By Craig McKee
The message is loud and clear. Go after justice for 9/11 in the courts, and not only will you lose, you’ll be punished.
That’s what April Gallop and her lawyer, William Veale, found out as their lawsuit against former vice-president Dick Cheney, former secretary of defense Donald Rumsfeld, and former Joint Chiefs of Staff chairman Richard Myers concluded with a final slap in the face. This came in the form of a $15,000 fine levied against Veale for filing a “frivolous” appeal (the appeal had already been turned down in April of last year).
The decision was handed down by a three-judge panel headed by Justice John M. Walker, who just happens to be George W. Bush’s cousin – proving that the American justice system has a twisted sense of humour at times.
In March 2010, a lower court threw the original case out, stating that it was based on “cynical delusion and fantasy.”
Gallop, a former U.S. Army executive administrative assistant and her then two-month-old son were injured in the Pentagon event on 9/11 when an explosion in her office brought the ceiling down on them. Gallop’s desk was in the Pentagon’s E Ring, the outermost of the building’s five rings. Her desk was reported to be just 40 feet from where Flight 77 is supposed to have hit the building shortly after 9:30 a.m. on Sept. 11.
Gallop reports she carried her child to safety through the hole in the building where the plane was supposed to have entered. She says she saw no evidence of a plane having hit: no wreckage, no bodies, no jet fuel, nothing. She says she thought her computer had triggered the explosion, reporting that there were “flames coming out of the computers.”
Gallop’s original suit pointed to the fact that no alarm was ever sounded at the Pentagon even though it appeared that Cheney and others were tracking a plane’s progress towards the Pentagon. She has stated that there were frequent alarm drills in the Pentagon in the days leading up to 9/11 but none on that day.
The case laid out by Veale addressed the 9/11 official story and why the evidence points to it being false. It dealt with events at the Pentagon, the World Trade Center, and in Shanksville, Penn. The complaint pointed to a number of areas where the defendants clearly lied about where they were on the morning of 9/11 and what they were doing. It also looked at the evidence that neither Flight 77 nor any other 757 hit the Pentagon:
“One of those possibilities is that there was a plane substituted for Flight 77, possibly while flying over West Virginia, that was fitted and painted to look like Flight 77, which plane actually flew over the building while some other plane or missile exploded into the building on a slightly different flight path. There is the further possibility that no flying object hit the building at all, that the damage there was done by pre-placed explosives. Parts of an aircraft found in the rubble could have been planted in the building before the attacks so they could be found afterward. It will take an honest investigation and subpoena power to learn the truth.”
I guess lawyers and their clients will think twice before using the courts to go after very powerful people who think they’re above the law – that’s because it appears they ARE above the law.
But why should the court system be any different from all the other corrupted institutions in the country? Law enforcement won’t do its job, the media won’t do theirs, the politicians are bought and paid for, and much of the population is looking the other way while it all happens.
It seems that with every new attack on civil liberties and Constitutional freedoms in America, the enemies of truth get bolder. The corporate media continue steering the public away from what’s really being done to them and to their country with the deft use of fear and distraction.
Fortunately, there is a determined minority that continues to fight for truth. But it’s up against a population that is complacent and obedient and a powerful elite that feels invincible. It’s up to the sincere members of the 9/11 Truth movement to find a way to prove that they aren’t.
Veale says that if any supporters would like to contribute to paying off the $15,000 fine, they can send a cheque to the Center for 9/11 Justice; 2033 N. Main St., Suite 1060; Walnut Creek, CA 94596.
“To add insult to insult,” to use Zwicker’s words, is that this court system, with its twisted sense of humor, is also functioning hand in glove with the coordinated cognitive infiltration agenda from within the movement.
The people (including some “leaders”) who claim to be on our side but who adamantly insist that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon are undoubtedly going to smugly point to this episode as proof that we must exercise the Leggeian precautionary principle. E.G: “See, this is how the movement will get treated and ridiculed, and how little success we will have, if we don’t get our act together and stop promoting irresponsible theories like missiles and bombs and flyovers. This is why we as a movement must take the responsible approach of acknowledging the plane did hit.”
In fact wait a second, opening up new tab now and doing a quick check of the 911blogger comment tracker…
…I see an entry entitled “Court sanctions lawyers behind 9/11 case.” There’s one comment. What will it say?
Ahahahahahahaha. Just like I predicted, and I even predicted it might be Nor Cal Truth.
911blogger.com/news/2012-02-04/court-sanctions-lawyers-behind-911-case#comment-255206
Eloquently said, Craig. I don’t think it matters how “responsible” we are with theories, our deep state is too corrupt at this point. I think a mass global revolution, on a spiritual and knowledge level as well as economic, is the only thing that can trump all this corruption. I’m really convinced at this point that the “push for a new investigation” is like attacking a tank with a toothpick.
So remember, O reckless and foolish participants of Truth and Shadows, heed the wise words of RESPONSIBLE truther “Vulich,” as quoted by Nor Cal Truth:
“Pentagon flyovers, plane swapping, etc are on the level of nutso for most Americans, and when even the movement itself rejects those claims, a judge would look like a total idiot to buy into them.”
[/verbal irony]
Referring to the “nutso” idea of plane swapping totally ignores what was proposed in Operation Northwoods. Apparently the shills at 911blogger aren’t familiar with this plan, which included just such a plane swap. The plan was nixed by Kennedy in 1962.
“I’m really convinced at this point that the “push for a new investigation” is like attacking a tank with a toothpick.”
=>
If you think you are too small to have any impact, try to go to bed with a mosquito in the room..
Ha, I like that.
I like your enthusiasm but only one mosquito can be easily squashed.
There are millions of us mosquitoes buzzing around this subject. As long as we don’t spend too much time biting each other, that is.
On March 27, 2011, I sent Mr. William Veale correspondence in reference to his filing the frivolous April Gallop lawsuit that was based on wild conjecture and unfounded assumptions. Knowing he would be sanctioned for doing this, I then made a comparison to Dr. Judy Wood’s unsanctioned lawsuit which was based on irrefutable evidence and was not dismissed because it was deemed frivolous. The Court of Appeal judges were honest in acknowledging that the law applied to Dr. Judy Wood’s case, and then they acknowledged they were ignoring that law to dismiss the case! Why has no one been up in arms about Dr. Judy Wood’s case being dismissed; a case that was not deemed frivolous and did not have sanctions issued? Much attention is given to the Gallop-Veale case that seems to have been designed to go nowhere. With “9/11 Truthers” suppressing Dr. Judy Wood’s case (someone was banned from AE911Truth for mentioning it), the judges were free to sweep it under the carpet. One may ask, is that what the “Truther Movement” was designed to do? In stark contrast to the Gallop-Veale case, Dr. Judy Wood’s case contained extensive irrefutable evidence which is now packaged as a 540 page hard cover textbook entitled WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?. Dr. Judy Wood’s evidence would be admissible in court if such a case had public support but after her case was denied by the Supreme Court, the “Truther Movement” had a celebration of sorts. Truth doesn’t need a movement only lies do. “You can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time.”
Your comments above, Mr. Goldstein, are the very reason I consider your group, ‘The Judy Wood Group’ to be a subtle government psyop – regardless of the utter lunacy of Ms. Wood’s so called ‘science’, it is maintained that the ‘Truth Movement’ is in fact a government psyop, and the whole gist ever argued on blogs such as this is that main framing of the Truth Movement.
You come on these sites cranking up this load of bullshit charges against all of us who have spent years investigating this case, and have nothing positive to say about Wood except “buy her book”. You obviously have not digested what is therein to the point of arguing her case. Just like everyone of you Wood boosters, it’s all disparaging the Truth Movement, and not a dot or twiddle of the so-called ‘science’ you are so overwhelmed with.
My simple message to you and your ilk is to put up or shut up.
ww
hybridrogue1- (Pot – Kettle -Black) “The lady doth protest too much, methinks.” 🙂 I see you are going by the disinformation play book. If you can’t deal with the other person’s evidence, just pretend it doesn’t exist and declare yourself the “winner.” But what I don’t understand is why “debunking Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph.D.” seems to be the goal of the game. I can understand that for the leaders of the cover up such as Fetzer, Gage and Jenkins et al., but how can there be so many followers being suckered into it? Chucky Boldwyn is a good example 🙂
http://www.politicalforum.com/9-11/202657-dr-judy-wood-ph-d-materials-science-9-11-directed-energy-weapons-28.html#post1060847785
Who’s Got The Tar?
Maybe it’s because my father was born in 1903 and my mother was born in 1905 and I was raised with a different set of ethical standards that I find it very sad to see people arguing opinions of speculations of theories of speculations when the evidence in WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph.D. is overwhelming and indisputable. Plus the price for this 540 page full color hardcover textbook is a real bargain. I can’t even fill up my gas tank for $39.95!!! What do you think we should do with those who have been proved to be involved with planning 9/11 or covering it up such as Fetzer, Gage, Jones, Harritt, Jenkins, Ryan, Chandler, Barrett, Veale, et al.? What is their motivation for denigrating or muddling up Dr. Judy Wood’s research and the evidence she has collected? “9/11 Truthers” say they want to spread the truth about 9/11. If this is correct, then why aren’t they telling the public about Dr. Wood’s textbook? The truth is knowable. What goal do they expect to achieve by being so obsessed with covering it up? Should we just tar and feather those who have been proved to be involved with planning 9/11 or covering it up or would justice be served by putting them in prison and throwing away the key?
Misguided individuals calling for a “new 9/11 investigation” are actually covering up the fact that there has been one and it’s available for anyone to read. The 540 page textbook, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, IS the investigation. Do they want The Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval stamped on the cover to make it official? How can any of those responsible be brought to justice from a “new 9/11 investigation” when the Supreme Court denied Dr. Judy Wood’s Qui Tam Suit? Is there a higher court that I’m not aware of? Those that express concern that without justice being served there is nothing to prevent other such assaults from taking place assume that 9/11 was the first time this technology was used. The destruction of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in downtown Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, left similar forensic evidence of a DEW attack such as the vertical circular cut-outs and “toasted” vehicles. But thanks to Dr. Judy Wood’s investigation she has exposed what evidence “magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions” leave behind when this technology is used on unsuspecting and innocent victims. The jig is up.
When will we wake from our slumber? Simply because you do not see the bars does not mean they do not exist. Our freedoms are limited to discussions of this subject but we do not have the freedom to change it. Monkeys in a zoo have the freedom to complain about their living conditions, their food, or even their lack of privacy, but they do not have the freedom to change it. Vote all you want, nothing will change. Whether you take the right or left path this illusion of choice takes you to the same slaughterhouse.
How can the families of the victims ever find peace? For those with eyes wide open the answer to this question is simple. Provide the families with Dr. Judy Wood’s investigation as contained in her textbook. Why not start a book drive and request donations for the purpose of gifting copies of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? to those families? Under IRS rules this could be accomplished as a non-profit 501(c)(3) organization for educational purposes.
We must ask ourselves, “Do we want revenge or peace for the 9/11 families? If everybody knows about the forensic evidence of a DEW attack, it takes the power away from those using it. For example, if everyone knew who did what on 9/11, the psychological power driving things would evaporate. (i.e. “They hate us for our freedoms, so give up your freedoms so they won’t hate us.”)
Dear Mr. Goldstein,
I have stated my opinions before that Dr. Wood’s textbook is worthy of anyone’s 9/11 library as well as for teaching a course on 9/11.
You write:
You overstate Dr. Wood’s legacy and end up among the “misguided individuals.” Come back down to earth.
Focus on the nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood in the form of evidence and concepts that she brings to light. You should assist in the efforts to skim off the dross of disinformation that was contained in her book, that may have duped the good doctor, and that may have duped everyone else as well. In this regard I am referring to the images used to make her case (or to make any case).
Mr. Shack has already identified one such image.
http://www.septclues.com/SIMCITY/PERP_spectivesJUDYWOOD1.jpg
He writes:
Please refrain from expressing your negative opinions of Mr. Shack. Your distain for him is probably matched by his regard for Dr. Wood. We can certainly gather than Mr. Shack has some axe to grind about Dr. Wood with a goal of taking down her research through the claims it was based on tainted images.
You may see this as only bad news, but I on the other hand am much more optimistic. I welcome Mr. Shack’s team proving CGI and photoshopping efforts in image after image. “Distrust but verify all 9/11 images!” There’ll be images remaining that can’t be proved tainted that will combine with untainted elements of even tainted pictures to re-build our understanding of 9/11 truth. To the degree that it undermines Dr. Wood’s legacy, its undermining factor is multiplied for all other 9/11-conspircy-du-jours, forcing everyone to re-think 9/11.
More good news in your championing of Dr. Wood is that Dr. Wood has collect more than images, such as testimony.
So, please temper your praise and earnestly help in stoking the fires that will free nuggets of truth from Dr. Wood’s book while it consumes the dross of disinformation also contained therein.
“I decline a peer-reviewed approach…”~Judy Wood
How’s that for an endless meal of pickle feathers?
ww
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
Do you have a PhD? How about any published scientific papers?
I don’t either, but my wife does.
The peer-review process is not as pure as the wind-driven snow. Politics does enter. Articles submitted to most scientific publications had the research funded originally by govt grants, that the author(s) had to first write proposals on and get permission — all the way up and down the line at the institution and with the responsible govt agency.
Once submitted, the peers chosen to review the work do not come about willy-nilly.
How do you get “peers for review” on a topic outside convention?
Given your fondness of September Clues and Mr. Shack, you might appreciate my new posting there. I try to open up a new front in getting Dr. Wood’s work vetted.
Mr. Once, you ask:
“How do you get “peers for review” on a topic outside convention?”
From the peers from the nonconvention. Many scientists have rejected the convention established by the current paradigm and are conversing beyond that box. Ms. Wood has constructed her own solitary box and made it impenetrable to all. She may as well dispense with her initials behind her name in such instance as they too have no meaning in the super non-convention she has created as her sole domain.
As for your questions as to my academic credentials, just let me say, none under my screen name used in the entertainment industry.
You also say:
“.. if everyone knew who did what on 9/11, the psychological power driving things would evaporate.”
But this has nothing to do with knowledge and everything to do with emotional manipulation via the Public Relations Regime. There is already enough rational output to dispel the entire official government story of the 9/11 event. None of this information seeps through the public relations apparat unspun. It is the emotional spin that builds the bogus paradigm, it is a mythological construct based deep in the human psyche that is played by the shamans of this technocracy.
Knowing requires the willingness to know. This lack of willingness comes from fear.
This entire culture is based in fear and loathing, going far beyond such events as 9/11, it is projected pre-natal, and taught in the base of our language – we learn to think on the base of these fears of mortality…the fear of death.
ww
Mr. Once,
As per my visit to Mr. Shack’s site once again – where you have your request posted:
“a new front in getting Dr. Wood’s work vetted.”
Looking at all this imagery I will say, it is my opinion that there is nothing here that cannot be explained as the result of, angles, lighting, generation of duplication, aperture settings, distance and focus…etc. What is “as obvious that a two year old would see it,” is not so obvious to a special effects artist with tenure.
What I find with Mr. Shack, Judy Wood, and yourself, is the error of multiplicito ad absurdum.
So, if you will please excuse me for holding my own opinion, it would be much appreciated.
ww
Just a bit of further elucidation on the Shack page for you Mr. Once:
On the shack site, near the top of the page we are speaking to, there is someone “analyzing” frames from a video. They are pointing to what they see as “evidence of the use of a cloning tool.” This is absurd. A clone tool is used in still photo construction or reconstruction, and has zero use in a digital animation. This person saw such “evidence” in the churning plumes – noticing similar but not exact shapes being repeated.
But in digital animation, replicating fluids or atmospheric effects, the process is done using complex fractal programing, which must be integrated with a three dimensional perspective grid complex. And if there is to be the slightest panning or zooming in and out this grid must be the lead element in the animation of a scene.
Further, if there is to be interaction with background elements {such as the building} these buildings cannot be simple still images used for a matte painting. The buildings would have to be constructed in a complex CAD program, and those results imported into the perspective grid as well. And then the interaction between the the fractal animations of the churning smoke and fire effects would have to be integrated in a new layer so that the animations of any destruction of the CAD built elements worked smoothly and believably together.
In 2001 the version of Photoshop available didn’t even have tri-element perspective capabilities in the cloning tool. So even doctoring still frames such as the ones under discussion would have been unmanageable in Photoshop in other than ‘hand painting’ or single perspective cloning.
I hope this clears some areas of this topic up for you.
Again, I see the whole effort there as misguided for a penumbra of reasons.
ww
2012-02-19
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
You need to take your criticism over to Clues Forum where it might do some good.
Photoshop is what ordinary people use. Thanks to Lucas, Spielberg, Bay, and others, Hollywood even in 2001 had more sophisticated software tools than that. Don’t lead us astray.
Mr. Shack’s crew has a grand agenda: take all 9/11 imagery off of the table. Hurts all conspiracies theories even those of the govt, not just Dr. Wood. He won’t succeed, but he will raise lots of doubts.
Mr. Once, You say:
“Photoshop is what ordinary people use. Thanks to Lucas, Spielberg, Bay, and others, Hollywood even in 2001 had more sophisticated software tools than that. Don’t lead us astray.”
That was the whole point of the first portion of my post in the exposition on digital animation and the uselessness of the discussion of a “clone tool” in the discussion on Shacks site.
Mr. Shack’s proposition is preposterous, I am not wasting my time on his forum. I was simply trying to help you out here in my explanations. Arguing with Shack would be as fruitful as arguing with Albury Smith, circular argumentation in a closed maze.
You want to know who the dissemblers are on the questions of 9/11, you have two of them in your sights: Wood and Shack. It is just a ploy that one disputes the other, the whole purpose of the game is endless circular debate.
You’r chasing your tail Mr. Once.
ww
As long as individuals argue about opinions of speculations of rumors or whatever the latest set of talking points are, they will never know what happened and will only be promoting a cover-up. This is how a cover-up works. Now the truth is known to the readers of Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook. Those covering it up should be held accountable. After all, it is the cover up that has enabled what has transpired since 9/11, not what happened on 9/11. So the cover up of 9/11 has been a far worse crime than 9/11 itself. Remember, the truth is known and is knowable. What should be done about those covering it up? Should they face a firing squad or spend life in prison?
Read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph.D. and empower yourself.
Mr. Goldstein says:
“What should be done about those covering it up? Should they face a firing squad or spend life in prison?”
This is a very interesting point – one that may have great bearing upon yourself at some point in the future.
“Those who believe in absurdities are capable of atrocities.”~Goethe
Are you yourself culpable for believing in scientific absurdities? You would answer ‘of course not’ and then go into your promotion of this book again. You will not admit there is a controversy involving the scientific expertise of this woman. From what I gather from your remarks so far, you do not seem capable of grasping what is at the root of these controversies, or you have simply hand waved them – as you have taken no opportunity to address them other than to assert that the other side is “covering-up”. So far you are relying upon ‘ARGUMENTUM AD VERECUNDIAM’ – wherein you assert the authority of Judy Wood for your position.
Until and unless you can show the veracity of Wood and her assertions, you are making a circular argument, that being; “it is true because she says so, because if she says so it is true.”
I would advise that you consider educating yourself in critical thinking Mr. Goldstein.
ww
Day ago yesterday. (An Amish phrase for two days ago.) I received the nicest compliment while waiting in line at one of the financial institutions I do business with. A customer being serviced looked up and saw me waiting then exclaimed in his deep booming voice to everyone within earshot , “That guy over there is not only rich but he’s a really nice guy too!”. (Wealth is relative and if your happiness is based solely on accumulating it you will never be happy. There are other riches besides man-made ones.) The customer making the remark was someone I had met while working out in the weight room at a local gym 12 years ago. He’s a retired pro-football player and was working as a supervisor there. Even though he strikes a very imposing figure he’s a compassionate and loving “Gentile Giant”. He’s now on my list of people who will receive a gift copy of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, B.S.,M.S., Ph. D. For bulk orders, send your request to book@wheredidthetowersgo.com
What a transparent jerk you are Goldstein – why don’t you set up a kiosk in the friggin bank instead of pandering your wears here?
As far as I can tell Mr. McKee puts op this blog as a marketplace of ideas and commentary, not a trading post for passerby salesmen.
You insult everyone’s intelligence here trying to pass yourself off as anything but a book salesman. If you are ‘rich’ why don’t you advertise on your own dime and own time instead of ours?
For myself personally I am henceforth putting you on PERMANENT IGNORE.
ww
Mr. Goldstein,
Hybridrogue1 beat me to it but I also am no longer interested in reading book pitches, whether for gifts or not. I’m only interested in arguments based on research and evidence. Simply doing it “buy the book” isn’t going to fly anymore. Tell us WHY her research is so compelling to you, and skip the gift ideas.
It’s your sandbox. If you do not posses the intelligence to understand WHY you have to read the textbook for yourself, there is nothing much more I can do. Enjoy the rest of your life.
Mr. Goldstein,
No, there’s nothing more you can do. I’ll try to push ahead the best I can given my limited intelligence.
P.S. Candlesticks make a great wedding gift…
The Bush cousin as one of the judges! Very much in our face. Why was the cousin given this trial? To quote Mr. Brian Good: “Because they could. To prove to us, they can do anything they damn well please, and the public can’t do anything about it.”
This is why it is okay today after the 10th anniversary to enlighten the masses with “shock-and-awe, Baby!” Anyone wanting to know the truth should follow several of those “irresponsible” conspiracy theory rabbit holes into their more concealed recesses. More than likely, the hole will be lined in nuggets of truth regarding their methods and how they represent such audacity. This trial — and Dr. Wood’s — primes the judicial pump to assure that no court will ever spend time with nuggets of truth mined, refined, and re-purposed from those endeavors, “Because they could. To prove to us, they can do anything they damn well please, and the public can’t do anything about it.”
So we really got nothing to loose by “shock-and-awe, Baby!” and going for the gusty in conspiracy theories.
This same tactic of calling a challenge to government complicity, a “frivolous lawsuit” was used to destroy the Christic Institute back during the days of Iran/Contra. The added complicity of the court was not as blatant as this, with Walker presiding on this case. Recusal rules are so blatantly disparaged in this case as to make the sane wince.
I am in firm agreement with Adam Syed, there will be no justice from this criminal system. It must be overthrown – it is beyond corrupt, the parasite has completely devoured the host, all that is left is a draconian zombie named Despotism.
Seemingly we are entering the valley of the Shadow of Death.
The clock is frantically ticking in fast forward, as if it has been over-wound, exponential complexity arises like some sort of living entity…”the center cannot hold…things fall apart.”
That old Chinese curse is written on the subway walls.
ww
I think there is something wrong with the idea of fining someone for bringing a frivolous lawsuit that they have been allowed to take it to court in the first place, since presumably the details of the suit have been presented to the court beforehand. I think there has to be some way to prevent people taking frivolous lawsuits or the courts time would be taken up with people just looking for publicity for various causes.
On April Gallop’s case I think the case presented was ridiculous speculative nonsense and I wouldn’t disagree that it was a total waste of time presenting it to any court and she was foolish to listen to some lawyer who should have known better that to present such a rambling and implausible case. What happened to first responders after the clean up in NY is what the 911 truth movement should be campaigning to do something about, these are people who have suffered in the wake of 911 and all of this ‘inside job’ stuff does nothing to help their cause.
Mr. Wright,
Speaking for the ‘first responders’ you say;
“…these are people who have suffered in the wake of 911 and all of this ‘inside job’ stuff does nothing to help their cause.”
But Mr. Wright, what this position fails to take into account is that there are so many more who have and are continuing to suffer in the “wake of 9/11”. It is this exceedingly narrow bandwidth of ‘compassion’ that you offer that disturbs me – it lends a sensation of the disingenuous to your comments, rather than a sense of a ‘humane spirit’ that you might suppose it does.
In the “wake of 9/11” the Western Empire has laid waste to vast areas of the Middle East, much of the area contaminated by the radiation of DU, as well as active nuclear weapons. Hundreds of thousand of people have been murdered in needless, criminal wars of aggression carried out by the US and it’s proxy cohorts. The term “in the wake of” may be used, but it is more to the point and of higher accuracy to say that, “the PRETEXT of 9/11,” has been used for such unlawful invasions and occupations.
It goes without saying that you consider the issues of 9/11 truth to be, “ridiculous speculative nonsense,” as that is the whole reason that you haunt these web sites and blogs. While at the same time you fail to acknowledge what ridiculous speculative nonsense your accepted frame of the current sociopolitical paradigm is. Again you prove yourself a prime example of what it means to be well adjusted in a pathological society.
ww
Was it speculative nonsense that they all knew a plane was flying towards the Pentagon but no effort was made to evacuate the building? She had to have surgeries for her injuries and the government wouldn’t even pay for them.
Claiming that Muslim fundamentalists were behind 9/11 is the speculative nonsense. The only thing that might point to the case being a waste of time is that the outcome was predetermined from the start.
If the lawsuit is indeed frivolous and if one can be blamed and/or punished for bringing a frivolous lawsuit to the attention of the courts, then those who allowed the allegedly frivolous case should the first ones to be dealt with. But then as a modern Mark Antony might say , Judges are honourable men.
If 911 wasn’t an inside job why wouldn’t the government help the 1st responders?
I would have thought they’d help them if only to keep the subject from getting publicity. As for doing the right thing, we know where they stand on that.
This is exactly what happened to Danny Sheehan and the Christic Institute
that sued Richard Secord and the Iran-Contra felons. The corrupt judges
ruled the case was frivilous and sanctioned them with such a huge fine that
the Institute had to close its doors. But this was to be expected. We’re in
a zero sum game. They only win if we give up, which we will not do…
Barbara, “corrupt” is NOT the word to use when describing the legal mechanism in place to shield USGov from having to reveal their false flag attacks on innocent Americans.
The proper phrase is “broad adherence to the STATES SECRETS PRIVILEGE as legal means to destroy or otherwise obstruct evidence which if admitted, would reveal treasonous acts and/or other high crimes committed by USGov citizens, officials, agents, employees, military, contractors, etc.
PEACE
s/david
I agree. This movement will never go away and never give up.
Adam Syed says, “I think a mass global revolution, on a spiritual and knowledge level as well as economic, is the only thing that can trump all this corruption. I’m really convinced at this point that the “push for a new investigation” is like attacking a tank with a toothpick.”
There is a little rhyme about the nail that the farrier left out of the horse’s shoe such that the horse lost the shoe and because of that one nail the war was lost. Then too is the story of the straw that broke the camel’s back. It is the idea of a “tipping point”.
I am very much in favor of and see the need for a global revolution, and I work for it, that’s the key, each of us doing our incremental bit to move the world in that direction, towards the tipping point of the truth. Gandhi said something to the effect of, “What you must do will seem small, but you must do it.” That is why we must continue to “push for a new investigation.” The comments of the commissioners themselves demand it. We can’t continue to base global policies based on the lies.
George, we don’t need a “global revolution,” all we need to do is eliminate STATES SECRET PRIVILEGES in courts worldwide.
Case-in-point is Operation GLADIO. For over 40 years, NATO and CIA committed 100s of bloody/violent false flag attacks on innocent people throughout Europe falsely blaming “radical communists.” Whenever survivors of these CIA-NATO-GLADIO false flag attacks sued for damages, courts in respective countries where the false flag attacks occurred prohibited evidence from being admitted in Court under their respective STATES SECRETS PRIVILEGE laws.
