-85).
114. The failure to point out that the Commission's chairman, most of the other commissioners, and at least half of the staff had serious conflicts of interest (285-90, 292-95).
115. The failure of the Commission, while bragging that it presented its final report "without dissent," to point out that this was probably possible only because Max Cleland, the commissioner who was most critical of the White House and swore that he would not be part of "looking at information only partially," had to resign in order to accept a position with the Export-Import Bank, and that the White House forwarded his nomination for this position only after he was becoming quite outspoken in his criticisms (290-291).
I will close by pointing out that I concluded my study of what I came to call "the Kean-Zelikow Report" by writing that it, "far from lessening my suspicions about official complicity, has served to confirm them. Why would the minds in charge of this final report engage in such deception if they were not trying to cover up very high crimes?" (291)
#8
Plutodog
- Group: Administrators
- Posts: 758
- Joined: 11-December 05
- Location:Oregon
- Interests:Reality, Social Reform, Politics, Sex, Communications, you know, all the good stuff...
Posted 03 January 2007 - 09:17 AM
Anybody got some (a lot of) tin-foil to spare??? 
It's going to take one hell of a lot to swallow some of this stuff and I'm not a rich feller...
Woof Woof
It's going to take one hell of a lot to swallow some of this stuff and I'm not a rich feller...
Woof Woof
"Enlighten the people generally, and tyranny and oppression of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day." -- Thomas Jefferson
#10
- Group: Guests
Posted 03 January 2007 - 08:10 PM
quist, on Jan 2 2007, 04:34 PM, said:
Ahhh, the all or nothing belief system.
The truth is beyond the control of rhetoric. The truth does not stop being the truth because we ignore it.
BTW, no one here is saying that 9/11 was a hoax. We can all agree that 9/11 occured, but some of us question the how, what and why of the situation.
Check your programming.
A-
The truth is beyond the control of rhetoric. The truth does not stop being the truth because we ignore it.
BTW, no one here is saying that 9/11 was a hoax. We can all agree that 9/11 occured, but some of us question the how, what and why of the situation.
Check your programming.
A-
Hmmmmm,
Nope, not all or nothing, I think the government is full of liers. I also think they are pretty bad at it. : -)
Its not all, but the question is "just how far do you want to go down that little yellow brick road." : -) Many think that man never landed on the moon. !!!
Besides, "The truth is beyond the control of rhetoric" , actually the truth is -- behind the curtain, its that little man pulling those ropes and speaking into that mega phone. Haven't you ever seen the Wizard of Oz??
Elder Norm
, in a dark suit in a dark SUV. : -)
#11
- Group: Guests
Posted 03 January 2007 - 08:21 PM
Hmmmm,
OK, normally I would let this pass, but I got a little hot after looking at the report by Dr. ????? Griffen. (Hmmm, doctor of what, music??? )
Just for the record. '
ref. 5. Fires have caused many steel frame building to collapse. The steel is strong until its deformation temperature is met, then it becomes jello.
ref. 6. The fires were, First a collision, then an explosion, then a jet fuel flammed fire.
ref 7. Yep, start two fires and the first one always runs out of fuel first. UNLESS , the second is a bigger fire, has less fuel, has more oxygen, etc, etc.
Sorry, piss poor engineering added to a strong desire to come to a specific conclusion is no where near the scientific principle.
JMHO
Elder Norm
OK, normally I would let this pass, but I got a little hot after looking at the report by Dr. ????? Griffen. (Hmmm, doctor of what, music??? )
Just for the record. '
Quote
5. The omission of the fact that fire has never, before or after 9/11, caused steel-frame buildings to collapse (25).
6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
6. The omission of the fact that the fires in the Twin Towers were not very big, very hot, or very long-lasting compared with fires in several steel-frame buildings that did not collapse (25-26).
