Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
911 Meta Analysis
I normally would not paste an article from another forum in its entirety. But this one struck me as a perfect meta analysis of the situation. And so I offer it to the readers for their information and use. I am removing some parts because of the length... the full presentation of the ideas can be read here:

[Image: file.php?logo=proglassNoLogo.jpg]

One of the original purposes of the "book" was to

1) Initiate intelligent and fact-based discussion of the WTC collapses through the unique lens of accurate descriptions and mappings.

After careful consideration of the facts more than a decade after the collapses, one would have to be quite idealistic to think that this is possible. This leads to a second purpose of the mappings within the "book":

2) To see the process of science and skepticism melt before ones eyes.

This opportunity allows the careful observer to catch a rare glimpse of how the mind functions and how scientific institutions function.

It is a study of human vulnerability.

It is a study of how people can be manipulated to embrace and defend illusions.

Layers of Protection Provided by the Technical Hierarchy

Layers of government, professional and academic review along with investigative journalism, in theory, are supposed to act as filters through which facts are checked to protect one from misleading and false claims. There is a common belief that these institutions offer layers of protection to society as a whole.

This book and the accompanying experiments put this common assumption to the test on 5 levels:
1) The state of the NIST professionalism and transparency (government)
2) The state of professional and academic skepticism, The publication and peer review process (professional and academic)
3) The state of investigative journalism
4) The state of citizen researchers
5) The active awareness of individual citizens

The book finds that with respect to the World Trade Center collapses there was no protection against false technical claims on any of these levels. All levels proved quite vulnerable to believing in false technical claims and passing on false second hand knowledge as if it is directly verifiable.


The technical hierarchy can be described in terms of a pyramid.

[Image: pyramid.jpg]

Professional and academic levels

The top levels in red consist of the general professional and academic community.

What are the interrelationships between different levels of the technical hierarchy? Each layer effectively forms part of a pyramid. At the top of the pyramid in this case is the NIST. They are ultimately responsible for representing the technical collapse history as we know it to all levels of society and members of the technical pyramid.

Below them is the general professional and academic technical community. Employees of the NIST are drawn from the general professional and academic community. These two layers of the pyramid together are assumed to be the technical fact-checkers for the rest of society.

The unbridgeable gap between those with technical abilities and those without

Due to the complex mathematical nature of technical literature, the pyramid has a sharp division between those with higher academic and professional technical skills and those who don't have access to that type of knowledge. This occurs between the red and yellow sections. This sharp division strongly contributes to the stratified nature of the hierarchy. The simple truth is that a large majority of the public does not have the capacity to read papers like the ones on the extensive list linked here. With no exaggerations, these papers might as well have been written in chinese to many of the journalists and private citizens outside the red section of the pyramid. Forum records on the subject of the WTC towers from 2006 to the present demonstrate this fact conclusively.

The special responsibility among the technically educated toward the public at large

Due to the special technical nature of the WTC collapses, the technically inclined levels of the social pyramid have a special and irreplaceable burden of responsibility toward the rest of society with regard to the World Trade Center collapses. The large majority of citizens are not members of the technical tiers. It is close to impossible for those citizens to fact-check many technical claims. This leaves them extremely vulnerable to believing in false technical claims.

Misrepresenting oneself to the strata below

A curious feature of the pyramid in the case of the WTC collapses is that each level misrepresents itself to the level just under it. The NIST misrepresents itself to the academic and professional community. To those not trained in technical literature, the peer reviewed articles in professional journals seem more perfect than they really are. At the same time few technical professionals will honestly represent their own level of confusion and ignorance to laymen or to each other. They commonly appear to the layman as knowing more than they actually do.

Journalist are in a helpless position when it comes to fact-checking technically complex literature. But within their finished articles or reports, the journalist will rarely admit or possibly even comprehend just how vulnerable they really are to passing along false technical information without being aware of it.

As for ordinary citizens at the bottom of the pyramid, there is no real reason to pretend they know more than they do since nobody is looking up to them for answers. Since they play no role for a group below them, they are freer to admit how little they actually know without encountering peer group pressure to conform.


Consider the case in which the red levels makes unchecked false technical claims, yet astute individual citizens spot the mistakes. It is commonly believed that if an individual citizen is in possession of such proof, they can present this information to an individual journalist or news agency that can publish the material directly to a wider audience, allowing the false claims to be corrected. In this particular case the taboo is so great that the yellow level proved useless and quite vulnerable to passing the false information onto a wide audience. The yellow level has come to serve as simpy a means by which unchecked false technical claims made by the red level are passed to the general public. Major media has come to effectively serve as a means the red level protects itself from public scrutiny.

Individual citizens investigators

In the case of 9/11, among the general public there are supposedly various groups of private citizens that claim to do their own research. Some of them have come to form in a general polarity some of us call "truthers" and "debunkers". One may assume that some of these groups would have been interested in the most detailed mappings of the visible collapse processes available to the public. But once again, this is found not to be the case. In the cases of the scholars organizations or AE911T, for example, detailed mappings are perceived as a threat.