GLADIO was only exposed when Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga, revealed the existence of Operation Gladio for the world to see/hear what monsters the CIA really were and how many thousands of innocent people died horrible, violent deaths as a result of CIA false flag attacks throughout Europe.
Revolutions need not be violent at all. But getting to the truth behind after 9/11 might well be a sysiphusian task. I mean, look at Kennedy’s assassination.
2 or 3 of the perps went on to become presidents for heaven’s sake.
The peaceful re-ovulation is going to need a different mind-flex.
Vivek
http://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2012/01/23/watershed-day-may-this-pour-through-a-million-pairs-of-eyes/
The ONLY thing standing between the USGov 9/11 false flag perpetrators being dragged out of their homes by angry mobs is the STATES SECRETS PRIVILEGE.
As long as UGGov has the STATES SECRETS PRIVILEGE in place, anything/everything they do in terms of committing false flag attacks on innocent people everywhere, cannot be disclosed in any court or congressional hearing.
Youtube “STATES SECRETS PRIVILEGE”
C-SPAN “State Secrets Privilege Bill – C-SPAN Video Library”
Our US Courts have betrayed us. They allow false flag attacks on Americans by disallowing admission evidence to prove false flag attacks occur through the STATES SECRET PRIVILEGE.
David F. Petrano, Esq., member, US District Court for the Middle District of Florida
Good to see an attorney at law talking about dragging ‘perpetrators’ from their homes because the STATES SECRETS PRIVILEGE prevents disclosure of evidence that he doesn’t have but which would prove that they are guilty. I see you have an interest in horses but just in case you ever get a cart , it goes after the horse not before it.
You have misinterpreted my message. It goes like this.
Invocation of the STATES SECRETS DOCTRINE by USGov attormeys in US Courts is how/why USGov perpetrators of 9/11 false flag attack on America have not been dragged from their homes to face justice.
Get rid of the STATES SECRET DOCTRINE and I assure you, if the US Marshals Office does not drag the USGov perpetrators of 9/11 out of their homes in the same manner as the US Army dragged Hermann Goering and his co-conspirators out of his home in 1945, angry mobs of Americans will gladly accommodate.
As per the STATES SECRETS PRIVILEGE:
The failure to address the issue of flawed statutory structure that this insertion of a ‘blank page’ into any public hearing by caveat and pernicious illegitimate authority is repugnant to the constitution, both technically and in it’s ‘spirit’ – that being the aims and results of the principles it is meant to accomplish.
“It cannot be presumed that any clause in the constitution is intended to be without effect; and therefore such construction is inadmissible, unless the words require it.” Id. 174.
Chief Justice Marshall, Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 137 (1803)
That the putrid results of these activities are NOT ENOUGH to prove its vile nature – because it cannot be PROVEN in public, because of the in camera nature of its procedure, is such a glaring example of the pretext for such legislative missives as the STATES SECRETS PRIVILEGE. To say that this single statutory effect is meant to void and annul any justice provided by the constitution within it’s body or in the amendments by institutional caveat is more than plain to any sane assessment.
It should be clear to all but the toadiest of apologists, that the STATES SECRETS PRIVILEGE is a blunt instrument for despotism.
ww
Just claiming there is no evidence doesn’t make it so. Where’s the evidence that the official story is true? The content of Mohamed Atta’s trunk? A fake bin Laden “confession” tape? Cell phone calls from 30,000 feet? It is the government that must prove its case, which it has not.
This points out why the AE911truth path into the courts would likely end at a dead end. Whereas a citizens 9/11 commission campaign could be enforced by a state initiative. It is not a good day for justice in this JUST US mentality of making myths real. I posted a link to this page from http://FlybyNews.com Thank you Craig for highlighting this crisis in justice we are undergoing.
The lawsuit defeated itself. While having a relative (Bush’s) as judge is blatantly wrong, that in itself is probably good= out in the open flipping the public a “bird” by the judiciary. Proves complete arrogance on the part of the judiciary.
The judiciary is not completely “arrogant” as you say. They are gagged/blindfolded by the STATES SECRET PRIVILEGE from hearing such things as false flag attacks on innocent Americans, the moment USGov invokes the privilege by means of a one-sentence, verified motion attacking subject matter jurisdiction as involving “states secrets.
STATES SECRET PRIVILEGE is why/how attorneys representing 9/11 victims have never been able to depose Cheney, Rumsfeld, Ashcroft, Rice, key FBI+FAA officials, etc., in suits brought by 9/11 victims’ families.
STATES SECRET PRIVILEGE is an evidentiary rule that prohibits introduction of “classifed” relevant evidence, to the extent 9/11 cases are typically dismissed for lack of admissible evidence, because the subject of discovery sought was determined by USGov to be a STATES SECRET.
i urge you to C-SPAN “STATE SECRETS PRIVILEGE BILL” and hear Patricia McGowan. Chief Judge (Former)U.S. Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit @50:57 tell Congress how the STATES SECRET PRIVILEGE is grossly abused by USGov, and needs to be codified to prohibit STATES SECRETE PRIVILEGE from keeping classified information from US Courts, as a matter of due process.
In sum, the courts are as curious about WTC-7 as we are, but they cannot even hear/see evidence of planned detonation, etc., once a USGov attorney invokes the privilege by simple motion.
That’s a good point. Having Mr. Walker in charge eliminates any possibility that a fair verdict could result. At least this way everyone knows that the legal system can’t be trusted to do the right thing.
Craig, I believe the “random assignments” M.O. whereby these 9/11 cases somehow wind-up before someone like Justice John M. Walker, is something that has evolved since the US 11th Circuit reversed U. S. District Court Judge James D. Whittemore’s order that barred the Tampa Sports Authority from performing unlawful mass suspicionless pat-down searches of everyone entering the stadium for NFL games.
In a nutshell, US judges like Whittemore, who no doubt know this post 9/11 police state we live in is a bunch of BS, have simply opted-out of hearing these 9/11cases altogether, be it stadium pat-downs predicated on 9/11 hysteria, or the Pentagon 9/11 case of Ms. Gallop and her severely injured child.
Flush away the USGov’s power to obstruct/destroy evidence of criminal conduct based on STATES SECRET PRIVILEGE, and you have a better, safer world. As it stands, the STATES SECRET PRIVILEGE puts us back pre-Magna Carta.
“Flush away the USGov’s power to obstruct/destroy evidence of criminal conduct based on STATES SECRET PRIVILEGE, and you have a better, safer world. As it stands, the STATES SECRET PRIVILEGE puts us back pre-Magna Carta.”~David Petrano
As my previous comments will show, I am in complete agreement with this sentiment. But as we see with the further legislation, such as the recent NDAA 2012, not only is the will of Congress and the executive to ‘flush’ away such pernicious governmental ultra vires’, but that they are intent upon taking things much further down the road to utter tyranny.
I am just wondering if you have any idea where the handle to the flusher might be in our present circumstance. Obviously not the courts, as you/we have amply pointed out. And obviously such redress is unavailable from the other two branches, nor the so-called Forth Estate, which has proven itself merely a propaganda organ, a Public Relations Regime for the Power Elite.
For myself I see this as beyond a matter of truth in information. I see it as a mass-psychological problem, one in-which simply making rational sense has no effect upon those infected by the black enchantments of high tech mind control. Indeed we have a prime example here on this thread in Mr. Wright. The question would be, what would it take to move such as he from what is obviously irrational, when his type of rationalizations are so wide spread and widely held, even being sanctioned by the state, academia, mainstream religious organizations and media ?
We seem to face a multi-headed hydra in whatever direction we look. I have plugged away at this problem both in face to face discussions as well as on blogs such as this for the last ten years, and still the same wall of indifference greets me from the largest sector of the population.
It seems that we are in a position of checkmate in a game that is rigged. Many of us have already left the gaming board, seeing the futility is beseeching a tyrannical system for redress.
One does not beg a tyrant for justice, one must demand it. I think this is the only path left at this point. It is my position that this entire system is illegitimate, and as such it must be emphatically reminded of such by any and all who recognize it.
Going into a court of law to play pattycake with demonic golems is the height of foolishness and naivete.
ww
I find it to be very telling that the heavily infiltrated sites like 911blogger, truthaction, etc. seem to put so much emphasis on disparaging Gallop for her view that there was no plane crash, and are pointing to this view as the prime reason as to why the case lost in court, and don’t even seem to acknowledge the REAL elephant in the room: the case was presided over by a Bush cousin!
I swear, the posters at some 9/11 “truth” sites are barely distinguishable anymore from the duhbunkers at JREF.
I think all the fed circuit cts would have ruled the same way, irrespective of the identity of judges, b/c there’s no admissible evidence or testimony to prove Mr Gallop’s allegations
Absent a truthful admission and/or confession that no passenger plane hit the Pentagon, there is no case.
I know I sound like a broken record, but there will never be OK City or 9/11 justice unless USGov is prohibited from using the States Secret Privilege to destroy evidence or obstruct the discovery process.
Imagine if there was a “Rapists Secrecy Privilege” such that no accused rapist could ever be subject to interrogation, fingerprinting, DNA analysis, tissue samples, etc. Sure, you could have anti-rape laws on the books, but how would you ever prove a rape occurred if such a privilege was in place?
The STATES SECRETS PRIVILEGE make it impossible to investigate/prosecute false flag terrorism.
Hey Craig,
It was great to see this very article is now up on Global Research, one resource I constantly monitor. Great to see your coverage spreading. Congratulations.
ww
Hey, thanks for letting me know about that! I submitted it there just a few hours ago. I had submitted my last couple as well but they weren’t picked up.
@hybridrogue,
you stated: “Going into a court of law to play pattycake with demonic golems is the height of foolishness and naivete.”
In response, I say: far too many people in black robes lack the mental capacity to imagine what it was like to be burned alive ala 9/11.
Lack of empathy is the core trait of a psychopath.
Judicial Code of conduct provides for removal if “the judge has a disability seriously interfering with the performance of the judge’s duties, which is, or is likely to become, permanent in nature. . . . ”
As it stands, we are legally obligated to presume a judge is mentally fit to serve until some terrible event or injustice is exposed rebutting that presumption. Therein lays the conundrum.
As I see it, a judge’s mental fitness to serve can be adversely affected from exposure to toxic mold, which is very common in most courthouses. Recently, I started reading up on toxic mold dementia after a Florida judge berated me for about five minutes for wearing a bolo tie in his courtroom.
Mentally unfit judges create havoc, such that mere passing of state Bar Examiners’ character and fitness process and the subsequent judicial nominating commission vetting process do not adequately protect the general population from other perversions of justice as experienced by Ms. Gallop and her seriously injured and permanently disabled child.
Here’s a plan: Require all judges to undergo thorough brain scans, brain MRIs, and neuropsychological testing before and during their respective tenures, to weed out psychopath judges masquerading as normal people. After such examination, require the remaining perceived “normal” judge candidates and judges to learn Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, so as to protect rights of the disabled population (including the rights of judicial applicants and judges rejected as mentally unfit to serve).
see also: “BRAIN SCANS FOR JUDGES?” Florida Bar News Dec 01, 2011, by David F. Petrano Esq.
“BRAIN SCANS FOR JUDGES?” Florida Bar News Dec 01, 2011, by David F. Petrano Esq.
Yes, an excellent idea. As much as it scratches, it scratches well. But that’s not where the itch is.
The problem is a system created by political ponerists – entirely infested by psychopaths. Not at all a new system, but one centuries old, in fact going back into the mists of time to shamanism.
When a cult of psychopaths are in control of a society the trauma induced creates high a population of sociopaths and neurotics – these differ from the psychopath in that their brains are not congenitally deformed, but the personality becomes deformed by the traumatic experience of the coerced obedience to the psychopathic system.
My point being in context to your wonderful idea, is that more than the judges, more than the politician, more than the corporatists, but indeed the entire ruling elite must first be tamed to the point of accepting such a regimen. In a manner of speaking this is a “tall order”.
I can see no remedy beyond some cataclysm to break the system. It may in fact be in the order of things, for the hubris of these maniacs at the wheel has obviously blinded them to the consequences of their actions. The tragedy is in the number of innocents that will share in the horrors these mad men bring upon the planet.
But I think we should advise ourselves wisely and admit that naivete is not innocence. That the many who have gone along to get along share in the responsibility for the coming conflagration, which will only tempered to the degree to which they themselves do as the crisis begins coming to a head.
We are as a race, at the cusp of something – a segue into some new paradigm, those attune can sense it. I won’t burden you or the site with any particular woowoo stories.
For those who understand no proof is needed. For those who don’t no proof will suffice.
ww
I am donating $50 towards the $15000 fine, and hope 300 will do likewise or better, so William Veale will ot have to use his own funds. The sanction will backfire on Bush’s cousin, judge Walker, by bringing more attention and sympathy to the cause of 9/11 Justice.
The military has had Remote Control capabilities since the 1960’s and have advanced as rapidly as computer technology. RC was proposed to JFK in Operation Northwoods.
The plane swapping idea is not necessary to April’s case, and in my opionion detracts from. it. It is a much more plausible theory that the 4 planes were pre-fitted with enhanced remote control capability, with lock-out of communications and navigation.
The pilots could not control the planes nor call for help. The “terrorists” were probably confidential informant patsies who thought they were taking a flight to their next Muslim infiltration mission in Los Angeles and were as surprised as the pilots, crew, and other passengers.
I very much agree with Adam Syed that “the “push for a new investigation” is like attacking a tank with a toothpick. I’m starting to wonder if this push isn’t a means (from the cognitively infiltrated portion of the movement) to keep truthers from acknowledging that the conspiracy we are facing goes way beyond 9/11 truth. It is total, encompassing journalism, judiciary, churches, universities, police, the healthcare industry, movies/music, publishing, sports, and on and on. By calling for a new investigation, we push the fairy tale idea that a meaningful investigation is possible under such circumstances. It is not.
And I agree with you Sheila Casey, on your agreement with Adam Syed. The problem as you frame it is systemic, and the system is global, and as all encompassing as you describe.
An investigation into 9/11 has already taken place, and those who have followed it to it’s core, have found exactly that overarching ‘conspiracy’ which is at the heart of this system.
The dilemma this unveils is as awesome as the revelation that shines the light upon it.
We might say that we are in quite a ‘fix’.
ww
I believe us “troofers” are in a similar situation as the “beatniks’ shortly before BEATLES, civil rights riots, war protests, etc.
Rest assured, present day teenagers are going to tune-in, turn-on and drop-out from the “war on terror” mindset, in the same manner as the average 1962 “Wally Cleaver” clean-cut kid next door did, when all of a sudden “Wally” was sporting long hair and protesting Viet Nam in 1967.
Today’s youth are hip to the fact 9/11 was a USGov black operation, no different than “Operation Gladio,” “Operation Northwoods,” etc. They are also hip to USGov disinformation specialists.
Here’s something my 16 year old niece e-mailed me.
Uncle David, google the below USGov publication:
“FM 3-05.301 (FM 33-1-1)
MCRP 3-40.6A Psychological Operations Tactics, Techniques, and Procedures”
Like the early 1960s beatniks, lets continue the dialogue, teach our children well and embrace the chaos that’s sure to come.
Sheila,
That is absolutely spot on and the conclusion many of us reach once we spend a couple of years really reading about and thinking about this stuff.
> I swear, the posters at some 9/11 “truth” sites are barely distinguishable anymore from the duhbunkers at JREF.
It is all very Animal Farm ……
And to think: Freeman Fly, a fine person, imagines a ‘conspiracy within the conspiracy’ for American Nuremburg trials. Not.
The case belongs in military tribunal. She was Army and the defendants in military capacity.
Look, turn the tables. They say war is everywhere; granny is a threat; we fondle your kids to protect them; torture is good; lawyers are luxury.
Fine. Get some decent military officers to hang them under military code. If they won’t talk, apply thumbscrews. Confessions under torture now have standing, right?
The Fulford scam shows what they fear. In that con, they floated ‘truth and reconciliation’ panels. The perps would admit mass murder but get away scot-free. Admire the chutzpah, then retch.
I’d like an Iranian wet ops team to kidnap the perps to the Hague (thanks for the idea, Mossad!) with Islamic nations arranging lots of local demonstrators to ‘occupy’ the place with photoplacards of wartorn babies until justice happens.
The comment by ‘APJ’ that the 9/11 investigation belongs in a military tribunal would have worked for Bush was in office, as he invoked his Article II commander-in-chief military powers to unconstitutionally attempt to justify every violation of the Constitution, U.S. law and international law in the wake of 9/11. As the California delegate to the 9/11 Truth convention in Philadelphia, I called for Bush’s court martial for this reason, which was taken up by Bob Bowman, who was also a delegate and speaker at that convention, inside the Pentagon shortly thereafter; and not long after that the former military commander in Iraq called a special press conference for Washington’s military correspondents in which he explicitly stated that a military officer would face court martial for doing what Bush did to lie the country into war with Iraq. The military system would still work for any military officers who were complicit in the 9/11 planning and/or attacks who are still in uniform, but many have now retired.
I discussed this matter with April Gallop back in early May, 2011, on a forum which doesn’t ban people simply for disagreeing with the moderator and actually making sense, Craig:
http://coto2.wordpress.com/2011/04/28/bush-court-dismisses-911-suit-against-bush-officials-orders-sanctions/
The US legal system recognizes the principle of judicial estoppel, i.e. it does not permit a plaintiff to win and collect damages based on one set of facts, and then refute the essential facts in the first case with contradictory allegations the second time around. Ms. Gallop had already won a judgment against American Airlines based on her and her son’s injuries sustained from the crash of American Flight 77 into the Pentagon, so in addition to being nonsensical and completely unsubstantiated by any evidence, the subsequent claim that no airliner crashed there violates this legal principle.
It’s actually Gallop, Veale, Cunningham, and Ndanusa who presume to be above the law, and no competent jurist, regardless of his last name, relatives, etc., would have found any differently, but Veale, et al. have been kind enough to furnish an address where you can send them money. If they’d like to appeal this matter again, their next address may be a federal institution, which is where they’d be now if justice had really been served.
EDITOR’S NOTE: Mr. Albury was banned from this site several months ago, but in publishing this comment I am giving him a chance to begin making a positive contribution to discussions on this blog (there is absolutely no requirement that he agree with me, as he has alleged in the past). But he is on a short leash. See my response to him below.
Mr. Albury,
Here you are again. If I allow you to begin posting comments here again (readers should know that Albury was banned several months ago), it will be on my terms. No, that doesn’t mean I want to censor your “facts,” but it does mean that I won’t allow you to derail threads on this blog and deliberately lead the discussion in circles. In other words, you won’t become the centre of attention here. And I won’t put up with more sarcastic ad hominem attacks from you about journalistic standards and “censorship.”
I urged you before to start your own blog (as did Senor El Once) so that you can tell us what you think DID happen instead of just taking shots at everyone. You have predictably declined. It’s so much easier to attack what others have done than it is to actually create something yourself, isn’t it?
So, you’re on probation. This is more than 911blogger did for me after they banned me (10 days after I signed up). If you keep harping on one point (how you think April Gallop and her lawyer should be in jail, for example) then you will be asking for a second banning. Make rational arguments based on fact, and perhaps we can turn over a new leaf.
But before we hear from you on any other topic, I have a question I’d like you to answer for our readers. What is your overall position on the events of 9/11? What happened, and what is your purpose in spending so much time on an issue you don’t believe in? Start by letting us know where you’re coming from and we’ll go from there.
“The US legal system recognizes the principle of judicial estoppel, i.e. it does not permit a plaintiff to win and collect damages based on one set of facts, and then refute the essential facts in the first case with contradictory allegations the second time around.”~Albury
You have one very troubling fact to deal with this issue of ‘judicial estoppel’ as having bearing on the current case discussed. That being that the court itself accepted the case knowing the brief offered by the claimants. If the court was going to site estoppel, that proper time was at the time of the filing. The court in taking the case, therefore has given up this option by their own sense of judgement.
Your continuing to argue for the merits of judicial estoppel is an argument contrary to the history of the cases as they in fact proceeded.
I would add on a general note, those who continue to disregard the blatant conflict of interest of Judge Walker, and his failure to recuse himself from the case are being irrational. That the legal profession, even including the other judges on the panel did not raise loud and sustained objection to this clear breach of judicial ethics says as much as needs to be said about the legitimacy of this system – it has none.
ww
Albury, you say,
“If they’d like to appeal this matter again, their next address may be a federal institution, which is where they’d be now if justice had really been served.”
I have to say, that this assertion that, “Gallop, Veale, Cunningham, and Ndanusa…presume to be above the law”, is cheeky in the extreme given the blatant manifestation of IMPUNITY assumed by the actors within the system.
Just the instance of Judge Walker getting away with such an egregious lack of ethics by failing to recuse himself, and the added lack of reaction to this blatant and criminal behavior by anyone else in positions of ‘authority’, proves beyond any reasonable doubt to any sane observer that you are making an entirely spurious proposition in asserting that Gallop et al deserve incarceration for their attempts to reveal crimes of the state.
I have reminded you on several occasions that as an ‘accessory after the fact’, you are yourself culpable for such persistent defense of this criminal syndicate. Never forget that it was not only politicos, military men, and jurists that were at trial in Nuremberg, but propagandists and other toadies as well, who had to face their own music they had played.
ww
An excellent report. Very sad, indeed. However, if more and more Americans become informed about what really happened on 9/11, eventually there will be a tipping point for truth. Hopefully this will not take 50 years.
I agree. We just have to keep pushing.
Thank you KP and hybridrogue1. I also appreciated your analogy hybridrogue1: “the parasite has completely consumed the host.”
To illustrate my contention that the conspiracy (and no, I’m not afraid of that word) includes the movie biz, please watch the first half of this Utube vid:
http://youtu.be/hguXWqHEkMo
Even after four years of in depth research into the realm of suppressed knowledge, I was surprised to see how the all seeing eye (eye in a triangle, sometimes atop a pyramid) appears over and over again in movies and tv shows where it has no relevance to the story. It’s on a T-shirt, cab, jewelry, hat, wall decorations and logos, in shows such as Lara Croft Tomb Raider, The Simpsons, South Park, The Handmaid’s Tale, Halloweentown, Being There, and others.
There are also numerous references to 9/11 in shows prior to 9/11, such as the passport for Neo in The Matrix, showing him born on 9/11/01. Some don’t fit for me, but most do.
The 2nd half of that vid will be old hat to most of us, but the first was an eye opener. There is just no logical reason for these images to be in all these shows.
This is an area I’ve done a lot of research on, and you’re right – there are dozens and dozens of movies with these symbols. I believe Hollywood is an instrumental tool in conditioning the masses to have the beliefs the elites want.
I also believe that 9/11 specifically was an event that movies conditioned us to accept (in other words accept the official story). There is a clear indication of foreknowledge in many films made prior to 9/11. And that Simpsons episode (when Bart holds up an ad for a $9 trip to New York – and the 9 is right beside a silhouette of the twin towers, forming a 911) is clearly not a coincidence.
A fascinating subject that I’ll be writing a lot more about in the future.
Mr. McKee,
Perhaps you are already familiar with the concept of “The Revelation of the Method”? It is a ‘Power Doctrine’ – a sort of contract with the victims of enchantment. They are shown openly many things, and are assumed by such to be ‘aware’ of what is going on. “Ignorance is no excuse under the Law”…What law? is the question.
“Do what thy wilt shall be the whole of the Law,”~ Alistair Crowley…hmmm???
I have studied perception manipulation for many years, beginning with the psychological aspects as revealed by Edward Bernays and Walter Lippmann. But a thorough study eventually leads one to what we call pre-scientific societies, shamanism, and eventually the techniques employed by the religions. This study demands polymathematical investigation, and can be exhausting if not taken in bite sized pieces. It also takes a scientific mind [R. Brain] and a signtific mind [R. Brain] working in harmony as a holistic mind.
This holistic mind set is the greatest danger to the Money Changers, this is why propaganda has set out to fragment such a mind and dull the thinking of the majority. It goes far beyond Mussolini’s dictum, “keep them just smart enough to read their orders.” The goal is total enchantment.
ww
Hi again Sheila,
Yes…Hollywood. Did you know that the magic wands of the Druids were crafted from the wood of the holly tree {holy tree}? Yes, I actually have such that I am making myself. As I have noted in other threads here I was a special effects artist in Hollywood for quite awhile. There is an interesting ambiance in that world that tends towards a subtle initiation in the mysteries.
I will say straight out what I think humanity is up against; ritual black magic. I know this is seemingly far out in the cornfield for many, but those who control the world believe in Kaballistic symbolic mysticism. They are organized in the manner of secret societies. Yes I speak to the ILLUMINATI.
I began my study of the national security state long ago – some forty years before the 9/11 event, which is the culmination of many others in a long sequence. It was in delving into Paperclip that I began to realize the occult underpinning of Nazism, especially when investigating the German rocket scientist brought into the US and placed in positions at NASA.
An interlocking aspect of this can be found in the American rocket scientists, especially highlighting John Parsons Lab, or JPL, now known as Jet Propulsion Laboratories. Parsons was a alchemist/magician with many occult connections. Alistair Crowley, L. Ron Hubbard, and too many to rattle off the top of my head.
At any rate, the topic is too vast a tangled web to relate on a blog comment. But I will say that these aspects to 9/11 are as much a key to the mystery as any technical or political investigation.
And comprehending this is vital to understanding what lies just ahead in the near future.
ww
I’m in the middle of reading The Rise of the Fourth Reich by Jim Marrs, which gives a very good overview of how Nazi power survived in the U.S. after the war. So few people realize how much the Nazis were admired by some of the richest and most powerful men in America going back to the early 1930s.
Interesting that you mention L. Ron Hubbard in connection with the occult. I have some family members involved in Scientology and it has nearly bankrupted them, in addition to intensifying their negative qualities. They mailed me some of the books which had an arrogant, judgemental tone; I didn’t read past the initial pages.
A big reason why the case failed is because the evidence presented was incoherent and contradictory with little evidence to back it up.
From what i gather, the reason the fine was also levied against Veale and co. was because he made a stink about Walker, insisting on a conflict of interest.
I think Veale and Gallop walked into this of their own volition.
I have spent many hours on the phone with April. We did our best to work with her and provide her with a comprehensive case of what happened and what didn’t happen. Veale chose to offer up a hodge podge of theories and little focus on the major evidence which is the north side flight path and the problematic alleged black box data which is irreconcilable with the impact.
I, for one, have no interest in helping Veale out of the mess he created for himself.
C”mon Marquis,
“That trick never works”~ J. Rocket Squirrel to Bulwinkle.
By that I mean, there will be nothing – NOTHING, revealed in a US court of law as per 9/11. It is simply verboten. You could walk in with video of the plane flying over and a missile hitting the Pentagon, and all you would accomplish would be your own execution.
If my tone is callous, it merely matches yours.
ww
The truth hurts.
There was no missile. That is the first misconception.
Overhwhelmingly corroborated eyewitnesses in a position to determine which side of the gas station the plane flew on certainly are acceptable in any US court system.