7. The omission of the fact that, given the hypothesis that the collapses were caused by fire, the South Tower, which was struck later than the North Tower and also had smaller fires, should not have collapsed first (26).
ref. 5. Fires have caused many steel frame building to collapse. The steel is strong until its deformation temperature is met, then it becomes jello.
ref. 6. The fires were, First a collision, then an explosion, then a jet fuel flammed fire.
ref 7. Yep, start two fires and the first one always runs out of fuel first. UNLESS , the second is a bigger fire, has less fuel, has more oxygen, etc, etc.
Sorry, piss poor engineering added to a strong desire to come to a specific conclusion is no where near the scientific principle.
JMHO
Elder Norm
#12
RareBear
- Group: Members
- Posts: 543
- Joined: 05-July 06
Posted 03 January 2007 - 11:43 PM
It pays to know when you're being "had"--whether you can do anything about it or not. At least you'll be better able to tell propaganda for someone's prescribed world view when you hear it. I couldn't stand all of those BS Gerry Ford eulogies. What crappola. In short, Gerry Ford was picked by Nixon--a sick and some say evil fucker--to be his successor. Why? Because he knew he could rely on Ford to hush up Watergate because it linked Hunt, Nixon and Bush with the Kennedy Assasination and cover up. Not only did Ford dutifully cover up Kennedy and Watergate and the links to the world of unsavory assasins and their kind like Hunt, he made GHW Bush director of the CIA and made the political careers of Cheney and Rumsfeld--two dark characters as history will ultimately reveal.
Was Ford just a doting stooge who didn't know the Warren Commission was a cover up, or didn't know that Nixon had implicated himself on the Watergate tapes as confirming Hunt's complicity in the JFK assasination? Could Ford be such a dummy that he just happened to install GHW Bush as CIA director giving him keys to the kingdom of global intelligence or giving political life to the Cheneys and Rumsfelds of the world who today prosecute the will of the US military industrial complex? It would be a gross insult to Ford to paint him as the dottering old pipe-smoking grand dad who healed America's wounds when he was the one and only person who empowered the Bush Family to create the continued need for the US military industril complex by creating two unnecessary wars in Iraq. Ford is part of this whole picture and I can't listen to the horse shit people like Brian Williams of NBC are selling as his legacy. I want to know what the story is and I don't want Brian Williams telling me the story being floated. I got your tin foil hat right here *grabs gizatchka*
Was Ford just a doting stooge who didn't know the Warren Commission was a cover up, or didn't know that Nixon had implicated himself on the Watergate tapes as confirming Hunt's complicity in the JFK assasination? Could Ford be such a dummy that he just happened to install GHW Bush as CIA director giving him keys to the kingdom of global intelligence or giving political life to the Cheneys and Rumsfelds of the world who today prosecute the will of the US military industrial complex? It would be a gross insult to Ford to paint him as the dottering old pipe-smoking grand dad who healed America's wounds when he was the one and only person who empowered the Bush Family to create the continued need for the US military industril complex by creating two unnecessary wars in Iraq. Ford is part of this whole picture and I can't listen to the horse shit people like Brian Williams of NBC are selling as his legacy. I want to know what the story is and I don't want Brian Williams telling me the story being floated. I got your tin foil hat right here *grabs gizatchka*
#13 Guest_Truth Warrior_*
Posted 04 January 2007 - 01:25 AM
Elder Norm --
http://www.physics911.net/
FYI, consideration, entertainment, amusement, outrage, etc. or whatever.
http://www.physics91.../closerlook.htm
You may want to check out some of the other pages on this website also.
Thanks!
HAGOB!
CYL
http://www.physics911.net/
FYI, consideration, entertainment, amusement, outrage, etc. or whatever.
http://www.physics91.../closerlook.htm
You may want to check out some of the other pages on this website also.
Thanks!
HAGOB!
CYL
#14
yunir
- Group: Members
- Posts: 92
- Joined: 21-November 06
Posted 04 January 2007 - 05:59 PM
Elder Norm said:
ref. 5. Fires have caused many steel frame building to collapse. The steel is strong until its deformation temperature is met, then it becomes jello.