One would think that if the information in these mappings was damaging to many common "truther" arguments (which they are), then "debunkers" would utilize the mappings. But this does not happen either since the mappings do not support debunker beliefs and they are quite embarrassing to the NIST.

Inability to distinguish technical fact from fiction

The resulting environment has become so anti-intellectual and laden with taboo that if accurate, verifiable mappings did surface, people wouldn't be able to distinguish between the illusions and the reality even if their very lives depended upon it.

The environment is filled with so much useless and distracting information that people on the whole cannot distinguish between real or unreal information to "save their souls". People in general loose the means by which fantasy could be distinguished from the reality in this condition. Hence they have no means by which to defend themselves from being manipulated by false technical claims.

The only defense remaining: Direct verification through individual initiative

The only defense left is ones own ability to fact-check claims through ones own direct efforts. There is no other way. But how many people will show the initiative or have the talents or experience to check ones facts directly?

Consider the large, large majority of people who have neither the patience, ability or motivation to check facts using ones own direct effort. They will be forced to choose a belief. What choice do they have? Admitting that this is the case can be quite a humbling experience which requires honesty and self awareness.

Lacking the capacity to check claims through direct verification, but also lacking the capacity to admit that one is forced to choose a belief as a result, people are put in a curious situation. What about the many people who do not have the ability, drive or free time to check claims directly, but also are not able to admit to themselves that as a result they are forced to choose a belief?

That is the situation that many people are actually in at present without being aware of it. They can be expected to cling to something that "looks like science".

Many people are familiar with classical and operant conditioning. In the same way a dog can be trained to salivate when hearing a bell or seeing a light, so many people have effectively been "trained" to react to any mention of the WTC towers as if it is a taboo subject. Mapping the collapse processes in detail is perceived as some kind of deviant, subversive activity. Looking more carefully is viewed with "suspicion".

Feynman describes a "disease" and a "cure"

Richard Feynman refers to this reaction as a type of "disease".

Feynman: "Then a way of avoiding the disease was discovered. This is to doubt that what is being passed from the past is in fact true, and to try to find out ab initiio, again from experience, what the situation is, rather than trusting the experience of the past in the form in which it was passed down. And that is what science is: The result of the discovery that it is worthwhile re-checking by new direct experience, and not necessarily trusting in the race experience in the past. I see it this way. That is my best definition."

Feynman refers to trusting in information without any direct effort to verify or fact-check the information as a type of "disease". This disease is quite contagious as it is magnified within a group setting. The experiments to follow are highly effective ways to check how far this "disease" still penetrates scientific institutions, journalism and the public at large.


Experiments that Further Test the Thesis on 5 Levels:
Experiment 1) If this information is presented to the NIST, or to a representative of government, how will they react?
Experiment 2) If presented to technical professionals or to academics in technical fields, how will they react?
Experiment 3) If presented to an investigative journalist or news agency, how will they react?
Experiment 4) Consider those who identify themselves as "truther" or "debunker". How do they react, respectively?
Experiment 5) As for individual citizens of all types, what kind of reactions will be seen

This book and the accompanying experiments examine:
1) The state of the NIST professionalism and transparency (government)
2) The state of professional and academic skepticism, The publication and peer review process (professional and academic)
3) The state of journalism - The 4th branch of government
4) The state of citizen researchers

5) The active awareness of individual citizen

How vulnerable are each of these subgroups in reality to false technical information?

The Kubler-Ross Experience

A close look at the case of the Kubler-Ross studies gives a useful parallel example. During her research on the psychological reactions of terminally ill patients during terminal illness, reactions of those within the medical field, from doctors, to nurses, to clergy, to students and finally those of the patients themselves were recorded. The order of hierarchy as Kubler-Ross experienced it in order:

The author predicts that various people will react to the mappings in a similar way to which many people reacted to the Kubler-Ross findings. Their reactions will largely depend on the the position they occupy on the technical hierarchy.

Kubler Ross on the reactions she received to her work:
Staff reactions to the seminar

As described earlier, the hospital staff reacted with great resistance, at times overt hostility, to our seminar. At the beginning, it was almost impossible to get permission from the attending staff to interview one of their patients. Residents were more difficult to approach than interns, the latter more resistant than externs or medical students. It appeared that the more training the physician had, the less he was ready to become involved in this type of work. Other authors have studied the physician's attitude toward death and the dying patient. We have not studied the individual reasons for this resistance but have observed it many times.

Approximately 9 out of 10 physicians reacted with discomfort, annoyance, or overt hostility when approached for their permission to talk to one of their patients. While some of them used the patient's poor physical or emotional health as a reason for their reluctance, others flatly denied having terminally ill patients under their care. Some expressed anger when their patients asked to talk to us, as if it reflected their inability to cope with them. While only a few flatly refused, the great majority regarded it as a special favor to us when they finally allowed an interview.

Early in my work with dying patients I observed the desperate need of the hospital staff to deny the existence of terminally ill patients on their ward."