All you need is the right person doing the suing ie a family member or pentagon victim 😉 and the right lawyer willing to hyperfocus on the strongest evidence ie the north of Citgo flight path witnesses and the problematic alleged black box data.
There is no need to mention your callous tone. You obviously can’t contain your frustration. I can relate.
Mr. Marquis,
You misconstrued my message. It had nothing to do with our conceptions of what happened at the Pentagon. My point is that if you had an open and shut case, with all of the evidence lined up and all of the procedural niceties covered, you would still not receive a just hearing.
This is not simply opinion as it is based in historical precedent. In maters of import to the national security state there will be no challenge to diktat. It’s that simple.
ww
Dear Mr. Marquis wrote:
You are correct that no missile was launched from the plane or flew parallel to the plane. Ruling out missiles prematurely might be a misconception.
I call your attention to the construction trailer that housed (supposedly) a backup generator. Instead of being neatly parked parallel or perpendicular to the Pentagon, it was angled toward the impact hole. According to the OGT, the low-flying aircraft scraped this construction trailer before impact and knocked it askew but aligned with the impact hole from any neat, square parking of other things, like the spools. Remember how those nifty animated 757 impact videos always had the plane grazing the construction trailer and knocking it into its alignment with the alleged flight path. Of course, the real fly-over plane was a good 100′ above the construction trailer, so its skewed positioning was done on purpose beforehand.
Thus, in addition to the explosives already planted in the Pentagon, I speculate that they launched a missile from the construction generator that pierced through several Ring walls leaving that round 6′ hole on an inner ring.
The number of pictures of this construction trailer aren’t that many. The other day, I had my hat handed to me by Mr. Simon Shack regarding evidence of tainted images of the destruction aftermath. I vaguely recall some of the strange footage of the Pentagon relating to the efforts of a fire truck and how not only did its spraying mask the scene at the hole, but also in cases looks suspicious from a video manipulation point of view.
@hybridrogue:
“you could walk in with video of the plane flying over and a missile hitting the Pentagon, and all you would accomplish would be your own execution.”
You are absolutely correct. I express the same sentiment whenever I pass through courthouse security, I generally say: “I didn’t knock those towers down, USGov did.”
Ultra Vires – Beyond Law.
Anyone who has read and understands the Constitution – and that isn’t difficult, it is written in plain English, so anyone who understands it is capable and should see at a mere glance, that the ‘federal government’ is DC is ultra vires, and illegitimate. The prime aspects of this are the claims of executive war powers, and the assertion of executive privilege that is simply a constitutional hoax. These issues have been with us since the 1950s, and have simply been ignored. Of course this means that there is no legitimate government of the United States, that the nation has been ruled by a criminal junta for at least half a century.
It is merely myth that maintains this charade. So to say that “the courts are corrupted” is a pale and weak argument as the courts, along with the other branches simply have no legitimate authority. It is all style and form without substance, a hollow song and dance.
It’s only make believe.
ww
By the way Marquis,
I am familiar with your work, and I find a lot of merit in it. I am not arguing against your position on the Pentagon case. So let me applaud you on the fine work you have done.
I am speaking to a larger general issue here, that looms beyond the 9/11 event and goes much deeper into the Amerikan dilemma.
ww
Craig, I would like to link to when get to post a review on that Jim Mars book. Also make sure you watch the film by John Hankey, which also goes into the coup d’etat NAZI political elites. http://thedarklegacy.com/ Eisenhower’s warning was much more serious than most could observe. This is why a truth commission could be our best ally to finally to get the whole truth out. The collective crimes are what must be revealed.
I haven’t seen the film yet, but I’m very anxious to. I imagine it talks about the mysterious “G. Bush” of the CIA who was in Dallas when Kennedy was killed? And the attempted coup involving Prescott Bush and other prominent industrialists in 1934? That failed coup would have installed a fascist government in the U.S. Everyone should know about this.
As I see it, the business of America IS business.
Post 9/11 cover-up and police state tactics do not put me in the mood to buy a new sports car or invest in a business enterprise.
A person would have to be a nuts to buy a big ticket item or invest time/money in any business enterprise knowing of the ‘sneek & peeks, NSLs and probability another “big event” will be staged by our own government as a pretext to more police state + wars.
Sit back and embrace the chaos, b/c the hand dealt us post 9/11 conflicts with the business of America.
Mr. Petrano,
My analysis is that Amerika {no longer America} is now simply the garrison state for the New World Order. In the view of the overlords there are no nations – only Regions. This of course agrees with your assessment, only going some levels deeper.
This has been a very long range plan, to build up the US as a powerful military industrial nation, and then use it as a hammer for building a global empire. The civil population is left a crumbling infrastructure and a maximum panoptic security state.
After all is said and done, perhaps America’s first business should have been Liberty.
ww
@hybridrogue1,
If consumerism and “ordinary guy free enterprise is dead, all that’s left is a struggle to get the stuff we need at Walmart in between hustling a buck waiting for the day we end up on a no-fly list w/ NSLs sent to banks, professional associations MDs, lawyers, priests, etc., telling them we’re no freggin’ good and to cooperate with screwing us, or else . . .
Seriously speaking, does this police state mindset put you in the mood to buy expensive “me” things or set up a business to hustle $ to buy those things?
Pre 9/11, I believe the call on nearly every court case was hinged on how the decision would effect interstate commerce. Whether it was a civil case or criminal, judges hated making decisions that would be bad for business. Post 9/11, do you know of one case that makes you want to engage in commerce? They can spy on is, sneak into our businesses, computers, interfere w/ attorney/client relationships (lawyers DO get NSLs directing them to screw their clients). WTF?
Hey Mr. Petrano,
You’re a lawyer, don’t you think that the interstate commerce clause was stretched like a rubber-band made of naugahyde rending the Constitution in the process?
Frankly I see the whole “consumerism/commercialism” paradigm as part and parcel to what has gone wrong.
“The Viewing Audience” – “The Consumer” – “The Labor Pool” etc. All of these euphemisms taking the place of “The Citizens” – Admiralty Law replacing Constitutional law via statute.
I think your waking up to the police state on 9/11 was a bit tardy, and you have some catching up to do to get a grip on the totality of the program. I don’t say this intending any animus, I am just pointing out that 9/11 opened up a can of worms that takes years to comprehend.
There is a panorama that the 9/11 event fits into as just one part.
Keep your mind open, there is a lot that sounds like fantasy when first encountered, but the history is in the open record – hidden in plain view, as is said.
ww
I would rather embrace potential solutions like direct democracy initiatives.. 99% interest by the world population is not nothing. And is really everything in our collective interests. Chaos is manufactured by the death machine, which is finite to say the least..
http://flybynews.wordpress.com/2011/05/02/new-911-investigation-vs-new-world-order/
New 9/11 Investigation vs New World Order
Thanks for the link to your site Flyby, it looks interesting. I am leaving it up for when I can get to reading the New Investigation piece.
I left a little note there as well.
ww
That’s where you force their hand through public perception. The last thing they want is a spotlight on their apathy, complacency, negligence or association with terms like misprision of treason.
Even though they might not take it seriously, the fact that they are looking at it at all is enough to garner the interest of the public and as open and shut as our evidence is they will have no choice but to treat it fairly at that point.
There is no way that a large passenger jet liner hit the pentagon. The debris field is non existent, no holes for the turbines on each wing, superstructure and all…. even if you believe a 16′ diameter hole sucked a whole airplane wings, luggage and main . No hollow aluminum tube that is the main part of the plane would make a hole that only a war head from high yield explosives would make through hundreds of feet of reinforced concrete. Look at the damage photos post debris, No way a plane made that damage. Just not going to happen like TPTB say it did. American Airlines also says flt 11 never flew on 911. The whole story is a fairy tale and most everyone knows it.
And yes I know that our evidence was includes in the case. But it was barely touched on in any kind of real depth or detail and was couched in the middle of a smorgasbord of contradicting and debunked nonsense.
I was never contacted. Craig was never contacted. The witnesses we interviewed were never contacted. He obviously didn’t understand PFT’s analyses of the data, conflating the NTSB animation with the flyover evidence.
The whole thing sounded like theories mixed in with opinions. There was no technical or forensic strength to the case. It just meandered along sounding like a badly pieced together conspiracy documentary.
We have to attack them smart. We have the evidence now we need a coalition of pentagon families and victims willing to take it to court with the independently corroborated, yet unwitting witnesses we uncovered and a coherent, technically laced summation of the black box data problems.
We accomplish more by doing, rather than talking.
A. Marquis CITI
if you like, I can guide you in that direction, if and only if it involves a 9/11 victim or dependent with a disability, so I can invoke the Rehab Act of 73, Title II ADA claims against state players and their professional licenses, and argue Tennessee v. Lane access to courts and due process stuff.
No one has EVER brought a 9/11 case claiming disability discrimination. Doing so will unlock the key to the STATES SECRET DOCTRINE. I can do this w/ the right client(s).
Even though I think that all of your doing will have as much effect as jousting with windmills, I wish you luck.
I think you are fighting a phantom. The “state” that you envision does not exist. it is a Potemkin Village, a script written by the Public Relations Regime. All of those “officials” you deal with are little more than actors reading scripts handed to them by their controllers. The interconnecting directorate is paying attention to anything touching on 9/11, their agenteur is legion.
There is no way to touch the ones who rule the Valley of the Shadow of Death, but to storm that citadel. On such a journey strong talismans are advised.
ww
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
You said it. My suspicion as well. The hoax runs pretty deep.
@A.Marquis
I agree with your assessment of the April Gallop case – it was a rag-tag of weak inconsistent speculation that brought conspiracy theories about 911, maybe for the first time, up against reality, where evidence can’t just be dismissed because it is the ‘official story’ or given credibility because it contradicts it. It did illustrate for me how when all of this conspiracy evidence is put together, it really doesn’t stand up to scrutiny or have much cohesive logic to it.
I also think, and you won’t be surprised to hear me say it, that the fate of a court case based on the CIT theory would have just as little chance of success, and I think it would be foolish to believe otherwise. Plaintiffs don’t get to choose what evidence is heard or how it is presented and they don’t decide the verdict, and it is that reality you would be up against.
“All of this conspiracy evidence” has “no cohesive logic” to it? Could you be more specific? Tell me where the logic is in the official story. Truthers are (or should be) interested in showing how bogus the OS. And this has been done over and over. I’m sorry you aren’t capable of seeing through this cover story.
It is possible for anyone to challenge the approach or the legal strategy employed in the Gallop case, but that’s very different from saying that the case was based on speculation as opposed to reality.
Mr. Wright,
You say;
“Plaintiffs don’t get to choose what evidence is heard or how it is presented and they don’t decide the verdict, and it is that reality you would be up against.”
This is all true, but you left so very much out of what the “reality” is that we are up against. In fact as I have asserted in every comment to or about you: You haven’t the slightest grasp of ‘reality’. This is obvious in that you cling to an official story that is clearly absurd, that has never been backed up by evidence of any sort whatsoever.
You use the term “conspiracy theories” constantly while failing to recognize [or admit ] that the ‘official story’ is indeed itself a conspiracy theory. You are so hot for “evidence” that stands scrutiny for the 9/11 “conspiracy theorists”, that in fact is presented in legion all around you.
And you answer back, “where?”…Lol
Let me ask you then to point to a single point of evidence proven by the ‘official story’. Name one thing that they have proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
ww
“16′ diameter hole”
Even though the damage is inconsistent with a 757, there is more than a “16′ diameter hole”
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/imgs/hole11.jpg
@A. Marquis CITI,
Are there any 9/11 victims who are designated Native Americans with disabilities for purposes of invoking the Rehab Act of ’73 and the ADA?
I’m not joking.
Dear Mr. Petrano, you wrote:
I bolded above what might be a loop-hole to get you what you desire. Define victim and what level of loss or damage they must experience to earn such a destinction. Victim does not have to mean “dead victim”, but could mean “injured victim”. What injuries are reasonable? Physical ones, sure. Loss of family member, sure. How about monetary losses? After all, 9/11 was about money.
On a certain level, we are all victims… If the money can be followed, if we can prove manipulation of financial markets, and if the various stock/real-estate bubbles were linked to the more obvious 9/11 agendas of multiple wars.
Here’s an edited version of something I posted on another website but got stuck in the moderating queue. Its relevance is that the 9/11 victims goes well beyond those who (allegedly) were killed on 9/11. In fact, if you give Mr. Shack’s simVictims premise any credence, then the true (dead) victim pool becomes very small.
@Señor El Once.
I believe lawyers for certain 9/11 victims need to carve away a narrow exception needed to prempt the STATES SECRET PRIVILEGE, those who fall w/i the group of disabled Americans who were victims of the 9/11 attack who either died, survived but were injured, or had associational relationships with 9/11 victims who died or were injured on 9/11or the subsequent clean-up.
The object is to take on USGov by invoking the Rehab Act of 1973, Americans W/ Disabilities Act and certain enforceable international treaties protecting the rights of disabled population in all respects, such as International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
I cannot deny “we are all 9/11 victims” b/c we clearly are; however, narrowing 9/11 litigants to a group of disabled plaintiffs claiming 9/11, and the subsequent cover-up was the result of disability discrimination and retaliation will be interesting, especially when USGov attempts to invoke the STATES SECRET PRIVILEGE to stop discovery and depositions of key USGov officials.
Mr. Once and Mr. Petrano,
It is said that, “to a hammer all problems appear to be nails”.
What is the allegory here that I am making?
To a Lawyer, all problems appear to be suites at law.
Now the question arises, where is The Law? It is my assertion, again, that there is no Law. There is only the appearances generated by the Public Relations Regime that there continues to be Law, or Government, or any organization beyond the secret power structure that directs the Public Relations Regime.
The regime has your consciousness in a state of enchantment. Being comatose has only one solution – to awake from the coma.
The three A’s are essential, Alive, Awake, Aware.
You are not the contents of your wallet, a drone for the degrees on your walls, you are not a name and number…all are masks that you have worn to manipulate your way through a maze designed by this secret force driving perception manipulation.
Principal point being, the courthouse is part of the maze, part of the make-believe world induced by womb to tomb perception manipulation.
ww
9/11 was a joke. A very sick, ugly joke. It reminds me that I will never have a real government by for and of the people.
Mr. Wise,
Perhaps it is time to discard the need for a “real government” and recognize that ALL political power is abused. Do not delegate your personal power to others, governmental or otherwise.
Hold that power yourself, come to know it intimately. There is more energy there within than you can begin to imagine, until you come to recognize it.
ww
hybridrogue1
From the days of Dutch fur traders, this land has been about commerce. The US Constitution was set up to promote commerce, given America’s vast rich land, navigable rivers and seaports.
The framers were generally wealthy landowners with many confidential business dealings kept locked away in their roll-top desks. They knew commerce could not flourish unless people were “secure in their papers and things.”
Post 9/11 there’s sneek & peeks, secret dockets, NSLs directing people to do bad things (sometimes crimes) to innocent targeted people, NDAA, Fast & Furious unpunished, etc. These conditions do not promote commerce.
Even a bean farmer needs to be able to pull his scams w/o a fed listening in on every transaction w/o probable cause. God forbid he sells a crop of beans to someone suspected of associating with someone suspected of being a terrorist!
“To a Lawyer, all problems appear to be suites at law.”
As I see it, law is a social science. There will always be disputes over contracts, marriages, land wills, wrongdoings and crimes. Take away a system to settle matters w/o killing people, and you’ll have to resort to weapons and brute strength.
Today, the legal system is in tatters. 9/11 reveals our entire governing system supports an agenda requiring the state to burn 3000 people alive now and then, for shock effect. I don’t know from one day to the next, whether some toxic mold demented judge I accused of disability discrimination is going to retaliate by sending the FUSION center a half-baked “incident letter” so to trigger chaos in my life.
To be clear Mr. Petrano,
I do not speak here from the general irrational ‘hatred of lawyers’ that often spawns nasty jokes about sharks and such. I agree that it is a reasonable thing to settle disputes by peaceful means.
What I DID mean however was that,… “a system to settle matters w/o killing people, and you’ll have to resort to weapons and brute strength.” {your words} – indeed HAS BEEN taken away. As you well know, despotism and tyranny are not the “Law and Order” regimes that the practitioners of such systems loudly proclaim – they are the exact opposite – Rule by Caveat.
Essentially we are on the same page. But one should admit that history has mixed reviews on the veracity of ‘government’ as a successful social system. I use the term ‘government’ in the sense of any centralized management larger than a familial or tribal system. However this topic is huge and beyond the scope of a simple exchange of commentary on a blog…
I am more concerned here as to your perspective that ALL of this is; 9/11 as proximate cause.
I assume from this that you may be considerably younger than I. As I will agree, 9/11 was a ‘game changer’ and as is said it is a “Post 9/11 World” – even still from a longer perspective it might be viewed as simply “the straw that broke the camels back”. All of this depends on a time frame one can relate to.
I think that the events of 9/11 are key to the subsequent plunge into utter lawlessness and madness. And yet 9/11 too must be set within a larger context historically.
It may surprise you that I see the proximate cause as much further back in time…all the way back to Philadelphia and that ‘hallowed convention,” which I now view as the first coup against the vulnerable Declaration of Independence, rather than some natural outcome flowing from it.
I see Hamilton and Jay as ‘moles’ or sleeper agents of the Crown.
But again, this is beyond the scope of this blog, and I only mention these things to reveal something of where I am coming from.
ww
@hybridrogue1,
To grasp anything “American” you have to grasp the concept it’s all about commerce. Burn down the Crown’s ship laden with tea, and what you have is commercial chaos, because no goods were going to enter US Ports as long as “free” Americans were able to pull-off “Boston Tea Parties.”
After the so called “Revolution,” Hamilton and his group made things real f-ing clear by sounding-off the message the British Crown was not sending one more ship loaded w/ goods to US ports until the Philadelphia crowd crafted a set of laws in place engineered to protect the interest of the Crown, as in, “remunerate the Crown’s agent for the goods shipped and let the Crown’s ship be free to sail away back to England w/o delay.”
To accomplish the above, there needed to be a viable banking system, a US supreme court with preemptive power over all shipping and commerce, a unitary executive “commander-in-chief” with power to fully cooperate w/ the crown in terms of executing covert false flag acts of piracy against non-Crown shipping interests, in order to hamper non-Crown countries’ ability to engage in commerce and. further hamper non-Crown countries’ ability to maintain their respective national defense mechanisms
Enter the concept of “Letters of Marque” which was really no different than “STATE SECRET PRIVILEGE.”
We are now part of a system that needs to televise the burning of 3000 people alive now and then, to further the agenda of the Crown.
Can you dig it brother?
“Can you dig it brother?” says Mr. Petrano.
It seems to me we are vibrating in sympathy to the same chord. A nice summation.
It does seem that privilege is always loath to give up its position, regardless of perhaps getting a little overly excited about being “free” a few short years earlier.
Hamilton remarked in a personal communication shortly after accomplishing his general task, when taunted that restrictions to his agenda were maintained; he said that the most important thing was providing for a central authority. He then pointed out that the meaning of words are in the authority of those who interpret them.
That is the general tenor of his remarks, I don’t have the exact quotes handy.
ww
Dear Mr. Petrano and Mr. HybridRogue1,
Allow me to express my gratitude for your contributions to the discussions on Mr. McKee’s Truth & Shadows blog. I’ve been enjoying reading them.
Specific to a comment that Mr. Petrano has made a couple times:
My twist on this is that the agenda required the public belief of 3000 people being burned alive, not necessarily the real thing. Control of the media was essential to drumming in this belief into the public’s consciousness: “Shock-and-awe, baby, and it could have been YOU in one of those planes or working in that office.”
In terms of actual tactics and methods that even the Operation Northwoods document from 1960 outlines, faking some (or most) of the victims aligns with the goals of “managing the message.” SimVictims can be perfect heroes in every aspect, sure to tug on emotional heart strings of the audience. A grieving family member [e.g., actor] can invoke the hero’s name and what they would or would not support in American policy “to extract justice for my loved one’s […*sob* *sniff*…] untimely murder at the hands of Islamic Terrorists and to make sure no one ever enters an aircraft without obscene photos or physical groping to prevent box-cutters for sneaking in and downing symbols of capitalism.”
I’m not saying that nobody died on 9/11: collateral damage (except for the ONI at the Pentagon, who were out-and-out targets.) I’m saying from what shallow review I’ve made of the victims [September Clues & Let’s Roll Forums], a significant number of them have discrepancies, an aura of incompleteness to their lives, and in cases artifacts of digital manipulation that smell of simVictimhood.
Unfortunately, if the towers were already mostly emptied of real companies and their office space pre-demolishioned, then this provides fodder for duped useful idiots (like me) to ride our DEW and milli-nuclear ponies about to explain “the vaporization” of office furnishings and human remains from the debris piles. Sort of a set-up sting and clever strawman to entrap the religiously dogmatic in 9/11 truth theories.
SimVictims is not mutually exclusive with DEW or milli-nukes. A rational case for simVictims is that the WTC and NYC were not assailed for weeks with the smell of rotting flesh and swarms of flies, which it would have been had 3000 give-or-take real people been unable to escape their gilded office towers.
By a similar token, a rational case for DEW or milli-nukes is made first and foremost to account for the pulverization of (what remained of) the towers’ content and structure, so that big chunks would not fall from great heights with the energy to damage the bathtub. Pulverization does double-duty in destroying what exactly was (or was not) in the towers with regards to office furnishings and flesh-and-blood office workers (and airplanes). Pulverization does triple-duty in providing a canopy of debris, dust, and smoke that spread over the complex to hide what was being done to WTC-4, WTC-5, and WTC-6.
In past discussions with Brian Good, he made the comment (paraphrased) that the govt did not release surveillance footage from locations around the Pentagon, because they could. They could do whatever they pleased and shove it in the public’s face for the corporate media to make us happy with. Putting Cousin Walker on the judicial review is another priceless example of the PTB doing whatever they want regardless of the suspicions and public grumblings because they could.
There are two simple things the defenders of the 9/11 story never explain: if Cheney was tracking a plane approaching the Pentagon – which is clear from testimony of America’s transport chief, Mineta, why not evacuate the building?! Your family is watching TV and a plane is heading straight for your home. What do you do? Sit and watch and wait for the fireball, or ring them and get them hthe hell out?
Explain? Um, no, just keep saying “Islamic terrorism”.
And, since the building is so heaviliy filmed – release the CCTV films! Anyone on board that plane is already dead, and none would object to proof anyway. But the films are never shown. We see a few frames from the local petrol station, but something looks wrong: they look fake. Why does the pentagon – swallowing up $1.2 trillion a year – need a cheap petrol station CCTV to secure its perimeter?
There is far more CCTV footage available from the corner store on our street – 4 cameras filming 24 hours – than from the Pentagon. Explain it? No, just keep saying “Islamic terrorism.”
Truth is always easy because all facts support it. Nothing supports the convoluted mess the government built around 9/11 because none of it is true. Most of the “hijackers” are still alive and well – some have never set foot in America. Explain it? No, just keep saying “Islamic terrorism.”
Keep the wars going, boys. They’re very, very profitable
As the law stands, under Mohamed v. Jeppesen Dataplan, Inc., 614 F.3d 1070, (9th Cir. 2010), if POTUS were to say today on open TV: “my fellow Americans, 9/11 was an inside job” the courts would still refuse to let 9/11 cases go forward if USGov attorneys continued to invoke the STATES SECRET PRIVILEGE, because once invoked, the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and the case is dismissed.
@A. Wright
Which part of the OCT do you actually have problems with, if any?
I suggest before jumping off of the martyr bridge railing against the corrupt court system (which it is) you read the complaint filed. It is filled with mostly all conclusions devoid of evidence that it could be this or that or whatever. I did personally read a brief of a friend of the lawyer that was filed to assist in the Appeals court and showed him his errors with evidence in an e-mail after talking to him. I challenged him on his incorrect assumptions – he e-mailed me back once and I clarified some points as obviously he had never really looked at the empirical evidence but only what the “truthers” state. In a Complaint you must have some evidence and not just all speculation, especially when you take on the big folks.
Neither Dr. Wood nor Reynolds were sanctioned by the lower courts or in the appellate court when they filed in a qui tam (whistle blower) suits. That is, their cases were not deemed frivolous. Dr. Wood appealed her case to the court of appeals and even though the bank of lawyers for the 23 defendants requested sanctions, they were all denied. Again, Wood’s case was not deemed frivolous. Wood’s case was just lacking in public support, especially by the Truthers. Also, Wood’s case was privately funded. She didn’t ask the Truthers to finance it. Veale certainly should know better than to file a case with no evidence, but even more than that, he would certainly know that insulting a judge and name calling would get him sanctioned. The bigger question is why he wanted to be a martyr.
I don’t agree that Mr. Veale presented no evidence. His case may not have proven that Cheney, Rumsfeld, and Myers were part of the planning of the event, but it showed pretty clearly that they lied about their role and their whereabouts on the morning of 9/11. And yes, I have read the complaint.
I’m not going to say that Mr. Veale presented an airtight case that should have resulted in victory. But I don’t think it was frivolous. And the very fact that the court allowed the conflict of interest presented by the involvement of Bush’s cousin as lead justice is telling.
There’s something clearly wrong with a system that allows Veale to appeal the original dismissal but then fines him for doing so.
I suggest that you read in Case 10-1241, Document 134-1, wherein you will see it based on nonsense.
Page 6 of 116 “He mentioned that Steven Jones, Ph.D., a highly regarded professor of physics at Brigham Young University, had concluded that the three WTC buildings were brought down on 9/11 through controlled demolitions. Dr. Jones had previously been recognized for proving that the claims of Pons and Fleischmann of having produced “excess energy” by cold fusion were mistaken.” It is Conclusive that JONES’ conclusions are TOTALLY unsupported by ANY empirical evidence. Jones claims against Pons and Fleishmann have been PROVED to be TOTALLY false but Jones destroyed the “free energy” movement for about 10 years and the destroyed the reputation of both Pons and Fleishchmann.
Page 10 of 16 “[I]ncluding issues of engineering and chemistry, and the use of experts in such fields.” in this is included “David Ray Griffin” and his book “The Mysterious Collapse of Wold Trade Center 7.” What evidence is in the book?
Then it continues iwth Neils Harrit, Ph.D on page 11 of 16-17 “The other affidavit is from Niels Harrit, Ph.D., a chemist from Copenhagen, Denmark, who was a lead investigator in a published research study that examined four independently collected samples of dust from the World Trade Center, and found that both unignited and ignited nanothermite were found in abundance in all four samples, thus pointing to explosive demolition of the WTC buildings as the cause of their collapse on 9/11, and also pointing to the U.S. military, which is the only source for this powerful explosive, rather than to 19 Arabs.” THAT IS NOT WHAT THE AFFIDAVIT STATES AND AFFIDAVITS ARE NOT EVIDENCE.
In the Affidavit of Neils Harrit starting on page 96 of 116 – ibid @ 97 “I was struck by the fact that the collapse looked exactly like a standard controlled demolition, which involves the use of explosives.”