In theory yes, at melting point, steel can turn to jello and so the building can collapse. However, Unless the construction steel frames were made of steel of 5mm thick, they do not turn to jello instananeously. They would collapse progressively. Madrid fire lasted longer than WTC and still the Madrid building was standing partially (see hotlinked pic below). This argument can be brought to the issue on temperature level.
And so,
http://www.911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html said:
The simple facts of temperatures:
1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.
The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower
1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
~1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
~825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)
Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.
The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower
Elder Norm said:
ref. 6. The fires were, First a collision, then an explosion, then a jet fuel flammed fire.
Here's my layman argument: Merely a collision does not cause a fire. For fire to occur, we need ingnition(heat,spark), feul and oxygen. The collision generates heat from friction, oxygen from the surrounding air and feul from the jet feul itself. So, the fire from the jet flame is the fire from the collision itself. Unless the building was made of wood and therefore, the wood could serve as feul and the jet feul can be the second fire. Btw, steel is not a source of fuel. Please.
Elder Norm said:
ref 7. Yep, start two fires and the first one always runs out of fuel first. UNLESS , the second is a bigger fire, has less fuel, has more oxygen, etc, etc.
Agreed. But this is not the case. The second tower had smaller flames.
--
the madrid building that was under fire longer than thaat of the WTC towers.
#15
dil
- Group: Administrators
- Posts: 784
- Joined: 13-March 06
- Location:canada
- Interests:reading, writing, drawing, debating, listening to angry rock music, being a loser dork.<br /><br />I'm a geek amongst geeks, you really have to fail at life to be that. No geeks are still not cool, popular people who pretend to be geeky are.<br /><br /><3 Trent Reznor (NIN)<br />----->Internet Addict.<br /><br />http://www.myspace.com/beautiful_pathology
Posted 04 January 2007 - 06:10 PM
I hold the view that the US govt is too incompetent to pull anything that complicated out.
Also, if the CIA was ready to slaughter 3000 innocent people in a ploy to attack the middle east....wait, that's absurd. If they were willing to knock off that many people, why not just knock down some conspiracy websites, if they saw any of this as a threat (websites, 9/11 conspiracy movement), they could easily quash it. I bet they would, if they had really committed this crime, they would take zero chances in such a exposure. They could easily knock down some websites, indirectly with viruses perhaps.
Also, if the CIA was ready to slaughter 3000 innocent people in a ploy to attack the middle east....wait, that's absurd. If they were willing to knock off that many people, why not just knock down some conspiracy websites, if they saw any of this as a threat (websites, 9/11 conspiracy movement), they could easily quash it. I bet they would, if they had really committed this crime, they would take zero chances in such a exposure. They could easily knock down some websites, indirectly with viruses perhaps.
~I disagree with everything you have to say and with everything you haven't said :)
http://www.infidels....thew/intro.html (good atheism intro)
http://angstypoet.deviantart.com/ (Shameless plug for my art page)
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
http://www.strongatheism.net (for strong/rabid atheists)
-I am mod. Hear me roar. Meep.
If I have offended you, I'm probably not sorry.
http://www.infidels....thew/intro.html (good atheism intro)
http://angstypoet.deviantart.com/ (Shameless plug for my art page)
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Friedrich Nietzsche
http://www.strongatheism.net (for strong/rabid atheists)
-I am mod. Hear me roar. Meep.
If I have offended you, I'm probably not sorry.
#16
RareBear
- Group: Members
- Posts: 543
- Joined: 05-July 06
Posted 04 January 2007 - 11:03 PM
dil, on Jan 4 2007, 01:10 PM, said:
I hold the view that the US govt is too incompetent to pull anything that complicated out.
Also, if the CIA was ready to slaughter 3000 innocent people in a ploy to attack the middle east....wait, that's absurd. If they were willing to knock off that many people, why not just knock down some conspiracy websites, if they saw any of this as a threat (websites, 9/11 conspiracy movement), they could easily quash it. I bet they would, if they had really committed this crime, they would take zero chances in such a exposure. They could easily knock down some websites, indirectly with viruses perhaps.