In an amazing feat that this author has no intention of repeating, Kubler-Ross was forced to walk miles and miles of hospital corridors over a period of months and almost gave up the project altogether in frustration before being given permission to conduct her first interview.

Interestingly, after her experiences with the hierarchical nature of hospital staff and their respective reactions, she encountered a similar hierarchical pattern within the terminally ill patients themselves toward the reality of their own condition.

"Earlier conflicts and defense mechanisms allow us to predict to a certain degree what defense mechanisms a patient will use more extensively at the time of this crisis. Simple people with less education, sophistication, social ties, and professional obligations seem in general to have somewhat less difficulty in facing this final crisis than people of affluence who lose a great deal more in terms of material luxuries, comfort, and number of interpersonal relationships. It appears that people that have gone through a life of suffering, hard work, and labor, who have raised their children and have been gratified in their work, have shown greater ease at accepting death with peace and dignity compared to those who have been ambitiously controlling their environment, accumulating material goods, and a greater number of social relationships but fewer meaningful interpersonal relationships which would have been available at the end of life."

In general, those with the most to lose are those who can be expected to not grasp the reality of the condition they are in.

Parallel to the Milgram Experiment

Within part 1 of the book the Milgram experiment is mentioned. Before conducting the experiment Stanley Milgram asked various people to predict the results of the experiment beforehand.
Before conducting the experiment, Milgram polled fourteen Yale University senior-year psychology majors to predict the behavior of 100 hypothetical teachers. All of the poll respondents believed that only a very small fraction of teachers (the range was from zero to 3 out of 100, with an average of 1.2) would be prepared to inflict the maximum voltage. Milgram also informally polled his colleagues and found that they, too, believed very few subjects would progress beyond a very strong shock.[1]
In Milgram's first set of experiments, 65 percent (26 of 40)[1] of experiment participants administered the experiment's final massive 450-volt shock, though many were very uncomfortable doing so; at some point, every participant paused and questioned the experiment, some said they would refund the money they were paid for participating in the experiment.

Those polled unanimously assumed that only a very small minority of the subjects would be vulnerable enough to conform to the wishes of perceived authority completely. In truth, the number was found to be remarkably high.

In the case of the Milgram experiments, people on the whole did not realize how vulnerable people actually were to this tyoe of manipulation. Experience proved to be quite different to what they anticipated, and not in a positive way.


The NIST is considered to have written the foremost statement on how and why each building collapsed. They are ultimately responsible for representing the technical collapse history as we know it to all levels of society and the technical pyramid. They alone are responsible for their own mistakes, as there is no one else to which to pass the buck. They have already made their opinions very clear through the NIST reports themselves. How can they be expected to react to the collapse records in the book?

It may be quite enlightening to request personal interviews with some individuals representing the NIST, or with technical professionals or with academics in technical fields and video record the interview in progress.

EXPERIMENT #2; Technical Professionals or Academics in technical fields

There is over a decade of published articles since the WTC collapses. Many of them are available within journals published by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE).

ASCE library linked here

A list of all articles having to do with the WTC collapses within ASCE Publications at this link. This list also includes articles published elswhere on the WTC collapses.

Some incorrect representation of the WTC collapses from the ASCE peer reviewed journals have already been examined:

Bazant's 4 Papers Reviewed
Keith Seffen: Progressive Collapse
Usmani, Chung, Torero Initiation Model

Other academic and professional mischaracterizations of the collapse processes:

Greening: Energy Transfer WTC
Gordon Ross: Momentum Transfer Analysis
Charles Beck: Descent Curves WTC7
S Jones: Why Indeed Did WTC Collapse
Journal of 9-11 Studies

Judging from common tendencies within this large body of literature, how can many of these authors and those academics and professionals who read these articles be expected to react to the collapse records in the book?

This is the biggest wildcard of all 5 experiments. I really don't know. I have had many, many good experiences discussing various technical issues with academics and professionals, but never on a socially taboo subject.

EXPERIMENT #3; Journalists

There were many articles within major publications and written by independent journalists included within part 6 of the book. They are in a strange position in that they are generally incapable of direct verification of complex technical claims. They can only ask others with a higher level of technical education for their opinion and compare various opinions of others. Of course they rarely report it that way. The degree of vulnerability of the writer to false technical claims is hardly owned up to within printed articles.

As shown within part 6 of the book, journalists can easily create a type of echo chamber throughout major media. Each reporter expressed certain untrue claims as verified fact. Since the reports come from a variety of sources, this creates a false impression of certainty in readers who are themselves quite vulnerable to believing in false technical claims.

It is not difficult to predict how many journalists will react. Many have already published their opinions of this subject.

EXPERIMENT #4; Those who identify themselves as "truther" or "debunker"

The reactions to experiment #4 are not difficult to predict. Some of us have been watching the common pattern of beliefs and misrepresentations for a few years.

Logging beliefs through websites
Within these various websites there is not a single accurate represntation of either the collapse initiations or the collapse progressions of any of the collapsed towers.