Ibid @ pg 101 “he discovery of thermite and/or nanothermite incendiaries/explosives in all WTC dust samples is only one decisive finding among a whole range of observations, each indicating that the three skyscrapers did not undergo gravity-only induced collapses. Together, they constitute conclusive evidence that the collapses of the three WTC buildings on 9/11 was caused by incendiaries and explosives, whereas the collapses otherwise would be unexplainable. NIST1 has unsuccessfully tried to explain the collapses by other means, and has admitted that it does not have a complete explanation for the collapses of the twin towers, and that WTC 7 experienced an initial period of free fall of about 2.5 seconds. However, only the use of explosives could explain such a period of free fall.”
Ibid @ pg. 103 of 116 “This raises the concern that such individuals may have been assigned to oversee the NIST report to ensure that NIST would not investigate the possibility that thermite, nanothermite or other incendiaries/explosives were used to bring down the three WTC buildings by controlled demolition. With that said however, we explain in the report under the heading Can Super-Thermite be Handled Safely?: ” .. thus, the energetic nano-composite can be sprayed or even ‘painted’ onto surfaces, effectively forming an energetic or even explosive paint.” See, The Open Chemical Physics Journal, 2009, Volume 2,Active Thermitic Material Found in WTC Dust, page 26.
NIST’s report admits they did not investigate the collapse of the WTC building. If you read this excerpts carefully, Neil Harrit provides NO evidence but lots of speculations build on other speculations. If you do not have this, or access to Pacer, I will sent it to you. “ralph@jusbelli.com”
I concur with the “corrupt court” that there should be sanctions.
Craig, we’re dealing with a court system w/ “secret dockets.”
google “office of US Courts secret dockets.”
Your supposition “somethings clearly wrong” perhaps assumes (wrongly) all cases are required to be openly docketed and the judge is not allowed to decide any case in favor of secret, non-party, extra-judicial players.
Fact is, Office of US Courts admits there’s secret dockets. Thus, you must assume, cases such as April’s that are docketed, can/are thrown in favor of parties in non-docketed secret cases.
Example: Assume defendant-A in April’s case is also party to an undocketed, sealed case, whereby if April’s attorneys were to seek discovery of defendant-A, information regarding the sealed undocketed cases would be exposed causing “grave harm” to national security.
Letters of marque, sealed dockets, STATES SECRET PRIVILEGE (SSP) it’s all the same thing.
During the Cold War, we did not lose much sleep hearing about the occasional 35-50 blown-up at a European subway station which media blamed on “communists,” while all along people everywhere were openly admitting these were in-fact OPERATION GLADIO CIA false flag attacks. Those things were neatly hushed-up in US Courts while we cruised through the 50s-80s through invocation of the SSP.
We need to see things for what they really are: US Court System creates the illusion of justice, nothing more.
Personally, I would not discount covert reasons for the velvet glove treatment of Wood-Reynolds verses the iron fist treatment of Gallop-Veale.
Just another indication in my thinking as to why I have an intuitive distrust of Wood and Reynolds. And Reynolds in particular. I have the strongest suspicion that the guy is a mole.
ww
@Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd,
You state: “In a Complaint you must have some evidence and not just all speculation, especially when you take on the big folks.” Your statement completely blows-off Rule 26(a)(1)(B) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure initial disclosure requirement, which is supposed to apply irrespective whether April was suing “big folks” or hot dog venders.
You ignore the fact this is a case where USGov is dutifully authorized to destruct the “some evidence” component in your argument. Fact is, defendants in April Gallop’s case were allowed to circumvent Rule 26(a)(1)(B) as a result of STATES SECRET PRIVILEGE (SSP). Given that fact USGov is allowed to destroy relevant evidence under SSP to prove April’s case, the court should have allowed April to allege aliens conspired to harm her, w/o risk of Rule 11 sanctions.
Sorry, I have no facts as to the SSP (State Secret Privilege) as it relates to Galop’s case with which to continue in your vein that I feel is worth posting unless I went back into Pacer, which costs me money (8 cents a page changing to 10 cents in April) and time. I do not have the funds for such a point but if you could quote the docket number(s) and the timeframe date, then that would be helpful and cheap to confirm or sent it to ralph@jusbelli.com.
I have not taken the position of support for the “government”, and if you think that, you have not been paying attention.
I also suggest that you read 116 Stat. 1471-1477 – “National Construction Safety Team Act” that purportedly empowered NIST alleged investigation. Congress was in on the ruse from the very beginning. Go especially to 116 Stat. 1473 (3) Criminal Acts. NIST is WAS NOT to investigate any criminal ACTS. Duh? The investigation was to do what then – read the following and YOU make up your OWN mind from the Statute of the United States.
Ibid @ 1473 “(3) CRIMINAL ACTS.—If the Attorney General, in consultation with the Director, determines, and notifies the Director,that circumstances reasonably indicate that the building failure being investigated by a Team may have been caused by a criminal act, the Team shall relinquish investigative priority to the appropriate law enforcement agency. The relinquishment of investigative priority by the Team shall not otherwise affect the authority of the Team to continue its investigation under this Act.
(4) PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE.—If a Federal law enforcement agency suspects and notifies the Director that a building failure being investigated by a Team under this Act may have been caused by a criminal act, the Team, in consultation with the Federal law enforcement agency, shall take necessary actions to ensure that evidence of the criminal act is preserved.”
“I suggest that you read in Case 10-1241, Document 134-1, wherein you will see it based on nonsense.
Page 6 of 116 “He mentioned that Steven Jones, Ph.D., a highly regarded professor of physics at Brigham Young University, had concluded that the three WTC buildings were brought down on 9/11 through controlled demolitions. Dr. Jones had previously been recognized for proving that the claims of Pons and Fleischmann of having produced “excess energy” by cold fusion were mistaken.” It is Conclusive that JONES’ conclusions are TOTALLY unsupported by ANY empirical evidence. Jones claims against Pons and Fleishmann have been PROVED to be TOTALLY false but Jones destroyed the “free energy” movement for about 10 years and the destroyed the reputation of both Pons and Fleishchmann.”~Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd
This whole stanza is absolute bullshit. To the contrary, the Jones experiments had zero to do with Pons and Fleischmann’s experiments. Not only that the assertion that Jones experiments were contrary to the production of “excess energy” is false – they in fact proved the opposite, that there is indeed a production of energy by his process.
It is in fact the Wood-Reynolds that argue AGAINST the production of “excess energy” in their spurious hit piece against Jones, “The Trouble with Steven E. Jones’ 9/11 Research.”~Morgan Reynolds and Judy Wood
R&W write: “Cold fusion violates standard physics theory because there is no explanation of where the energy might come from to merge nuclei at room temperature.”
Jones replies:
“Their statement above is false.
I led a team at Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility which experimentally studied the original cold fusion, called muon-catalyzed fusion, and demonstrated that fusion does indeed occur very rapidly at room temperature and below. (Other physicists had demonstrated the reality of the room-temperature fusion effect before us.) Indeed, we achieved our best results at liquid hydrogen temps, around 21 Kelvin. A little quantum mechanics explains how this works – the deuterons (or deuteron + triton for higher yields) TUNNEL THROUGH THE COULOMB BARRIER. High temperatures are NOT required for fusion. This is not controversial in the physics community, although some may forget about muon-catalyzed room-temperature fusion until one reminds them.”
______________________
Winterrowd 2nd then goes on to disparage the work of Neil Harrit asserting that he, “provides NO evidence but lots of speculations build on other speculations.”
Again this is absolute balderdash, and anyone familiar with the paper co-written by Jones and Harrit is a technical tour d’force that proves ABSOLUTELY that there were active thermitic materials in the dust samples from the WTC complex.
It is my intuition here Mr. Winterrowd 2nd, that you are not a disinterested observer in this instance, that you are in some way involved with the Wood-Reynolds team. Is this a fact?
ww
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
My impression of Dr. Jones and cold-fusion was indeed skewed a bit by Reynolds-Woods. You set me straight in another thread with essentially very similar wording as you used here for Mr. Winterrowd. Because those old he-said/she-said threads can be tiresome, I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
You go on to write:
No argument there, framed as it were.
The point of contention with me is that two outcomes are observed in the destruction. One is the pulverization of content; the other is the DURATION of under-rubble fires.
Dr. Jones and Dr. Harrit hint strongly that those active thermitic materials accounted for the first outcome [although with conjecture and not experimentation — let’s give this the benefit of the doubt]. But then, the good PhDs allow the science-challenge yeomen of the 9/11 Truth Movement to erroneously extrapolate this to the second outcome. As far as I know, neither have published the math on the quantities of this active thermitic materials that would be required to sustain the duration of the under-rubble fires. Duration was weeks; quantities would be massive — above and beyond the overkill quantities for pulverization — and lack a means to continually feed such hot-spots with active thermitic materials to keep them burning.
This alone suggests “additional destructive mechanisms and energy sources must be sought.”
Due to the radiation readings and Dr. Jones’ song-and-dance to explain away all types of nukes (when in reality, he debunks only two or three known conventional nuke types) quite possibly provides a hint where we should look. We should also consider nuclear powered DEW.
However, after Mr. Shack provided evidence how how even some of the pictures of the rubble were enhanced (e.g., with digital means), it demonstrates the end-to-end control they had on the media and its message. We should ask ourselves why they would enhance images of the rubble. My two-bit answer is that they wanted to both hide things and present a calming image of the destruction by inserting images of then-healthy heroic firemen to prove how safe it was.
Due to the end-to-end media control, I have to question aspects of the observed destruction images that I had previously assumed were the gospel. I had jumped from the milli-nuke pony to the DEW pony due to the lack of nuke flashes and other things… as observed from images, now possibly tainted.
So now this duped useful idiot acts like a circus clown with a leg on each pony riding around the ring. Yee-Haw!
Thank you for your comments Mr. Once.
I followed styles and fashion fads as a teenager. I gave it up pretty much as I grew older and simply dress comfortably. I have also avoided the circus since seeing one once at around 12 years old. Ah…those animals doing their “tricks” were obviously oh so sad. It made me sad.
Somehow you are making me sad also. I will follow your jumping jack flash only so far. There are “nuggets” as you call them in some of your posts, but I feel like you are pulling me through an endless maze of rippled mirrors after awhile. I am sure it is exciting on some level, but it just makes me tired…and a little sad.
ww
Hybridroguel: As to your statements on Jones and Neil Harrit, I suggest you read the complete affidavit of Harrit in the Gallop Appeal Case – I have — have YOU? There is NO EVIDENCE contained within same. I also suggest that you do your homework on Jones. Are you associated with Jones as you are quoting HIM in a post – is that correct?
I am not associated with Dr. Wood or any Wood-Reynolds team. Nor have I received an funds from Wood or Reynolds or a Wood-Reynolds team. I enter battles such as the Gulf War Syndrome, Depleted Uranium and 911 to check out the FACTS and then proceed. What I find is PsyOps, misinformation, ignorance, regurgitating of others “opinions”, etc. clothed as “truthers”, etc. As to the Gulf War Syndrome, I most definitely did contribute large amounts of money to get the word out as Joyce Riley was broke and I CHECKED the facts (I had a business then that no longer exists due to my efforts exposing the government crooks and PsyOps folks). Our then Senator Murkowski (Alaska) was up to his eyeballs in the KNOWINGLY testing OUR troops with this stuff AND knowing that our Troops would die and be tortured with all sorts of illnesses. May Murkowski have the keys to Hell and be greatly entertained daily forever.
pg 101 “The discovery of thermite and/or nanothermite incendiaries/explosives in all WTC dust samples is only one decisive finding among a whole range of observations, each indicating that the three skyscrapers did not undergo gravity-only induced collapses. Together, they constitute conclusive evidence that the collapses of the three WTC buildings on 9/11 was caused by incendiaries and explosives, whereas the collapses otherwise would be unexplainable. NIST1 has unsuccessfully tried to explain the collapses by other means, and has admitted that it does not have a complete explanation for the collapses of the twin towers, and that WTC 7 experienced an initial period of free fall of about 2.5 seconds. However, only the use of explosives could explain such a period of free fall.”~ Harrit Affidavit
In what is this “supposition”? Harrit has claimed “discovery of of thermite and/or nanothermite incendiaries/explosives in all WTC dust samples”. This is not suppostion, it is the claim by an expert in his field that he found such physical evidence. It is also a fact that NIST did NOT give any explanation for global collapse, but left off their findings at what they refer to as “initiation”, this is fact – not supposition.
Explain.
As for Jones, I have followed his work since he first began publishing on the matter.
I have read his explanations of his work on cold fusion – which do support the viability of such.
If you have specific charges as to his purposely disparaging the work of Pons and Fleischmann, please present them. You claim he is “recognized” for disproving their work. Recognized by whom exactly?
Thank you,
ww
~Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd
You need not respond to my question as to your relationship to the Wood-Reynolds camp. It is clear that you are: http://jamesfetzer.blogspot.com/2011/03/open-response-to-open-letter-from-eric.html
And although this posting does not address you directly, I want you to consider my remarks nevertheless.
“Wood sacrificed her career when she spoke out about 9/11. But instead of praising her heroism, many in the “official-truth movement” have accused her of being an agent or “COINTELPRO” or disinformation agent. Such accusations can easily be dispelled by noting that it is a crime to defraud the government and it is treason if done so by a government agent (see the Smith-Mundt Act). A government agent submitting disinformation to another government agency would amount to the government attacking itself in a psychological operation. Perhaps this explains why no one has submitted “thermite evidence” to NIST. Perhaps this explains why no one has submitted “thermite evidence” in a federal qui tam case.”
~March 1, 2010 letter from, Eric Larsen to Alan Miller
Let us first address this assertion that the Smith-Mundt Act would in anyway prevent a psychological operation set against another agency of the government. This is such a naïve proposition that it boggles the mind of anyone who has researched the machinations of the deep state. It is a fact that cover operators MURDER personnel of other agencies and even Congress persons and presidents, let alone “submitting disinformation to another government agency”
So my question, is Eric Larsen some Pollyanna dimwit who sees the ‘government’ as acting in such a way as might be gleaned from a HS civics class? Does he have any idea of the depths of deceit in covert and psychological operations? It seems incredible that this stanza above is not disingenuous, considering that it is his position that the government blew away the WTC with space beams – such an act is clearly criminal, especially considering the government agencies occupying building 7. Is that not “illegal” in the same essence that the ‘Smith-Mundt Act’ addresses?
I am distressed in that all of these people involved with the Wood-Reynolds game seem primarily interested in disparaging the work of Jones, Harrit, Gage, et al, and that they seem to be doing it with a ‘theory’ that has zero evidence beyond snake oil enchantments. It is one thing to propose that there are certain weapons in the secret US military arsenals – it is quite another to assert their use without any substantiating evidence, or a clear explanation of the properties of the particular weapon supposedly used.
ww
Hybridoguel: I suggest that you hang your hat somewhere else than with Fetzer as he is PsyOps, misinformation and muddle-up guy. I am banned from his lists and even his homepage (don’t know how he did that one) as he could not take the empirical evidence I presented and I choose not to waste my time in the Land of Oz. I deal in evidence, relevant evidence, facts, ultimate facts and empirical evidence to proceed to making statements when available.
Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd,
My hat is on my own head sir. I mention Fetzer, whom I agree with you as to his actions as a muddle-up guy, because your name was mentioned in several areas on that posting that I gave you the URL to.
What is your relationship to either Eric Larsen to Alan Miller then? Why are the emails between several of these parties contain cc’s to yourself?
What is this “empirical evidence” that you presented to Fetzer? Have you revealed that on these pages yet?
I’m not entering the debate about how the towers were destroyed but i feel that I have to point this out.
We have to remember that the “other” clique at TruthAction, which includes Eric Larsen, is guilty of the same tactics against Jones, Harrit, Gage, DRG, CIT, Pilotsfor911Truth and anybody else who doesn’t follow the LIHOP path. So much so that I can’t tell the difference between the clowns that post there and at JREF forums (in fact they quote each other’s literature and disinfo).
More on Eric Larsen and his JREF “friends” :
http://www.911oz.com/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=42646&postcount=53
As for April Gallop, she has been branded a liar and “moneygrabber” by various cohorts at TruthAction. The abuse going so far as to have racist undertones in their approach to her just because she endorsed CIT and the NOC evidence. Here’s a still from a video one of these smartasses which was posted over there.
http://img861.imageshack.us/img861/7636/racistattgallup.png
This was posted under the very nose of Jon Gold and “YT” who falsely claimed to be a victim’s blood relative on “Flight 93”. Both of whom profess to be fighting for the victims of 9/11. Except this one obviously…
What’s the point of attempting to guess what happened on 9/11, when it’s sufficient to know what DIDN’T happen, in terms of forcing the 9/11 perps out of their homes at 5:00 AM, by a squad of US Marshals with arrest warrants for treason?
The only thing that’s stopping us from enjoying footage of Cheney carted out of his home ala Attorney General John Mitchell, are 2 acts of Congress;
(1) codifying the States Secret Privilege to never allow its application to obstruct investigation of any act of treason by false flag or otherwise;
(2) passage of a False Flag Prohibition Act crafted to enable and encourage by reward, USGov employees to whistleblow on any false flag event w/o risk of violating national security laws.
Frankly I am baffled by the lack of responses by three posters that I have challenged directly.
These are, Albury Smith, A. Wright, and Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd.
To be fair Mr. Winterrowd is only a few hours tardy in making a response.
Of the other two, I am most surprised by Mr. Smith’s silence.
Mr. Wright has a habit of leaving the field when cornered.
Perhaps there is something waiting in the cue to be un-moderated…
ww
I’m afraid not. Silent they are. Maybe Mr. Albury hasn’t answered you because I told him he’d have to answer a question from me before going on to pointlessly bash April Gallop some more.
Hi Craig,
Well I guess I’m not so surprised after all, Albury never seemed willing to make many direct unembellished answers.
I am most surprised by Mr. Winterrowd, who seemed to have such strong opinions on this issue.
Perhaps he is preparing a brief for us.
ww
I can’t wait.
re: February 6 and 7 comments, EDITOR’S NOTE, etc:
I just made a very positive contribution to the discussion here, Craig, prompting only some gloating from you over banning me, more threats to do it again, and little to no response to anything I actually said. Since you already know exactly what my overall position on the al Qaeda suicide attacks of 9/11 is, and you selected the topic of this thread, I’d like to make another positive contribution to it.
The April 27, 2011 Order to Show Cause followed the March 18, 2010 dismissal with prejudice by US District Court Judge Denny Chin, a Hong Kong-born Princeton and Fordham Law graduate who’s not related to the Bush administration, and was appointed to that position in 1994 by President Clinton. A dismissal with prejudice is a legal notification to the petitioning party that sanctions will be imposed if the case is presented again in a court of appeals, and since it was, the Winter, Walker, Cabranes panel ruled on the legality of the Chin decision.
Since one of your readers asserted that judicial estoppel wasn’t invoked in or prior to the Chin ruling, I’d like to clarify that it’s only one of many sound legal arguments against this case, and the details and outcome of Gallop v American Airlines, Inc., AMR Corporation, and Argenbright Security, Inc., weren’t presented to Judge Chin for review, nor were her subsequent claims against a Saudi bank for financing the hijackers, or other 2 lawsuits involving hijacked planes. Given the frivolous and often contradictory allegations made in the Cheney, et al. complaint, Chin had sufficient reason to dismiss it without this additional context, but a defense attorney would certainly have been correct in citing estoppel if this travesty had been allowed to proceed. To address your reader’s other concern, there’s a strong disincentive for me to put too much time and effort into a response that no one’s allowed to read, and I’ve also been quite busy with other matters the last few days.
I would like to point out that in addition to blaming the objects of her libelous absurdities for not preventing a plane from crashing into her workplace, when they had no way of knowing what building it was intended to hit, and her 17-minute time frame was only from initial FAA notification to NORAD, not including their later calls to the VP or other higher ups, it defies all logic to proceed from there with a claim that no plane crashed into the Pentagon anyway. Dennis Cunningham, one of the sanctioned attorneys in this fiasco, responded to the appeals court order by stating on page 6 here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/75405134/162-Resp-to-SC-3
that “three of the planes got through to their targets,” and then asserted on the following page that “no airliner crashed into the Pentagon,” so it appears that he can’t even carry a coherent line of thought from one page to another. The evidence that AA 77 was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 is overwhelming, and there’s no evidence of any other scenario in her complaint or anywhere else, but you don’t seem to be persuaded by rock-solid evidence and testimony, and my efforts here will probably be “awaiting moderation” indefinitely anyway.
I’m really getting tired of your sarcasm. You have done the two things I asked you not to do: make a sarcastic comment about being censored, and bash away more on April Gallop. WE GET IT. YOU THINK THE LAWSUIT WAS FRIVOLOUS. IT’S OVER. MOVE ON.
I asked you a question which you have ignored. The answer to this question will be your next contribution to this blog or there won’t be another contribution.
I wrote:
“But before we hear from you on any other topic, I have a question I’d like you to answer for our readers. What is your overall position on the events of 9/11? What happened, and what is your purpose in spending so much time on an issue you don’t believe in? Start by letting us know where you’re coming from and we’ll go from there.”
If you’d like to answer this fair question, then great. If not, don’t both us with any more “frivolous” attacks on Gallop and her lawyers.
To borrow from the thread title you selected, “threats from Craig to ban me send a message: try to comment honestly and intelligently here at your own risk.” The topic is April Gallop’s lawsuit, and I’ve now made several positive contributions to the discussion, only to have them ignored while you try to make this about you and me. Since you’d like to hear my overall position on the 9/11 al Qaeda suicide attacks of 9/11, even though you already know the answer, it’s the same as the overall position of every government in the world, all of the major media in the world, the FBI and all other intelligence agencies in the world, and Osama bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and the other key targeted al Qaeda figures plus their families and associates, many of whom are extremely wealthy and influential, and have had more than a decade to deny their or their relatives’ complicity in 9/11 in numerous public forums or venues. My position on the building collapses in NYC is similar to that of the ASCE, RIBA, AIA, NYPD, FDNY, FEMA, NIST, and the overwhelming majority of structural engineers and demolition contractors worldwide, and my position on the planes and hijackers is the same as that of both of the targeted US airlines, the NTSB, FAA, FBI, the US and Saudi Arabian governments, and countless eyewitnesses. If you disagree with those positions, you have many thousands of very knowledgeable and informed people to enlighten, so this may help:
http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/someoftheagencies%2Corganizationsandindivi
My last manufactured transgression here was failing to explain to your satisfaction that structural steel can be cold bent, and that a column bent in half is not evidence of explosives, but a consequence of the collapse of multiple ~4500-ton floors from as high as 1/4 mile in the air. I asked you if you thought that controlled demolitions evenly heated up 3-story sections of steel, but you opted to ban me instead of explaining. I’m now limited to discussing the Gallop complaint and appeal only if I don’t express an unfavorable opinion of them, or to responding to a troll who claims that American and United Airlines admitted that the hijacked and destroyed airliners they owned, investigated after their crashes, provided 9/11/01 passenger manifests for, and paid out millions of dollars in liability for were “not in service on 9/11, the month proceeding [sic], and the month afterwards,” and that al Qaeda was a creation of Western intelligence, even though Pakistan failed to mention that in their angry denunciation of the May, 2011 killing of its leader on their soil. The Internet’s a great place to make a sport of the deaths of nearly 3000 people in the third deadly al Qaeda suicide attack on US interests in as many years, since there’s no accountability whatsoever, but when that sort of insulting and offensive foolishness, ignorance, and mendacity spills into US courts of law, there are provisions in place to deal with it.
Mr. Albury,
I will be away from my computer for the next three hours or so but I will respond to your most recent message.
Mr. Albury,
It is not correct to say that I banned you rather than explain a point from months ago about the conditions under which steel will bend. And you know that was not the reason.
This forum is more open than most. But it is my forum and my blog, so I have final say on how it is run. If you start your own blog, you can run that the way you want.
And it was you who pointed out when you started posting on my blog that you’ve been banned on several web sites. Are they all unfairly trying to silence you or did they get tired of you leading discussion in circles as well?
Having a discussion with you about 9/11 is pointless in my opinion because your mind is made up (as is mine). I’m happy to explain my views to anyone who’s willing to listen, but life it too short to waste time trying to convince you that the official story is ridiculous nonsense.
@hybridrogue1 & Craig McKee
I didn’t realise I was so popular , that people were awaiting my words of wisdom. Patience people please. Quite honestly I thought people had forgotten about me since you seemed to be involved in lengthy debates with other people about simulated planes, exotic weaponry and controlled demolition at the WTC, which must constitute a large proportion of the posts on this blog by now. Mr.McKee hasn’t as far as I can see demanded an answer as to why you spend so much time posting comments here and elsewhere. It’s odd to be ‘accused’ of spending so much time posting comments and then to be accused of not posting more comments , it’s difficult to get a balance there. I think Mr. McKee once responded to an ‘accusation’ that he hadn’t replied to some question from someone by saying that he didn’t work to someone elses timetable, that he had other things to do like work, a position I would totally understand, and and understanding that I hope would be extended to other people, if he is fair about it.
If you want me to answer questions then please re-state them here and if I have the time I will try to answer them. I’d appreciate though if you would stop falling back on these ad hominum insinuations.
My question to you is simple Mr. Wright.
Name one item to do with 9/11 has proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
ww
As per Albury Smith’s remarks on February 10, 2012 at 9:04 pm:
Your reference to myself as a troll is quite hypocritical in the face of your infamous history as a government toady and shill. Your cowardice in not addressing me – as you clearly know exactly who I am, as you and I have been round and round your scurrilous mulberry bush for years is not surprising.
I offer this to a candid world, as you yourself are incapable of accepting anything other than the official conspiracy theory as gospel:
Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and American Airlines Flight 11 (a Boeing 767).
New entry [as of the date of this article] is as follows and includes the bolded text below:
Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and Flight 11 (a Boeing 767).
Although these flights were daily departures before and a month after September 11, 2001. Neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled on September 11, 2001. The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov/gis/) do not list either flight that day.
–Wikipedia
To make the point: the source for these change is American Airlines by making changes to Wikipedia. The ‘story’ is not Wiki. The story is not about Wiki. The story is about how AA ‘corrected’ a wiki entry. The story is about the fact that the evidence that Flights 11 and 77 were not flying on 911 comes from American Airlines itself.
According to a Freedom of Information Act reply from the U.S. Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS), the last known pre-9/11 flights for three of the four aircraft involved in the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 took place in December, 2000, nine months before the attacks, while no pre-9/11 final flight information was provided for American Airlines flight 77 (N644AA).
However, a discovered searchable online BTS database produces the following search results for three of the four 9/11 aircraft on September 10, 2001:
WikiScanner discovered that it was American Airlines itself which changed their Wikipedia entry to state that Flights 11 and 77 did not fly on 9/11. The original entry was as follows:
Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and American Airlines Flight 11 (a Boeing 767).
New entry [as of the date of this article] is as follows and includes the bolded text below:
Two American Airlines aircraft were hijacked and crashed during the September 11, 2001 Terrorist Attack: Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and Flight 11 (a Boeing 767).
Although these flights were daily departures before and a month after September 11, 2001. Neither flight 11 nor 77 were scheduled on September 11, 2001. The records kept by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (www.bts.gov/gis/) do not list either flight that day.
–Wikipedia
http://www.opinion-maker.org/2012/01/aa-exposes-bushs-big-lie-flight-11-did-not-fly-on-911/#
ww
As per Albury’s last post…
Yes, anyone who has been on the 9/11 threads for the last several years know exactly what his point of view is. We’re in the cul-de-sac of the automaton society when we deal with Mr. Smith.