Also, if the CIA was ready to slaughter 3000 innocent people in a ploy to attack the middle east....wait, that's absurd. If they were willing to knock off that many people, why not just knock down some conspiracy websites, if they saw any of this as a threat (websites, 9/11 conspiracy movement), they could easily quash it. I bet they would, if they had really committed this crime, they would take zero chances in such a exposure. They could easily knock down some websites, indirectly with viruses perhaps.
No one put forth any "conspiracy theories" in the video that started this thread. They were just good citizens and professional experts exercizing their democratic rights by asking legitmate questions and giving considered professional opinions on what the actual evidence of 9/11 appears to show against the backdrop of what the 9/11 Commission has published as its findings. Thus, no one said it was the CIA or "the government" in general.
I agree that "the government" is pretty inept and bungling. But what appears to have happened here (at least with 7 World Trade Center but probably the towers too) is that there was some alliance of private demolition engineering with private interests--some of whom may rank highly or highest in the government--to create the appearance of an atttack by foreign terrorists as preposterous as that may seem. The smoking gun mistake--and a clear example of either bungling or extreme hubris--is the demolition of 7 World Trade Center, a 47 story building that was not hit by a jet or significant debris. The video shows Larry Silverstein, who owns the properties and who had them richly insured, saying that he conferred with a fire department official during the disaster afternoon and they agreed that 7 World Trade Center could not be saved and that they should go ahead and demolish it.
Well, guess what--the NYC Fire Dept. does not do demolition, it's resources were in chaos by losing a couple of hundred men and their equipment as well as trying to handle what was left of the ongoing disaster, it takes weeks if not months to engineer demolition of a building that big and set all the explosives in place in order for the demolition to be precise which it most certainly was, and there was no way that an insurance fraud scheme by Larry Silverstein could just be ready to take place at the time of the WTC disaster unless it was part of the whole drama--impossible to say that the building was wired for demolition and then the happensatnce of the World Trade Center towers litterally came out of the blue to accomodate the need for an excuse to bring down an undamaged building.
We don't know who exactly did what. But the time is here to get real with the turth and listen to what sober intelligent and courageous professional people are staking their careers and credibility upon. It's not a conspiracy theory yet. It's just good citizenship being exercized. I'm a recent convert and have no history of paranoia, delusions or conspiracy fears. Some serious stuff needs to be looked at here and reckoned with no matter where it leads.
#17 Guest_Truth Warrior_*
Posted 05 January 2007 - 11:23 AM
dil --
I think that you are probably correct, perhaps that it why they may have farmed it out to other service providers. As usual, it is the bungled attempts at cover up that tends to do them in. However, they do seem to be able to count on the vast majority of the public to remain asleep at the switch, and to let them get away with this stuff ..... repeatedly. "People tend to get the kind of government that they deserve." ( Five plus years, and counting on 9/11! ) Unfortunately, history teaches us that it is usually fairly easy to consistently fool enough of the people (sheeple) enough of the time.<IMHO>
Thanks!
HAGO!
CYL
Quote
I hold the view that the US govt is too incompetent to pull anything that complicated out.
Quote
You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time. -- Abraham Lincoln
Thanks!
HAGO!
CYL
#18
Ocelot
- Group: Members
- Posts: 1,128
- Joined: 22-May 06
Posted 05 January 2007 - 03:23 PM
yunir, on Jan 4 2007, 05:59 PM, said:
In theory yes, at melting point, steel can turn to jello and so the building can collapse. However, Unless the construction steel frames were made of steel of 5mm thick, they do not turn to jello instananeously. They would collapse progressively. Madrid fire lasted longer than WTC and still the Madrid building was standing partially (see hotlinked pic below). This argument can be brought to the issue on temperature level.
Hi Yunir,
One theory is that it doesn't need to reach melting point.