Logging the change of common beliefs through forum records 2006-2012

The evolution in thought is logged through the following forums. All posts and threads are dated so it is not difficult to observe what various participants believed at different times.
It is not difficult to verify that these forum records demonstrate there are many confused people. Among them there are many who do not realize how confused they really are.

The most common characteristics within many of the forum posts demonstrate:
1) Headstrong false certainty
2) Technical ignorance of structures and collapse
3) Clinging to explanations that "look scientific"
4) Extreme vulnerability to false technical claims (Inability to distinguish technical fact from fiction)
5) Gullibility

Every one of these tendencies is magnified and reinforced through
6) Groupthink

A combination of these contradictory impulses invariably results in widespread hypocrisy. On a more positive note, the following positive qualities are evident, though to a much lesser degree:
7) Sincere confusion
8 ) Quality citizen research and discussion

Within the posting records there is also evidence of many people with sincere questions.

It must also be remembered that much of the most accurate records of the collapse processes currently available to the public was originally posted in these same forum records. Records show individual researchers sharing ideas in the spirit of cooperation. Granted these were rare cases, but they did exist.

However, the large majority of these posting histories are nothing more than a rehashing of the same limited issues over and over, locked almost completely within an artificially narrowed false choice.

EXPERIMENT #5: Private citizens

The role of groups, technical father figures, and artificially narrowed false choices

Due to the simple truth that a large majority of the public does not have the capacity to read technical papers or understand technical argument about the collapses, the public is highly, highly vulnerable to false technical information. Such extreme vulnerability allows for easy manipulation of the general public through clumsy or cunning argumentation by anyone who claims to be an "expert".

Such "experts" seem to form into groups and attract followers. Each group has the same relation between "expert" and follower; the follower is not capable of directly verifying the claims made by the group of perceived "experts" through their own efforts.

This inability to verify technical claims made by perceived experts puts the individual in a quasi-religious position with respect to the technical subject matter.

The role of trained taboo

Taboo is designed to create a spontaneous reactionary avoidance in another. Before the first thought or inquiry is pondered, a reaction to avoid is already triggered.

Taboo is not an intellectual thing. It is designed to control behavior before thoughts can reflect upon its true value. Taboo is designed to block logical inquiry.

5 types of taboo I expect to encounter regularly are listed in this link.

A large percentage of people will probably cling to something that "looks like science". When problems with their respective views are shown to them through means which can be independently verified, many people can be expected to make little or no effort to verify any claims.

Very few people will be willing to admit that their views are ultimately rooted in beliefs. The almost invariable result will be to cling to something that "looks like science" and attack those who challenge their opinions with verifiable information.

On the positive side, I expect to see a lot of candidly honest replies from all levels of the pyramid with the exception of the highest level, the NIST.
[TABLE="width: 96%"]
[TD="align: center"]The 9/11 Commission Report:
A 571-Page Lie
[TD="align: center"] By Dr. David Ray Griffin[/TD]
[TD="width: 150"][Image: seren6.gif][/TD]
Introductory remark by Peter Meyer: To mark the fourth anniversary of the 9/11 terrorist attacks upon the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, the American people and the rest of the world (the terrorists being not from Muslim countries but rather from within the Bush administration), Serendipity is pleased to publish this article by Professor David Griffin.
By now hardly anyone who cares to be informed could be unaware that Professor Griffin is a distinguished theologian who has written two books exposing the official story of 9/11 as a blatant lie. The books are available from and many bookshops:
  • The New Pearl Harbor: Disturbing Questions About the Bush Administration and 9/11
  • The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions And Distortions
In this article, which is an appendix to Prof. Griffin's second book, he lists over 100 lies included in the official 9/11 Commission report. Links to other pages on Serendipity have been added, for those who may not yet be fully informed (and who wish to be, since there are some who don't want to know anything about this, probably because they can't handle knowing the truth it is too threatening to their self-serving view of the world).Those who would conceal the truth have tried (with some success) to condition the public into associating any questioning of the official version of events with the label "conspiracy theory" (and implicitly, "lunatic conspiracy theory"). A moment's consideration will reveal that this is quite a stupid claim, since to question, or to cast doubt upon, some claim or story is not in itself to put forward any other claim or story, and still less any "theory". One may (as many do) disbelieve the U.S. government's story about what happened on 9/11 without being obliged to provide any explanation at all as to what happened on that day. The first question which should be asked is whether the official story is plausible, and just a little research will show that not only is it implausible, it cannot be true. Realizing this is the first step toward gaining some insight into the events of 9/11. Many, however, are not even willing to make that first step, preferring to lie to themselves, with no thought for the consequences.

[TD][Image: griffin_david.jpg][/TD]
[TD]David Ray Griffin, Ph.D.[/TD]
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 inThe 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 ofThe 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 façade 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. military (117-18).
54. The omission of the fact that Donald Rumsfeld, who as head of the commission on the U.S. 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 U.S. 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, U.S. representatives said that because the Taliban refused to agree to a U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 (3) 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 U.S. 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)
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass

We know the official story is laced with lies and BS.