However, even yet there is no explanation here of Motive. He can say essentially that his view is whatever the government says. We got that, fine – but what is the motive behind this remarkable amount of energy he puts into something that he himself claims has been so adequately proven that everybody believes it “but us nutballs”?
I have asked this question of him on numerous occasions, but his unsatisfactory answer is in the category of “I know you are but what am I?” – He points back and asks what our motives are…
And it is in this sense of being forced into a circle jerk when dealing with Smith that frustrates and annoys to the point that he is banned on most sites I know of.
Our motives are categorically different, and Smith knows this. We have an ax to grind that he has not. He is not grinding an ax, he is attempting to dull our axes. His delusional world is intact and moving on to its final orgy of destruction, he wants no one to bar the way to this abyss.
Motive, Albury. Do you even have a conscious answer for yourself?
ww
Can I say first of all that reasonable doubt is not something that is a fixed concept, since it depends on the judgement of people , like individuals on a jury, who weigh up evidence that they have had presented to them. Each jury member is going to assess that evidence for themselves and they may very well disagree about whether the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt since what seems reasonable to one person may not seem so to another. Having listened to what people in the 911 truth movement have been saying and writing for years, I have absolutely no illusions whatever that they are going to agree with my assessment of what constitutes reasonable doubt , or what I regard as reasonable.
As far as I’m concerned I have no reasonable doubt that four planes crashed on 911, two into the WTC towers , one at the Pentagon and one at Shanksville. The crashes were obviously deliberate. Did the pilots who took off in those planes crashed them either under duress or in some kind of bizarre suicide pact? Is that possible? Of course it’s possible. Do I think it’s likely though. Not in the least. That means that control must have been taken from the pilots and someone else took them over. When I look at the evidence of what happened on those flights, from ATC recordings and from relatives who said they were contacted by passengers that seems to be exactly what happened. That’s the evidence I have. The obvious thing then is to look at the list of people on the plane and try to identify some connection between people who were on the four planes who might be responsible for some co-ordinated suicide hijacking plot. And you find there are 19 people spread accross those planes who look like likely suspects. So you look into their backgrounds and movements in the weeks and months prior, where some of them were taking flying lessons with some expressing little interest in learning to take off and land according to the flight schools. If someone like the FBI investigating this event and uncovering this evidence were to ignore it and decide not to pursue it, they would be guilty of perverting the course of justice. If they were instead to theorize on the basis of implausible and baseless speculation that someone else was responsible and that all the evidence was faked and staged then they would be guilty of the same thing, as well as of gross incompetence.
After the planes hit the WTC towers they burned and then collapsed. Do I think there were explosives planted in them to make them collapse? What evidence do I have to suggest it? What arguments have been presented to back up the idea of explosives being used?
In the first place the idea of controlled demolition of the WTC towers makes almost no sense to me since it would involve a plan that would make almost no sense. Plans should make sense in terms of their purpose and prospect of success to anyone contemplating them in advance. If you are going to frame someone for a crime then it should be a crime they could be responsible for. You don’t add go to extreme lengths to add layers of complexity to it by deliberately including, for no plausible reason, elements that are only going to have your fingerprints all over it. It would be stupid.
I have yet to hear anyone in the 911 truth movement, Richard Gage or anyone else, say that the plan they are suggesting was a stupid plan. Why not? He is looking at the same plan I am looking at. Plans are made in advance. The flaws in plans are obvious in advance. That’s why people spend time working them out and trying to eliminate the the flaws,not deliberately trying to include them. According to Mr.Gage the collapse of the WTC buildings on 9/11 showed all these signs of controlled demolition , a fact that would be obvious to people who knew anything about controlled demolition, on 9/10. You would have to imagine there were a lot of stupid people waking up on September 11th 2001 in a cold sweat asking themselves how in the name of Jim Fetzer they signed themselves up to this crackpot scheme. And I have no reasonable doubt that is where this idea belongs, in peoples imaginations.
Of course it’s not enough just to say that the idea of this plan is inane you have to look at the evidence – and of course the evidence against it, something that should not invite accusations that someone is ‘a defender of the official narrative’ or any of these other accusations, indicitive of a prejudicial mindset. I’ve looked at the evidence and I’ve listened to the evidence and I see no reason whatever to doubt that these buildings suffered structural collapses. A controlled demolition is a structural collapse, caused by fatally damaged structural supports. It’s gravity that brings down the building. I don’t see or hear any evidence of explosives that could bring down the buildings. The evidence would be obvious on each end of every piece of steel at ground zero for weeks and month afterwards. If all the steel was cut by explosive charges , into convenient lengths, then each end of each piece of steel would have a cut at each end. It would be obvious to every first responder , firefighter, rescueworker, demolition worker who spent months day after day lifting or watching steel girders being lifted by cranes and put onto lorries, driven through the streets to be put onto barges and to the dump site. Ten years on I have not heard one person say that is what they saw.
As far as I’m concerned the 911 truth movement doesn’t present any kind of convincing case whatever that what happened on 911 was not just what it looked like- 19 Islamic extremists with boxcutters taking over planes and crashing them into buildings. It’s a simple plan and all the best plans are simple. It may be a bit obvious but but I’ve never regarded ‘let’s ignore the obvious’ as a particularly clever motto.
I look at that sentence about 19 hijackers, which I am invited time and time again to ridicule, and I ask myself what’s so ridiculous about it? This is an invitation to ridicule from people who think I should instead regard as more plausible radio controlled airliners , one not disguised to look like the plane it is supposed to be disguised as, flying over a building it was supposed to crash into, executions of men women and children at US airbases, invisible cruise missiles/ A3 Skywarrior/Global Hawk square dancing, clandestine controlled demolition, a 16ft hole in a building that didn’t have a 16ft hole in it, fake phone calls, fake planes, faked plane crashes- with no plane debris! – with complicit agents in every newsroom covering up this mass murder plot , all co-ordinated by a man with an upside-down book in a schoolroom in Florida.
Could someone who thinks 911 was not an inside job be a member of the 911 truth movement? If this is supposedly all about looking for the truth, no matter where it leads, why would someone who thinks 911 was a terrorist attack not be regarded as a member of this movement? Could someone in the 911 truth movement hold up a big banner saying ‘911 was not an inside job’ ? When I see that I’ll give give more credence to the idea that people are looking at the evidence objectively and with an open mind.
I am not very familiar w/ this site but it seems legite. I hope everyone here is aware of the Israeli /Zionist connection to 9/11. I would encourage everyone to view the 24 min. interview on Press t.v. w/ Dr.Alan Sobrosky, and see ‘Missing Links’.
Hi Billy,
I cannot speak for everybody on the site, but I personally am aware of the actions of the Zionist Entity as per 9/11, Sobrosky, and I would mention Boylan’s work as well.
ww
Mr. Once,
Please consider Occam’s Razor:
The razor’s claim that “simpler explanations are, other things being equal, generally better than more complex ones” is amenable to empirical testing.
Consider that, for each accepted explanation of a phenomenon, there is always an infinite number of possible, more complex, and ultimately incorrect alternatives. This is so because one can always burden failing explanations with ad-hoc hypotheses. Ad-hoc hypotheses are justifications which prevent theories from being falsified. Even other empirical criteria like consilience can never truly eliminate such explanations as competition. Each true explanation, then, may have had many alternatives that were simpler and false, but also an infinite number of alternatives that were more complex and false.
Put another way, any new, and even more complex theory can still possibly be true. For example: If an individual makes supernatural claims that Leprechauns were responsible for breaking a vase, the simpler explanation would be that he is mistaken, but ongoing ad-hoc justifications (e.g. “And, that’s not me on film, they tampered with that too”) successfully prevent outright falsification. This endless supply of elaborate competing explanations cannot be ruled out—but by using Occam’s Razor.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsimony
ww
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
Occam’s Razor applies in most cases. Who broke the vase? The kid playing with a ball in the house, the curious cat, or the Leprechauns…
Occam’s Razor is dulled and becomes inapplicable when an agent is actively involved to hide the truth, to sow lies, and to control, overwhelm, misdirect, confuse.
David Ray Griffin proves how the 9/11 Commission was subverted with Zelikow.
A/E for 9/11 Truth prove how NIST misrepresented their charge of finding how the WTC complex was leveled.
Simon Shack proves how the media manipulated its images.
Dr. Wood proves raises questions on energy requirements that the 9/11 truth movement ignores.
This very thread proves how even the courts are stacked against finding the truth.
Dear Mr. Once,
Indeed, the Razor can be more or less abused. However there is the point of complexity, and that as it applies to the proposition that all of the visual imagery from 9/11 is digitally manufactured. The idea that this is even remotely possible is staggering. We are not simply dealing with TV footage, we are dealing with footage from people from many angles and POVs that never appeared on TV, but were subsequently put up on You Tube. In other words we are dealing with unmanageable complexity.
And I would add that it is ludicrous to propose that such digital fakery would be done which proves the towers exploded – rather than ‘collapsing’ into their footsteps and the mantra went. If such footage was computer generated it would have made more sense to show a ‘gravity’ driven collapse – which these images clearly do not.
There is the point of whether Shack actually proves anything with his side by side expositions. You feel that he does. I don’t see that. He claims never to have been debunked. Perhaps those who might have the expertise to do so see it as so ludicrous that it is a waste of time to take it serious enough to do so {?}
As far as “energy requirements” Dr. Wood has a problem with such as well. Where does the energy come from that she claims drives this unknown weapon? See the article by Dr. Jenkins on the energy requirements for such a weapon, and the problems of hiding the other atmospheric effects that would need be present in their use.
ww
After reading the posts here all I can hear in my mind is the nursery rhyme “Here We Go ‘Round The Mulberry Bush”. Jones, Fetzer, Gage et al. are nothing but Pied Pipers leading the gullible down a path that leads nowhere. The destruction of the World Trade Center Complex was not accomplished by any means of kinetic energy whether it be jet fuel, explosives, mini-nukes, or super-duper-micro-mini-nano-thermite. How would any of the before mentioned make vehicle engine blocks disappear leaving gas tanks intact? Everything that goes boom is not a bomb. Everything that glows is not hot. There was no evidence of high heat. There was no “debris pile” there was a small debris field. Approximately 80% of the Twin Towers were missing. Only ONE wilted file cabinet was found. The buildings were “dustified”. Instead of participating in Groupthink (None of us is as dumb as all of us.) purchase, read and study WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph.D. I think it’s quite humorous when you hear people squawk about the cost of Dr. Judy Wood’s 540 page full color hardcover textbook. Many people spend more than $39.95 filling their gas tank, dining out, attending a concert or sporting event, and have nothing tangible to show for the expense!
Question for Mr. Goldstein. When you say the ‘engine blocks’ were missing
but the gas tanks remained, please define what you mean by engine block.
Do you mean the entire engine inside the hood of the cars?
Barbara Honegger- Yes, Remember that everything that glows is not hot and everything that goes boom is not a bomb. I’m sure you have countless questions. The easiest way to answer them is to purchase and read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, B.S.,M.S., Ph.D. It’s only $39.95 I can’t fill my gas tank for that amount of money! 🙂 Do you remember that there was a massive hurricane just off Manhattan Island on 9/11? When people make the argument that the World Trade Center towers were “dustified” by some means of kinetic energy I ask them, Then what “toasted” vehicles that weren’t even close to Ground Zero? Did nano-termites eat engine blocks too?
Hi, Emmanuel —
I’m not sure what post you were referring to by opening to me. In any case,
I do have Dr. Judy Woods’ book and was certain there has to be more to the
WTC story than just nanothermite or ‘super’ thermite before it came out, though
Harritt et al. have proven that nanothermite was definitely part of the picture.
For instance, once the upper section of WTC2 began to tip over, there is no way
nanothermite alone could have prevented it from continuing to fall onto the street
and other buildings rather than into the building’s footprint. The only way to
prevent it from doing so would have been to disintegrate the upper section…
Again, it is disinformation to make claims of ANY KINETIC DEVICE having to do with the destruction. Maybe you lack the critical thinking skills to understand this or you have been brainwashed to the point that you can not understand the evidence as it is presented. You get a c-
Dear Mr. Goldstein,
I caution you to temper your enthusiam for all evidence and concepts brought to light by Dr. Wood’s textbook. Not all of them are applicable to 9/11. And Mr. Shack has unlocked how some potential deceit may have been introduced into that wonderful book in the form of tainted pictures. Some of it may also be in how the damage was interpretted. Certainly, a tainted image or two could lead one to the wrong conclusion, or lead you away from a different but worthy conclusion.
Case in point, you wrote:
Dr. Wood has in the past presented images of the front of a fire engine that seemed to have a melted engine block and made this strong inference. I discovered that this older style fire engine had its engine set back such that access was obtained through the cab. So the reason the picture shows a wilted grill and front-end with no engine in sight is because the motor is much further back from the front bumper and you can’t see it. Just correcting the record on this image; other melted engines and anomalous burn patterns remain.
A place where I’m deviating from Dr. Wood is her chapter on there being no evidence of high heat. One of her valid arguments was the hydraulics of the escavation equipment failing if such high heat existed, like in the one of the crane pulling out a piece of seemingly glowing hot material.
With absolutely no substantiation to back me up (yet) I suspect that this particular image may be discovered in the category of being tainted. So it is ironic that you would bring up the tidbit from Dr. Wood: “Everything that glows is not hot.” This is especially true when thinking digital special effects and how to taint an image.
Although I am dinging an aspect or two from Dr. Wood’s work, I think of it more as “correcting the record” ~or~ “showing how this thinking reader is coming to his own conclusions.” Dr. Wood’s work are the shoulders I stand on.
The rubble pile had hot-spots that burned for many weeks at high temperatures. I believe this more closely resembles unspent but fizzling nuclear material. That doesn’t have to mean that the destructive mechanisms were milli-nuclear bombs (exclusively or at all). It could have been a milli-nuclear generator powering something else, like a DEW mounted to the infrastructure of the towers and later became famously known as “the spire.” Let us not forget that radiation was measured, and the good Dr. Jones had to try to explain it away.
A scene from the Monty Python movie “The Life of Brian” had Brian being chased by the multitude who mistook him for being one of their contemporaries, Jesus H. Christ. Brian loses a sandal and stumbles into a gord seller’s stand. The rabid followers pick up his sandal and say: “Look! The Sandal that he wore. It is a sign! Follow the sign of the Sandal.” But another group points to the gord that Brian stumbled into. “Look! The gord that he touched. It is a sign! Follow the sign of the gord” “No, the Sandal! Follow the Sandal!” “No, follow the gord!” “No, the Sandal!” “No, the Gord!”
Mr. Goldstein, let us not be like these all too familiar religious zealots when discussing 9/11 and limiting ourselves to one destructive mechanism. The joke is probably on us that they used all mechanisms that anyone in the 9/11 Truth Movement ever made a half-hearted case for. They foist purposely mutually exclusive suggestions at us: “It was spire-based DEW!” “It was milli-nuclear devices!” “It was super duper nano-thermite!” “It was space-based DEW!” “It was conventional explosives!” “No, sheeple! It was all of the above [… to some meaure, certainly when talking the WTC complex as a whole]!”
However, of the above, 9/11 being a nuclear event in any way is the reason the OCT PR is so fervent in its misguiding efforts. Dr. Wood’s textbook rightfully questions the energy requirements of pulverization, and thus gives us one of many nuggets of truth.
I know Mr. Shack very well. He is a disinformation agent. He does not have the scientific training to make ANY evaluations. You are muddling the waters. This is another technique used in a disinformation campaign.
If you’re going to make a charge like that you should back it up. Calling someone an agent and saying they don’t have sufficient scientific training are two very different things.
To Barbara Honneger as per your post of February 12, 2012 at 8:19 pm
You say:
“For instance, once the upper section of WTC2 began to tip over, there is no way
nanothermite alone could have prevented it from continuing to fall onto the street
and other buildings rather than into the building’s footprint. The only way to
prevent it from doing so would have been to disintegrate the upper section…”
I think you are wrong on this point – note that this is the point at which the global destruction began. It is my view that this building was initially meant to be demolished AFTER the first one hit, but that because the top section did begin to twist and seemingly was about to fall, that the blast sequence began as an emergency contingent and this building was blown first. The top section which was supposed to appear as the “pile driver”, if it had been left to fall or dangle would have ruined the whole effect. As it is assumed in the demolition scenario that the tower was rigged top to bottom for the sequence – it would make sense that simply blowing the buildings out of the original sequence planned is what happened – of course leaving the problem of such a short amount of time between the airplane crash and the demo.
If you watch this on video, you will note a helicopter come up close to the tipping segment just prior to it being blown and the rest of the sequence commencing from there. It is my view that the copter was where the signal came from to set off the charges.
ww
Ms. Barbara Honegger wrote:
Here is some hair-splitting on Ms. Honegger’s point. Yes, applying energy to disintegrate the upper section is the only logical conclusion based on physics for how that cohesive block’s angular momentum was arrested so completely to avoid the situation of it falling outside its footprint, its large mass gaining much kinetic energy, and thus transmitting that energy into damaging the bathtub (and other buildings). What applied that energy is a point of discussion. In theory super super nano-thermite and other materials that Mr. HybridRogue1 calls our attention to in other postings do have that potential. So the “no way nanothermite alone could have…” is a bit too restrictive. It probably could have; it all depends upon the quantities and the control.
Mr. HybridRogue1 countered with:
Here is some hair-splitting on Mr. HybridRogue1’s point. Before they issued the commands to commense with the demolition, I don’t think there was any “twisting” or leaning of the upper-section making it appear to be about to fall. Mr. Shack has proven news reports of such to be artifical and manufactured.
Mr. HybridRogue1 might be right that WTC-2 (2nd allegedly hit; 1st to fall) was intended to be demolished after WTC-1 (1st allegedly hit). But the reasons for initiating the “emergency contingent” plans stemmed from the fires being weak and waning (as evident by the color and nature of the smoke) and the firemen arriving on the scene in the upper floors and radioing their estimated effort to bring the fire under control (“two [fire hose] lines”).
As for the contention that the plan was to have the building’s upper stories appear as a pile driver?
If this “pile driver appearance” was their goal, they could have achieved it. They could have simply blown away the infrastructure below the alleged “plane impact level” at a controlled rate slightly less than gravitational acceleration. The block would have appeared as a pile driver crashing into the lower levels. The upper block would not have needed DEW or nano-thermite, because it would crush itself eventually like when it hit the bedrock. Even with the upper block starting to tip and lean, such sudden removal of infrastructure from beneath the upper block would help direct the path the block would take. However, this technique would have been risky, because it had no guarantee that the upper block would stay cohesive or over the lower structure being crushed; major pieces could break off and do unanticipated and undesired damage.
Comparision of the destruction of both towers shows us that this “pile driver appearance” was not their goal. A nugget of truth from Dr. Wood’s textbook is that pulverization of content from the earliest moments was their goal, because falling dust is much less destructive to re-usable infrastructure like the bathtub and subway than falling massive blocks.
A supportive (but unvalidated) nugget of truth comes from the Russian Dimitri K. who was plugging the disinfo deep under-ground nukes (that Dr. Wood debunks via the bathtub and seismic readings.) He said that constant city renewal impressed upon the city administration long-term planning. What goes up must eventually come down. Building permits, particularly for super large structures like the towers, in the 1960’s required approved demolition plans. From top-secret Russian archives, Dimitri supposedly learned that milli-nukes (remember, Davey Crocket nukes were already field tested) were part of those demolition plans. The point being, dustify the towers early in the demolition to minimize collateral damage of surroundings. I’m sure their demolition planning left the door open for other weapons appearing in their arsenals that could achieve dustification — like a nuclear powered DEW –, possibly without the side-effects of exploding a nuclear bomb.
At this point, astute thinkers should view some of Mr. Chandler’s A/E videos. One in particular applies some boojie woojie high school physics to just the top part of one of the towers. His amazing revelation came after measuring that the top roof line moved downward at 2/3 gravity (e.g., slower than gravity). The revelation was that, agreeable to Newtonian physics, this required the nullification of 2/3 the supporting infrastructure.
My contributing revelation when viewing those videos was that the upper block squeezed like a dusty accordian in on itself before the collapse wave moved too many floors below the “alleged plane’s impact” level. The accordian compression of the upper floors didn’t have tells of pulverizing explosives (cracks of thunder, bright flashes, shock waves). No, the upper block had its interior contents and infrastructure compromised gracefully. Like a stick of butter melting into a hot frying pan, the inner portion of upper block seemed to melt onto a hot knife edge of a DEW beam.
Mr. HybridRogue1 continued with:
It is Mr. Shack’s view that we can’t trust any of the 9/11 images. Helicopters visible in some footage and not others for the same time sequence was one piece of evidence he presented to prove video manipulation happened. Some of the helicopters were pixel renditions.
So, I wouldn’t put too much stock into all of the helicopters you see in videos. Distrust but verify.
Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd,
One more thing. You have this to say:
“Veale certainly should know better than to file a case with no evidence, but even more than that, he would certainly know that insulting a judge and name calling would get him sanctioned. The bigger question is why he wanted to be a martyr.”
Please explain how it is that Judge Walker’s failure to recuse himself from this case is such a small matter to you. I should think that it is so glaring as to be no less that a monumental sign of criminal corruption in this court.
ww
Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd,
From what I can gather in investegating the matter for some part of the day, is that it is a rather hysterical reaction to blame Jones for the Pons and Fleischmann fiasco. The attacks on these two researchers were seemingly instigated by the American Physical Society. In my review of the situation it looks to me that Jones has a very low key part in the overall controversy, merely stating an opinion on what he found in his own experiments.
In two days of meetings lasting until midnight, members of the American Physical Society heard fresh experimental evidence from many researchers that nuclear fusion in a jar of water does not exist.
Physicists seemed generally persuaded as the sessions ended that assertions of “cold fusion” were based on nothing more than experimental errors by scientists in Utah.
Some of the new experiments also sought to reproduce the less contentious findings on cold fusion reported independently by Dr. Steven E. Jones and his colleagues at Brigham Young University in Utah. Dr. Jones, who used a device similar to the one in the Pons-Fleischmann experiment, did not claim that any useful energy was produced. But he did report that slightly more neutrons were detected while the cell was operating than could be expected from normal sources. The result suggests at least the possibility of fusion, he said, although it is not likely to be useful as an energy source.
According to Dr. Nathan Lewis, leader of the Caltech team, every possible variant of the Pons-Fleischmann experiment was tried without success.
“Is this a shortcut to fusion energy? Read my lips: No!” He defended his own experiment, describing his results as a “fragile flower” that would never grow into a “tree” producing useful energy, but could nevertheless “beautify” science.~Jones
“Pons would never answer any of our questions,” Dr. Lewis told an audience of 1,800 physicists
Dr. Steven E. Koonin of Caltech called the Utah report a result of “the incompetence and delusion of Pons and Fleischmann.”
_______________________
As far as the deeper charges of Jones being “tipped off by ‘someone’ from DOE”, or that he is a Mason, or that he was somehow involved in the murder of Wood’s assistant – I am surprised that you put so much weight to hearsay and hyperbolic innuendo.
These charges against Jones are to my mind spurious and overblown.
I have also studied the claims on the color of molten aluminum that have gone back and forth between Jones and Wood, and I find it is Wood who is again in error {or disingenuous}, molten aluminum simply does not glow orange red beyond the cauldron, especially in daylight.
I will state straight up that I find every scientific criticism of Jones by Wood to be simply scurrilous nonsense.
ww
Albury,
You claim that:
“The evidence that AA 77 was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 is overwhelming, and there’s no evidence of any other scenario in her complaint or anywhere else…”
This claim is utterly undermined by the fact that American Airlines themselves say that both flights 77 and 11 were not in service on 9/11, the month proceeding, and the month afterwards.
This makes your comment underwhelming on it’s own. But beyond this there has never been a single forensic proof offered by the government that any part of the aircraft was identified positively, other than the assertion that the ‘black box’ recording came from that flight. There is no chain of custody offered for ANYTHING in all of these assertions.
To make the common sense assertion that there is no compelling visual evidence that a plane crashed into the Pentagon is certainly no less reasonable than simply taking the word of authority that one did.
“Are you going to believe your lying eyes or me?”~Gov
Along with Craig,I too would like to hear an explanation on your motives for such aggressive apologia for the government’s conspiracy theory. What gives?
ww
Here is a history of Prof. Jones experiments and publications on the matter of cold fusion.
This alone should dispel any of the spurious nonsense that he suddenly jumped into the fusion game to debunk Pons-Fleischmann. His first paper appeared in 1983:
My first major publication in which I was lead author was a paper on muon-catalyzed fusion.
S.E. Jones, A.N. Anderson, A.J. Caffrey, J.B. Walter, K.D. Watts, J.N. Bradbury, P.A.M. Gram, H.R. Maltrud, M. Leon, M.A. Paciotti, “Experimental investigation of Muon-Catalyzed d-t Fusion,” Physical Review Letters 51: 1757-1760 (1983).
Nature, 1986, a British scientific journal.
Scientific American in 1987. The title was “Cold Nuclear Fusion.”
My next major paper was published in Nature in April, 1989. This paper was even more
controversial than the last one. It dealt with our experiments in what is now commonly called “cold
fusion” but not the Pons-Fleischman variety. I prefer to call our discovery “metal-catalyzed fusion.”
We had been studying this approach since 1985, long before we heard of Pons and Fleischmann,
looking at nuclear fusion catalyzed in metals. In other words, we hypothesized that somehow metals
will enhance fusion yields between light nuclei, and different metals will enhance fusion differently.
And then we did the experiments to test this hypothesis.
ww
@hybridrogue1,
As I see it, united we must demand 9/11 justice against USGov at whatever international court of justice is willing to render a ruling or opinion, irrespective of jurisdiction and/or power to enforce judgments, on grounds even theories of Harry Houdini & Tesla coming back from their graves is more plausible than 19 men/boxcutters, etc.
Mr. Petrano,
Agreed. I stand for such a demand. Of course the problem is venue, and as it stands the NWO seems to have a grip on just about any and all. “Clowns to the left, jokers to the right, and here we stand, stuck in the middle…”
Truth is straightjacketed by the entire paradigm at present.
ww
Albury Smith,
You say:
“Since you already know exactly what my overall position on the al Qaeda suicide attacks of 9/11 is, and you selected the topic of this thread…”
It is my contention that what you call ‘civilization’ is in fact pathology – a psychological delusion, epistemological train-wreck, and an irrational philosophical construct. You achieve this state of mind by reinforced ritual in supplication to a criminal state. You are in fact a ‘true believer’ in Bullshit.
You call aggression, “defense”- you call empire, “republic”- you call a criminal syndicate, “government”. In essence Mr. Smith – you call black “white”, up “down”, and truth “lies”.
But you and I have been through this in literally hundreds of posts back and forth, and you can call me “another poster” without acknowledging this fact, which is part of your disingenuous MO.
I have shown you indisputable proofs that ‘al Qaeda’ is a legend, a myth, a bogus bogeyman created by Western Intelligence, and you ignore this and continue your repetition of the official script without so much as a pause, even though such historical facts have removed the ground upon which you attempt to maintain your position.