Quote
It is known that structural steel begins to soften around 425 ?C and loses about half of its strength at 650 ?C [Cote, 1992].
However according to Professor Steve Jones (Astrophysicist at the forefront of the 911 truth movement) the WTC was built with design tolerances such that even at only half strength the stucture should have survived. He quotes
Quote
Even with its strength halved, the steel could still support two to three times the stresses imposed by a 650 ?C fire." (Eagar and Musso, 2001; emphasis added.)
My question would be is that still true of a structure whose supporting curtain was deformed by impact? Are you certain?
The Unique thing about the WTC is that the supporting structure was the outer walls. Clearly the structure above the hole made by the Jet was partially unsupported. Even without a fire could this trigger progressive collapse?
Compare for example the collapse of L'ambiance Plaza during construction.
http://web.archive.o...99/ambiance.htm
Civil Engineers did not predict that this would happen but nonetheless it did. No-one really knows why it collapsed but in this case it appears that there was no desire to rush to conclusions.
Progressive collapse means that once one bit goes and then the rest comes tumbling down like a house of cards. The question is what caused the initial failure? With a bloody great fully fuelled jet liner sticking out the side of the building burning aviation fuel at 600 degrees centigrade you'd think you'd have to look no further but some people say that they're not convinced that this is enough on it's own.
Were there faults with the construction that account for the discrepancies? You know substandard welds, construction workers skimping of quality materials. It's not necessarily the case that the blueprint design of the WTC towers and the reality of the structure will behave the same way. Perhaps deliberate intervention was required. Steve Jones thinks thermite for a number of possibly doubtful reasons. We'll never know as the massive piles of evidence were cleared out of the way and sold for scrap
There are many questions raised by the official story (NIST report) and other which remain unanswered. Leap to conclusions at your peril.
It may be worth reviewing our output from the last time this topic was broached
http://myreality.chu...x...ic=1291&hl=
Here's what we do know
Two fully fuelled commercial jet planes crashed into the WTC 1 and WTC 2 towers.
Within hours WTC 1 and WTC 2 and WTC 7 fell.
The full chain of causality has yet to be fully established.
FEMA, then NIST have attempted the process of supplying reasons why these tower might have fallen.
Other individuals have also analyzed a lesser pool of evidence and within that have discovered inconsistencies with the government sanctioned report.
As the complete truth is an ideal which can never be reach but is worth approaching we can establish that no interpretation of events can be completely true.
We can however make judgments as to the plausibility of the reports.
Good buy and gobble less.
Ocelot.
A myth is a fixed way of looking at the world which cannot be destroyed because, looked at through the myth, all evidence supports the myth.
-Edward De Bono, consultant, writer, and speaker (1933- )
Ocelot.
A myth is a fixed way of looking at the world which cannot be destroyed because, looked at through the myth, all evidence supports the myth.
-Edward De Bono, consultant, writer, and speaker (1933- )
#19
- Group: Guests
Posted 05 January 2007 - 08:21 PM
RareBear, dil and T.W.
I agree RB. It seems that so many have forgotten all about building seven. I think we must always search for truth no matter where it may bring us.
dil, if the US government is so incompetent, how were they able to fool so many people into this illegal war in Iraq, including Britian. Do not forget how many have been sacrificed and killed in Iraq by this "incompetent" government, over 3000 Americans and who knows how many civilians and contractors. "They are too incompetent." I think that this line of thinking does not allow the evidence and investigation into the truth of the incident to be properly examined and understood. This thinking is a "belief" or "opinion" not a fact.
I agree with you on this point T.W. That damn programming that teaches most to not question authority or ask serious questions.
Forget about 9/11 or this illegal war, what is going on with Britany Spears? LOL
A-
I agree RB. It seems that so many have forgotten all about building seven. I think we must always search for truth no matter where it may bring us.
dil, if the US government is so incompetent, how were they able to fool so many people into this illegal war in Iraq, including Britian. Do not forget how many have been sacrificed and killed in Iraq by this "incompetent" government, over 3000 Americans and who knows how many civilians and contractors. "They are too incompetent." I think that this line of thinking does not allow the evidence and investigation into the truth of the incident to be properly examined and understood. This thinking is a "belief" or "opinion" not a fact.