Of course you didn't read the OP... just added your usual spamming parrot type answer by posting a reference to one of your leaders. Got it. Try something new.

Pay no attention to anything that "Jeffrey Orling" posts.

On another thread "he" has attempted to slur me in one of the most underhanded, despicable acts of character assassination ever witnessed on this site.

The entity "Jeffrey Orling" has earned his quotation marks/inverted commas. "He" now joins the ranks of the "Colbys" of the world -- where, as Peter Lemkin realized long age, "Orling" so clearly belongs.

"Orling's" time here is running short.
May-29-2012 09:00
911 as an inside job now beyond doubt (UPDATED June 7, 2012)
by Daniel Johnson, Deputy Executive Editor

911: It either knowingly happened at the level of the White House, or the highest levels of the government were wilfully blind.

(Calgary, Alberta) - Is the future of America worth a few hours of your time? I'm sure you would be willing to spend a day or half a day at a seminar to improve your job performance or your job prospects. Will you give your country as much?

The 911Truth movement is not receiving much respect or acknowledgement from the mainstream media. I will present evidence here, that you've probably never encountered before, as you took in and uncritically accepted the official government story. If you will invest a few hours and watch the internet videos at the end of this piece, you can decide for yourself.

Over the last week or so, I have watched several documentaries produced by different people and have come away completely shocked. The evidence suggesting some sort of official complicity is overwhelming.


After a week of informative comments, I have come to a further conclusion which I have placed at the end, just before the comments.)

What the so-called 911Truth movement is challenging

Was Abraham Lincoln right? "You can fool some of the people all of the time. You can fool all of the people some of the time. But you can't fool all of the people all of the time."

In the case of 911, no matter what doubts people might harbour privately, the vast majority of Americans still believe in the integrity of the federal government. It's a bedrock belief that, once cracks begin to appear, threatens American culture itself. From that point of view, the 911Truthers are legitimately unpatriotic. That can't be helped.

Ronald Reagan once suggested that the most nine most feared words in the English language were: "I'm from the government and I'm here to help." With 911, those words take on a new and ominous meaning.

Has your government lied to you about 911?

One question to resolve is: Has your government ever lied to you and, as a result, your fellow citizens have innocently died?

The answer to that is an unequivocal yes. Two particularly egregious examples are, one, the fictitious Gulf of Tonkin incident of August 4, 1964 which resulted in the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which gave President Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". The resolution served as Johnson's legal justification for deploying U.S. conventional forces and the commencement of open warfare against North Vietnam. That war resulted in 58,000 American casualties.

The second example was the invasion of Iraq in 1991 in response to Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. The American people, at the time, was split as to whether the U.S. should invade until a young woman, claiming to be a nurse who had worked at the Kuwait City Hospital, testified to atrocities conducted by Iraqi soldiers that they took babies out of incubators and threw them onto the cement floors to die. She saw this with her own eyes. This kind of emotional testimony increased the public's support for a land war in Iraq, and the invasion was on.

But, a Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC) investigative team learned that the young woman was, in fact, a member of the Kuwaiti royal family and the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador to the U.S. She had been trained in acting by the multinational PR firm Hill and Knowlton which was part of a joint White House/Kuwaiti operation. After finding no evidence to support those alleged atrocities, Amnesty International issued a retraction. That didn't stop President George H. W. Bush from continuing to repeat the incubator allegations on television.

Building 7

I'll begin with a little quiz. Have you ever heard of Building 7? It was part of the WTC complex and it collapsed at free fall speed at 520pm on 911. It was a 47 story building and had not been hit by a plane. There were minor fires on fewer than a half dozen floors. If you had read the official 911 Commission report, you'd still be in the dark because the Commission said nothing, nada, zip, zero about Building 7. That tells you how comprehensive a job the Commission did. (LOL)

Next ask your friends and acquaintances if they know anything about Building 7. You may be unpleasantly surprised at the lack of public knowledge.

Another interesting thing about Building 7 is that both CNN and the BBC reported that it had collapsed, a full half hour before it actually came down. In fact, when the BBC reporter was reporting its collapse, Building 7 could be seen still standing behind her!

The 911 Commission's report dealt with Building 7 by completely ignoring it.

There was comparatively minor damage to Building 7 from the collapse of the two towers. The damage to the other buildings, 3, 4, 5 and 6 was immeasurably greater, yet they all remained standing. Building 7 came down in 6.5 secondsa rate of about 7 floors per second.

Who paid for 911?

A modern mantra, apparently originating in the Woodward/Bernstein investigation of Watergate, is: "Follow the money." In the case of 911, the money was not followed.

General Mahmoud Ahmed, director of Pakistan's ISI, instructed Ahmad Umar Sayed Sheikh to wire $100,000 to Mohammed Atta, the lead hijacker. No inquiry was ever made into why the ISI ordered that money sent. The 911 Commission concluded in their report that the financing of the attacks was "of little practical significance".

President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney were both asked to appear at the Commission. Inexplicably, they decided to appear together and set their own rules. They were not under oath; WTC family members, the public and the press were denied attendance, no recording of any kind was allowed and the Commission notes from the three hour appearance were subject to White House censorship.