The real question is, how can you suppose that anyone here, or on any other serious site will take your nonsense seriously?
ww
Emmanuel Goldstein says: “dustified”
This term,”dustified” is a metaphysical term – not a physics term.
Your proclamation is a bag of empty assertions unless and until you yourself can prove them.
If you wish to make a case for Wood’s position, it will take more than this simple incantation.
Stand and deliver.
ww
hybridrogue1- It is very simple to know what “dustified” means. All you have to do is purchase a copy of WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, B.S.,M.S., Ph.D. I think it’s quite humorous when you hear people squawk about the cost of the 540 page full color hardcover textbook as a basis for not purchasing it. Many people spend more than $39.95 filling their gas tank, dining out, attending a concert or sporting event, and have nothing tangible to show for the expense!
Mr. Goldstein Book Salesman,
I know exactly what “dustified” means, it is Newspeak for powdered lollipops.
I spent $110.00 on THE HIDDEN HISTORY OF 9-11/2001, edited by Paul Zarembka
It was money well spent, it is a praise worthy volume. I was acquainted with the former work of several of the contributing authors, and trust their views and opinions.
I have also read a number of pieces by Judy Wood. I do NOT trust her views and opinions.
“Dustified” is a childish and unscientific term, a cartoon word used in place of “vaporized” or “disintegrated”, it was coined by a childish and unscientific person, regardless of the alphabet soup parading behind her name. It is either this characterization, or the charge of her being a stooge and disinfo agent. You toss the coin, which is it?
ww
Emmanuel Goldstein: Your post above is “on-point” and others such as “hybridrogue1” accomplish almost nothing but to “muddle-up” and confuse the factual evidence. Blending in some factual minutiae with ipse dixit pontifications unfortunately is rule of the majority of bloggers, those that clothe themselves as “truthers”, misinformation junkies, PsyOps, those that choose to attack the messenger rather than take up evidentiary facts and verify same with some level of logic, etc.
Possibly this list can get back on the track with the issues of the evidence.
In a letter dated July 27, 2007 from the United States Department of Commerce, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) to “Dr. Wood,” to wit: To facilitate communication, the term “collapse” as used in this letter and in NCST AR 1 means a falling in, loss of shape, or reduction to flattened form or rubble of a structure. As stated in NCSTAR 1, NIST only investigated the factors leading to the initiation of the collapses of the WTC towers, not the collapses themselves.” Probably on Dr. Wood’s homepage and on the NIST homepage for verification as i got it from one or the other.
NIST did NOT investigate the “collapse” of the WTC towers.
In the NIST “Final Report on the Collapse of the World Trade Center Towers” several places cite the same thing, ibid @ page 82 FootNote 13, to wit: The focus of the Investigation was on the sequence of events from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower. For brevity in this report, this sequence is referred to as the “probable collapse sequence,” although it does not actually include the structural behavior of the tower after the conditions for collapse initiation were reached and collapse became inevitable.”
Therefore, I would suggest throwing the switch to get back on the “track” of the discussion of the empirical evidence of the WTC-911 “dustification”, remembering that NIST NEVER did investigate anything that has to do with the destruction of the WTC by admission in their own report and initially divulged to Dr. Wood in their letter to her, supra.
If you want to find the culprits that “dunnit” (which is where most proceed without determining the WHAT and HOW, which is mandatory), then Dr. Wood in her qui tam case named two companies that “know” who had the technology to accomplish the demise of the WTC buildings being (1) Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC) and (2) Applied Research Associates, Inc. (ARA).
Research out SAIC and ARA; and, then contact the den of vipers in DC, known to us peasants in the Realm as Congress and see what results you get.
I will leave this post with the following, “When an honest man discovers he is mistaken, he will either cease being mistaken, or cease being honest!” ~ Anonymous
The problem with your latest post Mr. Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd, is that you place Wood as alone in her arguments with NIST, when in fact the entire community of 9/11 investigators have the exact same problems with NIST.
It is disingenuous to claim that Wood is alone in here appeals to and disputes with NIST.
You claim that, ” “hybridrogue1″ accomplish almost nothing but to “muddle-up” and confuse the factual evidence.” When in fact I have posted actual facts, as opposed to the hyperbole just ‘pontificated’ in your post I am answering.
Rather than play your loopy game here, why don’t you address the clarifications I asked for in my previous answers to you? They are still posted above – I shouldn’t have to repeat them.
ww
Hybridrogue1:
Dr. Wood got NIST to admit that did not investigate the “collapse.” That is, Dr. Wood got NIST to admit their report is fraudulent. That is why she filed a federal qui tam case about it.
Did Richard Gage or Jones file in a Request for Correction on his “thermite” or “molten metal” to NIST? No. Has the revered Jones filed into court on the 911 with his “theories” to have them tested under the Rules of Evidence of the Courts? No.
I answered your questions that are on point adding in “facts” excerpts, which you have ignored. You have not even stated your alliance(s) yet. Sorry, no cigar; and, I have better things to do than to get a merry-go-around without factual issues being the point of the discussion.
By the Way, what “specific” “facts” were alleged in the Complaint that were supported by empirical evidence by Gallop? Can you articulate some for the list as I am unable to find any real empirical evidence in her Complaint. Remember, I am not against what Gallop was attempting hopefully to accomplish but you must have evidence of some sort to get your foot in the door.
Do I have to restate in some new language what I have asked above Mr.Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd ?
pg 101 “The discovery of thermite and/or nanothermite incendiaries/explosives in all WTC dust samples is only one decisive finding among a whole range of observations, each indicating that the three skyscrapers did not undergo gravity-only induced collapses. ~Harrit
Again : In what is this “supposition”? Harrit has claimed “discovery of of thermite and/or nanothermite incendiaries/explosives in all WTC dust samples”. This is not suppostion, it is the claim by an expert in his field that he found such physical evidence.
Am I to suppose that Mr. Harrit should have submitted a physical sample of the dust to the court? Is not Mr. Harrit recognized as an expert in his field, and as such his testimony should have weight far beyond mere hearsay and “supposition”?
I also mentioned what you yourself say about NIST:
It is also a fact that NIST did NOT give any explanation for global collapse, but left off their findings at what they refer to as “initiation”, this is fact – not supposition
You ask if I have ‘associations’ – I presume you ask if I work with the Jones team. No, I have kept up with the work of practically everyone involved in 9/11 research, but have made no associations with anyone. I am not even a member of Scholars, or any other group – I am an independent researcher seeking truth, simple as that.
You also said:
“Veale certainly should know better than to file a case with no evidence, but even more than that, he would certainly know that insulting a judge and name calling would get him sanctioned. The bigger question is why he wanted to be a martyr.”
And I asked:
Please explain how it is that Judge Walker’s failure to recuse himself from this case is such a small matter to you. I should think that it is so glaring as to be no less than a monumental sign of criminal corruption in this court.
Settle these matters, and we can get on to a discussion as to whether there are indeed any matters of “fact” in regards to the work of Judy Wood.
ww
I would also add Mr. Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd,
That it is my recollection that Wood was a member of Scholars at the time of the letter sent to NIST concerning the failure to address global collapse and ending their inquiry at “initiation”, and that this letter was signed by Fetzer, Ryan, and Jones as well. This is documented on both sites [the split site of Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice]
Do not play twiddly winks and confuse this letter with the law suit filed by Wood. I am just referring to the letter to NIST
ww
{This was posted above on February 10, 2012 at 12:10 pm. I’ve asked Mr. McKee to delete that posting, so that this can be a new top-level bottom-of-thread posting.}
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
I agree with your statements:
Whereas Mr. Shack provides us many nuggets of truth in his efforts, you have stumbled upon some dross of disinformation in his postings, because it is he himself who wants us — nudges us, urges us — to extrapolate and hold up all 9/11 footage and imagery as products of digital manipulation and thus unreal. In particular, his zany responses seem to target Dr. Wood, because he seems to not want to review Dr. Wood’s textbook “out of intellectual honesty”; he implies that because her textbook stands upon the shoulders of tainted images, it follows the computer principle of “garbage in / garbage out.”
I take the paraphrased “Ronald Ray-Gun” (pun intended) approach: “Distrust but verify.”
Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:
Agreed. This ends up being another area where potentially the dross of disinformation in Mr. Shack’s work is visible.
Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:
No. Allow me to clarify. I feel Mr. Shack has made a convincing case that some level of digital manipulation occurred. It is highly conceivable FOR THE INSTANCES HE DOCUMENTED. I do NOT believe Mr. Shack has by any means taken all imagery off of the table as being fake products; he’s simply raised the “distrust but verify” flag.
As was stated in the “When did they know?” thread [that Mr. McKee had to post for me, because the blog was inexplicably not letting me post anything], if all of the footage are products of digital faking, they should have at least gotten the collapse footage closer to Hollywood standards for being real and in agreement with Newtonian physics.
Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:
Thank you for that excellent segue, Mr. HybridRogue1, and such an accurate & keen eye you have for Dr. Wood’s problem. It should be pointed out that Dr. Wood’s textbook only hints at what the energy sources could be. One option was free energy from Hurricane Erin. Another option could be cold fusion nuclear “generators” (my term) which then supposedly yields Hutchison side-effects. I have high hopes that Mr. Shack’s crack team will view some of those side-effect images (e.g., fireman stepping right over a localized fire on one end of some aluminum cladding that miraculously wasn’t burning any of the paper that littered the street) and discover the artifacts of digial manipulation.
My speculation was milli-nuclear generators powered the DEW devices due to the hot-spots that satillites captured and burned for many weeks.
Always bringing out the Dr. Jenkins, eh, Mr. HybridRogue1. (Do you have a link?) How much of Dr. Jenkin’s old article even applies to Dr. Wood’s new textbook? When Dr. Jenkins writes a book review — chapter by chapter — of Dr. Wood’s textbook, then maybe he’ll be applicable. I won’t dwell on the problems that Dr. Jenkins himself has, like the irony of his research and employers being in the very area he tries to debunk Dr. Wood on.
What’s it going to take to get you on the same page to be reading Dr. Wood’s actual words from her textbook and then determining their validity and applicability?
Mr. Once,
In reply to your post above on this same date:
The Associated Massive Energy Scale
It is a simple matter to calculate the amount of energy required to vaporize the
steel in the upper 110 floors in one of the WTC towers.
[ (Equation 1) * You will have to access article for math symbols on this page, 24 of PDF:
The Overwhelming Implausibility of
Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish
the World Trade Center Towers
(Updated 4/12/07)
Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Ph.D. Physics
Co-author: Matt Sullivan]
The terms in the equation relate to the energy required to raise the steel from room
temperature to the melting point, change phase from solid to liquid, raise the temperature
from the melting point to the boiling point, and change phase from liquid to gas,
respectively.
If you consider that this amount of energy, J 14 5.7 ×10 , which is only 50% of the
energy required to vaporize all the steel from both towers was pumped into the towers
during the collapse time, approximately 10 seconds, then the power necessary to vaporize
the steel would be 5.7×1013 Watts. This is over 5 times the total power output of the
entire earth including all carbon combustion, nuclear power, wind power, hydroelectric
power, etc. This is with no loss.
If you take into account losses from scattering and absorption in the atmosphere,
reflection by aluminum and steel in the building, and inefficiencies from storing this huge
amount of energy and generating photons, then the power required swells to at least
thousands of earths worth of power (see next section). The scenario becomes more bleak
when considering beams of particles that have mass since the ionization energies required
would add massive amounts of energy in conjunction with the aforementioned
inefficiencies.
Most of the energy required to vaporize steel is contained in the term relating to
the latent heat of vaporization, approximately 75% of the total energy calculated in
Equation 1.3 This is the amount of energy required to vaporize steel once it is already at
the boiling point. Since this is the dominating factor in the energy scale, it can be thought
of as the energy required to break all the bonds which hold the steel together. Any
magical method which hypothetically could be used to ‘dustify’ (a word evidently
invented by Dr. Wood) the steel would necessarily involve breaking the bonds holding it
together. In short, the energy required to ‘dustify’ steel, if such a thing were possible,
would be about the same as the energy required to vaporize steel.~Jenkins
{Yes, Jenkins has worked with NASA – so in full disclosure let me reveal that I have worked for Disney, Universal Studios, Stan Winston Studios, and many others too numerous to mention.}
ww
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
Ho-hum.
Evidently you missed a key passage right after the title of Dr. Jenkins’ paper: “(Updated 4/12/07)”. The “07” does not stop at “007” but goes to a full “2007”. When did Dr. Wood publish her book? Around Valentine’s Day 2011 is when I got my copy. See any problems with using something from “2007” to challenge something published in late “2010”?
Dustification of steel? You and I have already been through this.
I’m only married to the dustification of content (e.g., concrete, drywall, humans). I just flirt with the dustification of steel. If you want to take her out (double-meanings intended), this duped useful idiot won’t contest too strongly as I go back to straddling the fence on the subject until definitive, convincing evidence either way is laid out.
I absolutely love Mr. Shack’s zany technique of pitting two (or more) disinformation sources against one another and having their inconsistencies knock each other out.
So here you have Dr. Jenkin’s calculating the amount of energy required to get steel to vaporize (which in my laziness I won’t double-check and will assume is correct for the purposes of this discussion):
The first glaring misdirection in Dr. Jenkin’s skew is highlighted, but I will spell it out: his calculations are for “all the steel.” As you so eloquently pointed out somewhere in our discussions, seemingly a huge portion of the towers steel was accounted for at ground zero. If you want to push the envelope by saying “most of the steel was accounted for”, it leaves wiggle room for some of the steel or even a small fraction of the steel being turned to vapor, which then reduces significantly Dr. Jenkins’ pie-in-the-sky energy estimates.
A second Dr. Jenkins’ purposeful misframing is in limiting the discussion to solid-to-liquid-to-gas. You see, plasma is a fourth state of material, and when it reaches that state, all bets are off with regards to energy input & output and self-sustaining side-effects and all sorts of kooky things.
Enter Simon Shack who proves an instance (or two) of images of the destruction pile being tainted. Does the tainting add steel to the images?
Shame on me for following any of your wild-goose chases, Mr. HybridRogue1, because Dr. Jenkins’ old (2007) paper does not consider the new Tesla-ian probability that vast quantities of free energy could be tapped into. Of course, as conspiracies go, the energy companies of the world would not be happy with this prospect, because it turns off the tap to their cash machines run on oil, natural gas, nuclear, etc. Yet another reason they were motivated into starting a distracting war over dwindling oil reserves.
Unfortunately for you, Mr. HybridRogue1, you will be unable to address any of the bad-shit crazy stuff above, because…
neither Dr. Jenkins
nor Dr. Jones
nor Mr. Chandler
nor Mr. Gage
nor Mr. Cole
nor Mr. Wright (of 9/11 Blogger)
nor Mr. Shack
nor Mr. HybridRogue1
goes there in any recent publication to address a-n-y-t-h-i-n-g in Dr. Wood’s textbook: not the ugly, not the bad, and certainly no acknowledgement of the good. … This is a sign. Pay attention.
+++++
Oh, and here is helpful formatting tip. You can insert some basic HTML into your posting to add clarity, like:
<blockquote>{some really long passage you’re copying-and-pasting from elsewhere}</blockquote>
which then gets posted as:
Also, formatting like <a href=”http://someUrl.org”>a link to a something</a> can help you insert a hyperlink, like one to Dr. Jenkins.
See any problems with using something from “2007″ to challenge something published in late “2010″?~Mr Once
No, the calculations of physics do not change from year to year.
And as far as “ALL the steel” these calculations address the steel in only one tower.
And if you were to read the entire paper {FREE, as a PDF…for ANYBODY to access for FREE} You would find that this is only a small portion of the problem Wood has in ANY energy equations.
You see, practically ALL of the steel is accounted for in the debris. Jenkins explains the fallacies of Wood’s “methods” in claiming a lack of steel in the debris pile and scattered throughout the 13 acre complex.
“{some really long passage you’re copying-and-pasting from elsewhere}”
Don’t be a ditz Mr. Once, the PDF is easily found in a browser search using the very title I gave you.
ww
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
Fuey on the sand you kick up in readers’ eyes.
Dr. Wood’s textbook has X number of chapters and was published in 2010.
From your grand & high seat of total ignorance as to what is contained in Dr. Wood’s book — because you haven’t read it, don’t have it, won’t get it –, you foist upon us an unlinked PDF by Dr. Jenkins from 2007 that doesn’t address completely even 1 of Dr. Wood’s X number of chapters and that Dr. Jenkins had no way of knowing (in 2007) would be there (in 2010).
If Dr. Jenkins is so right on the money, where is his follow-up? Where is any good doctors follow-up to the good, the bad, and the ugly in Dr. Wood’s textbook? N-o-w-h-e-r-e.
You know the height at which the bar for discussion is set at, Mr. HybridRogue1.
Get on the same page literally, Mr. HybridRogue1, regardless of whether or not you agree with what is printed on the page, otherwise you & your postings take on the aura of fanciful fantasies spun by… “Disney, Universal Studios, Stan Winston Studios, and many others too numerous to mention” (e.g., your past employers.)
Regarding using the “<blockquote>” HTML tag, it would help the readability of your postings enormously in terms of who actually wrote what. Putting a tiny tilde (~) with attribution at the end of a mondo quote doesn’t do it for me.
Hyribrogue1:
To state that ““The discovery of thermite and/or nanothermite incendiaries/explosives in all WTC dust samples is only one decisive finding among a whole range of observations, each indicating that the three skyscrapers did not undergo gravity-only induced collapses. ~Harrit” is evidence is absurd.
The buildings were composed of aluminum and steel, so to preclude these elements in the “dust” is nonsensical. You jump over so many presumptions to arrive at total nonsense. The particles of your nano-thermite particles are also documented to be in the crop circles in England – did you know that?
Cite one exact example of nano-thermite being an “explosive.” You can’t can you. Many things can explode such as dust in granary – I have seen the results in eastern Kansas but it is NOT an explosive.
Explain with ANY type of explosive the lack of 80% of the rubble? You can’t.
Explain the lack of seismic signals required for any type of demolition of any type of explosive? You can’t.
Explain the lack of P waves that must be present if a demolition of ANY type of explosive was used? You can’t.
Explain the magnetometer readings in Alaska that match the time of the WTC destruction? You can’t.
And on and on as documented in Dr. Wood’s qui tam case and in her book “Where Did The Towers Go?”
This is as an affirmatively as Neil Harrit will go as contained in his affidavit in Gallop’s Appeal (Docket 10-1241-2nd Circuit filed on 7/20/11) in the Amicus Brief on pages 98 and 99, to wit:
In the report we write: [w]e have noted that ordinary thermite acts as an incendiary when ignited. However, when the ingredients are ultra-fine-grain and are intimately mixed, the mixture reacts very rapidly, even explosively. Thus, there is a highly energetic form of thermite known as an energetic nanocomposite or ‘super-thermite,’ composed of aluminum and iron oxide with at least one component being approximately 100 nm or less, often along with silicon and carbon.”
WHERE does Harrit state it is an “explosive?” WTHeck is going on here?
This is pure speculation that “even explosively” concerning nano-thermite.
Ho ho…Mr. Once, you were not merely dancing with little darlin’ tilde…you had this giveaway, which you even comment upon as to the date of it:
The Overwhelming Implausibility of Using Directed Energy Beams to Demolish the World Trade Center Towers (Updated 4/12/07)
Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Ph.D. Physics
Co-author: Matt Sullivan]
Regardless of your squawk, I maintain that the physics of the energy needs haven’t changed from 2007 to 2010. And as physics, are hardly in the realm of fanciful fantasies, such as Snow White, Pinocchio, Lord of the Rings, Alice in Wonderland, or Moonbeams of Wood.
Did you ever sell ‘The Great Books of the Western World’ Mr. Once? As a book salesman you are as persistent as those door to door botheroons used to be.
ww
hybridrogue1- Dr. Judy Wood, B.S.,M.S., Ph.D. has never made any claims that it was Directed Energy Beams. However, people (assuming you are one) who wish to muddy the waters repeat that claim ad nauseum.
Emmanuel Goldstein says:
“hybridrogue1- Dr. Judy Wood, B.S.,M.S., Ph.D. has never made any claims that it was Directed Energy Beams. However, people (assuming you are one) who wish to muddy the waters repeat that claim ad nauseam.”
Can you then, for the readers of this blog tell us WTF Judy Wood ABCDEFG claims took down the towers – or do you have any idea yourself?
You seem to be a man full of assumptions and little else.
ww
Mr Goldstein,
From Judy Wood’s website, today, February 11, 2012.
From Oct. of 2005 to this date this article plus 7 more sections are dedicated to DEW
“Directed Energy Weapons”
Does your definition of “never” have a bypass of six years or so? I was under the impression that “never” is used to describe a continuum from the beginning of time until the end of time.
I wasn’t aware that there were any annexes of time that were excerpted from that continuum.
Do you have an explanation for me? Are you perhaps mistaken? Surely you wouldn’t purposefully lie about a subject so easily verified…would you?
Your group of Wood supporters are seemingly very concerned about the use of the term “space weapons” as well, as articulated by Andrew Johnson on this same site. “She never used the term” he milks with an article as long as this comments section.
HOWEVER, merely the title of the of this article by Wood and Reynolds alludes directly to the term “space beams” if you should consider it from a balanced state of mind. Are you ever in such a state of mind Mr. Goldstein? Or is this one of those instances of “never” that you speak to?
The Star Wars Beam Weapons and Star Wars Directed-Energy Weapons (DEW)
(A focus of the Star Wars Program) by Dr. Judy Wood and Dr. Morgan Reynolds
(originally posted: October 17, 2006)
Page 3: Dustification
And DEW 1 thru 7
fini, ww
Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd says:
1.”Explain with ANY type of explosive the lack of 80% of the rubble? You can’t.
2.Explain the lack of seismic signals required for any type of demolition of any type of explosive? You can’t.
3.Explain the lack of P waves that must be present if a demolition of ANY type of explosive was used? You can’t.
4.Explain the magnetometer readings in Alaska that match the time of the WTC destruction? You can’t.”
X -“Cite one exact example of nano-thermite being an “explosive.” You can’t can you.”
______________________
The first thing I will mention [-X], but will address in detail in another post is, nano-thermates as an explosive. You say I can’t, but indeed I will, but like I mention not in this post, I have to draw up some files first.
[2. on your list of ‘can’ts] So as to the lack of seismic signals, again quoting Dr. Jenkins:
As described in a paper by Furlong and Ross22, the plane crash does not appear on
the seismograph charts. Spikes in the chart occur up to 14 seconds too early for the North
Tower, presumably from sub-basement explosions which are corroborated by 37
eyewitness testimonials. No spike occurs at the time of the plane impact. This implies
weak coupling between the upper floors of the building to ground movement as measured
by the Richter scale.
Furthermore, seismograph readings of the surface waves only measured about 6
seconds of seismic activity compared to a 14 second collapse time as measured by
video evidence. The seismic duration time, 5-6 seconds, makes sense if the initial debris
generated from the collapse fell at roughly free-fall speed which would take about 8
seconds before impacting the ground. The duration of debris impacting the ground can be
calculated as 14 – 8 ~ 6 seconds which is the time duration of measured seismic activity.
This means that the vibrations coupled into the ground through the building during the
initial 8 seconds of collapse caused no significant seismic activity. This shows that the
energy released during the initial stages of the collapse was not coupled effectively into
ground movement.
The energy associated with the measured surface waves (ML, similar to a Richter
scale reading) were directly compared to the approximate potential energy of the
building:
The gravitational potential energy associated with the collapse of each tower
is at least 1011 J. The energy propagated as seismic waves for an ML of 2.3 is
about 106 to 107 J. Hence, only a very small portion of the potential energy
was converted into seismic waves. Most of the energy went into deformation
of buildings and the formation of rubble and dust. The perception of people
in the vicinity of the collapses as reported in the media seems to be in full
accord with the notion that ground shaking was not a major contributor to the
collapse or damage to surrounding buildings.
To drive home the point that the potential energy of buildings cannot be directly
compared to Richter scale readings, consider the following example. The ML reported for
the North Tower is 2.3. The ML from the raw amplitude seismograph readings for WTC 7
is 1.0.20 Even though the potential energy of the North Tower compared to WTC 7 was
about 5 times larger, the energy derived from the Richter scale measurements is 87
times larger. To conclude from this that most of the debris from Building 7 never hit
the ground would clearly be absurd.~Dr. Gregory S. Jenkins, Ph.D. Physics
_______________
1.”Explain with ANY type of explosive the lack of 80% of the rubble? You can’t.”
I do not need to, the assertion that 80% of the rubble is missing in the immediate aftermath is balderdash.
Dr Wood offers no analytical measurement of the debris present after the WTC tower collapse. Instead, she vaguely and non-quantitatively refers to pictures where it is speculatively assumed to be selfevident.
Again I quote from Dr. Jenkins:
“Most of the debris from all the collapsed buildings in the WTC complex, excluding Building 7, collapsed within the sublevels (see reference 13 for the analysis details). I estimated the initial volume of all the collapsed and partially collapsed buildings (WTC 1, 2, 3, 4, & 6). I then estimated the volume associated with sublevel collapses. If all the building debris were compacted into the damaged sublevels, then this would yield a volumetric compression ratio of 10.2%. This is within the error of the compression ratio for WTC 7, 11.5 ±1.6%. This means that, within error, all of the debris in the WTC complex can be accounted for within the sublevel collapses. If 14% of the debris resided on the surface either in piles or scattered about, then the volumetric compression ratio would exactly match that of WTC 7, 11.5%. This clearly shows that all the debris can easily be accounted for if the sublevel collapses are included in the
analysis.
Some proponents of the ‘missing debris’ hypothesis prefer to “count” the debris from photographs. This is an inherently reckless approach to the problem. Photographs
offer no way to directly view all the individual steel beams in debris piles or debris occupying sublevel collapses. For instance, any attempt to “count” the beams or “wall sections” in the debris pile of WTC 7 will fall short of accounting for the total mass of the building for the simple reason that the debris is located in a pile and all photographs only show the surface. That does not mean that the rubble pile does not contain the mass of the building. Even if the debris were spread out somewhat, the same problem applies when attempting to “count” the debris.
Reference 13
Sublevel collapse analysis of the WTC complex:
http://www.nytimes.com/library/national/index_WALL.html
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Again I urge the readers to read for themselves the PDF of Dr. Jenkins already cited herein.
ww
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
I put my money where my mouth is, both in acquiring a copy of Dr. Wood’s textbook for myself, but also in giving it to leaders in the 9/11 Truth Movement. I’ve done that because I know the noise and chatter is so loud regarding Dr. Wood, most would not purchase the book on their own to see for themselves.
The cost of the gift came out of my own pocket. I do not know nor do I have any affiliation with Dr. Wood. I secured their permission before purchasing anything and having the distribution website send it out.
Your pen-name is a good reflection of your antiques here. You are a hybrid. Sometimes you make really cool and agreeable statements that would make you a rogue from the OCT position. Sometimes your rock-solid refusal to objectively review that which you obviously don’t know (September Clues, Dr. Wood’s book) makes you a rogue from the 9/11 Truth position.
Arguing from a position of admitted ignorance is not strength.