Quote
I think that you are probably correct, perhaps that it why they may have farmed it out to other service providers. As usual, it is the bungled attempts at cover up that tends to do them in. However, they do seem to be able to count on the vast majority of the public to remain asleep at the switch, and to let them get away with this stuff ..... repeatedly. "People tend to get the kind of government that they deserve." ( Five plus years, and counting on 9/11! )
Unfortunately, history teaches us that it is usually fairly easy to consistently fool enough of the people (sheeple) enough of the time.<IMHO>
Unfortunately, history teaches us that it is usually fairly easy to consistently fool enough of the people (sheeple) enough of the time.<IMHO>
I agree with you on this point T.W. That damn programming that teaches most to not question authority or ask serious questions.
Forget about 9/11 or this illegal war, what is going on with Britany Spears? LOL
A-
#20
- Group: Guests
Posted 07 January 2007 - 05:24 AM
Truth Warrior, on Jan 3 2007, 07:25 PM, said:
Elder Norm --
http://www.physics911.net/
FYI, consideration, entertainment, amusement, outrage, etc. or whatever.
http://www.physics91.../closerlook.htm
You may want to check out some of the other pages on this website also.Thanks! HAGOB!
CYL
http://www.physics911.net/
FYI, consideration, entertainment, amusement, outrage, etc. or whatever.
http://www.physics91.../closerlook.htm
You may want to check out some of the other pages on this website also.Thanks! HAGOB!
CYL
Thanks I checked out the page. If you believe them, I have a perpetual energy machine to sell you , cheap, batteries included.
However, I will be the last to stand in your way to believing anything that you wish. After all, the aliens that live on the "dark" side of the moon have been very good to me over the years. LOL
All said, I will not even spend my time trying to debunk these guys. They have a firm belief in what they wish to prove. Belief before proof is very close to religion cause you never seem to come up with any negative proof. JMHO
Elder Norm
********************** second reply PS. I hate this lumping thing that the site is doing now.
***yunir, on Jan 4 2007, 11:59 AM, said:
In theory yes, at melting point, steel c.....
The steel does not melt. It is under stress and when it reaches a state of plastic deformation for that temperature, then the yield strength is reached. The Steel yields. Check out the basics of stress/strain relationships for metal. I seem to remember my classes in both basic "strength of materials" and in several of my aerospace structures classes. Its pretty straight forward. - Not even rocket science.
Quote
And so,
Here's my layman argument: Merely a collision does not cause a fire......Please.
Agreed. But this is not the case. The second tower had smaller flames.
Here's my layman argument: Merely a collision does not cause a fire......Please.
Agreed. But this is not the case. The second tower had smaller flames.
Again, too simple of a look at the issue. Collision of massive structure.(When I worked for an explosive mfg. we learned all too well how detonation waves can reach very high "g" loads. A small amount of explosive against a steel block can induce over 50,000 "g"s of cycling acceleration. Vaporization of fuel and ignition cause a shock wave, etc. Also, the location of the explosion and flame makes a big difference.
Quote
the madrid building that was under fire longer than thaat of the WTC towers.
Like I said. Too simple of an explaination. But thats JMHO. Please feel free to think what ever you wish. I have no desire to change your beliefs.
PS. Best wishes for the new year. : -)
Elder Norm
PPS. Collapse speed. Consider that when a concrete floor falls over 10 feet, colliding with the floor below, it hits with a lot of force. IF that floor is near collapse, then the two fall to the next. F=MA. Mass increased each floor and G is constant so the force causing collapse increases each floor that fails. If a floor is designed for 210 percent of its normal weight. Suddenly applying 5-10 times the max allowable force causes instant failure. JMHO.