At a news conference President Bush was asked, "Don't you think the families deserve to have a transcript or to be able to see…" He was interrupted by Bush who said: "You asked the same question yesterday and you'll get the same answer." In other words, no answer.

Suspicious? You decide.

The Twin Towers

Frank A. DeMartini, Manager, WTC Construction and Project Management said:

"This [tower] was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time [the late 1960s]. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jet liners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door. This intense grid and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that netting and it really does nothing to the screen netting."

In order for the towers to collapse, 47 steel columns at the core, 236 exterior columns, and thousands of steel trusses, all had to fail at the same time. Never in the history of construction, has a steel building ever collapsed due to fire.

The WTC towers and Building 7, in fact, were the only steel structure buildings in the history of construction to ever collapse.

Oct 17 2004, Caracas, Venezuela 26 floors of a 56 story building burned for 17 hours

May 1988 First Interstate Bank, Los Angeles, 73 stories tall, burned for 3.5 hours

September 9/11 WTC 5 burned for 6 hours

Feb 12 2005, Windsor Tower in Madrid, 29 floors burned for 24 hours

Feb 23, 1991 One Meridian Plaza, Philadelphia 38 floors, 8 floors burned for 18 hours

Feb 13, 1975 a fire broke out on the 11th floor of WTC1 and spread through an inner service core down to the ninth and up to the 14th floors burning for three hours

None of those buildings collapsed or even came close to collapsing

If the WTC towers collapsed as a result of "normal" events, several other mysteries must be explained:

A minute and 20 seconds before the collapse large amounts of white smoke began pouring from the base of the south tower

The collapse happened faster than by gravity itself

Firefighters and eye witnesses all reported explosions at various times

CNN and BBC reported that Building 7 had collapsed before it actually did and in the BBC case, the building could be seen behind the reporter as she spoke

Advance work?

Electronic security for WTC and Dulles Airport (also involved in 911) was supplied by a company called Securacom. Wirt D. Walker III, a Bush cousin, was the CEO and George W. Bush's younger brother Marvin P. was a principle of the company.

This introduces another unexplained aspect.

Scott Forbes was the senior database specialist for Fiduciary Trust in 2001. For nearly an entire weekend, there was a building power down.

"We were notified three weeks in advance of the power down by the Port Authority. It was relatively short notice to plan to shut down all of our banking systems. It was a big deal, it was unprecedented. We had a data center on the 97th floor. During that weekend of the power down meant that there was no security. The doors were all open basically. And all the security video cameras were all off. There were guys in overalls carrying huge tool boxes and reels of cables and walking around the building on that weekend." They were ostensibly upgrading the internet cables.

Forbes reported this unusual activity to the 911 Commission but was ignored.

Steel recovered from the site was shipped overseas, eliminating any possibility of independent investigation. All the trucks used to haul away from ground zero were equipped with GPS units so that everyone could be tracked. One driver took an extra long lunch hour and was subsequently fired.

Ray McGovern, a 27-year CIA veteran says "The 911 Commission was a cover up" leading to the obvious questionwhat were they covering up?

It's indisputable: 911 was certainly a conspiracy, but not of Al Queda. If you believe it happened as officially reported, then you owe it to yourself to address and investigate the incredible coincidences and contradictions.

When planes crash

When planes crash, the news coverage is dominated by images of the crash scene with debris scattered over large areas. In the case of the Pentagon, everything at the site disappeared. No seats, no luggage, no bodies. Even the two Rolls Royce, six-ton engines made of steel and titanium alloy, "disappeared."

Videos from more than 80 security cameras in the area were immediately confiscated by the FBI, and the Department of Justice has never released them. The fact that a 757 crashed into the Pentagon remains an unproven, article of faith. Afterward the entire area was covered with dirt and gravel, making any forensic study impossible.

All that was left of the Shanksville crash was a gouge in the earth and a bunch of broken trees.

At Shanksville, Somerset County Coroner Wally Miller said: "It looked like somebody just dropped a bunch of metal out of the sky." There was apparently a second debris site six to eight miles away. Both support the hypothesis that Flight 93 was actually shot down by a missile.

Osama Bin Laden: Guilty?

In a video allegedly found in Afghanistan Bin Laden admitted responsibility for the attack. But, says Arabist Dr. Abdel El M. Husseini: "I have carefully examined the Pentagon's translation. This translation is very problematic. At the most important places where it is held to prove the guilt of Bin Laden, it is not identical with the Arabic."

Gernot Rotter, Prof of Islamic and Arabic Studies at the Asia-Africa Institute at the University of Hamburg goes further: "The American translators who listened to the tapes and transcribed them apparently wrote a lot of things in that they wanted to hear but that cannot be heard on the tape no matter how many times you listen to it."

WTC anomalies

1. William Rodriguez, a twenty-year WTC employee and the last person to walk out of the building alive, reported later that seconds before the first plane hit, there was an explosion in the basement, between the B2 and B3 levels. Commenters on news reports said that there appeared to be more smoke coming from the basement than from the upper floors.