I haven’t extended you an offer of Dr. Wood’s textbook, because your past employment indicates that you could well afford the book and — despite your stellar writing — I don’t consider you a leader of the 9/11 Truth Movement.
You commend my persistence in pushing Dr. Wood’s book.
I flag your consistency and obstinance in refusing to get yourself informed while you parade around flaunting all that you don’t know. You give little indication that anything presented could change your mind. FLAG!!!
Your rogue and hybrid nature gives you a foot in both the OCT and 9/11 truth camps.
“Ye cannot serve two masters.”
I am finding the flaws in Dr. Wood’s textbook. Alas, they are neither frequent nor monumental so as to destroy her work. Her textbook will stand the test of time, even for what few elements that someone might convince me were in grevious error.
You won’t be able to do it with dated Jenkins malframing of back-of-envelope energy calculations, that’s for sure. Physics is indeed physics, unchanged from 2007 to 2010. But as another strawman of yours that I’ll torch, the supposed energy calculations being massive for the “dustification of steel” girlfriend [a blow-up doll for you, because I date “dustification of content”] doesn’t preclude that the energy source and mechanisms weren’t out-of-this-world unique and powerful & manly enough for the task.
Meanwhile, the height of the bar was set with respect to what should be reviewed. You try to duck under… again and again. And that’s when I use Dr. Wood’s textbook to clobber you and your arguments on the noggin. [Mr. Chandler commends it for its big, heavy size and extravagent use of color… but not much else… And also from a position of not having read it despite the UPS guy handing it to him.] Not my desire to use the book in this manner, but certainly fun. I would prefer some assistance in mining, refining, and re-purposing the nuggets of truth from these various sources that are often framed as disinformation.
You wrote to Mr. Winterrowd a quote from Dr. Jenkins:
Not so fast. Dr. Wood’s points out how only four of the seven subway lines were obstructed and shows pictures of personnel exploring the shops under the WTC plaza.
Dr. Jenkins never calculated the energy required to achieve his compression ratio. The reason he didn’t, is because Dr. Jenkins is OCT and believes gravity alone had the energy to do this. Or maybe I error on this point and don’t know what Dr. Jenkins proposes accounted for the destruction.
Your re-hashing of super-duper nano-thermite lacks the math (and experimentation) from his PhD champions (or you) to prove that it could pulverize content ~AND~ result in hotspots that burn for days. But park us at super-duper nano-thermite you must as a Rogue Hybrid with a foot in two camps to keep the public from realizing how deep the deception and betrayal, and that the massive energy requirements necessitates looking elsewhere for the energy source.
Man up, Mr. HybridRogue1, and get yourself a book to read. Otherwise, the master you serve becomes apparent, and it ain’t necessarily Truth with a capital “T”.
Listen Mr. Once,
I am going to put this out plain and simple. I have read enough of Judy Wood at her blog site, and in other papers that I have come to the conclusion that she is a fruitloop. That you are now asserting that she is suddenly a real scientist and has mended all of her past errors doesn’t wash.
You may not like that I approach my findings as I do, you can claim I am in “the other camp”, you can bitch and whine about anything you want. The fact will remain that I think for myself and come to my own conclusions. Two of these are; Wood is bunk, the second is the Shack is bunk.
Until such time as you can make a coherent argument for Wood, other than “You have to see it to believe it”, you will find me less than hospitable to your preacings.
ww
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1 wrote:
The keyword in the above is “enough.” “Enough” is not “all” and probably isn’t “most” either in this case. For a thinking man who comes to his own conclusions, do you think your skimming of her web efforts might have left out a corner or two that might tie everything together and lead to a different conclusion?
I don’t know. Call that a data point that aligns very nicely with your consistent and repugnant ability to give book reports and in-depth reviews on a textbook you have probably never held in your hands for enough minutes to read its introduction word-for-word. The trend line that passes through these two points also happens to intersect a third data point, which is the “fruitloop” ad hominem word used to summarize your conclusions. You are entitled to your opinion.
Dr. Wood has always been a real scientist, and she never really departed from being such. It was because she was asking real scientific questions and demanding real scientific answers about the events of 9/11 that this all came about. I’m sure she would have been happy for other real scientists to have been asking these relevant real scientific questions.
So much for your mangled framing and attempts to put words in my mouth.
You refused Mr. Shack’s invitation to explore his rabbit holes. You have a high & mighty seat far above a copy of Dr. Wood’s textbook from which you make proclamations as to the bunkiness of each chapter, one-by-one.
Real people, Mr. HybridRogue1, recognize when their initial conclusions are clearly based on incomplete information and might think to at least delay their final assessment until the missing information is reviewed. Your verbal actions from the weak position of ignorance is the true bunk.
I enjoy how you mangle the framing.
How about you make a coherent argument for super duper nano-thermite that explains with physics and math how it can achieve both pulverization of content as well as the duration of under-rubble hot-spots without necessitating unreasonable massive quantities. Feel free to copy from the works of Dr. Jones and company, if you can find what they published on the matter is greater than the zero.
Another energy source and destructive mechanism for the WTC ground zero must be sought. Thus, the coherent argument for Dr. Wood that I make is that she has published a large, “heavy, high-quality textbook with extravagant use of color” [according to Mr. David Chandler] that introduces evidence and concepts for thinking readers to come to their own conclusions regarding alternative energy sources and destructive mechanisms.
{Full Disclosure: Dr. Wood does not definitively tie together evidence and concepts as being applicable on 9/11. A strength of her textbook is that chapters stand more or less on their own; the concepts of a given chapter can be deemed inapplicable without discounting neighboring chapters. My own beliefs about the destructive mechanisms and energy sources deviate from concepts presented by Dr. Wood, but stand on her work’s shoulders and thus remain applicable to get readers thinking outside-the-box.}
To the blog in general:
As far as nanothermates being capable as an explosive, I have quite a bit of info on the work already in the public record from scientists from both JPL and Alamogordo labs…but my filing methods are so haphazard that I am still looking for the file.
So lets begin simple:
The history of nanothermite appears to go back far enough to
be considered as a possible explosive in 2001. Here is a patent which is dated
several years earlier.
US19960684781
19960722 (July 22, 1996)
Legal status (INPADOC) of US5885321
US F 68478196 A (Patent of invention)
PRS Date: 1997/07/22
PRS Code: AS02
EFFECTIVE DATE: 1996/07/15
Abstract of US5885321
Fine aluminum powders are prepared by decomposing alane-adducts in organic
solvents under an inert atmosphere to provide highly uniform particles selectably
sized from about 65 nm to about 500 nm and believed particularly effective as fuels
and additives, in pyrotechnics, and in energetic materials including composites, super
thermite, and other explosives.
Clearly researchers were describing methods of preparing nano sized particles,
using them in superthermite, and calling such material “explosive” in 1997. It
would therefore not be logical to assert that by 2001, four years later, they would
be unable to utilize the material in demolition. Once the nano thermite had been
developed one would expect that over time various modifications using additives
would be developed for different purposes. For example there is strong evidence
that sulphur was incorporated (see appendix C of the FEMA report). Sulphur
has the effect of lowering the melting point of steel. The term thermate is applied
to such material. Other chemicals can be added to generate gas and thus
produce an effect more like a conventional explosive.
ww
Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd Writes:
This is as an affirmatively as Neil Harrit will go as contained in his affidavit in Gallop’s Appeal (Docket 10-1241-2nd Circuit filed on 7/20/11) in the Amicus Brief on pages 98 and 99, to wit:
In the report we write: [w]e have noted that ordinary thermite acts as an incendiary when ignited. However, when the ingredients are ultra-fine-grain and are intimately mixed, the mixture reacts very rapidly, even explosively. Thus, there is a highly energetic form of thermite known as an energetic nanocomposite or ‘super-thermite,’ composed of aluminum and iron oxide with at least one component being approximately 100 nm or less, often along with silicon and carbon.”~Harrit
“WHERE does Harrit state it is an “explosive?” WTHeck is going on here?
This is pure speculation that “even explosively” concerning nano-thermite.”~Ralph Kermit Winterrowd 2nd
“when the ingredients are ultra-fine-grain and are intimately mixed, the mixture reacts very rapidly, even explosively.”~Harrit, just above in your own frigging quote {for crying out loud}.
“EXPLOSIVELY” – “EXPLOSIVE”, there is a more than quaint similarity to the two words sir, in fact as you say, even grain is an explosive. An explosive is ANYTHING that will explode. Even an electrical generator is a ‘potential’ explosive as it has inherent in it’s energy capacities to explode in the right circumstance.
However the point is, Harrit uses the word explosive above in the context of thermatic materials being mixed in exotic manner. The ‘explosive’ types are generally an admixture suspended in a gel, as the suspension allows for atomic distancing via electromagnetic forces.
Again, nanothermates as explosives are not a new or unknown field or product.
However, neither Harrit nor Jones claim that thermate and thermite were exclusive to the demolition process, both positing that cutter charges such as RD and other plastic explosives may have played a role. The point Harrit was making is that there is physical evidence unreacted of explosive nano milled thermate proven to be in the WTC dust.
ww
Can nanothermites (also called superthermites) be explosive?
“Researchers can greatly increase the power of weapons by adding materials known as superthermites that combine nanometals such as nanoaluminum with metal oxides such as iron oxide, according to Steven Son, a project leader in the Explosives Science and Technology group at Los Alamos. “The advantage (of using nanometals) is in how fast you can get their energy out,” Son says. Son says that the chemical reactions of superthermites are faster and therefore release greater amounts of energy more rapidly… Son, who has been working on nanoenergetics for more than three years, says that scientists can engineer nanoaluminum powders with different particle sizes to vary the energy release rates. This enables the material to be used in many applications, including underwater explosive devices… However, researchers aren’t permitted to discuss what practical military applications may come from this research.” (Gartner, John (2005). “Military Reloads with Nanotech,” Technology Review, January 21, 2005; http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?id=14105&ch=nanotech)
I wish to emphasize that nanothermites can be “engineered” or tailored to burn more slowly or more quickly, even as “explosive devices” as the above article from Los Alamos National Laboratory states clearly.
Defense Laboratory at Livermore, California:
“We have developed a new method of making nanostructured energetic materials, specifically explosives, propellants, and pyrotechnics, using sol-gel chemistry. A novel sol-gel approach has proven successful in preparing metal oxide/silicon oxide nanocomposites in which the metal oxide is the major component. By introducing a fuel metal, such as aluminum, into the metal oxide/silicon oxide matrix, energetic materials based on thermite reactions can be fabricated. Two of the metal oxides are tungsten trioxide and iron(III) oxide, both of which are of interest in the field of energetic materials. In addition, due to the large availability of organically functionalized silanes, the silicon oxide phase can be used as a unique way of introducing organic additives into the bulk metal oxide materials.
These organic additives can cause the generation of gas upon ignition of the materials, therefore resulting in a composite material that can perform pressure/volume work. Furthermore, the desired organic functionality is well dispersed throughout the composite material on the nanoscale with the other components, and is therefore subject to the same increased reaction kinetics. The resulting nanoscale distribution of all the ingredients displays energetic properties not seen in its microscale counterparts due to the expected increase of mass transport rates between the reactants. The synthesis and characterization of iron(III) oxide/organosilicon oxide nanocomposites and their performance as energetic materials will be discussed.” (Clapsaddle BJ, Zhao L, Gash AE, et al. Synthesis and characterization of mixed metal oxide nanocomposite energetic materials. UCRL-PROC- 204118, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory: Livermore, Ca; 12 May 2004
ww
hybridrogue1- You better keep up with the latest disinformation. It wasn’t super-duper-mini-micro-nano-thermite that “dustified” the World Trade Center Ccomplex. It was nano-termites. The WTC towers were infested with them. That’s why the only buildings to suffer such utter destruction had a WTC prefix. Buildings that were just across the street such as the U.S. Post Office and Verizon were protected with regular extermination. Larry Silverstein cancelled the Terminix contract when he took over ownership. This is why the foundation that kept out the Hudson River water (the bathtub) wasn’t damaged by the crashing of two 500,000 ton quarter mile high buildings upon it. If the nano-termites didn’t consume the buildings in mid-air the foundation would have been severely damaged and the 7 lower basement levels would have flooded as well as the New York City subway system that connected to it. 🙂
Very good Goldstein,
When you have nothing intelligent to offer there’s always those nursery rhymes you have spinning ’round in your head, and funny faces to make.
Mr. Once,
This conversation is growing tiresome. I urge you to address the forum in general and not attempt to persuade me on this topic. You have been unsuccessful and it will only grist for a more heated discussion.
“Dr. Jenkins never calculated the energy required to achieve his compression ratio. The reason he didn’t, is because Dr. Jenkins is OCT and believes gravity alone had the energy to do this. Or maybe I error on this point and don’t know what Dr. Jenkins proposes accounted for the destruction.”~Mr. Once
> Jenkins is not OTC, he is linked to Scholars for 9/11 Truth and Justice, they are the ones who published his paper and PDF. He is of the opinion of ‘explosive demolition’ of the WTC.
“Your re-hashing of super-duper nano-thermite lacks the math (and experimentation) from his PhD champions (or you) to prove that it could pulverize content ~AND~ result in hotspots that burn for days. But park us at super-duper nano-thermite you must as a Rogue Hybrid with a foot in two camps to keep the public from realizing how deep the deception and betrayal, and that the massive energy requirements necessitates looking elsewhere for the energy source.”
>You have no idea what you are talking about as per the explosive qualities of the nanothermites.
You obviously haven’t read the papers. Besides this regular RDX has the pressures to pulverize such materials as we are discussing. And it is posited that a combination of several military grade plastic explosives were used in the WTC demolitions.
Besides your ignorance of the progress of this field of propellants and explosives, you are disregarding the findings that these materials found in the surface dust were ‘unreacted’…if there are unreacted incendiaries in the surface materials, it is more than reasonable to presume they are in the pile and buried with the debris – this being the case there is a source for a continued burn, which most certainly would account for the furnace effects reported by witnesses.
My final point on this issue is that these explosives are not hypothetical, there is physical evidence from the aftermath. Everything you are posing is based in hypotheticals, and suppositions. I will not join you there until there is some sort of physical proofs beyond what you have offered thus far.
ww
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
We probably both fall into the category of being ignorant about the field of propellants and explosives.
Although I disbelieve that super duper nano-thermite has the explosive potential to pulverize the contents of the tower as observed on 9/11, quite possibly you’ll find examples and not just hearsay that it is so. Doesn’t matter, because the more effort you put into proving the explosive energy of nano-thermite, the more you prove that super duper nano-thermite could not account for the hot-spots that burned for many weeks.
Physics in this matter says that you can’t have it both ways. You can’t have nano-thermite accounting for pulverization ~AND~ the many week duration of hot-spots.
You wrote:
To put it nicely, you are talking through your hat and exposing your weak pedigree in the area of science, math, and physics.
From Dr. Ed Ward:
What is the burn-rate or detonation velocity of super duper nano-thermite? I don’t know.
What I do know is that hot-spots burned for many weeks (more than 4.) 4 weeks = 28 days = 392 hours = 23,520 minutes = 1,411,200 seconds. For the sake of discussion, let’s contemplate one hot-spot, use a slow burn rate of 3,300 feet per second, and just 4 weeks. Thus, for this imaginary explosive we would need a garden hose 4,656,960,000 feet long (or approximately 882,000 miles). You can tweak the numbers to make them specific to nano-thermite with the energy to pulverize content, but to account for the duration of the hot-spot you’ll get a garden hose even longer that 882,000 miles.
Ignoring the weight of the hose itself and assuming 1/2 diameter hose, how much explosive material in kilograms would be in such? Massive amounts.
Not just massive amounts. Unreasonable amounts.
Have the nuclear hot-spots in Japan as a result of the 2011-03-11 action (earthquake, tidal wave, etc.) been put out? I don’t know. What I do know is that nuclear hot-spots comes closer to answering the observed outcome of 9/11 than super duper nano-thermite.
Thus, Mr. HybridRogue1, other energy sources and destructive mechanisms for 9/11 much be sought.
You parking yourself and the discussion at nano-thermite? Expose either your ignorance or your agenda.
The same might be said about your attacks on video fakery. I don’t know what you did at Disney, Universal Studios, Stan Winston Studios, and many others too numerous to mention, but given that they earn their profits by making us believe fake things are real on the telly — just like we’re saying much of 9/11 were fake things that looked almost real on the telly –, then…
Kudos, Mr. HybridRogue1. I consider you on the A-team of the NSA Q-Group, which is why, as you say, I’ll never persuade you on this topic.
You make one very important mistake in the argument you just put forward and that is that only one type of explosive is being posited as what was detonated for the the destruction of the the towers.
Thus your argument against unreacted thermite being in the pile is rebuffed. If you don’t understand this simple reply to your new quart of bullshit, that is your problem.
Let me say in this measured tone, that I am arguing for something here more than I am arguing against anything. I am arguing for the explosive demolition of the WTC. I have been on this case from the day it happened. When I saw the footage on TV I recognized instantly that the towers had exploded – that the airplanes had nothing to do with it and were meant as a decoy for a cover story.
Being with the issue as it has developed over the course of the last ten years, I have read the arguments provided by NIST, and Greening and Bazant, and many others arguing for a fire and gravity driven collapse. I have read the counter arguments from Jones, Ryan, Leege, and the host of others at Scholars, as well as papers from physicists and engineers from across the globe.
I find the theory of explosive demolition the most compelling. It is as simple as that. These other issues, such as ‘no planes’, ‘no real photo evidence’, ‘DEW’, etc. are side issues to me. They aren’t compelling to my mind. If anyone is insulted with this, it is their problem.
And for Hombre Once, let me just say, that I haven’t read Dr. Wood’s book. If that disqualifies me from giving my opinions on how the towers were blown up according to you, then don’t engage me, because of I am disqualified under your own standard.
And be especially careful about innuendos tending to the idea that I am a shill, or out to disrupt the conversation.
ww
Señor El Once- There was no evidence of high heat. The link below is to a photo of Six World Trade Center (the U.S. Customs House) which was an eight-story building that stood directly northeast of the the North Tower (WTC 1) as viewed from West Street. The building to the left in the background is the Verizon building across Vesey Street. WTC6 tenants consisted almost entirely of federal government agencies. FEMA, the agency charged with investigating the disaster, did not collect any data on this building. The undamaged mini-blinds on the top floor demonstrate photographic proof that there was NO EVIDENCE OF HIGH HEAT associated with the destruction as substantiated in WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, B.S.,M.S., Ph.D. There were no raging fires. Everything that glows is not hot. Cool flames were accidentally discovered in 1817 by Humphry Davy. Hang mini-blinds over a small campfire and see what happens. 🙂
http://cf.parrhesia.com/wtc062.jpg
Dear Mr. Goldstein,
Our postings may have crossed in the moderating queue. You write:
Be more specific. Certainly, high heat wasn’t everywhere. But the hot-spots were hot, and testimony of those working ground zero indicate the WTC complex remains being noticably a few degrees hotter than other areas of the city.
You get this “no evidence of high heat” from Dr. Wood’s book, right? Well I believe this is one area that she got wrong. I won’t speculate whether it was purposeful or not, but if it was purposeful, it could have been forced, as in: “You want to publish your book and live, Dr. Wood? Then you will insert this dross fleck of disinformation about [… X?…] and here’s a tainted image already used previously by Dr. Jones to help. Present whatever you want for evidence, but lead them away from anything nuclear.”
I refer you to my February 12, 2012 at 5:44 pm
posting above.
Satillite infrared images show hot spots: Figure 277(a) shows thermal hot spots from 9/16/2001. Can Figure 277(b) from 9/23/2001 that doesn’t show hot spots be trusted? It wasn’t announced until December by the fire department that all 9/11 hot spots were put out. Simon Shack has me “distrusting but verifying” all imagery. Hope he can help!
Figure 278(b) shows West Street flooded from a broken water main. Dr. Wood concludes correctly that if there had been hot spots and a flooded street like this, this puddle would have resulted in steam to cook the firemen. Thanks to Simon Shack, I question the veracity of this image and speculate without substantiation (yet) that this image may have been tainted. Wouldn’t surprise me if most of the scene was digitally enhanced. (Mr. Simon Shack?)
… And now that I study this book more closely…
Figures 288(a) and (b) of the pile shows the smoke trails rising from fizzling hot spots. They could also be faked.
I consider Figures 272, 273, and 275 as candidates for tainting. (Mr. Simon Shack?)
Firemen and other first responders have testified to hot spots.
First responder ailments mirror those of survivors of Hiroshima.
This doesn’t take down the body of work for Dr. Wood. It helps us mine, refine, and re-purpose the nuggets of truth from the dross of disinformation.
I think the hot spots were nuclear fizzling hot, and the general ground zero was several degrees warmer than other areas of the city.
You have not studied Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook very well. You get a c-
Everything that glows is not hot. She gives many examples of no evidence of high heat. Don’t confuse smoke with fuming either. You need to read her textbook again and take notes.
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1, you wrote mistakenly:
Quite the opposite, Mr. HybridRogue1. The mistake is being made by you on many levels, because I do not put forth “one type of explosive”. They could have used every chemical explosive known to man, and some that weren’t public knowledge, for all I know or care but could well believe. The point is that slow burn rates or fast burn rates, explosives of even the nano-thermite varieties that you champion cannot account for the ~DURATION~ of under rubble hot-spots.
Strawman alert! I make no argument against unreacted thermite. It was there; Dr. Jones found it.
The problem is that he did not find it sufficient mass quantities that could account for the ~DURATION~ of under rubble hot-spots.
Something else like — oh, I don’t know — unspent but fizzling nuclear material might make more sense in accounting for it.
What insults us, Mr. HybridRogue1, is when you make “side issues” the main course to disabuse readers of. You repeatedly attack the evidence to make such views compelling… from your admitted position of being purposely ignorant on the matter and not likely to take the human footsteps to improve it (e.g., explore September Clues, read Dr. Wood’s textbook).
“What is the burn-rate or detonation velocity of super duper nano-thermite? I don’t know.”~Mr Once
I don’t know either, I have never hear of, “super duper nano-thermite.”
But, considering your question of a continued burn in the pile for 4 weeks. The same problem you pose for the thermate hypothesis applies equally to this energy beam hypothesis. How is this energy continually pumped into the pile? Are we to suppose the device you posit is continuing to beam the pile all this time?
~A-team of the NSA Q-Group {Lol}
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
Oh ye of science-challenged thinking and purposeful misframing!
The destructive-edge mechanism (DEW) may not have been co-located with its milli-nuclear energy generator. Once the DEW device had served its purpose in radiating many rows above and below its installation level, it was vaporized… maybe by nano-thermite, maybe by the next device in the destruction sequence, maybe by a clean-up milli-nuke. Still, the milli-nuclear energy generated remained, and even trying to nano-thermite burn or milli-nuke its casing would leave unspent but fizzling nuclear material.
Dr. Judy Wood’s textbook makes a very clear argument that NO KINETIC ENERGY DEVICE “dustified” the World Trade Center complex. You now have a D and may have to take the course over to get credit.
Mr. Once,
I am not going to address your persistent chatter about not having read this book. Whether you like it or not, I find it irrelevant in discussing the demolition of the towers.
“The point is that slow burn rates or fast burn rates, explosives of even the nano-thermite varieties that you champion cannot account for the ~DURATION~ of under rubble hot-spots.”~Mr. Once
This is an unsupported position Mr. Once. If you don’t know the DURATION of a slower burning incendiary, you cannot posit what time frame these materials would burn for.
It is posited that perhaps the so-called “fireproofing” of the under-girding floor pans may have in fact been ‘spray-on’ thermatic materials mixed in gel. Surely you have seen what pressure spraying of a gel produces. It produces a foamy substance that can adhere to a surface, especially mixed with adherents. This substance could even have acted as fire proofing up to certain temperatures – those needed to ignite thermite – thus preventing premature and accidental ignition prior to the agenda of the perpetrators.
If this were indeed the case, large portions of these lattices may have been blown out by the high explosives during the demolition. These larger sections being buried in the pile would provide for a long lasting crawl throughout the pile.
Admittedly this too is in the realm of speculation, but certainly no more extreme than many of your suggestions. The strength of the idea that these long burns under deep piles including underground areas is the fact of their containing their own oxygen source.
ww
Mr. Once,
You may not be aware of it, so I wanted to let you know that I posted several answers and questions to Yvonne on the “36 Truthers” page, where she posted that long post supporting Judy Wood.
~Willy Whitten, Special Agent, A-team of the NSA Q-Group
“Oh ye of science-challenged thinking and purposeful misframing!”~Señor El Once the bouncing buckyball of twirlygig “scientific”thinking.
Pardon me if I find it humorous keeping up with your galloping antics.
“Is it real or is it memorix? Is it a picture of a cat or an elephant dressed as a cat? Is it mini nukes or minnie mouse? Is it a gyroscope or a kaleidoscope? Perhaps an olive…but where’s the pit? Do you walk to school or carry a lunch? I know what’s going on, yer one ah’them damb secret agents, yer tryin’ to confuse me…that’s it.”
Hmmm….
~Secret Agent Man
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
I wrote:
You responded:
Nonsense, Mr. HybridRogue1. I do make lots of unsubstantiated speculation, but with regards to the ~DURATION~ of under rubble hot-spots, I’m just going by the evidence and math. It is entirely substantiated by anyone who remembers the algebra associated with high school chemistry.
Nonsense again, Mr. HybridRogue1. The burn rates for fast and slow incendiaries was given plus or minus. I chose the slowest burn rate just to provide a worst case scenario. You suggest that nano-thermite is even more of a pulverizing fast burning force.
Tsk, tsk. You can’t brush off so quickly how the math at a slow burn rate already suggests a totally unreasonably massively huge beyond measure quantity of said incindiary material. And when the actual burn rate of super duper nano-thermite (or any combination of thermitic materials) — being much faster — is plugged in, results in quantities much larger than that to account for the ~DURATION~ of under rubble hot-spots.
An energy source for the hot-spots must be found that isn’t thermite, mate.
Nuclear. Shock-&-awe, baby! Nuclear.
How is it Mr. Once that you cannot seem to grasp that there is physical evidence for STILL unreacted thermates in the dust – and then go on to this boojie woojie about high school chemistry? Don’t you get it? Some of this stuff didn’t go off immediately – how much clearer can I make this for you?
I say that there is the probability of several types of these explosives and incendiaries – then you say, “you can’t have it both ways”…WTF? Yes I can, there is the probability of several types of explosives and incendiaries – it is NOT one or the other…mate.
The exponential magnitude of complexity in an event of this type is not going to be solved with “high school chemistry” and mathematics.
Now – KP has a point, as well. And I think we should both agree that we have reached an impasse.
FINI
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
I grasp probably better than you that “physical evidence for STILL unreacted thermates [existed] in the dust.” That was never the issue. The issue was the starting quantities that can be calculated using “boojie woojie high school chemistry” to account for the observed side-effects (pulverization, hot-spots, and unreacted thermite) and that don’t add up as being reasonable.
But first, I feel compelled to call you nasty names for this masterful yet totally erroneous yarn and insertion of words into my mouth:
You are the one who has been arguing as if nano-thermite was the end-all cure-all, “no need to go looking any further.” Too bad “the boojie woojie high school chemistry” proves this wrong.