2. If an FAA controller has any suspicion that a plane has been hijacked, he immediately notifies his superior and if the issue cannot be resolved within about a minute, NORAD is to be alerted and fighters scrambled to find out what is going on. In past experiences, intercepts or their equivalent have been made within about ten minutes; on 911, 80 minutes went by before fighters were even airborne.

There were apparently "war games" going on at the same time and NORAD was dealing with as many as 22 different "hijacks" and were apparently unable to separate the war game exercises from the real hijacks.

The U.S. has the most powerful, costly and technically sophisticated military machine in the world. And yet…

The year before (2000) NORAD had 67 intercepts with 100% accuracy. On 911, they had four failures in one day.

Cynthia McKinney, member, House Armed Services Committee asks: "How is it that on four separate occasions on one day, a trillion dollar military and intelligence infrastructure could fail."

3. The free-fall rate of collapse of the WTC was about 10 floors per second. The building actually disintegrated. What hit the ground was steel and thousands of tons of gravel and fine dust. Building 7 came down at the rate of about six and a half floors per second.

4. For more than six weeks after 911, pools of molten metal hotter than 2OOO degrees F were found at WTC 1 and 2 and Building 7. That is 200 degrees hotter than jet fuel would burn under ideal conditions. None of this was addressed in the 911 report.

5. In 2005, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) released its 10,000 page report on WTC 1 and 2. The actual collapses themselves were not addressed in the report.

6. In 2008, the NIST report on Building 7 was released. They did not analyze a single piece of steel or examine a controlled demolition hypothesis. Instead, they built a computer model on the assumption of a "fire induced" collapse. The parameters used were not released, making it impossible for anyone else to do any kind of critical follow up.

The report admitted that there was a period of free-fall for 2.25 seconds (eight floors), but they gave no explanation of how this would be possible since their progressive collapse theory was based on systemic collisions and triggered failures.

7. There are links, friendships and business dealings between the Bush and bin Laden families that go back to at least the 1970s.

When George W. Bush started his first oil company, two of his financial backers were Osama Bin Laden and Bin Laden's brother in law.


Thomas von Essen, New York Fire Chief at the time, decided soon after 911 to gather as much anecdotal evidence as he could before memories faded or changed over time. He had 503 people interviewedfire fighters and EMT personnelall who had been on site that day. When completed, he had about 12 thousand pages.

When Graeme MacQueen, Founding director, Centre for Peace Studies, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada learned about this material, he found that it had been largely ignored, so he decided to read it himself and draw his own conclusions.

Out of the 503 accounts he found ten who argued in support of the official storyabout two percent. Conversely, 118 people reported explosions in the towers before or as they came down. MacQueen concludes:

"Those who have suggested this was an inside job have a much stronger case than those who are trying to support the official narrative of the 19 hijackers."


Danish chemistry professor Niels Harritt conducted a study of 911 and concluded: "The evidence for controlled demolition is overwhelming."

David Ray Griffen, author of The New Pearl Harbor concluded that: "911 was a false flag operation intended to authorize the doctrines and funds for a new level of imperial mobilization."

Historian Webster Tarpley says: "The entire U.S. ruling class, ruling elite, comes to see terrorism as the preferred means, indeed the only means, to provide social cohesion, to provide an enemy image for the society, to keep it together. According to neocon theory from Karl Schmidt you have to have an enemy image in order to have a society. It's a very dangerous thing because now it means that the entire social order, the political parties, intellectual life, politics in general, [are] all based on a monstrous myth."

Ted Gunderson, former FBI chief of LA, Dallas and Memphis operations: "Anti-terror legislation…takes away many of our constitutional rights and civil liberties." Habeas corpus for Americans basically ended in 2006a legal right that had existed since the nation's founding.

New York Times columnist Andrew Rosenthal writes:

"Those who buy into the line that we have to surrender some of our liberties and some of our democratic values to combat terrorism, and believe they are safe from the abuse of power because they are not Muslims, would do well to remember that the government has singled out other minority groups in the past, and may single out new groups in the future. Once, it was enough to be of Japanese descent to earn you transport to an internment camp."

Update--New suspects

The idea that the U.S. government was somehow behind 911, strikes many people as incredible, although given the American government's record of lies: Gulf of Tonkin, Watergate, Iraq... it certainly makes the thoughtful citizen wonder.

My Salem-News colleague Allan Sabrosky, former Director of Studies at the US Army War College has an even more penetrating theory: He argues that "It is 100 percent certain that 9/11 was a Mossad operation."

If true, this explains a few mysteries: Why the Bush administration was so secretive--Bush/Cheney testified in private, not under oath and no transcript was made public. It would also explain so many shadowy men working in the towers in the weeks before 911 (I think, in particular, of Steve Forbes story which was completely ignored by the 911 Commission).

A Mossad connection would cast a new light on the "inside job" scenario. It was not an inside job per se, but rather some on the inside did know and have kept silent over the years.