Now you’re saying, “there is the probability of several types of these explosives and incendiaries.” I agree with this probability being true, but not that these several types of explosives and incendiaries account for the observed side-effects as if they — in combination — were the primary mechanism and end-all cure-all. “The boojie woojie high school chemistry” proves you wrong… again.
When I said, “you can’t have it both ways”, it referred to fast destructive energy of pulverization (fast burn rate) and excessively long burn periods (slow burn rate).
When you review “the boojie woojie high school chemistry” again, you’ll see that I deliberately chose the s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn rate (3,300 fps) for common explosives and indendiaries used in such demolitions. It is presumed that nano-thermite itself has a burn-rate somewhere in this range:
3,000 fps < nano-thermite burn-rate < 29,000 fps
By chosing the s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn rate, “the probability of several types of these explosives and incendiaries” is taken into consideration and we end up with a s-l-o-w-e-s-t burn case scenario.
“The boojie woojie high school science” had us pack the combination of explosives into a garden hose with a square cross-section to simplify the math. Ignition was started at one end. The question was: How long is the garden hose in order for the fire to burn 4 weeks? Some 882,000 miles.
This estimate is LOW. (a) It was only one hot-spot, not many. (b) Crank up the burn rate to match the average of nano-thermite and any variety of exposives and incendiaries used in the mix, you increase the length of the garden hose by many orders of magnitude.
Because the garden hose was imaginary, we can ignore its weight. We cannot ignore the weight of the massive quantities of nano-thermite (or combination of other materials) that were packed into this volume. This is left as an exercise for you to calculate.
I’ll give you a hint: if 882,000 miles of garden hose seems obscenely large and unrealistic to account for just one hot-spot and not even multiple hot-spots, not even the actual many weeks of burning, not even what remained unreacted, and not even what was consumed already in the pulverization, then you will begin to understand how “boojie woojie high school science” disproves the hypothesis that fast-burning nano-thermite (super duper or otherwise or any combination thereof) can be the primary destructive mechanism for everything observed at the WTC.
Let that sink in.
Another energy source for the hot-spots must be sought.
Don’t you get it?
Thus the nano-thermite sacred cow gets slaughtered.
So, we need to come up with a new hypothesis to explain side-effects of pulverization and duration of hot-spots.
Dr. Wood does a great job of nudging people to think outside the box. Alas, to prove that I’m not blindly following Dr. Wood and am thinking for myself, I point out a yet another weak area in her textbook. But let me start with Dr. Jones.
Dr. Jones rules out nukes of type X, Y, or Z, because the radiation signature at ground zero didn’t match them. Dr. Jones erroneously extrapolated his findings of the destructive mechanism not being “nukes of type X, Y, or Z” to being “no nukes at all.” He did not speculate into “nukes of type W” or “nuclear generators” that could account for the anomalous radiation measurements.
Dr. Wood ruled out “deep underground nukes”, because of the bathtub not being damaged. Dr. Wood introduces the concept of “separation” of the observable destructive cutting edge from its energy source, which she does with the concepts of free energy and possibly tapping into the energy of Hurricane Erin. She does not go into evidence of radiation measurements that required Dr. Jones’ dog-and-pony show on the subject to begin with. Dr. Wood did not entertain the concept of a milli-nuclear generator being the source of energy for whatever was the destructive cutting edge (e.g., DEW). She tries to caste doubt that there were even hot-spots, referring to the images of hydraulic machines picking up glowing pieces of metal, saying “all that glows is not necessarily hot, and the hydraulics would fail if such hot-spots were present.”
Enter Mr. Shack, who doesn’t want to go into Dr. Wood’s work at all, saying that it is based on tainted images. Expanding upon his point, if the image of the hydraulic machine picking up a glowing piece of metal were a faked digital representation (used by both Dr. Jones and Dr. Wood), ironically Dr. Wood’s statement of “all that glows [in digital imagery] is not necessarily hot” remains truthful, although the efforts to side-line hot-spots is not.
“Jai guru deva Om…”
I grasp every one of your arguments Mr. Once. And in so doing see that you haven’t grasped mine. And I am not going to try to get you to again. It is futile.
~Secret Agent Man
Mr. HybridRogue1 writes on one thread:
And in another thread, Mr. HybridRogue1 writes:
Why of all the low-down, dirty-rotten, under-handed, back-stabbing, yellow-belly tricks, you pull this one? When the going gets tough, you get out!
Checks-and-balances, Rogue Agent Hybrid. I’m so easily duped by whatever theory crosses my plate, hashing it out against a well-read, articulate entity — even when in disagreement — such as yourself is most helpful. As you saw from my benchmarking efforts with Mr. Shack, the facts behind my opinions can change, necessitating changing those very opinions. Do you have such abilities, Secret Agent Man?
Of course, I understand when it is wise for nonsense to be dropped like futile battles regarding beliefs that fast-burning nano-thermite whether or not in combination with a slow-burning incendiary can reasonably and realistically in a logistics sense account for the duration of hot-spots observed in the rubble. So no sense us cranking that one up again. I’ll let you chalk up your defeat to me simply being more bat-shit crazy than you.
I know you’re anxious to take Dr. Wood’s textbook down a peg or two. You’re more than welcome to help in that endeavor, but … come on! Show some objectivity! Be an intelligent thinker on the matter. Such a Q-group agenda ain’t going to happen if you aren’t even on the same page to know where we’re looking for errors.
By that same token, you’ll easily be able to prove me wrong on the “Q-Groupie” ad hominem’s lobbed your direction simply by demonstrating the ability to acknowledge nuggets of truth sifted out of the dross of disinformation, and then reflecting how such truth nuggets might have (or not) applicability in the bigger 9/11 picture. Sounds charming, no?
Any chance that the ones who want to argue endlessly about the destruction of the towers can confine it to the article it started in rather than spread it across every article? It rather dilutes the important points made about this article. Thanks.
KP,
Excuse us please. And consider that the solution for dilution is in your hands – skip the commentary.
Consider also that the question of destruction of the towers is an issue in the law suit.
ww
On January 31, 2012, the Department of Homeland Security’s Behavioral Science Division pointed to the following as indicators of potential terrorism:
1. “Reverent of individual liberty”
2. “Anti-nuclear”
3. “Believe in conspiracy theories”
4. “A belief that one’s personal and/or national “way of life” is under attack”
5.“Impose strict religious tenets or laws on society (fundamentalists)”
6. “Insert religion into the political sphere”
7. “Those who seek to politicize religion”
8. “Supported political movements for autonomy”
9. “Anti-abortion”
10. “Anti-Catholic”
11. “Anti-global”
12. “Suspicious of centralized federal authority”
14. “Fiercely nationalistic (as opposed to universal and international in orientation)”
15. “A belief in the need to be prepared for an attack either by participating in … survivalism”
_______________________________
Those of us who read and comment on blogs such as this and others will be particularly interested in number 3. in the above list.
I would say that the list above accounts for almost every citizen in this nation. As many of us have noted before, it is obvious that EVERYONE is considered a “Potential Terrorist” in the Homeland Security State.
Can you believe number 1.? – “Reverent of individual liberty”….wow.
ww
Mr. Once,
You gave me a link that supposedly critiques Jones on nano-thermite. It brought me here to this page. Are you as big a joker at the JREF forums? I decided to type “critiques Jones on nano-thermite” The ONLY critiques were found on the Amazing Stooge Randi’s site…which had this URL as a debunking of the peer revue for the nanothermate paper of Jones-Harrit.
Go ahead, copy and paste this into your browser:
http://forthardknox.com/2009/07/20/a…le-reputation/
NOW we’re getting somewhere. Aye?
Dear Mr. Goldstein,
I am the resident champion of Dr. Wood and Mr. Shack, although I do it in a left- and back-handed sort of a way. I have no problems handing off one of those batons to you, but I follow you only so far as you follow the truth.
Your brain-dead plugging of Dr. Wood’s textbook is becoming alarming. Although her textbook is a quality effort, it is not without fault. And because the seeds of disinformation are sown everywhere, the very real possibility exists that some clever disinfo vines have grown around her ankles.
I can think of a few instances off-hand here or there that her website should have been corrected, yet these same instances were carried over into her expensive book. One example was the fire truck with front end “melting” that she asks where the engine went, as if it were melted. The engine didn’t melt; it is set further back and isn’t visible.
A strength of Dr. Wood’s book is also its weakness. She brings up many different concepts, but rarely ties them together or concludes anything definitively. I could be convinced of the Hutchison Effect in general as something scientifically valid (but am still on the fence), but it is another hurdle entirely to determine applicability to 9/11. The same applies to free energy and Hurricane Erin.
Mr. Goldstein wrote:
Yeah, well, Mr. Shack considers Dr. Wood disinformation. I’m at least open-minded enough to consider what he has to say. I have no problem with him help trim the fat from Dr. Wood’s legacy and discover the areas where Dr. Wood might have been duped.
Scientific training isn’t the skillset that is required to evaluate digital forgeries. “Distrust but verify” in the realm of all 9/11 imagery is the important lesson that Mr. Shack has already taught me.
Mr. Goldstein wrote:
Well, I guess that you’ll just have to step in and tutor me, so I can get a better grade.
Mr. Goldstein continues:
Mr. Goldstein would be well to recognize that glows manufactured in imagery by digital manipulation also are not hot in the literal sense, but quite possibly the figurative.
As my tutor, I hope that you will be reading her textbook as well, and taking notes.
Mr. Goldstein wrote:
Excuse my French. WTF? I don’t know what you mean by “kinetic energy device?” I don’t know why you keep bringing it up.
Woa, cowboy!
I hope you’ll be my instructor when I take the course over for credit.
Once twice, thrice…put the man on ice. If I didn’t think that it was just a matter of him being dumb as a rock, I would suspect Mr. Goldstein might be a plant to punk’n’junk the Wood book. As you point out, he certainly doesn’t help in gaining confidence for her story. His reference to ” critical thinking skills,” is quite laughable when one reads his posts.
Now as much as I would like to suggest that we all make nice and simply state that the official story is obvious bunk, and leave it at that. But I know this is impossible given the emotional [as well as critical] investments all have made in the last ten years of investigation.
Ah such brambles we must wade through. Let us at least tend more to patience with one another.
To paraphrase FDR, “Yea, some of you are batshit crazy, but you are OUR batshit-nutballs.”
No, I am not looking for ‘consensus’, I’ve had my say on the milquetoast flambe such would end up being – but there are core issues we CAN agree on, and we should keep those in mind while sitting around blowing up chestnuts in an open fire. [Anyone familiar with those demonic little buggers? – {chestnuts} – Just step on one barefoot and you will know what I mean.]
Now, just remember…when I say jump, your only proper answer is, “how high”…..Lol
ww
“Why of all the low-down, dirty-rotten, under-handed, back-stabbing, yellow-belly tricks, you pull this one? When the going gets tough, you get out!”~Poncho Eleventeen
No, the going isn’t so tough, I am tired of dealing with your BS jive.
WTF was that last one on “36 Truth Leaders”?
Gumbo, complete with alligator tail and cricket sauce…seriously fragmented.
If you want to do comedy – do stand-up.
Like I said there, fuggit dude.
ww
So, el Zero…Just let me say this:
More hyper jitterbug scatterprattle is simply not going to do it for me. Perhaps when you get your head on even keel we will have something to talk about.
You know what it is like trying to read one of your posts? It’s like you took the pieces of three different jigsaw puzzles and mixed them together in one box top, grabbed a handful and tossed them down on the table and ask, “what is this a picture of?”
Well the answer is simple man, it’s not a picture of anything, it is scattered fragments, and nothing else.
ww
Dear Mr. HybridRogue1,
I cannot tell you how much your taking the effort to type in your high praise of my postings means to me:
I apologize that my “hyper jitterbug scatterprattle” has you so rattled.
Right you mostly are, Mr. HybridRogue1, except for the “one step b-e-y-o-n-d” with assessment of “nothing else.”
Quite the opposite and quite possibly nuggets of truth, too, eh?
Don’t bother to respond to this and demonstrate further how your nerves are hit. You become rather unbecoming.
Cloaca Maximus,
“Zero, zero, zero”
~Samuel Becket, END GAME
ww
FBI: 9/11 Truthers Should Be Treated As Possible Terrorists
Although all the supposed possible terrorists indicators are absolutely absurd, the fact that the FBI choose to specifically target 9/11 truthers shows how important, even after ten years, covering up the truth of the horrendous 9/11 attacks is to the powers that be.
With an FBI flyer specifically stating this very thing, questioning 9/11 is becoming an increasingly dangerous use of free speech.
[See: article for photo of actual FBI flyer]
http://theintelhub.com/2012/02/13/fbi-911-truthers-should-be-treated-as-possible-terrorists/
A.Wright says: February 13, 2012 at 12:34 pm
I just saw this post by Mr. Wright. I missed it for quite awhile as it is posted way up among the top of the thread now, I and I have mostly been way down here near the bottom of the thread.
I would first of all like to thank Mr. Wright for taking the time to write a well considered post and present it here against such a majority counter opinion that he faces.
I will not take the time to dispute the post by the points…these points have in fact been countered extensively for more than ten years.
However, I will point out that he still did not answer my specific question, which was ‘can he point to one single thing that the government has proven beyond a reasonable doubt. No, he does not do so. He makes what seems a well reasoned argument based on his reading of what happened on 9/11, but he does not offer a single point that is ‘proven beyond reasonable doubt’ by the government.
It is his ‘opinion’ that the fires damaged the buildings sufficiently to cause a global collapse. This even though NIST itself admits that they did not address the global collapse, but ended their investigation [relying in toto on computer simulations] at the point they refer to as “initiation”.
Mr. Wright does not recognize that this in itself is a crime, as NIST was charged with explaining why and how the buildings collapsed entirely. This agency spent millions of dollars of public money to fail to address the central issue they were charged with solving.
There are so many other issues that Mr. Wright has had to purposely remain ignorant of in these ten years, that it is obviously futile to attempt to have him attend to them now. However one issue stands out like neon, and this is the issue of what and who al Qaeda is, and the known history of their connections with Western Intelligence. And this issue is one that proves his simplistic assumption that, it is so obvious that “19 Islamic fanatics” merely boarded four airliners on 9/11, hijacked them and flew them into buildings.
I see Mr. Wright in an entirely different light than I see Agent Smith. It is in Mr. Wrights conditioned assumptions, and his perceptions having been manipulated that is the cause of his error, and the deep fear it would bring to “normalcy” should he cross the line to believe that HIS government is so brutal and careless about it’s own domestic population.
I could go on to urge Mr. Wright to begin a study of the Public Relations Regime, beginning with the work of Edward Bernays, et al., but these things HAVE BEEN suggested, and he has chosen to hand wave such….and again, I posit that it is the deep psychological fear of actually discovering the “unthinkable” as true.
ww
Allow me to amend the end of the third paragraph in my post above:
It should read as follows:
And this issue is one that proves how simplistic his assumption is, that it is so obvious that “19 Islamic fanatics” merely boarded four airliners on 9/11, hijacked them and flew them into buildings.
ww
“Can I say first of all that reasonable doubt is not something that is a fixed concept, since it depends on the judgement of people , like individuals on a jury, who weigh up evidence that they have had presented to them.”~A. Wright
Philosophically these are valid remarks. I don’t think any of us would argue with this statement.
What I was asking for {Mr./Ms?} Wright, was for some instance where the government’s case has relied upon anything further than assertions. Is there any indisputable evidence offered in any instance?
Not a single airplane was identified as far as serial numbers on airplane parts. No chains of custody have ever been offered for evidence in government possession. The government has instead cited “national security” as a blanket excuse for withholding any and all evidence – or even admitting whether or not such exists.
In other words, the entire government case is built on hearsay. And it is this standard, in terms of law, and what is called, ‘reason in law’ – where the concept of ‘reasonable doubt’ is measured by some specific criteria. And such criteria has precedence in some commonly expected forms of standard procedure. And when such standard procedures are proven to have been nonexistent throughout so much of this case, such issues as “reasonable doubt” DO take on a more objective criteria, and a more “fixed concept”…and what IS and IS NOT reasonable DOES become a glaring issue.
ww
Perhaps now Mr/Ms {please clear this up for us} A. Wright would now address the issue of ‘Reasonable Suspicion’.
In your opinion, is it reasonable, or unreasonable to consider the following revelation as suspicious, as to the intent of the so-called, “federal government”?
*Immediately after 9-11 the government hired former KGB General Yevgeni Primakov and Ex-STASI Chief Markus Wolfe to “assist” in the design and implementation of the Department of Homeland Security.*
If you have some arguments as to what can be and cannot be considered “intent”, please feel free to give us your full thoughts on the matter.
ww
The textbook, WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood, B.S., M.S., Ph.D. , makes a wonderful gift for federal, state, and local government employees as well as military personnel. (i.e. my neighbor is a NASA researcher and I have friends in the local police department and military.)
To buy bulk volumes, send your request to book@wheredidthetowersgo.com
Ethical Considerations for Federal Employees
The following general principles apply to every employee. Where a situation is not covered by these standards, employees should apply the principles below in determining whether their conduct is proper.
1) Public service is a public trust, requiring employees to place loyalty to the Constitution, the laws and ethical principles above private gain.
2) Employees shall not hold financial interests that conflict with the conscientious performance of duty.
3) Employees shall not engage in financial transactions using nonpublic government information or allow the improper use of such information to further any private interest.
4) Employees shall not solicit or accept any gift or other item of monetary value from any person or entity seeking official action from, doing business with, or conducting activities regulated by an employee’s agency, or whose interests may be substantially affected by the performance or nonperformance of the employee’s duties.
5) Employees shall put forth honest effort in the performance of their duties.
6) Employees shall not knowingly make unauthorized commitments or promises of any kind purporting to bind the government.
7) Employees shall not use public office for private gain.
8) Employees shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any private organization or individual.
9) Employees shall protect and conserve Federal property and shall not use it for other than authorized activities.
10) Employees shall not engage in outside employment or activities, including seeking or negotiating for employment, that conflict with official government duties and responsibilities.
11) Employees shall disclose waste, fraud, abuse, and corruption to appropriate authorities.
12) Employees shall satisfy in good faith their obligations as citizens, including all just financial obligations, especially those – such as Federal, State, or local taxes – that are imposed by law.
13) Employees shall adhere to all laws and regulations that provide equal opportunity for all Americans regardless of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, age, or handicap.
14) Employees shall endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or the ethical standards set forth in this part. Whether particular circumstances create an appearance that the law or these standards have been violated shall be determined from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts.
When corrective actions are required in the case of ethical violations, it can take many forms. It includes any action necessary to remedy a past violation or prevent a continuing violation of these general principles including, but not limited to: restitution, change of assignment, disqualification, divestiture, termination of an activity, waiver, the creation of a qualified diversified or blind trust, or counseling. Disciplinary action can also be imposed. Disciplinary actions include, but are not limited to: reprimand, suspension, demotion, and removal.
Individual agencies may supplement ethics requirements, so it is important to check with the employing agency to ensure awareness of any additional requirements and restrictions.
Gifts from Outside Sources
Employees are prohibited from soliciting or accepting any gift from a prohibited source because of the employee’s official position unless the item is excluded from the definition of a gift.
Gifts Employees Can Accept
Federal government employees can accept the following gifts from contractors and other businesses:
— Modest food and refreshments, such as coffee and pastries not offered as part of a meal.
— Gifts valued at $20 or less per “source”, per occasion, although individual gifts from one source cannot exceed $50 in a calendar year.
— Gifts based on a personal relationship. This means gifts from family members or friends with whom it is clear there is a true friendship – not a friendly relationship with a contractor that was formed on the job.
— Meals, lodging, transportation, or other benefits from a spouse’s employer, provided that the gift was not given or enhanced because of a government job.
— Gifts or discounts available to the general public, to all government employees, or to all military personnel.
— Free attendance at a conference or similar “widely attended gathering”, as long as the agency determines that an employee’s attendance is in the agency’s best interest and certain other conditions are met.
— Anything paid for by the government or secured by the government under a contract.
Mr. Goldstein,
I understand you are a huge supporter of Dr. Wood and would like everyone to buy her book. But I think the point has been made numerous times already. If you want to champion her work, I would suggest dealing with what you like in the substance of her work. Otherwise you just sound a bit like her agent. Nothing wrong with that, of course, but this forum is best directed at debating the issues rather than just pushing a particular published work.
Mr. Goldstein, You write:
“Ethical Considerations for Federal Employees”
And this is followed by a long list having no conceivable bearing on any of the issues at hand.
I am not going to ask for the purpose of this package of drivel as you have not once made a comment even approaching reasonable or sane.
It is my opinion that the Wood project itself is a government sponsored intelligence operation out to spread cognitive dissonance. Point blank; it is propaganda.
ww
There is an aspect to the Pentagon case that I had meant to address earlier, but have found myself distracted by other side issues.
This aspect is that of the FDR {Flight Date Recorder} allegedly found in the Pentagon.
This data has been through several analysis by various parties in the past years. At one time it was determined that the data ended at a point just seconds before the impact time alleged for the air crash. The earlier analysis determined that the plane would have been to high to have hit the Pentagon, and seemed to strengthen the ‘fly over’ theory.
The newest analysis comes from researchers at Journal for 9/11 Studies. Their conclusion is that there was an error in the above analysis, and that indeed the FDR data indicated that the plane would have been in a proper trajectory to hit the building.
BUT.
There are issues. One of them is a glitch in the date the FDR data file that was downloaded was created. This is explained below:
A flight data file created by the downloaded Flight Data Recorder information of American Airlines flight 77 was created on Thursday, September 13, 2001 at 11:45pm.
However, as reported by USA Today, Pentagon spokesman Army Lt. Col. George Rhynedance reported that the FDR for AA 77 was recovered on Friday, September 14, 2001 at 4am, 4 hours and 15 minutes after the creation of the AA 77 FDR data file.
WASHINGTON (AP) — Searchers on Friday [say they] found the flight data and cockpit voice recorders from the hijacked plane that flew into the Pentagon and exploded, Department of Defense officials said. The two “black boxes,” crucial to uncovering details about the doomed flight’s last moments, were recovered at about 4 a.m., said Army Lt. Col. George Rhynedance, a Pentagon spokesman.
So this would indicate the data file was created BEFORE the black box was “found”.
The AA 77 FDR file was contained within a May 2008 release obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request of the National Transportation Safety Board.
HOWEVER. And this is the crux of the whole issue:
Only if in a court of law under oath when chain of custody of the FDR is argued will the date/time of the file become a POSSIBLE issue.
And by the same token, only when chain of custody is proven will the DATA ITSELF be viable evidence.
Again, nothing is proven – but only asserted. As with every instance in the 9/11 case, there has never been positive proof of chains of evidence.
Relying on this data, is in fact relying on the trustworthiness of the governments word. Any determinations as to the validity of this data are again – based on hearsay until the issue of the chain of evidence is established beyond a reasonable doubt.
ww
Mr Goldstein it goes like this, U can fool some people some time but u cant fool all the people all the time so stand up for your rights.. I’m from S Africa and truly believe the American people have no control of their government, that’s y the entire world is suffering today. Why are u all, so afraid to standup? Aren’t u people the majority and the government a drop in the ocean. Why are you sending the children to join the army, navy, police force, etc. when u all know that no good is coming out of it. Do the American mums and dads smiling when their kids coming home with cancer etc or saying I’m proud my son just killed a child in Afghanistan. It’s so much to cover, do u people have any common sense? I know for a fact, it will kill me to send my son to fight a useless war. Don’t u people know your country history or are you all blindfolded. I sure do know the American history. It’s being repeated over and over again. Stand up and fight not only for your country but others that are suffering by the affliction of the American government. Sorry dude, learn from the mistakes.
Proud SOUTH AFRICAN,
I hope you understand that there are many here among us who understand and agree with everything in your post. This is why we are so keen on the issue of 9/11, for it is the key to finally understanding that Amerika is simply the garrison state for a global empire.
However, the vast bulk of the people in this ‘nation’ are caught in an enchantment – a vile Public Relations Regime that plays them emotionally to tend to their most base and self-serving instincts. The majority are as zombies. It is difficult in the extreme living amongst them…I can’t express the deep pain I experience each and every day when I see the demonic effect of this necromancy of the vicious overlords of this system.
TRUTH is a rare commodity for most human societies – and this is especially true in the most brainwashed culture to ever infect this planet – that of Amerika.
Peace on Earth and Goodwill among Mankind….a hope and prayer yet to be answered on this material plane.
ww
ww,
re: “…the vast bulk of the people in this ‘nation’ are caught in an enchantment – a vile Public Relations Regime that plays them emotionally to tend to their most base and self-serving instincts. The majority are as zombies.” can you point me in the direction of some literature on this concept, which intrigues me. does it remind you at all of “the matrix?”
re: and (earlier) “I will say straight out what I think humanity is up against; ritual black magic. . . . those who control the world believe in Kaballistic symbolic mysticism. They are organized in the manner of secret societies. Yes I speak to the ILLUMINATI.” any references to this (seemingly related) topic would also be welcome.
thanks.
Yes indeed, Señor Rogue. This is an area where we have common interests, yet wherein more confusion and uncertainty rules my thinking. As Señor Dennis requests, at you leisure in an applicable spot (after you’ve set me on my heels in fashioning a defense for Woody nuggets), this theme might be explored.
It seems that we again find Judge Walker on a kangaroo lynching court:
Lynne Stewart’s Appeal
On March 1, New York Law Journal contributor Mark Hamblett said Fahringer “ran into a dubious (three judge) appellate panel” as he argued for reversing Lynne’s grossly unfair sentence.
Judge John Walker asked, “How else do you get a window into the character of the defendant?” when challenged for the stripping Stewart’s First Amendment rights, by her lawyer.
Judge John Walker is George Walker Bush’s cousin. Lynne Stewart’s “crime” is defending as an attorney for “terrorists”, who by such designation have “no rights” – so they are convicted on secret evidence, mostly victims of entrapment, and used as fodder in the phony “war on Terrorism”.
Stewart is an ‘example’ as well…as George Bush said, “You’re either with us or your with the tearists”…and to hell with laws and the Constitution.
The US Legal System, has become a synthesis of the Stalinist and Nazi systems.
As reported when it happened, Homeland Security hired a former KGB General, and the former head of the East German Stasi to help develop “laws” of the new Homeland Security State. Not that the Federalist Society were in any way behind these two when it comes to despotic statism.
ww
For hybridrogue: Please post the link to the article referred to in:
“As reported when it happened, Homeland Security hired a former KGB General
and the former head of the East German Stasi to help develop “laws” of the new
Homeland Security State…”
Thanks…
Dear Barbara Honegger,
I can give you the names here so you can copy them into your browser, as I did not note the specific URL at the time of grabbing this info – but it is well accounted for in the press; if you wish to choose something mainstream or alternative, it appears in both:
Immediately after 9-11 the government hired former KGB General Yevgeni Primakov and Ex-STASI Chief Markus Wolfe to “assist” in the design and implementation of the Department of Homeland Security.
ww
Hey just wanted to give you a quick heads up. The text in your post seem to be running off the screen in Chrome. I’m not sure if this is a format issue or something to do with browser compatibility but I thought I’d post to let you know. The layout look great though! Hope you get the problem resolved soon. Many thanks