We also know that in the days when air traffic was shut down across North America, not everyone was grounded. The Bin Ladens and most of their family members and associates were flown out of the country. One objection to the 911Truth movement is that what of the alleged perpetrators who are theoretically still among us. Why has no one spoken up--intentionally or by accident?

On the contrary, if it was the Mossad, they would not be among us, but would instead, have been spirited out of the country in the days of the airport lockdown.

Even the citizens of Israel would be in the dark and not know anything more than their American counterparts. As Alan Sabrosky concludes: "If Americans ever know that Israel did this, they are going to scrub them off the earth."


Infiltration of the left (9 minutes):

911 Media coverup (9 minutes):

Jesse Ventura on 911 (9 minutes):

Graeme MacQueen 1 (10 minutes):

Graeme MacQueen 2 (10 minutes):

Untitled 2012 documentary (23 minutes):

Zeitgeist (starts 40 minutes in):

911 Mysteries (90 minutes):

Loose Change (2 hrs 9 mins):
"Let me issue and control a nation's money and I care not who writes the laws. - Mayer Rothschild
"Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience! People are obedient in the face of poverty, starvation, stupidity, war, and cruelty. Our problem is that grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem!" - Howard Zinn
"If there is no struggle there is no progress. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and never will" - Frederick Douglass
I simply posted an article on the meta analysis. Take it or leave it. I didn't write a work of it.

I didn't slur nor slander Charles Drago, and that wasn't my intention.. despite his numerous insulting remarks.

I certainly don't want to be where I am not welcome and so since Mr Drago is the big cheese around here and he wants me silenced... I take my leave.
Jeffrey Orling Wrote:I simply posted an article on the meta analysis. Take it or leave it. I didn't write a work of it.

I didn't slur nor slander Charles Drago, and that wasn't my intention.. despite his numerous insulting remarks.

I certainly don't want to be where I am not welcome and so since Mr Drago is the big cheese around here and he wants me silenced... I take my leave.

Once again the entity "Orling" is attempting to mislead.

Prior to "his" post above, I posted the following on a different thread -- which "he" read:

"The Deep Politics Forum is run by its owners in a democratic fashion. I have asked my partners that you be permanently banned from this site. Your act is unforgivable. It has no place in civil discourse.

"The majority will rule."

So no, "Orling," I am far from the "big cheese" on DPF. I am one voice in a group of five co-owners. "You" very well may have been permitted to stay at DPF by majority decision. I clearly would have gone along with it.

As far as I am concerned, "Jeffrey Orling" is not wanted at DPF. And that's as far as it goes.
The unrelated personal anecdote about Charles was out of bounds in my opinion and unnecessarily irrelevant. It smells like someone is trying to get a reaction in the form of banning. I hope this isn't because my post in the other thread about the oscilloscope 'booms' from the main building collapse was something that prompted the need for a quick exit?
No... I am tired of Mr Drago insulting me and Mr Lemkin ignoring the facts I present and spamming the discussion with lengthy repostings.

I am all for civil discourse, but it seems impossible he on the topics which interest me and which I have a but of expertise that virtually none of the other members have. Intelligent poeple but difficult for me to have a discussion with most of them. Founding members who write responses like ... game set point in a discussion of a technical matter is simply impossible to respond to.

Mr Drago dismisses everything I have written because he considers that I have no comprehension of acceptance of his deep political analysis of the world. And Mr. Lemkin accuses me repeatedly of being a Sunstein agent or a peddler of disinfo and NIST shill. This is not an atmosphere for polite and intelligent interchange.

I am not interested in another echo chamber on 9-11 memes. I've read them all, seen all the their vids and heard many of their lectures.

The destruction of the WTC was a very technical matter and probably beyond my level of understand of structure and physics. I certainly am not going to be dressed down by those who are even more clueless than I with such arrogance and dismissiveness.

If you want to continue a discussion on the technical aspects of the destruction of the WTC you can contact me via email jsandero at geeee male dot calm.

"Orling" is so dishonorable that he won't even keep his word when he promises to leave.

Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Discussion: Vector And Turn Analysis Of Observed And Measured Flight Paths Of 9/11 WTC Aircraft Ed Jewett 1 2,184 28-03-2010, 09:23 AM
Last Post: Peter Lemkin
  911 Meta Analysis Diagram Jeffrey Orling 0 2,880 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:
  New Seismic Analysis Further Points to Controlled Demolition.... Peter Lemkin 0 2,880 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:
  Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis Lauren Johnson 0 94,015 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:
  Some Misunderstandings Related to WTC Collapse Analysis: Redux Lauren Johnson 0 2,793 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:
  New Analysis Summary Of 9-11-01 Insider Trading [with some very interesting facts, if true]! Peter Lemkin 0 3,853 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:
  The case against the NIST WTC 7 collapse initiation analysis Tony Szamboti 0 2,503 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:
  New Detailed Analysis of WTC 7 Controlled Demolition Peter Lemkin 0 4,473 Less than 1 minute ago
Last Post:

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)